20030179 Ver 1-_Monitoring Report_20130227

(�r� Duke
c IEnergyo
February 26, 2013
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1617
WATER STRATEGYAND HYDRO LICENSING
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Mailing Address:
EC12Y /P0 Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201 -1006
C3- -C) I19
Subject: Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project's Post -Dam Removal 2012 Biological Monitoring
Report
Ms. Higgins:
Enclosed is the 2012 Biological Monitoring Report for the Dillsboro Project. This report is
provided as required by the 401 Water Quality Certification (401) with Additional Comments
dated November 21, 2007, as modified on April 13, 2010. This report completes a portion of the
401 Conditions of Certification (Paragraph 7, Monitoring, Sections a, b, c, and g; and Paragraph
14).
If you have questions or concerns regarding this report, please do not hesitate to give me a call at
704/382-0805.
Sincerely,
D. Hugh Barwick
Senior Environmental Resource Manager
Enclosure: Report
cc: Kevin Barnett, NCDWQ
Chris Goudreau, NCWRC
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Phil Fragapane, Duke Energy
2

DILLSBORO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT — BIOLOGICAL MONITORING ON
THE TUCKASEGEE RIVER (2008 AND 2010 — 2012)
FERC# 2602
Principal Investigators:
David J. Coughlan
James J. Hall
Sherry M. Reid
D
FEB 2 7 2013
NR - A
DUKE ENERGY
Corporate EHS Services
McGuire Environmental Center
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
February 2013

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to a number of individuals who made significant
contributions to this report. First, we are much indebted to the Corporate Environment,
Health and Safety's Scientific Services field staff for their dedicated sampling efforts and
data analysis which provided the foundation of this report. Mike Abney, Mark Auten, Kim
Baker, Hugh Barwick, Mark Cantrell, Bob Doby, Scott Fletcher, Courtney Flowe, Chase
Fulk, James Hall, Steve Johnson, Bryan Kalb, Ben Lastra, Glenn Long, Todd Lynn, Matt
McKinney, Josh Quinn, Gene Vaughan, Daniel Weaver, and Jan Williams were vital
contributors in completing fisheries collections and sample processing. Mark Auten, Tommy
Bowen, Ben Lastra, Aileen Lockhart, Shannon McCorkle, and Jan Williams contributed in
macroinvertebrate sampling, taxonomic processing, and data analysis. George Galleher
coordinated flow releases from upstream hydroelectric facilities.
We would also like to thank multiple reviewers; including Mike Abney, Kim Baker, Hugh
Barwick, John Derwort, Keith Finley, Scott Fletcher, Penny Franklin, Duane Harrell, Linda
Hickok, Shannon McCorkle, Gene Vaughan, and John Velte. The insightful commentary
and suggestions from these individuals and also between co- authors have benefited the report
in numerous ways. Lastly, we are indebted to Hugh Barwick and Jeff Lineberger for
employing our services for this project.
it

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......... ... . . . ....... ............................... iv
LIST OF TABLES. ........ .. .. ... . ......
. .. vi
LIST OF FIGURES . .............. ............................... .....
viii
CHAPTER 1- DILLSBORO PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..........1 -1
INTRODUCTION ............. ............. .... ... ............................... .
.. 1 -1
DAM REMOVAL . . .. .. .. . ...... ....... ............................... ....
1 -1
SAMPLING LOCATIONS ............. ....... .........................
1 -2
CHAPTER 2- MACROINVERTEBRATES ..................................... ............................2 -1
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... .... ............................
..2 -1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... ...............................
2 -2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............ ... ..............
2 -9
CHAPTER 3 -FISH ............................................................................. ............................3 -1
MATERIALS AND METHODS ..... ...... ............... ...............................
.3 -1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................... ...............................
3 -2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .... .............................. .......................
3 -17
LITERATURE CITED ............................ ............................... ..
L -1
APPENDIX TABLES ............................ ......................... .. .. . . .................. A-1
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 19, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order
Accepting Surrender And Dismissing Application For Subsequent License clearing the way
for the removal of the Dillsboro Dam and Powerhouse (FERC# 2602) on the Tuckasegee
River, Jackson County, NC Pursuant to this order, the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality issued a 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions (November 21,
2007) for dam and powerhouse removal requiring Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC to conduct at
least two (2) fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate collections from the Tuckasegee River at
different seasons before dam removal Inasmuch as dam demolition was originally
scheduled for early 2009, macroinvertebrate and fish sampling was initiated in 2008 at four
locations in the river in the vicinity of Dillsboro Project Two sampling locations were
upstream of the dam and two were downstream As dam removal was delayed until early
2010, the first year of post dam- removal biological sampling occurred in 2010 The
objective of this monitoring was to comply with the 401 Certification by assessing
macroinvertebrate and fish populations during May and October for one year prior to and the
first three years following removal of the Dillsboro Dam
Measured water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, specific
conductance, and pH) at the time of macroinvertebrate collections appeared to indicate little
negative impact to resident benthic communities. Macroinvertebrate collections at four
locations on the Tuckasegee River in May and October of 2008 and 2010 — 2012 yielded
total taxa counts ranging from 41 to 128 taxa The numbers of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa ranged from 2 to 51 Macroinvertebrate collections at the
reservoir location always demonstrated the lowest numbers of total and EPT taxa of any
location sampled, irrespective of season in 2008 and 2010. Resulting water quality
bioclassifications based on the macroinvertebrate communities collected at the reservoir
location were Poor in 2008 and increased to Good -fair and Fair in 2010 following dam
removal The three riverine locations, with their more heterogeneous habitat and flowing
water, supported diverse macroinvertebrate communities resulting in better water quality
bioclassifications (ranging from Fair to Good). By 2011, the observed benthic community
metrics indicated the former reservoir location was becoming more similar to the other three
riverine locations. Collections of total taxa and EPT taxa at River Mile (RM) 31.8 increased
and were similar to values collected at the other three riverine locations. The 2012 data
corroborated the 2011 findings indicating that macroinvertebrate communities and thus water
quality bioclassifications were Good throughout the river.
iv

Temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and specific conductance were measured
during fish sampling and indicated little impact on the resident fish community Fish
collections at four locations on the Tuckasegee River in May and October of 2008 and 2010
— 2012 demonstrated an assemblage composed of 39 species, one hybrid sucker combination,
and one hybrid sunfish combination, representing seven families These species are typical
of those expected for this drainage and similar to those collected in an earlier study (2001 —
2002) of the same river reach This fish community included two species of special concern
to both the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service; the _wounded darter and the olive darter. While the wounded darter was
collected upstream and downstream of the Dam, the olive darter was first collected upstream
of the demolished Dam beginning in May 2011
The most species of fish were always collected at RM 31.6 (except in May 2011 when RM
33.7 tied for the most species), and the least number of species were always found at RM
31 8 ( Dillsboro Reservoir and its successor), immediately upstream of the Dam The fish
community at RM 31.8 was largely composed of rock bass and redbreast sunfish before
demolition, but this centrarchid domination shifted in less than one year after demolition to a
community dominated by cyprmids Meanwhile, the communities at the other three riverine
locations (RMs 27 5, 31.6, and 33 7) were always dominated by cyprinids. Pollution
tolerance data indicated the fish community at RM 31.8 had the highest percentage of
individuals tolerant of pollution and the fewest number of species considered intolerant of
pollution Trophic data similarly indicated the fish community at RM 31.8 was atypical
compared to those sampled in other nearby reaches of the Tuckasegee River, though these
differences decreased after dam demolition.
Macroinvertebrate and fish communities in Dillsboro Reservoir were atypical of those
occurring in riverine locations upstream and downstream in the Tuckasegee River in 2008.
Following dam removal in 2010, both macroinvertebrate and fish communities shifted
noticeably within a few months The macroinvertebrate community in the reservoir location
was similar to communities in the nverine locations by 2011. The fish community in the
reservoir location also changed dramatically with time but was still slightly atypical of those
found in the riverine locations by 2012.
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 -1 River mile designation (upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and
Little Tennessee rivers) of Tuckasegee River sampling locations, associated
description relative to the Dillsboro Dam, and GPS coordinates ..... 1 -3
2 -1 Description of available habitats at four macromvertebrate sampling locations
on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project in 2008, 2010, and 2011... .2-10
2 -2 Water quality parameters measured at four Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October, 2008, 2010, and 2011...... 2 -11
2 -3 Total and EPT taxa numbers, Biotic Index values and scores, EPT scores, and
Bioclassifications for macromvertebrate locations sampled on the Tuckasegee
River near the Dillsboro Project during May and October of 2008, and 2010 —
2012 ........ ............................... ........ 2 -12
. . .. . .. .........
3 -1
Water quality parameters measured during electrofishing collections on the
left (L) and right (R) ascending banks at four locations on the Tuckasegee
River during May and October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012 . ............ ... .... .....
3 -19
3 -2
Fish species collected during Tuckasegee River surveys in the vicinity of the
Dillsboro Project, 2001 — 2002 and from 2008 through 2012 ................ ..........
3 -20
3 -3
Fish species, number, and percent composition observed in all Tuckasegee
River fish community collections in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Project from
2008 through 2012.... .....................
3 -21
3 -4
Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, May 2008 ...................... ...... ...............................
3 -22
3 -5
Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, October 2008 .............
3 -23
3 -6
Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, May 2010 .............. ... ................. .................
3 -24
3 -7
Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, October 2010 ... . .................. ...............................
3 -25
3 -8
Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, May 2011 ................................ ...............................
3 -26
3 -9
Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, October 2011. ... ............... . ...............................
3 -27
vi

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Page
3 -10
Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
A -3 Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 31 8 on the Tuckasegee River near the
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
A -26
A -4 Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 33.7 on the Tuckasegee River near the
the Dillsboro Project, May 2012... ..............
3 -28
3 -11
Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of
fish species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near
the Dillsboro Project, October 2012. ... ..... .....
3 -29
3 -12
Three most abundant species of fish (percent of total number) collected at four
sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008
and 2010 — 2012 .................. .. .. ... ............................ .. .... .............
3 -30
3 -13
Pollution tolerance and trophic status metrics, ratings, and associated scoring
criteria as defined by NCDENR for the Little Tennessee River basin
( NCDENR 2006b) .. .....
3 -31
3 -14
Summary of pollution tolerance rating and the number of Intolerant fish
species collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2008 and 2010 — 2012.. ....................... .3-32
3 -15
Summary of trophic status of fish collected at four sampling locations on the
Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Non -
feeding species are solely represented by the mountain brook lamprey .. ...........
3 -33
A -1 Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 27 5 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008 and 2010-2012 .. .............. A -1
A -2 Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 31.6 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012 ..................
A -13
A -3 Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 31 8 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012 ................
A -26
A -4 Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 33.7 on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project during May and October, 2008 and 2010-2012... .. ... .
A -37
vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 -1 Sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River, Jackson County, NC, near the
Dillsboro Project.. ... . ........ 1 -4
1 -2 Dillsboro Project on the Tuckasegee River in the Town of Dillsboro, Jackson
County, NC (photo taken May 2008)...... ... ................. 1 -5
1 -3 Site of the demolished Dillsboro Project on the Tuckasegee River in the Town
of Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC (photo taken November 2010) . ..... .. 1 -6
2 -1
Tuckasegee River flow associated with 2008 and 2010 — 2012 May
macroinvertebrate sample collections. Circles indicate actual sampling dates
(average flows for USGS Station 03510577 at Barker's Creek, NC).. ... ......2-13
2 -2
Tuckasegee River flow associated with 2008 and 2010 — 2012 October
macroinvertebrate sample collections. Circles indicate actual sampling dates.
(average flows for USGS Station 03510577 at Barker's Creek, NC) .. .. .........
2 -14
2 -3
Total number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from Tuckasegee River
sampling locations in May and October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012. .............. ...
2 -15
2 -4
Total number of EPT taxa collected from Tuckasegee River sampling
locations in May and October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012 ............
2 -15
2 -5
Comparison of total number of EPT taxa collected at Duke Energy and
NCDENR Tuckasegee River sampling locations...
2 -16
2 -6
Water quality bioclassifications based on macroinvertebrate collections from
Tuckasegee River sampling locations in May and October, 2008 and 2010 —
2012.. .... .. ..................... ................ ................. . ......... .....
2 -16
2 -7
Comparison of water quality bioclassification scores at Duke Energy and
NCDENR Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project. . ..
2 -17
2 -8
All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2012 at RM 27.5 in the Tuckasegee River ..............................
2 -18
2 -9
All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2012 at RM 31.6 in the Tuckasegee River ........... ... ........
2 -19
2 -10
All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2012 at RM 31.8 in the Tuckasegee River........ . . . ............
2 -20
2 -11
All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2012 at RM 33.7 in the Tuckasegee River .......... ............
2 -21
3 -1 Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River minnows collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project in 2008: (A) central stoneroller Campostoma
anomalum, (B) warpaint shiner Luxilus coccogenis, and (C) fatlips minnow
Phenacobius crassilabrum ... ............................... ................. ........... 3 -34
3 -2 Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River darters collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project in 2008: (A) greenfin darter Etheostoma
chlorobranchium, (B) Tuckasegee darter E guttselh, and (C) banded darter E
zo nal e ......... ........... ....... ......................... ................. ........... 3-35
viii

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
Title
Page
3 -3
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity
of the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010- (A) river chub Nocomis
micropogon, (B) gilt darter Percina evades, and (C) wounded darter
Etheostoma vulneratum......
3 -36
3 -4
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity
of the Dillsboro Project in 2011: (A) mottled sculpin Cottus bairdn, (B)
northern hog sucker Hypentehum nigricans, and (C) hybrid redhorse
Moxostoma hybrid .... .. .. . ...... ............................... . ... ...................
3 -37
3 -5
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity
of the Dillsboro Project in 2011. (A) telescope shiner Notropis telescopus, (B)
tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca, and (C) rock bass Amblophtes rupestris.......
3 -38
3 -6
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity
of the Dillsboro Project in 2012: (A) Tennessee shiner Notropis leuciodus, (B)
whitetail shiner Cyprinella galactura, and (C) river redhorse Moxostoma
carinatum.................. ........... ............................... .. .....3-39
3 -7
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity
of the Dillsboro Project in 2012. (A) black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei,
(B) silver redhorse M arasurum, and (C) rainbow trout (golden variant)
Oncorhynchus mylass ............. .... .. .. ... .. ............................... .. .
3 -40
3 -8
Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River hellbenders Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis collected in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Project- (A) RM 31.6
on 5/17/2012 and (B) RM 33 7 on 10/18 /2011 .......................... ............
3 -41
3 -9
3 -10
3 -11
3 -12
3 -13
3 -14
3 -15
Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May
and (B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2008 ......... .... . ..... . ........................ .
Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May
and (B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2010 ..................................... ............................... .
Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May
and (B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2011 ................................. ............................... ...... .
Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May
and (B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
3 -42
ki E, 191
3 -44
Dillsboro Project 2012 .............. ............................. .. . .. ....... ....... 3 -45
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mountain brook
lampreys collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012.. .
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all central stonerollers
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 . ......... ...............................
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all whitetail shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
3 -46
M, rel
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 .......... ............................... 3 -47
ix

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
Title
Page
3 -16
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all warpaint shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012... .3-47
3 -17
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all river chubs collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 . ......... .........3-48
3 -18
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all Tennessee shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 ............................... ....
3 -48
3 -19
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mirror shiners collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 ......... ........ ............... ...
3 -49
3 -20
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all telescope shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. ...........................
3 -49
3 -21
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all fatlips minnows
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 .. ............... ... ... 3 -50
3 -22
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all northern hog suckers
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 .. ..................... ......
.3-50
3 -23
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mottled sculpins
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 .................... 3 -51
3 -24
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all rock bass collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 ..... ...............................
.. 3 -51
3 -25
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all greenfin darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012....... 3 -52
3 -26
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all Tuckasegee darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 ..............................
..3-52
3 -27
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all wounded darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 .................. ................... 3 -53
3 -28
Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all gilt darters collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 .......... ...............................
..3-53
x

CHAPTER 1
DILLSBORO PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
The Tuckasegee and Oconaluftee rivers are the principle tributaries to the Little Tennessee
River and Fontana Lake in Subbasin 02 of the Little Tennessee River system in North
Carolina (NCDENR 2005) Forests and pasture land comprise 93 5% and 3.3 %,
respectively, of the subbasin land area, and the water quality is considered some of the
highest and most pristine in the State (NCDENR 2005).
The Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project (FERC# 2602) is located on the Tuckasegee River in the
Town of Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC (Figure 1 -1). The project originally consisted of a
dam, powerhouse, and reservoir. Constructed in 1913, the project has had various owners,
and is currently owned by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy). The Dillsboro Dam
(Dam) impounded the Tuckasegee River at River Mile (RM) 31.7. The Dam was a concrete
masonry structure about 310 ft long and 12 ft high (Figure 1 -2). The powerhouse consisted
of a reinforced concrete substructure, a wood/steel superstructure, and two generating units
The reservoir upstream of the Dam had a surface area of about 15 ac and was approximately
0 8 mi long. The installed generation capacity of the Dillsboro Project was 225 kW. The
average annual generation for the project from 1958 to 2002 was 912 MWh, and electricity
was last generated there in 2004.
DAM REMOVAL
Relicensmg activities associated with Duke Energy's Nantahala Area Hydroelectric Projects
identified the removal of the Dam as a key component to various stakeholder settlement
agreements supporting significant gains in aquatic habitat in the Tuckasegee River (Duke
Energy 2003). An agreement to remove the Dam was reached with all involved tribal, state,
and federal agencies and resulted in a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Application for Surrender (Duke Energy 2004) which was approved by the FERC on July 19,
2007 (Order Accepting Surrender And Dismissing Application For Subsequent License).
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) outlined procedures and
1 -1

monitoring requirements associated with dam demolition in an approved Section 401 Water
Quality Certification with Additional Conditions issued November 21, 2007 and modified
April 13, 2010. Initial removal of sediment deposits from Dillsboro Reservoir was slated for
2008 with dam removal scheduled for early 2009 These dam removal activities were
subsequently delayed due to litigation with Jackson County, NC Following resolution of the
litigation, sediment removal occurred in the latter months of 2009, the powerhouse was razed
in January 2010, dam demolition commenced February 3, 2010, and overall project
demolition ended May 11, 2010 (Figure 1 -3). Shoreline restoration was completed by July
15, 2010.
To evaluate responses of resident biological communities to dam removal, the NCDWQ
requested Duke Energy sample macroinvertebrate and fish communities in the Tuckasegee
River for one year prior to (2008) and the three years immediately subsequent to dam
removal (2010 — 2012). Biological sampling was requested twice per year (during the
months of May and October) and was conducted at two locations upstream and two locations
downstream of the Dam.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Macroinvertebrate and fish sampling occurred at four Tuckasegee River sampling locations
identified by river miles upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and Little
Tennessee rivers They include a location well downstream of the Dam (RM 27.5), the
tailrace of the Dam (RM 316), the Dillsboro Reservoir and its subsequent lentic habitat (RM
31.8), and a riverine location upstream of the influence of the Dillsboro Reservoir (RM 33.7,
Table 1 -1 and Figure 1 -1). This report provides sampling methods, results, and discussion
for macroinvertebrates (Chapter 2) and fish (Chapter 3).
During the summer of 2008, Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta ravenehana were translocated
from the Dam tailrace to an area upstream of the Savannah Creek confluence (Alderman
2009). This is the same area as the upstream most sampling location (RM 33.7). To avoid
disturbing the newly transplanted mussels, starting with the October 2008 monitoring,
macroinvertebrate and fish sampling activities occurred immediately upstream of the mussel
relocation area. The river mile designation for this upstream macroinvertebrate and fish
sample location was not changed despite this slight upstream shift in sampling location
1 -2

Table 1 -1. River mile designation (upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and
Little Tennessee rivers) of Tuckasegee River sampling locations, associated
description relative to the Dillsboro Dam, and GPS coordinates
River Mile Sampling Location
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
275 4 2 miles downstream of the Dam, upstream of the
35022955
Barkers Creek confluence and Barkers Creek Bridge
830 17 359
316 Between the Dam and the Scott Creek confluence
35022006
83° 15 053
31 8 Ddlsboro Reservoir, 100 - 300 m upstream of the Dam 35021 972
83° 14 918
337 2 0 miles upstream of the Dam and immediately 35020843
upstream of the Savannah Creek confluence 830 14 176
1 -3

Osil
0
0
m
N
0
Ln
(n
O
O
0
N
0
Ln
83017.000' W 83'015.000'W WGS84 83° 12.000' W
C
C
C
M
rIN
0
Lf'
fr,
i,
C
C
0
Lr;
83017.000'W 83 '015.000' W WGS84 83012.000'W
0.0 0. 1.0 I. �.0 ?.5 3.4.
0 P 2 5lo�n
Printed from TOM CM National C"mapl= Hold (v6tic-%v.tapo.zom)
Figure 1 -1. Sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River, Jackson County, NC, near the Dillsboro Project. Location numbers equate
to river miles upstream from the confluence of the Tuckasegee and Little Tennessee rivers.

! .
� (�J+"
J � �;
r�"'t, _
k
> Y .' ^y - ,� � ''� -''° ' Sir '~ _ � _ - i" "�1_.�� � ~�T.�����!
-' • ��—• r
_ r my��, �z. ,Jtf"
_ _ _ + _ � _ _ _ _ �- _ _ _ _ -__ _ �•� _aJ`. _ __ .A.- __ =,r'4 -mss.
�- -
3— ` v.
z� ��
..a � _ i_ _ _ mow. _:. i - -_ �'

Figure 1 -3. Site of the demolished Dillsboro Project on the Tuckasegee River in the Town of Dillsboro, Jackson County, NC (photo
taken November 2010).

