20030147 Ver 2_Aquatic Life Monitoring Below_20170217

Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 2206
Aquatic Life Monitoring
The Tillery Hydroel
Duke Energy
elow
is Plant
Environmental Services
DUKE
ENERGY.
2017

Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.0
APPEP
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Page
ii
iv
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-7
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-10
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
6-1
APPENDIX A - DAILY AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN, MINIMUM DISSOLVED
OXYGElt AND DAILY MINIMUM FLOW COLLECTED NEAR TZ1
(USGS GAGING STATION NO. 0212378405 AT HWY 731 BRIDGE) AND
AT TZ2 FROM MAY 1 — NOVEMBER 30, 2008 AND 2016
APPENDIX B - TAXONOMIC LISTING OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
COLLECTED FROM SITES TZ1 AND TZ2 IN THE PEE DEE RIVER
BELOW TILLERY DAM DURING JULY 2008 AND JULY 2016 AND
THE TAXON'S ASSOCIATED BIOTIC INDEX TOLERANCE VALUE
(T.V.)'.

List of Tables
List of Tables
Table Page
2-1 Geographical Positioning System locations, channel widths and habitat
characteristics of sampling Sites used in the aquatic life monitoring plan
belowthe Tillery Dam.....................................................................................2-2
4-1 Total and EPT richness/abundance scoring metrics for Sites TZ1 and TZ2
in the Pee Dee River below Tillery Dam during July 2008 and July 2016 ........ 4-1
4-2 Tolerance value, trophic status and number of fish collected from Sites
TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July 2016 ..............4-3
4-3
Catch rates (fish/hour) for electrofishing samples (Ndurn
backpack)
collected at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Damust 2008
andJuly 2016...............................Aft --------....... ---------- ------------------.4-4
Biomass collection r tes (grams/hour) or electrofishing samples pram
and backpack) collected at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 elow Tillery Dam during
August 2008 and July 2016 ..............................--......................................4-5
4-5 Catch rates (fish/haul) for seine hauls collected at Sites TZ1 and TZ2
below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July 2016 .................................... 4-6
4-6 Biomass collection rates (grams/haul) for seine hauls collected at Sites
TZl and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July 2016 .. ............ 4-6
4-7 Characteristics of the fish community below the Tillery Dam at Sites
TZ 1 and TZ2 during 2008 and 2016................................................................ 4-7
4-8 Individual lengths (1 specimen collected), mean lengths (total length, mm)
and size ranges (minimum and maximum) of fish collected below Tillery
Dam durin 2008 and 2016-----------------------------------------------------------------------------4-9
4-9 Variances from NC 401 WQ Certificate for the monitoring period
May 1 — November 30 (NA = Not Applicable) .............................................. 4-11
4-10 Temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH, and turbidity
values collected during the macroinvertebrate and fish community
assessment below Tillery Dam during 2016 .................................................. 4-12
11

Fi ure
2-1
4-2
4-3
List of Figures
List of Figures
Page
Aquatic life monitoring sample Sites (TZ1 and
TZ2) on the Pee Dee River below the Tillery Development ............................2-1
Dissolved oxygen levels collected every 15
November 30, 2016 near TZ1.....................
Dissolved oxygen levels collected
from May 1 through
...................................... 4-15
from May 1 through
k................................4-16
ui

Executive Summary
Executive Summary
On September 30, 2008, Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) received a 401
Water Quality Certificate (WQC; No. 3730, MOD 1) from the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) as required by the relicensing of the Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project for the
Blewett Falls and Tillery Developments (Project No. 2206). The 401 WQC was incorporated
into the New License issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC 2015) to
Duke Energy on April 1, 2015.
Section 7 of the WQC requires Duke Energy to conduct aquatic life monitoring in the Pee
Dee River below the Tillery Development. The Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan was submitted to
the FERC on December 8, 2015, and approved on January 6, 2016 (FERC 2016). Two sites
(TZ1 and TZ2) within an eight kilometer (kll^ch from the Tillery Dam to the confluence of
the Rocky River were monitored in accordance with the plan. This report documents the
condition of the aquatic communityfish and macroinvertebrates) post implementation of the
new terms and conditions outlined in the 401 WQC compared to the baseline assessment of the
aquatic community that existed prior to the implementation of the 401 WQC.
In 2016, a total of 76 macroinvertebrate taxa were collected at Site TZ I, and a total of 60
macroinvertebrate taxa were collected at Site TZ2. The bioc ification scores for Site TZ1 and
TZ2 were Good -Fair in 2016. A total of 347 fish representing 17 taxa were collected at Site
TZ1, and a total of 237 fish represent' 6 taxa were collected from Site TZ2. The fish
community at Site TZ1 consists primarily o rth American catfish and minnow species. The
fish community at Site TZ2 consists primarily of North American catfish, sunfish and darter
species. There were no fish with signs of disease, fin erosion, lesions or tumors, and only a low
number of Green Sunfish present at Site TZ2 (signs of environmental stressors).
1V

Introduction
1.0 Introduction
On September 30, 2008, Duke Energy received a 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC;
No. 3730, MOD 1) from the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) as required by the
relicensing of the Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project for the Blewett Falls and Tillery
Developments (Project No. 2206). The 401 WQC was incorporated into the New License issued
by the FERC to Duke Energy on April 1, 2015.
The New License required Duke Energy to develo quatic Life Monitoring Plan
(ALMP) in consultation with the following resourc cies: North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC), South Carolina D me Natural Resources (SCDNR),
North Carolina Division of Water Resources R), the ish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries S ice (NMFS). The res ce agencies along with
Duke Energy comprise the Aquatic Life Monitoring Team ( T). The ALMP was submitted
to FERC for approval on December 15 and approved on January 6, 2016 (FERC 2016).
The ALMP requires Duke Energy to conduct aquatic life monitoring in the Pee Dee River
below the Tillery Development to document the condition of the aquatic community on three
year intervals for at least four cycles (i.e., 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025) ending in 20251. Two
sites (TZ1 and TZ2,' Figure 2-1) within an eight km reach from the Tillery Dam to the confluence
of the Rocky River were monitored to document the condition of the aquatic community
follow in implementation of the dissolved oxygen (DO) and instream flow requirements of
the N rise. This report documents the condition of the aquatic community (fish and
macroinvertebrate) during the first monitoring year post license implementation (i.e., 2016) and
compares the results to the baseline assessment conducted in 2008. After the fourth monitoring
cycle (i.e., 2025) a determination will be made by the ALMT as to whether the New License
requirements have contributed to an improvement in the aquatic community or whether other
environmental factors (e.&, nonnative species competition and predation, basin wide
sedimentation or other water quality issues) are affecting the community. A bioclassification
ranking of "Good -Fair" will be considered the minimum threshold in assessing a positive
1 The 401 WQC defines the final sampling period occurring in year 2020. This date anticipated issuance of the New
License prior to 2015. Therefore, monitoring on three-year intervals for at least four cycles would extend the last
monitoring period to 2025.
1-1

Introduction
response of the benthic community to flow and DO improvements implemented during the New
License term.
Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities were assessed in accordance with the
ALMP (Duke Energy 2015). Biotic indices, derived from standardized benthic
macroinvertebrates collections, and selective fish community metrics will be used in assessing
any changes in the environmental quality in this reach of the Pee Dee River. These indices
provide a holistic approach to community health assessment b xvgrating various ecological
principles associated with organism and community response to environmental degradations
(e.g., reduced species diversity, dominance by tolerant species and reduced population size; Gray
EM
1-2

Site Description
2.0 Monitoring Site Description
Aquatic life monitoring was conducted at two sites (Sites TZ1 and TZ2) located in the
eight km reach of the Pee Dee River below the Tillery Development (Figure 2-1). The length of
each monitoring site was approximately 366 meters (m).
Figure 2-1 Aquatic life monitoring sampling sites (TZ1 and TZ2) on the Pee Dee River
below the Tillery Development.
2-1

Site Description
Site TZ1 is located approximately 2.4 km below the Tillery Development, immediately
downstream of NC Highway 731 Bridge (Figure 2-1). This upstream site is a shoal with shallow
runs with bedrock outcrops, boulders, cobble intermixed with gravel and sand, and cobble and
gravel bars present with some sand and silt deposition. Woody debris and rooted aquatic
vegetation (Hydrilla sp., Podostemum sp., Potamogeton sp., and filamentous algae) are prevalent
at this site (Table 2-1).
The downstream Site, TZ2, located approximately 7.2 km downstream of the Tillery
Development and just above the Rocky River confluence, also contains shoal and shallow run
habitat (Figure 2-1). The substrate consists of bedroc utcrops and boulder, cobble intermixed
with gravel and sand, and cobble/gravel/sand bars
channel margins (Table 2-1). Woody debris and
Sand and some silt deposition occur along
rooted aquati etation (Hydrilla sp.,
Podostemum sp. and filamentous algae) are prevalent at this s' e.
Table 2-1 Geographical Positioning System (GPS) locations, channel widths, and
habitat characteristics of sample sites used in the aquatic life monitoring plan
below the ' ry Dam.
Transect
GPS Latitude and
Longitude AL
Channel
Width (m)
Habitat Description
TZ1
"166-
hoal with bedrock outcrops, boulders, cobble
termixed
Shoal below
with gravel and sand, and cobble and
Tillery
35.198639
200
avel bars present with some sand and silt deposition.
Development
-80.06131
oody debris and rooted aquatic vegetation (Hydrilla
and NC
sp., Podostemum sp., Potamogeton sp. and
Highway I
filamentous algae) were prevalent.
731
Shoal with prehistoric fishing weir. Bedrock outcrops
TZ2
and boulders, cobble intermixed with gravel and sand,
170
and cobble/ gravel/sand bars present. Sand and some
Shoal aboveV5.
silt deposition noted along channel margins. Woody
Rocky River
debris and rooted aquatic vegetation (Hydrilla sp.,
confluence
Podostemum sp. and filamentous algae) were
prevalent.
2-2

