20030147 Ver 2_WRC Comments_20170306

Strickland, Bev
From: Goudreau, Chris J.
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 1:41 PM
To: Stuart, Alan Witten; John Ellis; Fritz Rohde ([e-mail]); Bill Marshall
([e-mail]); Tracy, Bryn
Cc: Higgins, Karen; Tarver, Fred; Styer, Tami; Abney, Michael A; Brown, Jason S; Dycus,
Justin C
Subject: RE: Draft 2016 Aquatic Life Monitoirng Plan Report for review
Attachments: 2017-02-17 ALMP report - Draft - WRC edits.docx
See attached for my edits.
From: Stuart, Alan Witten [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 12:57 PM
To: John Ellis <[e-mail]>; Goudreau, Chris J. <[e-mail]>; Fritz Rohde
(Fritz. [e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Bill Marshall (marshal [e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Tracy,
Bryn <[e-mail]>
Cc: Higgins, Karen <[e-mail]>; Tarver, Fred <[e-mail]>; Styer, Tami <Tami.Styer@duke-
energy.com>; Abney, Michael A <[e-mail]>; Brown, Jason S <Jason.Brown2@duke-
energy.com>; Dycus, Justin C <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft 2016 Aquatic Life Monitoirng Plan Report for review
Good afternoon Aquatic Life Monitoring Team Members (ALMT),
Attached for your review, is the 2016 Aquatic Life Monitoring Program Draft Report prepared by Duke Energy. This
monitoring program is required by Section 7 of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Article 401 of the New
License. The attached draft report provides information relative to the first year of monitoring below our Tillery
Hydrostation as described in the ALMT and FERC approved study plan.
Please review the attached report and provide us any comments by March 17, 2017. This will allow us time to address
any comments received and file, as required, with FERC by March 31, 2017.
We appreciate all of you working with us to meet our License requirements and if you have questions please let us
know.
Have a great weekend and thank you !
Alan
Alan W. Stuart
Senior Project Manager
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Water Strategy, Hydro Licensing and Lake Services
526 S. Church Street, - EC12Y I Charlotte, NC 28202
Office 980-373-2079 1 Cell 803-640-8765

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 2206
201E Aquatic Life Mont oring iqn%hte Pee Dee
Rives Below The Tille elect lant ue'ecea:q
Duke Energy
Environmental Services
fa DUKE
ENERGY
2017

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Section Page
List of Tables ii
List of Figures iii
Executive Summary iv
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Monitoring Site Description 2-1
3.0 Monitoring Methods 3-1
3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate CoMonitoring 3-1
m;3 -2
u
3.2 Fish Community Monitoring
3.3 Other Environmental Measuremen 3-7
4.0 Monitoring Results 4-1
4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Resu 4-1
4.2 Fish Comm ity Results 4-1
4.3 Environmental Results 4-10
5.0 Discussion 5-1
5.1 Benthic Macroinvertebr 5-1
52 ish Community 5-1
5.3 Environmental 5-2
6.0 eferences 6-1
Formatted: Font color: Auto
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - DAILY A RAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN, MINIMUM DISSOLVED
OXYGEN AND DAILY MINIMUM FLOW COLLECTED NEAR TZ I
(USGS GAGING STATION NO. 0212378405 AT HWY 731 BRIDGE) AND
AT TZ2 FROM MAY 1 —NOVEMBER 30, 2008 AND 2016
Formatted: Fant calor: Auto
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 d;r 2008 and July 2016 .........
4-1, , - Formatted: Font color: Auto
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 (pram and backpack)
collected at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008
and July 2016----------------------------------------
lhh
44
s------p-r-am-
Biomass collection r (grams/hour) m44 efes
and backpack) collected at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during
August 2008 and July 2016 ...................................... ------ --------------------------------------4-5
4-5
Catch rates (fish/haul) for seine hauls collected at TZ1 and TZ2
below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July 2016 .. .....................................
4-6
4-6<Characteristics
omasNco ction rates (grams/haul) for seine hauls collected at Sites
1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July 2016 .. .............
4-6
4-7
of the fish community below the Tillery Dam at Sites
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 du - 2 d 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

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

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__ , - Formatted: Fant calor: Auto
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 c nduct aquatic life monitoring in the Pee
Dee River below the Tillery Development. _The Aqu ife Monitoring Plan was submitted to
the FERC on December 8, 2015, and approved on uary 6,)01 FERC 2016). Two sites
(TZ1 and TZ2) within an eight kilometer (km) reach from the Tillery to the confluence of
the Rocky River were monitored in accordance with the plan. This re ort documents the
condition of the aquatic communitoWsh and macroinvertebrates) post imp mentation 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, , - Formatted: Font color: Auto
In 2016, a total of 76 macroinvertebrate taxa were collecte4t Site TZ1, and a total of 60
macroinvertebrate taxa were collected at Site TZ2. The bioclassification 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 of 237 fish representing 16 taxa were collected from Site TZ2. The fish
comm at Site TZ1 consists primarily of N American catfish and minnow species_ The , - Deleted:
fish co unity at Site T consists%Oisease,
rily of North American catfish, sunfish and darter
species. There were no fish with signfin erosion, lesions or tumors, and only a low
number of Green Sun sh prese Site TZ2 (signs of environmental stressors).
Formatted: Font color: Auto
--------------------------------
iv

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 develop an Aquatic Life Monitoring Plan
(ALMP) in consultation with the following resource agencies: North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC), South Carolina Departme of Natural Resources (SCDNR),
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 'sh and Wildlife Service , - ueleted: de
SFWS d National Marine Fisheries Service FS The res agencies along with , -(Deleted: de
(U ), u� -tonal Ma --------------(NM- )_ - --
Duke Energy comprise the Aquatic Life Monitorin Team (rranuary
T). The was submitted
to FERC for approval on December,8, 2015 and approved on 6, 2016 C 2016). For
Fant calor: auto
The ALMP requires Duke Energy to conduct aquatic 1 e monitoring in the Pee Dee River
below the Tillery Development to do nt the condition aquatic community on three
year intervals for at least four cycles (i.e., 16, 2019, 2022, and 2025) ending in 20251. Two
sites (TZ1 and TZ2, Figure 2-1)'•within an eight_km rea4,from the Tillery Dam to the ,- Deleted:
confluence of the Rocky River weream 1 to -document-the _condition of _the aquatic__ , - Deleted: monitored
community following the implementation the solved oxygen (DO) and instream flow
requirements of the New License. This 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 fo monitoring cycle (i.e., 2025) a determination will be made by the ALMT
as to whether the Ne ense rgquirements have contributed to an improvement in the aquatic
community or whether o environmental factors (e.g., 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
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.
M

Introduction
assessing a positive 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
macroinvertebrate,collections, and selective fish community metrics will be used in assessing ------ Deleted: s
any changes in the environmental quality in this reach of the Pee Dee River. These indices
provide a holistic approach to community health assessment by integrating various ecological
0
principles associated with organism and community response to environmental degradations
(e.g., reduced species diversity, dominance by tolerant species and reduced population size; Gray
1989, Karr 1981, 1991).
Formatted: Fant calor: Auto
1-2

Site Description
2.0 Monitoring Site Description
Aquatic life monitoring was conducted at two sites (Sites TZI and TZ2) located in the
eight -cm reach of the Pee Dee River below the Tillery Development (Figure 2-1). The length of Deleted:
------------------------------
each monitoring site was approximately 366 meters (m).
Formatted: Fant calor: Auto
Formatted: Font color: Auto
1 WER F2
N
Site T
0
a
1%
: A�
Site TZ2
44
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
i
Development and just above the Rocky River confluence, also contains shoal and shallow run
habitat (Figure 2-1). The substrate consists of bedrock outcrops and boulder, cobble intermixed
with gravel and sand, and cobble/gravel/sand bars. Sand and some silt deposition occur along
channel margins (Table 2-1). Woody de d rooted aquatic vegetation (Hydrilla sp.,
Podostemum sp. and filamentous algae) are pre tat this si e.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
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 Tillery Dam. Vk -%&w 'R&
Transect
GPS Latitude and
Longitude
Channel
Width (m)
Habitat Description
TZ1
hoal with bedrock outcrops, boulders, cobble
Nermixed
Shoal below
with gravel and sand, and cobble and
Tillery
35.198639
:200Svel
bars present with some sand and silt deposition.
Development
-80.061311
oody debris and rooted aquatic vegetation (Hydrilla
and NC
sp., Podostemum sp., Potamogeton sp. and
Highway
filamentous algae) were prevalent.
731
Shoal with prehistoric fishing weir. Bedrock outcrops
TZ2
and boulders, cobble intermixed with gravel and sand,
35.151589
170
and cobble/ gravel/sand bars present. Sand and some
Shoal above
80.070642
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 Macroinverteb rate 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 whic ude: 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
IN
2
Single, disturbance
Low current with
structure
Banks
Dip net
3
Composite,
disturbance
Leaves
Leafpacks
Wash bucket
1
Composite, wash
Fine -mesh
(300 m)
Aufwuchs
Rock and logs
U.S. Standard Sieve
Size No. 50
2
Composite, wash
Sand
and
U.S. Standard Sieve
Size No. 50
1
Composite (3),
disturbance
Visual Collections
Large rock and logs
(10-15 Wes)
1 1
Composite
Samples were sorted in the field usin tandard Sieve Size No. 50, a white enamel
pan and a winnowing technique.anisms were preserved in 95% denatured -ethanol and
VIFreturned to the laboratory 1`0identific 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
Deleted:

