NC0000272_Balanced and Indigenous Species Study Pigeon River_20140101

CANTON MILL
BALANCED AND INDIGENOUS SPECIES STUDY
FOR THE PIGEON RIVER
(CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(a)DEMONSTRATION)
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
dba Evergreen Packaging, Canton Office
Canton,North Carolina
Prepared by:
Dr. J. Larry Wilson, Principal Investigator
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
224 Plant Sciences Building
Knoxville, TN 37996
Dr. Charles C. Coutant
120 Miramar Circle
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Dr. John Tyner
Biosystems Engineering Department
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Knoxville, TN 37996
January 2014
RECEIVED
Division of Water Resources
FE1 -3 WA
Water Quality Regional Operations
Asheville Regional Office
1�

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOF CONTENTS....................................................................................................ii
EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................ 1
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 13
1.1. PURPOSE......................................................................................................... 13
1.1.1. Regulatory Background.............................................................................. 13
1.1.2. Need for a Variance.................................................................................... 14
1.1.3. Proposed Alternative Temperature Limitation........................................... 15
1.1.4. Study and Demonstration............................................................................ 15
1.2. WHAT DOES §316(a) REQUIRE?.................................................................. 16
1.2.1. Background................................................................................................. 16
1.2.2. Decision Criteria......................................................................................... 18
1.2.2.1 Statute.................................................................................................. 18
1.2.2.2 Federal Regulations............................................................................. 18
1.2.2.3 EPA Guidance..................................................................................... 19
1.3. MILL OPERATION.........................................................................................22
�`. 1.3.1. Mill History.................................................................................................27
1.3.2. Changes Since 2005 Study..........................................................................28
1.3.3. Permit History.............................................................................................28
1.4. PIGEON RIVER ECOSYSTEM......................................................................29
1.4.1. Pigeon River Watershed .............................................................................29
1.4.2. Ecoregion Classification.............................................................................30
1.4.3. History of Degradation and Recovery........................................................ 32
1.4.4. Changes in the River Since 2005 Study...................................................... 33
1.5. CHANGES IN SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
SINCE2005 STUDY....................................................................................................34
1.5.1. Thermal.......................................................................................................34
1.5.1.1 Thermal Plume Measurements and Model.......................................... 34
1.5.2. Biological....................................................................................................34
1.5.2.1 Reference Locations............................................................................ 34
1.5.2.2 Reintroductions.................................................................................... 35
1.5.2.3 Larval Fish Drift..................................................................................35
Ci 1.5.2.4 Crayfish ...............................................................................................36
- i -

1.5.2.5 Freshwater Mussels ............................................................................. 37
1.5.2.6 Fish......................................................................................................39
1.5.2.7 Salamanders......................................................................................... 39
2. SUMMARY OF THE 2012-2013 STUDIES...........................................................41
2.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION.............................................................................41
2.2. THERMAL STUDIES (Appendix A) ..............................................................41
2.2.1. Data Collections..........................................................................................41
2.2.2. Measured Temperatures..............................................................................43
2.2.3. Longitudinal Thermal Model......................................................................44
2.2.4. Thermal Plume Model ................................................................................44
2.3. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES (Appendix B)..........................................................44
2.3.1. Data Collections..........................................................................................44
2.3.2. Results.........................................................................................................47
3. BALANCED INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS IN THE PIGEON RIVER
(BIOTHERMAL ASSESSMENT)...................................................................................48
3.1. ASSESSMENT ELEMENTS...........................................................................49
3.1.1. Characterization of the Receiving Water Body and Community Exposure49
( 1 3.1.2. Biotic Categories.........................................................................................49
i
3.1.3. Representative Important Species...............................................................51
3.1.4. Indicators of Appreciable Harm.................................................................. 52
3.1.5. Interaction of Heat with Other Pollutants...................................................52
3.1.6. Protection of the Balanced Indigenous Community...................................52
3.2.. INDICATORS OF APPRECIABLE HARM................................................... 53
3.2.1. Trophic Levels (Biotic categories).............................................................. 53
3.2.2. Diversity...................................................................................................... 53
3.2.3. Sustainability (Capability to sustain itself through cyclical seasonal
changes) ......:..:.......................................................................................................... 56
3.2.4. Food-chain Species Presence...................................................................... 56
3.2.5. Lack of Domination by Pollution-tolerant Species..................................... 57
3.2.6. Indigenous Species Increase or Decrease.................................................... 58
3.2.7. Threatened or Endangered Species Status.................................................. 58
3.2.8. Critical Function Zones............................................................................... 58
3.2.9. Habitat Exclusion........................................................................................58
3.2.10. Thermal Effects on"Unique or Rare Habitat"........................................ 59
3.2.11. Habitat Former Alterations......................................................................59
- ii-

3.2.12. Nuisance Species Abundance..................................................................59
3.2.13. Zone of Passage....................................................................................... 60
3.2.14. Change in Commercial or Sport Fisheries.............................................. 60
3.2.15. Magnitude and Duration of Thermal Effects..........................................60
3.2.16. Sub-lethal or Indirect Impacts................................................................. 61
3.2.17. Interaction of Thermal Discharge with Other Pollutants........................ 61
3.2.18. Reference Area Comparisons..................................................................63 .
3.2.19. Trends Over Time...................................................................................67
3.3. REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES (RIS) ..................................... 69
3.3.1. Central Stoneroller, Camposttoma anomalum............................................ 70
3.3.2. Shiners, as a Group.....................................................................................71
3.3.3. Northern Hogsucker,Hypentelium nigricans.............................................72
3.3.4. Black Redhorse,Moxostoma duguesnei.....................................................73
3.3.5. Rock Bass,Ambloplites rupestris...............................................................74
3.3.6. Redbreast Sunfish,Lepomis auritis............................................................75
3.3.7. Smallrriouth Bass,Micropterus dolomeiu...................................................76
3.3.8. Darters, as a Group,Etheostoma spp. ......................................................... 77
3.3.9. River Chub,Nocomis micropogon.............................................................. 80
3.3.10. Mottled Sculpin, Cottus bairdi................................................................ 80
3.3.11. Banded Sculpin, Cottus carolinae........................................................... 81
3.3.12. Common Carp, CYprinus carpio............................................................. 81
3.3.13. RIS Summary.......................................................................................... 82
3.4. OTHER SPECIES OF INTEREST................................................................... 83
3.4.1. Freshwater Mussels..................................................................................... 83
3.4.1.1. Appalachian Elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana.................................... 83
3.4.1.2 Wavy-rayed Lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola......................................85
3.4.1.3 Asiatic Clam, Corbiculafluminea....................................................... 86
3.4.1.4 Other Mussel Species in the Region.................................................... 88
3.4.2. Crayfish....................................................................................................... 88
3.4.3. Salamanders................................................................................................90
3.4.4. Aquatic Plant,Podostemum ceratophyllum................................................91
3.5. COMMUNITY BALANCE.............................................................................. 92
3.6. WORST CASE ASSESSMENT....................................................................... 92
4. MASTER RATIONALE............................................................................................. 94

5. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 97
APPENDIX A. Pigeon River Temperature Study and Model: 2005-2013
APPENDIX B. A Study of the Aquatic Resources and Water Quality of the Pigeon River
(Pigeon River Biological Study: 2012-2013)
APPENDIX C. Pigeon River Fish Re-introductions in North Carolina. Progress Report
2006-2013
APPENDIX D. Analysis of Fish Kill of September 2007
APPENDIX E. Relevant Statutes and Regulations
APPENDIX F. April 2012 316(a) Study Plan(Approved)
iv-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., d/b/a Evergreen Packaging ("Evergreen") is
submitting this report in accordance with Section A. 12. of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit NC 0000272 (the "NPDES Permit", or "Permit"). The report
is being submitted more than 180 days prior to the expiration of the Permit as part of a
partial settlement agreement(the "Settlement Agreement") in Cocke County, Tennessee et
al. v. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,Division of
Water Quality and Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., 10 EHR 4341 and Cocke County,
Tenn., et al. v. Environmental Management Commission acting by and through its
NPDES Committee and Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., 10 EHR 4982 (the "Contested
Cases").
The report requests continuation of alternative thermal effluent limitations
(variance from otherwise applicable limitations) contained in the NPDES Permit, as
modified by the Settlement Agreement. The extant Permit, with thermal variance,was
issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC
DENR) on May 26,2010 effective July 1,2010, based on thermal and biological studies.
performed in 2005. The permit was subsequently modified by the Settlement Agreement,
effective June 1, 2012. The current and requested limitations are: a maximum monthly
average temperature rise above upstream ambient of 8.5C at Fiberville Bridge
(immediately downstream of Evergreen's Canton Mill) ("Canton Mill" or "Mill")with a
maximum weekly average of 32°C (summer) and 29°C (winter).
This report summarizes the legal,physical and biological information that
supports Evergreen's variance request as part of its 2013 NPDES permit renewal
application. Such a variance(alternative effluent limitation) is allowed under Section
316(a) of the Public Law 92-500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972) and its reauthorizations, generally known as the"Clean Water Act" (CWA).
Approval of a thermal variance is governed by federal regulations (40 CFR 125 known as
"Subpart H") and counterpart in NC regulations (North Carolina Administrative Code
15A NCAC 2B.0208(b)).
Section 316(a) of the federal CWA permits the owner or operator of a point-
source thermal discharge to demonstrate that otherwise applicable effluent limitations on
the thermal discharge are more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous population (BIP) of shellfish, fish and wildlife in
and on the receiving water body. The"otherwise applicable"limitations are water-
quality based limits (water temperature standards) or national standards for best available
technology (which have not been promulgated for thermal discharges). A variance under
§316(a) of the CWA is granted under interagency guidance issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; EPA and NRC 1977). The attributes of a
"balanced indigenous population"or community have been defined by the federal
regulations (Subpart H), EPA guidelines, and subsequent opinions by the EPA
Administrator and other regulatory bodies. As specified in the federal regulations, a
' balanced indigenous community for purposes of a 316(a) demonstration is one that has
- 1 -

diversity, the capacity to sustain itself through cyclical seasonal changes, contains the
necessary food chain species, and is not dominated by pollution-tolerant species.
Additional decision criteria have been added over the historical implementation of
§316(a).
The current May,2010,NPDES permit includes a requirement that a temperature
and biological study be conducted and completed by January 2014 to allow for review of
the 316(a) alternative thermal limits (Part I A. (12.)). Evergreen and its predecessors
have performed biological studies of the Pigeon River periodically since 1987 to satisfy
permit and regulatory requirements. The most recent previous study was in 2005 (Wilson
and Contain 2006). Evergreen contracted with the University of Tennessee, Knoxville
(UTK)to conduct studies of the Pigeon River and reference areas in 2012-2013 to
evaluate its thermal and biological conditions prior to submittal of a renewal application.
The studies included temperature measurements in the river including the thermal mixing
zone, development and validation of a longitudinal temperature model for the Pigeon
River downstream of the Mill, development of a thermal mixing-zone model,biological
surveys to confirm the existence of a balanced indigenous community under the thermal
limitations of the current variance, and the §316(a) Demonstration that includes an
integrative assessment of the thermal and biological aspects and a"Master Rationale" in
support of the current alternative effluent limitation. A final Study Plan was submitted to
NC DENR's Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on 12 April 2012 (Evergreen Packaging
2012; Appendix F), which was approved on April 24, 2012. Studies have been
coordinated with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
("NC DENR"), with all appropriate certifications obtained and study methods approved.
This Demonstration, supported by its detailed appendices:
• Describes the requirements of a CWA §316(a) Demonstration;
• Provides a history of operations and thermal variances at the Canton Mill;
• Summarizes the 2012-2013 thermal and biological studies of the Pigeon River
downstream of the Mill and similar reference streams in and outside the Pigeon River
watershed, with full thermal and biological reports appended;
•Provides a record of improvement in the biological community of the Pigeon River
since 1984 under a sequence of thermal variances;
• Reports a biological assessment that explicitly evaluates decision criteria in the
federal regulations (Subpart M, EPA/NRC guidance, and historical and recent opinions
by the EPA Administrator or delegate (including the Environmental Appeals Board's
2006 decision in regard to the Brayton Point Power Plant); and
• Integrates thermal and biological information in a Master Rationale in support of a
BIP in the Pigeon River in the vicinity and downstream of the Mill's thermal discharge
under the current and proposed alternative effluent limitation.
Evergreen's Canton Mill is located on the Pigeon River, a major tributary of the
French Broad River, at Canton,North Carolina. The Mill and its thermally affected reach
of river from the Mill to Waterville Reservoir are located within the "Broad Basins"sub-
region of the Level III `Blue Ridge" ecoregion, which is ecologically distinct from
-2

mountainous regions both upstream and downstream (Section 1.4.2). Waterville
Reservoir, with headwaters at about Pigeon River Mile ("PRM") 42 (depending on lake
elevation) and its lake-like thermal budget, effectively ends the thermal influence of the
Canton Mill. In its early years,the Mill's thermal and chemical effluents caused
significant ecological impacts to the river. Since about 1960,the Mill has worked steadily
to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of its wastewater discharges (Section
1.3.1). A Mill modernization in the early 1990s led to major improvements in the river's
biological conditions. The river habitat is largely restored from earlier impacts, as
documented in river studies for NPDES permits in 1995,2001, and 2005. For biological
species having difficulty recolonizing the affected river reach, an interagency program of
reintroductions has been largely successful in Tennessee and North Carolina(Appendix
C).
Temperature
Understanding of the temperatures of the Pigeon River has improved through
studies in 2005 and 2012-2013 (Section 2.1 and Appendix A). Intensive data collections
in 2005 and 2012-2013 using miniature recording thermographs at numerous stations in
summer and winter have provided extensive data sets for both 3-dimensional
instantaneous modeling of the thermal plume just below the outfall and 1-dimensional
modeling of the river downstream of the outfall from 2005 to 2013. The winter and
summer thermograph data collections were utilized to calibrate the thermal longitudinal
model. Validation was completed by comparing the resulting output of the model to a
six-year record of daily temperatures collected by Mill personnel. Detailed manual
surveys of the zone of initial thermal mixing in 2012 have defined the distribution of
warmed water as it mixes with the cooler water from upstream at different river flows. A
numerical thermal plume model, CORMIX,was used to simulate the thermal plume
mixing between the Mill outfall and Fiberville Bridge. This information informs
biological decision criteria important for a 316(a) Demonstration.
The weekly average temperatures (Sunday-Saturday) for July-September for years
2005-2013 did not exceed the seasonal permit limit of 32°C (maximum was 30.3°C).
Likewise,they never exceeded the seasonal limit of 29°C from October to June
(maximum 27.3°C).
The thermal plume from the outfall mixes rapidly across the majority of the river
during low Pigeon River flow rates, with a small remaining temperature difference
(-0.5°C) from side to side at the Fiberville Bridge. During medium Pigeon River flow
rates, the thermal plume mixes into the Pigeon River more slowly, and the remaining
differential temperature is larger from side to side at Fiberville. And during high flow
rates, it appears that the far right side of the Pigeon River, opposite of the outfall, remains
at near ambient temperatures at the Fiberville Bridge. Temperatures in the zone of
discharge mixing that are high enough to block aquatic life movements would occur
rarely, only at times of very low river flow rate and warm ambient temperatures. Median
mixed river temperature increases due to Mill thermal loading (at PRM 63.3) were shown
by modeling to be 3.1,2.5 and 1.5°C at Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63.0), above Clyde
-3 -

(PRM 59.0) and HEPCO USGS gage above the Waterville Reservoir(PRM 45.3),
respectively. With the Mill's discharge flow rate and heat flux moderately constant over
time, variations in river temperature in the immediate mixing zone and in the river to
Waterville Reservoir are largely due to seasonal ambient water temperatures and the river
flow rate, as illustrated in Appendix A.
Biology
Biological sampling studies of aquatic trophic levels were conducted in the
Pigeon River in July, August and September, 2012, following protocols of the
Environmental Sciences Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources(NC DENR ESS) to determine: (1)the current quality of these
communities near Evergreen's Canton Mill, and (2)whether thermal inputs from the Mill
disrupt or prevent balanced indigenous communities of these organisms at all trophic
levels. The sampling period was approximately two weeks longer than the sampling
effort conducted in 2005. The summer period has been chosen for periodic sampling
since the 1980s because stream temperatures are typically the warmest and there are
likely the most severe, if any, biological impacts. In 2012,water temperatures in July,
August, and September were similar to those collected at the same sites in 2005 although
there were slight variations depending on when temperatures were taken.
The study covered an approximate 60-mile reach of the Pigeon River extending
from the confluence of the forks of the Pigeon River(PRM 69.5)upstream of the Mill in
Canton,North Carolina, to PRM 10.3 near Newport,Tennessee. Nine thermally
influenced mainstem sampling stations were established within this reach from the Mill
to Waterville Reservoir. Four tributary locations and three Tennessee locations (not
influenced by the thermal discharge) were sampled as well. The thermally influenced
stations were compared to six reference stations: one each in the East and West Forks of
the Pigeon River, two locations between the confluence and the Mill (one of which was
sampled in 2005), and two sites in the nearby Swannanoa River. The sample sites were
as near as possible to the sites sampled in 2005 (Wilson 2006), except for three new sites
upstream of the Mill and the Swannanoa River sites. The original HEPCO site (PRM
42.6) was eliminated in 2012 due to limited suitable substrate and difficulty in sampling,
and replaced by a more suitable riverine site near the USGS gauging station at PRM 45.3.
In general,most of the sampling efforts were conducted within the general proximity of
previous sampling locations. The only modification was an increased area upstream of
the original PRM 64.5 site (to PRM 64.9);this portion of the river offered substantially
more substrate(riffles, runs) for fish and invertebrate collections.
Fish samples were collected by boat, backpack and pram electrofishing, and seine
hauls where suitable habitat existed. Benthic samples were collected from specific
habitat using qualitative techniques developed by the state of North Carolina and the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Overall, the 2012 Biological Assessment found a diverse and healthy aquatic
~, community present in the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill. Measures of biological
-4-

health in the river during 2012 continue to maintain or improve from the previous
biological assessments conducted in 1995, 2000, and 2005.
Fish
Fish collections from all sampling methods produced a total of 4188 fish(3485
from mainstem and upstream tributary sample locations, and 703 from mainstem
tributaries below the Mill) distributed among 56 species. There were also three hybrids
types (bluegill x green sunfish, bluegill x redbreast, green sunfish x redbreast) collected
which accounted for six of the total number count. The additional number of species
observed since 2005 is an indicator that the mainstem fish community as a whole
continues to increase its diversity and maintain stability. Fish collected throughout the
river were deemed in good health and the condition of fish downstream of the Mill was
generally comparable to that of fish upstream of the Mill.
Upstream of the Mill,the most commonly collected species were, in order of
abundance, greenfin darter(157), stoneroller(90), rock bass (56), river chub (43),
mottled sculpin(41), Tuckasegee darter:(29), and redbreast sunfish(27). Downstream of
the Mill,the most commonly collected species in the mainstem, including both North
Carolina and Tennessee portions of the river,were the redbreast sunfish(537), central
stoneroller(289), smallmouth bass (242), whitetail shiner (175), and rock bass (117).
Several species were found only in the Tennessee portion of the river, including some
associated with reservoir habitats;these included the walleye, channel catfish,white
crappie, white bass, and freshwater drum.
When comparing total numbers of fish taka collected in the North Carolina
portion of the river below the Canton Mill to Waterville Reservoir(eight sites in 2005
and nine sites in 2012, PRM 63.0—PRM 42.6),there were 29 taxa collected in 2005 and
37 taxa in 2012. This represents a 28% increase in the number of species inhabiting the
river below the Mill. In 2005, the PRM 42.6 site had nine species of fish; that site was
not sampled in 2012 due to the influence of Waterville Reservoir. In 2012, the PRM 45.3
site replaced PRM 42.6, and there were also nine fish taxa collected there. Five of the
nine species (rock bass, redbreast sunfish, smallmouth bass, whitetail shiner, and northern
hogsucker) were common to both sites and collected in 2005 and 2012.
When examining the 2012 fish assemblage,there were eight pollution intolerant
fish species, four tolerant species, 29 intermediate species, and four species not rated by
the NC DENR(NC DENR 2001). The pollution intolerant rock bass and smallmouth
bass were collected at all mainstem stations (both upstream and downstream of the Mill),
whereas the intolerant rainbow trout occurred only at one station in the Tennessee portion
of the river. Of the tolerant species, seventeen common carp were collected in the
mainstem of the river downstream of the Mill from PRM 63.0 to PRM 10.3, and white
suckers were collected at three sites in North Carolina. Only six green sunfish were
collected, one at PRM 69.5 and five at PRM 10.3 in Tennessee.
- 5 -

- Redbreast sunfish was the most common tolerant species, occurring at all stations
except the most upstream site in Tennessee (PRM 24.7). When comparing the catch of
rock bass relative to redbreast sunfish collections from the North Carolina portion of the
river below the Mill, the ratio of rock bass to redbreast has improved from of 1:10.2 in
2005 to 1:5.6 in 2012; this represents a 45% improvement in numbers of the intolerant
rock bass relative to its non-indigenous competitor, redbreast sunfish.
The species richness value (11) at Fiberville(PRM 63.0),the warmest station
sampled, was somewhat less than the 16 species collected upstream of the Mill. Fish
collected at two stations immediately downstream of Fiberville, PRM 61.0 and 59.0,
produced species richness values of 14 and 17, respectively. The numbers of fish species
collected at 5 of 6 remaining downstream sample stations in the North Carolina portion of
the river were greater in 2012 than in 2005.
A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on a matrix of abundances
of all fish species sampled at all Pigeon River sites (including East Fork and West Fork
reference sites) and the Swannanoa River reference sites. The purpose of the PCA was to
assess how similar each of the sample sites were:to each other with respect to fish
abundances (in this case total number of each species), and to assess how similar sites
were from 2005 to 2012. The PCA of the fish community indicated that there was a
gradient in fish species composition that produced three distinct groups of sites that were
similar to each other: (1) all six reference sites, including two tributaries and two
mainstem sites on the Pigeon River upstream of the Mill, and both Swannanoa River
sites, (2) all thermally influenced mainstem sites downstream from the Mill to Waterville
Reservoir, and (3) three TN sites downstream from the hydropower facility. Statistical
analyses indicated no significant differences in species diversity among the three groups.
Assessment of relative weight(Wr) values for the more abundant sport fish found
at most of the study stations indicated that: (1)the condition of rock bass, smallmouth
bass,redbreast sunfish, and bluegill from the Pigeon River is comparable to the condition
of these species from other areas in the Southeast, and (2)the condition of these species
downstream of the Canton Mill in the thermally affected portion of the river as well as
the downstream portion of the river in Tennessee were considered to be in good
condition. Mean Wr scores for rock bass (93) and redbreast sunfish(99) below the Mill
were comparable to those upstream of the Mill, and higher than mean Wr values from the
same species (rock bass, 81;redbreast, 90) from the Swannanoa River reference sites.
Overall,the results suggested no significant adverse impacts from the Mill's
thermal discharge. In summary, the 2012 fish community below the Mill has not
changed dramatically since 2005, although it has increased the species diversity and also
improved measurably in several ways: (1)the species richness from 44 species in 2005 to
51 species in 2012, an improvement of 16% since 2005, (2) darter species, which were
essentially absent downstream of the Mill in 1995, increased in number from 4 in 2005 to
5 in 2012, and were found in all nine downstream North Carolina sites, (3)the catch of
smallmouth bass increased almost ten-fold from 26 individuals in 2005 to 201 in 2012,
- 6 -

and(4)the ratio of rock bass relative to redbreast sunfish was 1:5.6 in 2012 and 1:10.2 in
2005, which represented a 45% increase in the less tolerant species (rock bass).
Macroinvertebrates
Macro-invertebrate sampling from throughout the study area(tributaries included)
yielded a total of 315 taxa. This number of individual taxa is up approximately 23%
from the 257 taxa collected in 2005. The numbers of the pollution-intolerant
Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera complex(EPT) collected in 2012 (N=125,
including 117 genera and 8 families) increased approximately 24% from the 95 EPT taxa
collected in 2005. "EPT"is an abbreviation for Ephemeroptera+Plecoptera+
Trichoptera, insect groups that are generally intolerant of many kinds of pollution. All
three groups increased in number of taxa, with mayflies increasing by 15, stoneflies by 1,
and caddisflies by 6 taxa. The increases reflected in the 2012 collections may be in part
to an increase in the number of mainstem collection sites (14 instead of 11), and the
addition of three tributary stations (EFPR 3.5, WFPR 3.6, and Crabtree Creek). The total
number of EPT taxa collected in 2012 from the benthic community at PRM 64.5-64.9
upstream of the Mill (N=22) decreased from the numbers collected in 2005 (29) and 2000
(35). It should be noted that the decrease in taxa numbers occurred even though the
sampling area was increased somewhat to include more suitable substrate. Possible
reasons for the decrease noted include a severe drought in 2007-08, especially in North
Carolina, and a noticeable increase in agricultural operations upstream of the sites.
Turbidity levels in tributaries and at two sampling sites immediately above and below the
Mill were noticeably higher after rain events.
Even though the total number of EPT taxa collected in 2012 throughout the study
area decreased from the numbers in 2005,there was a slight increase in the number of
EPT taxa collected at the station(PRM 63.0) immediately downstream of the Mill (16
taxa in 2012, and 15 taxa in 2005). When comparing total invertebrate taxa collected in
the North Carolina portion of the river below the Mill to Waterville Reservoir (PRM 63.0
—PRM 42.6), there were 107 taxa collected in 2005 and 149 taxa in 2012, which is an
increase of 39%. The 2012 number does not include the five additional taxa found at
PRM,57.7, a new site added for the 2012 study. Taxa richness in the tributary streams
sampled in 2005 (Fines, Richland, and Jonathan's Creeks)was essentially the same in
2012 (88) as in 2005 (87) and 2000 (86).
The North Carolina Biotic Index ("NCBI"), a localized adaptation of the Index of
Biotic Integrity used nationally, scores ranged from 4.16 (Good) at PRM 64.5
immediately above the Canton Mill to 4.39 (Good) at PRM 24.7 in the Tennessee reach;
all Tennessee reach stations received the `Good' rating. The scores at NC stations
downstream from the Mill ranged from 6.70 (Fair)at PRM 63.0 to 4.69 (Good) at PRM
45.3, the farthest downstream site in that portion of the river. Four of the eight NC
stations rated a `Good-Fair' or `Good' score in 2012 compared to six of eight stations in
2005;the severe drought in 2007-08 is thought to have had a significant impact of macro-
invertebrate populations which may have influenced the NCBI scores.
- 7 -

Mussels
The presence or absence of freshwater mussels at all Pigeon River mainstem
sample sites was documented. There were no mussels observed at any of the sampling
sites during 2012. These results are in line with NC DENR survey data in recent years
which have not documented any naturally-occurring mussels in the Pigeon River. High
water levels during the spring of 2013 prevented access for mussel surveys in areas other
than designated sites, and especially areas where mussel reintroductions have occurred.
Reintroduction of 10 native mussel species have been done,beginning with nine species
in TN at three sites (PRM 17.3,PRM 13.3, and PRM 8.3) in 2000-12; the other species
has been re-introduced at PRM 65.5 and PRM 55.3 in the NC portion of the river since
2010. All re-introduction sites in both North Carolina and Tennessee mainstem portions
of the Pigeon River were chosen to maximize survival and growth.
A recent research study involving UTK personnel investigated mussel survival
and growth reared in silos in Pigeon River mainstem locations both above and below the
Mill (Rooney, 2010). Results indicated that mortality rates among mussels at above-Mill
and below-Mill sites were not significantly different; however, growth rates of mussels
held in downstream silos were significantly greater than for those held at upstream sites.
Highest growth rates were observed at a site located approximately 18 km downstream
from the Mill. Several influences may have impacted growth rates, such as elevated
water temperature due to heated Mill effluent, as well as agricultural runoff with elevated
levels of nutrients. This 2010 study documented definitive proof that mussels could
survive and grow in the river below the Mill, and also provided the impetus for NC
DENR to begin their mussel reintroduction program in the NC portion of the river.
Assessment of survival at other life stages is also needed before the full extent of
potential for reintroduction of mussels to the studied reach of the Pigeon River is known.
WILDLIFE
Several wildlife species were observed along the mainstem,tributary, and
reference waterways during instream fish and invertebrate sampling events. The majority
of wildlife contact was with avian species which are usually associated with aquatic
habitat. The complete list and number of locations at which they were observed are as
follows: (1) Great blue heron—3 sites, (2)Belted kingfisher—2 sites, (3)Northern water
snake—2 sites, (4) Green heron— 1 site, (5)Blue winged teal— 1 site, (6) Black-crowned
night heron, (7) Queen snake— 1 site, (8) Soft-shell turtle— 1 site, (9) Bald eagle— 1 site,
(10) Osprey- 1 site, (11) Beaver- 1 site.
Two recent research studies involving other riverine/stream wildlife.included
surveys of salamanders and crayfish in the Pigeon River mainstem and tributaries. The
2009 salamander study(Maxwell, 2009) documented the presence of five of eight
salamander species (that historically existed in NC streams) in three of five study sites: in
the Pigeon River above the Mill,Jonathan's Creek, and Big Creek. No salamanders were
found in the NC mainstem portion of the Pigeon River; water quality and suitable
substrate were cited as possible contributors to the lack of salamanders there. The
- 8 -

crayfish study (Dunn,2010) identified eight species in the Pigeon River system: they
were collected in the river above the Mill,in all nine Pigeon River tributaries, and in the
mainstem in the TN portion of the river. No crayfish were found in the NC mainstem
below the Mill;the study cited the drought of 2007-08 as a possible contributor to the
lack of crayfish there. The drought may have caused crayfish to seek refugia in
tributaries to escape higher levels of salinity (2X) and conductivity (1 OX) in the
mainstem which were due to lower water flows which concentrated the Mill discharge
effluents.
Peripkyton/Plankton
The field surveys indicated periphyton as present at all sampling stations with
little correlation of abundance with proximity to the Mill. The two lowest periphyton
concentrations were found at PRM 55.5, Hyder Mountain Bridge (NC), and PRM 24.7,
.Waterville at Brown's Bridge (TN). Fiberville (PRM 63.0) below the paper Mill had
abundant periphyton.
The potamoplankton, i.e.,unattached phytoplankton and zooplankton,was not
sampled because of low abundance, and their sporadic appearance was dictated by river
flows. Any sampling or collection of these groups at any given site could not be
replicated because they were transient and continuously moving downstream. There was
no indication that this biotic subcategory was present in ecologically significant amounts,
as is typical of small rivers and streams.
Macropkytes
Podostemum (hornleaf riverweed)was found in three of four reference stations
upstream of the Mill,both stations in the reference Swannanoa River, and two of three
stations in the Pigeon River in Tennessee,but not in the thermally affected reach between
the Mill and Waterville Reservoir. The species was not examined in previous 316(a)
studies, so there is no available history of change. The low dispersal ability, due to clonal
reproduction and poor seed production combined with the Pigeon River's stresses of
flooding in 2004 and drought in 2007-2008,may be limiting its ability to recolonize the
thermally affected reach after a history of pollution. Temperature does not appear to be a
limiting factor except in the reach nearest the Mill, where temperatures in summer can
exceed the reported upper limit of 300 C reported in the literature.
Overall,the 2012 Biological Assessment found a diverse and healthy aquatic
community present in the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill. Measures of biological
health in the river during 2012 continue to maintain or improve from the previous
biological assessments conducted in 1995, 2000, and 2005. Major improvements
include:
The ratio of rock bass relative to redbreast sunfish was 1:5.6 in 2012 and 1:10.2 in
2005,which represented a 45% increase in the less tolerant species (rock bass).
- 9 -

Fish species richness increased from 44 species in 2005 to 56 species in 2012, an
improvement of 27% since 2005.
The catch of intolerant smallmouth bass increased almost ten-fold from 26
individuals in 2005 to 201 in 2012.
In 2005, only one intolerant fish species (rock bass)was collected in the thermally
influenced reach of the river below the Mill; in 2012,rock bass and two additional
intolerant species (smallmouth bass, greenfin darter) were found in the same
reach.
Similarity analyses indicated there was a gradient in fish species composition that
produced three distinct groups of sites that were similar to each other. Statistical
analyses including all three biodiversity indices indicated no significant
differences in species diversity when comparing 2005 to 2012 numbers.
Relative weight(W,)values for the more abundant sport fish found at most of the
thermally affected study stations indicated body condition comparable to other
sites in the Southeast and comparable to or better than at reference sites.
- The numbers of the pollution-intolerant Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera
complex collected in 2012 increased approximately 24% from the numbers taxa
collected in 2005.
The number of macro-invertebrate taxa is up approximately 23% in the mainstem
from 257 taxa in 2005 to 315 taxa in 2012.
Ten native mussel species have been re-introduced into the Pigeon River system.
A recent study indicated that mortality rates among above- and below-Mill sites
were not significantly different; however, growth rates of mussels held in the
downstream sites were greater than for those held at upstream sites.
Master Rationale
The Master Rationale, in accord with the EPA Guidance Manual (EPA 1977),
concludes that the thermal discharge of the Canton Mill has provided for the protection
and propagation of a balanced indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the
Pigeon River downstream of the Mill's thermal effluent. The rationale is based on
evaluation of decision criteria in federal regulations implementing §316(a), the 1977 EPA
guidance, indicators of appreciable harm derived from historical decisions, and two
features stressed by the 2006 Brayton Point Environmental Appeals Board decision: 1)
whether the community of the thermally affected zone is what it would be without the
thermal discharge, based on comparison with reference locations, and 2) whether there is
a trend of decline or improvement in the community.
Each assessment element indicated a community that is"balanced"and similar to
what would have been there without the thermal discharge. All trophic levels of the
aquatic community (biotic categories)were present and examined in the study. Diversity
was high, although slightly less (but not statistically significant) from reference stations.
The community successfully sustains itself through cyclical seasonal changes. Abundant
food chain species are present. There is no domination by pollution tolerant species
except at the site closest to the thermal discharge in the warmest months (algae and
chironomids). Indigenous species are increasing over time relative to pollution tolerant
- 10 -

- , ones. Aquatic organisms are successfully reproducing, as demonstrated by many young
specimens. Freshwater mussels are the only T&E listed species; the federally and state
listed Appalachian elktoe is found upstream of the Mill, but not downstream and is
planned for reintroduction following successful survival and growth of the state species
of concern,the wavy-rayed lampmussell, in the thermally affected reach. There are no
critical function zones for aquatic life in the zone of initial mixing other than a zone of
passage, which has been demonstrated to occur through detailed measurements and
plume modeling. The thermal discharge and zone of initial mixing cause minimal habitat
exclusion in the warmest months in the 0.3 PRM between the outfall and Fiberville
Bridge. There are no unique or rare habitats affected by the heated effluent. A habitat
former,the hornleaf riverweed was not found at sampling stations in the thermally
affected reach but is also sporadic in reference areas; the macroinvertebrate occupants of
its habitat are nonetheless abundant in the thermally affected reach. Trends in the aquatic
community are toward-progressive improvement since studies began in 1988. Nuisance
species are not present or abundant when they occur. There are no commercial fisheries
in the Pigeon River, but the indigenous sports fish, smallmouth bass and rock bass, have
increased, especially relative to the non-native redbreast sunfish. The magnitude and
duration of any definable thermal effects (e.g., warm-water periphyton and chiromomids
in the mixing zone) are generally low and of short duration during the warmest times of
year. The high species diversity, abundance of aquatic organisms, lack of abnormalities
in fish, good relative weights of fish all indicate low sub-lethal or indirect impacts.
Detailed evaluation of other pollutants in the Pigeon River(including permitted
discharges) indicated a low likelihood that there would be detrimental interaction with the
added heat and warmer temperatures.
Reference area comparisons were favorable. Evaluation of the thermal and
biological data for nine thermally affected sites compared to six reference sites in the
Pigeon River watershed upstream of the Mill and the adjacent Swannanoa River showed
general and statistical similarity although there were some differences attributable to
historical pollution and geographic isolation that limits recolonization. Water
temperatures throughout the thermally affected reach were within the habitable zone for
aquatic life. The community in the zone of thermal mixing 0.3 PRM from the discharge
where temperatures were highest was the least similar to reference stations. Ongoing
reintroductions of fish and freshwater mussels are repopulating the thermally affected
reach with indigenous species. Other indigenous species (crayfish, salamanders) are
potential targets for additional reintroduction.
The trend of biological improvement of the thermally affected reach continued
from previous studies in 1988, 1995, 2000, and 2005. Species numbers of fish and
invertebrates have been increasing. The percentage of pollution intolerant species has
increased, such as the EPT group of macroinvertebrates and fish such as smallmouth bass
and rock bass, while relative numbers of pollution tolerant and non-indigenous species
has decreased, such as common carp and redbreast sunfish. Reintroduction of presumed
native species that have not recolonized on their own after years of absence have
generally been successful.
- 11 -

The detailed studies and analyses presented in this Demonstration support
the conclusion that the existing permit limitations on the thermal discharge are
appropriate for.fostering a balanced and progressively improving biological
community in the Pigeon River. Therefore,Evergreen/Blue Ridge proposes the
.alternative thermal limitation as written in the 2010 Permit,following revision by
the Settlement Agreement:
The Weekly Average instream temperature measured at a point 0.4 miles
downstream of the discharge location shall not,exceed 32°C during the months
of July,August, and September and shall not exceed 29°C during the months of
October through June. The monthly average instream temperature measured
at this location shall not exceed the monthly average instream temperature of
the upstream monitoring location by more titan 8.5°C.
- 12-

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., doing business as (dba) Evergreen Packaging,
Canton Office ('Evergreen") is requesting the continuation of alternative thermal effluent
limitations (variance from otherwise applicable limitations) contained in its 2010
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Permit for its Canton Mill on
the Pigeon River, as modified by the Settlement Agreement(Section 1.3.3).
1.1.1. Regulatory Background
The extant Permit, with thermal variance, was issued by NC DENR on May 26,
2010, effective July 1, 2010 (NPDES No.NC0000272)based on thermal and biological
studies performed in 2005. The permit was subsequently modified by the Settlement
Agreement effective June 1,2012. The current alternative thermal limitations are:
The Weekly Average instream temperature measured at a point 0.4 miles
downstream of the discharge location shall not exceed 32°C during the months of
July, August, and September and shall not exceed 29°C during the months of
October through June. The monthly average instream temperature measured at
this location shall not exceed the monthly average instream temperature of the
upstream monitoring location by more than 8.5.°C. This value can be adjusted
based on the results of thermal modeling[See Special Condition A.(12.)
Temperature Variance Review Special Condition].
The current NPDES permit includes a requirement that a temperature and
biological study be conducted and completed by January 2014 to allow for review of the.
316(a) alternative thermal limits (Part I A. (12.)). It states:
Blue Ridge Paper shall complete an analysis of temperature, including thermal
modeling and shall submit a balanced and indigenous species study, no later than
180 days prior to permit expiration date. As part of this analysis, Blue Ridge
Paper shall submit a complete temperature variance report documenting the need
for a continued temperature variance. The temperature delta of 8.5 deg C can be
adjusted based on results of the BIP [Balanced Indigenous Population] thermal
modeling.
The study shall be performed in accordance with the Division of Water Quality
approved plan. The temperature analysis and the balanced and indigenous study
plan shall conform to the specifications outlined in 40 CFR 125 Subpart Hand
the EPA's Draft 316(a) Guidance Manual, dated 1977. The EPA shall be
provided an opportunity to review the plan prior to commencement of the study.
- 13 -

1.1.2. Need for a Variance
A variance is needed by Evergreen for the Canton Mill because the normal
methods for regulating water temperature, state water temperature standards or Best
Available Technology for the industry are more stringent than necessary to protect and
propagate the Balanced Indigenous Community of the Pigeon River.
The Pigeon River from the Canton Water Supply Intake to the North Carolina-
Tennessee state line is designated Class C [15A NCAC 2B .0304]. It has had this
classification since 1974 (NC DWQ).
The North Carolina water temperature standard for Class C fresh waters is [15A
NCAC 02B.211(3)0)]:
6) Temperature: not to exceed 2.8 degrees C(5.04 degrees F) above the
natural water temperature, and in no case to exceed 29 degrees C (84.2 degrees
F)for mountain and upper piedmont waters and 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F)
for lower piedmont and coastal plain waters. The temperature for trout waters
shall not be increased by more than 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) due to the
discharge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20 degrees C (68 degrees F).
Data presented in Appendix A ("temperature variance report"), demonstrate that the
general temperature standard is not met in the Pigeon River downstream of the Canton
Mill.
Further, CWA § 301 requires that thermal discharges be limited consistent with
levels achievable using the"best available technology economically achievable" (BAT)
[33U.S.C. § 131l(b)(2)(A); 33 U.S.C. § 13 1 1(b)(2)(F)]. EPA's plans to establish closed-
cycle cooling (cooling towers) as BAT for steam-electric power industry thermal
discharges (the most common thermal effluents) were not promulgated due to lengthy
debate and litigation, so the agency sets technology-based permit limits for thermal
discharges based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) in a facility-specific.application of
the BAT standard [33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B) and 40 CFR § 125.3(c)(2)]. EPA has
consistently considered closed-cycle cooling as the BAT standard in its BPJ
determinations because it generally reduces heat discharge to water by—95%, with the
heat being transferred to the air instead.
Section 316(a) of the CWA allows for the selection of alternative thermal effluent
limitations (variance)based on a demonstration that a balanced indigenous population
(community) is maintained without meeting water temperature standards or BAT.
Evergreen has chosen to prepare a Demonstration, consistent with the 2010 Permit
requirements for renewing a variance,that shows that the aquatic community of the river
under the current operating Permit conditions meets the criteria for a Balanced
Indigenous Population(community) as it is defined by the statute, federal regulations,
EPA guidance, and opinions by the EPA Administrator or delegate (including a 2006
- 14 -

decision by the Environmental Appeals Board regarding the Brayton Point Power Plant;
EAB 2006).
1.1.3. Proposed Alternative Temperature Limitation
The proposed alternative thermal limitation is as written in the 2010 Permit,
following revision by the Settlement Agreement(Section 1.1.1):
The Weekly Average instream temperature measured at a point 0.4 miles
downstream of the discharge location shall not exceed 32°C during the months of
July, August, and September and shall not exceed 29°C during the months of
October through June. The monthly average instream temperature measured at
this location shall not exceed the monthly average instream temperature of the
upstream monitoring location by more than 8.5°C.
1.1.4. Study and Demonstration
To comply with study provisions of the 2010 Permit,Evergreen contracted with
the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK)to conduct studies of the Pigeon River and
reference areas in 2012-2013 to evaluate the river's thermal and biological conditions
prior to submittal of a renewal application. In accord with federal regulations (Subpart
H; 40 CFR 125.72(b)), a final Study Plan was submitted to NC DENR's Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) on 12 April 2012 (Evergreen Packaging 2012; Appendix F),
which was approved on April 24, 2012 (EPA reviewed the plan and provided no
comment). Studies have been coordinated with NC DENR,with all appropriate
certifications obtained and study methods approved. The studies included:
• Temperature measurements in the river including the thermal mixing zone, and in a
reference river comparable to the reach of the Pigeon River influenced by the Mill
(Appendix A);
• Development and validation of a longitudinal temperature model for the Pigeon
River downstream of the Mill (Appendix A);
• Biological surveys of periphyton, macrophytes,macroinvertebrates, and fish as well
as incidental observations of wildlife to demonstrate the existence of a balanced
indigenous community under the thermal limitations of the current permit(Appendix B);
and
• The §316(a)Demonstration report that includes an integrative assessment of the
thermal and biological aspects and a"Master Rationale"in support of the current
alternative effluent limitation based on decision criteria from the statute, federal
regulations, and historical and recent decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrator or delegate.
This Demonstration, supported by its detailed appendices:
•Describes the requirements of a CWA §316(a)Demonstration;
- 15 -

• Describes the environmental setting of the Pigeon River in relation to the Canton
s Mill;
• Provides a history of operations and thermal variances at the Canton Mill;
• Summarizes the 2005 thermal and biological studies of the Pigeon River
downstream of the Mill and similar reference streams in and outside the Pigeon River
watershed, with full reports appended;
• Provides a record of improvement in the biological community of the Pigeon River
since 1984 under a sequence of thermal variances;
• Reports a biological assessment that explicitly evaluates decision criteria in the
federal regulations (Subpart H), EPA/NRC guidance, and historical and recent opinions
by the EPA Administrator or delegate (including the Environmental Appeals Board's
2006 decision in regard to the Brayton Point Power Plant); and
• Integrates thermal and biological information in a Master Rationale in support of a
BIP in the Pigeon River in the vicinity and downstream of the Mill's thermal discharge
under the current and proposed alternative effluent limitation.
1.2. WHAT DOES §316(a) REQUIRE?
This Demonstration for the Canton Mill is a Type III demonstration that is
weighed toward retrospective thermal and biological studies, under a study plan approved
by the NCDEP. It adheres to decision criteria in the statute, federal regulations, EPA
guidance, and opinions of the EPA Administrator or delegate.
1.2.1. Background
Heat(and its measure,temperature) was determined to be a"pollutant" in early
federal water-pollution control legislation and is embodied in the current Clean Water
Act(CWA) [§ 502(6). 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6)]. Heat added to water bodies can raise water
temperatures (depending on the amount of heat and the conditions in the receiving
waters), which can have effects on the physiology, behavior and reproduction of
organisms, and can cause shifts in the species make-up of the community of organisms
(NAS/NAE 1973; Majewski and Miller 1979; IAEA 1980; Langford 1990).
While thermal discharges can cause environmental changes,the cumulative
information from research and environmental assessments of thermal discharges in the
1960s and early 1970s demonstrated that waste heat discharges differed from other
pollutants in that heat is neither persistent in the environment nor does it accumulate in
aquatic food chains to become a threat to the health of fish, shellfish,wildlife, or humans,
as is the case for many toxic substances. Based on such information,the U.S. Congress
included a variance option in §316(a) of the CWA as an exception to the general rule that
permits limits be based on technology- or water quality-based standards,whichever are
more stringent [33 U.S.C. § 1326(a)].
Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)permits the owner or operator of a
point-source discharge to demonstrate that otherwise applicable effluent limitations on
the thermal discharge are more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and
- 16 -

propagation of a balanced, indigenous population (BIP) of shellfish,fish, and wildlife in
and on the receiving water body. The term"population" in the Act is equivalent to
"community"in the ecological sense (BIC; 40 CFR 125.71(c)). Among the types of
effluent limitations for a given thermal discharge that may be determined to be
unnecessarily stringent under a Section 316(a) variance request are water quality based
effluent limitations such as discharge temperature standards, discharge zones, flow limits,
or receiving water body temperatures, as well as technology-based or industry-based
limitations. The applicable NC statute and the otherwise applicable thermal limitations
are given in Appendix E.
A variance under CWA §316(a) is granted under interagency guidance issued by
EPA(EPA 1977). This guidance provides for several types of Demonstration:
• Type I,a retrospective,non-predictive demonstration for existing facilities showing
that there has been no prior appreciable harm from the discharge;
• Type II, a predictive demonstration, using a selected group of Representative
Important Species (RIS) and Biotic Categories to show, based on thermal effects
literature (laboratory and field),that the effects of a proposed discharge are minimal; and
• Type III, a hybrid of types I and II, in which a combination of species' thermal
effects information,retrospective analyses of the aquatic community, and physical and
engineering considerations are used through a"Master Rationale" or showing of Low
Potential Impact. Type III studies require written concurrence of the EPA or other
permitting agency, generally based on an approved study plan.
In recent practice,most §316(a)Demonstrations have been Type III, in which a
variety of physical (thermal,hydraulic, engineering) and biological (e.g., RIS, community
composition, habitats, and trends in the community over time)have been used to
demonstrate a BIC. As variances have been granted and years of physical and biological
studies have been conducted at functioning thermal discharges,the Demonstrations have
tended more and more toward Type III with strong emphasis on the retrospective
characteristics of Type 1. This Demonstration for the Canton Mill is a Type III
demonstration weighed toward retrospective thermal and biological studies, under a study
plan approved by the NCDEP.
Renewal applications such as this one generally include specific consideration of
any changes in conditions from the previously granted variance. Criteria commonly used
to evaluate a §316(a)Permit renewal, as opposed to a new Demonstration, are:
• Whether the nature of the thermal discharge has changed from the previous
Application;
• Whether the nature of the aquatic community has changed from the previous
Application;
• Whether the best scientific methods to assess the effects of the thermal discharge
have changed from the previous Application;
. • Whether the technical knowledge of stresses caused by the thermal discharge has
changed; and
- 17 -

• Whether the requirements of the current NPDES Permit have assured the
protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population.
Nonetheless, the 2010 Permit mandates that a full thermal and"balanced and indigenous"
study be performed to serve as a basis for consideration of a renewal (Section 1.1.1).
1.2.2. Decision Criteria
Decision criteria for whether a Demonstration successfully justifies a variance are
spelled out in increasing detail in the statute, federal regulations (40 CFR 125, "Subpart
H"), EPA guidance (EPA and NRC 1977), and successive legal and administrative
opinions by the EPA Administrator or delegate. Current criteria are especially guided by
the opinion of the Environmental Appeals Board in the matter of the Brayton Point Power
Plant (EAB 2006).
1.2.2.1 Statute
The CWA authorizes alternative effluent limits on the control of the thermal
component of a discharge, so long as the limits will "assure the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife" (BIP) in
and on the receiving body of water. (The term"population"was used but the intent was
the ecological community, as clarified in the federal regulations,thus Balanced
Indigenous Community-BIC- is often used). The statute does not define"protection and
propagation", a BIP or the extent of a water body to be considered.
The statute clearly places the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate a
BIP, recognizes that there are different ways to regulate thermal discharges,requires
consideration of all components of the ecosystem, and considers the interaction of
heat/temperature with other pollutants.
1.2.2.2 Federal Regulations
The federal regulations implementing §316(a) are found in 40 CFR 125.71
through 125.73, titled"Subpart H—Criteria for Determining Alternative Effluent
Limitations Under Section 316(a) of the Act". Subpart H notably defines a BIP as
typically having four characteristics:
i. "diversity,"
ii. "the capacity to sustain itself through cyclical seasonal changes,"
iii. "presence of necessary food chain species," and
iv. "lack of domination by pollution tolerant species."
Although `indigenous"usually means native to a water body,the subpart states
that such a community "may include historically non-native species introduced in
connection with a program of management." Also,the community may include"species
whose presence or abundance results from substantial, irreversible environmental
modifications." Although debated, it is also interpreted to mean non-native species that
18 -

have extended their riverine ranges naturally through the aggregate of essentially
irreversible environmental modifications.. The section notes,however, that normally,
"such a community will not include species whose presence or abundance is attributable
to the introduction of pollutants that will be eliminated"by pollution controls in other
sections of the Act or"attributable to alternative effluent limitations imposed"through
§316(a). That is,prior habitation by a pollution-tolerant community is not considered
"indigenous".
Subpart H formally introduced the notion of Representative Important Species
(RIS) as species that"are representative, in terms of their biological needs, of a balanced,
indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the body of water into which a
discharge of heat is made." These may be the sole focus of analyses for predictive
demonstrations for new facilities, whereas they are focal species, but not the only ones,
for retrospective demonstrations.
A second section of the code (125.72)prescribes procedures that are to be
followed in applying for a §316(a) variance, including preparation of a study plan and use
of EPA guidance. The third section of the code (125.73) gives criteria and standards for
determining alternative effluent limitations, including that the alternative thermal
limitation must be protective of the BIP, all relevant information can be used, and
demonstration of absence of prior harm (or the demonstration could show that"despite
the occurrence of such previous harm, the desired alternative limitation...will
nevertheless assure the protection and propagation" of the BIPBIC).
Subpart H is clearly the definitive regulatory document for stating what is
required of a §316(a) demonstration. Nonetheless, this federal regulation has been
expanded upon through guidance documents, litigation, and common practice.
1.2.2.3 EPA Guidance
The federal EPA has provided guidance for implementing §316(a). The most
extensive was a 1977 guidance manual that was developed in conjunction with the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when both agencies had some responsibility for
thermal discharges (EPA and NRC 1977). This technical guidance document was never
formally finalized, but remains a general guide for conducting §316(a) demonstrations.
A 1992 EPA review of thermal discharge regulation provided guidance largely for EPA
itself(EPA 1992). Important legal precedents have shaped EPA reviews of
demonstrations, although no specific updated guidance was issued. Nonetheless, a recent
(2006) decision by the Environmental Appeals Board in the matter of the Brayton Point
Power Plant located in EPA Region 1 (New England) has stimulated a major new
philosophy for §316(a) demonstrations (EAB 2006). This philosophy has been
implemented largely through EPA Regional reviews of new permit applications and
renewals.
EPA's 1977 guidance made important recommendations for organization and
content of a Demonstration. It recommended:
- 19 -

• Organization of a Demonstration by"biotic categories" (phytoplankton,
zooplankton,habitat formers, shellfish/macroinvertebrates, fish, and other vertebrate
animals;
• A rationale for selecting RIS;
• Identification of"resource value zones,"those zones near a thermal discharge
supporting"critical values", such as reproduction, growth, and migration;
• Definition of dominant species; and
• Inclusion of a"Master Rationale"that summarized all the detailed analyses of a
Demonstration into the case for protection of the BIPBIC by the proposed alternative
thermal limitations.
The guidance manual attempts to inform dischargers seeking a §316(a)variance
by providing decision criteria. Throughout the document there are suggested decision
criteria that could be explicitly addressed in a demonstration. Although useful,these
criteria have been expanded upon in subsequent years of practice, litigation, and changing
agency perspectives (see below).
Many perceived uncertainties and ambiguities in the statute,regulations, and
guidance have been contested in legal proceedings. This contesting was particularly
active in the late 1970s following the first rounds of attempts to satisfy the requirements
of§ 316(a). Some decisions simply reiterated portions of the regulations and guidance,
whereas others injected more specific evaluation criteria. Two recent(2006 and 2011)
decisions are especially pertinent to current §316(a) demonstrations. Arguments by the
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB 2006)regarding denial of the alternative thermal
limitations proposed for the Brayton Point Power Plant introduced or emphasized
important considerations of reference areas and community trends. EPA Region 1's
(2011) denial of the demonstration for the Merrimack Station has served as a vehicle for
detailing EPA's current views and their legal bases (this proceeding is still underway, so
the judgment is not final).
EPA has narrowed the definition of what constitutes a balanced indigenous
community for purposes of a §316(a) demonstration after several decades of settling into
a common understanding and the issuance of many variances by state agencies (with
EPA approval). The primary emphasis has changed from demonstrating that the extant
community of mostly indigenous species has the characteristics of diversity, stability,
adequate food chains, and non-domination by pollution tolerant organisms (as prescribed
in the federal regulations' Subpart H). EPA's current interpretation,based on the
Brayton Point case, requires that the community should approximate the biotic
community that would have been there without the thermal discharge and other sources
of pollution(EAB 2006, page 557,where it is stated: that a BIP "can be the indigenous
population that existed prior to the impacts of pollutants,not solely the current population
of organisms.").
The EPA Region 4 (Southeast) objection letter for the draft Blue Ridge permit'
based on the 2005 studies (February 22, 2010 letter from James B. Giattina, EPA Region
-20 -

- 4, to Coleen H. Sullins,NC DENR) conformed to this new interpretation and stated that:
"To the question of how a permittee should identify a BIP in an area that has been
altered by impacts from an existing thermal discharge the Brayton Point E.A.D.points
out that it may be appropriate to use a nearby water body unaffected by the existing
thermal discharge as a reference area. Examination of an appropriate reference area
may be applicable in this [Blue Ridge Paper Products Canton Mill] case."
The EPA Region 4 objection letter provided NC DENR(and thus Evergreen)
guidance for interpretation of the elements of a"balanced, indigenous community"that
are stated in Subpart H [40 CFR 125.71(c)]. The verbatim interpretations (except as
annotated in brackets) are given below(taken from the objection letter):
1. "A population typically characterized by diversity at all trophic levels" means
that all of the major trophic levels present in the unaffected portion of the water
body should be present in the heat affected portions. EPA recognizes that
community structure differences will occur, however, the number of species
represented in each trophic level in the unaffected portions should be reasonably
similar in the heat-affected portions of the water body. Sampling and analysis of
fish and invertebrate communities should be done such that the major trophic
levels are identified and represented by reasonably similar species distributions.
Also, the study plan should be expanded[beyond that historically done in 316(a)
studies]to include some observations ofwildlife (i.e., waterfowl, mammals,
amphibians, etc.) both upstream and immediately downstream of the discharge
e point that may be impacted by the thermal discharge.
2. "The capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes"means that any
additional thermal stress will not cause significant community instability during
times of natural extremes in environmental conditions. Community data should
be collected during normal seasonal extremes as well as during optimal seasonal
conditions. Data should be compared between heat affected and unaffected
portions of the receiving water body to account for normal community changes
corresponding with a change in season.
3. "Presence of necessary food chain species" means that the necessary food webs
remain intact so that communities will be sustaining. We believe that exhaustive
food web studies are not necessary provided that invertebrate,fish and wildlife
communities•are otherwise healthy, i.e., represented by sufficiently high species
diversity and abundance (appropriate for that portion of the receiving water
body)for the identified trophic levels and sustaining through normal seasonal
changes.
4. "Non-domination ofpollution-tolerant species" means that in the case of a
thermal effluent, community assemblages in heat affected portions of the lake
dominated by heat tolerant species do not constitute a BIP. EPA recognizes that
because all species have varying levels of thermal tolerance, communities in the
heat affected portions of the water body may possess altered assemblages in terms
- 21 -

ofspecies present and abundance. All community data should be collected,
analyzed and presented to clearly demonstrate that affected communities have not
shifted to primarily heat tolerant assemblages.
5. "Indi eg nous"has been further clarified in the regulations: "Such a community
may include historically non-native species introduced in connection with a
program of wildlife management and species whose presence or abundance
results from substantial, irreversible environmental modifications. Normally,
however, such a community will not include species whose presence is
attributable to the introduction ofpollutants that will be eliminated by compliance
by all sources with section 301(b)(2) of the Act; and may not include species
whose presence or abundance id attributable to alternative effluent limitations
imposed pursuant to section 316(a)." (from 40 CFR 125.71(c)J EPA recognizes
that non-indigenous species are present in most aquatic systems in the United
States. All community data should be analyzed and presented to demonstrate that
community assemblages in the heat affected portions of the receiving water body
are not significantly different from non-affected communities with regard to the
number of non-indigenous species in the assemblages. [considering reference
stations]
Decision criteria resulting from key administrative and judicial precedents and
developed through experience include (in addition to those in Subpart H):
•Effects on all trophic levels;
• Effects on thermally influenced habitat, including mixing zones;
•Effects on"resource value areas" or"critical function zones";
• Indigenous species increase or decrease;
•Effects on threatened or endangered species (T&E);
• Life-cycle analysis of thermal effects on RIS,T&E, and other prominent species;
•Minimal habitat exclusion;
• Effects on unique or rare habitat;
• Alterations of habitat formers;
• Trends in the aquatic community;
•Nuisance species abundance;
• Provision of a zone of passage for migrants;
• Change in commercial or sport fisheries;
• Magnitude, frequency, duration and reversibility of any identifiable effects;
• Sublethal or indirect effects;
• Interactions with other pollutants; and
• Similarity of thermally affected area with reference areas without thermal discharge.
1.3. MILL OPERATION
Evergreen's Canton Mill is located at River Mile 63.4 on the Pigeon River at
Canton, Haywood County,North Carolina(Figure 1). The Pigeon River is a major
tributary of the French Broad River that arises in Haywood Co.,North Carolina and flows
-22 -

northward to its confluence with the French Broad River and Douglas Reservoir near
Newport, Tennessee (Figure 2). The Class C river drains an approximately 130 mil
watershed. The Mill withdraws water for papermaking processes from a low-head
impoundment on the Mill site and is permitted to discharge a monthly average of 29.9
million gallons per day (MGD) into the river. The discharge consists of treated industrial
waste,treated domestic waste from the Town of Canton, stormwater and landfill leachate.
River flows average 325 cfs annually at Canton and 677 cfs at HEPCO USGS gauge,
with a summer 7Q10 of 52 cfs at Canton and 120 cfs at HEPCO, a winter 7Q10 of 63 cfs
at Canton and 183 at HEPCO, and a 30Q2 of 89.9 cfs at Canton (NC DENR 2009). A
Google Earth image from Appendix A shows the Mill and the general discharge area
(PRM 63.0), including an upstream set of low-head dams to facilitate water withdrawal
by the Mill and railroad and highway bridges that serve as landmarks for monitoring of
the thermal effluent(Figure 3). The immediate mixing zone for the thermal effluent is
shown in another Google Earth image of the reach between the outfall (PRM 63.3) and
the Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63.0) (Figure 4). Additional Google Earth images in
Appendix A trace the Pigeon River from the Mill to upper Waterville Reservoir (PRM
45.1; HEPCO Gage) and in Tennessee from Waterville (PRM 25.2) to Bluffton (PRM
19.3).
t
-23 -

Newport pg Fields(PRM 10.3)
Tennessee
North Carolina
Flow Direction
Hutton(PRId 19 3) Hydropower Faolity(NC)
Hartford Stream Monitoring Location
Browns Bridge(PRM 24 7)
oebV Creek
Blp Creek Tines Creek
Waterville
Hir Lake
Jonathan USGS(PRM 45 3) Upstream Clyde
Creek Feryuaan Bridge (PRM
(PRM 462) 59.0)T�pry,
urse Goff Co (PRM 52-3 (PRM 61.0)
Fibervile
Waynewille WWr CreA PRM 63.0)
(PRM 54 5)
Richla
Creek Canton
Jonathan Creek
/ Charles [Bridge Alime Mill
-`(PRM 64 5-64.9)
Hyder Mountain Bridge Clyde(PRM 57.7)
(PRM 555) Below Confluence(PRM69.5)
W Fork Pigeon
Richland Creek River(WFPR 3.6) E. Fork Pigeon
(EFPR 3.5)
W Fork Pigeon River
(wFPR 6 6)
Lake Logan
East Fork Pigeon
Vest Fork Pigeon
Figure 1.The Pigeon River from the headwaters almost to the confluence
with the French Broad River near Newport,Tennessee(upper red star),showing the
location of the Mill at Canton (lower red star; the thermal discharge is at PRM
63.3), the Waterville hydropower facility, state line between North Carolina and
Tennessee, major tributaries, and monitoring locations for biological studies.
- 24 -

KENTUCKY Gircn VIRGINIA
TENNESSEE ta°'$%o
Johnso City
Rr
Knoxville P?oi
00
�� <•��, Gro moky 0 Asheville
�Qr 'eq � mama ry r
NORTH
H,�Dsr CAROLINA
e
.Chattanooga
GEORGIA
Figure 2. Pigeon River watershed (light green) in southwestern North Carolina and
eastern Tennessee within the larger Tennessee River watershed (yellow outline).
Nearby principal cities are shown. Source: Wikipedia.
- 25 -

x
.. �y�, �., j. 4 "�!� s•",�.. ?ate
y
Figure 3. Google Earth image from above the Canton Mill (PRM 64.55) to the
thermal discharge (PRM 63.0). Low-head dams at left of center(white spillways)
impound water for the Mill's water intake.
AW
Mill Outfali RR Bridge iberville
4
Figure 4. Google Earth image of the 570-m reach between the thermal discharge
outfall (PRM 63.3) and Fiberville Bride(PRM 63.0). The effluent plume is visible
as a discoloration. River flow 11.86 m /s, effluent flow 1.2 m3/s.
- 26 -

1.3.1. Mill History
The Canton Mill was established in 1908 to produce pulp for the Champion paper
mill in Hamilton, Ohio. Throughout most of its history,the Mill was owned and operated
by Champion International Corporation. Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. acquired
ownership of the Mill in May 1999 from Champion. In 2007,the Mill was purchased by
Evergreen Packaging, a subsidiary of the Rank Group (New Zealand). Evergreen
Packaging is headquartered in Memphis,Tennessee. The Canton Mill employs about
1200 people in Haywood County,North Carolina. An additional 300 are employed at
Evergreen's facility in Waynesville,North Carolina where paperboard is coated.
In its early years,the Mill's minimally treated discharge caused significant
ecological impacts to the river. Since about 1960, the Mill has worked to reduce the
quantity and improve the quality of its wastewater discharges. Beginning in 1990, the
Mill did a major modernization (the "Canton Modernization Project" or "CMP") at a cost
of 330 million dollars. Use of elemental chlorine was eliminated and significant changes
were made to process lines. A cooling tower was added to allow hot water from the Mill
to be reused and cooled, allowing a reduction in permitted volume of water (from 48.5
MGD to 29.9 MGD) and temperature of the thermal discharge. Oxygen delignification
and full-scale bleach filtrate recycle for pine bleach and caustic extraction stage filtrate
recycle on hardwood were initiated. These changes significantly reduced the amount and
temperature of treated wastewater released to the Pigeon River (35% reduction in heated
effluent flows, 90%reduction in stream color downstream of the Mill, 80% reduction in
BOD, and a 75% reduction in Total Suspended Solids by 2000 (EA 2001)).
The Canton Mill is now an integrated, elemental-chlorine-free (ECF) bleached
kraft pulp and paper mill with oxygen delignifrcation and bleach filtrate recycle.
Processes at the Mill include a pine bleach line,hardwood bleach line,paperboard line
and fine paper production line. Hardwood and pine chips are transported to the site via
rail or truck and processed into pulp for paper and paperboard production. The Mill's
wastewater, along with the Town of Canton's sanitary wastewater, is treated in
Evergreen's Wastewater Treatment Plant. The treatment plant consists of a grit chamber,
bar screens, lift pumps,polymer addition,pH control (CO2 injection or H2SO4 backup),
splitter box, 3 primary clarifiers, nutrient feed, aeration basins, 3 secondary clarifiers,
residual belt presses, effluent flow measurement, cascade aeration with oxygen injection,
and oxygen injection facilities. Solids are deposited into a dedicated lined landfill. Coal
ash (from energy production) is placed into a double-lined landfill, equipped with
leacbate collection. Leachate is treated in the wastewater treatment system.
The modernization project led to significant improvements in biological
conditions in the river. The river habitat is well recovered and restored from most
impacts prior to Mill modernization. By the mid-1980s, aquatic life in the river was
consistent with the expectations of a Class C stream in North Carolina(EA 1988). By the
mid 1990s, further improvements were documented based on greater faunal diversity,
improved biotic index scores, and reduced numbers of pollution-tolerant organisms (EA
-27-

1996). Further improvements were noted in the 2005 studies (Wilson and Coutant 2006)
and have been documented in the current study(Appendix B).
1.3.2. Changes Since 2005 Study
There were no significant process or operating changes affecting the thermal
discharge at the Canton Mill during the interim between the previous study (2005) and
the present one. Although some process changes were made, the result was insignificant
for parameters of the thermal discharge(Appendix A).
A significant regional drought in 2007-2008 reduced stream flows in the Pigeon
River to record lows and raised ambient river temperatures, which resulted in a one-day
kill of fish in the river immediately downstream of the discharge. Although the Mill's
discharge remained essentially constant, declining flows to below the 7Q10 at the
discharge location caused abnormally high river temperatures. A short period of lethally
high temperatures in the zone of mixing and several meters downstream was the likely
cause(Appendix D). Permit limits effective at the time were not violated,however. The
extended drought likely affected other aspects of the biological community (Appendix
B).
1.3.3. Permit History
The first NPDES permit for the Canton Mill was issued in December 1973 by the
U.S. EPA, Region 4. This permit had limits on effluent temperature but no in-stream
monitoring or temperature limits. The original NPDES permit temperature limits appear
to come from a previous 1969 state of North Carolina wastewater permit. However,
some form of a"temperature variance"for the Mill precedes the NPDES permitting
program.
North Carolina issued its first NPDES permit for the Canton Mill in 1985. It
included a §316(a) thermal variance with in-stream temperature limits of 32°C (summer),
29°C (winter) and a temperature rise above ambient(monthly average) of 13.9°C or less
at the Fiberville Bridge monitoring location 0.4 mi downstream from the discharge.
Following the 1985 permit issued by North Carolina,there were subsequent NPDES
permits issued in 1989 (by EPA), 1997 (by NC), 2001 (by NC) and 2010 (by NC).
Temperature and biological studies consistent with §316(a) guidance for a thermal
variance were initiated as requirements in the 1997 permit. The 1985 and 1989 permits
had no language requiring temperature and biological studies. Nonetheless, Champion
commissioned a biological study in 1987 that found indigenous species in the Pigeon
River both upstream and downstream of the Mill (EA 1988). Thermal and biological
studies were again conducted in 1995 following Mill modeniization, which demonstrated
continual improvement(EA 1996). Temperature and biological studies were conducted
in 2000 pursuant to the 1997 permit special conditions (EA 2001) and in 2005 pursuant to
the 2001 permit. Permits through the 2001 permit retained the monthly average
-28 -

maximum temperatures of 32°C (summer) and 29°C (winter)and a maximum
temperature rise above ambient of<13.9°C (monthly average).
The current permit following the 2005 studies and Demonstration (Wilson and
Coutant 2006)was issued in May 2010 with an effective date of July 1, 2010. Cocke
County, Tennessee and certain environmental groups challenged the Permit in the
Contested Cases. The Settlement Agreement reached on April 24, 2012, stipulated that
the summer and winter maximum temperatures be weekly averages rather than monthly
(NC DOJ 2012). The Settlement Agreement also stipulated certain details of the BIP
study and submittal of the study report by January 1, 2014.
1.4. PIGEON RIVER ECOSYSTEM
1.4.1. Pigeon River Watershed
The Pigeon River is a major tributary of the French Broad River that arises in the
southern Appalachian mountains of Haywood Co.,North Carolina and flows northward
to its confluence with the French Broad River and Douglas Reservoir near Newport,
Tennessee (Figure 2). The river drains an approximately 130 mil watershed. The river
begins with trout-quality water in the mountains of North Carolina, originating in the
Pisgah National Forest. Land in the watershed above Canton is primarily forested with
agricultural and residential development. These developments expanded greatly between
2005 and 2012, with once fallow land converted to intensive agriculture. The river flows
steeply in a rocky channel past small towns in a largely rural landscape above Canton,
and then passes through a low-gradient and less rocky,more silty zone near Clyde,NC,
more typical of a Piedmont stream, (Table 1.1). The river then enters a high-gradient and
boulder-strewn gorge and enters Tennessee near Waterville,NC. From there, the river
gradient declines through the city of Newport, TN, to its confluence with the French
Broad River in the upper reach of Douglas Reservoir. The lower several miles of the
river are essentially reservoir backwaters. The thermally-affected reach between the Mill
and Waterville Reservoir is shown in Google Earth images in Appendix A.
Extensive information related to recent water quality in the Pigeon River and its
tributaries is included in the French Broad River Basin Water Quality Plan 2011
(http://nortal.ncdenr.orWc/document library/get file?uuid=c72c7ebe-4000-4141-b777-
e5a09e5e665e&eroupid=38364). Sediment is identified as a major source of stress to the
aquatic environment. Altered hydrology and naturally severe conditions such as droughts
and floods are reported to have severe impacts on aquatic life.
In 1929, the Carolina Power and Light Co. (now Duke Progress Energy)
impounded about 5 miles of the river in the gorge with Walters Dam at River Mile 38.
This formed a 340-acre (surface)Waterville Reservoir,which diverted water through a
6.2-mile-long water-conduit tunnel to a downstream powerhouse at the North Carolina-
Tennessee state line. This diversion left a 12-mile reach of river bypassed and mostly dry
of Pigeon River water at all but the highest Pigeon River flows. Local inflows maintain
the bypassed reach as a small tributary downstream of the powerhouse.
- 29-

Table 1.1. Average changes in elevation (feet per mile) for defined zones of the
mainstem Pigeon River,North Carolina and Tennessee,beginning at the headwaters.
General landmarks are noted.
Zone River Miles Gradient
A 69-66 5.33
B 66-65 (near Canton) 5.0
C 62-60 (below Mill) 4.0
D 59-45 (near Clyde) 1.07
E 43-41.5 (Waterville Res.) 0
F 3 9-26 (gorge, bypass) 19.9
G 26-14 (below powerhouse) 6.33
H 9-7 4.5
The river, for most of its length, consists of a series of pools and runs,punctuated
by shallow riffle areas of moderate gradient. The substrate in much of the river is
dominated by cobble, gravel, and sand with interspersed larger boulders and bedrock.
Silt is more prevalent in the low-gradient reach near Clyde. A habitat survey included in
Appendix B further describes the variety of habitats that influence the aquatic species
found there.
River flow rates are volatile with modifications of riverine habitats occurring
from year to year. The highly variable flows are affected by both droughts (as in 2007-
2008) and floods caused by passing tropical storms (as in 2004). The flow rate is
typically lowest in summer with Au ust or September having the lowest median monthly
flows at Canton(2.29 and 2.72 in3s , respectively in 2005-2013). The mean hourly flow
rate at the Canton USGS station from 2005-2013 was 7.4 m3s I with a high of 326 and a
low of 1.05 (Appendix A, Table 2). All recorded flow rates of less than 1.56 m3s 1
occurred from July through November. The river becomes noticeably turbid during times
of heavy rainfall due to runoff from agricultural lands.
Within the watershed,the reach of river that is thermally affected by the Canton
Mill extends from the discharge at Canton(River Mile 63.4)to the headwaters of
Waterville Reservoir,which is located near River Mile 42, depending on lake elevation
(see Google Earth images in Appendix A). Most of this reach is in the low-gradient zone.
Waterville Reservoir, with its lake-like thermal budget, negates any thermal influence of
the Mill on the river beyond that point.
1.4.2. Ecoregion Classification
Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type,
quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They were developed nationwide in a
cooperative effort between the USEPA,USDA-NCRS, and the state agencies (in this
case,NC DENR and TN DEC) to serve as a spatial framework for the research,
assessment,management and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. The
- 30 -

environmental features used include geology,physiography, vegetation, climate, soils,
land use, wildlife, and hydrology. Geographic areas are classified in a numbered
hierarchy of Regions and Subregions based on these environmental characteristics. The
relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another
regardless of the hierarchical level. The ecoregions of North Carolina were compiled at a
scale of 1:250,000.
The Pigeon River watershed lies within two Level III ecoregions(`Blue Ridge"
and"Ridge and Valley") and contains six Level IV subecoregions. In North Carolina,the
Pigeon River is entirely within the Level III `Blue Ridge"ecoregion (designated 66 on
EPA ecoregions maps),which contains four Level IV subecoregions
(ft,�://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecorcgions/nc/nc eco pg.pdt). The extreme headwaters(<3 mi)
lie in subecoregion"High Mountains" (66i). For approximately 15 miles downstream to
the confluence with the East Fork(PRM 69.5),the Pigeon River lies in the "Southern
Crystalline Ridges and Mountains" subregion(66d). At that point,it enters a clearly
distinct subregion, "Broad Basins"(66j), which persists for approximately 20 miles until
about the confluence with Fines Creek(PRM 42.7). There, it enters the"Southern
Metasedimentary Mountains"subecoregion(66g),which persists approximately 13 miles
to the Tennessee border(PRM 24). The Evergreen Mill in Canton and its thermally
affected reach of river to Waterville Reservoir is located within the"Broad Basins"
subregion,which is ecologically distinct from the mountainous regions both upstream
and downstream.
In Tennessee, the Pigeon River lies within two Level III ecoregions, (`Blue Ridge
Mountains"and"Ridge and Valley"(ftp://fty.ei)a.gov/wed/ecoregions/tn/tn eco lg.pdf).
From the state border to approximately Hartford, TN, the river continues to flow through
the"Southern Metasedimentary Mountains" subecoregion(66g)of the`Blue Ridge
Mountains"ecoregion, which it left in North Carolina. It then passes through a thin
sliver of the"Southern Sedimentary Ridges" subregion(66e)through a gap in the
mountains and enters the valley portion of the"Ridge and Valley" ecoregion. The
Pigeon River valley is almost equally divided between the "Southern
Limestone/Dolomite Valleys and Low Rolling Hills" subregion and the"Southern Shale
Valleys" subregion before entering the French Broad River at the upper end of Douglas
Lake.
Particularly significant for evaluation of the thermal discharge from Evergreen's
Mill at Canton,North Carolina is the location of the Mill in the "Broad Basins"
ecoregion. This is a subregion consisting of low river gradients,agricultural lands
extending away from the river,and urban development(Canton and Clyde). It is not
surprising that the aquatic life would differ from the reaches in the mountainous
subregions of the basin. The Pigeon through the Broad Basins subregion would not be
characterized as a"mountain stream."
- 31 -

1.4.3. History of Degradation and Recovery
There were no formal studies of the biology of the Pigeon River downstream of
Canton prior to the 20`h century's major modifications by human activities. However,
one can presume a typical balanced aquatic community of invertebrates and small fish
that characterize undeveloped small rivers in the Appalachian Mountains today. Many
reaches likely contained smallmouth bass, rock bass, sunfish species, and a variety of
darters, shiners and other small fish species. Invertebrate fauna likely included an
assortment of larvae of mayflies, stoneflies and caddis flies as well as crayfish and
freshwater mussels. The principal impact on the aquatic system was probably from
unrestrained logging in the mountains, which would have introduced silt and increased
turbidity during rainstorms.
The lower Pigeon River in North Carolina was greatly altered in the early 20th
century. In 1906, Canton,North Carolina was chosen as a site for the pulp and paper
Mill. In early years, as much as 95% of the river flow was diverted into industrial
processes of the Mill. Most of this water was returned to the river with a heavy load of
waste and color from bleached kraft paper production. In 1929, Walters Dam was built at
River Mile 28 to form Waterville Reservoir with water diverted to an electrical
powerhouse at the Tennessee state line, thus forming all-mile bypass reach that was
mostly left dry except during high water.
Between the Mill and the hydropower project,much of the Pigeon River was
made biologically depauperate except for pollution-tolerant microbes and some tolerant
invertebrates. Some species found refuge in larger tributaries. The color and pollution,
chemical and organic, continued through Waterville Reservoir into Tennessee and
Douglas Lake.
There was a major turn-around in the quality of water and the aquatic community
of the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill as a result of public awareness,pollution-
control activities and regulatory actions, and the Mill's modernization program beginning
in the 1980s. As described in successive study reports supporting applications for a
thermal variance for NPDES permits,the biota had improved measurably (EA 1988,
1996, 2001; Wilson and Coutant 2006). For example, the Index of Biological Integrity
(IBI; a much used index of biological diversity) had improved an average of 38% and
fish species richness had improved an average of 81% from 1987 to 1995. Fish species
richness (a measure of diversity) at Fiberville (PRM 63.0),where river temperatures are
highest, improved from 8 species in 1987, to 12 in 1995, 19 in 2000, and 15 in 2005, but
declined to 11 in 2012 likely due to documented habitat changes (Appendix B). A wide
variety of sizes and life stages of most fish and invertebrates in the late summer
collections indicated successful reproduction. In studies conducted independently of the
company,the health of fish downstream of the Mill was shown to become comparable to
that of fish upstream of the Mill,based on the Health Assessment Index (Goede and
Barton 1990; Adams et al 1993). There was substantial improvement in the total taxa
richness of invertebrates, especially of the pollution-intolerant mayflies, stoneflies and
caddisflies while species of pollution-tolerant snails and aquatic worms declined in
- 32 -

density. For the most part, the aquatic community downstream of the Mill became more
similar to the community in a reference station located upstream of the Mill.
Although depauperate in the mid 20`h century, the Pigeon River downstream of
the Mill now shows the ecosystem characteristics listed in the federal regulations
(Subpart IT), which defines a Balanced Indigenous Population/Community (BIP) as
typically having four characteristics: "diversity," "the capacity to sustain itself through
cyclical seasonal changes," "presence of necessary food chain species,"and"lack of
domination by pollution tolerant species." As shown in the 2006 §316(a) Demonstration
and the current Demonstration, additional decision criteria for demonstrating a BIP also
have been met.
Nonetheless, certain aquatic species expected in similar rivers had not recolonized
the once-polluted reaches, which stimulated formation of an interagency working group
to foster selected reintroductions (Appendix C). Biologists recognized that many of these
expected species were unable to re-colonize the once-polluted reaches because of
geographic isolation. The downstream Walters Dam and bypass reach blocks natural
dispersal in an upstream direction while low-head dams and small impoundments
upstream of the discharge may reduce successful downstream passage of some species.
Small, bottom-dwelling fish species such as darters,which do not disperse widely, have
been slow to move into the reach. Freshwater mussels apparently did not return
naturally, based on limited specialized sampling for them. Evergreen/Blue Ridge and
others have supported a successful reintroduction program for many of these species.
Reintroductions by the interagency group and others (e.g., Western Carolina University)
have raised the diversity, especially of pollution-intolerant species. Reintroductions have
occurred in both the Tennessee and North Carolina portions of the Pigeon River.
1.4.4. Changes in the River Since 2005 Study
Recovery from severe flooding in 2004 may have occurred. Numbers of many
biological components of the ecosystem likely have increased since the 2005 study. In
2004, the year prior to the 2005 study, the watershed experienced severe flooding from
two tropical storm systems. The floods significantly altered aquatic habitats,
macroinvertebrates and fish in the watershed as well as adjacent watersheds (NC DENR
2005). As discussed in the 2005 study report(Wilson and Coutant 2006),the 2005
sampling noted that in many cases the numbers of individuals in many species was lower
than prior to the flooding (EA 2001), although diversity remained generally high. A
general recovery in numbers would be expected since the flooding.
Severe regional drought in the summers of 2007 and 2008 may, however, have
negatively impacted the aquatic community of the Pigeon River through low flows and
elevated temperatures, which may have reduced recovery from floods. River flows were
exceptionally low during the warmest periods of these years. Maxwell (2009)noted that
according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USES 2008), August 2007 had the lowest
recorded monthly flows since 1932 at the Pigeon River near Canton,North Carolina,
measuring station with a mean discharge rate of 61.6 cubic feet per second (efs).
- 33 -

