20030147 Ver 0_Revised Study Plan_20150716

Study Plan for Aquatic Life Monitoring in the Pee Dee River Reach
below the Tillery Hydroelectric Plant
Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Submitted by Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
Draft
REV. 2 (July 2015)
Final Approval
N.C. Division of Water Resources
DUKE
,% ENERGY

Duke Energy Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0
Introduction
1
2.0
Monitoring Locations
2
3.0
Monitoring Methods
3
4.0
Other Environmental Monitoring
10
5.0
Reporting Requirements
10
6.0
Post Study Evaluation
11
1 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
1.0 Introduction
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy)' was issued a 401 Water Quality Certification
(WQC) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) on February 11, 2008 (as modified on
September 12, 2008, with the filing of the certification's signature page and omitted maps on
October 8, 2008) for the Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project No. 2206 (NCDWQ 2008).
Approval of the WQC is required as part of the federal relicensing of the hydroelectric project by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. Conditions of the 401 WQC have been incorporated into
the New License issued by the FERC on April 1, 2015.
Section 7 of the WQC requires that Duke Energy conduct aquatic life monitoring in the Pee Dee
River below the Tillery Hydroelectric Plant to document the condition of the aquatic community.
A five mile reach of the river from Tillery Dam to the confluence of the Rocky River will be
monitored to note changes in the aquatic community following changes to the dissolved oxygen
(DO) and instream flow regime resulting from operations under the New License. Baseline data
( "pre -new license conditions ") have been collected under the operating conditions defined by the
previous license and prior to the changes in operations under the hydroelectric plant operating
regime for the New License. The baseline data will be compared to the results of the monitoring
conducted under the environmental conditions in the New License ( "post -New License
conditions "). Effects on the aquatic community can be evaluated and an assessment made
regarding how the aquatic community responded to hydroelectric plant DO and flow
improvements.
The purpose of this document is to provide a detailed study plan that will be used for aquatic life
monitoring as required by Condition 7 of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Article 401 of
the New License. The aquatic life monitoring will be focused on the benthic invertebrate and
fish communities, which provide a relative indication of environmental health in the identified
river reach. This study plan requires consultation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and
approval from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)2 and FERC approval
prior to implementation. This study plan will be used to guide the biological assessments for the
period extending from the date of license issuance to 2025. Changes may be necessary to the
study plan based on best available information in the future or changes in sampling methodology
with technological or science -based knowledge advancements. Any changes to the study plan
' A merger between Duke Energy Corporation and Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. in 2012 changed the name of the
operating entity to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
z A consolidation between the NCDWQ and NCDWR in August of 2013, changed the name of the NCDWQ to
NCDWR.
REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
methodology will be made with joint agreement between Duke Energy and NCWRC with
subsequent approval by NCDWR and FERC prior to implementation of such changes.
Prior to receipt of the New License, Progress Energy submitted a draft study plan to the
NCDWQ on May 20, 2008, for review and comment (Appendix 1). A copy was also sent to the
NCWRC and the NCDWR for review. Comments were received on the draft study plan from
these agencies (Appendix 1) and incorporated into this version of the study plan. Article 401 of
the New License requires that the plan be submitted to FERC by October 1, 2015 and that
documentation be provided that the plan was developed in consultation with the applicable
resource agencies.
2.0 Monitoring Locations
The aquatic life monitoring will be conducted at two sites (Sites TZ1 and TZ2) located in s five -
mile reach of the Pee Dee River below the Tillery Hydroelectric Plant (Figure 1). The length of
each monitoring site will be approximately 366 in (1200 feet) in length.
Site TZ1 is located approximately 1.5 miles below the Tillery Plant, immediately downstream of
the N.C. Highway 731 Bridge (Figure 1). This upstream site, Site TZ1, is a simple shoal and
shallow run with bedrock outcrops and boulders, cobble intermixed with gravel and sand, and
cobble and gravel bars present with some sand and silt deposition. Woody debris and rooted
aquatic vegetation (Podostemum sp., Potamogeton sp., and filamentous algae) are prevalent at
this site. This site includes the area where transects (i.e., Reach 3, Subreach 3, T7 and T8, see
Progress Energy 2004) were placed for the instream flow study.
The downstream site, Site TZ2, is also shoal and shallow run habitat located approximately 4.5
miles downstream from the Tillery Plant and just above the Rocky River confluence (Figure 1).
