The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080868 Ver 2_2018 Annual Creeks Report_20190628�Y l ANNUAL CREEKS REPORT 2018 DATA COLLECTION YEAR PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. Prepared for: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Environmental Affairs Department Aurora, NC Prepared by: CZR Incorporated, Wilmington, NC Dr. Enrique Reyes, Principal Investigator (Water Quality) Dr. Jamie DeWitt, Contributor (Metals) Dr. Sid Mitra, Contributor (DOC/TDN) East Carolina University Greenville, NC JULY 2019 ANNUAL CREEKS REPORT FOR 2018 DATA COLLECTION YEAR PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. Prepared for: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Environmental Affairs Department Aurora, North Carolina Prepared by: CZR Incorporated Wilmington, North Carolina and Dr. Enrique Reyes, Principal Investigator (Water Quality) Dr. Jamie DeWitt, Contributor (Metals) Dr. Sid Mitra, Contributor (DOC, TDN) East Carolina University Greenville, North Carolina July 2019 Cover photos (top to bottom): Upstream view from vicinity of Jacks Creek trawl station; downstream view from upstream Huddles Cut benthic station; upstream view from Huddles Cut fyke net location; and downstream view from vicinity of upper Porter Creek well array TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF FIGURES..........................................................................................vii LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................... xxiv LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................. xxix I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1-1 A. BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................I-A-1 1.0 Drainage Basin Acreage Adjustments..................................................................................................1-A-2 2.0 Pre- and Post -Mod Alt L Year Data Set Revisions................................................................................1-A-3 B. CREEKS MONITORED IN 2018..............................................................................................................................I-B-1 C. CUMULATIVE AND 2018 MINING, MINE -RELATED ACTIVITIES, AND DRAINAGE BASINS...................................................I-C-1 1.0 DCUT11................................................................................................................................................1-C-1 D. DROUGHT....................................................................................................................................................... I-D-1 E. EXTREME EVENTS OR STORMS............................................................................................................................. I-E-1 F. RAINFALL.........................................................................................................................................................I-F-1 G. TAR RIVER DISCHARGE...................................................................................................................................... I-G-1 CORPS PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITION S - SIX QUESTIONS ...................... II-A-1 A. QUESTION 1-HAS MINING ALTERED THE AMOUNT OR TIMING OF WATER FLOWS WITHIN THE CREEKS?...............................II-A-1 B. QUESTION 2-HAS MINING ALTERED THE GEOMORPHIC OR VEGETATIVE CHARACTER OF THE CREEKS?.................................II-B-1 C. QUESTION 3- HAS MINING ALTERED THE FORAGE BASE OF THE CREEKS?...................................................................... II-C-1 1.0 Fish......................................................................................................................................................11-C-1 2.0 Fish Guilds...........................................................................................................................................11-C-3 a. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks...........................................................................................................................................II-C-4 i. Jacks Creek......................................................................................................................................................II-C-4 ii. Jacobs Creek....................................................................................................................................................II-C-5 iii. Drinkwater Creek............................................................................................................................................II-C-5 iv. Tooley Creek...................................................................................................................................................II-C-5 V. Huddles Cut.....................................................................................................................................................II-C-5 vi. Porter Creek....................................................................................................................................................II-C-6 vii. DCUT11...........................................................................................................................................................II-C-6 b. Mod Alt L Control Creeks......................................................................................................................................II-C-6 i. Little Creek......................................................................................................................................................II-C-6 ii. PA2..................................................................................................................................................................II-C-6 iii. Long Creek.......................................................................................................................................................II-C-7 iv. Muddy Creek...................................................................................................................................................II-C-7 V. DCUT19...........................................................................................................................................................II-C-7 vi. Duck Creek......................................................................................................................................................II-C-7 3.0 Grass Shrimp.......................................................................................................................................11-C-8 4.0 Penaeid Shrimp and Blue Crab............................................................................................................11-C-8 5.0 Macroin vertebrates ............................................................................................................................11-C-9 6.0 Macroin vertebrate Guilds.................................................................................................................11-C-11 D. QUESTION 4- HAS MINING ALTERED THE USE OF THE CREEK BY MANAGED FISH?.......................................................... II-D-1 E. QUESTION 5- HAS MINING INCREASED CONTAMINATE [SIC] LEVELS WITHIN CREEK SEDIMENTS TO LEVELS THAT COULD IMPACT FISH ORINVERTEBRATES? .................................................................................................................................................. II-E-1 F. QUESTION 6-HAS MINING ALTERED OVERALL WATER QUALITY WITHIN CREEKS?............................................................ II-F-1 III. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF SUMMARY RESULTS BY PARAMETER ...... III-A-1 A. SALINITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES...................................................................................................III-A-1 1.0 Environmental Variables....................................................................................................................111-A-1 a. Salinity and Tar River Discharge.......................................................................................................................... III-A-1 b. Salinity and Water Depth.................................................................................................................................... III-A-2 C. Salinity and Rainfall............................................................................................................................................ III-A-2 d. Salinity and Wind................................................................................................................................................ III-A-3 2.0 Interannual and Monthly Comparisons.............................................................................................111-A-4 3.0 Pre/Post- Mod Alt L Comparisons.....................................................................................................111-A-4 a. Jacks Creek.......................................................................................................................................................... III-A-S b. South Creek (SS1) (control)................................................................................................................................. III-A-6 C. Little Creek (control).......................................................................................................................................... III-A-6 d. Jacobs Creek.......................................................................................................................................................III-A-6 e. PA2 (control)....................................................................................................................................................... III-A-7 f. Drinkwater Creek................................................................................................................................................ III-A-7 g. Long Creek (control)........................................................................................................................................... III-A-8 h. Tooley Creek....................................................................................................................................................... III-A-9 i. Pamlico River (PS1) (control).............................................................................................................................. III-A-9 j. Huddles Cut........................................................................................................................................................ III-A-9 k. Porter Creek...................................................................................................................................................... III-A-10 I. Durham Creek DCS1 (control), DCUT11, and DCUT19 (control)....................................................................... III-A-11 M. Duck Creek (control)......................................................................................................................................... III-A-12 4.0 Summary and Conclusions...............................................................................................................111-A-12 B. WETLAND HYDROLOGY...................................................................................................................................III-B-1 1.0 Wetland Hydroperiods by Creek........................................................................................................111-B-1 a. Jacks Creek...........................................................................................................................................................III-B-1 b. Jacobs Creek........................................................................................................................................................III-B-1 C. Drinkwater Creek.................................................................................................................................................III-B-2 d. Long Creek (control)............................................................................................................................................III-B-2 e. Tooley Creek........................................................................................................................................................III-B-3 f. Huddles Cut.........................................................................................................................................................III-B-3 i. Main Prong.....................................................................................................................................................III-B-3 ii. West Prong.....................................................................................................................................................III-B-3 g. Porter Creek.........................................................................................................................................................III-B-3 h. DCUT11................................................................................................................................................................III-B-4 i. DCUT19 (control).................................................................................................................................................III-B-4 j. Duck Creek (control)............................................................................................................................................III-B-S 2.0 PCS Deep Wells and Water Levels in CZR Wetland Level TROLLS.......................................................111-B-5 a. Methods..............................................................................................................................................................III-B-S b. Results.................................................................................................................................................................III-B-6 i. Jacks Creek.....................................................................................................................................................III-B-6 ii. Huddles Cut....................................................................................................................................................III-B-6 iii. Porter Creek...................................................................................................................................................III-B-8 C. Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................................III-B-8 C. WATER QUALITY.........................................................................................................................................III-C-1 1.0 History................................................................................................................................................111-C-1 a. Description of Analysis Techniques.....................................................................................................................III-C-1 2.0 Results................................................................................................................................................111-C-3 a. Temporal variability (2012-2018) in all creeks.....................................................................................................III-C-3 i. Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ1.........................................................................................................III-C-3 ii. Jacks Creek water quality stationJWQ2.........................................................................................................III-C-4 iii. Little Creek water quality station LCWQ1......................................................................................................III-C-4 iv. Little Creek water quality station LCWQ2......................................................................................................III-C-4 V. Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQI..................................................................................................III-C-4 vi. Jacobs Creek water quality stationJCBWQ2..................................................................................................III-C-4 vii. PA2 water quality station PA2WQ1...............................................................................................................III-C-4 viii. PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2...............................................................................................................III-C-4 ix. Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ1..........................................................................................III-C-S X. Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ2..........................................................................................III-C-S xi. Long Creek water quality station LOCWQI....................................................................................................III-C-S xii. Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ2....................................................................................................III-C-S xiii. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ1.....................................................................................................III-C-S xiv. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ2.....................................................................................................III-C-S xv. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ3.....................................................................................................III-C-S xvi. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ1......................................................................................................III-C-6 xvii. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ2......................................................................................................III-C-6 xviii. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ3......................................................................................................III-C-6 xix. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ4......................................................................................................III-C-6 xx. Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ1....................................................................................................III-C-6 xxi. Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ2....................................................................................................III-C-6 xxii. DCUT11 water quality station DC11WQ1.......................................................................................................III-C-6 xxiii. DCUT19 water quality station DC19WQ1.......................................................................................................III-C-7 xxiv. Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQI...................................................................................................III-C-7 xxv. Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ2...................................................................................................III-C-7 b. Spatial variability (2012-2018) in all creeks.........................................................................................................III-C-7 i. Depth.............................................................................................................................................................III-C-8 ii. Temperature..................................................................................................................................................III-C-8 iii. Salinity............................................................................................................................................................III-C-8 iv. Conductivity...................................................................................................................................................III-C-8 V. Turbidity.........................................................................................................................................................III-C-8 vi. Dissolved oxygen............................................................................................................................................III-C-8 vii. pH...................................................................................................................................................................III-C-9 viii. NH4 (ammonium) ...........................................................................................................................................III-C-9 ix. NO3 (nitrate)...................................................................................................................................................III-C-9 X. DKN (dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen)..................................................................................................................III-C-9 xi. PN (particulate nitrogen)...............................................................................................................................III-C-9 xii. Total dissolved nitrogen.................................................................................................................................III-C-9 xiii. PO4 (o rtho phosphate) ....................................................................................................................................III-C-9 xiv. TDP (total dissolved phosphate)....................................................................................................................III-C-9 xv. PP (particulate phosphate).............................................................................................................................III-C-9 xvi. Chlorophyll a..................................................................................................................................................III-C-9 xvi i. Dissolved organic carbon...............................................................................................................................III-C-9 C. Interannual Variability (Pre- and Post -Mod Alt L Creeks)..................................................................................III-C-10 i. Jacks Creek...................................................................................................................................................III-C-10 ii. Jacobs Creek.................................................................................................................................................III-C-10 iii. Drinkwater Creek...............................................................................................................................................III-C-10 iv. Tooley Creek................................................................................................................................................III-C-10 V. Huddles Cut..................................................................................................................................................III-C-10 vi. Porter Creek.................................................................................................................................................III-C-11 vii. DCUT11........................................................................................................................................................III-C-11 3.0 Summary and Conclusions...............................................................................................................111-C-11 a. Temporal variability...........................................................................................................................................III-C-11 b. Spatial variability..............................................................................................................................................III-C-12 D. METALS......................................................................................................................................................III-D-1 1.0 Sediment Metals............................................................................................................................... 111-D-1 2.0 Water Column Metals....................................................................................................................... 111-D-3 E. VEGETATION...............................................................................................................................................III-E-1 1.0 Results and Discussion.......................................................................................................................111-E-1 a. Jacks Creek...........................................................................................................................................................III-E-1 b. Jacobs Creek........................................................................................................................................................III-E-2 C. Drinkwater Creek.................................................................................................................................................III-E-2 d. Tooley Creek........................................................................................................................................................III-E-3 e. Long Creek (control)............................................................................................................................................III-E-4 f. Huddles Cut Main Prong......................................................................................................................................III-E-4 g. Huddles Cut West Prong......................................................................................................................................III-E-S h. Porter Creek.........................................................................................................................................................I II-E-6 i. DCUT11................................................................................................................................................................III-E-6 IV j. DCUT19 (control creek).......................................................................................................................................III-E-6 k. Duck Creek (control creek)..................................................................................................................................III-E-6 2.0 Summary and Conclusions................................................................................................................. III-E-7 F. FISH.............................................................................................................................................................III-F-1 1.0 Results and Discussion....................................................................................................................... I11-F-1 a. Pre -Mod Alt L Creeks........................................................................................................................................... III-F-1 b. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks.......................................................................................................................................... III-F-1 i. Jacks Creek.....................................................................................................................................................III-F-1 ii. Jacobs Creek...................................................................................................................................................III-F-3 iii. Drinkwater Creek...........................................................................................................................................III-F-4 iv. Tooley Creek..................................................................................................................................................III-F-6 V. Huddles Cut....................................................................................................................................................III-F-7 vi. Porter Creek...................................................................................................................................................III-F-9 vii. DCUT11........................................................................................................................................................III-F-10 C. Mod -Alt L Control Creeks...................................................................................................................................III-F-11 i. Little Creek................................................................................................................................................... III-F-11 ii. PA2...............................................................................................................................................................III-F-12 iii. Long Creek....................................................................................................................................................III-F-12 iv. Muddy Creek................................................................................................................................................III-F-13 V. DCUT19........................................................................................................................................................III-F-14 vi. Duck Creek................................................................................................................................................... III-F-14 2.0 Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................................... I11-F-15 G. BENTHOS................................................................................................................................................... III-G-1 1.0 Results and Discussion of Sweep and Ponar Data.................................................................................... I11-G-1 a. Pre -Mod Alt L Creeks Sweep and Ponar Grab Data............................................................................................ III-G-2 b. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks Sweep and Ponar Grab Data........................................................................................... III-G-3 i. Jacks Creek Upstream Sweeps...................................................................................................................... III-G-3 ii. Jacks Creek Downstream Sweeps................................................................................................................. III-G-3 iii. Jacks Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs............................................................................................................... III-G-4 iv. Jacks Creek Downstream Ponars................................................................................................................... III-G-S i. Jacobs Creek Upstream Sweeps.................................................................................................................... III-G-6 ii. Jacobs Creek Downstream Sweeps............................................................................................................... III-G-6 iii. Jacobs Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs............................................................................................................ III-G-7 iv. Jacobs Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs........................................................................................................ III-G-7 i. Drinkwater Creek Upstream Sweeps............................................................................................................ III-G-8 ii. Drinkwater Creek Downstream Sweeps........................................................................................................ III-G-8 iii. Drinkwater Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs..................................................................................................... III-G-9 iv. Drinkwater Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs................................................................................................ III-G-9 i. Tooley Creek Upstream Sweeps.................................................................................................................. III-G-10 ii. Tooley Creek Downstream Sweeps............................................................................................................. III-G-11 iii. Tooley Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs.......................................................................................................... III-G-11 iv. Tooley Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs..................................................................................................... III-G-12 i. Huddles Cut Upstream Sweeps................................................................................................................... III-G-13 ii. Huddles Cut Downstream Sweeps.............................................................................................................. III-G-13 iii. Huddles Cut Upstream Ponar Grabs........................................................................................................... III-G-14 iv. Huddles Cut Downstream Ponar Grabs....................................................................................................... III-G-14 i. Porter Creek Upstream Sweeps.................................................................................................................. III-G-15 ii. Porter Creek Downstream Sweeps............................................................................................................. III-G-16 iii. Porter Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs........................................................................................................... III-G-16 iv. Porter Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs...................................................................................................... III-G-17 i. DCUT11 Upstream Sweeps......................................................................................................................... III-G-17 ii. DCUT11 Downstream Sweeps..................................................................................................................... III-G-18 iii. DCUT11 Upstream Ponar Grabs.................................................................................................................. III-G-18 iv. DCUT11 Downstream Ponar Grabs............................................................................................................. III-G-18 C. Control Creeks Sweep and Ponar Grab Data.................................................................................................... III-G-18 i. Little Creek Upstream Sweeps.................................................................................................................... III-G-19 ii. Little Creek Downstream Sweeps................................................................................................................ III-G-19 iii. Little Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs............................................................................................................. III-G-19 v iv. Little Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs........................................................................................................ III-G-19 i. PA2 Upstream Sweeps................................................................................................................................ III-G-20 ii. PA2 Downstream Sweeps........................................................................................................................... III-G-20 iii. PA2 Upstream Ponar Grabs......................................................................................................................... III-G-21 iv. PA2 Downstream Ponar Grabs.................................................................................................................... III-G-21 i. Long Creek Upstream Sweeps..................................................................................................................... III-G-21 ii. Long Creek Downstream Sweeps................................................................................................................ III-G-22 iii. Long Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs............................................................................................................. III-G-22 iv. Long Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs........................................................................................................ III-G-23 i. Muddy Creek Upstream Sweeps................................................................................................................. III-G-23 ii. Muddy Creek Downstream Sweeps............................................................................................................ III-G-23 iii. Muddy Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs......................................................................................................... III-G-24 iv. Muddy Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs..................................................................................................... III-G-24 i. DCUT19 Upstream Sweeps......................................................................................................................... III-G-25 ii. DCUT19 Downstream Sweeps..................................................................................................................... III-G-25 iii. DCUT19 Upstream Ponar Grabs.................................................................................................................. III-G-25 iv. DCUT19 Downstream Ponar Grabs............................................................................................................. III-G-25 i. Duck Creek Upstream Sweeps.................................................................................................................... III-G-26 ii. Duck Creek Downstream Sweeps................................................................................................................ III-G-26 iii. Duck Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs............................................................................................................. III-G-26 iv. Duck Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs........................................................................................................ III-G-27 2.0 Ponar Grabs Benthic Feeding Guild and Trophic Level Results.............................................................. I11-G-27 a. Pre -Mod Alt L Creeks Guild/Trophic Level........................................................................................................ III-G-28 b. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks Guild Data from Ponar Grabs....................................................................................... III-G-28 i. Jacks Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels.............................................................................................. III-G-28 ii. Jacks Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels......................................................................................... III-G-29 iii. Jacobs Creek Upstream Guilds Trophic Levels............................................................................................ III-G-30 iv. Jacobs Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels....................................................................................... III-G-30 V. Drinkwater Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels.................................................................................... III-G-31 vi. Drinkwater Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels............................................................................... III-G-32 vii. Tooley Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels........................................................................................... III-G-32 viii. Tooley Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels....................................................................................... III-G-33 X. Huddles Cut Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels........................................................................................ III-G-34 xi. Porter Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels............................................................................................ III-G-35 xii. Porter Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels....................................................................................... III-G-36 xiii. DCUT11 Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels................................................................................................... III-G-36 C. Control Creeks Guild Data from Ponar Grabs................................................................................................... III-G-37 i. Little Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels.............................................................................................. III-G-37 ii. Little Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels......................................................................................... III-G-38 iii. PA2 Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels.......................................................................................................... III-G-38 iv. PA2 Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels..................................................................................................... III-G-38 V. Long Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels............................................................................................... III-G-39 vi. Long Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels.......................................................................................... III-G-39 vii. Muddy Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels........................................................................................... III-G-39 viii. Muddy Creek Downstream Guilds Trophic Levels...................................................................................... III-G-40 ix. DCUT19 Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels................................................................................................... III-G-40 X. DCUT19 Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels............................................................................................... III-G-40 xi. Duck Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels.............................................................................................. III-G-41 xii. Duck Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels......................................................................................... III-G-41 3.0 Summary and Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 111-G-41 VI LIST OF FIGURES SECTION I — INTRODUCTION Page A.BACKGROUND Figure I -Al Vicinity map of creeks monitored in the PCS creeks study I-A-6 B. CREEKS MONITORED IN 2018 Figure 1-131 Data collection locations in Jacks Creek 1-13-2 Figure 1-132 Data collection location in South Creek (Control) 1-13-3 Figure 1-133 Data collection locations in Little Creek (Control) 1-13-4 Figure 1-134 Data collection locations in Jacobs Creek I-B-5 Figure 1-135 Data collection locations in PA2 (Control) 1-13-6 Figure 1-136 Data collection locations in Drinkwater Creek I-B-7 Figure 1-137 Data collection locations in Long Creek (Control) 1-13-8 Figure 1-138 Data collection locations in Tooley Creek I-B-9 Figure 1-139 Data collection locations in Muddy Creek 1-13-10 Figure 1-1310 Data collection location in Pamlico River (Control) 1-13-11 Figure 1-1311 Data collection locations in Huddles Cut I-B-12 Figure 1-1312 Data collection locations in Porter Creek 1-13-13 Figure 1-1313 Data collection location in Durham Creek (Control) I-B-14 Figure 1-1314 Data collection locations in DCUT11 I-B-15 Figure 1-1315 Data collection locations in DCUT19 (Control) I-B-16 Figure 1-1316 Data collection locations in Duck Creek (Control) 1-13-17 C. CUMULATIVE DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION Figure I-Cl Mine continuation through 2018 I-C-2 Figure I-C2 Durham Creek drainage basin I-C-3 Figure I-C3 Drainage areas impacted by mine activities within monitored I-C-4 creek study basins Figure I-C4 DCUT11 drainage basin reduction through 2018 I-C-5 vii D. DROUGHT Page No figures E. EXTREME EVENTS OR STORMS No figures F. RAINFALL Figure I-F1 Rainfall summary across years of creek study: monthly totals I-F-2 at PCS Aurora Station 6 N and 30-year WETS rainfall G. TAR RIVER DISCHARGE Figure I-G1 Average daily Tar River discharge at Greenville, NC and daily I-G-2 rainfall at PCS Aurora Station 6 N during the years of the creek study SECTION II -SIX QUESTIONS Q1-FLOW No figures Q2- GEOMORPHOLOGY OR VEGETATIVE CHARACTER Figure II-B1 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation II-13-14 monitoring years based on the presence/absence of all species at Jacks Creek Figure II-132 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions II-B-14 every year surveyed at Jacks Creek with all transects combined Figure II-133 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions II-B-15 at each transect for Jacks Creek pre- vs post -years Figure II-134 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant herbs by individual II-B-15 transect in Jacks Creek Figure II-135 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs by individual IIB-16 transect in Jacks Creek Figure II-136 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation II-13-16 survey years based on presence/absence of all species at Jacobs Creek Figure II-137 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation II-B-17 survey years based on presence/absence of all species at Drinkwater Creek viii Page Figure II-138 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation II-13-17 survey years based on presence/absence of all species at Tooley Creek Figure II-139 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at II-13-18 each transect for Tooley Creek pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-B10 Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species every year at II-B-18 TW4 Figure II-B11 Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species every year at II-13-19 TW1 Figure II-1312 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant herbs by individual II-13-19 transect in Tooley Creek Figure II-1313 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs in Tooley II-13-20 Creek Figure II-1314 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs by individual IIB-20 transect in Tooley Creek Figure II-1315 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation II-13-21 survey years based on presence/absence of all species at the main prong of Huddles Cut Figure II-1316 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions on IIB-21 the main prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1317 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at II-B-22 each transect on the main prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1318 a-c Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species every year at II-13-23 transects that were significantly different on the main prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1319 Number of dominant species in the herb layer on the main prong II-B-24 of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1320 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant species in the herb II-B-24 layer at each transect on the main prong of Huddles Cut Figure II-1321 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs at each II-B-25 transect on the main prong of Huddles Cut Figure II-1322 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation II-13-15 survey years based presence/absence of all species at the west prong of Huddles Cut ix Page Figure II-1323 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions on II-13-26 the west prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1324 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions II-13-26 at each transect on the west prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1325 a-c Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species every year at II-13-27 transects that were significantly different on the west prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1326 Number of dominant herb species on the west prong of Huddles II-B-28 Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1327 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant herbs at each II-13-28 transect on the west prong of Huddles Cut Figure II-1328 Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs at each II-13-29 transect on the west prong of Huddles Cut Figure II-1329 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation II-13-29 survey years based on presence/absence of all species at Long Creek Figure II-1330 Percent of species in three categories of wetland status II-13-30 documented in vegetation survey years in four impact creeks compared to control creek vegetation for the same survey years as the four impact creeks Figure II-1331 Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod for each II-B-32 well in Jacks Creek relative to location in the creek system Figure II-1332 Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod for each II-B-32 well in Tooley Creek relative to location in the creek system Figure II-1333 Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and II-13-33 mean rainfall for each period in Huddles Cut Q3- FORAGE BASE Figure II-Cl Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish II-C-15 community abundance and composition among all fish species for all creeks and years sampled Figure II-C2 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-16 data among all fish species for all creeks and years Figure II-C3 Fish guilds of all creeks from 1999 to 2018 II-C-17 x Page Figure II-C4 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-18 data among all trawls in Jacks Creek Figure II-05 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-18 data among all fyke nets in Huddles Cut Figure II-C6 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-19 data among all trawls in Porter Creek Figure II-C7 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-19 data among all fyke nets in DCUT11 Figure II-C8 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-20 data among all trawls in Little Creek Figure II-C9 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-20 data among all trawls in Long Creek Figure II-C10 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-21 data among all trawls in Muddy Creek Figure II-Cl1 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild II-C-21 data among all trawls in Duck Creek Figure II-C12 Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance II-C-22 in upstream sweeps for all creek -years Figure II-C13 Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance II-C-23 downstream sweeps for all creek -years Figure II-C14 Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance II-C-24 in upstream ponar grabs for all creek -years Figure II-C15 Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance II-C-25 in downstream ponar grabs for all creek -years Figure II-Cl6 A-F Six major components/axes generated from fuzzy II-C-26 correspondence analysis of trophic level and functional feeding guild designations for every species found in ponar grabs in study creeks across all years Figure II-C17 Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate guilds assigned to II-C-27 upstream ponars for all creek -years Figure II-C18 Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guilds FCA II-C-28 comparisons: between Jacks Creek and Muddy Creek and Jacks Creek and Little Creek A Page Figure II-C19 Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guilds FCA II-C-28 comparisons: between Jacobs Creek and PA2 and Jacobs Creek and Long Creek Figure II-C20 Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate guilds assigned to II-C-29 downstream ponars for all creek -years Figure II-C21 Pre -/post -Mod Alt L downstream ponar benthic guilds FCA II-C-30 comparisons: between Jacks Creek and Muddy Creek and Jacks Creek and Little Creek Q4-USE BY MANAGED FISH Figure II-D1 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish II-D-5 community abundance and composition among managed fish species for all creeks and years sampled Q5-METALS Figure II -El Average sediment metal for all creeks with both pre- and II-E-5 post -Mod Alt L data Figure II-E2a - d Average sediment metals for all control creeks combined across II-E-6 years and creeks with both pre- and post -Mod Alt L data combined across creeks and years Figure II-E3 Sediment metal and TOC means combined into four categories: II-E-7 all years, all pre -Mod Alt L years, all post -Mod Alt L years, and all control creek years Figure II-E4a Combined pre -Mod Alt L water column metals values compared II-E-8 to combined post -Mod Alt L values with all detected values and any <LOQs as detected values Figure II-E4b Combined pre -Mod Alt L water column metals values compared II-E-8 to combined post -Mod Alt L value with only detections at or above LOQ Figure II-E5a Water column metal means for all years for all creeks by type II-E-9 Figure II-E5b Water column metal means compared for all years by type II-E-9 without Fe shown Q6-OVERALL WATER QUALITY Figure II-F1 Conceptual diagram to show temporal and spatial patterns II-F-3 among impact and control creeks xii SECTION III — SUMMARY ACROSS ALL YEARS Page A. SALINITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES Figure III -Al Tar River discharge from 1998 to 2018 III-A-15 Figure III-A2 Tar River discharge for all years of study and for each impact III-A-16 creek grouped by pre- and post -Mod Alt L Figure III-A3 Total annual rainfall at four long-term rain gauges over the years III-A-17 of the PCS creeks study Figure III-A4 Wind rose for all days combined in 2018, as well as January III-A-18 through March, April through June, July through September, and October through December Figure III-A5 Salinity rose graphs for Aqua TROLLs in Jacks and Little creeks III-A-19 in 2018, as well as average salinity over all creeks Figure III-A6 Salinity rose graphs for South Creek, Jacobs Creek, PA2, and III-A-20 Drinkwater Creek Aqua TROLLs in 2018 Figure III-A7 Salinity rose graphs for Aqua TROLLs in Tooley and Long creeks III-A-21 in 2018 Figure III-A8 Salinity rose graphs for Pamlico River, Duck Creek, and Huddles III-A-22 Cut Aqua TROLLs in 2018 Figure III-A9 Salinity rose graphs for Aqua TROLLs in Durham Creek, its III-A-23 unnamed tributaries, and Porter Creek in 2018 Figure III-A10 Salinity boxplots for Jacks Creek, South Creek, Little Creek, III-A-24 and PA2 stations on annual basis with control creek data arranged to match pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for Jacks Creek Figure III -Al 1 Salinity box plots for Jacobs Creek stations compared to Long III-A-25 Creek, Little Creek, South Creek, and PA2 stations on annual basis with control creek data arranged to match pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for Jacobs Creek Figure III-Al2 Salinity box plots for Drinkwater Creek stations compared to III-A-26 Long Creek, South Creek, and PA2 stations on annual basis with control creek data arranged to match pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for Drinkwater Creek Figure III-A13 Salinity boxplots for Tooley Creek stations compared to Long III-A-27 Creek and South Creek stations on annual basis with control creek data arranged to match pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for Tooley Creek Page Figure III-A14 Salinity boxplots for Huddles Cut stations compared to Pamlico III-A-28 River and Duck Creek stations on annual basis with control creek data arranged to match pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for Huddles Cut Figure III-A15 Salinity boxplots for Porter Creek stations and the DCUT11 III-A-29 station compared to Durham Creek stations and Duck Creek stations on annual basis with control creek data arranged to match pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for Porter Creek and DCUT11 Figure III-A16 Monthly salinities at non -control Aqua TROLLs: Jacks Creek, III-A-30 Jacobs Creek, and Drinkwater Creek Figure III-A17 Monthly salinities at non -control Aqua TROLLs: Tooley Creek III-A-31 Figure III-A18 Monthly salinities at non -control Aqua TROLLs: Huddles Cut, III-A-32 Porter Creek, and DCUT11 Figure III-A19 Monthly salinities at control Aqua TROLLs: Little Creek, South III-A-33 Creek, PA2, and Long Creek Figure III-A20 Monthly salinities at control Aqua TROLLs: Duck Creek, Durham III-A-34 Creek, DCUT19, and Pamlico River B. WETLAND HYDROLOGY Figure III-131 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Jacks Creek by year with III-B-10 total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-B2 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs and Drinkwater III-B-10 creeks by year with total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-B3 Longest hydroperiod for each well by year in Long Creek and III-B-11 total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-134 Longest hydroperiod for each well by year in Tooley Creek III-B-11 and total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-135 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut Main Prong III-13-12 by year and total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-136 Longest hydroperiod for each well by year in Huddles Cut III-B-12 West Prong and total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-137 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Porter Creek by year and III-B-13 total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-138 Longest hydroperiod for each well in DCUT11 by year and III-B-13 total annual rainfall for each year xiv Page Figure III-B9 Longest hydroperiod for each well in DCUT19 by year and III-B-14 total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-B10 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek by year and III-B-14 total annual rainfall for each year Figure III-B11 Locations of deep wells and Level TROLLs in Jacks Creek III-B-15 Figure III-B12 Hydrology of Level TROLLs in Jacks Creek and times of deep III-B-16 well pump operation Figure III-1313 Locations of deep wells and Level TROLLs in Huddles Cut III-B-17 Figure III-B14 Hydrology of Level TROLLs in Huddles Cut Main Prong and III-B-18 times of deep well pump operation Figure III-B15 Hydrology of Level TROLLs in Huddles Cut West Prong and III-B-19 times of deep well pump operation Figure III-B16 Locations of deep wells and Level TROLLs in Porter Creek III-B-20 Figure III-1317 Hydrology of Level TROLLs in Porter Creek and times of deep III-B-21 well pump operation C. WATER QUALITY Figure III-Cl Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III-C-13 among all water quality variables Figure III-C2 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-14 Component 2 over time at Jacks Creek Station JWQ1 Figure III-C3 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-14 Component 2 over time at Jacks Creek Station JWQ2 Figure III-C4 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-15 Component 2 over time at Little Creek Station LCWQ1 Figure III-05 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-15 Component 2 over time at Little Creek Station LCWQ2 Figure III-C6 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-16 Component 2 over time at Jacobs Creek Station JCBWQ1 Figure III-C7 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-16 Component 2 over time at Jacobs Creek Station JCBWQ2 xv Page Figure III-C8 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-17 Component 2 over time at PA2 Station PA2WQ1 Figure III-C9 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-17 Component 2 over time at PA2 Station PA2WQ2 Figure III-C10 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-18 Component 2 over time at Drinkwater Creek Station DWWQ1 Figure III-Cl 1 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-18 Component 2 over time at Drinkwater Creek Station DWWQ2 Figure III-C12 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-19 Component 2 over time at Long Creek Station LOCWQ1 Figure III-C13 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-19 Component 2 over time at Long Creek Station LOCWQ2 Figure III-C14 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-20 Component 2 over time at Tooley Creek Station TWQ1 Figure III-C15 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-20 Component 2 over time at Tooley Creek Station TWQ2 Figure III-C16 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-21 Component 2 over time at Tooley Creek Station TWQ3 Figure III-C17 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-22 Component 2 over time at Huddles Cut Station HWQ1 Figure III-C18 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-22 Component 2 over time at Huddles Cut Station HWQ2 Figure III-C19 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-23 Component 2 over time at Huddles Cut Station HWQ3 Figure III-C20 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-23 Component 2 over time at Huddles Cut Station HWQ4 Figure III-C21 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-24 Component 2 over time at Porter Creek Station PCWQ1 Figure III-C22 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-24 Component 2 over time at Porter Creek Station PCWQ2 Figure III-C23 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-25 Component 2 over time at DCUT11 Station DC11 WQ2 xvi Page Figure III-C24 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-25 Component 2 over time at DCUT19 Station DC19WQ1 Figure III-C25 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-26 Component 2 over time at Duck Creek Station DKCWQ1 Figure III-C26 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III-C-26 Component 2 over time at Duck Creek Station DKCWQ2 Figure III-C27 Agglomerative, hierarchical cluster analysis of each water III-C-27 quality station based on all water quality variables Figure III-C28 Comparison of mean depth for each group of water quality III-C-28 stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C29 Comparison of mean temperature for each group of water III-C-28 quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C30 Comparison of mean salinity for each group of water quality III-C-29 stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C31 Comparison of mean conductivity for each group of water III-C-29 quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C32 Comparison of mean turbidity for each group of water quality III-C-30 stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C33 Comparison of dissolved oxygen for each group of water III-C-30 quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C34 Comparison of mean pH for each group of water quality III-C-31 stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C35 Comparison of mean ammonium for each group of water III-C-31 quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C36 Comparison of mean nitrate for each group of water quality III-C-32 stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C37 Comparison of mean dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen for each III-C-32 group of water quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C38 Comparison of mean particulate nitrogen for each group of III-C-33 water quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C39 Comparison of mean total dissolved nitrogen for each group III-C-33 of water quality stations identified by cluster analysis xvii Page Figure III-C40 Comparison of mean orthophosphate for each group of water III-C-34 quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C41 Comparison of mean total dissolved phosphate for each III-C-34 group of water quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C42 Comparison of mean particulate phosphate for each group of III-C-35 water quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C43 Comparison of mean chlorophyll a for each group of water III-C-35 quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C44 Comparison of mean total dissolved organic carbon for each III-C-36 group of water quality stations identified by cluster analysis Figure III-C45 Mean interannual variability of PC1 per station for the III-C-37 historical record on monthly basis D. METALS Figure III-D1 Total organic carbon values in each study creek each year since III-D-4 2013 Figure III-D2 Reported sediment metals for Jacks Creek pre- and post -Mod III-D-5 Alt L Figure III-D3 Reported sediment metals for Jacobs Creek pre- and post -Mod III-D-6 Alt L Figure III-D4 Reported sediment metals for Drinkwater Creek pre- and III-D-7 post -Mod Alt L Figure III-D5 Reported sediment metals for Tooley Creek pre- and post -Mod III-D-8 Alt L Figure III-D6 Reported sediment metals for Huddles Cut pre- and post -Mod III-D-9 Alt L Figure III-D7 Reported sediment metals for Porter Creek pre- and post -Mod III-D-10 Alt L Figure III-D8 Reported sediment metals for DCUT11 pre- and post -Mod III-D-11 Alt L Figure III-D9 a — d Average water column metals for creeks with both pre- and III-D-12 post -Mod Alt L data combined across creeks and years and all control creeks combined across years and creeks xviii Page E. VEGETATION Figure III -El Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III-E-9 at Jacks Creek transects arranged by distance from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-E2 Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species for each III-E-9 transect each year at Jacks Creek Figure III-E3 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III-E-10 for Tooley Creek transects arranged by distance from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-E4 Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species for each III-E-10 each transect each year at Tooley Creek Figure III-E5 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III-E-11 for Huddles Cut main prong transects arranged by distance from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-E6 Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species for each III-E-11 each transect each year at Huddles Cut main prong Figure III-E7 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III-E-12 for Huddles Cut west prong transects arranged by distance from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-E8 Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species for each III-E-12 each transect each year at Huddles Cut west prong F. FISH Figure III-F1 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for annual III-F-17 Fish community abundance and composition among all trawls In Jacks Creek Figure III-F2 Catch -per -unit -effort for commonly captured fish species at III-F-18 Jacks Creek with statistically significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-F3 Catch -per -unit -effort for commonly captured fish species at III-F-19 Jacobs Creek with statistically significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-F4 Catch -per -unit -effort for commonly captured fish species at III-F-20 Jacobs Creek with statistically significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years xix Page Figure III-F5 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for annual III-F-21 fish community abundance and composition among all trawls in Drinkwater Creek Figure III-F6 Catch -per -unit -effort for commonly captured fish species III-F-22 at Drinkwater Creek with statistically significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-F7 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for annual fish III-F-23 community abundance and composition among all trawls in Tooley Creek Figure III-F8 Catch -per -unit -effort for commonly captured fish species at III-F-24 Tooley Creek with statistically significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-F9 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for annual III-F-25 fish community abundance and composition among all fyke nets in Huddles Cut Figure III-F10 Catch -per -unit -effort for commonly captured fish species at III-F-26 Huddles Cut with statistically significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-F11 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for annual fish III-F-27 community abundance and composition among all trawls in Porter Creek Figure III-F12 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for annual fish III-F-28 community abundance and composition among all fyke nets in DCUT11 Figure III-F13 Catch -per -unit -effort for commonly captured fish species at III-F-29 DCUT11 with statistically significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years Figure III-F14 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for annual III-F-30 fish community abundance and composition among all trawls in Little Creek Figure III-F15 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for annual III-F-31 fish community abundance and composition among all trawls in Muddy Creek G. BENTHOS Figure III-G1a-d Dendrograms of clusters based on taxa richness and III-G-44 abundance for all years in Jacks Creek xx Page Figure III-G2a-b Dendrograms of clusters based on taxa richness and III-G-45 abundance for all years in Jacobs Creek Figure III-G3 Dendrogram of clusters based on taxa richness and III-G-46 abundance for all years in Drinkwater Creek Figure III-G4a-d Dendrograms of clusters based on taxa richness and III-G-47 abundance for all years in Tooley Creek Figure III-G5a-d Dendrograms of clusters based on taxa richness and III-G-48 abundance for all years in Huddles Cut Figure III-G6a-c Dendrograms of clusters based on taxa richness and III-G-49 abundance for all years of in Porter Creek Figure III-G7a-c Dendrograms of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and III-G-50 abundance for all years in Little Creek Figure III-G8a-c Dendrograms of clusters based on taxa richness and III-G-51 abundance for all years in PA2 Figure III-G9a-c Dendrograms of clusters based on taxa richness and III-G-52 abundance for all years in Long Creek Figure III-G10a-d Dendrograms of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and III-G-53 abundance for all years in Muddy Creek Figure III-G11 Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and III-G-54 abundance for all years in DCUT19 Figure III-G12 Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and III-G-54 abundance for all years in Duck Creek Figure III-G13a—c. Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction III-G-55 of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Jacks Creek Figure III-G14 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of six axes of FCA scores III-G-56 for Jacks Creek years compared to same years in Muddy and Little creeks Figure III-G15a-c Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction III-G-57 of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Jacobs Creek Figure III-G16 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of six axes of FCA scores for III-G-58 Jacobs Creek years compared to same years in PA2 and Long Creek xxi Page Figure III-G17a-c Dendrogram of Drinkwater Creek clusters of FCA scores, III-G-59 temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species, and pre- and post -Mod Alt L comparisons to control creeks Figure III-G18a—c Dendrogram of Tooley Creek clusters of FCA scores and III-G-60 temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species Figure III-G19 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of six axes of FCA scores III-G-61 for Tooley Creek years compared to same years in Muddy and Long creeks and PA2 Figure III-G20 Six axes of FCA scores, pre- and post -Mod Alt L comparisons III-G-62 to control creeks, and dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores in Porter Creek Figure III-G21 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of the six axes of FCA scores III-G-63 for Huddles Cut years compared to same years in Muddy Creek Figure III-G22a-c Six axes of FCA scores, pre- and post -Mod Alt L comparisons III-G-64 to control creeks, and dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores in Porter Creek Figure III-G23a—c Six axes of FCA scores, pre- and post -Mod Alt L comparisons III-G-65 to control creeks, and dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores in DCUT11 Figure III-G24 Dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction III-G-66 of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Little Creek Figure III-G25a—c Six axes of FCA scores and dendrogram of clusters of FCA III-G-67 scores in PA2 Figure III-G26a—b Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores and temporal III-G-68 depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Long Creek Figure III-G27a—b Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction III-G-69 those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Muddy Creek Figure III-G28a—c Dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction III-G-70 of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in DCUT19 Page Figure III-G29a—c Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction III-G-71 of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Duck Creek LIST OF TABLES SECTION I A. BACKGROUND Page Table I -Al Pre- and post -Mod Alt L data collection by parameter and by creek I-A-6 according to the 2011 plan of study Table I-A2 Monitored parameters, equipment, and frequency of data collection I-A-11 B. CREEKS MONITORED IN 2018 Table 1-131 Geomorphic conditions at Long Creek in vicinity of wells 23 April I-B-18 2019 D. DROUGHT Table I-D1 Drought conditions for the years 2000-2005 and 2007-2018 I-D-2 E. EXTREME EVENTS OR STORMS Table I -El Extreme events or storms for the years 1998-2005 and 2007-2018 I-E-2 F. RAINFALL Table I-F1 Monthly and annual rainfall totals across the years 1998-2005 and I-F-3 2007-2018 for WETS Station Aurora 6N Table I-F2 Annual rainfall totals, maximums, minimums, and averages collected at I-F-4 rain gauges in study creeks and from WETS Station Aurora 6N SECTION 11- SIX QUESTIONS Q1-FLOW No tables Q2-GEOMORPHIC/VEGETATIVE Table II-B1a Percent of the dominant non -wetland and brackish intolerant plant II-B-34 species along vegetation trainsects in five impact creeks by year Table II-131 b Percent of dominant non -wetland and brackish intolerant plant II-13-36 species in vegetation transects in one control creek by year Table II-132 Total numbers and percentages of total species assigned a National II-13-37 Wetlands Plant List wetland rating category at each creek on annual basis for each creek surveyed in 2018 xxiv Q3-FORAGE BASE Page Table II-Cl Average catch -per -unit -effort for the most abundant fish species II-C-31 captured across 11 clusters identified by cluster analysis performed for all PCS fish collections Table II-C2 Guild designations of all fish caught in trawl nets or fyke nets II-C-32 Table II-C3 Summary of trawling and fyke net shrimp and crab catch frequency II-C-34 and score data from 2011 through 2018 Table II-C4 Trophic level and functional feeding guild designations for benthic II-C-36 species identified in the ponar grabs of the PCS creeks study Q4-USE BY MANAGED FISH Table II-D1 Average catch -per -unit -effort for managed fish species caught II-D-6 across five groups identified by cluster analysis in study collection years through 2018 Q5-METALS Table II -El Means and standard deviations by year for six sediment metals II-E-13 for which Effects Range Low and Effects Range Medium have been determined Table II-E2 Percent of years for each creek where metals were below LOQ/CL in II-E-16 the sediment or in the water column Q6-WATER QUALITY Table II-F1 Differences in water quality parameters between five study creeks II-F-4 impacted by Mod Alt L (names in bold) and five creeks unimpacted by Mod Alt L SECTION III SUMMARY ACROSS ALL YEARS A.SALINITY AND TAR RIVER DISCHARGE Table III -Al Monthly average, maximum, minimum and yearly salinity in 2018 at III-A-35 Aqua TROLL stations in the study Table III-A2 Correlations between 2018 salinity and several climatic variables: Tar III-A-38 River discharge, water depth, rainfall, and wind direction xxv B. WETLAND HYDROLOGY Page Table III-131 Wetland hydroperiods during the 2018 growing season for wetland III-13-22 hydrology monitoring wells at 10 monitored creeks Table III-132 Operation dates for the pumps within deep water wells surrounding III-13-24 the Level TROLLs in Jacks Creek, Huddles Cut, and Porter Creek Table III-133 Details of the final models for Level TROLLs in Jacks Creek III-13-25 Table III-134 Details of the final models for Level TROLLs in Huddles Cut Main III-13-26 Prong Table III-135 Details of the final models for Level TROLLs in Huddles Cut West III-13-27 Prong Table III-B-6 Details of the final models for Level TROLLs in Porter Creek III-13-28 Prong C. WATER QUALITY Table III-C1 Water quality data record for all years for all study creeks III-C-38 Table III-C2 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component III-C-39 Table III-C3 Average of water quality parameters across the five groups identified III-C-39 by the cluster analysis Table III-C4 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L conditions for Jacks Creek III-C-40 Table III-05 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L conditions for Jacobs Creek III-C-40 Table III-C6 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L conditions for Drinkwater III-C-41 Creek Table III-C7 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt-L conditions for Tooley Creek III-C-41 Table III-C8 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt-L conditions for Huddles Cut III-C-42 Table III-C9 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L conditions for Porter Creek III-C-42 Table III-C10 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L conditions for DCUT11 III-C-43 D. METALS Table III-D1 Sediment metal values by year for each monitored creek III-D-12 xxvi Table III-D2 Water column metals values by year for each monitored creek III-D-14 E. VEGETATION Table III-E1a Dominant herbaceous species in vegetation transects in five impact III-E-13 creeks Table III-E1b Dominant herbaceous species in vegetation transects in one III-E-23 control creek Table III-E2a Dominant shrub and woody vine species in vegetation transects in III-E-24 five impact creeks Table III-E2b Dominant shrub and woody vine species in vegetation transects in III-E-29 one control creek Table III-E3 Cumulative list of dominant species at monitored creeks since 1998, III-E-30 their tolerance to brackish conditions, and wetland indicator status through 2018 F. FISH Table III-F1 Comparison of fish community