Monitoring Methods
3.0 Monitoring Methods
3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring was conducted using the NC Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Standard Qualitative Method (SQM) for benthic
macroinvertebrates (NCDEQ 2016). Ten qualitative samples were collected during each
sampling event. The bioassessment and rating of the general environmental quality of the river
is based upon benthic community structure attributes which include: total number of species,
number of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly taxa and species tolerance values.
Habitat
Microhabitat
Sample Method
Number of Samples
Type of Sample
Coarse -mesh
(500-1000 m)
High current with
structure
Riffles
Kick net
2
Single, disturbance
Low current with
structure
Banks
Dip net
3
Composite,
disturbance
Leaves
Leafpacks
Wash bucket
1
Composite, wash
Vine -mesh
(300 m)
Aufwuchs
Rock and logs
U.S. Standard Sieve
y Size No. 50
hh, 2
Composite, wash
SandU.S.
Standard Sieve
Size No. 50
1
Composite (3),
disturbance
Visual Collections
Large rock and logs
(10-15 minutes)
1
Composite
Samples were sorted in the field using a US tandard Sieve Size No. 50 a white enamel
pan and a winnowing technique. All organisms were preserved in 95% denatured -ethanol and
returned to the laboratory for identification to the lowest practical taxa level using standard
taxonomic references and enumeration. A voucher and reference collection was established for
each sampling location to validate taxonomic identification. Numerical abundance for each
taxon was tabulated as Rare = 1 (1-2 specimens), Common = 3 (3-9 specimens), and Abundant =
10 (10 + specimens).
Pollution tolerance values (T.V.) for each taxon was assigned based on criteria in
NCDEQ Benthic IBI SOP (NCDEQ 2016). If an individual species does not have a T.V., but
there was a T.V. for the genus level, then the genus level T.V. was used.
3-1

Monitoring Methods
• The Biotic Index (BI) for each sample was calculated as:
BI = Is ni * ai/N
I=1
where N is the total number of individuals in the sample, ni is the number of
individuals in the ith species (taxon), ai is the pollution tolerance value for the ith
species, and S is the total number of species.
The BI Value and the EPT Value (the number of Ephemeroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera
[stoneflies], and Trichoptera [caddisflies] taxon) was assigned a score based on the expected
score from the Piedmont Ecoregion as develope the NCDEQ Benthic IBI SOP (NCDEQ
2016). No seasonal correction values were ap these data as the sampling occurred during
the summer months. The two indices (matr for each sample were averaged (with scores
rounded upward) to produce the final numerica ing_ The NCDEQified numerical
rounding approach was applied to the resulting BI and EPT if the scores differ by exactly one
bioclassification. Bioclassification for each sample (site) as based on the final ranking:
Excellent = 5, Good = 4, Good -Fair = 3, Fair = 2 and Poor = 1.
There have been multiple taxonomic and T.V. re -,%
since the 2008 baseline study
was originally produced. All 2008 scores were calculated using the NCDWQ (2006) benthic IBI
SOP, however, all benthic taxonomic SOP values presented in this report (i.e., tolerance values
and scoring criteria), will use the NCDEQ 2016 Version 5.0 Benthic SOP values. All taxonomic
identifications made for the benthic community in this report were provided by Pennington and
Associates, LLC. Pennington and Whsociates is an approved vendor for macroinvertebrate
identifications as certified by the NCDEQ.
3.2 Fish Community Motoring
Fish community sampling efforts followed methods established for the shallow water
study conducted during relicensing in 2004 (Progress Energy 2006b). Sampling gear types
include: Smith -Root 5.0 GPP pram electrofisher, Midwest Lake Electrofishing Systems Infinity
Xstream backpack electrofisher2 and a flat seine (6.1-m x 1.8-m with 0.32 cm mesh). The pram
electrofisher was used to sample the wadeable, mid -channel by making a single 15 minute pass
Z A Smith -Root Model 15 backpack electrofisher was used during the 2008 study.
3-2

Monitoring Methods
through three linear transects within Site TZ1 and TZ2. The backpack electrofisher was used to
sample each river bank, including any backwater areas, by making a single 15 minute pass
through three linear transects within Site TZ1 and TZ2. Twelve seine hauls (i.e., one haul per
30.5 in of transect length) were made at sand, gravel, or cobble bars or riffles at each site with all
collected samples combined into one common sample. For electrofishing sampling, pulsed DC
current was used, with the voltage adjusted to produce 3-4 amps in the sampling field (depending
upon the water conductivity). Riffle areas were sampled inte ely with the pram electrofisher
by disturbing the substrate and holding dip nets on the downstream end of the riffle while
electrofishing was performed. The total timeecorded for backpack and pram
electrofishing, and the catch rates calculated in num er and weight of fish per hour. All
electrofishing and seine samples were combined at each site to yi e total number of fish
collected per sample site. In addition, catch -per-unit effort (C UE) data calculated for both
electrofishers and seine hauls. Numerically abundant species within the fis community were
defined as species or taxa comprising > 5% of the total fish abundance at each transect.
All fish were identified to the lowest practicable taxa level. Fish were measured for total
length to the nearest mi mm) and weighed to the nearest gram (g). Fish not identified in
the field were pres ith % buffered formalin solution and transported to the laboratory
for identification and ody measurement. All other collected fish were released alive to the
sampling site. Fish were retained as necessary f voucher purposes in Duke Energy's fish
reference collection.
A modified North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) fish community metric was
applied to these data to gain insight of the fish community structure at each sampling site. The
collected fish speNInde
were assigned tolerance and trophic feeding guild classifications based
on designations uhe NCDWR for its NCIBI methodology (NCDWR 2013). The NCIBI
is derived from thof Biotic Integrity originally formulated by Karr (1981) to measure the
health and structure of stream fish communities.
As discussed in the Study Plan for Aquatic Life Monitoring (approved by FERC January
6, 2016), the fish community data cannot be quantitatively scored with the NCIBI (i.e., numeric
score with corresponding community health rating). The scoring methodology is based upon
wadeable streams and has not been applied to large river systems, such as the Pee Dee River,
with the specific array of sampling gear types and lack of comparable reference sites in this study
3-3

Monitoring Methods
(NCDWR 2013). Neither reference condition nor accepted sampling methodologies have been
established to apply the NCIBI in large river systems. Therefore, as agreed to by the ALMT,
there will be no strict success criteria for judging the health of the fish community under this
monitoring program (Duke Energy 2015).
Three other attributes applied to these data (also approved by the ALMT) are the number
of minnows (Cyprinidae), the number of North American catfish species, and the percentage of
Green Sunfish. Young -of -year fish were included in the calculation of all of the fish community
attributes listed below.
The significance of each fish community metric or attribute is given below, as defined in
NCDWR (2013):
No
1. Number of taxa or species richness: The total number of species supported by a stream of a
given size within a given region generally decreases with environm degradation. In
addition, some streams with larger watersheds or drainage areas can be expec support more
species than streams with smaller watersheds. In other instances, the number of species and
watershed size are not correlated.
2. Number of individuals: The total number of
stream of a given size in a
given region decreases with environmental degrada n. ver, in some instances, nutrient
enrichment or degradation may actually increase the number of fish supported by a stream.
3. Number of darter species (Etheosotoma and Percina species): Darters are sensitive to
environmental degradation particularly as a result of their specific reproductive and habitat
requirements. Darter habitats (e.g., riffle habitat) are degraded as a result of channelization,
siltation, reduced oxygen levels, and fluctuating water levels. The collection of fewer than
expected number s of rs can indicate some degree of habitat degradation.
4. Number of Simow sp . Many species of minnows are intolerant of habitat and
chemical degradation. Because of their predominantly specialized insectivorous feeding habits,
they also reflect the condition of the benthic community which may be harmed by sedimentation,
sediment contamination, or varying water levels. Minnow species also typically inhabit shallow
water habitats such as stream channel margins which can be affected by fluctuating water levels
in regulated streams (Bain and Travnichek 1996).
5. Number of North American catfish species: The number of North American catfish
species can provide insight into general environmental conditions present in a stream. Many
3-4

Monitoring Methods
North American catfishes are omnivorous feeding generalists tolerant of a wide range of
environmental conditions. Conversely, madtom species inhabit shallow water areas and are
insectivorous in feeding habits and generally reflect favorable stream environmental conditions.
This attribute is not used in the NCIBI but used in this assessment to characterize the entire fish
community present in the Pee Dee River.
6. Number of sucker species (includes all species within Catostomidae Family): Many
suckers (especially Moxostoma and Scartomyzon species) are intolerant of habitat and chemical
degradation, and because they are long-lived, provide a multiyear integrated perspective. They
also reflect the condition of the benthic community which may be affected by sedimentation,
sediment contamination, or flow fluctuations.
7. Number of sunfish species (includes Lepomis, Enneacanthus, Micropterus, and Pomoxis
species): Sunfish species are particularly respo ve to habitat degradation such as the filling in
of pools with sediment and loss of stream cover (e.g., woody debris). Conversely, most sunfish
species (e.g., Bluegill, Redbreast Sunfish, and Largemouth Bass) are habitat and feeding
generalists and show less sensitivity to flow fluctuations that other species who are more
specialized in feeding or inhabit channel margin habitat (Bain and Tvnichek 1996).
8. Number of intolerant species: Intolerant species are those specialized habitat and feeding
species most affected by environmental perturbations, and therefore should disappear, at least as
viable populations by the time a stream degrades to "Fair". Intolerant species includes some
speciewith a very restricted zoogeographic distribution or considered rare, threatened, or
endang Of the 223 described species of freshwater fish in NC waters, only 55 species are
considered i tolerant. 10
9. Percent tolerant individuals: Tolerant species are those which are often present in a stream
Imp E
in low or moderate numbers but as the stream degrades, they can become dominant (generally
greater than 25-35% of the fish community). Of the 223 described species of freshwater fish
found in North Carolina, 22 species are tolerant. The metric is calculated by the total number of
individuals of tolerant species divided by the total number of collected fish.
10. Percent omnivores and herbivores: Omnivorous feeding species generally indicate
degraded environmental conditions. Additionally, large numbers of herbivores can indicate
canopy or riparian removal or modifications and/or nutrient enrichment with subsequent
increased growth of attached algae and periphyton.
3-5

