20030191 Ver 2_Complete File_20030404 (2)

13
AI.COA
February 19, 2002
Mr. John Dorney
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Tapoco Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2169)
Recreation Study Reports - Notice of Availability
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Alcoa Primary Metals.
Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Tapoco Division
300 North Hall Road
Alcoa, TN 37701-2516 USA
1 865 977 3321
Faxi 865 977 3843

Final study reports for the Cheoah River Recreation Study (Recreation Study 2), the
Tapoco Project Regional Recreation Evaluation (Recreation Study 3), the Tapoco
Recreation Induced Demand Interview Form Summary of Results, and the Santeetlah
Reservoir Recreation Experience Survey are now available upon request. The Tapoco
Project Recreation Facilities Inventory, Use Assessment, and Santeetlah Reservoir
Carrying Capacity Analysis Revised Report (Recreation Study 1) and the Santeetlah
Reservoir Regional Economic Impact Analysis Revised Report (addendum to Recreation
Study 1) are alsa now available upon request.
Tapoco received verbal and written comments on all of these reports. Tapoco reviewed
and responded to all comments received and a "Comment Summary" is attached to
each of the final or revised reports.
To receive a copy of any of the aforementioned study reports, please contact Paul
Shiers, PB Power, at [phone] or at [e-mail]. The study.reports will
also be posted on Tapoco's website at www.tapoco-apqi.com. As always, feel free to
contact me at [phone] if you have any questions. We appreciate your continued
participation in the Tapoco Project relicensing.
Sincerely,

Norman L. Pierson
Property and Relicensing Manager
O
ALCOA
February 20, 2002
Mr. John Dorney
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Tapoco Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2169)
December 4-5, 2001 General Meeting
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Alcoa Primary Metals
Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Tapoco Division
300 North Hall Road
Alcoa, TN 37701-2516 USA
1 865 977 3321
Fax[phone]
Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Tapoco Division (Tapoco) hosted a meeting on Tuesday,
December 4, 2001 and Wednesday, December 5, 2001 at the Tapoco Lodge in Tapoco,
North Carolina to present the results of the OASIS model runs for alternatives proposed
at the November 6-7, 2001 meeting and to discuss the information to be included in the
Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA).
On December 20, 2001 Tapoco distributed and solicited comments on a draft meeting
summary. Tapoco did not receive any comments on the draft meeting summary. In
accordance with Tapoco's Communications Protocol, we have enclosed the final
meeting summary. The final meeting summary will also be posted on the Tapoco
relicensing website at www.tapoco-ap iq com.
We appreciate your participation in the relicensing process. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,

Norman L. Pierson
Property and Relicensing Manager
Enclosure

Final Meeting Summary
' Tapoco Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2169)
Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Tapoco Division
General Meeting
December 4-5, 2001
Tapoco, North Carolina

C?

C'

Proposed Agenda
See Attachment 1.
Meeting Attendees
See Attachment 2.
Tuesday, December 4, 2001
Welcome and Introductions
Steve Rothman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Office of Dispute
Resolution, opened the meeting with a welcome, introductions, and a review of the
agenda. Steve explained that Kasha Helget, FERC, would not be facilitating the meeting
because of health reasons. Steve distributed several handouts, including the agenda, a
revised list of interest statements, and an operational, non-operational alternatives list
(each of the handouts are provided as attachments). He stated that the goal of the two-
day meeting is to develop a reasonable range and number of operational options for
initial study in the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA).
OASIS Model Runs
Before presenting the results of the OASIS model runs on the combination alternatives
identified at the November 6-7, 2001 meeting, Shirley Williamson, PB Power reviewed
the identified options for Cheoah River aquatic and boating flows, Santeetlah Reservoir
levels, and Calderwood minimum releases (handout). Donley Hill, USFS, noted that
the "Angler" flow option for the Cheoah River is not a flow that allows angling in the
river, but a flow that the anglers participating in the controlled flow study were most
comfortable with.
The following combination alternatives were analyzed using the OASIS model.
Alternative Priority* Fish Rule Rec Requested Calderwood
1 fish-rule-rec natural-like LB/Robbinsville ??? 250
2 fish-rule-rec R2 LB 26 50
3 fish-rule-rec biodiversit Ta oco 47 0
4 fish-rule-rec Ta oco Robbinsville 38 400
5 fish-rule-rec Ta oco Ta oco 0 0
6 rec-rule-fish natural-like Robbinsville 47 0
7 fish-rule-rec natural-like Robbinsville 47 0

r

1
1

H

0
J

1

8 rule-fish-rec natural-like Robbinsville 47 0
9 fish-rule-rec Ta oco LB 47 0
*Power was fourth priority in each case
The following tables summarize project generation (MWh) and the cost of generation
($/MWh) for each alternative.
Generation MWh Project Total
Base Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Alt 8 Alt 9
D 860,000 700,000 810,000 780,000 760,000 830,000 790,000 790,000 790,000 810,000
Average 1,540,000 1,320,000 1,490,000 1,450,000 1,430,000 1,510,000 1,460,000 1,460,000 1,460,000 1,480,000
Wet 2,130,000 1,800,000 2,050,000 2,010,000 1,990,000 2,080,000 2,010,000 2,020,000 2,010,000 2,050,000
Energy Value $1,000,000
Base Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Alt 8 Alt 9
D $33 $27 $31 $30 $29 $32 $30 $30 $30 $31
Average $51 $44 $49 $48 $48 $50 $48 $48 $48 $49
Wet $67 $57 $65 $64 $64 $66 $64 $64 $64 $65
The following tables summarize losses in project generation (MWh) and the cost of
generation ($/MWh).
Generation MWh Project Total .
Base Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 It 6 Alt 7 Alt 8 Alt 9
D 160,000 50,000 80,000 100,000 30,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 50,000
Average 220,000 50,000 90,000 110,000 30,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 60,000
Wet 330,000 80,000 120,000 140,000 50,000 120,000 110,000 120,000 80,000
Energy Value $1,000,000
Base Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Alt 8 Alt 9
D $5.7 $2.1 $3.0 $4.0 $1.2 $3.0 $2.9 $2.8 $2.2
Average $7.0 $2.3 $3.5 $3.9 $1.2 $3.3 $3.1 $3.2 $2.6
Wet $10.0 $2.0 $3.3 $3.7 $1.1 $3.2 $3.2 $3.2 $2.3
Rod Baird noted that of the alternatives evaluated, the best case scenario, with regard
to cost (excluding the base case) is Alternative 5 (losses of approximately one million
dollars) and the worst case scenario is Alternative 1 (losses of approximately six to ten
million dollars).
Next, as an example, Shirley discussed the impacts of Cheoah River flows. She
compared the historic Santeetlah inflows to the minimum release options. She also
discussed the impact of minimum flows on Santeetlah Reservoir levels and recreational
releases.' She concluded that the choice of Cheoah River minimum releases affects
the ability to provide for the other resources (i.e. everyone loses but the fish).
Shirley also discussed recreation releases in terms of requested versus actual (see
table below). With the exception of Alternative 6, where recreation releases are given
first priority, the number of actual releases based upon the water available is less than
the number of requested releases during the dry and average years.
Shirley's presentation is provided as Attachment 4.
2

?I

Recreation Releases Requested versus Actual
Alternative Rec Requested Actual Dr Actual Average Actual Wet
1 ??? 48 84 151
2 26 16 12 24
3 47 1 29 47
4 38 27 33 38
5 0 0 0 0
6 47 47 47 47
7 47 27 33 47
8 47 27 33 47
9 47 32 35 47
Next, Shirley discussed the range of impacts of Cheoah River and Calderwood flows
(see tables below).
Cheoah River
Impact Areas Least Impact (Alt 5) Greatest Impact (Alt 3)
Dry I Wet Dry I Wet
Santeetlah Rule Curve Ta oco Ta oco
Cheoah River Aquatic Flows
90-20 cfs, 230-50 cfs Tapoco
90-20 cfs Biodiversity
230-50 cfs
Boating Flows
_CO days, 47 days) None 47 days
Combined Impacts $1.2 $1.1 $3.0 $3.3
Calderwood
Impact Areas Least Impact Alt 3) Greatest Impact (Alt 4
Dry I Wet Dry I Wet
Calderwood Minimum Flows 0 cfs 400 cfs
Impacts $0 $0 $2.0 $1.4
Rod Baird thought it would be beneficial to see the loss in project value for each
alternative expressed as a percentage of total power cost. Chris Goudreau said that it
would also be beneficial to understand what option (reservoir levels, river flows etc.)
caused the loss in generation (i.e. having held nothing constant in the OASIS model
runs, it is difficult to determine which option caused the loss in generation). Chris
wanted to know the impacts of Calderwood flows at 250 cfs. Rod noted that the
impacts of Calderwood flows assumed no energy recovery with generation at the base
of Calderwood Dam.
Ray Johns requested copies of the charts showing the weekly average inflow into
Santeetlah Reservoir (1971-2000) and copies of the Santeetlah stage graphs.
Richard Burns, USFS, asked if any of the costs of lost generation could be recovered by
generating at the base of Santeetlah Dam. Andy MacKinnon suggested that generation
at the base of the dam could help provide recreational flows in the Cheoah River. Paul
Shiers, PB Power, explained that it would be cheaper (i.e. more cost effective) to
purchase the power rather than generate for recreational releases at the base of the

dam (the unit at the base of the dam would have to be big, yet the number of hours of
release per year are small). Andy agreed with Richard Burns that generation at the
base of Santeetlah Dam could help offset some of the costs of recreational flows. Paul
said that generation at the base of the dam would be discussed in the PDEA.
Shirley described the range of impacts on annual Santeetlah generation by comparing
generation under the alternative scenarios to the base case. Alternative 1 has the
greatest impact on annual Santeetlah generation. Dick Eyestone asked Shirley to
quantify the value of a foot of water to Tapoco. Shirley replied that a foot of water is
valuable because it affects Tapoco's ability to avoid loss of energy through spills and
also because it allows Tapoco to use the stored water to generate when the value of
power is high and the inflows are low.
Shirley concluded the following:
• Alternatives 1-9 represent a fairly broad range
• Alternatives 1-9 tend toward a higher reallocation of water to non-power uses
• Cheoah River issues evaluated impacts from $1.1 to $9.1 million
• Mainstem issues evaluated impacts from $0 to $2 million
• Choice of Cheoah River minimum release affects ability to provide for other
resources
• Choice of Santeetlah rule curve affects ability to provide for other resources
• Choice of recreation release affects ability to provide for other resources
Alan Hays, Thunderbird Mountaintop, asked if any spills occurred during the model
runs. Shirley said there were spills during the wet year for the higher lake level
alternatives. She offered to quantify the number of spills.
Before adjourning for a short break, Steve Padula, Long View Associates, asked the
group if the next hour or so would be better spent having Shirley provide more detailed
information on the OASIS model runs or, based on the proposed agenda, breaking into
groups to refine a proposed range of alternatives. After a lengthy discussion, the group
' decided to spend the time before lunch caucusing with interest groups/workgroups.
Break
' Caucuses
After Shirley's presentation, various interest groups/workgroups caucused until lunch
(i.e. the Fish, Aquatics, and Water Quality Workgroup met to discuss aquatic flows in
' the Cheoah River, commercial and private boaters met to discuss recreational flows in
the Cheoah River, and Graham County and Santeetlah Reservoir residents met to
discuss lake levels).
After lunch, Randy Benn, Tapoco counsel, proposed, as a "failsafe", that a small
subgroup of five work on a parallel track to begin revising and/or modifying the nine
4

H
n

operational alternatives defined at the November 6-7, 2001 general meeting. The
subgroup would then present the alternatives to the larger group as a "strawman" of
alternatives to be analyzed in the PDEA. Several parties, such as the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC),
requested that Shirley spend some time presenting more detailed information on the
OASIS model runs for the nine alternatives identified at the last meeting. Without this
information, they thought it would be difficult to revise/modify the operational
alternatives. Randy suggested that the larger group could spend additional time with
Shirley reviewing the OASIS model runs while the small subgroup worked on a parallel
track to redefine the alternatives. Rod Baird, Western Carolina Paddlers, suggested
that the parties work collectively to identify a reasonable number of "thematic NEPA
alternatives".
Wendy Bley, Long View Associates, suggested that the group focus on filling some
holes and defining better alternatives, rather than trying to combine options into specific
alternatives. For clarification, Wendy discussed the structure of the PDEA. She
explained that there are two types of "operational alternatives" - "OASIS alternatives"
(e.g. Santeetlah lake levels, Cheoah River flows, Calderwood Bypass flows, and
possibly Chilhowee Reservoir levels) and "operationally-related alternatives" (e.g.
reintroduction of fish populations). There are also non-operational options, such as
vegetation management and recreation facility improvements. Wendy said that each
operational, operationally-related, and non-operational alternative will be discussed, to
some extent, in the PDEA.
Again, Wendy suggested focusing on identifying or providing more definition of issues
that are not on the operational, non-operational list prepared by FERC (e.g. there is no
definition of the "smallmouth bass flow" listed as an operational alternative for the
Cheoah River). Lastly, Wendy noted that the operational and non-operational options
will not be combined in the PDEA.
Several parties requested time for the Fish, Aquatics, and Water Quality and Recreation
and Aesthetics Workgroups to caucus and discuss the compatibility of various aquatic
and boating flows in the Cheoah River.
Fish, Aquatics, and Water Quality Workgroup Discussions
Before caucusing with the Recreation and Aesthetics Workgroup, Paul Leonard, USFS,
summarized the discussions of the Fish, Aquatics, and Water Quality Workgroup that
occurred during the morning caucus. He explained that there are key biological
processes that occur during certain times of the year that could be sensitive to high
flows. He also acknowledged that high flows are important to maintain dynamic
systems. Paul presented and discussed the following chart:
5

J F M A M J J A S O N D
Mussels

Sculpin

Salamander

Darters/Shiner

Early Nest
Spawners

Sum Fractional
Spawners

Suckers/Dace

Spawning
Young fishes
Paul explained that some of the biological concerns relative to high flows include
spawning, rearing larval and young-of-year life stages, rare, threatened, and
endangered species, and impacts on the channel and substrate. Paul outlined low and
high avoidance periods for high flows: February through March is a low avoidance
period and April through June is a high avoidance period. He noted that it would be
important to also discuss the form of the release (i.e. ramping) and the number of
release disturbances. Additionally, consideration must be given to interannual variation
(i.e. the high flow disturbances should not occur at the same time every year). Paul
acknowledged that releases would be "okay" December through March.
' John Miller, Outdoor Adventure Rafting, asked about the impacts to the aquatic
community if there were required releases May through August. Chris Goudreau,
NCWRC, commented that based on IHA (indicators of hydrologic alteration) analysis
and Mark Cantrell's calculations, the number of flow events above 1,130 cfs during an
average year were about nine to ten events, which typically occurred during the winter
and early spring. Chris said that 47 high flows during late spring and summer (one of
the options presented by the commercial rafters) never occurred. John acknowledged
that the request for 47 high flows is not natural. Chris said that the aquatic community
is not used to more than 20 high flows a year. As a possible solution, Chris suggested
that the interval between peak flow events be extended. John agreed that maximizing
conditions to help the aquatic community deal with high flow events should be
considered.
' Rod Baird asked Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, about the source of his
flow data and calculations. Mark said that he conducted IHA analysis on three sets of
6

data: 1) the PB Power reconstructed data (1971-2000), 2) historic data from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at the dam for the years 1913 to 1927 (historic
' pre-dam data), and 3) a collective set of data from the periods 1913 through 1927 and
1971-2000. Rod said that based on his data set, provided by Shirley Williamson at PB
Power, he had calculated many more flows exceeding 1,000 cfs than Mark Cantrell.
Mark said that he analyzed flow events. Rod concluded that the two workgroups
needed to be working from the same data set.
' Charlotte Lackey, Sierra Club, asked Paul to estimate the number of species that would
be lost if there were 30 days of recreational releases with improved base flows. Paul
said that he would have to rely on a comparison to other literature. Chris Goudreau said
' that there were 40-45 species in the Cheoah River historically. Today, the Cheoah
River supports about 17-20 species.
' Andy MacKinnon, Pigeon River Outdoors, suggested an adaptive management
'
Based on these discussions, the Fish, Aquatics, and Water Quality and Recreation and
Aesthetics Workgroups caucused for several hours. The workgroups agreed to discuss
high flows and when they would naturally occur. The workgroups developed the
following table of naturally occurring high flow events:
approach - he suggested starting with a low amount of recreational releases and
monitoring the effects on the aquatic community (if the aquatic community was flushed
1 downstream, the number of release days would decrease and if the aquatic community
was not affected by the high flows there would be a greater number of release days).

H
Months Events Days
Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb Open Open
March 1-2 10
Aril 1-2 8-10
May 1-11/2 4-6
June 1 4-6
Jul 1 4-6
August 1 /3 3-4
Se tember 1 /3 2-4
October 1/3 2-4
Negotiations Protocol
At about 4:30 p.m., everyone reconvened and Gerald Thornton, DOI Office of the
Solicitor, discussed the status of the Negotiations Protocol. He distributed a copy of the
Negotiations Protocol, which the Process Team is recommending as a draft. He asked
' everyone to read and be ready to discuss the protocol the following morning. He noted
that the protocol describes an agreed-upon relicensing process and defines a
settlement process.

I Wrap-up
Before adjourning for the day, Shirley Williamson, at the request of the parties,
distributed copies of the Santeetlah stage graphs that she presented earlier in the day.
' Wendy Bley proposed that she develop an outline of all the operational and non-
operational alternatives to be discussed in the PDEA for the group's review the following
day. Hearing no objections, Steve Rothman said that after a 30-minute discussion on
the Draft Negotiations Protocol, Wendy would step the parties through the PDEA
outline.

I?

Wednesday, December 5, 2001
Negotiations Protocol
Steve Rothman convened the meeting at approximately 8:15 a.m. Gerald Thornton
solicited comments on the Draft Negotiations Protocol. Dick Eyestone, Friends of Lake
Santeetlah, said that he was concerned about the definition, or lack thereof, of
consensus on page 2. He commented that "general agreement" is a vague definition of
consensus. Additionally, Dick was concerned about the differences between a "party"
and a "participant". As defined in the protocol, Dick thought the Friends of Lake
Santeetlah would be better represented if they disbanded and had more parties
represented at the general meetings. Finally, Dick asked what would happen if he
signed the signatory page stating his disapproval of the protocol.
Randy Benn responded that "general agreement" is a broad phrase used by FERC in its
regulations. Randy explained that if a disagreement occurs, there is a four-step dispute
resolution process outlined in the protocol on page 9. Randy also stated that the
Negotiations Protocol will only become effective when a supermajority (defined as 80
percent) of all parties who have participated to date in the Alternative Licensing
Process, excluding any parties that have given notice that they are no longer
participating, sign the protocol. Gerald Thornton addressed the issue of party versus
participant. He explained that everyone has the right to be involved in an Alternative
Licensing Process whether they are considered a party or a participant. The basic
difference between the two is that a party to the relicensing must agree for settlement or
consensus; a participant who does not claim party status does not.
David Meeker, Cross Creek Property Owners Association, suggested that there be
some sort of criteria established for those wishing to become a new party or participant.
He was concerned that anyone could begin participating in the relicensing at the last
minute and be coequal to those participating in the relicensing for years. Gerald replied
that everyone has a right to participate in an Alternative Licensing Process; there is no
legal way to exclude them. Randy suggested adding language to the protocol that
establishes "parties" as those participating in the relicensing process on or before
December 1, 2001. Newcomers after this date could be considered as a participant, but
not a party. Randy noted that even a participant who lacked parry status could file
comments with FERC for the record.
8

I
Chris Goudreau said that he was concerned that a disputing party or parties could be
asked to "park" their disagreement for discussion and resolution outside of the meeting
(Page 9 G2c). Chris recommended that there be some requirement to report back to
the full group about the "discussion and resolution". Mark Cantrell commented that if
the issue being disputed was significant, the discussion and resolution would probably
not occur outside of the full group. Randy Benn agreed to add some clarification to this
section of the protocol. Chris also asked that "party", "participants" and "authorized
representative" be consistently capitalized or not capitalized.
Steve Rothman asked how a party would "assert status as a party into the public
reference file". Randy said that by signing the Negotiations Protocol, a party could
assert its status for the record.
Alan Hays asked how many parties exist currently. Based on the number of interest
statements provided, Randy estimated that there are about 18-20 parties. Robert
Moseley, Town of Robbinsville, asked that the Town of Robbinsville and Graham
County be considered as separate parties. Jeff Duncan, National Park Service,
requested a revised list of the relicensing parties and participants.
Steve Rothman noted some corrections to the signatory page - Steve's email should be
[e-mail]; the return address to FERC is correct, but Steve asked
everyone to add Room 92-37 to the address; and his fax number should be 202-208-
0057. Steve asked that signed copies of the protocol be sent to both him and Norm
Pierson, Tapoco.

