20051748 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20100304

20051'lLib
LOWELL MILL DAM-LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED
RESTORATION SITE
2008 Annual Monitoring Report (Year-3)
#0@120! ?"V?
Johnston County, North Carolina "
EEP Project No. D04008-2 MAR ? 2 pf0
Design Firm: Milone and MacBroom, Inc. DE
M'ET1,,?yDS?WATE
?NCFI
November 2008
Prepared for: NCDENR - ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Prepared by: ECOSCIENCE: A DIVISION OF PBS&J
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
rY
ggs,tem
Eement
PROGRAM
LOWELL MILL DAM-LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED
RESTORATION SITE
2008 Annual Monitoring Report (Year-3)
k ' a JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
N'atut ,ti Resources
RcstoaOttmilt&Consell moll
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
PROJECT MANAGER: GEORGE HOWARD
1101 Haynes Street Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
EcoScience
.4 Diivsion of
Pw
ECOSCIENCE: A DIVISION OF PBS&J
PROJECT MANAGER: JENS GERATZ
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
The
Cat nna
Group
THE CATENA GROUP
PROJECT MANAGER: TIM SAVIDGE
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Dam removal projects performed pursuant to the North Carolina Dam Removal Task Force
(DRTF) are required to quantitatively demonstrate chemical and biological improvements to the
watershed in order to achieve compensatory mitigation credit (DRTF 2001). The following
monitoring report documents the latest efforts by Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), on behalf of
the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), to document changes in the study area of
the Lowell Mill Dam removal effort. The suite of ecological evaluations performed and
described herein establishes new standards for mitigation monitoring. This standard is in keeping
with the goal set forth by state and federal agencies to provide functional ecological gains to
North Carolina watersheds through the efforts of the NCEEP and its contract partners.
The site of the former Lowell Mill Dam is approximately 0.3 mile downstream (south) of
Interstate 95 between the towns of Micro and Kenly (Figure 1, Appendix A) on the Little River, a
tributary of the Neuse (Neuse Hydrologic Unit 03020201). Approximately 36,875 linear feet of
the Little River and two tributaries (Little Buffalo Creek and an unnamed tributary) were
impounded by the dam (Figure 2, Appendix A). Impacts to water quality within the former Site
Impoundment (i.e., river and stream reaches formerly impounded by the dam) were manifested in
the form of lower dissolved oxygen concentrations, higher temperatures, and increased
sedimentation. The character of the aquatic communities shifted from a free-flowing (lotic) river
system towards an impounded (lentic) condition following construction of a dam at the site,
approximately 200 years ago. Rare and endangered mussel and fish habitat, which depend on
free-flowing lotic conditions, was greatly altered or diminished within areas of the Little River
impounded by the former dam. The dam also blocked the passage of anadromous fish,
extirpating them from upstream reaches.
The dam was removed in a manner that minimized impacts to water resources both upstream and
downstream of the dam site. Gradual dewatering began in March of 2004, and dam removal
began in December 2005. The dam structure and associated mill works were completely
removed by January 18, 2006. For documentation and quantification of the Lowell Dam removal
process and associated water quality effects, see Riggsbee et al. (2007a-d).
This report summarizes Year-3 (2008) project monitoring. Monitoring data continue to follow
trends displayed during Year-1 (2006) and Year-2 project monitoring. These trends indicate a
demonstrably favorable shift towards the restoration of the aquatic community and towards water
quality attributes more typical of lotic flow conditions within the former Site Impoundment. In
2006, American shad (Alosa sapidissima) were captured within the Little River well upstream of
the former dam, confirming the restoration of anadromous fish passage within (and upstream of)
the former Site Impoundment.
Monitoring Plan
A monitoring plan was developed in accordance with DRTF guidelines to evaluate success in
fulfilling the project's primary success criteria, which include 1) re-colonization of rare and
EEP Project No. D04008-2 i Lowell Mill Dam Removal
protected aquatic species, 2) improved water quality, 3) an improved aquatic community, and
4) restoration of anadromous fish passage (under former-crest pool). Reserve success criteria
include 1) anadromous fish passage (above former-crest pool), 2) downstream benefits below the
dam, and 3) human values (scientific value and human recreation).
In order to evaluate project success for the above criteria, a monitoring network was deployed
throughout the former Site Impoundment and in reference areas both upstream and downstream
of the former dam (Figure 3, Appendix A). Within the network, biological surveys were
conducted to provide baseline (i.e., pre-dam removal) aquatic community data and to assess
changes in community composition following dam removal. Monitoring cross-section stations
were established to assess changes in bankfull channel geometry, channel substrate composition,
and aquatic habitat. Fish, mussel, and snail surveys were conducted to record diversity and
qualitative prevalence of taxa within these groups. Anadromous fish survey locations were also
established to track the extent of anadromous fish passage within the upstream watershed
(Figure 4A, Appendix A). Water quality data (i.e. dissolved oxygen concentrations) within the
former Site Impoundment and at a downstream reference area were obtained from North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Ambient Monitoring Stations (AMS).
Year-3 (2008) Monitoring Results
Re-colonization of rare and protected aquatic species
The two federally endangered species that occur within the Little River sub-basin are the dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanna). Although
baseline mollusk community data were obtained during pre-removal (baseline) biological surveys
in 2005, mollusks will not be sampled again until the fourth year of project monitoring (2009)
due to the length of time predicted for this taxonomic group to respond to habitat restoration.
Favorable habitat for these mollusk species has developed within much of the former Site
Impoundment.
Water quality
AMS data indicate that dissolved oxygen concentrations within the former Site Impoundment
generally continued to persist above the established success criteria threshold of 6.0 mg/L. The
exceptions were four measurements sampled in July through September of 2007 when dissolved
oxygen concentrations sampled at the reference station were below 6.0 mg/L, and one
measurement taken in June of 2008, when the oxygen concentration sampled at the reference
station was slightly above 6.0 mg/L. The improvement in dissolved oxygen levels is reflected in
the removal of a 20 mile reach (stretching downstream from the confluence of the Little River
and Little Buffalo Creek) in the most recent draft (2008) of the North Carolina Impaired Waters
(303(d)) List. Benthic biotic indices (used as a proxy for water quality) were again lower (more
indicative of better water quality) in samples within the former Site Impoundment relative to
those from reference samples, indicating continued improvement in water quality. Benthic biotic
indices within the former Site Impoundment were also lower during Year-3 monitoring than in
the same locations during Baseline (2004) monitoring, further indicating a progressive
improvement in water quality. In summary, water quality monitoring data demonstrate the
achievement of project success criteria.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 ii Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Improved aquatic community
Benthic data from stations within the former Site Impoundment indicate that the number of EPT
(Ephemeroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera [stoneflies], and Trichoptera [caddisflies]) taxa has
exceeded the number of EPT taxa from reference samples. The total number of benthic taxa from
samples within the former Site Impoundment also exceeded the total number of taxa from
reference samples. In summary, benthic monitoring data has achieved success criteria. Fish
sampling data indicate that fish communities within the former Site Impoundment continue to
transition from those associated with lentic conditions (pre-dam removal) to those characteristic
of lotic, free-flowing conditions.
Anadromous fish passage
In 2006 (the first year of project monitoring), spawning adults of American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) were captured in the Little River immediately below Atkinson Mill Dam (Figure 413,
Appendix A), indicating that anadromous fish passage under the crest pool has been achieved.
American shad were also captured well above the limits of the former Site Impoundment within
Buffalo Creek, indicating that the Lowell Mill Dam removal will likely generate additional SMUs
(stream mitigation units) in the watershed pursuant to the reserve success criteria guidelines (see
discussion below).
In addition to the above primary criteria, the project has also achieved success in fulfilling
reserve success criteria. The Lowell Mill Dam removal project has provided funding to the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in support original research by Adam Riggsbee,
Ph.D, and to Joshua K. Raabe and Joseph E. Hightower, Ph.D of North Carolina State University.
Dr. Riggsbee's research investigates the effects of the dam's removal on nutrient and sediment
dynamics as they are transported from the former Site Impoundment. In addition to his published
dissertation, Dr. Riggsbee has published three papers (Riggsbee et al. 2007, 2008 and Doyle et al.
2008) and one in revision that detail his research. Mr. Raabe and Dr. Hightower's research
involves the installation of a fish weir at the former dam location. The weir was used to observe
fish movement patterns to better understand how anadromous fish use habitat in different parts of
the Little River. The study results will enable scientists to better predict the potential benefits of
fish passage devices (fish ladders) versus complete dam removal. Also, the Lowell Mill Dam
project has funded the design and completion of a public park developed at the site of the former
mill and dam. This new public facility has been donated to Johnston County for use as a family
recreation park.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 iii Lowell Mill Dam Removal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................. ................................................. 1
1.1 Location and Setting .......................................................... ............................................ 1
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives ................................... ............................................ 1
1.3 Project History and Background ................................. .................................................4
1.4 Project Restoration Goals ................................................... ............................................4
2.0 PROJECT MONITORING RESULTS .............................................. .................................................7
2.1 Water Quality .................................................................... ............................................ 7
2.1.1 Biotic Indices ............................................................... .................................................7
2.2 Aquatic Communities ......................................................... .......................................... 11
2.2.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ........................................ ............................................... 11
2.2.2 Fish .............................................................................. ...............................................13
2.2.3 Anadromous Fish ........................................................ ...............................................14
2.2.4 Mollusks ...................................................................... ...............................................14
2.2.5 Habitat Assessment ..................................................... ...............................................14
2.2.5.1 Channel Cross-Sections ........................... .......................................... 14
2.2.5.2 Sediment Class Size Distribution .............. .......................................... 15
2.2.5.3 Habitat Assessment Form Scores .............. .......................................... 18
2.2.5.4 Photography and Videography .................. .......................................... 20
2.3 Rare and Protected Species ................................................. .......................................... 21
2.4 Bonus Criteria ................................................................... .......................................... 21
2.4.1 Scientific Research ...................................................... ...............................................21
3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... ...............................................23
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
1. Site Location
2. Functional Benefit Area
3. Monitoring Network Deployment
4A. Anadromous Fish Survey Station Locations
4B. Reported Presence of Anadromous Fish
5. Monitoring Cross-Sections
APPENDIX B: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
APPENDIX C: Lowell Dam Removal Year-2 Monitoring Report (The Catena Group)
APPENDIX D: NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form
APPENDIX E: Monitoring photographs (data CD)
APPENDIX F: Fish Weir Study Report
EEP Project No. D04008-2 iv Lowell Mill Dam Removal
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Potential Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) Generated by Removal of Lowell Mill Dam ............. 2
Table 2. Mitigation Success Criteria Evaluation ........................................................................................ .. 3
Table 3. Project Activities and Reporting History: Lowell Mill Dam Restoration Site ............................ .. 4
Table 4. Project Contacts: Lowell Mill Dam Restoration Site ................................................................... .. 6
Table 5. Project Background: Lowell Mill Dam Restoration Site ............................................................. ..7
Table 6. Benthic Biotic Indices of Formerly Impounded and Reference Stations ....................................... 8
Table 7. Total Number of Benthic MacroinvertebrateTaxa ....................................................................... 12
Table 8. EPT Richness ............................................................................................................................... 13
Table 9. Cross-section Bankfull Channel Geometry .................................................................................. 16
Table 10. Sediment Class Size Distribution ............................................................................................... 17
Table 11. NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form Scores ............................................................................... 19
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1. Mean Biotic Index of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Mean Biotic Index of Reference
Stations with Standard Deviation ........................................................................................................... 9
Graph 2. AMS Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations* ..................................................................................10
Graph 3. Mean Total Taxa of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Mean Total Taxa of Reference Stations
with Standard Deviation .......................................................................................................................12
Graph 4. Mean EPT Richness of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Mean EPT Richness of Reference
Stations with Standard Deviation .........................................................................................................13
EEP Project No. D04008-2 v Lowell Mill Dam Removal
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Setting
The project location includes the site of the former Lowell Mill Dam and associated mill works at
coordinates 35.56N, 78.15W situated within the Little River, approximately 0.3 mile south
(downstream) of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95, Exit 105), between the towns of Micro and Kenly
(Figure 1, Appendix A). For the purposes of this document, the former dam site and immediate
adjacent areas will hereafter be referred to as the "Site."
Approximately 36,875 linear feet of the Little River, Little Buffalo Creek, and an unnamed
tributary (Tributary 1) (Figure 2, Appendix A) were impounded by the Lowell Mill Dam. These
stream reaches collectively comprise the "Site Impoundment."
The dam served to obstruct the movement of fish and other mobile aquatic organisms and further
restricted the upstream dispersal of benthic organisms, which rely on mobile aquatic host species
to complete life cycle events. The functional benefit area (FBA) for this restoration project is
defined as the maximum extent of the watershed lying upstream of the dam which could serve as
anadromous fish spawning habitat. This area includes approximately 204,920 linear feet
(38.8 miles) of main stream channel along the Little River, Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo Creek,
and Long Branch in Johnston County (Figure 2, Appendix A). The FBA begins at the Site and
extends upstream along these waterways to include relatively free-flowing (unimpeded)
tributaries in the watershed. Its upper limit is defined by dams (Atkinson Mill, Lake Wendell) or
stream headwaters.
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives
The Lowell Mill Dam removal is one of the first stream restoration projects of its kind in North
Carolina. The project entailed stream restoration via the removal of Lowell Mill Dam, a run-of-
river dam, in which the bankfull channel is impounded but the river valley is typically not
flooded, as is often the case with larger storage dams.
Site restoration efforts consisted primarily of the physical removal of the Lowell Mill Dam and
the adjacent mill works. Construction activities associated with the removal of the dam were
phased in order to minimize impacts to aquatic resources upstream, downstream, and in the
immediate vicinity of the Site (see Riggsbee et al. 2007a-d). Furthermore, throughout the dam
removal process, numerous construction practices were undertaken to minimize potential impacts
to aquatic resources.
The project is expected to generate at least 36,875 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) for use by the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) (Table 1). Primary and reserve success
criteria are being monitored in accordance with the DRTF guidance. The mitigation ratios have
also been derived from the DRTF guidance. Depending on project monitoring results
(predominately anadromous fish survey data), up to 48,859 additional SMUs may potentially be
generated in accordance with the DRTF guidance (Table 1).
EEP Project No. D04008-2 1 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Table 2 displays project mitigation success criteria, the parameters used to evaluate success, and
the anticipated results of project monitoring. Project monitoring results are presented in
Section 2.0.
Table 1. Potential Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs)' Generated by Removal of Lowell Mill
Dam
Channel Restored Mitigation
feet Ratio SMUs
Prima success criteria:
1) Re-colonization of rare and
endangered aquatic species

2) Improved water quality 36,875 feet of free-flowing

3) Improved aquatic community river and tributaries under 1:1 36,875

4) Anadromous fish passage the crest pool
under crest pool)
Reserve success criteria:
Anadromous fish passage Up to 204,920 feet of
(above crest pool) second order or higher, free- 5:1 40,984
flowing tributaries
Downstream benefits

below the dam 500 feet below dam 1:1 500
Human values

1) Scientific value
36,875 Up to 20
7
375
2 Human recreation percent bonus ,
Total potential additional SMUs 48,859
Committed SMUs 36,875
Primary success criteria will be monitored to verify and confirm positive changes to each functional criterion as
outlined in this report and in the Dam Removal Guidance. Reserve criteria will be monitored for possible
augmentation of the primary SMUs.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 2 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Table 2. Mitigation Success Criteria Evaluation
Anticipated
Criterion Parameter Chan e/Result
Primary Presence/absence of
success Re-colonization of rare rare/endangered Unknown
criteria: and endangered aquatic individuals
species Rare/endangered species
Improvement/expansion
habitat
Benthic biotic indices Decrease (= improve)
Increase within former
Improved water quality Site Impoundment
AMS dissolved oxygen
(must be > 6.0 mg/L or
data consistent with
reference station data)
Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Increase (converge with
Trichoptera taxa, total reference station data)
Improved aquatic number of benthic taxa
community Affirm shifts in
Fish, Mussel, and Snail
communities from
community data lentic to lotic character
Presence/absence of
Anadromous fish spawning adults within`
passage (under crest
or above former Site Presence
pool) Impoundment
Reserve success Presence/absence of
criteria: Anadromous fish spawning adults above
passage (above crest former Site Presence
pool) Impoundment within
FBA
Little River bankfull
Downstream benefits channel within formerly Narrowing/increased
below dam eddied/scoured areas stabilization of channel
below dam
Scientific value Published research Successful completion

Public recreation Construction of planned Successful completion
on-Site park EEP Project No. D04008-2 3 Lowell Mill Dam Removal