Monitoring Methods
11. Percent piscivores: Piscivorous feeding species represent the top of the food chain within
the aquatic community and their presence usually indicates a healthy, functioning food chain.
However, a very large percentage of piscivorous species or the complete absence of predators
may indicate environmental perturbations or some other influencing factor.
12. Percent insectivores: Insectivorous feeding species, particularly those that specialize on
the benthic invertebrate community (i.e., many minnow, sucker, and darter taxa) generally reflect
a healthy river ecosystem. The presence of a large percentage of generalist insectivorous feeding
species, particularly those that can feed on a variety of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, (e.g.,
Redbreast Sunfish and Bluegill) can indicate degraded environmental conditions and nutrient
enrichment. '4 'W
13. Percent Green Sunfish: The percentage of Green Sunfish, a tolerant species, typically
increases with degraded environmental conditions (i.e., generally > 5% of total fish collected
would be considered unbalanced; Karr et. al 1986). This attribute is not included in the NCIBI
3
but used in this assessment to aid incharac rization of the fish community and environmental
conditions.
14. Percentage of species with multiple age groups: This metric or attribute provides an
indication of reproductive success and survivability of year classes through time. It also
provides an indirect indicator of suitable habitat for reproduction and rearing of young. At least
three individuals per species must have been collected to determine the presence of multiple age
groups within the population. In some instances, professional judgment may also be used to
dete Awproductive success of a particular species.
15. Numbnonnative species and percentage of nonnative species to native species:
Nonnative speci e currently prevalent in the Pee Dee River below the Tillery Development,
especially Smallmouth Buffalo. The presence of nonnative species can negatively affect native
species abundance and population response due to predation, competition, or both factors
interacting together. This attribute is not included in the NCIBI but is included in this fish
community monitoring because of the large presence of nonnative species in the Pee Dee River.
Native status is determined with NCDWR guidance.
16. The percentage of fish with disease, fin erosion, lesions, or tumors: This attribute
provides insight into existing environmental conditions or stressors that may be contributing to
the overall health of each fish species and the fish community as a whole.
3-6

Monitoring Methods
3.3 Other Environmental Measurements
During each sampling event, in-situ water temperature, DO, pH, conductivity, and
turbidity were measured with a laboratory and field -calibrated YSI® multi -parameter instrument.
Sample sites were recorded with a GPS unit to sub -meter accuracy (Table 2-1).
Continuous water quality monitoring sondes were deployed near both sites to measure
water temperature and DO conditions during the period of summertime reservoir stratification
(May through November). Temperature and DO were collected near TZ1 at the N.C. Hwy 731
Bridge United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gaging Station No. 0212378405. At site TZ2,
a HOBO DO Data Logger -U26-001 was deployed and rotated out every two weeks. Gaging
Station No. 0212378405 was calibrated by USGS staff, while opera\exiconditions
ere performed
for each HOBO data logger before each deployment. Streamfloight were also
measured by the USGS stream gage near TZl. These parameters aid in
evaluating the overall health and response of the aquatic community.
3-7

Results
4.0 Monitoring Results
4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates Community Results
The benthic macroinvertebrate community was sampled on July 6 (Site TZ1) and July 7
(Site TZ2), 2016 under the established minimum flow of 330 cubic feet per second (cfs). A total
of 76 taxa were collected at Site TZ 1 and a total of 60 taxa were collected at Site TZ2 (Appendix
B). EPT taxa represented 29% (n = 22) and 37% (n = 11) of the macroinvertebrates collected at
sites TZ1 and TZ2, respectively. Site TZ1 scored 3.4 (EPT Score), 3.0 (BI Score) and 3.2 (Site
Score) with an overall bioclassification of Good -Fair. Site TZ2 scored 3.4 (EPT Score), 3.0 (BI
Score) and 3.2 (Site Score) with an overall bioclassi �ation of G -Fair (Table 4-1).
Table 4-1 Total and EPT richness/abundance scoring metrics or Sites TZ1 and TZ2 in
the Pee Dee River below Tillery Dam during July 2008 and July 2016.
Tzl
TZ2
Richness/Abundance 2008
2016
2008
2016
Total taxa richness 46
76
56
60
EPT richness
22
22
EPT abundance \ 51
85
69
91
Biotic In
6.1
6.4
6
EPT sco 2 I " 3.4 2.4 3.4
BI score 3 3
Site score 2 3. 2.6 3.2
Bioclassification air Good -Fair Good -Fair Good -Fair
4.2 FiNfishmunity
unity Results
Thwas sampled on July 12 (Site TZ2) and July 13 (Site TZ1) 2016.
Sampling effort at Site TZ1 consisted of 2.45 electrofishing hours (pram (1.35) and backpack
(1.10)) and 12 seine hauls. Sampling effort at Site TZ2 consisted of 2.50 electrofishing hours
(pram (0.98) and backpack (1.52)) and 12 seine hauls. Previously, Site TZ2 and TZ1 were
sampled August 1 and 2, 2008 for 3.37 and 3.5 hours, respectively (Duke Energy 2014).
A total of 347 and 237 fish representing 17 and 16 taxa were collected from Sites TZ1
and TZ2 during 2016, respectively (Table 4-2). No rare, threatened or endangered fish species
have been collected to date. Catch rates (fish/hour) and biomass rates (grams/hour) varied by
year and site (Table 4-3 and 4-4).
4-1

Results
4-2

Results
Table 4-2 Tolerance value, trophic status and number of fish collected from Sites TZl
and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during A
2008 and July 2016.
Number Collected Number Collected
TZl I TZ2
Scientific Name Common dame Tolerance Trophic Status 2008 2016 1 2008 2016
Lepisosteidae
Gars
Lepisosteus osseus
Longnose Gar
Tolerant Piscivore
I1
Anguillidae
Freshwater eels
I -
Anguilla rostrata
American Eel
Intermediate Piscivore
14
1
11 4
Catostomidae
Suckers
1
I
Erimyzon oblongus
Creek Chub sucker
Intermediate Omnivore
-
-
I 1
Ictiobus bubalus
Smalhnouth Buffalo
Intermediate Omnivore
2
1
I
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Shorthead Redhorse
Intermediate Insectivor
1
1
I
Scartomyzon sp.
`Brassy" Jumprock
Intermediate Insect
1
Clupeidae
Shad
Dorosoma petenense
Threadfin Shad
Intermediate® re
2
1
I
Cyprinidae
Carps andMnnows
Clinostomusfunduloides
Rosyside Dace
Internee to Insectivore
1
Cyprinella analostana
Satinfin Shiner
Tolerant ' Insectivore
7
3
C. nivea
Whitefin Shiner
Intermediate Ins ore
4
29
1 12
-
C.pyrrhomelas
Fieryblack Shiner intolerant msec
-
-
3
Nocomis leptocephalus
Bluehead Chub
Intermediate Omnivor
2
29
2
Notropisamoenus
Comely Shiner
Intermediate Insectivore
-
1 3
-
Notropis hudsonius
Spottail Shiner
Intermediate Omn�ore
8
200
3
N. scepticus
Sandbar Shiner
Intermediate Insectivore
42
1
I
Semotilusatromaculatus
Creek Chub
Tolerant Insect
I 1
Ictaluridae
N. American Catfishes
1
Ameiurusbrunneus
Snail Bullhead
'Intermediate Insectivore
88
127
12
13
A. catus
White Catfish
Tolerant , Omnivore
1
-
I
1
A. platycephalus
Flat Bullhead
"Tolerant Insectivore
13
45
10
37
ktaluruspunctatu
ChannelCatfis
Intermediate Omnivore
4
2
13
-
Noturus insignis
Margined Madj2&
Intermediate Insectivore
3
5
1 86
22
Pylodictis olivaris
Flathead Catfish
Intermediate Piscivore
-
-
1
PoecifflilaelML
Livebearers
1
Gambusia holbrooki
Eastern Mosquitofish
Tolerant Insectivore
4
1 2
9
MoronidaeTemperate
s
Morone americana
White Perch
Intermediate Piscivore
2
1
Centrarchidae
asunfishes
I
Lepomisgibbosus
Pumpkins"Intermediate
Insectivore
1
L. gulosus
Warmouth
Intermediate Insectivore
1
1
I
L. auritus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant Insectivore
4
21
1 72
27
L. cyanellus
Green Sunfish
Tolerant Insectivore
I
1 6
5
L. macrochirus
Bluegill
Intermediate Insectivore
38
22
Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth Bass
Intermediate Piscivore
9
7
1 7
1
Percidae
Perches
I
1
Etheostomaflabellare
Fantail Darter
Intermediate Insectivore
-
-
3
-
Etheostoma olmstedi
Tessellated Darter
Intermediate Insectivore
2
7
1 113
79
Percaflavescens
Yellow Perch
Intermediate Piscivore
3
2
I
1 -
-
Percinacrassa
Piedmont Darter
Intolerant Insectivore
4
19
1 26
9
TO
347
630
237
4-3

Results
Table 4-3 Catch rates (fish/hour) for electrofishing samples (pram and backpack)
collected at Sites TZl and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and
July 2016.
"Brassy" Jumpro 1j0.3 j - -
,,,,,,,,,,,,
�Fieryblack Shiner*4 - 0.8
Spottail Shine
Number (fish/hour)
Sandbar Shiner
TZl
TZ2
Taxa
2008 2016
2008 2016
Longnose Gar
- - 1
0.3 -
American Eel
4.2 0.4
1.1 -
Shorthead Redhorse
- 0.4 1
- -
Smallmouth Buffalo
- 0.8 1
I
- -
Threadfin Shad
- 0.8 1
I
- -
Rosyside Dace
1
0.3 -
Comely Shiner
- I
6 -
Satinfin Shiner
- 9.4
1.2
Whitefin Shiner
12 11.8 1
1.2 -
Bluehead Chub
0.6
8.
Creek Chub
1
0.3 -
Creek Chubsucker
- - 1
0.3 -
"Brassy" Jumpro 1j0.3 j - -
,,,,,,,,,,,,
�Fieryblack Shiner*4 - 0.8
Spottail Shine
®' �,, 12 57.1 1.2
Sandbar Shiner
I
5 1 - -
Channel Catfish
2 0.9 -
Flathead Catfish
- - 1 - 0.4
Snail Bullhead
6.1 51.8 1 3.4 5.2
White Catfish
- - 0.4
Flat Bullhead .9
18.4
1 2.9
14.8
Channel Catfish
-
0.8
I
1 -
-
Margined Madtom
2.0
24.6
8.8
Eastern Mosquitofish
_0.9
-
0.3
3.6
White Perch
_0.3
0.6
-
1 -
-
Pumpkinseed
0.3
-
1 -
I
-
Redbreast Sunfish
1.2
8.6
1 20.6
10.8
00reen Sunfish
-
-
1 1.7
2.0
IWaemouth
0.3-
I
Bluegill
-
-
10.9
8.8
Largemouth Bass
2.7
2.0
1 2.0
0.4
Fantail Darter
-
-
0.9
-
Tessellated Darter
0.6
2.9
1 32.3
31.6
Yellow Perch
0.9
0.4
I
1 -
-
Piedmont Darter
12
7.8
j 7.4
3.6
4-4

