Document No. 12699-001-500 F-1 October 2011 

Appendix F 

Number of organisms and survival rates at different stages during 

the brown trout reproduction study 
Treatment Initial eggs

# dead 

alevins 

(hatch - su) % hatch

% egg 

mortality

# preserved 

@ su wet wt

15d PSU 

target

% survival 

@ su

# preserved 

at end

# for 

wts/lengths

Dead in 

15d PSU Missing TE

SC-001 600 6 23.8% 76.2% 38 1 100 22.8% 77 20 1 

SC-002 600 2 22.8% 77.2% 34 1 100 22.5% 79 20 1 

SC-003 600 6 56.7% 43.3% 233 1 100 55.7% 69 20 1 9 1 SC-004 600 23 31.2% 68.9% 60 1 100 27.3% 80 20 3 

SC-005 600 6 11.7% 88.3% 0 1 62 10.7% 42 20 0 1 

SC-006 600 2 93.2% 6.8% 457 1 100 92.8% 78 20 1 

SC-007 600 22 30.5% 69.5% 61 1 100 26.8% 76 20 3 

SC-008 600 6 66.0% 34.0% 289 1 100 65.0% 70 20 0 10 

SPC-001 600 8 99.3% 0.7% 488 - 100 98.0% 80 20 0 

SPC-002 20 0 100.0% 0.0% 0 - 20 100.0% 0 20 0 

SPC-003 600 20 97.5% 2.5% 465 - 100 94.2% 80 20 0 

SPC-004 21 0 100.0% 0.0% 0 - 21 100.0% 0 20 0 

SPC-005 600 8 98.8% 1.2% 485 - 100 97.5% 76 20 0 

SPC-006 600 22 99.7% 0.3% 476 - 100 96.0% 80 20 0 

LSV2C-002 600 14 99.0% 1.0% 480 - 100 96.7% 64 20 0 16 

LSV2C-003 400 342 93.5% 6.5% 0 - 32 8.0% 0 9 23 

LSV2C-004 500 102 50.6% 49.4% 0 - 151 30.2% 64 20 67 

LSV2C-005 300 103 71.3% 28.7% 0 - 111 37.0% 49 20 42 

LSV2C-006 - - - 100.0% - - - - - - - 

LSV2C-007 - - - 100.0% - - - - - - - LSV2C-008 300 5 88.3% 11.7% 160 - 100 86.7% 34 20 1 46 

LSV2C-010 100 62 87.0% 13.0% 0 - 25 25.0% 0 11 14 

LSV2C-012 600 16 98.3% 1.7% 474 - 100 95.7% 80 20 0 

LSV2C-016 600 20 95.0% 5.0% 449 - 101 91.7% 81 20 0 

LSV2C-017 300 22 71.3% 28.7% 92 - 100 64.0% 58 20 3 19 

LSV2C-019 500 22 94.2% 5.8% 349 - 100 89.8% 41 20 0 39 

LSV2C-020 400 5 89.3% 10.8% 252 - 100 88.0% 44 20 0 36 

LSV2C-021 600 286 69.3% 30.7% 0 - 130 21.7% 69 20 41 

CC-150-009 600 8 28.5% 71.5% 62 - 100 27.2% 80 20 1 

CC-150-011 300 2 96.0% 4.0% 185 - 100 95.3% 81 20 0 

CC-150-012 350 7 88.9% 11.2% 204 - 100 86.86% 77 20 1 

CC-150-013 600 42 66.7% 33.3% 258 - 100 59.7% 52 20 2 26 

CC-150-015 600 3 78.3% 21.7% 367 - 100 77.8% 78 20 0 

CC-150-016 600 3 14.8% 85.2% 0 - 86 14.3% 23 20 0 43 

CC-150-017 250 7 89.2% 10.8% 116 - 100 86.4% 47 20 0 33 

CC-150-018 600 17 87.2% 12.8% 405 - 100 84.3% 81 20 0 

CC-150-020 600 6 97.3% 2.7% 478 - 100 96.3% 80 20 0 

CC-350-006 600 22 71.7% 28.3% 307 - 101 68.0% 79 20 2 

CC-350-007 600 6 29.7% 70.3% 72 - 100 28.7% 59 20 1 20 CC-350-008 600 19 67.7% 32.3% 287 - 100 64.5% 51 20 1 28 

su=swimuppsu=post swimupTE=tech errorwt= weight

#s at hatch #s at swimup #s at test termination

Number of Organisms and Survival Rates at Different Stages During Brown Trout Reproductive Study
Document No. 12699-001-500 G-1 October 2011 

Appendix G 

Length and dry weight measurements for juvenile brown trout 

from reproductive study 
Length and dry weight data for juvenile brown trout from each treatment12699-001

filename: length & wt.xls

Saratooga Hatchery (SC)

SC001 

std length 

(mm)

SC001 

dry wt 

(mg)

SC002 

std length 

(mm)

SC002 

dry wt 

(mg)

SC003 

std length 

(mm)

SC003 

dry wt 

(mg)

SC004 

std length 

(mm)

SC004 

dry wt 

(mg)

SC005 

std length 

(mm)

SC005 

dry wt 

(mg)

SC006 

std length 

(mm)

A 22 19.540 22 21.350 23 31.120 24 31.120 21 22.060 23 B 22 15.090 22 15.790 24 25.330 25 30.830 22 27.190 21 C 24 20.700 22 19.980 23 24.970 23 25.840 22 19.060 22 D 21 16.590 24 25.460 22 22.620 23 25.400 20 21.700 22 

E 21 13.980 22 17.220 23 21.020 24 21.520 21 21.240 21 

F 22 20.420 23 16.040 24 29.480 21 20.230 23 16.820 21 

G 22 22.900 22 17.020 23 22.110 24 29.710 24 14.990 21 

H 22 21.730 22 20.350 24 27.300 24 32.100 24 20.370 22 

I 20 13.810 23 23.060 22 23.290 25 37.230 21 17.150 22 

J 22 25.660 24 19.680 24 27.870 21 19.840 22 22.680 22 

K 23 24.510 23 21.280 20 15.390 21 21.150 20 16.660 21 

L 22 19.070 21 15.320 22 16.570 22 22.070 22 14.030 24 

M 23 20.790 23 23.250 23 26.610 22 23.410 22 16.350 21 

N 22 18.700 21 14.220 23 21.800 22 24.140 20 18.100 22 

O 21 20.200 22 15.120 21 23.220 22 24.400 23 17.730 23 

P 22 16.030 21 20.140 26 22.730 19 8.840 21 13.540 21 

Q 20 10.060 21 18.220 22 14.700 23 28.330 22 17.060 22 

R 22 21.590 21 15.380 22 13.560 21 17.960 22 24.120 22 

S 18 10.990 22 15.420 24 20.720 20 10.860 21 18.700 21 

T 18 14.400 22 15.100 22 21.630 18 9.950 23 28.160 22 

Avg 21.45 18.3380 22.15 18.4700 22.85 22.6020 22.20 23.2465 21.80 19.3855 21.80 1

