NC0000272_Appendix B_20201204

APPENDIX B
A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND
WATER QUALITY OF THE PIGEON RIVER
(2012 Biological Assessment)
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Canton, NC 28716
Prepared by:
University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
Dr. J. Larry Wilson, PhD — Principal Investigator
244 Ellington Plant Sciences Building
Knoxville, TN 37996-4563
December 2013
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................10
2. METHODS......................................................................................................11
2.1 Habitat Assessment.......................................................................14
2.2 Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring Benthic
Macro -invertebrate Community Health...............................14
2.2.1 Field Methods....................................................................14
2.2.2 Laboratory Data.................................................................15
2.2.3 Data Analysis.....................................................................15
2.3 Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring Fish Community
Health.....................................................................................17
3. RESULTS........................................................................................................22
3.1 Benthic Community.......................................................................22
3.1.1 Benthic Community Structure.................................23
3.1.2 Historical Comparisons........................................39
3.2 Fish Community..............................................................................48
3.2.1
Composition, Relative Abundance, and Distribution .........48
3.2.2
Condition Analysis..............................................................59
3.2.3
Biological Integrity.............................................................63
3.2.4
Life Stages and Spawning Activity.....................................68
3.2.5
Habitat Assessment.............................................................70
3.2.6
Similarity and Biodiversity Analysis .........................
72
3.3 Other Biological Communities........................................................76
3.3.1 Mussels................................................................................77
3.3.2 Wildlife................................................................................80
3.3.3 Periphyton/Plankton.............................................................81
3.3.4 Macrophytes.........................................................................82
3.4 Physicochemical Data......................................................................84
4. REFERENCES................................................................................................86
0

A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND
WATER QUALITY OF THE PIGEON RIVER
(2012 Biological Assessment)
University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
Dr. J. Larry Wilson, PhD — Principal Investigator
December 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Blue Ridge Paper Products mill in Canton, North Carolina, requires a 316(a) Thermal
Variance Study. Blue Ridge Paper selected scientists with the Department of Forestry, Wildlife
and Fisheries of the University of Tennessee -Knoxville to perform the Thermal Variance Study
including a biological assessment of the Pigeon River below the mill. Field work for the
biological assessment was completed during the summer of 2012 in accordance with the Canton
Mill Thermal Assessment Study Plan submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NC DWQ) on April 12, 2012, and accepted by the Department on April 24, 2012. Previous
biological assessments for Canton Mill NPDES permitting were completed by EA Engineering
Science and Technology, Inc. (EA) in 1995 and 2000; the 2005 biological assessment was
completed by the University of Tennessee (UTK). This report documents the results of the 2012
Biological Assessment in support of the separate December 2013 Balanced and Indigenous
Species Study Report [Clean Water Action 316(a) Demonstration] for the Pigeon River. A
concurrent temperature monitoring and modeling study was conducted for the 316(a)
Demonstration.
Biological sampling studies of aquatic trophic levels were conducted in the Pigeon River in July,
August and September 2012 following protocols of the Environmental Sciences Section of the
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NC DENR ESS) to
determine: (1) the current quality of these communities near the Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill,
and (2) whether thermal inputs from the mill disrupt or prevent balanced indigenous
communities of these organisms. The sampling period was approximately two weeks longer than
the sampling effort conducted in 2005. The summer period has been chosen for periodic
sampling since the 1980s because stream temperatures are typically the warmest and there are
likely the most severe, if any, biological impacts. In 2012, water temperatures in July, August,
and September were similar to those collected at the same sites in 2005 although there were
slight variations depending on when temperatures were taken.
3

The study covered an approximate 60-mile reach of the Pigeon River (PR) extending from the
confluence of the forks of the Pigeon (PRM 69.5) upstream of the mill in Canton, North
Carolina, to PRM 10.3 near Newport, Tennessee. Nine thermally influenced main -stem sampling
stations were established within this reach from the mill to Waterville Reservoir. Four tributary
locations and three Tennessee locations (not influenced by the thermal discharge) were sampled
as well. The thermally influenced stations were compared to six reference stations in the East and
West Forks of the Pigeon River, two locations between the confluence and the mill (one of
which was sampled in 2005), and two sites in the nearby Swannanoa River. The sample sites
were as near as possible to the sites sampled in 2005 (Wilson 2006), except for three new sites
upstream of the mill and the Swannanoa River sites. The original HEPCO site (PRM 42.6) was
eliminated in 2012 due to limited suitable substrate and difficulty in sampling, and replaced by a
more suitable riverine site near the USGS gauging station at PRM 45.3. In general, most of the
sampling efforts were conducted within the general proximity of previous sampling locations.
The only modification was an increased area upstream of the original PRM 64.5 site (to PRM
64.9); this portion of the river offered substantially more substrate (riffles, runs) for fish and
invertebrate collections.
Fish samples were collected by boat, backpack, and pram electrofishing, and seine hauls where
suitable habitat existed. Benthic samples were collected from specific habitat using qualitative
techniques developed by the state of North Carolina and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Overall, the 2012 Biological Assessment found a diverse and healthy aquatic community present
in the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill. Measures of biological health in the river during
2012 continue to maintain or improve from the previous biological assessments conducted in
1995, 2000, and 2005.
FISH
Fish collections from all sampling methods produced a total of 4188 fish (3485 from main -stem
and upstream tributary sample locations, and 703 from main -stem tributaries below the mill)
distributed among 56 species. There were also three hybrids types (bluegill x green sunfish,
bluegill x redbreast, green sunfish x redbreast) collected which accounted for six of the total
number count. The additional number of species observed since 2005 is an indicator that the
main -stem fish community as a whole continues to increase its diversity and maintain stability.
Fish collected throughout the river were deemed in good health and the condition of fish
downstream of the mill was generally comparable to that of fish upstream of the mill.
Upstream of the mill, the most commonly collected species were, in order of abundance,
greenfin darter (157), stoneroller (90), rock bass (56), river chub (43), mottled sculpin (41),
Tuckasegee darter (29), and redbreast sunfish (27). Downstream of the mill, the most commonly
collected species in the main -stem, including both North Carolina and Tennessee portions of the
river, were the redbreast sunfish (537), central stoneroller (289), smallmouth bass (242),
whitetail shiner (175), and rock bass (117). Several species were found only in the Tennessee
portion of the river, including some associated with reservoir habitats; these included the
walleye, channel catfish, white crappie, white bass, and freshwater drum.
El

When comparing total numbers of fish taxa collected in the North Carolina portion of the river
below the Canton Mill to Waterville Reservoir (eight sites in 2005 and nine sites in 2102, PRM
63.0 — PRM 42.6), there were 29 taxa collected in 2005 and 37 taxa in 2012. This represents a
28% increase in the number of species inhabiting the river below the mill. In 2005, the PRM 42.6
site had nine species of fish; that site was not sampled in 2012 due to the influence of Waterville
Reservoir. In 2012, the PRM 45.3 site replaced PRM 42.6, and there were also nine fish taxa
collected there. Five of the nine species (rock bass, redbreast sunfish, smallmouth bass, whitetail
shiner, and northern hogsucker) were common to both sites and collected in 2005 and 2012.
When examining the 2012 fish assemblage, there were eight pollution intolerant fish species,
four tolerant species, 29 intermediate species, and four species not rated by the NC DENR (NC
DENR 2001). The pollution intolerant rock bass and smallmouth bass were collected at all main -
stem stations (both upstream and downstream of the mill), whereas the intolerant rainbow trout
occurred only at one station in the Tennessee portion of the river. Of the tolerant species,
seventeen common carp were collected in the main -stem of the river downstream of the mill
from PRM 63.0 to PRM 10.3, and white suckers were collected at three sites in North Carolina.
Only six green sunfish were collected, one at PRM 69.5 and five at PRM 10.3 in Tennessee.
Redbreast sunfish was the most common tolerant species, occurring at all stations except the
most upstream site in Tennessee (PRM 24.7). When comparing the catch of rock bass relative to
redbreast sunfish collections from the North Carolina portion of the river below the mill, the ratio
of rock bass to redbreast has improved from of 1:10.2 in 2005 to 1:5.6 in 2012; this represents a
45% improvement in numbers of the intolerant rock bass relative to its non -indigenous
competitor, redbreast sunfish.
The species richness value (11) at Fiberville (PRM 63.0), the warmest station sampled, was
somewhat less than the 16 species collected upstream of the mill. Fish collected at two stations
immediately downstream of Fiberville, PRM 61.0 and 59.0, produced species richness values of
14 and 17, respectively. The numbers of fish species collected at 5 of 6 remaining downstream
sample stations in the North Carolina portion of the river were greater in 2012 than in 2005.
A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on a matrix of abundances of all fish
species sampled at all Pigeon River sites (including East Fork and West Fork reference sites) and
the Swannanoa River reference sites. The purpose of the PCA was to assess how similar each of
the sample sites were to each other with respect to fish abundances (in this case total number of
each species), and to assess how similar sites were from 2005 to 2012. The PCA of the fish
community indicated that there was a gradient in fish species composition that produced three
distinct groups of sites that were similar to each other: (1) all six reference sites, including two
tributaries and two main -stem sites on the Pigeon River upstream of the mill, and both
Swannanoa River sites, (2) all thermally influenced main -stem sites downstream from the mill to
Waterville Reservoir, and (3) three TN sites downstream from the hydropower facility. Statistical
analyses indicated no significant differences in species diversity among the three groups.
Assessment of relative weight (Wr) values for the more abundant sport fish found at most of the
study stations indicated that: (1) the condition of rock bass, smallmouth bass, redbreast sunfish,
and bluegill from the Pigeon River is comparable to the condition of these species from other
5

areas in the Southeast, and (2) the condition of these species downstream of the Canton Mill in
the thermally affected portion of the river as well as the downstream portion of the river in
Tennessee were considered to be in good condition. Mean Wr scores for rock bass (93) and
redbreast sunfish (99) below the mill were comparable to those upstream of the mill, and higher
than mean Wr values from the same species (rock bass, 81; redbreast, 90) from the Swannanoa
River reference sites.
Overall, the results suggested no significant adverse impacts from the mill's thermal discharge.
In summary, the 2012 fish community below the mill has not changed dramatically since 2005,
although it has increased the species diversity and also improved measurably in several ways: (1)
the species richness from 44 species in 2005 to 51 species in 2012, an improvement of 16% since
2005, (2) darter species, which were essentially absent downstream of the mill in 1995, increased
in number from 4 in 2005 to 5 in 2012, and were found in all nine downstream North Carolina
sites, (3) the catch of smallmouth bass increased almost ten -fold from 26 individuals in 2005 to
201 in 2012, and (4) the ratio of rock bass relative to redbreast sunfish was 1:5.6 in 2012 and
1:10.2 in 2005, which represented a 45% increase in the less tolerant species (rock bass).
MACROINVERTEBRATES
Macro -invertebrate sampling from throughout the study area (tributaries included) yielded a total
of 315 taxa. This number of individual taxa is up approximately 23% from the 257 taxa collected
in 2005. The numbers of the pollution -intolerant Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera complex
(EPT) collected in 2012 (N=125, including 117 genera and 8 families) increased approximately
24% from the 95 EPT taxa collected in 2005. "EPT" is an abbreviation for Ephemeroptera +
Plecoptera + Trichoptera, insect groups that are generally intolerant of many kinds of pollution.
All three groups increased in number of taxa, with mayflies increasing by 15, stoneflies by 1, and
caddisflies by 6 taxa. The increases reflected in the 2012 collections may be in part to an increase
in the number of main -stem collection sites (14 instead of 11), and the addition of three tributary
stations (EFPR 3.5, WFPR 3.6, and Crabtree Creek). The total number of EPT taxa collected in
2012 from the benthic community at PRM 64.5-64.9 upstream of the mill (N=22) decreased from
the numbers collected in 2005 (29) and 2000 (35). It should be noted that the decrease in taxa
numbers occurred even though the sampling area was increased somewhat to include more
suitable substrate. Possible reasons for the decrease noted include a severe drought in 2007-08,
especially in North Carolina, and a noticeable increase in agricultural operations upstream of the
sites. Turbidity levels in tributaries and at two sampling sites immediately above and below the
Mill were noticeably higher after rain events.
Even though the total number of EPT taxa collected in 2012 throughout the study area decreased
from the numbers in 2005, there was a slight increase in the number of EPT taxa collected at the
station (PRM 63.0) immediately downstream of the mill (16 taxa in 2012, and 15 taxa in 2005).
When comparing total invertebrate taxa collected in the North Carolina portion of the river
below the mill to Waterville Reservoir (PRM 63.0 — PRM 42.6), there were 107 taxa collected in
2005 and 149 taxa in 2012, which is an increase of 39%. The 2012 number does not include the
five additional taxa found at PRM 57.7, a new site added for the 2012 study. Taxa richness in the
tributary streams sampled in 2005 (Fines, Richland, and Jonathan Creeks) was essentially the
same in 2012 (88) as in 2005 (87) and 2000 (86).
31

The NCBI scores ranged from 4.16 (Good) at PRM 64.5 immediately above the Canton Mill to
4.39 (Good) at PRM 24.7 in the Tennessee reach; all Tennessee reach stations received the
`Good' rating. The scores at NC stations downstream from the mill ranged from 6.70 (Fair) at
PRM 63.0 to 4.69 (Good) at PRM 45.3, the farthest downstream site in that portion of the river.
Four of the eight NC stations rated a `Good -Fair' or `Good' score in 2012 compared to six of
eight stations in 2005; the severe drought in 2007-08 is thought to have had a significant impact
of macro -invertebrate populations which may have influenced the NCBI scores.
MUSSELS
The presence or absence of freshwater mussels at all Pigeon River main -stem sample sites was
documented. There were no mussels observed at any of the sampling sites during 2012. These
results are in line with NC DENR survey data in recent years which have not documented any
naturally -occurring mussels in the Pigeon River. High water levels during the spring of 2013
prevented access for mussel surveys in areas other than designated sites, and especially areas
where mussel re -introductions have occurred. Re -introductions of 10 native mussel species have
been done, beginning with nine species in TN at three sites (PRM 17.3, PRM 13.3, and PRM
8.3) in 2000-12; the other species has been re -introduced at PRM 65.5 and PRM 55.3 in the NC
portion of the river since 2010. All re -introduction sites in both North Carolina and Tennessee
main -stem portions of the Pigeon River were chosen to maximize survival and growth.
A recent research study involving UTK personnel investigated mussel survival and growth
reared in silos in Pigeon River main -stem locations both above and below the mill (Rooney,
2010). Results indicated that mortality rates among mussels at above -mill and below -mill sites
were not significantly different; however, growth rates of mussels held in downstream silos were
significantly greater than for those held at upstream sites. Highest growth rates were observed at
a site located approximately 18 km downstream from the mill. Several influences may have
impacted growth rates, such as elevated water temperature due to heated mill effluent, as well as
agricultural runoff with elevated levels of nutrients. This 2010 study documented definitive proof
that mussels could survive and grow in the river below the mill, and also provided the impetus
for NC DENR to begin their mussel re -introduction program in the NC portion of the river.
Assessment of survival at other life stages is also needed before the full extent of potential for re-
introduction of mussels to the studied reach of the Pigeon River is known.
WILDLIFE
Several wildlife species were observed along the main -stem, tributary, and reference waterways
during instream fish and invertebrate sampling events. The majority of wildlife contact was with
avian species which are usually associated with aquatic habitat. The complete list and number of
locations at which they were observed are as follows: (1) Great blue heron — 3 sites, (2) Belted
kingfisher — 2 sites, (3) Northern water snake — 2 sites, (4) Green heron — 1 site, (5) Blue winged
teal — 1 site, (6) Black -crowned night heron, (7) Queen snake — 1 site, (8) Soft-shell turtle -1 site,
(9) Bald eagle — 1 site, (10) Osprey — 1 site, (11) Beaver — 1 site.
7

Two recent research studies involving other riverine/stream wildlife included surveys of
salamanders and crayfish in the Pigeon River main -stem and tributaries. The 2009 salamander
study (Maxwell, 2009) documented the presence of five of eight salamander species (that
historically existed in NC streams) in three of five study sites: in the Pigeon River above the mill,
Jonathan Creek, and Big Creek. No salamanders were found in the NC main -stem portion of the
PR; water quality and suitable substrate were cited as possible contributors to the lack of
salamanders there. The crayfish study (Dunn, 2010) identified eight species in the Pigeon River
system: they were collected in the river above the mill, in all nine PR tributaries, and in the main -
stem in the TN portion of the river. No crayfish found in the NC main -stem below the mill; the
study cited the drought of 2007-08 as a possible contributor to the lack of crayfish there. The
drought may have caused crayfish to seek refugia in tributaries to escape higher levels of salinity
(2X) and conductivity (IOX) in the main -stem which were due to lower water flows which
concentrated the mill discharge effluents.
PERIPHYTON/PLANKTON
The field surveys indicated periphyton as present at all sampling stations with little correlation of
abundance with proximity to the mill. The two lowest periphyton concentrations were found at
PRM 55.5, Hyder Mountain Bridge (NC), and PRM 24.7, Waterville at Brown's Bridge (TN).
Fiberville PRM 63.0) below the paper mill had abundant periphyton.
The potamoplankton, i.e., unattached phytoplankton and zooplankton, was not sampled because
of low abundance, and their sporadic appearance was dictated by river flows. Any sampling or
collection of these groups at any given site could not be replicated because they were transient
and continuously moving downstream.
MACROPHYTES
Podostemum (hornleaf riverweed) was found in three of four reference stations upstream of the
mill, both stations in the reference Swannanoa River, and two of three stations in the Pigeon
River in Tennessee, but not in the thermally affected reach between the mill and Waterville
Reservoir. The species was not examined in previous 316(a) studies, so there is no available
history of change. The low dispersal ability, due to clonal reproduction and poor seed production
combined with the Pigeon River's stresses of flooding in 2004 and drought in 2007-2008, may
be limiting its ability to recolonize the thermally affected reach after a history of pollution.
Temperature does not appear to be a limiting factor except in the reach nearest the mill, where
temperatures in summer can exceed the reported upper limit of 30 C reported in the literature.
Overall, the 2012 Biological Assessment found a diverse and healthy aquatic community present
in the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill. Measures of biological health in the river during
2012 continue to maintain or improve from the previous biological assessments conducted in
1995, 2000, and 2005. Major improvements include:
- The ratio of rock bass relative to redbreast sunfish was 1:5.6 in 2012 and 1:10.2 in 2005,
which represented a 45% increase in the less tolerant species (rock bass).
N.

- Fish species richness increased from 44 species in 2005 to 56 species in 2012, an
improvement of 27% since 2005.
- The catch of intolerant smallmouth bass increased almost ten -fold from 26 individuals in
2005 to 201 in 2012.
- In 2005, only one intolerant fish species (rock bass) was collected in the thermally
influenced reach of the river below the mill; in 2012, rock bass and two additional
intolerant species (smallmouth bass, greenfin darter) were found in the same reach.
- Similarity analyses indicated there was a gradient in fish species composition that
produced three distinct groups of sites that were similar to each other. Statistical analyses
including all three biodiversity indices indicated no significant differences in species
diversity when comparing 2005 to 2012 numbers.
- The numbers of the pollution -intolerant Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera complex
collected in 2012 increased approximately 24% from the numbers taxa collected in 2005.
- The number of macro -invertebrate taxa is up approximately 23% in the main -stem from
257 taxa in 2005 to 315 taxa in 2012.
- Ten native mussel species have been re -introduced into the PR system. A recent study
indicated that mortality rates among above- and below -mill sites were not significantly
different; however, growth rates of mussels held in the downstream sites were greater
than for those held at upstream sites.
X

A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND
WATER QUALITY OF THE PIGEON RIVER
(2012 Biological Assessment)
University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
Dr. J. Larry Wilson, PhD — Principal Investigator
1. INTRODUCTION
The Blue Ridge Paper Products mill in Canton, North Carolina, requires a 316(a) Thermal
Variance Study. Blue Ridge Paper selected scientists with the Department of Foresty, Wildlife
and Fisheries of the University of Tennessee -Knoxville to perform the Thermal Variance Study
including a biological assessment of the Pigeon River below the mill. Field work for the
biological assessment was completed during the summer of 2012 in accordance with the Canton
Mill Thermal Assessment Study Plan submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NC DWQ) on April 12, 2012, and accepted by the Department on April 24, 2012. Previous
biological assessments for Canton Mill NPDES permitting were completed by EA Engineering
Science and Technology, Inc. (EA) in 1995 and 2000, and by the University of Tennessee (UTK)
in 2005. This report documents the results of the 2012 Biological Assessment in support of the
separate December 2013 Balanced and Indigenous Species Study Report [Clean Water Act
316(a) Demonstration] for the Pigeon River.
A biological survey of fishes and macro -invertebrates was conducted during July through
September of 2012 to determine whether a balanced indigenous community was present. Late
summer was chosen because this is the period when water temperatures are highest and when
any adverse impacts, if there are any, would be most easy to detect. Biological sampling was
conducted in accordance with standard North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NC DENR), Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) field protocols (Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macro -invertebrates 2003, and Standard Operating Procedures
for Biological Monitoring of Stream Fish Community Assessment and Fish Tissue 2001) with
some modifications following TVA protocols (TVA Protocol for Conducting an Index of Biotic
Integrity Biological Assessment, 2004) as noted in Methods section. The purpose of the surveys
was to determine whether a balanced, indigenous community was present downstream of the
mill. If any impairment was noted, the next step would be to determine whether it was caused by
the thermal discharge from the mill. The 316(a) guidance [316(a) Technical Guidance —
Thermal Discharges, US EPA 1974] requires either the demonstration of a balanced and
indigenous community or if some impairment is noted, that the impairment is not thermally
driven. Thus, a thermal variance can be granted even if a balanced indigenous community is not
10

found so long as the lack of balance is not the result of thermal inputs from the discharge in
question.
This report describes the results of the biological surveys. It presents the current results and
compares them to the previous studies of the Pigeon River. It should be noted that there was an
unexpected event that impacted the Pigeon River that may have influenced the 2012 biological
sample collections. There was an extended drought in the Eastern U.S. in the summer of 2007;
this was especially harsh at that time in western North Carolina and it extended through 2008
although to a lesser degree. The generalized drought impacts on instream communities (fish and
invertebrates) as determined by comparisons of habitat scores for pre- and post -drought sampling
indicated that, overall, the benthos and fish communities showed a decline in bioclassification
following the extended dry period. Benthic macro -invertebrate declined in most classifications,
but not as much as expected. Fish numbers collected at three stations immediately downstream
of the Mill were lower in 2012 than 2005; however, the numbers of fish species collected at five
of the six remaining downstream sample stations in the North Carolina portion of the river were
greater in 2012 than in 2005.
Overall, the 2012 Biological Assessment found a diverse and healthy aquatic community present
in the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill. Measures of biological health in the river during
2012 continue to maintain or improve from the previous biological assessments conducted in
1995, 2000, and 2005.
2. METHODS
To determine whether the thermal component of the Canton Mill effluent might be affecting the
aquatic communities of the Pigeon River, biological sampling of all aquatic trophic levels was
conducted at 22 representative sampling stations along the length of the Pigeon River and its
tributaries (Table 2.1, Figure 2.1), and at two stations on the Swannanoa River reference stream
(Table 2.1) during July -September 2012. The trophic levels included periphyton, macrophytes,
benthic macro-invertebrates/shellfish, fish, and wildlife (encompassing the full "shellfish, fish
and wildlife" criteria of Section 316 (a) of the Clean Water Act). There were 14 main -stem
stations in the Pigeon River in North Carolina and Tennessee, and six tributaries all of which
were in North Carolina; two stations were sampled in the Swannanoa River. The majority of
these locations have been sampled periodically from 1987 through the present day. It should be
noted that the river mile notation for the Brown's Bridge station, given as PRM 24.9 in the 1995,
2000, and 2005 reports, has been modified in the 2012 report to PRM 24.7 to more accurately
identify the sampling site.
11

