20030179 Ver 9_More Info Received_20120127

PDuke
Energy®
Carolinas
February 23, 2012
Mr. Ian McMillan
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1617
HYDRO STRATEGY & LICENSING
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
EC12YI526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 -1802
Mailing Address:
EC12Y/P.O. Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201 -1006
©3-ak7�
®RUo
1EH- 2 7 2012
KZTLANGS AND STOR14WATE BRANCIi
Subject: Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project's Post -Dam Removal 2011 Biological Monitoring
Report
Mr. McMillan:
Enclosed is the 2011 Biological Monitoring Report for the Dillsboro Project. This report is
provided as required by the 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Comments dated
November 21, 2007, as modified on April 13, 2010. If you have questions or concerns regarding
this report, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 704/382 -0805.
Sincerely,
6 - 4,e �&",k
D. Hugh Barwick
Senior Environmental Resource Manager
Enclosure: Report

f
F �
�I
DILLSBORO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT — BIOLOGICAL MONITORING ON
THE TUCKASEGEE RIVER (2008, 2010, AND 2011)
FERC# 2602
Principal Investigators:
David J. Coughlan
James J. Hall
DUKE ENERGY
Corporate EHS Services
McGuire Environmental Center
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
February 2012
E"
D g�Lp��
FFe 9- 7 2012
WVLANDS AND STOR,h- - BPgNCH

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 Corporate Environment,
Health and Safety's Scientific Services field staff for their dedicated sampling efforts and
data analysis which provided the foundation of this report. Mike Abney, Mark Auten, Kim
Baker, Hugh Barwick, Mark Cantrell, Bob Doby, Scott Fletcher, Chase Fulk, Steve Johnson,
Bryan Kalb, Ben Lastra, Glenn Long, Todd Lynn, Matt McKinney, Gene Vaughan, and Jan
Williams were vital contributors in completing fisheries collections and sample processing.
Mark Auten, Tommy Bowen, Ben Lastra, Aileen Lockhart, Shannon McCorkle, and Jan
Williams contributed in macro invertebrate 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, Scott Fletcher, Penny Franklin, Duane Harrell, Gene
Vaughan, and John Velte. The insightful commentary and suggestions from these
individuals and also between co- authors have benefited the report in numerous ways.
t
r
IT]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY .................................................................. ............................... iv
LISTOF TABLES ................................................................................ ............................... vi
LISTOF FIGURES ............................................................................ ............................... viii
CHAPTER 1- DILLSBORO PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..........1 -1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... ............................... 1 -1
DAMREMOVAL ......................................................................................................... 1-1
SAMPLINGLOCATIONS ............................................................ ............................... 1 -2
CHAPTER 2- MACROINVERTEBRATES ..................................... ............................2 -1
MATERIALS AND METHODS ....................................................... ............................2 -1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................ ............................2 -2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................ ............................2 -8
CHAPTER3 -FISH ............................................................................. ............................3 -1
MATERIALS AND METHODS ....................................................... ............................3 -1
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION ........................................................ ............................3 -2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................... ...........................3 -14
LITERATURECITED .......................................................................... ............................L -1
im

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 issued a 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions (November 21,
2007) for dam and powerhouse removal requiring Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC to conduct at
least two (2) fish and aquatic macro invertebrate collections from the Tuckasegee River at
different seasons before dam removal. Inasmuch as dam demolition was originally
scheduled for early 2009, macro invertebrate 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. As dam removal was delayed until early
2010, the first year of post dam - removal biological sampling occurred in 2010. The
objective of this monitoring was to comply with the 401 Certification by assessing
macro invertebrate and fish populations during May and October for one year prior to and the
first two years following removal of the Dillsboro Dam (Dam).
Measured water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, specific
conductance, and pH) at the time of macro invertebrate collections appeared to indicate little
negative impact to resident benthic communities. Macro invertebrate collections at four
locations on the Tuckasegee River in May and October of 2008, 2010, and 2011 yielded total
taxa counts ranging from 41 to 117 taxa. The numbers of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa ranged from 2 to 51. Macroinvertebrate collections at the reservoir
location always demonstrated the lowest numbers of total and EPT taxa of any location
sampled, irrespective of season in 2008 and 2010. Resulting water quality bioclassifications
based on the macro invertebrate communities collected at the reservoir location were Poor in
2008 and increased to Good -fair and Fair in 2010 following dam removal. The three riverine
locations, with their more heterogeneous habitat and flowing water, supported diverse
macro invertebrate communities resulting in better water quality bioclassifications (ranging
from Fair to Good). Following dam removal in early 2010, the observed benthic community
metrics indicated the former reservoir location was becoming more similar to the other three
riverine locations. In 2011, collections of total taxa and EPT taxa at River Mile (RM) 31.8
increased and were similar to values collected at the other three riverine locations. In the
second year following dam removal, water quality bioclassification scores at all locations in a
given season were comparable.
IV

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 of 2008, 2010, and
2011 demonstrated an assemblage composed of 38 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 the 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 upstream of the demolished
Dam beginning in May 2011.
The most species of fish were always collected at RM 31.6 (except in May 2011 when RM
33.7 tied for the most species), and the least number of species were always found at RM
31.8 (reservoir and its successor), immediately upstream of the Dam. The fish community at
RM 31.8 was dominated by rock bass and redbreast sunfish before demolition, but this
centrarchid domination shifted in less than one year after demolition to a community
dominated by cyprinids. Meanwhile, the communities at the other three riverine locations
(RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7) were always dominated by cyprinids. Pollution tolerance data
indicated 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 the fish community at RM 31.8 was atypical compared to those
sampled in other nearby reaches of the Tuckasegee River, though these differences decreased
after dam demolition.
Macro invertebrate and fish communities in Dillsboro Reservoir were atypical of those
occurring in riverine locations upstream and downstream in the Tuckasegee River in 2008.
Following dam removal in 2010, both macro invertebrate and fish communities shifted
noticeably within a few months. The macro invertebrate community in the reservoir location
was similar to communities in the riverine locations by 2011. The fish community in the
reservoir location changed slightly but was still not typical of those found in the riverine
locations by 2011.
v

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 Dillsboro Dam, and GPS coordinates . ............................... 1 -3
2 -1 Description of available habitats at four macro invertebrate sampling locations
3 -1
on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011..........
2 -10
2 -2
Water quality parameters measured at four Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011 . .......
2 -11
2 -3
Macro invertebrates collected at RM 27.5 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011 ...........................
2 -12
2 -4
Macro invertebrates collected at RM 31.6 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011 ...........................
2 -20
2 -5
Macro invertebrates collected at RM 31.8 on the Tuckasegee River near the
3 -18
3 -4
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011 ...........................
2 -28
2 -6
Macro invertebrates collected at RM 33.7 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011 ...........................
2 -35
3 -1
Water quality parameters measured during electrofishing collections on the left
(L) and right (R) ascending banks at four locations on the Tuckasegee River
during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011 ........................ ...............................
3 -16
3 -2
Fish species collected during Tuckasegee River surveys in the vicinity of the
Dillsboro Project, 2001 — 2002 and 2008, 2010, and 2011 ......... ...............................
3 -17
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 -18
3 -4
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 -19
3 -5
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 2010 ................................................. ...............................
3 -20
3 -6
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 2010 ........................................... ...............................
3 -21
3 -7
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 2011 ................................................. ...............................
3 -22
3 -8
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 2011 ........................................... ...............................
3 -23
U

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page
3 -9 Three most abundant species of fish (percent of total number) collected at four
sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008,
2010, and 2011 ............................................................................ ............................... 3 -24
3 -10 Pollution tolerance and trophic status metrics, ratings, and associated scoring
criteria as defined by NCDENR for the Little Tennessee River basin
( NCDENR 2006b) ...................................................................... ............................... 3 -25
3 -11 Summary of pollution tolerance rating and the number of Intolerant fish species
collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro
Project, 2008, 2010, and 2011 .................................................... ............................... 3 -26
3 -12 Summary of trophic status of fish collected at four sampling locations on the
Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008, 2010, and 2011 ........................ 3 -27
vu

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 -1 Sampling locations on the Tuckasegee. River, Jackson County, NC, near the
DillsboroProject .......................................................................... ............................... 1 -4
1 -2 Dillsboro Project on the Tuckasegee River in the Town of Dillsboro, Jackson
County, NC (photo taken May 2008) .......................................... ............................... 1 -5
1 -3 Site of the demolished Dillsboro Project on the Tuckasegee River in the Town
of Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC (photo taken November 2010 ) ............................. 1 -6
2 -1
Tuckasegee River flows associated with 2008, 2010, and 2011
2 -8 All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
macro invertebrate sample collections (depicting daily average flows for USGS
2 -49
2 -9 All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
Station 03510577 at Barker's Creek, NC) ................................. ...............................
2 -42
2 -2
Total number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from four Tuckasegee River
collected in 2008 — 2011 at RM 33.7 in the Tuckasegee River . ...............................
sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October, 2008, 2010,
and2011 ..................................................................................... ...............................
2 -43
2 -3
Total number of EPT taxa collected from four Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011 .......
2 -44
2 -4
Comparison of EPT taxa numbers at several Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, 1999, 2001, 2004, and 2008 — 2011 ...............
2 -45
2 -5
Water quality bioclassifications based on macroinvertebrate collections from
four Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and
October, 2008, 2010, and 2011 .................................................. ...............................
2 -46
2 -6
Comparison of water quality bioclassification scores at several Tuckasegee
River sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project, 1999, 2001, 2004, and
2008-2011 ................................................................................ ...............................
2 -47
2 -7 All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2011 at RM 27.5 in the Tuckasegee River . ...............................
2 -48
2 -8 All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2011 at RM 31.6 in the Tuckasegee River . ...............................
2 -49
2 -9 All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2011 at RM 31.8 in the Tuckasegee River . ...............................
2 -50
2 -10 All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2011 at RM 33.7 in the Tuckasegee River . ...............................
2 -51
3 -1 Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River minnows collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project in 2008: (A) central stoneroller Campostoma
anomalum, (B) warpaint shiner Luxilus coccogenis, and (C) fatlips minnow
Phenacobius crassilabrum ......................................................... ............................... 3 -28
3 -2 Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River darters collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project in 2008: (A) greenfin darter Etheostoma
chlorobranchium, (B) Tuckasegee darter E. guttselli, and (C) banded darter E.
zonale......................................................................................... ............................... 3-29
viii

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Title
Page
3 -3
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010: (A) river chub Nocomis micropogon,
(B) gilt darter Percina evides, and (C) wounded darter Etheostoma vulneral...........
3 -30
3 -4
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2011: (A) mottled sculpin Cottus bairdii, (B) northern
hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans, and (C) river redhorse Moxostoma
carinatum.................................................................................... ...............................
3-31
3 -5
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2011: (A) telescope shiner Notropis telescopus, (B)
tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca, and (C) rock bass Ambloplites rupestris.........
3 -32
3 -6
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
DillsboroProject, 2008 ............................................................... ...............................
3 -33
3 -7
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, 2010 ............................................................... ...............................
3 -34
3 -8
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, 2011 ............................................................... ...............................
3 -35
3 -9
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mountain brook lampreys
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................... ...............................
3 -36
3 -10
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all central stonerollers
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................... ...............................
3 -36
3 -11
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all warpaint shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 201 1 ................... ...............................
3 -37
3 -12
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all river chubs collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................................. ...............................
3 -37
3 -13
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all Tennessee shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................... ...............................
3 -38
3 -14
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mirror shiners collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................................. ...............................
3 -38
3 -15
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all fatlips minnows
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................... ...............................
3 -39
ix

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Title
Page
3 -16
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all northern hog suckers
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................... ...............................
3 -39
3 -17
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mottled sculpins
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................... ...............................
3 -40
3 -18
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all rock bass collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................................. ...............................
3 -40
3 -19
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all Tuckasegee darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................... ...............................
3 -41
3 -20
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all wounded darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................... ...............................
3 -41
3 -21
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all gilt darters collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011 ................................. ...............................
3 -42
x

CHAPTER 1
DILLSBORO PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
The Tuckasegee and Oconaluftee rivers are the principle tributaries to the Little Tennessee
River and Fontana Lake 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 originally consisted of a
dam, powerhouse, and reservoir. Constructed in 1913, the project has had various owners,
and is currently owned by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy). The Dillsboro Dam
(Dam) impounded the Tuckasegee River at River Mile (RM) 31.7. The Dam was a concrete
masonry structure about 310 ft long and 12 ft high (Figure 1 -2). The powerhouse consisted
of a reinforced concrete substructure, a wood /steel superstructure, and two generating units.
The reservoir upstream of the Dam had a surface area of about 15 ac and was approximately
0.8 mi long. The installed generation capacity of the Dillsboro Project was 225 kW. The
average annual generation for the project from 1958 to 2002 was 912 MWh, and electricity
was last generated there in 2004.
DAM REMOVAL
Relicensing activities associated with Duke Energy's Nantahala Area Hydroelectric Projects
identified the removal of the Dam as a key component to various stakeholder settlement
agreements supporting significant gains in aquatic habitat in the Tuckasegee River (Duke
Energy 2003). An agreement to remove the Dam was reached with all involved tribal, state,
and federal agencies and resulted in a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (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 Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) outlined procedures and

monitoring requirements associated with dam demolition in an approved Section 401 Water
Quality Certification with Additional Conditions (November 21, 2007) and later modified
(April 13, 2010). Initial removal of sediment deposits from Dillsboro Reservoir was slated
for 2008 with dam removal scheduled for early 2009. These dam removal activities were
subsequently delayed due to litigation with Jackson County, NC. Following resolution of the
litigation, sediment removal occurred in the latter months of 2009, the powerhouse was razed
in January 2010, dam demolition commenced February 3, 2010, and overall project
demolition ended May 11, 2010 (Figure 1 -3). Shoreline restoration was completed by July
15, 2010.
To evaluate responses of resident biological communities to dam removal, the NCDWQ
requested Duke Energy sample macro invertebrate and fish communities in the Tuckasegee
River for one year prior to (2008) and the three years immediately subsequent to dam
removal (2010 — 2012). 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.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Macro invertebrate 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 and its subsequent lentic habitat (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 macro invertebrates (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 (Alderman
2009). 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 was not changed despite this slight upstream shift in sampling location.
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 Dillsboro Dam, and GPS coordinates.
River Mile Sampling Location
Latitude (N)
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

0
0
N
O
M
V
V)
E
Q
a
Q
a
m
OQ
O
R
O
(VI
00
N ,UUU E:C oSE:
N ,UUU' [ G oSi
er
1I
. •,,, 1, ,� �+- -
`y • AV
5(1
r 'V
N ,000'£ZoS£
N ,000IZoS£
L
c
0
a
N
U
� N U
'o
fy) L >_
M 0. L
W ^ O U
V)
V U
cu
as
as
U v
zv
� U
0 U
O �? o
Ln
U U
4 C
CO
ILI
U U
c fl-
O U N
co o >
�L
E�
L
(i•

00
0
0
N
c�
C
N
O
O
s
fl..
U
z
0
U
c
0
v
cC
0
L
Q
O
r.
3
0
H
a�
s
a�
bn
a�
U
U
s
U
N
O
a
O
O
w
N
L
W.
I

o �o
o
a
U
z
0
U
a
0
U
C;3
ti
O
sr
O
UI
CA
Q
4-.
O
C
3
0
H
a�
c
a�
a�
on
v
cz
U
E"
N
..0
r.+
U
U
�O
a
0
L.
0
ibi,
a�
0o
o
E�
b E
a� >
o
. z
0
lu
iz cz
M
w

CHAPTER 2
MACROINVERTEBRATES
MATERIALS AND METHO
Macro invertebrate monitoring was conducted on the Tuckasegee River in 2008, 2010, and
2011. Samples were collected at four locations 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. Sample collections occurred on
May 5 -6 and October 6 -7 in 2008, on May 6 -7 and October 5 -6 in 2010, and on May 11 -12
and October 4 -5 in 2011 (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 RMs 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 which cannot be
easily sampled with nets.
Duke Energy 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
macro invertebrate samples.
The lentic environment at RM 31.8 (Dillsboro Reservoir and its successor) 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 one transect across the Dillsboro Reservoir
during each sampling event. Additionally, macro invertebrates 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 were assigned
to all benthic taxa 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 with spring (winter- spring Plecoptera
omitted) and fall seasonal corrections applied in May and October, respectively. Benthic
communities at all Tuckasegee River locations were assessed and compared based on both
total and EPT taxa abundance and the resulting water quality bioclassifications.
In May 2008, water temperatures ( °C) and dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg /L) 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. Since 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 (RMs 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 RMs 27.5 and 31.6 (downstream of the Dam). The
upstream 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) in 2008 consisted of silt /sand and detritus substrates with shorelines
characterized by vegetation, root masses, woody debris, silt/sand, rocks, and boulders. In
2 -2

