BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY REPORT

BLALOCK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC NO. 14338

Prepared for:

Spartanburg Water System Spartanburg, South Carolina

Prepared by:

Lexington, South Carolina www.KleinschmidtGroup.com

January 2016

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY REPORT

BLALOCK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC NO. 14338

Prepared for:

Spartanburg Water System Spartanburg, South Carolina

Prepared by:

Lexington, South Carolina www.KleinschmidtGroup.com

January 2016

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY REPORT

BLALOCK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 14338

SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 3

3.0 OBJECTIVE 1 – DEVELOPMENT OF BMI SCORES ...... 3 3.1 METHODS ...... 3 3.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 4

4.0 OBJECTIVE 2 ‒ FRESHWATER MUSSELS ...... 6 4.1 METHODS ...... 6 4.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 7

5.0 OBJECTIVE 3 – BROAD RIVER SPINY ...... 8 5.1 METHODS ...... 8 5.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 10

6.0 LITERTURE CITED ...... 10

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1 BLALOCK HYDRO PROJECT LOCATION MAP ...... 2 FIGURE 3-1 BMI SAMPLING LOCATIONS IN PACOLET RIVER ...... 5 FIGURE 4-1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS OF PHASE I MUSSEL SURVEY ...... 7 FIGURE 5-1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR BROAD RIVER SPINY CRAYFISH ...... 9

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3-1 RESULTS OF BMI ASSESSMENT ...... 6

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL BMI REPORT APPENDIX B PHASE I MUSSEL MEMO APPENDIX C THREE OAKS ENGINEERING MUSSEL REPORT (Report is forthcoming from Three Oaks Engineering by the end of January 2016.)

J:\1755\011\Docs\Study Reports\Final Draft Reports to Client - 1-5-16\01-18-2016 Final reports\Blalock BMI\Draft Blalock BMI.docx

JANUARY 2016 - i -

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY REPORT

BLALOCK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 14338

SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Spartanburg Water System (SWS) is seeking a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the proposed Blalock Hydroelectric Project (Project), FERC Project No. 14338. The proposed Project will use the existing Lake Blalock dam and reservoir, which are located on the Pacolet River in northwestern South Carolina approximately five miles north of the city of Spartanburg near the town of Cowpens (Figure 1-1). SWS proposes to construct a powerhouse, penstock, substation, and transmission tie to complete the necessary elements for the Project.

SWS is seeking an original license for the Project, which involves cooperation and collaboration between SWS, as licensee, and a variety of stakeholders including state and federal resource agencies, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and interested individuals. Collaboration and cooperation among these stakeholders is essential for identifying and evaluating operational, economic, and environmental issues associated with construction and operation of a new Project. SWS has established the Spartanburg Water System Licensing Group (SWSLG), composed of interested stakeholders, with the objective of achieving consensus regarding the identification and proper treatment of these issues in the context of an original license.

In comments issued on the Pre-Application Document (PAD), several SWSLG members, including the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and American Rivers requested an assessment of the benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) assemblage, including the Broad River spiny crayfish ( spicatus), at the proposed Project location prior to development. In addition to the request for a general assessment of the BMI community, the USFWS, SCDNR, and American Rivers requested that surveys be conducted for freshwater mussels.

JANUARY 2016 - 1 -

FIGURE 1-1 BLALOCK HYDRO PROJECT LOCATION MAP

JANUARY 2016 - 2 -

2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to characterize the benthic community of Lake Blalock and the Lake Blalock tailrace prior to developing hydropower at the site. Specific objectives included:

1. develop baseline BMI scores for the Lake Blalock tailrace in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers (Barbour et al. 1999);

2. determine whether native freshwater mussels are present in Lake Blalock or in the Lake Blalock dam tailrace, and if so, gather data describing the diversity, physical habitat, and relative abundance of mussel species inhabiting the area; and

3. evaluate Lake Blalock and the tailrace area in the Pacolet River for the presence of Broad River spiny crayfish, and if present, identify habitat associations.

Development of BMI scores (objective 1) and execution of freshwater mussel surveys (objective 2) required that Kleinschmidt retain outside experts with specific expertise in Broad River Basin macroinvertebrate fauna. As such, each of the above-listed objectives was completed as a separate study component. Methods and result of each study component are summarized below.

3.0 OBJECTIVE 1 – DEVELOPMENT OF BMI SCORES

3.1 METHODS

Carnagey Biological Services, LLC (SCDHEC #32572), was retained to conduct BMI sampling in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers (Barbour et al. 1999). A Kleinschmidt technician accompanied Mr. Dan Carnagey on September 2, 2015 to collect benthic macroinvertebrates from the Lake Blalock dam tailrace in the Pacolet River at two sites (Figure 3-1).

