20031113 Ver 6_Other Agency Comments_20100528 (3)

NS OF TyF
o? United States Department of the Interior/
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
e ' Asheville Field Office
Mq H a 160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
May 28, 2010
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Public Notice of Application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate, East Fork
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2698, DWQ #2003-0110, Jackson County, North
Carolina, and Public Notice of Application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate,
West Fork Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2686, DWQ #2003-0112, Jackson County,
North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Dorney:
This letter is in response to the May 4, 2010 Public Notice, DWQ #2003-0110 and DWQ #2003-
0112. On June 16, 2009, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) filed an Application for 401
Water Quality Certificate to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) for the
Nantahala Hydroelectric Project.
On February 20, 2004, Duke filed an application for a new major license for the existing 42-MW
East Fork Project (FERC No. 2692-032) located on the Nantahala River and its tributaries in
Macon and Clay counties, North Carolina. On January 8, 2004, Duke also filed the Nantahala
Cooperative Stakeholder Team Settlement Agreement describing Duke's proposed
environmental measures for the Nantahala Project. The Settlement Agreement was signed by
Duke and 26 other stakeholder parties, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend these measures to compensate for the ongoing impacts of this project and its
operation on the natural resources of the area. These measures should include mitigation for
ongoing project impacts and project-induced effects on fish and wildlife populations and their
habitats.
Reservoir Level Management. We recommend reservoir levels be managed according to an
agreed "Normal Operating Range" - the band of reservoir levels within which the Licensee
normally attempts to maintain a given reservoir that it operates on a given day. Each reservoir
has its own specific Normal Operating Range, and that range is bounded by a Normal Maximum
Elevation and a Normal Minimum Elevation. If inflows and outflows to the reservoir are kept
within some reasonable tolerance of the average or expected amounts, project equipment is
USFWS comments East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
operating properly and no protocols for abnormal conditions have been implemented, reservoir
level excursions outside of the Normal Operating Range should not occur. There are special
drought storage considerations included in the Low Inflow Protocol'. The Licensee shall use the
existing float-operated gage or a suitable replacement gage to monitor the actual level of the
West Fork and East Fork reservoirs. The Licensee shall calibrate the reservoir stage level gage
within 60 days following its acceptance of this license and at least once every two years
thereafter. The Licensee shall maintain the elevation of Nantahala Lake between the Normal
Minimum and Normal Maximum Elevations ("Normal Operating Range") indicated in the table
below, except when the Licensee is permitted to vary from the Normal Operating Range as
established below. All elevations are relative to the top of the dam (including the flood gates and
fuse plugs), with 100.0 ft = Normal Full Pond Elevation. Elevations for other days of the month
are determined by linear interpolation.
The Normal Operating Range for Lake Glenville is established as follows:
Full Pond = 100.0 ft = 3491.71(USGS datum)
Month Normal
Minimum
Elevation ft Normal Target
Elevation (ft) Normal
Maximum
Elevation ft
Jan 85 90 94
Feb 85 90 94
Mar 88 91 94
Apr 90 93 96
May 95 97 99
Jun 95 97 99
Jul 95 97 99
Au 93 95 98
Se 90 93 94
Oct 90 93 94
Nov 86 90 94
Dec 85 90 94
The Normal Operating Range for Tanassee and Wolf Lakes is established as follows:
Full Pond = 100.0 t = 3080.0 -f t "USGS datum
Normal Normal
Month Minimum Normal Target Maximum
Elevation ft Elevation (ft) Elevation ft
Jan 83 85 92
Feb 83 85 92
Mar 83 85 92
Apr 86 88 96
May 90 93 100
' The Low Inflow Protocol is part of the Nantahala Cooperative Stakeholders Settlement Agreement, Attachment B
- Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) for the Nantahala Project.