Std 1.504 4.308 0.933 3.287 1.309 4.813 1.908 7.503 1.196 4.032 0.834 

n 20 20 20 20 20 20 
ABCD

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

Avg

Std

n

Length and dry weight data for juvenile brown trout from each treatment12699-001

filename: length & wt.xls

Saratooga Hatchery (SC)

SC008 

std length 

(mm)

SC008 

dry wt 

(mg)

SC008 (2) 

std length 

(mm)

SC008 (2) 

std length 

before 

isopropyl 

SC008 (2) 

dry wt 

(mg)

SC008 (2) 

wet wt 

(mg)

21 13.780 21 23 17.360 131.000

19 10.360 22 23 19.090 142.100

23 18.880 22 22 13.920 104.300

21 16.370 21 23 16.010 114.700

22 15.450 23 24 20.430 153.300

23 22.020 22 23 15.120 118.800

22 20.260 21 23 15.290 113.300

23 21.530 19 20 12.640 94.700

21 14.800 20 22 15.540 111.700

20 13.200 21 23 19.190 131.300

21 15.32021 12.31020 12.75021 12.00022 15.71020 12.23020 11.20022 16.32021 14.63020 13.250

21.15 15.1185 21.20 22.60 16.4590 121.521.137 3.338 1.135 1.075 2.499 17.804

20 10 10
Length and dry weight data for juvenile brown trout from each treatment12699-001

filename: length & wt.xls

Spring Creek Hatchery (SPC)

SPC 001 

std length 

(mm) 

SPC 001 

dry wt 

(mg)

SPC 002 

std length 

(mm) 

SPC 002 

dry wt 

(mg)

SPC 003 

std length 

(mm) 

SPC 003 

dry wt 

(mg)

SPC 004 

std length 

(mm) 

SPC 004 

dry wt 

(mg)

SPC 005 

std length 

(mm) 

SPC 005 

dry wt 

(mg)

SPC 006 

std length 

(mm) 

S

A 27 27.100 22 25.070 22 27.310 25 28.360 23 22.770 23 B 26 12.040 26 21.560 24 18.710 24 21.040 27 23.330 23 C 25 17.210 23 28.420 23 15.360 22 22.380 23 16.450 26 D 26 19.410 25 17.460 23 18.670 23 23.370 24 23.030 27 

E 23 14.130 23 18.030 24 21.350 24 19.380 23 20.790 23 

F 21 25.640 22 24.890 26 21.040 25 30.400 21 15.890 23 

G 25 17.650 21 17.050 27 21.340 25 20.040 24 18.820 20 

H 25 31.060 25 17.410 28 27.550 22 27.050 23 18.330 22 

I 27 25.630 23 15.500 21 31.630 21 19.100 24 35.790 25 

J 24 13.110 23 22.740 22 20.300 25 21.360 25 15.820 23 

K 25 23.650 25 27.260 25 10.890 22 33.380 25 23.030 23 

L 28 27.860 21 18.590 23 22.570 25 25.420 21 13.610 25 

M 23 29.700 24 24.110 21 29.820 22 16.320 21 14.270 23 

N 21 17.460 22 18.270 21 19.840 27 15.420 20 17.200 21 

O 24 22.300 23 22.790 23 16.650 20 15.810 20 21.370 23 

P 23 21.660 22 17.710 21 18.950 23 16.360 26 22.150 22 

Q 25 31.230 22 14.910 22 20.000 27 16.670 22 19.210 22 

R 21 31.270 23 18.280 21 30.640 24 25.100 22 15.840 24 

S 22 23.150 20 20.400 25 17.920 22 14.720 24 34.000 22 

T 26 20.020 22 26.580 24 25.600 21 19.590 22 24.150 23 

Avg 24.35 22.5640 22.85 20.8515 23.30 21.8070 23.45 21.5635 23.00 20.7925 23.15 2

Std 2.084 6.115 1.531 4.116 2.080 5.416 1.959 5.326 1.919 5.826 1.631 

n 20 20 20 20 20 20
Length and dry weight data for juvenile brown trout from each treatment12699-001

filename: length & wt.xls

CC-350

CC-350 

006 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-350 006 dry 

wt (mg)

CC-350 

007 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-350 

007 dry 

wy (mg)

CC-350 

008 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-350 008 dry 

wt (mg)

A 23 13.250 20 12.130 22 9.470B 20 11.680 21 8.570 21 10.040C 22 10.240 23 8.040 21 8.890D 20 14.390 21 7.700 22 17.650

E 22 14.430 23 15.750 21 11.710

F 22 9.330 21 12.850 19 17.750

G 22 16.810 24 17.980 22 10.830

H 20 8.820 21 6.890 20 9.000

I 23 17.060 23 10.410 20 14.820

J 20 16.820 22 9.170 21 8.870

K 21 8.760 23 13.370 19 10.820

L 20 9.440 20 16.580 20 10.050

M 20 14.070 21 18.080 22 9.470

N 22 10.310 19 11.150 20 11.760

O 21 17.500 20 10.740 20 13.120

P 23 10.380 21 7.660 20 9.370

Q 22 8.000 20 10.480 20 10.300

R 21 14.170 20 8.010 20 14.400

S 23 9.300 21 7.260 21 16.860

T 21 12.090 22 7.360 20 16.600

Avg 21.40 12.3425 21.30 11.0090 20.55 12.0890

Std 1.142 3.148 1.342 3.676 0.945 3.130

n 20 20 20
Length and dry weight data for juvenile brown trout from each treatment12699-001

filename: length & wt.xls

CC-150

CC-150 

009 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-150 009 dry 

wt (mg)