Habitats at each of the two sites were sampled in proportion to their availability within each site using a D-frame aquatic dip net, a kicknet, a U.S. Standard No. 10 sieve, and by hand picking organisms from substrates with forceps. For each station, collections from all habitat types were

JANUARY 2016 - 3 -

pooled to form one aggregate sample, preserved in the field with 95% ethanol, and transported to the laboratory for processing. In the laboratory, macroinvertebrates were separated from debris with the aid of a stereo microscope, identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, and enumerated using appropriate techniques and taxonomic keys.

3.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the BMI assessment indicate that macroinvertebrate communities in the Pacolet River are stressed at both sites sampled (Table 3-1). The upstream location (Site 1) had an Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera Index (EPT Index) of 8, or “Fair.” Site 1 also had a North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI) of 6.34, or “Good-fair,” and a South Carolina Bioclassification score of 2.3; “Fair.” The EPT Index of the downstream site (Site 2) was 11, or “Fair.” Site 2 had an NCBI of 6.04, “Good,” and a SC Bioclassification score of 2.5, “Good-fair.” Both sites were similar in taxa richness, total abundance, and number of Chironomidae taxa. The results indicate that these sites are only partially supporting aquatic life. Additional detail is provided in the final report from Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, which is included as Appendix A.

JANUARY 2016 - 4 -

FIGURE 3-1 BMI SAMPLING LOCATIONS IN PACOLET RIVER

JANUARY 2016 - 5 -

TABLE 3-1 RESULTS OF BMI ASSESSMENT

SITE 1 SITE 2 Ephemeroptera Plecoptera 8 11 Trichoptera (EPT) Index Fair Fair

North Carolina Biotic Index 6.34 6.04 Water Quality Good-Fair Good

SC Bioclassification Score 2.3 2.5 Fair Good-Fair

4.0 OBJECTIVE 2 ‒ FRESHWATER MUSSELS

4.1 METHODS

The freshwater mussel survey was conducted in two phases. Phase I was completed on May 28, 2015. The objective of Phase I was to document the presence or absence of mussels in the study area. Staff from Kleinschmidt and the USFWS inspected 21 sites within Lake Blalock for presence/absence of freshwater mussel fauna (Figure 1-1). The presence of one native freshwater mussel species, paper pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis), was confirmed during the Phase I surveys, thus triggering Phase II surveys.

Three Oaks Engineering (TOE) was retained to perform the Phase II mussel surveys in Lake Blalock and the downstream reach. The objective of Phase II was provide more detailed information regarding the diversity, physical habitat and relative abundance of freshwater mussels inhabiting the study area. Malacologists from TOE with expertise in Broad River Basin mussel fauna sampled 17 sites within Lake Blalock and three sites in the downstream reach during the week of November 30, 2015. Visual surveys were conducted using SCUBA and mask/snorkel techniques. Personnel using mask and snorkel covered a depth range of 0-3 feet (ft), while personnel using SCUBA covered a depth range of 3-18 ft. Surveys began at a distinct point along the shoreline and the surveyors evaluated the substrate for mussels from the shoreline out to a point where mussels were no longer present.

Live and fresh-dead mussels collected during the survey were identified to species, enumerated, and returned to their habitat. All sampling stations, as well as any significant mussel beds found

JANUARY 2016 - 6 -

during sampling, were documented using a GPS receiver. Mussel habitat surveyed at each sample location, as well as the species collected during the survey, was also photo-documented.

4.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Paper pondshell was documented in Lake Blalock during both the Phase I and Phase II surveys, with no other mussel species documented from the study area, including the downstream reach. The paper pondshell is a very common species native to the Broad River Basin; it is not of conservation concern and is commonly found in reservoirs throughout South Carolina. Finally, it should be noted that the lack of mussel fauna downstream of the Lake Blalock dam is consistent with recent survey conducted at the Pacolet Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2621), which also failed to documented native freshwater mussels in free flowing reaches of the Pacolet River (Alderman and Alderman 2009). Additional detail regarding the study methods and results are included in the Phase I Memorandum included as Appendix B and the Phase II Final Mussel Report included as Appendix C.

FIGURE 4-1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS OF PHASE I MUSSEL SURVEY

JANUARY 2016 - 7 -

5.0 OBJECTIVE 3 – BROAD RIVER SPINY CRAYFISH

5.1 METHODS

Sampling of the study area for Broad River spiny crayfish was conducted concurrently with other biotic sampling efforts including electrofishing and BMI collections. As described in the study plan, efforts were made to collect any crayfish encountered during the boat electrofishing, mussel surveys, and BMI collections. In addition, targeted backpack electrofishing was conducted on September 1, 2015 and October 21, 2015 at two sites downstream of the Lake Blalock dam (Figure 5-1). Targeted electrofishing focused on capturing a variety of habitats thought to be preferred by Broad River spiny crayfish, specifically log and debris piles with significant sand deposits or other evidence of flash flooding (SCSWAP 2015, Eversole 1995). Sampling progressed in an upstream to downstream configuration at each site, with the upper 1-2 inches of substrate disturbed during electrofishing in an attempt to dislodge crayfish seeking refuge in benthic cover. Sites were sampled for an average shock time of 670 seconds.