The substrate consists of bedrock outcrops and boulders, cobble intermixed with gravel and sand
and cobble /gravel/sand bars present. Sand and some silt deposition occur along channel
margins. Woody debris and rooted aquatic vegetation (Podostemum sp. and filamentous algae)
are prevalent at this site.
Both monitoring sites are similar in aquatic habitat characteristics, including channel width (170-
200 m) and depth, instream cover, and substrate types. In addition, both monitoring sites have
reasonable, safe access for sampling. Duke Energy and NCDWR staff conducted a joint field
site visit to select the specified sampling stations within these monitoring sites prior to the first
sampling event. The NCDWR made the final approval of monitoring stations prior to initial
field sampling activities.
2 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
3.0 Monitoring Methods
3.1 Monitoring Frequency
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
Aquatic life monitoring will be conducted for the benthic macroinvertebrate and fish
communities at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 in the Pee Dee River below the Tillery Hydroelectric Plant
(Figure 1). Sampling was initially conducted during the summer of 2008 to establish baseline
conditions ( "pre -new license period" or existing environmental conditions) prior to modifications
to flow and DO levels in the river following issuance of the New License from FERC. Baseline
data will be used as a point of comparison to determine changes in the benthic macroinvertebrate
and fish communities relative to the conditions under the term of the New License. Under the
New License conditions, sampling will be conducted every three years for four monitoring
periods (i.e., 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025). Following the submittal of the written report after the
fourth cycle, NCDWR and Duke Energy shall consult with the resource agencies regarding the
need for and any changes to future monitoring.
Monitoring will be conducted during the summer of each specified monitoring year (July
through August). The fish and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling events will be scheduled
within a three week window for all monitoring events in order to reduce temporal variability in
sampling the aquatic community. A reasonable effort will be made to sample within this three
week window. However, environmental circumstances beyond the control of Duke Energy may
delay sampling beyond a three -week window (e.g., heavy rainfall and flooding events). Duke
Energy will consult with the NCDWR prior to deviating from this three -week window for
sampling.
3.2 Benthic Macroinverteb rate Community Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring will be conducted using the NCDWR Standard
Qualitative Method (SQM) for benthic macroinvertebrates ( NCDWR 2012) or the most up -to-
date version of this method, if there are any revisions made by NCDWR in future years. Ten
qualitative samples will be collected from each sampling station for the bioassessment and rating
of the general environmental quality of the river based upon benthic community structure
attributes (e.g., total number of species, number of mayfly, stonefly and caddisfly taxa, and
species tolerance values):
REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Habitat
High current with
structure
Low current with
structure
Leaves
Aufwuchs
Habitat
Sand
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
Microhabitat Sample Method Number of Samples
Coarse -mesh
(500 -1000 gm)
Riffles Kick net 2
Banks
Leaf packs
Rock and logs
Microhabitat
Sand
Large rock and logs
Dip net
Wash bucket
Fine -mesh
(300 gm)
U.S. Standard Sieve
Size No. 50
3
1
2
Sample Method Number of Samples
U.S. Standard Sieve 1
Size No. 50
Visual Collections
(10 -15 minutes) 1
Type of Sample
Single, disturbance
Composite,
disturbance
Composite, wash
Composite, wash
Type of Sample
Composite (3),
disturbance
Composite
Samples will be sorted in the field using a U.S. Standard Sieve Size No. 50, a white enamel pan,
and a winnowing technique.
All organisms will be preserved in 95% denatured - ethanol and returned to the laboratory for
identification to the lowest practical level using standard taxonomic references and enumeration
A voucher and reference collection will be established for each sample location to validate
taxonomic identification.
A numerical abundance for each taxon will be tabulated as Rare = 1 (1 -2 specimens), Common
3 (3 -9 specimens), and Abundant = 10 (specimens).
Pollution tolerance values (TV) for each taxon will be based on criteria in NCDWR (2012) or if
the taxon has not been assigned a value, a value will be assigned based on consultation with
NCDWR personnel. Specific instances for assigning tolerance values are given below:
• If the specific species does not have a TV, but there was a TV for the genus level, then
the genus level TV was used.
• If there is no new score available for the taxon, the old score will be used.