I

Andy MacKinnon and Charlotte Lackey asked that the protocol be revised to reflect their
new email addresses: Andy's email address has changed to [e-mail] and
Charlotte's new email address is [e-mail].
Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment Outline
Next, Wendy Bley distributed an outline of the operational and non-operational
alternatives to be discussed in the PDEA. She noted that the outline was based not
only on alternatives discussed at the November 6-7, 2001, but also any alternatives
discussed in verbal or written correspondence to Tapoco. Generally the PDEA will
describe the project; the purpose and need for action; the relicensing process; and the
affected resources and specific resource alternatives. For each resource area, a
description of the studies, existing conditions, alternatives, and the effects of the
alternatives on other resources will be included. The PDEA will also include a
discussion of aggregated operations alternatives, an environmental impacts analysis, a
developmental analysis, and a cumulative effects analysis. Wendy suggested that the
group discuss the resource alternatives individually and then revisit aggregating
resource alternatives for inclusion in the PDEA.

' Ron McKitrick, FERC, commented that the outline presented by Wendy would "go a
long way" satisfying the requirements of a FERC Environmental Assessment. Wendy
' said that she would expand the outline to provide more detail and revise the outline
based on any comments received and redistribute the outline for review.
Wendy noted that several study reports, such as the Habitat Fragmentation Assessment
report and the Abrams Creek Assessment Report, have not been distributed yet. She
said that Tapoco will be accepting comments on each of these reports as they are
I distributed, and any comments or new available information will be included in the
PDEA.
Jeff Duncan asked what would happen if an alternative was suggested that had not
been studied. Wendy replied that the resource studies will provide most of the
information needed to assess the impacts of the alternatives being discussed. If there
are alternatives discussed that have not been studied, Wendy suggested that Tapoco
would try and get the necessary information or leave holes in the PDEA for further
discussion.
The PDEA outline has been revised based on all comments received at the December
4-5, 2001 general meeting (Attachment 5).
' Combination Alternatives

1

F

After completing an intensive review of the PDEA outline and a short break, Dick
Eyestone proposed several combination alternatives for the management of Santeetlah
Reservoir and the Cheoah River to be discussed in the PDEA:
1. Highest lake levels (Robbinsville), natural flow; significant recreational releases
(OASIS run six)
2. High lake levels, lower flow, lower recreational releases (OASIS run nine)
3. Lower lake levels, lower flow, modest to no recreational releases (OASIS run five
modified)
4. Existing conditions
Paul Leonard and Chris Goudreau both commented that to be able to compare the
results of the OASIS model runs to each other, something would have to be held
constant. Ray Johns, USFS, commented that there is no biodiversity flow (aquatic flow
alternative) included in any of the four alternatives outlined by Dick.
After a lengthy discussion, Chris Goudreau proposed that Shirley run a suite of
combination alternatives for the high and low Santeetlah lake levels, the Cheoah River
aquatic flows, and the Cheoah River boating flows, which hold the priority of the options
constant. The options and alternatives, described below, will be analyzed in the PDEA.
Chris suggested that in the meantime, the Fish, Aquatics, and Water Quality and
Recreation and Aesthetics Workgroups work on a parallel track to better define an
aquatic community/boating flow regime.
10

Combination Cheoah River Aquatic Santeetiah Lake Level Cheoah River Boating
1 L L L
2 L L H
3 L H H
4 L H L
5 H L L
6 H H L
7 H L H
8 H H H
Cheoah River Aquatic Flows
' Low - Option 4 (identified in November 2001)
High - Option 1 (identified in November 2001)
Santeetlah Lake Levels
' Low - Option 5 modified to extend summer pool through October 31 (1936' April 1
through October 31; and 1922' November 1 through March 31)
High - Option 2 (1939' April 1 through November 30; and 1930' December 1 through
' March 31)
Cheoah River Boating Flows (to be defined further at a later date)
Low - 0 summer flows, 16 fall flows, and 5 winter flows
High - 29 summer flows, 20 fall flows, and 15 winter flows
' Wrap-up
' Before adjourning, the Fish, Aquatics, and Water Quality and Recreation and Aesthetics
Workgroup agreed to meet on January 15, 2002 in Asheville, North Carolina.
The meeting adjourned at about 4:00 p.m.

11

1 Attachment 1 - Proposed Agenda
' December 4-5 Agenda: Refinement of
Operational and Non-Operational Alternatives
December 4: Focus on Operational/OASIS Issues
8:30-8:40 a.m. Introduction from Steve Rothman. Today's goal is to develop a
reasonable range and number of Operational options for initial study in the
' PDEA.
8:40-10:30 a.m. Presentation to the full group and discussion of the initial OASIS results from
combinations of alternatives determined at the November 7th general meeting.
(Williamson)

J

10:30-10:45 a.m. Break
10:45-11:30 a.m. Based upon the OASIS discussion, we will break into one of the two sets of
groups described below to refine a proposed range of alternatives for the two
major sub-parts of the system: Santeetlah/Cheoah River and Main Stem
developments. (Padula, Hathcock)
The originally proposed groups on an earlier agenda:
1. Recreation and Aesthetic Resources (Cheoah River) (Boaters, Outfitters,
Anglers)
2. Recreation and Aesthetic Resources (Lake Santeetlah) (Lake Residents,
Graham County)
3. Ecological Resources (Fish/Aquatic, including RTEs classified in this
group)
4. Terrestrial Resources (plants/animals, including RTEs classified in this
group)
The Alternative Groups now recommended by the Process Team:
1. Recreational, aesthetic and cultural
2. Aquatic resources
3. Terrestrial resources
11:30-12:30 p.m. Working Lunch and Caucuses, as necessary. (Food will be
brought to the Lodge.)
12:30-1:00 p.m. Fish and Aquatics Workgroup update. (Fish and Aquatics
representative.)
1:00-2:00 p.m. Report from break-out groups to the full group.

r-
u

n
?J
FII
?J

2:00-2:45 p.m. Full group splits into two cross-pollinated subgroups to review the reports of
the interest breakout groups and further refine the range of alternatives for the
Santeetlah/Cheoah River and Mainstem portions of the system. This second
group exercise will focus on filling any "gaps" that may exist between the
"existing conditions" alternative and the alternatives from the first breakout
session to ensure an appropriate range of alternatives.
2:45-3:00 p.m. Break
3:00-4:00 p.m. Full group meets to discuss subgroup findings. Full group agrees on
reasonable range and number of operational options for PDEA analysis.
4:00-4:30 p.m. Introduction of draft Negotiations and Meetings Protocol document.
(Thornton and Benn)
4:30 p.m. Adjourn
December 5: Focus on Non-Operational Issues
8:00-8:30 a.m. Discussion and amendments, as necessary, of Negotiations and Meetings
Protocol document.
8:30-8:50 a.m. Introduction regarding the goal of the day: To develop a reasonable number
of well-defined non-operational "components" that can be added onto the
Operational options for PDEA analysis. Clarifications will be made regarding
NEPA treatment of the types of non-operational components. (Johns and
McKitrick)
' The full group will address the compiled list of non-operational alternatives
identified by the break-out groups at the November general meeting. (This list
will be distributed to the full group for review in a mailing prior to the
' December meeting.) The items from the compiled list will be separated into
the following categories:

n

1. "Operationally-related components." These items, while not technically
operational, are related to, or affect the operations of, the Tapoco Project
(e.g., Cheoah River boating related access facilities, private piers on
Santeetlah, shoreline erosion, enhance littoral zone); and
2. "Non-operationally-related components." These items truly have little or
no connection to project operations (e.g., access to lakes, portage facilities,
trails, camping, angler access, picnicking, user fees, environmental
education/interpretation, releasing land for further development at
Santeetlah, off-site mitigation opportunities, land management activities,
vegetation/exotics management, terrestrial RTE species management, dam

H

n

removal, stocking and fishing regulation, regulating boat and motor sizes,
land swaps, and non-operational cultural resource protection.)
The full group will consider the following questions:
° Are there additions to the components in either category?
° Are the components listed in their proper category?
° Are there status reports or updates that affect the group's ability to
consider any of the components?
The full group will then:
° Link operationally-related components to appropriate operational
alternatives developed during the OASIS meeting on the first day.
° Split the non-operationally-related components between those items that
"could" be related to the relicensing, and those that are clearly not related to
the relicensing (e.g., fishing or hunting regulations, regulation of boat and
motor size).
Note: We will take a mid-morning break at an appropriate time.
12:00-1:00 p.m. Working Lunch. (Food will be brought to the Lodge.)
1:00-2:00 p.m. Full group discussion on remaining issues in contention (as needed).
2:00-4:00 p.m. Full group confirmation of initial list of alternatives/components to
begin PDEA analysis.
4:004:15 p.m. Discuss future meeting plans.
4:15 p.m. Adjourn

Attachment 2 - Meeting Attendees
J

E

Name Organization
Adam Kennon Student observer
Alan Has Thunderbird Mountaintop
And MacKinnon Pigeon River Outdoors
Bob Hathcock -
Nantahala Outdoor Center
Bob Nichols TN Wildlife Resources Agency
Bob Wiggins Carolina Canoe Club
Carolyn Allison Wildwater Rafting
Carroll Schell Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Charlotte Lackey Sierra Club
Chris Goudreau NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Christine Mercle Western North Carolina Alliance
Claudine Gibson Graham Count
Coral n Benhart Alcoa
Dale Wiggins Graham Count
Dave Meeker Cross Creek
David Cod Ta oco Lodge
David Wright US Forest Service
Dick E estone Friends of Lake Santeetlah
Dirk Cod Ta oco Lodge
Donley Hill US Forest Service
Doug Nieman Normandeau Associates
Doug Odell Friends of Lake Glenville
Evan Crews TVA
Fran Bishop Robbinsville Libra Board
Gene Ellis Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Gerald Thornton DOI Office of the Solicitor
Guy Owen Friends of Lake Santeetlah
Hardin Hohenshutz Town of Lake Santeetlah
Jack Rinehart Thunderbird Property Owners Association
Jeff Duncan National Park Service
Jody Johns-Cason Lon View Associates
John Boaze Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
John Miller Outdoor Adventure Rafting
Julian Polk APGI, Ta oco
Kevin Colburn American Whitewater
Kurt Chandler Bureau of Indian Affairs
Mark Cantrell US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mark Fa IN Wildlife Resources Agency
Norm Pierson APGI, Ta oco
Paul Leonard Entrix, Inc.
Paul Shiers PB Power
Rand Benn LLGM, Ta oco counsel
Rand Collins NC Cooperative Extension
Ra Johns US Forest Service
Richard Burns US Forest Service
Robert Moseley, Town of Robbinsville

?I

I

C

u
Name Organization
Ron McKitrick FERC
Ron Pasch TVA
Sarah Sims Graham County
Sarah Verville Lon View Associates
Shirley Williamson PB Power
Steve Reed NC Division of Water Resources
Steven Rothman FERC
Sue Fugate APGI, Ta oco
Sylvia Earle Resident of Forest Lakes
Warren Earle Resident of Forest Lakes
Wend Ble Lon View Associates
H

Attachment 3 - Handouts Distributed at the December 4-5, 2001 Meeting
Revised List of Interest Statements
FERC Operational, Non-operational Alternatives List
OASIS Operations Model Results (Dry, Wet, Average Year)
' Summary of OASIS Model Results
Draft Negotiations Protocol
r

t

I
I I
?I

0

Tapoco Relicensing -- Lists of Interests
Note: These include the edits from the Full Group meeting of
November 6-7, 2001, as well as a revision from Bob Hathcock representing
the Commercial Rafting Industry.
American Rivers
1. Promote biodiversity.
2. Support recreation and access.
3. Maintain and restore streams.
4. Ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and obtain Section 401 Water
Quality Certification from North Carolina and Tennessee.
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
1. Increase recreational opportunities on Tapoco Project rivers and reservoirs,
such as improved boat ramps, handicapped fishing pier/access, and bank fishing
facilities.
2. Protect and enhance the native terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.
3. Locate and protect Native American cultural resources.

u
n

E
Friends of Lake Santeetlah
1. Improve recreational use of the lake, such as through higher lake levels, as
much as possible.
2. Improve aesthetics of the lake.
3. Ensure safer and easier access to the lake for lakeside residents.
4. Minimize shoreline erosion.
5. Further the economic development in Graham County.
1

Graham County and Town of Robbinsville

f

1. Favor economic development with revenues derived from County's natural
resources.
2. Raise operational revenues that cannot be raised from the tax base because of
the amount of land in public ownership, small population, high levels of poverty
and unemployment, and growing population of older citizens.
3. Attract tourism to help local businesses and to help diversify the distressed
economy.
4. Improve recreational use of Santeetlah Lake to improve tourism, such as higher
lake levels for a longer period of time.
5. Improve aesthetics of Santeetlah Lake to improve tourism.
6. Improve recreational use of the Cheoah River to increase tourism, such as
increasing spills into the river for fishing and whitewater activities.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources -- DENR
1. Preserve, conserve, restore, and manage the natural resources, and promote
their responsible use now and in the future.
2. Assure sufficient instream flow in rivers and streams to provide adequately for
aquatic habitat, recreation, aesthetics, water quality, riparian vegetation, and
wetland maintenance.
3. Restore and protect the quality of North Carolina's waters. This includes
assuring long-term compliance with water quality standards and classifications,
improving waters that do not fully attain their use, and preventing degradation of
water quality in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
4. Balance reservoir levels to provide for recreational opportunities-, aquatic biota,
aesthetics, and hydroelectric power production.
2

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1. Restore, protect and improve self-sustaining fish and wildlife resources and
their habitats, including aquatic and terrestrial communities in general and rare,
threatened and endangered (R/T/E) species of interest in Tapoco Project.
2. Optimize conditions for selected fish species for recreational. use in the
' Santeetlah Reservoir, Cheoah/Calderwood Reservoirs, Cheoah River, and wildlife
species in contiguous terrestrial areas.
3. Provide enjoyable, safe, recreational use of public trust resources within the
project.
1 Outdoor Adventure Rafting
1. Allow enough release days and volumes to support an on-site (Graham
County) outpost.
2. Allow flexibility to release (increase) whitewater based on consideration of
the following factors:
- Promotion of biological and ecological objectives such as bio-diversity,
promotion of RTE species etc.
- Acceptable Santeetlah lake levels.
- Customer demand for whitewater rafting.
' - Hydroelectric demand.
- Wet/dry seasons
' 3. Consider customer demand for whitewater rafting in the southeast by season
(highest on summer weekends and holidays, lowest in winter).
4. Allow flexibility to change days of scheduled releases from one year to the
next based on a yearly review process, and for extraordinary circumstances
with consensus of all affected parties.
' 5. Share burden of low water flows equally among all competing interests
during drought years.

0

n

Commercial Rafting Industry
Develop a rafting mini-season that satisfies the following necessities:
1. Attract tourism to Graham County for economic benefit of those citizens.
2. Offer a new experience to our guests.
I. Enhance the mountain lake experience for residents and visitors.
4. Allow outfitters to quickly establish an economically viable business that
allows continual re-investment in infrastructure for the future of this valuable
resource.
5. Develop future use venues such as mountain bike trails and primitive camp
sites on Calderwood Reservoir for sea kayak trips on Tapoco lands.
6. Have the flexibility to adjust flow regimes according to future experience as
needed.
Private Boaters:
American Whitewater, Western Carolina Paddlers, Carolina Canoe Club
Develop a holistic restoration plan for the Cheoah River that balances:
a. life history and habitat needs for aquatic organisms,
b. a schedule of releases of optimum flows for whitewater recreation in a
manner that benefits the local economy,
c. enhances public access to the river,
d. provides accurate flow information on a timely basis,
e. protects upstream interests in Santeetlah reservoir pool elevations, and
f. develops non-motorized recreational opportunities on the other
reservoirs.
Ta oco
Obtain new Tapoco Project license that would:
a. maximize project value within appropriate regulatory requirements.
b. avoid unnecessary increases in operating and maintenance costs; find
cost-effective solutions to resource impacts attributable to project
operations,
4

c. maintain operational flexibility, with ability to peak and load follow, as
' needed,
d. maintain safe project operations,
e. minimize uncertainty during new license term,
' f. approve continued turbine upgrade program,
g. provide maximum new license term,
' h. provide reasonable monitoring obligations to document compliance with
license requirements, and
' i. meet recreational and environmental needs within the project boundary.
2. Effect changes in Santeetlah Operating Guide with intent to:
a. continue to operate Santeetlah Dam for maximum generation value,
' b. utilize storage for generation during periods of high-cost purchased
power during the year,
' c. enhance fish spawning through appropriate water level management,
d. utilize storage to make reasonable aquatic releases in Cheoah River to
enhance aquatic habitat,
' e. find mutually beneficial ways to enhance recreational use of reservoir
and Graham County economy through water level management, and
' f. operate reservoir to minimize spills and downstream flooding.
3. On the Cheoah River:
a. enhance habitat for R/T/E species of concern, and
' b. enhance existing fishery and angling opportunities that provide
economic enhancement for Graham County.

4. On the Calderwood Bypass/Tailwater:
a. maintain existing project operation, with no loss of generation at this
development,
b. restrict access to Calderwood bypass area as needed for safety concerns,
and
c. enhance angling opportunities for existing fishery in Calderwood
tailwater area.
5. On Chilhowee Reservoir:
a. maintain existing project operation, with no loss of generation at this
development,
b. maintain fishery and enhance angling opportunities, and
c. cooperate with NPS on aquatic resource enhancements in Abrams Creek
above Chilhowee Reservoir.
5

C!

t

0

6. Provide vegetation and wildlife management that would:
a. assist other land management agencies in cooperative management of
critical exotic species,
b. manage project lands to protect existing habitat for R/T/E species of
concern,
c. cooperate with NPS to protect R/T/E species on Tapoco-owned bluffs
near Tabcat,
d. cooperate with wildlife management agencies to manage project lands as
gamelands, and
e. continue current vegetation management program for project
transmission lines.
7. To promote recreation:
a. cooperate with other recreation management agencies to provide and
enhance recreational access to project lands and waters, where appropriate
and as needed,
b. enhance universal accessibility at some project recreation sites,
c. continue to meet recreation demand at the project over the term of a new
license,
d. obtain cost reimbursement, to the extent possible, for capital and O&M
for recreation facilities required under the new license, and
e. provide recreational opportunities in Santeetlah Reservoir and the
Cheoah River that enhance the Graham County economy while minimizing
the lost generation value at the Santeetlah and Cheoah developments.
8. Provide appropriate protection for cultural resource sites affected by project
operations deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
9. Maintain and improve relationships with neighbors, resource agencies and the
general public.
10. Achieve pre-filing settlement agreement that satisfies Tapoco's interests while
reducing post-filing process costs, bringing certainty to future operational
requirements sooner and strengthening agency and community relations.
Tennessee Clean Water Network
Continue Tapoco operations to directly benefit the economy and families of East
Tennessee.
6

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

0

n

1. Restore, protect and improve the fish and wildlife and vegetative resources on
Project land and waters in Tennessee.
2. Increase recreational opportunity on project lands and waters in Tennessee.
U.S. Department of Interior
A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Protect and contribute to the recovery of endangered aquatic and terrestrial
species.
2. Promote biological diversity.
3. Control the effects of exotic (non-native) aquatic and terrestrial species.
4. Maintain a flow regime in the Little Tennessee River system, in general, and
in the Cheoah River and Calderwood bypass reaches, in particular, that maintains
ecological processes and enhances natural aquatic assemblages.
5. Manage vegetation to enhance natural communities (animal and plant) within
project boundaries and rights-of-ways.
6. Reduce and mitigate the effects of project-induced habitat fragmentation, both
riverine and upland.
7. Enhance tribal, cultural, and public recreational opportunities of the natural
resources in the project area.
8. Adjust reservoir levels seasonally to optimize aquatic and terrestrial habitats
and recreational needs.
9. Ensure adequate fish passage around dams for native species.
10. Protect against entrainment and impingement of fish species by project
facilities.
11. Protect water quality.
7
n

B. National Park Service
(1) Great Smoky Mountains National Park
' 1. Protect R/T/E terrestrial species at park boundary and generally within the
project area.
' 2. Manage exotic plant species within the project area and along the boundary
with the park.

