The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20030179 Ver 9_Monitoring Report_20130520Strickland, Bev From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments For 2003 -0179 v9 Thanks - Karen Higgins, Karen Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:47 AM Strickland, Bev FW: Dillsboro Pebble Count/Nickel Report Dillsboro Dam Pebble Count—Nickel Final Report 5_13_2013.pdf Karen Higgins Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater - Compliance & Permitting Unit NCDENR - Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 Phone: (919) 807 -6360 Email: karen.higgins @ncdenr.gov Website: http: / /Portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /swp /ws /webscape E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Barwick, Hugh [ mailto: Hugh. Barwick(a)duke- energy.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:30 AM To: Higgins, Karen Cc: Barnett, Kevin; Goudreau, Chris J.; Mark Cantrell (mark a cantrell(a)fws.gov); Johnson, Steven R; Fragapane, Phil Subject: Dillsboro Pebble Count /Nickel Report Ms Higgins: Attached is a report entitled "Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project's Pre- and Post -Dam Removal Pebble Counts and Nickel Analyses from the Tuckasegee River" as required by the 401 Water Quality Certification. If you have questions or concerns regarding it, please do not hesitate to let me know. Hugh Barwick Duke Energy Water Strategy & Hydro Licensing 704.382.0805 afl DUKE ENERGY. LWAMME Lope mom EMIM VANIXAVAMIIWA� OMM Duke Energy 526 South Street 171 JMM�,M'Otowll Subject: Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project's Pre- and Post-Dam Removal Pebble Counts anit' Nickel Analyses from the Tuckase•ee River The above report is enclosed as required • the 401 Water Quality Certification (401 WQC) with Additional Comments dated November 21, 2007, as modified on April 13, 2010, for Duke Energy's Dillsboro Dam Removal Project (Jackson County, DWQ # 2003-0179, version 9; FERC Project No, 2602). This report completes a portion • the 401 WQC Conditions (Paragraph 7, Monitoring, Section e; Paragraph 9). If you have questions or concerns regarding this report, please do not hesitate to give me a c at 704/382-0805. 1 gs= DILLSBORO DAM AND POWERHOUSE REMOVAL PROJECT — PRE- AND POST -DAM REMOVAL PEBBLE COUNTS AND NICKEL ANALYSES FROM THE TUCKASEGEE RIVER FERC# 2602 Principal Investigators: John E. Derwort James J. Hall DUKE ENERGY Corporate EHS Services McGuire Environmental Center 13339 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078 May 2013 1 � The author wishes to express gratitude to the individuals who made significant contributions to this report. First, I am indebted to the Environmental Services field staff for their dedicated sampling efforts and data analysis that provides the foundation of this report. James Hall, Shannon McCorkle, Aileen Lockhart, Jan Williams, David Horne, and Ben Lastra were vital contributors in completing the sampling process. Shannon McCorkle and James Hall contributed in data analysis and report preparation. We would also like to thank multiple reviewers; including Hugh Barwick, Dave Coughlan, Duane Harrell, Shannon McCorkle, and Sherry Reid. The insightful commentary and suggestions from these individuals have benefited the report in numerous ways. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... IV LISTOF TABLES ................................................................................................................. VII LISTOF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. Vll —'------'--''--^'^^^'~^~^^—~^--------~^^^~---------------- SAMPLING LOCATIONS ----------------------------------. 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 1 PebbleCounts .................................................................................................................... 4 Nickel Analysis --------------------------------------7 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 8 LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................................... L-1 On July 19, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order Accepting Surrender And Dismissing Application For Subsequent License clearing the way for the removal of the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse (FERC # 2602) on the Tuckasegee River, Jackson County, NC. Pursuant to this order, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issued a 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions (November 21, 2007) as amended on April 13, 2010 (Second Modification) for dam and powerhouse removal. This certification required at least two seasonal pebble counts to be conducted in conjunction with the aquatic macro invertebrate collections from the Tuckasegee River before and after dam removal. In addition, the approved Water Quality and Environmental Monitoring Programs required post -dam removal monitoring of nickel concentrations in sediment. Inasmuch as dam demolition was originally scheduled for early 2009, pebble counts and macroinvertebrate sampling were initiated in 2008 at four locations in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse, two sampling locations upstream of the dam and two downstream. In 2008, pebble counts were performed and reported in 2009 by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA) and in 2010, 2011, and 2012 pebble counts were conducted by Duke Energy. Sediment samples were collected in 2010, 2011, and 2012 from two locations (RMs 31.6 and 31.8) for nickel concentrations. Pre- and post -dam removal differences among the DTA and Duke Energy riverine locations were difficult to determine due to considerable year -to -year and season -to- season variability of substrate types. One observable difference was an