The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080868 Ver 2_Section II C Q3 Forage Base 2021 PCS Creeks Report_20220605C. Question 3- Has mining altered the forage base of the creeks? 1.0 Fish Multivariate cluster analysis of species composition and abundance from annual fish assemblages within all creeks by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed eight distinct groups of statistical significance between trawl creek/years and six groups in fyke net creek/years (Figure II-C1 and Figure II-C2). To simplify discussion of both data sets, colored lines on the cluster dendrograms represent non -significant structure among factors (e.g., years, creeks) at the 1 percent level (P = 0.01). Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that similarity ranged from 14 to 35 percent in trawl creeks and 25 to 35 percent in fyke net creeks. Results from SIMPER analysis were used to determine which species drive cluster formation. A summary of the average catch per unit effort (CPUE) of dominant species across both cluster analyses is shown in Table II-C1. Large groups within the trawl creek cluster analysis represented a mixture of pre -Mod Alt L, post -Mod Alt L, and control creeks across different sample years, with spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), and pinfish (Lagodon rhomboids) having accounted for the most common fishes among those clusters (Table II-C1). Smaller groups, like A, consisted of Broomfield Swamp Creek years accompanied with years from its control creek: SCUT1 and also post -Mod Alt L Jacks Creek, all of which were creek/years that consisted of little diversity and low CPUE. Similar to A, cluster F was influenced by low CPUE totals. Tooley Creek 2000 and Jacks Creek 2000 formed the smallest group because of a larger abundance of pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) alongside the other most commonly captured species (Table II-C1). Cluster G contained almost all PA2 sample years and was the most diverse group in the analysis, containing the most rainwater killifish (Lucania parva) and inland silverside (Menidia beryllina) of any group (Table II-C1). Fyke net analysis also showed a mixture of pre -Mod Alt L, post -Mod Alt L, and control creeks within larger clusters. The most commonly caught species in fyke nets included: mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), spot, pumpkinseed, and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) (Table II-C1). Cluster A contained post -Mod Alt L Huddles Cut 2014 and 2015 and was characterized by low CPUE, with the opposite being true of cluster B, which contained three Huddles Cut pre -Mod Alt L years and high CPUEs for mummichog and spot (Table II-C1). The largest group was cluster C, which contained the majority of Huddles Cut pre -Mod Alt L and post - Mod Alt L creek/years along with two DCUT19 control creek/years. Cluster C was characterized by high CPUE and diversity (Table II-C1). Cluster D also contained a mixture of pre -Mod Alt L, post -Mod Alt L, and control creek years from DCUT19 and DCUT11 that was characterized by high pumpkinseed CPUE (Table II-C1). DCUT11 2013, 2014 and DCUT19 2015 formed cluster E, which was distinguished by moderately high CPUE of pumpkinseed and Mummichog along with low CPUE of other species (Table II-C1). Cluster F contained a mixture of DCUT11 post - Mod Alt L years and DCUT19 control years and was formed as a result of high fish diversity, including the highest CPUE of Sheepshead Minnow of any group across both analyses (Table II- C1). Although most groups saw a mixture of pre -Mod Alt L, post -Mod Alt L, and control creeks, there was a distinct separation in grouping between Huddles Cut and both Durham Creek tributaries. Separation between fyke net creeks is believed to be caused by differing environmental factors, especially salinity (Section III -A), and locations of the three creeks, as Huddles Cut is directly connected to the Pamlico River and is historically more saline. II-C-1 Number and Type of Creek/Year per Cluster (Abundance/composition) Total Number of Years by Creek Type Cluster ID Creek/Years Pre Post Control Notes Trawl A 6 3 1 2 All Broomfield years, two of three SCUT1 years, and one Jacks year B 39 13 11 15 Eight of 12 trawl creeks C 14 3 2 9 Five Muddy years, four Jacks years, and three Little years D 2 2 0 0 Tooley and Jacks from the 2000 sample year E 39 4 16 19 Eight of 12 trawl creeks F 21 1 10 10 10 of 12 trawl creeks all between 2015 and 2021 G 4 1 0 3 Four different creeks from the 2011 sample year H 13 2 0 11 Nine of 11 PA2 sample years, three different 1999 sample year creeks, and Muddy 2011 Fyke A 2 0 2 0 Huddles Cut2014and2015 B 3 3 0 0 Huddles Cut1999-2001 C 15 3 10 2 13 of 18 Huddles Cut years and DCUT19 2013-2014 D 6 3 2 1 DCUT112015-2019 and DCUT19 2016 E 3 2 0 1 DCUT112013-2014 and DCUT19 2015 F 7 0 2 7 DCUT19 2017-2021 and DCUT11 2020-2021 In the trawl analysis clusters containing post -Mod Alt L years contained between two and 19 control years. Excluding group A, all groups containing post -Mod Alt L years also contained at least one corresponding pre -Mod Alt L year within the cluster. In the fyke net analysis, all but two post -Mod Alt L years placed in a group with a control year. Group C contained the most post -Mod Alt L years from Huddles Cut along with half of the corresponding pre -Mod Alt L years and two control creek/years. Group D contained two DCUT11 post -Mod Alt L creek/years with three corresponding pre -Mod Alt L years and one control creek/year. Group F contained the remaining two DCUT11 post -Mod Alt L years with seven control creek/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, Jacobs Creek, Porter Creek, and DCUT11; however, spatial differences of significance were detected between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within Jacks Creek, Drinkwater Creek and Tooley Creek [Global R = 0.287; P = 0.010, Global R = 0.544; P = 0.018, and Global R = 0.455; P = 0.010, respectively]. Low total CPUE for Jacks, Drinkwater, and Tooley creeks in both post -Mod Alt L 2016 and post -Mod Alt L 2017 likely drove post -Mod Alt years apart from pre -Mod Alt L years. Either 2016 or 2017 represented the lowest total CPUE experienced in seven of 10 creeks sampled by trawl in those years; furthermore, both 2016 and 2017 represented two of the three lowest total CPUE's experienced in eight of 10 trawl creeks and the first and third lowest CPUE's of any trawl creek (Jacks 2016 and 2017). Jacks 2016 had the lowest total CPUE across all creeks/years and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages of Jacks Creek would be most affected, as 2016-2017 comprise two of the six post -Mod Alt L years (CPUE tables can be found in Section III-F). Data do not specifically indicate that mine activities have altered fish communities. When pre- and post -Mod Alt L years from four of the seven impact creeks are compared, there is no statistical indication of any detectable spatial difference. It is also not valid to assume reduction of the drainage basin of any of the other three creeks has altered fish assemblage since most post -Mod Alt L years are grouped among other pre -Mod Alt L creeks/years and control creeks/years (see Section III for further analysis). II-C-2 2.0 Fish Guilds Refer to Appendix A -Section H for detailed description of the process of fish species guild assignment. Each species caught in trawl or fyke nets was assigned to one of five trophic guilds: zoobenthivore, zooplanktivore, piscivore, herbivore, or omnivore (Table II-C2). Guilds were assigned without considering larval feeding habits. With agency guidance in 2017, 10 species were reassigned to different trophic guilds which resulted in complete removal of the detritivore guild and new guild assignments were made for Atlantic menhaden (a substantial contributor to abundance), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), and silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) (the latter three were smaller contributors to abundance) (Table II-C2). The 2017 Atlantic menhaden change from detritivore to zooplanktivore and other alterations of trophic guilds decreased piscivore abundance and increased both zoobenthivores and omnivores. To date, 64 species have been identified to species; 38 are designated as zoobenthivore, 12 as zooplanktivore, 11 as omnivore, two as piscivore, and one as herbivore. To examine relationships of trophic guilds among all creeks and all years, a multivariate cluster analysis was conducted for trawl and fyke net creeks respectively. A SIMPROF analysis on trawl creeks revealed 19 different clusters and five different clusters for fyke net creeks (Figure II-C3 and Figure II-C4). Overall, as has been the case for the past few years, the guild clusters were more similar to each other than the abundance clusters shown in Figure II-C1 and Figure II-C2. Excluding group D, every trawl creek cluster that contained a post - Mod Alt L creek/year had either a corresponding pre -Mod Alt L year or a control creek/year. Most of the differences between clusters were driven by variation in the relative abundance of zoobenthivores, zooplanktivores, and omnivores. Figure II-05 shows the relative abundance of the five fish guilds for each creek for each year. Two species: striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), one hybrid striped bass (Morone chrysops x Morone saxatilis), and unidentified drum/croaker (Sciaenidae sp.) are piscivores, and only grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) is an herbivore; none of these five fish are commonly a dominant species. Of these two less abundant guilds, only DCUT11 contained enough piscivore captures to show in the bar chart (Figure II-05) and herbivore is too uncommon to show. Number and Type of Creek/Year per Cluster (Guild) Total Number of Years by Creek Type Cluster ID Creek/Years Pre Post Control Notes Trawl A 4 2 0 2 Two 2011 and 2019 creeks B 3 2 0 1 Three different creek/years C 9 2 4 3 Six creeks from four different years D 3 0 3 0 Two Drinkwater years and Porter 2016 E 3 1 2 0 Porter and Tooley 2015 and Porter 2020 F 8 1 4 3 Six creeks from six different years G 8 1 5 2 Five creeks from six different years H 4 1 1 2 Four different creek/years I 6 2 1 3 Five creeks from four different years 1 11 2 3 6 Five creeks from seven different years K 9 2 1 6 Two of three SCUT1 years and four other creeks L 8 0 1 7 Four PA2 creek/years and three other creeks M 7 1 2 4 Six creeks from five different years N 13 1 4 8 Eight creeks across five different years O 5 2 0 3 Five different creek/years P 9 3 3 3 Eight creeks across seven different years Q 13 0 4 9 Five Muddy creek/years and six other creeks R 7 2 1 4 Seven different creeks S 8 4 1 3 Six different creeks Fyke A 1 0 0 1 DCUT19 2020 B 3 1 1 1 Two Huddles Cut years and DCUT19 2017 C 13 6 6 1 Years from all three fyke creeks represented D 17 4 8 5 Years from all three fyke creeks represented E 2 0 1 1 DCUT19 2013 and Huddles Cut 2014 I I-C-3 A Biota and/or Environmental Matching (a.k.a. BEST routine) was conducted to determine if a set of environmental variables influenced temporal variability in fish trophic guild structure. If the BEST routine produced a strong correlation (Spearman rank correlation > 0.60) with one or more environmental variables displayed, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to determine the significance of the variables (p < 0.05). If no strong correlation was noted the environmental variables were not mentioned for a particular creek. a. Pre -Mod Alt L Creek i. Broomfield Swamp Creek Trawls conducted in 2021 represented the third pre -Mod Alt L collections for Broomfield Swamp Creek. In the first sample year (2019) the majority of the catch was zooplanktivores with the remainder zoobenthivores, while 2020 saw a split between zoobenthivores and zooplanktivores with one omnivore: bowfin (Amia Calva) and one piscivore: longnose gar. In 2021 the catch shifted to contain a majority of zoobenthivores. As more data are collected additional analysis will be completed on Broomfield Swamp Creek. b. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks i. Jacks Creek Fish samples in Jacks Creek were collected from 1999-2005 and from 2011-2021; seven post -Mod Alt L years were 2015-2021. Five clusters were detected among the 18 years and the five guilds by SIMPROF (Figure II-C6). Cluster A contained two pre - Mod Alt L years (2004 and 2011) and one post -Mod Alt L year (2018). Clusters B and C each contained one pre -Mod Alt L year (2002 and 2012, respectively) and D contained two pre- (2000 and 2014) and two post -Mod Alt L years (2015 and 2017). Cluster E contained five pre -Mod Alt L years (1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2013) and four post -Mod Alt L years (2016 and 2019-2021). Clusters D and E are most similar to each other and different from clusters A, B, and C. Jacks Creek trophic guild composition in the post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre - Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = -0.076, P = 0.802). Jacks Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild, as was every other creek and most every year in the study (Figure II-05). The composition of trophic guilds in Jacks Creek has been consistent since 1999, with some increase in relative abundance of omnivore guild in 2002, 2011, 2012, and 2018; this increase also occurred in two of the control creeks, Muddy (2002, 2012, and 2018) and PA2 (2011, 2012, and 2018). From 2019 to 2021, zooplanktivores caught in Jacks Creek decreased from a high in 2018 back to the average catch. ii. Jacobs Creek Fish samples in Jacobs Creek were collected from 2011-2021, with 2014-2021 considered post -Mod Alt L years. There were six significant clusters detected among the guilds by SIMPROF (Figure II-C7). Cluster A contained two pre -Mod Alt L years (2011 and 2012), cluster B and C contained only post -Mod Alt L 2021 and 2020 respectively, cluster D contained a pre- and post -Mod Alt L year (2013 and 2015), and clusters E and F contained solely post -Mod Alt L years (D: 2014 and 2019 and E: 2018, 2016 and 2017). Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.341, P = 0.051). The zoobenthivore guild dominated most years in Jacobs Creek, relative abundance of the omnivore guild was higher in most pre -Mod Alt L years and higher for zooplanktivore in most post -Mod Alt L years, although zooplanktivore numbers have been I I-C-4 decreasing since 2016. Omnivore numbers increased in 2018 for the first time since 2014; however, omnivore presence has decreased in years since (Figure II-05). Drinkwater Creek Fish samples in Drinkwater Creek were collected from 2011-2021, with 2013-2021 considered post -Mod Alt L years. Four significant clusters were detected by SIMPROF (Figure II-C8). Cluster A contained a pre and post -Mod Alt L year (2011 and 2014), cluster B contained a pre and post -Mod Alt L year (2012 and 2018), cluster C contained post -Mod Alt L 2013 and 2017, and cluster D was formed by the remaining years (2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021). Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years was significantly different from pre - Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.649, P = 0.033). The omnivore guild was present in both pre -Mod Alt L years as it was in PA2 and the highest omnivore abundance also occurred in 2012 in both creeks (Figure II- 05). Omnivore was present in mostly low numbers in Drinkwater Creek in every post -Mod Alt L except 2019; additionally, although also low, they were present in all PA2 years. Temporal variability among fish guilds within Drinkwater Creek displayed strong positive correlation (0.622) among guild composition and two environmental variables: SAV (MANOVA: F = 35.41, P = <0.001) conductivity (MANOVA: F = 5.00, P = 0.045), and dissolved oxygen (MANOVA: F = 10.46, P = 0.008). iv. Tooley Creek Fish samples in Tooley Creek were collected from 1999-2001 and from 2010-2021, with 2012-2021 considered post -Mod Alt L years among the 15 years of study data. Four significant clusters were detected by SIMPROF (Figure II-C9). Cluster A contained pre -Mod Alt L years 2001, 2010, and 2011 along with post -Mod Alt L years 2012 and 2018, cluster B contained three post -Mod Alt L years: 2016, 2017, and 2021, cluster C contained two pre -Mod Alt L years: 1999 and 2000, along with post -Mod Alt L 2013, and cluster D contained the remaining four post -Mod Alt L years (2014, 2015, 2019 and 2020). Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.289, P = 0.033). Relative abundance of zooplanktivore guild increased in most of the post -Mod Alt L years until 2018-2020 before increasing again in 2021 (as was true for the same years in one control creek -Duck) (Figure II-05). v. Huddles Cut Fish samples in Huddles Cut were collected from 1999-2001 and 2007-2021, with 2010-2021 considered post -Mod Alt L years. Four clusters among the 18 years were detected by SIMPROF (Figure II-C10). Cluster A contained one post -Mod Alt L year (2014), B contained a pre- and two post -Mod Alt L years (2008 and 2011 and 2015), C contained two pre - Mod Alt L years (1999 and 2007) and three post -Mod Alt L years (2012, 2020, and 2021), and D contained three pre -Mod Alt L years (2000, 2001 and 2009) and six post -Mod Alt L years (2010, 2013, and 2016-2019). Cluster A was different from clusters B, C, and D which were quite similar to each other. Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R=-0.094, P = 0.736). Huddles Cut was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild, although zooplanktivore contributed more to community structure in 2014 than in other years (Figure II-05). Contrary to most other creeks, relative abundance of omnivore remained rather steady across almost all years. II-C-5 vi. Porter Creek Fish samples in Porter Creek were collected from 2011-2021, with 2016-2021 considered the post -Mod Alt L years. No clusters among the 11 years were detected by SIMPROF. Trophic guild composition in the post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = -0.016, P = 0.432). Porter Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore and zooplanktivore guilds (Figure II-05). Relative abundance of zooplanktivore in 2012 decreased from a high in 2011, then increased again until 2017. Relative abundance of omnivore hit its peak in 2012 but was consistently lower in abundance or not present in most years. vii. DCUT11 Fish samples in DCUT11 were collected from 2013-2021. Five years are considered pre -Mod Alt L (2013-2017) and four years are post -Mod Alt L (2018-2021). Three clusters were detected by SIMPROF; Cluster A contained only pre -Mod Alt L 2014, cluster B contained pre -Mod Alt L 2017 and 2021, and Cluster C contained 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2018- 2020) (Figure II-C11). DCUT11 was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild while all other trophic guilds provided small contributions to community structure (Figure II-05). In most years, DCUT11 zooplanktivore relative abundance was consistently among the lowest for all creeks and was similar to DCUT19 (control) in many of the years. Trophic guild composition in the post -Mod Alt L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = -0.163, P = 0.943). c. Mod Alt L Control Creeks i. SCUT1 2021 represented the third collection year for SCUT1. Fish guilds in SCUT1 were only composed of zoobenthivore and zooplanktivore guilds, the majority being zooplanktivores in 2019, while the two remaining years consisted of the opposite, having a majority of zoobenthivores. As more years accumulate in the study more statistical analyses will be performed. ii. Little Creek Fish samples in Little Creek were collected from 2011-2021. Two significant clusters were detected among the 11 years by SIMPROF (Figure II-C12). Cluster A contained 2011, the sample year with by far the most zooplanktivores and cluster B contained all other creek years. Since 2012, Little Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild with a slightly increased contribution from zooplanktivores in some years (Figure II-05). Zooplanktivore abundance decreased from 2016 to 2018, while omnivore guild contributed the most to community structure in 2012 and were also present every year except 2015, 2017, and 2019 although abundances were too small to show on the bar graph. Temporal variability among fish guilds within Little Creek displayed strong positive correlation (0.642) among guild composition and one environmental variable: SAV (MANOVA: F = 18.48, P= 0.001). iii. PA2 Fish samples in PA2 were collected from 2011-2021. Two significant clusters were detected among the 11 years by SIMPROF (Figure II-C13). Cluster A contained 2011 and 2013-2019 and cluster B contained 2012 and 2020-2021. The two clusters were 75 percent similar. II-C-6 PA2 was mostly composed of the zoobenthivore guild in all years; however, omnivore and zooplanktivore consistently contributed toward community structure (Figure II-05). Temporal variability among fish guilds within PA2 displayed strong positive correlation (0.654) among guild composition and two environmental variables: TDN (MANOVA: F = 8.01, P = 0.016) and nitrate (NO3) (MANOVA: F = 8.64, P = 0.013). iv. Long Creek Fish samples in Long Creek were collected from 2011-2021. Four significant clusters were detected among the 11 years by SIMPROF (Figure II-C14). Cluster A contained three years (2011, 2013, and 2018), cluster B contained only 2012, cluster C also contained three years (2014, 2017, and 2020), and cluster D which contained the remaining four years (2015, 2016, 2019, and 2021). Long Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild with zooplanktivore also present in most years (Figure II-05). The composition of trophic guilds in Long Creek varied slightly in most years. The omnivore guild did not contribute to community structure in 2014, 2016, or 2017 but reappeared in 2018, 2019, and 2020 as a minor contributor. v. Muddy Creek Fish samples in Muddy Creek were collected from 1999-2005 and from 2007-2021. Among the 22 years, there were seven clusters detected by SIMPROF (Figure II-C15). Cluster A contained one year (2002), B contained two years (2013 and 2018), C contained six years (1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2019 and 2020), D contained one year (2011), E contained two years (2015 and 2017), F contained six years (2000, 2004, 2009, 2014, 2016, and 2021), and G contained three years (2008, 2010, and 2012). Cluster A was most different from all other clusters while clusters B through G were quite similar to each other. Muddy Creek was mostly composed of the zoobenthivore guild with consistent smaller contributions to community structure by zooplanktivore especially for the 2011 to 2018 period (Figure II-05). Omnivore guild contributed more to community structure in 2002, 2008, and 2012 than in other years. vi. DCUT19 Fish samples in DCUT19 were collected from 2013-2021. No clusters among the nine years were detected by SIMPROF. DCUT19 was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild with consistent smaller contributions by the omnivore guild. An increase in zooplanktivore was evident from 2016-2017, but this guild decreased in 2018 to the lowest since 2015. The highest abundance of omnivores of all years in DCUT19 was 2020 (Figure II-05). Temporal variability among fish guilds within DCUT19 displayed strong positive correlation (0.861) among guild composition and two environmental variables: pH (MANOVA: F = 23.89, P = 0.013) and salinity (MANOVA: F = 11.46, P = 0.037). vii. Duck Creek Fish samples in Duck Creek were collected from 2011-2021. Two significant clusters were detected among the 11 years by SIMPROF (Figure II-C16). Cluster B II-C-7 contained nine years (2012-2016 and 2018-2021) and cluster B comprised two years (2011 and 2017). Cluster A was 58 percent similar to cluster B. Duck Creek was mostly composed of the zoobenthivore guild in all years except 2011. In 2017 Duck guild was split between zooplanktivores and zoobenthivores (Figure II-05). Temporal variability among fish guilds within Duck Creek displayed strong positive correlation (0.714) among guild composition and four environmental variables: Temperature (MANOVA: F = 8.93, P= 0.011), particulate phosphate (PP) (MANOVA: F = 7.15, P= 0.020), pH (MANOVA: F = 7.95, P = 0.016) and nitrate (NO3) (MANOVA: F = 7.96, P= 0.016). 3.0 Grass Shrimp Grass shrimp were not enumerated as part of the creeks study until the new monitoring plan was implemented in 2011. More detailed qualitative information is now collected in conjunction with fish collections (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 both Little Creek in 2013 and PA2 in 2016-2017 and least frequently captured (none captured) from Porter Creek in 2014 (pre -Mod Alt L), Tooley and Long creeks in 2017, Drinkwater and Duck creeks in 2019, both DCUT11 upstream and downstream fyke nets in 2015-2019, and five different creeks in 2021 (three impact and two control creeks). The highest score (based on numbers/individuals captured) was at PA2 in 2017 (74). As may be expected with dense coverage of SAV, PA2 also had the second and third highest scores (66 and 58) for grass shrimp across all creeks/years and tied with Drinkwater Creek for fourth highest (56) (Table II-C3). As shown in Table II-C3 all but one impact trawl creek (Tooley) and two control creeks (Duck and PA2) saw their lowest scores for grass shrimp occur in 2021. In all but one trawl creek (Tooley), 2021 represented the lowest frequency for grass shrimp. In both impact and control fyke net creeks low scores and frequencies varied across years with impact creek DCUT11 consistently representing the lowest scores among the three. Peaks of scores and frequencies in trawl creeks varied but most saw their lowest numbers in the years 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2021. 4.0 Penaeid Shrimp and Blue Crab These two groups also make up a component of the forage base in the creeks and are discussed in more detail in the answer to Section II-D Question 4 about managed species. Catch frequency of penaeid shrimp observed across most all creeks and gear type varied between years; however, other than the DCUT19 upstream fyke net in 2013, 2018 and 2021 and both nets in 2020, no penaeid shrimp have been captured from the two Durham tributaries. Excluding DCUT11 where no blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) were collected except in 2017 in the downstream fyke net and 2019 in the upstream net, catch frequency/score of blue crab was steadier across the 11 years in all creeks/gear type. 5.0 Macroinvertebrates Benthos sweep data and ponar data for all years were separated into upstream and downstream datasets for multivariate cluster analysis; significance of clusters was evaluated at a lower alpha value (0.001) in order to minimize clusters with just one creek -year. Each species collected in the ponar grabs was also analyzed based on two different characteristics: trophic level and functional feeding guild. Trophic level describes the position of a species in a food chain and consisted of four levels: detritivore, herbivore, carnivore, and parasite. Functional feeding guild describes the mechanism by which each species acquires food resources and/or nutrients II-C-8 and consisted of six categories: gatherer/collector, filterer/collector, scraper, grazer, shredder, and predator. Upstream and downstream datasets were used for analysis. Please refer to Section III-G and Appendix A -Section H for detailed description of the process of ponar species guild assignment and more description of statistical analyses performed. Upstream sweeps: Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of upstream benthic sweep taxa richness and abundance in all creeks and for all years revealed 32 distinct clusters (Figure II-C17 a - d). Cluster A contained Broomfield and SCUT1 years (2019 and 2021). Clusters B, C, and U contained only one control creek (Long 2020, Little 2012, and Muddy 2011, respectively). Cluster AG contained six control creeks. There were four clusters that consisted of only Huddles Cut years (D, E, F, and G). Eight clusters contained only control and pre- Mod Alt L creek years (K, L, M, N, 0, T, V, and Y), while six clusters contained only control and post -Mod Alt L creek years (I, P, Q, AB, AC, and AE). Seven clusters contained a mixture of control, pre and/or post -Mod Alt L creek years (R, S, W, X, Z, AH, Al, and AF). Cluster AD consisted solely of one