20080868 Ver 2_2013 Annual Creek Monitoring Report_20140707

PotashCorp®
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
August 18, 2014
Ms. Karen Higgins
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater Compliance/Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Dear Ms. Higgins:
PotashCorp - Aurora
Enclosed please find 2 hard copies and 7 CD's of a report titled "Annual Creeks Report for 2013
Monitoring Year -PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. ", prepared by CZR Incorporated. The CD
contains everything that is in the hard copy, plus Appendices B -I which contain the 2013 data.
Please discard the CD's that you received in early July.
Substantive changes in the r2) ort since the July CD submittal include:
1) Slight change to 6 bullet of Executive Summary
2) Section I A — rearranged the order of the 4 subsections
3) Section I C — made corrections to text, numbers, and cumulative Figure I -C2
4) Vegetation — correction of transition years for Huddles Cut - removed 2010 and 2011
data and replaced affected figures and tables
5) Fish dendrograms with no significant differences were removed (old Figures III -F4
and III -F6).
6) Inclusion of benthic information (Section II C Q3 forage base benthic portion, Section
III G entire).
7) Appendix A benthos methodology updated to reflect new statistical approach
This report is a requirement of the March 2011 stream monitoring plan that was developed in
response to 404 Permit No. SAW- 2001 -10096 issued June 10, 2009 and modified March 12,
2013, and 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3771 issued January 15, 2009.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please call me at (252) 322 -8249, or
Sam Cooper of CZR at (910) 392 -9253.
Sincerely,
G (VA4
J y . F YM e ss
Senior Scientist
1330 NC nwy 306 Soum, Aurora, NC USA Zj806 T(252)322-4111
PotashCorp. I www.potashcorp.com
ECEIWE
AUG 19 2014

Enclosures
PC: Anthony Scarbraugh — DWR, Washington
Tom Steffens - COE, Washington
S. Cooper - CZR
23 -01- 004 -27
T.L. Baker
M. Brom
w /encl.
w/o encl.
w/o encl.
w/o encl.
w/o encl.
w/o encl.

Vk PotashCorp
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
July 3, 2014
Ms. Karen Higgins
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Dept of ENR
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater Compliance/Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Dear Ms. Higgins:
2008- 086$,.2
PotashCorp Aurora
Enclosed please find 7 CD's of a report titled "Annual Creeks Report for 2013 Monitoring Year -
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. ", prepared by CZR Incorporated. The CD contains the main
body of the report except for the benthos section, and also includes Appendix A. The benthos
section is currently being finalized.
This report is a requirement of the March 2011 stream monitoring plan that was developed in
response to 404 Permit No. SAW- 2001 -10096 issued June 10, 2009 and modified March 12,
2013, and 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3771 issued January 15, 2009.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please call me at (252) 322 -8249, or
Sam Cooper of CZR at (910) 392 -9253. Final CD's and two complete hard copies will be sent
to you in approximately two weeks.
Sincerely,
11 qA,-�'�
y C. Furness
Senior Scientist
Enclosures
PC: Anthony Scarbraugh — DWR, Washington
Tom Steffens - COE, Washington
S. Cooper - CZR
23 -01- 004 -27
T.L. Baker
M. Brom
w /encl.
w/o encl. r ;
w/o encl.
w/o encl. to ���
w/o encl. 5trt�rr . anct1
w/o encl.
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T (252) 322 -4111
PotashCorp I www potashcorp com

PotashCorp!
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
July 3, 2014
Mr. Tom Steffens
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 5h Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Steffens:
2oog - 0868
PotashCorp • Aurora
Enclosed please find a CD of a report titled "Annual Creeks Report for 2013 Monitoring Year -
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. ", prepared by CZR Incorporated. The CD contains the main
body of the report except for the benthos section, and also includes Appendix A. The benthos
section is currently being finalized.
This report is a requirement of the March 2011 stream monitoring plan that was developed in
response to 404 Permit No. SAW- 2001 -10096 issued June 10, 2009 and modified March 12,
2013, and 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3771 issued January 15, 2009.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please call me at (252) 322 -8249, or
Sam Cooper of CZR at (910) 392 -9253. Copies are being provided separately to the current
members of the Science Panel. A final CD and complete hard copy of the report will be sent to
you in approximately two weeks.
Sincerely,
of Cq Al -11 )eYC. Furness
Senior Scientist
Enclosure
PC: Dr. Terry West — ECU
Dr. Rick Rheinhardt — ECU
Anthony Scarbraugh — DWR, Washington
Karen Higgins — DWR, Raleigh
S. Cooper - CZR
T.L. Baker
M. Brom
23 -01- 004 -27
w /encl. "";,:,:; --
w /encl.�j�(7
w/o encl. �;� ,.
w/o encl �°j �b .
UL G' 7 2014
a'
w/o encl. � NR
w/o encl. WWt �°pTq ��qc
�` Storm pr Branch
w /encl.
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T(252)322-4111
PotashCorp I www potashcorp com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................. ............................... I -A -1
A.
Background .................................................................... ...............................
I -A -1
1.0
Drainage Basin Acreage Adjustments .................. ...............................
I -A -1
2.0
New Format of Report ......................................... ...............................
I -A -2
3.0
Pre- and Post -Mod Alt L Year Revisions ............... ...............................
I -A -3
4.0
Permit Modifications .............................................. ...............................
I -A -3
B.
Creeks Monitored in 2013 .............................................. ...............................
I -B -1
C.
Cumulative and 2013 Mining, Mine - related Activities, and Drainage Basins.
I -C -1
1.0
Drinkwater Creek .................................................. ...............................
I -C -1
2.0
Tooley Creek ........................................................ ...............................
I -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
II.
CORPS
PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS S SIX QUESTIONS .......................
II -A -1
A.
Question 1- .................................................................... ...............................
II-A-1
Has mining altered the amount or timing of water flows within the creeks?
B. Question 2- .................................................................... ............................... II -13-1
Has mining altered the geomorphic or vegetative character of the creeks?
C. Question 3- .................................................................... ............................... II -C -1
Has mining altered the forage base of the creeks?
D. Question 4- .................................................................... ............................... II -D -1
Has mining altered the use of the creek by managed fish?
E. Question 5- .................................................................... ............................... II -E -1
Has mining increased contaminate [sic] levels within creek sediments to levels
that could impact fish or invertebrates?
F. Question 6- ............................................ ............................... ........................III -F -1
Has mining altered overall water quality within creeks?

III. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF SUMMARY RESULTS BY PARAMETER..... III -A -1
A. SALINITY AND TAR RIVER DISCHARGE ................... ...............................
III -A -1
1.0
Correlations with Tar River Discharge and Rainfall ...........................
III -A -1
2.0
Interannual and Monthly Comparisons ............... ...............................
III -A -1
a.
Jacks Creek ............................................................... ...............................
III -A -1
b.
South Creek (SS1) (control) ...................................... ...............................
III -A -2
c.
Little Creek (control) .................................................. ...............................
III -A -2
d.
Jacobs Creek ............................................................. ...............................
III -A -3
e.
PA2 (control) ............................................................. ...............................
III -A -3
f.
Drinkwater Creek ....................................................... ...............................
III -A -3
g.
Long Creek ( control) .................................................. ...............................
III -A -4
h.
Tooley Creek ............................................................. ...............................
III -A -4
i.
Pamlico River (PS1) (control) .................................... ...............................
III -A -5
j.
Huddles Cut ............................................................... ...............................
III -A -5
k.
Duck Creek ( control) .................................................. ...............................
III -A -6
I.
Porter Creek .............................................................. ...............................
III -A -6
m.
Durham Creek DCS1 (control), DCUT11, and DCUT19 (control) .............
III -A -7
3.0
Summary and Conclusions ................................. ...............................
III -A -7
B. WETLAND HYDROLOGY ............................................ ...............................
III -13-1
1.0
Jacks Creek ........................................................ ...............................
III -13-1
2.0
Jacobs Creek ...................................................... ...............................
III -13-1
3.0
Drinkwater Creek ................................................ ...............................
111 -13-1
4.0
Long Creek (control) ........................................... ...............................
111 -13-1
5.0
Tooley Creek ...................................................... ...............................
III -13-2
6.0
Huddles Cut ........................................................ ...............................
III -13-2
a.
Main Prong ................................................................ ...............................
111 -13-2
b.
West Prong ................................................................ ...............................
III -13-2
7.0
Duck Creek (control) ........................................... ...............................
111 -13-2
8.0
Porter Creek ....................................................... ...............................
III -13-2
9.0
DCUT11 ...................................... ............................... ........................III
-B -3
10.0
DCUT19 ( control) ................................................ ...............................
III -13-3
C. WATER QUALITY ........................................................ ...............................
III -13-1
1.0
History ......................................... ............................... ........................III
-C -1
2.0
Description of Analysis Techniques .................... ...............................
III -C -1
3.0
Results ........................................ ............................... ........................III
-C -2
a.
Temporal variability of creeks across all years .......... ...............................
III -C -3
i. Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ1 .......... ...............................
III -C -3

ii. Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ2 ......... ...............................
III -C -3
iii. Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ1 . ...............................
III -C -4
iv. Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ2 . ...............................
III -C -4
v. PA2 water quality station PA2WQ1 ................. ...............................
III -C -4
vi. PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2 ................ ...............................
III -C -5
vii. Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ1 ..........................
III -C -5
viii. Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ2 .........................
III -C -5
ix. Little Creek water quality station LCWQ1 ....... ...............................
III -C -5
x. Little Creek water quality station LCWQ2 ........ ...............................
III -C -6
A. Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ1 .... ...............................
III -C -6
xii. Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ2 ... ...............................
III -C -6
xiii. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ1 .... ...............................
III -C -7
xiv. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ2 .... ...............................
III -C -7
xv. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ3 ..... ...............................
III -C -7
xvi. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ1 ..... ...............................
III -C -7
xvii. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ2 ..... ...............................
III -C -8
xviii. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ3 .... ...............................
III -C -8
xix. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ4 ..... ...............................
III -C -8
xx. Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ1 ... ...............................
III -C -9
xxi. Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ2 .. ...............................
III -C -9
xxii. Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ1 . ...............................
III -C -9
xxiii. Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ2 ...............................
III -C -9
xxiv. DCUT11 water quality station DC11 WQ1 . ...............................
III -C -10
xxiv. DCUT19 water quality station DC19WQ1 . ...............................
III -C -10
b. Spatial variability of creeks ...................................... ...............................
III -C -10
i. Depth ............................................................. ...............................
III -C -10
ii. Temperature .................................................. ...............................
III -C -11
iii. Salinity .......................................................... ...............................
III -C -11
iv. Secchi depth ................................................ ...............................
III -C -11
v. Conductivity and specific conductance ......... ...............................
III -C -11
vi. Turbidity ....................................................... ...............................
III -C -11
vii. Dissolved oxygen and dissolved oxygen (% saturation) .............
III -C -11
viii. pH ............................................................... ...............................
III -C -11
ix. NH4 (Ammonium) ......................................... ...............................
III -C -11
x. NO3 (Nitrate) ................................................. ...............................
III -C -12
A. DKN (dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen) ................ ...............................
III -C -12
xii. PN (particulate nitrogen) .............................. ...............................
III -C -12
xiii. PO4 ( orthophosphate) ................................. ...............................
III -C -12
xiv. TDP (total dissolved phosphate) ................ ...............................
III -C -12
xv. PP (particulate phosphate) .......................... ...............................
III -C -12
xvi. Chlorophyll a .............................................. ...............................
III -C -12
xvii. Dissolved organic carbon .......................... ...............................
III -C -12
xviii. Total dissolved nitrogen ............................ ...............................
III -C -13
c. Interannual variability at Huddles Cut, Drinkwater Creek, and Tooley Creek. III -
C -13
iv

i. Temperature and salinity ................................ ............................... III -C -13
ii. Conductivity and specific conductance .......... ............................... III -C -13
iii. Dissolved oxygen ......................................... ............................... III -C -13
iv. Depth and chlorophyll a ................................ ............................... III -C -13
v. Secchi depth and turbidity ............................. ............................... III -C -14
vi. pH and ammonium (NH4) ............................. ............................... III -C -14
vii. Nitrate (NO3) and particulate nitrogen (PN) . ............................... III -C -14
viii. Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen (DKN) and orthophosphate (PO4).. III -C -14
ix. Total dissolved phosphate (TDP) and particulate phosphate (PP).. III -C-
v
14
4.0
Summary and Conclusions ...............................
............................... III -C -14
D.
METALS .......................................................................
............................... III -D -1
1.0
Sediment Metals .................................................
............................... III -D -1
2.0
Water Column Metals .........................................
............................... III -D -1
E.
VEGETATION ..............................................................
............................... III -E -1
1.0
Results and Discussion .......................................
............................... III -E -1
a.
Jacks Creek ...............................................................
............................... III -E -1
b.
Jacobs Creek .............................................................
............................... III -E -3
c.
Drinkwater Creek .......................................................
............................... III -E -3
d.
Tooley Creek .............................................................
............................... III -E -3
e.
Long Creek ( control) ..................................................
............................... III -E -3
f.
Huddles Cut Main Prong ...........................................
............................... III -E -3
g.
Huddles Cut West Prong ...........................................
............................... III -E -5
h.
Porter Creek ..............................................................
............................... III -E -6
i.
DCUT11 ............................................ ...............................
........................III -E -7
j.
DCUT19 (control creek) .............................................
............................... III -E -7
k.
Duck Creek (control creek) ........................................
............................... III -E -7
2.0
Summary and Conclusions .................................
............................... III -E -7
F.
FISH ..............................................................................
............................... III -F -1
1.0
Results and Discussion ................ ...............................
........................III -F -1
a.
Pre -Mod Alt L Creeks .................................................
............................... III -F -1
i. Jacks Creek ......................................................
............................... III -F -1
ii. Jacobs Creek ...................................................
............................... III -F -2
iii. Porter Creek ............................ ...............................
........................III -F -2
iv. DCUT11 .................................. ...............................
........................III -F -3
b.
Post -Mod Alt L Creeks ........................ ...............................
........................III -F -3
i. Drinkwater Creek ..............................................
............................... III -F -3
ii. Tooley Creek ............................ ...............................
........................III -F -4
iii. Huddles Cut ............................. ...............................
........................III -F -5
c.
Control Creeks .................................... ...............................
........................III -F -6
i. Little Creek ................................ ...............................
........................III -F -6
v

ii. PA2 .......................................... ............................... ........................III -F -6
iii. Long Creek .............................. ............................... ........................III -F -6
iv. Muddy Creek ........................... ............................... ........................III -F -6
v. Duck Creek ...................................................... ............................... III -F -7
vi. DCUT19 .................................. ............................... ........................III -F -7
2.0 Summary and Conclusions .......... ............................... ........................III -F -8
G. BENTHOS ...................................................... ............................... ........................III -G -1
VI

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure I -A1
Vicinity Map
I -A -4
Figure 1 -131
Monitoring Locations in Jacks Creek
I -B -2
Figure 1 -132
Monitoring Location in South Creek (Control)
I -B -3
Figure 1 -133
Monitoring Locations in Little Creek (Control)
I -B -4
Figure 1 -134
Monitoring Locations in Jacobs Creek
I -B -5
Figure 1 -135
Monitoring Locations in PA2 (Control)
I -B -6
Figure 1 -136
Monitoring Locations in Drinkwater Creek
I -B -7
Figure 1 -137
Monitoring Locations in Long Creek (Control)
I -B -8
Figure 1 -138
Monitoring Locations in Tooley Creek
I -B -9
Figure 1 -139
Monitoring Locations in Muddy Creek
I -B -10
Figure 1 -1310
Monitoring Location in Pamlico River (Control)
I -B -11
Figure 1 -1311
Monitoring Locations in Huddles Cut
I -B -12
Figure 1 -1312
Monitoring Locations in Duck Creek
I -B -13
Figure 1 -1313
Monitoring Locations in Porter Creek
I -B -14
Figure 1 -1314
Monitoring Location in Durham Creek (Control)
I -B -15
Figure 1 -1315
Monitoring Locations in DCUT11
I -B -16
Figure 1 -1316
Monitoring Locations in DCUT19 (Control)
I -B -17
Figure I -C1
Mine Continuation through 2013
I -C -2
Figure I -C2
Drainage Areas Impacted by Mine Activities within Monitored
I -C -3
Creek Study Basins through 2013
Figure I -C3
Drinkwater Creek Drainage Areas Impacted by Mine Activities
I -C -4
through 2013
Figure I -C4
Tooley Creek Drainage Areas Impacted by Mine Activities
I -C -5
through 2013
Figure I -F1 Rainfall summary across years of creeks study: monthly totals I -F -2
at PCS Aurora Station 6N compared to 30 -year WETS rainfall
Figure I -G1 Tar River average daily discharge at Greenville, NC and PCS I -G -2
Aurora NOAA Station 6N daily rainfall across the years of the
creeks study
Figure II -B1 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at II -B -5
Huddles Cut Main Prong pre- vs post -Mod Alt L
vi

Page
Figure II -132 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions II -13-5
every year at Huddles Cut Main Prong with all transects combined
Figure II -133 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions II -13-5
at each transect on Huddles Cut Main Prong pre- vs post -Mod Alt L
Figure II -134 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at II -13-6
Huddles Cut West Prong pre- vs post -Mod Alt L
Figure II -135 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions II -13-6
every year at Huddles Cut West Prong with all transects combined
Figure II -136 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions II -13-6
at each transect on Huddles Cut West Prong pre- vs post -Mod Alt L
Figure II -137 Percent of brackish intolerant species every year at each II -13-7
Huddles Cut Main Prong transect
Figure II -138 Percent of brackish intolerant species every year at each II -13-8
Huddles Cut West Prong transect
Figure II -139 Percent of brackish intolerant species at each Jacks Creek II -13-9
transect every year and all years combined
Figure II -B10
Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and
II -B -10
mean rainfall for each period in Drinkwater Creek
Figure II -1311
Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and
II -B -10
mean rainfall for each period in Tooley Creek
Figure II -1312
Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and
II -13-11
mean rainfall for each period in Huddles Cut
Figure II -1313
Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and
II -13-11
mean rainfall for each well in Drinkwater Creek
Figure II -1314
Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and
II -13-11
mean rainfall for each well in Tooley Creek relative to location
in the creek system
Figure II -1315
Huddles Cut main prong and west prong pre- and post -Mod Alt L
II -B -12
hydrology for each well relative to location in creek system
Figure II -C1
Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish
II -C -3
community abundance and composition among fish species for all
creeks and years sampled
VII

Page
Figure II -D1
Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish
II -D -3
community abundance and composition among managed species
for all creeks and years sampled
Figure II -E1
Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for three creeks
II -E -3
Figure II -E2
Differences between combined post -Mod Alt L sediment metal
II -E -4
data for Drinkwater, Tooley, and Huddles Cut compared to combined
control creek data for the same years
Figure II -E3a
Water column metal means for all years (2011 -2013) for all
II -E -5
creeks by type
Figure II -E3b
Water column metal means compared for all years
II -E -5
(2011 -2013) by type without Al and Fe shown
Figure II -F1
Agglomerative, hierarchical cluster analysis of each water
II -F -3
quality station based on all water quality variables
Figure II -F2 Comparison of pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L salinity in II -F -4
three creeks
Figure II -F3 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L conductivity and specific II -F -5
conductance in three creeks
Figure II -F4 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L dissolved oxygen in II -F -6
three creeks
Figure II -F5 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L chlorophyll a in three II -F -7
creeks
Figure II -F6 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L Kjeldahl nitrogen and II -F -8
orthophosphate in three creeks
Figure II -F7 Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L TDP II -F -9
Figure III -A1 Tar River discharge, monthly rainfall statistics, and total III -A -9
annual rainfall at four long -term rain gauges over the years of
the PCS creeks study
Figure III -A2a Salinity at monitoring locations associated primarily with South III -A -10
Creek
Figure III -A2b Salinity at monitoring locations associated primarily with Pamlico III -A -11
River
Figure III -A3a Monthly salinities at non - control salinity monitoring stations III -A -12
viii

Figure III -133 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs Creek and III -13-5
Drinkwater Creek by year and total annual rainfall
Figure III -134 Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs Creek III -13-5
across all years
Figure III -135 Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Long Creek III -13-5
across all years
Figure III -136 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Long Creek and total III -13-6
annual rainfall
Figure III -137 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Tooley Creek and total III -13-6
annual rainfall
Figure III -138 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut Main Prong III -13-7
by year and total annual rainfall
Figure III -139 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut West Prong III -13-7
by year and total annual rainfall
Figure III -1310 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek by year III -13-8
and total annual rainfall
Figure III -1311 Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek III -13-8
across all years relative to location in creek system
Figure III -1312 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Porter Creek by year III -13-9
and total annual rainfall
ix
Page
Figure III -A3b
Monthly salinities at non - control salinity monitoring stations
III -A -13
Figure III -A4a
Monthly salinities at control salinity monitoring stations
III -A -14
Figure III -A4b
Monthly salinities at control salinity monitoring stations
III -A -15
Figure III -A5
Salinity measured during fish trawling at Muddy Creek in April
III -A -16
May, and June of 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013
Figure III -131
Longest hydroperiod for each well in Jacks Creek by year
III -13-4
with total annual rainfall for each year
Figure III -132
Longest combined hydroperiod across all years for each well
III -13-4
in Jacks Creek relative to location in creek system
Figure III -133 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs Creek and III -13-5
Drinkwater Creek by year and total annual rainfall
Figure III -134 Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs Creek III -13-5
across all years
Figure III -135 Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Long Creek III -13-5
across all years
Figure III -136 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Long Creek and total III -13-6
annual rainfall
Figure III -137 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Tooley Creek and total III -13-6
annual rainfall
Figure III -138 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut Main Prong III -13-7
by year and total annual rainfall
Figure III -139 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut West Prong III -13-7
by year and total annual rainfall
Figure III -1310 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek by year III -13-8
and total annual rainfall
Figure III -1311 Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek III -13-8
across all years relative to location in creek system
Figure III -1312 Longest hydroperiod for each well in Porter Creek by year III -13-9
and total annual rainfall
ix

Page
Figure III -1313 Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Porter Creek III -13-9
across all years relative to location in creek system
Figure III -C1 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -17
Among all water quality variables in Jacks Creek water quality
Station JWQ1
Figure III -C2 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -18
Component 2 over time at Jacks Creek Station JWQ1
Figure III -C3 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -19
among all water quality variables in Jacks Creek water quality
Station JWQ2
Figure III -C4 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -20
Component 2 over time at Jacks Creek Station JWQ1
Figure III -05 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -21
among all water quality variables in Jacobs Creek water quality
Station JCBWQ1
Figure III -C6 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -22
Component 2 over time at Jacobs Creek Station JCBWQ1
Figure III -C7 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -23
among all water quality variables in Jacobs Creek water quality
Station JCBWQ2
Figure III -C8 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -24
Component 2 over time at Jacobs Creek Station JCBWQ2
Figure III -C9 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -25
among all water quality variables in PA2 water quality station
PA2WQ1
Figure III -C10 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -26
Component 2 over time at PA2 water quality station PA2WQ1
Figure III -C11 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -27
among all water quality variables in PA2 water quality station
PA2WQ2
Figure III -C12 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -28
Component 2 over time at PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2
x

Page
Figure III -C13 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -29
among all water quality variables at Drinkwater Creek water quality
station DWWQ1
Figure III -C14 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -30
Component 2 over time at Drinkwater Creek water quality
station DWWQ1
Figure III -C15 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -31
among all water quality variables at Drinkwater Creek water quality
station DWWQ2
Figure III -C16 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -32
Component 2 over time at Drinkwater Creek water quality
station DWWQ2
Figure III -C17 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -33
among all water quality variables at Little Creek water quality
station LCWQ1
Figure III -C18 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -34
Component 2 over time at Little Creek water quality
station LCWQ1
Figure III -C19 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -35
among all water quality variables at Little Creek water quality
station LCWQ2
Figure III -C20 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -36
Component 2 over time at Little Creek water quality
station LCWQ2
Figure III -C21 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -37
among all water quality variables at Long Creek water quality
station LOCWQ1
Figure III -C22 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -38
Component 2 over time at Long Creek water quality
station LOCWQ1
Figure III -C23 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -39
among all water quality variables at Long Creek water quality
station LOCWQ2
Figure III -C24 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -40
Component 2 over time at Long Creek water quality
station LOCWQ2
A

Page
Figure III -C25 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -41
among all water quality variables at Tooley Creek water quality
station TWQ1
Figure III -C26 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -42
Component 2 over time at Tooley Creek water quality
station TWQ1
Figure III -C27 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -43
among all water quality variables at Tooley Creek water quality
station TWQ2
Figure III -C28 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -44
Component 2 over time at Tooley Creek water quality
station TWQ2
Figure III -C29 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -45
among all water quality variables at Tooley Creek water quality
station TWQ3
Figure III -C30 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -46
Component 2 over time at Tooley Creek water quality
station TWQ3
Figure III -C31 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -47
among all water quality variables at Huddles Cut water quality
station HWQ1
Figure III -C32 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -48
Component 2 over time at Huddles Cut water quality
station HWQ1
Figure III -C33 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -49
among all water quality variables at Huddles Cut water quality
station HWQ2
Figure III -C34 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -50
Component 2 over time at Huddles Cut water quality
station HWQ2
Figure III -C35 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -51
among all water quality variables at Huddles Cut water quality
station HWQ3
X11

Page
Figure III -C36 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -52
Component 2 over time at Huddles Cut water quality
station HWQ3
Figure III -C37 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -53
among all water quality variables at Huddles Cut water quality
station HWQ4
Figure III -C38 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -54
Component 2 over time at Huddles Cut water quality
station HWQ4
Figure III -C39 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -55
among all water quality variables at Porter Creek water quality
station PCWQ1
Figure III -C40 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -56
Component 2 over time at Porter Creek water quality
station PCWQ1
Figure III -C41 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -57
among all water quality variables at Porter Creek water quality
station PCWQ2
Figure III -C42 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -58
Component 2 over time at Porter Creek water quality
station PCWQ2
Figure III -C43 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -59
among all water quality variables at Duck Creek water quality
station DKCWQ1
Figure III -C44 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -60
Component 2 over time at Duck Creek water quality
station DKCWQ1
Figure III -C45 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -61
among all water quality variables at Duck Creek water quality
station DKCWQ2
Figure III -C46 Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal III -C -62
Component 2 over time at Duck Creek water quality
station DKCWQ2
Figure III -C47 Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships III -C -63
among all water quality variables at DCUT11 Creek water quality
station DC11WQ1
xiii

Page
Figure III -C48
Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal
III -C -64
Component 2 over time at DCUT11 water quality station DC11WQ1
Figure III -C49
Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships
III -C -65
among all water quality variables at DCUT11 Creek water quality
station DC19WQ1
Figure III -050
Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal
III -C -66
Component 2 over time at DCUT19 water quality station DC11WQ1
Figure III -051
Comparison of mean depth for group of water quality stations
III -C -67
identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -052
Comparison of mean temperature for group of water quality
III -C -68
stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -053
Comparison of mean salinity for group of water quality stations
III -C -69
identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -054
Comparison of mean Secchi depth for group of water quality
III -C -70
stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -055
Comparison of mean conductivity for group of water quality
III -C -71
stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -056
Comparison of mean specific conductance for group of water
III -C -72
quality stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -057
Comparison of mean turbidity for group of water quality stations
III -C -73
identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -058
Comparison of mean dissolved oxygen for group of water quality
III -C -74
stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -059
Comparison of mean dissolved oxygen for group of water quality
III -C -75
stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -C60
Comparison of mean pH for group of water quality stations
III -C -76
identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -C61
Comparison of mean NI-14 for group of water quality stations
III -C -77
identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -C62
Comparison of mean NOa for group of water quality stations
III -C -78
identified by cluster analysis
xiv

Figure III -C69 Comparison of mean dissolved organic carbon for group of III -C -85
water quality stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -C70 Comparison of mean total dissolved nitrogen for group of III -C -86
water quality stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -D1 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Drinkwater III -D -2
Creek
Figure 111 -D2 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Tooley 111 -D -2
Creek
Figure III -D3 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Huddles Cut III -D -3
Figure III -E1 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E10
at Jacks Creek transects 2000 -2005 and 2011 -2013 arranged
by distance from mouth of creek
Figure III -E2 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E10
every year at Jacks Creek with all transects combined
Figure III -E3 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E -11
every year at Jacobs Creek
Figure III -E4 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E -11
every year at Long Creek
xv
Page
Figure III -C63
Comparison of mean DKN for group of water quality stations
111 -C -79
identified by cluster analysis
Figure 111 -C64
Comparison of mean PN for group of water quality stations
111 -C -80
identified by cluster analysis
Figure 111 -C65
Comparison of mean POa for group of water quality stations
111 -C -81
identified by cluster analysis
Figure 111 -C66
Comparison of mean TDP for group of water quality stations
111 -C -82
identified by cluster analysis
Figure 111 -C67
Comparison of mean PP for group of water quality stations
111 -C -83
identified by cluster analysis
Figure 111 -C68
Comparison of mean chlorophyll a for group of water quality
111 -C -84
Stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -C69 Comparison of mean dissolved organic carbon for group of III -C -85
water quality stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -C70 Comparison of mean total dissolved nitrogen for group of III -C -86
water quality stations identified by cluster analysis
Figure III -D1 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Drinkwater III -D -2
Creek
Figure 111 -D2 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Tooley 111 -D -2
Creek
Figure III -D3 Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Huddles Cut III -D -3
Figure III -E1 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E10
at Jacks Creek transects 2000 -2005 and 2011 -2013 arranged
by distance from mouth of creek
Figure III -E2 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E10
every year at Jacks Creek with all transects combined
Figure III -E3 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E -11
every year at Jacobs Creek
Figure III -E4 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E -11
every year at Long Creek
xv

Page
Figure III -E5 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E12
at Huddles Cut transects on the main prong arranged by distance
from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years
Figure III -E6 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E12
at Huddles Cut transects on the west prong arranged by distance
from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt L years
Figure III -E7 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E -13
at Porter Creek transects 2011 -2013 arranged by distance from
creek mouth
Figure III -E8 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E -13
every year at Porter Creek with all transects combined
Figure III -E9 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E -14
every year at Duck Creek with all transects combined
Figure III -E10 Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions III -E -14
at Duck Creek transects 2011 -2013 arranged by distance from
creek mouth
Figure III -F1 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish III -F -9
community abundance and composition among all years trawled
In Jacks Creek
Figure III -F2 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish III -F -10
community abundance and composition among all years trawled
in Drinkwater Creek
Figure III -F3 Catch -per- unit - effort for commonly captured fish species at III -F11
Drinkwater Creek with significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L
and post -Mod Alt L years
Figure III -F4 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish III -F -12
community abundance and composition among all years trawled
in Tooley Creek
Figure III -F5 Catch -per- unit - effort for commonly captured fish species at III -F13
Tooley Creek with significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L
and post -Mod Alt L years
Figure III -F6 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish III -F -14
community abundance and composition among all years sampled
with fyke nets in Huddles Cut
xvi

Page
Figure III -F7 Catch -per- unit - effort for commonly captured fish species at III -F15
Huddles Cut with significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L
and post -Mod Alt L years
Figure III -F8 Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish III -F -16
community abundance and composition among all years trawled
in Muddy Creek
xvi i

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table I -A1
Pre — and post -Mod Alt L impact monitoring by parameter and
I -A -5
by creek according to the 2011 plan of study.
Table 1 -131
Existing geomorphology conditions at DCUT11 transition zone
1 -13-18
on 4 February 2014.
Table 1 -132
Existing geomorphology conditions at DCUT19 transition zone
1 -13-19
on 4 February 2014.
Table I -D1
Drought conditions for the years 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013
I -D -2
Table I -E1
Extreme events or storms for the years 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013
I -E -2
Table I -F1
Monthly and annual rainfall totals across the years 2000 -2005 and
I -F -3
2009 -2013 for NOAA Station Aurora 6N
Table 11 -C1
Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) for the most abundant
11 -C -4
fish species captured across six groups identified by cluster analysis
performed for all PCS fish collection sampling years April, May, and June
of 2000 through 2005, and 2009 through 2013
Table 11 -C2
Summary of trawling and fyke net shrimp and crab catch frequency
11 -C -5
and score data from 2011, 2012, and 2013
Table 11 -D1
Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) for managed fish species
11 -D -3
captured across six groups identified by cluster analysis performed for all
PCS fish collection sampling years April, May, and June of 2000 through
2005, and 2009 through 2013
Table II-El
Means and standard deviations (SD) by year for six PCS sediment
l l -E -6
metals for which Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Medium
(ERM) have been determined
Table II -E2 Water column metals values by year for each monitored creek II -E -7
Table II -F1 Average of water quality parameters across the six groups identified II -F -10
by the cluster analysis
Table III -C1 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -87
Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ1
Table III -C2 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -88
Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ2
vi

Page
Table III -C3 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -89
Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ1
Table III -C4 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -90
Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ2
Table III -05 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -91
PA2 water quality station PA2WQ1
Table III -C6 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -92
PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2
Table III -C7 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -93
Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ1
Table III -C8 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -94
Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ2
Table III -C9 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -95
Little Creek water quality station LCWQ1
Table III -C10 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -96
Little Creek water quality station LCWQ2
Table III -C11 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -97
Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ1
Table III -C12 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -98
Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ2
Table III -C13 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -99
Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ1
Table III -C14 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -100
Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ2
Table III -C15 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -101
Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ3
Table III -C16 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -102
Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ1
Table III -C17 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -103
Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ2
Table III -C18 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -104
Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ3
vii

Table III -C19 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -105
Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ4
Table III -C20 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -106
Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ1
Table III -C21 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -107
Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ2
Table III -C22 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -108
Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ1
Table III -C23 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -109
Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ2
Table III -C24 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -110
DCUT11 water quality station DC11WQ1
Table III -C25 Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at III -C -111
DCUT19 water quality station DC19WQ1
Table III -D1 Sediment metal values by year for each monitored creek III -D -4
Table III -E1a
Dominant herbaceous species in vegetation transects in seven creeks
III -E -15
monitored pre -Mod Alt L
Table III -E1 b
Dominant herbaceous species in Huddles Cut vegetation transects
III -E -18
monitored post -Mod Alt L
Table III -E1c
Dominant herbaceous species in vegetation transects in three control
III -E -21
Creeks: Long and Duck Creeks and DCUT19
Table III -E2a
Dominant shrub and woody vine species in vegetation transects in six
III -E -22
Creeks monitored pre -Mod Alt L: Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater
Creek, Tooley Creek, Huddles Cut, Porter Creek, and one tributary to
Durham Creek
Table III -E2b
Dominant shrub and woody vine species in Huddles Cut vegetation
III -E -27
transects monitored post -Mod Alt L
Table III -E2c
Dominant shrub and woody vine species in the two control creeks
III -E -29
monitored: Long and Duck Creeks and DCUT19
Table III -E3a Wetness and salinity tolerance characteristics of the dominant plant III -E -30
species along vegetation transects in seven creeks monitored pre -Mod Alt L
Table III -E3b Wetness and salinity tolerance characteristics of the dominant plant III -E -31
species along Huddles Cut vegetation transects monitored post -Mod Alt L
viii

Page
Table III -E3c Wetness and salinity tolerance characteristics of the dominant plant III -E -32
species along vegetation transects in three control creeks: Long and
Duck Creeks and DCUT19
Table III -E4 Cumulative list of dominant species at monitored creeks since 1998 and III -E -33
Their tolerance to brackish conditions
Table III -F1 Comparison of fish community structure for all creeks in Mod Alt L III -F -17
sampling years
Table III -F2 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Jacks III -F -18
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2000 -2003,
2005, 2007 -2008, and 2010 -2013; 14 sampling occasions in April, May,
and June of 2004; and 12 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2009
Table III -F3 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Jacobs III -F19
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 -2013
Table III -F4 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Porter III -F20
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 -2013
Table III -F5 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in two III -F -21
unnamed tributaries to Durham Creek on 13 sampling occasions in
April, May, and June of 2013
Table III -F6 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Drinkwater III -F -22
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 -2013
Table III -F7 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Tooley III -F19
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2010 -2013
Table III -F8 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Huddles III -F -24
Cut on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2010 -2013, and
12 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2009
Table III -F9 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Little III -F -25
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 -2013
Table III -F10 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in PA2 on III -F -26
13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 -2013
Table 111 -F11 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Long III -F -27
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 -2013
ix

Table III -F12 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Muddy III -F -28
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2000 -2003,
2005, and 2010 -2013; 14 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of
2004, and 12 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2009
Table III -F13 Average catch -per- unit - effort by species for fish captured in Long III -F -29
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 -2013
x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• This 2013 report is the first of the annual PCS creek reports to present and emphasize
primarily only summary data, in keeping with the language of the ROD Special Condition
V on Reporting where "annual summaries of all data collected" is specified.
• Further review of the ROD and special permit conditions also resulted in an emphasis on
the current permitted mine continuation under Mod Alt L. This emphasis required a
rearrangement of the years considered either pre- or post -Mod Alt L.
• 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.
• Refinements were made to the historic drainage basins and corrections were made on
the pre -Mod Alt E basins for the creeks in the NCPC Tract, which in most cases reduced
the size of the pre -Mod Alt E basin.
• While the 2012 report utilized multivariate techniques and Principal Components
Analysis (PCA) for water quality only, this is the first report to utilize multivariate
techniques for multiple monitoring parameters. These techniques will continue to be
used in various combinations or across parameters in future reports.
• For all parameters monitored under Mod Alt L focus, while changes have been evident
such as increased salinity, no changes detected over the course of the study can be
confidently connected to the mine activities, with the exception of the upper end of the
west prong of Huddles Cut. The most upstream vegetation plots on this prong have
undergone physical changes driven by surface depressions which result from an
unstable near - surface lithology unit known as the Croatan Clay. These depressions
seem to stem from proximity to the mine perimeter canal which caused dewatering
and /or piping in this unit. Changes in the wetland hydroperiods in two nearby wells in
this prong seems 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.
• It must be noted that the focus on Mod Alt L reduced the number of years of data
available for comparison for some parameters in some creeks. Additional years of data
may need to be included before changes may emerge or can be detected. 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; no deleterious effects related to the
mine were detected.
vi

INTRODUCTION
A. Background
In November 2000, 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, an EIS process was begun for mine continuation. The Corps established that it would
be appropriate to consider holistic mine plans that included mining in more than one tract. PCS
proposed alternatives for mining in two additional tracts ( Bonnerton and South of Route 33
[S33]). In January 2009 NCDWQ 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) (Figure I-
A1).
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 (now Division of Water Resources -
NCDWR) 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 -A1 shows the monitoring by parameter for each creek and Table I -A1 shows the monitoring
parameters, equipment type or field methods, and monitoring frequency.
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 (13 creeks, eight control creeks /locations).
1.0 Drainage Basin Acreage Adjustments.
Progress of the mine across a watershed is determined on an annual acreage
basis. As evident in Tables I -A1 and I -A2, 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
agreed during the previous 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
WIN

past 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
Creek, Muddy Creek, and Huddles Cut) are not included in the 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, 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 New Format of Report.
This 2013 report is presented in a format different from all previous annual
creeks monitoring reports. The intention of the new format is to continue to simplify the
presentation, comparison, and discussion of a complicated long -term suite of data. Traditional
statistical tests are utilized with some data and as appropriate, multivariate techniques and /or
principal components analysis (PCA) have been utilized to depict similarities and differences
among or between creeks, sample stations, and /or parameters. The 2012 annual report was the
first to utilize the PCA approach for the 2012 ECU water quality data and some of the fish data.
Also, the new format is designed to be in compliance with Corps Permit Condition V (Reporting)
which states that "annual summaries of all data collected" under the creeks study are to be
submitted to agencies and the Science Panel members.
In addition, the results section (Section III of previous reports) is organized in two
different sections in the new report format. Section II includes responses to the Corps' six
questions in Special Condition S of the Section 404 permit (these questions were answered in
the Trend Summary in the 2012 report). The multivariate technique of cluster analysis across
years for more parameters has been used for this section along with pre- and post -Mod Alt L
comparisons as appropriate. Section III contains additional summary information by parameter
not included in Section II. The appendices contain raw and tabular data for the current year for
each parameter and other supporting graphics or statistical results. Only Appendix A is printed
and included with the hard copy of the report; all other appendices are included only on the CD
that accompanies the report. The CD also includes a copy of the entire printed report.
W-W

3.0 Pre- and Post -Mod Alt L Year Revisions.
As a result of the corrected Mod -Alt L baseline years (to represent post -Alt E or
current conditions), and some revisions to drainage basins, the summary data comparisons and
analysis are based on the following:
• Jacks Creek: pre -Mod Alt L years = 2000 -2005 and 2011 -2013;
no post- Mod -Alt L years to date.
• Drinkwater Creek: pre -Mod Alt L years = 2011 -2012 (2011 data
are incomplete for some parameters as the new plan was
incrementally implemented in its first year); 2013 is the first post -
Mod Alt L year.
• Tooley Creek: pre -Mod Alt L years = 2010 and 2011; post Mod -
Alt L years = 2012 and 2013.
• Huddles Cut: pre -Mod Alt L year = 2009; post Mod -Alt L years =
2010 -2013.
• For other creeks in the study, all years to date are pre -Mod Alt L.
4.0 Permit Modifications.
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).
F-W

R.-
YY
U W
� U
N W
of U
my
W' W
z - ()
-
/
W
O
� W
J
Z W = ~
H
U IL
L O CC Y/
Q L i
0)
5
J
y�
dv z�
SS V cos
x p
W Z
Z N Li
z U
�p Y
U �Z JO
_ U
• Nz z W
N F a� d
J�
Z
MZ
W
a
00
\-\ C, - �5
llp
U
3
/ Y o �ALIA
U
Q M
2 N
i > SR 1'.
0 SR
M
M
\l-k
c
BAY CITY
�
LO
N
6
SR 1928 a?
V
f
Q
J
Z
J
U
Z
N
n�
o
0
af Q U
Q N
K
\ti
o �I
�
U
O
>0
m
m
ww
I =
Y
z
Z
M1 U
Q
O
I Z
\i
at
a�
—
f
cU
c
L
V
L
Oi
W
0
LL
LL.
a
IL
I
y
3
�
O
\
L
y
M
N
Q
0
>
rlr
°
z
0
0
o
a
0
N
0
Q
U U
O
O V
� �
m
OD a
o
0
n
BAY CITY
�
LO
N
SR 1928 a?
V
U-
O
w
W
�
U
M
N
0
K
O
�
(10
y
G�J�/
/OJ
G
w
Q
Z
D
O
OD �
J Y
W
W
J �
a c)
0 J
W O
ry
� Z
O O
U
0
Z
w
c�
w
J
i
0
O u
N

0 pre -Mod Alt L a post -Mod Alt L a control creek
I -A -5
. N D
.
Jacks Creek
Flow
MUMMA
Salinity
Wetland water level
Water quality
VW
WIld
Vegetation
WINA
WE
pro,
VIN
Fish
W1r�
e/Eff/I
�1
rZEE,
F�1
Metals
1/4
VI
%//
iY /.
Ed
Creek South
Water depth
Salinity
Jacobs Creek
Salinity
Y
Wetland water level
Water quality
Vegetation
/y
Fish
A
WIN
Benthos
Metals
(control)
Salinity
Water quality
Fish
Benthos
Metals
Drinkwater Creek
Fl ow
Wetland water level
Water quality
V1E/%O�
Vegetation
Fish
WNW VNI1
Benthos
Metals
1
Creek Little
i
Water quality
Fish
Benthos
■
Metals
■
.. Creek
Fl ow
Salinity
Wetland water level
Water quality
L
Vegetation
Fish
Benthos
■
■
Metals
■
■
0 pre -Mod Alt L a post -Mod Alt L a control creek
I -A -5

Table I -A1. (continued)
U pre -Mad Aft L a post -Mod Alt L a control creek
I -A -6
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2009
2010
2011
2012
2012
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Site /Parameter
Toolev Creek
Flow
Salinity
Wetland water level
Water quality
Vegetation
Fish
Benthos
Metals
�'
❑
Muddy Creek (control)
Fish
Benthos
❑
❑
❑
❑
Metals
❑
LI
A
■
❑
Pamlico River (control)
Water depth
Salinity
c
a
Huddles Cut
m
Fl ow
v
Salinity
`v
Wetland water level
g
Water quality
g
Vegetation
N
5
Fish
9
Benthos
o
❑
Metals
`o
Porter Creek
Fl ow
o
E
o
Salinity
Wetland water level
F1111111171111,171A F//////7/, MEMO,
Water quality
Vegetation
Fish
p�
r� "" "rr�•
r(!!!!!(!!a
r(!(!(!!!!0
Benthos
Metals
r�
Duck Creek (control)
Fl ow
Salinity
Wetland water level
Water quality
Pr
Vegetation
Fish
Y Y
Benthos
Metals
U pre -Mad Aft L a post -Mod Alt L a control creek
I -A -6

Table I -A1 (concluded)
apre -Mod Alt L ■ post -Mod Alt L a control creek
I -A -7
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2009
2010
2011
2012
1 2012
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
IJ F M A M J J A S O N D
Site /Parameter
DCUT 19 (control)
❑
Flow
Salinity
Wetland water level
Water quality
❑
Vegetation
°-
co
Fish
m
Benthos
Metals
❑
❑
Durham Creek (control)
°o
Water depth
Salinity
DCUT11
0
Flow
o
Salinity
E
Wetland water level
o
z
Water quality
Vegetation
Fish
Benthos
LI
Metals
apre -Mod Alt L ■ post -Mod Alt L a control creek
I -A -7

B. Creeks Monitored in 2013
Monitoring locations in all monitored creeks are shown in Figures 1 -131 — 1 -1316. Pre -Mod
Alt L monitoring of three creeks expected to have future drainage basin reductions due to Mod
Alt L mine continuation (Jacks, Jacobs, and Porter Creeks; Figures 1 -131, 1 -134, and 1 -1313)
continued in 2013 along with post -Mod Alt L monitoring in Drinkwater Creek (Figure 1 -136),
Tooley Creek (Figure 1 -138), and Huddles Cut (Figure 1 -1311). Monitoring also continued in 2013
in the seven previously established control locations: South Creek (Figure 1 -132), Little Creek
(Figure 1 -133), PA2 (Figure 1 -135) Long Creek (Figure 1 -137, Muddy Creek (Figure 1 -139), Pamlico
River (Figure 1 -1310), and Duck Creek (Figure 1 -1312).
A continuous monitor to track salinity and water depth was also installed near the mouth
of Durham Creek in 2013 as a new control (Figure 1 -1314). Pre -Mod Alt L monitoring also began
in two tributaries in the lower Durham Creek watershed in 2013; DCUT11 (Figure 1 -1315) and
DCUT19 (Figure 1 -1316) (Durham Creek Unidentified Tributary = DCUT). The upper headwaters
of DCUT11 are included within the Bonnerton Tract Mod Alt L footprint and DCUT19 serves as
control for this stream and brings the total number of control creeks /locations to eight.
As was done in all other creeks in the study, qualitative geomorphic characteristics were
collected in DCUT11 and DCUT19 in 2013 (Tables 1 -131 and 1 -132).
WN

A. M
i e — 0o
y.
. �•'. ,v u • ~•rte t Q% � � � � � z En
_ U L. W a ai D
IL
° O �' M
• : 3►" Vii. � � �.� . � Q u, �
' %f •� ass - y �w +� - 1 � O d
•� y N 0 a
�� r• +f 0 LO
Jk- [111►►► w 'r•,
R}
�41 -f
0
�•� j i ry MOO
1 �. it Y ` Vii' ,•- a t r• 'o,
iiii
M
Of 04
LJ J' r
r1
w
• ~ • f"�.. U J Z Z
of
.i. • t AL . 1 d'F: ' N Q U
i %t - W

�} r, •
t �p
IL
,_ ,•:"•; � � �• Lam•_ " •,� dL
l r ' a . � i �:ee , j �1 � , A y' • ` � 4 • 'Ci. 1 ni" "M f ' � C
• 'e ' b �� r �` .ter .'J • Y� . �r.
Jft
It
� � � � ^ a� ► �' _ ' ter} , - r..
*' •�, •r,�: '.► �•, �,� • , '•ter. r { "Ti � � `J, .
jo,
• M
�f
3
AiC' •'� '_ '� �• 'I 4 ' yr- 4 � _ _ _ _
• IL r ` ;
i e �_ . 1 . • cry a.- � . Rte' •1 ••.
VIE
+ , ^ sj., _ "W�;; • � i . i ` ; , f`► � �� ,� � rem• � ..+Y x � '"+
•�,•. ••`� - !K� �. +t �•'� � iii 1 ' � ��ry
•� :1. -t -'�s tia.+ � tilt' r 7- jyp"�
N p F =
r J
!40301
01
O
M
U
Z
z
IL
U Z N
lal
Q w Q
=Op
CL I
OaN
dI�
I
O
N
CL N M
co I
m M N
9 LLI =0
> 0 GO
Z = N
d
U Q
Lil
U J Z J
O EE
N Q t2 U
3
0
f3
6.
H
J
�
Q
F-
Mry
N W
O1.
\W
OI
•�
—
LL .
O
C
H
:2
N m
Q
} Q
Z
O
a�
o
az
_
p
J
W
Z
p
ai
-
U-
� N
L
LLI
o
.L U
a
o
o
�=
=}
0
IL
c�.,V)
Q
H
0
t
0
NL
N
< U)
O
-�
M
o
L
IL
o
a
fn
p
Q
m
m
O n�I
M■I
!40301
01
O
M
U
Z
z
IL
U Z N
lal
Q w Q
=Op
CL I
OaN
dI�
I
O
N
CL N M
co I
m M N
9 LLI =0
> 0 GO
Z = N
d
U Q
Lil
U J Z J
O EE
N Q t2 U
3

W ;•
R%L -roc
,,, Ai.
mu
'*�.
- Otk
A
A
. . . . . . . . . . .
r
L
'A
Ah"taka J*__
A
ilk'
'A.
m A,
'14
ok 1 .1 —44
wo
A,
SOURCE:
AERIALS PROVIDED BY: PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
1530 NC HIGHWAY 306 SOUTH, AURORA, NORTH
CAROLINA 27806, 252-322-5121, DATE: 2014
Air
wil
.4' t
.4
tir
mmu r &Z a
monlToring LOcaTlons in
Little Creek (Control)
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
400 0 400 Feet Scale: As shown —Drawn by: BFG/TLJ
71 e Wll 74547/2013 REPORT/2013 STREAM
Date• 05/14/14 MONITORING/LITTLE—CREEK-2013.DWG
Revision:
Approved by : JPS 5-13-09 Figure I-B3
a
k
monlToring LOcaTlons in
Little Creek (Control)
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
400 0 400 Feet Scale: As shown —Drawn by: BFG/TLJ
71 e Wll 74547/2013 REPORT/2013 STREAM
Date• 05/14/14 MONITORING/LITTLE—CREEK-2013.DWG
Revision:
Approved by : JPS 5-13-09 Figure I-B3
a

,.. VIE
. - . • ', -•tom• � 1 - � � `'r}v d'•r,. ../�.•,(��'y�. 1� � �' 1 ?. % .. ` ��' � 1 1��� .�"
�S �, +. .. fTs °.+ r .1 . �r, ~i' - f .-rY ,7• i Y{. ' -� �t` +1 v .111 ►' V
A,4
(y
IL
IN - ) lr,t r �`.��+rfl'.r''1 •r l''�Sj 1'ti'J: r - J v�� .. � 'su _,� �rS�, .in r -;,x. - rs
\ '�• L•. - • � `o`� , 1 •';! � Z x r, R -r• _ �.. � � ', ytl r �V, � - .acs r •\
Y
• • 1 1 • • 1 • - r _ f. - a -t' J �� r _ - ,
r r. �• ,% fir,. • Y a
• • �,y -P• ,mss .' '� .T: J - 7V iar
Ark
a ' R • ,. _ �f i ♦ad
// ,,ter 7 -' - '+ hi � ►• 'S. �� �.d
• IY"r
� , � .f . .. , z• ,1 .' icy ,Sn�n.
Monitoring Locations in
-" Aw,
XF,
(A) Jacobs Creek
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
SOURCE: 400 0 400 Feet Scale: As shown Drawn by: BFG TLJ
F 174547/2013 AERIALS PROVIDED BY: PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. Date: 06/10/14 Ile: MONITO ING /JACOBS- CREEK�O DWG
1530 NC HIGHWAY 306 SOUTH, AURORA, NORTH
CAROLINA 27806, 252- 322 -5121, DATE: 2013 Revision:
Approved by: ,pS s -,a —os Figure I —B4
I -B -5

•
t
i
D ' z IL
z a $
m v~i z
F C -1 f O • riR..
LU
J =
W P dJ F `
~ C F - O a
z INC 1- W - oC ca
W Q z
Uj
a W i-
o ~ z F _ 1y _ R aW
0 C a W s NJ W III
1w
t r » r
i
- ,4.-m
+w-.
i. .� r .,r
R T '
r.
r r,
A 41i.
y# -
_ ;
1 J
A.
_ NI
!of
"It •
..A
F
i r R
Z
�1
I
Y -
y
,
!of
"It •
..A
F
i r R
m
Mj
�� N
, 1
O
N
P
J �' 'L4. r +� ► ► T
ok
• ' , '� � - nib'",' _ _ . III
!• 3� " f
-.* Ni
4,
� r
U
Z
z
a�It
U Z N
ei
Qua
=08
(L M
OaN
0-1
I
O
N
CL N M
a i
N
0 = O
> S2 ao
Z = N
U
U J Z J
of
O o-f M0
N Q r U
Z
0
0
i
�3
``j
F-
M N
N Lj
Z
�
m
to
•
N a
N Z
m
0
Z
O
a t
^I
r
r�
()
W
�
�
J
Z
L.L.
0) N
0
LU
1-
o
rq
a
o�
�_
cam:,
3
t: IL
0
0
O
V)
W
H
>
o
IL
o
o
D-
( o
Q
m
Mj
�� N
, 1
O
N
P
J �' 'L4. r +� ► ► T
ok
• ' , '� � - nib'",' _ _ . III
!• 3� " f
-.* Ni
4,
� r
U
Z
z
a�It
U Z N
ei
Qua
=08
(L M
OaN
0-1
I
O
N
CL N M
a i
N
0 = O
> S2 ao
Z = N
U
U J Z J
of
O o-f M0
N Q r U

-en rtvm f n
• f�Y r'3 '•i. � �yj •�•' r � nrr
• r C _ �� v + so • y Q NUS
\W
+ A
rt�r 1••w � r�\ F • • N Z • . .
- UO W ai
L _
�r J } Z D I LL.
C
�
3 W
M
tl
0•� IL
.O O L
ra L Q U
r O
�. IL o a
.. ,it'. �•� i,..a, .'"r _ 4•' A,'r••• •y ram+ aMM1.A�,. O
- jXL,
�' �� - t -. • �.t � '�•• � y r•" � M •} j� ij " � � ,•i. - �• ? 1.%1; 1•t i' f•�
rN'.,rr.
�� v S ti:�. �.t _ . :i�ra%d�,*!y���•
moo
/ •e t *��"+'.'`�.- t '�, ,c Qom¢
CL Of
Ln
m
�, 7 i. •�.. ra � � d��
41 a-
4f. LO
• ' : � '� ' F . �� •_ ,� . s, -; .. _ • ;�,L.w_y`, _,_ ,mfr > 0 GOO
of
•t i`fll,p + , `+ r • *t 1 Rte' 7• • f>.� ,�'' - w"�i- :�` . i O W Q
-ti ^ •7rt W ci"' f + r f: .r ,i . .* X►•Y ' M N Q U
-0 -7

Lj-
LLI
1 J LL
Al
i
i ,`4 y �, ;ter, ,.O, o�
40 & _ . r f t LO
r•, ". • .,�. _ - -_ ' -: '�►• L iii a O N
4k*,,-
CL
IL
D D-
-
td
`
lip IL
• �.. \• t J + •"(. ~� i� < "�: -z A r. 4 .f. ter'.. �-•
AP f O
1
• . l • F ; t s. ' 0
.r • ' � Wit.. _ _ ... -r -r.3. rti. •r' , �'. 'T -�• -- '.y,r , - - ^•+ - "- �.
• _ J z
`a a��
�i J. a rr
4 moo
�'' 6"' • '''' - UZ
J. Lli
uj
CL
Nl
CL
n LO
cq
• .. L _ iti .ti.r�1�•.,• •• I•r f• ' i Opp
GO
zz
of
of
M�

II i rtr li kY- 6 [; ri / � �t - _e {� M1 •4 f �{�� c`W' f 4 • r•y
'N t t �`�[ � y f . ;'Y!, '' i y" t y,�fr '� � I '� :�� + M 5% ��.'�•(�lx,•.. •'�' ry.�,..1,{
1� yS �F ' ^' A�{ s i•��M1 nr r f �l5 `,.. .��t aiF1�; r1' r ` fi SS 5��h/ �jLIcy: `1' 7i1 r
,. . �Y, •- 1 - _ � 7 3r (' 1 `i .r �� r �:� >h`1' J`3 i ' �r ;'^1h �.lYJ f i,•,��,11 p1��' - yy�`�S�
wr
+ , 1` 1 1: , ��,y IF r 1•,'.+�Y•, / iT 1 j• �1.>��1i "7} n %•,�• �� ':.R� y`'.���'r >�`�'• "•'. tl r
N
` 4 I `�i 1 IS 'rJ •'+If rrralt [fit �` .J Y`;,i,y
OF
Aft
LV
• '� ,� '� �, , � �� ' �1 � ,�4}!G -• .� _ +�1 ' -li 'fir �'� !i ,C .y7�,f` -.•$i �1 }� r'! /i -_ ! 'v ?� +�.
. a.. .ill - i 4 � ,y i'•� � - - �. '•w - a�,•!• r;
Ir' YIM�•!, 2 L T
i *' : ' ' c!t!`r+Tort. �� r' f f�` . , k r� f 7 l� .0 ' : r' '� ' Y �P • {' t��' F
`, a�f.�4 , ,r• ]�
�A 'P`' : Y `
\ f,- � ���- •A t `M1 ' ; ,+ -. � 'i'..'�1� � i ~'� ���H I .,r •ri � �y •� �'� �i1��J
• � ' r !yam rte, Ir �,�f� ^� i h . � r
Q
O N'` J Z
c Z O
O JF �O F
NJ j
} • _ � c 3� ;ate u a
�O C
!;, �• z
•'A-•� �. J Z Z Z ZOO O J F
�{ C ZF ZJf O F
Z W
W M N W _; Z W
R. wN m M> 40 LL.
•r;
ti
o
iE
ia•'
A*
of
0
LO
O
>
Z IL
J`3
V
Q
F-
0 M
Iil
6
FU
Z
m
K Z
aIr
N
-
F
_.
0 C-4
M
ao
m
o-Y
Z
O
at
0
c
no
CL N M
i
ov
J
Z
o-
N
9=0
> O
m
O
LLI
M
E0
IL Q
U
JZJ
U
o�
o
=
c
IL
o
o
O
L
L
a
to
C)
o
IL
o
a
in
o
Q
m
m
0
Un
•r;
ti
o
iE
ia•'
A*
of
0
LO
>
Z IL
V
UZN
Iil
Qw¢
=Op
aIr
_.
0 C-4
d
I
N
0
CL N M
i
a
N
9=0
> O
O,r
LLJ
IL Q
U
JZJ
U
O
N
E'ME'
Q'r U