2010, RM 31.8 was a deeper more riverine location (depth up to three to four feet)
characterized by poor shoreline habitat (mostly silt /sand) with very small amounts of woody
debris and root masses. No riffle areas were available for kicknet sampling; therefore, snag
and boulder areas were used. The river bed itself consisted mostly of sand, bedrock, and
boulders.
The average daily flow in the Tuckasegee River was generally managed to permit safe
collections of macroinvertebrates. Hydroelectric stations upstream of the Dillsboro Project
operated until late afternoon one day before sampling and then discontinued operations until
late the next day. This allowed the river level to subside and stabilize before each sampling
period. Measured morning flows in 2008, 2010, and 2011 at the United States Geological
Survey gage at Barkers Creek (USGS Gage 03510577) ranged from 386 to 981 cfs during
May collections and from 130 to 190 cfs during October collections (Figure 2 -1).
Water temperatures during May collections ranged from 14.2 to 20.9 °C while those in
October ranged from 11.5 to 19.0 °C (Table 2 -2). The highest water temperatures measured
during a specific sampling season have varied among the four locations and may be a
reflection of sample collection times. Locations with lower temperatures were sampled early
in the morning while those with the highest temperatures were sampled late in the day.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations during May collections ranged from 8.6 to 10.3 mg /L while
those measured in October ranged from 8.4 to 10.9 mg /L (Table 2 -2). Dissolved oxygen
levels were always sufficient to support aquatic life.
Conductivity ranged from 20.5 to 29.1 µS /cm during May sampling while measurements
collected in October ranged from 23.4 to 44.6 µS /cm (Table 2 -2). Specific conductance was
low for all Tuckasegee River samples and generally increased with downstream direction;
being highest at RM 27.5 (most downstream location).
Measurement of pH was initiated in October 2008. Observed pH values during May
collections ranged from 7.0 to 7.5 while those measured in October ranged from 6.8 to 8.5
(Table 2 -2).
Removal of the Dillsboro Dam and its reservoir had little observable impact on water quality
in the river. There was no noticeable difference in any of the measured water quality
2 -3

parameters observed in 2008 (prior to dam removal) compared to any of the post dam
removal years (2010 and 2011).
Tntal Taxa-
Total taxa numbers collected at the four Tuckasegee River sampling locations in May 2008
ranged from 59 to 84 (Tables 2 -3 through 2 -6, Figure 2 -2). Total taxa numbers were highest
at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 (riverine locations) and exceeded 80 taxa at each location. The
lowest total taxa number (59) was collected at RM 31.8 (reservoir) in May. Total taxa
numbers collected at all locations in October 2008 exhibited a somewhat similar trend to
May and ranged from 41 to 83. The highest totals were observed at RMs 27.5 and 31.6 (83
and 77, respectively), an intermediate value (65) was measured at RM 33.7, and the lowest
total (41) was collected at RM 31.8 (reservoir). The total taxa numbers collected from each
location in 2008 were generally highest in May, except at RM 27.5 where the October total
was greatest. Spatially and seasonally, the numbers of total taxa collected at RMs 27.5, 31.6,
and 33.7 (riverine locations) were generally similar in both May and October, except at RM
33.7. The sampling location at RM 31.8 (reservoir) had the lowest number of total taxa
collected during both sampling periods in 2008.
The total numbers of taxa collected in both May and October 2010 were higher at each
location in comparison to those collected in May or October 2008. Total taxa collected in
2010 ranged from 70 to 96 in May and 78 to 115 in October. In 2010, the highest number of
taxa collected in May was at RM 33.7 (96) and in October at RM 31.6 (115). As in 2008, the
lowest taxa numbers collected in both May and October 2010 were observed at RM 31.8. In
2008, the highest taxa numbers were generally collected in May, but in 2010 the highest taxa
numbers were generally collected in October.
The total number of taxa collected in both May and October 2011 at each location again
increased in numbers, with the exception of Location RM 31.6 which decreased slightly in
October from 115 taxa in 2010 to 112 taxa in 2011. The numbers of taxa collected from all
four locations in 2011 were generally similar in May and October, except at RMs 31.8 and
33.7 which were lower in May and October, respectively. The number of taxa collected in
2011 ranged from 102 to 114 in May and 95 to 117 in October. In 2011, the highest number
of taxa was collected from RM 27.5 in both May and October and the lowest number was
collected from RM 31.8 in May and RM 33.7 in October.
2 -4

Macro invertebrate studies of the Tuckasegee River in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Project by
NCDENR have generally demonstrated similar numbers of total taxa as Duke Energy found
in 2008. The NCDENR Basinwide Assessment Program collected macro invertebrate
samples in the Tuckasegee River at State Road (SR) 1378 (approximately one mile
downstream of the Dam, NCDENR 2005 and 2011). This NCDENR location is in the
vicinity of the RM 31.6 sample location and a total of 75, 84, and 75 taxa were reported there
in 1999, 2004, and 2009, respectively. These totals are comparable to the 81 and 77 taxa
Duke Energy collected in May and October, respectively, from RM 31.6 in our 2008
collections. The numbers of taxa collected from RM 31.6 in May and October of both 2010
and 2011 (ranging from 85 to 115 taxa) exceeded the numbers collected by NCDENR in
1999, 2004, and 2009.
In contrast, an August 2001 macro invertebrate study of the Tuckasegee River by Duke
Energy, for the Nantahala Area hydro relicensing (Duke Energy 2003), demonstrated lower
numbers of total taxa. Three sample locations in 2001 (Locations T1, T3, and T4) were in
the same general vicinity as the three riverine locations sampled in 2008, 2010, and 2011.
Location TI is in the vicinity of RM 27.5 (most downstream location), Location T3 is in the
vicinity of RM 31.6 (tailrace), and Location T4 is upstream of the Dam near RM 33.7. Total
taxa collected in 2001 from Locations T1, T3, and T4 were 41, 65, and 72, respectively, and
were generally lower than those observed in 2008 and always lower than those observed in
2010 and 2011.
EPT Taxa:
Numbers of EPT taxa collected in 2008 at the four Tuckasegee River sampling locations
ranged from 8 to 34 taxa in May and 2 to 27 taxa in October (Tables 2 -3 through 2 -6, Figure
2 -3). At each location, the numbers of EPT taxa observed in May always exceeded those
observed in October. In May and October 2008, the numbers of EPT taxa collected were
lowest at RM 31.8 (reservoir) and considerably higher at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7.
Discounting the RM 31.8 location (reservoir), EPT taxa numbers increased from upstream to
downstream in both May and October. The difference in EPT numbers between upstream
and downstream locations may be due to the differences in habitat types. The substrate at
RM 33.7 consisted of large areas of bedrock with pools and few riffles, compared to RM
27.5 with its abundant riffle habitat and associated variety of niches for macro invertebrates.
2 -5

The numbers of EPT taxa collected at each sampling location in May and October 2010 were
always higher than those collected in May and October 2008. The numbers of EPT taxa
collected in 2010 ranged from 26 to 40 taxa during May and 20 to 41 taxa in October. As in
2008, the fewest number of EPT taxa were again collected at RM 31.8 (old reservoir
location). In comparison, the numbers of EPT taxa collected at RM 31.8 in May and October
2008 (8 and 2 taxa respectively) were much lower than the number of EPT taxa collected
during May and October 2010 (26 and 20 taxa, respectively) and probably relate to the
increasing lotic nature of this location following dam removal. Similar to 2008, fewer EPT
taxa were collected from this location in October compared to May.
The numbers of EPT taxa collected in May 2011 were higher than those collected in May
2010 at all sampling locations. In October 2011, the numbers of EPT taxa collected at RMs
27.5 and 31.8 were higher than those collected in 2010 while those collected at RMs 31.6 and
33.7 were slightly lower. The number of EPT taxa collected in 2011 ranged from 40 to 51
taxa in May and 29 to 43 taxa in October. As. in 2008 and 2010 the fewest EPT taxa were
again collected at RM 31.8 in 2011, but the number of EPT taxa collected at this location
continued to increase, with 40 and 29 EPT taxa being collected in May and October,
respectively.
Prior macro invertebrate studies of the Tuckasegee River by NCDENR have documented
higher numbers of EPT taxa than those observed in 2008 (Figure 2 -4). The NCDENR
Basinwide Assessment Program collected 40, 44, and 43 EPT taxa in 1999, 2004, and 2009,
respectively, at SR1378 (approximately one mile downstream of the Dam, NCDENR 2005
and 2011). The numbers of EPT taxa collected at either RMs 31.6 or 27.5 (downstream
locations) during either of the 2008 sampling periods were lower than those reported by
NCDENR. The numbers of EPT taxa collected at RMs 31.6 and 27.5 in May and October
2010 and 2011 have generally been similar to those collected by NCDENR in 1999, 2004,
and 2009, except for the higher value of 51 EPT taxa collected at RM 27.5 in May 2011.
The numbers of EPT taxa collected at three locations in August 2001 by Duke Energy, for
the Nantahala Area hydro relicensing (Duke Energy 2003), was lowest at T1 (downstream)
and highest at T4 (upstream location). This observed increasing trend of EPT taxa from
downstream to upstream was exactly opposite that noted in May and October 2008. In May
and October 2010 and 2011, the number of EPT taxa collected at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7
were higher than the numbers collected in 2001 and showed no upstream /downstream trends
for either sampling period.
2 -6

Water Quality Bioclassification:
Water quality bioclassification scores during 2008 varied by location and sample period
(Table 2 -3 through 2 -6, Figure 2 -5). Low numbers of EPT taxa and high biotic index scores
resulted in a Poor water quality bioclassification score at RM 31.8 (reservoir) in May. Water
quality bioclassification scores were generally highest at the riverine locations in May and
ranged from Good -Fair to Good. The water quality bioclassification scores at these same
three riverine locations in October decreased relative to the May scores and ranged from Fair
to Good -Fair. The water quality bioclassification score at RM 31.8 in October again rated
Poor.
In 2010 the water quality bioclassification scores again varied between locations and
sampling periods. While increases in the number of EPT taxa and decreases in the biotic
index scores at RM 31.8 in both May and October 2010 led to elevated water quality
bioclassification scores compared to 2008, the former reservoir location again had the lowest
bioclassification score of the four locations sampled. Water quality bioclassification scores
at the three riverine locations ranged from Good -Fair to Good. Removal of the Dillsboro
Dam appeared beneficial to the Tuckasegee River macro invertebrate community within one
year of dam removal.
The water quality bioclassification scores in both May and October 2011 continued to vary
between locations and sampling periods. For the first time in this study, all four sampling
locations, including the former reservoir location (RM 31.8), received a water quality
bioclassification score of Good in May 2011. October 2011 water quality bioclassification
scores ranged from Good -Fair to Good and increased slightly at each location relative to
October 2010 scores except at RM 33.7.
Water quality bioclassification scores reported by NCDENR at SR1378 were Good and
Excellent in 1999 and 2004, respectively, and exceeded most scores noted at RM 31.6 in
May and October 2008 and 2010 (Figure 2 -6). The 2009 bioclassification score reported by
NCDENR ( NCDENR 2011) for SRI 387 was Good, which is the same value as reported for
location RM 31.6 in May 2010 and both May and October 2011.
Duke Energy collected macro invertebrate samples at Locations T1, T3, and T4 in 2001 and
all reported water quality bioclassification scores were Good. These 2001 Duke Energy
scores are generally comparable to those observed at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 in 2010 and
2 -7

1
2011. Despite improvement in water quality bioclassification scores at RM 31.8 (the former
reservoir location) in 2010, all observed scores were below those reported from the riverine
locations by Duke Energy in 2001. In 2011, water quality bioclassification scores at the
former reservoir continued to increase (Good in May and Good -Fair in October) and were
comparable to the 2001 scores.
Per request of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), individual figures
showing total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification scores from 2008 — 2011
were made for each of the four sampling locations (Figures 2 -7 to 2 -10). The figures provide
a convenient graphical summary of the general improvement of the Tuckasegee River
macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity of the removed Dam.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Measured water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, specific
conductance, and pH) at the time of macro invertebrate collections in 2008, 2010, and 2011
did not suggest any negative impact to resident benthic communities as a result of dam
removal in early 2010. Macro invertebrate collections at four locations in May and October
on the Tuckasegee River yielded total taxa counts ranging from 41 to 84 in 2008,
subsequently increasing from 70 to 115 taxa in 2010, and then continuing to increase from 95
to 117 taxa in 2011. The numbers of EPT taxa similarly increased and ranged from 2 to 34 in
2008, 20 to 41 taxa in 2010, and 29 to 51 taxa in 2011.
In 2008, the riverine locations (RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7), with their more heterogeneous
habitat and flow, supported diverse macro invertebrate, communities and had water quality
bioclassifications scores ranging from Fair to Good. Macro invertebrate collections at RM
31.8 (the Dillsboro Reservoir) yielded the lowest numbers of total and EPT taxa and resulted
in Poor water quality bioclassification scores in 2008. All observed benthic community
metrics indicated the benthic community in the Dillsboro Reservoir was atypical of that
occurring in nearby upstream and downstream riverine reaches. Following dam removal in
early 2010, RM 31.8 became more riverine in nature while still maintaining some areas of
ponded water. Macro invertebrate collections in 2010 at RM 31.8 yielded relatively higher
numbers of total taxa and EPT taxa and water quality bioclassification scores increased to
Fair and Good -fair. In 2011, the number of total taxa and EPT taxa collected at RM 31.8
continued to increase. Water quality bioclassifications scores at the former reservoir location
2 -8

increased to Good in May and Good -Fair in October and were similar to scores reported at
the other three riverine locations. Based on the increasing numbers of total and EPT taxa
collected at Location RM 31.8 since dam removal in 2010, the benthic macro invertebrate
community in the former reservoir is becoming more similar to the communities observed at
the other three riverine locations.
2 -9

Table 2 -1. Description of available habitats at four macro invertebrate sampling locations
on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011.
2 -10
Riverine location approximately 55 m in width with a depth of approximately 1 m
Available habitat consisted of riffle and pool areas, sand /silt, bedrock, cobble, leaf packs,
RM 27.5
woody debris, snags, 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 Highway 441
bridge The width of the river is approximately 55 m with a depth up to 1.5 m Available
RM 31.6
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).
Reservoir area approximately 100 m upstream of the Dam Habitats included vegetation
along the shoreline, root masses, woody debris, silt/sand, rocks, and boulders. Substrate
consisted of silt/sand and detritus.
RM 31.8
Following dam removal, RM 31 8 returned to a more riverine condition (depth 1 -1.2 m)
with poor shoreline habitat. Available habitat consisted of riffle and pool areas, silt/sand,
bedrock, cobble, leaf packs, woody debris, some snags, and root masses.
Riverine location approximately 55 m in width with a depth of approximately 1.5 m.
RM 33.7
Available habitat included riffle and pool areas, sand /silt, bedrock, cobble, leaf packs,
woody debris, snags, and root masses.
2 -10

Table 2 -2. Water quality
parameters
measured
at four
Tuckasegee River
sampling
locations near the
Dillsboro
Project, May and October,
2008, 2010,
and 2011.
Measurement of pH began in October 2008.
River Mile
Parameter Year
Month
27.5
31.6
31.8
33.7
Temperature ( °C) 2008
May
18.4
14.4
14.2
16.9
2008
Oct
19.0
16.1
16.4
17.7
2010
May
18.1
14.2
14.8
18.7
2010
Oct
12.7
16.0
11.5
14.5
2011
May
20.4
15.9
20.9
16.5
2011
Oct
15.1
17.2
12.3
15.6
Dissolved oxygen (mg /L) 2008
May
9.1
9.5
9.5
10.3
2008
Oct
9.6
9.3
8.4
9.2
2010
May
9.3
9.9
9.8
9.5
2010
Oct
10.6
10.0
10.5
9.9
2011
May
9.0
9.4
8.6
9.3
2011
Oct
10.6
10.5
10.9
9.1
Conductivity (pS /cm) 2008
May
29.1
28.6
26.4
24.9
2008
Oct
32.0
29.1
29.4
23.4
2010
May
26.5
24.5
24.2
21.2
2010
Oct
40.7
35.2
37.8
32.2
2011
May
24.8
23.2
24.4
20.5
2011
Oct
44.6
39.3
36.4
33.1
pH 2008
Oct
8.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
2010
May
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.4
2010
Oct
6.8
7.5
7.2
7.0
2011
May
7.5
7.0
7.3
7.3
2011
Oct
7.8
8.5
7.4
7.5
2 -11

Table 2 -3. Macro invertebrates collected at RM 27.5 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011. 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 analyses to derive an
appropriate seasonal correction (NCDENR 2006a).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
E hemero tera
Acentrella spp.
A
R
A
Acentrella alachua
R
Acentrella turbida
A
A
Baetis flavistriga
R
C
A
A
A
A
Baetis intercalaris
C
A
A
C
A
Baetis pluto
C
R
A
C
A
A
Centroptilum spp.
R
R
Heterocloeon spp.
C
Heterocloeon curiosum
C
R
C
C
Heterocloeon petersi
A
Iswaeon davidi
C
R
Plauditus dubius gr.
A
A
A
C
C
A
Pseudocloeon ephippiatum
C
Pseudocloeon propinquum
C
C
Baetisca caroling
R
C
R
Caenis spp.
C
R
Epljemerellidaek $SW
Drunella lata
A
Drunella walkeri
A
A
Ephemerella spp.
C
Ephemerella dorothea
A
Ephemerella invaria
A
A
A
R
Ephemerella needhami
A
Ephemerella septentrionalis
C
C
Eurylophella spp.
C
R
Eurylophella doris
A
A
A
Penelomax septentrionalis
C
Serratella spp.
C
Serratella deficiens
A
Serratella serratoides
A
Telagonopsis deficiens
A
Heptageriiidaer
Epeorus spp.
R
R
Epeorus vitreous
R
2 -12

Table 2 -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May -10
Ma -11
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Heptagenia marginalis
c
c
c
c
A
Maccaffertium spp.
A
c
Maccaffertium ithaca
A
c
A
A
A
Maccaffertium meririvulanum
A
A
Maccaffertium mediopunctatum
A
A
Maccaffertium modestum
A
A
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertium pudicum
c
Rhithrogena spp.
R
Stenacron interpunctatum
A
A
A
c
A
A
• "°4.�� ¢G: 'w:=- '_S4is =.3:i .`e`'- 'ter' -'"" see. . "c"'tz. �E 4 9�i
Neoephemeritlaex��� _���:�;
Neoephemera purpurea
R
c
R
;®ligoneunida�„��; ,
Isonychia spp.
A
c
R
A
A
A
Pleco tera
�,Chloroperlitlae � � _
yq
Leuctra spp.
R
Amphinemuraaspp:,
,.
I?eftope�litlae =r
Tallaperla spp.
R
Acroneuria abnormis
R
c
R
A
A
Paragnetina spp.
c
Paragnetina fumosa
c
Paragnetina ichusa
R
R
c
Paragnetina immarginata
R
R
c
R
Perlesta spp.
A
A
A
�,� max• ���� = � ��:,�4�
Isoperla spp.
c
Isoperla bilineata
A
R
Isoperla frisoni
R
Isoperla holochlora
A
c
Remenus bilobatus
c
Pteronarcyitlae -
Pteronarcys spp.
A
R
Tricho tera
B achycentrida_e�` " � �¢
Brachycentrus appalachia
c
c
Brachycentrus lateralis
A
c
Brachycentrus nigrosoma
R
c
Brachycentrus numerosus
A
A
A
A
2 -13

