NC0089621_Renewal Application-Additional Information_20171129

November 29, 2017
Teresa Rodriquez, NPDES Complex Unit
NCDEQ - Division of Water Resources
1617 Mad Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE. NPDES Permit Application NCO089621
Novozymes North America, Inc
Franklin County
Dear Ms Rodriguez
novozymes®
Rethink Tomorrow
RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
DEC 13 2017
Water Resources
Permitting Section
Thank you very much for your review and processing of the referenced permit application. We appreciate
the time devoted to the review of the application and related communications We also appreciate your
giving Novozymes sufficient time to prepare the feedback discussed below regarding the status of the
application and outstanding issues This letter summarizes the permitting process thus far, confirms the
remaining outstanding issues, provides an update on nutrient treatability, presents the results of the recent
Tar River mussel survey and water quality sampling, and responds to questions about potassium in treated
wastewater proposed to be discharged to the Tar River Finally, this letter explains that concerns regarding
freshwater mussels and aquatic life can be resolved with permit requirements for frequent toxicity testing,
the use of design elements to minimize potential impacts (such as diffusers), and the use of Novozymes'
nutrient offset payments for aquatic life conservation measures in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin
Background
Novozymes North America, Inc ("Novozymes") is a biotechnology company that makes commercial
enzymes and biological products used in a wide variety of commercial sectors, including baking, brewing,
textiles, renewable energy, detergent, aquaculture, and wastewater treatment Novozymes is a global
leader in research and development and employs nearly 600 people in Franklin County The company is
a significant participant in North Carolina's manufacturing sector and is a steady contributor to the strength
of the North Carolina economy
Tel: [phone]
Novozymes North America, Inc
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Frankltntoa, North Carolina 27525
Fax [phone]
Internet www.novozymes com

Novozymes North America, Inc.
NPDES Permit Application NC0089621
Additional Information

Novozymes is also known for its use of triple -bottom-line accounting which evaluates not dust financial, but
also social and environmental metrics that are important to the company' Since 1979, Novozymes has
made enzymes at its research and manufacturing facility in Franklinton, North Carolina and uses food
grade production processes that comply with kosher rules for purity
In Franklinton, Novozymes makes enzymes using a fermentation process that generates wastewater that
is treated on-site and then either sprayed on farm fields near the facility or discharged to the Franklin
County wastewater treatment plant On May 31, 2016, Novozymes submitted National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Permit Application NCO089621 (the "Application") to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources ("DEQ") As discussed in the Application, Novozymes
proposes to treat and then discharge up to two million gallons of wastewater per day (2 MGD) to the main
stem of the Tar River Approval of the Novozymes proposal by DEQ would create a conjunctive
wastewater system whereby Novozymes would employ three wastewater disposal methods: (i) discharge
to the POTW operated by Franklin County, (ii) land application to farm fields, and (iii) direct discharge
Additionally, the proposed NPDES permit would provide capacity for future expansion of the Novozymes
facility in future years It is also very important to note that the NPDES permit is required pursuant to the
company's groundwater Corrective Action Plan for DWR Incident Number 86545 related to Permits
WQ0002806 and WQ0003487 that was approved by the Director of DWR on January 31, 2017
Since submittal of the Application in May 2016, Novozymes representatives have met with DEQ on several
occasions, have responded to requests for additional information, and have provided additional data and
technical analysis to support the Application. As requested by DEQ, Novozymes is currently conducting
treatability studies for nutrients and will provide DEQ with an analysis on that issue soon. Novozymes also
commissioned a detailed survey of freshwater mussels in the Tar River in the vicinity of the proposed
discharge location and collected water quality data for this section of the river Additionally, Novozymes
has received and reviewed a copy of comments regarding the Application submitted by the U S Fish and
Wildlife Service (the "Service"), which comments expressed concern regarding potential potassium in
Novozymes' effluent and potential impacts on freshwater mussels that could be present in the Tar River
It is our understanding that the Service submitted a document to DEQ entitled Estimating Protective
Potassium Concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, Draft --March 17, 2017 and that DEQ may propose
including a numeric effluent limit for potassium in a draft NPDES permit based on the assertions in that
See https //www novozymes com/en/about-us/sustainability
Novozymes North America, Inc.
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Franklinton, North Carolina 27525
Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone] Internet www.novoUmes com

document Additionally, DEQ has provided a preliminary draft of speculative effluent limits for the proposed
Novozymes discharge
Remaining Outstanding Issues
Based on Novozymes' most recent discussions with DEQ, we would like to confirm that the only remaining
issues for resolution prior to issuance of a draft NPDES permit are (i) proposed effluent limits for total
nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) and (u) concerns regarding potential impacts to freshwater
mussels resulting from potassium in effluent It is our understanding that once those two issues have been
resolved, DEQ will issue a draft permit otherwise consistent with the Application.
Update on Nutrients and Treatability
On February 28, 2017, Dewberry Engineers, Inc ("Dewberry"), on behalf of Novozymes, submitted to DEQ
a Best Available Technology Economically Achievable Analysis ("BAT Analysis") regarding proposed
effluent limits for TN and TP for the NPDES permit The BAT Analysis concluded that limits of 8 8 mg/L
TN and 1 0 mg/L TN represented best available technology economically achievable based on the
industrial process involved, wastewater characteristics and treatability, and the proposed wastewater
treatment system Subsequently, DEQ requested that Novozymes undertake laboratory treatability testing
of its wastewater to further evaluate a proper effluent limit for TN That treatability testing was initiated
over the summer, and DEQ inspected the pilot testing on August 2. Novozymes has now completed the
testing and is preparing an addendum to the BAT Analysis that will be submitted to DEQ separately
Concerns Regarding Freshwater Mussels and Potassium in Effluent
As noted above, Novozymes understands that the Service has provided comments to DEQ regarding the
Application and the proposed discharge to the Tar River, including comments dated August 2, 2016, and
has expressed concerns regarding potential impacts to freshwater mussel species 2 Specifically, the
Service has concerns about potassium levels in wastewater and potential impacts to mussel species in
2 It is important to note that, while it may be appropriate for DEQ to consider the Service's comments, with regard to
issuance of an NPDES permit by an approved state permitting agency such as DEQ, there is no consultation
obligation or consultation authority under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act See Memorandum of
Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fishenes
Service Regarding Enhanced Coordination Under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, 66 Fed Reg
11,202, 11,205 (Feb 22, 2001) (requirements of Section 7 "apply solely to Federal agencies" and not to states or
tribes)
Novogznes North America, Inc
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Frankl:nton, North Carolina 27525
Tel- 919-494-3000 Fax. [phone] Internet. www.novo;7mes.com

the Tar River that are listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act .3
Moreover, the Service has suggested that DEQ include numeric effluent limits for potassium in the NPDES
permit. It is our understanding that DEQ took the highly unusual step of requesting that the Service derive
and propose water quality criteria for potassium and then used the Service's analysis to develop
preliminary draft numeric effluent limits for potassium. The Service submitted its derivation and proposal
to DEQ in a document entitled Estimating Protective Potassium Concentrations for Freshwater Mussels,
Draft --March 17, 2017 (the "White Paper") in which the Service suggested an "acute water quality
guideline" of 7 0 mg/L potassium and a chronic guideline of 2 6 mg/L potassium It appears that DEQ then
used the Service's White Paper to develop draft speculative effluent limits of 8 2 mg/L potassium (monthly
average) and 19 5 mg/L potassium (daily maximum)
Novozymes has a number of significant concerns regarding the perceived need for a numeric effluent limit
for potassium, the procedure used to arrive at the preliminary draft potassium effluent limit, as well as the
substance of the White Paper and the scientific support for the conclusions in that document For many
reasons, as discussed below, Novozymes suggests that DEQ should address concerns regarding potential
impacts to aquatic life by requiring whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing six times per year and monitoring
in lieu of a numeric effluent limit for potassium in the NPDES permit
Results of the Mussel Survey by Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.
Novozymes understands and shares DEQ's and the Service's concern regarding potential impacts to
endangered or threatened mussel species. In order to understand the potential for impacts to endangered
or threatened species, Novozymes retained Alderman Environmental Services, Inc ("Alderman") to
conduct a mussel species survey of the Tar River from a point approximately one mile upstream of the
proposed discharge location to a point approximately six miles downstream Novozymes discussed and
agreed on the scope and protocol for the mussel survey with representatives of DEQ and the Service on
August 7, 2017 Wildlife biologist John Alderman, who led the survey team, is one of the world's foremost
experts on endangered mussels in the Tar River Field work for the survey was conducted during the
period August 28 -September 7, 2017 Attached as Attachment A is the report, Freshwater Mussel Survey
Report For Potential New WWTP Discharge to Tar River, Franklin County, North Carolina, prepared by
Alderman Environmental Services, Inc (September 2017) We invite you to review the survey in detail In
3 Such potential impacts are premised on the existence of such species in the vicinity of the proposed discharge
location (36 0866, -78 2919) and downstream from that point until full mixing would be reached
Novozymes North America, Inc.
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Franklinton, North Carohna 27525
Tel. [phone] Fax: [phone] Internet* www.novoUmes.com

summary, the survey found no evidence of mussel species that are currently listed by the Service as
endangered or Page 4
threatened The survey noted only trace evidence (one shell) of the Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), a
species that has been proposed for listing as threatened, but is not currently listed
A Numeric Effluent Limit for Potassium is Unnecessary and Would be Unprecedented
Based on the results of the mussel survey noted above, it does not appear that the proposed discharge
would impact federally listed mussel species As such, it is unnecessary to include an effluent limit for
potassium in the NPDES permit Additionally, it appears that deriving water quality criteria and imposing
a numeric effluent limit for potassium would be wholly unprecedented in North Carolina. As you know,
potassium is neither a "toxic pollutant" nor a "priority pollutant" under the Clean Water Act 4 North Carolina
does not have a water quality standard for potassium in surface water, nor does North Carolina have a
water quality standard, action level, or "2L standard" for potassium in groundwater. Similarly, the U S
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has no federal water quality standard or drinking water standard
for potassium, and potassium does not appear on EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria -
Aquatic Life Criteria Table 5
However, North Carolina does have a comprehensive water quality regulatory regime that is meant to
protect aquatic life, human health, and designated uses of surface waters In fact, the Tar River and the
site of the proposed discharge have numerous water quality standards and regulations that currently apply
to protect aquatic life The section of the Tar River proposed for the outfall is classified as NSW WS -V and
is subject to water quality standards for nutrient -sensitive waters (15A N CA C 213 0223, 2B 0229,
2B 0255 - 0261) as well as water quality standards for water supply watersheds classified as WS -V (15A
N C A C 2B 0218 and 15A N C A C 2B.0211 (by incorporation)) While a series of water quality
regulations applies to the subject area of the Tar River, none of these regulations includes water quality
standards or limits related to potassium 5 Water quality standards and water quality regulations must be
4 See 40 C F R part 423, Appendix A
5 See https 1/www epa gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table Published
pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, the National Recommended Water Quality Cntena - Aquatic Life
Catena Table is a table of approximately 150 pollutants and sets forth EPA's recommendations regarding those
pollutants that might adversely impact aquatic life Further, EPA's recommendations are meant to provide
guidance for states "to establish water quality standards and ultimately provide a basis for controlling discharges or
releases of pollutants " Id Potassium does not appear on EPA's list of pollutants that are a concern for aquatic
life
5 Novozymes understands and acknowledges DEQ's and the Service's particularized concern regarding potential
potassium impacts to freshwater mussels in the Tar River However, it is important to note that DEQ has issued
Novozymes North America, Ine,
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Franklinton, North Carohna 27525
Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone] Internet. www.novozymes.com

adopted by the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") pursuant to the formal rulemaking
process mandated by the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),' and such regulations are
then implemented by DEQ However, the EMC has not proposed or adopted water quality standards for
potassium that have gone through proper APA rulemaking procedures Similarly, we are not aware of
DEQ having previously included a numeric effluent limit for potassium in any NPDES permit anywhere in
North Carolina
Derivation of Numeric Limits is Very Complex and WET Testing is Preferred to Address Toxicity
Concerns
In the absence of a specific water quality standard for potassium, DEQ would have to follow appropriate
processes and procedures to derive a numeric effluent limit based on North Carolina's narrative water
quality standard for toxic substances found at 15A N C A C 2B 0208(a) That process is very complex,
requires a great deal of data, and could be subject to disagreement Rather than break new regulatory
ground by developing a numeric limit for potassium that could have statewide implications, there is a better
way to address DEQ's and the Service's concerns in this case Because the fundamental concern is
toxicity to aquatic life in the Tar River, Novozymes suggests that inclusion in the NPDES permit of a whole
effluent toxicity (WET) limit, frequent WET testing, and monitoring should address that concern North
Carolina has for decades properly relied on WET limits and monitoring requirements in NPDES permits to
address toxicity concerns As set forth in DEQ's guidance document on this issue, "[t]he objective of whole
effluent toxicity limits placed in NPDES permits is to prevent discharge of toxic substances in amounts
likely to cause chronic or acute toxicity to wildlife in the receiving stream and represent the only feasible
method of evaluating the combined effects of constituents of complex waste streams EPA has indicated
that chemical -specific limitations do not consider all toxicants present and that interactions of the mixtures
are not accounted for "e We suggest that DEQ remain consistent with historic departmental policy while
over sixty (60) NPDES permits for wastewater discharges in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, and nineteen (19) such
permits are for wastewater discharges to the Upper Tar sub -basin It is our understanding that none of these
active permits includes a numeric effluent limit for potassium
N C Gen Stat §§ 150B-1 et seq
8 Division of Water Quality, Guidance Memorandum RE Whole Effluent Toxicity, Permit Limits and Monitoring
Requirements (8/2/1999) at 2 EPA also has articulated a preference for WET testing over chemical -specific limits
stating "[t]he two primary advantages of using WET controls over individual, chemical -specific controls are (1) WET
tests evaluate the integrated effects of all chemical(s) in the aqueous sample, and (2) while EPA has established
aquatic life criteria for a relatively small number (126) of chemical -specific pollutants, WET tests can measure
toxicity caused by other compounds for which EPA does not have chemical -specific numeric criteria for the
protection of aquatic life or approved parameter -specific analytical test methods Another advantage to using WET
testing is that it enables prediction and avoidance of a toxic impact before the detrimental impact might occur (i e,
after the aquatic population in the receiving water has experienced prolonged exposure to such toxicity) " EPA
Novozymes North America, Inc.
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Frankl:nion, North Carohna 27525
Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone] Internet. www.novozymes.com

also assuring protection of aquatic life in the Tar River(such as freshwater mussels) by including WET
testing and monitoring requirements in the NPDES permit
Any Interpretation of the Narrative Standard Must Follow Proper Procedure
As noted above, the Service has provided a White Paper outlining a proposed derivation of potential water
quality criteria for potassium 9 However, based on our review of the White Paper and that of aquatic
toxicologists at Ramboll Environ retained by Novozymes, the derivation in the White Paper did not follow
proper procedure based on federal or North Carolina regulations and permitting guidance First, it is not
clear that a determination has been made that potassium in the proposed discharge will cause or contribute
to a violation of the narrative water quality standard at 15A N C A C 213.0208(a) as would be required by
40 C F R § 122 44(d)(1)(i). This is a threshold issue and would require the permitting agency to "account
for existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the variability of the pollutant or pollutant
parameter in the effluent, the sensitivity of the species to toxicity testing (when evaluating whole effluent
toxicity), and where appropriate, the dilution of the effluent in the receiving water" 40 C F.R §
122 44(d)(1)(u) We have not seen documentation of a "reasonable potential" analysis related to
potassium, and no analysis of this kind was included in the White Paper 10
Second, a "reasonable potential" analysis requires characterization of the effluent and the receiving water
for the discharge. In particular, characterization of receiving water background conditions is advisable
The White Paper used general information regarding hardness in the Tar River and alluded to statewide
ambient potassium data from 30 to 40 years ago, but did not provide any data from the receiving waters
at the proposed discharge location Tar River water samples recently collected in the vicinity of the
proposed discharge location indicate hardness in the 32 to 36 mg/L range and potassium levels of 2.7 to
3 5 mg/L 11 This hardness level is significantly higher than the levels used in the White Paper, and the
ambient background potassium levels exceed the White Paper's derivation of chronic toxicity at 2 6 mg/L
Draft Guidance, National Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Implementation Guidance Under the NPDES Program
(12/28/2004)
9 The White Paper states "[t]he North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) asked the service to derive an
estimate of an instream potassium guideline and potential permit limit protective of freshwater mussels" and "[t]he
derivation of potassium guidelines for mussels was requested by DWR " White Paper at lines 38-40, 208 It is
neither customary nor appropriate for an EPA -approved state permitting agency to outsource critical permitting
questions or analysis to third parties Under the Clean Water Act, EPA authorized DEQ to administer North
Carolina's NPDES permitting program on October 19, 1975 That authority rests with DEQ alone
10 See U S EPA, NPDES Permit Writer's Manual, Section 6-3 (EPA-833-K-10-001)(September 2010)
11 See Attachment B
Novozymes North America, Inc.
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Franklinton, North Carohna 27525
Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone] Internet* www.novozymes.com

DEQ would need additional site specific data for a proper "reasonable potential" analysis, which has not
been performed at this time
-- Third, the White Paper did not track the regulatory procedures for interpreting North Carolina's narrative
water quality standard EPA regulations require that states adopt procedures to interpret narrative water
quality standards to apply to point source discharges 12 The narrative standard and procedures for
interpreting that standard are at 15A N C A C 2B 0208(a) The regulation focuses on chronic toxicity as
the standard for protection of aquatic life and emphasizes reference to "direct measurements of chronic
toXlClty."13 However, chemical -specific chronic toxicity testing for freshwater mussels is difficult; there are
not agreed-upon methodologies, end-points, or test acceptability criteria 14 Further, the White Paper
exclusively relied on two studies (Imlay, 1973 and Ivey, 2013) that are simply neither sufficient nor
appropriate for development of a water quality based effluent limitation for potassium 15 The White Paper
itself emphasized the lack of scientific studies and data for a proper derivation of a chronic value for
potassium16 and failed to fully account for water chemistry data for this section of the Tar River in the
chronic value derivation 17 Further discounting the White Paper's derivation of a potassium chronic value
guideline is that the suggested value (2 6 mg/L) is lower than background potassium levels in the vicinity
of the proposed discharge that were measured recently in the 2 7 to 3 5 mg/L range. While the Alderman
mussel survey did not find evidence of currently listed endangered or threatened species in this segment
of the Tar River, a variety of freshwater mussel species were found Given the background levels of 2 7
to 3 5 mg/L potassium and the existence of freshwater mussels in the vicinity, the White Paper's suggested
chronic value of 2 6 mg/L is patently invalid and must be refected
Fourth, the White Paper discusses at length the regulatory definition of "acute toxicity to aquatic life" at
15A N C A C 2B.202(1), however, that defined term is neither used nor referenced in Section
213 0208(a)(1) Accordingly, Section 213 202(1) is not part of the regulatory procedure to interpret and apply
the narrative standard to NPDES permits However, even if an analysis of acute toxicity was part of the
12 See 40 C F R § 131 11(a)(2)
13 15A N C A C 213 0208(a)(1) The best "direct measurement of chronic toxicity" for a wastewater discharge is, of
course, whole effluent toxicity testing
14 See Robin Richards, et al , Review of USFWS "Estimating Protective Potassium Concentrations for Freshwater
Mussles, March 17, 2017" (Ramboll Environ September 26, 2017) at Section 3 1 This report is attached as
Attachment C
15 See Attachment C at Section 3 2
16 USFWS White Paper at lines 171-178 (notes 1, 2, and 3)
17 See Attachment C at Section 3 3
Novozymes North America, Inc
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Frankl:nton, North Carohna 27525
Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone] Internet. www novozymes.com

regulatory procedure at Section 2B 0208(a), the derivation process used in the White Paper is
fundamentally flawed, and the conclusion is invalid The shortcomings of the acute toxicity derivation in
\ the White Paper are described in detail in Section 4 of Attachment C
In summary, the White Paper does not provide a sound scientific or regulatory basis for a water quality
based potassium effluent limitation in the NPDES permit Derivation of a numeric limit is very complex
even when a great deal of data is available Derivation of a potassium limit is even more difficult due to
the lack of data and agreed-upon chronic toxicity testing protocols and end points Further complicating
matters is that a potassium effluent limit would be unprecedented in North Carolina and could result in
regulatory overreach It appears that DEQ does not have clear procedures and protocols for the derivation
of numeric limits from a narrative standard beyond the language of the regulation at 15A N CA C
2B 0208(a)(1), and the White Paper failed to follow that procedure in any event DEQ has historically relied
on WET limits and testing to address toxicity concerns, and there is no need to deviate from that policy
now Finally, given the findings of the Alderman mussel survey, it is not necessary for DEQ to go out on a
regulatory limb in this case
Minimization and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Aquatic Life
While a numeric effluent limit for potassium is not necessary or workable in this instance, Novozymes is
prepared to propose detailed minimization, mitigation, and contingency measures As noted above, the
NPDES permit would only be one part of the facility's conjunctive wastewater system that would continue
to use disposal at the Franklin County POTW and land application of wastewater as disposal methods As
a result, Novozymes would have some flexibility to regulate flow of effluent based on Tar River flow The
company would also propose the use of a special diffuser at the discharge point and strategic placement
of the outfall to maximize effluent mixing and minimize effluent impacts to aquatic life Additionally,
Novozymes has significant wastewater storage capacity that could be used to modulate effluent flows as
necessary and to serve as contingency storage in the event of a wastewater system upset Naturally,
these are design issues that should be discussed in greater detail with DEQ at the appropriate time
In addition to operational and design elements to minimize potential impacts, Novozymes proposes that
the entirety of the nutrient offset payments associated with the permit be used for non -point source pollution
reduction efforts and aquatic life conservation measures in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, preferably in the
Upper Tar sub -basin Pursuant to 15A N C A C 2B.0229(c), Novozymes may be required to make nutrient
offset payments to DEQ Novozymes would like to work with DEQ and a local conservation non-profit
organization, if appropriate, to direct that such funds be used for the conservation and betterment of aquatic
life in the Tar River. We look forward to discussing these points with you as well
Novozymes North America, Inc
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Franklenton, North Carolina 27525
Tel- 919494-3000 Fax: [phone] Internet. www.novozymes.com

Summary - Proposed Resolution of Toxicity Concerns
Novozymes understands and acknowledges DEQ's concern and the Service's concern regarding potential
toxicity issues related to potassium in the proposed wastewater discharge However, for the many reasons
discussed above, a numeric effluent limit for potassium in the NPDES permit is not the solution. Instead,
based on all of these circumstances, we suggest that the better solution for addressing toxicity concerns
is for the NPDES permit to include a WET limit with a higher frequency of WET testing (perhaps six times
per year) and monitoring Additionally, Novozymes would propose operational measures, including
modulated flow, a strategically placed diffuser, and use of abundant storage capacity, to minimize and
mitigate potential impacts
Again, thank you for your time and patience in reviewing the Application We would welcome a meeting
at your convenience to discuss in greater detail the issues addressed in this letter
Sincerely,
Adam Monroe
President, Americas
Novozymes North America, Inc.
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
P O Box 576
Frankl:nton, North Carolina 27525
Tel. [phone] Fax: [phone] Internet• www.novozgmes.com

ATTACHMENT A
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
For
Potential New WWTP Discharge to Tar River
Franklin County, North Carolina
K&L Gates, LLP
Contact: Stanford D. Baird
4350 Lassiter at North Hills Avenue
Suite 300 (27609)
PO Box 17047
Raleigh, NC 27619-7047
Report Prepared by Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.
September 2017
Jo eph Alderman
President AES, Inc.
John Alderman
til�11'k
inciple ,Investigator

FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT
22 September 2017
PROJECT: Protected species survey report for Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmadonta
heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaaa
masoni), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), and Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis
cariosa) for a proposed new Novozymes North America, Inc. wastewater discharge to the
Tar River in Franklin County. Records for these four species are considered current for
Franklin County, North Carolina.
SURVEY AREA:
One mile upstream from the Louisburg, North Carolina, water reclamation facility
(WRF) discharge point in the Tar River to six miles downstream from the WRF discharge
point.
REPORT BIOLOGISTS: Joseph D. Alderman and John M. Alderman
Novozymes North America, Inc. proposes a new wastewater discharge to the Tar River
downstream from Louisburg (Stream Index No. 28-(24.7)) in Franklin County (Figure 1).
Permit Application No. NCO089621 has been submitted to the NC Department of
Environmental Quality.
The Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmadonta heterodon) is listed as endangered by the United
States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Dwarf Wedgemussel occurs within the
Tar -Pamlico and Neuse river basins in North Carolina Historically, this species' range
extended from Canada to North Carolina.
The Dwarf Wedgemussel has been documented in first order streams up to main channels
of the Tar and Neuse rivers in North Carolina. Habitats include low to high gradient,
stable banked streams with relatively silt free substrates ranging from root mats to
boulder fields. The best populations have been found in higher water quality, well -
oxygenated streams.
The Tar River Spinymussel is listed as endangered by the USFWS. The Tar River
Spinymussel is endemic to North Carolina and only exists within the Tar -Pamlico and
Neuse River basins. The Tar River Spinymussel has not been documented in the
Louisburg area since 1970.
Historically, the Tar River Spinymussel has been documented in the Tar River and its
tributaries, Fishing, Sandy, and Swift creeks, and in the Neuse River and its tributary, the
Little River, in Johnston County. The Tar River Spinymussel requires fast flowing,
circumneutral pH water. The highest densities recorded for this species existed in silt
free, unconsolidated coarse sand and pea gravel at the end of "run" stream reaches. The
best populations have been documented from North Carolina Division of Water Quality

Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) stream reaches or within streams potentially
suitable for such designations.
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a federal Species of Concern (USFWS), as informally designated
by the Asheville and Raleigh field offices of the USFWS, and is a native Southeast
Atlantic Slope freshwater mussel species. The Atlantic Pigtoe has records from the
Altamaha River Basin in Georgia to the James River Basin in Virginia.
The Atlantic Pigtoe normally requires clean sand and pea gravel substrates and
circumneutral pH water. The highest densities recorded for this species existed in silt
free, unconsolidated coarse sand and pea gravel within "run" stream reaches. The best
populations have been documented from North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) stream reaches or within streams potentially
suitable for such designations.
The Yellow Lance is a federal proposed threatened species (USFWS) and is a native
Southeast Atlantic Slope freshwater mussel species. The Yellow Lance has records from
the Neuse River in North Carolina to the Potomac River in Maryland.
The Yellow Lance is also found in clean sand and pea gravel substrates and
circumneutral pH water. The highest densities recorded for this species existed in silt
free, unconsolidated coarse sand and pea gravel within "run" stream reaches The best
populations have been documented from North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) stream reaches or within streams potentially
suitable for such designations.
The Yellow Lampmussel is a federal Species of Concern (USFWS), as informally
designated by the Asheville and Raleigh field offices of the USFWS, and is a native
Atlantic Seaboard freshwater mussel species. The Yellow Lampmussel has records from
the Ogeechee River in Georgia to eastern Canada.
The Yellow Lampmussel is also found in clean sand and pea gravel substrates. The
highest densities recorded for this species existed in silt free sand within run, riffle, or
slack stream reaches.
Prior to conducting in -stream surveys, reviews of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP), NC Museum of Natural Sciences, Alderman Environmental
Services, Inc. (AES), and Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences (ANSP) databases
were conducted to determine if there were any records of rare mussels within the
proposed project study area or receiving waters. Records for the Dwarf Wedgemussel,
Tar River Spinymussel, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Yellow Lance exist for Franklin County.
These reviews indicated that the closest occurrence of the Dwarf Wedgemussel occurred
in 1995 in Fox Creek in Franklin County, which is >0.25 stream mile upstream from the
proposed discharge location. The closest occurrence of the Tar River Spinymussel is at
US 401 in Louisburg, which is >0 6 stream mile upstream from the proposed discharge
site and occurred in 1970 The closest occurrence of the Atlantic Pigtoe occurred
2

downstream in the Tar River during 2016, which is approximately 0.5 stream mile from
the proposed discharge site (NCWRC data). The closest occurrence of the Yellow Lance
occurred in 1996 in Fox Creek in Franklin County, which is >0.25 stream mile upstream
from the proposed discharge site. The closest occurrence of the Yellow Lampmussel
occurred in 2014 at River Bend Park in Louisburg, which is approximate one stream mile
upstream from the proposed discharge site.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) records one NPDES
permit within the general project area (Permit No. NCO020231, Town of Louisburg, Tar
River WRF, classified as a major municipal facility). The Tar River in this area is
classified as WS 5, nutrient sensitive water There are no significant dams within the
general project area.
Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. (AES) biologists Joseph D. Alderman (USFWS
Permit No. TE28597A-1), John M. Alderman (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission Permit No. 17-ES00009 and USFWS Permit No. TE065756-3), John
Fridell, and Logan Williams completed mussel surveys during the weeks of August 28
and September 5, 2017 (see USGS stream flow data for survey period after references
section), at various locations upstream and downstream from the proposed discharge area
(Figure 1, Appendix, and Professional Biographies). Using visual and tactile searches and
SCUBA, 48.55 person -hours were required to complete the surveys within this relatively
rural area of Franklin County. Stream widths varied from 20 - 35 meters, and bank height
varied from 2.5 — 6 meters. In most of the areas surveyed, depth averaged less than 0.3
meter. The surveyed reach canopy was mostly open, and wooded buffers were mostly
wide. Water was slightly turbid to turbid (final two survey days) and low. Substrates
composition varied from mostly sand and gravel to varying amounts of silt, sand, gravel,
pebble, cobble, boulder, and bedrock. Evidence of beaver activity was observed
throughout the Tar River.
Ten freshwater mussel species were documented during the survey: Eastern Elliptio
(Elliptio complanata) — 3,574 live, Box Spike (E cistellaeformis) — 30 live, Sad Elliptio
(E lugubrzs) — 19 live, Carolina Lance (E angustata) —12 live, Yellow Lance (E
lanceolata) — one shell, Roanoke Slabshell (E roanokensis) — one shell, Atlantic Pigtoe
(Fusconaza masoni) — six live, two shells, Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilas caraosa) — four
live, two shells, Creeper (Strophitus undulatus) — two live, two shells, and Triangle
Floater (Alasmzdonta undulata) — one live. The Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) was
observed throughout the river. Based upon current federal listings, the survey
documented no evidence of endangered or threatened species in the survey area.
All NCNHP records for the Tar River Spinymussel upstream from the Tar River Dam in
Nash County are now considered historical. (This dam is significant, since it isolates
potential Tar River Spinymussel habitat upriver from the dam from potential habitat
downriver from the dam.) The last record for the species (single live individual) at US
64A in Nash County was confirmed during a John Alderman and Chris McGrath survey
on 17 July 1991. Given that no Tar River Spinymussels were documented during the
current study and that recent surveys in the Tar River upriver and downriver from the

current AES study reach have failed to confirm an extant Tar River Spinymussel local
population, the biological conclusion associated with this project for the Tar River
Spinymussel is "No Effect."
NCNHP and NCWRC records document six streams providing habitat for the Dwarf
Wedgemussel in Franklin County — Tar River, Cedar Creek, Crooked Creek, Fox Creek,
Norris Creek, and Red Bud Creek. Red Bud Creek is a tributary of Sandy Creek, and the
others are Tar River associated streams. The most recent record was from 2004 in Norris
Creek. Potential habitat for the Dwarf Wedgemussel was observed during the current Tar
River AES survey. Given the number of streams associated with this species in Franklin
County, the relatively recent record for the species in Norris Creek, and potential habitat
for the species in the study area, and assuming no significant contaminant effects from
the proposed new project discharge to the Tar River, the biological conclusion associated
with this project for the Dwarf Wedgemussel is "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect "
Small populations of the Atlantic Pigtoe, Yellow Lance, and Yellow Lampmussel are
present within the study area. Assuming no significant contaminant effects from the
proposed new project discharge to the Tar River, the biological conclusion associated
with this project for these three species is "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect."
M

References
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. 2017. 4 August 2017 online database
search.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2017. July 2017 Database.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2016. January 2016 database records.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2014. GIS shapefiles of 303(d)
listed streams and NPDES permits
Stream flow data during freshwater mussel survey period
USGS 02081747 TAR RAT US 401 AT LOUISBURG, NC
288
0
U
d1
0
L
4J 188
d
as
v
a,o
+Lo
z
v
N
O
38
Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep Sep
28 38 81 83 85 87
2817 2817 2817 2817 2817 2817
---- flrovi�1Qnal Data Subject Fo Revision ----
Median daily statistic (43 years) — Discharge
5

1706283
SR-1231 E complanata - 128 live
f
170831 2
r I `SR.y
�__er r
f _ JI E complanata - 355 live
-
¢N` f 170828 2 E crstellaeformis - 11 live i NC-56 r
-
t 4 E complanata - 108 live ? 1 E angustata_1 live --
-----
JPO
1 08261
E complanata- 111 Ince e - 170830 1
S undulatus- 1 live Elliptio complanata - 953 live
- L carrosa - 1 Irve E crstellaeformrs- 3 live
----- - E angustata - 7 live
Fusconaia masons- 1 live
170831 1 -4r
E complanata - 397 live = — --_- r; _ -- - cod
E crstellaeformrs- 3 live 5,�1_
L 1 live
carrosa - _- 11708302 / 1 170830 2
Fr f E complanata - 603 live
ay
760f F mason r-3 Eve
170831 3 r Alasmidonta undulata - 1 live
+ ! Lampslis ca nosa - 1 live
SCUBA �
E complanata - 13 live 1709056 E angustata - 1 live
E complanata - 58 live Elliptio cisteliaeformis - 1 live
E cistellaefprmis- 1 live Elliptio roanokensrs- 1 shell
170905 1 ? - t - Strophitus undulatus 1 shell
E 50 live
complanata -
170906 1
2' E complanata 186 live
170905 T E cistellaeformis- 10 live
E complanata - 110 Irve E lugubns- 1 live
SR-111
_ �S undulatus-1 shell 1709055 E angustata-1 live
Elliptio lanceolata - 1 shell E complanata - 215 Irve
F masoni- 1 live, i shell E angustata- 1 live
Elliptio lugubrrs- 1 live S undulatus- 1 live
1709062
A� -- --- E complanata - 9 live
1709053 SR-1604
E complanata - 64 live
E lugubns- 1 live
F masonr- 1 live
1709072
E complanata - 116 live
E lugubrrs 15 live
1709054 170907 1
E complanata- 11 live E crstellaeformrs 1 live E complanata - 88 live
L 1 Irve
carr 1 live
E
osa- 1 shell _osa
I L carrcrstellaeformrs-
--- E lugubrrs- 1 Irve
FIGURE 1. Aug. 28 -Sept. 7, 2017 Mussel Surveys
\
S WRC priority sites 41
I* Survey Sites
akk
tV Louisburg WWTP
Roads
--- Tar River lj 0 25 0 5 1
Louisburg Miles Map Prepared byJMA, 9/8/2017

APPENDIX

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170828.1
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78 303033504708, 36 0975057492369)
SURVEY DATE: 8/28/2017
SITE COMMENTS: From dam downstream —150 in; Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to
left shoreline, 59 feet wide: 0, 12, 16, 16, 20, 20, 15, 21, 20, 13, 8, 10, 5, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
75
Sand dominant, gravel subdominant, with clay, silt, pebble, cobble,
bedrock, mud, organics
Normal and unconsolidated
Common
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
Not observed
35
2.5
Very stable
Narrow
Urban

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Wooded with shrub -brush, grass
20
Not extensive
At least one
Slightly turbid
Low
Sunny, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES:
SURVEY TIME:
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 1 I 1 live
Strophitus undulatus — 1 live
Lampsilis cariosa — 1 live
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum
Corbicula flumina
Visual, tactile
4.5 person -hours
Strophitus undulatus Lampsilis cariosa

J
PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170828.2
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78 2956828270837, 36 0921420017593)
SURVEY DATE: 8/28/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Various habitats down to Fox Creek; depth data not acquired
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m)
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
80
Sand dominant, silt subdominant with clay, gravel, and pebble
Normal and unconsolidated
Abundant
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
Not observed
35
5
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Urban

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush
PERCENT COVER: 20
WOODLAND EXTENT: Extensive
NATURAL LEVEES: At least one
VISIBILITY: Slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL: Low
WEATHER: Sunny, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES:
SURVEY TIME:
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 108 live
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum
Visual, tactile
4.5 person -hours

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170828.3
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.3020596951975, 36.0977341560983)
SURVEY DATE: 8/28/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Depth data not acquired
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
80
Silt dominant, cobble subdominant with clay, sand, gravel, pebble,
boulder, and bedrock
Normal
Present
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
Not observed
30
4
Some erosion/undercutting
Narrow
Urban with road

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Shrub -brush, grass
PERCENT COVER:
35
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Not extensive
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL:
Low
WEATHER:
Sun -Cloud, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 1 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 128 live
OTHER TAXA:
Orconectes carolinensis
Corbicula flumina
Orconectes carolinensis

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170830.1
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.2712302171423, 36.0821331292727)
SURVEY DATE: 8/30/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Good habitat, thousands of mussels on left descending shoreline, F. masoni collected in
shallow, clean, gravel, pebble riffle; Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left shoreline, 73 feet
wide: 0, 24, 10, 19, 12, 5, 2, 2, 4, 6, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
80
Gravel dominant, sand subdominant with clay, silt, pebble, cobble,
boulder, and bedrock
Normal and unconsolidated
Common
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Not observed
30
5.5
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Rural

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
20
Extensive
At least one
Slightly turbid
Low
Sun -Cloud, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 6 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 953 live
E. angustata — 7 live
E. cistellaeformis — 3 live
Fusconaia masoni — 1 live, 26 mm
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum
Elimia virginica
Corbicula flumina
Leptoxis carinata
Orconectes carolinensis
Fusconaia masoni

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170830.2
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC: POINT (-78.2781415992214, 36.0830199765377)
SURVEY DATE: 8/30/2017
SITE COMMENTS: High deposition area, thousands of mussels present; Depth in inches across river in 5'
increments, right to left shoreline, 83 feet wide: 0, 14, 12, 19, 19, 12, 5, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 10, 9, 19, 14, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
80
Sand dominant, gravel subdominant with silt, pebble, and clay
Normal and unconsolidated
Abundant
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
Not observed
Varies
5
Some erosion/undercutting
Moderate to wide
Rural, active pasture, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush
PERCENT COVER:
20
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Extensive left, not extensive right
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL:
Low
WEATHER:
Sun -Cloud, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 4 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 603 live E. angustata — I live
F. masoni — 3 live, 40, 41, 42 mm E. cistellaeformis — 1 live
Alasmidonta undulata — I live, 39 mm E. roanokensis — I shell
Lampsilis cariosa — 1 live, 71 mm Strophitus undulatus — 1 shell
OTHER TAXA:
Elimia virginica
Corbicula flumina
F. masoni
4"', W'­mWW'mq
Alasmidonta undulata
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis cariosa

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170831.1
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78 2926634141042, 36 0842014896088)
SURVEY DATE: 170831.1
SITE COMMENTS: Few mussels compared with similar habitat downstream, surveyed from coordinates to
wastewater discharge; Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left shoreline: 0, 10, 11, 9, 14, 13,
11, 11,2,0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY.
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
70
Sand dominant, silt subdominant with gravel
Normal and unconsolidated
Common
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
Not observed
30
6
Some erosion/undercutting
Moderate to wide
Urban, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Wooded with shrub -brush
20
Intermediate to extensive
At least one
Slightly turbid
Low
Sun -Cloud, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 4 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 397 live
E cistellaeformis — 3 live
L cariosa — 1 live, 62 mm, partially gravid
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula flumina

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170831.2
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78 29197039835, 36 086482624557)
SURVEY DATE: 8/31/2017
SITE COMMENTS: 300 m upstream from W WTP discharge; Depth in inches across river in 5' increments,
right to left shoreline, 86 feet wide: 0, 14, 7, 9, 8 ,8, 7, 4, 9, 14, 8, 3, 7, 15, 32, 40, 30, 5
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS;
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m)
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
70
Sand dominant, silt subdominant with gravel
Normal and unconsolidated
Common
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
Not observed
30
6
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Urban, timber, natural

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush
PERCENT COVER:
20
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Extensive
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL:
Low
WEATHER:
Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 2 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 355 live
E cistellaeformis — 11 live
E angustata —1 live
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum — 1 live
Corbicula fluminea

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman, SCUBA
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170831.3
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78 2922081929429, 36 0837486153805)
SURVEY DATE: 8/31/2017
SITE COMMENTS: SCUBA site, no depth data taken, between 8-10 feet deep; poor quality habitat; large
clay balls present
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m);
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Moderate
20
Clay dominant, sand subdominant with silt and gravel
Normal and unconsolidated
Abundant
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
High
Not observed
30
5
Unstable
Wide
Urban, rural, natural, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Wooded with shrub -brush
20
Extensive
At least one
Slightly turbid
Low
Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES:
SURVEY TIME:
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 13 live
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula flumina
Visual, tactile, SCUBA
0.3 person -hour

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170905.1
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.2905341109865, 36.0819809081618)
SURVEY DATE: 9/5/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Much sand, windthrow; depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left
shoreline: 86 feet wide 0, 1, 1, 1, 3, 8, 14, 19, 15, 16, 19, 20, 19, 21, 23, 25, 23, 5, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
80
Sand dominant, silt subdominant with gravel and clay
Normal and unconsolidated
Abundant
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
High
Not observed
30
4
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Rural, natural, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush
PERCENT COVER:
20
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Extensive
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL:
Low
WEATHER:
Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: I person -hour
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 50 live
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula flumina

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS:
John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170905.2
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC, POINT (-78.2888819184883 36.0819548881017)
SURVEY DATE: 9/5/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Large boulders, clean gravel; depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left
shoreline: 122 feet wide 0, 33, 27, 15, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 15, 13, 20, 17, 9, 1, 7, 14, 20, 36, 10, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
70
Sand dominant, gravel subdominant with silt, pebble, cobble, boulder,
bedrock, and clay
Normal and unconsolidated
Common
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
Not observed
30
4
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Rural, natural, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES: At least one
VISIBILITY: Slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL: Low
WEATHER: Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 2.5 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 11Olive
S. undulatus — 1 shell
Elliptio lanceolata— 1 shell
Elliptio lugubris — 1 live
F. masoni — 1 live (50 mm), 1 shell
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula flumina

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170905.3
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.2859350089713, 36.0816898523235)
SURVEY DATE: 9/5/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Island area. Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left shoreline, 97 feet
wide: 0, 34, 48, 42, 29, 18, 15, 2, 9, 0, 10, 4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 7, 4, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
90
Sand dominant, silt subdominant with gravel
Normal and unconsolidated
Common
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
Not observed
35
4
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Rural, natural, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Wooded with shrub -brush
30
Extensive
At least one
Slightly turbid
Low
Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 2 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 64 live
E. lugubris — 1 live
F. masoni — 1 live, 40 mm
OTHER TAXA:
Orconectes carolinensis
Corbicula flumina
F. masoni

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170905.4
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.2837174926682, 36.0818810016253)
SURVEY DATE: 9/5/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Poor quality habitat. Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left shoreline,
67 feet wide. 0, 8, 18, 18, 25, 30, 48, 50, 35, 29, 13, 16, 20, 5, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Very shallow
80
Sand dominant, gravel and silt subdominant with boulder, cobble,
bedrock, pebble, and woody debris
Normal and unconsolidated
Common
High
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
High
Not observed
22
4
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Rural, natural, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush
PERCENT COVER:
30
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Extensive
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Slightly turbid
WATER LEVEL:
Low
WEATHER:
Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 1 person -hour
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 11 live
L. cariosa — 1 shell
OTHER TAXA:
Corbicula flumina

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170905.5
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.2730129641278, 36.0796380881556)
SURVEY DATE: 9/5/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Clean sand, good habitat. Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left
shoreline, 89 feet wide. 0, 13, 4, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 5, 9, 13, 20, 25, 25, 8, 3, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Very shallow
90
Sand dominant, silt and gravel subdominant
Normal and unconsolidated
Present
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
Not observed
30
4
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Rural, natural, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Wooded with shrub -brush
30
Extensive
At least one
Slightly turbid
Low
Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 1 person -hour
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 215 live
E. angustata — I live
S. undulatus — 1 live, 55 mm
E. lugubris — 1 live
F. masoni — 1 shell
OTHER TAXA:
Elimia virginica
Corbicula flumina
Leptoxis carinata
F. masoni
S. undulatus

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS:
John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170905.6
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.2774194982632, 36.07809166893)
SURVEY DATE: 9/5/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Clean sand. Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left shoreline, 88 feet
wide. 0, 15, 23, 21, 15, 11, 10, 5, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 3, 4, 7, 12, 16, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, slack
Very shallow
80
Sand dominant, gravel subdominant with silt
Normal and unconsolidated
Common
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
Not observed
30
4
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Rural, natural, timber

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Wooded with shrub -brush
30
Extensive
At least one
Slightly turbid
Low
Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 1 person -hour
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 58 live
E. cistellaeformis — 1 live
E. angustata — 1 live
OTHER TAXA:
Elimia virginica
Corbicula flumina
Leptoxis carinata

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170906.1
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.2666979, 36.0682628)
SURVEY DATE: 9/6/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Habitats surveyed: bars, banks, cypress roots, gravel runs; Depth in inches across river
in 5' increments, right to left shoreline, 85 feet wide, 0, 11, 36, 41, 34, 29, 24, 21, 19, 19, 21, 14, 5, 4, 8, 10, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, slack
Shallow
90
Clay, sand, and gravel dominant, silt subdominant with woody debris
Normal
Present
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
Not observed
35
3.5
Very stable
Wide
Rural

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
Wooded with shrub -brush
30
Extensive
At least one
Turbid
WATER LEVEL: Low
WEATHER: Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES:
SURVEY TIME:
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 186 live
E. cistellaeformis — 10 live
E. lugubris — 1 live
E. angustata — 1 live
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum
Corbicula fluminea
Visual, tactile
3.25 person -hours

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170906.2
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC: POINT (-78.2654463, 36.0624792)
SURVEY DATE: 9/6/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Rocky left shoreline; Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left
shoreline, 60 feet wide: 0, 8, 11, 15, 13, 31, 28, 38, 42, 35, 26, 15, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Slack
Shallow
20
Mix of clay, sand, gravel, pebble, cobble, boulder, bedrock
Normal
None
Low
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
Not observed
30
3
Very stable
Moderate left, wide right
Rural

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Wooded with shrub -brush
40
Extensive
At least one
Turbid
Low
Cloudy, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 3 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 9 live
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum
Elimia virginica
Corbicula flumina
Leptoxis carinata
Lioplax subcarinata

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170907.1
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.267259961067, 36.0455034161322)
SURVEY DATE: 9/7/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left shoreline, 62 feet wide: 0, 0,
25, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 55, 48, 46, 15, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
50
Sand dominant, boulder subdominant with clay, silt, gravel, pebble,
cobble, bedrock, organics, woody debris
Normal and unconsolidated
None
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
Not observed
20
4
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide left, narrow right
Rural, timber, cropland

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush, crops
PERCENT COVER: 20
WOODLAND EXTENT: Extensive right
NATURAL LEVEES: At least one
VISIBILITY: Turbid
WATER LEVEL: Low
WEATHER: Sunny, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Tactile
SURVEY TIME: 4 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata— 88 live
E. cistellaeformis — 1 live
E. lugubris — I live
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum
Elimia virginica
E. catenaria
Corbicula flumina
Leptoxis carinata

PROJECT: K&L Gates, LLP, Tar River Freshwater Mussel Survey
TARGET SPECIES: Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Joseph Alderman
John Fridell
Logan Williams
STATION 170907.2
LOCATION: Tar River, Franklin County, NC; POINT (-78.2679403201474, 36.0470683174543)
SURVEY DATE: 9/7/2017
SITE COMMENTS: Clean sand/gravel. Depth in inches across river in 5' increments, right to left shoreline,
64 feet wide: 0, 10, 12, 15, 22, 31, 48, 50, 54, 32, 26, 21, 15, 0
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE:
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH (m):
BANK HEIGHT (m):
BANK STABILITY:
RIPARIAN
BUFFER WIDTH:
LAND USE:
River
Run, slack
Shallow
20
Sand dominant, gravel subdominant with silt, pebble, and cobble
Normal and unconsolidated
Present
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
Not observed
21
4.5
Some erosion/undercutting
Moderate right, wide left
Rural, timber, cropland

HABITAT (cont.):
RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Wooded with shrub -brush
PERCENT COVER:
40
WOODLAND EXTENT:
Extensive left, intermediate right
NATURAL LEVEES:
At least one
VISIBILITY:
Turbid
WATER LEVEL:
Low
WEATHER:
Sunny, warm
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Tactile
SURVEY TIME: 3.5 person -hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanata — 116 live
E. lugubris — 15 live
E. cistellaeformis — 1 live
L. cariosa — 1 live; approximately 35 mm, partially gravid female
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum
Corbicula flumina

• Southeastern Imperiled Fishes Workshop, NC state representative, 1999 -
2002
• Southern Division American Fisheries Society Nongame Aquatics Committee,
state representative, 1999 — 2002
• Have surveyed for freshwater mussels in Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Florida,
Texas, and Georgia
• Contracted aquatic endangered species biologist for mayor and minor
infrastructure projects, such as FERC relicensing of Duke Energy, South
Carolina Electric and Gas, Santee Cooper, and Appalachian Power
hydroelectric projects, Brookfield Renewable Power FERC license, Tenaska
infrastructure projects, 2003 - present
• Contracted NCDOT aquatic endangered species survey biologist (mostly
state and federally listed endangered mussels), preparation of Natural
Resources Technical Reports and associated documentation required for
state and/or federal permits and certifications, > 150 projects, 2003 — present
• Contracted NCDOT aquatic endangered species survey training biologist,
2003 — present
• Contracted SCDOT aquatic endangered species survey and training biologist,
>100 projects, 2004 — present
• Project Coordinator Survey, monitor, and manage North Carolina
populations of federally listed aquatic species Cape Fear shiner, spotfin
chub, Waccamaw silverside, dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel,
Appalachian elktoe, littlewing pearlymussel, and Carolina heelsplitter,
includes life history studies and habitat evaluations, includes surveys for
federal species of concern, such as the brook floater, Greensboro burrowing
crayfish, Neuse River waterdog, Carolina madtom, and approximately 12
freshwater mussel species, includes coordinating development of aquatics
WEB atlas
(http //www ncwildlife org/wildlife_species_con/WSC_FWMussels_EndFish_A
tlas htm), 1986 - 2002
• Project Coordinator Goose Creek Subbasin conservation (Charlotte Metro
Area), >$2,200,000 mostly NCDOT funded project, 1996 - 2001
• Project Coordinator North Carolina inventories for mollusks, crayfish, and
state listed fish associated with state parks, state rivers, and state owned
game lands, $525,000 project, 1994 - 2001

Technical Project Coordinator Aquatic critical habitats identification
document to conserve 25 proposed aquatic critical habitats across North
Carolina, evolution into a mayor conservation project by the Conservation
Trust for North Carolina and its land trust associates (initially a $470,000
Clean Water Management Trust Fund financed project), NCTNC involvement
in several areas, such as Upper Tar River Conservation Initiative, 1988 -
2002
• Principal Investigator Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia surveys for
Carolina heelsplitter, Atlantic pigtoe, Savannah lilliput, yellow lance, and other
freshwater mussel taxa, U S Fish and Wildlife Service and U S Forest
Service contract projects, 1991 - present
• Principal Investigator Threat analysis for the Stevens Creek population of
the Carolina heelsplitter (Savannah River Basin, South Carolina), prepared
for Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, U S Forest Service, 1998
• Project Coordinator North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission state-
wide freshwater mussel inventory, 1986 - 2002
• Project Coordinator Swift Creek Natural Heritage Trust Fund inventory for
plant communities, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, crayfish, land
snails, freshwater snails, mussels, and aquatic insects, 1991 - 1992
• Project Coordinator Uwharrie and Croatan national forests inventory for
mammals, crayfish, land snails, aquatic snails, and mussels, 1992-1994
• Inter -agency coordination U S Fish & Wildlife Service, U S Forest Service,
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, N C Dept of Transportation, N C
Natural Heritage Program, National Museum of Natural History, Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, N C Forest Service, and numerous other
state and federal agencies, also coordination with numerous private
conservation groups, individuals, and businesses, The Nature Conservancy
technical assistance, 1986-2002
• Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program promotions writer for Wildlife in
North Carolina, public speaker, etc, 1984 - 2002