Average flow for the month of August is 198 cfs. The drought continued and June and
July of 2008 had the lowest recorded flows at the same station,with mean discharge rates
of 82.8 and 57.7 cfs, respectively. Normal flows for June and July are 260 and 193 cfs.
A brief fish kill downstream of the Mill in September 2007 was reported although live
fish were observed in the vicinity of the event a day later(see full discussion of the fish
kill and the regional drought in Appendix D).
Habitat scores for sampling sites changed somewhat since the 2005 study
(Appendix B). Scores in the thermally affected reach at the three sites closest to the Mill
decreased between 2005 and 2012 (PRM 63 from 40 to 35; PRM 61 from 79 to 63; PRM
59 from 80 to 71). There was no consistent increase or decrease at other sites. These
decreased habitat scores may explain changes in biological composition at these three
locations (section 2.3).
1.5. CHANGES IN SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND TECHNICAL
KNOWLEDGE SINCE 2005 STUDY
Some methods were changed for the 2012-2013 study from those used in the 2005
study. There were expanded thermal surveys and reference stations were added for both
thermal and biological studies. New technical knowledge about the Pigeon River has
been gained through several academic theses and studies or activities by agencies. These
are briefly described below. More detailed information from these studies and species'
information from the general literature are included in species summaries and analyses in
Section 3.
1.5.1. Thermal
1.5.1.1 Thermal Plume Measurements and Model
The 2012 study included thermal cross section measurements at the railroad
bridge below the Mill and Fiberville Bridge and associated thermal plume modeling to
obtain detailed information on the zone of thermal mixing. This was in addition to
refinements to the longitudinal temperature model for the Pigeon River, as presented in
the 2005 studies (Wilson and Coutant 2006,Appendix A). The thermal plume modeling
used the EPA-supported mixing zone model, CORMIX.
1.5.2. Biological
1.5.2.1 Reference Locations
In accord with EPA guidance related to the Brayton Point EAB decision (EAB
2006), the 2012 study methods included sampling more reference locations. In previous
studies, only one reference site was sampled (PRM 64.5). The new reference locations
included an additional station in the Pigeon River mainstem upstream of the Mill (PRM
69.5), a site each in the East Fork(EFRM 3.5) and West Fork(WFRM 3.6) and two sites
- 34 -

on the lower Swannanoa River in an adjacent watershed (SRM 11.3 and SRM 1.6); see
Secton 2.2.1.
1.5.2.2 Reintroductions
There have been additional reintroductions of aquatic species in the Pigeon River
downstream of the Mill, both in North Carolina and Tennessee, by the interagency
working group. These are detailed in Appendix C, along with the history of
reintroductions with collection and release sites since the beginning of the project.
Since the 2005 study(fall 2005-fall 2013)the North Carolina portion of the
Pigeon River downstream of the Mill has received two darter species, gilt(2,179) and
banded (766); bigeye chub (481); and six shiner species, highland (1,496), mirror(8,647),
silver(2,595),telescope(3,231), Tennessee (5,766) and striped (90).
In this time,the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River has received four darter
species, gilt(1,821),bluebreast(960), stripetail (1,613), and tangarene (69); one minnow
species, stargazing (877); two chub species, river.(226) and blotched (197);mountain
madtom (2,875); two lamprey species,American brook(919) and Mountain brook(778);
and two topminnow species,northern studfish (163) and blackstripe (12).
1.5.2.3 Larval Fish Drift
A thesis on larval fish drift in the Pigeon River at Canton by Michael J. LaVoie
for the Master of Science degree from Western Carolina University was published in
2007 (LaVoie 2007). Dr. Thomas Martin,Associate Professor, Department of Biology,
supervised the work. Preliminary data from this study was reported in the 2006 BIP
study(Wilson and Coutant 2006). The thesis detailed the species and numbers of larval
fish collected by nets in April-September at three locations: 1) upstream of the Mill 100
meters below the NC 215 bridge, 2)20 meters downstream of the low head dam but
upstream of the wastewater discharge, and 3) downstream of the discharge approximately
10 meters upstream of the second NC 215 bridge.
The composition and relative abundance of larval fish taxa differed at each of the
three sites throughout the sampling period. The sites above the Mill and downstream of
the discharge produced the majority of overall larvae(81%). Larval drift density between
the low-head dams and the discharge was less than 30% of that upstream of the Mill,
significantly lower than at the other two sites (P<0.05),which were not significantly
different. Drift densities in April and early May were highest downstream of the
discharge and dominated by catostomids (suckers). The upstream reference site produced
its greatest density in mid-May through July with cyprinids (minnows) and percids (perch
family) dominating. These two families exhibited five-fold and three-fold declines
between the reference station above the Mill and downstream of the low-head dams (but
upstream of the discharge). Drift densities peaked at the middle site in August with the
samples dominated by members of the Centrarchidae (sunfishes) and Ictaluridae
(catfishes). Knowledge of larval taxonomy was insufficient to identify specifically larvae
- 35 -

of two species of concern to the 316(a) study,the redbreast sunfish and rock bass,
although a taxonomist(Robert Wallus) indicated they are likely redbreast(e-mail from
Dr. Martin December 5, 2012).
The study concluded that the low-head dams with their impoundments were an
obstacle to downstream recolonization of the river below the Mill by cyprinids and
percids. These groups of generally bottom-dwelling fishes include species of concern for
repopulating the reach downstream of the Mill. Reproduction by sunfishes and catfishes
in the impoundments in summer was reflected in downstream larval drift at the
downstream two stations. The thermal discharge was not identified as a barrier to
downstream movement by fish larvae because larval densities downstream of the
discharge were generally higher than at the station immediately upstream of it.
1.5.2.4 Crayfish
A study of crayfish distribution in the Pigeon River watershed was conducted by
David Casey B. Dunn for the Master of Science degree from the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville (Dunn 2010). It was a baseline study of crayfish species in the Pigeon River
and its tributaries. It documented diversity of crayfish upstream and downstream of the
paper Mill. Crayfish were collected with multiple methods—modified minnow traps,
electroshocking, snorkeling and turning rocks--based on the characteristics of the river
reach. Crayfish were found in nine Pigeon River tributaries, in the mainstem of the river
upstream of the Mill (PRM 63.2), in the bypass reach downstream of Walters Dam, and
in Tennessee downstream of the Duke Progress Energy facility (PRM 38.0). No crayfish
were found at three stations in the river between the Mill and Waterville Lake,but
Cambarus bartonii had been found near PRM 59 and PRM 61 by Tennessee Valley
Authority biologists in 2005 (TVA 2009). They were found in all nine sampled
tributaries downstream of the Mill, suggesting that recolonizaton may be possible. Low
flows in the Pigeon River during sampling in 2007 with lowered dilution of any
chemicals from Mill effluent was suggested as a reason for lack of crayfish at stations
between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir.
Riverine crayfish species found in the overall river basin included Cambarus
bartonii, C. longirostris, C. robustus, C. so nov (an undescribed species), Orconectes
forceps, O. virilis, O: erichsonianus, and Procambarus acutus. Two species of
burrowing crayfish were found in this study or by others, Cambarus carolinus and C.
dubius. Two species are invasives: O. virilis and P. acutus. [Note: P. acutus was found
below the Mill in the 2012 study at PRM 52.3, 55.5, and 69.51
A survey of the crayfishes of western North Carolina was published by Simmons
and Fraley (2010). This study consolidated previous collections and added many new
ones to a region-wide database. Stream species collected from the French Broad basin,
which might be expected in the Pigeon River, were the common crayfish(Cambarus
bartonii), longnose crayfish(C. longirostris), mitten crayfish(C. asperimanus), bigwater
crayfish(C. robustus), and an unnamed C. sp A (all native) and the White River crayfish
(Procambarus acutis), a non-native species. Only the White River crayfish was found in
- 36 -

the Pigeon River in this study, and that was below the Mill. This species is widely
distributed in eastern North America, and is typically found (also in the Pigeon River) in
pools and eddies with slow-moving water.
1.5.2.5 Freshwater Mussels
Particular attention has been given in the 2012 BIP study to freshwater mussels.
Because of generally heightened interest in mussel conservation in the Southeastern U.S,
agencies and academic institutions have devoted study time to these organisms. Surveys
for freshwater mussels generally require specialized methods,which were not employed
in the earlier BIP studies. Mussels were intensively sought in the macroinvertebrate
sampling in 2012.
Shortly after the 2005 BIP study (Wilson and Coutant 2006), biologists from the
NC DENR published an assessment of certain rare mussel populations in western North
Carolina following the floods of 2004. Two mussel species,the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana; federally endangered) and the wavy-rayed lampmussel
(Lampsilis fasciola; a species of concern in North Carolina) were found at a station
upstream of Canton. Although no sampling was conducted in the river reach between the
Mill and Waterville Reservoir,the report indicated that, "the downstream distribution of
the Appalachian elktoe in the Pigeon River ends abruptly at Canton where habitat
becomes unsuitable due to a small impoundment and physico-chemical impacts from
point and non-point sources." The report provided useful information on the distribution
of these and other mussel species in the region.
Water quality downstream of Canton was shown to be suitable for survival and
growth of late juveniles of the wavy-rayed lampmussel, a species found upstream of
Canton. In a thesis for the Masters of Science at Western Carolina University under
direction of Dr. Thomas Martin, Caroline E. Rooney (2010) conducted an in-situ
reintroduction study with captively propagated, individually marked juveniles of two
sizes placed in enclosures in the river at two sites upstream of Canton and three
downstream sites in North Carolina and monitored for one year(Figure 5). Survival was
equivalent whereas growth was greatest at downstream sites (the downstream site nearest
Canton and immediately downstream of the paper Mill was not significantly different
from the upstream sites).
Extensive correspondence with agency and university staffs and Fraley et al.
(2010) have indicated:
• The only mussel found throughout the lower portion of the river currently is the
introduced and rapidly spreading Corbicula, which has an upstream extent as of 2012 at
Canton (e-mail from Dr. Martin, December 5, 2012) with densities similar to the Little
Tennessee River. The low-head dam likely is inhibiting further upstream expansion;
• Extensive periphyton growths complicate locating rare mussels (T.R. Russ,North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, undated);
- 37 -

• Mussels studied by Rooney were monitored through 2012 and then released in the
river(e-mail from Dr. Martin, December 5, 2012);
• Some of Rooney's mussels were observed to be gravid, suggesting suitability of
water quality for reproduction (e-mail from S. Fraley, December 5, 2012);
• A total of 897 wavy-rayed lampmussels were introduced into the Pigeon River
below the Mill in North Carolina 2011-2013 by NC DENR(PRM 55.3, upstream of the
Richland Creek confluence and PRM 54.5). An additional 50 were released above the
Mill (PRM 65.5) in 2010 and another 369 released there in.2013 (Appendix C);
•Mussels of 12 species have been introduced into the Pigeon River in Tennessee at
PRM 8.3, 13.7 and 17.3 by University of Tennessee(UT) using mussels provided by
TWRA (Appendix C). Monitoring is being conducted by UT.
• There was poor survival and growth of two mussel species, Cynclonaias tuberculata
and Quadrula pustulosa, transplanted from the Clinch River to the Pigeon River in
Tennessee in 2012 (Denton bridge site) and surveyed at 1, 8, and 12 months after
introduction, which was attributed to fluctuating flows and low temperatures caused by
the upstream hydropower project(Appendix C).
5 CRABTREE
CRABTREE CREEK
IRON-DUFF
4
RICHLANDS CREEK PIGEON RIVER
3
LAKE JUNALUBKA
CLYDE CANTON
1 2
0.9 0,45. 0 0.9 Mll9a
Map 8ce191:39,153
Figure 5.Locations (circles) in the Pigeon River where the wavy-rayed lampmussel
Lampsilis fasciola was experimentally planted upstream (sites 1 and 2) and
downstream (sites 3, 4, and 5) of the thermal discharge (Rooney 2010). Survival was
equivalent at all sites whereas growth rate was greatest at two locations (4,5)
downstream of the thermal discharge in Canton; growth at site 3 was not
statistically different from the two upstream sites.
There has been a significant increase in scientific knowledge about the
temperature requirements of freshwater mussels, by both original research and new
- 38 -

literature reviews involving many species. Few data are available for species found in
the Pigeon River or French Broad watershed, however. Temperature is a trigger for
many life stage events in mussels, such as spawning,release of glochidia, settlement,
metamorphosis and feeding(Dunn and Petro 2012). Thermal requirements differ among
mussel species and tend to vary depending on the environments occupied species
occupying coldwater habitats tend to have cooler thermal requirements than those
normally occupying warmwater habitats (Dunn and Petro 2012). Thermal requirements
tend to closely match, or be slightly greater than, those of their fish hosts (Pandolfo et al.
2012). Life stages tend to have somewhat different tolerances for high temperatures,
especially early stages (Dunn and Petro 2012; Pandolfo et al. 2012). Differing tolerance
of warm water by glochidia reflect the season of release (spring, summer, or fall) (Dunn
and Petro 2012; Pandolfo et al. 2010). Adults (Dunn and Petro 2012) and juveniles
(Pandolfo et al. 2010) of most species tolerate temperatures>32°C. Warmer
temperatures (to 30°C, compared to 10 and 20°C) stimulate burrowing and the time taken
to extend the foot, but not burrowing duration (Block et al. 2013). Unpublished
observations by Jones cited in Dunn and Petro (2012) noted that newly metamorphosed
juveniles of the wavy-rayed lampmussel (found in the Pigeon River) experienced high
rates of mortality during laboratory holding at 26-27°C.
1.5.2.6 Fish
A thesis for the Masters of Science by Adrick Delray Olson (Olson 2012) at
Western Carolina University (Dr. Thomas Martin, advisor)provided new information on
the basic ecology of the mirror shiner Notorpis spectrunculus at four sites in the
Tennessee River drainage in western North Carolina. The locations were chosen for high
abundance of the species and sites were on the Pigeon River upstream of the Mill,
Hominy Creek and two sites on the Tuckasegee River. Reintroductions of this species
have not been successful downstream of the Mill. The species has very specific physical
habitat requirements—sandy eddies just downstream of obstructions. Growth,rates were
highest where water temperature was the coldest. The author speculated that physical
habitat limitations could account for lack of presence and reintroduction success in the
river reach between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir
1.5.2.7 Salamanders
Salamanders in the Pigeon River were studied in snorkel surveys by Nikki J.
Maxwell in 2009 for a Masters of Science degree from the University of Tennessee
(Maxwell 2009). Eight stations were examined, four upstream and four downstream of
the Mill, as well as three stations each of four tributaries;Big Creek,Fines Creek,
Jonathan's Creek and Richland Creek. Five of the eight species of stream salamanders
historically known from Haywood County were found: Eastern hellbender
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis,Blue Ridge two-lined salamander Eurycea wilderae,
shovel-nosed salamander Desmognathus marmoratus, black-bellied salamander D.
quadramaculatus and spring salamander Gyrinophilus porphyriticus. No salamanders
were found in the main channel of the river below the Mill, although they were found in
some tributaries. Presence correlated with water quality and not habitat availability.
- 39 -

Drought in 2007 and 2008 was suggested as a cause for lack of salamanders downstream
of the Mill, due to concentration of the effluent and drying of egg masses.
- 40 -

2. SUMMARY OF THE 2012-2013 STUDIES
2.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The study and analyses consisted of three main components: (1)temperature
measurement and modeling to characterize the temperature changes caused by the
thermal discharge, (2) biological sampling and analysis to demonstrate the protectiveness
of the proposed alternative limits, and(3) the"Demonstration" that integrates the thermal
and biological data with information from the scientific literature in a manner that
specifically addresses the criteria for a BIP that are itemized in 40 CFR 125.71(c),
Subpart H; EPA's guidance manual; administrative and judicial precedents; and the
February 22, 2010, letter from J. G. Giattina of EPA concerning the 2006 Demonstration.
As stipulated in EPA's guidance manual, the demonstration is summarized in a"Master
Rationale" in support of the alternative effluent limitations.
The primary region of study is the Pigeon River from immediately upstream of
Canton,North Carolina,to the upstream extent of the reservoir(Waterville Lake; PRM
42.6) formed by Walters Dam (Figure 2.3.1; see sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 for lists of
thermal monitoring and biological sampling sites on the Pigeon River and tributaries).
This corresponds to the"primary study area" described in the EPA Guidance Manual
(Section 4,page 78). Heat balance of the reservoir negates the influence of the Canton
Mill on temperatures there and farther downstream (thus, there is no true "far field study
area"; EPA Guidance, page 76). Nonetheless, biological sampling has included sites in
the Tennessee portion of the mainstem Pigeon River downstream of the reservoir project.
Additional sampling sites were selected as reference sites as suggested by EPA on the
basis of the Brayton appeal decision(Giattina February 22, 2010, letter). Reference sites
were locations farther upstream in the Pigeon River basin including its main tributaries,
and also on nearby Swannanoa River (Buncombe County,North Carolina),which has
comparable basin morphology and is part of the larger French Broad River basin.
2.2. THERMAL STUDIES(Appendix A)
2.2.1.. Data Collections
Temperature monitors were placed in the Pigeon River and its major tributaries
upstream and downstream of the Mill's thermal discharge in periods representing
summer and winter conditions; they were placed at similar locations as in the 2005 study
(see list below). Monitors also were placed in the Swannanoa River as a reference river
comparable to the reach of the Pigeon River influenced by the Mill. The Swannanoa is in
the French Broad river basin, has similar headwater elevation and gradient characteristics
as the Pigeon River, and has a similar pattern of land use and development.
Thermal sampling locations on the Pigeon River(PRM) and the Swannanoa River
(SRM) are as follows:
-41 -

River Mile Location
PRM 64.5 Above Mill
PRM 63.3 Mill Outfall
PRM 63.2 Railroad Bridge below Outfall
PRM 63.15 Camp Creek—Tributary
PRM 63.0 Fiberville Bridge
PRM 62.9 Beaver Dam Creek—T ributary
PRM 62.5 Pump Station
PRM 61.0 DO Station—Thickety
PRM 59.0 Above Clyde
PRM 55.5 Hyder Mountain—Below Clyde
PRM 54.9 Richland Creek—Tributary
PRM 53.5 RiverView
PRM 49.8 Crabtree Creek—Tributary
PRM 46.0 Jonathan's Creek—Tributary
PRM 45.1 HEPCO Gage
PRM 42.7 Fine's Creek—Tributary
PRM 42.6 HEPCO Bridge
PRM 25.2 Waterville
PRM 22.0 Trail Hollow—Hartford
PRM19.3 Bluffton
SRM 11.3 Warren Wilson College
SRM 1.6 I-40 Exit 50
Hydrographic and meteorological data for the Pigeon River and vicinity were
obtained. The US Geological Survey's flow monitoring stations,the Canton Mill
meteorological station, and the National Weather Service's regional weather monitoring
stations were used, as appropriate.
The measured temperatures, hydrographic data, and meteorological data were
used to update a one-dimensional thermal model of the Pigeon River from upstream of
the Mill to Waterville Lake(a.k.a. Walters Lake). The thermal model developed for the
2006 316(a) demonstration was updated with temperature and river flow data from 2005-
2011, available from Blue Ridge NPDES permit monitoring in the study reach, as well as
the detailed temperature monitors deployed in 2012. The calibrated and verified model
was then used to characterize the temperature profile downstream of the Mill's discharge
at different river flows and without thermal additions by the Mill (allowing calculation of
the difference in temperature with and without the Mill, or the delta-T, at points
downstream).
The physical size and shape of the thermal plume (zone of initial mixing or
mixing zone) from the Mill's outfall was characterized between the discharge point and
the established compliance monitoring station at the Fiberville Bridge (0.4 miles
downstream from the discharge). A grid pattern was used to measure water temperatures
- 42 -

horizontally and vertically at representative river flows. The data were used to
parameterize a thermal plume dispersion model (EPA supported CORMM, which was
applied at different river flows.
2.2.2. Measured Temperatures
Measured temperatures provided insights beyond being source data for model
development(below). Temperatures measured between the outfall (PRM 63.3) and
Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63.0), including stations above the railroad bridge (PRM 63.25),
at the railroad bridge (PRM 63.2) and below the railroad bridge (PRM 63.1),provided
information on the immediate mixing zone at different river flows. The measured data
showed the influence of tributaries on mainstem temperatures and the relative
temperatures of the Pigeon River and the reference Swannanoa River.
Mixing zone dynamics were strongly influenced by river flow. Much of the time
during the summer monitoring,particularly in the first 2/3rds of the period, PRM 63.25
above the railroad bridge showed approximately half of its hourly temperatures were
equal to those upstream of the outfall (i.e., ambient conditions). The other approximate
half of the temperature measurements was elevated, but not as elevated as the
temperatures at the next station, (PRM 63.2). This is consistent with a finding that the
thermal plume had crossed over to the right hand side at PRM 63.25 during.
approximately half of the hourly measurements, but was not yet fully mixed causing the
right side to still show lower temperatures than downstream at all three thermographs
across the width of the river(PRM 63.2 Left, Center and Right). When comparing the
three PRM 63.2 thermographs, the Left thermograph(on the same side as the outfall) is
almost always the warmest, the Center thermograph generally has the same temperature
as the Left or slightly cooler(and during high flow events is sometimes warmer than the
Left) indicating the plume becomes more centered, and the Right thermograph is almost
always cooler indicating the thermal plume has not fully mixed by the time is reaches
PRM 63.2. During high flow events, PRM 63.2 appears to still show ambient
temperatures, meaning the thermal plume does not extend across the river at PRM 63.2
during high flow events. Measurements at PRM 63.1 and 63.0 are consistent with the
thermal plume mixing from the original left side of the river at the outfall to the right
hand side of the river further downstream. During the summer temperature
measurements, river flow rates were low,which enabled the plume to mix more readily
leaving a small amount of mixing taking place between PRM 63.1 and PRM 63. During
the winter higher flow rates, greater amounts of mixing were still occurring between
PRM 63.1 and PRM 63.
Generally, the summer temperatures of the six tributary creeks are cooler than the
ambient summer Pigeon River temperature measured at PRM 64.55, upstream of the
outfall. Tributaries generally cooled the mainstem Pigeon River downstream of the
Mill's outfall,thus lessening the presence of warmed water from the Mill.
The Swannanoa River has thermal characteristics very similar to that of the
Pigeon River upstream of the outfall. SRM 11.3 was on average 1.1°C warmer and SRM
- 43 -

1.6 was on average 1.2°C warmer than the Pigeon River during the 4 months of collected
data during the summer of 2012 and winter of 2013.
2.2.3. Longitudinal Thermal Model
A thermal model was developed, calibrated, and validated to estimate the thermal
impact of the Evergreen Mill on the Pigeon River from Canton USGS (PRM 64.9)to
HEPCO USGS (PRM 42.6). The model was calibrated using river temperature data
collected by University of Tennessee personnel during the summer 2012 and winter of
2013. Validation of the model was completed by comparing modeled river temperatures
from 2005 -2013 to daily river temperature measurements collected by Evergreen
personnel from the same time period. The validation phase of the modeling shows that
the model accurately predicted the Pigeon River temperature between the Canton USGS
gauging station and the HEPCO USGS gauging station. The median absolute errors
between the model-predicted river temperatures and daily measurements from 2005-
2013 are 0.6°, 0.8°, and 1.1°C for Fiberville,Above Clyde, and HEPCO USGS,
respectively.
Following validation, a series of model runs was conducted with the Mill effluent
temperature set equal to the adjacent river temperature; doing so removed the thermal
impact of the Mill from the model without affecting the flow rate of the river.
Comparisons of model runs with the Mill turned on and turned off enable a direct
comparison of the estimated thermal impact to the river. Results of this comparison show
that the median modeled increase in weekly average temperature due to Mill effluent is
3.1°, 2.5°, and 1.5°C at Fiberville, Above Clyde, and HEPCO USGS, respectively.
2.2.4. Thermal Plume Model
A numerical thermal plume mixing model, CORMIX, was run to simulate the
thermal plume mixing into the Pigeon River between the Mill outfall and the Fiberville
Bridge. These modeled results were compared to University of Tennessee measured
thermal cross sections measured at the railroad bridge just below the Mill outfall and also
at the Fiberville measured on two different days. The modeled results were also
compared to aerial photographs available on Google Earth. During low Pigeon River
flow rate,the thermal plume from the outfall mixed rapidly across the majority of the
river with a small differential temperature across the width of the river at the Fiberville
Bridge. During medium to high flow rates, the thermal plume had not mixed across the
width of the river and much larger differential temperatures across the width of the river
were present at the Fiberville Bridge.
2.3. BIOLOGICAL STUDIES (Appendix B)
2.3.1. Data Collections
Biological sampling of all aquatic trophic levels was conducted at representative
sampling stations along the length of the Pigeon River(Figure 1) and the Swannanoa
- 44 -

River reference stream during May-September 2012. The biotic communities of both
rivers were characterized to demonstrate"diversity, the capacity to sustain itself through
seasonal changes, presence of necessary food chain species, and ... a lack of domination
by pollution.tolerant species" (Subpart H, 125.71(c)). The trophic levels included
phytoplankton, zooplankton,periphyton, macrophytes, benthic macro-
invertebrates/shellfish, fish, and wildlife (encompassing the full"shellfish, fish and
wildlife" criteria of Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act).
During May through September 2012,UTK intensively surveyed fish and macro-
invertebrates/shellfish at 20 stations on the Pigeon River and in selected tributaries in
North Carolina(17 stations) and Tennessee (3 stations). Two (2) sites on the Swannanoa
River in North Carolina were sampled in the same manner as Pigeon River stations.
Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and wildlife were sampled less intensively to document low
abundance. River mile (PRM)refers to distance upstream of the confluence of the
Pigeon River with the French Broad River in Tennessee; SRM refers to distance
upstream of the confluence of the Swannanoa with the French Broad River in North
Carolina. New stations added to the 2005 Pigeon River sample site list are indicated by
an asterisk(*). Biological sampling locations on the Pigeon River(PRM) and the
Swannanoa River(SRM) are as follows:
River Mile Location
WFPRM 6.6 Lake Logan*
WFPRM 3.6 West Fork Pigeon River*
EFPRM 3.5 East Fork Pigeon River*
PRM 69.5 Below confluence EFPR/WFPR*
PRM 64.5/64.9 Upstream of Mill (expanded from 2005)
PRM 63.0 Fiberville
PRM 61.0 D.O. augmentation station(Thickety)
PRM 59.0 Upstream of Clyde
PRM 57.7 Charles St Bridge/Clyde*
PRM 55.5 Downstream of Clyde.
PRM Trib Richland Creek (near Pigeon River confluence at PRM 54.9)
PRM 54.5 Downstream of Waynesville WWTP
PRM 52.3 Old Rt 209/Golf Course
PRM Trib Crabtree Creek(near Pigeon River confluence at PRM 49.8)
PRM 48.2 Ferguson Bridge
PRM Trib Jonathan's Creek(near Pigeon River confluence at PRM 46.0)
PRM 45.3 HEPCO Gauging Station*
PRM Trib Fines Creek(near Pigeon River confluence at PRM 42.7)
PRM 24.7 Waterville (TN)
PRM 19.3 Groundhog Creek-Bluffton(TN)
PRM 10.3 Agriculture fields* (TN)
SRM 11.3 Warren Wilson College
SRM 1.6 I-40 Exit 50
-45 -

Sampling protocols included those used in previous 316(a) biological sampling
and standardized sampling techniques used by NC DENR and EPA. The use of multiple
protocols allows comparisons between monitoring by NC DENR and this study team.
Protocols for surveying biotic groups not sampled in the 2005 sampling (periphyton,
phytoplankton, macrophytes, zooplankton, wildlife)were developed in consultation with
NC DENR and recognized experts. Mussels/shellfish were targeted species in the
mainstem reaches due to special interest in two threatened and endangered species,
Appalachian elktoe and wavyrayed lampmussel. Periphyton sampling was conducted at
all stations using EPA rapid bioassessment methods. The distribution and abundance of
the macrophyte Podostenium (riverweed, a habitat former for macroinvertebrates) was
surveyed at each sampling station. The potamoplankton, i.e., unattached phytoplankton
and zooplankton, was not sampled because of low abundance, and their appearance was
dictated by river flows, i.e., collection of these at one site could not be verified because
they were transported downstream within minutes. Sampling was guided by the known
potential impacts of added heat and elevated temperatures in rivers of comparable size to
the Pigeon River. In accord with the EPA guidelines for small rivers,the phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and wildlife biotic categories,when sampled, were evaluated briefly as Low
Potential Impact categories. Information was obtained from NC Wildlife personnel who
work in the Pigeon River watershed, as well as Study Team observations, to document
wildlife abundance and river usage.
Attention was paid to collecting data that relate specifically to the criteria that
define a balanced, indigenous community(BIP/BIC) and to other decision criteria
specified in EPA Guidance and administrative and judicial decisions.
Despite focus on "indigenous species", the community necessarily contains
"historically non-native species introduced in connection with a program of wildlife
management and species whose presence or abundance results from substantial,
irreversible environmental modifications." (Subpart H, 125.71(c)). "Wildlife
management'has included a major program of re-introduction of species common to
similar nearby rivers (to re-populate the reach historically affected by point and non-point
sources) and stocking of non-native game species. Some historically non-native species
occur or are abundant due to basin-wide agriculture,urbanization, and upstream
impoundments. These were identified in sampling of the Pigeon River upstream of the
Mill. The community was evaluated for"species whose presence or abundance is
attributed to the introduction of pollutants that will be eliminated by compliance"with
the Clean Water Act or"species whose presence or abundance is attributable to alternate
effluent limitations imposed pursuant to section 316(a)." (Subpart H, 125.71(c)). Such
species were identified and included in the analyses.
Diversity of the aquatic community was studied to ensure that all trophic levels
present in the unaffected portion of the river were present in the heat-affected portions.
Diversity was quantified by use of several scientific diversity indices in common use in
aquatic ecology at national and international levels. Indices commonly used by NC
DENR and EPA were calculated.
-46 -

The capacity to sustain itself through cyclical seasonal changes was evaluated by
conducting the majority of sampling in late summer. This sampling time is currently
favored (despite 1977 EPA guidance to sample year-around) because it occurs at the end
of the extreme warmest period when community instability might be identified, and it
allows identification of year-around survival and reproduction by collecting juveniles of
most species. Sampling through the year would be redundant and constitute an
unacceptable loss of aquatic life. Additionally, because of higher river flows during
winter and spring, field data collection in these periods is more difficult and can risk field
personnel safety.
The presence of necessary food chain species was identified by sampling of
periphyton, benthic invertebrates/shellfish, and small and juvenile fish that make up
much of the riverine food web. High species diversity and abundance of known food
items are indicators of a healthy food web. EPA Guidance specifically cautions against
extremely detailed food chain analyses.
Dominance by any species especially tolerant of high temperatures was looked for
in all biological community data. NC DENR ratings of pollution tolerance and the
scientific literature were used as indicators. Factors other than increased temperature that
may cause changes in community assemblages in the Pigeon River were identified
including impoundments, land use, stream habitat, other NPDES-permitted discharges,
non-point discharges, and sites of reproduction upstream of the thermal discharge.
` Although Representative Important Species (RIS) were selected in consultation
with NC DENR and EPA,most of the biological sampling and community analyses was
comprehensive and included all species amenable to sampling. Some special sampling
was undertaken to locate and evaluate certain non-RIS species of interest(mussels,
crayfish), which are not adequately represented in the normal community-wide sampling
protocols.
Similarity analyses were conducted between aquatic communities in the thermally
affected Pigeon River,reference sites upstream of the Mill and the reference stream
(Swannanoa River) to determine if the communities are significantly different (including
indigenous and non-indigenous species).
2.3.2. Results
The extensive biological results are presented in Appendix B, with summaries in this
Demonstration organized by assessment topic in Section 3. General results are also
provided in the Demonstration's Executive Summary.
- 47 -

3. BALANCED INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS IN THE PIGEON RIVER
(BIOTHERMAL ASSESSMENT)
As introduced in Section 1.2, a Section 316(a) thermal variance is appropriate if it
can be demonstrated that the alternate thermal limit(s)proposed (or in this case,
continued) allows a balanced, indigenous community of aquatic organisms to be present.
If such a community is not currently present due to other limiting factors such as poor
chemical quality,then the alternative effluent limitation may nevertheless be granted so
long as the re-establishment of a balanced, indigenous community is not precluded by the
alternative thermal limits. There is no single measure by which one can say that a
community is "balanced." Rather,there is a suite of attributes shown by balanced
communities. These were presented in Section 1.2. If a community exhibits most or all
of these attributes, then one can reasonably assume"balance." Conversely, if most or all
of these attributes are missing, or if the community exhibits the major adverse impacts
identified by EPA (also presented in Section 1.2)then it is reasonable to conclude that the
community is not balanced. Furthermore, in the latter case, it still must be shown that the
lack of balance is the result of elevated temperatures, considering the interaction of
temperature with other factors.
Heat is a non-conservative substance that dissipates rapidly when heated water is
discharged to a receiving water body, as shown by the thermal studies (Appendix B).
Dissipation occurs by mixing and by heat loss to the atmosphere. Temperature, as the
measure of heat concentration, will consistently be highest at locations closest to the
discharge,which in this case is the"thermal plume" extending from the discharge to the
point of complete river mixing below Fiberville (PRM 63). Because temperatures will be
warmest in the Fiberville area,thermal impacts, should they occur,would be greatest at
this location. If there are no or few identifiable impacts at PRM 63, where absolute
temperatures and the temperature rise above the ambient upstream temperature (delta T)
are highest, then no or lower impacts would be expected at the cooler downstream
locations. However, changes or impacts at PRM 63 do not necessarily mean that they
were caused by the thermal component of the discharge. They could be caused by some
other constituent of the discharge or by poorer habitat(Appendix B).
Excessively high temperatures tend to adversely affect aquatic populations and
communities in predictable ways (e.g., low community diversity,poor sustainability
under natural seasonal fluctuations, dominance by thermally tolerant organisms, long-
term avoidance, etc., as introduced in Section 1.2). One of the tests of a Type III 316(a)
Demonstration is a showing that there is no appreciable harm (i.e., adverse impacts are
not present) or if there is appreciable harm that it is not the result of the thermal
component of the discharge considering interactions between temperature and other
factors.
The following sections demonstrate that that the Pigeon River has the prescribed
attributes of a balanced indigenous community. It also demonstrates few other indicators
of appreciable harm to species or the aquatic community. Where such indicators have
been shown in the past,the current studies show an improving trend under the present
- 48 -

thermal limitations and similarity with reference stations. Both similarity with reference
sites and trends over time are attributes stressed by the Environmental Appeals Board for
316(a) analyses (EAB 2006) and by EPA Region 4 in its response to Evergreen's 2006
permit application. This is notwithstanding the need to reintroduce some species below
the Mill for which geographic isolation has prevented natural re-colonization following
historically degraded conditions.
3.1. ASSESSMENT ELEMENTS
There are several standard assessment elements in a Section 316(a) evaluation
(EPA 1977). These are briefly outlined below.
3.1.1. Characterization of the Receiving Water Body and Community Exposure
The exposures of the aquatic community to altered temperatures as a result of the
Canton Mill's thermal discharge under the current permit thermal limitations are
characterized by measurements and modeling presented in Appendix A, "Pigeon River
Temperature: Measurements and Model"and summarized in Section 2.1. The habitats
and aquatic communities of the Pigeon River upstream and downstream of the Mill and
in the reference Swannanoa River are characterized in Appendix B, "A Study of the
Aquatic Resources of the Pigeon River During 2012" and summarized in Section 2.2.
3.1.2. Biotic Categories
The 316(a) Interagency Technical Guidance Manual (EPA and NRC 1977)
recommends that the community of organisms that becomes involved with the thermal
discharge be divided into several biotic categories for purposes of assessment. The EPA
also recognized that some biotic categories can be designated as"Low Potential Impact"
by virtue of the degree to which the impact is expected to be low(Appendix F, approved
Study Plan). This assessment uses the following biotic categories:
•phytoplankton
•periphyton
•macrophytes
• zooplankton and meroplankton
• shellfish/macroinvertebrates
• fish
• other vertebrate wildlife
• habitat formers
Phytoplankton, drifting microscopic plants, is generally considered a biotic
category having low potential impact. The EPA guidance states:
Many water bodies, such as a majority of rivers and streams, can be
classified as `low potential impact areas'for phytoplankton, and relatively little
information is necessary for a 316(a) demonstration. " Nevertheless, more
- 49 -

detailed information may be necessary in some instances ifphytoplankton is a
substantial component of food chains supporting the balanced indigenous
population or if the thermal discharge is likely to cause a shift towards nuisance
species." (EPA and NRC 1977, Section 3.5.6.1).
The Low Potential Impact designation is by virtue of the near absence of
phytoplankton in flowing water and rapid reproductive rates of those that do occur, which
make any adverse impact fleeting (if it occurs at all). In the Pigeon River, the
phytoplankton community has generally not been considered because streams usually
have little true phytoplankton and food chains do not depend on it. Suspended algal
material is usually derived from attached algae,the periphyton community.
Phytoplankton is an important component of the aquatic community of Waterville Lake,
but thermal studies have shown there is essentially no excess temperature in the lake
attributed to the Canton Mill. Therefore,this demonstration considers phytoplankton to
be low potential impact category and will not further consider it.
Periphyton is a biofrlm of attached algae with associated microscopic animals that
covers surfaces of rocks and other submerged material. It is the predominant primary
producing assemblage in streams and rivers..Although not studied in previous years,
periphyton was a component of the 2012 studies, and is evaluated as an important part of
the aquatic community. The Rapid Assessment Protocol was used(Barbour et al. 1999).
The zoonlankton/meroplankton biotic category of suspended small animals is
important in lakes, estuaries and coastal waters but not generally an important part of the
aquatic community in small rivers and streams such as the Pigeon River (EPA and NRC
1977). The guidance states that zooplankton in small rivers is generally"characterized
by low concentrations of commercially important species, rare and endangered species,
and/or those forms that are important components of the food web..." and thus
appropriately designated Low Potential Impact(EPA and NRC 1977, Section 3.3.2.2).
The exceptions are drifting freshwater mussel larvae,which are considered under the
shellfish/macroinvertebrates biotic category, and fish larvae, which are considered in the
fish biotic assemblage. Other than mussel and fish larvae,the zooplankton/meroplankton
biotic category is considered to have low potential impact and not further considered.
Shellfish and macroinvertebrates are important in the aquatic community of the
Pigeon River and are evaluated. Mussels, snails, aquatic insects, aquatic worms, and
crayfish are examples of important components of the overall aquatic communities of the
Pigeon and Swannanoa(reference) rivers. Some are evaluated as separate species
(mussels, crayfish) of interest and all as community components.
Fish are also important in the Pigeon River and are evaluated, both as community
components and as Representative Important Species (Section 3.2). Fish species that
have been slow to recolonize the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill because of
geographic isolation are being reintroduced (Appendix C) furthering the trend toward
recovery under the alternative thermal limitations in the current permit.
- 50 -

Habitat formers are biotic assemblages that serve as important structure for other
members of the aquatic community. Corals in the oceans and rooted aquatic plants in
lakes and rivers would be considered habitat formers. Although previous studies of the
Pigeon River considered habitat formers to be low potential impact, the current study
included the rooted aquatic plant Podostemum at the request of the NC DENR for its
providing habitat for macroinvertebrates (Section 3.3.4). In the stream habitats of the
Pigeon River, there are no other major habitat formers and thus this biotic category is
otherwise considered to be of low potential impact and not further evaluated.
The Other Vertebrate Wildlife category is considered low potential impact.
Concerning wildlife,EPA guidance stated:
Data will be required in relatively few cases in this biotic category. In those
cases where data is required, the type of data needed is decided by the applicant.
The data selected should be the least amount of data necessary to complete this
section of the demonstration. (EPA and NRC 1977, Section 3.5.6.1.6)
The exception is salamanders (as a group), which were studied and evaluated
(Section 3.43). Waterfowl are normally not abundant and are not affected by thermal
changes in the river. Streamside beaver, raccoons, and other such wildlife are not likely
affected by water temperature changes. Thus,this category is not considered further.
3.1.3. Representative Important Species
The 316(a) guidance manual also recognizes that it is impractical to study in great
detail every species at a site, and that it is therefore necessary to select a smaller group of
species (the Representative Important Species, RIS) to be representative of the balanced
indigenous community (EPA and NRC 1977). Generally in 316(a) demonstrations, 5 to
15 species are chosen to represent the biotic categories that are not classified as Low
Potential Impact. The RIS are selected among species that are:
• commercially or recreationally valuable;
• threatened or endangered;
critical to the structure and function of the ecosystem;
• potentially capable of becoming localized nuisance species; and
• necessary in the food chain for the species identified above.
The approved RIS for the 2012 study are (native unless indicated otherwise):
•Rock bass (pool-dwelling panfish important to anglers);
• Shiners (as a group; non-tolerant [intermediate to intolerant] pelagic to benthic
insectivores);
• Redbreast sunfish(pool-dwelling panfish important to anglers; non native);
• Central stoneroller(herbivore);
• Smallmouth bass (most common gamefish important for anglers);
•Northern hogsucker (thermally sensitive bottom-feeding insectivore);
- 51 -

- • Black redhorse (thermally sensitive bottom-feeding insectivore);
• Darters (as a group; diverse bottom-feeding insectivores);
• Common carp (thermally tolerant and potential nuisance; non native);
• River chub (pelagic omnivore);
• Mottled sculpin(bottom-dwelling insectivore); and
• Banded sculpin(bottom-dwellirg insectivore).
Some selected RIS have debatable qualities for an RIS. NC DWQ suggested in
its comments on the 2001 study report that three native species be included,the river
chub, mottled sculpin, and banded sculpin(Memorandum from B. H. Tracy to J. Overton
and F. Westall, dated June 13, 2001). They were included in the 2005 study and 2006
demonstration(Wilson and Coutant 2006). The sculpins,however, have discontinuous
distributions that make their inclusion questionable (see description below). The
memorandum also suggested that the non-native common carp and redbreast sunfish
were inappropriate RIS, but we have retained them for determining trends of these non-
native species from previous studies. The carp is a potential nuisance if overly abundant
and redbreast sunfish are currently abundant and warrant detailed discussion of their
abundance trend,particularly with respect to its native competitor, rock bass.
3.1.4. Indicators of Appreciable Harm
The federal regulations,EPA guidance and subsequent EPA decisions have
identified several specific indicators or"appreciable harm"that should be avoided.
These were presented in Section 1.2 and are discussed in the assessment in Section 3.2.
3.1.5. Interaction of Heat with Other Pollutants
As required by the 316(a) guidelines, the assessment identifies and discusses any
important interactive elements between elevated temperatures from the Canton Mill's
thermal discharge and contaminants in the discharge, river water, sediments, and animal
tissues (§3.2.18). A principal concern over this interaction has been the accumulation of
dioxins in fish tissues in the Pigeon River and Waterville Reservoir, for which special
studies have been conducted for several years,with the latest in 2011. The report of the
latest special study, "Results of 2011 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue," summarizes
previous study results (Henry and Wilson 2012). It has been provided to the NC DENR
DWQ. Dioxin is briefly summarized as part of Section 3.4. Because of process changes
at the Mill noted above, dioxins are no longer produced.
3.1.6. Protection of the Balanced Indigenous Community
The ultimate test of a 316(a) Demonstration is the presence of a"balanced
indigenous community" in the receiving water for the thermal discharge. Hence,this
report is referred to as the`B&I Report"for the Balanced and Indigenous aquatic
community. The EPA guidelines specify that a"master rationale"be presented for
claims that the balanced indigenous community is protected. This rationale is presented
in the Executive Summary/Master Rationale and Section 4.
- 52 -

i
3.2. INDICATORS OF APPRECIABLE HARM
The following indicators of appreciable harm to the aquatic community,presented
in Section 1.2 from the federal regulations,EPA guidance, and legal opinions over time,
have been evaluated based on the thermal and biological studies of the Pigeon River
conducted in 2012 and 2013 (Appendices A.&B). Trends are identified from previous
316(a) studies (EA 1988, 1996, 2001; Wilson and Coutant 2006). Detailed evaluations of
the RIS are provided in Section 3.3. The data continue to support the lack of appreciable
harm to the Pigeon River from the Mill's thermal discharge even though there likely is
some localized harm in the warmest parts of the incompletely mixed thermal plume
during warmest seasons and some species are underrepresented in the river downstream
of the Mill compared to reference sites upstream and in the nearby Swannanoa River.
The order of presentation is as given in the approved Study Plan (Appendix F,pages 9-
10).
3.2.1. Trophic Levels (Biotic categories)
EPA guidance requires discussion of all biological trophic levels, referred to as
biotic categories. All relevant trophic levels of fish and invertebrates were represented in
the biological collections in the 2012 study(Appendix B) or specialized studies (theses),
and summarized in Section 3.1.2. In a river like the Pigeon,the lowest trophic level is
represented by periphyton(algae attached to surfaces) rather than the conventional
phytoplankton (suspended algae). No trophic levels were eliminated or significantly
reduced, or expanded to the point of domination by the thermal discharge (Appendix B).
Simplification of the aquatic community through loss of expected species and trophic
levels has not occurred. On the contrary, species richness continues to be higher in the
warmest parts of the river than in the cooler portions both upstream and farther
downstream. The pollution-tolerant omnivores were not abundant. The abundance of
smallmouth bass, an intolerant piscivore and top predator and valued gamefrsh,has
increased from low levels in the early 1990s. North Carolina has no specific trophic
classification for invertebrates, but the species list assembled from the 2012 collections
indicates a benthic community with diverse feeding habits (Appendix B).
3.2.2. Diversity
Thermally affected reaches of the Pigeon River have a diverse community of
aquatic species similar in most cases to reference sites (Appendix B).
There are many potentially useful indices of diversity of the aquatic community.
The simplest is a comparison of the number of species found in thermally affected zones
with those found in suitable reference locations. A more complex index,which includes
species numbers, biotic categories,the trophic types of species, whether indigenous or
introduced, is the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). The IBI produces scores that can be
compared among sampling stations and to a range from good to bad (see detailed
description in Appendix B). For the Pigeon River studies, different formulae for
calculating IBI values have been used, one developed by TVA and two by NC DENR
- 53 -

(reflecting refinements between a 1995-2000 version used in 2005 and a 2006 version
used in 2012). Other indices include the Shannon Diversity Index and Evenness Index.
In 2012,the total number of fish species was higher in the thermally affected
reach between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir(average of nine sites 15.6 species,
range 11-21) than in either the iwo Swannanoa River reference sites (average 14.5,range
14-15) or the Pigeon River upstream of the Mill (average 14.8, range 13-16). The Pigeon
River in Tennessee was the reach with the highest number of species (average 20.0,range
10-27)reflecting the influence of lake-type species from Douglass Reservoir(French
Broad River)that can enter this lower river reach. In the thermally affected reach,the
lowest number of species (9)was found at the site farthest from the Mill having the least
temperature increase above normal (PRM 45.3, HEPCO); the next lowest (10) was at the
midpoint(PRM 57.7, Charles St. Bridge in Clyde) while the site closest to the Mill
(Fiberville Bridge)had 11. The low species numbers in the two sites closest to the Mill
in 2012 (PRM 63.0 with 11 species and 61.0 with 14) contrasts with the high species
numbers found at these sites in 2005 (15 and 24 species;respectively). The decline in
species numbers is attributed to documented changes in habitat quality of these sites since
2005.
If only indigenous fish species are considered,the pattern of fish diversity does
not change markedly (status based on TVA's listing of native and non-native species in
the Tennessee River basin, of which the Pigeon River is a part). Five non-native species
are removed from totals: rainbow and brown trout, redbreast sunfish, common carp, flat
bullhead, and yellow perch. There was little difference in average numbers of species
among the upper Pigeon River reference sites (average 13.5 species,range 12-15),the
Swannanoa River reference sites (13.5, range 13-14), and the thermally affected reach
(13.3,range 8-19). The Pigeon River in Tennessee remained with the highest number of
native species (average 18, range 9-24). In the thermally affected reach,the relative
numbers of indigenous species among sites remained similar to the total species numbers:
lowest(8) farthest from the Mill at PRM 45.3 and midway at PRM 57.7,next lowest(9)
just below the Mill (PRM 63.0).
The IBI values for 2012 did not differ greatly among stations (Appendix B).
Comparisons were made between three reference sites in the upper Pigeon River
watershed (TVA method average 41.5, range 40-44;NC DENR method average 46.8,
range 38-55),two reference sites in the Swannanoa River(TVA method average 44.0,
range 42-46;NC DENR method average 42.0, range 38-46), nine thermally affected sites
in the river downstream of the Mill to Waterville Reservoir(TVA method average 38.9,
range 26-46;NC DENR method average 37.2, range 26-48), and three sites in the Pigeon
River in Tennessee (TVA method average 44.7, range 38-48;NC DENR method average
42.0, range 38-46). All nine thermally affected sites taken together were 6.3% lower than
the upper basin reference sites (TVA method) or 20% lower(NC DENR method). The
thermally affected sites were 12% lower than the Swannanoa River reference sites (TVA
method) or 11% lower(NC DENR method). The poorest rated station using the TVA
method (26)was at the HEPCO Gauging Station(PRM 45.3; the farthest station from the
Mill in North Carolina); the poorest stations using the NC DENR method (two with 26)
- 54 -

were at Fiberville (PRM 63.0,the first station downstream of the outfall) and at the
Charles Street Bridge in Clyde (PRM 57.7). The Fiberville station was 13%below the 9-
station average for the thermally affected reach between the Mill and Waterville
Reservoir(TVA method) or 30% below(NC DENR method).
The biological community improved slightly in this broad measure of"diversity"
in the river downstream of the Mill between 2005 and 2012 except for the roughly 5'/2-
mile reach closest to the Mill. These trends in IBI were from calculations using the TVA
method that did not change between years, as did the NC DENR method. The one
reference site upstream of the Mill sampled in 2005 declined two points from 46 to 44
(minus 4%),Fiberville declined four points from 38 to 34 (minus 11%), and Thickety
declined six points from 46 to 40 (minus 13%), but other stations rose: upstream of Clyde
from 36 to 40 (+11%), downstream of Clyde from 36 to 46 (+28%), downstream of the
Waynesville wastewater treatment plant from 38 to 40 (+5%), golf course from 40 to 46
(+15%), and Ferguson Bridge from 40 to 42 (+5%). Accounting for the 2-point decline
in the reference station, the declines in the thermally affected reach were less, and the
increases more.
Successful reintroductions of several fish species, primarily shiners and darters,
improved 2012 IBI scores for collections in the thermally affected reach in calculations
using the NC DENR method (Appendix B). Scores were raised by two points (Fiberville,
Charles St. Bridge in Clyde, Golf Course), five points (below Waynesville wastewater
treatment plant), and 10 points (Downstream of Clyde, Ferguson Bridge).
Reintroductions are of species that have limited capability for self-colonization due to
their low dispersal rates and presence of physical barriers (upstream and downstream
mainstem dams). Their survival and reproduction supports the hypothesis of restricted
natural dispersion and the suitability of the river for protection and propagation of these
species.
Several fish diversity indices showed that the average of all thermally affected
sites was only slightly less diverse than the reference sites, but that highest diversity
occurred where thermally influenced (Appendix B). Thermally affected averages were
generally brought down by the site closest to the Mill (Fiberville). Principal component
analyses (cannonical analyses) indicated lack of significant differences in species
diversity among three groupings. The three groupings showed up in both years: reference
stations (although they are scattered),thermally affected stations (more tightly
grouped/similar) and Tennessee stations. Three thermally affected stations in 2012 (PRM
63, 61, and 57) are farther removed from the reference stations and other thermally
affected stations than they were in 2005 (less similar), likely due to the drought and
higher temperatures seen during the period regionally. But,the single 2005 control
station(PRM 64.05) also dropped on the vertical axis between 2005 and 2012, suggesting
that the declines in PRM 63, 61, and 57 seen in 2012 were perhaps partially the result of
regional changes,not just the thermal discharge. Finally, the variability in similarity
among the nine thermally affected stations in 2012 on these axes is similar to (even a bit
less than)the variability among the six reference stations. (Also see section 3.2.18).
55 -

3.2.3. Sustainability (Capability to sustain itself through cyclical seasonal changes)
The Pigeon River downstream of the Mill is demonstrably resilient to
environmental stressors and is self-sustainable(Appendix B). A healthy biological
community can be considered self-sustaining when there is evidence of good numbers of
young of the year and juveniles in summer collections from year to year. The NC Index
of Biological Integrity(NCIBI) is an indicator of good reproduction of RIS and non-RIS
species by including the percentage of species represented by multiple size(age) classes.
North Carolina sites downstream of the Mill have consistently scored a 5 at some stations
(the best possible score) during the previous studies (EA 1996,2001; Wilson and Coutant
2006). In 2012, multiple age-class scores were higher in reference stations (average 4.3,
range 3-5)than the thermally affected reach (average 3.1, range 1-5). Nonetheless,
significant reproduction is taking place in the thermally affected reach. The progressive
repopulation of the river after years of pollution is a strong indicator of sustainability of
the regional biota:
This recovery has been in spite of naturally severe environmental stressors. There
were four years of drought from 1997 to 2002 at a time when the biotic community was
showing considerable improvement (EA 2001). The disastrous floods of 2004 with
washout of organisms, scour and reordering of substrate habitats was a major ecosystem
stress that would have tested sustainability. NCIBI scores in 2005 were, indeed, lower at
some stations due to reduced numbers but not species diversity (Wilson and Coutant
2006). Sustainability of the aquatic community was again tested by drought in 2007-
2008. In the 2012 study following that drought, the IBI evidence indicates that while the
most heated stations (Fiberville and Thickety) showed some decline in IBI scores
between 2005 and 2012, other stations showed significant increase in scores (§3.2.2;
Appendix B).
3.2.4. Food-chain Species Presence
An abundance of allochthanous detritus,periphyton, aquatic insects, and small
fish indicates that the food chain is complete(Appendix B). The species assemblage
represents typical feeding guilds indicating a favorable food chain. For a biotic
community to be considered"balanced"most of the individuals making up that
community must exhibit good nutrition. This has been assessed by examining their
relative robustness (Relative Weight W,) or by looking for evidence of nutritional
abnormalities. In 2005, W,values indicated that: (1) the condition of rock bass,
smallmouth bass,redbreast sunfish, green sunfish, and bluegill from the Pigeon River
was comparable to the condition of these species from other areas of the Southeast, and
(2)the condition of these species downstream of the Canton Mill was generally
comparable to or better than in specimens collected upstream of the Mill (Wilson and
Coutant 2006). In 2012, assessment of relative weight (W,)values for the more abundant
sport fish found at most of the study stations indicated that: (1)the condition of rock bass,
smallmouth bass, redbreast sunfish, and bluegill from the Pigeon River is comparable to
the condition of these species from other areas in the Southeast, and (2) the condition of
these species downstream of the Canton Mill in the thermally affected portion of the river
- 56 -

as well as the downstream portion of the river in Tennessee were considered to be in
good condition. Mean Wr scores for rock bass(93) and redbreast sunfish(99) below the
Mill were comparable to those upstream of the Mill, and higher than mean Wr values
from the same species (rock bass, 81; redbreast, 90) from the Swannanoa River reference
sites.
3.2.5. Lack of Domination by Pollution-tolerant Species
The aquatic community downstream of the Mill's thermal discharge is not
dominated by pollution-tolerant species. In 2005, only four of the 45 fish species
sampled were rated as tolerant by the NC DENR(NC DENR 2001). With the exception
of redbreast sunfish,thermally tolerant species were rare (e.g., goldfish),uncommon
(e.g., largemouth bass, channel catfish), or moderately common(e.g., common carp).
The pattern in 2012 was similar.
There is a trend toward relative decrease of pollution-tolerant species. The
tolerant redbreast sunfish is common to abundant in both the thermally affected reach and
reference stations, but generally does not dominate the fish community diversity below
the Mill. Its abundance in the thermally affected reach relative to its native competitor,
rock bass, is declining over time (§33.6). Tolerant green sunfish have declined to
complete absence; they were found at all but two mainstem sites in 2000, and only at
PRM 61.0 in 2005;there were no green sunfish collected in the NC portion of the river
below the Mill in 2012. The intolerant smallmouth bass (§33.7) and rock bass (§33.5)
were collected at all stations downstream of the Mill, even the warmest, in both 2005 and
2012. Intolerant darter species (§33.8) occurred at all stations sampled,with highest
diversity in the thermally affected reach between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir.
Snails, aquatic worms and some midges, the macroinvertebrates most likely to be
thermally tolerant, have decreased in relative abundance over the periods of biological
studies. Of these three taxa,none was dominant downstream of the Mill during 2012.
The pond snail Physa was widely distributed in low numbers. Aquatic worms were
collected in small numbers with scattered distribution. Certain Chironomids (midges)
were most abundant at the station closest to the Mill (PRM 63.0),but were similarly
abundant at the lowest station in Tennessee not affected by the thermal discharge.
The fish community in the North Carolina reach downstream of the Mill has more
characteristics of a warm-water fish community than does the river upstream of the Mill.
Much of this attribute may be related to the physical nature of the river between the Mill
and Waterville Reservoir. It is a lower gradient stream in the"Broad Basins"ecoregion
(§1.4.2), with more pool habitat than upstream ("High Mountains" and "Southern
Crystalline Ridges and Mountains" subregions). Stations upstream of the Mill had more
canopy cover(trees, shrubs)than the reaches downstream of the Mill. The fish
community downstream of the Mill is similar to the reference river stations on the
Swannanoa River, located in similar environments.
- 57 -

The periphyton community in a small area of the zone of initial mixing is
dominated by blue-green algae with associated thermally tolerant chironomid larvae.
This is of low magnitude and duration, as it occurs in a small area and would be restricted
to a few weeks in summer based on seasonal temperatures (§3.2.16).
3.2.6. Indigenous Species Increase or Decrease
Indigenous fish species showed community patterns similar to those for all fish
species. As noted above (§3.2.2),the species richness of indigenous fish species was
similar to all fish species. There was little difference in average numbers of indigenous
species among the upper Pigeon River reference sites (average 13.5 species, range 12-
15), the Swannanoa River reference sites (13.5,range 13-14), and the thermally affected
reach (13.3, range 8-19).
3.2.7. Threatened or Endangered Species Status
The status of threatened or endangered species in the Pigeon River downstream of
the Mill's thermal discharge has recently improved. The two listed species in the river
basin are the Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana(federal and state endangered;
§3.4.1.1) and the wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola(state species of concern;
§3.4.1.2). Neither was found in the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill in previous
studies and it was assumed at that time that there were no T&E species to be evaluated.
They were reported subsequent to the 2005 study, however, to occur in the river upstream
(Fraley and Simmons 2006). Inability to recolonize from upstream due to small
impoundments and residual pollution were presumed by Fraley and Simmons to be the
reasons for lack of the species downstream of the Mill. Subsequently, a study
demonstrated that the wavy-rayed lampmussel could survive in the thermally affected
zone (Rooney 2010; §1.5.2.5) and become gravid (§3.4.1.2). As a result,the species has
been reintroduced below the Mill in 2011-2013. Follow-up collections are planned to
evaluate survival, growth and reproduction,which will occur over several years.
Encouraging results with this species has led to tentative plans to reintroduce the
Appalachian elktoe, as well.
3.2.8. Critical Function Zones
There are no critical function zones in the vicinity of the Canton Mill's thermal
discharge and zone of initial mixing aside from providing a zone of passage (§3.2.1.4).
There are no special spawning grounds or nursery areas, and the habitat is similar to the
remainder of the river.
3.2.9. Habitat Exclusion
There is minimal habitat exclusion due to the thermal discharge and zone of initial
mixing. The immediate zone of mixing along the west side of the river,primarily
between the discharge (PRM 63.4) and Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63.0) (Appendix A,
figures 75-79)may exclude some thermally sensitive fish and invertebrates in the
- 58 -

1 warmest times of summer(temperatures>32°C). At times of sampling in late summer,.
however, the Fiberville Bridge station typically has had the highest species diversity of
any station in the river.
3.2.10. Thermal Effects on "Unique or Rare Habitat"
There are no "unique" or"rare"habitats in the Pigeon River between the Canton
Mill and Waterville Reservoir, the reach affected by the thermal discharge (see habitat
description in Appendix B).
3.2.11. Habitat Former Alterations.
The principal habitat former is the hornleaf riverweed Podostemum ceratophyllum
(§3.4.4). The study noted presence or absence at the standard collecting sites, but did not
seek out the shallow bedrock or large boulder habitat generally preferred by this
macrophyte. Podostemum was found at three of four reference sites upstream of the Mill
in the Pigeon watershed and at both Swannanoa River reference sites. It was not found in
the thermally affected reach of the river between the.Mill and Waterville Reservoir. It
was found at the two most downstream sites in the Pigeon River in Tennessee. As this
was the first survey to include Podostemum,there is no history to indicate temporal
trends. Its absence from the thermally affected reach may be related to the generally
smaller riverbed sediment size in the reach than at other sites and less forested land cover,
as reported elsewhere in the southern Appalachians (Argentina et al. 2010). Its lack
below the Mill does not appear to have diminished the abundance of macroinvertebrates,
which normally would use the macrophyte as habitat.
3.2.12.Nuisance Species Abundance
There has been no increase in abundance of nuisance species in the Pigeon River
downstream of the Mill due to the thermal discharge (Appendix B). Certain nuisance
periphyton growths, especially blue-green algae(cyanobacteria) have been found to
dominate the periphyton in thermal discharges elsewhere,but have not been abundant in
the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill, where they occurred in a short distance of the
zone of initial mixing (§3.2.16). Non-native Asiatic clams are considered a nuisance in
some waters, especially those with industrial water intakes that can be clogged by clams
and loose shells. These clams are expanding their distribution up tributaries of the
Tennessee River, and have reached the Mill. But their abundance is similar to other
rivers (e.g.,the Little Tennessee River) (§3.4.1.3). The non-native common carp, which
can be a nuisance in some waters where it is abundant, is not abundant in the Pigeon
River downstream of the Mill. Its abundance has been declining over the years of
sampling(1980s to 2012) under the current and previous permits, which is a favorable
trend (§3.3.12).
- 59 -

3.2.13. Zone of Passage
The zone of initial mixing for the Mill's thermal discharge provides a zone of
passage along the eastern side of the river for movement of fish and invertebrates. There
are no truly migratory fish species in the Pigeon River, so this issue is significant only for
the normal upstream-downstream movements of so-called resident species and
downstream passage of drifting eggs and larvae or invertebrates. The thermal plume
hugs the western shore at all flows (most pronounced at high flows), and gradually mixes
horizontally with the cool water coming from upstream (Appendix A, Figures 75-79).
This thermal pattern had been observed in previous studies, but was measured and
modeled in detail in 2012. It is clearly visible in Figure 76 of Appendix A. By the time
horizontal mixing has been mostly accomplished at the railroad bridge or Fiberville
Bridge, mixed temperatures have declined to levels that would not inhibit movements
based on upper avoidance temperatures for fish. Organisms drifting downstream through
the heated plume would experience non-lethal exposure durations of generally one
minute or less. Drifting organisms in approximately one quarter to one half of the river
width would see only slight and tolerable temperature elevations at all flows.
3.2.14. Change in Commercial or Sport Fisheries
Although there are no commercial fisheries in the Pigeon River, sport fisheries are
directed primarily to smallmouth bass. Smallmouth bass are moderately abundant
throughout the Pigeon River both upstream and downstream of the Mill (§3.3.7;
Appendix B). Their population has been increasing during the period of the current
permit,which is a desirable trend. Both the native rock bass and non-native redbreast
sunfish are abundant and popular sports panfish (§3.3.5 and §3.3.6, respectively). The
combined abundances do not differ greatly from those found in reference.areas. The
relative abundance of rock bass and redbreast sunfish is trending toward the higher ratios
for native rock bass seen in reference areas, a favorable long-term trend under the current
and previous permits. Historical abundance of redbreast sunfish has likely been
stimulated by high levels of reproduction in small impoundments upstream of the thermal
discharge.
3.2.15.Magnitude and Duration of Thermal Effects
Habitat exclusion from the warmest part of the zone of initial mixing on the west
side of the river between the discharge and the downstream railroad bridge (Appendix A,
Figures 75-79;—150 ft out of a thermally affected reach of—22 miles) would occur only
in a few weeks of summer, based on thermal studies (Appendix A) and the upper
avoidance temperatures of fish species found in the Pigeon River (§3.3; Appendix B).
Periphyton composed primarily of blue-green algae with chironomid larvae (a typical
summer periphyton community in water over 32°C), occurred only in a short(<150 ft)
portion of the zone of initial mixing between the outfall and the downstream railroad
bridge. This community would have persisted only for a few weeks in summer, based on
water temperatures (Appendix A).
- 60 -

3.2.16. Sub-lethal or Indirect Impacts
Sublethal or indirect effects of the thermal discharge on the aquatic biological
community (such as changes in metabolic rates, behavior, reproduction, or disease)
would be expressed in individual body condition(especially for fish) and the species
diversity and abundance of the community described in Appendix B and other parts of
section 3). Incidence of disease is more directly measureable, however. In 2005 and
2012,there was a very low percentage of fish with morphological anomalies or evidence
of disease(Wilson and Coutant2006; Appendix B). Anomalous fish have been<1%.
The distribution of the anomalies among stations suggested only sporadic incidence
across the basin.
Body conditions of fish in the thermally affected zone are good, indicating lack of
sublethal or indirect effects. Collectively, relative weight(W,)values indicated that: (1)
the condition of rock bass, smallmouth bass, redbreast sunfish, and bluegill from the
Pigeon River is comparable to the condition of these species from other areas in the
Southeast, and (2)the condition of these species downstream of the Canton Mill in the
thermally affected portion of the river as well as the cooler downstream portions of the
river were considered to be good. Wr values for fishes from the Pigeon River were within
expected ranges for this area. Furthermore, Wr values downstream of the Mill were
typically comparable to those upstream of the Mill and that the majority of the target
species are in good condition.
3.2.17.Interaction of Thermal Discharge with Other Pollutants
The Canton Mill's thermal discharge can contain other pollutants at permitted
levels,which might interact with warmer temperatures to enhance detrimental effects. In
addition to substances produced in the processes for making paper, the Mill treats the
municipal sewage from the Town of Canton. The ambient Pigeon River already contains
some polluting substances, mostly derived from the agricultural and rural-residential
watershed. There are 15 individual NPDES wastewater permits in the Pigeon River
subbasin in North Carolina, with a total flow of 37.13 MGD. Three are permitted to
discharge one million gallons per day or more of treated wastewater: the Canton Mill
(including Town of Canton wastewater; 29.9 MGD), Waynesville wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP; 6 MGD; PRM 54.5), and Maggie Valley wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP; 1 MGD; discharging to Jonathan's Creek entering the Pigeon River at PRM
46.0). There are 11 permitted trout farms in the basin with small discharges. Although
the ultimate test of interactions is the status of the biological community of the river
(Appendix B),this section briefly examines pollutants that might interact with warmer
water.
Dissolved Oxygen. The thermal discharge would not be a cause for, or affected
by, low dissolved oxygen(DO)because the North Carolina state standard for DO is met
downstream of the Mill. Over a period of review(January 1, 2004 -December 31,2008)
the daily average DO did not drop below North Carolina's standard of 5.0 mg(L for Class
C streams at any of the six instream monitoring stations downstream of the Mill (NC
- 61 -

DENR 2009). Maintenance of the state standard is a requirement of the permit. Oxygen-
consuming substances are in the ambient river flow upstream of the Mill and in the Mill's
discharge. Evergreen's permit contains limits for daily maximum 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) in its effluent, a monitoring requirement for Chemical Oxygen
Demand (no standard has been set by North Carolina), and a minimum effluent
concentration of 6 mg/L DO. To ensure that the instream standard is met, Evergreen
conducts routine upstream and downstream monitoring as required by its permit and
maintains oxygen injection facilities in the effluent and 0.9 and 2.1 miles downstream,to
be used as necessary.
Color. The thermal discharge contains dissolved and colloidal material that gives
the water some color. Color has not been shown to affect aquatic life beyond some
minimal shading for the primary producers (periphyton and macrophytes) in deep water.
Color is limited by the current permit to an annual average of 38,0201b/day.
Temperature elevation should not affect the color or any of its affects on aquatic life.
Mixed Toxicants. It is unlikely that there would be interactions between added
heat and chemical constituents of the mixed chemical and thermal discharge. The facility
has consistently passed the chronic toxicity test at 90% effluent (NC DENR 2009).
Rapid dilution of the effluent in the river(Appendix A) greatly reduces the
concentrations of mixed toxicants. The small temperature increases in the river beyond
the zone of initial mixing, and the rapidity of mixing in the warmest zone ensure that
thermal and chemical interactions would minimally affect aquatic life.
Individual toxicants. No detrimental interaction is expected from individual
toxicants and elevated temperature at temperatures and exposure durations seen in the
Pigeon River. The NC DENR(2009) evaluated several individual toxic substances in the
Mill's discharge and found them not to exceed state water quality standards. Cadmium
and silver were always below detection levels and thus removed from the monitoring
requirement. Zinc "does pose a reasonable potential to cause an exceedence" of the
action level standard, but the environment would be protected by the mixed effluent
toxicity analyses. Monitoring for zinc was reduced to semi-annually. Ammonia is
monitored mostly for its potential to affect instream dissolved oxygen. The facility has
shown no presence of dioxin since 1989, although EPA requires monitoring of water for
dioxin and dibenzofuran isomers. Each of the two bleach plants at the Mill is
individually monitored for dioxin. Periodic fish tissue analysis for dioxin in fish from the
Pigeon River-Waterville Reservoir has continued in accordance with the May 2010
NPDES permit for the Mill (Henry and Wilson 2012). All concentrations in fish tissue
fillets remain below the NCDHHS 4 ppt TEQ action level for fish consumption advisory.
The advisory was lifted in January 2007.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Suspended solids would not interact detrimentally
with slightly elevated temperatures observed in the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill.
Values of TSS in the effluent are limited by the permit at levels more stringent than
federal effluent guidelines (NC DENR 2009). The TSS naturally varies markedly in the
- 62 -

Pigeon River due to rainfall events and upstream erosion of agricultural and residential
land.
Acidity/alkalinity (pH). The pH of the effluent and at instream monitoring
stations is limited to the natural range of 6.0-9.0. No detrimental interaction with
elevated temperature is expected for biota within this range.
Conductivity. This measure of the concentration of dissolved materials is
monitored regularly at Fiberville Bridge and regulated according to a Class IV facility
(NC DENR 2009). The thermal discharge increases the conductivity of the river, but not
above natural levels seen regionally. No interactions with slightly elevated temperatures
are expected.
Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX9. Pursuant to the federal Cluster Rules (40
CFR 430 Subpart B) for the Pulp and Paper industry, monitoring and limits for AOX
have been established for the Mill (NC DENR 2009). By meeting these requirements, it
is assumed that there would be little interaction between slightly elevated temperature
and chlorinated organic materials.
Chloroform. Chloroform limits for the Mill's bleach plants are based on the EPA
promulgated Effluent Guidelines for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source
Category (NC DENR 2009) and thus chloroform is assumed to not interact detrimentally
with slightly elevated temperatures in the river.
Chlorinated Phenolics. Per 40 CFR 430.24,the daily maximum limits for 12
chlorinated phenolics are less than the minimum level as specified in 40 CFR 430.01 (NC
DENR 2009). Thus, it is assumed that they will not interact with slightly elevated
temperatures in the river.
Organic Enrichment, Nitrogen and Phosphorus from WWTPs. Elevated
temperatures could interact with nutrients and organic matter from the WWTPs for
Waynesville and Maggie Valley, as well as any of these substances that pass through the
Mill's treatment facilities from the Town of Canton. Unless found in excess, for which
there is no evidence,these substances would enhance biological productivity of the
mainstem river. The Waynesville and Maggie Valley influences would occur
downstream of the confluences of Richland Creek and Jonathan's Creek,respectively,
with the mainstem Pigeon River. At those points,the temperature elevations would be
small (Appendix A) and thus the temperature interactions should be slight.
3.2.18. Reference Area Comparisons
Comparisons were made between nine thermally affected sites downstream of the
Mill to Waterville Reservoir and six reference sites, four of which were in the Pigeon
River above the Mill and its two main branches, East Fork and West Fork. Two
reference sites were in the lower Swannanoa River, an adjacent watershed.
- 63 -

Aquatic plants
Two components of aquatic plants were studied,periphyton and macrophytes.
Periphyton was present at all stations, with little indication of trends either between
reference and thermally affected stations or among thermally affected stations.
Macrophytes were well distributed through the river but not present at all stations.
Macrophytes were not seen at the West Fork Pigeon River site and four of 15 sites
on the mainstem: Thickety(PRM 61), Golf Course (PRM 52.3),Ferguson Bridge (PRM
48.2), and Jonathan's Creek(PRM 46.0). A species of interest,Podostemum, was found
in three of four reference stations upstream of the Mill,both stations in the reference
Swannanoa River, and two of three stations in the Pigeon River in Tennessee,but not in
the thermally affected reach between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir. Macrophytes
have not been abundant in the Pigeon River both above and below the Canton Mill since
the hurricane-generated floods of 2004, although the beds appear to be recovering.
Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrate bottom-dwelling organisms were present and diverse in all
study sites, both thermally affected and reference. Total taxa numbers in the six Pigeon
River basin reference sites (ave. 59.5, range 43-91) were similar to the nine thermally
affected sites (ave. 57.1,range 47-66). The two warmest sites (PRM 63.0 and 61.0) had
more taxa than the average number of species found in all of the thermally affected sites,
and exceeded two of the upstream reference sites (PRM 64.5 and West Fork) and both
Swannanoa River sites. There was no trend in taxa numbers from the warmest to coolest
among the thermally affected sites in the Pigeon River mainstem.
Numbers of pollution sensitive EPT(Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera and Trichoptera)
were somewhat lower in the thermally affected reach than in the six reference sites.
Reference area EPTs averaged 27.2 (range 8-47) whereas the average number of EPT in
the thermally affected reach was 20 (range 14-31). The lowest EPT in the thermally
affected reach was higher than the lowest of the reference sites in the Swannanoa River.
There was a slight,but not uniform,trend toward more EPT in the cooler portions of the
thermally affected reach, although the lowest numbers were in the middle(PRM 55.5
with 15) and downstream(PRM 48.2 with 14) stations.
The Index of Biotic Integrity for macroinvertebrates (NC protocol), which
combines many factors representing a balanced, indigenous community of a mountain
stream, was somewhat better on average for the six upstream reference areas (ave.
4.57=Good; range 3.88-5.05)than for the thermally affected areas (ave. 5.79=Fair; range
4.69-6.70). The NC protocol is for mountain streams and it should be recognized that
many of the thermally affected stations are slowly moving, silty habitats unlike mountain
streams.
- 64-

Fish
The shallow-water fish community downstream of the Canton Mill obtained by
electroshocking in water suitable for wading is not markedly different from reference
stations in the upper Pigeon River watershed and the Swannanoa River with similar
habitat. The exception is for lower abundance or absence of some small bottom-dwelling
species now subject to mostly successful reintroduction(Appendix C). Pigeon River
stations below the Mill appear to be within the variability among the reference sites for
most mobile fish species.
Smallmouth bass, a prime sports fish, is more abundant in the Pigeon River
downstream of the Canton Mill than in reference stations. It was found at all nine
mainstem shallow-water stations between the Mill and Waterville Lake (average 10.3
smallmouth bass per station excluding young of the year—63 at PRM 63 and 94 at PRM
52.3). The six reference stations averaged 2.7 smallmouth bass per station,range 0-6.
Rock bass, a sports panfish, was found at all stations sampled, including upstream
reference sites in the Pigeon River basin,thermally affected river sites in North Carolina
and the two Swannanoa River reference sites. Thermally affected reaches were not
markedly different from reference sites. Reference sites in the Pigeon River basin
averaged 23 rock bass per site (range 8-48), while the Swannanoa River reference
stations averaged 11 (range 2-20). Stations in North Carolina between the Mill and
Waterville Reservoir averaged 10.2 (range 1-20).
Redbreast sunfish, a non-native sports fish that has expanded its distribution
throughout the Southeast, is abundant in the reference locations as well as in the Pigeon
River downstream of the Canton Mill. It has been considered a warm-water competitor
of native rock bass. The Pigeon River in North Carolina downstream of the Mill had a
ratio of 5.7 redbreast to 1 rockbass (5.7:1), although the relative abundance of redbreast
sunfish was most prominent at the station closest to the Mill and within the zone of
incomplete mixing (127 redbreast sunfish for a ratio of 11.5:1). Reference stations in the
Swannanoa River had a combined ratio of 2.4:1, although the most downstream
Swannanoa station had essentially the same number of each species (22 redbreast versus
20 rock bass). Pigeon River basin reference sites had a ratio of 0.5:1. Redbreast
abundance immediately downstream of the Mill and for much of the reach to Waterville
Lake is likely influenced strongly by abundant redbreast spawning observed in the small
impoundment just upstream of the discharge in summer 2012 (and documented
downstream dispersal of sunfish larvae in the reach upstream of the discharge by LaVoie
2007).
Trout, indicative of cold water, were found below the Canton Mill whereas they
were not found in the reference locations in the West Fork Pigeon River, East Fork
Pigeon River or Swannanoa River. Trout were found near the mouths of three tributaries
with the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill but upstream of Waterville Lake: Crabtree
Creek(PRM 49.8)had one brown trout, Jonathan's Creek(PRM 46.0)had six rainbow
trout, 14 brown trout and three brook trout, and Fines Creek(PRM 42.7)had 13 brown
- 65 -

and 2 rainbow trout. The adult trout found in these small streams likely spend cooler
parts of the year in the larger Pigeon River mainstem or moving between the mainstem
and the tributaries. Where trout occur in rivers, it is common to find them at the mouths
of colder tributaries in late summer.
Shiners, as a group, are characteristic of rivers and about equally abundant below
the Canton Mill and in the reference locations. Shiners averaged 26.8 per station(range
5-69) between the Mill and Waterville Lake and also 26.8 per station (range 15-52) at the
six stream reference stations.
Darters, as a group,had lower abundance in the reach between the Canton Mill
and Waterville Lake than in reference locations. Darters below the Mill averaged 9.6 per
collection(range 2-23) whereas the reference stations averaged 75.5 (range 55-100).
This was expected because darters are slow to recolonize due to both upstream and
downstream barriers to movement, and because of this are being actively reintroduced by
the Pigeon River Recovery Project. The success of even small numbers is considered
successful reintroduction,with time required for natural reproduction and expansion of
populations.
Mottled sculpin was a species of interest in discussions following the 2005 study.
It was found at all Pigeon River basin reference stations upstream of the Canton Mill
(ranging 7-45, average 23.3)but none in the Swannanoa River reference stations. There
were three collected in the reach from the Mill to Waterville Lake (at PRM 52.3). The
mottled sculpin, an obligate stream-bottom species, may have difficulty expanding
downstream through the small impoundment upstream of the Mill.
The central stoneroller is another benthic stream species, but it apparently has had
less difficulty recolonizing the once-polluted Pigeon River in North Carolina downstream
of the Canton Mill. Between the Mill and Waterville Lake there was an average of 15.3
stonerollers per site (range 0- 94) whereas all reference stations averaged 38.8 per site
(range 8-66).
Scores for the Index of Biotic Integrity for all collected fish(IBI; TVA method)
were not greatly different in 2012 between reference stations and the stations affected by
the Mill discharge. This IBI includes 12 fish-community parameters. Reference station
scores averaged 42.3 (range 40-46) whereas the sites between the Mill and Waterville
Reservoir averaged 38.9 (range 26-46).
All fish species collected in the mainstem study sites from above Canton to
Waterville Reservoir aligned into five groups (Appendix B). One group consisted of
species (5)that were restricted to or much more abundant upstream of the Mill and
another of species (13) that were restricted to or much more abundant between the Mill
and Waterville Reservoir. The uniquely higher species richness of the thermally affected
reach could be viewed positively, although it may just reflect the higher habitat diversity
in the river reach downstream of Canton.
- 66 -

Several fish diversity indices showed that the average of all thermally affected
sites was only slightly less diverse than the reference sites, but that highest diversity
occurred where thermally influenced. Thermally affected averages were generally
brought down by the site closest to the Mill (Fiberville). Reference stations had an
average richness index (ave. 8.3,range 8-10) somewhat above the average for thermally
affected stations (ave. 7.1, range 3-13), but the highest richness was at a thermally
affected station. Similarly, the Shannon diversity index was higher and more consistent
in the reference stations (ave. 2.13,range 2.07-2.34)than in the thermally affected
stations (ave. 187, range 0.99-2.54) but the highest Shannon index was in the same
thermally affected station. The same pattern held for the evenness index, for which
reference stations averaged 0.79 (range 0.76-0.84) while the thermally affected sites
averaged 0.69 (range 0.41-0.89).
A principal components analysis (PCA) of the entire fish community at all
stations indicated that there was a gradient in fish species composition that produced
three distinct groups of sites that were most similar to each other: (1) all six reference
sites, including two tributaries and two mainstem sites on the Pigeon River upstream of
the Mill and both Swannanoa River sites, (2) all thermally influenced mainstem sites
downstream from the Mill to Waterville Reservoir, and (3)three TN sites downstream
from the hydropower facility. Low eigenvalues of the PCA analysis suggested low or no
statistical significance among the three groups. Statistical analyses indicated no
significant differences in species diversity between 2005 and 2012.
3.2.19. Trends Over Time
Based on the results of the 2012 study and the previous 2005 study,temperature
conditions in the Pigeon River downstream of the Canton Mill under permitted thermal
discharges do not appear to have negative impacts on aquatic life. Most indexes of the
aquatic community are improving over the time when there have been thermal
discharges, especially when compared to earlier studies (1988, 2000). Most missing
species, compared to reference sites, can be attributed to historical pollution and
geographical isolation by dams that has slowed or prevented natural recolonization.
These deficiencies are being rectified by planned and on-going reintroductions, which
have been largely successful. The most continuous data are for macroinvertebrates and
fish.
Aquatic plants consisting of periphyton and rooted aquatic plants that depend on
water transparency are present in the Pigeon River at both reference sites and
downstream of the Canton Mill. Aquatic insects typical of clean streams are found in all
stations downstream of the Mill. Native freshwater mussels have been successfully
grown in enclosures in the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill, indicating sufficiently
high water quality that reintroductions are underway by the NC DENR.
Macroinvertebrates were abundant and diverse throughout the study area in 2012.
Total taxa numbers in the four Pigeon River basin reference sites (ave. 64.3, range 43-91)
were similar to the nine sites affected by the Mill's effluent(ave. 57.1, range 47-66). The
- 67 -

two warmest sites (PRM 63.0 and 61.0) had more taxa than the average number of
species found in all of the affected sites, and exceeded four of the upstream reference
sites.
When comparing total invertebrate taxa collected in the thermally influenced
North Carolina portion of the river from below the Mill to Waterville Reservoir(PRM
63.0—.PRM 42.6), there were 107 taxa collected in 2005 and 149 taxa in 2012,which is
an increase of 39%. The 2012 number does not include the five additional taxa found at
PRM 57.7, a new site added for the 2012 study. NCBI scores declined below the Mill,
however. Four of the eight NC stations rated a`Good-Fair' or `Good' score in 2012
compared to six of eight stations in 2005; the severe drought in 2007-08 is thought to
have had a significant impact of macro-invertebrate populations which may have
influenced the NCBI scores, which is an index designed for mountain streams. As noted
in the Introduction,much of the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill would not be
physically characterized as a mountain stream. Based on experimental transplants, the
thermally affected reach appears to be suitable for mussels, at least the wavy-rayed
lampmussel, a species of concern in North Carolina. No mussels had been found in this
reach in recent years.
Fish information shows that species diversity is high and improving. The species
assemblage represents typical feeding guilds indicating a favorable food chain. Species
represented include those requiring clean water. Favored riverine sports fish, such as
r smallmouth bass, are abundant and increasing. Trout were found in tributary locations
below the Canton Mill in late summer that suggests riverine residence during cooler
times of year. Nuisance species such as common carp are not abundant and decreasing.
Non-native redbreast sunfish are abundant in reference streams as well as below the Mill;
their abundance downstream of the Mill is likely due to documented emigration of larvae
and young from the impoundment upstream of the Mill's discharge. Assemblages of
highly mobile species are similar in reference streams and the Pigeon River below the
Mill. Species with more localized ranges (darters, sculpins) are slow to recolonize the
once-polluted Pigeon River downstream of the Mill but are showing increases in diversity
and abundance with successful reintroductions.
Numbers of fish taxa collected in the thermally affected North Carolina portion of
the river below the Canton Mill to Waterville Reservoir(eight sites in 2005 and nine sites
in 2102,PRM 63.0—PRM 42.6) increased between 2005 and 2012. There were 29 taxa
collected in 2005 and 37 taxa in 2012, a 28% increase. Darter species,which were
essentially absent downstream of the Mill in 1995, increased in number from 4 in 2005 to
5 in 2012, and were found in all nine thermally affected sites, whereas they were found
only sporadically in 2005. The catch of smallmouth bass increased almost ten-fold from
26 individuals in 2005 to 201 in 2012, with numerous juveniles indicating successful
reproduction. The ratio of rock bass relative to redbreast sunfish was 1:5.6 in 2012 and
1:10.2 in 2005,which represented a 45% increase in the less tolerant rock bass. In 2005,
only one intolerant fish species (rock bass)was collected in the thermally influenced
reach of the river below the Mill; in 2012, rock bass and two additional intolerant fish
species (smallmouth bass, greenfm darter)were found in the same reach.
- 68 -

i
3.3. REPRESENTATIVE IMPORTANT SPECIES (RIS)
Assessment of RIS is important for a Type III demonstration such as this. In a
standard Type II Demonstration(Predictive),the known or estimated thermal tolerances
of several RIS are compared to the measured or predicted temperature regimes in the
thermal effluent's receiving water. The thermal tolerance information comes from the
scientific literature, often from controlled laboratory studies. In a Type I Demonstration
(retrospective"no prior appreciable harm") or Type III Demonstration (combination)
both the field biological evidence from an operating thermal discharge and the known
thermal tolerances of the RIS are discussed. The Canton Mill has 28 years of operational
history under previous and current thermal variances and several sequential thermal and
biological studies, so it is appropriate to consider both predictive (RIS) and retrospective
(no prior harm) information.
The RIS were listed in Section 3.1, as presented in the Study Plan and approved
by NC DENR. This list represents more than a third of the fish species known from the
North Carolina portion of the river. Fish were selected because they have historically
been the main concern. The list includes both desirable species and those that might be
considered undesirable due to thermal tolerance or nuisance potential, and species whose
abundance or dominance might have been the result of the thermal discharge. The latter
are important indicators of system balance, as indicated in the federal regulations
(Subpart II). Common carp was chosen as it is thermally tolerant omnivore and has the
potential to become a nuisance species. Central stoneroller is the only herbivorous fish in
the river and occupies a unique place in the trophic structure. Shiners as a group are non-
tolerant pelagic-to-benthic insectivores and important prey items for sportsfish. Northern
hogsucker and black redhorse are bottom-feeding insectivores and are generally
considered to be thermally sensitive. Rock bass and redbreast sunfish represent two
important pool-dwelling,piscivorous species popular with many anglers. Redbreast
sunfish is, however,non-native,has invaded most regional streams, and is a competitor
of rock bass. Smallmouth bass is the most common gamefish in the river and is very
popular among anglers. Darters are a diverse group of bottom-dwelling insectivores that
can be common in eastern Tennessee and westernNorth Carolina, often in locally
endemic populations. The thermal tolerance of most shiner and darter species is
unknown, but they represent important ecological links in streams and rivers like the
Pigeon River.
Considerable attention has been given since the 2005 study to biotic categories
other than fish(Section 1.5.2). Freshwater mussels, in particular, have been subject of
conservation concern and regional surveys. Crayfish also stand out among,
macroinvertebrate organisms as species in need of conservation attention, and also have
been surveyed recently in the Pigeon River and region. In the wildlife biotic category,
stream-dwelling salamanders have been surveyed for the first time in the Pigeon River
basin. For this reason, Section 3.4 covers these Other Species of Interest, including
discussions of freshwater mussels, crayfish and salamanders.
- 69 -