Table 2 -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Micrasema bennetti
C
Micrasema wataga
C
C
A
R
C
hlydropsycliidae
Cheumatopsyche spp.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cheumatopsyche etrona
A
I A
A
A
Dipelectrona modesta
C
C
Hydropsyche morosa
C
A
C
A
A
A
Hydropsyche sparna
C
A
A
A
Hydropsyche venularis
A
A
A
A
A
A
Hjiciroptiliiiae 5_ .
Hydroptila spp.
C
A
Lepidostomaticiae���'�a"_ A.�,�;
Lepidostoma spp.
A
A
A
R
R
A
Lejitocerciae ���-` '��sA� -
Ceraclea spp.
R
R
C
Nectopsyche exquisita
C
C
R
Oecetis spp.
A
C
Oecetis persimilis
C
A
A
R
A
Triaenodes ig7itus
R
C
R
C
C
k. t
ne "plildae MEMO
Hydatophylax argus
R
C
Pycnopsyche spp.
R
R
R
Chimarra spp.
R
Dolophilodes spp.
C
A
R
Dolophilodes distinctus
C
C
f?oly`centropocJidae�� ` =`r'
Nyctiophylax spp.
R
Polycentropus'3pp.
C
R
C
C
A
;I?s,xcho
Lype diversa
R
R
Psychomyia nomada
R
C
Rlyacoptiil dae x
Rhyacophila spp.
R
Rhyacophila formosa
R
Coleo tera
Helichus spp.
R
R
C
R
C
Ancyronyx variegatus
R
R
R
A
A
R
Dubiraphia vittata
R
Macronychus glabratus
A
C
A
A
A
A
Promoresia elegans
R
C
A
A
A
2 -14

Table 2-3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-1 1
Diptera
2-)5

Table 2 -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May -11
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Cricotopus bicinctus
C
A
A
R
A
Cricotopus infuscatus gr.
A
Cricotopus tremulus
A
C
A
C
Cricotopus varipes gr.
A
A
Cricotopus vierriensis gr.
C
A
A
Eukiefferiella spp.
R
C
R
Eukiefferiella claripennis gr
C
Eukiefferiella devonica
R
Nanocladius spp.
A
A
R
A
Nanocladius downesi
C
Orthocladius lignicola
R
R
Orthocladius thienemanni
A
Parachaetocladius spp.
C
Parakiefferiella spp.
R
A
A
A
A
A
Parametriocnemus spp.
C
C
C
C
Rheocricotopus robacki
R
C
C
Synorthocladius spp.
R
Thienemanniella spp.
R
Thienemanniella xena
A
A
A
A
A
Tvetenia bavarica
C
A
A
Tvetenia vitracies
A
C
A
C
C
C
Xylotopus par
R
ChironomidaerFcodiamesiriae *'.,
Odontomesa fulva
R
R
Chi[onomidaen Tan "podinae4 =;..;
Ablabesmyia mallochi
C
R
C
A
Ablabesmyia simpsoni
R
Conchapelopia gr.
C
C
C
R
C
Labrundinia spp.
A
A
A
Natarsia spp.
R
Nilotanypus spp.
A
Thienemannimyia gr.
A
C
A
A
Simulium spp.
A
A
A
C
A
A
TariycieidaeJx
Protoplasa fitchii
R
R
Antocha spp.
A
A
A
A
A
Dicranota spp.
R
R
Pseudolimnophila spp.
R
R
Tipula spp.
R
R
A
C
Odonata - Anisoptera
2 -16

Table 2-3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May- 10
May-1 1
Oct-08
Oct-1 0
Oct-11
Iftgaloptera
Oligochaeta
2-|7

Table 2 -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May -10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Pristina longiseta
C
C
Pristinella jenkinae
A
Pristinella osborni
A
Ripistes parasita
C
C
Slavina appendiculata
A
'Stylaria lacustris
A
Tibifc dae� &il .0
C
C
R
C
A
Aulodrilus limnobius
C
Aulodrilus pigueti
C
Aulodrilus pluriseta
A
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
R
A
Tubifex tubifex
R
Deca oda
G amb idae}:r
Cambaras spp.
R
Cambarus bartonii
R
C
Iso oda
A ellidae` £ £y.
Caecidotea spp.
C
Gastropoda
Ferrissia rivularis
R
A
A
A
A
P `� \;I:MR1
Physa spp.
R
C
R
C
PM M4
Helisoma anceps
R
Campeloma decisum
R
R
Pelec poda
Corbicula fluminea
C
C
A
A
A
A
Sphaenidae,, �: ,� a ..
Pisidium casertanum
A
C
A
A
Other
R
R
Dugesia spp.
C
C
Tetrastemmatidae,�;�,T�,
Prostoma gracens
C
C
2 -18

Table 2 -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May -08
May -10
May -11
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Total Taxa
81
92
114
83
105
117
Total EPT Taxa
35
40
51
27
40
43
Biotic Index Value
5.25
5.09
5.09
5.99
5.89
5.73
Biotic Index Score
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.6
EPT Score
4.0
4.0
4.6
3.0
4.4
4.0
Bioclassification
3.5
Good
3.5
Good
3.8
I Good
2.5
Good -fair
3.2
Good -fair
3.3
Good -fair
2-19

Table 2 -4. Macro invertebrates collected at RM 31.6 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011. 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 analyses to derive an
appropriate seasonal correction (NCDENR 2006a).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
E hemero tera
Acentrella spp.
C
C
A
Acentrella alachua
R
Acentrella turbida
A
A
Baetis flavistriga
R
A
A
A
A
Baetis intercalaris
R
A
C
C
A
Baetis pluto
R
A
C
A
A
Centroptilum spp.
C
Heterocloeon spp.
C
Heterocloeon curiosum
R
R
C
Iswaeon davidi
C
C
Plauditus dubius gr.
A
I A
A
A
A
A
Plauditus punctiventris
A
Pseudocloeon ephippiatum
C
Pseudocloeon propinquum
A
A
Baefisc —i'd e? ?
Baetisca caroling
R
C
C
R
x, m
Caenidae I f �u
Caenis spp.
C
C
Eptjemerelhdae _
Drunella cornutella
R
Drunella lata
A
Drunella walkeri
A
A
Ephemerella dorothea
A
Ephemerella invaria
A
A
A
Ephemerella needhami
A
Ephemerella septentrionalis
C
Eurylophella spp.
C
C
Ewylophella doris
A
A
A
Penelomax septentrionalis
C
Serratella spp.
A
Serratella deficiens
A
C
Serratella serratoides
A
Telagonopsis deficiens
C
Eptiemendae -y5 axVx
Ephemera spp.
R
R
Hepfagerii dae -
2 -20

Table 2 -4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Heptagenia marginalis
C
R
C
Maccaffertium spp.
A
A
Maccaffertium ithaca
A
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertium mediopunctatum
C
A
Maccaffertium meririvulanum
A
A
Maccaffertium modestum
A
A
C
A
A
A
Rithrogena spp.
R
Stenacron interpunctatum
A
A
C
A
A
A
Neoephemera purpurea
R
R
R
R
C
;Oli oneuri dae � IAMIN,
Isonychia spp.
C
A
A
A
A
4 G�r`F",,�;:+'- •'°rat. 8^'�'" L �„
;Siphloneuridae���� _ _�,�x
Siphlonurus spp.
C
Pleco tera
;CFiloroperlidae��,����,
Acroneuria abnormis
C
C
A
C
C
Paragnetina spp.
C
Paragnetina immarginata
R
C
C
C
Perlesta spp.
A
A
A
PRlodidae °_m w
. c n ,.,.. _ A°5�mn �:r ,
Cultusdecisus�
,. � ^a" "a
n . "M"yf
§�y�•�:,t+
p. n� ^m�"ls'
k.•.'rt,.. g.
x
_
IsopeiiasP.R u
Rv�
C .
Isoperla bilineata
A
Isoperla holochlora
C
C
Remenus bilobatus
C
Pteronarcyidaek
Pteronarcys spp.
C
Pteronarcys proteus
R
Tricho tera
WINNER
Brachycentrus appalachia
A
A
Brachycentrus lateralis
A
A
Brachycentrus nigrosoma
C
Brachycentrus numerosus
R
A
A
A
Micrasema spp.
R
Micrasema bennetti
C
Micrasema wataga
A
A
A
C
C
Glossosomafid_ae: =`''
Glossosoma nigrior
R
Hyalops chl R NI
2 -21

Table 2 -4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May -11
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Phylocentropus spp.
R
;Fiydropsyctiidae_T rt
Cheumatopsyche spp.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cheumatopsyche etrona
A
A
A
A
Diplectrona modesta
R
R
Hydropsyche morosa
C
C
C
A
A
A
Hydropsyche sparna
A
C
A
Hydropsyche venularis
A
A
A
A
A
A
ly
Hydroptila spp.
C
R
A
Lepdostomalidae,:� }
Lepidostoma spp.
A
A
A
A
A
Ceraclea spp.
R
C
C
Ceraclea flava
R
Nectopsyche exquisita
R
C
C
R
R
Oecetis spp.
C
C
Oecetis persimilis
C
C
A
A
Triaenodes spp.
R
Triaenodes ignitus
C
R
R
Hydatophylax argus
C
R
Pycnopsyche spp.
R
Philopota��
Dolophilodes spp.
C
Dolophilodes distinctus
A
Ptilostomis spp.
R
IKI- entropodidae y, _; =
N
Polycentropus spp.
R
C
R
C
A
Lype diversa
R
Psychomyia nomada
R
Rhyacophila spp.
R
Rhyacophila formosa
R
Coleo tera
Dry ae opi`d `µ`' ` ° "
Helichus spp.
R
R
C
:tiscidae ROOM__
Laccophilus spp.
R
Neoporus spp.
R
2 -22

Table 2 -4. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
Ma -11
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Ancyronyx variegatus
A
C
A
A
Dubiraphia vittata
R
R
Macronychus glabratus
A
C
A
A
A
A
Optioservus spp.
R
Promoresia elegans
R
C
C
A
A
A
Promoresia tardella
C
Stenelmis spp.
C
R
R
rinidaeW `
Dineutus spp.
R
R
A
C
Gyrinus spp.
A
Sperchopsis tessellatus
R
R
R
Ectopria nervosa
R
Psephenus herricki
R
C
C
C
R
Diptera
Palpomyia- Bezzia complex
R
,,Chiroriomid$e=Ghj onominae :;;
Chironomus spp.
R
A
Cladotanytarsus spp.
R
A
R
C
Cryptochironomus spp.
C
R
A
C
Dcrotendipes neomodestus
R
C
Microtendipes spp.
C
Microtendipes pedellus
C
Nilothauma spp.
C
R
Pagastiella spp.
C
C
Paracladopelma spp.
C
Phaenopsectra spp.
C
R
A
Polypedilum fallax
R
A
R
Polypedilum flavum
A
C
A
C
A
C
Polypedilum illinoense
R
C
Polypedilum scalaenum
R
C
C
Pseudochironomus spp.
R
R
Rheotanytarsus spp.
C
A
A
A
A
A
Robackia demeijerei
C
A
Stenochironomus spp.
C
A
A
C
Subletta coffmani
A
Tanytarsus spp.
R
C
C
A
A
Tribelos spp.
C
A
Chironomidae- Diamesmae�,°�A��; "-
Diamesa spp.
R
Pagastiella ostansa
C
2 -23

Table 2 -4. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Potthastia gaedi
R
Potthastia longimana gr.
R
.�
Chironomidae_Ortlocladiinae' °= .`
Brillia spp.
R
R
Cardiocladius spp.
R
C
C
A
C
Corynoneura spp.
C
A
R
A
A
Cricotopus annulator annulator
A
C
A
A
Cricotopus bicinctus
A
C
A
A
R
A
Cricotopus infuscatus gr.
A
Cricotopus tremulus
A
A
A
Cricotopus varipes gr.
A
A
Cricotopus vierriensis gr.
C
C
A
Eukiefferiella brehmi
C
Eukiefferiella devonica
R
Eukiefferiella gracei
R
Nanocladius spp.
C
R
C
A
R
A
Orthocladius lignicola
A
Orthocladius thienemanni
R
A
C
Parachaetocladius spp.
C
Parakiefferiella spp.
A
C
A
A
A
A
Parametriocnemus spp.
C
R
A
R
R
Psectrocladius spp.
R
Rheocricotopus robacki
R
R
A
A
C
Synorthocladius spp.
C
Thienemanniella xena
C
A
A
C
A
A
Tvetenia bavarica
A
A
A
C
Tvetenia vitracies
C
C
R
A
C
Xylotopus par
C
Ciiironomidae Poniamesmae;,; ,r
Odontomesa spp.
C
Chi0i67 ida$ Tan ,podmae .
Ablabesmyia mallochi
C
A
C
Clinotanypus spp.
C
Conchapelopia g,.
A
C
C
R
A
Labrundinia spp.
C
Nilotanypus spp.
C
Thienemannimyia 91.
A
A
C
R
Simulium spp.
A
A
A
A
Simulium tuberosum
A
A
Tan
Protoplasa fitchii
R
2 -24

Table 2-4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 I
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-11
Antocha spp.
c
c
A
R
A
A
Dicranota spp.
R
Pseuddlimnophila spp.
R
Tipula spp.
R
c
A
Odonata-Anisoptera
A, 16WI-1-1
Boyeria vinosa
c
R
R
A
c
c
ra-7rIU"'r1'i�(a
I
Neurocordulia spp.
c
Neurocordulia obsoleta
R
c
J
Dromogomphus spp.
R
Gomphus spp.
c
R
c
c
Gomphus spiniceps
R
R
Hagenius brevistylus
c
R
R
Ophiogomphus spp.
R
c
c
Macromia spp.
R
A
Macromi . a georgi . na
c
c
c
Odonata-Zygoptera
O*W�(
Calopteryx spp.
R
R
R
c
R
Argia spp.
c
R
R
R
Enallagma spp.
R
A
R
Ischnura spp.
c
R
Megaloptera
Corydalus comutus
A
A
A
c
A
A
Nigronia serricornis
A
c
c
c
Sialis spp.
R
Oligochaeta
15
c
c
U6K UREMOMM
c
c
R
A
c
Lumbriculus spp.
R
A
c
c
c
Arcteonais lomondi
A
Nais behningi
A
A
c
A
Nais bretscheri
A
R
A
Nais communis
C
A
c
A
2-25

Table 2-4. (Continued).
��
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-1 I
Amphipoda
Decapoda
Hemiptera
Gastropoda
tM
Pelecypoda

Table 2-4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Maymil I
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-1 1
Other
Total Taxa
81
85
112
77
115
112
Total EPT Taxa
32
37
43
23
41
40
Biotic Index Value
5.45
5.13
5.22
6.06
5.83
5.52
Biotic Index Score
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
Bioclassification
3.0
Good-fair
3.5
Good
3.5
Good
2.3
Fair
3.2
I Good-fair
3.5
Good

Table 2 -5. Macro invertebrates collected at RM 31.8 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011. 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 analyses to derive an
appropriate seasonal correction (NCDENR 2006a).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
E hemero tera
Acentrella spp.
R
C
C
Acentrella turbida
C
C
Baetis flavistriga
C
A
A
A
Baetis intercalaris
R
A
R
C
Baetis pluto
R
C
C
Centroptilum spp.
R
Heterocloeon spp.
R
Plauditus dubius gr.
A
A
R
A
Pseudocloeon ephippiatum
R
Pseudocloeon propinquum
R
BaeUscidae,;,�� ".,
Baetisca caroling
R
R
;Caenitlaes �� �q
Caenis spp.
R
C
Epleirierellitlae= �� - °��
Drunella lata
R
Drunella walkeri
A
Ephemerella invaria
A
A
Ephemerella needhami
A
Ephemerella septentrionalis
R
A
Eurylophella spp.
C
Eurylophella don's
A
A
Penelomax septentrionalis
C
Serratella spp.
R
Serratella deficiens
R
Serratella serratoides
A
Telagonopsis deficiens
C
Ephemera spp.
R
f'M'TC- ''a °., 'b'..ah'::'+,i :-. �i'I° '4Nkr LH'uG,F•-'.y�`� ¢:
Epeorus spp.
R
Heptagenia marginalis
C
Maccaffertium spp.
A
A
Maccaffertium Ithaca
A
A
A
Maccaffertium mediopunctatum
A
Maccaffertium meririvulanum
A
C
2 -28

Table 2-5. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-1 1
Plecoptera
Trichoptera

Table 2-5. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-I 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct -11
Triaenodes spp.
R
Triaenodes ignitus
R
R
E
M MI
Hydatophylax argus
R
Pycnopsyche spp.
R
R
Dolophilodes distinctus
R
R W-6 17P hrl M I
Nyctiophylax spp.
R
Polycentropus spp.
c
R
c
c
A
Psychomyia nomada
R
R
Coleoptera
Helichus spp.
R
Hydroporus spp.
R
Neoporus spp.
c
c
43, 'NOW
Ancyronyx variegatus
R
R
c
c
A
C
Dubiraphia vittatata
R
Macronychus glabratus
R
c
R
c
A
Optioservus spp.
R
Promoresia elegans
R
R
c
Promoresia tardella
R
Stenelmis spp.
R
R
c
Gynnus spp.
R
A
Peltodytes spp.
c
R
R
A
p
Psephenus herricki
R
c
R
POPR F, d'WOMS
Anchytarsus bicolor
R
Diptera
- W4 Kpi 6 6
Palpomyia-Bezzia complex
A
c
R
,66ironornidg rninaea,,,�
Chironomus spp.
A
A
A
A
Cladopelma spp.
R
Cladotanytarsus spp.
R
R
c
c
c
Cryptochironomus spp.
R
c
c
A
A
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
c
R
R
A
R
c
2-30