JANUARY 2016 - 8 -

FIGURE 5-1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR BROAD RIVER SPINY CRAYFISH

JANUARY 2016 - 9 -

5.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 7 crayfish were collected, all as a result of backpack electrofishing. Due to the absence of marginal spines on the rostrum (Eversole 2014), it was determined that none of the 7 crayfish collected were Broad River spiny crayfish. Three of the collected crayfish were preserved in 90% ethanol and retained in Kleinschmidt’s reference collection. These results suggest that Broad River spiny crayfish either do not occur within the study area or occur at extremely low densities not detected by our sampling.

6.0 LITERTURE CITED

Alderman, J.M. and J.D. Alderman. 2009. Freshwater Mussel Survey within the Pacolet River Subbasin. Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. Prepared for Lockhart Power Company. July 19, 2009. 19 pp.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 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.

Eversole, A.G. 1995. Distribution of three rare crayfish species in South Carolina, USA. Freshwater Crayfish 8:113-120.

Eversole, A.G. 2014. Identification and distribution of in South Carolina. A South Carolina State Wildlife Grants Project Final Report. 11 pages + appendices.

South Carolina State Wildlife Action Plan (SCSWAP). 2015. Broad River spiny crayfish, Cambarus spicatus, supplemental volume: species of conservation concern. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/swap/supplemental/crayfish/broadriverspinycrayfish2015.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2015.

JANUARY 2016 - 10 -

APPENDIX A CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL BMI REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT OF THE PACOLET RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF THE PROPOSED BLALOCK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

SEPTEMBER 2015

Submitted To:

KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES Lexington County, South Carolina

Submitted by:

CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC 636 Westwood Drive Lexington, South Carolina 803-233-6952

SCDHEC Laboratory Certification No. 32572

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... ii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... iii

I. SUMMARY...... 1

II. INTRODUCTION ...... 2

III. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ...... 2

IV. METHODS ...... 4

A. Field Sampling ...... 4

B. Sample Processing...... 4

C. Data Analysis ...... 4

V. RESULTS ...... 7

VI. DISCUSSION ...... 8

VII. REFERENCES ...... 9

i

LIST OF TABLES

1. Procedures used in the calculation of selected metrics used in this report...... 6

2. Macroinvertebrates, their North Carolina biotic index tolerance values (TV), functional feeding groups (FG), and abundance collected from the Pacolet River below the Blalock Hydroelectric Project, operated by SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 02 September 2015...... 10

3. Rapid bioassessment metrics calculated for the two sampling stations on the Pacolet River below the Blalock Hydroelectric Project, operated by SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 02 September 2015...... 13

4. Dominant taxa (>5% of the collection) for the two sampling stations on the Pacolet River below the Blalock Hydroelectric Project, operated by SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 02 September 2015...... 14

5. Habitat assessment scores determined in conjunction with the macroinvertebrate assessment for the two sampling stations on the Pacolet River below the Blalock Hydroelectric Project, operated by SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 02 September 2015...... 15

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Sampling locations for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from the Pacolet River below the Blalock Hydroelectric Project, operated by SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM, Spartanburg County, South Carolina...... 3

iii 1 I. SUMMARY On 02 September 2015, CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC (SCDHEC Laboratory Certification Number 32572) conducted a benthic macroinvertebrate community assessment on the Pacolet River, downstream of the Blalock Dam, operated by SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM. The objective of this assessment was to determine the condition of the stream’s macroinvertebrate community at the time of sampling and prior to development of hydropower at the site.

Results of the benthic macroinvertebrate assessment conducted on the Pacolet River indicated the river's macroinvertebrate community was stressed at both stations. Station 1 had an SCDHEC bioclassification scores of “fair”, and an NCBI score of "good-fair". While Station 2 had an SCDHEC bioclassification scores of “good-fair”, and an NCBI score of "good". Both stations shared similar taxa richness, total abundance, and number of Chironomidae taxa. Station 2 had a somewhat higher EPT index value and EPT abundance. These results indicate that the stations are only partially supporting aquatic life.

2 II. INTRODUCTION On 02 September 2015, a benthic macroinvertebrate community assessment was conducted on the Pacolet River below the Blalock Dam, Spartanburg County, South Carolina. This study was conducted to satisfy requirements of FERC Project No. 14338. The objective of this assessment was to determine the condition of the macroinvertebrate community below the Blalock Dam, utilizing the Multi-habitat Rapid Bioassessment Protocol.

III. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA Collections of aquatic macroinvertebrates were made from two sampling locations in the Pacolet River below the Blalock Dam (Figure 1).

Station 1 was located approximately 0.6 kilometers downstream of Blalock Dam. The river at this point was approximately 30-40 meters wide, and less than 0.1 to 0.5 meters deep. The substrate consisted mainly of bedrock and gravel imbedded in sand. Cobble and boulders were also present. Plant material consisted of logs and root mats. Most substrate was coated in a layer of fine particulate matter.

Station 2 was located approximately 3.25 kilometers downstream of Blalock Dam. The creek at this point was approximately 30-40 meters wide, and less than 0.1 to more than 0.5 meters deep. The substrate was similar to Station 1. As at Station 1, particulate matter was present at Station 2, although the amount seemed to be less.

3 Figure 1. Sampling locations for benthic macroinvertebrates collected from the Pacolet River below the Blalock Dam, Spartanburg County, South Carolina.

4 IV. METHODS A. Field Sampling Qualitative collections of aquatic macroinvertebrates were made with a D-frame aquatic dip net, a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve, and hand picking organisms from substrates with forceps. The multiple habitat approach, where specimens from all available habitats (stream margins, leaf packs, aquatic vegetation, water-soaked logs, and sand deposits) are pooled to form one aggregate sample was utilized as the sampling procedure. Samples were preserved in the field with 80% ethanol. Each sample represented 2.0 hours of sampling effort. Sampling procedures and habitat types were kept similar at each station to enable species and numerical population comparisons between stations. Habitat scores were determined using the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet for Low Gradient Streams (Barbour et al., 1999).

B. Sample Processing Upon return to the laboratory, macroinvertebrates were sorted from debris with the aid of a stereomicroscope. The macroinvertebrates were enumerated and identified to the lowest positive taxonomic level with the aide of appropriate microscopic techniques and taxonomic keys. All specimens will be maintained in CARNAGEY BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC voucher collection for five years or placed into the permanent reference collection.

C. Data Analysis Comparisons of the macroinvertebrate communities were based on changes in taxonomic composition between sampling sites and on the known tolerance levels and life history strategies of the organisms encountered. Changes in taxonomic composition were determined using metrics outlined in Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III of the US EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (Plafkin et al. 1989) and SCDHEC’s Standard Operating and Quality Control Procedures for Macroinvertebrate Sampling (SCDHEC, 1999). These metrics included the following: 1) Taxa richness - The number of different taxa found at a particular location is an indication of diversity. Reductions in community diversity have been positively associated with various forms of environmental pollution, including nutrient loading, toxic substances, and sedimentation (Barbour et al., 1996; Fore et al., 1996; Rosenberg and Resh, 1993; Shackleford, 1988). 2) EPT index - EPT Index is the number of taxa from the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera found at a station. These three insect orders are considered to be intolerant of adverse changes in water quality, especially temperature and dissolved oxygen, and therefore, a reduction in these taxa is indicative of reduced water quality (Barbour et al., 1996; Lenat, 1988). 3) Chironomidae taxa and abundance - The Chironomidae are a taxonomically and ecologically diverse group with many taxa that are tolerant of various forms of pollution. The

5 chironomids are often the dominant group encountered at impacted or stressed sites (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). 4) Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae abundance - The relative abundance of these four indicator groups is a measure of community balance. When compared to a reference site, good biotic conditions are reflected in a fairly even distribution among these four groups (Plafkin et al., 1989). The value of this ratio is reduced by impact due to the general reduction of the more sensitive EPT taxa and an increase in the more tolerant chironomid taxa. 5) Ratio of scraper/scraper and filtering collectors - When compared to a reference site, shifts in the dominance of a particular feeding type may indicate a community responding to an over-abundance of a particular food source or toxicants bound to a particular food source (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). 6) Shredder/total number of specimens collected - When compared to a reference or control site, reductions in the relative abundance of shredders can indicate changes in the quality or quantity of riparian zone vegetation or the presence of toxic substances bound to organic carbon contained in the leaf and woody material which comprises their food source (Plafkin et al., 1989). 7) Percent contribution of dominant taxon - This measures the redundancy and evenness of the community structure. It assumes a highly redundant community reflects an impaired community because as the more sensitive taxa are eliminated, there is often a significant increase in the remaining tolerant forms (Barbour et al., 1996; Shackleford, 1988). 8) Dominant taxa in common - When compared to a reference site, major shifts in the composition and abundance of dominant taxa can indicate environmental stress (Barbour et al., 1996; Shackleford, 1988). 9) Community loss index (Table 1) - This index measures the loss of taxa between a reference or control station and a study site. It is an index of dissimilarity, with values increasing as the degree of dissimilarity from the reference station increases (Courtemanch and Davies, 1987; Plafkin et al., 1989). 10) Jaccard coefficient of community similarity (Table 1) - This coefficient represents the degree of similarity in taxonomic composition between two stations in terms of taxon presence or absence. Values range from 0 to 1.0, increasing as the degree of similarity increases (Jaccard, 1912; Plafkin et al., 1989). 11) Sörensen coefficient (Table 1) - This coefficient represents the degree of similarity in taxonomic composition between two stations in terms of taxon presence or absence. Values range from 0 to 1.0, increasing as the degree of similarity increases (Breitenmoser-Würsten and Satori, 1995). 12) North Carolina biotic index (Table 1) - This index utilizes a pollution tolerance value developed over a wide range of conditions and pollution types to assess the amount of impact (North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, 1997). The values range from 0-10, increasing as water quality decreases. Taxa are designated as Rare (1-2

