20030179 Ver 9_More Info Received_20090302

Ph Duke
Energy®
Carolinas
February 26, 2009
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

DEt1R - WATER CUD,LITY
VlETLA,t4DS AI4o STOR : VATER r3RA11C4 i
() j-Cpl-1`3 V I
HYDRO STRATEGY & LICENSING
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
EC12Y/526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
Mailing Address:
EC12Y/P.O. Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
Subject: Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project's Biological Monitoring Report and Pebble Count
Report
Mr. Domey:
Enclosed are the 2008 Pre-dam Removal Biological Monitoring Report and the Pebble Count
Report for the Dillsboro Project. These data are provided per the 401 Water Quality
Certification with Additional Comments dated November 21, 2007. If you have questions
regarding these reports, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 704/382-0805.
Sincerely,
D. Hugh Barwick
Senior Environmental Resource Manager
Enclosure: Reports
r1
Env ?,?
• Ll?:
C'?'rdN, - `WFTEtC Ca'..LITY
S'?i'f ?:4? ? i A "lid Sl ? ^ r41•! ?'rcr? RP 9 "J(;?i
DILLSBORO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - PRE-DAM REMOVAL
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING ON THE TUCKASEGEE RIVER (2008)
FERC# 2602
Principal Investigators:
David J. Coughlan
James J. Hall
Gene E. Vaughan
DUKE ENERGY
Corporate EHS Services
McGuire Environmental Center
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
February 2009

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to a number of individuals who made significant
contributions to this report. First, we are much indebted to the CEHS Scientific Services
field staff for their dedicated sampling efforts and data analysis that provides the foundation
of this report. Mike Abney, Mark Auten, Kim Baker, Bob Doby, Bryan Kalb, Glenn Long,
Steve Johnson, and Jan Williams were vital contributors in completing fisheries collections
and sample processing. Tommy Bowen, Aileen Lockhart, Shannon McCorkle, and Jan
Williams contributed in macroinvertebrate sampling, taxonomic processing, and data
analysis.
We would also like to thank multiple reviewers; including Mike Abney, Kim Baker, Hugh
Barwick, John Derwort, Keith Finley, Penny Franklin, Duane Harrell, and John Velte. The
insightful commentary and suggestions from these individuals and also between co-authors
have benefited the report in numerous ways.

4.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1-DILLSBORO PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......... 1-1
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1-1
DAM REMOVAL .........................................................................................................1-1
SAMPLING LOCATIONS ...........................................................................................1-2
CHAPTER 2-MACROINVERTEBRATES .................................................................2-1
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................2-1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................2-2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 2-6
CHAPTER 3-FISH .........................................................................................................3-1
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................3-1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 3-2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................3-7
RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................. 3-7
LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................L-
iii
10
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 19, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order
Accepting Surrender And Dismissing Application For Subsequent License clearing the way
for the removal of the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse (FERC# 2602) on the Tuckasegee
River, Jackson County, NC. Pursuant to this order, the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) issued a 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
(November 21, 2007) for dam and powerhouse removal that required Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC to conduct at least two (2) fish and aquatic macrobenthos collections from
the Tuckasegee River at different seasons before dam removal. Inasmuch as dam demolition
was originally scheduled for early 2009, macroinvertebrate and fish sampling was initiated in
2008 at four locations in the river in the vicinity of Dillsboro Project. Two sampling
locations were upstream of the dam and two were downstream. The objective of this
monitoring was to comply with the 401 Certification by assessing macroinvertebrate and fish
populations during May and October for one year prior to removal of the Dillsboro Dam.
Measured water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, specific
conductance, and pH) at the time of macroinvertebrate collections appeared to indicate little
negative impact to resident benthic communities. Macroinvertebrate collections at four
locations on the Tuckasegee River in May and October 2008 yielded total counts that ranged
from 41 - 84 taxa. The number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa
ranged from 2 - 34. More total and EPT taxa were typically observed in May than October.
Macroinvertebrate collections at the reservoir location always demonstrated the lowest
numbers of total and EPT taxa of any location sampled, irrespective of season. Resulting
water quality bioclassifications based on the macro invertebrate communities collected at the
reservoir location were always Poor. The three riverine locations, with their more
heterogeneous habitat and flowing water, supported diverse macroinvertebrate communities
that resulted in better water quality bioclassifications. Bioclassifications at the riverine
locations ranged from Fair to Good and were typically better at the most downstream
location than either upstream riverine location. All observed community metrics indicated
that benthic community in the Dillsboro Reservoir was atypical of that occurring in nearby
upstream and downstream riverine reaches.
Temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and specific conductance were measured
during fish sampling and indicated little impact on the resident fish community. Fish
collections at four locations on the Tuckasegee River in May and October 2008 demonstrated
iv

an assemblage that was composed of 36 species, and one hybrid sunfish combination,
representing seven families. These species are typical of those expected for this drainage and
similar to those collected in an earlier study (2001 - 2002) of the same river reach. This fish
community included two species of special concern to both North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; the wounded darter
and the olive darter. While the wounded darter was collected upstream and downstream of
the Dam, the olive darter was only collected downstream.
The most species of fish were always collected in Dillsboro Dam tailrace (RM 31.6), and the
least number of species were always found in Dillsboro Reservoir, immediately upstream of
the Dam. The fish community in the Dillsboro Reservoir was dominated by rock bass and
redbreast sunfish, while the communities at the three riverine locations were dominated by
cyprinids. Pollution tolerance data indicated that the fish community in the Dillsboro
Reservoir had the highest percentage of individuals tolerant of pollution and the fewest
number of species considered intolerant of pollution. Trophic data similarly indicated that
the fish community in the Dillsboro Reservoir was atypical compared to those sampled in
other nearby reaches of the Tuckasegee River. All observed community metrics indicated
that the fish assemblage in the Dillsboro Reservoir was uncharacteristic of those occurring in
nearby upstream and downstream riverine reaches.
Macroinvertebrate and fish communities in Dillsboro Reservoir were atypical of those
occurring upstream and downstream in the Tuckasegee River. In all cases in 2008, biotic
metrics designed to evaluate the health of stream communities indicated that
macroinvertebrates and fish in Dillsboro Reservoir were different than those occurring at one
upstream and two downstream locations.
v
IMF.. . o
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
Page
1-1 River mile designation (upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and
Little Tennessee rivers) of Tuckasegee River sampling locations, associated
description relative to the Dam, and GPS coordinates ................................................ 1-3
2-1 Description of available habitats at four macroinvertebrate sampling locations
on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008 ......................................... 2-7
2-2 Water quality parameters measured at four Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October 2008. Measurements of
pH occurred only in October ....................................................................................... 2-8
2-3 Macroinvertebrates collected at four Tuckaseegee River sample locations near
the Dillsboro Project, May and October 2008 ............................................................. 2-9
3-1 Water quality parameters measured during electrofishing collections at four
locations on the Tuckasegee River, May and October 2008 ....................................... 3-9
3-2 Fish species collected during Tuckasegee River surveys in the vicinity of the
Dillsboro Project, 2001 - 2002 and 2008 .................................................................. 3-10
3-3 Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, May 2008 ............................................................................... 3-11
34 Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, October 2008 .......................................................................... 3-12
3-5 Summary of tolerance rating and trophic status of fish collected at four
sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008........ 3-13
V1
LIST OF FIGURES
Table Title Page
1-1 Sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River, Jackson County, NC, near the
Dillsboro Project. Location numbers equate to river miles upstream from the
confluence of the Tuckasegee and Little Tennessee rivers ......................................... 14
1-2 Dillsboro Project on the Tuckaseegee River in the town of Dillsboro, Jackson
County, NC .................................................................................................................. 1-5
2-1 Tuckaseegee River flows associated with 2008 macroinvertebrate sample
collections (depicting daily average flows for USGS Station 03510577 at
Barker's Creek, NC) . ................................................................................................. 2-15
2-2 Total number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from four Tuckasegee River
sample locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October 2008 ....................... 2-15
2-3 Total number of EPT taxa collected from four Tuckasegee River sample
locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October 2008 ................................... 2-16
2-4 Comparison of EPT taxa numbers at several Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, 1999, 2001, 2004, and 2008 ............................ 2-16
2-5 Water quality bioc lass i fications based on macro invertebrate collections from
four Tuckasegee River sample locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and
October 2008 ............................................................................................................. 2-17
2-6 Comparison of water quality bioclassification scores at several Tuckasegee
River sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project, 1999, 2001, 2004, and
2008 ........................................................................................................................... 2-17
3-1 Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River minnows collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project: (A) central stoneroller Campostoma
anomalum, (B) warpaint shiner Luxilus coccogenis, and (C) fatlips minnow
Phenacobitts crassilabrum ........................................................................................ 3-14
3-2 Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River darters collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project: (A) greenfin darter Etheostoma
chlorobranchium, (B) Tuckasegee darter E. guttselli, and (C) banded darter E.
zonale ......................................................................................................................... 3-15
3-3 Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May and
(B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2008 ..............................................................................................3-16
vii
c