increase in boulder /bedrock substrates at all three locations, ranging from 3.0% to 16.0 %. DTA did not have a location comparable to the old reservoir location (RM 31.8) monitored by Duke Energy. During the three -year post -dam removal monitoring, considerable variability was also observed at the riverine locations. Fine sand particulates (< 2 mm) showed long -term declines at all three riverine locations sampled from spring 2010 to fall 2012. Percentages of decline were: Location RM 27.5, 9.0 %, Location 31.6, 27.5 %, and Location 33.7, 11.0 %. The old reservoir location (RM 31.8) also showed a notable decline of 25.0% from spring 2010 to fall 2012. Very fine to fine gravel particulates (2 to < 8 mm) demonstrated long -term increases (9% to 22.0 %) at all but Location RM 33.7, where a decrease of 0.5% was observed between spring 2010 and fall 2012. Medium to very coarse gravels (8 to < 32 mm) declined at Locations RM 27.5 and RM 31.8 by 16.5% and 11.5 %, respectively over the three -year period. At Locations RM 31.6 and RM 33.7, medium to very coarse gravels iv Some variations in substrate distribution were observed between spring and fall periods of 2008 and 2010 — 2012. At Locations RM 27.5/27.3 and RM 33.7/33.6 seasonal variations in V monitoring effort and all concentrations for samples collected in fall 2010, and spring and fall of 2011 and 2012 were below the highest nickel concentration reported by USFWS. v Ib7� 1 River mile designations represent the sampling locations in the Tuckasegee River upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and Little Tennessee rivers and associated descriptions relative to the Dillsboro Dam, and GPS coordinates.......................................................................................... .............................10 2 Percentage of each particle size (mm) classification and major grouping from pebble counts from spring and fall 2008 at DTA Location 27.3 and spring and fall periods of 2010 through 2012 at Duke Energy Location 27. 5 ..... .............................11 3 Percentage of each particle size (mm) classification and major grouping from pebble counts from spring and fall 2008 at DTA Location 31.6 and spring and fall periods of 2010 through 2012 at Duke Energy Location 31. 6 ..... .............................13 4 Percentage of each particle size (mm) classification and major grouping from pebble counts at Location RM 31.8 from spring 2010 to fall 2012 .... .............................15 5 Percentage of each particle size (mm) classification and major grouping from pebble counts from spring and fall 2008 at DTA Location 33.6 and spring and fall periods of 2010 through 2012 at Duke Energy Location 33. 7 ..... .............................16 Vii Ii ff";" I Sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River, Jackson County, NC, near the DillsboroProject .............................................................................................................. 19 2 Dillsboro Project on the Tuckaseegee River in the Town of Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC (photo taken May 2008) . ............................................................................. 20 3 Site of the demolished Dillsboro Project on the Tuckasegee River in the Town of Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC (photo taken November 2010) . ..................................... 21 4 Tuckasegee River flows associated with pebble count collections in the spring 2008, 2010, 2011 and June 2012 (depicting daily average flows for USGS Station 03510577 at Barkers Creek, NQ . ....................................................................... 22 5 Tuckasegee River flows associated with pebble count collections in the fall 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 (depicting daily average flows for USGS Station 03510577 at Barkers Creek, NQ ..................................................................................... 23 6 Cumulative frequency curve of pebble count data collected from Location RM 27.5 from spring 2010 to fall 2012 . ................................................................................. 24 7 Cumulative frequency curve of pebble count data collected from Location RM 31.6 from spring 2010 to fall 2012 . ................................................................................. 25 8 Cumulative frequency curve of pebble count data collected from Location RM 31.8 from spring 2010 to fall 2012 . ................................................................................. 26 9 Cumulative frequency curve of pebble count data collected from Location RM 33.7 from spring 2010 to fall 2012 . ................................................................................. 27 10 Cumulative pebble count at all locations averaged for all sampling periods from spring2010 to fall 2012 . .................................................................................................. 28 11 Pebble counts averaged for all spring and fall periods from 2008 to 2012 at LocationRM 27.5 ............................................................................................................ 29 12 Pebble counts averaged for all spring and fall periods from 2008 to 2012 at LocationRM 31.6 . ........................................................................................................... 30 13 Pebble counts averaged for all spring and fall periods from 2010 to 2012 at LocationRM 31.8 ............................................................................................................ 31 viii LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure Title Page 14 Pebble counts averaged for all spring and fall periods from 2008 to 2012 at LocationRM 33.7 ............................................................................................................ 