6 specimens), Common (3-9 specimens), or Abundant (≥10 specimens) and assigned a 1, 3, or 10 abundance code, respectively, for calculation of the NCBI. 13) SCDHEC bioclassification – Bioclassification is determined by averaging scores for the NCBI and EPT index at each station, then rating sites as "Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair, or Poor" (SCDHEC, 1999).

Table 1. Procedures used in the calculation of selected metrics used in this report.

Metric Procedure Community Loss Index CL = d-a/e Where: a = number of taxa common to both samples. d = total number of taxa present in sample A. e = total number of taxa present in sample B. Jaccard Coefficient JCS = a/a+b+c Where: a = number of taxa common to of Similarity both samples. b = number of taxa present in sample B but not A. c = number of taxa present in sample A but not B. Sörensen Coefficient CS= 2a/(d+e) Where: a = number of taxa common to both samples. d = the number of taxa present in sample A. e = the number of taxa present in sample B. North Carolina Biotic Index NCBI = TViNi/N Where: TVi = the tolerance for the ith

taxon. Ni = the abundance code of the ith taxon. N = sum

of abundance codes for all taxa in the sample.

7 V. RESULTS A total of 504 specimens representing 41 taxa were collected from the Pacolet River during the 02 September 2015 assessment. The taxa list, number of specimens, and relative abundance for each taxon are presented in Table 2. Bioassessment metrics for each sampling station are presented in Table 3. Table 4 lists the dominant taxa for each sampling station. Habitat assessment scores are presented in Table 5 for each station.

The sampling effort at Station 1 yielded 232 specimens representing 31 taxa. An EPT index of 8 was calculated for this station. The Chironomidae were represented by 7 taxa and contributed 24% of the total specimens collected. The NCBI value of 6.34 resulted in a water quality rating of “good- fair” for this station. The SC Bioclassification score of 2.3 indicated a “fair” rating for Station 1. The dominant functional feeding group was the collector-filterers, which contributed 59% of the collection. The dominant taxon was Cheumatopsyche sp., which contributed 21% of the collection.

Station 2 yielded 272 specimens representing 33 taxa. An EPT index of 11 was calculated for this station. The Chironomidae were represented by 8 taxa and contributed 8% of the total specimens collected. The NCBI value of 6.04 results in a water quality rating of “good” for this station. The SC Bioclassification score of 2.5 indicated a “good-fair” rating for Station 2. The dominant functional feeding group was the collector- filterers, which contributed 55% of the collection. The dominant taxon was Cheumatopsyche sp., which contributed 14% of the specimens collected.

8 VI. DISCUSSION Results of the benthic macroinvertebrate assessment conducted on the Pacolet River, 02 September 2015, indicated the river's macroinvertebrate community was stressed at both stations. Station 1 had an SCDHEC bioclassification scores of “fair”, and an NCBI score of "good-fair". While Station 2 had a SCDHEC bioclassification scores of “good-fair”, and an NCBI score of "good". Both stations shared similar taxa richness, total abundance, and number of Chironomidae taxa. Station 2 had a somewhat higher EPT index value and EPT abundance. These results indicate that the stations are only partially supporting aquatic life.

9

VII. REFERENCES

Barbour, M.T.; J. Gerritsen; G.E. Griffith; R. Frydenborg; E. McCarron; J.S. White; and M.L. Bastian. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15:185-211.

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 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.

Breitenmoser-Würsten, C. and M. Satori. 1995. Distribution, diversity, life cycle and growth of a mayfly community in a prealpine stream (Insecta, Ephemeroptera). Hydrobiol. 308: 85-101.

Courtemanch, D.L. and S.P. Davies. 1987. A coefficient of community loss to assess detrimental change in aquatic communities. Water Research 21:217-222.

Fore, L.S.; J.R. Karr; and R.W. Wisseman. 1996 Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluation of alternative approaches. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15:212-232.