CHAPTER 1
DILLSBORO PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
The Tuckasegee and Oconaluftee rivers are the principle tributaries to the Little Tennessee
River and Fontana Reservoir in Subbasin 02 of the Little Tennessee River system in North
Carolina (NCDENR 2005). Forests and pasture land comprise 93.5% and 3.3%,
respectively, of the subbasin land area, and the water quality is considered some of the
highest and most pristine in the state (NCDENR 2005).
The Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project (FERC# 2602) is located on the Tuckasegee River in the
town of Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC (Figure 1-1). The project consists of a dam,
powerhouse, and reservoir. Originally constructed in 1913, the project has had various
owners, and is currently owned by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke). The Dillsboro Dam
(Dam) impounds the Tuckasegee River at River Mile (RM) 31.7. The Dam is a concrete
masonry structure that is about 310 ft long and 12 ft high (Figure 1-2). The powerhouse
consists of a reinforced concrete substructure, a wood/steel superstructure, and two
generating units. The reservoir upstream of the Dam has a surface area of 15 ac and is
approximately 0.8 mi long. The installed generation capacity of the Dillsboro Project is 225
kW. The average annual generation for the project from 1958 to 2002 was 912.33 MWh, and
electricity was last generated there in 2004.
DAM REMOVAL
Relicensing activities associated with Duke's Nantahala Area Hydroelectric Projects
identified the removal of the Dam as a key component to various stakeholder settlement
agreements that would permit significant gains in aquatic habitat in the Tuckaseegee River
(Duke Energy 2003). An agreement to remove the Dam was reached with all tribal, state,
and federal regulatory entities and resulted in a FERC Application for Surrender (Duke
Energy 2004) which was approved by the FERC on July 19, 2007 (Order Accepting
Surrender And Dismissing Application For Subsequent License). The North Carolina
4

Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) outlined procedures and monitoring requirements
associated with dam demolition in an approved Water Quality Certification with Additional
Conditions (November 21, 2007). Initially, removal of sediment deposits from Dillsboro
Reservoir was slated for 2008 with dam removal scheduled for early 2009. These dam
removal activities have been subsequently delayed until the latter months of 2009 and the
initial months of 2010 due to litigation with Jackson County, NC.
To evaluate responses of resident biological communities to Dam removal, the NCDWQ
requested that Duke sample macroinvertebrate and fish communities in the Tuckasegee River
for one year prior to (2008) and three years subsequent to dam removal. Biological sampling
was requested twice per year (during the months of May and October) and was conducted at
two locations upstream and two locations downstream of the Dam. Post-dam removal
biological sampling will commence following Dam demolition.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Macroinvertebrate and fish sampling occurred at four Tuckasegee River sampling locations
identified by river miles upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and Little
Tennessee rivers. They include a location well downstream of the Dam (RM 27.5), the
tailrace of the Dam (RM 31.6), the Dillsboro Reservoir (RM 31.8), and a riverine location
upstream of the influence of the Dillsboro Reservoir (RM 33.7, Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1).
This report provides sampling methods, results, and discussion for macroinvertebrates
(Chapter 2) and fish (Chapter 3).
During the summer of 2008, Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana were translocated
from the Dam tailrace to an area upstream of the Savannah Creek confluence. This is the
same area as the upstream most sampling location (RM 33.7). To avoid disturbing the newly
transplanted mussels, starting with the October 2008 monitoring, macro invertebrate and fish
sampling activities occurred immediately upstream of the mussel relocation area. The river
mile designation for this upstream macro invertebrate and fish sample location did not
change.
1-2
Table 1-1. River mile designation (upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and
Little Tennessee rivers) of Tuckasegee River sampling locations, associated
description relative to the Dam, and GPS coordinates.
Latitude (N)
River Mile Sampling Location Longitude (W)
27.5 4.2 miles downstream of the Dam, upstream of the 35° 22.955
Barkers Creek confluence and Barkers Creek Bridge 83° 17.359
31.6 Between the Dam and the Scott Creek confluence 35° 22.006
83° 15.053
31.8 Dillsboro Reservoir, 100 - 300 m upstream of the Dam 35° 21.972
83° 14.918
33.7 2.0 miles upstream of the Dam and immediately 35° 20.843
upstream of the Savannah Creek confluence 83° 14.176
1-3
t
1
0
0
a
N
1-4
G
lM
W
4M
Uo
I

a
Q
0
LI
r'I
M

0
Q
a
N
r-1
0
M
00
N ,000':'C a S'I N .000' l ? aS?C
li Q
I.,
Gi
V?
l
r
f r, 76
X
i1.
f,
cD.
t? V
Ir1 t•J
C:
O
ni
4A
4
G
L
a
0
U
O
U
N L
O ?
L >
O O
L ?
O y
fn L+
cl a
u '0
C C
U
z?
? U
O ?
U
`4 O
ti U
C
L
O ?
rL O
N U
U N
by t,
N
N y
,= L
a+ rA
r
O O
r
C ?
CC L
U y
O >
'L
O
rl
Vl u
L