Monitoring Methods
• The Biotic Index (BI) for each sample was calculated as:
I = Es n; * a;/N
I Commented [CG1]: Use equation tool
where N is the total number of individuals in the sample, ni is the number of (Insert/Equation).
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 Epe eroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera
[stoneflies], and Trichoptera [caddisflies] taxon) was assigned a score based on the expected
score from the Piedmont Ecoregion as developed by the NCDEQ Benthic IBI SOP (NCDEQ
2016). No seasonal correction values were applied to these data as the sampling occurred during
the summer months. The two indices (matrices) for each sample were averaged (with scores
rounded upward) to produce the final numerical r50if
e NCDEQ specified numerical
rounding approach was applied to e resulting BI he scores differ by exactly one
bioclassification. Bioclassification for each sample (site) was 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. revisions 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 , - commented [CG2]: so, are you comparing apples and oranges?
Or did you recalculate 2008 using 2016 SOPS?
identifications made for the benthic community this report were provided by Pennington and
Associates, LLC. Pennington and Associates is an approved vendor for macroinvertebrate
identifications as certified byCDEQ
3.2 Fish Comm itoring
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 (61-m x 1.8-m with 0.32 cm mesh). The pram
electrofisher was used to sample the wadeable, mid -channel by making 4 single 15.7;,ninute pass
Z A Smith -Root Model 15 backpack electrofisher was used during the 2008 study.
3-2
Commented [CG3]: Unclear. Was the effort 15
minutes in each transect (i.e., a total of 45 minutes)
or 15 minutes total (i.e., 5 minutes in each transect)?
Since you report the actual effort was over 1 hour,
does this mean the 15 -minute pass was the minimum
amount of time for each transect? If so, then you
might say here that "the minimum targeted effort for
each transect was 15 minutes."

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 � single 151ninute Pass - - Commented [CG4]: Ditto.
through three linear transects withinSite TZ1 and TZ2.Twelve seine hauls i.e., one haul per Deleted.
-------------------------� -- p- -- Deleted:
30.5 in of transect length) were made at sand, gravel, or cobble bars or riffles at each site with all
collected Qrganisms combined into one common sample._ For electrofishing sampling, pulsed_- - - Deleted: s ples
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 intensively 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 time was recorded for backpack and pram
electrofishing, and the catch rates calculated in number and'weight of fish per hour. All
electrofishing and seine samples were combined at each site to yie e total number of fish
collected per sample site. In addition, catch -per-unit effort (C UE) data were calculated for both
electrofishers and seine hauls. Nu ically abundant species within the fis unity were
defined as species or taxa comprising > 5% othe 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 millimeter (mm) and weighed to the nearest gram (g). Fish not identified in
the field were preserved with 10% .buffered formalin solution and transported to the laboratory
for identification ands body measurement. A er collected fish were released alive to the
sampling site. Fish were retained as nec ssary 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 specimens were assigned tolerance and trophic feeding guild classifications based
on designations used by the NCDWR for its NCIBI methodology (NCDWR 2013). The NCIBI
is derived from the Index of 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 inthe ulation of all Fish_ community_ , - Deleted: of the
attributes listed below.
The significance of each fish community metric or attribute is given below, as defined in
NCDWR (2013):
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 wit environmental degradation. In
addition, some streams with larger watersheds or drainage areas can be expected to 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 0
e total number of fish supported by a stream of a given size in a
given region decreases with environmental degradation. However, in some instances, nutrient
enrichment or degradation may actually increase the number of fish supported by a stream.
3. Numbe of darter species (Etheosa and Percina species): Darters are sensitive to
environmental degradation particularly as a realt4f their specific reproductive and habitat
requirements. Darter habitats (e.g. e habitat) are degraded as a result of channelization,
siltation, reduced oxygen levels, and ating water levels. The collection of fewer than
expected number of species of darters can indicate some degree of habitat degradation.
4. Number of minnow species: Many species of minnows are intolerant of habitat and
chemical degradation. 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
i
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. 14
N
7. Number of sunfish species (includes Lepomis, Enneacanthus, opterus, and Pomoxis
species): Sunfish species are particularly resp sive to habit 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
IhZ
generalists and show less sensitivityo flow fluctuationIthat other species who are more
specialized in feeding or inhabit,,,channel margin habitat (Bain and Travnichek 1996).
8. Number of intolerant species: Intolerant species are those specialized habitat and feeding
species most affected by environmental perturbations, and therefore should disappear, at least as
viable populations by the time a stream degrade*"Fair". Intolerant species includes some
species with a very restricted zoogeogra hp is distribution or considered rare, threatened, or
endangere Of the 223 described spe 'es of freshwater fish in NC waters, only 55 species are
considered intolerant. 1%
9. Percent tolerant individuals: Tolerant species are those which are often present in a stream
in low or moderate numbers but as the stream degrades, they can become dominant (generally
greater than 25-35% of the fiscommunity). 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.
13. Percent Green Sunfish: The percentage of Green Sunfish, rant species, typically
increases with degraded environmental conditions (i.e., gen ally > 50o otal fish collected
would be considered unbalanced; Karr et. al 1986). This attribute is not inc in the NCIBI
but used in this assessment to aid in charac erization of the fish community and environmental
conditions.
14. Percentage of species with multiple age groups: This metric or attribute provides an
indication of reprosuccess and survivabili of year classes through time. It also
provides an indirect in iive
or 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 nstances, Afessional judgment may also be used to
determine reproductive success of a part'cular species.
15. Number nonnative species a ercentage of nonnative species to native species:
Nonnative species are 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 popula{on 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 rotategout every two weeks. Gaging
Station No. 0212378405 was calibrated by USGS staff, while operational checks were performed
for each HOBO data logger before each deployment. Streamflow and gage height were also
measured by the USGS stream gage near TZ1. These para sand existing conditions aid in
evaluating the overall health and
of the aquat unity at the sites.
3-7

Results
4.0 Monitoring Results
4.1 Benthic Macroinverteb rates Community Results
The benthic macroinvertebrate community was sampled on July 6 (Site TZ I) and July 7
(Site TZ2), 2016 under the License -required minimum flow of 330 cubic_feetper second (cfs)._ - - Deleted: esta6fished
A total of 76 taxa were collected at Site TZ1 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 314 (EPT Score), 3.0 (BI Score)
and 3.2 (Site Score) with an overall bioclassificatio411
Good -Fair. Site TZ2,scored 3.4 (EPT_ - - Deleted:
Score), 3.0 (BI Score) and 3.2 (Site Score) with ani bioclassification of Good -Fair (Table
4-1). fr
Table 4-1 Total and EPT richness/abundance scoring metri\an
1 and TZ2 in
the Pee Dee River b w Tillery D during July 2016.
1 TZ2
Richness/Abundance 2008 6 2008 2016
Total taxa richness 46 56 60
EPT richness11 2 14 22
EPT abundance ` 51 85 69 91
Biotic Index 6.8 6.1 6.4 6
Scoring
EPT score 2.4 3.4
BIsco 2 3 3 3
Sitescore 2 3.2 2.6 3.2
Bioclassification Fair Good -Far Good -Far Good -Fair
4.2 Fish Community Results
The fish community was sampled on July 12 (Site TZ2) and July 13 (Site TZ1) 2016.
Sampling effort at Site TZ1 cofisisted 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
4-1