P

3. Control exotic fish species and aquatic pathogens because of potential
invasions and/or the introduction of diseases.
4. Control herbicide use within the project area to protect against the
accumulation of fuels, fires, soil impact, and the invasion of exotic plant species.
5. Protect habitat and provide more habitat for the Red Cocaded Woodpecker.
6. Restore stream habitat in Abrams Creek to provide habitat for native fish
species.
7. Protect cultural and archaeological sites throughout project area.
8. Protect R/T/E aquatic species and streamside species throughout the project
area.
(2) NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
Assistance Program (RTCA)
1. Develop and enhance access to project reservoirs and rivers for use by
canoeists, kayakers, fishermen and other recreationists.
2. Provide financial support for upland and aquatic restoration, land protection,
and development, improvement, and management of recreational facilities within
the Cheoah and Little Tennessee watersheds.
3. Restore riverine habitat within the project area.
4. Protect and investigate historical and archaeological resources within the
project area.
5. Improve instream flows to better approximate pre-impoundment conditions.
6. Improve water availability within project area for recreational and
environmental conservation purposes by adjusting Tapoco's demand for water
from the Little Tennessee River basin.

U. S. EPA Region 4

1. Protect existing water quality; management/alleviate any existing or future
threats to long-term water quality.
2. Protect/conserve existing wetlands and other special aquatic sites.
3. Protect/restore existing or historical streambeds and riparian buffer habitat.
4. Protect existing high-quality/biologically important upland habitats.
5. Provide opportunities for restoration/enhancement of native riparian habitats
and stream corridors.
6. Provide opportunities for changes in project management that would
protect/recover sensitive aquatic species.
U.S. Forest Service
' The Forest Service supports Tapoco project operations that:
1. Provide reservoir releases that result in stream flow regimens of sufficient
quantity, quality, and timing necessary to support a diverse community of aquatic
biota and high quality recreation experiences.
2. Protect and where possible, enhance conditions favorable to existing species of
native fauna and flora.
-- Control exotic species in the project areas and adjacent lands.
' 3. Enhance biological diversity in project-associated waters by restoring self-
sustaining populations of native aquatic flora and fauna.
' 4. Provide high quality recreational opportunities appropriate to the environment
and social setting of the area.
5. Improve fishing opportunities by creating better environments for resident
' native and desired non-native fish species, by improving accessibility, and through
other management actions such as stocking.
' 6. Develop interpretative materials and programs that provide: conservation
education and environmental appreciation opportunities to the public.
7. Provide barrier free access to a range of recreation opportunities for people
' with different abilities.
8. Provide the opportunity for visitors to experience a variety of recreational
' activities including developed and undeveloped camping, recreational boating,
hiking, sightseeing, and picnicking.
' 9. Manage, maintain and develop sites to provide a safe, aesthetically pleasing
forest atmosphere, in context with the social setting.
' 9

10. Improve the quality of life for citizens of local areas by helping to meet the
basic needs of people and communities who depend on National Forest resources.
11. Improve the economic prosperity of local communities.
12. Protect heritage resources by minimizing disturbance of sites affected by the
' operation of the project or by the activities of visitors to the project area.
WNC Alliance
' and
WNC Group, North Carolina Chapter, Sierra Club
1. Protect R/T/E species of plants and animals within Tapoco's area of operation
and influence.
2. Provide for exchange of genetic material (when possible) among small
populations which have been isolated from one another by habitat fragmentation.
3. Extirpate, when possible, exogenous species, identified by GSMNP, the USFS,
USF&W, and NCWRC, as threats.
4. Allow the "dry" section of the Cheoah River to run as naturally as possible.
5. Allow the "dry" section of the Cheoah River to return to a fishing stream, as
much as possible.
6. Allow for as much recreational whitewater release from Lake Santeetlah as
possible.
7. Encourage more recreational uses, such as canoeing and kayaking, on all the
' lakes, provide as much camping sites on the lakes as possible, and provide
portages around the dams.
8. Protect all the lakes from pollution of the water, air, noise and inflow of
sediments and chemicals in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
-- Create a citizen-based conservation fund for water quality monitoring and
land conservation.
9. Promote water safety for boaters and users on lakes and for whitewater
paddling.
10. Preserve the Cheoah River stream bed (boulders and rocks) in as natural a
state as possible.

10

n

Key: Operational = matters that are not technically operational but are affected
by, or affect the operations of, the Tapoco Project
Non-operational = matter that have little or no connection to project
operations
Operational
Cheoah River
• Year round trout fishery
• Delayed harvest trout fishery/cool
water fishery
Re-diversion of Santeetlah Creek
• Minimize Sateetlah spills that affect
downstream properties
Adaptive management
• Enhance biodiversity
Non-Operational
Cheoah River
• Stream buffers/RTE habitat
management
• Exotic species management /invasive
exotic control
• Improved angler access
• Provide for other recreational uses
(hiking, picnicking, sightseeing)
• User fee, fair representation
• User fee to benefit county
• No user fee
• Modified channel morphology
. Offsite mitigation
Invasive exotic control
Junaluska salamander monitoring
• Riparian vegetation management
• Vegetation removal from Cheoah River
channel
• Appropriate facilities and access for
recreation use (private and commercial
boaters, anglers)
• Maximum benefits to Graham County
• On-line flow information
• Reintroductions (fish and terrestrials)
• Reintroduce native species of
importance (extant to Cherokee and
EUCHEE tribes) to stream
• Develop and implement a plan for the
Virginia spiraea (cooperators -
NCDOT, Tapoco, USFS) -the plan
should also address other invasive
exoticsi

1

2
Operational
The Main Stem Little Tennessee
Reservoir Chain
Non-Operational
The Main Stem Little Tennessee
Reservoir Chain
Remove 1) Chilhowee Dam, 2) Cheoah •
Dam, 3) Calderwood Dam, restore to
free flowing river
Maintain status quo 1) Chilhowee, 2)
Cheoah, 3) Calderwood with mitigation
elsewhere
Utilize generation at point of release at
Calderwood
Reduce spills at mainstem dams
Increase peaking at mainstem dams to •
offset losses at Santeetlah
. Establish a large river trout fishery
below Calderwood powerhouse
. No reservoir behind Chilhowee Dam (to •
establish a trout/sport fishery) .
. Ecological restoration with free flowing
river
Increase recreation facilities on all
three reservoirs
Portages around all dams (end to end
paddling)
Develop pre-impoundment cultural
resources map (non archeological)
Status quo with mitigation on 1) project
lands and 2) non-project lands
Enhance littoral habitat
Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat
restoration
Lower Little Tennessee RTE
consortium
Indiana Bat
Cooperative arrangement with
USFWS, NPS, TWRA, and Tapoco to
repatriate extirpated species in Abrams
Creek (mitigation through restoration)
Restrict the introduction of exotic
terrestrial and fish species and/or
diseases
Exotics (terrestrial and fisheries)
removal end to end (cooperative
agreements, monitoring, management
plans)
Mitigation on project and non-project
lands
Maintain buffers along
reservoirs/streams/rivers
Identify critical habitat for protection
(e.g. conservation easements)
Monitor effects of reservoir/river
management on Junaluska salamander
Maintain and enhance existing
corridors between the park, Cherokee
National Forest, and Tapoco
No sale of land for development
(added)
Make Calderwood Reservoir motorless
or limited in size (wake limit)
No limits on Calderwood Reservoir
Trails, camping, and historic access
Develop historic resources map
ADA accessibility
Optimize fish populations (stocking)

and slot limits
H

n

1

4
Operational
Mainstem Reservoirs
Optimize fish populations (stocking,
slot limits) - Could be Operational or
Non-operational
Operational
Calderwood Bypass (Specifically)
Mussel flows and restoration
Operational
Santeetlah Reservoir

Access to docks year round
Dock permitting to accommodate fixed
docks conducive to lake fluctuation
Permanent docks with stairs for lake
access for residents
Access to lake; public boat ramps,
angler access
Erosion and sediment control/concerns
All existing and future recreational
facilities brought up to USFS standards
and adequately funded
All current and future access areas
made barrier free (ADA, handicapped
accessible)
Recreation facilities to code
More development to increase tax base
- Alcoa to release more land for
development
More beaches
Non-Operational
Mainstem Reservoirs
Improve accessibility
Current mainstem reservoir operations
with enhanced recreation - access,
portage, trails, camping, historic spots,
and sea kavakinq at Calderwood
Non-Operational
Calderwood Bypass (Specifically)
Safe boating /angling access in the
bypass
Restrict recreational access to
Calderwood bypass
Modified channel morphology
Off-site mitigation [for Calderwood
bypass]
Non-Operational
Santeetlah Reservoir
Optimize gamefish populations .
Minimize shoreline erosion, erosion
protection
Main Stem mitigation efforts on
Cheoah River flows
Lakes managed to meet USFS scenery standards
Minimize frequency of Santeetlah spills -
that affect downstream properties

0
0

5
Non-Operational
Santeetlah Reservoir (cont'd)
All of Graham County can capitalize on
its tourism; the benefits of hydropower
go downstream, must provide tourism
• User fees (fair representation, none
benefit county)
• Concerns about boating around
residences - safety
• Develop cooperative agreements
(private and public) to identify, control,
and monitor invasive exotics using IPM
strategies
• Critical habitats
• Water quality inflow to lake
Pollution
• Establish wildlife corridors
• No wake zones in coves; safety
concerns around private property
• Shoreline management
Reduce habitat fragmentation for
tributary populations of Junaluska
salamander
• Enhance wetlands and nearshore
habitat
• Minimize pollution from trout farms

?I

i1

Operational Non-Operational
Alcoa/Tapoco Hydropower Operations Alcoa/Tapoco Hydropower Operations
Reduce Alcoa's power demands (and Develop reasonable implementation
therefore water demands) through schedule for protection, mitigation, and
conservation/technology efficiencies enhancement measures
Increase turbine/generator efficiencies
Install and utilize generation at point of
release at Santeetlah and Calderwood
Dams
Reduce spills at Main Stem reservoirs
. Increase peaking operations at Main
Stem dams to offset losses in peak
generation at Santeetlah
. Utilize available water during summer
period to recover generation value
(water level flexibility)
Operational Non-Operational
Applied to Entire Project: Applied to Entire Project:
Cultural Resources 1. Terrestrial Resources (Plants,
. Stabilize water levels in reservoirs to Animals, and RTEs)
prevent destruction of cultural sites,
both ancient and modern a. Control Invasive Exotic Species
Develop cooperative agreements to
develop and implement strategies to
control exotic species, using integrated
pest management strategies (IPM)
Develop ongoing monitoring plan to
determine which exotic species are
increasing/decreasing
Publicity/education about exotic plants
and animals (brochures/films -
educating the public about the
detrimental affects of exotics)
b. Other Considerations
• Resource agencies to lengthen the
hunting season of wild boar
Maintain and enhance existing corridor
between the Great Smokey Mountains
National Park, Tapoco, and the
Cherokee National Forest (for bear and

7
other wildlife) -'Wildlife corridors"
P

r
C

u

n

2. RTE Species
Expand suitable habitat for Red-
cockaded woodpecker (drilling nesting
cavities or prescribed fire)
• Develop lower Little Tennessee
consortium to help promote restoration
and management of RTE species
Identify critical habitat areas for
heightened protection (e.g.
conservation easements, land
donation)
Indiana bats
• RTE monitoring
3. Recreation
• Phase in recreational facilities over
time to meet demand
Non-Operational
Applied to Entire Project (cont'd)
4. Other
USFS, Tapoco access roads
management agreement
Outdoor classroom/education
Maintain buffers along
streams/rivers/reservoirs
Continue monitoring program along
transmission line corridors (to detect
vegetation changes)
Conservation education
Transmission line corridor vegetation
management
Pipeline maintenance
Transmission line monitoring program
to detect vegetation changes
Environmental education
5. Cultural Resources
Re-interment of human remains and
funerary objects of historic and
prehistoric peoples at or near discovery
sites
Protect historic and prehistoric sites on
project lands away from

r

1
C

L

n

8
reservoirs/rivers/stream s
Require Tapoco to have a cultural and
archeological interpretation program for
both public education and to enhance
protection of resources
Provide appropriate access to cultural
sites by interested parties
Return of cultural artifacts to an
appropriate repository in accordance
with NAGPRA (The Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act)
Provide appropriate access to project
lands for traditional cultural activities
Cultural and archeological interpretive
program

Operations
Model Results
Dry Year
i m = ? m m
1
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 2
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco DASIStrunslSimuiationtNov7 Dry_AIt2A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 11:51
1820
1815
1810
1805
a?
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
computed lower rule upper rule
2
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 3

..
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco_OASISlrunsiSimulationlNov7_Dry_Alt3A 18121, Mon Dec 03 2001 11:47
1820
Wx
1815
1810
1805
Y
Q?
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
computed - louder rule - upper rule
3
ONSCREEN.PPT
mm m ='= = mm m m = m m m = m m
Combination Alternative 4
??j,r, CCyy . 1 • wj
a
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco_OASISIrunslSimulationlNov7 Dry_AIt4A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:14
1
1
1
d
w
1
1
1
4
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative S
? . i jdA Window jr o
Santeetlah Stage
D:XTapoco OASISlrunslSimulationtNov7_Dry_AltSA 18121, Mon Dec 03 2001 11:52
1820
1815
1810
1805
V
12
1800
1795
1790
1785
8
Date
computed lower rule upper rule
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 6
irk'
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco OASIStrunstSimulationlNov7 Dry_AitSAI, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:16
1820
Date
- computed - lower rule upper rule

6
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 7
I g
lit '?rit?[Gt} Gtft? ??.
Santeetlah Stage
D:XTapoco DASIS%runslSimulationlNov7 Dry AIt7AI, Mon Dec 03 2001 11:52
1820
1815
1810
1805
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
computed -lower rule upper rule
F
7
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 8
Santeetiah Stage
D:1Tapoco_QASISIrunsiSimuiationINov7 Dry_AIt8A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:15
1n2n
1
1
1
m
w
1
1
1
1
Date
......--_.._..........
_..
- computed - lower rule upper rule
8
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 9
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoca OASISiruns%SlmulationlNov7 Dry_Alt9A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:18
A nnn
1
1
1
r
m
w
1
1
1
1
8
Date
---- computed -- lower rule upper rule
9
ONSCREEN.PPT

Operations
Model Results
Wet Year
10
ONSCREENYPT
M M M M M M M M M M M = M M M M M M M
Combination Alternative 2
1 1 . 1 1 / x'. ? aA
xL f P __ :3
Sant%W%W Q Stage y. ?
D:iTapoco_OASISlrunslSimulationlNov7_Wet Alt2A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:13
1820
1815
1810
1805
rD
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
- computed - lower rule -- upper rule
11
ONSCREEN.PPT
M = = = r s M r = = M M M = M
Combination Alternative 3

Santeetlah Stage
D:lTapoco OASISIrunslSimulationINov7 Wet Alt3A 18121, Mon Dec 03 2001 11:60
1820
1815
1810
1805
V
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
computed - loaner rule upper rule
Ax
12
ONSCREEN.PPT
s = M = = = i = = = M M = M
Combination Alternative 4
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco OASISlrunslSimulationlNov7 Wet AIt4A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:08
1820
1815
1810
1805
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
4
Date
i
- =J
computed - louder rule upper rule
13
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative S
t0 ?;? , , c i off} r ,'b3s? t? ayi
a.:xa re.::6
F d f, WY4dO IY1fO
Santeetiah Stage
D:%Tapoco OASISlrunsiSimuiationiNov7 Wet AIt5A 18121, Mon Dec 03 200112:10
1820
1815
1810
1805
1n
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
computed - lower rule upper rule
14
ONSCREEN.PPT
M M M M M M M M i r M r r M M M M M M
Combination Alternative 6
?? . loo - ... ,.,.
Santeetlah Stage
D:XTapoco OASISlrunslSimulationlNov? Wet AIt6At, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:12
1820
1815
1810
1805
m
1800
1795
1785
Date
computed lower rule upper rule

15
ONSCREEN.PPT
=.= ==== M r == M= M M M M M
Combination Alternative 7
N rr R ,...? 9 ; ,A
Santeetlah Stage
D:tTapoco GASISIrunsiSimulationlNov7 Wet Alt7A1 Mon Dec 03 2001 12:10
1820
1815
S
1810
1805
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
computed - lu+roer rule upper rule
y4
UA
16
ONSCREEN.PPT
m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m ¦n
Combination Alternative 8
Fife E)?it ` ??'fld[,iFJ !r)t??
Santeetlah Stage
D:iTapoco_DASIS%runslSimulationlNov7 Wet Alt8A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:10
1820
1815
1810
1805
a?
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
............
- computed - lower rule upper rule
ON
17
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 9
:r?r ?ind?:?In(ct ass^
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco__OASISIrunsiSimuiationiNov7 Wet_AIt9A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:11
1820
1815
1810
1805
1n
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date

computed - lower rule - upper rule
18
ONSCREEN.PPT
m = = m = r m = = m m = = = m = m m
Operations
Model Results
Average Year
19
ONSCREEN.PPT
M M = M ' M M ! M M M M M M = M M = M
Combination Alternative 2
FOR I iR 1711
Re Efiu? hf_Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco_OASISlrunslSimulation%Nov7 Ave AIt2Ai, Mon Doc 03 2001 12:19
1820
1815
1810
1805
a?
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
- computed - lower rule upper rule
20
ONSCREEN.PPT

= m m ==== m = m m) m== m m = w
Combination Alternative 3
'Eft
Santeetiah Stage
D:XTapoco__OASIStrunsXSimulationtNov7 Ave Alt3A 1812X, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:20
1820
1815
1810
1805
,r
a?
1800
1795
1790
1785
3
Date
computed lower rule upper rule
21
ONSCREEN.PPT
m m= m= r= r= m m m m = m m m
Combination Alternative 4
Santeetlah Stage
D:ITapoco_QASISIrunslSimulationlNov7 Ave AUAX, Mon Dec 03 2001 11:52
182Q
1815
1810
1805
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
3
Date
._j
computed lower rule upper rule
22
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 5
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco OASIS%runslSimulationlNov7 Ave Ait5A 18121, Mon Doc 03 2001 12:20
1820
1815
1810
1805
m
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
010,119"21 04/30193 061219143 *A163 16/2719 3 1
3
Date
computed - lower rule upper rule
23
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 6
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco_QASISirunslSimulationlNov7 Ave Alt6A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:22
1820
1815
1810
1805
m
w
1800
Date
A
OJ.y^?)
"';:
computed - louder rule upper rule
24
ONSCREEN.PPT
r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r rr r r. r
Combination Alternative 7
? dit ?r irn?+;V ;?tlfn
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoce OASISirunslSimulationlNov7 Ave Alt7Al, Mon Dec 03 200112:22
leen
1
1
1
a?
1
1
1
1
Date
i
computed --- lower rule upper rule
25
ONSCREEN.PPT

Combination Alternative 8
Santeetlah Stage
D:ITapoco DASISirunslSimulationlNov7 Ave_Alt8A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:22
182['
181E
1810
1805
ar
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
3
Date
computed lower rule upper rule
J..?J.vM.++1
?J
26
ONSCREEN.PP7

Combination Alternative 9
w ip J
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco OASIStrunslSimuiationlNov7 Ave AIt9A1, Mon Dec 03 2001 12:22
1820
1815
1810
1805
d
w
1800
1795
1790
1785
Date
computed -- lovver rule
- upper rule
27
ONSCREENYPT

