NC0000272_NPDES_Comments_20000614

OF W ArFR Michael F. Easley
JF pG Governor
ij William G. Ross,Jr.,Secretary
> Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O Y Kerr T.Stevens
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
To: Jimmie Overton 5
Forrest Westall q 2001 I_,
Through: Trish MacPherson'"" — QQ
From: Bryn H. Tracy T ASHEVILLEURFG SIE otiCE
JALO
Subject: Comments on the NPDES Permit No. NC0000272, Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., Canton Mill,
Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River
I have reviewed this study and my comments are provided herein:
1. This study was required by NPDES permit, but the work was not performed by a NCDWQ-certified laboratory.
2. in a letter from Ms. Coleen Sullins to Mr. Robert Williams (Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc, (BRP)), it was specifically
stated: "Task 1 --It is important to select species for modeling, which are native to the Pigeon River basin." And in an
e-mail from me to Keith Haynes (dated March 17, 2000), 1 specifically requested: "Task 1 -- Species chosen for study
should be those native species currently inhabiting the Pigeon River or species that were known or suspected to have
occurred in the river prior to mill operation but no longer occur in the river due to mill operation. The importance of
modeling species native to the French Broad River and Pigeon River basins can not be over emphasized." Two of
the species (common carp and redbreast sunfish) which were modeled are not native to the basin and should not
have been modeled. Other species, such as the river chub, mottled sculpin, and banded sculpin should have been.
NC DWQ was not given the opportunity to comment on the species chosen for modeling.
3. In the same letter and e-mail, it was stated: "It is our findings that there are currently no nuisance species in the river.
And, . . ."to my knowledge, there are no commercially important or nuisance species in the river. Common carp
should not be modeled as a nuisance species. Consultant should define nuisance species". The consultant never
defined nuisance species prior to the study and common carp should not have been modeled as a representative
important species. My use of the word: "nuisance" was based upon their study plan, where they stated: ". . . and
one species that has the potential to become a nuisance species". My definition or understanding of "nuisance" was
different than BRP's definition.
4. In the same letter and (more emphatically) in the same e-mail it was stated: "The NCIBI should not be used as its
metrics were not calibrated nor was it correctly designed for streams the size of the Pigeon River". Despite this, the
1995/1997 version of the Index was used. Conclusions based upon the 1995/1997 Index and its metric criteria were
not and are not currently valid.
5. Page 1-2 -- "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)". This statement, which was repeated in 1990s reports, was pointed out in 1996 to BRP (at
that time Champion International Corp.) that their interpretation of the regulations was in error and this statement was .
not true.
'
t•NCDENIR
Customer Service Environmental Sciences Branch 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 [phone]
1 800 623-7748

OF W A rFR Michael F. Easley
PG Governor
William G.Ross,Jr.,Secretary
j Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O Y Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
6. Page 3-1 -- If recolonization sources are lacking downstream of the mill and because the darter fauna in the Pigeon
River has been severely impacted for many decades, would BRP (and other responsible entities and interested
parties) fund efforts to reintroduce species that were eradicated by the mill's effluent and prevented from
recolonization by the Walters Dam?
7. Pages 3-2 and 3-3 -- "Species richness in the most thermally affected zone (Fiberville) is comparable to upstream of
the mill and better than the NC zones further downstream" --this maybe true, but the species (and their abundances)
above and below the mill are entirely different. Later(buried in the report), Table 4-7 shows that the fauna of the most
thermally affected site is only 16% similar to that of the reference site. Equating equal species richness at the two
sites with having no thermal impact and indicative of a balanced fish community below the mill is not valid.
8. Pages 3-2 and 3-3 --common carp and redbreast sunfish are not native to the Pigeon River basin and both species
are considered tolerant. Nuisance species, as requested in an earlier correspondence, was never defined.
9. Pages 3-2, 3-3, and 3-9-- redbreast sunfish is a thermally tolerant fish whose percent abundance progressively
declines the further removed from the mill (refer to Table 4-2). Above the mill, the species constitutes only 2.5% of
the fauna, at Fiberville 64%, and at River Mile 19.3, 0%. Contrary to the report, this species clearly indicates that
nuisance species are dominant and the community, at certain sites, is dominated by thermally tolerant species.
Likewise, biomass data (page 4-15) also show the dominance of these two species in the nearfield areas (53%-68%).
10. Page 3-3 -- YOY (young-of-year) should not be collected and-should not be considered when using the NC IBI (or any
other version).
11. Page 3-4-- as earlier stated, the NC IBI should not have been used as a measure of community health or as a tool to
assess thermal impacts.
12. Page 3-4 -- if the upstream site is used as the reference site (a thermally unimpacted site), then downstream sites
clearly show spatial faunal differences that can be attributed, at least in part, to temperature differences.
13. Page 3-5 -- what is BRP's evidence (basis) that the river below the mill should not be cool water system, like it is
above the mill? The elimination of darters and other species was most likely due to extremely poor water quality (in
the broadest sense including chemical and thermal pollutants). The recovery below the mill in North Carolina of the
greenside darter, greenfin darter, tangerine darter, and other species will likely take a long time, if ever.
14. Page 3-9 -- species richness conclusion -- this is clearly a misinterpretation of the data.
15. Page 3-10 -- Competitive Advantage to Certain Species -- Redbreast sunfish seemed to dominate the communities
below the mill. Would not this species decrease and rockbass increase if the temperature below the mill was cooler?
16. Page 3-11 -- Community Dominated by Thermally Tolerant Species -- "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." This clearly is an opinion and not supported by any published facts. The redbreast
sunfish is not native to the mountain streams and is a indicator of some past alteration to the stream and community.
In eastern Tennessee, this species is implicated in out-competing and displacing the native longear sunfish (Etnier
and Starnes 1993. This presence and abundance of the redbreast sunfish in mountain waters should not be viewed
as a positive attribute.
VA
Customer Service Environmental Sciences Branch 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh,NC 27699-1621 [phone]
1 800 623-7748

