NC0000272_Balance and Indigenous Species Study_20010529

BLUE RIDGE
PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
May 29,2001
Mr.Forrest Westall
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville,NC 28801
RE: NPDES Permit No.NC0000272, Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. Canton Mill
Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River
Dear Mr.Westall:
Attached is the Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River,performed by EA
Engineering, Science and Technology. This study is required by Part III, Sections L and M of the
1997 NPDES Permit.
Please call me at [phone] or Bob Williams at(828) 646-2033 if you have any questions
regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Derric Brown
Manager—Environmental Affairs
Attachment
Xc: Keith Haynes
Dave Goodrich
Michael Myers
175 Main Street • P.O. Box 4000
Canton, North Carolina 28716 • Phone:[phone]
Raising Your Expectations

Il
I�
l
F
Il
I] CANTON MILL
BALANCED AND INDIGENOUS
SPECIES STUDY
Il FOR THE PIGEON RIVER
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
ICanton, NC
I_
Prepared by:
1, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology
444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18
Deerfield, IL 60015
I_l
TI
I� May 2001
I_i

1.1 MILL OPERATIONAL HISTORY
Prior to and through the early 60's, the quality of the aquatic life in the North Carolina portion
of the Pigeon River was poor (Messer 1964). During the past four decades, the mill has
worked steadily to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of its wastewater discharge.
Following significant improvements in the 70's and 80's, the mill began its most ambitious
project in 1990: the $330 million Canton Modernization Project (CMP). The goals of the
CMP were to use "state-of-the-art" technology to assure the continued operation of the Canton
Mill and to reduce the long-term average color load by 50%. Changes and improvements in
plant operations that were made to achieve these goals included:
• installing a cooling tower to allow hot water from the pulp mill to be re-used, thereby
reducing water usage by more than 40% overall, as well as reducing temperature,
S replacing several existing pine fiber lines with a single new fiber line that includes
oxygen delignification, 100% chlorine dioxide for bleaching and improved recovery of
pulping liquor and chemicals,
o rebuilding the black liquor evaporators to reduce process losses and thereby reduce
color to the WWTP, and
• upgrading the WWTP to accommodate a reduced volume, thereby stabilizing
performance.
These and other improvements during the CMP have resulted in a 90% reduction of instream
color levels downstream of the mill. There has also been a 35% reduction in effluent flows, an
80% reduction in BOD and a 75% reduction in TSS. Finally, monthly average downstream
temperatures have declined by 2-4 'C. Thus, effluent quantity has decreased, effluent quality
has improved, and temperature loadings to the river have also decreased since the thermal
variance was issued in 1984. From 1997 to 1999, the Canton Mill introduced additional
environmental improvements with the introduction of BFR on the pine fiber line and partial
caustic extraction stage recycle on the hardwood fiber line. This further reduced color and
improved effluent quality.
As described in greater detail later in this report, aquatic communities in the Pigeon River have
responded positively to the mill improvements. By the mid-80's, the aquatic life in the river
was consistent with the expectations for a Class C stream in North Carolina (EA 1988). By
the mid 90's, further improvements were documented based on greater faunal diversity,
improved biotic index scores, and reduced numbers of pollution tolerant organisms (EA 1996).
As discussed later in this report, further improvements were noted during the 2000 studies of
the river (App. A).
1-2

2. SUMMARY OF 2000 STUDIES
Complete results from the 2000 biological and modeling studies are provided in Appendices A
and B, respectively.
2.1 BIOLOGICAL STUDIES
Fish and macroinvertebrates were sampled at 11 Pigeon River mainstem and 3 tributary
locations during July and August 2000 (Figure 2-1). This period was chosen because it is
typically when stream temperatures are warmest, and thus it represents worst case thermal
conditions in any particular year. As it turned out, water temperatures during July and August
of 2000 were well above average due to extended drought conditions in western North
Carolina. The area upstream of the mill (RM 64.5) represents conditions without the thermal
input of the mill. The downstream stations reflect not only changes possibly resulting from
thermal inputs of the mill, but also changes resulting from any other constituent of the mill's
effluent (e.g., higher BOD, TDS, TSS, or color levels compared to the upstream area). With
regard to possible impacts from the thermal component of the discharge, the sampling station
of greatest relevance is the one at Fiberville (RM 63),just downstream of the mill, where
water temperatures are highest. Any impacts that are thermally driven should be greatest at
RM 63 and then decrease sequentially as one proceeds downstream and water temperatures
cool. This same pattern would also be expected for most of the effluent constituents, except
perhaps for BOD. Conversely, given the retention time in Waterville Lake and the fact that
approximately 8 miles of the river is normally bypassed, no thermal impacts would be expected
in the Tennessee portion of the river. In fact, the Tennessee locations were not included in the
2000 study to assess possible thermal impacts, but rather to provide continuity with past studies
and confirm that previous improvements noted in 1995 (EA 1996) have continued.
2.1.1 Fish
Sampling at the 11 mainstem stations resulted in the collection of about 10,000 fish
representing 46 species. The most commonly collected species were redbreast sunfish, central
stoneroller, northern hog sucker, banded sculpin, and smallmouth bass. In addition to
smallmouth bass, 16 other sport species were collected, including significant numbers of
popular recreational species such as bluegill, channel catfish, largemouth bass, crappie, and
rock bass. Specimens collected were generally in good physical condition.
Overall, the mainstem fish community in 2000 was similar to the one observed in 1995 (EA
1996); the last time an intensive survey was conducted. Although the community has not
changed dramatically since 1995, it has improved measurably in several ways: (1) the catch of
smallmouth bass has improved more than 10 fold compared to 1995, (2) darters, which were
essentially absent downstream of the mill in 1995, were found at seven of the eight
downstream North Carolina stations in 2000, and (3) species richness at individual downstream
stations in 2000 was as good or better than in 1995. Overall, the results did not suggest
adverse impacts from the mill's thermal discharge based on the fact that species richness and
Index of Biotic Integrity values at RM 63, the warmest of the stations sampled, were
2-1

it
III
Bluffton,TN Hartford,TN
Near Browns Bridge
Near
(24'8) TENNESSEE N Creek •.-..�..�' �..�...�.
NORTH•`
�.•�..�.••�" .ate CAROLINA
egg ll NOTE: River miles of Inainstem sampling location or
Hydro Plant N tributary mouth shown in parentheses.
Bypassed
y it Reach
0 Fish and Benlhos Sampling Station
ri
Walters Dam Waterville Lake
Catalcochee
Creek Hepco,NC
(42.6)
Creek
Ipa�(42.7)
Now Hepco Bridge CrabtreeCreek
Riverside (49.8)
Hepco Gage (48.3)
(45.1) Above Crabtree
V�IFLOW (52.2)
r Jonathan
l Creek . Clyde WWTP
l (46.0) Below Clyde (57'1) T(610ty
Ferguson Bridge (55.5) Above Clyde Flberville
(59.0) Flbervllle (63.0)
Below
�j Waynesville WWTP Mill OuHall Canton,NC
(54.5) ® (63.3)
Waynesville Clyde,NC
WWTP Richland Canton
Creek (64.5)
— (54.8) (54.9)
Figure 2-1. Stations for the fisheries and benthic surveys,July and August 2000.
4,1
F
2-2

To provide a model application, daily average delta temperatures were calculated at locations
downstream from the mill discharge. The model was executed for the 1994 to 1999 period
with and without the thermal loading from the Canton Mill. The model results with no thermal
loading represent ambient temperatures, which were subtracted from the thermal load scenario
to provide daily average delta temperatures. A summary of the upper 90 percentile delta
temperatures at four stations is provided in the following table.
90 Percentile Delta Temperature (IC) 1994-1999
Station Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual
Fiberville 5.7 3.4 6.6 11.2 7.4
above Clyde 4.1 2.4 3.3 5.5 4.2
below Clyde 3.7 2.1 2.6 4.5 3.4
Crabtree 2.8 1.5 1.7 2.8 2.3
Median (50 percentile) delta temperatures were approximately one-half of the values in the
above table.
Comparisons of monthly water temperature prior to and after the Canton Modernization
Project (CMP) indicate that post-CMP temperatures average 2.5 to 3.5 °C cooler than pre-
CMP temperatures.
2-4

3. BALANCED INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS IN THE PIGEON RIVER
A 316(a) thermal variance is appropriate if it can be demonstrated that the limit proposed (or in
this case continued) allows a balanced indigenous community to be present. If such a
community is not currently present due to some other limiting factor (e.g., poor water quality),
then the variance may nevertheless be granted so long as the re-establishment of a balanced,
indigenous community is not prevented by the alternative thermal limits proposed or continued.
There is no single measure by which one can say that a community is balanced. Rather, there
is a suite of attributes shown by balanced communities. If a community exhibits most or all
these attributes then one can reasonably assume that the community is balanced. Conversely,
if.most or all of these attributes are missing, then it is reasonable to conclude that the
community is not balanced. Furthermore, in the latter case it still must be shown that the lack
of balance is the result of elevated temperatures.
Excessive temperatures tend to adversely affect populations and communities in predictable
ways (e.g., dominance by thermally tolerant organisms, long term avoidance, etc.). Thus, one
of the tests of a Type III 316(a) demonstration is a showing that there is no appreciable harm
(i.e., adverse impacts are not present) or if there is appreciable harm that it is not the result of
the thermal component of the discharge.
The following section:demonstrates that the Pigeon River has all the attributes of a balanced
indigenous community. However, a reduced number of darters was noted downstream of the
mill. EA concluded that this reduction is not the result of the thermal component of the
discharge but rather due to a lack of recolonization sources downstream of the mill. In
addition, none of the indicators of appreciable harm normally associated with excessive
temperatures are found in the Pigeon River downstream of the mill. Even under worst case
conditions, a balanced community will persist and no appreciable harm would be expected.
3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF BALANCED COMMUNITIES
3.1.1 Fish
Temperature is a non-conservative substance that dissipates rapidly upon discharge due to
mixing with cooler water and heat loss to the atmosphere. Thus, temperatures will consistently
be warmest at the location closest to the discharge (i.e., Fiberville at RM 63) and decline
sequentially as one moves downstream (Appendix B). Because temperatures will be warmest
at RM 63, thermal impacts, should they occur, should be greatest at this location. If there are
no impacts at RM 63 where both the absolute temperature and the delta T are greatest, then no
impacts would be expected at the cooler downstream stations. However, changes or impacts at
RM 63 do not necessarily mean that they were caused by the thermal component of the
discharge. They could be caused by some other constituent of the discharge or by the poorer
habitat that is present at this location (see Sect. 4.5 in App A).
Table 3-1 lists several important characteristics of balanced communities and then briefly
summarizes how the Pigeon River fish community measures up relative to each attribute. As
3-1

Table 3-1. Characteristics of Balanced Fish Populations
Character Characteristics in the Pigeon River
Community moderately to highly diverse Richness in the most thermally affected zone
(i.e., species richness is mod-high) (Fiberville) is comparable to upstream of the
mill and better than the NC zones further
downstream
All trophic levels well represented Area downstream of the mill contains fair to
good populations representing all trophic
levels:
Herbivores - stonerollers
Omnivores - river chub, carp
Insectivores - whitetail shiner, redbreast
sunfish, N. hog sucker, and black
redhorse
Carnivores - smallmouth bass
Nuisance species not dominant NC has stated that no nuisance species are
present
Community is not dominated by thermally Although a few thermally tolerant species are
tolerant species present (e.g., carp, largemouth bass, channel
catfish), collectively none are dominant
Expected species are present and in the Expected species are present and except for
appropriate relative abundance darters are present in expected proportions
RIS can reproduce sufficiently to maintain Again, except for darters, RIS are maintaining
their populations their populations. Darter numbers
downstream of the mill, though low, are
increasing.
Individuals in good physical condition Growth is good to excellent as exemplified by
high K and Wr values. DELT (Deformities,
Erosion, Lesions and Tumors) anomalies are
somewhat elevated but this is not likely a
result of elevated temperatures.
3-2

indicated in Table 3-1, balanced communities typically possess moderate to high diversity (i.e.,
species richness). Species richness at RM 63 and RM 61, the two warmest locations, was 19
and 20 species, respectively, essentially identical to species richness at RM 64.5 upstream of
the mill where 20 species were found. Balanced fish communities also are represented by all
trophic (feeding) levels. An abundance of omnivores is often an indication that the community
may not be balanced (Ohio EPA 1987) but this was not the case in the Pigeon River.
Similarly, the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) contains a metric that scores sites
lower if a predominance of omnivores is present. In fact, the area immediately downstream of
the mill showed a good balance among the trophic levels.
Herbivores Omnivores Insectivores Top Carnivores
Central stoneroller River chub Whitetail shiner Smallmouth bass
Common carp N. hog sucker Largemouth bass
Black redhorse
Redbreast sunfish
Furthermore, all North Carolina locations downstream of the mill received the maximum
possible score for the metric that rates the percentage of omnivores present.
Another characteristic of balanced communities is that they are not dominated by nuisance
species. North Carolina has already indicated that no nuisance species are present in the
Pigeon River (DWQ, memo dated 17 March 2000). Similarly, balanced communities are not
dominated by thermally tolerant species such as goldfish, common carp, catfishes, or golden
shiner. Thermally tolerant species are present downstream of the mill but they do not
dominate the community at any location. For example, common carp account for only 1 to 7%
of individuals downstream of the mill, depending on location.
A healthy community is self sustaining as evidenced by good numbers of YOY (young-of-the-
year) specimens. This indicator is measured by a metric in the NC IBI which considers the
percentage of species represented by multiple size (age) classes. North Carolina sites
downstream of the mill have consistently scored a 5 (the best possible score) during the two
most recent studies (EA 1996, App. A). Clearly, reproduction is not a problem in the Pigeon
River.
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 condition (K factors or relative weight
W,) or by looking for evidence of deformities or anomalies. Collectively, K value results
indicate that (1) the condition of common carp, northern hog sucker, rock bass, smallmouth
bass, redbreast sunfish, green 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 generally is comparable to or better than in specimens
collected upstream of the mill (App. A).
3-3

Iy W, values for common carp downstream of the mill were only slightly lower than the target
I� value of 100. Conversely, W, values for redbreast sunfish were above 100 throughout the
study area with the highest values occurring downstream of the mill. W,values for rock bass
were below the optimum value throughout the study area and values upstream and downstream
Il of the mill were nearly identical. Smallmouth bass also had W,values below the target value
J of 100 but like rock bass, values upstream and downstream of the mill were very similar (App.
A). Thus, as judged by both K factors and W,values, growth offish in the thermally affected
I� portion of the river is comparable to that upstream of the mill.
One of the metrics that the NC IBI measures is the percentage of diseased fish. Elevated
percentages of disease were apparent at some stations downstream of the mill (App A).
However, the two warmest stations (i.e., RM 63 and 61) did not show this elevation. In fact,
both stations received the highest possible score for this metric. Thus, whatever caused or
contributed to the elevated percentages further down river was not temperature. In 1995, the
Health Assessment Index (HAI) was used to assess the health of redbreast sunfish in the Pigeon
I� River. The HAI is a more sophisticated system of measuring fish health that includes both
internal and external examination of specimens as well as measurement of selected blood
parameters. EA (1996) found that HAI scores upstream and downstream of the mill were
IJ comparable. Thus, as measured by growth, disease, and overall health there is no indication
of any adverse impacts from the mill's thermal discharge.
IJ Although not identified on Table 3-1, a reasonable measure of community health is the Index
of Biotic Integrity. North Carolina has developed a state-specific version of the IBI (DEHNR
1997). EA used the NC IBI to assess community health in the Pigeon River in 1995 (EA
IJ1996). The state has since concluded that application of the NC IBI in rivers the size of the
J Pigeon River is problematic (DWQ, personal communication). Nonetheless, whatever biases
or inaccuracies it may have should still allow it to be used to look for spatial trends or compare
�J adjacent areas (e.g., upstream vs. downstream of the mill). When such comparisons are made,
l IBI values do not indicate any adverse impact from the thermal input. IBI values from RM 59
to 42.6 are somewhat lower than values upstream of the mill (App A). Importantly, however,
LJ IBI values at RM 63 and 61, the two warmest locations, are similar to values upstream of the
u mill. This pattern is the reverse of what should occur if temperature was a driving factor for
I� IBI values downstream of the mill.
Relative Abundance
l] In balanced populations, a.variety of species and trophic levels should be present and the
community should not be dominated by thermally tolerant species. Thus, relative abundance
should be similar to what would be expected in thermally unimpacted streams. This study
(App. A) and the 1995 study (EA 1996) demonstrate that, with the exception of darters,
relative abundance of fishes in the Pigeon River generally follows expected trends. However,
IJ darters, though present downstream of the mill, are found only in small numbers. Two
questions need to be addressed... Was the previous near absence of darters (EA 1987, 1996)
the result of thermal impacts and will the thermal limits currently in place, if continued,
Il prevent reestablishment of darter populations?
I� 3-4

enrichment, and habitat modification). As such, discerning thermal effects from a benthic
community experiencing multiple stressors can be problematic. Table 3-2 lists several
important characteristics of balanced communities and then briefly summarizes how the Pigeon
River benthic macroinvertebrate community compares relative to each attribute.
A balanced macroinvertebrate community should have moderate to high taxa richness.
Although taxa richness at RM 63 was lower in the 2000 study than that found upstream of the
mill at RM 64.5, virtually all of the major groups and several taxa found upstream were also
represented downstream and richness remained moderately high.
A longitudinal shift in composition among the different trophic groups often indicates a change
in stream morphometry or the existence of a negative upstream influence. In the Pigeon River,
although the river continues to change through its downstream course, there do not appear to
be any sudden or appreciable changes in trophic composition from upstream to downstream of
the Canton mill. Of the five major functional feeding groups observed upstream of the mill,
all are well represented at Fiberville.
Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities with one or a few taxa considerably more dominant
than the rest are typically stressed. Therefore, if thermal loading negatively influenced a
stream, it would be expected that only a few taxa tolerant of higher water temperatures would
be abundant, while the more sensitive taxa would be less abundant. As stated above, the
thermal tolerances of most benthic macroinvertebrate taxa are poorly understood. However,
some taxa, such as several Oligochaeta (aquatic worms) species, some species of the midge
Chironomus, and some species of the snail Physella are considered to be tolerant of a wide
range of perturbations and are potentially tolerant of higher water temperatures. Of these three
taxa, none was dominant downstream of the mill during 2000.
Although the definition of a balanced community does not require the downstream community
to be identical to that of areas upstream of a thermal influence, certain expectations as to the
composition and abundance of the community should be met. Compared to the area upstream
of the Canton Mill, certain Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera species are either absent or less
abundant downstream of the mill. However, it is unclear whether these taxa are absent due to
thermal or other factors. And even though these two groups are reduced downstream of the
mill, both are still reasonably well represented.
In 1984, the benthic community at RM 55.5 on the Pigeon River (7.5 miles downstream of
Fiberville) was classified as "Poor" by the DEHNR (DEHNR unpublished data). By 1992,
this same site had attained a "Fair" classification (DEHNR unpublished data) and in 2000, RM
55.5 was rated "Good-Fair" (App. A). Likewise, Fiberville improved from "Poor" in 1987
(EA 1988) to "Fair" in 1995 (EA 1996). Although this site continues to attain a "Fair" rating
(App. A), dramatic improvements have taken place since the thermal variance was issued due,
in part to process changes and wastewater treatment improvements at the mill. For example,
between 1987 and 1995, Physella and Oligochaeta densities (taxa that are generally pollution
and temperature tolerant) decreased by 98% (EA 1996). Although quantitative samples were
3-6

Table 3-2. Characteristics of Balanced Macroinvertebrate Populations
Character Characteristics in the Pigeon River
Community moderately to highly diverse Richness in the thermally affected zones,
(i.e., taxa richness is mod-high) though lower than upstream of the mill, is
moderate
All trophic levels well represented Area downstream of the mill contains fair to
good populations representing all major
trophic levels:
Collector-Gatherers -Acentrella and other
Baetidae
Filtering Collectors - Isonychia,
Rheotanytarsus, and Tanytarsus
Shredders - Caecidotea, Pteronarcys,
Pycnopsyche, and Lepidostoma
Scrapers - Stenonetna, Leucotrichia
pictipes, and Psephenus herricki
Predators - Odonata, Acroneuria
abnormis, and Corydalus cornutus
Community is not dominated by thermally Tolerant taxa (e.g., several Olgochaeta taxa,
tolerant taxa Chironomus, and Physella) are present, but
do not dominate the benthic community
Expected taxa are present and in the While many taxa are present and the number
appropriate relative abundance of taxa have increased since 1995, several
taxa, primarily ephemeropteran and
trichopteran taxa, are either absent or less
abundant downstream of the mill; however, it
is unclear whether the taxa are absent due to
thermal or other factors.
3-7

not collected in 2000, the abundance of these taxa appears to have continued to decline (App.
A). In addition, during the 1987 collections, six Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera
(EPT) taxa were collected qualitatively downstream of the mill (EA 1988). In the two studies
since then, a combined total of 19 EPT taxa have been observed (EA 1996, App. A). As with
EPT richness, total taxa richness has more than tripled since 1987 and NCBI scores have
continued to decrease (improve) downstream of the mill (EA 1988, 1996, App. A). If water
temperatures below the mill were adversely affecting the benthic community, recovery of this
kind and magnitude would be unlikely.
If thermal loading were the principal cause for the benthic community differences upstream
and downstream of the mill, a similar response would be expected under similar conditions in
other streams. Based on extensive studies of other rivers (Ohio EPA 1989; Reash 1991; Lewis
et al. 1997), it has been demonstrated that balanced benthic communities are able to persist
despite the presence of water temperatures similar to or higher than those observed in the
Pigeon River below the Canton Mill.
Improvements observed in the Pigeon River demonstrate that the thermal loading associated
with operations at the Canton Mill is not inhibiting recovery of the benthic macroinvertebrate
community. Based upon the observed recovery and studies of the other rivers (Ohio EPA
1989; Reash 1991; Lewis et al. 1997), EA concludes that the current thermal regime does not
prevent the establishment of a balanced macroinvertebrate community downstream of the mill.
3.2 INDICATORS OF APPRECIABLE HARM
An alternative approach to defining what constitutes a balanced, indigenous community is to
look at factors that indicate appreciable harm. The presence of several such factors, assuming
they were the result of the thermal component of the discharge, would suggest the community
is not balanced. This is the approach followed in a Type I 316(a) Demonstration: Absence of
Prior Appreciable Harm. Ohio EPA (1978) has established a series of indicators of
appreciable harm that is summarized in Table 3-3. These indicators were developed primarily
to assess harm to the fish community, but where appropriate, impacts to aquatic
macroinvertebrates are also discussed.
Blockage of Migratory Routes
There are no truly migratory fish species in the Pigeon River, so this is not a significant issue.
Black redhorse and northern hogsucker sometimes move short distances to spawning areas, and
therefore might be adversely affected if these short distance movements were disrupted.
However, the fact that both species maintain good populations upstream as well as downstream
of the mill (App. A) indicates that there is no significant interference with movements of these
species.
3-8

Table 3-3. Potential Indicators of Appreciable Harm Caused by Thermal Discharges (after Ohio EPA 1978)
Indicator Situation in the Pigeon River
Blockage of migratory routes or interference with normal No evidence of such interference. The species that are most
movements of representative species migratory in nature (N. hog sucker and black redhorse) are
common both upstream and downstream of the mill.
Failure of representative species to reproduce in numbers Historical data are not available. However, all RIS except for
sufficient to maintain previous levels of abundance as evidenced darters maintain fair to good populations downstream of the
by a decreased abundance of formerly abundant species. mill.
Poor growth or condition of representative species Condition factors and relative weights are good.
Increased vulnerability of a representative species to predation No evidence that either of these adverse impacts are occurring.
or disease.
Decrease in numbers of a given species due to the competitive Again, there is no evidence that this is occurring. Furthermore,
advantage afforded a competitor by the effects of the stress shifts in community abundance are acceptable so long as the
being exerted that would otherwise not have existed. community remains balanced.
Failure of an unbalanced population or community to recover Thirty to 40 years ago the fish community of the Pigeon River
with the abatement of previously limiting non-thermal water was poor. However, all parties studying the river agree that it
quality conditions. has improved substantially in the last 10-15 years.
Long-term avoidance of a thermally impacted area by a Except for darters, which are present but not abundant, RIS are
representative species. common in the most thermally affected portion of the river.
Simplification of a community (i.e., loss of diversity) resulting Species richness in the warmest part of the river is higher than
from the absence or reduced abundance of expected species. in the cooler sections further downstream.
Expected species not present in numerical proportions to each Most thermally tolerant species (e.g., channel catfish,
other because of community domination by thermally tolerant largemouth bass, and carp) are uncommon and do not dominate
species. the community.
Dominance of the community by thermally tolerant species As indicated above, thermally tolerant species are not overly
which establish themselves at the expense of endemics. common in the Pigeon River.
Simplification of community trophic structure resulting from the All trophic levels are well represented (see above) and species
absence or reduced abundance of expected species. richness is highest in the zone with the highest water
temperature.

Poor Reproduction
Except for darters, all RIS maintain fair to good populations downstream of the mill.
Furthermore, the high downstream scores in the NCIBI metric based on multiple year classes
indicate that good reproduction occurs over a broad range of species (i.e., RIS and Non-RIS).
Poor Growth or Condition of RIS
Condition factors (K values) and relative weight (W,) values are good downstream of the mill
for most species (App. A) and in the few cases where downstream values are low, they are still
comparable to those upstream of the mill. In other words, whatever is causing the lower
values is a riverwide phenomenon and not related to mill operations.
Increased Vulnerability to Predation or Disease
Increased vulnerability of RIS to predation would lead to either the elimination of vulnerable
RIS or significant changes in the relative abundance of these species. Except for darters, RIS
maintain good populations downstream of the mill and, again with the exception of darters, the
relative abundance of these RIS is within expected ranges. There is no evidence that the low
numbers of darters downstream of the mill is related to increased predation.
The percentage of diseased individuals is somewhat elevated downstream of the mill.
However, percentages are not elevated at RM 63 or RM 61, the locations closest to the mill
and thus the warmest. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the elevated incidence of diseased
individuals downstream of the mill is not thermally related.
Competitive Advantages to Certain Species
In a thermally stressful situation, a species that is thermally tolerant presumably would have a
competitive advantage over a more thermally sensitive species. This could lead to excessive
dominance of the community by a few thermally tolerant species. As discussed below and
elsewhere, this has not been the case in the Pigeon River. It is true that some thermally
tolerant species (e.g., redbreast sunfish and common carp) are more abundant downstream of
the mill. However, in these situations there is an enhancement of the population of these
species but not at the expense of their competitors. For example, a decrease in water
temperatures downstream of the mill might result in a decline in the abundance of common
carp. However, it is not likely that any species would increase substantially in response to the
decline in carp. In other words, the slightly higher abundance of carp downstream is not
suppressing any competing species.
Failure of Unbalanced Communities to Recover
Forty years ago the fish community of the Pigeon River was very poor (Messer 1964).
However, both the fish and macroinvertebrate communities have improved substantially in the
last 10-15 years (EA 1988, 1996, App. A, and J. Burr unpublished data). These
3-10

improvements have included greater numbers of individuals, greater species richness,
reductions in pollution tolerant macroinvertebrates, and better communities as measured by the
BI and IBI. These improvements would not have occurred if the thermal limits currently in
place were affecting populations or communities substantially.
Long Term Avoidance by RIS
As noted in Sections 3.1 and 3.3 of this document, RIS species, except for darters, are
reasonably common downstream of the mill. The low numbers of darters downstream of the
mill is likely due to a combination of factors including a lack of colonization sources. During
certain periods, there certainly will be avoidance of the discharge by some fishes. However,
this avoidance will be short term rather than long term as evidenced by high species richness in
the area immediately downstream of the mill (i.e., RM 63).
Simplification Due to a Loss of Expected Species
Species richness in the warmest part of the river (RM 63) is higher than in the cooler portions
of the river further downstream. If temperature was causing a reduction in diversity, one
would expect the opposite pattern to occur.
Community Dominated by Thermally Tolerant Species
With the exception of redbreast sunfish, thermally tolerant species are either rare (e.g.,
goldfish), uncommon (e.g., largemouth bass or channel catfish), or moderately common (e.g.,
carp). Redbreast sunfish is common to abundant, but generally does not dominate the
community. Furthermore, most citizens and anglers probably consider the presence of large
numbers of redbreast sunfish to be a positive attribute of the fish community rather than a
negative one. Finally, snails and aquatic earthworms, the macroinvertebrates most likely to be
thermally tolerant, have decreased substantially over the last decade, rather than increasing.
Because the community is not dominated by tolerant species, other species generally occur in
expected proportions.
Dominance by Thermally Tolerant Species
As discussed above, most thermally tolerant species are not overly abundant in the Pigeon
River and the abundance of some of these species has declined substantially since the variance
was put into effect.
Simplification of Trophic Structure
As described in Section 3.1, all trophic levels for both fish and macroinvertebrates are well
represented in the Pigeon River. The percentage of omnivores in the Pigeon River is low and
the abundance of smallmouth bass, a top predator, has increased in the river. These are clear
signs that trophic structure has not been overly simplified.
3-11

Therefore, EA concludes that there is no appreciable harm due to the thermal component of the
discharge.
3.3 Representative Important Species
In a standard Type lI Demonstration (RIS Predictive), the thermal tolerances (known or
estimated) of several RIS are compared to predicted temperature regimes. At Canton, Blue
Ridge Paper's mill has been operating under the thermal variance for 17 years. Thus, one
does not need to rely on predictions of what might or might not happen. Instead, EA has
looked at how each of the RIS has fared over the past decade and a half.
Species chosen to be Representative Important Species (RIS) are typically either ecologically
important (e.g., common to abundant species or a top predator), recreationally or
commercially important (e.g., gamefish), or threatened or endangered species (US EPA 1977).
Based on these criteria, EA designated the following nine species or groups as RIS:
Common carp Rock bass
Whitetail shiner Redbreast sunfish
Central stoneroller Smallmouth bass
Northern hog sucker Darters
Black redhorse
This list represents more than a third of the species known from the North Carolina portion of
the river. Common carp was chosen as it is thermally tolerant and has the potential to become
a nuisance species. Central stoneroller is the only herbivorous fish in the river and occupies a
unique place in the trophic structure. Whitetail shiner is a widespread representative of the
minnow family. Northern hogsucker and black redhorse are bottom-feeding insectivores and
are generally considered to be thermally sensitive. Rock bass and redbreast sunfish represent
two important pool-dwelling panfish species popular with many anglers. Smallmouth bass is
the most common gamefish in the river and is very popular among anglers. Darters are a
diverse group of bottom-dwelling insectivores that can be common in eastern Tennessee and
western North Carolina. The thermal tolerance of most darters is unknown, but they represent
an important ecological link in streams like the Pigeon River. In this section, EA considers
how the various RIS will or have fared under a variety of temperature regimes, particularly
during late summer (July and August) when temperatures are wannest. As a point of
reference, water temperatures at Fiberville (RM 63) were as high as,31 °C during the 2000
biological studies (App. A).
In the section that follows (3.4), EA considers whether impacts might occur under worst case
thermal conditions. It is important to recognize that Blue Ridge is only asking for a
continuation of the status quo, that is to keep in place the variance that was approved in 1984.
In fact, the fish community downstream of the mill has already been exposed to worst case
conditions as instream temperatures prior to 1993 were noticeably higher than they have been
3-12

since 1993 due to reductions in effluent volume that resulted from the Canton Modernization
Project.
Common carp
The common carp is a thermally tolerant species. It has been collected in the field at
temperatures ranging from 33 to 39.5 °C (EPRI 1981). Optimal temperatures are reported to
be 33-35 °C (Gammon 1973), and its upper lethal temperature has been reported as ranging
from 36-40 °C (EPRI 1981). It is moderately common downstream of the mill but not
excessively so (EA 1996, App. A). The state has already stated that common carp is not a
nuisance species in the Pigeon River (memo from Bryn Tracy dated 17 March 2000).
Central stoneroller
Relatively little thermal tolerance data is available for this species. Cherry et al. (1977)
reported that it could survive for at least seven days at 31 °C, that it preferred temperatures of
27-29 °C but avoided a temperature of 33 °C. In field studies in Virginia, it was collected at
temperatures as high as 34.3 °C but preferred temperatures in the mid 20s (Stauffer et al.
1976). In 1995, it was common to abundant at all downstream Pigeon River stations except
Fiberville (EA 1996). In 2000, it was common to abundant at 5 of the 8 downstream North
Carolina stations (App. A). It was rare at the other three locations. There was no spatial
pattern for the three stations where it was rare. Under extreme temperature conditions, this
species will probably avoid the near field area below the mill during the summer. However,
such avoidance will be temporary and no long-term impacts at the population level would be
expected.
Whitetail shiner
No laboratory data are available for this species. However, other members of this genus are
quite temperature tolerant (Cherry et al. 1977, Mathews and Hill 1979). For example, spotfin
shiners (Cyprinella s ilo tera suffered no mortality when held at 36 °C for 7 days (Cherry et
al. 1977). Mathews and Maness (1979) reported the Critical Thermal Maximum (CTM) of the
red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) to be 39.0 °C. Field collections in Virginia found whitetail
shiners at temperatures as high as 35 °C (Stauffer et al. 1976). In 1995, whitetail shiner was
common in the Pigeon River at most locations downstream of the mill except at Fiberville
where only two were collected (EA 1996). In 2000, it was moderately common at all
downstream stations except Hepco (RM 42.6) where only three were collected (Appendix A).
Given the high thermal tolerance of other members of this genus and the success of the
whitetail shiner downstream of the mill, there is no evidence of any thermally-related long-
term impacts to this species.
3-13

Northern Hog Sucker
Cherry et al. (1977) reported that this species suffered no mortality when exposed for 7 days to
a temperature of 33 °C, but that fish died at 34 'C. Stauffer et al. (1976) collected specimens
from the New River in Virginia at temperatures as high as 35 °C. Stauffer et al. (1976)
reported a preferred field temperature of 26.6 to 27.7 °C, which agrees well with the lab-
determined final preferendum of 27.9 °C reported by Cherry et al. (1977). In both 1995 and
2000, northern hog suckers were common to abundant throughout the Pigeon River study area
(EA 1996 and App. A). Based on its temperature tolerance as reported in the literature and its
current widespread occurrence in the study area, EA sees no threat to this species from the
mill's thermal discharge.
Black redhorse
No thermal tolerance data are available for this species. Although redhorse are often
considered to be thermally sensitive (Gammon 1976, Simon 1992), these considerations were
based on limited field observations. Tolerance data on redhorse is sparse. In a recent paper,
Walsh et al. (in press) reported CTM temperatures of 34.9 and 37.2 °C for robust redhorse
(Moxostoma robustum acclimated to 20 and 30 °C, respectively. Results from recent thermal
bioassays (Reash et al. 2000) indicate that CTMs for golden redhorse (M. er thurum and
shorthead redhorse I11. macrolepidotum) are about 35 'C. Thus, redhorse appear to be more
thermally tolerant than generally thought. In 1995, black redhorse were uncommon upstream
of the Canton Mill and immediately below it at Fiberville, and absent or rare elsewhere in the
North Carolina portion of the study area (EA 1996). This distribution is not consistent with a
response to thermal conditions. In 2000, black redhorse were abundant upstream of the mill,
common at Fiberville, the warmest station, and rare to uncommon at the stations further
downstream (App. A). If its distribution were thermally related, one would expect it to be
least abundant at Fiberville and more abundant further downstream, not the other way around.
Although some avoidance of the near field area is likely under extreme conditions, EA believes
there is no threat to the long term well being of this species at the thermal limits now in effect.
Rock bass
Cherry et al. (1977) reported that rock bass could be acclimated to a temperature of 36 °C but
died at 37 0C. Reutter and Herdendorf (1976) reported a CTM of 36 °C for rock bass.
Cherry et al. (1977) reported that juvenile rock bass preferred temperatures of 27.3 to 30.6 °C
and that avoidance occurred at 27-36 °C depending on acclimation temperature. In 1995, rock
bass were abundant upstream of the mill and uncommon to common downstream of it (EA
1996). This pattern was repeated in 2000 (App. A). Although their abundance is lower
downstream of the mill, this reduction does not appear to be thermally related. Downstream of
the mill, rock bass are most common at the two stations closest (and therefore warmest) to the
mill and less abundant at the stations further away which also would be cooler. Also, its
abundance at the downstream North Carolina stations was comparable to its abundance in
- Tennessee at Station RM 19.3 where temperature clearly is not an issue. The reason(s) for the
3-14

lower abundance at several North Carolina and Tennessee downstream sites may be less
favorable habitat (mostly bedrock) throughout much of the area and perhaps competition with
redbreast sunfish in the North Carolina portion of the study area. Regardless of the reason(s),
the distribution pattern does not appear to be thermally related and therefore no threat to this
species is apparent.
Redbreast sunfish
The redbreast sunfish is thermally tolerant. Trembley (1960), as cited by Brown 1976,
reported an upper lethal temperature of 38.3 °C for this species when it was acclimated to 21
'C. In the field, it has been reported at temperatures as high as 39.2 °C (EPRI 1981). In both
1995 and 2000, redbreast sunfish were more abundant downstream of the mill except in
Tennessee (EA 1996 and App. A). Its greater abundance downstream of the mill is likely due
to its thermophilic nature. In any case, given its high thermal tolerance and its high
downstream abundance under current permit conditions, no adverse impacts are predicted for
this species if the existing thermal variance is continued. Since this is a popular species with
anglers, it is expected that most people would view its increased abundance downstream of the
mill as a positive rather than an adverse impact.
Smallmouth bass
Cherry et al. (1977) found that juvenile smallmouth bass could survive 35 °C for seven
consecutive days. The upper limit for smallmouth bass fry is 38 °C (Brungs and Jones 1977).
Wrenn (1980) considered the upper lethal temperature to be 37 °C and the MWAT
temperature to be 35 °C. Furthermore, optimal temperatures for growth are in the high 20's
or low 30's (Brungs and Jones 1977, Wrenn 1980) and preferred temperatures at summertime
acclimation temperatures (i.e., 24-33 IQ are 28-32 °C (Reynolds and Casterlin 1976, Cherry
et al. 1977). Thus, a maximum temperature of 32 °C 0.4 mi downstream of the mill during
the summer would not be expected to impact smallmouth bass adversely, especially since such
temperatures occur only rarely. In 1995, smallmouth bass abundance was uniformly low
throughout the North Carolina portion of the study area (EA 1996). However, in 2000,
catches of smallmouth bass were considerably higher at all locations (App. A) indicating that
conditions for this species continue to improve. In 2000, smallmouth bass were least abundant
at the Fiberville Station (App. A). Even if the lower numbers in 2000 at Fiberville were due
to temporary thermal avoidance, the large increases in catches elsewhere compared to 1995
indicate that the population of this species is doing well.
Darters
Because darters are such a diverse group (> 150 described species), they would be expected to
exhibit a fairly wide range of temperature tolerances. In 1995 and 2000, three species of
darters (Etheostoma blennioides ug tselli, E. chlorobranchium, and Percina aurantiaca) were
common upstream of the mill. In 2000, these three species were all collected downstream of
the mill; E. b_. ug tselli, though widely distributed downstream of the mill, was rare to
uncommon (App. A); E. chlorobranchium and Percina aurantica were rare downstream of the
3-15

mill. The exact temperature tolerance is not known for any of these species. Etheostoma b.
ug tselli and E. chlorobranchium are largely restricted to the Blue Ridge physiographic province
so it is reasonable to assume that they are coolwater forms. In the New River in Virginia, the
closely related E. blennioides has been collected at temperatures as high as 35 °C (Stauffer et
al. 1976). However, their preferred temperature appears to be considerably lower. In one
year, Stauffer et al. (1976) found peak numbers of E. blennioides at 26.6-27.2 °C, while in
another year no correlation between temperature and numerical abundance was observed
though abundance peaks were noted at 20.6, 26.7, and 35 °C. Kowalski et al. (1978) reported
a CTM temperature of 32.2 °C for Etheostoma blennioides acclimated to 15 'C. CTMs would
presumably be higher at higher acclimation temperatures.
Four species of darters LE. blennioides newmani, E. rufilineatum, E. simoterum, and Percina
ca rodes are common to abundant in the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River mainstem.
Temperatures in the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River are not dramatically different than
those in the lower portion of the North Carolina segment (i.e., in the thermal far field). The
presence of darters downstream in Tennessee but not in North Carolina suggests that
temperatures in the North Carolina portion of the mainstem are suitable for many darter
species (see Section 3.1.1) and other factors are preventing reestablishment of the darter fauna
in the North Carolina portion of the mainstem. Slightly warmer than preferred temperatures
probably will limit the rate of recolonization in this area by the coolwater darters (i.e., E.
blennioides ug tselli and E. chlorobranchium) and possibly Percina aurantiaca. However,
increased numbers of E. b. ug tselli downstream of the mill in 2000 indicate that this species is
recolonizing the river (App. A). Normally, darters with slightly higher temperature tolerances
would move into the area to replace coolwater forms. However, in the North Carolina portion
of the mainstem downstream of the mill sources for such forms are absent. The area upstream
of the mill is inhabited only by the two coolwater forms plus P. aurantiaca whose thermal
tolerance is unknown. The North Carolina tributaries of the Pigeon harbor only the two
coolwater forms. Upstream movement from Tennessee is prevented by Walters dam; thus the
more thermally tolerant darters present in the Tennessee portion of the study area cannot get
into the North Carolina portion of the mainstem. In Section 3.1.1, it was demonstrated that a
good darter fauna is possible at summertime temperatures comparable to or even higher than in
the Pigeon River downstream of the Canton mill.
Continuation of the current thermal limits for the mill probably may prevent or retard
establishment of E. chlorobranchium and perhaps P. aurantiaca from the North Carolina
portion of the mainstem. E. ug tselli is already recolonizing this area (App. A) and its
abundance should continue to increase. The abundance of the coolwater species would be
expected to decline naturally as one proceeds downstream out of the Blue Ridge Province, with
their place being taken by somewhat more temperature tolerant darters (EA 1996). However,
with Walters dam blocking upstream movement, darter density downstream of the mill is likely
to remain low.
In summary, several RIS (e.g., common carp and redbreast sunfish) will not be impacted even
during worst case thermal conditions. Several RIS will likely avoid the near field area for a
moderate period (perhaps a few weeks) under worst case conditions and avoid it short periods
3-16

of the time (hours or days) during normal summer low flow/high temperature periods.
Avoidance during the summer and attraction during the winter is not a problem unless the
period of avoidance is long (i.e., months), fish are forced to leave the crucial spawning areas,
or migratory movements are blocked. EA does not anticipate any of these impacts occurring
and thus does not view avoidance as appreciable harm nor an impediment to a balanced
community. The fact that most of the RIS maintain good populations downstream of the mill is
a clear indication that whatever avoidance may occur does not rise to the level of "appreciable
harm".
Among the RIS, darters are the only one conspicuously reduced downstream of the mill. The
improvements to both water quality and the biota documented in 1995 (EA 1996) and 2000
(App. A) should allow some darters to recolonize the area downstream of the mill. The 2000
data (App. A) bear this out as greenside darters were collected at seven of the eight
downstream North Carolina stations. However, it is possible that Etheostoma chlorobranchium
and, perhaps P. aurantiaca will not establish large populations in the area. Thus, the thermal
input from the mill will accelerate the natural transition from Blue Ridge darters to somewhat
more temperature tolerant Ridge and Valley darters (EA 1996). Normally, the Blue Ridge
forms would be replaced by Ridge and Valley forms and a thriving darter community would be
reestablished. The increased numbers of E. utg selli downstream of the mill in 2000 indicate
that the habitat and water quality will support darters. However, Walters dam prevents
invasion of the area by the more temperature tolerant Ridge and Valley darters in the Pigeon
River.
With regard to RIS, it is important to note that species that are at least somewhat thermally
sensitive (e.g., black redhorse, greenside darter utselli form], northern hogsucker) have
either maintained their levels in the river or increased noticeably compared to 1995. Similarly,
smallmouth bass numbers in 2000 were considerably higher than in earlier years. These
improvements would not have occurred if temperature was a significant limiting factor.
-- Finally, numbers of RIS and other species are as good or better at Fiberville, the warmest
station, as they are at the cooler downstream stations. Again, this would not be the spatial
pattern that would occur if temperature was a significant limiting factor.
3.4 WORST CASE ASSESSMENT
As a result of the Canton Modernization Project (CMP), mean water temperatures at Fiberville
during July and August 1994-2000 averaged 2.5-3.5 °C cooler compared to the previous 11
year period:
Monthly Average Temperature (IC) at Fiberville
Years July August
1983-87, 1991-93 29.5 (25.4-34.9) 28.5 (22.6-34.5)
1994-2000 26.0 (24.2-28.3) 26.0 (21.9-29.3)
3-17