For each RIS, we summarize known thermal tolerances with literature citations
and provide a summary of occurrence in the Pigeon River study area and reference
streams in prior surveys and the present one, as indications of regional assemblages
without thermal additions and trends over time. Comparisons of the affected areas with
reference sites and trends over time are important considerations in evaluating effects of
thermal discharges (EAB 2006). Each species or group description ends with a"bottom
line"summary in italics that relates the information to 316(a) criteria of protection,
propagation, diversity, sustainability, food chain relationships and potential domination
by pollution-tolerant species (Section 1.2).
3.3.1. Central Stoneroller, Camposdoma anomalum
This is one of the most common species in the Pigeon River and its tributaries. It
is a small herbivore. There is some thermal tolerance information for the central
stoneroller; the NC DENR rated it as"intermediate"for pollution tolerance. Cherry et al.
(1977)reported that it could survive for at least seven days at 31°C,that it preferred
temperatures of 27-29°C, but avoided temperatures of 33°C. Fish acclimated to 23°C
showed loss of equilibrium at 35.8°C (Chagnon and Hlohowskyj 1989), which was
similar to field acclimation near 24°C and equilibrium loss at 37.7°C (Mundahl 1990).
Fish acclimated to 26°C showed loss of equilibrium at 37.2°C (Smale and Rabini 1995).
In field studies in Virginia, it was collected at temperatures as high as 34.3°C but
preferred temperatures in the mid 20s (Stauffer et al. 1976). In 1995, it was common to
abundant at all downstream Pigeon River stations except Fiberville (EA 1996). In 2000,
it was common to abundant at 5 of the 8 downstream North Carolina stations but rare at
the other three locations (EA 2001). In 2005, it was one of the most abundant species at
all stations except Hepco, where it was not found (Wilson and Coutant 2006).
Abundance below the Mill, including the warmest station at Fiberville,was often about
double that at the station upstream of the Mill, indicating highly favorable habitat and
thermal conditions. The central stoneroller was one of the species identified in the
September 7, 2007 fish kill (Appendix D), which indicates that it bad been occupying the
river reach immediately downstream of the thermal discharge prior to the unusual events
that caused the kill.
In the 2012 study,the species was found at all stations, both reference and
thermally affected, except the one closest to the thermal discharge(Appendix B). It was
especially abundant in the Pigeon River basin upstream of the Mill (average 49 per
station, range 24-66), in the mainstem in Tennessee (average 50.3, range 15-74) and in
tributaries (average 31.8, range 4-42). Abundance in the Swannanoa reference site
(average 18.5,range 8-29)was nearly equal to the average in the reach between the Mill
and Waterville Reservoir (average 15.3,range 0-94). The highest concentration of this
species (94) was at PRM 59.0 (Clyde).
This common species, which is a food-chain species for larger fish, is locally
highly abundant, including sites in the Pigeon River affected by the thermal discharge.
Although average abundance in the river between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir is
less than in the reference sites of the upper basin, tributaries, and in the mainstem in
- 70 -

Tennessee, the average is similar to that in the Swannanoa River reference sites. The
species is adequately protected, and its abundance indicates successful propagation and
sustainability. It is neither at risk nor overly stimulated by the thermal discharge.
3.3.2. Shiners, as a Group
Shiners are a group of small-sized species that are pelagic or benthic insectivores
that are considered non-tolerant of pollution(intermediate or intolerant). Species found
in the Pigeon River watershed include mirror shiner Notropis spectrunculus, saffron
shiner Notropis rubricroceus, silver shiner Notropis photogenis,telescope shiner
Notropis telescopus, Tennessee shiner Notropis leuciodes, warpaint shiner Luxilus
coccogenis, and whitetail shiner Cyprinella galactura. All serve as food-chain species
for larger fish and wildlife.
Members of this group are, however, quite tolerant of high temperature (Cherry et
al. 1977, Matthews and Hill 1979; Beitinger et al. 2000). For example, spotfin shiners
(Cyprinella spiloptera) suffered no mortality when held at 36°C for 7 days (Cherry et al.
1977). Matthews and Maness (1979) reported the Critical Thermal Maximum (CTM) of
the red shiner(Cyprinella lutrensis) to be 39.0°C. Field collections in Virginia found
whitetail shiners at temperatures as high as 35°C (Stauffer et al. 1976). In 1995, whitetail
shiner was common in the Pigeon River at most locations downstream of the Mill except
at Fiberville,where only two were collected (EA 1996). In 2000, it was moderately
common at all downstream stations except Hepco (PRM 42.6) where only three were
collected(EA 2001). In 2005,the whitetail shiner was present, although not abundant, at
all stations sampled (Wilson and Coutant 2006). Three shiner species, silver, warpaint,
and whitetail,were species identified in the September 7, 2007 fish kill (Appendix D),
which indicates that they had been occupying the river reach immediately downstream of
the thermal discharge prior to the unusual events that caused the kill.
Several species of shiners have been reintroduced to the Pigeon River below the
Mill in North Carolina since 2004, but not in Tennessee (Appendix C). Mirror shiner
was the most abundantly released, followed (in order) by Tennessee,telescope, silver,
and highland (Notropis micropteryx) shiners.
In 2012, shiners of one species or another were found at every station sampled
(Appendix B). Highest diversity was in the four tributary streams (6 species), followed
by the thermally affected reach from the Mill to Waterville Reservoir(5), the Swannanoa
and upper Pigeon basin reference areas (each with 4) and lastly the Pigeon River in
Tennessee (2). They were most abundant in the Swannanoa River(average 41.5 fish per
station,range 31-52) and tributaries to the Pigeon River (average 37.8 fish per station,
range 6-98). They were slightly more abundant downstream of the Mill to Waterville
Reservoir(average 27.3, range 6-69)than upstream of Canton (average 21.3, range 17-
32). They were considerably less abundant in the Pigeon River in Tennessee (average
12.0,range 3-27). The whitetail shiner predominated in the Pigeon River, both upstream
and downstream of the Mill. Whitetail and telescope shiners were equally abundant in
- 71 -

Tennessee. The Tennessee shiner was predominant in the Swannanoa River. Warpaint,
Tennessee and whitetail shiners dominated the tributaries.
Species and numbers of shiners in the thermally affected reach are on an increasing
trend under the current and previous permit conditions, demonstrating sustainability.
Shiners are more diverse in the thermally affected reach than in reference stations
upstream in the Pigeon River basin and the Swannanoa River. Numbers of individuals
are intermediate between the Swannanoa and upper Pigeon River reference stations.
The species mix differs among sampling locations. Shiners are protected and are
propagating at the thermal limits now in effect. Given the high thermal tolerance of
members of this genus, there is no evidence of thermally related long-term negative
impact to shiners as a group. The high diversity and numbers of shiners in tributary
waters indicates that their presence in the thermally affected mainstem is not the result of
heated discharges from the Mill.
3.3.3. Northern Hogsucker,Hypentelium nigricans
Northern hogsuckers are bottom-feeding insectivores. The upper lethal
temperature(ultimate upper incipient lethal temperature) of this species is 34°C, with
lethal temperatures ranging from 27 to 33°C at acclimation temperatures ranging from 18
to 30°C (Cherry et al. 1977). For fish acclimated to 15°C,the Critical Thermal
Maximum was found to be 30.8°C (Kowalski et al. 1978). Stauffer et al. (1976) collected
specimens from the New River in Virginia at temperatures as high as 35°C and reported
preferred field temperatures in summer of 26.6 to 27.7°C. This range corresponds well
with laboratory-determined final preferendum of 27.9°C reported by Cherry et al. (1977).
The NC DENR rated the species as"intermediate" in general pollution tolerance. In both
1995 and 2000, northern hogsuckers were common to abundant throughout the Pigeon
River study area (EA 1996, 2001). In 2005, the species was found in moderate numbers
at all stations sampled both upstream and downstream of the Mill (Wilson and Coutant
2006). The northern hogsucker was one of the species identified in the September 7,
2007 fish kill (Appendix D),which indicates that it had been occupying the river reach
immediately downstream of the thermal discharge prior to the unusual events that caused
the kill.
In 2012,the species was present at all stations except three: one in the Swannanoa
River, one in the mainstem Pigeon River closest to the discharge (PRM 63.0), and one
Tennessee mainstem station(Appendix B). The highest abundance at an individual site
(43) and highest average abundance (15.7, range 0-43)was in the Tennessee reach of the
mainstem Pigeon River. The species was next most abundant in tributaries of the
mainstem (average 13.5, range 5-23). Average abundance was similar in the upper
Pigeon River stations (average 4.3, range 2-7) and the reach of mainstem between the
Mill and Waterville Reservoir(average 4.6,range 0-12). They were least abundant in the
Swannanoa River reference sites (average 1.5, range 0-3).
The species'widespread occurrence in the study area, both thermally affected and
reference sites, indicates that it is adequately protected and is propagating, leading to
- 72 -

sustainability. Based on the temperature tolerance as reported in the literature there
appears to be no threat to this species from the Mill's thermal discharge. Its presence
and abundance are not a result of elevated temperatures. It appears to be contributing in
moderate numbers to the diverse fish fauna throughout the thermally affected and
unaffected portions of the river and in reference areas.
3.3.4. Black Redhorse,Moxostoma duquesnei
Black redhorse is a bottom-feeding insectivore. There are no thermal tolerance
data specific to this species, although the NC DENR rated it as "intermediate"in general
pollution tolerance. Redhorse species are generally considered to be thermally sensitive
(Gammon 1976, Simon 1992). Unclassified redhorses had upper avoidance temperature.
of 26°C (Gammon 1973). Walsh et al. (cited in EA 2001) reported CTM temperatures of
34.9 and 37.2°C for robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) acclimated to 20 and 30°C,
respectively. Results of bioassays by Reash et al. (2000) indicate that CTMs for golden
redhorse (M. erythurum) and shorthead redhorse (M. macrolepidotum) are about 35°C.
The shorthead redhorse was reported to have a final preferendum of 26-27.5°C (Yoder
and Gammon 1976) and an upper avoidance temperature of 37.2°C (Scott and Crossman
1973). Thus, redhorse appear to be more thermally tolerant than generally thought. In
1995, black redhorse were uncommon upstream of the Mill and immediately downstream
of it at Fiberville, and absent or rare elsewhere in the North Carolina portion of the study
area(EA 1996). In 2000,black redhorse were abundant upstream of the Mill, common at
Fiberville(the warmest station), and rare to uncommon at the stations further downstream
(EA 2001). In 2005,the species was common upstream of the Mill,present in low
numbers at Fiberville and Thickety below the Mill,but missing in the vicinity of Clyde
and Waynesville WWTP (PRM 54.5-59) (Wilson and Coutant 2006). It returned in low
numbers above Crabtree (PRM 52.3) and was found in low numbers at all stations farther
downstream.
In 2012, the species was found sporadically. None were found in the Swannanoa
River reference sites, while the Pigeon River reference sites had high variability(average
4.5, range 0-17). They were mostly absent in the river between the Mill and Waterville
Reservoir(average 0.8) except at two stations, Thickety(PRM 61.0 with three) and Golf
Course(PRM 54.3 with four). More were found in the Tennessee portion of the
mainstem (average 7,range 0-16). Four were collected from Jonathan's Creek.
If the distribution of black redhorse in the Pigeon River were to be negatively
influenced by temperature, one would expect it to be least abundant at Fiberville and
more abundant farther downstream. The opposite was seen in 2000, and in 2005 the
species was present in the warm reaches near Fiberville and Thickety but absent in the
middle stations. No station below the Mill matched the abundance above the Mill in
2005,however. The species was so sporadically distributed in 2012 that little can be said
other than that many stations, both affected and referenced, did not have the species
represented.
- 73 -

There appears to be no real correlation ofpresence of this sporadically
distributed species with high temperatures. Thus, there seems to be no threat from the
thermal discharge to the long-term well being of this species or that this species'
abundance is a result of the thermal discharge. Its sporadic distribution among
thermally altered and reference sites suggests it is locally protected and is propagating.
3.3.5. Rock Bass,Ambloplites rupestris
Rock bass are pool-dwelling, omnivorous panlish important to anglers. There is
abundant thermal effects literature for this species. Young rock bass could be acclimated
to 36°C but died at 37°C (Brown 1976; Cherry et al. 1977). Carlander(1977)reported a
lethal temperature of 35°C. A CTM of 36°C was reported by Reutter and Herdendorf
(1976). A summaries of thermal preference and avoidance data from several authors
showed a final preferendum for juveniles near 26-28°C with an upper avoidance
temperature near 29.5°C (Brown 1976; Coutant 1977), although Cherry et al. (1977)
reported preferred temperatures of 27.3 to 30.6°C and that avoidance occurred at 27-36°C
depending on acclimation temperature. The optimum temperature for growth was
estimated to be 27-29°C (Jobling 1981). For spawning,the optimum range has been
reported to be 20.5-21°C (Brown 1976) and 15.5-21°C (Scott and Crossman 1973). The
NC DENR rated the species as "intolerant" of general pollution.
In 1995, rock bass were abundant upstream of the Mill and uncommon
downstream of it (EA 1996). This pattern was repeated in 2000 (EA 2001). In 2005,the
same pattern was present, although significant numbers were found at all stations below
the Mill, including the warmest station at Fiberville(Wilson and Coutant 2006). Ratios
of rock bass to its ecologically similar redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritis; non-native,
pollution tolerant) have increased progressively over the series of studies (see description
of redbreast sunfish). The relative abundance of rock bass to redbreast sunfish in 2005
showed a 41%improvement when compared to the 2000 data; between 2005 and 2012,
the ratio showed a further 45%improvement. The rock bass was one of the species
identified in the September 7, 2007 fish kill(Appendix D),which indicates that it had
been occupying the river reach immediately downstream of the thermal discharge prior to
the unusual events that caused the kill.
In 2012, rock bass were found at all stations sampled, including upstream
reference sites in the Pigeon River basin, mainstem river sites in North Carolina and
Tennessee and the two Swannanoa River reference sites (Appendix B). Thermally
affected reaches were not markedly different from reference sites and sites in Tennessee
below Waterville Reservoir. Reference sites in the basin upstream of the Mill were about
twice as high as all other sites, and averaged 23 rock bass per site (range 8-48),while the
Swannanoa River reference station averaged 11 (range 2-20). Stations in North Carolina
between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir averaged 10.2 (range 1-20). Sites in
Tennessee averaged 8.3 per site (range 3-18). Tributaries of the Pigeon River between
the Mill and Waterville Reservoir averaged 12.5, range 3-18.
- 74 -

Although their abundance is lower downstream of the Mill than above it,this
reduction does not appear to be thermally related. Downstream of the Mill, rock bass in
2000 were most common at the two stations closest to the Mill (and warmest) and less
abundant at cooler stations farther away. In 2005,the catches were more evenly
distributed, but still highest at warm Thickety (PRM 61) among the NC stations. In 2012,
the catch at Thickety was nearly twice the average for the rest of the thermally affected
reach and reference sites and tributaries. Also, its abundance at the downstream stations
in North Carolina in 2000 and 2012 was not very different from the Tennessee stations
where temperature is clearly not an issue. In 2005, abundance at the TN stations more
than doubled those at the NC stations. The reasons for lower abundance at several North
Carolina and Tennessee sites than above the Mill may be the presence of less favorable
habitat(mostly bedrock) throughout much of the area and likely competition with the
redbreast sunfish that is more abundant in the North Carolina portion of the study area
below the Mill. A study of drifting larval fish, some of which may have been rock bass,
indicated higher numbers downstream of the thermal discharge than immediately
upstream of it(LaVoie 2007). Spawning was likely occurring in the low-head
impoundment upstream of the Mill,with larvae produced there drifting downstream
populating the reaches downstream of the Mill.
The distribution and abundance patterns for rock bass in the Pigeon and
Swannanoa rivers do not appear to be thermally related and therefore the thermal
discharge appears not to adversely affect the species. The trend of improving success of
the species in the Pigeon River relative to its competitor, redbreast sunfish, indicates that
the species is protected, is propagating, constitutes a sustainable population and that the
current thermal effluent limits are acceptable for this pollution-intolerant species.
3.3.6. Redbreast Sunfish,Lepomis auritis
The redbreast sunfish is a non-native panfish originally from coastal plain
watersheds in NC,but spread throughout the eastern US because of its favor as a sports
fish. It has been considered a warm-water competitor of native rock bass. It is thermally
tolerant, and its general pollution tolerance is so rated by the NC DENR. Trembley
(1960)reported an upper lethal temperature of 38.3°C when it was acclimated to 21°C.
In the field, it has been reported at temperatures as high as 39.2°C (EPRI 1981). In both
1995 and 2000, redbreast sunfish were more abundant than rock bass downstream of the
Mill than upstream of it except in Tennessee(EA 1996, 2001). In 2005,this pattern
continued, with a ratio of 10.2:1 between the Mill and Waterville Lake compared to
0.13:1 upstream of Canton(Wilson and Coutant 2006). The redbreast sunfish was one of
the species identified in the September 7, 2007 fish kill (Appendix D), which indicates
that it had been occupying the river reach immediately downstream of the thermal
discharge prior to the unusual events that caused the kill.
In 2012, the abundance of redbreast sunfish relative to rock bass has declined
from previous surveys and was similar to the Swannanoa River reference sites (Appendix
B). For all stations sampled in North Carolina and Tennessee in 2012,there was a ratio
of redbreast to rock bass of 2.6:1. Reference stations in the Swannanoa River had a
- 75 -

combined ratio of 2.4:1, although the most downstream station had essentially the same
number of each species (22 redbreast versus 20 rock bass). All Pigeon River basin
reference sites had a ratio of 0.5:1 (nearly 5 times the abundance of redbreast sunfish seen
in 2005 at the single reference station upstream of Canton). The Pigeon River in North
Carolina downstream of the Mill had a ratio of 5.7:1,which was slightly over half the
relative abundance in 2005. In 2012, the relative abundance of redbreast sunfish was
most prominent at the station closest to the Mill and within the zone of incomplete
mixing(127 redbreast sunfish for a ratio of 11.5:1), although this ratio was considerably
less than in 2005 (28.5:1). Crabtree Creek yielded 16 redbreast sunfish while Jonathan's
Creek had one and the other creeks none.
The species' greater abundance downstream of the Mill had been thought to be
due to its thermophilic nature and general tolerance of pollution (Wilson and Coutant
2006). The redbreast sunfish is an active competitor in eastern waters, and it has been
implicated in out-competing and displacing the native longear sunfish over a wide area
(Envier and Starnes 1993). It was thought to be outcompeting rock bass in the warmer
Pigeon River downstream of the Mill. A study of larval fish drift, however, indicated a
high abundance of sunfish larvae (attributed mostly to redbreast sunfish) emanating from
a low-head impoundment immediately upstream of the Mill (LaVoie 2007).
Confirmation of abundant spawning in that pool, dominated by redbreast sunfish over
rock bass,suggests that the outpouring of larval redbreast sunfish from the pool-swamps
recruitment of rock bass in the river downstream of the Mill.
The species'high abundance at the Swannanoa River reference stations and its
persistent natural introduction into the river downstream of the Mill from reproduction in
the upstream pond indicate that this non-indigenous warm-water species'presence or
abundance downstream of the Millis not attributable to the thermal discharge. With its
high thermal tolerance and its high downstream abundance under current permit
conditions, it is protected and propagating with no adverse impacts expected for this
species should the permit conditions continue. Its decline in numbers in the thermally
influenced reach relative to the indigenous rock bass is seen as a favorable trend. The
species is not a nuisance species, despite its thermal tolerance and increased abundance
below the Mill, because it is a popular species with anglers and it is not disruptive of
normal aquatic habitats.
3.3.7. Smallmouth Bass,Micropterus dolomeiu
This species is an important sports fish and for that reason there is much literature
on its thermal requirements. The upper incipient lethal temperature for larvae is 30°C
(Shuter et al. 1980) to 35.8°C (Crippen and Fahmy1981). For fry, it is about 38°C
(Brungs and Jones 1977; Wrenn 1980). For juveniles and adults, it is about 35°C (EPA
1974; Cherry et al. 1977). The Critical Thermal Maximum for fish acclimated to 26°C
was 36.9°C (Smale and Rabeni 1995). The final preferendum is about 31°C for juveniles
and adults, with avoidance temperatures of 27-36°C, depending on acclimation
temperature(Coutant 1977; Cherry et al. 1977; Spotila et al. 1979). The optimum
temperature for growth appears to be 25-29°C (Shuter et al. 1980; Coutant and
- 76 -

DeAngelis 1983; McCauley and Casselman 1980; Carlander 1977). The NC DENR rated
the species as "intolerant"of general pollution.
Smallmouth bass have been gradually increasing in the thermally affected reach
of river. Despite moderate thermal tolerance, smallmouth bass abundance was uniformly
low throughout North Carolina portions of the study in 1995 (EA 1996). However, in
2000, catches of smallmouth bass were considerably higher at all locations(EA 2001),
indicating that the general conditions for the species were improving. Abundance was
lower at Fiberville, however, (the warmest station). In 2005, smallmouth bass were
reduced from the 2000 catch (likely due to severe flooding in 2004) but collected in low
numbers at all stations, with particular abundance at Ferguson Bridge (PRM 48.2) and in
Tennessee at PRM 24.9 (Wilson and Coutant 2006). The smallmouth bass was one of the
species identified in the September 7, 2007 fish kill (Appendix D),which indicates that it
had been occupying the river reach immediately downstream of the thermal discharge
prior to the unusual events that caused the kill.
In 2012, smallmouth bass was abundant in the Pigeon River downstream of the
Canton Mill (Appendix B). It was found at all nine mainstream shallow-water stations
between the Mill and Waterville Lake (average of 10.3 smallmouth bass per station
excluding young of the year—63 at PRM 63 and 94 at PRM 52.3). The six reference
stations averaged 2.7 smallmouth bass per station, range 0-6. Three sites in Tennessee
had 5, 8 and 10 smallmouth bass.
In general, smallmouth bass are present in moderate numbers throughout the
Pigeon River study area and reference sites, regardless of the thermal discharge. The
population is increasingfrom earlier studies, indicatingprotection,propagation and
sustainability. Population numbers of this species elsewhere often fluctuate according to
the success of reproduction, which is greatly affected by timing of stable river flows in
spring. Even with the reduced numbers in 2005, there appears to be no adverse impacts
on this species under existing conditions.
3.3.8. Darters, as a Group,Etheostoma spp.
Darters are a diverse group of small, bottom-dwelling insectivores. They tend to
be locally endemic due to restricted movement and small body sizes, but serve the same
general ecological functions. Darters found in the Pigeon River studies are: banded
Etheostoma zonale, fantail E.flabellare, gilt Percina evides, greenfin E.
chlorobranchium, greenside E. blennioides,redline E. rufilineatum, snubnose K
tennessense, Tuckasegee E. gutselli, and tangerine P. aurantiaca (Appendix B).
Because darters are a diverse genus (>150 described species),they would be
expected to exhibit a fairly wide range of temperature requirements and show a complex
relationship as a group to the thermal discharge of the Canton Mill. The CTM for four
species of 15°C-acclimated darters, greenside, rainbow(E. caeruleum), fantail, and
johnny (E. nigrum) were all about 31-32°C (Kowalski et al. 1978), and higher
acclimation temperatures would be expected to result in higher CTM values. Various
- 77 -

Etheostoma species acclimated to 20°C and above exhibited CTM values of 32-38°C
(Beitinger et al. 2000). The optimum temperature for rainbow darter was reported to be
17-18.5°C (Scott and Crossman 1973), although the final preferendum was estimated to
be 20°C (Floyd et al. 1984). Greenside darter has been collected as high as 35°C
although their preferred temperature is considerably lower as peak numbers were
collected at 26.6-27.2°C in one year but without correlation with temperature in another
year (Stauffer et al. 1976). Final preferendum for johnny darter was 11-22°C (Wyman
1981)with larvae having 17-20°C (Floyd et al. 1984) or 24.5°C (Marcy 1976). Marcy
(1976)reported larval johnny darter's upper avoidance at 24.5°C. Optimum for the
fantail darter spawning and hatching was reported to be 21.1°C (Scott and Crossman
1973). The NC DENR rated the darters from "intolerant" (gilt, tangerine, greenfin, olive)
to "intermediate" (all others).
In 1995 and 2000, three species of darters were common upstream of the Mill
(greenside form gutselli(now called Tuckasegee darter), greenfin, and tangerine) (EA
1996; 2001). In 2000,these three species were all collected downstream of the Mill,
although greenside gutselli/Tuckasegee was widely distributed but rare to uncommon,
while greenfin and tangerine were rare downstream of the Mill. The temperature
tolerances are not known for these species. Greenside gutselli/Tuckasegee and greenfin
are largely restricted to the Blue Ridge physiographic province so it is reasonable to
assume that they are cold-water forms (EA 2001). In the 2001 study report,it was
hypothesized that continuation of the thermal limits for the Mill may prevent or retard
establishment of greenfin and perhaps tangerine in the North Carolina portion of the
mainstem (EA 2001). However, both species were found in the warmest stations in 2005,
Fiberville and Thickety, suggesting that recolonization from upstream is occurring and
that the thermal and other habitat conditions downstream of the Mill are suitable for the
species (Wilson and Coutant 2006).
Four species of darters (greenside form newmani(now called E. blenioides),
redline E. ruf:lineatum, snubnose E. simoterum, and logperch P. caprodes) were common
to abundant in the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River mainstem in the 2000 studies.
In 2005, three of them (not logperch) were found uniquely in the Tennessee reach,
although the snubnose darter was represented by only one specimen(Wilson and Coutant
2006). Temperatures there are not particularly different from those in the lower portion
of the North Carolina segment. Three darter species,tangerine,Tuckaseegee, and
greenfin,were among the species identified in the September 7, 2007 fish kill (Appendix
D),which indicates that they had been occupying the river reach immediately
downstream of the thermal discharge prior to the unusual events that caused the kill.
Darters have been reintroduced to the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River since
2001 and the North Carolina portion since 2005 (Appendix Q. In Tennessee, gilt,
bluebreast E. camurum, blueside E.jessaie, stripetail E. kennicotti and tangerine have
been released. Gilt darters were the most released in North Carolina, although banded
darters began to be released in 2009.
- 78 -

In 2012, some species of darter was collected at all stations, including stations in
the thermally affected river between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir(Appendix B).
Diversity of darter species was highest(6 species) in the thermally affected reach
between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir(Swannanoa reference sites and tributaries
each had 5 species,the Tennessee Pigeon River 4, and upper Pigeon River basin
reference stations 3). Darters were abundant in the upper Pigeon River basin reference
stations (average 77 per station, range 55-100), the Swannanoa River reference stations
(average 74.5,range 55-94), and in the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River mainstem
(average 81.3, range 38-115). They were noticeably less abundant in the mainstem
downstream of the Mill (average 9.8, range 2-23) and in the tributaries (average 11.5,
range 4-27). Greenfin was the most prominent darter in the upper Pigeon River reference
stations followed by Tuckasegee and a few tangerine. The redline darter was the most
prominent species in the Tennessee segment of the river, with greenside and snubnose
making up most of the rest. In the Swannanoa reference stations, the fantail and redline
darters predominated, with some banded, greenside, and gilt collected at one station. In
tributaries, Tuckasegee darter was found at all stations, greenfin was incidental in
Jonathan's and Richland creeks, and gilt was found in only Richland Creek. Below the
Mill, there was a mixture of species showing some longitudinal separation. Greenfrn was
found closer to the Mill (stations at PRM 55.5-63.0)whereas banded and gilt were in the
lower reaches (PRM 48.2-57.7). Tuckasegee darter,however,was found at all stations
except PRM 61.0. Habitat,temperature, other water quality factors, locations of
reintroductions, or random dispersal may be responsible for the longitudinal differences
among species, which cannot be resolved with available information.
Although numbers of darters in the thermally affected reach of river remain lower
than at reference sites or in the Tennessee portion of the river,the species, numbers and
distribution are improving with time, demonstrating sustainability and propagation. This
indicates that ability to recolonize,rather than thermal sensitivity, is the main reason for
their lower abundance in the North Carolina reach. Site fidelity of darters is high with
few long-range excursions; 80-97% of individuals remained in the habitat patch of their
capture for up to one year, with average distance moved being less than 200 meters
(Dammeyer et al. 2013). Direction of movement was found to be biased towards
upstream by both younger and older fish. Upstream movement from Tennessee is
blocked by Walters Dam. Colonization from upstream reaches would be slow since the
stream habitat required by darters is interrupted by the pool behind the low-head dam in
Canton. Darter reintroductions are underway, sponsored in part by Evergreen, which
should further accelerate the trend toward increased darters.
Species and numbers of darters in the thermally affected reach are on an
increasing trend under the current permit conditions, demonstrating sustainability.
Darters are more diverse in the thermally affected reach than in reference stations,
although numbers remain lower, likely due to slow recolonization from historical
pollution. The species mix differs among sampling locations. Some avoidance of
warmest areas is probable under extremely warm thermal conditions. Darters are
protected and are propagating at the thermal limits now in effect. Darters are not
species whose presence and abundance would be fostered by the thermal discharge.
- 79 -

V
3.3.9. River Chub,Nocomis micropogon
The river chub is a native, pelagic omnivore. There is little thermal tolerance
information available for this species, although the NC DENR rated it as "intermediate"
in overall tolerance to pollution. The Critical Thermal Maximum for 15°C-acclimated
river chub was 30.9°C (Kowalski et al. 1978; Spotila et al. 1979). Spawning has been
observed in the range 19-28°C (Carlander 1969). Initial nest-building behavior was
observed 11.9-20.6°C (Brown 1976). ,Based on this limited information, it appears that
the species is moderately tolerant of warm temperatures.
In the 2005 study, it was the most abundant species in the station upstream of the
Mill, was found in moderate numbers just below the Mill at Fiberville, but disappeared
for the next three stations (Wilson and Coutant 2006). It reappeared at PRM 54.5 and
was fairly abundant at Ferguson Bridge (PRM 48.2). It was not found in the Tennessee
portion of the Pigeon River. Its absence from PRM 55.5 to 61 in 2005 was thought to be
related to temperatures, although warmer temperatures occurred at Fiberville. Catches at
Fiberville may have been from the cooler side of the river, however.
River chub have been introduced to the Pigeon River in Tennessee only
(Appendix Q. Tennessee releases of 226 fish occurred between April 2005 and August
2011 to augment existing populations.
In 2012 (Appendix B), it was abundant at reference stations upstream of the Mill
(average 27.8,range 17-51), in tributaries (average 24.5, range 2-50), and especially in
the Swannanoa River reference sites (average 99.5, range 81-118). In the reach from the
Mill to Waterville Reservoir, it was absent from the uppermost four stations and then
gradually increased going downstream to a high at Ferguson Bridge (PRM 48) before
declining again at Hepco (PRM 45.3). The species was not found in the Tennessee
portion of the Pigeon River. Habitat changes near the Mill since the 2005 study may be
responsible for lack of this species at Fiberville.
The 2012 gradient of increasing abundance with distance downstream of the Mill
and the low average numbers there relative to reference sites would suggest a negative
influence of the discharge, thermal or other, or of the habitat in the reach near the Mill,
on this species. Its ecological functions are being met by other species.
3.3.10. Mottled Sculpin, Cottus bairdi
The mottled Sculpin is a native, bottom-dwelling insectivore that appears to be a
cold-water species. Fish acclimated to 15°C had a CTM of 30.9°C (Kowalski et al.
1978). The final preferendum has been reported to be 16.5°C (Coutant 1977) and 16.7°C
(Wyman 1981). The optimum temperature for spawning is said to be 12.8°C with a
range of 5-16.1°C and suitable hatching 7.8-17.3°C (Brown 1976). Scott and Crossman
(1973) report optimum spawning at 10°C. The NC DENR rated it as"intermediate"in
general pollution tolerance.
- 80 -

In 2005, the mottled sculpin was fairly abundant above the Mill, and occurred
incidentally at the next three stations downstream(Wilson and Coutant 2006). It was
missing from below Clyde to Waterville Reservoir and only one specimen was found in
Tennessee. In 2012, it was found almost exclusively in the reference stations in the
Pigeon River upstream of the Mill (average 23.3,range 7-45). Three specimens were
captured at Golf Course (PRM 52.3) in the reach between the Mill and Waterville
Reservoir while none were captured in tributaries, Swannanoa River, or in the mainstem
in Tennessee.
This cold-water species appears unsuited for lower-elevation mainstems and
tributaries in the Pigeon and Swannanoa watersheds, regardless of the thermal
discharge, as evidenced by absence in the Swannanoa reference locations and tributaries
of the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill. The species is an unsatisfactory RIS due to
its low abundance.
3.3.11. Banded Sculpin, Coitus earolinae
The banded sculpin is also a native, bottom-dwelling insectivore. No thermal
tolerance information was found for the banded sculpin, although the NC DENR rated it
as"intermediate" in general pollution tolerance. It occurred only in the Tennessee reach
of the Pigeon River in 2005 (Wilson and Coutant 2006), where it also was abundant in
previous studies (EA 1988, 1995,2001). It was found in the reach from the confluence
of the East Fork and West Fork to the Mill in only one study(EA 1996).
In 2012, it was not found in the Pigeon River at reference stations or thermally
influenced stations. It was also not found at the Swannanoa River reference stations or
in tributaries to the Pigeon River from the Mill to Waterville Reservoir. It was found
only in the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon River, where it averaged 52 per station, range
36-73. This continues the pattern in previous studies.
The species has essentially no exposure to the Mill's discharges. It is not found in
the reference locations and found only in the Pigeon River in Tennessee. Based on this
limited thermal tolerance information and limited occurrence, it is not a good species to
be considered as an RISfor the Mill's discharge.
3.3.12. Common Carp, Cyprinus carpio
The common carp is a thermally tolerant species that can become a nuisance
when overly abundant because its feeding activity disrupts aquatic habitats for other
species. Although collected at temperatures up to 39.5°C (EPRI 1981), its upper
avoidance temperature (juveniles and adults) was determined to be 34.5°C with a
preference for 29-32°C (summarized by Coutant 1977). Optimal temperatures were
reported to be in the range 33-35°C (Gammon 1973). Depending on acclimation state,
the lethal temperature after prolonged exposure is 36-40°C (EPRI 1981). In rapid heating
tests for Critical Thermal Maximum, small and large carp acclimated to 23.3°C showed
irreversible loss of equilibrium at 38-39°C (Spotila et al. 1979). The lethal temperature
- 81 -

- for eggs is 35°C (Jinks et al. 1981) and for larvae is 36-38°C (Talmage 1978). The NC
DENR rated the common carp as"tolerant."
The common carp has been moderately common below the Mill, but not
excessively so (EA 1996, 2001, and Wilson and Coutant 2006). Its abundance appears to
be declining in the thermally affected reach. In the 2005 study, 33 carp were collected,
which represented only 1% of the total catch. It was not collected upstream of the Mill in
2005, and fewer than 10 were collected at each North Carolina station except Hepco
where none were collected. In 2012, 22 carp were collected, all in the Pigeon River. It
was not collected at reference stations upstream of the Mill or in the Swannanoa
reference stations. It appeared in five of nine stations between the Mill and Waterville
Reservoir,with an average catch of 1.9 per station(range 0-6). Few carp could be found
in Waterville Reservoir for sampling for dioxins in fish(Henry and Wilson 2006). The
state has determined that carp are not abundant enough to be considered a nuisance
species in the Pigeon River(memo from Bryn Tracy dated 17 March 2000, as reported in
EA 2001).
Although the thermally tolerant and potentially nuisance common carp occurs
sporadically in the river downstream of the Mill, it is not abundant enough to be a
nuisance. It is not a species warranting protection and propagation. Its numbers are
decliningfrom previous studies, indicating that the recent thermal conditions may be
reducing its sustainability.
3.3.13.RIS Summary
In summary, most RIS meet the 316(a) criteria of protection,propagation,
sustainability, and non-domination by pollution-tolerant species. For fish taxa considered
as related groups of species (shiners and darters),the criterion of diversity within the
group is also met. Only one species, the river chub, is not found at sites close to the
thermal discharge and is low in numbers farther downstream relative to reference sites.
Two thermally tolerant and less favored species, the non-native common carp and
redbreast sunfish, occur only sporadically and are declining (carp) or are less dominant
than previously found (redbreast sunfish in relation to its native competitor,rock bass).
Neither is considered a nuisance species in the Pigeon River. Two sculpin species are so
spottily distributed that they were poor choices for RIS. Several RIS will likely avoid the
near field thermal plume area for a moderate period (perhaps a few weeks) under worst-
case thermal conditions and avoid it for short periods of the time(hours or days) during
normal summer low-flow periods, based on thermal preference data. Avoidance during
the summer is not a problem for populations unless several factors occur: no alternative
habitat is available (thermal refuge,which may have been the case in September 2007),
the period of avoidance is long, fish are forced to leave critical spawning areas, or
migratory movements are blocked. None of these conditions appear to be present under
normal or normally low flows.
Among the RIS,the darters (as a group) are conspicuously reduced in numbers
throughout the North Carolina reach downstream of the Mill (although present at all
- 82-

= stations). As noted in previous study reports,the improvements to both water quality and
the biota should allow darter species to recolonize the North Carolina reach downstream
of theMill (EA 1996, 2001; Wilson and Coutant 2006). This seems to be occurring
based on the 2012 studies and the September 2007 fish kill report (Appendix B,
Appendix D). It remains likely that the somewhat more thermally tolerant Ridge and
Valley assemblage of darter species would naturally come to replace the Blue Ridge
assemblage in lower reaches of the Pigeon River. However, because Walters Dam
prevents upstream movement of the Ridge and Valley assemblage from the Tennessee
portion of the Pigeon River,the artificial recolonization effort is important (Appendix C).
Consistent with previous reports, the species that are somewhat thermally
sensitive (e.g., black redhorse, Tuckasegee darter, northern hogsucker) have either
maintained population levels in the river or increased noticeably since 1995. Similarly,
smallmouth bass numbers have increased and strong reproduction is evident in large
numbers of young fish. These improvements would not have occurred if elevated
temperatures allowed under the current permit were a significant limiting factor.
3.4. OTHER SPECIES OF INTEREST
Species other than the approved RIS (all fish)have been subjects of discussion
and debate related to Pigeon River recovery. Freshwater mussels are of special interest,
particularly the Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana and the wavyraycd
lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola that have been found in the Pigeon River since the last
316(a) study and demonstration(Fraley and Simmons 2006;NC DENR April 2,2012
Memorandum from E. Fleek to T. Belnick). The invasive clam Corbicula, aquatic
crayfish and salamanders were singled out for attention in the debate over issuing the
previous thermal variance. Information on the aquatic plant,Podostemum, a habitat
former for macroinvertebrates, was requested by NC DENR(April 2, 2012 Memorandum
from E. Fleek to T. Belnick).
3.4.1. Freshwater Mussels
3.4.1.1. Appalachian Elktoe,Alasmidonta raveneliana
The federal and state endangered Appalachian elktoe (NC WRC 2009; USFWS
2002; 59 FR 60324)is known only from the mountain streams of western North Carolina
and eastern Tennessee. Available information suggests that the species once lived in the
majority of the rivers and larger creeks of the upper Tennessee River system in North
Carolina,with the possible exception of the Hiwassee and Watauga River systems. In
Tennessee, the species is known only from the mainstem of the Nolichucky River. It
currently has a fragmented,relict distribution, with six surviving populations detailed in
USFWS (2002). It is federally listed"wherever found" (USFWS 2012); a recovery plan
was published in 1996 (USFWS 1996). In the Pigeon River system, a small population
occurs in small, scattered sites in the West Fork and in the mainstem upstream of Canton.
This reach supports one of the only two populations in the French Broad River system. It
inhabits relatively shallow, medium-sized permanent creeks and rivers with cool, clean,
- 83 -

- well-oxygenated, moderately fast-flowing water. It is most often found in riffles,runs
and shallow flowing pools,with relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate.
Stability of substrate appears critical, and the species has not been found where there are
accumulations of silt or shifting substrate unless washed there by high river discharge.
These conditions occur in moderate to high stream gradient where there is periodic
natural flooding.
The species has a thin, kidney-shaped shell reaching up to about 10 centimeters.
Juveniles generally have yellowish-brown outer shell surface, while adults are usually
dark brown to greenish-black. Rays may be prominent or obscure. It feeds by filtering
organic material from the flowing water. Reproduction is typical of most freshwater
mussels: males release sperm into the water in summer, females collect sperm through
their siphons during respiration, fertilized eggs are retained until glochidia larvae fully
develop,parasitic glochidia are released to the host fish (two sculpin species,mottled
Cottus bairdi and banded C. carolinae), glochidia are released to settle to the substrate
and transform to the largely sedentary juvenile. In the Little Tennessee River, spawning
occurred late August-mid September and brood larvae overwinter until they are released
in late April-mid May(USFWS 2005). Its life cycle has not been studied in the Pigeon
River system and it has not been propagated in captivity. The species is sensitive to
numerous pollutants and land uses associated with human occupation. It has no
economic value except as an indicator of good habitat quality.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the species in 2005 "to ensure that
the classification of the species as...endangered...is accurate" (Federal Register Vol. 70,
No 181, September 20, 2005; USFWS 2005). The Pigeon River population comprising
(at that time) 22.6 km (14.04 mi)was considered "restricted to scattered areas" and
"vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event, such as a major chemical
spill." The Service concluded that listing was still warranted and that additional
monitoring of the Pigeon River population was needed to determine long-term population
trends. '
This species is one of two found at one sampling station upstream of Canton,
North Carolina(Fraley and Simmons 2006). Although sampling sites did not extend
downstream of Canton (their Figure 1 and Appendix Table A2-3), Fraley and Simmons
(2006) stated that"the downstream distribution of Appalachian elktoe in the Pigeon River
ends abruptly at Canton where habitat becomes unsuitable due to a small impoundment
and physico-chemical impacts from point and non-point sources."
The US Fish and Wildlife has designated stream reaches in the Little Tennessee,
French Broad, and Nolichucky river systems as critical habitats (USFWS 2002). Part of
the Pigeon River system is one of those critical habitats: "the mainstem of the West Fork
Pigeon River(French Broad River System), from the confluence of the Little East Fork
Pigeon River, downstream to the confluence of the East Fork Pigeon River, and the
mainstem of the Pigeon River, from the confluence of the West Fork Pigeon Rivet and
the East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the N.C. Highway 215 Bridge crossing south
of Canton,NC." This amounted to 17.8 km (11.1 miles) in 2002, although additional
- 84 -

collections extended that to 22.6 km (14.04 mi) by 2005. The criteria correspond to the
habitat requirements noted above.
No references to thermal requirements of this species have been found.
Suitability of the thermally affected reach of the Pigeon River downstream of Canton for
its protection,propagation and sustainability has not been tested.
In the 2012 Balanced and Indigenous study, we found none of this species at
sampling sites in the thermally affected reach, in the Tennessee portion of the Pigeon
River, or at reference sites. It has been judged premature to attempt reintroduction.
3.4.1.2 Wavy-rayed Lampmussel,Lampsilisfasciola
The wavy-rayed lampmussel, a species of concern in North Carolina(LeGrand
2006;NCWRC 2009),is distributed discontinuously from the Great Lakes drainages of
Canada to Alabama and Illinois to New York(Mulcrone 2006). It is a rare occurrence in
smaller, upstream creeks or in downstream areas of larger rivers. The species is generally
found in more or less solid sand and gravel bottom in riffles and rapid waters. An adult
may reach 8 cm long and have a rounded or oval shape to its fairly thick shell. The outer
shell layer is smooth, yellow to yellow-brown, with thin wavy green rays. Older
specimens tend to be more brown. Feeding is by filtration of suspended organic material
from the water. It is sexually dimorphic, with males having a compressed shell while
females are inflated. Males release sperm into the water; eggs are fertilized via the
respiratory current and held internally in the female. The female has a distinct mantle
flap, which resembles a minnow or darter. The mimic fish lures its host fish(smallmouth
bass Micropterus dolomieu, largemouth bass M. salmoides or rock bass Ambloplites
rupestris), and the larval glochidia are injected into the fish's mouth for attachment to its
gills, where it is parasitic until release (important for dispersal). Age to sexual maturity is
not known. Gamete formation is initiated by increasing water temperatures in spring;
fertilized gametes have a gestation period of up to 10 months; most once-a-year
reproduction is presumed to occur in summer months. The species has no economic
importance other than being an indicator of good water quality. It has been cultured in
the laboratory and introduced to augment depleted stocks,particularly in Virginia and
Tennessee, with"fledgling efforts in North Carolina" (Neves 2004). There are
particularly strong recovery efforts in Canada(Young and Koops 2010).
In North Carolina, this species occurs in the Nolichucky and Pigeon Rivers
(French Broad River system), the Little Tennessee and Tuckasegee rivers (Little
Tennessee River system) and the Hiwassee River(Fraley 2002). In the Pigeon River,this
species is one of two that had been found (with the Appalachian elktoe), at stations in the
upper river above Canton,North Carolina(there was no sampling below there; Fraley and
Simmons 2006, Appendix tables A2-3,A2-10). It is believed to have occurred
historically through the lower Pigeon River in North Carolina and Tennessee as well as
most counties in western North Carolina(NCWRC 2009). Regionally, Fraley and
Simmons (2006) found this species in the nearby North Toe River(Appendix Table A2-
3) and the Toe River(Appendix Table A2-4).
- 85 -

r 1 Only one reference to thermal requirements of this species has been found.
Unpublished observations by C. Jones (Old Dominion University) cited in Dunn and
Petro (2012) noted that newly metamorphosed juveniles of the wavy-rayed lampmussel
experienced high rates of mortality during laboratory holding at 26-27°C.
Water quality downstream of Canton was shown to be suitable for survival and
growth of late juveniles of this species. Rooney (2010) conducted an in-situ
reintroduction study with captively propagated, individually marked juveniles of two
sizes placed in enclosures in the river at two sites upstream of Canton and three
downstream sites in North Carolina and monitored for one year. Survival was equivalent
whereas growth was greatest at downstream sites (the downstream site nearest Canton
and immediately downstream of the paper Mill was not significantly different from the
upstream sites). Mussels studied by Rooney were monitored through 2012 and then
released in the river(e-mail from Dr. Martin, December 5, 2012). Some of Rooney's
mussels were observed to be gravid, suggesting suitability for reproduction(e-mail from
S. Fraley, December 5, 2012).
Wavy-rayed lampmussels were introduced into the Pigeon River below the Mill
in 2011-2013 (in the vicinity of Richland Creek)by NC DENR and Western Carolina
University (§1.5.2.5; Appendix C). They have also been released above the Mill and in
the Tennessee portion of the river. These introductions are being observed by the agency
and university for survival, growth and reproduction. Monitoring has identified some
survivors in Tennessee.
In the present Balanced and Indigenous study, we found no individuals of this
species at sampling sites in the thermally affected reach, in the Tennessee portion of the
river, or at reference sites. Active reintroduction programs are underway.
3.4.1.3 Asiatic Clam, Corbicula jluminea
The only mussel found throughout the lower Pigeon River currently is the
introduced and rapidly spreading Corbicula fluminea, which has an upstream extent as of
2012 at Canton with densities similar to that found in the Little Tennessee River(e-mail
from Dr. Thomas Martin to C.C. Coutant,December 5, 2012 based on an unpublished
study). The low-head dam upstream of the Mill is suspected of being a temporary barrier
to upstream spread.
The Asiatic clam is a small, light-colored bivalve found at the sediment surface or
slightly buried. The genus Corbicula is native to temperate to tropical southern Asia
west to the eastern Mediterranean Sea, Africa south of the Sahara desert, and Southeast
Asian islands south into central and eastern Australia(USGS 2013). It was first found in
the United States in 1938 in the Columbia River,possibly brought as food by Asian
immigrants. It has spread to 38 states through major river systems throughout the
continental country and Hawai'i,particularly in the Southeast. Densities have been
documented to occur by the thousands per square meter, often dominating the benthic
- 86 -

community. It is a filter feeder that removes particles from the water column. It
reproduces rapidly (hermaphrodites that can self fertilize), has high fecundity (up to 600-
700 juveniles per day (Aldridge and McMahon 1978) and delivers 230 µm pediveligers
that are readily dispersed (Kraemer and Galloway 1986). Its method of dispersal to such
widely separated habitats is not known, except as transported by humans (large range
extensions) and transport of juveniles by water currents (locally). The species is a
biofouler,with tendencies to clog water systems, especially power plants with thermal
discharges where warm effluents can provide a thermal refuge for cold winters. There
can be wide swings in population abundance. It is fed upon by fish and crayfish.
Upper and lower thermal tolerances are well understood. Habel (1970, cited in
Mattice and Dye 1976) acclimated clams to—23°C and exposed them for four days to
temperatures of29 to 38°C, finding the upper incipient lethal temperature (50%) to be
34°C. The upper median thermal tolerance in laboratory tests of continuous exposure
after acclimation to 30°C was reported to also be 34°C,with initial mortalities at 30°C
and full mortality at 390C (Mattice and Dye 1976). No clams survived attempted
acclimation at 2 and 35°C when temperatures were raised or lowered<1°C/day from
—15°C well water to the desired acclimation temperature(Mattice and Dye 1976).
Karatayev et al. (2005)reported the upper tolerance limit to be 36-37°C. It has a low
tolerance for cold temperatures (initial mortalities at 2°C regardless of acclimation, but
50%mortality 15°C for 30°C-acclimated clams; Mattice and Dye 1976). Cold
temperature intolerance is understood to restrict northward expansion.
In the 2012 studies, Corbicula were found at all Pigeon River basin stations up to
PRM 64.5,where there was one found.None were found at the stations in the East and
West forks. Heretofore, Corbicula appeared to have been stopped in its regional upstream
invasions by the low-head dams at Canton(§1.5.2.5). Highest numbers were found at
PRM 61.0 (19) and PRM 52.3 (23). All other thermally affected sites in North Carolina
averaged 4.6 (range 2-8). Numbers at the three stations in Tennessee were also low
(average 2.7, range 2-3). There were none in the Swannanoa River.
Although Corbicula is a thermally tolerant species, its presence downstream of
the Mill,while found by only one specimen upstream of the Mill, does not result from the
thermal additions by the Mill. The two sites of highest abundance do not correlate well
with river temperatures, and likely reflect local physical habitat conditions. It is a species
that is expanding its range dramatically across the U.S. It is found and expanding
upstream, in all streams in the region (unpublished surveys by Dr. Thomas Martin and
students). Abundance in the reach downstream of the Mill is similar to that in the Little
Tennessee River,which is unaffected by thermal discharges. A low-head dam just
upstream of the thermal discharge may presently be reducing upstream expansion,but the
species' expansion history elsewhere and the one specimen found above the low-head
dams suggest that it will not be much of a barrier for long. The thermal effluent could
provide a warm thermal refuge for Corbicula in the rare events when the Pigeon River
cools to below 2°C in winter.
- 87 -

The exotic Corbicula is expanding its range regionally and has reached above
Canton between the 2005 and 2012 surveys (one specimen). Its distribution is not
correlated well with river temperatures. Because of the ongoing regional invasion, its
presence and abundance are not amenable to comparisons between reference and
thermally affected sites.
3.4.1.4 Other Mussel Species in the Region
Other mussel species found by Fraley and associates in the region might be found
in the Pigeon River basin with more thorough sampling. They were not found in the
2012 BIP surveys or by recent surveys by others. Further surveys of mussels in the
Pigeon River watershed should be on the lookout for these species.
French Broad River system
Although the Appalachian elktoe and wavy-rayed lampmussel are the only two
mussel species identified from the Pigeon River system, Fraley and Simmons (2006)
noted four other species in parts of the French Broad River system. These have the
potential to be found in the Pigeon. They are the slippershell Alasmodonta viridis(found
in the Mills and South Mills rivers; a North Carolina Endangered Species), creeper
Strophitus undulans (Mills, South Mills, Little and French Broad rivers) and the longsolid
Fusconaia subrotunda (Little River).
Little Tennessee and Hiwassee River systems
Several remnant populations of mussel species have been found in the nearby
Little Tennessee and Hiwassee river systems (Fraley 2002) and might be found to occur
in the Pigeon River system. The littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula is a federal
endangered species found sparsely in both rivers. The Tennessee pigtoe Fusconaia
barnesiana is a North Carolina Endangered Species that is very rare and has been found
in both river systems. The rainbow Villosa sp. cf iris is a widespread species (St.
Lawrence, Mississippi, Ohio River basins) found in the Little Tennessee and Hiwassee
river systems where it is a North Carolina species of Special Concern. The slippershell
was found in the Little Tennessee River.
3.4.2. Crayfish
Crayfish are common inhabitants of rivers and streams in the Southern
Appalachians. A baseline literature and sampling survey of crayfish in the Pigeon River
watershed was conducted in 2009-2010 by David Casey B. Dunn (Dunn 2010). A total
of 1,320 crayfish specimens representing seven species were collected in the eight-month
study. Crayfish were found in nine Pigeon River tributaries, in the mainstem Pigeon
River upstream of the Mill (PRM 63.2), in the bypass reach downstream of Walters Dam,
and in the Tennessee portion of the river. No crayfish were found downstream of the
Mill in the river itself, despite reported collections there by others. Dunn describes
' stream crayfish species (and their habitats) that have been found in the Pigeon River
- 88 -

watershed, either through historical documentation or via his survey. The stream crayfish
are: common crayfish Cambarus bartonii, Cataloochee morph crayfish C. sp. nov. (a
taxonomically undescribed species), longnose crayfish C. longirostris, big water crayfish
C. robustus, surgeon crayfish Orconectes forceps, reticulate crayfish O: erichsonianus,
non-native virile crayfish O. virilis, and non-native White River crayfish Procambarus
acutus.
In 2012 University of Tennessee collections (Appendix B), small numbers of four
crayfish species were sampled in the Pigeon River watershed with a fifth species found in
the Swannanoa River reference site. The French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus was
the only species found in the Swannanoa. The non-native White River crayfish
Procambarus acutus was the only species found in the Pigeon River downstream of the
Mill in North Carolina (at PRM 52.3 and 55.5; both sites with only juveniles) and at an
upstream reference site (PRM 69.5). In the Pigeon River in Tennessee,two species were
collected, the common crayfish Cambarus b. bartonii and the long nose crayfish C.
longirostris. Tributaries to the Pigeon River in North Carolina downstream of the Mill
held crayfish: Jonathan's Creek yielded the common crayfish while Fines Creek yielded
both the common and Cataloochee Morph crayfish Cambarus (Puncticambarus)sp. nov.
The White River crayfish inhabits sloughs, swamps, and sluggish lowland streams
(USGS 2013). It is common and widespread with a discontinuous native range in the
coastal plain along the Atlantic coast from southern Maine to Georgia, along the Gulf
coast from the Florida panhandle to Mexico and north in the central Mississippi valley to
the southern Great Lakes from Minnesota to Ohio. Non-native records include central
Georgia, southern Appalachians in North Carolina and Tennessee, western Pennsylvania,
the middle Hudson Valley of New York, and along the northern Maine coast. It is widely
cultivated for bait,tolerant and adaptable, often spread in bait buckets. The species was
previously documented in the Pigeon River in 2005(PRM 59) and 2008 (PRM 52.3)
(Simmons and Fraley 2008; TVA 2009).
Temperature tolerance information is sparse for most species of crayfish. The
common crayfish C. bartonii is considered eurythermal,tolerating temperatures from
near 0 to 33-34°C. The species was reported to show significant mortality in the Stony
River; West Virginia in 2003 when maximum summer temperatures were 33°C but not in
2004 when maximum temperatures were 32°C (Hartman et al. 2010). These authors
concluded from field and laboratory tests that exposure to temperatures above 30-33°C
for>24 hours is required to cause significant mortality of C. bartoni. Laboratory studies
have determined the ultimate upper incipient lethal temperature for adult C. bartonii to be
33.8°C (Mirenda 1975) and 32.5°C for juveniles (100%mortality at 33°C but>90%
survival at 32°C; Cox and Beauchamp 1982). This species has been shown to migrate
out of warm streams into cooler tributaries in summer (Cossette and Rodriguez 2004),
which may account for finding crayfish mostly in tributaries of the Pigeon River during
summer sampling. Critical thermal maximum values for the rusty crayfish Orconectes
rusticus vary seasonally, ranging from 24°C in January to 39°C in midsummer then
falling to 33°C in November(Layne et al. 1987). The upper incipient lethal temperature
for the northwestern crayfish Pacifasticus leniusculus was 32-33°C (Becker et al. 1975).
- 89 -

--� These upper lethal temperatures suggest that thermal mortality is unlikely to be the cause
of lack of crayfish in the mainstem Pigeon River. Sensitive life stages may be less
tolerant of elevated temperature,however, such as at molting(Cox and Beauchamp
1982). Cambarus bartonii breeds in spring at cool temperatures but juveniles, which
molt frequently, occur in summer. Migration to tributaries at temperatures above
preferred or other water quality effects may be involved.
The non-native White River crayfish has apparently become established in the
Pigeon River in North Carolina, both upstream and downstream of the Mill. The
population is propagating in the middle reach below the Mill, as evidenced by juveniles
found there. Native crayfish found in the Swannanoa River, in the Pigeon River in
Tennessee, and other sites in the Pigeon River basin by Dunn (2010) were not found in
the thermally affected reach or reference sites in the upper Pigeon River. Too few
crayfish were collected to speculate about protection and sustainability.
3.4.3. Salamanders
A baseline survey of stream salamander species in the Pigeon River basin was
conducted in the summer of 2009 (Maxwell 2009). Eight stations were sampled in the
mainstem Pigeon River, four upstream of the Mill and four downstream. Three stations
were also sampled in each of four tributaries, Big Creek,Fines Creek, Jonathan's Creek
and Richland Creek. A total of 53 salamanders were found at seven of the 20 stations
visited. Five of eight species of stream salamanders were found that historically had been
reported for Haywood County,NC: Blue Ridge two-lined salamander Eurycea wilderae
(the most abundant), Eastern hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, shovel-nosed
salamander Desmognathus marmoratus, blackbellied salamander,D. quadramaculatus,
and spring salamander Gyrinophilus porphyriticus. No salamanders were found in the
main channel of the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill or in two of the tributaries
(Fines and Richland creeks). Nineteen salamanders were found in the river upstream of
the Mill. Stream width,percent rubble substrate and water quality (conductivity, salinity,
turbidity, temperature) were the main features affecting salamander abundance, richness
and diversity.
Temperature tolerance literature on salamanders comes primarily from
experiments on Critical Thermal Maximum(CTM; Hutchinson 1961) and shows high
thermal tolerances. Like fish, salamanders acclimate to warmer temperatures up to a
lethal temperature. Two species of Desmognathus (D.fuscus fuscus and D.
quadramaculatus)had CTM of 32.2 and 31.4°C, respectively,when acclimated to 15°C.
Acclimation to warmer temperatures would have yielded higher CTMs. Other
salamanders were acclimated up to 35.5°C(Diemictylus v. louisianensis) and 34.0 (D. v.
viridescens),with different populations of D. viridescens from locations across North
Carolina showing CTM values of 41-43°C for warm-acclimated individuals (Hutchinson
1961). CTM values were lower in cool seasons but all were above 37°C. Amblystoma
opacum could be acclimated to 35°C. Three species of Eurycea(multiplicata, ludifuga
and longicaudata) acclimated to 15°C exhibited CTM values of 37.5, 37.2 and 37.6°C
Sealander and West 1969). Based on these results, it seems unlikely that lack of stream
- 90 -

salamanders downstream of the Mill would have been due to upper thermal tolerances
being exceeded in summer.
Stream salamanders that were found at sites not affected by the thermal discharge
appear to be missing from the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill, based on an initial
baseline survey in 2009.
3.4.4. Aquatic Plant,Podostemum ceratophyllum
Podostemum is of special interest because it provides stable habitat for
macroinvertebrates (habitat former; Hutchens et al. 2004;NC DENR April 2,2012
Memorandum from E. Fleek to T. Belnick). The hornleaf riverweed Podostemum
ceratophyllum is a submerged aquatic flowering plant native to eastern and upper
Midwest of North America. It is found in all North Carolina counties bordering
Tennessee, including Haywood County(USDA 2013). It thrives in open-canopy,
shallow rapids attached to bedrock or coarse bed sediments of rivers and streams
(Hutchens et al. 2004). Podostemum forms a thick mat on stable substrates, and may
also form long (>15 cm) stems during summer. The mats and stems are a substrate for
epiphytic algae (periphyton) as well as macroinvertebrates. It is generally indicative of
high quality, oxygenated rivers (Hill and Webster 1984). Its presence and abundance has
been negatively related to a high percentage of forested cover, and it is more likely to
occur in the center of a channel in areas with larger sediment sizes,but there was no
strong support for effects of agricultural land use (Argentina et al. 2010). It often has
patchy distribution likely due to clonal growth with low seed production and poor
dispersal ability (Philbrick and Novelo 1997). Argentina et al. (2010) expected it to be
slow to recover following disturbances such as sediment scour. The species has been
reported to occur May-September at 20.0-30.0°C with a mean temperature 24.8°C in the
New River,NC and VA, with peak photosynthesis often occurring in late summer(Hill
and Webster 1984). Temperatures of 21.5-30°C accompanied large mats of hornleaf
riverweed in mid July 1999 in the Clinch River, Tennessee (Carter et al. 2000).
Podostemum has been repeatedly demonstrated to be an important substrate for
promoting benthic invertebrate biomass, abundance, and species richness (references in
Hutchens et al. 2004) and to positively influence the abundance of several fish species,
including the banded darter, which is found in the Pigeon River(Etniar and Starnes
1993). Its role as a habitat former for invertebrates has been studied in the nearby Little
Tennessee River(Hutchens et al. 2004). The study involved complete, partial or no
removal of Podostemum from portions of four bedrock outcrops at two sites. Complete
removal greatly reduced overall macroinvertebrate abundance and biomass and altered
assemblage structure, but had relatively little effect on functional structure. There was a
strong positive relationship between surface area of Podostemum and total
macroinvertebrate abundance and biomass. They estimated that P. ceratophyllum
increased surface area by 3 to 4 times over bare bedrock,which was used most
abundantly by filter feeders. The basal portion of the plants provided most
macroinvertebrate habitat and productivity.
- 91 -

In the 2012 studies,presence or absence was noted at the fixed sampling stations
for fish and macroinvertebrates. Podostemum was found in three of four reference
stations upstream of the Mill, both stations in the reference Swarmanoa River, and two of
three stations in the Pigeon River in Tennessee, but not at all in the thermally affected
reach between the Mill and Waterville Reservoir (Appendix B). The species was not
examined in previous 316(a) studies, so there is no available history of change. Slow
dispersal ability due to clonal reproduction and poor seed production, combined with the
Pigeon River's stresses of flooding in 2004 and drought in 2007-2008 may be limiting its
ability to recolonize the thermally affected reach. Temperature does not appear to be a
limiting factor except in the reach nearest the Mill, where temperatures in summer can
exceed the reported upper limit of 30°C reported in the literature. Despite the lack of this
habitat former, macroinvertebrate populations are high and diverse.
Podostemum is lacking in the thermally affected reach in North Carolina but
present at most reference sites, but temperatures would exceed published upper thermal
tolerance limits only in the reach nearest the Mill. The reasons for the distribution are
speculative, but may relate to availability of appropriate hard substrate for attachment at
the sampling stations. In spite of being missing in the thermally affected reach, those
stations had high and diverse populations of macroinvertebrates, which commonly use
Podostemum as habitat.
3.5. COMMUNITY BALANCE
Although"balance" in an aquatic community is a somewhat archaic term for
modern ecology, the thermally affected reach of the Pigeon River exhibits qualities that
one would attribute to the notion of balance. In general, it is at least as balanced as the
reference locations. Recognizing that no two locations will have identical habitat and
identical biota occupying it, the thermally affected sites are reasonably similar to the
range of values seen at the reference locations. That implies that the thermally affected
sites are reasonably close to what would be expected at these sites without the influence
of the thermal discharge. The exception is the site closest to the thermal discharge, which
showed a summer community composition that was somewhat less similar to the
reference and other thermally affected sites. Locations near the thermal discharge are
often considered exceptions and categorized as official"mixing zones"where usual
thermal or biological criteria do not need to be met(the Canton Mill does not have an
official mixing zone). Attributes of community balance are described in previous parts of
Section 3 and summarized in the Master Rationale (Section 4).
3.6. WORST CASE ASSESSMENT
The worst case for biological effects of the thermal discharge is likely to be the
situation that occurred in September 2007 when a fish kill occurred. The conditions at
the time of the incident were thoroughly evaluated (Appendix D). During a regional
drought and period of exceedingly high temperatures,which occurred in streams
throughout the region,there was low flow in the Pigeon River at Canton, well below the
l 7Q10,while the Mill's discharge remained nearly constant in temperature and volume.
- 92 -

Notwithstanding discussion of a"thermal spike" in some reports of the fish kill,there
does not appear to have been an increase in Mill effluent temperature on that day or
before. Evidence suggests that river temperatures and their duration after mixing of
effluent with low river flow exceeded thermal tolerances of the fish in the assemblage
occupying the normal mixing zone between the outfall and somewhat downstream of
Fiberville Bridge: Lethally stressed fish of 13 species in the outfall area drifted
downstream and were found to about 6 km from the thermal outfall a day after the kill.
Temperatures quickly returned to non-lethal levels and fish were observed swimming in
the outfall area by the investigators in the day following the fish kill.
- 93 -

4. MASTER RATIONALE
This Master Rationale,taking into account all the data and analyses in accord with
the EPA Guidance Manual (EPA 1977), concludes that the thermal discharge of the
Canton Mill, as currently permitted,has provided for the protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous community of shellfish,fish and wildlife in the Pigeon River
downstream of the Mill's thermal effluent. The rationale is based on evaluation of
decision criteria in federal regulations implementing §316(a), the 1977 EPA guidance,
indicators of appreciable harm derived from historical decisions, and two features
stressed by the 2006 Brayton Point Environmental Appeals Board decision: 1)whether
the community of the thermally affected zone is what it would be without the thermal
discharge, based on comparison with reference locations, and 2)whether there is a trend
of decline or improvement in the community.
Each assessment element indicated strong or partial support for protection and
propagation of a balanced indigenous community in the Pigeon River downstream of the
Canton Mill and that the thermally affected reach hosts a community that is"balanced"
and similar to what would have been there without the thermal discharge (Table 4.1). All
trophic levels of the aquatic community (biotic categories) were present and examined in
the study. Diversity was high, although slightly less (but not statistically significant)
from reference stations. The community successfully sustains itself through cyclical
seasonal changes. Abundant food chain species are present. There is no domination by
pollution tolerant species except at the site closest to the thermal discharge in the warmest
months (algae and chironomids). Indigenous species are increasing over time relative to
pollution tolerant ones. Aquatic organisms are successfully reproducing, as demonstrated
by many young specimens. Freshwater mussels are the only T&E listed species; the
federally and state listed Appalachian elktoe is found upstream of the Mill,but not
downstream and is planned for reintroduction following successful survival and growth
of the state species of concern,the wavy-rayed lampmussell, in the thermally affected
reach. There are no critical function zones for aquatic life in the zone of initial mixing
other than a zone of passage,which has been demonstrated to occur through detailed
measurements and plume modeling. The thermal discharge and zone of initial mixing
cause minimal habitat exclusion in the warmest months in the 0.3 PRM between the
outfall and Fiberville Bridge. There are no unique or rare habitats affected by the heated
effluent. A habitat former,the hornleaf riverweed was not found at sampling stations in
the thermally affected reach but is also sporadic in reference areas;the macroinvertebrate
occupants of its habitat are nonetheless abundant in the thermally affected reach. Trends
in the aquatic community are toward progressive improvement since studies began in
1988. Nuisance species are not present or abundant when they occur. There are no
commercial fisheries in the Pigeon River,but the indigenous sports fish, smallmouth bass
and rock bass, have increased, especially relative to the non-native redbreast sunfish. The
magnitude and duration of any definable thermal effects (e.g.,warm-water periphyton
and chiromomids in the mixing zone) are generally low and of short duration during the
warmest times of year. The high species diversity, abundance of aquatic organisms, lack
of abnormalities in fish, good relative weights of fish all indicate low sub-lethal or
indirect impacts. Detailed evaluation of other pollutants in the Pigeon River(including
- 94-

r
permitted discharges) indicated a low likelihood that there would be detrimental
interaction with the added heat and warmer temperatures.
Reference area comparisons were favorable. Evaluation of the thermal and
biological data for nine thermally affected sites compared to six reference sites in the
Pigeon River watershed upstream of the Mill and the adjacent Swannanoa River showed
general and statistical similarity although there were some differences attributable to
historical pollution and geographic isolation that limits recolonization. Water
temperatures throughout the thermally affected reach were within the habitable zone for
aquatic life. The community in the zone of thermal mixing 0.3 PRM from the discharge
where temperatures were highest was the least similar to reference sites. Ongoing
reintroduction of fish and freshwater mussels are repopulating the thermally affected
reach with indigenous species. Other indigenous species (crayfish, salamanders) are
potential targets for additional reintroductions.
The trend of biological improvement of the thermally affected reach continued
from previous studies in 1988, 1995, 2000, and 2005. Species numbers of fish and
invertebrates have been increasing. The percentage of pollution intolerant species has
increased, such as the EPT group of macroinvertebrates and fish such as smallmouth bass
and rock bass;while relative numbers of pollution tolerant and non-indigenous species
has decreased, such as common carp and redbreast sunfish. Reintroductions of presumed
native species that have not recolonized on their own after years of absence have
_ generally been successful.
The detailed studies and analyses presented in this Demonstration support
the conclusion that the existing permit limitations on the thermal discharge are
appropriate for fostering a balanced and progressively improving biological
community in the Pigeon River. Therefore,Evergreen/Blue Ridge proposes the
alternative thermal limitation as written in the 2010 Permit, following revision by
the Settlement Agreement:
The Weekly Average instream temperature measured at a point 0.4 miles
downstream of the discharge location shall not exceed 32°C during the months
of July,August, and September and shall not exceed 29°C during the months of
October through June. The monthly average instream temperature measured
at this location shall not exceed the monthly average instream temperature of
the upstream monitoring location by more than 8.59C.
- 95 -

TABLE 4.1: Assessment summary,indicating whether the study data and
assessments support the conclusion that the thermal discharge, as currently
permitted and proposed for continuation, protects and propagates a balanced
indigenous community of shellfish(macroinvertebrates), fish and wildlife in the
Pigeon River. See text and Appendix B for details. NA=low abundance makes the
species a poor RIS.
Protection and Propagation of a Balanced Indigenous Community
Assessment Elements/ Fully Partially Does Not. Comments
Indicators of Appreciable Supports Supports Support
Harm
RIS:
Rock bass X ,
Shiners(group) X
Redbreast sunfish X
Central stoneroller X
Smallmouth bass X
Northern hogsucker X
Black redhorse X
Darters(group) X
Common carp
River chub X Some thermal effect
Mottled sculpin X Low abundance;NA
_ Banded sculpin Low abundance;NA
Trophic levels X All trophic levels present
Diversity X
Sustainability X
Food-chain species X
Domination by tolerant sp. X
Indigenous species change X
T&E.species(mussels) X Mussels being reintroduced
Critical function zones X
Habitat exclusion X Minor near dischg in summer
Unique habitat X
Habitat former X Sporadic distribution
Nuisance species X Corbicula up,carp down
Zone of passage X
Fisheries change X
Wildlife X Few crayfish&salamanders
Magnitude&duration X
Sublethal/indirect effects X
Interaction with pollutants X
Reference area comparisons X
Trends in community X
- 96 -

& REFERENCES
Adams, S. M.,A. Brown, and R. Goede. 1993. A quantitative health assessment index for
rapid evaluation of fish condition in the field. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 122:63-73.
Aldridge D.W., and R. F. McMahon. 1978. Growth, fecundity, and bioenergetics in a
natural population of asiatic freshwater clam, Corbicula manilensis Philippi,from
north central Texas.Journal of Molluscan Studies 44: 49-70.
Argentina, J. E., M. C. Freeman, and B. J. Freeman. 2010. Predictors of occurrence of the
aquatic macrophyte Podostemum ceratophyllum in a southern Appalachian river.
Southeastern Naturalist 9(3):465-476.
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen,B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Periphyton
protocols. Chapter 6 of Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and
wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish—Second Edition.
Environmental Protection Agency Report 841-B-99.002, Washington, DC. Accessed
at http://water.epa.pov/scitech/monitoring/rsVbioassessment/ch06main.cfin.
Becker, C. D.,R. G. Genoway, and J. S. Merrill. 1975. Resistance of a northwestern
crayfish,Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana),to elevated temperatures. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 104:374-387.
Block,J. E., G. W. Gerald,and T. D. Levine. 2013. Temperature effects on burrowing
behaviors and performance in a freshwater mussel. Journal of Freshwater Ecology,
DOI:10.1080/02705060.2013.767218.
Carter, B. D., C. E. Williams and R. D. Bivens. 2000. Warmwater streams fisheries report
Region IV 1999. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Report No. 00-10,Nashville,
Tennessee.
Cossette, C., and M. A. Rodriguez. 2004. Summer use of a small stream by fish and
crayfish and exchanges with adjacent lentic macrohabitats. Freshwater Biology
49:931-944.
Cox, D. K.,and J. J. Beauchamp. 1982. Thermal resistance of juvenile crayfish,
Cambarus bartonii(Fabricius): Experiment and model. American Midland Naturalist
108:187-193.
Dammeyer,N. T., C. T. Phillips, and T. H. Bonner. 2013. Site fidelity and movement of
Etheostoma fonticola with implications to endangered species management.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142:1049-1057.
Dunn, D. D. B. 2010. A survey of crayfish in the Pigeon River and its tributaries in
Tennessee and North Carolina. Thesis for the Masters of Science. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Dunn,H. L., and J. R. Petro. 2012. Freshwater mussel monitoring and alternate thermal
standards. Pages 19-1 to 19-24 in: Third Thermal Ecology and Regulation Workshop,
Report 1025382, EPRI, Palo Alto, California.
EA(EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc.). 1988. Synoptic survey of physical
and biological condition of the Pigeon River in the vicinity of Champion
International's Canton Mill. Sparks, Maryland.
EA. 1996. A study of the aquatic resources and water quality of the Pigeon River.
Deerfield, Illinois.
- 97 -

EA 2001. Canton Mill Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River.
Deerfield, Illinois.
EAB (Environmental Appeals Board). 2006. In Re Dominion Energy Brayton Point,
LLC, 12 Environmental Appeals Decision(E.A.D.)490.
EPA(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1977. Interagency 316(a) Technical
Guidance Manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities
Environmental Impact Statements; available on the Internet at
htti)://www.epa.goy/nvdesi)ub/pubs/owmOOOI.pdf
EPA. 1992. Review of Water Quality Standards, Permit Limitations, and Variances for
thermal discharges from Power Plants. EPA 831-R92001, Washington, D.C.
EPA 1998. Guidelinesfor Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA.630/R-95/002F.
Washington, D.C. available at:
www.eva.gov/raf/publications/Vdfs/ECOTXTBX.PDF
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Fraley, S. J. 2002. Mussel surveys associated with the Duke Power-Nantahala area
relicensing projects in the Little Tennessee and Hiwassee River systems. Prepared for
Duke Power Company, Charlotte,North Carolina by Tennessee Valley Authority,
Norris, Tennessee.
Fraley, S. J.,and J. W. Simmons. 2006 An assessment of selected rare mussel
populations in western North Carolina following extraordinary floods of September
2004. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Western Region,NC DENR
Contract No. EW06008.
Goede, R. W.,and B. A. Barton. 1990. Organism indices and an autopsy-based
assessment as indicators of health and condition of fish. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 8:93-108.
Habel, M. L. 1970. Oxygen consumption, temperature tolerance, and filtration rate of the
introduced Asiatic clam, Corbicula manilensis from the Tennessee River. M.S. thesis,
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Hartman, K. J.,C. D. Hom, and P. M. Mazik. 2010. Influence of elevated temperature
and acid mine drainage on mortality of the crayfish Cambarus bartonii. Journal of
Freshwater Ecology 25:19-30.
Henry, T. B., and J. L. Wilson. 2012. Results of 2011 Dioxin Monitoring in Fish Tissue.
Prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging, Canton,North
Carolina by University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Hill,B.H.,and J. R. Webster. 1984. Productivity of Podostemum ceratophyllum in the
New River, Virginia. American Journal of Botany 71: 130-136.
Hutchens, J. J., J. B. Wallace,and E. D. Romaniszyn. 2004. Role of Podostemum
ceratophyllum Michx. in structuring macroinvertebrate assemblages in a southern
Appalachian river. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:713-727.
Hutchinson, V. H. 1961. Critical thermal maxima in salamanders. Physiological Zoology
34:92-125.
IAEA(International Atomic Energy Agency). 1980.Environmental Effects of Cooling
Systems. Technical Reports Series No. 202. Vienna.
Karatayev, A. Y., L. E. Burlakova, and D. K. Padilla. 2005. Contrasting distribution and
impacts of two freshwater exotic suspension feeders,Dreissina polymorpha and
- 98 -

Corbicula fluminea. Pages 239-262 in: R. F. Dame, and S. Olenin,editors. The
comparative roles of suspension feeders in eosystems Dordrecht,Netherlands:
Springer
Kraemer L.R., Galloway M.L. (1986) Larval development of Corbiculafluminea
(Muller) (Bivalvia, Corbiculacea) - An appraisal of its heterochrony. American
Malacological Bulletin 4: 61-79.
Langford, T. E. L. 1990. Ecological Effects of Thermal Discharges. Elsevier Applied
Science, London and New York.
LaVoie, M. J. 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of drifting fish larvae in the upper
Pigeon River, Haywood County,North Carolina. Masters of Science thesis, Western
Carolina University, Cullowhee,North Carolina.
Layne. J.R.,Jr.. D.L. Claussen,and M.L. Manis. 1987. Effects of acclimation tempera-
ture, season, and time of day on the critical thermal maxima and minima of the
crayfish Orconectes rusticus. Journal of Thermal Biology 12:183-1 87.
LeGrand, H. E., S. P. Hall, S. E. McRae, and J. T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage
Program list of the rare animal species of North Carolina.North Carolina Heritage
Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Majewski, W.,and D. C. Miller, editors. 1979. Predicting Effects of Power Plant Once-
through Cooling on Aquatic Systems. Technical Papers in Hydrology 20. UNESCO,
Pans.
Mattice J. S., and L. L. Dye. 1976. Thermal tolerance of the adult Asiatic Clam. In: GW
Esch and RW McFarlane, editors. Thermal Ecology II, United States Energy
Research and Development Administration ERDA Symposium Series (CON F-
750425).National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,pp 130-35.
Maxwell,N. J. 2009. Baseline survey and habitat analysis of aquatic salamanders in the
Pigeon River,North Carolina. M.S. thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Mirenda, R. J. 1975. Temperature tolerance of the crayfish Cambarus bartonii
(Fabricius). Master's thesis Wake Forest Univerity,North Carolina.
Mulcrone, R. 2006. "Lampsilis fasciola"(On-line). Animal Diversity Web. Accessed
October 10, 2012 at
htto://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Lampsilis fasciola/
NAS/NAE(U.S. National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineering).
1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
EPA.R3.73.033.
Neves. R. 2004. Propagation of endangered freshwater mussels in North America.
Journal of Conchology, Special Publication 3:69-80.
NC DENR DWQ (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality). 2005. Post Hurricane Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne
biological monitoring (French Broad and Watauga river basins) and biological
sampling November 30-December 2, 2004. Technical Memorandum dated April 4,
2005. Raleigh,North Carolina.
NCDENR DWQ. 2009. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit NC0000272. Ashville,North
Carolina.
NCDENR DWQ. 2010. Letter from Colleen H. Sollens (DWQ)to Dane Griswold (Blue
Ridge Paper Products, Inc.) with attached Permit.
- 99 -