Results
Table 4-4 Biomass collection rates (grams/hour) for electrofishing samples (pram and
backpack) collected at Sites TZl and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August
2008 and July 2016.
Taxa
2008
Weight (grams/hour)
TZl TZ2
2016 2008 2016
Longnose Gar
-
- 1
2.3
-
American Eel
115.4
4.1
60.6
-
Shorthead Redhorse
-
326.5 1
-
Smallmouth Buffalo
-
1804.
-
Threadfin Shad
-
1
-
Rosyside Dace
-
I
0.3
-
Comely Shiner
-
- 1
2.0
Satinfin Shiner
24.9
Whitefin Shiner
3.9
4.5 I
J&O
-
Bluehead Chub
12
0.8
Creek Chub-
-
0.6
-
Creek Chubsucke
-
3
-
"Brassy" Jumprock
Fieblack Shiner
-
- 7.6
Spottail Shiner
652
-
Sandbar Shiner
I
9 1
-
-
Channel Catfish
20.
-
13.7
-
Flathead Catfish
0.0 1
- sk
-
58.8
Snail Bullhead
974.5
.2 1
127.4
201.2
White Catfi
1.5
0
-
6.4
Flat Bu ead
127.9
IF
311.8 1
36.0
230.8
Charm tfish
-
I
891.8 1
-
-
Margined Madtom
8.3
15.1
184.9
58.0
Eastern Mosquitofish
1.2
-
0.3
0.8
hite Perch
16.9-
mpkinsee
6.2
- 1
I
-
-
Redbreast Sunfish
74.8
339.2 1
804.0
173.6
Green Sunfish
-
I
- 1
11.4
31.6
Warmouth
18.4-
I
Bluegill
-
-
327.4
180.0
Largemouth Bass
12.2
11.0 1
45.1
1.6
Fantail Darter
-
-
3.4
-
Tessellated Darter
1.5
2.9 1
69.4
44.8
Yellow Perch
45.4
I
15.5 1
-
-
Piedmont Darter
6.2
51.4 1
30.3
17.2
4-5

Results
Table 4-5 Catch rates (fish/haul) for seine hauls collected at Sites TZl and TZ2 below
Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July 2016.
Mass
(grams/haul) TZl
008 2016
Number Number
Largemouth BatjZJ4.6
(fish/haul) TZl (fish/haul) TZ2
Taxa
2008 2016 2008 2016
Largemouth Bass
- 0.2 1 - -
Yellow Perch
- 0.1 1 -
Eastern Mosquitofish
0.3 - _1 0.7
Tessellated Darter
0.1
- i0k
Satinfin Shiner
- 0.1
Spottail Shiner
- 0.4 I 03
Comely Shiner
- 1 0.1 -
Sandbar Shiner
2.6
j 0.1 -
IM
Table 4-6 Biomass collection rates (grams/haul)
for seine hauls collected at Sites TZ1
and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July 2016.
Taxa
Mass
(grams/haul) TZl
008 2016
Mas s
(grams/haul) TZ2
2008 2016
Largemouth BatjZJ4.6
0.8
1 - -
Yellow Perch
1 - -
I
stem Mosqu
_
I 0.1 0.1
Tessellated Darter
-
1 - 0.1
Satinfm Shiner
- 2.3
- 0.2
rSpottaA Shiner`
- 0.7
1 _ 0.3
Comely Shiner
k-71,
- -
j 0.1 -
hiandbar Shiner
19.8
- -
4-6

Results
Table 4-7 Characteristics of the fish community below the Tillery Dam at Sites TZl
and TZ2 during 2008 and 2016.
TZl TZ2
Metric 2008 2016 1 2008 2016
No.
1 Number of taxa or species richness
18
17 1
21
16
No.
2 Number of individuals
160
347 1
630
237
No.
3 Number of darter species
2
2 1
3
2
No.
4 Number of minnow species
2
4
6
4
No.
5 Number ofNorth American catfish
i
5
4
4
5
species
1
No.
6 Number of sucker species
1
1
0
No.
7 Number of sunfish species
2
4
4
No.
8 Number of intolerant species
L14%
1
LI
2
No.
9 Percent tolerant individuals
27% I
35%
No.
10 Percent omnivore and herbivores
4% j
3
3%
No.
11 Percent piscivores
3%
2% <1%
No.
12 Percent insectivores
78
93% 1
61% 97%
No.
13 Percent Green Sunfish
0
I
0 1
1%
2%
No.
14 Percentage of species withtiple
I
1
°
59%
67%
50%
age
groups
No.
15 Number of nonnative species an
percentage of nonnative individuals to
3%)
4 /o) 1
3(2%)
2(3%)
native individuals
I
No.
16 Percentage of fish with disease fin
1
I
o
erosion, lesions, or tumors
The most abundant fish species within the aquatic community at Site TZ1 in 2016 were
Satinfin Shiner, Whitefin Shiner, Sandbar Shiner, Snail Bullhead, Flat Bullhead, Redbreast
Sunfish and Piedmont Darter representing 89% of the total catch. The most abundant fish
species collected in both 2008 and 2016 was Snail Bullhead. Percent of tolerant species
increased from 2008 and compromised 27% of the total 2016 fish community collected at Site
TZ1 (Table 4-5). Fish species collected in low numbers at Site TZ1 in 2016 were Tessellated
Darter, Spottail Shiner, American Eel, Shorthead Redhorse, Smallmouth Buffalo, Threadfin
Shad, Channel Catfish, Margined Madtom, Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch representing
11% of the total catch. Piedmont Darter was the only intolerant species collected at Site TZ1
both sample years, but was a numerically dominant species in 2016 (i.e., >5% total catch). North
American catfishes, mainly Snail Bullheads and Flat Bullheads, were prevalent at Site TZl both
4-7

Results
sample years. Insectivorous fish continued to dominate the trophic feeding guilds at Site TZ 1
due to the large number of bullheads collected both years as well as minnows collected during
2016. The number of fish species with multiple age groups present was similar to 2008 with
59% of species having multiple age groups (Table 4-8). Of the 17 species collected at Site TZ1
in 2016, four are considered non-native (i.e., Channel Catfish, Smallmouth Buffalo, Threadfin
Shad and Yellow Perch) by the NCDEQ (NCDEQ 2017). Channel Catfish and Yellow Perch
were the only non-native species collected during the 2008 sample (Table 4-2). None of the fish
collected to date in TZ1 have showed signs of disease, fin erosion, lesions or tumors.
The most abundant fish species within the aquatic community at Site TZ2 in 2016 were
Margined Madtom, Flat Bullhead, Snail Bullhead, Redbreast Sunfish, Bluegill and Tessellated
Darter. The single most abundant fish species collected in 2016 was Tessellated Darter (n = 79)
compared to Spottail Shiner (n = 200) in 2008 which madup almost o o of the collected
individuals. Tolerant species (i.e Satinfin Shiner, White Catfish, Flat ead, Eastern
Mosquitofish, Redbreast Sunfish an Sunfish) comprised 35% of the fish community at
Site TZ2 in 2016, which more than dou ed the 14% of tolerant species collected in 2008 (Table
4-5). Eleven species in 2008 and 10 species in 2016 consisted of leis than 10 individuals (Table
4-2). A small number of Piedmont Darters, an intolerant species, were collected at Site TZ2 both
sample years. Insectivorous fish dominated the trophic feeding guilds at Site TZ2 both sample
years which was comprised mainly of North American catfishes, sunfishes and perches. The
numbe of fish species potentially having multiple age groups decreased from 67% in 2008 to
dr
50% in 2016 (Table 4-8). In 2008 at Site TZ2 three non-native species (i.e., Green Sunfish,
Channel Catfish and Comely Shiner) collected (NCDEQ 2017). In 2016 at Site TZ2 two
non-native species (i.e., Flathead Catfish and Green Sunfish) were collected. None of the fish
collected within Site TZ2 showe igns of disease, fin erosion, lesions or tumors in 2016, and in
2008 one Piedmont Darter was collected with a missing left pelvic fin (Duke Energy 2014).
4-8

Results
Table 4-8 Individual lengths (1 specimen collected), mean lengths (total length, mm)
and size ranges (minimum and maximum) of fish collected below Tillery
Dam during 2008 and 2016.
TZI I TZ2
Taxa 2008 2016 1 2008 2016
Longnose Gar
-
-
1 152
-
Rosyside Dace
-
-
L 47
-
Comely Shiner
-
-
66(37-86)
-
Creek Chub
-
-
-
Creek Chubsucker
-
-
46
-
"Brassy" Jumprock
120
-
-
White Perch
137 (130-143)
1
-
American Eel
243 (141-298)
180
235 (200-300)
k -
Shorthead Redhorse
-
41800
1 - -
Smallmouth Buffalo
-
2211 (1948-2473)1
I
-
Threadfin Shad
-
66(65-67)
1 -
I
Satinfin Shiner
-
71(60-112)
-
69 (57-7
Whitefin Shiner
70(65-72)
71(57-97)
1 73(60-94)
-
Bluehead Chub
53(42-64)
-
65(46-138)
42(39-45)
Fieryblack Shine
-
89(82-93)
Spottail Shine
-
71 (59-9
1 107 (93-11�
54(53-55)
Sandbar Shiner
-
(84-108)
1 -
I
-
Flathead Catfish
-
-
-
245
_
Snail Bullhead101210
(31-248)
123 (52-204)
1 137 (43-209)
130 (36-215)
White Catfish
74
-
-
113
Flat Bullhead
94(26-220)
74(43-197)
86(30-195)
_(14
Channel Catfish
129 (121-138)
1093 (1044-1141)1135
(121-146)
-
Margined Madt
97 (93-100)
90(79-98)
84(32-131)
85(43-104)
Eastern Mosquito
, 35 (20
-
32(21-42)
23(16-53)
Redbreast Sunfish
29 (93-203)
117 (62-181)
1 117 (48-206)
89(55-140)
Green Sunfish
-
-
61(34-112)
91(83-107)
Pumpkinseed
102-
I
Wanuouth
135-
Bluegill
-
-
107 (20-159)
97(62-131)
Largemouth Bass_
61(34-85)
70(45-92)
117 (47-233)
67
Fantail Darter
-
-
1 70(68-71)
-
Tessellated Darter
65(60-69)
43(36-55)
61(34-76)
51(33-77)
Yellow Perch
162(135-187)
154(143-165)
1 -
I
-
Piedmont Darter
79(71-85)
85(73-93)
1 70(47-86)
74(49-93)
4-9