Table 2 -5. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May -10
Ma -11
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Lipiniella spp.
R
Microtendipes spp.
R
Microtendipes pedellus gr.
C
C
Parachironomus spp.
R
Paracladopelma spp.
R
C
I
R
C
Paralauterborniella spp.
R
C
Paratendipes spp.
R
R
R
Phaenopsectra spp.
A
C
A
R
Polypedilum aviceps
R
Polypedilum fallax
C
C
R
Polypedilum flavum
A
C
A
A
C
Polypedilum halterale
R
A
Polypedilum illinoense
C
R
R
R
A
Polypedilum laetum
C
Polypedilum scalaenum
R
R
R
C
Rheotanytarsus spp.
C
A
A
A
A
Robackia demeijerei
C
R
A
Stenochironomus spp.
R
C
C
Stictochironomus spp.
A
R
Sublettea coffmani
C
Synorthocladius spp.
R
Tanytarsus spp.
R
R
A
A
Tribelos spp.
A
C
C
C
;Chiconomidae,�Diamesipae
Potthastia spp.
R
;Chironomidae= Ortliocladimae_ ��y
Brillia spp.
R
R
Cardiocladius spp.
R
Corynoneura spp.
R
A
A
A
A
Cricotopus annulator complex
C
A
R
A
Cricotopus bicinctus
C
A
R
R
C
Cricotopus infuscatus gr.
A
Cricotopus tremulus
R
A
C
Cricotopus varipes gr.
A
A
Cricotopus vierriensis gr.
C
C
Nanocladius spp.
C
R
A
A
Orthocladius lignicola
R
R
Orthocladius thienemanni
R
Parakiefferiella spp.
C
A
A
C
R
A
Parametriocnemus spp.
C
C
C
Psectrocladius spp.
R
Rheocricotopus robacki
R
R
Smittia spp.
R
2 -31

Table 2 -5. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Synorthocladius spp.
R
Thienemanniella xena
A
A
A
A
Tvetenia bavarica
C
A
C
Tvetenia vitracies
R
C
R
Chironomidae =.Tan .podinaef:r�>
Ablabesmyia spp.
R
Ablabesmyia janta
A
Ablabesmyia mallochi
A
C
C
A
A
A
Clinotanypus spp.
C
A
Conchapelopia gr.
R
C
C
Labrundinia spp.
A
R
Nilotanypus spp.
R
C
Procladius spp.
C
Thienemannimyia gr.
C
Empdidae '2 -
C
C
SlmUllUm spp.
C
A
R
A
TPalidaed .,,r n ° ngggr
Antocha spp.
A
C
A
Pseudolimnophila spp
R
Tipula spp.
R
Odonata -Aniso tera
Boyeria vinosa
R
R
R
R
R
C
',t, ili dae;
Epicordulia spp.
R
Neurocordulia spp.
R
Tetragoneuria spp.
R
I
C
Gompliclae & a"
Gomphus spp.
C
R
A
R
C
Gomphus spiniceps
R
R
R
Hagenius brevistylus
R
Ophiogomphus spp.
R
Macromia spp.
R
Macromia georgina
R
C
A
Odonata-Zygoptera
,Caloptery dae`�
Calopteryx spp.
C
Coena rionid_ae= x
Argia spp.
A
A
C
Enallagma spp.
R
Ischnura spp.
C
A
2 -32

Table 2-5. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-11
Wgaloptera
t'$Ky
Corydalus comutus
A
c
Nigronia serricomis
R
R
c
Sialis spp.
R
c
011gochaeta
;Bran -
f
R
A
" Qn
c
Qkrii"c"1614
c
R
Lumbriculus spp.
R
R
M-1
R
R
c
Arcteonais lomondi
R
R
Nais bar
R
Nais behningi
c
A
R
c
Nais bretscheri
c
A
c
Nais communis
A
c
A
Nais elinguis
A
Nais pardalis
c
A
Nais pseudobtusa
A
Nais simplex
c
Nais variabilis
R
c
Pristina longiseta
R
Pristinella jenkinae
c
Pristinella osbomi
A
Ripistes parasita
c
A
A
A
Stylaria lacustris
R
c
A
Uncinais uncinata
c
A
A
c
A
A
Aulodrilus pigueti
R
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
c
A
R
A
R
C
Limnodrilus profundicola
R
Tubifex tubifex
A
A
Decapoda
Cambaras spp.
R
Cambarus bartonii
R
R
Cambaras robustus
R
R
Gastropoda
Anc ae
Ferfissia rivularis
A
A
A
P., 00 ida(C 11 119,
Physa spp.
A
c
R
c
2-33

Table 2-5. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-I 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct -11
Helisoma anceps
A
R
c
'PIN .84ery'01
Elimia pro)dma
R
'OIR661610 2IT-IF4-I-'
Campeloma decisum
A
A
R
A
A
A
Pelecypoda
Corbicula fluml . nea
A
A
A
A
A
A
Pisidium casertan-um
A
A
A
A
A
Other
lqlo '0
Placobdella spp.
R
'NW
R
RIM ME i M56�,P,
Dugesia spp.
c
LAW,
Myzobdella lugubris
A
it iAR9
Prostoma gaecens
R
R
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-11
I Oct-08
Oct -10
Oct-11
Total Taxa
59
70
102
41
78
115
Total EPT Taxa
8
26
40
2
20
29
Biotic Index Value
7.29
5.80
5.44
7.82
6.39
6.34
Biotic Index Score
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
EPT Score
1.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.4
3.0
Bioclassffication
1.0
Poor
2.5
Good-fair
3.5
Good
1.0
Poor
2.2
Fair
2-34

Table 2 -6. Macro invertebrates collected at RM 33.7 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011. 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 analyses to derive an
appropriate seasonal correction (NCDENR 2006a).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
E hemero tera
Acentrella spp.
C
A
R
Acentrella alachua
C
Acentrella turbida
A
R
Baetis flavistriga
R
R
R
R
A
Baetis intercalaris
C
R
C
C
Baetis pluto
R
C
C
Centroptilum spp.
R
R
I R
Iswaeon davidi
R
Heterocloeon spp.
R
Plauditus dubius gr.
A
A
A
A
Baetiscidae~ �=Y
Baetisca carolina
R
R
R
R
C
Caenis spp.
R
C
C
Eplerier_ellidaeb," `
Drunella lata
A
Drunella walkeri
A
C
Ephemerella spp.
C
Ephemerella dorothea
A
Ephemerella invaria
A
A
A
Ephemerella needhami
A
Ephemerella septentrionalis
C
Eurylophella spp.
A
C
Eurylophella doris
A
A
A
Penelomax septentrionalis
C
Serratella spp.
R
Serratella deficiens
A
Serratella serratoides
A
Telagonopsis deficiens
R
Eplemecidae
Hexagenia spp.
R
Fleptageridae�k����` s2��} ��'
Epeorus vitreous
C
Heptagenia marginalis
R
C
C
C
Maccaffertium spp.
C
A
Maccaffertium Ithaca
A
A
C
A
A
2 -35

Table 2 -6. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Maccaffertium mediopunctatum
A
Maccaffertium meririvulanum
A
C
Maccaffertium modestum
A
A
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertium pudicum
R
Rhitrogena spp.
R
Stenacron interpunctatum
A
A
A
A
A
A
Leptophletiudae�� ;
Paraleptophlebia spp.
R
Neoeplieriieri'dae � N, ,x,.w._ � "�; -_
Neoephemera purpurea
R
C
A
C
Isonychia spp.
A
A
R
A
A
A
,S phl nub
Siphlonurus spp.
R
Pleco tera
Chloropefldae
Alloperla :sPp',: 'a
C.
Nemourid
ArrOhrnemura spp., A.
:=
R
Feftoperlidaem
Tallaperla spp.
R
R
,PeFlidae
Acroneuria abnormis
A
C
A
R
A
A
Paragnetina immarginata
R
R
C
Perlesta spp.
C
C
A
Perlod'idae
Cultus decisus
C
04,
Isoperla bilineata
C
Isoperla holochlora
C
A
Pteroria[cyidae n4l
Pteronarcys spp.
R
Pteronarcys dorsata
C
Pteronarcys proteus
C
Tricho tera
Brachyceridae7 .`
Brachycentrus appalachia
A
A
Brachycentrus lateralis
A
A
Brachycentrus nigrosoma
C
Brachycentrus numerosus
R
C
A
Micrasema bennetti
C
Micrasema wataga
R
R
C
C
C
'' "duo sjichidae4; ° s°
A-
Cheumatopsyche spp.
A
A
A
A
A
A
2 -36

Table 2 -6. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-11
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Cheumatopsyche etrona
A
C
C
C
Diplectrona modesta
R
Hydropsyche morosa
C
A
A
A
A
A
Hydropsyche sparna
C
I A
C
A
Hydropsyche venularis
C
C
A
C
A
A
Hydroptila spp.
R
C
R
A
A
;Lepitlgstomatidae ��__
Lepidostoma spp.
A
A
A
R
Leptocericlae
Ceraclea spp.
C
Ceraclea flava
R
Nectopsyche exquisita
R
R
R
Oecetis spp.
C
A
Oecetis persimilis
R
A
A
Setodes spp.
R
Triaenodes ignitus
R
R
R
IPh lopotami?e
Dolophilodes spp.
R
C
R
Dolophilodes distinctus
C
R
�Polyceiittopodidae:�� ���4� f
Polycentropus spp.
R
R
C
R
R
R
�Rtiyaeophilidae`� � :u� =s�
Rhyacophila formosa
R
R
Rhyacophila fuscula
R
Coleoptera
Helichus spp.
R
R
C
C
C
Ancyronyx variegatus
C
R
C
R
R
C
Dubiraphia vittata
R
Macronychus glabratus
C
C
C
A
C
A
Optioservus spp.
C
Promoresia elegans
A
R
A
A
A
Stenelmis spp.
R
R
R
C
rinidae -.x -�=
Dineutus spp.
R
Gyrinus spp.
A
Helophorus spp.
R
Pseptienidae . .
Ectopria nervosa
R
R
R
Psephenus herricki
R
C
R
C
R
2 -37

Table 2-6. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-11
NOWWae Y f='
Anchytarsus bicolor
c
c
A
Di !era
Palpomyia-Bezzia complex
A
c
R
Ch i r-6 �,Q-,l(r,on' iiiae
Chironomus spp.
R
Cladotanytarsus spp.
c
A
R
Cryptochironomus spp.
R
R
A
A
c
Demicryptochironomus spp.
R
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
c
A
R
R
Microtendipes spp.
R
R
Microtendipes pedellus gr.
c
Nilotanypus spp.
c
Nilothauma spp.
R
c
R
R
C
Pagestiella spp.
R
R
Paracladopelma spp.
R
Phaenopsectra spp.
A
R
R
R
Polypedilum aviceps
R
Polypedilum fallax
R
A
Polypedilum flavum
A
R
c
Polypedilum halterale
A
R
c
R
Polypedilum illinoense
c
Polypedilum laetum
R
c
Polypedilum scalaenum
R
c
R
Pseudochironomus spp.
R
R
c
R
Rheotanytarsus spp.
A
A
I A
c
c
Robackia demeijerei
c
A
A
R
A
Stenochironomus spp.
R
A
c
A
c
Stictochironomus spp.
c
Subletta coffmani
R
Tanytarsus spp.
C
I c
R
c
A
A
Tribelos spp.
A
bhironbrnidaip= Aamesinael-,-11
Potthastia longimana gr.
R
c
R
14
Brillia spp.
R
A
Cardiocladius spp.
R
R
R
c
Corynoneura spp.
c
A
A
A
A
A
Cricotopus annulator complex
c
A
A
A
Cricotopus bicinctus
c
A
A
c
Cricotopus Infuscatus gr.
c
Cricotopus tremulus
R
A
A
2-38

Table 2 -6. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Cricotopus varipes gr.
A
A
Cricotopus vierriensis gr.
C
C
A
Eukiefferiella brehmi
R
R
Nanocladius spp.
C
R
A
C
R
A
Orthocladius lignicola
R
R
Orthocladius robacki
R
C
Parakiefferiella spp.
C
A
A
C
A
A
Parametriocnemus spp.
A
A
R
Psectrocladius spp.
R
Rheocricotopus robacki
C
C
R
C
C
Synorthocladius spp.
R
R
Thienemanniella xena
C
A
C
A
A
A
Tvetenia bavarica
A
A
A
Tvetenia vitracies
R
C
R
C
Xylotopus par
R
�Chironomidae -Prod_ iamesmae� =� .,
Odontomesa fulva
C
;C'617r, nom dae= ianypodi, an e
Ablabesmyia spp.
C
Ablabesmyia janta
R
Ablabesmyia mallochi
C
R
A
R
A
C
Conchapelopia gr.
C
A
R
Labrundinia spp.
C
R
Thienemannimyia gr.
C
Empidd e,,.
UflicftEE, "In
Simulium spp.
A
A
C
A
Simulium tuberosum
A
Tpilidae ,4
Antocha spp.
C
C
C
A
Hexatoma spp.
R
Tipula spp.
C
R
R
C
C
Odonata -Aniso tera
Boyeria vinosa
R
C
C
A
A
C
,Co�duliiclae
Neurocordulia spp.
R
Gomphus spp.
R
C
C
C
R
Gomphus spiniceps
C
Hagenius brevistylus
R
C
R
Stylogomphus albistylus
R
.`,. ?`h:,-, -
Macromifdae,__.x
2 -39

Table 2-6. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct -11
Macroml . a spp.
R
c
Macromi a georgi . na
R
R
R
Odonata-Zygoptera
Calopteryx spp.
c
c
c
c
Enallagma spp.
R
Megaloptera
gw
Corydalus comutus
A
A
c
A
A
A
Nigronia serricomis
c
c
c
c
A
A
Oligochaeta
B�ancfifofjdellidae ;7 > :y=
R
R
C
c
R
A
Lumbriculus spp.
A
R
c
C
Bratislavia unidentata
c
Nais behningi
c
A
A
R
A
Nais bretscheri
c
A
Nais communis
R
A
R
A
Nais elinguis
A
Nais pardalis
c
A
Nais pseudobtusa
c
Nais simplex
A
R
A
Nais variabilis
c
A
Pristinella jenkinae
A
Pristinella osbomi
R
A
Pipistes parasita
c
&f6d
R
c
A
Limnadrilus haffmeisteri
R
R
Decapoda
wu N,
gg-,
Cambaras spp.
R
R
R
Cambarus bartonii
R
R
Cambaras robustus
R
Gastropoda
--MINIWOAR;��." 'ME'u-I
Ferrissia rivularis
R
R
A
c
A
A
O'N dd
I
Physa spp.
R
R I an 6rb i di 6
Helisoma anceps
R
R
R
P e'r'f� M,
WE 015MM —T 2
Elimia proxima
c
R
R
c
2-40

Table 2-6. .
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-11
YI
Pelecypoda
Other
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May- 11
Oct-08
Oct-10
Oct-1 1
Total Taxa
84
96
113
65
91
1 95
Total EPT Taxa
27
40
45
20
34
33
Biotic Index Value
5.56
5.09
5.44
5.78
5.39
5.43
Biotic Index Score
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.4
3.0
3.0
Bioclassification
Good-fair,
Good
, Good
Fair
Good
, Good-fair
2-4|

3000
260
2200
2000
1800
—�1OOO
14
L) 1400
'Fu 1200
1000
000
Tuckasegee River Flow
—2008 —2010 —2011
"
Jan Feb Mar Apr M . ay Jun Jul Aug Sep �ct N-ov
Figure 2-1. Tuckasegee River flows associated with 2008, 2010, and 2011 macro invertebrate
sample collections (depicting daily average flows for USGS Station 03510577 at
Barker's Creek, NC). Red lines indicate approximate sample collection dates.
'–\

120
110
100
90
X 80
w
70
0
60
E 50
Z 40
30
20
10
0
Total Taxa
® May -08 ❑ May -10 o May -11 ® Oct -08 ® Oct -10 ® Oct -11
27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
River Mile
Figure 2 -2. Total number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from four Tuckasegee River
sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October, 2008, 2010,
and 2011.
2 -43

W
M
x
40
H
d
W
0 30
m
�
20
Z
10
X
EPT Taxa
® May -08 ® May -10 (Way-11 ® Oct -08 ® Oct -10 ® Oct -11
27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
River M ile
Figure 2 -3. Total number of EPT taxa collected from four Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011.
2 -44

EPT Taxa
❑ Jul -99 ® Aug -04 ❑ M-09 o Aug -01 ® May -08 ❑ May -10 o May -11 ® Oct -08 © Oct -10 ■ Oct -11
50
40
M
x
H
d 30
W
O
20
E
Z
10
A
SR1378 T1 T3 T4 27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
Locations
Figure 2 -4. Comparison of EPT taxa numbers at several Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, 1999, 2001, 2004, and 2008 — 2011.
2 -45

5
4.5
4
0 3.5
U)
C 3
0
c� 2.5
w
U)i 2
0 1.5
m
1
0.5
Ef
Bioclassification
o May -08 ❑ May -10 o May -11 ❑ Oct -08 o Oct -10 ■ Oct -11
27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
River Mile
Figure 2 -5. Water quality bioc lass ifications based on macroinvertebrate collections from
four Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and
October, 2008, 2010, and 2011.
2 -46

Bioclassification
❑ Jul -99 ® Aug -04 ❑ Jul -09 ® Aug -01 ® May -08 ❑ May -10 o May -11 ❑ Oct -08 © Oct -10 ■ Oct -11
4.5
4
0
coi 3.5
V)
c 3
0
c� 2.5
vi 2
cv
U
0 1.5
m
1
0.5
A
SR1378 T1 T3 T4 27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
Locations
Figure 2 -6. Comparison of water quality bioclassification scores at several Tuckasegee
River sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project, 1999, 2001, 2004, and 2008
—2011.
2 -47

120
110
100
OO
�
70
�
�
60
5 50
40
30
20
m
River Mile 27.5
. . . .
W
5
4m
�
U)
3
Cn
2
1
NH
\`.
Figure May-08 May-10 May-11 Oct-08 Oct-10 Oct-11
2-7. All data (total tozu EPTtuxa and water quality hiock\ssificodon score) collected
in2000-2O|| u1RM2?.5iothe Tuckasegee HJvcc
` '
Own
*§
A
IN
HIM
. . . .
W
5
4m
�
U)
3
Cn
2
1
NH
\`.
Figure May-08 May-10 May-11 Oct-08 Oct-10 Oct-11
2-7. All data (total tozu EPTtuxa and water quality hiock\ssificodon score) collected
in2000-2O|| u1RM2?.5iothe Tuckasegee HJvcc
` '

120
110
SO
80
�
70
�
OO
zi 50
40
30
20
10
O
River Mile 31.6
. . .
May-08 May 1O May -11 Dot-OO Oot-10 Oct-11
5
4a)
0
m
�
3 m
cn
Cn
2m
1
Null
Figure 2-0. All data (total tazu EPTtaxa and water quality hkockaouifioadon score) collected
in 2008 — 2011 at RM 31.6 in the Tuckasegee River.
Vi
MR
-- -------
-
. . .
May-08 May 1O May -11 Dot-OO Oot-10 Oct-11
5
4a)
0
m
�
3 m
cn
Cn
2m
1
Null
Figure 2-0. All data (total tazu EPTtaxa and water quality hkockaouifioadon score) collected
in 2008 — 2011 at RM 31.6 in the Tuckasegee River.