USFWS comments
East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project

Month Normal
Minimum
Elevation ft Normal Target
Elevation (ft) Normal
Maximum
Elevation ft
Jun 90 93 100
Jul 90 93 100
Au 90 93 100
Se 90 93 100
Oct 90 93 100
Nov 86 88 96
Dec 83 85 92
The Normal Operating Range for Bear Lake is established as follows:
Full Pond= 100.0 ft = 2560.0_-ffl?USGS datum)

Month Normal
Minimum
Elevation ft Normal Target
Elevation (ft) Normal
Maximum
Elevation ft
Jan 91 93 98
Feb 91 93 98
Mar 91 93 98
Apr 92 95 98
May 92 98 100
Jun 92 98 100
Jul 92 98 100
Au 92 98 100
Se 92 98 100
Oct 92 96 98
Nov 92 95 98
Dec 92 94 98
The Normal Operating Range for Cedar Cliff Lake is established as follows:
Full Pond = 100.0 t = 2330.0.0 -F r (USGS datum

Month Normal
Minimum
Elevation ft Normal Target

Elevation (ft) Normal
Maximum
Elevation ft
Jan 96 98 100
Feb 96 98 100
Mar 96 98 100
Apr 96 98 100
May 96 98 100
Jun 96 98 100
Jul 96 98 100
Au 96 98 100
Se 96 98 100
Oct 96 98 100
Nov 96 98 100
USFWS comments
East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
Normal Normal
Normal Target
Month Minimum Maximum
Elevation (ft)
Elevation ft Elevation ft
Dec 96 98 100
The Tuckasegee Reservoir level should be maintained as needed to provide for minimum flows.
The Licensee shall endeavor in good faith to achieve the Normal Target Elevations at each West
Fork and East Fork Project reservoir. However, since inflows vary significantly and outflow
demands also vary, the Licensee may not always be able to maintain actual lake levels at the
Normal Target Elevations.
The Licensee may temporarily vary from the Normal Operating Range only if required by
conditions beyond the Licensee's control or by operating emergencies or maintenance needs.
When temporarily varying from the Normal Operating Range, the Licensee shall comply with
the Low Inflow Protocol or the Hydro Project Maintenance & Emergency Protocol.
The above are the Normal Maximum, Normal Minimum and Normal Target Elevations for the
first day of each month. The Normal Maximum, Normal Minimum and Normal Target
Elevations for any other day of the month can be determined by linear interpolation. The
reservoir as a multi-species recreational fishery, recognizing the limitations on angler success
that result from the extremely low productivity of the reservoir. Species of interest include black
bass (primarily smallmouth bass, but some largemouth bass), walleye, yellow perch, sunfish
(including rock bass), and rainbow trout. The diversity of sport fish species in the reservoir
exacerbates the effect of oligotrophic conditions and results in very low catch rates for most
species. These reservoir levels are important to allow natural recruitment of sport fishes and the
prey base.
Stream Regulation and Bypass Flow Regimes -Minimum Flow for Bypassed Reaches.
Instream flow studies incorporated a global approach for evaluating the various flow issues for
the West Fork and East Fork Projects on the Tuckasegee River and collected the necessary
information to make sound, reasonable stream flow decisions that balanced the various
competing user interests. The evaluation of instream flows also drew upon the results of other
studies that addressed physical parameters, such as temperature and flow time of travel, and
biological studies that described the aquatic biological communities. We identified two areas for
study: bypassed reaches and mainstem reaches subject to peaking operations. The Instream
Flow Study Plan outlined the various proposed studies within each category, on a site-by-site
basis. Generally, the approach for both bypass and peaking reaches consisted of describing or
quantifying the aquatic biota associated with that site, conducting habitat surveys, and modeling
habitat responses to changes in flow. Historical resource data and re-analyses of historical
stream flow studies were also used where these data were available. We utilized a guild
approach or generalized habitat criteria in addition to single or multiple target species approach,
for evaluating habitat suitability. The IFIM (aka PHABSIM) model determines the amount of
Weighted Usable Area (or habitat available) for a given flow on a per species/life stage basis.
Thirty six species/life stage combinations were modeled at I cfs flow increments which created
USFWS comments East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
an extremely large amount of WUA data. In order to effectively deal with this large amount of
data, an Interactive Spreadsheet was developed to quickly provide WUA results for any
species/life stage at any flow. An interactive spreadsheet has the built-in availability to look at
WUA results three different ways. Comparison to existing conditions, comparison to maximum
possible habitat conditions, and comparison to unregulated flow (i.e., pre-project) conditions.