At 4F
.1 4,t�
IL
dmp .�
C, I tea.
PwP � � ,' _� ,� TAT � •_ , 1'� 1 ,
,. � -■ r +iii
•,, �i�` 41, w
11� _ r
1 04 '.
- n
r
y 1 F ' ■ �
' f- .. L• � 1 - � r a
If" ,',•�,( _ �'+- ff.'s -;,
LL
Sr
. 41..1 .T. . h .. _l 'Al
! a•t ' -
-'"� � • y .III, V��; � i �«Y �� ���i-
y
r1411301
f
c
U
Z
Z
a,It
U Z N
lal
uj
Q Q
=Op
dIr
_.
OaN
CL
I
O
N
CL N M
a i
N
0
> ao
Z = N
CL U a
LLJ
U J Z J
O EE MEr
O
N Q L-0 U
�
Q
O
}
Z
LL
in
a v
0
F
M
m
0 O
Z
O
-0
°t
a �
aO
—
7� U
V
V
c
i
U
a
3
0
W
W
Z
o_
(1)
�._
Lu
O
i
a
M
0�
0
_
3
It
��
o•EO
C"'�
N
ul
N�,
L
a
(0
H
o
O
L
o
a
�oQ
m
m
la
O
Nn
r1411301
f
c
U
Z
Z
a,It
U Z N
lal
uj
Q Q
=Op
dIr
_.
OaN
CL
I
O
N
CL N M
a i
N
0
> ao
Z = N
CL U a
LLJ
U J Z J
O EE MEr
O
N Q L-0 U

7t44�, �L
r�
a!
\ �
�+ Y w
t
�•. � ;.err j .
r
• %SJ r .=
� l
LLV
tS, - 4� .L Ji . . '• J iv i Ar
"t; f ,�. ' 'tfrr ,w,! � � �,k }a � .♦ '4�I �,•�7 i,:' -y +: t, � n ..mot .
Ap
.- t i . j7 , •.fly f r R.•_`.fp,
r '
I% Ai
r
qla
C
Z
W
O
W
J
fir• - • _I 4: W
LL
1 R •\!• y � �� 4 t 1 0
r'r �� ��'f• ,� 1 yy w
ir
illy= '�+ri. }'•.• �\ , 7 O Q
GI
O
0 EE
i r —0
09
C
Z
0
O
m
f
W
d
J
J
a
D
C
O
z ¢ w
MOW
Q
W !L Z
►� - p -j 00
Z Q M m
WON
\ 1 !
a ,I
ioll
O'
0
In
Z
r
N J
J F
p
J
O
z
LL.
W
j
K j
V)
F
•
2
N Z
/�/�
W
0.
Z
O
a °
c
az
ro
U U
W
Z
L
U
O fn
Z
a
ai
°�
J
o
LL
Q
W
W
01
O
M
F
I
M
�=
a
Z Z
o N
O
3
> En
0 z
3
O
N
`
CO
c
L
Q
U)
M
O
=_-
V f
L
=
SON
W W
U
o
a
Z
m
=
N
C,
Q
d
d
a U) N
o
0
N
ioll
O'
0
In
Z
J F
J
O
W
Z
a
`
MOO
�Zq
J
Q
¢
W
N
M
F
waw
Z Z
0 z
3
z
z
U)
=_-
V f
O
=
SON
W W
7
Z
z
W
Z
m
=
f
y "r
�_
a U) N
F =' Vr
J W W
Ca
J
a
D
a W
W
Z
W
T
*
rON
a U)
G
0
3 U
LL
m
mMN
030
0 r,
O
=
L
a a
U)
U
J J
O
N
WuM}¢
Q - U

1 6r
i l
i
1
} 1
m
m
-
Z
o
W
N
O
r
M N
o YI
�w
Z
in
N
J
H
m
Z
a°
n0
o
U
W
.L
O
Z
0
-
U)
iz
0
C �
:2 L-
W
I
O
U
-
M
N
—Y
Q
• I
oN
v
IL
V)
t�
C)
o
V)
Z
U)
o
L
a
o
H
>
o
0
IL
U
N
o
Q
EL
(A 0
O O
U
0 EL
d
ONZ
HQO
X —U
OwZ
-j a3
L<o3
3
O
Q U W
? N W
J
Q N W
U U
= Z o
H Q
O�Z
ZZL
Z) Z
a °g
m ew
Of o�v~i
0 Q
O U a U
V) ZmZ

LLI
wy
prow-
z
fo
—)
F-
LL. 0
:2
WIN rZ
clao
r a)
C3 (D
o
W u
a LL. LL.
cp
CY)Z LL,
c V)
IL
0
0 -C V) U) —
u)
<
L 0 a)
0
a. o CL
fn D CL
ID
a,
0
1i a 0
Ci
O
O
z
Z'
moo
0 Z C'o
4
Li Lil
0
CL
0
(L 3
C-4
L) 0 ,
CL V) I
M LO
C14
0
GO
r-
N
IL <
J z Z
J
of < o -O
Z) EE n w
0 LLJ
V) < L-0

IL
L .• "p . �� :a it , .j
.0 .0 " 19 6. X�- 'q I ., I . .. . . ;%, -�%. 0 , -
i Y
At
l
.ja / i1 � srr< i�r r`� � � 7' �': f t �� a �•. •YJ+ •
f rj + t '; tti� ^ v'• • ' Y, { r ' Afi .•r t • li ry .,t,
Af
• r, , !•• �� 'y, •i. � r � Fb ,1 -Y. t�� A tali �;;'�'�,'
• 1i.+'' _ 1� 'F' • N. �,• P t r l34 fix,' }• 1r '
• rr • il:
r
* !4r � 4 �, r ..... _- ''. • �:='� -" a. a+./ � •' Dr's' �•,.. .� 1 01
,7 .,. � 7 •• ,. c' t ; .., 1 •
ill� r- +±;.., �. - „�nw„r 4~"►• •�- a 1'f, ■. x f`rr� `,, ,a .!"t' 1 -
Z
i
O
M
� 1
1
H
C
� q
®
II
44
o
v
l
.ja / i1 � srr< i�r r`� � � 7' �': f t �� a �•. •YJ+ •
f rj + t '; tti� ^ v'• • ' Y, { r ' Afi .•r t • li ry .,t,
Af
• r, , !•• �� 'y, •i. � r � Fb ,1 -Y. t�� A tali �;;'�'�,'
• 1i.+'' _ 1� 'F' • N. �,• P t r l34 fix,' }• 1r '
• rr • il:
r
* !4r � 4 �, r ..... _- ''. • �:='� -" a. a+./ � •' Dr's' �•,.. .� 1 01
,7 .,. � 7 •• ,. c' t ; .., 1 •
ill� r- +±;.., �. - „�nw„r 4~"►• •�- a 1'f, ■. x f`rr� `,, ,a .!"t' 1 -
m
m
L�
O
O
O
ON
O
U
Z
Z EL
U Z N
w
Q
wa
=OD
O- Ir
OaN
dI�
I
O
N
O- V) M
a0
N
9=0
O
> GO
Z = N
a_ Q
Lil U
U J Z J
of
O O=M0
N Q U
Z
O
M
H
/p\
h—
o
L U
r.1
K N
00
-,—/
Z
� ,
m
_I
�I
u
��// �, Y
V, W
••
M
o
Z
O
^
N Z_
tf
+
V
��_
�
a)
L
.-
3
E
p
z N
o
J
p
0)
W
o
t. p
O 0
=
3
IL
o
O
v)
'
L
a
C'
4-
o
a
:3
H
>
o
t_
m
m
L�
O
O
O
ON
O
U
Z
Z EL
U Z N
w
Q
wa
=OD
O- Ir
OaN
dI�
I
O
N
O- V) M
a0
N
9=0
O
> GO
Z = N
a_ Q
Lil U
U J Z J
of
O O=M0
N Q U

Table 1 -131. Existing geomorphology conditions at DCUT11 transition zone on 4 February 2014.
Parameter
Site
1
2
3
Well number
-
DC11W3B
-
Site location
Lat.
35.373295
Long. -
76.850751
Lat.
35.372704
Long. -
76.850521
Lat.
35.371984
Long. -
76.849989
Channel width (feet)
6.0
5.0
5.0
Channel depth (feet)
0.9
0.7
0.2
Floodplain width (feet)
East:5.0
West:50.0
East: 15.0
West:20.0
East:7.0
West:20
Adjacent slope ( %)
20
20
30
Channelized
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediments ( %)
detritus
sand
silt
clay
muck
5
0
10
0
85
5
0
10
0
85
10
0
10
70
10
Habitat type
Marsh
Marsh
BLHa
Transition zone lengthb
fe et
525
Parameter
Site
4
5
6
Well number
DC11 W2B
-
DC11 W1 B
Site location
Lat.
35.370088
Long. -
76.849445
Lat.
35.36901
Long. -
76.850203
Lat.
35.387213
Long. -
76.826789
Channel width (feet)
4.0
4.0
8.0
Channel depth (feet)
0.50
0.40
0.70
Floodplain width (feet)
25.0
East: 15.0 West:25
East:20
West:50
Adjacent slope ( %)
30
East: 10.0 West:5.0
East: 10
West: 15
Channelized
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediments ( %)
detritus
sand
silt
clay
muck
10
0
5
75
10
5
5
0
90
0
10
0
5
80
5
Habitat type
BLHa
BLHa
BLHa
Transition zone lengthb
fe et
525
a Bottomland hardwood
b The transition zone is an estimated length within the system at the transition from little to no salt water influence
(swamp forest or bottomland hardwood forest) to brackish marsh.
MOM

Table l-132. Existing geomorphology conditions at DCUT19 transition zone on 4 February 2014.
a Bottomland hardwood
b The transition zone is an estimated length within the system at the transition from little to no salt water influence
(swamp forest or bottomland hardwood forest) to brackish marsh.
W-Spe
Site
1
2
3
Parameter
Well number
-
-
-
Lat.
Long. -
Lat.
Long. -
Lat.
Long. -
Site location
35.387213
76.826997
35.388256
76.82747
35.388256
76.82747
Channel width feet
8.0
3.0
1.8
Channel depth (feet)
0.9
0.4
0.2
Floodplain width
(feet)
East:50.0
West: 10.0
East:40.0
West: 15.0
East: 15.0
West: 35.0
Adjacent slope
(percent)
East: 15
West: 10
20
East:20 West: 10
Channelized
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediments ( %)
detritus
5
5
5
sand
0
0
0
silt
10
10
5
clay
0
0
10
muck
85
85
80
Habitat type
Marsh
Marsh
BLHa
Transition zone
lengthb (feet)
450
Site
4
5
6
Parameter
Well number
DC19W3B
-
DC19W2B
Lat.
Long. -
Lat.
Long. -
Lat.
Long. -
Site location
35.38827
76.827351
35.389338
76.827414
35.389849
76.827399
Channel width (feet)
10.0
1.0
1.5
Channel depth feet
1.00
0.10
0.17
Floodplain width
(feet)
East:30.0
West:3.0
East: 10.0
West:6.0
East:25.0
West:5.0
Adjacent slope
(percent)
10
East:5
West:20
10
Channelized
Yes
No
No
Sediments ( %)
detritus
5
5
<5
sand
0
0
<5
silt
50
30
20
clay
30
60
70
muck
15
5
<10
Habitat type
BLHa
BLHa
BLHa
Transition zone
lengthb (feet)
450
a Bottomland hardwood
b The transition zone is an estimated length within the system at the transition from little to no salt water influence
(swamp forest or bottomland hardwood forest) to brackish marsh.
W-Spe

C. Cumulative and 2013 Mining, Mine - related Activities, and Drainage Basins
Previous monitoring reports frequently referenced basin reductions relative to a percent;
however, because the focus of the Corps 404 permit and State 401 certification is Mod Alt L, the
percent reduction can be confusing since there are several periods of reference (i.e., pre -Alt E,
post -Alt E or pre -Mod Alt L, and post -Mod Alt L) with basin boundaries. Although percent
reduction information is shown in Figures I -C1 and I -C2, to avoid confusion, this report
emphasizes pre -Mod Alt L basin acreage and basin acreage at the end of the report year.
Conditions reflecting the overall mine progress through 2013 are visible in a February
2014 aerial photograph with boundaries of the historic drainage basins, and Alt E and Mod Alt L
permits shown (Figure I -C1). A summary of drainage basin alterations (prior to Alt E, Alt E, and
Mod Alt L) of monitored creeks is depicted on a LiDAR base map (Figure I -C2). Drainage basin
acreages have been estimated using these data. Only Tooley Creek and Drinkwater Creek were
affected by continued progress of Mod Alt L in 2013 as described below. The Huddles Cut
drainage basin was last reduced by Mod Alt L in 2011 and no additional reductions will occur.
1.0 Drinkwater Creek
The 371.9 -acre pre -Mod Alt L Drinkwater Creek basin was reduced by 126.1
acres in 2013 and represents the first year of impacts from Mod Alt L; the current basin is 244.8
acres (Figure I -C3). Previous impacts from Alt E reduced the Drinkwater basin by 44.1 acres.
The basin was reduced by approximately 189 acres with the construction of roads and drainage
systems /canals prior to Alt E.
2.0 Tooley Creek
The 570.6 -acre pre -Mod Alt L Tooley Creek basin was reduced by 97.5 acres in
2013 and the total watershed reduction by Mod Alt L is 313.9 acres (Figure I -C3). The current
basin is 256.7 acres (Figure I -C4). Previous Mod Alt L impacts to the Tooley Creek basin were
22.2 acres in 2009, 8.02 acres in 2011, and 186.17 acres in 2012. Previous impacts from Alt E
reduced the Tooley watershed by 16.4 acres. Alterations to the basin prior to Alt E increased
the basin by approximately 24 acres due to the construction of road and drainage
systems /canals. No additional reductions to the Tooley Creek basin will occur as a result of
Mod Alt L.
I -C -1

v��pM
0
DURHAM CREEK
B0IN
/
Ni
K
rte...
PORTER CREEK MW
BASIN
V
r "-
f
S
WHITEHURST CREEK
AND CURRENT MINE
Estimated Percent Reduction of Historic Basin through 2013
Creeks Study
Creek with Impact
Pre Alt E
Alt E
Mod Alt L
Cumulative
Huddles Cut
12.13
33.46
25.87
71.45
Tooley Creek
4% increase
2.91
55.76
54.27
Drinkwater Creek
31.40
7.28
20.84
59.52
Jacobs Creek
26.76
3.35
0.00
30.09
Jacks Creek
25.89
24.98
0.00
50.85
Porter Creek
27.35
5.65
0.00
32.99
PAMLICO RIVER BASIN, PORTION OF
LEE CREEK BASIN AND CURRENT MINE
*',4,#
� 0 R,VF
HUDDLES CUT
1 I'• BASIN
/ U'
HUDDY GUT _
—1 BASIN
UT4
BASIN °
- - - TOOLEY CkEK— I '" SOUTH CREEK
/ BASIN ` -_ BASIN
DRtNkWATER
CREEK
BASIN
\ , :
/
JACOB REEK /
SIN
�JUT3
\� J BASIN
UT G*
\ _ BASIN wv
00, OF
/ _ I //
JACKS CREEK: / -e `
l
BASIN \ \ ` / \ SOUTH CREEK
• \_ \ BASIN
\ Sw
\ JSOUTH CREEK
/ � .. ✓✓ - "BASIN
/
LEGEND
HISTORIC DRAINAGE BASINS BOUNDARI
— — — — NCPC Mod Alt L BOUNDARY
••••••••••• NCPC Alt E BOUNDARY
SOURCE:
AERIALS PROVIDED BY: PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
1530 NC HIGHWAY 306 SOUTH, AURORA, NORTH
CAROLINA 27806, 252 - 322 -5121, DATE FLOWN: FEBRUARY 2014
4CO�
c�
R��+
"j�� _w -
<
C4#' _ 3,000 0 3,000 Feet
F�
MINE CONTINUATION THROUGH 2013
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
Date: 06/20/14 'COMBINED_HI{ST_
�. Revision:
Approved by: JPS 5 -13 -09 Fiaure I -C1

2
Q
m
F
7
- 1%
F ♦ jr►
,
1 `
I I .�-
I I
♦I -
♦ 1 ` `
♦ /
� � I
1 1
ib +'
J
N M Q H
O
N � �
L :5 W M N Ol M n
t 2 O -Zr
.� c co cLn a M
y U W w
c *—' a
u Q
a
O u m
O w Q m
Q ++ £ a+ N O
m J c Q Ll O m
E a 0 0 v n M o 0 0
C �
7A u C
m i
a
in c u v W W W m
00 V1 V N N
(0 W M N N N IA M N 14 Co
M M Ol
M O
N N
M °
++
u
(0 J N
Q ry 01 01
N M
cO 7 `NO' 6 O O O O
G O N N
H
N
0!
, u M M O M m O O
Vf Q ° J 1, O 01 00 cn O
C£ 2 t ri O �4 M O N
'H L Q m M n n N N Im
N H 1 M M M M M N
m O
CL
W
N > - M O O
N N
c6
Q i Q Im
E 0! £ M ~ N N N
a
y M
W
N CL N C m w N
Q 'v O
C '� m 00 A IA N
N L
m o L m a
a �
00
O O
Ol
~ L ~
i N 00 O SCI '~
Q a O .� rl + rl N rl
� O
m M
u ai
bA
M M IA 14
m Vf H c6 m m
Ln O n O M
2 p`
u
N
O
Y
C
O
T
LL, F-- ui
y
O
W
Z C
F<Q
CL
V
Q
�
w
W
J
~
N
v
C,
s
U
s
s
Z
O
LO
w
w z
w
Y w
Y 3
OD
u
m
u
u
w
a,
T
3
u
u
y
°�
Fes=
a,
c
o
s W
O
LL
Z Z :E
m
O
u
u
a
N
Of
O
LL
zOO<
00 O,w
Ct O m
0) F 0 >I
K F w
d K w
cn w
Z Z W
F < LL
0 Q cl
M M V V V 0 V -0 IN
V Co O N V In o o N
0000e��ni
m LO co N N o M M M M
c0 M I� a O N cm)
F-
LU
LL
U) O o
a O o M LO o � co m
C H `4 o M Lo o co m°
LU
J J w �11111111��
N
O
FOQ
ZCz
C
O
LL
LL, F-- ui
y
O
W
Z C
F<Q
R
m
V
Q
�
a0LL
w
W
J
~
N
v
C,
_
Q
U
a
zw�
Z
O
LO
z
w z
N
N
OD
IL
N
U ao
C�
G
OTO
C,
LL
u
Fes=
V
0) v
000Of
O
LL
Z Z :E
m
W 0 z
C)
J
C
0 Q Q
a
000
0
O
O
LU
`2
F-
o N
0
N U)
Za
a
M M V V V 0 V -0 IN
V Co O N V In o o N
0000e��ni
m LO co N N o M M M M
c0 M I� a O N cm)
F-
LU
LL
U) O o
a O o M LO o � co m
C H `4 o M Lo o co m°
LU
J J w �11111111��
O
N
O
W'
2
F-
U)
Z
Q U)
M Y LU
} W
� U
U) ~ Z
Z U)
Q W >~
m L
W U J
Q Z Q
Q H o
w
p L
W
H
� J O
Q
U) m m
W W
w w w
Z
U Q Q
w Z a a
Q m (n (n
W J W W
a Q Q
Lw w
Q W Z_ Z_
H Q Q
w
via
d
J
I -C -3
X
2
Z
Z
Q
�
U
J
~
—
U
a
Z
m
z
rwNv
LL
C�
G
OTO
C,
LL
V
0) v
LL
W
Q
x
CL
O
O
`2
o N
N U)
H
a
V
O
CL
=
U)
O
T
N
Q
O
0)
0
U)
CL
Q
O
N
O
W'
2
F-
U)
Z
Q U)
M Y LU
} W
� U
U) ~ Z
Z U)
Q W >~
m L
W U J
Q Z Q
Q H o
w
p L
W
H
� J O
Q
U) m m
W W
w w w
Z
U Q Q
w Z a a
Q m (n (n
W J W W
a Q Q
Lw w
Q W Z_ Z_
H Q Q
w
via
d
J
I -C -3

�.�
/
fr
\
r }
3)/
< ®��\ L \ z <0 \
= o (e a = co /
j / \M/ / } & / \] i
= 7 ] b(§ e I o § `
y \ u $ e}! < e \:
u 2z - zm 6E
«±
\ \ \ W,�� \_ §
/ Z ) \j\ � ®
±© S
% §y ° 0z � § f
$ \§ /\ &a
,m
) 2 \)\ / / \ z�
/ / j 6\; / I , p z
ƒ § \ ;z} / ( )
cl i 8
U) & = c
= z \ \ / \
u
\
< < \ $ 3 %
< \ <
u < < \
\ } \ \ <
< / / m §
/ 2 / § §
§ j Q k
j a_ \ j
F
U) \ / < \ § \
< z
U) § / / / /
\ / § 2 § < /
% } j u j < }
\ 2 § / \ / § §
\
\ �
\
§
}
}
(
)
}
>
\ e
\ 2
\ [, % \
� k §��
pC 4
z
\2
Cl)
Cl)
d
:R
z
< ®��\ L \ z <0 \
= o (e a = co /
j / \M/ / } & / \] i
= 7 ] b(§ e I o § `
y \ u $ e}! < e \:
u 2z - zm 6E
«±
\ \ \ W,�� \_ §
/ Z ) \j\ � ®
±© S
% §y ° 0z � § f
$ \§ /\ &a
,m
) 2 \)\ / / \ z�
/ / j 6\; / I , p z
ƒ § \ ;z} / ( )
cl i 8
U) & = c
= z \ \ / \
u
\
< < \ $ 3 %
< \ <
u < < \
\ } \ \ <
< / / m §
/ 2 / § §
§ j Q k
j a_ \ j
F
U) \ / < \ § \
< z
U) § / / / /
\ / § 2 § < /
% } j u j < }
\ 2 § / \ / § §
\
\ �
\
§
}
}
(
)
}
>
\ e
\ 2
\ [, % \
� k §��
pC 4

O
O a
O
M N 0 W
Of W
O
�W H 0 V
007 U M u tix U
W Q Z =
Q p m W O J U
F W >� N H Zi o W
O¢� _ U m z
U L zzW FW < (� Z g0
z ° �W,LL w 0 d m ,o LL
cA m W
ZN } U) O 0 Z m
W_
H
D N �oz Q w W LL
� _ aZOa Q H H
/ 6 WFF > Q
cn Q W O ZQ� D Q H rn
U 1 O
o W ch
U = co Q Fes= U d
Q (n N M Of D U y c . a
LO OOH Of
W m V O V
r- J U 0 6: U 0U Z O O
of Of � N N
J Q ~ Cl) 70 0 o O Q (O N
z Q
0 (O O cn 10. >
O
_
Q O -- 0 z U (6 Q
ED Z of Z U) 0 Q
W W O Z O
Q z J U U H
Z � Q 0 m
Q W W 0
0 m J z O Q LU
Q Z } a Q U
m Q
d m
Q Q } W J J
• d � � m J J J
• 0 W Z 0 Q Q Q
W J O H D 0 0
Q m U W W
r W J d 0 E ,
H
It J W 0 0
Y of D Q Y
W
�f W Q 0 E Elf W W W
O Z 0 Q Of O
U D O D U U
w W m Q w w w
J U W U Z J J J
O d� d 0 0 0 0
i
Z Q Z 0 0 0 O
H
w
F W V% N M In W M r O N M V (O O N V In 0 W
■ Z O O N N M M M M M M M V V V V V V
O O M In (O I� W O
In CO M I� O N M V (O O N V In
In (O I� W m — — — — � � N N M M M M M M M V V V V V
IL L6 W
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 were summarized for the years
2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013 study areas located on the south and north sides of the Pamlico
River (Table I -D1). For study creeks on the south side of the Pamlico, 2002 was the driest year
reported when 40 weeks (77 percent) of the year had some drought classification. The driest
year reported (during monitoring at Duck Creek between 2010 and 2013) on the north side of
the Pamlico River occurred in 2011 when 28 weeks (54 percent) of the year were assigned
some drought classification. Study areas have never been considered in extreme or
exceptional drought, and years 2000, 2003, and 2004 all had normal conditions during those
entire years.
I -D -1

Table I -D1. Drought conditions for the years 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013. The drought conditions for each week were provided by the US
Drought Monitor. For some weeks, the drought status was different for Duck Creek than the other studied creeks located on the opposite
side of the Pamlico River. Monitoring of Duck Creek did not begin until 2010, therefore only drought conditions for the years 2010 -2013 are
included in the table. Numbers in the table represent the number of weeks given each classification for that year.
'Includes all studied creeks with the exception of Duck Creek
I -D -2
Percent of Weeks
Normal
Abnormally
Moderately
Severe
Extreme
Exceptional
with a Drought
Location
Year
Conditions
Dry (DO)
Dry (D1)
Drought (D2)
Drought (D3)
Drought (D4)
Classification
Study areas
2000
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
located around
2001
26
17
1
8
0
0
50
South Creek,
2002
12
5
28
7
0
0
77
south side of the
2003
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pamlico River'
2004
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005
46
6
0
0
0
0
12
2009
27
23
2
0
0
0
48
2010
30
19
3
0
0
0
42
2011
24
11
4
13
0
0
54
2012
28
4
20
0
0
0
46
2013
39
13
0
0
0
0
25
Average
35
9
5
3
0
0
32
Duck Creek,
2010
33
16
3
0
0
0
37
north side of the
2011
24
11
4
13
0
0
54
Pamlico River
2012
28
12
12
0
0
0
46
2013
41
11
0
0
0
0
21
Average
32
13
5
3
0
0
39
'Includes all studied creeks with the exception of Duck Creek
I -D -2

E. Extreme Events or Storms
If an extreme event or storm in Beaufort County was of the type that it may likely affect
rainfall, hydrology, and /or salinity data collected for the years 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013
then those event dates, types, and descriptions were gathered from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC) website (Table I -E1).
Hurricanes and /or tropical storms were the events most likely to affect the data, and of
the five hurricanes and two tropical storms recorded, Hurricane Irene near the end of
August 2011 produced the largest total rainfall (11 -16 inches) and storm surges (7 -11
feet). Other extreme events reported were heavy snow /winter storms, high winds, flash
flooding, and severe drought.
I -E -1

Table I -E1. Extreme events or storms for the years 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013. Dates, event types, and event descriptions were
derived from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) website.
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. Event types were selected
based on likelihood to affect rainfall, hydrology, and /or salinity data. Some events are not shown in the table if they were repeat
data. For example, if a Hurricane and a Storm Surge/Tide event were on the same date, the Storm Surge/Tide event is not shown.
Events that may have been severe in other counties of North Carolina, but were minor in Beaufort County, are also not shown.
Date
Type
Event Description
3- Dec -00
Snow
Average of 6 inches of snow across Coastal Plain. Reports of 9 of 13 inches were not uncommon.
23- Jan -03
Winter
Storm
4 to 8 inches of snow in Beaufort County.
17- Sep -03
Hurricane
Hurricane Isabel. Category 2 hurricane. Storm surge values were around 7 feet. Wind gusts around 100 mph.
7- Mar -04
High
winds
Wind gusts 50 to 72 mph.
3- Aug -04
Hurricane
Hurricane Alex. Category 2 hurricane. Storm surge values were 1 to 3 feet. Sustained winds around 100 mph.
14- Aug -04
Tropical
Storm
Tropical Storm Charley. Wind gusts 40 to 50 mph. Storm rainfall 4 to 6 inches. Freshwater flooding reported.
13- Sep -05
Hurricane
Hurricane Ophelia. Category 1 hurricane. Maximum sustained winds 85 mph. Total rainfall 4 to 9 inches.
8- Oct -05
Flash
Flood
Remnants of Tropical Storm Tammy. Over 3 days, total of 6 to 8 inches of rainfall.
12- Feb -10
Snow
4 to 7 inches of snow.
27- Sep -10
Heavy
Rainfall total 6 to 8 inches. Significant flooding in low lying areas and along small streams, especially in Washington,
Rain
NC.
Severe drought (D2) began affecting eastern NC in early June. Since the previous winter, precipitation had been well
1- Jun -11
Drought
below normal. Streamflows were well below normal. Groundwater conditions were listed as much below to record low
levels across the region.
I -E -2

Table I -E1 (concluded).
Date
Event Type
Event Description
Severe drought (D2) began affecting eastern NC in early June. Since the previous winter, precipitation had been
1- Jul -11
Drought
well below normal. Streamflows were well below normal. Groundwater conditions were listed as much below to
record low levels across the region.
Severe drought (D2) began affecting eastern NC in early June. Since the previous winter, precipitation had been
1- Aug -11
Drought
well below normal. Streamflows were well below normal. Groundwater conditions were listed as much below to
record low levels across the region.
26- Aug -11
Hurricane
Hurricane Irene. Large category 1 hurricane. Storm surges 7 -11 feet along Pamlico River. Winds 50 to 60 mph
with 90 mph gusts. Total rainfall 11 to 16 inches. Extensive freshwater flooding.
28- Oct -12
Hurricane
Hurricane Sandy. Maximum wind gusts 50 mph. Highest storm surge measured was 2 to 3 feet. Total rainfall 2.5
inches.
6- Jun -13
Tropical
Storm
Tropical Storm Andrea. Sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph with 50 mph gusts. Total rainfall 3.5 inches.
I -E -3

F. Rainfall
For general summary information about local rainfall over the course of the study,
monthly rainfall from the PCS- Aurora NOAA Station 6N was used (Figure I -F1, Table I -F1).
Over the years 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013, annual rainfall totals from WETS station PCS- Aurora
NOAA Station 6N fell below the WETS 30th percentile for five years (2001, 2002, and 2011-
2013) and were greater than the WETS 70th percentile for 2003 and 2005 (Table I -F1). Annual
totals were the greatest in 2003 with nine months of above normal rainfall and the least in 2011
with eight months below normal rainfall.
In 2013, a new rain gauge was installed near the monitoring locations in DCUT19
bringing the total rain gauges used in the study to seven, including PCS Aurora 6N.
I -F -1

Monthly Rainfall Totals at PCS Aurora NOAA Station 6N and 30 -Year WETS Rainfall (2000 -2005)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
•
6.00 •
•
4.00
2.00
0.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00 - •
6.00
4.00
2.00 —
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
0.00 •
'd, atO °1 aJ 5 ° �a 01 0 0 a� ,0 Ip 0 y0 0 , p 17
a Q
Ib a�
• Total Monthly Rainfall WETS 30 Percentile WETS 70 Percentile
Figure I -F1. Rainfall summary across years of creeks study: monthly totals at PCS Aurora Station 6N compared to 30 -year WETS rainfall.
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
411 >a� 4S1 411 >a� 49 >a� -Y 9 °J
• Total Monthly Rainfall WETS 30 Percentile WETS 70 Percentile
Monthly Rainfall Totals at PCS Aurora NOAA Station 6N and 30 -Year WETS Rainfall (2009 -2013)
•
I -F -2

Table I -F1. Monthly and annual rainfall totals across the years 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013 for NOAA Station Aurora 6N. Bolded values
denote precipitation totals that fall below the WETS 30 percentile. Italicized values denote precipitation totals that are above the WETS 70
percentile. Percentiles and averages are based on rainfall data from 1973 -2000.
Year
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
2000
4.89
3.09
3.19
5.60
3.40
3.77
5.13
10.17
7.05
0.19
3.16
3.29
52.93
2001
1.60
3.06
3.08
1.73*
2.27*
10.06*
5.91 *
4.53*
0.72*
2.41 *
1.48*
0.99*
37.80
2002
4.75*
1.93*
4.87*
3.55*
2.21*
3.11*
5.10*
3.68*
3.70*
3.69*
3.30*
2.77*
42.66
2003
1.74*
5.00*
5.64*
6.21*
10.04*
3.75*
8.28*
8.62*
6.19*
4.57*
2.20*
8.44*
70.68
2004
1.56*
5.17*
2.18*
4.13*
2.31*
5.13
2.96
8.33
7.70
1.75*
3.37*
2.66*
47.25
2005
3.11
2.52*
3.55
3.39*
7.13*
5.75
5.54
3.28
4.01
12.74*
2.31
3.90
57.23
2009
2.51
0.99
4.11
1.32
7.56
5.78
5.34
8.43
2.83
1.70
7.72*
5.34*
53.63
2010
4.07
5.13
3.33
0.37*
1.48
4.76
4.85
6.21
11.36
6.83
1.14
3.06
52.59
2011
3.23*
2.38*
3.43
1.96
0.71*
1.29*
1.12*
0.71*
6.16*
0.97*
1.65*
0.46*
24.07
2012
1.59*
0.94*
0.11*
1.09*
6.91*
1.20*
5.96*
8.36*
3.16*
5.00*
0.63*
2.43*
37.38
2013
2.11 *
4.92*
1.08*
3.49*
2.38*
5.49*
4.71 *
4.18*
3.71 *
2.39*
4.18*
0.53*
39.17
WETS 30 Percentile
3.16
2.21
3.07
2.11
2.78
3.25
3.93
4.44
2.46
1.71
1.89
2.15
45.25
WETS 70 Percentile
4.99
3.71
4.77
4.00
5.12
5.51
7.02
7.54
5.56
4.04
3.48
4.04
54.09
WETS Average
4.26
3.13
4.09
3.32
4.26
4.64
5.87
6.35
4.55
3.31
2.90
3.35
50.03
*Months with at least one missing daily observation.
I -F -3

G. Tar River Discharge
Average daily Tar River discharge at Greenville, NC and PCS Aurora NOAA Station 6N
rainfall for all years included in analysis for this report are shown in Figure I -G1 (2002 -2005 and
2009 - 2013). Rainfall upstream of the PCS weather station is not shown, but of course is often a
large contributor to downstream discharge. The PCS rainfall is included to show those periods
when local rainfall is coincident with increased discharge.
Kruskal - Wallis one -way ANOVA on Ranks comparisons among years indicated that later
years (2009 -2013) tend to be significantly different from earlier years (2000- 2005); the earlier
years had higher median discharges. The later years were not significantly different from each
other, with the exception of 2013, which was significantly higher than all later years and
significantly different than two earlier years (higher than 2001 and lower than 2004). In the
earlier years, only a few years were significantly different from each other with the exception of
2003, which was significantly higher than all other earlier years and also significantly higher than
all later years. (Table I -F1 shows that 2003 Aurora Station 6N rainfall was above the WETS 30-
year average for nine months of the year; a possible reflection of a regionally wet year.) Yearly
average discharge ranged between 1,500 -3,000 cfs over all years. The daily discharge at
Greenville, NC is typically evaluated in conjunction with salinity data to determine if there is an
effect on salinity levels. This analysis is found in Section III -A.
I -G -1

20000
18000
16000
14 000
12000
C)
N 10000
Cy 8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Tar River Average Daily Discharge and PCS- Aurora Daily Rainfall
(2999 -2445 and 2499 - 2013)
................
.. . .... ...
......
.....................
......
. . . . ..
- -
.. . ....
- -- ...........................................
..
... .....
.....
... .....
.....
... .............
..........
..
......
. _.
.. .....
..----
..----
.------
.--- -. - - --
............
--
- - -_..
- - - -- ..------
..
.------
................
.......------
..
- - --
.._
................
._ ....
..
.................
...........
...............................
................
.........
.............
......
...............................................................
......
......
...............
..........
..
O O
O
O
O
III
H
.'V
CV
CV
CV
CO
CO
C'l
C)
't
It
U)
ui
L -.
L i
m
6i
vi
(m
O
O
O
-
C4
N
C
CO
O O
O
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-
Q`
O
O
O
rn
ti
co
co
It
tv
w
ti
co
CO
.;d-
cv
r
o
o
co
to
In
CO
o
as
M
n
un
n
-;I-
o
CO
m
ti
u1
CO
CO
ti
o
co
zt
CO
_
iJ]
(0
m
N
CO
(0
m
N
CO
w
m
N
n
CO
m
N
n
N
if J
m
N
U-)
m
N
U_j
m
r
N
in
m
T
�
PCS - Aurora Rainfall Tar River Average Daily Discharge
Figure I -G1. Tar River average daily discharge at Greenville, NC and PCS Aurora NOAA Station 6N daily rainfall across the years of the creeks study.
I -G -2
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
,.0
0.0
.-1
N
4i
t
V
C
Oe!

II. CORPS PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS S SIX QUESTIONS
A. Question 1-
Has mining altered the amount or timing of water flows within the creeks?
Flow: Monitoring since 1998 has shown 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 very
subject to region -wide precipitation and Tar River discharge.
Monitoring of flow via weirs in Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut by Skaggs
et al. from 1999- 2010 (in various combinations per creek) showed that within the unidirectional
portion of the systems, approximately 1 to 3 percent of modeled flow is delivered from the
upstream basins. Never having been quantified before, this percent was lower than many may
have predicted or expected.
Some of the weir locations were within the 2009 permit boundary and /or the drainage
basin was so reduced at some other weir locations that they were abandoned. 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 monitoring was not needed.
The very shallow and intermittent nature of the upper systems of these creeks does not
allow use of traditional stream gauges. PCS then elected to install 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).
Since then, the product development has been stalled; delivery and deployment of additional
units is uncertain and monitoring of the installed units ceased in 2013.
Beginning in March 2012, during visits to other equipment located at or near the
intended low -flow gauge locations, biologists made qualitative observations of flow (none, low,
medium, or high) and noted water depths. For the newly added creeks, there are no earlier flow
data for comparison, but flow observation information will continue to be collected in lieu of low -
flow gauges. Videos of flow are also taken at these locations throughout the year which are
available upon request from CZR. Like the earlier flow monitoring done by Skaggs in the
bidirectional reaches of Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut, flow events in Duck
Creek and Porter Creek appear to be related to precipitation and baseflow.
Answer: It appears that regional environmental differences in Tar River
discharge, fluctuations in wind tides, and local precipitation continue to have a large
effect on the fluctuations of flow within these creeks, which make it difficult to attribute
all change directly to the activities of the mine. Appendix B contains the 2013 flow
observation table.
11

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 using the same measures as in 1998.
Vegetation: Due to transition years and the rearrangement of pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years, Huddles Cut is the only creek with pre- and post -Mod Alt L vegetation data; Tooley Creek
will have one year of post -data after 2014 sampling. The composition of dominants in the two
monitored strata varies among years and within creeks with longer data sets (Jacks Creek,
Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut).
Preliminary SIMPER analysis shows a difference in the composition of dominant species
pre- and post -Mod Alt L on both prongs of Huddles Cut. On the west prong, the two groupings
were 60.6 percent dissimilar (based on the Bray- Curtis similarity measure), largely due to the
presence of a brackish tolerant species, eastern baccharis ( Baccharis halimifolia), as a
dominant species in the post years and not in the pre -year. That species contributed 20 percent
of the dissimilarity between pre- and post - years, while the remaining species contributed 6.7
percent or less. On the main prong, the two groupings were 69.0 percent dissimilar (based on
the Bray - Curtis similarity measure). No one species contributed a large amount to the
difference. All species contributed 5.7 percent or less.
A visual difference in the plant community in Huddles Cut between the last year of
sampling (2010 main prong, 2011 west prong) and 2013 was evident, possibly due in part to
Hurricane Irene in 2011. However, it does not appear that mining has altered the jurisdictional
wetland status of the vegetation at Huddles Cut. Scattered over the years and along the creek,
a few non - wetland species have been dominant in many transects; however, a shift towards
non - wetland vegetation has not been detected. Conversely, there has been a shift in dominant
species based on their tolerance to brackish conditions (Figures 11 -131, II -132, 11 -133, 11 -134, II -135
and 11 -B6). Although there are a few exceptions in the three (main prong) and four (west prong)
years of data at Huddles Cut, the percentage of dominant species intolerant of brackish
conditions has tended to decrease over the years (Figures 11 -137, a. New dominants tend to
be more tolerant of brackish conditions. At the main prong of Huddles Cut, the post -Mod Alt L
percentages of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions have significantly decreased
(p =0.03, Figure 11 -131). (The amounts also decreased at the west prong, but not significantly;
Figure 11 -134.) The only other creek with long -term vegetation data for this report, Jacks Creek,
showed strong decreasing trends in dominant brackish intolerant species over the monitoring
period at two transects (Figure 11 -139).
However, this change in both creeks could be driven by the regional increase in salinity
due to possible sea level rise as evidenced by canopy dieback across many other creeks and
estuaries within the Pamlico River basin. At the other study creeks without drainage basin
impacts, where monitoring began in 2011, the percentage of dominant species intolerant of
E-9

brackish conditions has stayed the same each year or fluctuated over the three monitored years
without a strong trend. Except for Long Creek, the other transects are located further upstream
than those at Huddles Cut, Tooley Creek, and Jacks Creek and increases in salinity might not
reach that far upstream. The average numbers of dominant species and species present are
similar among the different creeks. Also, the tree canopies at the different creeks range from
sparse or non - existent to moderately dense but have similar tree species. For more information
on the vegetation at the other creeks and Huddles Cut, refer to Section III -E.
Hydrology: While hydrology (including salinity) strongly influences the composition of
species at the creeks, detectable effects on vegetation from hydrologic alterations can be slow
to appear and are dependent on the degree and speed of changes in hydrology. Many wells
show similar behavior in most creeks, with upstream hydroperiods typically shorter than
downstream hydroperiods. Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut are the only
creeks with post -Mod Alt hydrology data. There are no significant differences between pre- and
post -Mod Alt L data (overall and at each well) at any of these three creeks (Figures 11-1310, 1311,
and B12), although post -Mod Alt L average hydroperiods are lower than pre -Mod Alt L
hydroperiods at one of the Drinkwater wells (Figure II -1313), the most upstream wells on both
arms of Tooley Creek (Figure II -1314), and most Huddles Cut wells (Figure II -1315).
Mod Alt L activities began in Drinkwater Creek in 2013, and by the end of 2013, the
approximately 372 acre pre -Mod Alt L drainage basin had been reduced to approximately 245
acres. Mod Alt L activities in the Tooley Creek drainage basin ceased after 2013, leaving
approximately 257 acres in its drainage basin out of the approximately 571 acres in the
drainage basin pre -Mod Alt L. Mod Alt L activities in the Huddles Cut drainage basin ceased
after 2011, leaving approximately 289 acres in its drainage basin out of the approximately 551
acres in the drainage basin pre -Mod Alt L. The reduced wetland hydroperiods for the two most
upstream wells on the west prong of Huddles Cut (discussed in Section III -B) might have been a
result of either drainage basin reduction or mine dewatering for the mine advance, or a
combination of the two. However, one of the wells still recorded a wetland hydroperiod post -
Mod Alt L. It is also possible drainage basin reductions might have influenced the shorter
wetland hydroperiods at the upstream wells at Tooley Creek.
Rainfall must also be considered in hydrology analysis because it can influence
hydrology, at least to some degree, in most wetland systems. Only two of the earlier monitoring
years (2000 -2005) had many weeks of regional drought. All of the more recent years (2009-
2013) had many weeks with some drought status, but 2013 had the least amount of regional
drought weeks in recent years. However, local 2013 rainfall was the lowest or second lowest
amount across all monitoring years (range of years differs among creeks). These
rainfall /hydroperiod variations make it difficult to directly correlate mine activities to a decrease
in wetland hydroperiod.
Rainfall is not a primary influence at all wells in each creek. At Jacks Creek, six of the
14 wells continued to have a wetland hydroperiod the entire 2013 growing season while six
wells recorded shorter hydroperiods in 2013 than 2012, which shows some wells are less
dependent on rainfall than others. Wetland hydroperiods at one well at Drinkwater Creek (the
one in the middle of the creek channel) have increased each of the three monitoring years,
while the other two (on either side of the creek channel) have fluctuated (with different patterns).
Wetland hydroperiods at both of the Long Creek wells have also increased each of the three
monitoring years, even though rainfall was less than 2012. At Tooley Creek, five of the six wells
recorded shorter wetland hydroperiods in 2013, as would be expected with less rainfall than last
year. At the main prong of Huddles Cut, 11 of the 12 wells recorded longer hydroperiods than
E-99

2012 or continued to have a wetland hydroperiod the entire growing season, which seems to
show those wells are less dependent on rainfall. The wells on the west prong behaved
differently from those on the main prong; five of the eight recorded shorter hydroperiods in 2013,
and two of the five (the most upstream wells) recorded the shortest hydroperiods of the years
included in this report, which might be expected based on rainfall. One of those two did not
record any days with wetland water levels. These two wells are fairly close to the Mod Alt L
mine boundary and presumably receive less runoff from the surrounding basin post -Mod Alt L.
At Porter Creek, the newer wells, which are further downstream than the older wells, have
longer wetland hydroperiods than the older wells, which typically have fairly short wetland
hydroperiods. Two of the three newer wells (on either side of the creek channel) recorded
shorter wetland hydroperiods in 2013, while the one in the middle of the creek continued to have
a wetland hydroperiod the entire growing season. However, all six of the older wells recorded
longer wetland hydroperiods in 2013 than 2012. Over the years these Porter Creek wells have
not appeared to be strongly influenced by rainfall because there have been other years where
rainfall has increased or decreased and the hydroperiods did the opposite of the rain. The wells
at Duck Creek appear to be influenced to some degree by rainfall as seven of the eight wells
recorded shorter wetland hydroperiods in 2013.
Answer: Specific changes in geomorphology cannot be confidently addressed at
this time due to the qualitative nature of baseline measures. However, as reported in
2012 report, in the case of the most upstream areas of the west 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.
With the rearrangement of years considered post -Mod Alt L and the fact that no
monitoring occurs either during a transition year or the first year after a transition year, it
is premature to confidently address long term effects on vegetation in this year's report.
However, a few pertinent statements can be made: after three years of adjustment to the
last mine impacts which occurred in 2010, no shift to non - wetland vegetation has been
detected in Huddles Cut; both Huddles Cut and Jacks Creek show a trend of fewer
dominant species considered brackish intolerant, a likely effect of regional sea -level rise;
and the average number of species present and dominant species are similar among the
different creeks.
While no significant differences were found between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
hydroperiod length for any wells in the three creeks affected by Mod Alt L, the
hydroperiods of one of the wells in Drinkwater Creek, the uppermost wells in Tooley
Creek, and the west prong of Huddles Cut, might potentially be affected by mine
dewatering and a reduced drainage basin based on their proximity to the mine advance.
Except for one of the upstream wells on the west prong of Huddles Cut, all other wells at
the three creeks had jurisdictional wetland hydroperiods in 2013. Many wells appear to
be influenced in the short -term by large rain events, or several 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. It also appears that some wells are influenced by Tar River discharge and wind
tides, which adds to the interpretation difficulties.
M.

100
90
V)
V) o 80
a E5 70
O
L 60
M w
C Y
E 50
Om
40
0 0
�a 30
2
d ° 20
10
0
Huddles Main Prong
u
Pre -Mod Alt L Post -Mod Alt L
Figure II -131. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Huddles Cut Main Prong
pre- vs post -Mod Alt L.
100
90
V)
m C
80
�.O
--
80
a C
70
O
U
70
L
60
Y
60
E
50
O i
50
� m
40
O O
40
C C
30
N O
30
i N
20
O
10
o_
zo
10
0
,LAOS Vd, VI& TO" V11- TO" VIII
Year
Figure II -132. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year at Huddles Cut
Main Prong with all transects combined.
110 Huddles Main Prong
HMW8 HMW9 HMW6 HMW10 HMW5 HMW2 HMW12
100
rz
90
U o
v
80
N 0
0-0
U) U
70
s= �
60
cvo
0 m
50
0o
0 0
40
s= �
v
L
30
N O
0_
20
10
0
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure II -133. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at each transect on Huddles
Cut Main Prong pre- vs post -Mod Alt L.
I

110
100
w 90
m .o
80
� C
a
U 70
C L
C_ Y 60
E
�° m 50
`o `0 40
C C
2 30
0- o
20
10
Huddles West Prong
p =0.03 •
Pre -Mod Alt L Post -Mod Alt L
Figure II -134. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Huddles Cut West Prong
pre- vs post -Mod Alt L.
110
100 T T
N c
90
0
100
a
80
CL c
80
�_O (j
70
C
60
c Y
60
E U
o
40
m
50
0 °
30
C �5
40
PCo
a
30
Q) o
0- ,
20
10
0
,Lp00 20p9 2010 211 2012 2013 201A
Year
Figure II -135. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year at Huddles Cut
West Prong with all transects combined.
Huddles West Prong
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure II -136. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at each transect on Huddles
Cut West Prong pre- vs post -Mod Alt L.
m
110
100
90
80
QC:
U) U
70
C
CO Y
60
°
50
r m
40
C
L
30
a) a
tl c
20
10
0
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure II -136. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at each transect on Huddles
Cut West Prong pre- vs post -Mod Alt L.
m

DOWNSTREAM
luu
90
80
m70
0
60
50
m 40
30
a 20
10
0
90
80
m 70
0
60
50
m 40
30
a 20
10
0
MIDSTREAM
,Lo11n 209y 2611 2011 2611 2611 261, 2006 v"', 2010 2011 2012 2013 201,
00 100
90 90
HMW9
e0 e0
m 70 m
70
0
60
60
50 • - 50
v
m �
m 40 m 40
30 30
a 20 a
20
10 10
0 0
20116 V& 2010 2011 201 2015 2010. 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 v",
100
90
80
m 70
0
60
- 50
m
m 40
30
a 20
10
0
Year
V61 2009 2010 2011 2012 201 2014
Year
UPSTREAM
100
90
80
m 70
0
60
- 50
m
m 40
30
a 20
10
0
200
100
90
80
m 70
0
60
- 50
m
m 40
30
a 20
10
0
HMW12
2p96 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201,
Year Year
Figure II -137. Percent of brackish intolerant species every year at each Huddles Cut Main Prong transect.
:.

100
N c 90
O O
0 80
n c
O
U U 70
c s
c i2 60
E U
O 50
CO
O 40
c c
U N
30
N p
0_ c 20
10
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
110
100
N c 90
O O
0 80
c
n O
U U 70
c s
c 60
U
O 50
om
a 40
c c
O
30
N p
o_ c zo
10
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
110
100
N c 90
O O
0 80
n c
0
U U 70
c s
c 12 60
U
O
o m 50
a ° 40
c c
30
U N
N p
o_ - zo
10
0
HWW2
(In June and July 2009, 5 of the 10
monitoring plots were eliminated
by mine activities.)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
110
100
y o 90 HWW8
Y
0 80
o c •
O
U U 70
c s •
c 60
U
O 50 •
07
40
c c
W m 30
O
N p
o_ c zo
10
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
DOWNSTREAM
MIDSTREAM
UPSTREAM
Figure 11 -138. Percent of brackish intolerant species every year at each Huddles Cut West Prong
transect.
MM

DOWNSTREAM
7
JW5- Pre -Mod Alt L
r2 =0.2
i99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20062010 2011 2012 2013 20
110
110
100
110
100
JW7- pre -Mod Alt L
JW9- Pre -Mod Alt L
90
oso
90
rz =0.2
a
100
0
U
U
0 90
0
80
70
•
0 80
0
U
70
60
•
0
U
E U
❑ m
70
-
y
60
O O
40
O o
m
- 60
= Y
E
50
30
E
❑ m
`o `0
30
m 50
20
40
20
• •
`o ° 40
10
•
0
v
30
1
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 006 010 2011 2012 2013 2014
30
o_
zo
o_ - - zo
10
0
0
0
1999 2000 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1
7
JW5- Pre -Mod Alt L
r2 =0.2
i99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20062010 2011 2012 2013 20
UPSTREAM
JW3- Pre -Mod Alt L
rz =0.8
• •
•
i99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0K2010 201
Year
„o
,00
90
0
80
�a
� O 70
r, U
p y 60
C i2
E 50
O m
❑ 40
0 0
30
d
20
a
0
-10
UPSTREAM
4 JW9 JW5 JW7 JW3 JW2
110
100
o so
a 80
U 70
0 60 JW2- Pre -Mod Alt L
rz =0.8
0 50
❑ m
O O 40
30
o
a 20
10
0
I4 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 01
Year
Figure II -139. Percent of brackish intolerant species at each Jacks Creek transect every year and all years combined.
::
. •
2011 2012 2013 2014
110
110
100
100
JW7- pre -Mod Alt L
90
oso
r2 =0.01
eo
a
80
U
U
70
70
•
m L
60
2
60
•
0
50
E U
❑ m
p m
$0
O O
40
O o
40
• • •
m m
U `m
30
•
`m
30
o_
20
a °
_
20
• •
,o
10
•
0
0
1
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 006 010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1999
UPSTREAM
JW3- Pre -Mod Alt L
rz =0.8
• •
•
i99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0K2010 201
Year
„o
,00
90
0
80
�a
� O 70
r, U
p y 60
C i2
E 50
O m
❑ 40
0 0
30
d
20
a
0
-10
UPSTREAM
4 JW9 JW5 JW7 JW3 JW2
110
100
o so
a 80
U 70
0 60 JW2- Pre -Mod Alt L
rz =0.8
0 50
❑ m
O O 40
30
o
a 20
10
0
I4 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 01
Year
Figure II -139. Percent of brackish intolerant species at each Jacks Creek transect every year and all years combined.
::
. •
2011 2012 2013 2014

250
T
CU 200
0
Q 150
0
T
2
C 100
O
C
0
J
50
0
Pre -Mod Alt L
Drinkwater Creek
Post -Mod Alt L
100
80
c
(0
C
60 CU
m
C
C
40 Q
O
on
co
20 Q
0
Figure II -1310. Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and mean rainfall for
each period in Drinkwater Creek.
250
200
O
Q 150
O
T
100
N
c
O
J
50
0
Pre
Tooley Creek
Post
..
80
42
60
c
c
40 Q
N
12
N
20 Q
0
Figure II -1311. Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and mean rainfall for
each period in Tooley Creek.

Huddles Cut
250
200
a
a
0
a 150
0
-o
2
N 100
0
a�
0
J 50
0
100
80
m
60 .�
Of
m
40 Q
0
a�
m
0
20 Q
0
Pre Post Pre Post
Figure II -1312. Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod and mean rainfall for
each period in Huddles Cut.
250
T
CO 200
a
0
a 150
-`o
2
15 100
a�
0
J
50
0
Drinkwater Creek
DWW1A DWW1B DWW1C
TI •
1
•
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure II -1313. Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod for each well in
Drinkwater Creek (all in same relative position across floodplain).
250
200
m
a
p 150
Q
0
100
2
0 50
c
0
J
0
Tooley Creek
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure II -1314. Longest combined pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydroperiod for each well in Tooley
Creek relative to location in the creek system.