1.3 Project History and Background
Table 3. Proiect Activities and Reporting Historv: Lowell Mill Dam Restoration Site

Activity Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Restoration Plan July 1, 2004 N/A August 1, 2005
Final Design July 1, 2004 N/A August 1, 2005
Construction January 2006 N/A January 2006
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area Dec.-Jan. 2006 N/A Dec.-Jan. 2006
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments January 2006 N/A January 2006
Installation of trees, shrubs February 2006 N/A February 2006
Mitigation Plan January 15, 2005 N/A June 30, 2006
Minor repairs made filling small washed out areas N/A N/A N/A
Final Report N/A N/A N/A
Year-1 Vegetation Monitoring N/A N/A N/A
Year-1 Stream Monitoring August 2006 July 2006 July 2006
Year-2 Vegetation Monitoring N/A N/A N/A
Year-2 Stream Monitoring August 2007 July 2007 November 2007
Year-3 Vegetation Monitoring N/A N/A N/A
Year-3 Stream Monitoring August 2008 August 2008 November 2007
1.4 Project Restoration Goals
The primary goal of the Lowell Mill Dam removal is the restoration of formerly impounded
reaches of the Little River and affected tributaries to their pre-disturbance, lotic conditions. To
demonstrate the achievement of this goal, the affected river and stream reaches have been and
will continue to be monitored for successful reestablishment of several functional attributes,
which include lotic flow and habitat improvements for aquatic communities that are characteristic
of a coastal plain environment. Baseline data were collected in 2005 prior to the removal of the
dam and mill works, Year-i monitoring activities were accomplished in 2006, Year-2 monitoring
activities were accomplished in 2007, and Year-3 monitoring activities were accomplished in
2008. Additionally, efforts will be made to confirm that anadromous fish species have been
restored to their historical spawning grounds and that vertebrate and invertebrate species favoring
lotic habitats, including rare or endangered species, are able to re-colonize these restored habitats.
The specific goals of this project are to:
• Restore approximately 36,875 linear feet of free-flowing river and stream channels
formerly inundated under the spillway crest pool elevation of Lowell Mill Dam.
• Restore the natural flow and corresponding sediment transport relationships through
and well beyond the approximately 36,875 linear feet of former impoundment.
• Improve water quality and aquatic communities within impaired (303[d]) rivers and
streams degraded by stagnated flow within the former Site Impoundment. A minimum of
36,875 feet of river and stream channel will be converted from impeded, lentic conditions
EEP Project No. D04008-2 4 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
into restored, lotic streams and rivers supporting a more diverse aquatic community
characteristic of pre-impoundment conditions.
• Restore rare and endangered species habitat within rivers and streams formerly lost
within the Site Impoundment. Twenty documented rare aquatic species will directly
benefit from restoration of a continuous, free-flowing river, including dwarf
wedgemussel and the only documented populations of Tar River spinymussel in the
Neuse River Basin.
• Restore anadromous fish passage, foraging, and spawning opportunities within
36,875 linear feet within the former Site Impoundment, as well as an additional
204,920 linear feet of main stem stream and river channels within the FBA above the
former Site Impoundment.
• Provide new academic research and data regarding the effects of dam removal on
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
• Provide public recreation opportunities, including the establishment of a park and
canoe/kayak launch facilities at the Site.
• Generate a minimum of 36,875 linear feet of Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) for use
by the EEP to offset impacts to streams in the specific Neuse River hydrologic unit (see
Table 1). Additional SMUs may also be generated for use by the EEP, dependent upon
results of post-project monitoring programs.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 5 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Table 4. Project Contacts: Lowell Mill Dam Restoration Site
Designer 307B Falls Street
Milone and MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) Greenville, SC 29601
864 271-9598
Construction Contractor P.O. Box 1654
Backwater Environmental, Inc. Pittsboro, NC 27312
[phone]
Planting Contractor 908 Indian Trail Road
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Edenton, NC 27932
[phone]
Seeding Contactor P.O. Box 1654
Backwater Environmental, Inc. Pittsboro, NC 27312
[phone]
Seed Mix Sources 1312 Woody Store Road
Mellow Marsh Farm Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm 1312 Woody Store Road
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Taylor's Nursery 3705 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27610
[phone]
Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery 3067 Conners Drive
Edenton, NC 27932
[phone]
International Paper Supertree Nursery 5594 Highway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
[phone]
Ecological Monitors 1101 Haynes Street Suite 101
EcoScience: A Division of PBS&J Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
The Catena Group 410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Stream Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC N/A (project does not require vegetation monitoring)
EEP Project No. D04008-2 6 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Table 5. Project Background: Lowell Mill Dam Restoration Site
Project County Johnston County, NC
Drainage Area Approximately 215 square miles
Impervious cover estimate (%) <10%
Stream Order 41h-order
Physiographic Region Upper Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omernik) Rolling Coastal Plain/Northern Outer Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As-built N/A
Cowardin Classification R2SB3/4
Dominant soil types N/A (stream restoration project only)
Reference Site ID N/A
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03020201
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-04-06
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference WS-V NSW (Little River and Tributary 1), C NSW
(Little Buffalo Creek, Buffalo Creek, and Long
Branch)
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed
[2004/2006 NC 303(d) List]? Yes (Little River from confluence with Little
Buffalo Creek to 4.2 miles upstream of NC 581)
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment? Yes (see above-reach extends downstream of
project extents)
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor Low dissolved oxygen
Percent of project easement fenced N/A
2.0 PROJECT MONITORING RESULTS
Project monitoring results-discussed below-document Year-3 (2008) monitoring activities.
Monitoring stations were established prior to dam removal to collect baseline (pre-dam removal)
data (Figure 3, Appendix A). One additional station was added immediately downstream of the
former dam in 2006 to evaluate the geomorphic restoration of the channel below the dam under
the reserve success criteria (Table 1). Anadromous fish survey locations are displayed on Figure
4A (Appendix A). Pre-removal baseline data (2005), Year-1 monitoring data (2006), Year-2
monitoring data (2007), and Year-3 monitoring data (2008) will be referenced and compared to
evaluate improvements in water quality, the aquatic community, re-colonization of rare and
endangered species, and anadromous fish passage within the former Site Impoundment.
2.1 Water Quality
2.1.1 Biotic Indices
Table 6 displays the biotic index values for pre-removal (performed in 2004), Year-1, Year-2, and
Year-3 monitoring. According to the project's Mitigation Plan (Restoration Systems 2006b),
success criteria will be achieved when the mean value of the biotic index from benthic stations
within the former Site Impoundment falls within one standard deviation of the mean of the same
dataset collected at the reference stations by the end of the project monitoring period.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 7 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Table 6. Renthic Riotic Indices of Formerly imnounded and Reference Stations
2004 (Baseline) 2006 Year-1) 2007 Year-2) 2008 Year-3)
FORMERLY FORMERLY FORMERLY FORMERLY
IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE
STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS
Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index
High 7.36 5.52 7.71 7.31 7.00 6.47 8 04 Z 16
Low 6.72 5.24 6.11 6.56 5.57 532 5.89 6.05
Mean 7.02 5.38 6.71 6.88 6.17 5.90 6.87 6.75
Median 6.98 5.38 6.57 6.83 6.20 5.91 6.96 6.90
Standard
Deviation 0.32 0.20 0.58 0.35 0.43 0.32 0.76 0.41
Standard
Deviation
of
Reference 5.58 7.23 6.22 7.16
mean
(Success
Criterion
Since the mean of the biotic index from the formerly impounded stations (µ=6.87) is within one
standard deviation of the reference station (p=7.16), success in this category may be inferred. The
mean of the biotic index from the formerly impounded stations has slightly risen from Year-2
lows (i.e., indicative of a benthic community more tolerant of poorer water quality). Severe
drought conditions within Johnston County during benthic sampling contributed to low flow
conditions and may have affected benthic macroinvertebrate populations. The North Carolina
Drought Management Advisory Council reports that drought conditions of this degree have not
been recorded in North Carolina in the 100 years of modern records. Figure 6 (Appendix A)
displays drought conditions in Johnston County from fall 2007 to fall 2008. Continued sampling
is recommended to ensure that data sets are more reflective of normal ambient conditions without
the influence of extraordinary factors such as 100-year droughts. These trends are illustrated in
Graph 1.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 8 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Graph 1. Mean Biotic Index of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Mean Biotic Index of
Reference Stations with Standard Deviation
9
8
7
6
x
a?
5
c -
U
p 4
t?
3
2
1
0
2004 (Baseline) 2006 (Year 1) 2007 (Year 2) 2008 (Year 3)
Monitoring Year
Ambient Monitoring Station Dissolved Oxygen Data
Dissolved oxygen concentrations at a 0.1-meter depth are measured at an Ambient Monitoring
Station (AMS) within the former Site Impoundment on the Little River at US 301 (Station
ID# J5690000), approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the Site. A reference AMS is located
approximately 1.0 miles downstream of the Site on the Little River at State Road (SR) 2339
(Station ID# J5750000). Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) are measured at least once a
month at both stations.
Graph 2 displays measured dissolved oxygen concentrations at both stations from June 18, 2007
to June 21, 2008. Data dating back to February 23, 2004 were included in the 2006 Annual
Monitoring Report (AMR) (Restoration Systems 2006a) and data dating back to June 11, 2006
were included in the 2007 AMR (Restoration Systems 2007). As stated in the Mitigation Plan
(Restoration Systems 2006b), in crdc; to achieve sac;.css criteria, dissolved oxygen
concentrations measured within the former Site Impoundment (AMS J5690000) must not dip
below 6.0 mg/L unless concentrations are also less than 6.0 mg/L at the reference station (AMS
J5750000) within the same sampling timeframe. A dissolved oxygen concentration of 6.0 mg/L
is commonly accepted as the threshold below which aquatic organisms are stressed. According to
standards outlined in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) "Redbook"
(NCDWQ 2004), dissolved oxygen concentrations within the former Site Impoundment cannot
fall below the minimum NCDWQ standard for Class WS-V waters. The NCDWQ standard is an
instantaneous value of no less than 4.0 mg/L (daily average no less than 5.0 mg/L). The standard
of 4.0 mg/L is used as a criterion for removal from the 303(d) list. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations within the former Site Impoundment fell below 6.0 mg/L for five measurements of
EEP Project No. D04008-2 9 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
the available data. During July, August, and September of 2007, both stations measured
concentrations below 6.0 mg/L four times (Graph 2). Success criteria were achieved at these
measurements. One measurement in June of 2008 recorded station AMS J5690000 slightly under
the 6.0 mg/L threshold while reference station AMS J5750000 was slightly over the threshold.
This measurement fails to meet success criteria. Data will continue to be monitored to determine
whether this measurement was an anomaly or a trend. The 4.0 mg/L success criteria was met as
dissolved oxygen concentrations for both stations dipped below the 4.0 mg/L threshold twice in
July 2007, but have since persisted above the threshold.
The 2006 North Carolina Impaired Waters (303(d)) List (NCDWQ 2006) featured a section of the
Little River beginning at the confluence of Little Buffalo Creek and extending 20 miles
downstream to 4.2 miles upstream of NC 581. The segment was listed as impaired due to failing
to meet the 4.0 mg/L threshold consistently. However, the 2008 Draft 303(d) List does not
include this segment. A conversation with Cam McNutt of NCDWQ confirmed that
measurements taken since the dam removal have exceeded the threshold for success, and
this portion of the Little River has been delisted.
Graph 2. AMS Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations*
12
10
E 8
a
a?
cn
x 6
-O
O
0 4
n
2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N
C O lV -+ N M VA z
* The green line highlights a dissolved oxygen concentration of 6.0 mg/L, which must be exceeded by
AMS #J5690000 in order to achieve success criteria (unless dissolved oxygen concentrations at reference
AMS #J5750000 are also below 6.0 mg/L within the same sampling timeframe). The blue line highlights a
dissolved oxygen concentration of 4.0 mg/L, which must be exceeded by AMS #J5690000 in order to
achieve success criteria according to NCDWQ for WS-V streams (unless dissolved oxygen concentrations
at reference AMS #35750000 are also below 4.0 mg/L within the same sampling timeframe).
EEP Project No. D04008-2 10 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
2.2 Aquatic Communities
2.2.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Tables 7 and 8 provide baseline (2004), Year-l, Year-2, and Year-3 benthic macro invertebrate
data for both formerly impounded and reference stations. Since the mean numbers of total taxa
and EPT richness from the formerly impounded stations are within one standard deviation of the
reference station means, success criteria is being achieved. Graph 3 displays the measurements of
total taxa and Graph 4 displays EPT richness since 2004 baseline monitoring. Similar to the
trends displayed by this year's biotic index data, Year-3 numbers for total taxa and EPT richness
at formerly impounded and reference stations have decreased since their Year-2 highs. Benthic
macroni vertebrate data is provided in Appendix B. Data in Appendix B are based on laboratory
identifications of benthic macro invertebrate taxa by Pennington and Associates, Inc. (P&A) of
Cookeville, Tennessee. P&A is a North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)-certified
benthic identification laboratory.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 I 1 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Table 7. Total Number of Benthic MacroinvertebrateTaxa
2004 (Baseline) 2006 (Year-1) 2007 (Year-2) 2008 Year-3)
FORMERLY FORMERLY FORMERLY FORMERLY
IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE
STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS
Total Taxa Total Taxa Total Taxa Total Taxa Total Taxa Total Taxa Total Taxa Total Taxa
High 45.00 57.00 90.00 43.00 77.00 74.00 65.00 53.00
Low 25.00 56.00 3100 35.00 55.00 37.00 19.00 27.00
Mean 3733 56.50 41.86 39.75 62.14 55.50 45.57 43.50
Median 42.00 56.50 37.00 40.50 59.00 55.50 47.00 47.00
Standard
Deviation 10.79 0.71 10.33 3.40 7.61 15.16 14.65 11.82
Standard
Deviation
of
Reference 55.79 36.35 40.34 31.68
mean
(Success
Criterion
Graph 3. Mean Total Taxa of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Mean Total Taxa of
Reference Stations with Standard Deviation
80
70
60
50
x
40
o
? 30
20
10
0 -
2004 (Baseline)
Monitoring Year
EEP Project No. D04008-2 12 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
2006 (Year 1) 2007 (Year 2) 2008 (Year 3)
Table 8. EPT Richness
2004 (Baseline) 2006 (Year-1) 2007 (Year-2) 2008 Year-3)
FORMERLY' FORMERLY FORMERLY FORMERLY
IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE IMPOUNDED REFERENCE
STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS
EPT Richness EPT Richness EPT Richness F.PT Richness EPT Richness EPT Richness EPT Richness EPT Richness
High 6.00 21.00 21.00 1900 . 26.00 23.00 16.00 13.00
Low 0.00 19.00 0.00 6.00 5.00 9.00 1.00 3.00
Mean 4.00 20.00 10.70 11.00 17.00 16.75 9.29 8.25
Median 6.00 20.00 11.00 9 50 16.00 13.00 11.00 8.50
Standard
Deviation 3.46 1.41 6.37 5,28 6.88 5.80 4.64 4.11
Standard
Deviation
of
Reference 18.59 i.72 10.95 4.25
mean
(Success
Criterion
Graph 4. Mean EPT Richness of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Mean EPT Richness of
Reference Stations with Standard Deviation
25
20
Mean
Reference
Mean
+/- 1 Standard
Deviation
15
c
s
U_
a 10
uQ
0
2004 (Baseline) 2006 (Year 1) 2007 (Year 2) 2008 (Year 3)
Monitoring Year
2.2.2 Fish
Year-3 fish sampling was performed by The Catena Group (TCG). Sampling was performed at
stations displayed on Figure 3 (Appendix A). TCG's report summarizing fish sampling is located
in Appendix C.
Data indicate that the former Site Impoundment fish communities are continuing to transition
from those characteristic of impounded, lentic conditions to lotic, free-flowing conditions.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 13 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Qualitative observations during aquatic surveys by TCG revealed that habitat for fish is
continuing to transition from lentic to lotic conditions in direct response to dam removal. As a
result of this improvement, sampling found an increase in the average North Carolina Index of
Biotic Integrity score from 46 in Year-1 to 48.7 in Year-3. This year's sampling also found an
overall increase in species richness. For additional information, please consult TCG's report
(Appendix C).
2.2.3 Anadromous Fish
Year-2 sampling focused on anadromous fish surveys, and was performed in the spring of 2007
by TCG. Figure 4A (Appendix A) provides anadromous fish survey locations for Year-2
monitoring. The confirmed presence of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) was documented in
the Year-2 Annual Monitoring Report. Figure 4B (Appendix A) displays the confirmed presence
of American shad within the FBA.
2.2.4 Mollusks
Mussel, snail, and clam sampling data will be used to evaluate success for the aquatic community
and threatened and endangered aquatic species criteria. Mollusks were sampled at the fish,
mussel, and snail survey locations depicted on Figure 3 (Appendix A) by TCG preceding dam
removal to obtain baseline community data in 2005. Year-3 mussel sampling showed declines in
recovery rates of mussels downstream of the dam removal. TCG attributes much of the declines
to an influx of sediment caused by the dam removal and low river flows caused by extreme
drought conditions in 2007 and early 2008 (Figure 6). The losses measured by Year-3 sampling
are not expected to have long-term adverse effects on the Little River's overall mussel population
because of an improvement in lotic conditions and healthy mussel populations elsewhere in the
river. For additional information, please consult TCG's report (Appendix C).
2.2.5 Habitat Assessment
2.2.5.1 Channel Cross-Sections
Twenty-four (24) cross-section stations have been established within the former Site
Impoundment and at four reference locations to assess bankfull channel stability following dam
removal. Cross-section locations are displayed on Figure 3 (Appendix A). Baseline (2005),
Year-1, Year-2, and Year-3 cross-sectional surveys are displayed on Figures 5A-5C (Appendix
A). Table 9 displays baseline, Year-l, Year-2, and Year-3 bankfull channel geometry, including
bankfull cross-sectional area (Abkf), bankfull width (Wbkf), maximum bankfull depth (Dmax),
mean bankfull depth (dbkf), and width-to-depth ratio (width:depth).
Since the submittal of last year's AMR, one high-flow event occurred on April 6`'' and 7`" , 2008,
with a discharge of 1430 cubic feet per second (cfs), as recorded at the United States Geologic
Survey (USGS) Princeton gage (02088500). According to recurrence interval analysis conducted
by EcoScience (using the annual maximum series taken from gage 02088500), a discharge of the
magnitude of this event occurs within the restoration reach approximately every 1.2 years. A
return interval between 1.2 and 1.4 years is assumed to represent bankfull discharge and thus is
responsible for the shape and size of channels (Wolman and Miller 1960, Rosgen 1994).
EEP Project No. D04008-2 14 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Therefore, the aforementioned events with the approximate 1.2-year return interval represent
channel forming flows.
In general, bankfull channel parameters were largely unchanged from Year-2 conditions in the
second monitoring year. Based on this observation and the previously described recurrence
interval analysis, channel geometry within the former site impoundment is likely stable. The
following should be noted: 1) cross-section 20, which was installed approximately 200 feet
downstream of the former Lowell Mill dam on the Little River, was established following dam
removal. Thus, there is no baseline bankfull channel geometry data for this station; and 2) cross-
section 16, located just upstream of the former dam site, was impacted during dam removal
activities. Hence the discrepancies in cross-sectional dimensions and bankfull channel geometry
between baseline and Year-1 monitoring data. The bankfull channel parameters for cross-section
16 appear to have stabilized in subsequent monitoring years.
2.2.5.2 Sediment Class Size Distribution
Sediment grain size distributions were assessed at each channel cross-section location (Figure 3,
Appendix A). Table 10 displays baseline, Year-1, Year-2, and Year-3 sediment grain size
distributions for each cross-section.
Sediment grain size classes are defined as follows (per Wolman 1954):
Particle Size Size Class
<2 mm Sand/silt
2-8 mm Fine gravel
8-16 mm Medium gravel
16-32 mm Coarse gravel
32-64 mm Very coarse gravel
64-128 mm Small cobble
128-256 mm Large cobble
EEP Project No. D04008-2 15 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Y v
V j T
7 ? N a T N ?C T
m

NI 9 /? ?O ?n v ?D ?O ?D Y r r ? N N O r iG r
d

v R
'? v
? ?n ? V ?D Y- N ? m m
? Y? O O O N ? T M N .. a-

a

g m T-
Y Y N m vi ?p Y Y M? aC ^? N
r O? x W v? d :p

y ? ? ? ? r
°
.
m r
L ,?
Q c ?c v o v r
?i N a o r? o^
; o?
"
e .°o m a m °? v "_ ? ? r r 6 z vi .N, o ?
m Y ?n
t t a- r .c Y - N Y- r T .c z
r m

N
?
d M
tQ
N om- .? O N ,--O Y t" « M N
'? T? vi
?
°o O

a C r
-

s L

9 d
•
N ?O a Y- v, r, T 0, - N N v Y m ?p
N- a N N_ J? a; _ V V? O? N r
N ?
Y-? N
T H
; 9 ..
L C T z???? w y r z T r r r ?c N Y Y z v, N
W
yyd H
p "`
« r -- N m Y N Y N
b
O
N
Y
Y '/? r - r Y x `?. ? ?` 'a N. Y m
T m Y m

N 7 v«i
a$
7 a Y Y .- v, -. x Y r a, Y a
? N a N ...
. ?? « T N Y N a Y N? N? m m Y
? N j 0
- ?

y
??
, G
`n x S n n Y N Y a v 'O
? r r, ?n ?n vi ?O v x ?O ? r r .w ? N .-: j L
v? ? r
h v
C 0 "

v
,
C
.., .o x r o
R '_'
7 x
O 0
z?
N N
- L C b
Y
y r m m O- N« vi v, N r T ?n O
C V O C v? « Y n r ?O V'O r b' U x -
b c m

c
•W

.. N M? h b r OD O? ? y? ? .M+ ?? y ? .?•? .?•? N N M v

? L L N
F
V

g
o 1 Y
E° E
E E x o E E E E E E E c E yE
E E°
N x
GO N m m z V- CI !C 0] fL ? V v z m V V j p v an
E
EEE
E E E
E E
E E
EE
„
8 $
a E
-
E E EE E
y N a
EEE
V N y,
V
N m? N
V
' E

H .T
M N
J C
Y
N V
- `n v. N N N v; N N N V? N
N x N
Y
EEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEE
EEME

a N N y_ V V V V V V V 'J V V V `/ V V V ry V
^
a EEEEE?EEEEEEEEEEE?EE
N N N N vvvvvvvvvvV "v" V V V V- V V V EEEE
V V V 'J

8 E 1 1 E E E 1 s E E E E E E E
£ E E E E
E E
E
E E E
E

a ?
A,
N 9 9 N
j 9 9
-
T v C
41
N .
EEEEE
EE EEEEEE
EEE
E
g ? =
I
H v V V V ., m V V `/ V V v M N V V< r V N
a
>
E E£ E E E E E E E E E E E E E E££
E
E E E
E
$, E E E
N E E E E££ E£ E E , E E E E E
a {y N J N N N
V V V V V V V V V V V V V x .j V V V x^
V V -{
E E E E E
E E E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E
E
E c E
a
V V V V N'J V V V V V V V V V V V V V
V I! V

s E ? E E E E E E E E£ E E E E E
N E EE E-E EE _ E£N
m
m
C
N E E E E
-??
.W T v
N
N m 0 v
i M
^
?^. Y tN-! e!4 N N N m y N? V C M V .° -
v
. EEEE?EEE
EEEEEEEEEEE =EyE
W
a x
N N
V V V
V
N
ry Y V N N V R? Y x s V V -l

vi
E E E 'c E E E E E E E E E E E E 'c E E
E E
E EE E E

a E E E E EE E E
E E E
E E E
V V V y' V V V ry N `/ V V V V = N N N E I M
V

'.°. E E E E 'c E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E Q E
a V V V V V V v V V ry V V V V V V V V V O V M O

o E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E 'c E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E
,,,
mJ V' x x M .
14 -- N N 4 V N n m M N V y ,- m v V "' 4 m
v`
E£ E E E E_ E N E E E E E EE E E E°
E E z
E
E E E E E E E E E E
E
a$
a m
E E E E E
M
v V 'J V V N N V N V 1, V V V N `J N N n
M N m q
N V m
N v
Y
C
Y
E E E E E E E E E E£ E E E E E E °c
E £ E E E E E
E E
E
'

E E E E
E

CI $
a E
E
c E
o
ryry N N N ?y J
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V N V V V "j .c
o M
- V t1 N
^ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE? EE=E
a N
VVCVVVCVCVNVCGCVNVCVC N
VV,yv
W
g; a sY zY
J
Q
3
O
Q
During baseline and Year-1 monitoring, weighted sieve analyses (using Rosgen [1994]
methodology for performing bar samples) were performed to assess sediment grain size
distributions of monitoring stations with water depths exceeding 3 feet, where a ponar dredge was
used to collect sediment samples (see Mitigation Plan [Restoration Systems 2006b] for sampling
methodology details). For water depths less than 3 feet (wadeable areas), 100-count pebble
counts were performed consistent with the Wolman method (Wolman 1954). Since the sieve
analyses provided substrate composition data based on sieve size, the sediment class sizes
displayed on Table 10 reflect the sieve sizes that the particular grain size falls within (e.g., at
Station 5 in 2006, the d50 occurred between the 4 mm and 8mm sieve sizes). In Year-2 and
Year-3, drought conditions eliminated the need for ponar dredge sampling, and thus only 100-
count pebble counts were performed at each monitoring section.
The d50 (median particle size) increased during the third year of project monitoring from the first
year conditions at Stations 3, 4, 9, and Reference 3. The d50 decreased during the second year of
monitoring from the first year conditions at Stations 5, 16, 17, and Reference 4. Stations 3, 4,
Reference 3, and Reference 4 are underlain by bedrock. At these stations, sediment size class
distributions reflect the grain size classes of the sediment veneer overlaying the channel bed. As
stated in the project's Mitigation Plan (Restoration Systems 2006b), substrate within the former
Site Impoundment is expected to coarsen over time. However, the duration of time required for
this change to occur may eclipse the five-year project monitoring period, and some stations may
remain in a state of flux for the length of the monitoring period while sediment from the former
Site Impoundment is being flushed out. Thus, project success evaluation is not contingent upon
changes in channel substrate size class.
2.2.5.3 Habitat Assessment Form Scores
NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Forms were completed at each cross-section station to evaluate the
quality and extent of aquatic habitat. Table 11 displays the NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form
scores for each cross-section station. A blank NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form has been
included in Appendix D for reference. The mean scores of formerly impounded stations have
increased for the third year following dam removal and the subsequent establishment of lotic flow
conditions. The mean score for formerly impounded stations increased from 48.3 in 2005, to 56.2
in 2006, to 57.1 in 2007, and to 60.8 in 2008. The mean score for reference stations increased
slightly to 74.5 in 2008 from a score of 72.8 in 2007, 77.5 in 2006, and 74.8 in 2005. The
decrease in score in 2007 could mainly be attributed to the loss of instream habitat at Reference 1
as a result of heavy flow events transporting logs, sticks, and leafpacks downstream of the
station's vicinity, and to an increase of sediment in the substrate as illustrated by a decreased d50
(as shown in Table 10).
EEP Project No. D04008-2 18 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
N
Y
O
E
C VI
E S
W .?
y
W
Si
a
0
U
Z
e ? ? v avo' v vr. r v ? h ? ?o ?o ? v ? v, 9i ? $ ? ? m ?

1? r n N N r r r N [? ? N r N ,?_, O--• N g O y r h ?
- .+ a .-. --? a a N a a y? N ? N N G

u a x z v x x v x T .. v C a a ?L a ?: a `?
- V ? x _ x
- °•
T
m a K x - m m a K m m m m m x-- m M _ x ?

Q
a _ ry z
X X X X X X Y.XX XX,? ^ N m a
c coCC z
?
?n Si ? v ? v v e ? ? e ? ? e ? v n h $ ? v i `a ? m m

n r r N. r r r N r. n.

M m ? m r 1? r . .[? [? ? m. 1? n ?+'. m r r r Y? a a M

M
m m m x m K. m m m. -- m m m - - o

?n ?n ?n n a ?n ?n v, a ?n ?n ?n ?n ?n a v ?n ?n Q h v. n M
r/?? y V? Vi h V] y? N m a ?/'. ; - N a
k X X
X X
X k
k k X X
X X k X X X X
X
X r{{.i.yI.? 4W[1..? T4!.? t'L
C c
C c a
p ?
p
y
0
y
pp
p
VI ? ?O ? O ? N ? Y N ? Vi Vl ? ? V b v ? N ? yy
pp
? V 00 00
r

N [? r r t? N r h t? r N N N N r r r ^J ?
N < 1? r
r
a ?{ N ? ? N° N a a M
m m ... m l? [? r ? 7 n [? ? m r n r. m [? [? 0 _. _ _
?" x x x ?c ? .c ?., x a ?c ?c w x a ?c -r ?o a? x x x x m
m x m x m m m-- m M m m x a x-- _ a e
-- a v, a a Q rv M

r/ y N N N N x N N N
X
X X k X X k
X X X X X X X X X X X
j
x {s

? ? 7 d
tr
c
?a ?a W
p
?
p
?°0 Q h vNO Y VI N h Q Y d M M M ?< C M ? ee
r? W W r

N t? r r ? rv [? ? r n N N N N ? r n?
Vh r [? r ?
r
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a a T ^ ' N - N 00
e a o a a °

m m m N m m N N N -- m m m N- - m a a
-
P
- - O a - - °

X X X X X Y X X X X N Y k X X N X X X E c K
^?J
s
G
U
2.2.5.4 Photography and Videography
As discussed in the project's Mitigation Plan (Restoration Systems 2006b), photography and
videography were conducted during baseline, Year-1, and Year-2 monitoring data collection to
assess qualitative changes in channel cross-sections and in-stream habitat. Monitoring
photographs and videos have been included on a data compact disc in Appendix E.
Cross-Section 15 on the Little River. Note the establishing vegetation on the far bank.
Cross-Section 19 on an unnamed tributary to Little River. This reach was formerly inundated, but
now supports emergent vegetation.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 20 Lowell Mill Dam Removal

Fish weir for scientific research at the former dam location
2.3 Rare and Protected Species
Two federally endangered species have been documented in the Little River sub-basin: the dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanna). Both of
these species are mollusks. As discussed in Section 2.2.4 ("Mollusks"), mollusks will be sampled
during the fourth year of project monitoring. Favorable habitat (lotic flow conditions with
gradually coarsening substrate) for these mollusk species has developed within much of the
former Site Impoundment (see Appendix Q. The bull chub (Nocomis raneyi), listed on the state
watch list, was found during fish sampling (see Appendix Q.
2.4 Bonus Criteria
2.4.1 Scientific Research
The former Site Impoundment was subjected to a study by University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill scientist Adam Riggsbee, Ph.D. (Riggsbee 2006, 2007a-d). Sediment accumulated
for many decades within the former Site Impoundment before the dam's removal. Dr. Riggsbee's
studv im,estigated the flushing of these sediments and associated nutrients and organic materials
as they were routed through the downstream channel. Additionally, the study assessesed physical
and biological controls on nitrogen and phosphorous leaching from wetland sediments exposed
by dam removal. Dr. Riggsbee has also given numerous oral presentations at professional
conferences regarding his research.
From March to May of 2007, a study investigating fish passage within and upstream of the
former Site Impoundment was conducted at the former dam location. During these months,
Joshua K. Raabe and Dr. Joseph E. Hightower of North Carolina State University installed a fish
weir in the former dam location to capture, quantify, and observe the movement of fish in order to
better understand how anadromous fish use habitat in different parts of the Little River. The
EEP Project No. D04008-2 21 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
study results will enable scientists to better predict the potential benefits of fish passage (fish
ladders) versus complete dam removal. A report of the study's findings (Raabe 2008) is included
in Appendix F.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 22 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
3.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Dam Removal Task Force (DRTF). 2001 (unpublished). Interagency
Memorandum of Agreement for Dam Removal and Dam Removal Ranking System.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004. "Redbook" Surface Waters And
Wetlands Standards (NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0100, .0200 & .0300).
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Raabe, J.K. and Hightower, J.E. 2008. Assessing benefits to migratory fishes of habitat restored
by dam removal. USGS. 42pp.
Riggsbee, J.A. 2006. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of impounded nutrient and sediment
fluxes following dam removal. Ph.D. dissertration. University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Riggsbee, J.A., Julian, J.P., Doyle, M.W., and Wetzel, R.G. 2007A. Suspended sediment,
dissolved organic carbon, and dissolved nitrogen export during the dam removal process.
Water Resources Research.
Riggsbee, J.A., Wetzel, R.G., and Doyle, M.W. 2007B. Channel adjustment and floodplain
development following dam removal. American Society of Civil Engineering
Monographs.
Riggsbee, J.A., Wetzel, R.G., and Doyle, M.W. 2007C (in revision). Physical and plant
community controls on nitrogen and phosphorus leaching from impounded riverine
wetlands following dam removal. Journal of American Water Resources Research.
Riggsbee, J.A., Orr, C.H., Leech, D.M., Doyle, M.W., and Wetzel, R.G.. 2008 Suspended
sediments in river ecosystems: photochemical sources of dissolved organic carbon and
adsorptive removal of dissolved iron. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences.
Rosgen, D. 1994. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa Springs, CO.
Restoration Systems. 2006a. Lowell Mill Dam-Little River Watershed Restoration Site 2006
Annual Monitoring Report (Year-1). October 2006. 25pp.
Restoration Systems. 2006b. Mitigation Plan: Lowell Mill Dam-Little River Watershed.
Technical Report Submitted to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
June 2006. 31 pp.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 23 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Restoration Systems. 2007. Lowell Mill Dam-Little River Watershed Restoration Site 2007
Annual Monitoring Report (Year-2). November 2007. 25pp.
Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions-American
Geophysical Union 35(6) 951-956.
Wolman, M.G., Miller, J.P. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes.
Journal of Geology 68 (1): 54-74.
EEP Project No. D04008-2 24 Lowell Mill Dam Removal
APPENDIX A: Figures
EEP Project No. D04008-2 A Lowell Mill Dam Removal
0
??:< wW0 ?? z o u`, o
LLJ 0-6 2) z
c(j HLLI
~
III o -!i ?OJWOy °L NU o aN c?
II =' O_J?aF- co O 3 -
'r N L
o z J m r
I? -- ¢ = o a
/ 'l J 1 '2't 1' J Q ?i
} f
.- -- f UW toF I J
T m 3_?llf ?) _ I 1 r f

s

r-
I

F
i 1
!