The interactive spreadsheet was a very useful tool during Instream Flow Technical Leadership
Team (TLT) meetings. Habitat results for species, life stage, and flow were compared for each
modeled river segment. The resulting flow recommendations are not necessarily tied to any
specific species or life stage. Rather, the interactive spreadsheet was used in an iterative process
to develop flow recommendations that would provide habitat for the majority of species/life
stages (including any critical species or life stage). It is important for those using the IFIM report
to recognize that the result of an instream flow study was not a set value but a range of values to
be used as a guidance tool, in concert with other tools and other instream flow issues, for
determining the appropriate stream flow or set of stream flows. Actual instream flows were
negotiated items in association with the settlement agreement discussions. It should be noted
that the goal was to apply 80% of the natural flows for the target species and be negotiated on
several other factors. In order to include seasonality effects, flow recommendations were made
on a monthly basis. In some cases, the flow recommendations were modified slightly to simplify
compliance.
Minimum Flow and Bypass Flow. In the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholders Team
Settlement Agreement, we agreed to the following minimum flows in bypassed reaches, and
recommend the incorporation of the following proposed license article into any new license that
the Commission issues for the West Fork and East Fork Hydroelectric Projects:
We recommend the Licensee shall provide the following minimum flows in bypassed reaches:
Tuckasegee River below Cedar Cliff and Tuckasegee
a. 30 cfs combined minimum flow from December 1 through June 30 (assuming inflow
to Tuckasegee Lake is greater than or equal to 20 cfs) and provided by the same means as
the existing provision:
1) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is
less).
2) Continue existing min. flow at Cedar Cliff (10 cfs from a valve at the hydro
station during non-generation hours only).
b. 55 cfs combined minimum flow from July 1 through November 30 (assuming inflow
to Tuckasegee Lake is greater than or equal to 20 cfs) and provided by:
1) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is
less).
2) Increasing the valve capacity at Cedar Cliff to 35 cfs. When Cedar Cliff is
generating, the valve is turned off.
Wolf Creek Bypass
a. 6 cfs from January 1 through December 31, provided by installing a valve or orifice
beneath the Tainter gate sill at Wolf Dam.
USFWS comments
East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
By February 28, 2006 or within one year following Commission approval of such plan,
whichever comes later, the Licensee shall complete the modifications of project facilities
identified in the plan and begin providing the minimum flows as specified.
The Licensee may temporarily vary from the minimum flows identified in Paragraph (A) if
required by conditions beyond the Licensee's control or by operating emergencies or
maintenance needs as defined in Attachments B and C. Such temporary variances shall be in
accordance with the Low Inflow Protocol or the Hydro Project Maintenance & Emergency
Protocol, incorporated into this license as Attachments B and C, respectively.
The Licensee will calibrate the meters used to monitor minimum flows within 60 days following
installation of the additional minimum flow valve and device identified in this Article and at
least once every two years thereafter.
Riparian Enhancement. Duke Power should establish the Riparian Habitat Enhancement Fund
as agreed in the Settlement Agreement to address unavoidable ongoing and cumulative impacts
of the operation of the DPNA Hydro Projects on riparian habitats. The fund shall provide for
conservation activities to offset project-related impacts to land and water resources in the
Tuckasegee River valley on lands in the vicinity of the Project. A variety of conservation
interests were identified during discussions with the Nantahala Cooperative Stakeholder Team
(NCST) and the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team (TCST); many of which related to
riparian habitat protection and restoration. The NCST and TCST Settlement Agreements both
include a Paragraph 6.8 that establishes the following specific requirements relative to this
Riparian
Habitat Enhancement Fund:
"6.8 DPNA agrees that within I to 15 years following its acceptance of the New
Licenses for the DPNA Hydro Projects, DPNA will provide a total of $200,000
for the purpose of supporting DPNA-selected riparian habitat enhancement
projects on lands that drain to any of the DPNA Hydro Projects or the river
sections between the DPNA Hydro Projects and reservoirs belonging to the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) where such projects (])protector enhance fish
or wildlife habitat directly or (2) educate landowners or school children about the
importance of healthy riparian areas for fish and wildlife habitat. DPNA will
utilize the process outlined in Attachment 1(i.e. this process document) in
selecting the projects to be funded. "
Other parts of the settlement agreement may also address project-related impacts for the DPNA
Hydro Projects through similar actions in the riparian areas.