post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Comparison of interannual variability between the 32 clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of 18 taxa predominantly drove cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. Those 18 taxa were as follows (in order of the number of clusters wherein each taxa was a major contributor of dissimilarity): Apocorophium species., Goeldichironomus devineyae, Tanytarsus species., Chironomus species., Gammarus tigrinus, Cyprideis littoralis, Amphicteis floridus, Paleomonetes pugio, Corixidae species, Dicrotendipes nervosus, Naididae (w/o hair), Cassidinidea lunifrons, Nematoda species, Littordinops species, Apedilum species, Berosus species, Cassidinea ovalis, and Hargeria rapax. Downstream sweeps: The downstream benthic sweep data analysis resulted in 23 distinct clusters (Figure II-C18 a - d). Nine clusters contained control creek and pre -Mod Alt L creek years (B, F, I, L, N, R, S, U, and V). Clusters C, K, 0, and Q contained control creek years and post -Mod Alt L creek years. Seven clusters contained control, pre, and post -Mod Alt L creek years (A, G, H, J, M, P, T, and W). Cluster M contained only DCUT11 and its corresponding control creek, DCUT19. Unlike upstream, Huddles Cut years were not contained in one cluster. Comparison of interannual variability between the 23 clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of 17 taxa predominantly drove cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. In order of the number of clusters each was a major contributor of dissimilarity the 17 taxa were: Hargeria rapax, Gammarus tigrinus, Goeldichironomus devineyae, Gammarus mucronatus, Cricotopus species, Chironomus species, Amphicteis floridus, Nematoda species, Tanytarsus species, Paleomonetes pugio, Americamysis almyra, Cyprideis littoralis, Apedilum species, Littoridinops species, Apocorophium species, Dicrotendipes nervosus, and Rhithropanopeus harisii. Upstream ponars: Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of upstream benthic ponar taxa richness and abundance in all creeks and for all years also revealed 16 distinct clusters (Figure II-C19 a - c). Two clusters consisted solely of pre- or post -Mod Alt L years (F and 0), while clusters B and E contained only control creek years. Cluster H contained only 2016 creek years (four post -Mod Alt L creeks and three control creeks), with the exception of Tooley 2020. Clusters C and D consists of pre- Mod Alt L years and control creeks only, while G contains a post -Mod Alt L and control creek year. The other seven clusters (I, J, K, L, M, N, and P) each contained pre- and post -Mod Alt L and control creek years. All post -Mod Alt L creek years in any cluster either matched a control creek year, a pre -Mod Alt L year for itself, II-C-9 or a matched pre -Mod Alt L creek year for a different creek within the cluster. No cluster consisted solely of post -Mod Alt L creek years. Comparison of interannual variability between the 16 clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of 20 taxa predominantly drove cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. In order of the number of clusters wherein each taxa was a major contributor of dissimilarity, the 20 taxa were: Macoma balthica , Littoridinops species, Gammarus tigrinus, Chironomus species, Apocorophium species, Amphicteis floridus, Cyprideis littoralis, Candonidae species, Bezzia/Palpomyia complex, Tanypus neopunctipennis, Streblospio benedicti, Nais species, Dicrotendipes nervosus, Nemertea species, Eteone heteropoda, Macoma species, Goeldichironomus devineyae, Parachironomus subleti, Leitoscoloplos fragilis, and Mediomastus ambiseta. Downstream ponars: The downstream benthic ponar data grouped into 24 distinct clusters (Figure II-C20 a - d). Two clusters contained only control creek years (D and E), which consisted of two Muddy Creek years and one PA2 year. Eight clusters contained only pre -Mod Alt L and control creek years (F, I, L, N, R, S, U, and V). Four clusters contained only post -Mod Alt L and control creek years (C, K, 0, and Q). Three clusters contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L and control creek years (A, G, H, J, M, P, T, and W). Cluster A contained the largest number of creek years with five pre- creek years, 13 post -Mod Alt L creek years, and 2 control creek years. No cluster consisted solely of post -Mod Alt L creek years. Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of 20 taxa drove the cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. In order of the number of clusters wherein each was a major contributor of dissimilarity, those 20 taxa were: Macoma balthica, Chironomus spp., Mediomastus species, Gammarus tigrinus, Streblospio benedicti, Littoridinops species, Apocorophium species, Amphicteis floridus, Macoma species, Mactridae species, Cyprideis littoralis, Eteone heteropoda, Mediomatus ambiseta, Gammarus mucronatus, Nais sp., Tubificoides species, Tanypus neopunctipennis, Parachironomus subleti, Polydora cornuta, and Nemertea species. 6.0 Macroinvertebrate Guilds Refer to Appendix A -Section H for detailed description of the process of ponar species guild assignment and more description of statistical analyses performed. Each ponar taxa was assigned to a guild (Table II-C4). Guild membership was based on both the trophic level and functional feeding guild for each taxon. Six different classifications (i.e., axes/components) were produced by Fuzzy Correspondence Analysis (FCA) which separated taxa by guilds (Figure II-C21 a - f). The FCA produces slightly varied differentiations in distance and direction from zero on each component axis for the 10 categories (four trophic levels and six feeding guilds) from year to year. In 2021, ponar data, herbivore and detritivore are separated from carnivore and parasite along Axis 1, as well as predator from other functional feeding guilds (Figure II-C21 a and C21 b). Filterer/collector is separated from grazer, scraper, and shredder along Axis 2 (Figure II-C21 b). Scraper and shredder were separated from all other functional guilds along Axis 3 (Figure II-C21 d). Parasite was separated along Axis 4 from herbivore and detritivore trophic levels, as well as shredder from all other functional feeding guilds (Figure II- C21 c, d). Parasite was separated from other trophic levels along Axis 5 (Figure II-C21 e). Grazer was separated from scraper along Axis 6 (Figure II-C21 f). Upstream and downstream datasets were separated for the multivariate analysis on guild membership. As was done for the all creeks ponar and sweep dendrograms, a lower statistical significance threshold (alpha = 0.001) was II-C-10 used to minimize clusters with single creek -years for the two ponar guild dendrograms; individual creek dendrograms used an alpha of 0.01. Mixed -model ANOVAs were used to determine if changes to macroinvertebrate guild composition post -Mod Alt L were similar to any changes in guild composition of control creeks during the corresponding time period. Two main effects were included in the ANOVAs: Creek (which tested if the impact creek differed from the control creek regardless of Mod Alt L Status) and Mod Alt L Status (which tested if guild composition differed between pre- and post - Mod Alt L Status regardless of Creek). A Creek by Mod Alt L Status interaction tested if the two creeks differed in how their guild composition changed between pre- and post -Mod Alt L Status. Upstream guilds: Multivariate cluster analysis used a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of the upstream guild membership ponar dataset in all creeks and years and revealed seven significant clusters (Figure II-C22 a - e). One cluster contained only post -Mod Alt L creek and control creek years (C; Drinkwater 2013 and 2015, DCUT11 2020, and DCUT19 2020), while the remaining six clusters contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L and control creek years. Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) was used to determine the guild types that predominantly drove separation of the seven clusters. Axis 1 (herbivore, detritivore) was the predominant contributor to the differentiation of most clusters. Axis 4 (scraper, grazer, and parasite) and Axis 5 (scraper) were predominant contributors to some clusters. Axis 6 (scraper) contributed the least differentiation to the clusters. A mixed -model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if changes in upstream benthic macroinvertebrate guild composition due to Mod Alt L Status differed between pre- and post -Mod Alt L creeks and various control creeks for the same years. For all impact creeks and guild axes there were four statistically significant interactions. Porter and Little had a significant interaction between the Creek and Mod Alt L Status for Axis 2 (F = 4.73, P = 0.04) (Figure II-C23) where Porter Creek had slightly more grazer, scraper, and shredder in comparison to Little Creek. Downstream guilds: Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) of the downstream guild membership ponar dataset in all creeks and years revealed 12 significant clusters (Figure II-C24 a - e). Only one cluster contained a control creek only (A; PA2 2020) and there were three clusters that contained only control creeks and post -Mod Alt L data (C, D, and E). Cluster B contained only pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for Huddles. The remaining clusters contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L with control creek years. Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) was used to determine the guild types that predominantly drove separation of the 12 clusters. Axis 6 (scraper) contributed to the differentiation of most clusters. Axis 5 (scraper), and 2 (filterer/collector) contributed to the differentiation of some clusters. Axis 4 (scraper, grazer, and parasite) contributed least to the differentiation of clusters. A mixed -model ANOVA was used to determine if changes in benthic macroinvertebrate guild composition due to Mod Alt L Status differed between impact creeks and various control creeks. Drinkwater had a significant interaction with Axis 1 when compared to PA2 Creek (F = 7.54, P = 0.01) (Figure II-C25). Tooley Creek had a significant interaction with Muddy Creek on Axis 1 (F = 6.31, P = 0.02) and Long Creek (F = 7.04, P = 0.02). There were slightly more herbivores and detritivores in Tooley Creek compared to Muddy Creek and Long (Figure II-C26). II-C-11 Answer: Fish No change in fish forage base due to mine activities is apparent. Multivariate cluster analysis of fish for all creeks, all collection years, and both gear types (fyke and trawl) reveals separation in some pre -Mod Alt L and post -Mod Alt L years within clusters; however, the multivariate cluster analysis did not reveal distinct changes in fish assemblages due to mine activities within the drainage basins of Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Tooley Creek, Huddles Cut, Porter Creek, and/or DCUT11. Comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOSIM detected spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages within the drainage basin of Jacks Creek, Drinkwater Creek, and Tooley Creek. It is believed that low CPUE observed locally throughout South Creek and surrounding tributaries in both 2016-2017 trawl samples is likely the reason that set post -Mod Alt years apart from pre -Mod Alt L years in Jacks, Drinkwater, and Tooley creeks, especially in Jacks Creek where 2016-2017 represent two of six post -Mod Alt L years. Lack of observations prior to 2011 and approximatively nature of grass shrimp, penaeid shrimp, and blue crab collected in all creeks makes it very difficult to discern any mine -related spatial pattern. The guild dendrograms also show no clear trend among the pre- and post -Mod Alt L fish assemblages that could indicate potential effects from mine activities; only one cluster of 24 in both analyses consisted of solely post -Mod Alt L data. As with richness and abundance data, most other post -Mod Alt L years for the guilds were distributed into clusters which also contained a pre -Mod Alt L year for the same creek or a control creek. Comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOSIM detected spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild assemblages within the drainage basin of Drinkwater Creek and Tooley Creek. Temporal variability analysis of water quality parameters displayed strong positive correlation for five of 13 creeks (one impact creek: Drinkwater and four control creeks, PA2, Little, DCUT19, and Duck) with SAV, phosphate (particulate), nitrate (total dissolved and NO3), salinity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and/or pH. These eight environmental variables were most important in fish trophic guild structure. Answer: Macrobenthos For four of the seven creeks whose basins have been reduced by Mod Alt L activities (Huddles Cut, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, and Tooley Creek) comparison of interannual variability by means of ANOSIM at upstream and downstream benthic stations of both sweep and ponar collections within each creek detected spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities (Ponar: Downstream Tooley creek; Sweeps: downstream and upstream Huddles Cut, upstream Jacobs Creek, downstream Porter Creek, and upstream and downstream Tooley Creek). The all creeks dendrograms for sweeps and ponar richness and abundance show no clear trend among the pre- and post -Mod Alt L macrobenthic data that could indicate potential effects from mine activities. Except for Huddles Cut, sweep and ponar years/locations richness and abundance are distributed into clusters represented by II-C-12 similar years/locations for the control creeks and/or other pre -Mod Alt L years. For Huddles Cut, the analysis showed that most pre- and post -Mod Alt L years commonly clustered together, usually with no other creek. The clusters continue to point to the uniqueness of Huddles Cut compared to other creeks. The guild dendrograms also show no clear trend among the pre- and post -Mod Alt L macrobenthic data that could indicate potential effects from mine activities. There was only one cluster that consisted solely of post -Mod L data (Huddles 2012 and 2020 Downstream Sweeps). However, Huddles Cut illustrates some unique characteristic that differentiates it from other creeks in the study. As with richness and abundance data, most other post -Mod Alt L years for the guilds were distributed into clusters which also contained a pre -Mod Alt L year for the same creek or a matched control creek year. The mixed model ANOVA on guild composition showed that changes in the benthic communities of two impact creeks post -Mod Alt L did significantly differ from the changes in benthic communities of their respective control creeks during the same time periods. In Porter Creek upstream there were more grazer, scraper, and shredder guilds in post - Mod Alt L years when compared to Little Creek (control). In downstream Drinkwater Creek, a nearby impact creek, there was more herbivore and detritivore when compared to PA2 (control). This trend was similar among downstream Tooley, another nearby impact creek, when compared to two control creeks (Muddy and Long). II-C-13 c E N ❑ O O O — PCS Trawl Fish Collections Group Average D E F G H I �InI I I ,I 1No 1No1 g1Nu LIN1N r �N 1 ININ TlroN`°o1N10 I NINm�I6�jz LIN w2 ca INIo cr>I,'uIs!)