32 W On July 19, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the removal of the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse on the Tuckasegee River in the Town of Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC. The Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project (FERC# 2602) was located at RM 31.7 on the Tuckasegee River (Figure 1) and consisted of a 310 ft. long and 12 ft. high low head concrete dam built in 1913, a small two-unit hydroelectric powerhouse, and a run-of- the-river reservoir with a surface area of about 15 ac and approximate length of 0.8 mi (Figure 2). The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and the FERC outlined procedures and monitoring requirements associated with dam and powerhouse demolition in an approved Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions (November 21, 2007) as amended on April 13, 2010 (Second Modification) and Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse Removal Water Quality and Environmental Monitoring Programs (2008), respectively. The removal of the dam was originally scheduled for early 2009, but due to litigation conflicts with Jackson County, NC, it was delayed until 2010 (Duke Energy 2011). Before the dam removal process could be initiated, the sediment behind the dam was removed, and the demolition of the powerhouse superstructure was completed. The sediment removal process was initiated on September 22, 2009 and completed on January 4, 2010. Demolition of the powerhouse superstructure began on January 18, 2010 and was completed on January 21, 2010 (Duke Energy 2012). The demolition of the dam and removal of the powerhouse substructure commenced on February 3, 2010 and the overall project, including shoreline restorations, was completed by July 15, 2010 (Figure 3). As requested by NCDWQ, Duke Energy began monitoring the biological communities (benthic macroinvertebrates and fish) in the Tuckasegee River to evaluate the effects of the dam removal on these communities. In conjunction with the biological sampling program, NCDWQ also required in the 401 Water Quality Certification that pebble counts be performed at the same locations as benthic macroinvertebrate sampling (DTA 2009). Sampling was initiated in May 2008 to acquire baseline data and evaluate the biological communities and sediment structure before dam removal (Duke Energy 2009). When possible, Tuckasegee River flows were coordinated with the upstream hydroelectric project operations to allow sampling under low-flow conditions. Daily average river flows were taken from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) station (03510577) at Barkers Creek, NC (Figures 4 and 5). Sampling resumed in May 2010 after dam removal and continued through 2012 (no biological sampling or pebble counts were performed in 2009). 1 Sediment samples were also collected from two locations in spring and fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 for nickel concentration determination by Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA). SAMPLING LOCATIONS Pebble counts were conducted in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 in conjunction with the macroinvertebrate sampling program at four locations (two upstream and two downstream of the dam) in the Tuckasegee River. Locations are designated in river miles (RM) upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and Little Tennessee rivers (Table 1 and Figure 1). In 2008, prior to dam removal, DTA conducted pebble counts at four locations: RM 27.3 (upstream of Barkers Creek), RM 31.6 (downstream of the Dillsboro Dam), RM 33.2, (downstream of Savannah Creek), and RM 33.6 (upstream of Savannah Creek). During 2010 — 2012, Duke Energy conducted pebble counts at RM 27.5 (downstream of the dam near Barkers Creek Bridge and close to DTA's RM 27.3), RM 31.6 (tailrace just downstream of the dam before and after dam removal and in the same area as DTA's RM 31.6), RM 31.8 (upstream of the dam in the Dillsboro Reservoir), and RM 33.7 (upstream of the Savannah Creek confluence, close to DTA's RM 33.6). The DTA location, RM 33.2 was the only one that did not reasonably coincide with a Duke Energy location. The other three DTA locations (RM's 27.3, 31.6, and 33.6) will be compared with corresponding Duke Energy locations. Prior to the dam removal in 2010, locations RM 27.5, RM 31.6, and RM 33.7 were referred to as riverine locations, as were the corresponding DTA locations, and RM 31.8 as a reservoir location. Since the dam removal, location RM 31.8 can be considered riverine. However, between RM 31.8 and the former location of the dam, there is a natural rock barrier which acts as a hydraulic control structure (middle of picture in Figure 3 on right side where whitewater is coming over the top of the rocks). Sediment samples were collected from RM 31.6 and RM 31.8 for determination of nickel concentrations. MATERIALS AND METHODS Pebble count data were collected in May (spring) and October (fall) of 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 (note that spring sampling 2012 took place in June rather than May) at all four sampling locations and were measured using the Wolman Pebble Count Procedure (Wolman 1954). This procedure was used to randomly select 200 particles of sediment (sand, gravel, cobble, or boulder) from a selected transect at each location across the Tuckasegee River using the K step -toe method. During these investigations, transacts were selected within the areas where macroinvertebrate samples were collected. Particles were selected by stepping into the river and, while averting the eyes, picking up the first sediment particle touched by the index finger next to the big toe. Each particle