Table 2.1. Pigeon River and tributary biological sampling stations, 1987-2012.The asterisk (*)
indicates new stations sampled in 2012. The (*+) indicates a new station that was
substituted for the PRM 42.6 station which was sampled in 2005 but not in 2012. The
six stations in italics indicates the reference stations.
Upstream Tributary
*Lake Logan (WFPR 6.6)
*WFPR 3.6 (West Fork Pigeon River)
*EFPR 3.5 (East Fork Pigeon River)
Main -stem (RM)
*69.5
Below confluence
64.5-64.9 Upstream mill
63.0
Fiberville, downstream mill
61.0
Thickety/DO station
59.0
Upstream Clyde
*57.7
Charles St Bridge
55.5
Hyder Mountain Bridge
54.5
Waynesville WWTP
52.3
Old Rt 209 bridge/golf course
48.2
Ferguson Bridge
*+45.3
HEPCO gauging station
42.6
New HEPCO Bridge
24.7
Brown's Bridge
19.3
Bluffton
* 10.3
Agriculture Fields
Tributary
Richland Creek
*Crabtree Creek
Jonathan Creek
Fines Creek
Reference Stream
Near PRM 54.9
Near PRM 49.8
At Rt 276
Panther Creek Rd
*SRM 11.3 (Warren Wilson)
*SRM 1.6 (I-40 Exit 60)
Fish Macro -invertebrates
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
Fish Macro -invertebrates
2012
87/95/99/00/05/12
87/95/99/00/0512
99/00/05/12
87/95/99/00/05/12
2012
95/00/05/12
95/00/05/12
87/95/00/05/12
87/95/00/05/12
2012
87/95/00/05
87/95/00/05/12
87/95/00/05/12
2012
87/95/00/05/12
2012
95/00/05/12
95/00/05/12
2012
2012
2012
87/95/99/00/05/12
87/95/99/00/05/12
99/00/05/12
87/95/99/00/05/12
2012
95/00/05/12
95/00/05/12
87/95/00/05/12
87/95/00/05/12
2012
87/95/00/05
87/95/00/05/12
87/95/00/05/12
2012
87/95/00/05/12
2012
95/00/05/12
95/00/05/12
2012
2012
Note: The 2005 and 2012 studies were completed by the University of Tennessee; the 1995 and
2000 studies were conducted by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Deerfield, IL.
12

Newport pg Fields (PRM 14.3)
Tennessee
Flow Direction
Suglon (PRM 19.3)
Hartford
Gowns Bridge (PRM 24 7)
\Cosby C reek
Creek
Hydmpower Waterville
Tunnel Lake
North Carolina
Hydropower Facility (NC}
Stream Monitoring Location
Creek
Jonathan
USGS (PRM 45.3}
Upstream Clyde
Creek
Ferguson Bridge
(PRM
(PRM 48.21
59 0)Thickety
Golf Course (PRM 52_3
(PRM 61.0)
Waynesville WAIT
�
Fibervil$
PRM 63.0)
(PRM 54 5)
Richlan
Creek
Canton
Jonathan Creek
Charles t_ Bridge
Above Mill
Hyder Mountain Bridge
CI 57.7
de PRM Y { )
PRM 64.5 - 64.9)
(PRM 55.5)
Below Confluence (PRM 69.5)
Richland Creek
W Fork Pigeon
River (WFPR 3 61
E ForkRigeon
BFPR 3.5)
W Fork Pigeon River
(WFPR 6-6)
Lake Logan
East Pork Pigeon
West Fork Pigeon
Figure 2.1. Pigeon River study locations in North Carolina and Tennessee, 2012.
13

If there are thermal effects attributable to the mill, then one would expect those effects to be most
severe just downstream of the mill (e.g., at PRM 63.0 or PRM 61.0) where temperatures are
highest and decline progressively as one proceeds downstream. Thus, if thermal was a significant
factor one would expect the poorest aquatic communities at PRM 63.0 and the best at PRM 45.3.
Main -stem sampling locations were arranged to detect any such spatial patterns.
Due to the ameliorating effects of Waterville Lake, no thermal influence would be expected in
the Tennessee portion of the river. Nonetheless, three Tennessee locations were included to
provide continuity with the prior studies conducted by EA. Similarly, the 2012 study included
four tributary locations (Table 2.1). Sampling these locations allows a determination regarding
the overall impact(s) (positive or negative) of each tributary on the biota of the Pigeon River.
Similarly, such data are useful to determine whether these locations might serve as refugia
during stressful main -stem conditions and/or serve as sources for re -colonization.
The 2012 program consisted of four basic elements; habitat, thermal modeling, fish, macro -
invertebrates, and other biological communities. The presence and estimated abundance of
mussels, macrophytes, periphyton, and wildlife were also documented in the 2012 assessment. In
the following sections, the methods utilized for habitat assessment (Section 2.1), benthic
community analyses (Section 2.2), and fish community analyses (Section 2.3) are presented.
2.1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT
During July through September 2012 (concurrent with the fish sampling), habitat at each of the
14 stations was evaluated using procedures developed by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NC DENR 2001). Parameters considered as part of
the habitat assessment are channel modification, instream habitat, bottom substrate, pool variety,
riffle habitat, bank stability and vegetation, light penetration and riparian vegetation zone width.
A Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet was used to evaluate the various parameters and
determine a score for each study location. Scores and raw data are available on request.
2.2 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS FOR MEASURING BENTHIC
MACRO -INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY HEALTH
2.2.1 Field Methods
Benthic macro -invertebrate surveys were conducted at the 22 locations from 5 July to 28
September 2012 (Figure 2.1). Collection sites included 14 Pigeon River main -stem stations
(eleven in North Carolina and three in Tennessee), six tributary stations (East Fork Pigeon River,
West Fork Pigeon River, Richland Creek, Crabtree Creek, Jonathan Creek, and Fines Creek), and
two stations in the Swannanoa River reference stream. All 22 stations were sampled according to
the Standard Operating Procedures for Macro -Invertebrates (University of Tennessee, 2012)
which were written and approved for UTK Lab Certification by NC DENR. The UTK SOP
methodologies followed the format and content of the NC DENR Standard Operating Procedures
for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macro -invertebrates (Version 3.0) (NC DENR, 2011).
14

This approach involved the collection of organisms from seven multi -habitat qualitative samples
at each site: riffles, vegetation, root wads/undercut banks, leaf pack, rocks/wood, sand, and
visual search of the sampling area.
Two kick net samples were collected from areas of differing velocity within a riffle using a 1-m
x 1-m flat screen with a 1000-micron mesh. The kick net was held upright on the bottom while
the substrate upstream was physically disturbed. Benthic organisms and debris retained on the
screen were then washed into a sieve bucket. Sweep nets (D-nets) samples were used to sample
root wads/undercuts banks, vegetation, and leaf packs. Selected areas were physically disturbed
and then swept through using a 500-micron D-frame net. Smaller macro -invertebrates were
sampled by hand -washing various rocks and woody debris into a bucket. The residue was then
passed through a fine mesh (300 microns) sieve. Sand substrates were sampled using a 1.0 m x
0.5 m, 300-micron mesh bag. The bag was held open while the sandy area immediately upstream
was being disturbed. Since sand was often found in small localized pockets, three or four discrete
areas were usually sampled. Leaf -pack samples consisted of partially decayed leaves and sticks.
Leaves and sticks were placed in a sieve bucket, rinsed, and inspected for any remaining
organisms before being discarded. The final qualitative sample involved a visual inspection of
large rocks and logs and open substrates for new and larger (e.g., mussels and crayfish)
organisms that may have been missed by the other sampling techniques. Visual searches
included all habitats within the site.
Macro -invertebrates were hand-picked on -site at each station by one or two team members while
remaining team members completed the seven multi -habitat qualitative sampling methods. All
sample types were combined and were preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol, labeled appropriately,
and transported to the laboratory for taxonomic identification. Additional organisms were hand-
picked in the laboratory.
To complement the field collections and assist with data interpretation, various observations
were made at each site. These data included location, sample time, collectors, and general field
observations. This information was included on the field habitat data sheets and/or the field fish
data sheets.
2.2.2 Laboratory Methods
Macro -invertebrates from all samples were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level
using the most current literature available. Chironomidae larvae were cleared in 10% potassium
hydroxide and mounted in CMC-10 prior to identification. All taxa identified during this survey
have been retained for a voucher collection. For all samples, specimens were enumerated, coded,
and recorded.
2.2.3 Data Analysis
To assign a standard bioclassification to each site, data obtained from qualitative collections
were used to generate the North Carolina Biotic Index (NC BI). Formerly, bioclassifications of
North Carolina stream sites were based primarily upon EPT taxa richness (number taxa within
the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, insect groups that are generally intolerant
15

of many kinds of pollution) (Lenat 1988). This was the method of bioclassification used during
the 1987 Pigeon River synoptic survey (EA 1988). In 1991, the NC DEHNR adopted the NC BI
as an additional method of bioclassification (NC DEHNR 1995). Developed by Lenat (1993), the
NC BI, in conjunction with the standard qualitative sampling protocols described above, was
designed to provide a reliable and accurate method of determining water quality conditions of
North Carolina streams. The index is based on values derived for individual macro -invertebrate
taxa that reflect an increasing level of pollution tolerance from 0 (least tolerant) to 10 (most
tolerant). The NC BI takes into account the assigned abundance values of each taxa (1 = 1-2
individuals/sample, 3 =3-9 individuals/sample, 10 = >10 individuals/sample).
Preliminary bioclassifications may be assigned based solely on NC BI score or EPT taxa
richness. In the present study, NC BI values for Pigeon River samples were determined using the
revised guidelines for assessment of benthic macro -invertebrates (NC DENR 2003 Version 3.0,
2011). Bioclassification criteria for the NC BI differ by ecoregion (mountain, piedmont, and
coastal plain) and season. All collections for this survey were made during the summer sampling
period (July -September) within the mountain ecoregion. In 2012, classifications were assigned to
each site based on original classification criteria for biotic index values (see below) in order to
compare present macro -invertebrate assemblages to those found in previous years.
Biotic Index (BI)
Bioclassification Mountain Ecore_ig_on
Excellent
<4.05
Good
4.06-4.88
Good -Fair
4.89-5.74
Fair
5.75-7.00
Poor
>7.00
EPT taxa richness was determined only for Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa
found at a given site. Bioclassification criteria for EPT taxa richness values for the mountain
ecoregion have been developed (NC DENR 2003). For standard qualitative samples, the EPT
taxa richness criteria are shown below:
Classification Mountain Ecoregion (No. Taxa)
Excellent >35
Good 28-35
Good -Fair 19-27
Fair 11-18
Poor 0-10
The classifications for each station downstream of the Canton Mill discharge were compared
with the four upstream control sites (PRM 64.5, PRM 69.5, EFPR 3.5, and WFPR 3.6), and two
sites on the reference Swannanoa River (SRM 1.6 and SRM 11.3). In addition, data from the
current study were compared with data previously collected on the Pigeon River by EA (1988,
1996, and 2001) and by UTK in 2005. The following qualitative parameters were used in
16

comparisons among sites and studies: NC BI values, EPT BI values, EPT taxa richness, total taxa
richness, and EPT abundance.
The revised guidelines for assessment of benthic macro -invertebrates (NC DENR, Version 3,
2011) include a procedure for determining a final bioclassification for a given location using a
combination of NC BI score and EPT values. The two scores are averaged and the resulting
mean was rounded to the nearest whole number (round up 0.6-0.9, round down 0.0-0.4) (NC
DEHNR 1997). Final bioclassifications were determined for a site by rating the mean score
according to the following scale: 5 = Excellent, 4 = Good, 3 = Good -Fair, 2 = Fair, and 1 =
Poor. If the EPT and NC BI scores differ by exactly one, the resulting average will be midway
between two bioclassifications (e.g., 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5). In these cases, rounding up or down is
based on the total of EPT abundance values for a given location relative to the expected
abundance for each bioclassification in that ecoregion (NC DEHNR 1997). The associated
mountain ecoregion ranges and classifications for these methods are as follows:
Mountain Ecoregion
Score NC BI Values EPT Values
5
<4.00
>43
4.6
4.00-4.04
42-43
4.4
4.05-4.09
40-41
4
4.10-4.83
34-39
3.6
4.84-4.88
32-33
3.4
4.89-4.93
30-31
3
4.94-5.69
24-29
2.6
5.70-5.74
22-23
2.4
5.75-5.79
20-21
2
5.80-6.95
14-19
1.6
6.96-7.00
12-13
1.4
7.01-7.05
10-11
1
>7.05
0-9
The final score is rounded up if the actual EPT abundance is equal to or higher than the given
value, and rounded down if EPT abundance is less.
Bioclassification (Score)
Excellent (5) vs. Good (4)
Good (4) vs. Good -Fair (3)
Good -Fair (3) vs. Fair (2)
Fair (2) vs. Poor (1)
Mountain Ecoregion
Minimum EPT Abundance
191
125
85
45
17

2.3 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS FOR MEASURING FISH
COMMUNITY HEALTH
Fish surveys were conducted at the 22 locations from 5 July to 28 September 2012 (Figure 2.1)
to determine if a balanced indigenous fish community currently exists within the study area. All
22 stations were sampled according the Standard Operating Procedures for Fish (University of
Tennessee, 2012) which were written and approved for UTK Lab Certification by NC DENR.
The UTK SOP methodologies followed the format and content of the NC DENR Standard
Operating Procedure, Biological Monitoring, Stream Fish Community Assessment Program,
2006. NC DENR (1997) does not have standardized fish sampling methods for non -wadeable
streams. In wadeable streams, they rely exclusively on backpack electrofishers, with more
backpack units used as the size (width) of the stream increases. However, for a stream the size
and depth of the Pigeon River (20-50 m wide and up to 4 m deep), backpack electrofishers alone
are not adequate to sample the complete fish community and, as result, NC DENR does not
sample fish in the main -stem Pigeon River.
To adequately sample the Pigeon River fish community, an approach similar to that used on the
Pigeon River by Saylor et al. (1993) and EA (1996) was followed during the current study.
Saylor et al. (1993) used an electrofishing boat to sample deeper runs and pools. For such areas,
the University of Tennessee (UT) used a 14-foot jon boat powered by a 5000-watt generator with
the output controlled by a Smith -Root Type VI electrofisher. Saylor et al. (1993) sampled riffle
and shallow run areas using a backpack electrofisher and EA sampled shoreline using a Coeffelt
VVP-2C electroshocker mounted in a towed pram. UT used a similar method; a Coffelt 1.5KVA
eleectrofisher powered by a Honda EU 2000i generator was incorporated into a molded
fiberglass boat (Figure 2.3-1) for collecting in shoreline areas. This unit (hereinafter called a
`pram'), uses a 1700-watt generator and thus has considerably more power than a backpack
electrofisher, and therefore is more effective in larger wadeable streams like the Pigeon River
(Ohio EPA 1989). During the current study, boat, pram, and backpacker electrofisher collections
were supplemented by seining, a methodology used by TVA (2004) protocols.
IN

Figure 2.3-1. Shoreline fish sampling crew with pram electrofisher.
The pram electrofisher was used at nine of the 22 sampling locations; and was used primarily in
tributaries but was also used in main -stem areas where shoreline depths were suitable for its use.
Because of its smaller size, the backpack electrofisher was used in the six tributary locations, and
in main -stem locations where shoreline depths permitted. Main -stem and tributary locations were
electrofished for a standard distance of 200 m to duplicate distances sampled by EA in 1995 and
2000, and by UTK in 2005. A single 200-m backpack electrofishing pass was made in three of
the smaller tributaries (Richland, Fines and Crabtree Creeks) whereas multiple passes (totaling at
least 200 m) were made in the other tributaries (East and West Forks Pigeon River, Jonathan
Creek) and the main -stem locations. On one or two occasions, the 200-m shoreline sample was
completed covering varying amounts of shoreline area (depending on the near -shore depth) that
were unwadeable by the pram crew. Boat electrofishing was conducted at all remaining main -
stem locations except at PRM 63.0, PRM 48.2, PRM 45.3, and PRM 24.7. PRM 63.0 was not
sampled in keeping with the EA 2000 methodology, and the remaining three locations were not
sampled due to alteration in access areas or changes in river morphology. Boat shocking was
conducted in accordance with TVA boat shocking protocols for 40-50 minutes per location
depending on the extent of pool and run habitat within a given zone. In addition, at each sample
19

site, mid -stream riffles were sampled by pram or backpack shocking into a seine in accordance
with TVA protocols (2004). Seine hauls were conducted at PRM 19.3 in keeping with EA
methodologies and at any other site with the appropriate habitat. At each location, all
microhabitats were sampled so as to maximize the likelihood that all species present would be
captured.
Captured fishes were held in water -filled tubs until sampling was completed, at which time all
specimens were identified, weighed, and measured, and released. Sportfish and suckers were
measured (total length) and weighed, up to 20 of each species, per location. The remaining
individuals were counted and batch weighed. Length ranges and/or life stages were noted for
batch weighed fishes. Incidence of parasites, disease, and other morphological anomalies were
also noted. Selected smaller fishes were preserved in 10 percent formalin as voucher specimens
or for laboratory confirmation or identification; all other specimens were released onsite.
Identification was made to the species level.
In recent years, many fisheries professionals have changed from the older coefficient of
condition (K) to relative weight (Wr) to measure the robustness of fish (Wege and Anderson
1978). Relative weight is calculated as:
Wr = W/W, x 100
where W is the measured weight and Ws is the length -specific standard weight predicted by a
weight -length regression constructed to represent the species as a whole. Length -specific
standard weight functions are in the form:
loglo Ws = a + b loglo L (L = total length of fish)
where a and b ideally account for genetically determined shape characteristics of a species and
yield Wr values of 100 at particular times of the year for fish that have been well fed (Anderson
and Gutreuter 1983).
Fish community data were incorporated in the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr et al. 1986) to
characterize the biotic condition of the Pigeon River. The IBI includes a range of attributes of
fish assemblages that can be classified into three categories: species richness and composition,
trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition. TVA modified IBI metrics for the
ecoregions within the Tennessee Valley geographical area and this methodology was used for
their present Pigeon River survey (TVA Protocol for Conducting an Index of Biotic Integrity
Biological Assessment 2004)(Table 2.3-1). The values calculated for the metrics are converted
into scores on a 1, 3, 5 scale. A score of 5 represents conditions expected for undisturbed streams
in the specific river basin or ecoregion, while a score of 1 indicates that the conditions vary
greatly from those expected in undisturbed streams of the region. The scores for each metric are
calculated to attain the overall IBI score. A comparison of the metrics used to calculate the Index
of Biotic Integrity scores in the 2005 and 2012 Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the
Pigeon River is presented in Table 2.3-2.
FA

Table 2.3-1. TVA list of metrics used in calculating Index of Biotic Integrity*
1. Number of native species
2. Number of native darter species, or (headwater streams) Number of riffle species
3. Number of native sunfish species (less Micropterus sp.), or (headwater streams)
Number of pool species
4. Number of native sucker species, or (headwater streams) Percent composition by two
most dominate species
5. Number of intolerant species, or (headwater streams) Number of headwater intolerant
species
6. Percentage of fish as tolerant species
7. Percentage of fish as omnivores and stoneroller species
8. Percentage of fish as specialized insectivores
9. Percentage of fish as piscivores
10. Catch rate (average number/300 ft2, or 5 minutes of boat shocking)
11. Percentage of fish as hybrids, or (headwater streams) Percentage of fish as simple
lithophilic spawners
12. Percentage of fish with disease, tumors, fin damage, and other anomalies
*Each is assigned a value as follows: 1-poor, 3-intermediate, 5-the best to be expected. The IBI
for a given site is the sum of those values.
21

