NC0000272_Study of Aquatic Resources and Water Quality_19951201

En
A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND
WATER QUALITY OF THE PIGEON RIVER
Prepared for:
Champion International Corporation
Canton, North Carolina 28716
Prepared by:
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
444 Lake Cook Road, Suite 18
Deerfield, IL 60015
and
11019 McCormick Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031
December 199S
EA Project 13043

TABLE OF CONTENTS
_ 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
2. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
3. FISH COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 COMPOSITION, RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, AND
( I DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.2 CONDITION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3.3 BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3.4 LIFE STAGES AND SPAWNING ACTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
3.5 HABITAT ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
3.6 FISH HEALTH ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
4. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 FISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.1 Comparisons to Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.2 Changes and Improvements to the Mainstem Pigeon
Fish Community Since 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.1.3 Demonstration That Class C Use is Being Attained . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.1.4 Factors Affecting the Distribution of Fishes in
the Pigeon River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
I
5. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
r
iT APPENDIX C Biological Methods and Raw Data
Note: Sections on Light Attenuation, Water Quality, Periphyton, and Benthos
will be added when the reports are completed
; i

I
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-, A biological, physical, and water chemistry survey of the Pigeon River and tributaries in
North Carolina and Tennessee was conducted in late August and early September 1995. The
study area extended from just upstream of Canton, NC (RM 64.5) to near Bluffton, TN (RM
19.3). Samples were collected at 13 biological stations (10 mainstem and 3 tributary) and 18
water chemistry stations. Summarized herein are the fisheries results, the first component of
the study to be completed.
- With regard to the fish community, the picture in the mainstem of the Pigeon River is very
clear... a dramatic improvement since the area was sampled in 1987. Downstream Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores improved by an average of 38% from 1987 to 1995 and species
richness improved by an average of 81% during the same period.
EXCELLENT
GOOD-EXCELLENT
60 1995 -' GOOD
45 FAIR•
" FAIR
40
POOR•FAI
35
U 30
1987 --IN- POOR
N
m 25 \ / VERYPOOR•POOR
20
VERY VOR
15
10 CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN WALTERS DAM CPBL HYDRO
- MILL CRK. WWTP C RK. � DISCHARGE
5
O 64.5 59 54.5 48.2 24.9
63 55.5 52.3 42.6 19.3
RIVER MILE
-7t 1995 --1 1987
Sampling at 10 mainstem and 3 tributary stations yielded over 4000 fish representing 44
species. Except for a single shorthead redhorse, all species collected in the tributaries were
also collected in the mainstem. IBI values placed Fines Creek and Richland Creek in the fair
range and Jonathan Creek in the good range. Sedimentation in Richland Creek is considerable
and the quality of the fish community appears to have declined since the area was sampled in
1987.
The 10 mainstem locations were divided into four segments:
_ Segment 1 - reference area upstream of Canton mill - 1 station
Segment 2 - between Canton mill and Richland Creek- 3 stations
Segment 3 - Richland Creek to Waterville Lake- 4 stations
Segment 4 - downstream of Waterville Lake and CP&L hydro plant - 2 stations
1-1

Segment 2 reflects inputs from the Canton mill while Segment 3 is immediately downstream of
Richland Creek and the Waynesville Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and is affected
j by discharges from them. Segment 4 is downstream of the CP&L hydro plant where water
levels rapidly rise and fall approximately 2 feet during each generation cycle along with
concomitant changes in river velocity. Habitat evaluations using DEHNR methodologies
indicated that habitat throughout the study area was generally good, with the main limiting
factor being a lack of substrate variety in Segment 3 due to a preponderance of bedrock in this
segment.
Electrofishing collections at the 10 mainstem locations yielded 3602 fish representing 43
species. Species richness was highest (23 species) at RM 19.3 in the Tennessee portion of the
study area downstream of the CP&L power house. In the North Carolina portion of the study
area, species richness was slightly (1-6 species) higher at the upstream reference station than at
the stations in Segments 2 and 3. IBI scores followed a pattern similar to species richness:
highest at the most upstream and most downstream stations and slightly lower in between. In
contrast to generally improved conditions in Segments 2 and 3, a decline in IBI scores was
noted between RM 55.5 and 54.5, which was most likely due to impacts associated with
Richland Creek or the Waynesville WWTP.
The downstream stations yielded 16 sport species with smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish
being the most common of these. All downstream stations also yielded fair to good numbers
of young-of-the-year (YOY) fish and had a high number of species represented by multiple age
classes. Both these facts indicate good survival and propagation of fishes downstream of the
Canton mill. The health of redbreast sunfish throughout the study area was evaluated using the
the Health Assessment Index (HAI) method. HAI scores were similar throughout the study
areas indicating a lack of impacts from the Canton mill.
Significant compositional differences were noted among the four segments. Segment 1
upstream of the mill was dominated by minnows and darters and had a fauna typical of cool
water Blue Ridge streams. Segment 4 also had a good representation by minnows and darters
- but also had warmwater fishes typical of larger rivers. Although there were fewer darters,
Segments 2 and 3 had more sport fish than Segments 1 or 4. The fish community in Segments
2 and 3 was also dominated by warmwater species. It was concluded that most of the
compositional differences among the segments was due to the natural progression from a
small, coolwater Blue Ridge river upstream of the mill to a larger, warmwater Ridge and
Valley river downstream of the mill. The absence of YOYs of some sunfish species in
Segment 4 may have been related to the considerable flow fluctuations in this segment.
According to North Carolina Water Quality Standards, the Pigeon River is classified as a Class
C stream, meaning it should be suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of
biological integrity including fish. Based on the following facts, the fish community of the
Pigeon River downstream of the mill meets the criteria for a Class C stream:
1-2

j (1) IBI scores were fair to good throughout Segments 2 and 3 and much improved
compared to 1987.
-t
(2) Biomass of fish was high in this area.
(3) Survival and propagation were good as evidenced by good numbers of YOYs
' and multiple age classes at all stations.
(4) The presence of 11 sport species in Segments 2 and 3 is consistent with
expectations for a Class C stream.
(5) Similar Health Assessment Index (HAI) scores.throughout the study area
confirms no adverse impact to fish health from the Canton mill.
i
I ,
1-3

i
2. INTRODUCTION
Since 1987, Champion International has spent approximately 330 million dollars upgrading the
Canton mill. In addition to other improvements, these upgrades have reduced color levels by
about 80% and reduced flows by about 40%. To determine how the biological community
responded to these changes in water quality, a synoptic survey was conducted in 1995. The
1995 study was patterned after a similar study conducted in 1987 (EA 1988). Components
studied in both 1987 and 1995 were periphyton, macroinvertebrates, fishes, habitat, light
attenuation, and water chemistry. The study area in 1995 extended from just upstream of
Canton, NC (RM 64.5) to near Bluffton, TN (RM 19.3) (Figure 2-1). Details regarding
biological sampling protocols are provided in Appendix C. Fish and macroinvertebrates were
sampled at 10 mainstem stations and three tributary stations, while periphyton was sampled
only at the 10 mainstem stations (Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1). Water chemistry samples were
collected at all 13 biological stations plus five additional stations (Table 2-2). All collections
f were made in late August and early September 1995. The main difference between the 1987
and 1995 studies was that the 1995 study focused on a slightly smaller study area and this
smaller area was sampled somewhat more intensively (i.e., more stations were sampled). All
original (i.e., 1987) locations within the current study area were sampled again as part of the
1995 study. Where appropriate, the 1995 study updated the methods used in 1987 so they
- ` would conform to currently recommended methods.
Objectives of the 1995 synoptic survey were:
Compare conditions in the river prior to and following the Canton modernization
project.
• Document existing biological and water quality conditions in the study area.
• Determine whether Class C uses are being attained downstream of the Canton mill and,
if not, what factor(s) are preventing attainment.
I f Determine whether any further reductions in color can reasonably be expected to
improve the aquatic biota substantially.
I
i `
,
I , 2-1
f '

f BluftONTN Mont TN
(19.3J
BelowPowedause
aim TfNNFCCFF
N
AboveCosiy
Creek ,.._...' �.._..�..�
(19.3)
mum
_(254)
If NOTE River miles of mauwtream sampring loeadon or
Nydm Pfent sir tributary mosM shown U parentheses.
(26A)
�u
= h Q Water Wu'Fish,Benbos,Pedpl An
�G rll
0WaterW4,,Ash,Bentfos
! x
water O ityO4
jr ¢Fish,Benthos,Pedphyton
i
��
Wafters Dam Walen&Lake
Cawborhee
Credo Ilepeo,NC
— (38.1) •6) Creek
(42n DabbeeCrag
New RepuBddge R'nemide (49.0)
fkpcoGaup (483)
(45.1) Abovekabtree
�i �� �3)
OW
JoCr� Clyde WW1P
(46.0) Below Clyde (67.1)
Ferguson Bddge (ss 61 Above Clyde Fl le
(69.0) Fbery ue (629)
Below
Warp"Mr? Mill Otddl Canton NC
(643) IBM (633)
Weynesv0e ITddand Clyde,NC Canton
(WwTP Creek (64A (695)
'9) Plot Farm
Addition
Figure 2.1. Stations for the water quality,pedphyton,fisheries,and benthic surveys,AugusUSeptember 1995.
2-2

y
f Table 2-1 Pigeon River and Tributary Biological Sampling Stations, 1987 and 1995
Mainslem QUQ Fish Macroinvertebrates Perirhytonn
65.5 (upstream mill) 87* - -
64.5 (upstream mill) 87/95 87/95 87/95
63 (Fiberville, downstream mill) 87/95 87/95 87/95
59 (upstream Clyde) 87/95 87/95 87/95
55.5 (downstream Clyde) 95 95 95
54.5 (d/s Waynesville WWTP) 95 95 95
- 52.3 (old Rt 209 bridge) 87/95 87/95 87/95
48.2 (Ferguson bridge) 87/95 87/95 87/95
42.6 (New Hepco bridge) 87/95 87/95 87/95
24.9 (140 exit, Waterville) 87/95 87/95 87/95
19.3 (bridge nr Groundhog Cr) 87/95 87/95 87/95
7.8 (upstream Newport) 87 87 87
Tributay
Richland Creek (near mouth) 87/95 87/95 87
Jonathan Creek (at Rt 276) 95 95 -
Fines Creek (Panther Cr Rd) 95 95 -
* 87 = Location sampled only in 1987.
95 = Location sampled only 1995.
87/95 = Location sampled in both 1987 and 1995.
- = Not sampled in either year.
r
I -
I
t
I
2-3
s

Table 2-2 Water Quality Sampling Stations Along the Pigeon River and Tributaries
River Period of
Location Mile smdX*
Above Canton, River Road bridge (first) 64.5 87/95
Canton mill effluent 63.3 87/95
-- Fiberville bridge 62.9 87/95
Above Clyde, right bank 59.0 87/95
Clyde WWTP effluent 57.1 87/95
Below Clyde, Hyder Mountain Road bridge 55.5 87/95
Richland Creek, bridge at creek mile 0.2 54.9 87/95
Waynesville WWTP effluent 54.8 87/95
Above Crabtree Creek, local bridge off Route 209 52.2 87/95
_ Crabtree Creek, private bridge at creek mile 0.15 49.8 87/95
Riverside, Ferguson Bridge 48.3 87/95
Jonathan Creek, bridge at creek mile 0.9 46.0 87/95
USGS Hepco Gauging Station, left bank 45.1 87/95
Fines Creek, left bank at creek mile 0.3 42.7 87/95
' New Hepco Bridge 42.6 87/95
Cataloochee Creek, right bank at creek mile 1.0 38.1 87/95
-- Above Powerhouse, left bank 26.1 87
j Powerhouse Discharge 26.0 87
Big Creek at mouth 25.9 87
Below powerhouse, bridge at I-40 exit to Waterville 24.7 87/95
Above Cosby Creek, local bridge at Groundhog Creek 19.3 87/95
Cosby Creek, Rt 32 bridge 13.6 87
Above Newport, right bank 7.8 87
Newport WWTP effluent 4.0 87
Below Newport, right bank 2.3 87
r-
* 87 = Location sampled only in 1987.
95 = Location sampled only 1995.
87/95 = Location sampled in both 1987 and 1995.
- = Not sampled in either year.
F
2-4

I
3. 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, Simon &Lyons 1995):
• Fish populations and individuals generally remain in the same area during summer
seasons.
- 9 Communities are persistent and recover rapidly from natural disturbances.
_ 9 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.
i
• 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
j 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.
�i
• Taxonomy of fishes is well established, enabling experienced professional biologists to
reduce laboratory time by identifying many specimens in the field.
Ir 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.
�—; 3-1
i

i
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. Fish community data were incorporated in the Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr et
- al. 1986, DEHNR 1995), as one means of characterizing the biological integrity or biotic
condition of the Pigeon River.
- The rpfoductive 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) 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
r� was-tabulated and incorporated into NCIBI metric 12.
An assessment of biological condition/relative health of the surveyed length of the Pigeon
j 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
1988) and other recent studies within the Pigeon River or its tributaries (Saylor et al. 1993,
CP&L 1995, DEHNR 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 are contained in Appendix C.4.
l
3.1 COMPOSITION, RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, AND DISTRIBUTION
A survey of the Pigeon River fish community was conducted at 10 mainstem and 3 tributary
_ locations, 22-26 August and 6-9 September 1995 (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 three stations downstream of the mill but upstream of
Richland Creek (RM 63.0, 59.0, and 55.5), the four stations located between Richland Creek
confluence 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 10 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.
1 3-2
(