Our specific goals for the West Fork Project and East Fork Project area include:
• Restore and protect riparian areas, aquatic habitats, and improve water quality
• Recover imperiled species
• Restore extirpated plant and animal populations
• Restore and protect riparian corridors and habitats
• Provide outdoor recreational opportunities
USFWS comments East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
• Control of invasive exotic species
• Educate decision makers and citizens about the importance of the unique river
resources.
Ongoing land and water management activities in the DPNA service territory over the last 10
years provide an indication of continuing conservation needs. These activities, some of which
may be related to any ongoing impacts of the DPNA Hydro Projects, include:
• Riparian habitat restoration
• Floodplain protection
• Environmental education
• Exotic species control (e.g., terrestrial and aquatic plants)
• Restoration effectiveness monitoring
• Land/forest management
• Land protection/conservation
• Wildlife habitat enhancement
The fund should emphasize activities that address project-related impacts, but recognize the
potential benefits of protection and restoration of riparian areas that may be impaired by other
sources (e.g., invasive exotic species). We proposed that the fund be locally administered by an
Advisory Board composed of persons most familiar with conservation priorities of the area. The
following agencies and organizations will provide one representative each to the Advisory
Board. Each representative should be very familiar with riparian ecology in the geographic area.
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
• North Carolina Division of Water Resources
• United States Fish & Wildlife Service
• United States Forest Service
• Land Trust for the Little Tennessee
• Little Tennessee Nonpoint Source Team
The Fund should be use to protect or enhance fish or wildlife habitat directly, or educate
landowners or school children about the importance of healthy riparian areas for fish and wildlife
habitat. Additional consideration should focus the available funds to:
• Have a long term impact
• Provide direct benefits to riparian resources
• Show measurable results
• Demonstrate co-funding (leveraging) from other funds, volunteer, or in-kind
resources, thus indicating broad support for the proposed project
• Implement creative approaches
• Have a demonstration element or adapt proven models
• Coordinate and cooperate with existing efforts (i.e. are part of a larger scheme of
riparian protection and restoration, or connect existing protected riparian habitat)
• Increase awareness of how varied activities affect the overall river basin
USFWS comments East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
Low Inflow Protocol. Attachment B - Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) for the Nantahala
Project Introduction This Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) provides trigger points and procedures for
how the West Fork Hydroelectric Project and East Fork Hydroelectric Project will be operated
by the Licensee during periods of low inflow (i.e. periods when there is not enough water
flowing into the projects reservoirs to meet the normal needs for power generation, recreation
flows, minimum flows, any on-reservoir water withdrawals and lake level maintenance). The
protocol was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water quantity will share the
impact of low inflow.
We defined "Threshold Minimum Flows" - those minimum flow release amounts from the
project works that may be necessary to sustain aquatic communities consistent with the resource
management goals and objectives for the affected stream reaches. Since the normal minimum
flow releases are for water quality and / or aquatic species habitat enhancements, the Threshold
Minimum Flows are related to and lower than the normal minimum flow releases required by the
FERC license. For the purposes of this protocol the Threshold Minimum Flows are as follows:
Wolf Creek Bypassed Reach - 6 cfs continuous release from a valve to be installed at Wolf
Creek Dam.
Minimum Flows in the Tuckasegee River We recommended that the new licenses for the East
Fork and West Fork projects include the following minimum flow requirements for the main
stem of the Tuckasegee River:
a. 30 cfs combined minimum flow from December 1 through June 30 (assuming inflow
to Tuckasegee Lake is greater than or equal to 20 cfs) and provided by the same means as
the existing provision:
1) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is
less).
2) Continue existing minimum flow at Cedar Cliff (10 cfs from a valve at the
hydro station during non-generation hours only).
b. 55 cfs combined minimum flow from July 1 through November 30 (assuming inflow
to Tuckasegee Lake is greater than or equal to 20 cfs) and provided by:
1) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is
less).
2) Increasing the valve capacity at Cedar Cliff to 35 cfs. When Cedar Cliff is
generating, the valve is turned off.