Jaccard, P. 1912. The distribution of flora in the alpine zone. New Phytologist 11: 37-50.

Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7: 222-233.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1997. Standard operating procedures: biological monitoring. State of North Carolina. Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, 65 pp.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross and, R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. US EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington, D.C. EPA/444/4-89/001.

Rosenberg, D.M. and V.H. Resh (eds.) 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. 488pp.

Shackleford, B. 1988. Rapid bioassessment of lotic macroinvertebrate communities: Biocriteria development. Biomonitoring Section, Arkansas Dept. Poll. Contl. And Ecol. Little Rock, Ark. 45pp.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1998. Water classifications and standards (Regulation 61-68), Classified waters (Regulation 61-69). State of South Carolina. Office of Environmental Quality Control, SC DHEC, Columbia, SC.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1999. Standard Operating and Quality Control Procedures for Macroinvertebrate Sampling. Technical Report No. 004-98. Bureau of Water, Division of Water Monitoring, Assessment, and Protection, Aquatic Biology Section. SC DHEC, Columbia, SC. 18+ pp.

10 Table 2. Macroinvertebrates, their North Carolina biotic index tolerance values (TV), functional feeding groups (FG), and abundance collected from the Pacolet River below the BlalockDam, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 02 September 2015.

No. of Individuals Relative Abundance Seq Taxon TV FG Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Annelida Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae 1 Lumbriculus variegatus 7.03 SC 6 11 0.03 0.04 Tubificida Naididae 2 Dero trifida SC 5 2 0.02 0.01 3 Stylaria lacustris 9.40 SC 13 0.05 Arthropoda Arachnoidea Acariformes Hydrachnidae 4 Hydrachna sp. 5.53 P 7 3 0.03 0.01 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 5 Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.19 P 1 0.00 6 Ablabesmyia peleensis 9.67 P 9 2 0.04 0.01 7 Cryptotendipes sp. 6.19 CG 1 0.00 8 Nanocladius crassicornis/cf. rectinervis 7.07 CG 4 0.02 9 Natarsia sp. 9.95 P 2 1 0.01 0.00 10 Orthocladius sp. SH 3 2 0.01 0.01 11 Polypedilum flavum 4.90 SH 1 0.00 12 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 5.89 CF 36 13 0.16 0.05 13 Tanytarsus sp. 6.76 CF 1 1 0.00 0.00 14 Tvetenia vitracies CG 2 0.01 Simuliidae 15 Simulium fibrinflatum CF 23 0.08 16 Simulium innoxium CF 14 14 0.06 0.05 Ephemeroptera Baetidae 17 Heterocloeon sp. 3.48 SC 20 0.07 * CG = collector-gatherer, CF = collector-filterer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SH = shredder, SC = scraper

11 Table 2. Continued.

No. of Individuals Relative Abundance Seq Taxon TV FG Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Heptageniidae 18 Maccaffertium modestum 5.50 SC 1 0.00 Isonychiidae 19 Isonychia sp. 3.45 CF 1 7 0.00 0.03 Leptohyphidae 20 Tricorythodes sp. 5.06 CG 8 25 0.03 0.09 Heteroptera Veliidae 21 Rhagovelia obesa P 1 0.00 Megaloptera Corydalidae 22 Corydalus cornutus 5.16 P 11 6 0.05 0.02 23 Nigronia serricornis 4.95 P 2 0.01 Odonata Coenagrionidae 24 Argia moesta 8.17 P 2 1 0.01 0.00 25 Argia tibialis 8.17 P 1 0.00 26 Enallagma sp. 8.91 P 1 1 0.00 0.00 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 27 Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.22 CF 49 37 0.21 0.14 28 Hydropsyche betteni 7.78 CF 9 4 0.04 0.01 29 Hydropsyche mississippiensis CF 14 0.05 30 Hydropsyche venularis 4.96 CF 11 16 0.05 0.06 Leptoceridae 31 Oecetis sp. 4.70 P 2 1 0.01 0.00 32 Triaenodes ignitus 4.58 SH 15 0.06 33 Triaenodes sp. 4.46 SH 3 1 0.01 0.00 Polycentropodidae 34 Polycentropus sp. 3.53 P 6 0.03 Cladocera Daphniidae 35 Simocephalus sp. CF 2 0.01 Cyclopoida Cyclopidae 36 Eucyclops sp. OM 1 0.00 * CG = collector-gatherer, CF = collector-filterer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SH = shredder, SC = scraper

12 Table 2. Continued.

No. of Individuals Relative Abundance Seq Taxon TV FG Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 1 Sta. 2 37 Cambaridae Genus species 7.50 OM 1 0.00 Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Corbiculidae 38 Corbicula fluminea 6.12 CF 8 14 0.03 0.05 Pisidiidae 39 Pisidiidae Genus species CF 7 6 0.03 0.02 Gastropoda Limnophila Physidae 40 Physa sp. 8.84 SC 15 4 0.06 0.01 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 41 Dugesia tigrina 7.50 OM 4 9 0.02 0.03 * CG = collector-gatherer, CF = collector-filterer, OM = omnivore, P = predator, SH = shredder, SC = scraper

13 Table 3. Rapid bioassessment metrics calculated for the two sampling stations on the Pacolet River below the Blalock Dam,, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 02 September 2015.