RECENT POSITIONS
Environmental Supervisor, N C Department of Transportation, May, 2002 - April
25, 2003
Piedmont Project Leader, Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program, N C
Wildlife Resources Commission, supervision of up to 8 other biologists, technical
note database management via Microsoft Access, GIS processing via ArcView,
1984 - May, 2002
EDUCATION
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
BA, Interdisciplinary Studies Program, emphasis in ecology, other natural
sciences, and taxonomy, 1977
MAT, 1981
PERMITS
N C Endangered Species Permit (17-ES00009), Species authorized freshwater
mussels, fish, amphibians, and crayfish, including state and federally listed
endangered, threatened, and special concern species
USFWS Endangered Species Permit (TE065756-3), Species authorized threatened
and endangered fish and/or mussels (-50 species) in North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, and Arkansas
Virginia Threatened/Endangered Species Permit (VADGIF Permit No 059354),
threatened and endangered aquatic mollusk species
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources authorization to survey for aquatic
species, including the Carolina heelsplitter (federally listed endangered freshwater
mussel)
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2017 Fish Scientific Collecting Permit
No F-17-08
Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2017 Scientific Collecting Permit No 20540
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources 2013 Scientific Collecting Permit No
2013 220
Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2011 Endangered or Threatened Species
Permit

Texas Parks & Wildlife 3 year survey permit allowing surveys for all freshwater mussels
in Texas
AWARDS
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's Wildlife Management Award
of Excellence in 1992 (award from >90 NCWRC biologist and technician
peers)
• Southeastern Section of the Wildlife Society's Management Excellence
Award in 1994 (a regional 17 state award)
• National Wildlife Federation's North Carolina Water Conservationist of the
Year in 1994
REFERENCES
Mr Jason Mays, U S Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa St, Asheville, NC 28801,
828-258-3939 ext 226, jason_mays@fws gov
Ms Judith Ratcliffe, NC Natural Heritage Program, 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699-1601, 919-707-8628, Judith_ratcliffe@ncdenr gov
Ms Morgan Wolf, U S Fish & Wildlife Service, 176 Croghan Spur, Charleston, SC
29407, 843-727-4707 ext 219, morgan wolf@fws gov
5

John A. Fridell
2 Song Bird Lane
Weaverville, NC 28787
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Over 30 years of experience conducting endangered and threatened species conservation
activities including conducting consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA); species' status reviews and threat assessments; preparing documents
for adding species to the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife (listing); and
developing and implementing imperiled species' conservation measures and activities
(recovery). During the past 15 years, my work has dealt primarily with the listing and
conservation of freshwater mollusks, crayfish, fish, and terrestrial invertebrates
(mollusks, insects, etc.). I served as the US Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
national lead/expert for over 39 imperiled species in these taxonomic groups, including
several of the nationally imperiled freshwater and terrestrial mollusks with the majority
of their historic range occurring in the Carolinas, and served as the Service's Southeast
Region's lead for an additional 13 species of freshwater and terrestrial mollusks, crayfish,
fish, and terrestrial arachnids whose southern extent of their range extends into one or
both of these states.
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. Biologist January 2015 - Present
Fish and Wildlife Biologist July 1990 to January 2015
Endangered Species Specialist
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
Asheville, North Carolina
Responsibilities included carrying out all phases of Section 7 consultation, Section 4
listing and recovery actions, and Section 6 coordination with the states under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Conducted Section 7 ESA consultations with Federal, State and private
agencies/organizations and individuals on most complicated, and potentially
controversial, land and water development activities/projects funded, authorized or
carried out by federal agencies, including reviewing and determining the potential
direct and indirect effects, including the secondary and cumulative effects, of federal
and private projects and activities on species listed or proposed for listing under the
ESA; conducting on-site investigations and species surveys; preparing site
investigation reports; preparing and reviewing and determining the adequacy of
biological evaluations, biological assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, and
other environmental documents; representing the Service at meetings; providing
information through written correspondence and oral presentations to other agencies,
groups and organizations; developing alternatives for avoiding/minimizing the effects

of activities on listed species; and preparing Biological Opinions (documents
providing a detailed analysis of the actions and their potential direct and indirect
effects to listed species and presenting the Service's determinations on the overall
effects of subject activities on the survival and recovery of the species involved).
Conducted comprehensive background research on the species (aquatic vertebrate and
invertebrate species, and terrestrial invertebrates), coordinating with taxonomists,
biologists, and researchers with universities, state heritage programs, state
conservation agencies, other federal agencies, and private organizations; prioritize
species for status reviews; conduct, organize, and monitor necessary field
investigations throughout species' ranges to determine the present range and threats;
compile and analyze all the biological and threat data collected and detennine whether
the species meet the criteria for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA;
write status survey reports, species elevation packages, Federal Register documents
proposing and listing species as endangered or threatened and designating critical
habitat, and species fact sheets, news releases and other outreach documents
Served as the Service's endangered species expert at public hearings and public
meetings on proposals to list species as endangered or threatened and the designation
of critical habitat (issues involved in these hearings/meetings are often extremely
complicated and controversial).
Served as an expert witness for the Service and other agencies and organizations in
lawsuits and other legal actions involving ESA Section 7 consultation determinations,
ESA Section 4 listing determinations, and ESA Section 9 species "take" cases.
Assisted the states of NC and SC in developing and implementing research and
conservation projects for imperiled species under Section 6 of ESA. Assisted the
states in identifying needed research and conservation actions, developing proposals,
and carrying conservation actions.
Developed species recovery plans — documents describing the taxonomy, ecology,
habitat, and life history of listed species, reasons for their decline, threats to their
continued existence, and the conservation/management measures needed for their
recovery (habitat protection and restoration, species re -introductions, etc ).
Conducted and directed the implementation of on -the -ground protection and
management activities for the recovery of listed species (habitat protection and habitat
restoration activities, species reintroductions, etc.)
Identified species management and research needs, and developed research proposals
and contracts for meeting these needs; served as the Project Officer, overseeing and
directing contract studies involving status surveys, taxonomic and genetic research,
life history studies, management and recovery activities, etc.
Prepared letters, reports, biological opinions, species' recovery plans, responses to
congressional inquires, and other documents for signature at all levels of the Service,
from the Field Supervisor's to the Director's level, and Federal Register documents for
the Secretary of the Interior's signature
Conduct media interviews (radio, television, and newspaper) during the course of
listing, recovery, consultation activities, providing information on the biology,
ecology, and habitat requirements of the species at issue and explain agency positions,

policies, and the potential effects of proposals to landowners, communities, and state
and other Federal programs.
Serve as a team leader assisting in field courses in North Carolina, Kentucky, and
Florida, teaching stream morphology, classification, assessment and restoration
courses to Federal, state and private biologists.
Fish and Wildlife Biologist June 1988 to July 1990
Staff Specialist —Project Review
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
Asheville, North Carolina
Responsible for the review, organization, development, coordination, and timely
execution of all project review activities carried out by the Asheville Field Office in
accordance with Section 7 consultation of the ESA (see description above), Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
in the western half of North Carolina (total of 41 counties).
Served on a national team responsible for preparing the Service's Section 7 Biological
Opinions for nationwide pesticide consultations under the Environmental Protection
Agency's pesticide registration program.
Trained and provided Section 7 consultation overview and guidance to biologists in
the Charleston, South Carolina, and Raleigh, North Carolina, Field Offices.
Served on agency coordination teams assisting in the preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements and other NEPA documents for major federal projects.
Prepared FWCA reports for projects effecting water and wetland resources providing a
detailed analysis of project impacts, describing affected wetland types, values, and
functions, and recommending denial of permits when necessary, and project
modifications for avoiding or minimizing impacts.
Conducted wetland delineations and developed wetland mitigation plans to offset
wetland losses associated with permitted projects.
Assisted the office listing and recovery staff in conducting status surveys for listed and
candidate plant, mussel, fish, amphibian, and bird species; carrying out recovery
actions (reintroduction projects) for listed mussels, fish, and birds; and, reviewing and
providing comments on listing packages and recovery plans.
Wildlife Biologist September 1985 to June 1988
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Endangered Species Office
Asheville, North Carolina
Conducted Section 7 ESA consultations for all federal projects and state and private
activities funded or authorized/permitted by federal agencies in NC and SC (including
many highly complex projects including consultations with the Department of Army,
Department of the Air Force, and Department of the Navy on the effects of military
training and other activities on listed species on military bases throughout the two

states; the US Forest Service on Management Plans for National Forests in mountains,
piedmont, and coastal plain of NC and SC; Federal Highway Administration and NC
and SC Departments of Transportation on major interstate highway construction
projects effecting areas and ecosystems throughout these states; US Army Corps of
Engineers on numerous dredging projects, beach nourishment projects, flood control
and water supply impoundment construction projects, etc ).
Assisted the Service's Washington Office in the preparation of the Service's and
Nation Marine Fisheries Service's 1986 Interagency Cooperation Regulations
(regulations for implementation of Section 7 of the ESA), associated guidance
documents.
Assisted the Service's red -cockaded woodpecker Recovery Coordinator with the
development of Section 7 jeopardy standards for the species, for use by the Service
throughout the species range (southeastern US).
Conducted field surveys and assessed the threats to candidate (species under
consideration for Federal listing as endangered or threatened) plant, mollusks
(terrestrial and aquatic), amphibians, and birds.
Conducted red -cockaded woodpecker colony site surveys of the Southern Pines, NC
and Pinehurst, NC; determined the status of colony sites, marked and mapped colony
sites, and met with private landowners to discuss with them their responsibilities under
the ESA.
Worked with Federal, State and private individuals on successful peregrine falcon
hacking projects in NC, SC, TN; responsible for site evaluation, selection, and
preparation, transporting the birds to the site, monitoring volunteers working the sites,
and conducting the release of the birds.
Reviewed and edited proposals for listing species and draft recovery plans for listed
species prepared by the office's listing and recovery staff
Biological Technician (Wildlife) July 1984 to September 1985
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Endangered Field Office
Asheville, North Carolina
Conducted informal consultations under Section 7 of the ESA for Federal and private
activities in NC, SC, KY, and TN and assisted two other office biologists in
conducting formal consultations in these states.
Maintained a database on the distribution of listed, proposed, and candidate species for
the states of NC, SC, TN, and KY.
Served as crew leader and provided on-site supervision of summer employees in the
monitoring of the nesting activities and determining nest success of the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle on the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, SC;
was in charge of hatchery site selection, hatchery constructing, nest relocation, nest
monitoring, and preparing reports.
Conducted inventories of the endangered red -cockaded woodpecker on Carolina
Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge, SC; responsible for determining the status of

previously recorded colony sites and identifying, marking, and mapping new colony
sites on the refuge and adjacent State lands.
Worked with other Federal, State and private biologists in a successful peregrine
falcon hacking project in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, TN; responsible
for hacking site selection, site preparation, release and tracking of the birds.
Conducted field survey for the federally threatened noonday snail in the Nantahala
River Gorge, NC; mapped the species' distribution within the gorge and characterized
the species' habitat, and identified potential threats to the species
Assisted in a red wolf habitat and preybase study of the Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge and Dare County Bomb Range, NC for a red wolf reintroduction
project.
Assisted in status surveys of two federally listed plants; supervised one of the two
survey crews, and was responsible for identification of the species, mapping of newly
discovered occurrences, characterizing the species' habitats and determining potential
threats.
Biological Aide May 1982 to May 1984
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Endangered Species Office
Asheville, North Carolina
Conducted and assisted in status surveys for vertebrates (fish and bat surveys),
invertebrates (aquatic and terrestrial mollusk surveys), and plants.
Conducted the first bald eagle hacking project in North Carolina; worked with
personnel from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Tennessee Valley Authority,
NC State University and Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge; responsible for
conducting the necessary research and writing the strategy report for establishing a
nesting population of the bald eagle and project proposal for the hacking project at
Mattamuskeet NWR; reported orally to team members at organizational meeting on
various aspects of the project planning and preparation; was asked by the team to
conduct the actual hacking operations; was in charge of the actual on-site hacking
operations, care and monitoring of the eaglets, supervision of weekend volunteers, and
telemetry tracking of the birds following their release; kept detailed notes on the birds
growth, food consumption, and behavior; wrote weekly press reports on the eaglets
progress to keep the project members and the press informed throughout the duration
of the project; was responsible for determining when the eagles were ready for release,
and for telemetry tracking and monitoring of the birds' behavior and progress
following their release
Served as crew leader and provided on-site supervision of Young Adult Conservation
Corps and summer employees in the monitoring of the nesting activities and
determining nest success of the federally threatened loggerhead sea turtle on the Cape
Romain National Wildlife Refuge, SC.
Worked with State and Federal biologists on a golden eagle hacking project in the
Pisgah National Forest, Shining Rock Wilderness area, NC; involved in site selection,

setup, and release of the eagles and telemetry tracking of the birds following their
release.
Conducted hacking site surveys and great horned owl surveys (to determine the
suitability of sites) in NC and TN to determine the suitability of sites for a peregrine
falcon reintroduction project; responsible for coordinating surveys, choosing sites,
training personnel with other agencies in survey techniques and site requirements, and
recording and tabulating data collected.
Worked with volunteers on the construction of bat gates over cave entrances for the
protection of endangered bats.
Responsible for researching distributional data, and compiling and maintaining a
database for all federally listed and proposed species and their critical habitats, and all
species under status review for potential listing occurring in the states of NC, SC, KY,
and TN; establishing close contacts with biologists and researchers with other Federal
agencies, State agencies, Universities, and private organizations; complied species
distribution data in a variety of ways including maps, county index cards, and
computer distribution lists and developed species distribution notebooks to serve as an
information source for other Service offices and other agencies.
Conducted informal consultations under Section 7 of the ESA for Federal and private
activities in NC, SC, KY, and TN.
Developed and maintained an index system for the office's endangered species library
containing hundreds of published and unpublished documents.
Young Adult Conservation Corps August 1981 to May 1982
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Area Office
Asheville, North Carolina
Compiled distribution data on listed and rare species in NC, SC, KY, and TN.
Assisted in surveys for the endangered snail darter in rivers in AL, GA, and TN.
Assisted in surveys of historic peregrine falcon aeries in western NC and conducted
great horned owl surveys to determine the suitability of sites for peregrine falcon
reintroductions.
Assisted with the release and telemetry tracking of golden eagles hacked in the Pisgah
National Forest, NC.
Assisted in a status survey of a threatened snail in TN.
Assisted in brown and rainbow trout marking, stocking, and creel study in TN.
Wildlife Technician May 1980 to August 1981
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Responsible for carrying out the base's loggerhead sea turtle management project,
kept nightly reports on turtle nesting activity and behavior, collected data on biotic and
abiotic factors (weather conditions, tide levels, moon phase, human activity, etc.) that

may influence nesting behavior and intensity; ; recorded time of nesting; tagged adult
turtles; took carapace and flipper measurements and recorded physical condition of the
turtles; counted eggs per clutch; relocated nests as necessary for protection from tides
and beach traffic/military training; mapped nest site locations and false crawls;
recorded time of nesting; monitored hatching success; conducted weekly aerial
surveys and recorded nesting activity on other beaches up and down the North
Carolina coast that were not being monitored; preparing sea turtle stranding report;
and, summarized in a technical report all data and information collected throughout
the project for submittal to the Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
Conducted surveys for the endangered red -cockaded woodpecker; located, mapped,
and marked active and inactive cavity trees, start trees, and buffer zones around colony
sites to protect the sites from timber management and military training activities;
conducted weekly inspections of colony sites in, or in close proximity to training
areas, and prepared violation reports for signature at Commanding General's Office
and transmittal to the Fish and Wildlife Service, briefed Base Chief of Staff on
violations as necessary.
Conducted American alligator surveys of the base; supervised Marine Corps personnel
assigned to assist me in the surveys; recorded number and location and estimated size
of alligators sighted; conducted aerial and ground for alligator nests, mapped nest
locations, monitored nest success, and prepared reports summarizing all the data
collected.
Conducted rare plant surveys; mapped and monitored all occurrences and conducted
rare plant habitat studies
Assisted the game wildlife staff in conducting wild turkey counts, trapping turkey for
reintroduction efforts with the NCWRC, trapping and relocation of problem black
bears, food plot management and wildlife use monitoring, and other tasks/studies as
needed.

EDUCATION
Kansas State University May 1974 to July 1979
Manhattan, Kansas
Bachelor of Science: Wildlife Conservation and Management
Training: Candidate Species Conservation and Listing 2011; Endangered Species
Recovery — 2001; Conservation Genetics — 2001; River Assessment and Monitoring -
1999; Contract Officers Training - 1998; River Morphology and Applications - 1997;
Team Effectiveness Training - 1997, Applied Fluvial Geomorphology - 1996;
Endangered Species Listing - 1992; Wetland Classification and Delineation - 1990;
Endangered Species Information System - 1989; Wetland Plant Identification - 1988;
Endangered Species Section 7 Consultation — 1987
Awards and Honors: 2014 and 2013 Superior Performance Award; 2012 Outstanding
Performance and Achievement Award, 2007 and 2009 - 2011— Superior Performance
Award; 2005 — Superior Performance Award and Star Award for quality of performance
and special accomplishments associated with assessing effects of hurricane related flood
damage on imperiled aquatic species and work with other agencies and private
consultants designing and implementing stream restoration; 2005 — Superior
Performance Award and Star Award for quality of work and special accomplishments;
2004 — Superior Performance Award and two Star Awards for quality of performance
and special accomplishments; 2003 — Regional Director's Honor Award for Outstanding
Performance and Quality Step Award for outstanding performance; 2002 — Quality Step
Award for outstanding performance; 2001 — Quality Step Award for outstanding
performance; 2000 — Star Award for quality of performance serving as species expert in
lawsuits; 1999 — Star Award for significant accomplishments on Private Lands Recovery
Projects; 1998 — Star Award for development of Tar River Conservation/Protection plan
and agreement with Champion International; 1997 — Star Award for performance on
Section 7 consultations/project permit review activities, Star Award for quality of
technical assistance provided to other offices; 1996 — On -the -Spot Award for multiple
significant accomplishments; 1994 — Special Achievement Award and Special Act Service
Award for quality of performance; 1993 — Special Achievement Award for quality of
performance; 1992 — Special Achievement Award for quality of performance, 1990, 1989,
1988, and 1987— Special Achievement Award for quality of performance.
Publications (chronologic order):
Fridell, J.A. and H. Passingham. 1981 Sea turtle inventory for the summer and fall
1980. Tech. report. Camp Lejeune MCB, NC. 24 pp.
Schwartz, F.J., J.A. Fridell, H. Passingham, C Peterson and J. Wooten. 1981. First
recorded successful nesting of the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, in North
Carolina and North of Georgia. ASB Bull., 28(2):96.
Fridell, J.A. and H. Passingham. 1982. Sea turtle inventory for the summer and fall
1981. Tech. report. Camp Lejeune MCB, NC. 24 pp.
Fridell, J.A. 1983. Strategy for reestablishment of a breeding population of the
federally -endangered bald eagle in North Carolina. Unpublished document to the
US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, Atlanta, GA and North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 56 pp.

Fridell, J.A. 1992. Revised recovery plan for the Tar spinymussel. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. 34 pp.
Fridell, J.A. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to list the
Carolina heelsplitter as an endangered species. Federal Register 57(101):21925-
21929.
Fridell, J.A. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to list the
Appalachian elktoe as an endangered species. Federal Register 58(170):46940-
46944.
Fridell, J.A. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, "Lasmigona
decorata" (Carolina heelsplitter) determined to be endangered Federal Register
58(124):34926-34932.
Fridell, J.A. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to \list the
spruce -fir moss spider as an endangered species. Federal Register 59(180):3825-
3829.
Fridell, J A. 1994. Discovery of two occurrences of the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana) in the Tar River system, North Carolina. Endangered Species
Technical Bulletin 19(2) 23.
Fridell, J.A. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Appalachian elktoe
determined to be an endangered species. Federal Register 59(225):60324-60334
Fridell, J.A. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Spruce -fir moss
spider determined to be endangered. Federal Register 60(24):6968-6974.
Fridell, J.A. 1996. Recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
Lea. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. 31 pp.
Fridell, J.A. 1997. Recovery plan for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Lea. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. 30 pp.
Garner, J T and J A. Fridell 1997 Recovery Plan for Anthony's Riversnail. U S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 21 pp.
Harp, J. and J.A. Fridell. 1998. Recovery plan for the spruce -fir moss spider
(Microhexura montivaga). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. 22 pp.
Augspurger, T., J. Dwyer, and J. Fridell. 1999. Fishing for answers (pollutant toxicity
and endangered mollusks). Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 24(1):8-9.
Fridell, J.A. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
designation of critical habitat for the spruce -fir moss spider. Federal Register
65(195): 59798-59814.
Fridell, J.A. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. Federal Register
66(27):9540-9555.
Fridell, J.A 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
critical habitat for the spruce -fir moss spider. Federal Register 66(130):35547-
35566.
Fridell, J.A. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter. Federal Register
66(133):36229-36245.
Fridell, J.A. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter. Federal Register 67(127):44502-
44522.

Fridell, J.A. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. Federal Register 67(188):61016-61040.

CURRICULUM VITAE
J. Logan Williams
6900 Park Place
Raleigh, NC 27616
USA
Home Phone [phone]
E -Mail- [e-mail]
EDUCATION
Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. (August 2008)
Major: Forestry; Minor: Interdisciplinary
Dissertation: Predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in Fraser Fir Christmas
tree plantations in the Southern Appalachians of North Carolina.
Advisor: Fred P. Hain
Master of Science, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina (May 1994). Major: Entomology; Minor: Botany
Thesis: The Effect of Fluvalinate (Apistan Queen Tabs) on Queen
and Worker Honey Bees in Transit and Colony Survivorship.
Advisor: John Ambrose
Bachelor of Arts, Department of Philosophy and Religion, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina (December 1981). Major: Philosophy
Associate of Applied Agriculture, Agricultural Institute, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina (December 1982). Major: Agricultural Pest
Control
Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, 1985-1988
Curriculum: Biology with course work in Ichthyology, Ornithology, Animal
Ecology and Microbiology
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Summary of Relevant Experience
• Natural Resources Technical Reports (Numerous completed and reviewed)
• Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys (Numerous completed)
• Biological Assessments (Several Prepared and Reviewed)
• Wetland Delineations (Numerous completed)

Biologist
Alderman Environmental Services
Red Gate Road, Pittsboro, N.C. (September 2012 -Present)
• Freshwater mussel surveys in North Carolina, Virginia and South
Carolina
• Freshwater Fish Surveys in South Carolina
• Vegetation surveys in South Carolina
Environmental Supervisor/Biological Surveys Group Leader, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Natural Environment Section, Biological Surveys
Group (2002- September 2012 Retired).
• Manage all activities of the Biological Surveys Group.
• Conduct complex project studies/ surveys and provide information
with respect to natural resources, flora and fauna, plant
communities, threatened and endangered species, benthic
sampling, and aquatic surveys as required by NEPA and/or
Endangered Species Act.
• Conduct surveys for freshwater mussels throughout the state.
• Oversee the management of T&E roadside plant populations and
mitigation sites.
• Conduct ongoing shorebird habitat/food availability assessments
associated with sandbag placement and Bonner Bridge replacement
on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.
• Conduct and/ or supervise Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
surveys in coastal waters.
• Conduct and coordinate surveys for US Forest Service Sensitive
and Species of Concern.
• Provide information on aquatic and terrestrial ecology and botany.
• Assess indirect (secondary) and cumulative impacts to protected
species and their habitats.
Forest Plant Communities of the Coastal Plain Teaching Assistant,
North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry (Summer Session 1
2004)
• Assisted with teaching a one-week course during summer camp in
the School of Forest Resources
Forest Plant Communities of the Coastal Plain Teaching Assistant,
North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry (Summer Session 2
2004)
• Assisted with teaching a one-week course during summer camp in
the School of Forest Resources.
Dendrology Teaching Assistant, North Carolina State University, Department of

Forestry and Natural Resources (Fall Semester 2005).
Taught the laboratory portion of the undergraduate dendrology
class
Entomological Programs Specialist/Staff Entomologist, North Carolina
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2001-2002).
• Coordinated the Gypsy moth eradication program.
• Prepared Environmental Assessments detailing the social,
economic and environmental impacts of the proposed intervention
tactics.
• Served as lead individual within the NCDA for the jointly operated
federal quarantine for the Imported Fire Ant.
• Regulated the sweet potato industry in North Carolina to ensure
that existing populations of sweet potato weevil did not expand and
that new infestations were eradicated.
• Managed the Boll Weevil Eradication program.
• Provided support to the field staff and other personnel within the
Plant Protection Section both on as needed basis and through
planned workshops and other sectional meetings.
• Addressed client concerns and questions pertaining to insect and
other arthropod problems. Interpret import requirements necessary
for the completion of Federal Phytosanitary Certificates for field
staff.
• Updated current entomological topics and new concerns and
provide this information to Plant Protection Personnel.
• Trained new employees of the Plants Protection Section on a one
to one basis in the field environment.
• Served as a spokesperson to the general public on matters relating
to the Plant Protection Section's entomological programs.
• Prepared press releases and conducted media interviews on
entomological topics.
• Conducted public meetings in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act to inform the public of NCDA&CS
proposals to aerially applied insecticides and to solicit public input
for the decision making process.
• Addressed entomological issues at university, industrial and state
meetings.
• Trained field specialists in the recognition and control of insect
pests.
Dendrology Teaching Assistant, North Carolina State University, Department of
Forestry and Natural Resources (Fall Semester 2002).
0 Taught the laboratory portion of the undergraduate dendrology

class
Natural Systems Specialist/Endangered Species Coordinator, North Carolina
Department of Transportation (2000-2001)
• Conducted Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) investigations.
• Survey for federally protected plants, animals, mollusks and fish
using approved methods.
• Bird and butterfly surveys on United States Forest Service Property
(Cerulean warbler, goldenwing warbler, dusky azure butterfly and
silvery blue butterfly).
• Coordinated Section 7 meetings for the Department of
Transportation.
• Participated in cooperative surveys with other Natural Resource
agencies for freshwater mussels.
• Conducted surveys using appropriate methodology including,
snorkeling, scuba and tactile searches.
• Collected baseline macromvertebrate and ichthyological data for
environmental monitoring of streams.
• Operation of Coffelt electrofisher.
• Identification of aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates used in
bioassessments.
• Conducted netting surveys for bats Experience with identification
of Indiana, Hoary, Little Brown, Big Brown, Eastern Red, Eastern
Pipistrelle, Northern Long-eared and Eastern Small -footed bats.
• Survey of Priority 1 bat hibernacula (January 200 1) at Carter Cave
Kentucky and Mammoth Cave National Forest, Kentucky Species
counted include, Indiana, Gray, Eastern Pipistrelle, Little Brown,
Silver Haired, Rafinesque's big -eared and Big Brown bats.
• Assessed and document environmental conditions of proposed
construction sites.
• Conducted detailed ecological studies classifying plant
communities and identifying plant and animal species located in
highway corridors, bridge sites and other transportation related
projects.
• Made recommendations on erosion and sediment control to reduce
impacts to sensitive aquatic areas and organisms.
• Evaluated the environmental quality of potential wetland
mitigation sites. Reviewed environmental documents.
• Map wetlands and endangered species locations with GPS.
• Applied for environmental permits.
• Conducted natural history and endangered species training
programs for NCDOT staff.
Natural Systems Specialist/ Lead Technical Specialist, Natural Environment

Unit, North Carolina Department of Transportation (1995-2000)
• Provide leadership to the environmental unit in the absence of the
Unit Head.
• Assess and document environmental conditions of proposed
construction sites.
• Conduct detailed ecological studies classifying plant communities
and identifying plant and animal species located in highway
corridors, bridge sites and other transportation related projects.
• Evaluate the environmental quality of potential wetland
mitigation sites.
• Conduct Section 7 investigations (Federally Protected Species
surveys).
• Survey for federally protected freshwater mollusks and plants.
• Bird and butterfly surveys on United States Forest Service
• Property (Cerulean warbler, goldenwing warbler, dusky azure
butterfly and silvery blue butterfly).
• Collect baseline macroinvertebrate and ichthyological data for
environmental monitoring of streams.
• Operation of Coffelt electrofisher. Identification of aquatic benthic
macroinvertebrates used in bioassessments
• Map federally protected species populations located on mitigation
property.
• Endangered species recovery and reintroduction to extirpated
locations (Rhus michauxaa).
• Develop reports of the studies on a personal computer for National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation.
• Delineate wetlands and surface waters in compliance with Corps
of Engineers regulations.
• Review environmental documents.
• Map wetlands and endangered species locations with GPS. Apply
for environmental permits.
• Management responsibilities for location, purchase and monitoring
wetland mitigation sites.
Nature Educator, City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation (1994-1995 part-time)
• Taught nature study programs for school groups at Camp Durant
Nature Park.
• Topics included most natural history related subjects.
Supervisor of Apiary Inspection, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (1988-1995)
Supervision of five apiary inspectors stationed across North
Carolina.