N ,000*SZo5£ N ,000' TZc-GS

1n
U
z
0
U
C
0
rA
U
ti
O
L
O
-0
rA
Q
?M.
O
3
0
F-
s
c
a?
a?
bn
a?
U
N
7s
r-
O
.r
U
U
.O
L
0.
L
I .?
N
i
v
CHAPTER 2
MACROINVERTEBRATES
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A macroinvertebrate monitoring program was initiated on the Tuckasegee River in 2008.
Samples were collected at four locations noted above on the Tuckasegee River (Table 1-1
and Figure 1-1). Upstream hydroelectric project operations were coordinated to help control
river flow and permit sampling under low-flow conditions on May 5-6 and October 6-7, 2008
(Figure 2-1).
The Standard Qualitative Method (SQM) as outlined in the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP,
NCDENR 2006a) was used in collecting macroinvertebrate samples at RM's 27.5, 31.6, and
33.7 (riverine habitats). This method involved the use of a variety of nets to collect discrete
samples from all major habitats at a particular location. The method also requires a visual
search of all major habitats, including habitats such as large logs and rocks that can not be
easily sampled with nets.
Duke was aware of the presence of the Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana in the
Tuckasegee River upstream and downstream of the Dam and the possible presence of the
littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula downstream of the Dam. Both mussels are listed as
Federally Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Precautions
were taken during this study to avoid disturbing mussels while collecting macroinvertebrate
samples.
The lentic environment at RM 31.8 (Dillsboro Reservoir) was sampled using the Standard
Boat Method (SBM) modification of the SQM (NCDENR 2006a). The SBM requires
collecting bottom samples across the width of the reservoir using a Ponar grab sampler. Nine
samples were collected from a transect across the Dillsboro Reservoir during each sampling
event. Additionally, macroinvertebrates at RM 31.8 were collected by visual searches of all
major habitats and by using a sweep net to sample all available shoreline habitats.
2-1
All collected organisms were sorted from debris in the field, placed in labeled containers,
preserved with 95% ethyl alcohol, returned to the laboratory, and identified to the lowest
practicable taxon. Taxonomic analysis resulted in a water quality bioclassification for each
location, which gives equal consideration to the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa present and the biotic index value. Following the NCDENR
protocol, a score was assigned to the EPT taxa collected. Biotic index values for benthic taxa
have been assigned according to their relative tolerance to environmental perturbations and a
mean value was calculated for all taxa collected at a given location. The mean of the EPT
taxa score and mean biotic index value was used to assign one of five water quality
bioclassifications from "Poor" to "Excellent" (NCDENR 2006a). Bioclassifications were
determined using the Mountain Region criteria, as outlined in the NCDENR SOP. Benthic
communities at locations upstream and downstream of the Dam were assessed and compared
based on both total and EPT taxa abundance and the resulting water quality
bioclassifications.
In May 2008, water temperatures and dissolved oxygen concentrations were collected in situ
at each location using a pre-calibrated YSI Model 55 handheld dissolved oxygen meter.
Water samples for specific conductance (µS/cm) were also collected at each location,
refrigerated, and returned to the laboratory where the samples were measured with a
calibrated Hydrolab® Datasonde. In October 2008, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH,
and specific conductance were measured in situ using a pre-calibrated Hach® HQ40d water
quality meter.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Habitat and Water Quality
The three riverine sampling locations (RM's 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7) had similar habitat
consisting of bedrock, boulder, cobble, riffles, pools, sand/silt, woody debris, leaf packs, and
root masses (Table 2-1). Additionally, the aquatic vascular plant, Podostemum covered some
of the bedrock and cobble surfaces at RM's 27.5 and 31.6 (downstream of the Dam). The
habitat at RM 33.7 was comprised more of bedrock and pools, with fewer riffle areas, when
compared to the two downstream riverine locations. The available habitat at RM 31.8
(reservoir) consisted of silt/sand and detritus substrates with shorelines characterized by
vegetation, root masses, woody debris, silt/sand, rocks, and boulders.
2-2
Table 2-1. Description of available habitats at four macro invertebrate sampling locations
on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008.
Riverine location approximately 55 m in width with a depth of approximately 1 m.
RM 27.5 Available habitat consisted of riffle and pool areas, sand/silt, woody debris,
bedrock, cobble, leaf packs, and root masses. Some of the bedrock areas and
cobble were covered with aquatic vegetation (Podostemum).
Located about 100 m downstream of the Dam, between the tailrace and the Hwy
RM 31.6 441 bridge. The width of the river at this location is approximately 55 m with a
depth up to 1.5 m. Available habitat consisted of riffle and pool areas, sand/silt,
bedrock, cobble, leaf packs, woody debris, snags, and root masses. Some of
the bedrock and cobble were covered with aquatic vegetation (Podostemum).
Located in the Dillsboro Reservoir approximately 100 m upstream of the Dam.
RM 31.8 Silt/sand and detritus substrate in the reservoir. Other habitats included
vegetation along the shoreline, root masses, woody debris, silt/sand, rocks, and
boulders.
Riverine location approximately 55 m in width with a depth of approximately 1.5
RM 33.7 m. Available habitat included bedrock, cobble, sand/silt, riffle and pool areas,
woody debris, leaf packs, and root masses.
2-7
Table 2-2. Water quality parameters measured at four Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October 2008. Measurements of
pH occurred only in October.
River Mile Parameter May October
Temperature 18.4 19.0
°C
Dissolved Oxygen 9.1 9.6
27.5 m /L
Conductance 29.1 32.0
(PS/cm)
pH 8.3
Temperature 14.4 16.1
°C
Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 9.3
31.6 mg/L)
Conductance 28.6 29.1
(PS/cm)
pH 7.3
Temperature 14.2 16.4
°C
Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 8.4
31.8 m /L
Conductance 26.4 29.4
(PS/cm)
pH 7.2
Temperature 16.9 17.7
°C
Dissolved Oxygen 10.3 9.2
33.7 m /L
Conductance 24.9 23.4
(PS/cm)
pH 7.3
2-8
Table 2-3. Macroinvertebrates collected at four Tuckasegee River sample locations near the
Dillsboro Project, May and October 2008. An "A" = Abundant (10 or more
individuals collected), "C" = Common (3-9 individuals collected), and "R" =
Rare (1-2 individuals collected). Highlighted taxa are winter/spring Plecoptera
that were omitted from May 2008 analysis to derive an appropriate seasonal
correction (NCDENR 2006a).
2008
Taxon RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
May Oct May Oct May Oct May Oct
Annelida
Hirudinea
Rh nchobdellida
Glossi honiidae
Placobdella s pp. R
Oli ochaeta
Branchiobdellida
Branchiobdellidae R R
Ha lotaxida
Naididae
Arcteonais lomondi R
Nais bar R
Nais behnin i A C
Nais communls C C R
St laria lacustris R
Tubificidae C R R A A
Limnodrilus hoffineisted C A
Tubifex tubifex R R
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae C C C R C R
Lumbriculus s. C R C R
Arthro oda
Crustacea
Am hi oda
TaliWdae
H alella azteca R R
Deca oda
Cambaridae
Cambaras robustus R R R R
Cambarus bartonii R C C R R R R
Insecta
Coleo tera
D o idae
Helichus s. R C R R C
D iscidae
Neo ores s pp. C C
Elmidae
Anc ron vane atus R A C R C C R
Macron chus labratus A A A A R C A
Promoresia ele ans A R A R A
2-9
Table 2-3. (Continued).
2008
Taxon RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
May Oct May Oct May Oct May Oct
Stenelmis s pp. R R R
G dnidae
Dineutus s pp. A R
G rinus s pp. R
Hali lidae
Peltod es s pp. C A
H dro hilidae
S ercho sis tessellatus R
Pse henidae
Ecto ria nervosa R R
Pse henus herricki R R
Di tera
Cerato 0 onidae
Pal om ia-Bezzia complex A R R A C A R
Chironomidae-Chironominae
Chironomus s pp. R A A
C/ado elma s pp. R
Cladotan arsus s. R R R R R
C tochironomus s. C R C R R C R
Dicrotendi es neomodestus c R C C A C
Microtendi es s. R C R R R
Nilothauma s. R R R R
Pa astiella s pp. R C R
Parachironomus s pp. R
Paraclado elma s pp. R
Paralauterborniella s pp. R
Paratendi es s pp. R R
Phaeno sectra s. R C R A A
Pol edilum fallax A R C
Pol edilum flavum A C A C A R
Pol edilum halteraie c A
Pol edilum illinoense R R C
Pol edilum laetum R R
Pol edilum scalaenum c R R R
Pseudochironomus s. R R R R C
Rheotan arsus s. C A C A C A C
Robackia demei erei R A
Stenochironomus s. A A R R C
Stictochironomus s pp. A R
Sublettea coffmani R
Tan arsus s R C R C R C C
Tribelos s pp. C
Chironomidae-Orthocladiinae
Brillia s pp. R
Cardiocladius s pp. C R R
Co noneura s. A R R C A
2-10
Table 2-3. (Continued).
2008
Taxon RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
May Oct Ma Oct Ma Oct May Oct
Cricoto us annulator A A A C R C A
Cricoto us bicinctus A A A C R C A
Cricoto us tremulus A A R
Cricoto us vierriensis C A C C C C A
Eukiefferiella s pp. R R
Eukiefferiella brehmi R
Eukiefferiella devonica R R
Eukiefferiella racei R
Nanocladius s. A C A C C C
Nanocladius downesi C
Orthocladius li nicola R R R
Orthocladius robacki R C
Orthocladius thienemanni A R R
Parakiefferiella s. R A A A C C C C
Parametriocnemus s. C C R C A
Rheocricoto us robacki C R A C R
S northocladius s pp. R R
Thienemanniella s pp. R
Thienemanniella xena A C C C A
Tvetenia bavarica C A A
Tvetenia vitracies A C C R R R
Chironomidae-Tan odinae
Ablabesm is janta A R
Ablabesm is mallochi R C A A C R
Clinotan us s pp. C A
Concha elo is gp. C R A R R C
Labrundinia s pp. A
Procladius s pp. C
Simuliidae
Simulium s pp. A C
Simulium tuberosum A A A
Tan deddae
Proto lasa fitchii R
Ti ulidae
Antocha s. A C R C
Dicranota spp. R
Ti ula s. R R C R
E hemero tera
Baetidae
Acentrella s pp. A C
Baetis flavistria R A A R R
Baetis intercalaris C A R C R R
Baetis luto C C C
Centro tilum s pp. R C R
Heteroc/oeon curiosum R R
Plauditus dubius r A C A A A
2-11
Table 2-3. (Continued).
2008
Taxon RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
May Oct May Oct May Oct Ma Oct
Plauditus unctiventris A
Pseudocloeon ro in uum C A
Baetiscidae
Baetisca carolina R R R R R R
Caenidae
Caenis s pp. R
E hemerellidae
Drunella cornutella R
Drunella walked A A A
E hemerella dorothea A A A
E hemerella invaria A A A
E hemerella se tentrionalis C R
E hemeridae
Eu to hella doris A A A A
He to eniidae
E eorus s pp. R
He to enia mar ialis C C C
Maccaffertium ithaca A A A A A C
Maccaffertium modestum A A A A A A
Maccaffertium udicum C
Stenacron inte unctatum A C A A R A A
Neoe hemeridae
Neoe hemera ur urea R R
Oli oneudidae
Ison Chia s. A A C A A A
Hemi tera
Ne idae
Ranatra s pp. C
Me alo tera
Co dalidae
Co dalus comutus A A A C A A
Ni ronia sem.comi.s C A C C C
Sialidae
Sialis s pp. R
Odonata-Aniso tera
Aeshnidae
Bo eria vinosa A A C A R R R A
Corduliidae
E icordulia s pp. R
Tetra oneuria s pp. R C
Gom hidae
Gom hus s. R R R C A R C
Gom hus s inice s C R R C
Ha genius brevist lus C R R C
Lanthus s pp. R
Ohio om hus s pp.
R
2-12
Table 2-3. (Continued).
2008
Taxon RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
May Oct May Oct May Oct May Oct
Macromiidae
Macromia s pp. R
Macromia eor ina R C C C R
Odonata-Z o tera
Calo to idae
Calopteryx s. R A R C C
Coena donidae
A ias . C R A A
Ischnura s. C R C A
Pleco tera
Chloro edidae
G'
Pedidae
Acroneuria abnormis R R C A R
Para netina fumosa c
Para netina ichusa R C
Para netina imma inata R R
Perlesta s pp. A A C
Perlodidae
S

