20030179 Ver 6_More Info Received_20071002 (2)

Sediment Contaminants at Dillsboro Reservoir:
Report on Site Assessment and Sediment Analyses
U. S.
FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE
~-~;
~~
OF Tai
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville, NC
Raleigh, NC
January 2004 Final

Sediment Contaminants at Dillsboro Reservoir: Report on Site Assessment and Sediment
Analyses
Abstract:
Potential removal of Dillsboro Dam, located on the Tuckasegee River near Sylva (Jackson
County), North Carolina, has caused some concern for the potential mobilization of sediment-
associated contaminants accumulated behind the dam in Dillsboro Reservoir. We used the
fi•arnet~~ork of the L1.S. Environmental Protection Agency ! U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
technical guidance manual on disposal of dredged material in inland waters to evaluate this issue.
A tier 1 review of existing information indicated no major pollutant sources or contaminant
concerns upstream of the dam. The review also indicated that sediments within the reservoir
might have low potential to accumulate contaminants from a physical standpoint, being
comprised primarily of sand and gravel. Finally, it appears that watershed land uses upstream
and downstream of the reservoir are similar and that any mobilized sediments from behind the
dam may merely subject downstream areas to the same sources of contaminants to which they
have been historically exposed. While no major concerns were noted in the review of existing
information, new data were collected to support management decisions (tier 2).
Six sediment samples from within the reservoir and four samples downstream were collected in
June 2003 and analyzed for elemental contaminants. None of the sediment samples from within
the rese7-~~oir or downstream exceeded probable effects concentration screening values, indicating
no obvious concern. Cover 80 percent of the sediment sample results were also less than
threshold effects screening values, indicating they are unlikely of toxicological significance.
Slightly less than 20 percent of the sample results fell bet«~een the screening values and they
were further evaluated by comparing their magnitude to the geometric mean of the screening
values. Only two values (both for nickel) exceeded the geometric mean of the screening values.
The highest nickel concentration (41.5 ug,/g dry weight) «~as from a downstream sediment
sample near Dillsboro gage, and the average of the four downstream samples (27.4 ug/g dry
weight) exceeded the average concentration of the six samples collected within the reservoir
(21.8 u5~`g dry weight). Accordingly, the nickel concentrations behind the dam should not be a
concern relative to movement downstream where concentrations are slightly higher.
Our review of existing data and an on-site assessment (tier 1) and results of sediment chemistry
(tier 2) indicated no significant sediment contamination. This assessment is limited to the
toxicological properties ofthe sediments evaluated. It does not address the potential physical
impacts of sediment mobilization.
ii

Preface
To assess the sediments at Dillsboro Reservoir, the U.S. Fish and t~'ildlife Service assisted
Duke Energy in a review of existing information on potential pollutant sources to reservoir
sediments. The rej•~ie~v of historic information (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sediment
Contaminants at Dillsboro Reservoir: A Site Assessment and Recommendations) was
released in draft in June 2003. That draft formed the foundation for sediment sampling,
analyses, and interpretation to evaluate the issue with additional site-specific data.
Following collection of new data in late June 2003, a draft report on Dillsboro Reservoir
sediment chemistry was circulated for revie~~v and comment in July 2003 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Preliminary Evaluation of Sediment Chemistry Data for Dillsboro
Reservoir°). The current document is the final report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on the sediment evaluation project; it is a compilation of material from the previous two
draft reports as well as new material gleaned from reviews of those drafts.
A Sediment Evaluation report summary ~;gas included in the Draft Dillsboro Environmental
Assessment /Biological Assessment. Revie~~~ers of the Draft Environmental Assessment
included the U. S. Fish and t~'ildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Conunission, North Carolina Division of Water Resources, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians, Jackson County Soil
and Water District, Western North Carolina Alliance, To~~-~n of Dillsboro, and Duke Power.
Steve Johnson (Duke Power) provided valuable project coordination, and Jon Knight
(Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.) assisted with study design and sample collection. Scott
Fletcher (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.), Jon Knight, Steve Johnson, Jeff Lineberger
(Duke Power), John Wishon (Duke Power) and Sara Ward (U.S. Fish and u~'ildlife Service)
reviet~~ed earlier versions of this document. Jim Dwyer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
assisted «~ith interpretation of sediment chemistry results. Their contributions are
appreciated.
Questions, comments, and suggestions related to this report are encouraged. Inquires can
be directed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at either of the following addresses:
Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 3372&
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mark Cantrell
LJ.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
For other information on the Dillsboro Project, please contact:
John ~~4'ishon
Nantahala Relicensing Project Manager
P.U. Box 1006
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006
iii

Contents
ABSTRACT
PREFACE
LIST OF TABLES and FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Chain of Custody for June 2003 Sediment Samples
Appendix B. Analytical Data Report for June 2003 Sediment Samples
PAGE
ii
iii
v
1
1
3
8
10
iv

Tables and Figures
PAGE
Table 1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
facilities upstream of the Dillsboro Dam. 11
Table 2. June 2003 sediment collection sites within Dillsboro Reservoir
and do~~~nstream areas. 12
Figure 1. Dillsboro Resei-~~oir and vicinity.
Figure 2. Dillsboro Resei-~~oir bathymetry.
13
14
Figure 3. 1967 aerial photograph of mixing zone of Scotts Creek
Downstream of Dillsboro Dam. 15
Figure 4. June 2003 Dillsboro Reset-~~oir sediment sampling sites 16
Figure 5 (a-h). Elemental contaminant concentrations of sediments collected
within the Dillsboro Reservoir (D 1, D2, D3, D4, DS and Db)
and downstream of the reservoir (DG1, DG2, BCl and BC2). 17-20
v

Sediment Contaminants at Dillsboro Reservoir: Final Report on Site
Assessment and Sediment Analyses
Introduction
Potential removal of Dillsboro Dam, located on the Tuckasegee River near Sylva (Jackson
County), North Carolina, has caused at least some concern for the potential mobilization of
sediments accumulated behind the dam in Dillsboro Reservoir (Figure 1 and 2). Sediments can
accumulate contaminants, and at high concentrations those contaminants can be an in-place
concern as well as a concern upon sediment mobilization. To assess the sediments at Dillsboro
Reservoir, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen~ice (Sen~ice) assisted Duke Energy {the dam owner
and operator) in a review of existing information on pollutant sources potentially affecting
reservoir sediment quality at Dillsboro (tier 1). The Service also recommended additional
sediment sampling, analyses, and interpretation to evaluate the issue with current, site-specific
data (tier 2). This document is the final report of the Service on the sediment evaluation project;
it is a compilation of material from previous drafts as well as new material gleaned from reviews
of those drafts.
A~Zethods
There are no regulations or standards that dictate the approach to be used in evaluating potential
sediment contamination at a dam removal site. However, determining the need for any
contaminant sampling, and the design of any needed sampling effort, can certainly benefit from
well-established procedures aimed at guiding an evaluation of the potential for contaminant-
related impacts from sediments proposed for dredging. The joint U.S. Environmental Protection
!agency and U.S. !Limy Corps of Engineers technical guidance manual on evaluation of dredged
sediment {USEPA/US~4CE 1998) was used to determine an appropriate level of effort to address
this issue.
The USEP<<L~'US~'LCE Inland Testing Manual employs a tiered approach to evaluation of the
potential for contaminated sediment impacts. Evaluations start with a tier 1 assessment (using
readily available existing information to assess the potential for a contaminated sediment
concern) and proceeding in a step-wise fashion through tiers 2 (surface water and sediment
chemistry), tier 3 (toxicity testing) and tier 4 (bioaccumulation testing) only to the extent
necessary to address the issue (i.e., all assessments start with tier 1, they may end there or
proceed to higher tiers if additional data are necessary to guide the management decision). The
Service conducted tier 1 and tier 2 assessments for the Dillsboro Reservoir project.
Tier 1 Methods: Compilation of Existing Information
The potential for contaminants to have been introduced to the sediments behind the Dillsboro
Dam was initially addressed by examining existing information. This information included
relevant sources of contamination, pathways of contaminant transport, the physical nature of the
sediments behind the dam, and the chemical and physical nature of the sediments downstream
that may be impacted by any mobilization of sediments from behind the dam. Potential sources
of contamination include urban and agricultural runoff, industrial and municipal wastewater