I
I
Species composition of the Pigeon River fish community is presented in Table 3-1.
Electrofishing collections produced a total of 4299 fish distributed among 44 species within ten
families (Tables 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5). Only one species (shorthead redhorse) was found at a
tributary station that did not also occur in the mainstem, and it was represented by only a
single individual (Table 3-3). The mainstem catch was composed of 16 sport fish species and
27 non-sport and/or forage species (Table 3-2). Non-sport species ranked highest in numerical
abundance accounting for 64 percent of the total catch. Sunfish dominated the catch in terms
of numbers (1291 individuals) and ranked second with nine species (Table 3-5). Conversely,
minnows were first in terms of species richness (13 species), but second in terms of abundance
(987 individuals). Eight perch species were collected of which six were darter species
(members of the genus Etheostoma or Perdaa). The sucker family was well represented with
four species and 613 individuals. The remainder of the catch consisted of relatively low
numbers of two each of sculpin, catfish, and trout species, and one herring, lamprey, and
drum species. The two trout species were probably the result of stocking.
No family dominated the mainstem catch. A sunfish was the most abundant species (873
redbreast sunfish), followed by a sucker (563 northern hog sucker), two minnows (404 central
stoneroller and 203 whitetail shiner), with a herring rounding out the top five (179 gizzard
shad) (Table 3-4). Three of the 10 most abundant fishes were sport fish including the most
r abundant fish collected, redbreast sunfish (Table 3-4).
The distribution of most species followed one of four well defined spatial patterns:
(1) fairly evenly distributed throughout the study area,
-i (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.
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.,
r 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 primarily by factors other than effluents from the Canton mill.
Thirty-six of the 43 species collected from the mainstem followed one of these patterns (Table
3-6). Six of the seven remaining species were too rare to classify; the final species, longnose
dace, was uncommon, but widely distributed and probably could be assigned to Pattern 1.
Eight species clearly followed Pattern 1 (i.e., were widely distributed). These included four
sunfish, two minnow, and two sucker species (Table 3-6). This group of widely distributed
species includes the four most abundant species in the study area and two others that rank in
the top eight. Five of the eight widely distributed species are sport fishes.
3-3

I rl
TABLE 3-1. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL - 1995 PIGEON RIVER SYNOPTIC SURVEY
'i FISH SPECIES ENCOUNTERED
_ COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
OHIO LAMPREY Ichthyomyzon bdelLiun
GIZZARD SHAD Dorosoma cepedianun
RAINBOW TROUT Oncorhynchus mykiss
BROWN TROUT Selmo trutta
CENTRAL STONEROLLER Caapostoma anomatum
GOLDFISH Caressius auritus
COMMON CARP Cyprinus carpio
.- BIGEYE CHUB Notropis ambtops
RIVER CHUB Nocamis micropogon
GOLDEN SHINER Notemigonus crysaleucas
WARPAINT SHINER LuxiLus coccogenis
WHITETAIL SHINER CyprineLLa gaLactura
SILVER SHINER Notropis photogenis
SAFFRON SHINER Notropis rubricroceus
MIRROR SHINER Notropis spectrunculus
BLACKNOSE DACE Rhinichthys atratuLus
LONGNOSE DACE Rhinichthys cataractae
WHITE SUCKER Catostomus eomnersoni
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER Hypenteliun nigricans
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO Ictiobus bubalus
BLACK REDHORSE Moxostama duquesnei
SHORTHEAD REDHORSE Moxostoma macrotepidotun
UNID BULLHEAD Ameiurus sp.
FLATHEAD CATFISH Pylodictis olivaris
I ROCK BASS AmbLoplites rupestris
REDBREAST SUNFISH Lepomis auritus
GREEN SUNFISH Lepomis cyaneLlus
WARMOUTH Lepomis gulosus
BLUEGILL Lepomis macrochirus
HYBRID SUNFISH Lepomis hybrid
S14ALLMOUTH BASS Micropterus dolomieu
SPOTTED BASS Micropterus punctulatus
'�- LARGEMOUTH BASS Micropterus sa Lmoides
BLACK CRAPPIE Pemoxis nigromaculatus
- - GREENSIDE DARTER Etheostoma blennioides
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutseLLi) Etheostoma btennioides gutseLli
17 GREENSIDE DARTER (newmeni) Etheostoma btennioides newmani
GREENFIN DARTER Etheostoma chlorobranchiun
REDLINE DARTER Etheostoma rufilineatun
—� SNUBNOSE DARTER Etheostoma simoterun
TANGERINE DARTER Percine eurantiace
LOGPERCH Percine ceprodes
SAUGER Stizostedion canadense
WALLEYE Stizostedion vitreun
FRESHWATER DRUM Aplodinotus grunniens
MOTTLED SCULPIN Cottus bairdi
BANDED SCULPIN Cottus carolinee
I
i
I ,
j 3-4

TABLE 3-2. NUMBER AND SPECIES OF FISH COLLECTED ELECTROFISHING FROM THE MAINSTEM PIGEON RIVER, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1995
LOCATION
64.5 63.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3
up/s d/s up/s d/s d/s Old Ferguson New d/s Bluffton
Mill Mill Clyde Clyde Richland ,Rt. 209 Bridge Hepco CPBL TN TOTAL
SPECIES _ _ _ _ Crk. Bridge
SPORT FISH RAINBOW TROUT -- -• -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 3 6
BROWN TROUT 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -• 3
UNID BULLHEAD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1
FLATHEAD CATFISH -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 2
ROCK BASS 78 13 8 3 6 3 1 -- 8 2 122
REDBREAST SUNFISH 29 77 119 192 132 177 112 18 5 12 873
GREEN SUNFISH -- 13 7 2 6 1 9 -- -- -- 38
WARMOUTH -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
BLUEGILL -- -- 1 3 4 1 6 33 6 1 55
HYBRID SUNFISH -- 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 3
SMALLMOUTH BASS 3 2 3 2 3 11 3 1 40 24 92
SPOTTED BASS -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1
LARGEMOUTH BASS 2 2 1 4 11 8 3 14 2 -- 47
BLACK CRAPPIE -- -- 1 9 30 11 6 2 -- -- 59
SAUGER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 2
WALLEYE -- -- -- -- --. -- -- -- 1 -- 1
FRESHWATER DRUM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 2
SPECIMEN SUBTOTAL 114 108 141 215 194 212 140 72 65 47 1308
W NON-SPORT FISH OHIO LAMPREY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1
GIZZARD SHAD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 23 156 179
U CENTRAL STONEROLLER 30 1 83 17 7 68 40 3 8 14T 404
GOLDFISH 2 -- 3 19 11 -- 4 -- -- -- 39
COMMON CARP -- 6 14 20 17 16 13 -- -- -- B6
BIGEYE CHUB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1
RIVER CHUB 147 3 23 1 -- -- -- 3 -- -- 1T7
GOLDEN SHINER -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
WARPAINT SHINER 32 -- 6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 38
WHITETAIL SHINER 8 2 16 36 15 16 22 3 53 32 203
SILVER SHINER -- -- -- -- -- -- --' -- -- 6 6
SAFFRON SHINER 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- ' -- -- -- 3
MIRROR SHINER 18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 18
BLACKNOSE DACE -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- 1
LONGNOSE DACE -- •- 1 1 -- 1 4 1 -- 2 10
WHITE SUCKER -- -- -- 1 6 12 4 -- -- -- 23
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 37 18 67 50 58 49 54 74 19 13T 563
S14ALLMOIJTH BUFFALO -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 3
BLACK REDHORSE 8 5 -- -- -- 2 1 1 -- 7 24
GREENSIDE DARTER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 28 57
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutselli) 41 -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 4 46
GREENSIDE DARTER (newmani) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12 12
GREENFIN DARTER 83 -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 84
REDLINE DARTER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 31 32
SNUBNOSE DARTER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 21 21
TANGERINE DARTER 28 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29
LOGPERCH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 27 41 68
MOTTLED SCULPIN 33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 33
BANDED SCULPIN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 63 69 132
SPECIMEN SUBTOTAL 470 36 213 147 114 165 143 85 223 698 2294
TOTAL SPECIMENS 584 144 354 362 308 377 283 157 288 745 3602
TOTAL SPECIES 18 12 16 17 14 15 16 14 15 23 43

TABLE 3-3. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL - 1995 PIGEON RIVER SYNOPTIC SURVEY - FISH DATA
CATCH SUMMARIES BY GEAR FOR TRIBUTARY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FINES CRK JONATHAN CRK RICHLAND CRK
EFPRAM EFPRAM EFPRAM
SPECIES
--' RAINBOW TROUT -- -- 5 1.1 -- --
BROWN TROUT 2 1.4 5 1.1 -- --
CENTRAL STONEROLLER 32 22.2 86 18.9 3 3.1
COMMON CARP -- -- -- -- 1 1.0
GOLDEN SHINER -- -- -- 1 1.0
WHITETAIL SHINER -- -- 1 0.2 13 13.3
LONGNOSE DACE 9 6.3 229 50.3 1 1.0
WHITE SUCKER 4 2.8 20 4.4 -- --
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 95 66.0 66 14.5 41 41.8
BLACK REDHORSE -- -- 13 2.9 -- --
SHORTHEAD REDHORSE -- -- 1 0.2 -- --
ROCK BASS -- -- 1 0.2 10 10.2
+ REDBREAST SUNFISH -- -- 3 0.7 18 18.4
I GREEN SUNFISH __ __ 5 5.1
BLUEGILL 1 1.0
HYBRID SUNFISH -- -- -- -- 1 1.0
�.l SMALLMOUTH BASS -- -- -- -- 3 3_1
LARGEMOUTH BASS 2 0.4
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutse((i) 2 1.4 21 4.6 -- --
GREENFIN DARTER -- -- 2 0.4 -- --
- TOTAL FISH 144 100.0 455 100.0 98 100.0
TOTAL SPECIES 6 14 11
� t
I
�i
r
�- 3-6

'1
Il
TABLE 3-4. RANKED ABUNDANCE AND PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF FISH COLLECTED FROM THE MAINSTEM
PIGEON RIVER IN NORTH CAROLINA AND TENNESSEE, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1995
i� SPECIES NUMBER PERCENT
REDBREAST SUNFISH 873 24.24
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 563 15.63
CENTRAL STONEROLLER 404 11.22
WHITETAIL SHINER 203 5.64
GIZZARD SHAD 179 4.97
RIVER CHUB 177 4.91
BANDED SCULPIN 132 3.66
ROCK BASS 122 3.39
` SMALLMOUTH BASS 92 2.55
COMMON CARP 86 2.39
GREENFIN DARTER 84 2.33
LOGPERCH 68 1.89
BLACK CRAPPIE 59 1.64
GREENSIDE DARTER 57 1.58
_ BLUEGILL 55 1.53
LARGEMOUTH BASS 47 1.30
GREENSIDE DARTER (gutsel(i) 46 1.28
GOLDFISH 39 1.08
WARPAINT SHINER 38 1.05
GREEN SUNFISH 38 1.05
MOTTLED SCULPIN 33 0.92
-- REDLINE DARTER 32 0.89
TANGERINE DARTER 29 0.81
BLACK REDHORSE 24 0.67
WHITE SUCKER 23 0.64
SNUSNOSE DARTER 21 0.58
MIRROR SHINER 18 0.50
GREENSIDE DARTER (newmani) 12 0.33
LONGNOSE DACE 10 0.28
RAINBOW TROUT 6 0.17
_ SILVER SHINER 6 0.17
BROWN TROUT 3 0.08
F SAFFRON SHINER 3 0.08
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 3 0.08
HYBRID SUNFISH 3 0.08
FLATHEAD CATFISH 2 O.06
SAUGER 2 0.06
FRESHWATER DRUM 2 0.06
OHIO LAMPREY 1 0.03
BIGEYE CHUB 1 0.03
-i GOLDEN SHINER 1 0.03
BLACKNOSE DACE 1 0.03
UNID AMEIURUS 1 0.03
WARMOUTH 1 0.03
SPOTTED BASS 1 0.03
WALLEYE 1 0.03
`. TOTAL FISH 3602 100.00
r"
G
i
__ 3-7

Table 3-5. Ranked abundance and percent occurrence of fish families collected from the
mainstem Pigeon River in North Carolina and Tennessee, August/September
1995,
Relative
Number Number Abundance
Family Species Individuals ercentl
Sunfish 9 1291 35.8
Minnow 13 987 27.4
Sucker 4 613 17.0
Perch 8 352 9.8
Herring 1 179 5.0
Sculpin 2 165 4.6
Trout 2 9 0.2
Bullhead catfish 2 3 0.1
Drum 1 2 <0.1
Lamprey 1 1 <0.1
43 3602
, r
� f
3-8
i

Table 3-6 Longitudinal distribution of fiches in the Pigeon River mainstem,Aug August and September 1995.
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
Redbreast sunfish River chub Gizzard shad Common carp
N. hog sucker Greenfin darter Banded sculpin Black crappie
Central stoneroller Greenside darter Logperch Bluegill
Whitetail shiner (gutadU subsp.) Redline darter Goldfish
Rock bass Warpaint shiner T. snubnose darter Green sunfish
Smallmouth bass Mottled sculpin Greenside darter White sucker
Largemouth bass Tangerine darter (newmani subsp.)
Black redhorse Mirror shiner Rainbow trout
Saffron shiner Silver shiner
Smallmouth buffalo
Sauger
Freshwater drum
Spotted bass
Walleye
Ohio brook lamprey
Bigeye chub

Eight species--river chub; w aint saffron and mirror shiner reenfin and tangerine darter;
g 1� azP > g
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 thermal preferences rather than changes in water quality
downstream of the mill. Saffron shiner, mirror shiner, greenfin darter, the gutselfi 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).
Only river chub can be considered a warmwater species, and, probably not coincidentally, it is
the species that shows the least fidelity to the area upstream of the mill (Table 3-2). Thus,
water temperature at RM 64.5, which was 1-5C° cooler compared to the downstream
locations, appears to be the principal reason for the restriction of these eight species to the area
upstream of the mill.
Even more species (15) were unique to the Tennessee portion of the study area (i.e.,
downstream of Walters dam and the CP&L power house. Six of these species were common
_i (gizzard shad, greenside darter [newmani subspecies], redline darter, snubnose darter,
logperch, and banded sculpin), while the other 9 were either rare (one or two individuals) or
uncommon (3-6 individuals) (Table 3-2). However, despite the fact that several of the species
were common in Tennessee, none were collected in the North Carolina portion of the river.
i This pattern is not consistent with what would be expected if the Canton mill were the
_ principal factor affecting the distribution of fishes in the Pigeon River. If the Canton mill was
the reason these 15 species were absent downstream of the mill, then they still should be
- present upstream of the mill. The fact that none of the 15 was collected upstream of the mill
_ indicates that their absence in the middle segments is primarily biogeographical (i.e., they are
not Blue Ridge species). As opposed to the eight species more common upstream of the mill
which are predominantly cool water forms, the 15 species restricted to the Tennessee portion
of the study area are predominantly either warmwater fishes (e.g., gizzard shad and spotted
bass) or are fishes typically associated with larger rivers (e.g., sauger, walleye, 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 six species (Table 3-6) that is restricted to or most abundant in the
_ middle two segments of the study area. The increased abundance of bluegill and black crappie
in this area is certainly the result of emmigration of individuals from Waterville Lake. For
example, note that bluegill was decidedly 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.
3-10
� I
i

iI
Among the tributaries, Jonathan Creek had the widest diversity (14 species) including four
sucker, two trout, and two darter species. It also yielded the greatest number of individuals
(455 in the standard 200m zone) (Table 3-3). Richland Creek had fair species richness (11
species), but yielded only one sucker species and no darters. The warmer water in Richland
Creek (26C) compared to Fines or Jonathan Creek (21-22C) resulted in it yielding more
sunfish species (5) than Jonathan Creek (3) or Fines Creek (none).
Species richness was noticeably higher (23 species) at RM 19.3 than at any other station (12-
18 species) (Table 3-2). Species richness in the middle two segments of the Pigeon River was
lower (12-17 species) than at the upstream reference station (18 species at RM 64.5), however,
the difference was small, typically one to three species (Figure 3-1). Although species
richness was relatively similar among all stations except RM 19.3, there were obvious
differences in composition and relative abundance among the segments, as described
previously.
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 3-7. 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 form 16.4 to 27.7. 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 3-7). The station at RM 24.9 was most
dissimilar with PSc values being <24 compared to the North Carolina stations. 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 quite similar, with most PSc
values in the range of 50-80% (Table 3-7).
Even though RM 42.6 was in Segment 3, it had lower PSc values (34-52) 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 362 kg (Table 3-8). Rank
order for the ten species contributing the most biomass was:
Spies ND,, Biomass (kg) Avg.. WI (el(el
Common carp 86 154.1 1792
N. hog sucker 450 63.0 140
Redbreast sunfish 747 47.9 64
Black redhorse 23 19.4 843
Smallmouth bass 65 11.2 172
Goldfish 39 10.8 277
White sucker 23 10.6 461
Gizzard shad 79 9.3 118
Largemouth bass 44 9.2 209
Smallmouth buffalo 3 6.9 2300
3-11