was measured to the nearest millimeter (mm) along the intermediate axis (width of the particle) using a gravelometer (field sieve with openings ranging from < 2 mm to 180 mm), and the data were recorded. If a particle touched was too large to be measured with the gravelometer, too large to be removed from the river, or imbedded in the sediment, the particle was measured where it was using a meter stick. After each particle was measured and recorded, the collector took another step along the transect, and repeated the process. The smallest particles measured (< 2 mm) were classified as sand and the largest particles (> 256 mm) were classified as small boulders or bedrock. Particles ranging from > 2 mm to < 90 mm were classified as varying sizes of gravel ranging from very fine to very coarse gravel, and particles ranging from > 90 mm to < 256 mm were classified as varying sizes of cobble ranging from small to very large cobble. Percentages of each size were used to determine increases or decreases between May and October collections. Particles were grouped together in the following categories: sand (< 2 mm), very fine /fine gravel (4 to < 8 mm), medium, coarse, and very coarse gravel (11 to < 64 mm), small, medium, large, and very large cobble (90 to < 256 mm), and small boulder to bedrock (> 256 mm) (Table 2). Measurement data was also used to create cumulative frequency graphs. Particulate percent composition data is presented in Tables 2 through 5 showing all particulate sizes and percentages of composition during spring and fall 2008 and from spring 2010 through fall 2012. Graphic presentations of cumulative percentages for all sampling periods for each location are presented in Figures 6 through 9. Pebble counts from each location were averaged for all sample periods and cumulative percentages are presented in Figure 10. Pebble counts from each location were averaged for all spring and fall periods for comparison of seasonal differences (Figures 11 through 14). Two sediment samples were collected for nickel analysis from each location (RM 31.6 and RM 31.8) in spring and fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 using a butyrate core liner tube (50.8 -mm internal diameter). Five replicate core samples were taken for each sample, placed in a pan, and well mixed. Enough of the composited sediment was taken to fill a 125 -m/L (4 oz.) glass amber jar, placed on ice, and returned to the lab. The samples were sent to North Carolina State University for Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA). Two subsamples were taken from each sample and analyzed. The mean of the two subsamples were used as the 3 reported nickel concentration for each sampling location. Nickel concentrations are reported in parts per million ([tg/g) by dried sample weight. Quantification of sediment sample nickel analyses are limited by the sample matrix and some samples analyzed were below the detection limits and reported as non-detected (ND). The measured concentrations reported as ND were set to the detection limit. INNO -I Characterization of locations: spring and fall 2008 and spring 2010 to fall 2012 4 It was difficult to discern any consistent changes in the old riverine locations after dam removal due to the high variability among types of bottom substrates at these sampling locations. At Location RM 27.5/27.3, sand particulates (< 2 mm) showed a slight decline (3.0%) after dam removal, while very fine/fine gravels (2 to < 8 mm) increased by 9.0% (Table 2, Figure 6). Medium to very coarse gravels (8 to < 64 mm) declined by 3.0%, while small to very large cobble (64 to < 256 mm) declined by 19.0%. Boulders and exposed bedrock (>: 256 mm) increased by 16.5%. Location RM 31.6 showed a post-dam removal increase of 6.0% in sand, while very fine/fine gravels declined by 8.5% (Table 3, Figure 7). Medium to coarse gravels increased slightly (1.5%), while there was a small decline in small to very large cobble (3.0%). Boulders and bedrock increased by 3.0%. At Location RM 31.7/31.6 after dam removal, sand increased by 16.0% and fine gravels declined by 10.0% (Table 5, Figure 9). Coarser gravels also declined (12.0%), while small to very large cobble declined by 6.0%. Boulders and bedrock increased by 12.0%. Over the three-year post-dam removal monitoring period, all locations continued to demonstrate considerable variability in particulate size distribution and bedrock. At RM 27.5, sand particulates ranged from 2.0% to 17.5% over the spring 2010 — fall 2012 monitoring period and showed a long-term decrease of 9.0% (Table 2, Figure 6). Very fine/fine gravel particulates increased by 13.5% from spring 2010 to fall 2012. Medium to very coarse gravel declined by 16.5%, while small to very large cobble showed a slight increase (2.5%). Small boulders, boulders, and bedrock (> 256 mm) declined slightly (3.5%). Downstream from Dillsboro Dam (RM 31.6), fluctuations in sand and coarse gravel substrates during 2010 — 2012 were quite variable. Sand particulates at this location ranged from 0.5% to 28.0% and showed an overall decline of 27.5%, while very fine to fine gravel particulates increased by 9.0% (Table 3, Figure 7). Medium to very coarse gravel increased by 16.0%, while small to very large cobble declined by 1.5%. Boulder and bedrock substrates increased slightly (3.5%). Some of the most striking changes during 2010 — 2012 were observed in the bed of the old reservoir (RM 31.8), as would be expected. Sand particulates ranged from 3.5% to 54.0% over the entire monitoring period and these particulates declined by 25% over the three years R of sampling. (Table 4, Figure 8). Very fine to fine gravel increased by 22.0% (Table 4, Figure 8). Medium to very coarse gravel declined by 11.5 %, while small to very large cobble substrates