Thus, actual temperatures from the mid-80's through 1993 were higher than would occur now
under even worst case conditions now that the effluent flow and temperature have been reduced
as a result of the CMP.
Compilation of post-CMP instream data from Fiberville indicated that the mean water
temperatures during the 2000 biological studies were higher than normal:
Mean Monthly
Temperature (°C)
Year July August
1994 24.5 21.9
1995 26.5 25.3
1996 26.7 24.7
1997 24.2 25.7
1998 28.3 28.6
1999 24.6 29.3
2000 27.4 26.5
Mean 26.0 26.0
The mean temperature of 27.4 °C during July 2000 is the second highest during the post-CMP
era. Similarly, the mean August 2000 temperature of 26.5 °C was the third highest during the
post-CMP period. Based on the above analysis, July and August water temperatures in 2000
were warmer than normal and thus provide considerable insight into what would be expected
during worst case conditions.
For the post-CMP period, August 1999 was warmest over this eight-year period with a mean
water temperature of 29.3 °C at Fiberville. During the period 9-11 August 1999, biological
sampling was conducted at RM 64.5, 63, 61, and 59 (App. Q. Thus, recent data are available
for near worst case summertime conditions. The 1999 Fiberville fish data were very similar to
those collected in 1995 as measured by both species richness and NCIBI scores, and only
slightly poorer than in 2000:
2000
1995 1999 July August
Species Richness 12 13 14 18
NCIBI Score 46 48 50 52
An analysis of the August 1999 Fiberville benthic data revealed a similar pattern:
2000
1995 1999 July August
Species Richness 46 63 53 67
EPT Taxa 9 12 10 11
NCBI Score 6.73 6.71 6.94 6.62
3-18

In fact, the benthic community at Fiberville during August of 1999 was slightly better than in
1995 as judged by higher numbers of both total taxa and EPT taxa.
Thus, both the fish and macroinvertebrate data collected during August 1999, the warmest
August during the post-CMP era, are essentially identical to those collected during cooler
periods in 1995 and 2000.
Theoretically, water temperatures warmer than those measured during any of the recent
biological surveys (i.e., 1995, 1999, or 2000) are possible. To determine what temperatures
would be expected during worst case conditions, a model was run based on actual river flows,
air temperatures, upstream river temperatures, and mill discharge flows for the period 1983-
1999. Mill discharge flows for the period 1983-1993 were adjusted to account for the fact that
discharge volume is now approximately 40% less than during this earlier period. These data
were used to predict Maximum Weekly Average Temperatures (MWAT). MWAT are
frequently used to assess thermal impacts (Brungs and Jones 1977). This analysis shows that
MWAT of 30-31 at Fiberville would only occur 5% of the time (Table 3-4). These
temperatures are only slightly warmer than the daily values measured during the 2000 study.
Under theoretical worst case MWAT conditions, EA predicts that some additional avoidance of
the immediate discharge area by some of the more thermally sensitive fishes (e.g., central
stoneroller, rock bass, and, perhaps others) would occur. However, by definition, worst case
conditions would not last long and this short-term avoidance would not constitute appreciable
harm. A similar scenario is likely for the macroinvertebrate community. Thermally sensitive
aquatic insects would probably leave the area via the drift and there likely would be a
temporary decline in the quality of the benthic community. However, once these short-term
high temperatures subsided, the Fiberville benthic community would return to normal in a
fairly short period and no long-term impacts would be expected.
The fact that fish and benthic communities near Fiberville are demonstrably better now (1995-
2000) than they were during the pre-CMP era (EA 1988) when water temperatures were
occasionally in the low to mid-30's indicates that these communities can fully recover from the
temporary stress of worst case conditions. Because predicted worst case conditions during the
post-CMP period will be lower than temperatures actually observed during the pre-CMP
period, EA concludes that the Pigeon River fish and benthic communities would not suffer
appreciable harm or suffer any long term lack of balance even under worst case thermal
conditions.
i
I
i
3-19

Table 3-4. Frequency Distribution of Predicted Weekly Average Pigeon
River Temperatures, 1983-1999
Fiberville
Percentile Weekly Average Temperature (C)
(%) June July August September
5 17.3 22.4 20.5 19.4
10 18.5 23.6 21.6 20.3
20 20.8 24.5 23.3 21.4
30 21.3 24.8 24.5 21.9
40 22.2 25.5 25.6 23.4
50 22.6 26.5 27.4 24.6
60 23.5 27.4 28.0 25.5
70 23.9 28.1 28.7 26.0
80 24.9 29.0 29.1 27.6
90 26.6 30.1 29.7 28.8
95 28.1 30.8 30.2 31.0
99 29.6 31.6 30.4 32.9
Mean 22.7 26.6 26.3 24.5
Obser 73 76 75 73
Above Clyde
Percentile WeeklyAverage Tem erature (C)
M June Jul August September
5 17.6 22.1 20.7 18.8
10 18.6 23.3 21.3 19.9
20 20.5 24.0 22.8 20.6
30 21.3 24.4 23.8 21.1
40 21.8 25.3 24.7 21.8
50 22.3 25.8 25.6 22.2
60 23.0 26.1 26.1 23.5
70 23.7 26.7 26.3 24.1
80 24.4 27.3 26.9 24.8
90 26.1 27.8 27.4 25.6
95 26.6 28.6 27.7 26.0
99 27.8 31.0 28.3 27.3
Mean 22.4 25.6 24.9 22.6
Obser 73 76 75 73
i._ 3-20

4. SUMMARY
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.'s current NPDES permit requires completion of a
"balanced indigenous study" to support continuance of the current thermal variance.
Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the thermal variance
proposed (or in this case continued) will "assure the protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife".
Since the variance was issued in 1984, thermal loadings to the river have decreased
approximately 40%. Furthermore, as described below there is considerable empirical
evidence that the current thermal limits are protective. In comparison to 1987 when the
first intensive biological survey following the variance was conducted (EA 1988),
biological communities downstream of the Canton mill have improved considerably as
evidenced by the following:
FISH
• A roughly two-fold increase in species richness has occurred throughout the
downstream study area and an even larger increase in species richness has
occurred at RM 63, the wannest station
o At least a 10-fold increase in smallmouth bass numbers occurred between 1995
and 2000
• Increased numbers of darters (found at seven of the eight stations in 2000)
• Improved community structure as evidenced by improved IBI scores
6 Improved health of individual specimens as evidenced by:
(1) good condition (K) factors
(2) good relative weight(W) values
(3) similar HAI values upstream and downstream of the mill.
MACROINVERTEBRATES
• Improved species richness throughout the study area
• Improved numbers of EPT taxa
• Large reductions in pollution tolerant snails and aquatic earthworms
• Better community structure as evidenced by improved Biotic Index scores
4-1

PERIPHYTON
• Greater species richness
These substantial improvements would not have occurred if the limits contained in the
thermal variance granted in October 1984 were not protective of a balanced indigenous
community. Given the improvements that have occurred and the reduced thermal
loadings to the river as a result of the CMP, EA concludes that the protection of a
balanced indigenous population will be assured and therefore the thermal limits
established in 1984 should be continued.
h
1
I �
� 4-2

5. REFERENCES
Adams, S.M., A. Brown, and R. Goede. 1993. A quantitative health assessment index for
rapid evaluation of condition in the field. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 122:63-73.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI,
1052 p.
Brown, H.W. 1976. Handbook of the effects of temperature on some North American
fishes. American Electric Power Service Corp. Canton, OH.
Brungs, W. and B. Jones. 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and
procedures. USEPA Ecol. Res. Ser: EPA-600/3-77-061.
Cherry, D.S., K.L. Dickson, J. Cairns, Jr„ and J.R. Stauffer. 1977. Preferred, avoided, and
lethal temperatures of fish during rising temperature conditions. J. Fish Res. Board
Can. 34:239-246.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1987. Fish studies of the White River in
Indiana near the Frank E. Ratts Power Plant, June 1986-May 1987. EA Engineering,
Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, M.
.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.
1989. Fish studies on the Wabash River near the Breed Power Plant.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
1991. Conesville Generating Station Application for Renewal of the
Section 316(a) Variance for Units 1-3. Report Submitted to Ohio EPA. EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
1992. Fish studies of the White River in Indiana near the Frank E.
Ratts Power Plant, September 1991. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
Deerfield, IL.
1996. A study of the aquatic resources and water quality of the
Pigeon River. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
1997. 1995/1996 White River fish study. EA Engineering, Science,
and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
. 2000. 1998/1999 White River fish study. EA Engineering, Science,
and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
5-1

2000. Results of the 1999 biological survey of the Pigeon River. EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
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.
Eaton, J.G. and R.M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat
in streams of the United States. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41(5).
EG&G. 1983. Temperature evaluation of the Pigeon River downstream of Canton, North
Carolina for five representative fish species. EG&G. Watham, MA.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1981. Literature review: response of fish to
thermal discharges. EPRI, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. EPRI
EA-1840. Project 877. ORNL/EIS-193.
Etnier D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN.
Gammon, J.R. 1973. The effects of thermal inputs on the populations of fish and
macroinvertebrates in the Wabash River. Purdue Univ. Water Res. Research Center,
West Lafayette, IN. 105 pp.
1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the Middle Wabash
River. Tech. Rpt. No. 32. Water Resources Center, Purdue Univ. Lafayette, IN. 73
PP.
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.
Jenkins, R. and N. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. Am. Fish. Soc.
Bethesda, MD.
Kowalski, K.T., J.P. Schubauer, C.L. Scott, and J.R. Spotila. 1978. Interspecific and
seasonal differences in the temperature tolerance of stream fish. J. Thermal Biol.
3:105-108.
5-2

Lewis, R.B., R.K. Cox, J.E. Bonnell. 1989. Fish community analysis near the Cayuga
Generating Station, May-November 1988. PSI Energy, EPW-034, Plainfield, IN.
Lewis, R.B., R.A. Joseph, R.J. Berger. 1990. Fish community analysis near the Cayuga
Generating Station, May-November 1989. PSI Energy, EPW-036, Plainfield, IN.
Lewis, R.B., J.E. Pike, K.E. Richard. 1997. Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community
analysis near the Cayuga Generating Station, 1995. PSI Energy/Cinergy Corp., EPW-
060, Plainfield, IN.
Lewis, R.B., J.E. Pike, A.M. Edwards. 1998. Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate
community analysis near the Cayuga Generating Station, 1996. PSI Energy/Cinergy
Corp., EPW-062, Plainfield, IN.
Mathews, W.J. and L.G. Hill. 1979. Influence of physicochemical factors on habitat
selection by red shiners, Notropis lutrensis (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Copeia 1979:79-81.
Mathews, W. and J. Maness. 1979. Critical thermal maxima, oxygen tolerances and success
of cyprinid fishes in a southwestern river. Amer. Midl. Natur. 102:374-177.
Messer, J.B. 1964. Survey and Classification of the Pigeon River and Tributaries, North
Carolina. Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Job I-N, Project F-14-R.
NCWRC, Raleigh.
North Carolina Dept. Environmental Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). 1997.
Standard operating procedure for biological monitoring. January 1997. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
NUS Corporation. 1982. Canton treatment plant effluent study (to meet temperature
compliance at mile point 8.4 from the mill discharge). Pittsburgh, PA.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1978. Guidelines for the Submittal of
Demonstrations Pursuant to Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act and
Chapter 3745-1 of the Ohio Administrative Code. Ohio EPA, Division of Industrial
Wastewater, Columbus, OH.
. 1987. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Vol. II. Users
manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div. Water Quality
Planning and Assess., Ecological Assess. Sect., Columbus, OH.
. 1989. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Vol. III.
Standardized field and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate
communities. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assess., Surface Water Sect.,
Columbus, OH.
5-3

Reash, R.J. 1991. Fish, macroinvertebrates, and water quality studies near the Conesville
Generating Station, Summer-Fall, 1988. American Electric Power Service
Corporation, Environmental and Technical Assessment Division, Columbus, OH.
Reash, R.J., G.L. Seegert, W.L. Goodfellow. 2000. Experimentally-derived upper thermal
tolerances for redhorse suckers: revised 316(a) variance conditions at two generating
facilities in Ohio. Environmental Science & Policy 3(2000): 191496.
Reutter, J.M. and C.E. Herdendorf. 1976. Thermal discharge from a nuclear power plant:
predicted effects on Lake Erie fish. Ohio. J. Sci. 76:39-45.
Reynolds, W.W. and M.E. Casterlin. 1976. Thermal preferenda and behavioral
thermoregulation in three centrarchid fishes. Pages 185-190 in G.W. Esch and R.W.
McFarlane, eds. Thermal ecology II. Dept. of Energy Symposium Series (CONF-
75025), Nat. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.
Saylor, C.F., A. McKinney, and W. Schacher. 1993. Case study of the Pigeon River in the
Tennessee River drainage. TVA Biol. Rpt. 19. TVA, Norris, TN.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.
Bull. 184:1-966.
Seegert, G.L. and G. Finni. 1981. Breed Plant 316(a) Demonstration. WAPORA, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH.
Simon, T. 1992. Biological criteria development for large rivers with an emphasis on an
assessment of the White River drainage, Indiana. US EPA Rpt. EPA-905/R-92/006.
Stauffer J.R., K.L. Dickson, J. Cairns, Jr., and D.S. Cherry. 1976. The potential and
realized influences of temperature on the distribution of fishes in the New River, Glen
Lyn, Virginia. Wildlife Monographs. No. 50.
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.
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.
US EPA. 1974. 40 CFR Part 423; 39 Federal Register 8294 et seq.
1977. Interagency 316(a) technical guidance manual and guide for thermal
effects sections of nuclear facilities environmental impact statements. US EPA,
Washington, D.C.
5-4

Wrenn, W.B. 1980. Effects of elevated temperature on growth and survival of smallmouth
bass. Trans. Am. Fish. Sco. 109:167-625.
5-5

APPENDIX A
A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES
OF THE PIGEON RIVER DURING 2000

A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES
OF THE PIGEON RIVER DURING 2000
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.
Canton, North Carolina 28716
Prepared by:
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18
Deerfield, IL 60015
May 200I
EA Project 13715.02

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................ii
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................1-1
2. METHODS .......................................................................................2-1
2.1 Habitat Assessment .....................................................................2-1
2.2 Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Community Health...............................................2-4
2.2.1 Field Methods ..................................................................2-4
2.2.2 Laboratory Methods ...........................................................2-5
2.2.3 Data Analysis ....................................................................2-5
2.3 Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring Fish Community Health ........2-8
3. BENTHIC COMMUNITY .....................................................................3-1
3.1 Benthic Community Structure.........................................................3-7
3.2 Historical Comparisons .............................................................. 3-12
4. FISH COMMUNITY ...........................................................................4-1
4.1 Composition, Relative Abundance, and Distribution ..............................4-2
4.2 Condition Analysis.................................................................... 4-15
4.3 Biological Integrity ................................................................... 4-19
4.4 Life Stages and Spawning Activity ................................................. 4-26
4.5 Habitat Assessment ................................................................... 4-29
5. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA ................................................................5-1
6. REFERENCES...................................................................................6-1
Appendix A - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Raw Data, July and August 2000
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fish and macroinvertebrate studies were conducted in July and August 2000 following
NCDENR protocols to determine (1) the current quality of these communities near the Blue
Ridge Canton Mill and (2) whether thermal inputs from the mill disrupt or prevent balanced
indigenous communities of these organisms. The study covered a 45 mile reach of the Pigeon
River extending from RM 64.5 upstream of the mill to RM 19.3 in Tennessee. Eleven
mainstem sampling stations were established within this reach and three tributary locations
were sampled as well. Fish samples were collected exclusively by electrofishing (except for
seine samples at RM 19.3) and benthic samples were collected from specific habitats using
qualitative techniques developed by the state of North Carolina.
FISH
Sampling at the 11 mainstem stations resulted in the collection of about 10,000 fish
representing 46 species. The most commonly collected species were redbreast sunfish, central
stoneroller, northern hog sucker, banded sculpin, and smallmouth bass. In addition to
smallmouth bass, 16 other sport species were collected, including significant numbers of
popular recreational species such as bluegill, channel catfish, largemouth bass, crappie, and
rock bass. Specimens collected were generally healthy and the condition of downstream of
the mill was generally comparable to that of fish upstream of the mill.
Overall, the mainstem fish community in 2000 was similar to the one observed in 1995, the
last time an intensive survey was conducted. Although the community has not changed
dramatically since 1995, it has improved measurably in several ways: (1) the catch of
smallmouth bass has improved more than 10 fold compared to 1995, (2) darters, which were
essentially absent downstream of the mill in 1995, were found at seven of the eight
downstream North Carolina stations in 2000, (3) species richness at individual downstream
stations in 2000 was as good or better than in 1995. Although possible thermal impacts will be
addressed in a separate 316(a) demonstration document, preliminary analysis of the 2000 fish
data do not indicate significant thermal impacts. This preliminary conclusion is based on the
fact that species richness and Index of Biotic Integrity values at RM 63, the warmest of the
stations sampled, were comparable to values upstream of the mill and better than values at
locations further downstream where water temperatures were cooler.
Analysis of the tributary fish communities indicated that Jonathan Creek and Fines Creek
support good fish communities, but that Richland Creek supports only a fair community, with
darters essentially being absent.
MACROINVERTEBRATES
Macroinvertebrate sampling from throughout the study area (tributaries included) yielded a
total of 230 taxa. Based on the North Carolina Biotic Index, the benthic community at RM
64.5 upstream of the mill and in the Tennessee portion of the study area (i.e., RM 24.9 and
19.3) was characterized as good. The community as Hepco (RM 42.6) was good/fair and the
community in the rest of the mainstem in North Carolina downstream of the mill was fair.
ii

Jonathan Creek and Fines Creek were classified as good, but Richland Creek was only fair; the
same pattern as seen with the fish data.
Also, like the fish community, the downstream benthic community has improved since 1995.
iii

1. DaRODUCTION
The current NPDES permit (Part III) for Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.'s Canton Mill
requires that an assessment of possible impacts from the mill's thermal discharge be conducted.
The permit (Section M) indicates that a balanced and indigenous species study be conducted in
accordance with the guidance provided in 40 CFR 125, Subpart H. As required by the permit,
Blue Ridge submitted a Study Plan to the state which outlined how the "Balanced and
Indigenous" survey would be conducted. The permit (Section L) also requires an analysis of
temperature data and submittal of a "complete temperature variance report" (i.e., a 316(a)
demonstration). The Study Plan described how the required thermal model would be
developed and calibrated.
A biological survey of fishes and macroinvertebrates was conducted during the summer (July
and August) of 2000 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. Fish and
macroinvertebrates were sampled as these are the two groups routinely evaluated by the state.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) does not have an established
protocol for conducting 316(a) demonstrations (email from Mr. Bryn Tracy dated 1/6/00).
Nonetheless, biological sampling was conducted in accordance with standard NCDWQ field
protocols. 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 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 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 and the thermal model. It presents
the current results and compares them to the previous studies of the Pigeon River, especially a
1995 survey that covered a similar portion of the river (EA 1996). A 316(a) demonstration
document that analyzes the results in the context of a thermal demonstration as well as
addressing other related issues (e.g., possible impacts to representative important species) will
be submitted separately.
f ,
' 1-1

2. METHODS
To determine whether the thermal component of the Canton Mill effluent might be affecting
the aquatic communities of the Pigeon River, sampling locations were established at eleven
mainstem and three tributary locations (Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1). The majority of these
locations have been sampled periodically from 1987 through the present and all but one (RM
61.0) were sampled in 1995 during the last round of intensive biological sampling of the river
(EA 1996).
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 RM 63.0 or RM 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 RM 63.0 and the best at
RM 42.6. Mainstem 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, two Tennessee locations were included to
provide continuity with the 1995 study and to assure that the good biological communities
noted at these locations in 1995 (EA 1996) continue to flourish. Similarly, the 2000 study
included three 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 mainstem conditions and/or serve as sources for recolonization.
The 2000 program consisted of four basic elements; habitat, macroinvertebrates, fish, and
thermal modeling. In the following sections, the methods utilized for habitat assessment
(Section 2.1), benthic community analyses (Section 2.2), fish community analyses (Section
2.3), and thermal modeling (Section 2.4), are presented.
2.1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT
During July and August 2000 (concurrent with the fish sampling), the habitat at each of the 14
stations was evaluated using procedures developed by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR 1995). The 1995 procedures for habitat
assessment were followed during this study, rather than revised procedures (DENR 1997), to
allow comparability with the 1995 results (EA 1996). Parameters considered as part of the
DENR procedure are channel characteristics, instream habitat/cover, pool variety, riffle
quality, substrate, bank stability, bank vegetation, and riparian zone (vegetation) quality and
quantity.
2-1

Table 2-1. Pigeon River and Tributary Biological Sampling Stations, 1987-2000.
Mainstem (RM) Fish Macroinvertebrates
64.5 (upstream mill) 87/95/99/00* 87/95/99/00
63.0 (Fiberville, downstream mill) 87/95/99/00 87/95/99/00
61.0 (Thickety) 99/00 99/00
59.0 (upstream Clyde) 87/95/99/00 87/95/99/00
55.5 (downstream Clyde) 95/00 95/00
54.5 (d/s Waynesville WWTP) 95/00 95/00
52.3 (old Rt 209 bridge) 87/95/00 87/95/00
48.2 (Ferguson bridge) 87/95/00 87/95/00
42.6 (New Hepco bridge) 87/95/00 87/95/00
24.9 (near Browns bridge) 87/95/00 87/95/00
19.3 (nr Groundhog Cr) 87/95/00 87/95/00
Tributary
Richland Creek (near mouth) 87/95/00 87/95/00
Jonathan Creek (at Rt 276) 95/00 95/00
Fines Creek (Panther Cr Rd) 95/00 95/00
* = Indicates year sampled.
2-2

Bluffton,TN Hartford,TN
(19.3)
Near Browns Bridge
(24.9) ^ TENNESSEE jV
Near Creek !"�'• "' •�\
(19.3) NORTH
�•,,,`• ►,.►•• ,s, CAROLINA
(25.9) h�`p
\1
aK ii NOTE: River miles of mainstem sampling location or
0�0 Hydro Plant Ittributary mouth shown in parentheses.
(26.0)
\1�4 —Bypassed
d It Reach A Fish and Benthos Sampling Station
it
it
�m f 1
Walters Dam Waterville Lake
Cataloochee
Creek Hepco,NC
(38.1) (42.61 Creek
`pe (42.7)
Crabtree Creek
New Hepco Bridge Riverside (49.8)
Hepco Gage (48.3)
(45.1) Above Crabtree
(52.2)
FLO W
Jonathan
Creek Clyde WWTP Thickety
(46:0) Below Clyde (57.1) (61.0)
Ferguson Bridge (55.5) Above Clyde Fiberville
I(59.0) Fiberville (63.0)
Below Mill Outfall Canton,NC
Waynesville W WTP (63.3)
(54.5)
Waynesville Richland Clyde,NC Canton
WMP Creak (64.5)
(64.8) (54.9)
Figure 2-1. Stations for the fisheries and benthic surveys,July and August 2000.
2-3

Scoring criteria are provided in Exhibit 1. Scoring ranges for each category are as follows:
Parameter Score
Channel characteristics 1-10
Instream habitat/cover 0-20
Pool variety 0-10
Riffle quality 0-10
Substrate 1-10
Bank stability 1-10
Bank vegetation 0-10
Riparian zone quality 0-10
Riparian zone quantity 0-10
Thus, the maximum habitat score is 100. The state has not established minimum scores
needed to assure attainment of various aquatic life uses.
The total score for each biological station can be compared to either ecoregion or instream
reference stations. The result of this analysis is a percent of comparability for each station.
The station is then classified as to its similarity to expected conditions as represented by the
reference station, and whether the habitat is capable of supporting an acceptable level of
biological health. Criteria used previously (EA 1988) are presented below:
Assessment Category Percent of Comparability
Comparable to Reference >_ 90%
Supporting 75-89
Partially Supporting 60-74
Non-Supporting <_ 59
2.2 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS FOR MEASURING BENTHIC
MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY HEALTH
2.2.1 Field Methods
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted at the 14 locations on 12-18 July and 17-23
August 2000 (Figure 2-1). Collection sites included 11 Pigeon River„mainstem stations (nine
in North Carolina and two in Tennessee) and three tributary stations (Richland Creek, Jonathan
Creek, and Fines Creek) (Table 2-1). All 14 stations were sampled according to DENR
methodologies (DENR 1997). This approach involved the collection of six multihabitat
qualitative samples at each station: kick, sweep, fine mesh, leaf pack, sand, and visual search.
Two kick net samples were collected from areas of differing velocity within a riffle using a 1
m2 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 net samples were taken from three
different areas along the stream margin and/or macrophyte beds. Selected areas were
physically disturbed and then swept through using a 500 micron D-frame net. Smaller
2-4

macroinvertebrates were sampled by hand-washing various rocks and woody debris into a
bucket. The residue was then passed through a fine mesh (200 microns) sieve. Sand
substrates were sampled using a lm x 0.5m, 200 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. These were generally collected from
submerged rocks and woody debris that snag passing debris. 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 and
lasted approximately 20 minutes.
All sample types were combined and field sorted in grided white enamel pans. No attempt
was made to remove all of the organisms from the sample. However, organisms were
removed in proportion to their respective abundance. All samples were preserved in 70%
ethyl alcohol, labeled appropriately, and transported to the laboratory for taxonomic
identification.
To complement the field collections and assist with data interpretation, various observations
were made at each site. These data included location, sample time, collectors, riparian and
instream habitat composition and development, weather, and general field observations. The
information was based on the observations of both collectors and was recorded on a Benthos
Collection Card.
2.2.2 Laboratory Methods
Upon arrival at the laboratory, all samples were logged in and accounted for.
Macroinvertebrates from all samples were then identified to the lowest practical taxonomic
level using the most current literature available. Identifications followed those recommended
by the North Carolina DWQ (2000) and DENR (1997), when possible. Chironomidae larvae
were cleared in 10% potassium hydroxide and mounted in CMC-10 prior to identification. A
voucher collection was created to retain at least one good specimen of all taxa identified during
this survey. For all samples, specimens were enumerated, coded, and recorded on a standard
laboratory bench sheet for data processing.
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 (NCBI). Formerly, bioclassifications of
North Carolina stream sites were based primarily upon EPT taxa richness (number taxa within
the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) (Lenat 1988). This was the method of
bioclassification used during the 1987 Pigeon River synoptic survey (EA 1988). In 1991, the
DEHNR adopted the NCBI as an additional method of bioclassification (DEHNR 1995).
Developed by Lenat (1993), the NCBI, 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
2-5

derived for individual macroinvertebrate taxa that reflect an increasing level of pollution
tolerance from 0 (least tolerant) to 10 (most tolerant). The NCBI takes into account the
assigned abundance values of each taxa (1=1-2 individuals/sample, 3=3-9 individuals/sample,
10=>_10 individuals/sample), and is calculated as:
NCBI=E(TV;)(n;)/N
where:
TV;= ith taxa's tolerance value
n;= ith taxa's abundance value (1, 3, or 10)
N= sum of all abundance values
Similarly, the EPT BI is simply the NCBI calculated only for Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera taxa found at a given site and is scored in the same manner as the NCBI. The
EPT BI is not intended to provide a final bioclassification and should only be used to aid
interpretation of the results.
Bioclassification criteria for the NCBI differ by ecoregion (mountain, piedmont, and coastal
plain) and season. All collections for this survey were made during the "normal" summer
sampling period (June-September) within the mountain ecoregion. Classification for each site
was assigned by first scoring the EPT taxa richness value and NCBI value separately according
to a range of scores between 1 and 5. The associated mountain ecoregion ranges and scores
for both indices are as follows:
Mountain Ecoregion
Score NCBI Values EPT Values
5.0 <4.00 >43
4.6 4.00-4.04 42-43
4.4 4.05-4.09 40-41
4.0 4.10-4.83 34-39
3.6 4.84-4.88 32-33
3.4 4.89-4.93 30-31
3.0 4.94-5.69 24-29
2.6 5.70-5.74 22-23
2.4 5.75-5.79 20-21
2.0 5.80-6.95 14-19
1.6 6.96-7.00 12-13
1.4 7.01-7.05 10-11
1.0 >7.05 0-9
The two scores were then averaged and the resulting mean was rounded to the nearest whole
2-6

number (round up 0.6-0.9, round down 0.0-0.4) (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. For example, aparticular
station has an NCBI value of 5.00 and an EPT value of 20. Using the above table, these
values would receive scores of 3 and 2.4, respectively. The average of these scores is 2.7,
which is rounded up to 3. Therefore, this station would receive a final bioclassification of
"Good-Fair". If the EPT and NCBI scores differ by exactly one, the resulting average will be
midway between two bioclassifications (e.g., 2.5; halfway between Good-Fair and Fair). 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
(DEHNR 1997).
Mountain Ecoregion
Bioclassification (Score) Minimum EPT Abundance
Excellent (5) vs. Good (4) 191
Good (4) vs. Good-Fair (3) 125
Good-Fair (3) vs. Fair (2) 85
Fair (2) vs. Poor (1) 45
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.
Preliminary bioclassifications may also be assigned based solely on EPT taxa richness or NCBI
score. Associated ranges and classifications for these methods are as follows:
Mountain Ecoregion
Bioclassification NCBI Values EPT Values
Excellent <4.05 >_42
Good 4.06-4.88 32-41
Good-Fair 4.89-5.74 22-31
Fair 5.75-7.00 12-21
As with the EPT BI, these classifications should only be used to assist the interpretation of
results.
The classifications for each station downstream of the Canton mill discharge were compared
with the upstream control site. In addition, data from the current study were compared with
data previously collected on the Pigeon River by EA (1988, 1996, and 2000). The following
qualitative parameters were used in comparisons between sites and studies: NCBI values, EPT
BI values, EPT taxa richness, total taxa richness, and EPT abundance.
2-7

2.3 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS FOR MEASURING FISH COMMUNITY
HEALTH
Fish surveys were conducted at the 14 locations on 12-22 July and 15-21 August 2000 (Figure
2-1) to determine if a balanced indigenous fish community currently exists within the study
area. DENR currently does not have standardized fish sampling methods for non-wadable
streams (DENR 1997). In wadable 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 (20-50m wide and up to 4m deep), backpack
electrofishers alone are not adequate to sample the complete fish community and, as result,
DENR does not sample fish in the mainstem 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, EA used a 12' long 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. EA sampled such areas using a Coeffelt VVP-2C electroshocker mounted in a
towed pram. This unit uses a 1500 or 1800 watt generator and thus has considerably more
power than a backpack electrofisher, and therefore is more effective in larger wadable streams
like the Pigeon River (Ohio EPA 1989). During the current study, boat and pram collections
were supplemented by seining at RM 19.3; a method also used by Saylor et al. (1993).
The pram electrofisher was used at all 14 sampling locations in 2000. Because of their smaller
size, this was the only gear needed at the three tributary locations. Mainstem and tributary
locations were electrofished with the pram for a standard distance of 200m as recommended by
DENR (1997). A single electrofishing pass (from downstream to upstream) was made at the
three tributary locations whereas two passes (one along each bank) were made at the wider
mainstem locations. Boat electrofishing was conducted at all mainstem locations, except at RM
63.0, where the straight shoreline and relatively shallow water made the use of the boat
unnecessary. RM 48.2 was sampled with the boat only in July and RM 42.6 was sampled only
in August. Therefore, all mainstem locations except RM 63.0 were sampled by boat at least
once during the 2000 study, and most were sampled twice. Boat shocking was conducted for
40-60 minutes per location depending on the extent of pool and run habitat within a given
zone. In addition, haul seining was conducted at RM 19.3 because this area contained
sufficient sand and smooth gravel to allow for.effective seining. 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. All specimens
were identified. Sportfish and suckers were measured (total length) and weighed, up to 20 or
30 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 typically was to the
2-8

species level. However, two subspecies of greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides ug tselli
and Etheostoma b_. newmannii) were differentiated on any greenside darters brought back to
the lab. However, these two subspecies were treated as a single taxon when calculating IBI
metrics.
Data were tabulated to examine individual community attributes (i.e., abundance, distribution,
species richness) and species-specific parameters (i.e., coefficients of condition, evidence of
reproduction). The relative similarity of species composition among stations was determined
by calculating percentage similarity values (PSc) (Whittaker and Fairbanks 1958), which is
expressed as:
PSc = 100 - 0.5 *a-b*
where:
PSc = percent similarity
*a-b* = absolute value of the difference between the percentage
of a species in samples A and B
Values may range from 0 (no similarity) to 100 (identical communiites).
The condition of larger species collected was described by calculating the coefficient of
condition (K) (Carlander 1969) using the formula:
K = W105
TV
where:
K = condition coefficient
W = weight (g)
TL = total length (mm)
The larger the K value, the heavier the fish for a specific length.
In recent years, many fisheries professionals have changed from the coefficient of condition
(K) to relative weight (W,) to measure the robustness of fish (Wege and Anderson 1978).
Relative weight is calculated as:
W, = W/Wa x 100
where W is the measured weight and We 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:
2-9

log,oWs = a + (b x log,a total length)
where a and b ideally account for genetically determined shape characteristics of a species and
yield W, 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 which can be classified into three categories: species richness and
composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition. North Carolina has
developed a state-specific version of the IBI, the NCIBI (DENR 1997).
The assessment of biological integrity using the NCIBI is provided by the cumulative
assessment of 12 parameters, or metrics. 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 summed to attain the overall IBI score.
Each metric is designed to contribute unique information to the overall assessment. The 12
metrics used by NC and a brief explanation of each is presented below (DENR 1997).
• Number of Species (Metric 1) and Number of Individuals (Metric 2): The total number
of species and individuals supported by streams of a given size in a given region
decrease with environmental degradation. Both of these metrics are rated according to
the river basin in which the sample was taken and the drainage area size at the sampling
point. Recently introduced exotics, such as tilapia and grass carp are not included in
the index because they are not part of the North Carolina fish fauna. However,
established exotics (e.g., common carp, rainbow trout) are included. To facilitate
comparisons among stations and studies, only standardized electrofishing data (based on
time [number of fish/60 minutes for the pram and number/30 minutes for boat
electrofishing] for all mainstem locations or distance [number of fish/200m] for all
tributary locations) were used to score Metric 2, number of individuals.
• Number of Darter Species (Metric 3): Darters are sensitive to environmental
degradation particularly as a result of their specific reproductive and habitat
requirements (Page 1983). Darter habitats are degraded as a result of channelization,
siltation, and reduced oxygen levels. Collection of fewer than expected darter species
can indicate that habitat degradation is occurring. This metric includes all species of
the tribe Etheosomatini.
• Number of Sunfish and Salmonid (Trout) Species (Metric 4): Sunfish and trout species
are used because they are particularly responsive to degradation of pool habitats and to
other aspects of habitat degradation, like quality of instream cover. This metric
includes centrarchids of the genera Lepomis, Enneacanthus, Acantharchus,
2-10

Ambloplites, and Centrarchus as well as all species of salmonids, whether native or
stocked.
• Number of Sucker Species (Metric 5): Sucker species are intolerant of habitat and
chemical degradation and because they are long lived they provide a multiyear
integrated perspective. They also reflect the condition of the benthic community,
which may be harmed by sediment contamination. This metric includes all members of
the family Catostomidae.
• Number of Intolerant Species (Metric 6): Intolerant species are those which are most
affected by environmental perturbations and therefore should disappear, at least as
viable populations, by the time a stream is rated fair. This metric is based on a list of
intolerant species determined by the state.
• Percent Tolerant Fish (Metric 7): Tolerant species are those which are often present in
a stream in moderate numbers, but as the stream degrades they can become dominant.
The number of individuals in each of these species is summed and divided by the total
number of fish collected to obtain the percent tolerant fish. NC has developed a list of
tolerant species.
• Percentages of Omnivores (Metric 8), Insectivores (Metric 9), and Piscivores (Metric
10): The three trophic composition metrics, proportion of omnivores, total insectivores
(or specialized insectivores), and piscivores are used to measure the divergence from
expected production and consumption patterns in the fish community that can result
from environmental degradation. The main cause for a shift in the trophic composition
of the fish community (a greater proportion of omnivores and fewer insectivores), is
nutrient enrichment. In the mountain drainages (e.g., Pigeon River), the metric
Percentage of Piscivores is changed to the Number of Piscivorous Species, and the
Percent Insectivores metric can be interchanged with Percent Specialized Insectivores
(whichever gives the higher score is used). These metrics are determined from trophic
types established by NC and are determined based on the percent of individuals
belonging to each trophic class.
• The Percent of Diseased Fish (Metric 11): The percent of fish with disease, tumors,
fin damage, and skeletal anomalies increases as a stream is degraded. This metric is
scored by counting the number of fish in the sample which have sores, lesions, skeletal
anomalies, or fin damage and determining a percentage. Fin damage caused as a result
of spawning is not counted. Parasites are not included in this metric.
® Length Distribution (Metric 12): Length distribution data is used to determine the
presence of different age groups and thus the amount of reproductive success. This
metric is rated by first counting the number of species. Secondly, the total lengths of
all the fish of each species are examined to determine whether or not all the fish of that
species are of one or multiple age groups. Finally, the percentage of species with
2-11

multiple age groups is determined. Since some fish are rare and some species have few
age groups, some professional judgement must be used in calculating this metric.
The state has determined that the NCIBI as originally developed does not perform as expected
in reference streams. They currently advise against using the IBI as a means to determine
attainment (memo from Bryn Tracy dated 17 March 2000). For this report, the IBI is used
only to compare the 1995 and 2000 results.
2-12