Results
have been collected to date. Catch rates (fish/hour) and biomass rates (grams/hour) varied by
year and site (Tables 4-3 and 4-4).
------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4-2 Tolerance value, trophic status and number of fish collected from Pee Dee
River at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July
2016.
4-2
Commented [CGS]: Use a page break if you want table to start
on a new page, instead of lots of paragraphs.
Deleted: ¶

Results
4-3
Number Collected
Number Collected
TZl
TZ2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance Trophic Status 2008
2016
2008 2016
Lepisosteidae
Gars
1
Lepisosteus osseus
Longnose Gar
Tolerant Piscivore -
-
1 -
Anguillidae
fteshwater eels
-
-
I - -
Anguillamstroto
American Eel
Intermediate Piscivore 14
1
4 -
Catostomidae
Suckers
1
I
Erimyzon oblongus
Creek Chubsucker
Intermediate Onnrivore -
-
I 1 -
ktiobus bubolus
Sn"Iniouth Buffalo
Intemmediate Onnrivore -
2
1 - -
I
_
Moxostomomocrolepidotum
Shorthead Redhorse
Intermediate Insectivore Affik -
1
1 - -
Smrtomyzon sp.
"Brassy" Jumprock
Intermediate Insectivore AWFI-
I
Clupeidae
Shad
® -
-
I - -
I
Dorosomo petenense
Threadfin Shad
Intermediate Omnivore -
I - -
I
Cyprinidae
Carps andMinnows
IF
I
Clinostomusfunduloides
Rosyside Dace
Intermediate Insectivore
-
1 -
Cyprinelloonolostono
Sathrfin Shiner
Tolerant Insectivore - 27
1 - 3
C. niveo
Whitefin Shiner
Intermediate Insectivore 4
® 29
I
I 12 -
C. pyrrhomelos
Fieryblack Shiner
Intolerant N Insectivore -
-
Noco_s leptocepholus
Bluehead Chub
Intemmediate Omnivore 2
-
29 2
Notropisomoenus
Comely Shiner
Intermediate Insectivore -
-
1 3 -
Notropis hudsonius
Spottail Shiner w-
Intermediate Omnivore Ir -
8
200 3
N. scepticus
Sandbar Shiner
Intemmediate Insectivore' -
42
I - -
I
Semotilusatrormculatus
Creek Chub
Tolerant Insectivore NIS,-
-
—
I 1 -
Ictaluridae
N. American Catfishes
1
I
Ameiurus bmnneus
SnailBullhead
Intermediate Insectivorekka, 88
127
12 13
A. cotus
White Catfish
Tolerant Onmivore 1
-
I - 1
A.plotycepholus
Flat Bullhead
Tolerant Insectivore 13
45
10 37
ktolumspunctotus
Channel Catfish 4
Intermediate Omnivore 4
2
3 -
Noturusinsignis
Margined Madtom
Intermediate Insectivore 3
5
1 86 22
Pylodictis oli
Flathead Catfish
Intemmediate Piscivore -
-
- 1
Pmecilii "
Limabearers
46-
-
1 - -
GambmiWrooki
Eastem Mosquitofish
Tolerant sectivore 4
-
I
1 2 9
Nbronidae
Temperate Basses
j
Morose omeri
White Perch A ® diate Pis civore 2-
Centrarchidae
Sunfishes
I —
I
Lepomisgibbosus
Punpkinseeda
Intermediate Insectivore 1
-
- -
L.gulosus 'Wammouth Sees
Intemmediate Insectivore 1-
I
L. ouritus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant Insectivore 4
21
1 72 27
L. cyonellus
Green Sunfish
Tolerant Insectivore -
-
I
1 6 5—
L. mocrochims
Bluegill
Intermediate Insectivore -
-
38 22
Micropterussolmoides
Largemouth Bass
Intermediate Piscivore 9
7
1 7 1—
Percidae
Perches
I
Etheostomoflobellore
Fantail Darter
Intermediate Insectivore -
-
3 -
Etheostomoolmstedi
Tess ellated Darter
Intemmediate Insectivore 2
7
I 113 79
Percoflovescens
Yellow Perch
Intermediate Piscivore 3
2
I
1 - -
Percinocrosso
Piedmont Darter
Intolerant Insectivore 4
19
I 26 9
Total
347
1 6
4-3

Results
Table 4-3 Catch rates (fish/hour) for electrofishing samples (pram and backpack)
collected from Pee Dee River at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam
during August 2008
and July Number (fish/hour) 2016.
4-4
U1
TZ2
Taxa
2008
2016
2008
2016
l.ongnose Car
-
-
1 0.3
-
American Eel
4.2
0.4
1.1
ShortheadRedhorse
-
0.4
1 -
Smallmouth Buffalo
0.8
1
I
Threadfin Shad
0.8
1
Rosyside Dace
I
61 0.3
Comely Shiner6
-
Satinfin Shiner
-
9.4Nk
1.2
Whitefin Shiner
1.2
11.8
I 1.2 -
Bluehead Chub
0.6
8.3
Creek Chub
0.3
Creek(7hubsucker
-
1 0.3
I
"Brassy"Jumproc
0.3
1
Fieryblack Shiner1
0.8
Spottail Shiner t
1.2
7.1
1.2
Sandbar Shiner
5
1
Channel Catfish
217"
0.9
-
Flathead Catfish-
-
I -
0.4
Snail Bullhead
6.1
51.8
j 3.4
5.2
White Catfish
-
-
0.4
Flat Bullhead
%
.9
18.4
I 2.9
14.8
Channel Catfish
-
0.81
I -
-
Margined Madtom
0.9
2.0
24.6
8.8
EasternMosquitofish
0.3
-
I 0.3
3.6
White Perch
0.6
I
1
Pumpkinseed
0.3
1
I
Rejlbreast Sunfish
1.2
8.6
I 20.6
10.8
Caeen Sunfish
-
-
I
1 1.7
2.0
Warmouth
0.3
1
I
Bluegill
-
-
i 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
I 32.3
31.6
Yellow Perch
0.9
0.4
I
1 -
-
Piedmont Darter
1.2
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 from Pee Dee River at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery
Dam during August 2008 and July 2016.
"Brassy"Jump rockIS5.
Weight (grams/hour)
j
TZl
TZ2
Taxa
2008 2016
2008 2016
Longnose Car
- -
1 2.3 -
American Eel
115.4 4.1 6
ShortheadRedhorse
- 326.5
1
Smallmouth Buffalo
1804.
I
1 11.4
Threadfin Shad
1
IL
Rosyside Dace
127.4 201.2
I 0.3 -
Comely Shiner
6.4
2.0
Satinfin Shiner
® 24.9
- 3.
Whitefin Shiner
3.9 4.5
'
I 12.0
Bluehead Chub
1.2 1 39.4 0.8
Creek Chub
-
0.6 -
Creek Chubs ucke
Tessellated Darter
0.3 -
"Brassy"Jump rockIS5.
16.9
j
Fieryblack Shiner
1 7.6
Spottail Shiner
2
Sandbar Shiner
9
1
Channel Catfis 20.
1 804.0
13.7
Flathead Catfis
0.0
I - 58.8
I
1 11.4
31.6
Warmouth
18.4
.2
127.4 201.2
�nailBullhead
hite Catfish
0
6.4
t Bullhead 127.9
311.8
I 36.0 230.8
Channel Catfish
891.8
1 - -
I
Margined Madtom N 8.3
15.1
184.9 58.0
EasternMosquitofish 1.2
-
I 0.3 0.8
White Perch
16.9
I
1
Pumpkinseed
6.2
1
I
Redbreast Sunfish
74.8
339.2
1 804.0
173.6
Gwen Sunfish
-
I
1 11.4
31.6
Warmouth
18.4
1 -
I
-
Bluegill
-
i 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
I 69.4
44.8
Yellow Perch
45.4
15.5
I
1 -
-
Piedmont Darter
6.2
51.4
j 30.3
17.2
4-5