increased by 4.5 %. Small boulder to bedrock substrates ranged from 6.5% to 19.0% over the monitoring period and showed a net increase of 10.0% over three years. It was very apparent that over the three -year period since the dam was removed, the stream bed of the old reservoir has shown notable shifts from a very sandy bottom consisting of as much as 50% or more sand and fine gravel, to a less sandy bottom with somewhat greater exposed boulder/bedrock substrate. The removal of the old dam has allowed for less impeded flow through that area of the river, even allowing for the natural barrier of rocks upstream that has remained. At Location RM 33.7, sand particulates ranged from 6.0% to 25.5% during 2010 — 2012 and showed an overall decline of 11.0% from spring 2010 to fall 2012 (Table 5, Figure 9). Very fine and fine gravel decreased by 0.5 %, while medium to coarse gravel increased by 2.5 %. Small to very large cobble decreased by 4.0 %, with an increase of exposed boulders and bedrock of 13.0 %. An average of cumulative pebble counts over three years clearly shows the long -term variability in substrate types among all sampling locations (Figure 10). The river locations, RM 27.5, RM 31.6, and RM 33.7 and the corresponding DTA locations all show obvious variations between pre- and post -dam removal, as was stated earlier. Additionally, all Duke Energy locations show comparatively low percentages of small particulates over the spring 2010 — fall 2012 monitoring period. These average percentages ranged from < 10.0% to approximately 15.0% of sand substrate. Location RM 31.8, in the old reservoir, clearly shows a much higher average accumulation of sand substrate, over 30.0% initially. These higher percentages of fine particulates were typically observed during the first two years of the post -dam removal study (Table 3). Additionally, the presence of the natural rock barrier upstream of the old dam has also acted to allow higher percentages of fine substrates to settle in this area. Once again, as evidenced in Table 3 and Figure 8, over time the area has taken on more attributes of a natural riverine topography with lower percentages of sand and very fine /fine gravel as compared to boulder /bedrock substrate. Seasonal variations at each location: spring and fall 2008 and spring 2010 to fall 2012 Given the dynamic nature of bottom sediment composition, a certain amount of variation between spring and fall pebble counts at locations in the Tuckasegee River considering the 6 seasonal differences in stream flow rates would be expected. At Location RM 27.5/27.3 seasonal variations in particulate size were minimal (Figure 11). Percentages of sand, medium and coarse gravel were slightly lower in fall as compared to spring; however, accumulations of small to very large cobble were slightly higher in the fall. At Location RM 31.6 greater differences were noted between spring and fall counts (Figure 12). During the fall, lower accumulations of all particulates were observed as compared to spring. A similar pattern was noted at the old reservoir location (RM 31.8), but with higher initial percentages of sand and fine gravels observed (Figure 13). At Location RM 33.7/33.6, a configuration similar to that observed at RM 27.5./27.3 was noted (Figure 14). Somewhat lower accumulations of very fine to coarse gravel were observed from spring to fall pebble counts, with slightly higher accumulations of medium, large, and very large cobble observed in spring as compared to fall. Nickel Analysis Most subsamples for nickel analyses collected during 2010 — 2012 were above the detection limit. Three replicates (two subsamples each) collected at both Locations RM 31.6 and RM 31.8 in 2010 were at or below the detection limit. Throughout the three -year monitoring period, nickel concentrations ranged from 12.2 gg /g at both RM 31.6 and RM 31.8 in fall 2010 to 72.0 gg /g at Location RM 31.8 in spring 2010 (Table 6). Nickel concentrations showed no consistent spatial or temporal trends over the three -year report period. In 2003, the USFWS and an independent contractor for Duke Energy collected sediment samples from six sites in the Dillsboro Reservoir and from four sites in the Tuckasegee River downstream of the dam (two sites in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Gage and two in the vicinity of Barkers Creek). Two to six samples were collected at each site. The USFWS (2004) reported that the nickel concentrations for these samples ranged from 7.8 to 35.5 gg /g from the six reservoir sites, 18.0 gg /g to 41.5 µg /g from the Dillsboro Gage sites, and 17.9 to 32.1 gg /g from the Barkers Creek sites. The mean concentrations of nickel in the samples collected from the six sites in the Dillsboro Reservoir was 21.8 µg /g and from the four sites downstream of the dam was 27.4 gg /g. The reported mean nickel concentrations in the sediment samples collected in spring 2010 were higher than the mean concentrations reported by the USFWS in 2004, but for three of the four samples collected the mean detection limits were reported. The mean reported concentrations of nickel for the sediment samples collected in fall 2010, spring and fall 2011, and spring and fall 2012 were all above the 7 detection limits and were generally within the range reported by the USFWS. All of the mean nickel concentrations reported for samples collected in fall 2010, spring and fall 2011, and spring and fall of 2012 were below the highest nickel concentration (41.5 gg/g) reported in one individual sample collected by the USFWS near the Dillsboro Gage in 2003. 