structure for all creeks in Mod Alt L III-F-32 sample years Table III-F2 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-33 and June in Jacks Creek in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F3 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-34 and June in Jacobs Creek in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F4 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-35 and June in Drinkwater Creek in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F5 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-36 and June in Tooley Creek in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F6 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-37 and June in Huddles Cut in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F7 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-38 and June in Porter Creek in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F8 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-39 and June in DCUT11 in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F9 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-40 and June in Little Creek in each collection year through 2018 xxvi i Page Table III-F10 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-41 and June in PA2 in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F11 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-42 and June in Long Creek in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F12 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-43 and June in Muddy Creek in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F13 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-44 and June in DCUT19 in each collection year through 2018 Table III-F14 Average catch -per -unit -effort by species for fish caught in April, May, III-F-45 and June in Duck Creek in each collection year through 2018 G. BENTHOS Table III-G1 Cumulative list of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa and assigned III-G-72 sensitivity values of species collected in study creeks in May 1998 through 2005 and 2007 through 2018 Table III-G2 Abundant benthic macroinvertebrate species for sweep samples III-G-74 collected in monitored creeks during May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2018 Table III-G3 Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure data for sweep III-G-81 samples collected in monitored creeks during May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2018 Table III-G4 Abundant benthic macroinvertebrate species for ponar grab samples III-G-83 collected in monitored creeks during May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2018 Table III-G5 Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure data for ponar grab III-G-90 samples collected in monitored creeks during May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2018 Table III-G6 Highest Shannon -Weiner diversity score and highest EBI score by III-G-92 creek per year, highest Shannon -Weiner diversity score and highest EBI score for each year among all creeks, and summary of ranges and averages by creek xxvi i i LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A History and Methods by Parameter Appendix B Flow Observations 2018 (CD/DVD only) Appendix C Salinity Graphs 2018 (CD/DVD only) Appendix D Hydrology Graphs, Tables, and Water Level Trends 2018 (CD/DVD only) Appendix E Water Quality 2018 (CD/DVD only) Appendix F Metals 2018 (CD/DVD only) Appendix G Vegetation 2018 - data and transect photos (CD/DVD only) Appendix H Fish 2018 (CD/DVD only) Appendix I Benthos 2018 (CD/DVD only) LIST OF SUPPLEMENTS Supplement 1 Updates and Clarification to Final Plan of Study to Monitor Potential Effects of Reduction of Headwater Wetlands on the Downstream Aquatic Functions and Utilization of Tributaries of South Creek, Porter Creek, and Durham Creek Supplement 2 Broomfield Swamp Creek Monitoring Plan 2018 Data from Broomfield Swamp Creek and SCUT1 (CD/DVD only) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report on 2018 data collection is the sixth of the annual PCS creek reports to present and emphasize summary data, per the ROD Special Condition V on Reporting where "annual summaries of all data collected" are specified. This summary approach is also part of the continued attempt to meet requests of the reviewers and the Science Panel to reduce the amount of material included in the report and to simplify the presentation of data. This is the sixth report to utilize multivariate techniques for multiple monitoring parameters. These techniques will continue to be used in various combinations until findings warrant a change in methodology. Analysis of large data sets to result in statistically significant differences among parameters/variables; however, these differences are not necessarily also ecologically significant. Detection and measurement of ecologically significant issues are a challenge with any complex large-scale project and one of the topics of discussion at annual Science Panel meetings For the benefit of those who have never been to any of these creeks, or at least did not visit them at the beginning of this study, Appendix J was prepared for the 2016 report. Appendix J included selected photographs of vegetation monitoring plots from 1998 and from the most recent (as of 2016) vegetation monitoring of the original three creeks (Jacks Creek-2014; Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut-2016). This collection of photographs provided a visual comparison of physical changes at some of the wells/plots since 1998. A copy of this photo appendix is available upon request. For all statistical analyses of laboratory results (sediment and water column metals and ECU water quality parameters), when the limits of detection for a specific method returned a "< the method detection limit", the "<" was removed and the limit entered as a value in the spreadsheet. This value is the limit of 100 percent confidence in detection; while the value may actually be less, if it were present it would not be higher than this limit. This practice reduces "gaps" in the graphical depictions and increases the value of the statistical analysis. Nonetheless, some "gaps" do occur due to environmental conditions (e.g., water too shallow to collect a sample) or laboratory conditions (e.g., equipment malfunction), or human error. Tabular depictions of metals results do not remove the "<" and do not include those entries in calculations of means/standard deviations. For all parameters monitored, changes in salinity have been evident: salinity increased regionally over the early years of the study but steadily declined in the Pamlico River and tributaries from 2011-2016 (or 2012-2016 for some creeks) until a rise in salinity in 2017 followed by a decrease in 2018. This short-term trend has been observed at every data collection instrument (In -Situ Aqua TROLL) regardless of location (upstream or downstream), creek basin (within South, Durham, Porter, or Duck creeks or Pamlico River drainages), creek type (impact or control), or size of drainage basin. Correlations with environmental factors showed that salinity was most strongly associated with Tar River discharge; each Aqua TROLL showed a moderate to strong negative correlation between salinity and discharge. Rainfall in 2018 was the third highest year of rainfall in all study years, behind 1998 and 2003, which along with river discharge contributed to lower average salinities among all creeks and tributaries. Average annual salinity declined at all creeks for roughly five years until all creeks xxx increased in 2017 followed by a decrease in 2018. Salinity seems to be more influenced by regional and climatic factors such as Tar River discharge, precipitation, and wind. Similar salinities were observed at all Aqua TROLLs regardless of mine impact, t-tests showed similar trends in salinity at most impact and control creeks, and the concordance correlations showed that salinity between impact and control creeks was similar even post -Mod Alt L. Analysis of salinity within post -Mod Alt L creeks (Jacks, Jacobs, Drinkwater, Tooley, Huddles Cut, Porter and DCUT11) showed similar relationships with four environmental variables (Tar River discharge, rainfall, wind, and water depth) as the control creeks and pre -Mod Alt L periods. Thus, there is little evidence to suggest that Mod Alt L activities have impacted creek salinity; correlations showed that salinity was most associated with Tar River discharge. Wetland water levels (measured by In -Situ Level TROLLs) at many locations document the influence in the short-term by large rain events, or several smaller events in a short amount of time, but some do not appear to be influenced in the long- term and their hydroperiods do not always respond logically to rainfall. These rainfall/hydroperiod variations make it difficult to directly correlate mine activities to a decrease in wetland hydroperiod in all cases. Aside from rainfall, hydrology at some wells can also be influenced by large Tar River discharges and by wind tides, which further complicates interpretation. With addition of 2018 in the wetland hydrology analysis, both prongs at Huddles Cut had significantly longer hydroperiods in post -Mod Alt L years when all well data were combined; Jacks Creek and Tooley Creek also had longer mean hydroperiods for most locations post -Mod Alt L but not significantly. Like last year, one well on Jacks Creek recorded shorter wetland hydroperiods post -Mod Alt L; this change may be driven by a marked increase in common reed in the well vicinity. In each creek affected by Mod Alt L, some wells had longer wetland hydroperiods post -Mod Alt L while others had shorter ones. At all creeks, annual rainfall was higher in 2018 than 2017; however, rainfall was not significantly different between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years at any creek. It is difficult to conclude if changes in hydrology at Huddles Cut were due to Mod -Alt L impacts, after effects from Hurricane Irene, concomitant regional changes in salinity and/or climate, or a combination. It does not appear mining activities have altered the hydrology for Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, and Porter Creek. In the 2016 report, hydrology data from the LevelTROLLs in Huddles Cut and Tooley Creek were analyzed with regression models of before, during, and after pump operation in deep wells around the mine perimeter (the deep well pumps around Jacks Creek were still in operation so it was excluded). The analysis showed there was no major impact on the response of the Huddles Cut and Tooley Creek LevelTROLLs to pump operation; regression models were similar but not identical. At least a one -day lag in response to rainfall was noted in the post -pump operation period in Huddles Cut and Tooley Creek. The analysis of Huddles Cut was extended to include 2017 and results showed that the one -day lag response to rainfall remained, although shortened for some wells whose original lag response was more than one -day. The same analysis was performed for the 2017 report with Jacks Creek hydrology data and the deep well pump operation times (only three deep wells were used in the Jacks Creek analysis compared to 12 for Huddles Cut). The 2017 results were similar to Huddles Cut as the lag number of days for rainfall to become an important predictor changed from 0 day to 1 day for the periods During and Post pump operation, for most of the Jacks Creek LevelTROLLs. The analysis was run again for this 2018 report for Huddles Cut and Jacks Creek (six deep wells were used for Jacks in the 2018 analysis) in addition to a new analysis of three Level TROLLs in upper Porter Creek. Each analysis has shown that the pump operation in the deep water wells had not changed the positive impact of rainfall on hydrology for nearly every Level TROLL in all creeks (with the exception of JWSB, HMW9, and HWW7). For most of the Level TROLLs in Huddles Cut the lag number of days for rainfall to become an important predictor changed from 0 day to 1 day for the periods During and Post pump operation. In Jacks Creek the rainfall lags were similar to the results in Huddles Cut in the 2017 report; however, with the addition of the 2018 data and adjusted During/Post periods, Jacks Creek important predictor variables were similar among Pre, During, and Post periods. Additional years of water quality data may yield different findings; however, the water quality data analyzed by Dr. David Kimmel of ECU for the 2013 report did include all years for all water quality monitoring stations and no deleterious effects related to the mine were detected. For the 2014 report, all years of data were used again but grouped in two data sets for spatial and temporal analysis and comparison. The first set included all years between 1999-2011 for Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. The second set included all years from 2012 through the current year for all creeks. For this 2018 report, and presumably going forward unless directed otherwise, only the second data set will be used for analysis as the information in the first data set would never change or produce a different result. The 2012 - 2018 analyses and comparison indicated that variability in water quality was typical of estuarine creeks and followed a distinct seasonal pattern. Water quality in creeks impacted by Mod Alt L followed a temporal trend that was also influenced by the spatial location of the water quality monitoring station. Creeks with the most recent impact (Porter Creek and DCUT11) showed higher variability in water quality parameters than before, but due to their proximity to the Pamlico River estuary this variability was less pronounced than the previously impacted creeks further from the river. However, Porter Creek had a statistically significant reduction in conductivity and significant increases in turbidity and most nutrient parameters. Creeks that have been impacted further in the past combined both post -Mod Alt-L conditions and weather and water quality appeared to present a persistent trend in terms of intra- annual variability. This indicated that stabilization of the water quality parameters is likely to continue. The majority of water quality changes pre- and post -Mod Alt-L were not ecologically significant, as no changes in ecosystem structure or function were detected. Continued monitoring will determine if these changes persist and analysis of the other creeks suggest water quality conditions become more consistent over time. For sediment and water column metals, no statistical differences and no obvious trends have been found to indicate that mine continuation has changed either sediment or water column metal concentration relative to changes observed in control creeks or relative to changes observed pre -Mod Alt L. In fact, sediment values for Al, Cr, Cu, and Zn were statistically significantly higher in pre -Mod Alt L years relative to post -Mod Alt L years, and Al and Cu were statistically significantly higher in control creeks relative to post -Mod Alt L creeks. No metal water column values in post -Mod Alt L years were statistically elevated relative to pre -Mod Alt L years. In every creek, at least two of seven metals with means higher than earlier studies (As, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mo, Se, and Zn) have occurred; higher means for all seven metals have occurred in pre - Mod Alt L years in Jacks Creek and post -Mod Alt L Drinkwater Creek while four control creeks have also had higher means for these seven metals (Little, PA2, Long, and Duck). For a number of the seven metals, means in many of the creeks also were higher than world oceans or world rivers, and higher than the values collected from the three local creeks in the 1998 study. All creek means were above chronic marine aquatic life criteria for Cu; pre -Mod Alt L Cu means in Drinkwater and Jacobs creeks and Huddles Cut exceeded acute marine aquatic life criteria, as did the means in six control creeks (Little, PA2, Long, Muddy, DCUT19, and Duck). However, changes in laboratory methods and laboratory equipment may contribute to some of the differences when results are compared to the earlier studies. With the exception of one anomalous measurement of Zn in Jacks Creek, concentrations of sediment metals or concentrations of water column metals in the studied creeks are not likely to be associated with detectable biological effects. There have been some changes to canopy cover and vegetation in monitored plots in portions of some study creeks and variability to wetland hydroperiods at some locations. Most of the dominant species surveyed in 2018 were dominants in previous years. There was one new dominant in Jacks Creek and three new dominants in Tooley Creek; all new dominants were brackish intolerant. When pre- and post -Mod Alt L percentages of brackish intolerant dominants were compared for creeks overall, the main and west prongs of Huddles Cut were significantly lower post -Mod Alt L and Jacks Creek and Tooley Creek were not. Through a SIMPROF, based on the presence/absence of species, temporally closer years were more similar to one another than less recent years for all creeks, including control creeks. For the creeks with many years of data (Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut), some of the differences between pre- and post -Mod Alt L may be related to changes in the ecosystem over the years due to natural processes, disturbances from hurricanes, and sea level rise. However, no changes detected over the course of the study can be confidently connected to mine activities, with the exception of the upper end of the west prong of Huddles Cut. Part of one of the most upstream vegetation transects on the west prong underwent physical changes in 2012 driven by surface depressions related to an unstable near -surface discontinuous lithologic unit known as the Croatan Clay. These depressions seemed to stem from proximity to the mine perimeter canal which caused dewatering and/or piping in this unit. This is the only known occurrence and review of previous boring records from the South Creek side of Mod Alt L found no other locations of concern regarding the Croatan Clay. As of the end of 2016, the mine had progressed around all of the study creeks along South Creek and no other surface depressions were noted. Wetland hydroperiods in two nearby wells in Huddles Cut west prong seem to have also been affected by either proximity to the dewatering of the Croatan Clay, or a reduction in drainage basin, or a combination of both factors since their wetland hydroperiods were decreasing before the depressions formed. No change in fish forage base or assemblages of managed species due to mine activity were apparent. Multivariate cluster analysis of fish for all creeks and all collection years revealed some differences based on gear type (fyke net vs trawl) and also separated some pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years within clusters; however, the multivariate cluster analysis did not reveal distinct changes in fish assemblages due to mine activities within the drainage basins of Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, Huddles Cut, Porter Creek, or DCUT11. The fish guild dendrograms also show no clear trend among the pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages that could indicate potential effects from mine activities; no one cluster consisted of solely post -Mod Alt L data. As with richness and abundance data, most other post -Mod Alt L guild creek -years were distributed into clusters which also contained a corresponding pre -Mod Alt L year for the same creek or for a control creek. Temporal variability analysis of water quality variables displayed strong positive correlation for five of 13 creeks (Jacks, PA2, Jacobs, Drinkwater, and Duck) with SAV and/or phosphate (total dissolved and particulate), pH, and dissolved organic carbon as the four environmental variables most important in fish trophic guild structure. Refinements and modifications to taxonomic information often change over time based on additional information collected about particular species or professional consensus/agreement; in addition there are times when species are "lumped together" and then later "split". With the PCS creeks benthic data, numerous name changes have occurred over the years (e.g., Hobsonia florida became Amphicteus floridus, Tubificidae became Naididae), often between one year's report and the next. Identification guides published since the early years of the 18-year study also provide confidence that an Apochorophium unidentified to species in a given earlier year was either A. lacustre or A. louisianum, species which are now grouped in the multivariate database and treated as one, A. lacustre/louisianum; for taxa richness and calculation of EBI, they are separated. Every year, the creeks benthic database was updated to reflect the taxonomy for each taxon collected that year; but not until multivariate analysis required the entire benthic database across all years for the 2013 report was the entire database updated taxonomically for the dendrograms produced in each subsequent report. For four of the seven creeks whose basins have been reduced by Mod Alt L activities, comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L interannual variability at upstream and downstream benthic stations of both sweep and ponar collections within each creek detected spatial differences of statistical significance between macroinvertebrate communities as follows: Huddles Cut upstream sweeps, Tooley Creek/Jacobs Creek upstream and downstream sweeps and downstream ponars, and Drinkwater Creek upstream sweeps. This result suggests that close to 71 percent of the 2018 comparisons (20 out of 28) in the impacted creeks showed the benthic macroinvertebrate community of post -Mod Alt L years as similar to that of the pre -Mod Alt L years; thus, it is difficult to discern any mine -related patterns in benthic macroinvertebrate communities. The sweeps and ponar richness and abundance dendrograms show no clear trend among the pre- and post -Mod Alt L macrobenthic data that could indicate potential effects from mine activities and, importantly, no clusters consisted of solely post -Mod Alt L data. Except for Huddles Cut, sweep and ponar years/locations richness and abundance are distributed into clusters represented by similar years/locations for the control creeks and/or other pre -Mod Alt L creek -years. For Huddles Cut, the analysis showed that most pre- and post -Mod Alt L years commonly clustered together, although usually with no other creek. The clusters continue to point to the uniqueness of Huddles Cut compared to other creeks. The macrobenthic guild dendrograms also show no clear trend among the pre- and post - Mod Alt L data that could indicate potential effects from mine activities and no cluster consisted solely of post -Mod Alt L data this year. As with richness and abundance data, most other post -Mod Alt L years for the guilds were distributed into clusters which also contained a pre -Mod Alt L year for the same creek or a control creek. The mixed model ANOVA on guild composition showed that changes in the benthic communities of two impact creeks post -Mod Alt L did significantly differ than the changes in benthic communities of their respective control creeks during the same xxxiv time periods. In Jacks Creek there was a decrease in gatherer/collector guild and an increase in filterer/collector and grazer and/or scraper guilds in post -Mod Alt L years when compared to Little Creek (control). In Jacobs Creek, parasite guild decreased during post -Mod Alt L, but increased in Long Creek (a control); yet parasite guild also decreased in PA2, a closer control creek. There was also an increase of scraper guild in Jacobs Creek and a simultaneous increase in grazer guild in Long Creek. xxxv INTRODUCTION A. Background In November 2000, PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS) applied for authorization to continue its phosphate mining operations on the Hickory Point peninsula (NCPC Tract) adjacent to the Pamlico River and South Creek once phosphate reserves were depleted under the 1997 permitted area for Alt E. In 2001, the environmental impact statement (EIS) process was begun for mine continuation. The Corps established that it would be appropriate to consider holistic mine plans that included more than one tract; PCS then proposed alternatives in two additional tracts (Bonnerton and South of Route 33 [S33]). In January 2009, the NC Division of Water Quality (now Division of Water Resources-NCDWR) issued PCS a 401 Water Quality Certification (#2008-0868 version 2.0; Certification No. 3771) and in June of 2009, the Corps issued PCS a 404 permit (Action ID 200110096) for activities associated with Modified Alternative L (Mod Alt L) which would occur over 35 years in the three tracts (Figure I -Al). As the Mod Alt L mine advance continues temporary drainage basin reductions for several small estuarine tributaries of South Creek and the Pamlico River, the 2009 USACE permit and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Certification contained conditions that required the continuation of creeks monitoring required under the previous 1997 permit. To detect any deleterious effects on these tributaries from the Mod Alt L advance, development of a new creeks plan of study, expanded to include more creeks (from three to 13) and more parameters, and formation of an advisory Science Panel were also required. The new creeks plan of study was first approved in February 2011. After the first science panel meeting (2012) and discussion of the first annual report produced under the new plan of study (2011 year), additional revisions and clarifications were incorporated into the creeks plan of study which was finalized in September 2012. Table I -Al shows the monitoring by parameter for each creek and Table I-A2 shows the monitoring parameters, equipment type or field methods, and monitoring frequency. In April of 2012, the Corps approved a request made by PCS for a one-time modification to Special Condition V of the 2009 permit/ROD to change the due date of the annual report from 1 May to 1 June 2012. In March of 2013, the Corps approved a request made by PCS to modify Special Conditions V and W of the 2009 permit/ROD: Special Condition V was modified to allow the annual creeks monitoring reports to be completed by 1 July (instead of 1 May) of the following year and Special Condition W was modified to allow the Science Panel to meet no later than 30 August of the following year (instead of 30 July). Recipients of the PCS Creeks Monitoring Plan of Study were provided addendum pages to document these modifications. In 2013, pre -Mod Alt L monitoring began in DCUT11 and its control creek, DCUT19, both of which are tributaries to Durham Creek. A new salinity monitor was also added near the downstream end of Durham Creek. With the Durham Creek watershed monitoring sites included, all equipment is now in place to monitor the entire suite of locations and parameters north of NC33 in the vicinity of the NCPC and Bonnerton tracts as specified in the final creeks monitoring plan of study (16 monitoring locations, of which 13 are creeks monitored for multiple parameters (six control creeks and seven impact creeks), and three locations serve as additional control locations for water depth and salinity only). Over the years of the PCS creeks study, rules for state -certified laboratories, laboratory method and/or laboratory equipment, or field equipment has changed. Occasionally, laboratory and/or field methods or equipment calibrations are refined, or changed to reflect either better practices, or new equipment, or both. For this report, Appendix F and Appendix G of the 2011 final plan (CZR 2011; revised September 2012) were updated to reflect current office, field, and I-A-1 laboratory methods, practices, and equipment. Both are included in Supplement 1 of this year's report. The plan to address Water Quality Certification Condition 13 and 404 Permit Condition S requires monitoring of one of the South Creek tributary creeks in the South of Hwy 33 (S33) mining tract. Efforts began to select the appropriate S33 impact creek to monitor, prepare a monitoring plan, and submit a CAMA permit for new monitoring pier construction. Broomfield Swamp Creek was selected as the monitored impact creek and a nearby unnamed tributary to South Creek (SCUT1) as control. Mine progress into the Broomfield Swamp Creek drainage area was projected to occur in the 2022-2023 time frame. To confidently acquire at least five years of pre -data, 2018 was the target year to begin; however, timing of final plan approval and completion of the monitoring pier construction did not allow all data to be collected for the entire year for each parameter. Supplement 2 of this report contains the final monitoring plan for Broomfield Swamp Creek and raw data collected in 2018 (wetland hydrology, fish and benthos, YSI hand-held water quality measurements taken during fish/benthos collections, and ECU water quality samples from the most downstream proposed pier location in Broomfield Swamp Creek and in SCUT1). Since not all parameters were collected for the entire year, no analysis on the 2018 raw data was done; however, ECU laboratory results for the samples that were collected are included. The first pre -Mod Alt L year with complete data and comparative or statistical analyses will be 2019. 1.0 Drainage Basin Acreage Adjustments Progress of the mine across a watershed is determined on an annual acreage basis. As evident in Table I -Al, some monitoring parameters are collected once a year only and others are collected throughout the year. Data collection for a parameter in a specific watershed may occur prior to the mine progress through that watershed for that year or, in the case of parameters collected throughout the year, mine progress through the watershed may have affected only the data collected in the last portion of the calendar year. The NCDWQ (now NCDWR) agreed during the previous PCS creeks study that "significant measurable results" were not likely to be determined "until 10 percent or more of the basin was impacted". The 10 percent threshold was developed specifically for Alt E impacts in Tooley Creek yet remains an important factor in the determination of the first post -Mod Alt L year in a given creek. To determine the percentage of basin impact and to increase accuracy of analysis, drainage basin quantification is recalculated annually at the end of each mine advance year. Over the course of the creeks study, basin acreage calculations have been refined as past basin alteration activities were uncovered and digital tools improved (e.g., LiDAR); the 2013 data analysis was no exception. In calculation of the percent impacts to assign 2013 as pre- or post -Mod Alt L for a given creek (10 percent reduction threshold on current basin), it was discovered that the drainage basins of the NCPC creeks had actually been reduced prior to Alt E by the construction of a canal inside the Alt E boundary dug in the late 1970s or early 1980s. This canal cut off the NCPC creeks from portions of their historic drainage basin and resulted in several corrections. It reduced the historic basin acreage, the Alt E baseline acreage, and the basin remaining after Alt E for each NCPC creek shown in previous annual reports. These reductions affected the pre -Alt E and pre -Mod Alt L basins and subsequent percent reductions shown for some creeks in previous annual reports. This correction prompted PCS and CZR to re -consult the ROD and Science Panel meeting notes for additional guidance on what is most appropriate to use as the "current" basin for calculation of Mod Alt L percent reduction. For the new creeks added under the expanded creeks plan of study, the "current" basin represents conditions prior to Mod Alt L and after Alt E impacts; thus some years for creeks with longer data sets (Jacks Creek, Tooley I-A-2 Creek, Muddy Creek, and Huddles Cut) were not included in the 2013 report evaluation of Mod Alt L. Previously, construction of the perimeter canal has always been used as the first "impact" to a creek. However, at the 2013 Science Panel meeting (2012 report), it was recognized that in some creeks, prior to construction of the perimeter canal, there may be other mine development activities in a basin which interrupt the surface flow of storm water downstream. These other activities may include construction of perimeter berms or roads or an internal storm water ditch. It was also agreed that there would be no effort to identify these activities retroactively; such activities would be identified and used to determine first onset of impacts only from 2013 forward. 2.0 Pre- and Post -Mod Alt L Year Data Set Revisions As indicated above, some mine -related impacts may have occurred in previous years, but basin reductions must exceed 10 percent of a creek basin before a year is included in the post -impact data set for all parameters. However, in 2011, the Science Panel recognized that of all the parameters, vegetation is the most likely to have a delayed response to mine impacts and that vegetation would not be surveyed as the mine moved through a basin (transition year[s]) nor the first year after the mine had progressed beyond the basin (post - transition year). Therefore, the years of post -Mod Alt L vegetation in a creek do not always match the post -Mod Alt L years for other parameters in the same creek. At the August 2014 Science Panel meeting (2013 report), there was discussion about the pre- and post -Mod Alt L arrangement of years used for 2013 report analysis (post- Alt E years were considered baseline or "current condition" or pre -Mod Alt L, i.e., a creek was presumed stabilized post -Alt E and pre -Alt E data were excluded). It was decided that the Corps, NCDWR, PCS and CZR should meet to determine the most sensible arrangement of data within the regulatory framework of the Section 404 permit/ROD and the NCDWR water quality certification (monitor effects from mine continuation under the permitted Mod Alt L boundary) and the scientific framework (more data is considered better even if not perfect). This meeting occurred 15 January 2015 at the Corps' Washington NC regional office and also included Dr. Dave Kimmel from East Carolina University. The natural variability within and between these tributaries, acknowledgment of transition years in response to impacts, the difficulty of interpretation of data in dynamic systems, and the imperfection of the data (virtually no creek has been unaffected by prior mine or other human activities), were important factors considered during the January 2015 meeting. Since inclusion of all data increases the statistical power and is likely beneficial to the overall question about stability of creek functions, despite data imperfections, it was determined at the January 2015 meeting that all data years for each creek would be included in all future analysis and data collected prior to Mod Alt L impacts will be considered pre -Mod Alt L. For some creeks, this combines data from the years before impacts from Alt E, the years during impacts of Alt E, and the years post -Alt E (potential years of "stabilization" to a reduced basin condition) as pre - Mod Alt L data. In Huddles Cut, pre -Mod Alt L years include pre -Alt E years and during -Alt E years but would lack any post -Alt E years because Alt E impacts stopped and Mod Alt L impacts began in the same year (2010). The final creeks study plan (CZR 2011; revised September 2012) indicated vegetation did not need to be collected every year and agencies had already agreed that vegetation did not need to be sampled during the year(s) of impact to the drainage basin or the first transition year post -impact (CZR 2014). At the August 2017 Science Panel meeting (2016 data report review) further clarifications were discussed about the interval between post -Mod Alt L vegetation surveys. It was agreed that as originally planned, five years of pre -Mod Alt L vegetation data would be collected when possible, that four years of post -Mod Alt L data would I-A-3 be collected after the transition year(s), and that after four years of post -Mod Alt L vegetation data collection the fifth year would be skipped. In a certified letter sent to USACE and NCDWR on 12 September 2017, PCS made further clarifications on the frequency and proposed that after the fifth year post -Mod Alt L (the first skipped year), that vegetation be surveyed every other year until such time that the agencies or Science Panel members deem otherwise. At the 2018 Science Panel meeting (2017 data report review), the agencies agreed to the interval described in the PCS September 2017 letter. A copy of the August 2018 USACE letter of approval for the clarified vegetation monitoring interval is included in Supplement 1. As a result of the January 2015 decision, the 10 percent impact threshold, the transition years for vegetation, the August 2017 discussion, and the September 2018 clarification, the summary data comparisons and analysis in this year's report are based on the following: Jacks Creek: pre -Mod Alt L years = 1998-2005 and 2011-2014; post - Mod Alt L years = 2015-2018. Only vegetation, metals, and benthos data available for evaluation from 1998. Incomplete data exist for 1999 (flow, salinity, hydrology, metals, and water quality) and 2011 (flow, salinity, metals, and water quality). No vegetation data were collected in 2015 or 2016 (transition years) and post -Mod Alt L vegetation data were collected in 2017 and 2018. Jacobs Creek: pre -Mod Alt L years = 2011-2013; post Mod -Alt L years = 2014-2018. Incomplete data exist for salinity and water quality in 2011, as the new monitoring plan was incrementally implemented. Transition years for vegetation are 2014-2016 and post -Mod Alt L vegetation data were collected in 2017 and 2018. Drinkwater Creek: pre -Mod Alt L years = 2011-2012; post Mod -Alt L years = 2013-2018. Incomplete data exist for salinity and water quality in 2011, as the new monitoring plan was incrementally implemented, and no vegetation data were collected from 2012 (it was anticipated to be an impact year, but by end of the year, less than 10 percent of the basin had been reduced). Transition years for vegetation are 2013-2015 and post -Mod Alt L vegetation data were collected in 2016-2018. Tooley Creek: pre -Mod Alt L years = 1998-2002, 2010 and 2011; post Mod -Alt L years = 2012-2018. Only vegetation, metals, and benthos data are available for evaluation from 1998. Only flow data and portions of salinity, hydrology, and water quality data are available from 2002. Incomplete data exist for 1999 (flow, salinity, hydrology, metals, and water quality) and 2011 (vegetation; only eastern drainage monitored due to hurricane debris). Post -Mod Alt L vegetation data were collected in 2015-2018. Huddles Cut: pre -Mod Alt L years = 1998-2002 and 2007-2009; post Mod -Alt L years = 2010-2018. Only vegetation and metals data are available for evaluation from 1998. Incomplete data exist for 1999 (flow, salinity, hydrology, metals, and water quality). Only flow data and portions of salinity, hydrology, and water quality data are available from 2002. Transition years for vegetation are 2010-2012. Post -Mod Alt L vegetation data were collected in 2013, 2014, and I-A-4 2016-2018. Per the September 2018 clarification, the fourth year of post -Mod Alt L vegetation data will be collected in 2019; the every other year interval will begin in 2020. • Porter Creek: pre -Mod Alt L years = 2011-2015; post -Mod Alt L years = 2016-2018. As 2016-2017 were impact years and 2018 was transition year, no vegetation data were collected. The first post -Mod Alt L vegetation survey will occur in 2019. • DCUT11: pre -Mod Alt L years = 2013-2017. This is the last NCPC or Bonnerton tract creek permitted to be impacted by Mod Alt L. No vegetation data were collected in 2018 (impact year) or will be collected in 2019 (transition year). The first post -Mod Alt L vegetation survey will occur in 2020. I-A-5 p � A44t `CO PCs PHOSPHATE PLANT SITE CaEtu am Om, - SOUTH OF 4w SS n0R CREEk R�v�R arr NCPC 'v�+i3�nc CREEK UDDY 09 K* R A fo] 9ClR, a Cl1M SWAMP _ �,. _ f� evufoaaz a:ouam U �s •'8 KU Mw IID1 •0 lCJiL LEGENn Vicinity M o p MODIFIED ALT L BOUNDARIES PC$ PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. CONTROL CREEKS Scale: As shown Or wwn E, TLJ IMPACT CREEKS ].000 0 ].00a Frei aa� oaae: oa o3 1 s File: 174547CREEK_VIC_1018 Approved by: Figure I —At Figure I -Al. Vicinity map of monitored creeks in the PCS creeks study. Table I -Al. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L impact data collection by parameter and by creek according to the 2011 plan of study. The year 2009 marks the end of Alt E activities and the beginning of Mod Alt L activities. Metals were sampled in the water column and the sediment beginning in 2011; in earlier years only sediment was sampled. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 JFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJA90NDJFMAMJJA90NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NI JFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0ND SitelParameter Jacks Creek Flow Sainity Wetland water level incomplete Water quality Vegetation M Fish p 4'!!!d IM IM IM FM IM IM 77777M IM 1777777777A Benthos Metals no data South Creek (control} Water depth Salinity Little Creek (control) Salinity Water quality Fish Benthos m o o Metals 0 °C Jacobs Creek Flow U Samdy Wetland water level 0 Water quality 2f Vegetation :iE Fish MM Benthos Metals PA2 (control) Sainity Water quality Fish Benthos Metals Ornkwater Creek Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation data Fish p�h � pno I� Benthos Metals FA FA U pre -Mod AK L a post-od Alt L ■ control creek I-A-7 Table I -Al (continued). 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Site/Parameter J F MA MJ J AS ON DJ F M A M J J ASON DJ F MA MJ J ASON D J F tvlA MJ J AS oN DJ F MA MJ J A SON DJ F MA MJ J ASON D Jacks Creek Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ FTT ❑ ❑ transition I- ❑ ❑ transition ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ South Creek (control) Water depth Salinity Little Creek (control'; Salinity Water quality Fish Benthos Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Jacobs Creek Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ transition transition ❑ transition ❑ m ❑ m a ❑ La ❑ PA2 (control) Salinity Water quality Fish Benthos Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Drinkwater Creek Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals a^s t o^ ❑ ❑ transition ❑ ❑ transition ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p•e-Mod Alt L ❑ post -Mod Alt L 0 co^t•o c•ee� Table I -Al (continued). SitelParameter 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 m 0 N z_ z 2007 2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 JFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0ND JFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJJAS0ND Long Creek (control) Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthc s Metals ❑ Tooley Creek Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthc s Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ I incomplete 177777777/7 ❑ nodata n�o lete �� ❑ ❑ transition ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ UE/i ❑ ❑ Muddy Creek (control) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ no data ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ no data a ❑ ❑ a a ❑ ❑ a 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ Fish Benthcs Metals Pamlico Rarer (control] o Water depth Salinity Z 0 0 z Huddles Cut Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Bentho s Metals FA ❑ ❑ ircornplete M ❑ nodata nccm lete M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ transibn IN transtion IN transition ❑ ❑ Porter Creek Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthc s Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ pre -Mod Alt L 0 post -Mod Alt L 0 control creek two Table I -Al (continued). 2013 1 2014 1 2015 2016 2017 2018 Site/Parameter J F M A M J J ASONDIJFMAMJJ ASO N D J F MA M J J AS ON D J F M AM J J AS C N D J F M AM J J ASO N D J F MA M J J ASO N D Long Creek (control) Flaw Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals I� L:J ❑ I--� L:J ❑ I--� a L:J R ❑ L:J ❑ Lj ❑ L:J Lj Tooley Creek Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals transition ❑ ❑ transition ❑ W ❑ W a a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Muddy Creek (control) Fish Benthos Metals ❑ ❑ C3 ❑ a a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Pamlico River (control) Water depth Salinity Huddles Cut Flaw Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals ❑ a a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Porter Creek Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1777/77111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ transition ❑ ❑ transition ❑ ❑ transition ❑ ❑ FA pre -Mod Alt L W post -Mod Alt L U control creek I-A-10 Table I -Al (concluded). Site/Parameter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 J F MAMJ J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASOND Durham Creek (control) Water depth Salinity DCUT11 Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals F////M F/7777M ❑ F/////M ❑ ❑ transition ❑ ❑ DCUT19 (control) Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ C:J ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C:J ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Duck Creek (control) Flow Salinity Wetland water level Water quality Vegetation Fish Benthos Metals ❑ ❑ ❑ L:J ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L:J ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L:J ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ pre -Mod Alt L ❑ post -Mod Alt L ❑ control creek I-A-11 Table I-A2. Monitored parameters, equipment, and frequency of data collection. Water quality samples are collected and Aqua TROLLS are downloaded every two weeks. Rain gauges and Level TROLLS are downloaded once a month. Parameter I Methods/Equipment Frequency Hydrology - shallowgroundwater/surface water Wetland hydrology - alluvial bottomland LevelTROLLS Every 1.5 hours/monthly field check Estuarine/creek water levels AquaTROLLS Every 1.5 hours/2 week field check Flow events Observation' Monthly field check Water Quality Salinity/conductivity/temperature AquaTROLLS Every 1.5 hours/2 week field check Total dissolved phosphorus Field to lab Every 2 weeks Dissolved orthosphosphate Field to lab Every 2 weeks Ammonium nitrogen Field to lab Every 2 weeks Nitrate nitrogen Field to lab Every 2 weeks Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen Field to lab Every 2 weeks Particulate nitrogen Field to lab Every 2 weeks Particulate phosphorus Field to lab Every 2 weeks Chlorophyll a Field to lab Every 2 weeks Total organic carbon (TOC) Field to lab Every 2 weeks Particulate organic carbon (POC) Field to lab Every 2 weeks Total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) Field to lab Every 2 weeks Metals in water Field to lab August (Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mo Se, Zn) Metals in sediment Field to lab August (Al, Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mo, Se, Zn) Rainfall by major basin I Texas Electronic rain qauqe I Continuous; every 0.1 inch Benthos - estuarine Ponar and sweep May Fish - estuarine Otter trawl/tyke net Weekly - April thru June Vegetation - alluvial bottomland Transects (herb and shrub plots) FLate growing season - Aug/Sept2 In -situ water quality parameters Monitored in conjunction with Weekly with fish collections fish/benthos sampling, and/or Spring with benthos collections water quality sample collections Every two weeks w/WQ collections - water temperature YSI handheld - dissolved oxygen YSI handheld - conductivity YSI handheld - specific conductivity YSI handheld - salinity YSI handheld - pH YSI handheld - turbidity w/WQ Turbidimeter - secchi depth w/fish/benthos Secchi disc - water depth w/fish/benthos Tape measure - percent SAV visible w/fish/benthos Visual Low flow gauges removed from Porter Creek and Duck Creek; production of additional units unlikely 2Not all creeks are monitored every year. I-A-12 B. Creeks Monitored in 2018 The year 2018 was the sixth year of data collection of the full suite of creeks and parameters established by the final creeks plan of study for the Mod Alt L permit boundary north of NC Highway 33 (NCPC and Bonnerton tracts). The year 2016 marked the completion of all permitted impacts within the Mod Alt L boundary in the NCPC Tract. Data collection locations in all monitored creeks are shown in Figures I-B1 through 1-1316. Post -Mod Alt L data collection continued in six previously impacted creek drainage basins: Jacks Creek (Figure 1-131), Jacobs Creek (Figure 1-134), Drinkwater Creek (Figure 1-136), Tooley Creek (Figure I-B8), Huddles Cut (Figure I-B11), and Porter Creek (Figure I-B12); post Mod -Alt L monitoring began in DCUT1 1 (Figure I-B14). Data collection also continued in the nine previously established control creek locations: South Creek (Figure 1-132), Little Creek (Figure 1-133), PA2 (Figure I-B5), Long Creek (Figure I- 137), Muddy Creek (Figure 1-139), Pamlico River (Figure I-B10), Durham Creek (Figure 1-1313), DCUT19 (Figure I-B15), and Duck Creek (Figure 1-1316). During analysis of the 2018 report vegetation, it became apparent that most of the baseline geomorphology information collected in 2011 for Long Creek (control) was along the estuarine edges of the upper creek and not in the vicinity of the vegetation transect and monitoring wells. Additional data were collected in April 2019 to supplement information in Table 1-135 in the 2011 report. Measurements and descriptions collected in spring 2019 from the vicinity of the vegetation transect and wells are shown in Table I-B1 (2019 GPS points 5 — 10). Figure 1-131. Data collection locations in Jacks Creek. NOTE: uata collection Location in NO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES . BONN OUTSIDE THE 2004 ® South Creek Control BASE BOUBIOTIC DARIESCOMMU (NCPITIM PED RTCN.OUTSIDE 533) PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION souRce AERIALS PRWDED BY, PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY. INC. 300 0 300 Few Scale: As shown Drawn by: TLJ —0 INC HIGH— 306 SOUTH, AURORA, NORTH Date: 05/15/19 lFile. 174547/SOUTH-CREEK_2018 OAROEINA 2T506. 252-322-5121. RATE: JANUART 2018 Approved by: jm';L sm lFigure 1-62 Figure 1-132. Data collection location in South Creek. I-B-3 LL A %X k ® o 9 LL rlm w Ttn, t i .� „q 4_ ♦- r - 1 r ' t 4DMN t. � 4 �'�� • • f NOTE: Data Collection Locations in NO BIOTIC BOUNDARIES (NCs , HOND OUTSIDE 6 THE 2004 ® Project Area 2 PA2 Control BASE BOUNDARIES (NCPC, BONNERUTSI 533) PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION SOURCE: Seale: As shown lDrown by: TLJ 15 0 NC ED BY: POS PHOSPHATE COMPANY. INC. 200 0 200 Fs.f CHIGHWAY OB SOUTH. AURORA. NORM Date: 05/15/19 F11e: 174547 PA2_CREEK_2010 CAROUNA 27008, 252-322-5121. DATE: JAIIUAFf 2019 Approved by: IFloure —B$ Figure I-B5. Data collection locations in PA2. I-B-6 i T_ N0IE UC3Ta C..OIIeCTIOn LOCa TIOns In RA BIOTIC CDMMSNHIES , BDNH OON. S THE 2004 ® Drinkwater Creek BASE OTIC CMMUIES ITIES(NCPIPPEO 0ON, 535} PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION SOURCE: 4oa 0 400 F..t Scale: As shown Drawn b : TLJ AERALS PRQADED BY: PC5 PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. Dale: 05 15 19 F116: 174547 0RINKWATER_ 1530 NO HIGHWAY 306 50UTH. AUROR0. NORTH CREE 018 CAROLINA 27805. 252-322-5121. DATE: JANUARY 2019 Approved by: IFIgure 1-86 Figure 1-136. Data collection locations in Drinkwater Creek. I-B-7 .el a i 1 F it's "Q^ •NOTE: Data Collection Locations in NO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES . BONN OUi51OE THE 2004 ® Lon Creek Control .145E TIC CORIES {NCPC, BONNERUTSI 533} PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION SOURCE; 400 0 400 F-11 Seale: As shown Drawn by: TLJ AERNIS PROVIDED BY: PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY. INC. Date. 05/15/19 File: 174547/LONG_CREEI(_201t 153o NO HIGHWAY 306 SOUTH. AURORA NORTH CAROUNA 27808, 252-322-5121. LATE: 3WUARY 2019 Approved by: IFlaure 1-87 Figure I-B7. Data collection locations in Long Creek. I-B-8 3 # a -0e y t _yy dw low J Tww Tmem TMIS �. TTrbe1F TWQ7 TW4 TRIM TBi- TWG3 JV '► T82:� r' TOOLEY CHEEK LEGEND ' MODIFIED ALT L PERMIT BOUNDARY 3. �f SEMN000SWELL WRH _ VEpETATIORTAT10N TRANItECT f doo J SEMFCONTINUOUS WELL AND kk PLOW 068ERYATION7VIDEO SITE y�t �F• � ,'•J � SALINITY MONITOR STATION - %� • _`� WATER QUALITY STATION f,l � SEDIMENT STATION RAIN GAUGE FISHIBENTHOS STATION /// BEMTHOS STATION - hhhYYY�� m FY Ali,-i ,t�+' � vF ti �t ' " a WE N�1E NO HIONC COMMUNITIES MAPPED OUTSIDE THE 2004 BASE BOUNDARIES (NCPC, BONNERTON. S33) SOURCE: PERILS PRDIADEO BY: PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. 1530 NC HIGFNIAY 300 SOUTH, AURORA, NORM CAROUNA 27808, 252-322-5121. DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Data Collection Locations in Muddy Creek (Control) PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION I! D BCD F—i Seale: As shown Drawn b : TLJ Date; 05/15/1 9 File: 174547/MUDDY_CREEK_2018 Approved b m'I Pp Y� Fiaure I-89 Figure 1-1139. Data collection locations in Muddy Creek. I-B-10 PCS EMPLOYEE CENTER 1 6 l i A� 0 LSTA. I •x HROO LEGEND MODIFIED ALT L PERMIT BOUNDARY — — ALT E BOUNDARY BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD COMMUNITY SBMFCONTINUOUG WELL WITH VEGETATION TRANSECT - •_ MANUAL WELL SA A LEVa STATION ' RYATIONMDUO SITE '� •P �.. 1.: BQITHOS,ETATION D��i�� Y ' HUDDLES CUT a� R I Wlr Imo / nNNrt1 Is _�, • r4� a •• -ALT: UNDARY IS SHOWN SLIOHSL, , I-- FRON M[ :�� L -� .�NO�dLT L BOUNDARY TO G Y REPRESENT Figure 1-1312. Data collection locations in Porter Creek. I-B-13 :;.iw�Miu'c �cW:.: . 47,:-Jjm sae 47 s J' NOTE: - Data Collection Location NO BIOTIC rOMMUNRIE5 NAPPEO OUTSIDE THE 2004 Durham Creek CContro BASE BOUNDARIES (NCPC. BONNERMN. SM) (Control) PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION SOURCE. 900 0 goo Feet Scale: As shown rawn b : TLJ IBM NO HIGHWAY 306 SOUTH. AURORA CNORTH dN. INC. / / Date: OS 15 19 FIIe:171547/OORNAM_CREEIL201! CAROUNA 27806. 252-322-5121. DATE JNNAAY 2019 Approved by: inure I-1913 Figure 1-1313. Data collection locations in Durham Creek 1-13-14 :r C .M �•�•� �.�~ �J ..:jam - �� A I kk Z--,- f ' I` •� � r Rain Gauge Location N61E: NO R—C C—UN— MAPPED aNI51DE THE zOM Data Collection Locations In BASE BCONOARIES (NCPC, SONNERTCN, 533) Tributary to Durham Creek ® DCUT11 Control PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION 400 a 400 Fact Scale: As shown Drawn by, TLJ AERws PR DE0 w POS PHOSPN9E coNPANY. INC. Date: 05/15/19 File: 174547/ocuT_11 _2o1a 1530 NC HIOMVAY 303 S . AURORA. NORM C1R W VMS. 252-322-5121, DATE: J WCf 2019 Approved by: Figure 1-814 Figure 1-1314. Data collection locations in DCUT11. I-B-15 Figure I-B15. Data collection locations in DCUT19. Figure I-B16. Data collection locations in Duck Creek. I-B-17 Table I-B-1. Geomorphic conditions at Long Creek in vicinity of Level TROLLS 23 April 2019. Site Parameter 5 - at well LOCW213 & veg 7 - at well LOC W1 B transect 6 - upstream of LOCW213 j Long. - Lat. j Site location Lat. 35.33291 1 76.73606 Lat. 35.33316 Long. -76.73656 35.33219 I Long. -76.73582 Channel width feet 3.0 2.0 3.0 Channel depth (inches) 4.0 2.0 4.0 Flood lain width feet 10.0 10.0 10.0 Adjacent sloe(percent) 7-8 5 8-10 Channelized No No No Sediments(%) detritus 15 20 70 sand 10 10 5 silt 70 65 15 clay 0 0 0 muck 5 5 10 Habitat type Bottomland hardwood Headwater forest Bottomland hardwood Site 10 - midway along marshy Parameter 8 -upstream of LOCW1 B 9 -downstream of wells drain j Long. - Lat. j Site location Lat. 35.33174 , 76.73614 Lat. 35.33244 • Long. -76.73546 35.33241 Long. -76.73462 Channel width feet 1.0 6.0 8.0 Channel depth inches 1.0 36.0 48.0 Flood lain width feet 6.0 40 190.0 Adjacent sloe(percent) 3-5 5 0-1 Channelized No No No Sediments(%) detritus 80 10 3 sand 5 0 2 silt 10 80 90 clay 0 0 0 muck 5 10 5 Bottomland hardwood to marsh Habitat type Headwater forest transition zone Marsh - -10 feet I: C. Cumulative and 2018 Mining, Mine -related Activities, and Drainage Basins Overall mine progress through 2018 is visible in a January 2019 aerial photograph with the approximate historic drainage basins and Alt E and Mod Alt L permit boundaries shown (Figure I-Cl). Included in the study for multiple parameters are Porter Creek, DCUT11, and DCUT19, three sub -basins of the much larger Durham Creek (Figure I-C2). A summary of drainage basin alterations of monitored creeks is depicted on a LiDAR base map (Figure 1-3, and Figure I-C4). Drainage basin acreages and reductions have been estimated using these data. Percent basin reductions are presented for several periods of reference (i.e., pre -Alt E, post -Alt E or pre -Mod Alt L, and post -Mod Alt L); however, the focus of the Corps 404 permit and the State 401 certification is associated with Mod Alt L impacts. Although historical percent reduction information is shown in Figure I-Cl and Figure I-C3, this report emphasizes basin reductions and acreages relative to pre- and post- Mod Alt L basin impacts at the end of the report year. Among the creeks monitored for multiple parameters in the study, only DCUT11 was affected by progress of Mod Alt L in 2018 as described below. Huddles Cut drainage basin was last reduced by Mod Alt L in 2011; Tooley Creek drainage basin was last reduced by Mod Alt L in 2013; Drinkwater Creek drainage basin was last reduced by Mod Alt L in 2014; Jacobs Creek and Jacks Creek drainage basins were last reduced by Mod Alt L in 2015; and Porter Creek was last reduced by Mod Alt L in 2017. No additional Mod Alt L reductions will occur to study creeks in the NCPC tract or to Porter Creek and DCUT11 in the Bonnerton tract. Durham Creek is not one of the creeks identified in the study plan for multiple parameter data collection (basin reduction less than 10 percent); however, salinity and water depth are collected at one location approximately 2,500 feet downstream from the mouth of DCUT11 (Figure I-B13). Basin reductions to Durham Creek as a result of Mod Alt L include 128 acres in 2018 (includes 85 acres in DCUT11) and 1,752 acres (includes 1,598 acres in Porter) prior to 2018. Note: the 2017 report accurately showed the Durham Creek drainage basin reduction on Figure I-C2 but Figure I-C3 (impact to Porter Creek) of that report showed only reductions to the Porter Creek drainage basin. 1.0 DCUT11 The first year of Mod Alt L impacts to the 166-acre drainage basin of DCUT11 was 2018. All 84.59 acres of the basin within the Mod Alt L boundary were impacted in 2018 and no additional Mod Alt L impacts will occur in the basin (Figure I-C4). I-C-1 r 'Durham Creek LEGEND Pamlico River HISTORIC DRAINAGE + ` Porter Creek] DCUT19� Huddles Cut Pq JA t 7 ��. ��. ! — — -- South Creek L �-• � � "- ••''! •�,, x .'' !fit �, � \ •..1 \ r - 4 ? yr > ' Tooley Creek f d f /Long Creek / -7 w i,. r-r /J '•' Drinkwater 7 , aA�' r _ \ Creek ' a ! )IT �v _ ' 1` Jacobs Creek ' ` \ -gjdy Creeks ESTIMATED PERCENT REDUCTION OF HISTORIC BASIN THROUGH 2018 4th impact Pre -Alt E Alt E Mod Aft L Cumulative "` •yjf i l • i Jacks Creek 12.13 'Lies Cut 71.45 ' Little Creek ` ' 3,500 o 3,500 Feet ti .. r - . rr LL I-C-3 0 p ❑ m Ci Z � rn � 0 2 N � W x v o wLL ° w N s F- M ~ Q v rn ILS C7 N Nw LL o U) O 3 9a - m co o rm eS u4 m 0 CIO N W r LL N p W - _ W W F Z N W ~ a_ W W Z p d W d - m U � w of a Z �w O da e o m� y a w o Ci O m o 'p J p C~ a a Q a z c` Y m m Q O a a w w a a Q m w p W ° d Q W' Ww N d m Q Q 1�i O O O O O O J W W O a N Q Q Q Q M Y p Z Z W E m N p Q a q a a a a a $ a w cc 0 0 O a - �F z „n tea= - z N - - N q w 'Pk ¢ E � C 3 E a v v v v v v ZO< a o ♦ ♦-� �♦ o w w°w ♦ ' �, a n � n E' LL � ❑ 4 4 ' b E f r N# v c cm J W 1111111 111 1 N W Q o �z 1 Zl< 000 �J- M U LL I-C-4 Legend LI DA R ELEVATIONSIFEET ESTIMATED DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARIES -50 - -1 BONNERTON MOD ALT L BOUNDARY --1 - 0 DURHAM CREEK (INCLUDING PORTER CREEK) BASIN REDUCTIONS PROM TO 2018 =0- 1 DURHAM DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION IN 2018 (43,07 ACRES) =1 - 3 DCUT11 DRAT NAGE BASIN (165,97 ACR ES) 3 - 5 DCUT11 DRAT NAGS BASIN REDUCTION I N 2C18 (84.59 ACRES) 5-B MG-7 =7-8 MB-9 =9-10 =10-11 =11 -12 =12.13 =13-15 =15.18 ®16-23 023-27 �27-30 SOURCE: NORTH CARCUNA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPCRTATION LIDAR CONTOURS AND ELEVATION DATA, DATA GENERATED FROM LIDAR IN MARCH 2O05, NC STATEPLANE, NA083 FEET, ELEV_BEAU FORT. TIP 0 600 1,200 2,400 0 I I I I Scale in Feet DCUT11 DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION THROUGH 2O18 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. Scale: As Shown Drawn By: TLJ Date: 04/24/19 File:174547A.IDAR DURHAM_DB_ REDUC TIC N2018L FIGC4 Approved by: FIGURE I-C4 Figure I-C4. DCUT11 drainage areas impacted by Mod Alt L through 2018. I-C-5 D. Drought Drought conditions are monitored nationally by several indexes. The US Drought Monitor (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu) provides a synthesis of multiple indices and impacts and reflects the consensus of federal and academic scientists on regional conditions on a weekly basis (updated each Thursday). Reported drought conditions in the study areas located on the south and north sides of the Pamlico River were summarized for the years 2000-2005 and 2007-2018 (Table I-D1; drought data begin in 2000). For study creeks on the south side of the Pamlico River, 2002, 2007, and 2008 were the driest years reported, with 77, 79, and 81 percent of weeks with some drought classification. On the south side, four years have never been considered in extreme or exceptional drought and years 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2015 had normal conditions during those entire years (Table I-D1). The driest year reported on the north side of the Pamlico River was 2011 when 28 weeks (54 percent) of the year were assigned some drought classification (Duck Creek data include 2010 through 2018). Other than the years with no drought status mentioned previously, 2015 and 2018 had the least amount of weeks with a drought status on either side of the river. While there was some variation in annual patterns of rainfall or drought status between the two sides of the river, when only the data years in common for both sides of the river are considered (2010-2018), each side had an average of 40 weeks with no drought status. I-D-1 202E ±00 _ n �60, -0omc m o -0 C14 7 07 G 0 a) «G E k Co \ / ° \ z Co » m = $ % 6 $ moo c % 2 / G 2 k o 5 .o � w 0 .0 =3 2) ® _ » 2 I c :3 co o £ / 2 _ -0 7E m @ o G = -0 2 = = I 2ƒk�e ® a)@ £ o6 2 k �cu co ƒ w-c Rya)=� 0 E @ ? E - U = / k 2 � } o.g2-02 CN o a) 5 @ §og7Z 3 /°°�f 4-- CO Co � E .2 / 2 q £ � •C \ E«7§2 / � @� Q2oa) 0) ° m / °° �£ G £ .a ® 2 �(D o o 2 / EE/ _ (n o = ° ¥ Z) m a- .g § , �k\ S/°@ E c c~& 7 g» c= 2 a R%/ Q a= 2®C Q$@ S 7& 0 o e J I o t# o c c o 0 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 o o c o 0 0 0 o o c o 0 0 0 0 Wk R Jf ,= o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � / � �k 2\ o= w o 0 o e w c o/ o 0 0 o c o o n o/ o c o 0 0 0 0_ mp � f mo= � m o 0 0= A r E o 0 o c c o LO n� e o c o 0 0 0C-4 ) k � % kk o 2 e o c) co 2 Q 2 c 2 o= r m% Q 2 Q w m 2 m k « #. / 2 R 2 2 2 S 2/\@ K\@? 2$% G R R 2\ 7& G$@ E■ 0 m @ 3@ g 7§ R@@/ c 2 2 J 2 f 2 2§/ 2 2 J// 2 2§ o c c o 0 0 0 o c c o 0 0 0 o c c o o G o c c o 0 0 0 N N a a a a N N N a a a a Cq� N a a) a Cq N N N a a a a) 2 \ o ®//� \\ c / ° \ d\/W \± \ = m $ o 0 3j/\ m9/ « co m 0-3 7 » pD- E. Extreme Events or Storms Event dates, types, and descriptions of extreme events or storms in Beaufort County that could have affected rainfall, hydrology, and/or salinity data collected during 1998-2005 and 2007-2018 were gathered from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Web site (Table I -El). Event types selected for Beaufort County in the Storm Events Database included: Astronomical Low Tide, Blizzard, Coastal Flood, Drought, Excessive Heat, Extreme Cold/Wind Chill, Flash Flood, Flood, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snow, High Wind, Hurricane (Typhoon), Storm Surge/Tide, Strong Wind, Tropical Depression, Tropical Storm, and Winter Storm. Low Water Event is an additional category included based on local observations or other news sources. Event types were selected based on likelihood of affects to rainfall, hydrology, and/or salinity data. Events that may have been severe in other counties of North Carolina, but were minor in Beaufort County are not shown on the table. Hurricanes and/or tropical storms were the years of the creeks study, there have been affected the area. Hurricanes and tropical stc event. Other extreme events reported over t winds, flash flooding, and severe drought. the events most likely to affect the data. Over 10 hurricanes and six tropical storms that have rms that switch categories are counted as one ie years were heavy snow/winter storms, high There were five recorded extreme events in 2018. On January 3rd light freezing rain changed to snow by early morning hours of January 4t" with accumulations of 5 to 7 inches. Winter storm number two had snow develop during the evening of January 17th and continued through the early morning of January 18th. Snowfall amounts ranged from 3 to 6 inches with more occurring on the eastern side of the county. For event number three the National Weather Service reported record low water levels in the Neuse and Pamlico rivers after prolonged west and southwest winds. Event number four involved strong winds up to 57 mph associated scattered thunderstorms on June 25t". The final event for 2018 is Hurricane Florence which was rated a tropical storm in Beaufort County. This storm brought winds up to 60 mph and rain totals of 4 to 8 inches. Heavy rainfall led to flash floods while storm surge was recorded 4 to 5 feet above ground level. I-E-1 c o ai a a X L o LL r+ o a) L -O m O C -0 } m O Q Q � (D a) o m > u � a) +� 4- 0 H () ate+ 0) C) U) p O O 0 3- c (B O ^` LO c W co o " 70 No M a) E � N � > a) L am 0O O U) O a) L U a) O C L U a O Z v7 >O E O 'O E�I Vi a) E o O -a W _0 m a) () f a) U W a)cu L ' c) c' o a) a cm a ° E 70- CD C o Q a) O Y (� p1 S a O p U C 0 CL a) O O O Q C c co CD O_ a) Oco LL CM a a) -p c c E `° ° T a �_ a c p (L a) O O O a O 3 U p c6 co E Co C N f0 E -0 L N EO 'Up a) T) cu a cnc 3 U C cu 3 CO a) j C cn En a) cn a) o U) 000 C a0 a) c a) a °- a C N c O _� (0 LL co N N N a o C U> L o a) O to Q a o o fU m U (n m C E O 2, c -C a) O C �_ •� EO �o �O U U C ,_ 0 7 N O N U U p C —O -0 `� co E E 0)N E M a O a) m o U .0 N •U O a O U p) O (co c O U 0, � 7 -0 — °O C .E cn (L6 .O Ocu — °n N 0- c6 O 7 a O L •� N a) US cp U N —O 3 .@ cn c 0 -0 E cn Y eo O aUai) E O o ' a) � 3m °m a)¢ c � m° � o- a) a) o a O r E 3 c a a) L E �� a' ro a) 2_ c p ° p_ p_ QQp_ �Qc °a oL' o° O E E c E -�o o E E E E E E E EEa) c M M Em a) O cn 5 00 co O O CD ce) O CDp p) O C (fl (fl O L L c Z3 U 5 3n O O o �o CO = ��=a v o ° cm 3 o (6 i U O c ' O 13 cn -2 o 0 c O U U U 20 ocDcwc c c c M c o c c CD M a) 1 O .NL0 ) Nco p U co M o a a a O aw� =3 p o UN a, a c c -p O 0 7 7 C c c e c a) �o a s m aa c a) o 2I5)o o O cv) 0 o o °- o o o -U)uo c _ a Ea) a apc)o na)a c U U U cn U O n N cn a U U)-0 a C a C L In a) 2 a a C a C a C s c c a ti a Co V) w O U co O a) •c U a) 'c .0 V, •C O U cCE O U m a—" a, v) U c p '� �' o o m E e E LO E aa)) E C .S c 00 E E O o aoi L� c m U - E E E E u) U E Q 2 'm C .� O O — O O O O O O O v E — c c w c co c LD 2 Z Z E E2 c c— o co - 3 L in ca o a) a) o m cu 3 0 = a) a) a) a) m a) - a) o' a) o m a, o_ 0 Q o o c L a c a c 0 o c' L L o L a c a c a c a c s c � a c a a c- U U .Q to u) U C 7 L a) Q E N 7 7 7 C 7 O 7 C O cu M a a a= 2 0 2� _° a_ a a a a s a a a a s a a - _ C a1 W E cn a) E cnc a) E a) Ca 3 E o a 3. EEC 0 a a 3 0 a) a 2 3 EE o a a 3 o a) -0 M m 2 IEEE o a 0 a 0 a EE 0 iL� a) a 3 0 a) _0 E3 2E 0 a) a= ,3 3 €CUU, 0 a a i E cu U Q> O �D� �� Z)�: Z) : H pIL -6N0mf� m cp Oj 6v) cp`•W m T T cn CP 0 OC) O O O O O p O O O Oao cc, 'a, OO 0OON O cn Q V CN) O (2 M N � co N Q I-E-2 c 3 3 3 0 L a o 3° 3 3 3 a? a ) ami c- c a c- L c Q 0 O o a L o a oa oa o oo a) vU a) mm O C 0 O O-0 Op C) NO C La �m a) LO (nC- 6) m U d 'Q U O_ U Q U c 3 O >m > O Q N E O N E O N � O > > a Q Q Q c C a) U m Co 7 m O E p C C a) C a) C a) �' _ mO p O� 3 (n 3 (n 3 (n O E m H a U ,C L m m (n 41 (n O p O _V E U c N f6 O o a) (n a) 3 a) 3 a O c Q a_ 5 cn C) CD E m CN O asi 0-C p_ C a C L E 0 L g rn Z m .o m .2 m .a c p _� Ul ) a) O Q C E O Q m w a) c a) o N c OU a) c O (p C 0 _0 C 0 E (6 O E c O C U C C L) �o 0 a O _ 3 _ Ocu m 0 a) or °� Q cn a) a _ .L � a COc� O Q o 0 - (n N (n a) 3 a) 3 a) 3 r 3 Y O a) O Z3 O -p _ OU C C C 7 d Q E '� p O c0 O Q Q Q CC O (n o c o E _0 a _ U U)CU cO C o 0) pm CM CO c0 o CO E a O O O a) cm m (9 NaN C p a) LoCD . c0 c U U L) w (OnNNL co c ZOZOZO C7 p p O OO 3 ON 0) 0) O 0 0) QE m p p LNN _ 0 2)-0 ¢ 70 � co 0) n a) m (n a) m� U) mCEC m a) 3 E (D of �) o a) 3 3 m 3 -'.,C a) m 'L a) a) L co m Z �_ o o) E 3 rn E 3 rn 5 3 2 L E E 0 °) m m L m a s C a �_ m 0 3 U U m p �° Y O- m L In a N a m a) U 7 p C _O U C a O m �, E 0 O m m o m ~ a) 21 C C cp6 C O O � O O� m 3 m 3 m 3 a o p E c0� a 22 C (n s •— a) 0 a) a O_ Q p_ m C Ul 3 C v) m 3 C (n m 3 N U aa'i o a a N° (n m a` )) (n c a L) a) c m m a 2 o E E E° m a`) -0 U@ U L) 0 0 E m o c m E 3 0 0 p o o U a O m -- ,O m 0) a) o m 0) 0 a .Q p C' a) c i a Q) E E` J p CL p O O_ O O_ in m = T O a) O (n — a a a a) s a) L V L V L ~ cn (n m E CL 3 o c c c m L c m 0 Q O E `p E `p � o c) `n m w w m E E o 0 0) m (n 0 (n 0) Fo (n (n 0) F 0 n m (n 3 m o o C6 �' a s o a o g E o 0 E 0 0 E 0 0 0 p c c �, �, 0) 0 o C- 2 E a c U a c U a c U c (n m c m c no m o `° m m E m Q L � E R R a L p c R o m i c m a) 3 o o o L E � n a) f/) 2 a) � a) U) a) U) m U) a 1 3 m m m U) ) U) L U) M � U U) c 0 a) O w Z a) a) f) - m U) -0 2 m U) -0 o 2 w Q a a a a a s a s a a a a) a 3 c aL E c o E E E o U)o E E c E E (° E E 15 � � c E o L) LL o 0 0 o o o o o c) c' v o L cmi i 3 i i o 0 o L a) a) -0 = @ a) -0 m -0 a) Q m -0 m _0 m a)70 ma) -0_ m -0 m _0= 0 0 0 0 a) W -T a p a 0 0 0 c H c 0 0 0 0 0 c H FS H ro w C', rn O o O O C? O C?r c a c c c a a Q Q o (° Li ? C) Q Q c 0) co aD c m N O r N N N L — Q N N I-E-3 ° m to 0) C O > C c O O C)Cy Z i U 2 a C 2 Q 0 L o ° .- U) Q) O m C i C) D Q U L O O V O C m a) N L o C (O`0 T E O a) ° c m � U c •E o U m L ° p L U) L � a) O T E O C T Z U C " N m N >, E m M m c_ m L .C-� -6 2 O o m .L..� a)O O m(U U) OQC Z (n C O p .L. O L N mC_ ZL) a)U n 'p `C OCO -O o QCD(n � m 0) OC)O p C 0 3 m 3 m e din a -O O O O O C C 0(n a)U ai dU m o(6 O m U E mU L a)� (n Q p° —0 m O Co 'a 6 c L � E Ew a) a m 0) (nmE m � m0 o c -p C CO N Cl) C f�6 m C L —Oy1 0) m � fnC3 O L co m E O -0 ( (n E c O O) Zc Z N6 O ° m �j Q EL E n m °O C a O C E C) O a) ° wC N Q p QNE m O O -Lp o) U L 7 N O U a) C ) Q >. O U 0 p j N O OU 0 O 'E 0 Q L Q -p L 0 N U C a�i o a E °) E w 0 o (n o Z m E Q° `� .E E W O U N p _ C O T O L U O w -p a) .S L ° a o U) w � O o�o QO a E O a)C O com a) 3 Cm LO O c ao) coo m w ~m a a) a a) ° a)( N -O j EL 7 CNU)_ wQ a) L O L -p 2 -p a) -p n Q 000 i 7mEC i0 OO 'U UQ a a) U O a) OO MC�E E O 0 Q I L -C� N U 0 p E E O E a) E , m 2 m QO 0-. O -pnNON 6E O a) ° L rOnX E � m 0) m a m° o ff° °m o° 0m c ac E C ) o� w Q� L a) m o o Q o a _0 m 3 o° 3 0 t m ��= 3 E °� a a) E-0 0 cn E� O m-0 m Q fn 0 "" .3 fn N 'O m ° L 0 -a) E o O M v� y f°n f°n E- Q) (/i w X_ o p) C -O = C N C Cn 2 p U Q) O N a C6 (6 C6 C U U E C U p C p .� a) Ul U :> m0 a) C to O O Z� L i C o U N :> N N CL a) � a) 7 U -OO m 0) 0) 7 U O O C p N 0 N U Q N U Q O m a) C O w cn In 2 .� Q cn Z U Z -p d cn m d H L 2 Q cn c c _0_ c c _C c c m E E E E E E E E E 0 o E o o E E ° o E ° E w o 0 0 � c o c` cL 0 0 0 o c U o o _ 0m m °) cmi > _0_0� 2 °� c c _0N c Q-Cc: a) = E a W 0 c 0 2 0 C 0 2 � C � T I� W LfJ M 6� N N � aaKr.l L I T a) m LL � CV I-E-4 c 0 a d 0 c w a) -0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0) � co c o 0 0 m _0 O c 0 ° ° m ° U C E m U i a) ° O m c c0 c a) 0 3 2 S .� ° o 0° 0 c 0 U E ° c p -0° 0 L c0 p E t o m 0 U 0 0- 0) aE0 �0 0- 0 o c O�m 0 Cu o m .U)aE zoo� a o 0C a)c c m 0 0 0 a�'i > c) c c ° a) a�i Z c 0� �� o� c -0 m m c° a 0 0 ° rn U cn -0 0 c c m °' c p p Uc in cc`� wp.Y)y 0m 0O Yj U0app�a�i �m 0) OO a) cu N E p c 00 Fo h o m �000 a) am 0 fi �0 -p O a) O 0fl O_oO c0 4cco) �`racc° O —O 0 '0 0 0 0 O O U O aO c c 0 0) O a) mC O 0) ap a)m 'c o o 0)cu ) m `� c o m0 o p a) O° cn cZ w E Uo mU UQc com o m E Cu U 0 )o0 CO w o o) a -.c U) 0) o Z Eb m 0 a O m 4 E m 0) E -0)-p 0 c E m U tE w co 0 0aoE E E 0 °c o 0 0 ca E Eo mao v �o o:° °° °n ao o > °z to mU) c mcn E a) 0 m r m m m w ° ° O 0)m U v 'a 00m o m e 0 � a) o o °a o a00 0 m. �o° 0 Oc m st 0 o—E 0 o ai p O o -o o U en m° N o° 0 O c 3 m 0 E c-0 ° c° U 0 0 U E5 o) ° o �, c 0 c rn 0 m °� o o �, c m w •- E o cn a o) m° �? .E O o c o E > a° 0- aa)) ° E ° aa)) -p n Z O L ti c° '� ° o Q c 2 c E E E m� � 3 0 0 ani a) m °c 0 '� 0 0 0- — S 0 c U o° 0 c0i - c o v) C a E ami 0 a) 0 E a) - 0 m a o E o0' o 0 o m c a E o -p .gym "a O N c N 2 LO 'O a O co'O p) O O in w 0 m E •c o -c "d O 0) .c � L a s o � .c c o m� co 0 L) co 3 Er-� -0 o 3 c ip o f N� 3 0°- E m° 0) .o ° 0 0 0 2 �' o a) cc0 0 0 o a° m y o f 0' U ° 00 0 0 `0 0 cn a) m :� ° 0 E 0 U) 0 c a c a) c°o 0 0 o m o o c c s `� o �' R 0 0 is c o 0 -0 m a a o c U 0 a) O m 0 ° 02 a) c E m O c 00 .� rn Z U) t Q m m O- ° N° O c 0 E c > c a) m o 0 0 M m v) 3 m E w O o m a o 04 w a o L 0 m o E m p U) .Q o m m am) o '� m ° o o � 3 s = m 2-5 a m .E 3: 0 E Q Q Q U) Of 0 3 J -0 o Q a U) U) m E E E o m 00 o w E E o E COm 0 0 0 0 .. m .L N a) m d U Q c m 0 0 c 0 W ° Z:LL c J rl- 00 W 00 00 r d Q U i T . C m +- 0 a m m 7 m C 0 U.)� Q :F - 00 M Lf) O CO i Lf) N CC) N N co N N I—E-5 2 � _ 2 § w _ 3 cu k e { w � � ) E § z = \ k) CL z) / / = 0 9 e = / / / \ $ $ Co e g = § * 6 n = C I = § / o .- _ — I __ / �) — k = % § o ± 3 — @ e _ ± ) E 2 / 7 g . .- =k"m ICoc5 \ ƒ \ f \ E t (n \ \ 0/})�k*� * _ og§& , E o 5 2 0 = ° S » co§ \ { 2 = 3 E 5 } E a \ / E CO co a \\�k\�� e=@=�f =/ § ° ___ CO 0 @ S \ 3 G 7 a)= 9 .2 m m = § g / ®2 /) % S g § o » z o 0-° & \ " S ° ° E f o m ._ 9 0 2(±\ 3 o 7 2 > _ _ — _ _ / 3 o ± co 0« " : \ § f m \ 0 } ) $ \ \ CL k / [ 2) / n ± « $ E 7 ] 2= 3/ z 2 E t E / / 0 / k / \ 7 \ § m ± = E = @ ° ®7 f k 0 k o ° ° — E _ ®= 9 Eg/4gƒ/\22 = o o a g E = a a ) � 2 % \ / £ f E z 3§£ z a ƒ 4 E I-\ S/ I/ E \ \ e _ C m G n MR., F. Rainfall Monthly precipitation data were obtained from the Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS), which is a repository for data collected at stations in the National Weather Service (NWS) Cooperative Observer Program (Coop) network supported by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and National Water and Climate Center, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (http://agacis.rcc-acis.orq/?fips=37013). Monthly precipitation data from the Aurora 6 N station as provided by the USDA/NRCS/AgACIS database are identified in Figure I-F1 and Table I-F1 for years during the course of the study, 1998-2005 and 2007-2018. The WETS 30th and 70th percentiles are from the 30-year period of 1989-2018. The Aurora 6 N station is located and maintained in the vicinity of the PCS/Nutrien administrative building and runway along the south side of the Pamlico River, about 6 miles north of Aurora. In addition to the Aurora 6 N station there are six other rain gauges associated with the creeks study that are monitored to provide more site and basin specific data. Data from these six additional gauges are monitored by CZR and gaps from any period of a non-functional gauge are supplemented with data from the next closest working gauge. Measured onsite data from Aurora 6 N and the six additional sites represent raw measured data and are often different than data found in the AgACIS online data used to determine WETS percentiles. Data from onsite gauges are found in Table I-F2. Comparison of the USDA/NRCS/AgACIS online data with the raw onsite data show total annual rainfall for Aurora to be within the 30th and 70th percentiles, while raw measured data were above the 70th percentile. Online data show seven months of 2018 as above, four below, and one within the 30th and 70th percentiles, while raw data show eight months above, two below, and two within the 30th and 70th percentiles (Table 1- F2). The rain gauges currently monitored by CZR were installed in 2010 (Tooley Creek), 2011 (PA2, Huddles Cut, Porter Creek, Duck Creek), and in 2013 (Durham Creek). During the early years of the study, rainfall data at Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut were provided to CZR by Dr. Wayne Skaggs per the agency approved plan and from CZR monitored gauges within Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. Prior to installation of rain gauges in all of the creeks, Aurora 6 N rain data were used for rainfall and, after installation, were also used to supplement data gaps. I-F-1 Monthly Rainfall Totals with WETS percentiles for 1998-2005 and 2007-2018 at PCS Aurora NOAA Station 6N 16 • 14 12 10 • 8 6 • • • • • • • •• • 4 2 •• • •• • ••• • 0 �• O'L O`L (9 �& & (9 O'5 O�, _10 • Total Monthly Rainfall WETS 30 Percentile WETS 70 Percentile 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 • \ --C qLk� - I,, O� O� Off` Off` O� O� O� �aJ \� 4 � ,ate 4ac _11 !!Ii� 1 N �A�O.IA�11/.1�I.IA70IAw11�2,�I�i�D1�ii+1�N!l7A. U AmmFAUff�,mAKAW � W�A AMU � i WMA KNW-o W4ZAT %MV � M1,*AAKWA L • Total Monthly Rainfall WETS 30 Percentile WETS 70 Percentile Figure I-F1. Rainfall summary across years of creek study: monthly totals at PCS Aurora Station 6 N compared to 30-year WETS rainfall. I-F-2 ,6_ co -0 O N Z C 00 a) rn O Q E L � = Q a '~ c O C M O co Q L >w cu O O > U 00 C O �00 O O 0 O O a)O a L O C a) a) Co (n L LC� O (6 C] M 0 Ob -0 m U) m > N O L M (n >, O O O a) O -0 co N L II ,_ E O U) F— (D OL C- i C6 O a) N UU ai c cp U C U C ' L U Q O c6 O CoCo a) L a) a) Co �_ — C� a) O C a > N M O Co U)a)cu Ccu -0 0 0� c6 Z (n ILL 7� i Q 75 U_ (06 CC3 N co O co LO M O h (D j- N cp O r O co 0 m m O V (fl O W W Co N p r Cp (fl 117 O W W r CO `- N V O (fl l0 l0 cc: Q CND V LO M q rO V M lM � N M M LO COD LO lM CO V � V E 00 N N 00 co Co Co MCY t� CO M CO C� W O M O V L N Op 00 VN M r M O N N M M O N CD L6 �' M N r M N 4 M 0 E 00 O r^ 00 a N N w 00 M M M 0o0 M M M NO y O r r M r Cvj N Cvj N O N^ r r CD R N cc) O r L6 CD M M Z p N M O n co 00 M n O CO CEO � LO CO � C00 � �- N LO U O r h O1-: Cvj R r Cl) M C`j r CO G L6 N C`') L6 06 r � N N .4 M N Q O LO N p O O C4 M CD Cy cD 10 � O D) O CO o0 O 0) � LO O h O O LO 00 � CO V• � Cy M N N N CL Ci V f� O co O K � 4 N Ln N � Cfl M M V Ln CA co K n M O LO 0) � 7 ^ 0 00 M 00 N cn 00 n co C'') * t lc' 00 O CD '0 O j� N co O CD r ZT N LO Cp CO CO N CDN . R h r V O"T O O) M t` I` Q^ 6 T M m m M r M 06 co 6 00 -4 LO N Cp M m V co LO >, I\ r, M' L 00 CD V W V LO N ' O r M' O O co V O co O r a)N T LO r T CM 00 O LO � 0O Ln LO O r N LO LC) L6 00 N LO LO M LO V V cc LO LO LC) LO LO V co LO N m o0 h CD to �2 LO CD @ 00 CD *cn *CD� � * N N V � O 3 O Oo � O r� r- r- 0) r-- P N N"t C V � W 0)O N CO Cl)L`) O M (h Ln Ln L`i CD r r r In j CO In M LO CO C J CO 6 T CO 1\ - CM O O ^ V O * 00 M I,- N CD LC7 00 � h M r M N IC!O CD IC! m OR CO N CV Cq M N N Cy CV L j C') N h m O O N N O LCj LOO M rZ c} CO N V C') N V O N r CD 0 I` (V N i- Co O Q N I- co to N �- M N V M M m 0 00 O \R O) CM Q R N L6 M CD M Lj o CO h O 00 j� r' *ty. co LO v M M M OO * N O Cp O LO CD 'IT O CO r O CO r LO M W co V r p M M r O O O O lO O L(j N M M I- LO N M N N M M C� r C,7 4 M Lb LO M M @ LO LO O (D iy * N Cp m cn oo N o0 O M N (o LO CD aD D) O O C1 O �- 00 �- O Ch M O r 00 M M 0) r 00 r CO r M M r CC} CO r r LO O LO CV G V C J Cp r r O N M M LL NR M Cn CD V t0 R 00 1- c`') w N a0 N N Cfl O co 7 CO co CD I\ r LO W O Ll7 O N LO M N CD CO 00 00 00 r @ VC M [F r �; r r M V M N V M r CV CV V C') N R N V M a� a� CO 00 O O N M V LO I-- 00 m r N_ LO CD I-- a 00 3 2 d 2 d Q O O (� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _O O O O _M O O O O O (0 O r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O co 00 M f� N W W W 3: 3: E 0 T U) O m 0 0 m E U Q C O_ O Q o) U N Q O Q T N Ca _ T rn c rn 0) N N E 3 �0 c m O c ro m (D � � m L L to N s o c 3 0 I-F-3 Y O N U N V) M m a) N O J O Q > N co � 0 O cv��a N Q E a =) V -0 t (� Co cC Co C w c r , - Q E VN a) c N D �CT 'i E _0 m co d .E DY Qc N N ) L' a V) a)U -C U o nLn♦♦ c L \y (D CO O a 3Cj "� a co O N a) C Mp Q O a: a Y CU C a > �UU aDt a) L L o m U U G L - cB-�e C)� F 4 c -� C: � O cL r Co m -0 a O U 0 vOi c c =3 V. O -o cu 0 t O -c O (ID 4 C co Z 0- O U -�e E N V. Y a O U a U a) U a � U 1- -C C N Y c6 CL c _ E HU0 ca. m p Z N co co W O W c') V (fl co W- M N W N I- V N W W N N 7 M 010 I1-c0 Cl) W 0 0 7 O W O O W @@@ @@@ f0 . N r- N W N h I` CD m V N CD O N W M O W N CD �� C C C 3 Q W V U') M 7 I� V Lf7 M V lfi lf7 7 V V U') CD LO V CD M h LO Y Y Y Y Ln O co W I- M N W CD co Ln V a) U N W I� O W Ih O LO Il- � @ @ @ @ @ @ p 3 d W N W M I` N LO N V CO M V LO CD V Cn W N O M CD V C C C C c c a) co v to LO O W - M O V LO M W co co M O @@@ @@@ t F 7 . . i . i i i i i i O M U') U') co N O CO O c c c c c C U Q U vLn� �v Ln -It LOLO G Y F MO� mcl� ll� W M CD N M W CNO CO CD CD N M O co LO W I- M Il. V M CO II- � I` V LO LO LO �t CD V (D CO V LO LO CD (D CD VC `m i Y CD Nr- V M W O V (D M O W M W CD LO O W p O LO (o I` M O M O O O O W W N O O W V IL U v v v CD v V M y Lm LO U') Lin LO Lin cCo coo �n m U') (DU')U') N N N d x W O V co N O N I- V I� M CO W V M W V N I- W M p 'p D t` h W I� I- W I- N O CO V O I---- N W M N O W O f� CO M V I- W W O N W O N W I- M O OLO Co V CD CO M - CO V V CO CO V CO M CO � M CD V V LO COa) -,t W W(D O N LO (D V O V M (fl LO (D LO LO h W (D V @ @ @ @ @ @ a) p a) ' '' NO M m O Cn O I` 7 W O O O C C C C C C d J f) c V CO V V LO CO 7 CO V CO CO U m p y Y t _ W W CO CO D W 7 W W V O N LO W O W M _ 'IT V p a) M I� CO N V) U - 7 CO CO LO W LO LO I� UO I` LO CD � LO O W CD V H C CO LO O r- W CD O M M O Ln O h V W Ln h 0 LO I- O O O F U LO Co W V W O V V LO V 7 LO V) V LO M (D Ln Cl) W LO V LO LO 0 c m R O It N-LO CD LO CD LO Ih It N M CDLO W ) C- Y i LO CO LO N W N CD (fl (D C) CO Ln O W U z -It V Ln LO LO V Ln LO Ln Ln V V Ln LO U OD ty v cND c00 CC � P (o Ln ( r r @ @ @ @ @ @ Q M LO N CD N CO CO CO O c C C c c C d LO Ln LO LO 't LO LO LO Y ry Q 7) V N CZ)I� LO (DLO co(D V W I- h L CD O O LO I- W I- I- CD N O (0 W co LO O W I- d V i ' ' ' ' , , , , , ' ' co LO - N W N W W W O - LO W W (0 c) A U M LO V LO LO LO V LO LO LO V LO V V LO LO ► k k k k ► d Y 't N O I- LO O LO O LO Ih y (D (O W Ih r- (D LO CD I-- h @ @ @ @ @ @ i M LO N W N (fl (fl CD O C C C c c c U v LO v Ln LO LO v LO v LO Ln YY V h (fl V O I- V N O O LO r r I` I` 1- W LO LO p d W W (D O N V V W W W Il r CO LO W V M W A N CO I- O a) O V O O M LO N (0 N (D (D V O V O (D (0 M V LO co W V (fl V LO V LO Ln LO V LO co (D Ln co W V V LO LO c x o c_ x a) c am x g m M 0 f m d CL a ¢ E ¢ ¢ (p O i W O O N co V LO I- W O O_ �_ N M_ V LO W r W@ U R O O O O O O O O 000 a) L ` _ O O O O O O O O N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N __ @ N J Q N IL ap I-F-4 G. Tar River Discharge The Tar River is approximately 215 miles long and travels generally in a southeast direction where it ends in the Pamlico Sound estuary. Below the US Highway 17 Bridge in Washington NC, the Tar River is called the Pamlico River. The Tar River discharge is measured at a gauge station located in Greenville, NC, approximately 35 miles north of PCS (Lat 35037'00" Long 77°22'22"). Tar River discharge totals were highest in 1999 and 2003. 