19981130 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19980101

Ry ,
e C
40-
d
MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH SURVE -2002
HIGHLANDS COVE, LLC -- ACIfION ID NUMBER 199831148
PREPARED FOR
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
PREPARED BY
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina 29487
#V ,
r
SEP
September 10, 2002
MEM ,

to

1.0 INTRODUCTION ,/
Special Condition Number 10 of the issued Section 401 W r Quality Certification
required the applicant, Highlands Cove, LLC, to condu an initial Benthic and fish study
of Grassy Camp Creek and Shortoff Creek prior to nstruction of the instream pond on
Grassy Camp Creek. This task (pre-constructio urvey) was completed in August 1999,
with a report provided to The Division of Wa r Quality (DWQ), North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural sources (DENR) o31, 1999 The
issued 401 Certification also required annual post-construction macroinvertebrate and
fish survey for ee subsequent year , with reports being sent to the DWQ, Asheville
Regional Office by ep em er o each monitoring year. The results of the firs, , t year
(2 of post- construction fish and invertebrate survey were provided to the DWQ on
tember 26, 2000 The DWQ reviewed the 2000 macroinvertebrate and fish survey
report anprove ed several recommendations, which were included in the 2001 report.
Creek. The sampling locations are described in Figures 1- 3 in Appendix A. Appendix
B contains field data sheets, which describe the conditions at each sample location at the D?
time of macroinvertebrate sampling. Collections were made in accordance with the "EPT
Method" as described in the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, April 2001 issued by DENR, DWQ,
Water Quality Section. The EPT Method involves one kick net sample in riffles or snag
habitat, one sweep net sample in bank areas, one leaf-pack sample, and one visual 8
sample. Members of insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT)
were collected, sorted from debris, and preserved in the field for later identification. The
laboratory analysis of preserved samples was conducted by Pennington and Associates,
Inc., a North Carolina certified laboratory. The samples were identified to the lowest
taxon practicable and analyzed according to the Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, April 2001, which included
biotic index values and EPT index values. Correction factors for high quality small K'
mountain streams were applied to EPT abundance values.
Table 1--22002 (Appendix C) contains the results of the macroinvertebrate sampling at four
locations (Samples 1GC and 2GC in Grassy Camp Creek, and Samples 1S and 2S in
Shortoff Creek) on the Highlands Cove site. The number of EPT taxa (EPT taxa
The results of the sg4pd year (2001 of post- co struction fish and invertebrate survey
were provided to the DWQ o ecember 12, 2001 The DWQ reviewed the 2001
macroinvertebrate and fish survey repo an provided several comments, which are
included in the 2002 report. The document that follows presents the results of the t ' -
year (2002) of post-construction macroinvertebrate and fish survey performed in Gr y
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at the Highland Cove site.
2.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY
(,d. U vk??ry?`
or d on the Highlands Cove site on
A Benthic macroinvertebrate survey was pe
Po/
August 23, 2002 by Ecological Associat , Inc. Macroinvertebrates were collected from S 7
four locations -'two locations in Grassy Camp Creek and two locations in Shortoff ?. L,

richness for each sample location ranged from 10 to 17, with the highest number of taxa
(17) found at Station 1 GC in Grassy Camp Creek. The biotic index values for the four
sample locations ranged from 1.80 to 3.03, with the highest value (lowest number) found
at Station 2S in Shortoff Creek.
Appendix D contains tables for macroinvertebrate sampling for the three previous years
of sampling - 1999 (pre-construction sampling), 2000 (first year of post-construction 4D
sampling), and 2001 (second year of post-construction sampling). The number of EPT-_/ r?
taxa for 2002 varied slightly from the previous year. Three of the stations showed a
decrease in EPT taxa - one station showed an increase in EPT taxa. The largest decrease L))
was at Station IS, which dropped from 20 to 16 - Stations 2S and 2GC decreased by one
taxon. Station 1 GC showed an increase of three taxa from the previous year. Corrected
EPT index for these two years showed a similar comparison. The biotic index values for
2002 also showed some variation from the previous year. Two of the stations showed a
decrease in biotic value (higher number), one of the stations showed an increase in biotic
value (lower number), and one of the stations was essentially unchanged. The largest
decrease was at Station 1 S, which decreased 0.42 - Station 2GC decreased by 0.21,
Station 2S increased 0.58, and Station 1GC remained unchanged. -
The faunal composition for all stations combined for 2002 was very similar to the /
previous year. All functional feeding groups (FFG) that were identified in 2001 are als?1
present in 2002, with very little difference in the total numbers of each FFG. The faunal
composition for individual stations was also very similar for the two years, with the same
number of FFGs and roughly the same number of organisms in each FFG. The species
composition between surveys was also compared. The 2001 survey identified a total of
23 families of EPT organisms, whereas the 2002 survey identified 21 families of
organisms. Family Phryganidae and Sericostomatidae were not represented in the 2002
survey. All three post-construction years showed increases in the number of EPT
families present from the baseline sampling year of 1999.
3.0 FISH SURVEY
A fish survey was performed on the Highlands Cove site on June 28-29, 2002 by
Ecological Associates, Inc. Fish were surveyed at approximately the same four locations
(Figures 1-3, Appendix A) that were used for the macroinvertebrate study, as well as an
additional location, sample location 3GC, that was added after the pre-construction
survey at the request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Appendix B
contains field data forms for the five sample locations, showing conditions of the stream
at the sampling stations during the time of the fish survey. The fish survey was
conducted using a backpack electro-shocker, and consisted of a three-pass depletion
survey at each sample location. The sampling reach at locations 1 GC, 1 S, and 2S
consisted of a 100-meter stream segment - the sampling reach at locations 2GC and 3GC
consisted of 50 and 75 meters, respectively. All fishes collected were identified to
species, measured for individual total length, and weighed in aggregate by species.
2

Stream length and width at each sampling location was measured to calculate surface
area for standing crop determinations.
1104
Table 2-2002, contained in Appendi , depicts the results of fish sampling at five
locations (Samples 1 GC and 2GC in Grassy Camp Creek, and Samples IS and ZS in
Shortoff Creek) on the Highlands Cove site. The total number of fish collected at each
sampling location ranged from five to 50. Aggregate weight ranged from 28.3 grams to
751.2 grams, with the greatest number and aggregate weight from station 2S (Table 2- I
2002). Two of the five sample locations (2S and 3GC) contained only brook trout, and
one of the five sample locations (2GC) contained only red breast sunfish. Two of the
stations (IS and 1 GC) contained both brook trout and red breast sunfish.
Tables containing the results of the three previous years of fish sampling are also --'
contained in Appendix D for reference and comparison. The 2002 sampling revealed C
increases in numbers and aggregate weight of fish at all sampling locations on the h 4?
Highlands Cove site,. Ralrticularly large increases were observed for Stations 2S ands
J GC, which showed dramatic increases of brook trout. Station 1 S also showed a -' I
significant increase of brook trout - Station 2GC was essentially the same. The 2002
sampling, unlike the 2001 results which showed single species composition in four of
five sampling locations, revealed that brook trout and red breast sunfish occurred in three
of the five sampling locations. Brook trout were found exclusively at one location
(Station 3GC), and redbreast sunfish were found exclusively at one location (Station
2GC). eybelieve_the near single species.compasition,and-the-increased, numbers of
brook trout in the upper reaches of Grassy Camp Creek (Stations IGC and 3GC) is the
result of the fish barriers that were constructed below these areas and systematic removal
of redbreast sunfish during the 2000 sampling effort. Both these measures are part of the
overall brook trout habitat management plan for the site.
The single species composition of redbreast sunfish in the lower Grassy Camp Creek
(2GC) is likely the result of the small pond on the Highlands Cove site and the large
impoundment below the site which bracket this stream reach and have allowed sunfish to
out-compete brook trout in this small section of creek. The pre-construction survey also
showed a mixed species composition weighted toward redbreast sunfish in the lower
reaches of Grassy Camp Creek. The occurrence of both species in lower Shortoff Creek
(Station IS) is consistent with the species composition found during the baseline survey
(1999) and the first year of monitoring (2000). .
The primary threat to brook trout populations on the Highlands Cove site is the continued
migration of sunfish into the small headwater streams of Grassy Camp Creek and the
ultimate displacement of the native brook trout in these areas. In an effort to maintain the
maximum amount of brook trout habitat within the site, fish barriers (Appendix E) were
constructed at strategic locations in Grassy Camp Creek prior to the 2001 survey to
prevent migration of sunfish into these small headwater streams. Systematic removal of
sunfish from areas up stream of the fish barriers is also being accomplished in
conjunction with yearly fish sampling. We believe these efforts are successfully
minimizing the migration of sunfish into the small headwater streams.
AI3I GG / 7t' 2
r
'cr r ?Fl,s
3
4.0 SUMMARY
An initial pre-construction macroinvertebrate and fish survey was conducted on the
Highlands Cove site in summer 1999, in accordance with Special Condition Number 10
of the issued 401 Water Quality Certification. As required, three years of post-
construction fish and macroinvertebrate sampling have been conducted. This report
contains the results of year three of three of required post-construction monitoring, which •
was conducted in June 2002.
The analysis of 1999 baseline and 2000 macroinvertebrate survey data used only/ presence/absence data, whereas the 2001 and 2002 data used EPT species richness and
biotic index values. The 2001 and 2002 macroinvertebrate results are comparable, with 1
only slight variation in species richness and biotic value. The faunal composition appears ! rr ??
41 / ? ? U
to be generally consistent for these two years, as well as the preceding year and the G? j _
baseline sampling. The upstream sampling location (1 S) on Shortoff Creek contained they r / J
?0 most macroinvertebrate taxa and had the highest biotic index value, whereas the lower A ?t ?
sampling location on Grassy Camp Creek (2GC) had the least macroinvertebrate taxa and
pst biotic index value. This tr-end is consistent throughout the four years of
U the lowest
ling. We believe that the between-year variations are the normal result of seasonal l
-77
IOU/ coand other factors including sampling bias and possibly the time o
drought
/' year of sampling. It is our opinion that the macroinvertebrate species richness and bio '
index values are at least as high at the end of the third year of post-construction sam
V i( ? ---
(2002) as these indices would have been during the pre-construction baseline sampling.
X4)2 tlvw yoc., iw CXj ?See d'? a'r-colzi A!'? ?
The 2002 fish sampling revealed increased numbers and aggregate weight of fish at all
sample locations, with significant increases of brook trout at all locations.-she numbers
and weight of fish sampled during 2002 surpasses all three previous monitoring years,
including the baseline survey. Variation in species composition between stations
included a notable shift to more of a single species composition of brook trout at both
stations in Shortoff Creek (IS and 2 S) and the two sampling stations in upper Grassy
Camp Creek (1 GC and 3GC), and a shift to red-breast sunfish composition in the lower
section of Grassy Camp Creek (2GC) between the newly created golf course pond and
the existing impoundment immediately downstream. µWe believe that the fish barriers
that have been installed have significantly improved the quality of existing brook trout ??.
habitat in the upper Grassy Camp Creek system by eliminating or severely minimizing
migration of sunfish into these habitats. It is our opinion that the lower section of Grassy
Camp Creek below the golf course pond, which was already weighted heavily toward red
breast sunfish at the time of the baseline sampling, will continue to be primarily a red
breast sunfish stream.
The 2002 macroinvertebrate and fish sampling constitutes the third and final year of
required monitoring at the Highlands Cove site in accordance with Special Condition
Numberl0 of the issued 401 Water Quality Certification. We believe that Shortoff and
Grassy Camp Creeks are health environments as evidenced6by fair to good assemblages
of fish and macroinvertebrates. Throughout the course of our overall wetland and stream
4
monitoring on the Highlands Cove site, which we have been performing for the last four
years, we have also observed brook trout in most of the small perennial streams on this
site. Extreme care was taken to minimize stream impacts throughout the design,
construction, and management of this development. We believe that these efforts have
been successful in maintaining, and in some cases improving, the overall quality of the
aquatic habitats on this site.
64
r'
5
APPENDIX A
MAPS & SAMPLE LOCATIONS
aI;IIial -I - -
J
N
9? a
0
RAp SWW" Aut 1tRfR.µ
lm!? 0i!
',1 \
.4 \ Q,
v
V
l
D