FIGURE 3-1 . COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF SPECIES COLLECTED AMONG PIGEON RIVER
MAINSTEM LOCATIONS, 1995.
26
2a
22
20
18
w 1s
U
w
N 14
w u.
N O
w 12
m
z 10
a
6
4
CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN CRK. WALTERS DAM CPBL HYDRO
MILL CRK. WWTP DISCHARGE
2Ilk * f
i
0
64.5 59 54.5 48.2 24.9
63 55.5 52.3 42.6 19.3
RIVER MILE

TABLE 3-7. PERCENT SIMILARITY INDICES (PSc) FOR MAINSTEM PIGEON RIVER PRAM ELECTROFISHING
CATCHES AMONG STATIONS, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1995
River Mile: 64.5 63.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 24.9 19.3
64.5 24.3 27.7 17.9 16.7 17.0 16.4 18.4 22.3 21.1
63.0 50.5 73.3 66.8 64.6 54.7 34.0 14.1 17.4
59.0 62.4 64.3 76.5 79.8 50.0 18.8 52.8
55.5 76.2 75.8 70.2 45.4 23.9 32.7
54.5 74.2 70.4 51.4 20.6 30.7
w
w 52.3 78.1 39.9 19.5 47.7
48.2 51.6 22.5 49.8
42.6 15.6 29.2
24.9 47.0

TABLE 3-8 TOTAL BIOMASS (a) OF LARGE FISHES COLLECTED ELECTROFISHING FROM THE MAINSTEM PIGEON RIVER, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1995.
LOCATION
64.5 63.0 59.0 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 42.6 ; 24.9 19.3
up/s d/s up/s d/s d/s Old Ferguson New d/s Bluffton TOTAL
Mill Mill Clyde Clyde Richland Rt. 209 Bridge Hepco CP&L TH BIOMASS
SPECIES Crk. Bridge
SPORT FISH RAINBOW TROUT -- -- -- -- -- -- -' -- 790 620 1410
BROWN TROUT 420 -- -- -' -- -- -- 280 -- -- 700
UNID BULLHEAD -- -' -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- 3
FLATHEAD CATFISH -- -- -- -- 95 -- -- 2 -- -- 97
ROCK BASS 1676 360 493 340 412 120 70 -- 515 107 4093
REDBREAST SUNFISH 555 2881 5635 12101 7978 10417 5626 907 490 1310 47900
GREEN SUNFISH -- 775 290 130 291 20 61 -- -- -- 1567
WARMOUTH -- -- 103 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 103
BLUEGILL -- -- 5 335 178 4 15 2143 682 42 3404
HYBRID SUNFISH -- 130 -- -- 75 -- -- 124 -- -- 329
SMALLMOUTH BASS 230 108 355 260 43 2530 465 110 1225 5830 11156
SPOTTED BASS -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 3
LARGEMOUTH BASS 2 5 2 19 947 910 596 5450 1264 -- 9195
BLACK CRAPPIE -- -- 130 805 2566 678 486 180 -- -- 4847
SAUGER _. __ __ __ __ ._ .. ._ .. 578 578
WALLEYE 610 -- 610
FRESHWATER DRUM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2050 2050
A BIOMASS SUBTOTAL 2883 4259 7013 13990 12587 14679 7319 9199 5576 10540 88045
NON-SPORT FISH GIZZARD SHAD -- -- -- '- -- - -- 1963 7310 9273
GOLDFISH 520 -- 1710 5170 2565 -- 864 -- -- -- 10829
COMMON CARP -- 8680 28900 28850 30610 26870 30200 -- -- -- 154110
WHITE SUCKER -- -- -- 200 2615 6840 956 -- -- -- 10611
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 2898 2857 7530 4685 4396 7997 5441 10847 2275 14075 63001
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO -- -- -- -- -- -- - 6850 6850
BLACK REDHORSE 4360 3670 -- -- — 1300 1000 1000 -- 8060 19390
BIOMASS SUBTOTAL 7778 15207 38140 38905 40186 43007 38461 11847 4238 36295 274064
TOTAL BIOMASS 10661 19466 45153 52895 52773 57686 45780 Z1046 9814 46835 362109

When all species are considered, stations in Segments 2 and 3 from RM 59.0 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 10.6 10.1
63.0 19.5 7.9 .
59.0 45.2 10.6
55.5 52.9 11.9
54.5 52.8 14.2
_ 52.3 . 57.7 20.4
48.2 45.8 10.0
42.6 21.0 20.1
24.9 9.8 9.3
19.3 46.8 45.5
The high biomass at these middle river stations was due mainly to large contributions by
j redbreast sunfish and especially common carp. When these two species are removed from the
data set, biomass becomes fairly similar (7.9-14.2 kg) among all stations except RM 52.3
(20.4 kg), RM 42.6 (20.1 kg), and RM 19.3 (45.5 kg). The continued high biomass at RM
52.3 was due to larger than average contributions from white sucker and smallmouth bass
(Table 3-8). The high biomass at RM 42.6 was due to larger than average contributions from
bluegill, largemouth bass, and northern hog sucker. The particularly high biomass at RM 19.3
was due to larger than average contributions from black redhorse, smallmouth bass, freshwater
drum, gizzard shad, northern hog sucker, and smallmouth buffalo.
Summary
In 1995, 44 fish species were collected from the study area including 43 species from the
mamstem Pigeon River. This latter total included 16 sport species, all of which occurred
downstream of the Canton mill. The distribution of fishes documented in the study area
JI 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).
Biomass was higher, on average, downstream of the mill than upstream of it.
_ 3.2 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 CA. 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 and adult specimens taken
during the 1995 survey. Species selected for comparison (common carp, northern hog sucker,
black redhorse, rock bass, redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, bluegill, and smallmouth bass)
3-15
I

� I
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 3-9 and 3-10, 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 ranged from 1.10 to 1.21 for northern hog sucker with values being similar
in all river segments (Table 3-9). Rock bass mean K values ranged from 1.34 to 2.09 (Table
3-9), and increased sequentially from upstream to downstream:
Segment 1 - 1.34
Segment 2 - 1.65
Segment 3 - 1.95
Segment 4 - 2.09
Redbreast sunfish mean K values ranged from 1.71 to 2.05 and also generally increased from
upstream to downstream:
Segment 1 - 1.71
Segment 2 - 1.85
- Segment 3 - 2.05
Segment 4 - 1.97
-` The mean K value (0.86) for black redhorse in Segment 1 upstream of the mill was noticeably
lower than in the three segments downstream of the mill (range = 1.09 to 1.15). Means were
similar among the three downstream segments.
—I Common carp were collected only from Segments 2 and 3 and had similar K factors in each
segment: 1.36 Segment 2; 1.42 Segment 3
Like carp, green sunfish were collected only from the middle two segments; the mean K value
for Segment 2 (2.09) was somewhat higher than the mean for Segment 3 (1.79) (Table 3-9).
Bluegill were common only in Segment 3 where they had the lowest mean K value (2.00)
(Table 3-9). Smallmouth bass were collected in all four segments but were common only in
the Tennessee portion of the study area (i.e., Segment 4). Mean smallmouth bass K values
were 1.35 in Segments 1 and 4 and slightly lower (1.10-1.17) in Segments 2 and 3,
^j respectively. The slightly lower mean values in Segments 2 and 3 may be an artifact
associated with small sample sizes in these two segments. Of the four species represented by 4
or more individuals in each segment, three (black redhorse, rock bass, and redbreast sunfish)
had higher mean K values downstream of the Canton mill, and the fourth species (northern
hog sucker) had similar K values throughout the study area. Thus, all available information
indicates that the condition of fish downstream of the mill is comparable to or better than that
of fish upstream of the mill.
r, 3-16
I '

TABLE 3-9. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL - 1995 PIGEON RIVER SYNOPTIC SURVEY - FISH STUDY
COMPARISON OF CONDITION FACTOR (KITL)) STATISTICS AMONG AREAS FOR SELECTED SPECIES WEIGHING GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 20 GRAMS
UPSTREAM MILL TO RICHLAND CRK. RICHLAND CRK. TO WATERVILLE L. DOWNSTREAM WATERVILLE L.
(SEGMENT 1) (SEGMENT 2) (SEGMENT 3) (SEGMENT 4)
_N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ _N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ _N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ _N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_
SPECIES
COMMON CARP -- -- -- -- 37 1.36 1-.16 1.61 37 1.42 1.14 1.79 -- -- -- --
NORTHERN HOG SUCKER 12 1.18 1.02 1.46 38 1.10 0.94 1.34 76 1.15 0.82 2.26 18 1.21 1.06 1.46
BLACK REDHORSE 7 0.86 0.79 0.94 5 1.11 1.06 1.13 4 1.09 1.01 1.20 7 1.15 1.02 1.26
ROCK BASS 25 1.34 1.02 2.02 17 1.65 1.28 1.89 9 1.95 1.73 2.12 8 2.09 1.71 2.46
REDBREAST SUNFISH 26 1.71 1.45 2.13 85 1.85 1.50 2.40 91 2.05 1.53 2.61 17 1.97 1.73 2.34
GREEN SUNFISH -- -- -- -- 20 2.09 1.68 2.66 6 1.79 1.35 2.18 -- -- -- --
BLUEGILL -- -- -- -- 3 2.43 2.20 2.65 20 2.00 1.49 2.67 7 2.26 1.91 2.66
SMALLMOUTH BASS 2 1.35 1.22 1.47 5 1.10 0.78 1.36 6 1.17 0.79 1.55 30 1.35 1.05 1.60
W
J

TABLE 3-10. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL - 1995 PIGEON RIVER SYNOPTIC SURVEY - 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.
(SEGMENT 1) (SEGMENT 2) (SEGMENT 3) (SEGMENT 4)
_N__MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ _N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ _N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_ _N_ _MEAN_ _MIN_ _MAX_
SPECIES
COMMON CARP -- -- -- -- 37 84.9 74.7 100.3 37 89.1 72.8 114.0 -- -- -- --
ROCK BASS 25 67.3 50.4 104.5 17 83.6 66.0 97.1 8 97.0 88.1 103.9 8 105.4 85.2 125.2
REDBREAST SUNFISH` 29 97.3 79.7 122.7 93 104.8 67.3 138.7 95 117.5 76.5 150.9 17 113.6 100.0 135.4
GREEN SUNFISH -- --- -- -- 20 103.4 82.4 131.7 8 85.2 50.4 105.7 -- -- -- --
BLUEGILL -- -- -- -- 3 114.6 107.7 121.3 22 92.1 67.8 125.9 7 107.3 97.1 123.2
SMALLMOUTH BASS 2 96.6 88.2 105.0 5 78.7 55.6 97.0 5 89.2 56.3 111.1 25 95.7 75.2 111.6
'Texas Ws equation (Childress 1991); assuned minimum length of 80 mm.
w
.L.
00

i
The coefficients of condition (K) for selected Pigeon River species (Table 3-9) were compared
- with the published data of 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 (1.36-1.42) Mean=1.39 R=1.11-2.02
N. hog sucker Range of means (1.10-1.21 Mean=1.05 R=0.86-1.30
Black redhorse Range of means (0.86-1.15) - -
Rock bass Range of means (1.34-2.09) Mean=1.29 R=1.20-1.49
Redbreast sunfish Range of means (1.71-2.05) Mean=2.20 -
Green sunfish Range of means (1.79-2.09) Mean=1.87 R=1.68-2.02
Bluegill Range of means (2.00-2.43) Mean=2.27 R=0.91-3.05
Smallmouth bass Range of means (1.10-1.35) 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 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 3-10) and values in both
segments were lower than the target value of 100. Conversely, W,values for redbreast sunfish
were near or above 100 in all segments with the highest values occurring in Segments 3 and 4
(Table 3-10). W,values for rock bass were well below 100 in Segment 1 upstream of the
mill, with scores increasing sequentially in each succeeding downstream segment (Table 3-10).
For both green sunfish and bluegill, the lowest W,values occurred in Segment 3. Smallmouth
bass had mean W,values below 100 in all segments with particularly low values noted in
Segment 2. However, sample size was small in Segments 1-3 and the lower values within
these segments may be an artifact associated with this small sample size. In general, the
spatial pattern in W,values was similar to that seen for the K values (Table 3-9).
Summaq
K values and W,values for fishes from the Pigeon River were within expected ranges for this
area. Furthermore, K and W,values were typically higher (i.e., better) downstream of the
mill.
I`
r 3-19
I