SUMMARY OF Deco PresentRnd

Summary of Project Generation an Cost o Generation I
Rec Rec MWh Loss @ Santeetlah
Alternative Prionty _ash Rule requested Cald actual %of Total Annual
DRY AVERAGE WET DRY AVM=
1 fish-rule-rec natural 14e LB Robbins 365 250 48 84 151 90% 85% 90%
2 fish-rule•rec R2 LB 26 50 16 12 24 31% 24% 19%
3 fish-rule-rec b?od,,wsny ____
Tapoco 47 0 1 38 46 55% 41% 35%
4 fish-rule•rec Tapoco Robbins 38 400 27 33 38 34% 24% 23%
5 fish-rule-rec _
Tapoco _
Tapoco 0 0 0 0 0 21% 12% 12%
6 rec-rule-fish natural-IFe_ _
Robbins 47 0 47 47 47 53% 35% 31%
7 fish-rule-rec naturai-ide Robbins 47 0 27 33 47 52% 35% 31%
8 rule-fish-rec _
natural-Ike Robbins 47 0 27 33 47 51% 41% 31%
9 fish-rule•rec _ Tapoco- LB 47 0 32 35 47 36% 29% 23%

Oct 10 BASE Nov7__A16A _Nov7_Ah2A ov7_Alt3A_18 Nov7_Alt4A ov7_AH5A_18 Nov? Alt6A Nov7_Alt7A Nov7_A118A Nov? AIt9A
COMBINATION C ASES
Base Cass _ _ AH 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Aft 6 Alt 7 Alt 8 A149
Santeetlah Only
Generation, MWh
DRY 110,000 _ 11,000 76,000 49,000 73,000 87,000 52,000 53,000 54,000 70,000
AVERAGE 170,000 25,000 _ 130,000 100,000 130,000 150,000 110,000 110,000 100,000 120,000
WET 260,000 26,000 210,000 170,000 200,000 230,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 200,000

Energy Value, $1, 000,000
DRY $3 8 $0 3 $2.3 $1.4 $2.2 $2.8 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $2.1
AVERAGE $5.4 $0 6 $3.7 $2.6 $3.5 $4.4 $2.8 $2.9 $2.8 $3.4
WET $80 $06 $6.5 $5.4 $6.2 $7.2 $5.6 $5.6 $5.5 $6.2
Project Total
Generation, MWh
DRY 860,000 700,000 810,000 780,000 760,000 830,000 790,000 790,000 790,000 810,000
AVERAGE 1,540,000 1,320,000 1,490,000 1,450,000 1,430,000 1,510,000 1,460,000 1,460,000 1,460,000 1,480,000
WET 2,130,000 1,800,000 2,050,000 2,010,000 1,990,000 2,080,000 2,010,000 2,020,000 2,010,000 2,050,000

Energy Value, $1, 000,000
DRY $33 $27 $31 $30 $29 $32 $30 $30 $30 $31
AVERAGE $51 $44 $49 $48 $48 $50 $48 $48 $48 $49
WET $67 $57 $65 $64 $64 $66 $64 $64 $64 $65

Summary of LOSS ES • Project Generation (MWh) and Cost of Generat ion ($IMWh)

Base Case AH 1 Alt 2 All 3 Alt 4 Al t5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Alt 8 Alt 9
Santeetlah Only
Generation, MWh
DRY 99,000 34,000 61,000 37,000 23,000 58,000 57,000 56,000 40,000
AVERAGE 145,000 40,000 70,000 40,000 20,000 60,000 60,000 70,000 50,000
WET 234_000 50,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 60,000

Energy Value, $1,0 00,000
_
DRY 535 $1,4 $2.4 $1.6 $1.0 $2.3 $2.2 $2.2 $1.7
AVERAGE $47 $1.6 $2.8 $1.9 $0.9 $2.6 $2.5 $2.6 $2.0
WET _
___$7 4 $1.5 $2.6 $1.8 $0.8 $2.4 $2.4 $2.5 $1.8
Project Total _
Generation, MWh
DRY _ 160,000 50,000 80,000 100,000 30,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 50,000
AVERAGE 220,000 50,000 90,000 110,000 30,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 60,000
WET 330,000 _ 80,000 120,000 140,000 50,000 120,000 110,000 120,000 80,000

Energy Value, $1,0 00,000
DRY $60 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $1.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $2.0
AVERAGE _
$70 $20 $30 $3.0 $1.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $2
0
WET $100 $2.0 $3.0 $3.0 $1.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 .
$2
0
.

H1Tapoco\RIver Modeling Sludy\0asls\Runa\Nov_7A\
Run Summary VSApreeentation 12/3/01
r m m = = = = = = = = m m m m m m m m

R es ervoir Se vatbn (ft)
- - A

e ? =T
tD
3
? OA
1 N
A I I ?

16 O?
`e - 6
e°" 0)
!r
6. N !?'VI

D

c
c?
Q '^
- -- -- -- - -- - -

Q

i i

I ?
f
I
! O

mo
I
...1

Q c
O? O J .i

0'
?Q.O

O ?^YY

'tO C

9
cf-
[ f
:
j t

?..........
4
I
.

.
..
:

t
I
p
f O
OT
?;?? '
1k Gx 0?
N CCOtg7
N? p-yy
00 W c
?
'? f
f7; 01
O

( Oi

-f -E 1

C7 (Jr O; In. CJ CT4

O Q:
fJr -4-4.
(Is
at
-,(
C71 Ut
(al
pLT O
.
. . CO

i ?
rn
O

? .4 o ?
c0 IV f
OOd"f IV N Ok
OO1OS r O
OOY O{'.{
O(O (0 fl
'p
p
L!;
O
0
p ?
1
?

v

u
L

Santeetlah Guide Curve
Option 2
i
Santeetlah Reservoir Water Level ARematives
9

I
? 19.0

I
If95

V TNE
s`
i ry 1910
m te

.0 19? e.,. ?...
.r.ov.fle ..Ib.
I
m .qrb
I ? I9 '

I

I
t
1-,.n I?Fn 1 ?br 1-rpr 1- 1-loe 1-lul 1 s I- v 1 R. 1 b. I G. 11.0.e
1 Mond
OeSVnfEU.vrt
Santeetlah Guide Curve
Option 3
Santeetlah Reservoir Water Level Altematives

9
OE

19:5

yd
-
.,.
`
? ? Iliafl0.r..
?Opb.
a
P. 19

I9i5
I
1910 r '
I-F9 11..
-9.. 1-nt.. t.b. 1-wr Iaa 1-T9s 1-s.f 1-a. 1-?.n.w.
1-0.e
MDnth `
12
a19za?run

Santeetlah Guide Curve
Option 4
Santeetlah Reservoir Water Level Alternatives
19J5
I 1
i
Isua
1 I
93s
i V

b3o 1 I

I I
!,
=3 I. . ?FUSPevvlFlecvr
? ?E3vlkeeSVVam

? 1915

j 1910 ' . !
Jvn I-PCE I?Atr I?.yn I-NLy IJ.. WiNI I s 1 p IQI I.W I?Rc 31?Rc i
13
Recreation Releases
5 Options Submitted
Apr t -15 Apr 16 May .h3n 1 •75 .hm16 ->o .luh Au0 t -15 Aup 16.71 Sp total fty,
Option 1
n ys s
i Bows L 950 c950 ds 1200 ds dun6on 8h 10hhours 7107 _. _._ _.7to3 7to 5...
__..o.°...._ _d.ys ...... . r ..... _.....
. .........flows 7200 cfs..... ... '92w(sad) "'9tip(sWn .. 1200(We'Ay.9501551) _12(10 (Sad). .......... 7200cfs....... .. ...........
duration - 10h- tOh -8h- -"10h18h -10h - i0 h
-"
52 I
hoof - 1. ........._ .. ..... 7t65 1 _.. . _. . 7to5 1..._7165 ..I I

3

f

U
Calderwood Minimum Flows
4 Options Submitted
15
Combination Alternatives
9 Alternatives Submitted
Option an ec non
No Rule .Fish Cheoah: ........15ays........._ Rule-Fish-Rec Fish Cald
Robbins natural-like 20-107 s -ru e-rec - 250
c
2. ... __ LakeBurton , __75_54 cis ? 26 .......... ------
3 -°Tapoco >iodiorsi y 7 s ru a rec (S? """
_ .............4....._..._.... ...._......Robtiins.............. ...._.......T "" * *** .............?._..

apoco .................g..._................ ........fisK Uf&rec......
...
......_............ ..4.0.0......... .......
........... ....._._......
5 ........... o... ......
Tapoc
.
...... Tap._. _oco ................ _ '................
d.. ........._.
fish-rule-rec......
...........................C.... ........ .._..... ..

Robbins

na ura i e ---

r-"ec rule- s
haturaT4ike _
8 Rolib?ns .._..._:._ ... natural-like.........._... ... 47 .................... .........rule-fishxec..._.. ..__............._...C.........._.._._....
lake"Burfon apT co i F-47- sh--ruTe-rec
16
wscu?..vr

T

O
A
L
(1) cc
C 4)
W >-
cc ?
L
ea
}
I ? I ?
? I I
t ?` sf
I_ I I i
I I i L
I
I i I
JAI ?

i i I
t
I I?
I I

i
I I ?
I
lam';
I

? i
I

I
f,'3 may' U } K 3 t i .. , 3c .

I
i

I

I
i I

I
i
'Xf.' m?N:-" ???AVVt??..
"Si 3 ?t ?'?1-"?YI. a?? `"'t s
,

I I ?
O O O O O O °
O O O

O e
OD
r Co
r
- N
r
? co C
p 'T N
4MW `A6jeu3
<5o
ti
b
o
ti
ti
b
9
ti
b 4,
o
ti
19L \
ti
o
ti
b
o
ti
a?
c?
c
m I¢
> I,
C Z
Q CD
U
O
N
m
0
M
N
r-
t
November 30, 2001 (GAT) by Tapoco Relicensing
Drafting Subgroup of
Process Team
DRAFT
MEETINGS AND NEGOTIATIONS PROTOCOL
FOR
THE TAPOCO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
RELICENSING PROCEEDING
FERC Project No. 2169
The Licensee, Alcoa Power Generating Inc. ("APGI"), and the Parties in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("Commission" or "FERC") approved alternative
licensing process (ALP) for the Tapoco Project No. 2169 hereby agree to the following
Protocol:
PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Protocol to guide and govern the process of
decision-making among the Parties and Participants (as defined herein) in the Tapoco
Project ALP. This Protocol will supplement and complement the Communications
Protocol ("CP") approved by the Commission in its letter dated February 9, 1999, which
authorized Tapoco, Inc. (now APGI) to utilize the ALP. This Protocol memorializes the
process and procedures that will be utilized by the Parties and Participants in discussions
that could lead to a negotiated settlement of the license terms and conditions to be
presented to the Commission.
Page 1 of 13
7?
A. DEFINITIONS
1. (a) Consensus, in the context of managing the agenda or process of a
meeting, or of a conference by telephone or video, means the general agreement of
the persons involved in the particular meeting or teleconference. It can also be
' expressed as a result that the participants can live with, or a judgment arrived at by
most of the concerned participants. It does not require unanimity.

1

(b) Consensus, in the context of trying to reach a settlement of the issues in
the ALP, means the general agreement of the Parties that will be expressed as either
a unanimous settlement or a partial settlement. No consensus or settlement which
fails to include the Licensee can require the Licensee to expend any monies or to
undertake or refrain from any specific action.
2. Party. A Party is a person or entity, including a corporation or other business
organization, a unit of government, a social or environmental organization, a homeowners
association or a club, with stated interests in the Tapoco ALP whose agreement is needed
for settlement or consensus, as defined in this Protocol. Any person or any organized
entity (by an Authorized Representative) may assert status as a Party to this proceeding by
making a statement of intention to participate as a Party into the public reference file.
3. Participant. A "Participant" is a person or entity who intends to contribute to
the meetings and deliberations during the decision-making process, but who is not
claiming Party status and will not be canvassed regarding settlement in the decision-
making process.
4. Authorized Representative means a person who is formally appointed by the
governing body of Party to represent its interests in settlement discussions and
negotiations. Upon the request of any Party, a person claiming to be an Authorized
Representative may be required to demonstrate the fact and nature of his/her appointment.
5. Representative. A person may declare himself or herself a representative of a
person or entity which is a declared Party to the proceeding and may participate in
meetings on behalf of a Party, but his or her views are not official for the Party unless the
person is an Authorized Representative.
6. General Meetings of the Parties are meetings of all Parties and Participants that
are noticed by the Licensee and led by the Facilitator.
7. Work Group Meetings are any meetings other than general meetings of the
Parties, including but not limited to meetings of the Process Team or it Subgroups and any
Technical Work Groups formed during the scoping period of the Tapoco relicensing.
Page 2 of 13

8. Public Reference File is the official record of the ALP as defined in Section II of

7

the FERC-approved Communications Protocol (dated September 21, 1998). The public
reference file includes copies of all written correspondence and documentation of phone
conversations, meeting notices, agendas and summaries, study plans, study reports, and
other documents submitted for inclusion in the file. All documents in the public reference
file will be submitted to FERC as part of the formal relicensing record.
9. Settlement. A settlement is a written agreement among declared Parties
that resolves some or all issues among the agreeing Parties. If all Parties to the ALP
sign a settlement agreement that purports to resolve all issues among the parties (a
unanimous settlement), the Licensee may submit the agreement to FERC with the
license application and assert that all issues in the ALP have been resolved. A
partial settlement of issues among all or some parties to the ALP may also be filed in
the public reference file and will become part of the record before FERC. A partial
settlement will inform FERC on the views of the settling parties, but does not,
because of this protocol, have any binding effect on FERC or any Parties to the
ALP.
B. GROUND RULES AND GENERAL PROTOCOL
Conduct of the Parties:
All persons at any meeting for discussion or negotiation of issues shall conduct
themselves professionally and courteously. All Parties and Participants recognize
that each Party has legitimate interests and the right to pursue satisfaction of those
interests.
2. Attendance at Meetings:
(a) Each Party commits to have at least one representative at each general meeting
of the Parties or at any Work Group meeting (as defined herein) for which the
Party has volunteered to participate. Parties commit to staying informed and to
working diligently with all other Parties in the ALP to try to resolve the
issues in the licensing process. Parties are encouraged to designate an authorized
representative and to provide staff with special expertise at meetings where that
expertise is likely to be relevant.
(b) The Licensee will provide food and lodging to Parties and Participants at
general meetings of the Parties, as well as lunch and overnight accommodations
(where it can not be avoided) for Work Group meetings. Otherwise, Parties and
Participants are expected to bear their own expenses for participating in the
Tapoco ALP.
Page 3 of 13

F
u

i

3
4.
(c) The absence of a Party's representative at a general meeting of the Parties does
not limit or constrain the Party's right to participate later in the process, nor does it
de-legitimize any action taken at that meeting. Parties recognize that their
failure to attend general meetings and other meetings to which they have
committed will hamper the ALP process and reduce the likelihood of
successful negotiations.
Facilitation of Meetings
(a) Each general meeting of the Parties shall be directed by a person known as the
Facilitator. The Parties and Participants agree that the Facilitator shall be Kasha
Helget or Steve Rothman, employees of the FERC's Dispute Resolution Service.
If Ms. Helget and Mr. Rothman are unavailable, the Parties can appoint a new
Facilitator pro tem. If, at any time, a consensus of the Parties at a meeting desires
to change the Facilitators, the Parties can appoint a new Facilitator pro tem from
among the parties until a consensus is reached on a new Facilitator.
(b) The Facilitator's primary role will be to facilitate identification of issues,
interests, and alternative courses of action; the open discussion of issues, interests,
and alternatives, and resolution of issues by the Parties and Participants.
(c) The Facilitator may also serve as a Mediator, pursuant to Section H hereof, if
there is agreement by consensus of the disputing Parties.
(d) The Parties agree that the Facilitator does not and cannot represent or bind the
Comunission on any issue in the ALP.
(e) Work Group meetings shall be chaired or facilitated by a person at the meeting
chosen by a consensus of those present.
Meetings and Discussions Agreement:
For both general meetings of the Parties led by the Facilitator and for other self-
facilitated Work Group meetings, the Parties agree that:
(a) Persons wishing to speak at meetings shall raise their hand.
(b) The Facilitator will attempt to recognize each person who wishes to speak in
the order in which persons ask to be recognized.
(c) The Facilitator has the discretion to recognize persons who have not been
heard before recognizing any person for repeated statements. However, the
Facilitator shall endeavor to support an on-going give-and-take on an issue where
Page 4 of 13

' two or more persons are engaged in discussion of a relevant issue.
' (d) If time is inadequate for all to be heard as fully as they would like, a Party or
the Facilitator may suggest a continuation of the discussion at a later time, the
convening of a subgroup meeting to address the issue, or encourage that further
comments be committed to writing and submitted to the public reference file.
' (e) Imaginative thinking and sharing of ideas and solutions is encouraged.
However, speakers agree to endeavor to stick to the topics on the agenda, be
concise, and to not repeat themselves. It is agreed that everyone has the right to
participate in discussions, but no one has a right to dominate. A two-minute time
' limit per statement or response is suggested.
(f) Parties and Participants agree to share relevant factual information and
' methods of scientific or technical investigation or evaluation. This does not
require the sharing of their political, policy, or legal strategies in the proceedings.
' i
i
i
(g) Part
es and Part
c
pants are encouraged to ask questions if they do not
understand each other.

(h) Parties and Participants may openly disagree with one another, but agree to
attack problems and issues, not each other.

(i) Parties have a right to call for a ten-minute caucus of a particular group or
groups of interests. More time may be granted by a consensus of the Parties at the
' meeting.
0) Parties will seek mutually beneficial solutions to the issues raised in the
' proceeding.
' (k) Parties commit to work on issues in which they have an interest and will follow
through on their commitments to other Parties and Partici
antsand to the
p
collaborative group.
(1) Ideas presented within group discussions will not be assumed. to be the official
position of the represented Parties unless they specifically say it is so.
' i
(m) Part
es and Participants will be on time for meeting sessions and will
cooperate to keep all meetings on schedule so they can end on time. However,
' any meeting can be extended for a specific period of time upon a consensus of
those preseirt Parties fifteen minutes before the scheduled conclusion of the
meeting. In such cases, Parties and Participants agree to inform those persons who
' had to leave the meeting at or before its scheduled end time will endeavor to
' Page 5 of 13

learn about regarding the deliberations they had to miss so that those persons can
' register any input they may have.
(n) If any person becomes profane, disruptive or violent in the course of a general
' meeting of the Parties, the Facilitator may ask that person to leave immediately,
and the person is obligated to depart. By a consensus of those Parties and
Participants present, any person may be asked to leave the meeting for profane,
' disruptive or violent behavior, or a previously excluded person may be allowed to
return to the meeting.
' 5. Relationship of the Press to Meetings:
The Parties agree that:
i
(a) all general meetings of the Parties and Work Group meetings will be open
to the press.
(b) private or mediated negotiating sessions and telephone conferences will not
' be open to the press without unanimous consent of those participating in
the meeting or call.
(c) Parties and representatives of Parties may make their own views, interests
and positions on issues known to the press, but are encouraged to refrain
from making attributions or allegations about other parties' views, interests
' or positions.
C. STATEMENTS USED DURING THE PROCESS.
' Any statement made or position taken by a Party during negotiations in an
attempt to reach agreement settlement of any issue, which may be less than the result
' desired by that Party, may not be used by any other Party or Participant as evidence of the
lack of necessity or factual support for the desired result if agreement settlement is not
reached. Any attempt by any Party or Participant to so use any other party's willingness
' to change position during negotiations for the purpose of achieving agreement
settlement is a violation of the principles upon which the ALP is based. If the Parties
tolerate violations of this principle, any Party may consider such violations grounds for
' withdrawal from the ALP.
' D. MEETING AGENDAS
1. Near the end of each general meeting, the Parties will discuss the agenda for the
next general meeting and draw up a list of topics to be considered. The Process
' Team (defined in Section F) shall then prepare a detailed agenda. Agendas for

Page 6 of 13
L

Work Group meetings will be established by consensus of the Work Groups.
' 2. Consistent with Section III of the CP on file with FERC, the agenda developed by
the Process Team shall be distributed by the Licensee with a meeting
announcement at least two weeks prior to the general meeting.
'
3. Between meetings, any Party or Participant may suggest agenda changes to the
Process Team. The Process Team is not required to accept every suggestion, but
will attempt to accommodate suggestions. The agenda prepared by the Process
Team shall be announced at the beginning of a general meeting of the Parties,
and any Parry or Participant present may suggest a change or addition to the
' agenda, which shall be accepted if a consensus of the Parties and Participants
present so desire. Thereafter, the meeting shall follow the modified agenda as
' close as reasonably possible.
E. AUTHORITY AND LIMITATIONS
f
1. Parties that are government agencies will be represented by counsel or Authorized
Representatives from within each agency empowered to participate in the ALP on
' behalf of such agencies.
2. The Parties recognize that any agency charged with a statutory responsibility under
the Federal Power Act has the legal right to exercise that authority regardless of
whether the agency agrees with any position, consensus or settlement which may
be taken by others in the ALP.