I CC ? f4- R - - R
1\ ? \\ R " \\ i R I/ • R R
I I 1
\ ¦ 1• a l • R I ' ?? • I R
\ 1 ¦
w \ R ¦ I
8" \ 1 /
' I
? G `\ R ? ¦
y e ?
I R , I i
R I
I
o0
t 6 ? i
`\e t i ?? y\ t / i a ! e /// B V
/ a R / 1 / 1
' 4 e i \\ t ` t r' t'i E \'.! i \\ e? e - // e t
/ ?1 i t t ( e \?? e i e !
? e \\ t O B \\\ 1 e \\ • \\ B [ 1\ ! \
? \ ? e e 1' I 1 \\ t
e I
war. axn' e / i
S
e /
? e d
e e e
I1lQ
Y.i.MYi1MON • rll M • ?? RO??
J • ? ?F'? ? (?T ??/(, ? CRAPHtC SC AU
DCG 7?/ a ? S - -
P= FM
C)= OVwr4
• Oil SLM
N FS= • to &ON
TWCX WEE: 0N0«t
sPm • smkoi rkw
rnratt X&Y" mY My KLL
rirn a* Kam
(M SD DULS faa S PC
? ? ? sum
_ ? ' \O •\
/ ?.
sum \ .
s?xat
s+arq.? \
ti O / 4 •\
- ? SR WC, ri?n
4? / .>
anwom
< VnIn
? y Y onO/1N
?? ' I O Y1
Qtr??n •
i
/ PHASE IIG
.?
C3 _
ino
3`
\ r? Q ^
sn w. `? \
VQAVI
IIG
'cm •\
sm"
/ \
ROAD ? ,
?. ? / O i i
S ??y T a /7/- Gr 7?l947
sass \ IK9
l \
?j Qtr
PHASE IVG
?I sPSrn O 1, \ 1 I `
u
m \
SP614 \ iR \\ 7A 2
\ ?? hll \
.1
7PY•: 1 / ? \\ II
1 " .. 1 \ \ 771
1 \l yai
a / \
%
/ sPrc: /
/ ? _ ? sPra • /
sera I / w
/ In
69? ! / ? / 7q
sPa*s / / / \\ /
s•m I /
w op,
PHASE IVG
-?, r , , 777 , ,\
9Mr2 ?Ir•1 / O \
1 / / SP 7fc? \ i
?= p s9m `.
9.1.3.2A
?
' n
yowl S?' // / / Y ' SD7r3
.4p
a1 4
C ?
/
sP7r7 1
7D? sPl -
? 771
/
A \ al
5P7n
1
n. PI j
> 1 / / I \ 1
!73 91
I1 In \? ,-. i
> \1 / // 5?Rcl
1 r .1. 1r 1 / ? / / - / 711
sp"
s•sc7 PHASE IVG I
/ P7
s>n P. I
> / / 1 1
I 710
APPENDIX B
FIELD DATA SHEETS FOR SAMPLE LOCATIONS
l.5
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream,56/d27`D FF Location/road: ??- (Road Name l? )County 014G/-'50lLI
Date Z 3 0 CC# Basin Subbasin
Observer(s) /U/2 Type of Study: ? Fish ,,?enthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: vel MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature /& °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH 7. 2-
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: A90 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : orest j?griculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) StreamZ - 7, Channel (at top ofbank)4? • 4 Stream Depth: (m) AvgQ, / Max
'Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
d Q
Bank Angle: o V ° or ? NA (Vertical is 9(°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight bankt2garodevelopment banks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON ?Y: ?Rip-r cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Ber /levee
Flow conditions : ?High ?Nonma ow
Turbidirty',IE16lear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions4l/?O"Z_" .5r/ h Photos:, 1 ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
V
Remarks:-6a-', '0r Slur '11 e "r'
2- .S
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream-5A/412T0F _F Location/road: 2 S (Road Name !U)County JAG/<54??
Date Z3 " 0 2- CC# Basin4? A611VPVle Subbasin
Observer(s) Type of Study: ? Fish Xenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion?T O P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature _40' DO __=mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) ^ umhos/cm pH _Z
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use:_%Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ?ForestVPAgriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Z• Z Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avgd Max 7
L. T idth variable ? Large river >25m wide ,,{ ?
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)om
Bank Angler ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend OChannel filled in with sedi ent
?Recent overbank deposits OBar development ?Buried structures xposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N OY: ORip-r , cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure OBerm/levee
Flow conditions : ?High ONormal ow
Turbiditp-C-Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid OTannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions:6 lr Photos ?Y? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: ll?(`SA?Yld74e ?/C'lt°?J 74-
l4:?7_ L
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream Location/road: (Road Name N !¢- )County cTf?G/
Date Z 3 Z CC# Basin4?? ZnL/ /uec Subbasin 6 r'
Observer(s) NA Type of Study: O Fish Vf!rBenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: pr-w ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature /7 DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH Z. - _44
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %oForest %Residential %Active Pasture % ,Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial ?%Other - Describe: l _S'e
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agriculture 9fIrban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream,1? Channel (at top of bank) / 61 Stream Depth: (m) AvgMax
L,M-Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) 4' Z'
Bank Angle: ° or O NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
0Deeply incised-steep,straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
ORecent overbank deposits t., 1 ar development ?Buried structures OExposed bedrock
0Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge OSewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rte, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ?High ?Normak,01ow
Turbidi Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions i?S'r"1111G? PhotosiPN ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
??'I

3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream62l 95S Ye"O/ W -Location/road: 26'-c, (Road Name A)110 )County
Date 9'-.73 "O 2- CC# Basin Lz?C Aaleefssee Subbasin O,/
Observer(s)_&9 Type of Study: ? Fish ,019enthos ? Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregioni"OMT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH '12 '57'
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use,
Visible Land Use: AO-2%17orest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial _ %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : []Forest []Agriculture. pllJ/rban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Z ?P Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg °Z Max 3
L,,@'ridth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) d
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight banks []Both banks undercut at bend VCIC-hannel filled in with sediment
[]Recent overbank deposits G-2Tar development []Buried structures []Exposed bedrock
[]Excessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth []Green tinge []Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: []Rip-ra , cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ?Hi []Normal ow
Turbidity: OCI Slightly Turbid []Turbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions:_G_(?C(/1csl/J'I?'l y Photos: ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: 60? .r-; C GlliLl?D elf' - b'.-ION /S ! Gl /??Q?? ?GYJ c
(/ ` •?
Gl lO0, i- /n
-• l5
3/01 Revision b
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream660A70FE Location/road: 15 (Road Name /Y110County J?C/!5 Opt/
Date e-' "27- 0 z CC# Basin Glide re!! l 5see Subbasin Q/
Observer(s)NIZ_ Type of Study. JFish ?Benthos ? Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude VV Ecoregion:V21"MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature 14(P_°C DO - mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH '
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: A0 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %lndustrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use :
L, t orest Agriculture []Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 2.2- Channel (at top of bank) rQ Stream Depth: (m) Avg_G• Z Max O
Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) o• 5
Bank Angle: g0 ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is (°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight banks oth banks undercut at bend 1,06annel filled in with sediment
[]Recent overbank deposits &,Mar development []Buried structures []Exposed bedrock
[]Excessive periphyton growth []Heavy filamentous algae growth []Green tinge []Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: []Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditioy : ?HighLpNo-mtal []Low
Turbidi ear ? Slightly Turbid []Turbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
IVV? n
Weather r Conditions
?Y ? Digital []35mm
Remarks: l?l? rO'Y' eO C 6 ?4 Sb2,',e7 0I?C 6?- -
25
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream//.5//62 TOFF Location/road: 25 (Road Name !f )County JWC/-'50A/
Date iO 27- dZ CC# Basine'/777c 2 tijY ec_ Subbasin
Observer(s)/Q Type of Stud VFish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:v <ff ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature/
? . °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH `
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: /60 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : Ofores_t pAgriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
V /
Width: (meters) Stream 2• y Channel (at top ofbank) ? Stream Depth: (m) Avg_/1?7 Max
L,OlVidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)_4:::
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures posed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ?High LONormal ?Low
Turbidity Clear ? Slightly Turbid OTurbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions 61nl?0
Phootoo?si' i ?Y 13 Digital ?35m/m /
Remarks: l62el- ? i df /0 -1c Jc?UI?U/ /OT7 6- • - 50/70 5 C12

3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Strea Locationlroad: 45;C // (Road Name 1,4
)County ?/?idC/?54G? __.
Date _2 8`02- CC# BasinC- /L r?0##eS.s6C Subbasin
0bserver(s)_A,8__ Type of Studyi Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: V, R<T ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature/,(,/ °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) - umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:6o/ o_,,5c m?l-
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agriculture_ lJrban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 1_ Channel (at top of bank) l-? Stream Depth: (m) Av Max
'Width variable O Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
Bank Angle: i?b ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
ODe ply incised-steep,straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend OChannel filled in with sediment
ecent overbank deposits 1,09ar development OBuried structures OExposed bedrock
0Excessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth ?Crreen tinge OSewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions O Sediment/grade-control structure OBerm/levee
Flow conditio : OHigh ?ormal OLow
Turbidit?lear O Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky OColored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions
Remarks:
OY O Digital 035mm

3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Streag6-1l9.5Sr1W^110 Location/road: ?C 2 (Road Name N/w _)CountyJKCK54AI
Date to -2r-02- CC# Basin66?/c r
e!llorlssic Subbasin
Observer(s)-NA _ Type of Stud?/y: "Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:OZ"MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature?Z°C DO '- mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) trhos/cm pH _
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agriculture Illrban ? Animal operations upstream 1-1
Width: (meters) Stream z•P Channel (at top of bank) 2• Stream Depth: (m) Avg_O• 25 Max 411'
L,,0"Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) D
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is (°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
t,5Recent overbank deposits LJ2Ba-r development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge OSewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ?Hi ormal OLow
Turbidity.: ?Cle Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: G? l Photos-
?Y ? Digital ?35mm
f
Remarks:6,07_1?SG1 4C ,n ) 6,-,,l2 Alld/.J

3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an ' term e late score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Strean>6/2,05S YC?4?% -G e /
Location/road: _0 6"C (Road Name L )County_??G l50 1Y
Date - Z ?- 2- CC# Basin 4!!?,Ae _rPyn>'ssPe Subbasin O
Observer(s)- Type of Stud Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregioni,,_Z T ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature1_?_7°C DO mg/I Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use,
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture °/ Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %lndustrial "%Other - Describe: S <
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?AgriculturO26rban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream/, Q_ Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg L • Max
V@'DVidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Ba nk Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) L? - Z.
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel.
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
ecent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures L, ?xposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ?High onnal ?Low
Turbidi : Clear ? Slightly Turbid OTurbid ?Tannic OMilky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather ConditiOns:P/41 • _Photo&: Z ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks:- &"h , A 6krr.5S4, C(1yj? ?,000/Z C!!C/OG?
APPENDIX C
TABLES - 2002
1?` 1-- 2-00 2-
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FI
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G.
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae *4 CG
Baetis tricaudatus 1.63 CG
Pseudocloeon sp. 5 CG
Caenidae *7 CG
Caenis sp. 7.41 CG
Ephemeridae *4 CG
Ephemera sp. *3 CG
Ephemerellidae *1 SC
Drunella sp. *1 SC
Drunella tuberculata 0 SC
Ephemerella sp. 2.04 SC
Eurylophella sp. 4.34 SC
Heptageniidae *4 SC
Heptagenia sp. 2.57 SC
Stenacron pallidum 2.72 SC
Stenonema terminatum 4.1 SC
Isonychiidae *2 FC
Isonychia sp. 3.45 FC
Leptophlebiidae *2 CG
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.94 CG
Plecoptera
Leuctridae *0 SH
Leuctra sp. 0.67 SH
Nemouridae *2 SH
Amphinemura sp. 3.33 SH
Peltoperlidae - SH
Tallaperla sp. 1.18 SH
Perlidae *1 P
PeHesta sp. 4.7 P
Perlodidae *2 P
Malirekus hastatus 1.15 P
Pteronarcidae SH
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) sp. 1.67 SH
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC
Diplectrona modesta 2.21 FC
Hydropsyche sp. *5 FC
Parapsyche cardis 0 FC
Lepidostomatidae *1 SH
Lepidostoma sp. 6.22 FC
Limnephilidae *4 SH
Hydatophylax sp. *2 SH
Odontoceridae *0 SC
Psilotreta sp. 6.37 SC
Molannidae *6 -
Molanna sp. *6 SC
Philopotamidae *3 FC
?OM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
5/11^f °,1/- 7,4", ur (I-'-- '-
Sta. IS Sta. 2S Sta. 1 GC Sta. 2GC
2
1
2 ?L
1
1
15.
6
1
12 8 1
1
2. 3
23 13 1
15 2.
2
24 14 36 2
3
38 23 2 4
1
17 18 15 3
2
5
168 113, 57 24
15
1, 18 1
1
1
2
2 3
2
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCLIENT2 9/12/2002
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta. 1S Sta. 2S Sta.1GC Sta.2GC
Wormaldia sp. 0.65 FC 1 1 'r5 r
Polycentropodidae *6 FC
Phylocentropus sp. 6.2 FC
Polycentropus sp. 3.53 FC
Rhyacophilidae *0 P
Rhyacophila fuscula 1.88 P
Rhyacophila nigrita 0 P
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
Corrected EPT INDEX
ASSIGNED BIOTIC INDEX VALUES
2
3 1
1
325 225 152
16 16 17
20 20 24.65
2.24 1.80 2.45
1
1
J 47
10
14.5
3.03 ?
C
??ei
i1
? c
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCLIENT2 9/12/2002
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
Cell: A63
Comment: "Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
"North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10
for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes
**'F.F.G.-Functional Feeding Group: CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering/Collectors, SC=Scrapers,
SH=Shredders, P=Predators and PI=Piercer
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCLIENT2 9/12/2002
Table 2-2002. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at Highlands Cove, June 28-29, 2002.
LP I
SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHT' NUMBER/
HECTARES WEIGHT/
HECTARE
a
1GC BT 21 243.9 1,457.4 16.9
RBS 2, 48.2 138.8 3.3
2GC RBS 5.; 28.3 376.0 2.2
1S BT 22, 328.9 986.5 14.7
RBS 1 48.2 44.8 2.2
2S BT 50 751.2 2,304 34.6
RBS 0 0 0 0
3GC BT 28- 317.5 2,500.1 28.3
i
5- ?
' Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
3 Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
4 Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
5 Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.
APPENDIX D
TABLES PREVIOUS YEARS
1999 - 2001
Table 1. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera collected from
streams in the vicinity of Highlands Cove on July 26, 1999.
TAXON oc 1 =2Lo
(!of c Loc 4
Arthropoda
?
Insect
a
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis brunneicolor x
Ephemerellidae
Drunella tuberculata x
Ephemerella catawba x
Serratella deficiens x X
Heptageniidae
Epeorus dispar x
Reptagenia marginalis x
Stenonema carlsoni X X
Leptophlebiidae
Paraleptophlebia spp. X X
Oligoneuriidae
Isonychia spp. X X.
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp. X. X, x X
Nemouridae
Amphinemura spp. X X. X
Peltoperlidae
Tallaperla spp. X X X X
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis X
Perlesta spp. X X
Perlodidae
Isoperla holochlora x X
Isoperla major x X X X
Remenus bilobatus X
Pteronarcyidae
Pteronarcys app. X
Trichoptera
Glossosomatidae
Glossosoma spp. X X
Hydropsychidae
Nydropsyche macleodi x X
Parapsyche cardis x
Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma spp. X X X
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche divergens x
Pycnopsyche gentilis x X
Pycnopsyche guttifer x X.
Odontoceridae
Psilotreta frontalis x X
Philopotamidae
Wormaldia spp. X
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus spp. X X
Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila fuscula, x
Rhyacophila nigrita x
Sericostomatidae
Fattigia pele x X
Uenoidae
Neophylax mitchelli x
TOTAL TAXA FOUND 9 8 23 18