CC-150 

011 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-150 011 dry 

wt (mg)

CC-150 

012 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-150 012 dry 

wt (mg)

CC-150 

013 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-150 013 dry 

wt (mg)

CC-150 

015 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-150 015 dry 

wt (mg)

CC-150 

016 std 

length 

(mm)

C0

w

A 22 12.190 20 11.660 22 15.840 23 17.150 23 15.800 21 B 20 15.970 20 9.890 21 8.630 22 11.860 20 14.000 23 C 24 8.200 20 6.200 22 14.970 20 17.660 25 11.390 25 D 20 13.430 20 8.040 20 9.110 22 11.810 24 17.260 24 

E 21 17.200 19 5.850 22 10.960 22 20.140 21 15.060 22 

F 22 8.810 19 11.940 20 13.340 21 11.360 23 8.410 23 

G 20 14.270 20 6.690 21 13.100 23 23.340 22 15.970 22 

H 24 13.240 20 12.220 22 15.510 22 13.250 23 14.740 23 

I 20 15.060 21 11.370 21 9.520 22 16.440 23 12.270 23 

J 22 16.900 21 9.430 20 13.140 23 17.370 23 17.180 24 

K 23 17.780 20 11.140 21 14.410 25 13.480 22 19.120 24 

L 23 12.570 22 11.830 22 12.490 22 20.130 24 14.210 21 

M 22 17.280 19 6.660 22 19.730 25 12.870 22 16.180 23 

N 20 8.250 20 7.990 21 10.560 24 15.890 23 18.170 22 

O 23 11.520 21 7.690 23 13.840 22 10.210 21 18.080 22 

P 22 9.430 21 9.590 22 9.380 23 14.270 21 12.320 22 

Q 23 17.190 19 9.150 21 15.410 23 16.330 22 13.010 25 

R 22 11.480 21 7.540 21 14.360 24 17.700 23 15.700 23 

S 22 13.680 19 13.410 22 10.300 21 13.790 24 6.850 22 

T 22 9.300 20 6.680 23 12.200 22 16.600 22 14.000 22 

Avg 21.85 13.1875 20.10 9.2485 21.45 12.8400 22.55 15.5825 22.55 14.4860 22.80 1

Std 1.309 3.254 0.852 2.335 0.887 2.822 1.276 3.367 1.234 3.152 1.152 

n 20 20 20 20 20 20 
CC-150

ABCD

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

Avg

Std

n

Length and dry weight data for juvenile brown trout from each treatment12699-001

filename: length & wt.xls

CC-150 

018 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-150 018 dry 

wt (mg)

CC-150 

020 std 

length 

(mm)

CC-150 020 dry 

wt (mg)

21 16.610 20 12.04020 14.100 21 5.70022 16.740 19 15.55020 10.730 22 6.79019 5.700 20 14.28022 14.280 21 7.59023 15.640 22 7.05022 13.500 22 18.36020 16.560 20 11.32020 11.270 21 10.96021 10.500 20 7.69022 12.970 22 13.10022 8.000 20 14.18022 13.310 18 10.60022 18.330 21 8.36021 8.330 18 13.11021 14.540 19 14.81022 15.130 19 7.29022 12.720 21 14.98022 15.930 18 11.190

21.30 13.2445 20.20 11.24751.031 3.302 1.361 3.553

20 20
Length and dry weight data for juvenile brown trout from each treatment12699-001

filename: length & wt.xls

LSV2C

LSV2C 

002 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

002 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

003 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

003 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

004 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

004 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

005 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

005 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

008 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

008 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

010 std 

length 

(mm)

0

w

A 18 11.850 22 11.760 22 9.620 19 7.080 21 8.870 20 B 20 17.480 20 7.080 21 11.310 21 12.370 20 9.980 20 C 20 12.730 21 7.310 21 8.910 19 7.400 20 10.300 20 D 21 8.140 22 8.010 22 7.600 23 11.710 21 8.950 21 

E 19 9.720 21 12.110 20 11.960 20 10.580 21 8.370 20 

F 20 8.020 21 7.890 22 6.700 20 7.370 21 11.420 21 

G 20 11.680 21 9.420 21 9.520 20 16.890 21 9.490 19 

H 22 10.130 22 9.850 21 10.130 20 8.140 20 12.150 21 

I 21 13.820 22 13.960 23 13.810 21 15.330 21 9.710 19 

J 19 6.820 20 10.720 19 10.990 21 8.670 19 

K 20 10.440 21 9.640 20 13.220 20 8.420 19 

L 20 6.510 20 9.310 20 9.950 20 8.510 

M 19 9.840 20 10.450 19 10.270 21 8.760 

N 21 12.090 23 10.990 21 11.540 20 8.670 

O 20 13.280 21 10.670 19 12.300 20 7.920 

P 18 10.030 21 13.330 21 13.230 20 10.230 

Q 22 10.780 21 8.040 20 11.210 21 9.020 

R 21 15.610 21 7.100 22 6.920 20 10.740 

S 22 6.290 21 6.890 21 12.750 20 7.940 

T 19 16.130 22 12.880 20 10.090 20 8.720 

Avg 20.10 11.0695 21.33 9.7100 21.20 9.9790 20.25 10.9670 20.45 9.3420 19.91 

Std 1.210 3.161 0.707 2.424 0.894 2.082 1.070 2.712 0.510 1.147 0.831 

n 20 9 20 20 20 11 
LSV2C

ABCD

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

Avg

Std

n

Length and dry weight data for juvenile brown trout from each treatment12699-001

filename: length & wt.xls

LSV2C 

016 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

016 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

017 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

017 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

019 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

019 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

020 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

020 dry 

wt (mg)

LSV2C 

021 std 

length 

(mm)

LSV2C 

021 dry 

wt (mg)