CHAPTER 2
MACROINVERTEBRATES
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Macromvertebrate monitoring was conducted on the Tuckasegee River in 2008 and 2010
through 2012. Samples were collected at four locations on the Tuckasegee River (Table 1 -1
and Figure 1 -1) Upstream hydroelectric project operations were coordinated to help control
river flow and permit sampling under low -flow conditions. Sample collections occurred on
May 5 -6 and October 6 -7 in 2008, on May 6 -7 and October 5 -6 in 2010, on May 11 -12 and
October 4 -5 in 2011, and on May 22 -23 and October 9 -10 in 2012 (Figures 2 -1 and 2 -2).
The Standard Qualitative Method (SQM) as outlined in the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP,
NCDENR 2006a and 2012) was used in collecting macroinvertebrate samples at RMs 27.5,
31.6, and 33.7 (riverine habitats). This method involved the use of a variety of nets to collect
discrete samples from all major habitats at a particular location. The method also requires a
visual search of all major habitats, including habitats such as large logs and rocks which
cannot be easily sampled with nets
Duke Energy was aware of the presence of the Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana
in the Tuckasegee River upstream and downstream of the Dam and the possible presence of
the littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula downstream of the Dam. Both mussels are listed
as Federally Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Precautions were taken during this study to avoid disturbing mussels while collecting
macroinvertebrate samples.
The environment at RM 31.8 (Dillsboro Reservoir and its successor) changed as a result of
dam removal and sampling was modified accordingly. In 2008 and 2010, the lentic
environment was sampled using the Standard Boat Method (SBM) modification of the SQM
( NCDENR 2006a) The SBM requires collecting bottom samples across the width of the
reservoir using a Ponar grab sampler. Nine samples were collected from one transect across
the Dillsboro Reservoir during each sampling event. Additionally, macroinvertebrates at RM
31.8 were collected by visual searches of all major habitats and by using a sweep net to
2 -1

sample all available shoreline habitats In 2011 and 2012, this location was sampled via the
SQM methods used at the other riverine locations and supplemented with a transect
consisting of five Ponar grab samples and kicknet samples of snag areas.
All collected organisms were sorted from debris in the field, placed in labeled containers,
preserved with 95% ethyl alcohol, returned to the laboratory, and identified to the lowest
practicable taxon Taxonomic analysis resulted in a water quality bioclassification for each
location, which gives equal consideration to the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa present and the biotic index value Following the NCDENR
protocol, a score was assigned to the EPT taxa collected Tolerance values were assigned to
all benthic taxa according to their relative tolerance to environmental perturbations and a
biotic index value was calculated for all taxa collected at a given location. The mean of the
EPT taxa score and biotic index score was used to assign one of five water quality
bioclassifications from "Poor" to "Excellent" ( NCDENR 2006a and 2012).
Bioclassifications were determined using the Mountain Region criteria with spring (winter -
spring Plecoptera omitted) and fall seasonal corrections applied in May and October,
respectively. Benthic communities at all Tuckasegee River locations were assessed and
compared based on both total and EPT taxa abundance and the resulting water quality
bioclassifications.
In May 2008, water temperatures ( °C) and dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) were
collected in situ at each location using a pre - calibrated YSI Model 55 handheld dissolved
oxygen meter. Water samples for specific conductance (µS /cm) were also collected at each
location, refrigerated, and returned to the laboratory where the samples were measured with a
calibrated Hydrolab® Datasonde Since October 2008, dissolved oxygen, water temperature,
pH, and specific conductance were measured in situ using a pre - calibrated Hach® HQ40D
water quality meter
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Habitat and Water Quality.
The three riverine sampling locations (RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7) had similar habitat
consisting of bedrock, boulder, cobble, riffles, pools, sand/silt, woody debris, leaf packs, and
root masses (Table 2 -1). Additionally, the aquatic vascular plant, Podostemum covered some

of the bedrock and cobble surfaces at RMs 27.5 and 31.6 (downstream of the Dam). The
upstream habitats at RMs 318 and 33.7 were comprised more of bedrock and pools, with
fewer riffle areas, when compared to the two downstream locations.
The available habitat at RM 31 8 (reservoir) in 2008 consisted of silt/sand and detritus
substrates with shorelines characterized by vegetation, root masses, woody debris, silt/sand,
rocks, and boulders. In 2010, RM 31 8 was a deeper more riverme location (depth up to
three to four feet) characterized by poor shoreline habitat (mostly silt/sand) with very small
amounts of woody debris and root masses. No riffle areas were available for kicknet
sampling, therefore, snag and boulder areas were used The river bed consisted mostly of
sand, bedrock, and boulders. By 2011 — 2012, shoreline habitat had improved and root mass
areas had increased.
The average daily flow in the Tuckasegee River was generally managed to permit safe
collections of macroinvertebrates Hydroelectric stations upstream of the Dillsboro Project
operated until late afternoon one day before sampling and then discontinued operations until
late the next day. This allowed the river level to subside and stabilize before each sampling
period. Measured morning flows in 2008 and 2010 — 2011 at the United States Geological
Survey gage at Barkers Creek (USGS Gage 03510577) ranged from 386 to 981 cfs during
May collections and from 130 to 525 cfs during October collections (Figures 2 -1 and 2 -2)
Water temperatures during May collections ranged from 13.6 to 20.9 °C while those in
October ranged from 11 5 to 19.0 °C (Table 2 -2). The highest water temperatures measured
during a specific sampling season have varied among the four locations and may be a
reflection of sample collection times. Locations with lower temperatures were sampled early
in the morning while those with the highest temperatures were sampled late in the day
Dissolved oxygen concentrations during May collections ranged from 8.6 to 10.3 mg/L while
those measured in October ranged from 8 4 to 10 9 mg/L (Table 2 -2). Dissolved oxygen
levels were well above state standards for the support of aquatic life
Conductivity ranged from 20.5 to 29.1 pS /cm during May sampling while measurements
collected in October ranged from 22.5 to 44.6 pS /cm (Table 2 -2). Specific conductance was
low for all Tuckasegee River samples and generally increased with downstream direction,
being highest at RM 27.5 (most downstream location).
2 -3

Measurement of pH was initiated in October 2008 Observed pH values during May
collections ranged from 7.0 to 7 5 while those measured in October ranged from 6.8 to 8.5
(Table 2 -2). Measured pH values showed no consistent temporal or spatial patterns and were
all within state standards.
Removal of the Dillsboro Dam and its reservoir had little observable impact on water quality
in the river There was no noticeable difference in any of the measured water quality
parameters observed in 2008 (prior to dam removal) compared to any of the post dam
removal years (2010 through 2012). Similar observations were made during a more rigorous
analysis of water quality variables collected before and after dam removal (Quinn 2012).
Total Taxa.
Total taxa numbers collected at the four Tuckasegee River sampling locations in May 2008
ranged from 59 to 84 (Table 2 -3; Figure 2 -3; and Appendix Tables A -1 through A -4). Total
taxa numbers were highest at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 (riverine locations) and exceeded 80
taxa at each location. The lowest total taxa number (59) was collected at RM 318 (reservoir)
in May Total taxa numbers collected at all locations in October 2008 exhibited a somewhat
similar trend to May and ranged from 41 to 83. The highest totals were observed at RMs
27.5 and 31.6 (83 and 77, respectively), an intermediate value (65) was measured at RM
33.7, and the lowest total (41) was collected at RM 31 8 (reservoir) The total taxa numbers
collected from each location in 2008 were generally highest in May, except at RM 27.5
where the October total was greatest. The sampling location at RM 31 8 (reservoir) had the
lowest number of total taxa collected during both sampling periods in 2008.
The total numbers of taxa collected in both May and October 2010 were higher at each
location in comparison to those collected in May or October 2008. Total taxa collected in
2010 ranged from 70 to 96 in May and 78 to 115 in October In 2010, the highest number of
taxa collected in May was at RM 33.7 (96) and in October at RM 31.6 (115) As in 2008, the
lowest taxa numbers collected in both May and October 2010 were observed at RM 31.8. In
2008, the highest taxa numbers were generally collected in May, but in 2010 the highest taxa
numbers were generally collected in October.
The total numbers of taxa collected in both May and October 2011 at each location again
increased, with the exception of Location RM 316 which decreased slightly in October from
115 taxa in 2010 to 112 taxa in 2011. The numbers of taxa collected from all four locations
2 -4

in 2011 were generally similar in May and October, except at RMs 31 8 and 33.7, which
were lower in May and October, respectively The number of taxa collected in 2011 ranged
from 102 to 114 in May and from 95 to 117 in October. In 2011, the highest number of taxa
was collected from RM 27.5 in both May and October and the lowest number was collected
from RM 31.8 in May and RM 33.7 in October.
The total numbers of taxa collected in both May and October 2012 again generally increased
and were usually the highest collected during this study. The numbers of taxa collected from
the four locations in May ranged from 112 to 128 and the number collected at RM 31.8 was
the second highest total observed (119). The numbers of taxa collected in October ranged
from 105 to 120. The highest number of taxa was collected from RM 31.6 in both May and
October and the lowest number was collected from RM 33.7 in May and RM 31.8 in
October
Macroinvertebrate studies of the Tuckasegee River in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Project by
NCDENR have generally demonstrated similar numbers of total taxa as Duke Energy found
during 2008 — 2012. The NCDENR Basinwide Assessment Program collected
macroinvertebrate samples in the Tuckasegee River at State Road (SR) 1378 (approximately
one mile downstream of the Dam, NCDENR 2005 and 2011). This NCDENR location is in
the vicinity of the RM 31.6 sample location and a total of 75, 84, and 75 taxa were reported
there in 1999, 2004, and 2009, respectively. These totals are comparable to the 81 and 77
taxa Duke Energy collected in May and October 2008, respectively, from RM 31.6, but were
lower than Duke Energy collections in 2010 — 2012
In addition, an August 2001 macroinvertebrate study of the Tuckasegee River by Duke
Energy, for the Nantahala Area hydro relicensing (Duke Energy 2003), demonstrated lower
numbers of total taxa. Three sample locations in 2001 (Locations T1, T3, and T4) were in
the same general vicinity as the three riverine locations sampled in 2008 — 2012. Location
T1 is in the vicinity of RM 27.5 (most downstream location), Location T3 is in the vicinity of
RM 31.6 (tailrace), and Location T4 is upstream of the Dam near RM 33.7 Total taxa
collected in 2001 from Locations T1, T3, and T4 were 41, 65, and 72, respectively, and were
generally lower than those observed in 2008 and always lower than those observed in 2010 —
2012.
Pal

EPT Taxa-
Numbers of EPT taxa collected in 2008 at the four Tuckasegee River sampling locations
ranged from 8 to 35 taxa in May and 2 to 27 taxa in October (Table 2 -3, Figure 2 -4; and
Appendix Tables A -1 through A -4). At each location, the numbers of EPT taxa observed in
May always exceeded those observed in October. In May and October 2008, the numbers of
EPT taxa collected were lowest at RM 31.8 (reservoir) and considerably higher at RMs 27 5,
316, and 33 7 Discounting the RM 31.8 location (reservoir), EPT taxa numbers increased
from upstream to downstream in both May and October.
The numbers of EPT taxa collected at each sampling location in May and October 2010 were
always higher than those collected in May and October 2008. The numbers of EPT taxa
collected in 2010 ranged from 26 to 40 taxa during May and 20 to 41 taxa in October. As in
2008, the fewest number of EPT taxa were again collected at RM 31.8 (old reservoir
location). In comparison, the numbers of EPT taxa collected at RM 31 8 in May and October
2008 (8 and 2 taxa, respectively) were much lower than the number of EPT taxa collected
during May and October 2010 (26 and 20 taxa, respectively) and probably relate to the
increasing lotic nature of this location following dam removal.
The numbers of EPT taxa collected in May 2011 exceeded those collected in May 2010 at all
sampling locations The number of EPT taxa collected in 2011 ranged from 40 to 51 taxa in
May and 29 to 43 taxa in October. At each location, the numbers of EPT taxa observed in
May always exceeded those observed in October. As in 2008 and 2010, the fewest EPT taxa
were again collected at RM 31.8 in 2011, but the number of EPT taxa collected at this
location continued to increase, with 40 and 29 EPT taxa being collected in May and October,
respectively.
Numbers of EPT taxa collected at each sampling location in May and October 2012 ranged
from 40 to 47 taxa during May and 35 to 46 taxa in October. For the first time since 2008,
the fewest number of EPT taxa was collected in May at a riverme location (RM 27.5) and not
the old reservoir location The numbers of EPT taxa collected at RM 31.8 in both May and
October have increased steadily since 2008 and probably relate to the increasing lotic nature
of this location following dam removal
r

Prior macroinvertebrate studies of the Tuckasegee River by NCDENR have documented
higher numbers of EPT taxa than those observed in 2008 (Figure 2 -5) The NCDENR
Basinwide Assessment Program collected 40, 44, and 43 EPT taxa in 1999, 2004, and 2009,
respectively, at SR1378 (approximately one mile downstream of the Dam, NCDENR 2005
and 2011) The numbers of EPT taxa collected at either RMs 31.6 or 27 5 (downstream
locations) during either of the 2008 sampling periods were lower than those reported by
NCDENR. The numbers of EPT taxa collected at RMs 31.6 and 27.5 in May and October
2010 — 2012 have generally been similar to those collected by NCDENR in 1999, 2004, and
2009, except for the higher value of 51 EPT taxa collected at RM 27.5 in May 2011.
The numbers of EPT taxa collected at three locations in August 2001 by Duke Energy, for
the Nantahala Area hydro relicensing (Duke Energy 2003), was lowest at T1 (downstream)
and highest at T4 (upstream location). This observed increasing trend of EPT taxa from
downstream to upstream was exactly opposite that noted in May and October 2008. In May
and October 2010 — 2012, the number of EPT taxa collected at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33 7
were higher than the numbers collected in 2001 and showed no upstream/downstream trends
for either sampling period.
Water Quality Bioclassification:
Water quality bioclassification scores during 2008 varied by location and sample period
(Table 2 -3 and Figure 2 -6) Low numbers of EPT taxa and high biotic index scores resulted
in a Poor water quality bioclassification score at RM 31.8 (reservoir) in May. Water quality
bioclassification scores were generally highest at the riverine locations in May and ranged
from Good -Fair to Good. The water quality bioclassification scores at these same three
riverine locations in October decreased relative to the May scores and ranged from Fair to
Good -Fair The water quality bioclassification score at RM 31.8 in October again rated Poor.
In 2010 the water quality bioclassification scores again vaned between locations and
sampling periods. While increases in the number of EPT taxa and decreases in the biotic
index scores at RM 31 8 in both May and October 2010 led to elevated water quality
bioclassification scores compared to 2008, the former reservoir location again had the lowest
bioclassification score of the four locations sampled (Fair to Good - Fair). Water quality
bioclassification scores at the three riverine locations ranged from Good -Fair to Good.
Removal of the Dillsboro Dam appeared beneficial to the Tuckasegee River
macromvertebrate community within one year of dam removal.
2 -7

The water quality bioclassification scores in both May and October 2011 continued to vary
between locations and sampling periods For the first time in this study, all four sampling
locations, including the former reservoir location (RM 31.8), received a water quality
bioclassification score of Good in May 2011 October 2011 water quality bioclassification
scores ranged from Good -Fair to Good.
In 2012 the water quality bioclassification scores in May and October were the highest
recorded for each combination of location and month All water quality bioclassifications in
May were Good, comparable to results observed in May 2011. Similarly, water quality
bioclassifications in October were all Good for the first time The benefits of dam removal to
the macroinvertebrate community observed in 2011 (a little over one year since demolition)
were repeated in 2012
Water quality bioclassification scores reported by NCDENR at SR1378 were Good and
Excellent in 1999 and 2004, respectively, and exceeded most scores noted at RM 31.6 in
May and October though the May 2012 bioclassification score was comparable (Figure 2 -7).
The 2009 bioclassification score reported by NCDENR ( NCDENR 2011) for SR1387 was
Good, which is the same value generally reported for location RM 31.6 from 2010 to 2012.
Duke Energy collected macroinvertebrate samples at Locations T1, T3, and T4 in 2001 and
all reported water quality bioclassification scores were Good. These 2001 Duke Energy
scores are generally comparable to those observed at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 from 2010 to
2012. Improvement in water quality bioclassification scores at RM 31.8 were slight in 2010,
though by 2011 and 2012, the former reservoir produced bioclassification scores similar to
the other riverine locations and comparable to the 2001 scores.
Per request of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), individual figures
showing total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification scores from 2008 — 2012
were made for each of the four sampling locations (Figures 2 -8 to 2 -11). The figures provide
a convenient graphical summary of the general improvement of the Tuckasegee River
macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity of the removed Dam.
2 -8

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Measured water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, specific
conductance, and pH) at the time of macroinvertebrate collections in 2008 and 2010 — 2012
did not suggest any negative impact to resident benthic communities as a result of dam
removal in early 2010. Macroinvertebrate collections at four locations in May and October
on the Tuckasegee River yielded steadily increasing total taxa counts ranging from 41 to 84
in 2008, from 70 to 115 taxa in 2010, from 95 to 117 taxa in 2011, and culminating in a
range from 105 to 128 taxa in 2012 The numbers of EPT taxa similarly increased and
ranged from 2 to 35 in 2008, from 20 to 41 taxa in 2010, from 29 to 51 taxa in 2011, and
closed with a range from 35 to 47 taxa in 2012.
In 2008, the riverine locations (RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7), with their more heterogeneous
habitat and flow, supported diverse macroinvertebrate communities and had water quality
bioclassifications scores ranging from Fair to Good. Macroinvertebrate collections at RM
318 (the Dillsboro Reservoir) yielded the lowest numbers of total and EPT taxa and resulted
in Poor water quality bioclassification scores in 2008. All observed benthic community
metrics indicated the benthic community in the Dillsboro Reservoir was atypical of that
occurring in nearby upstream and downstream riverine reaches Following dam removal in
early 2010, RM 31.8 became more riverine in nature while still maintaining some areas of
ponded water. Macroinvertebrate collections in 2010 at RM 31.8 yielded relatively higher
numbers of total taxa and EPT taxa and water quality bioclassification scores increased to
Fair and Good -Fair. In 2011, the number of total taxa and EPT taxa collected at RM 318
continued to increase. Water quality bioclassifications scores at the former reservoir location
increased to Good in May and Good -Fair in October and were similar to scores reported at
the other three riverine locations By 2012, total and EPT taxa numbers were generally
comparable and all locations received water quality bioclassifications of Good in both May
and October. Based on the increasing numbers of total and EPT taxa collected at Location
RM 31.8 since dam removal in 2010, the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the former
reservoir became similar to the communities observed at the other three riverine locations in
2011 and maintain6d that similarity in 2012.
2 -9

Table 2 -1 Description of available habitats at four macroinvertebrate sampling locations
on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 through
2012
2 -10
Rivenne location approximately 55 m in width with a depth of approximately 1 m
Available habitat consisted of riffle and pool areas, sand /silt, bedrock, cobble, leaf packs,
RM 27.5
woody debris, snags, and root masses Some of the bedrock areas and cobble were
covered with aquatic vegetation (Podostemum)
Located about 100 m downstream of the Dam, between the tailrace and the Highway 441
bridge The width of the river is approximately 55 m with a depth up to 15 m Available
RM 316
habitat consisted of riffle and pool areas, sand /silt, bedrock, cobble, leaf packs, woody
debris, snags, and root masses Some of the bedrock and cobble were covered with
aquatic vegetation (Podostemum)
Reservoir area approximately 100 m upstream of the Dam Habitats included vegetation
along the shoreline, root masses, woody debris, silt/sand, rocks, and boulders Substrate
consisted of silt/sand and detritus
RM 318
Following dam removal, RM 31 8 returned to a more nvenne condition (depth 1 -1 2 m)
with poor shoreline habitat Available habitat consisted of riffle and pool areas, silt/sand,
bedrock, cobble, leaf packs, woody debris, some snags, and root masses
Rivenne location approximately 55 m in width with a depth of approximately 1 5 m
RM 33.7
Available habitat included riffle and pool areas, sand /silt, bedrock, cobble, leaf packs,
woody debris, snags, and root masses
2 -10

Table 2 -2. Water quality parameters measured at four Tuckasegee River sampling
locations near the Dillsboro Project, May and October, 2008 and 2010 through
2012. Measurement of pH began in October 2008.
River Mile
Parameter Year Month 275 316 31 8 337
Temperature ( °C)
2008
May
184
144
142
169
2008
Oct
190
161
164
177
2010
May
181
142
148
187
2010
Oct
127
160
115
145
2011
May
204
159
209
165
2011
Oct
151
172
123
156
2012
May
164
152
154
136
2012
Oct
158
147
173
152
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
2008
May
91
95
95
103
2008
Oct
96
93
84
92
2010
May
93
99
98
95
2010
Oct
106
100
105
99
2011
May
90
94
86
93
2011
Oct
106
105
109
91
2012
May
98
100
100
98
2012
Oct
97
100
97
96
Conductivity (NS /cm)
2008
May
291
286
264
249
2008
Oct
320
291
294
234
2010
May
265
245
242
212
2010
Oct
407
352
378
322
2011
May
248
232
244
205
2011
Oct
446
393
364
331
2012
May
260
242
216
218
2012
Oct
299
264
250
225
pH
2008
Oct
83
73
72
73
2010
May
73
73
71
74
2010
Oct
68
75
72
70
2011
May
75
70
73
73
2011
Oct
78
85
74
75
2012
May
72
74
74
73
2012
Oct
76
75
73
73
2 -11

Table 2 -3. Total and EPT taxa numbers, Biotic Index values and scores, EPT scores, and
Bioclassifications for macroinvertebrate locations sampled on the Tuckasegee
River near the Dillsboro Project during May and October of 2008, and 2010 —
2012
RM 27.5
May 08
May 10
May 11
May 12
Oct 08
Oct 10
Oct 11
Oct 12
Total Taxa
81
92
114
116
83
105
117
118
EPT Taxa
35
40
51
40
27
40
43
43
Biotic Index Value
525
509
509
525
599
589
573
509
Biotic Index Score
30
30
30
30
20
20
26
30
EPT Score
40
40
46
44
30
44
40
46
Bioclassification
30
Good
35
Good
35
Good
43
Good
23
Good-
fair
32
Good-
fair
35
Good-
fair
40
Good
RM 31.6
Total Taxa
81
85
112
128
77
115
112
120
EPT Taxa
32
37
43
47
23
41
40
46
Biotic Index Value
545
513
522
486
606
583
552
516
Biotic Index Score
30
30
30
36
20
20
30
30
EPT Score
30
40
40
50
26
44
40
50
Bioclassification
35
Good-
fair
35
Good
35
Good
43
Good
I
23
Fair
32
Good-
fair
35
Good
40
Good
RM 31.8
Total Taxa
59
70
102
119
41
78
115
105
EPT Taxa
8
26
40
42
2
20
29
35
Biotic Index Value
729
58
544
532
782
639
634
543
Biotic Index Score
1 0
20
30
30
1 0
20
20
30
EPT Score
10
30
40
4.6
1.0
24
30
40
Bioclassification
10
Poor
25
Good-
fair
35
Good
38
Good
10
Poor
22
Fair
25
Good-
fair
35
Good
RM 33.7
Total Taxa
84
96
113
112
65
91
95
119
EPT Taxa
27
40
45
44
20
34
33
45
Biotic Index Value
556
509
544
5.42
578
539
543
516
Biotic Index Score
30
30
30
30
24
30
30
30
EPT Score
30
40
40
5.0
24
40
30
50
Bioclassification
30
Good-
fair
35
Good
35
Good
40
Good
24
Fair
35
Good
30
Good-
fair
40
Good
2 -12

2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Tuckasegee River Flow - Spring
—2008 —2010 —2011 —2012
Mar Apr May Jun
Figure 2 -1. Tuckasegee River flow associated with 2008 and 2010 — 2012 May
macroinvertebrate sample collections Circles indicate actual sampling dates.
(average flows for USGS Station 03510577 at Barker's Creek, NC).
2 -13

3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
c 2000
ca
(D 1800
1600
U
a 1400
p 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Aug
Tuckasegee River Flow - Fall
—2008 —2010 —2011 —2012
Sep Oct Nov
Figure 2 -2. Tuckasegee River flow associated with 2008 and 2010 — 2012 October
macroinvertebrate sample collections Circles indicate actual sampling dates
(average flows for USGS Station 03510577 at Barker's Creek, NC).
2 -14

130
120
110
100
CU 90
80
0 70
-0 60
50
Z 40
30
20
10
0
Total Taxa
■ May -08 ❑ May -10 ❑ May -11 ■ May -12 ® Oct -08 ❑ Oct -10 ■ Oct -11 ■ Oct -12
27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
River Mile
Figure 2 -3. Total number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from Tuckasegee River
sampling locations in May and October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012.
IN
50
M
x
40
H
d
W
0 30
a�
E 20
Z
10
He
EPT Taxa
■ May -08 ❑ May -10 ❑ May -11 ■ May -12 ® Oct -08 ❑ Oct -10 ■ Oct -11 ■ Oct -12
27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
River Mile
Figure 2 -4. Total number of EPT taxa collected from Tuckasegee River sampling locations
in May and October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012.
2 -15

6111
40
co
x
H
CL 30
w
0
20
E
Z
10
0
EPT Taxa
❑Jul -99 ■Aug -04 0Jul -09 ■Aug -01 ■May -08 ❑May -10
❑ May -11 ■ May -12■ Oct -08 Oct -10 ■ Oct -11 ■ Oct -12
SR1378 T1 T3 T4 27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
Locations
Figure 2 -5. Comparison of total number of EPT taxa collected at Duke Energy and
NCDENR Tuckasegee River sampling locations.
5
4.5
4
0
U 3.5
N
0
3
c� 2.5
vNi 2
m
0 1.5
m
1
0.5
O
Bioclassification
■ May -08 ❑ May -1 O ❑ May -11 ■ May -12 ■ Oct -08 ❑ Oct -1 O S Oct -11 ■ Oct -12
27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
River Mile
Figure 2 -6. Water quality bioclassifications based on macroinvertebrate collections from
Tuckasegee River sampling locations in May and October, 2008 and 2010 —
2012.
2 -16

5
4.5
4
a)
S 3.5
C)
0 3
c� 2.5
vi 2
co
U
0 1.5
m
1
0.5
A
Bioclassification
❑Jul -99 ■Aug -04 ❑Jul -09 ®Aug -01 ■May -08 0May -10
❑ May -11 ■ May -12 © Oct -08 Oct -10 m Oct -11 N Oct -12
SR1378 T1 T3 T4 27.5 31.6 31.8 33.7
Locations
Figure 2 -7. Comparison of water quality bioclassification scores at Duke Energy and
NCDENR Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the Dillsboro Project.
2 -17

120
110
100
90
80
CO
H 70
a0`� 60
� 50
z
40
30
20
10
0
River Mile 27.5
ototaltaxa mepttaxa •bioclassification
May -08 May -10 May -11 May -12 Oct -08 Oct -10 Oct -11 Oct -12
C
5
4 P
0
0
U)
C
O
3
m
0
O
2m
1
LI
Figure 2 -8. All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2012 at RM 27.5 in the Tuckasegee River.
2 -18

RivaMUa31.6
otota|tmma meptboxa Obioolaooifioatiun
120 8
110
100 5
OO
80 4
~ 70 ~
GO 3
:3 50
z
�
4O 2m
30
20 1
10
O O
May-08 May-10 May-1 I May-12 Oct-08 Oct-1 0 Oct-1 1 Oct-1 2
Figure 2-9. All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected iu2O00-2O]2a1RM3l.6 in the Tuckasegee River.
ORK

Location 31.8
120 S
110
100 5
SO
80 4
~ 70 ««
6O 3
m 50
z
40 2i�
30
20 1
10
O ' —72
yNay'08 W1ay'10 N1ay'11 May-12 Out-08 Oct-1O Oct-11 Out-12
Figure 2-10. All data (total iaxo, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2012 at RM 31.8 in the Tuckasegee River.