Results
Table 4-5 Catch rates (fish/haul) for seine hauls collected from Pee Dee River at Sites
TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July 2016.
Table 4-6 Biomass collection rates (grams/haul) for seine hauls collected from Pee Dee
River at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July
2016.
Number
Number
(fish/haul) U1
(fish/haul) TZ2
Taxa
2008 2016
2008 2016
Largemouth Bass
- 0.2
1 -
Yellow Perch
- 0.1
1
I
Eastern Mosquitolis h
0.3 -
I 0.7
Tessellated Darter
-
® - 0.1
Satinlin Shiner
0.3
0.1
Spottail Shiner
A&0.4
I 0.3
Comely Shiner
'Ap-
O -1 'M6,-
Sandbar Shiner
fx 2.6
I -
Table 4-6 Biomass collection rates (grams/haul) for seine hauls collected from Pee Dee
River at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 below Tillery Dam during August 2008 and July
2016.
4-6
Mass
Mass
(grams/haul) TZ1
(grams/haul) TZ2
Taxa
2008 2016
2008 2016
Largemouth Bass
0.8
1
Yellow Perch
.6
1
I
EasternMosquitotilk
0.3 sho
1 0.1 0.1
Tessellated Darterq%-
-
j - 0.1
Satintin Shiner
2.3
0.2
Spottail Shin
0.7
1 - 0.3
melt' Shine
10.1
ar Sln
19.8
! - -
4-6

Results
Table 4-7 Characteristics of the fish community in Pee Dee River below the Tillery
Dam at Sites TZ1 and TZ2 during 2008 and 2016.
TZl I 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
I 630
237
No. 3 Number of darter species 2
2
j 3
2
No. 4 Number oftninnow species 2
4
6
4
No. 5 Number ofNorth American catfish
I
5
4
4
5
species
No. 6 Number of sucker species 0
2
j 1
0
No. 7 Number of sunfish species
2
4
4
No. 8 Number of intolerant species
1
1
2
No. 9 Percent tolerant individuals 14%
27%
I 15%
35%
No. 10 Percent omnivore and herbivores ® %/o
4%
j 37%
3%
No. 11 Percent piscivores 1W
3%
2%/o
n.
V&< I%
No. 12 Percent insectivores 78 th
93%
61%
97%
No. 13 Percent Green Sunfish 0
0
I 1%
2%
No. 14 Percentage of specieswith ip e
I
o
56 /0
o
59 /o
o
I 67 /%
0
50 /%
age groups
I
No. 15 Number of nonnative species and
percentage of nonnative individuals to 1(3%) 4(2%)
I 3(2%)
2(3%)
native individuals
I
I
No. 16 Percentage of fish with disease, fin
_
erosion, lesions, or tumors
0
o
I <1 /0
0
The most abundant fish species within the aquatic community
at Site TZl 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 �-7%/0 of the total 2016 fish community collected at_Site_- - - Deleted:
TZl (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
I% of the total catch. Piedmont Darter was the only intolerant species collected at Site TZ1 - - Deleted:
both sample years, but was a numerically dominant species in 2016 (i.e., >5%/o total catch). North
Deleted: s
American catfishes, mainly Snail Bullhead, and Flat Bullhead were prevalent at Site TZ1 both - � Deleted: s
4-7

Results
sample years. Insectivorous fish continued to dominate the trophic feeding guilds at Site TZ1
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 s e (Table 4-2). None of the fish
collected to date in TZ 1 have showed signs of disease, fin , lesions or tumors------------ Formatted: Font color: Auto
The most abundant fish species pt Site TZ2 i were Margined Madtom, _Flat__ , - Deleted: within the aquatic eoru„un ty
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 made up a 0% of e collected individuals. Tolerant
species (i.e., Satinfin Shiner, Whit Catfish, Flat astern Mosq tsh, Redbreast
Sunfish and Green Sunfish) comprised 35%.of the fis unity at Site TZ2 in 2016, which
more than doubled the 14% of tolerant species collected in 2008 (Table 4-5). Eleven species in
2008 and 10 species in 2016 consisted of less 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 f North American catfishes, sunfishes and perches. The number of fish
species potentially having multiple age groups dec4ased from 67% in 2008 to X50% in 2016_ - - Formatted: Font color: Auto
(Table 4-8). In 2008 at Site TZ2 three non-native species fi.e., Green Sunfish, Channel Catfish_ - - Formatted: Fantcolor:Auto
and Comely Shiner) were 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 showed signs of disease, fin erosion, lesions or tumors in 2016, and in 2008 one Piedmont
Darter was collected with a misting left pelvic fin (Duke Energy 2014)-------------------- Formatted: Font color: Auto
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 from Pee Dee
River below Tillery Dam during 2008 and 2016.
TZl TZ2
Taxa 2008 2016 2008 2016
L.ongnose Car - - I 152 -
Rosyside Dace 47
Comely Shiner 66(37-86)
Creek Chub I 52
CreekChubsucker - 46
`Brassy"Jumprock 120 1
I
White Perch 137 (130-143) 1 -
American Fel 243(141-298) 235(200-300)
Shorthead Redhorse 800 1
I
Smallmouth Buffalo 2211(1948-2473)1
Threadfin Shad 66 (65-67)
Satinfin Shiner Aff- 71(60-112)0 - 69(57-79)
Whitefin Shiner 70(65-72) 71(57-97) 1 73(60-94) -
Bluehead Chub 53(42-64) 65(46-138) 42(39-45)
Fieryblack Sh 89(82-93)
Spottail ShineAc-
Flathead
71(59-95) 1 107 (93-117) 54(53-55)
Sandbar Shinr 94(84-108) 1
I
Catfish N - - _ - 245
Snail Bullhead 120(3L j448) 123 (52-204) 1137 (43-209) 130 (36-215)
White Catfish 74%, 113
Flat Bullhead 121(145-171 620) 74(43-197) 86(30-195)
Channel Catfish 129 (121-138) 109 044-1141)1135 (121-146) -
@Aargined Madtom 97(93-100) 90(79-98) 84(32-131) 85(43-104)
'Eastern Mosquitofish 35(20-56) 32(21-42) 23(16-53)
Redbreast Sunfish %29 (93-203) 117 (62-181) 1117 (48-206) 89(55-140)
Gwen Sunfish - 61(34-112) 91(83-107)
Pumpkins 102 1
I
Warmouth 135 I
Bluegill - 107 (20-159) 97(62-131)
Largemouth Bass 61(34-85) 70(45-92) 117 (47-233) 67
Fantail Darter I 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 TZ1 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 1 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 TZ1 (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
TZl 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, which was an improvement from
the 2008 sample season when the daily average DO registered below 5._ at Site TZ1_and_ , - Deleted: where
TZ2 80 and 11 instances, respective) (Table 4-9). River flows documented ite 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 jTable 4-9, Appendix A; FERC , - Deleted:
2015). In-situ water quality analyses we erfo _ in -e 008 -and 2016 fisheries and_, , - Deleted: i
benthic sampling event (Table 4-10).
TZl
14
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 TZ1.
'FERC Docket No. P-2206-068, January 11, 2016
4-10

Results
TZ2
May June July August September October November
2016
Figure 4-3 Dissolved oxygen levels col lec ery 15 \(NA:Ap
ay 1 through
November 30, 2016 at TZ2.
Table 4-9 Variances from NC Water Quality Standards en for the
2016 monitoring period May 1—November 30cable).
Environmental Parameters TZl TZ2
2008 2016 2008 2016
Dissolved Oxygen—daily 80 0 1 11 0
average
Dissolved Oxygen— ® 1
5168 3 12779 96
instantaneous minimum I
Flow— daily minimum 0 INA NA
4-11