Figure Bioclassifications of locations in the Highland Cove project, based on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EM taxa collected on July 26, 1999.
_ M 1j eN- t7 O M
Y «° T- V c V
6
?
`-
. ? C
p
O 0
Ol
O 00
°
0 0
N
M
O
O
°
°r
t ? o
p
CO

v
N

Q ?
v
C
C t
01
N to
N
a O
0
O O O
d w
N to M
?- ?- co
(Y)
3 d. O O
`

U N V
' ? e-
Z W
vi
Y
N

U j
tt= U
L Lf) N ?^ r O M M M r
i
U) .. N N y N 00
N

v r

v co

v M

v N 0
-
4 s
v v
co Z N O N U') 04
M 00
N C4
CL
E
W

U

O N a `c:
.04 ti
C) U') rn

O T- r-
C ' N V- M
T- M O
N f7
V sr T.-
N
0
S
O ?.
e w
? o

U v
N T-
V-
CO
N C*4
M
co
e-
N N
?J

\ ? L
\1
J?

1 n
v
n
N
?=
J
.0- O

t/1
C

C
C
.C

O ?
C

O
Vl
U y O C
C U C L
C d
• N u N O N

I +' d
Q O N
N
0 O N
N O N O N N E

v

C

N .1
.
.0 ? d

-14

'Y O
`°
Y Y
O p
O '0
0,0
0 .0
$

D
0 $ D
?-

ma'
m?
m?
m 2 L- CD
mca ? a)
.0

^? \ O
0
o O
V" .°
.c E m
u
0 C) °
O
C7 E
V

T J
N
N
W

2006 - 7,-? 7
Table 1. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera collected by
Ecological Associates personnel from streams in the
vicinity of Highlands Cove on August 19, 2000. /?tlr//iGv
TAXON oc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc /4 10
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acerpenna spp. X
Ephemerellidae
Drunella tuberculata
Eurylophella funeralis x
Ephemeridae
Ephemera spp.
Heptageniidae
Epeorus dispar x
Stenonema carlsoni x
Stenonema meririvulanum x
Oligoneuriidae
Is6nychia spp. X
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp. X X
Nemouridae
Amphinemura spp. X
Peltoperlidae
Tallaperla spp. X X
Perlidae
Perlinella spp. X
Perlodidae
Yugus spp. X
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche betteni x
Hydropsyche macleodi x X
'Odontoceridae
Psilotreta labida x X
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus spp. X X X
Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila spp.
Sericostomatidae
Fattigia pele x X
TOTAL TAXA FOUND 4 6 13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9

Y
Figure 1. Bioclassifications of locations in the Highland Cove project, based on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa collected by Ecological Associates personnel on August 19, 2000.

Table 3. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy Camp
and ShortofY Creeks at Highlands Cove during June 6-7,2000.
SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHT2 NUMBER/
HECTARE3 WEIGHT/
HECTARE
4
1 C16C BT 1 22.7 69.4 1.6
) RBS 1 2.8 69.4 .19
2 2 RBS .2 5.7 150.4 .43
3 BT 6 , 223.0 269.0 9.99
RBS 1 19.9 44.2 .89
4 Czsj BT 14 170.1 645.1 7.84
RBS 5 56.7 230.0 2.61
5 c? BT 9 138.9 803.6 12.4
'Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
2 Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
3 Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
s Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G *** 1GC 2GC 15 2S
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae *4 CG
Baetis sp. *4 CG 1 2
Pseudocloeon sp. 5 CG 2
Caenidae *7 CG
Caenis sp. 7.41 CG 1.
Ephemeridae *4 CG
Ephemera sp. *3 CG 2
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 CG 1
Ephemerellidae *1 SC
Drunella sp. *1 SC 12 2
Eurylophella sp. 4.34 SC 3 1
Heptageniidae *4 SC
Hexaagenia sp. 2.57 SC 1
Stenacron sp. *4 SC 2
Stenonema femoratum 7.18 SC 4- -
Stenonema terminatum 4.1 SC 10, 10 10
Isonychiidae *2 FC
lsonychia sp. 3.45 FC 1 20 37
Leptophlebiidae *2 CG 1 _ 1
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.94 CG 1
Plecoptera
Chloroperlidae *1 P
Suwallia sp. 1.18 CG 1
Sweltsa sp. 0 P 1
Leuctridae *0 SH
Leuctra sp. 0.67 SH 31. 1 40 59
Nemouridae *2 SH 1
Peltoperlidae - SH
Tallaperla sp. 1.18 SH 8 45 188 64
Perlidae *1 P
Periesta sp. 4.7 P 2
Perlodidae *2 P 1
Malirekus hastatus 1.15 P 27 38
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC
Arctopsyche sp. *1 FC 1
Diplectrona modesta 2.21 FC 18 25 45 51
Lepidostomatidae *1 SH
Lepidostoma sp. 6.22 FC 1
Limnephilidae *4 SH 1
Pycnopsyche sp. 2.52 SH 1-1 1-
Odontoceridae - *0 SC
Psilotreta sp. 6.37 SC 1 2 1
Philopotamidae *3 FC
Wormaldia sp. 0.65 FC 1
Phryganeidae *4 SH
Oligostomis sp. 2
Polycentropodidae *6 FC
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 ETP inverts 2001 12/11/2001

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRAT ES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G.*** 1GC 2GC ,13' S 2S
Cyrnellus fratemus *8 FC 1
Nyctiophylax 0.85 FC 1
Phylocentropus sp. 6.2 FC 2 2
Polycentropus sp. 3.53 FC 4 2 1
Rhyacophilidae *0 P
Rhyacophila sp. *1 P 3 11
Sericostomatidae 1
Fattigia pele 0.88 1
Uenoidae
Neophylax sp. 2.2 Sc 2 '

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 72 95 362 274
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 14 11 20 17
Corrected ETP Index 20.3 15.9 25 21.2
Assigned Biotic Index Value 2.43 2.82 2.03 2.38
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
Cell: A69
Comment: *Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
**North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10
for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes
***F. F. G. -Functional Feeding Group: CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering/Collectors, SC=Scrapers,
SH=Shredders, P=Predators and PI=Piercer
****Not included in analysis

Table 2-2001. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at Highlands Cove, July 19-20, 2001.

SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHT2 NUMBER/
HECTARES WEIGHT/
HECTARE
a
I GC BT 1 30.02 69.4 2.08
RBS 0. 0 0 0
2GC RBS 4 65.20 300.76 4.90
is BT 13 96.39 582.92 4.32
RBS 0 0 0 0
2S BT 16 246.64 737.28 11.37
RBS 0 0 0 0
3GC BT 27 184.27 2,410.83 16.45
' Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
2 Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
s Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
5 Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.
41'0a9
cR
?6Jr- ----?

Nod
c
oaf
/777
has

L - ? J

a L/

2/

G C / . ?vo Gv 6t x ? GtJT c t_
" Ayl boo ? ?vo? Z ? ?
Lf,
l
has
s
03 /11
?- ago ???a l5? i
r'
s
7 dv ( ?2ov? l ?1?

3
??t s
wv / aJvv 1i>-1

I
,?r 1
L ) /C?{ c C?.?NA .mss{' >? r_4_? ( }l ,3

I R
MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH SURVEY -2002
HIGHLANDS COVE, LLC -- ACTION ID NUMBER 199831148
PREPARED FOR SEP ( 7 200? ?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality,--- "r?TL
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
PREPARED BY
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina 29487
September 10, 2002

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Special Condition Number 10 of the issued Section 401 Water Quality Certification
required the applicant, Highlands Cove, LLC, to conduct an initial benthic and fish study
of Grassy Camp Creek and Shortoff Creek prior to construction of the instream pond on
Grassy Camp Creek. This task (pre-construction survey) was completed in August 1999,
with a report provided to The Division of Water Quality (DWQ), North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on August 31, 1999. The
issued 401 Certification also required an annual post-construction macroinvertebrate and
fish survey for three subsequent years, with reports being sent to the DWQ, Asheville
Regional Office by September 15"' of each monitoring year. The results of the first year
(2000) of post- construction fish and invertebrate survey were provided to the DWQ on
September 26, 2000. The DWQ reviewed the 2000 macroinvertebrate and fish survey
report and provided several recommendations, which were included in the 2001 report.
The results of the second year (2001) of post- construction fish and invertebrate survey
were provided to the DWQ on December 12, 2001. The DWQ reviewed the 2001
macroinvertebrate and fish survey report and provided several comments, which are
included in the 2002 report. The document that follows presents the results of the third
year (2002) of post-construction macroinvertebrate and fish survey performed in Grassy
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at the Highland Cove site.
2.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY
A benthic macroinvertebrate survey was performed on the Highlands Cove site on
August 23, 2002 by Ecological Associates, Inc. Macroinvertebrates were collected from
four locations - two locations in Grassy Camp Creek, and two locations in Shortoff
Creek. The sampling locations are described in Figures 1- 3 in Appendix A. Appendix
B contains field data sheets, which describe the conditions at each sample location at the
time of macroinvertebrate sampling. Collections were made in accordance with the "EPT
Method" as described in the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, April 2001 issued by DENR, DWQ,
Water Quality Section. The EPT Method involves one kick net sample in riffles or snag
habitat, one sweep net sample in bank areas, one leaf-pack sample, and one visual
sample. Members of insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT)
were collected, sorted from debris, and preserved in the field for later identification. The
laboratory analysis of preserved samples was conducted by Pennington and Associates,
Inc., a North Carolina certified laboratory. The samples were identified to the lowest
taxon practicable and analyzed according to the Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, April 2001, which included
biotic index values and EPT index values. Correction factors for high quality small
mountain streams were applied to EPT abundance values.
Table 1-2002 (Appendix C) contains the results of the macroinvertebrate sampling at four
locations (Samples 1 GC and 2GC in Grassy Camp Creek, and Samples IS and 2S in
Shortoff Creek) on the Highlands Cove site. The number of EPT taxa (EPT taxa

