20080868 Ver 2_Section II C Q3 Forage Base 2020 PCS Creeks Report_20210701

C. 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 12 distinct
groups of statistical significance between years (Figure II-C1). To simplify discussion of the
data set, colored lines on the cluster dendrograms represent non -significant structure among
factors (e.g., years, creeks) at the 1 percent level (P = 0.01). Comparison of interannual
variability between clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that
similarity ranged from 2 to 47 percent. Clusters A, B, C, D, and E consisted of all creeks/years
sampled by fyke net. Cluster A contained five of eight years for DCUT11 and DCUT19 2016.
Cluster B contained five DCUT 19 years (2015 and 2017-2020) and the three other DCUT11
years (2013-2014 and 2020). Cluster C contained 15 of the 17 years for Huddles Cut. Cluster
D contained DCUT19 2013 and 2014. Cluster E contained Huddles Cut 2014 and 2015. Cluster
F contained one post -Mod Alt L creek/year: Jacks Creek 2016, one control creek/year: SCUT1
2019, and two pre -Mod Alt L creek/years: Broomfield Swamp Creek 2019-2020. Cluster G was
tied for being the largest and contained creek/years (38) for most of the trawl creeks with a
mixture of 23 pre- and post -Mod Alt L creek/years and 15 control creek/years; each of the four
impact creeks in the cluster had both pre- and post -Mod Alt L years and all had a matched
control creek/year for at least one post -Mod Alt L year. Cluster H contained mostly Jacks and
Muddy creek/years with the one post -Mod Alt L year matched, Little Creek 2020, and
Drinkwater Creek 2013 (post -Mod Alt L year with no control/creek year match). Similar to G,
cluster I contained 38 creek/years and across nine different creeks with 19 control creek/years
and 19 pre- and post -Mod Alt L creek/years; four of the five impact creeks in the cluster had
both pre- and post -Mod Alt L years and all five had a matched control creek/year for at least one
post -Mod Alt L year. Cluster J contained the third most creek/years (19) with only one pre -Mod
Alt L year (Porter 2015), nine post -Mod Alt L creek/years, and nine control/creek years; all five
creeks in the cluster had a matched control creek/year for at least one post -Mod Alt L year.
Cluster K contained four 2011 creek/years: Little, Long, Duck, and Porter. Cluster L contained
eight PA2 creek/years, three creeks sampled in 1999: Muddy, Jacks, and Tooley, and Muddy
2011.
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
A 6 3 2 1 Five of eight DCUT11 years and DCUT19 2016 (all fykes)
B 8 2 1 5 DCUT11 and DCUT19 years (all fykes)
C 15 6 9 0 Huddles Cut 1999-2001, 2007-2013, 2016-2020 (all fykes)
D 2 0 0 2 DCUT192013-2014(allfykes)
E 2 0 2 0 Huddles Cut 2014-2015 (all fykes)
F 5 2 2 1 Jacks Creek 2016, Broomfield Swamp Creek 2019-2020and SCUT12019
G 38 13 10 15 Eight of the 15 creeks
H 10 3 1 6 FourJacks Creek and five Muddy Creek years, Drinkwater Creek 2013, and Little Creek 2020
I 38 6 13 19 Nine of the 15creeks
1 19 1 9 9 Nine of the 15 creeks
K 4 1 0 3 Little, Long, Duck, and Porter creeks 2011
L 12 2 0 10 Eight PA2 years, Muddy Creek 1999 and 2011, and Jacks and Tooley creeks 1999
Corresponding years from impact creeks Jacks Creek and Tooley Creek
grouped together in the same cluster as Muddy Creek (control) for seven of 13 years and two of
the three creeks grouped together in the same cluster 12 of 13 years. Jacks Creek years
include 1999-2005 and 2011-2020, Tooley Creek years include 1999-2001 and 2010-2020 and
Muddy Creek years include 1999-2005 and 2010-2020. All three creeks clustered separately in
II-C-1

2016: Jacks Creek in F; Tooley in J; while Muddy was in I. Jacobs and Drinkwater creeks
grouped within the same clusters eight of 10 years; exceptions were 2013 and 2015 when
Jacobs Creek pre -Mod Alt L 2013 and post -Mod Alt L 2015 were in G and Drinkwater Creek
post -Mod Alt L 2013 and 2015 were in H (2013) and J (2015), due to differences in CPUE of
bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), rainwater killifish (Lucania parva), and pinfish (Lagodon
rhomboides). Drinkwater Creek post -Mod Alt L 2013 was the only creek sampled in 2013 that
clustered within H due to higher catches of spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) and similar catches of
Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), bay anchovy, and Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia
tyrannus).
Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) was used to determine which species drive cluster formation. A
summary of the average catch per unit effort (CPUE) of dominant species across the 12 clusters
is shown in Table II-C1. Cluster A had the least similar fish assemblage makeup from all other
creeks and years and was the most dissimilar from F, G, J, I, K, and H, driven by differences in
CPUE of pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), spot, Atlantic croaker, bay anchovy, Atlantic
menhaden, mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) and to a lesser
extent, pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) (Table II-C1). Although more species contributed to
dissimilarities in CPUE between clusters B, C, D and E and all other clusters, the main
difference was the abundance of mummichog captured in fyke nets from both DCUT19 and
Huddles Cut (Table II-C1). The four sample years in cluster F were characterized by low
diversity with catches predominantly consisting of bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, and Atlantic
menhaden. Years in both clusters G and I (the two largest among the 12 clusters) grouped
together due to similarities in CPUE of the most common species collected by trawl (e.g., spot,
Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, and pinfish) (Table II-C1). Cluster H
displayed the second highest CPUE of spot among all clusters. Cluster J consisted mostly
creek/years since 2015 with consistently lower CPUE for most. Cluster K grouped together due
to similarity in CPUE of bay anchovy, spot, and Atlantic menhaden and the fact that the three
species accounted for at least 82 percent of the total catch in all four creeks for 2011. Cluster L
creek/years grouped predominantly due to similarity in CPUE of spot, rainwater killifish (Lucania
parva), inland silverside (Menidia beryllina), and to a lesser extent, eastern mudminnow (Umbra
pygmaea) (Table I I-C1).
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 = 0.255; P = 0.027, Global R = 0.496; P =
0.022, and Global R = 0.403; 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; 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). As stated in the Executive Summary, low CPUE observed
locally throughout South Creek and surrounding tributaries in both 2016-2017 caused most
creeks of those representative years to cluster within J. 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).
II-C-2

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 for all are grouped among other pre -Mod Alt L
creeks/years and control creeks/years (see Section III for further analysis).
2.0 Fish Guilds
Refer to Appendix A -Section H for detailed description of the process of fish
species guild assignment. Each species caught in trawl or fyke nets was assigned to one of five
trophic guilds: zoobenthivore, zooplanktivore, piscivore, herbivore, or omnivore (Table II-C2).
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. Atlantic menhaden accounted for nearly 2
percent of the total catch in 2020. To date, 63 species have been identified to species; 38 are
designated as zoobenthivore, 12 as zooplanktivore, 10 as omnivore, two as piscivore, and one
as herbivore.
To examine relationships of trophic guilds among all creeks and all years,
multivariate cluster analysis was conducted. A SIMPROF analysis revealed 16 different clusters
only one of which contained only fyke creek/years (Figure II-C2). 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. All but one cluster contained at least one year from a control
creek, a pre -Mod Alt L creek, and a post -Mod Alt L creek; only cluster L lacked any pre -Mod Alt
L creek years containing just post -Mod Alt L Huddles Cut 2016 and Little Creek 2013. Ten of the
16 clusters contained at least one impact creek with both pre- and post -Mod Alt L creek years
for itself. Eight clusters of the 16 had at least one creek with only post -Mod Alt L years for that
creek; of those eight, six had at least one post -Mod Alt L creek/year with no matched control
creek/year. Most of the differences between clusters were driven by variation in the relative
abundance of zoobenthivores, zooplanktivores, and omnivores. Figure II-C3 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-C3) and herbivore is too
uncommon to show.
II-C-3

Number and Type of Creek/Year per Cluster (Guild)
Total Number of Years by Creek Type
Cluster ID Creek/Years Pre Post Control Notes
A 5 2 1 2 Five creeks and three years
B 12 6 1 5 Seven creeks and six years
C 22 4 5 13 12 creeks and nine years
D 7 1 2 4 Six creeks and three 2015years
E 12 1 4 7 Eight creeks and four years
F 18 3 5 10 Eight creeks and four Muddy Creek years
G 16 4 3 9 Nine creeks and four Muddy Creek years
H 12 5 5 2 Muddy Creek, Huddles Cut, and DCUTllyears
I 6 2 1 3 DCUT19, DCUT11and Huddles Cut years (onlyfyke)
J 8 3 3 2 Five creeks with three Huddles Cut years
K 5 2 1 2 Five creeks across five years
L 2 0 1 1 Little Creek 2013 and Huddles Cut 2016
M 7 2 4 1 Five creeks and three years
N 7 1 4 2 Five creeks and seven years between 2016-2018
0 4 1 1 2 Four creeks and four years
P 16 2 8 6 Nine creeks and eight years
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 2020 represented the second 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 catch saw a split between
zoobenthivores and zooplanktivores with one omnivore: bowfin (Amia Calva) and one piscivore:
longnose gar. 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 2011-2020; six post -Mod Alt L years were 2015-2020. Five clusters were detected among
the 17 years and the five guilds by SIMPROF (Figure II-C4). Cluster A contained two pre -Mod
Alt L years (2004 and 2011) and one post -Mod Alt L year (2018). Clusters B and C each
contained one pre -Mod Alt L year (2002 and 2012, respectively) 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 three post -Mod Alt L years (2016 and 2019-
2020). Clusters D and F are most similar to each other and different from clusters A, B, and C
which are most similar to each other. Jacks Creek trophic guild composition in the post -Mod Alt
L years did not significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = -0.078, P = 0.711).
I I-C-4