Results
Table 4-10 Temperature, dissolved oxygen, �pecific conductance,pH and turbidity_ , - Commented [Cc6]: In the table below, spell out the
values collected during the macroinverteb rate and fish community headings.
assessments below the Tillery Development during 2016.
`Turbidity was not recorded on these
5.0 Discussion
The shallow water aquatic community in the
Development was surve for macroinvertebrates and fish
Survey results collected during 2016 document the first_sam
community after implementation of the terms and conditions of
sm
Dee River_ below _the _Tillery_ - - Deleted: mainstem
g summer 2008 and 2016.
y ar of monitoring the aquatic_ - - f Deleted: s
New License.
5.1 Benth' Macroinvertebrate
The benthic community has shown v ent based upon the NCDEQ Benthic SOP
criteria since implementation of the minimum ow regime and DO enhancements required by
the New License. This is most eviden e upstream Site TZl. Total taxa richness increased
from 46 in 2008 tow,
6 in 2016, a 60 percent increase, and EPT richness has doubled from 11 in
2008 to 22 in 2016, a 100 percent increase (Table 4-1). The bioclassification improved from Fair
in 2008 to Good -Fair in 2016. Site TZ2 showed improvement as well. While the
bioclassification was unchanged from Good -Fair, the EPT richness changed from 14 to 22, a 64
percent increase (Table 4-1).
5.2 Fish Community
Deleted: stream characteristics of the Pee Dee River currently
As discussed in Section 3.0 above and in the Study Plan for Aquatic Life Monitoring, the_, - restricts the ability of
Deleted: to rate the overall health of the river
NCIBI scoring system is not applicable for rating large, unwadable rivers based on electrofishing- - Deleted:,
and seine samples however, NCIBI metrics can help track the stealth of the Pee Dee River over, ' Deleted: within the NCIBI
Deleted: overall
4-12
Temp
DO
sp. Cond
Turb
Site
Sample
Date
(°C)
(mg/L)
(1tS/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.,d
88
7.2
1.6
TZ2
Benthic
7/7/2016
25.3
90
7.2
2.0
TZl
Fish
7/13/2016
28.0 ®
85
7.7
1.5
TZ2
Fish
7/12/2016
25.2W
6.2
T 91
7.0
4.4
`Turbidity was not recorded on these
5.0 Discussion
The shallow water aquatic community in the
Development was surve for macroinvertebrates and fish
Survey results collected during 2016 document the first_sam
community after implementation of the terms and conditions of
sm
Dee River_ below _the _Tillery_ - - Deleted: mainstem
g summer 2008 and 2016.
y ar of monitoring the aquatic_ - - f Deleted: s
New License.
5.1 Benth' Macroinvertebrate
The benthic community has shown v ent based upon the NCDEQ Benthic SOP
criteria since implementation of the minimum ow regime and DO enhancements required by
the New License. This is most eviden e upstream Site TZl. Total taxa richness increased
from 46 in 2008 tow,
6 in 2016, a 60 percent increase, and EPT richness has doubled from 11 in
2008 to 22 in 2016, a 100 percent increase (Table 4-1). The bioclassification improved from Fair
in 2008 to Good -Fair in 2016. Site TZ2 showed improvement as well. While the
bioclassification was unchanged from Good -Fair, the EPT richness changed from 14 to 22, a 64
percent increase (Table 4-1).
5.2 Fish Community
Deleted: stream characteristics of the Pee Dee River currently
As discussed in Section 3.0 above and in the Study Plan for Aquatic Life Monitoring, the_, - restricts the ability of
Deleted: to rate the overall health of the river
NCIBI scoring system is not applicable for rating large, unwadable rivers based on electrofishing- - Deleted:,
and seine samples however, NCIBI metrics can help track the stealth of the Pee Dee River over, ' Deleted: within the NCIBI
Deleted: overall
4-12

References
time. Duke Energy and the ALMT agreed to evaluate the fish criteria (and determine success) in
a qualitative manner. A qualitative assessment will provide trending information on the fish
communities.
Two qualitative observations are noted kirst ' 2016, the total number of fish collected - -I
Deleted: The following
at Site TZ1 increased, but decreased at Site TZ2, and both sample locations collected fewer ` �
�
Deleted..
j
Deleted: 1.
number of taxa. Factors that may have influenced the 2016 data include the increased stream
Deleted: 1
flows over that in 2008 and the presence of Hydrilla downstr�>lrn of the Tillery Development.
Both increased flows and Hydrilla limit sampling e ,, tc and efficacy, which could_ - -
Deleted: a sampler's abifity to collectfish
potentially ias the number of individuals and taxa co_ ; nflue_nce metric scores. - -
Deleted: affect
<
econd, Iwo intolerant fish species were co ted in 20 'thin the sample_sites, with
Deleted: thus potentially creating a sampling bias
---------------- - - ---- ---- ------ - ---- --
Deleted:2.
Piedmont Darter being a numerically abundant fish species at Site " The incidence rate_of—
Deleted: During 2016,
fish with signs of disease, fin erosion, lesions or tumors onsisted ly one individual
Deleted: collected
occurrence in 2008. hi both years, t re was a low number of Green Sunfish ent. Increased
numbers of intolerant species, little to no tsh with signs of disease, fm erosion, lesions or
tumors, and low number of Green Sunfish are considered positive results.
5.3 Environment*w N 41&, '%
Baseline water quality results collected during 2008 indicated that DO conditions were
often below the state standards during generation and non -generation periods within Sites TZ1
and TZ2.` In 2016 ater X2022
er. impro ed conditions over those observed in 2008 - - Formatted: Font color: Auto
at both sit Deleted: suggests
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Dee TZ1 and TZ2
The fish and aqubrate communities will be surveyed on three-year
intervals for three more cand 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-5-Z---------------------------
Deleted----------------Section Break (Continuous)---------------.

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. C1tq (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 th Dee River Reach below the
Tillery Hydroelectric Plant. Yadkin -Pee Dee River ydroelectric Project FERC No.
2206. Final REV 2 (December 2015).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC Order Iss ew Licenses, Project No.
2206-030. Issued April 1, 2015. 174
2016. Order Approving Aquatic Life Mon' oring Plan Pursuant to Article 401 (A), Project
No. 2206-056. Issued January 6, 2016.
Gray, J. S. 1989. Effects of environmental stress on sp of rich assemblages. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society. 37: 19-3
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish comm s. Fisheries. 6:21-27.
1991. Biological integrity: A long -neglected aspeck water resources management.
Ecological Applications 1:66-84.
Karr, JR_, K.D. Fausch, P L. Angermeier . R. Yant, I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters a metho and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey
Special Publication 5, September 1986, Champaign, IL. 33 pp.
North Carolinaikepartment of Environmental Quality. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. February 2016 (Version 5.0).
Division of W ter Reso s; Water sciences Section; Biological Assessment Unit April
4, 2016.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2017. Native and Nonindigenous
Freshwater Fish in North Carolina. https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-re source s-data/water-sciences-home-naae/b io loa ical-as ses sment-
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.
6-1

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 Number 2206. Water Quality
Certification Mod 1. North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification. September 30,
2008.
Progress Energy 2006a. Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroele Pro t No. 2206. Pee Dee River
instream flow study. Final report. Water Resources Working Group. Issue No.
5—Evaluate relationships between project operations/hydraulics and aquatic habitat, water
quality, and fish migrations. April 2006.
2006b. Yadkin -Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project No. 2206. Shallow w fish, crayfish,
and mussel surveys of the Pee Dee River and tributaries. Water Resources Group Issue
No. 1— Describe Current Resident ktv r Aquatic sources Of Project Area. April
2006.
. 2010. Yadkin -Pee ee ier Hydroe ectric rolec l%C No. 2206. Continuous water
quality monitoring in the Pee Dee River below the Tillery and Blewett Falls
Plants, May -October 2006-200 .
6-2

Appendices
APPENDIX A
DAILY AVERAGE DISSOLVE" OXYGEN, MINIMUM INSTANTANEO ISSOLVED
OXYGEN AND DAILY MINI FLOW COLLECTED NEAR TZ1 (USGS
GAGING STATION NO. 0212378405 AT HWY 731 BRIDGE) AND AT TZ2 FROM
MAY 1 —NOV R 30, 2008 AND 2016 NO. 0212378405) AND AT TZ2 FROM
1 —NOVEMBER 30, 2008 AND 2016
O
Appendix A - 1