22 17.320 24 25.130 23 26.560 21 13.920 22 8.32019 15.730 23 20.260 25 23.350 21 12.980 23 8.50022 16.060 23 15.130 23 21.680 21 10.990 19 10.38025 14.700 23 24.680 24 18.840 23 7.890 20 10.28022 9.710 23 17.080 23 25.970 21 10.270 20 9.96023 17.160 23 21.450 21 15.450 23 8.570 20 16.84023 16.230 25 13.590 25 13.100 22 8.090 19 7.71022 12.390 23 19.750 23 10.410 22 8.660 20 10.69020 24.040 23 17.630 23 17.300 21 13.900 22 15.69020 11.710 24 21.390 26 19.830 22 9.790 21 4.55022 27.380 24 24.930 23 13.690 21 15.120 18 11.96022 14.060 24 18.110 22 23.830 21 9.360 19 12.53021 9.310 25 15.480 22 10.580 21 16.620 20 10.47021 21.020 24 17.330 26 33.340 24 14.030 21 5.95024 18.480 23 19.570 24 18.080 21 9.520 18 5.51021 18.270 25 16.470 24 23.380 21 14.690 23 13.28023 12.900 24 9.940 24 17.950 22 12.750 19 9.94023 7.430 21 17.680 26 21.150 22 14.230 21 18.35020 20.420 25 23.820 22 14.510 21 9.250 19 16.00021 12.390 25 18.130 24 17.390 24 10.840 20 6.210

21.80 15.8355 23.70 18.8775 23.65 19.3195 21.75 11.5735 20.20 10.65601.473 4.974 1.031 3.966 1.424 5.764 1.020 2.701 1.473 3.901

20 20 20 20 20
Page __ of __

Average length and weight of brown trout (Salmo trutta ) at test termination.

12699-001-300

Note: each value represents the average of ~20 individual fish

filename: length & wt.xls

avg std length 

(mm)

avg dry 

wt (mg)

avg std 

length 

before 

Isopropyl 

avg wet 

wt (mg)

Grand 

Avg std 

length

Grand 

avg dry 

wt (mg)

Saratoga 

Hatchery

SC-001 21.45 18.338 (measured after storage in isopropyl)

SC-002 22.15 18.470 (measured after storage in isopropyl)

SC-003 22.85 22.602 (measured after storage in isopropyl)

SC-004 22.20 23.247 (measured after storage in isopropyl)

SC-005 21.80 19.386 (measured after storage in isopropyl)

SC-006 21.80 18.240 (measured after storage in isopropyl)

SC-007 21.05 18.567 (measured after storage in isopropyl)

SC-008 21.15 15.119 21.81 19.2459 (measured after storage in isopropyl)

SC-008 (2) 21.20 16.459 22.60 121.52 (measured prior to storage in isopropyl)

(all other fish measured prior to storage in isopropyl)

Spring Creek 

Hatchery

SPC-001 24.35 22.564

SPC-002 22.85 20.852

SPC-003 23.30 21.807

SPC-004 23.45 21.564

SPC-005 23.00 20.793

SPC-006 23.15 22.385 23.35 21.6607

High

LSV2C-002 20.10 11.069

LSV2C-003 21.33 9.710

LSV2C-004 21.20 9.979

LSV2C-005 20.25 10.967

LSV2C-006

LSV2C-007

LSV2C-008 20.45 9.342

LSV2C-010 19.91 8.092

LSV2C-012 22.00 13.256

LSV2C-016 21.80 15.835

LSV2C-017 23.70 18.878

LSV2C-019 23.65 19.320

LSV2C-020 21.75 11.574

LSV2C-021 20.20 10.656 21.36 12.3898

Bkd

CC-150-009 21.85 13.188

CC-150-011 20.10 9.249

CC-150-012 21.45 12.840

CC-150-013 22.55 15.583

CC-150-015 22.55 14.486

CC-150-016 22.80 16.736

CC-150-017 20.95 10.652

CC-150-018 21.30 13.245

CC-150-020 20.20 11.248 21.53 13.0250

Low

CC-350-006 21.40 12.343

CC-350-007 21.30 11.009

CC-350-008 20.55 12.089 21.08 11.8135
APPENDIX B 

Detail Figures for Locations where Brown Trout were Collected 
CC75

CC150REDD

CC350

CCrrooww CCrreeeekk

Deeeerr Crreeeekk

Waarrm Crreeeekk

S:\GIS\ARCPRJ2\010109\PLT\BROWNREPRO\REFSMPLOCS_CROWCKUP_OCT07.MXD

PRJ: 0442-004-900.70 DATE: NOV 19, 2008

REV: 0 BY: JPJ CHK: 

J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY

FIGURE 1

SMOKY CANYON MINE

BROWN TROUT REPRODUCTION STUDY

OCTOBER 2007 FISHING REACHES:

CROW CREEK UPSTREAM

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Map Extent

Smoky

Canyon

Mine

Caribou

Lincoln

Bear Lake

Bonneville

Legend

Surface Water Sampling Location

Fishing Reach
LSV2C

CC1A

CC3A

CCrrooww CCrreeeekk

SSaaggee CCrreeeekk

RRoocckk Crreeeekk

SSoouutthh FF

oo

rrkk

SS

aagee

Crree

ee

kk

S:\GIS\ARCPRJ2\010109\PLT\BROWNREPRO\REFSMPLOCS_CROWCKDN_OCT07.MXD

PRJ: 0442-004-900.70 DATE: NOV 19, 2008

REV: 0 BY: JPJ CHK: 

J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY

FIGURE 2

SMOKY CANYON MINE

BROWN TROUT REPRODUCTION STUDY

OCTOBER 2007 FISHING REACHES:

SAGE CREEK AND CROW CREEK 

DOWNSTREAM

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Map Extent

Smoky

Canyon

Mine

Caribou

Lincoln

Bear Lake

Bonneville

Legend

Surface Water Sampling Location

Fishing Reach
SC3

Sttuump Crreeeek

Horsse Creek

CCoow CCrreek

S:\GIS\ARCPRJ2\010109\PLT\BROWNREPRO\REFSMPLOCS_STUMPCK_OCT07.MXD

PRJ: 0442-004-900.70 DATE: NOV 19, 2008

REV: 0 BY: JPJ CHK: 

J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY

FIGURE 3

SMOKY CANYON MINE

BROWN TROUT REPRODUCTION STUDY

OCTOBER 2007 FISHING REACHES:

STUMP CREEK

0 1,000 2,000 500

Feet

Map Extent

Smoky

Canyon

Mine

Caribou

Lincoln

Bear Lake

Bonneville

Legend

Surface Water Sampling Location

Fishing Reach
Mon

pt

el ei r

C

re

e

k

MC1

Montpelier Reservoir

S:\GIS\ARCPRJ2\010109\PLT\BROWNREPRO\REFSMPLOCS_MONTCK_OCT07.MXD

PRJ: 0442-004-900.70 DATE: NOV 19, 2008

REV: 0 BY: JPJ CHK: 