3.3 BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
The biotic conditon 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,
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 (Table C-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. Total score integrity class ranges are listed in Table C-1. Scoring followed
guidelines established by DEHNR (1995) (Table C-2). 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 (200-300m) were sampled with the pram electrofisher, while the
boat covered a broader range of distances (100-500m). To standardize catch rates better, only
the pram electrofishing data were used to score Metric 2, number of individuals. 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.
The NCIBI results for Pigeon River fisheries sites are presented in Figure 3-2, the score for
each NCIBI metric is presented in Table 3-11. The station upstream of Canton ranked
good/excellent. Of the 9 downstream stations, two ranked fair, three ranked fair/good, three
-- ranked good, and the most downstream station (RM 19.3) ranked good/excellent (Figure 3-2).
In fact, NCIBI scores at the most upstream and most downstream stations were identical (54 at
each). Note that although RM 64.5 and RM 19.3 had identical NCIBI scores (Table 3-11) the
fish community at each was very different (Table 3-2). For example, both had good
representation by darters, both in terms of kinds and numbers, yet there was almost no overlap
in the darter species present at the two locations (Table 3-2). Although there was a decline
between RM 64.5 and RM 63, it was fairly small (8 IBI units) and as discussed later, it may
have been due to the change from a coolwater to warm water community or from passage
through an urbanized area with associated development, runoff, etc. Also, it should be noted
that sites with scores that differ by s8 IBI units are often statistically indistinguishable (i.e.,
differences of s8 may be due to random chance) (Fore and Karr 1994). The largest drop (10
IBI units) occurred between RM 55.5 and 54.5 (Figure 3-2). Richland Creek and effluent
from the Waynesville WWTP enter the river between these two stations and it is likely that
one or the other, or both, contributed to the decline seen at RM 54.5. A small decline (6113I
units) was noted between RM 48.2 and 42.6 (Figure 3-2). Even if this decline is real, it quite
possibly is the result of water being backed up from Waterville Lake rather than from any
water quality problem. On the date RM 42.6 was sampled, much of the riffle habitat at this
station was innundated, which reduced sampling effectiveness, especially for the pram
electrofisher, which in turn may have artificially depressed IBI scores.
3-20

FIGURE 3-2 . COMPARISON OF IBI SCORES IN THE MAINSTEM PIGEON RIVER BETWEEN 1987 AND 1995.
60
EXCELLENT
55
GOOD•EXCELLENT
50 GOOD
45 FAIR-GOOD
FAIR
40
POOR-FAIR
35
w
02
U 30 POOR
W U)
N m
25 VERY POOR-POOR
20 '
VERY POOR
15 ,
10 CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN CRK. WALTERS DAM CPBL HYDRO
MILL CRK. WWTP DISCHARGE
5
� i FrTTTTT-M -rTTTTTTT _FrTTT_m 1111111111111
64.5 59 54.5 48.2 24.9
63 55.5 52.3 42.6 19.3
RIVER MILE
�- 1995 + 1987

Table 3-11 Measured values and associated IBI metric scores (in parenthesis) for Pigeon River mainstem and tributary locations,
August/September 1995,
Pieeon River Mainstem Tributaries
Richland Jonathan Fines
Metric 0.1 63_ 59_ 551 5A,1 4.$,Z 42.f 2M 1m S. rA C.�k cmk
No. of Species 18(5) 12(3) 16 (3) 17(5) 14(3) 15(3) 16(3) 14(3) 15 (3) 23 (5) 11 (3) 14(3) 6(1)
No. of Individuals 584 (5) 144(1) 354(3) 362(3) 308 (3) 377(3) 283 (3) 157(1) 288(3) 745(5) 98(1) 455 (5) 144(1)
(shock only)
No.of Darter spp. 3 (5) 1 (3) 0(1) 1 (3) 0 (1) 0(1) 1 (3) 0 (1) 3 (5) 4(5) 0(1) 2(3) 1 (3)
No.of Sunfish +
Salmonid spp. 3 (5) 3 (5) 5 (5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 3 (5) 4(5) 4 (5) 4 (5) 4(5) 1 (3)
No. of Sucker spp. 2(5) 2(5) 1(3) 2 (5) 2(5) 3 (5) 3 (5) 2(5) 1 (3) 3 (5) 1 (3) 4(5) 2(5)
to
N No. of Intolerant spp. 2(3) 1 (3) 0(1) 1 (3) 1 (1) 0 (1) 0(1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1 (3) 0(1) 1 (3) 1 (3)
Percent Tolerant Fish 0.2(5) 13.1 (5) 6.8 (5) 11.0 (5) 11.0(5) 4.5(5) 9.2(5) 0.6 (5) O(S) 0(5) 6.1 (5) 0(5) 0(5)
Percent Omnivores 24.6(3) 6.3(5) 11.3 (5) 11.6(5) 11.0 (5) 7.4(5) 7.4 (5) 1.9(5) O(S) 0.3 (5) 2.0 (5) 4.4(5) 2.8 (5)
Percent Insectivores 14.5 79.9 (3) 59.6(3) 78.5(3) 69.8 (3) 65.8 (3) 74.9 (3) 84.1 (5) 51.7(3) 35.7(1) 80.6 (5) 71.0(3) 73.6(3)
(or % Specialized '
Insectivores) 47.4(3) 0.7 1.7 0.3 0 0 0.4 0 19.8 19.3 0 5.1 1.4
No. of Piscivorous spp. 3 (5) 3 (5) 4 (5) 4(5) 5 (5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4 (5) 2(5) 2(5) 0(1)
% Diseased O(S) 2.7(3) 0(5) O(S) 5.2(1) 1.1 (5) 1.4 (5) 2.5 (3) 0.7(5) 0.1 (5) 0 (5) 0.7(5) 0(5)
% of Species with
multiple age classes 67 (5) 50 (5) 69 (5) 47 (5) 71 (5) 60(5) 44 (5) 36(3) 67(5) 57(5) 36 (3) 57 (5) 50(5)
Total IBI Score 54 46 44 52 42 46 48 42 48 54 42 52 40
Integrity Class Good/ Fair/ Fair Good Fair Fair/ Goad Fair Good Good/ Fair Good Fair
Excellent Good Good Excellent

In the tributaries, Jonathan Creek rated much better than Fines Creek or Richland Creek
(Table 3-11). Jonathan Creek rated good, only two points below the good/excellent category.
No impacts from the Maggie Valley WWTP located further upstream were apparent. Fines
Creek rated only fair (score of 40 IBI units). However, its score probably underestimated the
quality of the fish community. The cool water temperatures, high gradients, and considerable
amounts of bedrock probably effectively limit how well this stream will score. Thus, we do
not believe the score of 40 for Fines Creek is indicative of real water quality and/or land use
problems in Fines Creek. Water temperatures in Richland Creek (26 C) were noticeably
warmer than at any other station sampled (19-22 Q. Siltation was also much heavier in
Richland Creek than any other location, as was turbidity and substrate embeddedness. These
-. factors probably explain the complete absence of darters in Richland Creek and the low variety
of minnow and sucker species. Richland Creek appears to have appreciable non-point source
problems, particularly erosion and sedimentation.
Summary
'- NCIBI scores downstream of the Canton mill ranged from 42 to 54, a range typical of what
would be expected for a Class C stream. The greatest decline occurred in the area
immediately downstream of Richland Creek and the discharge from the Waynesville WWTP.
Richland Creek also appeared to be impacted, possibly from non point source discharges.
3.4 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
late August and early September, 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 3-12. Examination of Table 3-12 indicates that seven of
the nine species shown were represented by a broad range of sizes. Common carp was
represented by medium and large individuals which is typical of the size distribution of this
species, for which YOYs and small juveniles are rarely collected. Black redhorse was also
represented by medium and large individuals. The apparent absence of small black redhorse is
probably related to the low number of black redhorse in the study area. In Segments 1, 2, and
3, the size distribution of most species was similar (Appendix C). However, small northern
hog suckers, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass were essentially absent in
Segment 4 downstream of the CP&L Hydro Plant. Conversely, YOY smallmouth bass were
3-23

TABLE 3-12. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL - 1995 PIGEON RIVER SYNOPTIC SURVEY - FISH STUDY
LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SPECIES COLLECTED FROM THE PIGEON RIVER
LENGTH NORTHERN HOG BLACK
(W) COMMON CARP SUCKER REDHORSE ROCK BASS
______ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
- 50-59 -- 1 -- 2
60-69 -- 1 -- --
70-79 -- 1 -- --
80-89 -- 2 -- 3
90-99 -- 1 -- 5
100-109 -- 7 -- 4
110-119 -- 2 -- 5
120-129 -- 3 -- 5
130-139 -- 1 -- 7
-- 140-149 -- -- -- 2
150-159 -- 1 -- 7
160-169 -- 3 -- 7
-' 170-179 -- 6 -- 10
180-189 -- 6 -- 3
190-199 -- 6 -- 4
+ 20D-209 -- 7 -- 3
210-219 -- 4 -- --
220-229 -- 9 -- 1
230-239 -- 6 -- --
�, 250-259 -- 7 -- --
260-269 -- 6 --
270-279 -- 10 -- --
280-289 -- 7 -- --
~' 290-299 -- 9 -- --
F 300-309 -- 16 -- --
310-319 -- 8 -- --
320-329 -- 10 -- --
-i 330-339 -- 5 -- --
340-349 -- 10 -- --
350-359 -- 3 1 --
360-369 -- 3 -- --
370-379 -- 1 1 --
^`� 380-389 1 -- -- --
390-399 2 -- 2 --
�� 400-409 2 -- 5 --
410-419 4 -- 2 --
420-429 5 -- -- --
430-439 5 -- 1 --
440-449 2 -- 2 --
450-459 2 -- 2 --
460-469 3 -- 4 --
- 470-479 4 -- 2 --
480-489 1 -- 1 --
490-499 6 -- -- --
-' 500-509 4 -- -- --
510-519 6 -- -- --
-� 520-529 3 -- - --
530-539 5 -- -- --
�, 540-549 5 -- -- --
550-559 2 -- -- --
560-569 4 -- -- --
570-579 3
580-589 1 -- -- --
590-599 -- -- --
600-609 2 -- -- --
610-619 -- -- -- --
620-629 -- -- -- --
630-639 -- -- -- --
640-649 -- -- -- --
650+ 2 -- --
TOTAL 74 168 23 68
i
J
-, 3-24

i
t_
TABLE 3-12 (CONT.)
LENGTH REDBREAST GREEN SMALLMOUTH LARGEMOUTH
(mm) SUNFISH SUNFISH BLUEGILL BASS BASS
______ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
<30 -- -- _-
30-39 -- -- 2 -- --
40-49 8 1 4 -- 2
50-59 4 -- 1 2 1
60-69 2 1 2 3 2
70-79 2 1 -- 1 5
80-89 5 -- -- 1 6
90-99 7 1 3 4 3
100-109 18 5 -- 1 1
110-119 8 4 3 -- 1
120-129 10 3 1 -- --
130-139 9 4 3 1 --
140-149 15 4 1 1 --
150-159 24 3 1 -- --
160-169 35 3 6 2 1
170-179 34 1 3 2 3
180-189 39 -- 3 3 3
190-199 18 -- 5 7 --
200-209 10 1 2 4 --
210-219 3 -- 1 4 1
220-229 -- -- 1 2 2
230-239 -- -- -- 3 1
240-249 -- -- -- 1 --
250-259 -- -- -- 2 --
260-269 -- -- -- 1 --
270-279 -- -- -- -- --
i 280-289 -- -- -- 2 --
-..' 290-299 -- -- -- 2 --
300-309 -- -- -- 1 --
- 'i 310-319 -- -- -- 1 --
320-329 -- -- -- 1 --
_ 330-339 -- -- -- 1 --
340-349 -- -- -- 1 1
350-359 -- -- -- -- 1
360-369 3
370-379 __
- 380-389 -- -- -- -- --
390-399 -- -- -- -- 1
400-409 -- -- -- -- 1
410-419 -- -- -- -- --
420-429 -- -- -- 1
430-439 -- -- -- -- 1
440-449 -- -- -- -- --
-� 450-459 -- -- -- -- --
460-469
470-479 -- -- -- -- 1
>479 -- -- -- -- --
TOTAL 251 32 42 55 41
f
- 3-25
I
L

noticeably 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 except RM 42.6 scored a 5 for this metric, the highest possible score.
This metric scored a 3 at RM 42.6. The lower score at RM 42.6 may have been related to the
backup of water from Walters Lake at this location, which made it difficult to collect YOY
fishes. -The fact that the maximum possible metric score was obtained at 9 of the 10 mainstem
locations indicates that reproduction throughout the portion of the Pigeon River studied is
good.
Among the tributaries, Jonathan Creek and Fines Creek both scored a 5 for the multiple age
class metric, while Richland Creek scored a 3. The less than optimal size structure of the fish
community in Richland Creek may be due to the considerable siltation in this stream discussed
earlier.
Summary
Numerous YOY fishes and a wide range of year classes were collected from the Pigeon River.
-I Nine of the 10 mainstem locations received the highest possible score for the NCIBI multiple
age class metric.
3.5 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 recently
j established by DEHNR (1995) (Appendix C.1). Habitat characteristics considered by the
I_ 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, Appendix C.1). The maximum score possible is 100.
Habitat scores at 9 of the 13 sampling stations including the upstream reference station were in
a fairly narrow range of 70-77 (Table 3-13). Scores were noticeably higher at Fines Creek
(84), RM 19.3 (85), and RM 59 (88), and noticeably lower (52) at RM 63. The high score at
RM 59 was the result of good scores for all metrics. Fines Creek and RM 19.3 scored higher
than average despite lower than average scores for the instream habitat metric (Table 3-13).
Station RM 19.3 received a perfect score for 7 of the 9 metrics.
3-26

Table 3-13 Summary of habitat assessment metric scores for the Pigeon River and three. tributaries August/Scplember 1995
RM
Characteristic tric) 44,5 ,53 52 55.5 54.5 52,a AU 42,6 24.2 JEJ Richland Ck Jonathan Ck Fines Ck
Channel 8 1 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 10
Instream Habitat 16 16 18 18 18 18 16 12 8 8 16 16 8
Pool Variety 10 8 10 10 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10
Riffle Habitat 8 7 10 5 3 6 10 8 10 10 8 10 10
Substrate 8 6 8 3 3 3 8 3 10 10 6 8 8
w Bank Stability 6 4 9 9 9 6 6 9 9 10 9 6 10
lJ
v
Bank Vegetation 7 6 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 8 10
Canopy 8 2 8 6 6 8 4 6 6 7 9 6 9
Riparian Zone Width 5 2 2 4 5 5 a 1Q 5 1Q 5 5 2
76 52 88 72 70 71 72 74 77 85 77 77 84