Table 2.3-2. Comparison of metrics used to calculate the Index of Biotic Integrity in the 2005
and 2012 Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River.
Year:
2005
2012
2005,2012
Source:
NCDENHR (1995)
(Modified from Karr et
al., 1986)
NCDEHNR (2006, version 4)
(Modified from Karr et al., 1986)
TVA IBI Protocol (2004)
Number of species
Number of species
Number of nativespecies
Number of darterspecies
Number of darterspecies
Number of native darterspecies
Number of Sunfish and Salmonid
species**
Number of Rock Bass, Small-
mouth Bass, Trout species*
Number of native sunfish species
(less Micropterus sp.)
Number of sucker species (all
members of Catostomidae)
Number of species of cyprinids
Number of native sucker species
Number of intolerant species
Number of intolerant species
Number of intolerant species
% of fish as tolerant species
% of fish as tolerant species
% of fish as tolerant species
% Omnivores
% Omnivores + herbivores
% Omnivores and stonerollers
% Insectivores and
% Specialized Insectivores
% Insectivores
% Specialized insectivores
Number of piscivorous species
Number of piscivorous species
% Piscivores
Catch rate
% Hybrids
% Diseased
% Diseased
Number of Individuals
Number of Individuals
% of species with multiple age
classes
% of species with multiple age
classes
* This includes salmonid species brook, rainbow and brown trout. Stocked trout (characterized by pale colors and
worn or deformed fins) are not counted.
**This metric includes centrarchids of the genera Lepomis, Enneacanthus, Acantharchus, Ambloplites, and
Centrarchus, as well as all species of salmonids, whether native or stocked.
3. RESULTS
3.1 BENTHIC COMMUNITY
The approach used to assess the benthic community in 2012 was similar to that used by UTK in
2005. All 22 stations were sampled according the Standard Operating Procedures for Macro -
Invertebrates (University of Tennessee, 2012) which were written and approved for UTK Lab
Certification by NC DENR. The UTK SOP methodologies followed the format and content of
the NC DENR Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macro -
invertebrates (NC DENR, Version 3.0, 2011).
Macro -invertebrate samples were collected from the Pigeon River basin at 14 main -stem, six
tributaries, and two reference stream stations from July to September 2012 (Table 2.1 and Figure
2.1). Qualitative multihabitat samples were collected at each station. Data from these collections
were used to calculate the North Carolina Biotic Index (NC BI) and Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera
+ Trichoptera taxa richness (EPT Index) which, in turn provided a final bioclassification for each
22

station (Excellent, Good, Good -Fair, Fair, or Poor). These classifications were used as a gauge
for comparisons among stations and to detect negative influences.
3.1.1 Benthic Community Structure
For all stations (N=22) and sampling events combined, a total of 315 macro -invertebrate taxa
were collected during 2012 (Table 3.1.1-1). The additional number of taxa (N=58) represented a
23% increase over the number collected in 2005 (257). This larger number of taxa could be
attributed to the increase in the number of sampling stations from 14 in 2005 to the 22 in 2012,
the latter which included three additional stations on the main -stem Pigeon River, three
additional PR tributaries, and two sites on the reference stream.
Table 3.1.1-1 summarizes the 2012 macro -invertebrate data for all sampling stations on the
Pigeon River and tributaries. When examining the data from the 14 stations sampled in 2005,
eleven main -stem (PRM 64.5-PRM 19.3) and three tributaries (Fines, Jonathan, and Richland
Creeks), there were 219 total taxa collected from the main -stem stations. In 2012, there were 203
total taxa collected from those same stations, and that number represented a 7.3% decrease in
taxa from 2005. One reason for the slight decrease in taxa numbers in that specific portion of the
river could be due to the extended drought in North Carolina in 2007-08. There were 182 taxa
collected from the three tributaries in 2012; Jonathan Creek had the highest taxa richness (97
taxa) and had one more taxon than in 2005. Richland Creek had the lowest overall taxa richness
(28) and had two more taxa than in 2005.
In 2012, the total taxa richness decreased at the upstream control site (PRM 64.5, 44 taxa) from
2005 numbers (87 taxa) at the same site; one factor contributing to this reduction could be a rain
event on the sampling date which impacted the collection effort. This was supported by the fact
that, at all seven other sites in the NC portion of the river (PRM 61.0 — PRM 45.3), total taxa
numbers recorded were equal to or greater than the number collected at PRM 64.5 (44). Dipteran
taxa, including chironomids, increased from 11 taxa in the main -stem above the mill (PRM 64.5)
to 21 immediately below the outfall ; it fluctuated from that value to a low of 7 taxa at two NC
locations, PRM 55.5 and PRM 54.5, and rebounded to 24 taxa at the furtherest downstream
station in TN (PRM 10.3).
Of the total of 125 EPT taxa (117 genera, 8 families) collected from the study area in 2012, there
were 30 taxa that were not collected in 2005.The total EPT taxa richness represented an increase
of 32% over the 2005 number, 60% increase over 2000, and 221 % over 1995 collections (Figure
3.1.1-2). The number of EPT taxa among the main -stem Pigeon River sites ranged from 31 at
PRM 54.5 to 14 at PRM 48.2. There were 16 EPT taxa collected immediately downstream of the
mill (PRM 63.0); that number represents an increase of one species over the 2005 collection.
Among the tributary stations, EPT richness was similar to 2005 values, with relatively high
numbers in Fines Creek (33 taxa) and Jonathan Creek (37 taxa), and noticeably lower numbers in
Richland Creek (12). Given the fact that Richland Creek is a warm -water stream and Jonathan
and Fines Creeks are cool -water streams, some differences would be expected with regard to
benthic community composition.
23

Table 3.1.1-1. List of benthic macro -invertebrates collected from the Pigeon River, tributaries, and the Swannanoa River, 2012.
PR River Sites by River Mile (RM)
PR Tributaries
SRM
Taxa
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
EF
WF
RC
CC
JC
FC
SRl
SR2
ANNELIDA (leeches)
Hirundinea
11
1
12
Erpobdellidae
0-
1
1
-Erpobdella
Mooreobdella
I
1
Glossi honiidae
0
Helobdella
5
5
4
8
1
23
Placobdella
1
1
OLIGOCHAETA (aquatic worms)
0
Ench traeidae
0
Mesench traeus
0
Lumbricidae
2
4
4
6
1
1
3
21
1
Eiseniella tetraedra
2
1
3
Lumbriculidae
1
1
2
4
3
Me adrile
0
Megadrili
1
1
Naididae
1
2
2
1
6
Dero
1
1
Nais
4
1
5
10
Paranais
3
3
Pristina
1
1
Stephensoniana trivandrana
1
1
St laria lacustris
3
1
2
5
2
1
26
9
5
1
3
3
61
S ar ano hilidae
3
5
1
1
2
12
3
Tubificidae
1
2
13
1
17
Brachiura sowerbyi
1
1
Limnodrilus
4
1
1
5
11
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
9
9
Tubifex tubifex
2
4
4
13
2
25
Tubificinae: bifid chaetae
6
6
NEMATODA (round worms)
0
Nemata
1
1
2
NEMERTEA (ribbon worms)
1
1
PLATYHELMINTHES (flatworms)
1
2
3
24

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
EPHEMEROPTERA (mayflies)
1
1
2
Ameletidae
1
1
Ameletus
I
1
Ameletus lineatus
1
1
2
4
Baetidae
4
1
112
1
1
5
3
4
131
Acentrella
1
2
138
1
16
37
92
42
13
12
3
357
Acentrella turbida complex
6
6
Acerpenna
1
1
Baetis
3
27
4
2
8
82
5
115
82
75
55
84
61
8
26
39
49
725
Baetis brunniecolor
41
41
Baetis flavistriga
1
2
2
5
Baetis intercalaris
5
9
1
32
57
104
Camelobaetidius
?
2
Centro tilum
1
1
Heterocloeon
1
1
2
20
24
Heterocloeon curiosum
1
1
2
Procloeon
2
8
10
Pseudocloeon
1
4
3
8
Baetiscidae
0
Baetisca
1
1
Caenidae
0
Caenis
1
2
1
8
5
1
2
20
E hemerellidae
3
1
1
2
7
Attenella attenuata
7
7
Danella
0
Drunella alle heniensis
4
17
1
22
Drunella comuta
I
1
Drunella lata
1
1
E hemerella
3
1
11
15
Eurylophella
1
2
3
Seratella
0
Seratella deficiens
24
33
1
1
1
60
21
29
55
225
Seratella serratoides
1
1
2
25
SRM
SRI SR2
9
10
7
4 1
2
3

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taira
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
EPHEMEROPTERA (cont.)
He to eniidae
3
3
4
7
1
34
2
8
1
63
Epeorus
2
6
8
Epeorus dis ar
1
1
2
4
Epeorus rubidus/sub allidus
5
I
1
8
8
23
He to enia mar inalis
10
I
2
4
6
23
He to enia sensa
I
1
Leucrocuta
3
1
4
Leucrocuta a hrodite
4
13
4
21
Maccaffertium
24
3
2
6
24
2
1
9
71
Maccaffertium femoratum
33
23
5
1
1
4
1
5
16
13
102
Maccaffertium ithaca/modestum
25
8
1
21
17
19
1
56
12
160
Maccaffertium medio unctatum
11
5
1
1
5
26
17
30
22
7
2
8
24
3
162
Maccaffertium mexicanum
0
Maccaffertium pudicum
14
14
Maccaffertium smithae
3
3
Stenacron
3
3
4
3
7
20
Stenacron interpunctalum
0
Stenacron pallidum
1
2
3
Ison chidae
0
Ison chia
4
2
1
24
23
13
3
13
13
21
4
6
4
131
Le to hlebiidae
0
Parale to hlebia
1
2
3
Habro hlebiodes
1
1
Le tohy hidae
0
Tricorythodes
12
9
1
137
2
175
27
32
12
407
Nece hemeridae
0
Neoe hemera purpurea
5
12
17
PLECOPTERA (stoneflies)
1
1
Chloro ertidae
0
Alloperla
I
1
2
Leuctridae
0
Leuctra
2
17
16
1
36
Pelto erlidae
0
Talla erla
1
1
2
26
SRM
SR1 SR2
4
20
2 8
1
4
6
2
10
24 1

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
PLECOPTERA (cont.)
Perlidae
1
1
Acroneuria abnormis
9
10
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
6
7
44
Acroneuria sensu lato
4
1
7
12
Agnetina
1
3
4
Agnetina flavescens
1
1
Hanson erla appalachia
10
1
11
Neo erla
1
5
6
Paragnetina immaz inata
1
14
29
36
80
Perlesta
I
1
Perlodidae
0
Beloneuria
I
4
5
Isoperla
1
Malirekus hastatus
I
1
Ocono erla
4
2
6
Pteronarcyidae
0
Allonarc s biloba
3
3
Pteronarc s dorsata
2
13
1
16
TRICHOPTERA (caddisflies)
0
A ataniidae
0
A atania incerta
1
1
Brach centridae
1
1
Brach centrus appalachia
14
17
1
32
Brach centrus lateralis
2
5
34
3
44
Brachycentrus nigrosoma
7
3
10
Brach centrus numerosus
0
Micrasema
1
37
38
Micrasema barksi
1
1
Micrasema bennetti
31
31
Micrasema wata a
2
7
6
9
4
3
31
Glossosomatidae
0
A a etus
3
3
Glossosoma
11
3
14
Glossosoma nigrior
1
1
Proto tilla
3
1
5
5
2
16
27
SRM
SR1 SR2
1
15

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taira
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
TRICHOPTERA cont.)
Hydropsychidae
7
1
4
2
7
7
11
1
3
13
11
2
6
2
77
Ceratopsyche
1
2
2
2
2
5
1
15
Cerato s the bronta
2
1
23
26
Cerato s the morosa
9
13
1
1
4
1
6
38
40
12
48
43
19
14
10
23
1
283
Cerato s ches arna
21
6
2
1
1
5
7
2
54
9
11
75
5
20
23
163
46
116
567
Cheumato s the
9
1
1
11
169
40
7
18
32
37
27
24
63
1
6
169
58
20
1
13
707
Cheumato s the pasella
1
1
Di lectrona modesta
1
2
3
H dro s the
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
10
H dro s the betteni/de ravata
I
7
8
H dro s the franclemonti
1
15
16
H dro s the phalerata
8
3
36
20
11
1
79
Hydropsyche simulans
1
1
2
H dro s the venularis
7
22
38
18
101
12
59
67
36
29
1
1
2
9
3
24
429
Hydro tilidae
0
H dro tila
2
15
12
3
2
2
7
43
Leucotrichia pictipes
1
2
3
Le idostomatidae
0
Le idostoma
4
4
2
3
1
2
2
24
5
47
Le toceridae
1
5
1
7
M stacides
2
3
5
M stacides se ulchralis
8
3
3
14
Necto s the
0
Nectopsyche exquisita
1
1
Oecetis
1
1
1
2
1
2
8
Oecetis inconspicua
1
1
Oecetis persiniffis
1
15
16
29
5
15
2
19
5
16
5
2
57
12
3
202
Trianodes
0
Trianodes ignitus
5
2
1
8
Trianodes taenia
2
2
SRM
SRI SR2
1
I
3
2
3 4
1
9
2
1
1
7
2
1
3

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taira
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
TRICHOPTERA (cont.)
Limne hiltidae
1
1
Goera
2
1
3
Goera calcarata
1
1
cno s the
2
1
3
cno s the guttifer
1
3
4
cno s chele ida
1
1
cno s cheluculenta
1
1
PhilopotaiWdae
0
Dolo hilodes distinctus
12
12
Phryganeidae
0
Banksiola
1
1
Pol centro odidae
0
Cerotina spicata
I
1
2
Neurecli sis
1
3
4
Neureclisis cre uscularis
2
3
3
5
6
6
27
11
10
23
14
1
ill
Po] centro us
1
1
1
1
2
6
Ps chow iidae
0
Lype diversa
0
Ps chom is flavida
2
2
Rh aco hilidae
0
Rh aco hila fenestra/ledra
2
2
Rh aco hila fuscula
2
2
Ueonidae
0
Neo h lax consimilis
10
10
ODONATA (dragonflies / damselflies)
Aeshnidae
0
Aeshna umbrosa
10
to
Basiaeschna'anata
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
13
Bo eria grafiana
I
1
Bo eria vinosa
9
6
8
5
4
7
5
6
1
1
14
15
14
5
loo
29
SRM
SRI SR2
1
1
1 3

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
ODONATA (cont.)
Calo ter idae
0
Calo to x
2
1
3
Calo to x amata
1
1
Calopteryx maculata
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
21
2
32
Hetaerina americana
15
10
8
2
3
14
9
9
3
2
2
77
Hetaerina titia
I
1
Coen rionidae
1
21
6
2
3
33
Ar is
3
3
8
2
29
2
2
10
13
5
4
6
3
90
Ar is bi unctulata
4
4
Argia sedula
3
3
Enallagma
2
9
2
6
11
1
2
33
Enallagina diva ans
12
12
Nehalennia
1
19
6
3
29
Cordule astridae
0
Cordulagaster maculata
I
1
Cordullidae
1
2
3
E itheca uhleri
3
1
4
Neurocordulia
3
2
5
Neurocordulia obsoleta
1
3
4
Neurocordulia yamaskanensis
3
2
1
2
8
Somatochlora
I
1
Gom hidae
1
4
2
3
2
2
8
22
Dromo om hus s inosus
2
2
Gomphus
29
29
Gom hus exilis
1
2
3
Gom hus lividus
2
1
1
4
Gom hus quadriedor
1
1
Ha emus brevist lus
3
2
2
2
9
Hylogomphus
2
2
H to om hus abbreviatis
I
1
H to om hus brevis
I
I
H to om hus parvidens
1
1
Lanthus parvulus
1
1
30
SRM
SR1 SR2
5
13
2
3
4
7
1
1 1
1

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
ODONATA (cont.)
O hio om hus
3
1
rt
16
2
23
O hio om hus mainensis
5
5
S to om hus albis lus
1
4
2
1
10
Stylurus s inice s
3
1
4
Macromiidae
0
Macromia
4
4
2
5
1
1
1
5
6
1
2
32
HEMH'TERA (true bugs)
0
Gerridae
0
Aquarius remi is
4
4
Hydrometridae
0
H drometra australis
0
Mesoveliidae
2
2
Mesoveba mulsanti
?
2
Ne idae
0
Ranatra
1
2
3
Ranatra brevicollis
2
2
Ranatra nigira
3
6
1
4
1
15
Veliidae
0
Rha ovelia obesa
1
1
3
1
4
12
MEGALOPTERA (hellgrammites)
0
Cor dalidae
0
Corydaluscornutus
10
1
2
9
7
9
11
6
6
10
5
2
10
3
1
6
98
Nigironia
2
2
Nigronia serricomis
4
3
2
2
1
2
1
4
19
Sialidae
0
Sialis
I
I
1
1
4
COLEOPTERA (beetles)
0
Ch sometidae
1
1
2
Dryo idae
0
Helichus
19
6
2
2
1
I
2
8
I
2
2
2
6
54
Helichus litho hilus
I
1
31
SRM
SRI SR2
3 2
1
4 1
2
1 6

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
COLEOPTERA (Cont.)
Elmidae
1
1
2
Anc ron x varie atus
2
6
15
12
12
7
2
4
3
1
2
4
70
Dubira hia
1
1
Dubira hia quadrinotata
1
12
13
Macronychus glabratus
4
1
2
4
13
8
6
13
14
16
3
9
93
Micros llce us
0
Micros llce us pusillus
11
11
O tioservus
1
1
O tioservus ovalis
1
1
Oulimnius latiusculus
1
1
Promoresia ele ans
13
5
2
1
1
5
52
5
1
4
89
Promoresia tardella
3
1
2
6
Stenelmis
4
1
1
1
7
3
6
10
33
G rinidae
0
Dineutus
1
5
7
1
1
2
1
18
G rinus
2
1
1
4
Hali lidae
0
Peltod tes
2
2
6
1
11
H dro hilidae
0
Berosus
8
7
2
16
5
3
41
Berosus peregrinus
9
9
Sperchopsis tessellata
1
1
Tro istemus
1
1
Pse henidae
0
Pse henus herricld
12
2
1
1
4
2
5
2
24
8
61
DIPTERA (flies)
0
Athericidae
0
Atherix lantha
3
13
16
Ceratopogonidae
0
Atricho o an
1
1
32
SRM
SR1 SR2
3 1
1
23 17
3
80 19
3
6

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
DIPTERA (cont.)
Chironomidae
1
2
44
1
2
1
2
1
1
26
1
82
Chironominae
13
2
15
Chironomini
2
2
Chironomus
2
39
19
1
61
Cladotanytarsus
3
3
Cryptochironomus
2
1
13
1
1
18
Dicrotendi es
3
1
4
4
2
2
1
9
—Microtendipes
Para haenocladius
I
1
Paratanytarsus
I
1
1
2
3
—Paratendipes
Phaeno sectra
7
1
1
9
Phaeno sectra obidiens giroup
3
3
2
5
1
8
—Polypedilum
Polypedilum A (Epler)
0
cf avice s
6
5
1
12
—Polypedilum
flavum
1
2
284
4
1
4
1
1
1
224
8
531
—Polypedilum
illinoense
4
2
2
10
1
1
20
—Polypedilum
scalaenum giroup
1
8
9
—Polypedilum
1
5
1
127
1
3
1
3
1
265
408
—Rheotanytarsus
Stenochironomus
1
I
Sublettea
1
1
Tan tarsus
2
1
6
3
12
Trlbelos
1
1
Tribelos'ucundum
13
1
6
20
Diamesinae
0
Pa astia ortho onia
2
1
1
4
Orthocladiinae
0
Brillia
I
1
Bryophaenocladius
I
1
Cardiocladius
1
5
2
10
1
1
4
24
Chaetocladius
1
1
Corynoneura
0
33
SRM
SRI SR2
1 I
1
3
2
22 1
6
2 3
16 1
3

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
DIPTERA — Chironomidae (cont.)
Cricoto us
3
11
14
Cricoto us bicinctus
36
1
2
1
6
5
17
68
Euldefferiella devonica group1
1
Euldefferiella giracei grp.
1
1
2
Nanocladius
3
1
1
1
2
2
10
Nanocladius cf. downesi
2
1
3
Nanocladius cf. s ini lens
0
Orthocladius
2
1
104
107
Parachaetocladius
1
1
Parametriocnemus
1
1
Psectrocladius
1
2
3
Rheocricoto us
1
13
2
16
S northocladius semivirens
1
1
Thienemanniella
1
4
5
Tvetenia bavarica group
2
2
Tvetenia vitracies
1
8
1
6
1
2
76
95
Ablabesm is
0
Ablabesm ia'anta
1
1
Ablabesm is mallochi
2
4
37
1
1
1
1
47
Ablabesm is of. sim Boni
I
I
Clinotan us
0
pinguis
1
1
—Clinotanypus
Conche elo is
2
3
3
8
Labrundinia
3
1
4
Natarsia
I
I
Pentaneuraincons icua
1
3
8
4
2
6
1
1
7
1
1
35
Procladius
23
4
2
1
1
31
1
1
2
—Rheopelopia
Dixidae
0
Dixa
1
1
Dixella
2
2
Em ididae
0
Hemerodromia
2
2
4
Ptycho teridae
0
Bittacomorpha clavi es
0
34
SRM
SRI SR2
3
1
5
4
1
5
1
2 1

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
DH'TERA (cont.)
Simulidae
7
3
18
28
Cne hia/ Simulium
9
15
3
22
2
16
9
29
8
10
117
34
126
16
42
27
485
Prosimulium
12
111
7
130
Prosimulium mixtum
1
4
5
Ti ulidae
1
1
2
Antocha
2
1
1
1
2
2
9
1
1
20
Hexatoma
7
6
1
14
Ti ula
2
1
2
1
6
Ti ula abdominalis
1
1
GASTROPODA (snails)
0
Anc lidae (limpets)
0
Ferrissia
1
1
1
1
2
6
H drobiidae
1
1
Ph sidae
0
Physella
3
1
19
22
20
8
10
22
42
21
15
1
36
6
226
Planorbidae
1
1
2
Helisoma
1
1
2
4
Planorbella trivolis
4
1
1
3
1
16
5
2
33
Pleuroceridae
0
Elimia claveformis
3
1
4
3
I
7
19
Pleurocera uncialis
8
8
PELECYPODA (mussels)
0
Corbiculidae
0
Corbicula fluminea
1
1 5
19
2
4
4
5
23
4
8
2
3
3
83
S haeriidae
0
S haerium
8
8
35
SRM
SRI SR2
32 28
I
1

PR River Mile
Tributaries
Taxa
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63
61
59
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
TTL
CRUSTACEA
0
Am hi oda (sideswimmers)
1
4
5
Gammarus
1
2
1
4
Iso oda (sow bugs)
0
Asellus
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
11
Collembola (springtails)
I
1
Deca oda (crayfish)
0
Cambariidae
4
4
Cambarus b. bartonii
I
2
1
4
Cambarus lon irostris
2
1
3
CambaruS (Puncti—b—) sp. Nov.
1
1
Cambams reburrus
0
Procambarus acutus
1
3
2
6
ARACHNOIDEA (water mites)
0
H dracarina
1
1
4
5
4
1
6
2
3
1
6
1
37
36
SRM
SR1 SR2
2
3 1

Table 3. l .1-2. Summary of macro -invertebrate data from the Pigeon River, 2012.
2012
Pigeon River Upstream
Pigeon River Below Papermill to Waterville Reservoir
Pigeon River
Pigeon River Tributaries
Pigeon
Swannanoa
Samples
of Paper Mill
In Tennessee
River
River
Main
EF
WF
69.5
64.5
63.0
61.0
59.0
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
RC
CC
JC
FC
PR
SRI
SR2
total
Total Taxa
91
46
80
44
64
66
57
56
50
65
60
50
55
46
48
64
28
49
97
57
315
44
56
Total EPT
47
20
37
22
16
20
17
18
15
31
24
14
25
16
19
21
12
25
37
33
125
10
29
E
20
12
17
8
5
6
8
5
5
13
12
7
7
14
9
12
2
12
18
16
50
7
12
P
4
6
4
2
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
11
7
19
0
0
T
23
2
17
13
10
13
12
11
12
16
12
7
15
4
10
9
10
13
18
10
56
3
17
Diptera
16
20
11
11
21
13
5
10
7
7
9
9
8
7
9
24
4
5
19
7
68
19
9
NC BI
3.88
5.05
4.39
4.16
6.70
6.44
5.97
6.04
6.12
5.42
5.35
5.42
4.69
4.39
4.51
4.66
4.99
4.43
3.76
3.60
4.79
5.40
4.52
E
G-F
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
G-F
G-F
G-F
Good
Good
Good
Good
G-F
Good
E
E
Good
G-F
Good
Mountain
Ecoregion
EPT
E
F
G
G-F
F
F
F
F
F
G-F
G-F
F
G-F
F
F
F
F
G-F
E
G
E
F
G
Values
Final
Bioclass-
E
F
G
G-F
F
F
F
F
F
G-F
G-F
F
G-F
G-F
G-F
G-F
F
G-F
E
G
G
F
G
ification
37