4 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
• If there is no new score for a specific species or for the genus level, then the old genus
level score will be used.
• If there is no TV for the genus level, the species will not be included in the calculation.
• If there is insufficient knowledge for a particular taxon, then no TV will be assigned and
the taxon will not be used in calculations of the overall index value.
The Biotic Index (BI) for each sample will be calculated as:
s
BI = ni . ai/N
i =1
where N is the total number of individuals in the sample, ni is the number of individuals in the
ith species (taxon), ai is the TV for the ith species, and S is the number of species.
The BI Value and the EPT Value (the number of Ephemeroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera
[stoneflies], and Trichoptera [caddisflies] taxa) will be assigned a score based on the expected
scores from the Piedmont Ecoregion as developed by the NCDWR ( NCDWR 2012). No
seasonal correction values will need to be applied to these data as the sampling will occur during
the summer months. The two indices (matrices) for each sample will be averaged (with scores
rounded upward) to produce the final numerical ranking. The NCDWR specified numerical
rounding approach will be applied to the resulting BI and EPT if the scores differ by exactly one
bioclassification. Bioclassifications for each sample (location) will be based on the final
ranking: Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Good -Fair = 3, Fair = 2, and Poor = 1. A bioclassification
ranking of at least "Good- Fair" will be used to establish successful response of the aquatic
community to flow and DO improvements by the power plant during the term of the New
License.
3.3 Fish Community Monitoring
Fish community monitoring will follow methods established for the relicensing shallow water
study conducted during 2004 (Progress Energy 2006b) as outlined below.
A standardized approach will be used to sample the shallow water fish community at each site.
Sampling gear types will include a Smith -Root 5.0 GPP pram electrofisher (or equivalent
model), a Smith -Root Model 15 backpack electrofisher (or equivalent model), and a 20 -foot flat
seine (6.1 -m x 1.8 -m with 0.32 cm mesh). The pram electrofisher will be used to sample the
channel by making three passes through the site (i.e., each river bank and mid channel, wadeable
portions). The side margins of the channel, including any backwater areas, will be sampled with
5 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
the backpack electrofisher for 15- minute intervals. Twelve seine hauls (i.e., one haul per 100
feet of transect length) will be made at sand, gravel, or cobble bars or riffles at each transect with
all collected samples combined into one aggregate sample. For electrofishing sampling, pulsed
DC current will be utilized with voltage adjusted to produce 3 -4 amps in the sampling field,
depending upon the water conductivity. Electrofishing will be conducted in either an upstream
or downstream direction at each transect. Riffle areas will be sampled with the pram
electrofisher by disturbing the substrate and holding dip nets on the downstream end of the riffle
while the electrofishing is performed. The total time will be recorded for backpack and pram
electrofishing, and the catches will be adjusted to number and weight of fish per hour.
All fish, regardless of sampling methodology, will be identified to the lowest practicable taxa
level. Fish will be measured for total length to the nearest millimeter and weighed to the nearest
gram. Fish that cannot be accurately identified in the field or large numbers of small individuals
will be preserved with 10% buffered formalin solution and transported to the laboratory for
identification and body measurements. All other collected fish will be released alive at the
sampling site. Fish will be retained for voucher purposes, as necessary, in Duke Energy's fish
reference collection.
All electrofishing and seine samples will be combined at each site to yield the total number of
fish collected per sample site. In addition, the summary catch - per -unit effort data will be
calculated for both electrofishers and seine hauls. Dominant species within the fish community
will be defined as those species or taxa comprising >_ 5% of the total fish abundance at each
transect.
The fish data will be assigned tolerance and trophic feeding guild classifications based on
designations used by the NCDWR for its North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity ( NCIBI)
methodology ( NCDWR 2013). The NCIBI is a modification of the Index of Biotic Integrity
originally formulated by Karr (198 1) to measure the health and structure of stream fish
communities. The NCIBI fish community metrics or attributes will also be applied to the data to
gain insight into the fish community structure at each sampled site. Three other attributes —the
number of minnows (Cyprinidae), the number of North American catfish species, and the
number and percentage of non - native species —will also be included in this assessment. The
percentage of green sunfish attribute was also included because previous sampling has indicated
the presence of this species. The presence of green sunfish is a general indicator of degraded
environmental conditions. The number of fish with disease, fin erosion, lesions, or tumors will
also be used in the fish community monitoring to note environmental stressors contributing to
these conditions. The number of minnow species was added to evaluate the presence of this
family (Cyprinidae) at the sampled transects. Young -of -year fish will be included in the
calculation of all of the fish community attributes listed below. The significance of each fish
community metric or attribute is given below, as defined in NCDWR (2013):
6 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
1. Number of taxa or species richness: The total number of species supported by a
stream of a given size within a given region generally decreases with environmental
degradation. In addition, some streams with larger watersheds or drainage areas can be
expected to support more species than stream with smaller watersheds. In other
instances, the number of species and watershed size are not correlated.