Jacks Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild, as was
every other creek and most every year in the study (Figure II-C3). The composition of trophic
guilds in Jacks Creek has been consistent since 1999, with some increase 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). In 2019
and 2020, zooplanktivores caught in Jacks Creek decreased from 2018 back to the average
catch.
Temporal variability among fish guilds within Jacks Creek displayed strong positive correlation
(0.637) among guild composition and three environmental variables: percent submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) visible at the surface (MANOVA: F = 5.33, P = 0.027), total dissolved
phosphorus (TDP) (MANOVA: F= 15.21, P = 0.001), and orthophosphate (PO4) (MANOVA: F =
6.40, P = 0.016).
ii. Jacobs Creek
Fish samples in Jacobs Creek were collected from 2011-2020,
with 2014-2020 considered post -Mod Alt L years. There were five significant clusters detected
among the guilds by SIMPROF (Figure II-05). Cluster A contained two pre -Mod Alt L years
(2011 and 2012), cluster B contained only post -Mod Alt L 2020, cluster C contained a pre- and
post -Mod Alt L year (2013 and 2015), and clusters, D, and E 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 = 0.321, P = 0.075).
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
decreasing since 2016. Omnivore numbers increased in 2018 for the first time since 2014;
however, omnivore presence decreased in 2019 and 2020 (Figure II-C3).
Drinkwater Creek
Fish samples in Drinkwater Creek were collected from 2011-2020,
with 2013-2020 considered post -Mod Alt L years. Three significant clusters were detected by
SIMPROF (Figure II-C6). 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), and cluster C contained the
remainder (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020). Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt
L years was significantly different from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.642, P = 0.0574).
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-C3). 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 (0.603) among guild composition and two environmental
variables: SAV (MANOVA: F = 33.51, P = 0.001) and dissolved oxygen (MANOVA: F = 9.33, P
= 0.017).
iv. Tooley Creek
Fish samples in Tooley Creek were collected from 1999-2001 and
from 2010-2020, with 2012-2020 considered post -Mod Alt L years among the 14 years of study
data. As has been the case since fish guilds were first discussed in the 2016 report, no clusters
II-C-5

were detected by SIMPROF. Trophic guild composition in post -Mod Alt L years did not
significantly differ from pre -Mod Alt L years (ANOSIM: R = 0.233, P = 0.063).
Relative abundance of zooplanktivore guild increased in most of
the post -Mod Alt L years until 2018-2020 (as was true for the same years in one control creek -
Duck) (Figure II-C3).
v. Huddles Cut
Fish samples in Huddles Cut were collected from 1999-2001 and
2007-2020, with 2010-2020 considered post -Mod Alt L years. Four clusters among the 17 years
were detected by SIMPROF (Figure II-C7). 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 two post -Mod Alt L years (2012 and 2020), 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=-0.057, P = 0.638).
Huddles Cut was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild,
although zooplanktivore contributed more to community structure in 2014 than in other years
(Figure II-C3). Contrary to most other creeks, relative abundance of omnivore remained rather
steady across almost all years.
vi. Porter Creek
Fish samples in Porter Creek were collected from 2011-2020, with
2016-2020 considered the post -Mod Alt L years. No clusters among the 10 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 = -0.057, P = 0.573).
Porter Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore and zooplanktivore guilds (Figure II-C3).
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 2013-2020. Five
years are considered pre -Mod Alt L (2013-2017) and three years are post -Mod Alt L (2018-
2020). Two clusters were detected by SIMPROF which were 85 percent similar; Cluster A
contained 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2018-2020) and cluster B contained only pre -Mod Alt L years
2014 and 2017 (Figure II-C8). DCUT11 was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild while all
other trophic guilds provided small contributions to community structure (Figure II-C3). 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 = -
0.221, P = 0.961).
c. Mod Alt L Control Creeks
i. SCUT1
2020 represented the second collection year for SCUT1. Fish
II-C-6

guilds in SCUT1 were only composed of zoobenthivore and zooplanktivore guilds, the majority
being zooplanktivores in 2019, while 2020 was 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 2011-2020. Two
significant clusters were detected among the 10 years by SIMPROF (Figure II-C9). 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-C3).
Zooplanktivore abundance decreased from 2016-2018, 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 (0.763) among guild composition and two environmental
variables: SAV (MANOVA: F = 17.23, P = 0.005) and dissolved oxygen (MANOVA: F = 28.00, P
= 0.0015).
PA2
Fish samples in PA2 were collected from 2011-2020. No clusters
among the 10 years were detected by SIMPROF.
PA2 was mostly composed of the zoobenthivore guild in all years;
however, omnivore and zooplanktivore consistently contributed toward community structure
(Figure II-C3).
Temporal variability among fish guilds within PA2 displayed strong
positive correlation (0.749) among guild composition and two environmental variables: TDN
(MANOVA: F = 7.78, P = 0.025) and nitrate (NO3) (MANOVA: F = 9.69, P = 0.016).
iv. Long Creek
Fish samples in Long Creek were collected from 2011-2020. Two
significant clusters were detected among the 10 years by SIMPROF (Figure II-C10). Cluster A
contained three years (2011, 2013, and 2018) with the three highest abundances of
zooplanktivores, and cluster B contained the remainder (2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019,
and 2020) characterized by mostly zoobenthivores. Cluster A was 75 percent similar to cluster
B.
Long Creek was mostly composed of zoobenthivore guild with
zooplanktivore also present in most years (Figure II-C3). The composition of trophic guilds in
Long Creek varied slightly in most years and 2019 was most similar to 2016. 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 2007-2020. Among the 21 years, there were seven clusters detected by SIMPROF (Figure
II-C-7

II-C11). 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 five years (2000, 2004, 2009,
2014, and 2016), 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-C3). 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 2013-2020. No
clusters among the eight 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-C3).
Temporal variability among fish guilds within DCUT19 displayed
strong positive correlation (0.846) among guild composition and two environmental variables:
pH (MANOVA: F = 23.52, P = 0.013) and salinity (MANOVA: F = 11.48, P = 0.037).
vii. Duck Creek
Fish samples in Duck Creek were collected from 2011-2020. Two
significant clusters were detected among the 10 years by SIMPROF (Figure II-C12). Cluster A
comprised two years (2011 and 2017) and B contained the other eight years (2012-2016 and
2018-2020). 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-C3).
Temporal variability among fish guilds within Duck Creek
displayed strong positive correlation (0.854) among guild composition and two environmental
variables: pH (MANOVA: F = 9.38, P = 0.014) and nitrate (NO3) (MANOVA: F = 6.24, P =
0.034).
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,
and both DCUT11 upstream and downstream fyke nets in 2015-2019. The highest score
(based on numbers/individuals captured) was at PA2 in 2017 (74) and lowest (0) at Porter
Creek in 2014, Tooley and Long creeks in 2017, Drinkwater and Duck creeks in 2019, both
II-C-8

DCUT11 upstream and downstream fyke nets in 2015-2017 and 2019, and DCUT11
downstream net in 2018. 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, for the years when grass shrimp were present, the three
lowest frequencies and scores for grass shrimp occurred in both 2016 and 2017 and in 2019 for
one of five trawl creeks with drainage basin reduction (Jacks Creek) and those years were also
among the lowest of three of the five trawl control creeks (Little, Muddy, and Duck creeks) out of
the 10 trawl creeks total. The years 2016 and 2017 were also the two lowest for Jacobs Creek
frequency and score for grass shrimp. Other than 2019, a year when frequencies and scores
were among the lowest for most creeks, the lowest frequency and score for Drinkwater Creek
and Tooley Creek was 2017. The lowest frequency and score for Huddles Cut occurred in the
upstream fyke net in 2013 and in the downstream fyke net in 2014 (both post -Mod Alt L years).
Conversely, highest frequencies and scores occurred in 2011 for Tooley Creek (pre -Mod Alt L),
in 2020 for Jacobs Creek (post -Mod Alt L), in 2012 for Porter Creek (pre -Mod Alt L), in 2020 for
Jacks Creek (post -Mod Alt L-) and in 2020 for Drinkwater (post -Mod Alt L). For Huddles Cut,
the highest frequency occurred in both upstream and downstream fyke nets in 2018 and highest
overall score was in the upstream fyke net in 2012 (no pre -Mod Alt L grass shrimp data are
available for Huddles Cut). With the exception of DCUT11, frequencies and scores of grass
shrimp from 10 years of qualitative data display similar variability across all Mod Alt L sample
creeks with lowest catches for most creeks occurring in 2016, 2017, and 2019.
4.0 Penaeid Shrimp and Blue Crab
These two groups also make up a component of the forage base in the creeks
and are discussed in more detail in the answer to Section II-D Question 4 about managed
species. Catch frequency of penaeid shrimp observed across most all creeks and gear type
varied between years; however, other than the DCUT19 upstream fyke net in both 2013 and
2018 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 10 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.
Two different characteristics: trophic level and functional feeding guild were used in the analysis
of each species collected in the ponar grabs. 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 used by a species to acquire food resources
and/or nutrients and consisted of six categories: gatherer/collector, filterer/collector, scraper,
grazer, shredder, and predator. Analysis included upstream and downstream datasets. Please
refer to Section III-G and Appendix A -Section H for detailed description of the process of guild
assignment and more description of statistical analyses performed.
Pre- and post -Mod Alt L averages were calculated for both sweeps and ponar
grab abundance and taxa richness data for all creeks in all years (Table II-05, Table II-C6). The
calculated averages for upstream sweeps show that two out of seven impact creeks had greater
macroinvertebrate abundance in post compared to pre -Mod Alt L, while downstream showed
II-C-9

four out of seven impact creeks having greater abundance in post -Mod Alt L (Table II-05). The
calculated averages for upstream ponars show that only one impact creek out of seven had
greater macroinvertebrate abundance in post -Mod Alt L (Huddles) than pre -Mod -Alt L, while
downstream had four impact creeks had greater abundance in post -Mod Alt L (Table II-C6). For
taxa richness, upstream sweeps showed that six out of the seven impact creeks had greater
taxa counts in post compared to pre -Mod Alt L, while downstream sweeps showed one impact
creek (Jacobs Creek) having greater taxa richness in post -Mod Alt L (Table II-05). For ponars,
calculated averages for taxa richness showed that four impact creeks out of seven for upstream
were greater in species richness in post compared to per -Mod Alt L, while downstream showed
three impact creeks having higher taxa richness in post -Mod Alt L.
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 31 distinct clusters (Figure II-C13). Cluster A contained only 2019 (one control
creek and one pre -Mod Alt L creek). Clusters U and AA contained all control creeks (DCUT19,
Duck, and Little). Clusters B, E, and K contained only one control creek (Long 2020, Little 2012,
and Muddy 2011, respectively). Nine clusters contained only control and pre- Mod Alt L creek
years (A, J, L, N, 0, P, S, AB, and AC). Five clusters contained only control creeks and post -
Mod Alt L years (F, G, Q, W, and X). Five clusters contained a mixture of control, pre and/or
post -Mod Alt L creek years (H, I, T, Y, and Z). Cluster V consisted one post -Mod Alt L creek -
year (Drinkwater 2017) and there were four clusters that consisted of only Huddles Cut years
(C, D, R, and AD).
Post -Mod Alt L creek -years in Jacks and Tooley creeks each clustered with a
matched control creek year or other self pre -Mod Alt L year. Jacobs, Drinkwater, DCUT11, and
Porter creeks post -Mod Alt L years also either clustered with a matched control creek year or a
matched pre -Mod Alt L year from another creek (except for Drinkwater 2017). Since most
Huddles Cut years have consistently clustered apart, there may be some unique aspect(s) of
Huddles Cut, regardless of mine activities.
Comparison of interannual variability between the 31 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.
Those 17 taxa were as follows (in order of the number of clusters wherein each taxa was a
major contributor of dissimilarity): Littoridinops spp., Cyathura polita, Goeldichironomus
devineyae, Tanytarsus spp., Chironomus spp., Apocorophium spp., Gammarus tigrinus,
Cyprideis littoralis, Paleomonetes pugio, Nematoda sp., Amphicteis floridus, Naididae (w/o hair),
Corixidae sp., Dicrotendipes nervosus, Cassidinidea lunifrons, Apedilum sp., and Enallagma.
Downstream sweeps: The downstream benthic sweep data analysis resulted in
21 distinct clusters (Figure II-C14). Cluster D contained only control creeks (three Muddy Creek
years). Nine clusters contained control creek and pre -Mod Alt L creek years (B, C, E, H, I, K, L,
N, and T). Clusters K and R contained control creek years and post -Mod Alt L creek years.
Eight clusters contained control, pre-, and post -Mod Alt L creek years (A, F, G, M, P, Q, S, and
U). Cluster 0 consisted of one post -Mod Alt L creek year (Huddles 2017). Cluster A consisted
of a pre -Mod Alt L impact creek and its nearby control creek for the year 2019 (Broomfield and
SCUT1). Cluster B consisted of only 1998 years (Jacks, Tooley, and Muddy), while cluster H
consisted of only 1999 years (Jacks, Tooley, and Muddy). Cluster S contained eight of the 15
creek years for 2018 and two from 2017. Cluster V contained the majority of the Huddles Cut
years, one control creek (Long 2020), and one other post -Mod Alt L creek (Tooley 2020).
II-C-10