• Supervise a honey bee disease and disorder laboratory.
• Administer laws and regulations concerning the bee and honey
industry.
• Issue regulatory permits for the interstate movement of insects.
• Develop, revise and implement action plans for new diseases and
pests of the beekeeping industry including the Africanized honey
bee and the Varroa mite.
• Conduct training programs on native insect pollinator conservation
and habitat enhancement.
• Interpret departmental activities to the general public through the
news media, lectures at state and local beekeeping organizations
and school groups.
• Represent the NCDA Apiary program at regional and national
apicultural meetings.
• Liaison between governmental agencies, private industry and the
NCDA.
• Manage the bee and honey educational display at the North
Carolina State Fair.
• Manage NCDA apiary.
• Maintain honey bee display at the North Carolina Museum of
Natural History.
• Conduct training programs for the extension agents, federal
agencies, the general public and beekeepers on disease and pests of
the beekeeping industry, natural history and related topics.
• Serve as the NCDA contact on aculeate hymenoptera issues.
• Assist in field operations of the NCDA Gypsy Moth Program and
the Biological Control Program.
Apiary Inspector, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (1984-1988)
• Protection and promotion of the bee and honey industry in North
Carolina.
• Conduct disease and disorder inspections for pests and diseases
including the Africanized honey bee, parasitic mites and bacterial
diseases.
• Conduct training programs on native insect pollinator
conservation and habitat enhancement.
• Operate an ethylene oxide fumigation chamber for honey bee
disease eradication.
• Education of beekeepers on topics such as hive management and
bee disease diagnosis and control.
• Work closely with NCSU apicultural staff conducting bee disease
and disorder diagnostic clinics and apicultural research.
• Interpret departmental activities to the public through lectures and

short courses.
• Organized promotional activities relating to the beekeeping
industry through involvement with the North Carolina State Fair
and county fairs.
Laboratory Assistant, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State
University (1982-1982)
Assist in preparation and conduction of pesticide efficacy research
on peanuts, soybeans, and stored grain products.
Duties include construction of the care of plants in the greenhouse,
prepare the experimental plot, sowing the plot with the desired
crop variety, mixing and application of pesticides, rearing and
releasing of insects and mites.
COMMUNITY SERVICE/ VOLUNTEER WORK
Wake County Public Libraries Volunteer -work associated with the Annual
Library Book Sale, 1996-2012.
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
Plant Propagation, NC Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC, fall 2010.
Native Bee Identification Course, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
Laurel Maryland, February 4-8, 2008.
Agricultural Acarology, Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio, June 27 -July 8,
2005.
NC Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Larval Mosquito
Identification Course, Certificate of Achievement, Winston Salem, NC, June 24-
26,2003.
NC Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Adult Mosquito Identification
Course, Certificate of Achievement, Goose Creek State Park, NC, April 14-16,
2003.
Carolina Area Benthological Workshop, Taxonomy of Crane flies
Workshop, Durham NC March 2002

Bat Conservation and Management Workshop, Barree Pennsylvania, August
16-24, 2000. 22 hours classroom and 22 hours practical field experience,
including 10 hours bat netting, trapping, identification, and handling skills.
Taxonomy and Natural History of Appalachian Mayflies, Stoneflies and
Caddisflies, Highlands Biological Station, Highlands NC May 21 -June 1, 2001
Biology of Spiders, Highlands Biological Station, Highlands NC
An Introduction to the Taxonomy and Identification of Larval
Chironomidae, North American Benthological Society Technical Workshop,
Keystone Colorado, 28 May 2000
Spider Biology, August 1999, Humbolt Research Institute, Stuben Maine
Tawny Crescent Butterfly Identification Workshop, USFS Headquarters,
Highlands NC. 1999.
National Environmental Policy Act documentation workshop, Federal
Highways Administration, March 1999.
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS/ PERMITS
Endangered Species Permit, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
For all state and federally listed endangered, threatened or special concern
freshwater mussel species. Permit Number NC -2012 ES 166, expired 12/31/2012,
new application currently in process.
Certified Plant Professional, NC Association of Nurserymen, INC. June
12, 1998.
PADI Open water Diver Certification, May 20, 1999.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Nongame Wildlife Advisory
Committee, 2002 -September 2012.
North Carolina Mollusk Scientific Council, 2010 -present
AWARDS RECEIVED

Burke County Beekeepers Association, Outstanding Service Award 1988
North Carolina Beekeepers Association, Outstanding Service Award 1995
NCDOT Extra Mile Award for Environmental Stewardship 2004
AFFILIATIONS
North Carolina Exotic Pest Plant Council, 2012 -present.
North Carolina Entomological Association, President Oct 2000 -Oct 2001.
North Carolina Beekeepers Association, 1984 to present.
Southern States Beekeepers Association, 1984 to present.
Southern Appalachian Forest Insect/Pathologist Workgroup 2001 to present
HONORS SOCIETY
Xi Sigma Pi
PUBLICATIONS
Williams, Logan and Fred P. Hain. 2013. Seasonal Occurrence of phytoseiid
mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in North Carolina Fraser fir (Abies fraseri {Pursh}
Poiret) Christmas tree plantations. J. Entomolol. Sci. 48(4): 317-326.
Williams, Logan, Fred P. Hain and David Orr. 2011. The influence of four
ground cover vegetation types used in North Carolina Fraser Fir (Abies fraseri
(Pursh ) Poiret) Christmas tree plantations on abundance and species composition
of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 46(3): 216-222
Williams, Logan. 2008. Predatory Mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in Fraser fir
Christmas Tree Plantations in the Southern Appalachians of North Carolina. Ph.D.
Dissertation, NCSU, Raleigh.
Williams, Logan and Consie Powell. 1999. Busy Blue Bees. North Carolina
Wild Notebook, Wildlife in North Carolina Magazine, April. pp. 28-31.
Nalepa, C.A., K.R. Ahlstrom, B.A. Nault and Williams, J.L. 1998. Mass
appearance of lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on North Carolina beaches.
Entomological News vol. 109, No. 4, September and October, pp 277-281.
Williams, J.L., J.T. Ambrose, and C.G. Wright. 1994. The Effect of

Fluvalinate(Apistan Queen Tabs) on Queen and Worker Honey Bees in Transit
and Colony Survivorship. Amer. Bee J. 134: 759-762.
Williams, J.L. 1994. The Effect of Fluvalinate (Apistan Queen Tabs) on Queen
and Worker Honey Bees in Transit and Colony Survivorship. MS Thesis, NCSU,
Raleigh.
SELECT PRESENTATIONS
Williams, Logan. 2002. Identifying honey plants. Spring Meeting, North Carolina
Beekeepers Association, Bolivia NC.
Williams, Logan. 2000. Orchard Bees. Spring Meeting, North Carolina
Beekeepers Association Spring Meeting, Lumberton, NC.
Williams, Logan. 1998. Trapping and raising alternative bees (Orchard bees) to
honey bees by a hobby beekeeper. Spring Meeting, North Carolina Beekeepers
Association, Albemarle NC.
Williams, Logan. 1998. Identifying honey plants Spring Meeting, North Carolina
Beekeepers Association, Albemarle NC.
Williams, Logan. 1997. Cooperation between NCSU, NCDA and NCSBA. An
insiders view. Summer Meeting, NC Beekeepers Association, Clemmons, NC.
Williams, Logan. 1995. A look back and a look ahead. Spring Meeting of the
North Carolina State Beekeepers Association, Southern Pines, NC.
Williams, Logan. 1993. The safety of Apistan Queen Tabs. Summer meeting of
the North Carolina Beekeepers Association, Greensboro.
Williams, J.L , Ambrose, J.T. and C.G. Wright. 1993. The effect of Apistan
(Fluvalinate) on queen and worker honeybees in transit and colony
survivorship. Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. Indianapolis,
In
Williams, Logan. 1992. Feeding Honey bees. Spring Meeting, North Carolina
Beekeepers Association, Southern Pines.
Williams, Logan. 1991 NC flora and honey plants. Eastern Apicultural Society,
New Bern.
Williams, Logan. 1989. Beekeeping Report from the NCDA , 1989 Summer
Meeting, North Carolina Beekeepers Association, Asheville NC.

Williams, Logan. 1988. Affects of Varroa Mites and National/State Varroa
Policies on Beekeeping. Meeting of the Southern States Beekeepers Federation,
Kissimmee, Florida. (Panel Discussion)
Williams, Logan. 1987. Bee Disease Identification and Treatment, 1987 Summer
Meeting, North Carolina Beekeepers Association and Southern States Beekeepers
Federation Annual Meeting, Boone NC.
Williams, Logan. 1986. Bee Diseases Identification and Treatment, Spring
Meeting North Carolina Beekeepers Association, Southern Pines NC.
Williams, Logan. 1985. Tracheal mite identification workshop. Spring Meeting,
North Carolina State Beekeepers Association, Wilmington.
Williams, Logan. 1985. Bee Disease Diagnosis (including lab techniques) 1985
Summer Meeting, North Carolina Beekeepers Association, High Point NC.
Williams, Logan. 1984. Bee Disease Diagnosis (including lab techniques for
identification) 1984 Summer Meeting, North Carolina Beekeepers Association,
Asheville NC.

ATTACHMENT B
Tar River
Water Quality Sampling Information
August 2017

"W'.77�4 I'l
80 7
Tar River WR
6
Proposed Outfall
5
4
STATi
ec-
F
TAR RIVER 0
•0
00 • •(1
4 3
Iwc
EGA'
o
rN
l
0 Freshwater Mussel Survey Samples
0 Grab Samples - Aug 5, 2017
0 0.4 0.8
U Grab Samples - May 10. 2016 mmmL.- --iMiles

076
Page 1

576
Page 2

DATE 8 5 2017
WEATHER. Cloudy, 75 degF
Sample Time
GPS Coord.
Centerline Depth
Water Temp
pH (s.u.)
DO (mg/L)
Conductivity
NOTES
Lat
Long
Sample Location
(24H)
(ft)
(deg C)
1
720
36°N 5 002'
78°W 16 357'
15
No Probe
2
813
36°N 4 95'
78°W 16 776'
2
25.4
9.03
616
112
3
830
36°N 4 887'
78°W 17 036'
2
25.7
91
612
110
4
853
36°N 4 909'
78°W 17 4'
6
254
915
62
110
5
1015
36°N 5 163'
78°W 17.522'
2
257
915
642
108
6
1010
36°N 5 207'
78°W 17 525'
0.33
25.5
919
633
103
7
959
36°N 5 340'
78°W 17 584'
067
259
914
61
103
8
948
36°N 5.359'
78°W 17 646'
3
254
907
599
105
Lots of minnows observed

").,0) --t) Lsc-".Y )
vm.ti rw -*° W1 sol 44 S O' b ti 3Z 1'� I& n W)c tidy
�- _
blob
U-st
O
°J
b�
s
ZS' ��
pa �
a. 1,01
9
HJ'
1
jj�F}
�= ,J ' t
A; -4A
Q 16.Sol
�i
�1*1-1
M AL
I
MM
f5 ;$
b
Q<<
tob`SZ
,Z
Nov
A.rbL
1LOQ*
tr.
'rg
a1�1Soo
6
ti sz
r
q4#A
S310PI
A;ini3�npuo�
(i/gw) pQ
(n s) Hd
Wj gap)
dwal -1a;eM
ve
W)
yjdaa auipalua:)
•guol
,5
lel
Off;
(Hvz)
awl• aldweS
uo!le�ol a�dw
•pJoo:) Sd9
p :d3Hiti
Lr -s+-9 :31

ENCO Laboratories
Bo
Accurate. Timely. Responsive. Innovative.
102-A Woodwinds Industrial Court
Cary NC, 27511
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Novozymes North America (N0008)
Attn: Scott Creech
77 Perry Chapel Church Road
Franklinton, NC 27525
RE: Laboratory Results for
Project Number: [none], Project Name/Desc: Tar River Samples
ENCO Workorder(s): CA11576
Dear Scott Creech,
Enclosed is a copy of your laboratory report for test samples received by our laboratory on
Tuesday, August 8, 2017.
Unless otherwise noted in an attached project narrative, all samples were received in
acceptable condition and processed in accordance with the referenced methods/procedures.
Results for these procedures apply only to the samples as submitted.
The analytical results contained in this report are in compliance with NELAC standards, except
as noted in the project narrative. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without
the written approval of the Laboratory.
This report contains only those analyses performed by Environmental Conservation
Laboratories. Unless otherwise noted, all analyses were performed at ENCO Cary. Data from
outside organizations will be reported under separate cover
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
OW4LS-kko
Chuck Smith
Project Manager
Enclosure(s)
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 1 of 22

CeNjk'
www.encolabs.com
SAMPLE SUMMARY/ LABORATORY CHRONICLE
Client ID: 1N
Lab ID.
CA11576-01
Sampled. 08/05/17 07.20 Received: 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 14 36
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
15 07
08/14/17 15 07
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 14 36
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 0734
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID: 1C
Lab ID.
CA11576-02
Sampled: 08/05/17 07:20 Received, 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Timefs)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 14 49
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
15 10
08/14/17 15 10
SM 23408-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 14 49
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 0734
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID. 1S
Lab ID•
CA11576-03
Sampled: 08/05/17 07:20 Received: 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Timefs)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 14 52
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1511
08/14/17 15 11
SM 23408-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 14 52
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1305
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 0734
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID. 2N
Lab ID•
CA11576-04
Sampled: 08/05/17 08.13 Received: 08/08/17 12:40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analvsis Date/Timefs)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 14 54
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1511
08/14/17 15 11
SM 23408-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 14 54
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 45001-1+13-2000
08/05/17 0827
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID• 2C
Lab ID:
CA11576-05
Sampled, 08/05/17 08.13 Received, 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Timefs)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 14 57
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1512
08/14/17 15 12
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 14 57
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 08 27
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID: 2S
Lab ID:
CA11576-06
Sampled
08/05/17 08 13 Received 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Timefs)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 00
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
14 40
08/14/17 14 40
SM 23408-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 00
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 45001-1+13-2000
08/05/17 0827
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID• 3N
Lab ID•
CA11576-07
Sampled. 08/05/17 08.30 Received. 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 10
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1441
08/14/17 14 41
SM 23406-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 10
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 45001-1+13-2000
08/05/17 08 44
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 2 of 22

eco
www.encolabs.com
SAMPLE SUMMARY/ LABORATORY CHRONICLE
Client ID• 3C
Lab ID
CA11576-08
Sampled: 08/05/17 08 30 Received: 08/08/17 12:40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 15 12
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1442
08/14/17 14 42
SM 23406-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 15 12
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 0844
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID• 3S
Lab ID:
CA11576-09
Sampled: 08/05/17 08:30 Received. 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Timels)
EPA 200.7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 15
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1443
08/14/17 14 43
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 15
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 0844
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID• 4N
Lab ID•
CA11576-10
Sampled: 08/05/17 08.53 Received. 08/08/17 12:40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 18
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1444
08/14/17 14 44
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 18
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 0907
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID: 4C
Lab ID•
CA11576-11
Sampled, 08/05/17 08.53 Received: 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 20
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1445
08/14/17 14 45
SM 23408-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 15 20
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 0907
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID. 4S
Lab ID•
CA11576-12
Sampled: 08/05/17 08 53 Received: 08/08/17 12:40
Parameter
Hold Date/Timels)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Timels)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 15 23
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1448
08/14/17 14 48
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 23
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 0907
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID• SN
Lab ID:
CA11576-13
Sampled, 08/05/17 10.15 Received, 08/08/17 12 40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 25
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
14 49
08/14/17 14 49
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 25
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 10 29
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID: SC
Lab ID:
CA11576-14
Sampled, 08/05/17 10.15 Received. 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 28
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1450
08/14/17 14 50
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 28
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
13 05
08/12/17 13 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 10 29
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 3 of 22

EJVCO
www.encolabs.com
SAMPLE SUMMARY/ LABORATORY CHRONICLE
Client ID: SS
Lab ID:
CA11576-15
Sampled: 08/05/17 10 15 Received: 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 31
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1451
08/14/17 14 51
SM 23406-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 31
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 10 29
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID: 6N
Lab ID•
CA11576-16
Sampled. 08/05/17 10:10 Received. 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 33
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1451
08/14/17 14 51
SM 23406-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 33
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 45001-1+13-2000
08/05/17 1024
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID. 6C
Lab ID•
CA11576-17
Sampled. 08/05/17 10.10 Received. 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 43
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1452
08/14/17 14 52
SM 23406-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 43
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 1024
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID• 6S
Lab ID:
CA11576-18
Sampled: 08/05/17 10:10 Received, 08/08/17 12:40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 46
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1453
08/14/17 14 53
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 46
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 1024
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
ChentID. 7N
Lab ID:
CA11576-19
Sampled, 08/05/17 09.59 Received, 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 49
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1454
08/14/17 14 54
SM 234DB-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 49
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 10 13
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID• 7C
Lab ID:
CA11576-20
Sampled 08/05/17 09 59 Received 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 13
08/15/17 15 51
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1455
08/14/17 14 55
SM 23408-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
0813
08/15/17 15 51
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 10 13
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID: 7S
Lab ID.
CA11576-21
Sampled: 08/05/17 09.59 Received. 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
0807
08/14/17 14 03
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1456
08/14/17 14 56
SM 23408-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
0807
08/14/17 14 03
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 10 13
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
FINAL
This report relates only
to the sample as
received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 4 of 22

eco
www.encolabs.com
SAMPLE SUMMARY/ LABORATORY CHRONICLE
Client ID: 8N
Lab ID: CA11576-22
Sampled: 08/05/17 09:48 Received: 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
0807
08/14/17 14 05
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1459
08/14/17 14 59
SM 23406-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
0807
08/14/17 14 05
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 1002
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID. 8C
Lab ID• CA11576-23
Sampled: 08/05/17 09.48 Received, 08/08/17 12.40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
0807
08/14/17 14 08
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
1500
08/14/17 15 00
SM 2340B-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 07
08/14/17 14 08
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
14 05
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 1002
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
Client ID: 8S
Lab ID. CA11576-24
Sampled. 08/05/17 09.48 Received, 08/08/17 12:40
Parameter
Hold Date/Time(s)
Prep Date/Time(s)
Analysis Date/Time(s)
EPA 200 7
02/01/18
08/09/17
08 07
08/14/17 14 11
EPA 310 2
08/19/17
08/14/17
15 00
08/14/17 15 00
SM 23408-1997
04/30/20
08/09/17
08 07
08/14/17 14 11
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17
08/12/17
1405
08/12/17 14 05
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/05/17 10 02
08/17/17
1230
08/17/17 12 30
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 5 of 22

Ce NIco
www.encolabs.com
Analyte
SAMPLE DETECTION SUMMARY
Flag MDL
PDL,
Units
Client ID, 1N
Notes
Lab ID.
CA11576-01
014
00
Analyte
Results
Flag MDL
4
Units
Method Notes
Hardness - Total
35
014
00
mg/1-
SM 2340B-1997
pH
71
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000 Q-01
Potassium - Total
3480
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
34
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
54
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
Client ID• 1C
Notes
Lab ID
CA11576-02
014
0 0
Analyte
Results
Flag MDL
PDL,
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
33
014
00
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
Units
PH
72
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3170
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
10
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
32
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Client ID. 1S
2500
Lab ID.
CA11576-03
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
36
Anal a
Results
Flag MDL
PPOL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
35
014
0 0
mg/L
SM 23406-1997
pH
72
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3270
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Units
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
35
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
00
Total Dissolved Solids
50
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
10
Client ID 2N
Lab ID
CA11576-04
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
Q
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
33
014
0 0
mg/L
SM 23408-1997
pH
64
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3030
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
36
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
66
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
ChentID. 2C
Lab ID.
CA11576-05
Anal to
Results
Flag
MDL
4
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
34
014
00
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
62
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3130
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
34
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
56
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
ChentID. 2S
Lab ID•
CA11576-06
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
PDL,
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
34
014
0 0
mg/L
SM 23408-1997
pH
71
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3140
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
33
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
54
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
Client ID 3N
Lab ID:
CA11576-07
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
4
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
34
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
7 2
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3100
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
33
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Client ID 3C
Lab ID•
CA11576-08
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
4
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
35
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
7 2
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3100
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
33
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
72
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 6 of 22

EIVCO
www.encolabs.com
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 7 of 22
SAMPLE DETECTION SUMMARY
Client ID• 3S
Lab ID:
CA11576-09
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
POL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
32
014
00
mg/L
SM 23406-1997
pH
6 6
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2950
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
35
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Client ID: 4N
Lab ID:
CA31576-10
Anal a
Results
Flag
MDL
POL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
32
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 23406-1997
pH
7 2
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2910
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
36
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Cl,entID• 4C
Lab ID:
CA11576-11
Anal a
Results
Flag
MDL
PSL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
33
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 23406-1997
pH
7 5
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3010
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
36
14
is
mg/L
EPA 310 2
ChentID: 4S
Lab ID.
CA11576-12
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
4
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
33
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 23408-1997
pH
7 3
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3100
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
34
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
58
50
50
mg/L
SM 254OC-1997
Client ID: SN
Lab ID•
CA11576-13
Anal a
Results
Flag
MDL
PSL.
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
35
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 23406-1997
pH
71
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3510
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
33
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
58
50
50
mg/L
SM 254OC-1997
Client ID• SC
Lab ID:
CA11576-14
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
POLL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
34
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 7340B-1997
pH
7 0
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3470
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
35
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
66
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
Client ID: SS
Lab ID•
CA11576-15
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
PSL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
33
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
7 2
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2710
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
35
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
70
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
Client ID: 6N
Lab ID•
CA11576-16
Anal a
Results
Flag
MDL
PSL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
36
0 14
0 0
mg/L
SM 23408-1997
pH
6.6
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2930
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
33
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
78
50
50
mg/L
SM 254OC-1997
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 7 of 22