Project Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Under some emergency and equipment failure
and maintenance situations, certain license conditions may be impractical to meet or may need to
be suspended or modified to avoid taking unnecessary risks. Therefore, we worked with Duke
Power to develop a protoco12 to define the most likely situations of this type for the West Fork
Hydroelectric (P-2686) and East Fork Hydroelectric Project (P-2698), identify the potentially
2 This protocol is part of the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholders Settlement Agreement, Attachment C - Hydro
Project Maintenance & Emergency Protocol (HPMEP) for the West Fork and East Fork Projects.
USFWS comments
East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
impacted license conditions and outline the general approach that the Licensee will take to
mitigate the impacts to license conditions and to communicate with the resource agencies and
affected parties. Due to the potential variability of these abnormal situations, this Protocol is not
intended to give an exact step-by-step solution path. It will however provide basic expectations
for the Licensee's approach to dealing with the situation. Specific details will vary and will be
determined on a case-by-case basis as the protocol is being implemented. The licensee should
emphasize maintenance of adequate flows and water conditions (especially temperature and
dissolved oxygen) during emergency situations. The protocol describes notification and
consultation with the natural resource agencies as soon as possible following a deviation from
license conditions for voltage or capacity emergency reasons. The Licensee should consider
options suggested by the agencies that could lessen the impact of the emergency on the
environmental needs relative to the project.
Stream Gage Station. The Licensee shall reimburse the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) on an annual basis for its cost to maintain USGS Gage # 03510500 at Dillsboro and
USGS Gage # 03508000 at Tuckasegee, NCon the Tuckasegee River (These gages were installed
in this vicinity by USGS in 2004) to allow for monitoring of compliance and to enhance public
access to information concerning river flow conditions.
Trash Management. The Licensee should remove man-made trash from the intake racks and
properly dispose of the trash in accordance with the projects' proposed trash removal plan.
Natural woody debris should be passed through the system for maintenance of basic nutrient
cycles, and as a structural component of fish and wildlife habitat.
Implement shoreline management plan. The Licensee should implement the shoreline
management program for the Project that will incorporate permitting guidelines pertaining to the
use of the Project property in accordance with the standard land use articles and guidelines that
address among other activities pertaining to the use of islands, water pumps and water removal,
commercial operations, and prohibited acts or activities. The Licensee shall implement its
Shoreline Management Program including the Shoreline Classification Maps, Lake Use
Restrictions, Vegetation Management Requirements and the Shoreline Management Guidelines
as filed with its license application to aid the Licensee in its lake use permitting program.
We recommend coordinated vegetation management and maintenance of vegetated terrestrial
and riparian areas to protect and enhance the reservoirs' ecological values. Riparian and
terrestrial areas primarily filter runoff and can help reduce shoreline erosion when vegetation
extends to and/or below the shoreline, thus helping to reduce sedimentation and protect water
quality. They also provide wildlife corridors, foraging and nesting habitat for a variety fo
terrestrial wildlife, waterfowl, and migratory birds. These reservoir riparian areas are a valuable
source of woody debris and leaves. Protection of riparian and nearshore areas for wildlife
movement is considered important by state and federal wildlife resource agencies concerned with
the potential for development adjoining these environmentally important areas. Therefore, we
recommend that the licensee implement the guidelines developed by the resource agencies and
stakeholders to protect riparian wildlife corridors on shoreline areas within the project boundary.
We recommend the licensee take actions to replant or allow the re-establishment of native
vegetation in areas within the project boundary where it has been removed by adjoining property
owners.
USFWS comments East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
Sediment Management. We recommend the Licensee operate the project so as to minimize the
need to draw the reservoirs down to mechanically remove sediment. vWhen sediment must be
mechanically removed, or the reservoirs must be drawn down, the Licensee shall consult and
reach agreement with the Service and other natural resource agencies and regulatory agencies
concerning any reasonable and necessary measures to minimize the impact of the drawdown and
sediment removal on the affected environment. This consultation and measures identied should
be completed prior to operating in any way that would be expected to allow accumulated
sediment from upstream of the Glenville Dam or Tuckasegee Dam to enter the downstream
reaches.