F WArF
\Oct RQG Michael F.Easley
Governor
rWilliam G. Ross,Jr.,Secretary
,i Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O * Y Kerr T.Stevens
Division of Water Duality
17. Page 3-13 --Common Carp -- "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)." The exact wording of my memorandum was: "To my
knowledge, there are no commercially important or nuisance species in the river. Common carp should not be
modeled as a nuisance species. Consultant should define nuisance species." I believe my words were taken out of
context and meaning.
18. Page 3-15 -- Redbreast sunfish -- "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." Clearly, this is an
opinion and not based upon published facts.
19. Pages 3-15 and 3-16-- Darters --The presence of one or two individuals of any species of darters (or any other
species) downstream of the mill does not equate with viable populations and with improving and tolerable conditions.
20. Appendix A, Page 1-1 -- "The North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ) does not have an established
protocol for conducting 316(a) demonstrations(email from Mr. Bryn Tracy date 116100). Nonetheless, biological
sampling was conducted in accordance with standard NCDWQ field protocols." The precise wording of my e-mail
was: "The North Carolina Division of Water Quality does not have a formal protocol for conducting 316 (a)
demonstrations such as the one being proposed for the Pigeon River. Typically, the Division handles the study
design on an informal communicative basis. You would, however, be safe in using the federal protocol and having us
approve the study design before the actual sampling is to be conducted later this year. In terms of the benthic
invertebrate community, the thermal effluent is treated just like any other WWTP effluent and upstream-downstream
type studies are done." In a later email (dated 03/17/200) and in a letter from Ms. Sullins, BRP was instructed not use
the NCIBI in its 316 (a) demonstration.
21. Appendix A, Page 2-12 -- "For this report, the IBI is used only to compare the 1995 and 2000 results". This statement
is not valid. The inaccurately-derived Index is used to support BRP's position that a continuation of the variance is
warranted.
22. Appendix A, Page 4-8 -- "No single species dominate the mainstream catch." The redbreast sunfish's abundance,
below the mill in North Carolina, constituted 64% (near field) to 17% (far field) of all the fish collected. Approximately
25%of all the fish collected from the entire river were the tolerant redbreast sunfish.
23. Appendix A, Page 4-11 -- Percent Similarity-- as mentioned earlier, the thermally affected sites below the mill were
very dissimilar to the thermally unimpacted reference site.
24. Appendix A, Page 4-26 -- Life Stage and Spawning Activity--This assessment should have been made on a site-by-
site basis, not for the entire river from River Mile 64.5 to River Mile 19.3. Young-of-year should also not be included in
the analyses.
BHT/bht
PC: Dave Goodrich
&Keif.'Haynes; ,
Michael Meyers
AVIA
NCDM
Customer Service Environmental Sciences Branch 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 [phone]
1 800 623-7748