Pigeon River EPT Taxa 1995-2012
Figure 3.1.1-1. EPT taxa richness for the main -stem Pigeon River for 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2012.
Total EPT taxa numbers ranged from 15 to 31 at all main -stem sites except immediately below the
mill (PRM 63.0) and at PRM 45.3. The substrate at PRM 45.3 was primarily bedrock with very little
sand or pebble/cobble; the situation was not suitable substrate for aquatic macro -invertebrate
production. The highest values for both EPT richness and abundance were at PRM 54.5 (31 taxa) and
PRM 52.3 (24 taxa), the former which may have been influenced by the Waynesville WWTP
discharge. It should be noted that only two plecopterans (stoneflies) were collected at the site. Also,
benthic samples were not collected at the same location (PRM 54.5) as the EA studies in 1995 and
2000. Habitat modification due to flooding in 2004 may have made that reach of the original sample
site too deep and lacking any riffle habitat. Therefore, riffle habitat at a shoal above the WWTP
discharge was selected for the sample site.
The NC BI score was calculated for the upstream reference site (PRM 64.5); the 4.16 value rated as
"Good" (Table 3.1.1-1). There was one other NC main -stem site, PRM 45.3, which had a NC BI
score in the `Good' range. The sample site immediately downstream of the mill, PRM 63.0, had the
highest (worse) score (6.70) on the NC main -stem Pigeon River and was rated as `Fair'. Four of eight
NC main -stem sites (PRM 54.5-PRM45.3) scored NC BI values rated in the `Good' to `Good -Fair'
range; the four other sites immediately below the mill (PRM 63.0 to PRM 55.5) were rated as `Fair'
based on NC BI scores.
In accordance with NC DENR protocols, final bioclassifications were assigned to each station based
on EPT taxa richness and NC BI scores (Table 3.1.1-2). Only the uppermost main -stem station at the
confluence of the East Fork Pigeon River and West Fork Pigeon River (PRM 69.5) was classified as

"Good"; it scored better than the control site (PRM 64.5, "Good -Fair") upstream of the mill. Of the
remaining NC downstream sites, five received bioclassifications of "Fair" and three received "Good -
Fair" ratings. Bioclassifications rated Jonathan Creek as "Excellent" and Fines Creek as "Good".
Richland Creek was rated "Fair", which was upgraded from a "Poor" rating in 2005.
Final bioclassifications of sampling sites in 2012 were comparable to 2005 scores; in 2005, six sites
rated as "Good -Fair", and two sites received a "Fair" rating. In 2012, three sites rated as "Good -Fair",
and five sites were "Fair". Even with impacts of the 2007-08 drought, overall ratings indicated a
similar macro -invertebrate community in the Pigeon River.
Although water quality may be limiting the benthic community at PRM 63.0, it does not appear to be
the only factor influencing the quality of the aquatic community in the downstream stations. For
example, rip -rap used to stabilize eroded shoreline (PRM 61.0 and PRM 54.5) after the 2004 floods
has caused reduced scores on habitat assessment criteria such as bank vegetation. Even with the mill
effluent influencing downstream benthic communities, all eight sampling stations (PRM 63.0-PRM
45.3) recorded macro -invertebrate numbers (47-66 taxa) greater than the number of taxa observed at
the upstream reference station (PRM 64.5, 43 taxa). PRM 61.0, the site downstream from the mill
effluent site (PRM 63.0), produced the largest number of macro -invertebrate taxa (N=66) in the NC
main -stem excpt for the confluence site (PRM 69.5, 78 taxa). These data suggest that other factors
beyond habitat, such as urbanization (wastewater treatment), agriculture, and contributions from
tributaries (sediment, ag run-off, etc.) are affecting the composition and quality of the downstream
benthic community.
3.1.2 Historical Comparisons
Overall the 2012 Pigeon River benthic community was slightly improved as compared to that
observed in 2005 (Table 3.1.2-1). The highest numbers for total taxa, EPT taxa, and EPT abundance
continue to be observed at the most upstream reference site in NC (78 total at PRM 69.5) and in
various tributaries such as East Fork Pigeon River (91 total) and Jonathan Creek (97 total). In
contrast, these same parameters continue to be lower downstream of the Canton Mill (PRM 63.0, 64
total taxa), and at Hyder Mountain Bridge (PRM 55.5, 50 total) and Ferguson Bridge (PRM 48.2, 50
total). At the reference site immediately above the mill (PRM 64.5), the total taxa number was 44; all
NC main -stem stations had total taxa numbers equal to or greater than the above -mill number. Even
PRM 63.0, the station immediately downstream of the mill, had 64 total taxa present. One factor that
may have influenced taxa numbers at PRM 64.5 was a rain event on the sampling date which
produced higher water levels and increased turbidity. Among the locations sampled previously, the
NC BI remained lowest ("Good") and bioclassification highest ("Good -Fair") at PRM 64.5. Despite
overall similarities to past studies, differences were observed that suggest slight to moderate
improvements in the benthic community.
In comparison to 1995, nearly all parameters including total taxa richness, EPT taxa richness, and NC
BI improved in 2000; total taxa richness in 2012 was similar to 2005, with the exception mentioned
above. EPT taxa richness also showed substantial improvement compared to recent years. Although
the drought in 2007-08 may have been a factor in macro -invertebrate and fish production,the 2012
samples indicate a continuing and gradual improvement in water quality downstream of the Canton
mill.
39

Table. 3.1.2-1. A comparison of macro -invertebrate taxa collected from the Pigeon River
drainage in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2012.
Year
Taxa
1995
2000
2005
2012
PORIFERA (sponges)
S on illidae
S on illa
1
COELENTERATA (hydroids)
H dridae
H dra
I
PLATYHELMINTHES (Flatworms)
Turbellaria
I
Du esiidae
Du esia
NEMERTEA (proboscis worms)
Brachionidae
Prostoma graescens
I
I
ECTOPROCTA (br ozoans)
Plumatellidae
Plumatella
I
COLLEMBOLA
POLYCHAETA ( of chaetes)
Sabellidae
ManayunVia s eciosa
I
HIRUDINEA (leeches)
I
ErpobdelUdae
Desserobdella phalera
1
Erpobdella
I
Erpobdella punctata punctata
1
Mooreobdella
I
Glossi honiidae
Helobdella
1
1
Placobdella
1
1
Placobdella parasitica
1
Piscicolidae
M zobdella lugubris
1
OLIGOCHAETA (aquatic worms)
I
Aeolostomatidae
Aeolosoma
1
Enchytraeidae
Mesench traeus
I
Lumbricidae
I
I
Eiseniella tetraedra
1
1
Lubriculidae
1
1
Ecli idrilus
I
Lubriculus varie atus
1
I
Varichaetodrilus angustipenis
1
Me ascolecidae
1
Me adrile
Me adrili
I
Naididae
I
Bratislavia unidentala
1
1
Dero
I
Dero nivea
I
Nais
I
Nais behnin i
1
1
Nais bretscheri
1
Nais communis
I
I
Nais pardalis
I
Nais variabilis
I
I
I
O hidonais serpentina
1
Paranais
1
Pristina
I
Pristina aequiseta
1
Pristina leid i
1
Ri istes parasita
1
Slavina appendiculata
1
1
Ste hensoniana trivandrana
I
Stylaria lacustris
1
1
S ar ano hilidae
1
S ar an hilus tamesis
1
Tubificidae
I
Aulodrilus japonicus
1
Aulodrilus limnobius
1
Aulodrilus pluriseta
1
1
Branchiura sowerb i
I
I
Limnodrilus
I
I
Limnoddlus hoffineisted
1
1
1
I
Psanunoryctides califomianus
Tubifex tubifex
I
I
1O

Imm. Tub. w/bifid chaetae 1 1
Imm. Tub. w/hair & p-onate chaerae 1
NEMATODA
Nemata 1
Year
Taxa
1995
2000
2005
2012
EPHEMEROPTERA (mayflies)
1
Ameletidae
1
Ameletus
1
Ameletus lineatus
1
Baetidae
1
1
1
Acentrella
1
I
I
1
Acentrella alachua
1
Acentrella turbida complex
I
1
Acerpenna
1
Baetis
I
1
Baetis bmnniecolor
1
Baetis flavistria
1
1
1
Baetis intercalaris
1
1
I
I
Baetis pluto
1
1
I
Baetis tricaudatus
1
Camelobaetidius
1
Centro tilum
1
Heterocloeon
1
I
Heterocloeon curiosum
1
I
Heterocloeon petersi
1
Procloeon
1
1
Pseudocloeon
1
I
I
Pseudocloeon frondale
I
Pseudocloeon pro in uus
1
Baetiscidae
Baetisca
I1
Caenidae
Caenis
I
I
I
I
E hemeridae
Ephemera blanda
1
Ephemera gutNlata
1
E hemerellidae
I
Attenella attenuata
1
Danella
1
Danella simplex
I
Dmnella alle heniensis
I
1
I
I
Dmnella comuta
I
I
Dmnella lata
1
Dmnella tuberculata
1
E hemerlla
I
Ephemerella catawba
1
1
E hemerella dorothea
1
E hemerella se tentrionalis
1
E hemerella subvana
1
1
Eurylophella
1
1
1
Eurylophella funeralis
1
Eurylophella prudentalis
1
Seratella deficiens
1
1
1
1
Seratella molita
I
I
Seratella serrata
1
Seratella serratoides
1
He to eniidae
1
Epeorus
1
1
Epeorus dis ar
1
E eoms mbidus/sub allidus
1
1
1
He to enia
1
He to enia mar inalis
1
1
1
He to enia sensa
I
Leucrocuta
I
1
I
Leucrocuta a hrodite
1
Leucrocuta maculi ennis
1
Maccaffertium
I
I
I
Maccaffertium femoratum
I
Maccaffertium ithaca
1
1
1
Maccaffertium ithaca/modestum
1
1
1
Maccaffertium medio unctatum
I
1
Maccaffertium pudicum
1
1
Maccaffertium smithae
1
1
Maccaffertium terminatum
1
Pseudiron
1
Rhithro ena
I
Stenacron
1
I
I
Stenacron interpunctatum
1
1
Stenacron pallidum
1
1
Ison chidae
Ison chic
1
1
1
1
Leptohyphidae
Tricorythodes
1
1
1

Le to hlebiidae
1
Parale to hlebia
1
1
1
Habro hlebiodes
1
Neo hemeridae
Neo hemera putpurea
1
1
Total Ephemeroptera Taxa
20
33
34
50
Year
Taxa
1995
2000
2005
2012
PLECOPTERA (stoneflies)
1
Chloro erHdae
1
1
1
Allo erla
1
1
Leuctridae
Leuctra
I
1
1
Pelto erlidae
Talla erla
I I
I
I
Perlidae
I
Acroneuria abnormis
1
I
I
I
Acroneuria sensu lato
1
1
Agnetina
1
1
Agnetina flavescens
I
I
Attaneuria
I
Hanson erla appalachia
1
Neo erla
1
1
1
Para entina
I
Para entina immar inata
I
I
Perlesta
I
I
I
Perlodidae
Beloneuria
1
Helo icus subvarians
I
Isoperla
I
Malirekus hastatus
1
1
Ocono erla
1
Pteronarc idae
Allonarc s
Allonarc s biloba
1
1
Allonarc s proteus
1
Pteronarc s dorsata
1
1
1
Total Pleco tera Taxa
2
9
16
19
TRICHOPTERA (caddisflies)
A ataniidae
A atania incerta
1
Brach centridae
1
I
Brachycentms
1
Brach centrns appalachia
1
1
1
1
Brach centrns lateralis
1
1
1
Brach centrus nigrosoma
I
Brach centrus numerosus
I
Micrasema
1
1
Micrasema barksi
1
Micrasema bennetti
I
I
1
I
Micrasema charonis
I
Micrasema wataga
I
I
I
I
Glossosomatidae
A a etus
1
Glossosoma
I
I
I
Glossosoma nigrior
I
1
Proto tilla
1
H dro s chidae
1
1
Cerato s the
I
1
Cerato s the bronta
I
I
I
1
Cerato s the morosa
1
1
1
1
Cerato s the s arna
1
1
1
1
Cheumato s the
1
1
1
1
Cheumato s the pasella
1
Diplectrona
I
Di lectrona modesta
1
1
H dro s the
1
1
H dro s the betteni/de ravata
I
I
1
H dro s the franclemonti
1
1
H dro s the phalerata
1
1
1
H dro s the scalaris
1
1
H dro s the simulans
1
H dro s the venularis
I
I
1
1
Hydro tilidae
1
H dro tila
1
1
1
1
Leucotrichia pictipes
1
1
1
1
Le idostomatidae
Le idostoma
I
I
I
I
Le toceridae
1
1
M stacides
1
M stacides se hulchralus
I
I
Necto s the
I
Nectopsyche exquisita
I
Oecetis
1
1
1
1
Oecetis cinerascens
1
Oecetis incons icus
I
M

Oecetis persimilis
1
1
1
Triaenodes ignitus
1
1
Triaenodes taenia
1
Limne hillidae
1
Goera
1
1
1
Goera calcarata
1
1
H dato h lax argus
I
Neo h lax
1
Neo h lax consin lis
1
1
Neo hlax omatus
1
Year
Taxa
1995
2000
2005
2012
Tricho tera — Limne hilidae (coat.)
cno s the
1
1
cno s the aentilis
1
1
cno s the guttifer
1
1
Pycnopsychelepida
1
I
cno s cheluculenta
1
1
Philo otamidae
1
Chimarra
I
I
I
Dolo hilodes
I
Dolo hilodes distinctus
1
1
Phryganeidae
A nia vestita
1
Banksiola
I
Phryganea sayi
1
Ptilostomis
1
Pol centro odidae
1
Cerotina s icata
I
Neurecli sis
I
I
I
I
Neurecli sis cre uscularis
1
1
N ctio h lax
1
Pol centro us
1
1
1
Ps chow iidae
Lype diversa
I
I
I
Ps chom is flavida
1
1
1
Rh aco hilidae
1
Rh aco hila fenestra/ledra
I
Rh aco hila fuscula
1
I
I
Rh aco hila yuphipes
1
Ueonidae
1
Neo h lax
I
Neo h lax consimilis
1
I
I
Neophlax omatus
I
Total Tricho tera Taxa
18
1 36
57
1 56
ODONATA (dmgontlies/d—Iflfes)
Aeshnidae
Aeshna umbrosa
I
Basiaeschna 'anata
1
1
Bo eria grafiana
1
1
1
Bo eria vinosa
I
I
I
Calo tery idae
Calopteryx
1
1
1
Calopteryx amata
1
Calopteryx maculata
1
Hetaerina
I
1
1
Hetaerina americana
1
Hetaerina titia
I
Coena rionidae
1
Ar is
I
I
1
Argia bipunctulata
1
Ar is sedula
1
Enallagma
1
1
Enallagma diva ans
1
Ishnura
I
Nehalennia
1
Cordule astridae
Cordula aster
1
Cordula aster erronea
1
Cordulagaster maculata
1
1
1
Cordullidae
1
1
E itheca (Helocordulia) uhleri
1
1
Neurocordulia
1
Neurocordulia obsoleta
1
1
Neurocordulia yarnaskanensis
1
Somatochlora
1
Gom hidae
1
Dromo om hus s inosus
I
Gomphus
I
I
1
Gom hus exilis
1
Gom hus lividus
1
1
Gom hus quadriedor
1
Gomphurus rogersi
I
Hagenius brevist lus
1
1
1
H to om hus
1
H yloom hus abbreviatis
I
31

H to om hus brevis
1
H to om hus parvidens
1
Lanthus
I
Lanthus parvulus
I
I
O hio om hus
1
1
1
1
O hio om hus mainenesis
1
Stylogomphus albistylus
1
1
1
I
Stylurus
I
Stylurs s inice s
1
1
Macromiidae
Macromia
1
1
I
Year
1995
2000
2005
2012
HEMIPTERA (true bugs)
Belostomatidae
Belestoma flumineum
1
Gerridae
Aquarius remi is
1
Limno orous
1
1
Metrobates
I
I
Rhagovelia
I
Rha ovelia obesa
1
Tre obates
1
1
Mesovelidae
I
Mesovelia mulsanti
I
Ne idae
Ranatra
1
1
Ranatra brevicollis
I
1
Ranatra nigra
I
Vehlidae
Microvelia
1
Rha ovelia obesa
1
MEGALOPTERA (hellgrammites)
Cor dalidae
1
Corydalus cornutus
1
1
1
1
Nigironia
1
Nigironia fasciata
1
Nigronia serricornis
1
1
1
1
Sialidae
Sialis
1
1
1
COLEOPTERA (beetles)
Chrysomelidae
I
Dr o idae
Helichus
I
1
I
Helichus litho hilus
I
Pelonomus obscurns
I
I
Dytiscidae
Laccophilus fasciatus
I
I
Lacco hilus maculosus
1
Elmidae
1
Ancyronyx varie atus
I
1
I
Dubiraphia
I
1
Dubira hia quadrinotata
1
1
Macron chus glabratus
1
1
1
1
Microc ]Ice us pusillus
1
1
O tioservus
I
1
1
O tioservus ovalis
1
1
Oulimnius latiusculus
1
1
1
Promoresia
1
1
Promoresia ele ans
I
I
I
Promoresia tardella
I
I
I
Stenelmis
1
1
1
1
G rinidae
Dineutus
I
I
I
I
Gyrinus
I
Hali lidae
Peltod tes
1
Peltod tes duodecim unctatus
I
Peltod tes len i
I
Peltodytes muticus
1
Peltod tes sexamaculatus
1
H dro hilidae
Berosus
I
I
I
Berosus peregrinus
I
Enochrus
1
1
H drobius
1
Laccobius
I
Sperchopsis tessellata
Tropistemus
I
I
Tro istemus collaris
1
Noteridae
H drocanthus iricolor
1
Pse henidae

Pse hens herricki
1
1
1
1
Ptilodactylidae
Anch tarsus bicolor
I
DIPTERA (flies)
Athericidae
Atherix
1
Atherix lantha
I
I
1
Ble hariceridae
Ble haricera
1
1
Ceratopogonidae
Atricho 0 on
1
Bezzia/Pal om is
1
Das helea
1
Year
Tara
1995
2000
2005
2012
Di tera (cont.
Chironomidae
1
1
Ablabesm ia'anta
1
1
1
Ablabesm is mallochi
1
I
1
I
Ablabesm is cf. sim Boni
I
Brillia
I
I
I
Brundiniella eumorpha
1
Bryophaenocladius
I
Cardiocladius
1
I
1
I 1
Chaetocladius
1
Chironominae
1
1
Chironomini
1
Chironomus
1
1
1
1
Cryptochironomus
1
Cladopelma
I
Cladotan tarsus
1
1
Cladotan tarsus mancus giroup
1
Cladotanytarsus vanderwul i groupI
Clinotanypus
I
Clinotanypus pinguis
1
Conchepelopia
1
I
1
1
Corynoneura
I
1
Cricoto us
]
1
Cricotopus bicinctus group
I
1
I
1
Cricoto us cf. infuscatus
1
I
1
Cricoto us cf.intersectus
1
Cricoto us trifascia groupI
Cricotopus cf. vieriensis
I
I
Cryptochironomus
1
Cryptochironomus blarina giroup1
Cryplochironomus fulvus
I
Cryptolendipes
I
Deniicryptochironomus
1
Dicrotendipes
1
Dicrotendipes cf. neomodestus
1
1
1
Diamesa
1
1
Endochironomus
I
Eukiefferiella
1
Eukiefferiella cf. brehmi giroup1
Eukiefferiella devonica group
I
I
I
Eukiefferiella gracei group
Eukiefferiella pseudomontnat group
1
1
Eukiefferiella similis giroup
1
Glyptolendipes
1
H drobaens
1
Labrundinia
I
Labrundinia pilosella
1
1
Lopescladius
1
Meropelopia
I
I
Microspectra polita
1
Microtendi es
1
Microtendi es pedellus giroup1
1
Nanocladius
1
1
1
I
Nanocladius cf. dowensi
1
1
1
Nanocladius cf. spiniplenus
1
1
Natarsia
1
1
Nilotanypus
1
1
Odontomesa fulva
1
1
1
Orthocladius (Euorthocladius)
1
I
Orthocladius cf. dubitans
1
1
Ortbmladlus (S osimladius) lignicola
1
Orthocladius obumbratus
I
Pa astia
I
Pa astia ortho onia
1
1
Parachaetocladius
1
Parachironomus
1
Paracladopelma
I
Paracladopelma undine
I
Parametriocnemus
1
1
w

Parametriocnemus lundbecldi
Para haenocladius
I
Paratan tarsus
I
I
I
Paratendi es
1
I
Pentaneura
Pentaneuraincons icua
I
Phaeno sectra
I
I
I
Phaenopsectra obediens group
I
I
Phaeno sectra punctipes
I
I
Polypedilum
I
I
Polypedilum A (E ler)
I
Polypedilum cf. avice s
I
i I
Polypedilum cf ber i
I
Polypedilum convictum
I
Polypedilum fallax group
I
Polypedilum flavum
I
I
I
Polypedilum illinoense
1
I
Polypedilum nr.braseniae
I
Polypedilum laetum
1
1
1
Year
Taxa
1995
2000
2005
2012
Di tera - Chironomidae (cont.)
Polypedilum scalaenum
1
1
1
Potthastia gaedii group
1
Procladius (Holotan us)
1
1
I
Psectrocladius
I
Pseudochironomus
1
Rheocricoto us
1
1
1
1
Rheocricoto us robacki
1
Rheocricotopus tuberculatus
1
1
Rheo elo is
1
1
1
1
Rheotan tarsus
1
1
1
Robaclda demei'erei
1
Saetheria t lus
I
I
Stenochironomus
1
1
1
Sublettea
1
Sublettea coffmani
1
1
1
Synorthocladius
I
1
Synorthocladius semi virens
1
Tan tarsus
1
1
Tan tarsus (ant seg 2 < 1/2 se 1)
1
Tan tarsus (ant seg 2 - 1/2 se 1)
1
Tan tarsus glabrescens group
I
I
I
Thienemanniella
1
1
Tribelos
1
1
Tribelos'ucundum
I
I
Tvetenia bavarica group
1
1
1
1
Tvetenia vitracm discoloripu group
I
I
Culicidae
1
Culex
Dbddae
Dixa
I
Dixella
1
Dolicho odidae
1
Rha hium
Em ididae
I
Chelifera
1
1
1
Hemerodromia
1
1
E h dridae
Forci om iinae
I
Atrichopogon
Pt cho teridae
1
Bittacomorpha clavi es
Simulidae
I
I
Cne hia mutata / Simulium
I
I
I
I
Prosimulium
1
Prosimulium mixtum
1
Stratiom idae
I
Nemtelus
Tabanidae
I
Chrysops
1
Tabanus
Ti ulidae
I
I
I
I
Antocha
I
1
I
Dicranota
1
Erio tera
1
Helms
I
Hexatoma
I
I
L.eptotarsus
I
Molo hilus
1
Ormosia
1
Pedicia
I
Pilaria
I
I
Pseudolimno hila
1
1
1
Ti ula
1
Ti ula abdominalis
I
IR