�I IN 6ICa L rowI 6°uLmo�a0��a0�I�m,*rco�NIN@1�s oo a LL2`m1aNNJ I UoAc9coo�o�.0cv-,°oii�pO 9 Dwoe—ae 2<mc°°°-0cm�Hmmmo~42 c cO 00 Cn C C C a°21 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ JI � II C U°bQ -O �b'z@nnnnnnn Figure II-C1. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all fish species for trawl creeks and years sampled [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the one percent level (P = 0.01). Gray creeks/years are pre -Mod Alt L, bold creeks/years are post -Mod Alt L, and blue creeks/years are control creeks. II-C-14 E .0) w Q 0 N A B PCS Fyke Fish Collections Group Average D V 110 0) 0 O O O O) 0 0 NI NI r1 NI NI O40 ) N N N a) -0 -0 -0 -C1 30 O) N r- (o co Q O) CO 0 rn 00 CO O o o 0 N O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N I 1 1 1 �I c1 1 y1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .I U) (1) a) N a) a) O) a) 0) a) G) CD 0) -0 -o -o I- (- -o -o -0 -o - b -0 -0 'O 'a -o 'o -o D = -0 'o -0 30 30 b 30 -o "d E F co co (0 00 co r- O O O O O O NI NI NI NI CV CV rn H H H H H H = = = = = = O 0 0 0 0 0 IC) co V O O O NI N1 N1 rn H = = O o a r- co O O7 O N N N CVO O 0 0 0 O O NI N1 NI NI NI NI NI rn rn rn CD rn F F H IL- IL- H H = D = = M M = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure II-C2. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all fish species for fyke net creeks and years sampled [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the one percent level (P = 0.01). Gray creeks/years are pre -Mod Alt L, bold creeks/years are post -Mod Alt L, and blue creeks/years are control creeks. II-C-15 E .N ❑ N B E 0{ o3�co�ooc°� od CO ❑ ❑ m n PCS Trawl Fish Collections - Guilds Group Average 'ft ?JO�UUUE]m3--- 7 F� O CO J L T� a—)CDuk-CP4NCvcv I-Q� Cz , g 3 M 0 °7CmU0 °JC �C�x�a�'OaY' 'gym Uc� ma,affocoYY a� wm arnar, -°p»3rx± � 38 mceMtp'--g=mm- oQ0-9-k �30 C C C C C C Figure II-C3. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all fish species for trawl creeks and years sampled [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 1 percent level (P = 0.01). Gray creeks/years are pre -Mod Alt L, bold creeks/years are post -Mod Alt L, and blue creeks/years are control creeks. II-C-16 v a E N co - A B PCS Fyke Fish Collections - Guilds Group Average O I- a) N O O O O O N NI/ N N 1 0) 0)N 1 • 0 a -o 7 ▪ 7 -a -o - M--c-n 3 7 i 2-- D;CUT11 2018 Huddles_1999 Huddles 2021 13,CUT11_2016 rCUT11_2019 Huddles_2001 Huddles 2007 Muddles 2012 DCUT11_2015 D,CUT11 2014 Fuddles 2010 (o O N N N -o -o Muddles 2019 DCUT19_2014 Huddles 2011 Fuddles 2018 Huddles_2009 Muddles 2017 (,) I� 0 0 O O O NI NIL NI NI Cr, W CO 7 7 7 -0 DCUT19_2015 D,CUT19_2019 D,CUT19 2013 Figure II-C4. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all fish species for fyke net creeks and years sampled [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 1 percent level (P = 0.01). Gray creeks/years are pre -Mod Alt L, bold creeks/years are post -Mod Alt L, and blue creeks/years are control creeks. II-C-17 0 0 N Jacks Little Jacobs PA2 Drinkwater Long Tooley Muddy Huddles Cut Porter DCUT11 DCUT19 Duck SCUT1 Broomfield ■ 0.0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 ❑ Zooplanktivore ❑ Zoobenthivore ❑ Piscivore ❑ Omnivore ❑ Herbavore - - - Mod Alt L Impact i1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 it Relative Abundance I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I Figure II-05. Fish guilds of all creeks from 1999 to 2021 (gaps represent no collection during that year per approved plan). For each creek, x-axis represents relative abundance. Dashed lines indicate switch from pre- to post -Mod Alt L. Control creeks include SCUT1, Little, PA2, Long, Muddy, DCUT19, and Duck. II-C-18 a E m - A Jacks Creek - Guilds Group Averages B C D E �O N N V N 0 10 C O 0-7 O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N (-1 0 r N O O N N O CD O Cr) O 0 N Figure II-C6. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Jacks Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. ci O — Jacobs Creek - Guilds Group Averages B C D E F r T O (`7 lr) m W (o r-- N N O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N Figure II-C7. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Jacobs Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. II-C-19 a E 0 Drinkwater Creek - Guilds Group Averages N N CO N f) CO N N O 0 0 O O N N N Figure II-C8. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Drinkwater Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. 0 v T E 0 Tooley Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages A B C D d] O N CO O O N O O N N N N N N N 0 6 O O O 6) O N N N r N u7 6 V O O O O N N N N Figure II-C9. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all fyke nets in Tooley Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. I I-C-20 O O — A Huddles Cut - Guilds B Group Averages I N c0 O M N- N O CO O) O M N co f— O N 6, N O O O - O O O O O 6) O O O O O - O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure II-C10. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all fyke nets in Huddles Cut [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. T E .w w 0 vi 0 o — N N DCUT11 - Guilds Group Averages 0 O CO N CO O rn N u7 N N Figure II-C11. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all fyke nets in DCUT11 [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L. I I-C-21 Little Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages A r N aJ N N O O O O ▪ O O • O O O O ▪ • O N N N N N N N N N N N Figure II-C12. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Little Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Control creek, no Mod Alt L impacts. E w w ❑ 0 N — O — PA2 Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages N lr) CO f— O M N O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N Figure I I-C13. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in PA2 Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Control creek, no Mod Alt L impacts. I I -C-22 E N - O Long Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages A B C D n N ti O co rn lf) N O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N Figure I I-C14. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Long Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Control creek, no Mod Alt L impacts. E .� w 0 0 O — Muddy Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages A B C D E F G I I M I N M CD 0 L.0 ti 0 CO 0 lf) ti D) CD O O N N O r r 0 0 0 0 0) 0) N r 0 O r O r O 0 O r O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O N N N N N N N N .-N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure II-C15. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Muddy Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Control creek, no Mod Alt L impacts. I I-C-23 a E 0 O 0 ci N A Duck Creek - Fish Guilds Group Averages B N N O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O N N N N N N N N N N N Figure I I-C16. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in Duck Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05). Control creek, no Mod Alt L impacts. I I -C-24 A BCD E All Creeks, F Upstream (Sweeps) -_, GH I JK L a M All Creeks, Upstream (Sweeps) b ..„._ N 0 P Q 12 S 'I' UV W X - 1 i ' I . i I 1 I I - ' i . I i I ' i 1 1 Z' — , 1 1 — ! I 29 E LIS i i i i I N :;,.7,....;;;.;,-7-7,!E!....!..................—..... ...........=.0........................................................=....m..m... AIMAAW,PrreArtArWAMIAMMAATWA """%WWA=VT,IV=WWM703,-.WSWIZT,"'S2"52=17,7,7,TM UE.244=44=ffilfigP170,Egt:IHN55,47501 8g8g 2 fll i i i ; I 2 CO i 1 li ! ! ! WMPTINgTan no La 2 i - On . : _ N 0 KaaavaaaaaaaaaaaaanaIananatalaaaaaLtvaaaataaaa D7OODMOMDMODOMOODODODOD77777777777777707777.707. ...........................................................0.0.0.0.0.0........ V.E4"-'a""VAnucCnIZT2tV,FraMPV24.11ana blEitAtill'n3gilia-P-T3IIIEP-WP-11E-gPill11 _ -. _ i _L 6 „, a a. • ' , , • I- 3, - .• , 1 1 _L. , , i nn ! 00 ! Y Z AA All AB AC 1 1 Creeks, AD Upstream GMV NA.O. AE AF (Sweeps) c I ' •. 2 E AG i All Creeks, Upstream C.* Ani• AH [Sweeps) d N. Al • ; ; i z ' 1 •= , g ; • ! i ! . . E. narinaan ff=t=ggg=tttntfffafffffffftt,ttffti ----....____ .........................--..........0......................... T-47Asda7..vgawramv.,..4,Tpuvruwil,pwpgpvgaw,miavilivaprmamea., EIVSE-132ERBZtawqiimpitAccAiETRpin2m14,--t-5, .81We3111E31 00 _ E. taanarmaria ... .§.-A _ .. ---- ,441 Vat a E.S.' E.' ....... IA a az6.-a. A 11121H3ede a E. _ . EE L'ati.S. —0 ...... SIT, no EA E. EAU, ...... MIL,. •S namaan.m...-a — ......... 23W-181'8 .' _ o a o 4 ; i 0 N - 0 EEEEEE gi 0.160.61666666666666 77.777.07.7777777077.07.07. col i lEAEEEAPEEgi§g 0 o 2 113 6 li d Y 0 o c7v,5,1 2 li E 0 o if> a E E ,4us., 1 ii sgvz,1:1 00000 E ; moo I ; E 6 6 ,,I, ;E2 i 6 :_. E 6 A 4 ; i ! E 6 Figure II-C17 a - d. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance in upstream sweeps for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at the 0.1 percent level (alpha value 0.001). II-C-25 - All Creeks, A - Downstream ...., 6 C (Sweeps) D EF G r,,,, _____ .... I a H ______ _ All Creeks, Downstream .....,__ 1 J 1 (Sweeps) K L b M N 1 . , = 1 — I . r 4. 1 -I 4 . . _ CE-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELrErsrm-rEEEEE- HrzgilEIV222strillIgrmnril@rmisgMHIMP.Mil EEPS2'22a22E2222222222E°222`22222222P222°2'"PM02'° ssgsgEgmwnsgummsgsggmmsgg0hmaA °PPFPFPFY'PPPFFPPPPPPPPPFPPPPPPI°113PPFFPPPPPPPPPFFPFPI 0,-.00MWOVM1.0.01,-0,-•-•-0.-WWW1,0000.MoNW,-.WWVNINING.W•INN.WWWW EESUMAWAMPAIREP8RIIPPOWAIWNOW CiVZ44,%9'4,%'Z'O'FrgijlE44g1110.0-tilinACCIO"La:EMPI%ni mm xxxximmmm _ m mil — -c I n , 'E z1._.' 1 it --, o q I i EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEI P"."4"4"Egg2PM2P2MMIMIHnigrliraTHM5T4g.Mglgli 222'22222V222222PME202`82222222E22222.°P°2V°02022f2M1 mingsgmgmmgmligngsgnmgmhigsigigAgngsgsi c9tPPPPPPPPPPPPPFPFPPPPPePPPPFPFtPPPPectfflt9tPPI9tP 00.00.00.0.0.00.0.00.00.0.00.00.0.00000.0.099.9999-...OROO ====VT;MWMTInV,Tarr1V74701Warlp4;1V.Wm.,q1 MititiglftrgIllahilgT=W2V-Mn5nnttnMigil A i i , COOVVVVVN.,V.VV n W = W WWWWWW 1-2-,4 i, -15-.1-Mcoo00000O003,2 4- 000. m J nonnononnon M V. M. Vs-.-,. ,- 0 All Creeks, Downstream P a (Sweeps) R C S ; i ; All Creeks, Downstream T U (Sweeps) V W ! I d ! . I - - .Z. m A, 4 ; _ e 1 a i a - 8 q I 1 . ,,, 0 - ----s-s--E-E---E-r-EEE TEITT2T2 E 2E2 gggggggAggSAggAgggggFAggi 000600000000 .1 .1 .1 _ti ?, 7 .1 .1 Z ''o' — 2 2 .1 .1 ''' I'Ll, 222 2E2 ,..1 .1 ti 2 2 ,..1 qal 2 li,' 2 222 ,..1 ?, E E 2 . 222 0000OC113013017O ., 4 il g „7,-,,2 E 2 2Tgg d d i E -E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E- 2 2 d ,..i g g 'il TT 2 2 2 i d .,,, g ' . j i'. ? ? g 2 2 ' i 0,i 01 `,' v . I 1 H_ ji _ 0 - '1E2 ggHgAgAgAgALIgAgAgAggggggM3gHngggg IDOCIO000000001:10001:101:101:10001:101:101:101:10C100000C10001301:10C1 .1 00.000.000.0.00.0000000U000,0000U0.0.00.000.0ggg 'VeWjli.4S4o.?.,D731.ijaWapV,Wijilpi3U3Z2r2M20:iii - ... varvam 1 L 2EEEEtE I 1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1‘jmccl.lhnl.1,n1.1,c1.1.1.1.01,_1001.1.1.1.1,,Ir g a,' E a,' v, a° 2 ; ggAMAgEVA L 2FEEEE'a 2 L 2 T 2E2 2E2EEEE 2 2 L 2 2 RE 2E o r- E EE ,.1,,1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 2 Et2E2EVE . grog _ m Figure II-C18 a - d. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance in downstream sweeps for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek - year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at the 0.1 percent level (alpha value 0.001). II-C-26 8- 8- 0 0 - N A BC D E All Creeks, Upstream (Ponar) F G H 1 a 1 1 1 EEEE EE EEEE EEEEE E EEEEEEEEE EEEEEE EEEEE E EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEE EE EEE m224mmm 2m 2mmmmm24 n m mm;mmmmmm mmmmmmm mmm m m m aanaanannnaananaannnnannaaananaanannaaananannaannannannaanann 7p7 7 7 777 77p=I?7177� p=m 7 7p77 7? I7p777Ip7777 p7 7 7 7 p -Wv o�iv rlv6?-6A.61 o �Iw6 6 I- 66 Snv iOMMaN ala in iv MI 0000000000v000000000000eooa000000000000000000000000c00000000 NrnS'Wpvp�� Su"rnCprnCpS'.�a_ r'Nc.' eu'' N�" =J=JO=�53» ]» =a9aaaaa9-C9a9ONO� m[]mmJJJJ�� Jmmrd$d° aS ❑ SSSSSSSSSTTS m m m O 0 All Creeks, Upstream (Ponar) Clow OunIragn 8- K L M N 0 Z 0 •EEE E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E EE E E E EE E E E E EE n n a a a ngan no oaa_n meow aaa aa¢oaaonm 1= 1= > > ,=I� ? 7 j17171 1717[71717171=i=I=171=1 171717 ��O�NWNMr�WW��OOf��fl��W[']�11NW�SiW 41W�fi = 0. 0 N N N 0 0 0 0 N 0 r O r 0 0. 0 0. 0 �ovvvvvvvvvvvvryvvovvvvvvvvovvvvo �Y.m `� g.WArnmNNHNi,s'�.i. JT. V.�n bammxama a� amaaamcmx �m ma o>?�g3am2ad-mg� `L = F 2 ' F !L 2 2 H = C f F �l ❑ b EE E E E E E E E EE E E E EE E E E EI nncanavaaaaraj oo��noaaoaa 7777777777Sp 7777777� [ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,L -NO0 MNNO ,WW 0.0.0NN0NNN 0,00.61WWi ryvvryvryvvvvnv�vvWM=a y,WS"�Nm�aCCC m'YCYS,mm� =83- cFoY�BS HF d�azu�oua s in ❑o E G 8 All Creeks, Upstream (Ponar) a P 1 v - , iEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE im m m mmmmmio�ommmmm m m m �¢ mm m mmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmm�ommmmm mm ma � m m�mmm 2'2'°1 °'E<'@�2'� � m m � mm m 2'22'm m�mmmmmEmmE�2'��m��m�E @� �� "aannnanaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoauaoaoaaoaocaaa.aaaaaaaanannnnnnnnnnnnnnar4 C»»»»»�? ��7�7 77�7 7777777777777777777777�= 5-:�� Miaivaiva s�o{` '�--ma�o�o�o to nl i-few✓ i+ o(+r��n1-k66,:. ,1,,�� ,F.F.