Station Metric 1 2

Taxa Richness 31 33 Number of Specimens 232 272 EPT Index 8 11 EPT Abundance 89 141 Chironomidae Taxa 7 8 Chironomidae Abundance 56 23 EPT/Chironomidae Abundance 1.59 6.13 North Carolina Biotic Index 6.34 6.04 SCDHEC Bioclassification 2.3 2.5

Percent Collector-Filterers 59.48 54.78 Percent Collector-Gatherers 5.60 9.93 Percent Omnivores 2.59 3.31 Percent Predators 18.53 6.25 Percent Scrapers 11.21 18.75 Percent Shredders 2.59 6.99

Scraper/Collector-Filterers 0.19 0.34

Percent Dominant Taxon 21.12 13.60 Number Of Dominant Taxa 4 9

Dominants In Common 2

Community Loss Index 0.24

Jaccard Coefficient Of Similarity 0.56

Sörensen Coefficient 0.72

14 Table 4. Dominant taxa (>5% of the collection) for the two sampling stations on the Pacolet River below the Blalock Dam,, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 02 September 2015.

Station 1 Station 2 Taxon No. Rel. Abd. Taxon No. Rel. Abd. Cheumatopsyche sp. 49 21.12 Cheumatopsyche sp. 37 13.60 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 36 15.52 Tricorythodes sp. 25 9.19 Physa sp. 15 6.47 Simulium fibrinflatum 23 8.46 Simulium innoxium 14 6.03 Heterocloeon sp. 20 7.35 Hydropsyche venularis 16 5.88 Triaenodes ignitus 15 5.51 Hydropsyche mississippiensis 14 5.15 Simulium innoxium 14 5.15 Corbicula fluminea 14 5.15

15

Table 5. Habitat assessment scores determined in conjunction with the macroinvertebrate assessment for the two sampling stations on the Pacolet River below the Blalock Dam,, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 02 September 2015.

Habitat Parameter Sta. 1 Sta. 2 1. Epifaunal Substrate/Available Cover 14 16 2. Pool Substrate Characterization 15 17 3. Pool Variability 13 15 4. Sediment Deposition 14 14 5. Channel Flow Status 18 18 6. Channel Alteration 20 20 7. Channel Sinuosity 20 20 8. Bank Stability (Left Bank (LB*)) 10 10 Bank Stability (Right Bank (RB*)) 10 10 9. Vegetative Protection (LB*) 10 10 Vegetative Protection (RB*) 10 10 10. Riparian Vegetative Zone (LB*) 10 10 Riparian Vegetative Zone (RB*) 10 10 Total Score 174 180 * Left or right bank is determined when facing downstream.

APPENDIX B PHASE I MUSSEL MEMO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Spartanburg Water System Licensing Group (SWSLG)

FROM: Shane Boring

DATE: August 10, 2015

RE: Blalock Hydro Project (FERC No. 14388) - Phase I Mussel Survey Results

The Phase I survey for freshwater mussels was completed at Lake Blalock on May 28, 2015. As noted in the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study Plan, the objective of Phase I was to document the presence or absence of mussels in the study area. Methodology and results of the phase I sampling are detailed below.

METHODS

Staff from Kleinschmidt (Shane Boring and Jordan Johnson) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Byron Hamstead) inspected 20 sites within Lake Blalock for presence/absence of freshwater mussel fauna. Sites were established in a range of littoral and shallow water habitats (< 4-5 ft), spatially distributed throughout the study area (Figure 1). Sites were documented using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and important habitat characteristics, such as dominant substrate and presence of in-stream cover, were noted (Table 1). Sites were inspected for an average of 26 person-minutes by visual inspection (walking and inspecting shorelines and shallow, littoral areas), snorkeling or bathyscope (Table 1). Any mussels or mussel shell material encountered as a result of these efforts were photographed and their location documented with GPS.

FINDINGS

Live specimens of paper pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis) were collected at sites 1, 2, 7, and 11 (Table 1) (See attached photos). A shell fragment of U. imbecillis was also found at Site 3, and a weathered shell of what was suspected of being an Elliptio species was found at Site 1 (Table 1). Although Phase I results suggests that mussel densities in Lake Blalock are low, confirmed presence of freshwater mussel fauna within the study area suggests that the Phase II surveys outlined in the Study Plan are warranted. USFWS recommended several of the Phase I sites for further investigation during Phase II (Table 1).