120
110
100
90
80
f6
x 70
4--
a0`� 60
.o
� 50
Z
40
30
20
10
0
Location 33.7
❑totaltaxa ■epttaxa •bioclassification
May -08 May -10 May -11 May -12 Oct -08 Oct -10 Oct -11 Oct -12
n
5
4 2?
0
U
U)
C
O
3
U)
m
U
O
2m
1
A
Figure 2 -11. All data (total taxa, EPT taxa, and water quality bioclassification score)
collected in 2008 — 2012 at RM 33.7 in the Tuckasegee River.
2 -21

CHAPTER 3
FISH
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fish populations in the Tuckasegee River were sampled with electrofishing equipment during
May and October, 2008 and 2010 through 2012 During 2008, fish collections were made
along 200 -m shoreline segments on the left and right ascending bank of the river at four
locations (Table 1 -1 and Figure 1 -1). Electrofishing collections at RM 316 (tailrace) and
RM 318 (reservoir) were made during periods of higher flow to allow sampling by a small
electrofishing boat. Electrofishing collections at RMs 27.5 and 33 7 (the most downstream
and upstream locations, respectively) were conducted during periods of relatively low river
flow to allow sampling by tote -barge electrofishing equipment During all sampling events,
fish were electrofished with pulsed DC current at settings adjusted to achieve maximum
sampling efficiency, while minimizing injury to the fish
Tote -barge electrofishing was an effective fish sampling method and the numbers of fish
collected and the associated time spent sampling each shoreline reach were substantial. To
assure fish vitality and reduce shock times, permission was sought and received (approved
Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions - second modification, dated April
13, 2010) to limit tote barge collections to 100 in of shoreline, while maintaining boat
electrofishing samples at 200 in of shoreline in 2010 and beyond. Electrofishing collections
at RM 316 were subsequently conducted by tote barge during low -flow periods along 100 in
of shoreline on each side of the river.
All netted fish were identified, measured (total length [TL] in mm), and returned to the river,
with the exception of some smaller specimens preserved in formalin and returned to the
laboratory for taxonomic identification. Catch data were tabulated as the pooled number of
species and individuals collected from both sides of the river at each location Fish
communities were further evaluated for their aggregate pollution tolerance rating (i.e., their
ability to withstand pollution), and the trophic guilds were evaluated to assess biotic
interactions and energy supply. Length frequency histograms for several of the more
numerous fish species were compiled for visual analysis.
3 -1

Throughout this study, water temperature ( °C) was measured at each shoreline segment with
a calibrated Fluke® thermistor. In 2008 and 2010, dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L)
was measured at each shoreline segment with a calibrated Hach® HQ 10 dissolved oxygen
probe while water samples for specific conductance (µS /cm) were collected, refrigerated, and
returned to the laboratory where the samples were measured with a calibrated Hydrolab®
Datasonde Beginning in 2011, dissolved oxygen concentration and specific conductance
measurements were measured in situ with a Hach® HQ40D meter.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water Quality:
Water temperatures during May collections ranged from 10.4 to 17.4 °C while those in
October ranged from 7.8 to 16.3 °C (Table 3 -1). Thermal variability between upstream and
downstream locations was likely due to a combination of ambient weather conditions, time of
day during sample collection, warming of lentic waters at RM 31.8, and influences of
upstream hydroelectric generation regimes. In all instances, water temperatures varied little
between the left and right banks at each location.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations during May collections ranged from 8.5 to 10 4 mg/L while
those measured in October ranged from 8 1 to 116 mg/L. Despite a limited amount of
spatial variability in dissolved oxygen concentrations between upstream and downstream
locations, all values were more than adequate to support aquatic life and were generally
similar between the left and right banks of a location on specific sampling dates.
Specific conductance was generally low for all Tuckasegee River samples Conductivity
ranged from 19.0 to 32 1 µS /cm during May sampling while those collected in October
ranged from 21.9 to 42.0 pS /cm. In general, with the exception of some slight declines
observed at RM 31.8 (possibly due to some combination of the lentic habitat and upstream
hydroelectric generation to allow boat shocking), specific conductance commonly increased
slightly with downstream direction. Specific conductance also varied little between the left
and right banks at each location.
While very slight water quality differences were noted on a few occasions between the left
and right banks of particular locations, anomalous water quality trends have been
3 -2

indiscernible. Additionally, there was no observable difference in water quality parameters
during the year prior to dam removal (2008) compared to the years following dam removal
(2010 — 2012). Similar observations were made during a more rigorous analysis of water
quality variables collected before and after dam removal (Quinn 2012). Temperature,
dissolved oxygen concentration, and specific conductance were always within ranges known
to support aquatic life and were generally similar between the left and right banks of the four
Tuckasegee River sampling locations Based on this finding of homogeneous water quality,
left and right bank fish collections were combined for fish community analysis.
Fisheries
During 2008 electrofishing collections (i e, prior to dam removal), 200 -m shoreline
segments were sampled and included all available habitats in each segment Boat
electrofishing at RMs 31.6 and 31.8 provided the greatest repeatability, as each location was
sampled in similar time intervals (total electrofishing pedal time for the May and October
samples at the two locations ranged from 3,617 to 4,044 seconds) Total tote -barge
electrofishing time at RMs 27 5 and 33.7 varied in duration from 5,283 seconds to 8,812
seconds per location. Thus, while sampling effort between the left and right banks at each
location was generally similar, comparisons of the number of fish collected among most
locations (except between RMs 316 and 31.8) may only be representative of relative
abundance. As stated earlier, fish collection information at each location is presented as the
combined catch from the left and right banks.
In 2010 — 2012 (subsequent to dam removal), fish populations along 200 -m lengths of
shoreline on each bank of the former Dillsboro Reservoir (RM 31.8) were sampled by a small
electrofishing boat Total boat electrofishing time at this location ranged from 2,105 (May
2010) to 4,036 (October 2012) seconds Electrofishing collections at RMs 27.5, 31.6, and
33 7 were via tote -barge along 100 -m lengths of both shorelines and total sample times
ranged from 3,392 (October 2012) to 5,804 (October 2010) seconds.
After expending 40.0 hours of electrofishing time throughout this study, Duke Energy
biologists collected a total of 26,634 fish from the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Dam.
These individuals represented 39 species, comprised 7 families, and included 12 cyprinids, 8
percids, 7 catostomids, 7 centrarchids, 3 salmonids, 1 petromyzontid, and 1 cottid (Table 3 -2
and Figures 3 -1 to 3 -7). One new species was added in 2012. Collected species are
consistent with those expected based on fish distribution maps of the Tuckasegee River
3 -3

drainage (Menhimck 1991). The least frequently observed species throughout this study
(accounting for <0.01% of this total or <3 individuals) included the golden shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas (n =1), western blacknose dace Rhinachthys obtusus (n =1 and the
new species first collected in 2012), silver redhorse Moxostoma anasurum (n =2), smallmouth
redhorse M breviceps (n =3), green sunfish Lepomas cyanellus (n =1), and walleye Sander
vatreus (n =1) A hybrid catostomid combination and a hybrid sunfish combination were also
observed but not included in the species total.
This total of 39 species compares favorably with the 42 species collected previously in this
same reach during five sampling periods from May 2001 to March 2002 (Duke Energy
2003). Infrequently collected fish in the 2001 — 2002 study that were not collected from
2008 to 2012 include common carp Cypranus carpio, longnose dace Rhinachthys cataractae,
black bullhead Ameaurus melas, brown bullhead A nebulosus, and yellow perch Perca
flavescens. Most of these species were only found in the Dam tailrace location (current study
RM 31.6) during the previous study. Two species collected in 2008 — 2012 that were not
collected in the 2001 — 2002 study were creek chub Semotalus atromaculatus and silver
redhorse.
The Tuckasegee River fish community in Jackson County includes several species receiving
special attention from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the USFWS
(NCDENR 2008, Natural Heritage Program Search performed 11/9/10) based on their
limited populations The smoky dace Chnostomus sp 1, wounded darter Etheostoma
vulneratum, and olive darter Percana squamata are state and federal species of concern The
sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma sp 2 is a state threatened species and is also a candidate for
federal listing. The smoky dace was not collected in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Project
during 2008 — 2012 sampling or prior efforts in 2001 — 2002 (Duke Energy 2003), however it
has been collected well upstream in lower order reaches of the West Fork Bypassed Reach of
the Tuckasegee River (Duke Energy, unpublished data). The sicklefin redhorse is the subject
of ongoing reintroduction efforts within the Tuckasegee River watershed (Moyer et al. 2009);
however, a specimen of confirmed identity was not collected in the vicinity of the Dillsboro
Project during this sampling or prior sampling in 2001 — 2002 (Duke Energy 2003). It
should be noted that a large redhorse collected in October 2011 at RM 27.5 (Figure 3 -4)
possessed traits of a hybrid cross that may have included sicklefin redhorse parentage (Steve
Fraley, NCWRC; Dr. Robert Jenkins, Roanoke College; and Dr Wayne Starnes, NC State
Museum; personal communications). It has been labeled a Moxostoma hybrid (Table 3 -9).
The wounded darter was collected in all years at locations downstream and upstream of the
3 -4

Dam (though never at RM 31 8), similar to findings in 2001 — 2002. The olive darter was
only observed downstream of the Dillsboro Dam prior to removal and was finally collected
upstream of the Dam at RM 33.7 in May 2011
Though not a specific study objective, hellbender salamanders Cryptobranchus allegamensis
were periodically observed, temporarily collected for photographic purposes, and released
(Figure 3 -8). These salamanders were observed upstream and downstream of the Dillsboro
Dam, both prior to and after demolition
Electrofishmg collections in May 2008 resulted in the capture of a total of 35 species and 1
hybrid sunfish combination (Table 3 -4). The highest number of fish species collected (n =
34) at any sampling location was at RM 31.6 (tailrace), while the lowest number of species (n
= 13) was found immediately upstream at RM 31.8 (reservoir). The numbers of fish species
collected at RMs 27.5 and 33.7 (the most downstream and upstream locations, respectively)
were intermediate between the reservoir and tailrace location numbers and ranged from 22 to
24 species
A total of 32 species of fish and 1 hybrid sunfish combination were collected in October
2008, the green sunfish was the only new species not previously collected in May (Table 3-
5). October sampling yielded the highest number of species (n = 30) at RM 316 (tailrace)
and the lowest number of species (n = 9) at RM 31 8 (reservoir). The numbers of fish species
collected at RMs 27.5 and 33 7 were again intermediate between the reservoir and tailrace
location numbers and ranged from 18 to 24 species.
Electrofishmg occurred in May 2010 after dam removal, but prior to completion of site
restoration activities, and resulted in the collection of a total of 29 species (Table 3 -6). The
highest number of fish species collected (n = 24) at any May 2010 sampling location was at
RM 31.6 (tailrace), while the lowest number of species (n = 14) was found immediately
upstream at RM 318 (in the former reservoir). Twenty species of fish were collected at the
most upstream (RM 33.7) and downstream (RM 27 5) riverine locations.
A total of 29 species of fish were collected in October 2010; the golden shiner and the
spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus were the only new species not previously collected
since study initiation in 2008 (Table 3 -7) October sampling again yielded the highest
number of species (n = 26) at RM 31.6 (tailrace) and the lowest number of species (n = 13) at
RM 31.8 (former reservoir) The numbers of fish species collected during October 2010 at
3 -5

RMs 27.5 and 33 7 (the most downstream and upstream locations, respectively) continued to
be intermediate between the old reservoir and tailrace location numbers and ranged from 18
to 21 species
Electrofishing collections in May 2011 resulted in the capture of a total of 30 species (Table
3 -8) The highest number of fish species collected (n = 24) occurred at two locations, RM
31.6 and, for the first time, a location upstream of the removed Dam at RM 33.7 The lowest
number of species (n = 15) was found at RM 31.8 (in the former reservoir). Twenty -two
species of fish were collected at the most downstream (RM 27.5) riverine location.
A total of 30 species of fish were collected in October 2011 (Table 3 -9); a large catostomid
collected at RM 27.5 of undetermined parentage was labeled a hybrid. Electrofishing
collections once again yielded the highest number of species (n = 24) at RM 31.6 and the
lowest number (n = 15) continued to be found at RM 31.8 (former reservoir). The numbers
of fish species collected at RMs 27.5 and 33 7 were again intermediate between the reservoir
and tailrace location numbers and were 22 and 20, respectively.
Electrofishing in May 2012 resulted in the collection of a total of 33 species (Table 3 -10).
The highest number of fish species collected (n = 28) at any May 2012 sampling location was
at RM 31.6 (tailrace), while the lowest number of species (n = 21) was found immediately
upstream at RM 31.8. This was the first instance where the number of species collected from
the former reservoir exceeded 20. The numbers of fish species collected at RMs 27.5 and
33.7 (the most downstream and upstream locations, respectively) continued to be
intermediate between the old reservoir and tailrace location numbers and ranged from 24 to
25 species
A total of 31 species of fish were collected in October 2012; the western blacknose dace was
collected for the first time (at RM 33 7) since study initiation in 2008 (Table 3 -11). October
sampling again yielded the highest number of species (n = 23) at RM 31.6 (tailrace) and the
lowest number of species (n = 19) at RM 31 8 (former reservoir) Twenty -two species of fish
were collected at the most upstream (RM 33.7) and downstream (RM 27.5) riverine
locations.
The most abundant species of fish collected varied among the four Tuckaseegee River
sampling locations (Table 3 -12). During 2008 and 2010 through 2012, the lotic habitat at
RMs 27.5, 31.6, and 33.7 were typically dominated by a member of the cyprinid family
3 -6

(Figures 3 -9 to 3 -12). In most cases, the three most abundant species at these riverine
locations were cyprinids, except when northern hog sucker Hypentelzum nigricans, mottled
sculpin Cottus bairdu, rock bass Amblophtes rupestris, or gilt darter Percina evades were
occasionally collected in large numbers While the foremost cyprinid species has primarily
been the river chub Nocomis micropogon, and secondarily the Tennessee shiner Notropis
leuciodus, it appeared both cyprinid species only came to dominance at RM 31.6 (tailrace)
after removal of the Dam. Similarly, while the gilt darter is a major percid contributor to fish
collections at RM 27.5, this species was only collected in high abundance at RM 31.6
(tailrace) after removal of the Dam. It appears that dam removal has also altered the fish
community immediately downstream from its former location
The most abundant species of fish at the Dillsboro Reservoir location (RM 31.8) has
undergone some unique shifts following dam removal. Prior to dam removal in May and
October 2008, rock bass accounted for over 45% of the fish community at this location, with
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus being secondary in abundance (approximately 17 to 19 %).
These two centrarchid species were able to adapt to and exploit this lentic environment
Following removal of much of the lentic environment with dam demolition in early 2010, the
centrarchid community underwent a fairly dramatic shift In May 2010, rock bass at RM
31.8 was displaced as the dominant species by redbreast sunfish and, by October 2010, each
of these two centrarchid species accounted for less than 10% of the observed fish
community. In October 2010, the three most abundant fish species at the former reservoir
location were all cyprinids In 2011 there was a brief resurgence of rock bass, accounting for
approximately 22 and 14% of the catch in May and October, respectively. Rock bass appear
to have come into equilibrium with the new pool habitat at RM 31.8 and typically
represented about 15% of that fish community in 2012 The presence of cyprinids at RM
31.8 following dam removal has increased sporadically though the typical riverime cyprinid
assemblage of river chubs, Tennessee shiners, and warpaint shiners Luxilus coccogenis
tended to give way to whitetail Cyprinella galactura and mirror shiners Notropis
spectrunculus. Both species may be more comfortable in waters with moderate flows and
more pool habitat (Etnier and Starnes 1993 and Olson 2012) The first mottled sculpins and
darter species were collected in the former reservoir just over two years after dam removal.
In May 2012, one mottled sculpin and two tangerine darters Perczna aurantiaca were
collected followed by one mottled sculpin and two gilt darters in October 2012. Use of this
former reservoir habitat by these benthic specialists is another positive indicator that this
flowing pool habitat is slowly being utilized by a larger segment of the Tuckasegee River
fish community.
3 -7

Pollution Tolerance Rating-
The presence or absence of various fish species may provide clues regarding habitat quality,
water quality, biotic interactions, and energy supply in a specific water body The ability of
fish species to withstand pollution or environmental perturbations has been documented
( NCDENR 2006b). Each collected species is assigned a pollution tolerance rating of
Tolerant, Intermediate, or Intolerant (Tables 3 -4 through 3 -I1) While Tolerant species are
typically encountered in most fish surveys, a water course is considered stressed when
members of these species numerically dominate the sample (Table 3 -13). Conversely, the
more Intolerant species encountered in a sample, the less likely the stream is negatively
impacted by pollution. NOTE: the following discussion is provided for `information only' as
this fish community assessment method was developed for wadeable streams and
extrapolation of the specific metric scores to river environments is, as of yet, unverified
Pollution tolerance data were analyzed by year to evaluate pre- and post -dam removal fish
communities (Table 3 -14). The percentages of Tolerant individuals collected at the three
riverine locations (RMs 27.5, 316, and 33.7) in 2008, before dam removal, ranged from 0 00
to 1.76% while the range since 2010 has decreased and measures from 0.00 to 0.46 %.
While all of these values have been < 2 %, typifying observations from NCDENR regional
reference streams, the percentage of Tolerant individuals at the riverine locations has
decreased slightly since dam removal (Western and Northern Mountains criteria, NCDENR
2006b). The percentage of Tolerant individuals in the lentic environment at RM 318 was
22 69% in 2008 and would characterize this location as deviating greatly from an NCDENR
regional reference stream. Measured percentages of Tolerant individuals since dam removal
in 2010 have steadily declined from 23 76 to 4.25% in 2012, typifying conditions observed in
streams that deviate from regional reference streams The former Dillsboro Reservoir has
undergone profound declines in the percentage of pollution tolerant individuals since dam
removal.
Since sampling began in 2008, eleven Intolerant species (silver shiner Notropis photogenis,
telescope shiner N telescopus, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mylass, brook trout Salveltnus
fontinalis, rock bass, smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu, greenfin darter Etheostoma
chlorobranchium, wounded darter, tangerine darter, gilt darter, and olive darter) were
collected in this reach of the Tuckasegee River near Dillsboro In 2008, all 11 Intolerant
species were collected downstream of the Dam (RMs 27.5 and 31.6), while four were
collected at RM 31.8 (reservoir) and six species were collected at the most upstream riverine
3 -8

location (RM 33 7) From 2010 to 2012, nine to eleven Intolerant species have been found at
the two nverine sites downstream of the demolished dam while numbers at RM 33 7 have
ranged from six to ten The numbers of Intolerant species at the former reservoir location
have always been lower than those measured at the riverine locations, however, this
difference has decreased each year. The number of Intolerant species collected in the former
reservoir has risen from five to eight
In summary, the lowest number of Intolerant species collected each year occurred in the
lentic habitat of the Dillsboro Reservoir and its successor. While numbers of Intolerant
species in the riverine locations have generally been highest, there is optimism regarding the
steadily increasing number of Intolerant species found each year at RM 31.8. Despite the
gradually decreasing differences in the number of Intolerant species measured since 2008, all
locations exceeded the minimum of three Intolerant fish species typically found in NCDENR
regional reference streams. Pollution tolerance data collected in 2008, as defined by the
percentage of Tolerant individuals and the number of Intolerant species, indicated obvious
differences in the fish community at RM 31.8, but dam removal has cause the magnitude of
these differences to lessened dramatically with time.
Trophic Status
Just as tolerance ratings provide clues to fish distributions and pollution impacts, trophic
ratings reflect the effects of biotic interactions and energy supply (Tables 3 -4 through 3 -11;
NCDENR 2006b). For example, a stream receiving excessive nutrient enrichment may be
expected to show an increased abundance of omnivores and herbivores The NCDENR
(2006b) rates wadeable western North Carolina mountain streams by two trophic metrics
(Table 3 -13), streams classified as regional reference streams have combined percentage of
omnivores and herbivores between 10% and 36% or have insectivores comprising between
55% and 85% of the sample Observed percentages outside those ranges indicate that a
stream `deviates' or `deviates greatly' from NCDENR regional reference streams for those
metrics.
Trophic guild data were analyzed by year to evaluate pre- and post -dam removal fish
communities (Table 3 -15) The combined percentage of omnivores and herbivores collected
in 2008 ranged from 9.5 to 32.3% and the fish communities were generally considered
typical for NCDENR regional reference steams except at RM 31.8, where the observed total
of 9.5% deviated greatly from regional reference streams. Since dam demolition, the
3 -9

combined percentage of omnivores and herbivores at the three riverme locations has ranged
from 18.6 to 30.3% and all values were generally considered typical for NCDENR regional
reference steams. Following dam demolition, the combined percentage of omnivores and
herbivores collected at the former Dillsboro Reservoir has ranged from 6.4 to 29.3% and only
the one value measured in 2012 (6 4 %) would be considered to deviate greatly from a
regional reference stream Variable percentages of central stonerollers Campostoma
anomalum (herbivore) and river chubs (omnivore) have been collected and account for the
occasional low combined percentage of omnivores and herbivores.
The percentages of insectivorous fish collected in 2008 before dam removal ranged from
40.1 to 74.4% and generally were considered representative of NCDENR regional reference
streams, except in the lentic waters of RM 31.8. There, the insectivore percentage (40.1%)
was considered representative of a stream deviating from a regional reference stream
Following dam removal in early 2010, the percentages of insectivorous fish measured at all
four locations in all three years have ranged from 50.2 to 74.8% All observed insectivorous
percentages were considered indicative of values found in NCDENR regional reference
streams except one value at RM 31.8 (50.2% in 2011). This value was considered atypical of
NCDENR regional reference streams.
Piscivorous fish (trout, rock bass, black bass, and walleye) have been collected at each of the
four Tuckasegee River sampling locations during every year of this study. While no
evaluation criteria have been developed for the percentage of piscivores, values at RMs 27.5,
31.6, and 33 7 (riverine locations) have ranged from 1.7 to 13.8% and were generally less
than 10 %. In contrast, the percentage of piscivores at RM 31.8 (reservoir) exceeded 50%
before dam demolition and has declined to range from 18.3 to 26.6% following dam
demolition
In summary, three different trophic metrics indicated dissimilarities between the fish
community in the lentic habitat at RM 31.8 (the Dillsboro Reservoir) and those observed at
the three riverine locations before the dam was removed in 2008 Following dam removal,
the measured trophic parameters at RM 31.8 have gradually trended towards those
characteristic of regional reference streams and observed at the three riverine locations (RMs
27.5, 31.6, and 33.7), though natural differences in habitat still persist
3 -10