3. The Parties also recognize that agency representatives and representatives of Other
corporate entities, including the Licensee, may not bind their agencies or
corporations to positions or agreements without approval from appropriate levels
of authority within their organizations, and that any position taken by such
representatives (at a meeting or otherwise) is merely a recommendation until that
ro
riate level of authorit
has officiall
a
conc
rred
y
y
pp
p
.
u
' F. PROCESS TEAM
1. The Process Team consists of volunteers from authorized representatives of the
various Parties to this proceeding, including a representative of and counsel to the
Licensee. The Team shall work with the help of the Facilitator to:
(a) Create this Meetings and Negotiations Protocol, propose revisions to it as
the Team deems desirable or necessary, and present it to all the Parties for
consideration, revision, and adoption;
i
E
Page 7 of 13

l_ J

77
II
U

L

2.
(b) Identify substantive and procedural issues that should be addressed by the
Parties and formulate the agenda for the general meetings of all Parties;
(c) Prepare and cause the Licensee to circulate materials considered relevant to
the agenda;
(d) Propose any other change in or addition to the process that the Team
believes will improve the ALP, and present their proposals to all the Parties
for approval; and
(e) Endeavor to ensure that the Parties move the relicensing process forward.
The Process Team consists of
Name:
Dave Meeker
Dick Eyestone
Donley Hill
Ray Johns
Sarah J. Sims
Jeff Cabe
Robert Moseley
Gerald Thornton
Charlotte Lackey
Mark Fagg
Steve Reed
Bob Hathcock
John Miller
Andy MacKinnon
Danielle Droitsch
Chris Goudreau
Rod Baird
John Boaze
Kasha Helget
Steve Rothman
Randy Benn
Norm Pierson
Steve Padula
Organization:
Friends of Lake Santeetlah
Friends of Lake Santeetlah (alternate)
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service (alternate)
Graham County NC
Graham county NC (alternate)
Town of Robbinsville, NC
USDI/FWS/NPS
W. NC Sierra Club
TN Wildlife Resources Agency
NC DWR & DENR
Nantahala Outdoor Center
OAR
Pigeon River Outdoors
TN Clean Water Coalition
NC WRC
W. Carolina Paddlers
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Facilitator (FERC DRS)
Facilitator (FERC DRS)
Counsel for APGI
Tapoco/APGI
Technical Advisor for APGI
e-mail address:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Any Party which desires to join the Process Team may do so by having its
authorized representative notify the Facilitator and existing members of the
Process Team. Any Participant may also join the Process team with the
unanimous consent of others on the Process Team.
4 Decisions of the Process Team shall be by consensus as defined in paragraph A. I
(a). Where no consensus can be reached on procedural options or documents, the
Team shall present the alternative options or documents in dispute to all Parties for
Page 8 of 13

consideration in an attempt to reach consensus.
G. DECISION MAKING
1. The goal for a comprehensive settlement of all license issues, to be presented to
' FERC, is unanimity. That is, unless all Parties, including all government agencies,
agree to a global settlement, the Licensee may not represent to the Commission
when it files its application and Environmental Assessment that all licensing issues
have been resolved. Unanimity does not require that all Parties agree to everything
at the beginning of the process, but does require that, at the end of the process,
through trade-offs and negotiations, all Parties in the ALP agree to the settlement.
However, nothing in this Protocol prevents or is intended to prevent Parties from
filing clearly documented partial settlements with FERC.
' 2. During the discussion of particular issues at general meetings, Parties and
Participants should try to reach a consensus of opinion where unanimity is not
possible. The Process Team envisions an approach to consensus building and
dispute resolution that utilizes the following series of steps:
(a) consensus (as defined in A.1 (a)) is achieved; failing that
(b) the disputing Party or Parties do not agree with the resolution of a particular
issue or issues but agree not to block the progress of the meeting (their
disagreement will be formally documented in the ALP record); failing that
(c) the disputing Party or Parties will be asked to "park" their disagreement for
discussion and resolution outside the meeting with representatives of the Party or
Parties with whom they disagree and with the assistance of the Facilitator. The
' resolution of any such dispute will be documented and made a part of the ALP
record; failing that

fl
E

(d) the disputing Party or Parties may request a halt of the meeting to resolve the
issue. If deemed critical to the continued progress of the meeting, any Party may
ask for a vote on whether to accept the request. In the event of such a vote, a
supermajority of the Parties, defined as 80% of the Parties present, may elect to
proceed with the meeting regardless of the unresolved dispute. Conversely, any
Party may ask for a Supermajority vote to end the meeting due to the unresolved
dispute. In either event the disputing Party or Parties will still be availed the
opportunity to resolve their issue outside the meeting. If such an outside meeting is
not fruitful, they may then engage in mediation or other dispute resolution
technique.
A consensus of the Parties on an issue cannot bind any government agency that is
Page 9 of 13

0
charged by statute to make a prescription or recommendation specific to that issue
to FERC. A consensus may only inform the agency's internal decision-making
process.
4. Where consensus on an issue or group of issues is reduced to a writing signed by
the Authorized Representatives of those supporting the consensus, the consensus
document may be introduced into the public reference file maintained by the
Licensee as a partial settlement. Any Parties opposing such a consensus
document may file individual or group responses to the consensus document into
the public reference file. Pursuant to paragraph H of the Communications
Protocol, all documents filed in the public reference file will be filed with FERC
as part of the formal administrative record.
5. If all issues among all of the Parties, including the Licensee, are resolved by a
unanimous agreement, the agreement will be reduced to writing and filed
with FERC as a full and comprehensive settlement of the ALP issues.
H. MEDIATION
1. If negotiations among the Parties become stalled by disputes that cannot be
resolved with the help of the Facilitator, a Mediator selected by a consensus of the
disputing Parties may be retained by the disputing Parties . If a consensus cannot
be reached on the choice of a Mediator, the Parties may ask for mediation
assistance from FERC.
2. The goal of mediation is for the disputing Parties to agree on as many issues in the
ALP as possible, with the ultimate goal of achieving unanimity on all issues.
3. No issue for which a government agency has a right to make a prescription or
recommendation, or any negotiating position taken by any Party, including the
Licensee, shall be subject to mediation without the express concurrence of the
agency or Party in the choice of the mediator.
I4. If a Mediator is employed, the Parties in the mediation may make further
agreements regarding the nature and process of the mediation.
' 5. A Mediator will not make official findings, purport to make binding decisions on
any Party, nor purport to speak for the Commission on any issue. A Mediator is
authorized to express to each Party or interest group, in a private session, his or
I her analysis of that Party's or interest group's positions, and of how the interests
and positions of competing Parties might be resolved.

71,
Page 10 of 13

' I. EXIT OPTION
' Any Party (except the Licensee) may exit the ALP by giving written notice to all
other parties and written notice to the Commission, stating that the Parry is no longer
involved in the alternative licensing process, with the reasons therefor, and that the Party
' will not be bound by any agreements reached among the other Parties. The Licensee
recognizes that it has a broader responsibility for the relicensing and must make certain
specific showings to FERC in order to withdraw from and thereby terminate the ALP.
J. EFFECTIVE DATE
1. This Protocol shall take operative effect upon signatures or other official
communications by government agencies indicating approval by authorized
' representatives of a supermajority (i.e. 80%) of all Parties who have participated
to date in the ALP, excluding any Parties that have given notice that they are no
longer participating.
1 2. The Licensee shall mail (or personally deliver) to all Parties who have officially
participated as of November 7, 2001, a copy of this Protocol with a request that
they concur on the Protocol. An individual addressee must respond to the
Licensee's communication within 35 days of its mailing or personal delivery by
taking one of the following actions:
'
(a) signing the document as an individual Party to the relicensing proceeding
indicating concurrence;

(b) signing as the Authorized Representative of a named Party indicating
' concurrence;
(c)signing while asserting the status of an individual Party and disapproving the
Protocol;
(d) signing as the Authorized Representative ofa named Party and disapproving
the Protocol; or
(e) signing a statement that they are neither an individual Party nor an Authorized
Representative of a Party. Such persons may also indicate whether they intend to
' continue as a Participant as defined in Paragraph A.
' 3. Any individual who does not respond to the invitation to participate within 35
days of mailing to a correct address for the named Party (or personal delivery)
shall be deemed to fall into category (2)(e) and shall not be counted as -a Party for
purpose of determining whether a majority has approved the Protocol. A person
or entity deemed in category (2)(e) by lack of response will be returned to the

Page 11 of 13

official mailing list of Participants for all later purposes if, through any later
communication to the public reference file, the person or entity expresses a desire
to be re-included.
4. The Parties may approve a revision of this Protocol using the same voting format
stated in J(1)and (2); provided, that proposed revisions need not be mailed to
persons who actually signed a statement placing themselves in category (2)(e).
5 If it goes into effect, this Protocol and any future revisions thereof will be made a
part of the public reference file for the ALP by the Licensee.
K. DURATION OF THE PROTOCOL
This Protocol will be operational only until the license application is formally filed.
Thereafter, if there is need for continued settlement discussions, the Parties wishing to use
the terms of this Protocol must re-execute it in accordance with the procedures of
paragraph J.
Page 12 of 13

I SIGNATURES OF PARTIES AND PARTY REPRESENTATIVES:
' This is a signature page for concurrence in or disapproval of the Negotiating Protocol
dated , 2001, for the Tapoco Project No. 2169 relicensing proceeding before the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Above your signature, please check one of the
' following categories and fill in the blanks as appropriate:
(1)_ I am signing this document as an individual Party to the relicensing proceeding,
' and I concur in the Protocol.
(2)_ I am signing as the authorized representative of
' (name of an organization) which is a Party to the relicensing proceeding, and I concur in
the Protocol.
' (3)_ I am asserting the status as an individual Party and I am disapproving the Protocol.

(4)_ I am asserting the status of the Authorized Representative of
(name of an organization) which is a Parry to the
relicensing proceeding, and I am disapproving the Protocol.
(5)_ I am neither a Party nor an Authorized Representative of a Party to the relicensing
proceeding. I _ do;_ do not wish to remain on the mailing list as a Participant to
whom information about this proceeding should be sent.
DATE
SIGNATURE:
PRINTED NAME:
' NAME OF ORGANIZATION, IF ANY:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO:
' e-mail address:
Mail, fax or deliver your ballot for receipt on or before January31, 2002, to:
' Kasha Hel et and Steven Rothman, Facilitators
' Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Norm Pierson, Manager
Office of the Dispute Resolution Service Property and Relicensing
888 First St, N.E. Tapoco Division, APGI
Washington, D.C. 20426 300 North Hall Rd.
' Fax: [phone] Alcoa, TN. 37701-2516
Fax: [phone]
1
Page 13 of 13

Attachment 4 - OASIS Model Runs Presentation Slides

5

H
H

I I

i
n

M M M M = = M = M M M = = = = M M w
Tapoco Project
Operational Model
December 4, 2001
Operations Model
"Base Case"
• Inflows
• Tributary- historical for the wet, dry and average year
• Cheoah reservoir inflows from Fontana - in accordance with TVA's
operating rules
• Initial reservoir elevations
• Santeetlah - January 1 guide curve elevation (1793 ft)
• Cheoah, Calderwood, Chilhowee - historical elevations
• Dispatch water to:
• Meet operating guides for minimum flows, reservoir levels, etc.
• Maximize value of energy generated
• Include the upgrades in current license
Tapoco Project
Operations Model
GOAL:
Construct a computer model that will:
• Simulate historical project operations and the alternative system
operating scenarios identified during the relicensing process; and
• Over the range of hydrologic conditions, quantify the incremental
impact of these scenarios on:
- Reservoir levels and flows in the Cheoah and Little Tennessee
rivers; and
- Energy generation at the Tapoco Project, taking into account
the amount, timing and value of generation
What OASIS Can Do
• Quantify the relative impact of various
alternative operations on:
• Generation
• Santeetlah reservoir levels
• Determine the relative cost of lost
generation for the various alternatives
4
I

What OASIS Cannot Do
• Quantify the cost and impact of non-
operational mitigation
• Predict future energy prices
• Predict future inflows
• Model backwater effects (i.e. water levels
at Calderwood powerhouse due to lower
full pond at Chilhowee)

Cheoah River Minimum Flows
4 Options Submitted

__.
.. Cheoah Minimum Flowscts
..
0 tlon 1
p option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Blodiversity ; Natural-Like Angier Ta oco
Month
J 200 16?_.
3
75
90
F 220 168 75 90
M 230 179 75 90
A 230 I 132 75 60
M 200 109 75 60
J 150 80 50 60
J 110 69 50 60
A 70 56 50 20
S 50 42 50 20
O 50 47 50 20
N 100 61 75 20
U 170 131 75 90
7
Options Identified on November 7
• Cheoah River Issues -
• Cheoah River Minimum Releases
• Santeetlah Lake Levels
• Recreational Releases
' Mainstem Issues -
• Calderwood Minimum Releases
6
Santeetlah Guide Curve
Option I
Santeetlah Reservoir Water Level ARematives

B
„

P th
s
2
= = M = M = r = M = = = = M
Santeetlah Guide Curve
Option 2
Santeetlah Reservoir Water Level Altematives

Wnlh
v
Santeetlah Guide Curve
Option 4
Sanleetlah Reservoir Water Level Alternatives

ln
-__-
d

rl.. I rn rs.r.y, I Wr I.r.. ylN I rr r ,•. ... I.. .? n.
1
Santeetlah Guide Curve
Option 3
Santeetlah Reservoir Water Level Alternatives

Month
to
Recreation Releases
5 Uptions Submitted
AM 1..15 Apr le.s. ueY Amt:as Ju ts.w ?.... my °Mp1 16 A0816 :0t SOP .. iota day,
o Ion] .
U+YS _ SAl rtOaye _
- _ SatwOey?.. SS LD fe
ieowt ? 950 cb .
950 tb _
1200 tY
. UO Sllon sh
..... __
eh fOh
.. hP ........ I. .. .. ... ]b0 ,
]100....... ]bs ......... .............

opn n?.5.._ ..
........
1
..Jsy
IAows n
mv
., I]aa cs S8 ..

Izoo lsap l'
Aeo/sn0 .......WalA81 We0

.11
tzoo(wmYesotselj tzos tli.tl ..........85 LD .......

lzos cb .. ?)....
eu I Ion
... .....- ton eh OM1I h ton -
On ?

Inaun
ims
Sl?s ]fos
....7tosnfos .........]ioe „
..,
.....]fos ...., ...
.
i
O IonJ
P

'.ary
SS.LD
.............. 55 ..M?. .... _.. .... ......... We089a ..............
6?
....
1200 eb fem....
.....
..
.
%. -- lSell IIJJ ISUn? . ..... ........ ...iiw i .. ....... .1180 Y.. ..............
d-11On ton ..1611 ...... 10?...
:hours .... ..... _...... _.1106 ................ )to 6.... ... .....
0owne
, , . no p-Mim AM l throuph Otl 81 ]
meal the av oe Senluollan blel? eM fheoM R. mh Igva :.......... .............. .........................
3

Calderwood Minimum Flows
4 Options Submitted
Calderwood Minimum Flowscfs
Option 1 ;...,_ Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Month Tapoco
J
__
__ 50
- 250 0 400
?
_
. 5t) 250 0 400
M 50 250 0 400
A 50 250 0 400
M 50 250 0 400
J 50 250 0 400
__..._? _._ ._._...50 . . _ 250 0 400
A 50 250 0 400
S 50 250
0 400
0 50 _,
250 0 400
N 50 250 0 400
D 50 250 0 400

Combination Alternatives
9 Alternatives Submitted

Option Sant Rec
No. Rule Fish - CheoahI _
Days Rule-Fish-Rec Fish-Cald
1 _Robbins f natural-like 20-107 fish-rule-rec 250 cis
2 Lake Burton 75 - 50 cfs 26 fish-rule-rec 50
3 Tapoco bjodnersity 47 fish rule rec 0
4 Robbins Tapoco 38
.
.
.
... fish-rule-rec 400

5
Tapoco
Tapoco .
..
.
.....
..
0 ........
fish-rule-rec
0
6 Robbins i natural-like 47 rec-rule-fish 0
7 Robbins :. natural like 47 fish-rule rec 0
8 Robbins
natural-like
47
rule•fish-rec
0
9 Lake Burton Ta oco 47 fish-rule-rec 0

14
Range of Combined Impacts
Operations
Model Results
15

............... ..................
:Su cry at 6.1-t ($I MWh)
Rec
....... ..... All II P N1 ...... yh 13... ..... teA Celtl ..
1
._..- 1 h rW -rec
..
nslvaliike
.__._...
LWRobbine
779
..
--
260

.

2

1 h-N .rec

Fl2

LB

..-
28
. _
.,
50 .....
3.. 1"h-Nerac biW ,oily T 47 .
...... O
-. 4 lishnlo-rvc Tapoco Robbins 38 400
5 I Sh rJa.rac !'loco Tepoc_a.,, 0 o

i
6
t ike .,,.
Robb-
47 ..
........
0
7 W h d 16c ati-Pie Rabblrts 47 ....... 0., .....

.... .. B ?oli.sh.rec nelveNike Robbire
- 47 0
9 I h rec T 0 LB 47 0.. ......
A .......i

COMBINATION CASES ...
: .......
Bee Caw AIt 1 Alt 2 A113 Alt 4...
'Project TO.?
j
GOnerntlon, MWh
.. ? , ..
DRY 860,000 -."j 810000' 7800001 780.001
_,_ !AVERAGE 1.540.000 is20.(1(pl 1490 a%l'. 1450,000e„ 1430,001
- WET
I 2, 1,'_ 1 Nq,0(U 2,-'_ 2,010,0001 1990,001

EnsrgY Veme, fi,ooo ooo ?
! 1
....__;
.
. ( DRY
.... $33 $2/, .`,?. 1.. $3pf $2'
(AVERAGE $51,.. S441 §49.. $481 $41
...... ...,.. 1 WET .
$87 S57 $FS, $841 $8!
4
r = M M M = = = r M = = = M
Summeryof Prolecl C»nerelbn(MWh end Coal o/Generellon SrMWn
... .Allen191 he Rrlr;rily - R19M1 Rrln ___._
1 fish-Ne-ra; urelJiko
nal 1 Hrl44m.••« •
i'?
2
- lieh-Nerx R2 LB rl yr
3
ocwnrlly
b
IePUCu
41
It
4 fsh-nde rac Tepoco Robbins 38 4W
.5 fsh nde roc TsPoro TaPaco 0 0
- Id. l 11h nnrralJike Robbins 47 0
_.7 fsh-rite-rec natumNike Robbins 47 0
8 nlebsh-rec naltrehilk. Robbins 11 0
9 fish-nle-rec Te i o LB 47 0
COMBINATION CASES
....
!