discharges, riparian fill, spills of oil or chemicals, releases from landfills or hazardous waste
sites, and mineral extraction /refinement practices. In general, absence of pollutant sources
would indicate little need for aggressive work to characterize any potential contaminants.
Likewise, any proposed sampling should be guided by identification of a specific issue from this
review.
To complete the tier 1 assessment, we examined files and databases maintained by State and
federal natural resource management agencies. We also contacted individuals familiar with the
reservoir, its operations, local land-use, and water quality.
Tier 2 Methods: Sediment collection, analyses and interpretation
Sample locations:
hanagement factors considered in determining the number and placement of samples included
the historical review indicating limited kno~rn contaminant concerns and the intent of the
sampling (which is to provide current analytical data to support the inference of low contaminant
burdens based on historical data). Physical factors considered include the area of potentially
affected sediments behind the dam, bathymetry, distribution of sediments, and extent of sediment
shoaling, scour, and mixing.
Samples stations were targeted to two types: 1) quiescent areas, such as inside channel bends and
nearshore depositional areas adjacent to the dam where fine-grained sediments (which have the
greatest potential to accumulate contaminants) are most likely to settle; and, 2) sediment beds
typical of the impounded reach that area likely to move once the dam is removed (and which
therefore have the greatest potential to affect areas do«~nstream).
Sample collection:
Sediment samples were collected June 23 and 24, 2003, by the Service and an independent
contractor for Duke Energy. Collections were made with astainless-steel petite Ponar grab. At
each site, tip-~o to six grabs of the top 5 to 10 cm of sediment «-ere collected and composited to
form one sample per site. The composite of the grab samples was homogenized by stirring with
a stainless-steel spoon in a stainless-steel bucket. Debris (e.g., sticks, leaves, rocks bigger than
~1 cm3} were removed during homogenization. Collection equipment was thoroughly cleaned
(ambient water rinse, detergent and water scrub, distilled 1 demineralized water rinse, 10% nitric
acid rinse, and a final rinse with distilled /demineralized «~ater) before sampling at the first site
and between sites. Tlu•ee (one for metals, one for organic carbon and grain size, and one for
archival) 500-mL aliquots of sediment were placed into series 320 I-Chem glass jars with
Teflon-lined lids. Samples were stored in a cooler on ice (~4 degrees C} in the field and stored
frozen {< 0 degrees C) upon reaching the Service lab in Raleigh on June 24~'. All samples were
collected, transported and stored under chain of custody (Appendix A).
2

Chemical Analyses:
The 10 sediment samples were delivered to Research Triangle Institute (RTI), Research Triangle
Park, NC on June 30, 2003. Samples were ~~~et-homogenized, fieeze-dried, dry-homogenized
and digested,/extracted in concentrated nitric acid using microwave heating. Elemental
contaminants were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS),
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) and cold vapor atomic
absorption (CVAA). The instrumentation consisted of a ThermoElemental X7 ICP-IV1S, a
Perkin-Elmer 4300 Optima ICP-AES and a Leeman Labs PS200 automated mercury analyzer
(CVAA). Sediment particle sizes were determined by sieve series, and percent organic carbon
vas determined by loss on ignition.
Analyses were accompanied by batch-specific quality control /duality assurance samples. An
additional aliquot of two sediments were taken to prepare duplicate and matrix spikes and
digested/extracted alongside real samples. In addition, an aliquot of National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Material (SRM} 2709 (River Sediment)
and a reagent blank were prepared for analysis.
RESULTS
Tier 1 Results: Compilation of Existing Info°mation
We examined the following databases or lists of contaminant concerns (with the source of the
data listed in parentheses}:
National Priorities List (Superfund Sites) (LJSEPA)
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites (NC Division of Waste Management)
Old Landfills (NC Division of Waste Management)
Active Solid Waste Permits (NC Division of t~'aste Management)
CERCLIS Sites (USEPA}
NPDES (surface water discharge) Permits (NC Division of Water Quality)
Se«~age Sludge Land Application Sites (LJSEPA)
Registered Confined Animal Feeding Operations (USEPA)
Active and abandoned solid or hazardous waste facilities are a potential source of contamination
if they are located in the t~~atershed and have had a release to the environment. To address this
potential, a records search was conducted in October and November 2002. A search of State
databases and files revealed no National Priorities List (Superfund) or Inactive Hazardous Waste
Sites listed in Jackson County. Two sites were identified on the Old Landfills list, but neither of
these (the Cashiers Refuse Disposal Site and the Sylvia Dump on Nlontieth Branch, a tributary of
Scott Creek) are in the watershed of Dillsboro Reservoir. The only active solid waste site in the
County is the Scott Creek C&D Transfer Station (1172 h•Iineral Springs Road in Sylvia); there is
no discharge associated with this solid waste transfer facility. One CERCLIS Site was listed for
the County, the Nantahala Abandoned PCB Transformer Site (River Road, Dillsboro). An
examination of the file for this facility (11/14,102, NC Division of Waste Management, Central
Files, Raleigh) indicates the site was a pole and transformer storage yard where one PCB-