J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY

FIGURE 4

SMOKY CANYON MINE

BROWN TROUT REPRODUCTION STUDY

OCTOBER 2007 FISHING REACHES:

MONTPELIER CREEK

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Map Extent

Smoky

Canyon

Mine

Caribou

Lincoln

Bear Lake

Bonneville

Legend

Surface Water Sampling Location

Fishing Reach
CC150REDD

CC350

CCrrooww CCrreeeekk

Waarrm Crreeeekk

DDeeeerr CCrreeeekk

S:\GIS\ARCPRJ2\010109\PLT\BROWNREPRO\REFSMPLOCS_CROWCKUP_NOV07.MXD

PRJ: 0442-004-900.70 DATE: NOV 19, 2008

REV: 0 BY: JPJ CHK: 

J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY

FIGURE 5

SMOKY CANYON MINE

BROWN TROUT REPRODUCTION STUDY

NOVEMBER 2007 FISHING REACHES:

CROW CREEK UPSTREAM

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Map Extent

Smoky

Canyon

Mine

Caribou

Lincoln

Bear Lake

Bonneville

Legend

Fishing Reach
LSV2C

CC1A

CC3A

CC1A-CC3A

CCrrooww CCrreeeekk

SSaaggee CCrreeeekk

RRoocckk Crreeeekk

SSoouutthh FF

oo

rrkk

SS

aagee

Crree

ee

kk

S:\GIS\ARCPRJ2\010109\PLT\BROWNREPRO\REFSMPLOCS_CROWCKDN_NOV07.MXD

PRJ: 0442-004-900.70 DATE: NOV 19, 2008

REV: 0 BY: JPJ CHK: 

J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY

FIGURE 6

SMOKY CANYON MINE

BROWN TROUT REPRODUCTION STUDY

NOVEMBER 2007 FISHING REACHES:

SAGE CREEK AND CROW CREEK 

DOWNSTREAM

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Map Extent

Smoky

Canyon

Mine

Caribou

Lincoln

Bear Lake

Bonneville

Legend

Fishing Reach
SC3

SC1

Stumpp Crreeeekk

Cooww Creek

Horrsse Creeekk

S:\GIS\ARCPRJ2\010109\PLT\BROWNREPRO\REFSMPLOCS_STUMPCK_NOV07.MXD

PRJ: 0442-004-900.70 DATE: NOV 19, 2008

REV: 0 BY: JPJ CHK: 

J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY

FIGURE 7

SMOKY CANYON MINE

BROWN TROUT REPRODUCTION STUDY

NOVEMBER 2007 FISHING REACHES:

STUMP CREEK

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Map Extent

Smoky

Canyon

Mine

Caribou

Lincoln

Bear Lake

Bonneville

Legend

Fishing Reach
APPENDIX C 

Photographs of example deformities and Summary of the Deformity Rankings for Each SampleCSU 
Deformity Assessment 

The general scoring criteria were adopted from Holm et al. (2003) and included 

assessments of craniofacial deformities, mostly of the head, eyes, and jaw, vertebral 

deformities, fin deformities, and edema. The original publication showed pictures of some 

deformities but others, particularly the intermediate categories were not illustrated or were 

poorly described. More specific definitions for each of the assessment categories were 

developed to give better repeatability and consistency across studies, and to aid others in 

learning the range of deformities possible. 

Deformities in each of the categories described above were given a score from 0-3, with 0 

being a normal condition and 3 being the most deformed. Some range finding was 

conducted over the first several samples to find background and severe levels of 

deformities in each category. Initial samples were rescored as necessary to bring them 

into compliance with the standards that were used throughout the assessment. In the 

second batch of fish analyzed (~100 from 5 LSV2C sites), it was not always possible to 

score each fish for each category due to the condition of the organism. Therefore, in 

several cases no scoring was possible. 

The protocol for assessing damage was to place several fish, head to the left, in a Petri 

dish and examine them under a dissecting microscope and 10X magnification. The lateral 

side was examined for spinal deformities (lordosis, kyphosis), appearance of the eye, 

head and snout shape, edema, and fin deformities. The fish was turned ventrally to look 

for mouth deformities and further spinal deformities (scoliosis), turned laterally again for 

the same criteria as the other side, and then dorsally for issues associated with eyes, head 

size, spinal deformities. 

Craniofacial deformities included shortening of the jaw, snout, and missing or poorly 

developed eye or eyes, and head shape abnormalities. A slightly shortened lower jaw (<= 

1 lip width) received a 1, a shortened jaw = 2 lip widths or a slightly shortened and slightly 

disfigured jaw = 2, and a flat lower jaw or much disfigured (non-functional) jaw = 3. An 

assessment of fish independent of this study revealed that other brown trout of the same 

size and developmental state did not have the slight deformity that was assessed as CF 

=1 for the jaw (J). Thus, the CF = 1 score where the J was concerned were deemed real. 

A slightly blunted snout (about 50% eye diameter, usually is > than that) = 1, very blunt or 

flat = 2, deformed or bulbous = 3. Eye deformities were scored as one eye blind or poorly 

pigmented or poorly developed =1, both poorly developed = 2, both blind = 3. Skulls that 

were slightly bulbous (1/3 > normal) = 1, moderately bulbous (2/3 > normal) = 2, and 

bulbous (1x or > than normal) = 3. Usually factors occurred together so a combination of 

two “1” conditions = 2, three “1” conditions = 3, or a 1 and a 2 = 3, and so on. For 

example, a deformed jaw and a blind eye = 2, two blind eyes = 2, but a badly deformed 

jaw (= 2 alone) plus a blind eye (= 1 alone), = 3. 