120
110
100
90
80
x
70
�
�
GO
mi 50
40
30
20
Location 31 8
5
4m
0
m
0
3 m
2
1
O
May-08 May 1O May-11 Oot-08 Oot-10 Out-11
Figure 2-9. All data (total tnxn EPT tusa and water quality bioc|osoificutiou score)
collected in20O8-2Ol/o1RM3l.8inthe Tuckasegee River.
'
.'
'`.
i '
POM
ZE
Big
Wpl*
WIN
NINO
AN
5
4m
0
m
0
3 m
2
1
O
May-08 May 1O May-11 Oot-08 Oot-10 Out-11
Figure 2-9. All data (total tnxn EPT tusa and water quality bioc|osoificutiou score)
collected in20O8-2Ol/o1RM3l.8inthe Tuckasegee River.
'
.'
'`.
i '

120
110
100
90
80
(6
70
60
� 50
Z
40
30
20
10
0
Location 33.7
o total taxa o ept taxa • bioclassification
May -08 May -10 May -11 Oct -08 Oct -10 Oct -11
5
4 a)
0
U
U)
C
O
3 1°
U
w
c�
U
0
2m
1
He
Figure 2 -10. All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2011 at RM 33.7 in the Tuckasegee River.
2 -51

CHAPTER 3
FISH
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fish populations in the Tuckasegee River were sampled with electrofishing equipment during
May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011. During 2008, fish collections were made along
200 -m shoreline segments on the left and right ascending bank of the river at four locations
(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 RMs 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. During all sampling events,
fish were electrofished with pulsed DC current at settings adjusted to achieve maximum
sampling efficiency, while minimizing injury to the fish.
Tote -barge electrofishing was an effective fish sampling method and the numbers of fish
collected and the associated time spent sampling each shoreline reach were substantial. To
assure fish vitality and reduce shock times, permission was sought and received (approved
Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions - second modification, dated April
13, 2010) to limit tote barge collections to 100 m of shoreline, while maintaining boat
electrofishing samples at 200 m of shoreline in 2010 and beyond. Electrofishing collections
at RM 31.6 were subsequently conducted by tote barge during low -flow periods along 100 m
of shoreline on each side of the river.
All netted fish were identified, measured (total length [TL] in mm), and returned to the river,
with the exception of some smaller specimens 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 were evaluated to assess biotic
interactions and energy supply. Length frequency histograms for several of the more
numerous fish species were compiled for visual analysis.
3 -1

Throughout this study, water temperature ( °C) was measured at each shoreline segment with
a calibrated Fluke® thermistor. In 2008 and 2010, dissolved oxygen concentration (mg /L)
was measured at each shoreline segment with a calibrated Hach® HQ10 dissolved oxygen
probe while water samples for specific conductance (µS /cm) were collected, refrigerated, and
returned to the laboratory where the samples were measured with a calibrated Hydrolab®
Datasonde. Beginning in 2011, dissolved oxygen concentration and specific conductance
measurements were measured in situ with a Hach® HQ40D meter.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water Quality:
Water temperatures during May collections ranged from 10.4 to 17.4 °C while those in
October ranged from 7.8 to 16.3 °C (Table 3 -1). Thermal variability between upstream and
downstream locations was likely due to a combination of ambient weather conditions, time of
day during sample collection, warming of lentic waters at RM 31.8, and influences of
upstream hydroelectric generation regimes. In all instances, water temperatures varied little
between the left and right banks at each location.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations during May collections ranged from 8.5 to 10.4 mg /L while
those measured in October ranged from 8.1 to 11.6 mg /L. Despite a limited amount of
spatial variability in dissolved oxygen concentrations between upstream and downstream
locations, all values were more than adequate to support aquatic life and were generally
similar between the left and right banks of a location on specific sampling dates.
Specific conductance was generally low for all Tuckasegee River samples. Conductivity
ranged from 19.0 to 32.1 µS /cm during May sampling while those collected in October
ranged from 21.9 to 42.0 µS /cm. In general, with the exception of some slight declines
observed at RM 31.8 (possibly due to the some combination of the lentic habitat and
upstream hydroelectric generation to allow boat shocking), specific conductance commonly
increased slightly with downstream direction. Specific conductance also varied little
between the left and right banks at each location.
While very slight water quality differences were noted on a few occasions between the left
and right banks of particular locations, anomalous water quality trends have been
3 -2

indiscernible. Additionally, there was no observable difference in water quality parameters
during the year (2008) prior to dam removal compared to the years following dam removal
(2010 and 2011). Temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and specific conductance
were always within ranges known to support aquatic life and generally similar between the
left and right banks of the four Tuckasegee River sampling locations. Based on this finding
of homogeneous water quality, left and right bank fish collections were combined for fish
community analysis.
FIQhPY1PQ-
During 2008 electrofishing collections (i.e., prior to dam removal), 200 -m shoreline
segments were sampled and included all available habitats in each segment. Boat
electrofishing at RMs 31.6 and 31.8 provided the greatest repeatability, as each location was
sampled in similar time intervals (total electrofishing pedal time for the May and October
samples at the two locations ranged from 3,617 to 4,044 seconds). Total tote -barge
electrofishing time at RMs 27.5 and 33.7 varied in duration from 5,283 seconds to 8,812
seconds per location. 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 RMs 31.6 and 31.8) may only be representative of relative
abundance. As stated earlier, fish collection information at each location is presented as the
combined catch from the left and right banks.
In 2010 and 2011 (subsequent to dam removal), fish populations along 200 -m lengths of
shoreline on each bank of the former Dillsboro Reservoir (RM 31.8) were sampled by a small
electrofishing boat. Total boat electrofishing time at this location ranged from 2,105 (May
2010) to 3,906 (October 2011) seconds. Electrofishing collections at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and
33.7 were via tote -barge along 100 -m lengths of shoreline and total sample times ranged
from 3,450 (May 2011) to 5,804 (October 2010) seconds.
After expending 31.5 hours of electrofishing time in 2008, 2010, and 2011, Duke Energy
biologists collected a total of 38 species, representing 7 families, which included 11
cyprinids, 8 percids, 7 catostomids, 7 centrarchids, 3 salmonids, 1 petromyzontid, and 1
cottid (Table 3 -2 and Figures 3 -1 to 3 -5). No new species were added in 2011. A hybrid
sunfish combination was also observed but not included in the species total. Collected
species are consistent with those expected based on fish distribution maps of the Tuckasegee
River drainage (Menhinick 1991). This total also compares favorably with the 42 species
3 -3

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 from 2008 to 2011 include common carp Cyprinus carpio, longnose dace
Rhinichthys cataractae, western blacknose dace R. obtusus, black bullhead Ameiurus melas,
brown bullhead A. nebulosus, 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 in Jackson County includes several species receiving
special attention from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the USFWS
(NCDENR 2008, Natural Heritage Program Search performed 11/9/10) based on their
limited populations. 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 Moxostoma sp. 2 is a state threatened species and 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 2008 — 2011 sampling or prior sampling in 2001 —
2002 (Duke Energy 2003). The wounded darter was collected in 2008, 2010, and 2011 at
locations downstream and upstream of the Dam (though never at RM 31.8), as it was in 2001
— 2002. The olive darter was only observed downstream of the Dam in 2008 and 2010,
similar to observations from the 2001 — 2002 study, but was first collected upstream of the
Dam at RM 33.7 in May 2011.
Electrofishing collections in May 2008 resulted in the capture of a total of 35 species and 1
hybrid sunfish combination (Table 3 -3). The highest number of fish species collected (n =
34) at any 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). The numbers of fish species
collected at RMs 27.5 and 33.7 (the most downstream and upstream locations, respectively)
were intermediate between the reservoir and tailrace location numbers and ranged from 22 to
24 species.
A total of 32 species of fish and 1 hybrid sunfish combination were collected in October
2008; the green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus was the only new species not previously collected
in May (Table 3 -4). October sampling 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 — 2002 (Duke Energy
3 -4

2003). The numbers of fish species collected at RMs 27.5 and 33.7 were again intermediate
between the reservoir and tailrace location numbers and ranged from 18 to 24 species.
Electrofishing occurred in May 2010 after dam removal, but prior to completion of site
restoration activities, and resulted in the collection of a total of 29 species (Table 3 -5). The
highest number of fish species collected (n = 24) at any May 2010 sampling location was at
RM 31.6 (tailrace), while the lowest number of species (n = 14) was found immediately
upstream at RM 31.8 (in the former reservoir). Twenty species of fish were collected at the
most upstream (RM 33.7) and downstream (RM 27.5) riverine locations.
A total of 29 species of fish were collected in October 2010; the golden shiner Notemigonus
crysoleucas and the spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus were the only new species not
previously collected since study initiation in 2008 (Table 3 -6). October sampling again
yielded the highest number of species (n = 26) at RM 31.6 (tailrace) and the lowest number
of species (n = 13) at RM 31.8 (former reservoir). The numbers of fish species collected
during October 2010 at RMs 27.5 and 33.7 (the most downstream and upstream locations,
respectively) continued to be intermediate between the old reservoir and tailrace location
numbers and ranged from 18 to 21 species.
Electrofishing collections in May 2011 resulted in the capture of a total of 30 species (Table
3 -7). The highest number of fish species collected (n = 24) occurred at two locations, RM
31.6 and, for the first time, a location upstream of the removed Dam at RM 33.7. The lowest
number of species (n = 15) was found at RM 31.8 (in the former reservoir). Twenty -two
species of fish were collected at the most downstream (RM 27.5) riverine location.
A total of 30 species of fish were collected in October 2011 (Table 3 -8). Electrofishing
collections once again yielded the highest number of species (n = 24) at RM 31.6, although
the total at RM 27.5 (n = 23) was close behind. The lowest number of species (n = 15)
continued to be found at RM 31.8 (former reservoir). The number of fish species (n = 20)
collected during October 2011 at RM 33.7 (the most upstream location) was intermediate
between the old reservoir and tailrace location numbers.
The most abundant species of fish collected varied among the four Tuckaseegee River
sampling locations (Table 3 -9). During 2008, 2010, and 2011, the lotic habitat at RMs 27.5,
31.6, and 33.7 were typically dominated by a member of the cyprinid family (Figures 3 -6 to
3 -8). In most cases, the three most abundant species at these riverine locations were
3 -5

cyprinids, except when northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans, mottled sculpin Cottus
bairdii, rock bass Ambloplites rupestris, or gilt darter Percina evides were occasionally
collected in large numbers. While the foremost cyprinid species has primarily been the river
chub Nocomis micropogon, and secondarily the Tennessee shiner Notropis leuciodus, it
appeared both cyprinid species only came to dominance at RM 31.6 (tailrace) after removal
of the Dam. Data collected in 2001 — 2002 from similar sampling locations in the
Tuckasegee River generally appeared to support this observation (Duke Energy 2003).
The most abundant species of fish at the Dillsboro Reservoir location (RM 31.8) has
undergone some unique shifts following dam removal. Prior to dam removal in May and
October 2008, rock bass accounted for over 45% of the fish community at this location, with
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus being secondary in abundance (approximately 17 to 19 %).
These two centrarchid species were able to adapt to and exploit this lentic environment.
Following removal of much of the lentic environment with dam demolition in early 2010, the
centrarchid community underwent a fairly dramatic shift. In May 2010, rock bass at RM
31.8 was displaced as the dominant species by redbreast sunfish and, by October 2010, each
of these two centrarchid species accounted for less than 10% of the observed fish
community. In October 2010, the three most abundant fish species at the former reservoir
location were all cyprinids. In 2011 there was a brief resurgence of rock bass, accounting for
approximately 22 and 14% of the catch in May and October, respectively. The presence of
cyprinids at RM 31.8 following dam removal has increased sporadically though, to date, no
sculpins or darter species have been collected there.
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 to 3 -8). While Tolerant species are typically
encountered in most fish surveys, a water course is considered stressed when members of
these species numerically dominate the sample (Table 3 -10). Conversely, the more Intolerant
species encountered in a sample, the less likely 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.

J/
Pollution tolerance data were analyzed by year to evaluate pre- and post -dam removal fish
communities (Table 3 -11). The percentages of Tolerant individuals collected at the three
riverine locations (RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7) since 2008 have ranged from 0.00 to 1.76% and
have always been < 2 %, typifying observations from NCDENR regional reference streams
(Western and Northern Mountains criteria, NCDENR 2006b). The percentage of Tolerant
individuals in the lentic environment at RM 31.8 ranged from 15.46 to 23.76% during the
three years of sampling and always typified conditions observed in streams that deviate
greatly from regional reference streams.
Since sampling began in 2008, eleven Intolerant species (silver shiner Notropis photogenis,
telescope shiner N. telescopus, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, brook trout Salvelinus
fontinalis, rock bass, smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu, greenfin darter Etheostoma
chlorobranchium, wounded darter, tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca, gilt darter, and olive
darter) were collected in this reach of the Tuckasegee River near Dillsboro. In 2008, all 11
Intolerant species were collected downstream of the Dam (RMs 27.5 and 31.6), while four
were collected at RM 31.8 (reservoir) and six species were collected at the most upstream
location (RM 33.7). In 2010, nine Intolerant species were found at each of the two sites
downstream of the demolished dam, five were found in the former reservoir, and six were
collected at RM 33.7. Ten Intolerant species were collected at RMs 27.5 and 33.7 in 2011,
nine were collected at RM 31.6, and the lowest number (6) was again collected in the former
reservoir.
In summary, the lowest number of Intolerant species collected each year occurred in the
lentic habitat of the Dillsboro Reservoir and its successor. While numbers of Intolerant
species in the riverine locations have generally been highest and varied somewhat, there is
cautious optimism regarding the slowly increasing number of Intolerant species found each
year at RM 31.8. Despite the obvious differences in the number of Intolerant species, all
locations exceeded the minimum of three Intolerant fish species typically found in NCDENR
regional reference streams. Pollution tolerance data collected since 2008, as defined by the
percentage of Tolerant individuals and the number of Intolerant species, indicated the fish
community at RM 31.8 was the most atypical of the four locations sampled.
3 -7

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 to 3 -8,
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
(Table 3 -10); streams classified as regional reference streams have combined percentage of
omnivores and herbivores between 10% and 36% or have insectivores comprising between
55% and 85% of the sample. Observed percentages outside those ranges indicate that a
stream `deviates' or `deviates greatly' from NCDENR regional reference streams for those
metrics.
Trophic guild data were analyzed by year to evaluate pre- and post -dam removal fish
communities (Table 3 -12). The combined percentage of omnivores and herbivores collected
in 2008 ranged from 9.5 to 32.3% and the fish communities were generally considered
typical for NCDENR regional reference steams except at RM 31.8, where the observed total
of 9.5% deviated greatly from regional reference streams. Following dam demolition, the
� -' combined percentage of omnivores and herbivores at all four locations ranged from 11.5 to
30.3% in 2010 and from 21.7 to 29.3% in 2011. All observed 2010 and 2011 omnivores and
herbivores percentages were within the range of values considered typical of NCDENR
regional reference steams.
The percentages of insectivorous fish collected in 2008 ranged from 40.1 to 74.4% and
generally were considered representative of NCDENR regional reference streams, except in
the lentic waters of RM 31.8. There, the insectivore percentage (40.1%) was considered
representative of a stream deviating from a regional reference stream. The percentages of
insectivorous fish at all four locations in 2010 were less variable and ranged from 61.4 to
70.0 %. All observed insectivorous percentages in 2010 were considered indicative of values
found in NCDENR regional reference streams. Variability in the percentage of insectivorous
fish increased in 2011 and ranged from 50.2 to 72.2 %. Only the value at RM 31.8 (50.2 %)
was considered atypical of NCDENR regional reference streams.
Piscivorous fish (trout, rock bass, black bass, and walleye Sander vitreus) were collected at
each of the four Tuckasegee sampling locations in 2008 and ranged from 3.1 to 18.3% of the
total fish community. While no criteria have been developed for the percentage of
3 -8

piscivores, values at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 (riverine locations) were generally less than���
l0 %, while the value at RM 31.8 (reservoir) exceeded 50 %. Following dam demolition, the
percentage of piscivores at the three riverine locations continued to remain low (generally <
7 %) during 2010 and 2011. The percentage of piscivorous fish at RM 31.8 declined to
18.3% in 2010 and then rose to 26.6% in 2011.
In summary, three different trophic metrics indicated dissimilarities between the fish
community in the lentic habitat at RM 31.8 (the Dillsboro Reservoir and its successor) and
those observed at the three riverine locations. A low combined percentage of omnivores and
herbivores in 2008 at RM 31.8 has gradually increased following dam demolition. The low
percentage of insectivores at RM 31.8 in 2008 increased to typical levels in 2010 and then
fell back to deviant levels in 2011. Piscivorous fish have always dominated the fish
community at RM 31.8 though the degree of domination declined following dam removal.
Gradually, the trophic structure of the fish community at RM 31.8 appears to be trending
towards those observed at the three riverine locations (RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7) though
natural differences in habitat still persist.
Length quencies:
Several Tuckasegee River fish species were collected in sufficient numbers in 2008, 2010,
and 2011 to produce fairly detailed length frequency histograms. Data collection during May
and October also permitted a visual assessment of growth within a year. The mountain brook
lamprey Ichthyomyzon greeleyi, six cyprinids (central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum,
warpaint shiner Luxilus coccogenis, river chub, Tennessee shiner, mirror shiner Notropis
spectrunculus, and fatlips minnow Phenacobius crassilabrum), one catostomid (northern hog
sucker), one cottid (mottled sculpin), one centrarchid (rock bass), and three percids
(Tuckasegee darter Etheostoma guttselli, wounded darter, and gilt darter) provided fairly
detailed graphs. It is anticipated that Tuckasegee River fish collections in 2012 will result in
even higher sample sizes and allow for length frequency assessments of additional fish
species.
Mountain brook lampreys collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project
ranged in length from 71 to 173 mm, TL (Figure 3 -9). Spawning occurs from mid -May to
early -June and was observed at a temperature of 13.5 °C in Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes
1993). Inadequate collections of very small Tuckasegee River lampreys and indistinct peaks
in the length frequency graph make further observations difficult at this time. The maximum
3 -9