containing transformer was discovered by an employee, removed, tested, and properly disposed-
ofwith State and federal agency oversight in 1999. On-site examination ref%ealed no evidence of
leakage or other PCB-containing transformers. The Nantahala Abandoned PCB Transformer
Site received a "No Further Remedial Action Planned" status from U.S. EPA in 1999. Based on
this revie«-•, there were no chemicals of concern identified from active or inactive solid «-•aste or
hazardous waste sites.
Surface water discharges of wastes are also a potential source of contaminants. As of October
2002, there were six facilities with permitted discharges to the surface waters upstream of
Dillsboro Reservoir (Table 1). Three additional facilities are located in the vicinity of Dillsboro
Reservoir (Tuckasegee Water and Sewer Authority-Sylva Plant, Jackson County Board of
Education-Scott Creek School, and Ensley Adult Care). These facilities are all small (0.0063 to
0.b million gallons per day) and, more importantly for this assessment, discharge to Blanton
Branch or Scott Creek that are hydrologically down gradient of the Dillsboro Reservoir (i.e., any
contaminant concerns from these facilities would not impact the reservoir). Note also that Scotts
Creek School has recently been taken off line (Kevin Barnett, NCD«'Q, pers. comm. 2003). The
Tuckasegee Water and Sewer Authority facility discharging to the Tuckasegee River upstream of
Dillsboro Reservoir was the only major facility identified. State files indicate this facility has
been well-operated with a compliance rate of >90% in their aquatic toxicity monitoring {NC
Division of Water Quality 2000).
Other water quality information was available from the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality's basinwide assessment report (NC Division of Water Quality 2000). Pages 30 and 31 of
that document indicate that water quality ratings (as determined by the diversity, richness and
tolerances of aquatic organisms collected in standardized sampling) for the Tuckasegee River at
Dillsboro (off SR 1378) have been good to excellent since sampling began in the mid-1980's.
Page 14 of that document indicates the Division conducted no fish tissue contaminant monitoring
in the basin between 1994 and 1999 because there were no known contaminant issues to be
addressed. Page 57 of the basin«~ide assessment report presents results of water quality
sampling conducted at the only Tuckasegee River station (#G8600000, well downstream of the
Dillsboro Reservoir); water quality was generally good with the only exceedences of State
standards being associated with turbidity {4 of 50 samples exceeding the State standard of 25
NTUs with a maximum of 110 NT'U), fecal coliform (4 of 50 sample exceeding the standard of
200 NIPN/100m1 «~ith a maximum of 690 ILIPN/100m1), iron (9 of 54 samples exceeding the
standard of 1000 ug/I with a maximum concentration of 7400 ug/l), and copper {11 of 54
samples exceeding the action level of 7 ugll with a maxiinuin concentration of 17 ug/l). None of
the 5-year average concentrations or 75~' percentile concentrations for these parameters exceeded
the State standards or action levels. Based on this reviet~~, there were no significant concerns
identified fi•orn surface water sources, with the possible exception of slightly elevated and
infrequent exceedence of action levels for iron and copper.
In addition to file and record reviews, telephone calls to staff familiar with water and land quality
issues in the vicinity were also made in order to identify any other potential contaminant
concerns that should be considered. The surface water quality staff of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality's Asheville Regional Office indicated that high pH wastes (caustics)
historically discharged from the Jackson Paper facility should be addressed (Kevin Barnett, pers.
comm. 2002). The facility discharged paper processing wastewater to the Tuckasegee River
until the late 1980's when they implemented a water recycling protocol. Examination of aerial
photographs from the time the mill was operational indicate the discharge was actually to Scotts
4

Creek which enters the Tuckasegee River just downstream of the Dillsboro Dam (Figure 3).
Accordingly, this facility should not have had an impact on sediment quality within the resen~oir,
but it may ~~~ell have impacted downstream sediments.
Mining activities in Jackson County were characterized for their potential to impact sediments.
Staff in the Department of Geosciences at Western Carolina University (Steve Yurkovich, pers.
comm. 2003} and previously collected reference material (Williams 1987) indicate mining
activities may have contributed sediments to the Tuckasegee River historically and the
formations, which attracted mining efforts, may yet produce sediments and leachates.
• Kaolin -Mined in the county from 1888 to the mid-1920s, it appears that the largest
deposits and processing plant were located at Hogrock Ivlountain on Little Savannah
Creek with mention of processing also at Dillsboro. Those pits were filled in after the
clay t~~°as removed. C7ther smaller deposits were found upstream of Dillsboro Dam.
Mica -Mined in the county until 1962, nearly 90 mines and prospects are found within
the county and the largest ofthese operated tlu•ough WWI and WWII. Some 10-15 of the
largest operations lasted to the end. Both scrap and sheet mica was extracted. Most of
these were hillside operations that removed the soil layer to expose the ore. A few ti~~ere
underground mines.
• Copper -Prospects were t~~orked on Green's Creek, Cullowhee Mountain (above the
Tuckasegee Nursery at Moody Bridge), Wayehutta Creek, and tA~olf Creek. The largest
and most promising was at Cullowhee Mountain. Accounts suggest that a 30 ton copper
smelter and a 10 ton lixiviation plant were constructed in about 1908 and a 40 ton copper
furnace installed by 1910. Large cuts, shafts and tunnels were cut. The mine was
abandoned after 1912, reopened in 1917, then closed. From 1929 to 1932 copper ore was
mined here and shipped to Ducktown for processing. Mining ended shortly after 1932.
Generally the ore is pyrite or chalcopyrite (Fe and FeCu sulfides). The mines, trenches
and tunnels are still there. They are often filled with water that is green-blue in color
fioin the copper.
Dunite -This igneous rock, though rare, is common in Jackson County. It is composed
of the minerals olivine, pyroxene, and chromite (in small amounts). The olivine has a
density 50% greater than feldspar and quartz so is likely to settle to the stream bottom
quickly. Because of the presence of the mineral chromite, chromium concentrations
should be expected to be higher downstream from these deposits. Also, the dunites
contain some nickel that might also be in water or sediments. As dunites become
metamorphosed, minerals such as talc, serpentine, and anthophyllite are produced.
Anthophyllite in these deposits may be converted into asbestos.
Large deposits of dunite cross the Tuckasegee just above Webster Bridge (much of
Webster is underlain by this rock), cross again near where Ashe Settlement Road
intersects NC 107, continues up Cane Creek Road and a large quarry is located at the
head of Cane Creek at Chestnut Gap. Remains of old mines can still be observed in
Cowan Valley Estates. Other locations of dunite on the upper Tuckasegee are on Caney
Fork (Judaculla Rock} and supposedly up Speedwell Road. Dr. Jerry Miller, WCU, has