6191 kyj I LVA EA Fluctuations in flow rates, governed by runoff from rainfall and releases from upstream dams probably played the most significant role in distribution of substrates in the river channel. Spring flows were typically higher than those in the fall, with the exception of a very large spike in the fall 2012. All sampling locations showed considerable variability in particle size distribution from year • year during 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Consequently, it was difficult to discern any changes in stream bed characteristics between the pre- and post-dam removal periods. At the riverine locations (both DTA and Duke Energy sites), boulders and exposed bedrock increased from between 3.0% to 16.0%. 11 Most samples for nickel analyses were above detection limits. Nickel concentrations showed no consistent spatial or temporal trends over the three -year monitoring period. In 2004, the USFWS reported results of nickel sampling on the Tuckasegee River. The average nickel concentration from the Dillsboro Reservoir site was 21.8 gg /g and the average from the stream locations was 27.4 gg /g. Nickel samples collected by Duke Energy investigators were typically within ranges reported by the USFWS and all samples above detection limits were lower than the highest concentration reported by the USFWS. z Table 1. River mile designations represent the sampling locations in the Tuckasegee River upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and Little Tennessee rivers and associated descriptions relative to the Dillsboro Dam, and GPS coordinates. Dillsboro reservoir, 100 to 300 m upstream 35-, 21.972' of the dam 830, 14.918' 33.7 2.0 miles upstream of the dam and 35', 20.843' immediately upstream of the Savanna 830, 14.176' Creek confluence 10 • • • • • • • • • • cwt ED m a) Co 0) C� a U) 4) U) 0) Lo c.6" c,:' C , o M Lo a) Lr? , 0 LO d) U) U) 04 E :2 2 a) V) co LO c6 CO r-� (6 C Ci ci C,� C'i oi vi P cj fd Co :3 0 o w ® 'a + -0 + C14 m m r_- 7. m m + + CD U') 04 0) .0 Ln 0 LO O U) Lq In in Lo Lo LO 0 LO 00 + + + o 0 0 a) 0) (D 0) a) B Za a :5 co 2) m o 0 L) 9 0 0 0 u 0 to Lq 0 0 U7 0 0 C:, 0 0 C-i 0 C) 0 a) 2) a) 21 m + 0 2) M CD a) C) 0 0 U.) a C) M Cl m U7 to Lq 2� 2� co E 0) + > a) > CD > > > (D + > .2 :6 LO to C) 0 — Lq CD Lq 2 .2 M Ln Uo 0 a o a p O .0 0 C6 cli + L'i vi ui C\l + ui C� C? C� 0 M cc o E E E E E U) U) U) U) U) Vi 0 m M LO LO 0 U') Lq ko a Lq C� LO to LO 0 LO vt E .0 m Ci C6 'i C14 C6 vi uj ui 6 ci (D U) 0 + + \R 0 LO LO LO o LP 0 Ln Ui to a Lq a co LP M, vi C� + tj 6 9 (b U7 ui 6 0 > LO > 6 o° C? o Us Lq U-) c) a C> OZ6 N C6 Lfi C? Lrj 7 (+ D c6 c6 ai + a) C14 0) (M tm (M CF) tm 0 U} Lq 0 0 (1) a) C, 0 CD Ln 0 to a) U) en 0 (L) > U., C') E2 Li oi r-� 12 12 C',i E2 'i C\i 12 ai c6 E2 C� 04 m 0 + tu 0 m 0 tu 0 + m 0 + m 0 LO U to U® 2!- cei Ll c6 2� Gi CN C14 M m 0 > CD LO Lr) > > Lo Lq > to C:) Lf) > CD C:) o > ti O (D 0 o to a) oi + .2 2 a) co vi + E E E E E E CD CD 0) (D CD 2 2 LO Ln 0 LO o LO C) C) O. c) 0 U') > 6 C4 + c6 + Lo Lo Lo co o to U; Lo Lo U) o LP M Lo v v co c6 -4 4 ai LO ai L6 co 00 \A ED Lo Z 0 a L9 Z 76 Z 0 o U� Z o 0 LP Z t6 (U Ci > C\i r1l: 14, + > 2 > pa > 12 — vi > T vi 7 > 2 > 2 m tm tm tm tm CF) (M a) a) a) a) a) a) C: c c !—E c rz c a LL 0 C:) a CD 0 Lo to (D a) y Ln CD LO 0) a) C) to LO C� I 6 > C'I > cn > 0) CV ci C� > C� 0 v > > 4 m + Cc + 2 + ® 7 + E! + T CD CF) CD CD CD a) (D a) — CD tr- Al w (D > LO o Lq 2� 0 Lo Lq to Lo 2� LO LO a + > U� to 13 a L9 Lq 9 Lql '10= Lr? 'a c Ln Lr? 13 Lq co 0 to. 'o r- U� 13 to C A m C� Co C� 7 7 9 C', 9 M C? r-� C? M C? c,6 — m m ui U) U) CO U) U) + CD CD Si r- ca Im co a a) a tm a) tm 0 4) cn tm a) tm a) cn tm a) tm a) a tm (D 0) cn (M LO r M OD a r- r_ CO G C 0 r C G C ;: a C cn 9 m EL m 9 cm m CL m r m m m m m :3 I :3 cli m LL a 2 0 2 tm C\l CO m U- 0 2 0 L U 0 C: m 0. U. 2 U) Lo 0 U3 U) -.I 11 • to 0) Y Ln O V) V) O Ln V) Q) Lo Ln Ln d... O Ln 0) O Lo C7 (YU� w O O LO N 0 O .O N O M r M .D w. M ro r 6) h� _ "'. 'Y7 L h« M M -® M O -® M M 71 M N U) O O O 6D to N j., .O to O k O Ln M u) Ln O O O O i O r 4 + a N N a O I70 U .d d ar O O O Ln O ,n O U Nm z O O O O O LO O O try 4 O N m l O O r �, r L0. + 21 64--:w m + 21 2) j N E a) > > > > ® > = 73 o o O O O O ®'. ® O Lo L8°) O M O O •- r Lri + tLti ri ; v N E � E E E U) U) U) U) U) m a Lo O Uo O O® O O O ui U LCD LD O CO O t0 6 6 6 i pi co M° N d O + d t0 e a) O O r r CO k i 'IT O O O > Lo >L CT > O O 0.. O O LL7 Lo N O O + 6D r CV r r r r O LO r M _ O d __ O + Y > S _ N Cn CD O) m ? >N MVI L7 LO O d O LA d ) C 9 Y 6 ®) 0D N N O O O O + A O d + 12 OD U p U d U M m Ln N Ln. R O ° ® S ® ® Ln O ® Ln o L? O > ® Ln °O E ' O co co Ln + o M m ` n + E E E E 7 7 d _._ m CD d Ln d L6 LO Ln o to LA o CJ ® N v + a® oD E �._. 2 -° Lo O In co O O ® O 6. C? 4J w LT UY L6 N + N -4 + CV co o to Lq `a to Ln o ai Ln o ul a o ) Ln r O ; M r > O O i > N` ®® O e > > n > W CO L > O N CT CT CT CD O) CD c _ c c e c O ® LCD �' N U- O to �%,. ; ®. Lo O > o O O o > N > M O c6 > N 2 04 4= iti iti 4y'-,, yy L" ,, O > Ln Ln ® L- to O L?,. o Ln O O> ° CO ` ° yC N 5 l` r CV +> CV r i > r oN > N O '.. C ® LO Ln ',, C Ln to O'...... C O to O un C L[') ®'',.. N A U) O r+ U) h C+0 fn L+O h N r Oi CA N r O O r (U CT G) N d CT 0) r tM LU N CT O N O N ° h C ,C c r r c C C N C .0 C C p) 0 C C O C O O Cr N 04 M c r == c c®® 10c Cv •a co t c u u® 0 O ®= O O N U. LL lL U U O: ® \ Cn \ U) o o U) o o ® U d o ® o ® ®` W c7 N N N 0, u 12 IF • • • • • • al C:) 0 09 9 Lq M LP L i 0 Lo Lo C) o N -0 :3 c� m 1� C,4 cd Cv) Ce) W Ce) c2 6 oi 6 6 c� -0 Al 0 (D + 2 + + N + T N 7 m .0 to U) 04 a) 21 -Do LO LO C? tn o LO 0 LO u) LO 0 U') c) in > co 0 0 to + cry C-� 9 c� C� 04 �2 u + � M o � M o B n n M m ® w 4) �i 21 -0 q C) C) 0 0 to U') 0 0 o u Lo 0 U� u� 0 u U Lq 0 m co 0 C14 4 + (D 2) 6 ci 1 (D 0 6 21 21 a) 7 a) C� rn cc CD m O. (a C:) m 0 2 co LO + cc u-) > c? > > z U') + CD > w > + > co E a) N .2 A 'A m un C) 0 LL? U? .2 U-) o u? 0 LO Lo Ln 0 04 Ce) + c6 V-: c 0 + ci 9 r M + L) E E cc E cc E E U) co co U) U) U) M E 0 Lo U') . 