2. Number of individuals: The total number of fish supported by a stream of a given
size in a given region decreases with environmental degradation. However, in some
instances, nutrient enrichment or degradation may actually increase the number of fish
supported by a stream.
3. Number of darter species (Etheosotoma and Pereina species): Darters are sensitive
to environmental degradation particularly as a result of their specific reproductive and
habitat requirements. Darter habitats (e.g., riffle habitat) are degraded as a result of
channelization, siltation, reduced oxygen levels, and fluctuating water levels. The
collection of fewer than expected number of species of darters can indicate some degree
of habitat degradation.
4. Number of minnow species: Many species of minnows are intolerant of habitat and
chemical degradation and, because some of the species have life spans of up to six years,
provide a multi -year integrated perspective. Because of their predominantly specialized
insectivorous feeding habits, they also reflect the condition of the benthic community
which may be harmed by sedimentation, sediment contamination, or varying water levels.
Minnow species also typically inhabit shallow water habitats such as stream channel
margins which can be affected by fluctuating water levels in regulated streams (Bain and
Travnichek 1996).
5. Number of North American catfish species: The number of North American catfish
species can provide insight into general environmental conditions present in a stream.
Many North American catfishes are omnivorous feeding generalists tolerant of a wide
range of environmental conditions. Conversely, madtom species inhabit shallow water
areas and are insectivorous in feeding habits and generally reflect favorable stream
environmental conditions. This attribute is not used in the NCIBI but used in this
assessment to characterize the entire fish community present in the Pee Dee River.
6. Number of sucker species (includes all species within Catostomidae Family):
Many suckers (especially Moxostoma or Scartomyzon species) are intolerant of habitat
and chemical degradation, and because they are long -lived, provide a multi -year
integrated perspective. They also reflect the condition of the benthic community which
may be affected by sedimentation, sediment contamination, or flow fluctuations.
7 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
7. Number of sunfish species (includes Lepomis, Enneacanthus, Micropterus, and
Pomoxis species): Sunfish species are particularly responsive to habitat degradation
such as the filling in of pools with sediment and loss of stream cover (e.g., woody debris).
Conversely, most sunfish species (e.g., bluegill, redbreast sunfish, and largemouth bass)
are habitat and feeding generalists and show less sensitivity to flow fluctuations than
other species who are more specialized in feeding or inhabit channel margin habitat (Bain
and Travnichek 1996).
8. Number of intolerant species: Intolerant species are those specialized habitat and
feeding species most affected by environmental perturbations, and therefore should
disappear, at least as viable populations by the time a stream is rated as "Fair ". Intolerant
species includes some species with a very restricted zoogeographic distribution or
considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Of the approximately 219 species of
freshwater fish in North Carolina waters, 54 species are considered intolerant.
9. Percent tolerant individuals: Tolerant species are those which are often present in a
stream in low or moderate numbers but as the stream degrades, they can become
dominant (generally greater than 25 -35% of the fish community). Of the approximately
219 species of freshwater fish found in North Carolina, 22 species are tolerant. The
metric is calculated by the total number of individuals of tolerant species divided by the
total number of collected fish.
10. Percent omnivores and herbivores: Omnivorous feeding species generally indicate
degraded environmental conditions, particularly the benthic invertebrate community.
Additionally, large numbers of herbivores can indicate canopy or riparian removal or
modifications and /or nutrient enrichment with subsequent increased growth of attached
algae and periphyton.
11. Percent piscivores: Piscivorous feeding species represent the top of the food chain
within the aquatic community and their presence usually indicates a healthy, functioning
food chain. However, a very large percentage of piscivorous species or the complete
absence of predators may indicate environmental perturbations or some other influencing
factor.