Results
4.3 Environmental Results
Continuous DO values were collected every 15 minutes near Site TZI by the USGS
Gaging Station No. 0212378405 at HWY 731 Bridge (Figure 4-2) and by the HOBO data logger
at Site TZ2 from May I through November 30, 2016 (Figure 4-3). The DO measured below the
state instantaneous minimum standard of 4.0 mg/L for thirty minutes (i.e., 2300-2330 hours) on
August 6, 20163 near Site TZI (i.e., Tillery Development downstream compliance point).
Instantaneous DO values were documented at 3.9, 3.6 and 3.4 mg/L before increasing above the
4.0 mg/L standard at 2345 hours. These three variances below the minimum standard near Site
TZI and 96 variances at Site TZ2 during 2016 are markedly fewer than the 2008 monitoring
season with 5168 and 2779 variances, respectively (Table 4-9). The daily average DO remained
above the state standard of 5.0 mg/L during 2016 at both sites, whic an improvement from
the 2008 sample season where the daily average DO registered below 5.0 mg/L at Site TZI and
TZ2 80 and I I instances, respectively (Table 4-9). River flows documented near)Site TZI at the
USGS Gaging Station 0212378405 at HWY 731 Bridge remained above the minimum
continuous flow of 330 cfs as required by the New License (Table 4-9, Appendix A; FERC
2015). In-situ water quality analysis were performed during each 2008 and 2016 fisheries and
benthic sampling event (Table 4-
TZl
14
12
.1
10
A
2
0
May June July August September October November
2016
Figure 4-2 Instantaneous dissolved oxygen data collected every 15 minutes from May 1
through November 30, 2016 near TZI.
3 FERC Docket No. P-2206-068, January 11, 2016
4-10

16
14
X12
8
= 10
on
'k 8
O
6
a
4
A
2
0
May
TZ2
June July August September October November
2016
Results
Figure 4-3 Dissolved oxygen levels collected every 15 minutes from May 1 through
November 30, 2016 at TZ2.
Table 4-9 Variances from NC Water Quality Standards for dissolved oxygen for the
2016 monitoring period May 1— November 30 (NA = Not Applicable).
Environmental Parameters TZl TZ2
2008 2016 2008 2016
Dissolved Oxygen — daily X5168
0 i 11 0
average
DissolvedOxygen—j
3 2779 96
instantaneous minimFlow— daily minimum0 INA NA
4-11

Results
Table 4-10 Temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH and turbidity
values collected during the macroinvertebrate and fish community
assessments below the Tillery Development during 2016.
Turbidity was not recorded on these dates
4-12
Temp
DO
sp. Cond
Turb
Site
Sample
Date
(°C)
(mg/]L)
(µS/cm)
pH
(NTU)
TZl
Benthic
7/26/2008
23.5
7.6
111
7.4
1.0
TZ2
Benthic
7/27/2008
24.6
6.6
111
7.2
1.0
TZl
Fish
8/2/2008
25.1
5.3
115
7.1
TZ2
Fish
8/1/2008
25.2
6.4
109
7.1
TZl
Benthic
7/6/2016
25.3
7.0
88
7.2
1.6
TZ2
Benthic
7/7/2016
25.3
5.9
90
7.2
2.0
TZl
Fish
7/13/2016
28.0
9.7
_ 85
7.7
1.5
TZ2
Fish
7/12/2016
25.3
6.2
1 91
41.0
4.4
Turbidity was not recorded on these dates
4-12

Discussion
5.0 Discussion
The shallow water aquatic community in the mainstem Pee Dee River below the Tillery
Development was surveyed for macroinvertebrates and fish during summer 2008 and 2016.
Survey results collected during 2016 documents the first sample year of monitoring the aquatic
community after implementation of the terms and conditions of the New License.
5.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate
The benthic community has shown improvement brd
on the NCDEQ Benthic SOP
criteria since implementation of the minimum flow regiO enhancements required by
the New License. This is most evident at the upstream Site TZ1. Total taxa richness increased
from 46 in 2008 to 76 in 2016, a 60 percent increase, and EPT richness has doubled from 11 in
2008 to 22 in 2016, a 100 percent increase (T ble 4-1). The bioclassification improved from Fair
in 2008 to Good -Fair in 2016. Site TZ showed improvement as well. While the
bioclassification was unchanged fro ood-Fair, the EPT richness changed from 14 to 22, a 64
percent increase (Table 4-1).
5.2 Fish Community
As discussed in Section 3.0 above and in the Study Plan for Aquatic Life Monitoring,
stream characteristics of the Pee Dee River currently restricts the ability of the NCIBI scoring
system to rate the overall health of the river based on electrofishing and seine samples, however,
metrics w.thin the NCIBI can help track the overall lth of the Pee Dee River over time. Duke
Energy and the ALMT agreed to evaluate the fish criteria (and determine success) in a
qualitative mneer. A qualitative assessment will provide trending information on the fish
communities. '1%
The following qualitative observations are noted: 1. In 2016, the total number of fish
collected at Site TZ1 increased, but decreased at Site TZ2, and both sample locations collected
fewer number of taxa. Factors that may have influenced the 2016 data include the increased
stream flows over that in 2008 and the presence of Hydrilla downstream of the Tillery
Development. Both increased flows and Hydrilla limit a sampler's ability to collect fish, which
could potentially affect the number of individuals and taxa collected thus potentially creating a
sampling bias.
2. During 2016, two intolerant fish species were collected within the sample sites, with
Piedmont Darter being a numerically abundant fish species collected at Site TZ1. The incidence
6-1

Discussion
rate of fish with signs of disease, fin erosion, lesions or tumors consisted of only one individual
occurrence in 2008. In both years, there was a low number of Green Sunfish present. Increased
numbers of intolerant species, little to no fish with signs of disease, fin erosion, lesions or
tumors, and low number of Green Sunfish are considered positive results.
5.3 Environmental
Baseline water quality results collected during 2008 indicated that DO conditions were
below the state standards during generation and non -generation periods within Sites TZ1 and
TZ2. In 2016, water quality data suggests improved conditions over those observed in 2008 at
both sites TZ1 and TZ2.
The fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities will be surveyed on three-year
intervals for three more cycles (i.e., 2019, 2022 and 2025). Data collected during subsequent
years will be compared to previous data collections (e.g., 2008 and 2016) to further assess the
benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities in the Pee Dee River below Tillery
Hydroelectric Plant.
6-2

References
6.0 References
Bain, M. B., and V. H. Travnichek 1996. Assessing impacts and predicting restoration benefits
of flow alterations in rivers developed for hydroelectric power production. Pages B543 -
B552 in M. Leclerc, H. Capra, S. Valentin, A. Boudreault, and Y. C1t,4 (editors).
Proceedings of the second IAHR Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Ecohydraulics 2000.
Duke Energy. 2014. Yadkin -Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2206. Aquatic Life
Monitoring Below Tillery Development. 26 pp.
2015. Study Plan for Aquatic Life Monitoring in Dee River Reach below the
Tillery Hydroelectric Plant. Yadkin -Pee Dee oelectric Project FERC No.
2206. Final REV 2 (December 2015).
IRV
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC Order Iss ew Licenses, Project No.
2206-030. Issued April 1, 2015. 174
.2016. Order Approving Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan Pursuant to 401 (A), Project
No. 2206-056. Issued Januar 2016.
Gray, J. S. 1989. Effects of environmental stress on species of rich assemblages. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society. 37: 19-32.
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries. 6:21-27.
1991. Biological integrity: A long -neglected aspecfwf water resources management.
Ecological Applications 1:66-84.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey
Special Publication 5, September 1986, Champaign, IL. 33 pp.
North Carolina Department f EnvirNnal Quality. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
the Collection and Analysis ois Macroinvertebrates. February 2016 (Version 5.0).
Division of Water Resources; Water sciences Section; Biological Assessment Unit April
4, 2016.
North Carolina Departm of Environmental Quality. 2017. Native and Nonindigenous
Freshwater Fish in North Carolina. https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-pa%magical-assessment-
branch/native-nonindigenous-fish. Accessed January 5, 2017.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources 2006. Standard operating procedures for benthic
macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit. July 2006. North Carolina Department
of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Environmental
Sciences Section. July 26, 2006.
6-2

References
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 2013. Standard Operating Procedure Biological
Monitoring. Stream fish community assessment program. Biological Assessment Unit.
December 2013. North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Resources, Environmental Sciences Section. December 01, 2013. 52
pp -
2008. Yadkin -Pee Dee Project for Tillery and Blewett Falls Reservoirs. Rockingham,
Stanly, Anson, Richmond and Montgomery Counties. DWQ 02010437, Version 02.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project mber 2206. Water Quality
Certification Mod 1. North Carolina 401 Water Certification. September 30,
2008.
Progress Energy 2006a. Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Pro o. 2206. Pee Dee River
instream flow study. Final report. Water Resources ng Group. Issue No.
5—Evaluate relationships between project operations/hydraulic aquatic habitat, water
quality, and fish migrations. April 2006. 16
2006b. Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Proje No. 216. Shallow water fish, crayfish,
and mussel surveys of the Pee Dee River and tributaries. Water Resources Group Issue
No. 1— Describe Current Resident Riv r Aquatic Resources Of Project Area. April
2006.
1%,
61
2010. Yadkin -Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2206. Continuous water
E
quality monitoring in the Pee Dee River below the Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Plants, May -October 2006-2009.
6-3