CeNk'
www.encolabs.com
Potassium - Total
SAMPLE DETECTION SUMMARY
Flag MDL
750
2500
ug/L
Client ID 6C
Hardness - Total
Lab ID•
CA11576-17
00
14
15
Analyte
Results
Flaa MDL
PPL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness -Total
34
014
00
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
EPA 200 7
pH
65
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3110
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Hardness - Total
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
31
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
70
50
50
mg/L
SM 254OC-1997
SM 4500H+B-2000
Client ID 6S
Potassium - Total
Lab ID•
CA11576-18
750
2500
ug/L
Anal a
Results
Flag MDL
PPL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
32
014
0 0
mg/L
SM 23406-1997
50
pH
72
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2670
Flag MDL
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Hardness - Total
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
33
00
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
73
Total Dissolved Solids
60
pH
50
50
mg/L
SM 254OC-1997
750
ChentID. 7N
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Lab ID•
CA11576-19
34
14
15
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
PPL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
32
Client ID: 8S
014
00
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
72
Results
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2850
014
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
pH
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
37
10
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
64
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
Client ID• 7C
Lab ID.
CA11576-20
Anala
Results
Flag
MDL
PQL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
34
014
00
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
71
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2870
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
30
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
62
s0
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
Client ID 7S
Lab ID.
CA11576-21
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
PSL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
32
014
0 0
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
66
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
3220
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
32
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
74
50
50
mg/L
SM 2540C-1997
Client ID• SN
Lab ID.
CA11576-22
Analyte
Results
Flag
MDL
Q
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
34
014
00
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
73
1 0
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2710
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
33
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids 64 50 50 mg/L SM 2540C-1997
ChentID 8C Lab ID. CA11576-23
Analyte
Results
Flag MDL
POLL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
33
014
00
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
73
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2810
750
2500
ug/L
EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
34
14
15
mg/L
EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
56
50
50
mg/L
SM 254OC-1997
Client ID: 8S
Lab ID.
CA11576-24
Analyte
Results
Flag MDL
POL
Units
Method
Notes
Hardness - Total
32
014
00
mg/L
SM 2340B-1997
pH
67
10
10
pH
SM 4500H+B-2000
Q-01
Potassium - Total
2680 750 2500 ug/L EPA 200 7
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
35 14 15 mg/L EPA 310 2
Total Dissolved Solids
60 50 50 mg/L SM 254OC-1997
FINAL
This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full
Page 8 of 22

ENCO
www.encolabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
_ Description: 1N Lab Sample ID: CA11576-01 Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water Sampled: 08/05/17 07 20 Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flaa Units DF MDL POL Batch Method Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3460 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 14 36 JMV
Analyte KAS Numberl Resu is Flaci Units OF MDL PPL Batch Method Analyzed AM Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3170 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 14 49 ]MV
Classical Chemistry Parameters k _
^ - ENCO Cary Certified analyte [NC 591]
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Results Flaa
Units
DF MDL POL. Batch
Method
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Fiaa
Units
DF MDL POLL Batch
Method
Analyzed By Notes
Hardness' 35
mg/L
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 14 36 JMV
pH^ 7.1
pH
1 10 10 7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30 ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 34
mg/L
1 14 15 71-114033
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 15 07 JLl
Total Dissolved Solids^ 54
mg/L
1 50 50 71-112004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05 OMR
Description: 1C
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-02
Lab Sample ID: CA11S76-03
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 07 20
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
Work Order: CA11576
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
DF
MDL
POL,
Batch
Analyte KAS Numberl Resu is Flaci Units OF MDL PPL Batch Method Analyzed AM Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3170 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 14 49 ]MV
Classical Chemistry Parameters k _
^ - ENCO Cary Certified analyte [NC 591]
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Analyte KAS Numberl
Results Flaa
Units
DF MDL POL. Batch
Method
Analyzed AM Notes
Hardness'
33
mg/L
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 14 49 JMV
pH^
7.2
pH
1 10 10 7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30 ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
32
mg/L
1 14 15 7H14033
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 15 10 JLI
Total Dissolved Solids^
50 U
mg/L
1 50 50 71`112004
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 13 05 OMR
Description: 1S
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Lab Sample ID: CA11S76-03
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 07 20
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 9 of 22
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
'
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag
Units
DF
MDL
PPL,
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3270
ug/L
5
750
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 14 52
]MV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag
Units
DF
MDL
POL,
Batch
Method
Analyzed
Ay Notes
Hardness^ 35
mg/L
1
014
00
7HO9005
SM 23408-1997
08/15/17 14 52
JMV
pHA 7.2
pH
1
1.0
10
7H17013
iM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 35
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14033
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 15 11
JU
Total Dissolved Sohds^ 50
mg/L
1
50
50
7H12004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 9 of 22

www.encolabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Description: 2N Lab Sample ID: CA11576-04 Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water Sampled: 08/05/17 08 13 Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Ery certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flaa
Units
DF MDL
PPOL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
AM
Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^
3030
ug/L
5 750
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 14 54
JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Flag
Units
DF
MDL
PPL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
_By
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Hardness' 34
mg/L
1
014
00
7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 14 57
]MV
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flag
Units
DF MDL
PPL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By
Notes
Hardness^
33
mg/L
1 014
00
7HO9005
SM 23408-1997
08/15/17 14 54
]MV
JLJ
pHA
6.4
pH
1 10
10
71-117013
iM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC
Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
36
mg/L
1 14
15
7H14033
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 15 11
JLJ
Total Dissolved Sohds^
66
mg/L
1 50
50
7H12004
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
Description: 2C
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-05
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 08
13
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
DF
MDL
PPL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By
Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3140
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
ug/L
5
750
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 00
JMv
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flag
Units
DF MDL
POL,
Batch
Method
Analyzed
Ay
Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^
3130
ug/L
5 750
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 14 57
]MV
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 10 of 22
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag
Units
DF
MDL
PPL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
_By
Notes
Hardness' 34
mg/L
1
014
00
7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 14 57
]MV
PH. 6.2
pH
1
10
10
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC
Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 34
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14033
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 15 12
JLJ
Total Dissolved Solids^ 56
mg/L
1
50
50
71`112004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
Description: 2S
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-06
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 08
13
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Ory certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag
Units
DF
MDL
PPL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By
Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3140
ug/L
5
750
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 00
JMv
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary cerhFied analyte [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flaa
Units
DF
MDL
POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
Ay
Notes
Hardness^ 34
mg/L
1
014
00
7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 15 00
JMV
PH. 7.1
pH
1
10
10
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC
Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 33
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 40
JLJ
Total Dissolved Sohds^ 54
mg/L
1
50
50
7H12004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 10 of 22

C��7kco
www.encolabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Description: 3N Lab Sample ID: CA11576-07 Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water Sampled: 08/05/17 08 30 Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag Units DF MDL Q Batch Method Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3100 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 10 JMV
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte MAS Numberl Results Flaa Units DF MDL PPL Batch Method Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3100 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 12 JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
••-nvwc /y CeaWeo anaryre live -�yt1
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Flaa Units
ug/L
DF
5
MDL
750
PQ_L
2500
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results Flaa
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
DF MDL PPL Batch
Method
Analyzed By Notes
Hardness'
35
mg/L
Analyte MAS Numberl Results
Flaa Units
DF MDL PSL, Batch
Method
Analyzed
—By Notes
Hardness^
34
mg/L
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 15 10
JMV
PHA
7.2
pH
1 10 10 71-117013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
33
mg/L
1 14 15 71-114032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 41
JU
Total Dissolved Solids^
50
U mg/L
1 50 50 7H12004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
Description: 3C
pH.
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Lab Sample ID:CA11576-08
1
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
Sampled: 08/05/17 08 30
ASC Q-01
Work Order: CA11576
35
Project: Tar River Samples
1
14
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 43
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte MAS Numberl Results Flaa Units DF MDL PPL Batch Method Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3100 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 12 JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
••-nvwc /y CeaWeo anaryre live -�yt1
Results
2950
Flaa Units
ug/L
DF
5
MDL
750
PQ_L
2500
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results Flaa
Units
DF MDL PPL Batch
Method
Analyzed By Notes
Hardness'
35
mg/L
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 23408-1997
08/15/17 15 12 JMV
pH^
7.2
pH
1 10 10 7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30 ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
33
mg/L
1 14 15 71-114032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 42 JU
Total Dissolved Solids^
72
mg/L
1 50 50 7H12004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05 OMR
Description: 3S
Method
Analyzed
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-09
Hardness^
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
1
0 14
Sampled: 08/05/17 08 30
7H09005
Work Order: CA11576
Project. Tar River Samples
JMV
pH.
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
pH
1
10
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
35
mg/L
1
14
15
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Potassium [7440-09-7]^
Results
2950
Flaa Units
ug/L
DF
5
MDL
750
PQ_L
2500
Batch
7HO9005
Method
EPA 200 7
Analyzed
08/15/17 15 15
By Notes
JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary certified analXe [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flaa Units
DF
MDL
POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Hardness^
32
mg/L
1
0 14
00
7H09005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 15 15
JMV
pH.
6.6
pH
1
10
10
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
35
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 43
JU
Total Dissolved Solids^
50
U mg/L
1
50
50
71-112004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 11 of 22

C��k�ee-
www.encolabs.com
- MLU wry renmeo anaryre tivL ny11
Classical Chemistry Parameters
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flaa
Units
DF MDL Q
Batch
Description: 4N
Analyzed
Lab Sample ID. CA11576-10
Potassium [7440-09-7]1
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
5 750 2500
Sampled: 08/05/17 08 53
EPA 200 7
Work Order: CA11576
JMv
Project: Tar River Samples
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Hardness^
33
mg/L
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
014
00
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
SM 2340B-1997
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
JMv
pHA
7.3
pH
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag Units
DF MDL POL Batch
Method
Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 2910
ug/L
5 750 2500 7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 18 JMv
Ay Notes
Classical Chemistry Parameters
33
7H14032
mg/L
1 014 00
^ - ENCO Cary rectified analyte [NC 5911
SM 23408-1997
08/15/17 15 20
JMv
pHA
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flaa Units
DF MDL POL Batch
Method
Analyzed By Notes
Hardness^ 32
mg/L
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 23406-1997
08/15/17 15 18 JMv
pHA 7.2
pH
1 10 10 7H17013
SM 4500H+B-2000
08/17/17 12 30 ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 36
mg/L
1 14 15 71-114032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 44 JU
Total Dissolved Solids^ 50
u mg/L
1 50 50 7H12004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05 OMR
OMR
Description: 4C
Lab Sample ID:CA11576-11
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Sampled: 08/05/17 08 53
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
53
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
- MLU wry renmeo anaryre tivL ny11
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flaa
Units
DF MDL Q
Batch
Method
Analyzed
Ay Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]1
3010
ug/L
5 750 2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 20
JMv
Method
Classical Chemistry Parameters
By Notes
Hardness^
33
mg/L
1
014
00
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 15 23
JMv
pHA
7.3
pH
1
10
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flaa
Units
DF MDL POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
Ay Notes
Hardness^
33
7H14032
mg/L
1 014 00
7H09005
SM 23408-1997
08/15/17 15 20
JMv
pHA
7.5
50
pH
1 10 10
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
36
mg/L
1 14 15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 45
JU
Total Dissolved Solids^
50
u
mg/L
1 50 50
71-112004
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
Description: 4S
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-12
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 08
53
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary-rtified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte KAS Numberl Results Flaa Units DF MDL POL Batch Method Analyzed Ay Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3100 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 23 JMv
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 12 of 22
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flaa
Units
DF
MDL
POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Hardness^
33
mg/L
1
014
00
7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 15 23
JMv
pHA
7.3
pH
1
10
10
71-117013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
34
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 48
JU
Total Dissolved Solids^
58
mg/L
1
50
50
7H12004
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 12 of 22

ENCO
www.encolabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Description: 5N Lab Sample ID: CA11576-13 Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water Sampled: 08/05/17 10 15 Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples Sampled By: Brooks Williams
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 13 of 22
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
'
^ - ENCO Cary certified analXe [NC 5911
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flaq Units
DF MDL IQ Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3510
ug/L
5 750 2500 7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 25
JMV
Analyzed
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3470
ug/L
5
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 28
JMV
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag Units
DF MDL POL Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Hardness^ 35
mg/L
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 23406-1997
08/15/17 15 25
JMV
pH^ 7.1
pH
1 10 10 71-117014
3M 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 33
mg/L
1 14 15 71`114032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 49
JLJ
Total Dissolved Solids^ 58
mg/L
1 50 50 7H12004
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
Description: 5C
Method
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-14
Ay
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 10 15
1
Work Order: CA11576
00
Project: Tar River Samples
SM 7340B-1997
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
JMV
pHA 7.0
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 13 of 22
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
'
^ - ENCO Cary certified analXe [NC 5911
Analyte KAS Numberl Results
Flag
Units
DF
MDL
POLL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By
Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3470
ug/L
5
750
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 28
JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag
Units
DF
MDL
POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
Ay
Notes
Hardness^ 34
mg/L
1
014
00
7HO9005
SM 7340B-1997
08/15/17 15 28
JMV
pHA 7.0
pH
1
10
10
7H17014
5M 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC
Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 35
mg/L
1
14
15
71-114032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 50
JU
Total Dissolved Solids^ 66
mg/L
1
50
50
7H12004
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 13 05
OMR
Description: 5S
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-15
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 10
15
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591)
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag
Units
DF
MDL
POLL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By
Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 2710
ug/L
5
750
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 31
JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENC') Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag
Units
DF
MDL
PSL,
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By
Notes
Hardness^ 33
mg/L
1
0.14
00
7HO9005
SM 23408-1997
08/15/17 15 31
JMV
pHA 7.2
pH
1
10
10
71-117014
iM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC
Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 35
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 51
JLl
Total Dissolved Sohds^ 70
mg/L
1
50
50
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
06/12/17 14 05
OMR
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 13 of 22

Description: 6C Lab Sample ID: CA11576-17 Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water Sampled: 08/05/17 10 10 Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte MAS Numberl Results Flag Units DF MDL CQ Batch Method Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3110 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 43 JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flaa
Units
DF
www.encolabs.com
PPL
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Method
Analyzed
—By
Description: 6N
Hardness^
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-16
mg/L
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
00
Sampled: 08/05/17 10
10
08/15/17 15 43
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
pH^
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
pH
1
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
10
71-117013
SM 4500H+B-200(
08/17/17 12 30
ASC
^ - ENCO Cary Certified analyte [NC 591]
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
31
mg/L
1
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flaq Units
DF MDL PPL
Batch
Method
Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 2930
ug/L
5 750 2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 33 JMV
50
Classical Chemistry Parameters
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 14 05
OMR
^ - ENCO Cgry rectified analyte [NC 591]
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-18
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flaci Units
DF MDL POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed By Notes
Hardness' 36
mg/L
1 014 00
7HO9005
SM 23406-1997
08/15/1715 33 JMV
PHA 6.6
pH
1 10 10
7H17014
iM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30 ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 33
mg/L
1 14 15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 51 JL1
Total Dissolved Solids^ 78
mg/L
1 50 50
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 14 05 OMR
Description: 6C Lab Sample ID: CA11576-17 Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water Sampled: 08/05/17 10 10 Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte MAS Numberl Results Flag Units DF MDL CQ Batch Method Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 3110 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 43 JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results
Flaa
Units
DF
MDL
PPL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
—By
Notes
Hardness^
34
mg/L
1
014
00
7HO9005
SM 23408-1997
08/15/17 15 43
]MV
pH^
6.5
pH
1
10
10
71-117013
SM 4500H+B-200(
08/17/17 12 30
ASC
Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
31
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 52
Ju
Total Dissolved Solids^
70
mg/L
1
50
50
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 14 05
OMR
Description: 6S
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-18
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 10.10
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591J
Analyte MAS Numberl
Results
Flaa
Units
DF
MDL
POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By
Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^
2670
ug/L
5
750
2500
7HO9005
EPA 200 7
08/15/17 15 46
]MV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary Certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte MAS Numberl
Results
Flaa
Units
DF
MDL
POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By
Notes
Hardness^
32
mg/L
1
0.14
00
7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 15 46
JMv
PH.
7.2
pH
1
1.0
10
71-117013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC
Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
33
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 53
Ju
Total Dissolved Solids^
60
mg/L
1
50
50
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 14 05
OMR
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 14 of 22

ENCO
www.encolabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Description: 7N Lab Sample ID: CA11576-19 Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water Sampled: 08/05/17 09 59 Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples Sampled By: Brooks Williams
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag Units DF MDL 4 Batch Method Analyzed By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 2850 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 49 JMv
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - BUCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag Units DF MDL 4 Batch Method Analyzed Ry Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 2870 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 51 JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Analyte TCAs Numberl
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Units
DF MDL POL Batch
Method
Analyzed Am Notes
Hardness^
34
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 15 51 JMV
pHA
7.1
pH
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag Units
DF MDL PPL, Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Hardness'
32
mg/L
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 23406-1997
08/15/17 15 49
]MV
pH^
7.2
pH
1 10 10 7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
37
mg/L
1 14 15 7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 54
JU
Total Dissolved Solids^
64
mg/L
1 50 50 7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 14 05
OMR
Description: 7C
Hardness^
32
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-20
1
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
7HO9004
SM 2340B-1997
Sampled: 08/05/17 09 59
JMv
Work Order: CA11576
6.6
Project: Tar River Samples
1
10
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - BUCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag Units DF MDL 4 Batch Method Analyzed Ry Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 2870 ug/L 5 750 2500 7HO9005 EPA 200 7 08/15/17 15 51 JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Analyte TCAs Numberl
Results Flag
Units
DF MDL POL Batch
Method
Analyzed Am Notes
Hardness^
34
mg/L
1 014 00 7HO9005
SM 2340B-1997
08/15/17 15 51 JMV
pHA
7.1
pH
1 10 10 71-117013
iM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30 ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
30
mg/L
1 14 15 7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 55 ]U
Total Dissolved Solids^
62
mg/L
1 50 50 71-112005
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 14 05 OMR
Description: 7S
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-21
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
Sampled: 08/05/17 09 59
Analyte TCAS Numberl
Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples
DF
MDL
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
Batch
Method
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Analyte rCAS Numberl
Results Flag
Units
DF
MDL
Q
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^
3220
ug/L
5
750
2500
7HO9004
EPA 200 7
08/14/17 14 03
JMV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 5911
Analyte TCAS Numberl
Results Flag
Units
DF
MDL
POL,
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Hardness^
32
mg/L
1
014
00
7HO9004
SM 2340B-1997
08/14/17 14 03
JMv
pHA
6.6
pH
1
10
10
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^
32
mg/L
1
14
15
71-114032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 56
JU
Total Dissolved Solids^
74
mg/L
1
50
50
71-112005
SM 254OC-1997
08/12/17 14 05
OMR
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 15 of 22

eco
www.encolabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Description: 8N Lab Sample ID. CA11576-22 Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water Sampled: 08/05/17 09 48 Work Order: CA11576
Project: Tar River Samples Sampled By Brooks Williams
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 16 of 22
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
'
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591]
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591J
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag
Units
DF MDL POLL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 2710
ug/L
5 750 2500
7H09004
EPA 200 7
08/14/17 14 05
INV
ug/L
Classical Chemistry Parameters
750
2500
7H09004
EPA 200 7
08/14/17 14 11
INV
^ - ENCO Cary rectified analyte [NC 5911
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag
Units
DF MDL POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Hardness^ 34
mg/L
1 014 00
7H09004
SM 2340B-1997
08/14/17 14 OS
INV
pHA 7.3
pH
1 10 10
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 33
mg/L
1 14 15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 14 59
JLJ
Total Dissolved Solids^ 64
mg/L
1 50 50
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 14 05
OMR
Description: 8C
SM 4500H+B-200C
Lab Sample ID. CA11576-23
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 35
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
14
Sampled: 08/05/17 09
48
EPA 310 2
Work Order: CA11576
JLl
Project: Tar River Samples
mg/L
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
50
50
7H12005
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 16 of 22
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
'
^ - ENCO Cary rert7fied analyte [NC 591]
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591J
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag
Units
DF MDL POLL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
Ay Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]^ 2810
ug/L
5 750 2500
7H09004
EPA 200 7
08/14/17 14 08
INV
ug/L
Classical Chemistry Parameters
750
2500
7H09004
EPA 200 7
08/14/17 14 11
INV
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591J
Classical Chemistry Parameters
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results Flag
Units
DF MDL POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Hardness^ 33
mg/L
1 014 00
7H09004
SM 23406-1997
08/14/17 14 08
INV
pHA 7.3
pH
1 10 10
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 34
mg/L
1 14 15
71-114032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 15 00
JLI
Total Dissolved Solids^ 56
mg/L
1 50 50
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 14 05
OMR
Description: 8S
SM 4500H+B-200C
Lab Sample ID: CA11576-24
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 35
Received: 08/08/17 12 40
Matrix: Surface Water
14
Sampled•08/05/17 09
48
EPA 310 2
Work Order: CA11576
JLl
Pro]ect: Tar River Samples
mg/L
Sampled By: Brooks Williams
50
50
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 16 of 22
(Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591J
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag Units
DF
MDL
POL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
By Notes
Potassium [7440-09-7]1 2680
ug/L
5
750
2500
7H09004
EPA 200 7
08/14/17 14 11
INV
Classical Chemistry Parameters
^ - ENCO Cary certified analyte [NC 591J
Analyte rCAS Numberl Results
Flag Units
DF
MDL
POLL
Batch
Method
Analyzed
I!y Notes
Hardness^ 32
mg/L
1
014
00
7H09004
SM 23408-1997
08/14/17 14 11
INV
pHA 6.7
pH
1
10
10
7H17013
SM 4500H+B-200C
08/17/17 12 30
ASC Q-01
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 [471-34-1]^ 35
mg/L
1
14
15
7H14032
EPA 310 2
08/14/17 15 00
JLl
Total Dissolved Solids^ 60
mg/L
1
50
50
7H12005
SM 2540C-1997
08/12/17 14 05
OMR
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 16 of 22

S
www.encolabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
- Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods - Quality Control
Batch 7H09004 - EPA 3005A
Blank (7H09004-BLK3)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 07 Analyzed 08/14/2017 13 03
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Anala
Resul
Flao
Q
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Potassium
150
U
500
ug/L
LCS (7H09004 -BSI)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 07 Analyzed 08/14/2017 13 06
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Result
Flaa
tQ
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Luna
Notes
Potassium
10700
500
ug/L
10000 107 85-115
Matrix Spike (7H09004 -MSI)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 07 Analyzed 08/14/2017 13 19
Source. CA08220-01
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Anal
Resul
Flaq
POL
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Potassium
14500
500
ug/L
10000 3540 109 70-130
Matrix Spike Dup (7H09004-MSDS)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 07 Analyzed 08/14/2017 13 21
Source: CA08220-01
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Result
Flaa
POL
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Potassium
14000
500
ug/L
10000 3540 105 70-130 3
30
Post Spike (7H09004-PS1)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 07 Analyzed 08/14/2017 13 24
Source. CA08220-01
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Result
Flao
POL
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Potassium
141
0 500
mg/L
10 0 3 54 105 80-120
Batch 7H09005 - EPA 3005A
Blank (7H09005-BLKI)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 13 Analyzed 08/15/2017 14 23
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Anal
Result
Flan
1Q
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Potassium
150
U
500
ug/L
LCS (7H09005 -BSI)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 13 Analyzed 08/15/2017 14 26
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Result
FFl o(POLL
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Mmft
Notes
Potassium
10400
500
ug/L
10000 104 85-115
Matrix Spike (7H09005-MS1)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 13 Analyzed 08/15/2017 14 39
Source, CA11576-01
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Anal a
Result
Flaa
POL
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Potassium
55300
2500
ug/L
50000 3480 104 70-130
Matrix Spike Dup (7H09005-MSD1)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 13 Analyzed 08/15/2017 14 41
Source- CA11576-01
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Anal a
Result
Flao
POL
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Potassium
56100
2500
ug/L
50000 3480 105 70-130 1
30
Post Spike (7H09005-PS1)
Prepared 08/09/2017 08 13 Analyzed 08/15/2017 14 44
Source, CA11576-01
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Resul
Flaa
pal,
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
FINAL
This report relates only to the sample as
received by the
laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full
Page 17 of 22

��Go
www.encolabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods - Quality Control
Batch 7HO90O5 - EPA 3OO5A - Continued
Post Spike (7H09005 -PSI) Continued Prepared 08/09/2017 08 13 Analyzed 08/15/2017 14 44
Source: CA11576-01
Spike Source %REC RPD
Anal Resul Reams l FlaQ Q Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Potassium 112 0 500 mg/L 100 0 697 106 80-120
Classical Chemistry Parameters - Quality Control
Batch 7H12004 - NO PREP
Blank (7H32004-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 13 OS
Spike Source %REC RPD
Anala Result Flao IQ Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Total Dissolved Solids 50 U 50 mg/L
LCS (711 -1112004 -BSI) Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 13 05
Batch 7H12005 - NO PREP
Blank (711-1112005-BLK3) Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 14 05
Spike Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Flao ROL Units Level Resul o/ REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Total Dissolved Solids 50 U 50 mg/L
LCS (7H12005-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 14 05
Spike Source %REC
Spike Source %REC
Analyt
RPD
IQ
Analyte
Resul
FIM
POLL
Llm-M
Level Result %REC Limits
RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Dissolved Solids
970
50
mg/L
1000 97 90-110
Source. CA11576-15
Duplicate (7H12004-DUP1)
Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 13 05
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Source. CA11576-01
Resul Flaq
POL
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit Notes
Total Dissolved Solids
74
50
mg/L
70 6
20
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Anala
Resul
Flaq
Q
Units
Level Result %REC Limits
RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Dissolved Solids
98
50
mg/L
54
58
20
QM -12
Duplicate (7H12004-DUP2)
Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 13 05
Source. CA11576-02
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analvt
Result
Flan
Q
UnitS
Level Result %REC Limits
RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Dissolved Solids
58
50
mg/L
50 U
20
Batch 7H12005 - NO PREP
Blank (711-1112005-BLK3) Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 14 05
Spike Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Flao ROL Units Level Resul o/ REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Total Dissolved Solids 50 U 50 mg/L
LCS (7H12005-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 14 05
Batch 7H14032 - NO PREP
Blank (7H14032-BLK1) Prepared 08/14/2017 14 37 Analyzed 08/14/2017 14 37
Spike Source %REC RPD
An lyte Resul Flaa Q Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 18 of 22
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyt
Resul Flaa
IQ
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Limit Notes
Total Dissolved Solids
970
50
mg/L
1000 97 90-110
Duplicate (711-1112005-DUPS)
Prepared & Analyzed 08/12/2017 14 05
Source. CA11576-15
Spike Source %REC
RPD
mealy ttee
Resul Flaq
POL
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit Notes
Total Dissolved Solids
74
50
mg/L
70 6
20
Batch 7H14032 - NO PREP
Blank (7H14032-BLK1) Prepared 08/14/2017 14 37 Analyzed 08/14/2017 14 37
Spike Source %REC RPD
An lyte Resul Flaa Q Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 18 of 22