TL for mountain brook lamprey collected in the Tuckasegee River near Dillsboro (173 mm)
is less than the maximum length noted in Tennessee (181 mm) and in excess of the 162 mm
maximum TL from Kentucky (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
Central stonerollers collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in
length from 37 to 223 mm, TL (Figure 3 -10). Spawning occurs from early -April to mid -June
in Tennessee at peak temperatures of 12 to 14 °C (Etnier and Starnes 1993), and would
coincide with the time of Duke Energy's May sampling activities. Thus, the first length
frequency peak observed in October (modal length range 56 to 60 mm) would represent the
sizes of Age 0 fish heading into their first winter. This peak coincides with the first May
modal length range peak observed for fish surviving the first winter (i.e., minimal growth
during winter). This length range roughly concurs with the observation of Etnier and Starnes
(1993) who note central stoneroller standard lengths of 35 to 65 mm after one year.
Overlapping or indistinct peaks in the length frequency graph make further conclusions
difficult, especially as males grow faster than females and some studies report wide TL
ranges for older fish of a given age (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The maximum central
stoneroller size collected in the Tuckasegee River (223 mm) during this study exceeds the
maximum TL (200 mm) reported by (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) for Virginia but is
dwarfed by a 287 -mm TL specimen collected in the Tennessee portion of the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (Lennon and Parker 1960).
Warpaint shiners collected in the Tuckasegee River for this study ranged in length from 28 to
154 mm, TL (Figure 3 -11). This species has been observed to spawn in June in NC (Outten
1957), so no small individuals would be expected in the May samples. A large and normally
distributed length frequency peak in October (modal length range 46 to 50 mm) represents
young -of- the -year fish preparing to endure their first winter. A subsequent May peak (modal
length range 56 to 60 mm) represents the size of Age 1 fish who survived the first winter.
Based on the next apparent October peak (modal length range 86 to 95 mm), this would be
the size of Age 1 fish entering their second winter. A subsequent May peak (modal length
range 96 to 100 mm) would represent the lengths of Age 2 fish entering their third summer.
Outten (1957) indicated that the majority of warpaint shiners are mature during their third
summer and few live beyond Age 2. The maximum length observed in the Tuckasegee River
near Dillsboro (154 mm) exceeds the maximum lengths of warpaint shiners noted from
Tennessee (120 mm) and Virginia (143 mm) by Etnier and Starnes (1993) and Jenkins and
Burkhead (1994), respectively.
3 -10

River chubs collected in the Tuckasegee River ranged in total length from 34 to 231 mm i
(Figure 3 -12). Spawning is described as occurring in late spring in Tennessee (Etnier and
Starnes 1993) and from late May through June in the Tennessee River system of Virginia
(Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). So, while young river chubs might not be expected in May
fish collections, some very small individuals were observed. The October length frequency
peak (modal length range 56 to 60 mm) represents young -of -the -year chubs entering their
first winter while the identical first May peak represents the length of Age 1 fish who
survived the winter but exhibited negligible growth. A subsequent October peak for Age 1
fish (modal length range 86 to 90 mm) can be discerned but maturity and sexually dimorphic
growth (males grow faster than females) may obscure any further length frequency peaks at
this time. The largest river chub collected in the Tuckasegee River (231 mm) exceeds the
maximum size (227 mm) reported from Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
Tennessee shiners collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in
length from 27 to 86 mm, TL (Figure 3 -13). Outten (1962) describes spawning in late -May
to early -June in NC at water temperatures ranging from 18.3 to 25.0 °C. As Duke Energy's
May fish collections occurred earlier in the month and at cooler water temperatures (see
Table 3 -1), it is unlikely young -of -the -year Tennessee shiners were collected in May. A
normally distributed length frequency peak occurred for young -of -the -year shiners in
October (modal length range 39 to 40 mm) prior to their first winter. A diffuse range of
lengths with a peak from 41 to 42 mm was discernable the subsequent May and represented
fish surviving their first winter. These fish then grew and formed a second October length
frequency peak (modal length range 67 to 68 mm) as Age 1 fish. These fish then entered
their second winter and emerged the following May as Age 2 fish with another wide range of
lengths, peaking from 67 to 68 mm. No further length frequency peaks were discernable.
The life history of this species is poorly known and length frequency data would appear to
indicate few fish live beyond Age 3. The tendency for female Tennessee shiners to grow
larger than males (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) may be one factor leading to the diffuse
peaks. The maximum size collected in the Tuckasegee River (86 mm) exceeds the maximum
size (82 mm) reported by Etnier and Starnes (1993) for Tennessee.
Mirror shiners collected in the Tuckasegee River ranged in total length from 22 to 79 mm
(Figure 3 -14). Very little is known about the biology of this species and spawning is
estimated to occur from late- spring to early- summer (Etnier and Starnes 1993 and Jenkins
and Burkhead 1994). The length frequency graph would indicate spawning occurs after May
and young -of -the -year shiners in October have a modal length range of 37 to 38 mm prior to
3 -11

their first winter. Fish surviving this first winter have a diffuse length frequency peak
(approximate modal length range 41 to 42 mm) in May and these Age 1 fish increase in size
throughout their second summer. By October, the modal length range of Age 1 fish is 67 to
68 mm as these fish prepare to enter their second winter. Age 2 fish collected in May appear
to have decreased slightly in length (modal length range 63 to 64 mm); no additional
information can be discerned from the mirror shiner length frequency plot. The life history
of this species is poorly known and length frequency data would appear to indicate few fish
live beyond Age 3. The maximum total length of 79 mm reported by Etnier and Starnes
(1993) is identical to that observed in the Tuckasegee River.
Fatlips minnows collected in the Tuckasegee River ranged in total length from 42 to 113 mm
(Figure 3 -15). Spawning is estimated to occur from April to June (Jenkins and Burkhead
1994) and the occurrence of a few very small fish in May collections would appear to
substantiate some spawning prior to May. Young -of -the -year minnows in October have a
modal length range of 57 to 60 mm prior to their first winter. Fish surviving their first winter
were poorly collected and exhibited a wide range of lengths. By October, the modal length
range of Age 1 fish was 85 to 88 mm prior to their second winter. Age 2 fish collected in
May again showed a diffuse range of lengths and little additional information can be
discerned from the length frequency plot. The maximum length of fatlips minnows observed
in the Tuckasegee River near Dillsboro (113 mm) was nearly identical to the maximum
length noted from Virginia (112 mm), where few fish survive a third winter (Jenkins and
Burkhead 1994).
Northern hog suckers collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in
length from 37 to 381 mm, TL (Figure 3 -16). Spawning behavior in Virginia has been
reported during April and May (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) and would corroborate the lack
of small northern hog suckers in May collections. An October length frequency peak (modal
length range 61 to 70 mm) was noted for young -of- the -year fish. Age 1 fish during spring
had an identical length frequency peak (modal length range 61 to 70 mm) and indicated
negligible growth during winter. While a wide modal length range from 91 to 110 mm was
observed for Age 1 fish in October, little else could be determined from the length frequency
graph. The largest northern hog sucker observed by Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) measured
450 mm TL and easily exceeded the largest fish collected in the Tuckasegee River (381 mm).
Mottled sculpins collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in
length from 30 to 111 mm, TL (Figure 3 -17). Mottled sculpin spawn in cavities beneath
3 -12

stones or other materials from mid -March to mid -April in Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead
1994). The smallest Tuckasegee River sculpins were collected in October and the modal
length frequency peak for these young -of- the -year fish ranged from 36 to 40 mm. Age 1 fish
collected the following May had a modal length frequency peak ranging from 51 to 55 mm
and subsequently increasing to range from 66 to 70 mm in October. Following winter, Age 2
fish in May had an identical modal length frequency peak (from 66 to 70 mm) based on the
length frequency distribution. Little additional information could be determined at this time
though it should be noted Etnier and Starnes (1993) did not indicate growth of Tennessee
mottled sculpins to be as fast. The maximum length observed in the Tuckasegee River near
Dillsboro (111 mm) was slightly less than the maximum lengths of mottled sculpins noted
from Tennessee (114 mm) and Virginia (113 mm) by Etnier and Starnes (1993) and Jenkins
and Burkhead (1994), respectively.
Rock bass collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in length from
30 to 252 mm, TL (Figure 3 -18). Spawning behavior in Virginia occurred from April to July
(Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). October modal length frequency peaks from Age 0 through
Age 2 fish in the Tuckasegee River ranged from 46 to 50 mm, 76 to 80 mm, and 116 to 120
mm, respectively, and corresponded closely with similar values (45, 80, and 115 mm)
measured for Tennessee fish (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Little additional information could
be determined from the length frequency graph at this time. The largest rock bass observed
by Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) in Virginia measured 330 mm TL, though the authors noted
fish over 250 mm were rare, and easily exceeded the largest fish collected in the Tuckasegee
River (252 mm).
Tuckasegee darters, a member of the greenside darter group, in the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project ranged in length from 35 to 125 mm, TL (Figure 3 -19). Spawning
behavior of greenside darters in Tennessee has been described as early spring (Etnier and
Starnes 1993) and late- February to late -March in Arkansas (Hubbs 1985); corroborating the
occasional collection of small Tuckasegee darters in May. An October length frequency
peak (modal length range 51 to 55 mm) was noted for young -of- the -year fish prior to their
first winter. A presumed Age 1 peak in May (modal length range 56 to 60 mm) was
observed, but little else could be determined at this time as sample size is still relatively low
for the larger length classes. Further determination of size classes may be muted by the
propensity of males to grow faster and reach larger TLs than females (Jenkins and Burkhead
1994). The largest greenside darter (Etheostoma newmanii) observed by Etnier and Starnes
3 -13

(1993) in Tennessee measured 166 mm and easily exceeded the largest Tuckasegee darter
(125 mm) collected in the Tuckasegee River.
Wounded darters in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in length from
30 to 80 mm, TL (Figure 3 -20). Spawning behavior in Tennessee has been observed from
late -May to late -July (Etnier and Starnes 1993) and would corroborate the lack of small
wounded darters in May collections. Low numbers of fish and indistinct length frequency
peaks precluded any definite summarization of lengths at specific ages. Wounded darters are
thought to have a life span of 4 to 5 years (Etnier and Starnes 1993). The largest wounded
darter noted by Etnier and Starnes (1993) measured 81 mm, nearly identical to the length of
the largest fish collected in the Tuckasegee River.
Gilt darters collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in length
from 18 to 76 mm, TL (Figure 3 -21). Spawning behavior in Tennessee has been observed in
June and early -July (Etnier and Starnes 1993) and would corroborate the lack of small gilt
darters in May collections. An October length frequency peak (modal length range 45 to 46
mm) was noted for young -of- the -year fish, despite sexually dimorphic growth (males grow
larger than females) after just three months of age (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Low
collections of small gilt darters in May complicated the analysis of Age 1 fish during spring.
A presumed Age 1 peak in October (modal length range 57 to 58 mm) was identical to the
Age 2 peak in May of the subsequent year. Little additional information could be determined
from the length frequency graph at this time. The largest gilt darter observed by Etnier and
Starnes (1993) measured 77 mm and slightly exceeded the largest fish collected in the
Tuckasegee River.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Measured water quality parameters in 2008, 2010, and 2011 (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 of 2008, 2010, and 2011 demonstrated a
diverse assemblage composed of 38 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;
3 -14

the wounded darter and the olive darter. While the wounded darter was collected upstream
and downstream of the Dillsboro Dam site in all years, the olive darter was finally collected
upstream of the dam in May 2011.
The highest number of fish species were always collected at RM 31.6 (in May 2011, RM
33.7 tied for the highest number of species), and the least number of species were always
found at RM 31.8 (reservoir and its successor), immediately upstream of the Dam. The fish
community at RM 31.8 was dominated by rock bass and redbreast sunfish before demolition,
but this centrarchid domination shifted fairly rapidly (in less than one year) to a community
dominated by cyprinids. In 2011, the RM 31.8 fish community was variably dominated by
cyprinids, catostomids, and centrarchids. Meanwhile, the communities at the other three
riverine locations (RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7) were always dominated by cyprinids. Pollution
tolerance data indicated 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 the fish community at RM 31.8 was atypical
compared to those sampled in other nearby reaches of the Tuckasegee River, though these
differences decreased after dam demolition.
All observed fish community metrics in 2008 indicated the fish assemblage at RM 31.8 -J
(reservoir) was uncharacteristic of those occurring in nearby upstream and downstream
riverine reaches, and was more consistent with the lentic habitat characterizing that site.
Dam demolition in early 2010 led to removal of a large portion of the lentic habitat at RM
31.8, though a submerged rock ledge resulted in a portion of this habitat persisting. Several
fish community metrics at RM 31.8 were still atypical of those in nearby riverine reaches in
2010 and 2011 but the magnitude was declining with time; the trophic structure of the fish
community appeared to change most rapidly. Sculpin and darter species have yet to be
collected at RM 31.8. Measured lengths of frequently caught Tuckasegee River fish species
demonstrated growth and were typical of those species studied elsewhere in Tennessee and
Virginia.
r-�
3 -15

Table 3 -1. Water quality parameters measured during electrofishing collections on the left
(L) and right (R) ascending banks at four locations on the Tuckasegee River
during May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011.
Conductiuty (NS /cm) 2008
May
27.6
27.2
251
251
Ricer Mile
19.0
23.2
232
2008
Oct
33.7
27.5
27.9
31 6
296
31.8
22.0
33.7
2010
Parameter
Year
Month
L
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
Temperature ( °C)
2008
May
17.4
16.8
14.9
14.5
15.2
15.1
13.7
13.0
31 8
2008
Oct
79
7.8
11.7
11.9
13.0
13.1
10.8
10.5
36.2
2010
May
13.3
13.3
12.8
12.9
129
13.2
10.4
10.4
2010
Oct
12.1
11.9
11.8
11.5
15.2
15.3
11.9
11.9
2011
May
124
12.9
13.9
13.8
12.3
123
11.7
11 9
2011
Oct
16.3
15.6
13.9
140
15.6
154
14.3
139
Dissolved oxygen (mg /L)
2008
May
8.8
8.8
9.0
92
9.0
8.5
8.5
9.8
2008
Oct
11.3
11.6
99
9.6
9.9
8.5
9.9
9.9
2010
May
10.0
10.1
9.7
95
9.8
97
10.4
104
2010
Oct
9.3
9.3
91
9.1
81
8.3
8.9
91
2011
May
9.9
9.8
10.0
98
9.5
95
9.4
9.6
2011
Oct
9.5
9.4
89
8.9
8.7
86
8.8
89
Conductiuty (NS /cm) 2008
May
27.6
27.2
251
251
190
19.0
23.2
232
2008
Oct
33.7
334
27.9
254
296
29.8
22.0
21.9
2010
May
260
25.0
230
24.0
240
24.0
20.0
20.0
2010
Oct
41.5
42.0
37.6
38.3
34.6
31.2
29.4
297
2011
May
32.1
31 8
26.7
269
23.4
22.3
24.3
244
2011
Oct
36.4
363
36.2
33.7
26.4
28.3
29.9
30.2
3 -16