Date
1 -May
2 -May
3 -May
4 -May
5 -May
6 -May
7 -May
8 -May
9 -May
10 -May
11 -May
12 -May
13 -May
14 -May
15 -May
16 -May
17 -May
18 -May
19 -May
20 -May
21 -May
22 -May
23 -May
24 -May
25 -May
26 -May
28 -May
29 -May
30 -May
Dissolved Oxygen Daily
Aveimge
TZl
2008
TZ2
2008
2016
2008
2016
N_ D
7_.75
ND
7.76
ND
8.32
11.41
8.27
NTJ
7.86
10.33
7.81
ND
8.74
8.9
8.24
ND
9.47
9.01
9
ND
8.89
9.04
8.83
ND
8.98
7.32
9.02
ND
8.8
7.77
8.99
ND
8.59
8.24
8.69
ND
8.66
9.72
9.05
ND
8.8
8.86
6.2
ND
8.22
10.7
_9.17
8.44
ND
7.97
9.51
8.24
ND
8.28
7.4
8.33
ND
8.11
8.01
8.11
ND
7.55
10.13
8.1
ND
6.98
9.03
7.12
ND
7.52
7.73
7.77
ND
6.85
6.47
6.65
D
6.71
2AINEENEEM
6.72
ND
6.88
5.5
6.98
ND
7.4
7.5Nk 7.33
ND
8.05
8.38
8.05
ND
7.48
8.42
2
ND
7.91
8.75
.26
ND
_
7.96
7.86
ND
7.04
6.6
7.52
ND
7.69
9.39
8.45
Na, 6.97
8.2
7.01
ND 6.76
7.41
7.02
ND
, 7
6.54
6.63
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
TZl
TZ2
2008
2016
2008
2016
ND
7.1
ND
6.32
ND
6.6
7.13
6.32
ND
7
6
6.24
ND
7.9
5.85
7.78
ND
8.8
6
8.46
ND
6.8
5.9
6.62
ND
6.8
7.21
ND
6.8
.06
6.79
ND
5.33
6.31
ND
3
6.53
ND "
6.7
6.43
ND
6.2
5.A%h,
6.04
ND
6
5.72
q%66
ND
6.1
4.84
N
5.7
.36
5.Iq
ND
5.03
6.04
ND
5.25
5.07_
ND
5.
4.99
5.32
ND 5.9
4.67
5.08
ND Ift,8
4.78
5.34
ND
5.8
4.74
5.87
ND
5.5
_4.74
5.55
ND
7
4.44
7.38
ND
6
4.87
5.76
ND
6
4.6
6.15
ND
6
4.01
5.98
ND
6
4.38
5.75
ND
5.3
4.89
6.02
ND
5.2
4.38
4.03
ND
5
4.19
4.17
ND
5.3
4.55
4.5
Appendix A - 2
Appendices
Minimum Flow
TZl
2008 2016
ND 401
ND 393
ND 426
ND 19500
ND 418
ND 435
ND 480
ND 462
ND 480
ND 471
ND 453
ND 426
ND 489
ND 489
ND 418
D 480
ND 435
ND 435
ND 471
ND 480
ND 453
ND 489
ND 462
ND 480
ND 444
ND 462
ND 453
ND 462
ND 426
ND 435
ND 453

Appendices
Appendix A - 3
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
TZl
TZ2T71
TZZ
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016 2008
2016
2008TZl
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
7.17.93
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 88
4.93
ND
480
8 -Jun
ND
6.17
7.24
6.54
ND
5.2 9
4.91
ND
528
9 -Jun
ND
6.2
6.72
6.48
ND
"4.19
4.65
ND
591
10 -Jun
ND
6.32
6.62
6.65
ND
34
5.54
ND
509
II -Jun
ND
6.38
6.49
6.25
ND
5.5 4A&
4.4
ND
480
12 -Jun
4.3
6.53
7.64
6.49
3.21
5.3 4. ®
4.66
ND
444
13 -Jun
5.52
6.44
6.3
6.4
2.49
5.1 4.04 91
ND
462
14 -Jun
4.58
6.47
6.53
6.5
y34
5.4 4.27
ND
471
15 -Jun
4.89
6.77
6.43
6.87
2.4
5 4.11
4.
ND
435
16 -Jun
4.64
6.39
6.49
6.5
2.31
4.06
4.63
D
462
17 -Jun
4.67
6.37
6.2
6.34
2.47 3.99
3.83
ND
435
18 -Jun
4.55
6.29_:
6.37
6.14
68
4. 3.98
3.34
ND
480
19 -Jun
4.85
6.29
6.5
5.64
5.1 88
2.72
ND
509
20 -Jun
4.8
6.27 7
6.4
2.7
1
4.46
ND
489
21 -Jun
4.92
6.8
7.08 2.64
3.
4.32
ND
444
22 -Jun
4.67
6.37
5.
6.31
2.5
5.3 .14
4.36
ND
462
23 -Jun
4.18
6.52
6.35 Ilk 6.51
2.65
5.3 3.36
4.26
ND
435
24 -Jun
4.41
6.38 6.34 44
2.33
5.3 3.36
4.19
ND
453
25 -Jun
4.31
6.36
4.91 ,
2.31
. 5.2 3.48
4.26
ND
435
26 -Jun
3.51
6.21 .
6.69
6.23"".
2.09
5 45
3.96
ND
471
27 -Jun
4.35
6.11j.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=k,6.24
6.7
5.7
2.74
5.3 3.92
4.03
ND
471
Appendix A - 3

Date
1 -Jul
2 -Jul
3 -Jul
4 -Jul
SJul
6 -Jul
7 -Jul
8Jul
9Jul
lOJul
11Jul
12 -Jul
13 -Jul
14 -Jul
15Ju1
16 -Jul
17 -Jul
18Ju1
19Ju1
20Jul
21 -Jul
22 -Jul
23 -Jul
24 -Jul
25 -Jul
26 -Jul
27 -Jul
28 -Jul
29 -Jul
30Jul
31 -Jul
Dissolved Oxygen Daily
Average
TZl
2008
TZ2
2008
2016
2008
2016
4.87
6.17
6.17
5.85
3.86
6.21
5.9
6.07
3.92
6.03
5.99
5.85
3.8
5.93
6.43
5.59
4.32
5.46
6.05
5.29
4
6.1
6.4
6.18
4.18
5.97
6.29
6.11
4.32
6.04
5.66
5.98
4.39
5.84
6.44
5.84
4.91
5.59
5.31
5.6
3.97
5.68
6.39
5.84
4.63
6.13
6.34
6.28
4.55
6.13
5.93
6.45
4.38
5.76
5.8
5.87
4.55
5.87
5.55
5.74
4.11
6.32
5.89
5.95
4.61
6.1
6.68
5.59
4.87
5.8
7.05
5.57
5.18
6.
2.54
6.26
4.53
4.6
6. ® 6.35
4.34
1.67
6.3Ilk
5.97
3.77
6.3
5.93
JE 6.07
3.69101b&. 12
6.13
6.19
3.88
5.4,
5.57
5.75
3.6
5.
5.55
5.88
3.67
6.48
7.49
6.45
4.62
6.09
5.81
6.34
3.3
6.04
5.65
6.08
3.5 ®® 27
5.72
6.24
3.24
6.1
6.04
6.02
3.57
6.21
7.55
6.35
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
TZl
TZZ
2008
2016
2008
2016
2.92
4.8
3.54
4.03
2.43
5.1
3.26
4.02
2.34
4.7
2.41
3.91
1.56
4.9
3.16
3.74
2.26
4.6
3.45
3.86
2.52
4.7
2.�1
4.22
4.7
3.03
4.51
_1.92
2.15
4.9
2.72
4.62
2.45
5
4.59
2.52
4.6
3.
4.37
2.61
4.8
3.66®
4.51
2.36
4.4
2.63
4.4
2.18
5
L3.2
4.79
2.79 5 3.15
4.45 a
2.43
1W.. 2.98
4.57_
64
5'.I%k 3.02
4.69
2.64
4.9 .45
4.25
2.6 J .4
4.35
2.56 1
2.
4.67
2.62
5
.91
4.62
2.45
5.2
2.54
4.56
1.71
4.6
2.44
4.63
1.67
4.9
2.81
4.89
2.1
f 5.2
2.5
4.69
1.68
4.8
2.21
4.61
1.22
5.2
3.45
4.71
2.1
5.2
3.02
5.08
1.51
5.2
2.42
4.93
1.66
5
2.9
4.42
1.61
5.1
2.88
4.46
1.68
5.3
3.82
4.94
Appendix A - 4
Appendices
Minimum Flow
TZ1
2008 2016
ND 453
ND 453
ND 418
ND 453
ND 444
ND 569
ND 426
ND 602
ND 462
ND 426
ND 462
ND 718
ND 453
453
ND 462
ND 435
ND 471
ND 480
ND 471
ND 453
ND 453
ND 435
ND 462
ND 462
ND 435
ND 453
ND 471
ND 435
ND 418
ND 426
ND 471