?r
Ewa ?.3 3 V
'l
f9 of
, NN
P

V-
I

Pl- o

l\f
4,
AMS STAT ION ID- .a5
REFI REF2 ct:
. m f r
\ t xS2 S31 f
xS1
I
SR ??//
X?5?..-rJXS4 \\.
` 12
S6 XIXS 19
X '
S
1 ^
i 1 XS7& v x$10 (513
I - XSS c .
XS14* ?' ?,?
I i LO ELL
MILL DAM
2 X81S20
?y 5 l- 1
9
:
REF3
41
AMS STATION ,ID• 5750000
REF4 /
SR IOU{_ \ =? _- - i i
?" ? t I 1'? r .? 1 1 it
1?1, ALL
O MCS/AO FM$ • MS
FMS
Q MCS/AO MS
Q• MCS/AD FMS .?... .,y ;.. ?-.-?( ?<Y. - ?, r . 1
MCS/AD
xS1-XS20 - CROSS-SECTION LOCATION f? ?-^ p
ti.
REFI-REF4 - REFERENCE
CROSS-SECTION LOCATION L
MCS•MONUMENTED CROSS-SECTION - ?-. it '?.• li \ - of "
FMS-FISH, MUSSEL AND SNAIL SURVEY I ' 'I I 1" _ \\(a`??
V°
AD-ANCILLARY DATA MS-MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING
40, FTC - 4000 FT. /
I --- --4 -_ - ?t ._.
I ?_I
IE"
y
CLIENT- PROJECT. Cap o '.ktl 8 -
?na`j c FI;URF
IBSI ?? MONITORING NETWORK DEPLOYMENT oece:
LOWELL MILL DAM - LITTLE RIVER scale: NOV 2008
stem WATERSHED RESTORATION SITE -4000'
:Fn r went
Johnston County, North Coro6no -'=r P•o?POt No.
08-405
- Z U. fn °o o Y
? p0D > o
wp0 5
- ? ? J?>=LLJ - 0= WWI o
W m
Wa?rn?w um WZOW
1? ?}
g - ?JW W0~ oU 0w Ix o ?y 0
pJJF-H-N wf afAp tr 3 V
?QN s O wWQ
'Z Z
Ali _ _ ? ? aQ o
N N W
o 15 15
a OE p a o
E9 ko xo J titi
m o
W O m N O) N w C Ul V N LC- - t J I ?''? -+
J Ea_ c t cQ am am e
w C
OJ
- ?T
?- I] .,, ?'r S"U•?`'
CO
So?NS?
?
- ? x l I c _,?
F
t
I I? \
L
i4 \ ip 1 it L,
J Y J ? / ??
I } t ,r
ei.
w
x
,it L \
t'ej, w a
r ?
E
H rn _ o
z
W z p:
J?vi oW - - Q
?N _ ,A
ZYS,' J -j Z N 3 r/
II?? Q W;?33QyOJ? ^ ON
? - ?W
200 _
O O 1 O N O p p N O N O 0 °° ? O N O O O N O N O
m m m m ? ? m m m m _ ? m m m m ? ? m m m m
- -? 0 0 0 loo
0 0 0 - o
i
0 0 0 0
n m' n m
O ° v z ° v z I° v O ° v
? cO u r? m r `° u ? `° u
fW/l ul O III m to
p I o I o I o
O ° O O
U U ° U o U °
0 "-'
a p it a p j ? p a o
S I S S
I I
!o o it ?0 0
I
I I
li
o o ------ ° o
N O N O N O N O N O N O N O
_o °_ m m m m _° _° m m m m °_ _o m m m m o 0 m m m m
(-1J) uogonai3 anq Oiab ('1;) u011-13 anl}Oiaa (l;) UOgOAa13 anI,Joiaa (JJ) U01Jonal3 ang0jaa
?n o 'r' ° o o o °o N o 1 o o °o 0 0
0 0 o o a o m m m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m
I? it
o O
FT
° .__- -----._-----0 ° °
I
o ° o
m Im m Lm
I i
I
z ?o" z - z I. I'° v
p m O O `O u o
U w U C U o U m
W N
W o
jl ° II ° I ? I
o o W o
0
O O 10 c o O
U
wo (w)
'0 0
v o
S I = _
° I
° -- -.-?D
N D N O O O N O ?? N O N O O O N °
o D_ m m m m m m m m 0 m m m m m m
('1j) U01JOnai3 @A11DIab ('1J) UOIl0nal3 OA110iaa ('14) UO!JOnaj3 anlJOiaa ('iJ) UOiJOnal3 aA!10la8
W N i o
H o
00
?~ a
J?N?oo KW z t,
W W 6 ? 13
^ra W?6p=< ON
_j (n
I ;?3 ;?? 200
x111
i(1 O O O N O o O O ?[] O O O
O O m m W W m m 00 N 0 m OOi DJ OJ O
2
O
U
N
N
O
U
m
2
O
U
N
I
K
U
O
O
O
00
f0
Z
u O
o U
W
to
0 ° I
o ?
0
o 0
T
0
a
0
N
0
0 uoyonal3 ang Olaa
O O O N O
m m o0 m O
O
O ON
O
N
O
O O

O
0

N N
_
Z
z0
v O

c
H
c U
o
U
m o W o
° M
o VI o I
t/f
o N

O o N
C
c
o
o U
o o U
a
o =
cO
0
a O x
a
0
N
ON
( ;;) u01;Onal3 anI;Olaa O
O
N
O
O
0
0
a
O
N
O
O O O N O N O
m m m oO
('l;) uogonal3 anyOlaa
uoyonal3 ani;Olaa
O
n O O
O O n O N O
m m m ro
O
O
O
W
O ?
v
o
0
U V
O o
O
N O N
o N o ?
O O
O U O U

a a o
x x
0
a
0
N
O

O
O

O O
m O
m N
o] O
as
O
°
O
O
O
O ?

17

u U
W
o
O o N

o N
0
o U
0
O

O x o
e
a
O
O N
N

O O

('ll)^uoyonal3 anilOlaa (;;)fuoyonal3 an1701ad ('11) ?uO!lOna13 v ani3OIab ('ll) uO!0 000 angOlaa
(
r Z - o
090_
?? J1 W Z? Z~ a U
a MI ov?
j - J?NOvc oW z _ -
JJH?,z Zy 3
llflll Q w 3?:3N 20
Ld 11 00 Lj - U -
O O 1 O N O O O N O N O O O O N O p 0 0 O N O
m m m m _ rn o+ m m m m m m o m o+ m m o
0 0
00
_ I
0 0
m m
I
I
O O
m m I
wl n v
o o' o ° o
~ F F F
to
En En
N
f/1 a1 c u N
0 (A to
III m o
CE o
m o N
U ?
U U U o U o
W a W a Z c N W c LLJ
°
LL) w
d o I* a w o o
w x w z w x x
w
w
II 0 0
o i o I
N IN I
?n o .n o .n o m o ?n o
0 0 0+ rn m m ° ° o+ rn m m
0 0
('al) u0!10-3 angoas (31) u0 !10A@13 anilolaa
0 o No 00 0 o in o o °o m o ill o
o_ o_ a, rn m m _o O m o, m m rn o+ m m o+ o+ m m o
('1)) uogonal3 angolay (31) uogonal3 angolaa o Iv
a
0
0
N
O O N O u) O O O N O N O
rn of m m m m m m
0 0 _a o
o
I
0 0 0
m m Im
to
m
C
Z ! b z o v z ! z
O O v 0 0 m .?
'D ?h
U c U a U o U m
LL, N N
o I 0 1 0
(n V)
to o N o
o U o N
K (L' o LL' o
K o^
0
U
o to .N v N U Lo ._'
' ax 'i Imo= lo x
p
i I Il II Ila
I
O O 0
N N N
I
ifl O O N 010 0 o a, o, m m ? ° o, o, m m o o m° m °m ° ° rn m m m
('ly) uogonal3 anllolaw .. -^lula? (71) uollonal3 angolaa (7)) uogonal3 anilolay
Date
uam

USGS 02088500 LITTLE RIVER NEAR PRINCETON, NC
9.8
7.9
g 9.8
5.8
4.0
3.9
2.9

1.0
B.B
Jul Sep Nov Jan War Nay Jul Sep N-
2907 2087 2007 2088 2008 2888 2988 2068 2088
- Daily naninon pope height - Period of approved data
- Dally ninisun page height - -- Period of provisional d
t

- Daily neon Cape Might
NEED HERS, BETWEEN 5.8 FT.
:
:3.0
I'?i?5rirnr?c
A division of•
Lowell Mill Dam
Monitoring Year 3
Johnston County,
North Carolina
February 5. 2006
NCOWR
North Carolina
Drought Monitor Data
DroupM MssNka6ons
?..! DD - Ahnormapy Dry
? DI - hlooeralo Drought
D2 - Severe Droup
D3-Exheme Drought
D4 -Excegional Drought
y FIGURE
6
APPENDIX B: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
EEP Project No. D04008-2 B Lowell Mill Dam Removal
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Dugesiidae
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp.
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Tubificida
Enchytraeidae
Lumbricidae
Tubificidae w.h.c.
Branchiura sowerbyi
Tubificidae w.o.h.c.
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
Branch iobdellida
Hirudinea
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae
Batrachobdella phalera
Helobdella triserialis
Placobdella papillifera
Placobdella parasitica
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea
Acariformes
Lebertiidae
Lebertia sp.
Crustacea
Ostracoda
Copepoda
Cyclopoida
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Amphipoda
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.
Hyalellidae
Hyalella azteca
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Stations
T.V. F.F.G. 1 3 6 10 13 15 17 R1 R2 R3 R4
7.2 4 1 2 2 2
2 1
8.8 CG 1 1
*10 CG
9.8 CG 1
Sc 1 1 3 1
7.1 CG 1 1
8.3 CG 2
7.1 CG 1 2 4 1
7 CG 5 5 6 5 10 2 8 5 1 2
1 1
P 1
P 1 1
7.6 P 1
9.2 P 1
9 P 1
8.7 1 1 2 2
5.5 1
5.5
5.5
1
1 1
SH
9.1 CG 1 1 4 1
7.9 CG 1 3
CG
7.9 CG 3 1 13 1
7.8 CG 1
7.5 1 19