Table 3 -2. Fish species collected during Tuckasegee River surveys in the vicinity of the
Dillsboro Project, 2001 — 2002 and 2008, 2010, and 2011.
3 -17
2001 -2002
2008-2011
Scientific Name
Common Name
(Duke Energy 2003)
(Present Study)
Pe trom yzo ntidae
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
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden Shiner
X
X
Notropis leuaodus
Tennessee Shiner
X
X
Notropis photogents
Silver Shiner
X
X
Notropis spectrunculus
Mrror Shiner
X
X
Notropis telescopus
Telescope Shiner
X
X
Phenacobius crassilabrum
Fatlips Minnow
X
X
Rhinichthys cataractae
Longnose Dace
X
Rhinichthys obtusus
Western Blacknose Dace
X
Semohlus atromaculatus
Creek Chub
X
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersonh
White Sucker
X
X
Hypentelium nigncans
Northern Hog Sucker
X
X
Moxostoma amsurum
Silver Redhorse
X
Moxostoma breviceps
Smallmouth Redhorse
X
X
Moxostoma cannatum
River Redhorse
X
X
Moxostoma duquesnet
Black Redhorse
X
X
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
X
X
Ictaluridae
Ameiurus melas
Black Bullhead
X
Ameiurus nebulosus
Brown Bullhead
X
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow Trout
X
X
Salmo trutta
Brow n Trout
X
X
Salvelmus fontmalis
Brook Trout
X
X
C ottid ae
Cottus bairdu
Mottled Sculpin
X
X
Centrarchidae
Ambloplites rupestrns
Rock Bass
X
X
Lepomis auritus
Redbreast Sunfish
X
X
Lepomis cyanellus
Green Sunfish
X
X
Lepomis hybrid
Hybrid Sunfish
X
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
X
X
Micropterus dolomieu
Smellmouth Bass
X
X
Micropterus punctulatus
Spotted Bass
X
X
Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth Bass
X
X
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchium
Greenfin Darter
X
X
Etheostoma guttselh
Tuckasegee Darter
X
X
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
X
X
Etheostoma zonale
Banded Darter
X
X
Perca flavescens
Yellow perch
X
Perana aurantiaca
Tangerine Darter
X
X
Perana evides
Gilt Darter
X
X
Perana squamata
Olive Darter
X
X
Sander vrtreus
Walleye
X
X
Total Number of Species
42
38 -
3 -17

bn
C3
ftS
Q�
U
N
O
U
Q�
^U
i�
�U1
Vi
4--I
O
C
O
.y
O�
O O
U N
cc3
U
N
L]. N
� aC�
O
N O
� Q
N
X1--1
O s.
U �
O Cd
L U
bA �
� U
N O
U �
O
O U
M
M
N
03
0000° e o0 0o e ao O 0V 000° e
O N N M O O N � 4] N O R
M
Z 7 M M f0 M C O N N O N OJ N t0 M M w O t`
O N
o e o 0 0
O� O O
M �
Z N N M ODD M H M V O e+
M
o o a o 0 0 o e o a o a
o O r r O O O O rn R r O o o O W O Cl o ts M N o O r O o M M M o o
O O M N O O O r r 0 O V O O � r0 N O O •- O N O _"o O O O O 0 0 0 0 �
M N 0�0 r t�0 O M lPl r
_'TM N M r v r0 O M N N N O N
� M
o o a o c
M r
Mr No— 00 co O o O r M N N N N O O
N
N
M
p O N V N m M N N N r OD O O O O t`
Z N O N O N r c0 N N � N r N
`o `o `o `o d o `o `o `o `o `o `o m `o `o d `o `o `o d d `o `o `o `o
t d 2 2 Z .Z > > ,z > 0 > > > ? > > .2 p p > > > > > > > o
8 8 n 0? 0 2 u u u?? 0 o u o u u u 2
p C d d d d d d d d F d d d d d d d U d d U d d d U U d d d d d d d U
H z 5 O .9.9.9 5 5 5 Oct c c c= .9 .9 5 CL 5 5 C c c c M M 5 5 5 c c c c CL
d d d d d d d d
F u c d
vm C 9t d Z v9t d t �9t d t v9t d t v9t d i 'got `t c d vgt t c v9t t .- v2
9t t '2
90t t d gt 2
9t t d 9t C d 9t = =d yy t = = d gt t d `d d d _ m = d _ d
d
mmmmm,m„m mmmmmm c m.m M—M c m m m
ID vID ID v c v 'D v
` y ?
`md m ` `
o o o o o o =o o 0 o d
c c c c_ _ g E C C C C
C C C C
T
d
a d
t Y �
7 w m C
Z m O C (n d C C N C m L N d 0
E c (r n
O C d L 9 d `y U o c 0 U) nm U)
E m m U) ) ad v _ N O O Q=Q t C d w a d d
U 0 v 3 0 C d v O m
i.
N V C C >
z05U)dmC7 �°m`m
E ' �
= N N
u dc E m 2 n v
co o m v c o n m c o m e E ' e r> n F L `U d
2 `o
E c
m m m m m o o d i i a o T � 0) y 0 0 0 0 m m
° p C 0 _ E
0 0 m Z 0 0 0 0 0 E E c o d
'm V d t U aTm>000000cd M N Q m) n ox x o ox ox x o �o e f c a n n n u o a c'w w U twL -
ur a v v v w m a �Ue )
�f-r-
r',

an
c
0,
E
m
Ln
L
fti
U
N
O
U
U
N
C1.
S-.
O
O
00
O O
Ll N
O U
U �
O
� U
U
L y
�. 0.
C�
O
L
y
� L
"� cd
0� N
O L'
U
U �
U
O �
L U
bA �
C N
O
U �
C
O
N �
O U
F, O
M
M
0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O M M O 0 0
0 7 co N O W N M N (O
ao N O) l0 M V (O O
N N )0 0 v O O O
N
n
a)
M
rn r
O 00 r N co O N M Cl) r r (O (O N M R N a
Z a0 O N M< M O O N N l0 V O Cl) l0
l0 a0 N
LO
0 l0 r V N M U) 0 O O 00
0 0 ° vi a) U) m .-
co
Cl)
p O N O OD co N 00 N O N Q
Z �
e N M M lf) "t �� N N R to M — N O 0
O V l0 m (V 00 O m o o o O O to O N Cl) O O O O O O O r
co
1D
M
N V IN N N OND V N M N n N M N N M .- co .- co O O fC`".
V
0 M o m °O\j "I c o o M 0 0 0 0 o M M M e o 0 o e o 0
0 co (O co V (O O) N N O N O O r t0 r w N w -q N O
O O N O N N 10 O O O N 00 O M O W O
N
I,
N
CD
N N O "I TO m 00 O (O O O D1 co N � (MO IN N N co (D cc N n
co M
V
7 an
('J C N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N N W N W W W W W W W W
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O W O O O O d d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w 2
L ° 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 .2 2 2 2 2 o .2 .2 2 .2 o o
o n v v 2 v u; v v 2 u v v v v v v v 2 v v v v 2 2 v v u o o u u
O QQc 99Z� W W N N N N N N N N N W a) W W U W W W W Uu� U N N N N N N N
H L 1 L b & S S S L L L S L L L L L L L L L a r S b 5 5 5 5
W W «) d
U
0 50 l0 tO m m m m m f0 m m m m l0 — N (6 f0
C C C V C C C C C C C C C
O N N N U) N N O N O N N 4) N 0) N 0 0 G1 O �5 N O N O N O N 0 0 0
m
a W
t
Y W o
E 0 O (C 0 a W N C C C U L W m W 0 O L m W L m W O -m 5 N m g y o
C m i ° o ti
E Fm U)co0 m (n
v r W e
rbW °
N W _ S
CC 2 p d C W 0 v ` 0 U V W N U gO C C O Z
v cs d?9io �� �cna�'mc�l c5iE MTH(70
U
E m
r
L C U v N
> ; ° 0- y E ti m E a
c H E cmi d 2= h ti E o a W m a
a)
41 4Q)) °c0WOL- 2302 °m Eayco= Ec 0) ooE o�ccm m csu
m m O O O O U y U W° G L m O N W O ..�., d O m .0 >> O y E L
m m U U_ U O W W y m U d U U W O m '[ U D W U O) N N W m y O C
E C [O E O) (� O L C J D ti E m m m m W '[ U y] ]� >` m% h m m m m
NS �omoF «ah� p °jEEEE me 'm r° m�LF22 FEEEmasuu `oa�`a
U >, E N U h N %% h O E E 0 0 0 0 �. O
�—` E 1-2 ° G E 'n 'n 'n n ,°a $ `° [ a) Zn N 0 C L C N y` O E .� E E Q C m m m y y G G G
C O t„ C a[ 0 o 0 0 0 2 N y0 0) O O O O O V j �O 0` O` A N N 0°) N"` _
N t G. IEO j 0 0 Z. 0 0 t r m 0 0 0 0 C j0 o C E y y W y V V t t '[
u 0.2 UUUJZZZZZa vU2���� �Ov� VU UQJJJJ�� aW W W
rn \
M

an
Cl.
U
O
U
U
N
L].
s
O
O
O O
cis
U N
U
L y
Qi
C�
O
L
4J
Y
� L
CCS N
O c.
N
U �
cz
O�
� U
L �
� O
U �
� O
Ir •�
N �
O U
vi
M
N
H
0
n
ri
M Q
Z
0
r
M p
Z
0
cn
M p
Z
0
W
I,
N p
Z
'O
i�
U
w
U
C
w
O
H
�0
Z
O
E
E
O
U
0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O1 N N M , V) O O) N N E
r M, M N 01 O V (D W N
V)
co Cl) V) O m N w V) Q)
V Q7 N O
M N N a! m N N
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
( 0
N M � a)
O N �2 O
V)
O
(O a0 V] r D) Q) (�
N N (O (O —
C
0 0 0 0 0
co
M N O ��
V
co a0
Cl) V)
r O
N a7
O c° — m
N
a7 O N N
C
O
O O
0) V)
O O
aJ CO O N —
M, M (O -
N
V
N Cl)
N
0
0 0
°
° o 0 0
0 0
V)
aJ a7
O
N LO V)
V) V) V) V)
M
V)
O
I� V1
N aJ O
O O O O
N
1 �
M
co
N V) C2 —
N
— .—
co O
Cl) V)
M
0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O1 N N M , V) O O) N N E
r M, M N 01 O V (D W N
V)
co Cl) V) O m N w V) Q)
V Q7 N O
M N N a! m N N
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
( 0
N M � a)
O N �2 O
V)
O
(O a0 V] r D) Q) (�
N N (O (O —
c0
N
oo 'o
N N a0 a0 V
o C
V O
O c!
0
r-
—
0 0 0 0 0 0
N V aD I- W n
O M O— V) C
N r-
c)
— c0 - m
_c w w w w w w w w w w N w w w w w w w w w w a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O w w 0 O w
�O ) �ooz00000 > - O O d O O O O O > O
O O > > > >
000 o?o o ?oo 000000>
t C
w w€ w w w w w € w w w w U U w a) U w w U w w w w w w a
O a) (A u! V) N N N N N 0 N N N N 0 M 0 0 w 0 N N 0 0 N w U
z = C .90 C C C C C Q C C C C jS CL C C CE C C js .9 .9 C C C C C
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
_@ N �„ a) — a)
'}Q� C p C C C ""pp C C C C
cc C N m N 9j N m (` T N N (` Q
p w w 0
c c c c c c c c F c c c
m O _
Y
0:3 U
w
Y O C C N v 3 3 N N w
p a`) c S fn L O m N 0 O O O. O m i
C' L N w O 1 L 8 w$ t: m
L C C Y L H H O 7 N w 8 a
m N C t N L L D- C N 3 3~ _O N pj C w o C t9
(0 N U y A A O N � C O O C~ 'O m a) = t ((n a� 8 C
Y0
O C w > N U C C O O U
a C �(n��zmc7�m`m m°�m cmr0c
E
E �
Ei
: N U) (n y J N
w awi o? o o c a vi E
w (a c c) w cx a o o �° E rn o t E E c a o 0 0 c m n
Etc m@ °2Eoat )a�iw (woc°'ca >> o - ��.`�a° vo) N�w�
o° E M v E= s n -2 ? •v_ > j m m w v v�` � °_ y o a) ' m m m m� S i
o>E(OV—°i'ao by omo EE�oos���2c wa cLi'v�ivEm w0000 °w`
p o o i s a•_ m m a
`- E° c°°,`;00000m w,2 1) oo`o`O �� °EEo�•o0oo0ccc
otwc cm��00000wc °m oo Eccom"o cEa°iaQc(' �LZt-aZ_w..rw..a a a
ma° VUUJZZZZZa �U29� 1 0(n (n VU U¢JJC aW W W Waco
0
O
O
04
N ^ O
n � N
V)
0
O
O
O 0)
N
0
O
O
O
O)
N V N
V
0
O
CD t M
a0 N N
M
U
E 7 w
U
E= Z w
rna a
c 5 (n
N O O
O w w
aa)
ozz
F°-t° -F
0
N
i
M

bn
Q
0�
Sr
Ri
U
U
O
U
U
N
S].
O
O
�C)
O
Q. N
£+ L
O �
U
O
C O
N
L
O U
-p O
C Q.
O
L
Q
O �
0�
•� s
Lam.
� O
V7
ct O
O U
� O
M
N
F-'
N
N
a
0 N
o r-- O 00 r 01 N M N 1� r O ( W Il- N
O Cl) co O co O co N N O O V O N Cl)
V N
O O O Cl) V V — (+) (D Z N Cl) M W lO
lO
0 0 0
o o 0 0
0 ° 0 0 0 0
o M (O (O O N 00 r V O
Cl)�v 00 cc) 00) 0)m (O °o
Z Ln 'T W N 0) N o0 W O V M
N N (O
N
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
o M 1— 00 N N — V V (O 0) I-- r C V (O N 0) O M M N O
00 N O O N 0 0 m O O O N N M O N 0 O
cn M 01
O N N V) N M iA O (D 00 aD V LO M M N 0) (p
(•m7 N O N V N N (O N N M V 7 O) M (C V N
L r
0
O
0 00 (O Co 01 co O) V M (D (O f— O (O O 00 O— O (D O
O (D — 0) N 0) O N O V N O N •- .- .- M N— N O O
rn 00
C w co O V N N 00 (D Cl) O� N (n L V
z r 00 N V N co (D N r co N (O M M N
v
i�
V
C7 m
° `o `o 0 0 0 0 0 `o `o `o o `o o o `o `o `0 0 0 0 0
L O > > O O > > > > > O > > > > > O ,> > O O > > > > > > >
CL •` U U U U U U U U U U U U >
O C N N S N N N N N C N N N N U) U N N U U N N N N N N N
F Z M C C o o C C C C C O C C C C C � C C�� C C C C C C C
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U (0 0 (0 (0 (0 (0 — N — N (0 (0 (0 (0 @ �, (0 (0 �, N �•
C 'p
10 70 70 'p 'p C U C 'O U "O C V C 'O C 'O C U C 'O C C C
` C 07 07 C 0C� 0C� 0C� 01 l0 C 07 01 N N N N
y U1 N N N N N N N N N
O « N
Y Y Y N N O 0) O U) N N O N O N O N O N O N 0 0 0
F C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
N �
U
Y O
0) J N C
7j CO
N y v N y m
C m O U) L N C C C 'Y Q L N m O) g a o m 4)
N C U ,0�
O C (n — C `6 , 0) L L n� 7 C 3 �Q m C ( Npp
E Fu C d .O C N O N a 'O -0 -T m U N t 0 N 1�� 0) O
u c� a'c��(��n �(2 S Fa (S a aam (n cD9 m9c�o
E J U
J
m m°° o ur h'y N m h z �'z ` N o m U
U J J +J. N N > N
N aNi o 'c o L� aci c a m E '� t co t E U ° h m o (mi m 0) -o
(� c o N 4 C� ° 2° E rn o E Q y U o c o G c m m r- 5 (n
E' I a m m° v 0 v° U h y m (°� a w I a° 2 U 0) N ai m U) o 0
NS �omoEo�'cxU) � :3ZE, °c mr''mEp'S EEEEmasim oa�`N
h Q) o rn° y w v E m 'z o o :? t N o u Q h h d o 0 0 0° m m u
-E 50c= mE0000(00NC000`oa�m — °EEoo 0000ccc mz'z'
c ow E 0 U� kkk 0° o x x a :tz r o� � N NNN 'o v v
m ram��000000t m�ooEc ocEmm °U�wGGw`NN``N
U) a. 0 Jzzzzzzauuxi�U) u u awwwwaaa FFF

an
C
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m m w
0 0
O
0 0 0
O o o
0
w
0 o
u� w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
v u> o r- m r` m
0
(�
c
V
ID M M r Y1 .- V V'
O
f� N
Ol O N O O (D
p
p
Vj
1!'1
M D) o O V O
N N
O
O O O
fo-
O
7 t`7 O V' O
p
p
fr
�
O
O
O
m O N N O N
r
.- r
c0 O
O m N N
N �O M 7
M o n
Z
N
m M N V
r-
f�
� r
0
0 0 0 0
0 C r 0
0 0 0
C 0 0 0
0
U
u
M
N t`
t` N r
N
N N
p
U
O
r
N
f-
W 1� fn N
r' N O r
N aD N O
r r- t` O
V O co
N 0
a0 O) D) V
N
p
O
r
r
p
U
cc
to
U
0
c•]
N M
aD OD r
co N
N 0
O O v
Z
n
N
2
o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o o
0 o
0
0 0 0 0
o 0 0 c 0 0 0
0
L'
�
�
e
a0
a0
W M (D Q) 1� 0 CO M N
a0 � 0 N r O N O�
O O 1 10 0
0 0 � r O
CO —
N �
O
N
0 O N
O O O N
m w N m CO W
lh (D N (h N O 40
M 0 0
p
O
l0
V .- fD M N 0 M N O
�
O N O O O
O O
O
t` 0 0
O— N '-
p
O
Q
�.
O
V
M m N� 0- N N tD
.-- (D
N
V'
O
M M 00 N O O N
o
�V n
O
.y
Z
N
�
co
r1
0
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m M O N O N
0 0 0
t` n N
0
r
0
m
o 0
co R
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r O m (") c
0
.�
O
e
a)
N
CI 'N'T r mO M N (O
N o M D
0—q N
O O
O
0
a
O
t` �
co
0
m N r M M O M
O N 1 0 0
p
p
Q N
A N N
O
p
U
LO
U
M a0
0 1�
(r ap D)
0°D r [�
C
r
O E r M
N M
N
th
N m W N N
N n
d.i
Q.. U
'Q
'O
(C
m m m m
m m
m m m m m m m
U
2 O 2 O o o o o
O
0 0 0 0
O O �% d O
O
O O d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q L'
L
O > > O > > > > >
a >
U U
O > > > >
> a a a
_ U
> > ° o >
a sa
U U U
>
° > > °
0 u?
> > > > > > U >
� _+ a
a a a a
U U U U U U
U O
^
a
O
U U U U
m m m m m
U U U
N N N N
C C C
m m m
m
C
U m m U
m m m m m m m
C C C C C
i
SL
E
Q C C
Q C
C C L EL- C
rL C c jL
C C
a /1
O
N
N N N N N N N
N N N 0
N N
N
N
N N
1--1
0
N
m co co N N l0 N
N N N l0
l0 N
N
N
(0 N
C
V
'O 'O 'O V V C C •O
'O V 'O 'O
C C C
"O
'O
C 'O C
C
C C C C C C C C C
F C C C C
C C C C G
C
C C C
C C C C C C C
tl--�
m
p
m
J
m m
U m
t
X 3 'o U
y y
d
b�A y
E
"
° y a`' r
to a�i a
v 3.2
°
N
U GA
o
S t4 r 0
0 a m c
'03' K z
r v
o o
FF 0
) m
r
8 088 cs
.� VJ
c
O
m
C
U) m c
(n — C O U1 L L d cC
` m
o''00
?r 3 i- f °
c')
�
y
1p m
C N cm
N C N
p, cC
E
�°
m :° m y v y
m m c
o o c c Y
m_
c �Q `m g
`Y°
C) x
E
C
°
an d C Vl O.
c m° d
m L Y m
C U v
c c 3 3 0
m
Y 0—
o v m
m V 0) m
° c
U
O
c
yN >m Z m p y R
O N Q
�Ztn
N f0 0 0 0
O m 0>
c _
f0 m Z
U
(5 t/l�9
m(.7
d'd'a0mm
2
m
co
� U
O
U v>
oc
? m 0 � m
o
°m iE n y y E
0 ° ao �
y m y y
y o
U
m E
v
� � 4
o
o c y
:
E E
v o
o
CL
°c 0
c° a � o
a 0)o0.0
`o G
�S '
c
c ur
c -ym
o9
c 5
v
°
11 10
o
mQ
U 'O
E
0 N
M
r
c
`ao
U
O
0
o
o
o E °E
m ! cti
? E E E
m c
o2
E E E Eo
0 � a
%0y
Em
o
°m"'
U
Ec10S`
«
00
°-
: E o e
0 0o
m �
r
0 0
M 0
m
E
c m
m
c E
t
w w t `m
a
m a
a
UUzzzzz
UEU° g��
�
-a C) 0c y�m y�tc n
VU
V¢��� awwwwaaa
FFO
U
FC
C�
N
N
ch