250
200
CO
F.,
a 150
0
T
2
in 100
N
O)
C
O
J
50
0
250
> 200
F
CL 150
0
T
2
C 100
a�
c
0
J
a
nuuulub iwan i ri ui iy
MW8- HMW7= HMW9- HMW6= HMW10- HMW5- HMW4- HMW3- HMW11= HMW2-HMW12 HM W1
-UPSTREAM
Qo Qo Qo Qo Qo Qo Qo Qo Qo Qo Qo Qo
Huddles West Prong
HWW7 - HWW6 HWW5 HWW4 = HWW3 HWW2 HWW8 HWW9
•
UPSTREAM
Figure II -1315. Huddles Cut main prong and west prong pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydrology for
each well relative to location in creek system.
II -13-11

C. Question 3-
Has mining altered the forage base of the creeks?
Fish: Multivariate cluster analysis of fish species composition and abundance from all
creeks and all sampling years' revealed six distinct groups (Figure II -C1). Groups A, B, and C
each contained only a single year. Group F consisted of all creeks /years sampled by fyke net
except for one creek/year which comprised Group A. Groups D and E were the most similar
among the six groups and contained 83 percent of the data set. Also of note, all Jacks Creek
years (2000 -2005, 2011 -2013) and all Muddy Creek years (except for 2011 which comprised
Group C), clustered together within the two groups.
A summary of the average catch per unit effort (CPUE) of dominant species across the
six groups is shown in Table II -C1 and can be used to see what species drive the separation of
the groups. Group A (DCUT11 2013) had the least similar fish assemblage makeup from all
other creeks and years and was the most dissimilar from Groups D and E driven by
dissimilarities in CPUE of spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus),
Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), bay anchovy
(Anchoa mitchilll), and pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) (Table II -C1). Group B consisted only of
PA2 2011 and was more similar to Groups D and E than Groups A and F. Differences between
Group B and both Groups D and E were driven by dissimilarities in CPUE of eastern
mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), rainwater killifish (Lucania parva), inland silverside (Menidia
beryllina), Atlantic croaker, mummichog, spot, and pinfish (Table II -C1). Group C consisted only
of Muddy Creek 2011 and was more similar to Groups D and E than Groups A, B, and F.
Differences between Group C and both Groups D and E were driven by dissimilarities in CPUE
of Atlantic croaker, spot, bay anchovy, inland silverside, Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia
tyrannus), and pinfish (Table II -C1). Excluding Group A, all other fyke net creek /years clustered
in Group F and these two groups were the first and second most dissimilar from all other creeks
and years. Although more species contributed to dissimilarities in CPUE between Group F and
Groups A, B, C, D, and E, the main difference was the abundance of mummichog collected in
fyke nets from both Huddles Cut and DCUT19.
All pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years at Huddles Cut clustered together in Group F
and all pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years at Tooley Creek also clustered within one single
group, Group D. Additionally, all Tooley Creek Mod -Alt L sampling years clustered with
corresponding years from Jacks Creek (all pre -Mod Alt L years) and Muddy Creek (except for
2011) and also clustered with representative years in other sampled pre -Mod Alt L creeks and
control creeks. Conversely, Drinkwater Creek pre- and post -Mod Alt L years did not cluster
together; instead, both pre -Mod Alt L years clustered under Group D and the 2013 post -Mod Alt
L year clustered in Group E. However, it is not valid to assume reduction of the drainage basin
of Drinkwater Creek in 2013 altered the 2013 fish assemblage since the sole post -Mod Alt L
year was grouped among other pre -Mod Alt L creeks /years and control creeks /years.
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 Huddles Cut, Tooley Creek, and Drinkwater Creek, and therefore, do not further
indicate that mining activities have altered fish communities. There is no statistical or ecological
indication that there is any detectable difference between the three creeks comparing pre- and
post -Mod Alt L years.
II -C -1

Grass shrimp: This fauna was 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 (trawling 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 Little Creek and least
frequently captured (15 percent) from DCUT11 upstream and downstream fyke nets in
2013. Numbers were highest at both PA2 in 2011 and Jacobs Creek in 2012 (40) and lowest
(2) at Porter Creek in 2011 (Table II -C2). Among the post -Mod Alt L creeks, the frequencies at
which grass shrimp are captured and the numbers collected were lowest in post -Mod Alt L 2013
for Drinkwater Creek and declined at Tooley Creek for post -Mod Alt L years 2012 and 2013;
2013 was also the lowest year for all years at both Huddles Cut and for all years at Drinkwater.
However, similar variability is also experienced within several other creeks. No apparent trend
was detected from only three years of data.
Benthos: under construction, to be included.
Answer: No change in fish forage base due to mining is apparent. The
multivariate cluster analysis of fish for all creeks and all sampling years reveals some
differences based on gear type (fyke net vs trawl) but does not reveal distinct changes in
fish assemblages due to mine activities within the drainage basins of Huddles Cut,
Tooley Creek, and /or Drinkwater Creek.
Variability in the frequency and numbers of grass shrimp collected
in all creeks makes it very difficult to discern any mine related spatial patterns in the
abundance of grass shrimp.
Benthic answer text to be added.
I I -C -2

0
20
40
�i
C
N 60
on.,
1001
PCS Fish Collections: Managed Species
Group average
Pre -Mod Alt L
t Post -Mod Alt L
Control
Creek /Year
Figure II -C1. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among fish species for
all creeks and years sampled [Bray - Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and dashed
red lines represent non - significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
I I -C -3
B
C
D
E
F
i
M
O
0
' ' , m m '
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
, O D1 N
O a
0 0 0
M) N F2 N S O O O M O O m 0 0 0 O fn O P1 fM m (� F2
O C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N O O m p N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
N
O
N N N N N N N N N N
1
d d Q m m 0 Y C
N O 9 a O V 1 J O
N N N
N N N N
V V
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Y d d Z� N a C 'O 'O Y 'O 'O m Y Y N U
7
m O O O>> O 5'0'0 J J N >> Oz m m U O
N N N N N (.4 N N N N N 3.
Q V 'O Q Y O Y y U
a J, a N 18-6
N J {p 7
°
°
^
^r7 J37777dd�J'
° t4
= 2 =
^�
?:R- A AA /��7 /���SL FSp°
jQ�j
^L F {� °
0 41uJIrt=
�0 r7l'IJIQo4
Creek /Year
Figure II -C1. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among fish species for
all creeks and years sampled [Bray - Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and dashed
red lines represent non - significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
I I -C -3

Table II -C1. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) for the most abundant fish species captured across six groups identified by cluster analysis performed for all PCS fish collection sampling years April, May, and
June of 2000 through 2005, and 2009 through 2013.
Common name
Scientific name
Average CPUEa
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group F
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.94
44.11
0.27
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
0.00
17.23
0.00
5.65
16.68
39.10
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
0.00
1.85
0.00
8.16
18.21
0.56
Eastern mudminnow
Umbra pygmaea
0.08
120.15
0.85
10.46
0.29
1.27
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
0.00
20.92
9.69
3.74
0.79
2.58
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
32.54
34.77
0.08
0.17
0.00
254.86
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
0.08
22.38
0.92
41.46
3.14
11.35
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
12.31
0.15
0.00
0.10
0.19
2.26
Rainwater killifish
Lucania parva
0.00
70.00
1.38
5.85
0.25
0.76
Sheepshead minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus
0.92
1.69
0.00
0.01
0.00
25.74
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
0.31
61.31
30.69
108.32
155.21
82.05
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
0.00
2.62
0.00
0.10
0.02
24.46
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximately 16 hour set of fyke nets or one minute, 75 -yard trawl.
I I -C -4

Table II -C2. Summary of trawling and fyke net shrimp and crab catch frequency and score data from 2011, 2012, and 2013. Fyke nets were used to fish DCUT 11, DCUT19, and Huddles Cut. "(Up)" indicates the
upstream fyke net and "(Down)" indicates the downstream fyke net. Score is based on the frequency of catch and number of individuals caught and used to compare species' usage among creeks.
I I -C -5
Long Creek
Jacks
Creek
Muddy Creek
(Control)
Jacobs
Creek
Porter
Little Creek
(Control)
PA2
Frequency %
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Frequency %
Total Score
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
2012 2013
2011
2012
Total Score
2011
2012
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
8
2011
2012
2013
Penaid Shrimp
46
15
15
6
2
5
54
31
8
10
6
1
15
8
0
30
5
1
0
Grass Shrimp
69
77
85
28
28
37
77
92
77
28
40
18
92
77
85
31
40
28
24
Blue Crab
62
62
0
8
9
0
54
62
23
7
9
3
31
46
15
4
7
2
I I -C -5
Long Creek
Drinkwater
Creek
Muddy Creek
(Control)
Tooley
Creek
Porter
Little Creek
(Control)
Frequency %
Frequency %
Total Score
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Frequency %
Total Score
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011
2012 2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012 2013
2011
2012
2013
Penaid Shrimp
46
46
8
10
8
3
31
54
31
4
12
7
23
31 8
3
4
1
Grass Shrimp
69
92
46
33
30
6
77
77
54
37
27
11
54
69 100
12
23
37
Blue Crab
46
46
38
7
6
5
31
69
8
4
9
1
62
46 0
8
6
0
I I -C -5
Long Creek
(Control)
(Up)
Muddy Creek
(Control)
Huddles
(Down)
Porter
Creek
(Control)
Frequency %
Frequency %
Total Score
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Frequency %
Total Score
Total Score
Frequency %
2011
2012 2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012 2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
Penaid Shrimp
46
46 8
6
7
1
46
38 15
6
6
4
38
54
23
5
7
3
Grass Shrimp
54
62 62
16
19
14
46
77 77
13
27
21
15
69
46
2
19
8
Blue Crab
31
85 31
4
11
4
54
38 15
8
5
3
31
77
31
4
11
4
I I -C -5
Huddles
(Up)
Huddles
(Down)
Duck Creek
(Control)
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012 2013
2011
2012
2013
Penaid Shrimp
23
38
8
5
7
1
23
15
0
4
3
0
69
38 23
9
5
6
Grass Shrimp
62
85
54
14
35
8
77
85
69
21
31
14
23
62 85
5
13
23
Blue Crab
69
92
77
11
15
12
62
77
46
12
12
6
62
38 23
9
6
3
I I -C -5

Table II -C2 (concluded).
*Score is calculated by multiplying the number of weeks each abundance category was captured by the value assigned to that abundance
category.
Assigned values for each category:
none = 0
<10 = 1
10 -50 = 2
51 -100 = 3
>100 = 4
>200 = 5
>300 = 6
I I -C -6
DCUT
11 (Up)
DCUT 11
(Down)
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011 2012 2013
2011 2012 2013
2011 2012 2013
2011 2012 2013
Penaid Shrimp
— — 0
— — 0
— — 0
— — 0
Grass Shrimp
— — 15
— — 4
— — 15
— — 2
Blue Crab
— — 0
— — 0
— — 0
— — 0
*Score is calculated by multiplying the number of weeks each abundance category was captured by the value assigned to that abundance
category.
Assigned values for each category:
none = 0
<10 = 1
10 -50 = 2
51 -100 = 3
>100 = 4
>200 = 5
>300 = 6
I I -C -6
DCUT
19 (Up)
DCUT 19
(Down)
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011 2012 2013
2011 2012 2013
2011 2012 2013
2011 2012 2013
Penaid Shrimp
— — 8
— — 1
— — 0
— — 0
Grass Shrimp
— — 38
— — 6
— — 46
— — 9
Blue Crab
— — 8
— — 1
— — 0
— — 0
*Score is calculated by multiplying the number of weeks each abundance category was captured by the value assigned to that abundance
category.
Assigned values for each category:
none = 0
<10 = 1
10 -50 = 2
51 -100 = 3
>100 = 4
>200 = 5
>300 = 6
I I -C -6

D. Question 4-
Has mining altered the use of the creek by managed fish?
Multivariate cluster analysis of managed fish species composition and abundance from
all creeks and all sampling years' also revealed six distinct groups (Figure II -D1). Fyke net
creeks /years clustered in three groups, one of which also included trawl creeks /years. Group A
comprised one creek/year, Group B comprised two creeks /years, and Group D included four of
the seven fyke creeks /years (Huddles Cut only in Group D). Group C included 73 percent of all
2011 data. Groups E and F were the most similar among the groups and contained 67 percent
of all creeks /years. Excluding 2011 which clustered in Group C, all other Jacks Creek years
(2000 -2005 and 2012 -2013; all pre -Mod Alt L years) and all other Muddy Creek years clustered
within Groups E and F.
A summary of average CPUE of the 14 managed fish species collected across the six
groups is shown in Table II -D1. Group A included only DCUT11 2013 (fyke net) and was the
least similar of all other creeks /years, with only two managed fish species. Group A was the
most dissimilar from Groups E and F driven by differences in CPUE of spot, Atlantic croaker,
Atlantic menhaden, and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (Table II -D1). Group B
included both Porter Creek 2011 and Duck Creek 2011 and was more similar to Groups C, D, E,
and F than Group A. Like Group A, Group B had few managed species; however, the three
dominants were represented (spot, Atlantic croaker, and Atlantic menhaden), although in low
numbers compared to other groups (Table II -D1). In addition to Huddles Cut 2013 and DCUT19
2013, Group C consisted of clustered 2011 sampling events with higher CPUE of dominant
managed fish species than Group B, but still relatively lower CPUE of those same dominant
managed fish species than Groups E and F (Table II -D1). Group D contained Huddles Cut
2009 through 2012, and due to a higher CPUE of spot, was the most similar to Groups E and F;
however, high CPUE of striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) made Group D distinct from others
(Table II -D1).
Excluding Huddles Cut 2013 (a post -Mod Alt L year), managed fish assemblages for all
other Huddles Cut pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years clustered in Group D; conversely,
Huddles Cut 2013 clustered with DCUT19 2013 (control) in Group C. Managed fish
assemblages for Tooley Creek pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years clustered into Groups C,
E, and F. All Tooley Creek Mod -Alt L years clustered with corresponding Jacks Creek years
(2011 -2013; all pre -Mod Alt L) and Muddy Creek years (2010 -2013; control) and with
representative years in other pre -Mod Alt L creeks and control creeks. As with Tooley Creek,
Drinkwater Creek pre- and post -Mod Alt L years clustered into the same three groups, Groups
C, E, and F, and with representative years in other pre -Mod Alt L creeks and control creeks.
Comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOISM detected no spatial
differences of significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L managed fish assemblages within
drainage basins of Huddles Cut, Tooley Creek, and Drinkwater Creek, and therefore, does not
indicate that mine activities have altered managed fish communities. There is no statistical or
ecological indication of detectable difference when the pre- and post -Mod Alt L years are
compared in the three creeks.
As the number of creeks sampled increased since 2011, capture of managed fish
species also increased. In all, 14 managed species have been captured across all Mod Alt L
sample years. The capture of managed fish species has ranged from a low of five species in
II -D -1

2005 (Jacks and Muddy only) to a high of 12 species in 2012. Huddles Cut in 2012 had the
highest number of managed species captured in an individual creek /year with nine. The most
abundant managed species captured across all creeks are spot, Atlantic croaker, and Atlantic
menhaden.
Penaid shrimp and blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) are also managed species but were
not enumerated during the creeks study from 2000 through 2010. Collection of more detailed
qualitative information on shrimp and crabs was initiated in 2011 in conjunction with fish
collections (via trawl at all creeks except Huddles Cut, DCUT11, and DCUT19 which are via
fyke nets). DCUT11 and DCUT19 were sampled in 2013 for the first time. The limited data
prevent detailed evaluation; however, penaid shrimp were most frequently captured (54 percent)
from both Jacobs Creek in 2011 and Tooley Creek in 2012 and the highest numbers of penaid
shrimp collected were from Tooley Creek in 2012. No penaid shrimp were captured in 2013
from PA2, Huddles Cut downstream fyke net, DCUT19 downstream fyke net, and both DCUT11
upstream and downstream fyke nets (Table II -C2). The frequencies at which blue crab were
captured and the numbers collected were both highest for Huddles Cut in 2012. No blue crab
were captured in 2013 from Jacks Creek, Little Creek, DCUT19 downstream fyke net, and both
DCUT11 upstream and downstream fyke nets (Table II -C2). The frequencies at which both
penaid shrimp and blue crab are captured and the numbers collected were highly variable
across all creeks with no apparent trends detected from only three years of data.
Answer: No change in managed fish use due to mining is apparent. The
multivariate cluster analysis of all creeks and all sampling years does not reveal distinct
changes in managed fish assemblages due to mine activities within drainage basins of
Huddles Cut, Tooley Creek, and /or Drinkwater Creek. Variability revealed in the
frequency and numbers of both penaid shrimp and blue crab collected makes it very
difficult to discern any mine related spatial patterns in the abundance of either species.
11 -D -2

181
WIQ
40
C
U) 60
•,
•
100
PCS Fish Collections
Group average
'f Pre -Mod Alt L
t Post -Mod Alt L
4 Control
ABC
D
I
E
F
r--------- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - --
__
r'-
m
O
0
' ' N NOO NNNNN N f7 frimmm m ' ' CI mN N
0 0 n 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
O m 0 0 0000 10 N N f'100
C r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OOH fnM
0 0 0 0 0 0
N
N
T
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W U, T U, 7. T T T N 0 T Y N N T N Y 0 T N Vi N
m 'a '0'0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N Ul T T T W (a q� 0 7. � m Of � Y
m d m
N N N N N N
N 0 fA W th O
v
3
Y y d m Y V m m— Y V u Y— 9 m U Y Q d Q
o m o o u v e c o o o fo o v o o o c c a o a
m u o m o o O m 3 p m>> u o O m >> u
Y Y V V Y Y C C V C U
u m o a v v u o o o v r o o
m m >> 3 m m_ o J o> J o 0
N N 0 N m
a v Z:5 v
a c v v v
°
o tt4ti1t4t4o 4t44� iQt444�
tot4�4� jQt4tj
= _ = 2 = °
Creek /Year
Figure II -D1. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among managed
species for all creeks and years sampled [Bray- Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and
dashed red lines represent non - significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
11 -D -3

Table II -D1. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) for managed fish species captured across six groups identified by cluster analysis performed for all PCS fish collection sampling years April, May, and June of 2000 through 2005,
and 2009 through 2013.
Common name b
Scientific name
Average CPUE a
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group F
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
0.08
0.00
0.97
0.16
0.11
0.33
American shad
Alosa sapidissima
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
0.00
2.88
0.57
0.37
42.63
5.71
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
0.00
8.00
26.27
13.94
13.82
2.50
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
Crevalle jack
Caranx hippos
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
Red drum
Sciaenops ocellatus
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.01
Southern flounder
Paralichthys lethostigma
0.00
0.04
0.14
1.12
0.32
0.32
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
0.31
8.27
48.54
94.98
179.19
86.33
Spotted seatrout
Cynoscion nebulosus
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.13
0.07
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
0.00
0.00
0.79
35.44
0.02
0.18
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
0.00
0.04
0.12
0.73
0.30
0.86
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximately 16 hour set of fyke nets or one minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) was not included due to the capture of only two individuals across all Mod Alt L sample years.
um,

E. Question 5-
Has mining increased contaminate [sic] levels within creek sediments to levels
that could impact fish or invertebrates?
Figure II -E1 illustrates metal sediment data only for the three creeks for which both pre -
and post -Mod Alt L data are available (Tooley Creek, Drinkwater Creek, and Huddles Cut).
Data are presented as pre -Mod Alt L data compared to post -Mod Alt L data for each creek. If
only one year of data was available, values represent data from that year and if multiple years of
data were available, values represent average data for the multiple years. Most sediment metal
concentrations are similar or slightly higher in pre -Mod Alt L years than in post -Mod Alt L years
(Figure II -E1); only Cr was statistically different when pre- and post- Mod Alt L sediment metal
concentrations, for all creeks combined, were compared (pre- concentration was 133 percent
higher relative to post- concentration). No other individual metal was statistically different.
Figure II -E2 illustrates differences between all creeks for which post -Mod Alt L data are
available and all control creeks combined for all years data are available; no statistical
differences were detected between post -Mod Alt L creeks and control creeks.
The following should be noted: only one creek may have served as control creek or pre -
Mod Alt L non - control creek for a given year, only four years and three creeks comprise the
post -Mod Alt L period, and many of the creeks do exhibit some variability in metals value, often
as a result of more or less sand in the samples from year to year, particularly in Huddles Cut.
The appearance of variability may also have been recently introduced with the change in
laboratory methods and procedures in 2011/2012.
For sediment metals, summary information for all creeks by category is compared
across the course of the study for six metals for which ERLs (Effects Range Low) and ERMs
(Effect Range Median) have been determined (Table II -E1). These concepts represent water
quality concentrations for specific elements or compounds below which adverse toxicological
effects rarely occur and above which adverse toxicological effects frequently occur (NOAA
1999). The ERL is generally the 10th percentile concentration and the ERM is generally set to
the 50th percentile concentration. Concentrations that occur between the ERL and ERM reflect
the "possible effects range" and concentrations below the ERL reflect the "low end of a
continuum roughly relating bulk chemistry with toxicity" (O'Conner 2004). Therefore, ERL and
ERM are not predictive of toxicity, but do indicate sediment toxicity probability values and are
guidelines that relate sediment contaminant concentration with possible toxicological outcomes
in exposed organisms, either through the sediment directly or through the aquatic environment.
Data in Table II -E1 indicate that the long term mean for all control creeks is below the
ERL for all six metals and when one standard deviation is applied to the means, the value is
slightly above the ERL for As and Cr; however, all long term values in the control creeks are
well below the ERMs. For the non - control creeks, the long term pre -Mod Alt L means are at or
below the ERLs for all metals with the exception of Cd (which is slightly above) and when one
standard deviation is applied to the means, the pre- Mod Alt L As value is slightly above the
ERL. For the non - control creeks, the long term post -Mod Alt L means are at or below the ERLs
for all metals with or without the standard deviation applied. All long term pre- and post -Mod Alt
L values are well below the ERMs, and in most cases, the ERLs.
As shown in Table II -E2, for water column metals, only three years of data have been
collected as part of this study. Figures II -E3a and II -E3b illustrate the water column metal
means across the years and compares all creeks to control and impact creeks and shows that
II -E -1

values are similar among the creek types. No statistical differences were found between water
column metals in post -Mod Alt L creeks compared to controls. Concentrations of total
recoverable Mo in an earlier study were 5 to 10 times lower than the LOQ (reporting limit/control
limit) values reported by SGS Labs for the first two years, but results for Mo were higher in 2013
in Long and Duck Creeks than the previous study. While Se results for all creeks in 2013 were
elevated compared to the two previous years, no comparison for the Se results can be drawn
with previous studies because Se concentrations were not previously determined.
Concentrations of total recoverable Zn from the earlier study were -5 to 14 times lower than the
value reported in 2013 by SGS Labs
Answer: Results show that neither sediment metals nor water column metals in
the studied creeks are likely to cause biological effects. No statistical differences 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.
II-E-2

G1
5
G1
G1
W
dA ,
i to
G1 �-
Q
L
O
_W
Q
G1
Huddles Cut Pre -Mod Alt L
Tooley Creek Pre -Mod Alt L
Drinkwater Pre -Mod Alt L
120 ,
100
80
60
40
20
r
0
Huddles Cut Post -Mod Alt L
Tooley Creek Post -Mod Alt L
Drinkwater Post -Mod Alt L
■
Ag As Cd Cr Cu M o Se Zn
I v
Al Fe
Impact Creeks (creeks with both pre- and post -Mod Alt L data)
Cr differed statistically between pre- and post -Mod Alt L, for all creeks
combined. No other metals differed statistically.
(Note that Al and Fe were reported in % and not µg /g)
Figure II -E1. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for three creeks (Drinkwater,
Tooley, and Huddles Cut. If only one year of data were available, that values represent
data from that year; if multiple years of data were available, values represent average
data for those years. If values were listed in tables as LOQ, the LOQ was used as the
data point.
II-E-3

ao
ao
G1
5
G1
E
G1
G1
ao
c�
L
Q
Post -Mod Alt L Control
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ag As Cd Cr Cu Mo Se Zn Al Fe
Metal
No statistical difference between post -Mod Alt L and control creeks metal
concentrations when all post -Mod Alt L creeks combined and all control creeks
combined across years. Note that Al and Fe were reported in %.
Figure II -E2. Differences between combined post -Mod Alt L sediment metal data for
Drinkwater, Tooley, and Huddles Cut compared to combined control creek data for the
same years (2010- 2013).
II-E-4

Water Column Metal Means All Years All Creeks
1400
1200
c 1000
0
M
c 800
a�
V
C
0
V 600
N
2 400
01-01
0 — — — M M ■ ■ — — ■ ■
AB (µg /L) As (µg /L) Cd (µg /L) Cr (µg /L) Cu (µg /L) Fe (µg /L) Mo (µg /L) Se (µg /L)
■AII creeks Control creeks ■Other creeks
Figure II -E3a. Water column metal means for all years (2011 -2013) for all creeks
by type. LOQ used as data point when value was below reporting limit/control limit.
Water Column Metal Means All Years All Creeks
(without Fe and Al)
60
50
c
0
�z 40
c
a�
30
0
V
iCra+ 20
C
10 I '
■
Ag (µg /L) As (µg /L) Cd (µg /L) Cr (µg /L) Cu (µg /L) Mo (µg /L) Se (µg /L) 2n (µg /L)
■AII creeks Control creeks ■Other creeks
Figure II -E3b. Water column metal means compared for all years (2011 -2013) by type
without Al and Fe shown. LOQ used as data point if value was below reporting
limit/control limit.
II-E-5

Table II -E1. Means and standard deviations (SD) by year for six PCS sediment metals for
which Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Medium (ERM) have been determined. The
current year is highlighted. For years with asterisks ( *), only the creek listed was sampled in the
category, therefore no SD. Categories shown include control creeks, pre -Mod Alt L
years /creeks, and post -Mod Alt L years /creeks. Only Jacks Creek was sampled for metals in
2002. As of 2013, Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut are in the post -Mod Alt L
category. Huddles Cut samples were extremely sandy 2009 -2011.
Creeks
Year
I Ag (pglg)
As (pglg)
Cd (pglg)
Cr (pglg)
Cu Wig)
Zn (pglg)
Control mean byyear and all years previous to current year ( +1 -SD)
Muddy Creek
2000*
0.08
5.1
1.10
79.5
32.5
108.0
Muddy Creek
2001*
0.13
_
7.2
1.30
85.6
26.8
98.7
Muddy Creek
2003*
0.21
_
6.4
1.20
80.0
30.3
103.0
Muddy Creek
2004*
0.15
13.6
1.30
72.3
26.5
115.0
Muddy Creek
2005*
0.12
6.3
1.30
72.0
28.0
105.0
Muddy Creek
2009'
0.15
_
6.90
1.00
86.3
27.5
120
Muddy Creek
2010*
0.18
_
6.30
0.90
73.8
28.4
113.0
5 creeks
2011
0.09 (0.04)
5.96(l.92)
0.66 (0.31)
60.36 (22.99)
15.76 (8.31)
87.56 (33.71)
5 creeks
2012
ND
5.87 (3.49)
0.58 (0.25)
35 (8.76)
11.65 (5.02)
83.58 (19.07)
6 creeks
2013
ND
1.01 (1.03)
0.11 (0.11)
5.26 (5.16)
1.99 (2.13)
26.55 (25.16)
Mean all previous years (SD)
10. 12 (0.05)
6.53 (2.74)
0.84 (0.35)
60.4 (22.6)
19.8 (9.2)
95.2(23.2)
Pre -Mod Alt L mean by year and all years previous to current year (SD)
Jacks
2000*
0.08
4.3
1.1
58.7
16.3
94.1
Jacks
2001*
0.1
_
7.9
1.6
67.5
13.6
103
Jacks
2002*
0.03
_
1 6.9
2.6
55.9
11.8
88.6
Jacks
2003*
0.16
3.5
1.3
52.8
14.6
98
Jacks
2004*
0.12
_
7.9
1.9
58.3
14.6
106
Jacks
2005*
0.1
_T 4.4
1.2
58.6
15.5
106
Huddles Cut
2009'
0.03
0.10
0.02
2.0
0.3
2.3
Tooley
2010*
0.17
7.00
1.00
66.7
13.3
97.7
5 creeks
2011
0.09 (0.02)
7.18 (0.63)
2.08 (2.75)
68.44 (9.74)
14.12 (2.01)
99.48 (8.08)
4 creeks
2012
ND
5.85 (2.58)
0.69 (0.36)
34.63 (8.86)
9.80 (3.36)
79.93 (33.98)
4 creeks
2013
0.04 (0.02)
4.51 (1.77)
0.59 (0.25)
17.59 (7.47)
8.38 (2.9)
67.73 (28.64)
Mean all previous years (SD)
0.09 (0.04)
5.96 (2.29)
1.41(l.56)
53.01 (17.8)
12.34 (4.15)
88.99 (28.59)
Post -Mod Alt L mean byyear and all years previous to current year (SD)
Huddles Cut
2010'
0.04
0.1
0.03
1.3
0.2
3.3
Huddles Cut
2011'
0.01
0.1
0.02
1.1
0.4
0.5
2 creeks
2012
ND
5.12(l.55)
1 (0.2)
40.35 (14.64)
9.96(l.9)
76.75 (45.61)
3 creeks
2013
0.052
2.17 (2.33)
0.30 (0.35)
11.07 (12.51)
3.69 (4.16)
39.99 (43.44)
Mean all previous years (SD)
0.03 (0.02)
2.61 (3.03)
0.51 (0.57) 20.78 (24.13)
5.13 (5.68)
39.33 (50.62)
ERL'
1.0
8.2
1.2
81
34
150
ERM1
3.7
_
70.0
9.6
370
270
410
ND= non detected
1 Long et al (1995)
2 detected in only one creek
(no SD)
II-E-6

Table II -E2. Water column metals values by year for each monitored creek. List begins with most
upstream creek on South Creek and proceeds downstream by creek to Hickory Point, then to Muddy
Creek, then upstream along the Pamlico River and back towards PCS. Control creeks are so designated
and the current year is highlighted. Values shown with < are LOQ (reporting limit/control limit).
Mod Alt L
WATER COLUMN impacts (pre Year '� Cd Cr Cu Fe Mo Se Zn
post) (Ng/L) (Ng/L) (Ng/L) (Ng/L) (Ng/L) (Ng/L) (Ng/L) (Ng/L)
Total Metals'
NA
0.6 1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.1
Pre mean
Jacks Creek Pre 2011
<5
1 <50
8.7
7.0
2110
<10
10.3
<20
2012
<5
<50
6.2
5.4
858
<10
61.5
<20
2013
<1.0
0.1
5.5
3.6
942
<10.0
61.1
4.3
Pre mean
NA
NA
7.5
6.2
1484
NA
35.9
NA
SD
NA
NA
1.8
1.1
900
NA
36.2
NA
i
6.0
<1000
<10
70.2
<20
Drinkwater Creek Pre 1 2011
<5
<50 6.6
7.5 1300 <10 9.9 <20
Little Creek Control 1 2011
0.32
2012
<5
7.8
1530
<10
<5
I <20
2012
�1<5
�1<50
�16.8
5.9
<1000
<10
528
<20
2013
76.6
4.7
Post mean
970
2.6
72.6
3.5
SD NA
NA
0.6 1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.1
Pre mean
NA
NA
6.3 1
6.5
NA
NA
1 39.2 1
Jacobs Creek Pre 2011 <5 <50 6.8
2012 <5 <50 6.0
2013 <1.0 0.0
Pre mean NA NA 6.4
SD NA NA 0.6
7.8
1270
<10
<5
<20
5.6 <1000 <10 68.5 <20
982 <10.0 72.8 3.9
6.7 NA NA NA NA
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Duck Creek
0.007
PA2 Control
2011 <5
2012 <5
<50 7.0 6.9
<50 6.5 5.6
1520
<1000
<10
<10
16.7 <20
58.1 <20
2013 <1.0 0.0 6.0 Aff
Mean NA NA 6.8 6.3 NA
SD NA NA 0.4 0.9 NA
Long Creek Control 2011 <5
84.0 4.4
NA
37.4
NA
NA
29.3
NA
2012 <5
<50
5.4
6.0
<1000
<10
70.2
<20
Drinkwater Creek Pre 1 2011
<5
<50 6.6
7.5 1300 <10 9.9 <20
2012 <5 <50 5.9 5.4 <1000 <10 68.5 <20
2013 <1.0
0.0
<1.0
3.6
998
4.0
72.6
4.1
Pre mean
NA
NA
6.3 1
6.5
NA
NA
1 39.2 1
NA
SD
NA
NA
0.5
1.5
NA
NA
41.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Duck Creek
0.007
0.075
0.42
1.0
Tooley Creek lPre
I
Parameter added in 2011; no pre -Mod Alt L data collected
Long Creek Control 2011 <5
<50
7.3
7.6
1560
<10
<5
<20
2012 <5
<50
5.4
6.0
<1000
<10
70.2
<20
Total Metalsb
2013
<1.0
0.0
5.3
3.6
916
4.1
76.8
4.1
_ Mean
3030°
NA
NA
6.4
6.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
SDI
Porter Creek
NA
NA
1.3
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
Duck Creek
0.007
0.075
0.42
1.0
Tooley Creek lPre
I
Parameter added in 2011; no pre -Mod Alt L data collected
0.078
Mod Alt L impact
...
2.8
Porter Creek
0.015
0.230
0.22
1.9
Post
2011
<5
<50
6.9
7.7
1730
<10
<5
<20
0.32
2012
<5
<50
5.4
6.1
<1000
<10
69.3
<20
0.50 -
2013
<1.0
0.0
5.6
3.6
932
<10.0
76.6
4.7
Post mean
NA
NA
6.2
6.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
SD
NA
NA
1.1
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Metalsb
Duck Creek
0.001
0.34
1.4
3030°
1.0
1.4
Long Creek
0.064
1.4
0.5
5300°
1.4
4.4
Porter Creek
0.072
0.81
0.5
4400°
1.9
2.2
Dissolved Metalsb
Duck Creek
0.007
0.075
0.42
1.0
0.4
Long Creek
0.032
0.078
0.26
1.4
2.8
Porter Creek
0.015
0.230
0.22
1.9
0.8
World Ocean d,e
0.002 0.068
0.32
0.12
0
11 0.16
0.38
World Riverse
- 0.010
1.0
1.5
40
0.50 -
0.60
II-E-7

Table II.E2 (concluded).
WATER COLUMN
Mod Alt L
impacts (pre
post)
Year
�
(p9 /L)
Cd
(p9 /L)
Cr
(p9 /L)
Cu
(p9 /L)
Fe
(p9 /L)
Mo
(p9 /L)
Se
(p9 /L)
Zn
(p9 /L)
Total M etalsa
Muddy Creek
Control
2011
<5
<50
7.3
7.9
1560
<10
18.5
<20
2012
<5
<50
5.2
6.1
<1000
<10
59.9
<20
2013
<1.0
0.0
5.6
3.6
915
3.3
73.2
7.6
Mean
NA
NA
6.3
7.0
NA
NA
39.2
NA
SD
NA
NA `..e..e.
1.5
1.3
NA
NA
29.3
NA
Huddles Cut IPre
Parameter added in 2011;
no pre -Mod Alt L
data collected
Mod Alt L i m act;,,,,,
p
" "`:: >:
....... .......
.............................._....-..-..-.._..-..-..-.._..-..-..-.._..-..-..-.._..-..-..-..-.._..-..-..-.._..-..-..-.._..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-.._..-..-..-.._..-..-..-.._..-..-..-.._..-..-..-..-.._
>:» > ` ` ` >::
......
>: >: » :::::::::::::
......
......
.:....
..:... .....
.......
......
.......
..-..-...._........_........_..
»:: >: >: »:
...............
Post
2011
<5
<50
5.4
7.4
1440
<10
<5
<20
2012
<5
_.
<50
5.6
......
5.7
1080
<10
54.7
<20
2013
<1.0
0.1
5.2
3.4
939
5.1
67.5
5.3
Post mean
NA
NA
5.5
6.6
1260
NA
NA
NA
SD
NA
NA
01
1.2
255
NA
NA
NA
Duck Creek
Control
2011
<5
<50
8.2
7.7
3220
<10
11.9
<20
2012
<5
<50
<5
5.3
<1000
<10
44.8
<20
2013
<1.0
<1.0
4.9
3.3
947
2.6
54.7
5.8
Mean
NA
NA
NA
6.5
NA
NA
28.4
NA
SD
NA
NA
NA
1.7
NA
NA
23.3
NA
Porter Creek
Pre
2011
<5
<50
7.4
7.3
1660
<10
11.8
<20
2012
<5
<50
5.0
5.8
<1000
<10
44.8
<20
2013
<1.0
.1
793
<10.0
66.6
Mean
NA
NA
6.2
6.6
NA
NA
r 28.3
NA
SD
NA
NA
1.7
1.1
NA
NA
23.3
NA
DCUT11
Pre
2013
<1.0
<1.0
4.3
2.6
8
3.4
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7NA
NA
NA
SD
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DCUT19
Control
2013
<1.0
<1.0
5.0
3.5
923
<10.0
64.2
5.4
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SD
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Metalsb
Duck Creek
-
0.001
0.34
1.4
3030`
1.0
-
1.4
Long Creek
-
0.064
1.4
0.5
5300`
1.4
-
4.4
Porter Creek
-
0.072
0.81
0.5
4400`
1.9
-
2.2
Dissolved Metalsb
Duck Creek
-
0.007
0.075
0.42
-
1.0
-
0.4
Long Creek
-
0.032
0.078
0.26
-
1.4
-
2.8
Porter Creek
-
0.015
0.230
0.22
-
1.9
-
0.8
World Oceans
0.002
0.068
0.32
0.12
0
11
0.16
0.38
World Rivers
-
0.010
1.0
1.5
40
0.50
-
0.60
a SGS Laboratory
d Quinby -Hunt and Turekian, 1983
b Trocine and Trefry
(1998)
a Donat and
Bruland (1995)
Calculated from values
for Fe in suspended
sediments from b
II-E-8

F. Question 6-
Has mining altered overall water quality within creeks?
Principal components (PC) analysis determined that across all years of the study, all
stations showed a similar seasonal pattern, with minor variations on this pattern evident at each
individual station due to location in the watershed. The majority of water quality stations had a
data record that extended back only a few years, to late 2011. All of these stations had no
discernible long -term trend in either PC1 or PC2 scores, indicating that no long -term trend in
water quality appears to be present. Two creeks with longer data records, Huddles Cut and
Tooley Creek, did appear to have trends present. Tooley had increasing trends in its PC scores
that were most strongly correlated to increasing salinity, a trend that has been noted in past
reports. Huddles Cut also showed trends in PC scores that were correlated to salinity, as well as
nutrient levels and chlorophyll a. Interestingly, Jacks Creek, which also has a longer data
record, did not show any significant trends in PC scores over time. The PCs consist of multiple
variables, so it is difficult to ascribe the trend to any of the variables within a particular quadrant
of a biplot. However, the spatial analysis and pre- and post -Mod Alt -L analysis indicate that the
trend observed here is primarily due to salinity, as nutrient levels in Huddles Cut have declined
over time.
Cluster analysis revealed six distinct groups of water quality stations based on similarity
or dissimilarity computed from the data matrix of all water quality variables (Figure II -F1). A
summary of all water quality conditions across the six groups is shown in Table II -F1. Note the
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) have only been collected
since 2012. Group A, B, and C were similar in that they consisted of samples taken in the latter
part (2011 -2013) of the data record at all stations (Figure II -F1). The main difference between
these three groups is that Group A is lower in salinity and depth, and has higher chlorophyll a
concentrations; Group B had the highest overall depth and salinity, and the lowest chlorophyll a
and turbidity concentrations; Group C had a similar depth to A, but had the lowest overall
salinity. Group C also had the highest nutrient, chlorophyll a, and turbidity concentrations (Table
II -F1). Group D consists of water quality stations primarily located in Jacks, Tooley, and Huddles
Cut (Figure II -F1). This group had lower salinity values, increased turbidity (compared to Groups
A, B, and C), the highest chlorophyll a concentration of any group, and high nutrient levels
(Table II -F1). Groups E and F were similar in that they consisted of mainly more recent samples
collected at the Jacks, Tooley, and Huddles Cut stations. Also present in Groups E and F are
Drinkwater water quality station 1 and Porter Creek water quality station 1 over the past 3 years
(Figure II -F1). These Groups were the shallowest locations as well as the lowest in terms of
salinity. The two groups were also characterized by high turbidity levels, low dissolved oxygen,
and intermediate nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations (Table II -F1). Overall, the cluster
analysis reveals the long -term changes in the Huddles, Tooley, and Jacks locations with the
longer data records. These locations have changed over time, as indicated by the PCA analysis,
to have higher overall salinity and reduced turbidity.
Changes in water quality conditions pre- and post -mod Alt L may be tracked at three
Creeks: Huddles Cut, Tooley Creek, and Drinkwater Creek (Figures II -F2, -F3, -F4, -F5, -F6,
and -F7). No changes between pre- and post -Mod Alt -L at Tooley Creek were found and only
salinity and chlorophyll a were different at Drinkwater Creek, where both had declined. Major
changes in Huddles Cut were observed pre- and post -Mod Alt -L. As seen in the Principal
Components Analysis, salinity (as well as Conductance and Specific Conductance) has
increased at the Huddles Cut stations (Figures II -F2 and II -F3). Several nutrient concentrations
have significantly declined: Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Orthophosphate (Figure II -F6) and
II -F -1

Total Dissolved Phosphorus (Figure II -F7). Finally, dissolved oxygen % saturation has
increased (Figure II -F4). This indicates water quality improvements at Huddles Cut in the post -
Mod Alt -L years.
Answer: Overall, the interannual variability in water quality found among the
creeks appears to be typical of estuarine creeks within the region, showing a distinct,
identifiable seasonal pattern. The examination of longer -term data revealed that most
stations do not show any long -term trends, with the exception of Tooley and Huddles
Cut. It is clear that Huddles Cut, Jacks Creek, and Tooley Creek water quality was more
variable in the past and that these stations are beginning to cluster with the control
creeks in more recent time. This indicates that stabilization of the water quality
parameters is likely to continue. Huddles Cut continues to show the most change over
time with respect to pre- and post -Mod Alt -L conditions. The increase in salinity was
discovered in the final analysis as in the PCA analysis, but declines in nutrient
concentrations and increases in dissolved oxygen indicate that Huddles Cut water
quality is improved post -Mod Alt -L. Any noted change cannot be directly attributed to
mine activities.
11 -F -2

C)
�
�
CO
�
�
�
w
�-
Cluster Dendrogram
Figure 11-F1. Aog|onneradve, hierarchical cluster analysis of each water quality station based on all water quality variables. Six distinct
clusters of water quality stations were discovered (A, B, C, D, E, F).
U-F-3
00 0000-000-0 0
Figure 11-F1. Aog|onneradve, hierarchical cluster analysis of each water quality station based on all water quality variables. Six distinct
clusters of water quality stations were discovered (A, B, C, D, E, F).
U-F-3

a
Huddles Cut
Iii, Itl
Tooley
c
Pre -Mod Alt L PoSI -Nod Alt L
Figure II -F2. Comparison of pre- Mod Alt L (three creeks- all years, all sites) and post -Mod Alt -L
salinity in three creeks. Error bars represent standard deviation.
11 -F -4

40
35
30
25
y
E
_-20
U
15
U
10
5
n
35
30
25
N
E
20
S
Ei
15
cg
10
5
n
40
35
30
25
E
20
15
U
10
5
0
Drinkwater
Huddles Cut
Pre -Mod Aft L
Post -Mod Alt L
Tooley
E 30
8
c
25
v'
U 20
V
m 15
10
5
Dnnkwater
N
E 30
m
c
25
°c
0
20
m° 15
10
5
"—IN
40
35
N
E 30
m
F 25
o'
0
V 20
N 15
10
5
0 Pre -Mod Alt L Post -Mod All L
Figure II -F3. Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L (three creeks- all years, all sites)
conductivity (m S) (left panel) and specific conductance (mS, right panel) in three creeks (all
years, all sites). Error bars represent standard deviation.
II -F -5
Huddles Cut
Tooley

Drinkwater
ov
m
rn
cv 40
x
O
°m 30
0
0
20
101 ------- =
Huddles Cut
50
in
a 40
c
d
O 30
c
d
20
Figure II -F4. Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L (three creeks- all years, all sites) dissolved
oxygen (% saturation, right panel) in three creeks (all years, all sites). Error bars represent
standard deviation.
11 -F -6
Tooley
60
TII
I
50
m
m
c 40
d
m
0
O
a
zo
to-
0-
Pre -Mod Ail I
Post -Mod Alt I
Figure II -F4. Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L (three creeks- all years, all sites) dissolved
oxygen (% saturation, right panel) in three creeks (all years, all sites). Error bars represent
standard deviation.
11 -F -6

J
W
3
W
T
O.
Q
O
L
U
Huddles Cut
2 0
0
U
Tooley
60
50
a �
mod.
s 30
t
U
20
to-
0- Pre -Mod Alt I Post -Mod Aft L
Figure II -F5. Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L (three creeks- all years, all sites)
chlorophyll a (pg L -', right panel) in three creeks (all years, all sites). Error bars represent
standard deviation.
11 -F -7

2.0
1.5
J
E
Z
G 1.0
0.5
J
E
Z
Y
O
0.0
2.0
1.5
J
E
Z
6 1.0
0.5
0.0 Pre -Mad Air
Post -Mod Alt L
Tooley
J
O)
E
m
1v
n
0
o
E
O
J
m
E
m
iO
0
o
E
O
).4 �
1.2
1.0
m
0.8
E
m
is
0.6
0
n
0
r
O
0.4
Pre -Mod Aft L
Huddles Cut
Post -Mod Aft L
Figure II -F6. Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L (three creeks- all years, all sites) dissolved
Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg L -') (left panel) and orthophosphate (mg L -', right panel) in three creeks
(all years, all sites). Error bars represent standard deviation.
II -F -8
Tooley

J
E
E
n
0
`a
0
D
m
0
J
E
E
m
m
n
0
a`
8
0
ffi
0
m
s
r
Drfnkwater
fooley
J
E
m 0.8
i6
n
0
a 0.6
°m
0
m 0.4
O
H
0.2
0.0
Pre -Mod Air I Post -Mod Alt
Figure II -F7. Comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L (three creeks- all years, all sites) TDP (mg
L -') (all years, all sites). Error bars represent standard deviation.
II -F -9

Table 11 -F1. Average of water quality parameters across the six groups identified by the cluster
analysis.
Parameter
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group F
Depth in
11.09
18.29
10.30
11.46
9.39
8.73
Temperature
18.39
17.23
16.86
16.62
14.31
16.26
(C)
Salinity
9.81
12.95
6.40
4.46
0.76
2.69
Conductivity
13.52
19.83
9.66
6.77
1.24
3.64
(MS)
Specific
15.89
23.34
11.10
7.82
1.52
4.10
Conductance
(MS)
Secchi depth
12.15
17.98
10.07
9.87
8.93
7.06
(in)
Turbidity (NTU)
5.89
2.83
9.78
18.31
34.64
24.25
Dissolved
6.31
6.97
3.99
3.92
3.83
3.38
Oxygen (mg L-
1)
Dissolved
59.74
70.89
40.54
39.48
37.87
32.79
Oxygen (%
saturation)
pH
7.04
7.39
6.67
6.81
6.64
6.71
Ammonium (mg
0.10
0.03
0.18
0.25
0.20
0.29
L -1
Nitrate (mg L-1)
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.02
DKN (mg L-1)
0.97
1.07
1.11
1.33
1.14
1.38
Particulate
0.37
0.27
0.48
0.46
0.38
0.49
Nitrogen (mg L-
1)
Orthophosphate
0.14
0.04
0.25
0.32
0.25
0.32
(m9 L -1)
Total Dissolved
0.08
0.25
0.27
0.30
0.37
Phosphate (mg
0.18
L-1)
Particulate
0.12
0.09
0.25
0.27
0.30
0.27
Phosphate (mg
L-1)
Chlorophyll a
23.20
13.53
34.33
43.24
17.44
29.03
L -1
Dissolved
14.97
12.49
17.26
15.14
21.39
24.49
Organic Carbon
(m9 L -1)
Total Dissolved
0.75
0.59
0.95
1.24
0.92
1.08
Nitrogen (mg L-
1)
II -F -10

III. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF SUMMARY RESULTS BY PARAMETER
A. SALINITY AND TAR RIVER DISCHARGE
For summary information on rainfall, other weather related events, and Tar River
discharge refer to Section I -D through I -G. All salinity monitoring locations are associated with
South Creek or the south side of the Pamlico River with the exception of Duck Creek, which is
west of the town of Bath, on the north side of the river. Appendix C contains a figure showing
Tar River discharge for 2013, a table listing the monthly and yearly average, minimum, and
maximum salinity levels recorded at each salinity monitor for 2013, as well as graphs depicting
the semi - continuous salinity and depth data from each monitor (all appendices are included only
on the CD that accompanies this report). On the appendix graphs, salinity data omitted from
analysis or missing data have been categorized as one of the following: insufficient water,
equipment malfunction, service error, or other.
1.0 Correlations with Tar River Discharge and Rainfall
Figure III -A1 shows mean daily Tar River discharge, monthly rainfall statistics,
and total annual rainfall at four long -term rain gauges over the years of the PCS creeks study
Tar River discharge in 2013 was significantly negatively correlated with salinity from 17 of 25
stations, with 10 of them receiving water directly from South Creek and therefore, indirectly from
the Pamlico River. Consequently, the correlations could be a coincidence at the salinity
monitors on creeks connected to South Creek because when noticeable increases and
decreases in discharge are compared to salinity, little to no influence is seen and those monitors
are not directly in contact with water from the Pamlico River. Rainfall was significantly
negatively correlated with salinity at six of the 17 stations that were significantly negatively
correlated with discharge plus one additional station. Rainfall appeared to influence salinity at
many of the stations (more than were significantly correlated), but usually only from large or
frequent rain events. It is noted in the following section which monitors were significantly
correlated with discharge and /or rainfall.
2.0 Interannual and Monthly Comparisons
Figures III -A2a, A2b, III -A3a, A3b, III -A4a, and A4b display salinity across the
years of the study in various groups /combinations of salinity location types (non - control vs
control) and monitoring years (pre- vs post -Mod Alt Q. These data and figures are discussed in
more detail below on a creek -by -creek basis.
Average monthly salinities in 2013 were slightly lower (less than 3 psu different) than in 2012 for
most months, but the minimum salinities decreased or increased more than 3 psu in many
months. The average for the year decreased from 2012 at 14 of the 25 stations and the rest
were within 1 psu of 2012. This is the first year in the past few years that salinity has not
increased. In 2013, most monthly average salinities were lowest late summer and early fall and
were highest from the late fall to mid - winter, which is similar to patterns in previous years.
Monitors in all creeks continue to reflect the range of values from South Creek and Pamlico
River.
a. Jacks Creek
Jacks Creek is the most upstream South Creek tributary in the study.
There are two salinity monitors located in Jacks Creek -JS2 approximately 400 feet upstream of
III -A -1

the mouth and JS1 approximately 2,600 feet (0.5 mile) upstream of the mouth at a split in the
creek channel (Figure 1 -131). Monitors were re- installed 20 July 2011 after CAMA- approved pier
construction was completed.
The two monitors typically have similar salinities over the year but JS2
salinities are often slightly higher than JS1 by 1 -2 psu. Some of the 2013 minimum, maximum,
and average salinities decreased from 2012 but the 2013 salinities were still in the higher range
of the combined previous years' monthly and annual salinities (Figures III -A2a and III -A3a).
Although rainfall was not significantly correlated with salinity at the Jacks
Creek monitors, larger or frequent rainfall events appeared to occasionally influence salinity
levels; salinity tended to be lower with larger amounts of rain. Salinity at both monitors
generally paralleled water level fluctuations and salinity was higher during periods of decreased
depths. Water levels, and consequently, salinity, at the upstream monitor fluctuated more than
the downstream monitor.
No Mod Alt L activities have occurred in the Jacks Creek drainage basin
so no pre- versus post- comparisons were made. Tar River discharge during the combined
years of 2011 -2013 was significantly lower than the combined years of 2000 -2005 (p <0.001) but
rainfall was not significantly different.
b. South Creek (SS1) (control)
The South Creek monitor is located approximately 2,600 feet (0.5 mile)
downstream from the mouth of Jacks Creek (Figure 1 -132) on the north bank of South Creek. In
2013, many of the average, maximum, and minimum values were slightly lower than 2012,
except half of the minimums increased from 2012. However, most of the 2013 data were still in
the higher or mid -range of the combined previous years' monthly salinities (Figure III -A2). As
evident in Appendix C SS1 graphs, water depth fluctuated with rain events and although not
shown on graphs, wind also affected depths at times. Both rainfall and discharge were
significantly negatively correlated with salinity at SSI in 2013 (p =0.01, 0.02, respectively).
Salinity at SS1 for the combined two post -Mod Alt L years for Tooley Creek was significantly
higher compared to the Tooley pre -Mod Alt L years (p <0.001) and also the single post -Mod Alt L
year for Drinkwater Creek was significantly higher compared to the two pre -Mod Alt L years
(p <0.001) (Figure III -A2a). Conversely, salinity at SS1 for the combined two post -Mod Alt L
years for Huddles Cut was significantly lower than the single pre -year (p <0.01).
c. Little Creek (control)
There are two salinity monitors located in Little Creek. LCS2 is
approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the mouth and LCS1 is approximately 4,800 feet (0.9
mile) upstream of the mouth (Figure 1 -133). Monitors were installed 22 June 2011 after CAMA-
approved pier construction was completed.
The downstream station, along with one of the upstream stations at
Huddles Cut, has the lowest salinities of all stations. Monthly average salinities have been
higher at the downstream location than upstream over the years and also tend to fluctuate less
(Figure III -A4a). Most of the monthly average, maximum, and minimum salinities at the
downstream location decreased from 2012 but half or less decreased at the other stations (even
fewer increased). The upper limits of salinity at both stations in 2013 were lower than the
combined years (Figure III -A2a). Salinity at both Little Creek stations appeared to decrease
with large amounts of rainfall and did not appear to respond to variations in Tar River discharge,
III -A -2

likely due to the distance separating Pamlico River and Little Creek. Possibly coincidently,
discharge and salinity at both monitors were significantly negatively correlated.
d. Jacobs Creek
There are two salinity monitors located in Jacobs Creek. JCB2 is
approximately 400 feet upstream from the mouth and JCB1 is approximately 3,360 feet (0.6
mile) upstream of the mouth (Figure 1 -134). Monitors were installed 20 July 2011 after CAMA-
approved pier construction was completed.
The two monitors have similar average monthly salinities over the three
years of data, with JCBS2 salinities usually 1 to 3 psu higher than JCBS1. The 2013 yearly
descriptive statistics (mean, upper /lower percentiles, etc.) were similar to the combined previous
years' descriptive statistics (Figure III -A2a). Salinity at the upstream station tends to fluctuate
more than the downstream station, particularly in the summers. Jacobs Creek and downstream
Drinkwater tend to have higher salinities than the other non - control creeks and are more similar
to control stations at PA2, Long Creek, and downstream Little Creek (Figure III -A2a and III -
A4a).
e. PA2 (control)
One salinity monitor is located near the middle of PA2, approximately 800
feet from the mouth. There is no downstream salinity monitor in PA2, but the downstream
salinity monitor for Drinkwater Creek is within 200 feet of the mouth of PA2 and is used for
comparison /analysis (Figure 1 -135). The monitor was installed 13 July 2011 after CAMA-
approved pier construction was completed.
The PA2 and the downstream Drinkwater Creek monitors had similar
average monthly salinities over the 2.5 years. At PA2 in 2013, most of the monthly average,
maximum, and minimum salinities, as well as the yearly average and maximum decreased from
2012. Many of the decreases in salinity tended to be associated with large amounts of rainfall
and higher salinities tended to be associated with lower water depths. Salinity at PA2 for the
single post -Mod Alt L year for Drinkwater Creek was significantly higher compared to the two
pre -Mod Alt L years (p <0.001) (Figure III -A2a). PA2 appeared to document conditions typical of
the South Creek and Pamlico River system, but with salinities in the higher ranges of values,
along with the stations at Jacobs Creek, Long Creek, and downstream Drinkwater and Little
Creeks (Figures III -A2a and III -A3a).
Drinkwater Creek
There are two salinity monitors located in Drinkwater Creek. DWS2 is
located approximately 400 feet upstream from the mouth and DWS1 is located approximately
3,520 feet (0.7 mile) upstream of the mouth (Figure 1 -136). Monitors were installed 30 June 2011
after CAMA- approved pier construction was completed.
The downstream monitor recorded higher salinities and smaller ranges of
values than the upstream monitor (Figures III -A2a and III -A2b) over the 2.5 years. The
variability in the upstream salinities could be attributed to more variable water depths and
distance from the mouth of the creek (which also influences water depth). Many of the
maximum, minimum, and average salinities decreased from 2012 or were similar, while few
increased. The graphs depicting the descriptive statistics by pre /post years and by month
shows 2013 (which is also the only post -Mod Alt L year) lower than pre -Mod Alt L years and
most months in 2013 were lower than the same month with combined pre -years (Figures III -A2a
III -A -3

and III -A3a). The salinity of the two combined pre -Mod Alt L years was significantly higher than
the salinity of the single post -Most Alt L year at both monitors (p <0.01). The salinities of the
same two years at SS1, PA2, and Little and Long Creek monitors (South Creek control
locations) were also significantly higher than the same single year (p <0.01, Figure III -A2a).
The Drinkwater Creek downstream monitor typically has higher salinities
than most other stations, especially when all data are combined into pre- and post - years. One
other non - control creek, Jacobs Creek, tends to have similar higher salinities as well, as do
Long Creek and the downstream station on Little Creek, both of which are control creeks. Large
amounts of rain coincided with lower salinities at both Drinkwater stations. Rainfall was not
significantly different between pre- and post- Mod Alt L years (Figure III -A1). Rainfall and
salinity at the downstream monitor were significantly negatively correlated with each other in
2013 (p= 0.02). Discharge was significantly higher post -Mod Alt L than pre -Mod Alt L and
significantly negatively correlated with salinity at the upstream monitor (p <0.01), but that is likely
a coincidence due to the distance from the Pamlico River.
g. Long Creek (control)
There are two salinity monitors located in Long Creek. LOCS2 is
approximately 500 feet upstream from the mouth and LOCS1 is approximately 2,000 feet (0.4
mile) upstream from the mouth (Figure I -B7). Units were installed 13 July 2011 after CAMA-
approved pier construction was completed.
The salinities at the two monitors have mostly been within one psu of
each other over the 2.5 years. Except for the monthly averages at the upstream monitor, the
monthly averages, maximums, and minimums at both stations decreased from 2012 for half or
more than half of the months. The yearly averages and maximums also decreased at both
stations while the minimums increased. Rainfall (p =0.01, 0.02) and discharge (p <0.01) were
significantly negatively correlated with salinity at both stations.
h. Tooley Creek
There are two salinity monitors located in Tooley Creek. TS2 is
approximately 250 feet upstream of the mouth and TS1 is approximately 2,300 feet (0.4 mile)
upstream of the mouth (Figure I -B8). Monitors were re- installed in 2010.
Average monthly salinities at both monitors have been very similar to
each other in past years. The average, maximum, and minimum monthly and yearly salinities at
the upstream monitor in 2013 were within 1 psu of salinities in 2012 for most months. At the
downstream monitor, most of the average and maximum monthly salinities were lower than
2012, as well as the yearly average and maximum. But salinity at both monitors remained in the
upper ranges of pre -Mod Alt L salinity and within the majority of values post -Mod Alt L (Figures
III -A2). With salinity combined into pre- and post - groups, salinity at the Tooley Creek monitors
is in the upper ranges of the other non - control creeks associated with the Pamlico River,
particularly the post -Mod Alt L and 2013 salinities (Figure III -A2a).
Salinity at the downstream monitor was significantly negatively correlated
with both discharge (p =0.02) and rainfall (p= 0.01). Tar River discharge does not appear to have
an effect on salinity in Tooley Creek and only rainfall events producing more than 2 inches have
a noticeable effect on salinity. While annual rainfall amounts vary considerably over the study
period, there is no significant difference between pre- and post -Mod Alt L rainfall for Tooley
Creek; however, river discharge was significantly lower in the pre -years than the post -years
111 -A -4

(Figure III -A1).
Post -Mod Alt L salinities at both Tooley Creek stations are significantly
higher than pre -Mod Alt L salinities (p <0.001) (Figure III -A2a). However, salinity also
significantly increased over the years at the long -term control stations (South Creek and
Pamlico River) grouped into the same pre- and post -years as Tooley Creek and at Huddles Cut.
Additionally, salinity at Jacks Creek, which has not yet been impacted by Mod Alt L and at
Muddy Creek, a control creek where only fish, sediment, and benthos data are collected, has
been increasing most years (Figures III -A2a, III -A2b, III -A5). Mod -Alt L mine activities in the
Tooley Creek drainage basin, most of which occurred in 2012, have reduced the basin to
approximately 257 acres from the pre -Mod Alt L basin size of approximately 571 acres.
i. Pamlico River (PS1) (control)
The Pamlico River station is located on the south shore of the river more
or less equidistant (approximately 1.7 miles) between the mouths of Huddles Cut and South
Creek (Figure 1 -1310).
The majority of the salinity data in 2013 was slightly lower than 2012.
Long -term monthly and 2013 salinities show a similar pattern to SS1 and the other monitored
creeks with long -term data (Figures III -A2a and III -A2b). Water depths tend to be greatest at
this station and tend to influence salinity levels (Appendix C PS1 graphs).
Salinity at PS1 was significantly negatively correlated with Tar River
discharge (p <0.01), but not with rainfall. Salinity tends to briefly decrease with large jumps in
Tar River discharge (Appendix C PS1 graphs). Rainfall does not appear to influence salinity
levels as noticeably as discharge, most likely because there is more freshwater associated with
discharge than with rainfall.
j. Huddles Cut
There are three salinity monitors located in Huddles Cut. HS3 is at the
mouth, HS1 is approximately 2,400 feet (0.5 mile) upstream of the mouth on the main prong,
and HS2 is approximately 1,800 feet (0.3 mile) upstream of the mouth on the west prong (Figure
1 -1311).
The average monthly salinities did not change much from 2012 at HS1
and HS2, but most decreased at HS3, along with the yearly salinity. The maximum monthly
salinities decreased most months at all three stations. Salinity in 2013 at all three stations was
within the higher or middle range of post -Mod Alt L values with all months combined and in most
months (Figures III -A2a and 111 -A2b). Over the course of the study, salinity at HS1 and HS2 has
been the lowest among the three creeks with long -term data as well as most of the newer
creeks (Figures III -A2a and III -A2b).
A few instances were visible where Tar River discharge spiked and
salinity decreased at HS3. Discharge was significantly negatively correlated with salinity at all
three stations but was not significantly different when comparing discharge from the Huddles
Cut pre -Mod Alt L years and post -Mod Alt L years (Figure III -A1). Rainfall was also associated
with some of the decreases in salinity, but it was not significantly negatively correlated and
rainfall was not significantly different between grouped pre- and post -Mod Alt L years (Figure III -
Ll). Wind tides have been shown to occasionally influence water levels at many of the semi -
continuous electronic wells upstream of the salinity monitors and it is also thought that the wind
tides from easterly winds occasionally influence salinity. It appears that after water levels
III -A -5

recede, watershed drainage and /or dilution results in low salinity.
Pre -Mod Alt L salinities were significantly lower than post -Mod Alt L at all
three Huddles monitors (p <0.001 at each) (Figure III -A2b). HS3 had the least amount of
difference of the three. Salinities at SS1 for the Huddles pre -Mod Alt L years were significantly
higher than the post -Mod Alt L years (p <0.001) (Figure III -A2b). Conversely, salinities at PS1
for the Huddles pre -Mod Alt L years were significantly lower than the post -Mod Alt L years (p
<0.001) (Figure III -A2b). Direct mine impacts to the Huddles Cut watershed ended in 2011 and
approximately 289 acres remain in the basin, out of approximately 552 -acre pre -Mod Alt L
basin. As previously discussed Jacks Creek and Muddy Creek have also recorded higher
salinities.
k. Duck Creek (control)
There are two salinity monitors located in Duck Creek. DKS2 is
approximately 1,500 feet (0.28 mile) upstream from the mouth and DKS1 is approximately 6,900
feet (1.3 miles) upstream from the mouth (Figure 1 -1312). Monitors were installed 26 July 2011.
Average monthly salinities have been higher at the downstream station
over the 2.5 years. In 2013, six and nine of the monthly maximums decreased from 2012. With
the averages and minimums, less than that increased or decreased, except most of the
minimums at the downstream stations increased from 2012. Duck Creek salinities are in the
lower range of salinity of all the creeks (Figure III -A2b).
Variations in discharge from the river did not seem to affect salinity at the
upstream location, but discharge might have slightly influenced salinity at the downstream
station. Most of the large peaks in discharge also corresponded to large rainfall amounts; other
rainfall events without large peaks in discharge corresponded with decreases in salinity, so
discharge and rainfall might have both influenced salinity on some occasions. Discharge was
significantly negatively correlated with salinity at the upstream monitor, which might have just
been a coincidence.
I. Porter Creek
There are two salinity monitors located in Porter Creek. PCS2 is
approximately 600 feet upstream from the mouth, at the outer edge of a broad expanse of the
creek and PCS1 is approximately 2,600 feet (0.49 mile) upstream from the mouth in the middle
of a narrow, deep channel (Figure 1 -1313). Monitors were installed 19 and 27 July 2011.
The monthly average and maximum salinities in many months were lower
than in 2012 at both monitors, along with the yearly average and maximum at the downstream
station. The upstream monitor has tended to have slightly lower salinities than the downstream
over the years. The upstream Porter station has also had one of the lowest mean and median
salinities of all stations in the study (Figures III -A2b and III -A3b). The Porter Creek monitors
tend to be more similar to Duck Creek monitors and the monitors associated with Durham
Creek.
Even though Tar River discharge and rainfall were both significantly
negatively correlated with salinity at the downstream station (p >0.01, p= 0.01), and discharge
was so at the upstream station (p >0.01), when the graphed salinity readings were analyzed,
rainfall and Tar River discharge had almost negligible influences on salinity at either station,
except large amounts of rain appeared to slightly influence lower salinities.
III -A -6

M. Durham Creek DCS1 (control), DCUT11, and DCUT19 (control)
In 2013, salinity monitors were installed in Durham Creek, approximately
13,717 feet upstream of the mouth of Durham Creek (DCS1, a control, Figure I -1314), in a
tributary to Durham Creek, DCUT11 (DC11S1, Figure I -1315), approximately 365 feet upstream
from where it drains into Durham Creek, and in a second tributary to Durham Creek, DCUT19
(DC19S1, a control, Figure I -1316), approximately 341 feet upstream from where it drains into
Durham Creek. These three monitors had similar salinities that were slightly lower than most
other creeks but were similar to Porter Creek, Huddles Cut, and upstream Little Creek monitors
(Figures III -A2b and III -A4b). Salinity at all three monitors was significantly negatively correlated
with discharge (p <0.01) but it was only significantly negatively correlated with rainfall at DCS1
(p= 0.01). Discharge did not appear to influence salinity much at either of the tributaries but did
occasionally appear to influence salinity at the monitor on Durham Creek, particularly large
discharges (Appendix C). Rain, especially large events or frequent events, corresponded with
brief decreased salinity, particularly at DC19S1. DC19S1 was more variable than the other two
Durham monitors and water levels frequently dropped below the sensor making it more difficult
to determine the effect of rainfall and discharge on salinity levels.
3.0 Summary and Conclusions
Salinities in 2013 were similar to, but slightly lower than 2012 salinities at most
monitors for most months. In 2013, most monthly average salinities were lowest late summer
and early fall and were highest from the late fall to mid - winter, which is similar to patterns in
previous years. The downstream stations typically have higher salinities than their upstream
counterpart, although sometimes the difference is less than 1 psu.
Hurricanes in the late summer and fall or large weather systems at any time of
the year, can result in high rainfall and increased river discharge, which in turn often results in
decreased salinity. For example, during 2011, Hurricane Irene resulted in record rainfall across
the area (18 inches of rain was recorded at the Huddles Cut rain gauge during this time). As is
the case with other large weather systems, this rainfall resulted in a notable salinity decrease
across almost all salinity monitoring stations. Rainfall appeared to influence salinity at many of
the stations (more than the seven that were significantly correlated), but usually only from large
or frequent rain events. Discharge might also slightly influence salinity at some monitors, but it
is not apparent as a major factor when the data are depicted graphically, even though it was
significantly negatively correlated with salinity at 17 stations.
Salinity at two creeks (Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut) with pre- and post -Mod Alt
L data was significantly higher post -Mod Alt L. However, salinity at the control stations was also
significantly higher when grouped into the same years as each of the two creeks. Salinity also
increased over the years at the two other long -term monitoring sites- Jacks Creek (not yet
impacted by Mod Alt L and therefore no pre- and post -Mod Alt L comparisons) and Muddy
Creek (control creek). Conversely, salinity at the third creek with pre -and post -Mod Alt L data
(Drinkwater Creek) was significantly lower post -Mod Alt L and salinity at the control creeks was
also significantly lower when grouped into the same years as each of the two creeks.
The Drinkwater Creek pre -Mod Alt L drainage basin was approximately 372
acres and it has now been reduced by mine activities to approximately 289 acres. The Tooley
Creek pre -Mod Alt L drainage basin was approximately 571 acres and has now been reduced to
approximately 257 acres. The Huddles Cut pre -Mod Alt L drainage basin was approximately
552 acres and has now been reduced to approximately 289 acres. Drainage basin reductions,
III -A -7

may have resulted in higher salinities due to less freshwater input, or may have combined with
other environmental factors to cause a higher increase in salinity than would have naturally
occurred. However, the fact that other creeks that have not been affected by Mod Alt L mine
activities, or any mine activities in some cases, implies a regional change, one not directly
attributable to the activities of the mine.