The low score at RM 63 was primarily the result of this station scoring the lowest of all
stations on four of the nine metrics (channel, bank stability, canopy, and riparian zone width)
(Table 3-13). The low channel score 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 3-13). All sites, except RM 63, scored from 8 to 10 on the
channel metric. Instream cover was 16-18 at most (9 of 13) stations, somewhat lower at RM
42.6, and noticeably lower at RM 24.9 and 19.3, and in Fines Creek. Riffle habitat was
similar at 11 or 13 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 55.5, 54.5, 52.3, and 42.6, which each scored only a 3 (Table 3-13). The
lower scores at these stations was due to more bedrock and more embeddedness at these
locations. Bank stability ranged from 6-10, except at RM 63 where a score of 4 occurred.
Canopy and riparian width scores were noticeably lower at RM 63 and 48.2 (Table 3-13).
I ,
Given the narrow range of scores, habitat would not be expected to be a limiting factor except
possibly at RM 63. The habitat score at this location was only 68% of the score at the
yo- reference site. We consider 68% 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 Fines Creek, and the lower than average score at RM 63 (Figure 3-3).
I
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.
Stations in Segment 2 and especially Segment 3 had lower scores for the substrate metric
because of a preponderance of bedrock in these segments.
3.6 FISH HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The health of individual fish was assessed by examining 8-20 redbreast sunfish from seven
locations along the mainstem Pigeon River. The Health Assessment Index (HAI) was
developed by Goede and Barton (1990) and modified by Adams et al. (1993). The HAI has 14
metrics or factors:
3-28
i

FIGURE 3-3 . COMPARISON OF HABITAT SCORES AMONG PIGEON RIVER MAINSTEM LOCATIONS, 1995.
90
85
80
75
W 70
O
U
W y
N F- 65
� a
m
a
= 60
55
50
CANTON RICHLAND WAYNESVILLE JONATHAN CRK. WALTERS DAM CP&L HYDRO
45 MILL CRK. WWTP DISCHARGE
i
4D
64.5 59 54.5 48.2 24.9
63 55.5 52.3 42.6 19.3
RIVER MILE

Spleen Thymus
Kidney Fins
Liver Hindgut
Eyes Skin
Gills Parasites
Pseudobranchs Hematocrit
Leukocrit Plasma protein
All the factors in the left hand column above are scored a 0 if the normal condition for that
area or organ is encountered or scored a 30 if any deviation from the normal condition is
noted. The factors in the right hand column are scored 0, 10, 20, or 30 depending on how far
from normal they deviate. Thus, a "perfect" fish would score a 0, while a fish theoretically
could receive a score of 420. Further details regarding the HAI are provided in Appendix
C.5. The scores for each fish at a station are tallied and an average score for the "population"
at that site is calculated. Comparisons can then be made among stations within the area being
studied or against "reference" areas outside the study area. Because the variability of the HAI
among watersheds or ecoregions is unknown, all comparisons in this study were made against
the average score for the reference station upstream of the mill (i.e., RM 64.5). Because of a
low head dam between the mill and RM 64.5, there should be little or no movement of fish
from the area downstream of the mill to RM 64.5. Finally, it should be noted that although
the HAI measures the "health" of individual fish, it does not measure impacts at the population
level. Thus, the HAI may indicate that some percentage of the fish (or even all the fish) in a
given population are "unhealthy", however, that population could be as numerous and well
balanced as one which was "healthier" as measured by the HAI. It also could produce as many
- catchable size fish as the healthier population.
During the current study, mean HAI scores for adult redbreast sunfish were distributed as
follows:
i
Mean
HAI
RM hi Score
64.5 15 40.0
63 15 37.3
59 15 42.9
55.5 20 37.0
54.5 20 33.0
— 42.6 10 47.0
19.3/24.9 8 50.5
Thus, scores (33-43) at four of the five North Carolina sites downstream of the mill were
comparable to the score (40) at the upstream reference station. The scores at RM 42.6 and at
19.3/24.9 were slightly higher (47-50) than at the reference station (40). In a previous study
of the Pigeon River, Adams et al. (1993) reported mean HAI scores of 60 and 51 for redbreast
3-30

sunfish collected at RM 59 and 21.7, respectively. The score of 51 at RM 21.7 reported by
Adams et al. is nearly identical to the score of 50.5 we found in this same segment of the
river. ,Adams' et al. score of 60 is higher than the score of 43 we report for the same location.
Adams et al. (1993) reported mean HAI scores of 21 and 35 at two reference stations located
well outside the Pigeon River drainage. Based on the lower scores at the external reference
stations, they concluded that the "high" scores in the Pigeon River were apparently due to the
effluent from the Canton mill. However, the data collected during the current study
demonstrate that HAI scores upstream and downstream of the mill are similar throughout the
10 mile segment from RM 54.5 to RM 64.5. Although scores at RM 42.6 and 19.3/24.9 are
somewhat elevated compared to the scores at the five stations further upstream, these slightly
elevated scores are not statistically significant and could be the result of numerous factors
other than the effluent from the Canton mill. Such other factors include effluent from the
Waynesville WWTP, contributions from Richland Creek, nonpoint source contributions, and
extreme flow fluctuations downstream of the CP&L Hydro Plant.
summary
-- HAI scores were similar upstream and downstream of the Canton mill, indicating a lack of
impacts to fish health by the Canton mill.
i
i-
L
3-31

I
I
4. DISCUSSION
- 4.1 FISH
4.1.1 Comparisons to Previous Studies
Within the last 10 years, fish studies of the Pigeon River mainstem have been conducted by
EA (1988), Saylor et al. (1993), and CP&L (1995). Studies of the tributaries have been
conducted by EA (1988) and DEHNR (unpublished data). The EA studies are briefly
summarized here and discussed in greater detail in the section that follows (4.1.2).
Of the 10 mainstem stations included as part of the current study, three stations have been
sampled previously, RM 64.5, 55.5, and 42.6. In all previous studies of the mainstem
upstream of Canton, IBI scores have been 50 or more except for the 1993 CP&L study (CP&L
1995) (Table 4-1). CP&L (1995) attributed their "low" score of 46 in 1993 to sampling gear
deficiencies. Thus, it is appropriate to characterize the fish community upstream of Canton as
consistently being good to excellent as measured by the IBI. The upstream area has
consistently produced 15-18 species, except during 1990 when 25 species were collected
(Saylor et al. 1993). Studies have been conducted at RM 42.6 on three occasions prior to
1995. In all three of the previous studies, IBI scores were in the poor range (30-32, Table 4-
1). However, in 1995, the IBI score increased by 10 units to 42 putting the site into the fair
range. There has been a similar improvement in species richness. In 1987 and 1993 only 7-8
species were collected at RM 42.6, whereas 14 species were collected in both 1994 and 1995
(Table 4-1). RM 55.5 has been studied only once previously, but the improvement since the
initial sampling has been dramatic. In 1990, Saylor et al. (1993) collected 12 species and
calculated an IBI of only 22 putting the area into the very poor range. In 1995, we collected
17 species and calculated an IBI of 52 putting the area into the good category. The dramatic
- improvement in IBI scores is the result of not only more species but also significant positive
shifts in community structure. For example, in 1990 53% of the fish collected were tolerant
species (carp, goldfish, and green sunfish) (Saylor et al. 1993) vs. only 11% in 1995. Other
major improvements to IBI metric scores from 1990 to 1995 were in the percent omnivore and
percent diseased metrics. In 1990, seven of the 12 metrics received the lowest possible score
(1) compared to 1995 when no metrics scored a 1. In summary, there has been an appreciable
improvement at one downstream station (RM 42.6) and a dramatic improvement at the other
mainstem station (RM 55.5) (Table 4-1).
Fines Creek has apparently not been sampled before. Jonathan Creek was sampled
downstream of Dellwood in 1963 by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (Messer 1964)
using the toxicant cresol. Messer (1964) reported collecting five minnow and darter species
plus northern hog sucker and unspecified redhorse. Messer (1964) indicated that the stream
was being degraded by instream sand and gravel operations upstream of his study area and
noted considerable silt deposition in some reaches. Jonathan Creek was sampled again in 1993
by DEHNR (unpublished data). The results in 1993 (DEHNR data) and 1995 (this study)
agree very well. IBI scores were 50 in 1993 vs. 52 in 1995. Metric scores were identical for
11 of the 12 IBI metrics. The only metric that differed was the Number of Individuals Metric
r
r- 4-1
6
G '
i

I -
Table 4-1. Comparison of IBI scores and species richness at several locations on the Pigeon
River, 1987-1995
RM_
64.5* 55.5 42.6
Species Species Species
y= Investigator MI Richness IBI Richness MI Richness
1995 This study 54 18 52 17 42 14
-- 1994 CP&L 1995 50 16 -- -- 32 14
1993 CP&L 1995 46 16 -- -- 30 8
1990 Saylor et al. 1993 58 25 22 12 -- --
1987 EA 1988 52 15 -- -- 32 7
*CP&L collections made at RM 65.5.
I.
-1
l
s,
9
4-2
u
i_

which improved from a 3 to a 5 due to higher catches in 1995. Ten of the 11 species collected
in 1993 were collected again in 1995. The only species reported in 1993 but not collected in
1995 was blacknose dace. In 1995, we found longnose dace to be abundant in Jonathan
Creek. We believe the specimens reported as blacknose dace in 1993 were actually longnose
dace. We collected three other species not reported in 1993, bringing the 1995 total to 14
species. Thus, the fish community in Jonathan Creek is currently good (IBI of 50-52) and
appears to be stable.
Prior to 1995, Richland Creek was sampled directly downstream of the Lake Junaluska dam in
1963 by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (Messer 1964) using the toxicant cresol.
Messer (1964) collected only four species; two minnow species (mainly whitetail shiner), one
hog sucker, and four bluegills. He also observed but did not collect two large carp. He noted
that "the stream is severely polluted by both industries and municipalities". More recently,
f� Richland Creek was surveyed in 1987 (EA 1988) at the same location sampled during the
present study and in 1992 (DEHNR unpublished data) at two locations upstream of Lake
Junaluska. In 1987, EA (1988) collected 12 species from lower Richland Creek distributed so
as to yield an IBI score of 48 (bioclassification of good) according to current protocols
I (DEHNR 1995). However, in 1995, the IBI score declined to 42 (bioclassification of fair).
The six point decline in 1995 was due to a much lower catch rate and a poorer age class
distribution (Tables 3-4 and 4-2). The areas upstream of Lake Junaluska sampled in 1992
yielded low numbers of species (5-6) and were classified as poor-fair by DEHNR. Therefore,
the data from Richland Creek indicates that the quality of the fish community in this stream
has declined since 1987. Although we can not be certain, this decline is likely related to the
considerable sedimentation now obvious in the stream.
4.1.2 Changes and Improvements to the Mainstem Pigeon Fish Community Since 1987
_ As discussed above, it appears that the quality of the fish community in one Pigeon River
tributary has remained good (i.e., Jonathan Creek), but has declined in another (i.e., Richland
Creek). However; despite mixed results for the tributaries, the picture in the mainstem is very
r clear... a dramatic improvement since 1987.
In 1963 the Pigeon River was severely polluted. Messer (1964) sampled the river near Clyde
and found no fish. Further downstream at the New Hepco bridge, Messer (1964) collected
one redbreast sunfish, one yellow perch, and eight white suckers. He also recorded dissolved
oxygen values well below saturation (4.0-4.8 mg/1 at 21-22C) and very low transparency
values (Secchi disk=l-2 inches). By 1987, when EA (1988) conducted the first synoptic
survey, the river downstream of Canton had improved greatly. Fish were present at all
downstream North Carolina stations sampled and the river met the appropriate use
classification (Class C) (EA 1988).
The improvements first documented in 1987 have continued so that eight years later in 1995
the river has markedly improved. The fish community upstream of the Canton mill continues
to be good to excellent (IBIs typically z 50, Table 4-1). Compositionally, this area has also
i remained constant over time. Numerically, minnows, darters, and sunfishes(rock bass and
4-3

Table 4-2 Measured values nd associated IRI metric scores (in parenthesis) for Pigeon River mainstem and tributary locations, July 1987.
Pigeon River Mainstem
Richland
Metric L4.5 -63- 59 52.E 4U AZJ6 242 11M Creek
No. of Species 15 (3) 8 (3) 8 (3) 8 (1) 4 (1) 7 (1) 13 (3) 12 (3) 12 (3)
No. of Individuals 753 (5) 37 (1) 138 (1) 21 (1) 6 (1) 54 (1) 98 (1) 266 (3) 566 (5)
No. of Darter spp. 3 (5) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 2 (3) 3 (5) 0 (1)
No. of Sunfish +
Salmonid spp. 2 (5) 4 (5) 3 (5) 3 (5) 1 (3) 3 (5) 4 (5) 2 (5) 4 (5)
No. of Sucker spp. 2 (5) 0 (1) 0 (1) 2 (5) 0 (1) 1 (3) 0 (1) 2 (5) 1 (3)
No. of Intolerant spp. 2 (3) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1)
Percent Tolerant Fish 0 (5) 5.4 (5) 2.9 (5) 9.5 (5) 66.7 (1) 9.3 (5) 1.0 (5) 0 (5) 2.5 (5)
Percent Omnivores 23.1 (3) 5.4 (5) 3.6 (5) 9.5 (5) 66.7 (1) 37.0 (3) 0 (5) 1.9 (5) 2.8 (5)
Percent Insectivores 11.4 78.3 (3) 94.2 (5) 85.7 (5) 33.3 (1) 61.1 (3) 37.8 (1) ' 22.6 (1) 93.4 (5)
(or % Specialized
Insectivores) 39.8 (3) 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 2.3 0
No. of Piscivorous spp. 2 (5) 2 (5) 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (1) 1 (3) 3 (5) 1 (3) 2 (5)
% Diseased 0.8 (5) 18.9 (1) 5.1 (1) 14.3 (1) 66.7 (1) 14.8 (1) 2.0 (3) 0.8 (5) 1.2 (5)
% of Species with
multiple age classes 80 (5) 62.5 (5) 37.5 (3) 37.5 (3) 25 (3) 57.1 (5) 53.8 (5) 41.7 (5) 50.0 (5)
Total IBI Score 52 36 34 36 16 32 38 46 48
Integrity Class Good Poor/Fair Poor Poor/Fair Very Poor Poor Poor/Fair Fair/Good Good