12. Percent insectivores: Insectivorous feeding species, particularly those that
specialize on the benthic invertebrate community (i.e., many minnow, sucker, and darter
taxa) generally reflect a healthy river ecosystem. The presence of a large percentage of
generalist insectivorous feeding species, particularly those that can feed on a variety of
aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, (e.g., redbreast sunfish and bluegill) can indicate
degraded environmental conditions and nutrient enrichment.
8 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
13. Percent green sunfish: The percentage of green sunfish, a tolerant species,
typically increases with degraded environmental conditions (generally > 5% of total fish
collected would be considered unbalanced) (Karr et. al 1986). This attribute is not
included in the NCIBI but is used in this assessment to aid in characterization of the fish
community and environmental conditions.
14. Percentage of species with multiple age groups: This metric or attribute provides
an indication of reproductive success and survivability of year classes through time. It
also provides an indirect indicator of suitable habitat for reproduction and rearing of
young. At least three individuals per species must have been collected to determine the
presence of multiple age groups within the population. In some instances, professional
judgment may also be used to determine reproductive success of a particular species.
15. Number of nonnative species and percentage of nonnative species to native
species: Nonnative species are currently prevalent in the Pee Dee River below the Tillery
Hydroelectric Plant, especially smallmouth buffalo. The presence of nonnative species
can negatively affect native species abundance and population response due to predation,
competition, or both factors interacting together. This attribute is not included in the
NCIBI but included in this fish community monitoring because of the large presence of
nonnative species in the Pee Dee River.
16. The percentage of fish with disease, fin erosion, lesions, or tumors: This attribute
provides insight into existing environmental conditions or stressors that may be
contributing to the overall health of each fish species and the fish community as a whole.
Other attributes may be identified in the future that can be used to further describe the fish
community. Inclusion of these attributes will be based on the technical knowledge existing at the
time regarding fish community structure and best professional judgment. Duke Energy will use
other identified attributes that will best describe the fish community structure and note those in
the written reports submitted to NCDWR and FERC. Conversely, the listed attributes may be
modified or deleted if they do not provide any meaningful insight into fish community dynamics
through time. Those changes will also be noted in the report.
The structure of the fish community at each site will be described based upon these attributes and
a comparison will be made between the "pre -new license period" and the "post -new license
period ". Changes in the fish community abundance, species richness or composition, and
structure will be evaluated over time.
The fish community data cannot be quantitatively scored with the NCIBI (i.e., numeric score
with corresponding community health rating). The scoring methodology has not been applied to
large river systems, such as the Pee Dee River, with the specific array of sampling gear types
used in this study ( NCDWR 2013). Neither reference conditions nor accepted sampling
9 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
methodology have been established to apply the NCIBI in large river systems. Therefore, there
will be no strict success criteria for judging the health of the fish community under this
monitoring program.
If the NCDWR develops standardized success biocriteria for fish in future years, which are
similar to the benthic macroinvertebrate biocriteria, then NCDWR may request Duke Energy
include those criteria in future years for the aquatic life monitoring program under the 401 WQC.
Duke Energy will review changes to fish biocriteria prior to incorporating into this monitoring
plan. FERC approval will be required for any revisions to this monitoring plan.
4.0 Other Environmental Monitoring
At each sampling location, water temperature, DO, pH, conductivity, and turbidity will be
measured with a laboratory- and field- calibrated YSI® multi - parameter instrument or a
comparable instrument. Sample locations will be recorded with a GPS unit with sub -meter
accuracy. Digital photographs will be taken of each sampling site. Flow data will be obtained
from the USGS gage at the N.C. Highway 731 Bridge (USGS 0212378405 PEE DEE R AT
HWY731 BL LK TILLERY NR NORWOOD, NC).
During each year of aquatic monitoring sampling, continuous temperature and DO data will be
collected at Site TZ2 to note these parameter conditions during the period of summertime
reservoir stratification (May through November) . s These parameters will aid in evaluating the
overall health and response of the aquatic community at this site. At Site TZ1, a continuous
monitoring sonde is installed May 1 — November 30th at the USGS gaging station No.
0212378405 to determine compliance with DO water quality standards for the term of the New
License. Data from this sonde will be used to evaluate the environmental conditions present at
Site TZ1.
5.0 Reporting Requirements
A written draft report shall be prepared and submitted to the NCDWR for review and comment.