3. BENTHIC COMMUNITY
Benthic macroinvertebrates play important roles in the aquatic ecosystem. As the middle
component of the food web, they link together the other trophic levels. They feed on the
primary producers (algae or periphyton) and in turn other macroinvertebrates and fish consume
them. They are a primary food source for both juvenile and adult fish and certain forms (e.g.
crayfish and mussels) can be recreationally and economically important to humans. Benthos
also serve an important role as decomposers by breaking down organic matter (detritus, dead
organisms, and feces) into compounds utilized by plants in primary production, thus
completing the cycling of nutrients which is critical to the function of the ecosystem. Since
the benthos function is an intricate component of aquatic systems, the structure of the benthic
community can reflect the state of the entire ecosystem (Rosenberg and Resh 1993).
Different groups of organisms, including fish, benthos, and algae, are used to biologically
assess water quality, of these, macroinvertebrates and fish are the groups most commonly used
(Snyder et al. 1996). An integrated approach, as used in the present study, gives the most
complete assessment of aquatic ecosystem effects. For each monitoring situation, there are
advantages of using a particular taxonomic group. The advantages of using benthic
macroinvertebrates for biomonitoring, as summarized by Rosenberg and Resh (1993), are: 1)
aquatic macroinvertebrates are ubiquitous and, consequently, are affected by perturbations in
many different aquatic habitats; 2) the large number of species exhibit a range of responses to
environmental stress; 3) their sedentary nature, relative to other aquatic organisms such as
fish, permits effective determination of the spatial extent of perturbations; and 4) their long life
cycles, relative to lower trophic organisms, allow temporal changes in characteristics such as
abundance and age structure to be examined. Benthic macroinvertebrates act as continuous
monitors of the water they inhabit, enabling long-term analysis of both regular and intermittent
discharges, variable concentrations of pollutants, single or multiple pollutants, and even
synergistic or antagonistic effects (Hawkes 1979; Lenat et al. 1980; Yoder and Rankin 1995;
Karr and Chu 1999).
The approach used to assess the benthic community in 2000 was similar to that used during
previous surveys (EA 1988, 1996, and 2000) and followed DENR (1997) methodologies.
Macroinvertebrate samples were collected from the Pigeon River basin at 11 mainstem and 3
tributary stations on 12-18 July and 17-23 August 2000 (Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1).
Using DENR (1997) methodologies, qualitative multihabitat samples were collected at each
station. Data from these collections were used to calculate the North Carolina Biotic Index
(NCBI) and Ephemeroptera+Plecoptera+Trichoptera taxa richness (EPT Index) which, in
turn provided a final bioclassification for each station (Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair, or
Poor). These classifications were used as a gage for comparisons among stations and to detect
negative influences.
A combined list of taxa collected during the 2000 surveys is presented as Table 3-1. Results
for the both sampling events are presented individually by station in Appendix A.
3-1

Table 3-1. List of benlhic macroinvertebrate We collected from the Pigeon River drainage,July and August,2000.
Pigeon River Study Segments(') Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 1 2 3 4 Crk. Crk. Crk.
PORIFERA(sponges)
Spongilla x X x
COELENTERATA(hydroids)
Hydra x
PLATYHELMINTHES(flatworms)
Dugesla x x X X X X x
N EMERTEA(probscis worms)
Prostoma graescens x X X x
ECTOPROCTA(bryozoans)
Plumatella X x
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta(aquatic earthworms)
Aeolosoma x
Eclipidrilus X X X x X x
Lumbriculus variegalus X X X x x
Eiseniella tetraedra x X X x
Sparganophilus tamesis X X X X X X x
Megascolecidae x
Bratislavia unidentata x
Dero nivea x
Naffs behningi X X x
Naffs bretsched x
Nais communis x X x x
Nets pardalis x
Nais varlabilis x x
Ophidonais serpentine x
Pristina aequiseta x
Pristina leidyi x
Ripistes parasite x
Slavina appendiculata x x
Stylaria Iacustris x
Aulodrilus limnobius x
Aulodrilus pluriseta x x
Branchiura sowerbyi x x
Limnoddlus hoffinelsteri x x x x x
Tubifex lubifex x
Imm.tub.w/bifid chaetae x x x x x
Imm.tub.w/hair&pectinate chaetae x x x x
Polychaeta(polychaetes)
Manayunkia speclosa x
Hirudinea(leeches)
Desserobdella phalera x
Helobdella x
Placobdella x x x
Placobdella parasitica x x
Myzobdella lugubris x
Erpobdella punctata punctata x x
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Isopoda(sow bugs)
Caecidotea x x x x
Amphlpoda(sideswimmers)
Gammarus x
Decapoda(crayfish)
Cambarus x x x x x
Orconectes x
Procambarus x x x
Arachnoldea(water miles)
Hydracarma x x x x x x
Ihsecta
Ephemeroptera(mayflies)
Isohychia(Isonychla) x x x x x x
Acentrella x x x x x x x
Beetle flavistriga x x x x x x
Beetle intercalaris x x x x x x
Beetle pluto x x x x x x
Baetis tricaudatus x x x
Heterocloeon curiosum x x x
Heterocloeon peters! x x
Plauditus alachua x x
3-2

Table 3-1.(cost.)
Pigeon River Study SegmentsM Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxe 1 2 3 4 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Procloeon X
Pseudocloeon frondale X X
Epeorus rubldus X X X X
Heptagenia marginalls X X X X X
Leucrocuta X X X X X
Rhithrogena X X
Stenacron interpunctatum X X
Stenacron pallidum X X X
Stenonema ilhaca X X X X X X x
Stenonema modestum X X X X X X X
Stenonema pudicum X X x
Paraleptophlebia X X X
Drunella allegheniensis X
Ephemerella catawba X X
Eurylophella X
Eurylophella prudentalis X
Serratella deficiens X X X X X
Serratella serrate X X
Serratella serratoides X X X X
Tricorythodes X X X X
Neoephemera purpurea X X X
Caenis X X X X X
Ephemera blanda x
Ephemera guttalala X
Odonata(dragonflies&damselflies)
Calopteryx X X X X X
Hetaerina X X X X X
Argia X X X X X
Enallagma X X X X X X
Ischnura X
Basiaeschna janata X
Boyeria graflana X X
Boyeria vinosa X X X X X X X
Cordulegaster maculata X X
Gomphus X X X X X X X
Hagenius brevistylus X X X X X
Lanthus X X X
Ophiogomphus X X X X x
Stylogomphus albistylus X X X
Stylurus spiniceps X X X X X
Helocordulia uhleri X
Macromia X X X X
Neurocordulia obsolete X X X X
Plecoptera(stoneflies)
Leuctra X X X
Tallaperla X X X X
Pteronarcys(w/lateral proj.) X X X X
Pteronarcys dorsata x
Acroneuria abnormis X X X X X X
Agnetina flavescens X
Neoperla X
Paragnetina immarginata X X X
Perlesta X X X X X
Chloroperlidae X
Hemiptera(true bugs)
Limnoporus X
Metrobates X X X
Trepobates X X
Rhagovelia X X X X X
Belostoma flumineum X
Ranatra X X
— Megaloptera(hellgrammites&alderflies)
Corydalus cornutus X X X X X X X
Nigronia serricornis X X X X X X X
Sialis X X X X X X
Trichoptera(caddisflies)
Chimarra X
Dolophilodes X
Lype diverse X
Psychomyia flavida X X
3-3

Table 3-1.(cont.)
Pigeon River Study Segments(O Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 1 2 3 4 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Neureclipsis X X X x
Paranyctiophylax x
Polycentropus x X X X X X x
Ceratopsyche bronta x x x
Ceratopsyche morosa x x x x x x
Ceratopsyche sparna x x x x x x x
Cheumatopsyche x x x x x x x
Diplectrona x x x
Hydropsyche betteni X x x x
Hydropsyche phalerata X x
Hydropsyche scalaris x
Hydropsyche venularis x x x x x x
Rhyacophila fuscula x x
Rhyacophila vuphipes x x
Glossosoma x x
Leucotrichia pictipes x x x x x
Hydroptila x x x x
Brachycentrus appalachla x x
Brachycentrus lateralis x
Brachycentrus numerosus x
Micrasema bennetti x
Micrasema wataga x x x x x x x
Goera x x x
Neophylax consimilis x x x x x
Pycnopsyche x x x x x
Pycnopsyche gentilis x
Lepidostoma x x x x x x
Mystacides sepulchralus x x x
Nectopsyche x
Oecelis x x
Oecetis persimilis x x x x x x x
Oecetis sp.A(Floyd 1995) x x
Triaenodes ignitus x x
Coleoptera(beetles)
Laccophilus fasciatus x
Laccophilus maculosus x
Dineulus x x X x
Peltodytes duodecimpunctatus x
Peltodytes lengi x
Peltodytes sexamaculatus x
Helichus x x x x x x
Ancyronyx variegata x x x x x
Macronychus glabratus x x x x x x
Optioservus x x x
Promoresia elegans x x x x x x
Promoresia tardella x
Stenelmis x x x x x x
Berosus x x x
Enochrus x x x
Tropisternus collaris x x x x x
Psephenus herricki x x x x x
Anchytarsus bicolor x
Diptera(Flies)
Blepharicera x x
Ephydridae x x x
Ceratopogonidae x
Atrichopogon x x
Culex x
Simulium x x x x x x x
Protoplasa fitchii x
Antocha x x x x x x x
Dicranota x
Hexatoma x x
Pseudolimnophila x
Tipula x x x x x x x
Atherix lantha x x x x
Chelifera x
Hemerodromia x x x x x x x
Nemotelus x
Chrysops x
3-4

Table 3-1.(cant.)
Pigeon River Study SegmentsM Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 1 2 3 4 Crk. Crk, Crk.
Tabanus X X
Chironomidae(midges)
Ablabesmyla janta X x x
Ablabesmyia mallochi x x X X x X
Brundiniella eumorpha x x
Clinotanypus x x
Conchapelopia X X X X x x
Labrundinia pilosella x
Meropelopia x x X X x
Natarsia x
Nilotanypus x
Penlaneura X x
Procladius(Holotanypus) X X X x
Rheopelopia X x
Pagastia X x
Potthastia gaedii grp. x
Odontomesa fulva x
Brillia x X x
Cardiocladius X X X X x x x
Corynoneura x X x
Cricotopus bicinctus grp. x X x x X x
Cricotopus infuscatus grp. x X x X X X x
Cricotopus lrifascia grp. x
Cricotopus lrifascia grp. x
Cricotopus vieriensis grp. x X x
Eukiefferiella pseudomontana grp. X x x
Eukiefferiella devonica grp. x x
Eukiefferiella similis grp. x
Hydrobaenus X
Lopescladius x
Nanocladius X x x x X x
Nanocladius downesi - x X x X x
Orthocladius(Symposiocladius)lignicola x
Orthocladius sp.3 x x X x x
Pammetriocnemus lundbeckii x x X X X x
Paratendipes x
Rheocricotopus robacki x x X X x X x
Synorthocladius x x x x x
Thienemanniella x x x x x
Tvetenia discoloripes grp. x x x x x x
Chironomus x x x
Cladopelma x
Cryptochironomus blarina grp. x
Cryptochironomus fulvus x x x x x
Dicrotendipes neomodestus x x x x x x
Glyptotendipes x
Microtendipes pedellus grp. x x
Parachironomus x
Paracladopelma x
Phaenopsectra obediens grp. x x x x x x
Phaenopsectra punctipes x x x
Polypedilum x
Polypedilum fuvus x x x x x x x
Polypedilum Illinoense x x x x x x x
Polypedilum laetum x x x x
Polypedilum scalaenum grp. x x x x
Pseudochironomus x x
Robackia demeijerei x x x
Stenochironomus x x x x
Tribelos jucundum x x
Cladolanytarsus mancus grp. x
Cladotanytarsus vanderwulpi grp, x
Rheotanytarsus x x x x x x x
Sublettea coffmani x x x
Tanytarsus sp.2 x x
Tanytarsus sp.3 x
Tanytarsus sp.6 x x x x x x
GASTROPODA(snails)
Elimia x x x x
Ferrissia x x x x x x x
3-5

Table 3-1.(cont.)
Pigeon River Study SegmentsM Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 1 2 - 3 4 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Fossarla - X
Helisoma X X X X
Menetus dilatatus X X X
Physella X X X X X X
Slagnicola X X
PELECYPODA(mussels)
Corbicula fluminea X X X X
Pisidium X X X X X X X
Sphaerium X X X X X
Taxa Richness by Segment/Tributary 117 143 139 138 70 129 108
Taxa Richness 223, 171
EPT Taxa Richness by Segment/Tributary 42 34 37 46 17 43 45 .
EPT Taxa Richness 67 56
Total Taxa Richness 260
Total EPT Taxa Richness 80
I°I Segment 1=RM 64.5(one station),Segment 2=RM 63.0-55.5(four stations),Segment 3=RM 54.5-42.6(four stations),Segment 4=RM 24.9
and 19.3(two stations).
i
�' 3-6

3.1 BENTHIC COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
For all stations and sampling events combined, 260 taxa were observed during 2000 (Table 3-
1). Of these 260 taxa, 223 were collected from the 11 mainstem Pigeon River stations and
171 taxa were collected from the three tributaries. Taxa richness among the four mainstem
segments ranged from 117 taxa in Segment 1 (RM 64.5) to 143 taxa in Segment 2 (RM 63.0-
55.5). Of the 223 taxa observed in the mainstem, 61 taxa (27 percent) were collected from all
segments. Jonathan Creek had the highest taxa richness (129 taxa) among the tributary stations
while Richland Creek had the lowest overall taxa richness (70 taxa) among the tributary
locations, as well as the entire study area. Of the 171 taxa observed in the tributaries, 32 taxa
(19 percent) were collected from all three stations.
A total of 80 EPT taxa was collected from the study area in 2000, with 67 EPT taxa
represented in the mainstem collections and 56 EPT taxa from the tributaries (Table 3-1). The
number of EPT taxa among the mainstem segments ranged from 46 in Segment 4 (RM 24.9
and 19.3) to 34 in Segment 2. Among the tributary stations, EPT richness was high in Fines
Creek (45 taxa) and Jonathan Creek (43 taxa), and noticeably lower in Richland Creek (17).
Among the 11 Pigeon River stations, mean total taxa richness ranged from 59 taxa at RM 52.3
to 91 taxa at RM 64.5 (Table 3-2). Spatially, mean taxa richness decreased noticeably from
RM 64.5 to RM 63.0 and remained relatively lower before increasing at RM 42.6. The two
stations within Segment 4 had mean values similar to those at RM 42.6. Mean richness at the
seven stations from RM 63.0 to RM 48.2 decreased by 26 to 32 taxa compared to RM 64.5.
Lower numbers of Chironomidae taxa as well as EPT taxa at the stations in Segments 2 and 3
accounted for most of the overall upstream to downstream decline (Appendix A).
Except at RM 24.9 and RM 19.3, total taxa richness was generally lower during July than
August in the Pigeon River (Tables 3-3 and 3-4). The higher taxa richness observed at most
locations in August was predominantly due to increased numbers of dipteran taxa, especially of
the group Chironomidae (Appendix A). In July, taxa richness ranged from 90 to 53 taxa at
RM 64.5 and RM 63.0, respectively. In August, taxa richness was again highest at RM 64.5
(91 taxa), but was lowest at RM 61.0 (63 taxa).
Among the tributaries, mean total taxa richness was lowest in Richland Creek (52 taxa) and
highest in Jonathan Creek (95 taxa) (Table 3-2). This trend was also observed in both July and
August (Tables 3-3 and 3-4). The substantially fewer taxa observed at Richland Creek was
due to relatively lower numbers of taxa for virtually all major macroinvertebrate groups,
including Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Coleoptera, and Chironomidae (Table 3-1).
Mean EPT taxa richness was also highest at RM 64.5 with 35 taxa while the mean of 11 EPT
taxa at RM 63.0 represented the lowest (Table 3-2). As with mean total richness, both mean
EPT richness and abundance decreased immediately downstream of the Canton mill followed
by gradual increases at consecutive downstream stations in Segment 2.
3-7

Table 3-2. Summary of macroinvertebrate data means from the Pigeon River drainage, July and August, 2000.
Pigeon River Stations (RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Parameter 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Mean Total Taxa 91 60 60 61 65 65 59 65 76 82 81 52 95 82
Mean Total EPT Taxa 35 11 14 16 19 16 17 16 26 30 32 14 37 35
Mean Total Ephemeroptera Taxa 17 4 3 4 4 5 7 5 11 14 16 6 19 19
Mean Total Trichoptera Taxa 15 6 9 11 12 10 11 11 14 13 15 8 14 12
Mean Total Diptera Taxa 30 17 17 18 19 21 17 20 21 23 20 15 31 26
Mean Total EPT Abundance 190 49 71 80 89 68 97 96 120 141 173 73 201 183
Mean EPT BI Score 2.81 4.96 4.45 4.27 4.46 4.61 4.91 4.85 3.94 3.74 3.71 4.43 2.79 2.80
Mean NCBI Score 4.22 6.78 6.03 5.74 5.60 6.32 5.91 5.90 4.99 4.76 4.69 5.79 4.23 3.57
Mean Bioclassification(b) G F F F G-F F F F G-F G G F G G
ca> Sum of assigned abundance values given to individual taxa based on the number/sample, 1=1-2 individuals; 3=3-9 individuals; 10=>10 individuals
(b) E=Excellent, G=Good, G-F=Good-Fair, F=Fair, and P=Poor

Table 3-3. Summary of macroinvertebrate data from the Pigeon River drainage July, 2000
Pigeon River Stations (RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Parameter 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Total Taxa 90 53 57 57 57 59 54 56 67 87 82 57 88 80
Total EPT Taxa 40 10 17 17 18 13 19 17 25 30 33 17 36 38
Total Ephemeroptera Taxa 20 3 4 5 3 4 8 5 9 14 16 6 19 20
Total Trichoptera Taxa 16 6 11 10 11 9 11 11 13 14 16 11 13 12
Total Diptera Taxa 26 13 13 14 19 18 15 16 19 27 19 13 28 22
Total EPT Abundance(a) 231 45 90 88 89 45 87 95 114 153 191 86 211 204
EPT BI Score 2.94 4.93 4.04 4.00 4.33 4.61 4.99 4.89 3.87 3.72 3.28 4.19 2.87 2.75
NCBI Score 4.25 6.94 5.76 5.50 5.42 6.28 5.83 5.66 4.80 4.97 4.31 5.42 4.12 3.40
Final Bioclassification(b) G F F G-F G-F F F G-F G-F G-F G G-F G E
(a) Sum of assigned abundance values given to individual taxa based on the number/sample, 1=1-2 individuals; 3=3-9 individuals; 10=>10 individuals
(b) E=Excellent, G=Good, G-F=Good-Fair, F=Fair, and P=Poor

Table 3-4. Summary of macroinvertebrate data from the Pigeon River drainage, August, 2000.
Pigeon River Stations (RM) Richland Jonathan, Fines
Parameter 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Total Taxa 91 67 63 64 73 71 64 74 85 76 79 46 102 83
Total EPT Taxa 29 11 10 15 20 18 15 15 27 30 31 10 37 32
Total Ephemeroptera Taxa 14 4 2 2 5 6 5 4 12 14 16 5 18 17
Total Trichoptera Taxa 14 6 7 11 13 11 10 11 14 12 13 5 15 11
w
0
Total Diptera Taxa 33 20 21 21 19 24 19 24 23 19 20 16 34 30
Total EPT Abundance(a) _ 148 53 52 72 88 91 107 97 125 128 154 59 191 162
EPT BI Score 2.68 4.98 4.85 4.53 4.58 4.61 4.83 4.80 4.00 3.76 4.13 4.67 2.71 2.84
NCBI Score 4.18 6.62 6.29 5.97 5.78 6.36 5.98 6.13 5.18 4.55 5.07 6.16 4.33 3.74
Final Bioclassification(b) G F F F F F F F G-F G G-F F G G
dal Sum of assigned abundance values given to individual taxa based on the number/sample, 1=1-2 individuals; 3=3-9 individuals; 10=>10 individuals
ro>E=Excellent, G=Good, G-F=Good-Fair, F=Fair, and P=Poor

A second decrease in both mean EPT richness and abundance was observed at RM 54.5, below
the Waynesville WWTP discharge. Although mean EPT abundance rebounded at RM 52.3,
the mean number of EPT taxa remained relatively lower before showing substantial
improvement at consecutive stations from RM 42.6 to RM 19.3.
As with mean EPT richness, the number of EPT taxa in July was highest at the upstream
reference location (40 taxa) and lowest below the Canton mill (10 taxa) (Table 3-3).
However, in August, RM 19.3 had the highest number of EPT with 33 taxa while RM 61.0
had the lowest with 10 taxa (Table 3-4). EPT richness decreased by 11 taxa at RM 64.5 in
August compared to July. Of these 11 taxa, five were represented by only one or two
individuals in the July collections and others, such as the stonefly Perlesta were either absent
or much less common in August (Appendix A). Therefore, it is likely that the decrease in
EPT at the reference location was due to sampling variability associated with the availability of
rare taxa as well as seasonal changes in species composition. Regardless, the spatial patterns
in both July and August were very similar: EPT taxa richness was highest at the upstream and
far downstream locations of the study area with noticeable decreases below the Canton mill
and Waynesville WWTP discharge.
During both sampling events, the lower number of EPT taxa observed at most stations in
Segments 2 and 3 was primarily due to fewer Ephemeroptera taxa. Compared to the upstream
reference, most stations in Segments 2 and 3 had between 8 and 17 fewer Ephemeroptera taxa
during the two sampling events (Tables 3-3 and 3-4). In addition, during both July and
August, Trichoptera taxa composition shifted from a relatively pollution sensitive assemblage
at RM 64.5 to a more tolerant assemblage dominated by Hydropsychidae taxa downstream
(Appendix A).
Among the tributary stations, mean EPT richness ranged from 14 taxa in Richland Creek to 37
taxa in Jonathan Creek (Table 3-2). During the two sampling events, EPT richness was
similar in Jonathan Creek and Fines Creek (Table 3-3 and 3-4). During each sampling period,
both Jonathan Creek and Fines Creek exhibited EPT richness that was more than twice as high
as that observed at Richland Creek. 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. However, given the similarities of
other habitat characteristics (see Section 4.5), the differences in the benthic community at
Richland Creek compared to the other two tributaries does not appear to be based on habitat.
The lowest (i.e., best) mean NCBI score was calculated for the upstream reference, RM 64.5
(4.22) while the highest (i.e., poorest) value was recorded from RM 63.0 (6.78) (Table 3-2).
This was also the case during the two individual sampling events (Tables 3-3 and 3-4). The
longitudinal trend displayed by the mean, as well as individual sampling event values was
identical to the trend observed for EPT richness. Noticeably higher scores were calculated at
both RM 63.0 and RM 54.5 with the stations downstream of each exhibiting gradual decreases
followed by more sustained improvements between RM 42.6 and RM 19.3.
In accordance with DENR protocols, bioclassifications were assigned to each station based on
3-11

on mean EPT taxa richness and mean NCBI score. Three mainstem stations, RM 64.5, RM
24.9, and RM 19.3, were classified as "Good" (Table 3-2). Both RM 55.5 and 42.6 received
bioclassifications of "Good-Fair". The remaining Pigeon River stations were classified as
"Fair". However, mean NCBI and EPT richness values place RM 63.0, RM 61.0, and RM
54.5 near the bottom of the (i.e., closer to "Poor") of the "Fair" range while values at the
- other stations place them near the middle or top of the range (i.e., closer to "Good-Fair").
In July, RM 64.5 and RM 19.3 received bioclassifrcations of "Good" while RM 59.0, 55.5,
48.2, and 42.6 were classified as "Good-Fair" (Table 3-3). All other mainstem stations were
rated as "Fair". In August, both RM 64.5 and RM 42.6 attained the same bioclassifrcation as
observed in July, "Good" and "Good-Fair", respectively (Table 3-4). RM 24.9 improved
from "Good-Fair" in July to "Good" in August. However, due to slightly higher NCBI scores
and/or lower EPT taxa richness, three of the four stations rated as "Good-Fair" in July,
declined to "Fair" in August and RM 19.3 declined from "Good" in July to "Good-Fair" in
August.
Although poorer habitat is likely limiting the benthic community at RM 63.0 (see Section 4.5),
it does not appear to be the only factor constraining the quality of the aquatic community in
Segments 2 and 3. For example, habitat quality at RM 61.0 is comparable to the upstream
reference station. However, the benthic community at RM 61.0, though slightly better than
RM 63.0, also is classified as "Fair" (Tables 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4). This suggests that other
factors beyond habitat, such as urbanization and the discharge from the Canton mill are
affecting the composition and quality of the downstream benthic community. Habitat does not
appear to be a factor in the benthic community decline at RM 54.5. Despite the fact that
habitat quality was nearly identical to the upstream reference, RM 54.5 consistently exhibited.
slight decreases in EPT richness and more noticeable increases in NCBI scores (Tables 3-2, 3-
3, and 3-4). These data indicate that the Waynesville WWTP discharge and, possibly
Richland Creek are affecting the health of the benthic downstream.
Bioclassifications based upon mean values rated both Jonathan Creek and Fines Creek as
"Good" (Table 3-2). Jonathan Creek was rated as "Good" during both July and August,
whereas Fines was classified as "Excellent" in July and "Good" in August (Tables 3-3 and 3-
4). Although Richland Creek was rated as "Fair" based on mean values, this station was
classified as "Good-Fair" in July when Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera taxa, such as Serratella
deficiens, Ceratopsyche sparna, and Hydropsyche venularis were present in very high numbers
(Appendix A). In August, these taxa were either absent or noticeably less abundant. As a
result, Richland Creek was rated as "Fair" in August.
3.2 HISTORICAL COMPARISONS
The 2000 Pigeon River benthic community was similar to that observed in 1995 (Table 3-5).
The overall trend of decline and recovery from upstream to downstream observed in 1995 was
also apparent in 2000. The highest numbers for total taxa, EPT taxa, and EPT abundance
continue to be observed at the upstream reference site. In contrast, these same
3-12

Table 3-5. Summary of benthic community parameters from the Pigeon River drainage, 1995-2000.
Station/Sampling Total Total Total Total Total EPT EPT BI NCBI Bioclass-
Event Taxa EPT Ephem. Trichop. Diptera Abund.iai Score Score ificationlbi
RM 64.5
1995 61 23 10 9 21 75 3.12 5.03 G-F
1999 98 41 22 17 27 143 3.38 4.50 G
Mean 2000 91 35 17 15 30 190 2.81 4.22 G
RM 63.0
1995 46 9 1 7 15 37 4.37 6.73 F
1999 63 12 2 9 19 36 4.74 6.71 F
Mean 2000 60 11 4 6 17 49 4.96 6.78 F
RM 61.0
1999 60 16 4 11 24 89 4.11 5.84 F
Mean 2000 60 14 3 9 17 71 4.45 6.03 F
RM 59.0
1995 53 16 4 9 15 54 4.12 6.05 F
1999 70 17 4 12 22 92 4.36 5.85 F
Mean 2000 61 16 4 11 18 80 4.27 5.74 F
RM 55.5
1995 56 16 2 11 19 50 4.22 6.23 F
Mean 2000 65 19 4 12 19 89 4.46 5.60 G-F
RM 54.5
1995 55 13 5 8 20 34 4.37 6.45 F
Mean 2000 65 16 5 10 21 68 4.61 6.32 F
RM 52.3
1995 48 17 7 8 16 79 4.46 6.25 F
Mean 2000 59 17 7 11 17 97 4.91 5.91 F
RM 48.2
1995 46 16 9 7 16 76 4.23 6.07 F
Mean 2000 65 16 5 11 20 96 4.85 5.90 F
RM 42.6
1995 60 18 9 6 19 74 4.16 5.90 F
Mean 2000 76 26 11 14 21 120 3.94 4.99 G-F
RM 24.9
1995 43 18 11 5 13 88 3.31 4.49 G-F
Mean 2000 82 30 14 13 23 141 3.74 4.76 G
RM 19.3
1995 49 16 9 4 15 84 3.88 5.12 G-F
Mean 2000 81 32 16 15 20 173 3.71 4.69 G
Richland Creek
1995 45 14 7 5 15 65 4.31 5.52 G-F
Mean 2000 52 14 6 8 15 73 4.43 5.79 F
Jonathan Creek
1995 55 20 11 5 21 82 3.10 4.18 G-F
Mean 2000 95 37 19 14 31 201 2.79 4.23 G
Fines Creek
1995 55 18 10 5 22 86 4.02 5.36 G-F
Mean 2000 82 35 19 12 26 183 2.80 3.57 G
(a) Sum of assigned abundance values, 1=1-2 individuals; 3=3-9 individuals; 10=>10 individuals
(b) E=Excellent, G=Good, G-F=Good-Fair, F=Fair, and P=Poor
3-13

parameters continue to be noticeably lower downstream of the Canton mill and below the
Waynesville WWTP discharge, relative to the upstream reference site. Among the locations
sampled previously, the NCBI remained lowest and bioclassification highest at RM 64.5.
Despite overall similarities to past studies, differences were observed that suggest slight to
moderate improvements in the benthic community, particularly in Segments 2 and 3.
In comparison to 1995, nearly all parameters including total taxa richness, EPT taxa richness,
and NCBI improved in 2000 at all locations while data from 1999 (during which only four
locations were sampled) were relatively similar to that observed in the current study (Table 3-
5). In particular, total taxa richness in 2000 generally showed slight to substantial
improvement compared to 1995. Although low flow conditions may have made it possible to
sample these stations more thoroughly during 2000 and therefore, may be at least partially
responsible for these improvements, it is not unreasonable to expect that some of the changes
represent a continuing and gradual improvement in water quality downstream of the Canton
mill.
Improvement was also evident upon examination of EPT taxa richness from Segments 2 and 3
combined. Since 1987 (EA 1988), combined EPT taxa richness in these segments has more
than tripled from 14 taxa in 1987, to 34 taxa in 1995, to 43 taxa in 2000 (Figure 3-1). EPT
taxa, such as Acentrella, Stenonema ithaca, and Acroneuria abnormis were collected for the
first time during 1999 and 2000 at RM 63.0 (Appendix A and EA 1988 and 1996). In
addition, other EPT taxa, such as Ceratopsyche sparna, Lepidostoma, and Oecetis either have
become more common in Segments 2 and 3 or are being observed at stations further upstream
than in previous studies.
NCBI scores also reflect these improvements. In 2000, NCBI scores exhibited notable
decreases (i.e., the community was better) relative to 1995 at four of the eight stations in
Segments 2 and 3 (Figure 3-2). This was especially evident at RM 55.5 and RM 42.6 where
improvements in EPT richness and NCBI scores upgraded the bioclassifications from "Fair" in
1995 to "Good-Fair" in 2000. Even more encouraging than these specific improvements is the
fact that they occurred despite the existence of naturally stressful conditions brought on by
three consecutive years of extremely low flow conditions. These data indicate that the benthic
community in the Pigeon River continues to improve.
Compared to 1995, results from Jonathan Creek and Fines Creek were generally improved. In
2000, taxa richness and EPT richness were substantially higher while NCBI scores were either
similar to or lower (better) than in 1995 (Table 3-5). Bioclassifrcation based on mean values
improved at both Jonathan and Fines creeks from "Good-Fair" in 1995 to "Good" in 2000.
July 2000 results from Richland Creek suggested a slight improvement in the benthic
community compared to 1995. However, poorer results in August 2000 eliminated the
apparently positive results from July and mean values suggest that the quality of the benthic
community in Richland Creek has not improved compared to 1995.
3-14

Figure 3-1. Longitudinal comparison of EPT taxa richness in the mainstem of the Pigeon River, 1987 - 2000.
45
Excellent
40
35 Good
30
N �...-.
N ............
25 _� Good - Fair
20 � ' ----- ----------------------- -
W 15 �� = iC� '� ... Fair
`X
10
RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN WALTERS CP&L HYDRO
5 CANNTON ILL CREEK WWTP CREEK DAM poor DISCHARGE
D
N O O O 1D tD M N (D
It (o Di to V (V co (V d W
(D (D to W) to (D N V' '7 N '-
River Mile
—*4987 -X-1995 - +1999 •••*Mean 2000

Figure 3-2. Longitudinal comparison of NCBI scores in the mainstem of the Pigeon River, 1995 - 2000.
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6 Excellent
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6 - Good
4.8 1 ................ .. . ... ..�
...................
o 5.2 4
5.4 @ Good - Fair
m 5.s ■
z 5.8 µ
s.a f................;:
6.2
s.4 �: Fair
s.s
6.s
7.0 CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN WALTERS CP&L HYDRO
72 MILL CREEK WWTP CREEK DAM DISCHARGE
7.8 I / 1 Poor
8.0
N o 0 o N U� M N N m
O th ai N N aD N N ai
ID t0 t0 4� N N N R V
River Mile
•— *1995 —*-1999 ••••i Mean 2000

Summary
Total taxa richness and EPT richness were generally higher at the upper and lower stations in
the study area compared to the seven stations between the Canton mill and RM 42.6. NCBI
scores in Segments 2 and 3 generally improved in 2000 compared to 1995. Despite these
improvements, the benthic community immediately below the Canton mill and the Waynesville
WWTP discharge is somewhat poorer than in the area upstream of each location.
Bioclassifications based on mean values placed RM 64.5 and the two Tennessee stations (RM
24.9 and RM 19.3) in the "Good" category while RM 55.5 and RM 42.6 improved from
"Fair" in 1995 to "Good-Fair" in 2000. The remaining stations in Segments 2 and 3 were
rated as "Fair". Overall, the benthic community in the Pigeon River below the Canton mill
appears to be gradually improving.
3-17

4. FISH COMMUNITY
Fish and benthos are the groups most commonly investigated as part of stream assessment studies.
Fish are monitored as part of assessment activities by resource or regulatory agencies in at least
25 states, including North Carolina (Southerland and Stribling 1995). As a group, fishes have
numerous qualities that make them desirable for assessment studies (Karr et al. 1986, Lyons 1992,
Simon and Lyons 1995):
• Fish populations and individuals generally remain in the same area during summer seasons.
• Communities are persistent and recover rapidly from natural disturbances.
• Comparable results can be expected from an unperturbed site at various times.
• Fish have large home ranges and are less affected by natural microhabitat differences than
smaller organisms.
• Most fish species have long life spans (2-10+years) and can reflect both long-term and
current water resource quality.
• Fish continually inhabit the receiving water and integrate the chemical, physical, and
biological histories of the waters.
• Fish represent a broad spectrum of community tolerances from very sensitive to highly
tolerant.
• Fish are highly visible and valuable components of the aquatic community to the public.
• Aquatic life uses and regulatory language are generally characterized in terms of fish (e.g.,
fishable and swimmable goal of the Clean Water Act).
• Sampling frequency for trend assessment is less than for short-lived organisms.
• Taxonomy of fishes is well established, enabling experienced professional biologists to
reduce laboratory time by identifying many specimens in the field.
• Distribution, life histories, and tolerances to environmental stresses of many species of
North American fish are documented in the literature.
Although life history information is extensive for many species, the fishes that are best known are
those with economic value as recreational/commercial resources. Many public laws refer to
fishable waters and many areas have been reserved exclusively for sport angling. Therefore, the
public interest, relating to aquatic community health, is often focused on the monitoring,
management, and maintenance of fish communities.
The relative status and stability of the Pigeon River fish community was assessed in this study by
examining fish abundance, species richness, fish condition and health, and trophic composition.
4-1

Fish community data were incorporated in the Index of Biotic Integrity(Karr et al. 1986, DENR
1995), as one means of characterizing the biological health or biotic condition of the Pigeon River.
The reproductive status or life stage was determined for all fish collected in order to further
examine fish community health. A fish community containing fishes of only one life stage (e.g., all
adults or only small individuals) often represents a stressed ecosystem. Fish communities
supporting a range of life stages, is considered to be indicative of a healthy, self-sustaining
population. Reproductive success was assessed by tabulating the number of young-of-the-year fish
collected within each reach sampled. The number of species exhibiting multiple age classes was
tabulated and incorporated into NCIBI Metric 12.
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 a previous similar study (EA 1996) and other recent
studies within the Pigeon River or its tributaries (Saylor et al. 1993, CP&L 1995, DENR
unpublished data) to determine trends and measure improvement or decline.
Propagation of Pigeon River fish was assessed, as mentioned previously, by examining the presence
of young-of-the-year fish as well as fish in spawning condition. The relative recreational fishery
value of Pigeon River segments was defined by examining the abundance and variety of sportfish
species. Specific methods for the collection of fish samples and data analysis procedures were
provided in Section 2.
4.1 COMPOSITION, RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, AND DISTRIBUTION
A survey of the Pigeon River fish community was conducted at 11 mainstem and 3 tributary
locations, 12-22 July and 15-21 August 2000 (Figure 2-1). Results were tabulated to provide
individual station data summaries, and, in some cases, station results were combined to represent a
river segment. The four river segments were the station upstream of the Canton mill (reference
station RM 64.5), the four stations downstream of the mill but upstream of Richland Creek (RM
63.0, 61.0, 59.0, and 55.5), the four stations located between the confluence with Richland Creek
and Waterville Lake (RM 54.5, 52.3, 48.2, and 42.6), and the two stations downstream of Walters
Dam and the CP&L powerhouse (RM 24.9 and 19.3). Results from the three tributary sites were
not directly compared to results from the 11 Pigeon River mainstem 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 mainstem, 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 two Tennessee mainstem 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 4-1. Electrofishing
collections produced a total of 9175 fish distributed among 46 species within ten families (Tables 4-
2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5). Only one species (longnose dace) was found at a tributary station that did
4-2

TABLE 4-1. FISH SPECIES ENCOUNTERED FROM THE PIGEON RIVER AND THREE TRIBUTARIES, 2000.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
GIZZARD SHAD Dorosoma cepedianum
RAINBOW TROUT Oncorhynchus mykiss
BROWN TROUT Salmo trutta
CENTRAL STONEROLLER Campostoma anomaLum
GOLDFISH Carassius auratus
WHITETAIL SHINER Cyprinella gaLactura
COMMON CARP Cyprinus carpio
WARPAINT SHINER Luxilus coccogenis
RIVER CHUB Nocomis micropogon
GOLDEN SHINER Notemigonus crysoleucas
BIGEYE CHUB Notropis amblops
TENNESSEE SHINER Notropis Leuciodes
SILVER SHINER Notropis photogenis
SAFFRON SHINER Notropis rubricroceus
MIRROR SHINER Notropis spectruncuLus
TELESCOPE SHINER Notropis telescopus
BLACKNOSE DACE Rhinichthys atratulus
LONGNOSE DACE Rhinichthys cataractae
WHITE SUCKER Catostomus coamersoni
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER HypenteLium nigricans
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO Ictiobus bubalus
BLACK REDHORSE Moxostoma duquesnei
SHORTHEAD REDHORSE Moxostoma macrolepidotum
WHITE CATFISH Ameiurus catus
FLAT BULLHEAD Ameiurus platycephalus
CHANNEL CATFISH Ictalurus punctatus
FLATHEAD CATFISH Pylodictis oLivaris
UNID ICTALURID Ictalurid sp.
ROCK BASS Ambloplites rupestris
REDBREAST SUNFISH Lepomis auritus
GREEN SUNFISH Lepomis cyanellus
BLUEGILL Lepomis macrochirus
REDEAR SUNFISH Lepomis microlophus
HYBRID SUNFISH Lepomis hybrid
SMALLMOUTH BASS Micropterus doLomieu
LARGEMOUTH BASS Micropterus salmoides
WHITE CRAPPIE Pomoxis annularis
BLACK CRAPPIE Pomoxis nigromaculatus
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutselli) Etheostoma blennioides gutselli
GREENSIDE DARTER (newmani) Etheostoma blennioides newmani
GREENFIN DARTER Etheostoma chlorobranchium
REDLINE DARTER Etheostoma rufilineatum
SNUBNOSE DARTER Etheostoma simoterum
YELLOW PERCH Perca fLavescens
TANGERINE DARTER Percina aurantiaca
LOGPERCH Percina caprodes
OLIVE DARTER Percina squamata
FRESHWATER DRUM Aplodinotus grunniens
MOTTLED SCULPIN Cottus bairdi
BANDED SCULPIN Cottus caroLinae
4-3

TAn,c »-2 numtiER nnu arECIE. .., FISH LULLECTEU tLt0ROHIsm NG FRum imE MAINSTEm PIGEON RIVER ZUUU.
SPECIES 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52-3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 TOTAL
SPORT FISH RAINBOW TROUT 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 3 6
BROWN TROUT 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- 2
WHITE CATFISH -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
FLAT BULLHEAD 1 11 -- -- -- •- -- -- -- -- -- 12
CHANNEL CATFISH -- 10 1 3 8 5 1 3 4 -- -- 35
FLATHEAD CATFISH -- -- 1 -- -- 2 -- 1 1 -- -- 5
UNID ICTALURID -- 2 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
ROCK BASS 133 10 15 8 7 13 10 9 -- 98 21 324
REDBREAST SUNFISH 32 401 261 326 245 214 219 136 58 24 -- 1916
GREEN SUNFISH -- 3 3 13 11 28 29 13 3 3 -- 106
BLUEGILL 1 1 2 8 9 50 17 1 60 1 2 152
REDEAR SUNFISH -- -- -- -• --
HYBRID SUNFISH -- 1 -- 1 -- 3 -- 1 -- 1 -- 7
SMALLMOUTH BASS 40 6 86 17 23 12 15 36 23 68 46 372
LARGEMOUTH BASS -- 3 4 8 6 13 5 1 11 7 -- 58
WHITE CRAPPIE -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 2
BLACK CRAPPIE -- -- 1 2 4 22 6 7 2 -- -- 44
YELLOW PERCH -- -- 2 1 1 -- -- -_ __ __ __ 4
FRESHWATER DRUM -- -- -- -- -- - - 3 3
SPECIMEN SUBTOTAL 210 449 377 387 314 363 302 209 162 206 75 3054
NON-SPORT FISH GIZZARD SHAD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12 116 128
CENTRAL STONEROLLER 230 3 15 139 31 2 19 183 1 105 874 1602
GOLDFISH -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
COMMON CARP -- 21 11 9 23 36 14 11 10 1 -- 136
P BIGEYE CHUB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 4
RIVER CHUB 111 4 1 1 1 -- 1 32 46 -- 2 199
GOLDEN SHINER -- -- -- -- -- -- --
WARPAINT SHINER 39 1 2 -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- -- 44
WHITETAIL SHINER 25 47 81 18 8 16 8 21 3 4 49 280
SILVER SHINER -- -- -- -- -- - 2 10 12
SAFFRON SHINER 9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 9
MIRROR SHINER 79 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 79
TELESCOPE SHINER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - 2 27 29
BLACKNOSE DACE -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 2
WHITE SUCKER -- -- -- 8 -- 27 13 -- -- 3 -- 51
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 112 56 59 156 78 38 90 181 99 19 90 978
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 6 6
BLACK REDHORSE 75 43 7 -- 2 3 8 8 14 16 5 181
SHORTHEAD REDHORSE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 9 9
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutseLli) 142 3 1 5 4 -- 4 1 5 8 2 175
GREENSIDE DARTER (neumani) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 45 68
GREENFIN DARTER 138 -- 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 140
REDLINE DARTER -- -- -- -- -- -- - - 10 30 40
SNUBNOSE DARTER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 11 11
TANGERINE DARTER 30 7 -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 32
LOGPERCH -- -- -- -- -- - 8 8
OLIVE DARTER 3 -- 1. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4
MOTTLED SCULPIN 54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 54
BANDED SCULPIN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 133 247 380
SPECIMEN SUBTOTAL 1047 180 180 338 147 122 157 440 185 338 1535 4669
TOTAL SPECIMENS 1257 629 557 725 461 485 459 649 347 544 1610 7723
TOTAL SPECIES 20 19 20 18 16 16 16 19 16 21 21 45