14000 Discharge Flow of Tar River at Greenville
(Pre- and Post -Mod Alt L ajid Yearly)
12000
10000
N
C
8000 *• • • •
6000 * • • •
o •
LL •i
4000
• it • •
2000
0
Q�e Q�e Q�e Qey Q�e Qo0 Og OSp Opp. O& Opg Opp Oy Oo ^p O ^� O ^ti Og
20
18 Jacks Creek
16
14
12
10
c
c° 8
6
4
2
0
If,
�o �o
Year
70
60
c
50
CO
c
40
c 30
c
Q
0 20
10
0
20
18
16
14
S 12
10
c
c° 8
Of
6
4
2
0
70
60
c
- 50
40
30
c
Q
B 20
0
Drinkwater Cre
•
Year
Drinkwater Creek
Jacks Pre -Mod Alt L: 2000 -2005, 2012 -2013 (no post)
Tooley Pre -Mod Alt L: 2010 -2011; Post Mod Alt L: 2012 -2013
Huddles Pre -Mod Alt L: 2009; Post Mod Alt L 2010 -2013
Dots = 5th and 95th outliers
Lower and upper whiskers = 10th and 90th percentiles
Lower and upper box edges = 25th and 75th percentiles
Solid line in boxes = median
Dotted line in boxes = mean
20
18 Tooley Creek
16
14 •
12
ZCO 10 •
c
CO
of
6
4
2 ff�T
•
0
N°'�`Loo`Lo`Lo`Lo`Lo`Loo�
Year
70
Tooley Creek
60
50
40
'12' 30
c
Q
B 20
0
10
0
20
18
16
14
12
CU 10
cu
c
8
6
4
2
0
70
60
c
50
c
40
ry
c 30
c
Q
(0 20
0
10
0
Huddles Cut
•
Coy Op Ors O"� O`LpD O�
IoCIVVVVV Io�oV�o�o�o�o QQ
Year
�p� p0 0� p`L Ong ODD O� - - ,\� �rL ,\"� �r� �cl, �Ib 0 O �, "� R h 1 0 O �, "� O �, 3 � i i '� O
�p �p �p �p �p �p �p �p �p Ncil p� p� p� p� p� p� p� p� p� p`` p`` p`` p`` ���O�O�Oz (Z �O �O �O o3 o3 03
Year Year Year Year
Figure III -A1. Tar River discharge (mean daily), monthly rainfall statistics, and total annual rainfall at four long -term rain gauges over the years of the PCS creeks study.
111 -A -9
20
18
16
14
12
10
CO c
CO 8
6
4
2
0
Porter Creek
^o �o^^ �0^0,�0 ^`3 Quo
Year
70
Por
60
c
= 50
40
=2 30
c
Q
2 20
0
10
0n n n n n n n r
VOO� VOO� VOO� VOO� VO�O VO�� VO�V VO��
Year

20
15
Q
10
M
CO
5
20
15
10
U)
a
13
I N I .- I N I I N I T_ I N
07 I o7 I o7 I o7 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 •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 ... •
I I I • I I• •• i •• I •
I I I• I I I I
i • I I i L J LJ I i I
i I I i I i I
•i I •I i I i I
I LJ
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 � I I I
I I I I I I I
Long -term Control Locations
SS1 ; PS1
i
I
•I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I•
I
I
I
I
❑ Pre -Mod Alt L ❑ Post -Mod Alt L F-12013
0
QQ o
Q bQo go Qo 5 � � p � Q � �o k' �o sQ p �o Q g o 5� go � 05 go
j e � a a ono � 6\e, of 0 o-o ago
.� /\o sa '0 00 a a
p, ip ti p
ip
/\oo paa tip
20
LCS 1
15
X10
M
CO
��lmom■■
0
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
Control Locations Established in 2011
LCS2 LOCS1 i LOCS2 PA2
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
• •I I„ I
IT
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 I I
I I I
❑ Drinkwater -Pre ❑ Drinkwater -Post ❑ 2011 -2013 ❑ 2013
•
Figure III -A2a. Salinity at monitoring locations associated primarily with South Creek. Jacks Creek (JS) pre -Mod Alt L 2000 -2005, 2011 -2013, Jacobs Creek (JCBS) pre -Mod Alt L 2011 -2013; Drinkwater Creek (DW) pre -Mod Alt L 2011 -2012,
post -Mod Alt L 2013; Tooley Creek (TS) pre -Mod Alt L 2010 -2011, post -Mod Alt L 2012 -2013. Long -term control locations include South Creek (SS) and Pamlico River (PS); more recent control locations include Little Creek (LC), Long Creek
(LOC), and PA2. All pre- to post -Mod Alt L comparisons are significantly different. (dots =5th and 95th outliers, whiskers =10th and 90th percentiles; box edges =25th and 75th percentiles, solid line in boxes= median, dotted line= mean.)
III -A -10
Q
X10
M
CO
��lmom■■
0
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
Control Locations Established in 2011
LCS2 LOCS1 i LOCS2 PA2
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
• •I I„ I
IT
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 I I
I I I
❑ Drinkwater -Pre ❑ Drinkwater -Post ❑ 2011 -2013 ❑ 2013
•
Figure III -A2a. Salinity at monitoring locations associated primarily with South Creek. Jacks Creek (JS) pre -Mod Alt L 2000 -2005, 2011 -2013, Jacobs Creek (JCBS) pre -Mod Alt L 2011 -2013; Drinkwater Creek (DW) pre -Mod Alt L 2011 -2012,
post -Mod Alt L 2013; Tooley Creek (TS) pre -Mod Alt L 2010 -2011, post -Mod Alt L 2012 -2013. Long -term control locations include South Creek (SS) and Pamlico River (PS); more recent control locations include Little Creek (LC), Long Creek
(LOC), and PA2. All pre- to post -Mod Alt L comparisons are significantly different. (dots =5th and 95th outliers, whiskers =10th and 90th percentiles; box edges =25th and 75th percentiles, solid line in boxes= median, dotted line= mean.)
III -A -10

20
15
3
Q
10
W
5
RE
20
15
Q
10
c
cc
U)
5
U
PCS1
I
PCS2 OC11 S1
I
i
i
I
• •
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
p
Q�2 2
Q�12 Q
pip p
pi0505
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
I I
I I
I I
I I
p
LUn -lef f 11 ULMIlf Ul LUCduUnS
SS1 ; PS1
I
I
I
• •I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I
I
I
I
I
I
❑ Pre -Mod Alt L
•
o \0 a \0 � 0" o �N 0\0 a a\0 � ge l Q Cl' �N
'a � I A10 \� o \�
o o
t
HS1
•
HS2
• •
2 Q
p
Q�2 2
Q�12 Q
pip p
pi0505
I
I
• I
I
•
t
HS1
•
HS2
• •
❑ Post -Mod Alt L
15
3
Q
= 10
W
5
A
HS3
712013
Other Control Locations
DKCS1 j DKCS2 i DC19S1 DCS1
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 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 I
D 2011 -2013
0 2013
Figure III -A2b. Salinity at monitoring locations associated primarily with Pamlico River. Huddles Cut (HS) pre -Mod Alt L 2009, post -Mod Alt L 2010 -2013; Porter Creek (PC) pre -Mod Alt L 2011 -2013; DCUT11 (DC11) pre -
Mod Alt L 2013. Long -term control location includes Pamlico River (PS), more recent control locations include Duck Creek (DCK) since 2011, Durham Creek (DC) and DCUT19 (DC19) since 2013. All pre- to post -Mod
Alt L comparisons are significantly different. (dots =5th and 95th outliers, whiskers =10th and 90th percentiles; box edges =25th and 75th percentiles, solid line in boxes= median, dotted line= mean.)
III -A -11
• I
I
I
I
• I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
❑ Post -Mod Alt L
15
3
Q
= 10
W
5
A
HS3
712013
Other Control Locations
DKCS1 j DKCS2 i DC19S1 DCS1
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 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 I
D 2011 -2013
0 2013
Figure III -A2b. Salinity at monitoring locations associated primarily with Pamlico River. Huddles Cut (HS) pre -Mod Alt L 2009, post -Mod Alt L 2010 -2013; Porter Creek (PC) pre -Mod Alt L 2011 -2013; DCUT11 (DC11) pre -
Mod Alt L 2013. Long -term control location includes Pamlico River (PS), more recent control locations include Duck Creek (DCK) since 2011, Durham Creek (DC) and DCUT19 (DC19) since 2013. All pre- to post -Mod
Alt L comparisons are significantly different. (dots =5th and 95th outliers, whiskers =10th and 90th percentiles; box edges =25th and 75th percentiles, solid line in boxes= median, dotted line= mean.)
III -A -11

20
18
16
14
12
N
d
w 10
N 8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12 -
U)
CL
10 -
c
U) 8-
6-
4-
2-
0-
20
18
16
14
12
U)
a
10
(n 8
6
4
2
0
Jacks Creek - JS1
Jan Feb = Mar = Apr _ May _ June July Aug Sept _ Oct Nov = Dec
•
•
0 Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (2000 -2005, July 2012 -Dec 2013) Lj 2013 Salinity
Jacobs Creek - JCBS1
Jan Feb = Mar = Apr = May June July : Aug Sept Oct _ Nov Dec
0 Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Drinkwater Creek - DW1
Jan
Feb _ Mar Apr
May _ June July _
Aug Sept Oct
Nov =
Dec
•
ze
• a
S
T� �5
lY
L *fl
� �
� �=
• •
I�rS�I
'
1
ze
ze
ze
20
18
16
14
12
U)
d
10
C 8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
U)
d
w 10
E
z
U) 8
6
4
2
n
20
18
16
14
E 12
U)
a
10
(n 8
6
4
2
0
Jacks Creek - JS2
Jan _ Feb = Mar = Apr _ May _ June : July Aug ; Sept ; Oct _ Nov = Dec
• • • _•
•
•
• _ •
•
711 F • • • _•
_•
0 Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (2000 -2005, July 2012 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Jacobs Creek - JCBS2
Jan = Feb = Mar Apr = May June July Aug Sept Oct _ Nov Dec
0 Pre -Mod Alt L Salinitv (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Drinkwater Creek - DW2
Jan = Feb =
Mar = Apr = May
June
July _
Aug Sept Oct =
Nov = Dec
• a
S
T� �5
lY
L *fl
� �
� �=
• •
I�rS�I
'
1
• •3
Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (July 2011 -Dec 2012) ❑ ❑ 2013 Salinity Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (July 2011 -Dec 2012) ❑ Post -Mod Alt L Salinity (2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Figure III -A3a. Monthly salinities at non - control salinity monitoring stations. (Dots = 5th &95th outliers, upper /lower whiskers = 90th &10th percentiles, upper /lower box edges = 75th &25th percentiles, solid line in boxes = median, dotted line= mean).
III -A -12

20
18
16
14
12
U)
a
10
(4 8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
U)
d
10
c
U) 8
6
4
2
0
Tooley Creek - TS1
Jan = Feb = Mar = Apr May June July Aug _ Sept Oct = Nov = Dec
•
•
E Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (2010 -2011)
Huddles Cut - HS1
Jan : Feb : Mar : Apr : May June = July_ Aug : Sept:: Oct : Nov : Dec
20
18
16
14
12
d
w 10
E
0
cn 8
6
4
2
0
Post -Mod Alt L Salinity (2012 -2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Huddles Cut - HS2
zo
18
16
14
12
U)
CL
10
(4 8
6
4
2
n
E Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (Jan 2009 -Dec 2009) 0 Post -Mod Alt L Salinity (2010 -2013) 112013 Salinity
20
18
16
14
12
N
w 10
N 8
6
4
2
Porter Creek - PCS1
Tooley Creek - TS2
Jan = Feb = Mar = Apr May June July Aug = Sept _ Oct = Nov = Dec
•
E Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (2010 -2011)
Jan = Feb •_ Mar = Apr May June July Aug : Sept Oct = Nov = Dec
•
_• ' ' : _ ' •
E Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (Jan 2009 -Dec 2009) 0 Post -Mod Alt L Salinity (2010 -2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Jan : Feb : Mar : Apr = May June July : Aug Sept Oct : Nov Dec
•
Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (July 2011 -Dec 2013 ❑ 2013 Salinity
20
18
16
14
12
U)
a
10
(n 8
6
4
2
20
18
16
14
12
U)
a
10
(4 8
6
4
2
0
Post -Mod Alt L Salinity (2012 -2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Huddles Cut - HS3
Jan = Feb = Mar = Apr May June July Aug : Sept : Oct Nov Dec
1 ? '
Ir Pre -Mod Alt L Salinity (Jan 2009 -Dec 2009) 0 Post -Mod Alt L Salinity (2010 -2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Porter Creek - PCS2
Jan = Feb = Mar = Apr = May June July Aug Sept Oct : Nov Dec
• • • : - - • -
0 Pre -Mod Alt L Salinitv (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Figure III -A3b. Monthly salinities at non - control salinity monitoring stations. (Dots = 5th &95th outliers, upper /lower whiskers= 90th &10th percentiles, upper /lower box edges = 75th &25th percentiles, solid line in boxes = median,
dotted line= mean).
III -A -13

20
18
16
14
12
U)
d
10
C
U) 8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
U)
LL
10
.E 75
(4 8
6
4
2
0
PA2
Jan Feb = Mar Apr May June July _ Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
0 Salinity-All Years (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
South Creek - SS1
Jan Feb = Mar = Apr = May June = July Aug Sept Oct Nov _ Dec
•
• i
•
• 1
E Salinity-All Years (Jan 2000 -June 2002, 2007 -2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
20
18
16
14
12
U)
LL
10
CU
U) 8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
U)
a
10
(A 8
6
4
2
0
Little Creek - LCS1
Jan = Feb = Mar = Apr May June : July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
•
•
0 Salinity-All Years (June 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Long Creek - LOCS1
Jan Feb = Mar =Apr May :June = July :Aug Sept Oct = Nov = Dec
•
0 Salinity-All Years (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013Salinity
•:
20
18
16
14
12
U)
LL
10
C
CU
U) 8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
U)
a
10
o
(4 8
6
4
2
0
Little Creek - LCS2
0 Salinity-All Years (June 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2012 Salinity
Long Creek - LOCS2
Jan = Feb = Mar = Apr May June July _ Aug Sept Oct _ Nov = Dec
• i • •
•
0 Salinity-All Years (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Figure III -4a. Monthly salinities at control monitoring stations. (Dots = 5th &95th outliers, upper /lower whiskers = 90th &10th percentiles, upper /lower box edges = 75th &25th percentiles, solid line in boxes = median, dotted line= mean).

20
18
16
14
12
U)
a
10
C
U) 8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
U)
d
w 10
U) 8
6
4
2
0
Duck Creek - DCKS1
Jan Feb = Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
•
iT • •
0 Salinity-All Years (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
20
18
16
14
12
U)
d
w 10
U) 8
6
4
2
0
Pamlico River - PS1
Duck Creek - DCKS2
Jan : Feb* : Mar = Apr = May June July = Aug Sept Oct _ Nov Dec
•
• •
•
•
■ Salinity -All Years (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Jan Feb Mar Apr _ May June : July Aug Sept •Oct = Nov= • Dec
•
•
• _• •
i•
• • • - 1
•
•
E Salinity -All Years (Jan 2000 -June 2002, 2007 -2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Durham Creek - DCS1
Jan = Feb = Mar = Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct = Nov = Dec
•
•
❑ 2013 Salinity
Durham Creek - DC19S1
20
Jan Feb = Mar Apr _ May June July Aug _ Sept Oct Nov =Dec
18
16
14
A.
12 • ' ' _ ' _
U)
IL
C •
6 •
•
4 •
2
❑ 2013 Salinity
Figure III -A4b. Monthly salinities at control monitoring stations. (Dots = 5th &95th outliers, upper /lower whiskers= 90th &10th percentiles, upper /lower box edges = 75th &25th percentiles, solid line in boxes = median, dotted line= mean).
III -A -15
20
18
16
14
12
U)
w
C
10
U)
8
6
4
2
0
20
18
16
14
12
U)
d
w 10
U) 8
6
4
2
0
Pamlico River - PS1
Duck Creek - DCKS2
Jan : Feb* : Mar = Apr = May June July = Aug Sept Oct _ Nov Dec
•
• •
•
•
■ Salinity -All Years (July 2011 -Dec 2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Jan Feb Mar Apr _ May June : July Aug Sept •Oct = Nov= • Dec
•
•
• _• •
i•
• • • - 1
•
•
E Salinity -All Years (Jan 2000 -June 2002, 2007 -2013) ❑ 2013 Salinity
Durham Creek - DCS1
Jan = Feb = Mar = Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct = Nov = Dec
•
•
❑ 2013 Salinity
Durham Creek - DC19S1
20
Jan Feb = Mar Apr _ May June July Aug _ Sept Oct Nov =Dec
18
16
14
A.
12 • ' ' _ ' _
U)
IL
C •
6 •
•
4 •
2
❑ 2013 Salinity
Figure III -A4b. Monthly salinities at control monitoring stations. (Dots = 5th &95th outliers, upper /lower whiskers= 90th &10th percentiles, upper /lower box edges = 75th &25th percentiles, solid line in boxes = median, dotted line= mean).
III -A -15

Muddy Creek Salinity April -June 2000 -2005, 2009 -2013
14.00
0Salinity
12.00
Linear (Salinity)
10.00
R = 0.258
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
C r N CO It L7 M C r N n
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD o 0 0 o a o a a o 0
N N N N N N N N N N N
Figure III -A5. Salinity measured during fish trawling at Muddy Creek in April, May and June of 2000 -2005 and 2009 -2013. No
monitoring occurred in 2006 for this study. A linear trend line is shown with the corresponding r2 value.
III -A -16

B. WETLAND HYDROLOGY
Section II -B contains summary information about pre- and post -Mod Alt L hydrology for
Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut as it pertains to an aspect of one of the six
questions. This section contains additional summary information about hydrology in each
monitored creek.
1.0 Jacks Creek
Years of monitoring included in this report are 2000 -2005 and 2011 -2013. No
Mod Alt L activities have occurred in the Jacks Creek drainage basin so all data are pre -Mod Alt
L. The second least amount of rainfall occurred in 2013 (tied with 2002) and six of the 14 wells
had shorter hydroperiods than 2012 while two wells had a longer wetland hydroperiod.
Wetland hydroperiods at the six wells had increased the year before, but decreased the year
before that, showing those wells and some others appear to fluctuate at least partially due to
rainfall (Figure III -131). The more upstream wells tended to have shorter wetland hydroperiods
in all years (Figure III -132).
2.0 Jacobs Creek
Monitoring of two wells in the upper reaches of Jacobs Creek has occurred since
2011 and no Mod Alt L activities have yet occurred in the drainage basin. The least amount of
rainfall in the monitoring period occurred in 2013 (Figure III -133). The wells are located within
100 feet of each other, at more or less equivalent geomorphic positions in the creek system.
One well has not had a wetland hydroperiod since monitoring began and one well has only had
a wetland hydroperiod in 2013 and it was very short (Figures III -B3, 134). To date, hydroperiods
in Jacobs Creek are the shortest among all creeks monitored for this project.
3.0 Drinkwater Creek
Monitoring of three wells in Drinkwater Creek has occurred since 2011. Pre -Mod
Alt L years include 2011 and 2012. The least amount of rainfall in the monitoring period
occurred in 2013, which followed the highest amount in 2012. One of the wells is in the middle
of the stream channel and the other two are outside of the stream channel on either side of the
creek floodplain. The wetland hydroperiod at the middle well has increased each of the three
monitoring years while the other two wells fluctuated (Figure III -133). The wetland hydroperiod at
one increased in 2012, but then in 2013 dropped back to one day short of the 2011 hydroperiod.
The other well decreased in 2012, but then increased in 2013 and was longer than the 2011
hydroperiod.
4.0 Long Creek (control)
Monitoring of the two wells in Long Creek has occurred since 2011. The rainfall
pattern was the same as at Jacobs and Drinkwater Creeks (highest in 2012, lowest in 2013),
although the amounts were slightly different. The wetland hydroperiods at both wells have
increased each of the three years of monitoring, which does not match the pattern of rainfall
(Figures III -135, R.

5.0 Tooley Creek
Years of monitoring included in this report are 2010 -2013, with 2010 -2011 as the
pre -Mod Alt L years. The least amount of rainfall for this monitoring period occurred in 2013,
which followed the highest year (Figure III -137). Wetland hydroperiods at five of the six wells
decreased in 2013. The combined post -Mod Alt L average hydroperiod was higher than the
pre -Mod Alt L average, but well within the upper range of pre -Mod Alt L data. Also, the range of
post -Mod Alt L data encompassed the pre -Mod Alt L data (Figure II -1311).
6.0 Huddles Cut
a. Main Prong
Years of monitoring included in this report are 2009 -2013, with 2009 the
only pre -Mod Alt L year. The least amount of rainfall for this time period occurred in 2013 but all
wells except one (a mid - stream well) recorded the longest wetland hydroperiod or the same
length (the entire growing season) in that year (Figure III -138). Of the 12 wells in the main prong
of Huddles Cut, 11 showed wetland hydrology for the entire growing season and one for almost
the entire growing season.
b. West Prong
Years of monitoring included in this report are 2009 -2013, with 2009 the
only pre -Mod Alt L year. The least amount of rainfall for this time period occurred in 2013
(Figure III -139). The more upstream wells tended to have shorter wetland hydroperiods than the
downstream wells. Of the eight wells on the west prong of Huddles Cut, three had wetland
hydrology for the entire growing season and after combining all wetland hydroperiods, four had
wetland hydrology 60 percent or greater of the growing season. The remaining well did not
have a wetland hydroperiod. Five of the eight wells recorded shorter wetland hydroperiods
than last year and two of them (most upstream wells) were the shortest hydroperiods since
2009. Except for at the three most upstream wells, there was a wide range of wetland
hydroperiod lengths among the four post -Mod Alt L years. The ranges of hydroperiod length at
the three most upstream wells did not overlap the 2009 values, which were higher than the post -
Mod Alt L ranges.
7.0 Duck Creek (control)
Monitoring of eight wells across three arrays and one additional well by itself in
another location began in 2011. Rainfall was considerably less in 2013 than either of the other
two monitoring years and seven of the eight wells recorded the shortest wetland hydroperiod of
the monitoring period (Figure III -1319. Last year, the eighth well was the only well to decrease
from 2011 and now this year, it is the only well to increase. For the first two years, this well had
a wetland hydroperiod much less than most other wells, including its partner in the array but in
2013 it was similar to its partner and other wells. Duck Creek wells behaved similarly to wells
at other creeks and appear to be influenced by rainfall. There does not appear to be a pattern
based on distance from the mouth of the creek (Figure III -1311).
8.0 Porter Creek
Pre -Mod Alt L wetland hydrology monitoring at Porter Creek began at six wells in
the beginning of the 2006 growing season for another PCS project and monitoring at three new
wells downstream of the existing wells began in early 2011 and continued through 2013. No
Mod Alt L activities have occurred in the drainage basin. The second lowest amount of rainfall
III -13-2

for the monitoring period occurred in 2013 but hydroperiods at six wells (the older wells)
increased from last year (Figure III -1312). Of the three newer wells that are downstream of the
older wells, two are on either side of the creek channel in the floodplain and their 2013
hydroperiods decreased from 2012. The third well is in the middle of the creek channel and its
wetland hydroperiod has lasted the entire growing season since installation. Those three wells
have been much wetter than the older wells all three years (Figure III -1313). The older wells
have always had wetland hydroperiods less than 70 days.
9.0 DCUT11
Monitoring of this tributary to Durham Creek began in 2013. No Mod Alt L
activities have occurred in its drainage basin. Porter Creek rain data are used for this creek due
to its close proximity to that rain gauge. The eight wells are in three different arrays along the
creek and exhibited a wide range of hydroperiods. Two of the wells did not record a wetland
hydroperiod and one well had a continuous wetland hydroperiod for 100 percent of the growing
season.
10.0 DCUT19 (control)
Monitoring of this tributary to Durham Creek began in 2013. All six wells
recorded wetland hydroperiods and they were similar to the other creeks in the study. They
ranged from 25 to 87 percent of the growing season.

250
-
JW1
+
JW2A
'
JW2B
N
0
JW3
m
200
v
JW4
it
JWSA
0
x
JWSB
`m
150
o
JW6
0
❑
JW7A
T
•
JW7B
=
III
JW8
ro
100
O
JW9A
0)
X
JW9B
0
®
JW10
50
D Total annual rainfall
0
Jacks Creek
100
80
c
m
60 c
m
c
40 Q
m
0
20
0
Year
Figure III -B1. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Jacks Creek by year with total annual rainfall
for each year.
250
co 200
0
�L
C) 150
0
L
2
100
N
c
0
J
50
0
Monitoring Well
Jacks Creek
Figure III -132. Longest combined hydroperiod across all years for each well in Jacks Creek
relative to location in creek system.

Jacobs and Drinkwater Creeks
250
T 200
- JCBW1A
-Co
+ JCBW1 B
i
DWW1A
m
DWW1B
150
v DWW1C
J
D Total annual
a
o
rainfall
a3
0 100
Q
0
'00
T
a
2
=
50
0
Jacobs and Drinkwater Creeks
100
80
c
60 c
CU
Of
40 Q
20
0
CU
0
F
2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -133. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs Creek and Drinkwater Creek by year
and total annual rainfall.
Jacobs Creek
280
260
240
D
i
200
�
v
v
v
0
t
160
100
80
c
60 c
CU
Of
40 Q
20
0
CU
0
F
2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -133. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs Creek and Drinkwater Creek by year
and total annual rainfall.
Jacobs Creek
Monitoring Well
Figure III -B4. Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs Creek across all years.
Long Creek
280
240
T
200
a
0
a 160
a
0
'00
1 120
2
a�
80
0
J
40
0
LOCW113 LOCW2B
Monitoring Well
Figure III -B5. Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Long Creek across all years.
280
260
240
N
220
200
�
0
180
0
160
Q
0
140
a
=
120
100
0
80
0
60
40
20
0
Monitoring Well
Figure III -B4. Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Jacobs Creek across all years.
Long Creek
280
240
T
200
a
0
a 160
a
0
'00
1 120
2
a�
80
0
J
40
0
LOCW113 LOCW2B
Monitoring Well
Figure III -B5. Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Long Creek across all years.

Long Creek
250
x
200
O
200
o
O LOCW1 B 0)
X TW2
X LOCW2B Q2
150
J
g
D Total annual o
O TW4
rainfall —
150
it TW5
O
0
100
T
2
50
=
0
Long Creek
100
80
c
60
CO
CO
40 c
Q
20
0
m
0
H
2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -136. Longest hydroperiod for each well by year in Long Creek and total annual rainfall.
Tooley Creek
x
O
200
o
X TW2
x
x
g
100
80
c
60
CO
CO
40 c
Q
20
0
m
0
H
2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -136. Longest hydroperiod for each well by year in Long Creek and total annual rainfall.
Tooley Creek
100
80
C
m
60 c
CO
m
c
40 Q
m
0
H
20
0
2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -137. Longest hydroperiod for each well by year in Tooley Creek and total annual
rainfall.
LUU
200
+ TW1
X TW2
0 TW3
g
O TW4
Q
150
it TW5
O
x
❑ TW6
0 Total annual rainfall
=
100
N
C
O
O
J
50
0
100
80
C
m
60 c
CO
m
c
40 Q
m
0
H
20
0
2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -137. Longest hydroperiod for each well by year in Tooley Creek and total annual
rainfall.
D
x
x
100
80
C
m
60 c
CO
m
c
40 Q
m
0
H
20
0
2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -137. Longest hydroperiod for each well by year in Tooley Creek and total annual
rainfall.

Huddles Main Prong
100
80
60
40 Q
m
0
H
20
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -138. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut Main Prong by year and total
annual rainfall.
Huddles Cut West Prong
250
•
HMW1
T
+
HMW2
200
HMW3
p
HMW4
it
HMW5
0
o
HMW6
Q
150
❑
HMW7
0
®
HMW8
O
HMW9
=
®
HMW10
�
100
HMW11
0)
x
HMW12
0
0
J
J
50
0 Total annual rainfall
50
0
100
80
60
40 Q
m
0
H
20
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -138. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut Main Prong by year and total
annual rainfall.
Huddles Cut West Prong
100
80
c
60
c
40 Q
0
20
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -139. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut West Prong by year and total
annual rainfall.
250
o
HWW2
T
v
HWW3
200
HWW4
0
HWW5
0
�L
❑
HWW6
a
150
®
HWW7
0
O
HWW8
®
HWW9
=
0
C
Total annual rainfall 0
100
c
0
J
50
0
100
80
c
60
c
40 Q
0
20
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -139. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Huddles Cut West Prong by year and total
annual rainfall.

250
+ DKCW1 B
�I
X DKCW2A
m
200
A DKCW2B
❑
O DCKW3A
o
4
it DKCW3B
`m
150
❑ DKCW4A
0-
0
0 DKCW4B
- DKCW4C
2
0 Total annual rainfall'(
100
0)
c
0
J
50
0
Duck Creek
100
80
c
m
60 c
CO
CO
40 Q
m
0
20
0
2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -1310. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek by year and total annual
rainfall.
280
240
200
O
160
Q
O
L
120
N
80
O
J
40
0
Duck Creek
UPSTREAM
1
pG��p6pG��DG3P3 pG��2POG�q20 OG� 10
Monitoring Well
Figure III -1311. Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek across all years
relative to location in creek system.
�I
❑
�
4
+
S
100
80
c
m
60 c
CO
CO
40 Q
m
0
20
0
2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -1310. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek by year and total annual
rainfall.
280
240
200
O
160
Q
O
L
120
N
80
O
J
40
0
Duck Creek
UPSTREAM
1
pG��p6pG��DG3P3 pG��2POG�q20 OG� 10
Monitoring Well
Figure III -1311. Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Duck Creek across all years
relative to location in creek system.

Porter Creek
250
-
PC9A
200
+
PC9B
C
CO
PC9C
4
PC4
v
PC5
ro
150
it
PC6
®
PC1
0
-
PC2
+
PC3
0
100
D
Total annual t
rainfall
=
50
0
Porter Creek
100
80
c
m
60
CO
c
40 Q
20
0
CO
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -1312. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Porter Creek by year and total annual
rainfall.
250
200
0
Q 150
0
2
100
0
C
0
J
50
0
PC9A PC9B PC9C PC4 PC5 PC6 PC1 PC2 PC3
Monitoring Well
Figure III -1313. Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Porter Creek across all years
relative to location in creek system.
Porter Creek
uu�p
100
80
c
m
60
CO
c
40 Q
20
0
CO
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure III -1312. Longest hydroperiod for each well in Porter Creek by year and total annual
rainfall.
250
200
0
Q 150
0
2
100
0
C
0
J
50
0
PC9A PC9B PC9C PC4 PC5 PC6 PC1 PC2 PC3
Monitoring Well
Figure III -1313. Longest combined hydroperiod for each well in Porter Creek across all years
relative to location in creek system.
Porter Creek

C. WATER QUALITY
(Section III. C. was prepared by Dr. David G. Kimmel, a faculty member of East Carolina
University (ECU)).
1.0 History
Water quality monitoring sites on three creek systems were initially established at
the beginning of the creeks monitoring in 1998 as follows: (1) two locations in Jacks Creek, (2)
three locations on Tooley Creek, and (3) four locations on Huddles Cut (Figures 1 -131, 1 -138, and
I -B11). These stations were monitored in accordance with the 1998 plan and continued under
the final 2011 plan as outlined in Table I -A1. By December 2011, two stations each in six
additional creeks (three control creeks and three creeks to be impacted) had been added such
that ten creeks designated for water quality monitoring were part of the regular program (no
water quality samples have ever been collected in Muddy Creek). Once the salinity locations
were established, collection /submission of water quality samples was gradual in order for the
ECU laboratory to ramp up their analysis and throughput.
Water quality stations at two locations were added in the following creeks in
2011: Little Creek- LCWQ1 and LCWQ2, one at each of the salinity stations (Figure 1 -133);
Jacobs Creek- JCBWQ1 near the upstream salinity station and JCBWQ2 near the old railroad
trestle (Figure 1 -134); Project Area 2 (PA2) - PA2WQ1 at the upstream end of the main channel
and PA2WQ2 at the midstream salinity station (Figure 1 -135); Drinkwater Creek- DWWQ1 at the
upstream well array and DWWQ2 near the upstream salinity station (Figure 1 -136); Long Creek -
LOCWQ1 and LOCWQ2, one at each of the salinity stations (Figure 1 -137); Duck Creek -
DKCWQ1 at the upstream salinity monitor and DKCWQ2 at the downstream salinity monitor
(Figure 1 -1312); and Porter Creek- one downstream of the most upstream well array (PCWQ1)
and PCWQ2 at the upstream salinity station (Figure 1 -1314). With the addition of two stations in
2013 on two small unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Durham Creek (DC11WQ1 and DC19WQ1,
Figures 1 -1315 and 1 -1316), all water quality stations designated in the study plan are in place.
The headwaters of the Durham Creek tributary DCUT11 will be impacted by the mine
continuation and DCUT19 serves as the control.
2.0 Description of Analysis Techniques
In order to reduce the amount of information presented in both graphical and
table format in this section, the multivariate analysis approach was continued, with some
modifications. The most significant change in this year's report was the addition of data from all
years that have been sampled. In prior reports, data were summarized in up to five standard
graphical formats. For this report, the data were divided into three distinct subsections: temporal
variability for all water quality stations analyzed separately across all years, spatial variability for
all water quality stations across all years, and temporal variability across pre -Mod Alt L and
post -Mod Alt L years at Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut.
Temporal variability at water quality stations across years was analyzed by
employing a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to recombine all water quality variables into
principal components that capture the intercorrelation between variables over time. PCA has
two primary uses: 1) to describe interrelationships between a matrix of intercorrelated variables
and 2) data reduction, i.e. to reduce a large matrix of intercorrelated variables into linear
recombinations of the original variables. PCA plots all original variables in multidimensional
III -C -1

space (one dimension for each variable), and then fits a regression line through the multiple
dimensions. The principle of least squares is used to fit the regression line and the resulting
variance explained is recombined into a principal component. This principal component (PC) is
a combination of the original variables and explains a fraction of the total variables. This
procedure is repeated, i.e. a new regression line is fitted to the remaining data, and a new
principal component is calculated and generated, until all variability is explained. The PCs
themselves are uncorrelated to each other and therefore may be used in further modeling
without violation of regression assumptions. The PCs can be related to the original variables by
examining the loadings on to each PC and these values represent the degree of correlation of
each original variable to the new PC. In order to examine how the PCs are related to one
another, a biplot is often generated that shows how the original variables are related to the first
two PCs. The final result of PCA is a set of PC values that represent new variables, made from
the original variables, but fewer in number and uncorrelated to each other. Plotting the PC
scores over the course of the years shows the temporal variability of multiple variables, without
the need to generate numerous plots. A PCA analysis was run for each water quality station and
the biplot, loadings, and PC time - series are presented.
Spatial variability among stations across all years was analyzed by comparing
the mean water quality parameters of each water quality monitoring station using a cluster
analysis approach. The approach groups water quality monitoring stations with similar
conditions together, demonstrating the relationship between each station. The benefit of doing
this over using multiple years is to demonstrate how relationships between stations may change
over time. Water quality conditions for each group of stations were then summarized
graphically. Briefly, cluster analysis is a multivariate technique that analyzes similarity or
dissimilarity computed from a data matrix. For example, a single water quality monitoring station
may be characterized by multiple water quality measurements. Thus, one might ask: how similar
are two water quality stations from two different creeks based on all of the water quality
measurements? While it is straightforward to compare salinity values between the two creeks,
the addition of more parameters makes the comparison difficult. In order to accomplish this
comparison the data matrix of water quality values have been grouped by station and a
dissimilarity matrix was calculated. This is done by plotting the water quality values for each
parameter in multivariate space. Instead of fitting a regression line, as with PCA, the Euclidean
distance is calculated between the water quality values for each station. Values that are close to
each other in space have low dissimilarity and values that are for apart in space have high
dissimilarity. Once the dissimilarity matrix has been computed, the dissimilarity values for each
station may be clustered and displayed using a denodrogram (tree diagram). Height is typically
used as the y -axis for such a graph and the higher the height of a branch split, the more
dissimilar the stations that follow such a split.
Finally, the interannual variability in water quality variables at Drinkwater Creek,
Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut allows the comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L conditions.
Pre- and post -mod Alt -L conditions were compared using a one -way ANOVA and t scores and
p- values are presented. Differences were considered significant if p- values were < 0.05.
3.0 Results
Twenty water quality parameters were analyzed for most creeks; however, since
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) has only been collected for the past two years, this one
parameter was not included in the analyses for the three creeks with the long -term data sets,
Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. Location of water quality sample stations are
shown in Figures I -131, I -133 through I -138, and I -1311 through I -1316. Years of water quality data
III -C -2

in the 2013 temporal and spatial analysis varied from creek to creek and included the following:
Jacks Creek 1999 -2005 and 2011 -2013; Jacobs Creek, PA2, Drinkwater Creek, Little Creek,
Long Creek, Duck Creek, and Porter Creek 2011 -2013; Tooley Creek 1999 -2002 and 2010-
2013; Huddles Cut 1999 -2002 and 2007 -2013; DCUT11 and DCUT19 2013 only. For Jacks
Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut all years of available data were included for the temporal
and spatial analysis for the 2013 report in order to note past trends or past variability which may
have stabilized. This level of analysis was only done for the water quality data; water quality
analysis in subsequent creeks reports will likely match the same years used for the other
parameters.
Only three creeks are considered post -Mod Alt L: Tooley Creek post -Mod Alt L
years = 2012 -2013, Drinkwater Creek post -Mod Alt L years = 2013, and Huddles Cut post -Mod
Alt L years = 2010 -2013. For more details on multivariate analysis methods and interpretation
please refer to the water quality section of Appendix A.
a. Temporal variability of creeks across all years
Principal Components Analysis revealed significant interrelationships
between all water quality variables and also showed the seasonal variability. The biplots of the
visual relationship between the variables are shown in Figures III -C1 — III -C49. Variables with
arrows pointing in the same direction are positively correlated with each other, variables with
arrows pointing the opposite direction are negatively correlated with each other, and variables at
right angles with each other are not correlated. Each quadrant shows the prevailing conditions
when PC1 and PC2 are positive or negative. Note that some of the biplots are asymmetrical.
This is because, in some cases, one PC shows a stronger relationship to the original variables
resulting in one PC having higher maximum values. When graphed, this results in asymmetry of
the biplot, which can be observed for some stations. The relationships between the principal
components and individual variables can be seen for each water quality station in Tables III -C1
through III -C25. A separate PCA analysis was run for each station across all years and the
results are outlined below.
i. Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ1
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C1). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C1). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C1. The general seasonal trend is both PC1 and
PC2 are negative in the winter indicating a peak in dissolved oxygen; during spring, PC1 tends
to remain negative, while PC2 becomes positive indicating increases in phosphorus levels,
depth and pH; during summer, both PC1 and PC2 become positive, indicating peaks in
temperature, turbidity, nitrogen and chlorophyll; finally, PC1 remains positive and PC2 becomes
negative during fall, indicating the peak in salinity (Figures III -C1 and III -C2). There appears to
be no long -term trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating that Jacks Creek water quality station
JWQ1 has experienced no long -term changes in seasonal variability, though there is a gap in
the data record (2006- 2011).
ii. Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ2
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
111 -C -3

variables (Figure III -C3). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C3). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C2. The general seasonal trend is both PC1 and
PC2 are positive in the winter indicating peak in dissolved oxygen and pH; during spring, PC1
tends to become negative, while PC2 remains positive indicating increases in particulate
phosphorus and turbidity; during summer, both PC1 and PC2 become negative, indicating
peaks in temperature, nitrogen, phosphorus, and depth; finally, PC1 becomes positive and PC2
remains negative during fall, indicating the peak in salinity (Figures III -C3 and III -C4). There
appears to be no long -term trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating that Jacks Creek water quality
station JWQ2 has experienced no long -term changes in seasonal variability, though there is a
gap in the data record (2006- 2011).
iii. Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ1
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -05). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -05). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C3. The general seasonal trend is both PC1 and
PC2 are negative in the winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen and salinity; during spring,
PC1 remains negative, while PC2 becomes positive indicating increases in nitrogen and
chlorophyll; during summer, both PC1 and PC2 become positive, indicating peaks in
temperature, nitrogen, phosphorus, turbidity, and DOC; finally, PC1 remains positive and PC2
becomes negative during fall, indicating a return to winter conditions (Figures III -05 and III -C6).
There appears to be no trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating that Jacobs Creek water quality
station JCBWQ1 has experienced no changes in seasonal variability.
iv. Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ2
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C7). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C7). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C4. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is negative
and PC2 is positive in the winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen and pH; during spring,
both PC1 and PC2 become positive indicating increases in nitrogen, turbidity, and DOC; during
summer, PC1 is positive and PC2 is negative, indicating peaks in temperature and phosphorus;
finally, PC1 begins to decline and PC2 begins to increase during fall, indicating the peak in
salinity and conductivity (Figures III -C7 and III-C8). There appears to be no trend in either PC1
or PC2, indicating that Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ2 has experienced no
changes in seasonal variability.
v. PA2 water quality station PA2WQ1
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C9). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C9). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -05. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is negative
and PC2 is positive in the winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen, pH, and salinity; during
spring, both PC1 and PC2 become positive and PC1 tends to dominate in the summer
indicating peaks in nitrogen, DOC, phosphorus, temperature, turbidity, and chlorophyll a; finally,
111 -C -4

PC1 begins to decline PC2 begins to increase during fall, indicating a return to winter conditions
(Figures III -C9 and III -C10). There appears to be no trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating that
PA2 water quality station PA2WQ1 has experienced no changes in seasonal variability.
A. PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C11). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C11). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C6. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is negative
and PC2 is positive in the winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen; during spring, PC1
begins to increase, peaking in summer, while PC2 is positive in spring and negative in summer
indicating peaks in nitrogen, DOC, phosphorus, temperature, turbidity, and chlorophyll a; finally,
PC1 begins to decline and PC2 is negative during fall, indicating a return to winter conditions
(Figures III -C11 and III -C12). There appears to be no trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating that
PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2 has experienced no changes in seasonal variability.
vii. Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ1
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C13). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C13). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C7. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is negative
and PC2 is positive in the winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen and Secchi depth; during
spring, PC1 begins to increase, peaking in summer, while PC2 declines during summer
indicating peaks in nitrogen, DOC, phosphorus, temperature, turbidity, and chlorophyll a; finally,
both PC1 and PC2 begin to decline during fall, indicating a peak in salinity (Figures III -C13 and
III -C14). There appears to be no trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating that Drinkwater Creek
water quality station DWWQ1 has experienced no changes in seasonal variability.
viii. Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ2
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C15). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C15). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C8. The general seasonal trend is PC1 and PC2
are both negative in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen; during spring, PC1 becomes
positive and PC2 remains negative indicating a peak in DOC; in summer, both PC1 and PC2
become positive indicating peaks in nitrogen, phosphorus, temperature, turbidity, and
chlorophyll a; finally, PC1 begins to decline and PC2 remains positive during fall, indicating a
peak in salinity and pH (Figures III -C15 and III -C16). There appears to be no trend in either PC1
or PC2, indicating that Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ2 has experienced no
changes in seasonal variability.
ix. Little Creek water quality station LCWQ1
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C17). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C17). The relationships between the principal components and
III -C -5

individual variables can be seen in Table III -C9. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is positive
and PC2 is negative in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen; during spring, both PC1 and
PC2 are positive indicating peaks in nitrogen and turbidity; in summer, PC1 becomes negative
and PC2 remains positive indicating peaks in phosphorus, temperature, and chlorophyll a;
finally, both PC1 and PC2 decline during fall, indicating a peak in salinity, pH, and Secchi depth
(Figures III -C17 and III -C18). There appears to be no long -term trend in either PC1 or PC2,
indicating that Little Creek water quality station LCWQ1 has experienced no long -term changes
in seasonal variability.
x. Little Creek water quality station LCWQ2
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C19). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C19). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C10. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is negative
and PC2 is positive in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen; during spring, PC1 begins to
increase peaking in summer and PC2 begins to decline reaching its lowest value during
summer. This indicates a transition to peaks in nitrogen, turbidity, Secchi depth, phosphorus,
and temperature; finally, PC1 and PC2 are negative during fall indicating peaks in salinity and
pH (Figures III -C19 and III -C20). There appears to be no trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating
that Little Creek water quality station LCWQ2 has experienced no changes in seasonal
variability.
xi. Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ1
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C21). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to
follow a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C21). The relationships between the principal components
and individual variables can be seen in Table III -C11. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is
negative and PC1 is positive in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen; during spring, both
PC1 and PC2 become positive indicating peaks in nutrients and Secchi depth; in summer, PC1
remains positive and PC2 becomes negative indicating peaks in temperature, chlorophyll a, and
turbidity; finally, both PC1 and PC2 become negative during fall, indicating peaks in salinity and
pH (Figures III -C21 and III -C22). There appears to be no trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating
that Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ1 has experienced no changes in seasonal
variability.
xii. Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ2
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C23). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to
follow a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C23). The relationships between the principal components
and individual variables can be seen in Table III -C12. The general seasonal trend is dominated
by PC1, with little overall change in PC2 over time. PC1 is negative during the winter /fall period
indicating peaks in salinity, dissolved oxygen and DOC; during spring /summer, PC1 becomes
positive indicating peaks in nutrients, temperature, Secchi depth, turbidity, and chlorophyll a
(Figures III -C23 and III -C24). There appears to be no trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating that
Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ2 has experienced no changes in seasonal variability.
111 -C -6

xiii. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ1
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C25). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C25). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C13. The general seasonal trend is both PC1 and
PC2 are negative in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen and Secchi depth; during
spring, PC1 remains negative and PC2 becomes positive indicating a peak in turbidity; in
summer, both PC1 and PC2 become positive indicating peaks in temperature, chlorophyll a,
nutrients, and pH; finally, PC1 remains positive and PC2 becomes negative during fall,
indicating a peak in salinity (Figures III -C25 and III -C26). There appears to be a slight upward
trend in PC1 and a slight downward trend in PC2 over time at Tooley Creek water quality station
TWQ1. These trends are most strongly correlated to a long -term increase in salinity at this
location.
xiv. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ2
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C27). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C27). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C14. The general seasonal trend is both PC1 and
PC2 are negative in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen (% saturation); during spring,
PC1 remains negative and PC2 becomes positive indicating a peak in turbidity, Secchi depth,
and pH; in summer, both PC1 and PC2 become positive indicating peaks in temperature,
nutrients, and chlorophyll a; finally, PC1 remains positive and PC2 becomes negative during fall,
indicating a peak in salinity (Figures III -C27 and III -C28). There appears to be a slight upward
trend in PC1 and a slight downward trend in PC2 over time at Tooley Creek water quality station
TWQ2. These trends are most strongly correlated to a long -term increase in salinity at this
location.
xv. Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ3
A biplot of all data shows the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C29). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to
follow a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C29). The relationships between the principal components
and individual variables can be seen in Table III -C15. The general seasonal trend is both PC1
and PC2 are negative in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen and pH; during spring, PC1
becomes positive and PC2 remains negative indicating a peak in nitrogen and turbidity; in
summer, both PC1 and PC2 become positive indicating peaks in temperature, phosphorus, and
chlorophyll a; finally, PC1 remains positive and PC2 becomes negative during fall, indicating a
peak in salinity (Figures III -C29 and III -C30). There appears to be a slight downward trend in
PC1 and a slight upward trend in PC2 over time at Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ3.
These trends are most strongly correlated to a long -term increase in salinity at this location.
xvi. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ1
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C31). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C31). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C16. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is negative
111 -C -7

and PC2 is positive in winter indicating peaks salinity and Secchi depth; during spring, both PC1
and PC2 become positive indicating peaks in salinity, chlorophyll a and nutrients; in summer,
PC1 peaks and PC2 becomes negative indicating peaks in temperature, phosphorus, and
chlorophyll a; finally, PC1 and PC2 are negative during fall, indicating a return to winter
conditions (Figures III -C31 and III -C32). There appears to be a slight upward trend in PC1 and
no long -term trend in PC2 at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ1. This trend is correlated
to nutrients, chlorophyll a, and temperature (Figure III -C31). Another notable trend is the decline
in intra - annual variability observed over time (Figure III -C32), where the PC scores showed a
greater range in values earlier in the data record.
xvii. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ2
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C33). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C33). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C17. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is positive
and PC2 is negative in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen and pH; during spring, both
PC1 and PC2 become negative indicating a peak in Secchi depth and phosphorus; in summer,
PC1 remains negative and PC2 becomes positive indicating peaks in temperature, nitrogen,
and turbidity; finally, PC1 begins to increase and PC2 declines during fall, indicating a peak in
salinity (Figures III -C33 and III -C34). There appears to be a slight upward trend in both PC1 and
PC2 at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ2. These trends are most strongly correlated to
an increase in salinity (Figure III -C33).
xviii. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ3
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C35). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C35). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C18. The general seasonal trend is PC1 and PC2
are negative in winter indicating a peak in Secchi depth; during spring, PC1 remains negative
while PC2 begins to increase indicating a peak in turbidity and phosphorus; in summer, PC1
and PC2 become positive indicating peaks in temperature, nitrogen, and chlorophyll a; finally,
PC1 remains positive and PC2 becomes negative during fall, indicating a peak in salinity and
dissolved oxygen (Figures III -C35 and III -C36). There appears to be a slight upward trend in
PC1 and no long -term trend in PC2 at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ3. This trend is
correlated to nutrients, chlorophyll a, temperature, and salinity (Figure III -C35).
xix. Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ4
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C37). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C37). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C19. The general seasonal trend appears to be
dominated by PC1, with less variability in PC2 present (Figure III -C38). During the winter /spring
period PC1 is negative, indicating peaks in Secchi depth and dissolved oxygen. During the
summer /fall period, PC1 becomes positive indicating peaks in nutrients, turbidity, temperature,
chlorophyll a, and salinity (Figures III -C37 and III -C38). There appears to be a slight downward
trend in PC2 and no long -term trend in PC1 at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ4. This
111 -C -8

trend is correlated to salinity (Figure III -C37).
xx. Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ1
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C39). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C39). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C20. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is negative
and PC2 is positive in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen and nitrate; during spring,
both PC1 and PC2 become positive indicating a peak in nitrogen and turbidity; in summer, PC1
remains positive and PC2 becomes negative indicating peaks in temperature, phosphorus,
chlorophyll a, and DOC; finally, PC1 and PC2 become negative during fall, indicating a peak in
Secchi depth and dissolved oxygen (Figures III -C39 and III -C40). There appears to be no trend
in either PC1 or PC2, indicating that Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ1 has experienced
no changes in seasonal variability.
xxi. Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ2
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C41). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C41). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C21. The general seasonal trend is PC1 and PC2
are negative in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen; during spring, PC1 remains
negative and PC2 becomes positive indicating a peak in turbidity and DOC; in summer, PC1
and PC2 become positive indicating peaks in temperature, phosphorus, and nitrogen; finally,
PC1 remains positive and PC2 becomes negative during fall, indicating a peak in chlorophyll a,
Secchi depth, and salinity (Figures III -C41 and III -C42). There appears to be no trend in either
PC1 or PC2, indicating that Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ2 has experienced no
changes in seasonal variability.
xxii. Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ1
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C43). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C43). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C22. The general seasonal trend is PC1 is negative
and PC2 is positive in winter indicating peaks in dissolved oxygen; during spring, both PC1 and
PC2 become positive indicating a peak in DOC, turbidity, and nutrients; in summer, PC1 is
positive and PC2 is negative indicating peaks in temperature, chlorophyll a, pH, and Secchi
depth; finally, both PC1 and PC2 become negative in the fall, indicating a peak in salinity and
pH (Figures III -C43 and III -C44). There appears to be no trend in either PC1 or PC2, indicating
that Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ1 has experienced no changes in seasonal
variability.
xxiii. Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ2
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C45). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C45). The relationships between the principal components and
III -C -9

individual variables can be seen in Table III -C23. The general seasonal trend is both PC1 and
PC2 are negative in winter indicating a peak in dissolved oxygen; during spring, PC1 becomes
positive and PC2 remains negative indicating a peak in turbidity and nitrogen; in summer, both
PC1 and PC2 become positive indicating peaks in temperature, chlorophyll a, phosphorus, and
Secchi depth; finally, PC1 becomes negative and PC2 becomes positive in the fall, indicating a
peak in salinity and pH (Figures III -C45 and III -C46). There appears to be no trend in either PC1
or PC2, indicating that Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ2 has experienced no changes
in seasonal variability.
xxiv. DCUT11 water quality station DC11 WQ1
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C47). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C47). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C24. The general seasonal trend is PC1 negative
and PC2 is positive in winter indicating a peak in nitrogen and turbidity; during spring, both PC1
and PC2 become positive indicating a peak in DOC and nutrients; in summer, PC1 remains
positive and PC2 becomes negative indicating peaks in temperature, chlorophyll a, phosphorus,
salinity, and pH; finally, PC1 and PC2 become negative in the fall, indicating a peak in dissolved
oxygen and Secchi depth (Figures III -C47 and III -C48). With only one year of data, no trend can
be detected.
xxiv. DCUT19 water quality station DC19WQ1
A biplot of all data show the visual relationship between the
variables (Figure III -C49). The temporal variability in each principal component appears to follow
a seasonal pattern (Figure III -C49). The relationships between the principal components and
individual variables can be seen in Table III -C25. The general seasonal trend is both PC1 and
PC2 are negative in winter indicating a peak in dissolved oxygen and salinity; during spring,
both PC1 and PC2 become positive indicating a peak in turbidity, nutrients, and DOC; in
summer, PC1 becomes positive and PC2 becomes negative indicating peaks in temperature,
chlorophyll a, and Secchi depth; finally, PC1 becomes negative and PC2 becomes positive in
the fall, indicating a peak in ammonium and nitrate (Figures III -C49 and III -050). With only one
year of data, no trend can be detected.
b. Spatial variability of creeks
A more detailed comparison of each water quality variable among the six
distinct groups identified from the cluster analysis described in Section II -F is discussed below
(refer to Figure II -F1 and Table II -F1). Box plots of the comparisons are used to demonstrate
differences among the groups for the 23 variables (Figures II I -051 through C -70).
L Depth
Depth (in) varied across the six groups. Group B depths were the
highest and Groups A, C, D, E and F had similar depths (Figure III -051).
III -C -10

ii. Temperature
Temperature (C) showed some variability across the six groups
(Figure III -052). The more shallow locations, represented by Groups E and F, have lower
overall temperatures (Figure III -052). This is likely due to these stations being largely upstream
and therefore shaded by riparian vegetation.
iii. Salinity
Salinity showed considerable variability across the groups (Figure
III -053). Groups A and B had very high salinity values, which indicated that these groups
consisted of mostly downstream stations that are influenced by the mainstem estuary. Salinity
values decreased incrementally from group C to D to F to E. Group E had the lowest overall
salinites (Figure III -051.
iv. Secchi depth
Secchi depths (in) were similar across the majority of the groups
(Figure III -054). The highest Secchi depths were observed among the stations of Group B.
Secchi depths closely mirrored the water depth of each station, a fact also indicated by the PCA
(see above). Therefore, the deeper a station, the deeper the Secchi depth. Secchi depth was
negatively correlated to turbidity and chlorophyll a concentration, as seen in the PCA analysis.
v. Conductivity and specific conductance
Conductivity (mS) and Specific Conductance showed the same
pattern as salinity (Figure III -055 and III -056), see Section A. 2. b. iii. above.
vi. Turbidity
Turbidity (NTU) was highest among the stations of Groups E and
F (Figure III -057). These shallow stations appear to be subjected to muddy conditions at low
water levels. The other four groups had similar turbidity values that were much lower compared
to Groups E and F.
vii. Dissolved oxygen and dissolved oxygen (% saturation)
Dissolved oxygen (mg L -') and dissolved oxygen (% saturation)
showed little variability across groups (Figure III -058 and III -059). Dissolved oxygen was similar
among stations in Groups C, D, E, and F and slightly higher among the stations of Groups A
and B.
viii. pH
pH was stable across all groups (Figure III -C60).
ix. NH4 (Ammonium)
NI-14 (mg L -') values showed differences among the six groups
III -C -11