Length Frequencies.
Several Tuckasegee River fish species were collected in sufficient numbers in 2008 and 2010
— 2012 to produce fairly detailed length frequency histograms. Data collection during May
and October also permitted a visual assessment of growth within a year. The mountain brook
lamprey khthyomyzon greeleyi, eight cypnmds (central stoneroller, whitetail shiner,
warpaint shiner, river chub, Tennessee shiner, mirror shiner, telescope shiner, and fatlips
minnow Phenacobius crassilabrum), one catostomid (northern hog sucker), one cottid
(mottled sculpin), one centrarchid (rock bass), and four percids (greenfin darter, Tuckasegee
darter E guttselh, wounded darter, and gilt darter) provided fairly detailed graphs.
Mountain brook lampreys collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project
ranged in length from 71 to 173 mm, TL (Figure 3 -13) Spawning occurs from mid -May to
early -June and was observed at a temperature of 13 5 °C in Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes
1993). Inadequate collections of very small Tuckasegee River lampreys and indistinct peaks
in the length frequency graph make further observations difficult at this time. The maximum
TL for mountain brook lamprey collected in the Tuckasegee River near Dillsboro (173 mm)
is less than the maximum length noted in Tennessee (181 mm) and in excess of the 162 mm
maximum TL from Kentucky (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994)
Central stonerollers collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in
length from 37 to 223 mm, TL (Figure 3 -14) Spawning occurs from early -April to mid -June
in Tennessee at peak temperatures of 12 to 14 °C (Etnier and Starnes 1993), and would
coincide with the time of Duke Energy's May sampling activities Thus, the first length
frequency peak observed in October (modal length range 56 to 60 mm) would represent the
sizes of Age 0 fish heading into their first winter. This peak coincides with the first May
modal length range peak observed for fish surviving the first winter (i.e, minimal growth
during winter). This length range roughly concurs with the observation of Etmer and Starnes
(1993) who note central stoneroller standard lengths of 35 to 65 mm after one year.
Overlapping or indistinct peaks in the length frequency graph make further conclusions
difficult, especially as males grow faster than females and some studies report wide TL
ranges for older fish of a given age (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The maximum central
stoneroller size collected in the Tuckasegee River (223 mm) during this study exceeds the
maximum TL (200 mm) reported by (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) for Virginia but is
dwarfed by a 287 -mm TL specimen collected in the Tennessee portion of the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (Lennon and Parker 1960).
3 -11

Whitetail shiners collected in the Tuckasegee River for this study ranged in length from 17 to
156 mm, TL (Figure 3 -15). This species has been observed to spawn on the undersurfaces of
rocks and submerged debris during June in NC (Outten 1958), thus no small individuals
would be expected in the May samples A large and normally distributed length frequency
peak in October (modal length range 31 to 35 mm) represents young -of- the -year fish
preparing to endure their first winter. A subsequent May peak (modal length range 36 to 40
mm) represents the size of Age 1 fish who survived the first winter. At this time, the
numbers of older fish were too few and the size range too wide to provide more definitive
information Outten (1958) observed that males grow larger than females and the oldest
individual were four years of age The maximum length observed in the Tuckasegee River
near Dillsboro (156 mm) exceeds the maximum lengths of whitetail shiners noted from
Tennessee (150 mm) and Virginia (148 mm) by Etnier and Starnes (1993) and Jenkins and
Burkhead (1994), respectively.
Warpaint shiners collected in the Tuckasegee River for this study ranged in length from 25 to
154 mm, TL (Figure 3 -16) This species has been observed to spawn in June in NC (Outten
1957), so no small individuals would be expected in the May samples. A large and normally
distributed length frequency peak in October (modal length range 46 to 50 mm) represents
young -of- the -year fish preparing to endure their first winter. A subsequent May peak (modal
length range 56 to 60 mm) represents the size of Age 1 fish who survived the first winter.
Based on the next apparent October peak (modal length range 86 to 90 mm), this would be
the size of Age 1 fish entering their second winter. A subsequent diffuse May peak (modal
length range 91 to 100 mm) would represent the lengths of Age 2 fish entering their third
summer. Outten (1957) indicated that the majority of warpaint shiners are mature during
their third summer and few live beyond Age 2. The maximum length observed in the
Tuckasegee River near Dillsboro (154 mm) exceeds the maximum lengths of warpaint
shiners noted from Tennessee (120 mm) and Virginia (143 mm) by Etnier and Starnes (1993)
and Jenkins and Burkhead (1994), respectively.
River chubs collected in the Tuckasegee River ranged in total length from 17 to 240 mm
(Figure 3 -17). Spawning is described as occurring in late spring in Tennessee ( Etnier and
Starnes 1993) and from late May through June in the Tennessee River system of Virginia
(Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). So, while young river chubs might not be expected in May
fish collections, some very small individuals were observed. The October length frequency
peak (modal length range 56 to 60 mm) represents young -of -the -year chubs entering their
first winter while the identical first May peak represents the length of Age 1 fish who
3 -12

survived the winter but exhibited negligible growth. A subsequent October peak for Age 1
fish (modal length range 86 to 90 mm) can be discerned but maturity and sexually dimorphic
growth (males grow faster than females) may obscure any further length frequency peaks at
this time The largest river chub collected in the Tuckasegee River (240 mm) exceeds the
maximum size (227 mm) reported from Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994)
Tennessee shiners collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in
length from 26 to 87 mm, TL (Figure 3 -18) Outten (1962) describes spawning in late -May
to early -June in NC at water temperatures ranging from 18 3 to 25 0 °C. As Duke Energy's
May fish collections occurred earlier in the month and at cooler water temperatures (see
Table 3 -1), it is unlikely young -of -the -year Tennessee shiners would be collected in May A
normally distributed length frequency peak occurred for young -of -the -year shiners in
October (modal length range 39 to 40 mm) prior to their first winter A diffuse range of
lengths with a peak from 41 to 42 mm was discernible the subsequent May and represented
fish surviving their first winter These fish then grew and formed a second October length
frequency peak (modal length range 67 to 68 mm) as Age 1 fish. These fish then entered
their second winter and emerged as Age 2 fish with another wide range of lengths, peaking
from 69 to 70 mm the following May No further length frequency peaks were observed.
The life history of this species is poorly known and length frequency data would appear to
indicate few fish live beyond Age 2 The tendency for female Tennessee shiners to grow
larger than males (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) may be one factor leading to the diffuse
peaks The maximum size collected in the Tuckasegee River (87 mm) exceeds the maximum
size (82 mm) reported by Etnier and Starnes (1993) for Tennessee.
Mirror shiners collected in the Tuckasegee River ranged in total length from 21 to 80 mm
(Figure 3 -19). Olson (2012) studied the biology of this species in western NC, including two
Tuckasegee River locations, and determined that spawning likely occurs from April through
July with the peak gonadosomatic -index occurring in May. The occurrence of a few very
small mirror shiners in May (only following the unseasonably mild winter of 2011 — 2012)
corroborated the indication that some spawning may occur prior to May. Young -of -the -year
shiners in October have a modal length range of 37 to 38 mm prior to their first winter. Fish
surviving this first winter have a diffuse length frequency peak (approximate modal length
range 41 to 42 mm) in May and these Age 1 fish increase in size throughout their second
summer By October, the modal length range of Age 1 fish is 67 to 68 mm. Age 2 fish
collected in May have the same modal length (range 67 to 68 mm) and it appears few fish
survive beyond Age 2. Olson (2012) determined that mirror shiners only spawn at Age 2 and
3 -13

that very few fish live to Age 3. The maximum total length of 79 mm reported by Etnier and
Starnes (1993) is almost identical to that observed in the Tuckasegee River.
Telescope shiners collected in the Tuckasegee River ranged in total length from 20 to 95 mm
(Figure 3 -20). Spawning apparently occurs in May and June in Virginia (Jenkins and
Burkhead 1994), from mid -April to mid -June in Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993), and
has been reported from April to July, with a peak in June, in northern Alabama (Holmes et al.
2010) Little is known about the growth of this species though females apparently grow
larger than males and spawning may occur at multiple times during the spawning period
(Jenkins and Burkhead 1994 and Holmes et al 2010) Given these conditions, the
interpretation of the length frequency graph should be done with caution. The apparent
modal length frequency peaks for young -of -the -year, Age 1, and Age 2 shiners in October
were from 45 to 48 mm, 57 to 60 mm, and 77 to 80 mm, respectively. The maximum total
length of 115 mm reported by Etnier and Starnes (1993) exceeds that observed in the
Tuckasegee River.
Fatlips minnows collected in the Tuckasegee River ranged in total length from 42 to 113 mm
(Figure 3 -21). Spawning is estimated to occur from April to June (Jenkins and Burkhead
1994) and the occurrence of a few very small fish in May collections would appear to
substantiate limited spawning prior to May. Young -of -the -year fatlips minnows in October
have a modal length range of 57 to 60 mm prior to their first winter. Fish surviving their first
winter were poorly collected and exhibited a wide range of lengths By October, the modal
length range of Age 1 fish was 85 to 88 mm prior to their second winter. Age 2 fish
collected in May again showed a diffuse range of lengths and little additional information can
be discerned from the length frequency plot The maximum length of fatlips minnows
observed in the Tuckasegee River near Dillsboro (113 mm) was nearly identical to the
maximum length noted from Virginia (112 mm), where few fish survive a third winter
(Jenkins and Burkhead 1994)
Northern hog suckers collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in
length from 37 to 381 mm, TL (Figure 3 -22). Spawning behavior in Virginia has been
reported during April and May (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) and no small northern hog
suckers were found in May collections. An October length frequency peak (modal length
range 61 to 70 mm) was noted for young -of- the -year fish Age 1 fish during spring had an
identical length frequency peak (modal length range 61 to 70 mm) that indicated negligible
growth during winter. Little else could be determined from the length frequency graph. The
3 -14

largest northern hog sucker observed by Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) measured 450 mm TL
and easily exceeded the largest fish collected in the Tuckasegee River (381 mm)
Mottled sculpins collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in
length from 18 to 111 mm, TL (Figure 3 -23). Mottled sculpin spawn in cavities beneath
stones or other materials from mid -March to mid -Apnl in Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead
1994). The smallest Tuckasegee River mottled sculpin was an 18 -mm individual collected in
May 2012 (following the unseasonably mild winter of 2011 — 2012), thus corroborating this
early spawning date in the Tuckasegee River This same small sculpin also had the
distinction of being the first collected at RM 31.8 in our study. Even previous collections in
2001 — 2002 failed to collect sculpins in the Dillsboro Reservoir (Duke Energy 2003).
Young -of -the -year sculpins collected in October had a modal length frequency peak that
ranged from 36 to 40 mm. Age 1 fish collected the following May had a modal length
frequency peak ranging from 51 to 55 mm that subsequently increased to range from 66 to 70
mm in October Following winter, Age 2 fish in May had an identical modal length
frequency peak (from 66 to 70 mm) based on the length frequency distribution Little
additional information could be determined though it should be noted Etnier and Starnes
(1993) did not indicate growth of Tennessee mottled sculpins to be as fast The maximum
length observed in the Tuckasegee River near Dillsboro (111 mm) was slightly less than the
maximum lengths of mottled sculpins noted from Tennessee (114 mm) and Virginia (113
mm) by Etnier and Starnes (1993) and Jenkins and Burkhead (1994), respectively.
Rock bass collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in length from
27 to 252 mm, TL (Figure 3 -24) Spawning behavior in Virginia occurred from April to July
(Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) October modal length frequency peaks from Age 0 through
Age 2 fish in the Tuckasegee River ranged from 46 to 50 mm, 76 to 80 mm, and 106 to 110
mm, respectively, and corresponded closely with similar values (45, 80, and 115 mm)
measured for Tennessee fish ( Etmer and Starnes 1993). Little additional information could
be determined from the length frequency graph based on these collections The largest rock
bass observed by Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) in Virginia measured 330 mm TL, though the
authors noted fish over 250 mm were rare, and easily exceeded the largest fish collected in
the Tuckasegee River (252 mm)
Greenfin darters in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in length from 26
to 87 mm, TL (Figure 3 -25). Spawning in Tennessee was presumed to be midsummer
( Etnier and Starnes 1993) and would corroborate the lack of small greenfin darters in May
3 -15

collections Indistinct length frequency peaks precluded any definitive summarization of
lengths at specific ages Greenfin darters are thought to have a life span of 4 to 5 years
( Etnier and Starnes 1993). The largest greenfin darter noted by Etmer and Starnes (1993)
measured 110 mm and easily exceeded the largest fish collected in the Tuckasegee River
Tuckasegee darters, a member of the greenside darter group (Miller 1968), in the Tuckasegee
River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in length from 35 to 134 mm, TL (Figure 3 -26).
Spawning behavior of greenside darters in Tennessee has been described as early spring
( Etnier and Starnes 1993) and late - February to late -March in Arkansas (Hubbs 1985),
corroborating the occasional collection of small Tuckasegee darters in May. An October
length frequency peak (modal length range 51 to 55 mm) was noted for young -of -the -year
fish prior to their first winter. A presumed Age 1 peak in May (modal length range 56 to 60
mm) was observed and followed by growth to a modal length range of 76 to 80 mm by
October. Some Age 2 peaks were discernible but should probably await larger sample sizes
for more definitive analysis. Additionally, determination of size classes may be muted by the
propensity of males to grow faster and reach larger TLs than females (Jenkins and Burkhead
1994) The largest greenside darter (Etheostoma newmanh) observed by Etnier and Starnes
(1993) in Tennessee measured 166 mm and easily exceeded the largest Tuckasegee darter
(134 mm) collected near Dillsboro
Wounded darters in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Protect ranged in length from
30 to 80 mm, TL (Figure 3 -27). Spawning behavior in Tennessee has been observed from
late -May to late -July ( Etnier and Starnes 1993) and would corroborate the lack of small
wounded darters in May collections. Indistinct length frequency peaks precluded any
definitive summarization of lengths at specific ages Wounded darters are thought to have a
life span of 4 to 5 years ( Etnier and Starnes 1993) The largest wounded darter noted by
Etnier and Starnes (1993) measured 81 mm, nearly identical to the length of the largest fish
collected in the Tuckasegee River.
Gilt darters collected in the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project ranged in length
from 18 to 82 mm, TL (Figure 3 -28). Spawning behavior in Tennessee has been observed in
June and early -July ( Etnier and Starnes 1993) and would corroborate the lack of small gilt
darters in May collections. An October length frequency peak (modal length range 45 to 46
mm) was noted for young -of- the -year fish, despite sexually dimorphic growth (males grow
larger than females) after just three months of age (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Low
collections of small gilt darters in May complicated the analysis of Age 1 fish during spring.
3 -16

A presumed Age 1 peak in October (modal length range 57 to 58 mm) was identical to the
Age 2 peak in May of the subsequent year Little additional information could be determined
from the length frequency graph The largest gilt darter observed by Etnier and Starnes
(1993) in Tennessee measured 77 mm and was exceeded by the largest fish collected in the
Tuckasegee River (82 mm)
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Measured water quality parameters in 2008 and 2010 — 2012 (temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentration, and specific conductance) were fairly similar among sampling dates and sites
and indicated little impact on the resident fish community. Fish collections at four locations
on the Tuckasegee River in May and October of 2008 and 2010 — 2012 demonstrated a
diverse assemblage composed of 39 species, one hybrid sucker combination, and one hybrid
sunfish combination, representing seven families These species are typical of those
expected for this drainage and similar to those collected in an earlier study of the same reach
of river in 2001 — 2002. The 2008 — 2012 fish community included two species of special
concern to both NCWRC and the USFWS; the wounded darter and the olive darter While
the wounded darter was collected upstream and downstream of the Dillsboro Dam site in all
years, the olive darter was finally collected upstream of the dam in May 2011.
The highest number of fish species was always collected at RM 31.6 (in May 2011, RM 33.7
tied for the highest number of species), and the least number of species was always found at
RM 31.8 (reservoir and its successor), immediately upstream of the Dam The fish
community at RM 31.8 was dominated by rock bass and redbreast sunfish before demolition,
but this centrarchid domination shifted fairly rapidly (in less than one year) to a community
dominated by cyprinids. In 2011 and 2012, the RM 31.8 fish community was variably
dominated by cyprinids, catostomids, and centrarchids. Meanwhile, the communities at the
other three riverine locations (RMs 27.5, 316, and 33.7) were always dominated by cyprinids
or the gilt darter. Pollution tolerance data indicated the fish community at RM 31.8 had the
highest percentage of individuals tolerant of pollution and the fewest number of species
considered intolerant of pollution though these differences became less noticeable by 2012.
Trophic data similarly indicated the fish community at RM 31.8 was atypical compared to
those sampled in other nearby reaches of the Tuckasegee River, though these differences
decreased after dam demolition.
3 -17

All observed fish community metrics in 2008 indicated the fish assemblage at RM 31 8
(reservoir) was uncharacteristic of those occurring in nearby upstream and downstream
riverine reaches, and was more consistent with the lentic habitat characterizing that dam -
impacted site Dam demolition in early 2010 led to removal of a large portion of the lentic
habitat at RM 31.8, though a submerged rock ledge resulted in a portion of this habitat
persisting. Several fish community metrics at RM 31.8 were still atypical of those in nearby
riverine reaches but the magnitude declined from 2010 to 2012; the trophic structure of the
fish community appeared to change most rapidly. Mottled sculpin and two darter species
were finally collected at RM 31.8 in 2012 Measured lengths of frequently caught
Tuckasegee River fish species demonstrated growth and were typical for those species
studied elsewhere in Tennessee and Virginia.
3 -18

Table 3 -1. Water quality parameters measured during electrofishing collections on the left
(L) and right (R) ascending banks at four locations on the Tuckasegee River
during May and October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012
Conductivity (NS /cm) 2008
May
276
272
251
251
River Mile
190
232
232
2008
Oct
337
275
279
316
296
31 8
220
337
2010
Parameter
Year
Month
L
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
Temperature ( °C)
2008
May
174
168
149
145
152
151
137
130
318
2008
Oct
79
78
117
11 9
130
131
108
105
362
2010
May
133
133
128
129
129
132
104
104
287
2010
Oct
121
119
118
115
152
153
119
119
227
2011
May
124
129
139
138
123
123
117
119
2011
Oct
163
156
139
140
156
154
143
139
2012
May
170
166
158
158
162
159
133
133
2012
Oct
150
145
136
135
130
130
139
139
Dissolved oxygen (mg /L)
2008
May
88
88
90
92
90
85
85
98
2008
Oct
113
116
99
96
99
85
99
99
2010
May
100
101
97
95
98
97
104
104
2010
Oct
93
93
91
91
81
83
89
91
2011
May
99
98
100
98
95
95
94
96
2011
Oct
95
94
89
89
87
86
88
89
2012
May
93
90
90
90
90
90
93
97
2012
Oct
93
87
91
92
93
95
88
90
Conductivity (NS /cm) 2008
May
276
272
251
251
190
190
232
232
2008
Oct
337
334
279
254
296
298
220
219
2010
May
260
250
230
240
240
240
200
200
2010
Oct
415
420
376
383
346
31 2
294
297
2011
May
321
318
267
269
234
223
243
244
2011
Oct
364
363
362
337
264
283
299
302
2012
May
297
292
281
287
265
260
234
233
2012
Oct
290
285
257
263
227
241
227
230
3 -19

Table 3 -2. Fish species collected during Tuckasegee River surveys in the vicinity of the
Dillsboro Project, 2001 — 2002 and from 2008 through 2012.
3 -20
2001-2002
2008-2012
Scientific Name
Common Name
(Duke Energy 2003)
(Present Study)
Petromyzontidae
Ichthyomyzon greeleyr
Nbuntam Brook Larrprey
X
X
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroller
X
X
Cypnnella galactura
Whitetail Shiner
X
X
Cyprrnus carpro
Cormron Carp
X
Luxrlus coccogenrs
Warpaint Shiner
X
X
Nocomrs mrcropogon
River Chub
X
X
Notemrgonus crysoleucas
Golden Shiner
X
X
Notroprs leucrodus
Tennessee Shiner
X
X
Notroprs photogenrs
Silver Shiner
X
X
Notroprs spectrunculus
Mirror Shiner
X
X
Notroprs tolescopus
Telescope Shiner
X
X
Phenacobrus crassrlabrum
Fatiips Minnow
X
X
Rhrnrchthys cataractae
Longnose Dace
X
Rhrnrchthys obtusus
Western Blacknose Dace
X
X
Semotdus atromaculatus
Creek Chub
X
Catostomidae
Catostomus commersonn
White Sucker
X
X
Hypentehum nrgrrcans
Northern Flog Sucker
X
X
Moxostoma anrsurum
Silver Redhorse
X
Moxostoma brewceps
Srrallmouth Redhorse
X
X
Moxostoma cannatum
River Redhorse
X
X
Moxostoma duquesner
Black Redhorse
X
X
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
X
X
Moxostoma hybrid
Hybrid Redhorse
X
Ictaluridae
Amerurus melas
Black Bullhead
X
Amerurus nebulosus
Brown Bullhead
X
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykrss
Rainbow Trout
X
X
Salmo trutta
Brow n Trout
X
X
Salvelmus fonbnahs
Brook Trout
X
X
CoUldae
Cottus barrdu
Nbttled Sculpm
X
X
Centrarchidae
Amblophtes rupestns
Rock Bass
X
X
Lepomrs auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
X
X
Lepomrs cyanellus
Green Sunfish
X
X
Lepomrs hybrid
Flybrd Sunfish
X
Lepomrs macrochrrus
Bluegdl
X
X
Micropterus dolomreu
Snallmouth Bass
X
X
Micropterus punctulatus
Spotted Bass
X
X
Micropterus salmordes
Largemouth Bass
X
X
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchrum
Greenfm Darter
X
X
Etheostoma guttselh
Tuckasegee Darter
X
X
Etheostoma wlneratum
Wounded Darter
X
X
Etheostoma zonate
Banded Darter
X
X
Perca flavescens
Yellow Perch
X
Percina aurantraca
Tangerine Darter
X
X
Perana ewdes
Gift Darter
X
X
Percrna squamata
Olive Darter
X
X
Sander wtreus
Walleye
X
X
Total Number of Species
42
39
3 -20