richness) for each sample location ranged from 10 to 17, with the highest number of taxa
(17) found at Station 1 GC in Grassy Camp Creek. The biotic index values for the four
sample locations ranged from 1.80 to 3.03, with the highest value (lowest number) found
at Station 2S in Shortoff Creek.
Appendix D contains tables for macroinvertebrate sampling for the three previous years
of sampling - 1999 (pre-construction sampling), 2000 (first year of post-construction
sampling), and 2001 (second year of post-construction sampling). The number of EPT
taxa for 2002 varied slightly from the previous year. Three of the stations showed a
decrease in EPT taxa - one station showed an increase in EPT taxa. The largest decrease
was at Station 1S, which dropped from 20 to 16 - Stations 2S and 2GC decreased by one
taxon. Station 1GC showed an increase of three taxa from the previous year. Corrected
EPT index for these two years showed a similar comparison. The biotic index values for
2002 also showed some variation from the previous year. Two of the stations showed a
decrease in biotic value (higher number), one of the stations showed an increase in biotic
value (lower number), and one of the stations was essentially unchanged. The largest
decrease was at Station IS, which decreased 0.42 - Station 26C decreased by 0.21,
Station 2S increased 0.58, and Station 1GC remained unchanged.
The faunal composition for all stations combined for 2002 was very similar to the
previous year. All functional feeding groups (FFG) that were identified in 2001 are also
present in 2002, with very little difference in the total numbers of each FFG. The faunal
composition for individual stations was also very similar for the two years, with the same
number of FFGs and roughly the same number of organisms in each FFG. The species
composition between surveys was also compared. The 2001 survey identified a total of
23 families of EPT organisms, whereas the 2002 survey identified 21 families of
organisms. Family Phryganidae and Sericostomatidae were not represented in the 2002
survey. All three post-construction years showed increases in the number of EPT
families present from the baseline sampling year of 1999.
3.0 FISH SURVEY
A fish survey was performed on the Highlands Cove site on June 28-29, 2002 by
Ecological Associates, Inc. Fish were surveyed at approximately the same four locations
(Figures 1-3, Appendix A) that were used for the macroinvertebrate study, as well as an
additional location, sample location 3GC, that was added after the pre-construction
survey at the request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Appendix B
contains field data forms for the five sample locations, showing conditions of the stream
at the sampling stations during the time of the fish survey. The fish survey was
conducted using a backpack electro-shocker, and consisted of a three-pass depletion
survey at each sample location. The sampling reach at locations 1 GC, IS, and 2S
consisted of a 100-meter stream segment - the sampling reach at locations 2GC and 3GC
consisted of 50 and 75 meters, respectively. All fishes collected were identified to
species, measured for individual total length, and weighed in aggregate by species.
2
` t

Stream length and width at each sampling location was measured to calculate surface
area for standing crop determinations.
Table 2-2002, contained in Appendix C, depicts the results of fish sampling at five
locations (Samples 1GC and 2GC in Grassy Camp Creek, and Samples 1S and 2S in
Shortoff Creek) on the Highlands Cove site. The total number of fish collected at each
sampling location ranged from five to 50. Aggregate weight ranged from 28.3 grams to
751.2 grams, with the greatest number and aggregate weight from station 2S (Table 2-
2002). Two of the five sample locations (2S and 3GC) contained only brook trout, and
one of the five sample locations (2GC) contained only red breast sunfish. Two of the
stations (1S and 1GC) contained both brook trout and red breast sunfish.
Tables containing the results of the three previous years of fish sampling are also
contained in Appendix D for reference and comparison. The 2002 sampling revealed
increases in numbers and aggregate weight of fish at all sampling locations on the
Highlands Cove site. Particularly large increases were observed for Stations 2S and
1 GC, which showed dramatic increases of brook trout. Station 1 S also showed a
significant increase of brook trout - Station 2GC was essentially the same. The 2002
sampling, unlike the 2001 results which showed single species composition in four of
five sampling locations, revealed that brook trout and red breast sunfish occurred in three
of the five sampling locations. Brook trout were found exclusively at one location
(Station 3GC), and redbreast sunfish were found exclusively at one location (Station
2GC). We believe the near single species composition and the increased numbers of
brook trout in the upper reaches of Grassy Camp Creek (Stations 1GC and 3GC) is the
result of the fish barriers that were constructed below these areas and systematic removal
of redbreast sunfish during the 2000 sampling effort. Both these measures are part of the
overall brook trout habitat management plan for the site.
The single species composition of redbreast sunfish in the lower Grassy Camp Creek
(2GC) is likely the result of the small pond on the Highlands Cove site and the large
impoundment below the site which bracket this stream reach and have allowed sunfish to
out-compete brook trout in this small section of creek. The pre-construction survey also
showed a mixed species composition weighted toward redbreast sunfish in the lower
reaches of Grassy Camp Creek. The occurrence of both species in lower Shortoff Creek
(Station 1 S) is consistent with the species composition found during the baseline survey
(1999) and the first year of monitoring (2000). .
The primary threat to brook trout populations on the Highlands Cove site is the continued
migration of sunfish into the small headwater streams of Grassy Camp Creek and the
ultimate displacement of the native brook trout in these areas. In an effort to maintain the
maximum amount of brook trout habitat within the site, fish barriers (Appendix E) were
constructed at strategic locations in Grassy Camp Creek prior to the 2001 survey to
prevent migration of sunfish into these small headwater streams. Systematic removal of
sunfish from areas up stream of the fish barriers is also being accomplished in
conjunction with yearly fish sampling. We believe these efforts are successfully
minimizing the migration of sunfish into the small headwater streams.
3

4.0 SUMMARY
An initial pre-construction macroinvertebrate and fish survey was conducted on the
Highlands Cove site in summer 1999, in accordance with Special Condition Number 10
of the issued 401 Water Quality Certification. As required, three years of post-
construction fish and macroinvertebrate sampling have been conducted. This report
contains the results of year three of three of required post-construction monitoring, which
was conducted in June 2002.
The analysis of 1999 baseline and 2000 macroinvertebrate survey data used only
presence/absence data, whereas the 2001 and 2002 data used EPT species richness and
biotic index values. The 2001 and 2002 macroinvertebrate results are comparable, with
only slight variation in species richness and biotic value. The faunal composition appears
to be generally consistent for these two years, as well as the preceding year and the
baseline sampling. The upstream sampling location (1 S) on Shortoff Creek contained the
most macroinvertebrate taxa and had the highest biotic index value, whereas the lower
sampling location on Grassy Camp Creek (2GC) had the least macroinvertebrate taxa and
the lowest biotic index value. This trend is consistent throughout the four years of
sampling. We believe that the between-year variations are the normal result of seasonal
drought conditions and other factors including sampling bias and possibly the time of
year of sampling. It is our opinion that the macroinvertebrate species richness and biotic
index values are at least as high at the end of the third year of post-construction sampling
(2002) as these indices would have been during the pre-construction baseline sampling.
The 2002 fish sampling revealed increased numbers and aggregate weight of fish at all
sample locations, with significant increases of brook trout at all locations. The numbers
and weight of fish sampled during 2002 surpasses all three previous monitoring years,
including the baseline survey. Variation in species composition between stations
included a notable shift to more of a single species composition of brook trout at both
stations in Shortoff Creek (1 S and 2S) and the two sampling stations in upper Grassy
Camp Creek (1GC and 3GC), and a shift to red-breast sunfish composition in the lower
section of Grassy Camp Creek (2GC) between the newly created golf course pond and
the existing impoundment immediately downstream. We believe that the fish barriers
that have been installed have significantly improved the quality of existing brook trout
habitat in the upper Grassy Camp Creek system by eliminating or severely minimizing
migration of sunfish into these habitats. It is our opinion that the lower section of Grassy
Camp Creek below the golf course pond, which was already weighted heavily toward red
breast sunfish at the time of the baseline sampling, will continue to be primarily a red
breast sunfish stream.
The 2002 macroinvertebrate and fish sampling constitutes the third and final year of
required monitoring at the Highlands Cove site in accordance with Special Condition
Numberl0 of the issued 401 Water Quality Certification. We believe that Shortoff and
Grassy Camp Creeks are health environments as evidenced by fair to good assemblages
of fish and macroinvertebrates. Throughout the course of our overall wetland and stream
4
monitoring on the Highlands Cove site, which we have been performing for the last four
years, we have also observed brook trout in most of the small perennial streams on this
site. Extreme care was taken to minimize stream impacts throughout the design,
construction, and management of this development. We believe that these efforts have
been successful in maintaining, and in some cases improving, the overall quality of the
aquatic habitats on this site.
5
APPENDIX A
MAPS & SAMPLE LOCATIONS
- I?
°
a ° Y
I I ?
Vh \ \ \ v
¦
Oct ?
4?t? ? ` ?_?' 1 •M [(?) 'D6 ? \\?/ X11 " a ?I ?
? „gyp app.Y .ntvt 1tRCRV.,, ? V
O o .r r
'? po„ra 9
/ t e r D
° A ?, ?° t r e v
0 ?
° I
wt . oas.n ! ? e
S
?? ° ?l t d
•aa•..o. ? ° n i
t t
e
4iio
4::/ ?? 6 " -s -s y r617 Gee /c
P= . PFM
C)= DVMQ
CS)= ai cart
N rs)= . ru sort
zvi TWClt ,1m1 W9a 1
?.n SMIOT TRIP
.bra" Y Tan' MY my WU
t1'TTI RIP KAW
CM SD DA3 F(Y 420G
` _..? s,m
i
' ?-
Vnen
O 1 ? •\
OFUI
i , Y,t..
/v„n
Y / ?1pnN l'
?• r?J
WIWIL3
Qs„a ?
i
` ?- PHASE IIG
?? ?m ----_- ,
oil
s,m •\
ROAD ,
S•Cl??o% /D CCU ?? G?'7 -- sp`"
7' /7/- Gr 9.002
..
prw 0
7s.a \
00
\
par _
_ _ \ \ to
PHASE IVG ` pan \ ! ..... n \ 7a
r 1\ u
` , u? x,11\ \
pa10 2R \
731112 1 `?" 1
?; I « 13
77a
\ \ 270
UO
1 \I p?T
7Ya
\\ '
i
p3 O \\\ ..
7KGi I / NI
/ to
7K.3 / / \ !
/ I
p7n
7YRa ? • ? /
am
\plT2? .,, .. ? /
PHASE IVG
? 71nn / / O
7187 Q / pJn 721GI
/ 4 a
/ 7,372 ? j
' // ?_ 7217 I Z
2L1
V4
7m
?p•RO / ID TO
i
a i? 1 \ 1
p?n 77r ,42
/ i n7
* 73.21
r .a. ,r 1 / / - as
VWG2? PHASE IVG
1 \
? van Q=? n. 1 ?
1 I
\` ? ? ? ? 11\`\1
APPENDIX B
FIELD DATA SHEETS FOR SAMPLE LOCATIONS
l.5
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
S tr e a m,56/dee 7-4 Fig Location/road: /-52 (Road Name )County tMCI-'SOS
Date Z 3 4 ?- CC# Basin Subbasin
Observer(s) N/Z Type of Study: ? Fish ethos ? Basin'wide []Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:, 0/MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature /& °C DO - mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH -7- -
7-Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: ?Qd %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use :
orest j?griculture []Urban ? Animal operations upstream
vulf
17 2 W, Z
Width: (meters) Stream -2 • ZV Channel (at top of bank) w 4 Stream Depth: (m) AvgO• /_Max
'Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) 5
Bank Angle: o'd ° or ? NA (Vertical is 9(r, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight bankbanks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
[]Recent overbank deposits t2gardevelopment []Buried structures []Exposed bedrock
[]Excessive periphyton growth []Heavy filamentous algae growth []Green tinge []Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: []Rip-r cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : []High []Norma ow
Turbid iD Clear ?/Sllightly Turbid []Turbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions -'1i? ..5e" h -Photos; I i ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
?/? Spar ?? ?r- V
Remarks• 6GL')
2-S
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream?ffOl1T0?? Location/road: 2 -s -(Road Name AU A County ??G/.154??
Date- Z3 " D 2- CC# Basin 4 1 /r //G1yee Subbasin
Observer(s)?A Type of Study: ? Fishnthos El Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude EcoregionT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature _40/ DO - mg/I Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH Z
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: &?%Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields -% Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : .111_Forest?3Agriculture OUrban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream --9-7- Channel (at top of bank) ?? Stream Depth: (m) Avg- Max J
L, ? idth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) 6.4-
Bank Angle: j0 ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight banks []Both banks undercut at bend OChannel filled in with sedi ent
[]Recent overbank deposits []Bar development OBuried structures Exposed bedrock
[]Excessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth OGreen tinge []Sewage smeI]
Manmade Stabilization: ON ?Y: []Rip-r , cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure []Berm levee
Flow conditions : []High ONormal ow
Turbiditb?Clear ? Slightly Turbid []Turbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions:C //milPhotos ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: (`dT"T 7?
01
?J?C1l? ?Y10/is77G//n S JL?r'CCr?-?2 -
/?C--,
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream 612.1 S YtI A"/0 Location/road: l45 -(Road Name N l** )County cTI?C/!SO/U
Date 9--2 3 - 2- CC# Basin4??Z foll-r<< Subbasin 45,1
Observer(s) NA Type of Study: ? Fish dfienthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: V2.6 ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO-mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % ctive Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial -& %Other - Describe: Se
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agricultur&Pdrban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream1? Channel (at top of bank) / 6 Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max
L,AD-Vidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) 4'?' 2
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 9(°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits v1J'gar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge OSewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON ?Y: ?Rip-r , cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ?High ONorna ow
Turbid i Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
r
Weather Conditions -Photosi PN ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
__??'I
6-" C-
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream62l95S Yl'01W Location/road: 2 G (Road Name N) )County J?GI?SOi?
Date b ??3 "O 2-- CC# Basin LIC irlG?!'fss<< Subbasin
Observer(s)&9-- Type of Study: ? Fish d2rffenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion-.0"MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature ??°C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: AW %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agriculture_ fl'drban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream ?P Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max 3
L. idth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 9(°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel.
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
•Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend VCTC---hannel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits C-Zffir development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Cneen tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-ra , cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ?Hi ?Normal ow
Turbidity: OClealei Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
/t, f
Weather Conditions: G l??f/1
cSl/j'I?'l y Photos: ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: 6vCr55C, C e,4io ?!k - 12110W