NC DOJ (North Carolina Department of Justice). 2012. RE: Cocke County TN v. DENR,
DWQ, and Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. OAH File No 10 EHR 4341; and Cocke
County TN v. EMC,NPDES Committee and Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. OAH
File No 10 EHR 4982.Asheville,North Carolina.
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2009.North Carolina
Mussel Atlas. Species information and status: wavy-rayed lampmussel. Accessed
October 11, 2012 at
http://www.ncwildlife.org(Wildlife Species Con/WSC Mussel 33.htm.
Olson, A. D. 2012. Life history traits of the mirror shiner,Notropis spectrunculus, in
western North Carolina. Thesis for Masters of Science, Western Carolina University,
Culhowee,North Carolina.
Pandolfo,T. J., W. G. Cope, C. Arellano,R. B. Bringolf, M. C. Barnhart, and E.
Hammer. 2010. Upper thermal tolerances of early life stages of freshwater mussels.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29(3):959-969.
Pandolfo, T. J., T. J. Kwak, and W. G. Cope. 2012. Thermal tolerances of freshwater
mussels and their host fishes: species interactions in a changing climate. Walkerana
15(1):69-82.
Philbrick, C. T., and R. A.Novelo. 1997. Ovule number, seed number, and seed size in
Mexican and North American species of Podostemaceae. Aquatic Botany 57:183-
200.
Rooney, C. E. 2010. In-situ feasibility study of freshwater mussel reintroduction: survival
and growth of the wavy-rayed lampmussel (Lampsisis fasciola)in the Pigeon River,
NC. Thesis for Masters of Science, Western Carolina University, Culhowee,North
Carolina.
Sealander,J. A., and B. W. West. 1969. Critical thermal maxima of some Arkansas
salamanders in relation to thermal acclimation. Herpetologica 25:122-124.
Simmons, R.J., and S. J. Fraley. 2008. Distribution status, and life history observations
of crayfishes in western North Carolina.North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission,Raleigh.
Simmons,J. W., and S. J. Fraley. 2010. Distribution, status and life-history observations
of crayfishes in western North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 9, Special Issue3:
79-126.
TVA(Tennessee Valley Authority). 2009. Spreadsheet of crayfish documented in the
Pigeon River watershed. Unpublished data.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2013. Plants profile Podostemum
ceratophyllum—homleaf riverweed POCE3. USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Accessed July 29,2013 at
httu://nlants.usda.eoy/java/county?state name=North%20Carolina&statefips=37&sy
mbol=POCE3
USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Appalachian elktoe recovery plan.
Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed October 12, 2012 at
httu://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery plan/960826.
USFWS. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Designation of critical
habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. Federal Register 67(188):61016-61040. Accessed
October 12, 2012 at httu://ecosfws.gov/docs/federal register/fr3975/
- 100 -

USFWS. 2005. Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) 5-year review: Summary
and evaluation. Southeast Region, Ashville,North Carolina. Accessed October 12,
2012 at http://ecos.fws.aov/docs/five year review/doc2369.
USFWS. 2012. Species profile: Appalachian elktoe(Alasmidonta raveneliana). Accessed
October 12, 2012 at http://ecos.fws.gov/sMciesProfile/.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. USGS 03456991 Pigeon River,near Canton,NC
(online). Accessed November 1, 2009.
httn://waterdata.usgs.eov/nc/nwis/uv/?site no=03456991&PARAmeter cd=00065.00
060
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. Corbicula fluminea(Asiatic clam). Mollusks-
bivalves exotic to United States. Accessed July 19, 2013 at
httn:/Inas.er.usgs.goy/queries/factsheet.Mx?%eciesid=92
USGS. 2013. Fact sheet: Procambarus acutus acutus (Girard, 1852). Accessed July 25,
2013 at htti)://nas.er.usgs.gov/gueries/factsheet.asvx?SpecieslD=216.
Wilson,J. L., and C. C. Coutant. 2006. Canton Mill Balanced and Indigenous Species
Study for the Pigeon River(Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Demonstration) for Blue
Ridge Paper Products, Inc.,Canton,North Carolina. University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Young, J. A. M., and M. A. Koops. 2010. Recovery potential modeling of wavy-rayed
lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola)in Canada. Research Document 2010/073,
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat(accessed October 10, 2012 at
httn://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/)
- 101 -

Appendix A
Pigeon River Temperature Measurement and Modeling: 2005-2013
Prepared for:
Evergreen Packaging
175 Main Street
P.O. Box 4000
Canton,NC 28716
www.evergreeLipackaging.com
[phone]
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
A thermal model was developed, calibrated, and validated to estimate the effect of the
Evergreen Paper Mill on Pigeon River temperatures from Canton USGS (PRM 64.9)to
Hepco USGS (PRM 42.6R). The model was calibrated using river temperature data
collected by University of Tennessee personnel during the summer of 2012 and winter of
2013. Validation of the model was completed by comparing modeled river temperatures
to daily and weekly temperature measurements collected by Evergreen personnel from
2005 —2013. The validation phase of the modeling shows that the model accurately
predicted the Pigeon River temperatures between the Canton USGS gaging station and
the HEPCO USGS gaging station. The median absolute errors between the model
predicted river temperatures and daily measurements from 2005 - 2013 are 0.6, 0.8, and
1.1°C for Fiberville, Above Clyde, and Hepco USGS, respectively.
Following validation, a series of model runs was conducted with the mill effluent
temperature set equal to the adjacent river temperature; doing so removed the thermal
loading of the mill from the model without affecting the flow rate of the river.
Comparisons of model runs with the mill turned on and turned off enable a direct
comparison of the estimated temperature change of the Pigeon River. Results of this
comparison show that the median modeled increase in weekly average temperature due to
mill thermal loading is 3.1, 2.5, and 1.5°C at Fiberville,Above Clyde, and Hepco USGS,
respectively.
2

A numerical thermal plume mixing model, CORMIX, was run to simulate the thermal
plume mixing into the Pigeon River between the null outfall and the Fiberville Bridge.
These modeled results were compared to University of Tennessee's measured thermal
cross sections collected at the railroad bridge just below the mill outfall and also at the
Fiberville Bridge measured on two different days. The modeled results were also
compared to aerial photographs available on Google Earth. During low Pigeon River
flowrates, the thermal plume from the outfall mixes rapidly across the majority of the
river with a small remaining temperature difference(-0.5 °C) from side to side at the
Fiberville Bridge. During medium Pigeon River flowrates,the thermal plume mixes into
the Pigeon River more slowly, and the remaining differential temperature is larger from
side to side at Fiberville. And during large flowrates, it appears that the far right side of
the Pigeon River, opposite of the outfall,remains at near ambient temperatures at the
Fiberville Bridge.
1
3

INTRODUCTION
A numerical thermal model was developed for the Pigeon River from above the mill
(PRM 64.9)to the upstream extent of Waterville Reservoir(PRM 42.6R). The model was
calibrated using approximately four months of measured river temperature data: two
months collected in the summer of 2012 and another two months collected during the
winter of 2013. Nineteen thermographs were deployed in the Pigeon River from above
the discharge outfall of the Evergreen Paper mill in Canton,NC (PRM 64.9) down to
Blufton, TN (PRM 19.3R). Five thermographs were placed in each of the five tributaries
flowing into the Pigeon River, two thermographs were placed in a nearby reference
stream,the Swannanoa River, and a last thermograph was deployed within the mill
outfall. Hourly temperature measurements were collected from these thermographs for
the two-month summer and two-month winter data collection periods. Using these
temperature data, a numerical thermal model of the Pigeon River was calibrated. This
calibrated model was then validated against daily temperature measurements of the
Pigeon River collected from 2005—2013. Finally,the validated model was used to
determine how much the mill increased the temperature of the Pigeon River due to its
thermal loading for the same period.
To help determine how quickly the thermal plume mixes into the Pigeon River after
being released from the outfall, 2-1) thermal cross-sections were measured at the Railroad
Bridge(PRM 63.2) and at the Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63),both below the outfall (PRM
63.3). Additionally, CORMM, a USEPA supported 3-1)plume mixing model, was run
for select times corresponding to the dates of the 2-D thermal cross section measurements
4

and when aerial photographs of the site were available. Analyzing the results of the
thermal cross sections and the 3-1)thermal plume modeling enabled insight into how
readily the thermal plumes mixes into the Pigeon River.
Data Collection
Thermographs
The HOBO®Pendant UA-001 thermograph was chosen for the temperature monitoring
of the Pigeon River,tributaries, and reference sites. It is housed in a polypropylene case
(58 x 33 x 23 mm) that is waterproof to a depth of 30 m. The range of the thermograph
temperature measurement is -20°C to 70°C with a resolution of 0XC, and the accuracy is
approximately 0.5°C, within the range of these river measurements. The temperature
n drift of the sensor is less than 0.1°C per year and the time accuracy is within 1 minute per
month. The 10-bit resolution thermograph can record up to 6,500 temperature events.
The thermograph setup and data retrieval is performed using a coupler and optical base
station with USB computer interface. The response time of the thermograph to water
temperature change (90%) is about 5 minutes. While the thermograph is deployed,the
typical life of the replaceable battery is one year.
Thermograph Deployment
Twenty-seven thermographs were deployed in the Pigeon River from above the discharge
outfall of the Evergreen Paper mill in Canton,NC (PRM 64.55R) down to Blufton, TN
(PRM 19.3R),the tributaries that feed the Pigeon River,the mill outfall and the
Swannanoa River. The thermographs were deployed by affixing them to 1.6-min (1/16-
i
5

in.) galvanized or stainless steel wire rope. The rope was also tethered(near the sensor)
to a steel weight with a mass of approximately 2.25 kg(51bm). The other end of the wire
rope was swaged to a stationary object(e.g., tree, railing, etc.) above or along size the
river or tributary. The data collection start time and collection interval was set through a
USB computer interface before the thermograph was deployed into the river or tributary.
Although the thermographs had enough internal memory for the entire deployment
period, intermittent data collections were performed to guard against the risk of data loss.
During the summer 2012 thermal measurement period,two intermittent, and then a final
data collection were performed. During the winter 2013 thermal measurement period,
only a final data collection was performed following the entire two-month period.
Although two intermittent winter sampling dates were scheduled, foul weather on the
scheduled dates made the retrievals too dangerous for the University of Tennessee
personnel to proceed. During the summer collection period the data collection efficacy
was excellent,with only a few lost/stolen sensors and only for a few weeks of the two-
month collection period. During the winter collection period, a total of four sensors (of
the 27 deployed) were lost or stolen.
Thermog h Deployment Locations
The location name, river mile, and longitude and latitude of the bankside-tethered
location for each thermograph are presented in the Table 1. The thermograph locations
named as creeks were monitored within said creeks prior to their confluence with the
Pigeon River. Figures 1-9 show the location of each thermograph location plotted on a
Google earth image.
Table 1. Name, river mile, longitude and latitude, river of thermograph
deployment locations (L=left, C= center, and R=right side of the river),
6

1
and success of collecting data (FULL=all data collected, PART=some
data collected,NONE = no data collected).
Summer Winter
Name River Mile, Longitude Latitude 12' Data 13' Data
Above Mill PRM 64.55R 82.841750" 35.531000' FULL NONE2
Just Above Dam PRM 63.3511 82.8430640 35.5337140 FULL NONE3
Mill Outfall PRM 63.30L 82.8453490 35.5356310 FULL FULL
Above RR Bridge PRM 63.25R 82.845100° 3S.536583' FULL FULL
RR Bridge Left PRM 63.21- 82.8453540 35.5372610 FULL FULL
RR Bridge Center PRM 63.2C 82.8452050 35.5373760 FULL NONE2
RR Bridge Right PRM 63.211 82.8450800 35.537464' FULL FULL
Camp Creek PRM 63.15T 82.844916' 35.537943° FULL FULL
Below RR Bridge - PRM 63.1R 82.845117' 35.538817` FULL FULL
Fiberville Bridge PRM 63R 82.8462500 35.5415500 FULL FULL
Beaver Dam Creek PRM 62.9T 82.845833' 35.5409170 FULL FULL
Pump Station PRM 62.511 82.850567' 35.5466170 FULL FULL
DO Station PRM 61R 82.863233' 35.5434830 FULL PART4
Above Clyde PRM 59R 82.892083" 35.542700' FULL FULL
Hyder Mt. PRM 55.51- 82.9392830 35.548817' FULL FULL
/1 Richland Creek PRM 54.9T 82.945883" 35.5482170 FULL FULL
I River View PRM53.5R 82.953967° 35.561917° FULL FULL
Crabtree Creek PRM 49.8T 82.9508500 35.6005830 PARTZ FULL
Jonathan's Creek PRM 46T 83.005867- 35.626333` FULL FULL
Hepco USGS/Gage PRM 45.11- 82.990000° 35.635000' FULL FULL
Fine's Creek PRM 42.7T 82.9929420 35.665415' FULL FULL
Hepco Bridge PRM 42.611 82.994752' 35.6660140 FULL FULL
Waterville Bridge PRM 25.21- 83.1122670 35.783950° FULL NONE2
Trail Hollow PRM 22L 83.1451670 35.812083' PARTZ FULL
Blufton PRM 19.311 83.177550' 35.8170000 FULL NONE2
Warren Wilson SRM 11.31- 82.444067' 35.6078000 FULL FULL
College
Exit 50-Interstate SRM 1.61- 82.544050' 35.5687330 FULL FULL
40
1 PRM=Pigeon River Mile;
SRM=Swannanoa River Mile(Reference Stream);
L=Left side of River(facing downstream);
C=Center of River;
R=Right side of river;
0=Sensor located in mill outfall prior to effluent entering the Pigeon River
T=Sensor located in tributary prior to tributary entering the Pigeon River
`i 2'-The sensor was not present upon attempted retrieval.
3-The sensor could not be retrieved due to being lodged under debris in the bed of the river.
7

4-The sensor was errantly set to log every minute instead of every hour and filled up the thermograph's
internal memory within several days.
Thermograph Data Description
All the thermograph data collected by University of Tennessee personnel are presented in
Figures 8-44. Figures 10-29 represent data collected from the summer of 2012, and
Figures 30-46 represent data collected from the winter of 2013. Some of these figures
will occasionally show where a thermograph was removed from the river: either by a
high flow event or an errant person. A good example of this is shown in Figure 31 where
the PRM 63.25R sensor was washed up high on the bank in early February 2013.
Following this point in time the sensor is mostly responding to the air temperature and
not the river temperature. The Camp Creek Thermographs (Figures 14 and 33) also show
very spikey behavior, which is due to the very shallow depth of the creek making full
submersion of the sensor difficult.
The thermographs in the vicinity of the mill demonstrate the complex mixing of the
thermal discharge across the river at different river flows. Figures 12 and 30 show the
temperatures of the mill outfall (PRM 63.3OL) located on the left-hand-side (LHS) of the
river facing downstream. The outfall temperatures were fairly consistent over short to
moderate durations and were cooler during the winter season. Figures 11 and 31 present
data for PRM 63.35R(located above the outfall) and PRM 63.25R(located just below the
outfall) on the right-hand-side (RHS) of the river(Figure 1). By comparing the black line
(PRM 63.35R) to the orange dots (PRM 63.25R) it is clear that much of time during the
summer monitoring (Figure 11),particularly in the first 2/3rds of the summer monitoring,
that PRM 63.25R showed approximately half of its hourly temperatures were equal to
8

those upstream of the outfall (i.e., ambient conditions). The other approximate half of the
temperature measurements was elevated, but not as elevated as the temperatures at the
next station, (PRM 63.2L,C,R Figures 13 and 32). This is consistent with a finding that
the thermal plume had crossed over to the RHS at PRM 63.25R during approximately
half of the hourly measurements, but was not yet fully mixed on the RHS causing the
RHS to still show lower temperatures than downstream at all three thermographs (PRM
63.2L,C,R). When comparing the three PRM 63.2L,C,R thermographs,the Left
thermograph(on the same side as the outfall) is almost always the warmest, the Center
thermograph generally has the same temperature as the Left or slightly cooler(and during
high flow events is sometimes warmer than the Left indicating the plume becomes more
centered, and the Right thermograph is almost always cooler indicating the thermal
plume has not fully mixed by the time is reaches PRM 63.2. During high flow events,
PRM 63.2R appears to still show ambient temperatures,meaning the thermal plume does
not extend across to the right side of the river at PRM 63.2R during high flow events
(e.g., compare PRM 63.35R to PRM 63.2R in late July; they both dip to just below 20 C.
Similar occurrences are present in early July).
Further downstream the same complex cross sectional pattern continues. Figures 15 and
34 present the measured temperatures at Below RR Bridge (PRM OAT). This
thermograph and the one just downstream (Figures 16 and 35,Fiberville, PRM 630)
were located on the right side of the river. During the summer measurements the median
river temperature increased by 0.1 C from PRM 63AR to PRM 63R, and during the
winter measurement the median temperature increased by 0.4 C. This increase of
9

temperature following the addition of warm water from the outfall is consistent with the
thermal plume mixing from the original left-hand-side of the river at the outfall to the
right-hand-side of the river further downstream. During the summer temperature
measurements, river flow rates were low, which enabled the plume to mix more readily
leaving a small amount of mixing taking place between PRM 63.1R and PRM 63R.
During the winter higher flowrates, greater amounts of mixing were still occurring
between PRM 63.1R and PRM 63R.
Tributaries generally added cooler water to the mainstem. Figures 14 and 33 show the
temperatures for Camp Creek(entering the Pigeon River at PRM 63.15T), Beaver Dam
Creek(entering at PRM 62.9T), and Richland Creek(entering at PRM 54.9T). Likewise,
Figures 22 and 41 show the temperatures of Crabtree Creek(entering at PRM 49.8T),
Johnathan's Creek(entering at PRM 46T), and Fine's Creek(entering at PRM 42.7T).
Generally, the summer temperatures of these six creeks are cooler than the ambient
summer Pigeon River temperature measured at PRM 64.55R,upstream of the outfall.
The increased temperatures from the outfall further decrease as one moves down the
Pigeon River. Figures 18—23 and 37—43 show the thermographs between the DO
station (PRM 61R) and the Hepco Bridge (PRM 42.6R). Figures 25, 26, 27, and 44
present the thermographs below Waterville Lake including: Waterville Bridge (PRM
25.2L), Trial Hollow(PRM 22L), and Blufton(PRM 19.3R).
1
10

The Swannanoa River was chosen as a reference stream for comparison of biologic
results of the Pigeon River. In an endeavor to measure the thermal similarities or thermal
differences between the Pigeon River and the Swannanoa River, the two thermograph
locations on the Swannanoa River shown in Figure 9 were measured by UT personnel.
Figures 28,29, 45, and 46 present the thermographs from the Swannanoa River at
Warren Wilson College (SRM 11.3L) and Exit 50 (SRM 1.6L). A comparison of the
measured temperatures at these two reference locations to those measured upstream of
the mill at Canton USGS is presented in Figures 47 and 48. The USGS began publishing
hourly temperature measurements at their Canton USGS Station in July 2012 making this
hourly comparison possible. SRM 11.3 was on average 1.1 C wanner and SRM 1.6 was
on average 1.2 C warmer than the Pigeon River during the 4 months of collected data
during the summer of 2012 and winter of 2013. The Swannanoa River has thermal
characteristics very similar to that of the Pigeon River upstream of the outfall.
Data Provided by Evergreen
A meteorological data file was supplied by Evergreen containing hourly measurements of
air temperature at 2-m height; wind speed at 10-m height; and solar radiation. These
data covered the modeling period 2005 through 2013. An additional data file was
supplied by Evergreen that included: daily flowrate (USGS source) and daily
temperature (Evergreen source) at the Canton USGS gage site; hourly flowrate and
hourly temperature of the mill outfall (Evergreen source); daily temperature
measurements at Fiberville(PRM 63R) and Above Clyde (PRM 59R) (Evergreen
1 source); daily flow measurements from Hepco USGS gage (USGS source); and
11

approximately weekly temperature measurements from Hepco USGS gage (Evergreen
source). The flow measurements at the Canton USGS and Hepco USGS gaging stations
were originally measured by the USGS and are daily averages. The temperature
measurements collected by Evergreen personnel were made between approximately
090Q-1100 each day. Tables 2-6 provide the temperature and flow statistics at the Canton
USGS Gage,Mill Outfall, and Hepco USGS Gage. The daily and weekly temperature
measurements collected by Evergreen personnel were measured with a Hach HQ 30d
combination temperature and DO meter. The meter is calibrated annually against a
certified source.
12

-Table 2 . Flow Statistics for Canton USGS
Percentile Canton USGS Dischar a m3 s 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1 3.68 3.60 4.98 4.50 2.86 1.81 1.47 1.08 1.39 1.42 1.56 2.04
5 4.05 4.05 5.38 4.87 3.43 2.04 1.56 1.30 1.47 1.50 1.70 2.44
10 4.56 4.45 5.69 5.10 3.82 2.27 1.70 1.36 1.50 1.56 1.87 2.55
15 4.87 4.87 5.95 5.37 4.16 2.46 1.84 1.44 1.56 1.64 2.04 2.94
20 5.44 5.27 6.23 5.58 4.28 2.72 2.10 1.67 1.61 1.70 2.24 3.77
25 6.14 5.69 6.60 5.94 4.45 2.92 2.32 1 1.81 1.70 1.81 2.35 4.45
30 6.71 6.23 7.22 6.43 4.67 3.09 2.44 1.93 1.81 1 2.04 2.63 5.10
35 7.53 6.68 7.73 6.71 4.87 3.26 2.58 1.98 2.04 2.41 2.78 5.92
40 7.87 7.05 8.13 7.14 5.10 3.40 2.69 2.04 2.35 2.63 2.86 7.53
45 8.50 7.59 8.67 7.59 5.49 3.54 2.78 2.18 2.55 2.92 3.09 8.18
50 9.30 8.13 9.34 8.04 6.03 3.77 2.86 2.29 2.72 3.23 3.31 8.83
55 10.4 8.67 10.34 8.61 6.43 3.96 3.00 2.44 2.92 3.54 3.48 9.57
60 11.5 9.71 11.16 9.11 6.85 4.16 3.14 2.58 3.26 3.77 3.96 10.2
65 13.3 10.5 11.9 9.71 7.14 4.38 3.31 2.83 3.68 4.22 4.64 11.0
70 14.4 11.4 12.8 10.2 7.82 4.73 3.43 3.09 4.53 4.70 5.30 12.1
75 14.9 12.4 1 13.9 11.0 8.61 5.10 3.60 3.40 5.10 5.30 5.92 13.2
80 16.1 13.6 15.5 11.6 9.34 5.66 3.87 3.58 5.89 5.92 7.53 14.6
85 18.0 15.5 17.4 12.8 10.4 6.35 4.16 4.16 6.99 6.60 9.85 16.9
90 21.8 17.9 20.1 14.7 12.4 7.59 4.79 4.98 9.27 7.82 14.1 19.5
95 31.7 22.6 25.6 18.7 15.7 10.2 6.14 6.30 15.7 10.6 21.5 25.7
99 94.0 35.4 48.1 32.7 22.4 14.9 12.2 15.1 63.6 22.5 53.5 57.2
Mean 15.0 10.5 12.5 9.83 7.44 4.68 3.43 3.21 6.74 4.66- 7.44 11.6
N 5952 5424 5952 5040 5208 5040 5208 5208 5040 5616 5760 5952
Max 242 59 219 143 44 25 43 309 201 129 326 176
Min 3.00 3.17 4.90 4.36 2.72 L76 1.36 1.05 1.36 1.36 1.56 1.98
1
13

�D 00 00 �1 �] T D\ LAto .P P w L-0
C k Z CD y �o �n p vA p v. CDv. CD LA CDcA O v. CD LA o cn CDo W
p
A
H
A
.- � cn .-• �D oo �1 J a1 al l.n In c.n A � A W w W N N
-P O1 O\ �o is IN :,l .-. 00 .-•
W N O O O O\ O O1 l0 N ? -P A w .- K
w
--1 l O\ O\ O1 O\ U U vi .p .A P W w N N .- p 'rJ a .
O\ IV to O\ W O mil- A .-. 00 -P O 01 lJ �1 W �1 �l (Tl A
00 W w w O w 4? N M
DD
M
00 . . . . .-. . .-. W 01 CA 'A W N
M
wD\ 00 to -P N .-• .� O O �] W �O V. .-• 00 CD (ON �I IJ DD w J N
w A IJ oo �I w cn �l .-- cn N �l �A .-. .-. �A �--� O a1 A 01 � w o\ N m
O
1
� oo O N �l a\ cn vi to A A w W W N N N O O 01 cn N
O N CD 00 N ? 00 A O O1 W �o lJ lO 01 IJ lO O1
r.
y O
.o .o .-. 00 .. .-. .-. .-. C- ON G- 0- (A .-. .-. .-. .-. w
O l0 �D 00 00 00 J J J O\ 01 01 01 V. V. V. J> .P W
0000 O 000 00 .. N i n 00 V. N O �l A �--• V w �--• �l „� C
In V. o O w�P N N N N �--� �` . . . CD CD CD O �o �o
A O p 00 o W 00 lA W O 00 b, .P. N O w O\ W O 01 W ? Q\ P y
A
00
_ p0 p� N N to w w W w N N N N N . . . . CD
A 00 000 L� 00 in w C1 A IJ �o --I J> N 00 w 07 O
ti
w w w w N N N N N 0 0 �O C� A
P c.n oo v �--• v A .-• Oo a\ .P �--' l0 v w .-• �O O\
N N N N N N N N .-. .-. .-.. .-. . .-' .-. .-. .-. C/�
W lh O �p w N N �-` �-` �-' O CD CD �o to �o 0000
00 -1 -4
0 0 p' A 00 �O 1.N 0o W O Q\ W O v W O J A �-' 00 U .-• l0 w 'tJ
.+ .-. .+ �--. �--. 00 J O
w \o J col O\ O1 In cn cr A A A w w w N N .-• .-• O .-• n
CD O 000 �O 00 O\ 00 .P p to
.-. .+ In W .+ .-• .+ .� .+ .+ .+ �D to \O 00 00 00 �l �l �l O\ 01 V1 V. W .4
W t/. .P ,p, tJ �o bT 1...1 �o b) N 00 ? �o O .P O
O\ A p \O O IJ In O O1 W O �o 00 .-. ? N O ON
cn N � cn N -P oo lJ oo w �q .CNA oNo A �O O �o c-, -P, ON � �o w oo (]

_ Table 4. Flow statistics for the mill outfall.
Percentile Mill Outfall Discharge m3 s 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.86 0.86 0.96 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.84 0.92 0.95
5 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.97 1.02 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.98 1.02
10 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.05 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.05
15 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.05 1.04 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.07
20 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.08 1 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.08
25 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.09
30 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.07 1.10
35 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.12 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.10 1.09 1.11
40 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.13 1.12 1.11 1.10 1.11 1.10 1.12
45 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.13 1.12 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.13
50 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.12 1.13 1.12 1.14
55 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.15 1.15 . 1.13 1.15 1.14 1.15
60 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.16 1.15 1.16
65 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.17 1 1.17 1.15 1.17 1.16 1.17
70 1.17 1.17 1.19 1.18 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.16 1.18 1.18 1.18
75 1.19 1.19 1.21 1.20 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.19 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.19
80 1.20 1.20 1.22 1.21 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.21 1.19 1.21 1.23 1.21
85 1.23 1.22 1.24 1.23 1.25 1.24 1.24 1.22 1.20 1.23 1.26 1.23
90 1.25 1.24 1.28 1.26 1.28 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.23 1.26 1.26 1.25
95 1.31 1.28 1.32 1.30 1.33 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.26 1.29 1.28 1.29
99 1.43 1.37 1.43 1.47 2.03 1.42 1.45 1.44 1.39 1.40 1.42 1.40
Mean 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.15
N 5952 5424 5952 5040 5208 5040 5208 5208 5040 5616 5760 5952
Max 1.88 1.65 1.71 1.85 2.06 1.85 1.92 2.09 1.78 1.93 1.71 1.74
Min 0.66 0.77 0.57 0.650 0.57 0.556 0.61 0.72 0.14 0.61 0.69 0.74
15

-';able 5. Temperature statistics for the mill outfall.
Percentile Mill OutfaH Temperature °C
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY I JUN I JUL I AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1 22.2 22.8 24.6, 23.4 20.3 28.6 26.0 29.6 25.9 24.1 22.9 21.7
5 23.0 23.7 25.4 25.9 26.8 29.3 29.1 30.5 26.8 25.4 23.9 23.0
10 23.7 24.1 _ 26.0 26.7 28.0 30.0 29.7 30.9 27.9 26.1 24.5 23.9
15 24.2 24.7 26.4 27.4 28.7 30.3 30.2 31.2 28.6 26.5 25.0 24.4
20 24.5 25.1 26.6 28.2 29.2 30.7 30.5 31.5 29.1 26.9 25.3 24.8
25 24.8 25.5 26.9 28.7 29.6 31.0 30.7 31.9 29.7 27.2 25.6 25.2
30 25.2 25.8 27.1 29.3 29.9 31.3 30.9 32.2 30.2 27.5 25.9 25.5
35 25.4 26.1 27.4 29.6 30.2 31.6 31.1 32.4 30.6 27.8 26.2 25.7
40 25.7 26.4 27.7 29.9 30.5 31.9 31.4 32.7 31.1 28.1 26.6 26.0
45 26.0 26.7 28.1 30.3 30.8 32.1 31.9 32.9 31.3 28.3 26.8 26.3
50 26.4 27.0 28.4 30.5 31.2 32.3 32.3 33.2 31.6 28.6 27.0 26.6
55 26.7 27.3 28.8 30.7 31.6 32.5 32.7 33.4 31.8 29.0 27.2 _ 26.8
60 27.0 27.5 29.2 30.9 32.1 32.8 33.0 33.6 32.0 29.4 27.4 27.1
65 27.3 27.8 29.5 31.2 32.7 33.0 33.3 33.8 32.3 29.7 27.6 27.3
70 27.7 28.1 29.9 31.6 33.1 33.3 33.5 34.0 32.7 29.9 27.8 27.6
75 28.1 28.6 30.4 32.0 33.6 33.5 33.7 34.2 33.0 30.4 28.1 27.9
80 28.6 29.1 31.1 32.4 34.0 34.0 33.9 34.3 33.4 30.8 28.4 28.4
85 29.2 29.7 32.0 32.9 34.6 35.0 34.1 34.6 34.3 31.2 28.7 28.8
90 29.9 31.4 33.1 33.9 36.0 37.3 34.4 34.9 35.2 31.8 29.4 29.4
95 31.7 33.3 34.9 34.9 37.0 38.1 35.2 35.5 35.9 33.0 30.1 30.9
99 34.0 34.6 36.2 36.9 38.6 39.1 36.6 36.1 36.7 33.9 31.8 32.6
Mean 26.6 27.3 29.0 30.3 31.5 32.7 32.2 33.0 31.4 28.8 27.0 26.6
N 5952 5424 5936 5040 5208 5040 5208 5208 5040 5208 5760 5952
Max 37.1 35.1 38.2 43.6 43.9 42.8 48.0 46.8 37.5 34.6 32.5 34.3
Min 21.7 22.2 24.1 21.5 17.3 15.9 24.7 12.3 25.1 22.0 22.0 21.3
16

L) N N d' Ln 0 0 0o N N d• m N d' 00 �o .-. m .-. 00 O N O N w O
(]� M 01 n Vl �o l-- 00 0\ O N Vl C- .--� \D O - M
U
m O m c;N N d' d' 01 �O t Vl N d- l-- m 01 M o O M P. •L�'
Q N \o M R d' 01 M l� 01 M 00 M "'� O --� M Vl .-� l� D\ O V1 N O
Z M M d' d' Vl Vl �6 l0 \O 00 01 .-r. .-. .-. .--. N N M "'� .-• � M M � P
E• M d• M d' 0\ 00 '4D m O N In �O d: 01 t- O O .--� Cl
U W 01 O M N O l� �o 01 Vl .-. O .--i M Ln N t O [� may�++ O O
Q N N m m M d' d' u•i [� oo a; a; .--� .-. ,--� .--� �-• N d'
O oo CL U G
P. d' •� [� -It .-. v'� N m -It01 �o N �o �o .-. oo cn kn l� O N O O
WC� .-. 01 O It T N �o N 00 ,-y N vi O a; n N O y
C-0 N M m m m M d' d• d' m N � � w a1 .� .� .� N N oo .� in N N o
yN
Q O (7, O to V) N 01 m m t O �o a1 �o N l� %O M 00 M A U d
01 It O IT CDd' [- O N Vl Co M W .-. ill .--� 01 O 4 O N N
to M 'O
M 01 I- M \0 01 l- d. l- O w .-+ O l0 �O
ca O r� m o d 00 0 .-. "tr rn M �o O -,t CD �o m00 m
3
Vi Vl vi �o �0 \O \O r Z- 00 00 01 0\ ,-. ,-. N in Ln N 'ar7
U
A d' V1 d' O 00 W 00 N d' .-• d: 00 M O> [- Vl M W O Vl O M V'1
ll M 00 It 01 m m M V1 0\ O O .-. .-. N M Vl r- 00 O p M d
rl
d- d' kn �o �o l-: r� 00 06 D1 01 a1 .-. ^. .-• .-• N .-• in r m 0 U
Vl H b0
�o OC;� vi M CD0o Vi d O d d o m m 'T r m • (� P ro
o l� O .-. .--i N m d' d' Vl N
V2 l� W 01 01 .-. .-. .-. .-. r. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. N N N d' •--� Vl � � 1..�
p w 00 �o o Ln rn kn N 00 v m N • rn rn wrn o 00 00 d
N M M M V Ln Vl \D 1, 00 T 01 O .-. N Vl 00 d' N O
U Q� O. .-. .--� .--i .--i . .-. .-. .--� .-. .--i .--i .-. .-. N N N N N M �O N CDr' 01 �
�o kn to N I M to l- 01 .-. 01 M l- M %0 d' N O d' •-• � N� �
!!Q-�, .-• N tV m 7 Wn �D l� 00 O\ O N m � ; �0 0o O ri �O �n <Y to O% M o
N N N N N N M M M d' oo N uo
w (]] 0\ 00 .-. .-. Ln M .-. M 01 N D\ M O d: .-. N �D d' N to 00 0
W O O N 0\ o m d' l� o d- Oi l� M M ^ .6 U
(1. Ol .-. "" 00 ¢.
cC N
M 01 n ID d' \o I d• vl C` .-• O Ln C` � O l� M w �p l� N N 00
ON O O .--� N m d' �O t� m 01 - M kn [� O d' l" kn 01 r- O � M O a>
O ti 00 .-. .-. �-. .-. .--� .-. .-. .-. .-• �-• N N N N M M M V �o ' M to M 00 U
b
c CJ e o O u, o o o o o o Cl vi rn Q
u e '-' ut .-. ,-. N N m m d' d' kn kn �o b n r w 00 a1 0\ 01 y Z
i

mill outfall,riverbed heat exchange,river surface heat exchange, and the upstream
temperature. A conceptual description of the model is shown in Flowchart 1.
SURFACE
TRIBUTARIES HEAT
EXCHANGE
RIVER RIVER SECTION (n) RIVER
SECTION SECTION
(n-1) (PRM 64.9 to PRM 42.6) (n+l)
BED MILL
HEAT OUTFALL
EXCHANGE
Flowchart 1. Conceptual thermal model of the Pigeon River for PRM 64.9 to
PRM 42.6.
The temperature of the Pigeon River was modeled as 1-D from PRM 64.9 to PRM 42.6
from the fall of 2005 through the spring of 2013 and included the effects of mill thermal
loading and environmental conditions. The model includes the assumption that the
temperature throughout the cross section-of the river is uniform and any additional water
(from a tributary or the mill outfall) is immediately mixed upon entering the river. These
18

are very common assumptions for modeling the effect of waste heat on natural river
systems.
Following Caissie et al. (2005), a thermal model was developed very similar to the
previous 2001 Pigeon River model (EA Eng. 2001):
a(TR A)+a(T,Q,) = HT A (1)
8t r?x Bpy
where,
t=time [s]
TR=temperature of the river at a given location rC]
A =cross section area of stream [m2]
x=distance downstream [m]
Q,=flow rate of the river [m3 s 1]
B=specific heat of water [4.19 x 1 0-3 MJ kg-1 °C-1]
p=density of water [1000 kg in
y=depth of the river [m]
HT=total heat flux to the river [W in Z]
HT =HB +HS +HTR (2)
HB=heat flux through the bed of the river [W m z]
Hs=heat flux through the surface of the river [W m 2]
HTR=heat flux from tributaries and mill outfall [W m Z]
HB and Hs were estimated by multiplying a thermal exchange coefficient by the
difference in temperature that is driving the heat flow.
19

�.} HB =KB(T30M —TR) (3)
Hs =Ks(TE —TR) (4)
where
KB=bed thermal exchange coefficient [W in z°C-1]
T30�=temperature of the bed at a depth of 30 cm [°C]
Ks=surface thermal exchange coefficient [W m a °C -11
TE=equilibrium temperature of the river [°C]
TE is the equilibrium temperature, or the instantaneous temperature that the river would
ultimately achieve if conditions stayed constant. Equation 1 was solved numerically at a
1-hr time interval and a 161-in (0.1 mi) length interval from the fall of 2005 through the
spring of 2013. The parameters within the model were calibrated using the extensive
thermograph dataset collected by University of Tennessee personnel during the summer
of 2012 and winter of 2013 shown in Figures 10 -24 and 30—43.
The width, height, and velocity of each reach of the Pigeon River as a function of QR
were obtained from a previous report (Synoptic Survey of Physical and Biological
Condition of the Pigeon River in the Vicinity of Champion International Canton Mill)
conducted by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. in 1987 (EA Eng., 1987).
They fit the geometry of the channel to three power-law functions:
Velocity [ft s 1] = al * Qb1 (5)
Depth [ft] =a2 * Qb2 (6)
Width [ft]=a3 * Qb3 (7)
20

Table 7 provides the values for the variables, a and b used in Eqs. 5-7 for each reach of
the Pigeon River.
21

Table 7. Velocity, depth, and width coefficients for the Pigeon River used in
equations 5-7 (EA, 1987).
River PRM Mile Velocity Depth Width
Reach Top Bottom al bl a2 b2 a3 b3
1 64.7 63.2 0.157 0.196 0.570 0.294 11.17 0.510
2 63.2 62.5 0.242 0.275 0.183 0.412 22.6 0.313
3 62.5 62.0 0.563 0.253 0.246 0.380 7.23 0.367
4 62.0 61.2 0.252 0.317 0.103 0.476 38.5 0.207
5 61.2 59.9 0.192 0.221 0.393 0.331 13.2 0.448
6 59.9 58.0 0.247 0.252 0.252 0.378 16.06 0.370
7 58.0 57.3 0.221 0.255 0.242 0.382 18.7 0.363
8 57.3 55.3 0.241 0.307 0.118 0.461 35.1 0.232
9 55.3 54.9 0.196 0.331 0.086 0.496 59.2 0.173
10 54.9 53.7 0.327 0.216 0.443 0.323 6.89 0.461
11 53.7 52.8 0.249 0.355 0.089 0.503 45.4 0.162
12 52.8 51.5 0.202 0.214 0.448 0.321 10.1 0.465
13 51.5 49.7 0.221 0.342 0.081 0.513 56.0 0.145,
14 49.7 48.5 0.207 0.348 0.075 0.522 64.5 0.130
15 48.5 48.2 0.814 0.095 3.99 0.142 0.308 0.763
16 48.2 47.0 0.247 0.362 0.062 0.543 65.7 0.094
17. 47.0 46.0 0.256 0.346 0.076 0.519 51.3 0.134
18 46.0 45.5 0.255 0.376 0.051 0.564 76.5 0.060
19 45.5 42.5 0.233 0.312 0.121 0.469 35.6 0.219
22

Relative flowrates for tributaries feeding into the Pigeon River were calculated in a
previous report (EA 1987) and are given as a partitioning coefficients: each describing
the relative portion of increased flow between the Canton and Hepco USGS gaging
stations (Table 8). These data show that 81.2% of the increase of flow between Canton
USGS and Hepco USGS is attributed to tributaries. The remaining 18.8% of the
increased flow was attributed to baseflow and was evenly divided between each model
node between the Canton USGS to Hepco USGS gaging stations. Table 8 provides the
Partitioning Coefficient for each tributary.
Table 8. Flow Rate Partitioning Coefficients for Tributaries
Location River Mile Partitioning Coefficient
Beaverdam Creek(PRM 62.9T) 62.8 0.052
Richland Creek(PRM 54.9T) 54.9 0.315
Crabtree Creek(PRM 49.8T) 49.7 0.123
Jonathan's Creek(PRM 46T) 46.0 0.323
Fine's Creek(PRM 42.7T) 42.7 0.073
At each time step, the flowrate for each node within the model was calculated based on
the Canton and Hepco USGS gaging station measurements, the predicted partitioning
coefficients, and baseflow by
Q++i = Qi + (Pi + 0.188 /n) * (Qh-Qc) (8)
where,
23

Q1 =Q�=Pigeon River flow at Canton USGS
Q.=Qh=Pigeon River Flow at Hepco USGS
P; =Partitioning Coefficient for a given model node (only present at nodes with
tributaries shown in Table 7)
i=a node (downstream) of the model
n=224=number of nodes between Canton USGS (PRM 64.9) and Hepco Bridge
(PRM 42.6)
from model node i= 1 to i =n.
Additionally,the appropriate amount of modeled water was removed from the Pigeon
River at the mill intake, and replaced at the mill outfall. These amounts varied on an
hourly basis and were provided by Evergreen personnel.
Temperatures were assigned to the tributaries for the entire nine year period by first
comparing the measured tributary temperatures to the Canton USGS temperatures
collected during the summer 2012 and winter 2013 data collection. In almost all cases
the tributary temperatures were within two degrees of Canton USGS temperature.
Simple corrections were applied to slightly modify the tributary temperatures from the
Canton USGS temperature, to provide a more accurate input for the thermal model.
24

r —.} MODEL CALIBRATION
The longitudinal 1-D numerical model was calibrated using temperature data collected by
University of Tennessee personnel from the Pigeon River and its tributaries. During the
model calibration, T30m,KB, and KS were optimized to ensure a good fit of the modeled
temperatures to those collected by University of Tennessee personnel.
The first two parameters, T3oc ,KB,primarily control the amount of diurnal temperature
oscillation. HB is commonly neglected if modeling on a daily or longer basis (Morin and
Couillard, 1990) but was included in this model to show a more accurate representation
of the diurnal cycle. As KB increases, the diurnal variation decreases and visa versa. The
effect of a large KB is to increase the rate at which energy is added and removed through
the streambed during short-term oscillations and acts as a buffer to daily temperature
oscillations.
Equilibrium temperature (TE)was set as the USGS Canton Temperature at a given time,
and KS was used to optimize the fit between measured and modeled temperatures.
Although the value of KS can be predicted (Edinger et al., 1974), such predictions often
do not perform well (Rutherford et al., 1993). The difficulty of deterministically
calculating variables dependent on meteorological conditions is that the actual
meteorological conditions at the stream are not known and vary significantly in time and
space.
25

Figures 49 - 54 present a comparison of the calibrated model (black line)to the UT
thermograph data(teal), and Evergreen daily and weekly measurements (yellow) from
the summer of 2012 and the winter of 2013 at Fiberville (PRM 63R), Above Clyde (PRM
59R), and Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
The absolute 50`h and 90`h percentile error along with the standard error of the estimates
(SEE) are given in Table 9. The fits are very good.
Table 9. Modeled vs. University of Tennessee measured 50th and 901h percentile
absolute error, and SEE for Fiberville,Above Clyde and Hepco USGS.
Fiberville Above Clyde Hepco Gage
(PRM 63R) (PRM 59R) (PRM 45.1L)
r
501hpercentile error (°C) 0.6 0.8 1.1
q0thpercentile error(°C) 1.8 2.3 2.6
SEE (°C) 1.0 1.2 1.4
For comparison, and to demonstrate how good the fits truly are, a comparison of the
University of Tennessee hourly measurements versus the daily or weekly Evergreen
measurements during the same 4 months of monitoring (summer 2012 and winter 2013)
are shown in Table 10. The 50`h and 901h percentiles are not greatly different between
Tables 9 and 10, with generally smaller values in Table 10. This indicates that the 1-D
thermal model can predict river temperatures almost as well as a second independent
physical measurement of river temperatures. In other words, the errors in Table 9 are
26

relatively small given the errors inherently present when collecting river temperature
measurements.
Table 10. University of Tennessee measured vs. Evergreen measured 501h and 901h
percentile absolute error, and SEE for Fiberville,Above Clyde and Hepco USGS.
Fiberville Above Clyde Hepco Gage
(PRM 63R) (PRM 59R) (PRM 45.1L)
5 Oth percentile error (°C) 0.4 0.3 0.7
901h percentile error (°C) 1.2 0.9 4.3
SEE (°C) 0.9 0.65 1.2
1-D MODELING RESULTS
The calibrated model was applied to the Pigeon River from PRM 64.9 to PRM 42.6 and
over the time span from fall 2005 through Spring 2013. The results of the modeling are
presented in Figures 55 — 81,which compare the Evergreen daily and weekly point
measurements to the 1-D model predictions at Fiberville, Above Clyde, and Hepco
USGS.
A quantitative analysis of the modeled temperatures to the measured temperatures
collected by Evergreen of the five-year period was also conducted. The 50`h and 90`h
percentile absolute errors and the SEE between the numerical model and the Evergreen
measurements are shown in Table 11. The errors are small and only a very small amount
larger than the errors calculated during the calibration phase shown in Table 9. This
result validates the numerical model calibration and subsequent results of its use.
27

Table 11. Longitudinal model vs. Evergreen measured SOth and 90�h percentile
absolute error, and SEE for Fiberville,Above Clyde and Hepco USGS.
Fiberville Above Clyde Hepco Gage
(PRM 63R) (PRM 59R) (PRM 45.1L)
50 percentile error (°C) 0.5 0.8 0.9
901h percentile error (°C) 1.3 2.3 2.8
SEE (°C) 1.3 1.9 2.0
MODELED DELTA TEMPERATURES
The increase of river temperature due to the thermal loading from the mill (AT) can be
discerned by modeling the mill effluent temperature equal to the adjacent river
temperature just upstream of the outfall. By modeling the river with the mill turned off
and turned on and then comparing these two set of results,the estimated AT due to the
mill can be calculated directly. The AT was estimated from the fall of 2005 until the
spring of 2013 at Fiberville, Above Clyde, and Hepco USGS; the results are presented in
Figure 82. Table 12 presents the 500' and 90`'percentile of modeled delta temperatures at
Fiberville, Above Clyde, and Hepco USGS from fall 2005 through spring 2013.
28

Table 12. The 90`h and 50th percentile weekly (Sun—Sat) average AT (Fall 2005—
Spring 2013) at three stations.
Fiberville Above Clyde Hepco Gage
(PRM 63R) (PRM 59R) (PRM 45.1L)
50 percentile increase (°C) 3.1 2.5 0.9
901h percentile increase (°C) 6.8 4.8 1.5
To demonstrate a more holistic view of the thermal behavior of the Pigeon River in both
space and time, the results of the longitudinal modeling (specifically the weekly average
delta T) were used to generate a contour plots (Figure 83). The vertical axis is distance
downstream from the outfall and the horizontal axis is the date. Above the zero mark on
the vertical axis a dT of zero is present as this region is above the outfall and represents
ambient conditions. Below 0-mi the dT increases to between 2 and 12 °C depending on
the date. Also evident within the graph are horizontal lines that appear to attenuate the
dT. In fact, these are the contributions of cooler water entering from the tributaries,
namely: Beaver Dam Creek (0.4 mi),Richland Creek(8.4 mi), Crabtree Creek(13.5 mi),
and Johnathons Creek (17.3 mi) downstream of the outfall. When the dT is large,the
tributaries have a marked effect towards cooling the Pigeon River. When the dt is small,
the effect of the tributaries is also small.
In addition to the tributaries cooling the Pigeon River as water flows downstream, it is
apparent that the dT also decreases (becomes more blue) in between the locations of the
tributary confluences. This is due to energy flux towards the atmosphere and earth
29

— beneath the streambed when the Pigeon River temperature is above the ambient
condition. The larger the dT,the higher the temperature gradient and the more quickly
the dT decreases. For instance, the small amount of red and yellow on the plot are
quickly attenuated by a combination of the tributaries mixing in cooler water and energy
flux out of the river. Once the river becomes aqua or blue (dT=4 or 2 °C, respectively)
the effect of the tributaries and energy flux to the atmosphere and earth diminish.
30

f
PIGEON RIVER THERMAL PLUME DELINEATION
Thermal Cross Section Measurements
Thermal cross section measurements were collected at the RR bridge below the outfall
(PRM 63.1) and at the Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63) on August 12u' and 291'2012. The
goal was to measure the cross sections on a typical summer flow day and a quite low
summer flow day. Unfortunately, for the sampling, the 2012 summer was relatively wet
and extremely low-flow conditions were not available, and 2013 was an even wetter
summer. On both dates and at both locations, a thermal cross-section of the river was
collected on a 0.3 in by 0.3 in grid. Two university of Tennessee personnel lowered a bi-
metal temperature probe attached to a large weight into the river. An eyebolt was affixed
to the top of the weight through which a pulley was placed. A line run through the
pulley, with the temperature sensor attached, allowed for raising and lowering the
temperature sensor at each 0.3 m across the RR bridge and the Fiberville bridge. The
temperature sensor was read with a Campbell Scientific Datalogger. Once all the vertical
measurements at a given position on the bridges were collected, the pulley and weight
were moved 0.3 in across the river and another vertical series of measurements was
collected. This repeated until the entire cross section was completed and required
approximately 2-3 hrs for an entire cross section of temperatures to be collected.
Because the river temperatures were changing due to diurnal cycles during the
measurement of the cross sections, each measurement within each thermal cross section
was adjusted to the corresponding temperature at noon of the sampling day. For
31

example, if a given temperature measurement was 22 °C at 10:00, and the temperature of
the river at Canton USGS increased by 1 °C between 10:00 and 12:00,then the
referenced temperature measurement would be adjusted upward by 1 'C. This process
eliminated,to the maximum extent possible, any artificial temperature gradient measured
across the river due to the time lapse of the cross section measurements.
Thermal Plume Modeling
CORMIX, a USEPA-supported, 3-D mixing zone model,was chosen to model the
thermal plume and how quickly it mixes into the Pigeon River after being released from
the outfall. This mixing zone model analyzes the boundary interactions of heat and its
associated density differences from the ambient condition. By utilizing decay or heat loss
coefficients along with effluent and ambient parameters, CORMIX is capable of
modeling the thermal plume and how quickly it mixes into the entirety of the cross
section as the plume itself is being convected downstream. Visualizations of these
simulations can be prepared to show a map view of the extent of plume mixing
downstream.
Five modeling times were selected based upon the availability of Google Earth imaging
and the dates that the thermal cross-section measurements were collected. For each of
these five times (6/17/2008, 5/30/2009, 8/21/2012, 8/29/2012, 3/13/2013) the actual
measured flow rates of the river and outfall, along with the measured temperatures of the
river and the outfall were used to model how the thermal plume disperses downstream
32

from the outfall (Table 13). Further,the actual geometry of the outfall (three 30-in pipes
extending perpendicularly into the river flow)was accurately incorporated.
Table 13. Flows and Temperatures for the five CORAM Thermal models.
Canton USGS temperature is a USGS source. Outfall temperature and flowrate
were provided by Evergreen. Pigeon River Flow at the outfall was calculated by
subtracting the mill intake flowrate (Evergreen source) from the USGS Canton
Flowrate (USGS source).
Canton Pigeon River Flow at Outfall Flowrate
Date USGS (°C) Outfall (°C) Outfall (m3 s"1) W s"1)
3/18/2013 7.00 30.9 11.9 1.20
5/30/2009 14.9 36.6 16.5 1.04
6/17/2008 21.1 35.3 2.18 1.03
8/21/2012 19.0 33.3 3.48 1.20
8/29/2012 20.6 34.0 2.63 1.22
The river dimensions for the model were determined by using Canton USGS gage water
level data and also by interpreting visual imagery available from Google Earth. First,
three river widths were measured from Google Earth imagery for the reach between river
mile PRM 63.3 and PRM 63: at the Mill Outfall, at the Railroad Bridge, and at Fiberville
Bridge. The average of these three measurements was used to define the width of the
thermal model associated with each Google Earth imagery. For the simulations without
Google Earth imagery,the river width was interpolated from the previous measurements
based on the known river flowrate and Canton USGS gage height.
33

Not only does CORMIX provide a graphical representation of the thermal plume, it also
provides the thermal plume's temperature increase above ambient. Further, it calculates
the average velocity of the thermal plume enabling calculation (in minutes) of the time
required for the thermal plume to transit a given distance downstream.
Results of Thermal Plume Measurements and Modeline
The CORMIX thermal plume models were used to simulate the thermal plume from
PRM 63.3 to 63.0 and were compared to either a Google Earth aerial satellite image
and/or a measured thermal cross-section of the area. Figure 84 shows a comparison of
the CORMIX results to a Google Earth image of the same time, 5/30/2009. In the upper
Google Earth image the color within the river delineates the outer boundary of the
thermal plume. The middle image is a graphical representation of the plume predicted
via CORMIX. The results are very similar with the plume almost extending across the
river. Just beneath the middle image are the transit times for the plume to reach a given
location downstream of the outfall, in minutes. The lower image is a graph of the
average increase of temperature (°C) of the plume at a given distance and travel time
downstream from the outfall. All three images share the same scale down river. The red
vertical bar marks the location of the mill outfall, the yellow vertical bar marks the
location of the RR Bridge, and the blue vertical bar marks the location of the Fiberville
Bridge.
34

Figure 85 is similar to Figure 84 but shows 3/18/2013 when the flow was less, at 11.9
m3/s. Correspondingly the model predicts that the thermal plume mixes across the width
of the river more rapidly and the associated transit times are slightly longer. The Google
Earth image shows a different trend; the river color(and the thermal plume) stays along
the left bank longer than in Figure 83 when the flowrate was larger. These two images
demonstrate the difficulty of precisely modeling thermal plumes in a natural streambed.
Figure 86 presents modeling and Google Imagery from a very low flow day, 6/17/2008,
where the flowrate was only 2.18 m3/s. Both the CORMIX modeling and the Google
imagery show the plume rapidly mixing across the river.
Figure 87 and 88 show a comparison of the CORMIX modeling to the measured thermal
cross sections. The top two images of each figure show the interpolated measured
thermal cross sections (yellow perimeter and vertical line collected at RR Bridge, and
blue perimeter and vertical line collected at the Fiberville Bridge). The middle and lower
images are similar to those presented in Figures 84-86. Figures 87 and 88 both represent
moderately to very low flow rates of 3.48 and 2.63 m3/s respectively. And although the
CORMIX modeling of these two days shows complete mixing of the plumes very
rapidly,there is still actually a thermal signature of the plume across the cross sections.
In both cases the left side at the RR bridge,upper most images, has significantly warmer
temperatures on the left side of the river, the same side as the outfall. There is also a
smaller temperature gradient across the river at Fiberville for the 3.48 m3/s measurement.
These persistent temperature differences across the river even during low flow conditions
35

are consistent with the four months of thermograph data showing that the thermal plume
is not fully mixed at Fiberville, particularly when the flow rate is moderate to high.
36

REFERENCES
Caissie,D., M. G. Satish, and N. El-Jabi. 2005. Predicting river water temperatures using
the equilibrium temperature concept with application on Miramichi River
catchments (New Brunswick, Canada). Hydrological Processes. 19:2137:2159.
EA Engineering Science and Technology Inc. 1987. Synoptic survey of physical and
biological condition of the pigeon river in the vicinity of Champion International,
Canton Mill, Prepared for Champion International Corporation.
EA Engineering Science and Technology Inc. 2001. Pigeon River Temperature Model
(1996-2000). Prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Edinger, J. E., D. K. Brady, and J. C. Geyer. 1974. Heat exchange and transport in the
environment. Prepared for Electric Power Institute. Cooling Water Discharge
Research Project(RP-4),pp. 125.
Morin G. and D. Couillard 1990. Predicting river temperatures with a hydrological
model. In Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanic, Surface and Groundwater Flow
Phenomena,Vol. 10. Gulf Publishing Company: Houston, TX; 171-209.
Rutherford, J. C., J. B. Macaskill, and B. L. Williams. 1993.Natural water temperature
variations in the lower Waikato River,New Zealand.New Zealand Journal of
Marine and Freshwater Research. 27:71-85
37

Figure 1 -Google Earth image of Above Mill at Pigeon River Mile (PRM 64.55R)to Above Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.25R).............6
Figure 2- Google Earth image of Railroad Bridge at Pigeon River Mile 63.2,measured at Right/Center/Left side (PRM 63.2R/C/L) to
the Beaver Dam Creek/ Pigeon River Confluence (PRM 62.971)............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3 - Google Earth image of Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R) to Pump Station (PRM 62.5R). ............................................................ 8
Figure 4 - Google Earth image of Pump Station (PRM 62.5R) to Above Clyde at(PRM 59R)................................................................9
Figure 5 - Google Earth image of Above Clyde (PRM 59R)to Richland Creek/Pigeon River confluence (PRM 54.9T).................... 10
Figure 6 -Google Earth image of Hyder Mt. (PRM 55,5L)to the Crabtree Creek/ Pigeon River confluence (PRM 49.8T). .............. 11
Figure 7-Google Earth image of the Crabtree Creek/Pigeon River Confluence (PRM 49.8T)to Hepco Gage(PRM 45.IL). ........... 12
Figure 8 - Google Earth image of Waterville Bridge (PRM 25.2L)to Bluffton (PRM 19.3R): all locations in Tenn. and below
WatervilleLake......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 9 - Google Earth image of Warren Wilson College at Swannanoa River Mile 11.3 (SRM 11.3L) and Exit 50—Interstate 40 at
(SRM 1.6L)............................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 10 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Above Mill (PRM 64.55R) located above the outfall........................................... 15
Figure 11 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Just Above Dam(PRM 63.35R) located above the outfall, and at Above Railroad
Bridge (PRM 63.25R) located below the outfall but on the opposite side of the Pigeon River from it................................................... 16
Figure 12- Summer 2012 measured temperatures of the Mill Outfall (PRM 63.30),prior to the effluent entering the river. The outfall
enters the Pigeon River on its left side (reference facing downstream). .................................................................................................. 17
Figure 13 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at the Left, Center, and Right side of the Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.2L/C/R)......... 18
Figure 14 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures within tributaries prior to their confluence with the Pigeon River at: (PRM 63.15T)
Camp Creek, (PRM 62.9T)Beaver Dam Creek, and (PRM 54.9T) Richland Creek. Camp Creek is often very shallow such that the
sensor does not stay fully submerged rendering the spikey behavior....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 15 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Below Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.IR) ..................................................................20
Figure 16 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R)...............................................................................21
Figure 17- Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Pump Station (PRM 62.5R)..................................................................................22
Figure 18 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at DO Station (PRM 61R). .......................................................................................23
Figure 19 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures Above Clyde (PRM 59R).........................................................................................24
Figure 20 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Hyder Mt(PRM 55.5L)........................................................................................25
Figure 21 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at River View(PRM 53.5R).....................................................................................26
Figure 22 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures within tributaries prior to their confluence with the Pigeon River at: (PRM 49.8,1)
Crabtree Creek, (PRM 46T) Jonathan's Creek, (PRM 42.7T)Fine's Creek. Sensor at PRM 49.8T was absent for some collection(s)—
replaced.....................................................................................................................................................................................................27

Figure 23 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Hepco Gage (PRM 45.11)....................................................................................28
Figure 24- Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Hepco Bridge (PRM 42.6R).................................................................................29
Figure 25 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Waterville Bridge (PRM 25.2L). Site is in TN., downstream of power station at
NCborder..................................................................................................................................................................................................30
Figure 26 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Trail Hollow (PRM 22L). Site is in TN, downstream of power station at NC
border. Sensor was absent for some data collection(s) - replaced............................................................................................................ 31
Figure 27- Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Bluffton (PRM 19.3R). Site is in TN, downstream of power station at NC border.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 28 -Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Warren Wilson College (SRM 11.3L). This is a reference stream site within the
SwannanoaRiver......................................................................................................................................................................................33
Figure 29 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Exit 50—Interstate 40 (SRM 1.6L). This is a reference stream site within the
SwannanoaRiver. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 30 - Winter 2012 measured temperatures of the Mill Outfall (PRM 63.30),prior to the effluent entering the river. The outfall
enters the Pigeon River on its left side...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 31 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures Above Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.25R). The subzero temperatures and large daily
variability beginning in early February resulted from beaching of the sensor and are more reflective of ambient air temperatures......36
Figure 32 - Winter 2012 measured temperatures at the Left and Right side of the Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.2L/R). The center sensor
wasabsent upon attempted retrieval.........................................................................................................................................................37
Figure 33 -Winter 2012 measured temperatures within tributaries prior to their confluence with the Pigeon River at: (PRM 63.15T)
Camp Creek, (PRM 62.9T)Beaver Dam Creek, and (PRM 54.9T) Richland Creek. Camp Creek is often very shallow such that the
sensor does not stay fully submerged rendering the spikey behavior.......................................................................................................38
Figure 34-Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Below Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.1R).....................................................................39
Figure 35 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R)..................................................................................40
Figure 36 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Pump Station (PRM 62.5R). ...................................................................................41
Figure 37- Winter 2013 measured temperatures at DO Station (PRM 61R). The short collection period was due to an erroneous
settingon the sensor at deployment..........................................................................................................................................................42
Figure 38 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Above Clyde (PRM 59R)........................................................................................43
Figure 39 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Hyder Mt. (PRM 55.5L)..........................................................................................44
Figure 40 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures at River View(PRM 53.5R). ......................................................................................45
Figure 41 - Winter 2012 measured temperatures within tributaries prior to their confluence with the Pigeon River at: (PRM 49.8T)
Crabtree Creek, (PRM 46T) Jonathan's Creek, (PRM 42.7T) Fine's Creek............................................................................................46
2

Figure 42 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Hepco Gage (PRM 45.1L). .....................................................................................47
Figure 43 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Hepco Bridge (PRM 42.6R). It appears that in late February the sensor spent
several days beached and out of the water measuring air temperatures...................................................................................................48
Figure 44 -Winter 2013 measured temperature at Trail Hollow (PRM 22L). Site is in TN, downstream of power station at NC border.
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................49
Figure 45 -Winter 2012 measured temperatures at Warren Wilson College (SRM 11.3L). This is a reference stream site within the
SwannanoaRiver...................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 46 -Winter 2012 measured temperatures at Exit 50—Interstate 40 (SRM 1.6L). This is a reference stream site within the
SwannanoaRiver...................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 47—A comparison of the summer ambient Pigeon River Temperatures to the reference stream, the Swannanoa River. Shown
are: Canton USGS (PRM 64.9), Warren Wilson College, (SRM 11.9L), and Exit 50—Interstate 40 (SRM 1.6L)................................ 52
Figure 48 -A comparison of the winter ambient Pigeon River Temperatures to the reference stream,the Swannanoa River. Shown
are: Canton USGS (PRM 64.9), Warren Wilson College, (SRM 11.9L),and Exit 50—Interstate 40 (SRM 1.6L)................................53
Figure 49 - Summer 2012 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R)....................54
Figure 50 - Summer 2012 modeled,measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).......................... 55
Figure 51 - Summer 2012 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L)....................... 56
Figure 52 -Winter 2013 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R). ..................... 57
Figure 53 -Winter 2013 modeled, measured and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).............................. 58
Figure 54-Winter 2013 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.IL). ........................59
Figure 55 -The 2005 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R)..............................................60
Figure 56-The 2005 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).................................................... 61
Figure 57-The 2005 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L)................................................. 62
Figure 58 -The 2006 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).............................................. 63
Figure 59-The 2006 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).................................................... 64
Figure 60-The 2006 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).................................................65
Figure 61 -The 2007 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R)..............................................66
Figure 62 -The 2007 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R)....................................................67
Figure 63 -The 2007 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).................................................68
Figure 64-The 2008 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).............................................. 69
Figure 65 -The 2008 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).................................................... 70
Figure 66 -The 2008 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L)................................................. 71
3

Figure 67- The 2009 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R)..............................................72
Figure 68 - The 2009 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).................................................... 73
Figure 69 -The 2009 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).................................................74
Figure 70-The 2010 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).............................................. 75
Figure 7.1 -The 2010 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).................................................... 76
Figure 72-The 2010 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).................................................77
Figure 73 -The 2011 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R)..............................................78
Figure 74-The 2011 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R)....................................................79
Figure 75 -The 2011 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L)................................................: 80
Figure 76 -The 2012 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).............................................. 81
Figure 77-The 2012 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).................................................... 82
Figure 78-The 2012 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L)................................................. 83
Figure 79 -The 2013 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).............................................. 84
Figure 80 -The 2013 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).................................................... 85
Figure 81 -The 2013 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L)................................................. 86
Figure 82—Weekly (Sun—Sat) average modeled delta T(mill on vs. mill off) for Fiberville (PRM 63R), Above Clyde (PRM 59R),
andHepco USGS (PRM 45.1L). .............................................................................................................................................................. 87
Figure 83—Weekly (Sun—Sat) average modeled delta T(°C) from 2005-2013 plotted versus distance downstream of the outfall. The
purple above the outfall designates ambient temperatures. The horizontal lines that effectively attenuate the dTs are due to cool water
entering from tributaries at: Beaver Dam Creek(0.4 mi), Richland Creek(8.4 mi), Crabtree Creek(13.5 mi), and Johnathons Creek
(17.3 mi) downstream of the outfall. ........................................................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 84—Upper panel=Google Earth image of the zone of mixing between the outfall and Fiberville Bridge; middle
panel=schematic of temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time durations;
bottom panel--time course of temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing. Vertical lines mark distances in relation to the
photograph. ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 85 -Upper panel=Google Earth image of the zone of mixing between the outfall and Fiberville Bridge; middle
panel=schematic of temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time durations;
bottom panel--time course of temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing. Vertical lines mark distances in relation to the
photograph. ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 86 -Upper panel=Google Earth image of the zone of mixing between the outfall and Fiberville Bridge; middle
panel=schematic of temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time durations;
4

bottom panel--time course of temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing. Vertical lines mark distances in relation to the
photograph................................................................................................................................................................................................ 91
Figure 87 -Upper panel=measured thermal cross section at RR Bridge; 2"d panel=measured thermal cross section at Fiberville
bridge; P panel=schematic of temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time
durations; 4th panel--time course of temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing. Vertical lines mark distances in relation
tothe photograph......................................................................................................................................................................................92
Figure 88 -Upper panel=measured thermal cross section at RR Bridge; 2"d panel=measured thermal cross section at Fiberville
bridge; P panel=schematic of temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time
durations; 4th panel--time course of temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing. Vertical lines mark distances in relation
tothe photograph. .....................................................................................................................................................................................93
5

Y
lam
,y�,pg ..
ARM 64 55R�••94*� ove,Mil!

.(i
4 .
j {
1
h• IF• u�� 1A: � ��
Figure 2 - Google Earth image of Railroad Bridge at Pigeon River Mile 63.2, measured at Right/Center/Left
side (PRM 63.2R/C/L) to the Beaver Dam Creek/ Pigeon River Confluence (PRM 62.9T).
7

' PRM 62.5R - Pump Station �
� \ �R. RM 62.9T - Beaverdam Creek-
-=RM 63R - Fiberville�B itig�,
Go ogle of FibervilleBridge ! 1 Pump Station1 1

x,
� -- . �,� ice, � � PRM 62 5R - Pump Station
J F. "PRM 61 R - DO Station
PRM 59R - Above Clyde S ,j- ^*� ,�. t
4' � • i f.,� '( " ' ;:5 ` r,�+est Cantor
Earth .

,R PRM'69R - �bove Clyde ;� °
+`' ' ' �R,RM 55.5E _.Hyder MY.• - . • �. `� , '"h,,��;;-..�,, .�. '"g.K•.
PRM 54.9T - Richland Creek��`�

Y
Crabtree Creek
Goosic earth,
Figure 6 - Google Earth image of Hyder Mt. (PRM 55.5L) to the Crabtree Creek / Pigeon River confluence
(PRM 49.8T).
11

PRM • • Gage
PRM 46TJonathan's
e Crabtree
i • • • Crabtree
Goo�lc earth
Figure 7 - Google Earth image of the Crabtree Creek/ Pigeon River Confluence (PRM 49.8T) to Hepco
Gage (PRM 451L).
12

M
Bluffton
HartforofPRM 22L Trail Hollow
TN and NC border
Figure 8 - Google Earth image of Waterville Bridge (PRM 25.2L) to Bluffton (PRM 19.311): all locations in
Tenn. and below Waterville Lake
13

YY
is
SRM 1 6L Exit 50 ,Interstate"40 { -
r
Google Earth image of Warren Wilsont . ' ' and

1,
30 —(PRM 64.55R) Above Mill
28
U
". 26
a 24
a
E
ILU
22
20
18
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 10 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Above Mill (PRM 64.55R) located above the outfall.
15

—(PRM 63.35R) lust Above Dam
30
(PRM 63.25R) Above Railroad Bridge
28
v
26
v . .
fE
v 24 ;
n
E
v i
22
r1
20 -
18
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 11 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Just Above Dam (PRM 63.35R) located above the
outfall, and at Above Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.25R) located below the outfall but on the opposite side of the
Pigeon River from it.
16

' 1
38 —(PRM 63.3L) Mill Outfall
U
36
d
L
m
L
C
flC.
G
34
32
7/12/11 8/12/12 9/5/12
Figure 12 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures of the Mill Outfall (PRM 63.30), prior to the effluent
entering the river. The outfall enters the Pigeon River on its left side (reference facing downstream).
17

(PRM 63.21L) Railroad Bridge
35
(PRM 63.2C) Railroad Bridge
33
(PRM 63.2R) Railroad Bridge
v
31
a
v 29
Y
v 27CL
d,
25
23
21 `
t
19
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 13 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at the Left, Center, and Right side of the Railroad Bridge
(PRM 63.2L/C/R).
18

—(PRM 63.15T) Camp Creek
35
(PRM 62.9T) Beaver Dam Creek
33
31 (PRM 54.9T) Richland Creek
u 29
e
27 :• sc .
25
CL
41
21
19
i
17
L
15
13 - __-
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 14- Summer 2012 measured temperatures within tributaries prior to their confluence with the Pigeon River at: (PRM
63.15T) Camp Creek, (PRM 62.9T)Beaver Dam Creek, and (PRM 54.9T) Richland Creek. Camp Creek is often very shallow
such that the sensor does not stay fully submerged rendering the spikey behavior
19

30 —(PRM 63.1R) Below Railroad Bridge
28
U
�. 26
N
L
N
f0
v 24
a
E
PT 22 -0
20
18
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 15 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Below Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.111)
20

1
30 —(PRM 63R) Fiberville Bridge
28
U
26
d
m
d 24
a
E
22
20
18
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 16 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
21

1
—(PRM 62.5R) Pump Station :::]
33
31
29
U
0
01 27
14
L 25
E
23
21
19
17
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 17 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Pump Station (PRM 62.5R).
22

—(PRIM 61R) DO Station
31
29
U
0
�— 27
N
L
7
Y
f0
- L
0 25
E
23
21
19
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 18 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at DO Station (PRM 61R).
23

—(PRM 59R) Above Clyde
31
29
U
0
-- 27
G1
L
M
L
L 25
E 0
23 -0
21
19
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 19 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
24

� 1
—(PRM 55.5L) Hyder Mt.
29
27
U
0
O1
25
v
a
E
23
21
19
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 20 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Hyder Mt (PRM 55.5L).
25

r
- J
—(PRIM 53.5R) River View
31
29
U
e
�— 27
O1
L
L
CL 25
E
23
21
19
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 21 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at River View (PRM 53.5R).
26

(PRM 49.8T) Crabtree Creek
29
(PRM 46T) Johnathan's Creek
27 (PRM 42.7T) Fine's Creek
u 25
� t
� e i
r 23
m t
aj
v ,
21 ` �• •� ii 7 � { i
t i i o ! plc•: , -• ; t ' : • t
T�a ? •*.::7 . 1 , Ta is � Si � ;�::s,t •',•! J . ss•
19 fr2 �. r s ; : k s 1i •s •', . ' . 4
kl # ' ` • ° f
•i.` i � l t
17 +
15
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 22 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures within tributaries prior to their confluence with the
Pigeon River at: (PRM 49.8T) Crabtree Creek, (PRM 46T) Jonathan's Creek, (PRM 42.7T) Fine's Creek.
Sensor at PRM 49.8T was absent for some collection(s)— replaced.
27

1 �
—(PRM 45.1L) Hepco Gage
33
31
29
U
0
01 27
7
M
f0
L
CL 25
E
~ 23
21
19
17
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 23 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Hepco Gage (PRM 45.1L).
28

1 }
—(PRIM 42.6R) Hepco Bridge
30
28
26
0
0
0
24
L
L 22
G
~ 20
18
16
14
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 24 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Hepco Bridge (PRM 42.6R).
29

27 Bri—(PRIM 25.2L) Waterville dge
25
U
0
N
23
M
aL
a
E
21
19
17
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 25 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Waterville Bridge (PRM 25.2L). Site is in TN.,
downstream of power station at NC border.
30

1
—(PRIM 22L) Trail Hollow
33
31
29
U
0
27
to
CL 25
E
~ 23
21
19
17
8/23/12 9/5/14
Figure 26 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Trail Hollow (PRM 22L). Site is in TN, downstream of
power station at NC border. Sensor was absent for some data collection(s) - replaced.
31

29 —(PRM 19.311) Bluffton
27
U
0
�— 25
a
L
Y
L
aPT 23
E
21
19
17
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 27 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Bluffton (PRM 19.3R). Site is in TN, downstream of
power station at NC border.
32

29 —(SRM 11.3L) Warren Wilson College
27
U
0
�- 25
aj
m
M 23
E
9
21
19
17
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 28 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Warren Wilson College (SRM 11.3L). This is a
reference stream site within the Swannanoa River.
33

29 (SRM 1.6L) Exit 50 - Interstate 40
27
U
0
-- 25
aU
m
a 23
E
21
19
17
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 29 - Summer 2012 measured temperatures at Exit 50—Interstate 40 (SRM 1.6L). This is a reference
stream site within the Swannanoa River.
34

1
_ J i
—(PRM 63.3L) Mill Outfall
33
31
U
0
N
3 29
M
f0
L
Q�
CQ
G
I- 27
25
23
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 30 - Winter 2012 measured temperatures of the Mill Outfall (PRM 63.30), prior to the effluent
entering the river. The outfall enters the Pigeon River on its left side.
35

(PRM 63.25R) Above Railroad Bridge
20
15
U
0
-- 10
N
L
7
Y
f0
L
o. 5
E
0
-5
-10
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 31 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures Above Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.25R). The subzero
temperatures and large daily variability beginning in early February resulted from beaching of the sensor
and are more reflective of ambient air temperatures.
36

(PRM 63.2L) Railroad Bridge
18
(PRM 63.2R) Railroad Bridge
16
_ 14
v
12
i e
7
m 10
v �
i A
E 8
f !I
4
2
0
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 32 - Winter 2012 measured temperatures at the Left and Right side of the Railroad Bridge (PRM
63.2L/R). The center sensor was absent upon attempted retrieval.
37

—(PRM 63.15T) Camp Creek
35
(PRM 62.9T) Beaver Dam Creek
30
(PRM 54.9T) Richland Creek
25
U
0
i 20
3
M
a 15
10
5 w W
0
-5
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 33 -Winter 2012 measured temperatures within tributaries prior to their confluence with the Pigeon River at: (PRM
63.15T) Camp Creek, (PRM 62.9T) Beaver Dam Creek, and (PRM 54.9T) Richland Creek. Camp Creek is often very shallow
such that the sensor does not stay fully submerged rendering the spikey behavior.
38

—(PRM 63.1R) Below Railroad Bridge
15
U
a
�— 10
L
3
L
CQ
G
5
0
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 34 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Below Railroad Bridge (PRM 63.1R).
39

r
—(PRM 63R) Fiberville Bridge
14
12
10
V
L
' 8
M
L
d
fl.
6
4
2
0
2/15/13 3/18/13
Figure 35 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
40

14 —(PRM 62.5R) Pump Station
12
U
0
—� 10
G7
L
7
c 8
E
H
6
4
2
2/15/13 3/18/13
Figure 36 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Pump Station (PRM 62.5R).
41

15 —(PRIM 61R) DO Station
13
U
0
u 11
N
u
a
E
F 9
7
5
3
2/15/14 2/18/13
Figure 37 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures at DO Station (PRM 61R). The short collection period was
due to an erroneous setting on the sensor at deployment.
42

15 —(PRM 59R) Above Clyde
13
U
�— 11
L
Y
L
v 9
a
E
7
5
3
2/15/14 3/18/13
Figure 38 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
43

—(PRM 55.5L) Hyder Mt.
14
12
U
10
y)
3
a-+
i 8
a
E
6
4
2
0
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 39 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Hyder Mt. (PRM 55.5L).
44

—(PRM 53.511) River View
14
12
U
0
d
10
Y
L
C
Ca
G p
H 8
6
4
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 40 - Winter 2013 measured temperatures at River View (PRM 53.5R).
45

(PRM 49.8T) Crabtree Creek
21
(PRM 46T) Jonathan's Creek
19
17 (PRM 42.7T) Fine's Creek
15
13
11
v
a
~ 7 {t
5
3
1
-1
2/15/13 3/18/13
Figure 41 -Winter 2012 measured temperatures within tributaries prior to their confluence with the Pigeon
River at: (PRM 49.8T) Crabtree Creek, (PRM 46T) Jonathan's Creek, (PRM 42.7T) Fine's Creek.
46

15 —(PRM 45.1L) Hepco Gage
13
U
0
�- 11
7
aL g
a
E-
7
5
3
2/15/14 3/18/13
Figure 42 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Hepco Gage (PRM 45.1L).
47

—(PRM 42.611) Hepco Bridge
20
15
0
0
N
10
i+
f0
L
(U
Q
E
5
0 ,
-5
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 43 -Winter 2013 measured temperatures at Hepco Bridge (PRM 42.611). It appears that in late .
February the sensor spent several days beached and out of the water measuring air temperatures.
48

15 —(PRM 22L) Trail Hollow �]13
v
0
�- 11
d
3
a+
f0
L
a� g
a
E
7
5
3
2/15/13 3/18/13
Figure 44 - Winter 2013 measured temperature at Trail Hollow (PRM 22L)..Site is in TN, downstream of
power station at NC border.
49

—(SRM 11.3L) Warren Wilson College
14
12
0
e
-� 10
G1
L
.�.
i° 8
C
Q
I_
H 6
4
2
0
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 45 - Winter 2012 measured temperatures at Warren Wilson College (SRM 11.3L). This is a reference
stream site within the Swannanoa River.
- 50

J .
—(SRM 1.6L) Exit 50 - Interstate 40
14
12
U
0
.� 10
v
i° 8
C
a
E
6
4
2
0
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 46 - Winter 2012 measured temperatures at Exit 50 —Interstate 40 (SRM 1.6L). This is a reference
stream site within the Swannanoa River.
51

—Canton USGS
29 (SRM 11.3L) Warren Wilson College
(SRM 1.6L) Exit 50 - Interstate 40
27
25
C 23
y •. t .� .x ttf t tttt. q i .
21
19
17
7/12/12 8/12/13 9/5/13
Figure 47—A comparison of the summer ambient Pigeon River Temperatures to the reference stream, the
Swannanoa River. Shown are: Canton USGS (PRM 64.9), Warren Wilson College, (SRM 11.9L), and Exit
50— Interstate 40 (SRM 1.6L).
52

Canton USGS
14 (SRM 11.3L) Warren Wilson College
(SRM 1.6L) Exit 50 - Interstate 40
12 i
10
Q •C, : fillI ' � £t Y tr:{ ll�.',t
: ? r.t•r i ' I i •� r �, l' .e 3 ° ':4•
~ 6Allt� Y' : � i,. il t,? . rill �j�_; f
I AA
4
2 II } II
0
1/25/13 2/25/13 3/18/13
Figure 48 - A comparison of the winter ambient Pigeon River Temperatures to the reference stream, the
Swannanoa River. Shown are: Canton USGS (PRM 64.9), Warren Wilson College, (SRM 11.9L), and Exit
50— Interstate 40 (SRM 1.6L).
53

35 Fiberville Modeled
Fiberville Measured
9 Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30 ;
lot
co
v �
E 20
15
10
7/10/12 7/20/12 7/30/12 8/9/12 8/19/12 8/29/12 9/8/12
Figure 49 - Summer 2012 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge
(PRM 63R).
54

35 • Above Clyde Modeled
• Above Clyde Measured
% Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30 tr# 11
CJ 2 25
Kt +
��.
3
m = s
z Ca
E 20
15
10
7/10/12 7/20/12 7/30/12 8/9/12 8/19/12 8/29/12 9/8/12
Figure 50 - Summer 2012 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde
(PRM 59R).
55

35 Hepco USGS Modeled
Hepco USGS Measured
N Evergreen Weekly Measurement (09:00)
30
g'
AZ
£ 20 Ix
15
10
7/10/12 7/20/12 7/30/12 8/9/12 8/19/12 8/29/12 9/8/12
Figure 51 - Summer 2012 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS
(PRM 45.1L).
56

20 Fiberville Modeled
Fiberville Measured
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
15
0 a
•
3 10
y i�T
0
2/10/13 2/20/13 3/2/13 3/12/13 3/22/13
Figure 52 - Winter 2013 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge
(PRM 63R).
57

20 Above Clyde Modeled
Above Clyde Measured
Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
15
L y y
� 10
s '
i' 1F� ;{fit Ott
5 � t
• Z
0
2/10/13 2/20/13 3/2/13 3/12/13 3/22/13
Figure 53 - Winter 2013 modeled, measured and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM
59R).
58

20 • Hepco USGS Modeled
Hepco USGS Measured
• Evergreen Weekly Measurement (09:00)
15
cu
«3 �
f
10 i
CL
y Y aj i`�'1 Y ff
.. �`: Y.
5
0
2/10/13 2/15/13 2/20/13 2/25/13 3/2/13 3/7/13 3/12/13 3/17/13 3/22/13 3/27/13
Figure 54 - Winter 2013 modeled, measured, and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepeo USGS (PRM
45.1L).
59

35 Fiberville Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25
v
C
a, 20 ``
3 �7�
a 15 P
E 1
10 ±1
5
0
1/2005 2/2005 4/2005 6/2005 7/2005 9/2005 10/2005 12/2005
Figure 55 - The 2005 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
60

35 Fiberville Modeled
® Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
30
25
U
0
d 20
i
i
E
(V 15
C R_
10
m <l
5
0
1/2005 2/2005 4/2005 6/2005 7/2005 9/2005 10/2005 12/2005
Figure 56 - The 2005 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
61

35 Hepco USGS Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25
v
0
d 20
L
3
M
L
o. 15
E '
10 i
5
0
1/2005 2/2005 4/2005 6/2005 7/2005 9/2005 10/2005 12/2005
Figure 57 - The 2005 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
62

35 Fiberville Modeled
• Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
• j
'— 20 - +.
o. 15 t
E 1
10
cu
1/2006 2/2006 4/2006 5/2006 7/2006 9/2006 10/2006 12/2006
Figure 58 - The 2006 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
63

35 Fiberville Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25
a 15
y
10 !! t Est
5
0
1/2006 2/2006 4/2006 5/2006 7/2006 9/2006 10/2006 12/2006
Figure 59 - The 2006 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
64

35 Hepco USGS Modeled
a Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25 '
U
a; 20
c. 15
10 r
5 t ;
0
1/2006 2/2006 4/2006 5/2006 7/2006 9/2006 10/2006 12/2006
Figure 60 - The 2006 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
65

35 Fiberville Modeled
�y Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
251;1 �S
- 20 1
c.15 ;1!
�, Y• h ;i�
y is
F— M 1
1 , t
10
5 k' • lit
0
1/2007 2/2007 4/2007 6/2007 7/2007 9/2007 10/2007 12/2007
Figure 61 - The 2007 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
66

35 Fiberville Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25 dry i
1
20
a
a 15
F
10 �914,
0
1/2007 2/2007 4/2007 6/2007 7/2007 9/2007 10/2007 12/2007
Figure 62 - The 2007 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
67

35 - Hepco USGS Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25
ar 20
L
3
c. 15 '
E }
10 I' P
5
f
0
1/2007 2/2007 4/2007 6/2007 7/2007 9/2007 10/2007 12/2007
Figure 63 - The 2007 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepeo USGS (PRM 45.1L).
68

35 Fiberville Modeled
K • Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25
U
a; 20 r
41 • •i 1. L'
EL 15 ,
£ i t
10 s d• lz� f"C 1�#!� t
>' � l
t � i• �
5
0 ,
1/2008 2/2008 4/2008 5/2008 7/2008 9/2008 10/2008 12/2008
Figure 64 - The 2008 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
69

35 • Above Clyde Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30 ;
t
25 ;
20 + ! r
c. 15
E ,#. ► ,
10
5 -,� ■'
0 r
1/2008 2/2008 4/2008 5/2008 7/2008 9/2008 10/2008 12/2008
Figure 65 - The 2008 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
70

35 • Hepco USGS Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
30
25
20 1 "r
l
Y
a 15
w
10 4
5 JOIN,
. t
0
1/2008 2/2008 4/2008 5/2008 7/2008 9/2008 10/2008 12/2008
Figure 66 - The 2008 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
71

35 Fiberville Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
6
25 `' t ffi ' !
o' �{
10 � , ' t jtf f . {yet
, 1 1
5 � f � , t�1�k•
7
0
1/2009 2/2009 4/2009 5/2009 7/2009 9/2009 10/2009 12/2009
Figure 67 - The 2009 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
72

35 • Above Clyde Modeled
s Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
30
25
a I 1j I, * '1
r
20 y i + � ?I
I !. ■
l-
a 15 :i
a ' of
F l i 1 ��� � •'i r �{'
a r t r (� �.J44 1 ,
10 11 r .� • ' " j� �to
5
']i
� �r71k.
r
0 r
1/2009 2/2009 4/2009 5/2009 7/2009 9/2009 10/2009 12/2009
Figure 68 - The 2009 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
73

35 Hepco USGS Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
r
25
.r
C7 t ` '
y 20 r
6
f�0
6.15
10
5
0 -
1/2009 2/2009 4/2009 5/2009 7/2009 9/2009 10/2009 12/2009
Figure 69 - The 2009 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
74

35 Fiberville Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
25
VLL
Y} r*
v
20
M
Q 15 4 .�
E
1
1096
►Ri
of 1 .
0 , ram
1/2010 2/2010 4/2010 5/2010 7/2010 9/2010 10/2010 12/2010
Figure 70 - The 2010 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
75

35 • Above Clyde Modeled
r Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
30
25
20 ,+I ,
y
o. 15 • �
10
AL A
5 p
0
1/2010 2/2010 4/2010 5/2010 7/2010 9/2010 10/2010 12/2010
Figure 71 - The 2010 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
76

35 • Hepco USGS Modeled
• Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
n '
r.5 '
25
u
w 20
Y
E15
10
,R
5 r y�
0
1/2010 2/2010 4/2010 5/2010 7/2010 9/2010 10/2010 12/2010
Figure 72 - The 2010 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
77

35 • Fiberville Modeled
A Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
2520
34
14
. s ;0 i
a.15 -
. I
1 Ij 7 t :
/SDK 1 1
0 " I
5 '
r
0
1/2011 2/2011 4/2011 5/2011 7/2011 9/2011 10/2011 12/2011
Figure 73 - The 2011 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
78

35 Above Clyde Modeled
a Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
19
25
20 , Ir
t,
c.15
10 w' g t y is
5 �' ,' ' • '
0
1/2011 2/2011 4/2011 5/2011 7/2011 9/2011 10/2011 12/2011
Figure 74 - The 2011 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
79

35 Hepco USGS Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
30
25 �G
" i
r �
o
v 20
f
CL
15 oil
F .
10 � f
5 � f
0
1/2011 2/2011 4/2011 5/2011 7/2011 9/2011 10/2011 12/2011
Figure 75 - The 2011 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepeo USGS (PRM 45.1L).
80

35 • Fiberville Modeled
a Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25
a .1 s
�'.
v 20
fO
a 15
N
10 }, Ilk
5
0
1/2012 2/2012 4/2012 5/2012 7/2012 9/2012 10/2012 12/2012
Figure 76 - The 2012 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
81

35 • Above Clyde Modeled
® Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25
i► �4
v 20 f
of
cu
£ 15 10 � �
q t,
y
5
0
1/2012 2/2012 4/2012 5/2012 7/2012 9/2012 10/2012 12/2012
Figure 77 - The 2012 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
82

35 Hepco USGS Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
t
25
0 ;
0 20 t r
L '
L
c 15 f
ioall ,tj:
5
0 - ——
1/2012 2/2012 4/2012 5/2012 7/2012 9/2012 10/2012 12/2012
Figure 78 - The 2012 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
83

35 Fiberville Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
30
25
v
0
v 20
i
3
Y
Y
a 15 f
10 � o 4
5 i r
0
1/2013 2/2013 4/2013 6/2013 7/2013 9/2013 10/2013 12/2013
Figure 79 - The 2013 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Fiberville Bridge (PRM 63R).
84

35 • Above Clyde Modeled
s Evergreen Daily Measurement(09:00)
30
25
u
e
20
L_
N
L
EL 15
10 �h +
Ole
5
0
1/2013 2/2013 4/2013 6/2013 7/2013 9/2013 10/2013 12/2013
Figure 80 - The 2013 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Above Clyde (PRM 59R).
85

35 Hepco USGS Modeled
Evergreen Daily Measurement (09:00)
30
25
v
0
20
l
EL 15
E
10
5 I"'
I
0
1/2013 2/2013 4/2013 6/2013 7/2013 9/2013 10/2013 12/2013
Figure 81 - The 2013 modeled and Evergreen measured temperatures for Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
86

14 Fiberville
Above Clyde
12 Hepco USGS
c�
a 10
L
M • • '
L . •
a 8
E . • • '
M
6
cu
-a qson
•r• * • - ••'
L
2
0
11/2005 11/2006 11/2007 11/2008 11/2009 11/2010 11/2011 11/2012
Figure 82 —Weekly (Sun — Sat) average modeled delta T (mill on vs. mill off) for Fiberville (PRM 63R),
Above Clyde (PRM 59R), and Hepco USGS (PRM 45.1L).
87

= • 0
o 2
_ 4
6
m �g 8
E 4 10
_ 12
O
E 8
o_
E
m
a�
c 12
3
O
U
C
0 16
20
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 833—Weekly(Sun—Sat) average modeled delta T (IC) from 2005-2013 plotted versus distance downstream of the
outfall. The purple above the outfall designates ambient temperatures. The horizontal lines that effectively attenuate the dTs
are due to cool water entering from tributaries at: Beaver Dam Creek(0.4 mi),Richland Creek (8.4 mi), Crabtree Creek(13.5
mi),and Johnathons Creek(17.3 mi) downstream of the outfall.
88

r, t
•I
2.9
2.8
2.7
2,6
2.5
RN BMd-ge Fibemille 2 4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
Omin 1.8 3.7 5.5 7.3 9.2 11.0 12.8 14.7 16.5 18.3 20.2 22.0 1.9
1.8
1.7
zo Delta T 1.6
16 1.5
1.4
12 1.3
1.2
B j 1.1
4 � 1
Figure 844—Upper panel=Google Earth image of the zone of mixing between the outfall and Fiberville Bridge; middle panel=schematic of
temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time durations; bottom panel=time course of
temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing. Vertical lines mark distances in relation to the photograph.
89

Lem
. � •
i s Doke T
4r
3.9
3.8
3.7
r _ 3.6
3.5
RR Bridge Fiberville 3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
0 min 2.4 4.7 7.1 9.4 11.8 14.1 16.5 18.9 21.2 23.6 25.9 28.3 2.9
2.8
2.7
20 Delta T 2.6
2.5
16 2.4
2.3
12 2.2
2.1
s 2
4
Figure 855-Upper panel=Google Earth image of the zone of mixing between the outfall and Fiberville Bridge; middle panel=schematic of
temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time durations; bottom panel=time course of
temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing.Vertical lines mark distances in relation to the photograph.
90

11 • 1
Delta
8+
79
7.8
7.7
76
RR Bridge Iberville 7.5
1 1 7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
0 min 9.4 18.9 28.3 37.8 47.2 Si.7 6&1 75.6 85.0 94.5 104 123 7
6.9
6.8
6.7
14 belt T 6.6
12 6.5
10 6.4
6.3
8 6.2
6 61
4 6
2
0
Figure 866-Upper panel=Google Earth image of the zone of mixing between the outfall and Fiberville Bridge; middle panel=schematic of
temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time durations; bottom panel=time course of
temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing.Vertical lines mark distances in relation to the photograph.
91

� (lake T
e
0 m 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 6,9
6.8
p
' o, �— � S` i 6.6
2 - 6.5
0m 5 10 15 20 25 i._ 6.4
6.3
(fall RR Bridge Fiberville 62
6.1
T 6
0 min 6.6 13.2 19.8 26.5 33.1 39.7 46.3 52.9 59.5 66.1 777 , 79.4 5.8
5.7
Delta T 5.6
12 5.5
5.4
10-
4-
Figure 877-Upper panel=measured thermal cross section at RR Bridge; 2e" panel=measured thermal cross section at Fiberville bridge;
3rtl panel=schematic of temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time durations; 4th
panel--time course of temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing.Vertical lines mark distances in relation to the
photograph.