analyzed the geochemistry of the sediments at the reservoir below the powerhouse on the
West Fork. The sediment there had an anomalously high cluoiniuin concentration.
Site-specific sediment chemistry data are very limited but informative. Sampling by Duke
Power was completed on October 4, 2001. Samples were collected about 125 feet upstream of
the dam in midstream at a depth of 5 to 6 feet by repeatedly inserting a hand held corer into the
sediment. Due to corer refusal, only 5 to 6 inches of sediment was obtained during each attempt;
this material was mixed to form a single composite sample which was analyzed for metals,
volatiles, semivolatiles, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins), and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans). Volatile organics, semivolatile organics (with the
exception of a long concentration of benzoic acid), organochlorine pesticides, and dioxins / furans
were all less than the laboratory reporting limits. Sediment metal concentrations were below the
detection limits for silver, arsenic, lead and selenium. Low levels of clu•omium, copper and
mercury were detected. Cadmium was detected at 4.6 ug/g dry weight, a concentration at which
effects to sensitive benthos may occur (AlacDonald et al. 2000).
Beyond potential pollutant sources, review of existing data also addressed path«~ays between
contaminant sources and sediments of interest, and the areas potentially affected if contaminated
sediments were mobilized. These factors include things like impoundment bathyinetry, flows,
watershed hydrology and land uses, sediment and soil types, and sediment deposition rates.
Many contaminants preferentially bind to organic matter and fine-grained (silt or clay)
sediments. tVhile a dam is expected to allow fine material to settle and potentially accumulate in
shoaling areas, much of the substrate in the area of the Dillsboro dam is sandy, with little
potential for contaminant accumulation. In the State's sampling ofthe benthic community in
1999, the substrate at the Tuckasegee River at Dillsboro (off SR 1378) was 40 to 50 % sand and
gravel.
Important resen~oir physical parameters were recently assessed as part of hydropower facility re-
licensing studies. Recent bathymetry data are available and mapped in Figure 2. The draft
"sediment issues for the Dillsboro project" summary (Duke Energy 2003) provides the following
details on sediment composition, transport, and accumulation:
• The Dillsboro Project only generates electricity when there is sufficient flow in the river
and flows in excess of 284 cubic feet per second are spilled. There is negligible useable
storage for electric generation and, consequently, there is no need for dredging sediments
ti•oin the reservoir.
• Bathymetric surveys were conducted in June 2001. Sediment samples were collected
ti•om transects established at points 1/5th, 2/5th, 3/Sth and 4/5th along the midline of the
impoundment from the dam to the headwater area. At each transect, grab samples were
taken at 4 equidistant points across the impoundment. Particle size was determined.
• The bathymetry and particle size data show that the reservoir is similar to a river with a
sandy-silt bed. Sediment translocation within and transport through the reservoir are
dependent on the river flows. During periods of lower flows (roughly less than half
bankfull) there is sediment deposition, and during high flo«~°s (roughly bankfull or
greater) there is sediment mobilization and transport tlu•ough and out of the reservoir.
6

Sediment carried by the Tuckasegee River is highly mobile and composed of suspended
sands and silts which are deposited on the falling limb of the hydrograph in backwater
areas, but are easily re-suspended and moved during high flow events. Based on the
bathymetric maps, the general form of the channel bed upstream of the dam remained
unchanged. Material deposited behind the dam is very fine grained (generally less than 1
mm} and is of such a composition that it is easily re-suspended during high flows. There
is no decrease in particle size from upstream to downstream near the dam, which would
have indicated coarse particles aggrading due to backwater effects of the dam. Particle
sizes along the length of the reservoir indicate that deeper areas have 1 mm particles, and
shallol~~er areas have essentially very fine, suspendable particles less than 0.1 mm.
During high flows, observations upstream and downstream of the dam indicated the
presence of large amounts of suspended materials; as flows dropped, this material was
not stored in the main channel except in backwaters and deep pools.
The river channel width is confined which limits lateral migration; thus, only the channel
bed can change in response to flow changes. Scouring occurs at set points in the
resen~oir, such as in bends and in constricted areas. The extent of scouring changes in
relation to flow and the incoming sediment loads. Since the flow is um•egulated and,
considering the present sediment accumulation r~~ithin the resei•~~oir, there will be little net
increase of sediment storage.
• Sediment in the system consists of suspended silts and sands that deposit only when
stopped by downstream controls. Sediment accumulation is not occurring at the dam face
due to the shear stress at the unit intakes. The elevation of the bottom ofthe intake
opening determines the depth of sediment accumulation at the dam, and acts as the "base
level". The fumleling effect of water where flow enters the intake opening causes an
increase in the water velocity in the forebay area. The increased flow velocity and shear
stress causes erosion of any deposited sediment and the sediments are transported
downstream. Head~vard (upstream) migration of the deposited sediments continues,
creating a channel n~ithin the sediments.
• This channel is evident from the bathymetric data, and the depth of the chamlel
approximately equals the depth of the intake. There is no delta formation (i.e., indicating
excessive sediment availability) dot~~~nstream of Dillsboro dam. There appears to be a
balance between sediment delivered to this area and the ability ofthe river to move this
material.
• Sediment particle size data indicate potential shoaling areas that can be targeted for
sediment analyses, particularly in the shallow areas along the shoreline.
A summation of the tier 1 review of existing infornlation indicates that no major contaminant
concerns were identified. The cadmium concentration of the one composite sediment sample
collected in 2001 may merit additional attention. The periodic exceedences of the State action
level for copper in surface «~ater may merit additional attention. The revie~~~ also indicated that
the material behind the dam might have to«-~ potential to accumulate contaminants from a
physical standpoint, being comprised primarily of sand and gravel. Finally, it appears that
watershed land uses upstream and downstream of the reservoir are similar and that. any mobilized
7

sediments from behind the dam may merely subject downstream areas to the same sources of
contaminants to which they have been historically exposed. While no major concerns were
noted in the review of existing information, it was recommended that new data be collected to
support management decisions. Those data will focus on inorganic contaminants to address the
copper and cadmium issues identified above and the mining history of the area.
Tier 2 Results: Sediment collection, analyses and rnterpl°etatron
Table 2 lists sediment collection locations which are also depicted in Figure 4. The complete
report fi•om RTI is reprinted in Appendix B and summarized here. Laboratory blank, duplicate,
SRM and spike data. were reviewed, and they demonstrate very good lab performance on this
batch of samples relative to analytical precision and accuracy.
Figure ~ (with sub-figures a-h for each element) is a comparison of the elemental contaminant
results to freshwater sediment quality guidelines (MacDonald et al. 2444). These consensus-
based threshold effects guidelines were established to provide lower bound concentrations below
which adverse effects to sensitive aquatic organisms should not occur (Threshold Effects
Concentrations, or TECs) and an upper range of concentrations above which adverse effects to
sediment dwelling organisms may be expected (Probable Effects Concentrations, or PECs).
Eighty-one percent of all values evaluated were less than the TECs (i.e., presumed to be
toxicologically insignificant). This category included all the data for arsenic, lead and mercury.
Further, no samples exceeded the PECs for any elemental contaminant (i.e, no samples of
obvious concern).
To evaluate the <24 percent of sample results that fell between the TECs and PECs for cadmium
(n=1), chromium (n=3}, copper (n=3), nickel (n=5}and zinc (n=3}, we computed a geometric
mean of the TECs and PECs for each element and defined it as a "median effects concentration",
or "MEC". From Figure 5, it is apparent that only two sediment sample results for nickel
exceeded these NIECs. The two samples exceeding the N1ECs were collected at station D4 from
within the reservoir, and DG1 from the Dillsboro gage area downstream of the dam {which had
the highest overall nickel concentration). None of the few samples that exceeded the TECs for
cadmium, chromium, copper and zinc exceeded the MECs, and most of the results were still
relatively close to the TECs for these elements.
Because none of the samples indicate a toxicolgical concern, a statistical comparison of
sediments within Dillsboro Resei-~~oir to downstream sediments u~as not conducted.
Discussion
There are no federal or North Carolina sediment quality criteria or standards, but the recent
freshwater sediment quality guidelines of MacDonald et al. (2444) are very useful. The State of
Florida recently recommended these for use as guidance in many of their programs, including
evaluation of dredged material and risk assessment of contaminated sites (MacDonald et al.
2043). In a review by experts on sediment assessment, sediment quality guidelines like those
used here were found to offer good utility in site assessment (Wenning and Ingersoll 2002).