Tricho tera
Brach centridae
Brach centrus ni rosoma R C C C
Micrasema wata a c R A C R R C
H alo s chidae
Ph locentro us s pp. R C
H dro s chidae
Cheumato s the s. A A A A A A
H dro s the morosa c A C A C A
H dro s the s arna c A C C C
H dro s the venularis A A A A C C
H dro tilidae
H dro tila s pp. R
Le idostomatidae
Le idostoma s. A R A A
Le toceddae
Ceraclea flava R R
Necto s the ex uisita R R R
Oecetis ersimilis C R C R
Triaenodes i nitus R C R R
Limne hilidae
H dato h lax a us R
cno s the s pp. R R
Philo otamidae
Chimarra s pp. R
2-13
Table 2-3. (Continued).
2008
Taxon RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
May Oct May Oct May Oct May Oct
Dolo hilodes s pp. C R R
Ph aneidae
Ptilostomis s pp. R
Pol centro odidae
Pol centro us s. C R R C C R R
Rh aco hilidae
Rh aco hila s pp. R R
Mollusca
Gastro oda
Limno hila
Anc lidae
Ferrissia rivularis A R R C
Meso astro oda
Pleuroceridae
Elimia roxima C R
Vivi aridae
Cam aloma decisum A A A
Pulmonata
Ph sidae
Phsas . C R A C
Planorbidae
Helisoma ance s R A C R
Pelec oda
Heterodontida
Corbiculidae
Corbicula fluminea C A A A A A C A
Veneroida
S haehidae
Pisidium casertanum C C A A R A
Pla helminthes
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Planariidae
Du esia spp. C
Total Taxa 81 83 81 77 59 41 84 65
Total EPT Taxa 34 27 29 22 8 2 25 20
Biotic Index Value 5.25 5.99 5.45 6.06 7.29 7.82 5.56 5.78
Biotic Index Score 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 2.4
EPT Score 4 3 3 2.6 1 2.4
Bioclassification G GF GF F P ffi H F
E = Excellent
G = Good
GF = Good-fair
F = Fair
P = Poor
2-14
CHAPTER 3
FISH
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fish populations in the Tuckasegee River were sampled with electrofishing equipment during
May and October 2008. Fish collections were made along 200-m shoreline segments on the
left and right ascending bank of the river at four locations described above (Table 1-1 and
Figure 1-1). Electrofishing collections at RM 31.6 (tailrace) and RM 31.8 (reservoir) were
made during periods of higher flow to allow sampling by a small electrofishing boat.
Electrofishing collections at RM's 27.5 and 33.7 (the most downstream and upstream
locations, respectively) were conducted during periods of relatively low river flow to allow
sampling by tote-barge electrofishing equipment. At all locations, fish were electrofished
with pulsed DC current at settings adjusted to achieve maximum sampling efficiency, while
minimizing injury to the fish.
All netted fish were identified, measured (total length in mm), and returned to the river, with
the exception of some smaller specimens that were preserved in formalin and returned to the
laboratory for taxonomic identification. Catch data were tabulated as the pooled number of
species and individuals collected from both sides of the river at each location. Fish
communities were further evaluated for their aggregate pollution tolerance rating (i.e., their
ability to withstand pollution), and the trophic guilds of adults were evaluated to assess biotic
interactions and energy supply. Water temperature (°C) and dissolved oxygen concentration
(mg/L) were measured at each shoreline segment with a calibrated Flukeo thermistor and a
Hach® HQl0 dissolved oxygen probe, respectively. Water samples for specific conductance
(µS/cm) were also collected at each shoreline segment, refrigerated, and returned to the
laboratory where the samples were measured with a calibrated Hydrolab® Datasonde.
3-1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water Quality
Water temperature in May ranged from 13.0 - 17.4 °C and generally increased with
downstream direction (Table 3-1). Water temperatures in October ranged from 7.8 - 13.1 °C
and exhibited no obvious spatial trend. The lack of a trend in October was likely due to
ambient weather conditions and influences of upstream hydroelectric generation regimes. In
both seasons, water temperatures varied little between the left and right banks at each
location.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in May were high and ranged from 8.5 - 9.8 mg/L. In
October, dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 8.5 - 11.6 mg/L and were generally
similar between the left and right banks of a location.
Specific conductance was generally low for all Tuckasegee River samples. Conductivity
ranged from 19.0 - 27.6 pS/cm in May and generally increased with downstream direction,
although a slight decline was noted at RM 31.8 compared to RM 33.7. Specific conductance
for the October samples ranged from 21.9 - 33.7 gS/cm and exhibited no observable trend
with downstream direction. Additionally, specific conductance exhibited minimal difference
between the left and right banks at any location or during either sampling period.
While slight differences were noted on two occasions for dissolved oxygen concentrations
between the left and right banks, dissolved oxygen levels were always sufficient to support
aquatic life. Temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and specific conductance were
generally similar between the left and right banks at all four Tuckasegee River sampling
locations and indicated that left and right bank fish populations could be combined for data
analysis.
3-2
Fisheries:
For electrofishing, 200-m shoreline segments were sampled and included all available
habitats in each segment. Variation in the type of sampling gear employed, sampling
duration, number of netters, effective water volume electrofished, water depth, flow, and
substrate made standardized sampling efforts among the locations unachievable. Boat
electrofishing at RM's 31.6 and 31.8 provided the greatest replicability, as each 200-m
segment was sampled with similar gear in similar time intervals (between 1,800 and 2,000
seconds). Tote-barge electrofishing of 200-m segments at RM's 27.5 and 33.7 varied in
duration from 2,300 seconds to in excess of 4,600 seconds per segment. Thus, while
sampling effort between the left and right banks at each location was generally similar,
comparisons of the number of fish collected among most locations (except between RM's
31.6 and 31.8) may not be representative of true relative abundance. As stated earlier, fish
collection information at each location is presented as the combined catch from the left and
right banks.
In 2008, Duke Energy biologists collected a total of 36 species, representing seven families,
which included 10 cyprinids, 8 percods, 7 catostomids, 6 centrarchids, 3 salmonids, 1
petromyzontid, and I cottid (Table 3-2 and Figures 3-1 and 3-2). These species are
consistent with those expected based on fish distribution maps of the Tuckasegee River
drainage (Menhinick 1991). This total compares favorably with the 42 species collected
previously in this same reach during five sampling periods from May 2001 to March 2002
(Duke Energy 2003). Infrequently collected fish in the 2001 - 2002 study that were not
collected in 2008 include common carp Cyprinus carpio, golden shiner Notemigonus
crysoleucas, longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae, western blacknose dace R. obtusus, black
bullhead Ameiurus melas, brown bullhead A. nebulosus, spotted bass Micropterus
punctulatus, and yellow perch Perca flavescens. Most of these species were only found in
the Dam tailrace location (current study RM 31.6) during the previous study. Two species
collected in 2008 that were not collected in the 2001 - 2002 study were creek chub Semotilus
atromaculatus and silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum.
The Tuckasegee River fish community includes several species receiving special attention
based on their limited populations from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
and the USFWS (NCDENR 2008, Natural Heritage Program Search performed 1/29/09).
The smoky dace Clinostomus sp. 1, wounded darter Etheostoma vulneratum, and olive darter
Percina squamata are state and federal species of concern. The sicklefin redhorse
3-3