2018 had the sixth highest total discharge since 1998 (Figure I- G1). Median Tar River discharge in 2018 was the second highest since 1998 and mean Tar River discharge was the sixth -highest. I-G-1 Tar River Average Daily Discharge and PCS-Aurora Station 6 N Daily Rainfall (1998-2005 and 2007-2018) 74000 14.0 72000 70000 68000 13.0 66000 64000 12.0 62000 60000 58000 11.0 56000 54000 52000 10.0 50000 .-. 48000 9.0 46000 ^ N 44000 a) 42000 8.0 v 40000 C v �-' 38000 7.0 36000 tM 34000 C 32000 6.0 v 30000 N 28000 j5 26000 5.0 24000 22000 4.0 20000 18000 16000 3.0 14000 12000 10000 2.0 8000 6000 1.0 4000 2000 0 0.0 000000)0)O0)0000 NNNN( ()COMM��LQLOLOLQ a7a7QZC)0)0)m0)000000000000000000000000 No r�r�r�f�00000)0)00)0000� ��NNNNMMMM��LS)LS)Lf)L()Lf,7C0000Cdf�f�----00 000000000000� r C) C CO CO "t � LO LO LO L CO CD 00 00 00 N — \�00f—f—lnMN�aifZ CO tN��d)i�ZZ25 �i �daa Zl5 4NO M N N N N N N N—— N N N N N N (V -N C00)NMC00)N � monitoring M�N00000�NM�000f—Lf�MMN00f�CO�NNd7\f�CO�NNd)Of��MNN00f—f—�MN N -- — M N N (V N N N N N--- -- — (V N N N N N N N— —— -- - — �NL00�NL00—— O��f�O��f� CO 6) N M CO � N M CO � N M CO � N M � � N� OO r N Lf� a0 N � occured in N� 00 � � O �� f� O �� f� O �4 I� O �4 f� � � m N M CO O) N M td 6) N M CO 6) N 2006 PCS-Aurora 6 N Rainfall Tar River Average Daily Discharge i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i C 1 u � II �1 11 III I ' 11 !II Ilfl� Figure I-G1. Average daily Tar River discharge at Greenville, NC and daily rainfall at PCS Aurora Station 6 N during the years of the creek study. I-G-2 II. CORPS PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITION S - SIX QUESTIONS A. Question 1-Has mining altered the amount or timing of water flows within the creeks? Flow: Monitoring since 1998 showed that the upper systems (unidirectional stream portion) of the study creeks are driven primarily by local precipitation and baseflow. The lower estuarine portions of the systems (bidirectional creek portion) are wind -tide driven and subject to region -wide precipitation and Tar River discharge. Weir data collected in Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut by Skaggs et al. from 1999-2010 (in various combinations of years for each creek) showed that within the unidirectional portion of the systems where the weirs were located, approximately 1 to 3 percent of modeled flow to the downstream bidirectional portion was delivered from the upstream basins. This flow was not previously quantified, and the percentage was lower than many may have predicted or expected. Some of the weir locations were within the 2009 permit boundary while at other weir locations, permitted mine activities had reduced the drainage basin which limited the potential flow. In order to continue to monitor flow via weirs, new locations would have been placed further downstream within the bidirectional portion of the systems in some instances. With these restrictions and understanding of the low percent contribution of upstream flow to the primary nursery areas, the Science Panel agreed that flow no longer needed to be monitored and no additional weirs were added. The very shallow and intermittent nature of the upper systems of these creeks does not allow use of traditional stream gauges. As a potential solution, PCS elected to try a new product in beta development, a low flow gauge, to monitor the unidirectional portions of the systems. Low flow units were installed in the upper portions of two creeks in 2011 (Duck Creek and Porter Creek). Shortly afterwards, product development was stalled and delivery and deployment of additional units was uncertain. Additionally, the accuracy of the data appeared questionable and the installed units were removed in 2013. Like the earlier flow documented by weirs in the unidirectional reaches of Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut, flow events recorded by the low -flow gauges in in Duck Creek and Porter Creek appeared to be related to precipitation and baseflow. Beginning in March 2012, during visits to other equipment located at or near the low -flow beta gauge locations and other intended gauge locations, biologists made qualitative observations of flow (none, low, medium, or high) and noted water depths. For the creeks added in 2011 and 2012, there are no earlier flow data for comparison, but flow observation information will continue to be collected in lieu of low -flow gauges and observations will be compared pre- and post -Mod Alt L where possible. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L comparisons to the weir records of flow will not be possible because the locations of most of the weirs were well upstream of the current flow observation locations. Following the August 2015 Science Panel meeting, flow observations began in Huddles Cut at the three salinity monitoring locations (HS1, HS2, and HS3). However, since all three of these locations are subject to frequent bi-directional flow (particularly HS3), wind direction is also noted. As the salinity monitors are downloaded every two weeks, the opportunity for flow observation at the Huddles Cut locations is doubled compared to other creek flow locations, which are visited once a month when hydrology monitors are downloaded. Videos of flow are also taken at the flow observation points throughout the year, which are available upon request from CZR. I I-A-1 Flow presence and water depth are recorded during each site visit but determination of the primary influences upon observed flow is sometimes difficult due to proximity to open water or wind effect at many stations. Therefore, these flow observations should not be construed as evidence of flow derived only from the basin upstream of the observation point. The observation data have not been scrutinized to determine if a wind event may have been solely responsible for water flowing into the basin (and counted as flow) and then, possibly, upon a change in wind direction or speed, had begun to flow downslope out of the system and was then observed as flow (seiche-like effect). In 2018, observed flow events occurred from the beginning of the year to early spring for all creeks except Jacobs, where there was not an observed flow event all year. Drinkwater Creek, Duck Creek, Huddles Cut, Jacks Creek, Long Creek, and Tooley Creek also had some flow events during the summer and fall (Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2 on CD/DVD). For comparison, the number of flow events was converted into percentages of visits for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years at Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Porter Creek, and DCUT11 (Appendix B, Table B-3). The highest percentage of flow events at the downstream station of Jacks Creek occurred in 2018. The previous three post -Mod Alt L years (2015 through 2017) were within the range of percentages of the three pre -Mod Alt L years. The percentage of flow events in 2018 was higher than 2017 (the year with the second highest percentage) by 16.2 percent. Flow has never been observed at the Jacobs Creek station. The percentage of flow events at Drinkwater Creek in 2018 was the highest of the six post -Mod Alt L years, and higher than the single pre -Mod Alt L year (2012) by 22.0 percent. Compared to 2012, 2018 had fewer visits to observe flow and 10 inches more total annual rainfall at the PA2 rain gauge which is used for Jacks, Jacobs, and Drinkwater creeks (Table I-F2). At Porter Creek, the percentage of flow events was higher in 2018 than 2017 with more rainfall; however, the three post -Mod Alt L years (2016 through 2018) had lower percentages than three of the four pre -Mod Alt L years, with no discernible pattern between percentage of flow events and total annual rainfall in pre -Mod Alt L years. Comparatively, with the same number of visits in 2015, 2016, and 2017, the amount of rainfall in those years would seem to indicate a higher percentage of visits with flow in the post -Mod Alt L years. However, total annual rainfall is only part of the equation of flow: duration, amount, and intensity of individual rain events as well as the time between events all play a role, along with the time of the monthly visits to each creek; these aspects have not been studied and are not captured in the observed flow events. Because the direct observation of flow did not begin until after mine activities ceased in the drainage basins of Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut, data cannot be compared for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years. Flow was observed at the station on the eastern prong of Tooley Creek for the first time in 2017; both events were during or directly after over 1.5 inches of rainfall (early January and late April). The flow event observed on the western prong in 2017 was also during rainfall in late April and was the second year with observed flow at that station. Since flow observations began in 2012, 2018 had the highest percentage of flow events with fewer visits and the second highest total annual rainfall at Tooley rain gauge. At upstream flow stations of Huddles Cut, flow was observed intermittently throughout the year and at a higher percentage than other creeks, but slightly lower percentages compared to Duck Creek. Flow was observed January through August and in December at the downstream station, although not at every visit. Hurricane Florence in mid -September 2018 damaged the Huddles downstream salinity pier which resulted in decreased flow observations until early December. Even though flow was not observed at the downstream station September through November, it can be inferred from recorded flows at least once a month for the upstream locations. The proximity of the I I-A-2 downstream station to the Pamlico River allows for greater influence of wind and Tar River discharge than the other two sites. Also, flow was evaluated more frequently at Huddles Cut than the other creeks, so there were more chances to observe flow (observations are made at the salinity monitors which are visited twice a month). Flow has only been recorded at Huddles Cut since September 2015. The percentage of flow events observed in 2018 at both stations in Long Creek (a control creek) were the highest since observations began in 2012. Total annual rainfall in 2018 was 5.4 inches more than in 2012 (Tooley Creek rain gauge). For the two most upstream stations of Duck Creek (a control creek), 2018 had the highest percentage of flow events since 2012, but only the third highest annual rainfall. Flow was observed in Duck Creek every month except January (ice prevented observation), July, September (observation was not conducted), and November (observation was not conducted); only the most downstream station had October flow. The upstream prong of Duck Creek had one fewer flow event in 2018 than the downstream prong; however, the January ice and lack of September and November flow observation visits to Duck Creek limits the comparison. The percentages of observed flow events were higher at all flow stations at Duck Creek in 2015-2018 than previous years. This may be due to logging that occurred on land adjacent to the flow stations in 2015. In contrast, 2017 was the year with the lowest percentage of flow events at DCUT19 (a control creek), while the 2018 percentage of flow events at DCUT19 was within the range of all previous years of data. The percentage of flow events during the single post -Mod Alt L year at DCUT11 was also within the range of percentages from the five pre -Mod Alt L years. While the annual rainfall totals (Porter Creek rain gauge) were higher than previous years, there were fewer visits to the site to observe flow. Tar River discharge occurs on a multi -county scale over a long period of time, whereas local rainfall collected at the gauges within the creek basins occurs on a shorter term. Median Tar River discharge in 2018 was the second -highest since 1998 and mean Tar River discharge was the sixth -highest. In 2018, flow at both upstream and downstream monitoring locations in most creeks seems to have been primarily influenced by the combination of rainfall and Tar River discharge. The highest peak in discharge (December) did not seem to influence flow only in Tooley, Drinkwater or Jacobs creeks; as previously stated, no flow events have ever been observed in Jacobs Creek. Based on the times flow was observed in the other creeks, it appears that Tar River discharge in mid -June did not coincide with rainfall and observed flow. Many of the peaks in rainfall after June did not correspond to peaks in observed flow. In addition to rainfall and Tar River discharge, base flow and overland sheet flow are likely other factors that contribute to water levels and flow. Water depth: At the annual science panel meetings, the subject of water depths at the wetland monitoring wells and unknowns about the amount of hydrological input from the adjacent floodplain (as opposed to upstream input, or "flow", at any given location previously measured by Skaggs et al.) have been discussed. It is common knowledge that water depth within creeks and wetlands can be affected by many different environmental variables, such as precipitation and wind, as well as geomorphology of individual creeks or wetlands, location in the regional landscape, and human activities such as timber removal. In addition, the effects of these variables may differ depending on certain attributes of the creek or wetland. For example, wind speed and direction likely affects depths more in areas further downstream. For the 2016 report, additional analysis was performed with 2016 water depth data collected from the Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut monitors. It was concluded that regional environmental differences in Tar River discharge, changes in wind tides, and local precipitation have a large effect on the fluctuations of flow within these creeks, which make it difficult to attribute change directly to the I I-A-3 activities of the mine. Changes in flow duration can be directly correlated to the combined effects of rainfall and Tar River discharge especially as it relates to the downstream systems. Also, it is difficult to monitor and record some of the variables that could influence flow. Multiple linear regression models of the effect of three variables (Tar River discharge, precipitation, and wind) on water depth in Huddles Cut and Tooley Creek conducted for the 2016 report showed that wind direction and rainfall were the two most important predictors of water depths. No further analyses were performed for subsequent reports. Answer: Jacks, DCUT11, Drinkwater, and Porter creeks are the only creeks with observational flow data that can be directly compared between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years. Post -Mod Alt L flow events were similar to pre -Mod Alt L flow events at Jacks Creek, and a post -Mod Alt L year (2018) had the highest percentage of observed flow although annual rainfall was second highest. Drinkwater Creek has only one pre -Mod Alt L observation year, and 2018 had more flow events even though the number of visits was 11 compared to 17 in the pre -Mod Alt L year. There were fewer post -Mod Alt events observed in Porter Creek than in pre -Mod Alt L, although 2018 had increased from the previous two years. The first post -Mod Alt L year for DCUT11 was 2018, which had fewer flow events than the previous three years. Apparent pre- to post -Mod Alt L decreased flow events could be affected by the fact that there were fewer site visits in 2018 to most creeks than the earlier years. However, flow events in the control creeks were compared using the same pre- and post -Mod Alt L years as those four creeks, and no overall decrease in flow events in the control creeks was observed in the matched post -Mod Alt L years. Appendix B contains the 2018 flow observation tables. IM B. Question 2-Has mining altered the geomorphic or vegetative character of the creeks? Geomorphology: Current geomorphology of Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut has not been compared to baseline geomorphology. Exact locations of the 1998 baseline measurements were not spatially explicit, so follow-up measurements may not be collected in the same place. In addition, while effort was made to collect useful data at the time, the measures used were fairly subjective. Replication of the effort by different biologists may indicate a "change" driven by interpretive bias. For example, the amount of water in the system at the time of measurement could affect two measures considerably: floodplain width and adjacent slope. Nonetheless, baseline geomorphology was described for all the new creeks in the study in 2011 and in 2013 when the last two creeks north of NC Highway 33 were brought into the study using the same measures as in 1998. Vegetation: Due to transition years discussed in Section I.A.2.0 of this report post -Mod Alt L years for vegetation do not match post -Mod Alt L years for other parameters. The following impact creeks have pre- and post -Mod Alt L vegetation data: Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut (main and western prong analyzed separately). Jacks Creek: Approximately 150.36 acres remain of the historic -645-acre drainage basin for Jacks Creek. Vegetation data include 12 years of pre -Mod Alt L (1998-2005 and 2011-2014) and two years of post -Mod Alt L (2017-2018); no vegetation data were collected in transition years 2015 and 2016. A cluster analysis based on species presence/absence data by year with a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) showed six clusters: A: 1998, B: 1999-2005, C: 2011, D: 2012, E: 2017, 2018, and F: 2013, 2014 (Figure II-131). Early years clustered separately from more recent years, but no significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for species presence/absence data was found when an analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was used. A similarity percentages (SIMPER) analysis based on the Bray -Curtis similarity measure for species composition showed 34.68 percent dissimilarity between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years, the lowest dissimilarity among all creeks with post -Alt L vegetation data. A total of eight species had a dissimilarity contribution above 2 percent, two of which were tolerant of brackish conditions and were found only after 2011. The highest individual contributions to the dissimilarity between pre- and post -Mod Alt L data were two species with 2.90 percent: Alabama supplejack (Berchemia scandens), a brackish intolerant species present in all pre -Mod Alt L years and bull -tongue arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), which is tolerant of brackish conditions and was present only in post -Mod Alt L years. Two of the eight species contributing to the dissimilarity between pre- and post -Mod Alt L data were non -wetland species; eastern red -cedar (Juniperus virginiana) present in more recent years (2014, 2017, and 2018) and Canadian black -snakeroot (Sanicula canadensis) present in 1998-2005 and 2012. The average percent of dominant species in the herbaceous and woody vine/shrub strata intolerant of brackish conditions among all transects was higher for pre -Mod Alt L years (50.3) than the post -Mod Alt L years (32.2), however a t-test showed no significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L when data for all transects were combined (Tables II-B1 a and II-131 b). Jacks Creek showed significantly lower percentages of brackish intolerant dominants in more recent years (2011-2014; p=<0.001) than earlier years (1998-2005) of data, which suggests a change in vegetation before Mod -Alt L impacts (Figure II-132). When pre- and post -Mod Alt L percentages of dominants intolerant of brackish were compared for transects ie:M individually, two of the five transects were significantly different (JW3 p=0.045 and JW5 p=0.037) (Figure II-133). JW3 and JW5 are the two most downstream transects on the main prong and have experienced the most notable change in the herbaceous and shrub layers in more recent years than other transects for Jacks Creek. Common reed (Phragmites australis) was first documented at JW3 in 2012 and JW5 in 2013 and now covers nearly 100 percent of both transects. The influx of common reed has contributed to lower percentages of brackish intolerant dominants and decreased species richness (but not significantly) over recent years. The most upstream transect on each prong, JW2 (main) and JW7 (north), had higher averages for the percent of brackish intolerant dominants for post -Mod Alt L years; there are two post - Mod Alt L years to date and a six -year gap between pre- and post -Mod Alt L data collections. To further explore potential pre- vs. post -Mod Alt L data, a t-test compared the number of herbaceous and shrub dominants in Jacks Creek. When transects were combined there was no statistically significant difference for either stratum; however, there were significant differences on an individual transect basis. For the herbs, two of the five transects had significantly fewer dominants post -Mod Alt L (JW3, p=0.032 and JW5, p=0.029) and one transect had significantly more (JW7, p=0.024, the most upstream transect on the north prong) (Figure II-134). For the shrubs, one of the five (JW3, p=0.007) had significantly more dominants post -Mod Alt L and another (JW2, p=0.003) had significantly fewer (Figure II-135). The total percentages of non -wetland species (species in either FACU or UPL category) varied from year to year with no discernible pattern when all transects are combined (Table II-132). The percent of non -wetland species for pre -Mod Alt L years ranged from 4.0 (2011) to 11.3 (2002), with an average of 8.8; post -Mod Alt L average was 9.0. The only instance of a non -wetland dominant was at one transect in 2000 (Table II-B1a). Jurisdictional wetland status of vegetation at Jacks Creek does not appear to have been altered by the mine. Jacobs Creek: Approximately 202.45 acres remain of the historic -751-acre drainage basin. Vegetation data include three years of pre -Mod Alt L data (2011-2013) and two years of post -Mod Alt L data (2017-2018) collected in one transect between the two Level TROLL wells. A cluster analysis based on species presence/absence data by year with a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) showed three clusters: A: 2011, B: 2012, and C: 2013, 2017, 2018 (Figure II-136). No significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for species presence/absence data was found when ANOSIM was used. A SIMPER analysis based on the Bray -Curtis similarity measure for species composition showed 45.25 percent dissimilarity between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years, the third lowest dissimilarity among all creeks with post - Mod Alt L vegetation data. The individual contributions between pre- and post -Mod Alt L data at Jacobs Creek were five species with 7.56 percent, two with more than 5 percent, and the remaining 14 species with less than 5 percent. The five species with 7.56 percent occurred only in post -Mod Alt L years; two species (American beautyberry, Callicarpa americana and summer grape, Vitis aestivalis) were non -wetland species. For all survey years, no brackish tolerant species were dominants in the herbaceous or woody vine/shrub strata; therefore, to date there is no significant difference between percentages of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions for pre- and post - Mod Alt years (Table II-B1 a). A t-test showed no statistically significant pre- vs. post -Mod Alt L differences in the number of dominants for either the herb or shrub stratum in Jacobs Creek. The highest percent of non -wetland species for Jacobs Creek was in 2018 (23.5), followed closely by 2017 (21.1) (Table 11-132). Although the post -Mod Alt L average percent of ie:m non -wetland species (22.3) was higher than pre -Mod Alt L (9.7), there was no significant difference (p=0.20). There were no non -wetland dominants in 2011 and 2017, one-fourth of dominants were non -wetland species in 2013, one-third of dominants were non -wetland species in 2018, and two of the four dominants were non -wetland species in 2012 (Table II-131a). Jurisdictional wetland status of vegetation at Jacobs Creek does not appear to have been altered by the mine. Drinkwater Creek: Approximately 153.32 acres remain of the historic 605-acre drainage basin. One year of pre -Mod Alt L data (2011) and three years of post -Mod Alt L data (2016-2018) have been collected. Cluster analysis based on species presence/absence data grouped pre -Mod Alt L data (2011, cluster A) separately from the three years of post -Mod Alt L data (2016-2018, cluster B) (Figure II-137). No significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for species presence/absence data was found when ANOSIM was used. A SIMPER analysis based on the Bray -Curtis similarity measure for species composition showed 40.53 percent dissimilarity between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years, the second lowest dissimilarity among all creeks with post -Mod Alt L vegetation data. Drinkwater Creek had 13 species with the highest percent of individual contribution at 4.91 percent; the remaining 11 contributing species were each less than 3.34 percent. Of the 13 species, 12 of those were present during only post -Mod Alt L years; one species was brackish tolerant (wax myrtle, Morella cerifera), and one was a non -wetland species (Chinese lespedeza, Lespedeza cuneata). For all survey years, no brackish tolerant species were dominants in the herbaceous or woody vine/shrub strata; therefore, to date there is no significant difference between percentages of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions for pre- and post - Mod Alt years (Table II-B1 a). A t-test showed no statistically significant pre- vs. post -Mod Alt L differences in the number of dominants for either the herb or shrub stratum in Drinkwater Creek. The one year of pre -Mod Alt L data (2011) had the same percent of non -wetland species as 2017 (11.8) and 2018 had the highest percent (17.6) (Table II-132). No non -wetland species have been dominants during survey years (Table II-131a). Jurisdictional wetland status of vegetation at Drinkwater Creek does not appear to have been altered by the mine to date, but only one year of pre -Mod Alt L data was collected. Tooley Creek: Approximately 257 acres remain of the historic -571-acre drainage basin. Pre -Mod Alt L years include 1998-2001 and 2010-2011; however, Hurricane Irene debris prevented or limited access and only the eastern prong of Tooley Creek was surveyed in 2011 (TW1 and TW3). Post -Mod Alt L vegetation data were collected 2015-2018 in all plots/transects. Cluster analysis on Tooley Creek vegetation grouped the 10 years of data into seven clusters: A: 2011, B: 2015, C: 2016, D: 2017, 2018, E: 1998, 1999, F: 2010, and G: 2000, 2001 (Figure II-138). Due to inaccessibility after Hurricane Irene, data were only collected for two transects out of four in 2011, which may be why that year clustered alone. A significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for species presence/absence data was found when ANOSIM was used (p=0.019); fewer species were found post -Mod Alt L (Table II-132). A SIMPER analysis based on the Bray -Curtis similarity measure for species composition showed 45.86 percent dissimilarity between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years, the third highest dissimilarity among all creeks with post -Mod Alt L vegetation data. For Tooley Creek, there were four species with a contribution greater than 2 percent. The three species with the highest individual contribution percent (2.64) were only present during all post -Mod Alt L years. Two of the three species, sturdy bulrush (Bolboschoenus robustus) and common reed, were brackish tolerant and both were present at TW3; one of the three species was northern dewberry (Rubus flagellaris), a non -wetland species. Coast cockspur (Echinochloa walteri), a brackish tolerant species, had the next highest contribution percent (2.32) and was present in 2010 and all post - Mod Alt L years. Of all the identified species within the vegetation transects at Tooley Creek, 23 out of 72 (31.9 percent) were only present in one or more pre -Mod Alt L year(s) and 15 out of 72 (20.8 percent) were only present in one or more post -Mod Alt L year(s). Of the 23 pre -Mod Alt L species, nine (39.1 percent) were brackish tolerant; of the 15 post -Mod Alt L species, nine (60 percent) were brackish tolerant. Even when 2011 species data or individuals that were identified only to genus were excluded from the ANOSIM test, pre- and post -Mod Alt L species presence/absence results were significantly different. A t-test to compare percentages for all transects of dominant herbaceous and woody vine/shrub species intolerant of brackish conditions for pre- and post -Mod Alt L Tooley Creek showed the two data sets were not significantly different. The percent of brackish intolerant dominants in pre -Mod Alt L years across all transects ranged from 0 to 100, with an average of 68.5; percent of brackish intolerant dominants in post -Mod Alt L years across all transects ranged from 33 to 100, with an average of 59.3 (Table II-131a). For individual transects, there was a significant difference for pre- and post -Mod Alt L percentages of dominants intolerant of brackish conditions at TW1 and TW4 (Figure II-B9). For TW4, percentages of brackish intolerant species were significantly lower in post -Mod Alt L, with a very strong negative correlation between years and percentages (p=0.016, r2=0.98) (Figure II-1310). The pre -Mod Alt L average was 93.3 percent and post -Mod Alt L was 47.5 percent (Table II- B1 a). TW4 is located on the western prong and is the most downstream of all transects for Tooley Creek. The first occurrence of brackish tolerant dominants was 2010, the fifth and final year of pre -Mod Alt L vegetation data for the western prong. At TW1, the most upstream transect on the eastern prong, percentages in post -Mod Alt L were also significantly lower, with a weak correlation between years and percentages (p=0.021, r2=0.33) (Figure II-B11). An increase in percent cover and number of stems for giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) since 2001 has led to a decrease in the number of dominant species in the shrub layer (see Section III-E). The open canopy since Hurricane Irene has likely led to an increase in the number of dominant species in the herbaceous layer, which have been more brackish tolerant species. These two factors seem to have affected the percentages of brackish intolerant dominants over more recent years. Unlike the other transects at Tooley Creek, TW3 has higher average percent of brackish intolerant species post -Mod Alt L (32.9) than pre -Mod Alt L years (20.4), but not significantly (Table II-B1a). A t-test compared the pre- vs. post -Mod Alt L number of herbaceous and shrub dominants in Tooley Creek on a combined and an individual transect basis. For the herb stratum, there was no statistically significant difference when all transects were combined, but two of the four transects were significantly different post -Mod Alt L individually. Significantly more dominant herbs were found post -Mod Alt L in TW4 (p=0.032) while TW6 (p=0.007) had significantly fewer (Figure II-1312). For the shrub stratum, when combined, post -Mod Alt L transects in Tooley Creek had significantly fewer dominants (Figure II-1313, p=0.021), although only one of the four transects individually had any significant difference; TW1 (p=0.036) had significantly fewer post -Mod Alt L shrub dominants (Figure II-1314). The percentages of non -wetland species in all transects combined for pre -Mod Alt L data ranged from 0 (2011) to 17.8 (1999), with an average of 12.8 (Table 11-132). The percentages of non -wetland species for post -Mod Alt L data ranged from 11.9 (2017) to 18.2 (2015), with an average of 13.9. The only instance of a non -wetland dominant for Tooley Creek MMI was small dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) at TW4 in 2015. Jurisdictional wetland status of the vegetation at Tooley Creek does not appear to have been altered by the mine. Huddles Cut Main Prong: Mod Alt L activities in the Huddles Cut drainage basin ended in 2011 and approximately 289 of the approximately 552 acres in the pre -Mod Alt L basin remain from the estimated 1,014-acre historic drainage basin. Pre -Mod Alt L vegetation survey years were 1998-2001, 2007-2009 and post -Mod Alt L vegetation survey years were 2013-2014 and 2016-2018. The analysis on the main prong of Huddles Cut resulted in five clusters: A: 2013, B: 2017, 2018, C: 2014, 2016, D: 1998-2001, and E: 2007-2009 (no survey in 2015, Figure 11- B15). A significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for species presence/absence data was found when ANOSIM was used (p=0.001); fewer species were found post -Mod Alt L (Table 11-132). A SIMPER analysis based on the Bray -Curtis similarity measure for species composition showed 54.89 percent dissimilarity between pre- and post - Mod Alt L years, the second highest dissimilarity among all creeks post -Mod Alt L vegetation data. The highest individual contributions at the main prong of Huddles Cut were eight species with 1.76 percent and no other species were greater than 1.49 percent. Of the eight species, four were present in all pre -Mod Alt L years only, two of which were brackish intolerant; four were present in all post -Mod Alt L years only, none of which were brackish intolerant. None of the eight species were non -wetland species. A t-test to compare percentages for all transects of dominant herbaceous and woody vine/shrub species intolerant brackish conditions for pre- and post -Mod Alt L data showed percentages were significantly lower in post -Mod Alt L years (p=<0.001) (Figure 11-1316). The percent of brackish intolerant dominants in pre -Mod Alt L years across all transects ranged from 25 to 90, with an average of 60 (Table 11-131 a). The percentages of brackish intolerant dominants in post -Mod Alt L years across all transects ranged from 0 to 80, with an average of 38.3 (Table II-131 a). When transects were compared individually, three of the seven transects had significantly lower percentages between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years with negative correlations between years and percentages: HMW8 (p=0.037, r2=0.11), HMW9 (p=0.003, r2=0.44), and HMW2 (p=0.005, r2=0.56) (Figures 11-1317 and II-1318 a-c). The four transects that did not show a significant difference are located on smaller branches off the main prong. A t-test to compare number of herbaceous dominants pre- and post -Mod Alt L combined and in each main prong transect also resulted in a significant difference post -Mod Alt L (Figure 11-1319, p= <0.001 fewer post -Mod Alt L combined). On an individual transect basis, five of the seven (HMW2, p=<0.001; HMW5, p=0.048; HMW6, p=0.007; HMW10, p=0.010; and HMW12, p=0.005) had significantly fewer dominants post -Mod Alt L; the two most downstream transects (HMW8 and HMW9) did not (Figure 11-1320). These two downstream transects also contained significantly more post -Mod Alt L species tolerant of brackish conditions. For the shrub stratum in the main prong, two of the seven transects were significantly different post -Mod Alt L; HMW10 (p=0.007) had significantly more post -Mod Alt L shrub dominants and HMW2 (p=0.010) had significantly fewer (Figure 11-1321). The percent of non -wetland species for pre -Mod Alt L data ranged from 6.6 (1999) to 15.3 (2008), with an average of 10.9 (Table 11-132). The percent of non -wetland species for post -Mod Alt L data ranged from 3.1 (2016) to 9.4 (2013), with an average of 7.0. There was a significant difference in the percentage of non -wetland species with higher percentages in pre -Mod Alt L years (p=0.044); possibly a result of more canopy stems and storm tip -ups in earlier years. Only four dominant species have been non -wetland and with the exception of small dog fennel, all of the occurrences were in pre -Mod Alt L years. Jurisdictional wetland status of the vegetation at the main prong of Huddles Cut does not appear to have been altered by the mine. Huddles Cut West Prong: Drainage basin reduction and pre- and post -Mod Alt L data collection years were the same as Huddles Cut main prong. Before the last year of pre - Mod Alt monitoring (2009), half of the HWW2 transect and the entire transect at HWW10 were eliminated by permitted mine activities. Then in 2012, the last of the three transition years, a surface depression appeared in the middle of HWW8, eliminating one of the 10 