redbreast sunfish in particular) consistently account for the majority of specimens collected
from this area (EA 1988, Saylor et al. 1993, this study). In 1987, EA (1988) reported
Swannanoa darter (EthtQstg= swannanoa) as being common upstream of the mill. However,
based on a reexamination of a specimen preserved by previous EA investigators, our current
results, and those of others (Saylor et al. 1993), it is apparent that the specimens referred to in
the previous EA report as Swannanoa darter are actually the gutselli form of greenside darter.
Similarly, we believe that specimens from the upstream area identified in 1987 as banded
sculpin were actually mottled sculpin. When these adjustments in taxonomy are accounted for,
the results of the 1987 and 1995 studies at the upstream become very similar in terms of
relative abundance.
The area downstream of the mill in North Carolina (i.e., Segments 2 and 3) has improved
-" dramatically (Figure 3-2). Previously IBI scores in Segments 2 and 3 were generally in the
low to mid 30's, and only 16 at RM 48.2, which placed the NC portion of the mainstem into
the poor-fair (RM 63, 59, 52.3), very poor (RM 48.2) or poor (RM 42.6) categories (Figure
3-1 and Table 4-2). In 1995, all stations in Segments 2 and 3 were at least in the fair
category, some were in the fair/good category, and two stations (RM 55.5 and 48.2) were in
the good category (Figure 3-2 and Table 3-11). The higher IBI scores in 1995 are the result of
several factors:
(1) Higher Species Richness--mean species richness in Segments 2 and 3 more than
_ doubled between 1987 (7 species/loc) and 1995 (14.6 species/loc) (Tables 3-11 and
4-2).
(2) Higher Catch Rates--In 1987 only one station in Segments 2 and 3 yielded more
than 100 fish, whereas in 1995 all stations yielded more than 100 fish (Tables 3-11
and 4-2).
i
4 (3) More Sucker Species--In 1987, suckers were absent at three of the five stations in
Segments 2 and 3 and rare or uncommon at the other two stations. In 1995, two
or more sucker species were present at 6 of the 7 stations in Segments 2 and 3 and
northern hog sucker was common to abundant at all stations.
(4) Reduced Incidence of Disease--In 1987, the percentage of diseased fish in
Segments 2 and 3 ranged from 5 to 67 percent, whereas in 1995, the percentages
ranged from 0 to 5.2.
(5) Generally Improved Community--In 1995 there were more piscivorous and
insectivorous species and fewer tolerant and omnivorous species than in 1987, all
signs of a more balanced fish community.
Other indications of a much improved fish community in 1995 are more biomass and more
sportfish. For example, total biomass at the downstream sites (i.e., Segments 2, 3, and 4) in
1995 was approximately 10 fold higher than in 1987. Similarly, a greater variety of sportfish
was noted in 1995 and those that were present were much more common than in 1987. For
4-5

example, in 1987 smallmouth bass biomass for all locations downstream of the mill combined
was only about 0.1 kg compared to 11.0 kg in 1995, more than a 100 fold increase.
The sites in Tennessee (i.e., RM 24.9 and 19.3 in Segment 4) scored nearly as well (IBI=48-
54) as the upstream site(IBI=54) (Table 3-11). RM 19.3 yielded the highest biomass
(exclusive of carp) of any station and a good variety (9 species) of sport fish. Nearly 6 kg of
smallmouth bass were collected at RM 19.3 (Table 3-8).
In summary, regardless of the measure of comparison chosen (e.g., IBI, species richness,
biomass, sportfish abundance), it is clear that the Pigeon River downstream of the Canton mill
has improved substantially since 1987. Some stations (e.g., RM 55.5 and RM 19.3) now have
IBI scores that equal or closely approximate those upstream of the mill.
,i 4.1.3 Demonstration That Class C Use is Being Attained
The Pigeon River from the City of Canton water intake to the Tennessee border is classified as
a Class C stream. According to state water quality standards, designated uses for Class C
streams are: aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. From a fisheries perspective, aquatic life propagation,
survival, and maintenance of biological integrity are the most important criteria, since without
adequate numbers and kinds of fish, fishing potential will be limited at best. There is
abundant evidence that the criteria of fish propagation and maintenance of biological integrity
are being met in the Pigeon River:
(1) a wide variety (12-17 species) of fish species is present at all NC stations sampled
{ downstream of the mill.
-i (2) biomass and numbers of fish are moderate to high at all NC stations.
(3) propagation is clearly being achieved as demonstrated by:
I
a) young-of-the-year fish of many species being present
b) a wide variety of size(age) classes being present for most of the species
' encountered.
c) the multiple age class IBI metric scored a 5 (the maximum score possible) at
all but one of the downstream stations.
(4) survival and maintenance of biological integrity are clearly adequate for the reasons
listed as (1) and (2) above and for the following additional reasons:
a) IBI scores are in the fair to good range at all downstream stations.
b) 16 species of sportfish and 43 species total were documented from the
study area, most occurred downstream of the mill.
c) the community is not dominated by tolerant species (e.g., carp, goldfish, or
greenfish), which often is the case when the survival of more sensitive
4-6

species is reduced. In fact, every downstream site achieved the maximum
score for the IBI tolerant species metric (Table 3-11).
(5) at most sites there is a reasonably well balanced community, with low numbers of
omnivores and good numbers of insectivores and piscivores.
The recreational use of the area is demonstrated by observation of fishermen at some locations
(e.g., near the mouth of Richland Creek) and evidence of regular use (pathways to the river,
forked sticks in the bank, bobbers, lures, and lines snagged in trees) in portions of the study
area.
4.1.4 Factors Affecting the Distribution of Fishes in the Pigeon River
Historically, the mainstem Pigeon River downstream of Canton supported only a very poor
fish community (Messer 1964). By 1987, that community, though still somewhat depressed,
had improved considerably and its quality was consistent with the river's Class C designation
(EA 1988). As documented in Section 3, the fish community downstream of Canton has
continued to improve. Despite the continued and substantial,improvement in these
downstream segments, there still is a slight decline immediately downstream of the mill and,
on average, IBI scores in Segments 2 and 3 are slightly lower than at the upstream reference
- site.
Based on demonstrated improvement in the river, it is appropriate to ask whether the slight
declines still present are attributable to elevated color levels from the Canton mill; if not, what
other factors play a role, and would further reductions in color produce significant
improvements to the downstream fish community? Previously, it was demonstrated that color
was not a major factor holding back the aquatic communities of the Pigeon River (EA 1988).
Since then further color reductions have been accomplished by the Canton mill. Given the
lack of impacts to primary producers demonstrated previously (EA 1988) and the reductions in
color that have taken place since that time, we conclude that current color levels in the Pigeon
River do not adversely affect the fish community of the Pigeon. Thus, further reductions in
i
color are not expected to improve the fish community.
If color is not the factor driving the current patterns of fish distribution and abundance in the
river, what factors are responsible? We believe one or a combination of the following factors
are affecting the Pigeon River fish community:
(1) Other point source dischargers,
(2) Non point source contributions,
(3) Habitat, and
(4) Water level fluctuations.
Other Point Source Dischargers
Other direct dischargers to the Pigeon River include the Clyde WWTP and the Waynesville
WWTP. Other dischargers can affect the Pigeon River via discharges to Jonathan Creek (e.g.,
4-7
I ',

Maggie Valley WWTP), or Richland Creek (e.g., dischargers in Waynesville, Lake
Junaluska). The significant decline in IBI scores at RM 54.5, immediately downstream of the
Waynesville WWTP effluent and the confluence with Richland Creek suggests that one or the
other (or both) of these contributes to the poorer fish community at RM 54.5. In addition to
lower IBI scores, other indicators of problems at this location are the highest incidence of
diseased fish at any location (Table 3-11) and higher than average catches of tolerant fishes
like goldfish and white sucker (Table 3-2). In fact, the spatial pattern depicted in Figure 3-2
suggests that the Pigeon River at RM 55.5 just upstream of the Richland Creek confluence and
the Waynesville WWTP effluent had attained an IBI level almost comparable to that at the
upstream reference station. However, this improvement was offset by the significant decline
that occurred at RM 54.5 (see Figure 3-2, p. 3-21).
Non Point Sources
Much of the Pigeon River watershed, including areas upstream of the mill, is intensively
farmed. Major agricultural uses include row crops, vegetable farming, and cattle, Some dairy;
and hog farming. Such uses contribute to increased erosion, runoff, and sedimentation as well
as higher nutrient level. Cattle were observed in the river at three stations in Segments 2 and 3
(RM 59, 52.3, and 48.2). Non-point source problems such as these have previously been
identified as problems in the Pigeon River watershed (Messer 1964, EA 1988, DEHNR 1995).
Another non point source factor is urbanization. Urbanized areas such as Canton typically
cause some decline in the aquatic community (Yoder and Rankin 1995). This "urban impact"
is the result of intensive land use for industry, roads, parking lots, etc. Combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) are typically also a problem in urban areas and often there are "minor"
discharges (regulated or not) that cumulatively impact the receiving stream. Thus, even in the
absence of point source discharges, passage through an urban area almost always results in a
decline in stream quality due to increased runoff, CSOs, and nutrient inputs (Yoder and
Rankin 1995). Therefore, some change in the character to the Pigeon River as it passes
through Canton is to be expected regardless of Champion International's effluent.
Habitat
Habitat as it is used in this section encompasses not only instream structure and cover (e.g.,
substrate, aquatic vegetation, woody debris), but also the thermal regime (e.g., warm vs. cool
vs. cold water) and biogeographic considerations. The Pigeon River spans two physiographic
regions, the extremely mountainous Blue Ridge province, which contains the highest peaks in
the U.S. east of the Mississippi River and the Ridge and Valley Province (Menhinick 1991,
Etnier and Starnes 1993). Because of their higher elevation and gradient, and greater
percentage of groundwater flow, Blue Ridge streams have a characteristic fauna dominated by
coolwater species. Species typical of the Blue Ridge include brook, brown, and rainbow trout;
minnows such as saffron shiner and mirror shiner, and darters such as greenfin, Swannanoa,
and the g , selli form of greenside darter. Ridge and Valley streams tend to be somewhat
lower gradient and definitely warmer. Thus, differences between the upper and lower portions
of the Pigeon River are to be expected. Furthermore, the upper Pigeon River fish community
is naturally depauperate. Species that are widely distributed in the upper portions of the
4-8
(

French Broad drainage and often elsewhere in the mountain ecoregion of North Carolina, but
absent from the Pigeon River, include the following species (Menhinick 1991):
Minnows Darters
Blotched chub F_rim;s ax inslgnis Redline darter Etheostoma rufilinealum
Bigeye chub Hv�amblops Swannanoa darter E. swannanoa
Telescope shiner NotToois telescopus Banded darter E. zonalc
Fadips minnow Phenacobius rassi� Gilt darter Percina evides
Creek chub Sem4filus atromaculatus
Regardless of any past impacts from the Canton mill, the Pigeon River upstream of the mill
could support any or all of these species since they occupy similar size streams in adjacent
mountain watersheds. Although the reason so many of these species are naturally absent from
the Pigeon River cannot be ascertained with certainty, it seems likely that the gorge area from
` Hepco to approximately the Tennessee border probably acted as a major faunal barrier.
With the Waterville Lake dam making upstream movement impossible, emigration from
downstream areas is not possible. Thus, any changes in the fauna in Segments 2 and 3 will
necessarily be limited to :
r
(1) downstream movement from Segment 1,
(2) upstream movement from Waterville Lake,
(3) movement from the tributaries into the mainstem.
As discussed previously, many of the species in Segment 1 are coolwater Blue Ridge species
and therefore are not likely to prosper in Segments 2 and 3 which are warmer naturally due to
larger stream size, lower gradients, and little or no canopy, and due to inputs of warmer water
from various treatment plants and Richland Creek.
Since most of the fish in Waterville lake are lentic species (e.g., black crappie, largemouth
bass, bluegill, etc.) their ability to successfully colonize the Pigeon River mainstem will also
be limited. The larger tributaries (mainly Jonathan Creek) contain a few riverine species that
currently occur in the Pigeon River only in limited numbers (e.g., black redhorse). Thus,
large tributaries like Jonathan Creek can contribute to faunal diversity in the Pigeon River. In
reality, however, except for some of the coolwater Blue Ridge species whose distribution and
abundance is temperature limited, all the other species present in Segment 1 were collected in
Segments 2 and 3, though sometimes in reduced numbers. Thus, we do not expect appreciable
changes in species richness in Segments 2 and 3 in the future. However, changes in absolute
and relative abundance probably will occur. Species whose abundance is likely to increase in
Segments 2 and 3 are black redhorse, rock bass, smallmouth bass, river chub, and warpaint
shiner. Goldfish is the only species in Segments 2 and 3 whose abundance is likely to
decrease.
A final habitat variable likely to continue to limit faunal diversity and the abundance of certain
' species in the Pigeon River is the amount of bedrock. Although bedrock is present in
4-9

Segments 1 and 2, it is not the dominant substrate in these segments. However, it is the
dominant substrate in Segment 3. Because of its homogenous nature, bedrock is not as good
as substrate for fish as hard substrates that are variable in size (e.g., a mixture of gravel,
cobble, and boulder) (Rankin 1989, DEHNR 1995). Because of the dominance of bedrock, it
is unlikely that the fish community in Segment 3 would ever achieve IBI scores equivalent to
those in Segments 1 or 4.
In summary, further reductions in color levels from the Canton mill are not likely to result in
significant improvements to the fish community in Segments 2 and 3 because:
(1) primary productivity is not affected adversely by current color levels, and
(2) the fish community in Segments 2 and 3 is limited by:
a) impacts occurring downstream of the Waynesville WWTP and the confluence
' with Richland Creek
b) lack of habitat diversity in Segment 3
c) agricultural and other land use practices in the area
_ d) effects of urbanization from the Canton area (e.g., increased runoff)
e) water temperatures that are too warm for some Blue Ridge fishes
i
- Water Level Fluctuations
When the CP&L Walters Hydroelectric Plant generates power, water levels in Segment 4 (RM
24.7 and 19.3) typically increase by about 2 ft in a matter of minutes. The greatly increased
flows result in much higher velocities and scouring of the substrate. Although a variety of
adverse effects is possible (e.g., dewatering of spawning beds, stranding of fish), the extent to
which these adverse effects occur and the degree to which they affect fish populations is
unknown. The high IBI score at RM 19.3 suggests that these impacts may not be severe at this
station. However, the lower score at RM 24.7 where scouring was more evident may be a
result of the level and flow fluctuations at this site, which is closer to the hydroelectric plant.
We noted that although some species were well represented by YOYs (e.g., smallmouth bass),
YOYs of other species (e.g., redbreast sunfish) were conspicuously absent. Thus, it is
possible that some species can not spawn successfully under rapidly changing flow conditions
such as these. Their presence as adults may be the result of"washout" from tributaries or the
— bypassed reach of the mainstem, or from upstream migration from the French Broad River.
I
� I
4-10