9. 2
0 Delta T
r, n 8r
Om 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 7.9
7.8
p.. ..... .. < _ .. _..,, 7.7
7 � + 7.6
2 l 7.5
Om 5 30 is 20 25 7.4
Mill Outtan 7.3
7.2
7.1
7
0 min 8.43 16.9 25.3 33.7 42.1 50.6 59.0 673 75.9 34.3 92.8 101 6.9
6.8
1a 6.7
Dena T 6.6
12 6.5
10 6.4
a 6:3
6.2
6 6.1
a 6
2
0
Figure 888-Upper panel=measured thermal cross section at RR Bridge;2°d panel=measured thermal cross section at Fiberville bridge;
3M panel=schematic of temperature elevations above ambient river temperature in this reach in plan view with flow-time durations; 4th
panel=time course of temperature change above ambient in the zone of mixing.Vertical lines mark distances in relation to the
photograph.
93

Blank

r�
APPENDIX B
A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND
WATER QUALITY OF THE PIGEON RIVER
(2012 Biological Assessment)
Prepared for:
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Canton, NC 28716
Prepared by:
University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
Dr. J. Larry Wilson, PhD —Principal Investigator
244 Ellington Plant Sciences Building
Knoxville, TN 3799674563
December 2013
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVESUMMARY...........................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................a...........10
2. METHODS......................................................................................................11
2.1 Habitat Assessment .......................................................................14
2.2 Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring Benthic
Macro-invertebrate Community Health ...............................14
2.2.1 Field Methods....................................................................14
2.2.2 Laboratory Data.................................................................15
2.2.3 Data Analysis.....................................................................15
2.3 Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring Fish Community
Health.............:.......................................................................17
3. RESULTS........................................................................................................22
3.1 Benthic Community.......................................................................22
3.1.1 Benthic Community Structure .................................23
— 3.1.2 Historical Comparisons ........................................39
1
3.2 Fish Community..............................................................................48
3.2.1 Composition,Relative Abundance, and Distribution.........48
3.2.2 Condition Analysis..............................................................59
3.2.3 Biological Integrity.............................................................63
3.2.4 Life Stages and Spawning Activity.....................................68
3.2.5 Habitat Assessment.............................................................70
3.2.6 Similarity and Biodiversity Analysis......................... 72
3.3 Other Biological Communities........................................................76
3.3.1 Mussels ................................................................................77
3.3.2 Wildlife................................................................................80
3.3.3 Periphyton/Plankton.............................................................81
3.3.4 Macrophytes.........................................................................82
3.4 Physicochemical Data......................................................................84
4. REFERENCES ................................................................................................86
2

A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND
WATER_QUALITY OF THE PIGEON RIVER
(2012 Biological Assessment)
University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
Dr. J. Larry Wilson,PhD—Principal Investigator
December 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Blue Ridge Paper Products mill in Canton,North Carolina, requires a 316(a)Thermal
Variance Study. Blue Ridge Paper selected scientists with the Department of Forestry, Wildlife
and Fisheries of the University of Tennessee-Knoxville to perform the Thermal Variance Study
including a biological assessment of the Pigeon River below the mill. Field work for the
biological assessment was completed during the summer of 2012 in accordance with the Canton
Mill Thermal Assessment Study Plan submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NC DWQ) on April 12, 2012, and accepted by the Department on April 24, 2012. Previous
biological assessments for Canton Mill NPDES permitting were completed by EA Engineering
Science and Technology, Inc. (EA) in 1995 and 2000; the 2005 biological assessment was
completed by the University of Tennessee (UTK). This report documents the results of the 2012
Biological Assessment in support of the separate December 2013 Balanced and Indigenous
Species Study Report [Clean Water Action 316(a) Demonstration] for the Pigeon River. A
concurrent temperature monitoring and modeling study was conducted for the 316(a)
Demonstration.
Biological sampling studies of aquatic trophic levels were conducted in the Pigeon River in July,
August and September 2012 following protocols of the Environmental Sciences Section of the
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NC DENR ESS)to
determine: (1)the current quality of these communities near the Blue Ridge Paper Canton Mill,
and (2) whether thermal inputs from the mill disrupt or prevent balanced indigenous
communities of these organisms. The sampling period was approximately two weeks longer than
the sampling effort conducted in 2005. The summer period has been chosen for periodic
sampling since the 1980s because stream temperatures are typically the warmest and there are
likely the most severe, if any, biological impacts. In 2012,water temperatures in July,August,
and September were similar to those collected at the same sites in 2005 although there were
slight variations depending on when temperatures were taken.
3

The study covered an approximate 60-mile reach of the Pigeon River(PR) extending from the
confluence of the forks of the Pigeon(PRM 69.5) upstream of the mill in Canton,North
Carolina,to PRM 10.3 near Newport, Tennessee.Nine thermally influenced main-stem sampling
stations were established within this reach from the mill to Waterville Reservoir. Four tributary
locations and three Tennessee locations (not influenced by the thermal discharge)were sampled
as well. The thermally influenced stations were compared to six reference stations in the East and
West Forks of the Pigeon River,two locations between the confluence and the.mill (one of
which was sampled in 2005), and two sites in the nearby Swannanoa River. The sample sites
were as near as possible to the sites sampled in 2005 (Wilson 2006), except for three new sites
upstream of the mill and the Swannanoa River sites. The original HEPCO site(PRM 42.6)was
eliminated in 2012 due to limited suitable substrate and difficulty in sampling, and replaced by a
more suitable riverine site near the USGS gauging station at PRM 45.3. In general, most of the
sampling efforts were conducted within the general proximity of previous sampling locations.
The only modification was an increased area upstream of the original PRM 64.5 site (to PRM
64.9) this portion of the river offered substantially more substrate (riffles, runs) for fish and
invertebrate collections.
Fish samples were collected by boat,backpack, and pram electrofishing, and seine hauls where
suitable habitat existed. Benthic samples were collected from specific habitat using qualitative
techniques developed by the state of North Carolina and the Tennessee Valley Authority(TVA).
Overall,the 2012 Biological Assessment found a diverse and healthy aquatic community present
in the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill. Measures of biological health in the river during
2012 continue to maintain or improve from the previous biological assessments conducted in
1995, 2000, and 2005.
FISH
Fish collections from all sampling methods produced a total of 4188 fish(3485 from main-stem
and upstream tributary sample locations, and 703 from main-stem tributaries below the mill)
distributed among 56 species. There were also three hybrids types (bluegill x green sunfish,
bluegill x redbreast, green sunfish x redbreast) collected which accounted for six of the total
number count. The additional number of species observed since 2005 is an indicator that the
main-stem fish community as a whole continues to increase its diversity and maintain stability.
Fish collected throughout the river were deemed in good health and the condition of fish
downstream of the mill was generally comparable to that of fish upstream of the mill.
Upstream of the mill, the most commonly collected species were,in order of abundance,
greenfin darter(157), stoneroller(90),rock bass (56),river chub(43),mottled sculpin(41),
Tuckasegee darter(29), and redbreast sunfish(27). Downstream of the mill,the most commonly
collected species in the main-stem, including both North Carolina and Tennessee portions of the
river, were the redbreast sunfish(537), central stoneroller(289), smallmouth bass (242),
whitetail shiner(175), and rock bass (117). Several species were found only in the Tennessee
portion of the river, including some associated with reservoir habitats; these included the
walleye, channel catfish, white crappie,white bass, and freshwater drum.
4

When comparing total numbers of fish taxa collected in the North Carolina portion of the river
below the Canton Mill to Waterville Reservoir(eight sites in 2005 and nine sites in 2102, PRM
63.0—PRM 42.6),there were 29 taxa collected in 2005 and 37 taxa in 2012. This represents a
28% increase in the number of species inhabiting the river below the mill. In 2005, the PRM 42.6
site had nine species of fish; that site was not sampled in 2012 due to the influence of Waterville
Reservoir. In 2012,the PRM 45.3 site replaced PRM 42.6, and there were also nine fish taxa
collected there. Five of the nine species (rock bass,redbreast sunfish, smallmouth bass,whitetail
shiner, and northern hogsucker)were common to both sites and collected in 2005 and 2012.
When examining the 2012 fish assemblage, there were eight pollution intolerant fish species,
four tolerant species, 29 intermediate species, and four species not rated by the NC DENR(NC
DENR 2001). The pollution intolerant rock bass and smallmouth bass were collected at all main-
stem stations (both upstream and downstream of the mill),whereas the intolerant rainbow trout
occurred only at one station in the Tennessee portion of the river. Of the tolerant species,
seventeen common carp were collected in the main-stem of the river downstream of the mill
from PRM 63.0 to PRM 10.3, and white suckers were collected at three sites in North Carolina.
Only six green sunfish were collected, one at PRM 69.5 and five at PRM 10.3 in Tennessee.
Redbreast sunfish was the most common tolerant species, occurring at all stations except the
most upstream site in Tennessee(PRM 24.7). When comparing the catch of rock bass relative to
redbreast sunfish collections from the North Carolina portion of the river below the mill, the ratio
of rock bass to redbreast has improved from of 1:10.2 in 2005 to 1:5.6 in 2012; this represents a
45% improvement in numbers of the intolerant rock bass relative to its non-indigenous
competitor, redbreast sunfish.
The species richness value (11) at Fiberville (PRM 63.0),the warmest station sampled, was
somewhat less than the 16 species collected upstream of the mill. Fish collected at two stations
immediately downstream of Fiberville, PRM 61.0 and 59.0,produced species richness values of
14 and 17,respectively. The numbers of fish species collected at 5 of 6 remaining downstream
sample stations in the North Carolina portion of the river were greater in 2012 than in 2005.
A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on a matrix of abundances of all fish
species sampled at all Pigeon River sites (including East Fork and West Fork reference sites) and
the Swannanoa River reference sites. The purpose of the PCA was to assess how similar each of
the sample sites were to each other with respect to fish abundances (in this case total number of
each species), and to assess how similar sites were from 2005 to 2012. The PCA of the fish
community indicated that there was a gradient in fish species composition that produced three
distinct groups of sites that were similar to each other: (1) all six reference sites, including two
tributaries and two main-stem sites on the Pigeon River upstream of the mill, and both
Swannanoa River sites, (2) all thermally influenced main-stem sites downstream from the mill to
Waterville Reservoir, and (3)three TN sites downstream from the hydropower facility. Statistical
analyses indicated no significant differences in species diversity among the three groups.
Assessment of relative weight(Wr)values for the more abundant sport fish found at most of the
study stations indicated that: (1)the condition of rock bass, smallmouth bass, redbreast sunfish,
and bluegill from the Pigeon River is comparable to the condition of these species from other
I
5

areas in the Southeast, and(2)the condition of these species downstream of the Canton Mill in
the thermally affected portion of the river as well as the downstream portion of the river in
Tennessee were considered to be in good condition. Mean W,scores for rock bass (93) and
redbreast sunfish(99)below the mill were comparable to those upstream of the mill, and higher
than mean W,values from the same species(rock bass, 81; redbreast, 90) from the Swannanoa
River reference sites.
Overall,the results suggested no significant adverse impacts from the mill's thermal discharge.
In summary, the 2012 fish community below the mill has not changed dramatically since 2005,
although it has increased the species diversity and also improved measurably in several ways: (1)
the species richness from 44 species in 2005 to 51 species in 2012, an improvement of 16% since
2005, (2) darter species,which were essentially absent downstream of the mill in 1995, increased
in number from 4 in 2005 to 5 in 2012, and were found in.all nine downstream North Carolina
sites, (3)the catch of smallmouth bass increased almost ten-fold from 26 individuals in 2005 to
201 in 2012, and(4) the ratio of rock bass relative to redbreast sunfish was 1:5.6 in 2012 and
1:10.2 in 2005,which represented a 45%increase in the less tolerant species (rock bass).
MACROENWRTEBRATES
Macro-invertebrate sampling from throughout the study area(tributaries included)yielded a total
of 315 taxa. This number of individual taxa is up approximately 23%from the 257 taxa collected
in 2005. The numbers of the pollution-intolerant Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera complex
(EPT) collected in 2012 (N=125, including 117 genera and 8 families) increased approximately
n' 24%from the 95 EPT taxa collected in 2005. "EPT"is an abbreviation for Ephemeroptera+
Plecoptera+Trichoptera, insect groups that are generally intolerant of many kinds of pollution.
All three groups increased in number of taxa, with mayflies increasing by 15, stoneflies by 1, and
caddisflies by 6 taxa. The increases reflected in the 2012 collections may be in part to an increase
in the number of main-stem collection sites (14 instead of 11), and the addition of three tributary
stations (EFPR 3.5, WFPR 3.6, and Crabtree Creek). The total number of EPT taxa collected in
2012 from the benthic community at PRM 64.5-64.9 upstream of the mill (N=22) decreased from
the numbers collected in 2005 (29) and 2000 (35). It should be noted that the decrease in taxa
numbers occurred even though,the sampling area was increased somewhat to include more
suitable substrate. Possible reasons for the decrease noted include a severe drought in 2007-08,
especially in North Carolina, and a noticeable increase in agricultural operations upstream of the
sites. Turbidity levels in tributaries and at two sampling sites immediately above and below the
Mill were noticeably higher after rain events.
Even though the total number of EPT taxa collected in 2012 throughout the study area decreased
from the numbers in 2005,there was a slight increase in the number of EPT taxa collected at the
station(PRM 63.0) immediately downstream of the mill (16 taxa in 2012, and 15 taxa in 2005).
When comparing total invertebrate taxa collected in the North Carolina portion of the river
below the mill to Waterville Reservoir(PRM 63.0—PRM 42.6),there were 107 taxa collected in
2005 and 149 taxa in 2012, which is an increase of 39%. The 2012 number does not include the
five additional taxa found at PRM 57.7, a new site added for the 2012 study. Taxa richness in the
tributary streams sampled in 2005 (Fines, Richland, and Jonathan Creeks) was essentially the
same in 2012 (88) as in 2005 (87) and 2000 (86).
6

n,
The NCBI scores ranged from 4.16 (Good) at PRM 64.5 immediately above the Canton Mill to
4.39 (Good) at PRM 24.7 in the Tennessee reach; all Tennessee reach stations received the
`Good' rating. The scores at NC stations downstream from the mill ranged from 6.70 (Fair) at
PRM 63.0 to 4.69 (Good) at PRM 45.3,the farthest downstream site in that portion of the river.
Four of the eight NC stations rated a `Good-Fair' or `Good' score in 2012 compared to six of
eight stations in 2005; the severe drought in 2007-08 is thought to have had a significant impact
of macro-invertebrate populations which may have influenced the NCBI scores.
MUSSELS
The presence or absence of freshwater mussels at all Pigeon River main-stem sample sites was
documented. There were no mussels observed at any of the sampling sites during 2012. These
results are in line with NC DENR survey data in recent years which have not documented any
naturally-occurring mussels in the Pigeon River. High water levels during the spring of 2013
prevented access for mussel surveys in areas other than designated sites, and especially areas
where mussel re-introductions have occurred. Re-introductions of 10 native mussel species have
been done,beginning with nine species in TN at three sites (PRM 17.3, PRM 13.3, and PRM
8.3) in 2000-12; the other species has been re-introduced at PRM 65.5 and PRM 55.3 in the NC
portion of the river since 2010. All re-introduction sites in both North Carolina and Tennessee
main-stem portions of the Pigeon River were chosen to maximize survival and growth.
A recent research study involving UTK personnel investigated mussel survival and growth
reared in silos in Pigeon River main-stem locations both above and below the mill (Rooney,
2010).Results indicated that mortality rates among mussels at above-mill and below-mill sites
were not significantly different;however, growth rates of mussels held in downstream silos were
significantly greater than for those held at upstream sites. Highest growth rates were observed at
a site located approximately 18 km downstream from the mill. Several influences may have
impacted growth rates, such as elevated water temperature due to heated mill effluent, as well as
agricultural runoff with elevated levels of nutrients. This 2010 study documented definitive proof
that mussels could survive and grow in the river below the mill, and also.provided the impetus
for NC DENR to begin their mussel re-introduction program in the NC portion of the river.
Assessment of survival at other life stages is also needed before the full extent of potential for re-
introduction of mussels to the studied reach of the Pigeon River is known.
WILDLIFE
Several wildlife species were observed along the main-stem;tributary, and reference waterways
during instream fish and invertebrate sampling events. The majority of wildlife contact was with
avian species which are usually associated with aquatic habitat. The complete list and number of
locations at which they were observed are as follows: (1) Great blue heron—3 sites, (2) Belted
kingfisher—2 sites, (3)Northern water snake—2 sites, (4) Green heron— 1 site, (5)Blue winged
teal— 1 site, (6) Black-crowned night heron, (7) Queen snake— 1 site, (8) Soft-shell turtle-1 site,
(9) Bald eagle— 1 site, (10) Osprey— 1 site, (11) Beaver- 1 site.
7

1 Two recent research studies involving other riverine/stream wildlife included surveys of
salamanders and crayfish in the Pigeon River main-stem and tributaries. The 2009 salamander
study (Maxwell, 2009) documented the.presence of five of eight salamander species (that
historically existed in NC,streams) in three of five study sites: in the Pigeon River above the mill,
Jonathan Creek, and Big Creek.No salamanders were found in the NC main-stem portion of the
PR; water quality and suitable substrate were cited as possible contributors to the lack of
salamanders there. The crayfish study (Dunn, 2010) identified eight species in the Pigeon River
system: they were collected in the,river above the mill, in all nine PR tributaries, and in the main-
stem in the TN portion of the river.No crayfish found in the NC main-stem below the mill;the
study cited the drought of 2007-08 as a possible contributor to the lack of crayfish there. The
drought may have caused crayfish to seek refugia in tributaries to escape higher levels of salinity
(2X) and conductivity (1 OX) in the main-stem which were due to lower water flows which
concentrated the mill discharge effluents.
PERIPHYTON/PLANKTON
The field surveys indicated periphyton as present at all sampling stations with little correlation of
abundance with proximity to the mill. The two lowest periphyton concentrations were found at
PRM 55.5, Hyder Mountain Bridge (NC), and PRM 24.7, Waterville at Brown's Bridge(TN).
Fiberville PRM 63.0) below the paper mill had abundant periphyton.
The potamoplankton, i.e.,unattached phytoplankton and zooplankton,was not sampled because
of low abundance, and their sporadic appearance was dictated by river flows. Any sampling or
collection of these groups at any given site could not be replicated because they were transient
and continuously moving downstream.
MACROPHYTES
Podostemum (hornleaf riverweed) was found in three of four reference stations upstream of the
mill,both stations in the reference Swannanoa River, and two of three stations in the Pigeon
River in Tennessee, but not in the thermally affected reach between the mill and Waterville
Reservoir. The species was not examined in previous 316(a) studies, so there is no available
history of change. The low dispersal ability, due to clonal reproduction and poor seed production
combined with the Pigeon River's stresses of flooding in 2004 and drought in 2007-2008, may
be limiting its ability to recolonize the thermally affected reach after a history of pollution.
Temperature does not appear to be a limiting factor except in the reach nearest the mill,where
temperatures in summer can exceed the reported upper limit of 30 C reported in the literature.
Overall,the 2012 Biological Assessment found a diverse and healthy aquatic community present
in the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill. Measures of biological health in the river during
2012 continue to maintain or improve from the previous biological assessments conducted in
1995, 2000, and 2005. Major improvements include:
- The ratio-of rock bass relative to redbreast sunfish was 1:5.6 in 2012 and 1:10.2 in 2005,
which represented a 45% increase in the less tolerant species (rock bass).
8

1 - Fish species richness increased from 44 species in 2005 to 56 species in 2012, an
improvement of 27% since 2005.
The catch of intolerant smallmouth bass increased almost ten-fold from 26 individuals in
2005 to 201 in 2012.
In 2005, only one intolerant fish species (rock bass) was collected in the thermally
influenced reach of the river below the mill; in 2012,rock bass and two additional
intolerant species (smallmouth bass, greenfin darter)were found in the same reach.
Similarity analyses indicated there was a gradient in fish species composition that
produced three distinct groups of sites that were similar to each other. Statistical analyses
including all three biodiversity indices indicated no significant differences in species
diversity when comparing 2005 to 2012 numbers.
The numbers of the pollution-intolerant Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera complex
collected in 2012 increased approximately 24% from the numbers taxa collected in 2005.
The number of macro-invertebrate taxa is up approximately 23% in the main-stem from
257 taxa in 2005 to 315 taxa in 2012.
- Ten native mussel species have been re-introduced into the PR system. A recent study
indicated that mortality rates among above-and below-mill sites were not significantly
different;however, growth rates of mussels held in the downstream sites were greater
than for those held at upstream sites.
9

A STUDY OF THE
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND
WATER QUALITY OF THE PIGEON RIVER
(2012 Biological Assessment)
University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
Dr. J. Larry Wilson,PhD—Principal Investigator
1. INTRODUCTION
The Blue Ridge Paper Products mill in Canton,North Carolina,requires a 316(a) Thermal
Variance Study. Blue Ridge Paper selected scientists with the Department of Foresty, Wildlife
and Fisheries of the University of Tennessee-Knoxville to perform the Thermal Variance Study
including a biological assessment of the.Pigeon River below the mill. Field work for the
biological assessment was completed during the summer of 2012 in accordance with the Canton
Mill Thermal Assessment Study Plan submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NC DWQ) on April 12,2012, and accepted by the Department on April 24, 2012. Previous
biological assessments for Canton Mill NPDES permitting were completed by EA Engineering
Science and Technology, Inc. (EA) in 1995 and 2000, and by the University of Tennessee (UTK)
in 2005. This report documents the results of the 2012 Biological Assessment in support of the
separate December 2013 Balanced and Indigenous Species Study Report [Clean Water Act
316(a)Demonstration] for the Pigeon River.
A biological survey of fishes and macro-invertebrates was conducted during July through
September of 2012 to determine whether a balanced indigenous community was present. Late
summer was chosen because this is the period when water temperatures are highest and when
any adverse impacts, if there are any, would be most easy to detect. Biological sampling was
conducted in accordance with standard North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NC DENR), Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) field protocols (Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macro-invertebrates 2003, and Standard Operating Procedures
for Biological Monitoring of Stream Fish Community Assessment and Fish Tissue 2001) with
some modifications following TVA protocols (TVA Protocol for Conducting an Index of Biotic
Integrity Biological Assessment, 2004) as noted in Methods section. The purpose of the surveys
was to determine whether a balanced, indigenous community was present downstream of the
mill. If any impairment was noted,the next step would be to determine whether it was caused by
the thermal discharge from the mill. The 316(a) guidance [316(a) Technical Guidance—
Thermal Discharges,US EPA 1974] requires either the demonstration of a balanced and
indigenous community or if some impairment is noted,that the impairment is not thermally
- driven. Thus, a thermal variance can be granted even if a balanced indigenous community is not
10

found so long as the lack of balance is not the result of thermal inputs from the discharge in
question.
This report describes the results of the biological surveys.,It presents the current results and
compares them to the previous studies of the Pigeon River. It should be noted that there was an
unexpected event that impacted the Pigeon River that may have influenced the 2012 biological
sample collections. There was an extended drought in the Eastern U.S. in the summer of 2007;
this was especially harsh at that time in western North Carolina and it extended through 2008
although to a lesser degree. The generalized drought impacts on instream communities (fish and
invertebrates) as determined by comparisons of habitat scores for pre- and post-drought sampling
indicated that, overall,the benthos and fish communities showed a decline in bioclassification
following the extended dry period. Benthic macro-invertebrate declined in most classifications,
but not as much as expected. Fish numbers collected at three stations immediately downstream
of the Mill were lower in 2012 than 2005; however,the numbers of fish species collected at five
of the six remaining downstream sample stations in the North Carolina portion of the river were
greater in 2012 than in 2005.
Overall,the 2012 Biological Assessment found a diverse and healthy aquatic community present
in the Pigeon River below the Canton Mill. Measures of biological health in the river during
2012 continue to maintain or improve from the previous biological assessments conducted in
1995, 2000, and 2005.
2. METHODS
To determine whether the thermal component of the Canton Mill effluent might be affecting the
aquatic communities of the Pigeon River, biological sampling of all aquatic trophic levels was
conducted at 22 representative sampling stations along the length of the Pigeon River and its
tributaries (Table 2.1, Figure 2.1), and at two stations on the Swannanoa River reference stream
(Table 2.1) during July-September 2012. The trophic levels included periphyton, macrophytes,
benthic macro-invertebrates/shellfish, fish, and wildlife (encompassing the full "shellfish, fish
and wildlife"criteria of Section 316 (a) of the Clean Water Act). There were 14 main-stem
stations in the Pigeon River in North Carolina and Tennessee, and six tributaries all of which
were in North Carolina;two stations were sampled in the Swannanoa River.The majority of
these locations have been sampled periodically from 1987 through the present day. It should be
noted that the river mile notation for the Brown's Bridge station, given as PRM 24.9 in the 1995,
2000, and 2005 reports,has been modified in the 2012 report to PRM 24.7 to more accurately
identify the sampling site.
11

Table 2.1. Pigeon River and tributary biological sampling stations, 1987-2012.The asterisk(*)
indicates new stations sampled in 2012. The(*+) indicates a new station that was
substituted for the PRM 42.6 station which was sampled in 2005 but not in 2012. The
six stations in italics indicates the reference stations.
Upstream Tributary Fish Macro-invertebrates
*Lake Logan (WFPR 6.6) 2012 2012
*WFPR 3.6(West Fork Pigeon River) 2012 2012
*EFPR 3.5 (East Fork Pigeon River) 2012 2012
Main-stem(RM) Fish Macro-invertebrates
*69.5 Below confluence 2012 2012
64.5-64.9 Upstream mill 87/95/99/00/05/12 87/95/99/00/05%12
63.0 Fiberville, downstream mill 87/95/99/00/0512 87/95/99/00/05/12
61.0 Thickety/DO station 99/00/05/12 99/00/05/12
59:0 Upstream Clyde 87/95/99/00/05/12 87/95/99/00/05/12
*57.7 Charles St Bridge 2012 2012
55.5 Hyder Mountain Bridge 95/00/05/12 95/00/05/12
54.5 Waynesville WWTP 95/00/05/12 95/00/05/12
52.3 Old Rt 209 bridge/golf course 87/95/00/05/12 87/95/00/05/12
48.2 Ferguson Bridge 87/95/00/05/12 87/95/00/05/12
*+45.3 HEPCO gauging station 2012 2012
42.6 New HEPCO Bridge 87/95/00/05 87/95/00/05
24.7 Brown's Bridge 87/95/00/05/12 87/95/00/05/12
19.3 Bluffton 87/95/00/05/12 87/95/00/05/12
*10.3 Agriculture Fields 2012 2012
Tributary
Richland Creek Near PRM 54.9 87/95/00/05/12 87/95/00/05/12
*Crabtree Creek Near PRM 49.8 2012 2012
Jonathan Creek At Rt 276 95/00/05/12 95/00/05/12
Fines Creek Panther Creek Rd 95/00/05/12 95/00/05/12
Reference Stream
*SRM11.3 (Warren Wilson) 2012 2012
*SRM 1.6(I-40 Exit 60) 2012 2012
Note: The 2005 and 2012 studies were completed by the University of Tennessee; the 1995 and
2000 studies were conducted by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology,Deerfield, IL.
12

r
Newport pg Fields(PPM Tu 3:
Tennessee
Irorth Carolina
Flow Direction /
Bufflon(PRM 193) Hydropower Faaldy(NC)
Hartford &ream Monitoring Location
Gowns Bridge(PRM 24 7)
Cosby Creek
Big Creek Ines Creek
Hydropower Waterville
Tunnel Lake
Jonathan USGS(PRM 463) Upstream Clyde
Creek Ferguson Bridge (PRM
(PRM482) 59.0)Thickety
Golf Course(PR61 52 3 (PRM 61 0)
Fibervile
Waynesville VVVHT Crete 00 PRM 63.0)
(PRM 54 5)
Richlan
Jonathan Creek Creek Canton
Charles t Bridge {PRMoveMill 9)
Hyder Mountain Bridge Clyde(PRM 57 7) ,✓
(PRM 55 5) Below Confluence(PRM 69 5)
W Fork Pigeon
Richland Creek River(WFPR 3 6) E Fork Pigeon
(EFPR 3 5)
W Fork Pigeon River
(WFPR 6 6)
Lake Logan
East Fork Pigeon
��
West Fork Pigeon J
Figure 2.1. Pigeon River study locations in North Carolina and Tennessee, 2012.
13

If there are thermal effects attributable to the mill,then one would expect those effects to be most
severe just downstream of the mill (e.g., at PRM 63.0 or PRM 61.0) where temperatures are
highest and decline progressively as one proceeds downstream. Thus, if thermal was a significant
factor one would expect the poorest aquatic communities at PRM 63.0 and the best at PRM 45.3.
Main-stem sampling locations were arranged to detect any such spatial patterns.
Due to the ameliorating effects of Waterville Lake,no thermal influence would be expected in
the Tennessee portion of the river.Nonetheless,three Tennessee locations were included to
provide continuity with the prior studies conducted by EA. Similarly,the 2012,study included
four tributary locations (Table 2.1). Sampling these locations allows a determination regarding
the overall impact(s) (positive or negative) of each tributary on the biota of the Pigeon River.
Similarly, such data are useful to determine whether these locations might serve as refugia
during stressful main-stem conditions and/or serve as sources for re-colonization.
The 2012 program consisted of four basic elements; habitat,thermal modeling, fish,macro-
invertebrates, and other biological communities. The presence and estimated abundance of
mussels, macrophytes,periphyton, and wildlife were also documented in the 2012 assessment. In
the following sections,the methods utilized for habitat assessment (Section 2.1),benthic
community analyses (Section 2.2), and fish community analyses (Section 2.3) are presented.
2.1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT
During July through September 2012 (concurrent with the fish sampling), habitat at each of the
14 stations was evaluated using procedures developed by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NC DENR 2001). Parameters considered as part of
the habitat assessment are channel modification, instream habitat,bottom substrate,pool variety,
riffle habitat,bank stability and vegetation, light penetration and riparian vegetation zone width.
A Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet was used to evaluate the various parameters and
determine a score for each study location. Scores and raw data are available on request.
2.2 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS FOR MEASURING BENTHIC
MACRO-INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY HEALTH
2.2.1 Field Methods
Benthic macro-invertebrate surveys were conducted at the 22 locations from 5 July to 28
September 2012 (Figure 2.1). Collection sites included 14 Pigeon River main-stem stations
(eleven in North Carolina and three in Tennessee), six tributary stations (East Fork Pigeon River,
West Fork Pigeon River, Richland Creek, Crabtree Creek,Jonathan Creek, and Fines Creek), and
two,stations in the Swannanoa River reference stream. All 22 stations were sampled according to
the Standard Operating Procedures for Macro-Invertebrates'(University of Tennessee, 2012)
which were written and approved for UTK Lab Certification by NC DENR. The UTK SOP
methodologies followed the format and content of the NC DENR Standard Operating Procedures
for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macro-invertebrates(Version 3.0) (NC DENR, 2011).
14

This approach involved the collection of organisms from seven multi-habitat qualitative samples
at each site: riffles, vegetation,root wads/undercut banks, leaf pack,rocks/wood, sand, and
visual search of the sampling area.
Two kick net samples were collected from areas of differing velocity within a riffle using a 1-m
x 1-m flat screen with a 1000-micron mesh. The kick net was held upright on the bottom while
the substrate upstream was physically disturbed. Benthic organisms and debris retained on the
screen were then washed into a sieve bucket. Sweep nets (D-nets) samples were used to sample
root wads/undercuts banks,vegetation, and leaf packs. Selected areas were physically disturbed
and then swept through using a 500-micron D-frame net. Smaller macro-invertebrates were
sampled by hand-washing various rocks and woody debris into a bucket. The residue was then
passed through a fine mesh(300 microns) sieve. Sand substrates were sampled using a 1.0 in x
0.5 in, 300-micron mesh bag. The bag was held open while the sandy area immediately upstream
was being disturbed. Since sand was often found in small localized pockets,three or four discrete
areas were usually sampled. Leaf-pack samples consisted of partially decayed leaves and sticks.
Leaves and sticks were placed in a sieve bucket, rinsed,and inspected for any remaining
organisms before being discarded. The final qualitative sample involved a visual inspection of
large rocks and logs and open substrates for new and larger(e.g., mussels and crayfish)
organisms that may have been missed by the other sampling techniques. Visual searches
included all habitats within the site.
Macro-invertebrates were hand-picked on-site at each station by one or two team members while
r l remaining team members completed the seven multi-habitat qualitative sampling methods. All
sample types were combined and were preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol, labeled appropriately,
and transported to the laboratory for taxonomic identification. Additional organisms were hand-
picked in the laboratory.
To complement the field collections and assist with data interpretation, various observations
were made at each site. These data included location; sample time, collectors, and general field
observations. This information was included on the field habitat data sheets and/or the field fish
data sheets.
2.2.2 Laboratory Methods
Macro-invertebrates from all samples were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level
using the most current literature available. Chironomidae larvae were cleared in 10%potassium
hydroxide and mounted in CMC-10 prior to identification.All taxa identified during this survey
have been retained for a voucher collection. For all samples, specimens were enumerated, coded,
and recorded.
2.2.3 Data Analysis
To assign a standard bioclassification to each site, data obtained from qualitative collections
were used to generate the North Carolina Biotic Index (NC BI). Formerly,bioclassifications of
North Carolina stream sites were based primarily upon EPT taxa richness (number taxa within
the orders Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, insect groups that are generally intolerant
15

of many kinds of pollution) (Lenat 1988). This was the method of bioclassification used during
the 1987 Pigeon River synoptic survey (EA 1988). In 1991, the NC DEHNR adopted the NC BI
as an additional method of bioclassification(NC DEHNR 1995). Developed by Lenat(1993),the
NC BI, in conjunction with the standard qualitative sampling protocols described above, was
designed to provide a reliable and accurate method of determining water quality conditions of
North Carolina streams. The index is based on values derived for individual macro-invertebrate
taxa that reflect an increasing level of pollution tolerance from 0 (least tolerant)to 10 (most
tolerant). The NC BI takes into account the assigned abundance values of each taxa(1 = 1-2
individuals/sample, 3 =3-9 individuals/sample, 10=>10 individuals/sample).
Preliminary bioclassifrcations may be assigned based solely on NC BI score or EPT taxa
richness. In the present study,NC BI values for Pigeon River samples were determined using the
revised guidelines for assessment of benthic macro-invertebrates (NC DENR 2003 Version 3.0,
2011). Bioclassification criteria for the NC BI differ by ecoregion (mountain,piedmont, and
coastal plain) and season. All collections for this survey were made during the summer sampling
period(July-September)within the mountain ecoregion. In 2012,classifications were assigned to
each site based on original classification criteria for biotic index values (see below)in order to
compare present macro-invertebrate assemblages to those found in previous years.
Biotic Index(BI)
Bioclassification Mountain Ecoregion
Excellent <4.05
Good 4.06-4.88
Good-Fair 4.89-5.74
Fair 5.75-7.00
Poor >7.00
EPT taxa richness was determined only for Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa
found at a given site. Bioclassification criteria for EPT taxa richness values for the mountain
ecoregion have been developed(NC DENR 2003). For standard qualitative samples,the EPT
taxa richness criteria are shown below:
Classification Mountain Ecoregion(No. Taxa)
Excellent >35
Good 28-35
Good-Fair 19-27
Fair 11-18
Poor 0-10
The classifications for each station downstream of the Canton Mill discharge were compared
with the four upstream control sites (PRM 64.5, PRM 69.5, EFPR 3.5, and WFPR 3.6), and two
sites on the reference Swannanoa River (SRM 1.6 and SRM 11.3). In addition, data from the
current study were compared with data previously collected on the Pigeon River by EA(1988,
1996, and 2001) and by UTK in 2005. The following qualitative parameters were used in
16

comparisons among sites and studies:NC BI values,EPT BI values, EPT taxa richness, total taxa
richness, and EPT abundance.
The revised guidelines for assessment of benthic macro-invertebrates(NC DENR, Version 3,
2011) include a procedure for determining a final bioclassification for a given location using a
combination of NC BI score and EPT values. The two scores are averaged and the resulting
mean was rounded to the nearest whole number(round up 0.6-0.9, round down 0.0-0.4) (NC
DEHNR 1997). Final bioclassifications were determined for a site by rating the mean score
according to the following scale: 5 =Excellent,4= Good, 3 =Good-Fair, 2=Fair, and 1 =
Poor. If the EPT and NC BI scores differ by exactly one, the resulting average will be midway
between two bioclassifications (e.g., 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5). In these cases,rounding up or down is
based on the total of EPT abundance values for a given location relative to the expected
abundance for each bioclassification in.that ecoregion(NC DEHNR 1997). The associated
mountain ecoregion ranges and classifications for these methods are as follows:
Mountain Ecoregion
Score NC BI Values EPT Values
5 <4.00 >43
4.6 4.00-4.04 42-43
4.4 4.05-4.09 40-41
4 4.10-4.83 34-39
3.6 4.84-4.88 32-33
3.4 4.89-4.93 30-31
3 4.94-5.69, 24-29
2.6 5.70-5.74 22-23
2.4 5.75-5.79 20-21
2 5.80-6.95 14-19
1.6 6.96-7.00 12-13
1.4 7.01-7.05 10-11
1 >7.05 0-9
The final score is rounded up if the actual EPT abundance is equal to or higher than the given
value, and rounded down if EPT abundance is less.
Mountain Ecoregion
Bioclassification (Score) Minimum EPT Abundance
Excellent(5) vs. Good(4) 191
Good (4) vs. Good-Fair(3) 125
Good-Fair(3)vs. Fair(2) 85
Fair(2)vs. Poor(1) 45
17

2.3 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS FOR MEASURING FISH
COMMUNITY HEALTH
Fish surveys were conducted at the 22 locations from 5 July to 28 September 2012 (Figure 2.1)
to determine if a balanced indigenous fish community currently exists within the study area. All
22 stations were sampled according the Standard Operating Procedures for Fish (University of
Tennessee, 2012)which were written and approved for UTK Lab Certification by NC DENR.
The UTK SOP methodologies followed the format and content of the NC DENR Standard
Operating Procedure, Biological Monitoring, Stream Fish Community Assessment Program,
2006.NC DENR(1997) does not have standardized fish sampling methods for non-wadeable
streams. In wadeable streams,they rely exclusively on backpack electrofishers,with more
backpack units used as the size(width) of the stream increases. However, for a stream the size
and depth of the Pigeon River(20-50 m wide and up to 4 m deep), backpack:electrofishers alone
are not adequate to sample the complete fish community and, as result,NC DENR does not
sample fish in the main-stem Pigeon River.
To adequately sample the Pigeon River fish community, an approach similar to that used on the
Pigeon River by Saylor et al. (1993) and EA (1996) was followed during the current study.
Saylor et al. (1993)used an electrofishing boat to sample deeper runs and pools. For such areas,
the University of Tennessee (UT)used a 14-foot jon boat powered by a 5000-watt generator with
the output controlled by a Smith-Root Type VI electrofisher. Saylor et al. (1993) sampled riffle
and shallow ran areas using a backpack electrofisher and EA sampled shoreline using a Coeffelt
VVP-2C electroshocker mounted in a towed pram. UT used a similar method; a Coffelt 1.5KVA
eleectrofisher powered by a Honda EU 2000i generator was incorporated into a molded
fiberglass boat(Figure 2.3-1) for collecting in shoreline areas. This unit(hereinafter called a
`pram'),uses a 1700-watt generator and thus has considerably more power than a backpack
electrofisher, and therefore is more effective in larger wadeable streams like the Pigeon River
(Ohio EPA 1989). During the current study, boat,pram, and backpacker electrofisher collections
were supplemented by seining, a methodology used by TVA (2004)protocols.
18

°i
�i
i
-
`
we�!TF
µ
Figure 2.3-1. Shoreline fish sampling crew with pram electrofisher.
The pram electrofisher was used at nine of the 22 sampling locations; and was used primarily in
tributaries but was also used in main-stem areas where shoreline depths were suitable for its use.
Because of its smaller size,the backpack electrofisher was used in the six tributary locations, and
in main-stem locations where shoreline depths permitted. Main-stem and tributary locations were
electrofished for a standard distance of 200 in to duplicate distances sampled by EA in 1995 and
2000, and by UTK in 2005. A single 200-m backpack electrofishing pass was made in three of
the smaller tributaries (Richland,Fines and Crabtree Creeks)whereas multiple passes (totaling at
least 200 m)were made in the other tributaries(East and West Forks Pigeon River,Jonathan
Creek) and the main-stem locations. On one or two occasions,the 200-m shoreline sample was
completed covering varying amounts of shoreline area(depending on the near-shore depth)that
were unwadeable by the pram crew. Boat electrofishing was conducted at all remaining main-
stem locations except at PRM 63.0, PRM 48.2, PRM 45.3, and PRM 24.7. PRM 63.0 was not
sampled in keeping with the EA 2000 methodology, and the remaining three locations were not
sampled due to alteration in access areas or changes in river morphology. Boat shocking was
conducted in accordance with TVA boat shocking protocols for 40-50 minutes per location
depending on the extent of pool and run habitat within a given zone. In addition, at each sample
19

site, mid-stream riffles were sampled by pram or backpack shocking into a seine in accordance
with TVA protocols (2004). Seine hauls were conducted at PRM 19.3 in keeping with EA
methodologies and at any other site with the appropriate habitat. At each location, all
microhabitats were sampled so as to maximize the likelihood that all species present would be
captured.
Captured fishes were held in water-filled tubs until sampling was completed, at which time all
specimens were identified,weighed, and measured, and released. Sportfish and suckers were
measured(total length) and weighed, up to 20 of each species,per location. The remaining
individuals were counted and batch weighed. Length ranges and/or life stages were noted for
batch weighed fishes. Incidence of parasites, disease, and other morphological.anomalies were
also noted. Selected smaller fishes were preserved in 10 percent formalin as voucher specimens
or for laboratory confirmation or identification; all other,specimens were released onsite.
Identification was made to the species level.
In recent years,many fisheries professionals have changed from the older coefficient of
condition(K)to relative weight (W,)to measure the robustness of fish (Wege and Anderson
1978).Relative weight is calculated as:
W,=W/W,x100
where W is the measured weight and Ws is the length-specific standard weight predicted by a
weight-length regression constructed to represent the species as a whole. Length-specific
standard weight functions are in the form:
loglo W,=a+b loglo L (L=total length of fish)
where a and b ideally account for genetically determined.shape characteristics of a species and
yield W,values of 100 at particular times of the year for fish that have been well fed(Anderson
and Gutreuter 1983).
Fish community data were incorporated in the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr et al. 1986)to
characterize the biotic condition of the Pigeon River. The IBI includes a range of attributes of
fish assemblages that can be classified into three categories: species richness and composition,
trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition. TVA modified IBI metrics for the
ecoregions within the Tennessee Valley geographical area and this methodology was used for
their present Pigeon River survey (TVA Protocol for Conducting an Index of Biotic Integrity
Biological Assessment 2004)(Table 2.3-1). The values calculated for the metrics are converted
into scores on a 1, 3, 5 scale. A score of 5 represents conditions expected for undisturbed streams
in the specific river basin or ecoregion,while a score of 1 indicates that the conditions vary
greatly from those expected in undisturbed streams of the region. The scores for each metric are
calculated to attain the overall IBI score. A comparison of the metrics used to calculate the Index
of Biotic Integrity scores in the 2005 and 2012 Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the
Pigeon River is presented in Table 2.3-2.
20

Table 2.3-1. TVA list of metrics used in calculating Index of Biotic Integrity*
1. Number of native species
2. Number of native darter species, or(headwater streams)Number of riffle species
3. Number of native sunfish species (less Micropterus sp.), or(headwater streams)
Number of pool species
4. Number of native sucker species, or(headwater streams) Percent composition by two
most dominate species
5. Number of intolerant species, or(headwater streams)Number of headwater intolerant
species
6. Percentage of fish as tolerant species
7. Percentage of fish as omnivores and stoneroller species
8. Percentage of fish as specialized insectivores
9. Percentage of fish as piscivores
10. Catch rate(average number/300 ftz, or 5 minutes of boat shocking)
11. Percentage of fish as hybrids, or(headwater streams)Percentage of fish as simple.
lithophilic spawners
12. Percentage of fish with disease, tumors, fin damage, and other anomalies
*Each is assigned a value as follows: 1-poor, 3-intermediate, 5-the best to be expected.The IBI
for a given site is the sum of those values.
i
21

Table 2.3-2. Comparison of metrics used to calculate the Index of Biotic Integrity in the 2005
and 2012 Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River.
Year: 2005 2012 2005,2012
Source: NCDENHR(1995) NCDEHNR(2006,version 4) TVA IBI Protocol(2004)
(Modified from Karr et (Modified'from Karr et al., 1986)
al., 1986
Number of species Number of species Number of nativespecies
Number of darterspecies Number of darterspecies Number of native darterspecies
Number of Sunfish and Sahnonid Number of Rock Bass, Small- Number of native sunfish species
s ecies** mouth Bass,Troutspecies* (less Micro tems sp.)
Number of sucker species(all Number of species of cyprinids Number of native sucker species
members of Catostomidae)
Number of intolerant species Number of intolerant species Number of intolerant species
%of fish as tolerant species %of fish as tolerant species %of fish as tolerant species
%Omnivores %Omnivores+herbivores %Omnivores and stonerollers
%Insectivores and %Insectivores %Specialized insectivores
%Specialized Insectivores
Number of piscivorous species Number of piscivorous species %Piscivores `
Catch rate
%Hybrids
%Diseased %Diseased
Number of Individuals Number of Individuals
%of species with multiple age %of species with multiple age
classes classes
*This includes salmonid species brook,rainbow and brown trout.Stocked trout(characterized by pale colors and
wom or deformed fins)are not counted.
**This metric includes centrarchids of the genera Lepomis, Enneacanthus,Acantharchus,Ambloplites,and
Centrarchus,as well as all species of salmonids,whether native or stocked.
. 3. RESULTS
3.1 BENTHIC COMMUNITY
The approach used to assess the benthic community in 2012 was similar to that used by UTK in
2005.All 22 stations were sampled according the Standard Operating Procedures for Macro-
Invertebrates (University of Tennessee, 2012)which were written and approved for UTK Lab
Certification by NC DENR. The UTK SOP methodologies followed the format and content of
the NC DENR Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macro-
invertebrates (NC DENR, Version 3.0, 2011).
Macro-invertebrate samples were collected from the Pigeon River basin at 14 main-stem, six
tributaries, and two reference stream stations from July to September 2012 (Table 2.1 and Figure
2.1). Qualitative multihabitat samples were collected at each station. Data from these collections
were used to calculate the North Carolina Biotic Index (NC BI) and Ephemeroptera+Plecoptera
+Trichoptera taxa richness (EPT Index) which, in turn provided a final bioclassification for each
22

station(Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair, or Poor). These classifications were used as a gauge
for comparisons among stations and to detect negative influences.
3.1.1 Benthic Community Structure
For all stations (N--22) and sampling events combined, a total of 315 macro-invertebrate taxa
were collected during 2012 (Table 3.1.1-1). The additional number of taxa(N--58) represented a
23% increase over the number collected in 2005 (257). This larger number of taxa could be
attributed to the increase in the number of sampling stations from 14 in 2005 to the 22 in 2012,
the latter which included three additional stations on the main-stem Pigeon River,three
additional PR tributaries, and two sites on the reference stream.
Table 3.1.1-1 summarizes the 2012 macro-invertebrate data for all sampling stations on the
Pigeon River and tributaries. When examining the,data from the 14 stations sampled in 2005,
eleven main-stem(PRM 64.5-PRM 193) and three tributaries(Fines,Jonathan, and Richland
Creeks), there were 219 total taxa collected from the main-stem stations. In 2012,there were 203
total taxa collected from those same stations, and that number represented a 7.3%decrease in
taxa from 2005. One reason for the slight decrease in taxa numbers in that specific portion of the
river could be due to the extended drought in North Carolina in 2007-08. There were 182 taxa
collected from the three tributaries in 2012; Jonathan Creek had the highest taxa richness (97
taxa) and had one more taxon than in 2005. Richland Creek had the lowest overall taxa richness
(28) and had two more taxa than in 2005.
In 2012,the total taxa richness decreased at the upstream control site (PRM 64.5,44 taxa) from
2005 numbers (87 taxa) at the same site; one factor contributing to this reduction could be a rain
event on the sampling date which impacted the collection effort. This was supported by the fact
that, at all seven other sites in the NC portion of the river(PRM 61.0—PRM 453),total taxa
numbers recorded were equal to or greater than the number collected at PRM 64.5 (44). Dipteran
taxa, including chironomids,increased from 11 taxa in the main-stem above the mill (PRM 64.5)
to 21 immediately below the outfall ; it fluctuated from that value to a low of 7 taxa at two NC
locations, PRM 55.5 and PRM 54.5, and rebounded to 24 taxa at the furtherest downstream
station in TN(PRM 103).
Of the total of 125 EPT taxa(117 genera, 8 families) collected from the study area in 2012,there
were 30 taxa that were not collected in 2005.The total EPT taxa richness represented an increase
of 32% over the 2005 number, 60% increase over 2000, and 221% over 1995 collections (Figure
3.1.1-2). The number of EPT taxa among the main-stem Pigeon River sites ranged from 31 at
PRM 54.5 to 14 at PRM 48.2. There were 16 EPT taxa collected immediately downstream of the
mill (PRM 63.0); that number represents an increase of one species over the 2005 collection.
Among the tributary stations,EPT richness was similar to 2005 values,with relatively high
numbers in Fines Creek(33 taxa) and Jonathan Creek(37 taxa), and noticeably lower numbers in
Richland Creek(12). Given the fact that Richland Creek is a warm-water stream and Jonathan
' and Fines Creeks are cool-water streams, some differences would be expected with regard to
benthic community composition.
23

Table 3.1.1-1. List of benthic macro-invertebrates collected from the Pigeon River, tributaries, and the Swannanoa River, 2012.
PR River Sites by River Mile RM PR Tributaries SRM
Taxa 69.5 64.5 63 61 59 57.7 _55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 45.3 24.7 19.3 WF RC '- SR1 SR2
ANNELIDA I«ohrs
Hirundinea 11 1 12
Er obdellidne 0
Erpobdclla I I
Mcoreobdella 1 1:.
Glossi honiidae 0
Helobdell2 5 5 4 8 1 23
Placobdella 1 I
OLIGOCHAETA w&wmme 0
Ench traeidae 0
Mesenchytractis 0
Lumbricidne 2 4 4 6 1 1 3 21 1
Eiseniella tetraedra 2 1 3
Lumbriculidne 1 1 2 4 3
Megadrile p
Me adrili 1 I
Naididne I 2 11 2 1 6
Dero I I
Nais 4 1 5 10
P=tais 3 3
Pristina I 1
Ste hensonimta irivandrana I 1
Stylaria Iacustris 3 1 2 5 2 1 26 9 1 5 1 1 3 3 1 61
Sparganophilidae 3 5 1 1 1 2 12 3
Tubificidae I 1 2 1 13 1 17
Brachiura sowerb ' I I
Limnodrilus 4 1 1 5 11 .
Limnodnhts hoffineisteri 9 9
Tubifex tubifex 2 4 4 13 2 25
Tubi lower bt tdchaetae 6 6
NEMATODA(omd worms) 0
Nemata 1 1 2
NEMERTEA ribbon woema 1 1
PLATYHELMDVTHES natworms) I 2 1 3.
24

PR River Mile Tributaries sRM
_Tam; 3 `EP.;? WP. 169.5I, ',64k ,61 59' `57.7- 55.5.-54.5 52.3� A8.2' 45.3. _24:7r 19.3 ]0 = RC CC` "SC SEC TITr`. SRL SR2`
EPHEMEROPTSRA(mayflies) 1 1 2 .
Ameletidae .1 I
Ameletus 1 I
Amelems lineatus I 1 2 4
Haetidae 4 I 112 I - 1 5 3 4 131
Acentrella 1 2 138 1 16 37 92 42 13 12 3 357 9
Accntrella imbida complex 6 1 6
Ace enna 1 I
Baetis 3 27 4 1 2 8 82 5 115 82 75 55 84 61 8 26 39 49 725 10
Baetis brurmiecolor 41 41
Baetis Bavistri a 1 2 2 5
Baetis intercalaris 5 9 1 32 57 104
Camelobaetidius 2 2
Centro tilum 1 I
Hmerocloeon 1 1 2 20 1 24 7
Heterocloeon cmiosum I 1 2
Pmcloeon 1 2 1 8 10.
Pseudocloeon 1 4 3 8
Bacliscidne
0
Baetisca I I
Caenidse
0
Caenis 1 2 1 8 5 1 2 20 4 1
E hemerellidae 3 I _ 1 2 7
Attenella att.= 7 7 2
Danella
0
Drunella alle mieneis 4 17 1 22
Dmnella comuta
1 I
Dnmella Iata
1 1
E hememlla 3 1 ❑ 15
EmylopheBa I 2 3
Semtells
0 1
Seratella deficiees 24 33 1 1 l fi0 21 29 55 225 _
Semtella s=toides 1 1 2 3
25

PR River Mile Tribumries SRM
.` WF 60.5 '64.5' 2'63 ."61 59 1 57.A 55.5 54.5 52.3. i.48.2, 45.3 ;24.7 19.3 10.3 .RC C@. JC FC. TTL ' "'SR1 eSR2.
Tnxa Elr"
EPHEMEROPFERA cent.
Re to enlidae 3 3 4 7 1 34 2 8 1 63 4
e coms 2 6 8
e coms dis m I 1 2 4
E coms mbidus/sub allidus 5 1 1 8 8 23
He m enia mar' alis 10 1 2 4 6 23
.He m enia tease 1 I
Lweroeum 3 l 4
Leucrocuma hrodite 4 13 4 21
Maccaffertium 24 3 2 6 24 2 1 9 71 20'
Mnccnffatium femommm 33 23 5 1 I 4 1 5 16 13 102
Maccatfcrd m ithacalmodcstum 25 8 1 21 17 19 1 56 12 160 2 8
MaccaHc,ium mcdio memtum 11 5 1 1 5 26 17 30 22 7 2 8 24 3 162
Maccaffertium mezicanum 0 I
MaccaHertium udicum 14 14
Maccaffertium sr ithae 3 3 4
Smnacron 3 '3 4 . 3 7 20
Stcnacron int imcmtmn 0 6
Stemcron allidum 1 2' 3 2
Ison chidne 0
Ison clda 4 2 .1 24 23 13 3 13 13' 21 :4 6 4 131 10
Le to hlebiidae 0
Pamle ro hlebia I 2 3
Habro hlebiodes 1 I
Leptohyphidne 0
TTicorythodes 12 9 I 137 2 175 27 32 12 407 24 1
Nwe hemeridne 6
Ncocphmcmpujpma 5 12 17
PLECOPTERA stone0ies 1 I
Chloro erlidae 0
Allo erla 1 1 2
Leuctrldne 0
Leucira 2 17 IG 1 36
Pelto erlidae
0
Tally erla 1 1 2
26

PR River Mile Tributaries SRM
Tnxa EP WF' 69.5. 64.5 63, 61 59.. 57.7 55.5 ' 54.5 . 52.3 .48.2 45.3 24.7 19.3, 10.3 RC :CC _.3C FC. trL SRI .SR2
PLECOPTERA cont
Pcrlld.o 1 1
Acroneuria abnarmis 9 10 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 6 7 44
Acrone.d.sensu lato 4 1 7 12'
A efina 1 3 4
Agnefim flaveseens 1 1
Hanson erla appalachia 10 1 11
Neo erla I 5 6
Pam efina imm iota 1 14 29 36 80
Pedestn 1 1
Perlodidae 0
Beloneuria 1 4 5
Iso rla 1 1
Malirekus hastatus I I 1
Onno erla 4 2 6
Ptcronarc,,idae 0
Allonarm biloba 3 3
Pleronarcys donate 2 13 1 16
TRICHOPTERA caddisflics 0
A amniidae 0
A ataniaincerta I 1
Brnch eentridae 1 1
Bmch cenns a alacNa 14 17 I 32
Bmch cenns Imemlis 2 5 34 3 44
Bmch cennsni osoma 7 3 10
Brach centres numerosus 0 I
Microsema 1 37 38
Miemsema barksi 1 1
Mi..a benelti 31 - 31
Microsema wam a 2 7 6 9 4 1 3 1 31 IS
Glossosomatidae 0
A a ems 1 3 3
Glossosoma 11 3 14
Glossosoma ni 'or 1 I
Prato fill. 3 1 5 5 2 16
27

NH I r � .. .
K y
N
Fi
q _
r
e
e0
i
N
R O N
N
r N
N
,y N
V N N N
e .z
o o" r

y
N
a
- O - - -
R -
N _ N
F — —
� v
0
M
O
r
e
v —
ad
v
N
v
a`
a N N
6
y N
V
N N
V
q
N
V
W

0£
1 I snpwe sny=,j
I 1 7 su3p!And sny wo oI H
1 I s!nwq sny wa of H
1 I sge!nwgqu sny wa of H
Z Z sny wa oI H
I I fi - Z Z Z E -lf4slAwq mrya eH
I I aopoupm my woo
p I I Z snp!n!I sny woo
E Z I s!I!xo my woo
6Z 6Z my woo
I Z Z snsotq s my wo owwO
L ZZ 8 Z Z E Z 6 1 oupl4 waO
I I wolyaowwoS
8 Z I Z E s!smuegm e!Inpsaoo=N
p £ 1 emlosgo e!lnpmoomaN
S Z E egnpmomaN
ualyn moyy 3
E Z I aop8!npuoZ)
1 I wepuew rise ulnpauo
0 aepplso a!np <)
4 6Z £ 9 61 1 e!umlvyaN
ZI ZI en!pe eIRu3
££ Z I 11 9- Z 6 Z e elleu3
f £ u!npos e.
9 0 ewlnlaen !9 u. v
£ 06 E 9 V S El 01 Z Z 6Z Z 8 E E e!atl'
Z EE £ Z 9 IZ I aopluoy euao3
I I gun muawaH
I LL Z Z E 6 6 41 E Z 8 OI 91 eunuowe euuawaH
EI ZE 'Z lZ 1 1 Z I I I 1 I we!noew al oleo ,
I I meow�al oleo
'S f I Z al oNo
0 aop! a1 010.3
Fluoa yyyNORO
ZBS,. -IHS ILL Od Df JJ" Jll £'OI £'61 CYZ 'E Sp Z'86; E'ZS S'VS 6S 19 C9' S'e9 9'69. am 33 - excI
yQyg sapwnquy aply aan!g 8d

PRRiver Mil. Tributaries SRM
Tan. EF WF 69.5 64.5 63. _61. '59 57.7. 55.5 54.5 1.3 48.2 45.3 .' 24.7. 19.3 10.3 RC CC I' SC FC TFL SR SR2
ORONATA cant.
O hio om hus 3 1 I 16 2 23
O hio om hus mainensis 5 5
S lo.mhus albistyl.s 1 4 2 2 1 10
styl.5s inice s 3 1 4
Macr.miidne
0
Macmmia 4 4 2 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 2 32 3 2
HEMMTRA true bu 0
Oerridae
0
Aquarius semi 's 4 4
II dromelridnc
0
H dmmercnaustmlis 0 1
Msovellldoe 2 2
mmovelia mUlsa.i 2 1 2
Ne idae
0
Rmatra 1 2 3
Rmatra bmvicollis 2 2
Rmatra idm 3 6 1 1 4 1 15
Velildne
0
Rha ovelia.besa 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 12 I
MEOALOPTEM ell mmites 0
Co dslldae
0
Corydalm c.mu= 10 1 2 9 7 9 11 6 6 10 5 2 10 3 1 6 98 4 1
Ni .nia 2 2
Ni .is semcomis 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 19 1 2
Sialidoe
0
Stnlis I I 11 4
COLEOMRA cctles
0
Ch somelidae 1 1 2
1) a idse
0
Helichus 19 6 2 2 1 1 2 8 1 2 2 2 6 54 1 6
Heli.hus litho hilus I I
31

1 �
PRRiver Mile Tributaries SRdSR2
- T.. '- EF. WF .69.5.`64.5 ..63 . `61 59 5].] 55.5" .. S4.5 52d 48.2 45.3 `24.7 19.1 -.10.3, `RC CC JC FC TTL'. SRI COLEOPTERA Cont.Elmidae I 1 2An n varie t 2 6 15 12 12 7 2 4 3 1 2 4 70 3 Dubuc hia 1 1
Dubin hia qmdrinoum 1 12 13
Macron chus glabmn,a 4 1 2 4 13 8 • 6 13 14 16 3 9 93 1 23 17
Micro floe us 1 0 3
Mino Ilo us pmillus 11 (1
fioservus 1 1
O fioscros ovalis 7 1
Oulimnius hstiwculm 1 1
Promomsiaele ans 6 5 2 1 1 5 52 5 1 4 89 80 19 -
Promomsiafarde0a 3 1 2 6
Stwelmis 4 1 1 1 7 3 76 10 33 1 3
G rinidae
0
Dineutus l 5 7 1 1 2 1 18
nus 2 I 1 4
Hvli Iidan 0
Pdt.dytes 2 2 6 1 II
H dra hilidae 0 _
Berosus 8 7 2 16 5 3 41
Berosus pmminm 9 9
S ercho sis tessellam I I
Tro istemus I I
Pse hnnidac
0
Ps henushenicki 12 2 1 1 4 2 5 2 24 8 61 6
DIPTERA flies
0
Athericidae
0
AtMd.lantha .. 3' 13 M
Cerato 0 onidae
0
Atricho o w I I I1
32

®R-
_ _
n N O P P O N
YW
HIM
a
a, U _
F
U
I c4
N
r
N '
e
cm
� M
N
a .
y o
N N N N
N
N d N N
b
WC N
7
°o
yQ�
p a
rd t= F Q a p m m U U U
O

PR River Mile Tributaries SRM
Taxa '�EF. NF.. 69.5 64.5.' 63_'. 61' 59. 57.7 55.5" 54.5 523 '.48.2: 453 24.7 193 103 RC 6C> JC FC TTL SRI SR2.
DIPTERA—Chironomidne cant.
Cricotn us 3 11 14
Cticoto us bicinctus 36 1 2 1 6 5 17 68 3
Euldeffeddln dcvonicn=up 1 I
Eukieffericlln Mcci M. 1 1 2
Nnocladius 3 1 1 I 2 2 1 10
Nanocladius cf.da.ne i 2 1 3
Nanocladius cf.s iri lens 0
Orflimhdius 2 1 104 107
Pamchactocladius I 1
Pammcniocnemus I 1
Psectmciadius I 2 3
Rbcocricoto m 1 13 2 16
Symofthocladim semivirens 1 I
Thienemanniella I 4 5 1
Tvetenia bavarica group 2 2
Tnteniavitmcies 1 8 1 6 1 2 76 95 5
Ablabcsm in 0 4
Ablabcsm 'n'nnta I I I
Ablabcsm 'a mallochi 2 4 37 1 1 1 1 47 5
Ablabcsm 'v cf.sim sari 1 I
Clino us 0 1
Chnowypm pinmis I I
Conche ela is 2 3 3 8 2 I
Labnmdinia 3 1 4
Namrsin I I
Pmtaneuta incons ieua I 3 8 4 2 6 1 1 7 1 1 35
Prociadius 23 4 2 1 I 31
Rhco elo is 1 1 2
DWdae 0
Dixa I
Dixella 2 2
Em ididne 0
Hemerodromia 2 2 4
Pl eho teridve 0
Bin como ha elavi es 0
34

c5 � N
N ,
a N
N
-
F N N p N O O O O
W
i
a U e
F P
UK m e r
N -
r
Q
N a
Y
R -
wN
y O N
N
N P
fV Y
V
J �
WP N r
�C' = S EE .� :9 � e a H 9 .. a y .h � '� a W a •y .'e

}
1
PR River Mile Tributaries SRM
Tarn _ `EF WIT 69.5 64.5 63<.:' 61 ' :59_. .57.7 55.5. 54.5 52.3 '48.2 45.3 24.7 19.3 10.3 TIC CC JC. PC TTL SRI.. -SR2.
CRUSTACEA 0
Am hi oda sideswimmm 1 4 5
Gammams 1 2 1 4
Iso oda sow bug) 0
Asellus 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 2
Collembola s rin ils 1 1
Dees oda(crayfish) 0
Cambnriidne 1 4 1 1 1 4
Cambams b.barlonii 1 2 1 4
Cmabams lan imstris 2 1 3
Cambarus Iwwimmnwsl Na,. 1 1
Cambams mbusms 0 3 1
m ms Procaba acutus 1 3 2 6
ARACRNOIDEA water mites 0
R dmcmina I 1 I 1 ,4 5 4 I 6 2 3 1 6 1 1. 1 37
36

Table 3.1.1-2. Summary of macro-invertebrate data from the Pigeon River, 2012.
2012 Pigeon River Upstream Pigeon River Below Papermill to Waterville Reservoir Pigeon River Pigeon River Tributaries Pigeon Swennanoa
Samples of Paper Mill In Tenoessee River River
Main
EF WF 69.5 64.5 63.0 61.0 39.0 57.7 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 45.3 24.7 19.3 10.3 RC CC JC PC PR SRI SR2
total
Total T.a 91 46 80 44 64 66 57 56 50 65 60 50 55 46 48 64 28 49 97 57 315 44 56
'Total SPT 47 20 37 22 16 20 17 18 15 31 24 14 25 16 19 21 12 25 37 33 125 10 29
E 20 12 17 8 5 6 8 5 5 13 12 7 7 14 9 12 2 12 18 16 50 7 12
P 4 6 4 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 11 7119 0 0
T 23 2 17 13 10 13 12 11 12 16 12 7 15 4 10 9 10 13 18 10 56 3 17
Dptm 16 20 11 11 21 13 5 10 7 7 9 9 8 7 9 24 4 5 19 7 68 19 9
NC BI 3.98 5.05 4.39 4.16 6.70 6.44 5.97 6.04 6.12 5.42 5.35 5.42 4.69 4.39 4.51 4.66 4.99 4.43 3.76 3.60 4.79 5,10 4.52
E G-F Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair G-F G•F G-F Good Good Good Good G-F Good E E Good G-F Good
Mountain
Ecoregion
EPT E F G G-F F F F F F G•E G•F F G-F E F F F G-F E G E F G
Values
Final
Bioclass- E F G G-F F F F F F G-F G-F F G-F G-F G-F G-F F G-F E G G F G
ification
37

Pigeon River EPT Taxa 1995-2012
120
100
80
x
g 60
a
40
20
0
1995 2000 2005 2012
■E 19 33 29 44
■P 2 9 17 18
■T 18 36 49 55
■Total 39 78 95 117
Figure 3.1.1-1. EPT taxa richness for the main-stem Pigeon River for 1995,2000,2005,and 2012.
Total EPT taxa numbers ranged from 15 to 31 at all main-stem sites except immediately below the
mill (PRM 63.0) and at PRM 45.3. The substrate at PRM 45.3 was primarily bedrock with very little
sand or pebble/cobble; the situation was not suitable substrate for aquatic macro-invertebrate
production. The highest values for both EPT richness and abundance were at PRM 54.5 (31 taxa) and
PRM 52.3 (24 taxa), the former which may have been influenced by the Waynesville WWTP
discharge. It should be noted that only two plecopterans (stoneflies) were collected at the site.Also,
benthic samples were not collected at the same location(PRM 54.5) as the EA studies in 1995 and
2000. Habitat modification due to flooding in 2004 may have made that reach of the original sample
site too deep and lacking any riffle habitat. Therefore, riffle habitat at a shoal above the WWTP
discharge was selected for the sample site.
The NC BI score was calculated for the upstream reference site (PRM 64.5);the 4.16 value rated as
"Good"(Table 3.1.1-1). There was one other NC main-stem site, PRM 45.3, which had a NC BI
score in the `Good' range. The sample site immediately downstream of the mill, PRM 63.0,had the
highest(worse) score(6.70) on the NC main-stem Pigeon River and was rated as `Fair'. Four of eight
NC main-stem sites(PRM 54.5-PRM45.3)scored NC BI values rated in the `Good' to `Good-Fair'
range;the four other sites immediately below the mill (PRM 63.0 to PRM 55.5)were rated as `Fair'
based on NC BI scores.
In accordance with NC DENR protocols,final bioclassifications were assigned to each station based
on EPT taxa richness and NC BI scores(Table 3.1.1-2). Only the uppermost main-stem station at the
confluence of the East Fork Pigeon River and West Fork Pigeon River(PRM 69.5)was classified as
38

"Good"; it scored better than the control site (PRM 64.5, "Good-Fair")upstream of the mill. Of the
remaining NC downstream sites, five received bioclassifications of"Fair"and three received "Good-
Fair" ratings..Bioclassifications rated Jonathan Creek as "Excellent' and Fines Creek as "Good".
Richland Creek was rated"Fair",which was upgraded from a"Poor"rating in 2005.
Final bioclassifications of sampling sites in 2012 were comparable to 2005 scores; in 2005, six sites
rated as "Good-Fair", and two sites received a"Fair"rating. In 2012, three sites rated as"Good-Fair",
and five sites were"Fair". Even with impacts of the 2007-08 drought, overall ratings indicated a
similar macro-invertebrate community in the Pigeon River.
Although water quality may be limiting the benthic community at PRM 63.0, it does not appear to be
the only factor influencing the quality of the aquatic community in the downstream stations. For
example,rip-rap used to stabilize eroded shoreline (PRM 61.0 and PRM 54.5) after the 2004 floods
has caused reduced scores on habitat assessment criteria such as bank vegetation. Even with the mill
effluent influencing downstream benthic communities, all eight sampling stations (PRM 63.0-PRM
45.3)recorded macro-invertebrate numbers (47-66 taxa) greater than the number of taxa observed at
the upstream reference station(PRM 64.5, 43 taxa). PRM 61.0, the site downstream from the mill
effluent site (PRM 63.0),produced the largest number of macro-invertebrate taxa(N=66) in the NC
main-stem excpt for the confluence site(PRM 69.5, 78 taxa). These data suggest that other factors
beyond habitat, such as urbanization(wastewater treatment), agriculture, and contributions from
tributaries (sediment, ag run-off, etc.) are affecting the composition and quality of the downstream
benthic community.
3.1.2 Historical Comparisons
Overall the 2012 Pigeon River benthic community was slightly improved as compared to that
observed in 2005 (Table 3.1.2-1). The highest numbers for total taxa,EPT taxa, and EPT abundance
continue to be observed at the most upstream reference site in NC (78 total at PRM 69.5) and in
various tributaries such as East Fork Pigeon River (91 total) and Jonathan Creek (97 total). In
contrast,these same parameters continue to be lower downstream of the Canton Mill (PRM 63.0, 64
total taxa), and at Hyder Mountain Bridge(PRM 55.5, 50 total) and Ferguson Bridge(PRM 48.2, 50
total). At the reference site immediately above the mill (PRM 64.5), the total taxa number was 44; all
NC main-stem stations had total taxa numbers equal to or greater than the above-mill number. Even
PRM 63.0, the station immediately downstream of the mill,had 64 total taxa present. One factor that
may have influenced taxa numbers at PRM 64.5 was a rain event on the sampling date which
produced higher water levels and increased turbidity. Among the locations sampled previously,the
NC BI remained lowest("Good") and bioclassification highest("Good-Fair") at PRM 64.5. Despite
overall similarities to past studies, differences were observed that suggest slight to moderate
improvements in the benthic community.
In comparison to 1995, nearly all parameters including total taxa richness,EPT taxa richness, and NC
BI improved in 2000; total taxa richness in 2012 was similar to 2005, with the exception mentioned
above. EPT taxa richness also showed substantial improvement compared to recent years. Although
the drought in 2007-08 may have been a factor in macro-invertebrate and fish production,the 2012
samples indicate a continuing and gradual improvement in water quality downstream of the Canton
mill.
39