TABLE 4-3. BLUE RIDGE PAPER - 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH STUDY
CATCH SUMMARIES BY GEAR FOR TRIBUTARY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FINES CRK JONATHAN CRK RICHLAND CRK
EFLONG EFPRAM EFPRAM
SPECIES
e
RAINBOW TROUT 9 4.7 30 3.2 -- --
BROWN TROUT 26 13.5 64 6.8 1 0.3
CENTRAL STONEROLLER 43 22.4 236 25.0 41 12.9
COMMON CARP -- -- -- -- 4 1.3
RIVER CHUB 1 0.5 2 0.2 -- --
GOLDEN SHINER 1 0.5 - -- -- --
WARPAINT SHINER -- -- -- -- 3 0.9
WHITETAIL SHINER 21 10.9 10 1.1 11 3.5
BLACKNOSE DACE -- -- 5 0.5 -- --
LONGNOSE DACE 4 2.1 231 24.5 1 0.3
WHITE SUCKER 2 1.0 20 2.1 -- --
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 51 26.6 245 26.0 87 27.4
BLACK REDHORSE -- -- 41 4.3 -- --
ROCK BASS -- -- 1 0.1 27 8.5
REDBREAST SUNFISH 16 8.3 9 1.0 121 38.2
GREEN SUNFISH 1 0.5 1 0.1 11 3.5
BLUEGILL 7 3.6 2 0.2 2 0.6
SMALLMOUTH BASS 1 0.5 -- -- 5 1.6
LARGEMOUTH BASS 5 2.6 3 0.3 1 0.3
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutseLLi) 4 2.1 35 3.7 1 0.3
GREENFIN DARTER -- -- 8 0.8 -- --
TANGERINE DARTER -- -- -- -- 1 0.3
TOTAL FISH 192 100.0 943 100.0 317 100.0
TOTAL SPECIES 15 17 15
4-5

Table 4-4. Ranked Abundance and Percent Occurrence of Fish Collected Electrofishing from the Mainstem
Pigeon River in North Carolina and Tennessee, July and August 2000.
SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT
REDBREAST SUNFISH 1916 24.81
CENTRAL STONEROLLER 1602 20.74
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 978 12.66
BANDED SCULPIN 380 4.92
SMALLMOUTH BASS 372 4.82
ROCK BASS 324 4.20
WHITETAIL SHINER 280 3.63
RIVER CHUB 199 2.58
BLACK REDHORSE 181 2.34
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutselli) 175 2.27
BLUEGILL 152 1.97
GREENFIN DARTER 140 1.81
COMMON CARP 136 1.76
GIZZARD SHAD 128 1.66
GREEN SUNFISH 106 1.37
MIRROR SHINER 79 1.02
GREENSIDE DARTER (newmani) 68 0.88
LARGEMOUTH BASS 58 0.75
MOTTLED SCULPIN 54 0.70
WHITE SUCKER 51 0.66
WARPAINT SHINER 44 0.57
BLACK CRAPPIE 44 0.57
REDLINE DARTER 40 0.52
CHANNEL CATFISH 35 0.45
TANGERINE DARTER 32 0.41
TELESCOPE SHINER 29 0.38
SILVER SHINER 12 0.16
FLAT BULLHEAD 12 0.16
SNUBNOSE DARTER 11 0.14
SAFFRON SHINER 9 0.12
SHORTHEAD REDHORSE 9 0.12
LOGPERCH 8 0.10
GOLDEN SHINER 7 0.09
HYBRID SUNFISH 7 0.09
RAINBOW TROUT 6 0.08
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 6 0.08
FLATHEAD CATFISH 5 0.06
BIGEYE CHUB 4 0.05
YELLOW PERCH 4 0.05
OLIVE DARTER 4 0.05
FRESHWATER DRUM 3 0.04
UNID ICTALURID 3 0.04
BROWN TROUT 2 0.03
BLACKNOSE DACE 2 0.03
REDEAR SUNFISH 2 O.03
WHITE CRAPPIE 2 0.03
WHITE CATFISH 1 0.01
GOLDFISH 1 0.01
TOTAL FISH 7723 100.00
4-6

Table 4-5. Ranked abundance and percent occurrence of fish families collected electrofishing
from the mainstem Pigeon River in North Carolina and Tennessee. 2000.
Relative
Number Number Abundance
Family Species Individuals Percent
Sunfish 9 2983 38.6
Minnow 13 2404 31. 1
Sucker 5 1225 15.9
Perch 8 482 6.2
Sculpin 2 434 5.6
Herring 1 128 1.7
Catfish 4 56 0.7
Trout 2 8 0. 1
Drum 1 3 < 0. 1
45 7723
4-7

not also occur in the mainstem. Longnose dace were rare to uncommon in Fines Creek and
Richland Creek and abundant in Jonathan Creek (Table 4-3). The mainstem electrofishing catch
was composed of 17 sport fish species and 28 non-sport and/or forage species (Table 4-2). One
additional species (Tennessee shiner) was found in the mainstem at RM 19.3, but was collected
only by seining. Non-sport species ranked highest in numerical abundance accounting for 61
percent of the total catch. Sunfish dominated the catch in terms of numbers (2983 individuals) and
ranked second in terms of richness with nine species (Table 4-5). Conversely, minnows were first
in terms of species richness (13 species), but second in terms of abundance (2404 individuals).
Eight perch species were collected of which seven were darter species (members of the genus
Etheostoma or Percina). The sucker family was fairly well represented with five species and 1225
individuals. Catfish were represented by four species but only 56 individuals. The remainder of the
catch consisted of relatively low numbers of two each of sculpin and trout species, and one herring
and one drum species. The two trout species were probably the result of stocking.
No single species dominated the mainstem catch. Redbreast sunfish was the most abundant species
(1916 individuals), followed by a central stoneroller (1602), northern hog sucker (978), banded
sculpin (380), and smallmouth bass (372) (Table 4-4). Redbreast sunfish, central sonteroller, and
northern hogsucker were also the three most abundant species in 1995 (EA 1996). Three of the six
most abundant fishes were sport fish including the most abundant fish collected, redbreast sunfish
(Table 4-4).
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,
toxics). 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 four 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.
Thirty-four of the 45 species collected from the mainstem followed one of these patterns (Table 4-
6). Ten of the eleven remaining species were too rare to classify; the final species, river chub was
abundant upstream of the mill, common at RM 48.2 and 42.6 and rare but widely distributed
elsewhere and probably could be assigned to Pattern 1. Six species clearly followed Pattern 1 (i.e.,
were widely distributed). These included two sunfish, two minnow, and two sucker species (Table
4-6). This group of widely distributed species includes two of the three most abundant species in
the study area and four others that rank in the top nine. Two of the six widely distributed species
are sport fishes.
4-8

Table 4-6. Longitudinal distribution of fishes in the Pigeon River mainstem, 2000.
Species restricted to Species restricted to Species restricted to or
Species distributed or much more abundant or much more abundant most abundant between
throughout the upstream of the downstream of Waterville Lake and
study area Canton mill CP&L Hydro Plant Canton mill
N. hog sucker Greenfm darter Gizzard shad Common carp
Black redhorse Greenside darter Logperch White sucker
Central stoneroller utselli subsp.) Redline darter Black crappie
Whitetail shiner . Tangerine darter T. snubnose darter Bluegill
Rock bass Warpaint shiner Greenside darter Redbreast sunfish
Smallmouth bass Mirror shiner newmani subsp.) Green sunfish
Saffron shiner Silver shiner Largemouth bass
Mottled sculpin Bigeye chub Flat bullhead
Telescope shiner Channel catfish
a Shorthead redhorse Flathead catfish
Smallmouth buffalo
Freshwater drum
Banded sculpin

Seven species--warpaint, saffron, and mirror shiner; greenfin and tangerine darter; the gutselli
subspecies of greenside darter; and mottled sculpin--were all restricted to or much more common
upstream of the Canton mill. This pattern appears to be the result of biogeographical
considerations and probably thermal preferences. Saffron shiner, mirror shiner, greenfin darter,
the gutselli subspecies of greenside darter, all are nearly restricted to the Blue Ridge
physiographic province and all are cool water forms, often being found in trout streams
(Menhinick 1991). Mottled sculpin, warpaint shiner, and tangerine darter also are cool water
species (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Thus, water temperature at RM 64.5, which was 1-5 C cooler
compared to the downstream locations, appears to be the principal reason for the restriction of
these seven species to the area upstream of the mill.
Even more species (13) were unique to the Tennessee portion of the study area (i.e., downstream
of Walters dam and the CP&L power house. Five of these species were common (gizzard shad,
greenside darter [newmani subspecies], redline darter, telescope shiner, and banded sculpin),
while the other 8 were uncommon (3-12 individuals) (Table 4-2). However, 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 13 species were absent downstream
of the mill, then they still should be present upstream of the mill. The fact that none of the 13 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 eight
species more common upstream of the mill which are predominantly cool water forms, the 13
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., shorthead
redhorse, freshwater drum, 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. Conversely, the area
downstream of the mill is too warm and too big for most of the Blue Ridge fishes found upstream
of the mill.
Finally, there is a group of ten species (Table 4-6) that is restricted to or most abundant in the
middle two segments of the study area. The increased abundance of bluegill, black crappie,
flathead catfish, and channel catfish in this area is certainly the result of emmigration of individuals
from Waterville Lake. For example, bluegill was noticeably more abundant at RM 42.6 at the
head of 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 (17 species) including three
sucker, five minnow, five sunfish, two trout, and two darter species. It also yielded the greatest
number of individuals (943 in two passes through the standard 200 in zone) (Table 4-3). Fines
Creek yielded moderate diversity (15 species) but relatively few individuals (Table 4-3). Richland
4-10

Creek had moderate species richness (15 species), but yielded only one sucker species and very
low numbers of darters and trout. The warmer water in Richland Creek (24-26C) compared to
Fines (24-25C) or Jonathan Creek (19-21C) resulted in it yielding more sunfish species than
Jonathan Creek or Fines Creek and many more redbreast sunfish than the coolwater streams.
Cumulative species richness was fairly similar (18-21 species) at most mainstem locations but
slightly lower at RM 55.5, 54.5, 52.3, and 42.6 (Table 4-2). Cumulative species richness in the
middle two segments of the Pigeon River was either similar to (18-20 species) or slightly lower
(16 species) than at the upstream reference station (20 species at RM 64.5) (Table 4-2).
Although species richness was relatively similar among stations, there were obvious differences in
composition and relative abundance among the segments, as described previously. At most of the
locations, mean species richness in 2000 was similar to 1995 (Figure 4-1). Differences between
the two periods were slight declines at RM 55.5 and RM 19.3, and a slight increase at RM 24.9.
The most noticeable change was at RM 63.0, immediately below the mill where there was a
noticeable improvement in species richness:
Percent similarity indices were calculated to determine the similarity of sampling station catches in
terms of species present and their relative abundance. Values may range from 0 or no similarity,
to 100 for identical communities. A comparison of station similarity (PSc) values is presented in
Table 4-7. The PSc values indicated that the similarity of species composition between the
reference stations and all other Pigeon River stations was low. PSc values comparing RM 64.5 to
the other stations ranged from 13.3 to 44.7. The two Tennessee stations (RM 24.9 and 19.3) also
were quite different with PSc values usually being <40 compared to the North Carolina stations
(Table 4-7). In contrast to the distinct assemblages present in Segments 1 and 4, stations in
Segments 2 and 3 (i.e., downstream of the mill but upstream of Waterville Lake) were fairly
similar, with most PSc values in the range of 50-80% (Table 4-7).
Even though RM 42.6 was in Segment 3, it had lower PSc values (27-53) compared to the other
stations in Segments 2 and 3. This was probably due to its proximity to Waterville Lake and
being influenced by the backup of water from the lake.
The total biomass of fish collected at all mainstem stations was 703 kg (Table 4-8). Rank order
for the ten species contributing the most biomass was:
Specie No. Biomass (kg) Avg. Wt (Q)
Common carp 136 218.1 1604
N. hog sucker 978 120.9 124
Black redhorse 181 102.5 566
Redbreast sunfish 1916 85.1 44
White sucker 51 23.5 461
Smallmouth bass 372 20.6 55
Gizzard shad 128 18.8 147
Channel catfish 35 17.5 500
Rock bass 324 16.9 52
Central stoneroller 1602 14.2 9
4-11

Table 4-7. Mean Percent Similarity Indices (PSc) for mainstem Pigeon River pram electrofishing catches among stations,
July and August 2000.
River Mile 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3
64.5 16.8 20.7 35.2 24.8 13.3 21.3 41.1 23.3 44.7 33.7
63.0 65.3 50.8 70.7 63.1 65.1 31.7 27.4 10.1 11.1
61.0 58.4 66.0 58.8 69.0 42.1 35.3 16.3 14.7
59.0 72.6 49.1 71.9 66.9 48.7 36.9 37.5
55.5 62.9 78.4 53.0 42.5 22.4 21.0
54.5 67.8 29.5 40.9 11.1 10.2
52.3 47.2 44.8 18.8 - 17.7
48.2 53.3 33.6 49.4
N
42.6 11.3 9.8
24.9 58.6

Figure 4-1. Comparison of the Mean Number of Fish Species Collected Among Pigeon River Mainstem Locations, 1995 and
2000.
25
20
-�I
N
i
LLI \ - i
'-----
U ... --- �.___..____............_. .......`.._ -c __._....................__......_.__..._. __ _ _ ___
15 C� - -
UJI
LL
O
r+ �
w ul
10 -------------------------------------- --------
5 ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN WALTERS CP&L HYDRO
MILL CREEK WWTP CREEK DAM DISCHARGE
0
N O o O (D (D Cl) N (D 0) (h
((DD ((DD (D N (N tV) V) V N
River Mile
-{31-995 -1r2000

TABLE 4-8. BIOMASS OF FISH CULLEcTED ELECTROFI5HING FROM THE MAINSTEM PIGEON RIVER, ZUUU.
SPECIES 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 TOTAL
SPORT FISH RAINBOW TROUT O(a) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 460 465
BROWN TROUT 45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 -- 45
WHITE CATFISH -- 240 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 261
FLAT BULLHEAD 8 130 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 138
CHANNEL CATFISH -- 2278 1510 965 4320 2340 1060 3450 1575 -- -- 17498
FLATHEAD CATFISH -- -- 470 -- -- 730 -- 85 70 -- -- 1355
UNID ICTALURID -- 21 250 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 250
ROCK BASS 3921 320 663 587 482 625 1010 610 -- 6829 1847 16894
REDBREAST SUNFISH 1270 12628 14324 14270 11773 8152 8837 8063 3478 2302 -- 85097
GREEN SUNFISH -- 74 241 489 210 529 694 336 185 96 -- 2854
BLUEGILL 12 100 70 268 207 1059 377 70 874 90 64 3191
REDEAR SUNFISH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 290 -- 290
HYBRID SUNFISH -- 37 -- 18 -- 173 -- 32 -- 190 -- 450
SMALLMOUTH BASS 1939 193 169 2213 1210 1828 746 2261 1678 5060 3317 20614
LARGEMOUTH BASS -- 33 955 1595 793 3604 1002 1 1585 4130 -- 13698
WHITE CRAPPIE -- -- -- -- -- 18 -- 44 -- -- -- 62
BLACK CRAPPIE -- -- 90 106 255 628 760 136 325 -- -- 2300
YELLOW PERCH -- -- 123 60 34 -- -- -- -- -- -- 217
FRESHWATER DRUM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •- -- 4090 4090
BIOMASS SUBTOTAL 7195 16054 18865 20571 19284 19686 14486 15088 9770 18992 9778 169769
NON-SPORT FISH GIZZARD SHAD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1580 17170 18750
CENTRAL STONEROLLER 600 100 124 2075 497 4 295 2634 2 1650 6195 14176
GOLDFISH -- 400 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 400
COMMON CARP -- 48150 21180 19820 26920 44660 25790 27000 2000 2560 -- 218080
r-. BIGEYE CHUB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9 9
RIVER CHUB 1253 75 15 70 12 -- 25 395 490 -- 200 2535
GOLDEN SHINER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12 -- -- 12
WARPAINT SHINER 135 1 11 -- -- -- -- 8 -- -- -- 155
WHITETAIL SHINER 94 500 309 195 51 245 3 163 12 70 239 1881
SILVER SHINER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 5 7
SAFFRON SHINER 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8
MIRROR SHINER 112 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 112
TELESCOPE SHINER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 41 47
BLACKNOSE DACE -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 2
WHITE SUCKER -- -- -- 3910 -- 11375 5848 -- -- 2360 -- 23493
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 3343 10244 5860 17884 10718 7473 15553 18356 6184 3270 22033 120918
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13950 13950
BLACK REDHORSE 23338 29460 5535 -- 1030 1300 6190 7780 8635 13870 5400 102538
SHORTHEAD REDHORSE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10410 10410
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutseLLi) 361 23 3 26 21 -- 12 2 8 125 25 606
GREENSIDE DARTER (newani) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 515 199 714
GREENFIN DARTER 160 -- 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 163
REDLINE DARTER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 36 132 168
SNUBNOSE DARTER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13 13
TANGERINE DARTER 355 20 -- 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 395
LOGPERCH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 195 195
OLIVE DARTER 10 -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11
MOTTLED SCULPIN 195 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 195
BANDED SCULPIN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2310 1456 3766
BIOMASS SUBTOTAL 29964 88973 33041 44001 39249 65057 53716 56339 17343 28354 77672 533709
TOTAL BIOMASS 37159 105027 51906 64572 58533 84743 68202 71427 27113 47346 87450 703478
(a) 0 DENOTES THAT SPECIMEN(S) WAS (WERE) NOT WEIGHED).

When all species are considered, stations in Segments 2 and 3 from RM 63.0 through RM 48.2,
plus RM 19.3 in Segment 4 yielded the most biomass:
Biomass (kg)
Station Biomass (kg) w/o Carp &RB Sunfish
64.5 37.2 35.9
63.0 105.0 44.2
61.0 51.9 16.4
59.0 64.6 30.5
55.5 58.5 19.8
54.5 84.7 31.8
52.3 68.2 33.6
48.2 71.4 36.3
42.6 27.1 21.6
24.9 47.3 42.4
19.3 87.4 87.4
The high biomass at these middle river stations was due mainly to large contributions by redbreast
sunfish and especially common carp. When these two species are removed from the data set,
biomass becomes fairly similar(30.5-44.2 kg) among all stations except RM 61.0 (16.4 kg), RM
55.5 (19.8 kg), RM 42.6 (21.6 kg), and RM 19.3 (87.4 kg). The continued high biomass at RM
19.3 was due to larger contributions from freshwater drum, gizzard shad, northern hog sucker,
smallmouth buffalo, shorthead redhorse, and central stoneroller. Also note that even after carp
and redbreast sunfish biomass is removed, total biomass at RM 63.0, the location closest to the
discharge, was still second highest among the 11 locations.
Summary
In 2000, 46 fish species were collected from the study area including 45 species from the
mainstem Pigeon River. This latter total included 17 sport species, all of which occurred
downstream of the Canton mill. 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, proximity to
Waterville Lake, water temperature, and point and non point source dischargers. Furthermore,
the number of species and biomass at RM 63.0, the warmest location was comparable to or higher
than at the other locations including the upstream control location.
4.2 CONDITION ANALYSIS
The relative condition of Pigeon River fishes was compared using the coefficient of condition (K)
and relative weight (W,) as detailed in Appendix Section A.3. A large K value indicates a heavy
fish for a specific length. Many variables influence the value of K including sex, season of
collection, and life stage (Everhart et al. 1975) and should be considered when comparing the
condition of fish populations. To reduce the influence of these and other variables, comparisons
of Pigeon River K values involved only larger juvenile (those>20 g) and adult specimens taken
during the 2000 survey. Species selected for comparison (common carp, northern hog sucker,
4-15

black redhorse, rock bass, redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, bluegill, and smallmouth bass) were
chosen as a result of their overall abundance and occurrence at a variety (both upriver and
downriver) of sampling sites. Results were expressed in terms of mean K or W, by river segment
for the selected species and are presented in Tables 4-9 and 4-10, respectively. W,values could
not be calculated for black redhorse or northern hog sucker because standard regression equations
have not been published for these species.
Average K values for northern hog sucker ranged from 1.12 to 1.28 with values being similar in
the three North Carolina river segments and slightly higher in the Tennessee segment (Table 4-9).
Rock bass mean K values ranged from 1.85 to 1.94 (Table 4-9) and were similar among segments.
Redbreast sunfish mean K values ranged from 1.86 to 2.06 and generally increased from upstream
to downstream:
Segment 1 - 1.87
Segment 2 - 1.86
Segment 3 — 1.91
Segment 4—2.06
Mean K values for black redhorse ranged from 0.94 to 1.19 and increased sequentially from
upstream to downstream:
Segment 1 —0.94
Segment 2—0.99
Segment 3 — 1.01
Segment 4— 1.19
Common carp were collected only from Segments 2 and 3 and bad similar K factors in each
segment: 1.36 Segment 2; 1.38 Segment 3
Like carp, green sunfish were largely restricted to the middle two segments; the mean K value for
Segment 2 (1.84) was similar to the mean for Segment 3 (1.97) (Table 4-9). Bluegill were also
largely restricted to Segments 2 and 3 where they had similar K values (Table 4-9). Smallmouth
bass were collected in all four segments but were most common in the Tennessee portion of the
study area (i.e., Segment 4). Mean smallmouth bass K values were nearly identical in Segments 1,
3, and 4 (1.20-1.22) and slightly lower (1.10) in Segment 2. Of the five species represented in
Segments 1-3, three species (northern hog sucker, rock bass, and redbreast sunfish) had similar
mean K values downstream of the Canton mill. Mean black redhorse K values were higher
downstream of the mill, while mean K values for smallmouth bass were slightly lower in Segment
2 compared to the upstream area but values in Segment 3 were similar to the upstream means.
Thus, all available information indicates that the condition of fish downstream of the mill is
generally comparable to that of fish upstream of the mill.
4-16

TABLE 4-9. BLUE RIDGE PAPER - 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH STUDY
COMPARISON OF CONDITION FACTOR (K[TLI) STATISTICS AMONG AREAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WEIGHING GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 20 GRAMS
UPSTREAM MILL TO RICHLAND CRK. RICHLAND CRK. TO WATERVILLE L. DOWNSTREAM WATERVILLE L.
N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ N MEAN _MIN MAX
SPECIES
COMMON CARP -- -- -- -- 11 1.36 1.22 1.46 10 1.38 1.24 1.48 -- -- -- --
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 20 1.12 0.94 1.24 122 1.12 0.81 1.33 169 1.12 0.89 1.35 43 1.28 0.97 1.54
BLACK REDHORSE. 53 0.94 0.78 1.24 18 0.99 0.79 1.12 31 1.01 0.81 1.19 13 1.19 1.07 1.44
ROCK BASS 47 1.88 1.46 2.41 32 1.85 1.38 2.31 26 1.86 1.55 2.43 79 1.94 1.46 2.67
REDBREAST SUNFISH 20 1.87 1.54 2.23 191 1.86 1.28 2.41 171 1.91 1.37 2.75 23 2.06 1.57 2.65
GREEN SUNFISH -- -- -- -- 15 1.84 1.52 2.28 27 1.97 1.52 2.67 3 2.09 2.01 2.17
BLUEGILL -- -- -- -- 13 1.96 1.62 2.53 39 1.83 1.42 2.39 3 2.12 1.70 2.62
SMALLMOUTH BASS 10 1.22 1.03 1.52 27 1.10 0.80 1.38 50 1.20 0.72 1.56 71 1.22 0.62 1.62
A
J

TABLE 4-10. BLUE RIDGE PAPER - 2000 PIGEON RIVER FISH STUDY
COMPARISON OF RELATIVE WEIGHT (Wr) STATISTICS AMONG AREAS FOR SELECTED SPECIES
UPSTREAM MILL TO RICHLAND CRK. RICHLAND CRK. TO WATERVILLE L. DOWNSTREAM WATERVILLE L.
N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_
SPECIES
COMMON CARP -- -- -- -- 11 97.7 87.5 104.3 10 98.6 89.3 105.2 -- -- -- --
ROCK BASS 51 87.8 68.9 115.5 34 85.9 64.0 105.8 27 86.2 70.8 111.4 81 89.6 69.3 122.9
REDBREAST SUNFISH 24 105.3 84.5 129.0 216 106.4 59.2 138.9 202 108.7 75.9 158.7 24 118.7 90.9 152.9
GREEN SUNFISH -- -- -- -- 24 90.3 73.6 111.0 44 97.6 77.8 137.5 3 106.5 103.7 109.2
BLUEGILL -- -- -- -- 20 94.7 64.2 131.3 70 92.2 67.5 124.6 3 108.5 91.3 137.8
SMALLMOUTH BASS 9 88.7 72.5 114.2 19 85.4 69.6 104.8 36 87.9 52.6 107.4 62 93.5 76.4 120.3
A
co

The coefficients of condition (K) for appropriate Pigeon River species (Table 4-9) were compared
with the published data (Carlander 1969 and 1977) to evaluate their condition relative to
specimens from other waterbodies in the southeastern United States. Carlander (1969 and 1977)
is the most widely used reference text for age, growth, and condition statistics.
In general, specimens from the Pigeon River had K values within the ranges reported in the
literature:
Mean or Range
This Study Carlander 1969, 1977
Common carp Range of means (1.36-1.38) Mean=1.39 R=1.11-2.02
N. hog sucker Range of means (1.12-1.28) Mean=1.05 R=0.86-1.30
Rock bass Range of means (1.85-1.94) Mean=1.29 R=1.20-1.49
Redbreast sunfish Range of means (1.86-2.06) Mean=2.20
Green sunfish Range of means (1.84-2.09) Mean=1.87 R=1.68-2.02
Bluegill Range of means (1.83-2.12) Mean=2.27 R=0.91-3.05
Smallmouth bass Range of means (1.10-1.22) Mean=1.29 R=1.20-1.49
Collectively, the K value results indicate that (1) the condition of common carp, northern hog
sucker, rock bass, smallmouth bass, redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, and bluegill from the Pigeon
River is comparable to the condition of these species species from other areas in the Southeast,
and (2) the condition of these species downstream of the Canton mill generally is comparable to
or better than in specimens collected upstream of the mill.
W,values for common carp were similar in Segments 2 and 3 (Table 4-10) and values in both
segments were only slightly lower than the target value of 100. Conversely, W,values for
redbreast sunfish were above 100 in all segments with the highest values occurring in Segments 3
and 4 (Table 4-10). W,values for rock bass were below 90 in all four segments (Table 4-10).
For both green sunfish and bluegill, the highest W,values occurred in Segment 4. Smallmouth
bass had mean W,values below 100 in all segments but the values were similar among the
segments. In general, the spatial pattern in W,values was similar to that seen for the K values
(Table 4-9).
Summary
K values and W,values for fishes from the Pigeon River were within expected ranges for this
area. Furthermore, K and W,values downstream of the mill were typically comparable to or
better than those upstream of the mill.
4.3 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 et al. 1986) as
modified by DEHNR (1995). The IBI includes a range of attributes of fish assemblages which
can be classified into three categories: species richness and composition, trophic composition,
4-19

and fish abundance and condition. Scores of 5, 3, and 1 were assigned to each of 12 ecological
characteristics or metrics within the three categories (Section 2). Scores approximated whether
the metric was similar to (assigned a score of 5), deviated slightly from (assigned a score of 3), or
deviated strongly from (assigned a score of 1) that expected in an undisturbed system. The index,
the sum of scores for 12 metrics, provides a concise, quantitative result. Scoring followed
guidelines established by DEHNR(1995). Species richness was based on specimens collected by
all sampling gears combined. However, proportional metrics (e.g., percent omnivores) were
calculated using only electrofishing data(boat and pram). At all stations, similar distances
(usually 200m) were sampled with the pram electrofisher, while the boat covered a broader range
of distances (100-500m), but similar amounts of time (usually about 30 min). To standardize
catch rates better, separate pram, and pram+ boat electrofishing data were used to score Metric
2, number of individuals. Based on guidance contained in DEHNR(1995) as well as that
developed by others (Ohio EPA 1987), we developed separate metric scoring criteria for pram
and pram+ boat catch rates:
Pram
Plus Boat Pram Onlv
CPE (No./60 min. pram <250 fish = 1 <200 fish = 1
+No./30 min boat) 250-450 fish = 3 200-400 fish = 3
>450 fish = 5 >400 fish= 5
Plots of DEHNR data(DEHNR 1995; Figure 2) indicate that at best there is only a weak
relationship between CPE and drainage area. Therefore, we made no adjustment for differences
in drainage area among the study locations. Because of concerns expressed by DEHNR the
NCIBI was not used to rate locations (e.g., fair, poor, excellent, etc.). Instead, it was used as a
broad measure to compare among locations and to measure changes compared to 1995 (EA
1996).
In conformance with DEHNR (1995) guidance, Metric 11 (Percent Diseased Fish) was scored
without the inclusion of parasites (e.g., blackspot, leeches, etc.). External diseases encountered
most frequently were eroded fins and lesions; skeletal deformities and tumors were included in the
calculations but were rarely encountered.
NCIBI results for Pigeon River fish sites are presented in Figures 4-2 and 4-3, and scores for each
NCIBI metric are presented in Tables 4-11 and 4-12. At a given site, there was little or no
difference in scores between the two passes (Tables 4-11 and 4-12), so the discussion that follows
is based on mean scores (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). The station upstream of Canton, the two
downstream stations closest to the mill (i.e., RM 63.0 and 61.0), and the station furthest
downstream (i.e., RM 19.3) all had mean IBI scores in the low to mid 50s (Figure 4-2).
Conversely, the other mainstem sites (i.e., those from RM 59 through 24.9) all had mean IBI
scores in the low to mid 40s, about 10 points lower than at the other group of sites. Mean NCIBI
scores at the most upstream and most downstream stations were identical (55 at each). Note that
although RM 64.5 and RM 19.3 had identical NCIBI scores (Table 4-11) the fish community at
each was very different (Table 4-2). Also, it should be noted that sites with scores that differ by
<8 IBI
4-20

Figure 4-2. Mean IBI Scores Among Pigeon River Mainstem Locations Based on Combined Boat and Pram Electrofishing
Data, 2000.
60 -
55 - --- -- ----------------------------------------------- -------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
50 - -------- ----------------- ------------------------------------ ---- --------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
45 - -------------- ------------------- -------------------- --- - --------- ------------ --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLI
w
0
0 40 - --------------------------------------- ------------ -—-- ----- ............--------------- ------- ......... ......—....... .-------- ------------- ........ -------------------------------------------
N fn
m
35 - --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- -
----------------------------------------------------------:------------------------------------ ------------------------------
30 - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANTON RlCHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN WALTERS CP&LHYDRO
25 -----NULL-----------------CJZEEK------------VVWTP------- ...................CREEK.------ ----------DAM........... ---------------------------------.--DJSCHARGE-------- -----------------
20
Lq q q q LQ Un Ci N CQ q
.t Cl) 1 0 LO It N 00 (N
to co (0 q) U1 Lo V) It 't
River Mile

Figure 4-3. Comparison of IBI Scores Among Pigeon River Mainstem Locations Based on Pram Electrofishing Data, 1995 and 2000.
so
55 --- -----------------------------.._-.-....---------...----------------------------------......._---------...------_--------------------.-......----•---------------------------------------------------------------------
50
w
U45 - �__, 1---------- , ----------'� ' -
� ' M --------------
40 ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------._........_----------....----------------------------------...---------------------------------------------------------
35 -----CANTGfa-----------RICHLAND---- --WAYNESVILLE---------------J©NATHAN-----------------------------WALTERS----------------------------------------CP&L-HYDRO------------------------
MILL CREEK WWTP CREEK DAM DISCHARGE
L �. ►l 1 1 1
30
(D O O O (D LQ Cl) N (D 0) CO
V M 1 0) V) V N aD N V Di
(D (D (D (D lD (D (D V V N
River Mile
--&2000 --*1995

Table 4-11. 2000 IBI Scores for Pigeon River Mainstem Locations Based on Both Boat and Pram Electrofishing Data.
64.5 63 61 59 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3
Metric JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG
#Species 19(5) 16(3) 14(3) 18(5) 15(3) 17(5) 16(3) 15(3) 14(3) 15(3) 15(3) 15(3) 13(3) 16(3) - 16(3) 15(3) - 21(5) 15(3) 20(5) 20(5)
#Individuals 465(5) 400(3) 202(3) 390(3) 136(1) 274(3) 245(1) 254(3) 197(1) 148(1) 223(1) 185(1) 151(1) 185(i) - 261(3) 155(1) - 202(1) 230(1) 561(5) 545(5)
#Darter spp. 4(5) 3(5) 1(3) 2(3) 1(3) 3(5) 2(3) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 1(3) - 1(3) 1(3) - 2(3) 2(3) 4(5) 4(5)
#Sunfish &
Salmonid spp. 4(5) 3(5) 3(5) 4(5) 3(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) - 4(5) 3(5) - 7(5) 4(5) 3(5) 3(5)
#Sucker spp. 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) . 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 1(3) 2(5) 3(5) 3(5) 3(5) 3(5) - 2(5) 2(5) - 3(5) 2(5) 3(5) 4(5)
#Intolerant spp. 3(5) 2(3) 0(1) 1(3) 1(3) 2(3) 1(3) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) - 2(3) 1(3) 3(5) 2(3)
%Tolerant Fish 0.1(5) 0.0(5) 6.3(5) 6.1(5) 2.2(5) 2.7(5) 2.8(5) 3.2(5) 6.0(5) 9.6(5) 16.8(5) 9.0(5) 8.9(5) 9.7(5) - 5.5(5) 6.4(5) 0.7(5) 0.8(5) 0.0(5) 0.0(5)
% Omnivores 8.5(5) 9.2(5) 5.0(5) 3.6(5) 1.1(5) 2.7(5) 2.8(5) 2.2(5) 4.2(5) 6.8(5) 14.5(5) 11.2(5) 5.2(5) 6.7(5) - 6.3(5) 19.1(5) - 1.4(5) 0.0(5) 0.1(5) 0.5(5)
% Insectivores 21.7 26.8 89.5(5) 94.6(5) 84.9(5) 69.1(3) 67.2(3) 77.4(3) 77.8(3) 79.1(3) 73.3(3) 72.6(3) 84.3(5) 78.7(3) - 48.6(3) 68.6(3) - 36.9(1) 38.2(1) 28.7(1) 22.7(1)
(or%Specialized
Insectivores) 36.1(3) 33.8(3) 0.4 1.0 1.6 0.8 1.1 0.5 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 - 0.9 1 - 9.2 7.3 6.4 10.4
#Piscivorous spp. 2(5) 2(5) 4(5) 3(5) 5(5) 5(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 5(5) 6(5) 5(5) 4(5) 4(5) - 4(5) 4(5) - 3(5) 3(5) 2(5) 2(5)
• Diseased 0.4(5) 0.0(5) 1.7(5) 0.5(5) 0.5(5) 1.3(5) 13.0(1) 4.6(3) 9.2(1) 4.5(3) 5.0(3) 4.5(3) 3.7(3) 2.2(3) - 3.7(3) 2.0(5) - 0.0(5) 1.9(5) 0.0(5) 0.0(5)
•of Species
with multiple age
classes 68(5) 88(5) 50(5) 39(3) 53(5) 47(5) 63(5) 80(5) 79(5) 53(5) 60(5) 53(5) 77(5) 75(5) - 63(5) 60.0(5) -- 47.6(5) 46.7(5) 45.0(5) 55.0(5)
IBI Score 58 52 50 52 50 54 44 46 40 44 42 42 44 44 - 46 46 48 46 56 54
4-23

Table 4-12. 2000 IBI Scores for Pigeon River Mainstem and Tributary Locations Using Only Pram Electrofislting Data.
Pigeon River Mainstem
64.5 63 61 59 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3
Metric JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG
#Species 19(5) 16(3) 14(3) 18(5) 15(3) 17(5) 16(3) 15(3) 14(3), 15(3) 15(3) 15(3) 13(3) 16(3) 13(3) 16(3) 15(3) 10(3) 21(5) 15(3) 20(5) 20(5)
#Individuals 413(5) 306(3) 202(3) 390(3) 116(1) 216(3) 208(3) 176(1) 141(1) 101(1) 140(1) 96(1) 107(1) 117(1) 203(3) 159(1) 99(1) 141(1) 145(1) 140(1) 518(5) 453(5)
#Darter spp. 4(5) 3(5) 1(3) 2(3) 1(3) 3(5) 2(3) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 1(3) 0(1) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3) 2(3) 2(3) 4(5) 4(5)
#Sunfish &
Salmonid spp. 4(5) 2(5) 3(5) 4(5) 3(5) 3(5) 3(5) 4(5) 4(5) 3(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 3(5) 3(5) 3(5) 3(5) 2(5) 4(5) 2(5) 1(3) 1(3)
#Sucker spp. 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3) 2(5) 1(3) 2(5) 1(3) 1(3) 2(5) 1(3) 2(5) 1(3) 2(5) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3)
#Intolerant spp. 3(5) 2(3) 0(1) 1(3) 1(3) 2(3) 1(3) 0(1) 0(1) 0(i) 0(1) 0(i) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 0(1) 2(3) 1(3) 2(3) 2(3)
%Tolerant Fish 0.2(5) 0(5) 6.3(5) 6.1(5) 2.5(5) 1.0(5) 2.5(5) 0.8(5) 3.9(5) 7.0(5) 19.1(5) 14.4(5) 8.7(5) 10.7(5) 1.7(5) 2.8(5) 0.8(5) 0.0(5) 0.0(5) 0.0(5) 0.0(5) 0.0(5)
% Omnivores 9.0(5) 9.7(5) 5.0(5) 3.6(5) 1.3(5) 1.0(5) 0.7(5) 0.4(5) 1.9(5) 3.5(5) 11.2(5) 6.7(5) 0.8(5) 2.9(5) 7.0(5) 6.6(5) 19.2(5) 16.8(5) 0.0(5) 0.0(5) 0.1(5) 0.1(5)
% Insectivores 18.7 16.4 89.5(5) 94.6(5) 84.2(5) 66.4(3) 64.1(3) 71.4(3) 77.8(3) 81.6(5) 78.9(3) 81.7(5) 87.4(5) 82.1(5) 64.8(3) 32.1(1) 68.5(3) 70.6(3) 39.8(1) 54.9(3) 29.4(1) 20.9(1)
(or%Specialized
Insectivores) 37.2(3) 39.7(3) 0.4 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.4 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.4 1.5 2.1 12.6 13.4 6.8 12.2
#Plscivorous Spp. 2(5) 2(5) 4(5) 3(5) 3(5) 3(5) 2(5) 3(5) 4(5) 2(5) 4(5) 4(5) 2(5) 3(5) 4(5) 2(5) 3(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5)
% Diseased 0.2(5) 0.0(5) 1.7(5) 0.5(5) 0.6(5) 1.4(5) 15.3(1) 6.6(1) 11.1(1) 4.4(3) 3.9(3) 2.9(3) 2.4(3) 2.9(3) 1.3(5) 5.7(1) 2.3(3) 0.7(5) 0.0(5) 2.8(3) 0.0(5) 0.0(5)
% of Species
with multiple age
classes 68(5) 93(5) 50(5) 39(3) 67(5) 43(5) 50(5) 82(5) 71(5) 46(5) 67(5) 42(5) 56(5) 55(5) 54(5) 64(5) 58(5) 50(5) 57(5) 40(3) 53(5) 71(5)
IBI Score 58 52 50 52 50 54 44 40 40 46 40 44 42 44 46 38 44 44 48 42 50 50
4-24