Appendices
APPS A
DAILY AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN, MINIMUM INSTANTANEO ISSOLVED
OXYGEN AND DAILY MINIMFLOW COLLECTED NEAR TZ1 (USGS
GAGING STATION NO. 02123784 HWY 731 BRIDGE) AND AT TZ2 FROM
NO. 0212378405) AND AT TZ2 FROM
30, 2008 AND 2016
Appendix A - 1

Appendices
Appendix A - 2
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
TZl
TZ2
TZl
TZ2
TZl
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
1 -May
ND
7.75
ND
7.76
ND
7.1
ND
6.32
ND
401
2 -May
ND
8.32
11.41
8.27
ND
6.6
7.13
6.32
ND
393
3 -May
ND
7.86
10.33
7.81
ND
7
6
6.24
ND
426
4 -May
ND
8.74
8.9
8.24
ND
7.9
5.85
7.78
ND
19500
5 -May
ND
9.47
9.01
9
ND
8.8
6
8.46
ND
418
6 -May
ND
8.89
9.04
8.83
ND
6.8
5.9
6.62
ND
435
7 -May
ND
8.98
7.32
9.02
ND
6.8
4ft
7.21
ND
480
8 -May
ND
8.8
7.77
8.99
ND
6.8
6.06
6.79
ND
462
9 -May
ND
8.59
8.24
8.69
ND
6.6
&5.33
6.31
ND
480
10 -May
ND
8.66
9.72
9.05
ND
6.7
W3
6.53
ND
471
11 -May
ND
8.8
8.86
9.17
ND
6.7
6.43
ND
453
12 -May
ND
8.22
10.7
8.44
ND
6.2
5.ML,
6.04
ND
426
13 -May
ND
7.97
9.51
8.24
ND
6
5.72 '4qb.66
ND
489
14 -May
ND
8.28
7.4
8.33
ND
6.1
4.84
1.85
ND
489
15 -May
ND
8.11
8.01
8.11
ND
5.7
.36
5.
ND
418
16 -May
ND
7.55
10.13
8.1
_
ND
5.7
5.03
6.04
ND
480
17 -May
ND
6.98
9.03
7.12ND
5.4
5.25
5.07
ND
435
18 -May
ND
7.52
7.73
7.77
ND
5.9
4.99
5.32
ND
435
19 -May
ND
6.85
6.47
6.65
ND
5.9
4.67
5.08
ND
471
20 -May
ND
6.7
7.12
6.72
ND
5.8
4.78
5.34
ND
480
21 -May
ND
6.88
7.5
6.98
ND
5.8
4.74
5.87
ND
453
22 -May
ND
7.4
7.5
7.33
ND
5.5
4.74
5.55
ND
489
23 -May
ND
8.05
8.38
8.05
ND
7
4.44
7.38
ND
462
24 -May
ND
7.48
8.42
7.72
ND
6
4.87
5.76
ND
480
25 -May
ND
7.91
8.75
8.26
ND
6
4.6
6.15
ND
444
26 -May
ND
7.44
7.96
7.86
ND
6
4.01
5.98
ND
462
27 -May
ND
7.0
6.6
7.52
ND
6
4.38
5.75
ND
453
28 -May
ND
7.69
9.39
8.45
ND
5.3
4.89
6.02
ND
462
29 -May
ND
6.97
8.2
7.01
ND
5.2
4.38
4.03
ND
426
30 -May
ND 6.76
7.41
7.02
ND
5
4.19
4.17
ND
435
31 -May
ND
7
6.54
6.63
ND
5.3
4.55
4.5
ND
453
Appendix A - 2

Appendices
Appendix A - 3
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
TZl
TZ2
TZl
TZ2
TZl
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
1 -Jun
ND
6.7
7.71
6.72
ND
5.3
4.1
4.3
ND
453
2 -Jun
ND
6.44
7.98
6.74
ND
5.2
4.32
4.8
ND
462
3 -Jun
ND
6.71
7.38
6.79
ND
5.4
4.45
4.87
ND
489
4 -Jun
ND
7.47
7.45
8.23
ND
5.4
4.14
5.14
ND
519
5 -Jun
ND
7.1
7.93
6.99
ND
5.6
4.3
4.69
ND
444
6 -Jun
ND
6.7
7.77
7.13
ND
5.2
3.7
5.13
ND
462
7 -Jun
ND
7.1
8.6
7.24
ND
5.7
3.88
4.93
ND
480
8 -Jun
ND
6.17
7.24
6.54
ND
5.2
4.09
4.91
ND
528
9 -Jun
ND
6.2
6.72
6.48
ND
5.2
4.19
4.65
ND
591
10 -Jun
ND
6.32
6.62
6.65
ND
5.1
4.34
5.54
ND
509
11 -Jun
ND
6.38
6.49
6.25
ND
5.5
4.43
4.4
ND
480
12 -Jun
4.3
6.53
7.64
6.49
3.21
5.3
4.27
4.66
ND
444
13 -Jun
5.52
6.44
6.3
6.4
2.49
5.1
4.04
3.91
ND
462
14 -Jun
4.58
6.47
6.53
6.5
2.34
5.4
4.27
4.27
ND
471
15 -Jun
4.89
6.77
6.43
6.87
2.4
5
4.11
4.49
ND
435
16 -Jun
4.64
6.39
6.49
6.5
2.31
5.2
4.06
4.63
ND
462
17 -Jun
4.67
6.37
6.2
6.34
2.47
5
3.99
3.83
ND
435
18 -Jun
4.55
6.29
6.37
6.14
2.68
4.9
3.98
3.34
ND
480
19 -Jun
4.85
6.29
6.5
5.64
2.77
5.1
3.88
2.72
ND
509
20 -Jun
4.8
6.27
6.7
6.48
2.73
5.1
3.28
4.46
ND
489
21 -Jun
4.92
6.83
6.43
7.08
2.64
5.4
3.78
4.32
ND
444
22 -Jun
4.67
6.37
5.72
6.31
2.5
5.3
3.14
4.36
ND
462
23 -Jun
4.18
6.52
6.35
6.51
2.65
5.3
3.36
4.26
ND
435
24 -Jun
4.41
6.38
6.34
6.44
2.33
5.3
3.36
4.19
ND
453
25 -Jun
4.31
6.36
4.91
6.21
2.31
5.2
3.48
4.26
ND
435
26 -Jun
3.51
6.21
6.69
6.23
2.09
5.1
3.45
3.96
ND
471
27 -Jun
4.35
6.1
6.01
5.97
2.31
4.9
3.48
4
ND
462
28 -Jun
3.64
6.31
6.01
6.06
2.12
5.2
3.22
4.27
ND
401
29 -Jun
4
6.36
6.76
6
2.14
5.1
3.79
4.04
ND
453
30 -Jun
4.45
6.24
6.7
5.77
2.74
5.3
3.92
4.03
ND
471
Appendix A - 3

Appendices
Appendix A - 4
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
TZl
TZ2
TZl
TZ2
TZl
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016 2008
2016
2008
2016
1 -Jul
4.87
6.17
6.17
5.85
2.92
4.8 _ 3.54
4.03
ND
453
2 -Jul
3.86
6.21
5.9
6.07
2.43
5.1 3.26
4.02
ND
453
3 -Jul
3.92
6.03
5.99
5.85
2.34
4.7 2.41
3.91
ND
418
4 -Jul
3.8
5.93
6.43
5.59
1.56
4.9 3.16
3.74
ND
453
5 -Jul
4.32
5.46
6.05
5.29
2.26
4.6 .45
3.86
ND
444
6 -Jul
4
6.1
6.4
6.18
2.52
4.7 1
4.22
ND
569
7 -Jul
4.18
5.97
6.29
6.11
1.92
4.7 3.03
4.51
ND
426
8 -Jul
4.32
6.04
5.66
5.98
2.15
4.9 .72
4.62
ND
602
9 -Jul
4.39
5.84
6.44
5.84
2.45
5
4.59
ND
462
10 -Jul
4.91
5.59
5.31
5.6
2.
4.6 3.
4.37
ND
426
®
11 -Jul
3.97
5.68
6.39
5.84
2.61
4.8 3.66 Ibi.51
ND
462
12 -Jul
4.63
6.13
6.34
6.28
2.36
4.4 2.63
ND
718
13 -Jul
4.55
6.13
5.93
6.45
2.18
53.2
4.
ND
453
14 -Jul
4.38
5.76
5.8
.87
2.79 ®
5 3.15
4.45
6N D
453
15 -Jul
4.55
5.87
5.55
2.43
4.8 Fr.. 2.98
4.57
ND
462
16 -Jul
4.11
6.32
5.89
X64
5.4%,3.02
4.69
ND
435
17 -Jul
4.61
6.1
6.68
5.
4.9 .45
4.25
ND
471
18 -Jul
4.87
5.8
7.05
5JW 2.6
4.4 2.81
4.35
ND
480
19 -Jul
5.18
6.17JAN
6.23
6.26'%2.56,Al
4.9 2.90
4.67
ND
471
20 -Jul
4.53
6.4
6.1
6.35
V.�.61essw
5 91
4.62
ND
453
21 -Jul
4.34
6.0
6.3
5.97
2.45
_
5.2 2.54
4.56
ND
453
22 -Jul
3.77
6.3
.93
6.07
1.71
4.6 2.44
4.63
ND
435
23 -Jul
3.69
.12
6.1311
6.19
1.67
4.9 2.81
4.89
ND
462
24 -Jul
3.88
5.57
5.75
2.1
5.2 2.5
4.69
ND
462
25-J
3.6
5.
5.55
5.88
1.68
4.8 2.21
4.61
ND
435
26 -Jul
3.67
6.48
7.49
6.45
1.22
5.2 3.45
4.71
ND
453
27 -Jul
4.62
6.09
5.81
6.34
2.1
5.2 3.02
5.08
ND
471
28 -Jul
3.38
6.04
5.65
6.08
1.51
5.2 2.42
4.93
ND
435
29 -Jul
3.5
.27
5.72
6.24
1.66
5 �2.9
4.42
ND
418
30 -Jul
3.24
6.1
6.04
6.02
1.61
5.1 2.88
4.46
ND
426
31 -Jul
3.57
6.21
7.55
6.35
1.68
5.3 3.82
4.94
ND
471
Appendix A - 4