/.S
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Streanv?/V OFF Locati6n/road: 15 (Road Name /J? 1 -)County J4C115 0A'l
Date y/ "2 CC# Basin ei/ire is? elssee Subbasin 4/
Observer(s)N/Z_ Type of Study: ?ish ?Benthos ? Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Y Ecoregion:V91"MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature ,1?°C DO '- mg/I Conductivity (corr.) '_ umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 114,0 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : orest Agriculture []Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 2.2- Channel (at top of bank) ,0 Stream Depth: (m) Avg G L Max C
Width variable [] Large river >25m wide
LJY?
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
Bank Angle: &0 ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight banks Wg_oth banks undercut at bend 1,06annel filled in with sediment
[]Recent overbank deposits V138ar development []Buried structures []Exposed bedrock
OExcessive periphyton growth []Heavy filamentous algae growth []Green tinge []Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: []Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : O ighLr?rmal []Low
Turbidity:lear ? Sli tly Turbid []Turbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions SC10e Photos: ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
?I
Remarks: ,GGtJ 10ir -eo D TO ?? L ?"
2 ,S
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream6AxneFF Location/road: ZS (Road Name W )County,7WC/-'SOit/
Date ( -27- 62- CC# Basin 17-77c rJ/ss? Subbasin
Observer(s) AN Type of Stud : Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:, o'MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature-A; _°C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) '- umhos/cm pH `
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 40 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : eV11- griculture []Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 2. 2 Channel (at top ofbank) ? Stream Depth: (m) Avg6•!! Max
L,0*1Vidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) ?• -¢
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is (°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight banks []Both banks undercut at bend []Channel filled in with sediment
[]Recent overbank deposits []Bar development []Buried structures posed bedrock
[]Excessive periphyton growth []Heavy filamentous algae growth []Green tinge []Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N Y: []Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
: []High ormal []Low
Flow cond71C
Turbidity ar [] S
lightly Turbid []Turbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions 7 PZ1A. 6 !kl ICJ Photo
sil d ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: IA21- e ?C s
/) sU/U/ 7 4'(7 ?!' • 5otx, S brAl 'OC/2

3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ TOTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Streaa (_52" f5.5 Y i?'/?O//'?7 Location/road: (?SC / (Road Name )County ?/?i?C/?SOG?
Date to -2 8^02- CC# Basin 6,' Tl'lf?E556C Subbasin 0
Observer(s),__M_ Type of Studyj Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:VPIMT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH `-
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe: Satz! n6,r_5 _
Watershed land use : OForest ?Agriculture_ 111 rban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 14 Channel (at top of bank) l_- Stream Depth: (m) Av Max
vO'Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
Bank Angle: ? ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?De ply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
ecent overbank deposits L,29-ar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure OBem1/levee
Flow conditioyyss : ?High ormal 131-ow
Turbidiv tear ? Slightly Turbid OTurbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions
Remarks:_ {, 629M,' ? ynno -Photos?dN ?Y ? Digital ?35mm

3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Strea2l9551'? Location/road: 6C 2 (Road Name )County ?i?C/CSQ/t/
Date y -2r-02- CC# Basi4lr rl9? lssi-e- Subbasin _ D
Observer(s)-R_ Type of Study:ish ?Benthos ? Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:V01'MT OP O Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature_ /7 °C DO - mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) - umhos/cm pH _
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 11M—. %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %lndustrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ?Forest []Agriculture rban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 2-& Channel (at top of bank) 2• Stream Depth: (m) AvgO•Z5 Max
L0'Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 909, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 909 indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight banks []Both banks undercut at bend LETChannel filled in with sediment
LA Recent overbank deposits LC&a-r development []Buried structures []Exposed bedrock
OExcessive periphyton growth []Heavy filamentous algae growth []Green tinge []Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N Y: []Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : []Hi ormal []Low
Turbidity; OCle Slightly Turbid []Turbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: WPhotos. 13Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: f?CISS ZI;1,41,0

3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an ' terme hate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
?
Stream62/45S YC?ff?l,4 (r-G
Location/road: .? (Road Name `tJ
df )County 74C 150
Date Y -2r-0.:2_ CC# Basin Ci?rt-ir, rtOoll/SSPe Subbasin
Observer(s) Type of Stud Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregioni,,O T ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature_/_?_70C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial g?W %Other - Describe: S L
Watershed land use : OForest ?Agricultur02<rban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream /- (QChannel (at top ofbank) ? Stream Depth: (m) Avg?Max
t,' idth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) 4? - Z.
Bank Angle:_ ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
11 Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
11?ecent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures V1}xposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berrn/levee
Flow conditio : ?High LONormal ?Low
Turbidi Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic OMilky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather ConditionsA( - Ct Photo ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: l??b - CJGt'i5S y Grs?? ?jtiGl/Z Cf,60G? ??Slil ?J' Gr!'`/rte'
APPENDIX C
TABLES - 2002

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta. 1S Sta. 2S Sta.1GC Sta.2GC

Ephemeroptera
Baetidae *4 CG 2
Baetis tricaudatus 1.63 CG 1
Pseudocloeon sp. 5 CG 2
Caenidae *7 CG
Caenis sp. 7.41 CG 1
Ephemeridae *4 CG
Ephemera sp. *3 CG 1
Ephemerellidae *1 SC
Drunella sp. *1 SC 15
Drunella tuberculata 0 SC 6
Ephemerella sp. 2.04 SC 1
Eurylophella sp. 4.34 SC 12 8 1
Heptageniidae *4 SC
Heptagenia sp. 2.57 SC 1
Stenacron pallidum 2.72 SC 2 3
Stenonema terminatum 4.1 SC 23 13 1
Isonychiidae *2 FC
Isonychia sp. 3.45 FC 15 2
Leptophlebiidae *2 CG
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.94 CG 2
Plecoptera
Leuctridae *0 SH
Leuctra sp. 0.67 SH 24 14 36 2
Nemouridae *2 SH
Amphinemura sp. 3.33 SH 3
Peltoperlidae - SH
Tallaperia sp. 1.18 SH 38 23 2 4
Perlidae *1 P
Perlesta sp. 4.7 P 1
Perlodidae *2 P
Malirekus hastatus 1.15 P 17 18 15 3
Pteronarcidae SH
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) sp. 1.67 SH 2
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC 5
Diplectrona modesta 2.21 FC 168 113 57 24
Hydropsyche sp. *5 FC 15 7
Parapsyche cardis 0 FC 1 18 1
Lepidostomatidae *1 SH
Lepidostoma sp. 6.22 FC 1
Limnephilidae *4 SH 1
Hydatophylax sp. *2 SH 2
Odontoceridae *0 SC
Psilotreta sp. 6.37 SC 2 3
Molannidae *6 -
Molanna sp. *6 SC 2
Philopotamidae *3 FC
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCLIENT2 9/12/2002
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta. IS Sta. 2S Sta.1 GC Sta. 2GC
Wormaldia sp. 0.65 FC 1 5
Polycentropodidae *6 FC
Phylocentropus sp. 6.2 FC 1
Polycentropus sp. 3.53 FC 2
Rhyacophilidae *0 P
Rhyacophila fuscula 1.88 P 3 1
Rhyacophila nigrita 0 P 1 1

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 325 225 152 47
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 16 16 17 10
Corrected EPT INDEX 20 20 24.65 14.5
ASSIGNED BIOTIC INDEX VALUES 2.24 1.80 2.45 3.03

Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCLIENT2 9/12/2002
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
Cell: A63
Comment: *Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
**North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10
for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes
***F.F.G.-Functional Feeding Group: CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering/Collectors, SC=Scrapers,
SH=Shredders, P=Predators and PI=Piercer
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCLIENT2 9/12/2002
Table 2-2002. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at Highlands Cove, June 28-29, 2002.
SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHV NUMBER/
HECTARES WEIGHT/
HECTARE
4
1GC BT 21 243.9 1,457.4 16.9
RBS 2. 48.2 138.8 3.3
2GC RBS 5 28.3 376.0 2.2
is BT 22 328.9 986.5 14.7
RBS 1 48.2 44.8 2.2
2S BT 50 751.2 2,304 34.6
RBS 0 0 0 0
3GC BT 28 317.5 2,500.1 28.3
' Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
2 Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
3 Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
a Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
5 Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.
APPENDIX D
TABLES PREVIOUS YEARS
1999 - 2001
7Zv(-1c,7Zi Ors 5 ? V,

Table 1. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera collected from
streams in the vicinity of Highlands Cove on July 26, 1999.
TAXON Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4
Arthropoda
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis brunneicolor x
Ephemerellidae
Drunella tuberculata x
Ephemerella catawba x
Serratella deficiens x x
Heptageniidae
Epeorus dispar x
Heptagenia margi•nalis x
Stenonema carlsoni x x
Leptophlebiidae
Paraleptophlebia spp. x x
Oligoneuriidae
Isonychia spp. x x
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp. x x x x
Nemouridae
Amphinemura spp. x x x
Peltoperlidae
Tallaperla spp. x x x x
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis x
Perlesta spp. x x
Perlodidae
Isoperla holochlora x

Isoperla major
x
x
x x
x
Remenus bilobatus

Pteronarcyidae x
Pteronarcys app. x
Trichoptera
Glossosomatidae
Glossosoma spp, x

Hydropsychidae x
Hydropsyche macleodi x x
Parapsyche cardis x
Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma spp. x x x
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche divergens x
Pycnopsyche gentilis x

Pycnopsyche guttifer
x x

Odontoceridae x
Psilotreta frontalis x

Philopotamidae x
Wormaldia spp. x
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus spp. x x
Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila fuscula
,
Rhyacophila nigrita x

Sericostomatidae x
Fattigia pele

Uenoidae x x
Neophylax mitchelli x
TOTAL TAXA FOUND 9 8 23 18

0

Figure Bioclassifications of locations in the 13ighland Cove project, based on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EM taxa collected on July 26, 1999.
ci
CA
CA
v
w
N
tT
3
rn
c
.c
O
'O
U
Z
N
Y
CU
U
O
O
L
c
cu
Cl
E
ca
U
a
N
N
N
c
N
c
O
w
S o

?
J
. U
U

^
V J .c
N
`?
o

C
,N
V N
c
O

r? \
"
o
V a

\V v
N
t
O
Z
a
C37
.s
N
W
J
V
M t j 04 ? Q? Mj
e- LO ?- tom-- ?- ? T O p CD
00 O C) 00 O N O
.a0 O Off Oa Cl r co r 00
L? ^ N co eV) p to p
L6 T-
M N V V-
CD N
CN 14, ?
^
Lo N
? ?
r O M M M T-
... N ? N M N N r
N .. ?-
. co
Z co N 04
N V M N
N
W
p
t
CA
d
0
V
O
Z
V)
O
t?
CL
O
R
V
O
J
U? 1, N v V' ? to CA
.a4 ? to ? - .N O O CA O
LO Cf) V) N V- N '7 ^ `t er-
V- -4r v CN CO CN M co eN-
t
s
t
N

C C

U C
3
N O
N =
N V N
O N O N O r..
O N O

p c
O,0 N '0
0O 0
O V
fl
N 'C7
co mcr C?
ma' `
m ca mw

?' O
LO O
r M V
N N
t
to
7
Q)
,a
E
c
N
.c
N
O
tn
CV
.a
O
cv
_E
N
W

k
200 G -- /s? Y/?- . ,POs 7-/
Table 1. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera collected by
Ecological Associates personnel from streams in the
vicinity of Highlands Cove on A ugust 19, 2000.
TAXON Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acerpenna spp. X
Ephemerellidae
Drunella tuberculata x
Eurylophella funeralis x
Ephemeridae
Ephemera spp. X
Heptageniidae
Epeorus dispar x
Stenonema carlsoni x X
Stenonema meririvulanum x
Oligoneuriidae
Isbnychia spp. X X
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp. X X X
Nemouridae
Amphinemura spp. X
Peltoperlidae
Tallaperla spp. X X X
Perlidae
Perlinella spp. X
Perlodidae
Yugus spp. X X
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche betteni x
Hydropsyche macleodi x X X
10dontoceridae
Psilotreta labida x X
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus spp. X X X
Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila spp. X
Sericostomatidae
Fattigia pele x X
TOTAL TAXA FOUND 4 6 13 9
s,
Af/