Similar to the upstream results, the clustered Huddles Cut years suggest some characteristic
unique to Huddles Cut that differentiates it from other creeks in the study.
Similar to upstream sweeps, post -Mod Alt L creek -years in Jacks and Tooley
creeks each clustered with a matched control creek year or other self pre -Mod Alt L year.
Jacobs, Drinkwater, DCUT11, and Porter creeks post -Mod Alt L years also either clustered with
a matched control creek year or a matched pre -Mod Alt L year from another creek. Since most
Huddles Cut years have consistently clustered apart, there may be some unique aspect(s) of
Huddles Cut, regardless of mine activities.
Comparison of interannual variability between the 21 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. In
order of the number of clusters where each was a major contributor of dissimilarity, the 18 taxa
were: Hargeria rapax, Kiefferulus sp., Physidae sp., Americamysis almyra, Goeldichironomus
devineyae, Tanytarsus spp., Chironomus spp., Apocorophium spp., Gammarus tigrinus,
Cyprideis littoralis, Paleomonetes pugio, Nematoda sp., Amphicteis floridus, Corixidae sp.,
Dicrotendipes nervosus, Cassidinidea lunifrons, Apedilum sp., and Enallagma.
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 15 distinct clusters (Figure II-C15). No cluster consisted solely of pre- or
post -Mod Alt L years although clusters E and N consisted of only pre- and post -Mod Alt L years
for Huddles Cut. Clusters A and D contained only control creek years (Muddy Creek). Cluster E
contained both four pre- and eight post -Mod Alt L years for Huddles Cut with one other pre -Mod
Alt L creek (Tooley 2010). With the exception of Tooley 2020, cluster F contained only 2016
creek years (four post -Mod Alt L creeks and three control creeks). Only five clusters (G, H, K, L,
and 0) contained pre- and post -Mod Alt L and control creek years. All post -Mod Alt L creek
years in any cluster either matched a control creek year, a pre -Mod Alt L year for itself, or a
matched pre -Mod Alt L creek year for a different creek within the cluster. No cluster consisted
solely of post -Mod Alt L creek years.
Comparison of interannual variability between the 15 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 that each of the 20 taxa were a major contributor of dissimilarity,
the 20 taxa were: Nais sp., Procladius sp., Myzobdella lugubris, Cyathura polita, Chironomus
spp., Gammarus tigrinus, Littoridinops spp., Tanytarsus spp., Amphicteis floridus,
Apocorophium spp., Cyprideis littoralis, Candonidae sp., Macoma balthica, Naididae (w/o hair),
Streblospio benedicti, Bezzia/Palpomyia complex, Nematoda sp., Tanypus neopunctipennis,
Dicrotendipes nervosus, and Goeldichironomus devineyae.
Downstream ponars: The downstream benthic ponar data grouped into 27
distinct clusters (Figure II-C16). Two clusters contained only pre- and post -Mod Alt L creek
years (A and F); A consisted mainly of Huddles Cut years and F consisted of Jacks Creek.
Cluster C contained only one control creek year (Muddy 1998) and cluster Z contained only a
control creek (DCUT 19). Seven clusters contained only pre -Mod Alt L and control creek years
(B, D, E, I, L, U, and X). Nine clusters contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L and
control creek years (H, K, M, N, Q, R, W, Y, and AA). Cluster Q contained the largest number
of creek years with three pre- creek years, eight post -Mod Alt L creek years, and eight control
creek years.
II-C-11

Comparison of interannual variability between the 27 clusters by means of
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that variation in abundances of 21 taxa
predominantly drove cluster formation and caused most of the dissimilarity between clusters. In
order of the number of clusters each taxa was a major contributor of dissimilarity, the 21 taxa
were: Procladius sp., Mediomastus sp., Eteone heteropoda, Rangia cuneata, Laeonereis
culveri, Chironomus spp., Gammarus tigrinus, Littoridinops spp., Tanytarsus spp., Amphicteis
floridus, Apocorophium spp., Cyprideis littoralis, Candonidae sp., Macoma balthica, Naididae
(w/o hair), Streblospio benedicti, Bezzia/Palpomyia complex, Nematoda sp., Tanypus
neopunctipennis, Dicrotendipes nervosus, and Goeldichironomus devineyae.
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-C17 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. With the addition of 2020 ponar data, herbivore and
detritivore separated from carnivore and parasite along Axis 1, as well as predator from other
functional feeding guilds (Figure II-C17a and C17b). Filterer/collector separated from grazer,
scraper, and shredder along Axis 2 (Figure II-C17b), while shredder and filterer/collector
separated from all other functional guilds along Axis 3 (Figure II-C17d). Parasite separated
from carnivore, herbivore, and detritivore trophic levels along Axis 4, as well as grazer and
scraper from all other functional feeding guilds (Figure II-C17c and C17d). Parasite separated
from other trophic levels along Axis 5 (Figure II-C17e). Grazer and scraper separated from
other functional feeding guilds along Axis 6 (Figure II-C17f). Upstream and downstream
datasets were analyzed separately for the multivariate analysis on guild membership. As was
done for the all creeks ponar and sweep dendrograms, a lower statistical significance threshold
(alpha = 0.001) was used to minimize clusters with single creek -years for the two ponar guild
dendrograms; individual creek dendrograms used an alpha of 0.01.
Mixed -model ANOVAs determined if changes to macroinvertebrate guild
composition post -Mod Alt L were similar to any changes in guild composition of control creeks
during the same years. 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 21 significant clusters (Figure II-C18). Three clusters contained only post -Mod Alt L
creek years (A, 0, and Q), while none of the clusters contained only a pre -Mod Alt L creek year.
No clusters contained only pre- and post -Mod Alt L creek years. One cluster (B, Muddy 2004)
contained only a control creek. Ten clusters (C, D, I, K, L, N, P, R, S, and T) contained a mixture
of pre- and post -Mod Alt L and control creek years.
Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages
(SIMPER) determined the guild types that predominantly drove separation of the 21 clusters.
II-C-12

Axis 4 (scraper and grazer) was the predominant contributor to the differentiation of most
clusters. Axis 1 (herbivore and detritivore) was a predominant contributor to some clusters. Axis
2 (filter/collector) and Axis 6 (scraper) contributed the least differentiation to the clusters.
A mixed -model analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined 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 three statistically significant interactions. Jacks and Muddy had a
significant interaction between the Creek and Mod Alt L Status for Axis 1 (F = 4.97, P = 0.03)
(Figure II-C17) where there was a slight decrease in herbivore and detritivore in Jacks
compared to Muddy Creek. Porter Creek had significantly lower amounts of grazer, scraper, and
shredder on Axis 2 compared to Duck (F = 6.46, P = 0.02), but slightly higher amounts when
compared to Little Creek (Axis 2: F = 7.96, P = 0.01) (Figure II-C20).
Downstream guilds: Multivariate cluster analysis using a similarity profile test
(SIMPROF) of the downstream guild membership ponar dataset in all creeks and years
revealed 19 significant clusters (Figure II-C21). Only one cluster contained only post -Mod Alt L
(N; Huddles Cut 2012) and only one cluster contained only a control creek (A; PA2 2020), but
there were no clusters that contained only pre -Mod Alt L data. Cluster D and J contained only
pre -Mod Alt L and control years. Clusters E and F contained only post -Mod Alt L and control
creek years. The other eleven clusters contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L with
control creek years (C, G, H, J, K, L, M, 0, P, Q, and S).
Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages
(SIMPER) determined the guild types that predominantly drove separation of the 19 clusters.
Axis 1 (herbivore and detritivore) contributed to the differentiation of most clusters. Axis 2
(filterer/collector), and Axis 4 (scraper and grazer) contributed to the differentiation of some
clusters. Axis 6 (scraper) contributed least to the differentiation of clusters.
A mixed -model ANOVA determined if changes in benthic macroinvertebrate guild
composition due to Mod Alt L Status differed between impact creeks and various control creeks.
Drinkwater and PA2 had a significant interaction for Axis 1 (F = 7.01, P = 0.02) where there was
more herbivore and detritivore compared to PA2 (Figure II-C22). Tooley Creek had a significant
interaction with Muddy Creek on Axis 1 (F = 5.44, P = 0.03) and Long Creek (F = 7.16, P =
0.02); there were slightly more herbivores and detritivores in Tooley Creek compared to Muddy
Creek and Long Creek (Figure II-C23).
Answer: Fish
No change in fish forage base due to mine activities is apparent. Multivariate
cluster analysis of fish for all creeks and all collection years reveals some differences
based on gear type (fyke net vs trawl) and also separates some pre -Mod Alt L and post -
Mod Alt L years within clusters; however, the multivariate cluster analysis did not reveal
distinct changes in fish assemblages due to mine activities within the drainage basins of
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
II-C-13

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 only four post -Mod Alt L years.
Lack of observations prior to 2011 and variability in the frequency and numbers of
grass shrimp, penaeid shrimp, and blue crab collected in all creeks makes it very difficult
to discern any mine -related spatial 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 16 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. Temporal variability analysis of water
quality variables displayed strong positive correlation for six of 13 creeks (DCUT19,
Jacks, PA2, Little, Drinkwater and Duck) with SAV, phosphate (total dissolved and
orthophosphate), Nitrate (total dissolved or NO3), salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH.
These six environmental variables were most important in fish trophic guild structure.
Answer: Macrobenthos
For five of the seven impact creeks (Huddles Cut, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater
Creek, Tooley Creek, and Porter Creek) comparison of interannual variability by means of
ANOSIM for upstream and downstream sweep and ponar data within each creek detected
spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
macroinvertebrate communities (Sweeps- upstream and downstream Jacobs and Tooley
creeks, upstream Huddles Cut, and downstream Porter Creek. Ponar-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
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. In 2020, benthic abundance
and/or taxa count for 17 out of 40 creek sites were record lows for both ponars and/or
sweeps. Since these record lows were in both impact and control creeks, it's unlikely
these changes in benthic abundance and taxa count were due to mine -related activities.
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- Downstream).
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
II-C-14