Endangered Species consultation has been completed. We have completed our consultation
with FERC for the Project effects on endangered species and designated Critical habitats. The
consultation concluded that the project would adversely affect the endangered mussel
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta ravaneliana). The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion
(enclosed) on August 11, 2006, including Conservation Measures specific to the East Fork and
West Fork Projects. We recommend inclusion of these conservation measures in the water
quality certificate for these Projects as appropriate.
In the Biological Opinion, we discussed the Project effects of the continued operation of the East
Fork and West Fork Projects. Continued operation of the East Fork and West Fork Projects will
be most pronounced during extremes periods of stream-flow regulation, almost daily.
Depression of the thermal characteristics of the Tuckasegee River is more pronounced during
generation and seasonally during the summer, when discharged water is colder than ambient,
attenuating downstream from the East Fork and West Fork powerhouses. These effects are
ongoing and limit the upstream extent of occupied habitat. However, it is anticipated that these
effects will not increase under the new flow regime. Rather, they will be indiscernible or will
extend only slightly less distance downstream. The continued operation of these Projects is
anticipated for the 30-year term of the new licenses.
We anticipate that incidental take of the Appalachian elktoe may occur as a result of the
continued operation of the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Hydroelectric Projects. During
operation of the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Hydroelectric Projects, hypolimnetic
discharges will continue to alter the natural flow regime and limit the upstream extent of cool-
water habitat. Individual mussels may be harmed by siltation or other water quality degradation,
or dislocated because of physical changes in their habitat during changes in operation.
During operation of the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Hydroelectric Projects, hypolimnetic
discharges will continue to alter the natural flow regime and limit the upstream extent of cool-
water habitat. Even with the proposed minimum flow regime (an improvement that will
minimize take) some areas of habitat will be altered daily as peaking occurs.
The Biological Opinion also provided conservation recommendations that may minimize or
avoid the adverse effects of the Projects on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or develop important information. Please incorporate these into the Water
Quality Certificate as appropriate.
USFWS comments
East Fork Hydroelectric Project &
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
Fish Passage. The USFWS has reserved authority under § 18 of the Federal Power Act to
prescribe fishways at the Project. We recommend the water quality certificate include similar
provisions to incorporate any future Fishway prescriptions, in order to maintain or restore the
biological integrity of the Project waters. The viability and mobility of fish species that would
otherwise move to and from different habitats within the river system may diminish
substantially, if not completely, due to a hydropower project. These species can be important
components of aquatic food webs and can support populations of commercially and
recreationally important fish that are of economic significance to the nation.
Fishways help mitigate the impacts of hydropower projects by providing safe, timely, and
effective fish passage around a project for spawning, rearing, feeding, growth to maturity,
dispersion, migration, and seasonal use of habitat. Fishway prescriptions also help to achieve
resource goals and objectives. These goals and objectives may be identified in national,
regional, or watershed-level planning documents or may be established by the Services on a site-
specific basis. Examples of resource goals and objectives include: (1) the enhancement,
protection, or restoration of existing fish populations within a river system; (2) the reunification
of fragmented fish populations; and (3) the reintroduction or reestablishment of fish runs. In
addition, fishways may be necessary to protect tribal resources for the exercise of American
Indian rights.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and information about water quality at
the Nantahala Hydroelectric Project. If you have questions, please contact me at 828/258-3939,
Ext. 227.
Sincerely,
- origi gal S7gned -
Mark A. Cantrell
Fish & Wildlife Biologist
cc via email: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Lineberger, Johnson
NCWRC, Goudreau
NCDWR, Mead
NCDWQ, Barnett
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
August 11, 2006
Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Ms. Salas:
Subject: Biological Opinion of the Effects of New Major Licenses for the East Fork
Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2698-033) and West Fork Hydroelectric
Project (FERC Project No. 2686-032), a Subsequent License for the Bryson
Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2601-007), and the Application for License
Surrender for the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2602-007),
Jackson and Swain Counties, North Carolina
This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Biological Opinion
(Opinion) based on our review of the Biological Assessment (BA) of the effects of the issuance
of new major licenses to Duke Power Company, LLC, (Duke Power or Licensee) for the East
Fork Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2698-033) and West Fork Hydroelectric Project
(FERC Project No. 2686-032), a subsequent license for the Bryson Hydroelectric Project (FERC
Project No. 2601-007), and the application for license surrender for the Dillsboro Hydroelectric
Project (FERC Project No. 2602-007), Jackson and Swain Counties, North Carolina, on the
federally endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and its critical habitat in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) (ESA).