Table. 3.1.2-1. A comparison of macro-invertebrate taxa collected from the Pigeon River
drainage in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2012.
Year
Tara 1995. '2000• 2005 2012
PORA'ERA(sponges
S on illidae
Spongilla I
COELENTERATA (hydroids)
A dridae
H dm I
PLATYIIELMINTAES flatworms I 1 '
Turbellarin I
Du .iidse
Du esia 1
NEMERTEA mbwds warms I
Bwchionidae
Prostoma Mescens 1 1
ECfOPROCPA b ozoans
Piumalellidne
Plumatella 1' _
COLLEhMOLA 1 I
POLYCHAETA oI chaetes
Sahellidae
M 'a s eciosa 1
AHIUDINEA eeches 1
E obdellidae
DesserobdeRa phalem 1
Erpobdcfla 1
LpobdcUa pwctats pswetata 1
Mooreobdella 1
Glossi honiidae
Helobdella 1 1
Plawbdella 1 I
Plawbdella parasitica .1
Pisekslidae
Myzobdelia lugubris 1
OLIGOCHAETA(aquatic worms)1 1
1/ Aeolostomatidne
Awlosoma 1
Enchytmeld.e
Mes®ch eus 1
Lumbdcidae 1 - 1
Eiseniella teuaedra 1 1
Lubriculidae - 1 I
Ecli idrilus 1'
Lubriculusv.jegams 1 1
Varichaeloddlus an eats 1
Nregssesledd.. I
Nfeg,dffl.
Me adrili 1
Naididne 1
Bmtislaviawddeutala 1 1
Dew I 1
Dew w. 1
Nais 1
Nais behain ' 1 I
Nais bmtscheri I
Nais cammunis - 1 I
Nais pudalis 1
Naisvariabilis 1 1 1
hidonais supentim - I
Parauais 1
Pristhm 1
Pristimacquiseta . 1
Pristine Icid ' 1
Ri istcs pawsits 1
Slavina appWiculats 1 I I
Swishcaw.ma trivandrana 1
Slyma lecusws 1 I I
S a ano hilidae 1
SPME.Philus tamesis 1
Tubifieidne 1 -
Aulodnlus'a omcm 1
Auloddlus lisnnobius 1
Auiodrilus pluriseta. 1 1
Bwncidum so 1 1
i Limnodrilus I I
-f Limnod.1m hoffinelsteri 1 I 1 1
Psanuno ctides calllomiauus
Tubifez wbifez 1 I
40

I..Tub.w/bifid cha.t.. 1 1
Imm.Tub.'rn & 'waaaau 1
NEMATODA
Nemma 1
Year
Taxa 1995 20D0 2005 2012
EPHENIEROPTERA ma Ries I
Ameletidne I
Ameletus I
Ameletus Iieeams 1
Baetidae I 1 I
A..n Ha 1 I 1 I
A=e Ua alachua I
Acmb lla turbida com lex 1
A a
Baefis
B.w b.iecolor 1
Bme snavisbi I I 1
Baetis intemalaris 1 I 1 1
Buds plmo 1 I 1
Baefis trimudams 1
Csmdobuddias 1
Crntr mum 1
Hetmcelceon 1 I
Hmerociceon curiosum 1 1
Hderocloeon pcte.i I
Procloeon I I
Pseudociceon 1 1 1
Pseudwmwn frondale I
Puudacloeon pmpinquus I
Baetiscidoe
Bufisw
C.Mdae
Carnis 1
E hemeridae
Ephemera blmda 1
E hemem guftlat. I
E hemerellidse 1
Abene0a abrnuam I
Danella 1
Dnsella simplex I
Dnsnella alleghmimsis 1 1 I 1
D.tH.wmula 1 1
Dmnella It. 1
Dmnella mbemulam 1
E hemerlla 1
E hemerella mtawba 1 I
E hessaalla domthea I
E hememlla tmvionalis I
E hemerella subvma I
Eunio hells I I I
E to hell.fineralis I
E Io hells pmdmtWts 1
Seralella deficiens 1 I I I
Semteua molita I I
Seratdla serrate I
Semella senatoides I
Heptagmiid.c I
E ores 1 I
E sores dip, I
Epcoms mbidushub allidus 1 1 1
Heplagcnia 1
Hcpmgc,ia mu mlk I 1 1
H cnia sensa I
Leucmcma I 1 I 1
Lcu utaa hmdite 1
Leucrceum maculi nnis 1
Maccatfertium I 1 1
Ma..affcdimn femomtum 1
Maccaff.tium itimca 1 I 1
M....ffertisun idwa/modesmm 1 1 1
Mucafferfium medio mcmmm I I
Mucafferfium pudic= I 1
Mac.Mff ium s.wwe 1 1
SI.afferfium temtinamm I
Pseudiron 1
Rhithro ma 1
Stenacmn I 1 I
Stmua .int uncmum I 1
St..pll.d. I
lwn chidae
Iwn Chia 1 1 I 1
L�tohyphidat
Td.oqthodn I
41

Le to hiebiidae 1
Paral to hlebia 1 1 1
Habro hlebi.des 1
Neo hemeridae
Neo hemem urea I 7
Total Ephemeropten Tam 20 33 M4 50
Year
Tex. 1995 2" 2tW5 2012
PLECOPTER.A stoneflies 1
Chloro erlidae I 1 1
AIIo rla 1 I
I.,uctrid.e
Leuctra I I 1
Pelt. rlidae
Tall. erla I 1 1
Perlidae I
Acromuria abnomds I I 1 I
Acroneuda sense Im. I I
A etina 1 I
etina fla wens 1 I
Adaneum I
Hwsonoperlaa nhia I
Neo rla I I I
Para enlina I
Para ttnina immar ginal. 1 I
Perlesta I 1 I
P,I.didae
Beloneuna 1
Hd ices subvarians I
lsopcTla 1
Malireluu hastatus I 1
Ocono la 1
Pteron.rcyidne
Allonar s
Allonas biloba 1 I
Allonar s prw. I
Plemnarc s dorsata 1 1 I
Twal Pleco fen Tax. 2 9 16 19
TRICHOPTERA caddisflies
A m..iidae
A atania incena 1
Brachvae.fHdae I I
Brach cemus 1
Bmch centres appalachia I 1 I 1
Brach cenlms lateralis I 1 I
Bmch c,.hus ni .soma 1
B.6,centres numttosus I
Mc.. 1 I
Mittasama barksi I
Microsema bennedi I I I I
Miemwma charonis I
Mier. mawalaga I I I I
Glouosomatid.e
A ms I
Glossos.ma 1 1 1
Glossosoma nigrior I I
Prot.fill. 1
H dro s chid., I I
Cemt. ch, I i
Cerato s the bmnta 1 I I I
Cerato s ch,moms. I I I I
Cew.pW6e sp,, I I I I
Ch,u t s ch, I 1 I 1
Ch,umatomvchc pawlia I
Di l,cnmu I
Di l,ctr.na m.desm I I
H dro s the I I
H,&,p,y6,b,deni/de ravam I 1 I
Hvdropsyche Cmncl,monti I I
H dro s the phalmta i 1 I
H dr. s the scalaris 1 I
H dro s the simulans I
H dro s the venularis I I I I
N dro tilidae I
fl dro tila 1 I I I
Leucomchia pwtips I 1 I I
Le idwtomatidae
L idostoma I 1 I I
L, tweridae I I
M ys cides I
M stacides se hulchralus I I
Necto s the I
Necto s the ez uisita 1
Oecefis 1 I I 1
O=w nnemscens 1
Oeceds incvns icw 1
42

Geaens pmimilis 1
Trimnodesi dtus I 1
Tnenodes inertia I
Limne hillidae I
Goers
Goers calcamta 1 1
Hydw,phyl. g, I
N,phyl. I
Ne h lax consimilis I 1
Neo hlax omams I
Year
Tan M5 2" 21105 2012
Trkhn as—Limn hilidoe con,.
mw s the I 1
cno sahe entllis 1 1
'cno the gmfer 1 1
cno s the le ids I I
cno s the luculenta 1 1
Philo otamidae 1
Chi.. 1 1 I
Dolo hilodes I
Dolo Modes disuncros I I
Phryt.aneidae
A nia sxsnm 1
Banksiola 1
phiypnc.sa 1
Ptilostomis 1
Pol centro odidae 1
Cerotina s icam I
Nemcclr srs I 1 1 1
Neumcli sis=usculans I I
N ctio h laa 1
Pol centro us I 1 I
Ps chum,iidae
L di,Yw I I I
Ps¢hour is Bavida 1 1 I
RM1 aco M1ilidae I
RhyacopMla feneshMedra I
Rh acu hdaf wla I I I
Rh aco hits vv hi es I
lieonidae 1
Neo dax 1
Nco h la consimik I I I
Neo hlac maws 1
Total Tricho lera Tau 18 36 67 56
ODONATA pan nkyticrosinie.)
AaWdae
Aeshna ambrosa 1
Bastwe hna-aorta 1 I
Boycria graliaw 1 1 1
Bo ens vmosa I 1 1
Cnlo to idee
Calopteryx I 1 1
calopteryx amam I
Calopteryx maculem 1
Hemenna 1 1 1
Hemedaa amencava I
Heinen nna l
Coeur rionidae 1
A 'a 1 1 1
Argia bipmcwlam 1
a sedum 1
Enallagm I 1
E.Osgm divaWs 1
Ishnma 1
Nehalemtia 1
Cordul astridae
C.,d.lag.w 1
Cmdula aster erronea 1
Cordul aster maculeta 1 1 I
Cordullidae 1 1
E itheca Helocordu1m uhlen 1 I
Nemowrdulm I
Neumc &die obwlem 1 I
Neurocordulia ymwkmcnsis I
Sommochlom I
Gom hidae I
Dmm our hus spmwus I 1
Gom hm I 1 1
Gom hus exllis 1
Gom hm Imidw 1 1
Gam hw uadnedm 1
G;.phurus r rsi ]
Ha eniw w 1 1 i
H to our has I
HvIoaomobwabbmviads 7
43

H to omDbmbtevis 1
H to om hus parvidens 1
Lwthm
Lamhus arvulw
hio om hus 1 1 1 1
Ophiogomphu mainenesis 1
Styl.g.mpho albistylus 1 1 1 l
styl. 1
Stylm spmkqs 1 1
hlacmmiidae
Mamemia 1 1 1
Year
1995 2000 2005 2012
HEMIPTERA true bugs)
Belostomalidoe
Belestoma Rumineum I
Cemidae
Aguarim mmi 's 1
Limns rows I 1
Mehobates I 1
Rha owlia I
Rho ovelia obesa I
TMobalm I 1
hlmoveliidse - - 1
Mesowliamulswti 1
Ne idae
Raname 1 1
R.=brevicolGs 1
Ranetra Idm 1
Veliidae
Micmvelia 1
Rba aveha obesa I
MECALOPTERA hell mmmiles
Co dalidae 1
Corydalm wmums 1- 1 1 - I
Ni nia 1
Ni nia fascism 1
Nigronia serricumis 1_ 1 1 1
1 Sialidae
Sialis I I 1
COLEOPTERA beetles
Ch samelidne 1
D o idae
Helichm I I I
Helichm litho hdus I
Pelonomus obs.0 l
Dytiscidae
Lacco hHus fasciams I 1
Laces hilmmacalosus I
Elmidae 1
AnMonyx vane ams 1 I 1
Dubim his I 1
Dubim his quadrinotata I 1
Mamoa thus glabmws 1 1 1 1
Nficrocylloepw poillus 1 1
O rioservus I 1 1
Bose ova0s 1 I 1
Oulinmius lafiuswlus 1 1 1
Promuresia 1 1
Promoresia ele ens 1 1 1
Pmmoremia mrdeda 1 1 1
Stenelmis 1 1 1 1
C inidae
Dineutus 1 1 1 1
Gyrim 1 1
Holi (idae
pdtod3qe, 1
PcIlodytes duodecim mctams 1
Pellod es ten ' 1
Peltpdytes muff= 1
Peltpdytes seaemawlams 1 .
H dro hilidne
Bemsus 1 1 1
Bemsus pemgrino 1
Enoduus 1 1
H drobim 1
_ Laccobim 1
Spenhopsis tessellata 1
Tro istemus 1 1
Tro istemus wllaris 1
Noteridae
H dr thw iricolor 1
Pse henidae
44

Psephanus henlcki 1 1 1 1
PfilDdactylidae
Anch bicolor 1
DnTERA flies
Athericidae
Atheriz
AWcn.lavtba
BIe hariceridae
BIe haricem I 1
Cerato 0 onidae
Auicho on 1
DM-
ma/Pal om'a 1
helea 1
Year
Tun 1995 2000 '2005 2012
Ditaa cant
Chironomidae 1 1
Ablabenn 'a'anta 1 1 1
Ablabesm 'a mallochi 1 I 1 1 1
Ablabtunyia cf.sim sovi 1
Brillia 1 1 1
Brundmiella emorpha 1
Bryophaenociadius 1
Cardiocladius 1 1 1 1
Chaetocladius 1
Chirononwuc 1 1
Chhonomini 1
Chitonomus 1 1 1 1
Qyptochu,ononm 1
Clado chna •4
Cladohinylmus 1 1
Cladotan mantas group1
Cl.d.1,ymus vandersvul i m,.p1
Clinomn us 1
Clinotn us vi.g.is 1
Conchcpclopia 1 1 1 1
Cofynonem 1 1
Criwto us 1 1
Criwto us bicincws group 1 1 1 1
Criwto us cf.iufuscatus 1 1 1
Crieoto us cf.iatcrsccnrs 1
Criwto us trifascia group 1 I
Criwto mcf.viedensis 1 1
Qyplochimonm 1
CWpunhirononm blaring up 1
C tochironomus fulvus 1
C totendi es 1
DcaucryptacWronorm 1
Dicrotwdi es 1
Dicrotwdi es cf.neomodestus 1 1 1
Diamcm 1 1
Endachironomus 1
Eukidkddlz 1-
EukieDeriefla cf.bmMd group1
EuldeRericfla devonica group 1 1 1
E.McBericHa pncei mup1
Eukietferiella pseudomonMat group1 1
Eukiefferiellasimilis group, 1 1
Glyptou,ndipcs 1
H ydrobaenus 1
Labrundinia 1
Lab=dinia pilosella 1 1
Lopescladius 1
M=pclopia 1 1
Micros ctre p.lita 1
Microtc.dives 1
Miaotcndipes pedellus group1 1
Nmwladius 1 1 1 1
Nanocladius cf.dowensi 1 1 1
Nanwladiw cf.s ini lens 1 1
Nmarsia 1
Nflotanypw 1
Odontomesa fulva 1 1 I
Onhacladiut Euonhocladius 1 1
Oahwladius cf.dubituv, 1 1
pnlxrtls4vala 'wtatius 4 wla 1
Onhacladius obumbratus 1
Pagastia 1
Pagastia onho onia 1 1
Pamchactocladius 1
Pamchironomus t
Pmaelado elma 1
Pamclado clmwdine - 1
Pammetrioc.emus I 1
45

Pammeniocnemm Imdbecku
Pare haenocladim 1
Pare us 1
Pamtmdi
Pmtanmm
PmWcma inns icm _ 1
Phamo scen 1 I I
Phamo secha obediens gmup1 I
Phaeno seetra pmcfipcs 1 1
Pol (W. 1 1
P.I dilum A ler 1
PoI dilum cE aAm s 1 1
Polypcdilum cf ber i I
Polypedilum eonvicmm I 1
PolypMil=fallaz M.p I I
Polypcdil.❑avum I I 1
Polypedilm illinoense I 1
Polypedilum m.bmmniae - I
Pol dilum laetum I I I
Year
Taxa 1995 2000_ 2005 2012
Di faa-Chironomidae cone
Pal dilum scalaevum I I 1
Pottlmsfia gaedii goup1
Procladius Holomn us I 1 1
Psmhocladim 1
Pseudmhirouomus I
Rhemdwto us I I I 1
Rheocdcoto us mbacki 1 -'
Rheocrimto m Iubemul m 1 1
Rheopclopia I I 1 1
Rhcotavylmus 1 1 1
Robackia demei emi 1
SaeWeria tylus I 1
Stenmhimnomus 1 1 1
Sublettea 1
Sublmea cotfmani I 1 1
S whocladius. I 1
S onhmladius semMmm 1
Tm s 1 1
T. ant scg 2<1/2 wg 1) 1
T. arsus W w 2-V2 se 1 1
Tan us glabmscens group I 1 1
Thievemanniella 1 1
Tribelos I 1
Tribelos'ucmdum 1 1
beteWa bavarim woup 1 1 1 1
Tve[enia rivada aixoladpcspeuo 1 1
Culicidae I
odl
Diridae
Dixa 1
Dixella 1
Dolieho odidae 1
Rha Liam
Em ididae
CheM. 1 1 1
Hemerodromia 1 1
E b dridse
Fami om lime I
Ahichopogon
P xhv teridae 1
Bimcomoipba clavi es
Simulidae I I
Cv hia mumm/Simuhum 1 1 1 1
Prosimutium I
Prosimtdium mixmm I
Stratiom-idne I
Nemtelus
Tabanidae 1
Chrysops I
Tabmus
Ti ulidae 1 1 1 1
Avtmha I I I
Dicmvom I
Edo tem I
HeEm 7
Hexatoma 1 I
Lc tom m
Mole film 1
@mosia
Pedicia
Pilaria I I
Pseudolimvo Lila I 1 1
T' ula 1
Ti Wa ebdominalis 1
46

GASTROPODA mails
A lidae 1
Ancy1m 1 1
Ferrissia 1
Hydrobiidse I
L mnseidae 1
Fossaria
Pb sidae 1 1 1
Ph sell. 1 1
Stagwwla
Planorbidae 1 1 1
Helisoma 1 I
P1.06ella Umbs 1
PkuroceAd.e 1 1
Elimia 1 1
Elimia clawformis I
mme"dilamwN
Plemocem mcialis 1
Yem
Tan 1995 2ODD 2005 2012
PELECYPODA mussels
Corbieulidse 1
Corbicula fluminea 1 1
bseriidae 1 1
Pmdium 1 1
Sph,. 1
CRUSTACEA
Am hi oda sidmwimmen 1 1
Gammams 1
I.pod. sow bus I I 1
Asellus I 1
Deu oda (crayfish) 1 1
Camb.Hldae 1
C.mbmus i I
C mbnu bmonii 1 1
Camb.:l4nlirambana b I 1
Omonwtea 1
Pmspicambaras I
Punc2icambmus acuW
Psac.mb.ms I
ARACHNOHffiA wafer mile
H ydmcarina 1 I I 1
Tolel Taza YMr 106 253 2M 315
Improvement was also evident upon examination of EPT taxa richness from the thermally influenced
main-stem stations. Since 1995,combined EPT taxa richness has more than tripled from 36 taxa in
1995,to 78 taxa in 2000,95 in 2005, and 117 in 2012 (Figure 3.1.1-1). Twenty-six new EPT taxa,
such as Attenella attenuate, Hansonoperla appalachia, and Cerotina spicata were collected for the
first time during 2012 in the same portion of the river. There were five additional taxa of stoneflies
collected, which is a good indicator that water quality and habitat continue to improve.
NC BI scores also reflect these improvements over the years. In 2000,NC BI scores exhibited
notable decreases(i.e.,the community was better) relative to 1995 at four of eight sites downstream
from the Mill. This trend continued in 2005 with only one of the sites,the most downstream site
(PRM 42.6),having a poorer score than in 2000. This"Poor"rating could be attributed to the fall
2004 flooding which scoured the previously existing riffle areas to bedrock. In 2012,the NC BI score
for the most downstream site had a final bioclassification of"Good-Fair",and these data indicate that
the benthic community in the Pigeon River is healthy and continues to improve.
In the tributaries in 2012,results from Jonathan and Richland Creeks were generally improved or
similar;total taxa number in Fines Creek was down from 2005, but received a final bioclassification
of"Excellent". In 2005,taxa richness was generally similar and EPT richness was substantially
higher(+5 species) in the three tribs sampled. In 2012,only Richland Creek improved in both total
taxa and EPT richness, and remained with a"Fair"bioclassification. NC BI values suggest that the
quality of the benthic community in Richland Creek has not significantly improved since 2005. One
item of note was an increase of agriculture operations on the tributaries, as well as the main-stem.
47

3.2 FISH COMMUNITY
The relative status and stability of the Pigeon River fish community was assessed in this study by
examining fish abundance, species richness and diversity, fish health, and trophic.composition. The
method used in 2012 to assess fish community data was the Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr et al.
1986) as modified by TVA (Table 2.3-1). In previous studies, IBI metrics were used to calculate NC
IBI values; however; the State of North Carolina has determined that such an IBI assessment,by
itself, is insufficient for a non-wadeable stream like the Pigeon River. In the 2005 study,we used the
2005 data to calculate NC IBI scores as in 1995 and 2000; this exercise was done only to provide
comparisons with previous data.
An assessment of biological condition/relative health of the surveyed length of the Pigeon River was
conducted through a summary and synthesis of the above mentioned community-level attributes.
These methods/analyses were used in presenting a synoptic view of the Pigeon River fish community.
Comparisons were made with previous studies (EA 1995, 2000; Wilson,2006) and other recent
studies within the Pigeon River or its tributaries (Progress Energy 2004, DENR-DWQ Memo 4/4/05)
to determine trends and measure improvement or decline. Reproductive success of Pigeon River fish
was assessed by examining the presence of young-of-the-year fish. Specific methods for the
collection of fish samples and data analysis procedures were provided in the Section 2.
3.2.1 Composition, Relative Abundance, and Distribution
A survey of the Pigeon River fish community was conducted at the 22 locations from 5 July to 28
September 2012 (Figure 2.1); a list of all species collected in 2012 is presented in Table 3.2.1-1. It
should be noted the six species (bigeye chub, silver shiner, telescope shiner, Tennessee shiner,
banded darter, gilt darter) were re-introducted into the Pigeon River downstream from PRM 64.5
after the 2005 study. Fish collection data from the portion of the river and tributaries sampled in 2005
(PRM 64.5 —PRM 19.3) and three tributaries (Richland, Jonathan, and Fines Creeks) were pulled
from the individual station data summaries (Table 3.2.1-2 and Table 3.2.1-3) and used for
comparisons to the 2012 data. Results from the tributary sites were not directly compared to results
from the 11 Pigeon River main-stem stations, but rather were used to determine to what extent these
tributaries were impacted and whether they could serve as sources of recolonization for fishes
currently uncommon in the main-stem, or as refugia during high temperature episodes. Similarly,
because of the long retention time in Waterville Lake, no thermal impacts would be expected at the
three Tennessee main-stem stations. These stations were included in the program primarily to provide
continuity with past studies of the river and verify that past improvements continue to be in place.
Species composition of the Pigeon River fish community is presented in Table 3.2.1-1. Fish
collections from all sampling methods produced a total of 4188 fish(3485 from main-stem and
upstream tributary sample locations, and 703 from main-stem tributaries below the mill) distributed
among 56 species (Tables 3.2.1-2, 3.2.1-3). The main-stem catch was composed of 18 sport fish
species (one more than in 2005) and 36 non-sport and/or forage species (Table 3.2.1-2); sport fish
represented 32% of the total catch. Two new species of sport fish(white bass, white crappie) were
collected in 2012 along with two species (warmouth, walleye)that were first collected in 2005; the
- walleye,white crappie, and white bass were found only at TN sites. There were six sunfish hybrids
(one bluegill x green sunfish,three bluegill x redbreast, and two green x redbreast) collected in 2012
which was the first appearance of any hybrids since the fish collections began in 1995.
48

Smallmouth bass and rock bass (classed as `Intolerant')were collected at all NC stations below the
Mill; the redbreast sunfish(classed as `Tolerant') was found at all but one station in the river
downstream from the Mill. Redbreast densities in the PR below the Mill were the same in 2012 as in
2005 (59%of the sport fish catch). Tolerant green sunfish were found at all but two main-stem sites
in 2000, and only at PRM 61.0 in 2005;there were no green sunfish collected in the NC portion of
the river below the'mill in 2012. Ten perch species were collected of which eight were darter species
(members of the genus Etheostoma or Percina). Tuckasegee darters were found at all NC stations
downstream of the Mill except PRM 61.0.Non-sport species ranked highest in numerical abundance
accounting for 64% of the total catch. As in 2005, the stoneroller, river chub, whitetail shiner, and
hogsuckers were among the most numerous of the non-sport catch in terms in terms of numbers
(Table 3.2.1-2 and Table 3.2.1-5). The sucker family was fairly well-represented in 2012, and with
six of the same species as in 2005. Two sculpin species were represented by 252 individuals (180 in
2005). Catfish(2) and trout (1) were represented by three species but only 12 individuals of the
former and four individuals of the later. The remainder of the catch consisted of relatively low
numbers of shad, drum, and other shiner species.
In 2012, two sites on the Swannanoa River(SRM 1.6 and SRM 11.3)were sampled as a reference
river site and those data(Table 3.2.1-4) were used to compare fish community composition and
abundance to the Pigeon River sites impacted by the Canton Mill. There were 588 individual fish
collected comprising 20 species (four sport fish and 16 non-sport species), as compared to 34 species
(11 sport, 23 non-sport) in the NC main-stem PR below the mill. Sport fish were rock bass,bluegill,
redbreast sunfish, and smallmouth bass, with redbreast sunfish comprising 59% of the catch, In the
NC main-stem below the mill,there were nine species of sport fish (and two hybrid groups) with the
redbreast(48%), smallmouth bass (20%), and the rock bass.(17%) comprising 85% of the total sport
fish catch. The four most abundant non-sport species in the PR main-stem, i.e., central stoneroller
(485), greenfin darter(274), river chub (211), and whitetail shiner(207), were collected in the NC
portion of the river below the Mill. In the reference Swannanoa River, the most abundant non-sport
species were the river chub (99), fantail darter(71),redline darter(58), and Tennessee shiner(41).
There were three "intolerant"fish species (Table 3.2.1-1) collected in the reference river, the rock
bass, smallmouth bass, and the gilt darter. The same three species were collected in the NC main-
stem Pigeon River sites below the Mill, along with an additional two "intolerant" species,the
greenfin darter and the telescope shiner.
Table 3.2.1-1. Fish Species Collected from the Pigeon River and Four Tributaries, 2012.
Common Name Scientific Name
1. GIZZARD SHAD Dorosoma cepedianum
2.RAINBOW TROUT(I) Oncorhynchus mykiss
3.BROWN TROUT Salmo truua
4. *BROOK TROUT(1) Salvelinus fontinalis
5.*BROOK SILVERSIDE Labidesthes sicculus
6.CENTRAL STONEROLLER Campostoma anomalum
7.WHITETAIL SHINER Cyprinella galactura
8.COMMON CARP(T) Cyprinus carpio
9.+BIGEYE CHUB Hybopsis amblops
10. WARPAINT SHINER Luxilus coccogenis
11.RIVER CHUB Nocomis micropogon
12.+TENNESSEE SHINER Notropis leuciodes
13.+SILVER SHINER(2005)(I) Notropis photogenis
14.+SAFFRON SHINER Notropis rubricroceus
49

15.+MIRROR SHINER Notropis spectrunculus
16.+TELESCOPE SHINER(I) Notropis telescopus
17.LONGNOSE DACE Rhinichthys cataractae
18.WHITE SUCKER(T) Catostomus commersoni
19.NORTHERN HOGSUCKER Hypentelium nigricans
20.SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO Ictiobus bubalus
21. SILVER REDHORSE, Moxostoma anisurum
22. *RIVER REDHORSE Moxostoma carinatum
23.BLACK REDHORSE Moxostoma duquesnei
24. *SMALLMOUTH REDHORSE Moxostoma breviceps
25. *YELLOW BULLHEAD(T) Ameiurus natalis
26. *BROWN BULLHEAD(T) Ameiurus nebulosus
27. *FLAT BULLHEAD(T) Ameiurus platycephalus
28.CHANNEL CATFISH Ictalurus punctatus
29. FLATHEAD CATFISH Pylodictis olivaris
30. *WHITE BASS Morone chrysops
31.ROCK BASS(I) Ambloplites rupestris
32.REDBREAST SUNFISH(T) Lepomis auritus
33.GREEN SUNFISH(T) Lepomis cyanellus
34. *GREEN X REDBREAST HYBRID(T) L.cyanellus x L.auritus
35.BLUEGILL Lepomis macrochirus
36. *BLUEGILL X REDBREAST HYBRID(T) L.macrochirus x L.auritus
37. *BLUEGILL X GREEN HYBRID(T) L.macrochirus x L.cyanellus
38.WARMOUTH SUNFISH Lepomis gulosus
39.SMALLMOUTH BASS(I) Micropterus dolomieu
40.LARGEMOUTH BASS Micropterus salmoides
41. *WHITE CRAPPIE Pomoxis annularis
42.BLACK CRAPPIE Pomoxis nigromaculatus
43.GREENSIDE DARTER Etheostoma blennioides
44.GREENFIN DARTER(I) Etheostoma chlorobranchium
45.TUCKASEGEE DARTER Etheostoma gutselli
46.REDLINE DARTER Etheostoma rufilineatum
47. SNUBNOSE DARTER Etheostoma tennessense
48.+BANDED DARTER Etheostoma zonale
49.*YELLOW PERCH Perca flavescens
50.TANGERINE DARTER(I) Percina aurantiaca
51. *LOGPERCH Percina caprodes
52.+GILT DARTER(I) Percina evides
53.WALLEYE Sander vitreus
54.FRESHWATER DRUM Aplodinotus grunniens
55.MOTTLED SCULPIN Cottus bairdi
56.BANDED SCULPIN Cottus carolinae
*Species(14)not collected in 2005
+Re-introduced native species
I=intolerant species
T=tolerant species
50

Table 3.2.1-2.Number/species of fish collected (by station)from the Pigeon River(main-stem and
upstream tributaries), 2012.
Spert Fish NAIVE L Loaes WFPR ffAt 0.3 ".5.,9 63.0 61.0 59.0 57.] 0.6 Ks $2.3 NA 46.3 24.T 19.3 10.3 TOTALS
ReiEPw Treat N 4 4
Beeak Trot' A
&awn Trott N
aw.]Cmfwh A 1 3 1 1 4 10
Flethawl Caeah A 2 2
WIAe Baas 1 2 2
Rock Baas A 2 27 9 8 48 11 19 9 9 11 20 9 3 1 4 18 3 211
BkMW A 39 2 4 10 3 1 1 4 2 2 68
XGrem N 1 1
Bhftd%RediheeM• N 1 2 3
G'".SUMh A 1 5 8
Green Re06reeat N 2 2
RedbreaN Sufwh N 13 10 15 9 18 12T ]5 W 81 71 N 45 20 2 1 17 002
W h A 11 2 1 14
Lm Uh Sawa A 9 ] 2 2 T 1 1 9 38
SmagmOUh Bah A 6 9 1 16 8 6 20 12 114 10 14 10 17 13 256
enact, A 4 1 1 12 2 1 2 1 24
W eOra A 3 3
FrestwNer Orton A 2 2
W A T 4 11
Non rt Fish
FE—.1E Shed A 4 10 13 2]
Cenral Slomro9er A 41 85 24 66 3 94 2 8 14 1 6 8 15 74 62 485
�C Mrrcn Car N 4 2 3 2 6 5 22
Brook SlM1erside' A 1 1
e Chub` A" 4 1 9 14
Rwal Ct b A 17 51 20 29 B 9 16 49 18 211
Minor SRrar A 2 ] 1 12 22
N��
Shner A 6 2 2 10
toner A 3 1 4 8
stir A 1 a 12 19
SHwr' A. 1 5 3 17 26
im_r A 2 6 6 ] 1 1 6 28 8 to ]5
il Stuer A ] 5 9 11 16 5 11 1] 29 38 35 6 15 3 07
e Dace A 1 1 1 3
rn .law A 2 5 3 ] 3 4 4 5 12 5 3 5 49 4 1%
Sucker A 1 2 1 4
lwth Mole A 13 4 iT
edlNrse A 1 1T 3 4 16 5 46
ed"e' A 9 9
edlnrse A 1 1
rgUh Redlmra4' A 1 2 1 4
That BU9ead' N 2 1 3
Brewn BUiUead' A 1 i
Yellow bWftad' A 2 2
8,a,6 d Deader A 5 T 2 1 1 1 17
-Greerake Darter A 3 10 14 37
G1.1111 Darien A 46 45 82 76 3 4 11 6 214
Redlne Daner A W 36 79 IN
StaAb..Darter A 35 21 W
69S Darter' A l 2 1 4
Te erioe Dane, A 3 ] 2 2 1 15
Tekee ea Daner A ] 12 15 14 2 5 5 9 10 1 3 4 U
L,W,W A 1 1
Yellow Perch N 1 1 5 1 3 11
Belled se A 4] T3 W 156
MPSNd Se A ] 05 24 ti 3 86
Trial Fish ]e W9 2]0 215 335 I. 1. 20T 13] 190 160 286 i]0 68 IN 402 330 3465
Total Its 6 14 13 16 16 11 14 1T 10 18 21 20 20 9 to 23 27
Anom ws 0 0 1 10 1 11 12 2 4 3 8 4 1 4 5 2 4
NOTE:'-mt etAxted M 21915 M NC collected a 2005 rot lo M12-N"M sNner,Bexkmae dace,Ohs ceder,Beset,buhab.
Speaes names that are shaded were re-Oroduced leek r RM 64.5.
NATIVE:PwAlwayc,N=Never,l=lntmduced(In waters above Chattanooga.Personal communlalbn,Charlie Saylor,TVA)
51

Table 3.2.1-3. Number and species of fish collected from the four tributary sampling locations
downstream of the mill, 2012. Crabtree Creek was not sampled in 2005.
2012 Pigeon River Tributary Fish Data
SPORT FISH Crabtree Creek Fines Creek Jonathan Creek Richland Creek TOTALS
1 Brook Trout' 1. 41 _ _ 31 ! - _ 7
2 - Brown Trout 11 '131 141 28
_ 3 Rainbow Trout 1 2 6 I .8
4 Rock Bass 61 J 81 14
5 Blue ill 21 1 2
6 Redbreast Sunfish 161 41 21 181 40
7 Green X Redbreast b.'- I 11 1 1
8 Largemouth Bass 1 21 41 11 7
9 Smallmouth Bass 11 1 3 .81 12
I I
NON-SPORT FISH I I - I I
1 Central Stoneroller 411 421 301 41 - 117
2 River Chub 211 21 501 251 98
3 Mirror Shiner' . - 1 - ..... 1
4 Saffron Shiner' 2 2
5 Silver Shiner. - 1 I I - 1 .
6 Telescope Shiner' S 5
7 Tennessee Shiner' -. ': _ 38- - -. ;h 38
8 War paint Shiner 161 2 1 51 11t 58
9 Whitetail Shiner 361 it 101 47
10 Lon nose Dace 71 91 791 1 95
11 Northern Hop Sucker 16! 51 231 101 54
12 White Sucker 27 t! 161 19
13 Black Redhorse - 1 41 1 4
14 Banded Darter` 1 ". ..... - 5 _. 6
15 Greenside Darter ! 1. 1
16 Greenfin Darter I 11 21 3
17 Tuckase ee Darter _ 3 61 81 _ 131 30
18 Gilt.Darter' r 5 5
_ 19 Tangerine Darter ! 21 2
Total Fish:. 2151 1161 2501. - 1221 703
TotalSpecies; 181 11 171 14
Anomalies: t! 3 11 21
.I NOTE:'=species not collected in 2005;Blackrise dace collected in 2005_not 2012.Shade�ecies were re-introduced
i
52

Table 3.2.1-4.Number and species of fish collected from two sites on the Swannanoa River
reference stream in 2012.
2012 Swarmanoa River Fish Data at Reference Sites
Sport Fish SRM 11.3 SRM 1.6 TOTALS
Rainbow trout
Brook trout
Brown trout
Channel catfish
Flathead catfish
White bass
Rock bass 2 20 22
Blue ill 7 1 8
Blue ill X greenHyb.
Blue ill X redbreast H b.
Green sunfish
Green X redbreast Hyb.
Redbreast sunfish 31 22 53
Warmouth
Largemouth bass
Smallmouth bass 1 6 7
Black crappie
White crappie
Freshwater drum
Walleye
Non-Sport Fish
Gizzard shad
Central stoneroller 29 8 37
Common carp
Brook silverside
Bigeye chub 11 11
Riverchub 81 118 199
Mirror shiner
Saffron shiner 12 12
Silver shiner
Telescope shiner
Tennessee shiner 41 41
Warpaint shiner 2 11 13
Whitetail shiner 17 17
Longnose dace
Northem hog sucker 3 3
White sucker 2 2
Smallmouth buffalo
Black redhorse
River rcdhorsc
Silver redhorse
Smallmouth redhorse
Flat bullhead 13 13
Yellow bullhead
53

Banded darter 6 6
Greenside darter 4 4
Greenfin darter
Redline darter 11 47 58
Snubnose darter
Gilt darter 10 10
Tangerine darter
Tuckase ee darter
Logperch
Yellow perch
Banded scul in
Mottled sculpin
Chain pickerel 1 1
Fantail darter 44 27 71
Total Fish 255 333 588
Total Species 14 15
Anomalies 1 10
Table 3.2.1-5.Ranked abundance and percent occurrence of the ten most abundant fish species collected
from the main-stem Pigeon River,2005 and 2012.
2005 Number Percent 2012 Number Percent
Central stoneroller 971 33.69 Redbreast sunfish 538 22.29
Redbreast sunfish 385 13.36 Central stoneroller 293 12.14
River chub 192 6.66 Smallmouth bass 237 9.82
Banded scul in 148 5.16 Whitetail shiner 183 7.58
Northern ho sucker 146 5.07 Rock bass 162 6.71
War paint shiner 131 4.55 River chub 123 5.97
Whitetail shiner 114 3.96 Banded scul in 120 4.97
Rock bass ill 3.85 Greenfin darter 99 4.1
*Greenside darter( utselfi) 82 2.84 Northern ho sucker 91 3.77
Mirror shiner 74 2.57 Redline darter 71 2.94
*Now the Tuckase ee darter
1
,
54

Table 3.2.1-6. Ranked abundance and percent occurrence of fish collected by electrofishing
from the main-stem Pigeon River,2012.
Species Total Number Percent Occurrence
Redbreast Sunfish 538 22.29
Central Stoneroller 293 12.14
Smallmouth Bass 237 9.82
Whitetail Shiner 183 7.58
Rock Bass 162 6.71
River Chub 123 5.97
Banded Scul in 120 4.97
Greenfin Darter - - 99 -4.10
Northem Ho sucker 91 3.77
Redline Darter 71 2.94
Warpaint Shiner 61 2.52
Tuckase ee Darter 53 2.19
Black Redhorse 40 1.66
Snubnose Darter 35 1.45
Tennessee Shiner 26 1.08
Greenside Darter 23 0.95
Bluegill 21 0.87
Mottled Scul in 20 0.83
Largemouth Bass 20 0.83
Black Crappie 19 0.79
Telescope Shiner 19 0.79
Common Carp 17 0.70
Banded Darter 16 0.66
Gizzard Shad 14 0.58
Smallmouth Buffalo 13 0.54
} Tangerine Darter 12 0.50
Mirror Shiner 12 0.50
Yellow Perch 11 0.46
Silver Shiner 8 0.33
Walleye 7 0.29
Channel Catfish 6 0.25
Bige a Chub 5 0.21
Gilt Darter 4 0.17
Smallmouth Redhorse 4 0.17
White Sucker 4 0.17
Rainbow Trout 4 0.17
White Crappie 3 0.12
Flat Bullhead 3 0.12
Flathead Catfish 2 0.08
Freshwater Drum 2 0.08
Saffron Shiner 2 0.08
Lon nose Dace 2 0.08
Green X Redbreast Hybrid 2 0.08
Blue ill X Redbreast Hybrid 1 0.04
Warmouth 1 0.04
Silver Redhorse 1 0.04
Brown Bullhead 1 0.04
Logperch 1 0.04
Brook Silverside 1 0.04
Total Fish 2413 100
55

Fish species in the mainstem Pigeon River in 2005,ranked by abundance(Table 3.2.1-5), had only
one intolerant species, the rock bass in eigth place. However, in 2012, not only the rock bass, but also
the smallmouth bass and greenfin darter moved into the top eight based on species abundance—all
three species are considered to be `intolerant'. The rock bass and smallmouth bass were collected at
all thermally influenced station below the mill. The whitetail shiner increased in prominence,moving
from a number seven ranking (-4%) in 2005 to number four(-8%) in 2012. This species is most
abundant in fast runs, and flowing pools in clear streams with coarse, firm substrates (Envier and
Starnes, 1993). It was collected from all but of the one of the thermally influenced main-stem stations
(PRM 54.5). The most abundant species in both sample years were the central stoneroller and the
redbreast sunfish with 47% of the total catch in 2005, and 34% of the total catch in 2012, indicating a
significant decrease in the abundance of these two tolerant species in the river below the mill. Other
species in the top ten in abundance in 2012 included the river chub (123),banded sculpin (120), and
northern hogsucker (91) (Table3.2.1-5).
The distribution of fish species in the Pigeon River was examined for spatial patterns. Lack of
definable patterns indicates a random distribution of fishes. On the other hand, well-defined spatial
patterns indicate that fishes are responding differentially to physical factors (e.g., depth, substrate
type, water temperature, velocity, cover, etc.) or chemical factors(e.g.,pH, dissolved oxygen, etc.) or
natural disasters (flooding/drought). Also, the presence/absence of certain species provides valuable
information on impacts (or lack of same) from point or non-point source dischargers (e.g., the Canton
mill, the Waynesville and Clyde WWTPs) and what factor(s) may be responsible for any differences
observed.
As discussed below, species distribution in the Pigeon River is driven by a variety of factors. The
distribution of most species followed one of five well-defined spatial patterns:
(1) fairly evenly distributed throughout the study area,
(2)restricted to or noticeably more abundant upstream of the Canton Mill,
(3)restricted to or noticeably more abundant downstream of Waterville Lake, or
(4) most abundant in the middle two reaches, between the mill and Waterville Lake.
(5) sporadic distribution throughout sample area.
Forty-eight of the 53 species collected from the main-stem river followed one of these five patterns
(Table 3.2.1-7). The remaining four were the brook silverside which was only found in the TN
portion, and three sunfish hybrids [bluegill x green sunfish (1), bluegill x redbreast sunfish(4), and
green sunfish x redbreast sunfish(2)]. Eleven species clearly followed Pattern 1 (i.e.,were widely
distributed throughout the study area). These included four sunfish, three minnows,two darters, and
two sucker species (Table 3.2.1-7). This group of widely distributed species includes eight of the 10
most abundant species in the study area; the other three rank within the top 15 species in abundance.
In 2012, there were 13 species found downstream of the mill: smallmouth bass and rock bass were
found at every Pigeon River site, from PRM 69.5 at the most upstream NC site to PRM 10.3 in TN.
The central stoneroller was found everywhere except PRM 63.0; whitetail shiner and hogsucker were
found at every site except PRM 54.5 in NC and PRM 24.7 in IN. The warpaint shiner was found at
six sitesites, the tangerine darter was found at three sites, and the mottled sculpin and greenfrn darter
were found at four sites. The saffron shiner, which was not collected at PRM 64.5 during the sample
season in 2005, was collected at three sites above the Mill in 2012.
56

Even more species (16) were unique to the Tennessee portion of the study area(i.e., downstream of
Walters Dam and Progress Energy power house). The most common species (>20) were banded
sculpin, gizzard shad, and redline, snubnose, and greenside darters, while the other 11 species were
uncommon(1-17 individuals) (Table 3.2.1-2).
Table 3.2.1-7. Longitudinal distribution of fishes in the Pigeon River main-stem, 2012.
Species Species Species restricted to Species restricted to Species with
distributed restricted to or or much more or much more sporadic
throughout the much more abundant abundant between. distribution
study area abundant downstream of Waterville Lake throughout the
upstream of the Progress Energy and Canton mill sample area
Canton mill Hydro Plant
N. hogsucker Green sunfish Gizzard shad Common carp Black redhorse
Central Warmouth Greenside darter White sucker Channel
stoneroller catfish
Whitetail shiner Mirror shiner Redline darter Brown bullhead Black crappie
Redbreast Saffron shiner TN snubnose darter Bluegill Tangerine
sunfish darter
Smallmouth Mottled sculpin Telescope shiner* Largemouth bass Flat bullhead
bass
River chub Banded sculpin Yellow perch Longnose dace
Rock bass Rainbow trout TN shiner*
Bluegill Walleye Flathead catfish
Greenfin darter White crappie Gilt darter*
Tuckasegee River redhorse Banded darter*
darter
Black redhorse Log perch Bigeye chub*
Yellow bullhead Silver shiner*
Smallmouth buffalo Smallmouth
redhorse
Brook silverside
*Re-introduced species below PRM 64.5.
57

Despite the fact that several of the species were common in Tennessee, none were collected in
the North Carolina portion of the river. This pattern is not consistent with what would be
expected if the thermal effluent from the Canton mill were the principal factor affecting the
distribution of fishes in the Pigeon River. If the thermal component was the reason these 15
species were absent downstream of the mill,then they still should be present upstream of the
mill. The fact that none of the 15 was collected upstream of the mill indicates that their absence
in the middle segments is either biogeographical (i.e., they are not Blue Ridge species) or the
high gradient area near the border provides a major natural faunal barrier which many species
cannot pass. As opposed to the four species more common upstream of the mill which are
predominantly cool water forms, the 15 species restricted to the Tennessee portion of the study
area are predominantly either warmwater fishes (e.g., gizzard shad) or are fishes typically
associated with larger rivers (e.g., silver redhorse, freshwater drum,walleye, white crappie, black
buffalo, and smallmouth buffalo). The fact that these species are absent from the upper portion of
the study area indicates that this area is simply too cool and too small for many of the species
found in the Tennessee portion of the study area.
Finally, there are several species (Table 3.2.1-6)that are restricted to or most abundant in the NC
main-stem portion of the study area. The increased abundance of bluegill, black crappie, flathead
catfish, and channel catfish in this area may be the result of emigration of individuals from
Waterville Lake. The other species typically increase in response to greater food availability (i.e.,
benthic organisms) and, except for white sucker,prefer warm water. Thus, their higher
abundance in the middle reaches is probably the result of more food being available and warmer
temperatures. The bedrock substrates and higher percentage of long deep pools in the middle
section also favor these species.
Among the tributaries,Jonathan Creek had the widest diversity of species (16) of the tabs that
were sampled in 2005 (Jonathan, Richland, Fines Creeks) and the highest numbers (N=249),
including three trout, three sucker, five minnow,three sunfish, and two darter species (Table
3.3.1-3). Crabtree Creek was also sampled in 2012, and had two more species (N=18) than
Jonathan Creek; five of the six re-introduced species were collected there for the first time. Fines
Creek yielded moderate diversity(11 species)but the fewest individuals (Table 3.2.1-3); the
central stoneroller was the most abundant species there making up 36% of the total number.
Richland Creek had moderate species richness (14 species),with the second lowest number of
individuals (N=122), including one sucker and five minnows species. Stoneroller, redbreast
sunfish, and Tuckasegee darter were the most abundant species in the creek. Two of the tribs,
Fines and Jonathan Creeks,had individuals of all three trout species; the brown(27) and brook
trout (7) individuals were only collected at those two locations in 2012.
Species richness varied throughout the main-stem sampling sites (Table 3.2.1-2). At most of the
locations, species richness in 2012 was similar to 2005. In 2005, there were 44 fish species
collected from the study area, the Pigeon River from PRM 64.5 to RM 19.3, and the three
tributaries (Richland, Jonathan, and Fines Creeks). This total included 15 sport species, all of
which occurred downstream of the Canton mill. In 2012, fifty species were collected from the
same sampling area. The distribution of fishes documented in the study area indicates that fish
are affected by a number of factors (e.g., stream size,habitat quality, water temperature, and
point and non-point source dischargers) including the severe drought of 2007-08 in western NC.
58

3.2.2 Condition Analysis
For a community to be balanced, most of the individuals making up that community must be in
good health. This can be assessed by examining their relative robustness (relative weight Wr) or
by looking for evidence of deformities or anomalies. A Wr value of 100 indicates that the weight
for the fish you are assessing weighs the same as the standard weight (W,) that has been
empirically determined for that species from similar geographical locations. Typically, Wr values
significantly below 100 indicate problems in food or feeding conditions or recent spawning
activity,while Wr values well above 100 may indicate that fish may not be making the best use
of a surplus of prey(Murphy and Willis, 1996). Consequently, a range of Wr values from 85-105
would indicate fish in"good condition". When examining the data, it was found that some of the
calculated Wrvalues for fish collected during the study fell outside that"good condition"range.
Since all W,values were used in the calculation of the mean Wr for each species at each location,
it should be noted that those significanty lower or higher values may affect the mean to a greater
or lesser degree.
Many variables influence Wr values including sex, season of collection, geographical location,
and life stage, should be considered when comparing the condition of fish populations. To reduce
the influence of these and other variables, comparisons of Pigeon River Wr values involved only
larger specimens, i.e.,those fish equal to or longer than the minimum lengths used in the 2012
Wr calculations. The primary species selected for comparison(redbreast sunfish, rock bass,
bluegill, and smallmouth bass) were chosen as a result of their overall abundance and occurrence
at a variety of sampling sites. Wr values for up to 10 individuals of each species were calculated
to assess relative well-being. Species with fewer than 10 individuals collected were also
evaluated; however, mean Wr values were not used unless there were three scores (i.e.,three
fish) obtained. There were three of the target species collected upstream of the mill (rock bass,
redbreast, smallmouth bass).
All Wr values (except redbreast sunfish)were calculated using standard weight (Ws) equations
that have been proposed for various fish species along with minimum total lengths recommended
for application (Murphy and Willis, 1996). The equation used to calculate Wr values for
redbreast sunfish was developed from length and weight data from Georgia redbreast populations
(Sandow, Jr. et al., 1974). Wr equations and minimum lengths are presented below:
Black crappie log Ws=-5.618+-3.345 log L 100 mm
Bluegill log Ws=-5.374+3.316 log L 80 mm
Channel catfish log Ws=-5.800 +3.294 log L 70 mm
Largemouth bass log Ws=-5.316+3.191 log L 150 mm
Redbreast sunfish log Ws=-5.281 +3.2386 log L 100 mm
Rock bass log Ws=-4.883 + 3.083 log L 100 mm
Smalhnouth bass log Ws=-5.329+3.200 log L 150 mm
Walleye log Ws=-5.692+3.180 log L 150 mm
White bass log Ws=-5.066+3.081 log L 115 mm
White crappie log Ws=-5.642 +3.332 log L 100 mm
Yellow perch log Ws=-5.386+3.230 log L 100 mm
59

In 2012, mean W,values for redbreast sunfish and rock bass were within the 85-105 "good
condition"range at every NC station below the mill except for redbreast sunfish at PRM 45.3 (no
redbreast were collected at that site)(Table 3.2.2-1). Redbreast were found at all six comparison
reference sites (EFPR 3.5, WFPR 3.6, PRM 69.5, PRM 64.5-.9, SRM 1.6, SRM 11.3), and mean
W,values ranged from 90-110.The WFPR 3.6 location had a mean W,of 93 with a range of 65-
125,however, only one of the six calculated W,values for fish at that site fell in the 85-105
"good condition"range (Table 3.2.2-1). Rock bass were found at all reference locations.except
SR 11.3; mean W,values for rock bass ranged from 75-87. Only one of nine fish had a W,(90)
in the"good condition"range from the Swannanoa River collections. Thirteen bluegill were
collected in four of the six reference locations (none collected in the main-stem PR above the
mill); the Wr value (88) for the four bluegill from the SFPR 3.5 reference location was the only
value in the target range. Smallmouth bass had mean W,values within the target range at two of
three NC main-stem stations, 86 at PRM 64.5 and 91 at PRM 55.5. There were several other
species with one or two individuals collected at stations throughout the mainstem NC portion of
the river which exhibited W,values indicating good condition, including yellow perch(PRM
59.0, 55.5), largemouth bass (PRM 55.5), smallmouth bass (PRM 64.5, 61.0, 55.5, 48.2,45.3),
channel catfish(PRM 54.5), and black crappie(PRM 59.0, 54.5, 52.3). The TN portion of the
river(PRM 24.9-PRM 10.3) produced one or two individuals of eight species which exhibited
W,values indicating good condition: rock bass, redbreast sunfish, smallmouth bass, largemouth
bass,white crappie, white bass, channel catfish, and walleye.
Table 4.2-1. Relative weight (W,) of Pigeon_ River fish by collection site, 2012.
(RCK=rock bass, RBR=redbreast sunfish, SMB =smallmouth bass, CCAT=
channel catfish,BG=bluegill, LMB =largemouth bass, YPRCH=yellow perch,
BLKCR=black crappie, WHTCR=white crappie, WALL=walleye)
River Mile Species # Wr Mean
EFPR 3.5 RBR 6 112 105 102 114 98 128 110
RCK 5 76 82 88 74 86 82
BG 4 91 57 88 86 88
WFPR 3.6 RCK 10 57 81 56 87 94 63 56 85 92 77 75
RBR 7 67 69 65 100 125 116 93
BG 2 53 90
69.5 RBR 1 100
RCK 6 81 79 81 72 97 94 84
64.5 RBR 10 98 100 102 107 97 96 100 94 104 97 100
RCK 10 69 86 63 89 85 82 87 84 86 104 87
SMB 4 88 94 79 81 86
60

a oo a ao rn r oo a a a oo a a a m o0
vi ^o m e rn o o �n m
a ,_, ao a rn a rn a rn
N oo b e O� N b m �n N a m o0 �n of
O� T Ell
rn a ,� oo rn b oo rn m rn w rn ... r
'-I
Ri
x
� 94 a w z a v� m a m m � � z
M' C4 h .] �+ C U
PI T h Vl 'af '
V V Y! VI VI y1
L

River Mile Species # Wr Mean
52.3 RBR 10 111 103 92 118 94 97 98 129 91 97 100
BG 2 93 92
RCK 9 84 94 92 114 107 103 87 91 100 85
SMB 114*
BLKCR 2 85 86
48.2 RBR 4 94 93 112 92 98
RCK 2 89 95
SMB I 87
BG 1 ill .. ..
45.3 RCK 1 97
SNM 1 91
24.9 RCK 4 96 87 82 - 114 95
19.3 RBR
RCK 10 96 97 100 92 95 97 106 95 110 95 98
SMB 5 83 85 77 80 82 81
_.� WALL 5 80 76 75 80 82 79
WHTCR 3 86 80 75 80
BLKCR 2 84 83
CCAT 1 91
10.3 RBR 10 96 110 92 106 101 112 107 105 109 97 104
RCK 5 102 83 91 67 75 84
SMB 6 81 91 84 73 82 79 82
LMB _ 3 94 83 102 93
WHB 2 90 84 -
CCAT 4 130 54 89 88 - 90
BLKCP 1 82
WALL 4 89 85 70 . 115 90
SRM 11.3 RBR 10 90 89 89 - 83 100 100 94 81 84 90 90
BG y 6 80 79 94 73 73 82 80
t'" �1 V.M"�•, i`: ;.� ;?4: " 1. --t _ 1 �„,'.R :-ft'��`,'ts`fi a�.ti�•'-'.`.
SRM 1.6 RBR 8 84 93 109 94 90 85 81 91, 91
RCK 10 80 81 90 78 83 80 81 82 78 69 81
BG 1 80
*All young-of-year fish
62

Collectively, W,values indicated that: (1)the condition of rock bass, smallmouth bass, redbreast
sunfish, and bluegill from the Pigeon River is comparable to the condition of these species from
other areas in the Southeast, and (2)the condition of these species downstream of the Canton
Mill in the thermally affected portion of the river as well as the cooler downstream portions of
the river were considered to be in good condition. W,values for fishes from the Pigeon River
were within expected ranges for this area. Furthermore, W,values downstream of the mill were
typically comparable to those upstream of the mill and that the majority of the target species are
in good condition.
3.2.3 Biological Integrity
The biotic condition of the surveyed length of the Pigeon River was characterized by
incorporating fish community data into the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr 1981,Karr et al.
1986) as modified by TVA(2004). The IBI includes a range of attributes of fish assemblages
which can be classified into three categories: species richness and composition, trophic
composition, and fish abundance and condition. Scores of 5, 3, and 1 were assigned to each of 12
metrics within the three categories (Section 2). Species richness was based on specimens
collected by all sampling gears combined. At all stations, similar distances (usually 200 m) were
sampled with the pram electrofisher or backpack shocker, while the boat covered a broader range
of distances (100-200 m), but similar amounts of time (usually about 40 min), following TVA
boat shocking protocols.
There is only a weak relationship between catch per unit effort(CPUE) and drainage area.
Therefore, in earlier studies (1995,2000),no adjustment was made for differences in drainage
area among the study locations. However, TVA IBI metrics do reflect changes in drainage area
and,therefore, our 2005 and 2012 IBI scores are calculated using drainage area. Due to concerns
expressed by NC DENR,NC IBI scores were not used to rate locations (e.g., fair,poor,
excellent, etc.). Instead,the index was used as a broad measure to compare among locations and
to measure changes compared to 2000 (EA 2001). In conformance with TVA protocols,Metric
12 (Percent Diseased Fish)was scored with the inclusion of parasites (e.g., blackspot,leeches,
etc.). External diseases encountered most frequently were lesions and leeches; deformities were
included in the calculations but were rarely encountered.
TVA IBI data for Pigeon River fish sites are presented Table 3.2.3-1, along with scores for each
IBI metric calculated using TVA protocols (2004). IBI scores for 2005 and 2012 are presented in
Figure 3.2.3-1; the maximum score for each metric is five. Six of eleven Pigeon River main-stem
sties had IBI scores equal to or better than scores for the same sites in 2005; four of the other five
scores were within six units of the same-site 2005 value. The IBI score in 2012 which differed
more than six points from the 2005 sampling was a 34 at PRM 24.7 in the TN portion of the
river; the low score was primarily due to a minimum score (1) on each of four metrics related to
the presence or absence of selected species, i.e., the total number of native fish species (9),
number of darter species (1), number of sunfish species (0), and the number of sucker species (0)
(Table 3.2.3-1).
In 2012, two sites in the middle portion (PRM 63.0-PRM54.5) of the river received IBI scores of
46; this score was the highest score recorded in the NC main-stem and slightly higher than IBI
63

score(44)for the reference site immediately upstream of the mill (PRM 64.5). Other scores in
the NC main-stem ranged from a 26 at PRM 45.3 to 40 at four sites including PRM 61.0. The
lowest score was at PRM 45.3, which as noted before, had suffered from habitat modification
from the floods of 2004, as well as the 2007-08 drought; the low number of species and low
densities coupled with a relatively high incidence of diseased fish produced an IBI of 26.
It should be noted that sites with scores that differ by<8 IBI units are often statistically
indistinguishable (i.e., differences of<8 may be due to random chance) (Fore et al. 1994). Thus,
it is likely that the difference observed between the highest and lowest scores (e.g., 44 at PRM
64.5 vs. 26 at PRM 42.6) is probably real,whereas the difference of six IBI points between PRM
61.0 and PRM 55.5,may or may not have any statistical or biological significance. When
evaluating our 2012 data, seven of nine NC main-stem stations (10 of 13 total stations sampled
including the PR tributaries) from PRM 64.5 to PRM 45.3) were within six IBI units. We
consider any differences (either among locations or dates) of<6 IBI units to be biologically
insignificant.
In the tributaries including Crabtree Creek(sampled for the first time in 2012), Crabtree scored
the highest(46) followed by Richland Creek (44), Jonathan Creek (42), and Fines Creek(36)
(Table 3.2.3-2). Any impact on Jonathan Creek from the Maggie Valley W WTP or other
development in the watershed (located further upstream) was not apparent;the IBI score
improved from a score of 42 in 2005 to 46 in 2012. IBI scores in Richland Creek(44) and Fines
Creek(36) remained the same as they were in 2005.
The IBI in Richland Creek was 44, the same score it received in 2005. In coldwater streams, an
increase in the IBI (which was developed primarily for warmwater streams) or in species
richness is not necessarily good. Increases in eutrophication and species richness are often
indicators of a decline in coldwater community integrity, and temperatures of around 24 C are
marginal for trout and encourage the invasion of warmwater species like largemouth bass and
other centrarchids.This may be the situation in 2012, as water temperature in Richland Creek was
recorded at 24.5 C; there were five sunfish sunfish species (including LMB) and no trout species
collected there. In the other three tributaries (Fines, Jonathan, Crabtree),there were 43 total
salmonids collected including 7 brook trout, 28 brown trout, and 8 rainbow trout. We noted that
water temperature in Fines Creek decreased from 24.5 C in 2005 to 18.5 C in 2012. Four
cool/cold water species were collected (warpaint shiner,brown, brook, and rainbow trout): the
blacknose dace found in 2005 was not collected in 2012. Thus, Fines Creek bears watching to
ensure that it maintains its coldwater aquatic assemblage.
64

1 1 1
Table 3.2.3-1. Measured values and associated TVA IBI scores (in parentheses) for the Pigeon River main-stem and Swannanoa
River sampling locations, 2012.
Metrics: S31.3 S1.6 WF3.6 EF3.5 69.5 64.5-.9 63.0 61.0 59.0 57.7 55.5 54.5 52.3 48.2 45.3 24.7 19.3 10.3
Total#native fish 12(3) 14(3) 13(3) 12(3) 15(3) 14(3) 9(3) 12(3) 13(3) 8(1) 15(3) 17(3) 17(3) 19(3) 8(1) 9(1) 22(5) 23(5)
s ecies
#of darter species 2(3) 5(5) 2(3) 2(3) 3(3) 3(3) 3(3) 1(1) 2(3) 2(3) 4(5) 4(3) 2(1) 4(3) 1(1) 2(1) 4(3) 4(3)
#of stmfish species 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 2(5) 3(5) 1(3) 1(3) 2(5) 3(5) 1(3) 2(5) 4(5) 2(5) 2(5) 1(3) 0(1) 1(3) 5(5)
#of sucker species 2(5) 0(1) 1(3) 1(3) 1(1) 2(3) 1(1) 2(3) 2(3) 1(1) 2(3) 2(3) 4(5) 1(1) 1(1) 0(1) 4(3) 4(3)
#of intolerant spp. '2(3) 3(5) 2(3). 1(1) 1(1) 2(3) 1(1) 2(3) 1(1) 1(1) 2(3) 2(3) 1(1) 3(5) I(1) 2(3) 3(5) 2(3)
%tolerant species 0.8(5) 0(5) O(S) 0(5) 0.5(5) 0(5) 1(5) 2.6(5) 1(5) O(S) 1.5(5) 2.3(5) 2.4(5) 0(5) O(S) 4(5) 2.5(5) 7.5(5)
%omnivores, 44(1) 38(1) 32(1) 43(1) 21(1) 27(1) 1(5) 4.5(5) 47(1) 2(5) 10(3) 9.5(5) 8.4(5) 34(1) 38(1) 15(3) 24(I) 27(I)
stonerollers
%sech.votes 27(3) 47(3) 36(3) 26(3) 51(5) 35(3) 6(I) 3.2(1) 8(1) 10(1) 13(1) 15(1) 12(1) 22(1) 21(1) 35(3) 26(3) 2.7(1)
imsecGvores
%piscivores 1.2(1). 8.1(5) 15(5) 3.3(3) 6.6(5) 27(5) 7(5) 29(5) 9.6(5) 11(5) 17(5) 30(5) 44(5) 8.8(5) 22(5) 11(5) 10(5) 10(5)
Catch rate 17.4(3) 24.3(5) I2.2(1) 18.4(3) 13.7(3) 23(5) 19(3) 13(3) 15(3) 11.7(3) 13(3) 15(3) 21(5) 12(3) 6.4(1) 11(3) 25(5) 17.2(5)
%hybrids 0(5) O(S) 0(5) 0(5) 0(5) 0(5) 0(5) 0(5) 0.5(5) 0(5) 0(5) 1.2(1) 0(5) 0(5) 0(5) 0(5) 0(5) 0.9(3)
%diseased 0.4.(5) 3(3) 0(5) 0.04(5) 4.7(3) .003(5) 7(I) 7.8(1) 1(5) 2.9(3) 1.6(5) 4.7(3) 1.4(5) 2.9(3) 5.9(1) 3.9(3) 0.7.(5) 1.2(5)
IBI Score 42.. 46 42 40 40 44 36 40 40 36 46 40 46 40 26 34 48 44
65

IBI Score c
tv A Q1 �
O O O O w
iv
w
WFPRM 3.6
EFPRM 3.5
PRM 69.5 a
PRM 64.5-.9
PRM 63.0 .0
PRM 61.0
PRM 59.0 m
PRM 57.7 0
PRM 55.5 z
RICH Cr.
PRM 54.5
PRM 52.3 m o
CRAB Cr.
PRM 48.2
JON Cr.
� a
PRM 45.3/42.6 (7
FINE Cr. 0
PRM 24.7
m
PRM 19.3
PRM 10.3
SRM 11.3 y
SRM 1.6 CD
•N
O
O
LZ.
N
1V N O
8 � N
lI1 N

Table 3.2.3-2. Comparison of IBI scores for Pigeon River main-stem, tributaries,and
Swannanoa River, 1995-2012. X= no data recorded.
PIGEON Rrvpl SAMPLE SITES S Pvi By TVA/NC 181 Mdl &2912.1995
TVA TVA TVA NCDENR' NCOENR 2005• R..
Ri rMN 1-, jg22 10"08 }Q$2 0�12 2WO 1w NOTE$ 5Ratm NCH
1 WFPRM 6.6 Ldi 2u e• R X X X x TVA meRna uM Fd
Rom 2005
2 WFPRM 3R WM Fake .River• 42 42 X 38 X %
'NC..Rk,ISr'12 usd
3 EFPRM 3.5 Ekn I"P11,River' 40 36 R 41 x X an tmm 2006.
4 PRM 69.5 Bebw mNLrnce£FLR/WFLR• 40 % 53 x X 'NC mevic ta'05 used
nn from 2000 @
5 PRM 64.5Mt9 U.a" •f ZOOS H 46 55 53 54 from 1995.
6 PRM 63.0 FlbavBe,We BRRP 36 SO 26 i 51 46 1 Ro eo SJrtr soma 3 r2
7PRM6LO O.O.su WWS.a (T ) 90 46 36 52 Re-intm:93ms ,-1
B PRM 59.0 U acly& 10 36 38 45 44
9 PRM 57 3 Cb S BM de• 36 X 26 E x Re-int—S&v,rh 4 +2
BmMed dmnr-5
10 PRM 555 WwmYwm.rCl&'H Mm,Br, 46 38 C10, 36 48 42 52 Rc-inlroa:BeMcd -7 110
GR daMr-I
Te—..stimlyd
II PRMTb R dC=k(PR coMh at PRM 519) M 38 44 43 44 42 Rc.., r BaMW bnr-5 +2
Gil daner5 In 010
12 PRM 54.5 Wwnebeem of We mmvi0e W WFP 40 38 43 42 42 Re-mnoa:Ball dertm-2 +5
CAR dance-2
Tenn<eea ehmcr-5
13 PRM 52.3 Obd Rt 20 1I Coale 46 1 40 38 44 46 Re mvm:B.Med&.-1 +2
Tcmxsxe sbiaN
14 PRM Tnb Cntam Crtek•(PRM 49A)@ Pa ff CC Rd, W R 50 R X Re 1,.e:Banded Jena-I +14
Te..esmea ,.38
NM:SIRer"ers Idle W ulSR u.IS T&.tt s .5
NCOENR6-29-12. Mvranbour-1
Sd ffo dd.er-3
15 PRM 492 Fe W. obnn 2012 40 40 46 46 48 Re-iarm:balled doted +10
GOt loner-I
Tennesxeahiner-19
re�.a anma-1
Bise.e eb.w
16 PRM Tn1 loenbu Cmek PRM 00 Cox Cr.Rd 40 $144 {I 51 SE
12 PRM 453 NEPCO Cnu' Sm6o.• 26 36 x R
PRM 42 R IIFPCO X X 46 42
18 PRM T b Flecs C—k[PRM 42.]J a E,Y O,140 36 31 44 40
RM 11 7 ll c"'R('1241.6 1 Brit 1�\n"a'2"2) 1 1% 42 {8
20 PRM 193 Crak-BLBtm M 48 55 55 54
21 PRM 103 !Nt w PRtle UN)^ 46 48 X X
22 ARM 11.3 Warren WSme Coke ,FIWY.30 42 ]: 38 % x
239RM 16 Ed 504140 46 A 46 ix X
67

3.2.4 Life Stages and Spawning Activity
The structure of the Pigeon River fish community was examined further by determining the
reproductive status and life stage of all fish collected. Life stage information was used as an
indicator of reproductive success (presence of young-of-the-year) as well as overall community
health (representation by a range/variety of life-stages). Because the study was conducted in
July-September 2012, most fish were not in breeding condition and indicators of breeding
condition(e.g., tubercules in males, gravid females, breeding colors) were essentially absent.
Thus, assessment of reproductive success was based on the presence of YOY(young-of-the-
year) fish and a wide range of sizes for a particular species (indicative of successful spawning
and recruitment in previous years). Reproductive status of life stages of fishes were classified as
follows: YOYs were spawned during the current calendar year,juveniles were not mature
enough to reproduce, and adults were sexually mature and capable of reproduction.
Common carp was represented only by medium and large individuals which is typical of the size
distribution of this species, for which YOYs and small juveniles are rarely collected. In the NC
portion of the main-stem,the size distribution of most species was similar,but varied somewhat
depending on the method of capture, i.e.,backpack and pram electrofishing in shallower portions
of the river produced smaller sizes of a given species whereas boat electrofrshing generally
produced the larger sizes of the same species. Rock bass, redbreast sunfish, and smallmouth bass
(SMB) were found at every main-stem NC station; of the 212 SMB, most were YOY (N=189)
which indicated successful reproduction for that intolerant species. In addition, a substantial
numer of the SMB collected in the three TN stations below the Progress Energy Hydro Plant
were YOY(22 out of 40). Tuckasegee darters, northern hogsuckers, whitetail shiners, and
stonerollers were found at all main-stem NC stations except one; the stonerollers and hogsuckers
were not collected immediately downstream of the mill at PRM 63.0, although the Tuckasegee
darters and whitetail shiners were present at that location. Other YOY species collected upstream
of the Hydro Plant included rock bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, bluegill, redbreast ,
and hogsucker, while YOY largemouth bass, hogsucker, and rainbow trout were collected in the
TN portion of the river.
Prior to 2005,Metric 12 of the NC IBI was scored according to the number of species that were
represented by multiple age classes. In 2004, TVA modified scoring metrics (see Section 3.2.3
and Table 3.2.4-1) and the multiple age class metric was removed. However,North Carolina
retained the multiple age class metric in their IBI calculations. Therefore in 2012, the maximum
possible metric score (5) was obtained at only two sites upstream of the mill based on NC IBI
scores (Table 3.2.4-1); this fact indicates that the natural causes (floods in 2004, drought in 2007-
08) may have disrupted reproduction throughout the Pigeon River drainage.
68

Table 3.2.4-1. Multiple age class scores for Pigeon River main-stem,
tributary sites, and Swannanoa River sites, 2012. Reference sites
are indicated by an asterisk(*).
River Mile (RM) 2012
SRM 11.3* 5
SRM 1.6* 5
WFPRM 3.6* 3
EFPRM 3.5* 5
69.5* 3
64.5-.9* 5
63.0 3
61.0 3
59.0 1
55.5 3
54.5 3
52.3 3
48.2 1
45.3 5
Richland Creek 3
Crabtree Creek 3
Jonathan Creek 3
Fines Creek 3
24.7 1
19.3 5
10.3 1
Among the main-stem tributaries,none received a score of five for the multiple class metric. All
the tributaries downstream of the mill received a score of three.
69

3.2.5 Habitat Assessment
An evaluation of the quality of the aquatic habitat and surrounding lands is important to any
assessment of aquatic ecological integrity. A high quality habitat functions as a refuge for
organisms, meets their needs throughout their life cycle, moderates runoff influences, provides
living space and food, and tempers alteration to channel morphology, erosion, and deposition.
Therefore, the biological condition of indigenous communities is determined by the natural
characteristics of the whole system. The potential of aquatic communities is dependent on the
habitat quality as a primary component of their ecological requirements.
The riverine habitat was assessed using the methodologies established by NC DENR(2001)
using the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet for Mountain and Piedmont Streams (Version 7).
The habitat characteristics which were recorded were channel modification, in-stream habitat,
bottom substrate,pool variety, riffle habitat, bank stability and vegetation, light penetration, and
riparian vegetation zone width. The maximum score possible using all metrics was 100. In
addition to habitat assessment,physicochemical data(temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH)
were also recorded at each sampling location.
Among the main-stem locations,habitat scores (Table 3.2.5-1) ranged from 35-86 and tributary
scores ranged from 75-90. Main-stem scores were higher at PRM 19.3 (84), PRM 45.3 (77),
PRM 48.2 (68), PRM 55.5 (61), and PRM 64.5-64.9 (83), and lower at PRM 24.7 (65), PRM
52.3 (66), PRM 54.5 (66), PRM 59 (71), PRM 61 (63), and PRM 63 (83). Of the four main-stem
tributaries,Richland and Jonathan Creeks scored higher in 2012 than 2005. The highest score
(90) was in the upstream headwater tributary, i.e., East Fork Pigeon River, and was the result of
instream habitat and riffle habitat scores. The lowest score at PRM 63.0 was the result of poor
instream habitat, substrate quality, bank stability, canopy, and riparian zone width. Scores at
stations in the NC portion of the river below the mill to Walters Dam ranged from 40-80 in 2005;
in 2012,the same area had scores ranging from 35-77, which indicated little change in riverine
habitat between bioassessment studies.
Table 3.2.5-1. Overall habitat scores for the reference stations, Pigeon River main-stem sites, and
tributaries,2005 and 2012.
River Mile (RM) Habitat Scores IBI Scores
Zoos 2012 Zoos 2012
SRM 11.3 75 42
SRM 1.6 63 46
WFPRM 3.6 81 42
EFPRM 3.5 90 40
69.5 86 40
64.5/64.9 57 83 46 44
70

63.0 40 35 38 36
61.0 79 63 46 40
59.0 80 71 36 40
57.7 39 36
55.5 34 61 36 46
54.5 68 66 38 40
52.3 71 66 40 46
48.2 62 68 40 40
45.3 77 26
42.6 67 32
Richland Creek 72 76 44 44
Crabtree Creek 75 46
Jonathan Creek 88 75 46 40
Fines Creek 74 78 36 36
24.7 83 65 44 34
19.3 68 84 42 48
10.3 55 44
*NOTE:Scores were calculated using NC DENR established methodologies,
Version 6 for 2005,Version 7 for 2012.
Of the habitat metrics for the NC portion of the river below the mill, channel and instream
habitat showed little variation among locations. Five locations scored 4 (5 maximum) or better
for the channel metric. For instream habitat, six locations scored greater than 14 out of a 20
maximum value. Canopy values ranged 2-10 with five locations scoring five or better out of
maximum of 10. Substrate values ranged from 3-15 with one location(PRM 59.0) scoring the
maximum 15 and six scoring 10 or better. Pool variety scores ranged from 4-10 with PRM 42.3
and PRM 52.5 receiving the maximum score (10). The range for riffle habitat was 3-12. Three
locations received a score of 12 (out of a maximum 16) while two locations (PRM 63.0 and PRM
61.0)received the minimum score (3). Bank stability and vegetation ranged from 9-11 out of a
maximum score of 14. In most locations, right and left bank riparian vegetation zone widths
were rarely similar, with one bank scoring higher than the other bank; scores ranged from 0-8 out
of a maximum 9. The lower scores were often associated with a road alongside the river.
Comparison of 2012 to 2005 Total Scores (PRM 64.5-42.7).
Overall the 2012 total habitat scores were similar to those in 2005; there were seven of 10
stations in NC in 2012 (including the PRM 64.5 location above the mill)that had total scores
71

better or within five units of the same locations in 2005. Some of the differences seen came from
a change in metrics, such as in the 2005 protocol that combined bank stability and vegetation
into a single category. At some locations,the decreases in habitat scores were due to a missing
component; for example, at PRM 63.0 in 2005, bank stability was rip-rap with little to no
vegetation, thus lowering the score to 5 out of a maximum of 14. One of the principal factors to
be considered for effects on 2005 habitat scores was the massive flooding due to the hurricanes
in the fall of 2004. With the increased flows and subsequent flooding, there was a decrease in
bank stability and quality of vegetation due to these disturbances. For example, river banks at
Fiberville(PRM 63.0) suffered serious erosion damage and were reconstructed with rip-rip and
large boulders during the spring and early summer of 2005. Riparian vegetation damaged by the
floods was removed and replanted,but was not well-established at the time of the 2005 habitat
assessment. Also, the riparian zone width could have decreased due to scouring and degradation
by flood-waters. In 2012, riparian areas have become reestablished and rip rap areas, while still
in place, were often covered with vegetation. These factors may have contributed to differences
seen in habitat scores for a given location in 2005 and the same location in 2012.
Habitats were generally good in the study area and are not limiting except possibly at PRM 63.0.
Stations in the downstream portions of the river, and especially the higher gradient reaches,had
lower scores for the substrate metric because of a preponderance of bedrock in these segments.
3.2.6 Similarity and Biodiversity Analysis
Principal components analysis
A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on a matrix of abundances of all fish
species sampled at all Pigeon River sites (including East Fork and West Fork reference sites) and
the Swannanoa River reference sites. The purpose of the PCA was to assess how similar each of
the sample sites were to each other with respect to fish abundances (in this case total number of
each species), and to assess how similar sites were from 2005 to 2012. The matrix of fish
abundances consisted of 29 sample sites and 67 species. Typically, species that occur in only 1-
5% of the samples are removed from a multivariate ordination such as PCA. This is because very
rare species, or those that are sampled ineffectively by the gear, can potentially skew the
analysis. Initially, rare species were removed from the PCA, which we considered those species
that occurred in only one sample. However,the results were the same as when all species were
included, so we kept all species for this report. Prior to analysis,the species count data were
square-root transformed. This is typical for ordination techniques such as PCA to de-emphasize
very small or very large counts of species,which can also potentially bias the results of a PCA.
The analysis was run in CANOCO Version 4.5 software (Microcomputer Power®, Ithaca,NY).
All default settings provided by the software were used for each PCA. To interpret the results of
scatterplots,the closer any two samples or species are to each other, the more similar they are
with respect to fish species and numbers of each species. The farther away they are from each
other,the more dissimilar they are to each other. The axis scores for each scatterplot do not
represent values of condition or any other benchmark that can be interpreted as a gradient
in stream quality, health, condition, or integrity. The scores are simply a way for the PCA
to mathematically organize samples and species in such a manner that shows how similar
they are relative to each other.
72

Biodiversity comparisons
To assess biodiversity at each site during 2005 and 2012, we calculated three related indices of
biodiversity: 1)Ni=species richness, 2) Shannon-Wiener diversity=(H'), and 3)H'/log (N)_
evenness of each sample. In short, as values of each index increases, this means samples have
greater biodiversity. Comparisons of mean index values were made between 2005 and 2012
using independent samples Mests with a Type I error rate of a=0.05. All indices were
calculated in CANOCO Version 4.5 software. The Mests were conducted in Microsoft Excel®
Version 2010. Sample sizes for t-tests were n=11 for 2005 and n=18 for 2012. Separate
comparisons were made with and without the inclusion of Swannanoa River reference sites.
PCA similarity results
The PCA of the fish community indicated that there was a gradient in fish species composition
that produced three distinct groups of sites that were similar to each other(Figure 3.2.6-1).
Samples from PRM 24.7 and PRM 19.3 were similar in 2005 and 2012, and these were also
similar to PRM 10.3 from 2012. The species that mostly defined this group (i.e., on the right side
of Axis 1 in Figure 3.2.6-2) of sites had larger numbers of banded sculpin, gizzard shad,
smallmouth buffalo, redline darter, and walleye compared to other sites (Figure 3.2.6-2). On the
opposite side of the gradient (i.e.,the left side of Axis I and the upper part of Axis 2), species
that defined this group of sites had greater abundances of mirror shiner, mottled sculpin,river
chub, greenfin darter, Tuckasegee darter,tangerine darter, and warpaint shiner relative to other
sites. Sites that were similar for this gradient included PRM 64.5 (2005 and 2012), PRM 69.5,
and all four reference sites which included the East Fork and West Fork Pigeon River, and SRM
11.3 and SRM 1.6. The final group of similar sites (i.e., all remaining sites in lower left of Figure
3.2.6-1) consisted of locations in the middle of the Pigeon River study area. Species that defined
this group consisted of higher numbers of largemouth bass, white sucker, silver shiner, common
carp, yellow perch, and redbreast sunfish compared to other sites.
It must be noted that the strength of the PCA was very weak. This is because there were fewer
samples than species. Typically,multivariate ordinations such as PCA require 2 to 3 times the
number of samples as species in the matrix. Eigenvalues for each of the first three axes,which
explained approximately 70% of the variation in the fish community data, were < 1. Generally,
PCA eigenvalues should be> 1 for a statistically sound interpretation, or else the plots produced
may just be no better than a random"shotgun blast" of sites and species on a square plot.
Nonetheless, because the sites and species associated with this particular PCA made logical
sense, based on years of experience sampling stream fish species in the Pigeon River, we decided
to go ahead and interpret the PCA results.
73

SAMPLES
2005 2012
i
i
EFPRCOLN-� I
i
RM❑69 WEPR
❑ R 19 05 M1
SFI
RM24 03
SRII RM24
❑ ❑ II--R-N1IM
lJ
_._.. RM45 _.......
RM63 0 RM4S
❑ RM54_
RM61_05♦RM59�
RM520:RM$9-_ ❑ RM42_03
�z A
RM55 do ♦ 5_05
RM61
RM63 Rj
CD
-1 .0 1 .5
Figure 3.2.6-1. A biplot of a principal components analysis(PCA)describing the structure of the
Pigeon River fish community in 2005 and 2012. Reference sites from the Swannanoa River
(SRM 1.6 and SRM 11.3) are included as well. Each symbol represents a fish community
sample. Symbols closer to each other are sites that are more similar than those farther away in
t the biplot space.
I
74

o
MIRSHIN
MSCCULP
GFDART
%RCHB
SAS BREDN
MART CS70NE RLDART
SAFRON IVALL
GD_rtew
WC FIVD �SMIDUF
L4W BSLSID 0 GSD-AdM .BSCULP
SGAR LPERCH SNDART GSHAD
TUDART GD_gur FDART (TICK BECHB S TELESC
7GD�T FBULL: 7SHIN C'ROG REDH RSIBUF RBTRT
WTAINT• ftGNS OWYBULLN RREDH
WAR LNJ ACE BG RB HY
BNDACE
GN RB HY CCAT
BG S• oC0�
FH RC
{VISNlN
S&mKDH BNDART
BRBULL
B5T CK%
YPERCN
SLVSHN 60
CCARP LMB
0
RBS
1
-0.8 1 .2
Figure 3.2.6-2. A biplot of a principal components analysis (PCA) describing the structure of the
Pigeon River fish community in 2005 and 2012. Symbols closer to each other are more similar
than symbols farther away in the biplot space. Species along each of the two axes are those that
define the fish community in the previous figure.
Biodiversity results
On average, all three indices suggested that biodiversity was similar from 2005 to 2012 (Table
3.2.6-1; t-tests; all P>0.05 for all index comparisons between years). However, it should be
recognized that some individual sites increased in biodiversity from 2005 to 2012, while others
declined. For example,PRM 64.5 increased in species richness from 8 to 10, Shannon diversity
from 2.12 to 2.34, and evenness from 0.78 to 0.84. In contrast,PRM 24.7 decreased in richness
75

from 10 to 6, Shannon diversity from 2.28 to 1.76, but evenness was relatively unchanged from
0.75 to 0.76.
Table 3.2.6-1. Biodiversity indices for Pigeon River and Swannanoa River(SR1, SR 11)
fish community. Larger values indicate greater biodiversity. Sites are river miles
except for EFPR East Fork Pigeon River) and WFPR(West Fork Pigeon River).
2012 Fish Community 2005 Fish Community
Site Richness Shannon' H/log (N) Site Richness Shannon' H/log(N)
diversity evenness diversity evenness
(H) of samples (H)of samples
SR11 8 2.07 0.78 RM64 8 2.12 0.78 .
SR1 8 2.11 0.78 RM63 6 1.71 0.63
WFPR 8 2.08 0.79 RM61 8 2.08 0.65
EFPR 8 2.08 0.81 RM59 6 1.77 0.59
RM69 8 2.11 0.76 RM55 6 1.82 0.71
RM64 10 2.34 - 0.84 RM54 4 1.41 0.49
RM63 3 0.99 0.41 RM52 8 2.14 0.75
RM61 6 1.82 0.69 RM48 9 2.15 0.80
RM59 6 1.75 0.62 RM42 8 2.12 0.96
RM57 4 1.42 0.62 RM24 10 2.28 0.75
RM55 9 2.16 0.75 RM19 6 1.77 0.59
RM54 13 1 2.54 0.83
RM52 7 1.99 0.66
RM48 9 2.22 0.74
RM45 7 1.95 0.89
RM24 6 1.76 0.76
RM19 12 2.52 0.80
RM10 13 2.58 0.78
JAVERAGEI 8 2.02 0.74 1 1 7 1.94 0.70
76