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. In 2020, scraper was a
dominant trophic guild among most of the creek sites (e.g., Tooley upstream, DCUT 11
upstream, PA2 downstream, and DCUT19 upstream), while shredder and filter feeder
trophic guild was predominant in Porter Creek downstream. Common scraper or filter -
feeder trophic guilds were Littordinops tenuipes (scraper) and Mediomastus sp.
(collector filter -feeder, as well as collector -gatherer). The mixed model ANOVA on guild
composition showed that changes in the benthic communities of four impact creeks
post -Mod Alt L did significantly differ from the changes in benthic communities of their
respective control creeks during the same time period. In Jacks Creek upstream there
were less herbivore and detritivore trophic level post -Mod Alt L when compared to
Muddy Creek (control). The opposite trend was found in downstream Drinkwater Creek,
a nearby impact creek, when compared to PA2 (control), with herbivore and detritivore
greater post -Mod Alt L in Drinkwater Creek. However, downstream Tooley Creek post -
Mod Alt L, another nearby impact creek, had less herbivore and detritivore trophic level
compared to two control creeks (Muddy and Long). In Porter Creek upstream post -Mod
Alt, shredder, scraper, and grazer were less compared to Duck Creek (control), but
slightly greater when compared to Little Creek (control).
II-C-15

-
PCS Fish Collections
Group Average
A B C DEF G H
J
K L
i I,Idalo 1IIrli`l`l1`1l• 1• �n:rr:.. uLuwI nn7 rr
IuIvwI I:`;:�IiIII 1661
mw .�I III I T�
glirriEj
YttYjr1r4
TIT DDZZ»ZDZJ33
0
c c
c1'5
44441474
0o�o Ob LL
QI
I I I
4444
c C c
a` d n
Figure II-C1. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish community abundance and composition among all fish species for all creeks and years sampled [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within
dendrogram represent statistically significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the one percent level (P = 0.01). Gray creeks/years are pre -Mod Alt L, bold creeks/years are
post -Mod Alt L, and blue creeks/years are control creeks.
II-C-16

PCS Fish Collections - Guilds
Group Average
Figure II-C2. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all fish species for all creeks and years sampled [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically
significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 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

SCUT1 Broomfield Jacks Little Jacobs PA2 Drinkwater Long Tooley Muddy Huddles Cut Porter DCUT11 DCUT19 Duck
7E1
1
■ Zooplanktivore
■ Zoobenthivore
■ Piscivore
■ Omnivore
■ Herbavore
- - - Mod Alt L Impact
.rr
rr11r liiiilliiiii
0.0 0.4 0.8 ❑.❑ 0.4 0.8 OA 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8
Relative Abundance
Figure II-C3. Fish guilds of all creeks from 1999 to 2020 (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.
1
r
r
imp
ill •
•
11
mi
IF
r
III mill mill mill III
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
II-C-18

A
4 —
Jacks Creek - Guilds
Group Averages
B C D
F
N N r`
0
O O N N O N
r1
CD O.
0 N
CCN N
o o rn CO
N N o N - N
Figure II-C4. Dendrogram of hierarchical clusters of similarity for fish guild data among all trawls in
Jacks Creek [Bray -Curtis similarity; Log(x+1)]. Black lines within dendrogram represent statistically
significant cluster structure and colored lines represent non -significant cluster structure at the 5
percent level (P = 0.05). Bold years are post -Mod Alt L.
E
•ill
0
N
4 —
Jacobs Creek - Guilds
Group Averages
A
B
C
N co 47 V OO D1 CD N
0 0 0 O C 0
N :'`� N N N N CV N
Figure II-05. 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

Drinkwater Creek - Guilds
0
N
—
O —
Group Averages
A
N
C
r7 n
-
N
O O O o
N N N N
11
rp w
4 4
N
Figure II-C6. 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.
E
2
4
4
6
0 _
Huddles Cut - Guilds
Group Averages
1,1
_ 00 in ca O r- N O co C) 0 C'7 CO 01 rM1
p p oO 6J N O o O O O
N N M N C4V C 1 N N p
N C4V R.o ON N
Figure II-C7. 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.
II-C-20

L0
u7 —
o —
A
DCUT77 - Guilds
Group Averages
() CO rD O I() o
O q O q O O
N CY N N N N
B
Figure II-C8. 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.
0
ro
-
•a
❑
0
o —
Little Creek - Fish Guilds
A 8
Group Averages
N CO CD N V W
F O U O C7 C7 O
C1 N N CV N N N
C) f)
O O
N N
Figure II-C9. 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.
I I-C-21

1.n —
0 —
Long Creek - Fish Guilds
Group Averages
A
07 CV r-
V N IC!
N N N C4V C4V 0 N
Figure II-C10. 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.
0
0
0
04
0
0 —
B C
Muddy Creek - Fish Guilds
Group Averages
❑ E F
f1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 f �ti
N 07 C[1 07 C17 0- 61 0) 0 r 47 0- O a O CU O C[1 N
O r 0 0 0 0 0 01 N 0 O r 0 0 0 r 0 r
0 4 4 4 4 O O O Q1 4 0 O 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 0
04 CV 04 CV 04 CV CV CV CV CV CV CV N CV 04 CV 04 CV 04 CV
Figure II-C11. 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.
II-C-22

Duck Creek - Fish Guilds
Group Averages
A
0 —
B
O N
4 Q
(N N
Q 47 00
4 4 O
ry (V N
Figure II-C12. 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.
II-C-23

o
o
00
0
m
O
O
N
O —
A BC D EF G H
I J KL
All Creeks, Upstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
M NOP QR S T U WV X
Z AA AB AC AD AE
E EEEEEEE FE EEEOEEEEEEEEEEE EEi EEEEEEEEEEEEE
canareco am carom wino cacocacacocammmm ns mcamcacocamm o<ocacoca
2asm.9MPMEI_XI �aID.K)uasmas ma awe as asa a>us asaPas a2aL>
.40 nnnnnnc�nnrtnnnnrinnnnncmnnnnn nnn nnnlnn nnnnnnn
1
Z
l 1
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
mmtamcammmcacatoMMICIRcZAammmmRMcC. atom ovum a mcemmcaraancocectworacomcamcrsmceca
a�a m ,T2LI EWili.2asEt)}12 a)E•Piasas;12asa_)aTas asus2a E2E),T alma EETE221)asmasaT2,92 sma2as
�JNIX!)(r�/lyVl(�WINNVINN�UW1NUlVNnUlNV7(�NUIUIV.WXnU1(�Ul(/N/Y/1U1U1U1NVt(9NlQNNU1 UlilW)Ull/1UlU1NU7UWl(9WU1NV)U1
nnnn nnnnNc�nnnnnnnnr-�nnnnnnnnnnnnnnrw-n�nnnnrw�nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
EEE
co acacac .CMCC: cam
a suPasa)asa)masa nsa>as(14'
'vicrmiuiumoto
7
0)
0)
N
EEEEEEEEi EEEEE
cocaca<amcomcac u�ca o am
aCPaILSS2kRu,asaP w
cxoiuriy„uscr�ownouxi yiccauin
1 'III .I 1 1 1 1 1 1 'I 1 1 '1 1 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 .I 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'I 1
1'I 11'I .111111.1111111111.111111111
NNNNN . .•• . •
Z!Y i )00 1 }y 00.0 + D (V N}i]A5a/J • V7NV)N >>>JJJV/N
r. (llNNa)NUN. ,� Nwi .•• c NOC�' VDCI )0?.oa LI, '.
.r ::::::„*k+ coca •cpou'3 'i0ca�a • �. ..d.o.c�U
Ur6 77J �77B767�6ta
07'.7337377 Y " Y 1--F! — w7373=
CC
11111'I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111,11111'I 1,111 111111111
((uuu!t--0-oN ,1_C�C�-'�
CrL11y -�O(a0 >0�
FTi7S�2?Ga�'j� pJ- . -
. � ...
��'•�� as a:a�
a • a
Figure II-C13. 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-24

0
o —
0
CO
0
v
o —
ABCDEF
EE E EEBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Ko m mmmmmmmmmmmmm
mawww wwwwwwww2mmmmTTP222222
ouxoumr.mo x,xnwux wwc, 1 flrflWW(fwwwww
C C.. C C3CCGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
3 3 3 3 333333333333
O ..• 000000000000000000000000
Sii iI I M F IIrI11 r1lrl lllllll5
. 11,111,11111111119 111111111111111d
H I
cF
C1no
uu
All Creeks, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
JK
L M N
T -
PO
1
S
EEEEEEEEE E EEE BEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
mmmmmmmmm mmm ...mmmmmmmmmm mmm mmmmm mmm mmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
ma�a�a�a�a�222 axvawwwwD.. , TEES �ESTE2 22T a�a�a�a�2222 2 awwwww T ET2222E2Taw2a�a E2
VN/JwwwwVJNf/luQJ:Ce ocanflH/w� LfAV1V1UW1V]Vwww VJfI/ Vtan.wV1wcaommotr:mco(I1NNfllfllixourimu /IUX/]V]VNAVIVIUIV]V1V1wow
CCCCCCCC0M�jC CCC�Q�CC$ CCCCCCCCCCC �j�cCCCC CCCCC CCCC-CCCCCCCC �_ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
i0000000009o03 3000cc 000c000c000cc000000000 00000 00090000030000. ....0000poop000poo0
1151111111 1I 1111�111111111111111 5111 115111 IIiF Irlllil11 11111111111111111
1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 4 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 Y 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I d I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I d 1 1}I_ 1 I_ 11 1 1 11_ 1. 1. 1_ I_ 1 1
---- �,
3ibm 'MrrtilH+ia rrrit bi*irrrrrig.O I"
1 r�\T'. r-,YY tq 11
.. •O. � O �oi�So _.
�y r - ==?_YYi YY YYYYY
>r,>.>01 '1000
mM
N
T U V
EEEEEEEEEEEEWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEBEEEEEEEEEEEE
m mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm<om.. ..mmmmm mm mmmmmmmmmm
ONNNNQ)N4)0)NNO aw)awwww)1 1 .' I awwwwwww) T222Nalawlaww)
CCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCwomumowcCCCCC CC CCCCCCCCCC`
33333333333 3333333 3333333333333333333000000000000� mowwwwwwwwww
3 ..1�.
1111115111i]�00000000000000000 ooaoa000000000d
II11I15IIlii'i FI Ir1I1r1 `roll l l'I 11[1111I1111511
111111111111111111111111111•[1111111.111f.111111111111.1
PPVP : _
li
tiTuco`•. (0a> �a�cJ i_a�m., coi
c°3 =_n •. UCH oEmr °0 OHO .• 5
- up ; aim_ M
0>>01 wocusvnFn>on nmww
c� w''maw'��)s=ma)000d
••-�C� m UO`•UUVUUUUULJ
°- = =
Figure II-C14. 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-25