7 8 13 1
1 2 1 1
32
1
4
1
1
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 1 3 6 10 13 15 17 R1 R2 R3 R4
Palaemonidae
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 CG 3 3 4 3 6 1 1
Collembola 1 2 1
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG 1
Baetis intercalaris 7 CG 2 7 4 19 8 16 2
Baetis sp. CG 1
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 CG 1 1
Plauditus sp. CG 1 5 2 1 6
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 CG 2 6 2 8 1 1
Caenidae CG
Caenis sp. 7.4 CG 12 47 18 75 115 87 8 71 84
Ephemeridae CG
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 CG 3 1 2
Ephemerellidae SC 1
Attenella sp. 6 1 2 1 2
Ephemerella needhami 0 CG 1
Ephemerella sp. 2 SC 2
Timpanoga sp. CG 1
Heptageniidae SC
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) sp. SC 5 26 28 15 41 7 2 25 13
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 SC 1 1 2
Isonychiidae FC
Isonychia sp. 3.5 FC 15 21 8 2 7 25 1 2
Odonata
Aeshnidae p 2 1 2 2
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 P 1 2 2 1 1 1
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 1 1
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 P 1
Coenagrionidae P 10 1
Argia sp. 8.2 P 1 5 2 12 7 8 2 4 16 22
Enallagma sp. 8.9 P 1 6 1 3 4 7
Gomphidae P 1 2 2 4
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 P 1
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 P i 1
Gomphus sp. 5.8 P 1 1 3 2
Progomphus obscures 8.2 P 2 4 1 3
Libellulidae p 4 1
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 P 1
Eeythemis sp. 1 2 4 4
Libellula sp. 9.6 P 3 5
Macromia sp. 6.2 P 2 1 1 1 2 1
Neurocordulia alabemensis 1
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 1 2 4 1 2 3 1
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 2 1 1
Perithemis tenera 9.9 P 2 1
Plathemis lydia 10 2
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
Plecoptera
Perlidae
Periesta placida sp, gp.
Perlodidae
Isoperia sp.
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp.
Gerridae
Gerris sp.
Trepobates sp.
Naucoridae
Pelocoris sp.
Nepidae
Ranatra sp.
Pleidae
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Chauliodes pectinicomis
Corydalus cornutus
Sialidae
Sialis sp.
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Hydropsyche sp.
Leptoceridae
Nectopsyche sp.
Nectopsyche exquisita
Nectopsyche pavida
Oecetis avara
Polycentropodidae
Phylocentropus sp.
Coleoptera
Carabidae
Curculionidae
Dytiscidae
Coptotomus sp.
Neoporus sp.
Elmidae
Ancyronyx variegata
Dubiraphia sp.
Dubiraphia vittata
Macronychus glabratus
Stenelmis sp.
Gyrinidae
Dineutus sp.
Haliplidae
T.V. F.F.G. 1 3 6 10 13 15 17 R1 R2 R3 R4
P
4.7 P 29 46 35 8 19 12 9 2 13 12 8
P
P 1 5 5 1 1
9 PI 1
9.8 P 2 1
P
1 1
P 1
7 1
7.8 P 1 1
1 1
P
9.6 1
5.2 P 1
P
7.2 P 1
FC 1
6.2 FC 2 2 3 12 6
FC 1
CG
2.9 SH 1
4.1 SH
4.1
4.7 P
FC
1 1
2
2 8 6
1
1
1 2 1
1
1
P 1
9.3 1 1
8.6 4 3 4 14 12 11 15 1 2 5
CG
6.5 SC 3 2 2 2 6 5
5.9 SC 1 6
4.1 SC 3 2 2 2
4.6 SH 9 49 13 3 21 2 10 6 30 17
5.1 SC 1 1
P
5.5 P 3 5 10 12 3
BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
Peltodytes sp.
Peltodytes duodecimpunctatus
Hydrophilidae
Berosus sp.
Helochares sp.
Sperchopsis tesselatus
Sperchopsis sp.
Noteridae
Suphisellus sp.
Ptilodactylidae
Scirtidae
Cyphon sp.
Staphylinidae
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
Atrichopogon sp.
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp.
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi
Chironomus sp.
Cladopelma sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp.
Clinotanypus sp.
Conchapelopia sp.
Corynoneura sp.
Cricotopus bicinctus
Cricotopus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Dicrotendipes sp.
Dicrotendipes simpsoni
Einfeldia natchitocheae
Labrundinia sp.
Nanocladius alternantherae
Nanocladius sp.
Orthocladius sp.
Orthocladius lignicola
Parametriocnemus sp.
Phaenopsectra obediens
Polypedilum fallax
Polypedilum illinoense
Potthastia sp.
Potthastia longimana
Procladius bellus
Procladius sp.
Procladius (Holotanypus) sp.
Pseudochironomus sp.
Rheocricotopus robacki
Rheotanytarsus sp.
Stenochironomus sp.
T.V. F.F.G. 1 3 6 10 13 15 17 R1 R2 R3 R4
8.7 SH 2 11 17 22 3 1
1 1 1
P
8.4 CG 2
P 1
6.1 CG 4 4 1
1
SH 1
SC
1
P 1
P 1 2 1
6.5 P
6.9 P 1 1
7.2 P 1 2 4 13 19 11 3 1
9.6 CG 2 1 1 1 3 8 2
3.5 CG 1
4.1 FC 1
P 1
8.4 P 2
6 CG 5 6 3 4 1
8.5 CG 6 2 17 3 90 4 6
CG 7 3
6.4 P 1
8.1 CG 2 1 1 1 1
10 3 3 4
1
5.9 P 1 1 1
9 1
7.1 CG 1
CG 1
5.4 CG 1
3.7 GG 1 16 1
6.5 SC 2 1
6.4 SH 2 13 1 15 1 3
9 SH 1 12 19 1 1
6.4 CG 6
6.5 CG 1
9.1 P 4 5 2 2
5.4 CG 2
7.3 CG 2 1 1
5.9 FC 1
6.5 SH 1
2
3 4
4
1
1 1
1
1
1
8 4
1
7
1 1
2
4
1
3 1
5 1
2
1
32 1
1 1
1
2 5
3
4
1
BENTHIC MACRO I NVERTE BRATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
Tanytarsus sp.
Thienemanniella xena
Tribelos fuscicorne
Tribelos jucundum
Tribelos sp.
Xenochironomus xenolabis
Xylotopus par
Zavrelimyia sp.
Culicidae
Anopheles sp.
Psychodidae
Sciaridae
Simuliidae
Simulium sp.
Tabanidae
Chrysops sp.
Tipulidae
Tipula sp.
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
EPT TAXA
NCBI
NCBI ASSIGNED VALUES
T.V. F.F.G. 1 3 6 10 13 15 17 R1 R2 R3 R4
6.8 FC 7 1 13 11 7 2 1 2 6
5.9 CG 1 4 21 3 1 1 2
5 2 1
6.3 8 1 14 3 2 2
6.3 CG 4
7.1 P 2 2 2
6 SH 2
9.1 P 4 1
FC
8.6 FC 1
CG 1
3
FC
6 FC 2 1 1
PI
6.7 PI 1
SH 1
7.3 SH 1 2
136 316 258 277 510 305 72 118 58 307 308
36 47 46 53 53 65 19 43 27 51 53
7 11 11 8 11 16 1 8 3 13 9
5.94 5.73 6.10 7.38 7.28 7.14 7.70 ### 6.05 6.70 7.10
6.22 5.89 6.33 7.48 6.96 7.15 8.04 ### 6.11 6.65 6.97
4.1
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta.1 Sta.3 Sta.6
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 4 28.8 1 7.2 2 14.4
Physella sp. 8.8 0 0 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 1 9.8 0 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 0 1 7.1 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 0 0 2 16.6
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 0 1 7.1 0
Lumbriculidae 7 5 35 5 35 6 42
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 0 0 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 0 0 0
Placobdella papillifera 9 0 0 1 9
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 0 0 1 8.7
Acariformes 5.5 0 1 5.5 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0 0 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 0 0 0
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 1 9.1 0 0
Lirceus sp. 7.9 0 0 0
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 3 23.7 0 1 7.9
Hyalella azteca 7.8 1 7.8 0 0
Cambaridae 7.5 0 1 7.5 0
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 0 3 21.3 0
Baetis intercalaris 7 2 14 7 49 4 28
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 0 0 0
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 2 8 6 24 2 8
Caenis sp. 7.4 12 88.8 47 347.8 18 133.2
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 0 0 0
Ephemerella needhami 0 0 1 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 0 0 0
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 0 1 6.9 0
Isonychia sp. 3.5 15 52.5 21 73.5 8 28
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 1 5.9 0 2 11.8
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 1 8.1 0 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 0 0 0
Argia sp. 8.2 1 8.2 5 41 2 16.4
Enallagma sp. 8.9 1 8.9 0 0
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 0 0 0
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 0 0 0
Gumphus sp. 5.8 0 0 i 5.8
Progomphus obscures 8.2 0 0 2 16.4
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0 1 5.6 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 0 0 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 0 0 2 12.4
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 0 1 5.2 2 10.4
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 0 0 0
Perithemis tenera 9.9 0 0 0
Plathemis lydia 10 0 0 0
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 29 136.3 46 216.2 35 164.5
Corixidae 9 0 0 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 0 0 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 0 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta.1 Sta.3 Sta.6
Ranatra sp. 7.8 0 0 0
Chauliodes pectinicomis 9.6 0 0 0
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 1 5.2 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 0 0 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 2 12.4 2 12.4 3 18.6
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 0 0 0
Nectopsyche exquisite 4.1 0 0 0
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0 0 0
Oecetis avara 4.7 0 0 0
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 0 0 0
Neoporus sp. 8.6 4 34.4 3 25.8 4 34.4
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 0 3 19.5 0
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 0 0
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 0 3 12.3 0
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 9 41.4 49 225.4 13 59.8
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 0 0 1 5.1
Dineutus sp. 5.5 3 16.5 5 27.5 10 55
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 2 17.4 0 0
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 0 0
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 0 0 0
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0 0 0
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 0 0 0
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 1 7.2 2 14.4 4 28.8
Chironomus sp. 9.6 0 2 19.2 0
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 0 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 0 0
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0 0 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 5 30 6 36 3 18
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 6 51 2 17 17 144.5
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 1 6.4 0 0
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 0 2 16.2 1 8.1
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 0 0 3 30
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 1 5.9 0 0
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 0 0 0
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 1 5.4 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 1 3.7 0 18 66.6
Phaenopsectra obediens 6.5 0 0 0
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 2 12.8 13 83.2 1 6.4
Polypedilum illinoense 9 0 0 1 9
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 6 38.4 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 0 0 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 0 0 0
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 2 10.8 0
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 0 0 2 14.6
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 1 5.9 0
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0 0 1 6.5
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 7 47.6 1 6.8 13 88.4
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 1 5.9 4 23.6 21 123.9
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 0 8 50.4 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta.1 Sta.3 Sta.6
Tribelos sp. 6.3 0 0 0
Xenochironomus xenolabis 7.1 0 2 14.2 0
Xylotopus par 6 2 12 0 0
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 0 0 4 36.4
Anopheles sp. 8.6 0 0 0
Simulium sp. 6 0 0 0
Chrysops sp. 6.7 0 0 0
Tipula sp. 7.3 0 0 0
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 127 754.7 266 1524 211 1288
5.943 5.73 6.102
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 10 Sta. 13
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 2 14.4 0
Physella sp. 8.8 1 8.8 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 0 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 1 7.1 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 0 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 0 2 14.2
Lumbriculidae 7 5 35 10 70
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 1 7.6 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 0 0
Placobdella papillifera 9 0 0
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 1 8.7 0
Acariformes 5.5 0 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 0 0
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 0 0
Lirceus sp. 7.9 0 0
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 0 0
Hyalella azteca 7.8 7 54.6 8 62.4
Cambaridae 7.5 1 7.5 0
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 3 21.3 4 28.4
Baetis intercalaris 7 0 19 133
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 0 0
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 0 8 32
Caenis sp. 7.4 75 555 115 851
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 3 14.7 0
Ephemerella needhami 0 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 0 0
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 1 6.9 0
Isonychia sp. 3.5 2 7 7 24.5
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 0 2 11.8
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 0 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 0 0
Argia sp. 8.2 12 98.4 7 57.4
Enallagma sp. 8.9 0 6 53.4
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 0 0
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 1 5.1 0
Gomphus sp. 5.8 0 0
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 0 4 32.8
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 3 28.8 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 1 6.2 1 6.2
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 4 20.8 1 5.2
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 0 0
Perithemis tenera 9.9 0 0
Plathemis lydia 10 0 0
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 8 37.6 19 89.3
Corixidae 9 0 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 2 19.6 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 10 Sta. 13
Ranatra sp. 7.8 1 7.8 0
Chauliodes pectinicornis 9.6 0 1 9.6
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 0 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 0 12 74.4
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 0 0
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 0 0
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0 0
Oecetis avara 4.7 0 0
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 0 0
Neoporus sp. 8.6 14 120.4 12 103.2
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 0 2 13
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 0
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 2 8.2 0
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 3 13.8 21 96.6
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 0 0
Dineutus sp. 5.5 0 12 66
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 11 95.7 17 147.9
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 2 16.8
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 4 24.4 4 24.4
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0 0
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 1 6.9 0
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 13 93.6 19 136.8
Chironomus sp. 9.6 1 9.6 1 9.6
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 1 4.1
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 2 16.8 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 0 0
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 3 25.5 90 765
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 0 0
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 1 8.1 1 8.1
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 3 30 0
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 0 0
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 0 0
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 0 1 3.7
Pl)aeiiopsectra obeuiens 6.6 2 13 0
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 15 96 1 6.4
Polypedilum illinoense 9 12 108 19 171
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 0 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 4 36.4 0
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 0
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 0 1 7.3
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 0
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0 0
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 11 74.8 7 47.6
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 3 17.7 1 5.9
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 10 Sta. 13
Tribelos sp. 6.3 0 0
Xenochironomus xenolabis 7.1 0 0
Xylotopus par 6 0 0
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 0 0
Anopheles sp. 8.6 0 1 8.6
Simulium sp. 6 0 2 12
Chrysops sp. 6.7 0 1 6.7
Tipula sp. 7.3 1 7.3 2 14.6
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 241 1779.1 444 3230.9
7.3822 7.2768
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 15 Sta. 17 Sta. R1
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 2 14.4 0
Physella sp. 8.8 1 8.8 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 0 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 0 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 0 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 4 28.4 0 1
Lumbriculidae 7 2 14 8 56 5
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 0 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 1 9.2 0
Placobdella papillifera 9 0 0
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 2 17.4 0 2
Acariformes 5.5 0 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 0 0
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 1 9.1 4 36.4
Lirceus sp. 7.9 1 7.9 3 23.7
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 0 13 102.7 1
Hyalella azteca 7.8 13 101.4 0
Cambaridae 7.5 2 15 1 7.5 1
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 3 21.3 0 6
Baetis intercalaris 7 8 56 0
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 1 6.6 0
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 1 4 0
Caenis sp. 7.4 87 643.8 0 8
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 1 4.9 0 2
Ephemerella needhami 0 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 0 0
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 0 0 2
Isonychia sp. 3.5 25 87.5 0 1
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 1 5.9 0
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 1 8.1 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 0 0
Argia sp. 8.2 8 65.6 0 2
Enallagma sp. 8.9 0 1 8.9 3
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 0 0 1
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 0 0
Gomphus sp. 5.8 0 0 1
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 1 8.2 0
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 5 48 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 1 6.2 0
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 0 0
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 2 19.8 0
Perithemis tenera 9.9 2 19.8 0 1
Plathemis lydia 10 2 20 0
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 12 56.4 9 42.3 2
Corixidae 9 1 9 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 1 9.8 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 1 7 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 517/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 15 Sta. 17 Sta. R1
Ranatra sp. 7.8 0 0 1
Chauliodes pectinicornis 9.6 0 0
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 1 7.2 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 6 37.2 0
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 1 2.9 0
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 0 0
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0 0
Oecetis avara 4.7 0 0
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3
Neoporus sp. 8.6 11 94.6 15 129 1
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 0 0 2
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 0
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 2 8.2 0
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 2 9.2 0 10
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 0 0
Dineutus sp. 5.5 3 16.5 0
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 22 191.4 0 3
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 0
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 0 0
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0 0
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 0 0 1
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 11 79.2 0 3
Chironomus sp. 9.6 1 9.6 3 28.8 8
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 0
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 0 0 4
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 4 34 0 6
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 0 0
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 1 8.1 0
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 0 0 4
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 1 5.9 0 1
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 0 0 1
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 0 0
Phaenopsectra obediens 6.5 0 U 1
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 0 0 3
Polypedilum illinoense 9 1 9 1 9
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 1 6.5 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 5 45.5 2 18.2 2
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 0
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 1 7.3 0
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 0
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0 0
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 0 2 13.6 1
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 0 0
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 0 1 6.3 14
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 15 Sta. 17 Sta. R1
Tribelos sp. 6.3 0 0
Xenochironomus xenolabis 7.1 0 0 2
Xylotopus par 6 0 0
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 0 1 9.1
Anopheles sp. 8.6 0 0
Simulium sp. 6 1 6 0
Chrysops sp. 6.7 0 0
Tipula sp. 7.3 0 0
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 269 1921.1 65 500.8 107
7.1416 7.7046
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R2 Sta. R3
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 0 0 2 14.4
Physella sp. 8.8 0 0 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 0 0 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 7.1 0 0
Lumbriculidae 7 35 1 7 2 14
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 0 0 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 0 0 0
Placobdella papillifera 9 0 0 0
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 17.4 0 0
Acariformes 5.5 0 0 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0 0 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 0 0 0
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 0 0 1 9.1
Lirceus sp. 7.9 0 0 0
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 7.9 0 0
Hyalella azteca 7.8 0 0 1 7.8
Cambaridae 7.5 7.5 0 0
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 42.6 1 7.1 0
Baetis intercalaris 7 0 0 16 112
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 0 0 0
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 0 0 0
Caenis sp. 7.4 59.2 0 71 525.4
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 9.8 0 0
Ephemerella needhami 0 0 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 0 0 2 4
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 13.8 0 0
Isonychia sp. 3.5 3.5 0 2 7
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 0 1 5.9 1 5.9
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 0 0 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 0 0 1 7.8
Argia sp. 8.2 16.4 4 32.8 16 131.2
Enallagma sp. 8.9 26.7 0 4 35.6
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 5.9 0 0
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 0 1 5.1 0
Gomphus sp. 5.8 5.8 0 3 11.4
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 0 0 3 24.6
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0 0 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 0 0 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 0 0 2 12.4
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 0 2 10.4 3 15.6
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 0 1 9.9 0
Perithemis tenera 9.9 9.9 0 0
Plathemis lydia 10 0 0 0
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 9.4 13 61.1 12 56.4
Corixidae 9 0 0 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 0 0 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 0 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R2 Sta. R3
Ranatra sp. 7.8 7.8 0 0
Chauliodes pectinicornis 9.6 0 0 0
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 0 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 0 0 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 0 2 12.4 8 49.6
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 0 0 0
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 0 0 0
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0 0 1 4.1
Oecetis avara 4.7 0 0 1 4.7
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 0 0 0
Neoporus sp. 8.6 8.6 0 2 17.2
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 13 2 13 6 39
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 1 5.9 0
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 0 0 2 8.2
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 46 6 27.6 30 138
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 0 0 1 5.1
Dineutus sp. 5.5 0 0 0
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 26.1 1 8.7 3 26.1
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 0 0
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 0 1 6.1 1 6.1
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0 0 1 6.5
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 6.9 0 0
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 21.6 1 7.2 8 57.6
Chironomus sp. 9.6 76.8 2 19.2 0
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 1 3.5 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 0 0
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0 0 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 24 1 6 1 6
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 51 0 2 17
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 0 0 0
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 0 0 3 24.3
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 40 0 5 50
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 5.9 0 2 11.8
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 7.1 0 0
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 0 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 0 0 0
Phaeitopsectra obedieiis 6.5 6.5 0 1 6.5
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 19.2 0 32 204.8
Polypedilum illinoense 9 0 1 9 0
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 0 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 0 0 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 18.2 0 2 18.2
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 0 0
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 0 0 0
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 0 0
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0 0 0
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 6.8 2 13.6 0
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 0 0 1 5.9
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 88.2 3 18.9 2 12.6
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
T.V.
Sta. R2
Sta. R3
Tribelos sp.
Xenochironomus xenolabis
Xylofopus par
Zavrelimyia sp.
Anopheles sp.
Simulium sp.
Chrysops sp.
Tipula sp.
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
6.3 0 0 0
7.1 14.2 0 2 14.2
6 0 0 0
9.1 0 0 0
8.6 0 0 0
6 0 1 6 0
6.7 0 0 0
7.3 0 0 0
765.8 49 296.4 259 1734.1
7.157 6.049 6.6954
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R4
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 1 7.2
Physella sp. 8.8 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 0
Lumbriculidae 7 0
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 1 9.2
Placobdella papillifera 9 0
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 0
Acariformes 5.5 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 4 22
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 0
Lirceus sp. 7.9 0
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 1 7.9
Hyalella azteca 7.8 19 148.2
Cambaridae 7.5 1 7.5
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 1 7.1
Baetis intercalaris 7 2 14
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 1 6.6
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 1 4
Caenis sp. 7.4 84 621.6
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 0
Ephemerella needhami 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 0
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 0
Isonychia sp. 3.5 0
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 0
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 0
Argia sp. 8.2 22 180.4
Enallagma sp. 8.9 7 62.3
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 0
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 0
Gornphus sp. 5.8 2 11.6
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 0
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 1 6.2
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 1 5.2
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 1 9.9
Perithemis tenera 9.9 0
Plathemis lydia 10 0
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 8 37.6
Corixidae 9 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R4
Ranatra sp. 7.8 0
Chauliodes pectinicomis 9.6 0
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 6 37.2
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 0
Nectopsyche exquisite 4.1 1 4.1
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0
Oecetis avara 4.7 0
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 0
Neoporus sp. 8.6 5 43
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 5 32.5
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 6 35.4
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 0
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 17 78.2
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 0
Dineutus sp. 5.5 0
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 4 34.8
Berosus sp. 8.4 1 8.4
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 1 6.1
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 0
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 4 28.8
Chironomus sp. 9.6 1 9.6
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 1 6
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 0
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 1 6.4
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 1 8.1
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 1 10
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 0
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 0
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 0
Phaenopsectra obediens 6.5 u
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 1 6.4
Polypedilum illinoense 9 1 9
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 5 45.5
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 4 21.6
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 0
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 1 5.9
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 6 40.8
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 2 11.8
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 2 12.6
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R4
Tribelos sp. 6.3 4 25.2
Xenochironomus xenolabis 7.1 0
Xylotopus par 6 0
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 0
Anopheles sp. 8.6 0
Simulium sp. 6 0
Chrysops sp. 6.7 0
Tipula sp. 7.3 0
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 239 1695.9
7.095816
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina
Physella sp.
Enchytraeidae
Tubificidae w.h.c.
Branchiura sowerbyi
Tubificidae w.o.h.c.
Lumbriculidae
Batrachobdella phalera
Helobdella triserialis
Placobdella papillifera
Placobdella parasitica
Acariformes
Lebertiidae
Lebertia sp.
Caecidotea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Crangonyx sp.
Hyalella azteca
Cambaridae
Palaemonetes sp.
Baetis intercalaris
Centroptilum sp.
Pseudocloeon sp.
Caenis sp.
Hexagenia sp.
Ephemerella needhami
Ephemerella sp.
Stenacron interpunctatum
Isonychia sp.
Boyeria vinosa
Nasiaeschna pentacantha
Calopteryx sp.
Argia sp.
Enallagma sp.
Dromogomphus sp.
Dromogomphus spinosus
Gomphus sp.
Progomphus obscures
Epicordulia princeps
Libellula sp.
Macromia sp.
Neurocordulia obsoleta
Pachydiplax longipennis
Perithemis tenera
Plathemis lydia
Perlesta placida sp. gp.
Corixidae
Belostoma sp.
Pelocoris sp.
T.V. Sta.1
7.2 4
8.8
9.8 1
7.1
8.3
7.1
7 5
7.6
9.2
9
8.7
5.5
5.5
5.5
9.1 1
7.9
7.9 3
7.8 1
7.5
7.1
7 2
6.6
4 2
7.4 12
4.9
0
2
6.9
3.5 15
5.9 1
8.1 1
7.8
8.2 1
8.9 1
5.9
5.1
5.23
8.2
5.6
9.6
6.2
5.2
9.9
9.9
10
4.7 29
9
9.8
7
Sta. 3
3 21.6 1
0 0
1 9.8
0 0 1
0 0
0 0 1
3 21 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0
0 0
1 9.1
0 0
3 23.7
1 7.8
0 0 1
0 0 3
1 7 7
0 0
1 4 6
10 74 47
0 0
0 0 1
0 0
0 0 1
10 35 21
1 5.9
1 8.1
0 0
1 8.2 5
1 8.9
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 47 46
0 0
0 0
0 0
Sta. 6
1 7.2 2
0 0
0 0
1 7.1
0 0 2
1 7.1
3 21 6
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0 1
1 5.5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0
1 7.5
3 21.3
3 21 4
0 0
3 12 2
10 74 18
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 6.9
10 35 8
0 0 2
0 0
0 0
3 24.6 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0 2
1 5.6
0 0
0 0 2
1 5.2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 47 35
0 0
0 0
0 0
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta.1 Sta.3 Sta.6
Ranatra sp. 7.8 0 0 0 0 0
Chauliodes pectinicornis 9.6 0 0 0 0 0
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 1 1 5.2 0 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 0 0 0 0 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 2 1 6.2 2 1 6.2 3 3
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 0 0 0 0 0
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 0 0 0 0 0
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0 0 0 0 0
Oecetis avara 4.7 0 0 0 0 0
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 0 0 0 0 0
Neoporus sp. 8.6 4 3 25.8 3 3 25.8 4 3
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 0 0 3 3 19.5 0
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0 0
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 0 0 3 3 12.3 0
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 9 3 13.8 49 10 46 13 10
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dineutus sp. 5.5 3 3 16.5 5 3 16.5 10 10
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 2 1 8.7 0 0 0
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 0 0 0 0
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 0 0 0 0 0
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 0 0 0 0 0
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 1 1 7.2 2 1 7.2 4 3
Chironomus sp. 9.6 0 0 2 1 9.6 0
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 0 0 0 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 0 0 0 0
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0 0 0 0 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 5 3 18 6 3 18 3 3
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 6 3 25.5 2 1 8.5 17 10
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 1 1 6.4 0 0 0
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 0 0 2 1 8.1 1 1
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 0 0 0 0 3 3
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 1 1 5.9 0 0 0
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 0 0 0 0 0
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 0 1 1 5.4 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 1 1 3.7 0 0 18 10
Phaernupsectra obedietis 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 2 1 6.4 13 10 64 1 1
Polypedilum illinoense 9 0 0 0 0 1 1
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 0 6 3 19.2 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 0 0 0 0 0
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 0 2 1 5.4 0
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 0 0 0 0 2 1
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 0 1 1 5.9 0
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0 0 0 0 1 1
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 7 3 20.4 1 1 6.8 13 10
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 1 1 5.9 4 3 17.7 21 10
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 0 0 8 3 18.9 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
T.V. Sta.1
Sta. 3
Sta. 6
Tribelos sp.
Xenochironomus xenolabis
Xylotopus par
Zavrelimyia sp.
Anopheles sp.
simulium sp.
Chrysops sp.
Tipula sp.
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
6.3 0 0 0 0 0
7.1 0 0 2 1 7.1 0
6 2 1 6 0 0 0
9.1 0 0 0 0 4 3
8.6 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0
6.7 0 0 0 0 0
7.3 0 0 0 0 0
127 76 472.7 266 108 636.1 211 125
6.22 5.89
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 10 Sta. 13
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 7.2 2 1 7.2 0 0
Physella sp. 8.8 0 1 1 8.8 0 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 0 0 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 0 1 1 7.1 0 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 8.3 0 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 0 0 0 2 1 7.1
Lumbriculidae 7 21 5 3 21 10 10 70
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 0 1 1 7.6 0 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 0 0 0 0 0
Placobdella papillifera 9 9 0 0 0 0
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 8.7 1 1 8.7 0 0
Acariformes 5.5 0 0 0 0 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0 0 0 0 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 0 0 0 0 0
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 0 0 0 0 0
Lirceus sp. 7.9 0 0 0 0 0
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 7.9 0 0 0 0
Hyalella azteca 7.8 0 7 3 23.4 8 3 23.4
Cambaridae 7.5 0 1 1 7.5 0 0
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 0 3 3 21.3 4 3 21.3
Baetis intercalaris 7 21 0 0 19 10 70
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 0 0 0 0 0
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 4 0 0 8 3 12
Caenis sp. 7.4 74 75 10 74 115 10 74
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 0 3 3 14.7 0 0
Ephemerella needhami 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 0 1 1 6.9 0 0
Isonychia sp. 3.5 10.5 2 1 3.5 7 3 10.5
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 5.9 0 0 2 1 5.9
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 0 0 0 0 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 0 0 0 0 0
Argia sp. 8.2 8.2 12 10 82 7 3 24.6
Enallagma sp. 8.9 0 0 0 6 3 26.7
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0 0
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 0 1 1 5.1 0 0
Gumphus sp. 5.8 5.8 0 G 0 0
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 8.2 0 0 4 3 24.6
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0 0 0 0 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 0 3 3 28.8 0 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 6.2 1 1 6.2 1 1 6.2
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 5.2 4 3 15.6 1 1 5.2
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 0 0 0 0 0
Perithemis tenera 9.9 0 0 0 0 0
Plathemis lydia 10 0 0 0 0 0
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 47 8 3 14.1 19 10 47
Corixidae 9 0 0 0 0 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 0 2 1 9.8 0 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 0 0 0 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 10 Sta. 13