Moxostoma sp. 2 is a state threatened species that is also a candidate for federal listing.
Neither the smoky dace nor the sicklefin redhorse were collected in the vicinity of the
Dillsboro Project during the 2008 sampling or prior sampling in 2001 - 2002 (Duke Energy
2003). The wounded darter was collected in 2008 at locations downstream and upstream of
the Dam, as it was in 2001 - 2002. The olive darter was only observed downstream of the
Dam in 2008 and in 2001 - 2002.
Electrofishing collections in May 2008 resulted in the collection of a total of 35 species and
one hybrid sunfish combination (Table 3-3). The highest number of fish species collected (n
= 34) at any May sampling location was at RM 31.6 (tailrace), while the lowest number of
species (n = 13) was found immediately upstream at RM 31.8 (reservoir).
A total of 32 species of fish and one hybrid sunfish combination were collected in October
2008; the green sunfish Lepomis cyanellu.s was the only new species not previously collected
in May (Table 34). October sampling again yielded the highest number of species (n = 30)
at RM 31.6 (tailrace) and the lowest number of species (n = 9) at RM 31.8 (reservoir).
Comparable results were observed during previous fish sampling activities in 2001 and 2002
(Duke Energy 2003). The numbers of fish species collected at RM's 27.5 and 33.7 (the most
downstream and upstream locations, respectively) were always intermediate between the
reservoir and tailrace location numbers and ranged from 18 - 24 species during both 2008
sampling periods.
The most abundant species of fish collected varied among the four Tuckaseegee River
sampling locations. In May 2008, the most numerous species collected at RM 27.5 (the
furthest downstream location) was river chub Nocomis micropogon (33.9% of all fish
collected), followed by gilt darter P. evides (9.3%), and northern hog sucker Hypentelium
nigricans (8.9%). The most numerous species collected at RM 31.6 was mirror shiner N.
spectrunculus (17.0% of all fish collected), followed by warpaint shiner Luxilus coccogenis
(12.7%), and river chub (10.6%). The most numerous species collected at RM 31.8 was rock
bass Ambloplites rupe.stris (45.7% of all fish collected), followed by redbreast sunfish
Lepomis auritus (16.7%), and whitetail shiner Cyprinella galactura (10.8%). The most
numerous species collected at RM 33.7 (the furthest upstream location) was river chub
(29.5% of all fish collected), followed by mirror shiner (15.7%), and Tennessee shiner N.
leuciodus (14.9%).
34
e
In October 2008, the most numerous species collected at RM 27.5 was river chub (20.2% of
all fish collected), followed by warpaint shiner (19.9%), and Tennessee shiner (16.4%). The
most numerous species collected at RM 31.6 (tailrace) was mirror shiner (21.1% of all fish
collected), followed by Tennessee shiner (14.4%), and warpaint shiner (10.3%). The most
numerous species collected at RM 31.8 (reservoir) was rock bass (45.1% of all fish
collected), followed by redbreast sunfish (18.70/o), and river chub (10.4%). The most
numerous species collected at RM 33.7 was river chub (26.9% of all fish collected), followed
by Tennessee shiner (24.2%), and warpaint shiner (14.0%).
The single most abundant species at RM's 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 (riverine locations) in both
May and October samples were always cyprinids (Figure 3-3). In the majority of instances,
the three most abundant species at these three locations belonged to the Cyprinidae family.
The two most dominant species at RM 31.8 (reservoir) in both May and October were
centrarchids, a testament to the ability of this family to adapt to and exploit lentic
environments.
Pollution Tolerance Rating:
The presence or absence of various fish species may provide clues regarding habitat quality,
water quality, biotic interactions, and energy supply in a specific water body. The ability of
fish species to withstand pollution or environmental perturbations has been documented
(NCDENR 2006b). Each collected species is assigned a pollution tolerance rating of
Tolerant, Intermediate, or Intolerant (Tables 3-3 and 34). While Tolerant species are
typically encountered in most fish surveys, a water course is considered stressed when they
numerically dominate the sample. Conversely, the more Intolerant species encountered in a
sample, the less the likelihood that the stream is negatively impacted by pollution. NOTE:
the following discussion is provided for `information only' as this fish community
assessment method was developed for wadeable streams and extrapolation of the specific
metric scores to river environments is, as of yet, unverified.
Based on the general similarities of the dominant species and the familial percentages at each
location during both May and October, pollution tolerance data for both sampling dates were
combined for analysis (Table 3-5). The percentages of Tolerant individuals collected in
2008 at RM's 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 were < 2% and would result in a rating of "Good" using
NCDENR criteria for Western and Northern Mountains (NCDENR 2006b). These three
3-5
locations are all characterized by flow. The percentage of Tolerant individuals was excessive
(> 22%) in the lentic environment at RM 31.8 (reservoir) and rated "Poor".
During 2008, eleven Intolerant species (silver shiner Notropis photogenic, telescope shiner,
rainbow trout, brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis, rock bass, smallmouth bass Micropterus
dolomieu, greenfin darter Etheostoma chlorobranchium, wounded darter, tangerine darter,
gilt darter, and olive darter) were collected at RM's 27.5 and 31.6 (the two locations
downstream of the Dam). Six of these Intolerant species were collected at RM 33.7 (the
most upstream location), and the fewest Intolerant species (4) were collected at RM 31.8
(reservoir). Despite the obvious differences in the number of Intolerant species, all locations
exceeded the required three species necessary to earn a "Good" rating. Pollution tolerance
data indicated that the fish community at RM 31.8 was the most impacted of the four
locations sampled.
Trophic Status:
Just as tolerance ratings provide clues to fish distributions and pollution impacts, trophic
ratings reflect the effects of biotic interactions and energy supply (Tables 3-3 and 3-4,
NCDENR 2006b). For example, a stream receiving excessive nutrient enrichment may be
expected to show an increased abundance of omnivores and herbivores. The NCDENR
(2006b) rates wadeable western North Carolina mountain streams by two trophic metrics and
classifies streams as "Good" if the total percentage of omnivores and herbivores is between
10% and 36% or the percentage of insectivores is between 55% and 85%. Additionally,
streams with a total percentage of omnivores and herbivores less than 10% or a percentage of
insectivores less than 40% are considered "Poor" for those metrics.
Based on the general similarities of the dominant species and the familial percentages at each
location during both May and October, trophic guild data for both sampling dates were
combined for analysis (Table 3-5). The total percentage of omnivores and herbivores
collected in 2008 ranged from 9.5% - 32.3% and the fish communities were generally rated
"Good" except at RM 31.8, where the observed total of 9.5% was considered "Poor".
The percentage of insectivorous fish collected ranged from 40.1% - 74.4% and generally
scored "Good", except at RM 31.8 where the value (40.1%) barely fell within the "Fair"
range (40%- 54%). Piscivorous fish (trout, rock bass, and black bass) were collected at each
of the four Tuckasegee sampling locations. While no criteria have been developed for the
3-6
percentage of piscivores, values at RM's 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 (riverine locations) were
generally less than 10%, while the value at RM 31.8 (reservoir) exceeded 50%. Trophic
differences were consistently observed in the fish community at RM 31.8, relative to the
communities observed at the riverine sampling locations.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Measured water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and
specific conductance) were fairly similar among sampling dates and sites and indicated little
impact on the resident fish community. Fish collections at four locations on the Tuckasegee
River in May and October 2008 demonstrated a diverse assemblage that was composed of 36
species, and one hybrid sunfish combination, representing seven families. These species are
typical of those expected for this drainage and similar to those collected in an earlier study of
the same reach of river in 2001 - 2002. This fish community included two species of special
concern to both NCWRC and the USFWS; the wounded darter and the olive darter. While
the wounded darter was collected upstream and downstream of the Dam, the olive darter was
only collected downstream.
The most species of fish were always collected at RM 31.6 (tailrace), and the least number of
species were always found at RM 31.8 (reservoir), immediately upstream of the Dam. The
fish community in the RM 31.8 was dominated by rock bass and redbreast sunfish, while the
communities at the other three riverine locations were dominated by cyprinids. Pollution
tolerance data indicated that the fish community at RM 31.8 had the highest percentage of
individuals tolerant of pollution and the fewest number of species considered intolerant of
pollution. Trophic data similarly indicated that the fish community at RM 31.8 was atypical
compared to those sampled in other nearby reaches of the Tuckasegee River. All observed
fish community metrics indicated that the fish assemblage at RM 31.8 (reservoir) was
uncharacteristic of those occurring in nearby upstream and downstream riverine reaches, and
was more consistent with the lentic habitat characterizing that site.
RECOMMENDATION
Tote-barge electrofishing was an extremely effective method for fish collection in this reach
of the Tuckasegee River. The numbers of fish collected and the associated time spent
3-7
sampling each shoreline reach were substantial. The vitality of large numbers of fish cannot
always be maintained after 200 m and shock times in excess of I-hr. We would respectfully
request that tote barge collections be limited to 100 m of shoreline, while maintaining all
appropriate boat electrofishing samples at 200 m of shoreline.
3-8
Table 3-I. Water quality parameters measured during electrofishing collections on the left
(L) and right (R) ascending banks at four locations on the Tuckasegee River,
May and October 2008.
River Mile
27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
Parameter Month L R L R L R L R
Temperature (°C) May 17.4 16.8 14.9 14.5 15.2 15.1 13.7 13.0
October 7.9 7.8 11.7 11.9 13.0 13.1 10.8 10.5
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) May 8.8 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.0 8.5 8.5 9.8
October 11.3 11.6 9.9 9.6 9.9 8.5 9.9 9.9
Conductivity (NS/cm) May 27.6 27.2 25.1 25.1 19.0 19.0 23.2 23.2
October 33.7 33.4 27.9 25.4 29.6 29.8 22.0 21.9
3-9