Appendices
Appendix A - 5
Dissolved Oxygen Daily
Average
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
T71
T72
TZl
T72
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
7.4
6.2
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
4.45
ND
471
8 -Aug
3.42
6.08
6.98
6.02
1.41
5.3
.11
4.61
ND
471
9 -Aug
4.18
6.12
6.35
6.06
1.64
5.
3.32
5.32
ND
462
10 -Aug
3.74
5.77
6.36
5.91
1.9
4. V W.39
5.15
ND
462
11 -Aug
3.9
6.18
6.69
6.18
1.97
5.4
5
ND
782
12 -Aug
3.84
5.92
5.03
6.05
1.7
5.5
3.'i%k,5.34
ND
489
13 -Aug
3.41
6.36
ND
6.43
1.65
5.6
ND 54
ND
426
14 -Aug
5.01
6.27
ND
6.44
1.83
5.6
ND
5.49
ND_
480
15 -Aug
5.18
6.35
ND
6.54
2.23
5.6
ND
5.61 ND_
480
16 -Aug
6.74
6.35
ND
6.49
4.56
5.5
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
5.3
2.
5.17
ND
435
22 -Aug
3.31
6.3
4.4ML 6.75
1.92
5.3
.5
5.21
ND
409
23 -Aug
3.19
6.3
6.24'
6.66
1.96
5.2
3.09
5.24
ND
489
24 -Aug
4.39
6.06
.26
, 6.61
2.17
5.2
3.22
5.24
ND
471
25 -Aug
3.86
6.28
5.18
6.73
2.38
5.2
3.37
5.3
ND
453
26 -Aug
3.65
6.22
5.35
6.62
2.51
5.2
2.83
5.22
ND
444
27 -Aug
3.76
6.14
4.46
6.56
2.49
5.1
3.41
5.31
ND
489
28 -Aug
4
6.26
7.1
2.67
5.1
4.19
5.35
ND
444
29 -Aug
6.2
6.22
6.67
6.
3.61
5
4.56
5.1
ND
426
30 -Aug
5.1
6.16
6.5
3.21
5
3.81
5.23
ND
489
31 -Aug
5.03 ® 6
5.6
6.38
3.09
5.1
3.89
5.32
ND
480
Appendix A - 5

Appendices
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Average Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum Minimum Flow
Date TZl T72 TZl T7Z TZl
2008 2016 2008 2016 2008 2016 2008 2016 2008 2016
1 -Sep 4.17 6.22 5.51 6.5 3.26 1 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 &34
5.38 ND 435
8 -Sep 4.47 6.27 5.81 6.75 2.7 5.56 ND 462
9 -Sep 4.8 6.17 5.76 6.63 3.38 5.21 ND 453
10 -Sep 5.25 6.42 6.87 6.8 3.235.27 ND 426
11 -Sep 6.05 6.29 7.07 6.8 3.875.28 ND 444
12 -Sep 6.19 6.42 6.64 6.95_ 3.71 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 ND 418
15 -Sep 5.92 6.53 6.98 6.95 4.16 4.9 4.8 5. ND 444
16 -Sep 6.68 6.56 6.91 6.87 4.89 5. 5.08 5.42 435
17 -Sep 6.93 6.72 6.82 7.0 5.9 5. 5.6 5.63 ND 409
18 -Sep 7.46 6.42 6.35 6.7 6.3 4. 5.28 5.4 ND 418
19 -Sep 6.93 6.09 6.31 6. 6.05 4.8 28 5.32 ND 409
20 -Sep 7.07 5.96 6.96 6.48 5.7 5.6 ND 444
21 -Sep 7.9 6.2 6.18 6.73 6.22 4. 5.6 ND 426
22 -Sep 8.3 6.31® 7.714L6.83 6.27 5 .13 5.75 ND 444
23 -Sep ND 6.18 6.86 .74 STD 4.9 5.63 5.74 ND 435
24 -Sep ND 6.15qj 7.37 1 ND 4.9 5.41 5.67 ND 471
25 -Sep ND 6.64 7.5 ND 5.1 5.29 5.78 ND 480
26 -Sep ND 6.27 6.9 ®6.67 ND 4.7 5.29 4.91 ND 453
27 -Sep ND 6.7 6.18® .82 _ND 5.3 5.19 5.46 ND 519
28 -Sep ND 6.09 5.47 6. _ND 5.1 4.85 5.51 _ND 549
29 -Sep 7.01 5. 6. _ND 5.1 4.62 5.18 _ ND 569
30 -Sea N 6.5 6. 6.65 ND 4.9 4.61 5.51 ND 480
Appendix A - 6

Appendices
Appendix A - 7
Dissolved Oxygen Daily
Aveimge
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
5.5
61
5.93
ND
462
8 -Oct
ND
6.41
7.23
6.7
_6.69
5.6
.36
5.97
ND
509
9 -Oct
ND
7.04
8.05
6.64
_ND
6.
5.95
5.53
ND
769
10 -Oct
ND
7.36
7.61
7.7
_ND
ND
6.2
Ik95
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
ND
5.6
5. ® 5.84
ND
539
13 -Oct
ND
7.52
8.37
7.92
ND
5.4
6.48 96
ND
549
14 -Oct
ND
6.46
8.12
6.87
ND
5.4
7.17
ND
539
15 -Oct
ND
7.66
7.63
8.09
ND
5.4
k66.35
5.
ND
539
16 -Oct
ND
7.82
8.63
8.22
ND °°
5.4
F6.39
5.88
D
539
17 -Oct
ND
7.15
8.6
7.61
ND
5.k
6.17
5.73
ND
509
18 -Oct
ND
7.16
7.69
7.67
`'ND
5.
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
6.85
5.8
ND
519
21 -Oct
ND
7.2
7.64
ND
6.1
7.35
6.05
ND
453
22 -Oct
ND
7.9
7.27
8.33
ND
6.6
6.78
6.64
ND
453
23 -Oct
ND
8.25
ND
9
ND
6.5
ND
7.05
ND
499
24 -Oct
ND
7.91
ND
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
8.33
ND
8.4
ND
P 6.2
ND
6.49
ND
509
27 -Oct
ND
8.25
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
N8.16
ND
8.56
ND
5.7
ND
6.16
ND
471
30 -Oct
N
8.09
ND
8.38
ND
5.8
ND
6.1
ND
499
31 -Oct
ND
3
ND
7.77
ND
5.9
ND
6.18
ND
480
Appendix A - 7

Appendices
Appendix A - 8
Dissolved Oxygen Daily
Aveimge
Dissolved Oxygen Daily Minimum
Minimum Flow
Date
TZl
TZ2
TZl
TZ2
TZl
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
2008
2016
1 -Nov
ND
8.04
ND
8.34
ND
5.9
ND
6.24
ND
453
2 -Nov
ND
8.4
ND
8.72
ND
6
ND
6.35
ND
462
3 -Nov
ND
8.73
ND
8.96
ND
6.2
ND
6.35
ND
462
4 -Nov
ND
8.26
ND
8.42
ND
6.5
ND
6.75
ND
409
5 -Nov
ND
8.41
ND
8.48
ND
6.9
ND
7.17
ND
462
6 -Nov
ND
8.48
ND
8.67
ND
7.6
ND
7.38
ND
444
7 -Nov
ND
8.71
ND
8.76
ND
7.6
ND
7.4
ND
401
8 -Nov
ND
8.31
ND
8.36
ND
7
1,h)
7.02
ND
444
9 -Nov
ND
8.52
ND
8.58
ND
7.3
ND
7.01
ND
385
10 -Nov
ND
9.2
ND
8.97
ND
7.5
ND
7.16
ND
409
11 -Nov
ND
8.82
ND
8.87
ND
7.8
ND
7.68
ND
435
12 -Nov
ND
9.07
ND
9.28
ND
7.5
ND
® 7.59
ND
418
13 -Nov
ND
8.63
ND
8.39
ND
7.6
ND
JL7.4
ND
401
14 -Nov
ND
8.44
ND
8.85
SID
7.2
ND
7.39
ND
401
15 -Nov
ND
8.63
ND
8.48
ND
7.4
ND
7.16
ND
409
16 -Nov
ND
9.05
ND
9.21
ND 7.2
ND
7.37
D
435
17 -Nov
ND
9.21
ND
9.4
ND
7.5
ND
7.71
ND
409
18 -Nov
ND
9.36
ND
9
D
7.4
ND
7.41
ND
426
19 -Nov
ND
9.31
ND
9.
7.6
ND
7.66
ND
361
20 -Nov
ND
9.63
D
9.9
ND
9
ND
7.73
ND
385
21 -Nov
ND
9.
9.48
ND 9
ND
7.82
ND
377
22 -Nov
ND
9.
N 9.94
D
8.2
8.13
ND
385
23 -Nov
ND
9.
ND
10.13
ND
8.2
ND
8.41
ND
401
24 -Nov
ND
9.45
ND
58
ND
8.2
ND
8.58
ND
393
25 -Nov
ND 9.7
ND .06
ND
7.9
ND
7.78
ND
393
26 -Nov
ND
9.83b,
ND
10.14
ND
8.3
ND
7.77
ND
377
27 -Nov
ND
10. 1,Q
ND
ht0.57
ND
8.6
ND
8.36
ND
435
28 -Nov
ND
9.6 1
ND
ND
8.1
ND
8.16
ND
426
29 -Nov
ND
9.76
ND
N984V-ND
ND
8
ND
8.12
ND
377
30 -Nov
ND
9.92
ND
8.9
ND
8.76
ND
369
Appendix A - 8