E
N
N
O —
0
CO
O
V
O
—
AB C D
-T r
E
All Creeks, Upstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
F G H I J K L M N O
EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWEEEEBEEEEEEEE E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mm mmmm mmmmm cis mmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm mmm mmmmwmmmnmmmmmwmmm mccmmwm mm cmmmmmmmmmwmmmmmwmmmmmwmmmmmmwro
a,�asasTTTG2W22 s2222a 2202TEMPRE2 mmamsasETE asasasa>22T2awsasa 0222mTTETPT222TETmmas a .0222wsasasasasa,�mE222,_ asmnsasasa�as202Tmasmma 2TETusasasa�asas2TETmmasmasmasasasmmasasm2200sasasasasasasasasT22222
i/]U]r11V]V1UIfIJU1f/lf/IfIIUXAVIU]vJv�nnne nnennnnn LLL`wunor IN(Iowc4cmcnencluxncrvacrxon fllf/1oumc ntnencouwoc]nenc win V1flH/mourrlumc civcxormacoA Lt`055001tllUXI NAVXIX1NVlr/LMIW]V1VNArnN01.0L0 00UCCIKOWIMOUXIJf OXIIrAV1VJtnr/1NNfl1V1IXOUJ LOUMIXIXIXOUMC/1
nrn rtnnnnnmm�nnnr-e-+r-�nnnn nnnnnnnn nnnnnnnngr r�-�nc-rmmnnnnnonnnc�nn nnmm, nn ncncn mnnnnnnnnnnnnnncxmmrnnnmm,nnnnnnnmmulnnnnnnnmmnnnnnnnnnnnn
IIIIIII.IIIIIIE•1111111111111.11111111,IIIII111 IIIIIIII:111911911111111111111111111111111111111111,11,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
NNNNNNNNNNN NO��
----------- 3 Upq
►-.
0d4)01)Q7t➢00a,N
c�c°s cs MCP Sao° 3'°T55m�0==nD �°oo�rp0m
COM CO
1� " O
a� 'CO'M.
m uas��_�cs�ck acsno Na sw smum
3 r�n°n°Oa�°J65
�'-mr�Y =� U ua�� aa FCD
ca
m rr\
Figure II-C15. 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.
II-C-26

All Creeks, Downstream (Ponar)
s
3—
v
A
a co
EFGH
J K
N
a P
4
R
TU
v
W X Y Z AA
i
1
I
E
EEEEEE
iiiSg
!
3
!
I
I
I
I
E
w
II
1
E
I
1_4____
l
I
E
i
—
,
—
I
' 1
1
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEFEEEEEEEEEE
_I
g�E
E-c
EE
£
g
EEEEEEIEEEE
q
_
1
I
EEEEEEEEE
II
—
E EEEEE
EEEE�•E�E
EEEE^E'EEEEEEEEEE
!
I_-
I—
I
I
g
E'EEEE
—
0
EEEEEEEE--rEEEEE
gg
0
—
1110•i5
-,5v.a
EEEIP*w
EEE
EEEEEEEEE
i
I
1
—
EEEEEEEEEE
--
5�2'
-trt
EE
EEE
7I
EEEE?'E
gEEzEE
USJAII
FIRE
-
FiFiN
NgiY}40ou
lm "�a��
--
a-
F�•�c
ir
R
- '
�..........•
2g4ZS
ds 7w' T3°a
ry-i-_
da
'
-;—^h6
^
M7.
OOOxx
iEEEEcpNE
MRc
it�ili
i
t
#'
AEEFE
pY
3f�141P
Figure II-C16. 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-27

2
0
0
-1
Cps
-2
-3
-4
0
m
c
0
E -1
U
-2
-3
-4
2
c
a
0
U
-2
-3
4
Traphic Level
a
-CARNIVORE
PARASITE
HERBIVORE
DETRITNORE
•
L
Component 1
- c
CARNIVORE
S2Frk1JYRRE
HERBIVORk
P*ASITE
I I
Component 3
- e
-CAKETWIE
ORE- K.
PARASI
-2
0 1
Component 5
2
3
SH
Functional Guild
- b
tSCRAPER
41RR
p oAApF}-GAIN ERER/CQLLEGT12R -
FILTERER (COLLECTOR
Component
- d
t'EDDER
GATIIERERICOLLECTOR
-RHODATQR-
FILTERERICOLLECTOR
GRAZER
SCRAPER
Component 3
- f
- SCRAPER
GRAZER
LTEREPGAKINILLIffito
L1 HRE$ ER
-2
0 1
Component 5
2
3
Figure II-C17 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.
I I-C-28

0
_
0
N
Z
Z
All Creeks (Upstream Ponar Guilds)
Group Averages
M
F
14LL COMMnm6c6m6 m 0:5,A Nf016169f0 c61ID6(616Cl6c6[Omm715EEEEE E E EEEEEEEEEBESE= EEEEEEE �EEEEEEESEEEEEEEEEE- EE=EE�EEE_E_EEE_E_EEEP_v�EEnEEmLELEmLEllEEmlElEErL,EM11EEM1EI_EnLKELEl�.EEEEcYEErl
EnEE�E
cs6mmn6�mc66c6rcml6cmc6 �m6mm6mm6mm<6 m166cvmcv66c6mmmm6c6mmc6i6caammi6i6cvcam6c66EEEE EEE EEEEEEEEEE IVEEEEE 222 1i7 2-•2°222cU}}_ 4 1322 40040440022' 2212',22'PIS1-» �22� 2202244Ndx`a2224411444N14)
vu}}nVNV/tA UN nn uxnoe e.noo VG° (nwoo _pout'iuMcbu1uxelifOo�V1V/000 onnnocoul nnonnnn,'mNNtho alNNocAVfJl000, /l000lNotifol /MllootrghooP'iA7� 11 1t11,1i1M111 “rr,.1-1 r, 1111 �1r,no�,ellO cere-In[Y,nnnnlnrl
1.1 I I II I I1.1111 II 1I 1111 1 .I 1 111111 I II IIIIIII I I 11 IILIILIIILIII!LILrIR;
414444
p
drtl.�li-
F iSE C
p� a
In rt.
!❑ ❑ 1 wmaimcc on❑ '
r-f i r`n
7ava>Y ...wuWw
—per—rn�gry�c'c",�,m
(L-1
2
❑ m
Figure II-C18. Dendrogram for macroinvertebrate guilds assigned to upstream ponars for all creek -years. Blue ink denotes control creek -year, grey ink denotes pre -Mod Alt L creek -year, and bold black ink denotes
post -Mod Alt L creek -year. Bold black lines/branches within the hierarchy indicate statistical differences at alpha value 0.001.
II-C-29

1 1 1
Pre Post Pre
Post
Pre
Detritiyore
Herbivore
Parasite
Carnivore
Figure II-C19. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guilds FCA (Axis 1) comparisons:
between Jacks Creek and Muddy Creek and Jacks Creek and Little Creek. The post -Mod Alt
L comparison was statistically significant between Jacks Creek and Muddy Creek at the 5
percent level (ANOVA alpha value 0.03).
I I-C-30

1.0 —
0.5
cv
0.0
-0.5 —
T
Porter
i
1—
y
Duck
T
y
Little
0
-1.0 -
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
r
Pre
Post
Shredder
Scraper
Grazer
Filter/Collector
Figure II-C20. 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-31

All Creeks (Downstream Ponar Guilds)
Group Averages
} C
D
E F
G
H
I
J K L
M
hl
P
Q R
S
EEEr-.
ECEEQ:
EEEEEEE:
E7
I
FEEEtt�E FEEEEEE�EEEFFEEEFFEEEEEEEEIEREEEEELLLEEEEEd
[tral%OWN.Oc6 ,r000 OcO OtaiSa3 .' 00 O{6n7 .a3a7cOcp6cpaM13,, cOr6
' 1 0]O] xxmwE 4 LLL22Lw)2222 i LLE2a2wLlN2aL]a7aw72li'If l'�9 L�]2w](2T222w]cLRLH`;
L
EEz ELLLEEE E EEELLLLLEEEE".:
..cair OcOa3 .axocticO.Oc ormt +
, , Ea,_,2muN 'I I . . anmaw)u axim, , 1 . i
ET EEEELLLEEEEE EE¢-. FEEEEEEEEEEEFEEEEEFEE
.a3c V<a�VIVCOGAO.OESSET O c0 + .V0 VOCLI OcOcO.Oc6aatiatOtiti c0
i i1�7`Ismi2a7a]ERTEF]a E, mL' 2222U22222222T22274]2TEEE" '
i..a3a3 ... +EOa7 . .voromsgro .'
i ulararnvqular. , . . R2F2 `al. 7i 1i lei
`- NN NN NNNNNN0 'T'rt
CC-. CCC-- CCCCCCC-: C-
-33-333333 -- 33333 -3
..00....o°....000a000
N./1nNNN NNN.MM�CO
NN.MfM�NNN.MnV7NNNN - N NNN.MJNnNNN. UJMMnNNNNtlrfnNN
yt NN.MMQ IQ N.MMf%MMn0 ' NNNNN.1xfrNN./N 'r'r' NNN.MIwoo.NN.n
CCi CCCCCC-. CCCCCCLL��LCCCC -
-33 333333�3333333333333
0OOOOO 000000000......0....00000000°o......0.....00....0000000000000000....'.000000000000000000000
C- CCCCCCCCCCCCCC -. CC CCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
-. 33333333333333 33 3333 3333333333333333�33333333333333333331333333333333303333333333333
CCCLttt. CCCCCCCCCCC-. CCCCCCCCCc cc=cccc=ccccc
00000a000000p0000p00000000d
.411111111111.11111111'I11111111111111.111111111111111111111�111111111111111111
��41,r,r
111 11111111111111111111111111
•11111 IId111111111111'111111111111111......11111111111•
......4a.
* ��
•
',r.r,r
Yfv. i4 N a l.W,
Q)UINQ .� .�,�U7Uk[. .
f' 7-1,r, 'T'CYY'Tf .. • . • ..
»7'u1L '
N� U a . Z. l'N'j N, .1�OO43CTL]
. 1 , .. 1'Y'f'Y,, , , , . i l l v ._��.s�.��a_». ,.�� . f
' f ILK'"'?Yinr� 6VvwiVT
A. C.�L47f ' • Q10,1�pyrC� a f NaM�a 'akYLCCIONO
. , , T... , 1 ..... a .. f ... • , .. 4V.1
�V(y�.9 -• Vf. /.LE7F�1
g , E3I3H)6V1YXJiYJrM1—W.
WU C]C ��N`r., O: 1:"1.-U t,-U9- 1np ... N . -CnCr -CF( .ECU_ ' .
° a 0 m.=, o oo�oa �; oho ay°' oa�i� 1:I mon
2 2 co ce H� -EiE = ❑ m ❑ ` rn . ❑ UO ❑ m,
n n n m n n n n
Figure II-C21. 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.
I I-C-32

Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Detritivar
Herbivore
V
Parasite
Carnivore
Figure II-C22. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L upstream ponar benthic guilds FCA (Axis 1) comparisons:
between Drinkwater Creek and PA2 and Drinkwater Creek and Long Creek. The post -Mod Alt L
comparison was statistically significant between Porter Creek and Duck Creek (ANOVA alpha
value 0.04), as well as Porter Creek and Little Creek at the 5 percent level (ANOVA alpha value
0.03).
II-C-33

Detritivore
Herbivore
Parasite
Carnivore
Figure II-C23. Pre -/post -Mod Alt L downstream ponar benthic guilds FCA (Axis 1) comparisons:
between Tooley Creek and Muddy Creek and Tooley Creek and Long Creek. The post -Mod Alt
L comparison was statistically significant between Tooley Creek and Muddy Creek at the 5
percent level (P = 0.03) and Long Creek (P = 0.02).
II-C-34

Table II-C1. Average catch -per -unit -effort (CPUE) for the most abundant fish species captured across 12 clusters identified by cluster analysis performed for all PCS fish collections (April, May, and June of 1999
through 2005 and 2007 through 2020).
Common name
Scientific name
Average CPUEa
Cluster A
Cluster B
Cluster C
Cluster D
Cluster E
Cluster F
Cluster G
Cluster H
Cluster I
Cluster J
Cluster K
Cluster L
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
0.00
0.00
3.61
0.00
0.31
8.85
13.55
20.80
69.07
13.45
2.46
1.49
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
0.00
0.02
25.14
84.81
34.85
18.77
5.62
20.29
11.25
3.17
16.31
14.78
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
0.00
0.04
1.84
0.62
2.38
14.19
12.67
7.53
24.71
10.25
20.02
3.10
Eastern mudminnow
Umbra pygmaea
0.06
0.13
0.55
0.23
0.00
0.00
6.49
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.96
10.08
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
0.35
2.57
10.66
4.54
3.00
0.13
3.77
4.06
0.38
0.31
1.04
16.24
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
1.64
68.74
468.74
163.27
34.54
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
3.45
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
0.03
0.11
13.97
0.88
0.35
0.00
34.55
1.02
2.83
0.70
1.63
6.70
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
41.96
22.90
17.38
3.92
0.58
0.13
0.48
0.18
0.23
0.09
0.00
8.05
Rainwater killifish
Lucania parva
0.12
6.64
1.36
0.50
0.08
0.00
6.55
1.77
0.19
0.12
0.60
72.62
Sheepshead minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus
0.09
38.09
9.44
54.69
5.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.50
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
0.19
29.06
253.04
42.85
8.50
2.79
127.21
218.17
86.04
31.46
28.96
82.34
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
0.03
1.15
29.76
2.42
2.73
0.00
0.07
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.24
aCPUE equals the number of individuals caught during an approximate 16-hour set of fyke nets or one minute, 75-yard trawl.
II-C-35

Table II-C2. Guild designations of all fish caught in trawl
Common Name Scientific Name
nets or fyke nets.
Trophic Guild
Alewife
American eel
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic stingray
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Black crappie
Blue catfish
Bluefish
Bluegill
Bluespotted sunfish
Bowfin
Brown bullhead
Chain pickerel
Chain pipefish
Channel catfish
Common carp
Crevalle jack
Drum/croaker*
Dusky pipefish
Eastern mosquitofish
Eastern mudminnow
Flier
Flounder sp.*
Gizzard shad
Golden shiner
Grass carp
Green goby
Hogchoker
Alosa pseudoharengus
Anguilla rostrata
Alosa sapidissima
Micropogonias undulatus
Brevoortia tyrannus
Strongylura marina
Hypanus sabinus
Menidia menidia
Fundulus diaphanus
Anchoa mitchilli
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
lctalurus furcatus
Pomatomus saltatrix
Lepomis macrochirus
Enneacanthus gloriosus
Amia calva
Ameiurus nebulosus
Esox niger
Syngnathus louisianae
lctalurus punctatus
Cyprinus carpio
Caranx hippos
Sciaenidae sp.
Syngnathus floridae
Gambusia holbrooki
Umbra pygmaea
Centrarchus macropterus
Paralichthys sp.
Dorosoma cepedianum
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Microgobius thalassinus
Trinectes maculatus
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Zooplanktivore
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Omnivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Omnivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Omnivore
Zoobenthivore
Multiple
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Omnivore
Omnivore
Herbivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
II-C-36

Table II-C2 (concluded).
Common Name
Hybrid striped bass*
Inland silverside
Ladyfish
Lake chubsucker
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
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Summer flounder
Sunfish*
Swamp darter
Warmouth
White catfish
White crappie
White perch
Yellow bullhead
Yellow perch
Scientific Name
Morone chrysops x Morone
saxatilis
Menidia beryllina
Elops saurus
Erimyzon sucetta
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
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
Zoobenthivore
Omnivore
Piscivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Omnivore
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Omnivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Omnivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Piscivore
Omnivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
Zooplanktivore
Zoobenthivore
Zoobenthivore
II-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 2020. 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
Bruuideld Swamp Creek
2018 2019 20202011 2012 2013
15 23 1
0 0 I
0 8 I
2014
Total Score
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2
0
0
2020
4
0
1
2011
2012
2013
2014
Frequency %
2015 2016
2017
2018
SCl1T1
2019 20202011 2012
15 23 1
0 8 I
23 8 I
2013
2014
Total Score
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
3
0
3
2020
4
1
1
2011
69
46
62
2012 2013
77 85
15 15
62 0
2014
69
0
46
Frequency %
2015 2016 2017
62 23 15
31 0 15
62 77 62
2018
69
31
23
JacksCreek
2019 20202011 2012
15 85 1 28 28
15 31 1 6 2
69 31 1 8 9
2013
37
5
0
2014
17
0
6
Total Score
2015 2016
21 3
6 0
10 10
2017
2
2
8
2018
25
4
3
2019
2
2
10
2020
45
9
6
Jacobs Creek
PA2
❑rinkwater Creek
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012 2013
2014
2015 2016 2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Grass Shrimp
77
92
77
92
77 38
46
92
15 92 1 28 40
18
27
27 8
12
40
40
55
92
77
85
77
85 100
100
92
92 100 1 40 28
24
47
48 58
74
58
66
56
69
92 46
92
38 31 15
85
0 85 1 33 30
6
26
10
7
3
41
0
56
Penaeid Shrimp
54
31
8
8
38 31
31
31
15 31 1 10 6
1
1
9 4
6
7
2
5
15
8
0
0
8 23
8
15
8 23 1 5 1
0
0
1 3
1
2
1
5
46
46 8
8
23 15 8
31
31 31 1 10 8
3
1
5
2
2
6
5
5
Blue Crab
54
62
23
38
62 69
69
46
54 46 1 7 9
3
5
10 9
9
6
7
6
31
46
15
15
23 46
46
15
85 38 1 4 7
2
2
3 6
7
2
11
3
46
46 38
15
69 69 62
38
62 23 1 7 6
5
2
9
9
8
5
8
3
TooleyCreek
Little Creek(Control)
Long Creek (Control)
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012 2013
2014
2015 2016 2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Grass Shrimp
77
77
54
15
62 15
0
62
15 77 1 37 27
11
3
12 3
0
32
2
29
54
69
100
46
62 23
23
77
8 77 1 12 23
37
10
12 3
5
26
2
28
54
62 62
8
38 8 0
69
8 46 1 16 19
14
1
6
1
0
22
1
13
Penaeid Shrimp
31
54
31
15
38 15
23
38
38 31 1 4 12
7
2
7 2
4
9
6
5
23
31
8
0
15 8
8
8
8 15 1 3 4
1
0
3 1
1
1
1
2
46
46 8
0
23 8 8
23
23 15 1 6 7
1
0
4
1
1
3
3
2
Blue Crab
31
69
8
23
38 62
54
38
77 38 1 4 9
1
3
5 8
7
5
11
5
62
46
0
31
54 46
38
31
54 38 1 8 6
0
4
7 6
5
4
8
5
31
85 31
0
23 62 23
15
54 23 1 4 11
4
0
3
8
3
2
7
3
MuddyCreek [Control]
PorterCreek
DuckCreek (Control)
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012 2013
2014
2015 2016 2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Grass Shrimp
46
77
77
62
54 15
23
77
15 69 1 13 27
21
9
12 2
4
28
2
22
15
69
46
0
15 15
8
31
15 46 1 2 19
8
0
3 2
1
6
2
10
23
62 85
23
46 23 62
77
0 92 1 5 13
23
6
10
3
11
24
0
28
Penaeid Shrimp
46
38
15
8
38 15
23
8
32 31 1 6 6
4
1
9 2
3
1
6
6
38
54
23
0
8 0
0
8
15 23 1 5 7
3
0
1 0
0
1
2
3
69
38 23
8
8 23 8
23
0 15 1 9 5
6
1
1
3
1
4
0
2
Blue Crab
54
38
15
0
31 54
46
23
62 311 8 5
3
0
4 7
6
3
8
4
31
77
31
15
8 54
38
31
23 31 1 4 11
4
2
1 7
5
4
3
4
62
38 23
0
23 54 38
15
41 23 1 9 6
3
0
3
7
5
2
4
3
Huddles Cut (upstrewn tyke net
Huddles Cut (dawnstrearn tyke net)
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Grass Shrimp
62
85
54
69
54 69
62
92
62 77 1 14 35
8
11
9 14
12
20
31
33
77
85
69
46
54 69
77
92
62 77 1 21 31
14
10
13 16
14
22
13
27
Penaeid Shrimp
23
38
8
8
0 8
31
23
8 31 5 7
1
1
0 1
44
1
4
23
15
0
0
8 8
23
8
0 3814 3
0
0
1 1
3
1
0
5
Blue Crab
69
92
77
54
54 92
69
77
100 85 1 11 15
12
10
7 18
12
12
28
17
62
77
46
62
62 85
92
85
85 92 1 12 12
6
8
9 15
13
12
16
16
DCUT 11 (upstrewn tyke net)
DCUT 11 (downplrearn tyke net)
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 2U20 2011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2U20
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 2020 2011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Grass Shrimp
—
—
15
23
0 0
0
8
0 46 — —
4
3
0 0
0
1
0
9——
15
15
0 0
0
0
0 54 — —
2
2
0 0
0
0
0
9
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
Blue Crab
—
—
0
0
0 0
0
0
23 0— —
0
0
0 0
0
0
3
0
—
—
0
0
0 0
8
0
0 0— —
0
0
0 0
1
0
1
0
DCUT 19 (upstream fyke net)
DCUT 19 (downstream fyke net)
Frequency %
Total Score
Frequency %
Total Score
Range of numbers of indiudua Ls captured (abundance category) end sloe assigned to rang &abundance category:
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 20202011 2012
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
or =
g
>100 = 4
<10 =
1
>200 = 5
Grass Shrimp
—
—
38
46
23 38
8
62
15 85 1 — —
6
10
4 8
1
9
4
22
—
—
46
38
15 31
31
23
15 77 1 — —
9
8
2 5
4
3
3
3
10,50 =
2
>300 = e
51-100 =
3
Penaeid Shrimp
—
—
8
0
0 0
0
15
0 15 — —
1
0
0 0
0
2
0
2——
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 15 — —
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
21
Score' calculated by number of weeks of capture in each category by the category `aloe
Blue Crab
—
—
8
0
15 8
15
15
31 69— —
10
2 1
2
2
4
9
— —
0
15
8 8
15
23
15 38 — —
0
2
11
2
3
2
5
I I-C-38