(e�0
www.encolabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Classical Chemistry Parameters - Quality Control
Batch 7H14032 - NO PREP - Continued
Blank (71-114032-BLKi) Continued
Prepared 08/14/2017 14 37 Analyzed 08/14/2017 14 37
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Resul
mil o
POL,
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
14
U
15
mg/L
LCS (7H34032 -BSI)
Prepared 08/14/2017 14 38 Analyzed 08/14/2017 14 38
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Result
Flan
POL,
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Lumit
Notes
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
100
15
mg/L
100 100 80-120
Matrix Spike (7H34032-MS3)
Prepared 08/14/2017 14 39 Analyzed 08/14/2017 14 39
Source. CA11576-06
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Anal a
Result
Flan
POL
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
82
15
mg/L
378 33 129 80-120
QM -07
Matrix Spike Dup (7H14032-MSDi)
Prepared 08/14/2017 14 41 Analyzed 08/14/2017 14 41
Source: CA11576-06
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Air hde
R sul
Flag
PPI,
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
79
15
mg/L
378 33 121 80-120 4
25
QM -07
Batch 7H14033 - NO PREP
Blank (7H14033-BLKi)
Prepared 08/14/2017 15 02 Analyzed 08/14/2017 15 02
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Result
Flaq
POL
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
14
U
15
mg/L
LCS (71 -114033 -BSI)
Prepared 08/14/2017 15 03 Analyzed 08/14/2017 15 03
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Resul
Flaq
POL
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
94
15
mg/L
100 94 80-120
Matrix Spike (7H14033 -MSI)
Prepared 08/14/2017 15 04 Analyzed 08/14/2017 15 04
Source: CA10225-03
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Resul
FlaQ
POL
Units
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
iimd
Notes
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
830
75
mg/L
200 640 95 80-120
Matrix Spike Dup (71-134033-MS01)
Prepared 08/14/2017 15 06 Analyzed 08/14/2017 15 06
Source: CA10225-03
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte
Resul
Flan
POL
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits RPD
Limit
Notes
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
840
75
mg/L
200 640 100 80-120 1
25
Batch 7H17013 - NO PREP
LCS (7H37013-BS3) Prepared & Analyzed 08/17/2017 12 30
Spike Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result HBA POL Units Level Resu t %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
pH 70 10 pH 698 100 99-101
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 19 of 22

Ce,ICO
www.encolabs.com
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 20 of 22
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Classical Chemistry Parameters - Quality Control
Batch 7H17013 - NO PREP - Continued
Duplicate (7H17013-DUP1)
Prepared & Analyzed 08/17/2017 12 30
Source, CA11576-01
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Anala Result
Flao
Q
Units
Level Result %REC Limits
RPD
Limit Notes
pH 73
10
pH
71
2
25
Batch 7H17014 - NO PREP
LCS (71-117014-BS1)
Prepared & Analyzed 08/17/2017 12 30
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte Result
Flaa
POL
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits
RPD
Limit Notes
PH 69
10
pH
698 99 99-101
Duplicate (7H37014-DUPi)
Prepared & Analyzed 08/17/2017 12 30
Source. CA11006-01
Spike Source %REC
RPD
Analyte Resul
Fig;
PQL
Units
Level Resul %REC Limits
RPD
Limit Notes
pH 72
1.0
pH
77
6
25
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 20 of 22

Ce
www.encolabs.com
FLAGS/NOTES AND DEFINITIONS
B The analyte was detected in the associated method blank.
D The sample was analyzed at dilution.
J The reported value Is between the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) and the laboratory method
reporting limit (MRL), adjusted for actual sample preparation data and moisture content, where applicable.
U The analyte was analyzed for but not detected to the level shown, adjusted for actual sample preparation
data and moisture content, where applicable.
E The concentration Indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the
Instrument This value is considered an estimate
MRL Method Reporting Limit The MRL is roughly equivalent to the practical quantitation limit (PQL) and is
based on the low point of the calibration curve, when applicable, sample preparation factor, dilution
factor, and, in the case of soil samples, moisture content
PQL PQL Practical Quantitation Limit
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence (85% or greater
confidence) to make a "tentative Identification"
P Greater than 25% concentration difference was observed between the primary and secondary GC column
The lower concentration is reported
Q-01 Analysis performed outside of method - specified holding time.
QM -07 The spike recovery was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD The batch was
accepted based on acceptable LCS recovery
QM -12 Precision between duplicate samples was outside acceptance limits.
FINAL This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full Page 21 of 22

EVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LA13 STORIES CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY RECORD wWw.eInsoaabS.cmm
1141 r;, Chnlrnt Pact lir-111IIl l jnt9tllw ft,rh Comm Tun. It 1 1C?2 A'A'a,ni-nd, bdovkt' It M
gnnnrlla t1 :

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LABvrtATORIES CHAIWOF-CUSTODY RECORD wwuw.encolab5.com
107,11 m tilt w I'vi C- u6111 Eul,sl'Wrl NIA {hull Culla 111 l i1.".vA+Plou,ltvir ds 'idlolliol .1
17Re119+}',), I ? •179C;,} �,rL�'I„Tri'Im±t l�l.i3� l O G,"Ni� IJ�,Y, ?,t .'7i.1'� f r
t+ltrT'+C:rl�litF rtt.Glt4IfrZoUjQ'i-I {!+Cnr;l!a[3)!}Cd1k'`wJ{d7ru fJtflabT.;�vtl) f'tal!11UV+IG�i-BJIy / ,i'3 _ ��,{'
!Itl+f1f71i I:I P,YlIn1TiIJ fly -IIn+TII'„ 1
P,A,TI"ptI1N"�$4` . ';rlf 1 FIC4.1111rl rs millwimnlp
f1+Y .thdl W I h /
� ���r •
• J�I+ahrtT/@l'ys ,r �� ,d
ts+*�.��+ C vi
19nlnquulVsi89
CiJtl i � tin N'
yw��� r�t'1
f,IFlf rJllrllt C�' x�
0;l .1 7' f(." aft
Cl�n'tnrlr
111 t,IilY�'II J} � f _ �—\ .f
;f„�.'.�' ,�i` r��"
jai 01 I�nR I�. 1 �v�
IL'4TrY
�i•'r� �"��:af�,
r11CaIT ttin ---
ICct6ar d e L' :clue+TT1 13,wa0
Cmlrfnl� V'ro Fl�:n Fit
V*100jA )blb 11I�n1,I: olntlla
p1,Sblx' CM-Gic rtllti')l r 50 3+.31 Or 1x'nWnr,l'N'd1m 9L I Jinwft LAW Va mimWalur 494Y-Y,'dsleu tlr, A Ah 0 00,o. itltlrull In Loll MAnttll Pr L01tvalk"I" 1,l't� F3'1 Q Id K l'Ti f3.11. 3t] 1 1'10 1:e011' DAY.TiE , Idnraii ut : sTMaei lla]
blran 61'=,nnu+lr- m_cmuy' ,t-, ['r. ;£5 Lnitu nn , anmla-•Icn aid r u�a 1a'nra min rnn0111pr~ V" *14 no hin n7lur-,o Ldc'mnt. irit_t-zi p+ln+ n'ntilln PT—Ir minomi-ir,

Sample Preservation Verification
ENCO Cary
Wort, Order CAt1576 Project Tar River Samples
;Ifer;t Novozyrnes North Arne; tea (NO008) Project tr [none;
Logged In 08 -Aug -17 id 27 Logger, By Ra&iel Ann Yoncsn
CA11576-01
Cant
Type Pres (PH)
Pt j Che&4d l
I��! Adjst�.ett Dat-amme
t2�agent used1curnmunts
Reagent Uc—sl Ccimn nts
Requirement
in Cpntm]
Adiusteri
tj N r NA
6
2 0mLP+HNO3 <2
Y N" r NA � Y N Y NA
25OmLF-HNO3
CA11576-02
Cant
lype !'€ (pH) PH Cheeited d H Ad tt_ted Dete�me
Requirement lot coand �' j � Adl�=tessi
'Reagent used/Gornrrfanrii
>;
B
250mLP-HN103 I <2 e N I NA I Y� N), NA
Reagent Uc—sl Ccimn nts
CA11576-03
Grins
1 yPe
Pres (pP.)
Requitew4 l
pH C�weckgd 1
j11 C:ontToI
PH Adjustea DatcuTorne
.Adjusted
Reagent Uc—sl Ccimn nts
5
250mLP+HNO3
I <2
tj N r NA
I Y N) NA
CA11576-04
GGn3
a ype
Pres [PH)
RegnrrerRePt
pH Cllecked t
. Ito canttol
Da�FFIM
PH �hd7ustExi r djustecT
Rea�er5t L"sE �ft✓�mtr �utn
8
251OmLP+HNO3
1 <2 t
Y t N riA
Y U N Y NA
--11576-05
:_
Type
Pres jPH)
Requirement
equire ent
rpm Chfx' ud I
I. -,(Catrin
pH Adjusted DateMlme
to- t djuAtE<.i'
Rent usedi�nlrnenta
!
H
2SUrnLi- rrif t03
<2
Y� N 1 NA
Y h Na
CAI1576-06
Cont
TYPEL
Pres (pH) pH Checked d
Requ arnent IrrGcT7tra1
pH AuW-5fec: Dario/i me
Adits&td
#3eagenf USG3fG�nn;,� snts
6
250rnLP-HNO3
:2 1 r N f 14A
v N NA
`' N ! fJi'.
CA11576-07
Cent Tapes
CA11576-00
Cont
Tvpe
Prem 'pH)
Requir.,mem
pH Checked`
, InGcrtztrol
pH Adjusted Oat&la�
- Adjusted
Reagent usecricomments
8
250mLP-HNO3
<2Y
`' N ! fJi'.
FY f1V y NA
s
25OmLF-HNO3
<2
�11)1 N ' NA
"-' ' N IU NA
CA11576-00
Cont
Tvpe
PTF-- iPH)pI
I Ch --Ked 1
p1 -I Adjusted Datai{"rme
M Reagent LPs�1G , „e rrn
253r,-,LP=HNO3
<2 � N ' hA
RequEre-ment
, t Corttral
- AdjUswl
s
25OmLF-HNO3
<2
�11)1 N ' NA
"-' ' N IU NA
CA11576-08
rant
Typu
Pma (pRl pN Cn edj
Ranulremartt r Its Como©l
vH Adjusted usterriime
Adiusted
Reagent t isae:t rr,ment$
k
B
253r,-,LP=HNO3
<2 � N ' hA
Y TF) / NA.
Raae 1 0f 3

Sample Preservation Verification
ENCO Cary
Work Order CA 11576 Project Tar River Samples
Client Novozyrres Norm America (N0008) Praleet=?,' [none]
Logged In 08 -Aug -17 14 2- Logged By Rachel Ann Yonish
CA11576-10
r
GY�i
iyj�
Fres �?
Reaulreeraetu
pH Checked
In Cpntml
pHAdjustTd E3aWT-1irnae
Atdjurted
Reagent UsedlComrwen!s
0
250MLP-HNO3
1 2
Y) At J W,
r I j rdA
CA11576-11
Cant
type
€'rc}s (p, )
Requirement
P I Chr-c*ed IPM
---ln Control
Adjusted Datem-le
I .Adjusted
Reagent U&.-CUCt}MMUn`Ifs
6
J2,,0mLP-HN0- 3
<Z
.y N I NA I Y le t) NA
r F PJ )I NA
CA 11576-12
Corte
1y't
F��s { LP
Require-Mnni
kelt t
1SEIAditaELsd OatelTlrn
Adjusted
-Re .,ent use4dC,Orrrrnera;v
�
8
250mL�+HNO3
<2
t NA
r F PJ )I NA
CA11576-13
Cent
Type
Fres (p. i)
Reis sMn-tent
pH Ctteckad /
_ n Control
pH Adjusted Dawtrf eT
Adl"tedE
earger l Usid1 r7 nento
6
250mi-P-111403
- t
Y N t NA
I Y NA
^t'111576-14
,an[ Type
Pias (pH)
etjuuert4�stt
PH Chr--C'%ed I
r iat Cnnirel
PH Adtvsied E�rtatF'iMe FtekgErri UsedlCurr�mertt
Itdjrsstcd
B 250mLn+HN=D3
<2
y `r M ri1A
Y�
j NA
CA11576-15
CantType
? Pres tj�j @H C;ha0,C-d r PR Aer�usted A0 usted Peagent Urrs dfcomr 7ant�,
2rulreir;enl Irk co, iiol
F3 12,50m P+Hr•1G3
`
K2 Y� CJ NAI � C, Hifi
CA11676-16
Cant
ITypp- gra (P 1)
Eie�u�re tent
ChKedi
�a-iec
- to Contra]
H t� _n
pr1}us3ccf ume o me 1 Pteagent UsedtCu r ,nts
Adjusted j
R J250MLP-! fN0v ( <2
Y ; N ' NA
Y 16i r NA
CA11576-17
CC�nt
Type
}!
Pc -s (ON)
Rettut�ment
InN Chevk� I
in Ccntr%--i
Date�lme
PH Adtsr_,ted Adivatfd
Reacerrt Used/CttnMwins
5
25&nLPyHNO3
<z �e y N NA
Y 1a+ NF•
Y `�N NA
CA11676-18
Cont
Type
J�1 r� ��il {}
R�u:r�t8ni
P1i ZI`14-Ck0d i
1n �..-rmhaj
ri-M M81
pH AdjUstsrt
Ad1u�ti6-d
Rgeni UsettlC4ntrn-rr?s
b
250rnLP-HNO3
<7
YJ y NA
Y `�N NA
Paye = of 3

Sample Preservation Verification
ENCO Cary
Work Order 'CA 11578 r-rotect Tar giver Sarnpxes
Client Novozyme-s North America (N0008) Project e [none]
Lag€teti to 08 -Aug 17 14 27 Logged By Rachel Ann Yon sh
CA11576-19
pi.
Corti
1-,YpePres
's pfjcheckad l
Requlrsrrtert F Cout.-a!
eta"Time
pHAdlttsteti Mlusted
ti nt Uti FiCotttments
B
250mLP-HN103
<2 `f N NA
I Y &, NA
250m-PIHNC-3
CA 11576-20
Gant
Iypa
t'i`es 4 J AH. Chemo 14t� IUSited fata�me
p`
I-'i-dgant tJ� vramtents
pH t Adjusted Dat -amine
t r et;t Use IClut�imerr�
RequirementJn Grantror
2W, -L --I HNO3
5
250m-PIHNC-3
12 Y) N NA, Y TJ t NA
r
250M PTHNO3
CAI 1576-21
Corti
Type
Pres (Ftp
Ri'tXL1f 3ticBiE
l pH Checked !
I Gohttiol
pH t Adjusted Dat -amine
t r et;t Use IClut�imerr�
7
2W, -L --I HNO3
<2
Y N NA
Y NA
250M PTHNO3
CA11576-22
Cosi
I kis
Pres H MH Checked' J
p � `
R;-; `` �;►tsted Gate z tma
t ornfrients
f�e3g�fll .lsed/C
2
25Gm-P+HNO3
Re t*tent fr, Control
5 ,misted
8
250M PTHNO3
<2 Y ) N NA
Y NA
;11576-23
F'res {PH) �PH Chemed f rMterrim: t llsedE%trrsrir„�
�;arl Type J Rsquir� rust in Gomm] pH Adjusted Acliusled Reagent r --ts
25ern1-F+HNO-1 1 2 Y E N NA I Y Y!" NA
CAI1576-2A
Carat
Type
(PM) ItHCkt ear f
t?e wm--metm In Cantsel
pH Adjusted �'aterTrne
pH Ad'lu5ted
Re nt UsEd7iDrrimen:r
2
25Gm-P+HNO3
<2 Y� N NA
Y I N' Na
Reagent Name D
r
Reagem Name
3
Reticent Name IG
G
Page 3 of 3

ATTACHMENT C
Intended for
Novozymes North America Inc.
Date
November 1, 2017
REVIEW OF USFWS
"ESTIMATING PROTECTIVE
POTASSIUM CONCENTRATIONS
FOR FRESHWATER MUSSELS,
MARCH 17, 2017"
ENVIRON

REVIEW OF USFWS
"ESTIMATING PROTECTIVE POTASSIUM
CONCENTRATIONS FOR FRESHWATER MUSSELS,
MARCH 17, 2®17"
Revision
Date
November 1, 2017
Made by
Robin Richards, Rick Lockwood, Liza Heise
Checked by
Approved by
Robin Richards
Description /
Ref 38-42876A
Ramboll Environ
4350 North Fairfax Drive
Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22203
USA
T [phone]
F [phone]
www.ramboll-environ corn

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
1.
OVERVIEW
1
2.
INTRODUCTION
1
3.
REVIEW OF CHRONIC POTASSIUM DERIVATION
3
3.1
Mussel Chronic Toxicity Testing
3
3 2
Chronic Potassium Toxicity Data Sources
4
3 3
Service's Chronic Value in the Context of Ambient Water
Chemistry Data
5
34
Service's Method to Derive 4 -day In -stream Aquatic Life Value
6
4.
REVIEW OF ACUTE POTASSIUM DERIVATION
7
4.1
Acute Potassium Toxicity Data Sources and Acute Derivation
Approach
7
4.2
USGS Potassium Mussel Toxicity Data Validation and Acute
Derivation Approach
8
4.2.1
Ramboll Potassium Toxicity Data — Fatmucket Mussels
9
4.2 2
Potassium Toxicity Data — Mussel Species Present in Tar River
9
4.3
Hardness Adjustment of Potassium Toxicity Values
9
S.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
10
5 1
Evaluation of Novozymes Effluent Potassium
10
5 2
Mussels in Tar River
10
5 3
Implementation Flows
10
6.
CONCLUSIONS
11
TABLES
Table 1 Upper Tar River Watershed Potassium Data and Mussel Presence

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
Materials Relied Upon
ATTACHMENT 2
Acceptable Aquatic Toxicity Database for Potassium (As Utilized in Support of 2016
OPDES Permit OK0044504)
ATTACHMENT 3
USGS Mussel Data at Hardness of 100 mg/L
ATTACHMENT 4
Checklist for Test Acceptability for Criteria Development

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017" 1 of 11
1. ® V IE R V ,+ IE
Ramboll Environ (Ramboll) has reviewed the USFWS (Service) draft "Estimating Protective Potassium
Concentrations for Freshwater Mussels" (64 pages), March 17, 2017 report (White Paper) We have
also reviewed many of the papers and studies referenced by the Service in developing their approach
and recommendations References to the materials that we have relied upon to conduct this review
are presented in Attachment 1.
Ramboll finds that the data and methodology used by the Service is incomplete and insufficient for
estimating protective potassium concentrations of 7 mg/L (acute) and 2 6 mg/L (chronic) that would
be used to develop water quality -based effluent limits This finding is discussed in the following
sections.
Introduction to outline the context that Ramboll Environ Is conducting our review with a
particular focus on EPA and North Carolina regulations and guidelines specific to derivation of in -
stream aquatic life criteria used to develop water quality -based effluent limits
Review of Chronic Potassium Derivation focused on available toxicity data, the method used to
generate mussel toxicity data, consideration of Tar River water chemistry, and method used to
derive protective concentration
Review of Acute Potassium Derivation focused on available toxicity data, the method used to
derive protective concentration, validation of Service's toxicity data, and consideration of Tar
River water chemistry
20 ENTRUOU(Molm
Ramboll has conducted this review in the context of a new direct discharge of treated effluent subject
to authorization as per North Carolina NPDES permitting regulations. Specifically, in Issuing a NPDES
Permit, the state assures that the discharge does not have a reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to the exceedance of in -stream criteria that protects the designated uses of the receiving
stream. The state, to assure protection of the designated use of the receiving stream, may develop
water quality -based effluent limits (WQBELs) that would be enforceable in the NPDES Permit.
WQBELs are developed considering a numeric in -stream criterion to protect designated use, stream
design flow appropriate for the criterion, and statistical translation to a continuously discharging
effluent EPA, in developing the water quality -based toxics control approaches and methodologies,
derives in -stream numerical aquatic life criteria (i e , National Recommended Water Quality Criteria)
based on a concentration (magnitude) for a set exposure (duration) that should not be exceeded
more than once every 3 years In -stream criteria are not considered to protect all aquatic life under
all possible condition all of the time, but are considered to protect 95% of aquatic life, whether acute
or chronic exposure at a frequency of once per three yearsl (equates to less than 95% of the time)
These EPA approaches and methodologies are referenced in North Carolina regulation S2
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria can be re -developed when particular aquatic
ecosystems need more or less protection for a constituent using site-specific water quality criteria (or
criterion) methods presented in the USEPA 1985 "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
' US EPA, 1985, "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses"
PB85-227049
Posthuma, Leo, GW Sutter, TP Traas, 2002, "Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology", CRC Press
2 15A NCAC 02B 0202(1)(a), 15A NCAC 02B 0211(11)(b), 15A NCAC 02B 0220(9)(d)

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
2of11
Quality Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" (Guidelines) and the EPA "Water
Quality Standards Handbook." These guidelines outline development of in -stream site-specific acute
and in -stream site-specific chronic aquatic life criteria. Elements of the Guidelines have been
updated (in 1994) and subsequently codified in 40 CFR 132 Appendix A (regulation applicable to the
Great Lakes). Ramboll utilized the approach and methodologies presented in the Guidelines and
regulations in conducting our review of the Service's White Paper estimating protective potassium
concentrations
As part of a water quality standards program, states present water quality criteria both as narrative
standards and numeric criteria for specific chemicals (typically similar to the National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria). In addition, some states also would present approaches for interpreting a
narrative criterion as a numeric assessment (e g , using Whole Effluent Toxicity testing) and some
states would present approaches to developing aquatic life criteria for a chemical if a National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria did not exist.
In 15 NCAC Subchapter 26, North Carolina presents its approaches to interpreting the narrative
chronic aquatic toxicity "in the absence of direct measurements of chronic toxicity'•
Chronic Approach 1 Apply acute -to -chronic ratio for lowest LC504,
Chronic Approach 2 0 01 of the lowest LC50, or
Chronic Approach 3 0 05 of the lowest LC50 if half-life of chemical less than 96-hrt.
None of the three approaches references or follows the Guidelines, though the North Carolina
definition of an acute -to -chronic ratio is similar to that presented in the Guidelines. North Carolina
does not reference in regulations the Guidelines, the Final Chronic Value, or the "criterion continuous
concentration" (4 -day average concentration not to be exceeded once per 3 years).
North Carolina presents in 15 NCAC Subchapter 2B three approaches to defining acute aquatic
toxicity for a chemical.
Acute Approach 1 Use of the Guidelines,
Acute Approach 2. Apply one-third of lowest 'available' LC50; or
Acute Approach 3. Conduct case-by-case statistical analyses of a dose -response curvet.
Acute Approach 1 references the Guidelines and would appear to utilize the Guidelines to derive
acute aquatic toxicity criterion However, North Carolina does not use the USEPA term "criterion
maximum concentration" or discuss the duration and frequency of acute aquatic toxicity.
The Service utilized the geomean of the NOEC and LOEC (which, in North Carolina is the chronic
value) for potassium itself, the Service did not use the chronic value for the Novozymes effluent of
31% North Carolina does not present an approach of a numeric interpretation of chronic toxicity for
a chemical that is the chronic value for the chemical. For deriving an acute criterion, the Service
3 The direct measurement of chronic toxicity is to be compared to the chronic value It would seem the direct measurement would be using
Whole Effluent Toxicity testing methods to generate a chronic value As per 15A NCAC 02B 0202(15), a chronic value is the geomean of the
NOEC (no observable effect concentration) and LOEC (lowest observable effect concentration) The chronic value would be site-specific,
and for the proposed Novozymes discharge to Tar River, the chronic value would be 31% effluent
LC50 is the concentration that is lethal to 50% of the test organisms Acute to Chronic Ratio (15A NCAC 02B 0202(2) is the LC50 for a
specific toxicant or an effluent the chronic value for the same toxicant or effluent
5 15A NCAC 2B 0202(15), 15A NCAC 02B 0208(a)(1)
6 15A NCAC 2B 0202(1)

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
3of11
utilized the Acute Approach 2 (1/3rd of the lowest available LC50) The Service seems to use this
approach, versus Approach 1, due to not Incorporating the available valid toxicity data for potassium
Ramboll's concerns and comments on these approaches are detailed in Sections 3 and 4 Section 5
presents additional concerns that go beyond the criteria derivation details.
Ramboll's review of the Service's approach Is In the context of the typical regulatory approach to
deriving an in -stream chronic aquatic life value or criterion, to protect the designated use of the Tar
River The in -stream aquatic life value would then be used to develop water quality -based effluent
limits. Ramboll recognizes that a sensitive species for aquatic life use designation for the Tar River is
mussels. Ramboll's concerns and comments on the Service's approach involve the following
elements•
• Mussel chronic toxicity testing methods
• Validation of chronic aquatic life toxicity data available
• Consideration of receiving water (site-specific) water chemistry
• Method to derive 4 -day In -stream aquatic life value
3.1 Mussel Chronic Toxicity Testing
Ramboll concurs with the Service's Note 1 (Line 171) that there are no standard methods for chronic
toxicity tests with adult mussels Ramboll also agrees that aquatic toxicologists typically assume
that juveniles are more sensitive than adults [to whole effluents or chemicals] Ramboll would
further note that to generate toxicity test data, whether on whole effluent or specific chemicals, a
given is that organisms are tested in a controlled environment (laboratory) and at a specified
number of organisms to statistically analyze dose -response Hence, besides cost and reproducibility
of a toxicity test, availability of organisms at life stages, ability of organisms to thrive In laboratory
conditions, and measurement of response or effects (endpoint) are all key and critical considerations
in toxicity testing methods Therefore, Ramboll considers laboratory toxicity studies on mussel
reproduction, with all variables controlled but the chemical concentration, to determine chronic
effects to be problematic. Hence, Ramboll does not agree with the Service's Note 2 (Line 174) that
studies are needed on reproduction As per the Guidelines and resulting National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria, sublethal effects are sufficient and are used to derive chronic aquatic life
criteria.
Ramboll does agree with the Service's Note 3 {ADD Line ref} that chronic potassium toxicity results
over a range of hardness (e.g., other than 100 mg/L hardness) does not exist and testing at the Tar
River hardness [range] could address this data gap Ramboll does caution that the test design for a
mussel (e.g., Fatmucket, Eastern Lamp) would require clear presentation of test acceptability criteria
' As a clarification, Ramboll utilizes the term criteria / criterion meaning an in -stream numerical aquatic criteria / criterion developed and
derived as per the Guidelines That is, all data requirements (e g , amount of toxicity data, quality of data) for in -stream acute or criterion
maximum concentration (1 -hr average concentration not to be exceeded once per 3 years) and in -stream chronic or criterion maximum
concentration (4 -day average concentration not to be exceeded once per 3 years), have been attained When there is not quite enough
toxicity data for a constituent or some default inputs have been used during derivation, Ramboll utilizes the term aquatic life value
However, the aquatic life value is still expressed as a concentration for a defined exposure (duration) and frequency (not to be exceeded
once per 3 years) An aquatic life value may then be implemented as WQBELs considering applicable stream design flows