On May 17, 2006, we received a letter from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC
or Commission) requesting concurrence with a determination that relicensing the three Projects
and the surrender of the Dillsboro Project license is not likely to adversely affect the federally
endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) or Appalachian elktoe. We have reviewed your request
for concurrence with your determination of effects to endangered and threatened species and
their habitats for the above-referenced license proceedings. The Indiana bat was not located
during surveys near the Projects. Therefore, based on the Project descriptions and locations, it
appears that no impacts to this species will occur. Consequently, we believe the requirements
under section 7 of the ESA are fulfilled with regard to this species. However, obligations under
section 7 of the ESA must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
We discussed the potential impacts of the subject Projects with regard to the endangered
Appalachian elktoe and its critical habitat with FERC staff following a June 8, 2006, public
meeting. Based on that discussion, FERC verbally requested initiation of formal consultation.
This Opinion is in reply to that verbal request (acknowledged in the final Environmental
Assessment [EA]) and is based on information provided in the May 10, 2006, draft EA and BA;
July 14, 2006, final EA; other available literature; personal communications with experts on the
federally endangered Appalachian elktoe; site visits; and other sources of information. A
complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at our office.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
March 21, 2000 - First-stage Consultation Packages provided by Duke Power.
June 24, 2000 - Letter from Garland Pardue, Field Supervisor, Raleigh Field Office, FWS, to
Duke Power recommending that endangered and threatened species surveys be conducted
at the appropriate time of the year and to survey for appropriate habitats upstream of the
reservoir, in the reservoir, downstream of the reservoir, and on Project land. Letter
notified Duke Power that known populations of the federally listed endangered
Appalachian elktoe mussel are present in the Dillsboro Project vicinity, that the
powerhouse is used as a bat-roosting area, and that further surveys should be conducted
to identify bat species using the area.
July 5, 2000 - Letter from Garland Pardue to FERC providing copies of June 24, 2000, letter to
Duke Power.
January 19, 2001 - Letter from Brian Cole, Field Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, FWS, to
Duke Power discussing proposed resource studies and stipulating that those who will be
conducting endangered and threatened species surveys should have appropriate federal
and state permits.
May 22, 2003 - FWS staff met with Duke Power staff to discuss draft license application.
June 22, 2003 - Duke Power filed its Application for Subsequent License for the Dillsboro
Project P-2602.
September 22, 2003 - Letter from Brian Cole to Magalie Salas, Secretary, FERC, provided a list
of endangered, threatened, and rare species. We expressed our concern and notified
FERC that the endangered Appalachian elktoe occurs within the Tuckasegee River just
below the Dillsboro Project and that the Tuckasegee River is designated as critical habitat
2
for the Appalachian elktoe (an obvious constituent element of this habitat is continuous
stream flow). We also advised FERC to contact us to initiate interagency consultation for
the endangered species that may be affected by the new licenses for these Projects.
January 2004 - The FWS issued its report entitled "Sediment Contaminants at Dillsboro
Reservoir: A Site Assessment and Recommendations." Our review of existing data, an
on-site assessment, and results of sediment chemistry analyses indicated no significant
sediment contamination.
March 12, 2004 - Letter from Brian Cole to Magalie Salas providing comments on FERC's
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment and Notice of Scoping
Meetings and Soliciting Comments for Bryson Hydroelectric Project No. 2601-007,
Swain County; Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project No. 2602-005, Jackson County; Franklin
Hydroelectric Project No. 2603-012, Macon County; and Mission Hydroelectric Project
No. 2619-012, Clay County, North Carolina. We reiterated our concern for the
endangered Appalachian elktoe within the Tuckasegee River just below the Dillsboro
Project and that the Tuckasegee River is designated as critical habitat for this species.
We also provided copies of the Appalachian Elktoe Recovery Plan.
May 28, 2004 - Duke Power filed its Application to Surrender the Dillsboro Project License.