Table II-C4. Trophic level and functional feeding guild designations for benthic species
identified in the ponar grabs of the PCS creeks.
Taxa
Trophic Designation
Dehntivore Parasite Carnivore Herbivore
Functional Feeding Guild Designation'
GC` FC2 SCR' PRE GRA3 SHR4
Annelida
Citel lata
(k ssiphonidaesp.
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Hirudhea
Myzobdd is lugubris
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Oligochaeta
Aulocklus iimrrabdus
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Aulocilus paucichaeta
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Aulocilus sp.
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0 0
Dem sp.
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Enchylraeidaesp.
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Grania sp.
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
2 0
UJmnodrlus hotfinesten
3
0
0
2
3
0
1
0
1 0
Monopylephorus kraatus
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
3 0
Manopylepharus sp.
3
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
3 0
Naididae(Tubitiicoides)sp.
3
0
1
3
3
0
0
0
3 0
Naididae (Tubitiicoides) sp. wl hair
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
3 0
Naididae (TudTicoides) sp. w/o hat
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Naffs sp.
3
0
1
3
3
0
0
0
0 0
Oligochaetasp.
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0 0
Paraais ltor4s
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Paranais sp. {Maras}
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Pa ass sp.
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Tutrrcaat"s heterachaetus
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Tutrrcad"s sp.
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
3 0
Polyehaeta
Amplrctes flaidls
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Eteare heteropoda
3
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0 0
Heteramastustlifamis
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
taeonereis cuiveri
3
0
2
0
3
0
0
2
0 0
Leitoscoloplos fragrls
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Letoscofcplos sp.
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Marenzelieria viricis
3
0
0
2
3
3
0
0
0 0
Medan astus amdsefa
3
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0 0
Medan astus sp.
3
0
1
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Neanthes succinea
3
0
2
2
3
0
0
2
0 0
Pdydara tamale
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Scoidepis squamata
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Scolop'os robustus
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0 0
Spionidae sp.
3
0
0
2
3
3
0
0
0 0
Slre iosp , be eckti
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0 0
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Atari sp.
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
AracMraa sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Hydracarina sp.
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Hyd achne sp.
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Collembola
Col lembola sp.
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1 0
Smhihuridaesp.
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3 0
Crustacea
Probapyrus pa daricda
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Sinocephalus exspirxxrs
3
0
3
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Insecta
Cultyptera
Berosus sp.
2
0
3
3
2
0
0
3
2 0
Chelona iidae sp.
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Hat pidae sp.
0
0
3
3
0
0
2
3
0 0
Peltooytes s p.
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
0 3
S1ctotarsus g iseastdatus
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Tropstemus cdians stridatus
2
0
3
2
2
0
0
3
0 0
❑ipera
Ablabesmyia sp.
2
0
3
0
2
0
0
3
0 0
Apedlrrrr sp.
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
II-C-39

Table II-C4 (continued).
Taxa
Trophic Designation
Detritivore Parasite Carnivore Herbivore
Functional Feeding Guild Designation'
GC2 FC2 SCR3 PRE GRA3 SHR4
Di pe ra continued
0
0 0
Asheum beciee
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
Betha'Palpomyia complex
3
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0 0
Chaob it s aibatirs
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Chaobanis punctipennis
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Chronomidhe sp.
3
0
3
2
3
0
0
3
0 0
Chirondmus decamp
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Chirondmus plumarosas
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Chirondmus stgmata=
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
Cladbpebna sp.
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0 0
Cladotanytarsrs sp.
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Clrrotanypus 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 bcrrctirs
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0 3
Cricotopus rrfuscatirs
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0 3
Cricotopus sp.
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0 3
Cricotopus sp.[ficioctusAnfuscatirslsp.4l/sp.9)
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0 3
CricotopuslOrthoclaiius sp.41
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0 0
Cricotopus/Orthoclaiius 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
Dicrotendpes nervosus
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0 0
Dicrotendipes sp.
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0 0
Dicrotendpes sp. wAufule
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0 0
Enfelcia natchiocheae
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Endochironomus ngricans
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
Giyptotendpes paripes
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
Giyptoterrdpes sp.
3
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
0 2
Goeldichironomus devineyae
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
GoekIichironomus hd1ofrasinus
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0 0
ilefurulussp.
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Lrnnophcra sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Nanodadius sp.
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Nimbccera pinderi
2
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0 0
Orthoclaciinae sp.
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0 3
Parachronomus diredus
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Parachronomus hirtalatus
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Parachionomus sp.
2
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0 0
Parachionomus subkti
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Paramerina sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Paratanytarsrs sp.
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Pblypedilum sp.
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0 2
Probema sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Procladus belkrs
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
0 0
Procladus sp.
1
0
3
1
1
0
0
3
0 1
Psectrndadius sp.
1
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0 2
Tahanidae sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Tabanus sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Tanypus neopunctiennis
1
0
3
1
1
0
0
3
0 1
Tanytarsus Irnneticus
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.11sp3)
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
Caltbaetis sp.
3
0
0
2
3
0
1
0
3 0
Hemiptera
AbeduslBelostoma complex
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Corixidae sp.
0
0
3
3
2
0
0
3
0 0
Pblocnris fernoratus
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Trichocvara sexdnta
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 Designation'
GC2 FC2 SCR3 PRE GRA3 SHR4
Lepidoptera
Syncita sp.
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0 3
Odonata
Aeshna umbrosa
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Branchymesia gavida
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Coen agrionidaesp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Enallagmasp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Ery1emis sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
lschnura sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Libel/Ilia sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Libellulidaesp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Na nothemis bella
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Pachydo,hx Fong/peals
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Per,themis sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
PerAhemis tens a
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Plecoplera
Peltoperla sp.
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 3
Tricoptera
Oecets inconsp,Jua
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Oecetis sp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Malaccstraca
Amphipoda
Ameroculoct?s sp. complex
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Apacorophirrn iacasire
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
Apacorophirrn lousiaum
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
Apxorophirrfr sp.
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
Apxorophirrn sp. {lacustrelousiaaunj
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
Garmarus mucronatus
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3 0
Garnmarus trgrxws
3
0
3
3
3
3
0
2
0 1
Haustoriidae sp.
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
3 0
Haustonus sp.
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
3 0
1epriactylus dytiscus
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
_
Leptocheiws plrmdos us
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Melka raitiaa
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
_
Parahaustorius holmesi
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Plato c hestia {Orchestra} pWatensis
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Utyorchestra {Orchestra} urieri
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
Decapoda
Carlinectes sappdus
3
0
3
0
1
0
0
3
0 0
Caridea sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Pacaemonetes pxglo
3
0
1
3
0
3
0
1
0 0
Procambarus sp.
3
0
2
2
3
0
0
1
0 0
Rhiihropahopeus harntsii
3
0
3
1
3
0
0
1
0 0
Isopoda
Cass,diridea iuritrorrs
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Cyathura polita
3
0
1
3
3
0
0
1
0 0
Edatra montosa
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0 0
Eabtra tfrlobe
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
Eabtia sp.
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0 0
Enjhsone!a tliformis
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
3 0
Mysida
Americamysis (Mysrabpsis)ainyfa
3
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
America7aysis (Myskpsis)bgelaxi
3
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
Americamysis (Myskdapsis)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 fapar
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Maxilbpoda
Caanoida sp.
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0 0
Harpacticoidasp.
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
SessFa
Baranus improvisus
3
0
1
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Baranus sp.
3
0
1
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Osiracoda
Candonidae sp.
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0 0
Cypiides I ttoralis
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
Detri[ivore Parasite Carnivore Herbivore
Functional Feeding Guild Designation'
GC2 FC2 SCR3 PRE GRA3 SHR4
Cnidaria
0
3
3
0 0
Anthozoa
Act niariasp.
2
1
0
2
0
Mollusca
Bivalvia
_
Bivalviasp.
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
_
Geukensia demissa
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Macam a balthica
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Macama tents
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Macoma sp.
3
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0 0
Nlac tridae sp.
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Muinia iate ais
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Mytiiopsis ieucophaeata
2
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Rangia canals
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0 0
Gastropoda
Detracia Bandana
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0 0
EIysia clioro0ca
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3 0
r. stropoda sp.
3
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0 0
tittoridnops tenrrpes
3
0
1
3
0
0
3
0
1 0
tittoridnops sp. (ref -Japes)
3
0
1
3
0
0
3
0
1 0
tittoridnops sp.
3
0
1
3
0
0
3
0
1 0
Nudibranc hia sp.
3
0
3
0
1
0
0
3
0 0
Physidae sp. (physalphysela )
3
0
2
3
0
0
3
1
3 0
Sac oglcssa sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Nemertea
Nemerleasp.
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0 0
Nematoda
Nematodasp.
2
3
2
0
1
1
0
3
0 0
Platyhelminthes
Planariidaesp.
2
0
3
1
1
0
0
3
0 0
Platyhelmilitres sp.
2
0
3
1
1
0
0
3
0 0
TuMel lariasp.
2
0
3
1
1
0
0
3
0 0
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
Average (MIN -MAX)
Average (MIN -MAX)
Cumulative Aeerage
Aeerage (MIN -MAX)
Aeerage (MIN -MAC
Cumulative 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
BROOMFIELD
SVVAMP CREEK
n=2
n=0
n=2
n=2
n=0
n=2
Total abundance
551 (293-809)
-
551
Total abundance
783 (745-821)
-
783
Total taxa
23 (16-30)
-
23
Total taxa
29 (17-41)
-
29
EBI
1.50 (1.46-1.54)
-
1.5
EBI
1.49 (1.34-1.64)
-
1.49
SCUT1 (CONTROL)
COMPARED TO
BROOMFIELD
SVVAMP CREEK
n=2
n=0
n=2
n=2
n=0
n=2
Total abundance
673 (401-944)
-
673
Total abundance
868 (738-997)
-
868
Total taxa
24 (20-28)
-
24
Total taxa
27 (18-35)
-
27
EBI
1.36 (1.18-1.53)
-
1.36
EBI
1.85 (1.72-1.98)
-
1.85
JACKS CREEK
n=12
n=6
n=18
n=12
n=6
n=18
Total abundance
1,856 (783-3,529)
1,795 (1,311-2,480)
1,836
Total abundance
1,285 (589-2,477)
1,424 (766-2,189)
1,331
Total taxa
30 (18-42)
32 (27-37)
30
Total taxa
29 (19-45)
29 (23-33)
29
EBI
1.86 (1.59-2.07)
1.79 (1.69-1.90)
1.84
EBI
1.96 (1.77-2.19)
1.96 (1.74-2.04)
1.96
MUDDY CREEK
(CONTROL)
COMPARED TO
JACKS CREEK
n=12
n=6
n=22
n=12
n=6
n=22
Total abundance
1,504 (602-2,521)
1,608 (1,222-1,964)
1,496
Total abundance
1,567 (532-3,062)
1,549 (784-1,960)
1,468
Total taxa
31 (26-39)
35 (31-40)
32
Total taxa
33 (25-50)
31 (29-32)
32
EBI
1.87 (1.67-2.05)
1.89 (1.75-2.03)
1.89
EBI
1.96 (1.77-2.42)
1.95 (1.87 2.09)
1.98
LITTLE CREEK
(CONTROL)
COMPARED TO
JACKS CREEK
n=12
n=6
n=10
n=12
n=6
n=10
Total abundance
Total abundance
1,396 (1,148-2,002)
1,062 (881-1,279)
1,196
1,091 (843-1,363)
1,121 (564-1,502)
1,109
Total taxa
Total taxa
24 (22-27)
25 (15-29)
24
32 (28-36)
30 (21-36)
31
EBI
EBI
1.76 (1.58-1.92)
1.62 (1.50-1.79)
1.68
2.03 (1.84 2.25)
1.92 (1.79-2.08)
1.96
JACOBS CREEK
n=2
n=7
n=9
n=2
n=7
n=9
Total abundance
1,392 (937-1,678)
1,291 (718-1,644)
1,321
Total abundance
1,261 (1,024-1,523)
1,605 (905-2,198)
1,502
Total taxa
25 (19-32)
27 (21-34)
27
Total taxa
31 (29-33)
32 (29-35)
32
EBI
2.19 (2.05-2.40)
1.81 (1.63-1.92)
1.92
EBI
2.07 (2.05-2.10)
1.92 (1.80-2.01)
1.97
PA2 (CONTROL)
COMPARED TO
JACOBS CREEK
YEARS
n=2
n=7
n=10
n=2
n=7
n=10
Total abundance
1,577 (1,312-1,916)
1,579 (977-2,040)
1,579
Total abundance
1,365 (1,263-1,502)
1,620 (1,123-2,183)
1,543
Total taxa
25 (23-27)
26 (19-31)
26
Total taxa
24 (21-28)
29 (26-31)
27
EBI
2.11 (2.02-2.23)
1.78 (1.70-1.86)
1.88
EBI
2.12 (1.82-2.33)
1.81 (1.76-1.84)
1.90
LITTLE CREEK
(CONTROL)
COMPARED TO
JACOBS CREEK
n=2
n=7
n=10
n=2
n=7
n=10
Total abundance
1,463 (1,148-2,002)
1,082 (881-1,279)
1,196
Total abundance
1,119 (843-1,363)
1,104 (564-1,502)
1,109
Total taxa
24 (22-27)
25 (15-29)
24
Total taxa
32 (28-36)
30 (21-36)
31
EBI
1.82 (1.77-1.92)
1.61 (1.50-1.79)
1.68
EBI
2.09 (1.99-2.25)
1.90 (1.79-2.08)
1.96
LONG CREEK
(CONTROL)
COMPARED TO
JACOBS CREEK
n=3
n=7
n=10
n=3
n=7
n=10
Total abundance
1,101 (740-1,588)
1,652 (250-2,930)
1,486
Total abundance
926 (777-1,109)
1,144 (530-1,566)
1,079
Total taxa
28 (23-33)
31 (21-40)
30
Total taxa
28 (24-30)
28 (17-37)
28
EBI
1.89 (1.70-2.05)
1.86 (1.64-2.03)
1.87
EBI
2.00 (1.97 2.04)
2.02 (1.91 2.12)
2.01
II-C-43