Table 3-2. Fish species collected during Tuckasegee River surveys in the vicinity of the
Dillsboro Project, 2001 - 2002 and 2008.
2001 -2002 2008
Scientific Name Common Name (Duke Energy 2001) (Present Study)
Petromysontldae
Ichthyomyzon greeleyi Mountain Brook Lamprey x X
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller x X
Cypnnella galactura Whitetail Shiner x X
Cypnnus carpio Common Carp X
Luxilus coccogenis Warpaint Shiner x X
Nocomis micropogon River Chub x X
Noternigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner X
Notropis leuciodus Tennessee Shiner x X
Notropis photogenic Silver Shiner x X
Notropis spectrunculus Mirror Shiner x X
Notropis telescopus Telescope Shiner x X
Phenacobius crassilabrum Fatlips Minnow x X
Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace X
Rhinichthys oblusus Western Blacknose Dace X
Semoblus atromaculatus Creek Chub X
Catostomidae
Catostomus commersond White Sucker x X
Hypentelium nigncans Northern Hog Sucker x X
Moxostoma anisurum Silver Redhorse X
Moxostoma breviceps Smallmouth Redhorse x X
Moxostoma cannatum River Redhorse x X
Moxostoma duquesnei Black Redhorse x X
Moxostoma erythrurum Golden Redhorse x X
Ictaluridas
Amelurus melas Black Bullhead X
Arn&unis nebulosus Brown Bullhead X
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus myklss Rainbow Trout x X
Salmo trutta Brown Trout x X
Salvelinus tontinalis Brook Trout x X
Cottidae
Cottus bairdii Mottled Sculpin x X
Centrarchidae
Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass x X
Lepomis auntus Redbreast Sunfish x X
Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish x X
Lepomis hybrid Hybrid Sunfish X
Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill x X
Micropterus dolomieu Smalimouth Bass x X
Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass X
Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass x X
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchium Greenfin Darter x X
Etheostoma guttselli Tuckasegee Darter x X
Etheostoma vulneratum Wounded Darter x X
Etheostoma zonale Banded Darter x X
Peroa /iavescens Yellow Perch X
Perrin aurantlaca Tangerine Darter x X
Perrin evides Gilt Darter x X
Percina squamata Olive Darter x X
Sander vitreus Walleye x X
Total Number of Species 42 18
3-10

to
c
0.
cl
cn
w
c?
-ts
U
O
U
y
N
U
•I
O
C
.O
O
E 00
O
O C
U N
L
bd
0.0
-t) .O
r Q'
O
.O ?
C Q
cl
? L
O O
t N
bA N
O
U O
't
o ?
F-
ri
M
U
F"
e e eeee;e ;e ee ee a ee a e°eeee ease e g
Q OD (D V S O ? 0)N NM O - O (O N- 00 ? Nl?f?l? N
N ?.-• (hN? O O 6,6 1 00 6 N000 M O N
n
M
M ?p pp r
Q M t+Nf tMON('7 lh f^? PO N N r Ol wN r GON ((00(?i ?tgi ? N n
fee e e e ee ee see e
(0 (0 f? N (O ?` ^ O (O N 8
Ol O O N O r 1? N
•
n
Z N? ?- .-• N N ?M mM r MY
I
1
e see a ate ee a s e e see e e ee e ee see ee e eeeee g
e 0f Ow 0 m'T W ? ?O(O U) .-•f0 M M NQ OHO w nrno MM M
O (OM C? C ?? O G v OO??tV 00 O 06 fV O boa O C10o ci
b
A
Z Y N ODD N M N N I? M Q M N N M n t V O M N N N
e e eee see e ee s e e e eeee?ee o
e N w co M co ? w - G N - (0 (0 uI N M W N 7 M n 8
N M n MM r N O '- m 66 O O 1 M N N N T O
N pp a
Z N r (0 Nt0 NM M N N r V] IND r rNN- 00 N t D ^ O m C
? vm mddmmm v?mddd m m m mmm mmmmmdm
s
o 0 0 `o 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 o m o o m o m m o o 0 0 0 o m
73 t m o > > o > > > > > > O > > > > > > > o a ' o'er o o > > > > > > > o
- _
O. a V 0 C .0 0 0 .u C U U Z U t- - V U .>_ O u . 0 0 0 .u . 0 N U fJ 0 m 0 01 0 V
m c m m m m m m m m E N w N N m m m u m m u u m m m N u m m
O m C E C C C C C C C 'N C y L ry C C N C C C ry N
f-`a z G _0 C _ C ___-- 0 C _ C _ C _ C ___ a_ _q oa' a .9 C _ C _a
v m a,3 a; m m m m v m m m m m m m m m m v
m m 5 9 TV 9 m AAAAIA 9 9 m 9 g 'm_ 9
b la aa c'a '0 v`ov-?pp9a c `c 'v c 'p c'v cv c`o c c`'v
m m m m t`0 m W m C C m m m m 01 m W'Z 2 m m 0 m m A m m m m m m m
c E EEEEEgE?E? AEEEEEE ?Ey? E ESE 29191111E
m v m al g o p o d o o 0 m v g: m 222 0 0 02 o m o v o g g o o m
p? C C a C C C C C C C r r C jc jr S is jc C fC H H fc C C C jc C C G G C C
m
$ m
E ro
p J .? m 7 m H y y
I`?.+i Y O C fA y m m y C C m m m m
g ;g???? o_ g mm m°mr
o
ct N duLi
C m 0 3D)c yc u=.0 C??iK Ho uyio? 77 m?mp?yt
7
m
l0 V) (s U W A N O U N E Rm O 4: C O~~ L m m fq O O C N C Co
N m m m y Y m E C m C ". m
CL c CL
V U?? Hn?F1i ? 3z<mcc m0 00: cDF7?m ?(?9o?
E ? ? E u
.? . a N h ry y E m N ry ry N 7 7
N E Qm 0 O y m U j? 3 m 0? d m H Y H 'y i ?_ U C LO m
2 > y r E o o m - 0 jg 2 c
m m o a -c R? 2 c Q ry E- u m m m
1) m '8 8? E E E S? e c a£ E c $ ry o f Q c c m m
°ryEmmmmmm=m-0 v $m mmmmE? do
m E m ry ?' a ry 9' i E E E E E c ry m L E 2 2 E E E g 3> o a i
(j NE ry?unhnHHO??Em O o. c ryryrymm dbb033mmyS EE
a O_ m ry 0 O O Q Q .. Q - G Y O 'C 'C 'C Q Q ry y e c C 0 7
o Q m o o Q o z
$ c'° P Q C o '3.4 o c o `d o d o
x g C> y 3 9 y"2 c 0 i s
E ?d = m E R. x x x x E
miram>,"co?$? m..'4 ?, o#cmio a?QUOUW`5? m'c
'm m >•o?3zzz
, U=$II$Z. ou,v, o ? mwwwwam?c?cn o i
N d? U O1 U U D. H F

^Wl
C
0.
E
0
N
L
U
U
O
U
U
U
r?
w
SFr
O
r-
0
•? C
OC
a c:
os
U C
Q?
U
U U
f3, y
•L
? Q.
L
Q? C
U.
C Q
? i.
c? U
? C
t rA
O ?
.? C
U ?
U cn
C
O
U ?
U
? O
M
U
c?
a°eo e O W N 0 N ID 10 .0 N m t?'f Q t?0 O
A O Q?? NN i° r Q ci
Q .- O N NO r N O
r
n ?tpp t?DD pppp
2 as Or Nt+1 u0i0 N to M" tD N?
N
o oe a oe
3e ? N to o -o
o v ° vi of
a Q
r
Z ? 0 N O CD ? N N 0] N O?1 C
e e ?,e pee Xe a e ?oee oe aQ a ow- oee aE ?e a ?e ee
x N ? t7 ? N N O Q r N M r N O) to r DD N N M ? O ? C1 G
O QtDOai cps 66 66 r O G O to ?O N 6ci OOC GGO
u
:e {p
j N V u W Q ?N-wr QN ? •- rt+f •- N ^ ? `_ NN MN N m - m - n O C
M ?0N QN Q tD O?I N O N t0 O tD^;oz O
O G? N?O tV ti ci O G ci C C O vi
.-.-GttiC O
A
N tp
Z N N O N N °i OD W co O1 O ID N " N to m N to tN N N w C
s
' an d w m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
a n `o3i `o i i$ >° o>i ` >
o °- i °> >
t 3 > a a s > a 'o a 'u a a a a o
a uu?uuuuuu ?uu u myuNmyu °'>->_u u >(JJUUu V.U>_U._(?a u uuuuu z
O m N YI
E N N N N N N E N N N N a N N N N N m N N N N N fa N N N U N N N
F o z = c c p c c c c c c p c c c S .S c c a c c a c c c c a a c c c c c c c a
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
N W 1a W m w N W N N is m m m A N W N R A A
a tla'v'33c'vcb..
c c o m w m m i0 'o v cvc
w m m m m m m m m m m m m c c c m m m m m
Y,r= E EEEEE@EEE m EEE m 2 m E m 2 m E 2 leeegm m ? m m
E dgogilkE
o+ m d d o `m `m o m o 02 m m `m `222 o d o d o so 3t 2 `m m 22 od o ° `m
F. y. 'c `c c c _c is c c 'c °, _c 'c c c c 'c e c c `c c 'c `c c c 'cjc c c c_c `c
m
y
J U ° m
E o ° m , z ; rn N m y m c mo d m
w o mc._ m Lo top ?E 9° ?_ f3j ?mvti mm mormtro
Z m .°.. V7 N m ro m (D C J ?[ O L L N r J J U N C C .t.. r3 m m m
:c 2
J
O N N J
? m cv mai L?v m cw
o? w corr v co mmU ° E o . - m m
E cc01o4mnm 'cdiacig Y ?_ uaci°'am mY aaom
E d o i
0 o m t o> m t m 'm ro c o t E.> m o m 2 g o m m n 41
v f L) i(n rw5 3ztntn¢a30 smm ? w¢c7=mtn? c?r3mrc?o3
F
E - = H
o
w 'mo T c m `m l e F y? c 2 y y " o" ? ? Y c
y E` Vl ° N? N? ? m L N? Y H '? ?? O? m >
`1 O J C A C C' N U E u o .c? m m ]., H N ? .a a N a m .m.. V ?
y°a c` ? a' o'er E.ay'e'o.r E ? $y; =?oE oae?m m Sv
E?c Em?'Q $2yN°m$cmauaa?i c 6 c c?`iaan ct io.
? C
_ m o 4 ?:3 umi s>; g m m m L m Jm v L E 2 2 E E ?E E o' d
E gxuatnmtntn C EEEE % 2J t ma
E
>o o a $. E9i ogooo s? aaNNya?m•on u7ooom
co m c m4, E
?aaaam?s ?yyHyh f E yy
E o o a p o- a hS o d e v
?tEa?°ggeea?"akooook UE> o?aoooo ???i?i. ea zz
.11-o.mad --lo`o`ocmSm>ooooo cmm o$Erommaai :cttt
i :I VUUZ zzzzavaVU2???Otnv) UUQ?-4 _j www?aa?n F- tj a. F
N
r.
M