(Figure III -C61). Groups C, D, E, and F had higher levels of NI-14 compared to Groups A, B. The
latter two groups also had lower overall variability demonstrated by the smaller standard
deviations.
x. NOs (Nitrate)
NOa (mg L -') values were low among all groups (Figure III -C62).
Slightly higher NOa values, with higher variability, were measured in Groups C, D, and E.
xi. DKN (dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen)
DKN (mg L -') values showed very little variability across the five
groups (Figure III -C63). Overall variability in DKN values was also similar.
xii. PN (particulate nitrogen)
PN (mg L -') values showed little difference among the groups
(Figure III -C64). Overall variability in PN values was also similar.
xiii. POa (orthophosphate)
POa (mg L -') showed differences among groups (Figure III -C65).
Lower POa values were measured in Groups A and B, compared to Groups C, D, E, and F. The
latter four groups also showed higher variability.
xiv. TDP (total dissolved phosphate)
TDP (mg L -') values showed the same trend among groups as
was seen for POa (Figure III -C -65, III -C66). Lower TDP values were measured in Groups A and
B, compared to Groups C, D, E, and F. The latter four groups also showed higher variability.
xv. PP (particulate phosphate)
PP (mg L -') values showed the same trend among groups as was
seen for POa and TDP, (Figure III -C65, III -C66, III -C67). Lower PP values were measured in
Groups A and B, compared to Groups C, D, E, and F. The latter four groups also showed higher
variability.
xvi. Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a (pg L -') values were similar across the six groups
(Figure III -C68). Groups A, B, and E had lower chlorophyll a (pg L -') values and reduced
variability compared to slightly higher chlorophyll a (pg L -') values and increased variability
among groups C, D, and F. Group D had the highest chlorophyll a (pg L -') values and variability.
xvii. Dissolved organic carbon
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC mg L -') values were similar
III -C -12

across the six groups (Figure I II -C69). This parameter was collected only since 2012.
xviii. Total dissolved nitrogen
Total dissolved nitrogen (TDN mg L -') values were highest in
groups C, D, E, and F and lowest in groups A and B (Figure III -C70). This parameter was
collected only since 2012.
C. Interannual variability at Huddles Cut, Drinkwater Creek, and
Tooley Creek
Among the creeks monitored for water quality in the PCS creeks study,
the most data exist for Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. While Jacks Creek is
considered pre -Mod Alt L, both Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut are considered post -Mod Alt L;
Tooley since 2012 and Huddles Cut since 2010. Also, Drinkwater Creek is considered post -Mod
Alt L as of 2013. To compare interannual variability among these three creeks, data from all
stations in each creek for each parameter for all years was combined into appropriate pre -Mod
Alt L or post -Mod Alt L categories.
L Temperature and salinity
Temperature (C) was not significantly different pre- and post -Mod
Alt L for Huddles Cut, Tooley, and Drinkwater (data not shown). Salinity was significantly
different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut (t = 2.18, p = 0.04), but not for Tooley and
Drinkwater (Figure II -F2,).
ii. Conductivity and specific conductance
Conductivity (mS) was significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt
L for Huddles Cut (t = 2.19, p = 0.04); not significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for
Tooley and Drinkwater (Figure II -F3, left panel). Specific conductance (mS) was significantly
different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut (t = 2.57, p = 0.02); not significantly different
for Tooley and Drinkwater (Figure I I -F3, right panel).
iii. Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (mg L -') was not significantly different pre- and
post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut, Tooley, and Drinkwater (data not shown). Dissolved oxygen (%
saturation) was significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut (t = 3.02, p =
0.007); not significantly different for Tooley and Drinkwater (Figure 11 -F4).
iv. Depth and chlorophyll a
Depth (in) was not significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L
for Huddles Cut, Tooley, and Drinkwater (data not shown). Chlorophyll a (pg L -') was not
significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut and Tooley and significantly
different for Drinkwater (t = -2.91, p = 0.04) (Figure 11 -F5).
III -C -13

v. Secchi depth and turbidity
Secchi depth (in) was not significantly different pre- and post -Mod
Alt L for Huddles Cut, Tooley, and Drinkwater (data not shown). Turbidity (NTU) was not
significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut, Tooley and Drinkwater (data not
shown).
vi. pH and ammonium (NH4)
pH was not significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for
Huddles Cut, Tooley, and Drinkwater (data not shown). Ammonium (mg L -') was not
significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut, Tooley and Drinkwater (data not
shown).
vii. Nitrate (NO3) and particulate nitrogen (PN)
Nitrate (mg L -') was not significantly different pre- and post -Mod
Alt L for Huddles Cut, Tooley, and Drinkwater (data not shown). PN (mg L -') was not
significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut, Tooley, and Drinkwater (data not
shown).
viii. Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen (DKN) and orthophosphate
(PO4)
DKN (mg L -') was significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for
Huddles Cut (t = -2.76, p = 0.01), but not for Tooley, and Drinkwater (Figure III -C76, left panel).
Orthophosphate (mg L -') was significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut (t =
-7.30, p = < 0.0001), but not for Tooley and Drinkwater (Figure II -F6, right panel).
ix. Total dissolved phosphate (TDP) and particulate
phosphate (PP)
TDP (mg L -') was significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for
Huddles Cut (t = -6.81, p = < 0.0001), but not for Tooley, and Drinkwater (Figure II -F7). PP (mg
L -') was not significantly different pre- and post -Mod Alt L for Huddles Cut, Tooley, and
Drinkwater (Figure II -F7).
4.0 Summary and Conclusions
A Principal Components Analysis was used to examine long -term trends in water
quality over time at each water quality monitoring station. Several conclusions may be drawn
from this analysis. First, all stations showed a similar seasonal pattern, with minor variations on
this pattern evident at each individual station due to location in the watershed. The winter period
was broadly characterized by peaks in dissolved oxygen and low temperatures. Spring
conditions saw temperatures rise, turbidity, Secchi depth, and nutrient concentrations increase.
Summer saw temperature, nutrient concentrations, and chlorophyll a peak and dissolved
oxygen decline. Fall was characterized by an overall decline in turbidity, chlorophyll a, nutrient
concentrations, and a peak in salinity. The majority of water quality stations had a data record
that extended back only a few years, to late 2011. All of these stations had no discernible long-
term trend in either PC1 or PC2 scores, indicating that no long -term trend in water quality
III -C -14

appears to be present. Two creeks with longer data records, Huddles Cut, and Tooley Creek,
did appear to have trends present. Tooley had increasing trends in its PC scores that were most
strongly correlated to increasing salinity, a trend that has been noted in past reports. Huddles
Cut also showed trends in PC scores that were correlated to salinity, as well as nutrient levels
and chlorophyll a. The PCs consist of multiple variables, so it is difficult to ascribe the trend to
any of the variables within a particular quadrant of a biplot. However, the spatial analysis and
pre- and post -Mod Alt -L analysis indicate that the trend observed here is primarily due to
salinity, as nutrient levels in Huddles Cut have declined over time (see below).
The spatial analysis provided further insight into the temporal variability revealed
by the Principal Components Analysis. Cluster analysis revealed six distinct groups of water
quality stations based on all water quality variables (Figure II -F1). A summary of all water quality
conditions across the six groups is shown in Table II -F1. Group A, B, and C were similar in that
they consisted of samples taken in the latter part (2011 -2013) of the data record at all stations
(Figure II -F1). The main difference between these two groups is that Group A is lower in salinity
and depth, and has higher chlorophyll a concentrations; Group B had the highest overall depth
and salinity, and the lowest chlorophyll a and turbidity concentrations; Group C had a similar
depth to A, but had the lowest overall salinity. Group C also had the highest nutrient, chlorophyll
a, and turbidity concentrations (Table II -F1). Group D consists of water quality stations primarily
located in Jacks, Tooley, and Huddles Cut (Figure II F -F1). This group had lower salinity values,
increase turbidity (compared to Groups A, B, and C), the highest chlorophyll a concentration of
any group, and high nutrient levels (Table II -F1). Groups E and F were similar in that consisted
of mainly of more recent samples collected at the Jacks, Tooley, and Huddles Cut locations.
Also present in Groups E and F are measurements from Drinkwater water quality station 1 and
Porter Creek water quality station 1 over the past 3 years (Figure II -F1). These groups were the
shallowest locations as well as the lowest in terms of salinity. The two groups were also
characterized by high turbidity levels, low dissolved oxygen, and intermediate nutrient and
chlorophyll a concentrations (Table II -F1). Overall, the cluster analysis reveals the long -term
changes in the Huddles, Tooley, and Jacks locations with the longer data records. These
locations have changed over time, as indicated by the PCA analysis, to have higher overall
salinity and reduced turbidity.
Changes in water quality conditions pre- and post -mod Alt L may be tracked at
three Creeks: Huddles Cut, Tooley, and Drinkwater. No changes between pre- and post -Mod
Alt -L at Tooley were found and only chlorophyll a was different at Drinkwater Creek, where it
had declined. Major changes in Huddles Cut were observed pre- and post -Mod Alt -L. As seen in
the Principal Components Analysis, salinity (as well as conductance and specific conductance)
has increased at this location (Figures II -F2 and II -F3). Several nutrient concentrations have
significantly declined: dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen and orthophosphate (Figure II -F6) and total
dissolved phosphorus (Figure II -F7). Finally, dissolved oxygen % saturation has increased
(Figure II -F4). This indicates significant water quality improvements at Huddles Cut in the post -
Mod Alt -L years.
In summary, the multivariate analysis revealed both temporal and spatial patterns
within the water quality data. Overall, the interannual variability found among the creeks
appears to be typical of estuarine creeks within the region, showing a distinct, identifiable
seasonal pattern. The examination of longer -term data revealed that most stations do not show
any long -term trends, with the exception of Tooley and Huddles Cut. Interestingly, Jacks Creek,
which also has a longer data record, did not show any significant trends in PC scores over time.
The long -term trend in Huddles Cut and Tooley appears to be most strongly correlated to a rise
III -C -15

in salinity, a trend noted in last year's report as well. The spatial analysis found that stations
grouped together in a temporal pattern. It is clear that Huddles Cut, Jacks, and Tooley water
quality was more variable in the past and that these stations are beginning to cluster with the
control creeks in more recent time (Figure II -F1). This indicates that stabilization of the water
quality parameters is likely to continue. Huddles Cut continues to show the most change over
time with respect to pre- and post -Mod Alt -L conditions. The increase in salinity was discovered
in the final analysis as in the PCA analysis, but declines in nutrient concentrations and
increases in dissolved oxygen indicate that Huddles Cut water quality is improved post -Mod Alt -
L.
(End of material prepared by Dr. David G. Kimmel).
III -C -16

0
N
O
T
O
N
R o
0
T
4
N
Q
JWQ1
Spring Summer
TEMP
PP
DIW
TD P N PN
PO4
DE P CHL
SECCHI SAL
SOON
NO3
T
Winter Fall
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
PC 1
Figure III -C1. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ1. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -17

A
.M
2
a
-2
JWQ1
01 Jan1999 01 Jan2003 01 Jan2005 01 Jan2007 01 Jan2009 01 Jan2011 01 Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C2. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Jacks Creek station JWQ1.
III -C -18
-a PC
-A— PC2
4
y
I
� �
0
M
b
�
01 Jan1999 01 Jan2003 01 Jan2005 01 Jan2007 01 Jan2009 01 Jan2011 01 Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C2. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Jacks Creek station JWQ1.
III -C -18

N _
O
r _
O
N
O _
C
r
Q
N
Q _
JWQ2
Spring
Winter
TURB
P'�
DOSAT�
PN
N
TDP
PO4
�IW
TEMP
SCON
SAL
COND
Summer
Fall
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C3. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Jacks Creek water quality station JWQ2. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -19

M
M
2
0
-2
-4
JWQ2
-a PC1
PC2
Ea
ILI
IN
4�
r�
, S '
w 4�
'Irk
0[n
0 �, ■ ,
t
y�
a o
01 Jan1999 01 Jan2003 01 Jan2005 01 Jan2007 01 Jan2009 01 Jan2011 01 Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C4. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Jacks Creek station JWQ2.
III -C -20

o-
N
CS
CM
O _
O
N
Q
JCBWQ1
Spring
Summer
P CH L
PP
IW
TEMP
TURB
TDN TDP
COND
PO4
SC0
SAL DOSAT
H4
DEPTH
SECCHI
Winter
Fall
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC 1
Figure III -05. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ1. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -21

N
0
2 4 I
r' m
1
t r
0 °d b
r
r
1
r
r
r
-2 r
r
1 J
t r
r �
-4 + r
tr
L�J
rti
' � 4
r �
1 � 1
r '
1 '
r '
1
01Jan2012 01Jul2012
JCBWQ1
-a P C 1
PC 2
r,
t
r ,
' o
[ij ' 1'
1 1
C►] It ' r
t ' ` EP 1
1 p 1 1
dt t
r
+ r
tr
1
tr
v
01Jan2013 01Jul2013 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C6. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Jacobs Creek station JCBWQ1.
111 -C -22

V
o-
C4 _
0
N 0 _
C
N _
Q
4
JCBWQ2
Winter
Spring
DO
DOSAT
NO3
DOC
N
pH
TDN
SAL
SCON
PN
CI
IL
COND
TEMP
Fall
Summer
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC 1
Figure III -C7. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Jacobs Creek water quality station JCBWQ2. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -23

C1
0
2
U
1%
E
R
It
n
rl
r I
r I
r I
r ►
r �
r
r
Q
r
r
r
Q
4 r
, r
� r
, r
Ir
JCBWQ2
1
PC 1
PC
4 '
1 ,
r ti m r,
r � ► ' r♦ 1 I
r ,
IZI
r �
m r l ' I r♦ r i ►
r
1 l � ' 1 ► m 1' '
q LaJ ' I , ► I
� ► 'r ,r tr
I
it �♦
t ►
-8
D1Jan2012 01 M2012 01Jan2013 01Jul2013 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C8. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Jacobs Creek station JCBWQ2.
111 -C -24

H_
0
0
o-
N
N _
4
4
PA2WQ 1
Winter
Spring
DEPTH
ECCHI
TDN
N00
N
PO4
DOM-60
TEMP
pH
RB
in
DIN
SAL
HL
SOON
PN
Fall
Summer
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C9. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in PA2 water quality station PA2WQ1. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -25

lei
0
2
0
-2
E
Kai
Y.?
PA2WQ1
-o- PC 1
f� PC
DlJan2012 O1Jul2012 01Jan2013 O1Jul2013 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C10. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at PA water quality station PA2WQ1.
111 -C -26

c-
a
N
C?_
c
N _
Q
PA2WQ2
Winter
Spring
SECCHI
NO3
DOC
N
DEPTH
DO
MN
DOSAT
pH
TD
TRB
SOON
SAL
EMP
PN
CHL
ND
Fall
PO
Summer
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC 1
Figure III -C11. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth ( SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -27

lei
In
m
r%
m j°
2 ,tr i
t
r t
r
0 r
Q
rt
1 t 1
, tr
r
if
-2 m
r
1
r
-4 Qfl
r
1
1
6 1
�{ 1
Al
S]
PA2WQ2
F Q j
t
t
a r �
t , t
t � 4
t , ♦r
t o r ♦�
Q� ♦ r
-a PC 1
PC
DlJan2012 O1Jul2012 01Jan2013 O1Jul2013 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C12. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2.
III -C -28
r♦
d ►
r,
rt
r
r � r ♦
� i
, r
r
t,
♦
u t
k
� r
,
1
1.
m
DlJan2012 O1Jul2012 01Jan2013 O1Jul2013 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C12. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at PA2 water quality station PA2WQ2.
III -C -28

N
U
a.
N _
C
a
It
4
DWWQ1
Winter
Spring
SECCHI
DEPTH
DOC
DO
TDP
DOSA
03
TDN
NH4DKN
TEMP
CHL P P
SAL
COND
SCON
PN
Fall
Summer
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C13. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ1. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -29

0
2
0
-2
-4
DVW1/Q 1
° PC 1
M
PC 2
r
r,
D1Jan2012 01Ju12012 01Jan2013 01Ju12013 01Jan2014
Dat
Figure III -C14. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ1.
III -C -30

o-
C4 _
0
N 0
a o-
N _
Q
DWWQ2
Spring
Summer
CHL
PN
PP
COND
NEAP
PH
SAL
RB
SCO
H4 HI
DOSAT
DOC
DO
Winter
Fall
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC 1
Figure III -C15. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ2. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -31

DWWQ2
Date
Figure III -C16. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ2.
111 -C -32
PC 1
6
4
PC
It
it
r,
rl
► 1
4
;
1 L
1
r ►
►1
r 1
, i
r
t
► I r
1
/ 1 It It
Q
2 f
1
i
r l
r r
1
1
Erj It t r
r 1 rt t r
r
rt
�
r
I `'
1
r 1 , t ► f
rl
t
,
,
1
► I r, t r
11
►
t
�
i
r
' 1► 1 ' t r
1 b 1 t �► t r
r l
i 1
� r
1
► �► I r [b ,r
1 i �1
,►
tr
r Q] t r
t r ,►
1 i
Ir 1 r t
-2
1,P
1
, r p
t► m
r
t r
Ir
1
t r
t►
r
t r
p
r
1
�
-4 4 r
D1Jan2012
01Jul2012
01Jan2013 01Jul2013
01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C16. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Drinkwater Creek water quality station DWWQ2.
111 -C -32

N
2
N _
C
M
N _
Q
4
LCWQ1
Summer
Spring
TDN
MP DKN h
H4
PO4
TURB
DOC
NO3
TEMP PP
DEPTH
Phi
CH L
p
DOSAT DO
SAL
COND
SOON
Fall
Winter
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C17. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Little Creek water quality station LCWQ1. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -33

Co
al
2
0
-2
rt
rt
r r
r t
1 t
Q t
r
r t
r t
r t
r t
CrJ '
t
t
-4
L7 �
D1Jan2012
t �
t �
trr
a,m to�
' r
t
d
♦ p
d
01 Jul2012
LCWQ1
r�
♦ t
r bd t
t
r t
r r
1 r
► t
t
try
r t
, t
i t r
r
1 t
1 1
� t
h '
r r '
' r �
,t
r r r
'r
01Jan2013
Date
PC 1
PC 2 Q
1♦
r ►
r 0
r
C]
r
r
1
r
r
r
1
r
,
1
r
r
r
1
r
m
r r
► fl
tr E �
m
01Jul2013 01Jan2014
Figure III -C18. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Little Creek water quality station LCWQ1.
III -C -34

o-
N _
C
N
O _
C
N
4 _
4
LCWQ2
Winter
Spring
NO3
TDN
DO
DT OC
DOSA
RB
DEPTH SECCHI
P
DKN
pH
PP
SOON
TEMP
SAL
CIi4,
ND rrNN
Fall
Summer
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC 1
Figure III -C19. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Little Creek water quality station LCWQ2. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth ( SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -35

8 LCWQ2
-o- PC 1
PC 2
0
4
m
rr
2 Q-
►
r m b ii
r ♦ r
r �
r r t
O ' r r� ► t
r L�J ♦ r + r p r
+ r
-2
rt ► p r L r +'
r► `r �r
-4
r
r
4
r
r
-6 '
Y.?
Q
r,
r,
r,
r ,
r ,
► i rt
r D � f� ► t
! ♦ r+ r I
� `r ► I
Ir
DlJan2012 O1Jul2012 01Jan2013 O1Jul2013 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C20. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Little Creek water quality station LCWQ2.
III -C -36

N _
C
q-
04
V
CL N
W
4-
LOCWQ1
Winter
Spring
DEPTH
SECCHI
NQ3
TDP
M�AT N
nm
PH
M
TURB
SAL
CH L
SCON
COND PN
Fall
Summer
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C21. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ1. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -37

0
2
0
-2
E
U
LOCW01
F
PC 1
PC 2
—
D1Jan2012
01Jul2012 01Jan2013 01Jul2013 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C22. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ1.
III -C -38

m
o-
0
N H _
O
0
o-
ry
4
LOCWQ2
Winter
Spring
DOC
NO3
TURK
DO
N
P
PO4 TDP
PP TEMP
H
TD
�ppFall
-SJ�
Summer
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
PC 1
Figure III -C23. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ2. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -39

10
0
M.
4
4
181
IPA
E
LOCW02
-a PC 1
Pr 2
r �r
r �
r
CrJ
-6
DlJan2012
01 Ju12012 01 Jan2013 01 Ju12013
Date
01Jan2014
Figure III -C24. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Long Creek water quality station LOCWQ2.
III -C -40

N _
C
r _
O
O
N C
R
r
Q
N _
Q
TWQ 1
Spring
Summer
TURK
PC
T
IN
Z DDP
p4EMP
CHI
DOIECC T
D P TH
COND
N
SAL
Winter
Fall
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C25. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ1. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -41

C2
rd
2
I
1%
E
R
Ir�►T -1
-a PC1
1 PC2
M
nd
1
1
11
r
, r
D
I
r Im 1 1 1� 1
r 1
1 1+ y
oil ❑
1
1
,
LJ
01Jan2001 01Jan2003 01Jan2005 01Jan2007 01Jan2009 01Jan2011 01Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C26. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ1.
111 -C -42

N
R
N _
C
a
N _
4
4
TWQ2
Spring
Summer
TDP
TURB
DEPTH
SECC
TEMP
PN
pH
CHL
DOSAT
SAL
Winter
Fall
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C27. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ2. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -43

0
2
0
-2
M
R
TWQ2
-a PC
-*- PC2
0
Q ti
ti
r
FLIf
fll 1 Q 1
rh 1 r 1
f 1 f 1
I Ir y 1 f 1
I Ir 1 1
1 1
\ 1 I f 1 1
\ 1 1
\ 1 1 f 1 1
♦\
1 1
\ 1 I
1
4 Ir
, 11
V
r
f
01Jan2001 01Jan2003 01Jan2005 01Jan2007 01Jan2009 01Jan2011 01Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C28. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ2.
III -C -44

N
C _
r
o-
N p
R C
r
Q
N _
Q
TWQ3
Spring
Summer
COND
TEMP
SE
PTH
SCON
SAL
TDP
CHL
pH
PN
RB
PP
DOSAT DO
Winter
Fall
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C29. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ3. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -45

0
2
0
-2
E
0
Ir9T[�!
01Jan2001 01Jan2003 01Jan2005 01Jan2007 01Jan2009 01Jan2011 01Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C30. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ3.
111 -C -46
-a PC1
PC2
,
,
,
, r
157
o
�Lf] p
' '
irk
�
�
b
r
d
01Jan2001 01Jan2003 01Jan2005 01Jan2007 01Jan2009 01Jan2011 01Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C30. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Tooley Creek water quality station TWQ3.
111 -C -46

N _
O
T
o-
N
C
oT
T
rs
HWQ1
Winter
Spring
NO3
A
DO
FA
PN
N CHL
sECDr
DIW
pH
TEMP
P
Fall
Summer
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C31. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ1. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -47

4
0
Al
-2
-4
NMI
O1Jan2002 O1Jan2004 O1Jan2006 O1Jan2008 01Jan2010 O1Jan2012 O1Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C32. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ1.
111 -C -48
Q
-a PC1
ti
PC2
ti
ti
4
oilNMI
i
�
r
b
O1Jan2002 O1Jan2004 O1Jan2006 O1Jan2008 01Jan2010 O1Jan2012 O1Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C32. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ1.
111 -C -48

N _
O
r _
O
N
O _
O
r
4—
C4
4
HWQ2
Summer
Fall
TURK P
NH4
SAL.
D
CHL �N
TDP
pot
DO
DOSAT
S
1
DEPTIH
Spring
Winter
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 02
PC 1
Figure III -C33. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ2. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -49

6
4
2
0
-2
M
HWQ2
-a PC1
PC2
4
I
� 4
r �
y '
�A
I
M �
i
b
O1Jan2002 O1Jan2004 01Jan2006 O1Jan2008 O1Jan2010 O1Jan2012 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C34. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ2.
111 -C -50

0
N _
O
T_
O
N
O _
C
r
Q
HWQ3
Spring
Summer
PN CHL
TURB TDP
DIN
TEMP
H4
p7H
DO
DOSAT COND
SAL
SCON
ECC
DE
Winter
Fall
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
PC 1
Figure III -C35. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ3. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -51

i.I
M
2
A
-2
M
HWQ3
01Jan2001 01Jan2003 01Jan2005 01Jan2007 01Jan2009 01Jan2011 01Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C36. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ3.
111 -C -52
-a PC1
r�
PC2
r�
' n
o ,
a
r
y
❑
�0
S
Ei
I
01Jan2001 01Jan2003 01Jan2005 01Jan2007 01Jan2009 01Jan2011 01Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C36. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ3.
111 -C -52

as
o-
N _
O
r
o-
N
O
o-
r
Q
N _
Q
H WQ4
Spring
Summer
P
P
D4
DIN TURB
X NH4
PP PN
CHL
DE
TEMP
SEOCHI
P H
OS
DOSAT
COND
SAL
Winter
Fall
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
PC 1
Figure III -C37. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ4. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -').
III -C -53

E
0
EI
2
0
IPA
1061
HWQ4
01Jan2001 01Jan2003 01Jan2005 01Jan2007 01Jan2009 01Jan2011 01Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C38. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ4.
III -C -54
-0- P C 1
4
PC2
4 �
Q
� 4
ra
01Jan2001 01Jan2003 01Jan2005 01Jan2007 01Jan2009 01Jan2011 01Jan2013
Date
Figure III -C38. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Huddles Cut water quality station HWQ4.
III -C -54

V
o-
a
N
O _
C
N
Q
PCWQ1
Winter
Spring
TDN
NO3
NH4
DIN
RB
DOSA
PN
DO
TEMP
DOC PO4
SECCHI DE
COND
SCON
Fall
Summer
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC 1
Figure III -C39. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ1. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth ( SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -55

Co
CI
2
!1
0
r
r41
r
r Q4 �
' y ,
1
r y ry ► 1
l 1 y y
lr
l
1
�
-2
Q 1
r EP yr
'
r
r
u
PCWQ1
1
1
1
1
y
4
y
y 4.
y r i
Q y r 1
-4
01Jan2012 01Ju12012 01Jan2013
Date
-a PC 1
PC 2
R1
r �
r a4 o fl
r . r
1
r r C�LrI 1
y d 1
r y
1 � y
1 0 1
r Ir
,
1 y
1 y
1
y
1
r 1
r y'1
yr 1
1
, y
y
r b
01Ju12013 01Jan2014
Figure III -C40. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ1.
111 -C -56
r41
r Q4 �
' y ,
1
r y ry ► 1
l 1 y y
lr
l
1
�
1
u
PCWQ1
1
1
1
1
y
4
y
y 4.
y r i
Q y r 1
-4
01Jan2012 01Ju12012 01Jan2013
Date
-a PC 1
PC 2
R1
r �
r a4 o fl
r . r
1
r r C�LrI 1
y d 1
r y
1 � y
1 0 1
r Ir
,
1 y
1 y
1
y
1
r 1
r y'1
yr 1
1
, y
y
r b
01Ju12013 01Jan2014
Figure III -C40. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ1.
111 -C -56

N
2
N
o-
a
N _
Q
4
PCWQ2
Spring
Summer
TDN
Doc
TDP
TURB
NO3
TEMP
DIN
DEPTH
CCHI
DOSAT
CHL
DO
P COND
SAL
SOON
Winter
Fall
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C41. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ2. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -57

0
2
0
-2
M
U
PCWQ2
-a PC 1
D1Jan2012 01Jul2012 01Jan2013 01Jul2013 01Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C42. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Porter Creek water quality station PCWQ2.
III -C -58

N _
C
0
o-
N
4
v
4
DKCW01
Winter
Spring
TURB
NH4
TDN
DO
DOC
P
pH
COND
TEMP
SAL
PP
SCAN
PN DM&I
L
Fall
Summer
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
PC 1
Figure III -C43. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ1. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -59

4
2
0
V
-4
Kai
*r
r
r
r
1
,
r
f
r� 1
+l
1
1
,
r
,
r
,
DKCWQ1
It
rl IK
IN r 1
it
L
© 1 M
Dpi 1 L ,
•i r L r
Q
1 '
11
it
1'
It
PC 1
PC 2
-8 -T--j
01 Oct2011 01 Apr2012 01 Oct2012 01 Apr2013 01 Oct2013 01 Apr2014
Date
Figure III -C44. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Duck Creek water quality station DCKWQ1.
111 -C -60

o-
N _
O
O
04 o
U
a
N
O
O
DKCWQ2
Fall
Summer
COND
SAL N
SOON S
CCHI
D
P
TEMP
DKN
pH
DOSAT
TUN
TURB
DO
03
Winter
Spring
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC 1
Figure III -C45. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in Duck Creek water quality station DKCWQ2. Water quality variables are:
Depth (DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L-'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L-'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L-'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L-'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L-'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L-'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L-'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L-').
III -C -61

6-
4-
2-
0
-2
-4
-6
01 Oct2011
r'
r
I�f
4
,
r
1
spa
M
I, ►
LI `
Q
r
t
1
t
t
DKCW02
Q
f
,t
1 �
1 �
r �
r t
1 �]
� r
r '1
T f m 1
E�
I � r
I h r
r r
r �
n � '
f � �
I f �
I rIl r
1 r
l �f
I R I
-D- PC 1
-,i-PC2
d
t
1
r m
� I♦
f t
r f
' f
01 Apr2012 01 Oct2012 01 Apr2013 01 Oct2013 01 Apr2014
Date
Figure III -C46. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at Duck Creek water quality station DCKWQ2.
III -C -62

rt_
0
C4_
0
N
IL o
N _
Q
4
DC11WQ1
Winter
Spring
DOC
TDN
NH4
KN
TURB
MP
NO3
PTEMP
DO
PN
DOSAT
CH L
P COND
SAL
SOON
DEPTH
Fall
SECCHI
Summer
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC 1
Figure III -C47. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in DCUT11 water quality station DC11WQ1. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -63

6
4
2
0
-2
-4
a
01 Nov2012 01 Mar2013
DC11WQ1
rtr PC 1
+• PC 2
01 Ju12013 01 Nov2013 01 Jan2014
Date
Figure III -C48. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at DCUT11 water quality station DC11WQ1.
111 -C -64

V
o-
N _
C
N
0
o-
N
4
DC19WQ1
Fall
Spring
NH4
DOC
SOON
MN
N
AK TDP
;�;
DO
P
C PP
DOSAT
D TEMP
P DEPII-I
Winter
�ECCHI Summer
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
PC1
Figure III -C49. Principal Components Analysis biplot showing interrelationships among all water
quality variables in DCUT19 water quality station DC19WQ1. Water quality variables are: Depth
(DEPTH, in), Temperature (TEMP, C), Salinity (SAL), Conductivity (COND, mS), Specific
Conductance (SCON, mS), Secchi Depth (SECCHI, in), Turbidity (TURB, NTU), Dissolved
oxygen (DO, mg L -'), Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation (DOSAT), pH (pH), Ammonium
(NH4, mg L -'), Nitrate (NO3, mg L -'), Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (DKN, mg L -'), Particulate
Nitrogen (PN, mg L -'), Orthophosphate (PO4, mg L -'), Total Dissolved Phosphate (TDP, mg L -'),
Particulate Phosphate (PP, mg L -'), Chlorophyll a (CHL, pg L -'), Dissolved Organic Carbon
(DOC, mg L -'), and Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN, mg L -').
III -C -65

0
M
2
0
-2
-4
01 Nov2012
DC19WQ1
Q PC 1
it PC 2
A
01 Mar2013 01 Ju12013 01 Sep2013 01 Jan2014
Date
Figure III -050. Interannual variability of Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2 over
time at DCUT19 water quality station DC19WQ1.
111 -C -66

25
20
15
U
C
L
Q
N
10
A B C D E F
Figure III -051. Comparison of mean depth (in) for group of water quality stations identified by
cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -67

20
15
U
0
a)
c�
N
Q
Q) 10
F-
A B C D E F
Figure III -052. Comparison of mean temperature (C) for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -68

16
M
ME
Ice
>' 8
v�
A B C D E F
Figure III -053. Comparison of mean salinity for each group of water quality stations identified by
cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -69

25
20
a)
L
U
C
s 15
a
a)
D
L
U
U
Q)
10
A B C D E F
Figure I I I -054. Comparison of mean Secchi depth (in) for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -70

30
25
20
E
a
15
0
U
10
A B C D E F
Figure I I I -055. Comparison of mean conductivity (m S) for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -71

30
25
E
8 20
C
CU
U
7
C
O
15
�U
O
Q
M
10
A B C D E F
Figure III -056. Comparison of mean specific conductance (m S) for each group of water quality
stations identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -72

$,
z
40
30
20
Ia
A B C D E F
Figure III -057. Comparison of mean turbidity (NTU) for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -73

0
0
7
J 6
E
C
5
a
X
O
4
0
Cn
3
2
A
A B C D E F
Figure III -058. Comparison of mean dissolved oxygen (mg L -') for each group of water quality
stations identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -74

all
:e
70
,.
CU
U)
50
C
N
O 40
a�
0
ai 30
0
20
10
A B C D E F
Figure III -059. Comparison of mean dissolved oxygen (% saturation) for each group of water
quality stations identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -75

8
7
6
5
4
Q
3
2
0
A B C D E F
Figure III -C60. Comparison of mean pH for each group of water quality stations identified by
cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -76

0.5
0.4
J
O7
E 0.3
O
E
E
Q
0.2
IN
M
A B C D
Figure III -C61. Comparison of mean NH4 (mg L -') for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -77

0.20
IRM
J
E
0.10
C�
PIA
0.05
,I 11
Figure III -C62. Comparison of mean NOa (mg L -') for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -78

J 1.5
rn
E
c
0
rn
0
L
Z
0
10 1.0
(D
Y
m
0
U)
r)
0.5
Me
A B C D E
Figure III -C63. Comparison of mean DKN (mg L -') for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -79

M
0.7
l
0.5
E
c
rn
2 0.4
z
(D
cc
0.3
CO
0-
V.
0.1
'e
A B C D E
Figure III -C64. Comparison of mean PN (mg L -') for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -80

W
0.5
J
0.4
E
c�
a
= 0.3
Q
0
Le,
u
0.2
M
M
A B C D
Figure III -C65. Comparison of mean PO4 (mg L -') for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -81

0.7
M
J
o) 0.5
E
c�
a
0 0.4
a
0
0 0.3
0
0
W
ti
M1
A B C D
Figure III -C66. Comparison of mean TDP (mg L -') for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -82

0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
E
m
ro 0.25
Q
0
a 0.20
m
_M
U
0.15
a_
1
0.05
t 11
A B C D
Figure III -C67. Comparison of mean PP (mg L -') for each group of water quality stations
identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -83

J
50
CO
J+
L
Q
0 40
0
30
20
10
A B C D E F
Figure III -C68. Comparison of mean chlorophyll a (pg L -') for each group of water quality
stations identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -84

EM
35
30
J
E
0 25
cz
U
U
ro 20
21
O
m
0 15
0
10
5
M
A B C D E
Figure III -C69. Comparison of mean dissolved organic carbon (mg L -') for each group of water
quality stations identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -85

1.6
1.4
1.2
J
E
1.0
rn
0
z
0.8
0
D
0 0.6
0
0.4
IIVA
Me
A B C D E
Figure III -C70. Comparison of mean total dissolved nitrogen (pg L -') for each group of water
quality stations identified by cluster analysis. Error bars represent standard deviation.
III -C -86

Table III -C1. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Jacks
Creek water quality station JWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.25
0.02
Temperature (C)
0.06
0.39
Salinity
0.40
-0.07
Conductivity
0.39
-0.04
SCON
0.40
-0.08
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.20
-0.002
Turbidity (NTU)
0.03
0.27
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
0.01
-0.45
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.005
-0.44
pH
-0.02
0.10
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.19
0.21
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.13
-0.16
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.28
0.28
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.24
0.18
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
-0.30
0.18
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
-0.28
0.20
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.04
0.29
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.24
0.03
III -C -87

Table III -C2. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Jacks
Creek water quality station JWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.21
-0.13
Temperature (C)
-0.23
-0.27
Salinity
0.34
-0.34
Conductivity
0.26
-0.43
SCON
0.33
-0.36
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.15
-0.21
Turbidity (NTU)
-0.18
0.31
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
0.34
0.25
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
0.28
0.24
pH
0.12
0.12
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
-0.14
-0.07
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.09
0.13
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
-0.08
-0.18
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.08
0.15
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
-0.36
-0.19
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -1)
-0.37
-0.15
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
-0.17
0.25
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.05
0.06
III -C -88

Table III -C3. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Jacobs
Creek water quality station JCBWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.16
-0.25
Temperature (C)
0.09
0.30
Salinity
-0.39
-0.05
Conductivity
-0.28
0.12
SCON
-0.39
-0.05
Secchi Depth (in)
0.16
-0.25
Turbidity (NTU)
0.13
0.27
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.11
-0.04
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.14
-0.04
pH
-0.16
0.07
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.09
-0.12
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.17
0.02
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
-0.07
0.31
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
-0.17
0.41
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.37
0.09
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.36
0.16
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.02
0.40
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
-0.12
0.42
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.28
0.11
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.24
0.17
III -C -89

Table III -C4. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Jacobs
Creek water quality station JCBWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.09
-0.03
Temperature (C)
0.19
-0.40
Salinity
-0.33
-0.19
Conductivity
-0.15
-0.45
SCON
-0.33
-0.21
Secchi Depth (in)
0.10
-0.04
Turbidity (NTU)
0.18
0.10
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.26
0.36
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.25
0.33
pH
-0.29
0.08
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.12
0.11
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.14
0.23
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
-0.03
-0.16
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
-0.07
-0.26
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.36
-0.09
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.37
-0.07
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.01
-0.09
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.00
-0.30
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.25
0.18
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.30
0.03
III -C -90

Table III -05. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at PA2 water
quality station PA2WQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated to the
principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to the
principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.04
0.37
Temperature (C)
0.31
0.00
Salinity
-0.23
-0.30
Conductivity
0.09
-0.30
SCON
-0.22
-0.31
Secchi Depth (in)
0.02
0.36
Turbidity (NTU)
0.27
-0.10
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.30
-0.04
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.31
-0.03
pH
-0.15
-0.07
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.03
0.07
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.00
0.12
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.22
-0.21
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.21
-0.35
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.27
0.06
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.35
0.02
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.24
-0.29
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.25
-0.29
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.22
0.17
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.23
0.25
III -C -91

Table III -C6. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at PA2 water
quality station PA2WQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated to the
principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to the
principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.20
0.19
Temperature (C)
0.28
-0.25
Salinity
-0.28
-0.23
Conductivity
0.04
-0.45
SCON
-0.28
-0.24
Secchi Depth (in)
0.18
0.23
Turbidity (NTU)
0.23
-0.07
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.33
0.09
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.30
0.07
pH
-0.28
-0.09
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.03
0.16
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.08
0.24
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.11
-0.15
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.11
-0.36
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.27
-0.07
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.32
-0.05
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.16
-0.23
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.13
-0.40
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.18
0.21
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.28
0.10
111 -C -92

Table III -C7. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Drinkwater
Creek water quality station DWWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.05
0.29
Temperature (C)
0.26
-0.18
Salinity
-0.23
-0.31
Conductivity
-0.20
-0.34
SCON
-0.21
-0.34
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.06
0.29
Turbidity (NTU)
0.12
0.00
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.29
0.14
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.23
0.09
pH
0.10
-0.05
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.20
-0.12
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.01
0.06
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.34
-0.11
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.13
-0.38
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.33
0.15
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.34
0.13
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.24
-0.31
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.14
-0.27
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.26
0.23
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.30
0.03
III -C -93

Table III -C8. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Drinkwater
Creek water quality station DWWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.05
-0.01
Temperature (C)
0.20
0.29
Salinity
-0.36
0.18
Conductivity
-0.26
0.29
SCON
-0.36
0.19
Secchi Depth (in)
0.05
-0.01
Turbidity (NTU)
0.18
0.18
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.09
-0.20
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.22
-0.15
pH
-0.12
0.24
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.01
-0.01
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.01
-0.04
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.13
0.27
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.03
0.42
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.39
0.04
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.40
0.06
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.10
0.37
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.02
0.44
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.32
-0.15
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.28
0.05
III -C -94

Table III -C9. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Little Creek
water quality station LCWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated to
the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to
the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.17
0.00
Temperature (C)
-0.31
0.13
Salinity
-0.28
-0.22
Conductivity
-0.30
-0.23
SCON
-0.20
-0.35
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.11
-0.04
Turbidity (NTU)
0.18
0.25
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
0.28
-0.17
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
0.22
-0.16
pH
-0.01
-0.14
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.05
0.32
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.27
0.21
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
-0.13
0.30
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
-0.27
-0.04
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
-0.28
0.26
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -1)
-0.28
0.27
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
-0.25
0.13
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
-0.27
-0.08
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
-0.20
0.21
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.06
0.42
III -C -95

Table III -C10. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Little
Creek water quality station LCWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.18
0.08
Temperature (C)
0.31
-0.25
Salinity
-0.25
-0.31
Conductivity
0.01
-0.40
SCON
-0.24
-0.30
Secchi Depth (in)
0.18
0.08
Turbidity (NTU)
0.18
0.10
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.32
0.21
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.27
0.15
pH
-0.22
-0.16
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.10
0.11
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.10
0.35
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.18
-0.06
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.18
-0.33
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.31
0.02
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.38
-0.01
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.24
-0.20
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.16
-0.30
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.11
0.17
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.22
0.26
III -C -96

Table III -C11. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Long
Creek water quality station LOCWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.16
0.31
Temperature (C)
0.36
-0.07
Salinity
-0.23
-0.34
Conductivity
0.20
-0.35
SCON
-0.23
-0.34
Secchi Depth (in)
0.12
0.33
Turbidity (NTU)
0.26
-0.19
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.35
0.05
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.25
0.10
pH
-0.14
-0.09
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
-0.11
0.05
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.02
0.16
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.13
-0.04
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.24
-0.25
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.29
0.05
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.34
0.10
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.19
-0.14
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.26
-0.24
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.01
0.34
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.15
0.29
III -C -97

Table III -C12. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Long
Creek water quality station LOCWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.12
-0.13
Temperature (C)
0.36
-0.13
Salinity
-0.17
-0.48
Conductivity
0.18
-0.47
SCON
-0.16
-0.48
Secchi Depth (in)
0.07
-0.14
Turbidity (NTU)
0.30
0.16
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.34
0.12
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.30
0.08
pH
-0.10
-0.04
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
-0.06
-0.04
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.02
0.22
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
-0.01
-0.38
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.32
0.04
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.27
-0.03
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.32
-0.06
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.27
0.05
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.27
0.02
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
-0.07
0.09
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.14
0.09
III -C -98

Table III -C13. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Tooley
Creek water quality station TWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.16
-0.06
Temperature (C)
0.34
0.10
Salinity
0.27
-0.42
Conductivity
0.33
-0.36
SCON
0.28
-0.41
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.16
-0.10
Turbidity (NTU)
-0.07
0.40
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.32
-0.08
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.26
-0.06
pH
0.08
0.09
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.11
0.02
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.14
-0.07
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.25
0.14
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.30
0.10
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.23
0.32
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.23
0.33
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.13
0.29
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.28
0.01
III -C -99

Table III -C14. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Tooley
Creek water quality station TWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.25
0.16
Temperature (C)
0.36
0.09
Salinity
0.12
-0.42
Conductivity
0.14
0.03
SCON
0.14
0.02
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.29
0.11
Turbidity (NTU)
-0.07
0.32
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
0.11
0.03
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.13
-0.31
pH
-0.32
-0.04
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.23
-0.06
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.17
-0.01
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.34
0.01
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.40
0.05
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.05
0.50
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.12
0.44
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.03
0.33
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.38
-0.11
III -C -100

Table III -C15. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Tooley
Creek water quality station TWQ3. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.04
0.34
Temperature (C)
0.20
0.42
Salinity
-0.41
0.20
Conductivity
-0.28
0.41
SCON
-0.40
0.22
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.03
0.37
Turbidity (NTU)
0.32
-0.11
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.20
-0.25
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.22
-0.26
pH
-0.17
-0.06
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.07
-0.06
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.01
-0.03
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.03
0.18
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.18
0.006
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.30
0.23
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.31
0.21
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.27
-0.17
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.18
0.10
III -C -101

Table III -C16. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Huddles
Cut water quality station HWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated
to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to
the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.23
-0.14
Temperature (C)
0.25
-0.26
Salinity
0.30
0.08
Conductivity
0.35
0.07
SCON
0.33
0.04
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.23
-0.15
Turbidity (NTU)
-0.003
0.11
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
0.04
0.17
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.05
0.23
pH
-0.12
-0.17
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.32
0.02
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.09
0.35
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.34
-0.14
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.34
0.09
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.04
-0.54
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.06
-0.55
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.19
0.04
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.33
0.04
III -C -102

Table III -C17. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Huddles
Cut water quality station HWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated
to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to
the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.08
-0.32
Temperature (C)
-0.12
0.23
Salinity
0.39
0.23
Conductivity
0.33
0.27
SCON
0.39
0.23
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.08
-0.33
Turbidity (NTU)
-0.13
0.35
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
0.23
-0.17
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
0.25
-0.23
pH
0.07
-0.06
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
-0.15
0.24
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.12
-0.11
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
-0.22
0.31
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
-0.02
0.33
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
-0.40
0.003
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -1)
-0.40
0.03
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
-0.10
0.17
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.03
0.19
III -C -103

Table III -C18. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Huddles
Cut water quality station HWQ3. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated
to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to
the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.30
-0.31
Temperature (C)
0.17
0.17
Salinity
0.47
-0.19
Conductivity
0.45
-0.17
SCON
0.47
-0.19
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.29
-0.32
Turbidity (NTU)
-0.12
0.26
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
0.08
-0.09
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
0.06
-0.08
pH
-0.12
0.03
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.16
0.08
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.04
-0.14
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.15
0.35
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.13
0.36
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
-0.13
0.28
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -1)
-0.09
0.31
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
-0.06
0.13
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.13
0.33
III -C -104

Table III -C19. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Huddles
Cut water quality station HWQ4. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated
to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to
the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.38
-0.04
Temperature (C)
0.17
0.01
Salinity
0.26
-0.38
Conductivity
0.28
-0.35
SCON
0.27
-0.39
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.37
-0.06
Turbidity (NTU)
0.22
0.22
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.05
-0.15
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.13
-0.28
pH
-0.07
-0.11
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.27
0.18
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.005
-0.13
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.33
0.22
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.30
0.06
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
-0.02
0.39
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -1)
-0.003
0.39
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.20
0.10
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.29
0.03
III -C -105

Table III -C20. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Porter
Creek water quality station PCWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.05
-0.24
Temperature (C)
0.32
-0.01
Salinity
-0.04
0.18
Conductivity
0.10
-0.33
SCON
0.06
-0.35
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.19
-0.21
Turbidity (NTU)
0.31
0.12
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.33
-0.07
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.34
0.09
pH
0.04
0.00
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.11
0.39
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.13
0.41
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.15
0.21
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.37
-0.04
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.20
-0.13
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.32
-0.02
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.38
0.03
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.12
-0.02
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.13
-0.16
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.09
0.44
III -C -106

Table III -C21. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Porter
Creek water quality station PCWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.18
0.02
Temperature (C)
0.34
0.12
Salinity
0.17
-0.40
Conductivity
0.26
-0.32
SCON
0.18
-0.39
Secchi Depth (in)
0.15
0.00
Turbidity (NTU)
-0.07
0.18
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.31
-0.19
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.30
-0.17
pH
0.14
-0.32
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.07
0.22
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.09
0.13
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.21
0.03
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.30
-0.12
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.26
0.16
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -1)
0.28
0.24
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.29
0.13
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.32
-0.13
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.02
0.29
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.14
0.29
III -C -107

Table III -C22. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Duck
Creek water quality station DKCWQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.18
-0.29
Temperature (C)
0.32
-0.22
Salinity
-0.12
-0.27
Conductivity
-0.21
-0.20
SCON
-0.13
-0.28
Secchi Depth (in)
0.18
-0.29
Turbidity (NTU)
0.13
0.20
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.20
0.07
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.25
-0.02
pH
-0.22
-0.13
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.22
0.18
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.00
0.37
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.29
0.06
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.01
-0.35
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.34
0.02
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.39
-0.02
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.19
-0.29
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.02
-0.37
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.27
0.01
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.28
0.09
III -C -108

Table III -C23. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at Duck
Creek water quality station DKCWQ2. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively
correlated to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively
correlated to the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.01
0.29
Temperature (C)
0.36
0.20
Salinity
-0.24
0.38
Conductivity
-0.11
0.49
SCON
-0.26
0.38
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.02
0.31
Turbidity (NTU)
0.23
-0.09
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.19
-0.21
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.26
0.04
pH
-0.28
0.12
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
0.04
0.14
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
0.01
-0.24
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.16
0.14
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.26
0.05
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.32
0.10
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.34
0.23
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.21
0.07
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.23
0.07
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.14
0.10
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.24
0.04
III -C -109

Table III -C24. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at DCUT11
water quality station DC11WQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated
to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to
the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
-0.08
-0.35
Temperature (C)
0.31
-0.01
Salinity
0.21
-0.29
Conductivity
0.30
-0.25
SCON
0.22
-0.29
Secchi Depth (in)
-0.08
-0.35
Turbidity (NTU)
-0.18
0.16
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.33
-0.07
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.29
-0.15
pH
0.15
-0.24
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
-0.15
0.21
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.12
0.04
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.24
0.20
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.21
-0.10
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.24
0.22
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -1)
0.27
0.18
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.23
-0.03
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.23
-0.18
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.07
0.37
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.30
0.27
III -C -110

Table III -C25. Loading for each water quality variable on each principal component at DCUT19
water quality station DC19WQ1. Positive values indicate that the variable is positively correlated
to the principal component. Negative values indicate that the variable is negatively correlated to
the principal component.
Water quality variable
Principal Component 1
Principal Component 2
Depth (in)
0.07
-0.34
Temperature (C)
0.34
-0.23
Salinity
-0.14
-0.11
Conductivity
0.07
-0.22
SCON
-0.16
0.22
Secchi Depth (in)
0.07
-0.33
Turbidity (NTU)
0.11
0.12
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L -')
-0.23
-0.13
Dissolved Oxygen (% Sat)
-0.25
-0.23
pH
0.10
-0.28
Ammonium (NH4; mg L -')
-0.13
0.37
Nitrate (NO3; mg L -')
-0.23
0.02
Dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen
(DKN; mg L -')
0.23
0.20
Particulate nitrogen (PN; mg L -')
0.28
-0.15
Orthophosphate (PO4; mg L -')
0.25
0.12
Total dissolved phosphate (TDP;
mg L -')
0.37
0.14
Particulate phosphate (PP; mg L-
1)
0.29
-0.16
Chlorophyll a (tag L -')
0.24
-0.18
DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon)
0.21
0.31
TDN (Total Dissolved Nitrogen)
0.33
0.24
III -C -111

D. METALS
Additional comparisons of summary metals data were conducted and are included here
for additional information. Tables or figures showing only 2013 values are included in Appendix
F (only on CD).
For statistical analysis of metals data, a two -way ANOVA is not possible when only one
sample is collected per creek (no replicate samples) and when a year is not represented with
more than two creeks. While it is possible to treat individual creeks as pseudoreplicates, for
some years there are not a sufficient number of samples from the post -Mod Alt L creeks to
perform a two -way ANOVA with a repeated factor. For this report, in lieu of two -way ANOVA,
pairwise comparisons (i.e., Student's t- tests) were run for individual sediment metals and water
column metals. However, due to the lack of replicates per creek, creeks were treated as
pseudoreplicates, which does decrease the quality of the statistical analysis. A pseudoreplicate
is a problem most commonly associated with environmental data, where "control" samples are
collected from multiple reference sites and "impact" samples are collected from multiple
impacted sites. In this analysis, data from Huddles Cut, Tooley Creek, and Drinkwater Creek
were essentially treated as "impacted" samples and data from all control creeks were treated as
control samples. Individual differences among creeks could skew the data in such a way as to
increase the risk of false positive or false negative statistical findings. Note that when a metal
was not detected, the LOQ /CL (reporting limit /control limit shown with < in the tables) was used
as a data point for graphs and statistics.
1.0 Sediment Metals
Figures III -D1, III -D2, and III -D3 illustrate pre- and post -Mod Alt L
sediment metal data for Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut by year. No
statistical differences between pre- and post -Mod Alt L sediment metal concentrations were
detected in these creeks.
Table III -D1 shows the sediment metals values by year for each
monitored creek and the means and standard deviations of all years previous to the current
year. For comparison, values for the metals sampled in a 1998 study of the Pamlico River
estuary, a 1984 study on average marine sediment crust, and a 1995 study on continental crust
are also shown. These previous studies show both Cd and Se to be slightly higher in the
Pamlico River estuary than in marine sediment crust; this relationship seems to be also true of
the creeks in this study as the means for these two metals in most creeks, including control
creeks, are higher than the marine crust but often within or close the Pamlico values shown.
Exceptions include Jacks Creek, Little Creek, and Muddy Creek where values for one or both of
these metals were also higher than those found in the Pamlico study.
2.0 Water Column Metals
No additional summary materials.
III -D -1

Ag As Cd X Cr X Cu
MO Se -Zn Al ♦Fe Drinkwater
100
E 90
4j
m
N
0 8
70
iWI
t �
60
50
Q H
p
40
30
W
a
20
E
10
M
❑
m
120
-e -Mod Alt L Years
i
2011 2012 2013
Year of Data Collection
(Note that Al and Fe were reported in % and not pg /g)
Post -Mod Alt L
Year
Figure III -D1. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Drinkwater Creek. No
statistical differences were detected between pre- and post- metal concentrations.
Figure III -D2. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Tooley Creek. No
statistical differences were detected between pre- and post- metal concentrations.
111 -D -2
Ag
As ♦ Cd X Cr )K Cu
Tooley Creek
�
Mo
Se -Zn —AI ♦ Fe
dA
120
_
100
_
a
p
80
Q60
X Post -Mod Alt L Years
M
40
Pre -Mod Alt L Years
.��—
20
X
O
0
—i
cn
2010 2011 2012 2013
Year of Data Collection
(Note that Aland Fe were reported in % and not µg /g)
Figure III -D2. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Tooley Creek. No
statistical differences were detected between pre- and post- metal concentrations.
111 -D -2

(Note that Al and Fe were reported in % and not µg /g)
Figure III -D3. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Huddles Cut. No
statistical differences were detected between pre- and post- metal concentrations.
111 -D -3
Ag
■ As ♦ Cd
X Cr `X. Cu
•Mo
Se -Zn
Al — ♦Fe Huddles Cut
50
45
E
40
cn
35
On
30
�
25
Pre -
=
20
Mod
O
15
Alt L
Post -Mod Alt L Years
10
E
5
0
2009
2010 2011 2012 2013
O
Year of Data Collection
(Note that Al and Fe were reported in % and not µg /g)
Figure III -D3. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L metal sediment data for Huddles Cut. No
statistical differences were detected between pre- and post- metal concentrations.
111 -D -3