Table 4-12 (cont.).
Tributaries
Richland Jonathon Fines
Creek Creek Creek
Metric JUL AUG JUL AUG JUL AUG
# Species 11(3) 11(3) 17(5) 15(5) 14(5) 11(3)
# Individuals 153(1) 126(1) 578(5) 365(3) 118(1) 74(1)
# Darter spp. 0(1) 2(3) 2(3) 2(3) 1(3) 1(3)
# Sunfish &
Salmonid spp. 5(5) 3(5) 6(5) 4(5) 5(5) 4(5)
# Sucker spp. 1(3) 1(3) 3(5) 3(5) 2(5) 1(3)
# Intolerant spp. 0(1) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3) 0(1) 0(1)
• Tolerant Fish 3.1(5) 7.1(5) 0.2(5) 0.0(5) 0.8(5) 0.0(5)
• Omnivores 2.1(5) 0.0(5) 2.9(5) 1.4(5) 2.5(5) 1.4(5)
• Insectivores 73.8(3) 73.0(3) 36.2(1) 76.7(3) 41.5(3) 56.8(3)
(or% Specialized
Insectivores) 0.5 1.6 2.9 7.1 0.8 1.4
# Piscivorous spp. 2(5) 3(5) 2(5) 1(3) 2(5) 1(30
• Diseased 0.5(5) 0.0(5) 0.2(5) 0.0(5) 1.7(5) 0.0(5)
• of Species
with multiple age
classes 54.5(5) 45.5(5) 47.1(5) 53.3(5) 50.0(5) 36.4(3)
IBI Score 42 46 52 50 48 40
4-25

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., 55 at RM 64.5 vs. 42 at RM 54) are probably real, whereas the difference of seven
IBI points between RM 61.0 and RM 59 may or may not have any statistical or biological
significance. We consider any differences (either among locations or dates) of<4 IBI units to be
biologically insignificant.
In the tributaries, Jonathan Creek scored higher than Fines Creek or Richland Creek (Table 4-12).
No impacts on Jonathan Creek from the Maggie Valley WWTP located further upstream were
apparent. The mean IBI in Fines Creek was 44, marginally higher than the score of 40 in 1995
(EA 1996). 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 (Lyons
1992). We note that mean water temperatures in Fines Creek increased from 19 C in 1995 to a
mean of 23.9 C in 2000. This increase in water temperature likely contributed to the nearly
doubling in species richness that we observed. However, temperatures of around 24 C are
marginal for trout and encourage the invasion of warmwater species like largemouth bass and
other centrarchids. Thus, Fines Creek bears watching to ensure that it maintains its coldwater
aquatic assemblage.
As was the case in 1995 (EA 1996), Richland Creek was the warmest of the three tributaries, with
water temperatures being 24.0 C in July immediately following a rainstorm and 25.6 C in August
during lower flow conditions. The dissolved oxygen concentration in August was also low, 5.3
mg/l. The high temperatures and low DO (in August) explain the almost complete lack of
salmonids and darters in Richland Creek. Water quality problems were noted previously in
Richland Creek (EA 1996) and it continues to be sub-optimal.
Mean IBI scores in 1995 and 2000 are compared in Figure 4-3. This comparison reveals that, on
balance, there has been relatively little change in IBI scores in or the spatial pattern. Scores at the
upstream reference location (RM 64.5) and the downstream-most locations (RM 42.6, 24.9, and
19.3) were very similar between the two study periods. A noticeable improvement occurred at
RM 63.0. This is significant as the highest water temperatures in the study area occur at RM 63.0
(See Section 5). The fact that the mean IBI score at RM 63.0 (as well as the score at the next site
[RM 61.0]) clustered with the score at the upstream site suggests that temperature is not a
limiting factor.
IBI scores from RM 59.0 to RM 48.2 in 2000 were either comparable to or worse than their
respective scores at these locations in 1995 (Figure 4-3). We are not sure of the cause of the
lower scores at the stations from RM 59.0 to RM 48.2, but the consistency of the scores both
among locations and between passes (see Table 4-12) suggests that the pattern is real.
4.4 LIFE STAGES AND SPAWNING ACTIVITY
The structure of the Pigeon River fish community was examined further by determining the
reproductive status and lifestage of all fish collected. Lifestage 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
4-26

TABLE 4-13. LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SPECIES COLLECTED FROM THE PIGEON RIVER, 2000.
LENGTH NORTHERN HOG BLACK
(mm) COMMON CARP SUCKER REDHORSE ROCK BASS
<20 -- -- -- --
20-29 -- -- -- 6
30-39 -- 1 -- 3
40-49 -- 4 1 2
50-59 -• 9 2 3
60-69 -- 10 -- 4
70-79 -- 8 -- 7
80-89 -- 1 -- 3
90-99 -- 22 -- 8
100-109 -- 12 -- 5
110-119 -- 8 _ -- 24
120-129 -- 10 -- 19
130-139 -- 1 -- 31
140-149 -- 3 -- 18
150-159 -- 5 -- 24
160-169 -- 4 -- 19
170.179 -- 16 -- 17
180-189 -- 14 -- 13
190-199 -- 30 3 7
200-209 -- 22 -- 3
210-219 -- 24 2 1
220-229 -- 19 1 --
230-239 -- 16 2 --
240-249 -- 16 -- --
250-259 -• 9 -- - 1
260-269 -- 15 4 --
270-279 -- 13 1 --
280-289 -- 12 2 --
290-299 -- 36 2 --
300-309 -- 23 3 --
310-319 -- 20 3 --
320-329 -- 13 -- --
330-339 -- 17 1 --
340-349 -- 10 1 --
350-359 -- 8 10 --
360.369 -- 3 6 --
370-379 -- 2 8 --
380-389 1 1 9 --
390-399 -- 1 4 --
400-409 1 -- 5 --
410-419 -- -- 4 --
420.429 1 -- 4 --
430-439 1 -- 11 --
440-449 -- -- 10 --
450-459 2 -- 3 --
460-469 3 -- 5 --
470-479 1 -- 5 --
480-489 -- -- 2 --
490-499 2 -- 1 --
500-509 -- -- 2 --
510-519 2 -- -- --
520-529 -- -- 1 --
530-539 3 -- -- --
540-549 -- -- -- •-
550-559 1 -- -- --
560-569 -- -- -- --
570-579 1 -- -- --
580-589 -- -- -- --
590-599 -- -- -- --
600-609 1 -- -- --
610-619 -- -- -- --
620-629 -- -- -- --
630-639 1 -- -- --
640+ -- -- -- --
TOTAL 21 438 118 218
4-27

G
TABLE 4-13.
LENGTH REDBREAST GREEN SMALLMOUTH LARGEMOUTH
(W) SUNFISH SUNFISH BLUEGILL BASS BASS
<20 __ __ __ __
20-29 -- -- -- 2 --
30-39 3 -- 1 6 1
40-49 1 -- -- 15 2
50-59 11 1 -- 16 3
60-69 10 -- -- 17 2
70-79 9 3 2 7 4
80-89 18 8 9 11 --
90-99 43 16 19 4 --
100-109 32 14 20 2 1
110-119 37 12 23 7 1
120-129 31 7 11 6 --
130-139 36 4 2 13 1
140-149 43 1 2 15 1
150-159 57 2 2 23 4
160-169 59 1 4 18 1
170-179 52 1 -- 18 2
180-189 42 1 1 15 --
190-199 13 1 1 8 2
200-209 3 -- -- 6 1
210-219 2 -- -- 8 1
220-229 2 -- -- 3 1
230-239 1 -- -- 3 1
240-249 -- -- -- 3 2
250-259 -- -- -- 3 2
260-269 -- -- -- 1 --
270-279 -- -- -- 2 --
280-289 -- -- -- 3 --
290-299 -- -- -- -- 2
300-309 -- -- -- 2 1
310-319 -- -- -- 1 3
320-329 -- -- -- 2 3
330-339 -- -- -- -- 1
340-349 -- -- -- 1 --
350-359 -- -- -- 1 --
360-369 -- -- -- 2 3
370-379 -- -- -- 1 2
380-389 -- -- -- 1 1
390-399 -- -- -- 1 --
400-409 -- -- -- 1 --
410-419 -- -- -- -- --
420-429 -- -- -- -- --
430-439 -- -- -- -- 1
440-449 -- -- -- -- 1
450-459 •- -- -- -- 1
460+ -- -- '- -- --
TOTAL 505 72 97 248 52
4-28

and August, 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.
Length distributions for the more common sport and larger non-sport fishes collected in the
Pigeon River are presented in Table 4-13. Examination of Table 4-13 indicates that eight of the
nine species shown were represented by a broad range of sizes. 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 Segments 1, 2, and 3, the size
distribution of most species was similar(Appendix A). However, small northern hog suckers,
redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and largernouth bass were essentially absent in Segment 4 downstream
of the CP&L Hydro Plant. Conversely, YOY smallmouth bass were somewhat more common
downstream of the Hydro Plant. These differences in YOY representation downstream of the
Hydro Plant may be related to the wide fluctuations in water levels that occur due to operation of
the Hydro Plant. Metric 11 of the NCIBI is scored according to the number of species that are
represented by multiple age classes. All Pigeon River mainstem stations scored a 5 for this metric,
the highest possible score, during at least one of the sampling passes, and most locations scored a
five during both passes. The fact that the maximum possible metric score was obtained at least
once at all of the mainstem locations indicates that reproduction throughout the portion of the
Pigeon River studied is good.
Among the tributaries, Jonathan Creek and Richland Creek scored fives for the multiple age class
metric during both passes, while Fines Creek scored a 3 during one of the passes, but a five during
the other pass.
Summary
Numerous YOY fishes and a wide range of year classes were collected from the Pigeon River.
All 11 of the mainstem locations received the highest possible score for the NCIBI multiple age
class metric during at least one pass and most locations scored a five during both passes.
4.5 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 (Rankin 1989).
The habitat assessment approach used in this study is based on methodologies established by
4-29

DEHNR (1995). Habitat characteristics considered by the DEHNR methodology are channel
characteristics, instream habitat, pool variety, riffle quality, substrate type, bank stability, bank
vegetation, and riparian zone quantity and quality (Exhibit 1, Section 2). The maximum score
possible is 100.
Habitat scores at 9 of the 14 sampling stations including the upstream reference station were in a
fairly narrow range of 70-80 (Table 4-14). Scores were somewhat higher at Fines Creek(82),
RM 19.3 (84), RM 59 (83.5), and Jonathan Creek (86), somewhat lower at RM 52.3 (67), and
noticeably lower (51) at RM 63.0. The high score in Jonathan Creek was mainly the result of
excellent instream habitat and riffle habitat at this location. Conversely, scores were lowest for
five of the seven metrics at RM 63.0 and metric scores for channel quality and riparian zone width
were much lower at RM 63.0 compared to the other locations (Table 4-14).
The low channel score at RM 63.0 is a result of past channelization and a nearly straight channel
at this point. The low scores for the bank stability, canopy, and riparian zone width metrics are the
result of this urban/industrial area being largely devoid of shrubs and trees.
Among the nine habitat metrics, two (pool variety and bank vegetation) showed little difference
among locations (Table 4-14). All sites, except RM 63.0, scored from 8 to 10 on the channel
metric. Instream cover scored a 12-16 at most (10 of 14) stations, somewhat lower at RM 63.0,
and noticeably lower at RM 61.0, 42.6, and 24.9. Riffle habitat was similar at 13 of 14 stations,
but was noticeably lower at RM 54.5, which may partially explain the low NCIBI value at this
station. Substrate scores were generally in the range of 6-10, except for RM 54.5, 52.3, and 42.6,
which each scored only a 3 (Table 4-14). The lower scores at these stations was due to more
bedrock and more embeddedness at these locations. Bank stability ranged from 7-10, except at
RM 63.0 where a score of 5.5 occurred. Canopy scores were noticeably lower at RM 63.0 and
55.5 (Table 4-14). Riparian width scores were noticeably lower at RM 52.3, 48.2, Richland
Creek and especially RM 63.0.
Given the narrow range of scores, habitat would not be expected to be a limiting factor except
possibly at RM 63.0. The habitat score at this location was only 71% of the score at the reference
site. We consider 71% to be partially supporting. No longitudinal trends in habitat scores were
apparent except for the previously referred to higher than average scores at RM 59 and 19.3, and
Jonathan Creek, and the lower than average score at RM 63.0 (Figure 4-4).
Habitat assessment is only one component of a holistic evaluation of factors that influence the
structure of indigenous communities. The habitat assessment procedure used does not directly
address effects that would be caused by extreme flow fluctuation and water release from
impoundments, such as those experienced by biological communities at the mainstem stations in
Tennessee downstream of the CP&L power house.
Summary
Habitats were generally good in the study area and are not limiting except possibly at RM 63.0.
Stations in Segment 2 and especially Segment 3 had lower scores for the substrate metric because
of a preponderance of bedrock in these segments.
4-30

Table 4-14. Mean habitat assessment metric scores for the Pigeon River and three tributaries, July/August 2000.
RM
Characteristic(Metric) 64.5 63 61 59 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Richland Ck Jonathan Ck Fines Ck
Channel 8 1 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10
Instream Habitat 14 10 8 14 14 15 14 14 7 8 12 14 16 12
Pool Variety 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 10 9 8 10 10 10 10
Riffle Habitat 10 8 7 9 8 4 7 9 8 9 8 9 10 8
Substrate 6.5 7 8 8 7 3 3 8 3 9 10 6.5 9 7
Bank Stability 6 6 10 9.5 10 10 9 9 10 10 10 9.5 9 9
Bank Vegetation 7 5.5 10 9 8 9.5 7 9 10 10 10 10 9 10
w
Canopy 6 2.5 8 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 10
Riparian Zone Width 4 2 7_5 8 5_5 6 3 4 10 9 10 4 6 6
Total 71.5 51 76.5 83.5 74.5 70.5 67 77 71 77 84 80 86 82

Figure 4-4. Comparison of Mean Habitat Scores Among Pigeon River Mainstem Locations, 1995 and 2000.
so
I I
------------------
1
7s
---e-------------
-12
., ---------- -------- ------
D ,
65 ....... ............ ,..................................__................._......................_.............__.........................................__...-- ...............-- ....................--............... --------
I R �
4
55 ------------------------------- ----------------._.._.._---------------
50 --------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN WALTERS CP&L HYDRO
MILL CREEK WWTP CREEK DAM DISCHARGE
45 -------- �--------------------------\ y.........---------------------...----.1.---------------------------------------.F .--------------------------------------------------- .--------------------------------
40 1 1
(D O O o (D (D (o N (D W (o
V co 1 0) N �! N 00 N V' M
(D (0 (0 N N ,D () V' 'r N
River Mile
-0- 1995 --A-2

5. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA
Physicochemical data (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance) were
collected at all mainstem and tributary locations concurrent with the July and August fish
sampling events (Table 5-1). In addition, water clarity was measured (Secchi disc) at most
locations in July. Physicochemical measurements were collected between 12-17 July and 17-
21 August 2000.
Mean mainstem water temperatures in July ranged from 23.5 C at the upstream control site
(RM 64.5) to 28.6 C at RM 61.0 (Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1). Mean water temperatures in July
were similar from the mill's discharge (28.4 C) to RM 52.3 (27.7 C), except for RM 55.5 and
RM 54.5 which exhibited slightly lower mean water temperatures (26.2 and 26.4 C,
respectively). Mean water temperatures declined gradually from RM 52.3 downstream, to
values similar to those upstream of the mill (Figure 5-1). Temperatures in the Tennessee
portion of the mainstem were lower than upstream of the mill (Figure 5-1). The spatial
temperature trend observed in July was influenced by several factors; diel fluctuations
associated with solar heating, precipitation, and time. The sustained higher temperatures
observed immediately downstream of the mill (from RM 61.0-RM 52.3) in July may be due in
part to when these measurements were taken. For example, the temperature at RM 63.0 was
measured at 0817 hrs, RM 61.0 at 1227 hrs, and RM59.0 at 1604 hrs. Therefore, solar
heating likely offset heat dissipation as one proceeded downstream. In addition, water
temperatures were recorded during a six-day period in July and changes in stream flow may
have had an affect on temperature. For example, the upstream control (RM 64.5), RM 24.9,
and RM 19.3 (the locations with the coolest recorded temperatures) were the only locations
that were sampled following a heavy rain on the evening of 14 July. Mean water temperatures
at the tributary locations in July ranged from 21.3 C in Jonathan Creek to 24.1 C in Fines
Creek (Table 5-1). Temperatures in Richland Creek and Jonathan Creek were measured the
day after the aforementioned rainstorm.
Mean water temperatures at the mainstem locations in August ranged from 19.8 C at the
upstream control site to 31.3 C at the discharge location (Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1). With the
exception of RM 55.5, a consistent decrease in water temperature was observed from the mill's
discharge downstream to RM 42.6, then increased slightly at the.two Tennessee locations. In
August, water temperature declined by 10 C (from 31.3 C to 21.2 C) in the 20-mile reach
between RM 63.0 and RM 42.6. The slightly elevated temperature observed at RM 55.5 in
August may be associated with the time of measurement, 1620 his compared to 0730-1112 hrs
for other nearby locations. Among tributary locations in August, water temperatures were
considerably lower in Jonathan Creek (18.6 C) compared to Fines Creek and Richland Creek
(23.8 and 25.6 C, respectively). On average, water temperatures were slightly cooler in
August than July (mean 24.4 and 25.2 C, respectively) (Table 5-1).
Mean dissolved oxygen (DO) values in July ranged from 6.1 mg/L at RM 55.5, below Clyde,
to 8.6 mg/1 at RM 64.5 (Table 5-1 and Figure 5-2). DO values declined steadily from the
upstream control location to RM 55.5, except at RM 59.0 upstream of Clyde, which exhibited
5-1

Table 5-1. Physicochemical Data Collected Concurrent with Pram Electrofishing, July and August, 2000.
Mean Mean Specific
Temperature (C) Mean DO (mg/L) Conductance (uS/cm) Secchi (cm)
Location (RM) July August July August July August July
Mainstem
64.5 23.5 19.8 8.6 6.5 30 35 >108
63.0 28.4 31.3 7.3 7.0 1167 1430 -
61.0 28.6 27.0 6.3 4.9 1164 964 72
59.0 28.2 26.7 6.9 5.1 1123 1050 69
55.5 26.2 27.6 6.1 5.6 1216 1186 90
54.5 26.4 23.8 7.2 5.5 775 620 68
52.3 27.7 24.0 7.7 6.9 820 699 116
48.2 24.4 23.5 6.9 6.5 535 808 >92
42.6 24.5 21.2 8.0 7.2 551 530 77
24.9 20.2 21.6 7.5 5.8 206 194 -
19.3 19.4 22.4 8.2 7.2 121 223 104
cn
N Mean 25.2 24.4 7.3 6.2 701 704 85.1
Tributaries
Fines Crk. 24.1 23.8 7.1 6.0 74 74 -
Jonathon Crk. 21.3 18.6 8.0 8.2 48 48 63
Richland Crk. 24.0 25.6 7.5 5.3 70 76 65

Figure 5-1. Comparison of Mean Water Temperatures at Pigeon River Mainstem Locations, July and August 2000.
35
30 ------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2s .................... - ----..........--------------.....--...----------------------.....----------------------------
U -----
20 ---c-� -�__ I--
wE 15 -------------------------------------------------- -------------
t•-d
10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN WALTERS CP&L HYDRO
--- - -- ------------------ -
MLL CRE K --- P --------------------CREEK-...------------- DAM----------------------------------------------DISCHARGE--------------------------
0
(0 o O O (0 (0 (`7 N (0 0) Ci
1 03((0 ((00 (0 Lr) (L(7 N N 0 " N
River Mile
--E]July —*August

Figure 5-2. Comparison of Mean Dissolved Oxygen Values at Pigeon River Mainstem Locations, July and August 2000.
9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
- - --- -------
�. -------------------------
Q
7 ....................................--- -
Iff
a C7 6'
T
Vi(Q
�9
N
O
N
O5 -----------------------_ .__.. __._.._....._.____--_-._----._.._.__.-_--___--_-__-_-._--._--_---_.--,__-._._-__-._-_-.___._._........._.__............__........._.____..__..__...........____-___...............
4 -----CANTO? ------------RC+ILAND-------WAS'NESVILLE----------------J©NATHAN------------------------------WALTERS-----------------------------------------CP&L-HYDRO-------------------------
MILL CREEK WWTP CREEK DAM DISCHARGE
3
N O o O N (D M N (D D) Ci
d Cl) r 0) (n -It N c+D (V R M
(D (D (0 N (D N N V N
River Mile
-f3July — August

a slight increase (Figure 5-2). DO values increased sharply from 6.1 mg/l at RM 55.5 to 7.7
mg/1 at RM 52.3, then remained relatively constant until RM 19.3, which exhibited DO values
similar to those observed at the upstream control location (Figure 5-2). Among tributary
locations, mean DO values range from 7.1 mg/1 at Fines Creek to 8.0 mg/1 at Jonathan Creek
(Table 5-1).
August mean DO values at the mainstem locations ranged from 4.9 mg/l at RM 61.0 to 7.2
mg/1 at RM 42.6 and RM 19.3 (Table 5-1 and Figure 5-2). DO values were higher at the
discharge location (7.0 mg/1) than at the upstream control location (6.5 mg/1). DO values
dropped substantially from 7.0 mg/l at RM 63.0 to 4.9 mg/l at RM 61.0, increased sharply to
RM 52.3 (6.9 mg/1), then generally increased slightly downstream (Figure 5-2). With the
exception of overall higher DOs observed in July, and comparatively higher DOs at RM 63.0
in August, the DO trends observed between July and August were similar (Figure 5-2). In
both months, there was a DO sag apparent from RM 61.0 to RM 55.5 or perhaps RM 54.5.
Mean specific conductance values were similar between the July and August sampling events
for all mainstem (range 30-1216 µS/cm in July and 35-1430 µS/cm in August) and tributary
(range 48-74 µS/cm in July and 48-76 µS/cm in August) locations. In general, specific
conductance values increased abruptly just downstream of the mill, then declined steadily
downstream (Figure 5-3).
Water clarity (Secchi disc) measurements were collected in July at all sampling locations,
except RM 63.0, RM24.9, and in Fines Creek. Secchi readings ranged from 63 cm at
Jonathan Creek to 116 cm at RM 52.3 (Table 5-1). The lower Secchi readings observed at
Jonathan Creek and Richland Creek (63 and 65 cm, respectively) in July is likely attributable
to heavy rains the night before sampling.
5-5

Figure 5-3. Comparison of Mean Specific Conductance Values at Pigeon River Mainstem Locations, July and August 2000.
1600
1400 -------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1200 ------------- ----- - ---------------- - ------------------------------ ................. ---------------------------------------
m ,
e � `
7 800 --------- --------------------------------------- ` p ------------ ...........--.......... ----------------------------------- ---....-..--.--------------_--_.-----------------------------------------
ON L
O j
[j--------------
m ; -
y400 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- - '---c--- -----------------------------------------------------------------
CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN WALTERS
MILL CREEK WWTP CREEK DAM CP&L HYDRO `
- - -- ---------
200
DISCHARGE� - -
0
N O O O (0 (0 Cl) N (0 0) ch
'IT M c— M t0 -It N OD N 7 6
(0 (0 (0 i0 (0 (0 N V' V N
River Mile
--E}July —*August

Il
I� 6. REFERENCES
Anderson, R.O. and S.J. Gutreuter. 1983. Length, weight, and associated structural indices.
Pages 283-300. In (Nielsen, L.A. and D.L. Johnson, eds.) Fisheries Techniques.
Southern Printing Company, Inc., Blacksburg, Virginia.
I
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, Vol. 1. Life history data on
I� freshwater fish of the United States and Canada, exclusive of the Perciformes. Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 752 p.
I� . 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume 2. The Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.
IJ Carolina Power and Light (CP&L). 1995. Development and application of biotic indices to
evaluate water quality in the Pigeon River at the Walters Hydroelectric Plant. Carolina
IJ Power and Light, Raleigh, NC.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1988. Synoptic survey of physical and
IJ biological condition of the Pigeon River in the vicinity of Champion International's
Canton Mill. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Sparks, MD.
IJ . 1996. A study of the aquatic resources and water quality of the Pigeon
River. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
IJ . 2000. Results of the 1999 biological survey of the Pigeon River. EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
u Etnier D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
IJ Press, Knoxville, TN.
lEverhart, W.H., A.W. Eipper, and W.D. Youngs. 1975. Principles of fishery science.
J Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 288 p.
I] Fore, L.S., J.R. Karr, L.L. Conquest. 1994. Statistical properties of an index of biotic
integrity used to evaluate water resources. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic
IJ Science 51, 1077-1087.
Hawkes, H.A. 1979. Invertebrates as indicators of river water quality. in Biological
Il Indicators of Water Quality, eds. A. James and L. Evian, Chap. 2 John Wiley,
J Chichester, England.
II Karr, J., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
J biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Ill. Nat. Est. Surv.
Spec. Publ. 5. Champaign, IL.
a
-1 6-1

Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI). Rationale, methods,
and applications. Ohio EPA, Div. Water Quality Planning and Assess., Ecological
Analysis Sect., Columbus, OH.
Rosenberg, D.M. and V.H. Resh (eds). 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York. 488 pp.
Saylor, C.F., A. McKinney, and W. Schacher. 1993. Case study of the Pigeon River in the
Tennessee River drainage. TVA Biol. Rpt. 19. TVA, Norris, TN.
Simon, T.P. and J. Lyons. 1995. Application of the Index of Biotic Integrity to evaluate
water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. pp. 245-262 in Biological
assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making, eds.
W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.
Snyder, B.D., J.B. Stribling, W.S. Davis, and C. Stoughton. 1996. Summary of state
biological assessment programs for streams and rivers. United States Environmental
Protection Agency; Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; Washington, DC. EPA
230-R-96-007.
Southerland, M.T. and Stribling. 1995. Status of biological criteria development and
implementation. pp. 81-96 in biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water
resource planning and decision making, eds. W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon. Lewis
Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.
Wege, G.J. and R.O. Anderson. 1978. Relative Weight (Wr): a new index of condition for
largemouth bass. Pages 79-91 in (G.D. Novinger and J.G. Dillard, eds.) New
approaches to the management of small impoundments. North Central Division,
American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 5.
Whittaker, R.H. and C.W. Fairbanks. 1958. A study of plankton copepod communities in
the Columbia Basin, southeastern Washington. Ecology 39:46-65.
Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological criteria program development and
implementation in Ohio. 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.
6-3

APPENDIX A
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE RAW DATA, JULY AND AUGUST 2000

Table A-1. Macroinvertebrate abundance values(a) by location for taxa collected during July 2000.
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Spongilla 1 — — -- -- -- -- 1 1
Hydra -- - 1
Dugesia 1 3 -- 1 1 10 1 1
Prostoma graescens -- 3 3 1 1 -- 3 --
Plumatella -- -- -- -- — 1
Aeolosoma 10 -- -- -- -- -- --
Eclipiddlus -- 3 3 -- 1 3 1
Lumbriculus variegatus 3 10 -- 1 -- -- --
Eiseniella tetraedra — -- 1 1 1 1 -- 1 1
Sparganophilus tamesis 3 10 10 10 10 -- 10 10 10 3 3 10 3
Bratislavia unidentata -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dero nivea -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
Nais behningi 3 1 -- -- -- -- 10
Nais bretscheri -- -- 1 -- -- -- - -- --
Nais communis -- - -- -- -- -- 1
Nais pardalis 3 1 -- -- - -- --
Nais variabilis 1 --
Pristina aequiseta 1 — -- —
Pristina leidyi -- 1 --
Slavina appendiculata -- 1 — 1 —
Stylaria lacustris 1 -- -
Ripistes parasita 1 --
Aulodrilus pluriseta 1 — — --
Branchiura sowerbyi 1 --
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri 1 1 1 — 1
Tubifex tubifex — 1
Imm. tub.w/bifid chaetae 1 3 1 3
Imm.tub. w/hair& pectinate
chaetae -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 -- 3
Placobdella 1 3 3 3 3 -- 1
Placobdelia parasitica -- -- -- -- -- 1 —
Erpobdella punctata punctata 3 3 3 1 1
Caecidotea 1 -- 1 3 10 3 10 —
Gammarus -- -- 1 -- -- --
Cambarus -- 1 1 1 1 3
Orconectes -- 1 --

Table A-1. (cont.)
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Procambarus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 —
Hydracarina 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 -- -- 3
Isonychia (Isonychia) 10 -- 1 -- -- 1 -- 3 10 10 -- 10 10
Acentrella 10 -- 3 3 1 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3
Baetis flavistriga 3 1 -- -- -- 1 10 10 10 3 3 -- 1 3
Baetis intercalaris 1 -- -- 3 10 3 3 3 -- 10 10
Baetis pluto 1 -- -- -- 3 3 10 1 1 10
Baetis tricaudatus -- -- - -- 1 3 -- 3 3
Heterocloeon curiosum 10 — 10 10 -- --
Heterocloeon petersi 10 -- 10 3
Plauditus alachua 3 3 10 --
Procloeon -- -- -- 3
Pseudocloeon frondale -- -- 1 --
Epeorus rubidus 3 1 10 10
Heptagenia marginalis 10 3 3 3 10
Leucrocuta 10 :- 3 -- 10 10
Rhithrogena -- -- 1 1
Stenacron interpunctatum -- 1 1 -- -- --
Stenacron pallidum 3 — -- -- 1 -- -- 10
Stenonema Ithaca 10 1 10 10 3 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 3 10
Stenonema modestum 3 -- 1 1 -- 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1
Stenonema pudicum -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- — 1 -- --
Paraleptophlebia 1 -- 3 10
Drunella allegheniensis 10 - -- -- --
Ephemerella catawba -- -- -- 1 1
Eurylophella prudentalis -- 1 -- -- -- --
Serratella deficiens 10 -- 10 10 10 10
Serratella serrata -- -- -- 10 --
Serratella serratoides 10 -- — 3 3 -- 10 1
Tricorythodes 3 1 1 — -- --
Neoephemera purpurea 1 -- -- -= -- -- 1
Caenis -- 1 3 — 1 -- 3 3
Calopteryx -- 3 -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- 3
Hetaerina -- 3 1 -- -- 1 -- 1 1 10 1 --
Argia 3 1 10 1 1 3 1 1 -- 3 3 —
Enallagma 1 3 -- -- 3 -- — 3 3 1

Table A-1. (cont.)
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Ischnura -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
Boyeria grafiana -- -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- -- -- --
Boyeria vinosa 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cordulegaster maculata -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 3 -- -- -- -- 1
Gomphus -- 3 -- 1 -- 1 1 1
Hagenius brevistylus 1 -- -- 3 1 --
Lanthus -- -- -- 10 -- -- 3 1
Ophiogomphus 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 3 3
Stylogomphus albistylus 3 1 1 -- 1 -- --
Stylurus spiniceps -- -- -- -- -- 1 1
Macromia 1 1 -- 3 1 -- -- 1 --
Neurocordulia obsoleta 1 1 1 1 -- 1
Leuctra -- -- -- -- 3
Tallaperla -- 1 1 1 3
Pteronarcys dorsata 1 1 1 -- -- --
Pteronarcys (w/lateral proj.) 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 1
Acroneuria abnormis 10 3 10 10 3 3 3 10 3
Agnetina flavescens 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Paragnetina immarginata -- -- 1 1 10 10
Perlesta 10 1 -- 1 10 10
Limnoporus -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Metrobates -- 1 1
Rhagovelia 1 1 -- -- 1 — 1 1 1
Ranatra -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Corydalus cornutus 10 1 3 10 10 1 3 10 10 10 10 3 3 3
Nigronia serricornis 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 -- 1 1 3 1 -- 3
Sialis 3 -- 1 -- -- -- -- 3 1 -- -- 1 --
Chimarra -- -- -- -- 1
Dolophilodes -- -- -- 1
Lype diversa -- -- -- -- -- 1 10 --
Psychomyia flavida -- 1 3 1 1 1 3 -- -- - --
Neureclipsis -- 1 3 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 -- --
Polycentropus 1 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 3 3 3
Ceratopsyche bronta -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 10 10
Ceratopsyche morosa 1 3 1 3 3 1 10 10 10 -- 3 3
Ceratopsyche sparna 10 3 3 10 -- 3 10 10 10 10 10 10

Table A-1. (cont.)
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Cheumatopsyche 10 10 10 10 10 3 10 10 3 10 3 10 10
Diplectrona -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- 1
Hydropsyche betteni 1 1 -- -- -- -- 1
Hydropsyche phalerata 1 -- 3 1 1 -- -- --
Hydropsyche scalaris -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 10 -- --
Hydropsyche venularis 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3
Rhyacophila fuscula -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 10
Rhyacophila vuphipes 1 -- -- --
Glossosoma -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3
Hydroptila -- 10 10 10 10 3 10 10 -- 3 -- 1 --
Leucotrichia pictipes 1 -- -- 3 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3
Brachycentrus appalachia 10 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Brachycentrus lateralis -- -- 10
Brachycentrus numerosus -- 3
Micrasema bennetti 3 --
Micrasema wataga 10 3 3 10 10 1 10
Goera 3 -- -- -- -- -- 1 1
Neophylax consimilis -- 3 -- 3 10
Pycnopsyche 1 1 3 1 1 --
Pycnopsyche gentilis -- -- -- -- -- 1
Lepidostoma 10 10 10 1 1 -- 3 -- 3 3 3
Mystacides sepulchralus 10 -- -- -- -- 1 -- 10 3 -- --
Nectopsyche 3 -- -- -- --
Oecetis -- 1
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Oecetis sp. A (Floyd 1995) -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- __
Oecetis persimilis 3 3 10 10 10 3 3 10 10 -- 3 10 --
Dineutus -- 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 --
Peltodytes
duodecimpunctatus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Peltodytes sexamaculatus -- -- 3 --
Helichus 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 3 3 3
Ancyronyx variegata 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 -- -- 3 --
Macronychus glabratus 3 3 3 3 3 -- 1 1 3 3
Optioservus -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Promoresia elegans 10 1 1 1 -- -- 3 10 10 3
Promoresia tardella -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- --

Table A-1. (cont.)
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Stenelmis 3 -- -- 1 1 -- -- 3 -- -- -- 1 3 1
Berosus -- 1 1 1 1 -- 1 1 -- --
Tropistemus collaris 3 — 1 -- -- -- -- 1 1 --
Psephenus hemcki -- 1 -- -- 3 3 1 -- 10 10
Anchytarsus bicolor -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- --
Blepharicera — -- -- -- -- 1
Ephydridae -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Ablabesmyia mallochi 1 -- 3 3 1 1 — 3 -- 1 --
Meropelopia 3 10 10 10 10 3 3 -- 1 1 1 -- 1 --
Nilotanypus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Pentaneura 1 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Procladius (Holotanypus) -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- --
Rheopelopia -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Pagastia 1 1 -- -- -- -- --
Brillia -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Cardiocladius 1 10 10 10 3 10 10 10 3 -- 1 10 1
Corynoneura 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 3 --
Cricotopus bicinctus grp. 3 10 10 10 -- 3 1 3 3 10 3 3 1 --
Cricotopus infuscatus grp. -- 3 -- -- 3 -- 3 3 1 10 -- 1 10 3
Cricotopus trifascia grp. -- -- -- 3 3 -- -- -- -- --
Eukiefferiella devonica grp. " 1 -- 1
Eukiefferiella
pseudomontana grp. 10 -- 1 --
Lopescladius — -- -- 10
Nanocladius 1 --
Nanocladius downesi 1 3 — 1 --
Parametriocnemus lundbeckii -- -- -- -- 1 -- 1 1 1 1 3 1
Rheocricotopus robacki 3 3 1 1 10 — 3 --
Synorthocladius 1 -- -- -- 1 1 — 3 3 1 -- --
Thienemanniella 3 — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 -- 10 1
Tvetenia discoloripes grp. 3 -- 1 3 10 10 1 3 3 10 1 3 3 --
Chironomus -- 10 -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- - -- -- 1
Cladopelma — -- 1 -- --
Cryptochironomus fulvus 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 1
Dicrotendipes neomodestus 3 10 3 10 10 10 10 10 1 3 1 3 -- 1
Glyptotendipes -- -- -- -- -- 3 --

i •
Table A-1. (cont.)
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Microtendipes pedellus grp. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Paratendipes -- 1 -- -- --
Phaenopsectra obediens grp. 1 1 3 -- 10 1
Phaenopsectra punctipes -- 1 --
Polypedilum - -- -- -- -- 3
Polypedilum flavus 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3 10 10
Polypedilum illinoense 10 3 10 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 -- -- 3 --
Polypedilum laetum 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Polypedilum scalaenum grp. 3 1 -- 1
Pseudochironomus 1 -- 1 -- --
Robackia demeijerei -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3
Stenochironomus -- 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 --
Tribelosjucundum 10 — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1. --
Cladotanytarsus
vanderwulpi grp. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 10
Rheotanytarsus 3 3 10 10 10 3 3 3 10 10 10 3
Sublettea coffmani -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Tanytarsus sp. 2• 1 1 --
Tanytarsus sp. 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Tanytarsus sp. 6 10 -- 1 3 — 1 -- -- 1 3 -- 1 --
Simulium 10 3 10 10 3 -- 1 3 10 10 10 10. 10
Protoplasa fitchii -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Antocha 1 3 1 3 3 3 10 3 3 3 3
Dicranota -- -- -- -- -- - -- 1 --
Pseudolimnophila -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Tipula 1 1 1 1 10 3 -- 3 -- 1
Atherix lantha -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 3 — 3 1
Chelifera -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Hemerodromia 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 --
Nemotelus 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Elimia 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 3 3
Ferrissia 1 3 1 3 1 10 10 3 3 10 -- 3 3 1
Fossaria -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- --
Stagnicola -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Physella 10 10 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3
Helisoma 10 -- — 3 -- -- — 3 -- 10 10 --

Table A-1. (cont.)
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Menetus dilatatus -- 3 1 - - -- -- -- 1 -- -- --
Corbicula fluminea -- -- 3 10 10 10 10 3 3 10
Pisidium 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1 1 3
Sphaerium -- 1 -- 1 1 -- -- -- -- 10 -- 3 3 --
TOTAL TAXA 90 53 57 57 57 59 54 56 67 87 82 57 88 80
EPT TAXA 40 10 17 17 18 13 19 17 25 30 33 17 36 38
EPT BI SCORE 2.94 4.93 4.04 4.00 4.33 4.61 4.99 4.89 3.87 3.72 3.28 4.19 2.87 2.75
NCBI SCORE 4.25 6.94 5.76 5.50 5.42 6.28 5.83 5.66 4.80 4.97 4.31 5.42 4.12 3.40
a Abundance assigned as 1=1-2 individuals; 3=3-9 individuals; and 10=>10 individuals.