Figure 1. Bioclassifications of locations in the Highland Cove project, based on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa collected by Ecological Associates personnel on August 19, 2000.
Y

Table 3. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy Camp
and Shortoff Creeks at Highlands Cove during June 6-7, 2000.
SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHT NUMBER/
HECTARE3 WEIGHT/
HECTARE
4
1 ?C 1 BT 1 22.7 69.4 1.6
RBS 1 2.8 69.4 .19
2 Z RBS .2 5.7 150.4 .43
3 /, S 1 BT 6 223.0 269.0 9.99
RBS 1 19.9 44.2 .89
4 Czs? BT 14 170.1 645.1 7.84
RBS 5 56.7 230.0 2.61
5 rz BT 9 138.9 803.6 12.4
' Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
2 Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
a Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
4 Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
3 Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
SPECIES T.V ** F.F.G. `** 1GC 2GC 15 2S
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae *4 CG
Baetis sp. *4 CG 1 2
Pseudocloeon sp. 5 CG 2
Caenidae *7 CG
Caenis sp. 7.41 CG 1
Ephemeridae *4 CG
Ephemera sp. *3 CG 2
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 CG 1
Ephemerellidae *1 SC
Drunella sp. *1 SC 12 2
Eurylophella sp. 4.34 SC 3 1
Heptageniidae *4 SC
Heptagenia sp. 2.57 SC 1
Stenacron sp. *4 SC 2
Stenonema femoratum 7.18 SC 4
Stenonema terminatum 4.1 Sc 10 10 10
Isonychiidae *2 FC
lsonychia sp. 3.45 FC 1 20 37
Leptophlebiidae *2 CG 1 1
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.94 CG 1
Plecoptera
Chloroperlidae *1 P
Suwallia sp. 1.18 CG 1
Sweltsa sp. 0 P 1
Leuctridae *0 SH
Leuctra sp. 0.67 SH 31 1 40 59
Nemouridae *2 SH 1
Peltoperlidae - SH
Tallaperia sp. 1.18 SH 8 45 188 64
Perlidae *1 P
Periesta sp. 4.7 P 2
Perlodidae *2 P 1
Malirekus hastatus 1.15 P 27 38
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC
Arctopsyche sp. *1 FC 1
Diplectrona modesta 2.21 FC 18 25 45 51
Lepidostomatidae *1 SH
Lepidostoma sp. 6.22 FC 1
Limnephilidae *4 SH 1
Pycnopsyche sp. 2.52 SH 1 1
Odontoceridae - *0 SC
Psilotreta sp. 6.37 SC 1 2 1
Philopotamidae *3 FC
Wormaldia sp. 0.65 FC 1
Phryganeidae *4 SH
Oligostomis Sp. 2
Polycentropodidae *6 FC
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 ETP inverts 2001 12/11/2001
A
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G *** 1GC 2GC .1815 2S
Cymellus fratemus *8 FC
Nyctiophylax 0.85 FC
Phylocentropus sp. 6.2 FC
Polycentropus sp. 3.53 FC
Rhyacophilidae *0 P
Rhyacophila sp. *1 P
Sericostomatidae
Fattigia pele 0.88
Uenoidae
1
1
2 2
4 2 1
3 1
1
Neophylax sp. 2.2 SC 2
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 72 95 362 274
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 14 11 20 17
Corrected ETP Index 20.3 15.9 25 21.2
Assigned Biotic Index Value 2.43 2.82 2.03 2.38
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
Cell: A69
Comment: *Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
**North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10
for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes
***F.F.G.-Functional Feeding Group: CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering/Collectors, SC=Scrapers,
SH=Shredders, P=Predators and PI=Piercer
****Not included in analysis
3?
Table 2-2001. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at Highlands Cove, July 19-20, 2001.

SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHT' NUMBER/
HECTARES WEIGHT/
HECTARE
a
1GC BT 1 30.02 69.4 2.08
RBS 0. 0 0 0
2GC RBS 4 65.20 300.76 4.90
is BT 13 96.39 582.92 4.32
RBS 0 0 0 0
2S BT 16 246.64 737.28 11.37
RBS 0 0 0 0
3GC BT 27 184.27 2,410.83 16.45
' Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
2 Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
3 Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
4 Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
5 Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.
MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH SURVEY -2002
HIGHLANDS COVE, LLC -- ACTION ID NUMBER 199831148
?... 0w
??G
CEP ! 7 2002
4
1
w
PREPARED FOR WETL€'"S G7,
WA .i ' -°?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
PREPARED BY
Ecological Associates, Inc.
4676 Bears Bluff Road
Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina 29487
September 10, 2002
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Special Condition Number 10 of the issued Section 401 Water Quality Certification
required the applicant, Highlands Cove, LLC, to conduct an initial benthic and fish study
of Grassy Camp Creek and Shortoff Creek prior to construction of the instream pond on
Grassy Camp Creek. This task (pre-construction survey) was completed in August 1999,
with a report provided to The Division of Water Quality (DWQ), North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on August 31, 1999. The
issued 401 Certification also required an annual post-construction macroinvertebrate and
fish survey for three subsequent years, with reports being sent to the DWQ, Asheville
Regional Office by September 15'h of each monitoring year. The results of the first year
(2000) of post- construction fish and invertebrate survey were provided to the DWQ on
September 26, 2000. The DWQ reviewed the 2000 macroinvertebrate and fish survey
report and provided several recommendations, which were included in the 2001 report.
The results of the second year (2001) of post- construction fish and invertebrate survey
were provided to the DWQ on December 12, 2001. The DWQ reviewed the 2001
macroinvertebrate and fish survey report and provided several comments, which are
included in the 2002 report. The document that follows presents the results of the third
year (2002) of post-construction macroinvertebrate and fish survey performed in Grassy
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at the Highland Cove site.
2.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY
A benthic macroinvertebrate survey was performed on the Highlands Cove site on
August 23, 2002 by Ecological Associates, Inc. Macroinvertebrates were collected from
four locations - two locations in Grassy Camp Creek, and two locations in Shortoff
Creek. The sampling locations are described in Figures 1- 3 in Appendix A. Appendix
B contains field data sheets, which describe the conditions at each sample location at the
time of macroinvertebrate sampling. Collections were made in accordance with the "EPT
Method" as described in the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, April 2001 issued by DENR, DWQ,
Water Quality Section. The EPT Method involves one kick net sample in riffles or snag
habitat, one sweep net sample in bank areas, one leaf-pack sample, and one visual
sample. Members of insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT)
were collected, sorted from debris, and preserved in the field for later identification. The
laboratory analysis of preserved samples was conducted by Pennington and Associates,
Inc., a North Carolina certified laboratory. The samples were identified to the lowest
taxon practicable and analyzed according to the Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, April 2001, which included
biotic index values and EPT index values. Correction factors for high quality small
mountain streams were applied to EPT abundance values.
Table 1-2002 (Appendix C) contains the results of the macroinvertebrate sampling at four
locations (Samples 1GC and 2GC in Grassy Camp Creek, and Samples 1S and 2S in
Shortoff Creek) on the Highlands Cove site. The number of EPT taxa (EPT taxa
richness) for each sample location ranged from 10 to 17, with the highest number of taxa
(17) found at Station 1 GC in Grassy Camp Creek. The biotic index values for the four
sample locations ranged from 1.80 to 3.03, with the highest value (lowest number) found
at Station 2S in Shortoff Creek.
Appendix D contains tables for macroinvertebrate sampling for the three previous years
of sampling - 1999 (pre-construction sampling), 2000 (first year of post-construction
sampling), and 2001 (second year of post-construction sampling). The number of EPT
taxa for 2002 varied slightly from the previous year. Three of the stations showed a
decrease in EPT taxa - one station showed an increase in EPT taxa. The largest decrease
was at Station IS, which dropped from 20 to 16 - Stations 2S and 2GC decreased by one
taxon. Station 1GC showed an increase of three taxa from the previous year. Corrected
EPT index for these two years showed a similar comparison. The biotic index values for
2002 also showed some variation from the previous year. Two of the stations showed a
decrease in biotic value (higher number), one of the stations showed an increase in biotic
value (lower number), and one of the stations was essentially unchanged. The largest
decrease was at Station 1 S, which decreased 0.42 - Station 2GC decreased by 0.21,
Station 2S increased 0.58, and Station 1GC remained unchanged.
The faunal composition for all stations combined for 2002 was very similar to the
previous year. All functional feeding groups (FFG) that were identified in 2001 are also
present in 2002, with very little difference in the total numbers of each FFG. The faunal
composition for individual stations was also very similar for the two years, with the same
number of FFGs and roughly the same number of organisms in each FFG. The species
composition between surveys was also compared. The 2001 survey identified a total of
23 families of EPT organisms, whereas the 2002 survey identified 21 families of
organisms. Family Phryganidae and Sericostomatidae were not represented in the 2002
survey. All three post-construction years showed increases in the number of EPT
families present from the baseline sampling year of 1999.
3.0 FISH SURVEY
A fish survey was performed on the Highlands Cove site on June 28-29, 2002 by
Ecological Associates, Inc. Fish were surveyed at approximately the same four locations
(Figures 1-3, Appendix A) that were used for the macroinvertebrate study, as well as an
additional location, sample location 3GC, that was added after the pre-construction
survey at the request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Appendix B
contains field data forms for the five sample locations, showing conditions of the stream
at the sampling stations during the time of the fish survey. The fish survey was
conducted using a backpack electro-shocker, and consisted of a three-pass depletion
survey at each sample location. The sampling reach at locations 1 GC, IS, and 2S
consisted of a 100-meter stream segment - the sampling reach at locations 2GC and 3GC
consisted of 50 and 75 meters, respectively. All fishes collected were identified to
species, measured for individual total length, and weighed in aggregate by species.
2
Stream length and width at each sampling location was measured to calculate surface
area for standing crop determinations.
Table 2-2002, contained in Appendix C, depicts the results of fish sampling at five
locations (Samples 1GC and 2GC in Grassy Camp Creek, and Samples 1S and 2S in
Shortoff Creek) on the Highlands Cove site. The total number of fish collected at each
sampling location ranged from five to 50. Aggregate weight ranged from 28.3 grams to
751.2 grams, with the greatest number and aggregate weight from station 2S (Table 2-
2002). Two of the five sample locations (2S and 3GC) contained only brook trout, and
one of the five sample locations (2GC) contained only red breast sunfish. Two of the
stations (IS and 1 GC) contained both brook trout and red breast sunfish.
Tables containing the results of the three previous years of fish sampling are also
contained in Appendix D for reference and comparison. The 2002 sampling revealed
increases in numbers and aggregate weight of fish at all sampling locations on the
Highlands Cove site. Particularly large increases were observed for Stations 2S and
1 GC, which showed dramatic increases of brook trout. Station 1 S also showed a
significant increase of brook trout - Station 2GC was essentially the same. The 2002
sampling, unlike the 2001 results which showed single species composition in four of
five sampling locations, revealed that brook trout and red breast sunfish occurred in three
of the five sampling locations. Brook trout were found exclusively at one location
(Station 3GC), and redbreast sunfish were found exclusively at one location (Station
2GC). We believe the near single species composition and the increased numbers of
brook trout in the upper reaches of Grassy Camp Creek (Stations 1GC and 3GC) is the
result of the fish barriers that were constructed below these areas and systematic removal
of redbreast sunfish during the 2000 sampling effort. Both these measures are part of the
overall brook trout habitat management plan for the site.
The single species composition of redbreast sunfish in the lower Grassy Camp Creek
(2GC) is likely the result of the small pond on the Highlands Cove site and the large
impoundment below the site which bracket this stream reach and have allowed sunfish to
out-compete brook trout in this small section of creek. The pre-construction survey also
showed a mixed species composition weighted toward redbreast sunfish in the lower
reaches of Grassy Camp Creek. The occurrence of both species in lower Shortoff Creek
(Station IS) is consistent with the species composition found during the baseline survey
(1999) and the first year of monitoring (2000). .
The primary threat to brook trout populations on the Highlands Cove site is the continued
migration of sunfish into the small headwater streams of Grassy Camp Creek and the
ultimate displacement of the native brook trout in these areas. In an effort to maintain the
maximum amount of brook trout habitat within the site, fish barriers (Appendix E) were
constructed at strategic locations in Grassy Camp Creek prior to the 2001 survey to
prevent migration of sunfish into these small headwater streams. Systematic removal of
sunfish from areas up stream of the fish barriers is also being accomplished in
conjunction with yearly fish sampling. We believe these efforts are successfully
minimizing the migration of sunfish into the small headwater streams.
4.0 SUMMARY
An initial pre-construction macroinvertebrate and fish survey was conducted on the
Highlands Cove site in summer 1999, in accordance with Special Condition Number 10
of the issued 401 Water Quality Certification. As required, three years of post-
construction fish and macroinvertebrate sampling have been conducted. This report
contains the results of year three of three of required post-construction monitoring, which
was conducted in June 2002.
The analysis of 1999 baseline and 2000 macroinvertebrate survey data used only
presence/absence data, whereas the 2001 and 2002 data used EPT species richness and
biotic index values. The 2001 and 2002 macroinvertebrate results are comparable, with
only slight variation in species richness and biotic value. The faunal composition appears
to be generally consistent for these two years, as well as the preceding year and the
baseline sampling. The upstream sampling location (1 S) on Shortoff Creek contained the
most macroinvertebrate taxa and had the highest biotic index value, whereas the lower
sampling location on Grassy Camp Creek (2GC) had the least macroinvertebrate taxa and
the lowest biotic index value. This trend is consistent throughout the four years of
sampling. We believe that the between-year variations are the normal result of seasonal
drought conditions and other factors including sampling bias and possibly the time of
year of sampling. It is our opinion that the macroinvertebrate species richness and biotic
index values are at least as high at the end of the third year of post-construction sampling
(2002) as these indices would have been during the pre-construction baseline sampling.
The 2002 fish sampling revealed increased numbers and aggregate weight of fish at all
sample locations, with significant increases of brook trout at all locations. The numbers
and weight of fish sampled during 2002 surpasses all three previous monitoring years,
including the baseline survey. Variation in species composition between stations
included a notable shift to more of a single species composition of brook trout at both
stations in Shortoff Creek (IS and 2S) and the two sampling stations in upper Grassy
Camp Creek (1GC and 3GC), and a shift to red-breast sunfish composition in the lower
section of Grassy Camp Creek (2GC) between the newly created golf course pond and
the existing impoundment immediately downstream. We believe that the fish barriers
that have been installed have significantly improved the quality of existing brook trout
habitat in the upper Grassy Camp Creek system by eliminating or severely minimizing
migration of sunfish into these habitats. It is our opinion that the lower section of Grassy
Camp Creek below the golf course pond, which was already weighted heavily toward red
breast sunfish at the time of the baseline sampling, will continue to be primarily a red
breast sunfish stream.
The 2002 macroinvertebrate and fish sampling constitutes the third and final year of
required monitoring at the Highlands Cove site in accordance with Special Condition
Numberl0 of the issued 401 Water Quality Certification. We believe that Shortoff and
Grassy Camp Creeks are health environments as evidenced by fair to good assemblages
of fish and macroinvertebrates. Throughout the course of our overall wetland and stream
4
monitoring on the Highlands Cove site, which we have been performing for the last four
years, we have also observed brook trout in most of the small perennial streams on this
site. Extreme care was taken to minimize stream impacts throughout the design,
construction, and management of this development. We believe that these efforts have
been successful in maintaining, and in some cases improving, the overall quality of the
aquatic habitats on this site.
APPENDIX A
MAPS & SAMPLE LOCATIONS
alpl,141-1 - -
J?