..
....... All 5 Alt 6
'
? All 7 All 8 All 9
-
.
P! I ITO41 .
Ge anon,, MWh
DRY 830,000 790,000- 700.000 79rl rcrl 810000
AVERAGE
???-??- 7.510,0`0 1,400,000' 1,400,000 layrlrel 14M000
WET ?2,6BO,OVI 2,010,000 2,020,000 20rn rrrr 2nwntN1
En py Velus 57000.000
DRY -- 532 S30 S30 Ser
571
...... AVERAGE .. S60 848 548 Sf8 y19
. WET
.......... $88, $64'. S64 914 SBS
17
Range of Combined Impacts - Losses
lt - --
Allemelhe Pdalily Flsh Rule mraruel,«I tw,lA
..........................................
/
fish-rule-rec
naturel4ike
.__.._.
LBIRObbins

»
2!A
2 ishwle-rec R2 LB 2e 50
3 8ahwle-rec bloCAWMAy TapDco 47 0
, 4 1 h le-r T Poco, Robdns 38 400
6 ash-Iola-r Tapoco Tepoco 0 0
8 mo.mle-fah natural-like Robdns 47 0
7 fistlwleTeo nelureliike Robbins
- 47 0
B rtle fish ?rec nalurel Jake Robdns 47 0
9
I IiSh-nde?rea Te 0 LB 47 0
....
COMBINATION CASES i
Summery of LOSSES - ProjectG neretlon (MWh) and Cost of Generation (SUM)

' _Alt5 AILS
- All? Alta All9
P Je
cl T-1
- "
-
Generation, MWh :. -

DRV,.
.......
30.otq.
70,000
'
70,000
7011(x)
50000
AV ERAGE??. X0,000'. Oll,(K`9 80,000 a(?fKK1 On ,00o
WET'. SO,OW 120,WO 110.(00 I'll "'in so 0(in
Energy Value, it 000 OW
.
pRY.
....__... $12
.. S30 $29 $2. S22
.....
-
I
;AVERAGE. ..-
51.2 $33 531 531 $28
......... ... ...........WET- _..._511 ..-..__$02 532 U2 $23
Range of Combined Impacts
Range of Combined Impacts - Losses
of Pro) Oct llsneretl

- Roc
Altem II Pdarlly Fish Rul eWested
......... Cold
........ '
.....
1 fish-rule-rec nrisaal Ike LHIRObis- TTT 250 - -
2 E I nde-rnc P2 LB 26 SO
-
3 6 h Me-ree dodWr?ily Ta(,oco 47 0
?
.4 fish-n;lo?roc Tapoco Robdns 39 400 ?

..... 5
..... fish-rulo?roo TaOOCO Tnpoco 0 0
....
.

...
6
.
roc-rulo?fish
._
nalumUlkn
Robdns
47
.
0
..
. .. .
.. ..........i
-

... 7 ft h -rul- naturalJiko Robbins
_... ..
47
............. _
....
0
......... _.. ...
.......
.._..._._I

..... 8 rulo-fish ?roc nntuml4ike

..... R"-

... 47

..
.
. 0 .
I
9 fish.No?rcrc Tn
.o LB .
47 _.. .. .._0........ ................
'ION CASES - Summery of LOSSES . Pro(eel Gensrstlon (MWh) dCOn ofG lion (LMWh) '
- Be. Cer Alt I Alt 2 Alt 9 - AIl4 -- -
......... .. ........ ............
...
DRY 180,000 SO,OOp 80,000 100,000 '
AVERAGE

.. 220.00(] 10,000 90,000 110,000
.
.
WET 330.000 80.000 120.000 .
..
140.000
lue, $1,000,000
?
-?-?
DRY
......
....... $57
......... 321
. 330
..
.
. $d0
...
..
AVERAGE 57 0 32 3
... `?
S 9
WET 510.0 $2.0 S3.3 S3.7

I8
Impact of
Cheoah River Minimum Flows
20
5
r = = = M = M = r M = r M i M
Historic Santeetlah Inflows versus
Minimum Release Options
1971.2000 Weekly Inflows
Senteetkh Dam
900 ____.
700
---- ----------
000
s? 500
-----
y 400 --
900 -
'00
?Hn.Y1 o1. ___.._....?^°Rrplr'A ?R AA RA.; 6YA?%IRFAA 9:47779: 74A?,p
W¢¢k
O 3Dy¢u A1er¢ps Wvx 9? 3Dyear MiMmum Inlw -a-- gnro? i 9•w rnn.
11
Impact of Minimum Flows on Santeetlah
Levels and Recreation Releases - A1t3
l
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tapoco OASISIrunciSlmulatlonWov7 Dry_Alt3A 18121, Mon Dee 03200111:47
1010 .............................................................
t 015
....... .........?
1010 ............. ?? ..... ...... .:
1805 ....... ?l:/... ... .... ? -.. ... ... ...
1800 ..
1195 ... ... ...... ... .. ... ... ..
1190 .. ...... ...... ......... ........
95
0708100 04R&B9 06110189 OBR 180 1011680 121580
Dal¢
s%
mpNetl YpY¢i ?YI¢
22
Impact of Minimum Flows on Santeetlah
Levels and Recreation Releases Alt5
Santeetlah Stage
D:1TePoco_OASIStrunslSlmuletionWov7 D
_ ryA!1,5A_18121, Mon Doc 03 2001 11:52
I11o ----------- .-----------------------------------------------
1815 .......
1Bi0
leas
?. .. ............. .?.
1:79,,o5
1190 .. .... ... ... ... .... - I
1185
_ 01I1 Y88 0al19RB 0686198 O8I1 A18 1086188 118598
Dal¢
1m1eN¢tl
6
Historic SanteeTtlah Inflows versus
?/1 )I Lf 71LL11/M1 Qn?nirnn / /faltf{tilt ann
?r r¦? rr r? it rr rr rr r r r? rr r r r ?r . rr rr
Impact of Santeetlah Rule Curve on
Recreation Releases Alt
re E. es x,?,... .lalaf
Santeetlah Stage
D:1Tspoco_OASISWnslSlmulatlontNov7_DryAb4Al Mon Dec 07 2001 12 14
rezo ----------------- ---------------- -'_'.-'._---'...........
rem
1800 ... .. . .... ...... .. ..
vas .... ............. _ _ _ _
1790
vas oxaree o4)29re9 ow2 ere9 oW11ree INI6MB :.ee
Dale
J
_ ..__....,,.«._...._..............._ .......................w......._.............._..._..._................. .
2S
Range of Impacts -
Cheoah River, $
Least Impact (Alt 5) Greatest Impact (Alt 3)
IMPACT AREAS (excluding Alt 1)
Dry Wet Dry Wet
Santeetlah Rule Curve
TAPOCO TAPOCO
Cheoah River Minimum Flows Tapoco Biodrversiy
( 90.20 c/s, 230-50 cfs) 90 -20 cis 230 - 50 cis
Rafting Releases
NONE 47 days
(0 d, 47 d)
Celderwood Minimum Flows
NONE
( 0 cfs, 0 cfs
Combined Impacts: $1.2 $1.1 S30 $3.3
27
Recreation Releases
Requested vs Actual

Rec Rec
Altemativa requested actual
DRY AVERAGES m WET

1
.... ....... ??? . 48 84
` 151
2 26 .
16 12 24
3 47 1 29 47
4 38 27 33 38
5 0 0 0 0
6 47 47 47 47
7
... 47 27 33 47

8
47 ...
27...._. 33
47
9 47 32 35 47

26
Estimated Range of Impacts -
Calderwood Minimum Flows, $
Least Impact (Alt 3) Greatest Impact (Alt 4)
IMPACT AREAS Dry Wet Dry Wet
Calderwood Minimum Flows
0 cis 400 cis
Impacts:
$o $o $2.0 $1.4
2s
7

Range of Impacts on
Annual Santeetlah Generation:
Y..tly 9snN.ll.h En.,gy T.W.
Av.r-g. Y.sr
leooao -_ _. -
laaao - __. _ _
120.000 -- -) _-- --
i e0.00o _ - - -
3 60- -
20.000 .; .,
0
Mama1M
O Base (b O?NONeNie?.unw.
Range of Impacts on
Summer Santeetlah Generation
Sent.-tleh E..egy T.MI.
May 1993 - August 1993
40.000 ......... .. .............. ..... ............ ................ ............. ........ ... .............
3oaoo i ? l
I
10. - ? - I
dP 8y p1' dP e P ge' °P
01 7 Sy°1, rr? S?°~ 4?P e? 01l ?IY
Msnu1M
99ase Otl10 ¦ NaV2RNlenutiles

Conclusions
• Alternatives 1-9 represent a fairly broad range
• Alternatives 1-9 tend toward a higher reallocation
of water to non-power uses
• Cheoah River Issues evaluated- $1.1 to $9.1
million
• Cheoah River Minimum Releases
• Santeetlah Lake Levels
• Recreational Releases
• Mainstem Issues evaluated- $0 to $2 million
32
8
M M M = = = M M
Conclusions
• Choice of Cheoah River Minimum Release affects
ability to provide for other resources -
Example: biodiversity (Alt3) and natural-like (Alt7)
• Santeetlah Power - loss is 35% to 55%
• Santeetlah Lake Levels - drawdown is as
much as 7 ft below rule curve
• Recreational Releases - only 1 release
possible
73
Conclusions
• Choice of Recreation releases affects ability to
provide for other resources -
• Power - highest power losses at Santeetlah are
for high recreation release days
• Recreation releases require fluctuation of
Santeetlah reservoir levels
15
Conclusions
• Choice of Santeetlah rule curve affects ability to
provide for other resources
• Recreational Releases- need to fluctuate levels to
provide weekly releases
• Power- need to fluctuate levels during high inflows
to avoid lost generation due to spills
34
9

' Attachment 5 - Tapoco Project PDEA Alternatives Identification System
Revised PDEA Outline

1

J
n

n
0
0

' Tapoco Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2169
Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment Outline

Cover Sheet
Foreword
Table of Con tents
Executive Summary
'
1.0 Summary
1.1 General Setting
' 1.2 Project Description
1.3 Process Description
1.4 Scope of Environmental Analysis
1.5 Resource Alternatives Considered
1.6 Proposed Action and Aggregate Alternatives
1.7 Environmental Impact Analysis
1.8 Developmental Analysis
1.9 Cumulative Effects Analysis
1.10 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans
' 1.11 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
2.0 Project Description
' 2.1 General Setting
2.2 Project Facilities
2.2.1 Santeetlah Development
' 2.2.2 Cheoah Development
2.2.3 Calderwood Development
2.2.4 Chilhowee Development
' 2.2.5 Project Transmission Lines
2.3 Description of Existing Project Operations
2.3.1 Santeetlah Development
' 2.3.2 Cheoah Development
2.3.3 Calderwood Development
2.3.4 Chilhowee Development
3.0 Purpose and Need For Action
' 3.1
3.2 Purpose of Action
Need for Action
3.2.1 Need for Hydroelectricity
3.2.2 Other Needs
3.2.3 Mandatory Requirements
3.2.3.1 Federal Power Act - Sections 4(e) and 18
3.2.3.2 Federal Clean Water Act Section 401
' 3.2.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106

4.0 Process Description
4.1 APEA Process Description
4.2 Agency Consultation
4.3 Water Quality Certification
4.4 Department of Interior Section 18 Fishway Prescription
4.5 USFS Section 4(e) Recommendations
5.0 Scope of Environmental Analysis
5.1 Project Effects Analysis
5.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis
5.2.1 Geographic Scope
5.2.2 Temporal Scope
6.0 Description of Affected Resources and Discussion of Specific
Resource Alternatives
6.1 General Description of the Little Tennessee and Cheoah River
Basins
6.2 Geology and Soils
6.2.1 Overview
6.2.2 Existing Conditions
6.3 Water Quantity and Use
6.3.1 Hydrology of Cheoah River
6.3.2 Hydrology of Little Tennessee River
6.3.3 Uses of Project Waters
6.4 Water Quality and Alternatives Evaluated
6.4.1 Santeetlah Reservoir Water Quality
6.4.1.1 Description of Studies
6.4.1.2 Existing Water Quality
6.4.1.3 Alternatives
6.4.1.3.1 Improve Reservoir Water Quality by
Reducing Discharges from Trout Farms
6.4.1.3.2 Improve Reservoir Water Quality by
Reducing Pollutants to Reservoir
6.4.1.3.3 Ban of 2-stroke Motors
6.4.1.3.4 Ban of "Overboard Discharges" from Boats
6.4. Al .3.5 Ban of iv et-pens or Aquacuiture
6.4.2 Cheoah Reservoir Water Quality
6.4.2.1 Description of Studies
6.4.2.2 Existing Water Quality
6.4.2.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.4.3 Calderwood Reservoir Water Quality
6.4.3.1 Description of Studies
6.4.3.2 Existing Water Quality
6.4.3.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.4.4 Chilhowee Reservoir Water Quality
6.4.4.1 Description of Studies
2

6.4.4.2 Existing Water Quality
6.4.4.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources and Alternatives Evaluated
6.5.1 Santeetlah Reservoir
6.5.1.1 Description of Studies
' 6.5.1.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.1.3 Operational Alternatives
6.5.1.3.1 Option SAF01 (NCW RC: 1938'4/1-10/31;
1931' 11/1-3/31)
6.5.1.3.2 Option SAF02 (Extended Season: 1936'
4/1-10/31; 1922' 11/1-3/31)
6.5.1.3.3 Option SAF03 (Full Pond Year-Round)
6.5.1.4 Non Operational Alternatives
6.5.1.4.1 Option SAFN1 (Enhanced Littoral Habitat)
6.5.1.4.2 Option SAFN2 (Buffer Zones)
6.5.1.4.3 Option SAFN 3 (Stocking Improvements
(threadfin shad))
6.5.1.5 Effects of Reservoir Recreation Operation
Alternative on Aquatic Resources
6.5.1.5.1 Option SAF02 (Extended Season: 1936'
4/1-10/31; 1922'11/1-3/31)
6.5.1.5.2 Option SAF03 (Full Pond Year-Round)
6.5.1.5.3 Option SAR01 (Robbinsville Curve: 1940'
4/1-11-30; 1938' 12/1-3/31)
6.5.1.5.4 Option SAR02 (1939'4/1-11/30; 1930'
12/1-3/31)
6.5.1.5.5 Option SAR03 (1938'4/1-11/30; 1928'
12/1-3/31)
6.5.1.5.6 Option SAR04 (Boater Conceptual: 1936'
4/1-11/1; 1922'12/1-2/28)
6.5.1.5.7 Option SAR05 (Boater Conceptual 2:1939'
' 5/1-9/15; 9/15-10/31 drawdown; 1931'11/1-
6.5.2 6.5.2 Cheoah River
' 6.5.2.1 Description of Studies -
6.5.2.2 Existing Condition
6.5.2.3 Operational Alternatives
' 6.5.2.3.1 Option CRFO1 (Index C Flow (50-230 cfs))
6
5
2
3
2 Option CRF02 (Natural-Like Flow (20% of
.
.
.
.
inflow; 42-179 cfs))
6.5.2.3.3 Option CRF03 (Tapoco Flow (20-60-90
cfs))
6.5.2.3.4 Option CRF04 (Optimized Trout Flow)
6.5.2.3.5 Option CRF05 (Optimized SMB Flow)
6.5.2.3.6 Option CRF06 (Santeetlah Creek
Diversion)

3
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.5.5
6.5.6
6.5.2.3.7 Option CRF07 (Run of River Flow (no
power generation))
6.5.2.4 Non Operational Alternatives
6.5.2.4.1 Option CRFN1 (Channel Alteration)
6.5.2.4.2 Option CRFN2 (Addition of Substrate)
6.5.2.4.3 Option CRFN3 (In-Channel Vegetation
Management)
6.5.2.5 Effects of Boating Flows on Aquatic Resources
6.5.2.5.1 Option CRRO1 (Fall Weight-28 releases)
6.5.2.5.2 Option CRR02 (Spring Weight-44 releases)
6.5.2.5.3 Option CRR03 (Full Season-52 releases)
6.5.2.5.4 Option CRR04 (Hard Boaters-38 releases)
6.5.2.5.5 Option CRRO5 (Maximize whitewater
releases)
6.5.2.5.6 Option CRR06 (Whitewater Festival
Releases)
6.5.2.6 Effects of Angling Flows on Aquatic Resources
6.5.2.6.1 Option CRR07 (50-75 cfs)
Cheoah Reservoir
6.5.3.1 Description of Studies
6.5.3.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.3.3 Alternatives
6.5.3.3.1 Option COFN1 (Enhanced Littoral Habitat)
6.5.3.3.2 Option COFN2 (Increase stocking
(catchable trout))
6.5.3.3.3 Option COFN3 (Adaptive Management for
Changes in Fontana Operations)
Cheoah Tailwater
6.5.4.1 Description of Studies
6.5.4.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.4.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
Calderwood Reservoir
6.5.5.1 Description of Studies
6.5.5.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.5.3 Alternatives
6.5.5.3.1 Option CAFN1 (Enhanced Littoral Habitat)
6.5.5.3.2 Option CAFN2 (Increase stocking (trout))
6.5.5.3.3 Option CAFN3 (Adaptive Management for
Changes in Fontana Operations)
Calderwood Bypass and Tailwater
6.5.6.1 Description of Studies
6.5.6.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.6.3 Operational Alternatives
6.5.6.3.1 Option BYFO1 (50 cfs)
6.5.6.3.2 Option BYF02 (250 cfs)
6.5.6.3.3 Option BYF03 (400 cfs)
4

0

[I

I1
1

1

6.5.6.3.4 Option BYF04 (Mussel restoration flows in
bypass)
6.5.6.3.5 Option BYF05 (Optimized trout flows in
bypass (800-1400 cfs))
6.5.6.3.6 Option BYF06 (Run of River in Bypass (no
generation))
6.5.6.4 Non Operational Alternatives
6.5.6.4.1 Option BYFN1 (Warm(ed) flows in bypass)
6.5.6.4.2 Option BYFN2 (Off-site Mitigation)
6.5.7 Chilhowee Reservoir
6.5.7.1 Description of Studies
6.5.7.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.7.3 Operational Alternatives
6.5.7.3.1 Option CHF01 (Permanent lowering of
Chilhowee Reservoir (5-20 feet)
6.5.7.3.2 Option CHF02 (Chilhowee Dam Removal)
6.5.7.4 Non Operational Alternative
6.5.7.4.1 Option CHFN1 (Enhance littoral habitat)
6.5.7.4.2 Option CHFN2 (Increase Stocking (trout))
6.5.8 Chilhowee Tributaries (Abrams, Tabcat, etc.)
6.5.9 Description of Studies
6.5.9.1 Existing Conditions
6.5.9.2 Operational Alternatives
6.5.9.2.1 Option CTFO1 (Permanent Lowering of
Chilhowee Reservoir)
6.5.9.3 Non Operational Alternatives
6.5.9.3.1 Option CTFN2 (Restoration of Extirpated
Species)
6.5.9.3.2 Option CTFN3 (Off-site Mitigation)
6.5.10 Chilhowee Tailwater
6.5.10.1 Description of Studies
6.5.10.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.10.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.5.11 Fish Passage/Entrainment
6.5.11.1 Description of Studies
6.5.11.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.11.3 Operational Alternatives
6.5.11.3.1 Option PWPO1 (Minimize
Impingement/Entrainment with Changes in
Reservoir Levels/Operations)
6.5.11.3.20ption PWP02 (Cheoah River Flow
Alternative to Enhance Fish Passage)
6.5.11.4 Non Operational Alternatives
6.5.11.4.1 Option PWPN1 (Minimize
Impingement/Entrainment with Structures)
6.5.12 Aquatic Habitat Fragmentation
5
6.5.12.1 Description of Studies
6.5.12.2 Existing Conditions
6.5.12.3 Alternatives
6.5.12.3.1 Option PWHN1 (Off-site Mitigation)
6.6 Terrestrial Resources
6.6.1 Santeetlah Reservoir Shoreline Riparian Habitat
6.6.1.1 Description of Studies
6.6.1.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.1.3 Alternatives
6.6.1.3.1 SATN1 (Enhanced Littoral Habitat)
6.6.1.3.2 SATN2 (Create Shoreline Buffer)
6.6.1.3.3 SATN3 (Mitigation on Non Project Lands)
6.6.1.4 Effects of Alternative Reservoir Operations on
Terrestrial Resources
6.6.1.4.1 Option SAF02 (Extended Season: 1936'
4/1-10/31; 1922' 11/1-3/31)
6.6.1.4.2 Option SAF03 (Full Pond Year-Round)
6.6.1.4.3 Option SAR01 (Robbinsville Curve: 1940'
4/1-11-30; 1938' 12/1-3/31)
6.6.1.4.4 Option SAR02 (1939'4/1-11/30; 1930'
12/1-3/31)
6.6.1.4.5 Option SAR03 (1938'4/1-11/30; 1928'
12/1-3/31)
6.6.1.4.6 Option SAR04 (Boater Conceptual: 1936'
4/1-11/1; 1922'12/1-2/28)
6.6.1.4.7 Option SAR05 (Boater Conceptual 2:1939'
5/1-9/15; 9/15-10/31 drawdown; 1931' 11/1-
2/28)
6.6.2 Cheoah River Riparian Habitat
6.6.2.1 Description of Studies
6.6.2.2 Existing Condition
6.6.2.3 Alternatives
6.6.2.3.1 Option CRTN1 (Create Shoreline Buffer)
6.6.2.3.2 Option CRTN2 (Exotic Species
Management)
6.6.2.4 Effects of Aquatic Flow Alternatives on Terrestrial
Resources
6.6.2.4.1 Option CRFO1 (50-230 cfs)
6.6.2.4.2 Option CRF02 (42-179 cfs))
6.6.2.4.3 Option CRF03 (20-60-90 cfs)
6.6.2.4.4 Option CRF04 (Trout Flow)
6.6.2.4.5 Option CRF05 (SMB Flow)
6.6.2.4.6 Option CRF06 (Santeetlah Creek
Diversion)
6.6.2.4.7 Option CRF07 (Run of River Flow)
6