Table A-2. Macroinvertebarte abundance valuesw by location for taxa collected during August 2000.
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Spongilla 1 — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dugesia -- 3 1 -- -- 10 -- -- 3 1 3 10 3
Prostoma graescens 10 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 -- 1
Plumatella 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Aeolosoma 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Eclipidrilus 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 -- -- 3 --
Lumbriculus variegates 3 -- 1 3 -- 1 -- -- 1 1 -- 10
Eiseniella tetraedra -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Sparganophilus tamesis 3 10 10 10 10 -- 3 10 10 1 1 3 3 3
Megascolecidae -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Dero nivea 1 -- -- --
Nais communis -- -- _- 1 1 -- _ 1
Nais pardalis 1 — -- -- -- --
Nais variabilis 1 -- 3 -- --
Ophidonais serpentina 3 -- --
Pristina aequiseta 1 --
Slavina appendiculata -- 1
Aulodrilus limnobius -- 1 --
Aulodrilus pluriseta -- -- 1 3
Branchiura sowerbyi -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri 1 -- 1 1 -- -- 1 1 1 -- 1 3
Imm. tub. w/bifid chaetae 1 -- 3 3 1 1 -- -- 3 3 1 1
Imm. tub. w/hair& pectinate
chaetae -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- 1
Manayunkia speciosa 1 -- -- -- --
Desserobdella phalera 1 -- -- -- -- --
Helobdella -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Placobdella 3 -- 3 1 3 3 1 -- 1 --
Placobdella parasitica -- 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Myzobdella lugubris 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Erpobdella punctata punctata 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 -- -- --
Caecidotea -- -- -- 1 1 -- -- 3 10 10 3 --
Cambarus 1 -- -- -- 1 -- -- 3 10
Orconectes -- 3 -- --
Procambarus — 1 1 -- -- -- -- --
Hydracarina 1 -- 3 1 1 3 1

oam M o I I .- .- OOM MOM I CO I •- o , M
r r r r r r
N
N .1C
c U
IL
c M O M M M O , I „ r O M M 1 O CO M M I I O , O , M
L C
c U
0
r 0 i I r i i i r r i i r , r O M r r i i M i i r i i i r i CO M
C
m �C
v U
O M co M r M O r �- , , , , , r r O M I i i M r „ I O , , , M M
M
m
O I O O M M r O co r , i I i i r CO. M r , i i M
N
CO O 00 O O , M i r r „ M M r O r r i r i i r i i t i r M r M „ r
O N
U
J I O O CIDi i I i i i i i i i i M i r i i i r i i i i i r M , O M r ,
N
m 00
c ,p
Q
E M r o 0 0 I I I r 0 r r I 0 I M o M
C 2 N
O
U
r M , r r i i i i i i i r i M , , , r r i r r 0 i r i r O , O M
N > O� r r i r
¢ y�j
d c
a O
�p N �I , c, O M
i i r , M r , r
~ 'a
O r 0 r r r i r i i i i i i r r i i i i i r i i i r r i i r i M 0 r r
m
LO
OI i 0 r i i r i i i r i r i i i i i i i i i r i i i i r i r M O I M i t
O
OI r 0 r i i i i i r r i i i i M r i r 1 i 1 r 1 i 1 M
M
O
O CO M r I , O r M I , I M , I M O r i r 0 i I i M M
, r i i I r i I
r I I
V
O
E
m Mnm
_ E y E N N E
t
o c c E 00 � 2 N a a m m
N c —cm D c c c o P E � m = E n d 0 a` at a` an E m o m k-0
N �_ m N N m N n Co co d m m m O. N .p N N � O L O) X O C R
m C U O O N O U N y 0 0 0 N N N <mQ L m m m L L N N cu C E U N
w .N y in o 00 '�' o �° 2 of ` 0 0 c c c y a) o m a� n!� E E g a, m •c.
X C N N N N U1 O O D U N N O. U C C C C C (`9 C N t�`0 N U O N L t 0 m - m 0 T
m O U m m m m N N m N O. N N N N N N m i 7 N N N 'C N m O. O. m 7> E) C m 0
I- '� ¢ mmmm22 - V) WxJI . III CU (n fn (n HZU W W U2 ¢ Wmm

< CD (D CD 0 M CD 0 (a 0 W CD V1 0 0 a) 0 0 —I
K CD (CL CD D (D O N (D � iU (O O N (D ,O-. N 0 O (D (D N O , 0 K `G ID N O O Gf
fD C .N+, .0+. .d.. O O ry 7' N O O. d N 0 0 0 (O 'o > 0 0 -0 = O O O G (0 0 �p � CD fU
a Oo n O ID C y 0 < N 0 or N (D C d d i 0 �, N O O N E. y
K O N N N .a 3 ^ 7. A Cl N N N 3 N N <
O N •OO 0 0 A O O fn.`<, N N N fD (n (a O' 7 Gl `< K n C .O O'
Q tu m m y N 3 0 3 o p o N a < m
CD
CD
(D y O ? a 2N (D d 3 m ^ p M.
N Q
�. 0) y N O N C N p'� CD N
m 3 D) �
N O
O
A
I l o o w r w l l l > w w l l l l o l w w l > w l ! w w N
rn
w
I r o l r I I r w w l 1r r r w l I > w I r w O
rn
I i O i i i r i W O i i r > > i i i W i ! 1 1 W W 1 1 1 > W > O
N
O
! l o r w r > � I > w w o l l r � r -• r � o l l r r w w l � l > � I w w
cNn �
I > o w > > w ! ! ! o I I I I w > I l w ! : ! W l I w W m d
o
m
A ;-U. D
CD
i i O i I i W i W O i W W i i � r i r i i i � i > W i i > i i i > > �
(J O
� W 6
O ! > i r O > > i O > co > i i i i i i i i W W 3
72.
i r O co (ai r i O ! W i O i > > W i i i i i i i i i ! ! ! ! r i i > W N f
O
0
A ID
N p
N
A
! > (p
W W i i i O i i W W I i -` W i i O -+ -> i W
W
> W
O i > co O r i W W > i i i W
r-0
00
L
O
n �
61
! ! ! ! ! !
� O O O O co W �
C1
(D
co W

wm - mm0m0K > mm0r m ? 0oozr- M G) � � mmr = G XXXXX -i
O N O O , 0 0 �. n n (D (D j 0 0 0 n n n n ao 0 0 0 0 0 n n c a f011 `G�G C.n O. X
W. ((DD N N N CD `=G J N �' N 9 d. Ui y' N'N N 'N `< CD M O 0 O.� N � � N N f�li N
(D y c N N 0 G = X 0 N y N N "O = S X N N > > O N H Gf = = =
C
O ti
d C CD 0 rn m M, (o ff y m m m w (D c 2 m m m
m (p c�'i n, CD
c - - �+ 'M' RD d a a 0 m
N N d c a — = d 01 CD '� m m m
C C N to _ O N 7. 4i fU
N N (0 N O N N
(O ?
M N
O
A
i r r i i W O r W > W i r i i r i i 00 r w O i O I I I -+ r w l r N
> IQ
1 r to 1 w
>
O
r I r r I 1 r W r r I > W I r > I 1 I 0 l o f
r I r r I r r r r r r r r r r r 1
Ln
ID
>
I r I w w > > w w l l l o l t r r I I > r r i w o r I r o r I
U1
cn
> > (n o
1 > r > w w r I w > r r w r r , r r I I I w r I r r r 'J w o l r , 0 1 w O 0'
0 D
> to < N
r r r l Wr r r l W w W O CD
r
N � O
N
w m
I » r W W , r W W r l W O I O
I �
A DO O
W W r w r r r W > r , r r I i r r , I w O r r I O I O N r
O
O
N_ o
I O I I --� W > i W � W W W r I I > r r I -+ r > i W r I r O W r r r W I W
I I I r r r r l , r l r r r l I
N
A
> o ! r l r o w r > w t r > w r t r t l w l w l C l o w r r l o l r fO
r l r t t r w r o --� w w r r w r I r I I I I w r w o o o r r I t o r
;0
�7 n
d
> >
r l r l r r r l i r l (or i i r r t i r r r i , l r l O CDr r l l l l O'
L
O
n
F ^
C]
I O J I w w I > > C) r l > > I > r r r r w o r r I I I W I w > I r 7
O O r i i w o O r O I r r r r -' r i m O > > r i I i i w l O i i I

Table A-2. (cont.)
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Ephydridae -- 1 — 1 3
Ceratopogonidae -- -- 1
Atrichopogon 1 3
Ablabesmyiajanta -- 1 -- -- 3 -- -- 1 — 3
Ablabesmyia mallochi 1 -- 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 -- 1
Brundiniella eumorpha -- -- -- -- -- -- — -- -- 1 1
Clinotanypus -- — 1 1 — -- --
Conchapelopia 1 — -- 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Labrundinia pilosella -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- --
3 10 10 1 1
Meropelopia - -- --
1
Natarsia -- -- -- -- 1 -- --
Nilotanypus -- -- -- -- -- — 1
Pentaneura -- -- — 1 1 1 -- --
Procladius (Holotanypus) 1 1 1 -- 1 — 1 3 1 —
Rheopelopia -- -- -- -- -- — -- -- -- -- 1
Potthastia gaedii grp. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- — -- - 1
Odontomesa fulva -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Brillia 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- 1
Cardiocladius 3 10 10 10 10 10 -- 10 10 3 -- 3 1
Cricotopus bicinctus grp. 3 10 3 3 1 10 3 10 10 3 3 10 3
Cricotopus infuscatus grp. 1 -- -- 1 3 10 10 -- -- -- 3 3 3
Crcotopus trifascia grp. -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 -- -- --
Cricotopus vieriensis grp. 1 -- -- 3 3
Eukiefferiella devonica grp. 3 -- --
Eukiefferiella
pseudomontana grp. - 1 3 3
Eukiefferiella similis grp. -- -- 3
Hydrobaenus 1 --
Orthocladius
(Symposiocladius) lignicola — -- -- 1
Orthocladius sp. 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 -- -- 1 10
Nanocladius 3 1 -- -- - 1 1 3 1
-- 3 -- 1
Nanocladius downesi 1 -- 1 -- -- 1 1 -- -- 10
Parametriocnemus lundbeckii 1 — -- -- -- — -- -- 10 -- -- 1
Rheocricotopus robacki 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 -- 3 3 — 1
Synorthocladius -- 3 3 3 -- 3 10 -- 3 1

Table A-2. (cont.)
Sampling Locations
Pigeon River(RM) Richland Jonathan Fines
Taxa 64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3 Crk. Crk. Crk.
Thienemanniella 3 — -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- 3 3 3 3
Tvetenia discoloripes grp. 1 -- 1 1 3 3 10 10 -- 1 1
- 3 1 3 -- 1 1
Chironomus 10
-- --
Cryptochironomus blarina grp. -- 1 -- 1 --
Cryptochironomus fulvus -- -- 1 3 1 3
Dicrotendipes neomodestus 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 --
Glyptotendipes -- -- -- - 1
Microtendipes pedellus grp. -- -- - 1
Parachironomus -- 1 --
Paracladopelma -- -- - 1
Paratendipes -- -- - 1
Phaenopsectra obediens grp. -- -- 1 1 1 3
Phaenopsectra punctipes -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Polypedilum flavus 10 10 10 10 10 1 10 3 10 10 10 1 10 10
Polypedilum illinoense 3 3 3 1 3 10 1 10 3 -- 1 1 -- 1
Polypedilum laetum 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- - -- 1
Polypedilum scalaenum grp. 3 1 -- 1 -- 3
Pseudochironomus 1 -- -- -- 1 -- --
Robackia demeijerei 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1 1
Stenochironomus 1 -- -- -- -- --
Tribelosjucundum 3 — -- -- -- -- --
Cladotanytarsus mancus grp. 1 -- -- --
Cladotanytarsus 10
vanderwulpi grp. -- --
Rheotanytarsus 3 3 10 3 3 3 10 3 3 3 10 10 10 10
Sublettea coffmani -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- 3 3
Tanytarsus sp. 2 -- -- -- 1 -- 1 1 1
Tanytarsus sp. 6 10 3 3 1 1 3 -- 3 3
Culex -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Simulium 10 3 10 10 10 3 -- 3 10 10 3 10 10
Protoplasa fitchii -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Antocha 3 1 3 10 3 3 3 3 3 10 10 10 10 3
Hexatoma -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1
Tipula 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1
Atherix lantha -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- 3 --
Hemerodromia -- 3 10 10 10 3 10 3 3 10 3 1

zmm -i mmo : Mmwmm -ioz -i
y 0 -0 '00 ON o m m = v 0 = 0) = m K
o- oo -i -11 y aQCD N Nro c. �, y � 3 m
» N N O
Ul a) � r c c 3 m ci �' c m
CL Cl) 3 N m o ai N
m O C)i 3 m N N
m 70 O C c m
m � 3 d
m m c
N m N
O 01
CD
CD
a
N
N
II
N
C; A N A
< L- m N 0 to
O. 00 0o W t0 i i w i W
C '
N
0) A W
jj N 000 J O
W
(D 0)
T A
d N 00 0) ' O
a
c to
N U A t0
J W
a
U
U A U D
l0 0000 W O W i --` O O i W i i U CD
O 0)
CT
N
-��. rn A a •Z7 D
d fJ O) -+ J N < N
CD
0) W
a U A N cn
fn 0o w cm A co O i W W 3
3
A
W A OD 0
W O U A N O
m
A �
U A N p
-� O N 00 -� D)
00 O V U i W O W O W
A w IA
cM0) 0rn wow Ow w
U A (0
O 1 co v - Cl)
J W --< 0 i w O i W W j 0
Zl
00
T A 7 N
7
0) -4 CD0) o to l 0 w I a
L
O
n
N
A N �
W -4 W O s w
W -4 N i O i i w i O W i I
n
W N x m
N
4I W W 00
A

EXHIBIT I
HABITAT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

EXHIBIT 1
12194
Habim Assessment field Data Sheet
Piedmont and Mountain Screams
Directions for u of this to iur,ev a minimm of 100 m ten of stream rieferably' an upstream direction starting above th
__s__d the__ bits[
b��w==and road ri ht�(-way. The stream!cement which is assessed!hould smresrnt average Sream emdi[ions. 1'n order to ortn a ptgper ha
evaluation the S m r needs to get' to the strcam All meter icadings need to be performed prior to w Udng the stream. When working the habitat;nd x
t h description high best fit_the observed habitats and then circle the scorn If the observed habitat fails in between two descriptions.select an
intermediate score. Them am eight different metrics in this index and a final habiLt srom is determined by adding the results from the different metrics. Leh
bank rivhtb=k detertninadons are m de when the obsermerij facing upstmsm croren for indlvidual metrics can be adiusfed up or down based on best
professlonal 1 d m nt•present r asonfsl In the remarks anion.
Location: Steam Road County
(upstream or downstrcarn of bridge, compass direction and distance from nearest town)
Ladmde longitude Topographic Map Name
Date Time Arrived at Station Time left Station
Obscver(s) Office Location Agency
Type of Study
Distance of Stream Surveyed meters
Stream Type (taken from handout) Eeoregion Geologic basin/bclt (friassic.Slates,etc.)
Physical Chancier cation:
Land uses: Forest_9g Active Pasture_9g Active Crops_9a Fallow Fields_9a Commercial_9s Industrial_% Residential_%
Other_%. Land use is based upon observations in the immediate vicinity of the sits
Width-.(meters) Stream Channel Avenge St[carn Depth:(meters) Riffle Run Pool
Manmade Stabilindon(rip/rap,etcJ
Remarks:
Water Quality:
Temperamie sC Dissolved Oxygen m9/1 Conductivity pndios/cm pH
Turbidity:(drcle) Clcar Slightly Turbid Turbid
Remarks:
Weather Conditions: Photographic Documentation:
General Characteristics:
I.Channel Modification(Use topo map as an additimal aid for this parameter)
A.channel natural
a.bends frequent(good diversity of bends or falls)..............___._._.............................._........._......._..._............____.__... 10
b.binds infrequent(long suits)..._.................____...............__.................................__._.....................................___...._ S
H.charnel modified(channelissd) .
1.with bends........_......_.................................__..._...........__...._._..........__.......__......._._.__..__....................._.__...._.__..... 4
2 withmt bends._._...................................._....___.............i..___......................._..._...._......._._......_.........._.........._'_...'__._....... 1
Remarks
i
r
60•

Instream Measurement:
II.Instream Habitat C:Tt. F F,h'+,t.wh'sh occar at this site-(Rocky) (maerophytes) (sticks and leaf packs) (snags and logs) (undercut banks and
root mass). Definition: leaf packs catsist of older leaves(not freshly fallen)that are packed together and have begun to decay.
Piles of leaves in pool areas are not considered leaf packs.
A.34 types present
1.habitats abundant s�f91E
a.34 of the habitat types abundant...._................__......................._..._......._.................................._....................................._...._.__ 20
b.2 of the habitat types abundant,other habitat common...................__....................................._........_..........................._..._.._...._.. 18
c.2 of the habitat types abundant,other habitat rare........................_._......._.............................................................................._....._.. 14
d.1 of the habitat types abundant.other habitat canmon........................__.........................._.............................................._...._..._... 16
e. 1 of the habitat types abundant,other habitat am......................._......_...........................................................................__.......... 12
2 habitats corrunon
a.3-4 of the habitat types common........................._._................................_._................_.................................................................... 14
b.2 of the habitat types mmmon,other habitat ram................................................................................................................................ 12
e.1 of the habitat types common,other habitat rare............................._................................................................................................. 10
3.habitat types am....................................................._.................................................................................................................................. 6
B.1.2 types present
1.habitat types abundant......................................................................................................................_........................................................ 8
2 habitat types common.............................................................................._._................................_..................................._......._..._........... 6
3.habitat types rare......_..._.._......................................._.............._..._......._.._.............................................................................................. 4
C. 0 types present............................................................................................................................................................................................... 0
Remarks
111.Pod Variety(pool size varies with stream size,slow moving runs should be considered as pools)
A.pools present
1.pool sizes(ama and depth)mixed
a.variety of pool sizes evenly mixed...........__..................._.............._......................_.............................................................._. 10
b.variety of pool sizes unevenly mixed
r majority of pools large and deep ..................................._._......................................_............... 8
(ii).majority of pools shallow................................................................................................................................................_. 6
2,pool sizes(area and depth)all the same
a.pools large and deep.................................._._......................................................................................................................_...... 5
b,pools shallow_......................._...._..........___._..................._._....__.................................._...._.................................._.......... 4
B.pools absent....................._.............._......................._..._................................................................................................................... 0
Remarks
IV.Riffle Habitats
A.riffles frequent
].well defused riffle and run,riffle as wide as suearn and extends 2X width of stream(abundance of cobble).............................................. 10
2.riffle as wide as stream but length not 2X width of stream(abundance of cobble;boulders and gravel cornmon)............._..................... 8
3.riffles not as wide as suearn and length not 2X width of stream(gravel or large boulders pmvalmt,some cobble).................................. 6
B.riffles infrequent
1.wcU defused riffle and ram,riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of strearn(abundance of cobble)........................................... 7
2.siffle a<wide a stream but length not 2X width of stream(abundance of cobble;boulders and gravel common).................._................. 5
3.riffles not as wide as stream and length not 2X width of stream(gravel or large boulders prevalent,some cobble)................._...._._...... 3
C.riffles absent............................................_.................................__...._.................................._...................................._._._............... 0
Remarks
V.Bottom Substrate(slit,sand,mud,detritus,gravel)
SubstrsateTypes
Substrate Tvoe Diameter Substrate Tvoe Characteristic _
Bedrock Detritus Sticks.wood
Boulder >256 tons(10 in) Coarse Plants
Cobble 64.256 snm(2.5-10 in) _ Coarse particulate Organic matter
Gravel 2.64 man(0.1-25 in) Muck-Mud Black.very fine
Sand 0.0620 cram(gritty) Fine Particulate Organic Matter '
Silt .0.004-0.06 tram _ Marl Gray, Shell Fragments
Clay <0.004 man (Slick)
A.substrate types mixed
1.substrate with a good mix of gravel,cobble,and boulders
a.embeddedes ns <25%..........................__..................... ._.....__..._...._.........._....__._.___................_.......___......_ 10
b.embeddedness?5-50%....__.._.___..__.._...._.__.............__._._......__..._.............._._......_._.._.___............._....__.___._.....
e.ensbeddedness 50.75%..........__.......__........._.................____.._..._._...._.......................__..... 6
..._.__..I................_..._._._._.. 6
d em ...
beddedness >75%....._.:...__...._. _._...._.__._................_.____................................._......_...._.._...................................
3
2.substrate gravel and cobble
a.embeddedness <T5%_..........................._...._._»...................__............_......................_..._.._._............:........................_.......... 9
b.embeddedness 25.50%._....................._.................................._................................._..................................._......__....._... 6

c.embeddedness 50.75%._...._._._...._...._...__--_._._.._.__ ...............................__.___................._...._____ 4
dcnbeddedncas >75%..__..__._...._._..._._______.._......_....._______.__....._._..._..__..__..__.__.........._........._._._._. 2
3.substrate mostly gravel
a.embcddedness <50%......_.__.................___._..................______.................................._._........................._-_. 6
b.embeddcdness >50%............................-.__.._................_..._._...................................__._._........................___.... 2
B.subsusse type homogenous
1.substrate bedrock...............................................__...................._..._..__._..._............._....................._...._................_......_._._ 3
1 substrate mostly sand...._....................................__..__.............................._._.............................._._._.................._................ 3
3.substrate mostly detritus..........................._._______.................._._._...__........................_.........._._................................ 2
4,substrate mostly silt/mud/clay...........................-.____.................................................._..................._....................._._.__.... 1
Remarks
Streambank Meas lr m ntc:
I
It Channel Width�i
i
!
i
i[— dream Width �
teenk-ai k-Benk-i;
Riparian Zone i Riparian Zone
VI.Bank Stability
A.banks stable Score
1.no evidence of erosion or bank failure(natural ormanmade)................................._............................._.............................................. 10
2.areas of erosion mostly healed..............._.._............__._._............................................................................................................... 9
B.banks unstable
1.erosion areas present-50-709'.of the streambmk surfaces covered by stable materiaL........................................................................ 6
2.many eroded areas,raw areas common along straight shims and bends.
a.25-50%of the streambank surfaces covered by stable material................._................................................................................... 4
b.10-25%of the streambank surfaces covered by stable material................._.................._........................................................ 2
e<10 90-erosion rampant.no stable sucambank sudams..............._......._............................................._....................................... 1
C Othcrihan above(Describe and score)
Remarks
VII.Bank Vegetation
A.left bank
Score
1.90%plant cover with diverse trees,shrubs,grass; plants healthy wish apparently good root systems....................................................... 5
2.70.90 9.plant cover with fewer plant species; a fcw barren or thin areas; vegetation appears generally healthy.................................... 4
3.50-70 9.plant cover with dominated by grasses,sparse trees and shrubs; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding............ 3
4.<50%plant cover with many bare areas; thin grass,few if any trees and shrubs._............................._............................................._...... 2
5. no bank vegetation........................................................................._......_.._.........................................._._........................................... 0
B.right bank - -
1.90%plant cover with diverse trees,shrubs,grass; plants healthy with apparently good root systems.._...................................._........... 5
2.70-90%plant cover with fewer plant species; a few banren or thin areas; vegetation appears generally healthy............_....................... 4
3.50.70%plant cover with dominated by grasses,sparse noes and shrubs; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding............ 3
4.<50 T.plant cover with many bare areas; thin grass,few if any trees and shrubs....................................................................................... 2
S. no bank vegetation............._......................................_.__._................._.............................................................................................. 0
Remarks
Riparian ZOne Meac tr m ntc:
Vill.Light Penetration (Canopy is defmcd as tree orvegeiaiive cover direcdy'above the stream's surfacer. Canopy would block
out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
A.stream with canopy . / Score
1. >90% of stream segment with canopy..:.._...............___._.:............._......_.-...._........................................................._......._............ 10
2.50.90%of stream segment with canopy
a.other sections of sueam with mature trees in riparian zone producing good shading................._...._....__..._._.........._._..__._..__.. 9
b.other sections of stream with small trees in riparian zone producing some shading...................................................................... 6
e other sections of stream with shrubs in riparian zoneproducing minimal shading........................................_................................ 6
3.d0%of stream segment with canopy
a.other sections of stream with mature trees in riparian zone producing good shading....................................................................... 8
b.other sections of stream with small trees in npartan rune producing sane shading...................._.........._..............................._......... 6
c other sections of stream with shrubs in riparim zone producing minimal shading.................................................................._......_.. 5

B.stream without canopy
1. scums with steep banks(banks>50%strum eidth)producing sane shading.
- a. sueun with matua trees in riparian sine producing good shading._._................................._._._..................................._..._......... 7
Is. strum with small vees in riparian cone producing some shading_.___..............................._..__...._...................._...._..._._........._ 4
e. steam with shrubs in riparian zone producing minimal shading...._....._............................._._.................................__........... 3
d. strum with only grasses in riparian zone producing no shading__........_.................................................................._._......_._ 2
2. scrams without steep banka(banks<50%sues-s width)producing little shading.
a. steam with mature veer in riparian sore producing good shading..._....................................._....... ........ 6
Is. sueam with small trees in riparian sane producing some shading._._.............................................................................._._._.._........ 3
c. suum with shrubs in riparian zone producing minimal shading........._....................................._......................................_.__......... 2
d. stream with only grasses in riparian sine producing no shading.._....................................................................................._._._..._... 1
Remarks
1X. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
DeSnitim:A brisk in she riparian sine is any arc which Zows sediment w pus through the zone.
A.]eft bank awm
1.riparian zone intact(no breaks)
a.> 18 Meters.....__.....................................____..............................................._................................................................................. 5
b.12-I8 meters......................................---'--._..................._......_.................................................................................................. 4
C.6-12 meun...._.__._...__........................___............................__............................................_.........................................._......... 3
d.<6 mesen................_................................_.__............................................................................................................................. 2
2.riparian zone not intact(basks)
a.breaks common
L> 18 meten...........................................__.........._......................................................................................................._............... 3
ii. 12.18 macs...................................._.__.............................._...._............................................................................................... 2
W.6-12 meters......................................___........................_..._................................................................................................... 1
iv:<6 meten..._.................................._....__.........................._._._......................................................................................._......... 0
b.basks rare
i.> 18 MeLen......................................_._............................................................................................................................... 4
ii. 12-18 mam................................_..._.__................................................................................................................_.............. 3
iv.6-12 mcten._........_.......................---...................__........................................................................................__....... 2
iv.<6 maen_........__............_._........................................................................................................................_..... 1
B.right bank
1.riparian zone intact(no breaks)
a.>18 Meters_......................................._....__._......_............._._._._....._............................................................................_........._.. 5
b. 12.18 Meters...._._._........_...._......._......_..___._............_......._._._._._............................................................................._...._....... 4
c.6-12 meters..._............_._.....................---....................-'--'-........................................................................................... 3
d.<6 Meters............................................._.__....................................._...._..._................................................................................... 2
2.riparian zone not inua(breaks)
a.banks ccrtunon
i.>18 meters.........................................___._................................................................................................................_.............. 3
iL12-18 Maus.........................._...._....__..._.............._..._..._._._.................................._...._......_................................_.......... 2
iii.6.12 meten._..._............................_.__._............................................................................................................................... I
iv.<6maers_....................................._..._._............................._........................................._..................:.............................._ 0
b.breaks rare
L>IS meters...._._..._................._..._.__................................................................................................................................. 4
iL12-I8 maers............................................................................................................................_.............._.__._.......... 3
iiL6-12 Meters.........................................................................................................................._....___._. 2
iv.<6 mesers._._.....................................___..................._...._.__.__................................_..............._.............................. 1
Remarks
Total Score
References:
Barbour,M.T.and J.H.Stribling. An Evaluation of a Visual-Baud Technique for Assessing Strum Habitat SLMCWM
IX Riparian Ecosystems of the Humid US. DRAFT REPORT.
1993. Development of a Habitat Assessment Methodology for Low Gradient Nmddal Streams, DRAFT REPORT. Mid-Atlantic Consul Strums Workgroup.
Plaildn.J.L.M.T.Barbour,K D.Porter,S.)L Gross,and R M Hughes. 1989. Rapid Biousessatent Protocols for Use in Streams and Riven. Benthic Matvoi
and Fish. EPAf444/4-89-001. US EPA.Office of Water. Wuhington,D.C.
Simonson,T.D.J.Lyons,and P.D.KaneU. Guideline fa Evaluating Fuh Hobiut in Wisconsin Scrams. DRAFT REPORT. Fish Research Section. Burcau t
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

APPENDIX B
PIGEON RIVER TEMPERATURE MODEL

Pigeon River Temperature Model
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inca
P.O. Box 4000
Canton,NC 28716
Prepared by:
EA Engineering,Science and Technology, Inc.
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD 21152
February 2001

Pigeon River Temperature Model
1. INTRODUCTION
A temperature model was developed for the discharge of the Blue Ridge Paper Products
Inc. (BRPP) Canton Mill to the Pigeon River based upon existing data for the six year
period 1994 to 1999. The objective of the temperature modeling task was to provide
support for a thermal effects study on possible impacts to fish and benthos downstream
from the Canton Mill. The model domain extended from Canton (RM 64.7) to Hepco
(RM 42.5), a distance of 22.2 miles. Daily flow data were available for the mill effluent,
as well as for USGS gages at Canton and Hepco. Temperature data were collected daily
by mill personnel at six Pigeon River locations between Canton and Hepco for the
historical modeling period. Hourly meteorological data were used, including solar
radiation, which allowed the natural diel temperature variation of the river to be included
in the model. The diel temperature range was verified in the model with river
temperature data that were collected three times daily from January 1994 to June 1998
and with continuously recording thermographs that were deployed at four Pigeon River
locations during July 2000.
A preliminary Pigeon River temperature model was prepared in January 2000 using data
from 1994 to 1998. In the current report, the period of record used for the model was
extended through December 1999. Other model changes included the addition of a heat
transfer term between the stream and streambed and refinements to the shading
coefficient that is applied to the solar radiation term. These enhancements provided an
improved fit of the model to observed data, particularly under summer conditions.
2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Model Description
A time varying, one-dimensional model was developed for the Pigeon River (Edinger
1974). The model is cross-sectionally homogeneous and includes advection and surface
heat exchange. The model equation is generally written for each river segment as:
a hT + a OaT + K(T-E) + S (T-TB) = H + QTTT
a t aA rho Cp rho Cp rho CpA A
where h= mean cross-sectional depth (ft)
T=water temperature (C)
t=time (day)
QR=river flow (ft3/day)
A=river surface area (ft )
K=coefficient of surface heat exchange (Btu/ftz/day/C)
E= equilibrium temperature (C)
S = coefficient of streambed heat exchange (Btu/ft2/day/C)
TB = streambed temperature (C)
1

H=thermal loading from discharge (Btu/day)
QT=Tributary inflow (ft3/day)
TT=Tributary inflow temperature (C)
rho = specific weight of water (lb/ft3)
Cp = specific heat of water (Btu/lb/C)
The first term on the left side of the equation represents the change in heat storage per
unit surface area. The second term represents the change in downstream advection of
heat per unit surface area. The third term represents the net rate of surface heat exchange
with the atmosphere per unit surface area. The fourth term on the left side of the equation
is the rate of streambed heat exchange per unit stream area. The first term on the right
side of the equation is the thermal loading from a point source per unit surface area. The
last term on the right side of the equation is the tributary heat inflow per unit surface area.
The 22.2-mile long model domain was divided into 222 0.1-mile river segments for
which the model equation was solved at each time step. The heat exchange coefficients
associated with the atmosphere and the streambed are discussed as part of model
calibration in Section 3.
2.2 Canton Mill and Pigeon River Temperatures and Flows
A data set of Pigeon River temperatures and flows was provided by BRPP for the 6-year
period 1994 to 1999. BRPP personnel measured river temperature at six stations within
the model domain. At four stations, Canton, Fiberville, above Clyde, and below Clyde,
temperature was measured three times a day from January 1994 to June 1998. The
sampling times were approximately 0030-0130 hours, 0800-0900 hours, and 1700-1800
hours. Since June 1998, temperature at these four stations was,measured once each day
at approximately 0800-0900 hours. At the remaining two stations, Crabtree and Hepco,
temperature was measured weekly at approximately 0830-0930 hours. The locations of
these stations are summarized in Table 2-1.
The data set provided by BRPP also included a daily temperature and flow for the mill's
secondary effluent, and USGS Pigeon River flows at Canton and Hepco. The locations
of these additional stations are also provided in Table 2-1. Frequency distributions by
month of the daily Canton Mill effluent temperatures and flows are provided in Tables 2-
2 and 2-3. Monthly mean effluent temperatures varied from 29-30 C in winter to 36-37 C
in summer. Monthly mean effluent flows were within 38-42 cfs year round. Frequency
distributions by month of the daily USGS flows at Canton and Hepco are provided in
Tables 2-4 and 2-5. The provisional USGS data contained in the BRPP data base were
replaced with the finalized USGS data as it became available. Differences between the
provisional and final data were sometimes present during low flow conditions.
The domain of the Pigeon River temperature model extended from RM 64.7, 0.2-mi
upstream of the river temperature station at Canton (RM 64.5), downstream to RM 42.5,
a 22.2 mile reach. The river sampling station at Hepco (RM 42.6) was located at the
upstream end of the last model segment. The difference in river flow between the two
USGS gaging stations near either end of the model domain is a result of the flow
2

contribution from tributary and non-point sources. Five tributaries were included in the
model: Beaverdam, Richland, Crabtree, Jonathans, and Fines Creek. A partitioning
relationship (based on drainage area) to divide the flow increase between Canton and
Hepco among the tributaries was provided in a previous report (EA 1987, Table 3-4).
The drainage area and the fraction of the flow increase between Canton and Hepco
associated with each tributary is provided in Table 2-6. Table 2-6 indicates that 81.2
percent of the flow increase between Canton and Hepco is associated with tributaries.
Therefore, the remaining 18.8 percent of flow was partitioned uniformly by river mile as
non-point source flow in the model. The temperature assigned to each tributary and non-
point source flow was determined as part of model calibration.
2.3 July 2000 Temperature Survey
During July 2000, five thermographs were deployed in the Pigeon River and temperature
was measured three times during one day at several additional stations. Continuously
recording thermographs were deployed in the Pigeon River at Canton, Fiberville (left and
right bank), Crabtree, and in Richland Creek for the period 17 to 21 July. The
thermograph records are displayed in Figure 2-1 for Canton and Fiberville (left and right
bank), and in Figure 2-2 for Canton, Crabtree, and Richland Creek. The morning Canton,
Fiberville, and Crabtree temperatures collected by the Mill during 17-21 July are also
displayed in Figures 2-1 and 2-2. At Fiberville, there was an approximately 2.5 degree C
temperature gradient between the left and right bank thermographs. The two
thermographs were located just downstream of Beaverdam Creek, which comes in on the
right bank. The daily Fiberville temperature taken by the Mill is measured at a mid-
stream location from a bridge slightly upstream of Beaverdam Creek. This bridge
location provides a more representative laterally mixed temperature free of the effects of
the cooler Beaverdam Creek water entering on the right bank. The Fiberville
measurements are consistent with the higher left bank thermograph.
At Crabtree (RM 53.5,Figure 2-2), temperatures were noticeably lower than at Fiberville
(RM 62.9), but were still elevated relative to the upstream Canton temperatures. The
thermograph in Richland Creek functioned for only one day before it stopped recording
data. During this one day, the Richland Creek temperature was slightly higher than the
upstream Canton temperature. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 clearly illustrate the temperature
variation of the Pigeon River with a diel range increasing from 2-3 degree C at Canton to
3-4 degree C at Crabtree.
Pigeon River temperatures recorded on 20 July at six river stations and five tributary
stations are provided in Table 2-7. The diel temperature variation is very evident in this
data that was collected during the morning (0754-1028 hrs), afternoon (1325-1618 hrs),
and evening (1651-2028 hrs). At Fiberville, Crabtree, and Hepco, where left and right
bank measurements were recorded, a lateral temperature gradient was present. At
Fiberville, the 2-3 degree C lateral gradient was previously discussed relative to
Beaverdam Creek. Crabtree is located 1.4 miles downstream from Richland Creek, and
Hepco is located 0.1 miles downstream from Fines Creek. At both locations, there was
3

an approximately 1 degree C lateral temperature gradient with the lower temperature on
the bank with the tributary.
Among the five tributary stations, only Richland Creek displayed a significant diel
temperature variation of approximately 2 degree C (Table 2-7). At the other four
tributaries, the diel temperature variation on 20 July was less than 0.5 degree C.
Temperatures in Beaverdam, Crabtree, and Fines Creek (19.4-20.2 C) were 3 to 5 degrees
cooler than in Richland Creek (22.8-25.1 C), or Jonathans Creek (22.8-23.1 C). During
model calibration, the observation that the Richland Creek and Jonathans Creek
temperatures were more similar to the upstream Canton temperature, and the
temperatures at the remaining three tributaries were below the Canton temperature was
used.
2.4 Meteorological Data
An hourly meteorological data set was compiled for the 6-year period 1994 to 1999. The
temperature model has the capability to execute on either a daily or an hourly time step.
Using hourly meteorological data allows the model to simulate the natural day/night, diel
temperature variation. This modeling approach should provide a better comparison to
observed river temperatures, which were frequently collected in the morning between
approximately 0800 and 0930 hours.
Surface heat exchange is calculated in the model using a surface heat exchange
coefficient and an equilibrium temperature. The rate of heat exchange through the water
surface is provided by the formula:
dH= K (T-E)
dt
where H= surface heat exchange (Btu/fO)
K= surface heat exchange coefficient (Btu/ftz/day/C)
T =temperature of water surface (C)
E=equilibrium temperature (C)
The surface heat exchange coefficient and the equilibrium temperature are calculated
using air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation (Thackston and
Parker, 1971). Three of these meteorological variables, air temperature, wind speed, and
solar radiation, were available at the site. Relative humidity was obtained from the
NOAA meteorological station at the Ashville airport. A summary of the processing
involved in combining the BRPP and the NOAA data is provided in the following
section.
An hourly data file for the period 1994 to 1999 containing air temperature, wind speed,
and solar radiation was obtained from BRPP. The wind speed data was collected at 10-ft
and 60-ft elevations, and the air temperature data at 2-ft, 10-ft, and 60-ft elevations. The
near ground level data were selected for use in the equilibrium temperature calculation.
Data gaps in the 10-ft elevation wind speed and the 2-ft elevation air temperature data
4

were filled using the next higher tower elevation. Remaining data gaps of typically less
than 6 hours in duration were filled by interpolation. Several longer data gaps were filled
using the NOAA data from Ashville.
The BRPP solar radiation sensor was replaced in July 1995. Prior to July 1995, a net
solar radiation sensor was used. This type of sensor gives a negative value at night as
long wave radiation, heat, is radiated back to the atmosphere. After July 1995, an
incident solar radiation sensor was used, which provides a zero reading during non-
daylight hours. The incident solar radiation measurement is the type used in the
equilibrium temperature calculation. Therefore, it was necessary to adjust the pre July
1995 data. As part of the equilibrium temperature calculation, Thackston and Parker
(1971) provided procedures to calculate individual radiation terms including both the
incident solar and back radiation. Following these procedures, back radiation was
estimated and subtracted from the pre July 1995 data to yield incident solar radiation.
The resulting radiation values should be reasonably close to zero at night, a feature that
served as verification that the processing was performed properly. Solar radiation data
gaps of up to 3-hours duration were filled by interpolation. Longer data gaps, including a
20-day interval in July 1995, were filled using calculated incident solar radiation.
Incident solar radiation is estimated by calculating the clear sky solar radiation based
upon the latitude of the site, the day of the year, and the hour of the day. The calculation
used a series of trigonometric terms that take into account both seasonal and hourly
variation of the angle to the sun. The hourly clear sky solar radiation was then corrected
for the amount of sky cover, a parameter available in the NOAA Asheville data set.
The hourly meteorological data set was used to calculate hourly equilibrium temperatures
and surface heat exchange coefficients for the 1994 to 1999 modeling period. As part of
this calculation, shading coefficients were applied to the incident solar radiation. Stream
shading is a function of the density of trees near the stream and also includes effects from
shadows cast by land features such as nearby ridges as the sun traverses the sky.
Increased shading reduces the natural diel temperature variation and results in lower daily
average stream temperatures. Shading coefficients were determined as part of model
calibration in Section 3.
2.5 River Geometry
Stream geometry data were obtained from a QUALII stream modeling report prepared by
Weston. BRPP provided a table (Appendix B of the Weston report) which tabulated
stream velocity and depth data in 0.1-mile increments from RM 64.7 to RM 45.6. It was
assumed that this channel data corresponded to a low flow scenario (76 cfs at Canton) as
discussed elsewhere in the Weston report. These stream velocity and depth data were
used as the basis for developing the required stream geometry data in each model
segment.
5

The Pigeon River temperature model requires that stream velocity, depth, and width be
provided as a function of river flow. These parameters are commonly expressed as
power-law relationships:
V (velocity, ftlsec) = at Q bl
D (depth, ft) = a2 Q b2
W (width, ft) = a3 Q b3
where a and b are power-law coefficients and Q (cfs) is river flow.
To provide data for the power-law relationships, the 0.1-mile segment data were grouped
by similar depth and velocity characteristics into 18 reaches and reach-averaged
velocities and depths were calculated. A 19th reach extending from RM 45.5 to RM 42.5
was developed based on a cross-sectional stream profile at RM 42.6 (EA 1987). The
reach-averaged velocity and depth data are provided in Table 2-8. For the 79-cfs base
case, flows, velocities, and depths are known. The flow divided by the average velocity
yields the cross-sectional area. The cross-sectional area divided by the depth yields a
width. In each reach,the originally calculated widths were much narrower than known
values for the Pigeon River. It was therefore assumed that the reported depths were along
the river centerline and one-half of the value was used to represent a cross-sectional
average depth.
To develop the power-law relationships, the channel data were extrapolated to other
flows by using stage-discharge relationships obtained from the USGS at Canton and
Hepco. For a given flow, the incremental stage increase was added to the base case, 79-
cfs, reach depth. Velocity was scaled from the base case with the assistance of
Manning's equation, which indicates that velocity increases proportional to channel depth
raised to the two-thirds power. The depth and velocity values were then divided into the
river flow to obtain the new width. Using this approach, channel data were calculated for
a range of river flows and a regression analysis was used to fit a power-law relationship
to each data set. The resulting power-law coefficients for velocity, depth, and width in
each reach are provided in Table 2-9.
A review of the data in Table 2-8 indicates that a 17-ft deep "hole" in reach 15 resulted in
a very narrow river width for the reported velocity, a width that was considered
unrealistic. Therefore, the power-law coefficients from reach 10, a representative deeper
reach, were used in the model for reach 15. The river width in reach 3, downstream from
Fiberville, also appeared to be unrealistically narrow. The power-law coefficients from
reach 2 were used for reach 3 in the model.
6

Table 2-1 Location of Temperature Sampling Stations and
Tributaries within the Pigeon River Temperature Model
River Model
Station Mile Se ment
Canton (USGS) 64.9 (a)
Canton 64.5 3
Mill Discharge 63.3 15
Fiberville 62.9 19
Beaverdam Creek 62.8 20
Above Clyde 57.7 71
Below Clyde 55.5 93
Richland Creek 54.9 99
Crabtree 53.5 113
Crabtree Creek 49.7 151
Jonathans Creek 46.0 188
Hepco (USGS) 45.1 197
Fines Creek 42.7 221
He co 42.6 222
(a) Model starts at RM 64.7