Table 3-5. Summary of tolerance rating and trophic status of fish collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008.
River Mile
Category 27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
Tolerance Rating (%)
Tolerant 0.00% 1.76% 22.69% 0.28%
Intermediate 82.39% 77.77% 27.97% 91.22%
Intolerant 17.61% 20.47% 49.34% 8.49%
Non-feeding
Herbivore
Omnivore
Insectivore
Piscivore
Tronhic Status M
1.09% 0.18% 0.26% 1.34%
9.53% 4.81% 0.00% 3.40%
22.80% 10.44% 9.50% 28.20%
62.21% 74.37% 40.11% 64.28%
4.37% 10.21% 50.13% 2.78%
3-13
f
Figure 3-1. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River minnows collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project: (A) central stoneroller Can:postoma
anomalum, (B) warpaint shiner Luxilars coccogenis, and (C) fatlips minnow
Phenacobius crassilabrum.
3-14

A
B

C
Figure 3-2. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River darters collected in the vicinity
of the Dillsboro Project: (A) greenfin darter Etheoslorna chlorobranchium, (B)
Tuckasegee darter E. guttselli, and (C) banded darter E. zonale.
3-15

A
RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
B
RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
¦ Catostomidae Centrarchidae F] Cottidae 7 Cyprinidae
® Percidae ? Petromyzontidae 1:1 Salmonidae
Figure 3-3. Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May and
(B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2008.
3-16
k '
r

LITERATURE CITED
Duke Energy. 2003. Dillsboro Hydro Project, FERC # 2602, Final license application.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Energy. 2004. Application for Surrender of the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project
License FERC # 2602. Charlotte, NC.
Menhinick, EF. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2005. Basinwide assessment report: Little Tennessee River basin. April 2005.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section. Raleigh,
NC.
NCDENR. 2006a. Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. July,
2006. NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section.
Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2006b. Standard operating procedure. Biological monitoring: Stream fish
community assessment program. August, 2006. NCDENR, Division of Water
Quality, Environmental Sciences Section. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2008. Natural heritage program list of the rare species of North Carolina
(http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/2008-animal-book-complete.pdf). NCDENR,
Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation, NC Natural Heritage
Program. Raleigh, NC.
L-1
"?' ; r] L ;
?
,? s 4
M,AK 200 9
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS APID STCPMWATER WACH
DILLSBORO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
(FERC No. 2602)
BI-ANNUAL PEBBLE COUNT REPORT
Prepared for:
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared by:
DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Charlotte, North Carolina
FEBRUARY 2009
TA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
G)nsulting Engincctn, Scientists, & Rcgulmory Slffi iAllsm
DILLSBORO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
(FERC No. 2602)
BI-ANNUAL PEBBLE COUNT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.
SECTION I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................I
SECTION 2 PEBBLE COUNT METHODOLOGY .............................................................2
SECTION 3 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ................................................................3
SECTION 4 PEBBLE COUNT RESULTS ........................................................................4
SECTION S REFERENCES ..........................................................................................6
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - MAP OF MONITORING LOCATIONS
APPENDIX B - CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY CURVES
Section 1
Introduction
This report summarizes results from Devine Tarbell & Associates (DTA) pebble counts on the
Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2602) in 2008. The
Dillsboro Dam removal project includes a three-phase environmental monitoring effort. The
current, or Pre-Removal Phase, is taking place to gather baseline information on the variability of
physical, chemical, and biological processes in the Tuckasegee River prior to dam removal. To
capture seasonal effects, this phase has been designed to occur the year prior to, and leading up
to, dam removal. These pebble counts were performed in areas of the river that were associated
with the collection of macroinvertebrates (Coughlan et al. 2009) as required by the 401
Certification received from the NC Division of Water Quality (November 21, 2007).
Section 2
Pebble Count Methodology
The Wolman Pebble Count Procedure (1954) was performed twice during 2008 at four sites on
the Tuckasegee River. Generally, pebble count data were collected at the same riverine locations
as the macroinvertebrate data. This included areas above Barker's Creek Bridge (River Mile
[RM] 27.3), below Dillsboro Dam (RM 31.6), below Savannah Creek (RM 33.2), and above
Savannah Creek (RM 33.6) (Appendix A). Due to miscommunications, pebble count data
collected upstream of Dillsboro Pond in June was slightly downstream (RM 33.2) from the
sampling location associated with the macroinvertebrates (RM 33.6). However, fall pebble
counts were collected from the same location as the macro invertebrates and the downstream
location (RM 33.2) was also sampled again in the fall for comparison purposes.
HDRIDTA used a step-toe procedure to select 200 particles at random for quantification at each
site during the sampling event. The samples were collected across the entire channel bottom
within each macro invertebrate sampling zone where the river runs during normal flows. During
each pebble count sampling event, 200 sediment particles were selected for measure. Each
particle was measured along its secondary or intermediate axis. HDRIDTA performed the pebble
count according to the Wolman Pebble Count Procedure (1954) by navigating through the
sampling zone, averting the eyes, and picking up the first pebble that the index finger touches
next to the big toe.
The statistics generated from a Wolman Pebble Count Procedure (1954) are a unique
characterization of the composition of the riverbed at one particular point in time. Useful
interpretation of the pebble count data is gained by comparing measurements over time. Pebble
counts will be conducted bi-annually throughout the Dillsboro Dam removal project, and will be
valuable to illustrate changes in the sediment distribution.
2
Section 3
Particle Size Distribution
The measured pebble sizes were classified according to the Wolman Pebble Count Procedure
(1954). In this procedure, particles that measure less than 2 mm are considered to be sand. The
largest particles that HDRIDTA measured and classified were greater than or equal to 256 mm
and were considered to be small boulders or bedrock. Substrate classifications between these
two extremes include fine, medium, and coarse gravel; and small, medium, and large cobble.
The corresponding measurement in millimeters to each of these categories is included on the x-
axis of the figures presented in Appendix B.
During 2008, HDRIDTA performed two pebble counts on the Tuckasegee River above Barker's
Creek Bridge, and below Dillsboro Dam. The first pebble count was performed on June 23,
2008, and is referred to as the spring 2008 sampling event. The second pebble count was
performed on October 7, 2008, and is referred to as the fall 2008 sampling event. The two
pebble counts at the site below Savannah Creek were performed on June 23, 2008 (spring 2008
sampling event) and September 25, 2008 (fall 2008 sampling event). The uppermost sampling
location, above Savannah Creek, was sampled only on October 7, 2008, during the fall 2008
sampling event.
A cumulative frequency curve was developed for each of the study sites and is illustrated in
Appendix B, Figures B-1 through B4. Figures B-1, B-2, and B-3 have two curves that represent
the spring and fall sampling events above Barker's Creek Bridge, below Dillsboro Dam, and
below Savannah Creek, respectively. Figure B4 has one curve representing data collected in the
fall of 2008 above Savannah Creek. Figure B-5 compares the particle size distribution for the
sampling site above Barker's Creek Bridge, below Dillsboro Dam, and below Savannah Creek
from the spring 2008 sampling event. Figure B-6 compares the particle size distribution for all
four of the pebble count sample locations during the fall 2008 sampling events.
3
Section 4
Pebble Count Results
The pebble count results illustrated in Figures B-1 and B-2 indicate a consistent change in
substrate between the spring and fall 2008 sampling events. During this period, pebble count
sampling data above Barker's Creek Bridge and below Dillsboro Dam showed a similar decrease
in smaller particle sizes, ranging from coarse gravel (32 mm) down to sand (<2 mm).
Conversely, a higher percentage of larger particle sizes was sampled, ranging from very coarse
gravel (64 mm) up to small boulder/bedrock (>256 mm). This reduction in smaller particle sizes
between the spring and fall sampling events could be the result of scour from a large runoff event
that occurred in late August 2008. During this event, the peak flow recorded at the Barker's
Creek U.S. Geological Survey flow gauging station (#03510577) was 1,620 cfs. Outside of this
large rainfall runoff event, flows were less than 400 cfs the remainder of the time between the
spring and fall 2008 sampling dates.
Figure B-3 shows the results of the pebble counts performed on the Tuckasegee River below
Savannah Creek. There were more coarse and very coarse gravel particles (between 16 and 64
mm) measured in the fall sampling event compared to the spring sampling event. There was also
more than an 80% decrease in the amount of sand (<2 mm) particles measured in the fall versus
the spring. This substantial decrease in fine sediment from spring to fall sampling is consistent
with pebble count results at the two downstream sampling sites which may further support the
possibility of scour due to the rainfall runoff event recorded in August 2008.
As shown in Figures B-5 and B-6, the particle size distribution varies throughout the Tuckasegee
River. There was more gravel-sized substrate recorded at the sites above and below Savannah
Creek and at the Dillsboro Dam site, and more cobble-sized substrate recorded at the Barker's
Creek Bridge site. For example, during both the spring and fall sampling events, there was a
higher frequency of smaller particles measured between 4 and 64 mm (gravels) at the base of
Dillsboro Dam than above Barker's Creek Bridge. The highest frequency of gravel measured
was at the most upstream location above Savannah Creek. Similarly, the transect above Barker's
Creek Bridge had as much as twice as many particles between 90 and 256 mm (cobbles) than the
other three sites.
4
Section 4
Pebble Count Results
As shown in Figure B-5, there was a lower frequency of fine gravel, very fine gravel, and sand
(combined particles measuring less than <8 mm) as the site locations move from upstream to
downstream. The most fine gravels and sand were found at the site below Savannah Creek,
followed by the site below Dillsboro Dam, with the lowest frequency of fine gravel and sand
particles found at the site above Barker's Creek. This pattern, however, was not repeated during
the fall sampling event. This illustrates the wide variations among sites throughout the bi-annual
pebble count sampling in 2008.
5
Section 5
References
Coughlan, D. J., J. J. Hall, and G. E. Vaughan. 2009. Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project - Pre-dam
removal biological monitoring on the Tuckasegee River (2008). Duke Energy,
Huntersville, NC.
Wolman, M. G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material: Trans. Am. Geophys.
Union, v. 35, p. 951-956 in USGS. 1998. Project Data - Results from selected sites in the
Lake Erie-Lake St. Clair Basin (National Water-Quality Assessment Program) [Online]
URL: http://oh.water.usg_s.jov/nawga/particle.size.97.html.
6
APPENDIX A
MAP OF MONITORING LOCATIONS
Q
W
V
Q
a
c
a
Q
APPENDIX B
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY CURVES
1
NW
W
GTr
M
N
a
? i
U ?
b ?
?+ U
C" -n
i 6J
? R
a O
U d
0
0
U
a,
a
a
a?
a
s
aS
u.
z
O
N
e
a
j?
I
N ?
Y V ?