From Figure 5, it is apparent that none of the sediment samples from within the reservoir or
downstream exceeded the PECs, indicating no sediment contaminant concentrations of obvious
concern. Over 80 percent of the sediment sample results were also less than the TECs, indicating
they are unlikely of toxicological significance.
Slightly less than 20 percent of the sample results fell between the TEC and PEC, and they were
fi~rther evaluated by comparing their magnitude to the geometric mean of the TEC and PEC for
that element. If the TEC is thought of as a threshold below which no adverse effects are
expected to occur, and the PEC is the likely effects concentration, the geometric mean of these
two is an estimate of the concentration «~here adverse effects may begin to be observed. This
"median effects concentration" or "IVIEC", while not a construct of the original guidelines,
appears useful as an initial screen of data in the middle category. We note also that this approach
is consistent with how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency summarizes chronic toxicity
data in their ~~~ater quality criteria program {Stephan et al. 1985). In that guidance, the geometric
mean of a No Observed Effect Concentration and Lowest Observed Effect Concentration for a
compound of interest can be used as a Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentration, again with
the idea that the lowest concentration of interest is somewhere between the no effect and likely
effect concentrations.
In our application of the MECs, only two values (both for nickel) exceeded these levels. The
highest nickel concentration (41.5 ug/g dry weight) was from a downstream river sample near
Dillsboro gage, and the average of the four downstream samples (27.4 ug/g dry weight) exceeded
the average concentration of the six samples collected upstream of the dam {21.8 ug/g dry
weight). Accordingly, the nickel concentrations behind the dam should not be a concern relative
to movement downstream where concentrations are slightly higher. Although nickel was found
to be somewhat elevated relative to the screening level, nickel is a metal with little affinity for
aquatic bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and mobilization in sediments (Com1e11 and Miller
1984). Nickel also has only slight to moderate aquatic toxicity {USEPA 1986}, and the
concentrations observed in surface water quality monitoring of the Tuckasegee River, typically
less than a 10 ug:%1 detection limit (NCDt~4'Q 2000), are lower than values toxic even to very
sensitive aquatic organisms (USEPA 1986, Keller and Zam 1991}.
Concentrations of cadmium «~ere generally low. None of our six samples upstream of the dam
approached the concentration of the moderately elevated cadmium detected in the single 2001
composite sediment sample.
This assessment included all the priority pollutant metals /metalloids. Note that this does not
address some of the elements reported by the lab, like barium, beryllium and vanadium, for
which there are few relevant comparison values. This is likely not a significant limitation
because there ~~ as no kno~~ n source to the stream indicating em•ichment of these relatively rare
elements in our tier 1 asse~ssme~nt.
A value of one-half the method detection limit was used for the graphs in Figure 5 in the fe~.~v
instances of values reported as lower than detection. This should not influence the data
interpretation because the detection limits were sensiti~•~e relative to the screening guidelines.
This assessment is limited to the toxicological properties of the sediments evaluated. It does not
address the potential physical impacts of sediment mobilization.
9

References:
Connell, D.W., and G. J. Miller. 1984. Chemistry and Ecatoxicology ofPallutian. John Wiley and
Sons. New York, NY.
Duke Energy. 2003 (draft). Sediment Issues for the Dillsboro Project.
Keller, A.E. and S.G. Zam. 1991. The acute toxicity of selected metals to the freshwater mussel,
Anadanta iml~ecrllrs. Envir•an Toxical Chem 10: 539-546.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of
consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. a r°ch Envir°on Contain
Tox-icol 39: 20-31.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, D.E. Srnorong, R.A. Lindskoog, G. Sloane and T. Biernacki.
2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for
Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL.
NC Division of Water Quality. 2000. Basinwide Assessment Report: Little Tennessee River. Water
Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch, Raleigh, NC. 83 pp.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman and W.A. Brungs. 1985.
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Qrganisms and their Uses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development Washington, DC.
T`'A. 2002. Results and summary of toxicity testing of sediments in Tuckasegee River and Scotts
Creek in vicinity of Dillsboro, NC.
USEPA. 1986. _~lmbient water quality criteria for nickel. EPA 440/5-86-004. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
USEPA/USACE. 1998. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for discharge in waters of the U.S.
- Testing Manual. EPA-823-B-98-004, t~'ashington, DC.
Wenning, R.J. and C.G. Ingersoll. 2002. Summary of SETAC Pellston Workshop on Use of
Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments; 17-
22 August 2002; Fairmont, 1Vlontana, USA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC), Pensacola, FL.
Williams, IVLE. 1987. Histot~y of Jackson County. The Jackson County Historical Association.
674pp.
10

Table 1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) facilities upstream of the
Dillsboro Dam.
Facility Name Volume Receiving stream
Major facilities
Tuckasegee Water and Sewer authority 1.5 I~•1GD Tuckasegee River
Minor Facilities
Western Carolina University WTP 0.0005 MGD Tuckasegee River
Singing Water Camping Resorts 0.0075 MGD TroL~t Creek
Trillium Links and <<Tilla e~` 0.02 MGD UT to Thos e Lake
Jackson Co. BOE (Blue Ridge School)` 0.01 MGD Hurricane Creek
Whiteside Estates~~ 0.1 N1GD Grassy Camp Creek
'~ note -all of these facilities are vl Tuckasegee River headwaters and located upstream of either the Tuckasegee
Lake Dam and / or Glenville Lake Dams 1 and 2
# this facility was not constructed and has never been operated
11

Table 2. June 2003 sediment collection sites within Dillsboro Reservoir and downstream areas.
Sample # Date Collected Description
Dl 06/23/03 Reservoir sample (35° 21.542N / 83° 14.839W)
Depositional area on left bank in 1 to 2-feet of water depth
D2 06/23/03 Reservoir sample (35° 21.727N i 83° 14.792W)
Typical reservoir sediments (coarse sand) in 5 to 6-feet of water depth
D3 06/23/03 Reservoir sample (35° 21.899N / 83° 14.821W)
Depositional area on right bank
D4 06/23/03 Reservoir sample (35° 21.9532N / 83° 14.906W)
Depositional area on left bank in 1 to 2-feet water depth (below sign line)
DS 06/23/03 Reservoir sample (35° 21.997N / 83° 14.947W)
Typical reservoir sediments {coarse sand /gravel) in 8 to 9-feet water depth
D6 06/23,03 Reservoir sample (35° 21.994N / 83° 14.957W)
Depositional area. on right. bank (shoal behind boom log)
Barkers Creek 1 {BC1) 06/24/03 Downstream sample (35° 23.114N / 83° 17.502W)
Depositional area, right bank at Tuckasegee Outfitters in 1-foot water depth
Barkers Creek 2 (BC2) 06/24/03 Downstream sample (35° 23.114N / 83° 17.502W)
River channel at BC1, coarse sand in 2 to 3-feet water depth
Dillsboro Gage 1 (DG1) 06/24/03 Downstream sample (35° 21.976N / 83° 15.492W)
Depositional area, right bank shoal at Dillsboro Gage, 0.5-foot water depth
Dillsboro Gage 2 (DG2) 06/24/03 Downstream sample (35° 21.976N ,~` 83° 15.489
River channel at DGl, coarse sand in 2 to 3-feet water depth
12

Figure 1. Dillsboro R~sei~~oir and ~~eiruty.