?O
1W !ei!
,
?lj \ n;,
I ? \? P \\ P OFA P
? \\ P \\ 1 I a t
` \ _ \ A a I P a ? 1
\ " 1 A A I / " ? P // ' II P
?I ' 1 L? i a
( t ` t t
_ I ? a I t t
`I i ; A a \ \ ? a pM
A \
I - 1
NO 0
41
/ y 1 ? A • I '
_ ¦ • \ 1
13
I , • 1 a
V
V
1 l^
vJ

! B ? b
¦yw•In ux«• /
v e /
a 1 ?, R ? a i / a
a a \\ z \ ?? \ a / ! / a
\? i i i ! a \
! 1
V /
b
/ a
e
?Y+gY4 hI+VV V r4rl • ?+• d • •_?
,11lilMlatrypy) • ?V Ill • 11 fAw
r GRAPHIC SCALE
? QCG7?ia?s - -
lrcFw
P= . PM
cl= DUIrQ
mma W S:ot
N Fs= n: sot
= 11PCk WOOL DESOU. f
7Tf1 5XIOT tW
M7N9rt ri7.n' MW CCU IQj
YM " KAW
(M SMDALS iCR VIC
' \ omm
N \,o
lk?
6r C?
?r7 ? sign r I ? ',
oniTz
\ 'b Y / onpnN f.
? - on
OO ? ?/Ar??d
s+mu Q % ?d
Osnrs •
i
man
O d PHASE IIG
,•? I nu O ?'Y
\` J Cam` .n '? \ \ Ci l.?
IJG
s+m
oU ?• 4 •?,
ROAD
N, % ''' 4
5YYC1 _? n rr I
PHASE NO swell \ I •r ?• 77 \I ?\ 735
I ?1 \ Is
1" 737 \
111 \\ \
lulu 7R \
1 '1 Mw51 l \ \ L /
/I
711
\ \ / 77
\ \ 230
5vm. "In
\t WS7 /
fSP377 O /
777
59./07 r 90761 - ,'
9r61 ? / 71
JQ
7u
940775
/
PHASE NG? ?
/
9.n17 , 97x711 >rw7 0 / . O 9aci \ '??
i 9m
/ p
/? Y ^ 7 w.?.U
9Yw1 9275
? a
sa 977} 1
i' ? `\ ? \ 771
9.
771 211
Imo.,, 97.6:
/ I n7
* Q / 595/1771
/ n1 \
9X61
I , 9»w 91767 PHASE IVG
- . ' 715 ,
no
I+1 ` ? ? Q nl /
APPENDIX B
FIELD DATA SHEETS FOR SAMPLE LOCATIONS
l.5
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream.5//,027`OFf Location/road: (Road Name Gl? )County tTI?G/eSO/tl
Date Z 3 ' ?- CC# Basin Subbasin
Observer(s) /V/2 Type of Study: ? Fish ethos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:, ,l?I/M T ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature /& °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH 77.2-
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: _%Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use :
orest jl?griculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
vurf
/7 2
Width: (meters) Stream_,_ . ZV Channel (at top of bank) 4 Stream Depth: (m) Avg44,. / Max
'Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) Q 5
Bank Angle: O d ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight bankt:kar banks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ORip-ran. cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ?High ?Norma ow
Turbidity Clear ? Slightly Turbid OTurbid ?Tannic OMilky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions a?o/ i Sv ?'! Photos; 1 ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: 6a')
2-S
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream_51-1-012rQF-F -Location/road: 2 .S (Road Name /J A )County •Ti4G/ISOS?
Date_ 3-02- CC# Basin L/?r Aalyp e, Subbasin
Observer(s) Type of Study: ? Fish Xenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude EcoregionIT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature 40" DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH Z
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: B_&_%Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : VForestVOAgriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Z• 2 Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avgd_/ Max J
t, Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)4-
Bank Angle: j 0 ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sedi ent
?Recent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures xposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-r , cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ?High ?Normal ow
Turbiditp-M-lear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions:?1?l /SZ-"W !• y Photos ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: ///1262 SU/O-'10744 e le-e-AZ g7a 61,?011 t
l??
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream 6/2,0 S Y?o' --*"?o Location/road: l GG (Road Name N -)County cT G/!SO/U
Date 9--,03-62- CC# Basin4 t 1f/?/SJ?? Subbasin 6
Observer(s) NA Type of Study: ? Fish ZrBenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: SIT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: TemperatureoC DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % ctive Crops
%Fallow Fields % Conunercial %lndustrial ?%Other - Describe: Se
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agricultur&Pdr`ban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream-Z-4_ Channel (at top of bank) / tP Stream Depth: (m) Avg L.? Max
G,LaWidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) "?' 2-
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits t. kaar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
OExcessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rte, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ?High ONorma ow
Turbidi Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
r
Weather Conditions t???' iLsl/!?`l?1 PhotosL N OY ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: ???? ?S 7L`lCIl?I l-V /T/
z 6-P G
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE)
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream62# 65Y1Oolll ? Location/road: 2GG (Road Name A )IX )County .Ji4G/-es4/?
Date O -23 'O Z CC# Basin L;C A'&,0eXsee Subbasin O t/
Observer(s).A(2 Type of Study: ? Fish d319'enthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion.,Z"MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature ?C °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: A JL9 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial / %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agriculture- P1 rban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream ?P Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max 3
L,FJ'Tidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) ?•
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend VEI-C-hannel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits L,215ar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON ?Y: ?Rip-ra , cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ?Hi ?Normal ow
Turbidity: ?Cle Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannie ?Milky OColored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: G l??/1 csl/1'I?'l Photos: ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: vG55 Cf G!' - loev /I -/Gl 06'! GYM Q !
Gl IOOUt' /dJ -?ST??a?i?r i?pG/, r
rS
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ fJPOTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream6/a/"7-0FF Locati6n/road
(Road Name /Y
-)County OA/
15
1*19
Date 4? -Z 7`0 2 CC# Basin 611--IC r",15-ree Subbasin 4/
Observer(s)NIZ_ Type of Study Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude YYYY Ecoregion:VZMT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature _14°C DO '- mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) "-umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: A40 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : orest Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 2 Channel (at top of bank) ,D Stream Depth: (in) Avg 2- M ax
Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) 0-
Bank Angle: g0 ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks oth banks undercut at bend L,06annel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits vOSar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Crreen tinge OSewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Bermflevee
Flow conditio : ?HighLj;Ko_rmal ?Low
Turbidi fear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
"17-
Weather Condditions?_ 1
Remarks: I,GGtJ r?? &1r,/5C/!9i/7
?Gl C D'f ?? Phootos::-[ 1
DI?TI? 14V? L /J ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
?"

Z:s
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
StrearA6/KwT0 FF Location/road: (Road Name VIA _)County ', We/_l50l/
Date 2 7" d Z CC# BasinC-1r7"/e ?ll?rJrssc e Subbasin
Observer(s) 6/k Type of Stud : Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion.?, RMT? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature -°C DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) '- mhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: /10 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : VEtrorest agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
l/ /
Width: (meters) Stream 2• Z Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg%?J Max
02rvidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)?
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
ODeeply incised-steep,straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures posed bedrock
OExcessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N 9Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ?High U2Normal ?Low
TurbidityClear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid OTannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions J?i?___ -Photosi Ql 13Y 13 Digital ?35mm
Remarks: ??f1PI' ed 1,sl//(//7?4' ?!' • SO?exr SbC/ltOC/2
l?-
3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream?5A645 S Y rAA71i? Location/road: e?lG (Road Named 4 -)County L/?i?C/?SOG?
Date CC# Basin6 ?C rtOWU$S« / Subbasin 0 r/
Observer(s)-Ag_ Type of Studyj ?Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:V IMT ? P ? Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature /(/ DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe.??6,,k,
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agriculture_ lrban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream /=41-...... Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Av Max
pgMidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
Bank Angle: 00 ° or O NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
ODe ply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
ecent overbank deposits L,09ar development ?Buried structures OExposed bedrock
OExcessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge OSewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ?High ?ormal ?Low
Turbiditlear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions i, lOV?u , SC/ni9 0 Photos- ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
?cf-
3/01 Revision b
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Strea /1l955,yeXh'l Location/road: 6C 2 (Road Name N/0 County 7,04c/-X5 4 -y
Date to -2r-02- CC# Basin6A!!?? rGlW7o1ss'-e Subbasin /
Observer(s)-m_ Type of Study: p'*F"ish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:MT O P O Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
00,
Water Quality: Temperature 11'7 °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 10d %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields -% Commercial %lndustrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : OForest ?Agriculture ?Jrban ? Animal operations upstream 1-1
Width: (meters) Stream 2.62 Channel (at top of bank) 2• Stream Depth: (m) Avg_25 Max d-30
L0'Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
Bank Angle:_ ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is (°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
0Deeply incised-steep,straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
L,P1Recent overbank deposits LJ2ff'a-r development ?Buried structures OExposed bedrock
OExcessive periphyton growth OHeavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge OSewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure OBerm/levee
Flow conditions : ?Hi ormal ?Low
Turbidity.: ?Cl Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions:
Zzx?
G? ! dPho/tos OY ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: //4>'?'?5Sc1 t116(11? (_`i'el? ?rld/.J 10017 4 1-2074,d .