Table 2-2 Frequency Distribution by Month of the Daily Canton Mill Discharge Temperature, 1994 - 1999.
Percentile Dischar a Tem erature C
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0 15.3 21.2 25.2 26.2 27.8 29.4 32.8 30.8 21.9 26.6 27.0 25.4
1 20.0 23.4 25.2 27.1 27.9 32.0 33.0 31.5 22.2 26.6 27.5 26.5
5 24.8 25.9 27.0 29.4 29.6 33.1 35.1 33.5 30.6 29.3 28.3 27.3
10 26.1 26.6 27.8 30.1 30.9 34.0 35.4 34.1 32.1 30.2 28.7 27.8
15 26.4 27.2 28.6 30.6 31.5 34.6 35.5 34.6 32.7 30.5 29.0 28.0
20 26.8 27.7 28.8 31.0 32.0 34.8 35.8 34.7 33.2 31.0 29.3 28.2
25 27.2 28.2 29.3 31.3 32.8 35.0 36.0 35.0 33.6 31.2 29.5 28.4
30 27.4 28.4 29.6 31.7 33.1 35.1 36.3 35.2 33.8 31.6 29.7 28.7
35 27.7 28.8 29.9 31.9 33.6 35.4 36.5 35.4 33.9 31.7 30.0 29.0
40 28.0 29.4 30.2 32.5 33.9 35.7 36.7 35.8 34.1 31.9 30.1 29.2
45 28.5 29.6 30.6 32.7 34.2 35.9 36.9 35.9 34.4 32.0 30.4 29.4
50_ 28.9 30.0 30.8 33.0 34.5 36.0 37.0 36.0 34.5 32.2 30.7 29.7
55 29.1 30.2 31.0 33.2 34.7 36.3 37.2 36.1 34.6 32.5 30.9 30.0
60 29.4 30.5 31.3 33.3 34.8 36.5 37.3 36.2 34.9 32.8 31.2 30.2
65 29.9 30.7 31.7 33.6 35.1 36.7 37.6 36.3 35.2 33.0 31.3 30.5
70 30.2 30.9 32.0 33.8 35.3 36.9 37.8 36.5 35.5 33.2 31.6 30.8
75 30.7 31.0 32.2 34.0 35.6 37.2 38.0 36.7 35.6 33.6 31.9 31.0
80 31.0 31.2 32.7 34.3 35.9 37.4 38.3 37.1 36.0 34.2 32.2 31.2
85 31.3 31.7 33.0 34.7 36.2 37.8 38.6 37.7 36.3 34.6 32.6 31.5
90 31.8 32.2 33.5 35.0 36.8 38.2 38.9 38.0 36.7 35.2 33.0 31.9
95 32.5 32.8 34.2 35.3 37.4 39.0 39.3 38.6 37.3 35.8 33.3 32.7
99 33.8 34.4 35.9 36.2 38.2 40.4 40.0 39.2 37.7 36.9 35.2 33.8
Mean 28.7 29.6 30.7 32.7 34.0 36.1 37.0 35.9 34.3 32.4 30.7 29.8
Obser_j 186 169 186 1 180 1 186 1 180 1 186 1 186 1 178 1 186 1 180 1 186

C
Cr CD
C 0 W m m m V V m m m w A A W W N N -� y � — 0 - �
m w omocnomomomomomocnom0 CD
CD
.... 1 A A A A A A A A A y A j A A A Cl) W Cl) W CO CO W L
O) CO V U) A W W N N N O O O,(D Co W CD V O) Q) D
mm W AU AbDbZn DAOmA IU W AON W N U Z
w
Q
y y A A A A A -P A A A y 1 � y A A W W co co W co W -n N
m 0 V AA W W NNN O O O O (D CO CO V m m N
0 (O Ja1m y AOm .P y Do mA1c0 U) .Aj L-I IV W in CD W co
T
W
1 A A A A A A A A A A 1 ? y ?. A CO CO CO Cl) W CO W C
OD U) A A W CO N N N j O O (O co W m V D) A D 7
m m .0) W N O to N OD m N b m CA) O (n 1 c0 O) (O m m W m =7 O
l<
cn
A A A . A A A 1 , � y A A A A A W W W CO CO CO W D
OD O MA W N N N O O O O W (D (D m V V m M C
O CO i0 N N m A K) m (n (A) s OD m A W c0 W O OD OJ A U) O JJ
O
3
6
A A D. A A A A A A W (o W W W W Cl) W co
O) O c0 m A W CO N O O O O O Co W W m OD V V N D O
O CO V A 7> m 1 W OD A tO V (n W j m A
(� O
ID
.... i A A A A A A A A A A y j A A A W CO W CO CO W CO (- 3
m co Cn A A co W W N N j O O O Co (O Oo Co V (3) (1) C p (D
O p) (O A W j V W y Cn UD CD O) W c0 m K) V A N 0 1 cO Z 3 O
� w
T_ l<
y A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 1 A A A W W W W W L O
W N DD N A A A W W W N N N -� y O O W W V V �I C 3
m fJ O V W (n O V m N V (n W (D V W O V N m s O7 V O r 0 O
N 3
y A A A A A A -P A A A A A A A W W W W W CO W N N D
CD -• W 0) U) (n A A W W N y 1 0 0 CO W OD V V m A (n s C
0) O (A) W m y m O V fa o) b N Co GO (n %4 W m O N (o O V G) Ul
n
w
(o
co (n AAA A co co W W W W W W Cl) Cl) O O Cl) N
m 00 O M A A W N j 1 1 O W m m V V W m A CO j m
OCO J Co mO W m (D CnO OD A m CA) �4 m IV OO O
CD
co U) A A A 4 A A W Cl) Cl) co co W co co co Cl) G1 OO W j. (D O ?
M m O A CO N O (0 (0 m O] OD V m O) m U) -N A N O
m p KD c0 j A W O A V EO V N O A V FO CO y m O m 0) W 1
W
C0
co
CO A A A A A A 1 A A A W W W W co Cl) Cl) W CO Cl) Cl) f O
co O m U) A W N N 1 O O cD V M M M MUI ()) U1 A W.
O W m O O V W N m -+ m (n O W W (Il W O OD V A A m m C
W A A A A A A A A A A W W W W W W W W W W W W
m W O) W W N N N O O W Wm W V V V M M MN N m
m m O (o A o (n y W m V A m N c0 m W (n 1 A (D (n A l n

Table 2-4 Frequency Distribution by Month of the Daily USGS Pigeon River Flow at Canton, 1994 - 1999.
Percentile River Flow cfs
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY TUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0 122 247 264 175 166 114 75 49 39 44 47 51
1 135 249 269 175 166 118 77 49 40 44 47 52
5 180 276 277 186 177 133 87 57 42 47 54 57
10 197 296 293 208 190 142 100 64 46 49 59 133
15 214 326 312 219 197 148 107 71 49 59 73 147
20 231 351 327 236 204 159 113 74 50 64 90 161
25 256 369 353 252 216 164 121 78 52 65 114 171
30 280 381 374 265 226 179 126 83 57 69 _ 141 179
35 302 400 408 278 234 187 135 90 64 75 152 187
40 334 416 437 318 245 196 142 99 72 93 158 195
45 357 436 454 361 256 209 149 108 109 128 169 204
50 405 460 494 385 269 225 154 113 142 145 177 219
55 451 492 520 407 278 238 160 126 156 162 191 235
60 496 522 540 437 293 255 167 134 163 187 201 250
65 533 581 579 447 305 284 172 147 176 204 225 263
70 578 627 616 505 320 292 178 161 193 224 245 283
75 605 713 669 566 345 307 183 170 206 249 267 311
80 717 738 744 616 367 333 196 187 224 288 298 352
85 861 850 856 686 420 347 211 233 245 327 325 373
90 1050 1070 1000 760 464 396 238 312 268 435 397 427
95 1910 1740 1440 949 543 559 291 738 358 809 575 515
99 5160 3050 3530 1520 841 1010 392 4620 942 2010 2020 1230
Mean 638 630 620 446 302 263 162 239 162 262 238 271
Obser 186 1 169 1 186 1 180 1 186 180 186 1 186 1 178 1 186 1 180 186

r mr r N '- m � wvN (° D0 co
co (omLorn4 � woODnco )(D0v
N N m CO m 'It V V V W tC W W W n n
r N N r
(3) W n Lo Cl) m NW N m N N n N 0 0 0 0 O
0 m W W oo O N O N V (0 n m W W O Vt mLr) 0 0 0 rW m
z r r r r N N m m m CO CO m V V V N (o to W W r Cl) V r
m
m
m
m N m o m m m W m m N m (0 W n (o N N O W
(.) NmmvW LC) m N -tmNvnrvnm n .f) W 0) 00
0 r r r r r r r N N N N m m m V VqlT W W n r m V r
m
r
O
=N C" qztW N W co O m m m m m O m n O m O N m m md W W mNNN0mWNmVVLLNNn
mm 0OrC\jrn (7O7 Cl)
(7 (7
r r T r r
m
° 0 m n O m O m n W r W m W W V n 0 O. O to r- 0 m
LL D N N It W n W m N N N N N m PN7 Cr) Cr)m � V 1n W r N V T
y Q r T T T r T T
LL
mm nmm o WamWN mmmc� rm � oW
CO U .=j N N N N N N (0O m 0 N Co m d' � � d' V W Lo W r V �
3
a o
co U-
� Z W W N O m W W n W N W W m 7 N W W O 00 V O
w N N m N V V V 7 Vt 7 V LO w 0 c00 N 0 r m W r N (00 co
0
O
L
p >' W W o T W m .r W m m v n W W m m m � O o 0 0
N V m N
mm V co V' 7 V (OoLDN OD C\l o0c0w � nnmmorrm nT
- - T
Q
C
O
CC co m W m io co v n N O W co N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O W W m W O N W m n W m i0 W N N Co W V' O W n W O
0_ Or N . T W mm 'Itom
•O Q m m v '7 Lo W Lfl to W n CO m m r r r r N COm r r
N_
0
U O O O o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o W co
O t .r V' n m o V' W m m N n m O O n W m W m r W W W
7 < m 'Itm W N W n m o O T T T 0 T T W N N co m T
to m to W n n W m m m N m co
6
N
U-
LO m
' 0] n m N m n W (o W r W n N N N 0 0 N N V
N m m m 0 r ! T V co
LL V to W W n n n W W m m r r N N m �o
N
ca
m
Z to to W O m W V' LL7 O W m N 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N (0
Q W W m nN V' mmn0 W N d' mO rNT (mOT W N rm
m m V -ItW W Lo W W n n co m r r r r N m �
N
_ C
C CD W O m o n O W O m O (o O to O (o O �o m co
V po O r W W W n n W m m m m 0
N
a

Table 2-6 Drainage Areas and Tributary Flow Partitioning Coefficients
used in the Pigeon River Temperature Model
River EModel Drainage Partitioning
Location Mile Se ment Area (mil) Coefficient
Canton (USGS) 64.9 133
Beaverdam Creek 62.8 20 11.2 0.052(a)
Richland Creek 54.9 99 68.4 0.315(a)
Crabtree Creek 49.7 151 26.6 0.123(a)
Jonathans Creek 46.0 188 70.0 0.323(a)
Hepco (USGS) 45.1 197 350
Fines Creek 42.7 221 25.5 0.073 b
Note: 81.2%of the flow difference between Canton and Hepco is accounted for
by tributaries. The remaining 18.8%of flow is partitioned by
river mile as non-point source flow.
The tributary flow is calculated as follows:
(a) Q=Qc+ P (Qh-Qc)
(b) Q= P Qh
where Qc= Pigeon River flow at Canton
Qh= Pigeon River flow at Hepco
P = partitioning coefficient

Table 2-7 Pigeon River and Tributary Temperatures Measured on 20 July 2000
River, Morning Afternoon Evening
Location Mile Temp (C) hour Temp C) hour Temp (C) hour
River Stations
Canton 64.9 21.7 0754 21.6 1325 26.0 1651
Canton 64.5 21.5 0758 25.7 1330 26.6 1657
Mill Discharge 63.3 32.0 0739 32.1 1240 34.1 1634
Fiberville-left 62.8 27.8 0813 31.6 1339 31.5 1713
Fiberville-right 62.8 28.5 0817 28.4 1342 28.0 1716
Above Clyde 57.7 25.4 0840 29.5 1425 25.6 1803
Below Clyde 55.5 24.6 0905 24.7 1450 24.7 1830
Crabtree-left 53.5 24.0 0931 26.9 1515 27.0 1900
Crabtree-right 53.5 25.0 0934 27.6 1518 28.3 1903
Hepco-left 42.6 23.0 1020 24.5 1616 24.5 2025
Hepco-right 42.6 22.8 1023 23.0 1618 23.0 2028
Tributary Stations
Beaverdam Creek 62.8 20.0 1120 20.0 1358 19.8 1735
Richland Creek 54.9 22.8 0923 25.1 1508 25.0 1850
Crabtree Creek 49.7 20.2 0944 20.2 1530 20.0 1925
Jonathans Creek 46.0 22.8 1000 23.0 1547 23.1 1945
Fines Creek 42.7 19.6 1028 19.4 1623 L19.4 2013

CD
Om Jm (n4 W N1000 CO Jm CnA W N1 6,
CD
N
(D
A A A A A A m m 0 m m m m m m m m m m C
fn m V m W O 1 N W A Cn V W CO N N W A <
M O O IV M -I 0 W V W W W O tO
< n
CD
CD
AAAAAAAmNfnmmm (nmmmmm n: �
� � O O
Q
N (71 O O N Cn V fn m V [O Cil W O CO IV O m N CD o
Qm
v
_ =r
N 1 1 1 1 J l j co co m m CO OD J V V CD T l]
O CO Cn Cn On Cn w cow N V m W W O 10 CO m
OmmAANAN -+ CO y O CD(n N
O ? CID W ? V V A O -+ Co A N in (n W �L =:, SD
O w
3 OS
O o O - J O O CD
I V m A A W y m N 0 0 0 V m (n O m m A n CD CD
N OA wm V m0m000A j Cn m Am0 CD w � (D
.� O co
CD O
C CD 7
G i
N N 1vN1ANA1 --` NN CO NN ? Cl= ON N
co N A co 0 CWn O N CVJ C0 COO m C Zo OO Vm mW O CD
CD
Im
(D Q
�.
--� 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N CD O
M <O m UT W N N m W CO O CO V m Cn O V m A CD 0 C=p CD
0 3
6 —
N CD
O m
yL NL N O O -. 1 j O 1 �
f7100 (01000J O -+ mO W W �Im GD -+ O So N
CD 7
a s
CD
CC 71
A?' W O OW0O NACO A m O' Coco N n m
W n W ?
m O V W 0 W V W M O m to
x G A�al

Table 2-9 Power-Law Coefficients for the Velocity, Depth, and Width Relationships
Used in the Pigeon River Temperature Model
River Mile Velocit Depth Width
Reach Upstr Dstr Al B1 A2 B2 A3 B3
1 64.7 63.2 0.157 0.196 0.570 0.294 11.174 0.510
2 63.2 62.5 0.242 0.275 0.183 0.412 22.636 0.313
3(a) 62.5 62.0 0.563 0.253 0.246 0.380 7.225 0.367
4 62.0 61.2 0.252 0.317 0.103 0.476 38.516 0.207
5 61.2 59.9 0.192 0.221 0.393 0.331 13.235 0.448
6 59.9 58.0 0.247 0.252 0.252 0.378 16.063 0.370
7 58.0 57.3 0.221 0.255 0.242 0.382 18.694 0.363
8 57.3 55.3 0.241 0.307 0.118 0.461 35.081 0.232
9 55.3 54.9 0.196 0.331 0.086 0.496 59.204 0,173
10 54.9 53.7 0.327 0.216 0.443 0.323 6.889 0.461
11 53.7 52.8 0.249 0.335 0.089 0.503 45.375 0.162
12 52.8 51.5 0.202 0.214 0.488 0.321 10.142 0.465
13 51.5 49.7 0.221 0.342 0.081 0.513 55.990 0.145
14 49.7 48.5 0.207 0.348 0.075 0.522 64.507 0.130
15(b) 48.5 48.2 0.814 0.095 3.988 0.142 0.308 0.763
16 48.2 47.0 0.247 0.362 0.062 0.543 65.728 0.094
17 41.0 46.0 0.256 0.346 0.076 0.519 51.255 0.134
18 46.0 45.5 0.255 0.376 0.051 0.564 76.456 0.060
19 45.5 42.5 0.233 1 0.312 1 0.121 1 0.469 1 35.584 1 0.219
Note: a) Model used coefficients for reach 2.
b) Model used coefficients for reach 10.

33.0
Canton
32 0
----- Fiberville - LB
----- Fiberville - RB
31 .0 ;%^
' `, o Conton - AM
° Fiberville - AM
30.0
29.0
Lii R I I
7.0 I
� 2
1 rl
W 26.0 1
r 25.0 f i I
I
24.0
II!
23.0
II o
I
I
22.0 o i o
I
21 .0
20.0
16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0
JULY (DAY)
FIGURE 2-1 THERMOGRAPH DATA AND RECORDED MORNING TEMPERATURE AT CANTON
AND FIBERVILLE, 17-21 JULY 2000

30.0
Canton
29 0 -------- Crabtree
----- Richland Creek
O Canton - AM
28.0 is Crabtree - AM
27.0 '
I 11
I 1
26.0
a 25.0 ;
w ;
a
w 24.0
;
F-
23.0 O
r
r � ,
22.0 O o
o O
21.0
20.0
16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21 .0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0
JULY (DAY)
FIGURE 2-2 THERMOGRAPH DATA AND RECORDED MORNING TEMPERATURE AT CANTON,
CRABTREE, AND RICHLAND CREEK, 17-21 JULY 2000

3. MODEL CALIBRATION
As discussed in Section 2, the model domain extended from Canton (RM 64.7) to Hepco
(RM 42.5). The daily USGS Pigeon River flows and observed temperatures were used as
the upstream model boundary. The flow difference between the USGS gages at Canton
and Hepco was partitioned between the tributaries and non-point source run-off. The
thermal loading from the Canton Mill was added to the model at RM 63.3 using the
reported daily effluent temperature and flow. The model was executed using hourly
meteorological data and model output was generated for both individual hours and for a
daily average.
The Pigeon River temperature model was calibrated by comparing model predictions to
the observed Pigeon River temperature data sets. The daily average model results were
compared to the average of the three daily river temperatures for the period January 1994
to June 1998. This daily average comparison was performed at Fiber-Ville, above Clyde,
and below Clyde. At Crabtree and Hepco, only morning river temperatures were
available. The model typically predicted very similar temperatures at 0700, 0800, and
0900 hours, and displayed a temperature increase at 1000 hours. The morning observed
temperatures were compared to the 0800-hrs model predictions.
3.1 Tributary Temperatures and Stream Shading
Parameters used for model calibration included the tributary temperature and stream
shading. Stream shading is a function of the size and density of trees along the stream
and also includes effects from shadows cast by land features such as nearby ridges as the
sun traverses the sky. The shading coefficient is multiplied by the incident solar radiation
to provide an adjusted value prior to the calculation of the equilibrium temperature and
heat exchange coefficient. Hourly equilibrium temperatures and heat exchange
coefficients are only affected by shading during daytime and increased shading decreases
the diel temperature variation and the daily average stream temperature. Shading
coefficients were represented in the model as monthly average values.
The model was initially executed using the average of the three daily river temperatures
at Canton as the upstream boundary condition. Starting from this daily average value, the
model over-estimated nighttime river temperatures at Fiberville. A more satisfactory
downstream diel temperature variation was obtained by using the morning river
temperature at Canton as the upstream model boundary. The use of a morning
temperature at the model boundary was also more appropriate because it was available
for the entire 1994-1999 modeling period.
The tributary temperatures used in the model were based on the temperature at the
upstream model boundary. The tributary temperature primarily effects model predictions
at Crabtree (RM 53.5) which is located downstream from Richland Creek, and at Hepco
(RM 42.6) which is downstream from Crabtree, Jonathans, and Fines Creek. When using
the daily average Canton temperature at the model boundary, it was necessary to set the
7

tributary temperatures as 1.0 degree C below the model boundary to achieve good
agreement between predicted and observed temperatures downstream. In the calibrated
model that used the lower morning river temperature at the upstream boundary, this value
was used directly for the tributary temperature at Richland Creek and Jonathans Creek.
In Section 2.3, temperatures in Beaverdam, Crabtree, and Fines Creek were shown to be
less than the Canton temperature during the 20 July 2000 survey. Temperatures in these
three tributaries were therefore set at 1.0 degree C below the upstream boundary
temperature. The 1.0 degree C tributary temperature adjustment was gradually reduced
to zero as the upstream boundary temperature decreased from 10 C to 8 C.
During low flow periods, BRPP pumps 2.9 cfs (1.9 mgd) from Beaverdam Creek to the
vicinity of the Mill intake to provide flow augmentation. Based on operational records,
this water diversion was added to the model for the period 14 August to 14 November
1998 and for the period 1 September to 3 October 1999. The effect of 2.9 cfs of cooler
water when mixed with 30-40 efs of heated effluent is typically less than 1.0 C.
Based on a series of model runs, the monthly shading coefficient for the July to
September period was set at 0.65, where zero equals complete shade and 1.0 equals no
shade. The shading coefficient during the winter was set at 1.0, and during April, May,
June, October, and November the shading coefficient was tapered between the 0.65 and
1.0 values.
3.2 Streambed Heat Exchange
Heat exchange between the water and the streambed has been included in the heat budget
for stream temperature models. The importance of bed conduction was discussed in a
journal article describing enhancements to the USEPA watershed model HSPF (Chen et
al, 1998). The stream loses heat to the bed from late morning to early evening, and
obtains heat from the bed at night and in the early morning. This streambed heat
exchange has a moderating effect on stream temperatures by slightly reducing the daily
maximum and increasing the daily minimum temperatures. In the Pigeon River
temperature model, the streambed beat exchange, SBHE, was formulated as an exchange
coefficient, S, multiplied by the difference between the water temperature, T, and the bed
temperature, TB.
SBHE= S (T-TsZ .
rho Cp
This formulation is similar to that used for surface heat exchange with the atmosphere
where an exchange coefficient, K, is coupled with the difference between the water
temperature and the equilibrium temperature.
During initial model runs, the streambed temperature was set equal to the average water
temperature on the previous day in each model segment, and the exchange coefficient, S,
was used as a calibration parameter. The resulting slight reduction in the diel
temperature range allowed the model to achieve better agreement with the observed
8

morning river temperatures. During these runs, it was also noticed that the model
sometimes over-predicted downstream temperatures, particularly during low-flow river
conditions that were frequently associated with elevated river temperatures. It seemed
reasonable that during these periods of elevated temperatures, the streambed temperature
would lag behind the daily average river temperature. An analytical algorithm was
developed to describe the streambed temperature based on the temperature difference
between a downstream river segment containing a thermal component from the Mill, and
the more natural upstream Canton temperature. The streambed temperature was
described with the following relationship.
TB =Tav- R(Tav-Tcan)
where Tav =previous day average segment temperature
Tcan= upstream river temperature at Canton
R =0.0 for Tav < 10C
R= 0.15 (Tav-10)/20 for 10 C <Tav < 30 C
R=0.15 for Tav > 30C
With the above formulation, the streambed temperature equals the previous day's average
river temperature during the winter months, and increasingly lags behind the river
temperature as temperatures increase. For example, if the temperature in a downstream
river segment was 30 C, and this segment was 5 degree C warmer than the temperature at
Canton, the streambed temperature would be set at 29.25 C, 0.75 degree C less than the
previous day's average river temperature. Using the above relationship for the streambed
temperature, a representative value for the heat exchange coefficient, S, was determined
during model calibration to be 18.7 Btu/ft2/hr/C.
In the paper discussing the HSPF model (Chen et al, 1998), the estimated heat flux at two
stream monitoring sites varied between 0 and 22 BTU/ft2/hr during a diel cycle. When
the river temperature is 1 degree C higher or lower than the bed temperature, the resulting
heat flux in the Pigeon river model would be 18.7 BTU/ft2/hr. The similarity in heat
exchange rates between the values cited in the literature and the values determined for the
Pigeon River model confirms that the streambed heat exchange process developed here is
reasonable.
3.3 Model Sensitivity to Shading
The most significant parameter for controlling model predictions during the calibration
process was stream shading. A model run was performed with no shading to illustrate the
influence of shading on surface heat exchange and the resulting model predictions. The
mean seasonal difference between predicted and observed daily average temperatures is
provided in the following table for the calibrated model with no shading.
9

Predicted minus Observed Tem erature (C) (no shading)
Station Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual
Fiberville 0.0 -0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2
Above Clyde 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.5
Below Clyde 0.0 0.4 1.5 1.1 0.7
During winter, the shading coefficient was not used (constant value of 1.0) and the model
is in good agreement. During spring, summer, and fall, the removal of shading from the
model caused predicted temperatures to progressively increase downstream relative to
observed temperatures. At below Clyde during the summer and fall, the difference
between predicted and observed temperatures increased from 0.1-0.2 degree C with the
use of shading to an over prediction of 1.1-1.5 degree C with no shading.
10

4. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND OBSERVED TEMPERATURES
4.1 Seasonal Comparison
The inclusion of model parameters for tributary temperature, shading, and streambed heat
exchange provided a reasonable representation of the observed river temperatures during
the 1994 to 1999 period. Frequency distributions by season of the temperature difference
between daily average model predictions and observations are provided in Table 4-1 at
Fiberville, above Clyde, and below Clyde. In Table 4-1, each daily average observed
temperature was calculated as the average of the 3 daily values. Frequency distributions
of the difference between predicted and observed 0800-hrs temperatures at all five
stations including Crabtree and Hepco are provided in Table 4-2. In these tables, winter
is comprised of December, January and February. A statistical parameter representative
of the "goodness of fit' between predicted and observed temperatures is the standard
error of estimate, which is calculated as:
SEE= SQRT[ J(Tpred-Tobs)2/N ]
where Tpred and Tobs are the predicted and observed temperatures, and N is the number
of observations. The SEE equals the standard deviation for a distribution with a zero
mean. The SEE is also provided in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
The mean seasonal difference and SEE for the three stations where a daily average
comparison was available (Table 4-1, January 1994-June 1998) are summarized in the
following table.
Predicted minus Observed Temperature (C), Daily Average
Station Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual
Fiberville Mean 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
SEE 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7
Above Clyde Mean 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
SEE 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8
Below Clyde Mean 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
SEE 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9
Some bias is introduced into the calculated daily average difference because the three
daily observed values do not necessarily represent a true daily average. At Fiberville and
above Clyde, the daily average model predictions were equal to the observed river
temperatures on an annual basis, and mean seasonal differences varied between -0.2 and
0.2 degree C. At below Clyde, the annual average predicted temperature was 0.1 degree
C greater than observed and seasonal differences varied between 0.0 and 0.2 degree C.
The standard error of estimate between predicted and observed values typically ranged
between 0.7 and 0.9 degree C.
11

Frequency distributions of the difference between predicted and observed temperature at
0800 hours at all five stations for 1994 - 1999 is provided in Table 4-2. At Fiberville,
above Clyde, and below Clyde, the comparison is statistically more significant because
observations were made every day (2190 observations in 6 year), while at Crabtree and
Hepco, an observation was made approximately once each week (329 observations in 6
years). The mean seasonal difference and SEE for the 0800 comparison are summarized
in the following table:
Predicted-Observed Tem erature (C), 0800 hours
Station Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual
Fiberville Mean 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.3 0.1
SEE 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.0
Above Clyde Mean -0.3 -0.4 0.1 0.3 -0.1
SEE 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.0
Below Clyde Mean -0.3 -0.4 0.1 0.2 -0.1
SEE 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.0
Crabtree Mean -0.6 -0.6 -0.3 -0.2 -0.A
SEE 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9
Hepco Mean 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2
SEE 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2
In general, the model provided a better fit to the daily average temperature than to the
observed morning temperature data. The several degree diel temperature variation makes
an hourly temperature comparison less accurate than when using a daily average. The
SEE of 0.7-0.9 degree C for the daily average results at Fiberville, above Clyde, and
below Clyde, increased to typically 1.0-1.2 degree C for morning temperatures at all
stations downstream of Fiberville. The 0800 SEE of 1.6 degree during the fall at
Fiberville resulted primarily from results during October 1998 and will be discussed
separately. During the winter months, mean morning temperatures downstream of
Fiberville were under predicted by 0.3 to 0.6 degree C, while the mean difference for the
daily average was zero. At Fiberville, above Clyde, and below Clyde, the range of the
seasonal mean difference in the spring and fall increased from-0.2 to 0.2 degree C for
the daily average to-0.4 to 0.3 degree C for the morning comparison. During the
summer at the upper three stations, the seasonal mean differences were the same for the
daily average and morning comparisons. At Crabtree during the spring, summer, and
fall, morning temperatures were under estimated by 0.2 to 0.6 degree C, while at Hepco
they were over estimated by 0.1 to 0.6 degree C.
4.2 Monthly Comparison
The monthly mean differences between predicted and observed temperatures at
Fiberville, above Clyde, and below Clyde are provided in Table 4-3 by year from 1994 to
1999. From 1994 to June 1998, differences are based on the daily average, whereas from
July 1998 to December 1999, the temperature difference is based on the 0800-hrs data.
Table 4-3 illustrates that temperature differences of 0.8-1.2 degree C during August and
September 1997 were noticeably greater than at other times during the 4.5-year period
12

when daily average values were compared. Larger temperature differences were also
present during several summer and fall months in 1988 and 1999 when only the less
accurate morning comparison was available.
The larger temperature differences were usually associated with periods of low Pigeon
river flow. To aid in this comparison, monthly average river flows at Canton and Hepco
are provided in Table 4-4 for the years 1994 to 1999. During August and September
1997, when the larger over prediction was first evident at Fiberville, the Canton river
flows were 108-112 cfs. During August and September 1998, flows decreased to 66 cfs
and 48 cfs respectively. August and September 1999 had similarly low flows of 82 cfs
and 55 cfs, respectively. In August and September 1999 at Fiberville, temperatures were
under predicted by 1.0 to 1.2 degree C, whereas in August and September 1998, the
model over predicted by 0.7 to 1.0 degree C. In July 1998, the flow of 106 cfs was
similar to August and September 1997,however model agreement was fairly good (0.3
degree Q.
Examination of Table 4-3 indicates that under low flow conditions predicted
temperatures have an increased likelihood of being either over or under predicted.
Predicted river temperatures are strongly dependent on river and effluent flows. As the
river flow decreases, the Mill effluent flow becomes a major portion of the total. To
illustrate how sensitive predicted river temperature is on flow, the data for 10 September
1998 were examined. On 10 September, the Pigeon River and Canton Mill flows were
46 cfs and 38.8 cfs respectively, and their respective temperatures were 16.8 C and 34.3
C. A flow weighted average temperature using these data(including a 2.9 cfs diversion
from Beaverdam Creek) is 30.7 C. At Fiberville, the model predicted a daily average
temperature of 30.6 C and a 0800 temperature of 30.2 C. The observed morning
temperature at Fiberville on 10 September was 28.6 C, 1.6 degree C less than the model
predicted. If it is assumed that the USGS flow data has a 10-percent accuracy, then
increasing the river flow 10 percent to 50.6 cfs would decrease the flow weighted average
temperature by 1.2 degree C, much closer to the observed value. The monthly average
difference between predicted and observed temperatures at Fiberville during September
1998 was 1.0 degree C, a value smaller than would result from a 10-percent change in
observed river flow under low flow conditions. A comparison of the provisional and
final USGS flow data indicates that changes on the order of 10-percent were frequently
made during low flow periods.
The 3.7 degree C difference between predicted and observed data at Fiberville during
October 1998 (Table 4-3) is assumed to be a result of a combination of effects resulting
from the accuracy of the river flow and effluent data. The monthly mean October 1998
river flow of 61 cfs (Table 4-4) includes one rain event, which when removed results in a
52 cfs daily average flow for the remaining 30 days. In the previous paragraph, the
sensitivity of the temperature calculation to the value used for river flow was
demonstrated under low flow conditions such as these. In addition, variations in daily
Mill effluent flows during October 1998 were atypically high. The reported effluent
flows are provided by a flow totalizer, and the daily values of 9-14 cfs most likely
represent a higher flow during several hours of the day, and a near zero flow for the
13

remainder. The reported discharge temperature is recorded once each day. A
temperature recorded when the discharge was in operation for only several hours is not
necessarily representative of a daily average value. We conclude that the October 1998
data for both the river and Mill are likely to contain discrepancies making them
unsuitable for use in the model.
4.3 Hourly Comparisons
Comparisons between hourly predicted and observed temperature using both the July
2000 thermograph data and the observations that were recorded three times daily by the
Mill verify the predicted diel temperature variation and provide overall support to the
model. The thermograph data for the period 17-21 July are compared to hourly model
predictions at Fiberville (left bank) and Crabtree in Figure 4-1. The diel temperature
variations of 2-3 degree C at Fiberville and 3-4 degree C at Crabtree were accurately
represented in the model. The model predictions at Fiberville represent a fully mixed
condition and are slightly lower than the left bank thermograph. At Crabtree, the
agreement between hourly model predictions and observations was very good.
Comparisons between hourly predicted and the three daily observed temperatures are
provided for three months during 1997 to represent varying Pigeon River conditions.
Temperature data at Fiberville and below Clyde are displayed for February (Figures 4-2
and 4-3), May (Figures 4-4 and 4-5) and July (Figures 4-6 and 4-7). Model results
downstream at Hepco are illustrated in Figure 4-8 for July to September 1997.
During February and May at Fiberville (Figures 4-2 and 4-4), the predicted diel variation
and the range of the three daily temperature measurements were in good agreement. The
river at above Clyde has a greater diel temperature range than Fiberville,but agreement
between predicted and observed data was still good during February and May (Figures 4-
3 and 4-5). During July 1997 at Fiberville and above Clyde (Figures 4-6,4-7), the
agreement between the predicted and observed diel temperature range was good.
However, predicted daily morning temperatures were often higher than the observed
morning temperature, resulting in monthly mean differences of 0.3 degree C at Fiberville
and 0.4 degree C at above Clyde.
A comparison between predicted and observed hourly morning temperatures at Hepco,
the downstream end of the model, is provided in Figure 4-8 for July to September 1997.
In Figure 4-8, the difference between predicted and observed morning temperature was
frequently very good. At Hepco, approximately 60 percent of the flow comes from
tributary and non-point sources. Therefore, the river temperature at Hepco is probably
more dependent on the tributary temperature and meteorological conditions including
shading, than on the thermal loading from the Canton Mill. Individual observations, such
as the 6 August 1997 value that is approximately 2.5 degree C below the predicted
temperature appear to be suspect.
14

CDCO
w g
CD
C A
N 1
N 0 CD
n
0 co ID m V m m A Cl) N 1 o n Q• �p t0 0 m V m N A W N s bt \ N
m mCD M O O O O O O O O O "' m mw M 0 000 00 00 0 0 ?I�
m m w > m m � _ 6 c
CD
CD 73
o
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 A O O y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y
p m O ? -� V �A N O W A m b NO V O W fD bl W 1 N :? in �I 1 (p cr m
[CD
O
l U < Q
D
W
CD
q a n
� � O
A 00 j -' 00000001 --' (p � i6 0000 66666 j 1 (p Q 'pmO W ym W O :� W in V OIV O- OD' O V N CD 0) W — --' N A. m V O W 7 C- -n (D O
0m 0w 7 wW
6
cn 0 Cn m a l<
c `D CD
W O O y 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 y 3 2 cl- W O O 10000066661 (D <
'D V 1 W <O m A W 0 6J m 0 3 O_ N WW V O W m A N O jN Ga in m 0 3 O.. CDO N
CD
1 N ((D n D
3
a v
W TW W 0 o 000 C 06 66 - CD
D D N m CJ O w p o o 0000 P .
p m v m Z41 (b " _ Q:
N (D 7 (D
n n w C-
moo � 00000000y rnoo y000000000 � CD 1 �
D (O C
Nm O A � J A N O N ?. m (O fQ w �'' V O W min GJy -+ N
A o
L 6
C m
o (D
(D CD
a
cD

Table 4-1 (Continued)
Below Cl de
Percentile Predicted - Observed Tem erature C
(%) Winter S ring Summer Fall Year
5 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 -1.2
10 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -1.0
20 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.6
30 -0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4
40 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2
50 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
60 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3
70 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5
80 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
90 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2
95 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5
Mean 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
SEE 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9
Obser 419 460 398 364 1641

062 9179 399 2:99 0179 jasg0
O'L Z'L 6'0 0'L VI 33S
Vo- £'0 Vo t7'0- £'0- ueaW
L'L £'Z 9'L £'L 9'L 96
£'L 8'L Z'L 6'0 V L 06
8'0 £'L 8'0 ti'O 9'0 09
4'0 8'0 9'0 Vo Z'O OL
3'0 To £'0 Z'0- L'0- 09
Vo- £'0 Vo b'0- £'0- 09
b'0- 0'0 Vo- L'O- 9'0- Ob
9'0- 17'0- £'O- 6'0- 6'0- 0£
6'0- 9'0- 9'0- Z'L- Z'L- OZ
4'L- V L- 6'0- 9'L- 9'L- 0 L
L'L- 9'L- V L- 6'L- 6'1- 9
jeaA Ilea jawwnS 6uudg I jejuim K _
O ainlua wei panjasg0- PeIOIPaJd 01PO aad
aP IO anogV
682 9179 399 399 Ob9 jasg0
O'L 9'L 6'0 9'0 L'0 33S
Vo £'0 0'0 L'0 Vo uean
9'L 4'£ 9'L O'L £'L 96
V L'L O'L 8'0 6'O 06
9'0 V L TO TO 9'0 08
17'0 L'0 ti'0 Vo £'O OL
S'0 tr'0 To £'0 Z'O 09
Vo Z'0 Vo L'0 Vo 09
0'0 0'0 Vo- 0"0 L'0- ot,
Z'0- £'0- £'0- TO- To- 0£
To- 9'0- 9'0- t4'0- 17'0- OZ
6'0- L'L- 6'0- 9'0- 8'0- OL
Z'L- 9'L- £'L- 6'0- L'L- 9
lled jewwnS 6uudg aalulM (%
O ainpie wal panjas90- Palolpaad all eoied
aplNagld
(666L - b660 suolJeJS wanly uoaBld anld Le sainjuiedwal
panaasgp snuiw palolpaad inoq-0080;o uol;nglalsla Aouenbaad Z-ti algel

N '7Oc0 V rr V 1� Nm r o0 l0 Nor (nNU� P7ON lDO mN
} 779 0 0 0 0 0 r r r N } r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0
U U
m �
1� 7 r N V I� r (O N N 0N O I* l0 q r r V W O N m co
(Rcu
r r O O O O O O r r N O r ld �y r r r O O O O O O O N O, O m
N N
O CL
E E
� F N F lu
7
C E rm (OC7N ON7lDrlp r CON "O E V NOlONNON c7 (Dm 17m �
E r 0 0 0 O O O O O r r O O N N Z E r r 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O
) N � y fn
U U
3o O m O
N N -o C OIL Nm lO chrr u7O V V N �"� -0 C c0 WMOCDNMNOM m OO co
V
m v `a N r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r O O O O O O O Q r r
U
H a o-
a) 0 c0 q O1- V rN 0r to (7 O .�-. N U) N O c0 IhU V NNO l0 OO
C N r r 0 0 0 0 0 r r O .-- U) C 7 r 9 99 O O O r p r N
j � � i 3
c LU N ca C
W o m 0000000000 a) m OOOOOOOOOn U) \ N l 'IT l rm mm MV n 0r mm0 i . UQ a O
C

`p lf7 C\' co L) Nrvm N ao v NNN
} r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r N O r m
U
d
7 ro 0 '7 m0NONMOOM ,-- Nm
ZE I r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N O r o
N
N
O F N
c m E v? IqmomnmNcortn com
'C Z E r 0000 00 r r N ma
N Orm
O O N U)
m
N 2 , o7
�'. -O C mN 00 Ln m r �tOU) m co mNm
O O ` O O O O O r r r N O r r
� U �
F
co
O O W r 0 M 'V N CO N V m m m
m
C
C+j r r r 0 0 0 0 0 r r q r r
UNU) OOOOOOOOOM a, W N

O 1 1 1 1 1 :'InoCl
11(D O O O W (D cD 0 m CD (D (D (D Co (p m w m (o m m CD
w (D co m cD O O y cocD co W (D (o cD O (D O (O (D O(DmmJ0MA cDm W V m (nA m �lmmA
� 7
C
co w
co
coCD o 00000 y o 000 •oo y o 00o0o D
O Co _. .p 1 A Z CA) y ? IV L) Z O IV A IV O Z —�
(D A w
C) , CJ
CD L (D
3 c A
7
cD CD 0 00000 m 0 00000 Mn 6000o m c)
co A A O fJ W j Cn Cn A 1 N K) y CO CJ N -` N W co
coC co O
cD J
cD 3 S
3
v (D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y o 0 0 0 0 o D D
CD W CD O D) IV (n > b) N N A N Cn :] [J A y O m m <
CD
C
CD Q. & CD
-• � D CD
CD
(D o 00 00 > o 00000 > 0 o00oy > z o
(D O O W Ob) m 3J 1 ymmm ]] .D N AIV co :0 _ CD
CD D
d
ww o wo
w 0 n 0 CD
CD m 0 ooyoo � a 0 00000 30- 0 00000 > m < p�
CD CD
Q W W W y CJ (J { , N CO CA W lJ o CJ o ? ' J' L1
Q0 CD
D 2 N N Q C1 cD
0 7 (D CD CD w CD J
D
Cw <Nw 0fNJ 0AW 0CC�IVnD 0AN0W
CL
iwwn
oA 0A 0yN 00oo N O A Zc m
dgn
.O 1
00 Z A v Z � a
o 3 CD 0
CD 3C
a w CD w 0n
CD
o0 000o Oo 000om o0 0000 C
L. N A co ro b) rCD w j o A r `G CJOJJ1
o. O
co
CD
CD CyC �DC 00 0000 DQ o 0o 00 000p C 1 O) N
O oCD
CyCD
co
C L
C CD C, OOO CCD
O 000
m (D b) O N K) m
0 Gr OJ
CD
CD
00 0006 0 o o 0 0 0 O y co0006 O 3
IV (o b) O Cn jV y (n L. co W o V o y b) :-L CD
w
c
(D
0Oo :pN Z � Z< o0 000o 0z
O
N � 0 o IV N m
m (D b) IV N N
00 0 0 0 0 O O O O O p O p O O O Om
0 A O o m o jV J CP N m N