Figure 2. Dillsboro Reservoir balhymelry.
~z
` ~,~.
]'--~~-
E'
] ~~-.rRi
0 10~ 2~0 3~0 40~ Feel
® ~ )~plh-~aosed
10 ^ ' "`
~.-nr~
-~~.

Figure 3,1961 aerial photograph of mixing zone of Scotts Creek downstream of Dillsboro Dam,
r

r ~~~ ~~
~~
~~~
-~ , .,~~
~'~'', ~'
,,,~ ,
~~
~.:_
1 ,
~;1. ~~ ;, ' ~ ~.
i ~ `~'',
~,>
~ ~~'
,~
~~ ~~~~
~~ ,,~ ~''
A1+~t~, .' 1 ~ ~!r
b~ ' ~ ~' ,~
n
~illsboroTaihacefrom ~~
TVRRerialPhofography ;~
March 25,1961

Fi~ure~ 4. June 2(10, Dillsboro Reset~rou• sedunent s~nnplin~Y sites.
~' ,~ ., `~
~.. ' t:. ~~ '. ~ J'. ask.".,.I '~•.' .~ -~,~\ ~..-,er.~~..,
p F, i
`^.~ ~ }'
h M•R ~ ~ I
~-~ ~ - i c y 1 ~ ~
_.4r~ ~' ~ ~~' ~- ~ ~J t ~ '~~ ~ ~'~
.~ -.\ \ ~ s ~ d' I nq
. Y <~ ~ r, ~' r ~
~ 1 Y ~
~~
4P '. w , ~ ~~• ~
i rte. •. `^~. 4 -s-. .~ ~~ 1
1 ~. \
ti~ ~y,~ i '.~ ~ e 0. K A' r,M
~ ~ ti~
7 ~" _ ' 1~ J Q i ~' b
QpcY I~ I ~1, ~+
~ ~ ,} 11 ~
,,.
_ - L Sr_D_ _ _-S. -
{~ _ t, ~, ~ ~ 'L'S'E
I ~~~ - ~~.
/ y~~r ~ t _f~r . ~.~ Y }'may r ~'
tL ` \\ ~'~ Lacstlon Of ssdlment Eallttp186
x ~,. '`';, ` ~ I r -'~ ` 1br Dlllsboro Re~ervolr
> ~ `,
"~ , , ' ~ " U.5 o Q.5 tomes
1~

Figure 5 (a-h). Elemental contaminant concentrations of sediments collected within the
Dillsboro Reservoir (D 1, D2, D3, D4, DS and D6} and downstream of the reservoir
(DGl, DG2, BCl and BC2). For each element, results are compared to threshold effects
concentration {TEC) guidelines of MacDonald et al. (2000) -- values below which
adverse effects to sensitive aquatic organisms should not occur, and probable effects
concentrations (PECs) -- values above which adverse effects to sediment dwelling
organisms may be expected (IVIacDonald et al. 2000). Some figures also have a "median
effects concentration" (MEC), the geometric mean of the TEC and PEC, for reference.
a) Arsenic Concentrations
35
0
.
30.0 PEC 33.0
25.0
.
~
~
20.0
a
~ 15.0
~ TEC = 9.79
~ 10.0

5.0
0
0
.
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 DG1 DG2 BC1 BC2
Reservoir samples Downstream samples

b) Cadmium Concentrations
5
0
.
PEC 4.98
t 4.0
.
~
~
3.0
L
a~ 2.0
~' TEC = 0.99
1
0
.

0
0
.
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 DG1 DG2 BC1 BC2
Reservoir samples Downstream samples
17

Figure 5 (cont.)
c} Chromium Concentrations
120 `I
110

100 PEC 111
~
~ 90
~ 7a
a
~ sa
50
TEC 43.4
a' 40
~ 30
20
10
0

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 DG1 DG2 BC1 BC2
Reservoir samples Downstream samples
d) Copper Concentrations

150
140 PEC = 149
130
120 '
s 110
~" 100
~ 90
~,
v 80
70

~ 60
~, 50 TEC = 31.6
~ 40

30
20
10
0

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 DG1 DG2 BC1 BC2
Reservoir samples Downstream samples
18

Figure 5 (cont.}
e} Lead Concentrations
130
120 PEC 128
110
~ 100
~'' 90
~ 80
~, 70
~ 60
50 TEC = 35.8
4a
30
20
10
0
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 DG1 DG2 BC1 BC2
Reservoir samples Downstream samples
PEC =1.06 f~ Mercury Concentrations
0.25
0.20
~ TEC = 0.18
~ 0.15
a
~ 0.10
a~
a~
~ 0.05
a.oo
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D5 DG1 DG2 BC1 BC2
Reservoir samples Downstream samples
19

Figure 5 {concluded)
g} Nickel Concentrations
55

50

45 PEC` 48.6
40 - ~,c . _ ~~. z
.~ 35 n
~ ~0 -
a 25
20 'I'EC 22.7
~ 15
10
5
0

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 DG1 DG2 BC1 BC2
Reservoir samples Downstream samples
h}Zinc Concentrations
500
450
400 PEC 4~9
~ 350
as
'~ 300
250
200
~ TEC = 121
~ 150
100
50
0
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 DG1 DG2 BC1 BC2
Reservoir samples Downstream samples
20

Appencli~ A. Chain of Custody for June 2003 Sediment Samples

iF.P+.I Nt ANI)R'l1.DL1FE~5ERVIf.F. CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD FILE NO.
,~,Y_
Di JISION' OF LaW ENFO RCEAI F.NT
DATE AND T1Af
E OF S
EIZURE: llISTRICT: EVIDE
NCE/
PROPERTY SEIZED R5':
1p
G/1Q Z7 /
ZLI ~dO rI
L
CCI~IGT`•~ ~ /h+ V ~r -~ tIG R
SOJ.IRCE OF EVI ENCE/PROPERTY (pereoo and/or location): CASE TITLE .4ND EMARKS:
TAKEN F'NOM:
^ RECF,IF'ED FROM:

II

~
^ FOUND AT':
SPtI ~a+ I (r~ /
~S~ ee
~~eS tr,~ l~cl
en~ SHr ~.
S I0/p
5 ese ryo ~/
f I
~ - ~
~~
~
I
I
~
c ed~;r~-~ ~
t
SSeSSr-,a~,~
w..t
1n o
n I (Cc. ~
Gw e/
il~s cr oSlrcrG;r F>, own ~(ec rn
ITEM N0. DESCNIPT'ION OF EVIDFNf.E/PROPERTY (include Seizure Tag Number s and any aerial numbers): ~~1QL
~
/ S ~ M le #I D I
~ },~ o-
,,,,,
y3
\
2 ~t ~ DZ
SG r- 1~ C~,
~ . G
^a
S / ~.w'1
~ M~
~
~'
SGcr I(~ ~~
F 5
l~
'
~ ~
~~
~ ~
,
~~ a
e
a
~r~~le # ~ I ,~ ~~r,~ r`~~ ~..~.
°
S S~ ,,,.
I e ~ DS ~;~ Q`\''
k 1r`
711
~
5 GA^,IZ D~ °
5
. fNi "P
~
~
~ ~ C
`
~

7 /
SGr^(?IQ ~ ~~llCarS C/.RGIC I r.
~1
aJ" \
C ~{J•
i
G ~,~ qI t ~ ~urL4rs C/xtM l ~~111- AO\
q 5~,~~,Ic ~ ~~IIs.
~~~
~~~ I ~ ~,
o
)v /
L
SG M/~IR ~ ~~ IIS VG/O l)-q~,[ ~
I
b
ITEM NO. FROM:
(P,/R~INT NA6fE, AGENCY)
~
" NELEASF. 51 NAT'L'fiE: RF.LF.ASE U.ATE UELIYENED Y'IA:

l '~~rC~
~ ~ U Irv s M1vr(// /r
M~/
1
V S. / ,-5~1~~r~~ Ol./llc~~: N Sor ~
_/ / ~ ~^'~