Ranatra sp. 7.8 0 1 1 7.8 0 0
Chauliodes pectinicomis 9.6 0 0 0 1 1 9.6
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 0 0 0 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 0 0 0 0 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 18.6 0 0 12 10 62
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 0 0 0 0 0
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 0 0 0 0 0
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0 0 0 0 0
Oecetis avara 4.7 0 0 0 0 0
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 0 0 0 0 0
Neoporus sp. 8.6 25.8 14 10 86 12 10 86
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 0 0 0 2 1 6.5
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0 0
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 0 2 1 4.1 0 0
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 46 3 3 13.8 21 10 46
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 5.1 0 0 0 0
Dineutus sp. 5.5 55 0 0 12 10 55
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 0 11 10 87 17 10 87
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 0 0 2 1 8.4
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 0 4 3 18.3 4 3 18.3
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 0 1 1 6.9 0 0
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 21.6 13 10 72 19 10 72
Chironomus sp. 9.6 0 1 1 9.6 1 1 9.6
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 0 0 0 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 0 0 1 1 4.1
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0 2 1 8.4 0 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 18 0 0 0 0
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 85 3 3 25.5 90 10 85
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 0 0 0 0 0
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 8.1 1 1 8.1 1 1 8.1
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 30 3 3 30 0 0
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0 0
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 0 0 0 0 0
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 0 0 0 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 37 0 0 1 1 3.7
Phaenopsectra obediens 6.5 0 2 1 6.5 0 0
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 6.4 15 10 64 1 1 6.4
Polypedilum illinoense 9 9 12 10 90 19 10 90
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 0 0 0 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 0 4 3 27.3 0 0
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 0 0 0 0
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 7.3 0 0 1 1 7.3
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0 0
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 6.5 0 0 0 0
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 68 11 10 68 7 3 20.4
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 59 3 3 17.7 1 1 5.9
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 0 0 0 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
T.V. Sta. 10
Sta. 13
Tribelos sp.
Xenochironomus xenolabis
Xylotopus par
Zavrelimyia sp.
Anopheles sp.
Simulium Sp.
Chrysops sp.
Tip ula sp.
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
6.3 0 0 0 0 0
7.1 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0
9.1 27.3 0 0 0 0
8.6 0 0 0 1 1 8.6
6 0 0 0 2 1 6
6.7 0 0 0 1 1 6.7
7.3 0 1 1 7.3 2 1 7.3
791.8 241 138 1031.6 444 165 1148.4
6.334 7.4754 6.96
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 15 Sta. 17 Sta. R1
Girardia (Dugesla) tignna 7.2 2 1 7.2 0 0
Physella sp. 8.8 1 1 8.8 0 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 0 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 0 0 0 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 0 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 4 3 21.3 0 0 1
Lumbriculidae 7 2 1 7 8 3 21 5
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 0 0 0 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 1 1 9.2 0 0
Placobdella papillifera 9 0 0 0 0
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 2 1 8.7 0 0 2
Acariformes 5.5 0 0 0 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0 0 0 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 0 0 0 0
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 1 1 9.1 4 3 27.3
Lirceus sp. 7.9 1 1 7.9 3 3 23.7
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 0 0 13 10 79 1
Hyalella azteca 7.8 13 10 78 0 0
Cambaridae 7.5 2 1 7.5 1 1 7.5 1
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 3 3 21.3 0 0 6
Baetis intercalaris 7 8 3 21 0 0
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 1 1 6.6 0 0
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 1 1 4 0 0
Caenis sp. 7.4 87 10 74 0 0 8
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 1 1 4.9 0 0 2
Ephemerella needhami 0 0 0 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 0 0 0 0
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 0 0 0 0 2
Isonychia sp. 3.5 25 10 35 0 0 1
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 1 1 5.9 0 0
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 1 1 8.1 0 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 0 0 0 0
Argia sp. 8.2 8 3 24.6 0 0 2
Enallagma sp. 8.9 0 0 1 1 8.9 3
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0 1
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 0 0 0 0
Gomphus sp. 5.8 0 0 0 0 1
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 1 1 8.2 0 0
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0 0 0 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 5 3 28.8 0 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 1 1 6.2 0 0
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 0 0 0 0
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 2 1 9.9 0 0
Perithemis tenera 9.9 2 1 9.9 0 0 1
Plathemis lydia 10 2 1 10 0 0
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 12 10 47 9 3 14.1 2
Corixidae 9 1 1 9 0 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 1 1 9.8 0 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 1 1 7 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. 15 Sta. 17 Sta. R1
Ranatra sp. 7.8 0 0 0 0 1
Chauliodes pectinicornis 9.6 0 0 0 0
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 0 0 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 1 1 7.2 0 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 6 3 18.6 0 0
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 1 1 2.9 0 0
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 0 0 0 0
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0 0 0 0
Oecetis avara 4.7 0 0 0 0
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 1 1 9.3 1 1 9.3
Neoporus sp. 8.6 11 10 86 15 10 86 1
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 0 0 0 0 2
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 2 1 4.1 0 0
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 2 1 4.6 0 0 10
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 0 0 0 0
Dineutus sp. 5.5 3 3 16.5 0 0
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 22 10 87 0 0 3
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 0 0 0
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 0 0 0 0
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0 0 0 0
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 0 0 0 0 1
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 11 10 72 0 0 3
Chironomus sp. 9.6 1 1 9.6 3 3 28.8 8
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 0 0 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 0 0 0
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0 0 0 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 0 0 0 0 4
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 4 3 25.5 0 0 6
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 0 0 0 0
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 1 1 8.1 0 0
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 0 0 0 0 4
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 1 1 5.9 0 0 1
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 0 0 0 0 1
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 0 0 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 0 0 0 0
Phauwpsectra obediens 6.5 0 0 0 0 i
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 0 0 0 0 3
Polypedilum illinoense 9 1 1 9 1 1 9
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 0 0 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 1 1 6.5 0 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 5 3 27.3 2 1 9.1 2
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 0 0 0
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 1 1 7.3 0 0
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0 0 0 0
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 0 0 2 1 6.8 1
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 0 0 0 0
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 0 0 1 1 6.3 14
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
Tribelos sp.
Xenochironomus xenolabis
Xylotopus par
Zavrelimyia sp.
Anopheles sp.
Simulium Sp.
Chrysops sp.
Tipula sp.
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
T.V. Sta. 15
6.3
7.1
6
9.1
8.6
6
6.7
7.3
1
269
Sta. 17
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0
1 6
0 0
0 0
130 929.3 65
7.1485
Sta. R1
0 0
0 0 2
0 0
1 9.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
43 345.9 107
8.0442
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R2 Sta. R3
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 0 0 0 0 2 1
Physella sp. 8.8 0 0 0 0 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 0 0 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 0 0 0 0 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 0 0 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 1 7.1 0 0 0
Lumbriculidae 7 3 21 1 1 7 2 1
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 0 0 0 0 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 0 0 0 0 0
Placobdella papillifera 9 0 0 0 0 0
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 1 8.7 0 0 0
Acariformes 5.5 0 0 0 0 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0 0 0 0 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 0 0 0 0 0
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Lirceus sp. 7.9 0 0 0 0 0
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 1 7.9 0 0 0
Hyalella azteca 7.8 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cambaridae 7.5 1 7.5 0 0 0
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 3 21.3 1 1 7.1 0
Baetis intercalaris 7 0 0 0 0 16 10
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 0 0 0 0 0
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 0 0 0 0 0
Caenis sp. 7.4 3 22.2 0 0 71 10
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 1 4.9 0 0 0
Ephemerella needhami 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 0 0 0 0 2 1
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 1 6.9 0 0 0
Isonychia sp. 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 2 1
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 0 0 1 1 5.9 1 1
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 0 0 0 0 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 0 0 0 0 1 1
Argia sp. 8.2 1 8.2 4 3 24.6 16 10
Enallagma sp. 8.9 3 26.7 0 0 4 3
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 1 5.9 0 0 0
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 0 0 1 1 5.1 0
Gomphus sp. 5.8 1 5.6 G 0 3 3
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 0 0 0 0 3 3
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0 0 0 0 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 0 0 0 0 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 0 0 0 0 2 1
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 0 0 2 1 5.2 3 3
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 0 0 1 1 9.9 0
Perithemis tenera 9.9 1 9.9 0 0 0
Plathemis lydia 10 0 0 0 0 0
Periesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 1 4.7 13 10 47 12 10
Corixidae 9 0 0 0 0 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 0 0 0 0 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 0 0 0 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R2 Sta. R3
Ranatra sp. 7.8 1 7.8 0 0 0
Chauliodes pectinicornis 9.6 0 0 0 0 0
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 0 0 0 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 0 0 0 0 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 0 0 2 1 6.2 8 3
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 0 0 0 0 0
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 0 0 0 0 0
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Oecetis avara 4.7 0 0 0 0 1 1
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 0 0 0 0 0
Neoporus sp. 8.6 1 8.6 0 0 2 1
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 1 6.5 2 1 6.5 6 3
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 0 1 1 5.9 0
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 0 0 0 0 2 1
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 10 46 6 3 13.8 30 10
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dineutus sp. 5.5 0 0 0 0 0
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 3 26.1 1 1 8.7 3 3
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 0 0 0 0
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 0 0 1 1 6.1 1 1
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 0 0 0 0 1 1
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 1 6.9 0 0 0
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 3 21.6 1 1 7.2 8 3
Chironomus sp. 9.6 3 28.8 2 1 9.6 0
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 0 1 1 3.5 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 0 0 0 0
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0 0 0 0 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 3 18 1 1 6 1 1
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 3 25.5 0 0 2 1
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 0 0 0 0 0
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 0 0 0 0 3 3
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 3 30 0 0 5 3
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 1 5.9 0 0 2 1
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 1 7.1 0 0 0
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 0 0 0 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 0 0 0 0 0
Phaenopsectra obediens 6.5 1 6.5 0 0 1 1
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 3 19.2 0 0 32 10
Polypedilum illinoense 9 0 0 1 1 9 0
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 0 0 0 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 1 9.1 0 0 2 1
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 0 0 0 0
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 0 0 0 0 0
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 0 0 0 0
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 1 6.8 2 1 6.8 0
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 0 0 0 0 1 1
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 10 63 3 3 18.9 2 1
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES
T.V.
Sta. R2
Sta. R3
Tribelos sp.
Xenochironomus xenolabis
Xylotopus par
Zavrelimyia sp.
Anopheles sp.
Simulium sp.
Chrysops sp.
Tipula sp.
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
6.3 0 0 0 0 0
7.1 1 7.1 0 0 2 1
6 0 0 0 0 0
9.1 0 0 0 0 0
8.6 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 1 1 6 0
6.7 0 0 0 0 0
7.3 0 0 0 0 0
75 522.7 49 37 226 259 114
6.9693 6.1081
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R4
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 7.2 1 1 7.2
Physella sp. 8.8 0 0 0
Enchytraeidae 9.8 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.h.c. 7.1 0 0 0
Branchiura sowerbyi 8.3 0 0 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 0 0 0
Lumbriculidae 7 7 0 0
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 0 0 0
Helobdella triserialis 9.2 0 1 1 9.2
Placobdella papillifera 9 0 0 0
Placobdella parasitica 8.7 0 0 0
Acariformes 5.5 0 0 0
Lebertiidae 5.5 0 0 0
Lebertia sp. 5.5 0 4 3 16.5
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 9.1 0 0
Lirceus sp. 7.9 0 0 0
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 0 1 1 7.9
Hyalella azteca 7.8 7.8 19 10 78
Cambaridae 7.5 0 1 1 7.5
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 0 1 1 7.1
Baetis intercalaris 7 70 2 1 7
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 0 1 1 6.6
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 0 1 1 4
Caenis sp. 7.4 74 84 10 74
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 0 0 0
Ephemerella needhami 0 0 0 0
Ephemerella sp. 2 2 0 0
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 0 0 0
Isonychia sp. 3.5 3.5 0 0
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 5.9 0 0
Nasiaeschna pentacantha 8.1 0 0 0
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 7.8 0 0
Argia sp. 8.2 82 22 10 82
Enallagma sp. 8.9 26.7 7 3 26.7
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 0 0 0
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 0 0 0
Gomphus sp. 5.8 11.4 2 1 5.8
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 24.6 0 0
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 0 0 0
Libellula sp. 9.6 0 0 0
Macromia sp. 6.2 6.2 1 1 6.2
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 15.6 1 1 5.2
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 0 1 1 9.9
Perithemis tenera 9.9 0 0 0
Plathemis lydia 10 0 0 0
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 47 8 3 14.1
Corixidae 9 0 0 0
Belostoma sp. 9.8 0 0 0
Pelocoris sp. 7 0 0 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R4
Ranatra sp. 7.8 0 0 0
Chauliodes pectinicomis 9.6 0 0 0
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 0 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.2 0 0 0
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 18.6 6 3 18.6
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 0 0 0
Nectopsyche exquisite 4.1 0 1 1 4.1
Nectopsyche pavida 4.1 4.1 0 0
Oecetis avara 4.7 4.7 0 0
Coptotomus sp. 9.3 0 0 0
Neoporus sp. 8.6 8.6 5 3 25.8
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 19.5 5 3 19.5
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 0 6 3 17.7
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 4.1 0 0
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 46 17 10 46
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 5.1 0 0
Dineutus sp. 5.5 0 0 0
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 26.1 4 3 26.1
Berosus sp. 8.4 0 1 1 8.4
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 6.1 1 1 6.1
Atrichopogon sp. 6.5 6.5 0 0
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 0 0 0
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 21.6 4 3 21.6
Chironomus sp. 9.6 0 1 1 9.6
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 0 0 0
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 0 0 0
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 0 0 0
Corynoneura sp. 6 6 1 1 6
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 8.5 0 0
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 0 1 1 6.4
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 24.3 1 1 8.1
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 30 1 1 10
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 5.9 0 0
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 0 0 0
Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 0 0 0
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 0 0 0
Phaenupsectra obediens 6.5 6.5 0 0
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 64 1 1 6.4
Polypedilum illinoense 9 0 1 1 9
Potthastia sp. 6.4 0 0 0
Potthastia longimana 6.5 0 0 0
Procladius sp. 9.1 9.1 5 3 27.3
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 0 4 3 16.2
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 0 0 0
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 0 1 1 5.9
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 0 0 0
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 0 6 3 20.4
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 5.9 2 1 5.9
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 6.3 2 1 6.3
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEB RATES COLLECTED FROM LOWELL MILL DAM, JOHNSTON CO., NC, 5/7/08.
SPECIES T.V. Sta. R4
Tribelos sp. 6.3 0 4 3 18.9
Xenochironomus xenolabis 7.1 7.1 0 0
Xylotopus par 6 0 0 0
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 0 0 0
Anopheles sp. 8.6 0 0 0
Simulium sp. 6 0 0 0
Chrysops sp. 6.7 0 0 0
Tipula sp. 7.3 0 0 0
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 758.4 239 104 725.2
6.6526 6.973077
APPENDIX C: Lowell Dam Removal Year-3 Monitoring Report (The Catena Group)
EEP Project No. D04008-2 C Lowell Mill Dam Removal
LOWELL DAM REMOVAL YEAR-3
AQUATIC SPECIES MONITORING REPORT
Little River Watershed Restoration Site Neuse River Basin Cataloging Unit
03020201
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Ahlb, The
Catena
Group
Restoration Systems LLC The Catena Group, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107 410-B Millstone Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604 Hillsborough, NC 27278
November 19, 2008
'JLK CL
Thomas E. Dickinson
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The removal of Lowell Dam on the Little River by Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) is
projected to result in the restoration of approximately 37,000 linear feet of river and
tributaries within the Neuse River Basin. This effort is expected to restore habitat for
mussels, fish (including anadromous species), and other lotic adapted aquatic species.
Lowell Mill Dam was recognized as an impediment to anadromous species spawning
runs and its removal was designated by the North Carolina Dam Removal Task Force
(DRTF) as the highest priority for dam removal in North Carolina (DRTF 2001).
The restoration success criteria established by the DRTF and the goals of RS required
documenting the diversity of aquatic fauna and characterizing habitat within the reservoir
pool created by the dam, and the subsequent monitoring of changes in faunal composition
and habitat following dam removal. The Catena Group Inc. (TCG) was retained by RS in
2005, to conduct the pre-dam removal aquatic species surveys for freshwater mussels and
clams, aquatic snails, aquatic salamanders, and freshwater fish, the results of which are
provided in the Lowell Pre-Removal Survey Report (April 04, 2006). The river's
transition from lentic to lotic conditions is expected to result in broad shifts in the
distribution of aquatic species, including mussels, clams and snails; however, life cycles
and other natural history characteristics predict some lag in the time between actual
habitat conversion to large-scale dispersal and recruitment to these restored habitats.
Following the dam removal in January 2006, a five-year monitoring plan of aquatic
communities (freshwater mussels, aquatic snails, aquatic salamanders and freshwater fish
communities) and anadromous species was developed.
The monitoring plan for 2006 (Year-1 Monitoring) focused on anadromous species
surveys and fish community surveys patterned after the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) Standard Operating Procedure Biological Monitoring Stream Fish
Community Assessment (NCDENR 2001) and implemented to document changes in fish
communities in the Little River over time following dam removal. This evaluation
results in a numerical score called the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI)
being assigned to the water body. As part of the 5-Year Monitoring Plan, the scores at
each site can be compared ovar time follm,ing dam removal to assess chani,Cs in fish
species composition, which is reflective of water quality changes. Additionally, for
freshwater mussels, a specific quantitative study was designed to monitor potential
adverse sedimentation effects resulting from the dam's removal.
The results of the 2006 Year-1 monitoring studies, which are provided in the Lowell Dam
Removal Year- 1 Monitoring Report (September 11, 2006), demonstrated that migration
runs of the anadromous American shad (Alosa sapidissima) had been restored throughout the
Little River main stem, upstream to the existing Atkinson's Mill Dam, as well as within the lower
portion of Buffalo Creek. Further, the fish community surveys indicated lotic adapted aquatic
communities are developing in the former reservoir pool following dam removal. The
quantitative freshwater mussel study suggested that release of sediment from the dam had
some adverse effect on the mussel beds below the former dam; however, further
monitoring was needed to determine the extent of the impacts.
The monitoring plan for 2007 (Year-2 Monitoring) focused on anadromous species
surveys in Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo Creek and Long Branch, as well as continued
quantitative mussel community monitoring. This effort again confirmed migrating
American shad upstream of the former Lowell Dam in the Little River and the lower
portion of Buffalo Creek, however, shad were not found in either the middle, or upper
sections of Buffalo Creek, Long Branch, or Little Buffalo Creek (Year-2 Monitoring
Report October 15, 2007). The quantitative mussel study indicated that while little
mortality could be associated with the dam removal, mark/recapture (recovery) rates of
the tagged mussels decreased dramatically with increased proximity to the former dam
site. The lower recovery rate was believed to be primarily caused by a wedge of
sediment that was released when the dam was removed and gradually migrated
downstream.
For the 2008 monitoring (Year-3 Monitoring), efforts focused on repeating the fish
community surveys conducted during Year-1 Monitoring as well as continued
quantitative mussel community monitoring. The results of which follow:
Fish Community Monitoring:
Fish surveys were conducted on August 19 and 21, 2008, at all of the Year-1 monitoring
sampling sites, using the same methodologies as in 2006. Again, TCG Site 9
(Impoundment 6) was omitted due to the water level being too deep to follow the
sampling protocol The NCIBI scores of the Year-3 monitoring surveys indicate a general
trend of improvement from Year-1, with an average score increase of 2.7 points.
However, three of the six sites showed increases in score, while three showed decreases.
The most significant example of a decrease was at site 2, where the score declined six
points, although it still maintained a "good" score of 48. The most significant increase
observed was at site 3, where an eight point increase pushed the rating from a "fair" score
of 38 to an "excellent" score of 54. At site 3, an increase in species richness was the
biggest driver for the higher Year-3 score (eight species), although corresponding
increases in numbers and trophic guild were also factors. The decrease at site 2 was
mostly related to a slight decrease in species richness (down by two species) that lowered
the score of some metrics and changes in trophic guild. Theses differences are likely
only reflective of seasonal and sampling variation and should be considered minor as the
score still remains in the "good" range.
Quantitative Mussel Community Monitoring:
Freshwater mussels were quantitatively sampled in the Little River at varying intervals
(approximately 30, 200 and 400 meters) below the Lowell dam, as well as at an upstream
control site (Micro Road/SR 2130) prior to dam removal.
Transects were resurveyed approximately three months and fifteen months after dam
removal, which assessed initial mortality resulting from dam removal and detected
movement of mussels within and outside the transects. Untagged (immigrated) mussels
which were captured during the 3-month and 15-month monitoring were measured,
assigned a tag ("newly tagged"), and returned to their respective quadrates as before.
Mortality was assessed by the number of recovered dead, tagged shells. Recapture of
individual mussels two meters (e.g. two quadrates) or greater in any direction from their
original quadrate was considered movement. Mussels recovered in quadrates adjacent to
their original ones were not considered to have moved, since exact location of
replacement within a respective quadrate was not recorded during the initial sampling.
A total of 605 freshwater mussels were tagged in the four study transects prior to dam
removal. The eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) accounted for 98% (591) and six
other species comprised the remaining 2% (14). Significant freshwater mussel mortality
attributable to the dam removal was not evident during the 3-month, or the 15-month
quantitative mussel survey monitoring. However; mark/recapture (recovery) rates of the
tagged mussels decreased dramatically with increased proximity to the former dam site;
45.2% at 30 meters, 59.4% at 200 meters, and 80.4% at 400 meters. The lower recovery
rates are believed to be primarily caused by a wedge of sediment that was released when
the dam was removed and gradually migrated downstream, as the recovery rate at the
upstream control remained high. In addition, a large number of fresh-dead untagged
mussels were found at the three transects below the former dam (65, 137 and 97
respectively) compared to only 5 at the upstream control transect.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 FISH COMMUNITY SURVEY EFFORTS ......................................................... .. 2
2.1 Fish Community Survey Methodology .............................................................. .. 4
3.0 FISH COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................ .. 4
3.1 Species Composition and Site Descriptions ...................................................... .. 5
3.2 Site I (CX-1) ....................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Site 2 (CX-3) ....................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Site 3 (CX-4) ....................................................................................................... 6
3.5 Site 4(CX-7) .......................................................................................................7
3.6 Site 5 (CX-10) ..................................................................................................... 8
3.7 Site 6 (CX-12) ..................................................................................................... 9
3.8 Site 7 (CX-16) ..................................................................................................... 9
3.9 NCIBI Scores .................................................................................................... 10
4.0 FISH COMMUNITY SURVEY DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS ..................... 10
4.1 Fish Surveys ...................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Future Fish Survey Monitoring ........................................................................ 12
5.0 QUANTITATIVE MUSSEL SURVEY EFFORTS ............................................. 12
6.0 QUANTITATIVE MUSSEL SURVEY RESULTS ............................................. 12
7.0 QUANTITATIVE MUSSEL SURVEY DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS ......... 14
8.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Post Dam Removal Permanent Monitoring Survey Locations ............................. 2
Table 2. Site 1 (CX-1): Fish Species Found Yr-3 ............................................................... 5
Table 3. Site 2 (CX-3): Fish Species Found Yr-3 ............................................................... 6
Table 4. Site 3 (CX-4): Fish Species Found Yr-3 ............................................................... 7
Table 5. Site 4 (CX-7): Fish Species Found Yr-3 ............................................................... 7
Table 6. Site 5 (CX-10): Fish Species Found Yr-3 ............................................................. 8
Table 7. Site 7 (CX- 16): Fish Species Found Yr-3 ............................................................ 9
Table 8. Comparison of Year-1 and Year-3 NCIBI Scores Permanent Monitoring
Locations .................................................................................................................... 10
Table 9. Comparison of Pre-removal, Year-1, and Year-3 Monitoring Surveys .............. 1 1
Table 10. Quantitative Mussel Study: Group 1 - Mussels tagged at study inception (0-
months): 3-month, 15-month, and 32-month Monitoring Results ........................... 13
Table 11. Quantitative Mussel Study: Group 2 - Mussels Tagged at 3-months and 15-
months ("Newly Tagged"), 32-month Monitoring Results ...................................... 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Year-3 Monitoring Locations .............................................................................. 3
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. NCIBI Score Sheets For Each Site Sampled Year-1 Fish Community
Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 17
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The removal of Lowell Dam on the Little River within the Neuse River Basin by
Restoration Systems LLC (RS) is projected to result in the restoration of more than
34,990 linear feet of river and tributaries under the former reservoir pool. The project is
expected to restore significant riverine habitat for mussels, fish (including anadromous
fish), and other lotic aquatic species documented within the Little River, as well as
providing a mitigation bank for future activities within the Neuse River Basin.
Based on the restoration success criteria established by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the goals of RS, documenting the effectiveness of the restoration initiative
requires that the aquatic fauna that occurred within the reservoir pool be identified and
then monitored for changes in composition after the dam is removed. The Catena Group
Inc. (TCG) was retained by RS in 2005 to conduct pre-removal aquatic species surveys at
selected locations within the former reservoir pool, as well as at a number of upstream
and downstream locations. The aquatic fauna sampled include freshwater mussels and
clams, aquatic snails, aquatic salamanders, and freshwater fish. The results of the pre-
removal surveys were presented in a report submitted to RS on April 04, 2006 (Lowell
Pre-removal Survey Report).
A five-year monitoring plan of aquatic species communities (freshwater mussels, aquatic
snails, aquatic salamanders and freshwater fish) and anadromous fish has been initiated to
evaluate the success of the dam removal.
The monitoring plan for 2006 (Year-1 Monitoring) focused on anadromous species
surveys and fish community surveys patterned after the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) Standard Operating Procedure Biological Monitoring Stream Fish
Community Assessment (NCDENR 2001) and implemented to document changes in fish
communities in the Little River over time following dam removal. This evaluation
results in a numerical score called the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI)
being assigned to the water body. The NCIBI evaluates 12 metrics (parameters)
pertaining to species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance
and condition. As part of the 5-Year Monitoring Plan, the scores at each site can be
compared over time following dam removal to assess changes in fish species
composition, which is reflective of water quality changes. Additionally, for freshwater
mussels, a specific quantitative study was designed to monitor potential adverse
sedimentation effects resulting from the dam's removal.
The results of the 2006 Year-I monitoring studies, which are provided in the Lowell Dam
Removal Year- 1 Monitoring Report (September 11, 2006), demonstrated that migration
runs of the anadromous American shad (Alosa sapidissima) had been restored throughout the
Little River main stem, upstream to the existing Atkinson's Mill Dam, as well as within the lower
portion of Buffalo Creek. Further, the fish community surveys indicated lotic adapted aquatic
communities were developing in the former reservoir pool following dam removal. The
quantitative freshwater mussel study suggested that release of sediment from the dam had
some adverse effect on the mussel beds below the former dam; however, further
monitoring was needed to determine the extent of the impacts.
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235
The monitoring plan for 2007 (Year-2 Monitoring) focused on anadromous species
surveys in Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo Creek and Long Branch, as well as continued
quantitative mussel community monitoring. This effort again confirmed migrating
American shad upstream of the former Lowell Dam in the Little River and the lower
portion of Buffalo Creek, however, shad were not found in either the middle, or upper
sections of Buffalo Creek, Long Branch, or Little Buffalo Creek (Year-2 Monitoring
Report October 15, 2007). The quantitative mussel study indicated that while little
mortality could be associated with the dam removal, mark/recapture (recovery) rates of
the tagged mussels decreased dramatically with increased proximity to the former dam
site. The lower recovery rate was believed to be primarily caused by a wedge of
sediment that was released when the dam was removed and gradually migrated
downstream.
For the 2008 monitoring (Year-3 Monitoring), efforts focused on repeating the fish
community surveys conducted during Year-1 Monitoring as well as continued
quantitative mussel community monitoring. The results of which follow:
The fish community survey plan involves conducting aquatic species surveys at the same
six stations within the former reservoir pool that were sampled during the pre-removal
and Year-1 fish surveys (Table 1 & Figure 1). Fish surveys were not conducted at sites 6
(CX-12) and 7 (CX 16) during the pre-removal surveys due to water depth.
Table 1. Post Dam Removal Permanent Monitoring Survey Locations
Corresponding TCG Pre-removal
Site # Site # GPS Location
1 4- Impoundment 1 (CX-1) 35.58878°N, -78.18713°W
2 5-Impoundment 2 (CX-3) 35.59071°N, -78.17819°W
3 6-Impoundment 3 (CX-4) 35.58519°N, -78.17772°W
4 7-Impoundment 4 (CX-7) 35.57771°N, -78.17752°W
5 8-Impoundment 5 (CX-10) 35.58051°N, -78.16672°W
6 9-Impoundment 6 (CX-12) 35.58329°N, -78.15951°W
7 10-Impoundment 7 (CX-16) 35.56751°N, -78.16239°W
CX denotes corresponding Cross Sections being evaluated by RS
I he quantitative mussel sampling involved repeating monitoring surveys at three
transects (30-meter, 200-meter and 400-meter below the former dam) and one upstream
control site. The results of the Year-3 fish community monitoring are presented in this
report. The results of these studies will factor into the decision for future monitoring.
2.0 FISH COMMUNITY SURVEY EFFORTS
Year-3 freshwater fish surveys were conducted on August 19 and 21, 2008, at all of the
sites listed in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 1, with the exception of TCG Site 9
(Impoundment 6), which was omitted due to the water level being too deep to follow the
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 2
Cemn. '_Tem.?l• Q ?' ,?? a .i ,.Cem N ?
nei I
Cem.
\ aV? I ^ W) s .Cem 4
H.Hy 61
Gag,
3
i1.21a1' a 4 l
°=ae? ?BagleY
Y 1
13.
A Grove Inn
I ,
Al` \
18<
Streams
'VA Fish Monitoring Sites
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
l I