11

U

6.6.3
6.6.4
6.6.5
6.6.6
6.6.2.5. Effects of Boating Alternatives on Terrestrial
Resources
6.6.2.5.1 Option CRRO1 (Fall Weight-28 releases)
6.6.2.5.2 Option CRR02 (Spring Weight-44 releases)
6.6.2.5.3 Option CRR03 (Full Season-52 releases)
6.6.2.5.4 Option CRR04 (Hard Boaters-38 releases)
6.6.2.5.5 Option CRR05 (Maximize whitewater
releases)
6.6.2.5.6 Option CRR06 (Whitewater Festival
Releases)
6.6.2.6 Effects of Angling Flows on Aquatic Resources
6.6.2.6.1 Option CRR07 (50-75 cfs)
Cheoah Reservoir
6.6.3.1 Description of Studies
6.6.3.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.3.3 Alternatives
6.6.3.3.1 Option COTN1 (Enhanced Littoral Habitat)
6.6.3.3.2 Option COTN2 (Create Shoreline Buffer)
6.6.3.3.3 Option COTN3 (Conservation Easements)
Calderwood Reservoir
6.6.4.1 Description of Studies
6.6.4.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.4.3 Alternatives
6.6.4.3.1 Option CATN1 (Enhanced Littoral Habitat)
6.6.4.3.2 Option CATN2 (Create Shoreline Buffer)
6.6.4.3.3 Option CATN3 (Conservation Easements)
Calderwood Bypass
6.6.5.1 Description of Studies
6.6.5.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.5.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.6.5.4 Effects of Aquatic Flow Alternatives on Terrestrial
Resources
6.6.5.4.1 Option BYFO1 (50 cfs)
6.6.5.4.2 Option BYF02 (250 cfs)
6.6.5.4.3 Option BYF03 (400 cfs)
6.6.5.4.4 Option BYF04 (Mussel flows)
6.6.5.4.5 Option BYF05 (Trout flows)
6.6.5.4.6 Option BYF06 (Run of River)
Chilhowee Reservoir
6.6.6.1 Description of Studies
6.6.6.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.6.3 Alternatives
6.6.6.3.1 Option CHTN1 (Enhanced Littoral Habitat)
6.6.6.3.2 Option CHTN2 (Create Shoreline Buffer)
6.6.6.3.3 Option CHTN3 (Conservation Easements)
7

6.6.6.4 Effects of Alternative Reservoir Operations on
Terrestrial Resources
6.6.6.4.1 Option CHF01 (Permanent Lowering of
Chilhowee Reservoir)
6.6.6.4.2 Option CHF02 (Chilhowee Dam Removal)
6.6.7 Chilhowee Tributaries (Abrams, Tabcat, etc.)
6.6.7.1 Description of Studies
6.6.7.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.7.3 Alternatives (no alternative identified)
6.6.7.4 Effects of Alternative Reservoir Operations on
Terrestrial Resources
6.6.7.4.1 Option CHF01 (Permanent Lowering of
Chilhowee Reservoir)
6.6.7.4.2 Option CHF02 (Chilhowee Dam Removal)
6.6.8 Pipeline/Penstock Corridors
6.6.8.1 Description of Studies
6.6.8.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.8.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.6.9 Project Transmission Lines
6.6.9.1 Description of Studies
6.6.9.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.9.3 Alternatives
6.6.9.3.1 Option TLTN1 (T/L Vegetation
Management Monitoring Program)
6.6.10 Project Lands
6.6.10.1 Description of Studies
6.6.10.2 Existing Conditions
6.6.10.3 Alternatives
6.6.10.3.1 Option PWTN1 (Vegetation management
plan/cooperative effort)
6.6.10.3.2 Option PWTN2 (Vegetation monitoring
program)
6.6.10.3.3 Option PWTN3 (Maintain wildlife corridors)
6.6.10.3.4 Option PWTN4 (Conservation Easements
on Project and Non Project Lands)
6.6.10.3.5 Option PWTN5 (Gamelands)
6.6.10.3.6 Option PETN1 (Public education of
vegetation management problems)
6.7 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
6.7.1 RTE Species and Species of Concern
6.7.1.1 Description of Studies
6.7.1.2 Species List Review
6.7.1.3 Existing Conditions
6.7.1.4 Alternatives
s

0

0

I

6.7.1.4.1 Option PWEN1 (Consortium for RTE
Species Protection)
6.7.1.4.2 Option PWEN2 (Identify RTE Habitat for
Protection/Conservation/Monitoring)
6.7.1.4.3 Option PWEN3 (Develop ESA Habitat
Conservation Plans)
6.7.1.4.4 Option PWEN4 (Adaptive Management to
Address Changes in Species Status)
6.7.2 Indiana Bat
6.7.2.1 Description of Studies
6.7.2.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.2.3 Alternatives
6.7.2.3.1 Option PWEN 5 (Indiana Bat Management
Plan)
6.7.2.3.2 Option PWEN 6 (Indiana Bat Habitat
Enhancements)
6.7.2.4 Effects of Reservoir Operation Alternatives on
Indiana Bat
6.7.3 Appalachian Elktoe
6.7.3.1 Description of Studies
6.7.3.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.3.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.7.3.4 Effects of Aquatic Flow Alternatives on the
Appalachian Elktoe
6.7.3.4.1 Option CRFO1 (50-230 cfs)
6.7.3.4.2 Option CRF02 (42-179 cfs)
6.7.3.4.3 Option CRF03 (20-60-90 cfs)
6.7.3.4.4 Option CRF04 (Trout Flow)
6.7.3.4.5 Option CRF05 (SMB Flow)
6.7.3.4.6 Option CRF06 (Santeetlah Creek
Diversion)
6.7.3.4.7 Option CRF07 (Run of River Flow)
6.7.3.5 Effects of Aquatic Non Operational Alternatives on
the Appalachian Elktoe
6.7.3.5.1 Option CRFN1 (Channel Alteration)
6.7.3.5.2 Option CRFN2 (Addition of Substrate)
6.7.3.5.3 Option CRFN3 (In-Channel Vegetation
Management)
6.7.3.6 Effects of Boating Flows on the Appalachian
Elktoe
6.7.3.6.1 Option CRRO1 (Fall Weight-28 releases)
6.7.3.6.2 Option CRR02 (Spring Weight-44 releases)
6.7.3.6.3 Option CRR03 (Full Season-52 releases)
6.7.3.6.4 Option CRR04 (Hard Boaters-38 releases)
6.7.3.6.5 Option CRR05 (Maximize whitewater
releases)

6.7.4
6.7.5
6.7.3.6.6 Option CRR06 (Whitewater Festival
Releases)
6.7.3.7 Effects of Angling Flows on Aquatic Resources
6.7.3.7.1 Option CRR07 (50-75 cfs)
Red Cockaded Woodpecker
6.7.4.1 Description of Studies
6.7.4.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.4.3 Alternatives
6.7.4.3.1 Option PWEN 7 (Cooperative RCW
Management Plan and Habitat
Improvements)
6.7.4.3.2 Option PWEN8 (Off-site Mitigation for
Impacts to RCWs)
6.7.4.4 Effects of Pipel i ne/Penstock/Transm iss ion Line
Corridor Management on Red Cockaded
Woodpecker
6.7.4.4.1 Option TLTN1 (T/L Vegetation
Management Monitoring Program)
Virginia Spiraea
6.7.5.1 Description of Studies
6.7.5.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.5.3 Alternatives
6.7.5.3.1 Option CREN1 (Virginia Spiraea
Management Plan)
6.7.5.3.2 Option CRE01 (Scouring Flows)
6.7.5.4 Effects of Aquatic Flow Alternatives on Virginia
Spiraea
6.7.5.4.1 Option CRFO1 (50-230 cfs)
6.7.5.4.2 Option CRF02 (42-179 cfs)
6.7.5.4.3 Option CRF03 (20-60-90 cfs)
6.7.5.4.4 Option CRF04 (Trout Flow)
6.7.5.4.5 Option CRF05 (SMB Flow)
6.7.5.4.6 Option CRF06 (Santeetlah Creek
Diversion)
6.7.5.4.7 Option CRF07 (Run of River Flow)
6.7.5.5 Effects of Aquatic Non Operational Alternatives on
Virginia Spiraea
6.7.5.5.1 Option CRFN1 (Channel Alteration)
6.7.5.5.2 Option CRFN2 (Addition of Substrate)
6.7.5.5.3 Option CRFN3 (In-Channel Vegetation
Management)
6.7.5.6 Effects of Boating Flow Alternatives on Virginia
Spiraea
6.7.5.6.1 Option CRRO1 (Fall Weight-28 releases)
6.7.5.6.2 Option CRR02 (Spring Weight -44
. releases)
10

7

117,
I
Fill
H

6.7.5.6.3
6.7.5.6.4
6.7.5.6.5
6.7.5.6.6
6.7.5.7 Effect
6.7.5.7.1
6.7.6 Bog Turtle
Option CRR03 (Full Season-52 releases)
Option CRR04 (Hard Boaters-38 releases)
Option CRR05 (Maximize whitewater
releases)
Option CRR06 (Whitewater Festival
Releases)
s of Angling Flows on Aquatic Resources
Option CRR07 (50-75 cfs)
6.7.6.1 Description of Studies
6.7.6.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.6.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.7.6.4 Effects of Project Operations and Alternatives
6.7.7 Turquoise Shiner (Spotfin Chub)
6.7.7.1 Description of Studies
6.7.7.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.7.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.7.7.4 Effects of Project Operations and Alternatives
6.7.8 Yellowfin Madtom
6.7.8.1 Description of Studies
6.7.8.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.8.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.7.8.4 Effects of Project Operations and Alternatives
6.7.9 Smoky Madtom
6.7.9.1 Description of Studies
6.7.9.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.9.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.7.9.4 Effects of Project Operations and Alternatives
6.7.10 Duskytail Darter
6.7.10.1 Description of Studies
6.7.10.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.10.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.7.10.4 Effects of Project Operations and Alternatives
6.7.11 Junaluska Salamander
6.7.11.1 Description of Studies
6.7.11.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.11.3 Alternatives
6.7.11.3.1 Option CREN2 (Junaluska Salamander
Monitoring and Management Plan)
6.7.11.4 Effects of Aquatic Flow Alternatives on the
Junaluska Salamander
6.7.11.4.1 Option CRFO1 (50-230 cfs)
6.7.11.4.20ption CRF02 (42-179 cfs)
6.7.11.4.30ption CRF03 (20-60-90 cfs)
6.7.11.4.40ption CRF04 (Trout Flow)
6.7.11.4.5 Option CRF05 (SMB Flow)
11
6.7.11.4.60ption CRF06 (Santeetlah Creek
Diversion)
6.7.11.4.70ption CRF07 (Run of River Flow)
6.7.11.5 Effects of Aquatic Non Operational Alternatives on
the Junaluska Salamander
6.7.11.5.1 Option CRFN1 (Channel Alteration)
6.7.11.5.20ption CRFN2 (Addition of Substrate)
6.7.11.5.30ption CRFN3 (In-Channel Vegetation
Management)
6.7.11.6 Effects of Boating Flow Alternatives on the
Junaluska Salamander
6.7.11.6.1 Option CRRO1 (Fall Weight-28 releases)
6.7.11.6.2 Option CRR02 (Spring Weight-44 releases)
6.7.11.6.30ption CRR03 (Full Season-52 releases)
6.7.11.6.40ption CRR04 (Hard Boaters-38 releases)
6.7.11.6.5 Option CRR05 (Maximize whitewater
releases)
6.7.11.6.60ption CRR06 (Whitewater Festival
Releases)
6.7.11.7 Effects of Angling Flows on Aquatic Resources
6.7.11.7.1 Option CRR07 (50-75 cfs)
6.7.12 Blue Winged Warbler
6.7.12.1 Description of Studies
6.7.12.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.12.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.7.12.4 Effects of Project Operations and Alternatives
6.7.13 Bog Lemming
6.7.13.1 Description of Studies
6.7.13.2 Existing Conditions
6.7.13.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.7.13.4 Effects of Project Operations and Alternatives
6.8 Recreation Resources
6.8.1 Santeetlah Reservoir
6.8.1.1 Description of Studies
6.8.1.2 Existing Conditions
6.8.1.2.1 Facilities
6.8.1.2.2 Facility O&M
6.8.1.2.3 Reservoir Operations
6.8.1.2.4 ROS Considerations
6.8.1.3 Non Operational Alternatives
6.8.1.3.1 New Facilities
6.8.1.3.1.1 Option SARN1 (Additional
Swimming Beaches)
6.8.1.3.1.2 Option SARN2 (Accessible
Fishing Pier)
12
J

11

6.8.1.3.1.3 Option SARN3 (Additional
Facilities as Required)
6.8.1.3.2 Modified Facilities
6.8.1.3.2.1 Option SARN4 (Bank Fishing
Improvements)
6.8.1.3.2.2 Option SARN5 (Expand Massey
Branch Boat Access)
6.8.1.3.2.3 Option SARN6 (USFS
Campground Improvements)
6.8.1.3.2.4 Option SARN7 (Rehabilitate
Dispersed Campsites)
6.8.1.3.2.5 Option SARN8 (Bring all Facilities
to USFS Standards)
6.8.1.3.2.6 Option SARN9 (All Facilities ADA
Accessible)
6.8.1.3.3 Facility O&M
6.8.1.3.3.1 Option SARN10 (USFS Facility
O&M Funding)
6.8.1.3.3.2 Option SARN11 (Reservoir
Recreation Management Plan)
6.8.1.4 Operational Alternatives
6.8.1.4.1 Option SAF02 (Extended Season: 1936'
4/1-10/31; 1922' 11/1 -3/31)
6.8.1.4.2 Option SAF03 (Full Pond Year-Round)
6.8.1.4.3 Option SAR01 (Robbinsville Curve: 1940'
4/1-11-30; 1938' 12/1-3/31)
6.8.1.4.4 Option SAR02 (1939'4/1-11/30; 1930'
12/1-3/31)
6.8.1.4.5 Option SAR03 (1938'4/1-11/30; 1928'
12/1-3/31)
6.8.1.4.6 Option SAR04 (Boater Conceptual: 1936'
4/1-11 /1; 1922'12/1-2/28)
6.8.1.4.7 Option SAR05 (Boater Conceptual 2: 1939'
5/1-9/15; 9/15-10/31 drawdown; 1931' 11 /1-
2/28)
6.8.2 Cheoah River
6.8.2.1 Description of Studies
6.8.2.2 Existing Conditions
6.8.2.2.1 Facilities
6.8.2.2.2 Facility O&M
6.8.2.2.3 Whitewater Boating
6.8.2.2.4 Angling
6.8.2.2.5 ROS Considerations
6.8.2.3 Non Operational Alternatives
6.8.2.3.1 New Facilities
13

6.8.2.3.1.1 Option CRRN1 (Whitewater
Boating Facilities (parking, put-in,
take-out, restrooms, buildings)
6.8.2.3.1.2 Option CRRN2 (Picnic Areas and
Dispersed Camping)
6.8.2.3.1.3 Option CRRN3 (Interpretive
Facilities/Materials)
6.8.2.3.2 Modified Facilities
6.8.2.3.2.1 Option CRRN4 (Additional
Parking/Access Along Cheoah
River)
6.8.2.3.3 Facility O&M
6.8.2.3.3.1 Option CRRN5 (User Fees)
6.8.2.3.3.2 Option CRRN6 (Vegetation
Removal from Riverbed)
6.8.2.3.3.3 Option CRRN7 (Cheoah River
Recreation Management Plan)
6.8.2.4 Boating Flow Alternatives
6.8.2.4.1 Option CRRO1 (Fall Weight Flow-28
releases)
6.8.2.4.2 Option CRR02 (Spring Weight Flow-44
releases)
6.8.2.4.3 Option CRR03 (Full Season-52 releases)
6.8.2.4.4 Option CRR04 (Hard Boaters-38 releases)
6.8.2.4.5 Option CRR05 (Maximize whitewater
releases on available water with no
generation April-November)
6.8.2.4.6 Option CRR06 (Whitewater Festival
Releases)
6.8.2.5 Angling Flow Alternatives
6.8.2.5.1 Option CRR07 (Fishability Flow (50-75 cfs)
6.8.2.6 Effects of Aquatic Flow Alternatives on Cheoah
River Recreation
6.8.2.6.1 Option CRFO1 (50-230 cfs)
6.8.2.6.2 Option CRF02 (42-179 cfs)
6.8.2.6.3 Option CRF03 (20-60-90 cfs)
6.8.2.6.4 Option CRF04 (Trout Flow)
6.8.2.6.5 Option CRF05 (SMB Flow)
6.8.2.6.6 00ption CRF06 (Santeetlah Creek
Diversion)
6.8.2.6.7 Option CRF07 (Run of River Flow)
6.8.2.7 Effects of Aquatic Non Operational Alternatives on
Cheoah River Recreation
6.8.2.7.1 Option CRFN1 (Channel Alteration)
6.8.2.7.2 Option CRFN2 (Addition of Substrate)
14

1

n
L
1

I

I

I

!I

6.8.2.7.3 Option CRFN3 (In-Channel Vegetation
Management)
6.8.3 Cheoah Reservoir
6.8.3.1 Description of Studies
6.8.3.2 Existing Conditions
6.8.3.2.1 Facilities
6.8.3.2.2 Facility 0&M
6.8.3.2.3 Reservoir Operations
6.8.3.3 Non Operational Alternatives
6.8.3.3.1 New Facilities
6.8.3.3.1.1 Option CORN1 (Water Trail)
6.8.3.3.1.2 Option CORN2 (Primitive
Campsites)
6.8.3.3.1.3 Option CORNS (Canoe Portage)
6.8.3.3.2 Modified Facilities
6.8.3.3.2.1 Option CORN 4 (Redesign Panel
Branch Boat Access)
6.8.3.3.2.2 Option CORN5 (Improved Bank
Fishing Facilities)
6.8.3.3.3 Facility 0&M (no alternatives identified)
6.8.3.4 Operational Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.8.4 Calderwood Reservoir
6.8.4.1 Description of Studies
6.8.4.2 Existing Conditions
6.8.4.2.1 Facilities
6.8.4.2.2 Facility O&M
6.8.4.2.3 Reservoir Operations
6.8.4.3 Non Operational Alternatives
6.8.4.3.1 New Facilities
6.8.4.3.1.1 Option CARN1 (Water Trail)
6.8.4.3.1.2 Option CARN2 (Primitive
Campsites)
6.8.4.3.1.3 Option CARN3 (Canoe Portage)
6.8.4.3.1.4 Option CARN4 (Hiking Trail along
Reservoir)
6.8.4.3.1.5 Option CARN5 (Accessible
Fishing Pier)
6.8.4.3.1.6 Option CARNE (Additional Boat
Access)
6.8.4.3.2 Modified Facilities
6.8.4.3.2.1 Option CARN7 (Expand Parking
at Magazine Branch Boat
Access)
6.8.4.3.2.2 Option CARN8 (Modify Magazine
Branch Facilities as Whitewater
Take Out Area)
15
6.8.5
6.8.6
6.8.4.3.2.3 Option CARN9 (Improved Bank
Fishing)
6.8.4.3.3 Facility O&M
6.8.4.3.3.1 Option CARN10 (Restrictions on
Motorized Watercraft)
6.8.4.4 Operational Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
Calderwood Bypass
6.8.5.1 Description of Studies
6.8.5.2 Existing Conditions
6.8.5.2.1 Facilities
6.8.5.2.2 Bypass Operations
6.8.5.3 Non Operational Alternatives
6.8.5.3.1 Option BYRN1 (Safe Angling and Boating
Access to Bypass)
6.8.5.4 Operational Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.8.5.5 Effects of Aquatic Flow Alternatives on Recreation
Resources
6.8.5.5.1 Option BYFO1 (50 cfs)
6.8.5.5.2 Option BYF02 (250 cfs)
6.8.5.5.3 Option BYF03 (400 cfs)
6.8.5.5.4 Option BYF04 (Mussel restoration flows in
bypass)
6.8.5.5.5 Option BYF05 (Optimized trout flows in
bypass (800-1400 cfs))
6.8.5.5.6 Option BYF06 (Run of River in Bypass (no
generation))
Chilhowee Reservoir
6.8.6.1 Description of Studies
6.8.6.2 Existing Conditions
6.8.6.2.1 Facilities
6.8.6.2.2 Facility O&M
6.8.6.2.3 Reservoir Operations
6.8.6.3 Non Operational Alternatives
6.8.6.3.1 New Facilities
6.8.6.3.1.1 Option CHRN1 (Water Trail)
6.8.6.3.1.2 Option CHRN2 (Primitive
Campsites)
6.8.6.3.1.3 Option CHRN3 (Canoe Portage)
6.8.6.3.1.4 Option CHRN4 (Accessible
Fishing Pier)
6.8.6.3.2 Modified Facilities
6.8.6.3.2.1 Option CHRN5 (Improved
Camping Along US 129)
6.8.6.3.2.2 Option CHRN6 (US 129 Facility
Modifications to Improve
Aesthetics)
16