It should be noted that, although the reach of the Pacolet River downstream of the Lake Blalock dam is within the Phase I study area outlined the Study Plan, Phase I sampling was not conducted in the reach due to Phase II surveys having already been triggered by the Phase I findings in the reservoir. In accordance with the Study Plan, Phase II (qualitative) mussel surveys of Lake Blalock and the downstream reach within the study area are schedule for late- summer/early-fall months of 2015. A detailed report summarizing the findings of Phase II will be distributed upon completion of the survey in accordance with the Study Plan requirements.

Page 1 of 3

TABLE 1 – SURVEY SITES WITH SITE DESCRIPTION Search Time Site GPS Coordinates Substrate Methods Comments (min) sand and gravel, cobble at 5 ft, 1 live Utterbackia, 1 apple snail, 1 1 35.086708, -81.887021 snorkel, walking, bathyscope 60 organic/woody debris above 5 ft weathered Ellipito(?) shell 2 35.09524, -81.894823 clay with sparse gravel snorkel, walking, bathyscope 33 1 large, live Utterbackia sand with small gravel and lots of 3 35.09598, -81.900115 snorkel, walking, bathyscope 20 I large apple snail, 1 Utterbackia shell frag organic/woody debris clay/organics over bedrock, lots of 4 35.09779, -81.909897 snorkel, walking, bathyscope 24 woody debris clay, gravel, cobble over bedrock, silty 5 35.10017, -81.909736 snorkel, walking, bathyscope 42 UFSWS recommends survey in Phase II close to shoreline sand with thick clay silt, scatterd gravel, 6 35.105797, -81.919027 snorkel, walking, bathyscope 40 USFWS recommend survey in Phase II large woody debris sand with lots of organics, coarse to 1 small, live Utterbackia, 2 small apple 7 35.10661, -81.940603 snorkel, walking, bathyscope 30 medium sand snails 8 35.10824, -81.951192 mud/silt snorkel, walking, bathyscope 30 9 35.11051, -81.961761 mud/silt/fine sand snorkel, walking, bathyscope 30 UFSWS recommends survey in Phase II 10 35.1083, -81.939131 coarse, shifting sand snorkel, walking, bathyscope 20 low visibility, spotty suitable habitat 11 35.10595, -81.936637 coarse sand with some woody debris snorkel, walking, bathyscope 20 1 live Utterbackia 12 35.10674, -81.931648 silt over gravel/sand snorkel, walking, bathyscope 22 UFSWS recommends survey in Phase II 13 35.10543, -81.91467 fine sand and silt, lots of woody debris snorkel, walking, bathyscope 20 UFSWS recommends survey in Phase II clay with some woody debris; thin layer 14 35.09914, -81.90295 snorkel, walking, bathyscope 20 of sand over bedrock 15 35.09058, -81.888928 silt/sand snorkel, walking, bathyscope 24 16 35.08275, -81.878807 fine sand over bedrock snorkel, walking, bathyscope 10 UFSWS recommends survey in Phase II 17 35.085533, -81.877022 sand with silt layer with emergent veg. snorkel, walking, bathyscope 18 18 35.054246, -81.867176 silty/sand snorkel, walking, bathyscope 15 shelf drops quitckly, not a good site 19 35.063245, -81.874077 silty/sand with emegent veg. snorkel, walking, bathyscope 16 UFSWS recommends survey in Phase II 20 35.075485, -81.88028 snorkel, walking, bathyscope 30 UFSWS recommends survey in Phase II deep mud; visually inspected from boat, 21 35.104091, -81.886645 mud visual but deemed unsuitable habitat for survey

Page 2 of 3

FIGURE 1 – LOCATION OF SURVEY SITES ON LAKE BLALOCK

Page 3 of 3

ATTACHMENT

PHOTOS

PHOTO 1 STUDY SITE 1

PHOTO 2 UTTERBACKIA IMBECILLIS AND APPLE SNAIL FROM STUDY SITE 1

PHOTO 3 STUDY SITE 2

PHOTO 4 LARGE U. IMBECILLIS FROM STUDY SITE 2

PHOTO 5 STUDY SITE 3

PHOTO 6 STUDY SITE 4

PHOTO 7 STUDY SITE 5

PHOTO 8 STUDY SITE 6

PHOTO 9 STUDY SITE 11

PHOTO 10 STUDY SITE 12

PHOTO 11 STUDY SITE 15

PHOTO 12 STUDY SITE 17

PHOTO 13 STUDY SITE 18

APPENDIX C THREE OAKS ENGINEERING MUSSEL REPORT (Report is forthcoming from Three Oaks Engineering by the end of January 2016.)