Skeletal deformities included any deformity of the vertebrae or spines. A slight bend of 

less than 45 degrees (but > than body width off of straight) or a minor body constriction 

(e.g. a tight rubber band about the body effect) was given a score of 1, 2 slight bends or 

constrictions anywhere, or bend of > 45-90 degrees was scored a 2, and multi-directional 
bends > 90 degrees were given a 3. Bends caused by skeletal deformities were usually 

detectable from normal bending of the body during preservation (these fish were usually 

well preserved, very straight) by presence of a slight or greater bump below the surface of 

the epidermis on the outside of the bend. However, some fish with SD = 1 had just a very 

slight bend in the range the deformity described but could be due to preservation or the 

poor condition of the fish. This was sometimes especially true in larger fish, which may be 

more muscular and undergo stronger contraction during preservation and thus, bend 

slightly. A score “CF = 1” was a slight deformity, if at all. The scores of SD = 1 involving 

kyphosis or lordosis were deemed real because that is an unusual preservation deformity. 

Also, samples BKD 015 SU (i.e., extra fry from CC-150-015 at swim-up), LOW 008 SU 

(i.e., extra fry from CC-350-008 at swim-up), and SC 003 SU (i.e., extra fry from SC-003 at 

swim-up) were re-examined; most fish were very straight so some samples with higher SD 

scores (e.g., PSU samples) were determined accurate. Thin fish difficult to score, and 

often looked like they were underfed or starving. 

Fin deformities included variation in fin or finfold morphology and a slightly smaller or 

missing fin (in thin fish, the adipose fin was often absent, indicating fat absorption, not 

uncommon and scored 1) or one with a bend or incomplete ray development (in older fish) 

was given a 1, 2 fins damaged or malformed = 2, and > 2 fins malformed or if fins were 

missing (except adipose) was = 3. Often fins were malformed associated with vertebral 

deformities that did not permit proper development. Folded finfolds as a result of 

preservation were not counted. 

Edema was not originally scheduled for assessment because it was thought sometimes 

not a teratogenic effect and may be transitory as fish develop. However, it was assessed 

because it was common in one early sample and not others, and because it was 

considered a condition that could affect emergence, mobility, and other factors that may 

limit survival of fish in the wild. Edema was detected by an obvious swelling and fluid 

buildup, usually abdominally, and ventrally, which often displaced the gut, and was usually 

clear fluid that was slightly soft when touched with a blunt probe. The yolk, which was 

present in some quantity in some study specimens, also created some swelling but was 

typically yellowish, opaque, and small, and hard to the touch in preservation. Slight 

edema = 1 was for a fish with up to 1X swelling of the normal body width or depth, up to 2x 

= 2, and > 2x = 3. 

A sample of 50 fish and a sample of 30 fish were scored twice, the same fish for each 

batch but not necessarily the same order. This sample was characterized by a low 

incidence of fin deformities (slow development) and a high incidence of jaw deformities 

and blindness (SC 003 SU). Those cranio-facial traits are difficult to score because they 

are additive, and subjective as to severity. Thus, the results may be a conservative view 

of what score replicability should be like for other traits in other samples that are easier to 

score. 

Replicability of frequency of cranio-facial abnormalities was high among assessments at 

50 and 52% in the first sample of 50 fish, and identical frequencies of 46.7 % in each 

assessment for the sample of 30 fish. The cumulative sums of the scores were also quite 
close, but reflecting variability in scoring for all three categories of severity in each sample. 

Replicability of fin ray development assessments for both frequency and the sum of the 

scores was identical in both samples. 

Below we have included photographs of each of the deformities assessed described 

above, demonstrating scoring values of 0 – 3 for each of the deformities. 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of normal brown trout eyes (left) and an example of a cranio-facial eye deformity with a score of 1 

Photos 3 and 4: Examples of cranio-facial eye deformities with a score of 3 (both). 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of a normal brown trout jaw (left) and an example of a cranio-facial jaw deformity with a score of 

Photos 3 and 4: Example of a cranio-facial jaw deformity with a score of 2 (left ) and 3 (right). 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of a healthy brown trout fish (left) and an example of the spinal deformity constriction with a score 

Photo 3: Example of the spinal deformity constriction with a score of 1. 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of a healthy brown trout fish (left) and an example of the skeletal deformity kyphosis with a score 

Photos 3 and 4: Example of the skeletal deformity kyphosis with a score of 2 (left ) and 3 (right). 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of a healthy brown trout fish (left) and an example of the skeletal deformity lordosis with a score o

Photos 3 and 4: Example of the skeletal deformity lordosis with a score of 2 (left ) and 3 (right). 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of a healthy brown trout fish (left) and an example of the spinal deformity scoliosis with a score of 

Photos 3 and 4: Example of the spinal deformity scoliosis with a score of 2 (left ) and 3 (right). 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of a healthy brown trout fish (left) and an example of a fin deformity with a score of 1 (right). 

Photos 3 and 4: Example of a fin deformity with a score of 2 (left ) and 3 (right). 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of a healthy brown trout fish (left) and an example of abdominal edema with a score of 1 (right). 

Photos 3 and 4: Examples of abdominal edema with a score of 2 (left ) and 3 (right). 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Example of a healthy brown trout fish (left) and an example of cranial edema with a score of 1 (right). 

Photos 3 and 4: Example of cranial edema with a score of 2 (left ) and 3 (right). 
Document No. 12699-001-500 C 

Photos 1 and 2: Examples of brown trout with unusual deformities (both having two heads). 

Photos 3 and 4: Examples of unusual deformities. 
Deformity assessment of fry preserved after death during the BT parental study.

filename: LSV2C def data.xls

0 (normal) CF = craniofacial deformities1 (slight/few) SD = vertebral deformities

2 (mod/several) FD = fin deformities3 (severe/many) ED = edema

Counts

CF Total CF

Location Field Sample 0 1 2 3 Grand Total assessed Location Field Sample 0 1 LSV2C 003 0 3 83 12 98 98 LSV2C 003 0.0% 3.1% 8

004 0 6 80 15 101 101 004 5.9% 7005 0 14 66 9 89 89 005 15.7% 7010 0 16 55 0 71 71 010 22.5% 7021 0 2 53 46 101 101 021 2.0% 5

SD Total SD

Location Field Sample 0 1 2 3 Grand Total assessed Location Field Sample 0 1 LSV2C 003 0 56 20 6 82 82 LSV2C 003 0.0% 68.3% 2

004 0 47 13 4 64 64 004 73.4% 2005 0 28 16 40 84 84 005 33.3% 1010 0 30 16 7 53 53 010 56.6% 3021 0 35 19 8 62 62 021 56.5% 3

FD Total FD

Location Field Sample 0 1 2 3 Grand Total assessed Location Field Sample 0 1 LSV2C 003 0 0 LSV2C 003 #DIV/0! #D

004 1 1 1 004 100.0% 005 0 13 7 35 55 55 005 23.6% 1

010 0 0 010 #DIV/0! #D021 0 9 5 0 14 14 021 64.3% 3

ED Total ED

Location Field Sample 0 1 2 3 Grand Total assessed Location Field Sample 0 1 LSV2C 003 0 47 30 7 84 84 LSV2C 003 56.0% 3

004 0 57 28 6 91 91 004 62.6% 3005 0 40 13 5 58 58 005 69.0% 2010 0 16 19 10 45 45 010 35.6% 4021 0 62 19 1 82 82 021 75.6% 2

Note: scoring criteria were not possible for all organisms due to the poor physical condtion of some samples. For these samples, no value was included. 