GASTROPODA (snails)
Anc lidae
Anc lus
1
I
Ferrissia
1
H drobfldae
1
L mnaeidae
1
Fossaria
Physidae
I
I
I
Ph Sella
1
1
Stagnicola
Planorbidae
I
I
I
Helisoma
I
I
Planorbefla trivolis
I
Pleuroceridae
I
Elimia
I
Elimia claveformis
I
Menetus dilatatus
Pleurocera uncialis
1
Year
Taxa
1995
2000
2005
2012
PELECYPODA (mussels)
Corbiculidae
1
Corbicula fluminea
1
1
S haeriidae
I
I
Pisidium
I
I
Sphaerium
I
CRUSTACEA
Am hi oda (sideswimmers)
1
1
Gammarus
I
Iso oda (sow bugs)
I
I
I
Asellus
I
Deca oda (crayfish)
1
1
Cambariidae
I
Cambarus
I
I
Cambarus bartonii
1
1
Cambarus: Hiatt mb—s longlrosais
1
1
Orconectes
1
Puncticambarus
1
Puncticambarus acutus
Procambarus
1
Procambarus acutus
1
ARACHNOIDEA (water mites)
H dracarina
I
I
I
I
Total Taxa by Year
106
253
264
315
Improvement was also evident upon examination of EPT taxa richness from the thermally influenced
main -stem stations. Since 1995, combined EPT taxa richness has more than tripled from 36 taxa in
1995, to 78 taxa in 2000, 95 in 2005, and 117 in 2012 (Figure 3.1.1-1). Twenty-six new EPT taxa,
such as Attenella attenuate, Hansonoperla appalachia, and Cerotina spicata were collected for the
first time during 2012 in the same portion of the river. There were five additional taxa of stoneflies
collected, which is a good indicator that water quality and habitat continue to improve.
NC BI scores also reflect these improvements over the years. In 2000, NC BI scores exhibited
notable decreases (i.e., the community was better) relative to 1995 at four of eight sites downstream
from the Mill. This trend continued in 2005 with only one of the sites, the most downstream site
(PRM 42.6), having a poorer score than in 2000. This "Poor" rating could be attributed to the fall
2004 flooding which scoured the previously existing riffle areas to bedrock. In 2012, the NC BI score
for the most downstream site had a final bioclassification of "Good -Fair", and these data indicate that
the benthic community in the Pigeon River is healthy and continues to improve.
In the tributaries in 2012, results from Jonathan and Richland Creeks were generally improved or
similar; total taxa number in Fines Creek was down from 2005, but received a final bioclassification
of "Excellent". In 2005, taxa richness was generally similar and EPT richness was substantially
higher (+5 species) in the three tribs sampled. In 2012, only Richland Creek improved in both total
taxa and EPT richness, and remained with a "Fair" bioclassification. NC BI values suggest that the
quality of the benthic community in Richland Creek has not significantly improved since 2005. One
item of note was an increase of agriculture operations on the tributaries, as well as the main -stem.
M

3.2 FISH COMMUNITY
The relative status and stability of the Pigeon River fish community was assessed in this study by
examining fish abundance, species richness and diversity, fish health, and trophic composition. The
method used in 2012 to assess fish community data was the Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr et al.
1986) as modified by TVA (Table 2.3-1). In previous studies, IBI metrics were used to calculate NC
IBI values; however; the State of North Carolina has determined that such an IBI assessment, by
itself, is insufficient for a non -wadeable stream like the Pigeon River. In the 2005 study, we used the
2005 data to calculate NC IBI scores as in 1995 and 2000; this exercise was done only to provide
comparisons with previous data.
An assessment of biological condition/relative health of the surveyed length of the Pigeon River was
conducted through a summary and synthesis of the above mentioned community -level attributes.
These methods/analyses were used in presenting a synoptic view of the Pigeon River fish community.
Comparisons were made with previous studies (EA 1995, 2000; Wilson, 2006) and other recent
studies within the Pigeon River or its tributaries (Progress Energy 2004, DENR-DWQ Memo 4/4/05)
to determine trends and measure improvement or decline. Reproductive success of Pigeon River fish
was assessed by examining the presence of young -of -the -year fish. Specific methods for the
collection of fish samples and data analysis procedures were provided in the Section 2.
3.2.1 Composition, Relative Abundance, and Distribution
A survey of the Pigeon River fish community was conducted at the 22 locations from 5 July to 28
September 2012 (Figure 2.1); a list of all species collected in 2012 is presented in Table 3.2.1-1. It
should be noted the six species (bigeye chub, silver shiner, telescope shiner, Tennessee shiner,
banded darter, gilt darter) were re-introducted into the Pigeon River downstream from PRM 64.5
after the 2005 study. Fish collection data from the portion of the river and tributaries sampled in 2005
(PRM 64.5 — PRM 19.3) and three tributaries (Richland, Jonathan, and Fines Creeks) were pulled
from the individual station data summaries (Table 3.2.1-2 and Table 3.2.1-3) and used for
comparisons to the 2012 data. Results from the tributary sites were not directly compared to results
from the 11 Pigeon River main -stem stations, but rather were used to determine to what extent these
tributaries were impacted and whether they could serve as sources of recolonization for fishes
currently uncommon in the main -stem, or as refugia during high temperature episodes. Similarly,
because of the long retention time in Waterville Lake, no thermal impacts would be expected at the
three Tennessee main -stem stations. These stations were included in the program primarily to provide
continuity with past studies of the river and verify that past improvements continue to be in place.
Species composition of the Pigeon River fish community is presented in Table 3.2.1-1. Fish
collections from all sampling methods produced a total of 4188 fish (3485 from main -stem and
upstream tributary sample locations, and 703 from main -stem tributaries below the mill) distributed
among 56 species (Tables 3.2.1-2, 3.2.1-3). The main -stem catch was composed of 18 sport fish
species (one more than in 2005) and 36 non -sport and/or forage species (Table 3.2.1-2); sport fish
represented 32% of the total catch. Two new species of sport fish (white bass, white crappie) were
collected in 2012 along with two species (warmouth, walleye) that were first collected in 2005; the
walleye, white crappie, and white bass were found only at TN sites. There were six sunfish hybrids
(one bluegill x green sunfish, three bluegill x redbreast, and two green x redbreast) collected in 2012
which was the first appearance of any hybrids since the fish collections began in 1995.
M.

Smallmouth bass and rock bass (classed as `Intolerant') were collected at all NC stations below the
Mill; the redbreast sunfish (classed as `Tolerant') was found at all but one station in the river
downstream from the Mill. Redbreast densities in the PR below the Mill were the same in 2012 as in
2005 (59% of the sport fish catch). Tolerant green sunfish were found at all but two main -stem sites
in 2000, and only at PRM 61.0 in 2005; there were no green sunfish collected in the NC portion of
the river below the mill in 2012. Ten perch species were collected of which eight were darter species
(members of the genus Etheostoma or Percina). Tuckasegee darters were found at all NC stations
downstream of the Mill except PRM 61.0. Non -sport species ranked highest in numerical abundance
accounting for 64% of the total catch. As in 2005, the stoneroller, river chub, whitetail shiner, and
hogsuckers were among the most numerous of the non -sport catch in terms in terms of numbers
(Table 3.2.1-2 and Table 3.2.1-5). The sucker family was fairly well -represented in 2012, and with
six of the same species as in 2005. Two sculpin species were represented by 252 individuals (180 in
2005). Catfish (2) and trout (1) were represented by three species but only 12 individuals of the
former and four individuals of the later. The remainder of the catch consisted of relatively low
numbers of shad, drum, and other shiner species.
In 2012, two sites on the Swannanoa River (SRM 1.6 and SRM 11.3) were sampled as a reference
river site and those data (Table 3.2.1-4) were used to compare fish community composition and
abundance to the Pigeon River sites impacted by the Canton Mill. There were 588 individual fish
collected comprising 20 species (four sport fish and 16 non -sport species), as compared to 34 species
(11 sport, 23 non -sport) in the NC main -stem PR below the mill. Sport fish were rock bass, bluegill,
redbreast sunfish, and smallmouth bass, with redbreast sunfish comprising 59% of the catch, In the
NC main -stem below the mill, there were nine species of sport fish (and two hybrid groups) with the
redbreast (48%), smallmouth bass (20%), and the rock bass (17%) comprising 85% of the total sport
fish catch. The four most abundant non -sport species in the PR main -stem, i.e., central stoneroller
(485), greenfin darter (274), river chub (211), and whitetail shiner (207), were collected in the NC
portion of the river below the Mill. In the reference Swannanoa River, the most abundant non -sport
species were the river chub (99), fantail darter (71), redline darter (58), and Tennessee shiner (41).
There were three "intolerant" fish species (Table 3.2.1-1) collected in the reference river, the rock
bass, smallmouth bass, and the gilt darter. The same three species were collected in the NC main -
stem Pigeon River sites below the Mill, along with an additional two "intolerant" species, the
greenfin darter and the telescope shiner.
Table 3.2.1-1. Fish Species Collected from the Pigeon River and Four Tributaries, 2012.
Common Name Scientific Name
1. GIZZARD SHAD
Dorosoma cepedianum
2. RAINBOW TROUT (I)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
3. BROWN TROUT
Salmo trutta
4. *BROOK TROUT (I)
Salvelinus fontinalis
5. *BROOK SILVERSIDE
Labidesthes sicculus
6. CENTRAL STONEROLLER
Campostoma anomalum
7. WHITETAIL SHINER
Cyprinella galactura
8. COMMON CARP (T)
Cyprinus carpio
9. +BIGEYE CHUB
Hybopsis amblops
10. WARPAINT SHINER
Luxilus coccogenis
11. RIVER CHUB
Nocomis micropogon
12. +TENNESSEE SHINER
Notropis leuciodes
13. + SILVER SHINER (2005) (I)
Notropis photogenis
14. +SAFFRON SHINER
Notropis rubricroceus
49

15. +MIRROR SHINER
Notropis spectrunculus
16. +TELESCOPE SHINER (I)
Notropis telescopus
17. LONGNOSE DACE
Rhinichthys cataractae
18. WHITE SUCKER (T)
Catostomus commersoni
19. NORTHERN HOGSUCKER
Hypentelium nigricans
20. SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO
Ictiobus bubalus
21. SILVER REDHORSE
Moxostoma anisurum
22. *RIVER REDHORSE
Moxostoma carinatum
23. BLACK REDHORSE
Moxostoma duquesnei
24. *SMALLMOUTH REDHORSE
Moxostoma breviceps
25. *YELLOW BULLHEAD (T)
Ameiurus natalis
26. *BROWN BULLHEAD (T)
Ameiurus nebulosus
27. *FLAT BULLHEAD (T)
Ameiurus platycephalus
28. CHANNEL CATFISH
Ictalurus punctatus
29. FLATHEAD CATFISH
Pylodictis olivaris
30. *WHITE BASS
Morone chrysops
31. ROCK BASS (I)
Ambloplites rupestris
32. REDBREAST SUNFISH (T)
Lepomis auritus
33. GREEN SUNFISH (T)
Lepomis cyanellus
34. *GREEN X REDBREAST HYBRID (T)
L. cyanellus x L. auritus
35. BLUEGILL
Lepomis macrochirus
36. *BLUEGILL X REDBREAST HYBRID(T)
L. macrochirus x L. auritus
37. *BLUEGILL X GREEN HYBRID (T)
L. macrochirus x L. cyanellus
38. WARMOUTH SUNFISH
Lepomis gulosus
39. SMALLMOUTH BASS (I)
Micropterus dolomieu
40. LARGEMOUTH BASS
Micropterus salmoides
41. *WHITE CRAPPIE
Pomoxis annularis
42. BLACK CRAPPIE
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
43. GREENSIDE DARTER
Etheostoma blennioides
44. GREENFIN DARTER (I)
Etheostoma chlorobranchium
45. TUCKASEGEE DARTER
Etheostoma gutselli
46. REDLINE DARTER
Etheostoma rufilineatum
47. SNUBNOSE DARTER
Etheostoma tennessense
48. +BANDED DARTER
Etheostoma zonale
49. *YELLOW PERCH
Perca flavescens
50. TANGERINE DARTER (I)
Percina aurantiaca
51. *LOGPERCH
Percina caprodes
52. +GILT DARTER (I)
Percina evides
53. WALLEYE
Sander vitreus
54. FRESHWATER DRUM
Aplodinotus grunniens
55. MOTTLED SCULPIN
Cottus bairdi
56. BANDED SCULPIN
Cottus carolinae
*Species (14) not collected in 2005
+Re -introduced native species
I = intolerant species
T = tolerant species
50

Table 3.2.1-2. Number/species of fish collected (by station) from the Pigeon River (main -stem and
upstream tributaries), 2012.
NATIVE L. Logan
Channel Catfish
FlatheadCatfish
o©moommmoommo©oom©®
©®mmom®mmmmmmm©�om�
o���000moomm�mmmmm�
- - -
o�mmmm�©m©om000mmm
o�©000��o�oomom���m
_
ono©omm©mmm�m®o�m©�
:.
�ommmm0mmmm®mmommm�
40TE. ' = not collected in 2005 in NC; collected in 2005 not in 2012 - Highland shiner, Blacknose dace, Olive darter, Black buffalo.
Species names that are shaded were re -introduced below RM 64.5. T
NATIVE: A -Always, N=Never, I=Introduced (In waters above Chattanooga, Personal communication, Charlie Saylor, TVA)
51

Table 3.2.1-3. Number and species of fish collected from the four tributary sampling locations
downstream of the mill, 2012. Crabtree Creek was not sampled in 2005.
2012 Pigeon River Tributary Fish Data
SPORT FISH
Crabtree Creek
Fines Creek
Jonathan Creek
Richland Creek
TOTALS
1
Brook Trout`
4
3
7
2
Brown Trout
1
13
14
28
3
Rainbow Trou[
2
6
1
8
4
Rock Bass
6
81
14
5
Blue ill
2
2
6
Redbreast Sunfish
16
4
2
18
40
7
Green X Redbreast b.*
1
1
8
Largemouth Bass
2
4
1
7
9
Smallmouth Bass
1
3
8
12
NON -SPORT FISH
1
Central Stoneroller
41
42
30
4
117
2
River Chub
21
2
50
25
98
3
Mirror Shiner*
1
1
4
Saffron Shiner*
aL
2
5
Silver Shiner
6
Telescope Shiner*
5
7
8
Tennessee Shiner*
Warpaint Shiner
16
26
5
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINEM
11
38
58
9
Whitetail Shiner
36
1
10
47
10
Lon nose Dace
7
9
79
95
11
Northern Hog Sucker
16
5
23
10
54
12
White Sucker
2
1
167
19
13
14
15
Black Redhorse
Banded Darter*
Greenside Darter
41
4
6
i6
Greenfin Darter
1
2
3
17
Tuckase ee Darter
3
6
8
13
30
18
Gilt Darter*
5
5
19
Tangerine Darter
2
2
Total Fish:
215
116
250
1 122
703
Total Species:Species:1
18
11
17
1 14
Anornalles:1
1
3
1
1 2
NOTE: * = species not collected in 2005; Blacknose dace collected in 2005, not 2012. Shaded species were re -introduced.
52

Table 3.2.1-4. Number and species of fish collected from two sites on the Swannanoa River
reference stream in 2012.
2012 Swannanoa River Fish Data at Reference Sites
Sport Fish
SRM 11.3
SRM 1.6
TOTALS
Rainbow trout
Brook trout
Brown trout
Channel catfish
Flathead catfish
White bass
Rock bass
2
20
22
Blue ill
7
1
8
Bluegill X green Hyb.
Blue ill X redbreast Hyb.
Green sunfish
Green X redbreast Hyb.
Redbreast sunfish
31
22
53
Warmouth
Largemouth bass
Smallmouth bass
1
6
7
Black crappie
White crappie
Freshwater drum
Walleye
Non -Sport Fish
Gizzard shad
Central stoneroller
29
8
37
Common carp
Brook silverside
Bi eye chub
11
11
River chub
81
118
199
Mirror shiner
Saffron shiner
12
12
Silver shiner
Telescope shiner
Tennessee shiner
41
41
Warpaint shiner
2
11
13
Whitetail shiner
17
17
Longnose dace
Northern hog sucker
3
3
White sucker
2
2
Smallmouth buffalo
Black redhorse
River redhorse
Silver redhorse
Smallmouth redhorse
Flat bullhead
13
13
Yellow bullhead
53

Banded darter
6
6
Greenside darter
4
4
Greenfin darter
Redline darter
11
47
58
Snubnose darter
Gilt darter
10
10
Tangerine darter
Tuckasegee darter
Logperch
Yellow perch
Banded sculpin
Mottled sculpin
Chain pickerel
1
1
Fantail darter
44
27
71
Total Fish
255
333
588
Total Species
14
15
Anomalies
1
10
Table 3.2.1-5. Ranked abundance and percent occurrence of the ten most abundant fish species collected
from the main -stem Pigeon River, 2005 and 2012.
2005
Number
Percent
2012
Number
Percent
Central stoneroller
971
33.69
Redbreast sunfish
538
22.29
Redbreast sunfish
385
13.36
Central stoneroller
293
12.14
River chub
192
6.66
Smallmouth bass
237
9.82
Banded sculpin
148
5.16
Whitetail shiner
183
7.58
Northern ho sucker
146
5.07
Rock bass
162
6.71
Warpaint shiner
131
4.55
River chub
123
5.97
Whitetail shiner
114
3.96
Banded sculpin
120
4.97
Rock bass
111
3.85
Greenfin darter
99
4.1
*Greenside darter (gutselli)
82
2.84
Northern ho sucker
91
3.77
Mirror shiner
74
2.57
Redline darter
71
2.94
*Now the Tuckase ee darter
54

Table 3.2.1-6. Ranked abundance and percent occurrence of fish collected by electrofishing
from the main -stem Pigeon River, 2012.
Species
Total Number
Percent Occurrence
Redbreast Sunfish
538
22.29
Central Stoneroller
293
12.14
Smallmouth Bass
237
9.82
Whitetail Shiner
183
7.58
Rock Bass
162
6.71
River Chub
123
5.97
Banded Scul in
120
4.97
Greenfin Darter
99
4.10
Northern Ho sucker
91
3.77
Redline Darter
71
2.94
Warpaint Shiner
61
2.52
Tuckase ee Darter
53
2.19
Black Redhorse
40
1.66
Snubnose Darter
35
1.45
Tennessee Shiner
26
1.08
Greenside Darter
23
0.95
Blue ill
21
0.87
Mottled Scul in
20
0.83
Largemouth Bass
20
0.83
Black Crappie
19
0.79
Telescope Shiner
19
0.79
Common Carp
17
0.70
Banded Darter
16
0.66
Gizzard Shad
14
0.58
Smallmouth Buffalo
13
0.54
Tangerine Darter
12
0.50
Mirror Shiner
12
0.50
Yellow Perch
11
0.46
Silver Shiner
8
0.33
Walleye
7
0.29
Channel Catfish
6
0.25
Bi e e Chub
5
0.21
Gilt Darter
4
0.17
Smallmouth Redhorse
4
0.17
White Sucker
4
0.17
Rainbow Trout
4
0.17
White Crappie
3
0.12
Flat Bullhead
3
0.12
Flathead Catfish
2
0.08
Freshwater Drum
2
0.08
Saffron Shiner
2
0.08
Lon nose Dace
2
0.08
Green X Redbreast Hybrid
2
0.08
Bluegill X Redbreast Hybrid
1
0.04
Warmouth
1
0.04
Silver Redhorse
1
0.04
Brown Bullhead
1
0.04
Logperch
1
0.04
Brook Silverside
1
0.04
Total Fish
2413
100
55

Fish species in the mainstem Pigeon River in 2005, ranked by abundance (Table 3.2.1-5), had only
one intolerant species, the rock bass in eigth place. However, in 2012, not only the rock bass, but also
the smallmouth bass and greenfin darter moved into the top eight based on species abundance — all
three species are considered to be `intolerant'. The rock bass and smallmouth bass were collected at
all thermally influenced station below the mill. The whitetail shiner increased in prominence, moving
from a number seven ranking (-4%) in 2005 to number four (-8%) in 2012. This species is most
abundant in fast runs, and flowing pools in clear streams with coarse, firm substrates (Etnier and
Starnes, 1993). It was collected from all but of the one of the thermally influenced main -stem stations
(PRM 54.5). The most abundant species in both sample years were the central stoneroller and the
redbreast sunfish with 47% of the total catch in 2005, and 34% of the total catch in 2012, indicating a
significant decrease in the abundance of these two tolerant species in the river below the mill. Other
species in the top ten in abundance in 2012 included the river chub (123), banded sculpin (120), and
northern hogsucker (91) (Table3.2.1-5).
The distribution of fish species in the Pigeon River was examined for spatial patterns. Lack of
definable patterns indicates a random distribution of fishes. On the other hand, well-defined spatial
patterns indicate that fishes are responding differentially to physical factors (e.g., depth, substrate
type, water temperature, velocity, cover, etc.) or chemical factors (e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen, etc.) or
natural disasters (flooding/drought). Also, the presence/absence of certain species provides valuable
information on impacts (or lack of same) from point or non -point source dischargers (e.g., the Canton
mill, the Waynesville and Clyde WWTPs) and what factor(s) may be responsible for any differences
observed.
As discussed below, species distribution in the Pigeon River is driven by a variety of factors. The
distribution of most species followed one of five well-defined spatial patterns:
(1) fairly evenly distributed throughout the study area,
(2) restricted to or noticeably more abundant upstream of the Canton Mill,
(3) restricted to or noticeably more abundant downstream of Waterville Lake, or
(4) most abundant in the middle two reaches, between the mill and Waterville Lake.
(5) sporadic distribution throughout sample area.
Forty-eight of the 53 species collected from the main -stem river followed one of these five patterns
(Table 3.2.1-7). The remaining four were the brook silverside which was only found in the TN
portion, and three sunfish hybrids [bluegill x green sunfish (1), bluegill x redbreast sunfish (4), and
green sunfish x redbreast sunfish (2)]. Eleven species clearly followed Pattern 1 (i.e., were widely
distributed throughout the study area). These included four sunfish, three minnows, two darters, and
two sucker species (Table 3.2.1-7). This group of widely distributed species includes eight of the 10
most abundant species in the study area; the other three rank within the top 15 species in abundance.
In 2012, there were 13 species found downstream of the mill: smallmouth bass and rock bass were
found at every Pigeon River site, from PRM 69.5 at the most upstream NC site to PRM 10.3 in TN.
The central stoneroller was found everywhere except PRM 63.0; whitetail shiner and hogsucker were
found at every site except PRM 54.5 in NC and PRM 24.7 in TN. The warpaint shiner was found at
six sitesites, the tangerine darter was found at three sites, and the mottled sculpin and greenfin darter
were found at four sites. The saffron shiner, which was not collected at PRM 64.5 during the sample
season in 2005, was collected at three sites above the Mill in 2012.
M