t 1
CRrte
(\\

- 45-

'. lu
LO-K
l ?f

The Site Map
Catena Lowell Dam Removal
Group Third-Year Fish Monitoring
Johnston County, North Carolina
Date: FigurE
October 2008
Scale:
As Shown
Job No.:
3235
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 3
sampling protocol. These Year-3 efforts were carried out by TCG personnel Tom
Dickinson, Shay Garriock, Kate Montieth, and Chris Sheats.
2.1 Fish Community Survey Methodology
A fish sampling protocol patterned after the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) Standard Operating Procedure Biological Monitoring Stream Fish
Community Assessment (NCDENR 2001) was developed specifically for this project, to
document changes in fish communities in the Little River following dam removal. The
NCDWQ Assessment assesses water quality based on an evaluation of the fish
community. This evaluation results in a numerical score called the North Carolina Index
of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) being assigned to the water body. The NCIBI evaluates 12
metrics (parameters) pertaining to species richness and composition, trophic composition,
and fish abundance and condition. Each metric value is converted into a score of 1, 3 or
5, with 5 representing conditions expected for a relatively undisturbed reference stream in
the specific river basin, or ecoregion (NCDENR 2001). NCIBI reference indices for the
Outer Piedmont of the Neuse River Basin have been developed. The sampling protocol
states that the NCIBI is applicable only in streams within ecoregions that have
established reference indices, and only if collection methodology and data analysis is
strictly followed.
The purpose of applying the NCIBI methodology to the post-removal monitoring is not
necessarily to compare scores generated at each of the monitoring sites with other
streams in the reference ecoregion, but rather to compare scores generated at the
monitoring sites overtime to monitor changes at each site in response to the dam removal.
Specifically, the scores generated during the Year-] monitoring surveys are compared to
scores generated using the same methodologies under similar conditions (time of year,
water levels, etc) in future years.
A standard 600 linear feet of stream at each of the survey sites listed in Table 1 (except
Site 6:CX 12) and depicted in Figure 1 was sampled for fish community parameters using
a 4-person survey team, with two backpack electroshocker units, and dipnets. Survey
methodology, data analysis, and interpretation (scoring) essentially follow procedures
outlined in Standard Operating Procedures Biological Monitoring Stream Fish
Community Assessment (NCDENR 2001).
3.0 FISH COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
It was apparent from field observations and fish surveys that the habitats within the
former reservoir pool created by the Lowell Dam are continuing the process of reverting
to lotic conditions, as a total of 34 fish species were captured within the former reservoir
pool (Tables 2-7).
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235
3.1 Species Composition and Site Descriptions
Brief descriptions of current habitat conditions and the results of the fish surveys for each
site are provided below.
3.2 Site I (CX-1)
The habitat is characterized by shallow runs and pools with a dominantly sand substrate.
Gravel is present in the runs and rocky cobble is occasionally present along clay banks.
Large vegetated sand bars and woody debris remain common throughout. Accumulations
of silt and detritus occur in the pools and slack-water areas downstream of bars and along
the river banks. In addition to the fish species located, one two-toed amphiuma
(Amphiuma means), and two Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisii) were captured
during the surveys.
Table 2. Site 1 (CX-1): Fish Species Found Yr-3
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Anguilla rostrata American eel 10 4
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 13 3
Cyprinella analostanus satinfin shiner 24 6
Esox americanus redfin pickerel 3 2
Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter 6 2
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter 74 4
Etheostoma vitreum glassy darter 1 1
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish 29 3
Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar 3 2
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 58 6
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 40 5
Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish 4 3
Luxilus albeolus white shiner 1 1
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 2 1
Moxostoma colapsum notchlip redhorse 2 1
Nocomis raneyi bull chub I 1
Notropis omoenus comely shiner 4 2
Notropis cummingsae dusky shiner 2 1
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 20 3
Notropis procne swallowtail shiner 67 4
Noturus gyrinus margined madtom 1 1
Percina nevi sense chainback darter 17 3
Percina roanoka Roanoke darter 15 4
Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie 1 1
Scartomyzon cervinus black jumprock 1 1
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235
3.3 Site 2 (CX-3)
This site occurs in a fairly sharp bend in the river. Habitat consists of a long shallow
riffle run area with a consolidated sand and gravel substrate with scattered cobble. Prior
to dam removal, this site was considered to provide the "best" aquatic species habitat
within the reservoir pool. High quality habitat conditions remains at this site.
Table 3. Site 2 (CX-3): Fish Species Found Yr-3
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Anguilla rostrata American eel 12 4
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 15 2
Cyprinella analostanus satinfin shiner 26 5
Enneacanthus gloriosus bluespotted sunfish 2 2
Esox americanus redfin pickerel 2 2
Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter 4 2
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter 47 4
Etheostoma vitreum glassy darter 1 1
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish 28 3
Hypentellium nigricans northern hogsucker 5 2
ktalurus punctatus channel catfish 1 1
Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar 2 2
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 61 6
Lepomis gulosus warmouth 1 l
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 25 5
Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish 3 2
Luxilus albeolus white shiner 2 2
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 7 3
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub 3 2
Nocomis raneyi bull chub 1 1
Notropis amoenus comely shiner 12 2
Notropis procne swallowtail shiner 36 4
Noturus gyrinus margined madtom 12 4
Percina nevi sense chainback darter 14 3
Pc!-c?na roanoka Roanoke darter 20 3
3.4 Site 3 (CX-4)
Site 3 is located below a wide bend of the river with clay banks and bedrock outcrops.
The habitat is characterized as a series of riffles and runs separated by shallow pools.
The substrate is dominated by rocky cobble and sand, with large accumulations of woody
debris and a fair amount of fine sediments (silt and mud) in the pools. Stream banks are
actively eroding, although some re-vegetation of this area was observed this year.
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 6
Table 4. Site 3 (CX-4): Fish Species Found Yr-3
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Anguilla rostrata American eel 9 3
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 5 2
Enneacanthus gloriosus bluespotted sunfish 1 1
Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter 2 2
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter 24 3
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish 43 3
ktalurus punctatus channel catfish 2 1
Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar 2 2
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 50 6
Lepomis gulosus warmouth 1 1
Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 24 4
Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish 2 2
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 2 2
Moxostoma macrolepidotum shorthead redhorse 1 1
Notropis amoenus comely shiner 1 1
Notropis cummingsae dusky shiner 2 1
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 25 3
Notropis procne swallowtail shiner 32 4
Noturus gyrinus margined madtom 3 2
Percina nevi sense chainback darter 11 2
Percina roanoka Roanoke darter 27 3
3.5 Site 4 (CX-7)
This site occurs in a long straight run of the river. Multiple small riffles formed by
woody debris occur throughout, separating pool habitats. The substrate is sand and mud
in slack-water areas below bars and along the river banks. Vegetated shallow sand bars
and woody debris are common. Approximately 0.5 miles upstream of this site, a larger
beaver dam and associated impoundment has become well established.
Table 5. Site 4 (CX-7): Fish Species Found Yr-3
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Ameiurus platycephalus flat bullhead 4 3
Anguilla rostrata American eel 3 3
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 1 1
Cyprinella analostanus satinfin shiner 53 5
Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter 1 1
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter 15 2
Etheostoma vitreum glassy darter 2 1
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish 20 3
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 43 6
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 8 3
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish 5 2
Luxilus albeolus white shiner 4 3
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 7 3
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub 2 2
Nocomis raneyi bull chub 2 2
Notropis amoenus comely shiner 1 1
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 1 1
Notropis procne swallowtail shiner 98 4
Noturus gyrinus margined madtom 2 1
Percina nevi sense chainback darter 10 2
Percina roanoka Roanoke darter 8 3
Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie 1 1
Scartomyzon cervinus black jumprock 2 1
3.6 Site 5 (CX-10)
This site, just downstream of the WRC boat landing located off of SR 2144 (Weaver
Road), has a short run and small riffles formed by woody debris. Deep pools occur up
and downstream of the site. The substrate is sand with silt deposits in slack-water areas
below bars and along the river banks. A steep rocky slope occurs along the right
descending side. Vegetated sand bars and accumulations of woody debris are common.
Table 6. Site 5 (CX-10): Fish Species Found Yr-3
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Anguilla rostrata American eel 6 3
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 7 2
Cyprinella analostanus satinfin shiner 40 5
Enneacanthus gloriosus bluespotted sunfish 1 1
Esox americanus redfin pickerel 2 2
Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter 2 1
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter 21 3
Etheostoma vitreum glassy darter 6 2
Gamhusirr holbrookii eastern mop ;uitofish 35 3
ktalurus punctatus channel catfish 2 1
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 103 6
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 34 4
Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish 16 3
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 15 3
Moxostoma colapsum notchlip redhorse 4 1
Notropis amoenus comely shiner 17 4
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 30 3
Notropis petersoni coastal shiner 1 I
Notropis procne swallowtail shiner 64 4
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Noturus gyrinus margined madtom 3 2
Percina nevisense chainback darter 6 2
Percina roanoka Roanoke darter 23 3
Scartomyzon cervinus black jumprock 1 1
3.7 Site 6 (CX-12)
Site 6 is in the vicinity of the US 301 crossing of the river. During the pre-removal
survey, the habitat was characterized as a deep (max. depth 10 feet) slack-water run of
the river, with substrate composed of sand and occasional rock. Large amounts of woody
debris and fallen trees were evident. Habitat conditions have changed little following
dam removal, which continues into Year-3. Although it is now shallower, the site
remains a 2 to 5 foot deep slack-water pool/run, with large amounts of woody debris.
This site was not sampled in Year-3 because there was not a 600 foot wadeable stretch
that could be sampled using the NCIBI methodology.
3.8 Site 7 (CX-16)
This site is the location of the former Lowell Dam, extending upstream 600 feet through a
fairly long, straight, and narrow section of the river. Well vegetated sand bars occur
throughout that confined the channel to mostly run and riffle habitat. A few shallow
pools occur below bars and woody debris piles. Substrate consisted of coarse sand,
gravel, and silt accumulations behind bars and in pools. Moderate accumulations of
woody debris were scattered throughout.
Table 7. Site 7 (CX- 16): Fish Species Found Yr-3
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Anguilla rostrata American eel 4 2
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 1 1
Cyprinella analostanus satinfin shiner 111 5
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter 10 2
Etheostoma vitreum glassy darter 7 2
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish 30 3
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus redbreast sunfish
bluegill 174
8 5
4
Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish 6 3
Luxilus albeolus white shiner 9 3
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 24 3
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub 4 2
Nocomis raneyi bull chub 2 1
Notropis amoenus comely shiner 60 4
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 30 3
Notropis petersoni coastal shiner 3 1
Notropis procne swallowtail shiner 132 5
Noturus gyrinus margined madtom 4 2
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 9
Scientific Name Common Name # # of Size Classes
Percina nevisense chainback darter 20 2
Percina roanoka Roanoke darter 8 2
Pylodictis olivaris flathead catish 1 1
3.9 NCIBI Scores
The NCIBI scores of the Year-3 monitoring surveys range from 42 (Good-Fair) at Site 4
to 56 (Excellent) at Site 3 (Table 8). Compared to Year-1 scores, a general trend of
improvement is evident in Year -3 with an average score increase of 2.7 points. Score
sheets for each site are included in Appendix A.
Table 8. Comparison of Year-1 and Year-3 NCIBI Scores Permanent Monitoring Locations
Site # Year -1 NCIBI Score Year -3 NCIBI Score
1 (CX-1) 46 (Good) 50 (Good)
2 (CX-3) 54 (Excellent) 48 (Good)
3 (CX-4) 38 (Fair) 56(Excellent)
4 (CX-7) 46 (Good) 42 (Good-Fair)
5 (CX-10) 44 (Good-Fair) 50 (Good)
6 (CX-12) Not Sampled Not Sampled
7 (CX-16) 48 (Good) 46 (Good)
Average 46 48.7
CX denotes corresponding Cross Sections being evaluated by RS
4.0 FISH COMMUNITY SURVEY DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results of the Year-3 fish community monitoring continue to indicate that the Little
River is transitioning towards lotic conditions within the former reservoir pool as a result
of dam removal. Some areas within the former impoundment appear to still retain some
of the pre-removal lentic habitat characteristics such as slack flow, large deposits of fine
sediments and accumulations of woody debris. The lack of normal major flow events in
the Little River watershed since the removal of the dam in late 2005 extending through
the exceptional drought of 2007 have likely contributed to the slow pace of habitat
change. Despite these abnormal rainfall years, the fish surveys employing NCIBI
methodologies conducted at the defined monitoring locations during Year-3 further
documented establishment of lotic habitats and improving habitat conditions in this reach
overtime following dam removal.
4.1 Fish Surveys
Lotic fish communities are developing within the former reservoir pool in response to
dam removal. As with Year-1, the most upstream sites, Sites 1 and 2, contained the
highest species diversity, both with 25 species. Based on habitat observations and
aquatic species survey results during the 2005 pre-removal surveys, it was concluded that
these upstream sites may have already been reverting to lotic conditions as a result of the
water level lowering efforts that began in November of 2004 (Lowell Pre-removal Survey
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 10
Report). During Year-3, sites 3-6 showed the most significant increase in diversity with
increases of as many as 8 species compared to the Year-1 monitoring (Site 3).
While the average IBI score increased from Year-1 to Year-3, three of the six sites
showed increases in score, while three showed decreases. The most significant example
of a decrease was at site 2, where the score declined six points, although still maintained
a "good" score of 48. The most significant increase observed was at site 3, where an
eight point increase pushed the rating from a "fair" score of 38 to an "excellent" score of
54. At site 3, an increase in species richness was the biggest driver for the higher Year-3
score (eight species), although corresponding increases in numbers and trophic guild
were important. The decrease at site 2 was mostly related to a slight decrease in species
richness (down by two species) that lowered the score of some metrics and changes in
trophic guild. Theses differences are likely only reflective of seasonal and sampling
variation and should be considered minor as the score still remains in the "good" range.
Although different fish survey methodologies were used during the pre-removal surveys
in 2005 (Lowell Pre-removal Survey Report) and the Year-1 and Year-3 monitoring
surveys, general comparisons between these results can be made. As shown below
(Table 9), the trend from pre-removal and continuing through the two monitoring efforts
is toward greater species richness at most sites.
Table 9. Comparison of Pre-removal, Year-l, and Year-3 Monitoring Surveys
Site # # Species
Pre-removal # Species Year-1
Monitoring # Species Year-3
Monitoring
1 (CX-1) 21 23 25
2 (CX-3) 26 27 25
3 (CX-4) 16 13 21
4 (CX-7) 15 18 23
5 (CX-10) 11 19 23
6 (CX-12) 5* Not Sampled Not Sampled
7 (CX-16) 3* 21 21
-visual onservations only
Although differences in sampling methodologies may account for some of the differences
in species richness, it can be concluded that habitat restoration in response to dam
removal is a major reason for these changes. Because the combined methodologies used
during the pre-removal surveys were likely to detect more species than the NCIBI survey
methodology, which only utilizes back-pack electro-fishing, the increases in species
richness are more likely attributable to other factors, such as improved habitat conditions.
From Year-1 to Year-3, a general increase in species diversity and population vitality has
been shown using the NCIBI methodology.
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 l l
4.2 Future Fish Survey Monitoring
Habitat within the former impoundment is expected to continue to transition from lentic
to lotic conditions in response to dam removal. As discussed earlier, this further
transition pertains primarily to the middle and lower portions of the former reservoir
pool, as the upper segments appear to be more advanced in this habitat transition. This
transition is expected to continue to be reflected in changes of the aquatic communities.
It is recommended that fish survey monitoring take place in Year-5 of the monitoring
plan. However, each site, particularly the upper sites, does not necessarily have to be
sampled every year. Additionally, reference sites in the Little River outside of the former
dam effects should be sampled in a similar manner near the end (Year- 5) of the
monitoring program for comparison.
5.0 QUANTITATIVE MUSSEL SURVEY EFFORTS
The four monitoring transects that were established and permanently marked prior to dam
removal were visited on October 02, and 13, 2008 by TCG personnel Tim Savidge, Tom
Dickinson and Chris Sheats. Each cross-river transect is divided into 16, 18, 20 and 10
(depending on the exact width of each transect) 1-m2 quadrates respectively. Mussel
surveys were conducted across each transect, and all mussels collected in each quadrate
were collected. Live and dead tagged mussels were measured and recorded, with the live
ones being returned to the substrate, and the dead ones kept as voucher specimens. Any
live untagged mussels were identified to species level, measured, assigned a tag and
returned to the quadrate where it was found. All dead untagged mussel shells were
removed from the river and deposited in the adjacent woodland.
6.0 QUANTITATIVE MUSSEL SURVEY RESULTS
A total of 605 freshwater mussels were tagged in the four study transects prior to dam
removal. The eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) accounted for 98% (591) and six
other species comprised the remaining 2% (14). Significant freshwater mussel mortality
attributable to the dam removal was not evident during the 3-month quantitative mussel
survey monitoring. However, mark/recapture (recovery) rates of the tagged mussels
decreased dramatically with increased proximity to the former dam site; 45.2% at 30
meters, 59.4% at 200 meters ( fable 10). l'he lower recovery rate was believed to be
primarily caused by a wedge of sediment that was released when the dam was removed
and gradually migrated downstream. At the 3-month monitoring, the wedge had reached
the 30 meter and 200 meter transects, covering the substrate with anywhere from 1-5
centimeters of sediment. The wedge had not progressed to the 400 meter transect, and
recovery rates (80.4 %) were similar to those at the upstream control site (84.2%).
However; the sediment wedge did move past the 400 meter transect shortly after the 3-
month monitoring (personal observations), and a sharp decline in recovery rate from 80.4
% (3-months) to 25.6% was recorded during the 15-months monitoring (Table 10), while
the rate at the control site remained relatively high (76.3%). The Recovery rate of
original tagged mussels at the 30 meter Transect, continued to drop during the 15-month
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 12
monitoring (45.2% to 3.2%); however, there was little change in recovery rate of original
tagged mussels (59.4% to 52.6%) at the 200 meter transect.
With the exception of the 30 Meter Transect, which had already experienced a sharp
decline in recovery rate during the 15-month monitoring, a significant drop in recovery
rate was observed at all of the Transects, including the control during the 32-month
monitoring (Table 10). However; the recovery at the control site was still significantly
higher than at the Transects below the former dam. In addition, no mortality of original
tagged mussels was observed at the Control Site, while 6.5%, 16.7% and 12.8% mortality
was observed at the 30-Meter, 200-Meter and 400-Meter Transects respectively. The
number of dead Untagged mussels also continued to rise at the three sites below the
former dam, while remaining relatively the same at the control site (Table 10).
Table 10. Quantitative Mussel Study: Group 1 - Mussels tagged at study inception
(0-months): 3-month, 15-month, and 32-month Monitoring Results.
30 Meter Transect 200 Meter Transect 400 Meter Transect Upstream Control
Tagged Mussels 31 96 439 38
3 15 32 3 15 32 3 15 32 3 15 32
Months Months Months Months Months Months Months Months Months Months Months Months
% Recovered - 45.2 3.2 3.2 59.4 52.6 2.1 80.4 25.6 3.6 84.2 76.3 28.9
Tagged (71.4) (100) (0%) (42.1) (18) (0) (17) (6.25) (20) (6.2) (0) (0)
(% Moved*)
% Dead - 0 0 6.5 1 2.1 16.7 0.2 0.5 12.8 0 0 0
Tagged
# Dead- Unta ed 4 65 75 37 137 163 ?5 97 136 0 5 6
*Moved = any tagged mussel found greater that 2 meters (e.g. two quadrates) in any direction from its original quadrate
Recovery rates of the "newly tagged" (tagged during the 3-month and 15-month
monitoring) mussels was again lower at all three transects (20 m, 200 m, 400 m) below
the former dam (4.2%, 11.7% and 7.7% respectively) than at the upstream control
transect (26.5%). Additionally, no mortality of "newly tagged" mussels was observed at
the control site, while rates of 4.2%, 10% and 9.6% were observed respectively at the 30-
meter, 200-meter and 400-meter transects (Table 11). While there were a large number
of dead mussels at all three transects below the former dam site, a number of live
untagged mussels were also observed. These individuals were tagged and returned to the
location they were found.
Table 11. Quantitative Mussel Study: Group 2 - Mussels Tagged at 3-months and 15-months
("Newly Tagged"), 32-month Monitoring Results.
30 Meter
Transect 200 Meter
Transect 400 Meter
Transect Upstream
Control
#Ta ed Mussels 28 269 710 80
% Recovered
(% Moved*) 4.2
(0) 11.2
(0) 7.7
(43) 26.5
(0
% Dead 4.2 10 9.6 0
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 13
30 Meter
Transect 200 Meter
Transect 400 Meter
Transect Upstream
Control
# Live - Unta ed 15 73 113 35
*Moved = any tagged mussel found greater that 2 meters (e.g. two quadrates) in any direction from its
original quadrate
7.0 QUANTITATIVE MUSSEL SURVEY DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
As mentioned in Section 5.0, a wedge of sediment that was released when the dam was
removed and gradually migrated downstream was believed to attribute to low recovery
rates Of mussels at the transects below the former dam. Much of this migrating sediment
has accumulated along
the right descending side
of the river creating sand
bars that have been
colonized by various
species of herbaceous
and woody vegetation
(Photo 1). The extreme
drought conditions that
-17 persisted in the Little
River in 2007 and early
2008, and subsequent
low flows, likely
attributed to the creation
of the sand bars and
. IN
subsequent plant
colonization.
As a result, this area of
the river appears to be
wetted only during high
flow events; thus, mussels
occurring on this side of
the river were either
buried by sediment, or cut
off from flow (Photo 2).
Subsequently, a large
number of dead mussels
were observed in these
areas. The percentages of
dead tagged mussels is
likely higher as it is
possible that many dead
mussels in the three
transects below the dam
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 14
Photo 1. Upstream view of sediment deposits covering mussels at the 200 meter transect.
Photo 2 Downstream view of sediment deposits diverting flow away from the right
descending bank.
were washed out of the 10-meter upstream/downstream survey limits for each transect.
This is supported by 2 dead shells originating at the 30 meter transect being recovered at
the 200-meter transect. Additional surveys, which are beyond the scope of this project,
would be needed to investigate this hypothesis.
While recovery rates of "original tagged" and "newly tagged" mussels at the control site
dropped significantly from the 15-month monitoring to the 32-month monitoring, little
mortality was observed. The lower recovery rate is likely due in part to poor survey
conditions, as ambient light levels were comparatively lower at this site than any of the 3
transects below the former dam (surveyed late in the day). While this part of the river
undoubtedly experienced extreme low flow as did the rest of the river, drought-related
mortality is likely lower than the three transects below the former dam, as there was no
sediment wedge to compound the drought effects.
In addition to having the lowest recapture (recovery) rates, the three transects below the
former dam had higher percentages of recaptured mussels exhibiting movement than the
upstream control transect, which had relatively little signs of movement during any of the
monitoring periods.
While much of this mortality and evidence of stress (movement) observed in the three
transects below the former dam are likely attributable to bedload sediment transport
associated with dam removal, these losses are not expected to have significant long-term
adverse effects on the overall mussel populations in the river, which should experience an
overall improvement as lotic conditions have been restored to approximately six river
miles of habitat with dam removal. The pre-removal surveys demonstrated that "good"
mussel beds occur throughout the Little River both upstream and downstream of the
former impoundment site that will serve as a source for recruitment into the impacted
reach below the dam, as well as the newly restored reach in the former impoundment.
Additionally, a thalweg habitat has formed on the left descending side of the river as a
result of the deposited sediment wedge, creating "high quality" mussel habitat. Most of
the untagged ("newly immigrated") mussels were found in these areas. Recruitment and
additional immigration of mussels into this area is expected to occur in the future.
The below average rainfall/discharge levels that have persisted in the watershed for much
of the period since dam removal have undoubtedly increased the severity and duration of
the sediment effects on the mussel beds, by 1) resulting in higher amounts of deposition,
and 2) cutting off flow from parts of the channel below the deposits. Average or above
average rainfall incidence might have "flushed" the sand wedge well downstream and
even dispersed the sediment more homogenously throughout the downstream reaches of
the river. In other words, while post dam removal sediment effects are predictable
following dam removal, their impacts on benthic communities might be lessened by more
frequent storm events. Continued monitoring of these transects will document the
population responses to the dam removal and associated sediment impacts.
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 15
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
NCDENR 2001. Standard Operating Procedures Biological Monitoring Stream Fish
Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Available online at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/IB1%2OMethods%202001.pd
f
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 16
APPENDIX A. NCIBI SCORE SHEETS FOR EACH SITE SAMPLED YEAR-1
FISH COMMUNITY MONITORING
Table 1. NCIBI Score Site 1 (CX-1) Yr 3
Metric/score criteria Site Metric # Site Metric Score
No. of species 25 5
> 16 species = 5
10-15 species = 3
<10 species= I
No. of fish 399 5
> 225 fish = 5
150-224 fish = 3
<150 fish= I
No. of species of darters 5 5
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of species of sunfish 3 3
> 4 species = 5
3 species = 3
0-2 species = 1
No. of species of suckers 2 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of intolerant species 2 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
% of tolerant individuals 28% 5
<35%=5
36-50% = 3
>50% = I
% of omnivorous and herbivorous individuals 5% 1
10-35% = 5
36-50% = 3
>50% or <10% = 1
% of insectivorous individuals 90% 5
65-90% = 5
45-64% = 3
<45% or >90% = I
°i, of pkcivorowe individuals 4.9% S
1.4-15% = 5
0.4-1.3% = 3
<0.4% or >15%= I
% of diseased fish <] % 5
<1.75%= 5
1.76-2.75% = 3
>2.75% = 1
% of species with multiple age groups 64% 5
>50% = 5
35-49% = 3
<35% = I
NCIBI Score 50 Good
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 17
Table 2. NCIBI Score Site 2 (CX-3) Yr 3
Metric/score criteria Site Metric # Site Metric Score
No. of species 25 5
> 16 species = 5
10-15 species = 3
<10 species = 1
No. of fish 332 5
> 225 fish = 5
150-224 fish = 3
<150 fish= 1
No. of species of darters 5 5
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of species of sunfish 5 5
> 4 species = 5
3 species = 3
0-2 species = 1
No. of species of suckers 1 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of intolerant species 2 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
% of tolerant individuals 35% 5
< 35% = 5
36-50% = 3
>50% = 1
% of omnivorous and herbivorous individuals 2.4% 1
10-35% = 5
36-50%= 3
>50% or <10% = 1
% of insectivorous individuals 91.5% 1
65-90% = 5
45-64% = 3
<45% or >90% = 1
% of piscivorous individuals 6.9% 5
1.4-15%= 5
0.4-1.3% = 3
<0.4%or>1D°/o= l
% of diseased fish <1% 5
<1.75%= 5
1.76-2.75% = 3
>2.75% = 1
% of species with multiple age groups 84% 5
>50% = 5
35-49% = 3
<35% = 1
NCIBI Score 48 Good
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 18
Table 3. NCIBI Score Site 3 (CX- 4)
Metric/score criteria Site Metric # Site Metric Score
No. of species 21 5
> 16 species = 5
10-15 species = 3
<10 species = 1
No. of fish 268 5
> 225 fish = 5
150-224 fish = 3
<150 fish= 1
No. of species of darters 4 5
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of species of sunfish 5 5
> 4 species = 5
3 species = 3
0-2 species = 1
No. of species of suckers 1 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of intolerant species 2 2
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
% of tolerant individuals 35% 5
<35%= 5
36-50% = 3
>50% = 1
% of omnivorous and herbivorous individuals 10% 5
10-35%= 5
36-50% = 3
>50% or <10% = I
% of insectivorous individuals 85% 5
65-90% = 5
45-64% = 3
<45% or >90% = 1
% of piscivorous individuals 4.8% 5
1.4-15%=5
0.4-1.3%= 3
<0.4%or>15%= 1
% of diseased fish <1% 5