No organisms scored a "0" on any of the different assessments (i.e., CF, SD, FD, ED)
Page 2 of 5

Deformity assessment results for brown trout in reproductive success study

Vaues represent the number of fish (at swimup and at test termination) in each scoring criterion (i.e., 0 - 3).

See below for a definition of scoring criteria.

filename: deformity data.xls

Count of Fish # Craniofacial Deformities (CF)

Location Field Sample ID 0 1 2 3 Grand Total

CC-150 009 136 1 2 3 142

011 114 150 2 266

012 191 86 4 1 282

013 183 31 28 68 310

015 231 207 5 2 445

016 20 2 1 23

017 108 54 1 163

018 288 193 2 3 486

020 506 52 558

CC-150 Total 1777 776 44 78 2675

CC-350 006 228 122 22 14 386

007 102 12 11 6 131

008 315 8 5 10 338

CC-350 Total 645 142 38 30 855

LSV2C 002 531 13 544

003 3 83 12 98

004 63 6 80 15 164

005 27 27 75 9 138

008 165 24 5 194

010 16 55 71

012 511 39 3 1 554

016 495 34 1 530

017 122 16 10 2 150

019 302 79 8 1 390

020 257 36 3 296

021 47 13 57 53 170

LSV2C Total 2520 306 380 93 3299

SC 001 96 14 4 1 115

002 104 6 1 2 113

003 174 37 55 36 302

004 69 26 26 19 140

005 39 3 42

006 519 2 6 8 535

007 119 11 6 1 137

008 339 12 3 5 359

SC Total 1459 111 101 72 1743

SPC 001 490 75 2 1 568

003 448 91 6 545

005 476 82 2 1 561

006 475 77 3 1 556

SPC Total 1889 325 13 3 2230

Grand Total 8290 1619 239 194 10342

Craniofacial deformities included shortening of the jaw, snout, and missing or poorly developed eye or eyes, and head shape

abnormailities. A slightly shortened lower jaw (<= 1 lip width) received a 1, a shortened jaw = 2 lip widths or a slightly shortened 

and slightly disfigured jaw = 2, and a flat lower jaw or much disfigured (non-functional) jaw = 3. An assessment of fish

independent of this study revealed that other brown trout of the same size and developmental state did not have the slight deformity

that was assessed as CF =1 for the jaw (J). Thus, the CF = 1 score where the J was concerned were deemed real. A slightly 

blunted snout (about 50% eye diameter, usually is > than that) = 1, very blunt or flat = 2, deformed or bulbous = 3. Eye deformities

were scored as one eye blind or poorly pigmented or poorly developed =1, both poorly developed = 2, both blind = 3. Skulls that 

were slightly bulbous (1/3 > normal) = 1, moderately bulbous (2/3 > normal) = 2, and bulbous (1x or > than normal) = 3. Usually

factors occurred together so a combination of two “1” conditions = 2, three “1” conditions = 3, or a 1 and a 2 = 3, and so on. For

example, a deformed jaw and a blind eye = 2, two blind eyes = 2, but a badly deformed jaw (= 2 alone) plus a blind eye (= 1 alone), = 3.
Page 3 of 5

Deformity assessment results for brown trout in reproductive success study

Vaues represent the number of fish (at swimup and at test termination) in each scoring criterion (i.e., 0 - 3).

See below for a definition of scoring criteria.

filename: deformity data.xls

Count of Fish # Skeletal Deformities (SD)

Location Field Sample ID 0 1 2 3 Grand Total

CC-150 009 109 28 3 2 142

011 213 50 3 266

012 237 42 3 282

013 214 81 11 4 310

015 402 33 8 2 445

016 13 10 23

017 150 11 2 163

018 353 121 11 1 486

020 499 44 15 558

CC-150 Total 2190 420 56 9 2675

CC-350 006 198 117 43 28 386

007 83 22 20 6 131

008 284 43 7 4 338

CC-350 Total 565 182 70 38 855

LSV2C 002 499 38 7 544

003 56 20 6 82

004 20 83 20 4 127

005 17 44 29 43 133

008 173 19 2 194

010 30 16 7 53

012 235 306 13 554

016 486 41 3 530

017 138 10 2 150

019 341 46 2 1 390

020 274 17 4 1 296

021 20 71 32 8 131

LSV2C Total 2203 761 148 72 3184

SC 001 79 28 7 1 115

002 75 32 3 3 113

003 260 39 3 302

004 99 28 6 7 140

005 25 17 42

006 486 42 6 1 535

007 105 23 4 5 137

008 291 47 8 13 359

SC Total 1420 256 37 30 1743

SPC 001 493 62 9 4 568

003 457 64 21 3 545

005 479 65 12 5 561

006 488 41 22 5 556

SPC Total 1917 232 64 17 2230

Grand Total 8295 1655 291 101 10342

Skeletal deformities included any deformity of the vertebrae or spines. A slight bend of less than 45 degrees (but > than body width off

of straight) or a minor body constriction (e.g. a tight rubberband about the body effect) was given a score of 1, 2 slight bends or

constrictions anywhere, or bend of > 45-90 degrees was scored a 2, and multi-directional bends > 90 degrees were given a 3. Bends

caused by skeletal deformities were usually detectable from normal bending of the body during preservation (these fish were usually

well preserved, very straight) by presence of a slight or greater bump below the surface of the epidermis on the outside of the bend.