Duke Energy will include agency comments with the final report and file with the FERC by no
later than March 31st of the year following each sampling event. If the benthic macroinvertebrate
success biocriterion ( "Good- Fair" rating) is met and the fish community responds positively over
' A continuous monitoring data sonde was placed at this monitoring location in 2008 to collect temperature and DO
data. This equipment was stolen and vandalized multiple times during the monitoring season. Duke Energy plans to
investigate additional monitoring techniques that will allow continuous data collection and be out of sight of the
general public. If an alternative monitoring technique is not available, Duke Energy will deploy the continuous
monitoring data sonde.
10 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
the 10 year monitoring period, Duke Energy may request to terminate the aquatic monitoring
program, subject to approval by NCDWR and FERC.
6.0 Post Study Evaluation
As previously noted, upon completion of the final year of studies, Duke Energy will consult with
NCDWR to review changes in the benthic macroinvertebrate and fishery community as a result
of the improvements in DO and flow enhancement. The need for further studies will also be
evaluated. Should the data reveal that benthic macroinvertebrates and fishery resources have
not responded positively, Duke Energy will work with NCDWR to determine what other Project
related solutions are available to meet the desired objectives of enhancing the macroinvertebrate
and fishery communities below the Tillery Dam.
References
Bain, M. B., and V. H. Travnichek. 1996. Assessing impacts and predicting restoration benefits
of flow alterations in rivers developed for hydroelectric power production. Pages B543-
B552 in M. Leclerc, H. Capra, S. Valentin, A. Boudreault, and Y. C. Cote. (editors).
Proceedings of the second IAHR Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Ecohydraulics 2000.
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries. 6:21 -27.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, L J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey
Special Publication 5, September 1986, Champaign, IL.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2008. Yadkin -Pee Dee Project for Tillery and
Blewett Falls Reservoirs, Rockingham, Stanly, Anson, Richmond, and Montgomery
Counties. DWQ 42003 -017, Version 2.0; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Project Number 2206. Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification. 2008.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 2012. Standard operating procedures for benthic
macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit. December 2013. North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
Environmental Sciences Section. December 19,2013.
2013. Standard operating procedure. Biological monitoring. Stream fish community
assessment program for benthic macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit.
December 2013. North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section. December 1, 2013.
11 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
Progress Energy. 2004. Yadkin -Pee River Instream Flow Study. Final Report. Water
Resources Working Group. Issue No. 5— Evaluate the relationships between project
operations /hydraulics and aquatic habitat, water quality, and fish migrations. April 2006.
2006a. Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project No. 2206. Pee Dee River instream flow
study. Final report. Water Resources Working Group. Issue No. 5— Evaluate
relationships between project operations /hydraulics and aquatic habitat, water quality,
and fish migrations. April 2006.
2006b. Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project No. 2206. Shallow water fish, crayfish,
and mussel surveys of the Pee Dee River and tributaries. Water Resources Group Issue
No. 1— Describe Current Resident River Aquatic Resources Of Project Area. April 2006.
12 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
IK
Al
'14N
Site TZ1
f
�7
V Vo
MI s
ti
.4-
XI
42
4 AZ
&
35
1 4�,ILI
W
Ig •
_11 . t - .
X
_'n
WAR
Site TZ2
4
- �'tip
'7
&25 0.5
Y Ides
• Figure 1. Map showing the aquatic life monitoring sampling sites (Sites TZ1 and TZ2) on
the Pee Dee River below the Tillery Hydroelectric Plant.
13 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
APPENDIX I
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
Resource Agency Consultation on the 2008 Draft Study Plan
A -1 REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
" F1
jotul Dovucy
401 Over,aigflw. kxptc:8 k2k'v.e,• Nrriiwnl -, k Ini,
&A WH RM" cente,-
R.Onc womir,
Drat Mr. maty;
"'UMFG1 ,MN j 11�u -'G "lonitolilig, L�. Pee as
S i I i �j I d'aft Study -1 16 Aqux�c 1J.
undvt (tat Yadkin-P-'e 1).!C pj,xjcot 101
AS OUhwd in Won 7 srow 4'6mr onsy anown (wQcj Ko. 530 Nmxd to wv vuhmi,
PC( L;er 11,1,drOdaCtriC VN*a AL 22N. Ocow nind W"M cqix of i = atily pWn Aur
NW& it MMANg WT M: I'm On Ron tdm Q H a, BYWCAN, pkm 50 mwi
Qn ksh ox maW& MWHW Qwwn "H MA"s than MH W xx k"MrOw tx
kvqlt)ii^ III wmi n aImd fish (,-,JwrauniCv,� Indv" .i OJtC 1jewmm titcl-Y Darn ;Itn! 1b."