Table III -D1. Sediment metal values by year for each monitored creek. List begins with most upstream creek on
South Creek and proceeds downstream by creek to Hickory Point, then to Muddy Creek, then upstream along
Pamlico River, and back towards PCS. Control creeks are so designated and the current year is highlighted. As
of 2013, only Drinkwater, Tooley, and Huddles Cut are considered post -Mod Alt L. Values shown with < are
LOQ /CL (reporting limit /control limit). DCUT11 and DCUT19 were sampled for the first time in 2013. Per new plan
of study, 2011 was the first year samples were analyzed for bulk density and values are also shown below.
Sediment Metals and Dry Bulk Density
Pre -Mod Alt L Dry
Post -Mod Alt L Year Al ( %) Ag As Cd Cr Cu Fe ( %) Mo Se Zn bulk
or Control (Ng /g) (Ng /g) (Ng /g) (Ng /g) (Ng /g) (Ng /g) (Ng /g) (Ng /g) density
(g /cm3)
Jacks Creek Pre 2000 6.85 0.08 4.30 1.10 58.70 16.30 3.04 2.50 1.57 94.10
2001 6.09 0.10 7.90 1.60 67.50 13.60 3.03 4.30 0.77 103.00
2002 6.29 0.03 6.90 2.60 55.90 11.80 2.73 2.40 0.71 88.60
2003 6.38 0.16 3.50 1.30 52.80 14.60 2.92 2.40 1.09 98.00
2004 6.39 0.12 7.90 1.90 58.30 14.60 2.82 2.80 1.19 106.00
2005 6.69 0.10 4.40 1.20 58.60 15.50 2.96 2.60 0.92 106.00
2011 6.64 0.08 7.20 0.90 60.10 14.00 3.14 2.70 0.82 1 113.00 1 2.36
2012 3.76 <0.36 6.97 1.14 40.10 13.00 2.71 <3.58 2.07 110.00 0.29
2013 <0.008 0.04 4.70 0.70 23.10 10.60 <0.004 <3.91 1.52 95.70 0.29
Pre mean prev yrs 6.14 0.10 6.13 1.47 56.50 14.18 2.92 2.81 1.14 102.34 1.32
S D 0.99 0.04 1.77 0.55 7.83 11 1.41 0.15 0.67 0.47 8.24 1.47
Little Creek Control 2011 7.59 0.09
6.80
1.00
74.00
14.70 1 3.07 2.80 0.74 109.00
2.31
12.10
1.01
43.80
12.20 2.46 <3.15 <0.63 99.10
0.40
2012 3.50 <0.315
L. 13 <0.001 <1.49 0.19
2013 <0.003 <0.02
Mean prev yrs 5.55 NA
9.45
1.01
58.90
13.45
2.77
NA
NA
104.05
1.36
SD 2.89 NA
3.75
0.01
21.35
1.77
0.43
NA
NA
7.00
1.35
Jacobs Creek Pre
2011
6.54
0.08
7.00
0.70
61.30
13.20
3.31
2.30
0.80
96.80
2.62
2012 3.41 <0.33 5.28 0.69 37.00 10.30 2.60 <3.3 0.83 89.50 0.35
2013 <0.006 0.04 4.97 0.57 24.60 9.28 <0.003 <3.13 1.45 76.20 0.32
Pre mean prev yrs 4.98 1 NA 1 6.14 1 0.70 1 49.15 1 11.75 1 2.96 1 NA 0.81 93.15 1.48
SD 2.21 NA 1.22 0.00 17.18 2.05 0.50 NA 0.02 5.16 1.61
PA2 Control 2011 3.25 0.02 2.60 0.20 21.20 3.20 0.61 1.40 0.18 28.40 2.69
2012 1.98 <0.20 4.05 0.41 25.70 5.72 1.50 <1.95 <0.39 56.90 0.65
2013 <0.004 <0.039 1.16 0.08 6.02 1.82 <0.002 <2.21 0.34 20.10 0.67
Mean prev yrs 2.62 NA 3.33 0.31 23.45 4.46 1.06 NA NA 42.65 1.67
SD 0.90 NA 1.03 0.15 3.18 1.78 0.63 NA NA 20.15 1.44
DrinkwaterCreek Pre
2011
6.69
0.08
6.50
0.70
63.90
14.00
3.14
2.40
0.86
91.60
2.43
2012 39<0.309 8.59 0.68 39.90 10.80 2.68 <3.09 <0.618 89.10 0.36
Pre mean prev yrs 5.04 NA 7.55 0.69 51.90 12.40 2.91 NA NA 90.35 1.39
SD 2.33 NA 1.48 0.01 16.97 2.26 0.33 NA NA 1.77 1.46
Mod Alt L impact _> _> _. .> ...:. ...:. ..
Post 2013 <0.003 <0.031 1.65 0.17 7.06 2.48 <0.002 <1.56 0.39 28.90 0.77
Long Creek
IControl 2011 7.87 0.09 7.40 0.80 72.90 14.80 3.42 2.10 0.71 99.30 2.28
2012 2.33 <0.234 4.19 0.40 28.60 7.63 1.76 <2.34 0.98 70.30 0.56
2013 <0.003 <0.033 0.52 0.04 3.37 2.06 <0.001 <1.45 0.10 7.00 1.20
Mean prev yrs 5.10 NA 5.80 0.60 50.75 11.22 2.59 NA 0.85 84.80 1.42
SD 3.92 NA 2.27 0.28 31.32 5.07 1.17 NA 0.19 20.51 1.21
Pamlico River Estuary' 7.40
0.20
6.80 0.49 78.00 23.00 3.20 1.90 0.80 125.00
0.03
2.00
0.18 1 0.19 1 6.00 1.00 1 0.30 0.20 26.00
SD 1.80
Average Marine Sediment Crust2
7.2
0.1
7.7
0.2
72.0
33.0
4.1
2.0
0.4
1 95.0
8.0
0.1
1.7
0.1 126.0
25.0
4.3
1.1
0.1
65.0
Continental Crust3
Effects Range Low4
1.0 8.2
1.2 81.0 34.0
150.0
3.7 70.0 9.6 370.0 270.0
Effects Range Median
410.0

Table III -D1 (concluded).
111 -D -5
Dry
Pre -Mod Alt L
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Se
Zn
bulk
Post -Mod Alt L
Year
Al ( %)
Fe ( %)
(Ng /g)
(Ng /g)
(Ng /g)
(Ng /g)
(Ng /g)
(Ng /g)
(Ng /g)
(Ng /g)
density
or Control
(g /cm3)
Tooley Creek Pre
2010
6.28
0.17
7.00
1.00
66.70
13.30
3.27
1.80
0.97
97.70
2011
6.97
0.08
7.00
0.90
74.10
12.00
3.14
1.70
0.64
99.50
2.60
Pre mean
6.63
0.13
7.00
0.95
70.40
12.65
3.21
1.75
0.81
98.60
NA
SD
0.49
0.06
0.00
0.07
5.23
0.92
0.09
0.07
0.23
1.27
NA
..................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mod AR L impact
..........
.........
.....
.....
...............................
.
Post
2012
4.02
<0.317
6.21
1.14
50.70
11.30
3.97
<3.17
1.17
109.00
0.43
2013
<0.007
0.05
4.72
0.70
25.10
8.32
<0.003
<3.39
1.19
87.90
0.39
Muddy Creek Control
2000
8.26
0.08
5.10
1 1.10
79.50
32.50
3.03
2.60
1.26
108.00
2_0_0_1
6.1_9_
0.13
7.20
1.30
85.60
26.80
2.94
3.00
1.04
98.70
2003 W
._.._ 8.05 W _....
0.21 W W
W 6.40
1.20
80.00
30.30
2.83___2.70__,__1.26__,_103.00
_
_
2004
8.07
0.15
13.60
1.30
72.30
26.50
3.00
3.90
1.15
115.00_
2005
7.93
0.12__,___6.30__,
1.30
72.00
28.00
3.03
---
2009 W
._._._ 7.96
W 0.15
6.90
1.00
86.30
27.50 W
__2.80____1.0_1____105.00
3.35 2.50__1.09_
.
_
120.00
2010
6.64 . -_....
0 18 __......
6 30
0.90
733.8800
28.40
_.... ...._
3.29
2 80
_..
1.03
113.00
2011
7.90
0.11
6.60
0.80
75.60
25.30
3.14
2.50
0.80
108.00
2.06
2012
3.93
<0.3
4.38
0.60
44.70
14.80
2.41
r <3.0
0.63
99.50
0.39
2013
<0.005
0.03
2.73
0.31
15.10
6.10
<0.002
<2.26
0.58
52.60
0.58
Mean prev yrs
7.21
0.14
6.98
1.06
74.42
26.68
3.00
2.85
1.03
107.80
1.23
SD
1.42
0.04
2.64
1 0.25
12.34
4.94
0.28
0.46
0.21
716
118
Huddles Cut Pre
2009
0.11
0.03
0.10
0.02
2.00
0.30
0.03
0.05
0.02
2.30
..................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mod AR L impact
.
....
.:
..
...............................
..
.
Post
20_1_0_
0.1_3_
0.04
0.10
0.03
1.30
` 0.20
0.05
0.09
0.07
3.30
2011
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.02
1.10
0.40
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.50
2.41
2012
2.36
<0.27
4.02
0.86
30.00
8.62
1.42
<2.7
0.62
44.50
0.47
2013
<0.003
<0.02
0.15
0.04
1.06
0.28
<0.001
<1.27
<0.47
3.17
1.49
Post mean prev yrs
0.87
0.03
1.41
0.30
10.80
3.07
0.50
0.08
0.24
16.10
1.44
SD
1.29
0.02
2.26
0.48
16.63
4.80
0.80
0.01
0.33
24.63
1.37
Duck Creek Control
2011
6.77
0.13
6.40
0.50
58.10
20.80
3.93
1.90
0.77
93.10 1
2.40
2012
2.99
<0.375
4.65
0.49
32.20
17.90
3.26
<3.75
1.35
92.10
0.27
2013
3
<0.023
0.13
<0.02
0.27
0.21
0.25
0.55
0.03
2.10
1.38
Mean
4.88
NA
5.53
0.49
45.15
19.35
3.60
NA
1.06
92.60
1.33
SD
2.67
NA
1.24
0.01
18.31
2.05
0.47
NA
0.41
0.71
1.51
Porter Creek Pre
2011
8.05
0.12
8.20
0.90
I 82.80
17.40
4.29
2.40
0.77
96.50
2.49
2012
1.46
<0.171
2.55
0.2621.50
5.08
1.35
<1.71
0.55
31.10
0.73
2013
<0.004
0.02
2.07
0.25
9.16
4.12
<0.002
<1.84
0.39
27.80
0.60
Mean
4.76
NA
5.38
0.58
52.15
11.24
2.82
NA
0.66
63.80
1.61
SD
4.66
NA
4.00
0.45
43.35
8.71
2.08
NA
0.16
46.24
1.24
DCUT11 Pre
2013
<0.013
0.07
69#
13.50
9.53
<0.007
4.55
2.34
71.20
0.17
DCUT19 Control
2013
<0.012
<0.119
<0.12
0.07
3.66
0.61
<0.006
3.11
<0.24
62.90
0.16
Pamlico River Estuary
7.4
0.2
6.8
0.5
78.0
23.0
1 3.2
1.9
1 0.8
125.0
SD
1.8
0.0
2.0
0.2
0.2
6.0
1.0
0.3
0.2
26.0
Average Marine SedimentCrust2
7.2
0.1
7.7
0.2
72.0
33.0
4.1
2.0
0.4
95.0
Continental Crust3
8.0
0.1
1.7
0.1
126.0
25.0
4.3
1.1
0.1
65.0
Effects Range Low4
1.0
8.2
1.2
81.0
34.0
150.0
Effects Range Median
3.7
70.0
9.6
370.0
270.0
410.0
1 Trocine and Trefry (1998)
2 Salamons and F6rstner (1984)
3 Wedepohl (1995)
4 Long et al (1995)
111 -D -5

E. VEGETATION
1.0 Results and Discussion
Locations of the monitoring wells /vegetation transects are shown in Figures 1 -131-
1 -1316. The vegetation at most of the creeks in the study area was affected to some degree by
Hurricane Irene on 26 -27 August 2011. Tables III -E1a through III -E -1c contain dominant
herbaceous species and Tables III -E2a through III -E2c contain dominant shrub and woody vine
species found in monitoring transect plots across the study years. Tables III -E3a through III -
E3c show wetness and salinity characteristics among transects through time. Table III -E4 is a
list of common and scientific names for plants encountered throughout the study period with
their associated wetland indicator status and tolerance of brackish conditions. Data collected in
2013 from plots at each of the vegetation transects and 2013 photographs of the monitoring
sites are found in Appendix G.
For this report, two aspects are considered when analyzing changes in
percentages of brackish intolerant species in transects: distance from mouth of the creek and
sampling year (pre- or post -Mod Alt Q. The first aspect compares percent dominants
considered freshwater in transects according to their general location in relation to each other.
The second aspect compares transects over time.
a. Jacks Creek
All wells are in the upper two reaches of Jacks Creek. The
wells /transects are numbered upstream to downstream on the two prongs. The most upstream
transect, JW2 (western prong), is in the area of the creek crossed by an old state road, and is
on the opposite side of the road from the other transects, but a culvert under the road allows
water exchange. Two transects, JW3 (western prong) and JW7 (both considered middle
transects), are on separate prongs but occupy equivalent geomorphic positions relative to the
mouth, as do JW5 (western prong) and JW9, the most downstream transects. Transects
appear to have standing /flowing water frequently throughout the year, which limits herbaceous
growth and influences the presence or absence of particular species.
No Mod Alt L drainage basin reductions have occurred in the Jacks Creek
drainage basin, so comparisons over time are only among the different years and independent
of Mod Alt L activities. Despite the year -to -year variations at the individual transects, the most
upstream transect has had the higher percentage of dominants intolerant of brackish conditions
(Figures III -E1, E2 and Figure 11 -139) while the most downstream transect did not have any
dominants intolerant of brackish conditions until 2012, when shallow sedge (Carex lurida), which
is not tolerant of brackish conditions, was recorded as a dominant (Figure 11 -139, Table III -E3a).
The two middle transects have the widest range of percentages.
Two transects had the same amount of dominant species intolerant of
brackish conditions as last year, which are the lowest numbers of freshwater species for those
transects over the monitoring period (Table III -E3a, Figure 11 -139). Two transects had less
freshwater species than last year, but both values were more typical for those transects, and
one transect had more freshwater species, which was more typical of that transect. The
average number of dominant brackish intolerant species in 2013 was among the lowest over the
entire monitoring period and the range of percentages tied with 2011 for the shortest range with
the lowest maximum percentage (Figure III -E2).
III -E -1

Linear regression analysis for each transect over the years showed
strong statistical trends in the two most upstream transects (Figure II -139), where percentages of
brackish intolerant species have been mostly lower for the past several monitoring years.
Percentages of brackish intolerant species have also been lower the past several years at JW7,
but due to a high number in 2011, there was not a strong statistical trend. At JW9, excluding
2012, all percentages were zero.
Since 2011, the composition of the dominant herbaceous layer in Jacks
Creek has been more different than the past monitoring years (2000- 2005). Most of the 2013
dominant herbs at Jacks Creek have only been dominant in recent years, although at JW7 cane
(Arundinaria gigantea) has dominated (or co- dominated in 2012 and 2013) every year except
one, 2011, and Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum) has dominated (or co- dominated
in many years) every year except one, 2004 (Table III -E1 a). Also at JW7, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) was dominant every year from 2000 -2012 but was not dominant this
year. JW5 was the only transect in Jacks Creek in 2013 with a new dominant species- sturdy
bulrush (Bolboshoenus robustus), which has not been dominant before at any transect in Jacks
Creek. The number of dominant herbaceous species at each transect has been similar across
most years, but the amount at each transect in 2013 was slightly lower than the average of each
transect, except at JW2, where for the past two years, the number of dominants has been more
than all other previous years (Table III -E1a). None of the individual years had significantly
different amounts of dominant herbaceous species from other individual years and the amounts
in combined earlier years (2000 -2005) were not significantly different from amounts in the
combined recent years (2011- 2013).
The composition of the dominant shrub and woody vine layer in Jacks
Creek has been more different since 2011 than past years (Table III -E2a). Many of the 2013
dominant shrub /woody vine species at Jacks Creek have only been dominant in recent years,
with exception of palmetto (Saba/ minor), which has been dominant every year at JW9 and
JW7. JW2 was the only transect in Jacks Creek in 2013 with a new dominant species- eastern
baccharis ( Baccharis halimifolia). The numbers of dominant species have been similar over the
years (Table III -E2a). None of the individual years had significantly different amounts of
dominant shrub /woody vine species from other individual years and the amounts in combined
earlier years (2000 -2005) were not significantly different from amounts in the combined recent
years (2011- 2013).
Transects were fairly open (0 -65 percent tree canopy cover) with some
snags remaining at some transects. The most upstream transect had the most tree canopy
cover and was dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana) and American elm (Ulmus americana). One transect (second most
downstream transect) had no canopy and another only had about 10 percent cover over two
thirds of the transect. The two remaining transects had 20 and 15 percent cover of some of the
same species already mentioned as well as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and at one of
them, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). In 2005 the dominant overstory trees were
swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), laurel oak, and green ash. It was also noted in 2005 that the
canopy shifted gradually from closed (little dieback) to open (much dieback) on a gradient from
upstream to downstream. More die -back was observed during 2003, 2004, and 2005 than
during survey efforts prior to 2003. The increased die -back was localized in the more
downstream reaches of the survey areas on each arm of Jacks Creek, near the upper extent of
open canopy usually associated with the brackish marsh complex. However, the mid - stream
transects also appeared to have increased die -back in 2011 and 2012, compared to previous
years. Typically, the more downstream areas are more prone to flooding from wind tides so it is
III -E -2

likely that die -back is attributable to these short -term inundations by brackish water, which now
reaches further upstream. Additionally, a few large trees were toppled by Hurricane Irene.
The monthly average salinities at the upstream Jacks Creek AquaTROLL,
which is downstream of the vegetation transects ranged from 8 -12.5 psu throughout the year in
2013. While salinity in 2013 was slightly lower than in 2012, salinity for the last few years has
been higher than all other monitoring years (Section II I.A).
Over all the monitoring years at Jacks Creek, including 2013, only one
species (upland bentgrass [Agrostis perennans]) at one transect (JW3, second most upstream
transect) in one year (2000) has had an upland status (Tables III -E1 a, E3a).
b. Jacobs Creek
No Mod Alt L drainage basin reduction has occurred in the Jacobs Creek
drainage basin. Vegetation monitoring of a single transect at Jacobs Creek began in 2011, after
Hurricane Irene. All of the dominants were considered intolerant of brackish conditions for all
three monitoring years (Figure III -E3, Table III -E3a). In 2011 there was one dominant herb in the
transect and one individual of a single shrub /woody vine species in one plot. Then, in 2012
there were three dominant herbs and one (new) dominant shrub /woody vine species. Results in
2013 still showed low diversity, with two dominant herb species (one new) and two dominant
shrub /woody vine species (one new) (Tables III -E1 a, E2a). The herbaceous layer was
dominated by an upland species and a FAC species, which reflects the dry conditions recorded
by the monitoring wells at that transect. Cane remained a dominant species in the shrub /woody
vine category and Alabama supplejack (Berchemia scandens) was also a dominant (Table III -
E2a). Based on the fallen trees, prior to Hurricane Irene the transect canopy appeared to have
been moderately dense, but since the hurricane it has been fairly open and mostly contains red
maple with some green ash. One of the four dominants in 2013 was an upland species and two
of the four in 2012 were upland species (one the same as 2013, Tables III -E1 a, III -E2a).
C. Drinkwater Creek
Drinkwater Creek was not monitored 2012 -2013 according to the plan.
d. Tooley Creek
Tooley Creek was not monitored 2012 -2013 according to the plan.
e. Long Creek (control)
Monitoring of Long Creek began in 2011. The percentage of dominant
brackish intolerant species in 2013 slightly decreased from the past two years (Figure III -E4,
Table III -E3c). In 2011 the single transect was dominated by cane in the herbaceous layer and
in 2012, rosette grass (Dichanthelium sp.) was co- dominant with cane (Table III -E1c). The
results in 2013 were similar to 2012 with the addition of a new dominant herbaceous species -
sweetscent (Pluchea odorata). Wax myrtle was the sole dominant in the shrub and woody vine
layer from 2011 to 2013 (Table III -E2c). None of the dominants were upland species from 2011
to 2013 (Table III -E3c). The tree canopy was moderately open (50 percent cover) and
consisted mostly of swamp tupelo, red maple, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red bay
(Persea palustris), and water oak (Quercus nigra).
f. Huddles Cut Main Prong
Monitoring did not occur in 2011 due to the high amount of debris and
standing water after Hurricane Irene, and also did not occur in 2012 because it was in a post -
disturbance transition year. The only pre -Mod Alt L year is 2009. Mod Alt L activities in the
III -E -3

Huddles Cut drainage basin ceased after 2011, leaving approximately 289 acres in its drainage
basin out of the approximately 551 acres in the drainage basin pre -Mod Alt L.
A visual difference in the plant community between the last year of
sampling (2010) and 2013 was evident at the time of sampling, partly due to Hurricane Irene.
The previously abundant poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), whorled pennywort (Hydrocotyle
verticillata), wax myrtle and royal fern (Osmunda regalis) had disappeared or diminished and
sweetscent, eastern baccharis, sedges, and coast cockspur grass (Echinochloa walterl)
dominated the swamp. Additionally, before Hurricane Irene occurred in 2011, the overstory
trees had started to die out, but Hurricane Irene toppled most of the remaining canopy at most
transects. Only one of the seven transects had any canopy in 2013, and it covered only the last
two plots that were in the ecotone between the swamp and surrounding forest. Prior to
Hurricane Irene, dominant overstory trees included swamp tupelo, red maple, green ash,
American elm, sweetgum, and a scattering of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). A few
transects also had scattered water oak (Quercus nigra).
While percentages of dominant brackish intolerant species at each
transect has fluctuated over the years, when distance from creek mouth is considered, there
has been no discernable long -term pattern at most of the individual transects for most of the
sampling years (Figure III -E5). The number of dominant plants in the herbaceous layer post -
Mod Alt L has not significantly decreased from the pre -Mod Alt L year. The post -Mod Alt L
average number of dominant herbaceous species was lower than pre -Mod Alt L at two of the
seven transects and higher at four transects. However, the number of dominant species at
each transect in 2013 was lower than the last monitoring year (2010) at five of the seven
transects and higher at one. The composition of the herbaceous layer has also been changing
over the years. In 2013, every transect on the main prong had at least one dominant that had
never been dominant before (Tables III -E1 a, Ems. More of the newer dominant herbaceous
species in recent years tend to be more tolerant of brackish conditions than those from earlier
years, especially in 2013.
The number of dominant plants in the shrub /woody vine layer post -Mod
Alt L has significantly increased from pre -Mod Alt L (p= 0.03). The average number of dominant
species before any Mod Alt L activities was 1.3 and the average after Mod Alt L activities was
2.1. The post -Mod Alt L average at five of the seven transects was higher than the pre -Mod Alt
L average and lower at one of the transects, although the 2013 average at only two transects
was higher than 2010 and three were lower. In 2013, like the herbaceous layer, every transect
on the main prong had at least one new dominant, and for the shrubs it was usually eastern
baccharis, which is tolerant of brackish conditions (Tables III -E1a, Ems. More of the dominant
shrub /woody vine species in recent years tend to be more tolerant of brackish conditions than
earlier years, especially in 2013.
Although all Mod Alt L activities in Huddles Cut were over by 2011, the
activities occurred incrementally across the sub - basins so all areas were not impacted in the
same way at the same time. Therefore, it might take longer for some transects to show mine -
related changes, if any changes occur. In 2013, six of the seven transects contained the least
amount of dominant brackish intolerant species of all monitoring years and one had the same
lowest amount as the last year of monitoring -2010 (Figure II -137, Tables III -E3a, E3b). The
percentage of dominants intolerant of brackish conditions is significantly lower post -Mod Alt L
(p =0.03) when all transects are combined and the years grouped pre- and post -Mod Alt L
(Figure II -B1). Generally, there is a lower percentage of dominant brackish intolerant species in
most areas on the main prong of Huddles Cut in post- disturbance years, which means there are
III -E -4

less dominant species adapted for freshwater conditions.
Over the years, there have been very few dominant species in the main
prong of Huddles Cut with a wetland indicator status of upland and they have only been in the
herbaceous layer (Table III -E3a, Ems. Three of the seven transects have not had any upland
dominant species. There is no apparent pattern to the few occurrences of upland species, and
their presence likely is due to low rainfall or opportunistic colonization of small high spots,
discussed in Summary and Conclusions.
g. Huddles Cut West Prong
In July 2009, before the 2009 vegetation sampling survey, mine
expansion activities eliminated six of the 10 plots at HWW2 and the entire transect at HWW10.
The vegetation was last surveyed in 2011, just prior to Hurricane Irene. In September 2012, a
surface depression appeared near HWW8. Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. was
contracted by PCS to investigate. Their evaluation of that depression and another smaller one
found in the area are in Appendix E of the 2012 report (CZR 2012). The vegetation was not
surveyed in 2012 because it was the first year after the transition year (2011) and consequently,
the effects of the depression on the vegetation in the transect were not noted in the 2012 report,
but in this current report.
A visual difference in the west prong of Huddles Cut was evident between
the last year of surveying (2011) and 2013. The two upstream transects appeared drier than in
2011, which is supported by the hydrology data from the wells. The overstory at most transects
was already fairly open prior to Hurricane Irene in 2011, but with a dense understory dominated
by wax myrtle. However, the wax myrtles were beginning to die. The few dominant overstory
trees included red maple, swamp tupelo, and green ash with a scattering of American elm and
laurel oak along some transects. In 2013, all transects were completely open, the understory
was gone and most snags and dead branches that had been scattered across the transects
were no longer visible and were either underwater (in the more downstream portion of the
prong) or were washed out during flooding that resulted from Hurricane Irene, or decomposed.
The upper reaches of the west prong had storm - toppled trees and branches along the ecotone
edge of the swamp and surrounding forest.
The percentages of dominant brackish intolerant species at the transects
were compared according to their general location along the creek in relation to each other
(Figure III -E6). In relation to other transects, HWW7 is considered downstream, HWW2,
HWW4, and HWW8 are considered in the middle, and HWW10 is considered upstream. After
HWW10 was eliminated in 2009, HWW2 and HWW8 are now considered the upstream
transects and are fairly close to the mine boundary. Despite the year -to -year variations at the
individual wells, overall the downstream transect usually has lower percentages of dominant
species intolerant of brackish conditions (viz, less freshwater species, Tables III -E3a, E3b).
Also in 2013, diversity was lower across the area. The surface
depression at HWW8 affected one and a half plots -one plot was completely caved in, along with
half of an adjoining plot, and only bare soil was visible in the depression. Baccharis, which had
not been dominant before, was one of the most common dominant species in 2013 (Table III -
E2a). Sweetscent and coast cockspur grass were also common dominants (Table III -E1a).
Alabama supplejack had been a common dominant woody vine species at the two upstream
transects in most years but was not dominant in 2013.
III -E -5

The number of dominant plants in the herbaceous layer post -Mod Alt L
has not significantly increased or decreased from pre -Mod Alt L, although the combined post -
Mod Alt L average of all four transects is slightly lower than the combined pre -Mod Alt L
average. In 2013, two transects had less dominants than the last year of monitoring (2011) and
two were the same, which is also the same trend when comparing 2013 to the pre -Mod Alt L
data. The number of dominant plants in the shrub /woody vine layer post -Mod Alt L were similar
at all transects and the combined averages were the same so there was no significant
difference in the amount of dominant species.
Transects were also compared pre- and post -Mod Alt L. Only the upper
half of the combined post -Mod Alt L data overlaps with the pre -Mod Alt L data, which shows that
more freshwater species tended to be present pre -Mod Alt L (Figure II -134). The percentage of
dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions has declined every post -Mod Alt L year at
three of the four transects (Figure II -138). However, at the most downstream transect, the
percentage increased the second post -Mod Alt L year but then dropped to zero (Figure II -138).
At all transects, the average number of dominant brackish intolerant species for the combined
post -Mod Alt L years was lower than the pre -Mod Alt L number (Figure II -136) and all transects
had less brackish intolerant species in 2013 than the last year of monitoring -2011 (Figure II -135).
Some of the average salinities at all three Huddles Cut monitors were
slightly lower in 2013 than in 2012, but the overall trend in the other post -Mod Alt L years is one
of increasing salinity. Furthermore, salinity of the combined post -Mod Alt L years is significantly
higher than the pre -Mod Alt L year (Section II I.A).
There have only been two dominant species with a wetland indicator
status of upland in three of the four years and each transect has had at least one of those
species. However, despite large differences in the frequency and duration of flooding between
downstream and upstream transects, all transects clearly were dominated by wetland
vegetation in all years.
h. Porter Creek
Vegetation monitoring at Porter Creek began in 2011. No Mod Alt L
drainage basin reductions have occurred in the Porter Creek basin. Both transects have mostly
sparse herbaceous and shrub layers. Figure III -E7 shows the two transects in relation to the
distance from the mouth of the creek and the percentage of brackish intolerant species. The
amount of dominant brackish intolerant species has remained high over the three years of
monitoring (Figure III -E8). One transect in 2013 had the same three dominant herbaceous
species as 2012 and one of the same dominant shrub /woody vine species while the other
transect had two of the same dominant herbaceous species as 2012 and one of the same
dominant shrub /woody vine species, plus an additional species that has not been dominant at
that transect (Table III -E1 a). At the downstream transect only the second half (upstream end)
has a canopy, which is moderately dense at 75 percent coverage and is dominated by red
maple, American elm, green ash, and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). The upstream
transect has a moderately dense tree canopy (70 percent coverage) for the entire transect and
is dominated by red maple, green ash, and ironwood. The canopy in the surrounding area has
several new large openings as a result of large ( >12 inches diameter at breast height), mature
trees that fell during Hurricane Irene. Both transects and surrounding areas have abundant
saplings of the dominant tree species. Neither transect had any dominant species with an
upland status. No dominant species that are tolerant of brackish conditions has been recorded
at the upstream transect and only one species in 2012 and 2013 has been tolerant of brackish
conditions at the downstream transect (Tables III -E1 a, III -E2a).
III -E -6

i. DCUT11
Vegetation monitoring at a single transect on this tributary of Durham
Creek began in 2013. Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy, and Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) were the dominant species, none of which are tolerant of brackish
conditions or are upland species (Tables III -E1a, E2a, E3a). The transect was shaded by a
fairly dense canopy dominated by green ash, southern red oak (Quercus falcata), and cherry
bark oak (Quercus pagoda) with a scattering of tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera). The
subcanopy was comprised of mostly American holly (Ilex opaca) and Chinese privet.
j. DCUT19 (control creek)
Vegetation monitoring at a single transect on this tributary of Durham
Creek began in 2013. This transect was more diverse than the DCUT11 transect, with four
dominant herbs and three dominant shrub /woody vine species (Tables III -E1c, Ems. Only one
of the dominants was tolerant of brackish conditions and none were upland species (Table III -
Eac). The transect was shaded by a dense canopy dominated by tulip popular with a scattering
of sweet gum. The subcanopy consisted mostly of red maple and ironwood.
k. Duck Creek (control creek)
Vegetation monitoring at Duck Creek began in 2011. All transects had
sparse herbaceous and shrub layers and a moderately dense canopy. The dominant species in
the tree canopy in 2013 varied at the different transects. The overstory tree species were
similar among the transects, but in different percentages. The overstory trees included sweet
gum, red maple, tulip poplar, and swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii). Bald cypress was also a
dominant at the most downstream transect. Most transects also contained a subcanopy that
consisted of younger specimens of the overstory species as well as American holly, green ash,
red bay, and loblolly bay (Magnolia virginiana). In 2013, each transect had one new dominant
herbaceous species as well as at least one repeat from last year (Tables III -E1c). The dominant
species in the shrub and woody vine layer were also similar to last year, with the addition of one
species at one transect and the removal of one from another transect (Table III -E2c). Cane was
abundant at most transects in both layers, which has been the case every year.
The amount of dominant brackish intolerant species has remained high
over the three years (Figure III -E9). One upstream transect has only had dominant species that
are not tolerant of brackish conditions while the other upstream transect had one dominant
species that was tolerant of brackish conditions in 2013. One of the downstream transects had
one dominant species in 2013 that was tolerant of brackish conditions while the other
downstream transect had an unknown vine in 2012 that may or may not have been tolerant of
brackish conditions (Tables III -E1c, Ems. Since the first year of monitoring in 2011, the most
downstream transect has had one species that is considered an upland species (partridge berry
[Mitchella repens)], Table III -E1c) but it was growing opportunistically in elevated drier areas,
not in areas where water is occasionally present. In 2013, another upland species was also
dominant in that transect- Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) (Table III -E2c).
2.0 Summary and Conclusions
Logs, stumps, and tree mounds (fallen and live) are common along these
transects, as well as canopy gaps caused by trees and shrubs falling due to softened soil and
wind storms. Over time, these factors provide establishment sites for many herbs that
otherwise would not be (or had not been) able to grow within quadrats or plots along the
transect. However, this microtopography is random, and while a plot in the transect might be
III -E -7

bare, a tree mound a few feet away outside of the transect might have several species growing
on it, or the opposite could also be true. This is one of the benefits of having several plots
alternating along the transect axis so the variability will most likely be captured in survey efforts.
As the stumps and logs decay and the tree mounds subside, the herbs that are intolerant of
prolonged inundation are flooded out. Also, as adjacent trees, shrubs, and vines expand to fill
gaps in the canopy, shade - intolerant herbs die out. These recurring processes partially
influence the composition of the herbaceous layer and to a lesser extent, the shrub layer.
Hurricane Irene in 2011 caused a substantial change in the vegetation community at many of
the creeks, particularly in the canopy and sub - canopy.
The composition of vegetative species for the creeks sampled in 2013 that have
a longer data record (Jacks Creek and Huddles Cut) has been more different in recent years
than previous years, although there have been few statistically significant differences. A
noticeable visual change in the vegetation community from the last year of sampling was
apparent at both prongs of Huddles Cut in 2013, most likely attributed to due to Hurricane Irene.
Most of the dominant species in the past few years had not been recorded as dominants in
earlier monitoring years and the new species tend to be those more tolerant of brackish
conditions. Despite some variability at the individual transects along most creeks, the highest
percentages of brackish intolerants often are found at the upstream transects and the lowest
percentages are often at the downstream transects. While there are large differences in the
frequency and duration of flooding at the upstream transects versus the downstream transects,
all transects at all creeks clearly were dominated by wetland vegetation in all years, with only a
few non - wetland species appearing as dominants at a few transects.
At Jacks Creek the number of dominants intolerant of brackish conditions have
mostly been lower in more recent years, particularly in the two most upstream transects where
linear regression analysis showed strong downward trends. Only one dominant species at one
transect in one year has had a non - wetland status, which shows the vegetation is still
predominantly wetland vegetation.
On the main prong of Huddles Cut, the number of dominant plants in the
herbaceous layer was not significantly different between the pre -Mod Alt L year and post -Mod
Alt L years but the average number of dominant species in the shrub /woody vine layer was
significantly higher post -Mod Alt L. The percentage of dominant species that are considered
intolerant of brackish conditions significantly decreased post -Mod Alt L. Three of the seven
transects have not had any non - wetland species and there have only been a few species
scattered across the years and remaining transects, so the vegetation on this prong of Huddles
Cut is still predominantly wetland vegetation.
On the west prong of Huddles Cut, the numbers of dominant species in both the
herbaceous and shrub /woody vine layers were similar and not significantly different, although
the herbaceous layer had slightly less dominant species post -Mod Alt L. The percentage of
dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions is lower post -Mod Alt L, but not significantly.
There have only been two dominant species with a wetland indicator status of upland in three of
the four years and each transect has had at least one of those species. However, despite large
differences in the frequency and duration of flooding between downstream and upstream
transects, all transects clearly were dominated by wetland vegetation in all years.
The other creeks had similar species, but in different amounts. Jacobs Creek
continued to show low diversity and had drier species than most other transects, which reflects
the drier conditions recorded by the wells near the transect. One transect at Duck Creek was
III -E -8

the only other place where a dominant upland species was recorded. Most of the dominant
species at the other transects were also considered intolerant of brackish conditions.
The tree canopy at many of the long -term monitored creeks has become more
open and at least some of the die -back is likely due to increased salinities. However, Hurricane
Irene in 2011 toppled much of the canopy and sub - canopy at some of the creeks, increasing the
openness of the canopy. The increase in salinity and canopy dieback appears to be a regional
sea level rise effect and is visually evident in many creeks and estuaries within the Pamlico
River drainage basin.
III -E -9

110
100
Cn 90
Cn C
T .s
80
Q 0
m U 70
CO
c
Y 60
E v
0 m
50
o 0 40
aa)) CO
a) 30
a) o
a
20
10
0
JW2
JW7
JW3
•
•
•
JW5 • •
•
•
JW9
•
•
•
3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200
Distance from Mouth of Creek (feet)
Figure III -E1. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Jacks Creek
transects 2000 -2005 and 2011 -2013 arranged by distance from mouth of creek.
110
100
w
c 90
a) •2 80
CL
N
(0 70
w 60
Y
E 50
0m
40
c 0 c 0 30
C) E2
CL) 0 20
10
0
-10
Year
Figure III -E2. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year at Jacks
Creek with all transects combined.
III -E -10

w
N p
N O
Q C
U
c �
(0 U
c Y
E U
o
M m
0 0
c �
N �
L
N O
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
•
2010 2011
2013
Year
Figure III -E3. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year at
Jacobs Creek.
N ,o
N
� o
Y
O �
p m
O O
N �
L
m 0
D_ c
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
•
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure III -E4. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year at Long
Creek.
III -E -11
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure III -E4. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year at Long
Creek.
III -E -11

3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200
Distance From Mouth of Creek (ft)
Figure III -E5. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Huddles Cut
transects on the main prong arranged by distance from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt
L years.
Huddles Cut -West Prong
ivv
90
U)
C:
80
U)
c
80
U
70
N
0
60
U
60
0 m
50
U)
40
,�;;
50
U
E2
30
pp
40
c
20
30
0
L
0
a)
20
10
0
3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200
Distance From Mouth of Creek (ft)
Figure III -E5. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Huddles Cut
transects on the main prong arranged by distance from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt
L years.
Huddles Cut -West Prong
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
Distance from Mouth of Creek (feet)
Figure III -E6. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Huddles Cut
transects on the west prong arranged by distance from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt
L years.
III -E -12
110
100
U)
C:
90
U)
a) .o
a
80
U
70
c �
60
U
0 m
50
0 0
40
c c
a) CU
L a)
30
a) 0
G_
20
10
0
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
Distance from Mouth of Creek (feet)
Figure III -E6. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Huddles Cut
transects on the west prong arranged by distance from mouth of creek for pre- and post -Mod Alt
L years.
III -E -12

U)
N .O
�U
N �
O
� U
s= �
U)
E U
O 12
0 CO
O O
s= s=
N c6
U L
L N
^� OLL
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
•
PC5
•
PC9A
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Distance from Mouth of Creek (feet)
Figure III -E7. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Porter Creek
transects 2011 -2013 arranged by distance from mouth of creek.
U)
o
N �
Q C
U
c� U)
E U
O
p m
0 0
0 �
U
L
LL
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure III -E8. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year at Porter
Creek with all transects combined.
III -E -13

110
100
N 90
0 80
N
p 70
U
N �
60
50
0
0 40
0
30
N L
m 0
20
a c
10
0
-10
i I
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure III -E9. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions every year at Duck
Creek with all transects combined.
w
w C
a� .o
�U
CL
O
CU Cn
�U
c
Y
E U
O E2
0 CO
ww
0 0
c c
U L
L
Q
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DKCW4B DKCW2A
O O qF
DKCW1
O DKCW3A V
• 2011
O 2012
v 2013
8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Distance from Mouth of Creek (feet)
Figure III -E10. Percent of dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions at Duck Creek
transects 2011 -2013 arranged by distance from mouth of creek.
III -E -14

Table III -E1a. Dominant herbaceous species in vegetation transects in seven creeks monitored
pre -Mod Alt L. Jacks Creek (2000 -2005; 2011 - 2013); Jacobs Creek (2011- 2013); Drinkwater
Creek (2011); Tooley Creek (2010- 2011); Huddles Cut (2009); Porter Creek (2011- 2013); one
tributary to Durham Creek (DCUT11, 2013). No impacts from Mod -Alt L have occurred in Jacks
Creek, Jacobs Creek, Porter Creek, or Durham Creek as of 2013. Bold names and values
indicate species considered intolerant of brackish conditions. An asterisk ( *) indicates a non -
wetland species.
III -E -15
Percent of Importance
I
Creek
Prong/Transect
Dominant species
2000 2001
2002 2003`•
2004
2005 ! 2011 1 2012
2013
Jacks /Jw2
Arundinaria gigantea
65.1 79.0
61.1 64.8
54.6
55.5 13.8
13.4
Hydrocotyie verticiiiata
19.3
Microstegium vimineum
66.9
8.53
Mania scandens
10.9
36.4
Polygonum punctatum
10.3
Jacks /Jw3
*Agrostis perennans
4.8
Andropogon virginicus
Baccharis halimifolia
37.3
9.14
Carex intumescens
6.9
9.0
Carex iaevivaginata
6.1
Carex ieptaiea
5.1
Fraxinus pennsyivanica
4.2
Galium tinctorium
3.8
Giyceria striata
11.4 14.9
14.4 7.3
10.4
18.5
Hydrocotyie verticiiiata
5.2
16.2
6.4
Leersia oryzoides
5.0
7.3
11.8
Microstegium vimineum
4.7 12.5
8.6
14.4
9.78
Nbrella cerifera
18.4
Polygonum punctatum
25.2
39.4
Ptilimnium capillaceum
3.6
Saururus cernuus
14.8 12.3
9.9
9.9
8.4
Smiiaxrotundifoiia
3.7
Symphyotrichum subulatum
42.7
Toxicodendron radicans
9.8 7.7
8.8 6.8
9.0
III -E -15

Table III -E1 a (continued).
III -E -16
Percent of Importance
Creek
Prong/Transect
Dominant species
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2011
2012
2013
Jacks /JW5
Bo /boshoenusrobustus
31.7
Carexintumescens
27.7
33.1
Carex iurida
12.1
Echinocloa walteri
6.1
12.5
7.4
Hydrocotyie verticiiiata
17.6
14.7
12.0
30.9
11.0
27.5
Leersia oryzoides
15.9
32.4
Pluchea odorata
15.0
22.9
Polygonum punctatum
16.6
9.2
9.3
22.2
Samolus valerandi spp. parviflorus
11.4
12.8
18.0
Symphyotrichum subulatum
6.5
14.0
48.2
31.9
Jacks /JW7
Arundinaria gigantea
6.4
Giyceria striata
7.0
Hydrocotyie verticiiiata
7.8
10.1
Juncus coriaceus
11.3
Microstegium vimineum
9.4
25.1
10.4
6.1
11.5
17.7
19.2
45.1
Pluchea odorata
12.9
Polygonum punctatum
14.9
16.3
Samolus valerandi spp. parviflorus
5.3
Saururus cernuus
18.4
14.9
16.5
21.3
20.8
18.3
Toxicodendron radicans
17.4
16.9
25.5
14.8
17.4
18.0
12.2
11.7
Unidentified herb
7.9
Jacks /JW9
Carex iurida
17.6
Echinocloa walteri
24.2
21.1
17.5
Hydrocotyie verticiiiata
31.1
31.0
12.5
35.6
39.2
38.2
Pluchea odorata
66.4
36.7
Polygonum punctatum
31.1
31.6
8.6
17.3
Sagittaria graminea
20.7
Samolus valerandi spp. parviflorus
18.2
13.8
Typha angustifolia
16.9
III -E -16

Table III -E1 a (concluded).
Percent of Im
Creek
Prong /Transect
Dominant species
2010 2011
Jacobs /JCBW
Carexintumescens
52.7
Eupatorium capillifolium
G /echoma hederacea
NOT
Microstegium vimineum
MONITORED
47.9
Drinkwater /DWW1C
Arundinariagigantea
Glyceria striata
10.1
Tooley/TW1
Arundinaria gigantea
26.1 27.6
Pluchea odorata
25.7 ` 54.4
Tooley/TW3
Pluchea odorata
31.0 42.8
Polygonum punctatum
42.2
Symphyotrichum sub ulatum
48.6
Tooley/TW4
Arundinaria gigantea
12.1 DATA NOT
COLLECTED
Polygonum punctatum
49.2 € DUE TO HIGH
42.5 AMOUNT OF
Tooley/T W6
Microstegium vimineum
HURRICANE
Twdcodendronradicans
12.0 DEBRIS
III -E -17
2012 2013
16.1
17.5
20.4 28.8
33.3
NOT MONITORED
NOT MONITORED

Table III -E1 b. Dominant herbaceous species in Huddles Cut vegetation transects monitored
post -Mod Alt L (2010 -2011, 2013). Bold names and values indicate species considered
intolerant of brackish conditions. An asterisk ( *) indicates a non - wetland species.
III -E -18
Percent of Importance
Creek ProngfTransect
Dominant species
2010
12.1
2011 2012
2013
Huddles Cut Main /HMW2
Cicuta maculata
*Eupatorium capillifolium
16.2
Echinochloa walteri
15.3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.7
Hydrocotyle verticillata
18.0
*Parthenocissus quinquefolia
10.2
Pluchea odorata
33.5
Smilax rotundifolia
8.3
25.8
Huddles Cut Main /HMW5
*Eupatorium capillifolium
Morella cerifera
29.9
Polygonum punctatum
31.1
Osmunda regalis
27.6
DATANOT
COLLECTED
Toxicodendron radicans
29.2
DUE TO NOT
HIGH
€ MONITORED !
Huddles Cut Main /HMW6
Cyperus odoratus
AMOUNT OF
32.4
HURRICANE
Echinochloa walteri
13.7
DEBRIS
i
40.4
Pluchea odorata
27.6
Toxicodendron radicans
12.0
12.8
Huddles Cut Main /HMW8
Echinochloa walteri
Hydrocotyle verticillata
23.8
Osmunda regalis
21.6
Pluchea odorata
19.3
Symphyotrichum subulatum
9.37
Toxicodendron radicans
23.6
10.6
21.8
Huddles Cut Main /HMW9
Echinochloa walteri
Hydrocotyle verticillata
43.7
Pluchea odorata
25.3
37.3
III -E -18

Table III -E1 b (continued).
Creek Prong/Transect
Dominant species
Huddles Cut Main /HMW10
Echinochloa walteri
2010
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Morella cerifera
12.1
Pluchea odorata
20.8
Symphyotrichum subulatum
Huddles Cut Main /HMW12
Echinochloa walteri
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Osmunda regalis
Pluchea odorata
Huddles Cut West /HWW2
Baccharis halimifolia
Microstegium vimineum
21.9
*Parthenocissus quinquefolia
11.4
Toxicodendron radicans
Huddles Cut West /HWW4
Cyperus odoratus
Echinochloa walteri
*Eupatorium capillifolium
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Morella cerifera
Pluchea odorata
Rosa palustris
Smilax rotundifolia
Toxicodendron radicans
Huddles Cut West /HWW7
Echinochloa walteri
*Eupatorium capillifolium
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Pluchea odorata
Polygonum punctatum
III -E -19
26.1
24.2
31.5 68.1
12.3 NOT
MONITORED
20.9
15.0
33.9
14.1
13.1
15.3
46.3
10.6
22.0
25.2
20.8
2013
33.4
21.7
19
40.7
15
15.6
23.9
52.7
25.8
Percent of Importanc
2010
2011 2012
12.1
20.8
259
DATANOT
COLLECTED
DUETO
HIGH
19.3
AMOUNT OF
HURRICANE
21.9
DEBRIS
11.4
26.1
24.2
31.5 68.1
12.3 NOT
MONITORED
20.9
15.0
33.9
14.1
13.1
15.3
46.3
10.6
22.0
25.2
20.8
2013
33.4
21.7
19
40.7
15
15.6
23.9
52.7
25.8

Table III -E1 b (concluded).
Percent of Im
Creek Prongrrransect Dominant species 2010 i 2011 2012 € 2013
Hydrocotyle verticNata 27.2 22.7
Wania scandens 16.8
Huddles Cut VVest/HVVVVIO
Morella cerifera 1 1 7.7
Saururus cernuus 1 37.9
III -E -20
TIMBERED
TIMBERED

Table III -E1c. Dominant herbaceous species in vegetation transects in three control creeks:
Long and Duck Creeks (2011- 2013), DCUT19 (2013). Bold names and values indicate species
considered intolerant of brackish conditions. An asterisk ( *) indicates a non - wetland species.
III -E -21
Percent of Importance
Creek Prongrrransect
Dominant species
2011
2012
2013
Long Creek/LOCW2B
Arundinaria gigantea
30.0
22.3
18.9
Dichanthelium dichotomum
30.2
18.1
Microstegium vimineum
21.9
Pluchea odorata
24.8
Durham Creek Tributary19 /DC192A
Lonicerajaponica
13.6
Microstegium vimineum
11.1
Saururus cernuus
23.6
Vaccinium corymbosum
12.4
Duck Creek/DKCW1 B
Arundinaria gigantea
65.5
50.2
30.3
Woodwardia areolata
31.2
Duck Creek/DKCW2A
Arundinaria gigantea
40.3
26.6
26
Saururus cernuus
9.23
Toxicodendron radicans
11.9
9.2
Woodwardia areolata
18.8
18.1
Duck Creek/DKCW3A
Arundinaria gigantea
23.7
10.2
Carex intumescens
15.3
Eleocharis tortilis
13.3
14.7
Juncus roemarianus
8.42
Microstegium vimineum
17.7
20.3
9.27
Woodwardia areolata
9.2
11.6
12.4
DuckCreek/DKCW4B
Carexintumescens
17.3
29.8
12.6
Liriodendron tulipfera
5.76
Microstegium vimineum
15.2
25.9
Witchella repens
26.2
10.6
6.99
Toxicodendron radicans
14.3
III -E -21

Table III -E2a. Dominant shrub and woody vine species in vegetation transects in six creeks
monitored pre -Mod Alt L: Jacks Creek (2000 -2005; 2011 - 2013); Jacobs Creek (2011- 2013),
Drinkwater Creek (2011); Tooley Creek (2010- 2011); Huddles Cut (2009); Porter Creek (2011-
2013) and one tributary to Durham Creek (DCUT11, 2013). No impacts from Mod -Alt L have
occurred in Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Porter Creek, or Durham Creek as of 2013. Bold
names and values indicate species considered intolerant of brackish conditions. Asterisks ( *)
indicate non - wetland species.
III -E -22
Percent of Importance
Creek
Prong/Transect
Dominant species
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2011
2012 2013
Jacks /JW2
Arundinaria gigantea
26.0
Baccharis halimifolia
22.8
Berchemia scandens
17.4
15.3
27.0
24.7
29.6
27.0
19.7
Bignonia capreolata
21.5
13.9
Campsis radicans
15.6
18.3
27
Carpinus caroliniana
17.4
17.0
13.1
Quercus laurifolia
13.3
Liquidambarstyraciflua
24.8
21.7
17.3
18.6
14.7
Sabal minor
37.4
27.0 36.7
Jacks /JW3
Baccharis halimifolia
31.4
37.3 37.4
Decumaria Barbara
28.6
22.6
29.3
24.6
20.1
19.5
Morella cerifera
35.8
18.4 17.6
Smilaxrotundifolia
12.8
Toxicodendron radicans
26.9
17.7
27.5
25.6
31.8
32.9
Jacks /JW5
Baccharis halimifolia
43.2
29.0
Iva frutescens
20.6
20.0
24.0
26.7
37.8
47.7 64.4
Morella cerifera
34.1
22.6
Sabalminor
64.3
54.6
32.1
39.0
25.8
20.3
Smilaxrotundifolia
Jacks /JW7
Acerrubrum
15.4
Arundinaria gigantea
27.8
29.5 27.9
Baccharis halimifolia
13.0 13.5
Decumaria Barbara
13.0
18.3
12.4
25.8
Liquidambarstyraciflua
15.4
11.3
Sabal minor
13.1
23.8
17.3
47.6
28.7
34.9
18.9 21.6
26.1
Toxicodendron radicans
14.5
17.1
18.0
25.3
Jacks /JW9
Baccharis halimifolia
24.4
Iva frutescens
26.2 29.3
Morella cerifera
25.5
16.3
20.2
29.4
22.4
Sabal minor
24.4
31.6
45.8
24.5
24.4
41.9
51.2 37.6
21.6
Toxicodendron radicans
20.2
24.0
21.9
22.9
III -E -22

Table III -E2a (continued).
Creek
Percent of Importance
2010 2011 2012 2013
PronglTransect
Dominant species
Arundinaria gigantea
64.6 € 30.1
Jacobs /JCBW
NOT
Berchemia scandens
37.4
MONITORED
1 specimen in
Vitis rotundifolia
1 plot
Drinkwater/ DWW1 C
Arundinaria gigantea
62.1
61.5
Tooley/TW1
Arundinaria gigantea
Toxicodendron radicans
21.8
Vitis rotundifolia
48.3
24.7 38.0 NOT MONITORED
Tooley/TW3
Baccharis halimifolia
Sabal minor
36.5 53.8
DATA NOT
Tooley/TW4
Arundinaria gigantea
52.0 COLLECTED
DUE TO HIGH
AMOUNT OF
Tooley/TW6
Arundinaria gigantea
64.4 HURRICANE
DEBRIS
III -E -23

Table III -E2a (continu
Creek Prong/Transec
Huddles Cut Main /HMW2
Huddles Cut Main /HMW5
Huddles Cut Main /HMW6
Huddles Cut Main /HMW8
Huddles Cut Main /HMW9
Dominant speci
Acer rubrum
Berchemia scandens
Decumaria barbara
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Morella cerifera
Smilax rotundifolia
Toxicodendron radicans
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Morella cerifera
Toxicodendron radicans
Vaccinium corymbosum
Berchemia scandens
Decumaria barbara
Morella cerifera
Persea palustris
Toxicodendron radicans
Morella cerifera
Persea palustris
Phragmites australis
Toxicodendron radicans
Berchemia scandens
Morella cerifera
Persea palustris
Smilax rotundifolia
Toxicodendron radicans
III -E -24
2009
29.6
40.4
37.5
15.1
56.2
57.2
51.0
Percent of Im
2011 2012 2013
POST -MOD ALT L

Table III -E2a (continued).
Creek Prong/Transect
Dominant spec
Huddles Cut Main /HMW10
Morella cerifera
Smilax rotundifolia
Toxicodendron radicans
Huddles Cut Main /HMW12
Corpus foemina
Decumaria barbara
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Liquidambar styraciflua
Morella cerifera
Smilax rotundifolia
Toxicodendron radicans
Huddles CUtWest/HWW2
Acerrubrum
Arundinaria gigantea
Berchemia scandens
Corpus amomum
Corpus foemina
Morella cerifera
Toxicodendron radicans
Huddles CUtWest/HWW4 Acerrubrum
Morella cerifera
Smilax rotundifolia
Toxicodendron radicans
"Survey line cut through transect in 2008 affecting 3 plots
III -E -25
2009
52.3
52.0
42.2
27.6
PLOTS
54.7
Percent of Im
2011 2012 2013
POST -MOD ALT L

Table III -E2a (concluded).
III -E -26
Percent of Importance
Creek Prong/Transect
Dominant species
2009 2011 2012 2013
Huddles Cut West/HWW7
Berchemia scandens
Morella cerifera
42.3
Persea palustris
Quercus laurifolia
13.0
Toxicodendron radicans
Huddles CutWest/HWW8
Acerrubrum
Alnus serrulata
15.6
Arundinaria gigantea
Berchemia scandens
38.9
Morella cerifera
POST -MOD ALT L
Salix caroliniana
Salix nigra
Smilax rotundifolia
Smilax walteri
Ulmus americana
Huddles Cut West/HWW10
Berchemia scandens
Ilex opaca
Itea virginica
TIMBERED
Lonicera japonica
Smilax rotundifolia
Porter Creek/PC5
Carpinus caroliniana
57.7 67.2 62.1
Arundinaria gigantea
32.8
NOT
Porter Creek/PC9A
Arundinaria gigantea
34.1
MONITORED
Diospyros virginiana
53.0 75.1 47.8
Toxicodendron radicans
33.5
Durham Creek Tributary 11/
DC 112 B
Ligustrum sinense
37.4
NOT MONITORED
Toxicodendron radicans
29.2
III -E -26

Table III -E2b. Dominant shrub and woody vine species in Huddles Cut vegetation transects
monitored post -Mod Alt L (2010 -2011, 2013). Bold names and values indicate species
considered intolerant of brackish conditions.
III -E -27
Percent of Importance
Creek Prong /Transect
Dominant species
2010
C 2011 2012
2013
Huddles Cut Main /HMW2
Baccharis halimifolia
`
66.5
Morella cerifera
24.5
Smilax rotundifolia
18.9
Toxicodendron radicans
17.2
72.9
Huddles Cut Main /HMW5
Baccharis halimifolia
Morella cerifera
43.4
Ilex opaca
14.9
42.5
Huddles Cut Main /HMW6
Baccharis halimifolia
Morella cerifera
64.4
17.8
13.1
Huddles Cut Main /HMW8
Arundinaria gigantea
Baccharis halimifolia
34.3
DATA N OT
Iva frutescens
COLLECTED
26.8
DUE TO
NOT
Morella cerifera
30.0
HIGH
MONITORED
AMOUNT OF
Persea borbonia
19.4
HURRICANE
DEBRIS
Huddles Cut Main /HMW9
Baccharis halimifolia
50.8
Morella cerifera
40.9
23.4
Persea borbonia
24.9
13.6
Huddles Cut Main /HMW10
Arundinaria gigantea
Baccharis halimifolia
17.3
Berchemia scandens
11.0
Morella cerifera
41.3
13.2
Toxicodendron radicans
17
42.8
Huddles Cut Main /HMW12
Baccharis halimifolia
Morella cerifera
47.2
30.4
Toxicodendron radicans
14.4
III -E -27

Table III -E2b (concluded).
III -E -28
Percent of Importance
Creek Prong /Transect
E
Dominant species
2010 2011 2012 2013
Huddles Cut West /HWW2
31.2
Arundinaria gigantea
36.4
Baccharis halimifolia
Berchemia scandens
46.5 44.6
Corpus amomum
21.2
Morella cerifera
32.5
51.5
Huddles Cut West /HWW4
Baccharis halimifolia
Morella cerifera
24.3
Rosa palustris
17.0
Toxicodendronradicans
22.7
30.1
NOT
MONITORED E
1 stem each
E
Ulmus americana
E
in 2 plots
30.5
Huddles Cut West /HWW7
Baccharis halimifolia
Morella cerifera
44.4
Phragmites australis
27.6
Rosa palustris
21.7 29.8
Toxicodendron radicans
23.1
90.8
Huddles Cut West /HWW8
Baccharis halimifolia
Berchemia scandens
51.8 68.7
Huddles Cut West/
TIMBERED
III -E -28

Table III -E2c. Dominant shrub and woody vine species in the two control creeks monitored:
Long and Duck Creeks (2011- 2013), DCUT19 (2013). Bold names and values indicate species
considered intolerant of brackish conditions. Asterisks ( *) indicate non - wetland species.
III -E -29
Percent of importance
Creek PronglTransect
Dominant species
2011
2012
2013
Long Creek/LOCW2B
Morelia cerifera
59.4
58.8
69.2
Duck Creek/DKCW1 B
Arundinaria gigantea
53.7
80.4
79.6
Liquidambarstyraciflua
1 stem in 1 plot
25
21.9
DuckCreek/DKCW2A
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
17.4
i
29.1
Smilax laurifolia
16.3
Arundinaria gigantea
61.1
45.4
35.6
Duck Creek/DKCW3A
Liquidambar styraciflua
25.5
29.9
Berchemia scandens
47.4
Campsis radicans
1 stem in 1 plot
`'
50.8
DuckCreek/DKCW4B
Parthenocissusquinquefolia
24.6
Toxicodendron radicans
24.6
Unknown 1 vine
36.5
Durham Creek Tributary
Carpinuscaroliniana
13.7
19/ DC192A
Smilax rotundifolia
NOT MONITORED
23.9
Vitis rotundifolia
19.6
III -E -29