-iaio,,,: 1 .-o��aoa v� oaovvvvovovvvvvvavvv00000aovaoavvWvvvvvvvvoovvvvvvvvvvvvov000: ^�'C^i'm",�„L"L'IC'C' NN m�",r"C""rnuNii�Sr,�Nni'�"rnn'L"�mrvycmvcNL��m�L�'mm; .'4'm dm mar+ aglE; m;; a m� - g aay = c rroam NWH�u�m rrp-pua ma u u ou ur' afuFHEH� m� u._r�S.cG i 3p.,1120.2- 8- 4.31 m,9a- °aeF r.,2>>O6.=..ao3�O m m � `-5.75,,e,p— o _ o ~o 00 0 " a oono a` 2=�` .s 8 sE❑ EE ❑`❑` oa o ❑ Figure II-C19 a - c. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance in upstream ponar grabs for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at alpha level 0.001. I I-C-27 A :E ig 2 2 s to- All Creeks, Downstream (Ponar) Ann.a..• CD E F G H a — HuddleS2018 Downstream ! F—Huddles2015 Downstream H---'1~—Downstream -- > � uudoy1998 Do"sirearri MuddY2013 Downstream PA22012 Downstream Jaicobs2012 Downstream P — Huddles2000 Downstream earn .—'..~—_.__ � -- -- W02013 Downstream Jac nstream -----~'—__ Jacks2013 Downstream TodeylM_Dcw�nslream _— __ E K All Creeks, Downstream (Ponar) LM N 0 P R -11 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 e e 2 8 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 gg gg g g gg ggg g ggg g !REM"! ill 111"112111211"12"! 121"2121 000000 000 00000170 600 00 00000 000130Q 0000000 000 00000 vuRbilugpx1pulp9HRig.ggpolevg00000logie,01.10.10041EZ 10110011111111WWWallIging4414V n n 11 o c 47, Alf Creeks, Downstream (Ponarl J b EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE M???????PlYMTAMMETATMP??????4ITETHTMIgHWAVO? 'cl 2cic 2 2.2 &CT cc= c c2 2cc1c2ciccE c cicicc c 2=e1=ee=ffei2Pc,e2,e2,2=Q'12PP,22e=t2i2n===ei 0. UMINOMONEEEHNOMMOIMMIWNWMINO qiitiliatIOIgt•F,Em-g-28tivelEptlavdtmg1 qt,3-§-§tr 44' 22-20-21 N 6 8 A E All Creeks, Downstream (Ponar) S T U V W X 11 PP igAHMALAW,HAALIMAHALIAAHLIMA „ „ § § § § §22' O N O N N N cd N N N CV NI CV N N CO Lb A-rIA-g-g 076.3 0 D c .79 6 6 6 p 6 =H 6 6 6- 6 6 6- 5 5 6_ 5 5 - ouou ououoouououuuo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Figure II-C20 a - d. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate taxa richness and abundance in downstream ponar grabs for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at the alpha value 0.001. II-C-28 2 0 N C 0 E 1 0 U -2 -3 - 4 2 0 c m 0 0 E -1 0 U - 2 -3 -4 2 1 0 c w 0 E -1 -2 -3 - 4 Trophic Level a HERBIVORE PARASITE Component 1 - c CARNIVORE 1 ERBtvot - f2}T-4 OI4E PARASITE Component 3 e CA ORE ORE PARASI -2 -1 0 1 Component 5 2 3 Functional Guild b SCRAPER GRAZER HREDDER GATHERER/COLLECTOR — PREDATOR • 1 • •.• FIL+ERER/COLLECTOR Component 1 SHREDDER pkaLi RICOLLECTOR FI LTERE RICOLLECTOR GRAZER • SCRAPER • Component 3 f • - SCRAPER GRAZER • • CIOR SHREDDER -2 0 1 Component 5 2 3 Figure II-C21 a - f. Six major components/axes generated from fuzzy correspondence analysis (FCA) of trophic level (a, c, e) and functional feeding guilds (b, d, f) designations for every species found in ponar grabs in study creeks across all years. II-C-29 All Creeks (Upstream Ponar Guilds) a cwo+w.r. All Creeks (Upstream Ponar Guilds) C Down . cbi A ie I I 1 I I i nuooies O1 upstream; Huddles2014_UpslreaW m Tooley2018_Upslream Muddy2017_Upstream PA22011 Upstream! DCUT192078_Upslream PA22018_Upslream Muddy2008_Upslream Jacks2665_Upstream DCUT112019_Upslream DCUT192019_U pstream: Duck2021_Upslream. DCUT192014_Upslream uddy1998_Upslream Hudd Ies2069_U pstream' Muddy2013_Upstream Huddles2013_Upstream H ud d le s2 067_U pstream; Jacob s2 613_U pstream' Muddy2020_Upslreem Jacks2074_U pstream; Jacks2016_Upslream Huddles2011 Upstream: Porter2014_Upstream PA22016_Upstream Porter2021Upstream: Liltle2 12_Upslream PA22021_Upslream Tooley1999_U pstrea m Muddy2014 Upstream. uddy2000_Upstreem Jacobs2019_Upslream Jacobs2020_Upslream cill- C ❑ L a - g 'Lim- 0 I I 1 i I 1 1 i i i I I a _ c n m - 0 N - 1 I N - i I I Q ..................................... £ R n- 777777777.7777777777D777777777777 pp N N 2 W R r , U I E E££, W E a I m6I N Ti a g W R R 21 s ax 1 N U j E U ..... E£ W E n a I 1 N N ` g v E U m ..... ..... E W R T a n I pp_ N 2 a g ill ........i E£ W _e I I __1 r [`! W' i 1 E E££ E E££££ E£ E£ E E££ E E, W W R W R R R W R R R R W W W R W R R R N F m g E ff a E FE _ E E T E E& E •F a R n a a a `Q a I n `a a a n a R n a a a I a pI p I I I q� I I I p q 1 I p I p I I N N N R N N ry N 1`! N N fV N �_ pp CN� jQ� jQ� y (ory.1 jQ U A 6 0 m 9 2 V L] 15 N 2 D .8 Q 1' s 6- 8 a W J J a s❑❑ V D W 8 J a~ R -R, 7 E 8 7 -, O£ U m II m - 1-1-11 FLI ....................... E E£ E _g E g g'i a. a a a 7 7 7 7 1 I �'! �1 � P R � P15. H 7 7 7 C1,.. 0 O EE...E...E...£....E...E....£....£..E a a 7 7 7 1 2 �'J ,5I Qy� m J O aEE 4 g n a 7 7 I N m N T Y 2 -3 1 I W R R y e m a R a a n a 7 7 7 7 7 7 I N 4 7, �_ 4 y r� pp 2 _A N T p 8 O J O ' w a ❑ 1 F-1 E...E..E....E....E....E....£...£..,L R W W R R W W g m2!! e e] a R a A 0. - 0.000 7 7 7 7 I I I 2 117 �D 6_� N. n_ N_ Rp�No(i -pq( R � �py1 N G U1 m u H 1 B J 3 7 7 J ❑ U U m m ❑ I I'I r 1 E E...£....E....£....E....E...£...E..E.. R R W R W W R R R R R g g R e g E_ 6. o. s �. t ' n K I 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 I I 1 I I I I I G R' ,..1 N Q� R O .,:,I� Z i� R � R R R - U an d-g, 61 v J .2- O E's 1- E a❑ a❑ 7 g 7 ❑ V U CC All Creeks (Upstream Ponar Guilds) - d E E£ E-£ E E E E E E 2 E-E...E...E....E...E...E...£...E...E....E....E..�E.�.E�...E...E...E...E...�E..�.E g g T e: e e E e e E° a ea E° e g g 2 i° g g l g E l g E° a s as a a a R a a a a a a a a a a. a a a as t a I a a a a-K a a a 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1pp� M_ pTp e-- a erp er ippn O r- z r. p er_p pOp r� 188� Np N I❑ of ni fps ,O 01>1 4- C O._per a pv N a N N NNN N N N y N N ci CNN N N My, p' N t,,1 1 N r Y COO�� 00p55 L N N Y U m Y N s Ap - mM 1QY Y r 19$ 8 4 J U J a a S o U J g a J J o = 0 0 c c ❑ O 2 S ❑ ❑ 0 All Creeks (Upstream Ponar Guilds m - N Cl - ) E..E..E. E..£.E .E E. E..£.E..E..£.E E..E.,£..E.E.E .E..E.E E. E. £.E.E..E..£. E..E..E..E.E..E. E..E.E..E..E.E g25W'22!52}2!!2'g22222g2 ! 2a?WW2!!g °�2 2!2W £2ig2!! aaaaaaaa�aIaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaIaaa a aaa IaaaaaI 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I _O N_4 H_WWP Q�4(I �D rO� pppp A�v��a�r�0011-WmNmm� �InM V_o]o]pp pNJ NoO �Q pr_O Trr �p�$ 9 O a PGIa (0 QNJ Ipp0 N 23JJa_ ❑❑ yJJ =' =m Eg I-E-3 x3 7R = c ❑ E ❑ e Figure II-C22 a - e. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guilds FCA (Axis 2) comparisons: between Porter Creek and Duck Creek and Porter Creek and Little Creek. The post -Mod Alt L comparison was statistically significant between Porter Creek and Duck Creek (ANOVA alpha value 0.02), as well as Porter Creek and Little Creek at the 5 percent level (ANOVA alpha value 0.01). II-C-30 Grazer Scraper Shredder A Filter -Collector Figure II-C23. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guilds FCA (Axis 2) comparisons: between Porter Creek and Duck Creek and Porter Creek and Little Creek. The post -Mod Alt L comparison was statistically significant between Porter Creek and Little Creek at the 5 percent level (ANOVA alpha value 0.04). II-C-31 a All Creeks (Downstream Ponar Guilds) A B C D E F b All Creeks (Downstream Ponar Guilds( S 1 p All Creeks (Downstream H Ponar Guilds) C I 2 - E I I o- - I E o I I € I I € I E E I I E ! o ❑ 2 a 5 3 .... E E£ ❑ ❑ I I 71,3 n m$ 6- E 3 E E 2222s2 ❑ ❑ E i '� �V Si a$ F E E ❑ ❑ I a E o rd g E E o ❑ I S '¢y r� E o 0 I a ' N a a 2 E£ 22222.22222 0 ❑ [ '; '' g a E E ❑ E E E E ❑ a o ❑ I r g S 5 fig, y� w O ' o` E£ ❑ ❑ [ I °I o' c s Se E E ❑ o °I o f ry $ 3-E E E E£ 222.222;;$ ❑ ❑ ❑ I r o E U ` i x t �c W W. E ❑ ❑ ❑ I °I o 2, a i F SSE ❑ m r 2 m Ei G o F ❑ a Q q a � E ;22; m ❑ a c� F o r a U ❑ E E ;N S F U, a E E ❑ o 1 8 0 Z. C 1 a,. E E ;;;2E£E£FSv 1 m Z. o E ❑ o o g'r Z, i E E 0 0 0'0 s v` 9 D i o E EE o r s. ° 3❑ E a o m 1 m rvo t1 u �❑ 'i 1 E 0 o b u a x' E£ 0 0 a v F >>>> U m a EE E E 0 0 ❑ ❑ 1 I r g F F F U o U, a a a E y I 0�1 0 y it $ i E EEE m o o 1 S ` E V ❑ ;:.471 ❑ ❑ 1 � J E E ❑ 1 9 i E ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑oaoa❑❑a❑❑oo❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑a❑❑❑❑o❑❑aocoo w R F E E E l %.F A E mx❑o❑mx❑ m xt+ m i I l q,� $ 3 7 ❑2' E �� 1 1 1 w"-n�� $y$gr Q `" a E a l I RpRR q §§ l � P l 2?2"nrv�mRF2E�Sorvr�. d 9 E$ E E � l 1 1 RrygU F 7» �U3 E E E r 1 1 6 a a o== E E 1 r 3' $ �1- E E a�£ 1 1 1 l ryReM_I ® Q B$ a 0 a E m a L9 x' y J I r ti O E E E �E 1 1 1 l oM f f G =x u]u1 �E E � l l INr 71271E ..M F F V B -rHgg ❑❑ E p i r --a� >>>❑ ❑❑ E m 1 1 F All Creeks )Downstream Ponar Guilds) K n E E E E E E E E E E E E E E£ E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E €€€a€€ I I I I , I , , I 1 I I � I I , I I� ryl I 1 � I I 55 "'o'os55E5gry mrv_m� m1 rvm g l B$ l; z 1 a 2 S 8 1 i= o' i o f $$ o= g F P a$ 6- 0 1 All Creeks (Downstream Ponar Guilds) e n E E E£ E E E E E E E E E E££ E E E E E E E E E E£££ E E E E E E E 11 1 1 1 1 I I, I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Iml �I of 0 E.8 S S a e 8' E. E a S S 8 S S &' eSry ry Sry S' E e S� b a 8$ v E S S S e 731?=aa� m�2 IS r oo� 3s� ac��E '❑ a B a l8 g a c ❑ Figure II-C24 a - e. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate guilds assigned to downstream ponars for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at alpha value 0.001. II-C-32 1.0 0.5 — X o.o Drinkwater PA2 0 Long T 0 - 0.5 — - 1.0 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Herbivore Detritivore Parasite Carnivore Figure II-C25. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guilds FCA (Axis 1) comparisons: between Drinkwater Creek and Long Creek, as well as Drinkwater Creek and PA2. The post -Mod Alt L comparison was statistically significant between Drinkwater Creek and PA2 at the 5 percent level (ANOVA alpha value 0.01). I I-C-33 1.0 - 0.5 - 0.0 Tooley 0 Muddy Long 0 O -0.5 - -1.0 - Pre Post I I I I Pre Post Pre Post Detritivore Herbivore V Parasite Carnivore Figure II-C26. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L downstream ponar benthic guilds FCA (Axis 1) comparisons: between Tooley Creek and PA2 and Tooley Creek and Long Creek, as well as Tooley creek and Muddy Creek. The post -Mod Alt L comparison was statistically significant between Tooley Creek and Muddy Creek at the 5 percent level (P = 0.02) and Long (P = 0.02). II-C-34 Table II-C1. Average catch -per -unit -effort (CPUE) for the most abundant fish species captured across 13 clusters identified by cluster analysis performed for all PCS fish collections in fyke net and trawl creeks (April, May, and June of 1999 through 2005 and 2007 through 2021). Common name Scientific name Trawl Average CPUEa Cluster A Cluster B Cluster C Cluster D Cluster E Cluster F Cluster G Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus 6.77 12.08 28.35 37.73 71.13 15.93 1.97 Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 12.51 5.35 17.29 14.23 8.51 2.89 14.28 Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 9.53 11.77 11.01 6.96 28.43 9.59 7.35 Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 9.52 Eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea 0.00 6.98 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 7.34 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 0.09 4.24 1.82 0.00 0.28 0.29 12.06 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 0.06 0.00b 0.01 0.04 0.00b 0.03 3.82 Naked goby Gobistoma bosc 0.01 2.49 0.60 0.08 0.24 0.10 2.06 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 0.00 37.12 0.70 0.69 2.66 0.64 5.12 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 0.38 0.54 0.09 2.38 0.08 0.08 5.81 Rainwater killifish Lucania parva 0.00 7.08 1.03 0.04 0.10 0.11 61.87 Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura 0.00 1.98 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.09 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 3.83 118.72 181.74 82.50 80.01 30.99 69.76 Common name Scientific name Fyke Average CPUEa Cluster A Cluster B Cluster C Cluster D Cluster E Cluster F Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus 0.31 12.74 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 34.85 8.03 34.93 0.00 0.03 0.02 Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.35 0.05 4.71 Eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 0.27 0.79 3.48 0.53 0.97 12.89 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 3.00 0.13 12.12 0.35 1.44 2.64 Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 34.54 313.82 516.89 1.64 21.26 130.09 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 0.35 5.69 12.94 0.03 0.08 0.13 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 0.58 79.21 2.14 41.96 12.31 30.84 Rainwater killifish Lucania parva 0.08 0.72 1.33 0.12 0.38 10.74 Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 5.85 1.59 16.84 0.09 2.38 53.15 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 8.50 426.41 187.55 0.19 0.38 38.00 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 2.73 34.79 24.32 0.03 0.08 1.29 White perch Morone americana 3.08 4.10 1.78 0.18 0.21 0.21 aCPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate 16-hour set of fyke nets or one minute, 75-yard trawl. bAverage CPUE is less than 0.00 II-C-35 Table II-C2. Guild designations of all fish caught in trawl nets or fyke nets. Common Name Scientific Name Trophic Guild Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Zooplanktivore American eel Anguilla rostrata Zoobenthivore American shad Alosa sapidissima Zooplanktivore Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus Zoobenthivore Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Zooplanktivore Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina Zooplanktivore Atlantic stingray Hypanus sabinus Zoobenthivore Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia Zooplanktivore Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus Zoobenthivore Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Zooplanktivore Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Zoobenthivore Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus Zoobenthivore Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Omnivore Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Zoobenthivore Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus Zoobenthivore Bowfin Amia calve