0

6.8.6.3.2.3 Option CHRN7 (Improved Bank
Fishing)
6.8.6.3.3 Facility O&M
6.8.6.3.3.1 Option CHRN8 (Shoreline
Clean/Trash Removal)
6.8.6.4 Operational Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.8.6.5 Facility O&M Alternatives (no alternatives
identified)
6.8.6.6 Effects of Reservoir Operation Alternatives on
Recreation Resources
6.8.6.6.1 No reservoir behind Chilhowee Dam
6.8.6.6.2 Permanent lowering of Chilhowee
Reservoir
6.8.6.6.3 Chilhowee Dam Removal
6.8.7 Other Project Lands
6.8.7.1 Existing Conditions
6.8.7.2 Alternatives
6.8.7.2.1 Biking Trails
6.9 Aesthetics
6.9.1 Santeetlah Reservoir
6.9.1.1 Description of Studies
6.9.1.2 Existing Conditions
6.9.1.3 Effects of Reservoir Operation Alternatives on
Aesthetics
6.9.1.3.1 Option SAF02 (Extended Season: 1936'
4/1-10/31; 1922' 11/1-3/31)
6.9.1.3.2 Option SAF03 (Full Pond Year-Round)
6.9.1.3.3 Option SAR01 (Robbinsville Curve: 1940'
4/1-11-30; 1938' 12/1-3/31)
6.9.1.3.4 Option SAR02 (1939'4/1-11/30; 1930'
12/1-3/31)
6.9.1.3.5 Option SAR03 (1938'4/1-11/30; 1928'
12/1-3/31)
6.9.1.3.6 Option SAR04 (Boater Conceptual: 1936'
4/1-11/1; 1922'12/1-2/28)
6.9.1.3.7 Option SAR05 (Boater Conceptual 2:1939'
5/1-9/15; 9/15-10/31 drawdown; 1931' 11 /1-
2/28)
6.9.2 Cheoah River
6.9.2.1 Description of Studies
6.9.2.2 Existing Conditions
6.9.2.3 Effects of Aquatic Flow Alternatives on Aesthetics
6.9.2.3.1 Option CRFO1 (50-230 cfs)
6.9.2.3.2 Option CRF02 (42-179 cfs)
6.9.2.3.3 Option CRF03 (20-60-90 cfs)
6.9.2.3.4 Option CRF04 (Trout Flow)
17
6.9.2.3.5 Option CRF05 (SMB Flow)
6.9.2.3.6 Option CRF06 (Santeetlah Creek
Diversion)
6.9.2.3.7 Option CRF07 (Run of River Flow)
6.9.2.4 Effects of Aquatic Non Operational Alternatives on
Cheoah River Aesthetics
6.9.2.4.1 Option CRFN1 (Channel Alteration)
6.9.2.4.2 Option CRFN2 (Addition of Substrate)
6.9.2.4.3 Option CRFN3 (In-Channel Vegetation
Management)
6.9.2.5 Effects of Boating Flow Alternatives on Aesthetics
6.9.2.5.1 Option CRRO1 (Fall Weight-28 releases)
6.9.2.5.2 Option CRR02 (Spring Weight-44 releases)
6.9.2.5.3 Option CRR03 (Full Season-52 releases)
6.9.2.5.4 Option CRR04 (Hard Boaters-38 releases)
6.9.2.5.5 Option CRRO5 (Maximize whitewater
releases)
6.9.2.5.6 Option CRR06 (Whitewater Festival
Releases)
6.9.2.6 Effects of Angling Flows on Aesthetics
6.9.2.6.1 Option CRR07 (50-75 cfs)
6.9.3 Little Tennessee River Reservoirs
6.9.3.1 Description of Studies
6.9.3.2 Existing Conditions
6.9.3.3 Alternatives
6.9.3.3.1 Option CHAN1 (Improve Aesthetics of 129
Recreation Sites)
6.9.4 Project Powerhouses
6.9.4.1 Description of Studies
6.9.4.2 Existing Conditions
6.9.4.3 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.9.5 Pipelines/Penstocks
6.9.5.1 Description of Studies
6.9.5.2 Existing Conditions
6.9.5.3 Alternatives
6.9.5.3.1 Option PPAN! (Painting of
Pipelines/penstocks to Improve Aesthetics)
6.9.6 Project Transmission Lines
6.9.6.1 Description of Studies
6.9.6.2 Existing Conditions
6.9.6.3 Alternatives
6.9.6.3.1 Option TLAN1 (Vegetation Management to
Improve Aesthetics of T/Ls)
6.9.7 Other Project Facilities
6.9.8 Consistency with USFS Specifications
6.9.9 Consistency with NPS Specifications
18
7

J

J

6.10 Land Use and Shoreline Management
6.10.1 Santeetlah Reservoir
6.10.1.1 Description of Studies
6.10.1.2 Existing Conditions
6.10.1.2.1 Private Facility Development
6.10.1.2.2Commercial/multi-use Facility Development
6.10.1.2.3 Public Facility Development
6.10.1.2.4Shoreline Erosion
6.10.1.3 Alternatives for Private Facility Development
6.10.1.3.1 Option SASN1 (Modify allowable private
pier configuration)
6.10.1.3.20ption SASN2 (Modify allowable retaining
walls)
6.10.1.3.30ption SASN3 (Shoreline Vegetation)
6.10.1.4 Alternatives for Multi-use Facility Development
6.10.1.4.1 Option SASN4 (Modify existing multi-
use/commercial permitting process)
6.10.1.5 Alternatives to Address Shoreline Erosion
6.10.1.5.1 Option SASN5 (Modify allowable retaining
walls)
6.10.1.5.20ption SASN6 (Scheme of Preferred
Erosion Control Measures)
6.10.1.5.3 Option SASN7 (Shoreline Vegetation)
6.10.1.5.4 Option SASN9 (Shoreline Buffer)
6.10.1.5.5 Option SASN8 (No Wake Zones)
6.10.1.6 Alternatives to Address Comprehensive Shoreline
Development Issues
6.10.1.6.1 Option SASN9 (Increase Shoreline
Development)
6.10.1.6.2 Option SASN10 (Prepare a Comprehensive
SMP)
6.10.1.7 Effects of Santeetlah Operation Alternatives on
Shoreline Management Issues
6.10.1.7.1 Option SAF02 (Extended Season: 1936'
4/1-10/31; 1922'11/1-3/31)
6.10.1.7.20ption SAF03 (Full Pond Year-Round)
6.10.1.7.30ption SAR01 (Robbinsville Curve: 1940'
4/1-11-30; 1938'12/1-3/31)
6.10.1.7.40ption SAR02 (1939'4/1-11/30; 1930'
12/1-3/31)
6.10.1.7.5 Option SAR03 (1938'4/1-11/30; 1928'
12/1-3/31)
6.10.1.7.6 Option SAR04 (Boater Conceptual: 1936'
4/1-11 /1; 1922'12/1-2/28)
19
6.10.1.7.70ption SAR05 (Boater Conceptual 2: 1939'
5/1-9/15; 9/15-10/31 drawdown; 1931' 11/1-
2/28)
6.11
6.10.2 Cheoah River
6.10.2.1 Existing Conditions
6.10.2.2 Alternatives
6.10.2.2.1 Option CHSN1 (Create Shoreline Buffers)
6.10.3 Little Tennessee River Reservoirs
6.10.3.1 Existing Conditions
6.10.3.2 Alternatives
6.10.3.2.1 Option COSN1 (Create Shoreline Buffers)
6.10.4 Other Project Lands
6.10.4.1 Existing Conditions
6.10.4.2 Alternatives (no alternatives identified)
6.10.5 Watershed Protection (Project and Non Project Lands)
6.10.5.1 Existing Conditions
6.10.5.2 Alternatives
6.10.5.2.1 Option PWLN1 (Conservation Easements
on Project and Non Project Lands)
6.10.5.2.2 Option PWLN2 (Stream Buffers on Non
Project Lands)
Cultural Resources
6.11.1 Description of Studies
6.11.1.1 Historic Properties Study
6.11.1.2 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Study
6.11.2 Existing Conditions - Historic Resources
6.11.2.1 Santeetlah Dam and Powerhouse
6.11.2.2 Cheoah Dam and Powerhouse
6.11.2.3 Calderwood Dam
6.11.2.4 Calderwood Powerhouse and Community
6.11.2.5 Chilhowee Dam and Powerhouse
6.11.2.6 Tapoco Historic District
6.11.3 Existing Conditions - Tribal and Prehistoric Resources
6.11.3.1 Santeetlah Reservoir
6.11.3.2 Cheoah Reservoir -j r d. 1 1.0 0 t-.al aerwuou rse5ervo1
6.11.3.4 Chilhowee Reservoir
6.11.3.5 Disposition of previously removed archeological
artifacts
6.11.4 Programmatic Agreement
6.11.5 Alternatives
6.11.5.1 Option PWCN1 (Cultural Resources Management
Plan/Programmatic Agreement) (Concepts to be considered
in the Management Plan include: 1) Stabilizing Reservoir
Levels to Protect Cultural Sites, 2) Re-internment of Human
Remains, 3) Access to Project Lands for Traditional Cultural
20

0
I I

0
0

I I

H

7.0
C
0
Activities, 4) Reintroduction of Species of Cultural
Importance, and 5) Cultural Education Program)
6.11.6 Effects of Alternative Santeetlah Reservoir Operations on
Cultural Resources
6.11.6.1 Option SAF02 (Extended Season: 1936' 4/1-
10/31; 1922' 11/1-3/31)
6.11.6.2 Option SAF03 (Full Pond Year-Round)
6.11.6.3 Option SAR01 (Robbinsville Curve: 1940'4/1 -11 -
30; 1938' 12/1-3/31)
6.11.6.4 Option SAR02 (1939'4/1-11/30; 1930' 12/1-3/31)
6.11.6.5 Option SAR03 (1938'4/1-11/30; 1928' 12/1-3/31)
6.11.6.6 Option SAR04 (Boater Conceptual: 1936' 4/1-
11/1; 1922'12/1-2/28)
6.11.6.7 Option SAR05 (Boater Conceptual 2: 1939' 5/1-
9/15; 9/15-10/31 drawdown; 1931' 11/1-2/28)
6.11.7 Effects of Chilhowee Reservoir Alternatives on Cultural
Resources
6.11.7.1 Option CHF01 (Permanent lowering of Chilhowee
Reservoir (5-20 feet)
6.11.7.2 Option CHF02 (Chilhowee Dam removal)
6.12 Power Generation and Project Economics
6.12.1 Description of Studies
6.12.1.1 Upgrade Program
6.12.1.2 OASIS Model Development
6.12.2 Existing Conditions
6.12.3 Non Operational Alternatives
6.12.3.1 Option PWGN1 (Increase Turbine/Generator
Efficiency and Capacity (Future Upgrades))
6.12.3.2 Option SAGN1 (Install Generating Facilities at
Santeetlah Dam)
6.12.3.3 Option CAGN1 (Install Generating Facilities at
Calderwood Dam)
6.12.3.4 Option PWGN2 (Reduce Electricity Demand
(Alcoa))
6.12.4 Operational Alternatives
6.12.4.1 Option PWG01 (Reduce Spills at All Dams)
6.12.4.2 Option PWG02 (Increase Peaking Operations at
Mainstem Dams)
6.12.5 Affect of Operational Alternatives on Power Generation
6.12.5.1 Santeetlah Reservoir Operations
6.12.5.2 Cheoah River Flows
6.12.5.3 Calderwood Bypass Flows
6.12.5.4 Chilhowee Reservoir Operations
Proposed Action and Alternatives
7.1 Proposed Action(s)
21
7.1.1 Proposed Modifications to Operations
7.1.1.1 Santeetlah Reservoir Operations
7.1.1.2 Cheoah River Operations
7.1.1.3 Cheoah Reservoir Operations
7.1.1.4 Calderwood Reservoir Operations
7.1.1.5 Calderwood Bypass Operations
7.1.1.6 Chilhowee Reservoir Operations
7.1.2 Proposed Non-operational Modification(s)
7.1.2.1 Recreation Facility Modifications
7.1.2.2 Aesthetic Modifications
7.1.3 Proposed Environmental Measures
7.1.3.1 Water Quality Measures
7.1.3.2 Fish and Aquatic Resource Measures
7.1.3.3 Terrestrial Resource Measures
7.1.3.4 Invasive Exotic Control Measures
7.1.3.5 RTE Species Measures
7.2 Aggregated Operations Alternatives (AOA)
7.2.1 Aggregated Operational Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
7.2.2 Aggregated Operational Alternative 2
7.2.3 Aggregated Operational Alternative 3
7.2.4 Aggregated Operational Alternative 4
7.3 Aggregated Non-operational Alternatives (ANA)
7.3.1 Aggregated Non-operational Alternative 1 - No Action
Alternative
7.3.2 Aggregated Non-operational Alternative 2
7.3.3 Aggregated Non-operational Alternative 3
7.3.4 Aggregated Non-operational Alternative 4
7.4 Aggregated Environmental Measure Alternatives (AEA)
7.4.1 Aggregated Environmental Alternative 1 - No Action
Alternative
7.4.2 Aggregated Environmental Alternative 2
7.4.3 Aggregated Environmental Alternative 3
7.4.4 Aggregated Environmental Alternative 4
7.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
7.5.1 Dam Removal and Decommissioning
8.0 Environmental Impacts Analysis
8.1 Geology and Soils
8.1.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.1.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.1.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.1.1.3 AOA 3
8.1.1.4 AOA 4
8.1.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
8.1.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.1.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
22

L

0

u

t

8.1.2.3 ANA 3
8.1.2.4 ANA 4
8.1.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.1.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.1.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.1.3.3 AEA 3
8.1.3.4 AEA 4
8.2 Water Quantity and Use
8.2.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.2.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.2.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.2.1.3 AOA 3
8.2.1.4 AOA 4
8.2.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
8.2.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.2.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.2.2.3 ANA 3
8.2.2.4 ANA 4
8.2.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.2.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.2.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.2.3.3 AEA 3
8.2.3.4 AEA 4
8.3 Water Quality
8.3.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.3.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.3.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.3.1.3 AOA 3
8.3.1.4 AOA 4
8.3.2 Aggrega te Non-operational Alternatives
8.3.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.3.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.3.2.3 ANA 3
8.3.2.4 ANA 4
8.3.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.3.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.3.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.3.3.3 AEA 3
8.3.3.4 AEA 4
8.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources
8.4.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.4.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.4.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.4.1.3 AOA 3
8.4.1.4 AOA 4
8.4.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
23

8.4.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.4.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.4.2.3 ANA 3
8.4.2.4 ANA 4
8.4.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.4.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.4.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.4.3.3 AEA 3
8.4.3.4 AEA 4
8.5 Terrestrial Res ources
8.5.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.5.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.5.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.5.1.3 AOA 3
8.5.1.4 AOA 4
8.5.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
8.5.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.5.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.5.2.3 ANA 3
8.5.2.4 ANA 4
8.5.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.5.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.5.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.5.3.3 AEA 3
8.5.3.4 AEA 4
8.6 Rare, Threaten ed and Endangered Species
8.6.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.6.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.6.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.6.1.3 AOA 3
8.6.1.4 AOA 4
8.6.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
8.6.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.6.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.6.2.3 ANA 3
8.6.2.4 AIVA 4
8.6.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.6.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.6.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.6.3.3 AEA 3
8.6.3.4 AEA 4
8.7 Recreation Res ources
8.7.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.7.1.1 AOA 1 -No Action Alternative
8.7.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.7.1.3 AOA 3
24
0

1

I
L

n

1

n

8.7.1.4 AOA 4
8.7.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
8.7.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.7.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.7.2.3 ANA 3
8.7.2.4 ANA 4
8.7.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.7.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.7.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.7.3.3 AEA 3
8.7.3.4 AEA 4
8.8 Aesthetics
8.8.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.8.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.8.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.8.1.3 AOA 3
8.8.1.4 AOA 4
8.8.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
8.8.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.8.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.8.2.3 ANA 3
8.8.2.4 ANA 4
8.8.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.8.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.8.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.8.3.3 AEA 3
8.8.3.4 AEA 4
8.9 Land Use and Shoreline Management
8.9.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.9.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.9.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.9.1.3 AOA 3
8.9.1.4 AOA 4
8.9.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
8.9.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.9.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.9.2.3 ANA 3
8.9.2.4 ANA 4
8.9.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.9.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.9.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.9.3.3 AEA 3
8.9.3.4 AEA 4
8.10 Cultural Resources
8.10.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
8.10.1.1 AOA 1 -No Action Alternative
25

8.10.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
8.10.1.3 AOA 3
8.10.1.4 AOA 4
8.10.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternatives
8.10.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.10.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
8.10.2.3 ANA 3
8.10.2.4 ANA 4
8.10.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternatives
8.10.3.1 AEA 1 - No Action Alternative
8.10.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
8.10.3.3 AEA 3
8.10.3.4 AEA 4
9.0 Developmental Analysis
9.1 Power Generation and Project Economics
9.1.1 Aggregate Operational Alternatives
9.1.1.1 AOA 1 - No Action Alternative
9.1.1.2 AOA 2 - Proposed Action
9.1.1.3 AOA 3
9.1.1.4 AOA 4
9.1.2 Aggregate Non-operational Alternative Costs
9.1.2.1 ANA 1 - No Action Alternative
9.1.2.1.1 Capital Costs
9.1.2.1.2 Annual Costs
9.1.2.2 ANA 2 - Proposed Action
9.1.2.2.1 Capital Costs
9.1.2.2.2 Annual Costs
9.1.2.3 ANA 3
9.1.2.3.1 Capital Costs
9.1.2.3.2 Annual Costs
9.1.2.4 ANA 4
9.1.2.4.1 Capital Costs
9.1.2.4.2 Annual Costs
9.1.3 Aggregate Environmental Measures Alternative Costs
9. 1.3. 1 AEA 1 - 14 Action Alterna IVC
9.1.3.1.1 Capital Costs
9.1.3.1.2 Annual Costs
9.1.3.2 AEA 2 - Proposed Action
9.1.3.2.1 Capital Costs
9.1.3.2.2 Annual Costs
9.1.3.3 AEA 3
9.1.3.3.1 Capital Costs
9.1.3.3.2 Annual Costs
9.1.3.4 AEA 4
9.1.3.4.1 Capital Costs
26

C

1

L'I

0
1

11

n

9.1.3.4.2 Annual Costs
10.0 Cumulative Effects Analysis
10.1 Geology and Soils
10.2 Water Quantity and Use
10.3 Water Quality
10.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources
10.5 Terrestrial Resources
10.6 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
10.7 Recreation Resources
10.8 Aesthetics
10.9 Land Use and Shoreline Management
10.10 Cultural Resources
10.11 Power Generation and Project Economics
11.0 Comprehensive Development Assessment
11.1 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative
11.2 Consistency with Agency Recommendations, Conditions,
Prescriptions
11.3 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans
12.0 Literature Cited
13.0 Glossary of Terms
14.0 List of Preparers
15.0 List of Recipients
16.0 Appendices
27