Table 3 -3 Fish species, number, and percent composition observed in all Tuckasegee
River fish community collections in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Project from
2008 through 2012.
Oncorhynchus mykvss
Rainbow Trout
Toerance
Trophic Guild
Total
0 11 %
Scientific Name
Common Name
Rating
of Adults
number
%
Petromyzontldae
Brook Trout
Intolerant
Insectivore
47
018%
Ichthyomyzon greeleyi
Nbuntain Brook Lamprey
Intermediate
Non - feeding
431
162%
Cyprinidae
Mbttled Sculpin
Intermediate
Insectivore
703
264%
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroller
Intermediate
Herbivore
1,155
434%
Cypnnella galactura
Whitetail Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
714
268%
Luxvlus coccogenvs
Warpaint Shiner
intermediate
Insectivore
2,883
1082%
Nocomis mvcropogon
River Chub
Intermediate
Omnivore
5,904
2217%
Notemvgonus crysoleucas
Golden Shiner
Tolerant
Omnivore
1
000%
Notropvs leucvodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
4,516
1696%
Notropvs photogenvs
Silver Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
44
017%
Notropvs spectrunculus
Mirror Shiner
Intermediate
insectivore
1,817
682%
Notropvs telescopus
Telescope Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
418
157%
Phenacobvus crassvlabrum
Fathps Minnow
Intermediate
Insectivore
387
145%
Rhvnvchthys obtusus
Western Blacknose Dace
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
000%
Semohlus atromaculatus
Creek Chub
Tolerant
Insectivore
16
006%
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersonvv
White Sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
74
028%
Hypentehum nvgncans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
1,018
382%
Moxostoma anvsurum
Silver Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
2
0 01 %
Moxostoma brevrceps
Smalimouth Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
3
001%
Moxostoma cannatum
River Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
15
006%
Moxostoma duquesnev
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
221
083%
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
32
012%
Moxostoma hybrid
Fybnd Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
000%
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykvss
Rainbow Trout
Intolerant
Insectivore
30
0 11 %
Salmo trutta
Brow n Trout
Intermediate
Piscnvore
26
010%
Salvelvnus fontmalvs
Brook Trout
Intolerant
Insectivore
47
018%
Cottbdae
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
436
164%
Cottus bavrdn
Mbttled Sculpin
Intermediate
Insectivore
703
264%
Ce ntrarchidae
Gift Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
1,907
716%
Ambloplvtes rupestns
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Fiscnvore
1,331
500%
Lepomvs auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
insectivore
201
075%
Lepomvs cyanellus
Green Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
1
000%
Lepomvs hybrid
Hybrid Sunfish
intermediate
Pbscrvore
3
001%
Lepomvs macrochvrus
Bluegdl
Intermediate
Insectivore
66
025%
Micropterus dolomveu
Srnalimouth Bass
Intolerant
Pbscnvore
337
127%
Micropterus punctulatus
Spotted bass
Intermediate
Piscnvore
5
002%
Micropterus salmovdes
Largemouth Bass
Intermediate
Piscrvore
12
005%
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchvum
Greenfin Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
563
211%
Etheostoma guttselh
Tuckaseegee Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
597
224%
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
498
187%
Etheostoma zonate
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
436
164%
Percvna auranhaca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
insectivore
163
061%
Percvna erodes
Gift Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
1,907
716%
Percvna squamata
Olive Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
54
020%
Sander vvtreus
Walleye
Intermediate
Piscrvore
1
000%
Total Number of Individuals
26,634
10000%
3 -21

Table 3-4. Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of fish species collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, May 2008
River Mile
275
316
318
337
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance
TrophlcGuild
--FZ-9/6
No
%
No
%
No
%
Petrom yzontidae
Ichthyvmyzon greeleyi
Mountain Brook Lamprey
Intermediate
Non - feeding
26
32%
1
01%
49
24%
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroller
Intermediate
Herbivore
15
18%
40
60%
36
18%
Cypnnella galactura
Whitetail Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
25
37%
20
108%
32
16%
Luxrlus coccogenis
Warpannt Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
64
78%
85
127%
17
91%
69
34%
Nocomis mrcropogon
River Chub
Intermediate
Omnivore
278
339%
71
106%
1
05%
593
295%
Notropis leucrodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
64
78%
64
96%
300
149%
Notropis photogenis
Silver Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
6
09%
1
05%
Notropis spectrunculus
M mor Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
22
27%
114
170%
315
157%
Notropis telescopes
Telescope Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
5
06%
53
79%
Phenacoblus crassilabrum
FaUips Minnow
Intermediate
Insectivore
9
1 1%
3
04%
16
08%
Semotilus atromaculatus
Creek Chub
Tolerant
Insectivore
2
1 1%
5
02%
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersonn
White Sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
5
07%
5
27%
4
02%
Mypentelium nigncans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
73
89%
33
49%
107
53%
Moxostoma anisurum
Silver Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
01%
Moxostoma brewceps
Smalmouth Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
01%
Moxostoma cannatum
River Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
01%
7
10%
Moxostoma duquesne
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
2
02%
39
58%
21
10%
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
17
25%
Salmon idae
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow Trout
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
01%
Salmo trulta
Brown Trout
Intermediate
Rscwore
4
06%
1
05%
2
01%
Salvelinus fonhnahs
Brook Trout
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
01%
9
13%
3
16%
1
00%
Cottidae
Cottus barrdii
Mbttled Scuipin
Intermediate
Insectivore
5
06%
2
03%
191
95%
Ce ntrarch idae
Anibloplites rupestns
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Fiscivore
62
76%
35
52%
85
457%
45
22%
Lepomis auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
3
04%
31
167%
2
01%
Lepomis hybrid
Hybrid Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
1
00%
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegll
Intermediate
Insectivore
7
10%
13
70%
8
04%
Micropterus dolomieu
Smalmouth Bass
Intolerant
Rscivore
12
15%
17
25%
3
16%
23
1 1%
Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth Bass
Intermediate
Rscivore
4
06%
4
22%
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchium
Greenfin Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
12
15%
5
07%
65
32%
Etheosfoma guttselb
Tuckasegee Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
27
33%
6
09%
34
17%
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
21
26%
3
04%
14
07%
Etheostoma zonale
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
18
22%
2
03%
34
17%
Percina auranhaca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
20
24%
2
03%
Percina evades
Gilt Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
76
93%
2
03%
44
22%
Percina squamata
Olive Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
6
07%
1
01%
Sander vitreus
Walleye
Intermediate
Rscivore
1
01%
Total Electrofnshing Time (sec)
5,283
3,617
3,705
8,068
Total Number of Individuals
819
100%
669
100%
186
100%
2,011
100%
W Total Number of Species
22
34
13
24
[J
N

Table 3 -5. Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of fish species collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, October 2008.
River Mile
Total Sectrofnshing Time (sec) 8,812 4,044 4 028 8,479
Total Number of Individuals 3,576 100% 1,036 100% 193 100% 2,227 100%
w Total Number of Species 24 30 9 18
N
w
275
31 6
318
337
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance
Trophic Guild
No
%
No
%
No %
No
%
Petromyzontidae
Ichthyomyzon greeleyr
Mountain Brook Lamprey
Intermediate
Non - feeding
22
06%
2
02%
1 05%
8
04%
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroller
Intermediate
Herbivore
404
113%
42
41%
108
48%
Cypnnella galactura
Whitetail Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
21
06%
55
53%
9 47%
27
12%
Luxvlus coccogenis
Warpamt Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
710
199%
107
103%
312
140%
Nocomvs micropogon
River Chub
Intermediate
Omnivore
724
202%
98
95%
20 104%
598
269%
Notropis leuaodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
588
164%
149
144%
540
242%
Notropis photogenis
Silver Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
9
03%
11
1 1%
Notropis spectrunculus
Mirror Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
86
24%
219
211%
132
59%
Notropts telescopus
Telescope Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
92
26%
85
82%
Phenacobvus crassvlabrum
Fatlips M6nnow
Intermediate
Insectivore
67
19%
12
12%
33
1 5%
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersomv
White Sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
4
04%
10 52%
Hypentehum rugncans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
197
55%
56
54%
103
46%
Moxostoma brewceps
Smailmouth Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
01%
Moxostoma cannatum
River Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
01%
Moxosfoma duquesnev
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
6
02%
17
16%
18 93%
13
06%
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
3
03%
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykvss
Rainbow Trout
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
00%
Salvelrnusfonhnalvs
Brook Trout
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
01%
Cottidae
CoNus bardiv
Mottled Sculpin
Intermediate
Insectivore
6
02%
2
02%
107
48%
Centrarchidae
Ambloplvtes mpestns
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Rscivore
92
26%
72
69%
87 451%
27
12%
Lepomts auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
17
16%
36 187%
Lepomrs cyanellus
Green Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
1
01%
Lepomvs hybrid
Hybrid Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
2 10%
Lepomvs macrochvrus
Bluegiil
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
00%
22
21%
Micropterus dolomieu
Smailmouth Bass
intolerant
Rscrvore
26
07%
39
38%
8 41%
21
09%
Micropterus salmovdes
Largemouth Bass
Intermediate
Rscnvore
2
02%
2 10%
Pe rcidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchvum
Greenfn Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
21
06%
2
02%
56
25%
Etheostoma gultsel/r
Tuckasegee Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
133
37%
3
03%
46
21%
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
63
18%
1
01%
6
03%
Etheostoma zonale
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
52
15%
8
08%
32
14%
Percma auranbaca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
21
06%
1
01%
Percvna elides
Gilt Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
228
64%
3
03%
58
26%
Parana squamata
Olive Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
6
02%
Total Sectrofnshing Time (sec) 8,812 4,044 4 028 8,479
Total Number of Individuals 3,576 100% 1,036 100% 193 100% 2,227 100%
w Total Number of Species 24 30 9 18
N
w

Table 3 -6. Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of fish species collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, May 2010.
River Mile
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance
Trophic Guild
27.6
31.6
31.8
33.7
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
Petromyzontidae
Ichthyomyzon greeleyi
Mountain Brook Lamprey
Intermediate
Non - feeding
3
06%
8
19%
1
05%
16
26%
Cyprimdae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroller
Intermediate
Herbivore
14
26%
35
82%
39
63%
Cypnnella galactura
Whitetail Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
2
04%
5
12%
15
76%
1
02%
Luxilus coccogenvs
Warpant Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
22
41%
14
33%
31
50%
Nocomis micropogon
Rrver Chub
Intermediate
Omnivore
187
351%
105
245%
13
66%
161
261%
Notropis leucvodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
91
171%
39
91%
147
238%
Notropis photogems
Silver Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
2
05%
Notropis spectrunculus
Ntrror Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
29
54%
17
40%
33
168%
27
44%
Notropis tolescopus
Telescope Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
10
19%
Phenacobvus crassvlabrum
Fatlips Mrinow
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
02%
8
19%
4
06%
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersomv
While Sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
1
02%
22
11 2%
Hypentehum nigncans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
26
49%
5
12%
5
25%
11
18%
Moxostoma duquesnev
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
9
21%
12
61%
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
05%
Salm onidae
Oncorhynchus mykvss
Rainbow Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
05%
Oncorhynchus mykvss
Rainbow Trout (w 1d)
Tolerant
Piscivore
1
05%
Salmo trutta
Brow n Trout (w ild)
Intermediate
Rscivore
2
04%
1
02%
1
05%
2
03%
Salvehnus tontmahs
Brook Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
05%
3
05%
Cottidae
Cottus bavrdu
Mottled Sculpm
Intermediate
Insectivore
10
23%
56
91%
Centrarchidae
Ambloplvtes rupestns
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Rscivore
67
126%
66
154%
38
193%
31
50%
Lepomvs auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
4
09%
50
254%
Lepomvs macrochvrus
Bluegill
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
02%
Micropterus dolomveu
Smallmouth Bass
Intolerant
Rscivore
9
17%
2
05%
3
15%
4
06%
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchvum
Greenfm Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
02%
11
26%
37
60%
Etheostoma guttselly
Tuckasegee Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
6
1 1%
12
28%
19
31%
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
18
34%
28
65%
3
05%
Etheostoma zonale
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
4
08%
26
61%
13
21%
Perana aurantvaca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
9
17%
8
19%
Percma ewdes
Gift Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
31
58%
8
19%
11
18%
Percvna squamata
Olive Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
02%
5
12%
Total Bectrofishmg Time (sec) 3,804 4,221 2,105 5,727
Total Number of Individuals 533 1000% 429 1000% 197 1000% 617 1000%
W Total Number of Species 20 24 14 20
N

Table 3 -7. Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of fish species collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, October 2010.
River Mile
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance
Trophic Guild
27.5
31.6
31.8
33.7
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
Petromyzontidae
Ichthyomyzon greeleyi
Mountain Brook Lanprey
Intermediate
Non - feeding
11
08%
19
13%
11
07%
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroller
Intermediate
Herbivore
88
65%
41
27%
46
30%
Cypnnella galactura
Whdetad Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
18
13%
101
68%
25
134%
27
18%
Luxvlus coccogenvs
Warpaint Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
133
99%
172
115%
24
129%
291
191%
Nocomvs mvcropogon
River Chub
Intermediate
Omnivore
280
208%
392
262%
8
43%
349
229%
Notemvgonus crysoleucas
Golden Shiner
Tolerant
Omnivore
1
01%
Notropvs leucvodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
134
99%
216
144%
1
05%
350
230%
Notropvs photogenvs
Silver Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
2
01%
1
05%
Notropvs spectrunculus
Mrror Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
32
24%
6
04%
52
280%
133
87%
Notropvs tolescopus
Telescope Shiner
intolerant
Insectivore
4
03%
22
15%
Phenacobvus crassvlabrum
Fatfips Mnnow
Intermediate
Insectivore
62
46%
43
29%
14
09%
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersonvv
Mile Sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
1
05%
Hypentehum nvgncans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
28
21%
25
17%
17
91%
49
32%
Moxostoma duquesnev
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
10
07%
9
48%
4
03%
Moxostomaerythrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
2
01%
Salmonldae
Oncorhynchus myfuss
Rainbow Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
2
1 1%
Cottidae
Cottus bavrdn
Mottled Sculpm
intermediate
Insectivore
7
05%
16
1 1%
47
31%
Centrarchidae
Amblophtes rupestns
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Pisavore
36
27%
51
34%
18
97%
19
12%
Lepomvs auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
2
01%
18
97%
Lepomvsmacrochvrus
Biuegill
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
01%
Micropterus dolomveu
Smallmouth Bass
Intolerant
Rscnvore
13
10%
21
14%
10
54%
11
07%
Micropterus punctulatus
Spotted Bass
Intermediate
Piscnrore
1
01%
Pe rcidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchvum
Greenfin Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
20
15%
38
25%
41
27%
Etheostoma guttselh
Tuckasegee Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
13
10%
18
12%
39
26%
Etheostoma wlneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
51
38%
44
29%
12
08%
Etheostoma zonate
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
35
26%
45
30%
11
07%
Percvna aurantlaca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
15
1 1%
13
09%
Percina erodes
Gilt Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
358
266%
193
129%
68
45%
Percvna squamata
Olive Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
8
06%
3
02%
Total Bectrofishmg Time (sec) 4,139 5,623 2,547 5,804
Total Number of Individuals 1,348 1000% 1,496 1000% 186 1000% 1,522 1000%
to Total Number of Species 21 26 13 18
1

Table 3 -8. Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of fish species collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, May 2011.
River Mile
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance
Trophic Guild
27.5
31.6
No
%
31.8
33.7
No
%
No
%
No
%
Petromyzontidae
Ichthyomyzon greeleyi
Nbuntain Brook Lamprey
Intermediate
Non - feeding
17
296%
47
588%
3
273%
56
543%
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroller
Intermediate
Herbivore
8
139%
39
488%
2
182%
17
165%
Cyprtnella galactura
Whitetail Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
14
243%
9
1 13%
3
273%
19
184%
Luxtlus coccogents
Warpaint Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
73
1270%
53
663%
1
0 91 %
91
883%
Nocomts mtcropogon
River Chub
Intermediate
Omnivore
117
2035%
250
3129%
19
1727%
300
2910%
Notropis leuctodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
134
2330%
102
1277%
212
2056%
Notropis photogenis
Sher Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
000%
2
019%
Notropis spectrunculus
Mirror Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
7
122%
26
325%
46
446%
Notropis telescopus
Telescope Shiner
intolerant
Insectivore
38
6 61 %
21
263%
Phenacobtus crasstlabrum
Fatlips Minnow
Intermediate
Insectivore
6
075%
5
048%
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersonu
White Sucker
Tolerant
Onnrvore
1
017%
000%
8
727%
Hypentelvum ntgncans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
24
417%
16
200%
13
1182%
16
1 55%
Moxostoma brewceps
Snellmouth Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
013%
Moxostoma duquesnet
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
3
052%
6
075%
8
727%
1
010%
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
000%
1
091%
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus myktss
Rainbow Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
6
545%
1
010%
Oncorhynchus myktss
Rainbow Trout (wild)
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
017%
Salmo trutta
Brown Trout (stocked)
Intermediate
Rscrvore
1
091%
1
010%
Salmo trutta
Brow n Trout (w ld)
Intermediate
Rscrvore
2
025%
2
1 82%
Saive /tnus fonbnahs
Brook Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
013%
1
010%
Cottidae
Cottus batrdu
Nbttled Sculpin
Intermediate
Insectivore
2
035%
4
050%
73
708%
Centrarchidae
Ambloplttes rupestas
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Rscrvore
39
678%
56
7 01 %
24
2182%
18
175%
Lepomts auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
000%
12
10 91 %
Lepomts macrochtrus
Bluegil
Intermediate
Insectivore
000%
1
0 91 %
Micropterus dolomteu
Snelimouth Bass
Intolerant
Rscrvore
10
174%
10
125%
6
545%
6
058%
Pe rcidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchtum
Greenfin Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
5
087%
3
038%
20
194%
Etheostoma guttselh
Tuckasegee Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
9
157%
13
163%
51
495%
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
16
278%
18
225%
33
320%
Etheostoma zonale
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
8
139%
27
338%
11
107%
Perctna auranbaca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
18
313%
10
1 25%
2
019%
Perctna erodes
Gift Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
29
504%
72
901%
42
407%
Perctna squamata
Olive Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
2
035%
7
088%
7
068%
Total Bectrofishing Time (sec)
4,180
3,450
2,781
5,319
Total Number of Individuals
575
10000%
799
10000%
110
10000%
1031
10000%
w Total Number of Species
22
24
15
24
tJ
G�

Table 3 -9. Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of fish species collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, October 2011.
River Mile
ScIentiflC Name
Common Name
Tolerance
Trophic Guild
27.5
31.6
No
%
31.8
33.7
No
%
No
%
No
%
Petromyzontidae
Ichthyomyzon greeleyr
Mountain Brook Lamprey
intermediate
Non - feeding
15
187%
31
465%
18
106%
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stonerolier
Intermediate
Herbivore
43
535%
12
180%
26
153%
Cyprmella galactura
Whitetail Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
31
386%
55
825%
18
1856%
19
1 12%
Luxvlus coccogenis
Warpamt Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
38
473%
26
390%
2
206%
217
1278%
Nocomis mvcropogon
13ver Chub
Intermediate
Omnivore
162
2015%
129
1934%
12
1237%
294
1731%
Notropvs leucvodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
79
983%
96
1439%
584
3439%
Notropvs photogems
Silver Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
2
025%
3
309%
Notropvs spectrunculus
Mirror Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
47
585%
6
090%
11
1134%
80
4 71 %
Notropvs telescopus
Telescope Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
44
547%
2
030%
1
103%
Phenacobvus crassvlabrum
Fatlips Minnow
Intermediate
Insectivore
15
187%
5
075%
20
1 18%
Semotilus atromaculatus
Greek Chub
Tolerant
Insectivore
2
030%
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersonn
White Sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
4
412%
Hypentehum mgrrcans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
20
249%
9
1 35%
8
825%
45
265%
Moxostoma cannatum
River Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
015%
Moxostoma duquesnev
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
5
515%
1
006%
Moxostoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
103%
Moxostoma hybrid
Hybrid Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
012%
Salm onidae
Oncorhynchus mykvss
Rainbow Trout (stocked)
intolerant
Insectivore
1
012%
1
103%
Salvelmus fontmahs
Brook Trout (stocked)
intolerant
insectivore
1
103%
Cottidae
Cottus bavrdu
Mottled Scuipin
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
012%
14
210%
76
448%
Centrarchidae
Ambloplrtes rupestns
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Fiscnrore
28
348%
29
435%
14
1443%
14
082%
Lepomvs auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
2
030%
8
825%
2
012%
Lepomvs macrochrrus
Biuegill
Intermediate
Insectivore
2
030%
Micropterus dolomveu
Smalimouth Bass
Intolerant
Rscivore
11
137%
6
090%
8
825%
8
047%
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchvum
Greenf in Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
20
249%
31
465%
80
4 71 %
Etheostoma guttselly
Tuckasegee Darter
intermediate
insectivore
15
187%
7
105%
100
589%
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
36
448%
23
345%
25
147%
Etheostoma zonate
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
17
211%
23
345%
19
1 12%
Percvna aurantraca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
14
174%
7
105%
1
006%
Percvna evrdes
Gift Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
161
2002%
148
2219%
69
406%
Percma squamata
Olive Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
3
037%
1
015%
Total Bectrofishmg Time (sec)
3,809
4,187
3,906
5,767
Total Number of Individuals
804
1000%
667
1000%
97
1000%
1,698
1000%
Total Number of Species
22
24
15
20
tJ
J