INAY wva Umfix=0 Nr Q1 WQQ rqwnMnw PRW=S Wq; Is a Kimomp ji,, "wh
,thy phn w Ow NCDW(," fitr revie- ond nppoval. ',Ve twcj oJw
Rcq Irr:,, ( C,fItmislorl an,- the N C, U*j6orl "t, W�e ,r tit vuc--.-. ir. flik, Vct(a-r rind
w,�Uip fm Wwi� cv�j�urj,.%a xtvivo tact: approval pinn
wwame 0 MMAIg Ows hHdDw d or INIC aquoTIC
2008,'plio-, to akell.,e ly du [ VRC. TWY odcAde W pmrrinitm , dwnbw to mwis
,A -xnw aquui. priot TO ill vllz fi i 4r,gi:ltc imd ikwb cal coxyverl
cmdh:�nl!, )vdow (k� platil &iii) Ji,xlosc jssuai,.cp. )W'! also :se 6 . ap (.:lvcd
On bmw boa qws mmhwl I am Tam kwwc.
MW MOM ne MAY QM am pmos WW %Q= cmm"w =or Wma;=M a w
wAkhAndgs dweWO ATIMAW.
a a W" Ov TM510 mg,mg An Will: Mj; Om "Mm "H ku Cw6sw M W(),
E W110jr.
n v m wgmowr,
TO Q
A.2
REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
N17 lo)�T DO.xxv
2 Thy It 200
Mr, skepLcn Bow ev (➢ I'RC-WHd'.in�rCjjI'
'CA (N,(,
hjrr� Maim
A-3 IZE17 2. (Jut, 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
MWJ 7, C-A,-, G"
WWWGI F.1111 f,
>
X,r i ucB.,I f,: L)
John Ci u0ifield, Lead Lliv roirrierilal Specialist, ESS
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
3932 New H I-HoNmirui Road
New HI I NC 27! 152
RE: Hiewett- 111 ery Continous 00 monr(oring and Aquatic Life niuritoring plans
CPA IC # 2003-0147 Version 2.0, FERC Project No 2206
Rockingham, Staily Anson, Ridirriond and Montgomery Counties
June 3. 2008
Dear Mr, Crutoifield
U40 staff ln.ve reviewed the Draft Study Plan for Aquatic Life Moritorirg based on your May 10. 2acEi
lmtpi (Draft Re's D (5M 5M08)� and the mitinuous DO rnwiito,iri-a pr bran" as oeeoribed in your May 20.
2N.)8 letter, We M%o lrakar into ararjunt our disrussfons yesterday during We meeting to bref Lis
o m these plans
1. Droft Study Plan'orAuluatic Lida Wnitoring
This Dion r, aepeplable to the Division in terms of mWing coidition nUmbar 7 cf the 401 Vliafor
Quality Certification (Certification Numbar 2206) iteued on February 't1, 2W8 with # e `ofov,ing
correctisn. Page 4 of thol proposof Lists seeei ltbuilcvu" for poilik n toferance �valuo calculaficnis.
Pfease make the foidwirg change to bullet number 3 which should road 'i'there is no TV fv,
the ,germs level tie species will rict be, included in the calculation," AJqo bullet number four
ah,juld Jedelulod m ik, ent re:y
2, Draft Con inuois DO monitoring P,ogram
The proposed Lb�n 'or the Tillery I'liorrtoring s acceptable to DWQ� The to-oposed Oars for
Hh tt Falls morittoringx4l reed m have an additional s:at on forcontinuous 1.0 monitoring
since the ,wo proposezistations (l3FQM1 And UFr;P,41A) aravery rose locethe, and close to the
dam wh&t does I(x provide a S"at on to depict downstream mixing of the water, ~lye cone ur that
station BFCM2 shows unusual behavjor So suggest that e4herBFQN12A or BFCMZ be used in
conjunction wah the two proposed monitoring stations (BPCMI Arid FFG1411A), UYVU start
prefors the use o' stator BFGM2A since it is closer to the darn.