5. REFERENCES
Adams, S.M., A. Brown, and R. Goede. 1993. A quantitative health assessment index for
rapid evaluation of fish condition in the field. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 122:63-73.
Anderson, R.O. and S.J. Gutreuter. 1983. Length, weight, and associated structural indices.
Pages 283300. In (Nielsen, L.A. and D.L. Johnson, eds.) Fisheries Techniques.
Southern Printing Company, Inc., Blacksburg, Virginia.
1
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, Vol. 1. Life history data on
freshwater fish of the United States and Canada, exclusive of the Perciformes. Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 752 p.
1977. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Vol. 2. Life history data
on Centrarchid fishes of the United States and Canada. Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa. 431 p.
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
j Power and Light, Raleigh, NC.
i
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.
Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tenn Press.
Knoxville, 681 p.
Everhart, W.H., A.W. Eipper, and W.D. Youngs. 1975. Principles of fishery science.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 288 p.
' Fore, L.S. and J.B. Karr. 1994. Statistical properties of an Index of Biotic Integrity used to
evaluate water resources. Can. J. Aquatic Sci. 5:1077-1087.
i
- Goede, R.W. 1993. Fish health/condition assessment procedures. Part I. Utah Div.
_ Wildlife Resources. Logan, UT.
i
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.
C 8:93-108.
Karr, J., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant,.and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv.
Spec. Publ. 5. Champaign, IL.
5-1

Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater'fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar Company.
Charlotte, NC.-
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). 1995.
Standard operating procedures for biological monitoring. January 1995. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 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.
Page, L.M. 1983. Handbook of darters. TFH Publications, Inc. Neptune City, New Jersey.
� I
Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and
applications. OEPA, Div. Water Quality Planning and Assess., Ecological Assess.
Sect., Columbus, OH.
it
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 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. Lewis Publishers.
Boca Raton, FL.
Southerland, M.T. and J.B. 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. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.
Wege, G.J. and R.O. Anderson. 1918. 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.
5-2

J
Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological response signatures and the area of
degradation value: New tools for interpreting multimetric data. pp. 263-286 in
Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision
maldng. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.
i
li
i
it
i
5-3

I
APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL METHODS AND RAW DATA
In the following sections, the methods utilized for habitat assessment (Section C.1), periphyton
community analyses (Section C.2), benthic community analyses (Section C.3), fisheries
community analyses (Section C.4), and fish health (Section C.5) are presented.
C.1 METHODS FOR HABITAT ASSESSMENT
During the field studies, the habitat at each station was evaluated using procedures recently
developed by DEHNR (1995). Parameters considered as part of the DEHNR procedure are
channel characteristics, instream habitat/cover, pool variety, riffle quality, substrate, bank
stability, bank vegetation, and riparian zone (vegetation) quality and quantity (Exhibit 1).
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
r
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.
_I The station is then classified as to its similarity to expected conditions as represented by the
reference station, and whether the habitat is supporting of an acceptable level of biological
health. Criteria used previously (EA 1988) are presented below:
Assessment Cateeory Percent of Comparability
Comparable to Reference z 90%
Supporting 75-89
Partially Supporting 60-74
Non-Supporting s 59
CA FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS FOR MEASURING FISH COMMUNITY
HEALTH
C-1

Fish surveys were conducted at 13 locations in the Pigeon River drainage on 22-26 August and
6-9 September 1995 (Figure 2-1). Collections sites included 10 Pigeon River mainstem
stations (eight in North Carolina and two in Tennessee) and three tributary stations (Richland
Creek, Fines Creek, and Jonathan Creek). DEHNR currently does not have standardized fish
sampling methods for non-wadable streams (DEHNR 1995). 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 41n deep), backpack electrofishers alone are not adequate to sample the
complete fish community. To adequately sample the fish community, an approach similar to
that used on the Pigeon River by Saylor et al. (1993) was followed. Saylor et al. (1993) used
an electrofishing boat to sample deeper runs and pools. For such areas during the current
study, we used a 12' long boat powered by a 4000 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. During the current study, such areas were sampled using a
Coeffelt VVP-2C electroshocker mounted in a towed pram. This unit uses a 1500-1800 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 (Ohio EPA 1989). At suitable
locations, the boat and pram collections were supplemented by seining; a method also used by
Saylor et al. (1993). At each location, all microhabitats were sampled until the crew leader
felt the area had been thoroughly sampled and all species had been collected.
The pram electrofisher was used at all 13 sampling locations. Because of their smaller size,
this was the only gear used at the three tributary locations. In the tributaries, a standard
distance of 200m was electrofished with the pram as recommended by DEHNR (1995). Boat
electrofishing was done at all mainstem locations except at RM 63. The straight shoreline and
relatively shallow water at this location made the use of the boat unnecessary. Haul and/or
Rick seining was conducted at Locations RM 64.5, RM 52.3, and RM 19.3. These were the
areas containing the most sand and smooth gravel where seining would be most effective. At
each location, all microhabitats were sampled so as to maximize the likelihood that all species
present would be captured. Sampling continued until the point of diminishing returns occurred
with respect to new species being collected. Typically, sampling continued for at least 10
minutes after the last new species was encountered.
Captured fishes were held in water-filled tubs until sampling was completed. All specimens
were identified. Sportfish and large nonsport fish were measured (total length) and weighed,
up to 20 or 30 of each species per location. Length ranges and/or life stages were noted for
nonsport 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 species level. However, two subspecies of greenside darter
(Etheostoma blennioides gutselli and Etheostoma h. newmannii) were differentiated on any
greenside darters brought back to the lab. The two subspecies were treated as a single taxon
when calculating IBI metrics.
Fisheries data were tabulated to examine individual fish community attributes (i.e., abundance,
C-2
sJ

distribution, species richness) and species-specific parameters (i.e., coefficients of condition,
evidence of reproduction).
I '
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 1 a-b
where:
- PSc = percent similarity
a-b = absolute value of the difference between the percentage
of a species in samples A and B
j Values may range from 0 (no similarity) to 100 (identical communiites).
The condition of larger species collected was described by calculating the coefficient of
_.I condition (K) (Carlander 1969) using the formula:
—'� K = s
TL3
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/W, x 100
where W is the measured weight and W. 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:
log,,Ws = a + (b x logo total length)
where a and b ideally account for genetically determined shape characteristics of a species and
r yield W,values of 100 at particular times of the year for fish that have been well fed
li
C_3

(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 surveyed length 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 (DEHNR 1995).
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 (DEHNR 1995).
• Number of Species (Metric 1) and Number of Individuals (Metric 2): The total number
r 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 standardize
comparisons among stations, only the pram data 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 then expected darter species
can indicate that some habitat degradation is occurring. This metric includes all species
of the tribe Etheosomatini.
• Number of Sunfish and Salmonid (Trout)1Sp=ies (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 I&Wmis, Enneacanthus, AA antharchus,
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,
C-4
L

which may be harmed by sediment contamination. This metric includes all members of
the family Catostomidae.
• Number of Intolerant SpNies (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
all intolerant species in the sample as 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 provides 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 few 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
(use whichever gives the higher score). These metrics are determined from trophic
types established by NC and are determined from 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
j 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
-I 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.
NCIBI scores and integrity classes established by the state are presented in Table C-1. Table
C-2 presents how the scores are modified for each drainage.
C.5 FISH HEALTH
C-5

To further assess the "health" of fishes in the Pigeon River, redbreast sunfish from seven
mainstem locations were evaluated using the Health Assessment Index (HAI) developed by
Goede and Barton (1990) as modified by Adams et al. (1993). The HAI consists of 14
variables (Table C-3) that can be grouped into the following categories: (1) three blood
parameters (hematocrit, leukocrit, and plasma protein); (2) percentage of fish with normal and
abnormal eyes, gills, pseudobranchs, spleens, kidneys, and livers; and (3) index values of
damage to skin, fins, thymus, and hindgut inflammation, and degree of parasitic infestation.
For half'(7) the variables, a score of zero is assigned if the variable falls within the normal or
expected range for that variable, and a score of 30 is assigned if it falls outside the expected
range (Table C-3). For the other 7 variables, scores of 0, 10, 20, or 30 are assigned
depending on the degree to which the variable deviates from the expected range. Thus, a fish
that was normal for all 14 variables would score a zero and a fish that deviated strongly from
the expected range for all variables would score 420. Studies by Adams et al. (1993) indicate
that mean scores in reference rivers and reservoirs are well above zero implying that even in
the best areas some percentage of the individuals are "unhealthy". These same studies also
indicate that scores at reference sites differ appreciably indicating that it is inappropriate to
r compare scores in a potentially affected area with scores from a reference site in a different
drainage. Thus, we determined that it was most appropriate to compare scores at sites on the
Pigeon River downstream of the Canton mill with the score at a site upstream of the mill
rather than against an arbitrarily selected external "reference area. Locations selected for
study were:
RM Description and Rationale
64.5 Reference station upstream of Canton mill
63 immediately downstream of Canton mill
59 downstream of the Canton mill but upstream
of the Clyde WWTP; same area as sampled
- by Adams et al. (1993)
55.5 downstream of the Clyde WWTP, but upstream
of Richland Creek and the Waynesville WWTP
54.5 downstream of Richland Creek and Waynesville
WWTP
42.6 New Hepco bridge; area influenced by backup
from Waterville Walters Lake
19.3/24.9 downstream Waterville Waltms Lake and CP&L
Hydro Plant; fish from two areas combined;
j location sampled by Adams et al. (1993) was at
RM 21.7
An attempt was made to collect 15-20 adult redbreast sunfish from each location. However,
only 10 redbreast sunfish could be collected at RM 42.6 and only 8 redbreast were collected
from RM 24.7 and 19.3 combined.
To avoid overcrowding and stress, specimens collected at each location were transferred from
the standard electrofishing holding tub to an aerated container on shore. Examination and
c-6

evaluation procedures followed those described by Goede (1993) and Adams et al. (1993).
Many of the 14 variables require subjective determinations. For example, is the kidney
normal or "swollen"?, is the liver normal or discolored?, do the fins have light, moderate,
severe, or no erosion?, etc. To reduce variability associated with subjective interpretations
such as these, the same individual did the scoring at all sites.
Ik
�t
C-7

Table C-1 NCIRT Scores and Integrity .lasses (from N DEHNR 1995)
Excellent 58-60
_ Good-Excellent 53-57
a Good 48-52
Fair-Good 45-47
Fair 40-44
Poor-Fair 35-39
i Poor 28-34
Very Poor- Poor 23-27
Very Poor 12-22
No Fish
Classes listed above, but not below; have attributes of two classes.
NCIBI Integrity Classes and attributes of those classes (modified from Karr et al., 1986)
Integrity
Class Attributes
—, Excellent Comparable to the best situations without human disturbance; all regionally
expected species for the habitat and stream size, including the most
intolerant forms, are present with a full array of size classes;balanced
trophic structure.
Good Species richness somewhat below expectation, especially due to the loss of
the most intolerant forms; some species are present with less than optimal
abundances or size distributions; trophic structure shows some signs of
stress.
Fair Signs of additional deterioration include loss of intolerant forms, fewer
species, highly skewed trophic structure.
Poor Dominated by omnivores,tolerant forms, and habitat generalists; few top
camivores; growth rates and condition factors commonly depressed;
diseased fish often present.
Very poor Few fish present, mostly introduced or tolerant forms, disease fin damage
and other anomalies regular
No fish Repeated sampling finds no fish.
h1
l �
fi C-8

Table C-2. North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity Metrics Scoring
Metrics"-' S BRD,CTB,NEW,YAD PAS FBR,HIW,LTN,WAT,SAV CPF,NEU,ROA,TAR ; WOK L13R
C
1. Number of Species O Scores Determined from Graphs based upon Number of Species versus Drainage Area (Figures 1-4)
q
2. Number of Individuals E Scores Determined from Graphs based upon Number of Individuals versus Drainage Area (Figures 1-4)
S
3. Number of Darter Species 5 23 3 23 23 23 22
3 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. Number of Sunfish and Salmonid Species ' 5 23 24 22 24 24 24
3 1-2 (2-3) 1 (2-3) (2-3) (2-3)
1 0 0-I 0 0-1 0-1 0-1
S. Number of Suckers Species •' S 22 22 22 22 22 22
3 I 1 1 1 I 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Number of Intolerant Species 5 23 22 23 23 22 23
n 3 1-2 I 1-2 1-2 1 1-2
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Percent Tolerant Fish 5 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
3 20-45 20-45 20-45 20-45 20-45 20-45
1 >45 >45 >45 >45 >45 >45
6. Percent Omnivores 5 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
3 20-45 20-45 20-45 20-45 20-45 20-46
1 >45 >45 >45 >45 >45 >45
9. Percent Insectivores "• 5 280 280 280 280 280 280
3 40-79 40-79 40-79 40-79 ' 40-79 40-79
1 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40
10. Percent Piscivores 5 >5 >5 >1 >5 >5 >5
(in mountain basins metric 3 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5
is=k piscivorous species) 1 <I <I 0 <I <I <I
11. Percent Diseased 5 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2
3 >2-5 >2-5 >2-5 >2-5 >2-5 >2-5
1 >5 >5 >5 >5 >5 >5
12. Length Distribution % 5 >40 >40 >40 >40 >40 >40
(multiple age groups) 3 20-40 20-40 20-40 20-40 20-40 20-40
1 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
In piedmont streams of the NEU, RDA, and TAR drainages this metric is modified to: 0 = 1, 1-2 = 3, and 2 3 =5
In small slow moving coastal plain streams this metric is modified to 0=1, 21=5 (intermediate score is deleted)
In mountain streams this metric can be modified to percent specialized insectivores: <25% = 1, 25-50% =3, >50% = 5
Also in coastal streams, where Hybognalhus is abundant the metric insectivorous cyprinids can be used (<20%=1, 20-45%=3, and >45%=5)