v >
(7
O = >
V 'z
00 >
v
_ 2 >
v 1.)
7
u
N y ?
N >
v 0
C7
N `? 6J
M ?
v U C7

Z > 0 V
7 Y 'U
> U V
-0
E
v v
E v

V U
v
0OO 0yq .o
L ?
v a J

y
v >
J
-
U
cs
N c
O
Cn
O O? 000 ? ? ? ? ? N O O
's
e
Q
R
Z
c
H
U
VI
6.
C
a?
a
a
Q
(%) uoi;nq!a;sid;uaua[pag ani;gInwnj
N
1
Nw
W
r?
I?
H
M
?i
R
A
6
^Q^
X1.1
A
0
as
Gq
Li
U
Q
L
U
u
C
6?7
L
0
U
pr
00
g
N
l?
I
00
C
CL
l?
I
N C
v m

1 C
v
00
C R
v ?
_ 7 N

E N
v N ?
N v N
N
m
U
C7
N
v U C7

V > 0

?o ?vyi N
V
U

V
U

av
*0 E
eq .2
o
V
U
o N y
0o au a

v .4U
h
L ? L
N
v >~M?U

N E
? O
C'a
? 000 0 ? 0 7 o N o
C
R
Y
y
R
N_
9.
(V
W
k
C
a
a.
Q
(%) uoi;ngia;sla;uawlpag ani;eInwnj
M
W
rah
V
G4
N
M
M
a
L
U
cR
A
CQ
0
G
0
U
U
a
a?
L
U
u
G
a?
Q
i
3
7
U
S
N
LL
0
N
no
C
a
N C
V

v

V Lc. ?
00
cm
v z,
E v
v L

v ? L

V U C7
v
N
V U C7
v
O c`0
V U V
>. v
U C7
v
V 7) U
E;
00 N O
V v O
'J 'L y
00 b4 L
L
V j
v

? V
oal
A o
cG
S 00+ 000 ? ? ? ? MO N O O
E
E
c
R
ar
L
Gz
N
U
v
N
0.
M
?G
C
a.
a
Q
(oho) uoi;nqu;sla JUMUIpag anl;ejnwn3
1
W
F?1
M
M
CYr
u
U
.r?
CR
G
Ci
R
i
ar
O
Q
d
7
0
U
u
L
a
U
u
Lei
a?
GTr
i
cC
U
A4
00
8
LL
I
N C
v R
?
TT
7 L" _ >
v ;
V
"U >U
v
>
C
v

7 >
73 m
v u

v
N N >
N ? ?
V U C7
N y ?
M >
V U C7

? ? U
C7
? >. N y
?
? U C7

V ? U
8=
vv
O v L
00 04 ?
L
ca
v ?i ? j
y
N ti R O

v`fli of
'o
N
CO
S ? ? O ? O O? O N O O
c
c
C
R
.e
a
N_
v
R
k
'C3
C
Q
(off„) uoiingl i;sia Juawlpag ani;elnwnj
u7
W
r?
V
Gcy
a?
C< 0
U N
u C
? L
D ?
w o
? o
a ?
U
1
1J
y
L
C3
G
RS
3
0
m
a
O
A
3
O
y
m
.e
u
R7
m
v
I1TQ
I
N ?
v c0

v

v (7.
?0 = >
_

E y
>
'
a
v c

N ys.. >
N CS cd
v `U
C7
N
M
O R
U C7
v7 >
> U U

>
co
U C7
11
am

v v' U
E =
O
N
_
V C u
O y y
70 a
q .0
?
v r? J
>, y
U ?L
N
v a

t U
13
N
11 F
m
O O? 00 ? ? ? O O N
O O
8
E
C
R
.C
C
y
R
U
N_
a
M?
W
'CS
C
N
a
a.
Q
(%) uoi;ngia;siQ;uaWipag 3A[JBInWn3
Iz
MM1
W
a
w
L
u c
? N
u
D 1
?11
? O
a+ 6>
ea ?
G ?
?a
U
A
L
.n
Q
3
0
y
L
u
07
:e
y
U
v
1
L
:a
C0
y
l?
I
N C
v ce

v
Gc,

V 'rte, ?
c >
V Sz

I c
G L
- 'O m
v

v y L
N ti L
N >
V U C7
N ti >
M
V U J
?n

v
>
U
C7
T N >
V ?U
CD
o -co

v v' U
6!
00 E
? ? y o
v ? U
o y
00 c oti -0
L
a
v a v
v
kn -0
y .
.0
N
.R1 j
v

L
N E
A CA
rn
00 ? ? O ? O O O N O O
C
R
r
L
O
H
U
N
R
M?
W
"G
Y
N
a
a
Q
(%) uoi;nq!j;siQ;uawipaS ani;elnwnj