OG/~'~G~ ,^-,/U.S. )1.4II.
IN PERSON
(
U
CZ ~FiS 'un
T0: (PRINT N:1ME, AGENCY')
Sara Ward
RECE YT -(,NATURE:
~ /
'
/
7
/
/j
/
G
RECEIPT DATE IA.
^ O"I'HER:
k 3PVa. ~~[ U•5. f15~ aid ~r1/iI ILK Srr., l
,(
~1 y
~
(
/
~/~y
/ G6 3a G3
ITES1 N0. FROM: (PRINTT i5A\f E, AGENCY)
~
J REL 5E SIGNATURE:
~/ NEL~ASF
; DATE. DELIVERED V'IA:
fc S~, ~U''t-i
%( ~.y
~Q~ JJJ
~
d ^
~O
y71Y
i7 ~
~1,.1~~~~~~
~~ lu ,(h
~3 ~
/03
` U.S. M1fAII.
~ ~
/Z
~ -
' td IN PERSON
,,~
~ ,~)- \ TO: (PRINT NA]fE, AGENCY)
' ~ ~ RF.CF.[PT SIf,NAT[iRF.: RECEIPT DATE
~- /~ /
^ OTHER:

ITEM N0. FNOM: (PRINT NASIE, AGEi\f,Y) RELEASE SIGNATURE: RELEASE DATE
I DELIVERED VIA:
^ U.S. MAII,
^

T0: (PRINT NAb1E, AGENCY)
RF.CFIP'I' S-GNATURF.:
RECEIPT l1AT'F; IN PERSON
^ OT'HEN:
^.ADDITIONAL TRANSFERS ON NEYENSE SIDE

21

Appendix B. Analytical Data Report for June 2003 Sediment Samples
July 15, 2003
Mr. Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear l~Ir. Augspurger
Please find the analytical report for the analysis of 10 Duke Power sediment
samples for trace elemental content. Samples were digested/extracted in concentrated in
nitric using microwave heating and analyzed using a combination of inductively coupled
plasma atomic emission spectrometry {ICP-AES) and inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry {ICP-MS) for all metals but mercury and cold vapor atomic absorption
(CVAA} for mercury. Please call me at 919-541-6897 if you have any questions.
Sincerely
Peter M. Grohse
Program Manager -Trace Metals Analysis
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Rd. -Building 6
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
22

TECHNICAL REPORT
Client: Duke Power
RTI Project Na.: 08224.001.003
Date: 7-15-03
By
Peter 11~I. Grohse.
Research Triangle Institute
Post office Box 12194
3040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919} 541-6897
[e-mail]
Submitted to:
Torn Augspurger
Box 33726
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone [phone]
23

INTRODUCTION
Ten (10) sediment samples were received for analysis on June 30, 2003. tin analysis for
aluminum (Al), arsenic (f1s), boron (B), barium (Ba), beryllium {Be}, cadmium {Cd),
chromium (Cr), copper {Cu), iron (Fe}, magnesium (Mg}, manganese {IVIn), molybdenum
(NIo), nickel (Ni}, lead (Pb), selenium (Se), strontium (Sr), vanadium {V) and zinc (Zn)
was performed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-E1ES) and mercury by
cold vapor atomic absorption (CV~t1).
PREPARATION
Samples ~~~ere wet-homogenized, freeze-dried, dry-homogenized and digested in
digested/extracted in concentrated in nitric using microwave heating.
QL?~LITY C:'ONTROL
.4n additional aliquot of two sediments were taken to prepare duplicate and matrix spikes
and digested/extracted alongside real samples. In addition, an aliquot of NIST SRM
2709 {River Sediment} and a reagent blank «~ere prepared for analysis.
11~IEASUREMENT
Sample and QC extracts/digests were analyzed as noted in the introduction. The
instrumentation consisted of a ThermoElemental X7 ICP-MS, a Perkin-Elmer 4300
Optima ICP-_~ES and a Leeman Labs PS200 automated mercury analyzer.
RESULTS
1Vloisture content is provided in Table 1. Trace metal results are presented in Table 2 and
are expressed in µg/g on a dry weight basis. Laboratory blank, duplicate, SRM and
spike data are presented in Table 3 and are also expressed in µgt`g dry weight. Note that
the digestion actually provides a strong leach, which will only fully recover elements
such as mss, Cd, possibly Cu, Hg, possibly Ni, Pb, Se and Zn.
SAMPLE CUSTODY
Remaining samples will be stored for one year after submission of the report.
24

Table 1 -Sample Information
Sam le ID Sam le Matrix Recd Wt °I° Moisture
D1 SoillSediment 49.2 48.5
D2 Soil/Sediment 48.2 52.5
D3 Soil/Sediment 44.0 60.6
D4 Soil/Sediment 41.4 74.4
D5 SoillSediment 61.8 75.1
DG Soil/Sediment 48.9 64.9
Barkers Creek 1 Soil/Sediment 53.8 56.6
Barkers Creek 2 Soil/Sediment 71.5 34.8
Dillsboro Ga e1 Soil/Sediment 71.2 34.1
Dillsboro Ga e2 Soil/Sediment 64.9 29.9
25

Table 2 -Sam le Data in ! , D Wei hta
Sam le ID AI As B Ba Be Cd Cr Cu Fe H M Mn
Barkers Creek 1 22970 2.45 0.60 258 0.94 0.19 43.7 28.5 38, 071 0.026 9,181 514
Barkers Creek 2 7466 0.80 <0.25 59.9 0.40 <0.08 19.9 8.6 15, 524 0.004 3, 371 316
D1 21908 2.5 0.68 214 0.75 0.20 38.7 32.6 33,165 0.032 6,946 473
D2 12483 1.8 0.28 74.6 0.59 <0.08 29.4 16.1 25, 498 <0.01 2, 266 297
D3 22535 2.4 0.74 215 0.86 0.24 43.1 31.6 34, 627 0.043 7, 075 475
D4 35590 4.1 1.09 318 1.21 0.38 54.0 54.6 49,051 0.072 9,460 581
D5 9761 1.9 <0.25 25.$ 0.50 <0.08 9.8 7.7 9,380 <0.01 1,414 114
D6 28586 2.8 6.34 261 5.769 1.599 44.1 39.1 39,152 0.039 8,103 599
Dillsboro Ga e1 12483 1.47 0.27 137 0.50 0.09 30.7 13.9 22,745 0.015 8,057 308
DillsboroGa e2 4131 0.88 <0.25 32.4 0.27 <0.08 10.9 3.9 11,015 <0.01 3,145 234
MDL 10 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.08 0.5 0.5 10 0.01 10 0.5