3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an ' terme late score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream6/2/#SSYCJ ,O L G-G W dt /
ocatton/road: 3 (Road Name )County ?Ti¢G 154
Date Y - 2 ?- ?- CC# Basin r7?rr-
TGliyr'sSPe Subbasin O
Observer(s)/ Type of Stud Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregionv0 MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature?_°C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) umhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture °/ Active Crops
%Fallow Fields -% Commercial %Industrial ZW %Other - Describe: e-
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?AgriculturpW`ban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Q _ Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg L • Max
V2-VVidth variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) 4?- Z.
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deepl.y incised-steep,straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
11?ecent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures V xposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ?High formal ?Low
Turbidi Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid OTannic OMi1ky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: 7r Ct Photo ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: ! lr?? - CJGI'iSS ?lYj) / (jl/GC/L Cf,?000 ?iSlii ?J, r4, l!?
APPENDIX C
TABLES - 2002
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta. 1S Sta. 2S Sta.1GC Sta.2GC
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae *4 CG 2
Baetis tricaudatus 1.63 CG 1
Pseudocloeon sp. 5 CG 2
Caenidae *7 CG
Caenis sp. 7.41 CG
Ephemeridae *4 CG
Ephemera sp. *3 CG 1
Ephemerellidae *1 SC
Drunella sp. *1 SC 15
Drunella tuberculata 0 SC 6
Ephemerella sp. 2.04 SC 1
Eurylophella sp. 4.34 SC 12 8
Heptageniidae *4 SC
Heptagenia sp. 2.57 SC 1
Stenacron pallidum 2.72 SC 2 3
Stenonema terminatum 4.1 SC 23 13 1
Isonychiidae *2 FC
Isonychia sp. 3.45 FC 15 2
Leptophlebiidae *2 CG
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.94 CG 2
Plecoptera
Leuctridae *0 SH
Leuctra sp. 0.67 SH 24 14 36
Nemouridae *2 SH
Amphinemura sp. 3.33 SH 3
Peltoperlidae - SH
Tallaperia sp. 1.18 SH 38 23 2
Perlidae *1 P
Perlesta sp. 4.7 P 1
Perlodidae *2 P
Malirekus hastatus 1.15 P 17 18 15
Pteronarcidae SH
Pteronarcys (Allonarcys) sp. 1.67 SH 2
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC 5
Diplectrona modesta 2.21 FC 168 113 57
Hydropsyche sp. *5 FC 15
Parapsyche cardis 0 FC 1 18 1
Lepidostomatidae *1 SH
Lepidostoma sp. 6.22 FC 1
Limnephilidae *4 SH 1
Hydatophylax sp. *2 SH 2
Odontoceridae *0 SC
Psilotreta sp. 6.37 SC 2
Molannidae *6 -
Molanna sp. *6 SC 2
Philopotamidae *3 FC
1
1
2
4
3
24
7
3
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCL1ENT2 9/12/2002
6ENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta. 1S Sta. 2S Sta. 1GC Sta.2GC
Wormaldia sp. 0.65 FC 1 5
Polycentropodidae *6 FC
Phylocentropus sp. 6.2 FC 1
Polycentropus sp. 3.53 FC 2
Rhyacophilidae *0 P
Rhyacophila fuscula 1.88 P 3 1
Rhyacophila nigrita 0 P 1 1

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 325 225 152 47
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 16 16 17 10
Corrected EPT INDEX 20 20 24.65 14.5
ASSIGNED BIOTIC INDEX VALUES 2.24 1.80 2.45 3.03
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCLIENT2 9/12/2002
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
HIGHLAND COVE, AUGUST 2002.
Cell: A63
Comment: *Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
"North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10
for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes
**`F.F.G.-Functional Feeding Group: CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering/Collectors, SC=Scrapers,
SH=Shredders, P=Predators and PI=Piercer
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 3 ecologicalassohighlandcoveCLIENT2 9/12/2002
Table 2-2002. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at Highlands Cove, June 28-29, 2002.
SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHT2 NUMBER/
HECTARE' WEIGHT/
HECTARE
a
1GC BT 21 243.9 1,457.4 16.9
RBS 2. 48.2 138.8 3.3
2GC RBS 5 28.3 376.0 2.2
is BT 22 328.9 986.5 14.7
RBS 1 48.2 44.8 2.2
2S BT 50 751.2 2,304 34.6
RBS 0 0 0 0
3GC BT 28 317.5 2,500.1 28.3
' Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
3 Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
4 Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
5 Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.
APPENDIX D
TABLES PREVIOUS YEARS
1999 - 2001

Table 1. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera collected from
streams in the vicinity of Highlands Cove on July 26, 1999.
TAXON Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4
Arthropoda
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis brunneicolor x
Ephemerellidae
Drunella tuberculata x
Ephemerella catawba x
Serratella deficiens x x
Heptageniidae
Epeorus dispar x
Heptagenia margi•nalis x
Stenonema carlsoni x x
Leptophlebiidae
Paraleptophlebia spp. x x
Oligoneuriidae
Isonychia spp. x x
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp. x x x x
Nemouridae
Amphinemura spp. x x x
Peltoperlidae
Tallaperla spp. x x x x
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis x
Perlesta spp, x x
Perlodidae
Isoperla holochlora x x
Isoperla major x x x x
Remenus bilobatus x
Pteronarcyidae
Pteronarcys spp. x
Trichoptera
Glossosomatidae
Glossosoma spp. x x
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche macleodi x x
Parapsyche cardis x
Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma spp. x x x
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche divergens x
Pycnopsyche gentilis x x
Pycnopsyche guttifer x x
Odontoceridae
Psilotreta frontalis x x
Philopotamidae
WormaIdia spp. x
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus spp. x x
Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila fuscula
.
Rhyacophila nigrita x
x
Sericostomatidae
Fattigia pele x

Uenoidae x
Neophylax mitchelli x
TOTAL TAXA FOUND 9 8 23 18
/?V? - ile - Caa1.s Irele.11-ion
e
.v

FigurefBioclassifications of locations in the Highland Cove project, based on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EM taxa collected on July 26, 1999.
M V7 04 r M 00
Le) Lo O M Lfj ~ 00
O
p CO ?p
•- to ": V- M ?- ems- ?

O
?-
.?C
C
O p
M
p
p 00 0
p
O N M
O
0

Z V r 00 0
0

N

Q ?
v
01 N ^ N •V ? p to CA
V yd
y 00
N L6 M
?- r' 00
M N
? V q) O
r
U v
Z
vi
Y
N
U j
? U
'OC
L o
LO C^O
CV t
9, ^ M
O M
?- i LO
M
- O N
M a--
i
« _ 0 N N N
'a 0 0
v ?..i M
v N
v v
cu Z N CO N M CV 00 N C14
Q r8
N W
U '

g Z
to _ L
sj LO N
L6 v
-04 r
C) 0 p>
C) 0) C)
C
o
N M c i co
N M
V 1?
?t e-
N
C y
O
s o
V
E w

^,\ V r N
d
r N
O N e-
M
N 00 r

L
^
vJ N
.O N N N N
N 3 C 3 U C
a
N d
0
C
=3
O N O cN0 O vi 0
v N .
N `
.. ? `9 N `
"' O O
.. O

Q C Y 1o
$? Y m
84) Y
O0 Y
L y Y ?-

co Q:
m?
m?
m ca
co co
?

V" 7
o
.
o E
C ?\ `_ LO _O M ty
J N N
s
rn
c?
U
a)
E
C
a)
t
N
O
O
(0
W
r

r
2OD (-) /S7/ y?- - 120S 7-/ -6J`J <c
71-
Table 1. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera collected by
Ecological Associates personnel from streams in the
vicinity of Highlands Cove on August 19, 2000.
TAXON Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acerpenna spp. X
Ephemerellidae
Drunella tuberculata x
Eurylophella funeralis x
Ephemeridae
Ephemera spp. X
Heptageniidae
Epeorus dispar x
Stenonema carlsoni x X
Stenonema meririvulanum X
Oligoneuriidae
Isbnychia spp. X X
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp. X X X
Nemouridae
Amphinemura spp. X
Peltoperlidae
Tallaperla spp. X X X
Perlidae
Perlinella spp. X
Perlodidae
Yugus spp. X X
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche betteni x
Hydropsyche macleodi x X X
'Odontoceridae
Psilotreta labida x X
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus spp. X X X
Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila spp. X
Sericostomatidae
Fattigia pele x X
TOTAL TAXA FOUND 4 6 13 9
{
t
t
nur:

Figure 1. Bioclassifications of locations in the Highland Cove project, based on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa collected by Ecological Associates personnel on August 19, 2000.

ZDO D - /S ? \/???OS
L
Table 3. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy Camp
and Shortoff Creeks at Highlands Cove during June 6-7, 2000.
SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHT2 NUMBER/
HECTARE3 WEIGHT/
HECTARE
a
1 / BT 1 22.7 69.4 1.6
RBS 1 2.8 69.4 .19
2 Z RBS .2 5.7 150.4 .43
3 /, S \ BT 6 223.0 269.0 9.99
?J RBS 1 19.9 44.2 .89
4 BT 14 170.1 645.1 7.84
RBS 5 56.7 230.0 2.61
5 cz BT 9 138.9 803.6 12.4
Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
2 Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
J Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
a Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
S Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.
7--/q61- E- /- z o e -- arc! '00oo-174?pr eel'
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G *** 1GC 2GC 15 2S
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae *4 CG
Baetis sp. *4 CG 1 2
Pseudocloeon sp. 5 CG 2
Caenidae *7 CG
Caenis sp. 7.41 CG 1
Ephemeridae *4 CG
Ephemera sp. *3 CG 2
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 CG 1
Ephemerellidae *1 SC
Drunella sp. *1 SC 12 2
Eurylophella sp. 4.34 SC 3 1
Heptageniidae *4 SC
Heptagenia sp. 2.57 SC 1
Stenacron sp. *4 SC 2
Stenonema femoratum 7.18 Sc 4
Stenonema terminatum 4.1 SC 10 10 10
Isonychiidae *2 FC
Isonychia sp. 3.45 FC 1 20 37
Leptophlebiidae *2 CG 1 1
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.94 CG 1
Plecoptera
Chloroperlidae *1 P
Suwallia sp. 1.18 CG 1
Sweltsa sp. 0 P 1
Leuctridae *0 SH
Leuctra sp. 0.67 SH 31 1 40 59
Nemouridae *2 SH 1
Peltoperlidae - SH
TallapeHa sp. 1.18 SH 8 45 188 64
Perlidae *1 P
Perlesta sp. 4.7 P 2
Perlodidae *2 P 1
Malirekus hastatus 1.15 P 27 38
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC
Arctopsyche sp. *1 FC 1
Diplectrona modesta 2.21 FC 18 25 45 51
Lepidostomatidae *1 SH
Lepidostoma sp. 6.22 FC 1
Limnephilidae *4 SH 1
Pycnopsyche sp. 2.52 SH 1 1
Odontoceridae - *0 SC
Psilotreta sp. 6.37 SC 1 2 1
Philopotamidae *3 FC
Wormaldia sp. 0.65 FC 1
Phryganeidae *4 SH
Oligostomis Sp. 2
Polycentropodidae *6 FC
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 ETP inverts 2001 12/11/2001
`BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G `** 1GC 2GC ,IS' y 2S
Cyrnellus fratemus *8 FC 1
Nyctiophylax 0.85 FC 1
Phylocentropus sp. 6.2 FC 2 2
Polycentropus sp. 3.53 FC 4 2 1
Rhyacophilidae *0 P
Rhyacophila sp. *1 P 3 1
Sericostomatidae
Fattigia pele 0.88
Uenoidae
Neophylax sp. 2.2 SC 2
1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 72 95 362 274
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 14 11 20 17
Corrected ETP Index 20.3 15.9 25 21.2
Assigned Biotic Index Value 2.43 2.82 2.03 2.38
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GRASSY CAMP CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 2001.
Cell: A69
Comment: *Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
**North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10
for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes
***F.F.G.-Functional Feeding Group: CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering/Collectors, SC=Scrapers,
SH=Shredders, P=Predators and PI=Piercer
****Not included in analysis
Table 2-2001. Population statistics for fish collected from five locations in Grassy
Camp and Shortoff Creeks at Highlands Cove, July 19-20, 2001.

SAMPLE
LOCATION SPECIES NUMBER
COLLECTED' AGGREGATE
WEIGHT' NUMBER/
HECTARES WEIGHT/
HECTARE
4
I GC BT 1 30.02 69.4 2.08
RB S 0. 0 0 0
2GC RBS 4 65.20 300.76 4.90
is BT 13 96.39 582.92 4.32
RBS 0 0 0 0
2S BT 16 246.64 737.28 11.37
RBS 0 0 0 0
3GC BT 27 184.27 2,410.83 16.45
' Number of individuals of each species collected at each sample location.
z Aggregate (total) weight of all individuals of each species expressed in grams.
3 Estimated number of fish per hectare of each species.
4 Estimated weight of fish per hectare of each species expressed in kilograms.
5 Brook trout.
6 Redbreast sunfish.