9 U? o to U� Lo U,) C) Lo U.) C) .0 U) 0 c6 C-� 9 clj ui It + u-i 04 c? C� (D %n o C? CD u) LO u) 0 L9 o o c? 0 O C'� L� 'i L6 Cei oi r- + ai .4 L9 4 Lri T' o + 0 > u [2 im U) ,r a) %" > u-j Lo u) u) Ln C? Lo Q) C) L, 0 Lr) c� vi c6 Ce) + (6 -4 N 'i 6 N 6 N L6 > > > a) > > > 04 co M T M z v 9 9 0) 9 9 c? 01 a) 0 LO to Lo ® QD u) 04 > LO M + m m 0 0 m c e co 6 6 6 m 6 4 c6 + E T ;a Lr? to m 0 L, 0 0 0 m 0 LO, 0 Ce) 0 C) u C? L) (0 CN CU o + + + CN 0 Ln C) cD C:) E C) u) U) LO LO C) m w w + .2 ni 6 vi 2 4 1 2 4 2 E E E + E to Lo Iq Lo L, 0 LO CD U� U? C) > (D LO 6 6 -: 'i - -, Lo in c� + + 0) oi P-� O E .2 vi c6 c.6 ci ai Q6 9 c6 V li c6 c6 6 Go m ui u? —(D d) LO 0 U! as a o 1 - N L? 12 > cl � + > > > N > t6 c� > > CD CD (M CD + pa tm a) (D (D C E c: C !tz co LL 0 0 ui 4 O as LO > (n Lo -i 0 —a) c? as u-) ul) > > 6 a) u) > c� o C) > Ce) > 7 12 7 C\i 2 2 1 - 9 2 c6 4 + V c? 2 tm tm tm tm CD CD CD a) (D w a) > u-) U') 0 C:o a� Ln to 0 U') 0 0 C) 12 c6 ui > ui 4 7 m a) -i vi > > 6 Cei C6 vi vi ci > C'0 0 'a C) a - C:o a C) v C) c o C� Lo 'D Lo 0 C) 'a C) A M 04 ci m . oi Go 6 1; - m m (D co ca r,: a - I+,- CD � ' ci Co Ce) U) 7 U) 04 U) + U) + um) N c6 u) 7 CF) to -0 cl) O a8. o a n S C I.P, 4) r CF) C) co C? tp, tm (1) co tm tm a) 0) 0. 0) (A 0 1 tM tM Q tM a) a) m m C 9 r w a (A (M Z CL L 4i Z; r cn rm tm (a cn c N 0 M :3 1 , S = m r CL m c: -r_ CL CL U- 2 o LL cl CD N �i LCLO 2 mu U. OL :3 o CL LL C® U) ul U) R 2 IN 14 'Ea 0 0 CD 00 o CD c� Ln 0 m te) (1) u LO 2 u7 L cn 24 12 vi 6 (D A En o w N CN CN CN + + -0 + + 0 a) + + 03 + co m co co LO C, 1Q 0 tn LO U� 9 '=% co co C? C) U� 0 6 e®i ' cq 0 N C'i C6 o U as as 4) a) 4) Z m co �i (D A! V) Lo 8 U� U� 0 L) LO LO C) 0 0 0 a LO 8 21 m -0 �o 0 ci _: 4) c) 7- a) 2) . . CN 0 C� (D El a) 21 7 4) 2) Lq Lo Lo m Lo m Lo + E m ID > a) > a) > 4) > LO .2 B Lo an .2 Lo Ln q .2 en 0 U) U° .2 o (D z 0 ,- : vi + = M C� = cc �' �' 9 w 9 cc w E E E E E U) U) U) Cl) CD cc LO Lo Lo Lo E jO Cti C-i co kn C� CD 0 Lo U� N co LO cc 0 0 > tm U� C? U� U) U� U� CD U% LO co C� LO 6 L? c6 c? Cq V) + + + 4) ( CD CD m > m > 12 ra Lo U� (P (D Lq 0 Ln LO L as LO Lf) m U� CD N > w + m cc + m + (1) W 0 Lc) 0 0 En 0 + E2 LO cn 4) 0 u Lq 0 CD Ci to 0 (6 U— too c6 E3 — a) + (D (D o + o + m 0 Lo > U') LO > LO LO 0 > Lq vt + + C-4 E E E .2 .2 ax LO LO CD LO LO 0 (D LO Lo 4) 0 C? > Fa `al + cl� + Y LO U) Lo Lo Lo o U? U7 c6 ui L6 C6 cn ui 6 9 C�i Cv co %n CD n 0 Co C) LO LO C? C) > 6 C� > m C� 6 + > [2 6 + > 2 > 12 T > 2 6 CD 0) ol 0) CD w C __._ a) C a) C a) C a) C (D s E �E CD 9 `n' LO 1 0 LO E (1) Lq LL C� C� 0 0 o > 0 c� > CD a) > cei > C, a v [2 + T+ C� 'i cei (6 + + + w+ CD CD m m CD a) (D CD a) z C r_ r_ C C a) a) 0 0 0 ?T a 0 0 ?T o -® LO L, ® i�% Al CZ E>2 vi vi 6 0 > 6 6 6 > w .: 6 6 0 > c6 4 + a) > A 'D w a C? 'a o m "i ® -0 9 0 LD 0 '0 0 0 U� -D U� cc N Lr? LO U) 04 U) U') C� co U) + + i W 04 (D Crl o Q) CN a) o 4) 'Qj �2 CF) Q) 04 tm — 8 M M C cc co CF) tm tm r- cm cn c 0) r- CF) cn c (M C) r 04 C c 0 CX 10 C� 04 cy) 04 C+4 m m M cc co CL LL = LL Q r CL U. 0 M 0 C� a C� :3 0, C, 0 U) 0 U L) �; m (D 0 0 04 04 o 04 . . . . . ........... 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • a cu 2 0 Lo q CD Lo Lo Lo 0 a) LO in L- LO 0 a) C? 9 U') 04 E :3 V a) (6 C,4 N (6 (6 6 .0 CD c: CD (D '— 0 C) - c? -d a 6 ai m 7s m CO o 0 , V ; + + "a + + 0 + . co . . ..... . . ........ . tn N V, C) to Lq Ln CD C) to LP in LO 0 to Lo LP > .5 mo C5 6 0+ 6 ci 9 6 6 C) 6 ci ci 6 . a) B M CO CD 4) �i 2) :3 0 0 0 U� U� 0 to to C? 0 U� LO 0 U C) 0 lu m 0 0 0 C) CD 2) 0 2) C) d, ) �' ci a) 2) cD c) Ci + (D c"D cli C.) ru W Lo 20 c? 12 to to + E m > > > > (D 0) > + a) > .2 :3 0 C) o O, O 2 o C) to 0 o M (D 0 ci ci + —0 c; + L) E ca E (a E m E E E U) U) U) . . .......... — U) U) U) 0 A2 CD M .0 'A E LO in U� 0 0 C) 0 0 C) c) Ln . . U) 0 LO LO 4 .0 rn 0 cs cs 9 ci 6 ci ci 6 C), C) 0 T ci ci O d LO U� U) Ln C? to Ln LO U) to to C? to N O c; O m + O -6 0 > U M > Ln o L9 C) m C? O Ln O Ln to 0 Lo O LO LO C6 6 6 Ci m M C'j c"i 4 a 9 ID Z Z Z tV O m m CD m > (U Z 0 0 CD o 0 0 e CD a C? (D a C, 0 0 CD Ul) LO at LO > w �r cu 4 C,� C\i m Ci C-i 12 m C6 12 m 6 + 12 t0 4D 04 0 0 0 0 m 1 E2 C.) to u Co 8 O m LO L, C'4 C� L, L6 Lri 0 C\l C-4 cu %n 0 (1) > o c) u? a) , > to Lo > LO if) 0 + > LO 0 C'i 0 m In C14 0 tr, cli cli 0 E E E a) a) CD d) a) O CD O C) C) 0 2 to U') 2 to 0 LO 2 > 2 04 + ui v + rZ N + ry CD em LO O Un O V) Lq Ln to 0 to C=) o o Ui C? M h N '0- 6 L? c6 cfi cli c6 c6 "It c6 6 c) co tn w d to CD C3 0 (D 0 0 0 U� CD tp > c6 r-� > m r,� 6 7 > m ai 6 ci > 12 6 6 > m 6 6 6 > cc > cu 12 0) CD CD tm 6 m tm (D CD a) (1) —.- — Q) . ..... a) — a) a C 9� c a C to , U. to (1) Ui a) C) a Ln to (D Lr) LO C) Lf) 0 Ul) Lr) LO 4 Lr) > (D N Ll 7. > Lri 4 � (6 4 6 M C\i + j2 + tm E2 CF) [2 CF) N t tm t N + [2 CF) + + [2 C'4 ty) + (D C 0) C a) CD C (D (D C w- (D > kn to C) LO LO Ln C) 2:1 V) o V� ?T C, R U� C� > vi 0 > 6 ,� C6 > > LO N + > C U� L9 U� C? 9 r '0 LO LO LO 0 U) L, U� U) 'a 0 9 t0 co 01 N N 0 + tu= 0 + a) NT N LO Lo N - to cu N C m P�� 4 r.-: 'i 'i a tu L6 C� tu LO U) U) + U3 + U3 m + U) + v U) U) C� cq -0 C C) : a) N 0) (CNN (00 N tm a) N M — M c (D (D tm , r- CD Cn =1 tm (D tm a cD m cm C= = O r- CL cc CL tm M a a tm CU C 0) --L r- tu C� lu C� L ci Co = cu cc E , Z, , = ca .6 m 0 'S 0 U- 2 0 M L U- , o L) U- o u- 0, g 6 1 cn -.R w m ff • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cd U7 0 'i .i + M® cli 4 0 ri E .2 co CD 0 C) . 0 to U� to to to to %n N cn h C? y r N N cu MAN > IF 'm MEM-im > 9 ul U7 tf7 tf7 d W) W) 0 U-) LD d U-) U-) C14 CD cn N vi vi ci vi N 6 N c6 + c\i c6 + C14 tm tm tm 0) co Lq 0 CD 0 CD a) CD LD V) a) C� > 'i ci r-: E2 m 6 C.� — E2 m C� "i C� "i C-4 0 a 0 CD 0 LO L) LE) Lr) (D (D 2 a) + C � + + N C14 \11 LD U-) LD to LO LD LO tn C:) c6 L) wi (6 + 6 + C� cl� 'i C\1 ci 'i C-� E E + E + E ti CD a) a) q to U� Lq LD LD C) U� q W) U� q �- > 12 V c6 co m 6 C� fi C14 It ": + N p+ E .2 co CD 0 C) . 