Omnivore Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Zoobenthivore Chain pickerel Esox niger Zoobenthivore Chain pipefish Syngnathus louisianae Zooplanktivore Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Zoobenthivore Common carp Cyprinus carpio Omnivore Crevalle jack Caranx hippos Zoobenthivore Drum/croaker Sciaenidae sp. Piscivore Dusky pipefish Syngnathus floridae Zooplanktivore Eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki Zoobenthivore Eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea Zoobenthivore Flier Centrarchus macropterus Zoobenthivore Flounder sp. Paralichthys sp. Zoobenthivore Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Omnivore Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Omnivore Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella Herbivore Green goby Microgobius thalassinus Zoobenthivore Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus Zoobenthivore I I-C-36 Table II-C2 (concluded). Common Name Scientific Name Hybrid Striped Bass Inland silverside Ladyfish Largemouth bass Longnose gar Mud sunfish Mummichog Naked goby Northern pipefish Oyster toadfish Pinfish Pipefish Pumpkinseed Rainwater killifish Red drum Redear sunfish Redfin pickerel Sheepshead minnow Silver perch Southern flounder Spot Spottail shiner Spotted seatrout Striped bass Striped mullet Summer flounder Sunfish Swamp darter Warmouth White catfish White crappie White perch Yellow bullhead Yellow perch Morone chrysops x Morone saxatilis Menidia beryllina Elops saurus Micropterus salmoides Lepisosteus osseus Acantharchus pomotis Fundulus heteroclitus Gobiosoma bosci Syngnathus fuscus Opsanus tau Lagodon rhomboides Syngnathus sp. Lepomis gibbosus Lucania parva Sciaenops ocellatus Lepomis microlophus Esox americanus Cyprinodon variegatus Bairdiella chrysoura Paralichthys lethostigma Leiostomus xanthurus Notropis hudsonius Cynoscion nebulosus Morone saxatilis Mugil cephalus Paralichthys dentatus Lepomis sp. Etheostoma fusiforme Lepomis gulosus Ameiurus catus Pomoxis anularis Morone americana Ameiurus natalis Perca flavescens Trophic Guild Piscivore Zooplanktivore Zoobenthivore Omnivore Piscivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Zooplanktivore Zoobenthivore Omnivore Zooplanktivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Omnivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Omnivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Omnivore Zoobenthivore Piscivore Omnivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore Zooplanktivore Zoobenthivore Zoobenthivore I I-C-37 Table II-C3. Summary of trawl and fyke net shrimp (penaeid and grass) and blue crab catch frequency and score data from 2011 through 2021. Broomfield Swamp Creek and SCUT1 data were added to study in 2019. Fyke nets were used to fish DCUT 11, DCUT19, and Huddles Cut. Score is based on the frequency of catch (number of weeks of catch out of total collection weeks) and number of individuals caught and used to compare species' usage among creeks. Grass Shrimp Penaeid Shrimp Blue Crab 2011 2012 2013 2014 Frequency % 2015 2016 2017 2018 Broomfield Swamp 2019 2020 2021 15 23 0 0 0 0 0 8 0, Creek 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Score 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2 0 0 2020 4 0 1 2021 0 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 Frequency % 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 15 0 23 SCUT1 (Control) 2020 2021 23 0 8 0 8 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Score 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 3 0 3 2020 4 1 1 2021 0 0 0 2011 69 46 62 2012 77 15 62 2013 85 15 0 2014 69 0 46 Frequency % 2015 2016 2017 62 23 15 31 0 15 62 77 62 2018 69 31 23 2019 15 15 69 Jacks 2020 2021 85 8 31 15 31 15 Creek 2011 2012 28 28 6 2 N 8 9 2013 37 5 0 2014 17 0 6 Total Score 2015 2016 2017 21 3 2 6 0 2 10 10 8 2018 25 4 3 2019 2 2 10 2020 45 9 6 2021 1 3 2 Jacobs Creek PA2 (Control) Drinkwater Creek Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grass Shrimp 77 92 77 92 77 38 46 92 15 92 15 28 40 18 27 27 8 12 40 40 55 2 92 77 85 77 85 100 100 92 92 100 69 40 28 24 47 48 58 74 58 66 56 34 69 92 46 92 38 31 15 85 0 85 0 33 30 6 26 10 7 3 41 0 56 0 Penaeid Shrimp 54 31 8 8 38 31 31 31 15 31 23 10 6 1 1 9 4 6 7 2 5 3 15 8 0 0 8 23 8 15 8 23 31 5 1 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 5 18 46 46 8 8 23 15 8 31 31 31 23 10 8 3 1 5 2 2 6 5 5 3 Blue Crab 54 62 23 38 62 69 69 46 54 46 38 7 9 3 5 10 9 9 6 7 6 5 31 46 15 15 23 46 46 15 85 38 31 4 7 2 2 3 6 7 2 11 3 4 46 46 38 15 69 69 62 38 62 23 8 7 6 5 2 9 9 8 5 8 3 1 Tooley Creek Little Creek (Control) Long Creek (Control) Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grass Shrimp 77 77 54 15 62 15 0 62 15 77 8 37 27 11 3 12 3 0 32 2 29 2 54 69 100 46 62 23 23 77 8 77 8 12 23 37 10 12 3 5 26 2 28 1 54 62 62 8 38 8 0 69 8 46 0 16 19 14 1 6 1 0 22 1 13 0 Penaeid Shrimp 31 54 31 15 38 15 23 38 38 31 31 4 12 7 2 7 2 4 9 6 5 4 23 31 8 0 15 8 8 8 8 15 31 3 4 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 2 4 46 46 8 0 23 8 8 23 23 15 23 6 7 1 0 4 1 1 3 3 2 4 Blue Crab 31 69 8 23 38 62 54 38 77 38 8 4 9 1 3 5 8 7 5 11 5 1 62 46 0 31 54 46 38 31 54 38 8 8 6 0 4 7 6 5 4 8 5 1 31 85 31 0 23 62 23 15 54 23 23 4 11 4 0 3 8 3 2 7 3 3 Muddy Creek (Control) Porter Creek Duck Creek (Control) Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grass Shrimp 46 77 77 62 54 15 23 77 15 69 8 13 27 21 9 12 2 4 28 2 22 1 15 69 46 0 15 15 8 31 15 46 0 2 19 8 0 3 2 1 6 2 10 0 23 62 85 23 46 23 62 77 0 92 8 5 13 23 6 10 3 11 24 0 28 1 Penaeid Shrimp 46 38 15 8 38 15 23 8 32 31 46 6 6 4 1 9 2 3 1 6 6 8 38 54 23 0 8 0 0 8 15 23 8 5 7 3 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 1 69 38 23 8 8 23 8 23 0 15 8 9 5 6 1 1 3 1 4 0 2 2 Blue Crab 54 38 15 0 31 54 46 23 62 31 23, 8 5 3 0 4 7 6 3 8 4 3 31 77 31 15 8 54 38 31 23 31 0 4 11 4 2 1 7 5 4 3 4 0 62 38 23 0 23 54 38 15 41 23 15 , 9 6 3 0 3 7 5 2 4 3 2 Huddles Cut (upstream fyke net) Huddles Cut (downstream fyke net) Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grass Shrimp 62 85 54 69 54 69 62 92 62 77 69 14 35 8 11 9 14 12 20 31 33 19 77 85 69 46 54 69 77 92 62 77 54 21 31 14 10 13 16 14 22 13 27 14 Penaeid Shrimp 23 38 8 8 0 8 31 23 8 31 15 5 7 1 1 0 1 4 4 1 4 3 23 15 0 0 8 8 23 8 0 38 8 4 3 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 5 1 Blue Crab 69 92 77 54 54 92 69 77 100 85 77 11 15 12 10 7 18 12 12 28 17 14 62 77 46 62 62 85 92 85 85 92 92 12 12 6 8 9 15 13 12 16 16 15 DCUT 11 (upstream fyke net) DCUT 11 (downstream fyke net) Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grass Shrimp — — 15 23 0 0 0 8 0 46 0 — — 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 — — 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 54 15 — — 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 Penaeid Shrimp — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blue Crab — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 — — 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 — — 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 DCUT 19 (upstream fyke net) DCUT 19 (downstream fyke net) Frequency % Total Score Frequency % Total Score Range of numbers of individuals captured (abundance category) and value assigned to range/abundance category: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 none = 0 >100 = 4 <10=1 >200=5 Grass Shrimp — — 38 46 23 38 8 62 15 85 62 — — 6 10 4 8 1 9 4 22 16 — — 46 38 15 31 31 23 15 77 62 — — 9 8 2 5 4 3 3 3 14 10-50 = 2 >300 = 6 51-100 = 3 Penaeid Shrimp — — 8 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 8 — — 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 Score' calculated by number of weeks of capture in each category by the category value Blue Crab — — 8 0 15 8 15 15 31 69 38 ,— — 1 0 2 1 2 2 4 9 5 — — 0 15 8 8 15 23 15 38 31 — — 0 2 1 1 2 3 2 5 4 I I-C-38 Table II-C4. Trophic level and functional feeding guild designations for benthic species identified in the r onar crabs of the PCS creeks. Taxa Trophic Designation Detritivore Parasite Carnivore Herbivore Functional Feeding Guild Designation1 GC2 FC2 SCR3 PRE GRA3 SHR4 Annelida _ 3 0 _ 0 Clitellata Glossiphoniidae sp. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Hirudinea Myzobdella lugubns 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Oligochaeta Aulodrilus Iimnobius 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Aulodrilus paucichaeta 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Aulodrilus sp. 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Dero sp. 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Enchytraeidae sp. 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Grania sp. 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 Monopylephorus irroratus 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 Monopylephorus sp. 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 Naididae (Tubificoides) sp. 3 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 Naididae (Tubificoides) sp. w/ hair 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 Naididae (Tubificoides) sp. w/o hair 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Nais sp. 3 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Oligochaeta sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Paranais litoralis 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Paranais sp_ (litoralis) 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Paranais sp_ 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tubificoides heterochaetus 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Tubificoides sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 Polychaeta Amphicteis fioridus 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Eteone heteropoda 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 Heteromastus filiformis 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Laeonereis culveri 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 Leitoscoloplos fragilis 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Leitoscoloplos sp. 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Marenzelleria viridis 3 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Mediomastus ambiseta 3 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Mediomastus sp. 3 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Neanthes succinea 3 0 2 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 Polydora comuta 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Scolelepis squamata 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Scoloplos robustus 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Spionidae sp. 3 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Streblospio benedicti 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 Arthropoda Arachnida Acad sp. 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Arachnida sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Hydracarina sp. 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Hydrachna sp. 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Collembola Collembola sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 Sminthuridae sp. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 Crustacea Probopyrus pandalicola 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Simocephalus exspinous 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Insecta Coleoptera Berosus sp. 2 0 3 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 Chelonariidae sp. 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Halipidae sp. 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 Haliplus fasciatus 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 Peltodytes sp. 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 Stictotarsus griseostriatus 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Tropistemus collaris striolatus 2 0 3 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 Diptera Ablabesmyia sp. 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 Apedilum sp. 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 II-C-39 Table II-C4 (continued). Taxa Trophic Designation Detrilivore Parasite Carnivore Herbivore Functional Feeding Guild Designation1 GC2 FC2 SCR3 PRE GRA3 SHR4 Diptera continued 0 0 Asheum beckae 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Bezzia/Palpomyia complex 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 Chaoborus albatus 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Chaoborus punctipennis 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Chironomidae sp. 3 0 3 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 Chironomus decorus 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Chironomus plumulosus 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Chironomus stigmaterus 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Chironomus sp. 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Chrysops sp. 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 Cladopelma sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Clinotanypus sp. 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 Coelotanypus scapularis 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 Coelotanypus sp. 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 Cricotopus bicinctus 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cricotopus infuscatus 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cricotopus sp. 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 Cricotopus sp_(bicinctuslinfuscatus/sp.41/sp.9) 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 41 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 9 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cryptochironomus sp. 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cryptotendipes sp. 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Dasyhelea sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 Dicrotendipes nervosus 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 Dicrotendipes sp. 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 Dicrotendipes sp_ rwtubule 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 Einfeldia natchitocheae 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Endochironomus nigricans 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Endochironomus sp. 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Ephydridae sp. 