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
4of11
beyond the ASTM quality guidances. Ramboll recognizes that USEPA has not established 40 CFR 136
methods for toxicity testing with mussels, nor defined "chronic" duration of a laboratory test for
mussels, endpoints, or test acceptability criteria ASTM has provided guidance in their method with a
suggested "chronic" duration for testing pure chemicals varying from 21 -day to 28 -day. In addition,
ASTM provides guidance on Ilfestage to be tested (e.g., 2 to 4 -month old juvenile mussels),
endpoints that would Identify chronic effects for exposure to a chemical (e g , survival based on foot
movement, growth based on shell length), and anticipated control performance. A combination of
"lessons learned" on test acceptability criteria from ASTM and 40 CRF 136 Intra- and Inter -laboratory
testing would support a clear presentation of test acceptability criteria for chronic mussel testing
using potassium over a range of hardness. Most Important Is conducting multiple tests to assure
reliability of organisms, test design, endpoint measurement and statistical evaluations. It Is
Imperative to Identify the level of confidence and validity of toxicity test results before proceeding
with Inclusion In a toxicity database to be used to derive an aquatic life value or criteria.
3.2 Chronic Potassium Toxicity Data Sources
The Service focused on retrieving chronic aquatic potassium toxicity data for mussels only, and no
other Invertebrates. The Service's chronic potassium concentration derivation relies upon two studies
- Imlay, 1973 and Ivey, et al, 2013. The derivation of a criterion, as per the Guidelines and 40 CFR
132, begins with validation of available toxicity data for the parameter of Interest. Ramboll has
reviewed both documents for data validity as per the Guidelines, 40 CFR 1329 and ASTM quality
guidancelo and determined both to be questionable for Inclusion Into a potassium toxicity database to
be used to derive an In -stream 4 -day chronic criterion.
As discussed in Section 3.1, Ramboll recognizes that USEPA has not established 40 CFR 136 methods
for toxicity testing with mussels, nor defined "chronic" duration of a laboratory test for mussels,
endpoints, or test acceptability criteria. However, understanding the confidence in using a single test
result is always a step in data validation as well as determining if test design is similar to existing
testing guidelines (e.g., the Guidelines, ASTM, 40 CFR 132).
In reviewing the Service referenced papers:
The Ivey test determined three chronic endpoints from a single Fatmucket test, however Ramboll
only considered the survival IC20 endpoint as quality data to use as a single test result. The
other two endpoints (dry weight and biomass) demonstrated a wide range In the confidence
limits Indicating poor data quality and were therefore not considered further. For example, ASTM
method guidance presents a discussion of Intra -laboratory precision for acute mussel with a
coefficient of variation for copper of 13 to 26% and the Ivey data for dry weight and biomass
endpoints have a much higher variation. The confidence intervals for the dry weight and biomass
endpoints were greater than 150 percent of the IC20 value suggesting fairly low confidence in
the result
• The Imlay work was conducted prior to 1970 before development of consistent laboratory culture
and testing guidance for freshwater mussels. Although control survival was acceptable, the diet
used for the adult mussels would not be used In today's culture regime, and the diet of filter
feeding organism has a demonstrated effect on their sensitivity to toxicants.
6 ASTM publishes guidance methods for generating toxicity data using freshwater invertebrates (E1706-05(2010)), fish (E1241-05(2013),
and mussels (E2455-06(2013)
9 Additional guidance on the toxicity data validation in support of 40 CFR 132 is found in "Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Chemicals of
Initial Focus Database Evaluation (MDEQ 1996)"
10 ASTM publishes guidance methods for generating toxicity data using freshwater invertebrates (E1706-05(2010)), fish (E1241-05(2013),
and mussels (E2455-06(2013)

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
5of11
• EPA recognizes that In -lieu of conducting laboratory toxicity tests of extreme duration for long-
lived species, that toxicity testing of the most sensitive lifestage (survivable In laboratory) and
measurement of sublethal endpoints Is appropriate and valid for derivation of In -stream chronic
criterion. ASTM method guidance Is 21 day to 28 days with algae feeding Imlay's test design
was far longer than 28 days and diet was not algae The diet (feeding) and extended duration
Impacts test acceptability for deriving a chronic criterion
• All Imlay tests (with Individual species) were only conducted once All tests were conducted as
single replicates of each potassium concentration exposure so results are not statistically robust
(NOEC /LOEC would not be statistically sound).
The data relied upon by the Service Is not valid nor sufficient to directly derive a chronic aquatic life
value Only one of the Ivey single study endpoints (survival) could be used to develop an acute to
chronic ratio for Fatmuckets at a hardness of 100 mg/L
3.3 Service's Chronic Value in the Context of Ambient Water Chemistry Data
Even if one were to accept the Service's referenced two studies and single test results as valid and
sufficient to derive an in -stream chronic aquatic life value, the Service should have conducted a
"reality check" on their 2 6 mg/L chronic aquatic life value (with its associated 4 -day exposure not to
be exceeded once per 3 years)
EPA suggests a step of comparing the statistical result of the laboratory toxicity database and
comparing that to field data or "reality check", specifically, 40 CFR 132 Appendix A presents the
following.
XI.B. On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine If
the criterion is consistent with sound scientific evidence If It is not, another crntenon,
either higher or lower, shall be derived consistent with the Guidance in this part.
XVII. On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field Information, determine If
the Tier II value is consistent with sound scientific evidence If it is not, another value,
either higher or lower, shall be derived consistent with the Guidance in this part.
To perform the reality check, one needs potassium data for a receiving water, preferably the one of
interest, and data on the presence or absence of mussels (not due to habitat limitations)
The Service's potassium Tar River data sources are dated 197911 and 199212, which by then the Tar
River Spiny mussel was already extirpated from the Tar River immediately below Louisburg, NC13
The potassium range Is 0.2 to 1.9 mg/L from the Service supplied references. Review of the Service
referenced data suggests that the concentration of ambient potassium in the Tar River and nearby
watershed are underestimated.
Ramboll has located other potassium data as summarized In Table 1, as well as some recently
collected data, with a range for the Tar River from 1.7 mg/L to 3 5 mg/L The recent data was
Intentionally collected during the summer when low flow critical time periods exist In addition, for
11 Ramboll would note that the Simmons, 1979 reference does not include data specific to the Tar River and tributaries sampled were at the
headwaters of the Tar River or a tributary much further downstream
12 Ramboll would note that Caldwell, 1992 reference does not include data specific to Tar River, nor if the potassium data for creeks and
streams were associated with mussel presence
13 USFWS, 1992

Review of USFW_S
°Egtimating Protective Potassium concerrtaYiions for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2-017"
6 of 1L
this upper Tat, River watershed, there were mussels found where projected potassium concentrations
would be greater than .2-6 mg/L
Table 1. Upper Tar River Watershed Potassium Data and Mussel Presence
m8[a.y ��d �o
ti4la �d
c`�a
'Tar River at
one
Loui's bur
8/27/1965 _
ii result
1 7
2014 survey, mussels found
Cedar Creek near
April 1954 to August
confluence with Tar River,
Louisburg
1967
max
2,0
no data on mussels
min
0-8
avg
1.2
—30 miles upstream (US) of
North Fork Tar River
Louisburg, .2014 —6 miles
at SR 1,151
2007-2008 ;;
_ _ _;avg
25
US, mussels 'found
16 miles US of confluence
Cedar Creek at SR
with Tar River, no data on
1127
2009- 2010
Max
2-3
mussels
min
13
avg
18
Tar River, US of Fox
2014 survey, —1 mile US of
Creek
8/5%2017
max
35
Fox Creek, mussels found
to downstream of
Sampling 8 transects, 3 pts
Sycamore Creek
min
2,7
across
avg
3,0
Tar River US of Fox
one
Creek (Joyner Park
8/29/2017
result
2,71
2014 survey,mussels found
Tar River ,lust DS of
one
2014 survey, —1 mile US of
Fox Creek
8/29/2017
result
2 47
Fox Creek, mussels found
Though there is 'a data gap for concurrent, potassium data for the Tar River when (and where)
mussels are present, the additional data sources discovered suggest that ambient Tar River
potassium concentrations are higher than indfc'ated in the Service references yet mussels have been
found (2014) In addition, potassium data from streams in the Tar -Pamlico River basin suggests
that values 2 6 mg/L K or greater may be vvtthin the, normal range of k concentration for the, region,
yet some mussels exist
The Service's proposed chronic aquatic life vaftle of 2 6 mg/L to protect the designated use of the Tar
River is not scientifically supported nor technically sound when considering field data for potassium
and mussels and should not be used as an in -stream 4 -day chronic aquatic life value
As discussed in further detail in Section 4-2„ the Tar River, in this vicinity, based on available data,
during critical sum -mer low -flow condttions has a median hardness of 33 mg/L. Recent sampling
(August 5, 2017) of the Tar River in the vicinity of the proposed new discharge had 'a range of
hardness from 32 to 36 mg/L As noted by the Service, the response of mussel's to potassium at 100
mg/L may not be equivalent to their response to potassium at lower concentrations of hardness,
This is a gap Tri the limited data available
3.4 Service''s Method to Derive 4 -day In -stream Aquatic Life Value
The Service did not use one of the three approaches that, North Carotma presents to numerically
interpret the narrative chronrc toxicity standard The Service used the "chronic value (,ChV -

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
7of11
geometric mean of the NOEC and LOEC)" that appears to rely upon the result of direct measurement
of effluent chronic toxicity which is to be compared to the chronic value of effluent to protect the
receiving water. For the Tar River and Novozymes' proposed new discharge, the chronic value would
be 31% effluent The Service generated a chronic value for potassium. It would seem for a pure
chemical, North Carolina would use other approaches and not the chronic value
In addition, the Service's use of the single tests with Fatmuckets and Wabash pigtoe to calculate the
chronic value is inappropriate since the concentration difference between the lowest effected
concentration bracket and the no effect concentration (control) is a factor of seven times (7 X)
Subsequently, there is high uncertainty or low confidence in the chronic value of 2.6 mg/L K derived
from the Imlay data. In addition, the Service did not address how to statistically relate a 300-d
exposure to a 4 -day exposure chronic aquatic life value It is certainly not one-to-one.
As noted earlier, the Ivey single test was conducted at a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3, there is
no hardness/potassium toxicity relationship for sublethal toxicity effects of growth. Also as noted in
earlier discussion on data validity, the Ivey Fatmucket IC20 survival result may only be considered
useful for developing acute to chronic ratios for potassium toxicity to mussels, but not considered a
benchmark for instream concentration guidance. However, the Service did not follow the North
Carolina chronic approach of applying an acute to chronic ratio to the lowest LC50.
Based on the mussel data available, there is insufficient valid data, only one result, to derive an in -
stream aquatic life value
4. QEVRE@N DIS ACUTE PO ASSnu1 mI DGG3WATROM
North Carolina regulations specify that the Acute Approach 2 is "for specific chemical constituents or
compounds for which values described under Subparagraph (1)(a) of this Rule cannot be
determined, acceptable levels shall be equivalent to a concentration of one-third or less of the lowest
available LC50 value " This is the approach used by the Service as presented in the White Paper
resulting in an in -stream acute aquatic life value of 7 mg/L potassium
However, Ramboll finds that this value is not scientifically or technically supported by either available
valid toxicity data, or use of an approach available to derive an aquatic life value, or a potassium
toxicity value specific to the Tar River Ramboll's review of the acute potassium derivation focuses
on the available toxicity data, the method or approach used to derive protective concentration,
validation of Service toxicity data, and consideration of Tar River water chemistry.
4.1 Acute Potassium Toxicity Data Sources and Acute Derivation Approach
Ramboll would note that lack of a National Recommended Water Quality Criteria does not mean that
a Final Acute Value (FAV) cannot be generated or determined. North Carolina regulations Acute
Approach 1 should have been considered by the Service
Ramboll interprets "available LC50 value" as a toxicity test result that is valid as per the Guidelines,
40 CFR 132, and for mussels, ASTM guidance considerations Ramboll would suggest there are
sufficient LC50 values for potassium to derive a FAV. In May 2012, Ramboll conducted a data search
for acute and chronic potassium data. The search resulted in over 400 data points. After evaluation
to determine data acceptance via the Guidance, there were over 35 acceptable data points applicable
to warmwater fisheries (i e., salmonids not included). As this effort was focused on a specific river
segment in Oklahoma, Ramboll conducted a field survey to confirm that Ceriodaphnia riguadi were

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
8of11
not present and that aquatic toxicity data for that species was removed from the potassium acute
aquatic toxicity database.
Attachment 2 presents the acute toxicity data available for potassium (as of 2015) that have been
validated using the Guidelines and 40 CFR 132. As this segment of the Tar River is not a salmonid or
trout stream, use of a potassium acute toxicity database without salmonids species is acceptable In
addition, Ramboll suspects that C rigaudi would not be found in this portion of the Tar River Hence,
an aquatic life acute criterion specific to the Tar River could be determined using the Attachment 1
database and the Guidelines. One limitation of the Attachment 2 potassium acute toxicity database
is that there are no studies in the hardness range of the Tar River, the lowest toxicity test result is
hardness around 100 mg/L.
Ramboll acknowledges that the "lowest" LC50 In Attachment 2 is for mussel species. There are two
recent sources of potassium toxicity data for mussels: Ramboll Environ 2015 (first Issued ENVIRON 14
2012) and Wang, et al 2015.
4.2 USGS Potassium Mussel Toxicity Data Validation and Acute Derivation Approach
The Service did not pursue Approach 1 (generate FAV), but pursued Approach 2 (1/3 of lowest
LC50) The Service utilized only one source of acute data (i.e., USGS sponsored data with lead
Investigators being Wang and Ivey, cited as Wang 2017) to compile EC50 (median concentration
effecting 50 percent of the organisms exposed) values Ramboll would note that USGS has released
mussel toxicity data in various formats since November 2013 and the referenced 2017 publication
Includes data that Is different from previous releases In addition, the 2017 does not include all of
the previously released data. A timeline of USGS mussel toxicity data and comparison Is presented
In Attachment 3 As Ramboll does not have the underlying raw data but dust summaries, it is not
known why there are differences In reported values over time
Ramboll has also attempted to validate the USGS data to confirm appropriate use in developing an
in -stream acute criterion As mentioned previously, Ramboll uses the Guidelines, 40 CFR 132, and
ASTM method guidance to validate toxicity test data However, Ramboll does not have the
underlying raw data to work through the checklist (see Attachment 4).
As noted in Attachment 3, the data for the single Amblema (Threerldge mussel) test was not
considered acceptable due to the wide confidence Interval range indicating poor test data quality
(i.e., one data point with a 95% confidence level of 129%, or a range from 15 to 57 mg/L) In
addition, specific to the Tar River, use of toxicity data for a genus and species, such as the Western
Pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) that is only found in salmonid waters Is not appropriate The
toxicity data for these two species should not be used by the Service
A further limitation with the USGS data Is that the toxicity testing did not occur In hardness
concentrations other than 100 mg/L, which Is a higher hardness than measured In this segment of
the Tar River.
Ramboll disagrees with the Service that the lowest available LC50 Is the 31 mg/L result from the
single Amblema test due to the poor test data quality discussed above With the caveat of not being
able to fully validate the White Paper USGS data, the lowest LC50 at hardness 100 mg/L would be
the Paper Pondshell at 38 mg/L listed In the 2017 Wang paper. However, in the 2015 Wang memo,
the single result for the Paper Pondshell was reported as 45 mg/L. Therefore, pending confirmation
11 Now Ramboll Environ or Ramboll

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
9of11
of the Paper Pondshell LC50 in the 2017 Wang paper, the lowest available LC50 reported by USGS at
hardness 100 mg/L is the single result for Fatmuckets at 46 mg/L (Attachment 2) Moreover, the
Service did not reference the Ramboll potassium mussel data for Fatmuckets.
4.2.1 Ramboll Potassium Toxicity Data - Fatmucket Mussels
Ramboll has conducted numerous acute toxicity tests utilizing potassium and Fatmuckets in order to
build a robust database that would meet data quality requirements and capture the range of
hardness for an Oklahoma receiving waterbody. Although the data produced by Ramboll has not
been published in a journal, it was reviewed and accepted by Oklahoma Water Resources Board
(OWRB), Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), and USEPA Region 6. The Service
also references the results of the studies on potassium toxicity as Attachment 3 to their White Paper
A limitation of the Fatmucket potassium toxicity data generated by Ramboll is that toxicity testing did
not occur at hardness concentrations less than 100 mg/L (hardness ranged from 100 to 400 mg/L).
The lowest LC50 at a hardness of 100 mg/L is based on six results Taking the geometric mean of
the six results yields an LC50 of 43 4 mg/L
4 2 2 Potassium Toxicity Data - Mussel Species Present in Tar River
It should be noted that none of the mussel species used in the Service's assessment are indigenous
to this segment of the Tar River. The Atlantic Slope mussel fauna is distinct from other mussel
assemblages due to their adaptation to very soft water conditions (e g , water hardness closer to 25
mg/L CaCO3), and may have different adaptations for calcium, magnesium, and potassium
acquisition and metabolism. Equating the potassium toxicity response of Fatmucket, Washboard, or
Paper Pondshell at hardness of 100 mg/L to Atlantic Slope mussel fauna is not proven and is a data
gap.
4.3 Hardness Adjustment of Potassium Toxicity Values
The Service recognizes that there is a relationship between potassium toxicity and hardness The
Service reviewed ambient hardness data (2010 to 2014, 12 data points) collected in the Tar River at
Louisburg (Station #01100000). The Service elected to only consider a minimum hardness
measured in the winter (18 mg/L). Ramboll considers this data point non -representative for
derivation of an aquatic life value as it was collected in the winter, which is typically a wet season,
thereby possibly diluting out the hardness with rainwater. A data range that excludes the winter
months would be a better option to determine the summer low -flow hardness conditions Using the
same date range (2010-2014) and excluding the winter month samples (November - February), the
median and maximum hardness values are 33 and 35 mg/L CaCO3, respectively.
Using a statistical summary to identify the central tendency of a river segment monitoring database
(median, geomean, 50th percentile) for use in determining in -stream aquatic life criterion that are
hardness dependent is appropriate and supported by regulatory agencies. In addition, use of
seasonal criteria (e.g., ammonia, DO) and the accompanying inputs for their criteria specific to
receiving water is appropriate and supported by regulatory agencies.
North Carolina addresses hardness -dependent criteria (specific to metals) at 15A NCAC 02B.0211
(c)(i) states, If the actual instream hardness (expressed as CaCO3 or Ca+Mg) is less than 25
milligrams/liter (mg/1), standards shall be calculated based upon 25 mg/I hardness."
The Service should have used hardness for the Tar River representative of the summer low -flow
conditions, which is a hardness of 33 mg/L. In addition, recent sampling of the Tar River during low
flow conditions (August 5, 2017) from multiple locations (24 stations) dust upstream of Fox Creek to

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017" 10 of 11
dust downstream of Sycamore Creek further supports this hardness value with results ranging
between 32 to 36 mg/L with an average of 33 5 mg/L
Even if the Service can present a rationale for a hardness lower than 33 mg/L, the worst-case
hardness to be used would be 25 mg/L.
Ramboll developed the potassium toxicity data for Fatmuckets based on hardness concentrations
from 100 to 400 mg/L as CaCO3. Though Ramboll recognizes the slope (adjustment factor) that the
Service utilized in the White Paper to adjust potassium toxicity, the assumption that toxicity behavior
outside of the tested range would hold is not known To confirm that the slope holds below 100
mg/L (and down to 25 mg/L) confirmatory testing of species adapted to low hardness conditions is
necessary. Because the hardness -potassium toxicity relationship equation has not been proven on
low hardness waters, extrapolation utilizing the Fatmucket relationship between 100 mg/L and 400
mg/L hardness is inappropriate
5.1 Evaluation of Novozymes Effluent Potassium
USFWS comments regarding the Novozymes effluent potassium does not account for potential
Internal control capabilities. Consequently the entire database was averaged without differentiation
of Implementation timelines for various system control capabilities. The Service's listed average of
504 ppm Is considerably greater than the minimum (236 ppm K) demonstrated during early
attempts In September 2016 to control process sources of potassium
5.2 Mussels in Tar River
Documentation of mussel populations within the effluent mixing zone prior to outfall Installation is a
prudent activity both to assure appropriate effluent quality and appropriate location and design of
outfall structure. Novozymes has commissioned such a survey that is In the process of being
finalized; preliminary results indicate that mussels are present from upstream of Fox Creek to
downstream of Sycamore Creek
5.3 Implementation Flows
The Service selected a 1 7 cfs flow, an absolute minimum for the past 16 years, as appropriate for
implementing In -stream aquatic life values into water quality -based effluent limits which Is
Inconsistent with available guidance The stream design flows (or flow design criteria) for
implementing the duration and frequency components of acute and chronic criteria are defined by
USEPA guidance and methods and in North Carolina regulations Stream design flows are not based
on whether benthic sessile organisms are present or absentls The return Intervals (1Q10, 7Q10) are
specific to the frequency - not -to -be exceeded once every 3 years, and the duration components of
properly and appropriately derived aquatic life criteria When acute and chronic criteria are derived
properly and appropriately, the applicable stream design flows for implementation are 1Q10 and
7Q10.
In addition, North Carolina as per 15A NCAC 02B 0206(a)(1), allows on a case-by-case basis and
with demonstration, use of varying flows or real-time discharge if equal or better protection than the
water quality standards results.
15 As a note, North Carolina aquatic life criteria are derived from databases that include benthic sessile organisms, mussels are not unique
in being sedentary

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017" 11 of 11
Flows used to implement in -stream aquatic life values or criteria should be defined by North Carolina
as per their guidance and regulations
6. C ONCL1 USNONS
Ramboll's review of the Service's "Estimating Protective Potassium Concentrations for Freshwater
Mussels" indicates the following.
• The data and methodology used by the Service is incomplete and insufficient for estimating
protective potassium concentration of 7 mg/L (acute) and 2.6 mg/L (chronic) that would be used
to develop water quality -based effluent limits
As discussed in Section 3, the limited chronic toxicity mussel data that the Service relied upon is
of poor quality, none of the three available approaches presented in the North Carolina
regulations were used to derive a 4 -day chronic aquatic life value, and the potassium
concentration derived by the Service is below potassium concentrations found in the Tar -Pamlico
River basin where some mussels have been found.
As discussed in Section 4, the Service did not utilize all the available valid acute potassium
toxicity data for invertebrates including mussels. If the Service had utilized all the available valid
acute toxicity data, the North Carolina approach of generating a Final Acute Value (FAV) could
have been used versus use of 1/3rd of a single LC50. In addition, the Service identified the
lowest LC50 for a mussel test that is of poor quality and is not valid for deriving acute criterion.
Finally, the Service, in adjusting mussel data generated at 100 mg/L hardness, erred in adjusting
to 18 mg/L as being representative of the Tar River. The median hardness of this portion of the
Tar River is around 33 mg/L and this value would be representative in adjusting mussel toxicity
data for hardness.

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
ATTACHMENT 1
MATERIALS RELIED UPON

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
1-2
Alderman, John. February 1991. For the USFWS. Interim Report Surveying and Monitoring of the Tar
River Spiny Mussel in North Carolina
ASTM 2013. E1241-05 Standard Guide for Conducting Early Life -Stage Toxicity Tests with Fishes.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM 2010. E1706-05. Standard Test Methods for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment -Associated
Contaminants with Fresh Water Invertebrates West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM. 2013. E2455-06 Standard Guide for Conducting Laboratory Toxicity Tests with Freshwater
Mussels. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA
ASTM 2006 E1295-01(2006) Standard Guide for Conducting Three -Brood, Renewal Toxicity Tests
with Ceriodaphnia dubia American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM 2007 E729-96 (2007) Standard Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Materials
with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA.
Augspurger, T.P., N. Wang, ].L Kunz, C G. Ingersoll. 2014. Pollutant Sensitivity of the Endangered
Tar River Spinymussel and Assessed by Single Chemical and Effluent Toxicity Tests. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Raleigh, NC.
Caldwell, W S 1992. Selected water -quality and biological characteristics of streams in some
forested basins of North Carolina 1985to 1988 USGS WRIR 92-4129.
Ecosearch. December 1982. For the USWFWS Mid -Term Report Status Survey of the Tar River Spiny
Mussel.
ENVIRON. 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan for Site -Specific Potassium Criteria Development
Deep Fork River, near Okmulgee, Oklahoma. Prepared for CP Kelco September 2011.
Imlay, MJ 1973. Effects of potassium on survival and distribution of freshwater mussels
Malacologia, 1973, 12(1):97-113.
Ivey, C.D., R.A. Consbrock, J.L. Kunz, C.G. Ingersoll, N. Wang., W. Braumbaugh, E. Hammer, C. R.
Bauer, and C. M Barnhart. 2013. Sensitivity of freshwater mussels at two life stages to acute of
chronic effects of NaCl or KCI 34th Annual meeting of SETAC NA, Nashville, TN.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 1996. Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
Chemicals of Initial Focus Database Evaluation. Prepared for USEPA Region V Office of Water.
Novozymes. October 27, 2016. Dewberry EAA and NPDES Permit Application additional information,
Attachment B Effluent Data Summary.
ODEQ. 2016. Permit and Fact Sheet for OK0044504
Posthuma, Leo, G.W. Sutter, T.P Traas. 2002. Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology CRC
Press
Ramboll Environ. June 2015. CP Kelco - In -stream site-specific potassium aquatic life values, Deep
Fork River near Okmulgee, OK, submitted to OWRB and ODEQ.
Simmons, C.E., R.C. Heath. 1979. Water -quality characteristics of streams in forested and rural
areas of North Carolina. USGS WRIR 19-108
The Catena Group. August 2014 LKC Engineering - City of Franklinton New Location Wastewater
Discharge, Tar River. Freshwater Mussel Report.