0 to U� to to to to %n N cn h C? y r N N Ire, MAN IF 'm MEM-im I � Ire, MAN IF 'm MEM-im Ire, b Q� it U Q� Ri 17 FOCI m ® Lo LLi O .ten O In O LO In ® M ® O M d ro ®. e!'. N en 'O m ° N `o r N e+, + `o + + N 7 -`o N' a m m mo m + + m + L v z ®,,—n LO LO t® LO S° � �n > m ED 4NN C) qJ a 0 0 ' °® CD ° ° 6 a c, ° ° 0 8 N J .0 O + ® ci ®, , U Cc ,f, M C) M O m O N = o 0 LO o ® ,n ,n ® 0 0 0 ° o ® y 0 v M m M v r — + + — ° — m qn U E E m E E U) to U) � m� ua o U? 0 0 0 U? qi q® U O O Lo U� Lo Lo ® ® u! qo U> O .._...,_, LO L m V ; U-) O LO O U') LO C) LO M d a, N Ol m > m fa VI a, O O ® 4D O Lo ay u? W O tT N V O O d U ® M LO co LL7 Q, . —__._ N. r ._..._.__ c-) o U fA N + ® + CN O � 11,1 O w LO O LO ® LO r j j O O O g vt a, O en, U? us o LO LO ° > V O + q0 ui M M c6 O, r -0 CD U.) O Lib o co O O a, O Ln d ® 2 O, O O, O ........ t c e c c c N U. Un Ur o as ® to to °. d o o —a, LO r..... OI CF) 0) N L N > O O O 2` O LO Z` LO Z' V) N > @ M ° +..,. i ° M t0. ci N c o ®° c °® `n `O c `n r ° c o o e o A O qD BD ° O° q® W .6 w h 41 O N C OI N (may' Co C rQ) C O, a, C O) N r qm O, O C O, C O -a C O a1 N qT (}. C N: N C g G O C L .G qa O i C O m a1' O t0 LL e O U d.. LL U O U g O U U d a9 IV O C N a o Vi o (A o Q N (9 o N 0 ?� � qa' 17 Table 6. Concentrations of nickel (mean pg/g dry weight of two replicate samples) in sediments collected f r o m locations RM 31.6 and RM 31.8 i n s pring and fall 2010, 2011, and 2012. Location Date Replicate--- as can of -31.6 Spring 2010 1 81.7 2 *48.0 *64.8 RM 31.8 1 *104.0 2 *41.0 *72.0 RM 31.6 Fall 2010 1 15.8 2 8.5 12.2 RM 31.8 1 9.6 2 14.8 12.2 [RM 31.6 Spring 2011 1 24.7 2 32.3 28.5 RM 31.8 1 22.9 2 21.0 21.9 Fall 2011 RM 31.6 1 34.4 2 19.9 27.6 RM 31.8 1 17.8 [;RRM 2 24.1 20.9 31.6 Spring 2012 1 27.6 2 15.5 21.6 3 -1. 8 1 16.6 2 19.2 17.9 RM 31.6 all 2012 1 22.4 2 23.6 23.0 RM 31.8 1 23.9 2 27.9 25.9 I 4TOORSH 91 a a - v r4 e. by I N 000'EZoSE N kOOO'TZoGS � I�P. • C)- f,r) a Coll I 4b Vdd .cl II ■ • 0 e ILI I 561 2 0 2 ME k Q ¥ M m e w O ■ ■ .q I m R m m M.. W, ■ K / R r \ « # * # # * # « # « # # * # * # # k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k : k& 4% N k 4» I N k& 4 I (uee%)d« \f# I� I m N M m f w . / Q� / \ � m — FA E M-F 0 • 0 • C.) • 0 0 C.) r) 4-4 0 0 00 C-4 U Cd > rz :z 0 Fral M., - 2 FM N c v m v tr > m > Ln lD tio > eV m (v • 00 v c u > 0 m 4, m I 00 m 4-1 M .0 E (A N Gl to CL S N to N % D m r ri 90 N m 0 IF N (N Pe m Ln L- -zr > m LL v ba N w 4— m 4-1 5, m %D 0 v u I 0 bD Ln u Ln aj v m M d ( ��• u CL 00 > C? v M m 0 u LL i w "0 v 00 u m to c Ln tm .0 rL 00 N V > 0 u u Ln m 0 N E 7 0 "0 Al cn 0 ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 00 r" w Ln rn N ci uoilnqljlsl(3 JU8Wlp8S 8AIleinwn3 E M-F 0 • 0 • C.) • 0 0 C.) r) 4-4 0 0 00 C-4 U Cd > rz :z 0 Fral M., - 2 FM I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Ln (%) uoilnq!jlsi(3 JU8Wlp8S 8AIJBInwn:) A IA IA m u IA w m CL • • M W.". e RE, • • • • • Le T..' M., E 0 r. v m Ln a) S z > Ij to ,.4 > ro LL t10 (U 00 S LO m rj u tin 0 5 M Ln E •CL -V —W LL tw CL ro Ln E v w co N .2 Ln Ln CL rn o U) cu LO O. C4 E w Ci =1 ai 0 u CL Ln 00 W.0 N M D w X. t 00 N > o u LO Ln N ro E Al n 0 m O 0) 00 rl w Ln m N ra uoiznq!jp!a JUBWIPBS BAlleinwn:) • • • • • Le T..' M., E 0 • �A • • • • .1 M.", - 2 w v� x I t N x I^ v t` m 1, v ry r} a M m ro �1 m c 00 m N I ei u h v m O $ tD co m M Ln M v � L � v bD �i�t. " ^ �1 ° 7 io m ll 1 tw CL el N y 0 N f0 I cJ i N .m �( t xtr a.. @ U, N s M H i+ a I I I aI Is I Ln � LO u CL s x 0 0 I I I N o 9 - Y v =p LL I I I I o O � t ,; G�0 m �o �v U v o� � m co � " I � v > �o r _ I 4 Ln o Li N E 7 p Al Ln O w a 00 o O o O M W O O Ln rq (%1 uoiingialsi® auawipag ani;einwn • �A • • • • .1 M.", - 2 w rn rn E m as ri ® u 0 0 N m C3 > m LL Ln E —0 tko 00 = 0 v E C) C:) 4-- O 0 CL 0 tn N bl) (D C pm L- bO CL C: cl E 0 m tn L-. 0 tw -0 a) tw M E Lap m > m 0 O t O 4-- m u bn -2 0 m < W m by tA C C 2 M 0 u .2 cn m 0 ry u m o -0 U u CL) m E 0 E m rn r6 u m Ew C-L E u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 00 r- to Ln cn N 14 14 in in i2 V C) bA m 77 w - It 0 M 9A C\l 0 N I OD 0 0 N 75 c m N T- o N I 00 0 0 N 0) c co E m 0 2 0 n U) 4- 0 E c 3: 0 c :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m co r" w V) �t m N H H m fA M IA m a. wx wo so RE MI. 2 km c (a C� V > N 0 >m N %D v 00 w 0 > T 0 tw N co v U- U- -_ N V @ N E to IM 'D 00 v a) 0 2 0 N 0) �E C W ta .r LL LO > C)- m tw I u w bD 0 u cv) c u L. a) V) Ln ai m NbD m 4) c to 0 u c > Ln 0) > m U) 0 M O v lif I r: n E L, ' D 00 Ea N CL 0 u c :3 0 co ma U0 > CL Ln co r4 UD .0 v 2 o 0 u ID w Lo' '0 Ln 0 N E 75 Ln 0 0 O 01 00 P, Lo ll1 m N H uoolnq!jzsla ivawipas clAljejnwn:) MI. 2 km LITERATURE CITED Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. 2009. Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project, Bi-Annual Pebble Count Report. Charlotte, NC. Duke Energy. 2004. Application for Surrender of the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Projec! License FERC # 2602. Charlotte, NC. Duke Energy. 2009. Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project - Pre-Dam Removal Biological Monitoring On The Tuckasegee River (2008). Huntersville, NC. Duke Energy. 2011. Dillsboro Hydro Project, FERC # 2602, Final license application. Charlotte, NC. Duke Energy. 2012. Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project - Bi-Annual pebble Count On The Tuckasegee River (2011). Huntersville, NC. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Sediment Contaminants at Dillsboro Reservoir Report on Site Assessment and Sediment Analyses. Ashville, NC. Iffolman, M. G. 1954. A Method Of Sampling Coarse River-bed Material: Transactions of the American Geophysics Union, 35, 951-956. L-1