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 1 Glyptotendipes paripes 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Glyptotendipes sp. 3 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 Goeldichironomus devineyae 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Goeldichironomus holoprasinus 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Kieffurulussp. 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Limnophora sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Nanocladius sp. 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Nim bocera pinderi 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 Orthocladiinae sp. 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 Parachironomus directus 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Parachironomus hirtalatus 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Parachironomus sp. 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 Parachironomus subleti 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Parakiefferiella coronata 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Paramerina sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Paratanytarsus sp. 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 Polypedilum halterale 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 Probeaia sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Procladius bellus 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 Procladius sp. 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 Psectrocladius sp. 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 Tabanidae sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Tabanus sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Tanypus neopunctipennis 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 Tanytarsuslimneticus 3 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsus sp. 1 3 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsus sp. 3 3 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsus sp. (sp.1/sp.3) 3 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsus sp. 3 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Ephemeroptera Caenis sp. 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 Callibaetis sp. 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 3 0 Hemiptera Abedus/Belostoma complex 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Corixidae sp. 0 0 3 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 Pelocoris femoratus 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Trichocorixa sexcinta 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 II-C-40 Table II-C4 (continued). Taxa Trophic Designation Detritivore Parasite Carnivore Herbivore Functional Feeding Guild Designation1 GC2 FC2 SCR3 PRE GRA3 SHR4 Lepidoptera Synclita sp. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Odonata Aeshnaumbrosa 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Branchymesia gravida 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Coenagrionidae sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Enallagma sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Erythemis sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Ischnura sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Libellula sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Libellulidae sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Nannothemis Bella 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Pachydiplax longipennis 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Perithemis sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Perithemis tenera 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Plecoptera Peltoperla sp. 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Tricoptera Oecetis inconspicua 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Oecetis sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Malacostraca Amphipoda Ameroculodes sp. complex 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Apocorophium lacustre 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Apocorophium louisianum 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Apocorophium sp. 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Apocorophium sp_ (lacustrellouisianum) 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Gammarus mucronatus 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 Gammarus tigrinus 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 2 0 1 Haustoriidae sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 Haustorius sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 Lepidactylus dytiscus 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Leptocheirus plumulosus 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Melita nitida 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Parahaustorius holmesi 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Platorchestia (Orchestia) platensis 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Uhlorchestia (Orchestia) uhled 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Decapoda Callinectes sapidus 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 Caridea sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palaemonetes pugio 3 0 1 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 Procambarus sp. 3 0 2 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 Rhithropanopeus harrisii 3 0 3 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 Isopoda Cassidinidea lunifrons 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Cassidinidea ovalis 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Cyathura polita 3 0 1 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 Edotiamontosa 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Edotia triloba 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Edotia sp. 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Erichsonella filiiformis 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 Mysida Americamysis (Mysidopsis) almyra 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Americamysis (Mysidopsis) bigelow 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Americamysis(Mysidopsis)sp. 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Mysidae sp. 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Tanaidacea Hargeria rapax 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Maxillopoda Calanoida sp. 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Harpacticoida sp. 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Sessilia Balanus improvisus 3 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Balanus sp. 3 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Ostracoda Candonidae sp. 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cyprideis littoralis 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Ostracoda sp. 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 II-C-41 Table II-C4 (concluded). Taxa Trophic Designation Detritivore Parasite Carnivore Herbivore Functional Feeding Guild Designation' GC2 FC2 SCR3 PRE GRA3 SHR4 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria sp. 2 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 Mollusca Bivalvia Bivalvia sp. 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Geukensia demissa 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Macoma balthica 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Macoma tenta 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Macoma sp. 3 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 Mactridae sp. 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Mulinia laterals 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Mytilopsis Ieucophaeata 2 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Rangia cuneata 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 Gastropoda Detracia floridana 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Elysia chlorotica 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 Gastropoda sp. 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 Littoridinops tenuipes 3 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 Littoridinops sp. (tenuipes) 3 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 Littoridinops sp. 3 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 Nudibranchia sp. 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 Physidae sp. (physa/physella) 3 0 2 3 0 0 3 1 3 0 Sacoglossa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nemertea Nemertea sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Nematoda Nematoda sp. 2 3 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 Platyhelminthes Planariidae sp. 2 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 Platyhelminthes sp. 2 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 Turbellaria sp. 2 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 GC = Gatherer/Collector, FC = Filter/Collector; SCR = Scraper, PRE = Predator; GRA = Grazer, SHR = Shredder 2 feeds on decomposing Fine Particulate Organic Matter (FPOM) 3 feeds on periphyton (algae and associated material) 4 feeds on decomposing vascular plant tissue and wood- Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) II-C-42 Table II-05. Calculated averages of three different benthic parameters for pre and post -Mod Alt L years for each creek. The pre and post -Mod Alt L years for each control creek were calculated using their corresponding impact creek. The cumulative average is calculating all the years, whether that was pre or post years. The "n" is the number of sampling years for each pre, post -Mod Alt L years, and the cumulative years. UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM CREEK NAME Parameters Average (MIN -WAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -MAX) for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -MAX) for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) BROOMFIELD SVVAMP CREEK n=3 n=0 n=3 n=3 n=0 n=3 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 455 (264-809) - 455 - 24 - 1.44 Total abundance 649 (380-821) - 649 - 29 - 1.49 24 (16-30) Total taxa EBI 29 (17-41) 1.44 (1.31-1.54) 1.49 (1.34-1.64) COMPARED TO BROOMFIELD SVVAMP CREEK n=3 n=0 n=3 n=3 n=0 n=3 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 641 (401-944) - 641 25 1.32 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 727 (446-997) - 727 - 27 - 1.84 25 (20-28) - 27 (18-35) 1.32 (1.18-1.53) - 1.84 (1.72-1.98) JACKS CREEK n=12 n=7 n=19 n=12 n=7 n=19 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,856 (783-3,529) 1,668 (901-2,480) 32 (27-37) 1,786 Total abundance 1,285 (589-2,477) 1,264 (304-2,189) 1,277 28 (19-33) 29 1.96 (1.74-2.04) 1.96 30 (18-42) 30 1.84 Total taxa 29 (19-45) 1.86 (1.59-2.07) 1.81 (1.69-1.92) EBI 1.96 (1.77-2.19) (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACKS CREEK n=12 n=7 n=23 n=12 n=7 n=23 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,504 (602-2,521) 1,566 (1,222-1,964) 34 (24-40) 1.91 (1.75-2.03) 1,527 Total abundance 1,567 (532-3,062) 1,456 (784-1,960) 29 (23-32) 1,456 31 1.96 31 (26-39) 32 Total taxa 33 (25-50) 1.87 (1.67-2.05) 1.91 EBI 1.96 (1.77-2.42) 1.96 (1.87-2.09) (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACKS CREEK n=4 n=7 n=11 n=4 n=7 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,396 (1,148-2,002) 968 (404-1,279) 25 (15-29) 1,124 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,091 (843-1,363) 969 (59-1,502) 1,013 29 1.97 24 (22-27) 25 32 (28-36) 28 (16-36) 1.76 (1.58-1.92) 1.59 (1.42-1.79) 1.65 2.03 (1.84-2.25) 1.93 (1.79-2.08) i JACOBS CREEK n=3 n=8 n=11 n=3 n=8 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,392 (937-1,678) 1,229 (718-1,644) 1,273 Total abundance 1,261 (1,024-1,523) 1,516 (890-2,198) 1,447 32 1.96 25 (19-32) 27 (21-34) 27 Total taxa 31 (29-33) 32 (29-35) 2.19 (2.05-2.40) 1.82 (1.63-1.92) 1.92 EBI 2.07 (2.05-2.10) 1.91 (1.80-2.01) COMPARED TO JACOBS CREEK YEARS n=3 n=8 n=11 In=3 n=8 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,577 (1,312-1,916) 1,522 (977-2,040) 1,537 Total abundance 1,365 (1,263-1,502) 1,559 (1,123-2,183) 1,506 28 1.89 25 (23-27) 27 (19-31) _26 1.87 Total taxa 24 (21-28) 29 (26-31) 2.11 (2.02-2.23) 1.78 (1.70-1.86) EBI 2.12 (1.82-2.33) 1.80 (1.75-1.84) (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACOBS CREEK n=3 n=8 n=11 n=3 n=8 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,463 (1,148-2,002) 968 (404-1,279) 25 (15-29) 1,124 Total abundance Total taxa 1,119 (843-1,363) 973 (59-1,502) i 1,013 24 (22-27) 25 32 (28-36) 28 (16-36) 28 1.97 1.82 (1.77-1.92) 1.59 (1.42-1.79) 1.65 EBI 2.09 (1.99-2.25) 1.92 (1.79-2.08) (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACOBS CREEK n=3 n=8 n=11 n=3 n=8 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,101 (740-1,588) 1,607 (250-2,930) 1,469 Total abundance 926 (777-1,109) 1,085 (530-1,566) 1,042 27 i 2.00 28 (23-33) 30 (21-40) 29 Total taxa 28 (24-30) 27 (17-37) 1.89 (1.70-2.05) 1.86 (1.64-2.03) 1.87 EBI 2.00 (1.97-2.04) 2.00 (1.86-2.12) I I-C-43 Table II-05 (continued). UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM CREEK NAME Parameters Average (MINI -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MINI -MAX) for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MINI -MAX) for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) uJ w < w z 0 0 n=2 n=9 n=11 n=2 n-9 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,529 (1,026-2,032) 1,332 (596-1,777) 31 (28-34) 27 (22-31) 2.11 (1.96-2.25) 1.88 (1.75-1.98) 1,368 27 1.91 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,156 (981-1,330) 36 (33-38) 1,270 (884-1,785) 30 (24-40) 1.91 (1.78-2.04) 1.87 (1.73-2.04) 1,249 31 1.88 CO O H Et w o ~ w z�>- a z w w a U U n=2 n=9 n=11 n=2 n=9 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,710 (1,504-1,916) 1,499 (977-2,040) 27 (26-27) 2.16 (2.09-2.23) n = 2 26 (19-31) 1.80 (1.70-2.02) n = 9 1,537 26 1.87 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,416 (1,330-1,502) 1,526 (1,123-2,183) 25 (22-28) 28 (21-31) 1,506 28 2.28 (2.22-2.33) n=2 1.80 (1.75-1.84) n = 9 1.89 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,164 (740-1,588) 1,536 (250-2,930) 1,469 31 (29-33) r 29 (21-40) 1.99 (1.93-2.05) 1.84 (1.64-2.03) 29 1.87 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,001 (892-1,109) 1,051 (530-1,566) 27 (24-30) 28 (17-37) 2.01 (1.98-2.04) 1,042 27 1.99 (1.86-2.12) 2.00 TOOLEY CREEK n=6 n=10 n = 16 n=6 n=10 