- 1- 5
-1,710
1.76-2.75%= 3
>2.75% = 1
% of species with multiple age groups 71% 5
>50% = 5
35-49%= 3
<35% = 1
NCIBI Score 56 Excellent
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 19
Table 4. NCIBI Score Site 4 (CX- 7)
Metric/score criteria Site Metric # Site Metric Score
No. of species 23 5
> 16 species = 5
10-15 species = 3
<10 species= 1
No. of fish 293 5
> 225 fish = 5
150-224 fish = 3
<150 fish= 1
No. of species of darters 5 5
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of species of sunfish 3 3
> 4 species = 5
3 species = 3
0-2 species = 1
No. of species of suckers 1 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of intolerant species 2 3
3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
% of tolerant individuals 41% 3
< 35% = 5
36-50% = 3
>50% = 1
% of omnivorous and herbivorous individuals 1.7% 1
10-35% = 5
36-50% = 3
>50% or <10% = 1
% of insectivorous individuals 94% 1
65-90% = 5
45-64% = 3
<45% or >90% = 1
% of piscivorous individuals 3.7% 5
1.4-15%= 5
0.4-1.3%= 3
<0.4% or > 15% = 1
% of diseased fish <1% 5
<1.75% = s
1.76-2.75% = 3
>2.75% = 1
% of species with multiple age groups 35% 3
>50% = 5
35-49% = 3
<35% = 1
NCIBI Score 42 Good-Fair
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 20
Table 5. NCIBI Score Site 5 (CX-10)
Metric/score criteria Site Metric # Site Metric Score
No. of species 23 5
> 16 species = 5
10-15 species = 3
<I0 species= 1
No. of fish 439 5
> 225 fish = 5
150-224 fish = 3
<150 fish= 1
No. of species of darters 5 5
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of species of sunfish 4 5
> 4 species = 5
3 species = 3
0-2 species = 1
No. of species of suckers 2 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of intolerant species 2 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
% of tolerant individuals 40% 3
< 35% = 5
36-50% = 3
>50% = 1
% of omnivorous and herbivorous individuals 7.3% 1
10-35% = 5
36-50%= 3
>50% or <10% = 1
% of insectivorous individuals 87% 5
65-90% = 5
45-64% = 3
<45% or >90% = 1
% of piscivorous individuals 5.2% 5
1.4-15%= 5
0.4-1.3% = 3
<0.4%or>15%= 1
% of diseased fish <1% 5
X1.75°,'0 - 5
1.76-2.75%= 3
>2.75% = I
% of species with multiple age groups 74% 5
>50% = 5
35-49% = 3
<35% = 1
NCIBI Score 50 Good
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 21
Table 6. NCIBI Score Site 7(CX-16)
Metric/score criteria Site Metric # Site Metric Score
No. of species 21 5
> 16 species = 5
10-15 species = 3
<10 species= 1
No. of fish 548 5
> 225 fish = 5
150-224 fish = 3
<150 fish= I
No. of species of darters 4 5
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of species of sunfish 3 3
> 4 species = 5
3 species = 3
0-2 species = 1
No. of species of suckers 0 1
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of intolerant species 2 3
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
% of tolerant individuals 39% 3
<35%=5
36-50% = 3
>50% = 1
% of omnivorous and herbivorous individuals 6.6% 1
10-35% = 5
36-50% = 3
>50% or <10% = 1
% of insectivorous individuals 88% 5
65-90% = 5
45-64% = 3
<45% or >90% = 1
% of piscivorous individuals 5.3% 5
1.4-15%=5
0.4-1.3%= 3
<0.4%or>15%= 1
% of diseased fish <1% 5
<1 '7 5°i, - 5
1.76-2.75%= 3
>2.75% = I
% of species with multiple age groups 81% 3
>50% = 5
35-49% = 3
<35% = 1
NCIBI Score 46 Good
Lowell Year-3 Monitoring Report
TCG Job # 3235 22
APPENDIX D: NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form
EEP Project No. D04008-2 D Lowell Mill Dam Removal
3/06 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 with 200 meters preferred 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
Date CC#
Location/road: (Road Name )County
Subbasin
Observer(s) Type of Study: ? Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ? MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) pS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate 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 ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max
? Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (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.)
? Channelized Ditch
?Deeply incised-steep, straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
? Recent overbank deposits ?Bar 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 conditions : ?High ?Normal ?Low
Turbidity: ?Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ? YES ?NO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ ?
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ?
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Weather Conditions: Photos: ?N ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
39
I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present .............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
? Evidence of dredging ?Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ?Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
Rocks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COV ER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal

III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ................................................................................................... 1
Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size ...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
? Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ? Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom ? Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent. .................................................................................................................. 0
Channel Slope: ?Typical for area ?Steep=fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading ............................................................................................................. 0
Remarks
Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ? Trees ? Shrubs ? Grasses ? Weeds/old field ?Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ..................................................................................... 5
2. width 12-18 meters ................................................................................... 4
3. width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 3
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0
Remarks
? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream.
Total
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE
41
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
AP
I
LA.Aj
ID--- ??--
90° 45°
This side is 45° bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
42
APPENDIX E: Monitoring Photographs
EEP Project No. D04008-2 E Lowell Mill Dam Removal
APPENDIX F: Fish Weir Study Report
EEP Project No. D04008-2 F Lowell Mill Dam Removal
Assessing benefits to migratory fishes of habitat restored by dam removal
Joshua K. Raabe
Joseph E. Hightower
United State Geological Survey
North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
North Carolina State University, Department of Zoology
Raleigh, North Carolina
Annual Report
February 20, 2008
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................3
Introduction
Methods
........................................4
.5
Results ............................................................:...................................................................10
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................16
Future Study ................................................................................
Tables .................................................................................................................................28
Figures ................................................................................................................................30
2
Acknowledgements
We thank the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for funding this study. In
particular, we thank Mike Wicker for his insight and assistance, and for securing funding
to study the effects of these dam removals. We are extremely grateful to Restorations
Systems, LLC, for their willingness to provide funding for all weir materials and for their
continued interest in the study. The North Carolina Fish and Wildlife Commission was
generous in allowing us to borrow field equipment. The field season would not have
been possible without technician Dana Sackett, who always worked hard and had a
positive attitude. We also thank all of the North Carolina State University students who
provided necessary brute labor during the installation and removal of the weir.
Introduction
Degradation and loss of habitat has been considered a key component in the
decline of native fish populations in many river systems (Nehlsen et al. 1991, Martinez et
al. 1994, Rulifson 1994). Anthropogenic disturbances in watersheds and within rivers
(e.g., dams) have altered water quality, temperature and flow regimes; erosion rates and
sediment transport; food sources and cover, and access to spawning sites (Nehlsen et al.
1991, Kershner et al. 2004, Pringle et al. 2000). These changes can lead to increased
competition with invasive species and reductions in reproduction, rearing of young, and
overall recruitment to adults (Martinez et al. 1994, Rulifson 1994, Pringle et al. 2000).
Due to these deleterious impacts on river ecosystems and fish populations, efforts have
been made to restore riverine habitat. For instance, there has been an increased interest in
removing dams, with a growing number of removals occurring in North Carolina
(Burdick and Hightower 2006, Riggsbee et al. 2007) and throughout the United States
(Stanley and Doyle 2003, Pej char and Warner 2001, Catalano et al. 2007).
Past studies suggest that fish populations respond positively to dam removals.
For example, dams were removed on two different inland Wisconsin rivers and within
five years sportfish such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and intolerant
species thrived, tolerant species such as common carp (Cyprinus carpio) declined,
measures of biotic integrity improved, and species recolonized upstream habitat (Kanehl
et al. 1997, Catalano et al. 2007). On coastal rivers, dam removals can benefit resident
fishes along with anadromous species that migrate from the ocean to utilize the rivers for
spawning and rearing of young. One example is the Neuse River, North Carolina, where
spawning migrations of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and striped bass (Morone
4
saxatilis) were impeded by a low-head dam (Beasley and Hightower 2000), but upon
removal both species utilized upstream habitat for spawning (Burdick and Hightower
2006). Although these studies provide insights into the response of dam removals by fish
populations, many projects go unstudied. Additional research is necessary to further
understand the potential benefits of dam removals and river habitat restoration, including
how specific fish species utilize restored habitat.
In the spring of 2007, a study was commenced on the Little River, North
Carolina, with an overall goal of determining how fish are utilizing upstream habitat that
has only recently become available due to three dam removals since 1998. American
shad, having experienced dramatic and prolonged decreases in population size (Walburg
and Nichols 1967, Rulifson 1994, Hightower et al. 1996), are of particular interest as they
annually utilize the Little River as spawning habitat. The migration of American shad and
other species is being monitored using a resistance board weir, a fish monitoring tool that
is increasingly being utilized in Alaska and on the Pacific coast (Stewart 2002). Specific
project objectives were to determine fish abundance, migratory patterns, and deposition
of eggs and production of larvae relative to physical variables and habitat availability.
This information can be used to refine and develop models that predict the impacts of
dam removals on other river systems.
Methods
Study Site
The Little River originates in Franklin County, North Carolina, and flows through
Wake, Johnston, and Wayne counties before entering the Neuse River near the city of
Goldsboro. Buffalo Creek is the primary tributary to the Little River. Three low-head
dams have been removed on the Little River (Figure 1). Cherry Hospital Dam, removed
in 1998, was located less than three river kilometers (rkm) from the Neuse River
confluence. Rains Mill Dam, located at rkm 37, was removed in 1999, while Lowell Mill
Dam, located at 57 rkm, was removed in 2005. These dam removals started the
restoration process, reconnecting 82 rkm of the Little River and up to 237 total rkm when
considering tributary streams. A notched dam at the Goldsboro water treatment plant
remains relatively close to the mouth of the river, and an impassable dam (Atkinson Mill
Dam) located at rkm 82 is the furthest downstream dam (Figure 1).
The Little River's moderate size (average spring flows of 5.7-8.6 m3/s) makes it
feasible to conduct detailed studies of life histories and the impacts of dam removals on
migratory fishes. Based on benthic macro invertebrate monitoring, the water quality of
the Little River has been classified as Good-Fair to Good (NCDENR 2006). The habitat
in the river is particularly diverse, consisting of runs, riffles, and pools with substrates
ranging from fine silt to bedrock. Fish species composition is typical of a coastal North
Carolina stream, and includes an annual spawning migration of American shad.
Additional species, such as resident, migratory suckers and gizzard shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum), may also benefit from reconnection of the river reaches.
Adults
A combination of resistance board and metal picket weir was constructed and
installed to monitor adult fish populations. Fish weirs are physical structures spanning
the river channel that are pervious to water but prevent fish from migrating upstream or
downstream. Ideally, fish are instead funneled into respective upstream or downstream
live cages. Fish are removed from the live cages, counted for abundance, measured,
6
often tagged, and then released in the direction they were migrating. Resistance board
weirs are a relatively recent weir design that provide benefits over picket weirs as they
are more durable in high flows, allow easier removal of debris and at times are self-
cleaning, and also allow boats to navigate past them (Tobin 1994, Stewart 2002).
The weir was installed at the former Lowell Mill Dam site, the furthest upstream
removed dam on the Little River (Figure 1). Installation of the fish weir began on March
13 and by March 16 the entire span of the river was blocked off by the weir. However, a
large rain event caused substantial increases in flow and river height on March 17 that
resulted in breaching and eventual wash-out of temporary fences on the periphery of the
weir. As water levels receded, repairs were made and by March 21 the weir was fully
functioning. On March 23, permanent metals pickets were installed at the entrances of
each cage and by March 29 temporary fences were replaced by permanent metal picket
weirs and improved bulkheads were installed. The weir was modified on April 3 to
improve its effectiveness in capturing downstream migrating fish. Sandbags were used to
partially sink a resistance board panel and create a flow of water into a net attached to the
downstream end of the panel. No further modifications were made to the weir and it
functioned properly for the remainder of the sampling season.
The resistance board weir was located in the area of highest flow, with live cages
on each side, followed by picket weir and then plastic fencing for high water events
(Figures 2-4). The resistance board weir was constructed according to Stewart (2002),
with minor modifications. For instance, all portions of the weir and live cages were
spaced a maximum of 2.5 cm apart to allow sufficient water but not American shad to
pass through the weir. Additionally, an I-beam with aircraft cable held in place by eye
7
bolts was installed along the river bottom to provide a level, sturdy connection for the
resistance board weir panels. A total of 12 resistance board weir panels were connected
to span 11.1 in of the river (Figures 2-3). The live cages had wooden frames of 1.7 m
wide, 2.0 m long, and 1.8 in in height to retain fish. The downstream net attached to the
sunken weir panel had an open diameter of 1.5 m and was 1.2 m deep (Figure 4). The
picket weir sections (5.6 in on western side, 21.3 m on eastern side) were constructed of
vertical, metal conduit pickets held in place by metal stringers that were supported by
wooden anchor legs. In all, the weir fully spanned 41 in of river channel, with additional
plastic mesh fencing on the river banks.
The weir live cages were checked each morning and often in the evening as well,
with any captured fish being removed in a timely manner with a dipnet. All fish were
identified to species, examined for gender, and measured for total length (mm).
American shad and migratory suckers such as notchlip redhorse (Moxostoma collapsum)
received an individually numbered Hallprint 12/13 mm fine T-bar anchor tag near the
base of the dorsal fin. This is a rapid procedure and required no anesthetics. The
permanent tags provided accurate identification of recaptured fish and will provide
information on repeat spawners in subsequent years of the study. For all other fish
species, the upper caudal fin was clipped with scissors for identification of recaptures.
Fish were then released either upstream or downstream of the weir depending on the cage
in which they were captured.
Electrofishing from a small jon boat supplemented the weir for capture of adult
fishes. A Georator with a portable boom supplied 230V DC for electrofishing. All
electrofishing occurred on reaches upstream of the weir site. Target species (American
shad and suckers) were examined for gender, measured for total length (mm), and tagged
as described above. During the first day of electrofishing, the physical river location was
described for captured fish. On subsequent days locations were marked with a Garmin
GPSmap 76Cx handheld unit.
The expected American shad run size within the Little River was based on the
amount of available mainstem river habitat, using the rule-of-thumb of 124/ha (St. Pierre
1979). This rule-of-thumb is based on historical data for the Susquehanna and
Connecticut rivers. St. Pierre (1979) felt that projections using that methodology would
be conservative estimates of the potential size of a fully restored run. He also
emphasized that the approaches used were based on numerous assumptions and should be
viewed as only a first approximation (St. Pierre 1979). To determine the amount of
available mainstem Little River habitat, river segments lengths were measured in ArcGIS
and average width estimates were taken from Ferguson (2002).
Eggs and Larvae
To collect eggs and larvae, plankton tows were conducted twice a week during the
field season. Fifteen minute oblique plankton tow samples were collected from bridge
crossings at four sites on the Little River, two upstream and two downstream of the
tormer Lowell Mill ham site, and at one site on Buttalo Creek (Figure D). Plankton tows
were conducted using a bongo frame with two 0.3-m diameter plankton nets with 6:1 tail
to mouth ratios and 500-µm mesh. At each sampling location and for each sample, water
temperature (°C) was recorded approximately 0.2 m below the water surface with a
handheld YSI 55 instrument. In addition, a standard General Oceanics Environmental
flow meter was deployed adjacent to the net for estimates of the volume of water filtered.
9
Both nets were rinsed thoroughly and the samples were removed from the solid
sampling cups at the cod end. All collected eggs and larvae were immediately fixed in 5-
10% buffered formalin and stored in the sampling cups. The eggs were later counted,
identified to species when possible, and staged for development in the laboratory. Larvae
were measured (mm) and identified to species when possible.
Physical Variables
Water temperature (°C) was recorded continuously during the sampling period at
1.5-h intervals with Onset HOBO-TEMP loggers. One logger was installed at the weir
site on March 21 and recorded data until the weir was removed on May 23. A second
logger was installed at the furthest upstream Little River plankton sampling site and
recorded data from March 26 to May 29. Water discharge (flow) and gage height data
were recorded by the United States Geological Survey at a monitoring station (0208850)
near Princeton, North Carolina.
Results
Adults
In the 2007 Little River spring sampling period, 901 fish were encountered at the
weir with 876 unique individuals being captured in the live cages. American shad were
the most common species with 502 captures, followed by 301 gizzard shad and 58
notchlip redhorse (Table 1). Other species were captured at the weir in lower abundances
(Table 1). A decomposing bowfin (Amia calva) and longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus)
washed onto the weir panels, but although these species were common throughout the
river during electrofishing runs, no live specimens were captured at the weir.
10
Water flow and depth were important migratory factors for resident gizzard shad.
Three high periods (mean daily flow > 5.7 m3/s) occurred during March-May; however,
the first occurred before weir installation began and the second occurred before it was
completed (Figure 6). The weir was fully functioning during the third high flow period,
when the highest density of upstream migrating fish occurred. The highest catches were
of gizzard shad, with 127 captured moving upstream on April 16 and 43 on both April 17
and 18 (Figure 7). In contrast, no gizzard shad migrated downstream on April 16, one on
April 17, and three on April 18. Overall, the 213 gizzard shad migrating upstream during
this three-day period accounted for 72.4% of the 294 unique gizzard shad collected at the
weir (Figure 7). Eight total gizzard shad recaptures occurred at the weir, four in each
direction. Of the 288 unique gizzard shad measured, 83 were female (mean=383.2 mm,
5E=2.72), 122 were male (mean=361.0 mm, 5E=2.46), and 82 were unknown
(mean=379.0 mm, 5E=4.28). During an electrofishing run on April 24, a fin-clipped
gizzard shad was recaptured at the base of Atkinson Mill Dam. This fish had been fin-
clipped at the weir, so it had migrated upstream to the furthest extent possible.
Water flow and depth also influenced movement of resident, non-migratory
species. The high-flow period occurring in mid-April was the only time that largemouth
bass were collected at the weir, with four moving upstream and one migrating
downstream (Table 1). Additionally, one black crappie and two sunfish (Lepomis spp.)
migrated upstream, while one sunfish (Lepomis spp.) and one brown bullhead moved
downstream during four days of the increased flow.
American shad were most likely also influenced by water flow and depth, making
upstream migrations before the weir was properly functioning. American shad were
present in the Little River during the entire sampling period in 2007, including an
observation of one individual during weir installation on March 14 and one collected on
May 23, the date of the weir removal. In total, 45 American shad were sampled
migrating upstream at the weir, 440 migrating downstream, and 17 cases where the
migration direction was unclear, for a total of 502 American shad collected at the weir
(Table 1). There is a clear disparity between upstream and downstream migrating fish,
suggesting that American shad migrated upstream before the weir was installed or when
the weir was not functioning correctly. Only nine American shad migrated upstream
while eight migrated downstream during the late-April high flow period. Interestingly,
five American shad migrated upstream between May 17 and 21, and one additional
individual, for which the migration direction was unclear, was captured on May 23, the
day the weir was removed (Figure 8).
Downstream migrations by American shad may have been more influenced by
water temperatures than flow. From April 24 to May 3, 10 or more American shad
migrated downstream each day with a peak of 67 individuals on May 1 (Figure 8). Mean
daily water temperatures rose during this period, from 19.0 °C on April 24 to a high of
22.8 °C on May 2. Over the next four days, water temperatures receded slightly and 23
more American shad migrated downstream. Only three more individuals clearly
migrated downstream after these dates (Figure 8). Visually, the health of downstream
migrating American shad varied. Sex could not always be determined, but males
appeared healthier than females, who at times were extremely gaunt and swam weakly
once released. Gashes were observed on dorsal regions of live individuals, and a few
dead individuals were found onshore with distinct puncture wounds (Figure 9). Little
12
River predators included snakes actively hunting at the weir site, turtles and mammals in
live cages, and birds. Any untagged American shad were tagged as they migrated
downstream, and 315 tagged individuals migrated downstream past the weir in 2007.
Electrofishing confirmed the presence of American shad utilizing habitat
upstream of the former Lowell Mill Dam site. The first electrofishing run from Atkinson
Mill Dam to SR 2123 occurred on April 4. During this run, 14 American shad were
sampled, including individuals in a reach just downstream of Atkinson Mill Dam. A
second run spanning the same river reach occurred on April 24 and eight American shad
were sampled (Figure 10). Many of these fish were collected in similar locations in the
river as the first run, but only the fish collected on the second run are depicted in Figure
10. Quantitative data collection was not completed on the habitat use of these fish, but
most were captured in run or riffle areas dominated by rock substrates. A final
electrofishing run occurred on May 2 in the river reach from SR 1934 to the weir site.
During this run, which was primarily slow flowing pool habitat, only one American shad
was collected just upstream of the weir site (Figure 10). Water levels were too low to
adequately navigate the electrofishing boat after this date. In total, 23 American shad
were sampled and tagged during electrofishing runs and no recaptures occurred, for a
combined total of 525 captures between the weir and electrofishing sampling.
Useful information about the timing of migration and residence time on the
spawning grounds was obtained from 10 of 18 recaptured American shad, from a total of
53 tagged or fin-clipped individuals released upstream of the weir. Twenty-nine were
tagged and one was fin-clipped at the weir during their upstream migration. However,
eight of these experienced a fallback response as they were recaptured at the weir on the
13
same or following day. Of the remaining 22 weir-marked American shad, six were
recaptured migrating downstream at the weir and provided useful data. The mean days
upstream was 14.7, with the shortest duration upstream being 3 days and the longest 35
days. During electrofishing runs, 22 American shad were tagged and one was fin-clipped
upstream of the weir. Only two electrofishing-tagged individuals were recaptured
migrating downstream at the weir; one 24 days after the tagging date and the other 27
days later. One fin-clipped American shad was recaptured migrating downstream at the
weir, but the origin of sampling (weir or electrofishing) was undetermined.
Overall, there were 508 unique American shad sampled in 2007 between the
former Lowell Mill Dam site and Atkinson Mill Dam. Seventy-nine were female (489.1
mm, 5E=2.96), 292 were male (424.0 mm, 5E=1.40), 122 were unknown (479.9 mm,
SE=2.88), and 15 did not have measurements associated with them. Using the rule-of-
thumb of 124/ha, the expected size of a fully restored run would be approximately 6,100
American shad within this habitat reach and over 22,600 in accessible reaches of the
Little River (Table 2).
Notchlip redhorse were relatively abundant, with a total of 100 sampled through
the weir and electrofishing. Of 90 measurable fish, five were females (mean=480.8 mm,
5E=24.12), 20 were males (mean=473.1 mm, 5E=12.91), and 65 were unknown (453.7
mm, 5E=9.27). An apparent spawning migration occurred between March 28 and April
1 as eight individuals were caught moving upstream at the weir (Figure 11). One
redhorse was also collected in the upstream cage on April 28. An additional 42 notchlip
redhorses were captured via electrofishing upstream of the weir between April 4 and May
14
2 (Figure 12). None of these 51 fish had been previously captured and all were either
tagged or fin clipped.
Notchlip redhorses appeared to suffer a high rate of spawning mortality. A total
of 49 redhorses were collected heading downstream at the weir from April 1 to May 1
(Figure 11). However, none of these fish were recaptures and 43 were mortalities. Dead
notchlip redhorses were found on the panels of the resistance board weir, along the picket
weir, in the downstream cage and net, and in slow pools just upstream of the weir. One
dead individual was observed floating downstream and onto the resistance board weir
panels. A fair number of the mortalities were already in later stages of decomposition.
The remaining six downstream-migrating live notchlip redhorse were in fair to poor
conditions. Open flesh wounds and a lack of scales on the ventral area of the caudal
peduncle and fin were observed on some live and dead individuals (Figure 13).
Eggs and Larvae
Plankton sampling sites in the Little River and Buffalo Creek varied in terms of
depth, substrate and temperature (Table 2). The uppermost Little River site (1) was
located downstream of a rocky run habitat, but was quite shallow. Site 2 was the deepest
site, with primarily pool habitat located above it. Site 3 was the first site downstream of
the former Lowell Mill Dam, and had rock substrates with relatively high flow. Fhe final
site on the Little River, site 4, was fairly deep with very slow moving pool habitat. Mean
water temperatures increased from upstream to downstream at the Little River sites. The
Buffalo Creek site, which was sandy with some rock substrate, had a lower mean water
temperature than any of the Little River sites. Despite being very shallow, especially at
the end of the season, it had the highest mean volume sampled (Table 2).
15
Plankton sampling was relatively unsuccessful for collecting American shad eggs
and larvae. A total of 14 eggs were collected and only 3 larvae, all in the month of April.
The highest collection period was on April 20, which coincided with one of the high flow
periods. The majority of the eggs were collected from sites 3 and 4, while no American
shad eggs or larvae were collected from Buffalo Creek (Table 2). While plankton
sampling did not collect many American shad larvae, high densities of other species were
captured and are currently being identified.
Discussion
Prior to the removal of Lowell Mill Dam on the Little River, resident upstream
fish could migrate downstream by spilling over the dam, but upstream migration,
including that by anadromous fish, was precluded. Following dam removal, both resident
and anadromous fish species were captured at the weir moving upstream and
downstream. In total, 876 unique fish took advantage of the unobstructed migration and
some migrated past the former dam site in both directions. American shad and gizzard
shad utilized the entire extent of restored habitat as they migrated up to the impassable
Atkinson Mill Dam. Increased spawning migrations by American shad following dam
removals have been documented in previous studies (Walburg and Nichols 1967, Burdick
and Hightower 2006). In addition to utilizing upstream habitat for spawning, the
reconnected river allows fish to move freely for food, cover, and preferred water
temperatures, flow, and depth in the Little River, but also in tributaries and the Neuse
River.
River flow and water depth proved to be influential migration factors. Over 70%
of gizzard shad that were collected migrated during a three-day high flow period in April.
16
The increased flow may have been a spawning migration cue as spawning events
typically have large aggregates of adult gizzard shad (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
Migration of other resident species (largemouth bass, black crappie, and channel catfish)
was only detected during periods of high flow and water depth. North Carolina has
experienced record drought conditions in 2007, and the Little River flows are well below
normal base levels. Periods of high flow following rain events may have provided
sufficient water depths for resident fish to move within the river. Increased flow and
water depth may also ease navigation past instream obstructions such as beaver dams and
boulder rock ledges that are present in the Little River. In addition, the notched dam at
the Goldsboro water treatment plant may inhibit fish movement during low flow periods.
Similar to gizzard shad, American shad may utilize increased flow as a spawning
migration cue and to ease migration past obstructions. There was an obvious disparity
between sampled upstream- and downstream-migrating American shad at the weir.
Therefore, American shad either migrated upstream prior to weir installation, possibly
during a high flow period at the beginning of March, or during the high flow period in the
middle of March when the weir was not functioning properly. The downstream
migration of American shad did not appear to be influenced by flow as few individuals
moved downstream during high flow periods. Instead, the majority migrated downstream
during declining flow from April 24 to May 3.
Water temperature is another physical cue for spawning migrations and can
influence survival during early life stages. American shad were present in the Little
River during the entire sampling period, which had a mean daily water temperature range
of 11.85 °C to 22.84 °C. This range falls within the 8 °C to 26 °C range reported by
17
Walburg and Nichols (1967) for American shad spawning activity. Although the number
of collected eggs was low, the highest density of collected American shad eggs occurred
on April 22 with a mean daily water temperature of 16.8 °C. This was shortly after a
high flow period and when water temperatures began rising into the optimal range of 14
to 21 °C (Walburg and Nichols 1967). It is possible that American shad migrated
upstream during the high flow period, completed spawning, and then began to emigrate
downstream.
North Carolina is believed to be a transition zone between semelparous and
iteroparous populations of American shad (Leggett and Carscadden 1978). The extent of
spawning mortality could not be assessed in 2007, but at least 315 individuals
successfully migrated downstream past the weir site. A few of the females were very
gaunt, but other individuals appeared healthy. Energy depletion due to migration and
lack of food consumption may result in direct spawning mortalities (Chittenden 1976,
Leonard and McCormick 1999). It is possible that the observed dead American shad
with puncture wounds were already dead and brought onto shore by scavenger animals.
However, predators such as snakes, turtles, and mammals were seen actively hunting in
the Little River and may cause notable mortalities during the spawning period. Recapture
of tagged individuals in subsequent years will provide insight into iteroparity, whereas a
properly functioning weir for the entire sampling period can provide insights into within-
season spawning mortalities.
It is clear that American shad are utilizing restored habitat, but the impact on
population levels cannot yet be determined as pre-dam removal population estimates
were not conducted. Over 500 American shad migrated past the former Lowell Mill Dam
18
site in 2007. The total number may be higher if American shad migrated past the weir
site prior to its proper functioning and experienced spawning mortalities upstream of the
weir. This number is drastically lower than the estimate of 6,100 adults for this reach
based on the 124 adults/ha suggested by St. Pierre (1979). Savoy and Crecco (1994)
argued that St. Pierre's rule-of-thumb estimator is too high, and using data from the
Connecticut and Pawcatuck rivers they proposed a lower estimate of 7 adults/ha and an
upper estimate of 64 adults/ha for the Thames River. Another potential explanation for
the discrepancy is that American shad require a minimum of two years and more often
three to six years to mature into spawning adults (Walburg and Nichols 1967).
Therefore, any impacts of the Lowell Mill Dam removal in 2005 would not occur, at the
earliest, until 2008 when individuals from the spring of 2006 year-class would recruit into
the adult spawning population. Also, the distribution pattern and fraction of the Little
River population that remained downstream of the weir site is unknown. Untagged
individuals in reaches below the weir site were observed during general boating trips but
were not included in the total number of American shad. Overall, dam removals on the
Little River began in 1998, so only a few generations have had access to restored habitat
and any population response may not yet be apparent.
The life history of notchlip redhorse has received little study in the past. Notchlip
redhorse are believed to be potadromous, meaning they migrate within their native river
for spawning purposes. A small migration was detected at the weir, with eight
individuals migrating upstream over a three-day period. However, the overall timing and
extent of these migrations was not determined. During electrofishing runs and
observational boating trips, depressions of cleared rock substrate were found throughout
19
the river. Open wounds on the ventral portion of caudal fins on collected notchlip
redhorse may have been a result of vigorous movement of substrate that created
depression areas during spawning events. Notchlip redhorse experienced high spawning
mortality in the Little River in 2007. It is unclear if they annually experience high
spawning mortality due to these activities or if this was a rare case brought on by other
factors such as adverse water temperatures, dissolved oxygen, or disease.
The resistance board weir was an effective tool for monitoring fish migrations in
the Little River. The weir consistently captured upstream moving fish that were healthy
when removed from the cage for sampling. The downstream cage was not effective at
capturing fish, as only one fish was captured in the cage during the entire sampling
period. Also, some mortality occurred as fish washed onto the resistance board panels.
However, the attached net improved catch rates of downstream-migrating fish and
decreased mortalities. The net was installed in an area of higher flow that better funneled
fish into the net compared to the cage that was located in minimal flow. In future years,
the downstream cage could be installed in a similar fashion. This would provide more
space for captured fish and limit escapes and invasion of predators as holes were
routinely chewed into the net.
The resistance board weir was able to withstand periods of high flow. While the
storm event in the beginning of the sampling season resulted in the weir not functioning
properly, this was a result of the breaching of temporary fences and not the resistance
board weir. The resistance board weir was easier to clean of debris than the picket weir,
as walking on the panels allowed the river current to remove debris. However, small
debris collected between the pickets of the resistance board weir and weighed the panels
20
down. This debris had to be removed by hand or by jumping on the panels to dislodge
the debris and allow it to move downstream. Replacing portions of the picket weir with
resistance board panels could prove advantageous for future years of the study.
Future Study
In the second year of this study (2008), a few changes in the sampling protocol
are planned. The first priority will be to install the weir at the beginning of the spring
spawning season. Installation will begin prior to March 1 to ensure that the beginning of
the American shad spawning migration is sampled. In addition, we propose to move the
weir downstream, closer to mouth of the river and near the site where the Cherry Hospital
Dam was removed (Figure 1). At this location, essentially all American shad entering the
Little River will be sampled, thus providing a better idea of the total abundance of fish
utilizing the river for spawning migrations.
The use of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags instead of the T-bar anchor
tags is also proposed for the 2008 season. These small microchips are inserted into the
body of fish to allow for permanent identification of individual fish. Similar to the T-bar
anchor tags, this will allow the duration of an individual's stay in the river to be
determined, to estimate spawning mortality, and to identify repeat spawners in
subsequent years. An added benefit of the PIT tags is that migration can be monitored
without the need to handle the fish, by installing antennas across the river channel
(Castro-Santos et al. 1996, Zydlewski et al. 2001). As a fish passes through an antenna,
the microchip is activated, resulting in a passive recording of the migration past this point
and a better understanding of the extent of the overall migration by individual fish.
Antennas are planned to be installed at a site downstream and directly across the notched
21
dam at the Goldsboro water treatment plant (Figure 1). These two antennas will provide
information on whether the notched dam is a migration impediment. In addition, fish
passage will be evaluated relative to physical variables (e.g., water flow and depth) and
structural characteristics of the passage way (e.g., slope, length). An additional antenna
will be installed at the former Lowell Mill Dam site to compare data between 2007 and
2008 (Figure 1).
In 2008, quantification of American shad spawning and available habitat will
allow for development of resource selection models. American shad clearly migrated
upstream for spawning, and their locations during electrofishing suggested that they were
selecting particular habitat. However, these were observations and quantitative data are
necessary to avoid bias and to develop models. Therefore, the locations of American
shad spawning habitat will be determined either with electrofishing or manual tracking of
PIT tags. These spawning areas can then be quantified for substrate, flow, depth, and
other physical variables. Similarly, random river locations will be chosen to quantify the
same physical variables for habitat. The combination of these two data sets will allow for
development of resource selection models that can predict the probability of an American
shad utilizing different habitat types for spawning.
The apparent spawning mortality of notchlip redhorse was an unexpected event,
but offers an opportunity for future study. If few notchlip redhorse are sampled at the
weir, electrofishing in upstream reaches can be used to capture individuals for tagging.
Efforts can be made to recapture these individuals, including information on mortalities.
In addition, determining where notchlip redhorse are spawning would allow for
22
quantification of their spawning habitat. These data can be compared to available habitat
throughout the river to develop models of their spawning habitat use.
In addition to changes with the weir and tagging methods of adults, the sampling
of eggs and larvae will also be improved upon. American shad spawning activity is more
intense after sunset (Walburg and Nichols 1967), so sampling during this period may
increase the density of eggs collected. Another option is to sample at different locations
or to increase the number of sampling sites. Effectiveness of plankton sampling may be
low in the Little River, compared to the Neuse River (Burdick and Hightower 2006),
because of the relatively low flows. Lastly, test runs in 2007 showed that stationary drift
nets were successful at sampling eggs and larvae and may be utilized at known spawning
sites.
23
Literature Cited
Beasley, C.A., and J.E. Hightower. 2000. Effects of a low-head dam on the distribution
and characteristics of spawning habitat used by striped bass and American shad.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:1316-1330.
Burdick, S. M. and J. E. Hightower. 2006. Distribution of spawning activity by
anadromous fishes in an Atlantic slope drainage after removal of a low-head dam.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 1290-1300.
Castro-Santos, T., A. Haro, and S. Walk. 1996. A passive integrated transponder (PIT)
tag system for monitoring fishways. Fisheries Research 28: 253-261.
Catalano, M.J., M.A. Bozek, and T.D. Pellet. 2007. Effects of dam removal on fish
assemblage structure and spatial distributions in the Baraboo River, Wisconsin.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:519-530.
Chittenden, M.E., Jr. 1976. Weight loss, mortality, feeding, and duration of residence of
adult American shad, Alosa sapidissima, in fresh water. U.S. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Fishery Bulletin 74: 151-157.
Etneir, D.A, and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Ferguson, P.G. 2002. Paddling eastern North Carolina. Pocosin Press, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Hightower, J. E., A. M. Wicker, and K. M. Endres. 1996. Historical trends in abundance
of American shad and river herring in Albemarle Sound, North Carolina. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 257-271.
24
Kanehl, P.D., J. Lyons, and J.E. Nelson. 1997. Changes in habitat and fish community
of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen Mills Dam.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:387-400.
Kershner, J.L., B.B. Roper, N. Bouwes, R. Henderson, and E. Archer. 2004. An analysis
of stream habitat conditions in reference and managed watersheds on some
federal lands within the Columbia River Basin. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 24: 1363-1375.
Leggett, W.C., and J.E. Carscadden. 1978. Latitudinal variation in reproductive
characteristics of American shad (Alosa sapidissima): Evidence for population
specific life history strategies in fish. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 35:1469-1477.
Leonard, J.B.K., and S.D. McCormick. 1999. Effects of migration distance on whole-
body and tissue-specific energy use in American shad (Alosa sapidissima).
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 1159-1171.
Martinez, P.J., T.E. Chart, M.A. Trammell, J.G. Wullschleger, and E.P. Bergersen. 1994.
Fish species composition before and after construction of a main stem reservoir
on the White River, Colorado. Environmental Biology of Fishes 40:227-239.
NCDENR. 2006. Basinwide assessment report - Neuse River Basin - April 2006.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section, Raleigh, NC.
Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the
crossroads: Stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.
Fisheries 16: 4-21.
25
Pejchar, L., and K. Warner. 2001. A river might run through it again: Criteria for
consideration of dam removal and interim lessons from California.
Environmental Management 28: 561-575.
Pringle, C. M., M. C. Freeman, and B. J. Freeman. 2000. Regional effects of hydrologic
alterations on riverine macrobiota in the new world: tropical-temperate
comparisons. BioScience 50: 807-823.
Riggsbee, J.A., J.P. Julian, M.W. Doyle, and R.G. Wetzel. 2007. Suspended sediment,
dissolved organic carbon, and dissolved nitrogen export during the dam removal
process. Water Resources Research 43:W09414, 1-16.
Rulifson, R. A. 1994. Status of anadromous Alosa along the east coast of North America.
Anadromous Alosa Symposium 134-158.
Savoy, T., and V. Crecco. 1994. Memorandum re: Thames River goals. Marine
Fisheries. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
St. Pierre, R.S. 1979. Historical review of American shad and river herring fisheries of
the Susquehanna River. Special Report to the Susquehanna River Basin
Committee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Stanley, E.H., and M.W. Doyle. 2003. Trading off: the ecological effects of dam
removal. Frontiers in Ecology 1:15-22.
Stewart, R. 2002. Resistance board weir panel construction manual. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Regional Information Report 3A02-21,
Anchorage, Alaska.
26
Tobin, J. H. 1994. Construction and performance of a portable resistance board weir for
counting migrating adult salmon in rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska
Fisheries Technical Report 22, Kenai, Alaska.
Walburg, C. H. and P. R. Nichols. 1967. Biology and management of the American shad
and status of the fisheries, Atlantic coast of the United States, 1960. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Special Scientific Report Fisheries 550.
Zydlewski, G.B., A. Haro, K.G. Whalen, and S.D. McCormick. 2001. Performance of
stationary and portable passive transponder detection systems for monitoring of
fish movements. Journal of Fish Biology 58: 1471-1475.
27
Tables
Table 1. Fish species composition, migration direction, and total number of fish sampled
at the Little River weir site in 2007. Direction of migration was unknown for a few fish
swept onto the resistance-board weir panels during a period when the weir did not fully
block the river channel.
Species Upstream Downstream Unknown Total
American eel 1 1
American shad 45 440 17 502
black crappie 1 1 2
black jumprock 1 1
bowfin 1 1
bull chub 1 7 7
channel catfish 2 2
gizzard shad 260 36 6 302
largemouth bass 5 1 6
longnose gar 1 1
notchlip redhorse 9 49 58
shorthead redhorse 1 1
sucker (decomposed) 1 l
Lepomis spp. 3 11 14
brown bullhead
redfin pickerel
Total 324 554 23 901
28
Table 2. Expected American shad population size based on available habitat for river
reaches in the Little River. Reaches are established according to locations of removed
and present dams, while population estimates are based on 124 adults/ha (St. Pierre
1979).
Removal / Location Reach Width Area American
Dam Status (rkm) (rkm) (m) (ha) shad
Cherry Hospital 1998 2.12 2.12 26 5.50 682.20
Rains Mill 1999 36.80 34.69 24 83.25 10323.15
Lowell Mill 2005 57.07 20.26 22 44.58 5528.02
Atkinson Mill Present 81.69 24.63 20 49.25 6107.25
Total 81.69 20-26 182.59 22640.61
Table 3. Total number of American shad eggs and larvae along with sampling season
mean water temperature and sample volume, and water depth on May 21, 2007, for five
plankton sampling sites. The Buffalo Creek site was 0.07 rkm above its confluence with
the Little River, or 64.6 rkm above the mouth of the Little River.
Location Temperature Volume Depth Total Total
Site (rkm) (°C) (m3) (m) Eggs Larvae
Little River 1 72.8 18.16 31.18 0.59 1 1
Little River 2 59.5 18.59 39.76 1.14 1 0
Little River 3 52.5 18.84 41.95 0.68 6 0
Little River 4 17.0 19.32 27.46 1.07 6 2
Buffalo Creek 0.07, 64.6 17.92 49.34 0.18 0 0
29
Figures
¦ Atkinson Mill (present)
Buffalo
Creek
¦
r?
Little River
Lowell Mill (2005)
Rains Mill (1999)
N
A
Water Treatment (notched) ¦
Cherry
Hospital
Neuse River (1998)
0 1.5 3 ( 9
Kilometers
Figure 1. Locations of three dams removed since 1998, along with the location of a
notched dam and the furthest downstream dam (Atkinson Mill) on the Little River.
30
a?
3
P
M
N

P
V'1
,-r
p
10
Ct
N?

A?
?I
O
?1
. r2l
O
1?1
O

4-A U

31
3 0
a? 3
L
rr-r
?s
o ?
o ?
3 ?
N ?
>
C
? v
? O
Q L
L
y
o ?
a.
o ?
U
U
3
To a.

•? L
O
U .L
? O
O -?
. w
N ??
U U
L s,
bA
4. o
- L
32

0
0
0
0
U
U
it
3
U
'O
Y.
U
U
U
C
i.
3
o v
o
v, -a
an
•c
?. o
•3 0
Sr •
?o
a o
N
? O
C ?
? U
L 5-.
3 ?
-b ?
U
M Q,
U
L. V]
? U
bA ?
LL, U

Figure 4. Modification of weir (April 3, 2007) to improve downstream capture of fish.
Sandbags sunk portions of the resistance board panels, creating increased flow to the
attached net.
33
J
39
Buffalo
Creek
Atkinson
Mill Darn
42
30
Weir Site
3
581
Little River
Shp
N
A
4
Neuse River
--
0 2 4 8Kilometers
Figure 5. Four Little River and one Buffalo Creek plankton sampling sites. All sampling
occurred from bridges, but only major roads are depicted for general reference.
34
20
18
16
14
12
3 10
0 8
6
4
2
0
Date
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
L
0.6 3
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 6. Flow and stage of the Little River during the 2007 sampling season, based on
United States Geological Survey monitoring station 0208850 near Princeton, North
Carolina.
35
3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5 4/12 4/19 4/26 5/3 5110 5/17 5/24
140
120
20
Upstream
• Downstream 18
16
100
s
80
N
N
w 60
0
a?
40
E
0
z 20
0
3/17
. .iL . 1L
3/24 3/31 4/7 4/14
Date
14
12
M
10
8 °
w
6
4
2
4/21 4/28
Figure 7. Upstream and downstream migrations of gizzard shad sampled at the Little
River weir site relative to the flow regime in 2007.
36
80
• Upstream
70 • Downstream
a
60
50
a?
d 40
30
a?
20
z
10
0 1 i1 „ L.. 1 IIII .
3/15 3/22 3/29 4/5
? ?LI ?i III I !? + ?I
4/12 4/19 4/26
Date
5/3
5/10 5/17
25
20 _
U
0
a?
15
s,
a?
a
10
a?
5
0
Figure 8. Upstream and downstream migrations of American shad sampled at the Little
River weir site relative to the water temperature profile in 2007.
37

r
its
Figure 9. American shad found dead onshore on April 30, 2007, with distinct puncture
wounds.
38
Atk' son Mill Dam
42
? April 24
N
39
Little River
May 2
Buffalo Creek -
301
1-95
00.5 1 2 3Kilometers
Figure 10. Locations of American shad sampled by electrofishing on April 24 and May
2, 2007.
39
18
Upstream
16
Downstream
a?
c 14
12
a
10

u

0

c 8
w
0
s. 6

4
I I
Z ?
2 1 1 1I
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3/21 3/28 4/4 4/11 4/18 4/25 5/2
Date
5/9
25
20
U
0
a?
15
c?
a?
CL
10
5
0
Figure 11. Upstream and downstream migrations of notchlip redhorse sampled at the
Little River weir site relative to the water temperature profile in 2007. Downstream
moving fish were either mortalities or in poor to fair condition.
40
Atki son Mill
Dam
4-
i
_b April 24
N
01 6
0
39
Little River
May 2
Buffalo
Creek =
301 0
0 0.5 1 2
Kilometers?
Figure 12. Locations of notchlip redhorse sampled by electrofishing on April 24 and
May 2, 2007.
41

Figure 13. Notchlip redhorse collected at fish weir on April 23, 2007, with damage to tail
and caudal peduncle.
42