Please modify your ritiouitoring plans accordingly if you have any qi. idtions. p6ease caRl Ine at
91£ 433-964&
cc: Lcrry Eaton
Stratford Key
F110 Copy
Central Fiir-5
S t f ilN-!, r e I y -; o t; r s
'J/
Joh &rnay
o4,vp We Van& and Stoilmwater B°anch
I? Yf r.. N, K..A� 'hmv4 M 6),1415 "- —, S— ".
A-4
REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
C", 9QI -iLvN'I,'jj
Mr. Ccci" 7, Ourga"u>. . .... 1 .. ......
1
U, wrJiy
X1,
afrftaer. lly(:ro Operatiosts
Vrup is Lnergy Carclim, ho
179'Fillery Dam Rowj
NfOunt Ohnl. NC 27:"
Lk-ci-- Mr. Girrymus:
Slorfffm the North („-,Uofina Wildldic R.mourcesCrtimOs4im hasmiewed tbu "Dirafl Sfudy
Nall fix Aquatic Lffe Monituring in Pee Dc k,, River. Rnch Wow the 'Filer y I lydrooLovic TIIiJijt•l
s I
ubmilted undcz a cover lows dmcd 19 May 2008, Tho fish cmvm,swy to
bc almost iduiAicul to tfim 04,101c ofidy "SKIHOw %Vutcr Fish, CrayfWL md Mumml Imtrvo+ .,
N,c N,�^ River atvJ Tribo.*ries" 141id, Pvugxvs-"� Energy pruporM in 2006 as part o- its It'ItC,
NW'=F,ing, T:k-spile as few months diffirence in thv, fimiu,.g uf[ftv the c r ,eraj1 sjq iLt� jy
al CNAId UHOW the J)ACaIjcpLj.s -A &b.1), W tK, used xq awthvr ycjr oftaselitle daj& I jCrCjb,-e, we Ijave
no Suggemd CJI&18", ro- Ide proposed Owly P131),
Fcd five Up C011130t me ifyou JMW RRY OU—'ItiOUS A mg or 929-874-
0411?4.
Sfv,60 Prr.&cts Bicdp, u,j
DIVNiop v0plIfflid
PC
Jim NIC ad, NU)Wr4
Julpm Durrvy, NCI)�WQ
John Gras -Tgy
llil,iRkloofljdaod I Wv6c,
[72,1 , loo,ihf, to'12,koq.[r2
A-5
REV 2. (July 2015)

Duke Energy
Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
Mr. John U, Crutchfield
Lead Technical Project ManagenientSpecialul
Hydro Operations
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
7001 Pinecrest Road
Raleigh,NC 27613
IRIRI
The Division of Water resources (DWR) has reviewed the draft 'Study Plan for Aquatic Life Monitoring in Pee
Dee River Reach below the Tillery Hydroelectric Plain" dated 5115109, along the letter from John Domey to
you dated June 3, 2008, We are in agreement with the plan as proposed, including the changes suggested in
John Dorney's letter. We also note the following:
Page 3, Section 3.2, paragraph I —This refers to modifying sampling to reflect the most up-to-date approach if
there are any changes to NCDWQ's Standard Qualitative Method in future years. Wesuggest that this wording
be changed slightly so that any changes to methods are made only after consulting XCDWQ to make sure that
data collected at different times is still comparable.
The letter from John Dorney dated Jim 3,,2009 refers to wen bullets on page 4 of the plan, and then suggests
a revision to "bullet munber 3,"' and deleting "bullet number 4" entirely. However, based on the wording
revision suggested, I think they actually mean for you to revise bullet number 4 and drop bullet number 5. You
may want to check and make sue there is a clear understanding of what changes to make.
We appreciate this opportunity to con went. Feel free to contact meat Jim-MeadOnctuad.tret or 9191715-5428
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
(orighwi signed k)
Jiro Mead
Environments] Senior Specialist
Todd Ewing, WRC
John Dorney, DWQ
Chic
1611 Maill Sprwre Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 NMKamfina
Phone, 919-733-4064'�,FAX- 919-733-355VInternet www,ncwater.org
A-6
REV 2. (July 2015)