Table III -E3a. Wetness and salinity tolerance characteristics of the dominant plant species (herbs, shrubs, woody vines) along vegetation transects in seven creeks monitored pre -Mod Alt L: Jacks Creek (2000 -2005; 2011 - 2013);
Tooley Creek (2010- 2011); Huddles Cut (2009); Jacobs Creek (2011- 2013), Drinkwater Creek (2011), Porter Creek (2011- 2013), and DCUT11 (2013). Well /transects are numbered from upstream to downstream.
'Refers to wetland indicator status as defined in Reed (1988).
bTolerance of brackish conditions determined bya review of habitat descriptions given in Radford et al. (1968), Beal (1977), Godfreyand Wooten (1979), Godfreyand Wooten (1981), Odum et al. (1984), and Eleuterius (1990).
III -E -30
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Intolerant of
Intolerant of
€ Intolerant of
Intolerant of
Intolerant of
Intolerant of
Intolerant of
Intolerant of
€
Intolerant of
€ Intolerant of
Intolerant of
Intolerant of
!
!
Intolerant of
Creek/well transect
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or
brackish
FAC- or !
brackish
and number
driers
driers
driers i
driers
driers
driers
driers
driers
driers €conditionsb
driers !conditionsb
driers
driers
driers €
conditionsb
conditionsb
conditionsb
i
conditionsb
conditionsb
conditionsb
conditionsb
conditionsb
conditionsb
conditionsb
€
condition sb
Jacks /JW2
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
75.0
0.0 i 100.0
NOT MONITORED
0.0
75.0
0.0
50.0
0.0 €
50.0
Jacks /JW3
12.5
50.0
0.0 63.0
0.0 i 78.0
i
0.0 22.0
0.0 43.0
0.0 43.0
€
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Jacks /JW5
0.0
0.0
0.0 17.0
0.0 i 0.0
€
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
t
0.0 25.0
0.0
25.0
0.0 I
E
0.0
Jacks /JW7
0.0
63.0
0.0 33.0
0.0 i 43.0
€
0.0 40.0
0.0 17.0
0.0 [ 17.0
t
0.0 66.7
0.0
14.0
0.0 E
E
40.0
Jacks /JW9
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 i 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
33.0
0.0
0.0
Jacobs /JCBW
0.0
100.0
50.0
100.0
25.0
100.0
NOT MONITORED
Drinkwater /DVWV1 C
0.0
100.0
TooleyCreek/TW1
0.0 - 66.7
0.0
75.0
NOT MONITORED
TooleyCreek/TW3
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
NOT MONITORED
TooleyCreek/TW4
0.0 66.7
DATA NOT COLLECTED
DUE TO
HIGH AMOUNT
TooleyCreek/TW6
0.0 100.0
OF HURRICANE
DEBRIS
Huddles Cut
12.5
43.0
Main /HMVV2
Huddles Cut
0.0
50.0
Main /H MW5
Huddles Cut
0.0
67.0
Main /H MW6
Huddles Cut
25.0
50.0
Main /H MW8
NOT
INCLUDED
IN THE
STUDY
Huddles Cut
0.0
67.0
Main /HKAM
Huddles Cut
25.0
50.0
Main /H MW10
NOT MONITORED
NOT INCLUDED IN THE
STUDY
POST -MOD
ALT L
Huddles Cut
0.0
€
50.0
Main /HW12
M
Huddles Cut
0.0
100.0
West/HVWV2
Huddles Cut
25.0
50.0
West/HVWV4
Huddles Cut
0.0
50.0
West/HVW V7
Huddles Cut
0.0
75.0
West/HVWV8
Huddles Cut
TIMBERED
West/HVWV10
PorterCreek/PC5
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
E
0.0 i
100.0
NOT MONITORED
I
E
PorterCreek/PC9A
0.0
100.0
0.0
75.0
0.0
75.0
Durham Creek
i
NOT MONITORED
0.0 I
100.0
Tributary/DC112B
'Refers to wetland indicator status as defined in Reed (1988).
bTolerance of brackish conditions determined bya review of habitat descriptions given in Radford et al. (1968), Beal (1977), Godfreyand Wooten (1979), Godfreyand Wooten (1981), Odum et al. (1984), and Eleuterius (1990).
III -E -30

Table III -E3b. Wetness and salinity tolerance characteristics of the dominant plant species
(herbs, shrubs, woody vines) along Huddles Cut vegetation transects monitored post -Mod Alt L
(2010 -2011, 2013).
Creek/welltransectand
number
Percent of dominants
2010
2011
2012
2013
Intolerant of
FAC -or brackish
drier' conditionsb
Intolerant of
FAC -or brackish
drier' conditionsb
FAC -or
drier'
Intolerant of
brackish
conditionsb
Intolerant of
FAC -or brackish
drier' conditionsb
Huddles Cut Main /HAM\2
12.5 75.0
DATA NOT COLLECTED
DUE TO HIGH AMOUNT
OF HURRICANE DEBRIS
NOTMONITORED
25.0 25.0
Huddles Cut Main /HMIA5
20.0 40.0
33.3 0.0
Huddles Cut Main /HN M
0.0 25.0
0.0 25.0
Huddles Cut Main /HMWB
0.0 66.7
0.0 16.7
@
Huddles Cut Main /HM1J\19
0.0 50.0
0.0 0.0
Huddles Cut Main /HMW10
0.0 50.0
0.0 33.3
Huddles Cut Main /HMW12
0.0 40.0
0.0 0.0
Huddles CUtVVest/HV\M2
0.0 100.0
25.0 75.0
0.0 25.0
Huddles CUtVVest/HVWV4
0.0 I 71.0
0.0 50.0
20.0 20.0
Huddles Cut West/HVVW7
0.0 i 50.0
20.0 60.0
0.0 0.0
Huddles Cut West/HVVVVB
0.0 66.7
25.0 50.0
33.3 0.0
Huddles Cut VVest/HVWV10
TIMBERED
Refers to wetland indicator status as defined in Reed (1988).
Tolerance of brackish conditions determined bya review of habitat descriptions given in Radford et al. (1968),
Beal (1977), Godfre and Wooten (1979), Godfre and Wooten (1981), Odum et al. (1984), and Eleuterius (1990).
III -E -31

Table III -E3c. Wetness and salinity tolerance characteristics of the dominant plant species
(herbs, shrubs, woody vines) along vegetation transects in three control creeks: Long and Duck
Creeks (2011- 2013), and DCUT19 (2013). Monitoring began in 2011.
III -E -32
Percent of dominants
2011
2012
2013
Intolerant of
Intolerant of
Intolerant of
Creek/well transect and
FAC- or ? brackish
FAC- or # brackish
FAC- or brackish
number
driers conditionsb
driers # conditionsb
driers conditionsb
Long Creek/LOCW2B
0.0 67.0
0.0 67.0
0.0 50.0
Durham Creek
NOT MONITORED
NOT MONITORED
0.0 85.7
Tributary/DC192A
Duck Creek/DKCW1 B
0.0 100.0
0.0 # 100.0
0.0 100.0
Duck Creek/DKCW2A
0.0 100.0
0.0 # 100.0
0.0 80.0
Duck Creek/DKCW3A
0.0 100.0
0.0 # 100.0
0.0 85.7
Duck Creek/DKCW4B
25.0 100.0
20.0 80°
28.6 100.0
Refers to wetland indicator status as defined in Reed (1988).
bTolerance of brackish conditions determined by review of habitat descriptions given in Radford et al. (1968),
Beal (1977), Godfrey and Wooten (1979), Godfrey and Wooten (1981), Odum et al. (1984), and Eleuterius
(1990).
°Percentage due to presence of one unknown species and therefore, unknown status so it was assumed to be
intolerant.
III -E -32

Table III -E4. Cumulative list of dominant species at monitored creeks since 1998 and their
tolerance to brackish conditions (through 2013).
Tolerant of
Scientific Name (brackish conditions€
Intolerant of
brackish conditionsa
Indicator Status
Acer rubrum
X
FAC
Agrostis perennans
X
FACU
Alnus serrulata
X
FACW
Alternanthera philoxeroides X
OBL
Amaranthus cannabinus X
OBL
Andropogon virginicus X
FAC
Apios americana
X
FACW
Arisaema triphyllum
X
FACW
Arundinaria gigantea
X
FACW
Asplenium platyneuron
X
FACU
Athyrium filix- femina
X
FAC
Azolla caroliniana
X
OBL
Baccharis halimifolia X
FAC
Bacopa monnieri X
OBL
Berchemia scandens
X
FAC
Bidens frondosa X
FACW
Bignonia capreolata
X
FAC
Boehmeria cylindrica
X
FACW
Bolboschoenus robustus X
OBL
Botrychium dissectum
X
FAC
Botrychium virginianum
X
FACU
Callicarpa americana
X
FACU
Campsis radicans
X
FAC
Carex albolutescens
X
FACW
Carex comosa
X
OBL
Carex complanata
X
FAC
Carex debilis
X
FACW
Carex intumescens
X
FACW
Carex laevivaginata
X
OBL
Carex leptalea
X
OBL
Carex lurida
X
OBL
Carex oxylepis
X
FACW
Carex seorsa
X
FACW
Carpinus caroliniana
X
FAC
Cephalanthus occidentalis
X
OBL
Chasmanthium laxum
X
FACW
Cicuta maculata X
OBL
Cinna arundinacea
X
FACW
Clethra alnifolia
X
FACW
Comus amomum
X
FACW
Comus foemina
X
FACW
III -E -33

Table III -E4. (continued).
Scientific Name
Tolerant of
brackish conditions l'
Intolerant of
brackish conditionsa Indicator Status
Crataegus aestivalis
Crataegus marshal/ii
Cyperus odoratus
Decumaria barbara
Dichanthelium dichotomum
Dichanthelium commutatum & laxiflorum
Dichanthelium sp.
Digitaria sanguinalis
Dioscorea villosa
Diospyros virginiana
Echinochloa walted
Eclipta prostrata
Eleocharis tortillis
Erechtites hieraciifolia
Euonymus americanus
Eupatorium capillifolium
Eupatorium dubium
Fimbristylis spathacea
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Galium obtusum & uniflorum
Galium tinctodum
Gelsemium sempervirens
Glechoma hederacea
Glyceria striata
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Hydrolea quadrivalvis
Hypericum walted
Ilex glabra
Ilex opaca
Ilex verticillata
Itea virginica
Iva frutescens
Juncus coriaceus
Juncus roemerianus
Juniperus virginiana
Leersia oryzoides
Lemna gibba
Lemna minor
Lemna minor, valdiviana, perpusilla
Lemna sp.
Lemna valdiviana
Leucothoe racemosa
Ligustrum sinense
Liquidambar styraciflua
X OBL
X FAC
X FACW
X FACW
X FAC
X FAC
X FACU
X FACW
X FAC
OBL
X FACW
X FACW
X UPL
X FAC
X FACU
X FACW
FAC
X FACU
X FACW
X FACW
FACW
X FAC
X FACU
X OBL
X OBL
X OBL
X OBL
X FACW
X FAC
X FACW
X FACW
FACW
X FACW
OBL
X FACU
OBL
X OBL
X OBL
X OBL
X
X OBL
X FACW
X FAC
X FAC
X
X
X
X
X
X
III -E -34

Table III -E4 (continued).
Scientific Name
Tolerant of Intolerant of
brackish conditions brackish conditions'
Indicator Status
Linodendron tulipfera
X
FACU
Lonicera japonica
X
FAC
Ludmigia palustris
X
OBL
Lycopus virginicus
X
OBL
Magnolia virginiana
X
FACW
Microstegium vimineum
X
FAC
Mikania scandens
X
FACW
Mitchella repens
X
FACU
Morelia cenfera
X
FAC
Nyssa biflora
X
OBL
Osmunda cinnamomea
X
FACW
Osmunda regalis
X
OBL
Oxydendrum arboreum
X
FACU
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
X
FACU
Persea borbonia
X
FACW
Persea palustris
X
FACW
Persicaria arifolia
X
OBL
Phragmites australis
X
FACW
Platanthera clavellata
X
OBL
Pleopeltis polypodioides
X
FAC
Pluchea foetida
X
OBL
Pluchea odorata
X
FACW
Poa sylvestris
X
FACW
Polygonum densiflorum
X
OBL
Polygonum lapathifolium
X
FACW
Polygonum pensylvanicum
X
FACW
Polygonum punctatum
X
OBL
Ptilimnium capillaceum
X
OBL
Quercus laurifolia
X
FACW
Quercus michawdi
X
FACW
Quercus nigra
X
FAC
Quercus phellos
X
FACW
Quercus sp.
Riccia fluitans
Tolerance not known
NOT LISTED
Rosa palustris
X
OBL
Rubus argutus
X
FAC
Rubus flagellaris
X
UPL
Rubus trivialis
X
FACU
Rumex verticillatus
X
FACW
Sabal minor
X
FACW
Sagittaria graminea
X
OBL
Salix caroliniana
X
OBL
Salix nigra
X
OBL
Samolus valerandi ssp. pandflorus
X
OBL
Sanicula canadensis
X
FACU
Saururus cemuus
X
OBL
Scutellaria lateriflora
X
OBL
Sisyrinchium mucronatum
X
FACW
III -E -35

Table III -E4 (conclu
Scientific Name
Tolerant of
brackish conditions
Intolerant of
brackish conditionsa
Indicator Status
Smilax bona -nox
X
FAC
Smilax glauca
X
FAC
Smilax laurifolia
X
FACW
Smilax rotundifolia
X
FAC
Smilax sp.
-
-
-
Smilax walteri
X
OBL
Sparganium americanum
X
OBL
Symphyotrichum subulatum
X
OBL
Symplocos tinctoria
X
FAC
Taxodium distichum
X
OBL
Toxicodendron radicans
X
FAC
Triadenum virginicum
X
OBL
Triadendum walteri
X
OBL
Typha angustifolia
X
OBL
Ulmus americans
X
FAC
Vaccinium corymbosum
X
FACW
Vaccinium formosum
X
FAC
Viola sororia
X
FAC
Vitis rotundifolia
X
FAC
Woodwardia areolata
X
OBL
a Tolerances based on habitat descriptions given in the following publications
Beal, E.O. 1977. A manual of marsh and aquatic vascular plants of North Carolina
with habitat data. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh, NC
298 pp
Eleuterius, L.N. 1990. Tidal marsh plants. Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna,
LA, 168 pp.
vodtrey, K.K. and J.vv. Wooten. 1919. Aquatic and wetland plants otthe
southeastern
United States — Monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press. Athens, GA, 712 pp.
Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of the
southeastern
United States — Dicotvledons. Universitv of Georqia Press. Athens, GA, 933 pp.
Odum, W.E., T.J. Smith III, J.K. Hoover, and C.C. Mclvor. 1984 The ecology of tidal
freshwater marshes of the United States east cost: a community profile. U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv. FWS /OBS- 83/17, 177 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the vascular flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1,183 pp.
III -E -36

F. FISH
Sections II -C and I I -D contain additional fish information over the course of the Mod Alt L
creeks study with comparisons and conclusions drawn from multivariate techniques. Section II-
C considers juvenile fish within the context of the forage base of the creeks and II -D considers
managed fish over the study years. Section G of Appendix A contains a history of fish
collections and a description of methods. Appendix H contains raw fisheries data collected in
2013 for all sampled creeks. Hydrographic data collected in -situ before each sample occasion
in 2013 are also in Appendix H; ECU water quality data are presented in Appendix E. Only
Appendix A in printed with the report, all other appendices are included only on the CD which
accompanies the report. It should be noted that the ECU water quality samples are taken at
various distances upstream from where any creek is sampled for fish.
1.0 Results and Discussion
The cluster analysis on similarity based on species richness and total abundance
revealed distinct six groups among all the sampled creeks and those groups are discussed in
Section II. When appropriate, additional cluster analysis and comparisons of each particular
creek for all species and /or comparisons of particular species within specific creeks was done,
and if necessary, those results were compared to control creeks. Extra analyses were done to
determine other differences or similarities among the creeks that were less evident when all
data for all creeks were used. It should be noted that dashed lines on the cluster dendrograms
represent non - significant group structure among factors (e.g., years, creeks) at the five percent
level (P = 0.05). Figures III -F1 — III -F13 show the multivariate groups for years within each
creek and catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) comparisons for various species in various creeks.
Table III -F1 lists total abundance and species richness (fish community structure) for each creek
across all years of Mod Alt L study.
The results section is divided into three parts: a) creeks with only pre -Mod Alt L
data, b) creeks with pre- and post -Mod Alt L data, and c) control creeks.
a. Pre -Mod Alt L Creeks
L Jacks Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Jacks Creek represented the ninth
year of Mod Alt L fish collections. Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test
(SIMPROF) of fish species composition and abundance within Jacks Creek revealed little
variation of slight significance between sample years (2000 -2005 and 2010 -2013) (Figure III -
F1). Jacks Creek sample years clustered into two separate groups, Group A and Group B.
Comparison of interannual variability between Group A and Group B by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 57 percent similarity with differences between years driven
predominantly by CPUE of pinfish, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, and rainwater killifish.
Group A consisted of the early years (2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005) which all contained high
CPUE for the same four dominant species (spot, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, and bay
anchovy) in addition to low CPUE for both pinfish and rainwater killifish (Figure III -F1). Group B
formed the second cluster with a combination of both early and later years (2001, 2002 and
2011 through 2013 (Figure III -F1). Group B years had higher CPUE of pinfish and rainwater
killifish than Group A; additionally, Group B had lower CPUE of both Atlantic croaker and
Atlantic menhaden.
III -F -1

Spot dominated fish assemblages within Jacks Creek in all years,
second only to Atlantic croaker in total CPUE in 2005 (Table III -F2). During the first six years,
Jacks Creek fish predominantly consisted of spot, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, and bay
anchovy, with a large influx of pinfish captured in 2002. By 2011, Atlantic croaker were replaced
by pinfish, and although both Atlantic menhaden and bay anchovy remained prominent species
in both 2012 and 2013, neither were one of the top four species captured as in earlier years.
Conversely, the CPUE of eastern mudminnow increased in 2011 through 2013 making it one of
the dominant species in the later years (Table III -F2). Community structure comparisons for
Jacks Creek indicate that species richness in each of the later years was higher than all earlier
years; furthermore, species richness in the later years was second highest behind only PA2
across all trawl creeks /years. Total abundance for 2003 (6,638 individuals) in Jacks Creek was
the largest number of individuals captured in the creek over all nine years, and was third highest
among all trawl sampled creeks for the same years, behind 2003 at Muddy Creek and 2010 at
Tooley Creek (Table III -F1).
Corresponding sample years for Jacks Creek were also analyzed
in Muddy Creek to compare variability among fish species composition and abundance.
Comparison of variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) between Jacks Creek
and Muddy Creek revealed 64 percent similarity with differences driven by CPUE of Atlantic
croaker, pinfish, spot, and Atlantic menhaden. Comparison of variability among fish
assemblages by means of ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of significance between
Jacks Creek and Muddy Creek sample years; furthermore, a T -Test on the sample years found
no significant difference in CPUE of individual species of dominance between the two creeks.
Temporal variability among fish assemblages for Jacks Creek
sample years displayed strong positive correlation (0.691) among fish assemblages and a
combination of four environmental variables: water temperature, salinity, percent submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) visible on the surface, and ammonium (NI-14).
ii. Jacobs Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Jacobs Creek represented the third
year of Mod Alt L fish collections. Three years of Mod Alt L data revealed that fish assemblages
within the Jacobs Creek drainage basin predominantly consisted of spot, pinfish, eastern
mudminnow, and naked goby (Gobiosoma boscl) (Table III -F3). Community structure
comparisons for Jacobs Creek indicate that species richness was lowest in 2011 (16 species)
and highest in both 2012 and 2013 with 18 species captured (Table III -F1). Total abundance for
2012 (3,568 individuals) in Jacobs Creek doubled total abundance in both 2011 and 2013, and
was the third largest number of individuals captured behind only PA2 (2011 and 2013) across all
trawl creeks for 2011 through 2013 sample years (Table III -F1).
iii. Porter Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Porter Creek represented the third
year of Mod Alt L fish collections. Three years of Mod Alt L data revealed that fish assemblages
within the Porter Creek drainage basin predominantly consisted of spot, Atlantic croaker, bay
anchovy, and Atlantic menhaden (Table III -F4). Community structure comparisons for Porter
Creek indicate that species richness has ranged from 10 species to 12 species over the three
years and total abundance has increased each year from a low of 665 individuals in 2011 to a
high of 3,428 individuals in 2013 (Table III -F1). Species richness for Porter Creek in 2011
equaled DCUT11 2013 for the lowest number of species captured across all Mod Alt L sampling
III -F -2

creeks /years (Table III -F1).
iv. DCUT11
The 2013 fyke net sampling for DCUT11 represented the first year
of Mod Alt L fish collections. The first year for DCUT11 yielded a total catch of 618 individual
fish, representing 10 species. Both species richness and total abundance for DCUT11 in 2013
were the lowest experienced across all Mod Alt L sampling creeks /years (Table III -F1).
Mummichog was the most abundant species captured at DCUT11 in 2013, representing 68
percent of the total catch, followed by pumpkinseed at 26 percent (Appendix H, Table 1­11).
b. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks
L Drinkwater Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Drinkwater Creek represented the
third year of Mod Alt L fish collections and the first post -Mod Alt L year. Multivariate cluster
analysis using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of fish species composition and abundance
within Drinkwater Creek revealed variable significance between years (Figure III -F2). Sample
years in Drinkwater Creek clustered into two separate groups; Group A consisted of only 2013
and Group B contained both 2011 and 2012. The largest difference between Group A and
Group B can be attributed to a sharp decline in CPUE of pinfish and an increase in CPUE of
both spot and Atlantic croaker in post -Mod Alt L 2013.
Three years of Mod Alt L sampling has revealed that fish
assemblages within the Drinkwater Creek drainage basin predominantly consist of spot, pinfish,
bay anchovy, and Atlantic croaker (Table III -F6). Community structure comparisons for
Drinkwater Creek indicate that species richness has decreased each year from a high of 20
species in 2011 to a low of 15 species in 2013; conversely, total abundance for Drinkwater
Creek has increased each year from a low of 1,745 individuals in 2011 to a high of 2,978 in
2013 (Table III -F1).
Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) between pre- and post -Mod Alt L Drinkwater Creek fish data revealed
52 percent similarity with differences between pre- and post -Mod Alt L sampling years driven by
CPUE of pinfish, Atlantic croaker, spot, and eastern mudminnow. Although total CPUE for post -
Mod Alt L 2013 was higher than CPUE of both pre -Mod Alt L years 2011 and 2012 in Drinkwater
Creek, comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOSIM detected no spatial
differences of significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within Drinkwater
Creek.
Although interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
fish assemblages at Drinkwater Creek revealed no spatial differences, there were significant
differences found among CPUE for several individual species between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
sampling years. Nine managed fish species were captured over the three Mod Alt L sample
years in Drinkwater Creek. Of the nine managed species captured, both spot and Atlantic
croaker displayed significantly higher CPUE in post -Mod Alt L 2013 than the combined pre -Mod
Alt L years by means of T -Test [small(n) = 13, big(n) = 26; T = 338.5; P = 0.020 and small(n) _
13, big(n) = 26; T = 336; P = 0.018]; conversely, CPUE for both pinfish and eastern mudminnow
in post -Mod Alt L 2013 was significantly lower than combined pre -Mod Alt L sampling years
[small(n) = 13, big(n) = 26; T = 121; P = <0.001 and small(n) = 13, big(n) = 26; T = 169; P =
0.003] (Figure III -F3).
III -F -3

Corresponding sample years for Drinkwater Creek were also
analyzed in both control creeks PA2 (adjacent to Drinkwater) and Long Creek (across from
Drinkwater) to compare variability among fish species composition and abundance for spot,
Atlantic croaker, pinfish, and eastern mudminnow. PA2 exhibited similar CPUE as Drinkwater
Creek for all four species; however, spot catch was only greater in post -Mod Alt L years for PA2,
but not significantly greater. There were no significant differences between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L years for any of the four species in Long Creek; however, CPUE of Atlantic croaker was
higher in post -Mod Alt L years and CPUE of pinfish was lower in post -Mod Alt L years.
ii. Tooley Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Tooley Creek represented the fourth
year of Mod Alt L fish collections. The first two years comprise the pre -Mod Alt L period (2010-
2011) and 2012 -2013 comprise the post -Mod Alt L years. Multivariate cluster analysis using a
similarity profile test ( SIMPROF) of fish species composition and abundance from fish
assemblages within Tooley Creek revealed little variation and no significant differences between
Mod Alt L sample years (Figure III -F4). Although SIMPROF revealed no significance among
years in the dendrogram, 2012 clustered directly with 2013 due to similar total CPUE and
species overlap and evenness; 2010 and 2011 each formed individual divisions separate from
the cluster of 2012 and 2013 (Figure III -F4; Table III -F7). The 2011 sample year had the lowest
total CPUE of all Tooley Creek Mod Alt L sample years and clustered furthest from 2012 and
2013 (Figure III -F4; Table III -F -7). High total CPUE for Tooley Creek in 2010 was attributed to
an increase in CPUE of both spot and Atlantic croaker, and also due to higher CPUE of the two
aforementioned species and overall species similarity. The 2010 sample year clustered
adjacent to the cluster formed by 2012 and 2013.
Four years of Mod Alt L sampling revealed that fish assemblages
within Tooley Creek predominantly consist of spot, pinfish, and Atlantic croaker (Table III -F7).
Community structure comparisons for Tooley Creek indicate that species richness has
increased each year of Mod Alt L sampling to a high of 17 species captured in 2013 (Table III -
F1). Total abundance for 2010 (7,437 individuals) in Tooley Creek was the largest number of
individuals captured over the duration of Mod Alt L sampling within Tooley Creek, and third
highest across all Mod Alt L sample creeks /years (Table III -F1).
Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within Tooley Creek
revealed 63 percent similarity with differences between pre- and post -Mod Alt L sample years
driven by CPUE of Atlantic croaker, pinfish, Atlantic menhaden, and spot. Although total CPUE
for pre -Mod Alt L 2010 was more than four times the CPUE of all other Tooley Creek Mod Alt L
sample years, comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOSIM detected no spatial
differences of significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within Tooley
Creek.
Although interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
fish assemblages at Tooley Creek revealed no spatial differences, there were significant
differences found among CPUE for individual species between pre- and post -Mod Alt L sample
years. Of the eight managed fish species captured over the four Mod Alt L sample years in
Tooley Creek, only summer flounder displayed significant differences among CPUE between
pre- and post -Mod Alt L sample years by means of T -Test, with higher CPUE in the combined
post -Mod Alt L years than the combined pre -Mod Alt L years [small(n) = 26, big(n) = 26; T =
598; P = 0.005] (Figure III -F5). There were no summer flounder captured in either pre -Mod Alt
III -F -4

L sample years, while 12 individuals of summer flounder were captured in post -Mod Alt L years.
Pinfish CPUE has declined each Mod Alt L year in Tooley Creek and CPUE in combined post -
Mod Alt L years was significantly lower than combined pre -Mod Alt L years [small(n) = 26, big(n)
= 26; T = 860; P = 0.002] (Figure III -F5).
Temporal variability among fish assemblages for Tooley Creek in
Mod Alt L sampling years displayed strong positive correlation (0.714) among fish assemblages
and a combination of two environmental variables: water temperature and particulate nitrogen
(PN).
iii. Huddles Cut
The 2013 fyke net sampling for Huddles Cut represented the fifth
year of Mod Alt L fish collections. The pre -Mod Alt L period contains only 2009 and the post -
Mod Alt L period is comprised of 2010 -2013. Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity
profile test ( SIMPROF) of fish species composition and abundance within Huddles Cut revealed
little variation of no significant differences between Mod Alt L sample years (Figure III -F6).
Although SIMPROF revealed no significance among years in the dendrogram„ 2009 clustered
with 2012 as the two years with the lowest total CPUE; the three remaining Mod Alt L sample
years (2010, 2011, and 2013) with higher total CPUEs formed a separate cluster with 2011
(highest total CPUE) forming an individual division within the cluster (Figure III -F6 and Table III -
F8). Total CPUE for Huddles Cut in 2009 was likely immensely affected by the formation of a
sandbar at the mouth of Huddles Cut, which blocked access into and out of the creek for many
fish species (Table III -F8). High CPUE in 2011 can be attributed to a large influx of striped
mullet, which combined with mummichog and spot, accounted for 93 percent of the total catch
(Table III -F8).
Five years of data revealed that fish assemblages within Huddles
Cut predominantly consisted of both mummichog and spot, with CPUE for both species
dominating total catch and highly influencing total CPUE of all species for each year in Huddles
Cut (Table III -F8). Community structure comparisons for Huddles Cut indicate that species
richness for 2013 (25 species) was the highest to date not only in Huddles Cut, but across all
Mod Alt L sample creeks /years; furthermore, total abundance for 2011 (9,070 individuals) in
Huddles Cut was the largest number of individuals captured across all Mod Alt L sample
creeks /years (Table III -F1).
Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within Huddles Cut
revealed 68 percent similarity with differences between pre- and post -Mod Alt L sample years
driven by CPUE of mummichog, Atlantic silverside ( Menidia menidia), pinfish, and Atlantic
menhaden. Although total CPUE for pre -Mod Alt L 2009 (only pre -Mod Alt L sample year) was
the lowest CPUE over the duration of the five -year Mod Alt L period, comparison of interannual
variability by means of ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of significance between pre -
and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within Huddles Cut.
Despite the fact that species richness and abundance at Huddles
Cut continued to remain higher than all other Mod Alt L creeks /years and interannual variability
between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages revealed no spatial differences, there were
significant differences found among CPUE for individual species between pre- and post -Mod Alt
L sample years. Of the 11 managed fish species captured over the five -year Mod Alt L period in
Huddles Cut, only Atlantic menhaden displayed significant differences among CPUE between
pre- and post -Mod Alt L sample years by means of T -Test, with higher CPUE in the combined
III -F -5

post -Mod Alt L years than pre -Mod Alt L 2009 [small(n) = 12, big(n) = 52; T = 222; P = 0.001]
(Figure III -F7). As with Atlantic menhaden, CPUE for both pinfish and pumpkinseed also
displayed significantly higher CPUE in the combined post -Mod Alt L years than pre -Mod Alt L
2009 [small(n) = 12, big(n) = 52; T = 264; P = 0.024 and small(n) = 12, big(n) = 52; T = 295; P =
0.048]; conversely, CPUE of Atlantic silverside in the combined post -Mod Alt L years was
significantly lower than pre -Mod Alt L 2009 [small(n) = 12, big(n) = 52; T = 515.5; P = 0.017]
(Figure III -F7).
Temporal variability among fish assemblages for Huddles Cut in
Mod Alt L sample years displayed strong positive correlation (0.806) among fish assemblages
and a combination of four environmental variables: water temperature, water depth, nitrate
(NO3), and orthophosphate (PO4).
C. Control Creeks
i. Little Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Little Creek represented the third year
of Mod Alt L fish collections. Three years of Mod Alt L data revealed that fish assemblages
within Little Creek predominantly consisted of spot, pinfish, bay anchovy, and eastern
mudminnow, with an influx of naked goby captured in 2013 (Table III -F9). Community structure
comparisons for Little Creek indicate that species richness has ranged from 17 species to 19
species over the three years and total abundance has increased each year of Mod Alt L
sampling from a low of 1,186 individuals captured in 2011 to a high of 2,861 in 2013 (Table III -
F1).
ii. PA2
The 2013 trawl sampling for PA2 represented the third year of
Mod Alt L fish collections. Three years of Mod Alt L data revealed that fish assemblages within
PA2 predominantly consisted of spot, eastern mudminnow, rainwater killifish, pinfish, and
Atlantic menhaden, with an influx of mummichog captured in 2011 (Table III -F10). Community
structure comparisons for PA2 indicate that species richness only slightly varied with 18 species
captured in 2012 and 19 species for both 2011 and 2013 (Table III -F1). Total abundance
ranged from 1,711 individuals in 2012 to 4,649 individuals in 2011. Both species richness and
total abundance were highest for PA2 across all trawl creeks /years in 2011 through 2013 (Table
III -F1).
iii. Long Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Long Creek represented the third
year of Mod Alt L fish collections. Three years of Mod Alt L data revealed that fish assemblages
within Long Creek predominantly consisted of spot, bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic
menhaden, and pinfish (Table III -F11). Community structure comparisons for Long Creek
indicate that both species richness and total abundance have varied over three years of Mod Alt
L sampling. Species richness has ranged from 12 to 17 species and total abundance has
ranged from 1,613 to 2,826 individuals within Long Creek during Mod Alt L sample years Table
III -F1).
iv. Muddy Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Muddy Creek represented the 11th
year of Mod Alt L fish collections (2000 -2005 and 2009 - 2013). Multivariate cluster analysis
using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of fish species composition and abundance from fish
assemblages within Muddy Creek revealed little variation of slight significance between Mod Alt
111 -F -6

L sampling years (Figure III -F8). Sample years in Muddy Creek clustered into two separate
groups; Group A consisted of only 2011 and Group B contained all other Mod Alt L sample
years. Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER)
between both cluster Groups A and B revealed 45 percent similarity with differences between
Mod Alt L sample years driven predominantly by CPUE of Atlantic croaker, spot, bay anchovy,
pinfish, inland silverside, and Atlantic menhaden. The largest difference between Group A and
Group B can be attributed to Atlantic croaker not being captured in 2011. Dissimilarity between
Group A and Group B is also attributed to low CPUE of spot in 2011 (lowest of all Mod Alt L
sample years in Muddy Creek) along with an influx of inland silverside for that same year.
Eleven years of Mod Alt L data revealed that fish assemblages
within Muddy Creek predominantly consisted of spot, bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic
croaker, and to a lesser extent, pinfish (Table III -F12). Community structure comparisons for
Muddy Creek indicate that both species richness and total abundance were highest in 2003 with
a total catch of 7,894 individuals, representing 18 species (Table III -F1). Species richness
within the Muddy Creek drainage basin has ranged from 12 to 18 species, with a median of 14
species over the eleven years (Table III -F1). Total abundance for Muddy Creek was lowest in
2011 (1,079 individuals) and total abundance in 2003 represented the second largest number of
individuals captured across all Mod Alt L sample creeks /years, behind 2011 at Huddles Cut
(Table III -F1).
Temporal variability among fish assemblages for Muddy Creek in
Mod Alt L sample years displayed slightly positive correlation (0.467) among fish assemblages
and a combination of five environmental variables (only CZR in -situ data as ECU data not
collected at Muddy Creek): water temperature, dissolved oxygen (percent saturation),
conductivity, salinity, and percent surface SAV.
v. Duck Creek
The 2013 trawl sampling for Duck Creek represented the third
year of Mod Alt L fish collections. Three years of Mod Alt L data revealed that fish assemblages
within Duck Creek predominantly consisted of spot, bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, and pinfish.
Atlantic menhaden had the highest total CPUE in 2011; however, Atlantic menhaden had low
catches in both 2012 and 2013 (Table III -F13). Community structure comparisons for Duck
Creek indicate that both species richness and total abundance have increased each year (Table
III -F1). Species richness at Duck Creek increased from a low of 12 species in 2011 to a high of
19 in 2013; likewise, total abundance increased from 364 to 2,237 individuals over the same
Mod Alt L period. Total abundance for Duck Creek in 2011 was the lowest across all Mod Alt L
sample creeks /years (Table III -F1).
vi. DCUT19
The 2013 fyke net sampling for DCUT19 represented the first year
of Mod Alt L fish collections. The first year of Mod Alt L data yielded a total catch of 6,512
individuals, representing 19 species (Table III -F1; Table III -F5). Species richness at DCUT19
equaled both PA2 and Duck Creek for the second highest number of species captured behind
Huddles Cut across all 2013 creeks and total abundance for 2013 was second highest across
all 2013 sample creeks (Table III -F1). Mummichog was the most abundant species captured at
DCUT19 in 2013, representing 39 percent of the total catch, followed closely by Atlantic
menhaden at 34 percent, and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) at 16 percent
(Appendix H, Table H -1).
III -F -7

2.0 Summary and Conclusions
Dissimilarities among years in the 10 trawled creeks is mostly driven by CPUE
differences among spot, croaker, bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, and pinfish, with other fish
represented to a lesser degree in some creeks in some years. Dissimilarities among years
within Huddles Cut (fyke net) are driven by mummichog, Atlantic silverside, pinfish, and Atlantic
menhaden. Mummichog had the highest CPUE in all three creeks sampled by fyke net in 2013;
in addition, both Huddles Cut and DCUT19 had the exact same four dominant species captured
in 2013 (Atlantic menhaden, mummichog, sheepshead minnow, and spot).
Overall, interannual comparisons between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years
indicated no significant spatial differences for the three creeks with post -Mod Alt L data. One or
two individual species displayed significant differences between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years
for each of the three creeks; however, similar variability is also experienced within several
control creeks and makes it very difficult to discern any mine related spatial patterns in fish
abundance.
The fish data illustrates the extreme natural variability in fish catch among all
creeks /years sampled, both control creeks and creeks with drainage basin reduction. The fish
data have also established baseline ranges of CPUE for the most common species and data
from future years can be compared to these abundances. Though it is not likely that small
differences in abundance will be detected, it may be possible to discern large -scale changes in
abundances of the dominant fish.
In addition to spatial variability, the fish data also exhibit great temporal variability
in catch among sampling occasions and between months for all creeks /years. Habitat use by
estuarine dependent fish species is highly seasonal and juvenile marine transients generally
appear in the early spring at which time both trawl and fyke net catch increases for several
weeks. Temporal variability analysis on several water quality variables for the four creeks with
longer data sets displayed positive correlation for all four creeks between fish assemblages and
water temperature. For the other top three variables positively correlated with fish assemblages
in these creeks, there is no other equally ranked variable; however, nutrient(s) rank second for
Tooley Creek (PN), third and fourth for Huddles Cut (NO3 and POa), and fourth for Jacks (NH4).
Water depth ranked second for Huddles Cut and salinity is ranked among the top four variables
only in Muddy Creek (fourth) and Jacks Creek (second). Note that for Muddy Creek, water
quality is only collected by CZR during trawling.
III -F -8

50
60
70
.E
CO
80
90
100
Jacks Creek
Group average
Year
Figure III -F1. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all years
trawled in Jacks Creek [Bray - Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and dashed red lines
represent non - significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
111 -F -9

50
60
lI
a
�L
C
N 80
90
100
Drinkwater Creek
Group average
Figure III -F2. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all years
trawled in Drinkwater Creek [Bray - Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and dashed red
lines represent non - significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
III -F -10

Atlantic Croaker
Drinkwater C ree k
Pre / Post: p = 0.018
0 10 20 30 40
Pinfish
Pre / Post: p = <0.001
Eastern Mudminnow
Pre / Post: p = 0.003
0 10 20 30 40 50
Spot
Pre / Post: p = 0.020
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
CPUE 0 Pre -Mod Alt L 0 Post -Mod Alt L CPUE
Figure III -F3. Catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) (median, quartiles, range, and 5th /95th percentiles) for commonly captured fish species at Drinkwater Creek with significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -
Mod Alt L years. Pre -Mod Alt L data for Drinkwater Creek includes 2011 and 2012. Post -Mod Alt L data for Drinkwater Creek was collected in 2013.
III -F -11

Tooley Creek
Group average
50
--------------------------------
60 I
I
I ,
I ,
1
I I I
70 I I 1
I I
i
I 1 1
E I
I 1 I
I 1 1
1 1 �
N 1 ;
80 1
1 �
1 �
1 �
I I 1 1
1 1
1 �
1 �
I � 1
I 1
90
I 1 1
I 1 1
I 1 1
I 1
I I 1
I I 1
100
o cv CV)
0 0 0 0
N N N N
Year
Figure III -F4. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all years
trawled in Tooley Creek [Bray - Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and dashed red lines
represent non - significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
III -F -12

Tooley Creek
Summer Flounder
Pre / Post: p = 0.005
0 1 2 3 4
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
Pinfish
Pre / Post: p = 0.002
0 100 200 300 400 500
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
0 Pre -Mod Alt L CPUE 0 Post -Mod Alt L CPUE
Figure III -F5. Catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) (median, quartiles, range, and 5th /95th percentiles) for
commonly captured fish species at Tooley Creek with significant differences between pre -Mod Alt
L and post -Mod Alt L years. Pre -Mod Alt L data for Tooley Creek were collected in 2010 and
2011. Post -Mod Alt L data for Tooley Creek includes 2012 and 2013.
III -F -13

Huddles Cut
Group average
60-,-
C I 1
c I I I I 1
I I I I 1
I I I I 1
I I I I I
90 '
100 , , I
0
0 0 0 0
N N N N
Year
Figure III -F6. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all years sampled
with fyke nets in Huddles Cut [Bray - Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and dashed red lines
represent non - significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
III -F -14
r------------ ----------�
I 1
70 1
1
I I
I 1
I I
1
I I I
I 1
I I I
I 1
I I I
I I 1
I I I
I I 1
•` I
I I I
I I 1
80-- I
I 1
1
90 '
100 , , I
0
0 0 0 0
N N N N
Year
Figure III -F6. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all years sampled
with fyke nets in Huddles Cut [Bray - Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and dashed red lines
represent non - significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
III -F -14

Huddles Cut
Atlantic Menhaden
Pre / Post: p = 0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
0 20 4080 100
Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE)
Atlantic Silverside
Pre / Post: p = 0.017
0 10 20 30 40
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
Pumpkinseed
Pre / Post: p = 0.048
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
0 Pre -Mod Alt L CPUE 0 Post -Mod Alt L CPUE
Figure III -F7. Catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) (median, quartiles, range, and 5th /95th percentiles) for commonly captured fish species at Huddles Cut with significant differences between pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L
years. Pre -Mod Alt L data for Huddles Cut was collected in 2009. Post -Mod Alt L data for Huddles Cut includes 2010 through 2013.
III -F -15

c�
40
.1
:1
100
o
O
O O
j N
Muddy Creek
Group average
M Nr O
O O O
�+ �+ .
O N O CV) T" N
O O - O
o N N N CV O N NN
"0 _0 _0 � "a 7D
70 _0 _0 77 a 70
Year
Figure III -F8. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all years trawled in
Muddy Creek [Bray - Curtis similarity; Log(x +1)]. Solid black lines represent significant group structure and dashed red lines represent non-
significant group structure at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
III -F -16

Table III -F1. Comparison of fish community structure for all creeks in Mod Alt L sampling years. Post Mod -Atl L values are bold
and italicized.
a Control creeks
b Creeks sampled using Tyke nets
III -F -17
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Jacks Creek
Total abundance _
Species richness
Jacobs Creek
Total abundance
Species richness
PA2a
Total abundance
Species richness
1,350
15
-
2,049
16
_
4,601
14
-
6,638
14
2,748
13
-
4,102
11
-
1,945
18
1,719
16
4,649
19
1,646
19
3,383
18
-
3,568
18
1,711
18
1 1,748
18
4,069
19
Drinkwater Creek
Total abundance
Species richness
Little Creeka
Total abundance
Species richness
1,745
2,095
19
2,203
19
2,978
15
2,861
17
_
_ -
20
_ _ _- 1,186
18
iLong Creeka
7,437
1,613
12
_
1,306
2,826
17
1,653
2,455
16
1,695
Total abundance
Species richness
Tooley Creek
Total abundance
Species richness
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
13
14
17
Muddy Creeka
Total abundance
Species richness
3,941 1,738 6,242
14 12 14
7,894
3,407 5,348 1,784 4,894 1,079
1,835
15
1,968
15
18
15 13 12 13 17
Huddles Cutb
Total abundance
Species richness
-
-
-
-
-
2,155
15
7,076
19
9,070
23
3,784
23
6,998
25
-
Porter Creek
Total abundance
Species richness
665
3,113
12
3,428
11
10
Duck Creeka
Total abundance
Species richness
364
12
_
1,545
16
2,237
19
DCUT19ab
Total abundance
Species richness
DCUT11b
Total abundance
Species richness
-
-
6,512
19
618
10
a Control creeks
b Creeks sampled using Tyke nets
III -F -17

Table III -F2. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Jacks Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2000 through 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2010 through 2013, 14 sampling
occasions in April, May, and June of 2004, and 12 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2009.
Common name
Scientific name
2000
2001
2002
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
0.46 (0.00 - 0.93)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.78)
0.69 (0.00 - 2.20)
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
20.85 (7.11 - 34.58)
7.85 (0.00 - 18.59)
12.77 (0.00 - 25.72)
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
16.23 (0.00 - 37.73)
0.77 (0.00 - 1.79)
0.46 (0.00 - 1.05)
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
1.23 (0.00 - 3.91)
5.31 (0.00 - 11.62)
0.00 (NA)
Banded killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
4.38 (0.73 - 8.04)
9.38 (0.00 - 24.31)
7.15 (2.60 - 11.71)
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Bluegillb
Lepomis macrochirus
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
Chain pipefish
Syngnathus louisianae
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Eastern mosquitofishb
Gambusia holbrooki
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
Eastern mudminnowb
Umbra pygmaea
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Green goby
Microgobius thalassinus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
1.00 (0.26 - 1.74)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.38)
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
4.23 (0.00 - 9.30)
Ladyfish
Elops saurus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Largemouth bassb
Micropterus salmoides
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Longnose garb
Lepisosteus osseus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Naked goby
Gobiosoma bosci
0.00 (NA)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.29)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.85)
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
1.23 (0.04 - 2.42)
6.54 (3.33 - 9.74)
121.08 (16.51 - 225.65)
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
2.85 (0.00 - 5.90)
2.38 (0.93 - 3.83)
0.00 (NA)
Rainwater killifish
Lucania parva
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
7.23 (1.69 - 12.78)
3.00 (0.00 - 6.45)
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysoura
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Southern flounder
Paralichthys lethostigma
0.54 (0.00 - 1.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.78)
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
54.15 (12.77 - 95.54)
111.62 (49.86 - 173.37)
202.77(68.25-337.29)
Spotted seatrout
Cynoscion nebulosus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
0.62 (0.00 - 1.34)
4.92 (1.64 - 8.21)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.73)
White catfish
Ameiurus catus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
White perch
Morone americana
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Yellow bullhead
Ameiurus natalis
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Yellow perch
Perca flavescens
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Unidentified sunfiishb
Lepomis sp.
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
All species
103.85 (45.61 - 162.08)
157.62 (94.41 - 220.82)
353.92 (132.40 - 575.44)
Total number of species
15
16
14
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl
b Predominantly freshwater species
A
2003
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
45.77 (0.00 - 127.71)
17.08 (0.00 - 49.27)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
6.38 (0.00 - 14.46)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.08 - 0.69)
0.77 (0.00 - 1.63)
0.77 (0.06 - 1.47)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.37)
2.38 (0.00 - 5.54)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.06)
434.54 (33.52 - 835.56)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.91)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.92 (0.00 - 2.09)
510.62 (92.15 - 929.08)
14
III -F -18
CPUEa (95% confiden
Pre -Mod Alt L
2004
0.00 (NA)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
15.50 (1.41 - 29.59)
68.36 (0.00 - 160.14)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
9.14 (0.52 - 17.76)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.14 (0.00 - 0.35)
0.14 (0.00 - 0.45)
0.43 (0.00 - 0.86)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.14 (0.00 - 0.35)
0.00 (NA)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
100.50 (35.67 - 165.33)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.14 (0.00 - 2.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.57 (0.00 - 1.52)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
196.29 (47.32 - 345.25)
13
cei
2005
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
205.15 (12.60 - 397.70)
26.31 (0.00 - 74.69)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
6.15 (1.75 - 10.56)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.15 (0.24 - 2.07)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
2.31 (0.00 - 4.63)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.54)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
73.46 (3.82 - 143.10)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
315.54 (42.19 - 588.88)
11
2011
0.00 (NA)
0.92 (0.00 - 1.86)
1.46 (0.00 - 3.23)
15.38 (0.00 - 44.17)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
12.31 (0.00 - 27.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
3.23 (0.44 - 6.02)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.54 (0.01 - 1.07)
10.62 (0.00 - 22.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
6.15 (0.00 - 17.77)
27.38 (9.33 - 45.44)
0.00 (NA)
2.08 (0.00 - 4.62)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.22)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
68.54 (1.15 - 135.92)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
149.62 (60.36 - 238.87)
18
2012
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
6.31 (0.66 - 11.96)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.22)
0.00 (NA)
6.69 (0.00 - 19.15)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
7.85 (0.00 - 18.45)
0.00 (NA)
0.77 (0.00 - 1.56)
0.69 (0.00 - 1.78)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
21.15 (3.82 - 38.49)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
8.92 (0.00 - 20.09)
0.00 (NA)
1.23 (0.00 - 2.61)
70.31 (7.16 - 133.45)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.77 (0.00 - 1.85)
0.77 (0.02 - 1.52)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
126.62 (35.13 - 218.10)
19
2013
0.00 (NA)
0.31 (0.02 - 0.60)
14.62 (0.00 - 30.08)
0.85 (0.00 - 2.03)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.38)
1.62 (0.00 - 4.61)
8.08 (0.00 - 20.39)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
2.77 (0.00 - 6.51)
31.23 (3.79 - 58.67)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
3.46 (0.44 - 6.48)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.46 (0.00 - 4.65)
5.23 (0.00 - 13.96)
12.92 (1.32 - 24.52)
0.00 (NA)
6.85 (0.00 - 14.30)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
169.54 (67.28 - 271.80)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.82)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
260.23 (166.30 - 354.16)
0

Table III -F3. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Jacobs Creek on 13 sampling occasions in
ni, may, ana June or ZU-i -i tnrougn zw6
mmon name
- 7.59)
Scientific name
ierican eel
1.08 (0.14
Anguilla rostrata
antic croaker
14.31 (0.00
Micropogonias undulatus
antic menhaden
0.00 (NA)
Brevoortia tyrannus
antic silverside
11.87)
Menidia menidia
Bay anchovy
Chain pipefish
Crevalle jack
Eastern mosquitofishb
Eastern mudminnowb
Gizzard shad
Green goby
Hogchoker
Inland silverside
Ladyfish
Naked goby
Pinfish
Rainwater killifish
Silver perch
Southern flounder
S pot
Spotted seatrout
Striped mullet
Summer flounder
All species
Total number of species
Anchoa mitchilli
Syngnathus louisianae
Caranx hippos
Gambusia holbrooki
Umbra pygmaea
Dorosoma cepedianum
Microgobius thalassinus
Trinectes maculatus
Menidia beryllina
Elops saurus
Gobiosoma bosci
Lagodon rhomboides
Lucania parva
Bairdiella chrysoura
Paralichthys lethostigma
Leiostomus xanthurus
Cynoscion nebulosus
Mugil cephalus
Paralichthys dentatus
Average CPUEa (95% confidence interval)
Pre -Mod Alt L
2011 2012 2013
3.62 (0.00
- 7.59)
0.08 (0.00
- 0.24)
1.08 (0.14
- 2.02)
0.00 (NA)
14.31 (0.00
- 32.89)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
5.69 (0.00 -
11.87)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00
- 0.38)
5.23 (0.00 -
11.85)
0.08 (0.00
- 0.24)
7.77 (0.00 -
23.99)
52.92 (27.64
- 78.20)
1.77 (0.00
- 3.91)
0.38 (0.00
- 1.22)
0.08 (0.00
- 0.24)
38.69 (2.13
- 75.25)
0.15 (0.00
- 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00
- 0.59)
132.23 (79.65
- 184.81)
16
- 421.92)
1.46 (0.00 -
3.18)
2.62(0.02 -5.21)
0.00 (NA)
0.46 (0.00 -
1.14)
5.00 (0.05 -
9.95)
1.00 (0.18 -
1.82)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.00 (NA)
23.23 (7.79 -
38.67)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 -
0.50)
2.85 (0.00 -
6.75)
0.00 (NA)
0.46 (0.06 -
0.86)
104.77 (15.77
- 193.77)
19.46 (3.61 -
35.32)
46.92 (0.00 -
134.13)
1.23 (0.00 -
2.67)
62.85 (24.12 -
101.58)
0.62 (0.00 -
1.62)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
1.08 (0.11 -
2.05)
274.46 (127.00
- 421.92)
18
' CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
Predominantly freshwater species
III -F -19
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
12.92 (7.08 - 18.76)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.34)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.96)
3.62 (0.00 - 8.11)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
4.38 (0.00 - 10.27)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
3.46 (0.00 - 9.14)
0.00 (NA)
8.77 (0.00 - 26.63)
3.77 (0.00 - 8.50)
1.08 (0.00 - 2.37)
0.00 (NA)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.12)
92.69 (43.32 - 142.07)
0.92 (0.00 - 2.76)
0.00 (NA)
0.54 (0.07 - 1.01)
134.46 (87.29 - 181.63)
18

Table III -F4. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Porter Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May,
and June of 2011 through 2013.
III -F -20
Average CPUE' (95% confidence interval)
Pre -Mod Alt L
Common name
Scientific name
2011
2012
2013
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
4.54 (0.46 - 8.61)
108.62 (8.16 - 209.07)
112.15 (32.44 - 191.87)
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
6.08 (0.01 - 12.15)
1.23 (0.00 - 3.21)
12.54 (0.51 - 24.57)
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.69 (0.00 - 2.03)
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
30.46 (0.00 - 61.51)
20.46 (0.00 - 43.95)
17.85 (0.61 - 35.09)
Chain pipefish
Syngnathus louisianae
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Eastern mudminnowb
Umbra pygmaea
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
Green goby
Microgobius thalassinus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
1.08 (0.14 - 2.02)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.69 (0.00 - 2.20)
Ladyfish
Elops saurus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
12.85 (0.00 - 37.79)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Rainwater killifish
Lucania parva
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.00 (NA)
Southern flounder
Paralichthys lethostigma
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.69 (0.00 - 1.41)
0.54 (0.14 - 0.94)
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
9.38 (0.00 - 21.61)
93.62 (34.64 - 152.59)
118.38 (21.25 - 215.52)
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.06)
0.62 (0.09 - 1.14)
All species
51.15 (18.45 - 83.86)
239.46 (67.43 - 411.49)
263.69 (103.87 - 423.51)
Total number of species
10
12
11
' CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
III -F -20

Table III -F5. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in two unnamed tributaries to Durham
Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2013.
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximately 16 hour set of fyke nets.
b Predominantly freshwater species
III -F -21
Average CPUEa (95% confidence interval)
DCUT19
DCUT11
Common name
Scientific name
2013
2013
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
169.15 (0.00 - 536.11)
0.00 (NA)
Banded killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
0.46 (0.00 - 1.47)
0.00 (NA)
Bluegillb
Lepomis macrochirus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Eastern mosquitofishb
Gambusia holbrooki
6.62 (0.23 - 13.00)
0.92 (0.00 - 1.86)
Eastern mudminnowb
Umbra pygmaea
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
4.46 (0.00 - 11.36)
0.00 (NA)
Ladyfish
Elops saurus
2.38 (0.00 - 7.23)
0.00 (NA)
Largemouth bassb
Micropterus salmoides
0.38 (0.00 - 0.78)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
197.77 (55.90 - 339.64)
32.54 (0.00 - 84.98)
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
1.15 (0.00 - 3.00)
0.08 ( 0.00 - 0.24)
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
3.31 (0.98 - 5.64)
12.31 (3.46 - 21.15)
Sheepshead minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus
79.69 (0.00 - 175.88)
0.92 (0.00 - 1.98)
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysoura
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Southern flounder
Paralichthys lethostigma
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
32.69 (7.26 - 58.13)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.82)
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
1.69 (0.00 - 4.51)
0.00 (NA)
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.00 (NA)
White perch
Morone americana
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
All species
500.92 (96.27 - 905.57)
47.54 (0.00 - 104.15)
Total number of species
19
10
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximately 16 hour set of fyke nets.
b Predominantly freshwater species
III -F -21

Table III -F6. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Drinkwater Creek on 13 sampling
occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 through 2013.
Common name
American eel
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Chain pipefish
Eastern mosquitofishb
Eastern mudminnowb
Green goby
Hogchoker
Inland silverside
Ladyfish
Longnose garb
Mummichog
Naked goby
Pinfish
Rainwater killifish
Silver perch
Southern flounder
S pot
Spotted seatrout
Striped mullet
Summer flounder
All species
Total number of species
Scientific name
Anguilla rostrata
Micropogonias undulatus
Brevoortia tyrannus
Strongylura manna
Menidia menidia
Anchoa mitchilli
Pomatomus saltatrix
Syngnathus louisianae
Gambusia holbrooki
Umbra pygmaea
Microgobius thalassinus
Trinectes maculatus
Menidia beryllina
Elops saurus
Lepisosteus osseus
Fundulus heteroclitus
Gobiosoma bosci
Lagodon rhomboides
Lucania parva
Bairdiella chrysoura
Paralichthys lethostigma
Leiostomus xanthurus
Cynoscion nebulosus
Mugil cephalus
Paralichthys dentatus
Average CPUE' (95% confidence interval)
Pre -Mod Alt L Post -Mod Alt L
2011
1.46 (0.10
- 2.83)
0.38 (0.00
- 0.97)
2.54 (0.00
- 6.26)
0.38 (0.00
- 1.22)
0.00 (NA)
8.62 (0.73 -
13.08 (0.00
- 29.26)
0.08 (0.00
- 0.24)
0.08 (0.00
- 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 -
7.46 (0.00 -
16.46)
0.08 (0.00
- 0.24)
0.31 (0.00
- 0.69)
23.31 (0.00
- 51.27)
0.08 (0.00
- 0.24)
0.15 (0.00
- 0.38)
0.08 (0.00
- 0.24)
7.85 (0.00 -
20.40)
26.69 (13.22
- 40.16)
12.31 (0.00
- 30.57)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.97)
37.62 (6.20
- 69.04)
0.15 (0.00
- 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00
- 0.49)
134.23 (76.62
- 191.84)
20
2012
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
6.62 (0.00 -
13.94)
0.30 (0.00 -
0.69)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
8.62 (0.73 -
16.50)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
0.00 (NA)
3.08 (0.73 -
5.42)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
0.46 (0.06 -
0.86)
1.00 (0.00 -
2.83)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
0.46 (0.06 -
0.86)
45.00 (6.72 -
83.28)
4.38 (0.14 -
8.63)
2.62 (0.00 -
8.14)
0.31 (0.00 -
0.82)
86.62 (33.14 -
140.09)
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.00 -
0.97)
0.69 (0.12 -
1.26)
161.15 (72.18
- 250.13)
19
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -22
2013
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
15.31 (4.32 - 26.30)
7.38 (0.00 - 18.64)
0.00 (NA)
8.38 (0.00 - 26.65)
57.92 (0.00 - 179.26)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.98)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
1.61 (0.00 - 4.43)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
136.85 (72.27 - 201.42)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
229.08 (104.47 - 353.68)
15