Table r_3 Variables used in the health assessment index (HAI) (from Adams et al. 1993).
Substi.
Original ruled
field value for
Variable Variable condition designation the HAI
Thymus No hemorrhage 0 0
Mild hemorrhage 1 10
Moderate hemorrhage 2 20
Severe hemorrhage 3 30
Fins No active erosion 0 0
Light active erosion 1 10
Moderate active erosion With some hemorrhaging 2 20
Severe active erosion with hemorrhaging 3 30
Spleen Normal;black,very dark red,or red B 0
Normal;granular,rough appearance of spleen G 0
Nodular,containing fistulas or nodules of varying sizes D 30
Enlarged;noticeably enlarged E 30
Other,gross aberrations not fitting above categories OT 30
Hindgut Normal;no inflammation or reddening 0 0
i Slight inflammation or reddening 1 10
Moderate inflammation or reddening 2 20
Severe inflammation or reddening 3 30
Kidney Normal;firm dark red color,Ling relatively flat along the length
of the vencbral column N 0
Swollen;enlarged or swollen wholly or in pan S 30
Mottled;gray discoloration M 30
Granular,granular appearance and texture G 30
Urolithiasis or nephrocalcinosis;white or cream.
colored mineral material in kidney tubules U 30
= Other,any aberrations not fitting previous categories OT 30
Skin Normal;no aberrations 0 0
-1 Mild skin aberrations 1 10
Moderate skin aberrations 2 20
Severe skin aberrations 3 30
Liver Normal;solid red or light red color A 0
-} "Fatty'liver;"coffee with cream"color C 30
Nodules in the liver,cysts or nodules D 30
Focal discoloration;distinct localized color changes E 30
General discoloration:color change in whole liver F 30
Other;deviation in liver not fitting other categories OT 30
Eyes No aberrations;good"clear"eye N 0
f Generally,an opaque eye(one or both) B 30
Swollen,protruding eye(one or both) E 30
Hemorrhaging or bleeding in the eye(one or both) H 30
Missing one or both eyes M 30
1 Other;any manifestation not fitting the above OT 30
1
Gills Normal;no apparent aberrations N 0
Frayed;erosion of tips of gill lamellae resulting in"ragged"gills F 30
Clubbed;swelling of the tips of the gill lamellae C 30
I Marginate;gills with light,discolored margin along tips of the la-
mellae M 30
—� Pale;very light in color P 30
Other,any observation not fitting above OT 30
Pseudobmnchs Normal;flat,containing no aberrations N 0
� Swollen;convex in aspect S 30
Lithir,mineral deposits,white,somewhat amorphous spots L 30
Swollen and lithic S&L 30
Inflamed;redness,hemorrhage,or other 1 30
f Other,any condition not covered above OT 30
Parasites No observed parasites 0 0
Few observed parasites 1 10
Moderate parasite infestation 2 20
Numerous parasites 3 30
I HematocriO Normal range 30-45% 0
Above normal range >45% 10
Below normal range 19-29% 20
Below normal range <I8% 30
Leukocrit Range defined as normal <4% 0
Outside the normal range a4% 30
Plasma protein Normal range 30-69 mg/dL 0
Above normal range >70 mg/dLb 10
3 I Below normal range <30 mg/dL 30
•Normal ranges for centarchid specin such as largemouth bass and redbreast sunfish.
b Valua greater than 70 mg/dL are generally inaccurate because of factors that interfere with the protein analysis such as elevated
seam lipids. '
r.—lo

EXHIBIT 1
12/94
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
-� Piedmont and Mountain Streams
Directions for use of this A se sm -t The ob crver is t survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream.2ceferably' an upstream direction starting above the
bridge opal and the road riell•of-way. The st am sesm eon which is assessed should m_assent avem¢e stream conditions. in order to po =a R=rhabitat
cvalwdon the observer needs to get into the stream. All meter readies need to be Rrformedyrior to walling the stream. When working the habitat index.
select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions-select an
intenncdam scm. Them am eir,ht different metrics in W index and a final habitat scom is d t_rn i ed by addiny the mults from the different m trice T efi
bank ri-ht bank detenninations—-- mad_w1wn the observer is facing upstream. Scores for Individual m r ice can be adlusted up or down hued on best
-- profmionaUpdgement-nresntr =nfsl in therm2rkg action,
Loradon: Stream -- -- Road County
(upstream or downstream of bridge, compass direction and distance from nearest touv)
latitude Longitude Topographic Map\ame
Date Time Arrived at Station Time left Station
Observer(s) Office Locadon Agency
Type of Study
Distance of Stream Surveyed meters
Stream Type (taken from handout) Ecomilion Geologic basinibelt (Triassic,Slate,etc.)
Physical Characterization:
Land uses: Forest_9a Active Pasture_9a Active Crops_9a Fallow Fields_9a Commercial_90 Industrial_% Residential_%
Other_Ta. Land use is based upon observations in the immediate vicinity of the site.
' Width:(meters) Strewn Channel Average Stream Depth:(meters) Riffle Run Pool
Manmade Stabilization(rip/rap,etc.)
Remarks:
Water Quality:
Tcmperm= •C Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Conductivity pmhos/tm pH
Turbidity:(circle) Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid
Remarks,
Weather Conditions: Photographic Docranrntation:
General Characteristics:
I.Channel Modifintlon(Use topo map as an additional aid for this parameter)
A.channel natural .
e.bends frequent(good diversity of bends or falls)....... 10
b.bends infrequent(Icng runs)..__._._._.__....._........._»..______................__.___.___.__».._....»......».___.»._._.___._» 8
- B.channel mimed(cbannelized) . . '
1.with bends__............._..:.......................................__ ......_...._......_._.».—_—_____:__......».»..__...____....__..... 4
2.without
Remarks
s
?I 6000
C-11

jnctream M asurements•
It.Instream Habitat Circle the habitats hich occur at this site.(Rocky) (macrophytes) (sticks and leaf packs) (snags and logs) (undercut banks and
100t mats). Definition: leaf packs consist 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.3.4 types present
_ I.habitats abundant - �
a.3.4 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 ram.._...................._.........................................._.............................................._......... 14
d.l of the habitat types abundant.other habitat common.._..................................................._.............................................................. 16
e.l of the habitat types abundant,other habitat rare............_..............................................................................................._._........._ 12
2.habitats common
a.3-4 of the habitat types commas............................_........................................................_ru ....._......................................................._.. 14
b.2 of the habitat types common.other habitat e............................................................................................................._....._......_.. 12
5.1 of the habitat types common.other habitat rare........................._...................................................................................................
10
3.habitat types rare...................................................................................._................................._................................................................. 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
III.Pod Variety(pool size varies with stream size,slow moving runs should be considered as pools)
A.pools present
1.pool sizes(area and depth)mixed
ja.variety of pool sees evenly rnixed.............................................................................................................................................. 10
b.variety of pool sees unevenly mixed
G).majority of pools large and deep............................................................................................................._........_............... 8
— (i).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 defined riffle and run,riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of steam(abundance of cobble).............................................. 10
2.riffle as wide as stream but length not 2X width ofsueam(abundance of cobble;boulders and gravel fortupon)..................................... 8
3.riffles not as wide as stream and length not 2X width of scream(gravel or large boulders prevalent,some cobble).................................. 6
B.riffles infrequent
l.well defined riffle and run,riffle as wide as steam and extends 2X width of stream(abundance of cobble)........................._._............. 7
_ 2.riffle a6 wide a;sueam'but length not 2X width of stream(abundance of cobble;boulders and gravel common)........................._........... 5
3.riffles not as wide as steam and length not 2X width of steam(gravel or large boulders prevalent,some cobble)................_................ 3
` C.riffles absent-................................................._........_................................._._._............................................................................................. 0
-- Remarks
V.Bottom Substrate(slit,sand,mud,detritus,gravel)
Substrate Types
Substrate Tvoe ate Substrate Tome Characteristic ..
Bedrock Detritus Sticks.wood
Boulder >256 rum(10 in) Coarse Plants
Cobble 64.256 mm(2..5-10 in) Coarse Particulate Organic matter
Gravel 2.64 rum(0.1-25 in) Muck-Mud Black,very fine
"I Sand 0.06.2.0 min(gritty) Fme particulate Organic Matter
4 SBt -.0.004-0.06 min Marl Gray. Shell Fragments
Clay <0.004 rum 'ck
~� A.substrate types mixed
1.substrate with a good mix of gravel,cobble,and boulders
a.embeddedness <2590......_.___............................__._.____.__..._......._._._____.__.................._.__....____._._ 10
Is.embeddedness 25.50%....__._.__._.__.__.._._......_....._._____...___...._......._.______._._.__.................._____._..... 8
membeMedness 50.75%.........—_._.___............_........__...____.__._...................___.______.......;......._._...__.___.__ 6
id embeddedness >75%....._.:___._____.__.__._..__....._..._.___._....._......_...._._____ _...._.....__........______._.._... 3
2.substrate gravel and cobble
a.embeddedness <25%.................._.—__.__._......_..._.......___._..._.._..._....___._______.........:........_._______._.. 9
Is.embeddedness 25-509e._..._._......__...___.._............._.__.___..__................__..__._____.__............._.__._.______... 6
C-12

c=beddedness 50.75%........................._.__...__......................................................................_........................................... 4
dembeddedness >75%............_._...._..._._...._.........................................................................................................__....._. 2
3.substrate mostly gravel
— a.embeddedness <50%............................................................................................................................ 6
Is.embeddedness >50%.._.__._._....__._____....____._._._____...._..........__.__..._..._._._.__._......._.......__._...__._._. 2
B.substrate type homogenous
1.substrate bedrock..._........._....___...._._._.___.__..___.__.._._...___.__.____._...._._._.___._......_..............__._.____...... 3
2.substrate mostly send._........................................................................................_..._....._..:..: 3
3.substrate mostly detritus....................._.__.__........_..........................................................._.................................................. 2
4,substrate mostly silt/mudklay.................__.
............__......................................................................._._.
Remarks I
......_..................
Streambank M ns tr m nts;
h 1
Channel Width!
— Stream Width
is-Bent-�� !s-Rank-'
Riparian Zone i Riparian Zone
VI.Bank Stability
A.banks stable Score
1.no evidence of erosion or bank failure(natural or manmade)............................_......._............._........................................................ 10
2.areas of erosion mostly healed......................._.............._............_..__.._....................._.._......................................................._........ 9
B.banks unstable
1.erosion areas present-50-70%of the sueambank surfaces covered by stable material......................................................................... 6
2.many eroded areas.raw areas common along straight sections and bends.
a.25.50 90 of the streambank surfaces covered by stable material...................................................................................................... 4
b.10.25%of the streambank surfaces covered by stable material........................................................_............................................ 2
a<10%-erosion rampant.no stable streambank surfaces.................................................._......................................................._... 1
C.Other than above(Describe and score)
Remarks
' VII.Bank VegeWlan
A.left bank Score
_ 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 barren or thin areas; vegetation appears generally healthy...................................... 4
3.50.70%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
S. 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 baron or thin areas; vegetation appears generally healthy................................... 4
3.50-70%plant cover with dominated by grasses,sparse trees and shmbs; 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
Remarks
I
Rinarian Zone Measurements_:
- VIII.Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block
out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
A.stream with canopy Score
1. >90% of stream segment with tarhnpy_:.._.__._.......__..........._.____._._._._......_.........._..__.__...._.........._...._._...._.........._ 10
2.50.90%ofstrearm segment with canopy
a.other sections of stream with mature trees in riparim zone producing good shading.__.._..___.__._.__...__........___._____. 9
b.other sections of strum with small treats in riparian zone producing some shading....._..._....__.........................._____..__... 6
a other sections of strum with shrubs in riparim rove producing minimal shading...._............._...__........_............_._...._............ 6
3.<50%of sucam segment with canopy
a other sections of stream with mamre tress in riparian zone producing good shading........_........._..............................._.__...._..... 8
b.other sections of stream with small trees in riparian zone producing some shading........................._._.................._.........._._..._._. 6
e.other sections of sincere with shmbs in riparian zone producing minimal shading............................................................................. 5
C-13
C

B.stream without canopy
T. streams with steep banks(banks>50%stream width)producing some shading.
a. stream with mature trees in riparian zone producing good shading......................................._._.......................................................... 7
b. sueam with small trees in riparian zone producing some shading._.............................................................................._......._............ 4
e. stream with shrubs in riparian zone producing minimal shading.........................................................................................._.._......... 3
d. stream with only grasses in riparian zone producing no shading............_.........._.................................................................._.........._ 2
2. streams without steep benks(banks<5D%stream width)producing little shading.
��- a. stream with mature aces in riparian zone producing good shading............................_..............._..............................._._......._.......... 6
b. steam with small trees in riparian zone producing some shading........................................................................_........_._..._._........ 3
cstream with shrubs in riparian zone producing minimal shading.............................................................................._............_............. 2
d. stream with only grasses in riparian zone producing no shading..................................._.............................................._...._...._........ 1
Remarks
1X. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition:A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to pass through the zone.
�. A.left bank
1.riparian zone intact(no breaks)
a.>Is meters..........................._..................._...__._............................................................................................................................... 5
_ b.12-18 meters................_...............................-_.............................._..........................................................................................._...... 4
c.6-12 meters.................._..................................-.................................................................................................................................... 3
d.<6 meters.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.riparian zone not intact(breaks) -
a.breaks common
—� L>18 meters............................................__..................................................................................................................................... 3
iL12.18 meters.................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
iiL6-12 meters.................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
iv.<6 meters...................................................................................................................................................................................... 0
_ b.breaks rare
L>18 Meters.................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
112.18 maas.................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
- UL 6-12 meters............................................._...................................._............................................................................_............... 2
iv.<6 maers................_..._........................._................_.........._...................................................................................................... 1
B.right bands
1.riparian zone intact(no breaks)
a.>18 meters....................................................._..................._................................................................................................................ 5
- - b.12-18 meters................................................................._........................................................................................................................ 4
e.6-12 meters......................................................_.............._...._.............................................................................................................. 3
—�� d.<6 meters...................................................................................................................................................._......................................... 2
2.riparian zone not intact(breaks)
a.breaks common
L>18 meters.................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
--, iL 12-18 meters.................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
iii.6-12 meters.............................................._.................................................................................................................................... 1
iv.<6 meters.............................................._...................................................................................................................................... 0
b.breaks rare
L>18 meters............................_.............._........................................................................................................................ ........... 4
iL12-18 meters................................................................................................................................................................_._........... 3
RL6.12 meters................_._._.....................__................_._............................................................................................................ 2
iv.<6 meters..........................._........._...._._....._........._._...................................................................................._........................ 1
Remarks
`I
Total Score
References:
Barbour,M.T.and J.B.Stribling. An Evaluation of a Visual-Based Technique for Assessing Stream Habitat Structure.
�I `]X Rapariao Ecosystems of the Humid U.S. DRAFT REPORT.
- 1993. Development of a Habitat Assessment Methodology for Low Gradient Nowidal Streams. DRAFT REPORT. Mid-Atl=do Coastal Streams Workgroup.
Platkin,J.L.M.T.Harbour,K D.Poster,S.K Gross,and R.M.Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bicassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Maaoin
and-Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. US EPA.Offim of Watt. Washington,D.C.
Simonson,T.D.,L Lybns,and P.D.KanehL. Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Streams. DRAFT REPORT. fish Research Section. Bureau of
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
C-14