Table II-05 (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
(ally ears sampled)
Parameters
Average (MIN -MAX)
for Pre -Mod Alt L
years
Average (MIN -MAX)
for Post -Mod Alt L
years
Cumulatwe Average
(ally ears sampled)
w
F Y
w
z U
a H w
Ct ❑ ~
Q Q 2Y
°G-Zw
cvMELL
MO
❑ v
Y 2 0LU
ft
CC Ow Q
ZaQZ
a Q a
Q U
J 4 ❑
n=2 n=8 n=10
n=2 n=8 n=10
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,529 (1, 026-2 032) 1,342 (596-1, 777) 1,380
31 (28-34) 26 [22-31) 27
211 (1. 96 225)
1.88 (1.75-1.98) 1.92
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,156(981-1,330) 1,308(884-1,785) 1,277
36 (33-38)
1.91 (1.782 04)
30(24-40) 31
1.88 (1.73-204) 1.89
n=2 n=8 n=10
n=2 n=8 n=10
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,710 (1,504-1,916) 1,546 (977--2040) 1,579
27 (26-27) 26 (19-31) 26
216 (209223)
1.81 (1.70-202) 1.88
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,416 (1,330-1, 502) 1,576 (1,123-2183) 1,544
25 (22-28) 28 (21-31) 27
228 (222233)
1.81 (1.76-1.84) 1.90
n=2 n=8 n=10
n=2
n=8 n=10
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,164(740-1,588) 1,567(250-2930) 1,486
31 (29-33)
1.99 (1.93-205)
30 (21-40) 30
1.M(1.64-203) 1.87
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,001 (892-1,109) 1,098 (530-1,566) 1,079
27 (2430) 28 (17-37) 28
201 (1.98-204) 201 (1.91-212) 201
TOOLEY CREEK
n = 6 n = 9 n=15
n = 6 n = 9 n=15
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,648 (918-2276) 1,672(1,0612,572) 1,662
29 (17-42)
1.96 [1.82208)
30 [27-38) 30
1.90 (1.80-208) 1.92
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,661 (1,005-3,360) 1,244(321-2425) 1,410
36 (31-47) 29 (18-34) 32
1.90 (1.81-1.96)
1.97 (1.80-207) 1.94
n=6 n=9 n=22
n=6 n=9 n=22
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,844 (1,2242521) 1,460 (602-1, 964) 1,496
30 (23-39)
1.81 (1.67-1.89)
33 [27-40) 32
1.89 (1.72-205) 1.89
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,893 (1,131-3, 062) 1,467 (532-1, 960) 1,468
36 (30-50)
1.91 (1.77-200)
30 (25-34) 32
1.96 (1.87--215) 1.98
HUDDLES CUT
n=6 n=11 n=17
n=6 n=11 n=17
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
635 (277--1, 040) 727 [273-1,647) 694
19 (13-25) 22 (15-29) 21
203 (1. 91222) 200 (1. 81-213) 201
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
349 (206-527) 467 (75-1, 057) 426
22 (18-26) 21 (12-33) 21
202 (1.74-220) 217 (1.99-236) 212
n=6 n=11 n=22
n = 6 n=11
n=22
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,489(882-2,134) 1,521 (602- 370) 1,496
31 (27--39)
1.91 (1.70-242)
32 (73-40) 32
1.88 (1.72-205) 1.89
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,194(712-2,318) 1,534(532-1,997) 1,468
32 (27--37)
202 (1.77247)
30 (25-34) 32
1.96 (1.87--215) 1.98
PORTER CREEK
n=5 n=5 n=10
n=5 n=5 n=10
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,914 (1,208-2804) 1,114 (765-1, 578) 1,514
26 (21-34) 28 (21-33) 27
1.90 (1.85-205)
1.90 (1.59-203) 1.90
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
1,279 (667-1,791) 990 (749-1,194) 1,135
31 (28-33) 23(18-26) 27
207(201218) 201 (1.82-208) 204
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
n=5 n=5 n=10
1,242(627-1,956) 1,459 (966-1,702) 1,350
25 (21-30) 28 [22-34) 26
1.77 (1.64-1.92) 1.64 (1.50-1.92) 1.70
Total abundance
Total taxa
EBI
n=5 n=5 n=10
1,582 (1,0822,172) 1,085 (809-1, 315) 1,333
28 (26-32) 24 (20-32) 26
1.95 (1. 902 02)
204 (1. 89-213) 1.99
I I-C-44

Table II-05 (concluded).
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
(MIN -MAX)
Average (MIN -MAX)
Average (MIN -MAX)
Average (MIN -MAX)
CREEK
.Average
Cumulative Average
Cumulative Average
NAME
Parameters
for Pre-ModAl L
for Post-ModAl L
(ally ears sampled)
Parameters
for Pre -Mod AlL
for Post-ModAl L
(ally ears sampled)
years
years
years
years
DCUT11
n=5
n=3
n=8
n=5
n=3
n=8
Total abundance
1,408 [1,00&1,750]
1,281 (613-1,677)
1,361
Total abundance
1,708 (1,229-2,205)
1,371 (867-1,896)
1,582
Total taxa
25 (22-29)
28 (25-30)
26
Total taxa
28 (24-31)
26 (19-32)
28
EBI
1.84 (1.75-1.90)
1.83 (1.46-207)
1.84
EBI
1.91 (1.80 203)
1.89 (1.65-203)
1.90
DCUT19(CONTROL)
COMPARED TO
OCUTT11YEARS
n=5
n=3
n=8
n=5
n=3
n=8
Total abundance
1,431 (823-2,011)
1,217(1,108-1,390)
1,351
Total abundance
2123(1,653-2471)
1,337(1,166-1,660)
1,828
Total taxa
29 (23-33)
25 ( 5-26)
28
Total taxa
33 (29-35)
28 (25-32)
31
EBI
1.83 (1.78-1.87)
1.81 (1.54-200)
1.82
EBI
1.85 (1.74-1.97)
1.91 (1.81-1.99)
1.88
DUCK CREEK
(CONTROL)
COMPARE 0TO
OCUTT11 YEARS
n=5
n=3
n=10
n=5
n=3
n=10
Total abundance
1,461 (627-1,956)
1,372 (966-1,700)
1,350
Total abundance
1,450 (1,175-2,172)
979 (809-1,237)
1,273
Total taxa
27 (21-34)
26 [2229)
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
201 (1.91213)
1.99 (1.89-207)
200
I I-C-45