Table 3 -10. Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of fish species collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, May 2012.
River Mile
27.5
31.6
318
33.7
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance
Trophic Guild
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
Petrom yzontidae
lchthyoniyzon greeleyi
Mountain Brook Lamprey
Intermediate
Non - feeding
10
292%
17
206%
2
094%
26
457%
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroler
Intermediate
Herbivore
1
029%
32
388%
9
158%
Cypnnella galacturs
Whitetail Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
10
292%
33
400%
20
939%
18
316%
Luxilus coccogenis
Warpaint Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
29
848%
40
485%
3
1 41 %
55
967%
Nocomis micropogon
Rver Chub
Intermediate
Ormrvore
97
2836%
163
1976%
12
563%
78
13 71 %
Notropis leucvodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
27
789%
135
1636%
2
094%
196
3445%
Notropis photogenis
Silver Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
029%
1
012%
2
094%
Notropis spectrunculus
Mrror Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
4
1 17%
119
1442%
79
3709%
50
879%
Notropis telescopus
Telescope Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
5
146%
17
206%
2
094%
Phenacobius crassilabrum
Fatlps Mnnow
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
029%
30
364%
7
123%
Semoblus abomaculatus
Creek Chub
Tolerant
Insectivore
2
024%
1
018%
Catostom Idae
Catostomus commersonn
White Sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
1
029%
4
188%
Hypentehum nigncans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
21
614%
11
133%
3
141%
4
070%
Moxostoma anisurum
Silver Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
012%
Moxostoma cannatum
Rver Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
029%
4
048%
Moxostoma duquesnei
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
13
380%
3
036%
8
376%
2
035%
Moxosfoma erythrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
029%
3
036%
2
094%
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
2
024%
2
035%
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow Trout (wild)
Intolerant
Insectivore
5
235%
Salmo trutta
Brow n Trout (stocked)
Intermediate
Rscrvore
3
1 41 %
Salmo trutta
Brow n Trout (wild)
Intermediate
Rscrvore
1
047%
1
018%
Salvelinus fonbnalis
Brook Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
14
657%
9
158%
Cottldae
Cottus bairdu
Mottled Sculpin
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
012%
1
047%
30
527%
Centrarchidae
Ambloplites rupesbts
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Rscrvore
44
1287%
44
533%
33
1549%
25
439%
Leporrus auritus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
8
376%
1
018%
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
Intermediate
Insectivore
2
058%
1
047%
1
018%
Micropterus dolomieu
Smalrnouth Bass
Intolerant
Rscrvore
10
2 92 %
4
048%
6
282%
4
070%
Micropterus punctulatus
Spotted bass
Intermediate
Rscrvore
4
048%
Percidae
Etheosfomachlombranchium
Greenfin Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
5
146%
9
109%
20
351%
Etheostoma guttselh
Tuckasegee Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
5
146%
3
036%
8
1 41 %
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
5
146%
20
242%
4
070%
Etheostoma zonate
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
3
088%
10
1 21 %
5
088%
Perrin auranbaca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
8
234%
6
073%
2
094%
Pereina evides
Gift Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
37
1082%
110
1333%
13
228%
Pencina squamata
Olive Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
029%
1
012%
Total 9ectrofrshing Time (sec)
3,902
3,936
3,707
4,082
Total Number of Individuals
342
10000%
825
10000%
213
10000%
569
10000%
Total Number of Species
25
28
21
24

Table 3 -11. Tolerance rating, trophic guild of adults, number, and percent composition of fish species collected at four sampling
locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, October 2012.
River Mile
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance
Trophic Guild
27.5
31.6
31.8
33.7
NO.
%
NO
%
NO.
%
NO.
%
Petromyzontidae
Ichthyomyzon greeleyi
Nbuntam Brook Lanprey
Intermediate
Non - feeding
5
103%
1
039%
5
075%
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum
Central Stoneroller
Intermediate
Herbivore
9
201%
37
760%
12
180%
Cyprnnella galactura
Whitetail Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
26
582%
27
554%
28
1085%
1
015%
Luxvlus coccogems
Warpamnt Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
55
1230%
15
308%
40
1550%
94
1409%
Nocomis mvcropogon
Raver Chub
Intemmediate
Omnivore
108
2416%
144
2957%
10
388%
131
1964%
Notropvs leucvodus
Tennessee Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
76
1700%
38
780%
6
233%
146
2189%
Notropvs photogenvs
Silver Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
039%
Notropvs spectrunculus
Mirror Shiner
Intermediate
Insectivore
10
224%
16
329%
85
3295%
14
210%
Notropvs telescopus
Telescope Shiner
Intolerant
Insectivore
13
2 91 %
2
078%
2
030%
Phenacobvus crassilabrum
Fatlips Minnow
Intermediate
Insectivore
12
268%
3
062%
11
165%
Rhmvchthys obtusus
Western Biacknose Dace
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
015%
Semoblus atromaculatus
Greek Chub
Tolerant
Insectivore
4
082%
Catostom idae
Catostomus commersomv
White Sucker
Tolerant
Omnivore
4
155%
Hypentehum mgncans
Northern Hog Sucker
Intermediate
Insectivore
21
470%
23
472%
17
659%
32
480%
Moxostoma duquesnev
Black Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
022%
3
062%
5
194%
2
030%
Moxostoma erylhrurum
Golden Redhorse
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
039%
Salm onidae
Oncorhynchus mykvss
Rainbow Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
4
155%
1
015%
Salmo trutta
Brown Trout (stocked)
Intermediate
Rscmvore
1
022%
1
021%
Salvelvnus fonbnalis
Brook Trout (stocked)
Intolerant
Insectivore
1
021%
1
039%
Cottidae
Cottus bavrdn
Nbttled Sculpmn
Intermediate
Insectivore
15
308%
1
039%
36
540%
Centrarchidae
Ambloplvtes rupestns
Rock Bass
Intolerant
Rscnvore
40
895%
34
698%
40
1550%
18
270%
Lepomvs auntus
Redbreast Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
1
022%
4
155%
Lepomvs macrochvrus
Bluegin
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
022%
5
103%
Micropterus dolomveu
Smallmouth Bass
Intolerant
Rscnvore
14
313%
4
082%
6
233%
2
030%
Percidae
Etheostoma chlorobranchvum
Greenfin Darter
intolerant
Insectivore
4
089%
10
205%
47
705%
Elheostoma guttselit
Tuckasegee Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
1
022%
3
062%
26
390%
Etheostoma vulneratum
Wounded Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
13
2 91 %
17
349%
24
360%
Etheostoma zonate
Banded Darter
Intermediate
Insectivore
5
1 12%
17
349%
11
165%
Percvna aurantiaca
Tangerine Darter
Intolerant
Insectivore
4
089%
2
030%
Percvna evades
Gift Darter
intolerant
Insectivore
31
694%
64
1314%
2
078%
49
735%
Percvna squamata
Olive Darter
intolerant
Insectivore
1
022%
1
0 21 %
Total Bectrofmshmng Time (sec)
3,557
3,392
4,036
4,034
Total Number of Individuals
447
10000%
487
10000%
258
10000%
667
10000%
W Total Number of Species
22
23
19
22
tJ
1

w
w
C)
Table 3 -12. Three most abundant species of fish (percent of total
River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008 and 2010 - 2012
percid (yellow), and centrarchid (orange).
27.5
31.6
May 2008 RiverC09b (33.9 %) Mirror Shiner (17.0 %)
Gilt Darter (9.3%) Warpaint Shiner (12.7 %)
Northern Hog Sucker (8.9%) River Chub (10.6 %)
number) collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee
. Major fish families are denoted by color -code: cyprinid (green),
Oct2008
River Chub (20.2 %)
Mirror Shiner (21.1 %)
Warpaint Shiner (19.9%)
Tennessee Shiner(14.4 %)
Tennessee Shiner (16.4%)
Warpaint Shiner (10.3%)
Dam removal
May 2010
River Chub (35.1 %)
River Chub (24.5 %)
Tennessee Shiner (17.1 %)
Rock Bass (15.4 %)
Rock Bass (12.6 %)
Tennessee Shiner (9.1 %)
Oct2010
Gilt Darter (26.6%)
River Chub (26.2 %)
River Chub (20.8 %)
Tennessee Shiner(14.4 %)
Tennessee Shiner (9.9%)
GiltDarter(12.9 %)
May 2011
Tennessee Shiner(23.3 %)
River Chub (31.3 %)
River Chub (20.4 %)
Tennessee Shiner(12.8 %)
Warpaint Shiner (12.7%)
Gilt Darter (9.0%)
Oct2011
River Chub (20.2%)
Gilt Darter (22.2%)
Gilt Darter (20.0%)
River Chub (19.3 %)
Tennessee Shiner (9.8%)
Tennessee Shiner (14.4%)
May 2012
River Chub (28.4 %)
River Chub (19.8 %)
Rock Bass (12.9 %)
Tennessee Shiner (16.4%)
Gilt Darter (10.8%)
Mirror Shiner (14.4%)
Oct 2012 River Chub (24.2 %) River Chub (29.6 %)
TennesseeShiner(17.0 %) Gilt Darter (13.1%)
Warpaint Shiner (12.3 %) Tennessee Shiner (7.8%)
River Mile
_ Dam 31.8
Rock Bass (45.7 %)
Redbreast Sunfish (16.7 %)
Whitetail Shiner(10.8 %)
Rock Bass (45.1 %)
Redbreast Sunfish (18.7 %)
River Chub (10.4 %)
Redbreast Sunfish (25.4 %)
Rock Bass (19.3 %)
Mirror Shiner (16.8%)
Mirror Shiner (28.0 %)
Whitetail Shiner (13.4 %)
Warpaint Shiner (12.9°/x)
Rock Bass (21.8 %)
River Chub (17.3 %)
Northern Hog Sucker (11.8%)
Whitetail Shiner (18.6%)
Rock Bass (14.4 %)
River Chub (12.4°/x)
Mirror Shiner (37.1%)
Rock Bass (15.5 %)
Whitetail Shiner (9.4%)
Mirror Shiner (33.0 %)
Warpaint Shiner (15.5 %)
Rock Bass (15.5 %)
33.7
River Chub (29.5 %)
Mirror Shiner (15.7 %)
Tennessee Shiner (14.9 %)
River Chub (26.9 %)
Tennessee Shiner (24.2 %)
Warpaint Shiner (14.0 %)
River Chub (26.1 %)
Tennessee Shiner (23.8%)
Mottled Sculpin(9.1 %)
Tennessee Shiner (23.0%
River Chub (22.9°/x)
Warpaint Shiner (19.1 %)
River Chub (29.1 %)
Tennessee Shiner (20.6%
Warpaint Shiner (8.8 %)
Tennessee Shiner (34.4%
River Chub (17.3 %)
Warpaint Shiner (12.8 %)
Tennessee Shiner (34.5 %)
River Chub (13.7 %)
Warpaint Shiner (9.7 %)
Tennessee Shiner (21.9 %)
River Chub (19.6 %)
Warpaint Shiner (14.1°/x)

Table 3 -13. Pollution tolerance and trophic status metncs, ratings, and associated scoring criteria as defined by NCDENR for the
Little Tennessee River basin ( NCDENR 2006b).
Pollution tolerance rating Trophic status
% of tolerant No of intolerant Combined % of
Rating individuals species omnivores + herbivores % insectivores
Typical of NCDENR regional
reference streams <_ 2% > 3 10-36% 55-85%
Deviates from NCDENR regional
reference streams 2-10% 2 37-50% 40-54%
Deviates greatly from NCDENR
regional reference streams > 10% 0 or 1 < 10% or> 50% <40% or> 85%
w
w

Table 3 -14. Summary of pollution tolerance rating and the number of Intolerant fish species
collected at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro
Project, 2008 and 2010 — 2012
Year Tolerance rating
275
316
River Mile
31 8
337
2008 Tolerant
000%
176%
2269%
028%
Intermediate
8239%
7777%
2797%
9122%
Intolerant
17 61 %
2047%
4934%
849%
No intolerant species
11
11
4
6
2010 Tolerant
000%
042%
2376%
000%
Intermediate
6528%
7283%
5666%
8878%
Intolerant
3472%
2675%
1958%
1122%
No intolerant species
9
9
5
6
2011 Tolerant
007%
027%
1546%
007%
Intermediate
6526%
6937%
5362%
8787%
Intolerant
3466%
3035%
3092%
1206%
No intolerant species
10
9
6
10
2012 Tolerant
025%
046%
425%
016%
Intermediate
6984%
7325%
7028%
8188%
Intolerant
29 91 %
2630%
2548%
1796%
No intolerant species
9
11
8
9
3 -32

Table 3 -15 Summary of trophic status of fish collected at four sampling locations on the
Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project, 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Non -
feeding species are solely represented by the mountain brook lamprey.
Year Trophic status
275
316
River Mile
31 8
337
2008 Non - feeding
1 09%
018%
026%
134%
Herbivore
953%
4 81 %
000%
340%
Omnivore
2280%
1044%
950%
2820%
Insectivore
62 21 %
7437%
40 11 %
6428%
Pisciwre
437%
1021%
5013%
278%
2010 Non - feeding
074%
140%
026%
126%
Herbivore
542%
395%
000%
397%
Omnivore
2483%
2592%
1149%
2384%
Insectivore
6225%
6135%
6997%
6779%
Piscivore
675%
738%
1828%
313%
2011 Non - feeding
232%
532%
145%
271%
Herbivore
370%
348%
097%
1 58%
Omnivore
2030%
2585%
2077%
2177%
Insectivore
6730%
5832%
5024%
7222%
Pisciwre
638%
703%
2657%
172%
2012 Non - feeding
127%
168%
064%
251%
Herbivore
127%
526%
000%
170%
Omnivore
2611%
2340%
637%
1691%
Insectivore
5754%
6273%
7410%
7484%
Pisciwre
1381%
694%
1890%
405%
3 -33

A
B
C.
Figure 3 -1. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River minnows collected in the
vicinity of the Dillsboro Project in 2008: (A) central stoneroller Campostoma
anomalum, (B) warpaint shiner Luxilus coccogenis, and (C) fatlips minnow
Phenacobius crassilabrum.
3 -34

A
C
Figure 3 -2. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River darters collected in the vicinity
of the Dillsboro Project in 2008: (A) greenfin darter Etheostoma
chlorobranchium, (B) Tuckasegee darter E. guttselli, and (C) banded darter E.
zonale.
3 -35

a
C
A
Figure 3 -3. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010: (A) river chub Nocomis micropogon,
(B) gilt darter Percina evides, and (C) wounded darter Etheostoma vulneratum.
3 -36

A
4
B
C
� �j itE4it l�fl�lLt�iift(tt�i,.
'�i1�1�s•�,�Ct' /iif •i, i,
1[i I i ►i
Figure 3 -4. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2011: (A) mottled sculpin Cottus bairdii, (B) northern
hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans, and (C) hybrid redhorse Moxostoma hybrid.
3 -37

A
Figure 3 -5. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2011: (A) telescope shiner Notropis telescopus, (B)
tangerine darter Percina aurannaca, and (C) rock bass Ambloplites rupestris
3 -38

Figure 3 -6. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2012: (A) Tennessee shiner Notropis leuciodus, (B)
whitetail shiner Cyprinella galactura, and (C) river redhorse Moxostoma
carinatum.
kmil

M
13
C
Figure 3 -7. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River fish collected in the vicinity of
the Dillsboro Project in 2012: (A) black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei, (B)
silver redhorse M. anisurum, and (C) rainbow trout (golden variant)
Oncorhynchus mykiss.
3 -40

A
Figure 3 -8. Photographs of representative Tuckasegee River hellbenders Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis collected in the vicinity of the Dillsboro Project: (A) RM 31.6 on
5/17/2012 and (B) RM 33.7 on 10/18/2011.
3 -41

w
RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
I.1
RM 27.5
RM 31.6
RM 31.8
RM 33.7
■ Catostomidae ■ Centrarchidae Cottidae Cypdnidae
■ Percidae Petromyzontidae ■ Salmonidae
Figure 3 -9. Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May and
(B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2008.
3 -42

A
RM 27.5
IC
RM 31.6
RM 31.8 RM 33.7
RM 27.5
RM 31.8
RM 33.7
■ Catostomidae ■ Centrarchidae Cottidae ❑ Cyprinidae
■ Percidae [I Petromyzontidae ® Salmonidae
Figure 3 -10. Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May and
(B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2010.
3 -43

A
RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8 RM 33.7
C
RM 27.5 RM 31.6
RM 31.8 RM 33.7
■ Catostomidae ■ Centrarchidae Cottidae F] Cyprinidae
■ Percidae ❑ Petromyzontidae ® Salmonidae
Figure 3 -11. Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May and
(B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2011.
3 -44

RM 27.5 RM 31.6 RM 31.8
RM 33.7
IVITAF,W
RM 31.6
RM 31.8 RM 33.7
■ Catostomidae ■ Centrarchidae VA Cottidae ❑ Cypdnidae
■ Percidae ❑ Petromyzontidae ® Salmonidae
Figure 3 -12. Familial contributions to the total number of fish collected during (A) May and
(B) October at four sampling locations on the Tuckasegee River near the
Dillsboro Project, 2012.
3 -45

45
40
35
30
25
E
z 20
15
10
5
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1, Co 01 0 .--1 N M V 1n t0 1,
.-1 1-4 -4 e-1 .--1 r I .--1 .-1
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -13. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mountain brook lampreys
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 5 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
160
140
120
100
v
.a
E 80
z
60
40
20
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M Ln n m .-1 m 1n n rn IH m
.-1 'i N N N N N
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -14. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all central stonerollers
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 10 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the nine whole numbers less than it.
3 -46

120
100
80
CU
E 60
z
40
20
0
o u, o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o L„ o m o Ln o in o Ln o Ln o m o Ln o
N N M M a a 0 Ln ko a n n 00 W M M o o-4 -4-4 " .M-� M-� . r -It 0 M W
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -15. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all whitetail shiners collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 5 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
600
500
400
CU
E 300
z
200
100
0
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln tn Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
N M t7 V1 W 1, 00 O1 o -4 en N in
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -16 Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all warpaint shiners collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 5 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
3 -47

700
600
500
400
a
E
Z 300
200
100
0
0 V 0 00 O^ 00 0 O a N M V 0 N T O
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -17. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all river chubs collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 10 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the nine whole numbers less than it.
300 1 - - - - - -- - -- --
250
200
v
E 150
z
100
50
0
t0 O V' 00 N t0 O a 00 N t0 O V 00 N t0 O
N M M M V V V1 Ln V1 t0 t0 I, n n Co Co M
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -18. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all Tennessee shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 2 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the one whole number less than it.
3 -48

120
100
80
v
E 60
z
40
20
0
O V 00 N lD O 00 N W O a 00 N W O
N N N M M cT V N V1 to l0 t0 1- 1, 00
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -19. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mirror shiners collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 2 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the one whole number less than it.
60 r — - -- - - --
50
40
L
ai
E 30
z
20
10
0
ON N N M to V V Ln Ln koo Z 3 n n W w W QN1 m
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -20. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all telescope shiners
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 4 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the three whole numbers less than it.
3 -49

60
50
M
v
E 30
z
20
10
0
V1 VW1 tQD l0 l0 n tn0 W o0 W m m O O O .N-' .�-1 N
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -21. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all fatlips minnows collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 4 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the three whole numbers less than it.
160
140
120
100
`w
a
E 80
0
z
60
40
20
m V a b a W 0 ei O N m Q N 0 O a 0 N N N N N N N N N N M M M T 0 M M f.a M T It
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -22. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all northern hog suckers
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 10 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the nine whole numbers less than it.
3 -50

70
60
50
40
E
z 30
20
10
0
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
N M 'tt Ln to r- 00 M O -4 N
ri r-1 r-1
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -23. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all mottled sculpins collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 5 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
100
90
80
70
60
v
E 50
1
Z 40
30
20
10
0
°$ ° ° rn ° N °v°° rn ° `
rn a Ln ° en Lnn
1-1 N N N N N N N N N
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -24. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all rock bass collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 10 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the nine whole numbers less than it.
3 -51

35
30
25
a� 20
E
z 15
10
5
0
ID O V 00 N tD O 7 00 N tD O a 00 N tD O
N M M M V V ul u1 u1 tD tD r` n r, 00 00 M
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -25. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all greenfin darters collected
in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 2 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the one whole number less than it.
120
100
80
v
E 60
z
40
20
0
to O o O o O Ln O m O to O Ln Q O O 0 NO N M M
M V V' Ln to tD tD n r` 00 00 M M v
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -26. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all Tuckasegee darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 5 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the four whole numbers less than it.
3 -52

35
30
25
20
E
z 15
10
5
0
O '7 00 N to O V 00 N to O V 00
M Co M V V V1 V1 V1 tD to r- r n
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -27. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all wounded darters
collected in May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations
near the Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 2 -mm interval
includes the axis label and the one whole number less than it.
160
140
120
100
v
E 80
z
60
40
20
0
lD O V Co N tD O et 00 N W O V 00 N tD O
.--4 N N N M M -t a V1 V1 tD lD tD t'. I, 00
Length group (mm)
Figure 3 -28. Length frequency histogram (total length, mm) for all gilt darters collected in
May and October from all Tuckasegee River sampling locations near the
Dillsboro Project in 2008 and 2010 — 2012. Each 2 -mm interval includes the
axis label and the one whole number less than it.
3 -53

LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, JM 2009 Duke Energy's Tuckasegee River freshwater mussel relocation
project: June 2009 mussel monitoring. Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.
Pittsboro, NC 38 p
Duke Energy. 2003. Dillsboro Hydro Project, FERC # 2602, Final license application.
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Energy. 2004 Application for Surrender of the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project
License FERC # 2602. Charlotte, NC
Etmer, DA and WC Starnes. 1993 The fishes of Tennessee The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN. 681 p
Holmes, B, L Whittington, L Marino, A. Adrian, and B Stallsmith 2010 Reproductive
timing of the telescope shiner, Notropis telescopus, in Alabama, USA. American
Midland Naturalist 163:326 -334.
Hubbs, C. 1985. Darter reproductive seasons. Copeia 1985:56 -68
Jenkins RE and NM Burkhead 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD 1079 p
Lennon, RE and PS Parker 1960. The stoneroller, Campostoma anomalum ( Rafinesque), in
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 89.263 -270
Menhinick, EF. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 p
Miller, RV. 1968. A systematic study of the greenside darter, Etheostoma blennioides
Rafinesque (Pisces: Percidae). Copeia 1968:1 -40.
Moyer, GR, JD Rousey, and MA Cantrell 2009. Genetic evaluation of a conservation
hatchery program for the reintroduction of sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma sp. in the
Tuckasegee River, North Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 29-1438-1443.
NCDENR. 2005. Basinwide assessment report: Little Tennessee River basin. April 2005.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section. Raleigh,
NC.
NCDENR. 2006a. Standard operating procedures for benthic macromvertebrates. July,
2006 NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section.
Raleigh, NC
L -1

NCDENR. 2006b. Standard operating procedure Biological monitoring: Stream fish
community assessment program August, 2006 NCDENR, Division of Water
Quality, Environmental Sciences Section. Raleigh, NC
NCDENR. 2008. Natural heritage program list of the rare species of North Carolina
(http• / /www.ncnhp.org/Images /2008 - animal- book - complete pdf) NCDENR, Division
of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation, NC Natural Heritage Program
Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2011. Basinwide assessment report- Little Tennessee River basin (in parts).
May 2011 NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section.
Raleigh, NC
NCDENR. 2012 Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates October,
2012 NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section
Raleigh, NC.
Olson, AD. 2012. Life history traits of the mirror shiner, Notropis spectrunculus, in western
North Carolina. M S. Thesis, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC. 42 p.
Outten, LM. 1957 A study of the life history of the cyprimd fish Notropis coccogenis.
Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Society 73 68 -84.
Outten, LM 1958. Studies of the life history of the cyprimd fish Notropis galacturus and
rubricroceus. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Society 74:122 -134.
Outten, LM. 1962. Some observations on the spawning coloration and behavior of Notroprs
leuciodus. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Society 78:101 -102
Quinn, JR 2012. Tuckasegee River water quality report, April 2010 — March 2012. Duke
Energy, Corporate EHS Services, Huntersville, NC.
L -2

a
Appendix Table A -1. Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 27 5 on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project during May and
October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012. An "A" = Abundant (10 or more individuals collected), "C" = Common (3 -9
individuals collected), and "R" = Rare (1 -2 individuals collected). Highlighted taxa are winter/spring
Plecoptera that were omitted from analyses to derive an appropriate seasonal correction (NCDENR 2006a).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella azteca
R
R
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Hel►chus spp
R
R
R
C
R
C
C
Elmidae
Ancyronyx vanegatus
R
R
R
A
A
R
R
Dub►raphia vittata
R
R
Macronychus glabratus
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
Promoresia elegans
R
C
A
A
A
A
A
Stenelmis spp
R
R
R
R
R
G rinidae
Dineutus spp
A
A
A
A
A
A
Gynnus spp
C
R
Hali lidae
Peltodytes spp
R
Pse henidae
Ectopna nervosa
R
Psephenus herr►cki
C
C
R
R
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambaras spp
R
C
C
Cambarus bartonil
R
C
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
Palpomyia- Bezzia complex
A
R
R
R
R
Chironomidae- Chironominae
Chironomus spp
A