However, some fish with SD = 1 had just a very slight bend in the range the deformity described but could be due to preservation or

the poor condition of the fish. This was sometimes especially true in larger fish, which may be more muscular and undergo stronger

contraction during preservation and thus, bend slightly. A score “CF = 1” was a slight deformity, if at all. The scores of SD = 1

involving kyphosis or lordosis were deemed real because that is an unusual preservation deformity. Some samples were re-examined; 

most fish were very straight so some samples with higher SD scores (e.g., PSU samples) were determined accurate.
Page 4 of 5

Deformity assessment results for brown trout in reproductive success study

Vaues represent the number of fish (at swimup and at test termination) in each scoring criterion (i.e., 0 - 3).

See below for a definition of scoring criteria.

filename: deformity data.xls

Count of Fish # Fin Deformities (FD)

Location Field Sample ID 0 1 2 3 Grand Total

CC-150 009 137 2 1 2 142

011 266 266

012 279 1 2 282

013 287 17 4 2 310

015 437 3 4 1 445

016 23 23

017 162 1 163

018 483 3 486

020 549 9 558

CC-150 Total 2623 36 9 7 2675

CC-350 006 325 16 16 29 386

007 95 10 18 8 131

008 303 25 7 3 338

CC-350 Total 723 51 41 40 855

LSV2C 002 528 15 1 544

003 0

004 48 15 1 64

005 39 17 11 37 104

008 194 194

010 0

012 544 9 1 554

016 485 45 530

017 144 4 2 150

019 390 390

020 292 1 3 296

021 27 51 5 83

LSV2C Total 2691 156 20 42 2909

SC 001 102 7 5 1 115

002 103 6 4 113

003 280 21 1 302

004 113 10 13 4 140

005 42 42

006 501 21 7 6 535

007 114 11 7 5 137

008 343 4 3 9 359

SC Total 1598 80 39 26 1743

SPC 001 542 11 10 5 568

003 524 8 7 6 545

005 533 16 4 8 561

006 529 11 7 9 556

SPC Total 2128 46 28 28 2230

Grand Total 9763 346 125 108 10342

Fin deformities included variation in fin or finfold morphology and a slightly smaller or missing fin (in thin fish, the adipose fin was often 

absent, indicating fat absorption, not uncommon and scored 1) or one with a bend or incomplete ray development (in older fish) was

given a 1, 2 fins damaged or malformed = 2, and > 2 fins malformed or if fins were missing (except adipose) was = 3. Often fins were

malformed associated with vertebral deformities that did not permit proper development. Folded finfolds as a result of preservation

were not counted.
Page 5 of 5

Deformity assessment results for brown trout in reproductive success study

Vaues represent the number of fish (at swimup and at test termination) in each scoring criterion (i.e., 0 - 3).

See below for a definition of scoring criteria.

filename: deformity data.xls

Count of Fish # Edema Deformities (ED)

Location Field Sample ID 0 1 2 3 Grand Total

CC-150 009 141 1 142

011 266 266

012 282 282

013 308 2 310

015 445 445

016 23 23

017 163 163

018 485 1 486

020 558 558

CC-150 Total 2671 3 1 2675

CC-350 006 382 3 1 386

007 126 3 2 131

008 337 1 338

CC-350 Total 845 7 3 855

LSV2C 002 541 3 544

003 47 30 7 84

004 63 57 28 6 154

005 42 46 14 5 107

008 180 6 8 194

010 16 19 10 45

012 554 554

016 530 530

017 135 9 5 1 150

019 381 8 1 390

020 296 296

021 69 62 19 1 151

LSV2C Total 2791 254 124 30 3199

SC 001 114 1 115

002 113 113

003 302 302

004 139 1 140

005 42 42

006 534 1 535

007 137 137

008 359 359

SC Total 1740 3 1743

SPC 001 565 3 568

003 539 4 2 545

005 558 3 561

006 553 1 1 1 556

SPC Total 2215 11 3 1 2230

Grand Total 10262 56 22 2 10342

Edema was not originally scheduled for assessment because it was thought sometimes not a teratogenic effect and may be transitory

as fish develop. However, it was assessed because it was common in one early sample and not others, and because it was thought

a condition that could affect emergence, mobility, and other factors that may limit survival of fish in the wild. Edema was detected by an

obvious swelling and fluid buildup, usually abdominally, and ventrally, which often displaced the gut, and was usually clear fluid that

was slightly soft when touched with a blunt probe. The yolk, which was present in some quantity in some study specimens, also

created some swelling but was typically yellowish, opaque, and small, and hard to the touch in preservation. Slight edema = 1 was

for a fish with up to 1X swelling of the normal body width or depth, up to 2x = 2, and > 2x = 3. 
Figure 1 Cranio‐Facial Frequency

0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

SPC

001

SPC

005

SC 001 SC 003 SC 005 SC 007 CC-150

009

CC-150

012

CC-150

015

CC-150

017

CC-150

020

CC-350

007

LSV2C

002

LSV2C

004

LSV2C

008

L

Percentage of Sample

0(normal) 1(slight/few) 2(mod/several) 3(severe/many) (blank) NA
Figure 2 Skeletal Deformity Frequency

0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

SPC

001

SPC

005

SC 001 SC 003 SC 005 SC 007 CC-150

009

CC-150

012

CC-150

015

CC-150

017

CC-150

020

CC-350

007

LSV2C

002

LSV2C

004

LSV2C

008

L

Percentage of Sample

0(normal) 1(slight/few) 2(mod/several) 3(severe/many) (blank)
Figure 3 Fin or Finfold Deformity Frequency

0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

SPC

001

SPC

005

SC 001 SC 003 SC 005 SC 007 CC-150

009

CC-150

012

CC-150

015

CC-150

017

CC-150

020

CC-350

007

LSV2C

002

LSV2C

004

LSV2C

008

L

Percentage of Sample

0(normal) 1(slight/few) 2(mod/several) 3(severe/many) (blank)
Figure 4 Edematous Tissue Frequency

0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

SPC

001

SPC

005

SC 001 SC 003 SC 005 SC 007 CC-150

009

CC-150

012

CC-150

015

CC-150

017

CC-150

020

CC-350

007

LSV2C

002

LSV2C

004

LSV2C

008

L

Percentage of Sample

0(normal) 1(slight/few) 2(mod/several) 3(severe/many) (blank)