vegetation plots. For this 2018 report, pre- vs post -Mod Alt L statistical comparisons did not include data from the six plots destroyed in HWW2 in 2009 or the entire transect at HWW10; in previous reports, these data had been included in error as part of the pre -Mod Alt L data set although there were no post -Mod Alt L data for comparison. All data years in HWW8 remain in the pre- vs post -Mod Alt L comparison as the plot within that transect was not been destroyed in 2012, only reduced in elevation and covered in water in the recent years. These changes may account for some of the differences in vegetation found in previous pre- and post -Mod Alt L data comparisons and in 2018. This correction also made apparent that the formulas used for some statistical analysis did not reduce the number of plots from a sample size of 10 to a sample size of four for HWW2; those formulas have been corrected. As shown in previous reports, data collected in all plots within these three transects are shown in the tables in both sections of this 2018 report (II-B and III-E). Cluster analysis on the 12 years of vegetation data for the west prong of Huddles Cut resulted in three clusters, grouped similarly to the main prong: A: 2013, 2014, 2016-2018, B: 1998-2001, and C: 2007-2009 (no survey in 2015, Figure II-1322). Cluster A contained all the post -Mod Alt L years. A significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for species presence/absence data was found when ANOSIM was used (p=0.001). A SIMPER analysis based on the Bray -Curtis similarity measure for species composition showed 64.71 percent dissimilarity between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years, the highest dissimilarity among all creeks with post -Mod Alt L vegetation data. The highest individual contributions in the west prong of Huddles Cut were 12 species with 1.80 percent; no other species were greater than 1.54 percent. Of the 12 species, eight were present only in pre -Mod Alt L years. Of those eight, seven were brackish intolerant species and one was Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), a non -wetland species. Four of the 12 species occurred only in post -Mod Alt L years and all are considered species tolerant of brackish conditions. A t-test to compare percentages for all transects of dominant herbaceous and woody vine/shrub species intolerant of brackish conditions for pre- and post -Mod Alt L data showed percentages were significantly lower in post -Mod Alt L years (p=<0.001) (Figure 11-1323). The percent of brackish intolerant dominants in pre -Mod Alt L years across all transects (excluding HWW10 because it was not surveyed after 2008) ranged from 33.3 to 100, with an average of 78.0 (Table II-131a). The percent of brackish intolerant dominants in post -Mod Alt L years across all transects ranged from 0 to 66.7, with an average of 40.5. When transects were compared individually, three of the four transects showed a significant difference between pre - and post -Mod Alt L years with negative correlations between years and percentages: HWW4 (p=0.017, r2=0.50), HWW2 (p=<0.001, r2=0.59), and HWW8 (p=0.003, r2=0.26) (Figures 11-1324 and 11-1325 a-c). A t-test to compare the number of herbaceous and shrub dominants pre- and post -Mod Alt L combined and in each transect showed statistically significant fewer post -Mod Alt L dominant herbs for Huddles Cut west prong combined (Figure 11-1326, p= 0.014). Individually, two of the four transects (HWW2, p=0.003 and HWW8, p=0.005) had significantly fewer post - Mod Alt L dominants; the two most downstream transects (HWW4 and HWW7) were not significantly different (Figure II-1327). Unlike the main prong, the most downstream transect in the west prong (HMW7) did not show a significant decrease in brackish intolerant species; however, it is about 800 feet closer to the creek mouth and may not ever have had as many species intolerant of brackish conditions as transects further upstream. In the shrub stratum, when combined there was no significant difference in numbers of pre- and post -Mod Alt L dominants; however, one transect had statistically significantly fewer post -Mod Alt L (HWW8, p=0.008, Figure II-1328). The percent of non -wetland species for pre -Mod Alt L data ranged from 5.5 (1998) to 13.3 (2009), with an average of 8.8 (Table II-132). The percent of non -wetland species for post -Mod Alt L data ranged from 4.2 (2016) to 7.4 (2013), with an average of 6.0. A t-test showed no significant difference between percentages of non -wetland species of pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years. Though percentages of non -wetland species for the main and western prong of Huddle Cut were slightly different, the years with the highest and lowest percentages in pre- and post -Mod Alt L data were similar. Small dog fennel was the only non - wetland species that was a dominant for the western prong, occurring in pre- and post -Mod Alt L years. Jurisdictional wetland status of the vegetation at the western prong of Huddles Cut does not appear to have been altered by the mine. In early pre -Mod Alt L years, percent cover and stem counts for small clumps of Lemna sp. (duckweed) were documented at one transect on the main prong (HMW6) and two transects (HWW4 and HWW7) on the west prong of Huddles Cut. Duckweed was not noted during the 2013 and 2014 vegetation surveys. In the summer of 2016, the upstream reaches of the main and west prongs of Huddles Cut experienced an exponential increase in duckweed; coverage became thick and was noted on semi-monthly water quality collection data forms. The decrease in canopy cover and increase in standing water (depth and length of time) after Hurricane Irene, coupled with low flow, have created favorable conditions for duckweed to grow. The amount of duckweed in Huddles Cut has increased each year at both prongs of Huddles Cut since 2016. For the vegetation surveys in 2016, 2017, and 2018, duckweed percent cover was estimated for the entire transect but stems were not counted. In order to properly compare pre- and post -Mod Alt L vegetation data, conservative estimates of the percent cover and stem counts for duckweed were made and 2016, 2017, and 2018 vegetation data was updated to include duckweed for each transect using field notes taken during the surveys, past data, and leaf surface area of the largest Lemna species. This inclusion of duckweed into recent data caused a change in dominant herb species, percentages of brackish intolerant dominants, and percentages of non -wetland species from data shown in previous reports. For the main prong of Huddles Cut, duckweed was the only dominant herb species in 2016, 2017, and 2018 for all transects except HMW8; at HMW8, it was not a dominant in 2016 but was a dominant with common reed in 2017 and 2018. For the west prong of Huddles Cut, duckweed was the only dominant herb at HWW8 for 2016, 2017, and 2018; at HWW7, it was the only herb dominant in 2017 and 2018; at HWW4, it was the only herb dominant in 2018. The most upstream transect on the west prong, HWW2, is the only transect at Huddles Cut where duckweed has not been a dominant herb. Long Creek (control): Vegetation data collection began at one transect for Long Creek in 2011 and has been collected every year since. Cluster analysis for the eight years of vegetation data resulted in three clusters in this control creek: A included 2016-2018, B included 2013-2015, and C included 2011 and 2012 (Figure II-1329). The percent of brackish intolerant dominants at Long Creek in all years ranged from 50 to 66.7, with an average of 60.0 (Table II- B1 b). The number of species with wetland status in Long Creek was highest in 2017 (28) and overall average number of such species was 23; 2014 and 2018 were tied for second highest (27), while the lowest number occurred in 2012 (16). ie:W Impact to Control Creek Summary Vegetation Discussion: Vegetation transects at Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, Huddles Cut, and Long Creek (control) are all between 3,000 and 5,000 feet (0.5 to 0.9 mile) from the mouth of their respective creek. Post -Mod Alt L averages for percent of brackish intolerant dominants at Jacks Creek and Huddles Cut (main and western prongs) were nearly 30 percent lower than Long Creek, but the ranges overlapped. The post - Mod Alt L average for percent of brackish intolerant dominants at Tooley Creek (59.8) was nearly the same as Long Creek. The floodplain width (6 to 10 feet) in the vicinity of the vegetation transect in Long Creek is narrower than any other creek in the study by several factors; floodplain width in most other creeks is >25 feet and for several creeks is greater >100 feet. The canopy cover is greater at the Long Creek transect (50 percent) than at all transects for Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. The vegetation transect at Long Creek is along a small narrow prong off the main creek and elevation seems to be also higher than either Jacks Creek or Huddles Cut, so storm surge and wind have less influence than some transects at Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. The canopy at Long Creek did not appear to be affected by Hurricane Irene. To compare post -Mod Alt L data from the four impact creeks to the data from two control creeks (Long Creek and Duck Creek) for the same years (only through 2017 for Duck Creek), percent of species in three wetland status categories (obligate [OBL], facultative wetland [FACW], and facultative [FAC]) was displayed (Figure II-1330). Control creek vegetation data was not collected prior to 2011 and Duck Creek was not sampled in 2018. Several trends were apparent: most creeks showed a steady decline over time in the percent of wetland species with FACW status, a less dramatic decline in the percent of FAC species, and an increase in the percent of OBL species (Figure II-1330). Jacobs Creek and Jacks Creek were the exceptions: Jacks showed a decrease of OBL and increase in FACW for the past two years while Jacobs had a decrease of OBL species from 2013 to 2017 and had none in 2018.Pre-Mod Alt L salinity was significantly higher than post -Mod Alt L for the upstream and downstream aquatroll stations at Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, Porter Creek, and DCUT11. The two upstream stations at Huddles Cut, one located on each prong, had significantly lower salinity pre -Mod Alt L than post -Mod Alt L. The most downstream station at Huddles Cut did not show any significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L salinity. Section III -A contains more information on salinity at the creeks. The annual rainfall from 1998-2005 and 2007-2017 for the NOAA station Aurora 6 N ranged from 24.07 inches (2011) to 70.68 inches (2003) and the annual average was 47.10 inches (Table I-F2). Total annual rainfall for 2018 (53.40 inches) was higher than 2017, a year which was lower than the previous three years by 11.91 inches or more. Annual rainfall data are also collected from six rain gauges to account for spatial variability. Although annual rainfall totals from the six rain gauges have been different from one another every year, totals typically differ by only several inches. Because annual rainfall can affect hydrology and salinity and both strongly influence the composition of species at the creeks, it is an important factor to consider. Hydrology: Many wells show similar behavior in most creeks, with upstream hydroperiods typically shorter than downstream hydroperiods. Even though many wells occasionally record multiple wetland hydroperiods throughout the growing season only the longest one was used in comparisons and statistical tests. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L data sets for hydrology data are longer than those of the vegetation data in the same creek. The creeks with post -Mod Alt L hydrology data include Jacks Creek (four years of post- data), Jacobs Creek (five years of post- data), Drinkwater Creek (six years of post- data), Tooley Creek (seven years of post- data), Huddles Cut (nine years of post- data), Porter Creek (three years of post- data), and DCUT11 (one year of post- data). In 2018, there were four significant differences between pre- and post -Mod Alt L data (overall and at each well) at impacted creeks: one well on Jacks Creek recorded shorter hydroperiods post -Mod Alt L, one well at Tooley Creek recorded longer hydroperiods while another well recorded shorter hydroperiods post -Mod Alt L, and the combined wells on the main and west prongs of Huddles Cut recorded longer hydroperiods post -Mod Alt L.. Although it is not the only driver, rainfall must be considered in hydrology analysis because it can influence hydrology, at least to some degree, in most wetland systems, particularly in the upper basin. However, rainfall was not significantly different between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years at any creek. For impact creeks total annual rainfall during hydrology monitoring years was highest in 2015 at Tooley Creek, Drinkwater Creek, and Jacobs Creek. Jacks Creek had the highest rainfall in 2005 and Huddles Cut, Porter Creek, and DCUT11 had the highest rainfall in 2018 (Table I-F2). At Jacks Creek, 2005 and 2003 had the highest rainfall respectively; however, hydrology in no other creeks was monitored in those years. At all creeks, annual rainfall was higher in 2018 than 2017. From 2000-2017, four years did not have any weeks with a drought status (2000, 2003, 2004, and 2015), five years had less than 25 percent of the year with a drought status (2005, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018), and three years had more than 75 percent of the year with a drought status (2002, 2007, and 2008) in the area surrounding South Creek (Table 1-D1). Jacks Creek hydrology data include 10 years of pre -Mod Alt L data (2000-2005 and 2011-2014) and four years of post -Mod Alt L data (2015-2018). Post -Mod Alt L average annual rainfall within Jacks Creek was 3.89 inches higher than pre -Mod Alt L Of the 14 wells at Jacks Creek, six had a longer mean hydroperiod post -Mod Alt L and eight had a shorter mean hydroperiod post -Mod Alt L (Figure 11-B31). One well, JWSA, was significantly different (p=0.009) when pre and post -Mod Alt L means were compared; the longest hydroperiods for each post -Mod Alt L year were shorter than pre -Mod Alt L. At JWSA, there was a noticeable decrease in hydroperiod length after 2014, which is also when common reed first became a dominant species in the vegetation transect at the well. The change in hydroperiod length from 2015 to 2018 at JWSA is most likely due to the increase in common reed, which now completely surrounds the well and covers the vegetation transect; 2017 was the shortest recorded hydroperiod for JWSA (49 days) for all years of data. The longest hydroperiod for 2018 at JWSA increased by 35 days compared to 2017. With a dense and deep network of roots and rhizomes, common reed stands have been associated with reduced hydroperiods, altered salinity, and increased sedimentation rates in some brackish marshes (Windham and Lathrop 1999). The mean hydroperiod for all Jacks Creek wells during pre -Mod Alt L (144.9 days) was slightly lower than post -Mod Alt L (147.0), but not significantly different. Jacobs Creek hydrology data include three years of pre -Mod Alt L data (2011-2013) and five years of post -Mod Alt L data (2014-2018). Post -Mod Alt L average annual rainfall within Jacobs Creek was 6.21 inches higher than pre -Mod Alt L. The only year that wells recorded a wetland hydroperiod was in 2014, which was also the first year of post -Mod Alt L data and fourth highest total annual rainfall of all monitoring years (Table I-F2). There was no significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiods for individual or combined Jacobs Creek well data. Drinkwater Creek hydrology data include two years of pre -Mod Alt L data (2011-2012) and six years of post -Mod Alt L data (2013-2018). Post -Mod Alt L average annual rainfall within Drinkwater Creek was 1.65 inches higher than pre -Mod Alt L. At Drinkwater Creek, two wells, including the well in the stream bed, had longer mean hydroperiods and one well had a shorter mean hydroperiod post -Mod Alt L (DWW1A). There was no significant difference between pre - and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiods for individual or combined Drinkwater Creek well data. :• Tooley Creek hydrology data include four years of pre -Mod Alt L data (2000-2001 and 2010-2011) and seven years of post -Mod Alt L data (2012-2018). Post -Mod Alt L average annual rainfall within Tooley Creek was 5.52 inches higher than pre -Mod Alt L. When wells were compared individually, post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod means were longer for two of the three wells on the western prong and one on the eastern prong (TW4, TW5, and TW2 respectively) while the other wells (TW1, TW3, and TW6) had shorter mean hydroperiods post -Mod Alt L (Figure II-1332). Pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiods were significantly different or TW5 and TW1 (p=0.013 and p=0.042, respectively). When well data were combined, the post -Mod Alt L mean hydroperiod length was higher than pre -Mod Alt L by approximately 16 days, though hydroperiod length ranges were similar and not significantly different. Huddles Cut hydrology data include five years of pre -Mod Alt L data (2000-2001 and 2007-2009) and nine years of post -Mod Alt L data (2010-2018). Post -Mod Alt L average annual rainfall within Huddles Cut was 6.92 inches higher than pre -Mod Alt L. Longest combined hydroperiods were significantly longer post -Mod Alt L in the west prong (p=0.007) and the main prong (p=0.002) (Figure II-1333). When wells on the main prong were compared individually, post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod means were shorter for two of the 12 wells (HMW5 and HWM10), while the other wells had longer mean hydroperiods post -Mod Alt L although none were significant (). The mean length of the longest hydroperiod for all wells was 216.7 pre -Mod Alt L and 237.3 post -Mod Alt L, a difference of approximately 21 days. When wells on the western prong were compared individually, post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod means were shorter for three of the eight wells (HWW4, HWM7, and HWW8), while the other five had longer mean hydroperiods post -Mod Alt L (HWW2, HWW3, HWW5, HWW6, and HWW9); however, there was no significant pre- to post -Mod Alt L difference. For HWW8, the average length of the longest hydroperiod was 207.8 days pre -Mod Alt L and 158.9 days post -Mod Alt L; however, a t-test concluded pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiods were not significantly different (p=0.257). When all wells on the west prong were combined, hydroperiod length was significantly different in pre- and post -Mod Alt L years (p=0.007) (Figure II-1333). The mean length of the longest hydroperiod for all wells was 148.8 pre -Mod Alt L and 184.1 post -Mod Alt L, approximately 35 days more post -Mod Alt L. Since 2016, all wells on the main and west prongs of Huddles Cut had a wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season. Porter Creek hydrology data include nine years of pre -Mod Alt L data (2007-2015) and three years of post -Mod Alt L data (2016-2018). Post -Mod Alt L average annual rainfall within Porter Creek was 8.33 inches higher than pre -Mod Alt L. For post -Mod Alt L, four of the nine wells had longer mean hydroperiods and four had a shorter mean hydroperiod than pre -Mod Alt L. One well located in the stream bed (PCW9B), had a hydroperiod for the entire growing season for every year since it was installed in 2011; therefore, showed no difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L. There was no significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiods for individual or combined Porter Creek well data. DCUT11, a small tributary of Durham Creek, has five years of pre -Mod Alt L data (2013- 2017) and one year of post -Mod Alt L data (2018). Average annual rainfall for pre -Mod Alt L years at DCUT11 from 2013-2017 was 51.62 inches. Annual rainfall for 2018, the first post -Mod Alt L year, was 67.61. The longest hydroperiod for all wells combined ranged from 3 to 256 days, with an average of 108.4 for pre -Mod Alt L years. The average hydroperiod for all wells in 2018 was 101.5 days. There was no significant difference between pre- and post- Mod Alt L hydroperiods for individual or combined DCUT11 well data but with only one year of post -Mod Alt L data the comparison is weak. Answer: Specific changes in geomorphology cannot be confidently addressed due to the qualitative nature of baseline measures. However, as reported in the 2012 report, in the case of the most upstream areas of the western prong of Huddles Cut, a discontinuous and unstable lithology unit called the Croatan Clay appears to have caused the formation of two depressions as the mine operations advanced through the basin. These depressions have appeared to remain relatively stable since they formed. Jacks Creek showed no significant differences when pre and post -mod Alt L data were compared for species presence/absence, number of dominant herbs or shrubs, percentages of non -wetland species, and brackish intolerant dominants for combined transects. When transects were analyzed separately, the percentages of brackish intolerant dominants at the two most downstream transects on the western prong were significantly lower in post -Mod Alt L years. This was likely due to the arrival of common reed at JW3 in 2012 and JW5 in 2013. In the 2017 report, Jacks Creek showed significantly lower percentages of brackish intolerant dominants in more recent years (2011-2014, 2017) than earlier years (1998-2005) of data, suggesting a change in vegetation before Mod -Alt L impacts. Both JW2 and JW7 had a higher average percentage of brackish intolerant dominants in post -Mod Alt L years (each is the most upstream transect on their respective prong). When the number of dominant herbs and shrubs was considered on an individual transect basis, one had more herbs and two had fewer post -Mod Alt L; shrub stratum had one transect with more and one with fewer. There were no significant differences for species presence/absence, percentages of non -wetland species, percentages of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions, or number of herbaceous dominants when pre- and post -Mod Alt L vegetation data from combined transects were compared at Jacobs Creek and Drinkwater Creek. Jacobs Creek and Drinkwater Creek had 100 percent brackish intolerant dominants for all years of monitoring; however, both transects are located farther upstream from the mouth of the creek than transects at Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. Tooley Creek showed significant differences for species presence/absence and number of dominants in the shrub stratum, but no significant differences when pre and post -mod Alt L data were compared for percentages of non -wetland species and brackish intolerant dominants for all transects combined. When transects were analyzed separately, the percentages of brackish intolerant dominants at TW1 (most upstream on eastern prong) and TW4 (most downstream on western prong) were significantly lower in post -Mod Alt L years. The three species with the highest contribution to pre- and post - Mod Alt L dissimilarity were absent in pre -Mod Alt L years, but occurred in all post -Mod Alt L years. Two of the three were brackish tolerant species and were found at TW3. TW3 was the only transect at Tooley Creek to have a higher average percentage of brackish intolerant dominants in post -Mod Alt L years. The main and west prongs of Huddles Cut showed significant differences when pre- and post -mod Alt L data were compared for species presence/absence, percentages of brackish intolerant dominants, and average number of herbaceous dominants for all transects combined. When transects were analyzed separately, three of the seven transects at the main prong and three of the four transects on the western prong had significantly lower percentages of brackish intolerant dominants in post -Mod Alt L years. The four transects that did not show a significant difference are located on two smaller branches off the main prong. On an individual basis, the number of herbaceous dominants was significantly lower post -Mod Alt L in five main prong transects while the number of shrubs was lower in one of those five and higher in another; in the west prong transects, two of the four had fewer herbaceous dominants post -Mod Alt L and one of those two had fewer shrubs. The transition years for Huddles Cut were 2010-2012, which included the same year as Hurricane Irene (2011) and the year after. Cluster analysis based on species presence/absence similarities grouped all post -Mod Alt L vegetation survey years separately from pre -Mod Alt L years for the main and west prongs of Huddles Cut. Detectable effects on vegetation from hydrologic alterations can be slow to appear and are dependent on the degree and speed of changes in light, hydrology, and salinity. The significant decrease in hydroperiod length at JW5A in recent years is likely due to increase in cover of common reed, which may have changed the hydrology surrounding the well. Both prongs at Huddles Cut had significantly longer hydroperiods in post -Mod Alt L years when all well data were combined. Effects of longer hydroperiods in Huddles Cut can be seen by the decreased number of non -wetland species present in the vegetation transects and possibly by the significant difference in species presence/absence post -Mod Alt L. The post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod lengths for two wells at Tooley Creek (TW1 and TW5) were significantly different from pre -Mod Alt L; however, the most upstream well on the east prong of Tooley Creek, TW1, and the middle well on the western prong, TW5, have not shown any significant changes in the number of non -wetland species present in the vegetation transect. Even though the salinity was significantly lower post -Mod Alt L for Jacks Creek and Tooley Creek, the percent of brackish intolerant species was significantly lower in more recent years at Jacks Creek and at the most downstream transects of Tooley Creek post -Mod Alt L. At the two most upstream Huddles Cut monitors, salinity was significantly higher post -Mod Alt L and the percent of brackish intolerant species was significantly lower. Many wells appear to be influenced in the short-term by large rain events, or several smaller events in a short amount of time, but some do not appear to be influenced in the long-term and their hydroperiods do not always respond logically to rainfall. These rainfall/hydroperiod variations make it difficult to directly correlate mine activities to a decrease in wetland hydroperiod in all cases. Aside from rainfall, hydrology and salinity at some wells can also be influenced by large Tar River discharges and by wind tides, which complicates interpretation. It does not appear mine activities have altered the vegetation or hydrology for Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, and Tooley Creek. It is difficult to conclude if changes in vegetation, salinity, and hydrology at Huddles Cut were due to Mod -Alt L impacts, after effects from Hurricane Irene, a narrower creek mouth caused by a sand bar that appeared in 2008 or 2009 which contributes to periods of constricted flow, concomitant regional changes in salinity, sea level and/or climate, or a combination of these factors. In summary, Table II-133 shows the four parameters used to illustrate changes in the vegetative character in impact creeks and indicates with arrows those parameters with increases or decreases (significant and non -significant) post -Mod Alt L as of 2018. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L data sets are different among parameters for each creek and within each creek. Factors which may contribute to differences in vegetation or other parameters may include: deeper/longer periods of standing water, no more gap -phase regeneration with decrease in canopy, fewer trees for woody vines to climb upon, fewer tip -ups decrease microtopography, more light reduces number of shade tolerant herbaceous species, and increase in importance of common reed, duckweed, and cattail in some transects even though these species may not be dominants in many. II-B-12 At least one of these potential factors was obvious prior to Mod Alt L activity (e.g., decrease in tree canopy) and others may have begun but were less obvious (e.g., appearance of a persistent but somewhat migratory sand bar at the mouth of Huddles Cut in 2008). The sand bar appeared to be coincident with a change in propulsion for the Aurora/Bayview ferry mentioned to CZR personnel in 2008/2009 by a ferry crew member as he observed the biological data collection at the mouth of Huddles Cut. During previous fish and benthos collections, CZR biologists had already noticed larger bow waves with the arrival of the ferry and in conversation, the crew member agreed that the bow wave upon docking was larger after this change in propulsion as the purpose was to increase backing power at the dock. Eventually, the fyke nets at Huddles Cut had to be more securely tied to the anchor poles to keep the nets in place over night as the larger bow waves were suspected to have dislodged the nets on more than one occasion; a situation not previously encountered during the years of overnight fyke net deployment at Huddles Cut. As mentioned elsewhere and in previous reports this sand bar was a geomorphic feature which began to restrict the flow, limit the exchange of creek/river waters, deposit sediment in the channel, and narrow the overall width of the channel; CZR has observed a complete blockage of the channel by the sand bar several times since its formation. Correspondence in early 2019 with Mary Willis (Business Officer, Ferry Division, NC Dept. of Transportation) and Keith Stegall (Assistant Director, Vessel Asset Management, Ferry Division, NC Dept. of Transportation) was initiated by CZR to determine more details if possible. Mr. Stegall verified that the propeller on the Aurora/Bayview ferry (the "Russell") was changed in March 2012 and changed back to the original propeller type in March 2018. One email mentioned 2008 as the year when the propeller was changed but that date was never mentioned again and the last correspondence only referred to 2012 and 2018. Therefore, while the presence and observed effects of the sandbar are irrefutable, the cause(s) of its formation are not. II-B-13 C_ _ Jacks Greek Vegetation A B C D E F 00 M LO V N O W N aO f� V (•7 O O O O O O O 6� W O C O G O W o o p O b r N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure II-B1. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation survey years based on the presence/absence of all species at Jacks Creek. Colored lines represent clusters (or single year) that are significantly different from one another at the 5 percent level (p = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. Jacks Creek 100 U) 90 � c •2 80 0 70 c Co (n 60 c Y oU m 50 �m 0 0 40 c c 0- 30 a � 20 10 0 lggg lggg'L�p'LO�� TIP `L2��g2�pA2T Year 2�� a12012�12p1 ��12012�16 Figure II-B2. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year surveyed at Jacks Creek with all transects combined. Means (dots) and ranges are shown. Ifft-SE, i[sit 90 LD _0 80 U70 M U) 60 Y E U O 50 pm p o 40 10 0 Jacks Creek JW9 JW5 JW7 JW3 p=0.073 p=0.037 p=0.253 p=0.045 J W 2 f p=1.00 UPSTREAM Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure II-133. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at each transect for Jacks Creek pre- vs post years; pre -Mod Alt L years include 1998-2005 and 2011-2014; post - Mod Alt L years include 2017-2018. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. $ Jacks Creek 7 U) 6 c� c E 5 4 2 w O 3 N E Z 2 0 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post JW9 JW5 JW7 JW3 JW2 p=0.358 p=0.029 p=0.024 =0.032 p=0.576 UPSTREAM 3> • • • Figure II-134. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant herbs by individual transect in Jacks Creek. pre -Mod Alt L years include 1998-2005 and 2011-2014; post -Mod Alt L years include 2017-2018. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. II-B-15 8 7 m 6 c o 5 0 4 to w 0 3 0 2 Z 0 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Jacks Creek JW9 JW5 JW7 JW3 JW2 p=0.111 p=0.918 p=0.147 p=0.007 p=0.003 UPSTREAM • Figure II-B5. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs by individual transect in Jacks Creek. pre -Mod Alt L years include 1998-2005 and 2011-2014; post -Mod Alt L years include 2017-2018. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. Jacobs Creek Vegetation A B C O O O O O N N N N N Figure II-B6. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation survey years based on presence/absence of all species at Jacobs Creek. Colored lines represent clusters (or single year) that are significantly different from one another at the 5 percent level (p = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. Drinkwater Creek Vegetation A B 0 It M O J O O O O N N N N Figure II-B7. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation survey years based on presence/absence of all species at Drinkwater Creek. Colored lines represent clusters (or single year) that are significantly different from one another at the 5 percent level (p = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. Tooley Creek Vegetation A B C D E F G O 1 1 1 u7 cn co n_ rn COO) o_ o rn o 0 o N O O O Q1 O O O N N N N N N N N Figure II-B8. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation survey years based on presence/absence of all species at Tooley Creek. Colored lines represent clusters (or single year) that are significantly different from one another at the 5 percent level (p = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. II-B-17 100 90 a� •0_ 80 0 70 U CO V) 60 c Y •� U O 50 p 00 0 0 40 c � C6 30 a� � o 10 0 Tooley Creek TW4 TW3 TW1 • TW6 • p=0.016 p=0.262 p=0.021 1 UPSTREAM 1 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure II-139. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at each transect for Tooley Creek pre- vs post -Mod Alt L; (west prong = TW4 and TW6; east prong = TW1 and TW3). Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. TW4 and TW6 were not surveyed in 2011 due to debris from Hurricane Irene. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. 100 In 90 N 0 m o LR 80 CL C: (j 70 c � M U) 60 c Y 0 U m 50 0 0 40 c C: CU 0 30 i N d C 20 If U Ne ^4P OOv OO. OOv OOP O,� ON' ONV ON' Or ONE O� ON' Ow I 1 1 1 1 1 I Year Figure II-1310. Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species every year at TW4; dots represent yearly values. TW4 and TW6 were not surveyed in 2011 due to Hurricane Irene debris. 100 90 � O O 80 Q c W U 70 c � c Y 60 U 0 m 50 o O 40 c Z Ia2) 30 o 20 10 0 Tooley Creek 10 'IF O Off, Year Figure II-1311. Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species every year at TW1; dots represent yearly values. 7- 6- M 0- Toolev Creek TW4 TW3 TW1 TW6 P=0.032 P=0.185 P=0.067 P=0.007 UPSTREAM • 1 1 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure II-1312. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant herbs by individual transect in Tooley Creek; pre -Mod Alt L years include 1998-2001 and 2010-2011 (two of four transects inaccessible due to hurricane debris); post -Mod Alt L years include 2015-2018. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. • 5 4 cB E 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 T Tooley Creek p=0.021 Pre Post Figure II-1313. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs in Tooley Creek; pre -Mod Alt L years include 1998-2001 and 2010-2011 (two of four transects inaccessible due to hurricane debris); post -Mod Alt L years include 2015-2018. 5 U) 4 c cu c E 0 3 0 0 L VJ 0 2 E M 3 0 i ooiey ureeK TW4 TW3 TW1 TW6 p=0.413 p=0.214 p=0.035 p=0.063 UPSTREAM • Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre POE Figure II-1314. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs in Tooley Creek in individual transects; pre -Mod Alt L years include 1998-2001 and 2010-2011 (two of four transects inaccessible due to hurricane debris); post -Mod Alt L years include 2015-2018. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. IIN Huddles Cut (Main) Vegetation A B c D E [2 2 r C2 V 00) W O O ti 00 Q> am)O O O O O O O O O O 6� Q1 O O O O O N N N N N � � N N N N N Figure II-B15. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation survey years based on presence/absence of all species at the main prong of Huddles Cut. Colored lines represent clusters (or single year) that are significantly different from each other at the 5 percent level (p = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. 90 U) U) C: .T 7 80 �_ = cn U 70 C: _ 6 M 0 c o 50 p CO 0 0 40 c a) Co 30 i _" a 20 c 10 0 Huddles Cut -Main Prong p=<0.001 • • • • • Pre -Mod Alt L Post -Mod Alt L Figure II-B16. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions on the main prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L; pre -years include 1998-2001, 2007-2009; post -years include 2013-2014 and 2016-2018. 11-B-21 110 Ifflf c 90 U) 0 a) . =. '5 'a 80 a) C: 0- 0 U) U 70 c -r- M U) 60 C Y 1= f0 00 m 50 0 0 40 c � c6 30 m o c 20 10 a Huddles Main Pronq HMW8 HMW9 HMW6 HMW10 HMW5 HMW2 HMW12 p=0.037 p=0.003 p=0.106 p=0.173 p=0.136 p=0.005 p=0.343 UPSTREAM Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure II-1317. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at each transect on the main prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. 11-B-22 . WO a. 100 90 a ° 30 � a 70 CO 60 Y pU @ 50 •—+'�L 0 CO 0 0 40 • c c d 30 o a 20 10 0 p2 1gg619g92pp02pp12 b. 100 N 90 N m ° 60 a U 0 70 cn c 60 C E U m 50 o o CO 0 40 U � @ 30 N d O c 20 10 0 100 C. 90 • • 0 80 • m ao 70 • � U 60 � Y � U m 50 o m` 0 ao o d 30 o 10 0 Cut Main Prong HMW8 r2=0.11 • 'Lpp'12pp6Lpp9Lp10Lp1 2012L01201AL01 Zp16Lp1'l'Lp19 Year HMW9 r2=0.44 •-- • • • p/p6Lpp'12pp0Lpp92p10Lp.�12p1 2p1 2p1ALp1 2p16Lp1'12p18 Year HMW2 2=0.56 r 1gg01gg92pp02pp12� 2 Z'O"pp'12pp0Lpp92p10Lp� Zp12Lp13Lp1RLp1 �p16Lp1'12p18 Year Figure II-1318 a-c. Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species every year at transects that were significantly different on the main prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L; dots represent yearly values. 11-B-23 10 9 8 w c 7 m c E 6 0 0 5 a� = 4 0 a- 3 E 2 Z 1 0 -1 Huddles Cut -Main Prong p=<0.001 • Pre -Mod Alt L Post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1319. Number of dominant species in the herb layer on the main prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L; pre- years include 1998-2001, 2007-2009; post- years include 2013- 2014 and 2016-2018. 10 - 9- 8- 0 7 - E 0 6- 5- 2 0 4- E 3- 0 Z 2- 0- Huddles Main Pronq HMW8 HMW9 HMW6 HMW10 HMW5 HMW2 HMW12 p=0.785 p=0.078 p=0.007 p=0.010 p=0.048 p=<0.001 p=0.005 UPSTREAM Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure II-1320. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant species in the herb layer at each transect on the main prong of Huddles Cut. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. 11-B-24 6- -M c m c E 4- 0 0 0 3- tn 0 0 L �2- E Z 1 0- Huddles Main Prong HMW8 HMW9 HMW6 HMW10 HMW5 HMW2 HMW12 p=0.424 p=0.432 p=0.876 p=0.007 p=0.141 p=0.010 p=0.820 UPSTREAM • • Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure II-B21. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs at each transect on the main prong of Huddles Cut. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown Huddles Cut (West) Vegetation A 8 C O O O O o o] rn O O O O o N N N N N N N N N N Figure II-B22. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation survey years based presence/absence of all species at the west prong of Huddles Cut. Colored lines represent clusters (or single year) that are significantly different from each other at the 5 percent level (p = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. II-B-25 100 0 90 a� Cj 70 c Co _ Y 60 E U 0 m 50 4-- 0 0 40 2 30 0 0 c 20 Huddles Cut -West Prong =<0.001 Pre -Mod Alt L Post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1323. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions on the west prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L; pre -years include 1998-2001, 2007-2009; post -years include 2013-2014 and 2016-2018. 100 U C 90 T o tf 0 '0 80 Q 0 U) U 70 c � c Y 60 U C6 m 50 0 0 40 c � 0 " 30 N p 20 10 0 Huddles Cut -West Pronq HWW7 HWW4 HWW2 HWW8 p=0.112 p=0.017 p=<0.001 p=0.003 UPSTREAM Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure II-1324. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at each transect on the west prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. IIN Huddles Cut West Prong a. 100 HWW4 90 r2=0.50 N O N U a SO • a • � <j 70 Y 60 • • U m 50 0 0 40 • • c • 2 30 (D d E 20 • 10 0 ^° ^e ryo ,yo ryo yo ryo yo �o �o ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo ryo ryo Year b. 1o0 \ • • . N s HWW2 o • n, o • r2=0.59 QU L6 ao Q • U) U 70 c � Y 60 E U 0 m 50 • o 40 30 (In June and July 2009, 5 of the 10 o monitoring plots were eliminated a 'j� zo 10 by mine activities.) 0 r 00 O�' O° O^ Off' O0 0'1 OW ^° ^5 ^O ^° ^° do yo yo yo �o yo yo �o yo do yo yo yo yo Year C. 100 HWW8 0 so r2=0.26 N g • 80 • d o • U 70 c s @ y 60 C Y E U 00 m 50 0 0 40 C � 30 a ° � zo 10 0 iTi r 00 00 O° O^ 'y0 Off' r�0 00 �O ,y0 ,y0 O� O� O�' ,y0 ry0 r�0 ,y0 ,y0 ,y0 ry0 r�0 �O Year Figure II-1325 a-c. Percent of dominant brackish intolerant species every year at transects that were significantly different on the west prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L; dots represent yearly values. 11-B-27 7 6 w a� 5 S C: 4 (a c E 0 3 0 0 2 E 0 1 Z 0 -1 Huddles Cut -West Prong p=0.014 F_ Pre -Mod Alt L Post -Mod Alt L Figure II-1326. Number of dominant herb species on the west prong of Huddles Cut pre- vs post -Mod Alt L; pre- years include 1998-2001, 2007-2009; post- years include 2013-2014 and 2016-2018. 6 coo 5 0 F- 0 0 4 L 2 0 3 L E 2 Z il rluaaies uui-vvesi t-rong HWW7 HWW4 HWW2 HWW8 p=0.584 p=0.503 p=0.003 p=0.005 UPSTREAM 1 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure II-1327. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant herbs at each transect on the west prong of Huddles Cut. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. IIN 6 c M c E 4 0 0 3 CO 0 0 L a) 2 E Z 1 0 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Huddles Cut -West Prong HWW7 HWW4 HWW2 HWW8 p=0.639 p=0.248 p=0.493 p=0.008 UPSTREAM Figure II-1328. Number of pre- vs post -Mod Alt L dominant shrubs at each transect on the west prong of Huddles Cut. Means (dots), ranges, and p-values are shown. Long Creek Vegetation A B C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N Figure II-B29. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity of vegetation survey years based presence/absence of all species at Long Creek (control). Colored lines represent clusters (or single year) that are significantly different from each other at the 5 percent level (p = 0.05). Jacks Creek (2017-2018 post) Long Creek years to match Jacks Creek Duck Creek years to match Jacks Creek Q. OBL Q. OBL 0 B L 2018 r 2018 a r 3 +' 2017 3 +' 2017 � 2017 V FACW N FACW FACW 2014 ■ 2014 -a ■ 2014 e=a m c=o ■ 2013 02013 02013 FAC FAC FAC ■ 2012 ■ 2012 ■ 2012 .NI v a r 7 r V FACW M m a FAC CL OBL r 3 m FACW M _ m 41 FAC ■2011 ■ 2011 ■2011 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent species with wetland status Percent species with wetland status Percent species with wetland status Jacobs Creek (2017-2018 post) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent species with wetland status Tooley Creek (2015-2018 post) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent species with wetland status OBL v a 2018 41 1 2017 M FACW ■ 2013 M ■ 2012 3 ■ 2011 FAC Long Creek years to match Jacobs Creek 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent species with wetland status Long Creek years to match Tooley Creek a OBL 2018 2017 FACW ■ 2016 ■ 2015 FAC ■ 2011 0 10 20 30 40 Percent species with wetland status 50 2018 2017 ■ 2013 ■ 2012 ■ 2011 2018 2017 ■ 2016 ■ 2015 ■ 2011 OBL v a 41 1 FACW v c M 41 v 3 FAC Duck Creek years to match Jacobs Creek 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent species with wetland status Duck Creek years to match Tooley Creek OBL 3 V FACW M _ m 41 FAC 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent species with wetland status 2017 ■ 2013 ■ 2012 ■ 2011 2017 2016 ■ 2015 ■ 2011 Figure II-1330. Percent of species in three categories of wetland status (obligate [OBL], facultative wet {FACW], and facultative [FAC]) documented in vegetation surveys in four impact creeks compared to control creek vegetation for the same survey years as the four impact creeks (control creek vegetation was not monitored prior to 2011). Post -Mod Alt L years for each impact creek are shown in parenthesis. Note: Huddles Cut was not sampled in 2015 and Duck Creek was not sampled in 2018. IN Huddles Cut WP (2013-2018 post) v OBL a VA m FACW _ m aj a FAC 0 10 20 30 40 Percent of species with wetland status Huddles MP (2013-2018 post) aj T OBL FACW _ m � FAC 7 0 10 20 30 40 Percent species with wetland status Figure II-1330 (concluded). 50 50 2018 2017 2016 2014 2013 2018 2017 ■ 2016 F 2014 2013 Long Creek years to match Huddles WP CL OBL 3 ■ 2018 VA FACW ■ 2017 ■ 2016 FAC ■ 2014 ■ 2013 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent of species with wetland status Long Creek years to match Huddles MP Qj T OBL V, 3 VA FACW _ 4. FAC 0 10 20 30 40 Percent species with wetland status 50 y OBL a FACW v 3: FAC Duck Creek years to match Huddles WP I 10 20 30 40 Percent species with wetland status MM Duck Creek years to match Huddles MP 2017 2016 2014 2013 Qj T OBL ■ 2018 3 2017 ■ 2017 A FACW � 2016 ■ 2016 v ■ 2014 ■ 2014 FAC 2013 ■ 2013 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent species with wetland status 11-B-31 Jacks Creek 250 200 0 n 150 0 100 0 J 50 l P= 1 0.009, UPSTREAM 0 Figure II-1331. Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod for each well in Jacks Creek relative to location in the creek system (pre=2000-2005, 2011-2014; post=2015-2018). Means (dots) and ranges are shown. 250 200 771 150 0 100 Di 50 C 0 J 0 Tooley Creek Pre Post Pre Past Pre Post Pre Past Pre Past Pre Past Figure II-B32. Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod for each well in Tooley Creek relative to location in the creek system (pre=2000-2001, 2010-2011; post=2012-2018). Means (dots) and ranges are shown. 11-B-32 250 m 200 0 Q 150 a in 100 a� CU C a J 50 0 Huddles Cut 0 Rainfall West Prong Main Prong p=0.007 p=0.002 Pre Post Pre Post 80 70 60 50_ 40 30 4) 20 4) 10 0 Figure II-1333. Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and mean rainfall for each period in Huddles Cut (pre=2000-2001, 2007-2009; post=2010-2018). Means (dots) and ranges are shown. II-B-33 c -0 (1) O c U c co (D r a) Q > U �C o (6 p U N U co N -0 C N � o -r o 0 O c c c o o^o c W` L 0) � U "D co >+ U N o .W L U) c co �� V N d O_U - co (2) +, (B 'a -2 L c �. c c Co a) oo FD Y Co Z (1) _ L L U 0o M 1 -0 -C N CU � >, C C O Q 'E 0 cU og cv (e0�) N U O � Co 00 c L 0O M C O N Op c N p Y Fu O N > U N .� O U N -0 O a) N Q E IL O N > O c6 Y O cu C N CO U L a) - U L (D L H IL u O O O O O O o O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O A \ r \ r 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ y(U o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 CDL t U 7 LO o LO 0 It 0 (f) a� U 0 0 0 0 0 Z O o 0 0 O O M cq o o O Cl)O Cl) d � O H M (n N M H O O O jo N M Cl) 0 0 0 o Z o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 O 0 LO (n ti (O 0 LO (fl O O 0 O LO 0 LO O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L d U O O O 0 3 a'i o Sbb3l. o 0 0 'a) CEA3Mns10N r r r NOI11SNt>a 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 p p 0 0 he m p p O p O s�d3� 0 p p O L a3k3n�nsloN V o 0 o NOI11SNb2i1 0 Cl? O 0 LO Ln N O m M M O O O O cM O O O o O O O 0 p� M O O O O M LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r� O rl� r� rl� 0 O rl� r-� 0 LO 0 LO (O r 0 (O W (O N 0 (O (0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 Y d Cl) O O M r� O r� O O o 0 0 O 0 V O Cl) 0 V 0 N Cl) CO (.0 r 0 N- (O 0 N (n N In N O O Z O O .heO O O O O O O O CO O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O � LQ rl-60 O o 0 't � O O o O 0 Z Cl) 0 � 00 \ 0 6O Lo r- r- O O N O H O 0 O LP o - O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o rl- o o N 0 0 6 rl- 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 o 6 r- 0 LO 0 LO 0 o O o (n O O O o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O o O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L R Co O O O O O r O N O M O V O LO O 0 O N O r r r N r M r v r 0 r 0 r t` r co r G1 m 0 O O 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 O O O O O r r N N N N N N p N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O c co (6 co N co O O O O O C C C C C C 2 E c 2 E = O O O O O O O O N .E 2 O O N N o co co LO LO O LO O (0 O 0 O > co n co n 00 CO n c (0 co LO = O O O O O O O M O O O O IL 0 0 0 O 0 0 Cl) Cl)ocn O O O u1 > ul > ci Lri Lri ri 00 o (o 0 LO o Z o 0 N r) M co (o (o (o V = O O O O (n O O O _O ~ O O fn O O O o r- N O o O O co M LO N a Z Z o O M \ (o = OD O O O O O N O O O O N O O M O (o O 0 0 0 0 O NO ON N O O O u O O LOM O' M O O, P. P. Q.,O, N O n O M co cc Lo In 9 00 00 00 CO �• N• C(J •C�i .0 O O O O O O .O N l,� N O Lr) N V M 09 O O O r O r-� O \ M O O LO 0 0 h O O (fl co V N 00 LO = O O O O O O O O O O p 7 Ln Ln O O O Cl) M O o Cl) r ,t N o O ;Z Ln 0 M M O O M (o LO (o N Cl) Cl) LO LO Cl) = O O O O O Lo O O O O O O O O O O O O r� O M M M M O LO O 00 O co O LO COW (o LO (o O M M M M (M M M (M >? O O O O O O O O O O O O a W } C? O 0 o Lq O M N - } r- m M M o O O t` O M (o � z 6 N Cl) M O lO lO M lO Q' M (o fA 0 0 0 0 O 0 LO O O 0 0 0 o N o r- O N O o o o n Z z _ O o co o (o o Co ~ O o LO LO (fl LO LO M co In O M M N In LO Co = O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t` r-, O O M O Cl) O N N O O (o Co O O M LO M O (o LO LO O O In LO N Cl) LO (D = O O O O O O O cM O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 M O O O O Ln o r� Ln O O O 90 coo N �j r` o Co W O N LO O o 6 00 00 O N LO LO LO = O O Ln O O Ln O O O O O O O O NO 04 N O O O O O O 00 (n O r O N r` 00 (T O r N Cl) LO O n 00 R d O O to to O O O O N O O O O O r O O r O r r r O O O r O r O r O r O r r N N p N N N N N N N N N N N N N I IN (0 0) C 0) a C (0 ZsN 2 C N O Q O O 04 N N Y O X N »> a a � C N C ,C 00 O N O N N Li C O @ LL E N N O C O _O O N C N @ 7 N N 7 N N w E � a M 6' E N f6 Q N O E O 7 N O U 11—B-35 Table II-131b. Percent of dominant non -wetland and brackish intolerant plant species (herbs, shrubs, woody vines) along vegetation transects in one control creek by year: Long Creek. Dominants with no National Wetland Plant List category and/or no brackish intolerance status were not included in calculations. Duck Creek and DCUT19 were not surveyed in 2018. Percent of non -wetland dominants' / Percent of brackish intolerant dominantsb Long Creek Year LOCW2B 1998 - 2010 NOT SURVEYED 2011 0.0 / 66.7 2012 0.0 / 66.7 2013 0.0 / 50.0 2014 0.0 / 60.0 2015 0.0 / 60.0 2016 0.0 / 66.7 2017 0.0 / 60.0 2018 1 0.0 / 50.0 'Refers to wetland rating categories as defined in Lichvar et al. (2016). bFolerance of brackish conditions determined bya review of habitat descriptions given in Radford et al. (1968), Beal (1977), Godfrey and Wooten (1979, 1981), Odum et al. (1984), Eleuterius (1990), eFloras (2008), and Weakley (2015). Table II-B2. Total numbers and percentages of total species assigned a National Wetlands Plant List (NWPL) wetland rating category at each creek for each year and averages for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years. Gray areas are years when no survey occurred; transition years for each creek are noted; post -Mod Alt L years are to right of transition years; no monitoring in any creek occurred in 2006. Impact creek NWPL a category 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Pre -Mod Alt L avg. Post -Mod Alt L avg. FAC 14 19 17 18 18 20 20 21 11 14 15 17 16 14 17.0 15.0 FACW 24 18 19 20 20 20 19 16 8 16 11 13 15 17 17.0 16.0 # of OBL 19 17 17 20 17 18 18 19 5 11 10 13 11 8 15.3 9.5 species FACU 3 5 6 6 7 6 7 5 1 5 3 5 4 4 4.9 4.0 Jacks Creek UPL 0 60 0 59 0 59 0 64 0 62 0 64 0 64 0 61 0 NOT SURVEYED 25 0 46 0 39 0 48 TRANSITION YEARS 0 . 46 0 . 43 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 54.3 44.5 FAC 32.2 33.7 23.3 32.2 28.8 28.1 29.0 31.3 31.3 34.4 44.0 30.4 38.5 35.4 34.8 32.6 % of FACW 40.0 30.5 32.2 31.3 32.3 31.3 29.7 26.2 32.0 34.8 28.2 27.1 32.6 39.5 31.3 36.1 total OBL 31.7 28.8 28.8 31.3 27.4 28.1 28.1 31.1 20.0 23.9 25.6 27.1 23.9 18.6 27.7 21.3 species FACU 5.0 8.5 10.2 9.4 11.3 9.4 10.9 8.2 4.0 10.9 7.7 10.4 8.7 9.3 8.8 9.0 UPL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAC 4 7 6 9 8 5.7 8.5 FACW 2 7 3 4 4 4.0 4.0 # of OBL 0 2 1 2 1 1.0 1.5 species FACU 0 4 1 4 4 1.7 4.0 Jacobs Creek UPL TOTAL NOT SURVEYED 0 6 0 20 0 11 TRANSITION YEARS 0 19 0 17 0.0 0.0 12.3 18.0 FAC 52.1 47.2 66.7 35.0 54.5 47.4 47.1 % of FACW 33.3 35.0 27.3 21.1 23.5 31.9 22.3 total OBL 0.0 10.0 9.1 10.5 5.9 6.4 8.2 species FACU 0.0 20.0 9.1 21.1 23.5 9.7 22.3 UPL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAC 9 12 17 15 9.0 14.7 FACW 4 9 9 10 4.0 9.3 # of OBL 2 3 4 3 2.0 3.3 species FACU 2 5 4 6 2.0 5.0 Drinkwater Creek UPL LTOTAL NOT SURVEYED 0 17 TRANSITION YEARS 0 29 0 34 0 34 0.0 0.0 17.0 32.3 FAC 52.9 45.2 52.9 41.4 50.0 44.1 % of FACW 23.5 31.0 26.5 29.4 23.5 29.0 total OBL 11.8 10.3 11.8 8.8 11.8 10.3 species FACU 11.8 17.2 11.8 17.6 11.8 15.6 UPL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11-B-37 Table II-B2 (concluded). NWPL Pre -Mod Post -Mod Impact creek 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 category Alt L avg. Alt L avg. FAC 18 17 21 18 21 6 12 15 16 17 16.8 15.0 FACW 13 12 17 14 12 5 10 12 13 13 12.2 12.0 # of OBL 10 8 12 8 4 2 5 9 8 9 7.3 7.8 species FACU 6 8 8 8 7 0 5 4 4 5 6.2 4.5 UPL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.0 1.0 Tooley TOTAL 42.5 40.3 Creek 47 45 58 48 NOT SURVEYED 44 13 TRANSITION YEARS 33 41 42 45 FAC 40.6 37.2 38.3 37.8 36.2 37.5 47.7 46.2 36.4 36.6 38.1 37.8 % of FACW 27.7 26.7 29.3 29.2 27.3 38.5 30.3 29.3 31.0 28.9 29.7 29.9 tota I OBL 21.3 17.8 20.7 16.7 9.1 15.4 15.2 22.0 19.0 20.0 16.8 19.0 species FACU 12.8 17.8 13.8 16.7 15.9 0.0 15.2 9.8 9.5 11.1 12.8 11.4 UPL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.2 0.0 2.5 FAC 17 18 20 18 16 15 18 12 11 8 12 12 17.4 11.0 FACW 24 22 20 22 17 17 15 10 13 13 14 13 19.6 12.6 # of OBL 24 17 22 24 17 18 16 7 9 10 14 14 19.7 10.8 0 species FACU 8 4 7 5 6 8 7 3 3 } 1 3 3 6.4 2.6 Huddles UPL 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 > 0 0 0 0.4 0.0 TOTAL 63.6 37.0 Cut 73 61 70 69 NOT SURVEYED 56 59 57 TRANSITION YEARS 32 36 32 43 42 FAC 27.6 29.9 Main 23.3 29.5 28.6 26.1 28.6 25.4 31.6 37.5 30.6 U) 25.0 27.9 28.6 % of FACW 32.9 36.1 28.6 31.9 30.4 28.8 26.3 31.3 36.1 0 z 40.6 32.6 31.0 30.7 34.3 tota I OBL 32.9 27.9 31.4 34.8 30.4 30.5 28.1 21.9 25.0 31.3 32.6 33.3 30.8 28.8 species FACU 11.0 6.6 10.0 7.2 10.7 13.6 12.3 9.4 8.3 3.1 7.0 7.1 10.2 7.0 UPL 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 FAC 19 15 13 19 15 14 16 10 8 9 10 10 15.9 9.4 FACW 21 22 15 23 19 18 13 9 7 7 9 7 18.7 7.8 # of OBL 29 22 17 25 12 18 10 6 6 7 8 9 19.0 7.2 species FACU 4 4 3 5 6 5 5 2 0 } 1 2 2 4.6 1.4 Huddles UPL 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 > 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 TOTAL 58.6 26.0 Cut 73 63 48 73 NOT SURVEYED 52 56 45 TRANSITION YEARS 27 22 24 29 28 FAC 27.5 36.2 West' 26.0 23.8 27.1 26.0 28.8 25.0 35.6 37.0 36.4 U) 37.5 34.5 35.7 % of FACW 28.8 34.9 31.3 31.5 36.5 32.1 28.9 33.3 31.8 0 z 29.2 31.0 25.0 32.0 30.1 tota I OBL 39.7 34.9 35.4 34.2 23.1 32.1 22.2 22.2 27.3 29.2 27.6 32.1 31.7 27.7 species FACU 5.5 6.3 6.3 6.8 11.5 8.9 11.1 7.4 0.0 4.2 6.9 7.1 8.1 5.1 UPL 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.8 2.2 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 Control Creek Control Average FAC 11 5 6 11 9 9 11 9 8.9 FACW 9 7 7 10 8 9 9 8 8.4 # of OBL 3 2 4 5 4 6 7 9 5.0 species FACU 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.8 UPL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Long Creek TOTAL 23.0 NOT SURVEYED 23 16 17 27 21 25 28 27 (control) FAC 38.3 47.8 31.3 35.3 40.7 42.9 36.0 39.3 33.3 % of FACW 39.1 43.8 41.2 37.0 38.1 36.0 32.1 29.6 37.1 tota l OBL 13.0 12.5 23.5 18.5 19.0 24.0 25.0 33.3 21.1 species FACU 0.0 12.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 4.0 3.6 3.7 3.4 UPL 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a National Wetland Plant List (2018) b Due to inaccessibility after Hurricane Irene in 2011, the western prong of Tooley Creek was not sampled, therefore only data from the eastern prong of Tooley Creek are shown for 2011. The data for 2011 was included in the pre -Mod Alt L averages. In 2009, permitted mine activies eliminated six plots in HWW2 and the entire transect at HWW10. Data from those plots prior to 2009 are shown in this table and included in the pre- and post -Mod Alt L averages, but are not used in the pre- vs post -Mod Alt L statistical comparisons for species richness, percent brackish intolerants, number of dominants, or percent non -wetland dominants. IN C Co U) 5 _ / k ƒk� o o \ cu \%k \ =) .§ Z % kk § 2 E £ 2 \kk j 0 ma 0 77C)- 2 \ CU k ° a) \cq � � \ ®o E o 2 @ 2 ® �f E .� L- a) § / R $ 2 k ) o §ƒ k k ƒ }(n / 2 2 02� 7 a) m \0/ ±�/ ±q7 =�2 E o % E I £ =_11 -�e I: ¥ $ a E b / (D \ 'e 2 ¢ uau / \ \ poijadojPAH \ E « % ƒ / E 2 E WOW \E poijadojPAH 0 E 2 R ) E M* / \ 0 r $ n / \ $ -i 2 U) < E � 4mm CL ƒ � $ E = n \ g a)Q E ® m CO m E § f Z-0al I m I I I I Z Q \ �\k� z � f ƒ / � LU 2 \ Ln \ \ S \ a)g g E U @ 2 \ E / \ m 0 � / } /\)ƒ e k k � � LU \ \ ƒ ƒ \ \ 4 ƒ U U 2 U 2 U b U a) U / \ \ f 0 / ƒ 7 o 2 ƒ 7 C. Question 3- Has mininq altered the forage base of the creeks? 1.0 Fish Multivariate cluster analysis of species composition and abundance from annual fish assemblages within all creeks by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed 11 distinct groups with statistical significance between years (Figure 11-Cl). To simplify discussion of the data set, colored lines on the cluster dendrograms represent non -significant structure among factors (e.g., years, creeks) at the 1 percent level (P = 0.01). Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that similarity ranged from 7 to 73 percent. Clusters A, C, and D consisted of all creeks/years sampled by fyke net and cluster B comprised one creek/year (Jacks 2016). Cluster A contained all six years for DCUT11 and four years for DCUT19 (2015-2018). Cluster C contained 13 of 15 pre- and post -Mod Alt L sample years in Huddles Cut (1999-2001, 2007-2013, and 2016-2018), whereas cluster D comprised both Huddles Cut and DCUT19 2014 years in addition to DCUT19 2013 and Huddles Cut 2015. Clusters E and G each consisted of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years within creeks as well as control creeks and were the largest among the 11 clusters, containing 28 and 21 percent of the data set, respectively. Cluster F contained two pre -Mod Alt L years in Jacks Creek (2003 and 2014), one post -Mod Alt L year in Drinkwater Creek (2013), and five years in Muddy Creek (2003-2005 and 2014-2015); there was no matched control creek year for Drinkwater Creek post -Mod Alt L 2013, nor a pre -Mod Alt L year for itself. Cluster H comprised one creek/year (Duck 2018) and cluster I contained only trawl creek years 2016 and 2017, with the exception of Drinkwater Creek post -Mod Alt L 2015. Cluster I was comprised of either control creeks or post -Mod Alt L creek years with a matched control creek year. Cluster J consisted of Little, Long, Porter, and Duck for 2011, and cluster K contained all trawl creeks for the first year (1999) in addition to both Muddy Creek and PA2 2011, and PA2 2014-2018. A summary of the clusters is found below: Number and Type of Creek/Year per Cluster Total Type of Mod Alt LCreek Cluster ID Creek/Years Pre Post Control Notes A 10 5 1 4 All years for DCUT11; DCUT19 2015-2018 (all fykes) B 1 0 1 0 Post -Mod Alt LJacks 2016 C 13 6 7 0 Huddles 1999-2001, 2007-2013, and 2016-2018 (all fykes) D 4 0 2 2 Huddles 2014-2015; DCUT19 2013-2014 (all fykes) E 36 13 8 15 All creeks except Long, Porter, Huddles, DCUT11, and DCUT19 F 8 2 1 5 Jacks 2003 and 2014; Drinkwater 2013; Muddy 2003-2005 and 2014-2015 G 27 8 6 13 All creeks except Jacobs, Drinkwater, PA2, Huddles, DCUT11, and DCUT19 H 1 0 0 1 Control Duck 2018 1 15 0 9 6 All creeks except PA2, Huddles, and both DCUT11 & 19 J 4 1 0 3 Little, Long, Porter, and Duck 2011 K 10 2 0 8 Jacks, Tooley, and Muddy 1999; Muddy 2011; PA2 2011 and 2014-2018 For the same 11 years that Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Muddy Creek were sampled, they grouped together in the same cluster six of the 11; two of the three creeks grouped together in the same cluster for 10 of the 11. Those 11 years include 1999-2001 and 2011-2018. All three creeks clustered separately in 2016; Jacks Creek clustered alone in B, Tooley Creek clustered in I with Jacobs, Drinkwater, Little, and Duck 2016, and Muddy clustered in G with Long and Porter 2016. Both Jacobs and Drinkwater creeks grouped within the same clusters six of eight years; the two exceptions were 2013 and 2015 when Jacobs Creek clustered into E and Drinkwater Creek clustered into F (2013) and 1 (2015). Representative control creeks (PA2, Little, Muddy, and Duck) for 2013 clustered into E with Jacobs pre -Mod Alt I I-C-1 L 2013; however, Drinkwater Creek post -Mod Alt L 2013 was the only creek sampled in 2013 that clustered within F due to higher catches of spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) and similar catches of Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), and Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus). Conversely, Drinkwater Creek post -Mod Alt L 2015 was the only creek sampled in 2015 that clustered within I due to lower catches of spot and similar catches of Atlantic croaker and bay anchovy. All Huddles Cut pre -Mod Alt L years, the first four post -Mod Alt L years, and post -Mod Alt L 2016-2018 clustered together in C, whereas post -Mod Alt L years 2014-2015 clustered into D. Although Huddles Cut post -Mod Alt L years 2014-2015 clustered separately into D, they clustered with sample years from control creek DCUT19 (also fyke netted) for 2013 and 2014. Six of eight pre- and post -Mod Alt L sample years in Porter Creek (2012-2016 and 2018) clustered in G; whereas, Porter Creek pre -Mod Alt L 2011 clustered into J with control creek Duck 2011, and post -Mod Alt L 2017 clustered into I with control creek Duck 2017. All DCUT11 pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years (2013-2018) clustered in A. Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) was used to determine which species drive cluster formation. A summary of the average catch per unit effort (CPUE) of the twelve most abundant species across the 11 clusters is shown in Table II-Cl. Cluster A had the least similar fish assemblage makeup from all other creeks and years and was the most dissimilar from B, F, G, I, and J, driven by differences in CPUE of pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), spot, Atlantic croaker, bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), and to a lesser extent, pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) (Table 11-Cl). Excluding cluster A, all other fyke net creek/years (DCUT19 2013 and 2014 and all Huddles Cut years) clustered into C and D, while cluster B consisted of only Jacks 2016, which had the lowest total CPUE across all creeks/years. Although several species contributed to dissimilarities in CPUE between clusters C and D and all other clusters, the main difference was the abundance of mummichog captured in fyke nets from both DCUT19 and Huddles Cut (Table 11-Cl). Years in both clusters E and G (the two largest among the 11 clusters) clustered together due to similarities in CPUE of the most common species collected by trawl (e.g., spot, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, and pinfish) (Table 11-Cl). Cluster F comprised eight years of three trawl creeks and displayed the highest similarity among years within a cluster as well as the highest CPUE of spot among all clusters. Cluster H consisted of only Duck 2018 and clustered alone due to differences in CPUE for the five aforementioned common species along with dissimilarities in catches of CPUE of less abundant, but common species compared to all other trawl creeks. In addition to Drinkwater 2015, cluster I also contained five of 10 creeks sampled by trawl in 2016 and nine of 10 creeks sampled by trawl in 2017- all with similar low CPUE of spot in addition to lower total CPUE experienced in more recent sample years. Cluster J contained Little, Long, Porter, and Duck creeks for 2011 and clustered together due to similarity in CPUE of bay anchovy, spot, and Atlantic menhaden and the fact that the three species accounted for at least 82 percent of the total catch in all four creeks. Cluster K comprised 10 years of four trawl creeks predominantly due to similarity in CPUE of spot, rainwater killifish (Lucania parva), inland silverside (Menidia beryllina), and to a lesser extent, eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea) (Table 11-Cl). Comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within drainage basins of Jacobs Creek, Porter Creek, and DCUT11; however, spatial differences of significance were detected between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within Jacks Creek (R=0.388; P=0.026), Drinkwater Creek (R=0.604; P=0.036), Tooley Creek (R=0.305; P=0.024), and Huddles Cut (R=0.241; P=0.022). I I-C-2 Low total CPUE for Jacks, Drinkwater, and Tooley creeks in both post -Mod Alt L 2016 and post -Mod Alt L 2017 likely drove post -Mod Alt years apart from pre -Mod Alt L years. Either 2016 or 2017 represented the lowest total CPUE experienced in seven of 10 creeks sampled by trawl; furthermore, both 2016 and 2017 represented two of the three lowest total CPUE's experienced in eight of 10 trawl creeks. As previously stated, low CPUE observed locally throughout South Creek and surrounding tributaries in both 2016-2017 caused most creeks of those representative years to cluster within I. Jacks 2016 had the lowest total CPUE across all creeks/years and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages of Jacks Creek would be most affected, as 2016-2017 comprise two of only four post -Mod Alt L years to date. Low total CPUE for Huddles Cut in both 2009 and 2014 was likely affected by the formation of a sandbar at the mouth of Huddles Cut, which blocked and/or limited water exchange and access into and out of the creek for many fish species. In addition, sediment from the sandbar has moved in and out of the channel near the mouth and has periodically changed the water depth since 2009. Variation in water depths may have ultimately affected CPUE as alterations in the location of the fyke net throat in the available water column may have allowed fish to escape wings of the fyke net during out of bank flows and/or enabled predation of fish during low water depths by exposure of the fyke net between hoop sections and the tail bag. In addition to the dynamic nature of the sandbar that has affected catch to various degrees for all subsequent years since 2009, dissimilarities among years within Huddles Cut (fyke net) are driven by spot, mummichog, pumpkinseed, striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), Atlantic croaker, pinfish, and Atlantic menhaden. Despite the fact that species richness and abundance at Huddles Cut were usually higher than all other creeks/years and total CPUE for 2016-2018 was more than four times the CPUE of 2015, the decline in CPUE of species commonly captured at Huddles Cut (e.g., spot) in post -Mod Alt L years set post -Mod Alt years apart from pre -Mod Alt L years. Although Huddles Cut total CPUE has declined in most post - Mod Alt L years, both CPUE and species richness remain higher in Huddles Cut than both DCUT11 and DCUT19 (both fyke netted) for the 2013-2018 sample years. Except for 2014- 2015, all pre- and post -Mod Alt L years at Huddles Cut grouped within the same cluster; furthermore, post -Mod Alt L years 2014-2015 at Huddles Cut grouped with control creek DCUT19 2013-2014 in cluster D and CPUE remained higher than other fyke net creeks/years grouped in cluster A (Figure II-Cl and Table II-Cl). Data do not specifically indicate that mine activities have altered fish communities in these creeks. When pre- and post -Mod Alt L years from three of seven creeks are compared, there is no statistical indication of any detectable difference. It is also not valid to assume reduction of the drainage basin of any of the other four creeks has altered fish assemblage since most post -Mod Alt L years for all creeks are grouped among other pre -Mod Alt L creeks/years and control creeks/years (see Section I II for further analysis). 2.0 Fish Guilds Refer to Appendix A -Section H for detailed description of the process of fish species guild assignment. Each species caught in trawl or fyke nets was assigned to one of five trophic guilds: zoobenthivore, zooplanktivore, piscivore, herbivore, or omnivore (Table II- C2). With agency guidance, 10 species were reassigned to different trophic guilds in 2017 which resulted in complete removal of the detritivore guild. New guild assignments were made for Atlantic menhaden (a substantial contributor to abundance), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), and silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) (the latter three were smaller contributors to abundance) (Table II-C2). Atlantic menhaden accounted for nearly 6 percent of the total catch in 2017 and 2018; in 2017 Atlantic menhaden I I-C-3 changed from detritivore to zooplanktivore; other alterations of trophic guilds decreased piscivore abundance and increased both zoobenthivores and omnivores. To date, 59 species have been captured and identified to species; 36 are designated as zoobenthivore, 10 as zooplanktivore, and 10 as omnivore, two as piscivore, and one as herbivore. To examine relationships of trophic guilds among all creeks and all years, multivariate cluster analysis was conducted. A SIMPROF analysis revealed 13 different clusters (Figure II-C2). Twelve clusters contained at least one year from a control creek, a pre -Mod Alt L creek, and a post -Mod Alt L creek; cluster K lacked any pre -Mod Alt L creek years. No cluster contained only one creek or only one type of creek. Eight of the clusters contained at least one post -Mod Alt L creek with at least one control creek year match. Of those eight, five clusters contained pre -and post -Mod Alt L years for the same creek(s) in the cluster (B, F G. H. and 1). Most of the differences between clusters were driven by variation in the relative abundances of zoobenthivores, zooplanktivores, and omnivores. Figure II-C3 shows the relative abundance of the five fish guilds for each creek for each year. Only two species (striped bass, Morone saxatilis, and longnose gar, Lepisosteus osseus) and one family (unidentified drum/croaker, Sciaenidae sp.) are piscivores and only one species is an herbivore (grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella); none are commonly a dominant species. Of these two less abundant guilds, only DCUT11 contained enough piscivore captures to be visible in the bar chart (Figure I I-C3) and herbivore was so uncommon that view must be zoomed for data bar to be visible. a. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks Jacks Creek Fish samples in Jacks Creek were collected from 1999-2005 and from 2011-2018; four post -Mod Alt L years were 2015-2018. Six clusters were detected among the 15 years and the five guilds using SIMPROF (Figure II-C4). Cluster A contained two pre - Mod Alt L years (2004 and 2011) and one post -Mod Alt L year (2018). Clusters B and C each contained one pre -Mod Alt L year (2002 and 2012, respectively), D and E each contained one pre -Mod Alt L year (2014 and 2000, respectively) and one post -Mod Alt L year (2017 and 2015, respectively). Cluster F contained five pre -Mod Alt L years (1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2013) and one post -Mod Alt L year (2016). Clusters D, E, and F are most similar to each other and different from clusters A, B, and C which are most similar to each other. Jacks Creek trophic guild composition in the post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.003, P = 0.415). Jacks Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild, as was every other creek and most every year in the study (Figure II-C3). The composition of trophic guilds in Jacks Creek has been consistent since 1999, with some increase of relative abundance of omnivore guild in 2002, 2011, 2012, and 2018; this increase also occurred in two of the control creeks, Muddy (2002, 2012, and 2018) and PA2 (2011, 2012, and 2018). In 2018, the highest number of zooplanktivores was caught in Jacks Creek since 2004. Temporal variability among fish guilds within Jacks Creek displayed strong positive correlation (0.633) among guild composition and three environmental variables: percent submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) visible at the surface (MANOVA: F = 11.46, P = 0.004), total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) (MANOVA: F= 12.09, P = 0.004), and orthophosphate (PO4) (MANOVA: F = 5.49, P = 0.03). I I-C-4 ii. Jacobs Creek Fish samples in Jacobs Creek were collected from 2011-2018, with 2014-2018 considered post -Mod Alt L years. There were no significant clusters detected among the guilds using SIMPROF. Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.231, P = 0.143). Relative abundance of omnivore guild was higher in the pre -Mod Alt L years and higher for zooplanktivore in the post -Mod Alt L years; although omnivore increased in 2018 for the first time since 2014. Temporal variability among fish guilds within Jacobs Creek displayed strong positive correlation (0.684) among guild composition and one environmental variable: pH (MANOVA: F = 97.69, P = 0.002). iii. Drinkwater Creek Fish samples in Drinkwater Creek were collected from 2011-2018, with 2013-2018 considered post -Mod Alt L years. No significant clusters were detected using SIMPROF. Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years did not differ significantly from pre - Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.583, P = 0.083). The omnivore guild was present in both of the pre -Mod Alt L years (as in PA2) but omnivores were less present in post -Mod Alt L years except 2014 and 2018. Temporal variability among fish guilds within Drinkwater Creek displayed strong positive correlation (0.699) among guild composition and one environmental variable: submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (MANOVA: F = 26.88, P = 0.01). iv. Tooley Creek Fish samples in Tooley Creek were collected from 1999-2001 and from 2010-2018, with 2012-2018 considered post -Mod Alt L years. No clusters among the 12 years were detected using SIMPROF. Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.112, P = 0.17). Relative abundance of zooplanktivore guild increased in most of the post -Mod Alt L years until 2018 (as for the same years in one control creek -Duck) and omnivore guild increased in 2018. V. Huddles Cut Fish samples in Huddles Cut were collected from 1999-2001 and 2007-2018, with 2010-2018 considered post -Mod Alt L years. Four clusters among the 15 years were detected using SIMPROF (Figure II-05). Cluster A contained one post -Mod Alt L year (2014), B contained one pre -Mod Alt L year (2008) and two post -Mod Alt L years (2010 and 2015), C contained three pre -Mod Alt L years (1999, 2001, and 2007) and one post -Mod Alt L year (2012), and D contained two pre -Mod Alt L years (2000 and 2009) and four post -Mod Alt L years (2011, 2013, and 2016-2018). Cluster A was different from clusters B, C, and D which were quite similar to each other. Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R =-0.015, P = 0.494). Huddles Cut was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild, although zooplanktivore contributed more to community structure in 2014 than in other years 11-C-5 (Figure II-C3). Contrary to most other creeks, relative abundance of omnivore remained rather steady across almost all years. vi. Porter Creek Fish samples in Porter Creek were collected from 2011-2018, with 2016-2018 considered the post -Mod Alt L years. Two significant clusters were detected among the guilds using SIMPROF. Cluster A contained one pre -Mod Alt L year (2011) and one post - Mod Alt L year (2018). Cluster B contained four pre -Mod Alt L years (2012-2015) and two post - Mod Alt L years (2016 and 2017) (Figure 11- C6). Clusters A and B were 53 percent similar. Trophic guild composition in the post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R =-0.108, P = 0.653). Porter Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore and zooplanktivore guilds (Figure II-C3). Relative abundance of zooplanktivore decreased from 2011 to 2012 then increased until 2016 with another decrease in 2017. Relative abundance of zooplanktivores was greater than zoobenthivores in 2018 for the first time since 2011. vii. DCUT11 Fish samples in DCUT11 were collected from 2013-2018. Five years are pre -Mod Alt L (2013-2017) and one year is post -Mod Alt L (2018). Two clusters were detected using SIMPROF; Cluster A contained 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2018 and cluster B contained 2014 and 2017; they were 84 percent similar (Figure II-C7). DCUT11 was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild while all other trophic guilds provided small contributions to community structure (Figure II-C3). Trophic guild composition in the post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = -0.08, P = 0.50). b. Mod Alt L Control Creeks Little Creek Fish samples in Little Creek were collected from 2011-2018. Three significant clusters were detected among the eight years using SIMPROF. Cluster A contained 2011, B contained 2012, and C contained the remaining years (2013-2018) (Figure II- C8). Cluster A was 58 percent similar to B and 63 percent similar to C. Cluster B was 67 percent similar to Cluster C. Little Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild (Figure II-C3). Zooplanktivore abundance decreased from 2016-2018 while omnivore guild contributed more to community structure in 2018 than it has since 2013. ii. PA2 Fish samples in PA2 were collected from 2011-2018. No clusters among the eight years were detected using SIMPROF. PA2 was mostly composed of the zoobenthivore guild in all years; however, omnivore and zooplanktivore consistently contributed toward community structure (Figure II-C3). Temporal variability among fish guilds within PA2 displayed strong positive correlation (0.649) among guild composition and one environmental variable: particulate 11-C-6 phosphate (PP) (MANOVA: F = 19.07, P = 0.02). iii. Long Creek Fish samples in Long Creek were collected from 2011-2018. Three significant clusters were detected among the eight years using SIMPROF. Cluster A contained five years (2012 and 2014-2017), B contained one year (2013), and C contained two years (2011 and 2018) (Figure II-C9). Cluster A was 79 percent similar to cluster B and 69 percent similar to C. Cluster B was 88 percent similar to C. Long Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild with zooplanktivore also present in most years (Figure II-C3). The composition of trophic guilds in Long Creek varied slightly from 2012-2017 and in 2018 was most similar to 2011. Omnivore guild did not contribute to community structure in 2016 or 2017, but reappeared in 2018 as a minor contributor. iv. Muddy Creek Fish samples in Muddy Creek were collected from 1999-2005 and from 2007-2018. Among the 19 years, there were seven clusters detected by SIMPROF (Figure II-C10). Cluster A contained one year (2002), B contained two years (2013 and 2018), C contained three years (2008, 2010, and 2012), D contained one year (2011), E contained two years (2015 and 2017), F contained five years (2000, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2016), and G contained five years (1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007). Cluster A was most different from all other clusters while clusters B through G were quite similar to each other. Muddy Creek was mostly composed of the zoobenthivore guild with consistent smaller contributions to community structure by zooplanktivore (Figure II-C3). Omnivore guild contributed more to community structure in 2002, 2008, and 2012 than in other years. V. DCUT19 Fish samples in DCUT19 were collected from 2013-2018. No clusters among the six years were detected using SIMPROF. DCUT19 was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild with consistent smaller contributions by the omnivore guild. An increase in zooplanktivore was evident from 2016-2017, but this guild decreased in 2018 to the lowest since 2015 (Figure II- C3). vi. Duck Creek Fish samples in Duck Creek were collected from 2011-2018. Two significant clusters were detected among the eight years using SIMPROF. Cluster A was composed of two years (2011 and 2017) and B contained the other six years (2012-2016 and 2018) (Figure 11-C11). Cluster A was 59 percent similar to cluster B. Duck Creek was mostly composed of the zoobenthivore guild in all years except 2011 and 2017 (Figure II-C3). Zooplanktivore guild increased from 2013-2017 but decreased in 2018 while omnivore guild contribution increased. Temporal variability among fish guilds within Duck Creek displayed strong positive correlation (0.856) among guild composition and two environmental 11-C-7 variables: dissolved organic carbon (DOC) (MANOVA: F = 10.82, P = 0.02) and pH (MANOVA: F = 39.60, P = 0.002). 