Appendix Table A -l. (Continued)
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 I
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae - Chironominae
Cladotanytarsus spp
R
C
C
R
Cryptochironomus spp
C
R
R
R
A
C
A
Demicryptochironomus spp
R
R
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
R
C
R
C
C
R
Microtendlpes spp
R
Microtendipes pedellus gr
C
R
C
C
Microtend1pes rydalensis gr
A
R
Ndothauma spp
R
C
C
Pagastiella spp
R
R
Pagastiella ostansa
C
Paracladopelma spp
R
R
C
Paratendipes spp
C
R
Phaenopsectra spp
R
A
R
C
A
Polypeddum avlceps
A
Polypeddum fallax
A
C
C
Polypeddum flavum
A
C
A
A
C
C
C
Polypeddum halterale gr
C
C
C
A
C
Polypeddum dl►noense gr
R
R
C
Polypeddum laetum
R
Polypeddum scalaenum gr
R
C
C
A
C
Pseudochironomus spp
R
C
Rheotanytarsus spp
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
Roback►a demeyerel
C
C
A
R
Stenochlronomus spp
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sublettea coffmam
R
A
A
Tanytarsus spp
R
R
C
C
C
A
A
R
a
N

a
w
Appendix Table A -1- (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
Ma -12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae- Chironominae
Tribelos spp
C
Chironomidae - Diamesinae
Potthastia cf gaed►►
C
C
Ch ironomidae- Orthocladiinae
Brillia spp
C
A
R
Cardiocladws spp
C
C
R
R
Corynoneura spp
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
Crcotopus annulator complex
A
A
A
A
A
Cncotopus bicInctus
C
A
C
A
R
A
A
Cncotopus infuscatus gr
A
A
A
Cncotopus tremulus
A
C
A
C
Crcotopus vanpes gr
A
A
Cncotopus viernens►s gr
C
A
A
Euk►effernella spp
R
C
R
Euk►effenella clanpennis gr
C
Eukiefferiella devonica gr
R
Nanocladius spp
A
A
A
R
A
A
Nanocladius downesi
C
Orthoclad►us lignicola
R
R
C
Orthocladius thienemanni
A
Parachaetocladius spp
C
Parakieffenella spp
R
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Parametr►ocnemus spp
C
C
C
A
C
C
Rheocncotopus robacki
R
R
C
C
R
Synorthocladius spp
R
R
Thienemanniella spp
R
Thienemanniella xena
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

a
Appendix Table A -1. (Continued)
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae- Orthocladiinae
Tvetema bavanca
C
A
A
C
A
Tvetema wtracles
A
C
A
R
C
C
C
R
Xylotopus par
R
Ch ironomidae -Prod iamesinae
Odontomesa fulva
R
R
R
Chironomidae-Tanypodinae
Ablabesmyia mallochi
C
C
R
C
A
Ab/abesmyia rhamphe gr
C
Ab/abesmyia sImpsom
R
Conchapelopia gr
C
C
C
R
C
Labrundinia spp
C
A
A
A
C
Natarsia spp
R
Ndotanypus spp
A
Procladws spp
R
Thlenemannimpa gr
A
A
A
Em ididae
C
A
A
A
Simuliidae
SImU/IUm spp
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
Tan deridae
Protoplasa fitchii
R
R
Ti ulidae
Antocha spp
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Dicranota spp
R
R
Pseudolimnophda spp
R
R
Tipula spp
R
R
R
A
C
C
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella spp
A
R
C
A
R

a
Appendix Table A -1. (Continued)
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May -12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella alachua
R
Acentrella parvula
C
Acentrella turbida
A
A
A
Baetis flawstnge
R
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
Baebs intercalans
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
Baetis pluto
C
R
A
A
C
A
A
A
Centroptdum spp
R
R
R
Heterocloeon spp
C
Heterocloeon cunosum
C
A
R
C
C
C
Heterocloeon petersi
A
lswaeon davidi
C
R
Plauditus dubius gr
A
A
A
C
C
C
A
Plauditus punctiventns
C
Pseudocloeon ephippiatum
A
C
A
Pseudocloeon propmquum
C
C
Baetiscidae
Baetlsca carolma
R
C
R
A
Caenidae
Cams spp
C
R
C
E hemerellidae
Drunella lata
A
Drunella tuberculata
R
Drunella walken
A
A
Ephemerella spp
C
C
C
Ephemerella dorothea
A
A
C
Ephemerella invana
A
A
A
R
Ephemerella needhami
A

a
a,
Appendix Table A -l. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Ephemeroptera
E hemerellidae
Ephemerella septentnonalis
c
c
Eurylophella spp
c
R
Eurylophella dons
A
A
A
A
Eurylophella funeralis
c
Penelomax septentnonalis
c
Serratella spp
c
Serratella deficiens
A
Serratella serratoides
A
Telagonopsis deficiens
A
A
A
He tageniidae
Epeorus spp
R
R
Epeorus vitreous
R
R
Heptagenla margnalis
c
c
c
c
c
A
c
Maccaffertium spp
A
c
Maccaffertium Ithaca
A
c
A
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertium mediopunctatum
A
A
A
Maccaffertium mennvulanum
A
A
Maccaffertium modestum
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertium pudicum
c
RhIthrogena spp
R
Stenacron mterpunctatum
A
A
A
A
c
A
A
c
Neoe hemeridae
Neoephemera purpurea
R
c
R
Oli oneuriidae
Isonychia spp
A
c
R
A
A
A
A
A
Gastropoda
Anc lidae
Fernssia nvulans
R
A
A
A
A
A

a
Appendix Table A -1. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Gastropoda
Ph sidae
Physa spp
R
R
C
R
C
R
Planorbidae
Helisoma anceps
R
R
V'roi aridae
Campeloma decisum
R
C
R
R
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea spp
R
C
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N►gronia serncorms
C
C
C
C
A
C
C
Sialidae
Slabs spp
R
R
Odonata-
Anisoptera
Aeshnidae
Boyena vinosa
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
Cordulegastridae
Cordulegaster maculata
R
Corduliidae
Neurocordulia spp
C
Neurocordulla obsoleta
R
C
R
Gom hidae
Dromogomphus spp
C
Gomphus spp
R
R
C
A
R
C
C
A
Gomphus spirnceps
R
C
R
Hagentus brevistylus
C
C
C
R
R
Lanthus spp
R
R
R
Gom hidae
Ophiogomphus spp
R

a
Appendix Table A -1. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Odonata-
Anisoptera
Macromiidae
Macromia spp
C
Macromla georgina
R
A
A
C
A
C
Odonata-
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp
R
R
R
R
A
C
C
C
Coena rionidae
Argia spp
R
A
C
Enallagma spp
R
R
C
C
Oligochaeta
Branchiobdellidae
R
Enchytraeldae
C
C
Ha lotaxidae
Haplotaxis gordloides
R
Lumbriculidae
C
C
C
A
A
A
Lumbnculus spp
C
C
A
C
A
R
Naididae
R
Bratislava unidentata
C
Nais behningi
A
A
A
R
A
A
A
Naffs bretschen
A
R
A
A
Naffs communes
C
A
C
C
A
Nais elinguis
A
Naffs pardahs
C
A
A
Nais pseudobtusa
A
Nais simplex
C
C
A
Nais vanabills
R
R
A
R
Prishna aequiseta
c
Pristina longiseta
C
C
Naididae
Pr►stmella jenkinae
A

a
Appendix Table A -1. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
May-1 2
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Oligochaeta
Naididae
Pristinella osborni
A
Ripistes parasita
C
C
A
Slavina appendiculata
A
Stylaria lacustris
A
Tubificidae
C
C
C
R
C
A
A
Aulodrilus limnobius
C
Aulodrilus pigueti
C
Aulodrilus pluriseta
A
Branchiura sowerbyi
R
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
R
C
A
R
Spirosperma nikolskyi
R
Tubifex tubifex
C
R
R
Other
Nematoda
R
R
Planariidae
Dugesia spp.
C
C
Tetrastemmatidae
Prostoma gracens
C
C
Pelecypoda
Corbiculidae
Corbicula fluminea
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
S haeriidae
Pisidium casertanum
A
A
C
A
A
A
Plecoptera
Chloroperlidae
Alloperla spp.
R
C
R
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp.
R
Nemouridae
Apphinemura spp.
C

a
0
Appendix Table A -1. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 I
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Plecoptera
Pelto erlidae
Tallaperla spp
R
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnorm►s
R
C
R
A
A
A
Paragnetina spp
C
Paragnetina fumosa
C
Paragnetrna ichusa
R
R
C
A
Paragnetina Immarginata
R
R
R
C
R
R
Perlesta spp
A
A
A
A
Perlodidae
Isoperla spp
C
Isoperla b►lineata
A
R
Isoperla fnsom
R
Isoperla holochlora
A
C
A
Remenus b►lobatus
C
Pteronarc idae
Pteronarcys spp
A
R
Pteronarcys dorsata
R
Trichoptera
Brach centridae
Brachycentrus appalach►a
C
C
Brachycentrus laterahs
R
A
C
C
Brachycentrus nigrosoma
R
C
Brachycentrus numerosus
A
A
C
A
A
A
Mlcrasema benneth
C
R
Micrasema wataga
C
C
A
A
R
C
R
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cheumatopsyche etrona
A
A
A
A

a
Appendix Table A -1. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Trichoptera
H dro s chidae
Dipelectrona modesta
C
C
Hydropsyche morosa
C
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
Hydropsyche scalars
C
R
Hydropsyche sparna
C
A
A
A
A
A
Hydropsyche venulans
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H dro tilidae
Hydrophla spp
C
A
A
Le idostomatidae
Lep►dostoma spp
A
A
A
A
R
R
A
A
Leptoceridae
Ceraclea spp
R
R
C
Nectopsyche exquisita
C
C
C
R
C
Oecetis spp
A
C
Oecetis perstmdts
C
A
A
A
R
A
A
Tnaenodes ►gnitus
R
C
R
C
C
C
R
Limne hilidae
Hydatophylax argus
R
C
C
Pycnopsyche spp
R
R
R
R
Philo otamidae
Chimarra spp
R
Dolophdodes spp
C
A
C
R
A
Dolophdodes distmctus
C
C
Pol centropodidae
Nyctiophylax spp
R
R
Polycentropus spp
C
R
R
C
C
A
C
Ps chom iidae
Lype d1versa
R
R

Appendix Table A -1 (Continued)
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Trichoptera
Ps chom iidae
Psychomyla nomada
R
c
R
Rh aco hilidae
Rhyacophda spp
R
Rhyacophda formosa
R
C
Rhyacophda fuscala
R
Results
Total Taxa
81
92
114
116
83
105
117
118
Total EPT Tam
35
40
51
40
27
40
43
43
Biotic Index Value
525
509
509
525
599
589
573
509
Biotic Index Score
30
30
30
30
20
20
26
30
EPT Score
40
40
46
44
30
44
40
46
Bioclassificabon
35
Good
35
Good
38
Good
37
Good
25
Good -fair
32
Good -fair
33
Good -fair
38
Good
a_
N

a
W
Appendix Table A -2. Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 31.6 on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project during May and
October, 2008 and 2010 — 2012. An "A" = Abundant (10 or more individuals collected), "C" = Common (3 -9
individuals collected), and "R" = Rare (1 -2 individuals collected) Highlighted taxa are winter /spring
Plecoptera that were omitted from analyses to derive an appropriate seasonal correction (NCDENR 2006a)
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
Ma -11
May -12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella azteca
R
R
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus spp
R
R
R
C
C
Dytiscidae
Laccophilus spp
R
Neoporus spp
R
R
Elmidae
Ancyronyx vanegatus
A
R
C
A
A
C
Dubiraphia wttata
R
R
R
Macronychus 9labratus
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
Ophoservus spp
R
Promoresia elegans
R
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
Promores►a tardella
C
Stenelmis spp
C
R
R
R
R
G rinidae
Dmeutus spp
R
R
R
A
C
Gynnus spp
A
A
H drophilidae
Sperchopsis tessellatus
R
R
R
Pse henidae
Ectopna nervosa
R
R
R
Psephenus herncki
R
C
C
A
C
R
C
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambaras spp
R
C
I C
C

Y
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambarus bartonn
C
R
Cambaras robustus
R
Diptera
Cerato 0 onidae
Palpomyla- Bezzia complex
R
R
R
Chironomidae - Chironominae
Chironomus spp
R
R
A
Cladotanytarsus spp
R
A
C
R
C
Cryptochironomus spp
C
C
R
A
C
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
R
C
lrpinlella spp
C
Microtendipes spp
C
Microtendipes pedellus gr
C
R
R
Microtendipes rydalensis gr
C
R
Ndothauma spp
C
R
R
Pagasbella spp
C
C
Pagastiella ostansa
C
Paracladopelma spp
R
C
Phaenopsectra spp
C
C
R
A
C
Polypedilum avlceps
C
Polypedilum fallax
R
A
R
Polypedilum flavum
A
C
A
A
C
A
C
A
Polypedilum halterale gr
C
A
Polypedilum iffinoense gr
R
R
C
Polypedilum scalaenum gr
C
R
C
C
C
Pseudochironomus spp
R
R
Rheotanytarsus spp
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Robackia demeyerei
C
A
A
A

a
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae - Chironominae
Stenochironomus spp
C
R
A
A
C
A
Stictochironomus spp
C
Subletta coffmam
A
C
Tanytarsus spp
R
C
R
C
A
A
Tribelos spp
C
A
R
Ch ironomidae- Diamesinae
D►amesa spp
R
Pagastia orthogonta
R
Potthastia geedi
R
C
Potthastia longimana gr
R
R
Ch ironomidae -O rthocladiinae
Bnlha spp
R
R
R
Cardiocladius spp
R
C
C
A
A
C
C
Corynoneura spp
C
A
A
R
A
A
A
Cricotopus annulator complex
A
C
A
A
A
A
Cricotopus b►cinctus
A
C
A
A
R
A
A
Cricotopus mfuscatus gr
A
A
A
Cricotopus tremulus
A
A
A
Cricotopus vanpes gr
A
A
Cricotopus viernensis gr
C
C
A
Eukieffenella brehmi gr
C
Eukieffenella devornca gr
R
Eukieffenella graces gr
R
Euk►effenella pseudomontana gr
A
Nanocladws spp
C
R
C
A
A
R
A
A
Orthocladius lignicola
A
C
Orthoclad►us thienemanni
R
A
A
C

a
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae- Orthocladiinae
Parachaetocladius spp
C
Parakieffenella spp
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
Parametriocnemus spp
C
R
A
A
R
R
Psectrocladius spp
R
Rheocncotopus robackl
R
R
R
A
A
C
C
Synorthocladlus spp
C
Thlenemanniella xena
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
Tvetema bavanca
A
A
A
A
C
A
Tvetema wtracies
C
C
A
R
A
C
A
Xylotopus par
C
Ch ironomidae- Proniamesinae
Odontomesa spp
C
Odontomesa fulva
C
Chironomidae-Tanypodinae
Ablabesmyia mallochi
C
A
C
R
Chnotanypus spp
C
R
Conchapelop►a gr
A
C
C
R
A
Labrundima spp
C
R
N►lotanypus spp
C
Proclad►us spp
R
Thienemannimym gr
A
C
A
Dixidae
Dlxa spp
R
Empididae
A
C
R
C
Simuliidae
Sim //= spp
A
A
A
A
A
A
Slmuhum tuberosum
A
A

a
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 I
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Tan deridae
Protoplasa fitchn
R
Ti ulidae
Antocha spp
C
C
A
A
R
A
A
C
Dicranota spp
R
Pseudolimnophda spp
R
Tipula spp
R
C
C
A
C
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella spp
C
C
C
A
R
Acentrella alachua
R
Acentrella parvula
C
Acentrella turbida
A
A
A
C
Baetis flavistngs
R
A
A
A
A
A
A
Baetis mtercalans
R
A
A
C
C
A
A
Baetis pluto
R
A
A
C
A
A
A
Centroptilum spp
C
Heterocloeon spp
C
R
Heterocloeon curiosum
R
A
R
C
C
Iswaeon dawdi
C
C
Plauditus dubws gr
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Plauditus punctiventns
A
A
A
Pseudocloeon ephippiatum
A
C
A
Pseudocloeon propmquum
A
A
Baetiscidae
Baetisca carohna
R
C
C
R
C
Caenidae
Brachycercus spp
R
Cams spp
C
C
C

a
00
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Ephemeroptera
E hemerellidae
Drunella cornutella
R
Drunella lata
A
Drunella tuberculata
C
Drunella walkers
A
A
C
Ephemerella spp
A
A
Ephemerella dorothea
A
A
C
Ephemerella mvana
A
A
A
Ephemerella needhami
A
Ephemerella septentrionalis
C
Eurylophella spp
C
C
Eurylophella dons
A
A
A
A
Eurylophella funeralis
A
Penelomax septentnonalls
C
Serratella spp
A
Serratella deficiens
A
C
Serratella serratades
A
Telagonopsis deficiens
C
A
A
E hemeridae
Ephemera spp
R
R
He tageniidae
Epeorus vitreus
R
Heptagema margmahs
C
C
R
C
Maccaffertium spp
A
A
Maccafferhum Ithaca
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Maccafferhum mediopunctatum
C
A
A
Maccaffertium mennvulanum
A
A
Maccafferhum modestum
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A

a
IM,
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
Ma -10
May-1 1
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Ephemeroptera
He tageniidae
Rithrogena spp
R
Stenacron mte►punctatum
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
Le to hlebiidae
Paraleptophleb►a spp
R
Neoephemeridae
Neoephemera purpurea
R
R
R
R
C
C
Oli oneudidae
Isonychia spp
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
Si hloneuridae
Siphlonurus spp
C
Gastropoda
Mc lidae
Fernssia nvulans
R
A
A
A
A
A
Ph sidae
Physa spp
R
R
R
Planorbidae
Helisoma anceps
R
R
R
R
Pleuroceridae
Elimia proxima
R
Vivi aridae
Campeloma decisum
R
C
C
C
A
C
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma spp
R
Nepidae
Ranatra spp
C
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
Nigroma serricornis
A
C
C
C
C
C

a
N
O
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued)
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Megaloptera
Sialidae
Sialis spp
R
R
Odonata-
Anisoptera
Aeshnidae
Boyerla vinosa
C
R
R
C
A
C
C
A
Corduliidae
Neurocorduha spp
C
Neurocordulia obsoleta
R
C
Gom hidae
Dromogomphus spp
R
Gomphus spp
C
A
R
C
C
C
Gomphus spiniceps
R
R
Hagemus brewstylus
C
R
R
R
Lanthus spp
R
Ophlogomphus spp
R
C
C
C
Macromiidae
Macromia spp
R
A
Macromia georgna
C
C
C
C
C
Odonata-
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp
R
R
R
R
C
R
A
Coenagrionidae
Argia spp
C
R
R
R
R
Enallagma spp
R
A
R
R
Ischnura spp
C
R
Oligochaeta
Branch iobdellidae
C
Enchytraeidae
C
C
C
Ha lotaxidae
Haplotams gordioides
R
Lumbriculidae
C
C
A
R
A
C
A

a
N
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued)
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculidae
Lumbnculus spp
R
A
A
C
C
C
Naididae
C
Arcteona►s lomondi
A
Homochaeta na►dina
A
Na►s behn►ngi
A
A
A
C
A
A
Na►s bretschen
A
A
R
A
Na►s commun►s
C
A
C
C
A
C
Na►s elmgu►s
R
C
A
Na►s longlsoma
A
Na►s pardahs
A
A
A
A
Na►s pseudobtusa
A
Na►s simplex
R
A
Na►s vanab►hs
A
A
A
C
Oph►dona►s serpent►na
R
Parana►s htorahs
R
Piguebella m►ch►ganens►s
C
Pristina le►dy►
C
Pristma longiseta
A
R
Pr►st►na s►ma
C
Pnst►nella jenk►nae
C
Pnstinella osborm
A
C
Rpstes paras►ta
A
Slavina appendlculata
A
C
A
Stylana lacustns
A
R
A
C
Unc►na►s unc►nata
C
Tubificidae
R
C
C
A
A
A
A
L►mnodnlus hoffine►sten
C
R
C
A
R

Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Oligochaeta
Tubificidae
Tubifex tubifex
R
R
R
C
Other
Glossi honiidae
Placobdella spp.
R
C
R
Nematoda
R
Planariidae
Dugesia spp.
C
Piscicolidae
Myzobdella lugubris
R
Tetrastemmatidae
Prostoma graecens
A
R
Pelecypoda
Corbiculidae
Corbicula fluminea
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S haeriidae
Pisidium casertanum
A
A
C
A
C
Plecoptera
Chloroperlidae
Allopede spp.
R
R
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp.
C
Pelto erlidae
Tallaperla spp.
R
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis
C
C
A
C
C
C
R
Paragnetina spp.
C
Paragnetina ichusa
R
Paragnetina immarginata
R
C
A
C
C
C
Perlesta spp.
A
A
A
A
a
N
N

a
N
W
Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
May -08
May -10
May -11
May -12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Plecoptera
Perlodidae
Cultus decisus
R
Helopicus subvarians
A
Isoperla spp.
R
C
Isoperla bilineata
A
Isoperla holochlora
C
C
C
Remenus bilobatus
C
Pteronarc idae
Pteronarcys spp.
C
Pteronarcys dorsata
C
Pteronarcys proteus
R
Trichoptera
Brachycentridae
Brachycentrus appalachia
A
A
Brachycentrus lateralis
A
A
A
A
Brachycentrus nigrosoma
C
Brachycentrus numerosus
R
A
A
A
A
A
Micrasema spp.
R
Micrasema bennetti
C
Micrasema wataga
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
Glossosomatidae
Glossosoma nigrior
R
H alopsychidae
Phylocentropus spp.
R
H drops chidae
Cheumatopsyche spp.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cheumatopsyche etrona
A
A
A
A
Diplectrona modesta
R
R
R
Hydropsyche bronta
R

Appendix Table A -2. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche morosa
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
Hydropsyche scalans
A
R
Hydropsyche sparna
A
C
C
A
C
Hydropsyche venulans
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H dro tilidae
Hydroptila spp
C
A
R
A
C
Le idostomatidae
Lepidostoma spp
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Le toceridae
Cerac /ea spp
R
R
C
C
Cerac /ea flava
R
Nectopsyche exquisda
R
C
C
R
R
R
Oecetis spp
C
C
Oecetis persimdls
C
C
A
A
A
A
Tnaenodes spp
R
Tnaenodes ignitus
C
R
C
R
R
Limne hilidae
Hydatophylax argus
C
R
C
Pycnopsyche spp
R
C
Philopotamidae
Dolophdodes spp
C
Dolophdodes distinctus
A
Phryganeidae
PtIlostomis spp
R
R
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus spp
R
C
R
R
C
A
A
a
N
�P

Appendix Table A -2 (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Trichoptera
Ps chom iidae
Lype diversa
R
R
Psychompa nomada
R
R
Rh aco hilidae
Rhyacophda spp
R
Rhyacophda formosa
R
C
Results
Total Tam
81
85
112
128
77
115
112
120
Total EPT Taxa
32
37
43
47
23
41
40
46
Biotc Index Value
545
513
522
486
606
583
552
516
Biotic Index Score
30
30
30
36
20
20
30
30
EPT Score
30
40
40
50
26
44
40
50
Bioclassificaton
30
Good -fair
35
Good
35
Good
43
Good
23
Fair
32
Good -fair
35
Good
40
Good
a
N
Un