Even more species (16) were unique to the Tennessee portion of the study area (i.e., downstream of
Walters Dam and Progress Energy power house). The most common species (>20) were banded
sculpin, gizzard shad, and redline, snubnose, and greenside darters, while the other 11 species were
uncommon (1-17 individuals) (Table 3.2.1-2).
Table 3.2.1-7. Longitudinal distribution of fishes in the Pigeon River main -stem, 2012.
Species
distributed
throughout the
study area
Species
restricted to or
much more
abundant
upstream of the
Canton mill
Species restricted to
or much more
abundant
downstream of
Progress Energy
Hydro Plant
Species restricted to
or much more
abundant between
Waterville Lake
and Canton mill
Species with
sporadic
distribution
throughout the
sample area
N. hogsucker
Green sunfish
Gizzard shad
Common carp
Black redhorse
Central
stoneroller
Warmouth
Greenside darter
White sucker
Channel
catfish
Whitetail shiner
Mirror shiner
Redline darter
Brown bullhead
Black crappie
Redbreast
sunfish
Saffron shiner
TN snubnose darter
Bluegill
Tangerine
darter
Smallmouth
bass
Mottled sculpin
Telescope shiner*
Largemouth bass
Flat bullhead
River chub
Banded sculpin
Yellow perch
Longnose dace
Rock bass
Rainbow trout
TN shiner*
Bluegill
Walleye
Flathead catfish
Greenfin darter
White crappie
Gilt darter*
Tuckasegee
darter
River redhorse
Banded darter*
Black redhorse
Logperch
Bigeye chub*
Yellow bullhead
Silver shiner*
Smallmouth buffalo
Smallmouth
redhorse
Brook silverside
*Re -introduced species below PRM 64.5.
57

Despite the fact that several of the species were common in Tennessee, none were collected in
the North Carolina portion of the river. This pattern is not consistent with what would be
expected if the thermal effluent from the Canton mill were the principal factor affecting the
distribution of fishes in the Pigeon River. If the thermal component was the reason these 15
species were absent downstream of the mill, then they still should be present upstream of the
mill. The fact that none of the 15 was collected upstream of the mill indicates that their absence
in the middle segments is either biogeographical (i.e., they are not Blue Ridge species) or the
high gradient area near the border provides a major natural faunal barrier which many species
cannot pass. As opposed to the four species more common upstream of the mill which are
predominantly cool water forms, the 15 species restricted to the Tennessee portion of the study
area are predominantly either warmwater fishes (e.g., gizzard shad) or are fishes typically
associated with larger rivers (e.g., silver redhorse, freshwater drum, walleye, white crappie, black
buffalo, and smallmouth buffalo). The fact that these species are absent from the upper portion of
the study area indicates that this area is simply too cool and too small for many of the species
found in the Tennessee portion of the study area.
Finally, there are several species (Table 3.2.1-6) that are restricted to or most abundant in the NC
main -stem portion of the study area. The increased abundance of bluegill, black crappie, flathead
catfish, and channel catfish in this area may be the result of emigration of individuals from
Waterville Lake. The other species typically increase in response to greater food availability (i.e.,
benthic organisms) and, except for white sucker, prefer warm water. Thus, their higher
abundance in the middle reaches is probably the result of more food being available and warmer
temperatures. The bedrock substrates and higher percentage of long deep pools in the middle
section also favor these species.
Among the tributaries, Jonathan Creek had the widest diversity of species (16) of the tribs that
were sampled in 2005 (Jonathan, Richland, Fines Creeks) and the highest numbers (N=249),
including three trout, three sucker, five minnow, three sunfish, and two darter species (Table
3.3.1-3). Crabtree Creek was also sampled in 2012, and had two more species (N=18) than
Jonathan Creek; five of the six re -introduced species were collected there for the first time. Fines
Creek yielded moderate diversity (11 species) but the fewest individuals (Table 3.2.1-3); the
central stoneroller was the most abundant species there making up 36% of the total number.
Richland Creek had moderate species richness (14 species), with the second lowest number of
individuals (N=122), including one sucker and five minnows species. Stoneroller, redbreast
sunfish, and Tuckasegee darter were the most abundant species in the creek. Two of the tribs,
Fines and Jonathan Creeks, had individuals of all three trout species; the brown (27) and brook
trout (7) individuals were only collected at those two locations in 2012.
Species richness varied throughout the main -stem sampling sites (Table 3.2.1-2). At most of the
locations, species richness in 2012 was similar to 2005. In 2005, there were 44 fish species
collected from the study area, the Pigeon River from PRM 64.5 to RM 19.3, and the three
tributaries (Richland, Jonathan, and Fines Creeks). This total included 15 sport species, all of
which occurred downstream of the Canton mill. In 2012, fifty species were collected from the
same sampling area. The distribution of fishes documented in the study area indicates that fish
are affected by a number of factors (e.g., stream size, habitat quality, water temperature, and
point and non -point source dischargers) including the severe drought of 2007-08 in western NC.
G:

3.2.2 Condition Analysis
For a community to be balanced, most of the individuals making up that community must be in
good health. This can be assessed by examining their relative robustness (relative weight Wr) or
by looking for evidence of deformities or anomalies. A Wr value of 100 indicates that the weight
for the fish you are assessing weighs the same as the standard weight (Wj that has been
empirically determined for that species from similar geographical locations. Typically, Wr values
significantly below 100 indicate problems in food or feeding conditions or recent spawning
activity, while Wr values well above 100 may indicate that fish may not be making the best use
of a surplus of prey (Murphy and Willis, 1996). Consequently, a range of Wr values from 85-105
would indicate fish in "good condition". When examining the data, it was found that some of the
calculated Wr values for fish collected during the study fell outside that "good condition" range.
Since all Wr values were used in the calculation of the mean Wr for each species at each location,
it should be noted that those significanty lower or higher values may affect the mean to a greater
or lesser degree.
Many variables influence Wr values including sex, season of collection, geographical location,
and life stage, should be considered when comparing the condition of fish populations. To reduce
the influence of these and other variables, comparisons of Pigeon River Wr values involved only
larger specimens, i.e., those fish equal to or longer than the minimum lengths used in the 2012
Wr calculations. The primary species selected for comparison (redbreast sunfish, rock bass,
bluegill, and smallmouth bass) were chosen as a result of their overall abundance and occurrence
at a variety of sampling sites. Wr values for up to 10 individuals of each species were calculated
to assess relative well-being. Species with fewer than 10 individuals collected were also
evaluated; however, mean Wr values were not used unless there were three scores (i.e., three
fish) obtained. There were three of the target species collected upstream of the mill (rock bass,
redbreast, smallmouth bass).
All Wr values (except redbreast sunfish) were calculated using standard weight (WS) equations
that have been proposed for various fish species along with minimum total lengths recommended
for application (Murphy and Willis, 1996). The equation used to calculate Wr values for
redbreast sunfish was developed from length and weight data from Georgia redbreast populations
(Sandow, Jr. et al., 1974). Wr equations and minimum lengths are presented below:
Black crappie
log Ws =
-5.618 + 3.345 log L
100 mm
Bluegill
log Ws =
-5.374 + 3.316 log L
80 mm
Channel catfish
log Ws =
-5.800 + 3.294 log L
70 mm
Largemouth bass
log Ws =
-5.316 + 3.191 log L
150 mm
Redbreast sunfish
log Ws =
-5.281 + 3.2386 log L
100 mm
Rock bass
log Ws =
-4.883 + 3.083 log L
100 mm
Smallmouth bass
log Ws =
-5.329 + 3.200 log L
150 mm
Walleye
log Ws =
-5.692 + 3.180 log L
150 mm
White bass
log Ws =
-5.066 + 3.081 log L
115 mm
White crappie
log Ws =
-5.642 + 3.332 log L
100 mm
Yellow perch
log Ws =
-5.386 + 3.230 log L
100 mm
"Ij

In 2012, mean Wr values for redbreast sunfish and rock bass were within the 85-105 "good
condition" range at every NC station below the mill except for redbreast sunfish at PRM 45.3 (no
redbreast were collected at that site)(Table 3.2.2-1). Redbreast were found at all six comparison
reference sites (EFPR 3.5, WFPR 3.6, PRM 69.5, PRM 64.5-.9, SRM 1.6, SRM 11.3), and mean
Wr values ranged from 90-110.The WFPR 3.6 location had a mean Wr of 93 with a range of 65-
125, however, only one of the six calculated Wr values for fish at that site fell in the 85-105
"good condition" range (Table 3.2.2-1). Rock bass were found at all reference locations except
SR 11.3; mean Wr values for rock bass ranged from 75-87. Only one of nine fish had a Wr (90)
in the "good condition" range from the Swannanoa River collections. Thirteen bluegill were
collected in four of the six reference locations (none collected in the main -stem PR above the
mill); the Wr value (88) for the four bluegill from the SFPR 3.5 reference location was the only
value in the target range. Smallmouth bass had mean Wr values within the target range at two of
three NC main -stem stations, 86 at PRM 64.5 and 91 at PRM 55.5. There were several other
species with one or two individuals collected at stations throughout the mainstem NC portion of
the river which exhibited Wr values indicating good condition, including yellow perch (PRM
59.0, 55.5), largemouth bass (PRM 55.5), smallmouth bass (PRM 64.5, 61.0, 55.5, 48.2, 45.3),
channel catfish (PRM 54.5), and black crappie (PRM 59.0, 54.5, 52.3). The TN portion of the
river (PRM 24.9-PRM 10.3) produced one or two individuals of eight species which exhibited
Wr values indicating good condition: rock bass, redbreast sunfish, smallmouth bass, largemouth
bass, white crappie, white bass, channel catfish, and walleye.
Table 4.2-1. Relative weight (Wr) of Pigeon River fish by collection site, 2012.
(RCK= rock bass, RBR = redbreast sunfish, SMB = smallmouth bass, CCAT =
channel catfish, BG = bluegill, LMB = largemouth bass, YPRCH = yellow perch,
BLKCR = black crappie, WHTCR = white crappie, WALL = walleye)
River Mile
Species
#
Wr
Mean
EFPR 3.5
RBR
6
112
105
102
114
98
128
110
RCK
5
76
82
88
74
86
82
BG
4
91
57
88
86
88
WFPR 3.6
RCK
10
57
81
56
87
94
63 56
85 92 77
75
RBR
7
67
69
65
100
125
116
93
BG
2
53
90
69.5
RBR
1
100
RCK
6
81
79
81
72
97
94
F87
64.5
RBR
10
98
100
102
107
97
96 100
94 104 97RCK
10
69
86
63
89
85
82 87
84 86 104SMB
4
88
94
79
81
it

63.0
RBR
10
105
102
92
99
100
92
104
101
95
95
99
RCK
6
85
88
87
93
130
98
89
SMB
1
69
YPRCH
1
66
61.0
RBR
10
89
101
103
103
99
91
99
95
95
101
98
BG
10
92
83
86
84
107
86
78
98
94
83
89
RCK
10
84
140
98
97
98
94
94
89
87
94
93
LMB
8
74
81
78
66
84
79
60
60
79
SMB
9
82
79
77
89
81
92
78
77
86
82
BLCKCR
2
7
80
105
84
88
85
96
89
96
91
93
59.0
RCK
RBR
10
110
103
114
105
99
93
113
89
110
99
104
SMB
2
77
84
BG
3
94
102
94
97
BLKCR
1
89
YPRCH
1
101
57.7
RBR
10
102
95
95
102
108
85
103
89
103
90
97
RCK
8
103
97
87
81
86
92
80
85
89
SMB
1
67
55.5
RBR
10
88
110
85
96
109
109
92
107
79
90
97
RCK
7
84
90
89
109
87
93
103
94
SMB
4
88
107
79
89
91
LMB
2
93
88
YPRCH
5
77
90
144
131
86
84
54.5
RBR
10
103
120
115
96
109
98
103
106
98
95
102
CCAT
2
95
108
SMB
1
133
RCK
9
106
97
100
110
86
95
103
102
120
100
BLKCR
10
93
84
52
72
88
85
65
88
101
93
88
M

River Mile
Species
#
Wr
Mean
52.3
RBR
10
111
103
92
118
94 97
98
129
91
97
100
BG
2
93
92
RCK
9
84
94
92
114
107 103
87
91
100
85
SMB
114*
BLKCR
2
85
86
48.2
RBR
4
94
93
112
92
98
RCK
2
89
95
SMB
1
87
BG
1
111
1p
45.3
RCK
1
97
SMB
1
91
24.9
RCK
4
96
87
82
114
95
19.3
RBR
RCK
10
96
97
100
92
95 97
106
95
110
95
98
SMB
5
83
85
77
80
82
81
WALL
5
80
76
75
80
82
79
WHTCR
3
86
80
75
80
BLKCR
2
84
83
CCAT
1
91
10.3
RBR
10
96
110
92
106
101 112
107
105
109
97
104
RCK
5
102
83
91
67
75
84
SMB
6
81
91
84
73
82 79
82
LMB
3
94
83
102
93
WHB
2
90
84
CCAT
4
130
54
89
88
90
BLKCP
1
82
WALL
4
89
85
70
115
90
SRM 11.3
RBR
10
90
89
89
83
100 100
94
81
84
90
90
BG
6
80
79
94
73
73 82
80
Oman
SRM 1.6
RBR
8
84
93
109
94
90 85
81
91
91
RCK
10
80
81
90
78
83 80
81
82
78
69
81
BG
1
80
*All young -of -year fish
e

Collectively, Wr values indicated that: (1) the condition of rock bass, smallmouth bass, redbreast
sunfish, and bluegill from the Pigeon River is comparable to the condition of these species from
other areas in the Southeast, and (2) the condition of these species downstream of the Canton
Mill in the thermally affected portion of the river as well as the cooler downstream portions of
the river were considered to be in good condition. Wr values for fishes from the Pigeon River
were within expected ranges for this area. Furthermore, Wr values downstream of the mill were
typically comparable to those upstream of the mill and that the majority of the target species are
in good condition.
3.2.3 Biological Integrity
The biotic condition of the surveyed length of the Pigeon River was characterized by
incorporating fish community data into the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr 1981, Karr et al.
1986) as modified by TVA (2004). The IBI includes a range of attributes of fish assemblages
which can be classified into three categories: species richness and composition, trophic
composition, and fish abundance and condition. Scores of 5, 3, and 1 were assigned to each of 12
metrics within the three categories (Section 2). Species richness was based on specimens
collected by all sampling gears combined. At all stations, similar distances (usually 200 m) were
sampled with the pram electrofisher or backpack shocker, while the boat covered a broader range
of distances (100-200 m), but similar amounts of time (usually about 40 min), following TVA
boat shocking protocols.
There is only a weak relationship between catch per unit effort (CPUE) and drainage area.
Therefore, in earlier studies (1995, 2000), no adjustment was made for differences in drainage
area among the study locations. However, TVA IBI metrics do reflect changes in drainage area
and, therefore, our 2005 and 2012 IBI scores are calculated using drainage area. Due to concerns
expressed by NC DENR, NC IBI scores were not used to rate locations (e.g., fair, poor,
excellent, etc.). Instead, the index was used as a broad measure to compare among locations and
to measure changes compared to 2000 (EA 2001). In conformance with TVA protocols, Metric
12 (Percent Diseased Fish) was scored with the inclusion of parasites (e.g., blackspot, leeches,
etc.). External diseases encountered most frequently were lesions and leeches; deformities were
included in the calculations but were rarely encountered.
TVA IBI data for Pigeon River fish sites are presented Table 3.2.3-1, along with scores for each
IBI metric calculated using TVA protocols (2004). IBI scores for 2005 and 2012 are presented in
Figure 3.2.3-1; the maximum score for each metric is five. Six of eleven Pigeon River main -stem
sties had IBI scores equal to or better than scores for the same sites in 2005; four of the other five
scores were within six units of the same -site 2005 value. The IBI score in 2012 which differed
more than six points from the 2005 sampling was a 34 at PRM 24.7 in the TN portion of the
river; the low score was primarily due to a minimum score (1) on each of four metrics related to
the presence or absence of selected species, i.e., the total number of native fish species (9),
number of darter species (1), number of sunfish species (0), and the number of sucker species (0)
(Table 3.2.3-1).
In 2012, two sites in the middle portion (PRM 63.0-PRM54.5) of the river received IBI scores of
46; this score was the highest score recorded in the NC main -stem and slightly higher than IBI
e

score (44) for the reference site immediately upstream of the mill (PRM 64.5). Other scores in
the NC main -stem ranged from a 26 at PRM 45.3 to 40 at four sites including PRM 61.0. The
lowest score was at PRM 45.3, which as noted before, had suffered from habitat modification
from the floods of 2004, as well as the 2007-08 drought; the low number of species and low
densities coupled with a relatively high incidence of diseased fish produced an IBI of 26.
It should be noted that sites with scores that differ by <8 IBI units are often statistically
indistinguishable (i.e., differences of <8 may be due to random chance) (Fore et al. 1994). Thus,
it is likely that the difference observed between the highest and lowest scores (e.g., 44 at PRM
64.5 vs. 26 at PRM 42.6) is probably real, whereas the difference of six IBI points between PRM
61.0 and PRM 55.5, may or may not have any statistical or biological significance. When
evaluating our 2012 data, seven of nine NC main -stem stations (10 of 13 total stations sampled
including the PR tributaries ) from PRM 64.5 to PRM 45.3) were within six IBI units. We
consider any differences (either among locations or dates) of <6 IBI units to be biologically
insignificant.
In the tributaries including Crabtree Creek (sampled for the first time in 2012), Crabtree scored
the highest (46) followed by Richland Creek (44), Jonathan Creek (42), and Fines Creek (36)
(Table 3.2.3-2). Any impact on Jonathan Creek from the Maggie Valley WWTP or other
development in the watershed (located further upstream) was not apparent; the IBI score
improved from a score of 42 in 2005 to 46 in 2012. IBI scores in Richland Creek (44) and Fines
Creek (36) remained the same as they were in 2005.
The IBI in Richland Creek was 44, the same score it received in 2005. In coldwater streams, an
increase in the IBI (which was developed primarily for warmwater streams) or in species
richness is not necessarily good. Increases in eutrophication and species richness are often
indicators of a decline in coldwater community integrity, and temperatures of around 24 C are
marginal for trout and encourage the invasion of warmwater species like largemouth bass and
other centrarchids.This may be the situation in 2012, as water temperature in Richland Creek was
recorded at 24.5 C; there were five sunfish sunfish species (including LMB) and no trout species
collected there. In the other three tributaries (Fines, Jonathan, Crabtree), there were 43 total
salmonids collected including 7 brook trout, 28 brown trout, and 8 rainbow trout. We noted that
water temperature in Fines Creek decreased from 24.5 C in 2005 to 18.5 C in 2012. Four
cool/cold water species were collected (warpaint shiner, brown, brook, and rainbow trout): the
blacknose dace found in 2005 was not collected in 2012. Thus, Fines Creek bears watching to
ensure that it maintains its coldwater aquatic assemblage.
:A

Table 3.2.3-1. Measured values and associated TVA IBI scores (in parentheses) for the Pigeon River main -stem and Swannanoa
River sampling locations, 2012.
Metrics:
S 11.3
S 1.6
WF 3.6
EF 3.5
69.5
64.5-.9
63.0
61.0
59.0
57.7
55.5
54.5
52.3
48.2
45.3
24.7
19.3
10.3
Total # native fish
species
12 (3)
14 (3)
13 (3)
12 (3)
15 (3)
14 (3)
9 (3)
12 (3)
13 (3)
8 (1)
15 (3)
17 (3)
17 (3)
19 (3)
8 (1)
9 (1)
22 (5)
23 (5)
# of darter species
2 (3)
5 (5)
2 (3)
2 (3)
3 (3)
3 (3)
3 (3)
1 (1)
2 (3)
2 (3)
4 (5)
4 (3)
2 (1)
4 (3)
1 (1)
2 (1)
4 (3)
4 (3)
# of sunfish species
2 (5)
2 (5)
2 (5)
2 (5)
3 (5)
1 (3)
1 (3)
2 (5)
3 (5)
1 (3)
2 (5)
4 (5)
2 (5)
2 (5)
1 (3)
Off)
1 (3)
5 (5)
# of sucker species
2 (5)
Off)
1 (3)
1 (3)
1 (1)
2 (3)
1(1)
2 (3)
2 (3)
1 (1)
2 (3)
2 (3)
4 (5)
1 (1)
1 (1)
Off)
4 (3)
4 (3)
# of intolerant spp.
2 (3)
3 (5)
2 (3)
1 (1)
1 (1)
2 (3)
1 (1)
2 (3)
1 (1)
1 (1)
2 (3)
2 (3)
1 (1)
3 (5)
1 (1)
2 (3)
3 (5)
2 (3)
% tolerant species
0.8(5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0.5(5)
0 (5)
1 (5)
2.6(5)
1 (5)
0 (5)
1.5(5)
2.3(5)
2.4(5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
4 (5)
2.5(5)
7.5(5)
% omnivores,
stonerollers
44 (1)
38 (1)
32 (1)
43 (1)
21 (1)
27 (1)
1 (5)
4.5(5)
47 (1)
2 (5)
10 (3)
9.5(5)
8.4(5)
34 (1)
38 (1)
15 (3)
24(1)
27 (1)
% specialized
insectivores
27 (3)
47 (3)
36 (3)
26 (3)
51 (5)
35 (3)
6 (1)
3.2 (1)
8 (1)
10 (1)
13 (1)
15 (1)
12 (1)
22 (1)
21 (1)
35 (3)
26 (3)
2.7 (1)
% piscivores
1.2 (1)
8.1(5)
15 (5)
3.3(3)
6.6(5)
27 (5)
7 (5)
29 (5)
9.6(5)
11 (5)
17 (5)
30 (5)
44 (5)
8.8(5)
22 (5)
11 (5)
10 (5)
10 (5)
Catch rate
17.4(3)
24.3(5)
12.2 (1)
18.4(3)
13.7(3)
23 (5)
19 (3)
13 (3)
15 (3)
11.7(3)
13 (3)
15 (3)
21 (5)
12 (3)
6.4 (1)
11 (3)
25 (5)
17.2(5)
% hybrids
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0.5(5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
1.2 (1)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0 (5)
0.9(3)
% diseased
0.4(5)
3 (3)
0 (5)
0.04(5)
4.7(3)
.003(5)
7 (1)
7.8 (1)
1 (5)
2.9(3)
1.6(5)
4.7(3)
1.4(5)
2.9(3)
5.9 (1)
3.9(3)
0.7(5)
1.2(5)
IBI Score
42
46
42
40
40
44
36
40
40
36
46
40
46
40
26
34
48
44
65

Figure 3.2.3-1. TVA IBI scores of Pigeon River, Swannanoa River, and Pigeon River tributary sites, 2005 and 2012.
60
ca 2U
C
PIGEON RIVER IBI SCORES
4848 46
42 42
2 D 0 uO uO L rl
LL U- CC � OC OC OC a. �
/h y a.
W
mm
2012
—9-2005