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
rt&a
USEPA. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms, PB85-227049.
USEPA 1986 Guidelines for Deriving Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations. 822R86100.
USEPA 1991 Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based Toxics Control, PB91-127415
USEPA 2000 Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment -associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates 2nd edition.
USEPA, 2002a. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fifth Ed. EPA -821-R-02-012 USEPA Office of Water Washington,
DC
USEPA, 2002b. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater Organisms Fourth Ed. EPA -821-R-02-013. USEPA Office of Water
Washington, DC.
USEPA, 2014. Water Quality Standards Handbook
USEPA, 2016 STORET Central Warehouse, Water Quality Portal Accessed from the internet on July
26, 2017 at: https //ofmpub epa gov/storpubl/dw_pages querycriteria
USFWS. 1992. Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Recovery Plan.
USGS, 2017. National Water Information System: Web Interface Accessed from the internet on June
28, 2017 at: https•//waterdata usgs gov/nwis/rt.
Wang, N., C.G. Ingersoll, C D Ivey, J Besser, W G Braumbaugh, D Alvarez, E J. Hammer, C R
Bauer, T. Augspurger, S. Raimondo, B Shephard, J Bartoszek, C. M Barnhart, and N Eckert. 2013
Acute Sensitivity of a Freshwater Mollusks and Commonly Tested Invertebrates to Select Chemicals
with Different Toxic Modes of Action. 34th Annual meeting of SETAC NA, Nashville, TN
Wang, N., C.D. Ivey, C.G. Ingersoll, W G. Braumbaugh, D Alvarez, E.J. Hammer, C R Bauer, T.
Augspurger, S Raimondo, and C M Barnhart. 2017. Acute Sensitivity of a Broad Range of
Freshwater Mussels to Chemicals with Different Modes of Toxic Action Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Vol 36, Issue 3, pp 786-796.
Wilder, HB, and LJ Slack 1971. Summary of Data on Chemical Quality of Streams of North Carolina,
1943-67. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 1895-B USGS Water Resources Division,
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
ATTACHMENT 2
ACCEPTABLE AQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE FOR POTASSIUM (AS
UTILIZED IN SUPPORT OF 2016 OPDES PERMIT OK0044504)

Ol UI
O1 L
L d
d d
N L
d
d L
a a
d
a a
d
a a
o
. L
L L
N L
W
L W
UI UI
01 L
L L
L
L
n _
i
_ _
In ILn
ILn ILn
In In
wwILII
Z
_
ILn IL
n
n ILILn
L L
In In
L L
In In
L L
_ _
O^f
L L
_
_ VI
_ _
_ _
...
_ _
_ _
N
y
Ol
D D
D D
D L
v
Z
AAD
C C
L a
ALL
D
n
Ol
m
D D
D?
D D
D D
D
S] D
1J
D D
D
D D
u
O O
nnnn
J J
nnnnnnnnno.nno.n
J J
J J
J J
J
J
J
o. o.nn
^
o.+
N
O _
m
nno.
n
nnnn
nn
nnn'
Hann
'
c
0 0
c c
c c
c c
o
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J J
J 7
cc
J 0.J
J J
J J
c
J
to to
O O
to to
tT Ol
w
m m
d d
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
Q
d W
d 3
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
d
ww
0 ..
N N
0~~~~
N N
N N
N N
O
N N
O. ............
N N
0000000000
N N
N N
N N
N
N N
0
I"
N ...........
N
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
m
p O
Z Z
z z
Z Z
Z Z
Z
z
z
Z Z
E
p
0
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z Z
Z Z
Z z
z z0
000
0 0000
0
0 0
0000
++
00000000000
KKa'K
0 000
0000000000�Kn:
KC'0»»»'>>>»»»»»5>
d' a'a'K02K
HIME11
M
E»»»»»»»»»5»ooz
zzz
w w
ww
z zzzzzzzzzzz
w www
w
w
w w
w w
w w
o'
E
do
F m
F S
zzzzzzzzzz
w w
w w
w w
www
w
z zzz
w w
w w
zzzzzzzzzzZZ
w w
w w
www
w
w w
m m
m m
L
a
N °NLri
HM
Y �
rn
m E
oln
ola
o
nc
N
molmoMMo�maaa
f�
m
owl
MM
�mammrnlo
o+MnMma+o+rvMnmmnnrvommmnmloom
vlomrna
vlo
In N
olNvma+noNl+ly-+�
my
e
N
O M
m
Q M
Ol m
ID M
M 1�
01
lD
'I
V
N Vt
M Ol
I� m
O m
I� M
Ol Ol
Q �+
tD VI
O Ill
N O
O N
M O
T M
IA O
Ifl 10
U
u°
a
N
0 0
O
Ifl
N Q
t!1 m
Ill O
If01
M
N
.+
Ill O
O Ill
O O
O Q
O O
V1 0
0 0
0
m
2 2
m m
to lD
OO..
O m
m O
Q
l0 m
0 O
M m
m tp
m m
Ifl m
O m
M N
M N
N N
O
S N
2
NIA
r r
O
N O'
IrMi Ifl
m
10
0 0^^
N N
a. O
O N
O
a
.y
a c
N f1
ti
Y E
a
0
u
u
m
u
0
0 0
N J
Q
0
Q
m
O m
N
0 0
0 l0
0 7
0 N
m.
O N
N m
N 0
O
o0
C
0 0
0
Ol
01
Ol
0
0 0
0 0
0
O m
m 01
H
It
.-I
N N
MMM
?
O' O'
r1 Of
.+ �+
N N
M M
M Q?
Q
p
T
C
Y
+
•+ N
.-I
N .y
N N
M Q
M M�
.-I
w N
N .y
MMM
M
M M
N N
N
C
9
m
S
m
o 0
In
"Mm
0 00
M
.......
o o
o o
N o
0
muuuuuuuuu in
0 0
In vl
mIA
o
w
o ................
In
o
m o00oan
o ..0..
U u
IATA
CL
a
W
L
t t
L L
L L
L
L L
L L
L L
L
L L
t L
L
L L
L
L LLL
L L
L L
L
L L
L L
L L
L L
L
L L
L t
L
6
O
6
....
ddd
d
N N
N
d
01 W
N N
N
UI
. N.
W..
N d
N N
d.
d
Ol
II
'u
d d
d
.G��17
Uy
�.h.
.17 .17�
�.h
.h
h '�M.J
MW
S�S�I",
�S�.hM
J'J'
d
o.
y N
2 2-
- 2
In In
� In
w>
j>>>>
J
J J
J J
J J>>
>
J o
f dwawdwwww
wwwwa
wwaaa
c c
c
VI
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U u
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U
U U
U
E
al a
v
v w
w w
v a
a w
a a
v v
w v
v v
v
v
v
v
EE
W Cl
O1 N
01 01
01 Ul
Ul a
d d
w
a a
w a
a a
d d
d
w a
w d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
d d
to
v
o
U
.. ..
333333333333
., «
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. PI
3333333333333
°' °'
°:-..--.,«..--
«..
33
33
a
�EEEE�f�fffEff�sfFf-FF-fFE---
rnmo'nv
a
s
rnrnarnaa
a_ a_
a
a o
o a
rna+rnrnrnrno�olrnao
o a
a a
a a
a a
a a
U
VI
d
7
C
C
C C
C
d
um
m
m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m
m
N N
N N
N T
0
m m
m
C
lUU
N....
m
c c
i
c c
d
c c
c c
c
t
-------
i d
u i
:;
c
c c
>
>
_ -
------
_ -
- m
c mmmmmm
E E
E E
_
_ _
_ _
_ _
E E
E m
m m
m
m
m h
In In
In v,
0 0
..........
In In
In In
In In
In In
In v1
d
n n
n n
c
n
n n
n a
c
n n
n
n n
n n
n n
o
0
EEE
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
c
(7
m m
0 0
9 m
0 0
m m
0 0
0
0
m m
0 0
m m
0 0
m m
0 0
m m
0 0
o o
0 0
v v
0 0
m
0 0
__
n
__
c c
n
n 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
c c
0 0
0 0
c c
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
c
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
c c
0 0
ap
W Ul
V V
O1 a
U U
d d
U U
d d
V U
d d
U U
d d
U V
d d
V V
V V
a a
U U
a W
V V
Ol W
U U
W N
U U
d d
U U
p
n
p p
u__--
p U
U U
U U
L L
U U
L L
U U
LLLLL
U V
V U
L
U U
L L``-`--
U U
U U
U U
U U
L
U U
L L
U U
L L
U V
TI
E E
m
a
v
O
w
r Z
u
UY
UY UY
UY UY
UY VY
VY VY
VY VY
UY UY
UY UY
UY UY
UY UY
UY UY
UY UY
VY VY
V
V
N V
V V
V V
V V
V V
V V
V V
VY UY
VY UY
UY UY
UY UY
U
UY
U U
U U
U1
Y
YUY
Y0
Y0
Y Y
Y Y

Ramboll Attachment 2 (Page 2 of 3) November 1, 2017
-
Species that do not occur at site C rigaudi,
Salmonids
Chemical
Name
Genus species
Common Name
Species Group
Endpoint
Hardness as CaCO3
(mg/ L)
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
LCSO as K
Conc (mg/L)
SMAV
[mg/L)
GMAV
Reference
(mg/L)
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
1,892
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
2,620
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
2,678
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
2,777
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
2,809
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
3,249
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
3,291
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
3,458
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
3,485
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Chironomus tentans
Midge
Insects
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
3,579
2,587
2,587 Burton et al 1996
KCI
Hydroptila angusta
Caddisfly
Insects
48 hr LC50
unknown
unknown
2,313
2,313
2,313 Hamilton, R W et al 1975
KCI
Cyprinus carpio
Common Carp
Fish
96 hr LC50
210
102
434
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Cyprinus carpio
Common Carp
Fish
96 hr LC50
214
110
426
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Cyprinus carpio
Common Carp
Flsh
96 hr LC50
209
110
451
437
437 ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
208
142
230
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scu
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
214
155
242
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
122
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
131
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
144
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
168
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
170
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
176
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
177
Burton et al 1996
KCI
Hyalella azteca
Scud
Crustaceans
96 hr LC50
120-130
MHRW
195
172
172 Burton et al 1996
K2SO4
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
84
MHRW
305
Mount, D R et al 1997
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
84
MHRW
461
Mount, D R et al 1997
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
113
67 9
451
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
104
66
505
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
112
102
409
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
184
80
617
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
220
190
542
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
208
100
428
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
—Fa
Fish
96 hr LC50
320
148
602
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimepha es promelas
thea minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
340
150
605
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
340
160
530
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
lPimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
426
190
523
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
440
150
636
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
444
190
504
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
110
83
531
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC5099
2
68
502
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
108
58
422
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
220
105
542
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Flsh
96 hr LC50
212
85
469
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Ptmephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
332
132
634
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
328
124
620
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
312
135
514
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
440
198
544
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
456
125
619
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow
Fish
96 hr LC50
480
210
603
518
518 ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
Fish
96 hr LC50
39 8
43 4
1,053
Trama, F B 1954 / Patrick, R e
al 1968
K2SO4
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
Fish
96 hr LC50
44 5
536
1,594
1,296
1,296 Trama, F B 1954
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
not reported
46
Wang et al 2015
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
77
33
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmuc et
Mussel
96 hr LC50
104
72
43
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsihs siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
80
49
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
212
146
63
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
212
147
50
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
208
146
53
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Musse
96 hr LC50
300
215
55
ENVIRON 2012 unpu lishe
Ramboll Attachment 2 (Page 2 of 3) November 1, 2017

I_air`T"iTi+.:,kms-1:7C_Y:fi'Fi�C:fti_'Cdrii,
ti:Y:dYiF3p,.�„}�7i.7�'`e,�j
o o
o I•- o +q
Species that do not occur at site C rigaudi, Salmonids
Chemical
Name
Genus species
Common Name
Species Group
Endpoint
Hardness as CaCO3
[mg/L)
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
LC5O as K
Conc (mg/L)
SMAV GMAV
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Reference
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
308
200
68
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
304
210
79
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsihs siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
­gThr LC50
404
300
78
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
400
275
72
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
76
38
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
79
47
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
75
54
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KC
Lampsi is siloquoidea
Fatmuc et
Mussel
-9T-hr LC -50
206
11
62
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
200
118
60
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
204
130
56
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
300
140
79
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
-----2-9T-296
80
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
296
150
92
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
392
110
107
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
408
150
95
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lampsilis siloquoidea
Fatmucket
Mussel
96 hr LC50
392
150
84
61 61
ENVIRON 2012 unpublished
KCI
Lasmigona complanata
White Heelsplitter
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
not reported
34
34 34
Wang et at 2015
KCI
Margantifera falcata
Western Pearlshell
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
not reported
38
38 38
Wang etal 2015
KCI
Megalonaisas nervosa
Washboard
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
not reported
47
47 47
Wang et al 2015
KCI
Utterbackia imbecillis
Paper Pondshell
Mussel
96 hr LC50
100
not reported
45
45 45
lWang et al 2015
KCI
Musculium transversum
Long fingernail clam Molluscs
96 hr LC50
243
155
280
n erson, K B , eta see
Note 2)
KCI
Muscultum transversum
Long fingernail clam Molluscs
96 hr LC50
263
161
185
228 228
Anderson, K 9-,-eF-aT7f979-Fse—e
Note 2)
KCI
Physella acuta
European physa
Molluscs
96 hr LC50
43
24
493
493 493
Patrick, R et al 1968
Notes.
1 MHRW = moderately hard reconstituted water No hardness and/or alkalinity value given in paper
2 USEPA 1985 Guidelines suggest using toxicity data generated from the most sensitive life stage for an organism Anderson 1978 determined
that the adult life stage of the fingernail clam was more sensitive than juvenile Therefore, test results for the adult life stage are presented her(
3 If endpoint value was given in paper as K, endpoint value as whole salt tested was then calculated (examples Anderson 1978, Blesinger 1972
4 Hardness range of Deep Fork River is 46-1500 mg/L based on OK BUMP historical data (1998-2005)
Ramboll Attachment 2 (Page 3 of 3) November 1, 2017

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
ATTACHMENT 3
USGS MUSSEL DATA AT HARDINESS OF 100 MG/L

Attachment 3. USGS Mussel Data at Hardness of 100 mg/L
Lampsilis srliquoidea (Fatmucket) 2
46(38-54)
46(38-54)
White Heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata) 2
34(14-53)
(Is not reported in Wang 2017)
Washboard (Megalonaisas nervosa)'
47(29- 117)
48(41-56)
Paper Pondshell (Utterbackia imbec1111s) 2
45 (26 -52)
38(35-42) _
Western Pearlshell (Margantifera falcata) 3
38 (CI not presented)
38 (37-39)
Threendge (Amblema plicata)4
31(17 -57)
31 (17-57)
1) Data for the Technical Memo came from work presented in 2013 SETAC posters
2) Single test result, data was accepted by USEPA6 and OWRB in 2015/2016
3) Used by USEPA6 and OWRB in 2015/2016 For Tar River eliminated as genus only found in Salmonid streams
4) Eliminated as for this single test result, unacceptable confident interval _range USEPA and OWRB agreed
Unknown to Ramboll on the differences, possibly different statistics?
Timeline of USGS release of Mussel Toxicity Testino
1) Wang et al (including Ivey) 2013 SETAC Poster
None °r ber 2013
2) Ivey et al (including Wang) 2013 �ETAC Poster
Novefbcir 2013
3) Wang, Ivey and Ingersol May 2015 Memo Io
OSEPA5
4) letter from USEPA6 to OWRB June 2035
5) Wang et al 201-6 praview Jcurnag article
formally publishing the results from the 2013
posters
6) Wang et al 2017 (as referenced in USFWS white
paper in January 2017)
Several chemicals and mussel species
Acute and chronic to NaCl and KCI
"preliminary summary of acute water -only potassium
chloride toxicity tests conducted with early life stages of
freshwater mussels"
Contains the "Technical Memo" from Wang, Ivey and
Ingersol
Ramboll received "preview" version in November 2016
Published paper from preview version
Ramboll Attachment 3 (Page 1 of 1) November 1, 2017

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
ATTACHMENT 4
CHECKLIST FOR TEST ACCEPTABILITY FOR CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
Checklist for Test Acceptability for Criteria Development
Study author/title:
For use in development of
Data Quality Requirements as per 1985 EPA Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms, 40 CFR 132 Appendix A,
and ASTM 2004.
Data Quality Requirements as per 1985 USEPA Guidance
Data are available in a typed, dated and signed copy form and available for
distribution and have enough supporting information to indicate that acceptable
test procedures were used and results are reliable (A)
The test must contain a control treatment In which most (>90% -acute, >80%
chronic (D)) of the control organisms show no signs of stress, disease or death.
(A, C (729 Sec 13), D)
The dilution water used should not be distilled or deionized water without the
addition of appropriate salts. (A)
Data on technical grade materials may be used if appropriate, but data on
formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates of the material shall not be
used.. (A,C (729 Sec 9))
If chemical of concern is volatile, hydrolyzable, or degradable; it may be
appropriate to use only results of flow-through tests in which the concentrations
of test material in test solutions were measured using acceptable analytical
methods. A
The species being used for testing must have reproducing wild populations in
North America. See Appendix 1 of USEPA 1985 Guidance. (A)
Test organisms that were previously exposed to substantial concentrations of th
test material or other contaminants should not be used (A)
Results of acute tests during which the test organisms were fed should not be
used, unless data indicate that the food did not affect the toxicity of the test
material (A,C (729 Sec 11.6))
Results of acute tests conducted in unusual dilution water, for example, dilution
water in which total organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded 5mg/L shall
not be used, unless data show that the organic carbon or particulate matter do
not affect toxicity. (A)
Tests with daphnid or other cladoceran species must be started with organisms
<24 hr old (A, C (729 Sec 10), D)
Tests with midges must be started with second or third instar larvae. (A, C (729
Sec 10), D)
48 -hr EC50 or 48 -hr LC50 acute statistical endpoints are preferred for
cladocerans, 96 -hr EC50/LC50 for bivalves, crabs, shrimp and 96 -hr EC50/LC50
for all other species. Longer than 48 -hr data (cladocerans) can be used as long
as the controls are acceptable and organisms were not fed. (A, C (729 Sec 11.7-
8), D)
If the acute values available for a species or genus differ by more than a factor
of 10, rejection of some or all of the values would be appropriate. (A)
Saltwater species data should not be used to calculate freshwater criteria
(except in deriving ACR).
1-5

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
Data Quality Requirements as per 1985 USEPA Guidance
1 No or insufficient information was given in the article to determine if requirement was met
The following letters correspond to the reference from which the data requirement is stated
A) Specifically stated in 1985 USEPA Guidelines for Denving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses
B) Not specifically stated, but inferred in 1985 USEPA Guidelines for Denving Numenca/ National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses
C) ASTM section of specific method in parentheses 729 = ASTM E729-96 Standard Guide for
Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Material With Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians
D) USEPA WET testing conditions from WET manuals
2-5

RPVLe,w of USFwS
"Estimating PirotQCtW& PotaSSiu,fA conC�,ntrations for Freshwater MUSse'T4, March 17, 2017"
Other, Data Quality Requirements (as per ASTM or USEPA WET Guidance manuals)
ir' Vu'4`b yAar e e
Ifusing fish species, it is preferred that the test by started using juvenile, or
newly hatched flsh,(C (729 Sec 10 2), D)
Test, organisms of uniform size and from the same source_ (G (729 Sec 10 2), D)
All test chambers are identical- (C (729 Sec 13 1))
There are > 10 organisms at each test concentration for static or renewal tests
and ,>20 organisms per test concentration for flovw-through test (C' (729 Sec
11-1), D)
Organisms are random' assigned to test chambers, (C (729 Sec '15 5))
Treatments are randomly assigned to individual test chambers- (C (729 Sec
11 1))
Dissolved oxygen is maintained at 60-100% for the first 48 hrs and at 40-100%
after 48 hrs. (C (729 Sec 11 2))
TY1e test, temperature in the proper range, (C (729 Sec 11 ,3), D)
If' chemical of concern is volatile or degradable, sufficient chemical
measurements are made to
ensure test concentrations do not drop by more than 20%, (C (729 Sec' 11,9))
"fest organisms have not been treated for disease during or within 10 days of the
test initiation (C (729 Sec 10,6))
Calculation of an LC50 or EC'50 is unacceptable 'if '1) no treatment other than a
control treatment killed or affected <37% of the test organisms exposed to it, or
There are at least 2 test chambers per concentration (C (729 Sec 11 1), D)
The photoperiod is 16hr light, 8 hr dark, with ambient lighting at S0-100 ft -c,
(D)
The test is started with the test solutions at pH 6-9s a and a DO near saturation
but not supersaturated (D)
Ata minimum, at the start of the test, the pH, conductivity and TRG of the
effluent or test water is measured, Ata minimum, at the start of the test, the
pH and conductivity of the dilution water is measured (D)
The test is started W'ithTn the appropriate holding times, (effluent-. 72hrs,
receiving water. 96hr) (D)
The effluent and receiving water (if not lab reconstituted) is held at 4 deg C
following coffection until the test set up (D)
The test organisms have not been subjected to a change in temperature of 3
deg C on more during 'a 12hr period (C (729 Sec 10, 8), D
A reference toxicant test was performed on same Jot of test species within the
last 5 months, (C (729 Sec 10.9), D)
If test organisms are feral,, they were observed in the faboratory for at least 1
week prior to use, (to assure organisms are free of signs of adverse effects) (D)
The test temperature was started and maintained at 'appropriate levels -+-/- 1
degree, (20deg C or, 25deg C, for Daphnids, minnows, 12deg G for trout) (C
729 Sec 11, 3), D
Where acute toxicity test methods are utilized to determine permit limits for
toxic chemicals, at a minimum, the concentration of the test material must be
measured in each test concentration 'at test initiation, da)ly thereafter, and at
test termination (D)
The LC50/E,C50 is determined by the Graphical, Spearman-Karber, Trimmed
Spearman-Karber, or Probit Method using 95% confidence limits (D)
3=�

Review of USFWS
"Estimating Protective Potassium concentrations for Freshwater Mussels, March 17, 2017"
Other Data Quality Requirements (as per ASTM or USEPA WET Guidance manuals)
1 No or insufficient information was given in the article to determine if requirement was met
The following letters correspond to the reference from which the data requirement is stated
A) Specifically stated in 1985 USEPA Guidelines for Denwng Numerical National Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses
B) Not specifically stated, but inferred in 1985 USEPA Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses
C) ASTM section of specific method in parentheses 729 = ASTM E729-96 Standard Guide for
Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Material with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians
D) USEPA WET testing conditions from WET manuals
4-5

Review of USEW5
"Estimating Frotqotive,POfa,SsiLIM coTicP_ntrat1tTnB For Flreshwaterl MusseI5, MafC11 17, 2017"
IS THIS TEST ACCEPTABLE FOR USE IN DEVELOPING AN ACUTE CRITERION?
REQUIREMENTS FOR CHRONIC TEST DATA ACCEPTABILITY
(as er USEPA 1985 Guidance and in addition to thea licable requirements
4N,
gh "t_ko"
w�
Chronk data should be based on results of flow-through (except for Daphnids)
chroritc tests (A)
Concentrations of test material are properly measured in test solutions at
appropriate times during test (A)
Control survival, growth, or reproduction must be within acceptable limits (limits
depend on species) (A)
Chronic values should be based on endpoints and exposure durations
appropriate to the species
0 Life -cycle- exposure to toxicant throughout a life cycle Test should start
with embryos or newly hatched young (fish), test end no less than 24 days
after next gene -ration hatching (90 days for salmonids)- Daphnid tests
should begin with <24hr old young and last for no less than
21 days. Endpoints based on survival, growth, adult maturation, eggs
spawned per female, embryo viability (salmonids only) and hatchability for
fish For Daplioids, survival and young per female (A)
0 Partial life -cycle, exposure to toxicant through most of a life cycle
Altowed for fish species requiring more than a year to reach sexual
maturity Tests should begin with immature juveniles, continue through
maturation and reproduction and end no less than 24 days after hatching
of next generation Endpoints based on survival, growth, maturation,
eggs spawned, embryo vfabflfty (salmonid only) and hatchability- (A)
• Early life -Stage, exposure to toxicant shortly after fertilization through
embryonic', larval, and early juvenile development (28-32 days, 60 post -
hatch fors-almoriids)- Endpoints based on survival and growth only (A)
Chronic value can equal the geomean of the lower and upper chronic limits or by
regression 'analysis (A)
No or insufficlerit information was given in the article to determine if requirement was met -
The following lette.-s correspond to the reference from which the data requirement 15 statecl°
A) Specifically ,stated in 2985 USEPA Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quahty Criteria
for the Protection ofAquatiG Organisms and Their Uses
3) Not specifically stated, but inferred in '1985 USEPA Guidelines forDei-Tving Nameacal National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection oFAquatic Organisms and Their Uses
C) ASTM section of specific method in parentheses 729 � ASTM E729-96 Standard Gu7dle fo'r
Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test 14ateriaJ with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians
D) USEPA WET testirig conditions from WET manuals
5-5