Q
Appendix Table A -3. Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 318 on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project during May and
October, 2008 and 2010-2012. An "A"= Abundant (10 or more individuals collected), "C" =Common (3 -9
individuals collected), and "R" = Rare (1 -2 individuals collected). Highlighted taxa are winter /spring
Plecoptera that were omitted from analyses to derive an appropriate seasonal correction (NCDENR 2006a)
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus spp
R
C
Dytiscidae
Hydroporus spp
R
Neoporus spp
C
C
R
Elmidae
Ancyronyx vanegatus
R
R
C
C
A
C
A
Dubtraphla wttatata
R
R
Macronychus glabratus
R
C
C
R
C
A
A
Opt►oservus spp
R
Promoresia elegans
A
R
R
C
Promoresia tardella
R
Stenelmis spp
R
C
R
C
R
G rinidae
Gynnus spp
R
A
Haliplidae
Haliplus spp
R
Peltodytes spp
C
R
R
A
Pse henidae
Psephenus hermcki
R
C
R
R
C
Ptilodact lidae
Anchytarsus bicolor
R
R
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambaras spp
C
R
C
Cambarus bartonu
R
R

v
N
v
Appendix Table A -3. (Continued)
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
May-1 1
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambaras robustus
R
R
Diptera
Cerato 0 onidae
Palpomy►a- Bezzia complex
A
C
C
R
Chironomidae - Chironominae
Chironomus spp
A
A
A
A
Cladopelma spp
R
Cladotanytarsus spp
R
R
C
A
C
C
C
Cryptochironomus spp
R
C
A
C
A
A
A
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
C
R
R
A
R
C
L►p mella spp
R
MIcrotendipes spp
R
Microtendipes pedellus gr
C
C
C
A
Microtendipes rydalensis gr
A
C
Parachironomus spp
R
Paracladopelma spp
R
C
C
R
C
C
Paralauterbormella spp
R
C
Paratendipes spp
R
R
R
Phaenopsectra spp
A
C
A
A
R
A
Polypedilum awceps
R
A
Polypeddum fallax
C
C
R
Polypeddum flavum
A
C
A
A
A
C
C
Polypeddum halterale gr
R
C
A
R
Polypeddum dhnoense gr
C
R
R
R
A
Polypeddum laetum
C
Polypeddum scalaenum gr
R
R
C
R
C
C
Rheotanytarsus spp
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
Robackia demeyerei
C
A
R
A
A

a
N
00
Appendix Table A -3 (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 I
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae - Chironominae
Stenochironomus spp
R
C
C
A
Stictochironomus spp
A
R
Sublettea coffmam
C
R
Synorthocladius spp
R
Tanytarsus spp
R
C
R
A
A
Tribelos spp
A
C
C
C
Ch ironomidae -D iamesinae
Pagastia orthogonia
C
Potthastla spp
R
Potthastia cf gaedii
C
Chironomidae- Orthocladiinae
Brillia spp
R
A
R
R
Cardiocladius spp
R
C
Corynoneura spp
R
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cricotopus annulator complex
C
A
A
R
A
C
Cricotopus bicinctus
C
A
C
R
R
C
C
Cricotopus infuscatus gr
A
A
A
Cricotopus tremulus
R
A
C
Cricotopus varipes gr
A
A
Cricotopus viernensis gr
C
C
Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr
C
Nanocladius spp
C
R
C
A
A
C
Orthocladius lignicola
R
A
R
Orthocladlus thlenemanni
R
Parakieffenella spp
C
A
A
A
C
R
A
A
Parametnocnemus spp
C
C
C
A
C
Psectrocladius spp
R

a
N
Appendix Table A -3 (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae- Orthocladiinae
Rheocncotopus robacki
R
R
C
Smittia spp
R
Synorthocladius spp
R
Thienemanmella xena
A
A
A
A
A
C
Tvetema bavanca
C
A
A
C
A
Tvetema vitrac►es
R
A
C
R
Chironomidae-Tanypodinae
Ablabesmyia spp
R
Ablabesmyia janta
A
Ablabesmpa mallochi
A
C
C
A
A
A
R
Ablabesmyia rhamphe gr
A
Chnotanypus spp
C
A
Conchapelopia gr
R
C
C
Labrundmia spp
A
R
A
Mlotanypus spp
R
C
Procladius spp
C
Thienemannimym gr
C
A
C
Em ididae
R
C
C
C
Simuliidae
Sim //= spp
C
A
A
R
A
A
Ti ulidae
Antocha spp
A
A
C
A
R
Pseudolimnophda spp
R
Tipula spp
R
R
C
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella spp
R
C
C
C
Acentrella turbida
C
A
C
A

a
W
0
Appendix Table A -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis flavistnga
C
A
A
A
A
C
Baet►s mtercalans
R
A
A
R
C
C
Baetis pluto
R
C
A
C
C
Centroptilum spp
R
Heterocloeon spp
R
R
Plauditus dubius gr
A
A
A
R
A
C
Plauditus punctiventns
C
Pseudocloeon ephippiatum
C
R
C
Pseudocloeon proprnquum
R
Baetiscidae
Baet1sca carohna
R
R
R
Caenidae
Caems spp
R
R
C
A
E hemerellidae
Drunella lata
R
Drunella tuberculate
R
Drunella walken
A
C
Ephemerella spp
A
Ephemerella dorothea
A
Ephemerella invana
A
A
Ephemerella needhamt
A
Ephemerella septentnonalis
R
A
Eurylophella spp
C
Eurylophella dons
A
A
A
Eurylophella funerahs
C
Penelomax septentnonahs
C
Serratella spp
R

a
W
Appendix Table A -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Ephemeroptera
E hemerellidae
Serratella deficlens
R
Serratella serrato►des
A
Telagonopsls deficlens
C
A
A
Ephemeridae
Ephemera spp
R
He tageniidae
Epeorus spp
R
Heptagenla marglnalls
C
C
Maccaffertlum spp
A
A
Maccaffertium Ithaca
A
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertlum mediopunctatum
A
C
Maccaffertium mennvulanum
A
C
Maccaffertlum modestum
A
A
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertlum pudicum
C
Stenacron Interpunctatum
R
C
C
A
A
A
A
Le tophlebUdae
Paraleptophlebla spp
R
Neoephemeridae
Neoephemera purpurea
R
R
Oligoneudidae
Isonychla spp
C
C
A
C
A
Si hionuridae
Siphlonurus spp
C
Gastropoda
Anc lidae
Fernssla nwlans
A
A
A
A
A
Ph sidae
Physa spp
A
R
C
R
C
R

Appendix Table A -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-1 1
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Gastropoda
Planorbidae
Helisoma anceps
A
R
C
C
Pleuroceridae
Elimia prowma
R
R
Vivi aridae
Campeloma decisum
A
A
R
C
A
A
A
A
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea spp
R
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus
A
C
C
C
Nigronla serrIcorms
R
R
R
C
R
Sialidae
Slabs spp
R
C
C
Odonata-
Anisoptera
Aeshnidae
Boyers wnosa
R
R
R
C
R
R
C
C
Corduliidae
Epicorduha spp
R
Neurocordulia spp
R
Tetragoneuna spp
R
C
Gom hidae
Gomphus spp
C
R
A
A
R
C
A
Gomphus spiniceps
R
R
R
Hagemus brewstylus
R
C
Ophiogomphus spp
R
Macromiidae
Macrom►a spp
R
Macromia georgma
R
C
C
A
A
a
w
N

Appendix Table A -3 (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Odonata-
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp
C
C
A
Coena rionidae
Argia spp
A
A
C
C
Enallagma spp
R
R
lschnura spp
C
A
Oligochaeta
Branch iobdellidae
R
A
Enchytraeidae
A
C
C
Lumbriculidae
C
A
R
A
Lumbnculus spp
R
A
R
R
Naididae
R
A
R
C
C
Arcteonais lomondi
R
R
Homochaeta na►drna
A
R
Naffs bar
R
Nais behn►ngr
C
A
A
R
C
R
Naffs bretschen
C
A
A
C
Naffs communes
A
A
C
A
Naffs elmgws
C
A
Na►s pardahs
C
A
A
C
Nals pseudobtusa
C
A
Na►s simplex
C
A
Na►s vanabdis
R
A
C
Pnstina longiseta
R
A
A
Pnstina sima
C
R
Prnstinella jenkinae
A
C
A
Pnstinella osborm
A
A
R
Ripostes parasita
C
A
A
A
A
Stylana lacustns
R
C
C
A
R

a
W
Appendix Table A -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Oligochaeta
Naididae
Uncinais uncinata
C
Tubificidae
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
Aulodrilus pigueti
R
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
C
A
R
A
A
R
C
R
Limnodrilus profundicola
R
Tubifex tubifex
A
A
A
Other
Glossi honiidae
Placobdella spp.
R
Nematoda
R
Planadidae
Dugesia spp.
C
Piscicolidae
Myzobdella lugubris
A
Tetrastemmatidae
Prostoma graecens
R
R
Pelecypoda
Corbiculidae
Corbicula fluminea
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium casertanum
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Plecoptera
Nemouridae
Amphinemura spp.
R
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis
C
C
C
Perlesta spp.
R
A
A
Perlodidae
Isoperla bilineata
C
Isoperla holochlora
R
R
R

a
W
Appendix Table A -3. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
May-1 I
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Plecoptera
Pteronarc idae
Pteronarcys spp
R
Pteronarcys dorsata
C
Trichoptera
Brach centridae
Brachycentrus laterals
C
R
C
Brachycentrus numerosus
R
A
Micrasema wataga
R
C
A
R
Goeridae
Goera spp
R
H alopsychidae
Phylocentropus spp
C
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp
C
A
A
A
A
A
Cheumatopsyche etrona
R
A
A
C
Diplectrona modesta
R
R
R
Hydropsyche bronta
R
Hydropsyche morosa
R
C
R
A
C
Hydropsyche sca /arcs
A
Hydropsyche sparna
R
A
Hydropsyche venulans
A
A
A
C
H dro tilidae
Hydropt►la spp
A
A
R
A
Le idostomatidae
Lepidostoma spp
C
A
A
C
C
A
Le tceridae
Nectopsyche exquisita
R
R
Oecetis spp
C
A
Oecetis persim►lis
A
A
R

Appendix Table A -3. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Trichoptera
Le toceridae
Triaenodes spp
R
Triaenodes ignitus
R
R
A
C
Limnephilidae
Hydatophylax argus
R
A
Pycnopsyche spp
R
R
C
Philo otamidae
Doloph►lodes spp
R
R
Dolophdodes d►stinctus
R
Phryganeidae
Phlostomis spp
R
Polycentropodidae
Neureclipsis spp
R
Nychophylax spp
R
R
Polycentropus spp
C
R
R
C
C
A
A
Ps chom iidae
Psychompa nomada
R
R
R
A
Results
Total Taxa
59
70
102
119
41
78
115
105
Total EPT Tam
8
26
40
42
2
20
29
35
Biobc Index Value
729
580
544
532
782
639
634
543
Biobc Index Score
1 0
20
30
30
1 0
20
20
30
EPT Score
10
30
40
46
1 0
24
30
40
Bioclassificabon
1 0
Poor
25
Good -fai r
35
Good
38
Good
1 0
Poor
22
Fai r
25
Good -fair
35
Good
a
w
ON

Appendix Table A -4. Macroinvertebrates collected at RM 33.7 on the Tuckasegee River near the Dillsboro Project during May and
October, 2008 and 2010-2012 An "A"= Abundant (10 or more individuals collected), "C" =Common (3 -9
individuals collected), and "R" = Rare (1 -2 individuals collected). Highlighted taxa are winter /spring
Plecoptera that were omitted from analyses to derive an appropriate seasonal correction (NCDENR 2006a).
Taxon
Ma -08
May-10
May-1 1
May -12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus spp
R
R
C
C
C
C
C
Elmidae
Ancyronyx vanegatus
C
R
C
R
R
C
A
Dubiraphia wttata
R
R
Macronychus glabratus
C
C
C
C
A
C
A
A
Optioservus spp
C
Promoresia elegans
A
R
C
A
A
A
A
Stenelmis spp
R
R
C
R
C
C
G rinidae
D►neutus spp
R
R
Gyrmus spp
A
H dro hilidae
Helophorus spp
R
Sperchopsis tessellatus
C
Psephenidae
Ectopna nervosa
R
R
R
R
Psephenus hernck►
R
C
C
R
C
R
C
Ptilodact lidae
Anchytarsus bicolor
C
C
A
C
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambaras spp
R
C
R
R
C
Cambaras bartonu
R
R
Cambaras robustus
R

a
W
00
Appendix Table A -4. (Continued)
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Cerato 0 onidae
Palpompa- Bezzia complex
A
C
R
R
R
Chironomidae - Chironominae
Chironomus spp
C
R
Cladotanytarsus spp
C
A
A
R
A
Cryptochironomus spp
R
R
A
C
A
C
R
Demicryptochironomus spp
R
C
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
C
A
C
R
R
R
MIcrotendipes spp
R
R
Microtendipes pedellus gr
C
C
R
Microtendipes rydalensis gr
A
Ndothauma spp
R
C
R
R
C
Pagastlella spp
R
R
Paracladopelma spp
R
A
Paratendipes spp
A
Phaenopsectra spp
A
R
A
R
R
Polypeddum aviceps
R
C
Polypeddum fallax
R
A
Polypeddum flavum
A
A
R
C
C
Polypeddum halterale gr
A
R
C
R
A
Polypeddum dl►noense gr
C
Polypeddum laetum
R
C
Polypeddum scalaenum gr
R
C
A
R
A
Pseudochironomus spp
R
R
C
R
Rheotanytarsus spp
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
Robackia demeyerei
C
A
A
A
R
A
Stempellma spp
C
Stenochironomus spp
R
A
C
A
C

a
W
Appendix Table A -4. (Continued).
Taxon
Ma -08
Ma -10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae - Chironominae
Stictoch►ronomus spp
C
Subletta coffmam
C
R
Tanytarsus spp
C
C
R
A
C
A
A
C
Trnbelos spp
A
Chironomidae- Diamesinae
Potthastia cf gaedii
C
Potthast►a longimana gr
R
C
R
Ch ironomidae- Orthocladiinae
Bnlha spp
R
A
C
Card►ocladius spp
R
R
R
C
Corynoneura spp
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cncotopus annulator complex
C
A
A
A
A
C
Cncotopus bicinctus
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
Cncotopus infuscatus gr
C
A
A
A
Cncotopus tremulus
R
A
A
Cncotopus varipes gr
A
A
Cncotopus wernensis gr
C
C
A
Eukieffenella brehmi gr
R
R
Limnophyes spp
R
Nanocladius spp
C
R
A
A
C
R
A
C
Orthocladius hgnlcola
R
R
Orthocladius robacki
R
C
Parakieffenella spp
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
Parametrnocnemus spp
A
A
A
R
Psectrocladius spp
R
Rheocncotopus robacki
C
C
R
C
C
C
Synorthocladius spp
R
R

a
0
Appendix Table A -4 (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
May-11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Diptera
Chironomidae- Orthocladiinae
Thienemanniella xena
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
Tvetema bavanca
A
A
A
C
Tvetema wtracies
R
C
R
C
C
Xylotopus par
R
Chironomidae -Prod iamesinae
Odontomesa fulva
C
A
Chironomidae-Tanypodinae
Ablabesmyia spp
C
Ablabesmy►a janta
R
Ablabesmyia mallochi
C
R
A
C
R
A
C
C
Ablabesmyla rhamphe gr
R
Conchapelopia gr
C
A
R
Labrundinla spp
C
R
Ndotanypus spp
C
Procladius spp
C
Thienemann►mpa gr
C
A
A
Em ididae
C
C
C
Simuliidae
Simuhum spp
A
A
A
C
A
A
Simullum tuberosum
A
Ti ulidae
Antocha spp
C
C
C
A
A
C
Hexatoma spp
R
Tipula spp
C
R
R
C
C
C
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella spp
C
A
A
R
Acentrella alachua I
I
I
I
I
C

a
Appendix Table A -4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella parvula
R
C
Acentrella turbida
A
A
R
C
Baetis flavistrige
R
R
A
R
R
A
A
Baetis intercalans
C
A
R
C
C
C
Baetis pluto
R
C
C
C
A
Centroptdum spp
R
R
R
Heterocloeon spp
R
R
Heterocloeon cunosum
R
/swaeon david►
R
PlaudItus dubius gr
A
A
A
A
A
A
Plauditus punctiventrns
C
A
Pseudocloeon ephIppiatum
A
C
Baetiscidae
Baet►sca carolina
R
R
R
R
C
Caenidae
Cams spp
A
R
C
C
C
E hemerellidae
Drunella lata
A
Drunella tuberculate
R
Drunella walken
A
C
C
Ephemerella spp
A
C
C
Ephemerella dorothea
A
A
C
Ephemerella invana
A
A
A
Ephemerella needhami
A
Ephemerella septentrionahs
C
Eurylophella spp
A
C
Eurylophella dons
A
A
A
A

a
N
Appendix Table A -4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Ephemeroptera
E hemerellidae
Eurylophella funeralis
A
Penelomax septentnonalis
C
Serratella spp
R
Serratella defic►ens
A
Serratella serratoides
A
Telagonopsis deficiens
R
A
C
E hemeridae
Hexagenia spp
R
He tageniidae
Epeorus vitreous
C
Heptagenia margmalhs
R
C
C
C
C
R
Maccaffertium spp
C
A
Maccaffertium Ithaca
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
Maccaffertium mediopunctatum
A
A
Maccaffertium mernnvulanum
A
C
Maccaffertium modestum
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertium pudicum
R
Rhitrogena spp
R
Stenacron interpunctatum
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Leptophlebiidae
Paraleptophlebia spp
R
Neoephemeridae
Neoephemera purpurea
R
C
A
C
C
Oligoneuriidae
lsonychia spp
A
A
R
A
A
A
A
A
Si hlonuridae
Siphlonurus spp
R

a
W
Appendix Table A -4 (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Gastropoda
Anc lidae
Fernssia nvulans
R
R
A
C
C
A
A
C
Ph sidae
Physa spp
R
R
Planorbidae
Helisoma anceps
R
R
R
R
Pleuroceridae
Elimia pronma
C
R
R
C
Leptons spp
R
Vivi aridae
Campeloma decisum
C
A
R
C
C
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea spp
R
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
Nigroma serncorms
C
C
C
A
C
A
A
A
Sialidae
Sialis spp
R
Odonata-
Anisoptera
Aeshnidae
Boyena vinosa
R
C
C
A
A
A
C
A
Cordule asteteridae
Cordulegaster spp
R
Corduliidae
Neurocorduka spp
R
Gom hidae
Gomphus spp
R
C
R
C
C
R
C
Gomphus spiniceps
C
Hagenlus brewstylus
R
C
R

a
Appendix Table A -4 (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Odonata-
Anisoptera
Gom hidae
Ophiogomphus spp
C
Stylogomphus alblstylus
R
Macromiidae
Macromla spp
R
C
Macromia georgina
R
C
R
R
C
Odonata-
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp
C
C
R
C
C
C
Coenagrionidae
Argia spp
R
Enallagma spp
R
R
Oligochaeta
Branchiobdellidae
R
R
R
C
Enchytraeidae
R
A
Haplotaxidae
Haplotaxis gordio►des
R
Lumbriculidae
C
C
A
R
A
A
Lumbnculus spp
A
R
R
C
Naididae
C
Bratislava unldentata
C
Homochaeta na►dina
R
Naffs behnmgi
C
A
A
R
A
C
Naffs bretschen
C
A
A
Nais commurns
R
A
R
R
A
C
Na►s elinguis
A
Naffs pardalhs
C
C
A
C
Naffs pseudobtusa
C
R
Nars simplex
A
R
A
R
Nars vanabdls
C
R
A
A

Appendix Table A -4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May -10
May-1 I
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Oligochaeta
Naididae
Pristina sima
A
Pristinella jenkinae
A
R
Pristinella osborni
R
A
C
Ripistes parasita
C
R
Tubificidae
R
C
A
A
A
Aulodrilus limnobius
C
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
R
R
C
R
Tubifex tubifex
R
R
Other
Piscicolidae
Myzobdella lugubris
A
Planariidae
Dugesia spp.
C
R
R
Tetrastemmatidae
Prostoma gracens
A
Pelecypoda
Corbiculidae
Corbicula fluminea
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium casertanum
R
R
A
C
A
A
A
A
Plecoptera
Chloroperlidae
Alloperla spp � s
C
C
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp.
C
Nemouridae
Amphtnemura spp, , _
Pelto erlidae
Tallaperla spp.
R
R
,01

Appendix Table A -4. (Continued).
Taxon
May -08
May-10
May-1 1
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Plecoptera
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis
A
C
A
C
R
A
A
C
Paragnetina ichusa
R
Paragnetina immarginata
R
R
R
C
Perlesta spp.
C
C
A
A
Perlodidae
CWtus decisus
C
Isoperla bilineata
C
Isoperla holochlora
C
A
R
A
Pteronarc idae
Pteronarcys spp.
R
Pteronarcys dorsata
C
C
C
Pteronarcys proteus
C
Trichoptera
Brach centridae
Brachycentrus appalachia
A
A
C
Brachycentrus lateralis
C
A
A
A
Brachycentrus nigrosoma
C
Brachycentrus numerosus
R
C
C
A
A
Micrasema bennetti
C
C
Micrasema wataga
R
R
C
C
C
C
H drops chidae
Cheumatopsyche spp.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cheumatopsyche etrona
A
C
C
C
Diplectrona modesta
R
Hydropsyche morosa
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
Hydropsyche scalaris
A
C
Hydropsyche sparna
C
A
A
C
A
A
Hydropsyche venularis
C
C
A
A
C
A
A
A

Appendix Table A -4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Trichoptera
H dro tilidae
Hydroptila spp
R
C
A
R
A
A
Lepidostomatidae
Lepldostoma spp
A
A
A
A
R
A
Leptoceridae
Cerac /ea spp
C
R
R
Ceraclea flava
R
Nectopsyche exquisda
R
R
R
R
R
Oecetis spp
C
A
Oecetis pers1m►lis
R
A
A
A
C
Setodes spp
R
Thaenodes igrntus
R
R
C
R
C
Limne hilidae
Hydatophylax argus
C
Philo otamidae
ChImarra spp
R
Dolophdodes spp
R
C
R
R
Dolophdodes dist►nctus
C
R
Polycentropodidae
Neureclipsis spp
R
Nychophylax spp
R
Polycentropus spp
R
R
C
R
R
R
R
C
a

Appendix Table A -4. (Continued).
Taxon
May-08
May-10
Ma -11
May-12
Oct -08
Oct -10
Oct -11
Oct -12
Trichoptera
Rh aco hilidae
Rhyacophila formosa
R
R
Rhyacophda fuscula
R
R
Results
Total Tam
84
96
113
112
65
91
95
119
Total EPT Tam
27
40
45
44
20
34
33
45
Biobc Index Value
556
509
544
542
578
539
543
516
Biobc Index Score
30
30
30
30
24
30
30
30
EPT Score
30
40
40
50
24
40
30
50
Bioclassificabon
30
Good -fair
35
I Good
35
I Good
40
I Good
24
Fair
35
Good I
30
Good -fair
40
Good
a
00