Table 3.2.3-2. Comparison of IBI scores for Pigeon River main -stem, tributaries, and
Swannanoa River, 1995-2012. X = no data recorded.
PIGEON RIVER SAMPLE SITES Scored BY TVA/NC IBI Methods 2012 - 1995
TVA TVA TVA NCDENR'
NCDENR 2005*
Re inrro
River Mile Location 2012 l0/'08 2005
2012
2000 1995
NOTES
Effect on NCII
1
WFPRM 6.6
Lake Logan*
X
X
X
X X
TVA metrics unchanged
from 2005.
2
WFPRM 3.6
West Fork Pigeon River*
42
42
X
38
X X
'NC metrics for' 12 used
version from 2006.
3
EFPRM 3.5
East Fork Pigeon River*
40
36
X
41
X X
4
PRM 69.5
Below confluence EFLR/WFLR*
40
X
53
X X
*NC metrics for'05 used
version from 2000 &
from 1995.
5
PRM 64.5/64.9
Upstream of mill (expanded* from 2005)
44
46
46
55
55 54
6
PRM 63.0
Fiberville, below BRRP
36
38
26
51 46
Re -intro: Silver shiner-3
+2
7
PRM 61.0
D.O. augmentation station (Thickety)
40
46
36
52
Re -intro: Silver shiner-1
8
PRM 59.0
Upstream of Clyde
40
36
38
45 44
9
PRM 57.7
Charles St Bridge/Clyde*
36
X
26
X X
Re -intros: Silver shiner4
Banded darter-5
+2
10
PRM 55.5
Downstream of Clyde, Hyder Mm. Br.
46
38 (' 10)
36
48
42 52
Re -intros: Banded darter-7
Gilt darter-1
Tennessee shiner-1
+10
I I
PRM Trib
Richland Creek (PR confluence at PRM 54.9)
44
38
44
43
44 42
Re -intros: Banded darter-5
Gilt daroa-5 (I to —2010)
+2
12
PRM 54.5
Downstream of Waynesville W WTP
40
38
43
42 42
Re -intros: Banded darter-2
Gilt darter-2
Tennessee shiner-5
+5
13
PRM 52.3
Old Rt 209/Golf Course
46
40
38
44 46
Re -intros: Banded darter-1
Tennessee shiner-3
+2
14
PRM Trib
Crabtree Creek* (PRM 49.8) @ Panther Cr. Rd.
46
X
50
X X
Re -intros: Banded darter-1
Tennessee shiner: 38
Telescope shiner-5
Mtrror shiner-1
Saffron shiner-2
+14
Note: Silver shiners collected upstream by
NCDENR 6-27-12.
15
PRM 48.2
Ferguson Bridge (No boat 2012)
40
40
46
46 48
Re -intros: banded darter-1
Gilt darterl
Tennessee shiner-17
Telescope shine,,
Bigeye chub-4
+10
16
PRM Trib
Jonathan Creek (PRM 46.0) @ Cove Cr. Rd.
40
34
46
41
51 52
17
PRM 45.3
HEPCO Gauging Station*
26
X
36
X X
PRM 42.6 HEPCO
X
34
32
X
46 42
18
PRM Trib
Fines Creek (PRM 42.7) @ Exit 15, I-40
36
34
36
31
44 40
19
PRM 24.7
Waterville (TN)@Browns Bridge (No boat 2012)
34
44
38
47 48
20
PRM 19.3
Groundhog Creek -Bluffton (TN)
48
42
55
55 54
21
PRM 10.3
Below Ag Fields (IN)*
46
X
48
X X
22
SRM 11.3
lWarren Wilson College, HWY. 70
42
X
38
X X
23
SRM 1.6
1 Exit 50 at 1-40
46
X
46
X X
M

3.2.4 Life Stages and Spawning Activity
The structure of the Pigeon River fish community was examined further by determining the
reproductive status and life stage of all fish collected. Life stage information was used as an
indicator of reproductive success (presence of young -of -the -year) as well as overall community
health (representation by a range/variety of life -stages). Because the study was conducted in
July -September 2012, most fish were not in breeding condition and indicators of breeding
condition (e.g., tubercules in males, gravid females, breeding colors) were essentially absent.
Thus, assessment of reproductive success was based on the presence of YOY (young -of -the -
year) fish and a wide range of sizes for a particular species (indicative of successful spawning
and recruitment in previous years). Reproductive status of life stages of fishes were classified as
follows: YOYs were spawned during the current calendar year, juveniles were not mature
enough to reproduce, and adults were sexually mature and capable of reproduction.
Common carp was represented only by medium and large individuals which is typical of the size
distribution of this species, for which YOYs and small juveniles are rarely collected. In the NC
portion of the main -stem, the size distribution of most species was similar, but varied somewhat
depending on the method of capture, i.e., backpack and pram electrofishing in shallower portions
of the river produced smaller sizes of a given species whereas boat electrofishing generally
produced the larger sizes of the same species. Rock bass, redbreast sunfish, and smallmouth bass
(SMB) were found at every main -stem NC station; of the 212 SMB, most were YOY (N=189)
which indicated successful reproduction for that intolerant species. In addition, a substantial
numer of the SMB collected in the three TN stations below the Progress Energy Hydro Plant
were YOY (22 out of 40). Tuckasegee darters, northern hogsuckers, whitetail shiners, and
stonerollers were found at all main -stem NC stations except one; the stonerollers and hogsuckers
were not collected immediately downstream of the mill at PRM 63.0, although the Tuckasegee
darters and whitetail shiners were present at that location. Other YOY species collected upstream
of the Hydro Plant included rock bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, bluegill, redbreast,
and hogsucker, while YOY largemouth bass, hogsucker, and rainbow trout were collected in the
TN portion of the river.
Prior to 2005, Metric 12 of the NC IBI was scored according to the number of species that were
represented by multiple age classes. In 2004, TVA modified scoring metrics (see Section 3.2.3
and Table 3.2.4-1) and the multiple age class metric was removed. However, North Carolina
retained the multiple age class metric in their IBI calculations. Therefore in 2012, the maximum
possible metric score (5) was obtained at only two sites upstream of the mill based on NC IBI
scores (Table 3.2.4-1); this fact indicates that the natural causes (floods in 2004, drought in 2007-
08) may have disrupted reproduction throughout the Pigeon River drainage.
::

Table 3.2.4-1. Multiple age class scores for Pigeon River main -stem,
tributary sites, and Swannanoa River sites, 2012. Reference sites
are indicated by an asterisk (*).
River Mile (RM)
2012
SRM 11.3*
5
SRM 1.6*
5
WFPRM 3.6*
3
EFPRM 3.5*
5
69.5*
3
64.5-.9*
5
63.0
3
61.0
3
59.0
1
55.5
3
54.5
3
52.3
3
48.2
1
45.3
5
Richland Creek
3
Crabtree Creek
3
Jonathan Creek
3
Fines Creek
3
24.7
1
19.3
5
10.3
1
Among the main -stem tributaries, none received a score of five for the multiple class metric. All
the tributaries downstream of the mill received a score of three.
:t

3.2.5 Habitat Assessment
An evaluation of the quality of the aquatic habitat and surrounding lands is important to any
assessment of aquatic ecological integrity. A high quality habitat functions as a refuge for
organisms, meets their needs throughout their life cycle, moderates runoff influences, provides
living space and food, and tempers alteration to channel morphology, erosion, and deposition.
Therefore, the biological condition of indigenous communities is determined by the natural
characteristics of the whole system. The potential of aquatic communities is dependent on the
habitat quality as a primary component of their ecological requirements.
The riverine habitat was assessed using the methodologies established by NC DENR (2001)
using the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet for Mountain and Piedmont Streams (Version 7).
The habitat characteristics which were recorded were channel modification, in -stream habitat,
bottom substrate, pool variety, riffle habitat, bank stability and vegetation, light penetration, and
riparian vegetation zone width. The maximum score possible using all metrics was 100. In
addition to habitat assessment, physicochemical data (temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH)
were also recorded at each sampling location.
Among the main -stem locations, habitat scores (Table 3.2.5-1) ranged from 35-86 and tributary
scores ranged from 75-90. Main -stem scores were higher at PRM 19.3 (84), PRM 45.3 (77),
PRM 48.2 (68), PRM 55.5 (61), and PRM 64.5-64.9 (83), and lower at PRM 24.7 (65), PRM
52.3 (66), PRM 54.5 (66), PRM 59 (71), PRM 61 (63), and PRM 63 (83). Of the four main -stem
tributaries, Richland and Jonathan Creeks scored higher in 2012 than 2005. The highest score
(90) was in the upstream headwater tributary, i.e., East Fork Pigeon River, and was the result of
instream habitat and riffle habitat scores. The lowest score at PRM 63.0 was the result of poor
instream habitat, substrate quality, bank stability, canopy, and riparian zone width. Scores at
stations in the NC portion of the river below the mill to Walters Dam ranged from 40-80 in 2005;
in 2012, the same area had scores ranging from 35-77, which indicated little change in riverine
habitat between bioassessment studies.
Table 3.2.5-1. Overall habitat scores for the reference stations, Pigeon River main -stem sites, and
tributaries, 2005 and 2012.
River Mile (RM)
Habitat Scores
IBI Scores
2005
2012
2005
2012
SRM 11.3
75
42
SRM 1.6
63
46
WFPRM 3.6
81
42
EFPRM 3.5
90
40
69.5
86
40
64.5/64.9
57
83
46
44
70

63.0
40
35
38
36
61.0
79
63
46
40
59.0
80
71
36
40
57.7
39
36
5S.5
34
61
36
46
54.5
68
66
38
40
52.3
71
66
40
46
48.2
62
68
40
40
45.3
77
26
42.6
67
32
Richland Creek
72
76
44
44
Crabtree Creek
75
46
Jonathan Creek
88
75
46
40
Fines Creek
74
78
36
36
24.7
83
65
44
34
19.3
68
84
42
48
10.3
55
44
*NOTE: Scores were calculated using NC DENR established methodologies,
Version 6 for 2005, Version 7 for 2012.
Of the habitat metrics for the NC portion of the river below the mill, channel and instream
habitat showed little variation among locations. Five locations scored 4 (5 maximum) or better
for the channel metric. For instream habitat, six locations scored greater than 14 out of a 20
maximum value. Canopy values ranged 2-10 with five locations scoring five or better out of
maximum of 10. Substrate values ranged from 3-15 with one location (PRM 59.0) scoring the
maximum 15 and six scoring 10 or better. Pool variety scores ranged from 4-10 with PRM 42.3
and PRM 52.5 receiving the maximum score (10). The range for riffle habitat was 3-12. Three
locations received a score of 12 (out of a maximum 16) while two locations (PRM 63.0 and PRM
61.0) received the minimum score (3). Bank stability and vegetation ranged from 9-11 out of a
maximum score of 14. In most locations, right and left bank riparian vegetation zone widths
were rarely similar, with one bank scoring higher than the other bank; scores ranged from 0-8 out
of a maximum 9. The lower scores were often associated with a road alongside the river.
Comparison of 2012 to 2005 Total Scores (PRM 64.5-42.7).
Overall the 2012 total habitat scores were similar to those in 2005; there were seven of 10
stations in NC in 2012 (including the PRM 64.5 location above the mill) that had total scores
71

better or within five units of the same locations in 2005. Some of the differences seen came from
a change in metrics, such as in the 2005 protocol that combined bank stability and vegetation
into a single category. At some locations, the decreases in habitat scores were due to a missing
component; for example, at PRM 63.0 in 2005, bank stability was rip -rap with little to no
vegetation, thus lowering the score to 5 out of a maximum of 14. One of the principal factors to
be considered for effects on 2005 habitat scores was the massive flooding due to the hurricanes
in the fall of 2004. With the increased flows and subsequent flooding, there was a decrease in
bank stability and quality of vegetation due to these disturbances. For example, river banks at
Fiberville (PRM 63.0) suffered serious erosion damage and were reconstructed with rip -rip and
large boulders during the spring and early summer of 2005. Riparian vegetation damaged by the
floods was removed and replanted, but was not well -established at the time of the 2005 habitat
assessment. Also, the riparian zone width could have decreased due to scouring and degradation
by flood -waters. In 2012, riparian areas have become reestablished and rip rap areas, while still
in place, were often covered with vegetation. These factors may have contributed to differences
seen in habitat scores for a given location in 2005 and the same location in 2012.
Habitats were generally good in the study area and are not limiting except possibly at PRM 63.0.
Stations in the downstream portions of the river, and especially the higher gradient reaches, had
lower scores for the substrate metric because of a preponderance of bedrock in these segments.
3.2.6 Similarity and Biodiversity Analysis
Principal components analysis
A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on a matrix of abundances of all fish
species sampled at all Pigeon River sites (including East Fork and West Fork reference sites) and
the Swannanoa River reference sites. The purpose of the PCA was to assess how similar each of
the sample sites were to each other with respect to fish abundances (in this case total number of
each species), and to assess how similar sites were from 2005 to 2012. The matrix of fish
abundances consisted of 29 sample sites and 67 species. Typically, species that occur in only 1-
5% of the samples are removed from a multivariate ordination such as PCA. This is because very
rare species, or those that are sampled ineffectively by the gear, can potentially skew the
analysis. Initially, rare species were removed from the PCA, which we considered those species
that occurred in only one sample. However, the results were the same as when all species were
included, so we kept all species for this report. Prior to analysis, the species count data were
square -root transformed. This is typical for ordination techniques such as PCA to de-emphasize
very small or very large counts of species, which can also potentially bias the results of a PCA.
The analysis was run in CANOCO Version 4.5 software (Microcomputer Power®, Ithaca, NY).
All default settings provided by the software were used for each PCA. To interpret the results of
scatterplots, the closer any two samples or species are to each other, the more similar they are
with respect to fish species and numbers of each species. The farther away they are from each
other, the more dissimilar they are to each other. The axis scores for each scatterplot do not
represent values of condition or any other benchmark that can be interpreted as a gradient
in stream quality, health, condition, or integrity. The scores are simply a way for the PCA
to mathematically organize samples and species in such a manner that shows how similar
they are relative to each other.
72

Biodiversity comparisons
To assess biodiversity at each site during 2005 and 2012, we calculated three related indices of
biodiversity: 1) N1= species richness, 2) Shannon -Wiener diversity = (H'), and 3) H'/log (N) _
evenness of each sample. In short, as values of each index increases, this means samples have
greater biodiversity. Comparisons of mean index values were made between 2005 and 2012
using independent samples t-tests with a Type 1 error rate of a = 0.05. All indices were
calculated in CANOCO Version 4.5 software. The t-tests were conducted in Microsoft Excel®
Version 2010. Sample sizes for t-tests were n=11 for 2005 and n=18 for 2012. Separate
comparisons were made with and without the inclusion of Swannanoa River reference sites.
PCA similarity results
The PCA of the fish community indicated that there was a gradient in fish species composition
that produced three distinct groups of sites that were similar to each other (Figure 3.2.6-1).
Samples from PRM 24.7 and PRM 19.3 were similar in 2005 and 2012, and these were also
similar to PRM 10.3 from 2012. The species that mostly defined this group (i.e., on the right side
of Axis 1 in Figure 3.2.6-2) of sites had larger numbers of banded sculpin, gizzard shad,
smallmouth buffalo, redline darter, and walleye compared to other sites (Figure 3.2.6-2). On the
opposite side of the gradient (i.e., the left side of Axis 1 and the upper part of Axis 2), species
that defined this group of sites had greater abundances of mirror shiner, mottled sculpin, river
chub, greenfin darter, Tuckasegee darter, tangerine darter, and warpaint shiner relative to other
sites. Sites that were similar for this gradient included PRM 64.5 (2005 and 2012), PRM 69.5,
and all four reference sites which included the East Fork and West Fork Pigeon River, and SRM
11.3 and SRM 1.6. The final group of similar sites (i.e., all remaining sites in lower left of Figure
3.2.6-1) consisted of locations in the middle of the Pigeon River study area. Species that defined
this group consisted of higher numbers of largemouth bass, white sucker, silver shiner, common
carp, yellow perch, and redbreast sunfish compared to other sites.
It must be noted that the strength of the PCA was very weak. This is because there were fewer
samples than species. Typically, multivariate ordinations such as PCA require 2 to 3 times the
number of samples as species in the matrix. Eigenvalues for each of the first three axes, which
explained approximately 70% of the variation in the fish community data, were < 1. Generally,
PCA eigenvalues should be > 1 for a statistically sound interpretation, or else the plots produced
may just be no better than a random "shotgun blast" of sites and species on a square plot.
Nonetheless, because the sites and species associated with this particular PCA made logical
sense, based on years of experience sampling stream fish species in the Pigeon River, we decided
to go ahead and interpret the PCA results.
73

LO
T
SAMPLES
2005 2012
RM64 05
EFPR❑RM❑64
RM69
❑ o
RM 19_05
AL
M1
s121
Q
RM24 05
SR11
RM24
El❑
to
o
. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
M48-5` RM45
RM63_0 RM48 ❑
❑ RM54_g5
RM596
RM61_05
RM52 05 - RM59_05
- ❑ RM5i RM42_05
-
r-fM52
RM55 LJ❑ A RM55_05
RM61
RMP
RM63 ❑
Figure 3.2.6-1. A biplot of a principal components analysis (PCA) describing the structure of the
Pigeon River fish community in 2005 and 2012. Reference sites from the Swannanoa River
(SRM 1.6 and SRM 11.3) are included as well. Each symbol represents a fish community
sample. Symbols closer to each other are sites that are more similar than those farther away in
the biplot space.
74

0
T
MIRSHIN
MSY
GFDART
%RCHB
RBAS
ODART
AFRON
TUDART GD-gut FDART
• FBULLH
TUDART
WPAINT•
/_TA DTI
RBS
WAR 0 LNl
BNDACE
GN RB HY
BG0
WTSHIN •
SMREDH BNDART
BRBULL
WSUCK�
YPERCH
SLVSHN • 00
CCARP
LMB
BREDH
CSTONE RLDART
• GD_new WALL"
WC FWD •SMBUF
LAMP BSLSID 9 GSDAAM ,BSCULP
SGAR LpERCH SNDART GSHAD
PICK BECHB 0 •EDA TELESC
TSHIN • GD_hyb SBMBUF RBTRT
eSREDH
HOG
Akvur7n.y RREDH
BG_RB_HY
CCAT
4PFHC•BC •SMB
1.2
Figure 3.2.6-2. A biplot of a principal components analysis (PCA) describing the structure of the
Pigeon River fish community in 2005 and 2012. Symbols closer to each other are more similar
than symbols farther away in the biplot space. Species along each of the two axes are those that
define the fish community in the previous figure.
Biodiversity results
On average, all three indices suggested that biodiversity was similar from 2005 to 2012 (Table
3.2.6-1; t-tests; all P>0.05 for all index comparisons between years). However, it should be
recognized that some individual sites increased in biodiversity from 2005 to 2012, while others
declined. For example, PRM 64.5 increased in species richness from 8 to 10, Shannon diversity
from 2.12 to 2.34, and evenness from 0.78 to 0.84. In contrast, PRM 24.7 decreased in richness
75

from 10 to 6, Shannon diversity from 2.28 to 1.76, but evenness was relatively unchanged from
0.75 to 0.76.
Table 3.2.6-1. Biodiversity indices for Pigeon River and Swannanoa River (SR1, SR 11)
fish community. Larger values indicate greater biodiversity. Sites are river miles
except for EFPR East Fork Pigeon River) and WFPR (West Fork Pigeon River).
2012 Fish Community
2005 Fish Community
Site
Richness
Shannon'
diversity
(H) of samples
H/log (N)
evenness
Site
Richness
Shannon'
diversity
(H) of samples
H/log (N)
evenness
SR11
8
2.07
0.78
RM64
8
2.12
0.78
SR1
8
2.11
0.78
RM63
6
1.71
0.63
WFPR
8
2.08
0.79
RM61
8
2.08
0.65
EFPR
8
2.08
0.81
RM59
6
1.77
0.59
RM69
8
2.11
0.76
RM55
6
1.82
0.71
RM64
10
2.34
0.84
RM54
4
1.41
0.49
RM63
3
0.99
0.41
RM52
8
2.14
0.75
RM61
6
1.82
0.69
RM48
9
2.15
0.80
RM59
6
1.75
0.62
RM42
8
2.12
0.96
RM57
4
1.42
0.62
RM24
10
2.28
0.75
RM55
9
2.16
0.75
RM19
6
1.77
0.59
RM54
13
2.54
0.83
RM52
7
1.99
0.66
RM48
9
2.22
0.74
RM45
7
1.95
0.89
RM24
6
1.76
0.76
RM19
12
2.52
0.80
RM10
13
2.58
0.78
AVERAGE
8
2.02
0.74
7
1.94
0.70
76

3.3 OTHER BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
3.3.1 Mussels
The presence or absence of freshwater mussels at all Pigeon River main -stem sample sites was
documented. There were no mussels observed at any of the sampling sites during 2012. These
results are in line with NC DENR survey data in recents years which have not documented any
naturally -occurring mussels in the Pigeon River. High water levels during the spring of 2013
prevented access for mussel surveys in areas other than designated sites, and especially areas
where mussel re -introductions have occurred. Re -introductions of 10 native mussel species have
been done, beginning with nine species in TN at three sites (PRM 17.3, 13.3, and 8.3) in 2000-
12. The other species has been re -introduced at one site above the mill (PRM 65.5) and one site
below the mill (PRM 55.3) river since 2010 (Table 3.3.1-1). All re -introduction sites in both NC
TN main -stem portions of the Pigeon River were chosen to maximize survival and growth.
A recent research study investigated mussel survival and growth reared in silos in Pigeon River
main -stem locations both above and below the mill (Rooney, 2010). Results indicated that
mortality rates among mussels at above -mill and below -mill sites were not significantly
different; however, growth rates of mussels held in downstream silos were significantly greater
than for those held at upstream sites. Highest growth rates were observed at a site located
approximately 18 km downstream from the mill (Figure 3.3.1-1; Rooney, 2010). Several
influences may have impacted growth rates, such as elevated water temperature due to heated
mill effluent, as well as agricultural runoff with elevated levels of nutrients. This study
documented proof that mussels could survive and grow in the river below the mill, and also
provided the impetus for NC DENR to begin a mussel re-intoduction program in the NC portion
of the river. Assessment of survival at other life stages is also needed before the full extent of
potential for mussel re -introductions to the studied reach of the Pigeon River is known.
Figure 3.3.1-1. Above -and below -mill growth comparisons of two cohorts of mussels after 22
months in the Pigeon River. Specimens on the right-hand side of the picture are from the
Marion cohort and those on the left are from Table Rock. The smaller light brown
mussels at the bottom of the photo are from the above -mill site and exhibit significantly
less growth.
77