Method ICP-
AES
GFAA
ICP-MS ICP-
AES
ICP-MS
ICP-MS ICP-
AES ICP-
AES ICP-
AES
CVAA ICP-
AES ICP-
AES
Sam le ID Mo Ni Pb Se Sr V Zn
Barkers Creek 1 D.25 32.1 10.3 <0.3 10.8 79.6 124
Barkers Creek 2 <0.2 17.9 <0.25 <0.3 3.1 26.6 43.0
D1 0.27 22.0 15.2 0.72 9.0 71.5 115
D2 0.24 9.6 11.6 <0.3 3.7 42.6 59
D3 0.30 24.5 23.7 <0.3 11.0 71.5 117
D4 0.36 35.5 23.5 0.61 14.7 102 173
D5 0.26 7.8 6.7 <0.3 2.1 17.2 28.4
D6 1.69 31.4 16.7 0.5 13.7 80.0 142
Dillsboro Ga e1 0.24 41.5 3.6 <0.3 7.3 47.8 64.3
Dillsboro Ga e2 <0.2 18.0 1.5 <0.3 2.4 17.3 28.4
MDL 0.2 0.5 0.25 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.0

Method
ICP-MS ICP-
AES ICP-
AES
GFAA ICP-
AES ICP-
AES ICP-
AES
a Except where noted
Grain Size
TOC
Sand
Silt
Cla
12.3 93.0 6.85 0.01
0.23 99.7 0.46 0.01
1.73 86.8 13.0 0.06
0.45 99.3 0.32 0.09
2.16 82.3 17.4 0.11
4.14 91.4 8.3 0.02
0.41 99.1 0.88 <0.01
7.81 86.2 13.7 0.10
14.8 98.1 2.01 0.01
0.060 99.6 0.23 <0.01
0.004% <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Sievin ISus ensionlGravimet
26

Table 3 - QC Sample Results in {~g/g, Dry Weights
QC ID AI As B Ba Be Cd Cr Cu Fe Hg
D3 22535 2.43 0.74 215 0.86 0.24 41.8 31.6 34627 0.043
Du licate 23819 2.46 0.67 216 0.86 0.24 41.8 30.5 35090 0.035
RPD 5.5 1.2 9.8 0.4 0.2 1.9 0.1 3.2 1.3 20.2
D4 21650 4.06 0.2a 318 0.5a 0.1 a 50.0 54.6 49051 <0.01
S iked D4 35590 41.8 15.1 720 16.0 14.1 411 461 53495 1.48a
S ike Added 400 37.6 15.4 400 15.4 15.4 400 400 4000 1.7
%Recove c 100 96 100 101 91 90 102 c 87.1
SRM Result 1.80% 14.8 25.5 377 0.84 0.46 46.99 35 27171 1.38
SRM Valuee 2%3.1°l0 17.7 N1A NIA N1A 0.38 60-115 26-40 2.5°1o-3.3°l0 1.40
Rea ent Blank <1.0 <0.5 <0.25 <0.25 <0.1 <0.08 <0.5 <0.5 <10 <0.01
MDL 10 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.08 0.5 0.5 10 0.01
a Sample D5; b NIST 2709 Sediment, consensus leach value; c Spike to background ratio«1
d TQC in °lo units NIA -NIST Value
QC ID Mg Mn Mo Ni Pb Se Sr V Zn TOC
D3 7075 475 0.30 24.5 23.7 <0.3 11.0 71.5 117 1.73
Du licate 7074 482 0.23 25.6 17 <0.3 11.5 71.0 121 1.91
RPD 0.0 1.3 25.6 4.6 35.2 N/A 4.5 0.8 3.1 9.9
D4 9460 581 0.52a 35.5 23.5 0.61 14.7 102 173
S iked D4 13273 1000 12.91 1246 1210 34.8 409 484 564
S ike Added 4000 400 15.4 1200 1200 37.6 400 400 400
Recove c 105 81 101 99 91 99 96 98
SRM Result 11691 518 0.30 75 12 1.05 99 43 96
SRM Valuee 1.2%1.5°l0 360-600 N/A 65-90 12-1$ 1.57 100-112 51-70 $7-120
Rea ent Blank <10 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 <0.25 <0.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1.0
MDL 10 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.25 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.004%
a Sample D5; b NIST 2709 Sediment, consensus leach value; c Spike to background ratio«1 ;
d TIC in °lo units NIA -NIST Value
27

Sample
ID
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 AI 34,537 43,303
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 As
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 B 82.1 453.8
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Ba 318 720
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Be <0.1 387
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Cd 2.7 402
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Cr 54.0 442
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Cu 54.6 461
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Fe 49,051 53,495
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Mg 9,460 13,273
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Mn 581 1000
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Mo 1.4 315
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Ni 35.5 1246
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Pb 23.5 1210
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Se
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Sr 14.7 409
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 V 102 484
D4 0.266 50 0.5 10 Zn 173 564
D4 SPIKE 0.266 50 0.5 10 AI 43,303 8,766 4000
D4 SPIKE 0.266 50 0.5 10 As
D4 SPIKE 0.266 50 0.5 10 B 453.8 372 400
D4 SPIKE 0.266 50 0.5 10 Ba 720 402 400
D4 SPIKE 0.266 50 0.5 10 Cd 402 399 400
D4 SPIKE 0.266 50 0.5 10 Cr 442 388 400
D4 SPIKE 0.266 50 0.5 10 Cu 461 406 400
D3
DUPLICATE 0.269 50 0.5 10 Hg
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Hg
12,000-
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Mg 11,691 15,000
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Mn 518 360-538
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Mo 0.9
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Ni 74.8 65+
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Pb 11.7 12-18
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Se 1.6
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Sr 98.9 100-112
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 V 43.2 35+
NIST 2709 0.268 50 0.5 10 Zn 95.8 100+
28