Table III -F7. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Tooley Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and
June of 2010 through 2013.
Common name
American eel
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Chain pipefish
Eastern mosquitofishb
Eastern mudminnowb
Green goby
Hogchoker
Inland silverside
Ladyfish
Naked goby
Pinfish
Rainwater killifish
Silver perch
Southern flounder
S pot
Spotted seatrout
Striped mullet
Summer flounder
All species
Total number of species
Scientific name
Anguilla rostrata
undulatus
Brevoortia tyrannus
Strongylura manna
Menidia menidia
Anchoa mitchilli
Syngnathus louisianae
Gambusia holbrooki
Umbra pygmaea
Microgobius thalassinus
Trinectes maculatus
Menidia beryllina
Elops saurus
Gobiosoma bosci
Lagodon rhomboides
Lucania parva
Bairdiella chrysoura
Paralichthys lethostigma
Leiostomus xanthurus
Cynoscion nebulosus
Mugil cephalus
Paralichthys dentatus
Average CPUEa (95% confidence interval)
Pre -Mod Alt L I Post -Mod Alt L
2010
0.00 (NA)
139.15 (0.00 - 284.50)
56.69 (0.00 - 122.41)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
9.62(1.52- 17.71)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.73)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.73)
95.15 (8.12 - 182.19)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.38 (0.29 - 2.48)
269.23 (18.60 - 519.86)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
572.08 (114.04 - 1,030.12)
12
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -23
2011
1.23 (0.18 - 2.28)
0.00 (NA)
2.00 (0.00 - 5.50)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
8.85 (0.00 - 25.61)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.82)
0.00 (NA)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.22)
0.00 (NA)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.25)
11.00 (0.00 - 32.82)
0.00 (NA)
2.92 (0.00 - 7.19)
35.62 (10.13 - 61.11)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
36.85 (3.41 - 70.28)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.06)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
100.46 (37.58 - 163.34)
13
2012
0.62 (0.03 - 1.20)
17.62 (1.15 - 34.08)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
14.31 (0.00 - 40.10)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
0.00 (NA)
1.15 (0.00 - 2.65)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.73)
31.00 (0.00 - 67.30)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.41)
5.38 (0.00 - 16.24)
0.46 (0.00 - 0.93)
54.62 (0.00 - 110.92)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.69 (0.07 - 1.32)
127.15 (47.64 - 206.66)
14
2013
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
7.54 (2.15 - 12.92)
2.23 (0.00 - 4.72)
0.00 (NA)
1.38 (0.00 - 4.40)
3.23 (0.14 - 6.32)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.77 (0.00 - 1.79)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
4.38 (0.00 - 13.58)
6.08 (0.00 - 12.62)
0.46 (0.00 - 1.14)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.41)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
102.31 (51.20 - 153.42)
0.69 (0.00 - 1.78)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
130.38 (75.43 - 185.34)
17

Table III -F8. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Huddles Cut on 13 sampling occasions
in April, May, and June of 2010 through 2013, and 12 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2009.
Common name
Scientific name
Average CPUEa (95% confidence interval)
Pre -Mod Alt L
Post -Mod Alt L
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
American eel
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish'
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Bluegill'
Brown bullhead'
Eastern mosquitofish'
Eastern mudminnow'
Gizzard shad
Green goby
Hogchoker
Inland silverside
Ladyfish
Mummichog
Naked goby
Pinfish
Pumpkinseed'
Rainwater killifish
Red drum
Redear sunfish'
Sheepshead minnow
Silver perch
Southern flounder
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Striped mullet
Summer flounder
White perch
All species
Anguilla rostrata
Alosa sapidissima
Micropogonias undulatus
Brevoortia tyrannus
Strongylura marina
0.25 (0.00 - 0.64)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.27)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.27)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
6.67 (0.00 - 14.53)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
1.38 (0.00 - 3.57)
50.85 (0.00 - 152.65)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
4.92 (0.41 - 9.44)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.49)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.22)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.06)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.00 (NA)
2.92 (0.37 - 5.48)
3.08 (0.00 - 7.99)
0.00 (NA)
16.15 (0.00 - 38.18)
0.00 (NA)
2.54 (0.31 - 4.77)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
2.46 (0.00 - 7.83)
0.00 (NA)
0.69 (0.00 - 1.63)
0.31 (0.02 - 0.60)
0.69 (0.00 - 1.72)
0.00 (NA)
120.15 (0.00 - 338.37)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
5.08 (0.21 - 9.95)
1.54 (0.07 - 3.01)
4.00 (0.00 - 12.72)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
0.54 (0.07 - 1.01)
1.69 (0.00 - 3.53)
2.00 (0.00 - 4.65)
120.08 (56.01 - 184.14)
0.00 (NA)
4.69 (0.90 - 8.49)
1.46 (0.00 - 3.30)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
291.08 (49.46 - 532.69)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.39)
9.69 (0.00 - 24.70)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Menidia menidia
Fundulus diaphanus
0.92 (0.00 - 2.07)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
13.46 (0.00 - 31.21)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
1.08 (0.00 - 2.68)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.96)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.31 (0.00 - 3.64)
0.00 (NA)
371.00 (0.00 - 748.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
5.85 (0.00 - 15.66)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
62.23 (0.00 - 176.80)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.73)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.97)
Anchoa mitchilli
Pomatomus saltatrix
Lepomis macrochirus
Ameiurus nebulosus
Gambusia holbrooki
1.33 (0.00 - 2.67)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Umbra pygmaea
4.77 (0.85 - 8.69)
tbrosoma cepedianum
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
8.23 (0.00 - 18.23)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
477.85 (145.52 - 810.18)
2.31 (0.00 - 5.01)
8.69 (1.88 - 15.51)
Microgobius thalassinus
Trinectes maculatus
0.00 (NA)
Menidia beryllina
Elops saurus
0.58 (0.00 - 1.32)
0.00 (NA)
Fundulus heteroclitus
63.75 (24.42 - 103.08)
298.62 (35.68 - 561.55)
Gobiosoma bosci
0.00 (NA)
1.33 (0.00 - 3.68)
0.00 (NA)
46.00 (0.00 - 106.07)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
6.23 (0.00 - 16.52)
0.00 (NA)
2.00 (0.69 - 3.31)
114.46 (31.02 - 197.90)
0.00 (NA)
7.38 (2.37 - 12.40)
0.00 (NA)
2.15 (1.08 - 3.22)
544.31 (154.97 - 933.65)
Lagodon rhomboides
Lepomis gibbosus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.27)
8.00 (0.87 - 15.13)
Lucania parva
0.08 (0.00 - 0.27)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.08 (0.00 - 2.70)
0.00 (NA)
0.25 (0.00 - 0.54)
90.75 (48.71 - 132.79)
0.00 (NA)
13.08 (0.00 - 26.93)
0.00 (NA)
0.17 (0.00 - 0.41)
179.58 (102.32 - 256.84)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
Sciaenops ocellatus
Lepomis microlophus
Cyprinodon variegatus
Bairdiella chrysoura
Paralichthys lethostigma
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
4.69 (0.00 - 9.61)
1.23 (0.00 - 3.19)
1.85 (0.00 - 4.38)
Leiostomus xanthurus
54.62 (22.22 - 87.01)
79.69 (0.00 - 193.38)
Cynoscion nebulosus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
116.62 (0.00 - 277.76)
1.38 (0.00 - 3.54)
0.54 (0.07 - 1.01)
697.69 (336.04 - 1,059.34)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
3.31 (0.68 - 5.93)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.92 (0.00 - 2.31)
538.31 (70.89 - 1,005.73)
Mugil cephalus
Paralichthys dentatus
Morone americana
Total number of species
15
19
23
23
25
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximately 16 hour set of Tyke nets.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -24

Table III -F9. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Little Creek on 13 sampling
occasions in April Ma , and June of 2011 through
2013.
Average CPUE' (95% confidence interval)
2011
2012
2013
Common name
Scientific name
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.85)
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
2.08 (0.00 - 4.60)
3.00 (0.57 - 5.43)
14.69 (3.43 - 25.96)
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
17.92 (0.00 - 44.26)
0.00 (NA)
4.46 (0.00 - 12.57)
Atlantic needlefish
Strongylura manna
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.46 (0.00 - 1.47)
Banded killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.22)
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
21.85 (0.00 - 48.24)
9.77 (0.00 - 26.78)
9.77 (0.00 - 22.01)
Chain pipefish
Syngnathus louisianae
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Eastern mosquitofishb
Gambusia holbrooki
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.46 (0.00 - 1.19)
Eastern mudminnowb
Umbra pygmaea
3.62 (0.00 - 8.33)
10.85 (2.78 - 18.92)
14.31 (0.00 - 34.06)
Green goby
Microgobius thalassinus
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
0.46 (0.00 - 0.99)
0.00 (NA)
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
2.38 (0.39 - 4.38)
2.08 (0.00 - 4.51)
3.54 (0.00 - 7.38)
Longnose garb
Lepisosteus osseus
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
Naked goby
Gobiosoma bosci
2.00 (0.27 - 3.73)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
31.46 (0.00 - 80.34)
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
2.69 (0.00 - 6.01)
61.69 (1.81 - 121.58)
15.38 (5.59 - 25.18)
Rainwater killifish
Lucania parva
2.38 (0.00 - 5.50)
9.69 (0.00 - 19.50)
1.69 (0.00 - 4.50)
Red drum
Sciaenops ocellatus
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
Sheepshead minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysoura
0.23 (0.00 - 0.73)
2.31 (0.00 - 7.16)
0.85 (0.00 - 2.69)
Southern flounder
Paralichthys lethostigma
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
34.77 (5.54 - 64.00)
66.85 (22.38 - 111.32)
121.00 (40.68 - 201.32)
Spotted seatrout
Cynoscion nebulosus
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
1.00 (0.00 - 3.00)
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
0.23 (0.00 - 0.73)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.77 (0.00 - 1.63)
0.00 (NA)
White perch
Morone americana
0.00 (NA)
1.00 (0.00 - 3.00)
0.00 (NA)
All species
91.23 (37.36 - 145.10)
1 169.46 (57.93 - 281.00)
1 220.08 (116.24 - 323.91)
Total number of species
18
19
17
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -25

Table III -F10. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPU E) by species for fish captured in PA2 on 13 sampling occasions
in April, May, and June of 2011 through 2013.
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -26
Average CPUEa (95% confidence interval)
2011
2012
2013
Common name
Scientific name
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
1.15 (0.56 -
1.75)
0.38 (0.00 -
0.97)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
2.31 (0.00 -
6.66)
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
17.23 (0.00 -
52.09)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
25.54 (0.00 -
72.57)
Atlantic needlefish
Strongylura manna
0.23 (0.00 -
0.59)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.23 (0.00 -
0.59)
6.23 (0.00 -
19.45)
Banded killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
2.62 (0.00 -
6.48)
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
1.85 (0.09 -
3.61)
1.46 (0.12 -
2.80)
0.92 (0.00 -
2.14)
Eastern mosquitofishb
Gambusia holbrooki
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
2.31 (0.00 -
6.16)
Eastern mudminnowb
Umbra pygmaea
120.15 (39.22
- 201.09)
16.77 (4.53 -
29.01)
112.92 (0.00 -
233.82)
Green goby
Microgobius thalassinus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
20.92 (5.71 -
36.14)
2.15 (0.00 -
5.27)
2.31 (0.33 -
4.29)
Ladyfish
Elops saurus
0.31 (0.00 -
0.69)
0.00 (NA)
2.31 (0.00 -
5.85)
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
34.77 (0.00 -
88.32)
2.23 (0.00 -
6.91)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
Naked goby
Gobiosoma bosci
2.15 (0.00 -
5.38)
0.31 (0.00 -
0.98)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
22.38 (14.65
- 30.12)
24.23 (9.24 -
39.23)
9.31 (3.46 -
15.16)
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
Rainwater killifish
Lucania parva
70.00 (7.54 -
132.46)
18.92 (3.10 -
34.75)
2.54 (0.00 -
5.15)
Sheepshead minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus
1.69 (0.00 -
4.87)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysoura
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.23 (0.00 -
0.73)
0.00 (NA)
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
61.31 (0.00 -
150.18)
63.92 (39.44
- 88.40)
142.85 (31.14
- 254.55)
Spotted seatrout
Cynoscion nebulosus
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.00 (NA)
Striped bass
Morone saxatilis
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
0.00 (NA)
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
2.62 (0.00 -
7.26)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 -
0.50)
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 -
0.59)
0.00 (NA)
White perch
Morone americana
0.46 (0.00 -
1.14)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
All species
357.62 (178.30
- 536.93)
131.62 (86.50
- 176.73)
313.00 (165.98
- 460.02)
Total number of species
19
18
19
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -26

Table III -F11. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Long Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April,
May, and June of 2011 through 2013.
Common name
American eel
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Chain pipefish
Eastern mosquitofishb
Eastern mudminnowb
Green goby
Hogchoker
Inland silverside
Mummichog
Naked goby
Pinfish
Rainwater killifish
Red drum
Silver perch
Southern flounder
Spot
Summer flounder
All species
Total number of species
Scientific name
Anguilla rostrata
Micropogonias undulatus
Brevoortia tyrannus
Menidia menidia
Anchoa mitchilli
Syngnathus louisianae
Gambusia holbrooki
Umbra pygmaea
Microgobius thalassinus
Trinectes maculatus
Menidia b eryllina
Fundulus heteroclitus
Gobiosoma bosci
Lagodon rhomboides
Lucania parva
Sciaenops ocellatus
Bairdiella chrysoura
Paralichthys lethostigma
Leiostomus xanthurus
Paralichthys dentatus
2011
Average CPUE' (95% confidence interval)
2012
0.00 (NA)
2.00 (0.40 - 3.60)
31.31 (0.00 - 63.21)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.98)
20.77 (2.07 - 39.47)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.77 (0.21 - 1.33)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.78)
3.31 (0.00 - 6.80)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.98)
64.54 (0.00 - 146.44)
0.00 (NA)
124.08 (39.23 - 208.92)
12
0.15 (0.00 -
0.38)
38.08 (22.42 -
53.74)
2.69 (0.00 -
8.04)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.49)
23.00 (0.00 -
55.65)
0.15 (0.00 -
0.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.69(0.18 -1.21)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.77 (0.00 -
1.93)
0.00 (NA)
0.77 (0.00 -
1.79)
18.69 (0.41 -
36.97)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.00 -
0.97)
0.92 (0.25 -
1.60)
128.69 (61.15 -
196.23)
2.00 (0.14 -
3.86)
217.38 (118.63
- 316.14)
17
' CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -27
2013
0.15 (0.00 -
0.38)
40.15 (15.94
- 64.36)
14.38 (0.00 -
32.64)
2.62 (0.00 -
7.96)
45.85 (0.00 -
116.31)
0.00 (NA)
0.46 (0.00 -
1.19)
0.77 (0.00 -
2.01)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.92 (0.00 -
2.76)
9.08 (0.00 -
19.60)
0.23 (0.00 -
0.59)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
73.85 (37.53 -
110.16)
0.08 (0.00 -
0.24)
188.85 (105.88
- 271.82)
16

Table III -F12. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Muddy Creek on 13 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2000 through 2003, 2005, and 2010 through 2013, 14 sampling occasions in
April, May, and June of 2004, and 12 sampling occasions in April, May, and June of 2009.
' CPUE equals the number of indi\iduals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -28
Average CPUE' (95% confidence interval)
Common name
Scientific name
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.27)
0.00 (NA)
0.85 (0.00 - 1.83)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
63.00 (39.53 - 86.46)
8.69 (0.00 - 24.11)
8.31 (1.62 - 14.99)
19.15 (0.00 - 42.07)
26.07 (7.36 - 44.78)
30.15 (16.57 - 43.74)
0.50 (0.00 - 1.60)
11.54 (2.92 - 20.16)
0.00 (NA)
7.69 (1.14 - 14.25)
7.23 (0.00 - 14.46)
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
13.69 (4.11 - 23.27)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.26)
3.23 (0.00 - 6.70)
5.54 (0.05 - 11.03)
30.29 (0.21 - 60.36)
2.69 (0.00 - 6.18)
1.50 (0.00 - 3.27)
17.15 (2.24 - 32.06)
7.15 (0.00 - 16.82)
0.69 (0.00 - 2.03)
12.08 (0.00 - 34.87)
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
8.15 (0.27 - 16.03)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.71)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
2.54 (0.00 - 7.04)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
2.15 (0.00 - 6.32)
Banded killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
23.07 (2.43 - 43.72)
5.92 (0.00 - 13.31)
21.31 (0.00 - 46.08)
2.92 (0.00 - 6.26)
5.93 (1.02 - 10.84)
6.46 (1.89 - 11.04)
14.00 (1.60 - 26.40)
4.54 (0.23 - 8.84)
28.23 (3.32 - 53.15)
10.31 (0.00 - 26.28)
13.92 (0.00 - 36.10)
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Brown bullhead
Ameiurus nebulosus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Chain pipefish
Syngnathus louisianae
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.27)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Eastern mosquitofishb
Gambusia holbrooki
0.00 (NA)
2.15 (0.00 - 5.14)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.38 (0.00 - 2.99)
Eastern mudminnowb
Umbra pygmaea
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.85 (0.00 - 2.36)
1.85 (0.43 - 3.26)
23.92 (0.00 - 60.19)
Green goby
Microgobius thalassinus
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.77 (0.00 - 2.45)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
0.23 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.00 (NA)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.27)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.00 (NA)
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
1.31 (0.25 - 2.37)
3.15 (0.21 - 6.10)
1.64 (0.00 - 3.60)
1.69 (0.00 - 3.75)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
9.69 (0.00 - 23.72)
0.54 (0.00 - 1.34)
16.92 (0.00 - 41.84)
Ladyfish
Elops saurus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.54 (0.00 - 4.89)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.91)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.27)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Naked goby
Gobiosoma bocci
0.30 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.00 (NA)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.82)
0.38 (0.00 - 0.78)
1.36 (0.00 - 3.96)
0.31 (0.02 - 0.60)
1.00 (0.14 - 1.86)
0.46 (0.00 - 1.05)
1.31 (0.44 - 2.18)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
8.69 (0.00 - 21.68)
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
0.38 (0.00 - 0.85)
9.23 (4.92 - 13.54)
234.77 (0.00 - 551.84)
1.92 (0.39 - 3.45)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
4.00 (0.51 - 7.49)
54.85 (9.47 - 100.22)
0.92 (0.00 - 1.92)
32.31 (0.00 - 86.50)
12.31 (1.95 - 22.67)
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
0.30 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Rainwater killifish
Lucania parva
0.30 (0.00 - 0.69)
1.54 (0.00 - 3.60)
30.31 (0.00 - 66.31)
0.69 (0.00 - 1.72)
0.07 (0.00 - 0.23)
0.00 (NA)
1.83 (0.00 - 4.28)
2.77 (0.00 - 6.92)
1.38 (0.00 - 3.05)
2.85 (0.00 - 7.52)
7.23 (1.22 - 13.24)
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysoura
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.38 (0.00 - 1.22)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
1.15 (0.00 - 3.67)
13.77 (0.00 - 35.89)
1.38 (0.00 - 4.06)
Southern flounder
Paralichthys lethostigma
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.00 (NA)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.00 (NA)
0.46 (0.00 - 0.99)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.69)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.50)
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
193.23 (16.51 - 369.96)
104.62 (32.90 - 170.33)
179.31 (53.48 - 305.14)
570.23 (0.00 - 1,284.48)
176.43 (69.52 - 283.34)
368.85 (132.49 - 605.20)
125.00 (17.30 - 232.70)
281.85 (99.71 - 463.98)
30.69 (8.35 - 53.03)
70.08 (7.46 - 132.70)
43.77 (14.57 - 72.97)
Spotted seatrout
Cynoscion nebu /osus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Striped bass
Morone saxatilis
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.50 (0.00 - 1.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.29 (0.02 - 0.56)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.82)
0.00 (NA)
White catfish
Ameiurus catus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.39)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
White perch
Morone americana
0.08 (0.00 -0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Yellow perch
Perca flavescens
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Unidentified
Sciaenidae sp.
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.14 (0.00 - 0.45)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Unidentified flounder
Paralichthys sp.
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Unidentified sunfish
Lepomis sp.
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.79 (0.00 - 2.32)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Unidentified pipefish
Syngnathus sp.
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
All species
303.15 (89.95 - 516.35)
133.69 (49.10 - 218.29)
480.15 (9.32 - 950.99)
607.23 (0.00 - 1,319.55)
243.36 (112.32 - 374.39)
411.38 (164.00 - 658.77)
148.67 (42.30 - 255.04)
376.46 (142.77 - 610.15)
83.00 (46.97 - 119.03)
141.15 (15.76 - 266.54)
151.38 (70.20 - 232.57)
Total number of species
14
12
14
18
15
13
12
13
17
15
15
' CPUE equals the number of indi\iduals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -28

Table III -F13. Average catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) by species for fish captured in Duck Creek on 13 sampling
occasions in April, May, and June of 2011 through 2013.
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -29
Average CPUE' (95% confidence interval)
2011
2012
2013
Common name
Scientific name
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
1.23 (0.00 - 2.81)
5.23 (1.00 - 9.46)
11.77 (5.21 - 18.33)
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
9.92 (0.00 - 21.58)
0.46 (0.00 - 0.99)
1.77 (0.00 - 4.57)
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
0.00 (NA)
0.31 (0.00 - 0.98)
1.62 (0.00 - 3.75)
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
7.00 (1.20 - 12.80)
7.69 (2.62 - 12.77)
2.54 (0.00 - 5.35)
Bluegillb
Lepomis macrochirus
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
2.15 (0.00 - 6.67)
Chain pipefish
Syngnathus louisianae
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Eastern mosquitofishb
Gambusia holbrooki
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.38)
Eastern mudminnowb
Umbra pygmaea
0.00 (NA)
1.77 (0.00 - 3.88)
2.00 (0.00 - 5.03)
Green goby
Microgobius thalassinus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
0.85 (0.00 - 1.70)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
0.92 (0.25 - 1.60)
1.00 (0.00 - 2.67)
1.23 (0.37 - 2.09)
Naked goby
Gobiosoma bosci
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.73)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.79)
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
0.46 (0.06 - 0.86)
19.77 (4.60 - 34.94)
10.00 (2.00 - 18.00)
Rainwater killifish
Lucania parva
0.00 (NA)
3.77 (0.00 - 9.31)
0.85 (0.00 - 2.03)
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysoura
0.00 (NA)
0.62 (0.00 - 1.79)
0.69 (0.00 - 2.03)
Southern flounder
Paralichthys lethostigma
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
7.15 (1.13 - 13.18)
76.69 (20.67 - 132.71)
136.08 (2.46 - 269.69)
Spotted seatrout
Cynoscion nebulosus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.00 (NA)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
0.00 (NA)
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
0.77 (0.00 - 1.70)
0.08 (0.00 - 0.24)
White catfish
Ameiurus catus
0.15 (0.00 - 0.49)
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
White perch
Morone americana
0.00 (NA)
0.00 (NA)
0.23 (0.00 - 0.59)
All species
28.00 (13.32 - 42.68)
118.85 (44.83 - 192.86)
172.08 (31.24 - 312.92)
Total number of species
12
16
19
a CPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate one - minute, 75 -yard trawl.
b Predominantly freshwater species
111 -F -29

G. BENTHOS
This text under construction. Will be sent separately to slip sheet into report. A new CD
with entire report will also be sent at that time.
III -G -1

ffil W1=
DATA COLLECTION HISTORY AND METHODOLOGY BY PARAMETER

APPENDIX A. HISTORY AND METHODS BY PARAMETER
Progress of the mine across a watershed is determined on an annual acreage basis. 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 agreed during the previous 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 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 Creek, Muddy
Creek, and Huddles Cut) are not included in the evaluation of Mod Alt L.
Three creeks have had their drainage basins affected by mine activities: Drinkwater Creek,
Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. Drinkwater Creek pre -Mod Alt L years are 2011 -2012, Tooley
Creek pre -Mod Alt L years are 2010 -2011, and Huddles Cut pre -Mod Alt L year is 2009.
A. Low Flow Stream Monitoring
1. History
With the concurrence of regulatory agencies and subsequently, the Science
Panel (committee chosen to review this report), flow monitoring with weirs was discontinued at
the end of 2009 in Huddles Cut and the end of 2010 in Tooley Creek. While no monitoring had
occurred in Jacks Creek since 2005, the weir in Jacks Creek was removed in 2010 when the
weirs in Tooley and Huddles Cut were removed. However, PCS elected to install a new device
developed specifically to monitor low flow events in upper headwater stream mitigation sites in
the coastal plain in appropriate creeks monitored for this study. Two flow gauges were installed
in Porter Creek in April 2010 and four were installed in Duck Creek in March 2011. The most
downstream gauge in Porter Creek is within the Mod Alt L boundary and will not collect any
post -Mod Alt L data; and therefore is not part of the 2012 creeks report.
EV

The upstream Porter Creek segment monitored by the other low flow gauge is
estimated to have a 117 -acre drainage basin. One Duck Creek segment with two of the four
gauges is the headwaters of the northwest prong (-124 -acre basin) and the other segment is
the south fork of the east prong (-151 -acre basin).
Beta models of the low flow gauges were produced by Flowline Products and
installed in some PCS stream and wetland mitigation sites in 2010. Refinement of the beta
model and larger scale production by Remote Data Systems, Inc (RDS) has been stalled; future
use of these devices is uncertain. The gauges are used to document the duration and relative
magnitude of flow events occurring in shallow perennial, intermittent, and zero order stream
segments. The device is based on the principles of a variable area flow measurement device
and consists of a vertical baffle mounted on an axis inside a protective housing. Flow passing
through the housing causes the baffle to tilt on its axis, and the degree of tilt is recorded by the
internal electronics and logging device. The gauge is capable of reliably recording flows as low
as 0.5 gal /min. Once a month biologists download the gauge and visually determine the relative
degree of flow as well as water depth at each device location. Once downloaded from the flow
gauge, the voltage setting for each gauge is calibrated during analysis such that dry conditions
and times of no flow (from observer data) are graphically depicted as a "flatline" or zero. A flow
event is defined as flow >_0.5 gallons per minute (gpm) unless noted otherwise. Both rainfall in
the watershed and hydrology of adjacent wells are also used to double check the accuracy of
the flow gauge data.
By late 2013, the low flow gauges were becoming more prone to error and it was
increasingly evident that production of additional units was not likely. Therefore, PCS decided
to cease monitoring flow with these units as their inclusion in the creeks monitoring program
was completely voluntary.
2. Methods
Since March 2012 in all creeks at the intended locations of the low flow gauges
shown on the monitoring figures for each creek, biologists also make qualitative observations of
flow (low, medium, high) and measure water depth in the channel during the monthly download
of adjacent wetland wells. They note evidence of recent flow and take photographs or video as
appropriate. The observations are presented in table form on an annual basis and photographs
or video are retained at CZR and made available upon request. With no further production or
monitoring of the low flow gauges, these observations will continue and will serve to document
flow events.
B. Salinity Monitoring
1. History
During 2013 salinity was monitored at seven creeks that have had or will have
their watershed disturbed by Mod Alt L mine activities and at eight control creeks. Monitoring
began in six of the 15 creeks for the first time in 2011. A CAMA permit (number 66 -11) was
received by PCS in May 2011 for construction and /or rehabilitation of 23 piers located in the
monitored creeks. Stainless steel boxes were mounted on these piers to house the water level
and salinity monitoring equipment. Equipment was installed as the piers were completed. By
July 2011 all salinity monitoring equipment was in place. With the exception of the control
stations in South Creek, the Pamlico River, PA2, Durham Creek and the two tributaries to
Durham Creek and the three stations on Huddles Cut (two upstream and one downstream, all
other creeks monitored for salinity have an upstream ( #1) and a downstream ( #2) salinity
station. The control locations aid in the determination of whether changes that may occur
between pre- and post -Mod Alt L monitoring are also seen regionally.

During the same timeframe as the monitoring on creeks that were subject to, or
would be subject to, drainage basin reduction from the activities of the mine, control locations
were also monitored for salinity:
• one in the Pamlico River established in 1998 (PS1),
• one in South Creek established in 1998 (SS1),
• two in Long Creek (LOS1; LOS2) established in 2011,
• two in Little Creek (LCS1; LCS2) established in 2011,
• one in PA2 established in 2011, and
• two in Duck Creek (DKS1; DKS2) established in 2011,
• one in DCUT11 (D11S1) established in 2013,
• one in DCUT19 (D19S1) established in 2013, and
• one in Durham Creek (DCS1) established in 2013.
Muddy Creek is another control creek; however, only fish, sediment, and benthos
data are collected. Fish sampling has occurred weekly April through June every year since
1999 except for 2006, when no monitoring occurred for any parameter, and a handheld YS1 Pro
Plus Quatro is used to collect water quality data, including salinity, at each visit. Therefore,
salinity for those three months can be compared over the years to determine if there are any
patterns in that creek.
2. Methods
A YSI 600XLM multi - parameter water quality monitor (YSI) was utilized to record
salinity and water depth at each monitoring location during earlier monitoring (1999 -2002) and
from January 2007 to August 2008. Salinity monitoring after August 2008 was performed with
In -Situ Aqua TROLL 200 water quality monitors. The YSI monitors automatically calculated
salinity readings from conductivity and temperature. The salinity sensor range for each YSI was
0 -70 parts per thousand (psu), with an accuracy of +/- 1.0 percent of the reading, or 0.1 psu,
whichever was greater. The resolution was 0.01 psu. The depth sensor was a stainless steel
strain gauge pressure sensor with a range of 0 -30 feet, an accuracy of +/- 0.7 inch, and a
resolution of 0.01 inch.
The Aqua TROLL 200 is manufactured by In -Situ, Inc. Like the YSI monitors, the
Aqua TROLLs generated salinity readings from temperature and conductivity. The salinity
sensor range is 0 -42 practical salinity units (psu), with an accuracy of +/- 0.5 percent of the
reading. The resolution is 0.001 psu. Practical salinity units (psu) are essentially equivalent to
parts per thousand (psu); however, psu is considered a more appropriate descriptor since it
refers to the practical salinity scale that is used to calculate salinity (Reid 2006). The depth
sensor is a titanium /silicon strain gauge pressure sensor with a range of 0 -35 feet, an accuracy
of +/- 0.003 inch, and a resolution of 0.001 inch.
Salinity monitors were programmed to record salinity and depth every 1.5 hours
(16 readings per day). Each monitor was serviced and downloaded every two weeks. The
probes were also cleaned and batteries were checked and replaced as necessary. Sensors
were located near the bottom of the stream to ensure continuous data collection during most
low water conditions. Depth readings were compensated for the distance from the sensor to the
creek bottom. Occasional gaps in the continuous data in some years exist due to dead
batteries, equipment malfunctions, and low water levels not allowing sensors to be fully
submerged.

To aid in the interpretation of factors that may influence salinity fluctuations,
continuous salinity data from each salinity monitor were displayed on graphs along with the
continuous water level data from that monitor, daily rainfall from the nearest rain gauge (PCS
Aurora NOAA Station), and data from the Tar River U.S. Geological Survey flow gauge at
Greenville, NC (http: / /waterdata.usgs.gov /nwis /uv ?02084000 (date accessed 18 January 2013)
(Appendix C). The Tar River becomes the Pamlico River at the US Hwy 17 Bridge in
Washington. These graphs were used for a qualitative assessment of the relative effects of
wind tides, local drainage basin input, and Tar River input on salinity fluctuations in the
monitored creeks. Wind data from the PCS NOAA weather station were compared with the
graphs to determine if there was any effect from wind. Spearman Rank Order correlation tests
were conducted to test the correlation among rainfall, discharge, and salinity at the monitors.
T -tests and ANOVAs were utilized to attempt to find differences between pre -
Mod Alt L salinity and post -Mod Alt L salinity but normality failed in the t -test using either
Shapiro -Wilk or Kolmogorov - Smirov, so a Mann - Whitney Rank Sum or Kruskal - Wallis One -Way
ANOVA on Ranks was used at the recommendation of the SigmaPlot® software.
C. Wetland Hydrology Monitoring
1. History
Monitoring of wetland hydrology occurred in Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and
Huddles Cut under the 1998 plan and was expanded to include seven new creeks under the
2011 plan, two of which (DCUT11 and DCUT19) were first monitored in 2013.
The location of wetland wells did not change from previous years for the three
creeks monitored under the 1998 creeks study, with the exception of the loss of three well
locations at Huddles Cut due to activities associated with the permitted mine advance, and the
addition of four more wells at Jacks Creek. The three wells lost at Huddles were in the most
upstream reaches of the west prong (HWW1, HWW10, and HWW11). Three of the new wells
added in Jacks Creek (JW5, JW7, JW9) were installed in close proximity to an original well
location so that a broader area of the floodplain could be monitored semi - continuously and a
fourth one (JW2B) was installed a short distance upstream of what was previously the most
upstream well.
2. Methods
Both manual wells and semi - continuous recorders are used to monitor the water
table. Each manual well consists of a 54 -inch length of 1 1/4 -inch diameter PVC well screen
(0.010 -inch slots) and an 18 -inch long riser made of solid - walled 1 1/4 -inch diameter PVC pipe.
The well screen and riser are connected by a PVC coupler. The manual wells were installed to
a depth of 60 inches, with 12 inches of the riser extending above the ground. The top of the
riser is covered by a PVC cap, and a hole in the side of the riser provides air exchange during
water level fluctuations.
LevelTROLL 500 water level monitors, manufactured by In -Situ Inc, were also
used. The units measure water depth across an 80 -inch range with an accuracy of +/ -0.1
percent. The measurement probe is housed inside a 2 -inch diameter PVC well screen (0.010 -
inch slots). Most units were installed to measure water levels within 60 inches below ground
and 20 inches above ground. This installation method allows for the detection of both
subsurface and surface water level fluctuations. The units record the water level every 1.5
hours (16 times per day). To prevent damage by bears, the aboveground portions of the well
screens were surrounded by a 4 -by -4 -foot fence enclosure made of four metal T -posts
connected with two or three strands of barbed wire.

All monitoring wells were checked and downloaded once a month. Wetland
hydroperiods were calculated for each monitoring well during the growing season. A
hydroperiod is defined as consecutive days during the growing season that the water table is
within 12 inches of the surface or the surface is inundated, and is expressed as a percentage of
the growing season. For this project, the growing season is defined by the Beaufort County soil
survey (Kirby 1995) as 14 March through 24 November (256 days). Growing season dates
have recently been adjusted by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (USACE ERDC 2010)
to match the Natural Resources Conservation Services' (NRCS) WETs tables. However, the
previously established soil survey growing season dates and Corps 1987 wetland definitions will
continue to be used for this report in order to maintain consistency with baseline years in
hydroperiod calculations. Hydroperiods were statistically compared to explore pre- and post -
disturbance differences and between creek variation. All statistical analyses were performed
with Sigma Plot 11.0 using a simple t -test, Kruskal - Wallis One -way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) on Ranks or Mann - Whitney Rank sum, depending on results of normality tests and
what was being compared.
D. Water Quality Monitoring. (Section III. D. was prepared by Dr. David G.
Kimmel, a faculty member of East Carolina University (ECU)).
1. History
Water quality monitoring sites on three creek systems were initially established at
the beginning of the creeks monitoring in 1998 as follows: (1) two locations in Jacks Creek, (2)
three locations on Tooley Creek, and (3) four locations on Huddles. These stations were
monitored in accordance with the 1998 plan and continued under the final 2011 plan. By
December 2011, two stations each in six additional creeks (three control creeks and three
creeks to be impacted) had been added such that ten creeks designated for water quality
monitoring were part of the regular program (no water quality samples have ever been collected
in Muddy Creek). Once the salinity locations were established, collection /submission of water
quality samples was gradual in order for the ECU laboratory to ramp up their analysis and
throughput.
Water quality stations at two locations were added in the following creeks in
2011: Jacobs Creek- JCBWQ1 near the upstream salinity station and JCBWQ2 near the old
railroad trestle ; Project Area 2 (PA2) - PA2WQ1 at the upstream end of the main channel and
PA2WQ2 at the midstream salinity station; Drinkwater Creek- DWWQ1 at the upstream well
array and DWWQ2 near the upstream salinity station; Little Creek- LCWQ1 and LCWQ2, one at
each of the salinity stations; Long Creek- LOCWQ1 and LOCWQ2, one at each of the salinity
stations; Porter Creek- one downstream of the most upstream well array (PCWQ1) and PCWQ2
at the upstream salinity station; and Duck Creek- DKCWQ1 at the upstream salinity monitor
and DKCWQ2 at the downstream salinity monitor. With the addition of two stations in 2013 on
two small unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Durham Creek (DC11WQ1 and DC19WQ1), all water
quality stations designated in the study plan are in place. The headwaters of the Durham Creek
tributary DCUT11 will be impacted by the mine continuation and DCUT19 serves as the control.
2. Methods
Water quality data were collected from study creeks throughout the year with 26
potential sampling periods; however, insufficient water depth resulted in some sites not being
sampled every period in various years. An annual summary list of samples collected from all
monitoring stations is made each year and included in an appendix in the annual report.

CZR biologists did all field measurements and water sample collection. Field
measurements included water depth, Secchi disk depth, temperature, salinity, conductivity,
turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Water depth was measured to the nearest one - quarter inch
in close proximity to the site where water samples were collected and all other measurements
taken. Temperature, salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH was measured with an YSI
85 multi - parameter water quality instrument. These measurements were made in the middle of
the water column when possible. Turbidity was measured with a Hazco DRT -15 Portable
Turbidimeter. Turbidity water samples were collected in the field and turbidity was measured at
the time of collection. Care was taken to exclude detrital particles from the substrate and
surface in turbidity samples.
The creek water samples were collected in polyethylene bottles and samples
were driven directly to the ECU lab at the end of each sample collection day. At the lab,
subsamples were taken for the various analyses. Pre - combusted Whatman 934 -AH (glass
fiber) filters were used to separate particulate and dissolved fractions. The filtrate was stored
frozen in a polyethylene bottle for later analyses of total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), dissolved
orthophosphate (PO4-P), ammonium nitrogen (NH4-N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N), and dissolved
Kjeldahl nitrogen (DKN). The filter pads were also stored frozen for particulate nitrogen (PN),
particulate phosphorus (PP), and chlorophyll a determinations. Techniques used for these
analyses are summarized in Table -D1. These methods are identical to those used for the PCS
Phosphate Pamlico River estuary water - quality monitoring program (see Stanley 1997 for
example).
Table -D1. Summary of techniques used for chemical and physical measurements.
Parameter
Technique
Reference
Total Dissolved Phosphorus
Persulfate Digestion
APHA (1998)
Particulate Phosphorus
Kjeldahl Digestion
APHA (1998)
PO4-P
Molybdate
EPA (1979)
NH4-N
Colorimetric
Solorzano (1969)
NO3-N
Cadmium Reduction
Strickland and Parsons (1972)
Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Kjeldahl Digestion
APHA (1998)
Particulate Nitrogen
Kjeldahl Digestion
APHA (1998)
Chlorophyll a
Colorimetric
Strickland and Parsons (1972)
Fluoride
Fluoride electrode
Orion (1987)
•

In order to reduce the amount of information presented in both graphical and
table format in this section, the multivariate analysis approach was continued, with some
modifications. The most significant change in the 2013 report was the addition of data from all
years that have been sampled; the data were divided into three distinct subsections: temporal
variability for all water quality stations analyzed separately across all years, spatial variability for
all water quality stations across all years, and temporal variability across pre -Mod Alt L and
post -Mod Alt L years at Huddles Cut, Tooley Creek, and Drinkwater Creek. In the 2012 report,
only the calendar year data were analyzed and presented with multivariate techniques. In all
reports prior to 2012, data were summarized in up to five standard graphical formats and
depicted with box/whisker plots and standard deviations.
Temporal variability at water quality stations across years was analyzed by
employing a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to recombine all water quality variables into
principal components that capture the intercorrelation between variables over time. PCA has
two primary uses: 1) to describe interrelationships between a matrix of intercorrelated variables
and 2) data reduction, i.e. to reduce a large matrix of intercorrelated variables into linear
recombinations of the original variables. PCA plots all original variables in multidimensional
space (1 dimension for each variable), and then fits a regression line through the multiple
dimensions. The principle of least squares is used to fit the regression line and the resulting
variance explained is recombined into a principal component. This principal component (PC) is
a combination of the original variables and explains a fraction of the total variables. This
procedure is repeated, i.e. a new regression line is fitted to the remaining data, and a new
principal component is calculated and generated, until all variability is explained. The PCs
themselves are uncorrelated to each other and therefore may be used in further modeling
without violation of regression assumptions. The PCs can be related to the original variables by
examining the loadings on to each PC and these values represent the degree of correlation of
each original variable to the new PC. In order to examine how the PCs are related to one
another, a biplot is often generated that shows how the original variables are related to the first
two PCs. The final result of PCA is a set of PC values that represent new variables, made from
the original variables, but fewer in number and uncorrelated to each other. Plotting the PC
scores over the course of the years shows the temporal variability of multiple variables, without
the need to generate numerous plots. A PCA analysis was run for each water quality station and
the biplot, loadings, and PC time - series are presented.
Spatial variability among stations across all years was analyzed by comparing
the mean water quality parameters of each water quality monitoring station using a cluster
analysis approach. The approach groups water quality monitoring stations with similar
conditions together, demonstrating the relationship between each station. The benefit of doing
this over using multiple years is to demonstrate how relationships between stations may change
over time. Water quality conditions for each group of stations were then summarized
graphically. Briefly, cluster analysis is a multivariate technique that analyzes similarity or
dissimilarity computed from a data matrix. For example, a single water quality monitoring station
may be characterized by multiple water quality measurements. Thus, one might ask: how similar
are two water quality stations from two different creeks based on all of the water quality
measurements? While it is straightforward to compare salinity values between the two creeks,
the addition of more parameters makes the comparison difficult. In order to accomplish this
comparison the data matrix of water quality values have been grouped by station and a
dissimilarity matrix was calculated. This is done by plotting the water quality values for each
parameter in multivariate space. Instead of fitting a regression line, as with PCA, the Euclidean
distance is calculated between the water quality values for each station. Values that are close to
I_�7

each other in space have low dissimilarity and values that are for apart in space have high
dissimilarity. Once the dissimilarity matrix has been computed, the dissimilarity values for each
station may be clustered and displayed using a denodrogram (tree diagram). Height is typically
used as the y -axis for such a graph and the higher the height of a branch split, the more
dissimilar the stations that follow such a split.
Finally, the interannual variability in water quality variables at Huddles Cut,
Tooley Creek, and Drinkwater Creek allows the comparison of pre- and post -Mod Alt L
conditions. Pre- and post -mod Alt -L conditions were compared using a one -way ANOVA and t
scores and p- values are presented. Differences were considered significant if p- values were <
0.05.
E. Metals Sampling
1. History
From 1998 to 2010, the PCS sediment samples were analyzed by Dr. John
Trefry at the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT). In 2011 Dr. Trefry informed CZR and PCS
that his workload and research interests would prevent his involvement with future PCS
sediment analyses. To date, a search for an alternate university or commercial laboratory which
is both interested in the work and can duplicate the FIT laboratory report and perform total
metals digestion with either hydrofluoric or perchloric acid has been futile. (Commercial facilities
contacted do not digest samples with these acids due to special health, safety, and
instrumentation requirements; university facilities contacted either lacked the ability to commit to
the project or lacked the necessary equipment.) An alternate laboratory, SGS North America,
Inc. now SGS Analytical Perspectives (SGS) in Wilmington NC has performed the metals
analyses since 2011 for the water column and since 2012 for the sediments. However,
sediment samples analyzed by SGS follow sample preparatory method 3050B under the
USEPA SW -846 series. Without the use of the stronger acid(s) used by FIT, the 305B method
is not a total digestion technique but one that dissolves "elements that could become
environmentally available." The remaining residue after digestion by this method is referred to
as "environmentally inert material ". However, without the stronger acids, the results are not
likely to be total metal concentrations, although the concentration measured is the total amount
recoverable by the method used. In previous creeks annual reports, the FIT lab provided a
summary report with tables of results and environmental interpretation but no raw data.
Commercial facilities provide a "report" of results with no environmental interpretation. For the
2013 report, CZR contracted Dr. Jamie DeWitt of ECU Pharmacology and Toxicology, to
provide environmental interpretation of the metals data and to serve as reviewer and advisor for
this parameter.
Elevated metal concentrations in sediments can be evaluated within the context
of potentially harmful biological effects using the guidelines developed by Long et al. (1995). In
these guidelines, two assessment values are listed for several metals. An effects - range -low
value (ERL) and an effects - range- median value (ERM) are defined as the 10th and 50th
percentile, respectively, from an ordered list of concentration of substances in sediments that
are linked to a biological effect. Several authors have noted that sediment quality guidelines
should be used cautiously with an appropriate understanding of their limitations. For example,
Field et al. (2002) noted that the ERL is not a concentration threshold for a chemical in
sediment, above which toxicity is possible and below which toxicity is impossible. Instead,
according to O'Connor (2004), the ERL is a concentration "at the low end of a continuum
roughly relating bulk chemistry with toxicity." The ERL and ERM values are applied to the
sediments from this study with the caveats listed above.
_:

2. Methods
Prior to the collection of sediment samples, the water column sample is collected.
Leaning over the bow of the boat while it is slowly underway, using a sample bottle provided by
the laboratory which contains HNO3 preservative, a gloved biologist fills the 1L sample bottle
with creek water using a separate container which has been cleaned with deionized water and
alconox. The sample bottle is then sealed, labeled, and double bagged. As a back -up sample,
the biologist also collects a 0.5L bottle using the same process. Samples are kept in the dark in
iced coolers and shipped for receipt at the laboratory using the chain of custody form provided
by the laboratory. The samples are analyzed for concentrations of silver (Ag), arsenic (As),
cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), molybdenum (Mo), selenium (Se), and
zinc (Zn) (aluminum is not commonly analyzed in water samples). In 2013, the sediments
samples were also analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC) for the first time. Standard
laboratory protocols and procedures for these analyses are strictly followed.
The ponar device is deployed and retrieved from the boat and the collected
sediment is dumped into a plastic tray from which -0.5 gallon of sediment is scooped from the
sample into a Ziploc bag using a plastic or stainless steel scoop. As the sediment sample is
scooped, sediment that may have touched the metal of the ponar is avoided. Each bag is
labeled with creek name and date and, to minimize the potential for leaks, each sample is
double bagged. The ponar itself, plastic tray, and scoop /spoon are thoroughly rinsed with
deionized water between each sample to avoid cross - contamination. A second sample is
collected from each station in case there is a problem with the shipment to the laboratory or a
problem encountered by the laboratory during analyses. The backup samples are kept at CZR
until results of the analyses are completed at which time the samples are discarded. The
sediment samples are delivered chilled to the laboratory. The samples are analyzed for
concentrations of aluminum (AI), silver (Ag), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper
(Cu), iron (Fe), molybdenum (Mo), selenium (Se), and zinc (Zn). Standard laboratory protocols
and procedures for these analyses are strictly followed. The metals laboratory may subcontract
the bulk density for each sample to another suitable laboratory.
For statistical analysis of data, a two -way ANOVA is not possible when only one
sample is collected per creek (no replicate samples) and when a year is not represented with
more than two creeks. While it is possible to treat individual creeks as pseudoreplicates, for
some years there are not a sufficient number of samples from the post -Mod Alt L creeks to
perform a two -way ANOVA with a repeated factor. In lieu of two -way ANOVA, pairwise
comparisons (i.e., Student's t- tests) were run for individual sediment metals and water column
metals. However, due to the lack of replicates per creek, creeks are treated as
pseudoreplicates, which decreases the quality of the statistical analysis.
F. Vegetation Monitoring
1. History
Under the 2009 permit conditions, annual vegetation monitoring was no longer
necessary and the Corps suggested a wider interval (approximately every three to five years)
appropriate to each creek after baseline data were collected. In addition to the wider interval
that began in 2010, Hurricane Irene damage in 2011 severely limited access in Tooley Creek
and the main prong of Huddles Cut, both of which were on the calendar to be monitored that
year. The storm damage and high amount of standing water (in the main prong of Huddles Cut)
precluded any monitoring in 2011 in these areas of Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut main prong.
_•

Additionally, the Science Panel agreed at the 2013 annual meeting that of all the
study parameters, vegetation is likely to have the longest "lag effect ", the period of time between
impact and the response to that impact. Therefore, with the concurrence of the Science Panel,
it was determined that from 2013 forward, vegetation also does not need to be monitored during
the "lag effect ", or transition years. A transition year is considered to be the year(s) when the
mine actually moves through a creek basin and also includes the first year after the mine has
completed all impacts to a basin.
The transition years vary depending on the size and shape of the creek basin
within the permitted mine area. While Drinkwater Creek will be the first creek tracked with the
transition year approach as described above, because of proximity to the mine advance,
baseline data for Drinkwater Creek were only collected for one year (2011) before 2012 became
the first transition year.
In August 2013 wetland vegetation data were collected from five creeks (Jacks,
Jacobs, Huddles, Porter, and DCUT11) that have had or will have their watershed disturbed by
mining activities. Wetland vegetation monitoring was also conducted at three control creeks -
Long Creek, DCUT19, and Duck Creek. After the 2011 survey, it was agreed by the Science
Panel that monitoring in Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut would not occur in
2012.
2. Methods
Drainage basin modifications are most likely to affect vegetation communities
found along the relatively narrow riparian wetlands upstream of the CAMA jurisdiction markers.
For this reason, vegetation assessments and monitoring sites were concentrated in these areas.
Data are collected in August or September each monitoring year. Most transects are in the
upper reaches of the creeks, although the distance from the mouths of the creeks differs among
the creeks. Vegetation transects at Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, Long Creek, and Huddles Cut
are all between 3,000 and 5,000 feet (0.5 mile to 0.9 mile) from the mouth of the creek, at
Jacobs and Drinkwater Creeks between 5,000 and 6,000 feet from the mouth, and at Duck and
Porter Creeks between 9,000 and 20,000 feet (1.8 miles to 3.7 miles).
In August 1998, vegetation monitoring sites were established in the vicinity of
each of the WL -80 continuous monitors (replaced by Ecotones in 2007 and LeveITROLLs in
2011) located in the riparian wetlands of Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut. Five
vegetation transects were established in Jacks Creek, four in Tooley Creek, and 12 in Huddles
Cut. In 2007, vegetation monitoring transects were re- established in Huddles Cut, in 2010,
transects were re- established in Tooley Creek, and in 2011, transects were re- established in
Jacks Creek. Additional vegetation monitoring transects were established in 2011 in the vicinity
of LeveITROLLs in five new creeks: one vegetation transect was established in Jacobs Creek,
one in Drinkwater Creek, one in Long Creek (control), two in Porter Creek, and four in Duck
Creek (control). In 2013, new vegetation monitoring transects were established in DCUT11 and
DCUT19.
Vegetation sampling focuses on the shrub and herb layers. Compared to trees,
shrubs and herbs respond more quickly to changes in salinity and hydrology, and therefore
provide better indicators of changes in the vegetation over time. At each vegetation monitoring
transect, 10 permanent sample quadrats were established along a 40 -meter transect that
proceeds on a random compass azimuth from the well, but may be adjusted to ensure the
transect stays in the floodplain. The quadrats are arranged on alternating sides of the transect
axis, such that each quadrat shares a corner with the quadrat behind it and the quadrat in front
of it. However, no quadrat shares a boundary with any other quadrat. Each sample quadrat
l

consists of a 4 -by -4 meter woody shrub vegetation plot with a 1 -by -1 meter herb plot nested in
the proximal corner. These will be used throughout the duration of the study to monitor density,
coverage, and species composition of the herb and shrub strata layers.
Shrubs and woody vines, defined as woody plants greater than 3.2 feet in height
but less than 3 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), were inventoried in each of the 10 4-
by-4 meter plots located in the vicinity of each well in the riparian wetlands. For each species,
the number of stems present was counted and percent cover estimated. Herbs, defined as all
herbaceous vascular plants regardless of height and woody plants less than 3.2 feet in height,
were inventoried in each of the 1 -by -1 meter plots nested within the 4 -by -4 meter plots. For
each species, the number of stems present was counted and percent cover estimated.
Qualitative descriptions of the overstory were made in the vicinity of each electronic well.
An importance value was calculated for each shrub and herb species present in
each transect. Relativized values of average percent cover, average stem count, and frequency
of occurrence in the 10 quadrats were used to calculate importance values. Dominant plants in
each transect were determined by applying the 50/20 rule to the importance values. The 50/20
rule was described in the 1989 wetland delineation manual (Federal Interagency Committee for
Wetland Delineation 1989) and is still used in delineating wetlands (Williams 1992, USACOE
2010). The 50/20 rule uses the quotient obtained from dividing each species' importance value
by the sum of all of the importance values for that transect (shrubs and herbs are treated
separately). This calculation expresses each species' importance value as a percentage of the
cumulative importance value of the entire transect. Beginning with the species having the
highest importance value and continuing in descending order, all species are listed until,
cumulatively, 50 percent of the overall importance value has been reached. These species,
along with any additional species that individually comprise at least 20 percent of the overall
importance value, are considered to be dominant.
To further assist in determining whether changes in the plant communities have
occurred, the tolerance of brackish conditions was assessed for each dominant species. The
determination of each species' tolerance was based on habitat descriptions provided in Radford
et al. (1968), Beal (1977), Godfrey and Wooten (1979, 1981), Odum et al. (1984), and
Eleuterius (1990). A species was considered tolerant of brackish conditions if any of the
habitats listed were brackish, even if most of the habitats were fresh. The percentage of
dominant species intolerant of brackish conditions (viz. solely freshwater species) was
calculated for each transect. A linear regression analysis was performed for each transect
using Sigma Plot 11.2. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L years were analyzed independently of each
other so that a comparison could be made. Any significant changes in the salinity of the creek
should be reflected by a shift in this percentage. Comparison of variability in the composition of
the vegetative community pre- and post -Mod Alt L was determined using similarity percentages
(SIMPER). SIMPER identifies the percent contribution of each individual species contributing to
dissimilarity (or similarity) between groups (in this case pre and post), hence, it detects the
species that are most important in causing the known dissimilarity (or similarity).
Another analysis was performed using the wetland indicator status (Reed 1988)
of the dominant plants. The percentage of dominant species with a wetland indicator status of
FAC- or drier was calculated for each transect but linear regression analysis was not performed
for this parameter. Any major change toward drier conditions should be reflected by a change
in this percentage.
A -11

G. Fish Monitoring
1. History
Monitoring of fish assemblages occurred in Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, Muddy
Creek, and Huddles Cut under the 1998 plan and was expanded to include seven new creeks
under the 2011 plan, two of which (DCUT11 and DCUT19) were first monitored in 2013. The
geomorphic characteristics of these new study creeks were described in the 2011 PCS Creeks
Report (CZR et al. 2012) and the geomorphic characteristics of the two DCUTs are described in
Section I -B of the 2013 report.
2. Methods
If a monitored stream is too shallow and narrow to sample using a trawl, fyke
nets are used to sample fish (Huddles Cut, DCUT11 and DCUT19). Each fyke net sampling
occasion is conducted using two fyke nets (one net fished upstream and one fished
downstream) anchored for a set time of approximately 16 hours (late afternoon until the
following morning). Each fyke net is deployed across the entire width of the sampled stream
and consists of 0.25 -inch mesh net with four 21 -inch hoops, a 6 -inch throat, and a 22 -foot
wingspan.
For monitored streams large enough to trawl, each fish trawl sample is
conducted using a two -seam otter trawl. The trawl was constructed with a 10.5 -foot head rope,
0.25 -inch bar mesh wings and body, and 0.12 -inch bar mesh cod end. The trawl is towed for
approximately one minute, covering approximately 75 yards, from a beginning point marked in
the field with flagging (GPS coordinates also known) near the mouth of each monitored creek.
Tow direction is always toward the creek mouth.
All fish captured by either method are identified and counted. Those that are
easily identified in the field are released; others are preserved for later identification. Total
length is measured to the nearest millimeter for the first 30 specimens of each species.
Representative photographs of sampling stations are taken during the first sampling occasion
and are on file with CZR Incorporated.
Water quality data are collected with a YSI Pro Plus multi - parameter instrument
prior to deployment and retrieval of fyke nets and /or before each trawl at each creek.
Parameters measured include temperature, pH, salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO),
and Secchi depth. In the deeper creeks, excluding Secchi depth, measurements for all other
water quality parameters are taken at both surface and near bottom levels. Estimates of the
percentage of the water surface covered by submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are also
made. Water quality data are examined with regard to how well each site provided habitat
appropriate for the preservation of fish communities. Particular attention is given to dissolved
oxygen, as low DO levels are commonly implicated in fish kills.
Multivariate cluster analysis among creeks /years analyzed spatial variability of
fish species composition and abundance. Fish data are transformed to reduce the multiplicity of
variance among creeks /years and assembled into a Bray - Curtis dissimilarity matrix. Bray - Curtis
has the advantage of incorporating not just the presence of similar species but also the relative
abundance of species found between sample locations and is therefore a comprehensive
descriptor of community similarity. Bray- Curtis (Bray and Curtis 1957; Clarke et al. 2006) is
defined as:
A -12

Cbr= 100 *1 - E; II yi, -y2 1, where
Y-i(Yil +yf2)
y, and y2 are the total number of the ith species at site 1 and 2.
The resulting dendrogram created from the Bray - Curtis dissimilarity matrix is
tested for significant cluster /group differences among fish assemblages using a similarity profile
test (SIMPROF) at the five percent level (P = 0.05). Comparison of variability between fish
assemblage clusters /groups is determined by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER).
Similarity percentages (SIMPER) identifies the percent contribution of each individual fish
species contributing to dissimilarity (or similarity) between clusters /groups, hence, it detects the
fish species that are most important in causing the known dissimilarity (or similarity).
Analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) is a nonparametric test that is used to compare
interannual variation in fish species abundance and composition to detect spatial differences
between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for creeks with drainage basin reduction and related
control creeks. Significance was set at 0.05.
A two - sample t statistic (T -Test) is used to compare interannual variation in
individual fish species catch -per- unit - effort (CPUE) and abundance to detect spatial differences
between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for creeks with drainage basin reduction and related
control creeks. Significance is set at 0.05. When normality failed and the data do not meet
assumptions for a parametric test, a nonparametric test is used (Mann - Whitney Rank Sum
Test).
A one -way analysis of variance ( ANOVA) is used to compare interannual
variation in fish species catch -per- unit -effort (CPUE) and abundance to detect spatial
differences between individual sample years within creeks that have drainage basin reduction.
Significance is set at 0.05. When normality fails and the data do not meet assumptions for a
parametric test, a nonparametric test is used (Kruskal- Wallis ANOVA on Ranks). When
significant differences (p< 0.05) occur between variables for each year, a corresponding
Tukey's or Dunn`s (post hoc) multiple pairwise comparison test is used to display the
relationship between the individual means.
Biota and /or environmental matching (BEST) using the BIOENV method was
used to analyze the relationship between the multivariate fish data and both in -situ collected
hydrographic data and ECU water quality data. As with fish data, water quality data are also
transformed to reduce the multiplicity of variance among creeks /years. Following transformation
of the water quality data, Euclidean distance is calculated between the water quality variables
and a dissimilarity matrix is formed. BIOENV then calculates all possible combinations of
variables between the two dissimilarity matrices; biota and /or environmental matching (BEST) at
this moment displays the environmental variables that best correlate to the multivariate fish
assemblage clusters /groups.
H. Benthos Monitoring
(Benthic text to be added)
A -13