APPENDIXB
TAXONOMIC LISTING OF BEN IC 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
CE VALUE (T.V.)1.
1
Appendix B - 1

Amnicola limosa
Somatogyrus S
6Pleuroceridae
Elimia catenaria
Leptoxis sp.
Viviparidae
Campeloma decisi
Basommatophora
Aucylidae
Ferrissia rivularis
Laevapex fuscus
Physidae
Physella sp.
Plauorbidae
Helisoma anceps
Menetus dilatatus
C
1.7 A
5.8 A
A
A
C
R
C
R
A
C
6.6
R
TZl
TZ2
TAXA
T.V.
2008
2016
2008 2016
Nemertea
A R
6.6
A
Tetrastemmatidae
— —
7.6
—
Prostoma graecense
6.6
R
— — —
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Dugesiidae
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrzna
7.1
A
A A
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veueroida
Corbiculidae
Corbicula fluminea
6.6
C C
Sphaeriidae
Musculium transversum
<<<z
—
Pisidium sp.—
Sphaerium sp.
R
R —
Uuiouidae
Elliptio compl a
— A —
Elliptio s
<
A —
Villos mbis
<<<
— —
Amnicola limosa
Somatogyrus S
6Pleuroceridae
Elimia catenaria
Leptoxis sp.
Viviparidae
Campeloma decisi
Basommatophora
Aucylidae
Ferrissia rivularis
Laevapex fuscus
Physidae
Physella sp.
Plauorbidae
Helisoma anceps
Menetus dilatatus
C
1.7 A
5.8 A
A
A
C
R
C
R
A
C
6.6
R
R
6.6
A
—
A —
8.7
A
A
A R
6.6
A
—
— —
7.6
—
R
— —
Appendix B - 2

Cambaridae
Cambarus hobbsor
Cladocera
Daphnidae
Ceriodaphnia
Daphnia lumholtzi
Daphnia sp.
Sidaidae
Sida crystillina
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Amphipoda
<<<Z —
<<<z —
<<<z —
<<<z —
R
R
R
R
C A
8.4 A A A A
Appendix B - 3
TZl
TZ2
TAXA
T.V.
2008 2016
2008
2016
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta
Tubificida
Ilyodrilus templtont
9.3 — —
R
—
Limnodrilus hoff neisteri
9.4 C —
C
—
Naididae
Naffs sp.
8.7 —
R
—
Stylaria lacustris
8.4 R
C
—
Tubificinae w.o.h.c.
<<<Z
A
Quistadrilus multiisetosus
<<<2 C
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
Lumbriculus sp.
<<<2
A
A
Hirudinea
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae
Batrachobdella phalera
<
—
R
Erpobdellidae
Erpobdella/Mooreobdella
Helobdelll�la elongata
<<<
—
—
Helobdell�.triserialis
9.3 C
Cambaridae
Cambarus hobbsor
Cladocera
Daphnidae
Ceriodaphnia
Daphnia lumholtzi
Daphnia sp.
Sidaidae
Sida crystillina
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Amphipoda
<<<Z —
<<<z —
<<<z —
<<<z —
R
R
R
R
C A
8.4 A A A A
Appendix B - 3

®Argia sp.
Enallagma sp.
Ischnura
Gomphida
Gomphus sp.
Macromiidae
Macromia sp.
Coruliidae
Neurocordulia obsoleta
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus
Trichoptera
A
9.5 —
5.9 —
6.2 —
5.3 R
A
— I R
R R —
C C
A
R
5.2 A C C C
Appendix B - 4
TZl
TZ2
TAXA
T.V.
2008
2016
2008
2016
Hyalellidae
Hyalella azteca
7.2 A
A
A
A
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baeiidae
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.
«<Z
—
R
—
Caenidae
Caenis latipennis
6.8
—
R
Heptageniidae
Maccafferfrum sp.
<<<Z —
—
Macaffertium modestum
5 —
A
—
Maccaffertium smithae
—
—
A
Stenacron interpunctatum
4
C
—
Stenacron sp.
A
Leptohyphidae
Tricorythh�o,d�es albiline
5
—
A
Tricorythr7des robacki
5
—
—
A
Tricorythodes
5
A
A
—
Odonata
®Argia sp.
Enallagma sp.
Ischnura
Gomphida
Gomphus sp.
Macromiidae
Macromia sp.
Coruliidae
Neurocordulia obsoleta
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus
Trichoptera
A
9.5 —
5.9 —
6.2 —
5.3 R
A
— I R
R R —
C C
A
R
5.2 A C C C
Appendix B - 4

TZl TZ2
TAXA T.V. 2008 2016 2008 2016
Glossosomatidae
Protoptila sp. 2.3 — — — R
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.6 A A A A
Hydropsyche bidens <<<Z — R — R
Hydropsyche sp. <<<z R C — A
Hydropsyche depravata gp. «<Z — C
Hydropsyche venularis 5.1 — C — A
Macrostemum carolina 3.4 — A C
Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila sp. 6.5 C C C
Orthotrichia Sp. <<<Z R —
Leptoceridae
Ceraclea maculata 6.2 — — —
Cerarlea sn 2.2 R —
R
C A
R
C C
C
R C
PetrophiQ
Coleopter
Dytiscida
Neopo
Elmidae
Ancyron
Dubirapia sp.
Macronychus glabratus
Stenelmis crenata
Psephenidae
Psephenus herricki
Hydrophilidae
Berosus sp.
Diptera
.6
—
C
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

C
C
A A
Hemerodromia sp. ` — R — R
Simuliidae
Simulium dLiciense g 4.9 — A — A
Simulium vittatu 9.1 — C — R
Simulium sp. 4.9 C — C —
Tabanidae — R — —
Tipulidae
Tipula sp. 7.5 — — R R
'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
Appendix B - 6
TZl
TZ2
TAXA
T.V.
2008
2016
2008
2016
Chirouomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi
7.4
R
C
R
A
Ablabesmyia rhamphe gp.
6.8 ',
R
C
R
—
Cardiocladius obscurus
4.4
—
C
—
—
Chironomus sp.
9.3
C
R
C
A
Cladotanytarsus sp.
4
—
—
R
C
Cricotopus sp.
<<<Z
C
Cricotopus bicinctus
8.7
A
A
—
Cricotopus triannulatus
<<<Z
—
C
—
Cryptochironomus sp.
6.4
C
R
A
—
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
7.9
A
—
A
Dicrotendipes fumidus
8.8
—
—
Orthocladius clarkei
5.6
—
—
Nanocladius distinctus
7.4
—
R
Pentaneura sp.
<<<Z
—
R
Polypedilum flavum
.7
R
A
Polypedilum halterale
—
A
—
Polypedilum scalaenum gp.
8.5
A
A
Procladius sp.
8.8
—
—
R
—
Pseudochironomus sp.
4.9
R
R
Rheotarrytarsus exiguu
6.5
C
A
A
Stenochironomus sp.
6.3
C
A
R
C
Synorthocladius semivi
4.2
R
C
—
C
C
A A
Hemerodromia sp. ` — R — R
Simuliidae
Simulium dLiciense g 4.9 — A — A
Simulium vittatu 9.1 — C — R
Simulium sp. 4.9 C — C —
Tabanidae — R — —
Tipulidae
Tipula sp. 7.5 — — R R
'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
Appendix B - 6

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