Appendices
Appendix A - 5
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
TZl
TZ2
TZl
TZ2
TZl
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
1 -Aug
4.61
6.18
7.5
6.35
2.11
5.2
4.1
5.13
ND
444
2 -Aug
4.48
5.99_
7.46.2
1.87
5.1
_
_ 4
5.13
ND
489
3 -Aug
3.7
6.28_
5.97_
6.39
2.04
5.5
_2.59
5.28
ND
480
4 -Aug
3.24
5.56_
5.54_
5.68
1.29
5.1
_2.52
5.1
ND
480
5 -Aug
2.96
5.99_
6.03_
5.92
1.26
5.3
_3.07
5.42
ND
10200
6 -Aug
3.53
5.74_
6.04_
5.73
1.23
3.4
3.13
4.82
ND
694
7 -Aug
3.11
5.94_
6.43_
5.78
1.4
4.5
3
4.45
ND
471
8 -Aug
3.42
6.08_
6.98
6.02
1.41
5.3 3.11
4.61
ND
471
9 -Aug
4.18
6.12
6.35
6.06
1.64
5.2'j.3.32
5.32
ND
462
10 -Aug
3.74
5.77
6.36
5.91
1.9
ir
4.3
3.39
5.15
ND
462
11 -Aug
3.9
6.18
6.69
6.18
1.97
5.4
2.7
5
ND
782
12 -Aug
3.84
5.92
5.03
6.05
1.7
5.5
3.21
5.34
ND
489
13 -Aug
3.41
6.36
ND
6.43
1.65
5.6
5.54
ND
426
14 -Aug
5.01
6.27
ND
6.44
1.83
5.6
_ND
ND
N.49
ND
480
15 -Aug
5.18
6.35
ND_
6.54
2.23
5.6
`ND
5.
ND
480
16 -Aug
6.74
6.35
ND_
6.49
4.56
5.
ND
5.44
D
471
17 -Aug
5.93
6.26_
4.94_{
6.3
4.29
5.
4.92
5.34
ND
435
18 -Aug
5.03
6.44
2.41_
6.63
4.48
5.
2.07
5.39
ND
453
19 -Aug
2.22
6.16
2.75
6.32
2.05
5.2 84
5.19
ND
471
20 -Aug
2.89
6.3
.7
6.47
1.94
5.3
5.27
ND
480
21 -Aug
4.04
6.
6.34
2.38
2.
5.17
ND
435
22 -Aug
3.31
4.4
6.75
1.92
5.3 .5
5.21
ND
409
23 -Aug
3.19
6.
6.24
6.66
1.96
5.2
3.09
5.24
ND
489
24 -Aug
4.39
6.06
26
1
2.17
d 5.2
3.22
5.24
ND
471
25 -Aug
3.86
6.28
2.38
_
5.2
3.37
5.3
ND
453
26 -Aug
3.65
6.22
5.
6.62
2.51
�_ 5.2
5.22
ND
444
27 -Aug
3.76
6.1
4.46 .56
2.49
5.1
_2.83
5.31
ND
489
28 -Aug
4
6.26
7.1
2.67
_
5.1
_3.41
5.35
ND
444
29 -Aug
6.25
6.22
6.67
Oft
3.61
5
_4.19
4.56
5.1
ND
426
30 -Aug
5.17
6.16
6
6.55
3.21
5
3.81
5.23
ND
489
31 -Aug
5.03
IW6
5.611
6.38
3.09
5.1
3.89
5.32
ND
480
Appendix A - 5

Appendices
Appendix A - 6
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
TZ1
TZ2
TZ1 TZ2
TZl
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016 T 2008
2016
2008
2016
1 -Sep
4.17
6.22
5.51
6.5
3.26
5.1 3.4
5.23
ND
453
2 -Sep
4.32
5.83
4.97
5.9
2.94
_
5.1 4.07
5.11
ND
528
3 -Sep
4.08
6.93
4.94
6.97
3.12
5.4 3.69
5.72
ND
453
4 -Sep
4.31
6.81
5.27
6.82
2.86
5.2 3.57
5.3
ND
426
5 -Sep
4.21
6.98
4.96
7.1
2.62
5.3 2.87
5.12
ND
444
6 -Sep
3.94
6.77
5.17
7.33
2.59
5.2 3.14
5.32
ND
426
7 -Sep
3.98
6.6
5.1
7
2.31
5.1 57
5.38
ND
435
8 -Sep
4.47
6.27
5.8_1
6. 75
2.7
5.1 .9 1
5.56
ND
462
9 -Sep
4.8
6.17
5.76
6.63
3.38
3.92
5.21
ND
453
10 -Sep
5.25
6.42
6.87
6.8
3.23
47
5.27
ND
426
11 -Sep
6.05
6.29
7.07
6.8
3.87
1
5.28
ND
444
12 -Sep
6.19
6.42
6.64
6.95
3.71
_
5.3 4.1%k,5.75
ND
435
13 -Sep
5.97
6.49
6.9
6.99
3.97
5.1 4.4
77
ND
426
14 -Sep
6.26
6.44
6.57
6.98
4.11
4.8 4.75
69
ND
418
15 -Sep
5.92
6.53
6.98
6.95
4.16
_
' 4.9 4.8
5.A
ND
444
16 -Sep
6.68
6.56
6.91
7
4.89
' 5.2W5.08
5.42
D
435
17 -Sep
6.93
6.72
6.82
7.08
5.9
5. 5.6
5.63
ND
409
18 -Sep
7.46
6.42
6.35
6.79
6.3
_
4. 5.28
5.4
ND
418
19 -Sep
6.93
6.09
6.49
6.05
_
4.8 28
5.32
ND
409
20 -Sep
7.07
5.96
_6.31
6.96
6.48
5.7
5
5.6
ND
444
21 -Sep
7.9
6.21
6.18
6.73
6.22
.�4
f 4.%.13
5.6
ND
426
22 -Sep
8.3
6.31
7.77
6.83
6.27
f 5
5.75
ND
444
23 -Sep
ND
6.18
6.86
6.74
ND
_
4.9 5.63
5.74
ND
435
24 -Sep
ND
6.15
7.37
6.71
ND
_
m 4.9 5.41
5.67
ND
471
_
25 -Sep
ND
6.64
7.52
7.19
ND
' 5.1 5.29
5.78
ND
480
26 -Sep
ND
6.27
6.97
6.67
ND
4.7 5.29
4.91
ND
453
27-S4
ND
6.7
6.82
ND
5.3 5.19
5.46
ND
519
28 -Sep
ND
6.097
*6.18
6.26
ND
5.1 4.85
5.51
ND
549
29 -Sep
ND
7.01
9
6.72
ND
5.1
5.18
ND
569
30 -Sep
ND j1L
6.5
6.
6.65
ND
_4.62
4.9 4.61
5.51
ND
480
Appendix A - 6

Appendices
Appendix A - 7
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
TZl
TZ2
TZl
TZ2
TZl
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
1 -Oct
5.88
6.49
7.11
_ 6.81
4.49
4.8
_4.81
5.35
ND
489
2 -Oct
6.64
6.65
7.65_
6.87
4.32
5.1
_5.26
5.29
ND
509
3 -Oct
7.01
6.75
7.85_
7.17
4.95
5.3
5.71
5.61
ND
519
4 -Oct
7.5
6.65
7.56_
7.11
5.55
5.3
_5.85
5.65
ND
499
5 -Oct
6.81
6.91
7.58_
7.19
5.37
5.5
5.67
5.83
ND
453
6 -Oct
7.62
7.04
7.18_
7.36
5.31
5.6
5.84
6.22
ND
453
7 -Oct
9.19
6.1
6.79 6.4
6.69
5.561
5.93
ND
462
8 -Oct
ND
6.41
7.23
6.7
ND
5.6
6
5.97
ND
509
9 -Oct
ND
7.04
8.05
6.64
ND
6.2
5.95
5.53
ND
769
10 -Oct
ND
7.36
7.61
7.7
ND
6.2
95
6.65
ND
519
11 -Oct
ND
7.17
7.59_
7.63
ND
5.9
6.5
ND
528
12 -Oct
ND
7.59
7.75_
7.89
5.6
5.1%,
5.84
ND
539
13 -Oct
ND
7.52
8.37
7.92
ND
5.4
6.48
5.96
ND
549
14 -Oct
ND
6.46
8.12 6.87
ND _
5.4
7.17
5.84
ND
539
15 -Oct
ND
7.66
7.63
8.09
N
5.4
.35
5.85
ND
539
16 -Oct
ND
7.82
8.63
22
ND90
5.4
6.39
5.88
D
539
17 -Oct
ND
7.15
8.6
.61
ND
5.3 ®
6.17
5.73
ND
509
18 -Oct
ND
7.16
7.69_
7.67
ND
5.2
6.13
5.75
ND
480
19 -Oct
ND
7.07
8.18_
7.63
ND
5.3
66
5.86
ND
519
20 -Oct
ND
7.06
58
7.6
ND
5.3
5.8
ND
519
21 -Oct
ND
7.
7.64
ND
6
7.
6.05
ND
453
22 -Oct
ND
7.2
8.33
ND
6.6
.78
6.64
ND
453
23 -Oct
ND
8.
ND
9
ND
6.5
ND
7.05
ND
499
24 -Oct
ND
7. 91
D
8.51
ND
6.2
ND
6.58
ND
509
25 -Oct
ND
8.05
ND
8.6
ND
6.2
ND
6.53
ND
519
26 -Oct
ND
8.3
ND
8.4
ND
6.2
ND
6.49
ND
509
27 -Oct
ND
8.2
ND
8.4
ND
6.1
_
ND
6.5
ND
471
28 -Oct
ND
8.2
ND
8.56
ND
6.1
_
ND
6.38
ND
499
29 -Oct
ND
8.16
ND
8.56
ND
5.7
ND
6.16
ND
471
30 -Oct
ND
' 8.09
ND
8.38
ND
5.8
ND
6.1
ND
499
31 -Oct
ND
11W3
ND
7.77
ND
5.9
ND
6.18
ND
480
Appendix A - 7