3.0 Grass Shrimp Grass shrimp were not enumerated as part of the creeks study until the new monitoring plan was implemented in 2011. More detailed qualitative information is now collected in conjunction with fish collections (trawls at all creeks except Huddles Cut, DCUT11, and DCUT19 where fyke nets are used). The limited data prevent detailed evaluation; however, grass shrimp were most frequently captured (100 percent) from both Little Creek in 2013 and PA2 in 2016-2017 and least frequently captured (none captured) from Porter Creek in 2014, Tooley and Long creeks in 2017, both DCUT11 upstream and downstream fyke nets in 2015- 2017, and DCUT11 downstream fyke net in 2018. The highest score (based on numbers/individuals captured) was at PA2 in 2017 (74) and lowest (0) at Porter Creek in 2014, Tooley and Long creeks in 2017, both DCUT11 upstream and downstream fyke nets in 2015- 2017, and DCUT11 downstream fyke net in 2018; additionally, PA2 had the four highest scores for grass shrimp and also equaled Jacobs Creek in 2012 and 2018 for the sixth highest score across all creeks/years (Table II-C3). As shown in Table II-C3, the two lowest frequencies and scores for grass shrimp occurred in both 2016 and 2017 for three of five trawl creeks with drainage basin reduction (Jacks, Jacobs, and Tooley) and three (Little, Long, and Muddy) of the five trawl control creeks. Drinkwater Creek also had its lowest frequency and score in 2017, with 2016 as the third lowest score. The lowest frequency and score for Porter Creek occurred in 2014 (none captured; a pre -Mod Alt L year), whereas the lowest frequency and score for Huddles Cut occurred in the upstream fyke net in 2013 and in the downstream fyke net in 2014 (both post -Mod Alt L years). Lowest frequency and score for grass shrimp in DCUT11 occurred in the upstream fyke net in 2015-2017 and in the downstream fyke net in 2015-2018 (none captured). Conversely, highest frequencies and scores occurred in 2011 for Tooley Creek (pre -Mod Alt L year), 2012 and 2018 for Jacobs Creek (pre- and post -Mod Alt L years), 2012 for Porter Creek (pre -Mod Alt L year), and 2013 for Jacks Creek (pre -Mod Alt L year). Frequency was highest for Drinkwater Creek in pre -Mod Alt L years 2012 and 2014 while score was highest in post -Mod Alt L 2018. For Huddles Cut, the highest frequency occurred in both upstream and downstream fyke nets in post -Mod Alt L 2018 and highest overall score was in the upstream fyke net in 2012 (no pre - Mod Alt L grass shrimp data are available for Huddles Cut). With the exception of DCUT11, frequencies and scores of grass shrimp from eight years of qualitative data display similar variability across all Mod Alt L sample creeks with lowest catches for most creeks occurring in 2016 and 2017. 4.0 Penaeid Shrimp and Blue Crab These two groups also make up a component of the forage base in the creeks and are discussed in more detail in the answer to Section II-D Question 4 about managed species. Catch frequency of penaeid shrimp observed across most all creeks and gear type varied between years; however, other than the DCUT19 upstream fyke net in both 2013 and 2018, no penaeid shrimp have been captured from the two Durham tributaries. Excluding DCUT11 where no blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) were collected except in 2017 in the downstream fyke net, catch frequency/score of blue crab was steady across the eight years in all creeks/gear type. 5.0 Macroinvertebrates Benthos sweep data and ponar data for all years were separated into upstream and downstream datasets for multivariate cluster analysis; significance of clusters was evaluated at a lower alpha value (0.001) in order to minimize clusters with just one creek -year. Each species collected in the ponar grabs was also analyzed based on two different characteristics: trophic level and functional feeding guild. Trophic level describes the position of a species in a food chain and consisted of four levels: detritivore, herbivore, carnivore, and parasite. Functional feeding guild describes the mechanism by which each species acquires food resources and/or nutrients and consisted of six categories: gatherer/collector, filterer/collector, scraper, grazer, shredder, and predator. Upstream and downstream datasets were used for analysis. Please refer to Section III-G and Appendix A -Section H for detailed description of the process of ponar species guild assignment and more description of statistical analyses performed. Upstream sweeps: Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of upstream benthic sweep taxa richness and abundance in all creeks and for all years revealed 19 distinct clusters (Figure II-C12). Cluster A contained one control creek and no pre- or post -Mod Alt L creek year. Nine clusters contained only control and pre -Mod Alt L creek years (E, F, H, I, K, M, P, Q, and R). Cluster D contained three pre -Mod Alt L creek years. Cluster N contained one control creek and two post -Mod Alt L creek years. Clusters B, C, and G contained no control creeks but contained pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years for at least one creek. Clusters J, L, O, and S contained both pre- and post -Mod Alt L creeks as well as control creeks; S and L also contained a post -Mod Alt L and control year match for the two creeks in the clusters with both pre- and post -Mod Alt L years, while J had no control creek match year. No cluster consisted solely of post -Mod Alt L creek -years. Comparison of interannual variability between the 19 clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of 15 taxa predominantly drove cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. Those 15 taxa were as follows (in order of the number of clusters wherein each taxa was a major contributor of dissimilarity): Goeldichironomus devineyae, Tanytarsus spp., Chironomus spp., Apocorophium spp., Gammarus tigrinus, Cyprideis littoralis, Paleomonetes pugio, Nematoda sp., Amphicteis floridus, Naididae (w/o hair), Corixidae sp., Dicrotendipes nervosus, Cassidinidea lunifrons, Apedilum sp., and Enallagma. Post -Mod Alt L creek -years in Jacks and Tooley creeks each clustered with a matched control creek year or other self pre -Mod Alt L year; Jacobs, Drinkwater, DCUT11, and Porter creeks post -Mod Alt L years also either clustered with a matched control creek year or a matched pre -Mod Alt L year from another creek. With the exception of 2010, all years from Huddles Cut were in Clusters B, C, and D which also contained no other creek. Since most Huddles Cut years have consistently clustered apart, there may be some unique aspect(s) of Huddles Cut, regardless of mine activities. Downstream sweeps: The downstream benthic sweep data analysis also resulted in 19 distinct clusters (Figure II-C13). Cluster D contained only control creeks and cluster B contained only pre -Mod Alt L creek years. Eight clusters contained control creek and pre -Mod Alt L creek years (A, C, F, H, M, P, Q, and R). Cluster G, I, and L contained control creeks and post -Mod Alt L creek years. Five clusters contained control, pre, and post -Mod Alt L creek years (E, J, N, O, and S). Cluster K consisted of one post -Mod Alt L creek year (Huddles 2017). Only two clusters (E and S) contained pre- and post -Mod Alt L years from the same creek. Cluster L contained eight of the 13 creek years for 2018 along with two from 2017. I I-C-9 Comparison of interannual variability between the 19 clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of 17 taxa predominantly drove cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. In order of the number of clusters each was a major contributor of dissimilarity the 17 taxa were: Hargeria rapax, Gammarus tigrinus, Goeldichironomus devineyae, Gammarus mucronatus, Cricotopus spp., Chironomus spp., Amphicteis floridus, Nematoda sp., Tanytarsus spp., Paleomonetes pugio, Americamysis almyra, Cyprideis littoralis, Apedilum sp., Littoridinops spp., Apocorophium spp., Dicrotendipes nervosus, and Rhithropanopeus harisii. Post Mod -Alt L creek -years in Jacobs, Drinkwater, Tooley, Huddles Cut, DCUT11, and Porter creeks each clustered with at least one match year from another pre -Mod Alt L or control creek. The only exception was cluster K that consisted of one post -Mod Alt L creek year (Huddles 2017). Cluster K was most similar to cluster S which contained the majority of the Huddles Cut sample years and one control creek (Little 2018). Similar to the upstream results, the clustered Huddles Cut years suggest some characteristic unique to Huddles Cut that differentiates it from other creeks in the study. Upstream ponars: Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of upstream benthic ponar taxa richness and abundance in all creeks and for all years also revealed 11 distinct clusters (Figure II-C14). No cluster consisted solely of post -Mod Alt L years although clusters A, G, and J contained only control creek years. Two clusters contained only pre -Mod Alt L creek years and control creek years (B and F). Cluster C contained no control creek years but both pre- (four years) and post -Mod Alt L years (six) for Huddles Cut. Cluster E contained four post -Mod Alt L 2016 creeks with a 2016 control creek year. The other four clusters (D, H, I and K) each contained pre- and post -Mod Alt L and control creek years. All post -Mod Alt L creek years in any cluster either matched a control creek year, a pre -Mod Alt L year for itself, or a matched pre -Mod Alt L creek year for a different creek within the cluster. Comparison of interannual variability between the 11 clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of16 taxa predominantly drove cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. In order of the number of clusters wherein each taxa was a major contributor of dissimilarity, the 16 taxa were: Chironomus spp., Gammarus tigrinus, Littoridinops spp., Tanytarsus spp., Amphicteis floridus, Apocorophium spp., Cyprideis littoralis, Candonidae sp., Macoma balthica, Naididae (w/o hair), Streblospio benedicti, Bezzia/Palpomyia complex, Nematoda sp., Tanypus neopunctipennis, Dicrotendipes nervosus, and Goeldichironomus devineyae. Downstream ponars: The downstream benthic ponar data grouped into 8 distinct clusters (Figure II-C15). No clusters contained only post -Mod Alt L creeks or only control creek years. One cluster contained only pre- and post -Mod Alt L creek years (A, with only Huddles Cut years). Three clusters contained only pre -Mod Alt L and control creek years (B, D, and E). The other four clusters contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L and control creek years (C, F, G, and H). Cluster F contained the largest number of creek years with 19 years each of pre- and post -Mod Alt L creek years and 33 control creek years; no post -Mod Alt L creek year in this cluster was without a matched control creek year. While there were two pre -Mod Alt L creek years within cluster H, two post -Mod Alt L creek years (Huddles Cut 2010 and Jacks Creek 2018) in the cluster did not match a control creek year or the two pre -Mod Alt L creek years. Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of 20 taxa drove the cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. In order of the number of clusters wherein I I-C-10 each was a major contributor of dissimilarity, those 20 taxa were: Chironomus spp., Gammarus tigrinus, Macoma balthica, Macoma tenta, Mediomastus ambiseta, Amphicteis floridus, Marenzelleria viridis, Littoridinops spp., Apocorophium spp., Streblospio benedicti, Tubificoides heterochaetus, Cyprideis littoralis, Polydora cornuta, Eteone heteropoda, Naididae (w/o hair), Apedilum sp., Parachironomus sp., Gammarus mucronatus, Nematoda sp., and Tanytarsus spp. 6.0 Macroinvertebrate Guilds Refer to Appendix A -Section H for detailed description of the process of ponar species guild assignment and more description of statistical analyses performed. Each ponar taxa was assigned to a guild (Table II-C4). Guild membership was based on both the trophic level and functional feeding guild for each taxon. Six different classifications (i.e., axes/components) were produced by Fuzzy Correspondence Analysis (FCA) which separated taxa by guilds (Figure II-C16 A-F). The FCA produces slightly varied differentiations of the 10 categories (four trophic levels and six feeding guilds) from year to year in regards to distance and direction from zero. With the addition of 2018 ponar data, Axis 1 separated herbivore and detritivore from carnivore and parasite, as well as predator from all other functional feeding guilds (C16-A, C16-B). Axis 2 separated filterer/collector from grazer and scraper (C16-B). Axis 3 separated gatherer/collector and predator from all other functional feeding guilds (C16- D). Axis 4 separated parasite somewhat from herbivore and detrivore trophic levels and scraper and shredder from all other functional feeding guilds (C16-C, C16-D). Axis 5 also separated parasite from other trophic levels but with greater distance than shown in Axis 1 (C16-E). Axis 6 separated grazer and scraper from all other functional feeding guilds (C16-F). Upstream and downstream datasets were separated for the multivariate analysis on guild membership. As was done for the all creeks ponar and sweep dendrograms, a lower statistical significance threshold (alpha = 0.001) was used to minimize clusters with single creek -years for the two ponar guild dendrograms; individual creek dendrograms used an alpha of 0.01 Mixed -model ANOVAs were used to determine if changes to macroinvertebrate guild composition post -Mod Alt L were similar to any changes in guild composition of control creeks during the corresponding time period. Two main effects were included in the ANOVAs: Creek (which tested if the impact creek differed from the control creek regardless of Mod Alt L Status) and Mod Alt L Status (which tested if guild composition differed between pre- and post - Mod Alt L Status regardless of Creek). A Creek by Mod Alt L Status interaction tested if the two creeks differed in how their guild composition changed between pre- and post -Mod Alt L Status. Upstreamguilds: Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of the upstream guild membership ponar dataset in all creeks and years revealed 14 significant clusters (Figure II-C17). No cluster contained only post -Mod Alt L creek years. Clusters E and J each contained only one year and cluster D contained only control creek years. Cluster A contained only two years, one pre -Mod Alt L creek year and one control creek year. Two clusters contained pre- and post -Mod Alt L creek years but no control creek years (F and K); only cluster K had a pre- and post -Mod Alt L year for itself (Jacks 1999 and 2018). Cluster I contained two post -Mod Alt L years and three control years from Muddy Creek with one matched post -Mod Alt L year to a control creek year (Jacks and Muddy creeks 2016). The other seven clusters (B, C, G, H, L, M, and N) contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L and control creek years; among those seven clusters, B, G, H, M, and N contained post -Mod Alt L creek years for which there was no pre -Mod Alt L year match or control creek year match (Huddles Cut 2018 in B; Tooley Creek 2012 in G; Jacks Creek 2015 in H; Drinkwater Creek 2017 in M; and Jacobs Creek 2017/2018 in N). 11-C-11 Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) was used to determine the guild types that predominantly drove separation of the 22 clusters. Axis 3 (predator, gatherer/collector) was the predominant contributor to the differentiation of most clusters. Axis 2 (filterer/collector) and Axis 5 (parasite) were predominant contributors to some clusters. Axis 1 (herbivore, detritivore) and Axis 6 (grazer, scraper) contributed the least differentiation to the clusters. A mixed -model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if changes in upstream benthic macroinvertebrate guild composition due to Mod Alt L Status differed between pre- and post -Mod Alt L creeks and various control creeks for the same years. For all impacted creeks and guild axes there were two statistically significant interactions. Jacks and Little had a significant interaction between the Creek and Mod Alt L Status for Axis 3 (P = 0.007) (Figure II-C18) and Jacobs and Long also had a significant interaction for Axis 6 between the two creeks (P = 0.004) (Figure II-C19). A decrease in parasite and an increase in shredder guilds in Little Creek contributed to the differences in Jacks and Little creeks in pre- and post - Mod Alt L years. The interaction between Jacobs and Long creeks was attributed to an increase in scraper guild at Jacobs while Long had an increase in grazer guild. Downstream -guilds: Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of the downstream guild membership ponar dataset in all creeks and years revealed 10 significant clusters (Figure II-C20). No cluster contained post -Mod Alt L only or control creeks only; one cluster contained only pre -Mod Alt L data (H, Huddles Cut 2009). Cluster A contained only pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for Huddles Cut (one pre- and three post -years). Clusters B and C contained only post -Mod Alt L and control creek years. The other five clusters contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L with control creek years (D, E, F, G, I, and J). Except for Jacks Creek 2018 in cluster C and Drinkwater Creek 2014 in E, all post - Mod Alt L creek years matched either a control creek year, a pre -Mod Alt L creek year for itself, or a pre -Mod Alt L creek year for a different impact creek within the cluster. Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) was used to determine the guild types that predominantly drove separation of the 15 clusters. Axis 3 (predator, gatherer/collector) contributed to the differentiation of most clusters. Axis 2 (filterer/collector), 5 (parasite), and 6 (grazer, scraper) contributed to the differentiation of some clusters. Axis 4 (parasite, scraper/shredder) contributed least to the differentiation of clusters. A mixed -model ANOVA was used to determine if changes in benthic macroinvertebrate guild composition due to Mod Alt L Status differed between impact creeks and various control creeks. Jacks had a significant interaction with Axis 2 when compared to Muddy Creek. In downstream Jacks Creek post -Mod Alt L there was an increase in filterer/collector whereas this feeding guild became less abundant in Muddy Creek for those same post -Mod Alt L years (Axis 2: p = 0.002) (Figure I I-C21). Answer: Fish No change in fish forage base due to mine activities is apparent. Multivariate cluster analysis of fish for all creeks and all collection years reveals some differences based on gear type (fyke net vs. trawl) and also separates some pre -Mod Alt L and post - Mod Alt L years within clusters; however, the multivariate cluster analysis did not reveal distinct changes in fish assemblages due to mine activities within the drainage basins of 11-C-12 Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, Huddles Cut, Porter Creek, and/or DCUT11. Comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOSIM detected spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within the drainage basin of Jacks Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. It is likely that low CPUE observed locally throughout South Creek and surrounding tributaries in both 2016-2017 trawl samples set post -Mod Alt years apart from pre -Mod Alt L years in Jacks, Drinkwater, and Tooley Creeks, especially in Jacks Creek where 2016- 2017 represent two of only four post -Mod Alt L years. Although Huddles Cut total CPUE has declined in most post -Mod Alt L years, both CPUE and species richness remain higher in Huddles Cut than both DCUT11 and DCUT19 for the 2013-2018 sample years. All three creeks contain the same common species, while both DCUT11 and DCUT19 have lower catches of spot, Atlantic menhaden, and striped mullet, and higher catches of pumpkinseed; the pumpkinseed being the best indicator of lower average salinity than Huddles Cut. The guild dendrograms also show no clear trend among the pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages that could indicate potential effects from mine activities; only one cluster of 13 consisted of solely post -Mod Alt L data. As with richness and abundance data, most other post -Mod Alt L years for the guilds were distributed into clusters which also contained a pre -Mod Alt L year for the same creek or a control creek. Temporal variability analysis of water quality variables displayed strong positive correlation for five of 13 creeks (Jacks, PA2, Jacobs, Drinkwater and Duck) with SAV, and/or phosphate (total dissolved and particulate), pH, and dissolved organic carbon. These four environmental variables were most important in fish trophic guild structure. Answer: Grass/Penaeid Shrimp and Blue Crab Variability in the frequency and numbers of grass shrimp, penaeid shrimp, and blue crab collected in all creeks makes it very difficult to discern any mine -related spatial patterns in abundance. Answer: Macrobenthos For four of the seven creeks whose basins have been reduced by Mod Alt L activities (Huddles Cut, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, and Tooley Creek) comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOSIM at upstream and downstream benthic stations of both sweep and ponar collections within each creek detected spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macro invertebrate communities (Huddles Cut: Sweeps -Upstream, Tooley Creek/Jacobs Creek: Sweeps- Upstream/Downstream and Ponar-Downstream, and Drinkwater Creek: Sweeps - Upstream). The all creeks dendrograms for sweeps and ponar richness and abundance show no clear trend among the pre- and post -Mod Alt L macrobenthic data that could indicate potential effects from mine activities. Except for Huddles Cut, sweep and ponar years/locations richness and abundance are distributed into clusters represented by similar years/locations for the control creeks and/or other pre -Mod Alt L years. For Huddles Cut, the analysis showed that most pre- and post -Mod Alt L years commonly II-C-13 clustered together, usually with no other creek. The clusters continue to point to the uniqueness of Huddles Cut compared to other creeks. The guild dendrograms also show no clear trend among the pre- and post -Mod Alt L macrobenthic data that could indicate potential effects from mine activities. There were no clusters that consisted solely of post -Mod L data. As with richness and abundance data, most other post -Mod Alt L years for the guilds were distributed into clusters which also contained a pre -Mod Alt L year for the same creek or a matched control creek year. The mixed model ANOVA on guild composition showed that changes in the benthic communities of two impact creeks post -Mod Alt L did significantly differ from the changes in benthic communities of their respective control creeks during the same time periods. In Jacks there was a decrease in gatherer/collector guild and an increase in filterer/collector and grazer and/or scraper guilds in post -Mod Alt L years when compared to Little Creek (control). In Jacobs Creek, parasite guild decreased during post -Mod Alt L, but increased in Long Creek (a control); yet parasite guild also decreased in PA2, a closer control creek. There was also an increase of scraper guild in Jacobs Creek and a simultaneous increase in grazer guild in Long Creek (control). II-C-14 PC5 Fish Collections Group Average A Bc D E F G HI J K ------------------------------------------------------=--------------------------------------------------------------- 1........................... .�...... CID i I i I o i T N 0 � EL I I I I � iJ O N p �,Du"�a0c�ntioO�r�V�},O�O�oo o�rT� a OOo�V�c0a0a0�po0(VNNNN�r?c][hc'x�le�Ifld�'V�Mo p�uNo.�oOa c'1eDc0[Od-cORO�V�t�1o0a0pO I�cOtil�nl�u"xUCOl�cflc01�� V�-c0�c04 0000000ao rno0o00000000 0000000000o00ao0ao000oo0ao0o0o00000 0000a0o0000000000000oo0ao0ao000o000 0ao0aoo0aoo0a0000 rnoao0000t iVN NN N NNN NN NNN NNNN4�NNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNN NNNN N NNN NNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNN V7(f1N V1N VJNNVI V)N(lJN N p}N tll VJNtA 1/J Ql 1n N� N WW � }. p]O) NtA N�7. Q7� a�mou omma�ma�a�mn�a �m v�ca000c�y1) asc�mar-c�ooroceoaa�mcc ��ca cmva�Vm_ c�ano �a,s mc)—p�c1�a3Oppppo a-o wro�V.---a �'p,octomUo oa!o o�UU"OV-Mlifp�t�-Coo:S; Ito a �VO3�Oo o� U U N »> N �6J (� �4 �4�J O N �6 N O O O OJJ 3 O1J C6 V J T---- �UU�� '1F� H, nn = ...❑.......I------------------------------------------ .....a.....a.....o.....:... - Figure II-Cl. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all fish species for all creeks and years sampled [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the one percent level (P = 0.01). Gray creeks/years are pre -Mod Alt L, bold creeks/years are post -Mod Alt L, and blue creeks/years are control creeks. 11-C-15 PCs Fish Collections - Fish Guilds Group Average CD CD ri Figure . Oandrograrn of hierarchical duatana of ainni|ahb/ for fish guild data among all fish species for all creeks and years aonnp|ad [Bray -Curtis similarity; Loohx+1D. Black lines within dendrognarn represent etodedcaUy significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 1 percent |ava| (P = 0.01). Gnaycnaaky/«eare are pre -Mod Alt L. bold creeks/years are post -Mod Alt L. and h|ua creeks/years are control creeks. U-C-10 Jacks Little Jacobs PA2 Drinkwater ■ zooplanktivore ■ zoobenthivore ❑ piscivore ■ omnivore ❑ herbivore - - - - Mod Alt L Impact Long Tooley Muddy Huddles Cut F-H Porter DCUT11 DCUT19 Duck CO O O N O N CN U LAN ff= k I CO H r7m mi-7 N ® M ® ® In I � W1 L�j LM M 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 Relative Abundance 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 Figure II-C3. Fish guilds of all creeks from 1999 to 2018 (gaps represent no collection during that year per approved plan). For each creek, x-axis represents relative abundance. Dashed lines indicate switch from pre- to post -Mod Alt L. Control creeks include Little, PA2, Long, Muddy, DCUT19, and Duck. I I-C-17 Jacks Crook - Fish Guilds Group Averages A 6 C D E F F T F� � o N N 0 0 v m N N v r o u� in m m co m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 o m o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � N N N N Figure II-C4. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Jacks Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. Huddles Cut - Fish Guilds Group Averages A 6 C D v T E N M N O 0 m (9 2 f O O O O O m O O O O O O O O O Figure II-05. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all fyke nets in Huddles Cut [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. 11-C-18 Porter Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages 0 A B F1FF:1� >, o r� E N O 0 0 0 00 N C2 I+ T Q L2 O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N Figure II-C6. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Porter Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. DCUT11 - Fish Guilds Group Averages A B M l0 In CO Q r� O O O O O O N N N N N N Figure II-C7. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all fyke nets in DCUT11 [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). 11-C-19 Little Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages 0 Q A B 0 E cv y V! O O O O O O O O O O Figure II-C8. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Little Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Long Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages N N ' A B C E N O 0 N Q r M OJ O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N Figure II-C9. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Long Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). I I-C-20 Muddy Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages a M A B C D E F G T m E � o QN o � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rn o N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure II-C10. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Muddy Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Duck Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages A B 0 T E O N O I� th N u) W 7 c0 N O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N Figure I I-Cl1. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Duck Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). I I-C-21 All Creeks, Upstream (Sweeps) Group Averages 0 0 AB c D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S ........1... I............ I ....................... i._.... _ ......... I o cm I I I E 71 CD ❑ , i i i � 1 i i IiI i 1i1 ; I III i 1i1 ' t--NN�WOo0�Q�91['7a10N�i D7ro?Dr�CO�Pd 7V IC?di�Vlri("J�p.C)C�K'JC'7� (' (OVu7LL �Df�NQN��h-rDCO�Df�r�COI�r��rNO I��('7C)N��OODOrC\K\KN C'T��rr t'70C'77V�YCVa0�0 rrr�_0�0�--01��OOr000��j7Or��N��rr��.--r��r� �0006x71Oi7006K770O CDC=000000 OOC=ZDFK 0 DFD 7o00000000000000000o0oOCDO,=00000o0000000000oi�00000000000 0�70000000000000000' NN NNt--�--(VN NNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNC�K�KV[�KV.'VNNNNNNNt--(�INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN C�K�K�KV[VN NN[�INNN C�KVC�K�KVNNN� i L I i �j�pyl I i I i i i i i i i i �"�'i' i i 1 ��L L l i �i i` i i i i l��. .!n i i 41;NU1 (/JNNUPfIJ Q)Q)(D(D 11 Q)c/ANiY/1 fn� FYYQ7 Q�Y N�N.U1 � NN6�. US p7✓1 fl)C�f UI UJ rA UI rA N �y� U7 i^^Q)N�NU7 NNNUDiN N�QiY�n"QxC}�. .��}'Q� UCH. ChT�UU�r�UC� � YC� NUn1 oC��-Q++�+$ 00 ii1QQLY Nr-+" , ��, "O Q7C �'N'aU�C C� �UYC3C Q1 0 N =_ 0o0omo 77—_7-_•=� a 7�+�7 �oJaJ��ao��3 .'C"SSSSSci ymyo3��0ocim7°Oood`�3� '777777t77777�777i "2' G—r n �' 1-�� _7 �� 1 � ❑ 1� j� � Q P m i L L .._...__..._'..._....'..._....___...............i...._. ..._. ..._..__.__...._................._.._..__...__...__...__...__...._...._................................................__..._...._...._...i.........._...._. ........................... Figure II-C12. Dendrogram for macroi nverteb rate taxa richness and abundance in upstream sweeps for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at the 0.1 percent level (alpha value 0.001). I I-C-22 All Creeks, Downstream (Sweeps) Group Averages 0 0 A B C D E F G H I J KL M N O P Q R s ;.......------ ....._--------------- ............ ._....-............................ I 1 � 1 1 1 CO I I I I I l I I I I I I 1 I ' 1 I j I I I I F i I I 3 i I = I I I I I I , I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 , ' kI i I I 1 I I I I I I ' ' I 1 I I I ' I I 1 1 I 1 O ;CCC;C CiC CCf-'yCC CICCCCCCCCOCCCCCCiCCcc zC ;CCCCCICCCCCCCCCCiCiCCCCCCC CC CC CC C�CCCCCCCCCICCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCC;CCCCC�.ICCCCCCCCCCC CCICCCC'CCC CCCCCCCCCC� 3g3'33:R333:3333333333333333gg333333:330811�8 333333333;31333333333 3ggg333g3g333gag gg3g3333ggg3g33333�33gg3�3g3333333g3331gg3333g333MH3 :33 oo�oa0000100060000000 00 9N:: oo ooaoo0000o0ooaao00000000 0000a00000000a000000000000000o0000a00000a00000000000o aooa�opo�oopoO0000000oa, l I ltlll IIIIIIII IIIIIII II C'7VCOfDI�OIT IT-LO 0) CAa7o]op[000 ��TC7Vcc7c�CJC7r]Ircoa'x9cDvmv�r�d-vr;V7r)7 nLLxnl.`7M�-�'lr-C�j.VC�l01--OCVNNc.KV(xrxO o)1-0--J�oaNr7OOtfMal--(ID� CXD000r Q1r�r� A-Ir�rrr r� ��rrr�r�O �l� r�-QO��ppr��pr�00rr�rpr' �6MK] OO �OOOOOb mQ�00000[]00000� 000000 0000�'�OOOOOOOOkJ000000000000 D=CDRR 010�00000000CDCD= 00piT0000=1D 0000; NN NNNNN N NNNNNN NNCIICV[V(VNNC�J(�XVCVNNNNC�XVNNNNCV.�INNNNNN CV(�IV CVCV['J(VCVNC+1(VC�ICV[�XV +--CVC11(V(VCVNNiV(VC\XVNN I I I I I �� I I V I I �LI I �j l I I �IA I I �;I—` I LI I I L �I I�� L I I �I,��I a) I�a 11 I 11 1 1 11 to fn N /7 N11 Vl fn N N plY fn V] V�i N ) N V] ^"'N_ Ul VI N N f!1 fn f!1 Vl N Ul NVl VI N f!1 N l!L x� aro�000 arXID0000a'��Y u��czr oar0aYY Nca)��c-oarN aoYfl�oovN� a)oo�avt�nvv�aoo a�mma�a�ma�a�a�aYmma> o0cx O 0o,pu- nap O�Uoc—gy�"U oc�o—�ca� �00 ��t�o-a0q� pro--600—OCO000G� �aao=a6a [5i7� M� 1 077 64"` O(6 NOO'_o O W� w_j 000� O—�aJOJO O my� �O�a}—>(4 O O 7LT7 0077J OW U[6[6J1777 c� �� 3 `�� of o I0 gJ 3OJ a, °raoaaoa000�aoa ....... ....e............... .......... :. ................p....... .............. Ll..�©.......;..........L.l .. ... .....©.......m.....0.....;........................ Ll........................................ a Figure II-C13. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance in downstream sweeps for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at the 0.1 percent level (alpha value 0.001). 11-C-23 All Creeks, Upstream (Ponar) Group Averages 0 a A B c D E F G H I JK .......................................................................:--................ ------------------------------------------------- ;.f.........---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Co 1 1 0 1 I I I I I I I I T ❑ v ' N i i i O IIII IIIIII I I I III II I I I IIII I 11 III IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII III I�I��IIII II IIIIIII II IIIII I IIII IIIII III I� as o00000 �a--1---L-�-• cnalN INI ly I yN } I I I�I i.nl�l I ��I�NLL1111111 I'll�II��L�NI I I N ILinL inak' 77777377D nna Q7 7 _ 47 Q7 Y�a1 aro-vo�mCarauo CG. Q7 cQ7CCcm cQ7 �v�7iaY — �cr—«.Y m cY �mm Vdr�rUCLie,..a��c ..r ;v000v�000J a ac�v-UQoao�0000a� a� a �0000 a a �o�� o ° s-�• oCCw CCt��o »off o �� Cz (-Z o n nm nmNwm nv,��,` a$oco ��O ��c p��,o o-u�o cmc��oC�m3 ;m�'� -moos ' - vooc� mo3�-* 7 �0'� .000000TOa7 a7 T 1 �2H H222.Y H; "F H H� °I-�'� H ar.=�a N � � yc � Y L}x � � U; as v ;E -v S ❑ o �� o❑a i ems " ❑ .......................................... ------------------------------...- --------------------'---------------...........................-------....------------...--------------------------- Figure II-C14. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance in upstream ponar grabs for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at alpha level 0.001. 11-C-24 All Creeks, Downstream (Ponar) Group Averages Q O A B C D E F G H ................... ......... CO 0 m T -N 0 V i i i i i i i i i i i N i i i i i i i i i i O 'CCCCCCiCCCC;CCC CC C C C CC CIC C C CC C C CC,CC CCCCiC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC;CCCCCCC CC:C CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC; 000000�'�O�OO�DOOOOOOOOOQOODOODOOO;000OOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODO 0 0 OOOOOOOODOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOOOODO OOOOOOOQ00000000aO 0000OODODO00000 IIIII III IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII Illro 111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOD CDOX7IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIa ��orna 00000000� 00000aoo �> c�k�Iiakp(CnQ.�T��p1ry�mQ_ y1 VQN1 �I°m=1g�1wUoIIooCT 0OXP 1— IYI I I -I I Ill l 1 }Iy�iYI . I yo-v`I}I�Iy,ItIovo(NCV IdhIY V1INIY NN7viI /f CLaL�� vI 'L' o7�3I {IoJ INVII I VI �I 0 O�A0�r oIo 4I °S?j=an v°»P�IoDc rD"(NIQ1 oV1I7o-o.ILmzc�-�imc I�vN�1�oo�oo 'NNNNU��° NNNNNiIm11lNm"l N lQYi,, 25 Sc�e ..----�------------------'--------------------------`------------------------------------------T----------- T---------------------------------------------------�-.�.---------�-- Figure II-C15. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance in downstream ponar grabs for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at the alpha value 0.001. 11-C-25 Trophic Level Functional Guild C i i i i i i i ____HEH%V" i PAR,RSITE 0 0 a E M Component 1 Component 3 Component 5 B JCRAPER GRAZER i i SF�RECCER i GATHEr ER1COLLECTOR FILTERERICOLLECTOR i i i i i i i i Component IMDER Ll i i i i i i i i i i PRELjVkTbR --------------------------- i FILTLRLRICOLLECJ OR GRAZER i RAPER i i i i i Component 3 1 2 Component5 Figure II-C16 A-F. Six major components/axes generated from fuzzy correspondence analysis (FCA) of trophic level (A, C, E) and functional feeding guilds (B, D, F) designations for every species found in ponar grabs in study creeks across all years. 11-C-26 All Creeks (Upstream Ponar Guilds) Group Averages a............................... ........I ........ ;•.-•• •..... .............................. ......--------------- ;A IB C E;F :1 ,J�K IL :N I I � I I I I I M I I I I I I I N N O I i I ' i I O 'nn!ononnnnnonnnnnonnnoan:noaononnn000nna000nann0000nnoonanon:ooacio nnnnn., ' ?li III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIall 'illillllll'Illll 11117 II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIII� 'V1�-t-O��--(D00<Oc�01`-NV1`-I�-[�Oc`�d+L7u7u70t�--UM��NC00.7�WCOONf�M�-I��tJ[JVtifJ�7o71�1��--C�f�L7(D�ViflaOcb.:)rrW�uXVCONC�k'7(DQ�000F'JV Vu]--�C7�fJCUVtO•-^O)Od-o01�v]WcCr7007MhdVNCOlt7�7C7f1C0 -O��OrC)OOr000rOOOrorOOOC CC=CDC>0C=C O.--"--00_C3CDCX CDOXDCKDOm��r�HOCDOOCDC=C=�; 000000000000pDOOOOOOOOO000000000000000O00000000'p�OOOOOOOOOOOOdO0000�]O6)QJp10 N0000000000 000000006)006K]010O0017000000000000• NKVC+ LVNCVCVNN NNNNNNNCVNCVNN( � NNNNNNNNCV[�N�VN(�KVNNNNNN[�KVNO SVNC�B�K�KV NNMKVCV J[ViVc-.-h�V[V[�A N(�KVCVCVNN.--(VCVrNr ( �I Ol0)�},� LrN�_ V! 777rrr 1A V37�7.t/1 RW tOQO W71�7.?ln W>,LFAM ONn>7 �.?ONI1>4)>U V1 >U Q)N�fn?Ul tlkrN�Na nQN� raOJbl +Y-Na_N N OJT UNUNN-O�UC CONCk U'N(„)N 4J U)� ��_N[UU)�... c'q -��NJ Vn�cy Qf1NQ7 � r iN C N�UO C a1-�-O Q)1 disc-OY-Qf UI �'N N�I� U+�p-C tX N'QU �•- �'�Z �QQ'r#v�y'O� v�� p+� p " 'XL__ ��ao U cc�� U.. ypp'O USN N. U.--�T�; N 000'00-��OOC(6�..I �JO��c Jd� OOa UrV� O�a [6 cUC R0.�O �`�i� U[6 aO M N —�N� iJy�� oOO��0-iU V�--r F_F__ O V F> > �J '�"CJ H >> 5 'O 0 2 �Y W G G v CXX.X? 2 p 2 2 p 2 22 p p 2 a 2 2 2 I Z� 2 c m �cc ��: Figure II-C17. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate guilds assigned to upstream ponars for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at alpha value 0.001. I I-C-27 Pro Pre Past Pre Past Pre Posy Figure II-C18. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guilds FCA (Axis 3) comparisons: between Jacks Creek and Muddy Creek and Jacks Creek and Little Creek. The post -Mod Alt L comparison was statistically significant between Jacks Creek and Little Creek at the 5 percent level (ANOVA alpha value 0.05). ,Mofte Pox Low o � T x QO T i 1 1. I 1 1 .0.5 1 0 1 I o J' 1 1 1 1 1 ov Prc Pa" Pro Po°•' Figure II-C19. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guil between Jacobs Creek and PA2 and Jacobs Creek and Lon, comparison was statistically significant between Jacobs Creek ar level (ANOVA alpha value 0.05). i ds FCA (Axis 6) comparisons: Creek. The post -Mod Alt L id Long Creek at the 5 percent 11-C-28