3.3 OTHER BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
3.3.1 Mussels
The presence or absence of freshwater mussels at all Pigeon River main-stem sample sites was
documented. There were no mussels observed at any of the sampling sites during 2012. These
results are in line with NC DENR survey data in recents years which have not documented any
naturally-occurring mussels in the Pigeon River. High water levels during the spring of 2013
prevented access for mussel surveys in areas other than designated sites, and especially areas
where mussel re-introductions have occurred. Re-introductions of 10 native mussel species have
been done, beginning with nine species in TN at three sites(PRM 17.3, 13.3, and 8.3)in 2000-
12. The other species has been re-introduced at one site above the mill (PRM 65.5)and one site
below the mill (PRM 55.3) river since 2010 (Table 3.3.1-1). All re-introduction sites in both NC
TN main-stem portions of the Pigeon River were chosen to maximize survival and growth.
A recent research study investigated mussel survival and growth reared in silos in Pigeon River
main-stem locations both above and below the mill (Rooney,2010). Results indicated that
mortality rates among mussels at above-mill and below-mill sites were not significantly
different; however, growth rates of mussels held in downstream silos were significantly greater
than for those held at upstream sites. Highest growth rates were observed at a site located
approximately 18 km downstream from the mill (Figure 3.3.1-1; Rooney, 2010). Several
influences may have impacted growth rates, such as elevated water temperature due to heated
mill effluent, as well as agricultural runoff with elevated levels of nutrients. This study
documented proof that mussels could survive and grow in the river below the mill, and also
provided the impetus for NC DENR to begin a mussel re-intoduction program in the NC portion
of the river. Assessment of survival at other life stages is also needed before the full extent of
potential for mussel re-introductions to the studied reach of the Pigeon River is known.
s/
„« 8 October2010
Figure 3.3.1-1. Above-and below-mill growth comparisons of two cohorts of mussels after 22
months in the Pigeon River. Specimens on the right-hand side of the picture are from the
Marion cohort and those on the left are from Table Rock. The smaller light brown
mussels at the bottom of the photo are from the above-mill site and exhibit significantly
less growth.
77

Table 3.3.1-1. Mussel re-introductions into the Pigeon River in Tennessee and North Carolina, 2000-12.
PIGEON RIVER MUSSEL REINTRODUCTIONS IN TN
# RELEASE
SPECIES COMMON NAME SOURCE STREAM RELEASE SITE RELEASED DATE
Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 12 Oct-00
Amblema plicata Threeridge Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 5 Oct-00
Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple wartyback Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 15 Oct-00
Elliptio dilatata Spike Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 12 Oct-00
Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed Lampmussel Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 14 Oct-00
Lampsilis ovata Pocketbook Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 21 Oct-00
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris Kidneyshell Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 10 Oct-00
Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 24 Oct-00
Strophitus undulatus Creeper Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 11 Oct-00
Elliptio dilatata Spike Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 3 24-Oct-03
Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed Lampmussel Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 3 24-Oct-03
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris Kidneyshell Nolichucky Pigeon R.@TI, RM 8.3 1 24-Oct-03
Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple wartyback Duck R.@Milltown Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr.,RM 13.7 217 18-Oct-11
Elliptio dilatata Spike Duck R.@Milltown Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7 47 18-Oct-11
Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback Duck R.@Milltown Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr.,RM 13.7 59 18-Oct-11
Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback TN R.@Diamond Isl. Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7 132 18-Oct-11
Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed Lampmussel VDGIF/Clinch stock Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr.,RM 13.7 100 18-Oct-11
Villosa iris Rainbow VDGIF/Clinch stock Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr., RM 13.7 100 18-Oct-11
Medionidus conradicus Cumberland Moccasinshell Clinch R., Kyles Ford Pigeon R.@ Cosby Cr.,RM 13.7 100 18-Oct-11
Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple wartyback TN R./Clinch R. Pigeon R. @ Denton, RM 17.3 457 8-Jul-12
Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback TN R./Clinch R. Pigeon R. @ Denton, RM 17.3 282 8-Jul-12
Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple wartyback TN R./Clinch R. Pigeon R. @ Denton, RM 17.3 442 7-Oct-12
Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback TN R./Clinch R. Pigeon R. @ Denton, RM 17.3 346 7-Oct-12
78

PIGEON RIVER MUSSEL REINTRODUCTIONS IN NC
RELEASE
SPECIES COMMON NAME SOURCE STREAM RELEASE SITE #RELEASED DATE
Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed Lampmussel Pigeon R., RM 65.5 50 19-Aug-10
Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed Lampmussel Pigeon R., RM 55.3 58 Jun-11
Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed Lampmussel Pigeon R., RM 55.3 148 8-Jul-12
79

3.3.2 Wildlife
Several wildlife species were observed along the main-stem,tributary, and reference waterways
during instream fish and invertebrate sampling events. The majority of wildlife contact was with
avian species which are usually associated with aquatic habitat. The list and number of locations
at which they were observed are as follows: (1) Great blue heron—3 sites, (2)Belted kingfisher
—2 sites, (3)Northern water snake—2 sites, (4) Green heron— 1 site, (5)Blue winged teal— 1
site, (6) Black-crowned night heron, (7) Queen snake— 1 site, (8) Soft-shell turtle-1 site, (9)
Bald eagle— 1 site, (10) Osprey- 1 site, (11) Beaver- 1 site. The locations of the wildlife
observations are presented in Table 3.3.2-1. Based on the species and locations documented
below along with anecdotal information,wildlife diversity along the river was deemed
essentially the same along both reference and thermally influenced sampling stations.
Two recent research studies involving other riverine/stream wildlife included surveys of
salamanders and crayfish in the Pigeon River main-stem and tributaries. The 2009 salamander
study(Maxwell, 2009) documented the presence of five of eight salamander species (that
historically existed in NC streams) in three of five study sites: in the Pigeon River above the mill,
Jonathan Creek, and Big Creek.No salamanders were found in the NC main-stem portion of the
PR; water quality and suitable substrate were cited as possible contributors to the lack of
salamanders there. The crayfish study(Dunn, 2010) identified eight species in the Pigeon River
system which were collected in the river above the mill, in all nine PR tributaries, and in the
main-stem in the TN portion of the river. No crayfish found in the NC main-stem below the mill;
the study cited the drought of 2007-08 as a possible contributor to the lack of crayfish there. The
drought may have caused crayfish to seek refugia in tributaries to escape higher levels of salinity
(2X) and conductivity(10X) in the main-stem which were due to lower water flows which
concentrated the mill discharge effuents.
Table 3.3.2-1. Wildlife observations and locations on the Pigeon River and tributaries, 2012.
PRM 64.5 Great blue heron
PRM 63.0 Soft-shell turtle
PRM 61.0 Blue-winged teal
PRM 57.7 Bald eagle(adult)
PRM 52.3 Great blue heron
Fines Creek Beaver
Jonathan Creek Northern water snake
PRM 24.7 Northern water snake
PRM 19.3 Belted kingfisher,Green heron
PRM 16.5 Black-crowned night heron
PRM 10.3 Belted kingfisher,Osprey
ISRM 1.6 Queen snake,Great blue heron
80

3.3.3 Periphyton/Plankton
Periphyton, as macroalgae or microalgae,was assessed using the Field-Based Rapid Periphyton
Survey developed by the EPA in their"Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for the use in Wadeable
Streams" (Barbour, Gerritsen, Snyder, and Stribling, 1999). Three transects were randomly
selected at each sampling site except for PRM 64.5-64.9, which had four transects. Three
locations were selected on each transect(stratified random) to view the substrate with the view
bucket having a 50-dot grid. The substrate areas covered by microalgae and macroalgae were
determined by recording the number of dots that occurred over each type of periphyton. The
larger macroalgae strands were measured in cm and microalgae were measured by the
depth/thickness of the attached mass.None of the microalgae at any of the sites had a depth
greater than 0.5 mm;this condition was defined as "the rock or substrate felt slimy and there was
no visual accumulation". Anchored macrophytes in the viewing area were measured in cm.
Every sample site had periphyton in at least one of the transects (Table 3.3.3-1). The two lowest
concentrations were found at PRM 55.5, Hyder Mountain Bridge (NC), and PRM 24.7,
Waterville at Browns Bridge (TN), where it was only found in one transect at each location.
Fiberville (PRM 63.0) below the paper mill had periphyton in all three transects
Table 3.3.3-1. Occurrence of periphyton(3) and macrophytes in Pigeon River and
Swannanoa River sampling sites, 2012. Reference stations (*) and un-identified
macrophytes (U) are also noted.
Periphyton Macrophyte Macrophyte
River Mile (RM) #1 #2
SRM 11.3* X RIVERWEED U
SRM 1.6* X RIVERWEED
WFPRM 3.6* X
EFPRM 3.5* X RIVERWEED
69.5* X RIVERWEED
64.5/64.9* X RIVERWEED U
63.0 X U.
61.0 X
59.0 X U
57.7 X U
55.5 X U
54.5 X U
52.3 X U
48.2 X
81

45.3 X U
Richland Creek X U
Crabtree Creek X RIVERWEED
Jonathan Creek X
Fines Creek X U
24.7 X U
19.3 X RIVERWEED
10.3 X RIVERWEED
The potamoplankton, i.e.,unattached phytoplankton and zooplankton,was not sampled because
of low abundance, and their sporadic appearance was dictated by river flows. Any sampling or
collection of these groups at any given site could not be replicated because they were transient
and continuously moving downstream.
3.3.4 Macrophytes
Podostemum is of special interest because it provides stable habitat for macroinvertebrates
(habitat former; Hutchens et al., 2004). The hornleaf riverweed Podostemum ceratophyllum is a
submerged aquatic flowering plant native to eastern and upper Midwest of North America. It is
found in all North Carolina counties bordering Tennessee, including Haywood County (USDA,
2013). It thrives in open-canopy, shallow rapids attached to bedrock of rivers and streams
(Hutchens et al.,2004). Riverweed forms a thick mat on stable substrates, and may also form
long(>15 cm) stems during summer. The mats and stems are a substrate for epiphytic algae
(periphyton) as well as macro-invertebrates. It is generally indicative of high quality, oxygenated
rivers (Hill and Webster, 1984).Podostemum has been repeatedly demonstrated to be an
important substrate for promoting benthic invertebrate biomass, abundance, and species richness
(Hutchens et al.,2004) and to positively influence the abundance of several fish species,
including the banded darter, which is found in the Pigeon River(Etnier and Starnes, 1993).
Its role as a habitat former for invertebrates has been studied in the nearby Little Tennessee River
(Hutchens et al., 2004). The study involved complete,partial or no removal of Podostemum from
portions of four bedrock outcrops at two sites. Complete removal greatly reduced overall macro-
invertebrate abundance and biomass and altered assemblage structure, but had relatively little
effect on functional structure. There was a strong positive relationship between surface area of
Podostemum and total macro-invertebrate abundance and biomass. They estimated that P.
ceratophyllum increased surface area by 3 to 4 times over bare bedrock.
A study to determine predictors of the occurrence of Podostemum, including bed sediment, light
availability (canopy cover), and non-forest land use (Argentina et al.,2010) was conducted on a
' Southern Appalachian river, the Conasauga River,TN and GA. The study concluded, as
82

' expected,that bed sediment size and measures of light availability were included in best-
supported models and had similar estimated-effect sizes across models. Even though riverweed
cover declined with increasing watershed size,this decrease in cover was not well-predicted by
variation in land use.
In 2012,Podostemum ceratophyllum (riverweed) was found in three of four reference stations
upstream of the mill, both stations in the reference Swannanoa River, and two of three stations in
the Pigeon River in Tennessee(Figure 3.3.4-1), but not in the thermally affected reach between
the mill and Waterville Reservoir. The species was not examined in previous 316(a) studies, so
there is no available history of change. The low dispersal ability due to clonal reproduction and
poor seed production, combined with the Pigeon River's stresses of flooding in 2004 and drought
in 2007-2008,may be limiting its ability to recolonize the thermally affected reach after a history
of pollution. Temperature does not appear to be a limiting factor except in the reach nearest the
mill, where temperatures in summer can exceed the reported upper limit of 30 C reported in the
literature.
Fv:
1
Figure 3.3.4-1. Podostemum ceratophyllum(hornleaf riverweed)from the Pigeon River, 2012.
83

3.4 PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA
Physicochemical water quality data were collected concurrently with the July-September 2012
fish and macro-invertebrate sampling events at each of the main-stem,tributary, and reference
stream locations (Table 3.4-1). All main-stem collections were made between 5 July and 28
September. The data recorded on each sampling date included temperature, dissolved oxygen,
conductivity, and pH at each of the 14 locations; turbidity measurements were also recorded in
the 14 main-stem locations. Water quality parameters were measured with a YSI Model 60 (pH)
and a YSI Model 85 (dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature). Both meters were
calibrated prior to use using fresh calibration solutions; the Model 85 also compensated for
elevation. Turbidity was measured using a LaMotte Model 2020-E portable turbidity meter.
Table 3.4-1. Physicochemical data collected during July - September 2012.
Location(RM) Date Time Temp DO Conductivity pH Turbidity
(C). (mg/L)(µmhos/cm) (NTU)
WFPR 3.6 7/17/2012 1000 20.9 9.89 13.4 6.82 1.1
EFPR 3.5 7/18/2012 1440 20.7 8.41 15.0 5.46 1.9
69.5 8/30/2012 945 20.2 8.81 18.0 6.41 0.7
64.5/64.9 7/31/2012 1100 21:6 7.41 32.2 7.03 70*
' 63.0 7/5/2012 1100 29.8 7.97 979.0 7.08 60A
61.0 8/9/2012 0930 24.1 7.25 738.0 7.49 4.0
59.0 8/21/2012 0945 22.1 7.44 837.0 7.40 2.2
57.7 9/25/2012 0930 16.6 8.20 408.8 7.23 1.1
55.5 8/21/2012 1330 23.3 7.25 603.0 7.15 1.1
54.9 Richland Cr. 8/14/2012 1315 24.5 6.30 56.7 6.34 2.2
54.5 7/27/2012 1330 26.1 6.96 318.2 7.33 1.8
52.3 8/23/2012 1145 21.8 8.08 694.0 6.62 2.1
49.8 Crabtree Cr. 8/2/2012 1000 19.7 8.69 78.1 6.23 14*
48.2 9/28/2012 1030 20.5 9.73 54.6 7.25 1.6
46.0 Jonathan Cr. 7/26/2012 1015 20.0 8.30 106.4 6.75 4.8
45.3 8/20/2012 1045 21.2 8.41 305.6 7.61 3.8
42.7 Fines Cr. 8/1/2012 0915 18.5 8.32 67.3 7.13 7.9*
24.7 8/13/2012 1030 21.3 7.87 20.5 7.28 1.5
19.3 9/24/2012 1045 16.9 10.22 156.1 7.13 1.5
10.3 8/7/2012 1000 23.1 6.03 190.5 7.24 3.4
11.3 Swannanoa R. 8/29/2012 1000 22.8 8.56 60.3 7.32 2.5
1.6 Swannanoa R. 8/29/2012 1600 23.3 8.53 79.5 6.65 2.4
*Recent rain event
^Tannic color, some turbidity
84

Main-stem water temperature was 21.6 C at the control site above the mill (PRM 64.5) on 31
July; during the collection period, water temperatures ranged from 29.8 C (PRM 63.0) on 5 July
to 16.9 C (PRM 19.3) on 24 September. The differences in recorded water temperature values at
the various stations may be explained, in part, by the duration of the sampling period (almost 11
weeks) and by the fact that individual stations were sampled randomly during the period based
on water levels , crew availability, and travel distance to sites. Only three of the 14 main-stem
sites had water temperatures greater than 2 C above the PRM 64.5 control site water temperature
during the period: PRM 54.5 at 26.1 C on 7/27, PRM 61.0 at 24.1 C on 8/9, and PRM 63.0 at
29.8 C on 7/5. This could be due to higher water flows in the mainstem and also increased inflow
from tributary streams. Water temperatures in the tributary creeks sampled ranged from 24.5 C
on 8/14 in Richland Creek to 18.5 C on 8/1 in Fines Creek.
Dissolved oxygen(DO) ranged from 10.22 mg/L at PRM 19.3 to 6.03 mg/L at PRM 10.3 along
the main-stem. The lowest DO value in the NC reach of the river below the mill was 6.96 mg/L
at PRM 54.5. The DO values in the tributaries ranged from 8.69 mg/L in Crabtree Creek to 6.30
mg/L in Richland Creek.
Specific conductance values (conductivity) ranged from a low of 13.4 µ/s at PRM 69.5 above the
mill to a high of 979 µ/s at PRM 63.0; conductance values decreased from that site to 305.6 µ/s
at the lowest NC main-stem site(PRM 45.3), and to 190.5 µ/s at the lowest TN site(PRM 10.3).
Tributary values ranged from 106.4 µ/s in Jonathan Creek to 56.7 µ/s in Richland Creek. The
two reference sites on the Swannanoa River were 60.3 and 79.5 µ/s at SRM 11.3 and SRM 1.6,
respectively.
' The lowest pH value recorded in the mainstem during the sampling period was 6.41 at PRM
69.5, the most upstream site above the mill. Water pH values increased to 7.08 and 7.49 at the
two sites just below the mill effluent(PRM 63.0 and PRM 61.0, respectively) and fluctuated in
the in the pH 6.3-7.3 range to 7.24 at the last downstream site (PRM 10.3). The increased rainfall
during July and August may have contributed to leaching and a subsequent lowering of the pH
value in the river above the mill; the mill effluent may have contributed some buffering capacity
to the downstream portion of the river. Values (pH) at the tributary sites ranged from 6.75 in
Jonathan Creek to 6.23 in Crabtree Creek.
Turbidity in main-stem locations was measured by the nephelometric method and ranged from
70.0 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) at PRM 64.5 to 0.7 NTU at the most upstream site
above the mill (PRM 69.5). The unusually high value (70 NTU) at PRM 64.5 was obtained on
7/31 soon after a local rain event. Twelve of the 14 main-stem sites recorded turbidity
measurements less than 4.8 NTU; Jonathan Creek(4.8) and Richland Creek (2.2 NTU)had
turbidity values similar to those main-stem values. Crabtree Creek (14 NTU) and Fines Creek
(7.9 NTU) were sampled after recent rain events on 8/2 and 8/1,respectively.
85

4. REFERENCES
Adams, S. M., A. Brown, and R. Goede. 1993. A quantitative health assessment index for
rapid evaluation of fish condition in the field. Transactions American Fisheries Society
122:63-73.
Anderson,R.O., and S. J. Gutreuter. 19831ength,weight, and associated structural indices.
Pages 283-300 in L.A.Nielsen and D. L. Johnson, editors. Fisheries techniques.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Anderson,R.O., and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length,weight, and associated structural indices.
Pages 447-481 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques. 2"d
edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,MD.
Argentina, J.E., M.C. Freeman, and B.J. Freeman. 2010. Predictors of occurrence of the aquatic
macrophyte Podostemum ceratophyllum in a Southern Appalachian river. Southeastern
Naturalist 9(3): 465-476.
Barbour,M.T., J.Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stripling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish, Second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
' Coutant, C. C., and D. L. DeAngelis. 1983. Comparative temperature-dependent growth rates
of largemouth and smallmouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:
416-423.
Coutant, C. C. 1977. Compilation of temperature preference data. Journal Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 34:739-745.
Dunn, D.C.B. 2010. A survey of crayfish in the Pigeon River and its tributaries in Tennessee and
North Carolina. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee; Knoxville. 70 pp.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1988. Synoptic survey of physical and biological
condition of the Pigeon River in the vicinity of Champion International's Canton Mill.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Sparks, MD.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1996. A study of the aquatic resources and water
quality of the Pigeon River. EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2000. Results of the 1999 biological survey of
the Pigeon River. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2001. A study of the aquatic resources of the
Pigeon River during 2000. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
86

Eaton, J.G., J. McCormick, B. Goodno, G. O'Brien, H. Stefany, M. Hondzo, and R. Scheller.
1995. A field information-based system for estimating fish temperature tolerances.
Fisheries 20(4):10-18.
Emier D. A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN.
Fore, L.S., and J.B. Karr. 1994. Statistical properties of an Index of Biotic Integrity used to
evaluate water resources. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science 5:1077-1087.
Goede,R.W., and B.A. Barton. 1990. Organism indices and an autopsy-based assessment as
indicators of health and condition offish. American Fisheries Society Symposium 8:93-
108.
Hill, B.H., and J. R. Webster. 1984. Productivity of Podostemum ceratophyllum in the New
River,Virginia. American Journal of Botany'71:130-136.
Hutchens, J. J., J. B. Wallace, and E. D. Romaniszyn. 2004. Role of Podostemum ceratophyllum
Michx. In structuring macroinvertebrate assemblages in.a southern Appalachian river.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:713-727.
Jenkins, R., andN. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-27.
Karr, J.R.,K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running water: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History
Survey Special Publication Number 5, Champaign, IL.
Lenat,D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for
benthic macro-invertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:222-
233.
Lenat,D.R. 1993. A biotic indexfor the southeastern United States:Derivation and list of
tolerance values,with criteria for assigning water quality ratings. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 7:270-290.
Maxwell,N.J. 2009. Baseline survey and habitat analysis of aquatic salamanders in the Pigeon
River,North Carolina. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 55 pp.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina.North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh,NC.
Murphy, B.R., and D.W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries Techniques, 2"d edition. American
' Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
87

North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources (DEHNER). 1997.
Standard operating procedure for biological monitoring. January 1997. Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,Raleigh,NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2006.
Standard operating procedure for stream fish community assessment. August 2006.
Division of Environmental Management, Environmental Sciences Branch, Raleigh,NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2001. Habitat
assessment field data sheet Mountain/Piedmont streams. March 2001. Biological
Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental
Sciences Branch, Raleigh,NC.
North Carolina Department. Environmental Health and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2011.
Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. Version 3. Biological
Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental
Sciences Branch, Raleigh,NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Post Hurricane
Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne Biological Monitoring (French Broad and Watauga River
Basins) and Biological Sampling,November 30-December 2, 2004. Technical
memorandum dated April 4, 2005. Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences
' Section, Biological Assessment Unit. Raleigh,NC.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1989. Biological criteria for the protection
of aquatic life: Vol. III. Standardized field and laboratory methods for assessing fish and
macroinvertebrate communities. Division Water Quality Planning and Assessment,
Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, OH.
Progress Energy. 2005. 2004 Water Quality and Biotic Indices Study of the Pigeon River at
the Walters Hydroelectric Plant. Appendix A Requirements. Environmental Services
Section, Progress Energy Service Company, Raleigh,NC.
Reynolds, W.W.,and M.E. Casterlin. 1976. Thermal preferenda and behavioral
thermoregulation in three centrachid fishes. Pages 185-190 in G.W. Esch and R. W.
McFarlane, editors. Thermal ecology IL Dept. of Energy Symposium Series (CONF-
75025),Nat. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield,VA.
Rooney, C.E., 2010. In-situ feasibility study of freshwater mussel reintroduction: Survival
and growth of the wavy-rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola) in the Pigeon River,NC.
M.S. Thesis. Western Carolina University, Cullowhee,NC. 49 pp.
Sandow, Jr., J.T., D.R. Holder, and L.E. McSwain. 1974. Life history of the redbreast sunfish in
the Satilla River, Georgia. Bulletins, Circulars and Other Miscellaneous Publications,
' Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division. 16 pp.
88

Saylor, C.F., A. McKinney, and W. Schacher. 1993. Case study of the Pigeon River in
the Tennessee River drainage. TVA Biological Report 19. TVA,Norris, TN.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board
Canada Bulletin 184:1-966.
Simon, T.P., and J. Lyons. 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water
resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. Pages 245-262 in W.S. Davis and T.P.
Simon, editors. Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and
decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Surber, E.W. 1970. Smallmouth bass stream investigations. Virginia Commission of
Game and Inland Fisheries, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration,,Project F-14-R, Job 2-
Shenandoah River study, January 1, 1964-June 30, 1969. Final Report, Richmond.
Tennessee Valley Authority.2004. TVA Protocol for Conducting an Index of Biotic Integrity
Biological Assessment. Technical Memorandum. 15 pp.
Trembley, F.J. 1960. Research project on effects of condenser discharge water on aquatic
life. Progress Report 1960. Institute of Research, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA.
University of Tennessee. 2012. Standard Operating Procedures for Macro-Invertebrates.
' Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries (FWF), Fisheries Lab'. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville. 17 pp.
University of Tennessee. 2012. Standard Operating Procedures for Fish. Department of Forestry,
Wildlife and Fisheries (FWF), Fisheries Lab. University of Tennessee,Knoxville. 9 pp.
US EPA(U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. 316(a) Technical Guidance—Thermal
Discharges. Draft. Water Planning Division„ Washington, DC.
US EPA(U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1977. Interagency 316(a)technical guidance
manual and guide for thermal effects sections of nuclear facilities environmental impact
statements. Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch,
Washington,DC.
Wege, G. J., and R.O. Anderson. 1978. Relative weight(W,): a new index of condition for
largemouth bass. Page 79-91 in G.D.Novinger and 1G. Dillard, editors.New approaches
to the management of small impoundments. American Fisheries Society,North Central
Division, Special Publication 5, Bethesda, MD.
89

USDA(U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2013. Plants profile Podostemum ceratophyllum
j hornleaf riverweed POCE3. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed
July 29, 2013 at:
http://plants.usda.gov/iava/couniy?state name=North%20Carolina&statefips=37&symbolPOCE3
Wilson, J.L. 2006. A Study of the Aquatic Resources and Water Quality of the Pigeon River
(2012 Biological Assessment). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Wrenn, W. B. 1980. Effects of elevated temperatures on growth and survival of smallmouth
bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:617-625.
Yoder, C.O., and M.A. Smith. 1999.Using fish assemblages in a state biological assessment
and criteria program: Essential concepts and considerations. Pages 17-56 in T. P. Simon,
editor. Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resource quality
using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
90

i
APPENDIX C
1. Aquatic Species Reintroductions in the Pigeon River,
North Carolina
Progress Report
2006-2010
(2012 Biological Assessment)
2. Table of Fish Species Re-introductions into the Pigeon
River, North Carolina 2004-2013
( Prepared for: .
` Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Canton,NC 28716
1 Prepared b :
P Y
University of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture
Department of Forestiy, Wildlife and Fisheries
Dr. J. Larry Wilson,PhD—Principal Investigator
244 Ellington Plant Sciences Building
Ifnoxv'ille, TN 37956-4563
December 2013
f
1i
F

Aquatic Species Reintroductions in the Pigeon River,
North Carolina
Progress Report
2006-2010
Steve Fraley
T.R. Russ
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and
Joyce Coombs
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
November 22, 2010

t
{
A
Background
The Pigeon River is a major tributary of the French Broad River that arises in
{ Haywood Co.,NC and flows northward to its confluence with the French Broad(Douglas
Reservoir)near Newport,Tennessee. Throughout most of the twentieth century,the
Pigeon River suffered severe impacts from effluent released from a paper mill at Canton,
NC. Water quality began to improve in the mid-1990's when Champion International
began a major modernization of their production.and waste water treatment processes.
The mill was sold to Blue Ridge Paper Products (BRPP)in 1999 and improvements
I continued. Fish species richness and abundance increased as aquatic communities began
to recover and fish re-colonized the mainstem Pigeon. As habitat conditions continued to
improve in the Tennessee reach,monitoring indicated that a number of fish species were
M not returning as expected. Further,investigation showed that many species that had
historically inhabited the mainstem Pigeon River were absent from tributaries or
elsewhere with a direct route for natural recolonization.
I
Efforts to restore aquatic species began in the Tennessee reach in 2001 and in the
affected reach in North Carolina in 2003. This report updates progress since 2005. See
2006 progress report for more detailed background information and activities in North
Carolina during 2003-2005.
I
2006
Steering Conrnrittee Meeting: The third meeting of the Pigeon River fish restoration
1
steering committee was held on March 16 at BRPP in Canton and was attended by 19
partners and stakeholders (Table 1..). .Updates were presented and plans for the next two
years were finalized. Fish sampling by Progress Energy in 2004 at Hepco, in the lower
section of our target reach,collected tangerine darter(Percina aurantiaca),black
redhorse(Moxostoina duguesnei),and warpaint shiner(Luxihrs coccogenis)for the first
t
I time at that site. Planning included: Striped shiner(Luxilus chiysocephalus),Tennessee
shiner(Noh•opis le:rciodtrs),and mottled sculpin(Collns bairdr)were added to the
priority list of candidates for reintroduction. Saffron shiners(N. rubricroceus)were
removed from the priority list due to low numbers available for translocation and
perceived habitat deficiencies in the target reach. New release sites for shiners(mouth of
4
i

l
i
I
1
Crabtree Cr. and Irontree Golf Course),as well as new collection sites for gilt darters
(Percina evides)were identified. Late translocations were rescheduled from August to
October to avoid higher temperatures and to collect larger YOY fish to hopefully
minimize mortalities.
We received updates on two research projects. Mike Lavoie,MS student at
Western Carolina Univ.,presented preliminary results from his research into patterns of
larval fish drift upstream and downstream from putative physical and thermal barriers
associated with the BRPP paper mill(supported by NC State Wildlife Grant funds and
Pigeon River Fund). Nine hundred twenty eight drift net samples were taken during
spring-fall 2005. Spikes of larval fish abundance occurred in May(predominately
suckers),June(more darters),and August(mostly sunfish and catfish). Numbers were
lowest below the low head dams. Larval darter densities were 3-4 times higher at the
upstream site than at the lower two sites, downstream from barriers. Mike anticipated
completing his thesis in summer 2006. Mike Gaugler,PhD student at University of
1 Tennessee,Knoxville(UTIC)presented a description of his application of new habitat
mapping technology(supported by Pigeon River Fund and UTK). Canoe-mounted,GPS-
integrated underwater video and acoustic Doppler velocimeter gear will be used to map
i habitat in a 26.5 mile reach of the upper Pigeon River(up and downstream of BRPP).
Ij Data collected will include substrate characteristics,depth,flow velocities,and perhaps
i direct observations of fish-]tabitat associations. Mapping is to begin in April and have
deliverables bysummer. Deliverables include print materials,CD's,and DVDs that can
be used in GIS applications and video interpretation of instream impacts from land use
i
practices,etc.
1 Several folks from the NC Division of Water Quality,Asheville Field Office were
invited to share information about iron-point source impacts to water quality from
throughout the watershed. Sources of sediment and nutrient enrichment were discussed,
including permitted livestock operations and land applications of animal waste. Chris
1 Cooper(TVA)and Eric Romanizsn(Haywood Waterways Assoc.)reported that an
Integrated Pollutant Source Identification(IPS1)analysis of the Pigeon watershed in NC
above Waterville Reservoir will be done this year to update,and for comparison to,the
first iteration done in 1999. Other topics discussed included a proposed cooperative
1
a

I
l
outreach project with Haywood Co. Schools to put striped shiners(Luxihrs
chi ysocephahts)in aquaria in classrooms and attempt to spawn them in captivity for
release in the Pigeon. There was interest in pursuing it and Eric Romanizsn and Bob
Williams (BRPP)volunteered to contact the Haywood Co.school system and other
potential partners.
Translocations: In early April,cooperators from NCWRC(West AWD &District 9),
UTIC,Haywood Community College,and TN Dept.of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC)collected 583 mirror shiners(Noh•opis spectruncidus)from the upper Pigeon
River,306 silver shiners (N.photogenis)and 238 telescope shiners (N. telescopus)from
Cosby Creek,TN, and 60 gilt darters from Mills River and Boylston Creek (see Table 2).
All fish were released in the Pigeon River reach between Crabtree Creek and Ferguson
Bridge. Target fishes were again translocated to the Pigeon River in early October.
i
Cooperators from NCWRC,UTK,Haywood Comm. College,TDEC,and NC Division of
Water Quality(NCDWQ)collected 1608 mirror shiners from upper Pigeon River,214
telescope shiners and 149 silver shiners from Cosby Creek,TN,and 92 gilt darters from
the upper French Broad River at Rosman. Shiners were released in the Pigeon River near
the mouth of Crabtree Creek and darters were released upstream from NC 209 crossing,
near Irontree golf course(see Table 2).
Assessments:In August,NCWRC and cooperators from UTIC,US Fish and Wildlife
r •
' Service(USFWS),NC Natural Heritage Project(NCNHP),Tennessee Valley Authority
t
t
(TVA), and Haywood Waterways Association performed monitoring surveys for re-
introduced fishes in reaches of the Pigeon River at and near release sites. Silver shiners
l
were found in good numbers from over a mile below and above our release sites—over4
river miles total. Mirror sbiners.and telescope shiners were found at and between the
release sites(about 2 river miles). One tagged male gilt darter that was released in
August 2005 was recovered at the Irontree release site(Pigeon River mile [PRM] 52.2).
This is the first recovery of a gilt darter since re-introductions of that species began in
spring 2005. No saffron shiners were recovered. Based on this and last year's
i monitoring data,silver shiners appear to be well established in the Riverside reach and
f
't

releases of this species will be shifted to other parts of the river in subsequent re-
introduction efforts.
Haywood Co.schools striped shiner project:We met with personnel from Haywood
County Schools and Blue Ridge Paper'to.gauge interest and determine scope of proposed
striped shiner propagation project. Three Haywood County school teachers(one
elementary,middle,and high)and one from Bethel Christian Academy, Canton,and their
students have committed to care for striped shiners in aquaria in their classrooms and
attempt to spawn and rear the young. Blue Ridge Paper agreed to purchase the necessary
equipment. Western AWD staff will help direct the project and collect fish this fall,as
well as provide financial support(through State Wildlife Grant)for technical assistance
from Conservation Fisheries,Inc. (CFI,a private,non-profit rare fish hatchery in
Knoxville,TN), Other cooperators include Kathy Boydston,Water Quality Curriculum
ICoordinator for Haywood County Schools(who serves to coordinate the project and
support the teachers—position supported by the Pigeon River Fund) and Gail Heathman,
i Education Coordinator,Haywood Soil and Water Conservation District.
With assistance from CFI,aquaria were set-up in four Haywood County
classrooms and stocked with striped shiners from the Cane River system in October.
Classes will learn water quality and biology lessons through captive husbandry of these
adult fishes and attempt to spawn and rear young. The adults and any progeny will be
i
I released in the Pigeon River next summer.
i
�f 2007
Translocatiohs: Again in early April,cooperators from NCWRC(West AWD.&District
9),UTIC,TDEC,and Haywood Community College translocated 153 silver shiners, 172
telescope shiners,609 Tennessee shiners, 1,369 mirror shiners and 87 gilt darters to the
Pigeon River in NC from source sites in TN and NC. All fish were released near PRM .
52.2. Due to low water and stressed source populations caused by severe drought,fall
translocations were cancelled for2007.
1
I
i
l ,

i
i
Assessments:Annual surveys to assess the status of reintroduced and other fishes were
completed in August with assistance from UTK and BRPP cooperators. Silver and
telescope shiners appear to be well established. Good numbers from multiple year
classes were collected over several river miles. Mirror shiners were recovered again in
the vicinity of the release sites,but no expansion of their population was evident.
Tennessee shiners, released for the first time this spring,were recovered near where they
were released. One untagged female gilt darter was collected,apparently the result of
successful reproduction and recruitment. Tangerine darters,though not reintroduced,
appear to have increased in numbers and were found to be relatively common in
appropriate habitats.
Fish kill: In September,Western AWD staff assisted District staff with the
investigation of a fish kill on the Pigeon River below the Blue Ridge Paper Mill,Canton,
NC. Approximately 8,400 fish were estimated killed, including an estimated 925
tangerine darters. Also among the dead fish recovered and identified were two,silver
shiners,which represents the first record of that reintroduced species that far up the river
(Pigeon River mile 60),nearly river miles upstream from the nearest reintroduction site.
Due to severe drought,the Pigeon River was at historically low levels and water
temperature was elevated. The kill appeared to be due to a thermal spike related to
effluent from the mill. No dead fish were observed upstream or beyond 3.5 miles
downstream from the paper mill.
Mayipood Co.schools striped shiner project.The first year of the Haywood County
classroom striped shiner propagation effort ended with the successful release of 27 adults
f into the Pigeon River,near the month of Crabtree Cr. (PRM 49.8). Students that cared
forthe fish attended and helped release fish. Under guidance from CFI,and following
advice from other fish culturists,photoperiod was manipulated,feeding was adjusted,and
spawning substrate was provided beginning in late winter,in an attempt to coax them into
spawning within the school year. In the wild,striped shiners spawn in late spring and
summer. Unfortunately,there was no successful spawning in the classrooms,but fish
husbandry was a focal point around which water quality,biology, chemistry,and ecology
1
G
i

i
I
i
i
lessons were taught. Plans were made to continue the project through the next school
year.
In October,Western AWD staff again collected striped shiners from Prices Creek,
Yancey Co.and put them in aquaria in Haywood Co. classrooms. Cooperation with the
Haywood Co. School system continued with an additional school participating this year:
Riverbend Elementary School,along with Canton Middle School,Jonathan.Valley
Elementary School,Tuscola High School, and Bethel Christian Academy. Fish will be
held until the end of the school year,providing opportunities for hands-on water quality,
chemistry,biology, and other lessons in the classroom. Students will also attempt to
: j
manipulate environmental conditions to induce the shiners to spawn in captivity,
hopefidly providing additional fish for reintroduction to the Pigeon River.
2008
Steering Committee Meeting: A biennial meeting of the ad hoc steering committee for
our cooperative,Pigeon River fish restoration efforts was held at BRPP in Canton on
March 5. It was,attended by cooperators fiom NCWRC,BRPP,UTK,NCDWQ,
Western Carolina University(WCU), and Haywood Waterways Association. Updates
were presented,progress since our 2006 meeting was.reviewed,and potential changes in
implementation were discussed. The reproducing and expanding population of re-
introduced silver shiners was deemed to be re-established over approximately 8 miles of
our target reach, and stocking of this species will cease following 2008.releases. Plans
for the next two years include additions of a new release site in the lower portion of the
I target reach at Hepco Bridge(Pigeon River mile 42.5)and three new target species for
reintroduction were identified (bigeye chub,Hybopsis amblops;banded darter,
Etheoslana zonale; and highland shiner,N. nnicropteryx). Due to poor recovery of mirror
shiners following releases in the mainstem,we also decided to move their release to
lower Jonathan Creek, a tributary in the lower target reach. It is believed that there may
be greater likelihood for reestablishing this species there and subsequently,they could
recolonize the Pigeon River if conditions become more suitable over time.
Other updates and topics discussed included: In July 2007,Evergreen Paper
(owned by Rank Group of New Zealand)purchased Blue Ridge Paper Products,but they
i
i

1
i
i
t
will continue to do business as BRPP. Dr.Tom Martin(WCU)distributed copies of
I Mike Lavoie's thesis (studied larval fish as related to barriers,Pigeon R.). Conclusion
was that low head dams negatively affected downstream drift of darter and shiner larvae.
BRPP,NCDWQ,and NCWRC personnel provided information about the fish]till in
September 2007. Haywood Waterways and TVA have completed Integrated Pollution
Source Inventory(IPSI)analyses in the Pigeon watershed. Eroding stream banks and
roads were again identified as the first and -second greatest sources of sediment. Striped
shiner project was discussed and difficulties in inducing spawning were cited as reasons
i
to discontinue the effort.
i
1
Translocalions: In April,cooperators from NCWRC (West AWD&District 9),UTIC,
TDEC,Haywood Community College,and USFWS'translocated 434 silver shiners,and
250 telescope shiners, 338 Tennessee shiners,325 mirror shiners and 93 gilt darters to the
Pigeon River in NC from source sites in TN and NC. Silver and telescope shiners were
released at a new site(Hepco,Pigeon River mile 42.5)in the last remaining unoccupied
reach. Mirror shiners were released for the first time in Jonathan Creek,a Pigeon River
tributary. Fall translocations were again cancelled dueto concerns related to drought.
Assessineats:Annual surveys to assess the status of reintroduced and other fishes were
completed in August with assistance from UTIC and Haywood Community College.
I
t Silver shiners and telescope shiners continue to be recovered in good numbers and
t
multiple size classes. Also,both species were collected several miles upstream of the
i
nearest release site near the mouth of Richland Creek. Tennessee shiners were recovered
near where they were released. No gilt darters or mirror shiners were recovered.
i
l
Haywood Co. schools striped shiner project: The second year of the Haywood County
classroom striped shiner propagation effort was completed with the release of 20 adults
into the Pigeon River. Ms.Nikki Jayne's classroom from Riverbend Elementary School
attended and took part in releasing the fish. There was no reproduction in the classrooms
again this year and unfortunately,all adult fish were lost atone school. While the
attempt to spawn striped shiners for stocking in the Pigeon was ultimately unsuccessful,
i
i

i
other objectives for fish in the classroom were successful and worthwhile. We will cease
working with striped shiners in the schools,but will continue to provide other,native
fishes for classroom aquaria.
WCUmrssel project:Western AWD staff initiated apartnership with Dr.Tom Martin
and MS student Caroline Rooney, WCU,to experimentally assess survival and growth of
mussels in the Pigeon River. Support was provided through State Wildlife Grant funds.
The study used an innovative in-situ enclosure developed at Missouri State University to
place mussels in the river at points upstream and downstream of the Evergreen paper mill
} at Canton. Wavy-rayed lampmussels(Lanipsilisfasciola)propagated at North Carolina
State University(NCSU) and cultured at the NCWRC Table Rock and Marion state
hatcheries were used to gauge the potential for reintroduction in the recovering reach
downstream from the paper mill. This species,as well as the Federal and State
Endangered Appalachian elktoe,presently inhabit the river upstream of the paper mill
only. Several factors potentially inhibit the natural dispersal of mussels downstream as
habitats improve.
2009
Vanslocations: In early April,Western AWD staff were assisted by cooperators from
UTIC,TDEC,Haywood Community College,BRPP,District 9 Fisheries staff,and
INCDWQ to translocate 474 silver shiners,428 telescope shiners, 518 Tennessee shiners,
276 mirror shiners,and 121 gilt darters to the Pigeon River in NC from source sites in TN.
i
and NC. This was the last translocation of silver and telescope shiners,which have been
deemed restored after assessment surveys have found them in good numbers,of multiple
age classes,and over several river miles from the release sites. Sufficient numbers of
these two species have been translocated to ensure transfer of the majority of the genetic
II diversity present in source populations(-3000 fish per species).
In early.October,with assistance from several cooperators(UT Knoxville,NC
Div. of Water Quality,RiverLink,UNC Asheville,USFWS),fishes were collected from
three new source sites and released in the recovering reach of the Pigeon River. The
} Swannanoa River at Asheville proved to be an excellent source for gilt darters and

i
Tennessee shiners,but success was limited at sites on the French Broad River and Spring
Creek near Hot Springs due to high flows. In all,we released 958 Tennessee shiners, 144
gilt darters,and 20 telescope shiners, as well as 112 banded darters,42 highland shiners,
and 12 bigeye chubs,which were reintroduced for the first time during this effort.
Assessments:Annual surveys to assess the status of reintroduced and other fishes were
completed in August with assistance from UTIC,District 9 Fisheries staff,and NCDWQ.
Silver shiners and telescope shiners were again collected in multiple size classes,but
�( overall abundance appeared lower than last year,perhaps due to problems associated with
two years of severe drought. Tennessee shiners were recovered near where they were
released. Gilt darters and mirror shiners were again not seen in the mainstem,but were
collected in lower Richland Cr.,a major tributary in the reach targeted for restoration.
Tangerine darters, a WAP priority species that has persisted in the reach(not
reintroduced)was again relatively common with a high proportion of young of the year
1 captured.
WCU nursselrroject.Dr.Tom Martin and MS student Caroline Rooney,Western
Carolina University,successfully completed the one-year field portion of our partnership
to assess survival and growth of mussels in the Pigeon River to gauge the potential for
reintroduction in the recovering reach downstream from the paper mill. The study used
in-situ enclosures to place mussels.at two control sites upstream and at three experimental
sites downstream of the paper mill at Canton. Survival and growth were monitored
t
monthly at each site. Results were positive. Juvenile wavy-rayed lampmussels in each
enclosure did well for one year and showed no significant differences in survival;
however,growth rates were greater at the downstream sites,apparently due to higher
temperatures and nutrient levels. Mussels used in this study were products of our
partnership with NCSU and the NCWRC Conservation Aquaculture Center at Marion
State Fish Hatchery to propagate and culture them in captivity. We will continue this
study to assess any affect on reproduction and survival ofglochidia(larvae)and early
juveniles concurrent with preparations to rear mussels in numbers and reintroduce this
species to the reach.
i
i
i

i
I
f _
Haywood Co.sehoolsfrsh in classrooms: In October,an assortment•ofnative fishes
(Tuckaseegee darters,Etheostoma gntselli; greenfin darters,Etheostonaa
chlorobranchh n ;warpaint shiners,Luxilas coecogenis;river chubs,Nocomis
mice opogon)'were collected by Western AWD staff and delivered to each.participating
classroom. As was the case with striped shiners, husbandry of fishes will be a focal point
aroundwhich water quality,biology, chemistry, and ecology lessons will be taught.
However,captive spawning of these fishes will not be attempted. Fishes will be released
in the Pigeon River at the end of the school year.
2010
Steering Committee Meeting: The biennial meeting of our ad hoc steering committee
1 was held at Blue Ridge Paper/Evergreen Packaging offices in Canton,NC on March 11.
1 It was attended by a broad group of partners(see Table 1). Updates were given,issues
were discussed,and plans were made for.the next two years' activities. No major
changes in approach or implementation were adopted;however,an additional release site
was identified at PRM 61 (near BRP/EP oxygenation station). This was chosen to
address potential barriers to dispersal for some species; including the W WTP outfall at
Richland Cr,confluence and to facilitate colonization of the upper target reach. Since
translocations had been reduced during 2007-08 to spring only due to drought concerns,
and in light of recent assessmentresults, it was resolved to continue with the current
t
target species for translocation for the next two years. The logistics of translocating
and/or release of propagated golden fedhorse(Moxostonra erythrarann)were again
discussed and it was identified as the next priority species for focus when feasible.
Feasibility depends on one of the current focal species being deemed reestablished and
determination of effective methods. Opportunities for collection of pre-spawning golden
redhorse and methods for translocation will be assessed in more detail over the next two
years.
Other updates and topics discussed included: An extensive bloom of a fish toxin
producing blue-green algae(Microcysts sp.)was observed in Walters Reservoir during
recent sampling conducted by UTK. While the thesis research portion of WCU's mussel
t
r
i

i
I
f
project was completed,monitoring of survival of wavy-rayed lampmussels in enclosures
both up-and downstream of the`paper mill is continuing and the same trends of no
significant differences in survival at all sites and higher growth rates at at least one
downstream site were indicated. Caroline Rooney presented the final results of her thesis
research and copies of the thesis were made available. Completion of the UTIC project to
map habitat in the target reach in NC has been delayed,but review and characterization
of video data is now complete and further analyses are inprogress and data products
should be made available to cooperators in the near future.
Bryn;Tracy and Ed Williams (NCDWQ)presented and discussed their plans for
reintroduction by translocation of a suite of fish species to Richland Creek upstream from
Lake Junaluska. Richland Cr. is a major tributary of the Pigeon River that has suffered
significant water quality impacts historically and has been on the state list of Impaired
Waters(Section 303d,Clean Water Act) since 2002. Impairment was defined by high
levels of fecal coliforms and an impaired fish community. Focused efforts to reduce
fecal coliforms have been successful and levels are now below the minimum level for
impairment. The dam that impounds Lake Junaluska is a barrier to recolonization by
extirpated fishes fiom lower Richland Cr. and Pigeon River. Thus,reintroduction are
necessary to address impairment of the fish community which is required to remove the
stream from the impaired list. Translocations will begin in spring 2010(species include
warpaint shiner,river chub,Tuckasegee darter,greenfin darter,fantail darter,Etheostonra
flabellare;and rock bass,Arnbloplites rupestris) and activities will be coordinated with
Pigeon River restoration efforts and several of the Pigeon partners will cooperate
(NCWRC,UTK,USFWS,et.al).
Translocations: In early April,Western AWD staff and cooperators from District 9
Fisheries Staff,UTIC,USFWS,NCDWQ,University of NC,Asheville,Western Carolina
University,North American Native Fishes Association,Dominion Power,Haywood
Community.College,Bays Mountain Park(Kingsport,TN), Catawba River Keeper,NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Western NC Alliance/French Broad Riverkeeper
translocated,588 Tennessee shiners,392 mirror shiners,272 highland shiners, 138 gilt
darters, 71 banded darters,and 4 bigeye chubs from source sites in North Carolina to the
I
i
1

1
i
Pigeon River and lower Richland and Jonathan creeks. Collections were coordinated
1 with upper Richland Creek restoration efforts and personnel cooperated to collect target
fishes for both projects.
Again in early October,Western AWD staff and cooperators from UTK,USFWS,
NCDWQ,University of NC,Asheville,Haywood Community College,Haywood.
Waterways Assoc., and Western Carolina University,translocated 1062 Tennessee
shiners,480 mirror shiners, 325 highland shiners,165 gilt darters, 152 bigeye chubs,and
86 banded darters from source sites in NC to release sites in the target reaches. These
efforts were also coordinated with upper Richland Creels efforts. The new collection sites
in the French Broad River, Swannanoa River,and other French Broad tributaries,proved
to be productive sources for most target species. Total number of fishes translocated
j since the project began is now 18,833 (see Table 3).
Assessments: Annual surveys to assess the status of reintroduced and other fishes were
1 completed in August with assistance from UTK,District 9 Fisheries staff,USFWS,
i
NCDWQ,and Western NC Alliance/French Broad Riverkeeper. Eight sites on the
mainstem were surveyed,as well as one site each on three tributaries:Richland,Jonathan,
and Crabtree creeks. At least one reintroduced species was recovered at each site.
Silver shiners remained relatively common and were collected at all but one
mainstem site and in lower Richland Cr. in good numbers and multiple year classes.
Total numbers collected at sites where they were present in the sample ranged from 6 to
i
158(mean per site where collected=_52). In addition,during both spring and fall
translocation-collections,silver shiners were found in the upper Pigeon River upstream
from the putative barriers at the paper mill (first known records in the reach),suggesting
that these barriers may be passable upstream at some time. Telescope shiners were
collected at four mainstream sites and in Crabtree Cr.;however,they were represented by
only one or two specimens at each site. Results continue to indicate rapid recolonization
by Tennessee shiners,which were collected at six mainstem sites and in lower Crabtree
Cr. Number of individuals collected at sites where they were present in the sample
ranged from I to 33 (mean=14). Highland shiners,first released in the Pigeon in
i
I
I
I
I
t

'I October 2009,were found at two mainstem sites in the lower reach,downstream from
where they were released.
No mirror shiners were collected from the mainstem,but 25 were found in lower
Jonathan Cr.,indicating that our shift to stocking that tributary may be.a good strategy for
long-term reestablishment. Likewise,we failed to detect any reintroduced darters in the
mainstem,but five gilt darters were collected in lower Richland Creek where releases
were shifted in.April 2009. Of these,two were untagged,indicating some level of
reproduction and recruitment. No striped shiners,bigeye chubs,or banded darters were
found.
Mussel relntroduclion: Following positive indications from,our cooperative study with
WCU,we initiated steps toward propagating and eventual release of wavy-rayed
lampmussels in the target reach. Gravid females were collected from the upper Pigeon
River in spring2010 and glochidia were propagated in captivity by cooperators at NCSU.
These will be reared for two years at the NCWRG Conservation Aquaculture Center at
Marion State Fish Hatchery before release.
f
Hajupood Co.Schools fish in classrooms: Fishes held over the 2009-2010 school year
were released in the Pigeon River in late May. Following the initiation ofNCDWQ's
upper Richland Cr.restoration project,we made a slight shift in approach. Fishes
delivered to classrooms in October2010 were Species targeted for reintroduction in upper
Richland Creels and will be released there near the end of the 2010-2011 school year.
River chubs,Tuckasegee darters,greenfin darters, and warpaint shiners were collected
from Jonathan Creek and delivered to Jonathan Valley Elementary,North Canton
Elementary,Canton Middle, and Tuscola High schools.
1
i -

Table l'. Steering Committee meeting attendees
Agency/Company 16 March 2006 5 March 2008 11 March 2010
BRPP/Evergreen.Packaging Derric Brown Derric Brown Paul Dickens
Paul Dickens. Paul Dickens Nick McCracken
David Greene
Bob Williams
Haywood Waterways Assoc. EricRomaniszyn Eric RomaniszynEric Romaniszyn
NC Division of Water Quality Jeff DeBerardinis Landon Davidson Bryn Tracy
Keith Haynes Keith Haynes Ed Williams
Beverly Price Bryn Tracy
Bryn Tracy
Ed Williams
NC Natural Heritage Program Angie Rodgers
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Steve Fraley Steve Fraley Doug Besler
Jeff Simmons T.R.Russ Steve Fraley
Chris Goudreau
T.R.Russ
Tennessee Valley Authority Chris.Cooper
US Fish and Wildlife Service Mark Cantrell Mark Cantrell
Gary Peeples
US Forest Service Sheryl Bryan Lorie Stroup
Lorie:Stroup
University of Tennessee Joyce Coombs Joyce Coombs Joyce Coombs
Mike Gaugler Dr.Larry Wilson Dr.Larry Wilson
Western Carolina University Mike LaVoie Dr.Tom Martin Adric,Olsen
Dr.Tom Martin
Caroline Rooney
Western NC Alliance/
French Broad Riverkeeper Hartwell Carson

Table 2. Fish released at source sites in,Tennessee and North Carolina and introduced to the Pigeon River downstream from Blue
Ridge Paper Mill-from April 4,2006 to October 7,2010.
Date Species N Source Site. Release Site
4/4/2006 Silver Shiner 306 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 48
Telescope Shiner 238 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 48
4/6/2006 Mirror Shiner 583 Pigeon River,RM 64.5 PRM 48
4/7/2006 Gilt Darter 60 Boylston Creek and FRM 48
Mills River
10/3/2006 Silver Shiner 149 Cosby Creek,`TN PRM 49.8(Crabtree Cr.confluence)
Telescope Shiner 214 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 49.8
10/4/2006 Mirror Shiner 1608 Pigeon River,RM 64.5 PRM 49.8
10/5/2006 Gilt Darter 92 Upper French Broad R. PRM 52.2
4/3/2007 Silver Shiner 160 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 52.2
Telescope:shiner 175' Cosby Creek,TN PRM 52.2.
Tennessee shiner 670 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 521
4/4/2007 Mirror Shiner 1269 Pigeon River,RM 64.5 PRM 52.2
4/5/2007 Gilt darter 87 Upper French Broad R. PRM 52.2
5/30/2007 Striped shiner 27 Price Cr.(Cane R.) PRM 49.8
10/16/2007 Striped shiner 63 Price Cr.(Cane R.). Crabtree Creek,near confluence
Continued

Table 2. Continued.
Date Species N Source Site Release Site
4/2/2008 Silver Shiner 434 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 42.6(Hepco Bridge)
Telescope Shiner 250 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 42.6
Tennessee"shiner 338 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 49.8
4/3/2008 Gilt Darter 93 Upper French Broad R. PRM 52.2
4/4/2008 Mirror Shiner 325 Pigeon River,RM 64.5 Jonathan Creek,near confluence
3/30/2009 Silver Shiner 474 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 42.6
Telescope Shiner 428 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 42.6
Tennessee shiner 512 Cosby Creek,TN PRM 42.6
3/31/2009 Mirror Shiner 1608 Pigeon River,RM 64.5 PRM 42.6
4/1/2009 Gilt Darter 121 Upper French Broad R. Richland Creek,near confluence
10/6/2009 Banded darter 57 Swannanoa R,RM 1.5 PRM 52.2
Tennessee shiner 441 Swannanoa R.,RM 1.5 PRM 52.2
Tennessee shiner 442 Swannanoa-R.„RM.1.5 PRM 49.8
Gilt darter 117 Swannanoa R.,RM 1.5 Richland Creek pear confluence
10/7/2009 Gilt darter 27 Swannanoa R.,RM 1.5 Richland Creek,near confluence
Banded darter 15 Lower French Broad R. PRM 52.2
Banded darter 40 Spring Creek(FB) PRM 52.2
Tennessee,shiner 20 Lower French Broad R. PRM 49.8
Tennessee shiner 55 Spring Creek(FB) PRM 52.2
Telescope shiner 20 Lower French Broad R. PRM 49.8
Bigeye chub 12 Lower French Broad R. PRM 49.8
Highland shiner 42 Lower French Broad R. PRM 49.8
Continued

Table 2. Continued.
Date Species N Source Site Release Site
4/6/2010 Gilt darter 136 Swannanoa R.,RM 1.5 Richland Creek,near confluence
Banded darter 52 Swannanoa R.,RM 1.5 PRM 52.2
Tennessee.shiner 277 Swannanoa R.,RM 1.5 PRM:522
Bigeye chub 4 Swannanoa R,RM 1.5 PRM 52.2
4/7@010 Gilt darter 2 Spring Creek(FB) Richland Creek,near confluence
Banded darter 19 Spring Creek(FB) PRM 52.2
Tennessee shiner 311 Lower French Broad R. PRM 49.8
Highland shiner 272 Lower French Broad R PRM 49.8
4/8/2010 Mirror shiner 194 Pigeon.River,RM 64.5 Jonathan Creek,near confluence
4/9/2010 Minor shiner 198 Pigeon River,RM 64.5 Jonathan Creek,near confluence
9/28/2010 Mirror shiner 480 Pigeon River,RM 64.5 Jonathan Creek,near confluence
10/5/2010 Gilt darter 82 Swannanoa R.,RM 1.5 Richland Creek,near confluence
Banded darter 6 -Swannanoa FL,RM 1.5 Richland Creek,near confluence
Tennessee shiner '903 Swannanoa R.,RM"1.5 PRM 52.2
Bigeye chub 22 Swannanoa P,RM 1.5 PRM 52.2
10/6/2010 Gilt darter 1 Spring Creek(FB) Richland Creek,near confluence
Banded darter 14 Lower French Broad R PRM 49.8
Banded darter 51 Spring Creek(FB) Richland Creek,near confluence
Tennessee shiner 159 Lower French Broad R PRM 49.8
Highland shiner 325 Lower French Broad R PRM 49.8
Bigeyechub 130 Lower French Broad PRM 49.8
1 0/712 0 1 0 Gilt darter 82 Upper French Broad R. Richland Creek,near confluence
Banded darter 21. Upper French Broad R. Richland Creek near confluence

Table 3. Total number of fishes by species released in the Pigeon River or tributaries 2004-2013.
Species Numbers
Mirror shiner 8647*
Tennessee shiner 5766**
Telescope shiner 3231**
Silver shiner 2595**
Gilt darter 2179***
Highland shiner 1496
Banded darter 766***
Bigeye chub 481
Grand total: 25,161
* Includes releases in mainstem and Jonathan Creek
j **Species deemed reestablished
***Includes releases in mainstem and Richland Creek
i
I
1 _
i
i
i

RE-INTRODUCED SPECIES: NC No VIF; Taus 10/4/2013
,,, Darter Rcdhorse Chnb Shiner VIE Collar release VIE Tat:Color
dater Gilt Banded Golden Biecve Hieldand Minor Saffron Silver Telescope TN Sniped tags site site R red
3/11!04 171 78 UPR FBR G .,reen
3loOI04 167 275 CC FBR Y vellow
8/25/04 318 666 CC FBR O orange
8/26/04 973 155 UPR FBR P pink
3/30/05 312 505 CC FBR VIE Tag Location
3/31/05 39 R Pos BC GC ANT anterior dorsal fin
4/11105 20 RPos MR GC 1 POS posterior dorsal fin
8/23/OS 1 713 85 UPR FBR/OTM
8/24/O5 1 262 460 CC FBR River Source
8/25/05 251 1 O nST MR GC rFBPR
Cosby Creek TN
4/4106 306 239 CC FBR Boylston Creek,NC
4/6/06 583 UPR FBR FB(r'Rosman,RM217.5
4/7/06 60 R roc BCMR FBR Mills River.NC
10/3/06 149 214 CC CTM Up Pigeon,RM 645
10/4/06 1608 UPR CTM Prices Creek
10/5106 92 Y,ysn FBNC GC Saannanoa R..RM 15
4/3/07 160 175 670 CC GC FB(a-,Paint Rock Cr.
4/4/07 1269 UPR GC Spring Creek,NC
4/5/07 87 P nwr FBNC GC FBHS FB P Hot Springs.
5/30/07 27 PC CTM FBHI FB (uJ Huff Island
10/16/07 63 PC CTC FBHR FB a ldannah Rd..212.9
4i2r08 434 250 CC HB IV Ivy River,near mouth
4i2,r08 33R CC CTM
43/08 93 R ros FBNC GC
4/4108 325 JUPR JC ReleaseSites--NC,..
3/30/09 474 428 518 CC HB FBR lFerguson Br.Riverside
3/3 F09 276 UPR JC GC Golf Course,RM 52.5
4/1/09 121 Yros FBNC RC CTC Crabtree Creek
10/6/09 57 441 R nwr SW GC CTM Cmbnee Cr.,mouth
10/6109 117 R nwr SW RC JC Jonathan Cr..mouth
10/6/09 442 SW CTM HB I-1EPCO Br.,RM 42.6
10/7/09 27 - G nwr SW RC RC Rich.Cr.Rd.Bridge
10/7,109 15 G e\T FBPR GC RCW Rich.Cr.. Walnut Tr.
10/7/09 12 42 20 20 FBPR CTM PR47 Pigeon R.,PRM47.0
10/7/09 40 55 G ANT SC GC RCB Rich.Crnu,209 Hwy.Br.
4/6/10 136 O ros SW RC RCD Rich.Cr.below dam
4/6/10 52 4 277 Oros SW GC
4/7/10 2 Oros SC RC ` Red VIE depleted
4/7110 19 O ros SC GC
4/7/]0 272 ?I FBHS CTM
Totals 819 183 I6 374 5918 318 2582 3231 3072 90
Gilt Banded Golden Bigeye Highland Minor. Saffron Silver ITcescopc I IN Slripttl
Darter I Redhoac lChub Shiner

RE-INTRODUCED SPECIES: NC No VIE. Taags
admrno, Darter Redhorsc Chub Shiner VIE Collect release VIE Tag Color.
dates Gilt Banded Golden Bincve Hi_ehiand Mirror Silver Telescope TN tags site site R red
Pa.2 819 1831 16 3 44 5918 2582 3231 3072 G green
4/8/10 194 UPR JC V yellow
4/13/10 198 UPR JC O orange
9/28/10 480 UPR JC P pink
1015110 82 6 0 A\7 SW RC VIE Ta Location
1015110 22 903 SW GC .4NT anterior dorsal fin
10/6/10 14 O nN7 FBHS RC POS posterior dorsal fin
10/6/10 130 325 159 FBHS CTM
I0/6/10 1 51 0 AW SC RC
10/7/10 821 21 0.>vr FBHR RC River Source
4/5/11 64 P Awr FBNC RC CC Cosby Creek
4/5/11 44 11 P nsr BC RC BC Boylston Creek,NC
4/7/11 349 UPR JC FBNC FBOdRosman.RM217.5
5/12/11 10 469 36 FBHS CTM MR Mills River,NC
10/4/11 67 I 720 SW PR47 LPR Up Pigeon,RM 645
10/4/I 1 199 14 P ros ISW RCW PC Prices Creek
1015111 72 229 14 FBHS GC SW Swannanoa R.,RM 1.5
10/5/11 74 Pros FBHS RCW FBPR FB.r Paint RockCr.
10/6/11 901 UPR JC NFBH
SpringCreek,NC
4/10/12 13 332 SW CTM FB(2-o Hot Springs
4/10/12 '_24 36 Ynar SW RCB FB HuffIsland
4/1 I/12 42 118 57 FBHS CTC FBa,Hnnnah Rd.,212.8
4/11/12 6 YA.v SC RCW Ivy River.near mouth
10/1/13 352 48 462 Y ros SW RCB Clear Cr.,TN
10/22/12 300 UPR JC PRM(cr0 103,TN
10/23/12 25 5 1 FBHS RC Mud Cc 5/70 Br.
10/23/12 13I Y ros FBHI RCD*
10/24/12 63 42 49 IV RC
4/8/13 54 2 Rros IV RCW FBR Ferguson Br,Riverside
q/8/13 .11 R ros IV JC GC Golf Course,RM 52.5
4/9/13 26 36 CCR CTM CTC Crabtree Cr.
4/10/13 321 61 1 R ros SW JC CTM Crabtree Cr.,mouth
4/18/13 31 1 PR 10 GC JC Jonathan Cr..mouth
10/1/13 175 UPR RCD HB HFPCO Br.,RM 42.6
10/2/13 61 401
I R ros FBHS PRS RC Richaupsv
Cr Rd Bridge
10/3/13 165 G 132 R ros FBNC RCD RCW alms'1'r.
10/4/13 5 34 R ros MC PRS PR47 RM47.0
RCB 9 Hwy.Br.
RCD ow dam
PRS v Ferg.Br.
Totals 2179 766 3 481 1496 964' �_59;j 3231 5766 '
Gilt Banded lGolden 18tacyc lHighland IMirror I I Silver ITclescopc I TN *10/23/12-only 40 were tagged
Darter Redhorsc jChub IShiner

Appendix D
Analysis of September 7, 2007 Fish Kill
Pigeon River-Blue Ridge Paper Mill
In its February 22, 2010 letter to Ms. Coleen H. Sullins of the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources,James D. Giattina, Director of the Water
Protection Division,U.S.EPA, Region 4, wrote that EPA's concern for insufficiency of
the 2006 § 316(a)Demonstration by the Blue Ridge Paper Mill("Paper Mill" or "Mill")
is "heightened by a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission report indicating that
a September 2007 fish kill in the Pigeon River was, in part, due to elevated temperature."
(The cited report is NC WRC 2007) This appendix analyzes the cited fish kill and puts it
into perspective with local and regional environmental conditions and regulatory history.
The Fish Kill
The cited fish kill is reported in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's 2007
report on fish kills as event AS07004 in Haywood County below Canton where"8,000"
fish were killed(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/FishkilVdocuments/EventsO7.pdfl. The
"[k]ill event [was] attributed to low flow/DO and high water temperatures brought on by
ongoing drought conditions." The report added"Investigators observed numerous live
fish during the investigation." The full fish kill report on which this entry was based (NC
WRC 2007) noted that at approximately 1600 hrs on September 7,dead fish were
observed below the Paper Mill where temperature was 35.4°C (no temperature was taken
upstream of the Mill at that time, and the exact location of the downstream measurement
was not recorded, according to the fish kill report). At about 1900 hours,the temperature
upstream of the Mill was 24YC and that below the Mill was 33.2°C (a temperature rise
of 8.9°C). "[T]his measurement and others collected by Mill personnel during the kill
did not exceed the limits specified in the current permit" (Letter from Shannon L.
Deaton,NC Wildlife Resources Commission to Tom Belnick,NC Division of Water
Quality,February 25, 2010). The next day (September 8)investigators found
"[a]pproximately 8,434 total fish dead"by sampling three 100-meter sites over a distance
of approximately 6 km (estimated from the Mill to"behind Caring Place Loop"). The
report identified the fish species as brown bullhead, northern hogsucker, silver shiner,
central stoneroller,tangarine darter,Tuckaseegee darter, channel catfish,redbreast
sunfish, smallmouth bass, warpaint shiner, whitetail shiner, greenfin darter, and rock
bass. Although the exact location of the fish kill was not stated in the NC WRC Fish Kill
Report,it probably occurred in the close vicinity of the Mill(e.g., from the Mill to
Fiberville)with stressed and dying fish being transported by currents downstream to the
lowermost sampling locations.
Mill Operations
Operating data for the Blue Ridge Paper Mill and the Mill's data for the river at the Mill
during early September show no exceptionally high discharges,but exceptionally low
river flow. The Mill discharge was steady at 24.7—26.7 mgd for September 1-7 (25.75

mgd on Sept 7). Upstream temperatures ranged 20.6—22.4°C during the week preceding
September 7 (20.6 on 9/7), while at Fiberville Bridge they were 25.5 -33.VC (highest on
9/7). River flows on September 4-7 were 34.9—38.8 efs, with the lowest flow on 9/7).
The 8.9°C temperature rise late in the day on September 7, according to the fish kill
report, did not cause the permitted temperature rise to be exceeded. As noted above, the
NC Wildlife Resources commission acknowledged that the Mill was operating within its
permit limits.
Physical Conditions at the Site
At the time of the fish kill and in the week preceding it, the Pigeon River was at an
extremely low flow and warm temperature, while the Mill discharge was at normal
operational levels of both flow rate and temperature (Table 1). The Mill discharge flow
was actually below the historical maximum flow rate. If the river flow as recorded at the
Canton Gauge upstream of the Mill was reduced by Mill withdrawals equal to the amount
of water discharged from the Mill, the river flow at the thermal discharge would have
been zero. It is not clear whether the Mill actually withdrew this amount of water from
the river, but without any withdrawal by the Mill the discharge flow would have been 52-
54% of the river flow at the thermal discharge.
Table 1. Physical conditions in the Pigeon River and Mill discharge during the week of
the 2007 fish kill. Data from plant records and state fish kill report.
River flows at Canton Gauge 34.9 to 38.8 efs
(upstream of mill)
River temperatures upstream of 20.6 to 22.4°C; NC WRD measurement of
Mill 24.3°C in the impoundment
Mill discharge flow 38.2 to 41.3 cfs (24.7 to 26.7 MGD)
Mill discharge temperature 33.8 to 36.9°C
River temperature below Mill NC WRD spot measurements of 33.2 after the
kill and 35.4°C during the kill (locations not
reported)
River flow at discharge if amount 0
of water discharged equals the
water withdrawal by the Mill
Discharge as percentage of river 51.6 to 54.0 %
flow assuming no water
withdrawal
Historical Mill discharge flows 18.7 to 48.7 cfs (12.1 to 31.5 MGD)

With little(or possibly no) flow in the river other than the thermal discharge, the thermal
plume likely spread nearly across the river between the Mill and Fiberville Bridge (the in-
stream monitoring location). In this distance, temperatures likely did not decline much
from the discharge temperature. There were no detailed temperature measurements taken
in the thermal plume during the fish kill,although the state's fish kill report noted a spot
temperature measurement of 35.4°C below the Mill.
Regional and Local Environmental Conditions
There is strong evidence that an exceptional regional condition contributed to the fish kill
in the Pigeon River. The evidence shows that(1) this was not an isolated fish kill, (2)
river flow records independent of the Mill indicate near record low flows in the Pigeon
River from low regional precipitation, and (3) air temperatures at the time(which
strongly influence stream temperatures upstream of the Mill)were much above normal.
The Division of Water Quality's 2007 fish kill report lists another kill on August 29
(AS07002)in the Broad River in Rutherford County(also Southwestern North Carolina)
where 100 fish were killed. The"[e]vent occurred following several weeks of drought
conditions,hot weather and low flow." This is similar to the attribution for the Pigeon
River at Canton.
There is clear evidence that exceptionally low-water conditions existed in the Pigeon
River at the time of the fish kill of September 7. River flow data for the Canton USGS
station (Station Number 03456991)show a daily average river flow for September 7 of
49 cubic feet per second(cfs)
(htip:Hwdr.water.usgs.gov/wy207/pdfs/03456991.2007.pdf). This is only 1.2 cfs above
the all-time record minimum September mean flow of 47.8 cfs for water years 1932-
2007. It followed the month of August in which the minimum mean daily flow was 45
cfs and the mean daily flow was only 61.6 cfs, with 12 days at 50 cfs or below. J. Curtis
Weaver,USGS hydrologist,was quoted in the Hendersonville Times-News on Friday,
November 9, 2007 as saying that most of the 210 stream gages in NC were around 10%
of normal stream flow by October, and that the stream flow in the West Fork of the
Pigeon River was the lowest ever recorded. These exceptionally low flows were below
the low-flow statistics generally used as worst-case conditions for establishing NPDES
permits [e.g.,the seven-day,one in 10 year low flows or 7Q10, which is the worst-case
condition standard for§ 316(a)demonstrations (Wabash and Cayuga Generating
Stations, Public Service of Indiana, NPDES Appeal#78-6, 1979)].
Climate records compiled by the National Climatic Data Center for 2007 confirm that the
time of the fish kill was exceptionally warm and dry. September 2007 was the eighth
warmest on record for air temperatures in the contiguous United States, with worsening
drought in the Southeast(www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/sev/sep07.htm1).
That web site noted"Raleigh-Durham International Airport reached a high of 101
degrees F(38 degrees C) on September 10,the latest date in any calendar year with a
maximum daily temperature greater than 100 degrees since records began in 1944." The
week ending September 8, 2007 had temperatures "much above normal"in southwestern

North Carolina, being 5.0 to 8.3°C (9-15°F)above normal and"extremely dry"
(www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/us-
weeklypho?vear=2007&month=09&day=8&submitted=Submit). Stream temperatures
in small watersheds like the Pigeon River are known to closely follow air temperature
trends.
Fish Species
The NC WRD fish kill report identified 13 species of dead fish being collected. These
were brown bullhead,northern hogsuckeer, silver shiner,central stoneroller,tangerine
darter, Tuckaseegee darter,channel catfish, redbreast sunfish, smallmouth bass, warpaint
shiner, whitetail shiner, greenfin darter, and rock bass.
Although the NC WRD's fish kill report indicated dead fish were found up to about 6 km
from the Mill, it is likely that the dead fish collected at the most downstream locations
actually died farther upstream,indicating that the fish kill occurred in the reach close to
the Mill. Also,the high temperatures that may have caused the fish kill observed on
September 7 likely occurred over a several-day period prior to the observed kill. This is
because it takes time for lethally high temperatures to be manifested in loss of
equilibrium(which causes dying fish to be washed downstream) and death.
Temperatures in the mill Mischarge and river immediately downstream of the Mill (when
dilution was likely nil)were within the range that would be lethal to many riverine fishes
(Table 2). A search of the literature located upper lethal temperature tolerance data for 6
of the 13 species collected, and data for related species that seem to be reasonable
surrogates for four others. As footnoted in the table, the usual test to determine lethal
temperatures is reported as a temperature for 50% mortality. It is conventional to
subtract 20C from this temperature to estimate the temperature where there is 100%
survival (Table 2, column 2). Also,the test generally lasts for several days (usually 96 hr
to one week). A 24-hour survival temperature is somewhat higher, generally estimated to
be 1-2°C above the UILT minus 2°C for longer exposures (Table 2,column 3).
The fish species that were recovered by the fish kill investigation team in approximately
6 km of river below the thermal discharge demonstrated existence of a diverse
assemblage. Many of the species are categorized as pollution intolerant. Others are
valued sports fish. While it is regrettable that some individuals of these species were
killed, the kill served as a sampling of species' composition that indicated that a highly
diverse fish assemblage had occupied the most thermally affected zone of the river
immediately downstream of the Mill in summer. The fish kill did not eradicate fish from
this zone,because the investigators noted live fish swimming in the area of the kill as the
dead fish were being observed and collected.
Regulatory Perspective
It is important to view the fish kill of September 7 in the context of the 2006 § 316(a)
Demonstration provided by the company in its application for a renewed NPDES permit.

The EPA letter implied the fish kill negated the basis of a§ 316(a)Demonstration: that a
balanced indigenous population or community(BIP/BIC)be shown to exist. There is
relevant information in the statute,regulations, guidance and administrative precedent to
inform a different view.
Table 2. Upper temperature tolerances of some fish species collected by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission team investigating the September 7, 2007 fish
kill at the Blue Ridge Paper Products Mill in Canton,NC.
Species in fish kill(a) UILT—2°C (b) Safe daily
maximum
exposure
Brown bullhead 32.8 34
Northern hogsucker 32 33
Common shiner 31.5 33
(surrogate for all other
shiners)
Central stoneroller 29 (c) 32 (c)
Channel catfish 35 36
Bluegill sunfish 31.8 33
(surrogate for redbreast
sunfish)
Smallmouth bass 33 34
Rock bass 33 34
(a) Species of fish found in the 2007 fish kill for which data are available in literature
summaries (or closely related species that seem appropriate surrogates).
(b) Upper Incipient Lethal Temperature (UILT) is that temperature at which 50% of
the sample is dead after exposures generally 96 hr to one week. Subtracting 2°C
approximates the temperature for no mortalities. Acclimation temperatures are all
25°C or above except central stoneroller,which was tested with field samples
captured at 12-30°C. Sources: NAS/NAE 1973, Brown 1974, Wismer and
Christie 1985.
(c) Due to some fish having been tested at field acclimation temperatures as low as
12°C, this value is likely low for summer acclimation.

Statute
Section 316(a)of the federal Clean Water Act refers to a balanced indigenous population
in the"body of water." That has been understood to mean that the Congress's interest
was the whole body of water, and not necessarily every part of it. In evaluating this
potential uncertainty, the Environmental Appeals Board has said that§ 316(a)applies to
the"receiving waters:" "In other words, to the extent thermal discharge limitations that
are less stringent than the otherwise applicable effluent limitations will nonetheless
preserve a balanced community of indigenous aquatic life in the receiving waters,EPA
may incorporate such less stringent limits into an NPDES permit." In re Aurora Energy,
L. L. C.,2004 EPA App. LEXIS 30 *6 (E. A. B. Sept. 14,2004). The body of water in
this case is the Pigeon River downstream of the Mill, in which the zone of the fish kill
was but a small part.
Regulations
The implementing regulations for§ 316(a) seem to state quite clearly that the BIP/BIC is
intended to apply outside a zone in which the effluent is initially mixed with the rest of
the water body. Section 125.62(c)(2)expressly says that a BIP must exist"immediately
beyond the zone of initial dilution of the applicants modified discharge"and"in all areas
beyond the zone of initial dilution." Section 125.73(a), like the statute, refers to the
"body of water." The most consistent interpretation of the regulations would mean that
the permitting authority should view the big picture of the water body,even if there is a
violation in some small area. The September 7,2007 fish kill in the Pigeon River
appeared to occur in the zone immediately downstream of the thermal discharge where
the effluent is incompletely mixed.
Guidance
Guidance by EPA, both general and thermal, supports the view that the BIP/BIC standard
and a lack of any appreciable harm does not need to be demonstrated in the immediate
vicinity of the discharge, where the fish kill apparently occurred. Mixing zone provisions
of the Clean Water Act have been applied generally across a range of pollutants,
including thermal. (see,
htto://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/mixin2zone/tonics.html and
ham://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/mixin2zone/docs.html,for example). Mixing
zones are areas where EPA intends that water quality criteria and standards do not need
to be met. In concert with application to other pollutants,it has generally been assumed
that the § 316(a)BIP/BIC biological "standard"also should be applied outside the mixing
zone. The"mixing zone"appears to be the direct analog of the"zone of initial dilution"
of Section 125.62(c)(2).
An exception from the BIP/BIC standard in the zone near the discharge was specifically
discussed in the § 316(a) Guidance Manual (EPA and NRC 1977). The Guidance
Manual specifies a"Master Rationale"or concluding argument of the demonstration.
Guidance for the Master Rationale specifically considers a legal mixing zone where

damage may occur: 'Receiving water temperatures outside any (State established)mixing
zone will not be in excess of the upper temperature limits for survival, growth, and
reproduction, as applicable, of any RIS occurring in the receiving water." Section 3.8.4,
page 71.
Other guidance documents prepared by EPA are relevant to the general matter of mixing
zones as zones near a pollutant discharge where some impairment is allowed. EPA's
1991 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (EPA 1991)
advises that impacts in mixing zones not impair the integrity of the water body"as a
whole." (p. 70). EPA's 1998 Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment(EPA 1998)
includes evaluation processes similar to the Guidance Manual for thermal discharges. An
important element of the EPA ecological risk assessment guidance is spatial scale: does
the area of impact constitute a large percentage of the"landscape?" The guidance
indicates that factors to be considered "include the absolute area affected, the extent of
critical habitats affected compared with a larger area of interest, and the role or use of the
affected area within the landscape." (EPA 1998,p. 117). "Landscape" is used in its
broad sense,because the guidelines are written for terrestrial as well as aquatic
assessments. "Landscape" would equate to water body or water body segment in aquatic
analyses.
Congress specifically recognized the availability of the mixing zone concept as a
mechanism for dealing with thermal discharges pursuant to § 316(a) of the Act. During
the House debate on the.Conference Report,Representative Clausen, a member of the
conference managers group appointed by the House, stated: "Section 316(a) in effect
recognizes the temporary localized effects a thermal component may have as well as the
potential beneficial effects. It encourages the consideration of alternative methods of
control, including mixing zones, so long as the controls assure the protection and
propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife." .
Administrative Precedent
Litigation and administrative decisions that characterized the early years of
implementation of§ 316(a) established the precedent that a reduction in the population of
particular species in the immediate area of the discharge did not preclude a successful §
316(a) demonstration. For example, a reduction in the population of a particular species
in a localized area was found to be acceptable by the Administrator after appeal of the
§ 316(a) decision for the Wabash and Cayuga generating stations. In re Public Service
Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Wabash/Cayuga Generating Stations),NPDES Appeal No.78-6,
1979 EPA App. LEXIS 4, 22, 1 E.A.D. 590 (Nov. 29, 1979). Although the overall fish
populations in the Wabash River were unaffected by operations of the generating
stations, some species were virtually eliminated from the power plant sites. The appeal
decision stated: "...[In] attempting to judge whether the effects of a particular thermal
discharge are causing the system to become imbalanced, it is necessary to focus on the
magnitude of the changes in the community as a whole and in individual species" and
then determine these "changes are appreciable."Id. The zones near the discharges did
not meet the BIC criterion,but the broader ecosystem did. Similarly, the area to be

considered for application of the BIC was judged to be the broad area of the water body
segment in the Region 1 Administrator's decision regarding the Pilgrim Power Plant(in
In re Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Power Plant)Determination Regarding Issuance of
Proposed NPDES Permit No. MA0025135 (EPA Region 1,March 11, 1977)). The
Administrator found the impact of Pilgrim to be"minimal in comparison to the species
population in the area of impact." Similarly,in In re Central Hudson Gas &Elec. Corp.,
EPA GCO 63, 1977 WL 28250 (July 29, 1977),EPA noted that § 316(a) "permits an
adverse environmental impact so long as the impact does not interfere with the protection
and propagation of the balanced indigenous population in the aquatic ecosystem."
This precedent was upheld recently in regard to the Brayton Point plant, which is called
out for other purposes in the attachment to the EPA letter("Section 315(a) Report and the
Study Plan for the Subsequent Permit"). A decision on the Brayton Point plant affirmed
that some of Mount Hope Bay,Massachusetts and Rhode Island, could be warmed above
24°C (the upper avoidance temperature for winter flounder) so long as it did not occur in
more than 10% of the bay for more than five days a year. In re Dominion Energy
Brayton Point, L.L.C.,NPDES Permit No. MA 0003654,NPDES Appeal No. 07-01,
2007 EPA App. LEXIS 38 (EAB September 27, 2007).
Conclusion
The evidence supports a conclusion that the fish kill of September 7, 2007 was an
extraordinary event,limited in time,brought about by extreme low river flows and high
late summer water temperatures in the region and the Pigeon River as a whole in August
and early September. Further, the fish kill occurred in a limited zone immediately
downstream of the thermal discharge, in which the effluent is incompletely mixed. Such
a zone is expressly excluded from the BIPBIC criterion by statute,regulations, EPA
guidance and administrative precedents. Blue Ridge Paper Products' Mill operated under
its normally permitted conditions during the time leading up to the fish kill. This resulted
in its thermal discharges not being sufficiently cooled by low ambient river flows less
than the 7Q10 flow, with the result that river temperatures just below the Mill
temporarily exceeded the thermal tolerances of several fish species. The species
composition of the kill indicated that a diverse assemblage of fishes had been occupying
the approximately 6-km reach below the Mill prior to the fish kill, in accord with
BIPBIC criteria. As an extraordinary and brief event due to abnormal regional climatic
conditions, and in a zone normally excluded from meeting BIPBIC criteria,it is
inappropriate to use this fish kill as a measure for determining the adequacy of a § 316(a)
Demonstration, as was the implication in the EPA Region 4 letter.
References
Brown, H. W. 1974. Handbook of the effects of temperature on some North American
fishes. American Electric Power Service Corporation, Canton, Ohio.
NAS/NAE(U.S. National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering).
1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972.A report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria,

Environmental Studies Board. EPA-R-73-033,Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington,DC.
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2007. NCWRC Fish Kill
Report. September 7-8, 2007. Raleigh,North Carolina.
Wismer, D. A., and A. E. Christie. 1985. Temperature relationships of Great Lakes
fishes: a data compilation. Ontario Hydro, Toronto.