Date
1 -Nov
2 -Nov
3 -Nov
4 -Nov
5 -Nov
6 -Nov
7 -Nov
8 -Nov
9 -Nov
10 -Nov
11 -Nov
12 -Nov
13 -Nov
14 -Nov
15 -Nov
16 -Nov
17 -Nov
18 -Nov
19 -Nov
20 -Nov
21 -Nov
22 -Nov
23 -Nov
24 -Nov
25 -Nov
26 -Nov
27-N
28 -Nov
29 -Nov
30 -Nov
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
TZl
TZ2
ND
TZl
ND
TZ2
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
ND
8.04
ND _
8.34
ND
5.9
_ND
6.24
ND
8.4
ND
8.72
ND
6
ND
6.35
ND
8.73
ND
8.96
ND
6.2
ND
6.35
ND
8.26
ND
8.42
ND
6.5
_ ND
6.75
ND
8.41
ND
8.48
ND
6.9
ND
7.17
ND
8.48
ND
8.67
ND
7.6
ND
7.38
ND
8.71
ND
8.76
ND
7.6
D
7.4
ND
8.31
ND
8.36
ND
7
D
7.02
ND
8.52
ND
8.58
ND
7
ND
7.01
ND
9.2
ND
8.97
ND
7.5
ND
7.16
ND
8.82
ND
8.87
ND
7.8
7.68
ND
9.07
ND
9.28;40
7.5
7.59
ND
8.63
ND
8.39
j ND ®
7.6
_N
ND 7.4
ND
8.44
ND
8.85 --'
ND _
7.2
ND
.39
ND
8.63
ND _
8.48
N
7.4
D
7.16
ND
9.05
ND
9.21
ND
7.2
ND
7.37
ND
9.21
_
ND _ {
9.4
ND
7.5
ND
7.71
ND
9.36
ND _
9.4
ND
7.4
ND
7.41
ND
9.31
ND
9.56
ND
7.6
ND
7.66
ND
9.63
_
ND
9.96
ND
7.9
®ND
7.73
ND
9.
_
ND
9.48
ND
7
ND ►
7.82
ND
ND
9.94
ND
8.2
D
8.13
ND
9.
ND '
10.13
ND
8.2
ND
8.41
ND
9.45
ND '
9.58
ND
8.2
ND
8.58
ND
9.7
ND
10.06
ND
V8.3
7.9
ND
7.78
ND
9.83
ND
10.14
ND
ND
7.77
ND
10.
ND
10.57
ND
8.6
ND
8.36
ND
9.6
ND
9.32
ND
8.1
ND
8.16
ND
9.76
ND
9.45
ND
8
ND
8.12
ND
9.92
_
ND
9.98
ND
8.9
ND
8.76
Appendix A - 8
Appendices
Minimum Flow
TZl
2008
2016
ND
453
ND
462
ND
462
ND
409
ND
462
ND
444
ND
401
ND
444
ND
385
ND
409
ND
435
ND
418
ND
401
ND
401
ND
409
D
435
ND
409
ND
426
ND
361
ND
385
ND
377
ND
385
ND
401
ND
393
ND
393
ND
377
ND
435
ND
426
ND
377
ND
369

ItAPPENDIX B
TAXONOMIC LISTING OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM
SITES TZ1 AND TZ2 IN THE PEE DEE RIVER BELOW TILLERY DAM DURING
JULY 2008 AND JULY 2016 AND THE TAXON'S ASSOCIATED BIOTIC INDEX
LUE (T.V.)i.
Appendix B - 1

TAXA T.V. 2008 TZl TZ2 2016 2008 2016
Nemertea
Tetrastemmatidae
Prostoma graecense 6.6 R
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Dugesiidae
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.1 A
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Corbiculidae
Corbicula flumina 6.6 OA
Sphaeriidae
Musculium transversum «<2
Pisidium sp.It2
6 j R
Sphaerium sp. R
Unionidae
Elliptio co mpl a 4.7
Elliptio s «<z —
Villosa del bis <<<z
Lampsilis radiata <<<z
Mesogastropoda
Hydrobiidae
Amnicola limosa 4.1
Somatogyrus s <<<2 R
leuroceridae
Elimia catenaria C
Leptoxis sp. 1.7 A
Viviparidae
Campeloma decis 5.8 A
Basommatophora
Ancylidae
Ferrissia rivularis 6.6
Laevapex fuscus 6.6 j A
Physidae
Physella sp. 8.7 A
Planorbidae
Helisoma anceps 6.6 A
Menetus dilatatus 7.6 —
R
_ R
—
A —
A
A R
R
— —
Appendix B - 2

TAXA T.V. 2008 TZl TZ2 2016 2008 2016
ANNELIDA
R — —
<<<2 —
ClitcHata
<<<2 —
R — —
Oligochaeta
R — —
Tubiricida
Ilyodrilus templtoni
9.3
R
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
9.4
C — C
Naididae
Nais sp.
8.7
— R
Stylaria lacustris
8.4
R C
Tubiricinae w.o.h.c.
<<<2
Quistadrilus multisetosus
<<<2
C —
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
Lumbriculus sp.
«<2
A
Hirudinea
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae
Batrachobdella phalera
<
—
Erpobdellidae
Erpobdella/Mooreobdella sp
8.
—
Helobdella elongata<<<
Is
—
Helobdella triserialis
9.3
C —
Cambarus hobbso)
Cladocera
Daphnidae
Ceriodaphnia
Daphnia lumholtzi
Daphnia sp.
Sidaidae
Sida crystillina
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Amphipoda
<<<2 R
<<<2 —
R — —
<<<2 —
R — —
<<<2 —
R — —
<<<2 —
R — —
8.4 A A A A
Appendix B - 3

Argia sp.
Enallagm4sp.
Ischnura sGomphida
Gomphus
Macromiidae
Macromia sp.
Coruliidae
Neurocordulia obsoleta
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus
Trichoptera
A
9.5 —
5.9
6.2 —
5.3 R
5.2 A
R
A
TZl
R
— —
TZ22016
TAXA
T.V.
2008
2016
C C
2008
Hyalellidae
Hyalella azteca
7.2 A
A
A
A
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis intercalaris
5 —
C
—
C
Heterocloeon sp.
3.7—
Iswaeon anoka
4.4 —
—
A
Labiobaetis ephippiatus
3.5 C
A
—
Labiobaetis propinquus
5.8 —
—
A
Plauditus sp.
<<<2
—
R
—
Caenidae
Caenis latipennis
6.8
—
R
Heptageniidae
Maccaffertium sp.
<<<2 —
—
Macaffertium modestum
.5 —
A
—
Maccaffertium smithae
—
—
A
Stenacron interpunctatum
.4
C
—
Stenacron sp.
z —
—
—
A
Leptoh idae
Tricorythodes albiline
5
—
A
Tricorythodes robacki
5
—
—
A
Tricorythode
5
A
A
—
Odonata
Argia sp.
Enallagm4sp.
Ischnura sGomphida
Gomphus
Macromiidae
Macromia sp.
Coruliidae
Neurocordulia obsoleta
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus
Trichoptera
A
9.5 —
5.9
6.2 —
5.3 R
5.2 A
R
A
A A
R
— —
R R
R
R —
—
C C
C C C
Appendix B - 4

TAXA
T.V.
2008
TZl 2016
2008
TZ22016
Glossosomatidae
R
R
4.7
Protoptila sp.
2.3 —
—
—
R
Hydropsychidae
— —
8.8
— —
R —
Cheumatopsyche sp.
6.6 j A
A
A
A
Hydropsyche bidens
«<2 —
R
—
R
Hydropsyche sp.
«<2 R
C
—
A
Hydropsyche depravata gp.
<<<2—
Hydropsyche venularis
5.1 —
—
A
Macrostemum carolina
3.4 —
A
C
Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila sp.
6.5 j
C
C
C
Orthotrichia sp.
<<<z
R
—
Leptoceridae
Ceraclea maculata
6.2
—
—
—
Ceraclea sp.
2.2
—
Nectopsyche exquisita
.3 —
R
Nectopsyche sp.
—
—
—
Oecetis sp.
.1
C
A
Triaenodes s
—
R
—
R
Triaenos injustz
2.
C
C
Polycentropodidae
Neureclipsis sp.
4
R
—
C
Psychomyiida
vpe diversa
R
C
Dubirapia sp.
Macronychus glabratus
Stenelmis crenata
Psephenidae
Psephenus herricki
Hydrophilidae
Berosus sp.
Diptera
C A
5
C —
R R
6.5
— —
C —
5.5
R
R
4.7
A C
7.8
C —
R —
2.3
A —
— —
8.8
— —
R —
Appendix B - 5

TAXA T.V. 2008 TZl 2016 2008 TZ22016
Chironomidae
R
C
Ablabesmyia mallochi
7.4
R
Ablabesmyia rhamphe gp.
6.8
R
Cardiocladius obscurus
4.4
—
Chironomus sp.
9.3 j
C
Cladotanytarsus sp.
4
Cricotopus sp.
<<<z
—
Cricotopus bicinctus
8.7
A
Cricotopus triannulatus
<<<z
—
Cryptochironomus sp.
6.4
C
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
7.9
Dicrotendipes fumidus
8.8
Orthocladius clarkei
5.6
Nanocladius distinctus
7.4
Pentaneura sp.
<<<z
—
Polypedilum flavum
.7
R
Polypedilum halterale
—
Polypedilum scalaenum
Procladius sp.
—
Pseudochironomus sp. kAk
Rheotanytarsus exigum
Stenochironomus sp.
6.3
Synorthocladius se iv
4.2
Tarrytarsus sp.
Th7 emanniella xen
8
Tribelos jucundu
5.7
—
mpididae
Hemerodromia sp.
2
—
Simuliidae
Simulium dixiense
4.9
—
Simulium vittat
9.1
—
Simulium sp.
4.9
C
Tabanidae
—
Tipulidae
Tipula sp.
7.5
'Tolerance values were adopted from (NCDEQ 2016) where:
R = Rare (1-2 individuals collected)
C = Common (3-9 individuals collected)
A = Abundant (10 or more individuals collected)
— — Not collected
C
R
C
R
C
—
R
C
R
C —
A
C
R A
A —
A
A
R
A
C
C
C
A
A — A
C — R
C —
R — —
Appendix B - 6
R R

z Specimens that were not listed in the NCDEQ 2016 Version 5.0 Tolerance Values for Genera and Species of
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates (denoted with <<< for the tolerance value) were not included in the calculations of
NCIBI values.
Appendix B - 7