Table 4-4 Monthly Average USGS Pigeon River Flows at Canton and Hepco, 1994 - 1999
M nthlv Avera a USGS River Flow cfs at Canton
Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1994 415 537 747 703 241 179 186 585 208 327 208 326
1995 827 587 617 226 222 293 137 406 208 727 366 213
1996 832 641 441 314 281 304 139 188 341 225 366 511
1997 461 528 668 487 404 384 210 108 112 145 175 190
1998 933 1102 720 632 380 241 106 66 48 61 70 139
1999 361 382 324 314 282 176 196 82 55 86 240 247
Monthlv Ave ra a USGS River Flow cfs at He co
Year JAN FEB MAR I APR MAY JUN I JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1994 940 1316 1774 1764 656 601e 530 1080 497 594 481 619
1995 1435 1342 1248 519 466 550 298 646 354 1175 780 496
1996 1737 1430 1033 804 722 588 322 400 567 429 626 980
1997 979 1063 1991 1114 945 873 475 275 359 380 380 429
1998 1617 2154 1344 1492 863 609 295 183 136 165 243 357
1999 742 783 739 611 656 402 479 176 123 195 374 376 JI

33.0 Fiberville - Obs
-------- Crabtree - Obs
--- -- Fiberville - Model
32.0
— — — - Crabtree - Model
31.0 i ` f \
30.0 '^ \
29.0 \
28.0 t,
26.0
v�
w 25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21 .0
20.0
16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21 .0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0
JULY (DAY)
FIGURE 4-1 PREDICTED AND OBSERVED PIGEON RIVER HOURLY TEMPERATURES AT
FIBERVILLE AND CRABTREE, 17-21 JULY 2000

14.0
o Observed
13.0 Predicted
0
12.0 °o
0
11.0
o ° 0
10.0
° 0
w °
9.0
0 0
0 0
a8.0 0 ° 0 °
0 0
Lu
~ 7.0 ° o
0
0
6.0
0
5.0 °
4.0
3.0
0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24. 25. 28. 30.
FEBRUARY (DAY)
FIGURE 4-2 OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (HOURLY) PIGEON RIVER TEMPERATRUES
AT FIBERVILLE, FEBRUARY 1997

14.0
0 Observed
13.0 Predicted
0
0
12.0
0
11.0
0
o °
0
10.0 ° 0 0°
0 0
w
9.0
a o 0
Ld 8.0 0 0 °
� o
~ 7.0 ° o
0 00
6.0
0
5.0
4.0
3.0
0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24. 26. 28. 30.
FEBRUARY (DAY)
FIGURE 4-3 OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (HOURLY) PIGEON RIVER TEMPERATRUES
AT ABOVE CLYDE, FEBRUARY 1997

22.0
° Observed
21.0 Predicted p
20.0
0
0
19.0 p ° ° p°p
18.0
° o
p
w 17.0 0 ° ° o0
o p p °
a 16.0 p ° o 0
eb p
0
w15.0 ° ep p o
0
14.0
13.0 p p
12.0 p
11 .0
°
10.0
0. 2. 4. 6. S. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24. 26. 28. 30. 32.
MAY (DAY)
FIGURE 4-4 OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (HOURLY) PIGEON RIVER TEMPERATRUES
AT FIBERVILLE, MAY 1997

22.0
0 Observed
21 .0 Predicted
20.0 0
19.0
0
18.0
0
w 17.0 0 0 0
O 00 (Cl)
16.0 0
w
w
CL
15.0
w
F-
14.0
0
0
13.0
0
12.0
0
11 .0 0
10.0
0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24. 26. 28. 30. 32.
MAY (DAY)
FIGURE 4-5 OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (HOURLY) PIGEON RIVER TEMPERATRUES
AT ABOVE CLYDE, MAY 1997

30.0
o Observed
29.0 Predicted
°
28.0
27.0 °
26.0 ° qb
O o p ° o
25.0 p o
p O O
D ° cp °
24.0 p ° p ° p p° oo ° o
Lu
w23.0 p ° o o p o
L-
0
22.0 o p o
o p
21.0 ° o 0
20.0
0
19.0
18.0
0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24. 26. 28. 30. 32.
JULY (DAY)
FIGURE 4-6 OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (HOURLY) PIGEON RIVER TEMPERATRUES
AT FIBERVILLE, JULY 1997

30.0
o Observed
29.0 Predicted
28.0
27.0
26.0 0
w 25.0 ° ° o 0 0-
0
a 24.0 °
L
w
w 23.0
22.0 ° ° ° o °
0
21 .0 °b
0
20.0
19.0
18.0
0. 2. 4. 6. S. 10. 12. 14. 16. 1 B. 20. 22. 24. 26, 28. 30. 32.
JULY (DAY)
FIGURE 4-7 OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (HOURLY) PIGEON RIVER TEMPERATRUES
AT ABOVE CLYDE, JULY 1997

30.0
o Observed
29.0 Predicted
28.0
27.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
LIJ 23.0
a 22.0
o °
a. 21 .0 ° °
o
w °
20.0
19.0 ° ° o
0
18.0
0
17.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
0. 10. 20. 30. 9 19 29 8 .18 28
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER
FIGURE 4-8 OBSERVED AND PREDICTED (HOURLY) PIGEON RIVER TEMPERATURES
AT HEPCO, JULY - SEPTEMBER 1997

5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Model Accuracy
The Pigeon river temperature model described in this report provides good agreement
between predicted and observed river temperatures. The seasonal mean of the daily
average predicted temperatures were within±0.2 degree C of observed temperatures
during the 1994 to June 1998 period when this daily average comparison could be made.
On individual days, the standard error of estimate, SEE, varied between 0.7 and 0.9
degree C. The accuracy of the temperature model was better for the daily average
comparison than for a specific hour. The SEE for the morning river observations varied
between 0.9 and 1.3 degree C at stations downstream from Fiberville. Diel temperature
variations represented by the hourly model predictions are sensitive to meteorological
conditions including incident solar radiation, temperature, and wind speed. Thus, the
model can more accurately predict a daily average temperature than the early morning
minimum or late afternoon maximum temperature. Unless diel variation is excessive, the
daily average temperature is the appropriate temperature to assess thermal effects. Diel
variation results in a similar pattern for both the ambient and thermally effected (Mill
effluent) temperatures at a river station. Therefore, the delta temperature, calculated as
the difference between the thermally effected and ambient river temperature, is more
uniform over a day. Thus, the daily average temperature more accurately represents the
observed river condition, is appropriate for examining delta temperature events, and
avoids short-term variation that does not have biological significance.
5.2 Predicted Delta Temperatures
The Pigeon River temperature model can be used to predict the river temperature rise
above ambient for various Canton Mill effluent temperature and flow scenarios coupled
with conditions of concern in the Pigeon River. The Pigeon River temperatures and
flows could, for example, include worst case biological conditions as defined in the
thermal effects study. To provide an application of the model, a delta temperature was
calculated at the five river temperature stations downstream from the mill discharge. For
this scenario, the model was executed in a daily average mode for the 1994 to 1999
period with the thermal loading from the Canton Mill turned off. This resulted in
predicted ambient temperatures that varied by day and with distance along the Pigeon
River. The ambient temperatures were then subtracted from the predicted daily average
temperatures that included the thermal loading from the Canton Mill. Frequency
distributions by season of the resulting delta temperatures at each station are provided in
Table 5-1. A summary of the upper 90 percentile delta temperatures, representing a
possible worst case condition during the 5-year period, is provided in the following table.
15

90 Percentile Delta Tem erature (C), 1994-1999
Station Winter S r ng Summer Fall Annual
Fiberville 5.7 3.4 6.6 11.2 7.4
above Clyde 4.1 2.4 3.3 5.5 4.2
below Clyde 3.7 2.1 2.6 4.5 3.4
Crabtree 2.8 1.5 1.7 2.8 2.3
He co 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.1
Median (50 percentile) delta temperatures are approximately one-half of the values in the
above table.
References
Chen, Y.D., R.F. Carsel, S.C. McCutcheon, and W.L. Nutter, 1998, Stream Temperature
Simulation of Forested Riparian Areas: I. Watershed-Scale Model Development, Journal
of Environmental Engineering,Vol 124, No. 4, April 1998.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., 1987, Synoptic Survey of Physical and
Biological Condition of the Pigeon River in the Vicinity of Champion International
Canton Mill, Prepared for Champion International Corporation.
Edinger, J.E., D.K. Brady, and J.C. Geyer, 1974, Heat Exchange and Transport in the
Environment, prepared for Electric Power Research Institute, Cooling Water Discharge
Research Project(RP-4), 125 pp.
Thackston, E.L., and F.L. Parker, 1971,Effects of Geographical Location of Cooling
Pond Requirements and Performance, Prepared for Water Quality Office, U.S. EPA,by
Vanderbilt University, Project No. 16, 130 FDQ 03171, 234 pp.
16

Table 5-1 Frequency Distribution of Daily Average Predicted Delta Temperature
Resulting from the Canton Mill, 1994 - 1999
Fiberville
Percentile I Delta Tem erature C
Winter Sprin Summer Fall Year
5 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.0
10 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.4
20 1.6 1.6 2.7 2.8 1.9
30 2.0 1.8 3.1 3.4 2.3
40 2.4 2.0 3.4 3.9 2.7
50 2.7 2.3 3.7 4.5 3.2
60 3.2 2.5 4.1 5.7 3.6
70 3.8 2.8 4.6 7.6 4.2
80 4.7 3.1 5.3 9.7 5.2
90 5.7 3.4 6.6 11.2 7.4
95 6.6 3.7 7.6 13.2 10.1
Mean 3.2 2.3 4.0 5.9 3.9
Obser 541 552 52_j 546 2191
Above Clyde
Percentile Delta Tem erature C
Winter S rin Summer Fall I Year
5 0.7 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.9
10 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.7 1.2
20 1.3 1.2 1.8 2.1 1.5
30 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.5 1.7
40 1.9 1.5 2.1 2.8 2.0
50 2.1 1.7 2.3 3.1 2.2
60 2.5 1.8 2.5 3.6 2.4
70 2.9 2.0 2.7 4.2 2.8
80 3.5 2.2 2.9 4.7 3.3
90 4.1 2.4 3.3 5.5 4.2
95 4.9 2.5 3.6 6.2 5.0
Mean 2.5 1.7 2.4 3.4 2.5
Obser 1 541 1 552 1 55L_j 546 2191

Table 5-1 (Continued)
Below Clyde
Percentile Delta Tem erature C
%) Winter Spring Summer Fall Year
5 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.8
10 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.1
20 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.4
30 1.5 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.6
40 1.8 1.4 1.8 2.4 1.8
50 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.7 1.9
60 2.3 1.6 2.1 2.9 2.1
70 2.7 1.8 2.2 3.2 2.4
80 3.2 1.9 2.4 3.7 2.8
90 3.7 2.1 2.6 4.5 3.4
95 4.5 2.2 2.8 5.0 4.2
Mean 2.4 1.5 2.0 2.8 2.2
Obser 1 541 552 552 546 2191
Crabtree
Percentile Delta Tem erature C
(%) Winter S rin Summer Fall Year
5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.6
10 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.8
20 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.0
30 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.1
40 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.2
50 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.3
60 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.5
70 1.9 1.2 1.4 2.1 1.6
80 2.2 1.3 1.5 2.3 1.8
90 2.8 1.5 1.7 2.8 2.3
95 3.1 1.6 1.7 3.1 2.8
Mean 1.8 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.5
Obser 1 541 1 552 1 552 546 2191

Table 5-1 (Continued)
He co
Percentile Delta Tem erature C
(50 inter Spring Summer Fall Year
5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
20 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
30 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
40 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6
50 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6
60 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.7
70 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.8
80 1.2 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.9
90 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.1
95 1.7 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.3
Mean 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8
Obser 541 552 552 546 2191

APPENDIX C
RESULTS OF THE 1999
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE PIGEON RIVER

RESULTS OF THE 1999
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE PIGEON RIVER
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products
Canton Mill
Canton, North Carolina
Prepared by:
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18
Deerfield, IL 60015
May 2001
13632.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 1
2. METHODS .........................................................................................2
2.1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS ....................................................................2
2.2 FISH ...........................................................................................2
2.3 MACROINVERTEBRATES ...............................................................2
2.4 OTHER MEASUSEMENTS ...............................................................4
3. RESULTS ..........................................................................................5
3.1 TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN......................................5
3.2 FISH ...........................................................................................5
3.3 MACROINVERTEBRATES ...............................................................5
4. DISCUSSION.....................................................................................15
4.1 FISH ..........................................................................................15
4.2 MACROINVERTEBRATES ..............................................................15
5. REFERENCES....................................................................................17
i

1. INTRODUCTION
In August 1999, fish and macroinvertebrate samples were collected from four locations on the
Pigeon River. One location was upstream of the Blue Ridge Paper Products (BRPP), Inc. mill
in Canton, NC and the other three locations were downstream of the mill. All collections were
made following standard state of North Carolina sampling methodologies. The objectives of
the 1999 sampling were: (1) determine how the biota has changed since 1995 and (2) make a
preliminary assessment regarding whether any adverse impacts detected (if any are detected)
might be the result of thermal inputs from the mill.
1

2. METHODS
2.1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Four locations were sampled during the period 9-11 August 1999:
Location RM Description
1 64.5 Upstream of Mill
2 63.0 Fiberville
3 61.0 Thickety
4 59.0 Upstream Clyde
2.2 FISH
North Carolina does not currently have standardized methods for sampling fish on larger
streams like the Pigeon River. In small streams they rely on backpack electrofishers. For this
preliminary effort, we used a electrofisher mounted in a towed pram. The electrofisher was
powered by an 1800 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.
At each of the four locations a 200 in long zone was sampled. Sampling within each zone
proceeded from downstream to upstream. Captured fishes were held in water-filled tubs until
sampling was completed. All specimens were identified. 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.
Fish community data were incorporated in the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to characterize the
biotic condition of the surveyed reach of the Pigeon River. North Carolina has developed a
state-specific version of the IBI, the NCIBI (NCDENR 1997). The assessment of biological
integrity using the NCIBI is provided by the cumulative assessment of 12 parameters, or
metrics. 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 summed to attain the overall
IBI score. The state has discussed modifying their metric scoring procedures but as of now no
changes have been finalized.
2.3 MACROINVERTEBRATES
All stations were sampled according to NCDENR methodologies (NCDENR 1997). This
approach involves the collection of six multihabitat qualitative samples at each station: kick,
sweep, fine mesh, leaf pack, sand, and visual search. Details regarding how the samples were
collected are provided in EA (1996).
2

At a given location, all qualitative samples were combined and field sorted in gridded white
enamel pans. No attempt was made to remove all of the organisms from the sample.
However, organisms were removed in proportion to their respective abundance. All samples
were preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol, labeled appropriately, and transported to the laboratory
for taxonomic identification. Macroinvertebrates from all samples were identified to the
lowest practical taxonomic level using the most current literature available. Identifications
followed those recommended by the North Carolina DWQ (2000), when possible.
A voucher collection was created to retain at least one good specimen of all taxa identified
during this survey. Specimens were enumerated, coded, and recorded on a standard laboratory
bench sheet for data processing.
To assign a standard bioclassification to each site, data obtained from the collections were used
to generate the North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI). Developed by Lenat (1993), the NCBI, is
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 macroinvertebrate
taxa that reflect an increasing level of pollution tolerance from 0 (least tolerant) to 10 (most
tolerant). The NCBI takes into account the abundance values of each taxa (1=1-2
individuals/sample, 3=3-9 individuals/sample, 10=>_10 individuals/sample), and is calculated
as:
NCBI = F,(TV)(n). /N
where:
TV,= ith taxa's tolerance value
n,= ith taxa's abundance value (1, 3, or 10)
N = sum of all abundance values
Similarly, the EPT BI is simply the NCBI calculated only for Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera taxa found at a given site and is scored in the same manner as the NCBI. The
EPT BI is not intended to provide a final bioclassification and should only be used to aid
interpretation of the results.
Bioclassification criteria for the NCBI differ by ecoregion (mountain, piedmont, and coastal
plan) and season. All collections for this survey were made during the "normal" summer
sampling period (June-September) within the mountain ecoregion. Classification for each site
was assigned by first scoring the EPT taxa richness value and NCBI value separately according
to a range of scores between 1 and 5. The associated mountain ecoregion ranges and scores
for both indices are as follows:
3

Mountain Ecoregion
Score NCBI Values EPT Values
5.0 <4.00 >43
4.6 4.00-4.04 42-43
4.4 4.05-4.09 40-41
4.0 4.10-4.83 34-39
3.6 4.84-4.88 32-33
3.4 4.89-4.93 30-31
3.0 4.94-5.69 24-29
2.6 5.70-5.74 22-23
2.4 5.75-5.79 20-21
2.0 5.80-6.95 14-19
1.6 6.96-7.00 12-13
1.4 7.01-7.05 10-11
1.0 >7.05 0-9
The two scores were then averaged and the resulting mean was rounded to the nearest whole
number. Final bioclassifications were determined for a site by rating the mean score according
to the following scale: S=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Good-Fair, 2=Fair, and 1=Poor.
2.4 OTHER MEASUREMENTS
Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance were measured in conjunction
with the fish collections.
4

3. RESULTS
3.1 TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Water temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations at the four sampling stations were as
follows:
Loc Temp °Q DO m /1
1 23.3 9.0
2 30.3 8.2
3 30.1 7.4
4 28.7 7.2
Water temperatures were moderately cool (23.3 °C) at Location 1, considerably warmer at
Locations 2 and 3 (30.1-30.3 °C), and intermediate (28.7 °C) at Location 4. DO
concentrations declined from upstream to downstream, but the concentration at even the
downstream-most station was well above the level needed to support a balanced fish
community.
3.2 FISH
Electrofishing collections at the four stations yielded a combined total of 21 species (Table 1).
As was the case in 1995, the fish community at Location 1 was numerically dominated by rock
bass (16%), central stoneroller (12.5%), northern hog sucker (8%), mottled sculpin (8%), and
various darters (28%). Although darters were common at Location 1, they were rare (1-3
individuals) or absent at Locations 2, 3, and 4 (Table 2).
The downstream locations were dominated by redbreast sunfish (26-57%), central stoneroller
(3-30%), northern hog sucker (6-29%), and whitetail shiner (2-25%). Black redhorse
accounted for 7% of the fish collected at Location 2, but was absent at Locations 3 and 4.
Other species were absent to uncommon (0-5%) at the locations downstream of the mill.
Overall, the distribution and abundance of fishes in 1999 was comparable to the pattern
observed in 1995 (Table 2).
Similarly, IBI scores were similar in 1999 and 1995 at the three stations that were sampled
both years (Table 3).
3.3 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
Among the four locations combined, 135 benthic macroinvertebrate taxa were collected (Table
4). Total taxa richness ranged from 60 taxa at Location 3 (RM 61.0) to 98 taxa at Location 1
(RM 64.5). Of the 135 taxa, 24 taxa were present at all four locations representing virtually
all major groups collected during the survey (i.e., Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera,
Chironomidae, etc.). Total taxa richness decreased noticeably from upstream to downstream
5

TABLE 1. BLUE RIDGE PAPER
SPECIES ENCOUNTERED FROM THE PIGEON RIVER, AUGUST 1999
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
CENTRAL STONEROLLER Campostoma anmwLum
WHITETAIL SHINER CyprinelLa gaLactura
COMMON CARP Cyprinus carpio
RIVER CHUB Nocamis micropogon
MIRROR SHINER Notropis spectrunculus
WARPAINT SHINER Luxilus coccogenis
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER Hypentelium nigricans
BLACK REDHORSE Moxostoma duquesnei
WHITE CATFISH Ameiurus catus
CHANNEL CATFISH Ictalurus punctatus
ROCK BASS AmblopLites rupestris
REDBREAST SUNFISH Lepomis auritus
GREEN SUNFISH Lepomis cyaneLLus
BLUEGILL Lepomis macrochirus
HYBRID SUNFISH Lepoinis hybrid"
SMALLMOIJTH BASS Micropterus dolomieu
LARGEMOUTH BASS Micropterus salmoides
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutseLLi) Etheostama bLennioides gutseLLi
GREENFIN DARTER Etheostama chlorobranchiun
TANGERINE DARTER Percina aurentiace
OLIVE DARTER Percina squamate
MOTTLED SCULPIN Cottus bairdi
6

TABLE 2. BLUE RIDGE PAPER - PIGEON RIVER
COMPARISONS OF THE NUMBER AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH COLLECTED BY PRAM ELECTROFISHING IN 1999 WITH 1995
LOCATION
64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0
1995 1999 1995 1999 1999 1995 1999
_NO._ _% NO._ _X_ NO._ _%_ _NO._ _% NO._ _%_ NO._ _% NO._
SPECIES
BROWN TROUT 2 0.4 -- •- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
CENTRAL STONEROLLER 25 5.0 34 12.5 1 0.7 4 3.3 23 12.9 83 28.6 76 30.2
COMMON CARP -- -- -- -- 6 4.2 6 5.0 1 0.6 6 2.1 -- --
RIVER CHUB 129 25.9 33 12.1 3 2.1 -- -- -- -- 23 7.9 1 0.4
WARPAINT SHINER 27 5.4 11 4.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 2.1 2 0.8
WHITETAIL SHINER 4 0.8 1 0.4 2 1.4 11 9.2' 44 24.7 15 5.2 5 2.0
SAFFRON SHINER 3 0.6 -- •- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MIRROR SHINER 18 3.6 13 4.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LONGNOSE DACE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 0.3 -- --
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 31 6.2 22 8.1 18 12.5 7 5.8 52 29.2 65 22.4 67 26.6
BLACK REDHORSE 3 0.6 15 5.5 5 3.5 8 6.7 -- -- -- -- -- --
WHITE CATFISH -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 2.5 1 0.6 -- -- -- --
CHANNEL CATFISH -- -- -- •- -- -- 4 3.3 -- -- -- -- 2 0.8
ROCK BASS 70 14.1 43 15.8 13 9.0 1 0.8, 1 0.6 6 2.1 1 0.4
REDBREAST SUNFISH 17 3.4 -- -- 77 53.5 69 57.5 47 26.4 79 27.2 96 38.1
GREEN SUNFISH -- -- -- 13 9.0 1 0.8 -- -- 5 1.7 -- --
BLUEGILL -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 0.8 -- -- -- -- --
HYBRID SUNFISH -- -- -- -- 1 0.7 1 0.8 -- -- -- -- 1 0.4
SMALLMOUTH BASS 1 0.2 1 0.4 2 1.4 3 2.5 6 3.4 1 0.3 1 0.4
LARGEMOUTH BASS 1 0.2 1 0.4 2 1.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutseLli)41 8.2 22 8.1 -- -- -- -- 3 1.7 -- -- -- --
GREENFIN DARTER 83 16.7 51 18.7 -- -- 1 0.8 -- -- -- -- -- --
TANGERINE DARTER 11 2.2 2 0.7 1 0.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
OLIVE DARTER -- -- 2 0.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MOTTLED SCULPIN 32 6.4 22 8.1 -- -- -- -- -- •• -- -- -- --
TOTAL FISH 498 100.0 273 100.0 144 100.0 120 100.0 178 100.0 290 100.0 252 100.0
TOTAL SPECIES 17 15 12 13 9 11 10
7

3
Table 3. Measured values and associated IBI metric scores (in parenthesis) for Pigeon River
mainstem locations in 1995 and 1999.
RM
Metric 64.5 63 61 59
95 99 95 99 99 95 99
No. of Species 7 (5) 15 (3) 12 (3) 13 (3) 9 (3) 11 (3) 10 (3)
No. of Individuals 498 (5) 273 (3) 144 (1) 120 (1) 178 (1) 290 (3) 252 (3)
(shock only)
No. of Darter spp. 3 (5) 4 (5) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (1) 0 (1)
No. of Sunfish + 3 (5) 1 (3) 3 (5) 4 (5) 2 (5) 3 (5) 3 (5)
Salmonid spp.
No. of Sucker spp. 2 (5) 2 (5) 2 (5) 2 (5) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3)
No. of Intolerant spp. 2 (3) 3 (5) 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1)
Percent Tolerant Fish 0 (5) 0 (5) 13.1(5) 5.8 (5) 0.6 (5) 3.8 (5) 0 (5)
Percent Omnivores 25.9(3) 12.1(5) 6.3 (5) 5.0 (5) 0.6 (5) 10.0(5) 0.4 (5)
Percent Insectivores 36.7(3) 37.0(3) 79.9(3) 81.6(5) 80.3(5) 56.9(3) 68.3(3)
(or % Specialized
Insectivores)
No. of Piscivorous spp. 3 (5) 3 (5) 3 (5) 3 (5) 3 (5) 2 (5) 2 (5)
• Diseased 0 (5) 0.4 (5) 2.7 (3) 3.3 (3) 1.1 (5) 0 (5) 7.1 (1)
• of Species with 65 (5) 73 (5) 50 (5) 46 (5) 67 (5) 64 (5) 60 (5)
multiple age classes
Total IBI Score 54 52 46 48 46 44 40
8

_ - TABLE 4. BLUE RIDGE PAPER - 1999 MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY
MACROINVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE VALUES BY TAXA AND. LOCATION, 1999 VS 1995.
LOCATION
64.5(a) 63.0 61.0 59.0
1995 1999 1995 1999 1999 1995 1999
TAXA
Turbel Laria -- -- 10 -- -- -- --
Dugesia -- 1 -- 3 -- --
Prosteme greescens -- 1 10 3 1 1 3
Nematoda - -- _- __ __ -- 1 -_
Aeolosomatidae -- -- -- 10 -- -- --
Aeolosoma -- -- 3 -- -- -- --
Eclipidrilus -- 3 1 -- 3 -- 1
Lumbriculus variegatus -- 3 -- -- -- -- 1
Lumbricidae/LumbricuLidae 1 -- 10 - -- -- 3 --
Bratislavia unidentata -- -- 10 3 -- -- --
Dero __ __ -_ 1 __ __
Nais bretscheri -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Nais pardaLis -- -- 1 1 -- -- --
_ Nais variabilis -- -- 1 3 -- -- --
Ophidonais serpentina -- -- -- 1 -- -- 10
Pristina Leidyi -- -- 3 -- -- -- --
Aulodrilus Limiobius -- -- -- -- -- 1
AuLodrilus pLuriseta -• 1 -- -- -- -- 1
Lim odrilus claparedianus -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
LimiodriLus hoffineisteri 3 -- -- - 1 -- 1
I=. tub. w/o cap. cheet. 10 1 3 1 1 3 --
Imn. tub. w/ cap. cheet. -- -- - -- -- 1 --
Lumbricidae -- 3 1 3 10 '10 3
— Desserobdella phalera -- -- -- 1 -- -- --
HeLobdelLa -- -- 1 -- -- -- --
HeLobdelLa triseriaLis -- 1 -- 3 3 -- 3
PlacobdeLLe - -- -- 1 1 -- -- 3
ErpobdeLLa punctata pmctata -- 'I -- 3 1 1 --
Astacidae 1 -- -- -- -- 1 --
Hydracarina -- -- -- -- -- 3 --
Isonychia 1 -- -- -- -- --
Isonychia (Isonychia) -- 10 -- -- -- -- --
AcentrelLa 10 10 -- .3 10 1 10
Baetis intercalaris -- 1 1 -- 1 -- 3
Baetis flavistriga 10 3 -- -- 1 3
Baetis Pluto -- 1 -- -- 1 -- --
Heterocloeon 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
ProcLoeon -- 1 -- -- --
Heterocloeon curiosun -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
Heterocloeon petersi -- 3 - -- -- -- --
Beetisca carotin -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Leucrocuta 10 1 -- -- -- -- --
Heptagenia 1 -- -- -- •- -- --
Heptagenia marginaLis -- 10 -- -- -- -- --
Stenacron 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Stenacron interpunctatum -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
Stenecron pellidun -- 3 -- -- -- --
Stenonema mediopunctatum 3 -- -- -- -- 1 --
Stenonema ithaca 10 10 -- 1 3 -- 3
Stenonema modestum -- 10 -- -- -- -- --
Stenonema exiguun -• 1 -- -- -- -- --
Stenonema meririvulanun -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
ParaLeptophlebia -• 1 -- -- -- -- --
Drunella a(Legheniensis -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
Serratella deficiens -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
SerrateLLa serratoides -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
1 9

TABLE 4 (cant.)
LOCATION
64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0
1995 1999 1995 1999 1999 1995 1999
TAXA (cant-)
Tricorythodes -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
Ceenis 1 1 -- -- -- -- --
Calopteryx -• -- -- -- -- 3 1
Hetaerina -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
Argia -- -- 1 10 10 10 10
EnaLLagme -- -- 1 -- 3 -- --
Boyerie grafiana -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Boyeria vinosa 3 3 3 1 -- 3 3
Gomphus 1 3 -- -- -- -- 1
Hagenius brevistylus 1 1 -- -- 1 -- --
Ophiogomphus -• 1 -- -- -- -- --
Stylogomphus aLbistylus 1 3 -- -- -- 3 1
Macromia -- 1 -- 3 -- -- 3
Neurocordulis -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Neurocordulia obsolete -- 1 -- 1 3 -- 1
Helocordulia uhleri -- -- -- 1 -- -- --
Pteromrays dorsata 1 1 1 -- -- 1 --
Pteronarcys (w/Lateral prof.) 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Acroneurie abnormis 3 3 -- 3 10 10 10
Paragnetina immrginata -- -- -- -- 1 --
ChLoroperLidae 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Metrobates -- -- -- 1 3 -- --
Rheumatobates -- -- -- 3 -- -- --
Trepobates -- -- -- 1 1 -- --
RhagoveLia -- 1 -- -- -- -- 1
Corydalus cornutus 1 3 1 3 3 10 10
Nigronia serricornis 1 3 -- .3 3 1 3
Sialis 1 3 -- 3 -- 1 1
Neureclipsis -- 3 -- 3 1 3
Polycentropus -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
Hydropsychidae -- -- 1 -- -- --
Cheumatopsyche -- 10 10 10 10 10 10
Hydropsyche betteni -- -- -- -- -- 3 1
Hydropsyche phaLerata -- -- 10 1 3 1 10
Hydropsyche venularis 1 3 10 10 10 10 10
Ceratopsyche morose -- 1 1 -- 3 10 1
Ceratopsyche bronta -- -- -- -- -- -- 3
Ceratopsyche sperne -- 10 -- 10 -- 3
Rhyacophila vuphipes -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
HydroptiLa -- 1 -- 3 10 1 10
Leucotrichia pictipes -- -- -- 1 10 -- 10
Brachycentrus appalachia 10 3 3 1 -- 1 --
Micreseme -- -- 1 -- -- -- --
Micrasema wategs 3 3 -- 1 -- -- --
LiimephiLidee 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Goere caLcerata 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Goera -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
Neophylax consimilis 1 1 -- -- -- -- --
Pycnopsyche 1 -- 1 -- -- -- --
Pycnopsyche guttifer -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
Lepidostome 1 10 -- -- 3 -- 1
Mystacides 3 3 -- 1 -- -- --
Oecetis -- -- -- 1 1 1 --
Oecetis persimiLis -- 1 -- -- 1 -- 1
Triaenodes tardus -- 1 -- -- -- -- --
Dineutus -- -- -- 3 3 3 3
HeLichus -- 3 1 -- -- -- --
10

TABLE 4 (cont.)
LOCATION
64.5 63.0 61.0 59.00
1995 1999 1995 1999 1999 1995 1999
TAxA (cont.)
Prworesia elegans -- 10 -- 1 -- -- --
Ancyronyx variegata -- -- -- 1 10 10 1
Dubiraphia quadrinoteta 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Macronychus glebratus 1 1 3 1 3 10 3
Stenelmis 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1
Enochrus -- -- 1 -- -- -- --
Psephenus herricki 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Atrichopogon 1 -- -- -- -- --
Chironoaidae 3 -- 3 -- -- 3 --
Natarsia 1 —"==
Procladius -- -- -- 1 1 -- 1
AbLabesmyia janta -- -- 1 -- -- -- --
Ablabesmyia mallochi 10 3 -- -- 1 3 1
Conchapelopia -- -- -- -- 3 10 3
Labrundinia 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Lebrundinia piloseLLa -- '1 -- -- -- -- --
Larsia 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
MeropeLopia -- 3 -- 10 -- -- -
ThienemennieLLa similis -- -- -- -- --
Brillia -- 1 -- 1 -- -- --
CardiocLadius -- 3 10 10 10 10 10
Cricotopus bicinctus grp. -- 1 10 10 10 -- 3
Cricotopus infuscatus grp. 3 1 10 3 -- "10 1
EukiefferieLla devonica grp. -- 3 -- _ 1 3 -- --
Eukiefferielle similis grp. -- -- -- -- 1 -- 3
Nanocladius 1 -- -- 3 3 -- 3
Nanocladius dounesi -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
Orthoc Ladius (Euorthocladius) -- -- 3 3 1 3 1
Rheocricotopus robacki 1 10 -- 3 3 10 10
Tvetenia discoloripes grp. -- -- -- -- -- 3 --
Chironomus 10 -- 3 3 3 -- --
Cryptochironomus Marina grp. -- -- -- -- -- 1 --
Cryptochironomus fuLws -- 1 1 3 3 1 1
Dicrotendipes neomodestus -- 3 3 3 3 1 3
GLyptotendipes --- -- -- -- 1 -- --
Paralauterborniella 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Peratendipes 1 -- -- -- -- --
Phaenopsectra 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Phaenopsectra obediens grp. -- 3 -- 3 -- -- 3
Polypedilun convictun 1 3 -- 10 10 -- 3
Polypedilum iLlinoense -- 3 3 -- 1 -- 1
Polypedilun Laetun -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
• Polypedilun scalaenun grp. 3 3 1 1 3 -- --
Pseudochironomus -- -- 1 ;- -- -- --
stenochironomus 3 3 -- -- 3 1
Tribelos jucurdun 10 -- -- -- -- -- --
Cladotenytarsus -- -- -- - -- --
1
Rheotanytarsus 1 3 -- 17 1 3 3
Tanytarsus sp. 2 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Tanytarsus sp. 6 1 3 -- -- 1 -- 3
Xenochironomus xenalabis -- 1 -- - -- -- --
Culex -- -- 1 -- -- -- --
Simuliun 10 10 1 3 1 3
Protoplasa; fitchii -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
Tipula -- 1 1 3 -- -- --
Antocha 1 3 -- 3 1 3 3
11

TABLE 4 (cant.)
LOCATION
64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0
1995 1999 1995 1999 1999 1995 1999
TAXA (cant.)
Hexatoma -- -- -- -- 1 -- --
Hemerodromia 1 1 3 3 10 3 10
Elimia -- 3 -- -- -- -- --
Pleuroceridae 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Physella -- 3 10 10 10 10 10
Helisoma 1 3 -- -- -- -- --
Menetus dilatatus 1 -- 10 1 1 1 --
Ferrissia -- 3 1 10 3 1 3
sphaerium -- 1 -- -- -- -- 1
Pisidiun -- 3 -- ._."-= -- -- 3.
TOTAL TAXA 61 98 46 63 60 53 70
TOTAL EPT TAXA 23 41 9 12 16 16 17
(a) Abundance assigned as 1=1-2 individual; 3=3-9 individuals; and 10=> 10 individuals.
12

Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera taxa at the downstream locations accounted for most of the
overall upstream to downstream decline. Although total taxa richness was similarly low at
Locations 2 (RM 63.0) and 3, with slightly higher taxa richness at Location 4 (RM 59.0)
marling the apparent point of recovery in the downward trend.
Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness ranged from 12 taxa at Location 2
to 41 taxa at Location 1 (Table 4). EPT richness and abundance generally followed the same
upstream to downstream trend that total taxa richness exhibited with a substantial decrease in
EPT downstream of the Canton mill followed by gradual increases at consecutive downstream
locations (Table 5). Taxa richness for all three groups that constitute the EPT decreased
downstream relative to the reference location, particularly the Ephemeroptera which decreased
from 22 taxa at Location 1 to 2 taxa at Location 2.
Among the four locations, the lowest (i.e., best) NCBI value was calculated for Location 1
(4S0) while the highest (i.e., poorest) value was recorded from Location 2 (6.71). NCBI
values from Locations 3 and 4 were nearly identical (5.84 and 5.85, respectively) and
approximately mid-way between values obtained for Locations 1 and 2 (Table 5). The higher
NCBI at Location 2 was due to a relative decrease in EPT taxa richness, a decrease in EPT
abundance, and an increase in abundance and richness of more tolerant Chironomidae taxa,
Oligochaeta, and Mollusca.
Final bioclassifications for each location exhibited a trend comparable to those observed in the
NCBI, EPT taxa richness, and total taxa richness (Table 5). Location 1 was assigned a
bioclassification of "Good", the highest rating among the four sites. The remaining three
downstream sites all received "Fair" ratings. Although the downstream locations achieved the
same bioclassification, NCBI and EPT richness values place Location 2 near the bottom (i.e.,
closer to "Poor") of the "Fair" range while these same value's place Locations 3 and 4 near the
top of the range (closer to "Good-Fair").
13

Table 5. Summary of benthic macroinvertebrate data for qualitative collections from the
Pigeon River, August/September 1995 and August 1999.
Pigeon River Stations (RM)
64.5 63.0 61.0 59.0
Parameters 1995 1992 1995 1929 1999 1925 1999
Total Taxa 61 98 46 63 60 53 70
Total EPT Taxa 23 41 9 12 16 16 17
Total Ephemeroptera Taxa 10 22 1 2 4 4 4
Total Trichoptera Taxa 9 17 7 9 11 9 12
Total Diptera Taxa 21 27 15 19 24 15 22
Total EPT Abundance() 75 143 37 36 89 54 92
EPT BI Score 3.12 3.38 4.37 4.74 4.11 4.12 4.36
NCBI Score 5.03 4.50 6.73 6.71 5.84 6.05 5.85
Final Bioclassification(b) G-F G F F F F F
(a) Sum of assigned abundance values given to individual taxa based on the
number/sample, 1=1-2/sample, 3=3-9/sample, and 10= >10/sample.
N) E=Excellent, G=Good, G-F=Good-Fair, F=Fair, and P=Poor
14

4. DISCUSSION
4.1 FISH
The distribution, composition, and quality of the Pigeon River fish community in 1999 was
similar to that seen in 1995. For example, in 1995 we noted (EA 1996) that river chub, mirror
shiner, warpaint shiner, saffron shiner, mottled sculpin and all darters were restricted to or
much more abundant upstream of the mill compared to downstream of it. That pattern was
apparent again in 1999 ('fable 2). Similarly, species that were widely distributed in 1995
(e.g., northern hog sucker, central stoneroller, and white shiner) were also widely distributed
in 1999.
Fish community quality, as measured by the IBI, was essentially unchanged in 1999 compared
to 1995. IBI scores in 1999 vs 1995 differed by 2-4 points (Table 3). Differences of this
magnitude are not significant. Two positive results were noted in 1999; first species richness
and IBI scores increased slightly at Location 2. Though we do not view either increase as
significant, the fact that both measures appear to have increased is a positive sign especially
considering that these increases occurred despite worst or near worst case conditions (i.e.,
water temperature >30 'Q. The second positive sign was the occurrence of three darters at
Location 3 (RM 61). This is the first time we (or anyone to our knowledge) has collected
more than one darter from any location between the mill and Waterville Lake. Again, the fact
that this occurred despite a water temperature in excess of 30 °C provides a reason for guarded
optimism regarding the re-establishment of darters downstream of the mill.
4.2 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
As with the fish community, the 1999 Pigeon River benthic community was similar to that
observed in 1995 (Table 4). The overall trend of decline and recovery from upstream to
downstream observed in 1995 was also apparent in 1999. The highest numbers for total taxa,
EPT taxa, and EPT abundance continue to be observed at the upstream reference community
(Table 5). In contrast, these same parameters continue to be noticeably lower downstream of
the Canton mill, relative to Location 1. Among the three locations sampled previously, the
NCBI remained lowest and bioclassification highest at Location 1. Despite the overall
similarities between the two study periods, differences were observed that suggest a slight to
moderate improvement in the benthic community throughout the study area.
In comparison to the 1995 study, nearly all parameters including, total taxa richness, EPT taxa
richness, and NCBI improved in 1999 at all locations (Table 5). In particular, total taxa
richness and, to a lesser degree EPT taxa richness were slightly to substantially higher at all
three previously sampled locations. Although better sampling conditions in 1999 as a result of
low flows may be, at least partially responsible for these improvements, it is not unreasonable
to expect that some of the changes represent a continuing and gradual improvement in water
quality downstream of the Canton mill. Improvement is also evident upon examination of EPT
taxa richness from Locations 2 and 4 combined. Since 1987 (EA 1988), combined EPT taxa
15

richness at these locations has tripled from seven taxa in 1987, to 18 taxa in 1995, to 21 taxa in
1999.
Even more encouraging than these improvements taken in and of themselves, is the fact that
they occurred despite the existence of naturally stressful conditions brought on by two
consecutive years of extremely low flow conditions. As with the fish community, these data
provide evidence that the benthic community in the Pigeon River is improving and will
continue to improve in the future.
16

5. REFERENCES
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.
Lenat, D.R. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of
tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water quality ratings. J. North American
Benthological Society, 12(3):279-290.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
1997. Standard operating procedures: biological monitoring. January 1997.
NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2000. Taxonomy document: EPT and
Coleoptera. February 2000. NCDWQ, Biological Assessment Unit, Raleigh, NC.
17