n=16 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,648 (918- 2,276) 1,701 (1,061-2,572) 1,681 29 (17-42) 29 (24-36) 29 1.96 (1.82-2.08) 1.90 (1.80-2.08) 1.91 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,661 (1,005-3,360) 36 (31-47) 1.90 (1.81-1.96) 1,209 (321-2,425) 1,182 29 (18-34) 30 1.97 (1.80-2.07) 1.96 Total abundance Total taxa EBI n=6 n=10 1,844 (1,224-2,521) I 1,445 (602-1,964) 30 (23-38) 32 (24-40) 1.81 (1.67-1.89) 1.90 (1.72-2.05) n = 16 1,595 32 1.90 Total abundance Total taxa EBI n=6 1,893 (1,131-3,062) 36 (30-50) 1.91 (1.77-2.00) n=10 n=16 1,410 (532-1,960) 1,592 29 (23-34) _32 1.96 (1.87-2.15) 1.96 HUDDLES CUT n=6 n=12 n=18 n=6 n=12 n=18 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 635 (277-1,040) 685 (219-1,647) 19 (13-25) 22 (15-29) 2.03 (1.91-2.22) 1.98 (1.72-2.13) 642 21 2.01 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 349 (206-527) 440 (75-1,057) 410 22 (18-26) 2.02 (1.74-2.20) 20 (12-33) 21 2.15 (1.93-2.36) 2.11 n=6 n = 12 n=18 n=6 n=12 n=18 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,489 (882-2,134) 1,504 (602-2,370) 31 (27-38) 1.91 (1.70-2.42) 31 (23-40) 1.89 (1.72-2.05) 1,499 31 1.89 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,194 (712-2,318) 1,481 (532-1,997) 1,385 32 (27-37) 30 (23-34) 30 2.02 (1.77-2.47) 1.97 (1.87-2.15) 1.99 PORTER CREEK n = 5 n=6 n=11 n = 5 n=6 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,914 (1,208-2,804) 1,067 (765-1,578) 26 (21-34) 27 (21-33) 1.90 (1.85-2.05) 1.89 (1.59-2.03) 1,452 27 1.90 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,279 (667-1,791) 855 (180-1,194) 1,048 31 (28-33) 22 (16-26) 26 2.07 (2.01-2.18) 2.02 (1.82-2.08) 2.04 n=5 n=6 n=11 n = 5 n=6 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,242 (627-1,956) 1,442 (966-1,702) 1,351 25 (21-30) 1.77 (1.64-1.92) 26 (19-34) 26 1.64 (1.50-1.92) 1.70 Total abundance Total taxa EBI 1,582 (1,082-2,172) 1,000 (574-1,315) 1,264 28 (26-32) 24 (20-32) 24 1.95 (1.90-2.02) I 2.04 (1.89-2.13) 2.00 I I-C-44 Table II-05 (concluded). UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM CREEK Average (MIN -MAX) Average (MIN -MAX) Cunulative Average Average (MIN -MAX) Average (MIN -MAX) Cun ulativ2 Average NAME Parameters for Pre -Mod Alt L for Post -Mod Alt L (all years sampled) Parameters for Pre -Mod Alt L for Post -Mod Alt L (all years sampled) years years years years DCUT11 n=5 n=4 n=9 n=5 n=4 n=9 Total abundance 1,408 (1,008-1,750) 1,066 (421-1,677) 1,256 Total abundance 1,708 (1,229-2,205) 1,122 (374-1,896) 1,447 Total taxa 25 (22-29) 28 (25-30) 26 Total taxa 28 (24-31) 26 (19-32) 1 27 EBI 1.84 (1.75-1.90) 1.76 (1.46-2.07) 1.76 EBI 1.91 (1.80-2.03) 1.80 (1.50-2.03) 1.86 DCUT19 (CONTROL) COMPARED TO DCUTT11 YEARS n=5 n=4 n=9 n=5 n=4 n=9 Total abundance 1,431 (823-2,011) 1,081 (674-1,390) 1,275 Total abundance 2,123 (1,653-2,471) 1,117 (456-1,660) 1,675 Total taxa 29 (23-33) 25 (24-26) 27 Total taxa 33 (29-35) 27 (23-32) 30 EBI 1.83 (1.78-1.87) 1.82 (1.54-2.00) 1.82 EBI 1.85 (1.74-1.97) 1.90 (1.81-1.99) 1.88 DUCK CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO DCUTT11 YEARS n=5 n=4 n=11 n=5 n=4 n=11 Total abundance 1,461 (627-1,956) 1,368 (966-1,700) 1,368 Total abundance 1,450 (1,175-2,172) 878 (574-1,237) 1,264 Total taxa 27 (21-34) 24 (19-29) 26 Total taxa 26 (20-32) 26 (22-32) 26 EBI 1.70 (1.53-1.92) 1.65 (1.50-1.92) 1.70 EBI 2.01 (1.91-2.13) 2.00 (1.89-2.07) 2.00 II-C-45 Table II-C6. Calculated averages of four different benthic parameters for pre and post -Mod Alt L years for each creek. The pre and post -Mod Alt L years for each control creek were calculated using their corresponding impact creek. The cumulative average is calculating all the years, whether that was pre or post years. The "n" is the number of sampling years for each pre, post -Mod Alt L years, and the cumulative years. UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM CREEK NAME Parameters Average (MIN -WAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -WAX) for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -WAX) for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) BROOMFIELD SVVAMP CREEK n=3 n=0 n=3 n=3 n=0 n=3 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 244 (87-347) - 244 9 1.57 1.1 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 179 (37-356) 12 (10-14) 179 12 1.49 1.38 9 (5-12) - 1.57 (1.21-1.76) - 1.49 (1.16-2.02) 1.10 (1.03-1.22) - 1.38 (1.02-1.91) SCUT1 (CONTROL) COMPARED TO BROOMFIELD SVVAMP CREEK YEARS n=3 n = 0 n=3 n=3 n=0 n=3 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 411 (334-509) 411 14 1.58 1.34 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 196 (92-277) 196 14 (7-18) 11 (8-16) 11 1.62 1.66 1.58 (0.99-2.02) - 1.62 (1.00-2.13) - 1.34 (1.05-1.74) 1.66 (1.25-1.96) - 1 JACKS CREEK n=12 n=7 n=19 n=12 n=7 n=19 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 605 (215-1,356) 297 (90-636) 17 (12-24) 492 17 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 644 (183-1,639) 455 (192-831) 574 17 (5-30) 18 (11-23) 16 (10-25) 17 1.65 (0.72-2.33) 2.01 (1.67-2.22) 1.78 1.85 (1.24-2.51) 1.57 (0.80-2.08) 1.75 1.61 (1.07-2.00) 1.63 (1.18-1.99) 1.62 1.53 (1.11-2.13) 1.74 (1.17-2.33) 1.61 MUDDY CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACKS CREEK YEARS n=12 n=7 n=23 n=12 n=7 n=23 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 286 (46-1,191) 11 (6-21) 1.48 (0.82-2.01) 1.51 (1.05-2.05) 258 (199-307) 276 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 483 (162-1,329) 374 (61-592) 443 12 (7-16) 12 18 (12-25) 17 (13-20) 18 1.49 (0.71-2.19) 1.49 1.85 (1.03-2.54) 1.64 (0.63-2.31) 1.77 1.50 (1.07-2.02) 1.51 1.54 (1.24-1.87) 1.58 (1.12-2.02) 1.55 LITTLE CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACKS CREEK YEARS n=4 n=7 n=11 n=4 n=7 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 286 (46-1,191) 258 (199-307) 276 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 483 (162-1,329) 885 (354-2,018) 933 19 1.79 1 1.66 11 (6-21) 15 (6-19) 15 18 (12-25) 18 (11-25) 1.48 (0.82-2.01) 1.65 (1.08-2.11) 1.70 1.85 (1.03-2.54) 1.75 (0.38-2.40) 1.51 (1.05-2.05) 1.66 (1.38-2.00) 1.68 1.54 (1.24-1.87) 1.62 (1.06-1.90) II-C-46 Table II-C6 (continued). UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM CREEK NAME Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -MAC for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -MAC for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) JACOBS CREEK n=3 n=8 n=11 n=3 n=8 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 783 (395-1,277) 494 (59-1,163) 573 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 609 (592-628) 19 (12-24) 532 (213-877) 553 18 (18-18) 18 (12-23) 18 19 (14-23) 19 2.00 (1.92-2.10) 2.07 (1.45-2.48) 2.05 1.82 (1.58-2.10) 1.87 (0.47-2.42) 1.91 2.05 (1.66-2.27) 1.66 (1.13-2.00) 1.77 1.77 (1.57-2.17) 1.66 (1.11-2.27) 1.69 PA2 (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACOBS CREEK YEARS n=3 n=8 n=11 n=3 n=8 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 595 (414-784) 456 (305-589) 494 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 555 (439-776) 763 (137-1,392) 706 20 1.94 1.91 13 (7-18) 16 (13-19) 15 16 (12-19) 21 (11-27) 1.62 (1.07-2.26) 1.64 (1.23-2.28) 1.63 1.77 (1.15-2.31) 2.01 (1.46-2.46) 2.36 (1.89-2.87) 1.63 (1.18-2.19) 1.83 2.34 (1.80-2.82) 1.75 (1.38-2.06) LITTLE CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACOBS CREEK YEARS n=3 n=8 n=11 n=3 n=8 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 1,290 (610-1,865) 663 (69-1,297) 834 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 1,058 (533-2,023) 886 (354-2,018) 933 16 (11-23) 14 (6-19) 15 22 (16-28) 18 (11-25) 19 1.72 (1.23-2.27) 1.69 (1.08-2.11) 1.70 1.91 (1.39-2.34) 1.75 (0.38-2.40) 1.79 1.81 (1.71-1.95) 1.64 (1.38-2.00) 1.68 1.84 (1.71-1.98) 1.59 (1.06-1.90) 1.66 LONG CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO JACOBS CREEK YEARS n=3 n=8 n=11 n=3 n=8 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 607 (376-941) 497 (86-822) 527 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 449 (216-769) 394 (70-941) 409 18 (14-22) 19 (8-32) 19 14 (11-16) 15 (9-22) 14 1.73 (1.49-2.04) 1.71 (0.54-2.56) 1.71 1.64 1.41 (1.25-1.71) 1.60 (0.54-2.66) 1.54 1.85 (1.36-2.31) 1.64 (1.18-2.05) 1.64 (1.44-2.76) 1.52 (1.06-2.03) 1.55 DRINKVVATER CREEK n=2 n=9 n=11 n=2 n=9 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 1,252 (1,236-1,267) 582 (242-973) 704 - 19 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 950 (810-1,089) 662 (161-1,140) 714 22 (21-22) 19 (11-23) 19 (16-21) 18 (12-23) 18 2.20 (2.08-2.32) 1.94 (1.58-2.32) 1.99 1.84 (1.34-2.33) 1.82 (0.59-2.46) 1.82 1.79 (1.70-1.88) 1.77 (1.59-2.10) 1.78 1.95 (1.68-2.22) 1.68 (1.09-2.23) 1.73 PA2 (CONTROL) COMPARED TO DRINKVVATER CREEK YEARS n=2 n=9 n=11 n=2 n=9 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 685 (586-784) 452 (305-589) 494 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 608 (439-776) 728 (137-1,392) 706 20 1.94 1.91 13 (7-18) 16 (13-19) 15 16 (12-19) 21 (11-27) 1.67 (1.07-2.26) 1.63 (1.23-2.28) 1.63 1.73 (1.15-2.31) 1.99 (1.46-2.46) 2.10 (1.89-2.31) 1.76 (1.18-2.87) 1.83 2.10 (1.80-2.39) 1.87 (1.38-2.82) LONG CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO DRINKVVATER CREEK YEARS n=2 n=9 n=11 n=2 n=9 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 440 (376-503) 546 (86-941) 527 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 493 (216-769) 13 (11-15) 390 (70-941) 15 (9-22) 390 14 1.54 , 1.55 16 (14-18) 19 (8-32) 19 1.77 (1.49-2.04) 1.70 (0.52-2.56) 1.71 1.26 (1.25-1.26) 1.61 (0.54-2.66) 1.84 (1.36-2.31) 1.67 (1.18-2.05) 1.70 1.74 (1.72-1.76) 1.51 (1.06 -2.03) II-C-47 Table II-C6 (continued). UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM CREEK NAME Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -MAX) for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -MAC for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) TOOLEY CREEK n=6 n=10 n=16 n=6 n=10 n=16 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 449 (138-937) 280 (50-942) 343 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 658 (270-1,088) 725 (272-1,415) 681 16 (11-24) 17 (11-23) 17 18 (11-25) 18 (11-24) 18 1.67 (0.49-2.30) 2.03 (1.22-2.43) 2.05 1.87 (1.37-2.31) 1.56 (0.68-2.28) 1.64 1.65 (1.16-2.09) 1.64 (1.15-2.03) 1.64 1.67 (1.22-2.07) 1.54 (1.16-1.86) 1.57 MUDDY CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO TOOLEY CREEK YEARS n=6 n=10 n=16 n=6 n=10 n=16 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 373 (51-1,191) 222 (49-307) 278 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 546 (139-1,329) 374 (61-592) 438 11 (6-21) 11 (7-16) 11 19 (15-25) 17 (14-20) 18 1.34 (0.82-1.77) 1.41 (0.71-2.19) 1.42 1.85 (1.08-2.45) 1.70 (0.63-2.31) 1.76 1.55 (1.17-2.05) 1.46 (1.05-2.02) 1.46 1.58 (1.28-1.81) 1.55 (1.12-2.02) 1.56 HUDDLES CUT n=6 n=12 n=18 n=6 n=12 n=18 Total abundance Total taxa 178 (46-300) 320 (97-596) 273 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 572 (220-1,291) 745 (108-1,980) 687 16 (10-20) 16 (3-25) 16 1.69 1.52 18 (11-24) 16 (7-24) 17 Shannon -Wiener 1.86 (1.56-2.41) 1.71 (0.32-2.52) 1.90 (1.39-2.40) 1.86 (1.24-2.56) 1.81 EBI 1.56 (1.12-1.98) 1.50 (1.09-1.85) 1.52 (1.13-1.81) 1.96 (1.49-3.08) 1.83 MUDDY CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO HUDDLES CUT YEARS n=6 n=12 n=18 n=6 n=12 n=18 Total abundance 211 (35-546) 210 (49-307) 262 11 1.36 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 360 (91-637) 434 (61-1,329) 406 Total taxa 11 (6-19) 11 (7-16) 19 (12-26) 18 (14-24) 18 Shannon -Wiener 1.63 (0.82-2.37) 1.36 (0.71-2.19) 2.00 (1.08-2.52) 1.75 (0.63-2.31) 1.80 EBI 1.45 (1.14-2.00) 1.43 (1.05-2.02) 1.47 1.62 (1.28-2.01) 1.57 (1.12-2.02) 1.59 PORTER CREEK n=5 n=6 n=11 n=5 n=6 n=11 Total abundance 1,167 (317-2,136) 736 (232-1,335) 932 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 410 (123-628) 527 (356-743) 474 Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 19 (15-22) 16 (11-21) 17 13 (10-19) 14 (9-17) 13 1.96 (1.53-2.30) 1.77 (1.61-2.08) 1.86 1.45 (0.79-1.87) 1.39 (0.49-2.03) 1.42 1.87 (1.80-1.96) 1.86 (1.68-2.06) 1.87 1.50 (1.20-1.94) 1.55 (1.14-1.89) 1.52 DUCK CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO PORTER CREEK YEARS n=5 n=6 n=11 n=5 n=6 n=11 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener 1,498 (600-1,944) 466 (122-1,307) 935 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 720 (438-1,206) 551 (147-998) 628 16 (15-19) 13 (8-19) 14 18 (16-20) 17 (11-25) 17 2.11 (1.93-2.20) 1.85 (1.34-2.27) 1.96 1.78 1.45 (0.83-2.19) 1.78 (1.04-2.20) 1.63 EBI 1.75 (1.54-1.86) 1.81 (1.64-2.01) 1.58 (1.27-1.91) 1.69 (1.31-2.25) 1.64 I I-C-48 Table II-C6 (concluded). UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM CREEK NAME Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -MAC for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) Parameters Average (MIN -MAX) for Pre -Mod Alt L years Average (MIN -MAC for Post -Mod Alt L years Cumulative Average (all years sampled) DCUT11 n=5 n=4 n=9 n=5 n=4 n=9 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener 1,239 (446-2,192) 759 (104-1,535) 1,026 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 998 (248-1,575) 1,205 (542-2,105) 1,090 18 (12-21) 17 (10-22) 18 20 (14-28) 18 (15-22) 19 1.68 (1.17-2.12) 2.05 (1.71-2.42) 1.84 1.69 (1.31-2.19) 1.80 (1.55-1.96) 1.74 EBI 1.92 (1.84-2.01) 1.89 (1.80-1.99) 1.91 1.88 (1.67-2.07) 1.90 (1.73-2.05) 1.89 DCUT19 (CONTROL) COMPARED TO DCUT11 CREEK YEARS n=5 n=4 n=9 n=5 n=4 n=9 Total abundance 893 (170-1,169) 640 (402-796) 780 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 1,683 (935-2,641) 1,325 (636-2,040) 1,524 Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 18 (13-21) 16 (13-20) 17 2.08 1.89 23 (20-27) 19 (13-25) 21 2.21 (1.95-2.49) 1.92 (1.67-2.32) 2.21 (1.84-2.74) 1.76 (1.25-2.13) 2.00 1.85 (1.71-1.98) 1.95 (1.63-2.12) 1.80 (1.71-2.03) 1.80 (1.71-1.88) 1.80 n=5 n=4 n=11 n=5 n=4 n=11 DUCK CREEK (CONTROL) COMPARED TO DCUT11 CREEK YEARS Total abundance 1,121 (580-1,944) 228 (122-365) 935 14 1.96 1.78 Total abundance Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 483 (147-633) 639 (285-998) 628 Total taxa Shannon -Wiener EBI 16 (11-19) 11 (8-15) 19 (16-25) 15 (11-21) 17 2.06 (1.75-2.17) 1.85 (1.34-2.27) 1.67 (0.83-2.20) 1.78 (1.04-2.20) 1.63 1.77 (1.54-1.86) 1.81 (1.64-2.01) 1.69 (1.27-2.25) 1.54 (1.31-1.77) 1.64 II-C-49