M '
0
0
M N OD r co a0
10 m
00
N N 1T
r m 1- N (O
o
1
0
0
0
(C)�I- MM � �
m o
N O
C
C
m� V
O O O
o
�aov. - oo
V (O O V
o
O
M
=
n
r
•
M
ti.
0
co
0) m n Oho O O
N- O N
w)
O
1-
V N co
O o (n m m
06 N (O
(^O o) O
r- O N
-
N N (n
V
-
r
M
L
o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
m V M
O (O c
N 4� 47 Cl)
( Cl)
M M
Cl)
M N7 N
o
co
N O M O
N � CO
N r- O
V W (n -
O O
- -
V N N
00 00
O
O
CI
O
0
OD N(N M
V OD (O -
--
00 OD
r
d
O
�
U
�
cn
d
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
' J
(n
O
o(oov0) oo(no
OD N m M M m Cl) 1- Cl)
n n
M r
o
-
(n oao
M M M m
(n(n(o LO m
(O O V V O - -
0
o
00 Cl) m V' 0 0 0 0
O
N
V O 0 o
V M M- N O
N
O
O
u
S)
Lr
c"
M
C
m
10 N- (O N n N
m
N N N co
aD
r
O N
Z
M
M^ N N^
ED
O _
0 0
•^ �y
0
r
DO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(l7 O M (17 M (17 (17 I-
M O r M N DO V' M
0 0
m N
V
0
N
0
N
0 0
W
'7 M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m 1- M r T N 1-
V 00 t f� O M
o
o
' VI %-•
c
(n M V O m 0 LO (O
N
N O
O
O
co
N V N a o
N
O
o
� O
N
E
A
O Q
Q
ll7
M ap N m 1� C (17
V' M co 1- N V T
O
N
du
N
O tl7 (O I� C
N M M
m
O co
N
0-
U U
N
N
'
mm w w w w w w
mmmm
o o `o
may
`o o
a�
may
va�a�mmmm
`o `o `o 0 0 0 6
O
t
w
o z z o z? z z z>
o.z ?> z
2?
Z
o? Z o
u
v v
u
>_ u z
u u u u u
O
ocp
N N€ N C) N U1 N D)
€ N N N N
N N
N
U N N U
N N
N W W N a) N N
N N N N N
C C C C C
C C C C
C C
C
� C C �
C C C C C c
9 _
O ^
..•
... .... «. .... .... ... .J
... .-. .J ....
.J
.J
... .a
N
�
19 @ (0 (0 m r m (0
'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O
(0 (0 (0 (0
'O 'O 'O 'O
C C
m
(U
N N .J .+ r
C
C
o C C
lo
.N
!
R ! d d O
F-
>
m
Y
Fty
9
t
�
U ID
Qj
• bQ bQ
d
J
O
N N
N C t 3
j N
N 40I O
y U
7 w
C
w y
C
{gyp
(O d
U N
C L L VJ O
N o O L
O
a
73
(n
N S r
m
O u) D N C C Ll
V L L o
p j
U
y �Q
O
�..
E
m
m y (n (n o
VJ C
p
'O
m N= Q
f.O�.
C N "00 C N If
O
C
N O. U N N Y
0`
N L Y d
1D Y
N
pl =
u
(U6 7
C C O O g cl)
C
7
C j C j N N>
N
C O
U 'O 7
C m j
F-
c3 ag(n (�c�
�am(D
12 F0
0 2 9 13 0
bn �,
O
E
z3
O
_
s
m m o h c h m o
a m c
h
�
°
> o
N U
mom'
i a' -3 u o u
ocuc,:) �E
u
Ern�'o
Ec
Quo°
w m
� cm m
c °(n
O
E
E
t
c o
y
y� m
m m m m�
06
L)
iE�n�uhhhhh0�E0000a
=w
ymy0000mmm
�`mo
M
•`-
E >o,
c a c c E c a n Q m
c y m m c
y�vn=
m ti `
o E E n m
'O
h h o m c c c
d
N
C
O`
O O o 0 0 C 0 y
m 0 0 0 0
EcT'D"o
0 N
'O O
�Emm�
O O O
O O O O
Z Z
2D
t;
am°�oa000°icaEi.°•m�°000
cU
��wwwa
a�a
�o�om
u
awe
TUUJ22222aco mUx���
AOU
d¢JJSc
cIW
W W W aaa
0 0 0
ma
u u
N
0 v
a
F-�F

5.. -0
O
-2-0
W
r
O
Oto
cz
Q'.0
�l
-0
cr
co
00
co
E
co
0
U')
n
C14
AA, A
Ai
5-
oq
qFp
I
-0
VXC'4
O;ZR
O
C'
'Cei"Jl a
OF
-4" dFw'`
(0
(D O
C'4
co
CN
""a
m C
CN
0
Pj
0
>
00'
ae g-
? -
0
cl)
am, (cl)
cq
L
F a),
U-),
":t
LO
c
04 C: 'of
CD m
k(2
OQ
oq C\'
CV
c) c
U)'�
(1)
6�
C L)
C4' U)' C.'i
ecl,%4
CO Lc
c
;L-.
'F C'4 02) ,
m m
C ')
a)
Co.
Lo c C=;
u) k
q_-m
co
00
C'j a) (1)
(D C
00 co
1-: r,:
to
cn
J-D U)
't
CD
L)
4 .
a). —%1E
n U)
ON
" (D
-0 U)
CD
a),=It
(D—o U)
(i)
U)
0
:3 a)
(1)
U)
(1) =3
(n =•
:3 -
r- '(Uj)) c
U) I.Cun)
=3 -
(n �c C
W —
r.a)
cn
CL)-
(n "cc
CU CO Cl
En. C)
>
0
13
0
Qm
"CT
Co
C14 —
— C) 0
CO ) )
U)
UX
>, N
ca C)
>1
U')
n
C14
AA, A
Ai
5-
oq
qFp
I
-0
O;ZR
O
-a
OF
C')
(0
(D O
C'4
co
CN
'
m C
U)
0
a- R
>
25 co
ae g-
? -
C (D "' .
cl)
am, (cl)
-W
L
F a),
U-),
":t
LO
c
04 C: 'of
CD m
k(2
OQ
oq C\'
CV
c) c
U)'�
.(D f
6�
U)
44,
C4' U)' C.'i
ecl,%4
CN a)
KU)• 2
m m
;(D a
a)
(D
Lo c C=;
u) k
q_-m
co
00
C'j a) (1)
(D C
00 co
1-: r,:
to
cn
'a),
't
�T
N
ON
CD
a),=It
cr
0
!7n
U) I.Cun)
CU CO Cl
au,
0
C C
Co
C14 —
— C) 0
CO ) )
U)
UX
>, N
ca C)
>1
my
2
2
0 >
0*
ACO
0
o
U')
n
C14
AA, A
Ai
gzo
M�
-0
O;ZR
O
-a
OF
C')
(0
(D O
C'4
co
CN
'
m C
U)
0
a- R
>
25 co
ae g-
? -
U')
n
C14
cC
co u co u
0 0 0 2 0
",t
AA, A
Ai
-0
O;ZR
O
0-0
OF
�' C
C'i
co
CN
'
m C
CN ^ 0
0)
a- R
R"A
ae g-
? -
C (D "' .
cl)
am, (cl)
(P C) �
L
F a),
m
":t
LO
c
04 C: 'of
CD m
T.
ce) I
OQ
oq C\'
CV
c) c
U)'�
.(D f
6�
U)
44,
C4' U)' C.'i
U)
CN a)
KU)• 2
m m
;(D a
a)
(D
u) k
cc
co
cu
(D C
tT
co cu
to
cn
CL c
c
C-1 o
(D
a)
cr
!7n
co
cC
co u co u
0 0 0 2 0
",t
AA, A
Ai
O;ZR
O
�
�' C
C'i
q m
m C
CN ^ 0
0)
a- R
R"A
ae g-
? -
C (D "' .
U-) :E (
(P C) �
--5�'- I - ,
, 01-
U) (
U) C
(0 N* U), c
co CN c
cl U)
.(D f
(D
f -
-0 CO _
CN a)
KU)• 2
m m
;(D a
a)
u) k
(D c
co
(D C
C C
CL c
c
C
cr
!7n
co
00 E
0
C C
2 C
C14 —
— C) 0
CO ) )
E >
>, N
N >
>1
",t

N
i.
z
w
Q
U
.O
'O
N
C
U
'O
cd
c�
N
U
bA
C
0
U
'O
N
c�
U
O
C�
'G
C
cC
U)
bA
C
s.
U O
•L O
� N
E
�w4
4 0
U_
O ZZ
C� >
N aI
U
i N
N rj
N
O �
C N
O
O
a. 2
M-
M
_U
4T
U
N
to C
.O. \°
� o
in
U
L
Q N
O N
w C
O >
0
N S
C +
E
O C
U .>
c
E
O
QI
C
U
C
f`6
_N
O
C
0
.3
0
a.
0
00
LO
0
O
M
O
0
Nr
O
0
O
LO
r—
M
0
LO
00
0
0
O
v
0
O
LO
A
O
0
O
v
C
C
w
_
O
f6
m
cm
LU
N
to
O
N
O
•O
M
C
N
Al
N
O
«
Q
c
m
O
O
to
Z
w �
O
n
rn rn N
O N
cn
N u,
Z
c :? ;0 c
U N
T
c u�
f6 O
0 0
O N
w � VI n
O "O N
c
o
Lr-
R
a
M
C
w
_
O
Z
m
cm
LU
O
N
W
p O
Z (n
U
U) N
0 m
Z
c
m
Z
w �
O
�
n
rn rn N
O N
cn
N u,
I @ c
c :? ;0 c
U N
T
N O
T w
�
m
M

Table 3 -11. Summary of pollution tolerance rating and the number of Intolerant fish species
collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro
Project, 2008, 2010, and 2011.
Year
Tolerance rating
27.5
31.6
River Mile
31.8
33.7
2008
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%
No. intolerant species
11
11
4
6
2010
Tolerant
0.00%
0.42%
23.76%
0.00%
Intermediate
65.28%
72.83%
56.66%
88.78%
Intolerant
34.72%
26.75%
19.58%
11.22%
No. intolerant species
9
9
5
6
2011
Tolerant
0.07%
0.27%
15.46%
0.07%
Intermediate
65.26%
69.37%
53.62%
87.87%
Intolerant
34.66%
30.35%
30.92%
12.06%
No. intolerant species
10
9
6
10
3 -26

Table 3 -12. Summary of trophic status of fish collected at four sampling locations on the
Tuckasegee
River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008,
2010,
and 2011. Non -
feeding species
are solely represented by the mountain
brook lamprey.
River Mile
Year
Trophic status
27.5
31.6
31.8
33.7
2008
Non - feeding
1.09%
0.18%
0.26%
1.34%
Herbivore
9.53%
4.81%
0.00%
3.40%
Omnivore
22.80%
10.44%
9.50%
28.20%
Insectivore
62.21%
74.37%
40.11%
64.28%
Piscivore
4.37%
10.21%
50.13%
2.78%
2010
Non - feeding
0.74%
1.40%
0.26%
1.26%
Herbivore
5.42%
3.95%
0.00%
3.97%
Omnivore
24.83%
25.92%
11.49%
23.84%
Insectivore
62.25%
61.35%
69.97%
67.79%
Piscivore
6.75%
7.38%
18.28%
3.13%
2011
Non - feeding
2.32%
5.32%
1.45%
2.71%
Herbivore
3.70%
3.48%
0.97%
1.58%
Omnivore
20.30%
25.85%
20.77%
21.77%
Insectivore
67.30%
58.32%
50.24%
72.22%
Piscivore
6.38%
7.03%
26.57%
1.72%
3 -27

M
I'V
J
C
Figure 3 -1. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River minnows collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project in 2008: (A) central stoneroller Campostoma
anomalum, (B) warpaint shiner Luxilus coccogenis, and (C) fatlips minnow
Phenacobius crassilabrum.
3 -28

A
38
A
Figure 3 -2. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River darters collected in the vicinity
of the Dillsboro Project in 2008: (A) greenfin darter Etheostoma
chlorobranchium, (B) Tuckasegee darter E. guttselli, and (C) banded darter E.
zonale.
3 -29

Figure 3 -3. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010: (A) river chub Nocomis micropogon,
(B) gilt darter Percina evides, and (C) wounded darter Etheostoma vulneratum.
3 -30

A
B
C
o
Figure 3 -4. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2011: (A) mottled sculpin Cottus bairdii, (B) northern
hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans, and (C) river redhorse Moxostoma
carinatum.
3 -31

M
W
C
Figure 3 -5. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2011: (A) telescope shiner Notropis telescopus, (B)
tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca, and (C) rock bass Ambloplites rupestris
3 -32

A"
RM 27.5 RM 31.6
RM 31.8
RM 33.7
RM 27.5
RM 31.6
RM 31.8
RM 33.7
■ Catostomidae ■ Centrarchidae LI Cottidae F—] Cypdnidae
■ Percidae El Petromyzontidae ■ Salmonidae
Figure 3 -6. 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 -33

A
RM 27.5
RM 31.6
RM 31.8
RM 33.7
RM 27.5
RM 31.6
RM 31.8
RM 33.7
■ Catostomidae ■ Centrarchidae ® Cottidae ❑ Cyprinidae
■ Percidae El Petromyzontidae ■ Salmonidae
Figure 3 -7. 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, 2010.
3 -34

A
RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
W.
RM 27.5 RM 31.6
RM 31.8 RM 33.7
■ Catostomidae ■ Centrarchidae ■ Cottidae ❑ Cypdnidae
■ Percidae EJ Petromyzontidae ■ Salmonidae
Figure 3 -8. 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, 2011.
3 -35

35
30
25
20
E
z 15
10
5
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r, oo m o .-1 N m V u1 LD r,
1-4 �q 1-1 -4
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -9. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mountain brook
lampreys collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 5 -mm
interval includes the axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
140
120
100
80
E
z 60
40
20
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M In r� M + m Ln n am + m
r4 N N N 1-1 N N
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -10. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all central stonerollers
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 10 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the nine whole numbers less than it.
3 -36

500
450
400
350
300
Q)
E 250
z 200
150
100
50
0
Figure 3 -1
1.
N M V M l0 1, 00 M O N M d'
r-I N N N N
Length group (mm)
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all warpaint shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 5 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
700 -t-
600
500
400
v
E
Z 300
200
100
0
Q 0 X0/1 b O^ 0 0 ° 0 N 0 °e 0 O n W O g 0 N m 0
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -12. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all river chubs collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 10 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the nine whole numbers less than it.
3 -37

300
250
200
v
E 150
3
z
100
50
Figure 3 -13
90
80
70
60
50
E
z 40
30
20
10
0
N N T M a O Co Ln Ln LO ID ID n l^O W
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -14. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mirror shiners collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 2 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the one whole number less than it.
0 00 N °m m m v v Ln Ln Ln ID W r- n � Co cc� °m
Length group (mm)
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all Tennessee shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 2 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the one whole number less than it.
3 -38

Figure 3 -15
Q)
E
z
z
50
40
T
W
10
0
Length group (mm)
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all fatlips minnows
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 4 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the three whole numbers less than it.
120
100
80
L
Q)
E 60
z
40
20
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M Ln ^ .� 0 N m M -4 1-4 4 -N N N N M rn m
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -16. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all northern hog suckers
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 10 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the nine whole numbers less than it.
3 -39

70
60
50
a`, 40
E
z 30
20
10
0
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln to
ni m v to o n oo m
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -17. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mottled sculpins
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 5 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
90
80
70
60
50
E
Z 40
30
20
10
0
a W n W O ° N M a W W O W O ° ° M °
rn W M ^M a Ln W
N N N N
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -18. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all rock bass collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 10 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the nine whole numbers less than it.
3 -40

100
90
80
70
60
v
E 50
Z 40
30
20
10
0
o V o Ln o m O^ DOl Ln O O Oq Ln ON N Om
H H N N N N s-1
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -19. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all Tuckasegee darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 5 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
30
25
20
v
.n
E 15
z
10
5
0
O '7 00 N lD O C 00 N lD O V 00
t+1 m M V V Ln Ln in ID �D t` r, n
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -20. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all wounded darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 2 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the one whole number less than it.
3 -41

140
120
100
80
E
z� 60
40
20
0
4 ° N N a a C kD �
m m Ln Ln W ID n Co
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -21. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all gilt darters collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Each 2 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the one whole number less than it.
3 -42

LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, JM. 2009. Duke Energy's Tuckasegee River freshwater mussel relocation
project: June 2009 mussel monitoring. Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.
Pittsboro, NC. 38 p.
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.
Etnier, DA and WC Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN. 681 p.
Hubbs, C. 1985. Darter reproductive seasons. Copeia 1985:56 -68.
Jenkins RE and NM Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD. 1079 p.
Lennon, RE and PS Parker. 1960. The stoneroller, Campostoma anomalum (Rafinesque), in
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 89:263 -270.
Menhinick, EF. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 p.
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 macro invertebrates. 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.pdo. NCDENR, Division
of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation, NC Natural Heritage Program.
Raleigh, NC.
L -1

NCDENR. 2011. Basinwide assessment report: Little Tennessee River basin (in parts).
May 2011. NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section.
Raleigh, NC.
Outten, LM. 1957. A study of the life history of the cyprinid fish Notropis coccogenis.
Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Society. 73:68 -84.
Outten, LM. 1962. Some observations on the spawning coloration and behavior of Notropis
leuciodus. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Society. 78:101 -102.
L -2