Table 3.3.1-1. Mussel re -introductions into the Pigeon River in Tennessee and North Carolina, 2000-12.
PIGEON RIVER MUSSEL REINTRODUCTIONS IN TN
SPECIES
Alasmidonta marginata
COMMON NAME
Elktoe
SOURCE STREAM
RELEASE SITE
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
#
RELEASED
RELEASE
DATE
Oct-00
Nolichucky
12
Amblema plicata
Threeridge
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
5
Oct-00
Cyclonaias tuberculata
Purple wartyback
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
15
Oct-00
Elliptio dilatata
Spike
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
12
Oct-00
Lampsilis fasciola
Wavy -rayed Lampmussel
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
14
Oct-00
Lampsilis ovata
Pocketbook
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
21
Oct-00
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris
Kidneyshell
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
10
Oct-00
Quadrula pustulosa
Pimpleback
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
24
Oct-00
Strophitus undulatus
Creeper
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
11
Oct-00
Elliptio dilatata
Spike
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
3
24-Oct-03
Lampsilis fasciola
Wavy -rayed Lampmussel
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
3
24-Oct-03
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris
Kidneyshell
Nolichucky
Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3
1
24-Oct-03
Cyclonaias tuberculata
Purple wartyback
Duck R.@Milltown
Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7
217
18-Oct-11
Elliptio dilatata
Spike
Duck R.@Milltown
Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7
47
18-Oct-11
Quadrula pustulosa
Pimpleback
Duck R.@Milltown
Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7
59
18-Oct-11
Quadrula pustulosa
Pimpleback
TN R.@Diamond Isl.
Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7
132
18-Oct-11
Lampsilis fasciola
Wavy -rayed Lampmussel
VDGIF/Clinch stock
Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7
100
18-Oct-11
Villosa iris
Rainbow
VDGIF/Clinch stock
Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7
100
18-Oct-11
Medionidus conradicus
Cumberland Moccasinshell
Clinch R., Kyles Ford
Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7
100
18-Oct-11
Cyclonaias tuberculata
Purple wartyback
TN R./Clinch R.
Pigeon R. @ Denton, RM 17.3
457
8-Jul-12
Quadrula pustulosa
Pimpleback
TN R./Clinch R.
Pigeon R. @ Denton, RM 17.3
282
8-Jul-12
Cyclonaias tuberculata
Purple wartyback
TN R./Clinch R.
Pigeon R. @ Denton, RM 17.3
442
7-Oct-12
Quadrula pustulosa
Pimpleback
TN R./Clinch R.
Pigeon R. @ Denton, RM 17.3
346
7-Oct-12
In

PIGEON RIVER MUSSEL REINTRODUCTIONS IN NC
SPFCIFS
Lampsilis fasciola
Lampsilis fasciola
Lampsilis fasciola
COMMON NAME
Wavy -rayed Lampmussel
Wavy -rayed Lampmussel
Wavy -rayed Lampmussel
SOURCE STREAM RELEASE SITE
79
Pigeon R., RM 65.5
Pigeon R., RM 55.3
Pigeon R., RM 55.3
RFI FASF
# RELEASED DATE
50
19-Aug-10
58
Jun-11
148
8-Jul-12

3.3.2 Wildlife
Several wildlife species were observed along the main -stem, tributary, and reference waterways
during instream fish and invertebrate sampling events. The majority of wildlife contact was with
avian species which are usually associated with aquatic habitat. The list and number of locations
at which they were observed are as follows: (1) Great blue heron — 3 sites, (2) Belted kingfisher
— 2 sites, (3) Northern water snake — 2 sites, (4) Green heron — 1 site, (5) Blue winged teal — 1
site, (6) Black -crowned night heron, (7) Queen snake — 1 site, (8) Soft-shell turtle -1 site, (9)
Bald eagle — 1 site, (10) Osprey — 1 site, (11) Beaver — 1 site. The locations of the wildlife
observations are presented in Table 3.3.2-1. Based on the species and locations documented
below along with anecdotal information, wildlife diversity along the river was deemed
essentially the same along both reference and thermally influenced sampling stations.
Two recent research studies involving other riverine/stream wildlife included surveys of
salamanders and crayfish in the Pigeon River main -stem and tributaries. The 2009 salamander
study (Maxwell, 2009) documented the presence of five of eight salamander species (that
historically existed in NC streams) in three of five study sites: in the Pigeon River above the mill,
Jonathan Creek, and Big Creek. No salamanders were found in the NC main -stem portion of the
PR; water quality and suitable substrate were cited as possible contributors to the lack of
salamanders there. The crayfish study (Dunn, 2010) identified eight species in the Pigeon River
system which were collected in the river above the mill, in all nine PR tributaries, and in the
main -stem in the TN portion of the river. No crayfish found in the NC main -stem below the mill;
the study cited the drought of 2007-08 as a possible contributor to the lack of crayfish there. The
drought may have caused crayfish to seek refugia in tributaries to escape higher levels of salinity
(2X) and conductivity (1 OX) in the main -stem which were due to lower water flows which
concentrated the mill discharge effuents.
Table 3.3.2-1. Wildlife observations and locations on the Pigeon River and tributaries, 2012.
PRM 64.5
Great blue heron
PRM 63.0
Soft-shell turtle
PRM 61.0
Blue -winged teal
PRM 57.7
Bald eagle (adult)
PRM 52.3
Great blue heron
Fines Creek
Beaver
Jonathan Creek
Northern water snake
PRM 24.7
Northern water snake
PRM 19.3
Belted kingfisher, Green heron
PRM 16.5
Black -crowned night heron
PRM 10.3
Belted kingfisher, Osprey
SRM 1.6
Queen snake, Great blue heron
LOU

3.3.3 Periphyton/Plankton
Periphyton, as macroalgae or microalgae, was assessed using the Field -Based Rapid Periphyton
Survey developed by the EPA in their "Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for the use in Wadeable
Streams" (Barbour, Gerritsen, Snyder, and Stribling, 1999). Three transects were randomly
selected at each sampling site except for PRM 64.5-64.9, which had four transects. Three
locations were selected on each transect (stratified random) to view the substrate with the view
bucket having a 50-dot grid. The substrate areas covered by microalgae and macroalgae were
determined by recording the number of dots that occurred over each type of periphyton. The
larger macroalgae strands were measured in cm and microalgae were measured by the
depth/thickness of the attached mass. None of the microalgae at any of the sites had a depth
greater than 0.5 mm; this condition was defined as "the rock or substrate felt slimy and there was
no visual accumulation". Anchored macrophytes in the viewing area were measured in cm.
Every sample site had periphyton in at least one of the transects (Table 3.3.3-1). The two lowest
concentrations were found at PRM 55.5, Hyder Mountain Bridge (NC), and PRM 24.7,
Waterville at Browns Bridge (TN), where it was only found in one transect at each location.
Fiberville (PRM 63.0) below the paper mill had periphyton in all three transects
Table 3.3.3-1. Occurrence of periphyton (X) and macrophytes in Pigeon River and
Swannanoa River sampling sites, 2012. Reference stations (*) and un-identified
macrophytes (U) are also noted.
Periphyton Macrophyte Macrophyte
River Mile (RM) #1 #2
SRM 11.3*
X
RIVERWEED
U
SRM 1.6*
X
RIVERWEED
WFPRM 3.6*
X
EFPRM 3.5*
X
RIVERWEED
69.5*
X
RIVERWEED
64.5/64.9*
X
RIVERWEED
U
63.0
X
U
61.0
X
59.0
X
U
57.7
X
U
55.5
X
U
54.5
X
U
52.3
X
U
48.2
X

45.3
X
U
Richland Creek
X
U
Crabtree Creek
X
RIVERWEED
Jonathan Creek
X
Fines Creek
X
U
24.7
X
U
19.3
X
RIVERWEED
10.3
X
RIVERWEED
The potamoplankton, i.e., unattached phytoplankton and zooplankton, was not sampled because
of low abundance, and their sporadic appearance was dictated by river flows. Any sampling or
collection of these groups at any given site could not be replicated because they were transient
and continuously moving downstream.
3.3.4 Macrophytes
Podostemum is of special interest because it provides stable habitat for macroinvertebrates
(habitat former; Hutchens et al., 2004). The hornleaf riverweed Podostemum ceratophyllum is a
submerged aquatic flowering plant native to eastern and upper Midwest of North America. It is
found in all North Carolina counties bordering Tennessee, including Haywood County (USDA,
2013). It thrives in open -canopy, shallow rapids attached to bedrock of rivers and streams
(Hutchens et al., 2004). Riverweed forms a thick mat on stable substrates, and may also form
long (>15 cm) stems during summer. The mats and stems are a substrate for epiphytic algae
(periphyton) as well as macro -invertebrates. It is generally indicative of high quality, oxygenated
rivers (Hill and Webster, 1984). Podostemum has been repeatedly demonstrated to be an
important substrate for promoting benthic invertebrate biomass, abundance, and species richness
(Hutchens et al., 2004) and to positively influence the abundance of several fish species,
including the banded darter, which is found in the Pigeon River (Etnier and Starnes, 1993).
Its role as a habitat former for invertebrates has been studied in the nearby Little Tennessee River
(Hutchens et al., 2004). The study involved complete, partial or no removal of Podostemum from
portions of four bedrock outcrops at two sites. Complete removal greatly reduced overall macro -
invertebrate abundance and biomass and altered assemblage structure, but had relatively little
effect on functional structure. There was a strong positive relationship between surface area of
Podostemum and total macro -invertebrate abundance and biomass. They estimated that P.
ceratophyllum increased surface area by 3 to 4 times over bare bedrock.
A study to determine predictors of the occurrence of Podostemum, including bed sediment, light
availability (canopy cover), and non -forest land use (Argentina et al., 2010) was conducted on a
Southern Appalachian river, the Conasauga River, TN and GA. The study concluded, as
LOM

expected, that bed sediment size and measures of light availability were included in best -
supported models and had similar estimated -effect sizes across models. Even though riverweed
cover declined with increasing watershed size, this decrease in cover was not well -predicted by
variation in land use.
In 2012, Podostemum ceratophyllum (riverweed) was found in three of four reference stations
upstream of the mill, both stations in the reference Swannanoa River, and two of three stations in
the Pigeon River in Tennessee (Figure 3.3.4-1), but not in the thermally affected reach between
the mill and Waterville Reservoir. The species was not examined in previous 316(a) studies, so
there is no available history of change. The low dispersal ability due to clonal reproduction and
poor seed production, combined with the Pigeon River's stresses of flooding in 2004 and drought
in 2007-2008, may be limiting its ability to recolonize the thermally affected reach after a history
of pollution. Temperature does not appear to be a limiting factor except in the reach nearest the
mill, where temperatures in summer can exceed the reported upper limit of 30 C reported in the
literature.
Figure 3.3.4-1. Podostemum ceratophyllum (hornleaf riverweed) from the Pigeon River, 2012.

3.4 PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA
Physicochemical water quality data were collected concurrently with the July -September 2012
fish and macro -invertebrate sampling events at each of the main -stem, tributary, and reference
stream locations (Table 3.4-1). All main -stem collections were made between 5 July and 28
September. The data recorded on each sampling date included temperature, dissolved oxygen,
conductivity, and pH at each of the 14 locations; turbidity measurements were also recorded in
the 14 main -stem locations. Water quality parameters were measured with a YSI Model 60 (pH)
and a YSI Model 85 (dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature). Both meters were
calibrated prior to use using fresh calibration solutions; the Model 85 also compensated for
elevation. Turbidity was measured using a LaMotte Model 2020-E portable turbidity meter.
Table 3.4-1. Physicochemical data collected during July -September 2012.
Location (RM)
Date
Time
Temp
(C)
DO Conductivity
(mg/L) (µmhos/cm)
pH
Turbidity
(NTU)
WFPR 3.6
7/17/2012
1000
20.9
9.89
13.4
6.82
1.1
EFPR 3.5
7/18/2012
1440
20.7
8.41
15.0
5.46
1.9
69.5
8/30/2012
945
20.2
8.81
18.0
6.41
0.7
64.5/64.9
7/31/2012
1100
21.6
7.41
32.2
7.03
70*
63.0
7/5/2012
1100
29.8
7.97
979.0
7.08
60A
61.0
8/9/2012
0930
24.1
7.25
738.0
7.49
4.0
59.0
8/21/2012
0945
22.1
7.44
837.0
7.40
2.2
57.7
9/25/2012
0930
16.6
8.20
408.8
7.23
1.1
55.5
8/21/2012
1330
23.3
7.25
603.0
7.15
1.1
54.9 Richland Cr.
8/14/2012
1315
24.5
6.30
56.7
6.34
2.2
54.5
7/27/2012
1330
26.1
6.96
318.2
7.33
1.8
52.3
8/23/2012
1145
21.8
8.08
694.0
6.62
2.1
49.8 Crabtree Cr.
8/2/2012
1000
19.7
8.69
78.1
6.23
14*
48.2
9/28/2012
1030
20.5
9.73
54.6
7.25
1.6
46.0 Jonathan Cr.
7/26/2012
1015
20.0
8.30
106.4
6.75
4.8
45.3
8/20/2012
1045
21.2
8.41
305.6
7.61
3.8
42.7 Fines Cr.
8/1/2012
0915
18.5
8.32
67.3
7.13
7.9*
24.7
8/13/2012
1030
21.3
7.87
20.5
7.28
1.5
19.3
9/24/2012
1045
16.9
10.22
156.1
7.13
1.5
10.3
8/7/2012
1000
23.1
6.03
190.5
7.24
3.4
11.3 Swannanoa R.
8/29/2012
1000
22.8
8.56
60.3
7.32
2.5
1.6 Swannanoa R.
8/29/2012
1600
23.3
8.53
79.5
6.65
2.4
*Recent rain event
^Tannic color, some turbidity

Main -stem water temperature was 21.6 C at the control site above the mill (PRM 64.5) on 31
July; during the collection period, water temperatures ranged from 29.8 C (PRM 63.0) on 5 July
to 16.9 C (PRM 19.3) on 24 September. The differences in recorded water temperature values at
the various stations may be explained, in part, by the duration of the sampling period (almost 11
weeks) and by the fact that individual stations were sampled randomly during the period based
on water levels , crew availability, and travel distance to sites. Only three of the 14 main -stem
sites had water temperatures greater than 2 C above the PRM 64.5 control site water temperature
during the period: PRM 54.5 at 26.1 C on 7/27, PRM 61.0 at 24.1 C on 8/9, and PRM 63.0 at
29.8 C on 7/5. This could be due to higher water flows in the mainstem and also increased inflow
from tributary streams. Water temperatures in the tributary creeks sampled ranged from 24.5 C
on 8/14 in Richland Creek to 18.5 C on 8/1 in Fines Creek.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) ranged from 10.22 mg/L at PRM 19.3 to 6.03 mg/L at PRM 10.3 along
the main -stem. The lowest DO value in the NC reach of the river below the mill was 6.96 mg/L
at PRM 54.5. The DO values in the tributaries ranged from 8.69 mg/L in Crabtree Creek to 6.30
mg/L in Richland Creek.
Specific conductance values (conductivity) ranged from a low of 13.4 µ/s at PRM 69.5 above the
mill to a high of 979 µ/s at PRM 63.0; conductance values decreased from that site to 305.6 µ/s
at the lowest NC main -stem site ( PRM 45.3), and to 190.5 µ/s at the lowest TN site (PRM 10.3).
Tributary values ranged from 106.4 µ/s in Jonathan Creek to 56.7 µ/s in Richland Creek. The
two reference sites on the Swannanoa River were 60.3 and 79.5 µ/s at SRM 11.3 and SRM 1.6,
respectively.
The lowest pH value recorded in the mainstem during the sampling period was 6.41 at PRM
69.5, the most upstream site above the mill. Water pH values increased to 7.08 and 7.49 at the
two sites just below the mill effluent (PRM 63.0 and PRM 61.0, respectively) and fluctuated in
the in the pH 6.3-7.3 range to 7.24 at the last downstream site (PRM 10.3). The increased rainfall
during July and August may have contributed to leaching and a subsequent lowering of the pH
value in the river above the mill; the mill effluent may have contributed some buffering capacity
to the downstream portion of the river. Values (pH) at the tributary sites ranged from 6.75 in
Jonathan Creek to 6.23 in Crabtree Creek.
Turbidity in main -stem locations was measured by the nephelometric method and ranged from
70.0 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) at PRM 64.5 to 0.7 NTU at the most upstream site
above the mill (PRM 69.5). The unusually high value (70 NTU) at PRM 64.5 was obtained on
7/31 soon after a local rain event. Twelve of the 14 main -stem sites recorded turbidity
measurements less than 4.8 NTU; Jonathan Creek (4.8) and Richland Creek (2.2 NTU) had
turbidity values similar to those main -stem values. Crabtree Creek (14 NTU) and Fines Creek
(7.9 NTU) were sampled after recent rain events on 8/2 and 8/1, respectively.

4. REFERENCES
Adams, S. M., A. Brown, and R. Goede. 1993. A quantitative health assessment index for
rapid evaluation of fish condition in the field. Transactions American Fisheries Society
122:63-73.
Anderson, R.O., and S. J. Gutreuter. 1983.Length, weight, and associated structural indices.
Pages 283-300 in L.A. Nielsen and D. L. Johnson, editors. Fisheries techniques.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Anderson, R.O., and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural indices.
Pages 447-481 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques. 2°d
edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Argentina, J.E., M.C. Freeman, and B.J. Freeman. 2010. Predictors of occurrence of the aquatic
macrophyte Podostemum ceratophyllum in a Southern Appalachian river. Southeastern
Naturalist 9(3): 465-476.
Barbour, M.T., J.Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stripling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish, Second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Coutant, C. C., and D. L. DeAngelis. 1983. Comparative temperature -dependent growth rates
of largemouth and smallmouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:
416-423.
Coutant, C. C. 1977. Compilation of temperature preference data. Journal Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 34:739-745.
Dunn, D.C.B. 2010. A survey of crayfish in the Pigeon River and its tributaries in Tennessee and
North Carolina. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 70 pp.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1988. Synoptic survey of physical and biological
condition of the Pigeon River in the vicinity of Champion International's Canton Mill.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Sparks, MD.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1996. A study of the aquatic resources and water
quality of the Pigeon River. EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2000. Results of the 1999 biological survey of
the Pigeon River. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2001. A study of the aquatic resources of the
Pigeon River during 2000. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
:.

Eaton, J.G., J. McCormick, B. Goodno, G. O'Brien, H. Stefany, M. Hondzo, and R. Scheller.
1995. A field information -based system for estimating fish temperature tolerances.
Fisheries 20(4):10-18.
Etnier D. A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN.
Fore, L.S., and J.B. Karr. 1994. Statistical properties of an Index of Biotic Integrity used to
evaluate water resources. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science 5:1077-1087.
Goede, R.W., and B.A. Barton. 1990. Organism indices and an autopsy -based assessment as
indicators of health and condition of fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium 8:93-
108.
Hill, B.H., and J. R. Webster. 1984. Productivity of Podostemum ceratophyllum in the New
River, Virginia. American Journal of Botany 71:130-136.
Hutchens, J. J., J. B. Wallace, and E. D. Romaniszyn. 2004. Role of Podostemum ceratophyllum
Michx. In structuring macroinvertebrate assemblages in a southern Appalachian river.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:713-727.
Jenkins, R., and N. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-27.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running water: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History
Survey Special Publication Number 5, Champaign, IL.
Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for
benthic macro -invertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:222-
233.
Lenat, D.R. 1993. A biotic indexfor the southeastern United States: Derivation and list of
tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water quality ratings. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 7:270-290.
Maxwell, N.J. 2009. Baseline survey and habitat analysis of aquatic salamanders in the Pigeon
River, North Carolina. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 55 pp.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC.
Murphy, B.R., and D.W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources (DEHNER). 1997.
Standard operating procedure for biological monitoring. January 1997. Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2006.
Standard operating procedure for stream fish community assessment. August 2006.
Division of Environmental Management, Environmental Sciences Branch, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2001. Habitat
assessment field data sheet Mountain/Piedmont streams. March 2001. Biological
Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental
Sciences Branch, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department. Environmental Health and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2011.
Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. Version 3. Biological
Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental
Sciences Branch, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Post Hurricane
Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne Biological Monitoring (French Broad and Watauga River
Basins) and Biological Sampling, November 30-December 2, 2004. Technical
memorandum dated April 4, 2005. Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences
Section, Biological Assessment Unit. Raleigh, NC.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1989. Biological criteria for the protection
of aquatic life: Vol. III. Standardized field and laboratory methods for assessing fish and
macroinvertebrate communities. Division Water Quality Planning and Assessment,
Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, OH.
Progress Energy. 2005. 2004 Water Quality and Biotic Indices Study of the Pigeon River at
the Walters Hydroelectric Plant. Appendix A Requirements. Environmental Services
Section, Progress Energy Service Company, Raleigh, NC.
Reynolds, W.W.,and M.E. Casterlin. 1976. Thermal preferenda and behavioral
thermoregulation in three centrachid fishes. Pages 185-190 in G.W. Esch and R. W.
McFarlane, editors. Thermal ecology II. Dept. of Energy Symposium Series (CONF-
75025), Nat. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.
Rooney, C.E., 2010. In -situ feasibility study of freshwater mussel reintroduction: Survival
and growth of the wavy -rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola ) in the Pigeon River, NC.
M.S. Thesis. Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC. 49 pp.
Sandow, Jr., J.T., D.R. Holder, and L.E. McSwain. 1974. Life history of the redbreast sunfish in
the Satilla River, Georgia. Bulletins, Circulars and Other Miscellaneous Publications,
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division. 16 pp.

Saylor, C.F., A. McKinney, and W. Schacher. 1993. Case study of the Pigeon River in
the Tennessee River drainage. TVA Biological Report 19. TVA, Norris, TN.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board
Canada Bulletin 184:1-966.
Simon, T.P., and J. Lyons. 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water
resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. Pages 245-262 in W.S. Davis and T.P.
Simon, editors. Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and
decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Surber, E.W. 1970. Smallmouth bass stream investigations. Virginia Commission of
Game and Inland Fisheries, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, Project F-14-R, Job 2-
Shenandoah River study, January 1, 1964-June 30, 1969. Final Report, Richmond.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2004. TVA Protocol for Conducting an Index of Biotic Integrity
Biological Assessment. Technical Memorandum. 15 pp.
Trembley, F.J. 1960. Research project on effects of condenser discharge water on aquatic
life. Progress Report 1960. Institute of Research, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA.
University of Tennessee. 2012. Standard Operating Procedures for Macro -Invertebrates.
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries (FWF), Fisheries Lab. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville. 17 pp.
University of Tennessee. 2012. Standard Operating Procedures for Fish. Department of Forestry,
Wildlife and Fisheries (FWF), Fisheries Lab. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 9 pp.
US EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. 316(a) Technical Guidance — Thermal
Discharges. Draft. Water Planning Division„ Washington, DC.
US EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1977. Interagency 316(a) technical guidance
manual and guide for thermal effects sections of nuclear facilities environmental impact
statements. Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch,
Washington, DC.
Wege, G. J., and R.O. Anderson. 1978. Relative weight (Wr): a new index of condition for
largemouth bass. Page 79-91 in G.D. Novinger and J.G. Dillard, editors. New approaches
to the management of small impoundments. American Fisheries Society, North Central
Division, Special Publication 5, Bethesda, MD.
O

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2013. Plants profile Podostemum ceratophyllum
hornleaf riverweed POCE3. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed
July 29, 2013 at:
http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state name=North%20Carolina&statefips=37&symbolPOCE3
Wilson, J.L. 2006. A Study of the Aquatic Resources and Water Quality of the Pigeon River
(2012 Biological Assessment). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Wrenn, W. B. 1980. Effects of elevated temperatures on growth and survival of smallmouth
bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:617-625.
Yoder, C.O., and M.A. Smith. 1999. Using fish assemblages in a state biological assessment
and criteria program: Essential concepts and considerations. Pages 17-56 in T. P. Simon,
editor. Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resource quality
using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.