Appendix E
Relevant Statutes & Regulations

Page I
0 0
LexisNexis
UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE
Copyright©2013 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
a member of the LexisNexis Group (TM)
All rights reserved.
*** Current through PL 113-57, approved 12/9/13 ***
TITLE 33. NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
CHAPTER 26. WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
Go to the United States Code Service Archive Directory
33 USCS§ 1326
§ 1326. Thermal discharges
(a) Effluent limitations that will assure protection and propagation of balanced, indigenous popula-
tion of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. With respect to any point source otherwise subject to the provi-
sions of section 301 or section 306 of this Act [33 USCS§ 1311 or 1316], whenever the owner or
operator of any such source, after opportunity for public hearing, can demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Administrator(or, if appropriate, the State) that any effluent limitation proposed for the con-
trol of the thermal component of any discharge from such source will require effluent limitations
more stringent than necessary to assure the projection [protection] and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the
discharge is to be made, the Administrator(or, if appropriate, the State) may impose an effluent
limitation under such sections for such plant, with respect to the thermal component of such dis-
charge (taking into account the interaction of such thermal component with other pollutants), that
will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife in and on that body of water. '
(b) Cooling water intake structures, Any standard established pursuant to section 301 or section
306 of this Act [33 USCS§ 1311 or 1316] and applicable to a point source shall require that the lo-
cation, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best tech-
nology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
(c) Period of protection from more stringent effluent limitations following discharge point source
modification commenced after October 18, 1972. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act
[33 USCS§§ 1251 et seq,], any point source of a discharge having a thermal component, the modi-
fication of which point source is commenced after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollu-

Page 2
33 USCS § 1326
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972 [enacted Oct, 18, 1972] and which, as modified, meets ef-
fluent limitations established under section 301 [33 USCS,¢ 1311] or, if more stringent, effluent
limitations established under section 303 [33 USCS,¢1313] and which effluent limitations will as-
sure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
in or on the water into which the discharge is made, shall not be subject to any more stringent ef-
fluent limitation with respect to the thermal component of its discharge during a ten year period be-
ginning on the date of completion of such modification or during the period of depreciation or
amortization of such facility for the purpose of section 167 or 169 (or both) of the internal Revenue
Code of 1954 [1986] [26 USCS§ 167 or 169], whichever period ends first.
HISTORY:
(June 30, 1948, ch 758,Title III, § 316, as added Oct. 18, 1972, P.L. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 876.)
HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES
Explanatory notes:
The word "protection" has been inserted in brackets in subsec. (a)as the word probably intended
by Congress.
"1986" has been inserted in brackets in subsea (c) pursuant to § 2 of Act Oct, 22, 1986, P.L.
99-514, which redesignated the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Act Aug. 16, 1954, ch 736)as the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In redesignating the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as the Inter-
nal Revenue Code of 1986, Congress provided, in Act Oct, 22, 1986, P.L. 99-514, § 2(b), 100 Stat.
2095, for construction of references to the Internal Revenue Code as follows: except when inappro-
priate, any reference in any law, Executive Order, or other document to the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954 shall include a reference to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and any reference to the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1986 shall include a reference to the provisions of law formerly known as
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
NOTES:
Code of Federal Regulations:
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security--Maritime security: general, 33 CFR 101.100 et
seq.
Environmental Protection Agency--OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 40
CFR 9.1 et seq.
Environmental Protection Agency--General provisions, 40 CFR 401.10 et seq.
Environmental Protection Agency--Sugar processing point source category, 40 CFR 409.10 at
seq.
Environmental Protection Agency--Concentrated aquatic animal production point source cate-
gory, 40 CFR 451.1 et seq.
Related Statutes & Rules:

Page 1
LexisNexis'
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Copyright (c) 2013 by the North Carolina Office of Administrative Law
*** CURRENT WITH RULES RECEIVED THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 2013 ***
TITLE 15A. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 2. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SUBCHAPTER 2B. SURFACE WATER AND WETLAND STANDARDS
SECTION .0200. CLASSIFICATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO SURFACE WATERS AND WETLANDS OF NORTH CAROLINA
15AN.C.A.C. 2B.0211 (2013)
. .0211 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS C WATERS
General. The water quality standards for all fresh surface waters are the basic standards appli-
cable to Class C waters. See Rule .0208 of this Section for standards for toxic substances and
temperature. Additional and more stringent standards applicable to other specific freshwater clas-
sifications are specified in Rules .0212, .0214, .0215, .0216, .0217, .0218, .0219, .0223, .0224 and
.0225 of this Section.
(1) Best Usage of Waters: aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (in-
cluding fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for
primary recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purpos-
es;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage: the waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation
and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Sources of
water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be
considered to be violating a water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to all fresh surface waters:
(a) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 ug/l for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters
subject to growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation not designated as trout waters, and not
greater than 15 ug/l for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters subject to growths of macroscopic or mi-
croscopic vegetation designated as trout waters (not applicable to lakes or reservoirs less than 10
acres in surface area). The Commission or its designee may prohibit or limit any discharge of
waste into surface waters if, in the opinion of the Director, the surface waters experience or the dis-
charge would result in growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation such that the standards
established pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the intended best usage of the waters would
be impaired;

Page 2
15A N.C.A.C.2B.0211
(b) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/l for trout waters; for non-trout waters, not less than
a daily average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l; swamp
waters, lake coves or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have lower values if caused by natu-
ral conditions;
(c) Floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits: only such amounts attributable to sew-
age, industrial wastes or other wastes as shall not make the water unsafe or unsuitable for aquatic
life and wildlife or impair the waters for any designated uses;
(d) Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110 percent of saturation;
(e) Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of
200/100ml (MF count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day
period, nor exceed 400/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period.
Violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected during rainfall events and, in some cases, this
violation is expected to be caused by uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution. All coliform con-
centrations are to be analyzed using the membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or other
adverse conditions necessitate the tube dilution method; in case of controversy over results, the
MPN 5-tube dilution technique shall be used as the reference method;
(f) Oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render
the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation or to aquatic life and wildlife or adverse-
ly affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses.• For
the purpose of implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes shall
include but not be limited to substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the sur-
face of the water or adjoining shorelines pursuant to 40 CFR 110.3(a)-(b) which are hereby incor-
porated by reference including any subsequent amendments and additions. This material is availa-
ble for inspection at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh,North Carolina. Copies may be obtained from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9325 at
a cost of forty-five dollars ($45.00);
(g) pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and
9.0 except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions;
(h) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall not result in fish-flesh tainting or impairment
of other best usage;
(i) Radioactive substances:
(i) Combined radium-226 and radium-228: the maximum average annual activity level (based
on at least four samples collected quarterly) for combined radium-226 and radium-228 shall not ex-
ceed five picoCuries per liter;
(ii) Alpha Emitters: the average annual gross alpha particle activity (including radium-226, but
excluding radon and uranium) shall not exceed 15 picoCuries per liter;
(iii) Beta Emitters: the maximum average annual activity level (based on at least four samples,
collected quarterly) for strontium-90 shall not exceed eight picoCuries per liter; nor shall the aver-
age annual gross beta particle activity (excluding potassium-40 and other naturally occurring ra-
dio-nuclides) exceed 50 picoCuries per liter; nor shall the maximum average annual activity level
for tritium exceed 20,000 picoCuries per liter;

Page 3
15A N.C.A.C.2B.0211
(j) Temperature: not to exceed 2.8 degrees C (5.04 degrees F) above the natural water tempera-
ture, and in no case to exceed 29 degrees C (84.2 degrees F) for mountain and upper piedmont wa-
ters and 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F) for lower piedmont and coastal plain Waters; the temperature
for trout waters shall not be increased by more than .5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) due to the dis-
charge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20 degrees C (68 degrees F);
(k)Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes or reservoirs
designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity shall
not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the ex-
isting turbidity level shall not be increased. Compliance with this turbidity standard can be met
when land management activities employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) [as defined by Rule
.0202 of this Section] recommended by the Designated Nonpoint Source Agency [as defined by
Rule .0202 of this Section]. BMPs must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the
proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such BMPs;
(1) Toxic substances: numerical water quality standards (maximum permissible levels) for the
protection of human health applicable to all fresh surface waters are in Rule .0208 of this Section.
Numerical water quality standards (maximum permissible•levels) to protect aquatic life applicable
to all fresh surface waters:
(i) Arsenic: 50 ug/l;
(ii) Beryllium: 6.5 ug/l;
(iii) Cadmium: 0.4 ug/l for trout waters and 2.0 ug/1 for non-trout waters; attainment of these
water quality standards in surface waters shall be based on measurement of total recoverable metals
concentrations unless appropriate studies have been conducted to translate total recoverable metals
to a toxic form. Studies used to determine the toxic form or translators must be designed according
to the "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition" published by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or "The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total
Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent
amendments. The Director shall consider conformance to EPA guidance as well as the presence of
environmental conditions that limit the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal
translators;
(iv) Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l;
(v) Chromium, total recoverable: 50 ug/l;
(vi) Cyanide, 5.0 ug/l, unless site-specific criteria are developed based upon the aquatic life at
the site utilizing The Recalculation Procedure in Appendix B of Appendix L in the Environmental
Protection Agency's Water Quality Standards Handbook hereby incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments;
(vii) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l;
(viii) Lead, total recoverable: 25 ug/l, collection of data on sources, transport and fate of lead
shall be required as part of the toxicity reduction evaluation for dischargers who are out of compli-
ance with whole effluent toxicity testing requirements and the concentration of lead in the effluent
is concomitantly determined to exceed an instream level of 3.1 ug/l from the discharge;

Page 4
15A N.C.A.C.2B.0211
(ix) Mercury: 0.012 ug/l;
(x)Nickel: 88 ug/l, attainment of these water quality standards in surface waters shall be based
on measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations unless appropriate studies have been
conducted to translate total recoverable metals to a toxic form. Studies used to determine the toxic
form or translators must be designed according to the "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second
Edition" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or "The Metals
Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criteri-
on" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby in-
corporated by reference including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider con-
formance to EPA guidance as well as the presence of environmental conditions that limit the ap-
plicability of translators in approving the use of metal translators;
(xi) Pesticides:
(A) Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(B) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
(C) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(D) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
(E) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(F) Endosulfan: 0.05 ug/l;
(G) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(H) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(I) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l;
(J) Lindane: 0.01 ug/l;
(K) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l;
(L) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
(M) Parathion: 0.013 ug/l;
(N) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l;
(xii)Polychlorinated biphenyls: (total of all PCBs and congeners identified) .001 ug/l;
(xiii) Selenium: 5 ug/l;
(xiv) Toluene: 11 ug/1 or .36 ug/l in trout waters;
(xv) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.07 ug/1 expressed as tributyltin;
(4) Action Levels for Toxic Substances:
(a) Copper: 7 ug/l;
(b) Iron: 1.0 mg/l;
(c) Silver: 0.06 ug/l;
(d) Zinc: 50 ug/l;

Page 5
15A N.C.A.C.2B.0211
(e) Chloride: 230 mg/l;
If the Action Levels for any of the substances listed in this Subparagraph (which are generally
not bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to aquatic life because of chemical form, solubility,
stream characteristics or associated waste characteristics) are determined by the waste load alloca-
tion to be exceeded in a receiving water by a discharge under the specified low flow criterion for
toxic substances (Rule .0206 in this Section), the discharger shall monitor the chemical or biological
effects of the discharge; efforts shall be made by all dischargers to reduce or eliminate these sub-
stances from their effluents. Those substances for which Action Levels are listed in this Subpara-
graph shall be limited as appropriate in the NPDES permit based on the Action Levels listed in this
Subparagraph if sufficient information (to be determined for metals by measurements of that portion
of the dissolved instream concentration of the Action Level parameter attributable to a specific
NPDES permitted discharge) exists to indicate that any of those substances may be a causative fac-
tor resulting in toxicity of the effluent. NPDES permit limits may be based on translation of the
toxic form to total recoverable metals. Studies used to determine the toxic form or translators must
be designed according to "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition" published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or"'The Metals Translator: Guidance For
Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated by reference in-
cluding any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider conformance to EPA guidance
as well as the presence of environmental conditions that limit the applicability of translators in ap-
proving the use of metal translators.
For purposes other than consideration of NPDES permitting of point source discharges as de-
scribed in this Subparagraph, the Action Levels in this Rule, as measured by an appropriate analyti-
cal technique, per 15A NCAC 2B.0103(a), shall be considered as numerical ambient water quality
standards.
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
NOTES:
History Note:
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. May 1, 2007; April 1, 2003; August 1, 2000; October 1, 1995; August 1, 1995;
April 1, 1994; February 1, 1993,
LexisNexis 50 State Surveys,Legislation & Regulations
Water Quality

Page I
Cb'
LexisNexis"'
LEXISNEXIT CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Copyright (c) 2013, by Matthew Bender& Company, a member
of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.
*** This section is current through the December 30, 2013 ***
*** issue of the Federal Register ***
*** with the exception of 78 FR 77796, December 24, 2013 ***
TITLE 40-- PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER 1 -- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D -- WATER PROGRAMS
PART 125 -- CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DIS-
CHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
SUBPART H -- CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITA-
TIONS UNDER SECTION 316(A) OF THE ACT
Go to the CFR Archive Directory
40 CFR 125.70
§ 125.70 Purpose and scope.
Section 316(a) of the Act provides that:
"With respect to any point source otherwise subject to the provisions of section 301 or section
306 of this Act, whenever the owner or operator of any such source, after opportunity for public
hearing, can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator (or, if appropriate, the State) that
any effluent limitation proposed for the control of the thermal component of any discharge from
such source will require effluent limitations more stringent than necessary to assure the projection
[sic] and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish,fish and wildlife in and on
the body of water into which the discharge is to be made, the Administrator(or, if appropriate, the
State) may impose an effluent limitation under such sections on such plant, with respect to the
thermal component of such discharge (taking into account the interaction of such thermal compo-
nent with other pollutants),that will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on that body of water."
This subpart describes the factors, criteria and standards for the establishment of alternative
thermal effluent limitations under section 316(a) of the Act in permits issued under section 402(a)
of the Act.

Page 2
40 CFR 125.70
HISTORY: [47 FR 53675, Nov. 26, 1982]
AUTHORITY: AUTHORITY NOTE APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE PART:
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Page 1
LexisNexiis
LEXISNEXIS' CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Copyright (c)2013, by Matthew Bender & Company, a member
of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.
*** This section is current through the December 30, 2013 ***
*** issue of the Federal Register ***
*** with the exception or78 FR 77796, December 24, 2013 ***
TITLE 40-- PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER I -- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D-- WATER PROGRAMS
PART 125 -- CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DIS-
CHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
SUBPART H -- CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITA-
TIONS UNDER SECTION 316(A) OF THE ACT
Go to the CFR Archive Directory
40 CPR 125.71
§ 125,71 Definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Alternative effluent limitations means all effluent limitations or standards of performance
for the control of the thermal component of any discharge which are established under section
316(a)and this subpart.
(b) Representative important species means species which are representative, in terms of their
biological needs, of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the body of
water into which a discharge of heat is made.
(c)The term balanced, indigenous community is synonymous with the term balanced, indige-
nous population in the Act and means a biotic community typically characterized by diversity,the
capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes, presence of necessary food chain species
and by a lack of domination by pollution tolerant species. Such a community may include histori-
cally non-native species introduced in connection with a program of wildlife management and spe-
cies whose presence or abundance results from substantial, irreversible environmental modifica-
tions. Normally, however, such a community will not include species whose presence or abundance
is attributable to the introduction of pollutants that will be eliminated by compliance by all sources

Page 2
40 CFR 125.71
with section 301(b)(2)of the Act; and may not include species whose presence or abundance is at-
tributable to alternative effluent limitations imposed pursuant to section 316(a).
HISTORY: [44 FR 32948, June 7, 19791
AUTHORITY: AUTHORITY NOTE APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE PART;
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Page I
*' LexisNexis'
LEXISNEXIS' CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Copyright (c) 2013, by Matthew Bender& Company, a member
of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved,
This section is current through the December 30, 2013 ***
*** issue of the Federal Register ***
*** with the exception of 78 FR 77796, December 24, 2013 ***
TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER I -- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D -- WATER PROGRAMS
PART 125 -- CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DIS-
CHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
SUBPART H -- CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITA-
TIONS UNDER SECTION 316(A) OF THE ACT
Go to the CFR Archive Directory
40 CFR 125.72
§ 125.72 Early screening of applications for section 316(a) variances.
(a) Any initial application For a section 316(a) variance shall include the following early
screening information:
(1) A description orthe alternative effluent limitation requested;
(2) A general description of the method by which the discharger proposes to demonstrate that
the otherwise applicable thermal discharge effluent limitations are more stringent than necessary;
(3)A general description of the type of data, studies, experiments and other information which
the discharger intends to submit for the demonstration; and
(4) Such data and information as.may be available to assist the Director in selecting the appro-
priate representative important species.
(b) After submitting the early screening information under paragraph (a) of this section, the
discharger shall consult with the Director at the earliest practicable time (but not later than 30 days
after the application is filed) to discuss the discharger's early screening information. Within 60 days
after the application is filed, the discharger shall submit for the Director's approval a detailed plan of
study which the discharger will undertake to support its section 316(a) demonstration. The dis-

Page 2
-� 40 CFR 125.72
s
charger shall specify the nature and extent of the following type of information to be included in the
plan of study: Biological, hydrographical and meteorological data; physical monitoring data; engi-
neering or diffusion models; laboratory studies;representative important species; and other relevant
information, In selecting representative important species, special consideration shall be given to
species mentioned in applicable water quality standards, After the discharger submits its detailed
plan of study, the Director shall either approve the plan or specify any necessary revisions to the
plan, The discharger shall provide any additional information or studies which the Director subse-
quently determines necessary to support the demonstration, including such studies or inspections as
may be necessary to select representative important species. The discharger may provide any addi-
tional information or studies which the discharger feels are appropriate to support the demonstra-
tion,
(c) Any application for the renewal of a section 316(a) variance shall include only such infor-
mation described in paragraphs (a)and (b) of this section as'the Director requests within 60 days
after receipt of the permit application.
(d)The Director shall promptly notify the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the In-
terior, and any affected State of the filing df the request and shal I consider any timely recommenda-
tions they submit.
(e) In making the demonstration the discharger shall consider any information or guidance
published by EPA to assist in making such demonstrations.
(f) If an applicant desires a ruling on a section 316(a) application before the ruling on any other
necessary permit terms and conditions, (as provided by § 124.65), it shall so request upon filing its
application under paragraph (a) of this section, This request shall be granted or denied at the discre-
tion of the Director,
Note: At the expiration of the permit, any discharger holding a section 316(a) variance should
be prepared to support the continuation of the variance with studies based on the discharger's actual
operation experience,
HISTORY: [44 FR 32948, June 7, 1979, as amended at 45 FR 33513, May 19, 1980; 65 FR 30886,
30913, May 15, 2000]
AUTHORITY: AUTHORITY NOTE APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE PART:
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
NOTES: [EFFECTIVE DATE NOTE: 65 FR 30886, 30913, May 15, 2000, removed the words
"and § 124.73(c)(1)" in paragraph (c), effective June 14, 2000.]

Page I
W
LexisNexis°'
LEXISNEXiS' CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Copyright (c)2013, by Matthew Bender& Company, a member
of the LexisNexis Group, All rights reserved.
*** This section is current through the December 30,2013 ***
*** issue of the Federal Register ***
*** with the exception of 78 FR 77796, December 24, 2013 ***
TITLE 40-- PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER I -- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D -- WATER PROGRAMS
PART 125 -- CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DIS-
CHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
SUBPART -- CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITA-
TIONS UNDER SECTION 316(A) OF THE ACT
Go to the CF'R Archive Directory
40 CFR 125.73
§ 125.73 Criteria and standards for the determination of alternative effluent limitations under sec-
tion 316(a).
(a)Thermal discharge effluent limitations or standards established in permits may be less strin-
gent than those required by applicable standards and limitations if the discharger demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the director that such effluent limitations are more stringent than necessary to as-
sure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and
wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made. This demonstration must
show that the alternative effluent limitation desired by the discharger, considering the cumulative
impact of its thermal discharge together with all other significant impacts on the species affected,
will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous community of shellfish, fish
and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is to be made,
(b) In determining whether or not the protection and propagation of the affected species will be
assuredy the Director may consider any information contrained or referenced in any applicable ther-
mal water quality criteria and thermal water quality information published by the Administrator
under section 304(a) of the Act, or any other information he deems relevant.

Page 2
40 CFR 125.73
(c) (1) Existing dischargers may base their demonstration upon the absence of prior appreciable
harm in lieu of predictive studies, Any such demonstrations shall show:
(i)That no appreciable halve has resulted from the normal component of the discharge(taking
into account the interaction of such thermal component with other pollutants and the additive effect
of other thermal sources to a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and
on the body of water into which the discharge has been made; or
(ii)That despite the occurrence of such previous harm, the desired alternative effluent,limita-
tions (or appropriate modifications thereof) will nevertheless assure the protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into
which the discharge is made,
(2) In determining whether or not prior appreciable harm has occurred, the Director shall con-
sider the length of time in which the applicant has been discharging and the nature of the discharge.
HISTORY: [44 FR 32948, June 7, 1979]
AUTHORITY: AUTHORITY NOTE APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE PART:
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq,

Appendix
F
April 2012 316(a) Study Plan
(Approved)

evergreen., Comm office
packaging 175 Mora S3reei•Canton, PVC 29716
PSD 29-12
12 April 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL
Tom Belnick RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Supervisor,Complex NPDES Permitting Unit 7008 3230 0002 2591 1649
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Services Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: 316(a)Study Plan—Revised for DWQ ESS Comments
NPDES Permit NC0000272
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.
Canton Mill
Dear Mr.Belnick—
Enclosed are two copies of the 316(a)Study Plan required by Part I Condition A.(12.)of the subject
permit. This is a revised plan incorporating comments from the Division of Water Quality(DWQ),
Environmental Sciences Section(ESS)dated April 2,2012 and forwarded to us for evaluation.
Representatives of the ESS discussed their comments with the 316(a)Project Team during the March 20,
2012 laboratory certification visit to the University of Tennessee Department of Forestry, Wildlife and
Fisheries in Knoxville.
We understand that EPA Region IV on March 28,2012 provided an e-mail stating"no comments"on the
316(a)Study Plan submitted in February 2012. We request DWQ formal approval of this revised 316(a)
Study Plan dated April 2012. Field work is scheduled to begin this quarter.
Very truly yours,
BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS INC.
DOING BUSINESS AS EVERGREEN PACKAGING
Paul Dickens Nick McCracken
Manager—Environmental Affairs Water Compliance Coordinator
828-646-6141 828-646-2874
[e-mail] nick.mccracken@eve!pack.com
Enclosure: Revised 316(a)Study Plan—April 2012
i
i
cc(w/enclosure): DWQ ARO
316(a)Study Team
Internal Distribution fresh by design.
DWrig easiness in Canbmia m Evergreen Beverage Poo i o g

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
f� ) Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
Part I A.(12.) of the May 2010 NPDES Permit(the Permit) is the special condition for review of
316(a) alternative thermal limits and states:
Blue Ridge Paper shall complete an analysis of temperature, including thermal modeling
and shall submit a balanced and indigenous species study, no later than 180 days prior
to permit expiration date. As part of this analysis, Blue Ridge Paper shall submit a
complete temperature variance report documenting the need for a continued temperature
variance. The temperature delta of 8.5 deg C can be adjusted based on the results of the
BIP[sic, balanced and indigenous population]thermal modeling.
The study shall be performed in accordance with the Division of Water Quality approved
plan. The temperature analysis and the balanced and indigenous study plan shall
conform to the specifications outlined in 40 CFR 125 Subpart H and the EPA's Draft
316a Guidance Manual, dated 1977. The EPA shall be provided an.opportunity to
review the plan prior to commencement of the study.
This document is the proposed 316(a) Study Plan. Blue Ridge Paper Products (Blue Ridge,
} BRPP) dba Evergreen Packaging contracted with the University Of Tennessee,Knoxville
Department of Forestry; Wildlife and Fisheries(UTK)to prepare the Plan. Key project
personnel and consultants include Dr.Larry Wilson,Dr. Chuck Coutant,Dr.John Tyner and Dr.
David Etnier. UTK performed the May 2006 316(a)Demonstration submitted in support of the
application for the current Permit. They also manage the Pigeon River Restoration Project
(PRRP)—a nationally recognized,multi-agency and multi-state project restoring non-game fish
species in the Pigeon River. The success of the PRRP was made possible, in part,by the
improvements in water quality in the Pigeon River.
UTK will perform biological field sampling,thermal field monitoring, thermal modeling, and
data analysis for the 316(a)Demonstration due in December 2014 at the time the application to
} renew the Permit is submitted. Field work for the 316(a) Demonstration is scheduled for the
Page 1

April 2012 - 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
1 Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
summer of 2012 with the summer of 2013 as contingency if river conditions in 2012 do not
allow safe access for field sampling. The 316(a) Study Plan addresses comments in the
February 22, 2010 EPA letter objecting to the November 2009 draft NPDES permit for the
Canton Mill issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The Study Plan
also addresses the May 9,2011 findings of the EPA Inspector General concerning EPA oversight
of 316(a) alternative effluent limits in permits issued by the DWQ.
The Study Plan builds on extensive knowledge of and-experience with the Pigeon River
developed by BRPP, UTK and others during previous 316(a)field studies in 1995, 2000 and
r 2005 and in the 10-year history of the PRRP. Scientists with the DWQ Environmental Sciences
`f Section(ESS)were consulted for advice on reference streams,monitoring techniques and
laboratory certification during preparation of the Plan. Field sampling methods will match the
level of effort used in previous 316(a) study work to provide consistent trends and data
comparison between studies. UTK will also employ streamlined rapid bio-assessment methods
developed by the DWQ ESS for correlation with previous 316(s) studies and for benchmarking
against North Carolina metrics for biological integrity.
The overall goal of this 316(a) Study Plan is demonstration that existing thermal management
practices of the Canton Mill are protective of the aquatic environment in the Pigeon River.
Approval of this plan by the DWQ in consultation with EPA Region IV is requested no later than
May 2012 so that field work scheduled for summer of 2012 can proceed. The detailed plan
prepared by UTK follows.
Page 2

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
✓ Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
Study Plan for Blue Ridge Paper Products'2014 316(a)Thermal Discharge Demonstration
OUTLINE:
Introduction
Section A:General Description
1.Temperature Measurement and Modeling
2.Biological Sampling and Analyses
3.BIP Demonstration
Section B:Detailed Study Plan
1.Temperature Measurement and Modeling
a. Data collection
b.Temperature model calibration and verification
c.Thermal plume characterization
2. Biological Sampling and Analyses
\ a. Fish
b. Macro-invertebrates/shellfish
c. Periphyton
d.Wildlife
Section C:Certification and Permitting
Figures
Project Team
References
Copy of Enclosure to February 22,2010 EPA letter with requirements for 316(a)Study Plan
Copy of April 2,2012 NC DWQ ESS memorandum with comments on Feb 2012 Study Plan
Introduction
An application for a renewed NPDES permit for the Blue Ridge Mill at Canton, North Carolina will
request alternative limits from otherwise applicable water quality,standards fortemperature forthe
Pigeon River downstream of the mill. The request is made in accordance with Section 316(a)of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,as amended (Clean Water Act);its implementing regulations in 40
CFR Part 125,Subpart H; EPA's Guidance(Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance Manual and Guide for
/ Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities EnvironmentallmpactStatements, 1977);and key
administrative and judicial precedents.
Page 3

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
To obtain such alternative limits, Blue Ridge is required to demonstrate that the proposed limits will
"assure the projection [sic; protection] and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population ["BIP"]of
shellfish,fish,and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is to be made" (Section
316(a)Clean WaterAct). Section 316(a) alternative thermal limits have been issued for the Blue Ridge
mill previously.This demonstration is for a renewal for an existing discharge.
As an existing discharger,the Blue Ridge Mill will follow a retrospective demonstration that is based on
"the absence of prior appreciable harm"•in the recent past(125.73(c)(1)),augmented with data from
laboratory and field studies from the scientific literature that are normally used for predictive
demonstrations. Because the Pigeon River was historically affected by both point and non-point
pollution sources (largely chemical and sediment, but also thermal),the application will show that
"despite the occurrence of such previous harm,the desired alternative effluent limitations (oY_ .
appropriate modifications thereof)will nevertheless assure the protection and propagation of[the BIP]"
(125.73(c)(1)(H). Historical studies of the river will be used to track the trend of improving biological
conditions under the prevailing effluent limitations (in accord with the importance of trends established
by the Environmental Appeals board decision in In Re:Dominion Energy Brayton Point LLC, 12
Environmental Appeals Decision(E.A.D.)490(2006).
r Renewal applications generally require"only such information described in paragraphs(a)and (b)of this
section"[125.72] and in 124.73(c)(1) "as the Director requests within 60 days after receipt of the permit
application" (Subpart H, 125.72(c)). We have taken the enclosure to the February 22, 2010 letter from
James G. Giattina, EPA Region 4,to Coleen H.Sullins, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources,as direction for the content of the updated 316(a)study. That enclosure is
incorporated by reference and included at the end of this plan.
In preparing this study plan, Blue Ridge and UTK were cognizant of EPA's caution against overly
extensive field studies (EPA Guidance,Section 2.1.3):
The net result of this combination of situations is that[companies with thermal discharges]have often
embarked, without benefit of appropriate screening or pilot studies„on large-scale, expensive,
inappropriate studies which supply massive amounts of raw data but are not necessarily helpful to
regulatory agencies in decision-making.
The decision train suggested by this manual encourages the utility to conduct preliminary pilot or
screening procedures to determine how detailed the baseline biotic community studies should
be. [A]n emphasis has been placed upon identifying those types of information most relevant for
decision making and for deleting data requirements which have been found to be of little use in
past 316(a)decisions.
To meet the standards of proof established by the assessment guidelines and subsequent legal
interpretations,the assessments in this demonstration will seek to provide reasonable assurance of
their conclusions by using the best information reasonably attainable,the best methods reasonably
(� available(generally accepted practice, results of studies),and multiple lines of evidence.
Page 4

April 2012 = 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
This study plan describes the method by which Blue Ridge proposes to demonstrate that the otherwise
applicable thermal discharge effluent limitations are more stringent than necessary(ref.40 CFR Part
125,Subpart H,125.72(a)(2)).Section A below is a brief summary that provides the general information
required for early screening of applications.(125.72(a));Section B provides the"detailed study plan"
(125.72(b))for(1)thermal measurement and modeling,and (2) biological sampling.
Section A:General Description
The study and analyses will consist of three main components:(1)temperature measurement and
modeling that will characterize the temperature changes caused by the thermal discharge, (2) biological
sampling and analysis that will demonstrate the protectiveness of the proposed alternative limits,and
.(3)the"Demonstration"that integrates the thermal and biological data with information from the
scientific literature in a manner that specifically addresses the criteria for a BIP that are itemized in 40
CFR 125.71(c),Subpart H, EPA's Guidance Manual;administrative and judicial precedents;and the
February 22,2010 letter from J. G.Giattina of EPA referenced above. As stipulated in EPA's guidance
manual,the demonstration will be summarized in a "Master Rationale"supporting the alternative
effluent limitations.
The primary region of study is the Pigeon River from immediately upstream of Canton, North Carolina
(River Mile, PRM 64.5), to the upstream extent of the reservoir(Waterville Lake; PRM 42.6)formed by
Walters Dam (Figure 1;see Section B,Task 2 for list of biological sampling sites on Pigeon and
tributaries). This corresponds to the"primary study area"described in the EPA Guidance Manual
(Section 4, page 78). Heat balance of the reservoir obliterates the influence of the Canton Mill on
temperatures there and farther downstream (thus,there is no"far field study area"; EPA Guidance,
page 76). Additional sampling sites will be determined, including locations farther upstream on the
Pigeon River and its main tributaries,and also on a nearby'reference'river of comparable basin
morphology,as suggested by EPA on the basis of the Brayton appeal decision (Giattina February 22,
2010 letter). The reference stream will be the Swannanoa River in the French Broad River Basin in
Buncombe County, North Carolina(Figure 2: Reference river temperature and biological sampling
stations).
1. Temperature measurement and modeling
Temperature monitors will be placed in the Pigeon River and its major tributaries upstream and
downstream of the Blue Ridge thermal discharge in periods representing summer and winter conditions;
they will be placed at similar locations as in the 2005 study(see list below). Monitors will also be placed
in a reference river comparable to the reach of the Pigeon River influenced by the mill. The Swannanoa
River in North Carolina has been designated as the reference river. The Swannanoa is in the French
Broad river basin, has similar headwater elevation and gradient characteristics as the Pigeon River,and
has a similar pattern of land use and development.
Thermal sampling locations on the Pigeon River(PRM)and the Swannanoa River(SRM) are as follows:
Page 5

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan .
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canyon,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
River Mile Location
PRM 64.5 Above Mill
PRM 63.3 Mill Outfall
PRM 63.2 Railroad Bridge below Outfall
PRM63.15 CampCreek-Tributary
PRM 63.0 Fiberville Bridge
PRM 62.9 Beaver Dam Creek-Tributary
PRM 62.5 Pump Station
PRM 61.0 DO Station-Thickety
PRM 59.0 Above Clyde
PRM55.5 HyderMountain-Below Clyde
PRM 54.9 Richland Creek-Tributary
PRM 53.5 RiverView
PRM49.8 CrabtreeCreek-Tributary
PRM'46.0 Jonathan Creek -Tributary
PRM 45.1 Hepco Gage
PRM 42.7 Fines Creek -Tributary
PRM 42.6 Hepco Bridge
PRM 25.2 Waterville
PRM 22.0 Trail Hollow-Hartford
PRM19.3 Bluffton'
SRM 11.3 Warren Wilson College
SRM 1.6 Exit 50 at 1-40
Hydrographic and meteorological data for the Pigeon River and vicinity will be obtained. The US
Geological Survey's flow monitoring stations,the Canton Mill meteorological station,and the National
Weather Service's regional weather monitoring stations will be used,as appropriate.
The measured temperatures, hydrographic data, and meteorological data will be used to update a one-
dimensional thermal model of the Pigeon River from upstream of the mill to Waterville Lake(aka
Walters Lake). The thermal model developed for the 2006 316(a)demonstration will be updated with
temperature and river flow data from 2005-2011,available from Blue Ridge NPDES permit monitoring in
the study reach,as well as the detailed temperature monitors deployed in 2012. The calibrated and
verified model will then be used to characterize the temperature profile downstream of the mill's
discharge at different river flows and without thermal additions by the mill (allowing calculation of the.
difference in temperature with and without the mill,or the delta-T,at points downstream).
The physical size and shape of the thermal plume (mixing zone)from the mill's outfall will be
characterized between the discharge point and the established compliance monitoring station at the
Fiberville Bridge (0.4 mi downstream from the discharge). A grid pattern will be used to measure water
temperatures horizontally and vertically at representative river flows. Grids farther downstream maybe
Page 6

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
used, if needed,to characterize the thermal plume beyond Fiberville Bridge. The data will be used to
parameterize a thermal plume dispersion model,which would be applied at different river flows.
For detailed thermal study plans,see Section B.I.
2.Biological Sampling and Analyses
Biological sampling of all trophic levels will be conducted at representative sampling stations along the
length of the Pigeon River(Figure 1) and the Swannanoa River reference stream(Figure 2). The biotic
community of both rivers will be characterized to demonstrate"diversity,the capacity to sustain itself
through seasonal changes, presence of necessary food chain species, and...a lack of domination by
pollution tolerant species" (Subpart H, 125.71(c)). The trophic levels include phytoplankton,periphyton,
zooplankton, benthic macro-invertebrates/shellfish,fish,and wildlife (encompassing the full"shellfish,
fish and wildlife"criteria of Section 316(a)of the Clean Water Act).
Sampling protocols will include those used in'previous 316(a) biological sampling and standardized
sampling techniques used by NC DENR and EPA. Use of multiple protocols will allow comparison
between monitoring by NC DENR and this study team. Protocols for surveying biotic groups not
sampled in the 2005 sampling(periphyton, phytoplankton, zooplankton,wildlife)will be developed in
consultation with NC DENR and recognized experts. Sampling will be guided by the known potential
impacts of added heat and elevated temperatures in rivers of comparable size to the Pigeon. In accord
with the EPA guidelines for small rivers,the phytoplankton,zooplankton,and wildlife biotic categories
will sampled and evaluated briefly as Low Potential Impact categories (see further discussion below).
Attention will be paid to collecting data that relate specifically to the criteria that define a balanced,
indigenous community and to other decision criteria specified in EPA Guidance and administrative and
judicial decisions. See Section 3,below.
Despite focus on "indigenous species",the community will necessarily contain "historically non-native
species introduced in connection with a program of wildlife management and species whose presence
or abundance results from substantial,irreversible environmental modifications." (Subpart H,125.71(c)).
"Wildlife management' has included a major program of re-introduction of species common to similar
nearby rivers (to re-populate the reach historically affected by point and non-point sources) and
stocking of non-native game species. Some historically non-native species occur or are abundant due to
basin-wide agriculture, urbanization, and upstream impoundments. These will be identified in sampling
of the Pigeon River upstream of the mill. The community will be evaluated for"species whose presence
or abundance is attributed to the introduction of pollutants that will be eliminated by compliance"with
the Clean Water Act or"species whose presence or abundance is attributable to alternate effluent
limitations imposed pursuant to section 316(a)."'(Subpart H, 125.71(c)). Such species will be identified
and included in the analyses.
Diversity of the aquatic community will be evaluated to ensure that all trophic levels present in the
unaffected portion of the river are present in the heat-affected portions. Diversity will be quantified by
use of several scientific diversity indices in common use in aquatic ecology at national and international
levels. Indices commonly used by NC DENR and EPA will be calculated.
Page 7

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
The capacity to sustain itself through cyclical seasonal changes will be evaluated by conducting the
majority of sampling in late summer. This sampling time is currently favored(despite 1977 EPA
guidance to sample year-around)because it occurs at the end of the extreme warmest period when
community instability might be identified,and it allows identification of year-around survival and
reproduction by collecting juveniles of most species. Sampling through the year would be redundant
and constitute an unacceptable loss of aquatic.life. Additionally, because of higher river flows during
winter and spring,field data collection in these periods is more difficult and can risk field personnel
safety..
The presence of necessary food chain species will be identified by sampling of periphyton, benthic
invertebrates/shellfish, and juvenile fish that make up much of the riverine food web. High species
diversity and abundance of known food items will be indicators,of a healthy food web. EPA Guidance
specifically cautions against extremely detailed food chain analyses.
Dominance by any species especially tolerant of high temperatures will be looked for in all biological
community data. NC ratings of pollution tolerance and the scientific literature will be used as indicators.
Factors other than increased temperature that may cause changes in community assemblages in the
Pigeon River will be identified including impoundments, land use,stream habitat, other NPDES-
permitted discharges, non-point discharges, and sites of reproduction upstream of the thermal
discharge.
Although Representative Important Species (RIS)will be selected in consultation with NC DENR and EPA,
most of the biological sampling and community analyses will be comprehensive and include all species
amenable to sampling. Some special sampling will be undertaken to locate and evaluate RIS species,if
they are not adequately represented in the normal community-wide sampling protocols.
1
Statistical similarity analyses will be conducted between aquatic communities in the Pigeon River and
reference stream (Swannanoa River)to determine if the communities are significantly different(will
include indigenous and non-indigenous species).
For detailed biological sampling plans,see Section B.2.
3. BIP Demonstration
The Demonstration will briefly describe the regulatory history of the Blue Ridge Mill thermal discharge.
It will update the history presented in the 2006 permit application.
Renewal applications such as this one generally include specific consideration of any changes in
conditions from the previously granted alternative limits. The demonstration will discuss the criteria
commonly used to evaluate a Section 316(a) Permit renewal,as opposed to a new Demonstration,
which are:
• Whether the nature of the thermal discharge has changed from the previous Application;
• Whether the nature of the aquatic community has changed from the previous Application;
Page 8

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
,- Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
• Whether the best scientific methods to assess the effects of the thermal discharge have
changed from the previous Application;
• Whether the technical knowledge of stresses caused by the thermal discharge has changed;and,
• Whether the requirements of the current NPDES Permit have assured the protection and.
propagation of a balanced indigenous population.
The alternative effluent limitations proposed by Blue Ridge will be.presented in the Demonstration.
Because the study will be carried out under existing effluent limitations,the planned alternative (to
water quality standards)will be the limitations of the existing permit under which the temperature
regimes and biotic community have existed. These limits may be adjusted as result of the
Demonstration. The Demonstration will be a combined predictive and retrospective demonstration.
This is often referred tows an "Other Type III"demonstration as described in EPA Guidance(Section 3.7).
This is the most commonly used demonstration type for existing facilities.
The Demonstration will include both a listing and discussion of Representative Important Species(RIS).
The RIS,selected in coordination with the NCDWQ for previous 316(a)studies,were:
• Rock bass (pool-dwelling panfish important to anglers)
• Shiners (as a group;non-tolerant [intermediate or intolerant] pelagic to benthic insectivores)
• Redbreast sunfish (pool-dwelling panfish important to anglers; non-native)
• Central stoneroller(herbivore)
• Smallmouth bass (most common game fish important for anglers)
• Northern hog sucker(thermally sensitive bottom-feeding insectivore)
• Black redhorse(thermally sensitive bottom-feeding insectivore)
• Darters (as a group;diverse bottom-dwelling insectivores)
• Common carp(thermally tolerant and potential nuisance; non-native)
• River chub(pelagic omnivore;native)
• Mottled sculpin (bottom-dwelling insectivore;native)
• Banded sculpin (bottom-dwelling insectivore;native)
With this study plan, Blue Ridge requests NC DENR concurrence with this RIS list and comments on any
additions or deletions for the planned study.
The Demonstration will specifically address the elements in (1)the definition of a BIP in 40 CFR Part 125,
Subpart H;(2)EPA's Guidance(Interagency 316(a)Technical Guidance Manual and Guide for Thermal
Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements, 1977);and (3) key administrative
and judicial precedents. These are:
• Trophic levels ("biotic categories"as per EPA guidance document), including plankton,
periphyton, macro-invertebrates/shellfish,'fish,and wildlife.
• Diversity
• Capability to sustain itself through cyclical seasonal changes
• Presence of necessary food-chain species
• Lack of domination by pollutant-tolerant species.
Page 9

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc, dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit-No.NC0000272
Indigenous species increase or decrease
• Threatened or endangered (T&E)species(federal and state)status,increase or decrease
• RIS,T&E, and other prominent species list,justification and detailed description, (historical and
current geographic distribution; history in the study area;thermal tolerance data.(heat and cold
shock);temperatures for growth,development and reproduction; relative contribution to the
community; pollution tolerance; nuisance status)focused on demonstration that they will be
protected by the alternative thermal limits
Critical function zones (resource zones)
• Habitat exclusion
• Thermal effects on"unique or rare habitat"
• Habitat former alterations
• Trends in the aquatic community since studies began in the 1980s, particularly the increasing
habitat suitability for reintroduced species under the current thermal limits
• Nuisance species abundance
• Zone of passage around the thermal plume under normal and worst-case conditions for fish,
zooplankton and invertebrates
• Change in commercial or sport fisheries
• Magnitude and duration of any identifiable thermal effect
• Sub-lethal or indirect impacts
• Interaction of the thermal discharge with other pollutants, using an inventory of NPDES permits
in the basin and general land use observations
• The degree to which the present community of the Pigeon River downstream of the thermal
discharge resembles the community that would have been there without the discharge.
The EPA Guidance provides for identification of certain biotic categories as"Low Potential Impact."For
example (EPA Guidance,Section 2.1.2):
In the course of the development of this draft, it became apparent to many working group
members that early screening procedures by industry or their consultants could sometimes
reveal those types of information which would not be necessary to gather in great detail at some
sites. If initial pilot field surveys and,literature surveys revealed that the site was one of low
potential impactfor phytoplankton,for example,it would be unnecessary to conduct detailed
studies to give the taxonomic identification of every species of phytoplankton in the'vicinity.
Rivers, in particular,were cited by EPA Guidance as being low potential impact for phytoplankton(EPA
Guidance,Section 3.5.6.1):
Many water bodies,such as the majority of rivers and streams, can be classified as 'low potential
impact areas'for phytoplankton, and relatively little information is necessary fora 316(a)
demonstration.Nevertheless, more detailed information may be necessary in some instances if
phytoplankton is a substantial component of food chains supporting the balanced indigenous
population or if the thermal discharge is likely to cause a shift towards nuisance species.
The zooplankton biotic category of small rivers is generally"characterized by low concentrations of
commercially important species, rare and endangered species,and/or those forms that,are important
Page 10

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
components of the food web.."and is thus appropriately designated Low Potential Impact(EPA
Guidance Section 3.3.2.2). The Guidance states:
If preliminary 316(a)studies[of zooplankton]indicate that the area is one of low potential
impact, no further 316(a)studies are necessary. In this case, the applicant need provide only a
narrative discussion justifying the conclusion that the area is one of low potential impact.
Wildlife biotic category is also generally considered low potential impact(EPA Guidance Section
3.5.6.1.6):
Data will be required in relatively few cases in this biotic category. In those cases where data is
required, the type of data needed is decided by the applicant. The data selected should be the
least amount of data necessary to complete this section of the demonstration.
Further,the guidance provides examples of what did cause the regulatory agencies' concerns for the
wildlife biotic category,which include warm zones.in"cold areas (such as North Central United States)
which would be predicted to attract ducks and geese,and encourage them to stay through the winter"
and "those few sites where the discharge might affect important(or threatened and endangered)
wildlife such as manatees." Western North Carolina is not on a migratory flyway and so migratory ducks
and geese are not abundant in the Pigeon River,including Waterville Lake. Threatened wildlife such as
the manatee is not found there.
It is anticipated, based on EPA guidance and previous studies of the Pigeon River,that phytoplankton,
zooplankton and wildlife will be presented and justified as low potential impact.
In accord with the recent Brayton Point Environmental Appeals Board decision (noted above),the
Demonstration will emphasize the increasing trend in habitat suitability for the indigenous species. The
Brayton Point decision made a strong point that the trend in community composition mattered in
establishing alternative thermal limitations on the discharge. At the Brayton Point Power Plant,the
trend for many native species was downward,with some of the downward trend attributed by EPA
Region 1 to the thermal discharge under its existing permit. In the Pigeon River, however,a notable
trend toward improvement(recovery)in native species under the existing thermal limits and permit is
evident in the biological data from previous BIP studies. Evidence for this continued improvement will
be collected and.discussed.
A Master Rationale will integrate and summarize the thermal and biological information that supports
the proposed alternative effluent limitations.
Section B:Detailed Study Plans
Task 1-Thermal:Update the Previously Developed Temperature Model and Low Flow Statistics
A temperature model was previously developed for the discharge of the Blue Ridge Paper Products
(BRPP)Canton Mill to the Pigeon River(Tyner, 2006). Model calibration was based upon data collected
by mill personnel for the 5-year period 2001-2005. Additional verification of the die]temperature range
Page 11

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
was provided by the deployment of hourly recording thermographs at 22 Pigeon River locations during
the summer of 2005. As part of the 2012-2013 updated 316(a)Thermal Model Study,the temperature
model will be further verified by making comparisons between model predictions and more recent
temperature data collected by mill personnel and deployed thermographs.
Pigeon River temperature data collected by mill personnel since 2005 include daily values at Canton,
Fiberville and Clyde,and weekly values at HEPCO (Figure 1). Additional temperature data will be
obtained by deploying approximately 22 hourly recording thermographs (Hobo Pendant
Temperature/Light Data Logger Model8K-UA-002-08),which will be deployed for a 4-6 week period
during July and August 2012,and also another 4-6 week period during the following January and
February 2013. The thermographs will be deployed at the same Pigeon River locations as sampled.in the
2005 study;there will be at least two thermal sampling sites above the mill outfall added to the 2012-
2013 study. Most thermal sampling sites will coincide with the biological survey stations at specific
locations from PRM 69.5 (above the mill)to PRM 19.3 (below the mill);thermographs will also be
deployed during both thermal sampling periods at the mouth of contributing tributaries,the mill outfall,
and at selected sites on the reference river.
The model calculates at an hourly time step using meteorological data for surface heat exchange. Data
on air temperature,wind speed,relative humidity,solar radiation data and measured flow from the mill
outfall and the USGS gauging stations at Canton and HEPCO are used for calibration. The Pigeon River
temperature model will be re-calibrated as necessary using the high intensity summer 2012 thermal
data set. It will then be validated using the long-term (2005-2012)data collected by mill personnel. The
50th and 90th percentile of modeled temperature error will be calculated and presented.
There-verified Pigeon River temperature model will be used in support of the 2014 316(a)
Demonstration. Year-long model run outputs can be summarized as daily/weekly mean temperatures
or other intervals of interest as a function of season. Worst-case mill discharge or receiving water
conditions can also be presented.
To investigate the mixing and dispersion of the heat plume exiting the mill outfall (PRM63.3),two
thermal cross-sections (at the railroad crossing just beneath the outfall (PRM 63.2)and at the Fiberville
bridge (PRM 63.0)will be collected on both a relatively low river flow day and a moderate river flow day.
The cross sections will be sampled approximately every 0.3 m by 0.3 m in a pattern shown by the figure
below. Results of the four cross sections (railroad low and moderate flow,and Fiberville bridge low and
moderate flow)will be contoured and the results will be discussed..
Page 12

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
1
......................_...—.._.._.. ........................_...........,_....................................,...
I
I 1 ;
Task 2—Biological:Conduct Biological Surveys to Support a Continuation of the Mill Thermal Variance
During May through September 2012, UTK will intensively survey fish and macro-invertebrates/shellfish
at 20 stations on the Pigeon River and in selected tributaries in North Carolina (18 stations)and
Tennessee (2 stations). At least two (2)sites on the Swannanoa River in North Carolina will be sampled
in the same manner as Pigeon River stations. Periphyton sampling will be conducted at all stations using
EPA rapid bio-assessment methods (Barbour et al. 1999). Phytoplankton, zooplankton,and wildlife will
be sampled less intensively to document low abundance. River mile (PRM) refers to distance upstream
of the confluence of the Pigeon River with the French Broad River in Tennessee;SRM refers to distance
upstream of the confluence of the Swannanoa with the French Broad River in North Carolina. New
stations added to the 2005 Pigeon River sample site list are indicated by an asterisk(*).
River Mile Location
WFPRM 6.6 Lake Logan*
WFPRM 3.6 West Fork Pigeon River*
EFPRM 3.5 East Fork Pigeon River*
PRM 69.5 Below confluence EFLR/WFLR*
PRM 64.5/64.9 Upstream of mill (expanded*from 2005)
PRM 63.0 Fiberville
PRM 61.0 D.O. augmentation station (Thickety)
PRM 59.0 Upstream of Clyde
PRM 57.7 Charles St Bridge/Clyde*
PRM 55.5 Downstream of Clyde
PRM Trib Richland Creek(PR confluence at PRM 54.9)
PRM 54.5 Downstream of Waynesville WWTP
PRM 52.3 Old Rt 209/Golf Course
PRM Trib Crabtree Creek(PR confluence at PRM 49.8)
PRM 48.2 Ferguson Bridge
PRM Trib Jonathan Creek(PR confluence at PRM 46.0)
PRM 45.3 HEPCO Gauging Station*
Page 13

Apri1 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
PRM Trib Fines Creek(PR confluence at PRM 42.7)
PRM 24.7 Waterville(TN)
PRM 19.3 Groundhog Creek-Bluffton (TN)
SRM 11.3 Warren Wilson College
SRM 1.6 Exit 50 at 1-40
Stream fish and macro-invertebrate sampling protocols at the above sampling stations will be
comparable to those used during the 2005 data collections and also will follow prescribed SOPS
consistent with NC DENR sampling guidelines (NCDENR 2006a,2006b). Mussels/shellfish will also be
targeted species in the mainstem reaches. Special attention will be directed to the determination of the
presence of two Threatened and Endangered mussel species,Appalachian Elktoe(Alasmidonta
raveneliana)and the Wavyrayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola),which have been observed in the river
since the last 316(a) demonstration. Periphyton sampling will be conducted at all stations using EPA
rapid bioassessment methods(Barbour et al. 1999). The field-based rapid periphyton survey provides
semi-quantitative assessments of benthic algal biomass and coarse-level taxonomic composition (e.g.,
diatoms,filamentous green algae, blue-green algae)using a viewing bucket marked with a grid and
biomass scoring system. The primary advantage of using this technique is that it allows rapid
assessment of algal biomass over a large area. The attached riverweed Podestomum has been
demonstrated to 6e: (1)an important mechanism in the promotion of macro-invertebrate biomass,
abundance,and species richness,and (2)a positive influence on the abundance of several fish,including
the banded darter, Etheostoma zonale(Etnier and Starnes, 1993; Rohde et al.,2009). The distribution
and abundance of Podostemum in the Pigeon River upstream and downstream of them![]will be
surveyed and compared, including possible causes for any observed differential in location and/or
amount of vegetation present. The potamoplankton, i.e.,unattached phytoplankton and zooplankton,
will be sampled less intensively to document low abundance. We will obtain information from NC
Wildlife personnel who work in the Pigeon River watershed,as well as Study.Team observations,to
document wildlife abundance and river usage.
Detailed studies will be restricted to fish,macro-invertebrates/shellfish,and habitat evaluation and will
include measurements of routinely collected field physical/chemical parameters [i.e.,temperature,DO,
conductivity,and water turbidity(NTUs)]. Follow-up sampling may be conducted in 2013,if necessary,
to fill any gaps in the data,or to repeat the sample if necessary.
Task 3—Prepare a 316(a)Demonstration Report(BIP Demonstration)
Based on the field data collected during Tasks 1 and 2,the results of the temperature model(Task 1),an
updated review of the thermal tolerance literature,and any other applicable data (e.g., NC DENR data,
Progress Energy data),UTK will prepare an updated 316(a) Demonstration Report(i.e.,"Balanced
Indigenous" Report). This report will address the central question posed by§316(a)of the Clean Water
Act, i.e., does the existing thermal discharge allow for the maintenance or establishment of the balanced
indigenous population (community)of aquatic organisms that would have been there without the mill.
We will use the May 2006 successful 316(a) Demonstration as a template for the 2014 submittal.
Page 14

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
Section C.Certification and Permitting
UTK has begun the process of securing"Certified Laboratory'status,which should be in place priorto
commencement of the field sampling(May 2012). The certification visit by the DWQ ESS occurred on
March 20,2012. Required references for certification in 'fish'and 'benthic macro-invertebrates' have
been obtained for use during the project. The EPA Rapid Assessment Protocol(Barbour et al., 1999)has
been obtained and will be used for periphyton sampling and identification. North Carolina and.
Tennessee collection permits for targeted species have been applied for from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission-Division of Inland Fisheries,and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency.
Page 15

.,ril 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
--_ Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
J. Larry Wilson, PhD
Fisheries Scientist and Professor
Dept of Forestry,Wildlife and Fisheries
Institute of Agriculture
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
865-474-7982
[e-mail]
Enclosures
Figures
Figure 1—Pigeon River Biological and Thermal Sampling Stations
Figure 2—Reference Stream (Swannanoa River) Biological and Thermal Sampling Stations
Project Team
References
Copy of Enclosure to February 22,2010 EPA letter with requirements for 316(a)Study Plan
Copy of April 2,2012 memorandum from the North Carolina Division of Water-Quality, Environmental
Sciences Section (ESS)concerning review of the February 2012 316(a)Study Plan
The ESS concurred with the study plan offering four(4)comments. These comments were
discussed with UTK project team members during March 20,2012 laboratory certification visit
by the ESS and are incorporated into this April 2012 Study Plan.
Page 16

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
Neiiport 'Alt\ I}IRM 1101N
TLNNC,45EP
NORTH CAROLINA
PoaRIm,IR\I WA)
HMtICed . HI'DROPOWER
PACILM'
N atenxk lx\I El.t1 • STREAM
(..b\('reek MONITORING
L(%ATION
11,d....er Fi.ea C,.k
Bit('reek Innnrl
waln,)w
lake
Rw.lock IRN�:'
lonad��n +nrF Ixtl M•iti
Ilrp.IR\I J3Jr
`� }"er2.mn&iJ.e1R\Ill:
L ul((xu�x lRtl9.11` (mbew(rcrFlxM rvd�
N el pe•��pe ``'� Crabl Crwk
NU'TP IRN N.51 _ FI+�, lbw Ml+IFtI
leaatlJm tract � Canton
Nirbbmd heel lRN VvI' ,� �� ~L•..
(title IRN K.A � lM1i�h+ 8el..w(a.xnrurr il(ll.
RnJ.e
Rkht.id Creek N.I«ri.Yi¢r,•n
Ix\u.1
N.r.d rw.
lak. '.'
I<N c M
Wlm York Pienl.Ricer L.,(h+rk Pipe.R Ricer
Yrepaml b}:)livn Hnddksl+w
Figure 1—Pigeon River Biological and Thermal Sampling Stations
Page 17

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
wa
13
Asheville
• i�H\Ili p
�6N
LEGEND
• %emam Monitoring Locations
fig ❑ IandmarL
9B
kU
NORTH CAROLM
Figure 2—Reference Stream (Swannanoa River) Biological and Thermal Sampling Stations
Page 18

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
Team List:Pigeon River 316a Study Plan
UTK Proposal: 02/01/2012
Project Leader.
Dr.Larry Wilson,Professor,Fisheries/Aquatic Biology
Forestry,Wildlife and Fisheries,University of Tennessee,Knoxville(UTK)
Data Collection/Analysis Crew:
Joyce Coombs,Research Associate II
Phillip Harnage,M.S. candidate,Macro-invertebrate/fish sampling&monitoring
Justin Wolbert,M.S.candidate,stream collections/monitoring
TBD,M.S.candidate,stream collections/monitoring
Michael Gaugler,Ph.D. candidate,Habitat evaluation/assessment.
Melinda Bousfield,Ph.D.candidate,Macro-invertebrate monitoring&assessment
Keith Garner,B.S.graduate,stream collections/equipment maintenance
Other UTK Personnel:
Dr.John Tyner,Associate Professor,Water Resources (thermal modeling,oxygen sag)
Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science
Dr.Ted Henry,Adjunct Assistant Professor,Environmental toxicology(tissue analysis and
tox screen),Center for Environmental Biotechnology/Forestry,Wildlife&Fisheries
Dr.Misty Huddleston,recent graduate (Dec 2011),AquAeTer,Inc.,Macro-invertebrate
taxonomy,data collection and analysis
Other Agency Personnel:
Dr.Ray Albright,Adjunct Professor,Water resource inventory/monitoring(oxygen model)
National Park Service(Adjunct with FWF)
Project Collaborators:
Dr. Chuck Coutant,Distinguished Research Ecologist(316a thermal studies)
Environmental Sciences Division,ORNL(retired)
Dr.David Emier,Emeritus Professor, fish/invertebrate taxonomy and distribution(aquatic
resources inventory),Ecology and Evolutionary Biology(retired)
Mr.Steve Ahlstedt,mussel taxonomy and distribution,US Geological Service(retired)
Dr.John Wojtowicz,chironomid taxonomy/ID
Dr.DeeDee Kathman,TDOT Environmental Division,oligochaete taxonomy/ID
Dr.Todd Askegaard,TDOT Aquatic Resources Center,oligochaete taxonomy/lD
Page 19

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
REFERENCES
Adams,S. M.,A. Brown,and R.Goede. 1993.A quantitative health assessment index for rapid
evaluation of fish condition in the field.Transactions American Fisheries Society 122:63-73.
Anderson, R.O.,and S.J.Gutreuter. 1983.Length,weight,and associated structural indices.
Pages 283-300 in L.A. Nielsen and D. L.Johnson,editors. Fisheries techniques.American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Anderson, R.O.,and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length,weight,and associated structural indices.
Pages 447-481 in B. R. Murphy and D.W.Willis,editors. Fisheries techniques. 2nd edition.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Barbour, M.T.,1. Gerritsen, B.D.Snyder,and J.B.Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use
in Streams and Wadeable Rivers:Periphyton, Benthic Macro-invertebrates,and Fish,Second
Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,Washington,
DC.
Beaty,S.R.Taxonomy Document with Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels for Ephemeroptera of North
Carolina. NCDENR, DWQ Biological Assessment Unit. November 2010.
Beaty,S.R.Taxonomy Document with Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels for Plecoptera of North
Carolina. NCDENR, DWQ Biological Assessment Unit. November 2010.
Beaty,S.R.Taxonomy Document with Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels for Trichoptera of North
Carolina. NCDENR, DWQ Biological Assessment Unit. November 2010.
Beaty,S.R.Taxonomy Document with Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels for Coleoptera of North
Carolina. NCDENR, DWQ Biological Assessment Unit. November 2010.
Coutant,C. C.,and D. L. DeAngelis.1983.Comparative temperature-dependent growth rates of
largemouth and smallmouth bass.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:416-423.
Coutant,C.C. 1977.Compilation of temperature preference data.Journal Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 34:739-745.
Dahlberg,Michael D. 1975.Guide to Coastal Fishes of Georgia and Nearby States. University of Georgia
Press.Athens,GA. 187 pp.
Page 20

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
EA Engineering,Science,and Technology, Inc. 1988.Synoptic survey of physical and biological condition
of the Pigeon River in the vicinity of Champion International's Canton Mill. EA Engineering,
Science,and Technology, Inc.Sparks, MD.
EA Engineering,Science,and Technology, Inc. 1996.A study of the aquatic resources and water quality
of the Pigeon River. EA Engineering,Science and Technology, Inc.Deerfield, IL.
EA Engineering,Science, and Technology, Inc. 2000. Results of the 1999 Biological survey of the Pigeon
River. EA Engineering,Science,and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
EA Engineering,Science,and Technology„Inc.2001.A study of the aquatic resources of the Pigeon River
during 2000. EA Engineering,Science, and Technology, Inc. Deerfield, IL.
Eaton,l.G.,J. McCormick, B. Goodno, G.O'Brien, H.Stefany, M. Hondzo,and R.Scheller. 1995.A field
information-based system for estimating fish temperature tolerances.Fisheries 20(4):10-18.
Etnier D.A.,and W.C.Starnes.2001.The Fishes of Tennessee.The University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville,TN. 689 pp.
f�
Fore, L.S. and J.B. Karr. 1994.Statistical properties of an Index of Biotic Integrity used to evaluate water
resources.Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science 5:1077-1087.
Goede, R.W., and B.A. Barton. 1990.Organism indices and an autopsy-based assessment as indicators
of health and condition of fish.American Fisheries Society Symposium 8:93-108.
Hutchens,J.J.,JR.,and J.B.Wallace.2004. Role of Podostemum ceratophyllum Michx in structuring
benthic macro-invertebrate assemblage in a southern Appalachian river.Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 23(4):697-708.
Jenkins, R., and N. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia.American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
Karr,J.R. 1981.Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-27.
Karr,J.R., K.D. Fausch,P.L.Angermeier, P.R.Yant,and I.J.Schlosser. 1986.Assessing biological integrity
in running water:a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication
Number 5,Champaign, IL.
Kathman, R.D.,and R.O. Brinkhurst. 1998. Guide to the Freshwater Oligochaetes of North America.
Aquatic Resources Center,College Grove,TN. 264 pp.
Page 21

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
Lenat, D.R. 1988.Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic
macro-invertebrates.Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:222-233.
Lenat, D.R. 1993.A biotic index for the southeastern United States: Derivation and list of tolerance
values,with criteria for assigning water quality ratings.Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 7:270-290.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991.The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, NC.227 pp.
Minshall, G.W. 1984.Aquatic insect-substratum relationships. Pages 358-400 in V.H. Resh and D.M.
Rosenberg(editors).The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Publishers, New York.
Murphy, B.R.,and D.W.Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition.American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda,MD.
North Carolina Department of Environment,Health and Natural Resources(DEHNR). 1997.
Standard operating procedure for biological monitoring.January 1997. Division of
Environmental Management,Water Quality Section,Raleigh, NC.
t
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005.Post Hurricane
Frances, Ivan,and Jeanne Biological Monitoring(French Broad and Watauga River Basins)and
Biological Sampling, November 30-December 2,2004.Technical memorandum dated April 4,
2005. Biological Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality,Environmental Sciences Section,
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).2011.Standard
operating procedures for collection and analysis of benthic macro-invertebrates (Version 3.0).
December 1,2011. Biological Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality, Environmental
Sciences Section, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).2006b.Standard
operating procedure,Stream fish community assessment program.August 1, 2006. Biological
Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section,Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2009. Habitat
assessment field data sheet Mountain/Piedmont streams. Revision 7. March 2009. Biological
Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section,Raleigh, NC.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency(Ohio EPA). 1989. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic
life:Volume III.Standardized field and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macro-
Page 22

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging
Canton,.North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
invertebrate communities. Division Water Quality Planning and Assessment,Ecological
Assessment Section,Columbus,OH.
Progress Energy. 2005.2004 Water Quality and Biotic Indices Study of the Pigeon River at the Walters
Hydroelectric Plant.Appendix A Requirements. Environmental Services Section, Progress Energy
Service Company, Raleigh, NC.
Reynolds,W.W.,and M.E. Casterlin. 1976.Thermal preferenda and behavioral thermoregulation in
three centrarchid fishes. Pages 185-190 in G.W. Esch and R.W. McFarlane, editors.Thermal
ecology II. Dept. of Energy Symposium Series(CONF-75025),Nat.Tech. Info.Serv.,Springfield,
VA.
Rohde, F.C.,J.W. Foltz, and J.M.Quattro. 2009. Freshwater fishes of South Carolina. University of South
Carolina Press,Columbia,SC.430 pp.
Saylor, C.F.,A. McKinney,and W.Schacher. 1993.Case study of the Pigeon River in the Tennessee River
drainage.TVA Biological Report 19.Tennessee Valley Authority,Norris,TN.
Scott,W.B., and E.J.Crossnian. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board Canada
Bulletin 184:1-966.
Simon,T.P.,and 1. Lyons. 1995.Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water
resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. Pages,245-262 in W.S. Davis and T.P.Simon,
editors. Biological assessment and criteria:Tools for water resource planning and
decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Surber, E.W. 1970.Smallmouth bass stream investigations.Virginia Commission of Game and Inland
Fisheries, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, Project F-14-11,Job 2-Shenandoah River study,
January 1,1964-June 30, 1969. Final Report, Richmond.
Tennessee Valley Authority.2004.TVA Protocol for Conducting an Index of Biotic Integrity
Biological Assessment.Technical Memorandum. 15 pp.
Trembley,F.J. 1960. Research project on effects of condenser discharge water on aquatic life. Progress
Report 1960. Institute of Research, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA.
Tyner,J.S.2006. Pigeon River Temperature Model:2001-2005.Appendix Ain Wilson,J.L. 2006.Canton
Mill—Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River. [Clean Water Act Section
316(a) Demonstration]. Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc., Canton, NC.
US EPA(US Environmental Protection Agency). 1974.316(a)Technical:Guidance—Thermal
Discharges Draft.Water Planning Division,Washington, DC.
Page 23

April 2012 — 316(a) Study Plan
Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. dba Evergreen Packaging,
Canton,North Carolina
NPDES Permit No.NC0000272
US EPA(US Environmental Protection Agency). 1977. Interagency 316(a)technical guidance manual and
guide for thermal effects sections of nuclear facilities environmental impact statements.Office
of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch,Washington, DC.
Wege,G.J.,and R.O.Anderson. 1978. Relative weight (Wr):a new index of condition for largemouth
bass. Page 79-91 in G.D. Novinger and J.G. Dillard, editors. New approaches to the management
of small impoundments.American FisheriesSociety,North Central Division',Special Publication
5,Bethesda, MD.
Wilson,J. Larry. 2006.Canton Mill—Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River. [Clean
Water Act Section 316(a) Demonstration]. Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc.,Canton,NC.
Wrenn,W.:B. 1980. Effects of elevated temperatures on growth and survival of smallmouth bass.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society'109:617-625.
Yoder, C.O., and M.A.Smith. 1999. Using fish assemblages in a state biological assessment and criteria
program: Essential concepts and considerations. Pages 17-56 in T. P.Simon,editor.Assessing
the sustaihability and biological integrity of water resource quality using fish communities.CRC
Press, Boca Raton,FL.
Copy of Enclosure to the February 22, 2010 EPA Letter:
Section 316(a)Report and the Study Plan for the Subsequent Permit
and
Copy of April 2,2012 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Section
memorandum:
Review of Evergreen Packaging(Canton Mill)NPDES Permit NC0000272"316(a)Study Plan:February
20,.2012"
Both documents follow in order cited.
Page 24

Enclosure
Section 316(a)Report and the Study Plan for the Subsequent Permit
Blue Ridge may use existing data in completing its study and may incorporate the
existence of such data into the monitoring program plan design;however, the existing data needs
to be evaluated and presented in the context of a BIP definition that the existing record does not
adequately provide.
Section 316(a) of the CWA contains the term"BIP"but does not define it. However,40
CFR §125.71(c)defines the term"balanced, indigenous community"t as:
"A biotic community typically characterized by diversity,,the capacity to sustain itself
through cyclic seasonal changes,presence of necessary food chain species and by a lack
of domination by pollution tolerant species. Such a community may include historically
non-native species introduced in connection with a program of wildlife management and
species whose presence or abundance results from substantial, irreversible environmental
modifications. Normally,however, such a community will not include species whose
presence is attributable to the introduction of pollutants that will be eliminated by
compliance by all sources with section 301(b)(2) of the Act: and may not include species
whose presence or abundance is attributable to alternative effluent limitations imposed
pursuant to section 316(a)."
The Environmental Appeals Board stated in its decision in In Re Dominion Energy '
Brayton Point,LLC, 12 Environmental Appeals Decision(E.A.D.)490(2006)(`Brayton Point"),
"this definition clearly envisions a consideration of more than the population of organisms
currently inhabiting the water body. In this vein, although it permits inclusion of certain
`historically non-native species' that are currently present, it explicitly excludes certain currently
present species whose presence or abundance is attributable to avoidable pollution or previously-
granted section 316(a) variances."
Page 557 of the Brayton Point E.A:D. goes on to further state that a BIP"can be the
indigenous population that existed prior to the impacts of pollutants, not solely the current
populations of organisms."
To the question of how a pennittee should identify a BIP in an area that has been altered
by impacts from an existing thermal discharge, the Brayton Point E.A.D.points out that it may
be appropriate to use a nearby water body unaffected by the existing thermal discharge as a
reference area. Examination of an appropriate reference area may be applicable in this case.
The definition of"balanced, indigenous community" at 40 CFR§ 125.71(c) contains
several key elements. To be consistent with the regulations, each of these key elements should
be specifically addressed in the demonstration, and the Pigeon River Section 316(a)monitoring
plan for the next permit cycle should be designed to generate information relevant to these
elements. Those elements include: (1) "a population typically characterized by diversity at all
"Balanced,indigenous community"and BIP are equivalent terms.

trophic levels;" (2) "the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes;"(3) "presence
of necessary food chain species;"(4) "non-domination of pollution-tolerant species;" and (5)
"indigenous." Each of these elements is discussed in more detail below:
1. "A population typically characterized by diversity at all trophic levels" means that all of the
major trophic levels present in the unaffected portion of the water body should be present in the
heat affected portions. EPA recognizes that community structure differences will occur,
however, the number of species represented in each trophic level in the unaffected portions
should be reasonably similar in the heat-affected portions of the water body. Sampling and
analysis of fish and invertebrate communities should be done such that the major trophic levels
are identified and represented by reasonably similar species distributions. Also, the study plan
should be expanded to include some observations of wildlife(i.e., water fowl, mammals,
amphibians, etc.)both upstream and immediately downstream of the discharge point that may be
impacted by the thermal discharge.
2. "The capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes"means that any additional
thermal stress will not cause significant community instability during times of natural extremes
in environmental conditions. Community data should be collected during normal seasonal
extremes as well as during optimal seasonal conditions. Data should be compared between heat
affected and unaffected portions of the receiving water body to account for normal community
changes corresponding with a change in season.
3.-"Presence of necessary food chain species"means that the necessary food webs remain intact
so that communities will be sustaining. Nye believe that exhaustive food web studies are not
necessary provided that invertebrate,fish and wildlife communities are otherwise healthy, i.e.,
represented by sufficiently high species diversity and abundance(appropriate for'that portion of
the receiving water body)for the identified trophic levels and sustaining through normal seasonal'
changes.
4. "Non-domination of pollution-tolerant species" means that in the case of a thermal effluent,
community assemblages in heat affected portions of the lake dominated by heat tolerant species
do not constitute a BIP. EPA recognizes that because all species have varying levels of thermal
tolerance, communities in the heat affected portions of the water body may possess altered
assemblages in terms of species present and abundance. All community data should be
collected, analyzed and presented to clearly demonstrate that affected communities have not
shifted to primarily heat tolerant assemblages.
5. "Indigenous 'has been further clarified in the regulations: "Such a community may include
historically non-native species introduced in connection with a program of wildlife management
and species whose presence or abundance results from substantial, irreversible environmental
modifications. Normally, however; such a community will not include species whose presence is
attributable to the introduction of pollutants that will be eliminated by compliance by all sources
with 'section 301(b)(2) of the Act: and may not include species whose presence or abundance is
andbutable to alternative effluent limitations imposed pursuant to section 316(a)." EPA
recognizes that non-indigenous species are present in most aquatic systems in the United States.
All community data should be analyzed and presented to demonstrate that community
L
2

assemblages in the heat affected portions of the receiving water body are not significantly
different from non-affected communities with regard to the number of non-indigenous species in
the assemblages.
In addition to the foregoing components of the BIP definition, the study plan should also
include provisions for the identification of RIS (e.g., a list of threatened, endangered, thermally
sensitive, or commercially or recreationally valuable species up and downstream of the study
area), as contemplated in 40 CFR §125.72(b). 40 CFR §125.71(b) defines RIS as"species which
are representative, in terms of their biological needs, of a balanced, indigenous community of
shellfish, fish and wildlife in the body of water into which a discharge of heat is made."
The following EPA comments should be specifically addressed in the-study plan prior to
Blue Ridge commencing sampling during the term of the next NPDES permit. The plan should:
a) include available information on wildlife in the lake areas based on
communications with North Carolina's Wildlife Management Agency. See .
item 1 above.
b) include a diagram depicting the thermal plume under the worst case scenario
and address the presence or absence of a zone of passage for which fish can
travel around the thermal plume.
e) provide information of which fish collected are either heat-sensitive or
1 nuisance species. See item 4 above.
d) provide a list of any lake species that are endangered or threaten in accordance with
federal and state regulations.
e) analyze and present data to clearly demonstrate that affected communities
have not shifted to primarily heat tolerant assemblages.
f) include recent data or information on benthic macroinvertebrates. See item 1 above.
g) analyze and present all data to demonstrate that community assemblages in the heat-
affected portions of the receiving water body are not significantly different from non-
affected communities with regard to the number of non-indigenous species in the
assemblages; and
h) include a thermal modeling study based on historical effluent temperatures and
operating conditions to determine appropriate permit limits for temperature.
In order to ensure that Blue Ridge's future study plan for the Pigeon River is adequate to
demonstrate that the Canton Mill should have its Section 316(a) variance renewed during the
term of its next NPDES permit,EPA requests the opportunity to review a draft Section 316(a)
plan prior to Blue Ridge commencing the study.
3

� WIFAA
��i/���
�r.1�IK
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P. E. Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
April 2,2012
MEMORANDUM
To:Tom Belnick
Through: Jay Sauber
From: Eric Fleek
subject: Review of Evergreen Packaging (Canton Mill) NPDES Permit NC0000272"316(a)Study Plan:
February, 20, 2012".
Environmental Sciences Section (ESS)staff has reviewed the subject document. Specifically Bryn Tracy
reviewed the fisheries portion of the study plan while Eric Fleek reviewed the benthic macroinvertebrate
portion of the plan. ESS does not have the expertise to evaluate the thermal plume dispersion model,
hydrographic or meteorological data.Therefore,these aspects of the study will not be addressed in this
document.
In summary, we concur with the proposed summer sampling plan for biological communities and agree
with all aspects of the proposed biological study plan including the trophic levels being assessed, the
various assessment methodologies specific to each community and we further concur with the selection
of the Swannanoa River as a reference waterbody. In addition we also agree with the Representative
Important Species (RIS)and Threatened and Endangered (T&E) list(except as noted below in items No.
1 and No. 2). In addition, on March 20"',2012 Eric Fleek, Bryn Tracy and Lance Ferrell participated in a
Biological Lab Certification inspection of the University of Tennessee's biological lab. The final
certification of this facility to conduct fish community and benthic macroinvertebrate assessments is still
pending but will likely be resolved (pending the successful completion of the benthic macroinvertebrate
QA sample)on or near April 17m.
Based upon a review of the study plan, the following items require attention:
1. The study plan should discuss the two Threatened and Endangered (T&E)species that have
been found in the Pigeon River since the last 316(a)demonstration. These species include the
Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)and the Wavyrayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis
fasciola).
2. On page 9 of the study plan, it is noted that the River Chub is an"insectivore". This should be
corrected to"omnivore".
3. The study plan should discuss the longitudinal distribution of Podostemum in the Pigeon River.
Podostemum meets the criteria of a"Habitat Former"as defined in the 1977 EPA Interagency
316(a)Technical Guidance Manual. For example, Podostemum has been repeatedly
demonstrated to be an important mechanism in the promotion of benthic macroinvertebrate
biomass, abundance and species richness(Glime and Clemmons 1972, Minshall 1984, Lee and
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1621
Location:4401 Reedy Creek Road,Raleigh,North Carolina 27607
Phone:[phone]\FAX:[phone] One
Internet:htto:lloortal.ncdencorolweblwefesslhome NO hCarolina
An Equal Opportunity\A�nnative Action Employer Naturally

Addressee
Date
Page 2 of 2
Hershey 200, Hutchens and Wallace 2004). In addition, Podostemum and has been shown to
positively influence the abundance ofseveral fish, including the Banded darter(Etheostoma
zonate; Etnier and Starnes 1993, Rohde et al.2009)which despite efforts of reintroduction, fails
to recruit in the Pigeon River below the Mill.As a result, Podostemum distribution should be
studied to determine if it's observed reduction in distribution downstream from the mill (NCDWQ,
Unpublished Data)as compared to upstream of the mill is due to light-limitation, substrate, or
some other factor. This survey could easily be incorporated into the current proposed
assessment of periphyton cover.
4. The study plan notes(on Page 7)that:"In accord with the EPA guidelines forsmall rivers, the
phytoplankton, zooplankton, and wildlife biotic categories will be sampled and evaluated briefly as
Low Potential Impact categories"and (on Page 10)that"The EPA Guidance provides for
identification of certain biotic categories as"Low Potential Impact(EPA Guidance, Section 2.1.2):
If initial pilot field surveys and literature surveys revealed that the site was one of low potential
impact for phytoplankton, for example, it would be unnecessary to conduct detailed studies to
give the taxonomic identification of every species of phytoplankton in the viciniV. Conversely, on
Page 14 the study plan notes: "Detailed studies.will be restricted to fish, macro-
invettebrates/shellfvsh,penphyton, and habitat evaluation...". The study plan requires clarification
in terms of the methodology to be used in the periphyton study and whether or not the periphyton
study will include taxonomic identifications or only presence/absence assessments.
.References Cited
Etnier, D.A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press;
Knoxville, TN.
Glime, J.M. and R.N. Clemons. 1972. Species diversity of stream insects on Fontinalis spp. compared to
diversity on artificial substrates. Ecology 53:458-464.
Hutchens, J.J., Jr. and J. B. Wallace. 2004. Role of Podostemum ceratophyllum Michx. in structuring
benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage in a southern Appalachian river. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 23(4):713-727.
Lee, J.O. and A.E. Hershey. 2000. Effects of aquatic bryophytes and long-term fertilization of artic stream
insects. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:697-708.
Minshall, G.W. 1984.Aquatic insect-substratum relationships. Pages 358-400 in V.H. Resh and D. M.
Rosenberg (editors). The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Publishers, New Your.
Rohde, F. C., Foltz, J.W., and J. M Quattro. 2009. Freshwater fishes of South Carolina. 'University of
South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
cc: Chuck Cranford,Asheville Regional Office
Jeff Poupart, Surface Water Protection Section
Sergei Chernikov, Surface Water Protection Section
Bryn H.Tracy, Environmental Sciences Section