March 11, 2005 - The FWS (in letters from Dr. Willie Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior, to Magalie Salas), stated the
following: "The Department believes this project [East Fork and West Fork Projects]
may result in both direct and indirect impacts on the endangered Appalachian elktoe and
designated critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe."
March 15, 2005 - Although the Appalachian elktoe is not currently found in the Oconaluftee
River in the vicinity of the Bryson Project, the FWS, in a letter from Gregory Hogue,
Regional Environmental Officer, to Magalie Salas, expressed concern that the Project
could adversely affect this species in the Tuckasegee River downstream of its confluence
with the Oconaluftee River.
March 18, 2005 - Letter from Brian Cole to Magalie Salas stated: "We are quite concerned
about the current ROR operation at the Dillsboro Project and its potential adverse effects
to federally listed aquatic species. The Appalachian elktoe occurs within the Tuckasegee
River just below the Dillsboro Project and the Tuckasegee River is designated as critical
habitat...."
May 10, 2006 - FERC's draft EA presents analyses of Project-related effects on the endangered
Appalachian elktoe in section V.C.5, "Threatened and Endangered Species," and our
recommendations regarding it in section VII, "Comprehensive Development and
Recommended Alternative."
May 17, 2006 - Letter from FERC (Mark Pawlowski, Chief, Hydro East Branch 2) requesting
concurrence with a determination that the proposed relicensing of the three Projects and
the surrender of the Dillsboro Project license is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana
bat or the Appalachian elktoe.
June 8, 2006 - FWS staff notified FERC staff at a public meeting' in Sylva that: "With regard to
endangered species consultation, we do anticipate a formal consultation with the
Commission to adequately satisfy the requirements of section 7 of the ESA, especially for
the Appalachian elktoe and some other listed species that are involved with these
projects." Following the recorded portion of the Sylva meeting, FERC staff agreed to
enter formal consultation.
June 23, 2006, and July 7, 2006 - The Department of the Interior forwarded comments from the
FWS on the draft EA, including: "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Field
Office will reply directly to the Commission's May 17, 2006, letter requesting
concurrence with endangered species determinations for each of the projects" and
"Pursuant to §7 of the Endangered Species Act, we will forward to you by separate cover
letter our biological opinion on this matter."
July 14, 2006 - FERC staff issues final EA, analyzing the probable environmental effects of
implementing the Projects and concluding that approval of the Projects, with
staff-recommended environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In the final EA, FERC staff
responds to our July 7, 2006, comments by acknowledging our conclusion regarding the
need for formal consultation for the Appalachian elktoe. FERC staff further explained
that "Any conditions included as part of the Incidental Take Statement attached to the BO
will be assessed as part of the Commission's decision to accept Duke's application to
surrender Dillsboro's license."
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
As defined in the FWS's section 7 regulations (50 CFR Section 402.02), "action" means "all
activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by
federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas." The action area is defined as "all
areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area
involved in the action." The direct and indirect effects of the actions and activities must be
considered in conjunction with the effects of other past and present federal, state, or private
activities as well as the cumulative effects of reasonably certain future state or private activities
within the action area. This Opinion addresses only those actions from which the FWS believes
adverse effects may result. In their BA, FERC staff outlined those activities involved in the
conduct of relicensing and surrender activities that would affect the Appalachian elktoe and its
designated critical habitat. This Opinion addresses whether issuance of new major licenses for
the East Fork and West Fork Hydroelectric Projects, a subsequent license for the Bryson
'June 8, 2006, public meeting, transcript in eLibrary (Accession #20060608-4005).
Hydroelectric Project, and the license surrender (and removal of Project works) for the Dillsboro
Hydroelectric Project, is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe or
adversely modify its critical habitat. This Opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of
"destruction and adverse modification" of critical habitat at 50 CFR Section 402.02. Instead, we
have relied on the statutory provisions of the ESA to complete the following analysis with
respect to critical habitat.
The Projects
East Fork Project. The East Fork Project (P-2698) is located on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee
River in Jackson County, North Carolina. The original Project was licensed on January 23,
1981, and that license expired on January 31, 2006. The licensed capacity of the East Fork
Project is 26,175 kilowatts (M). The East Fork Project comprises the Cedar Cliff, Bear Creek,
and Tennessee Creek developments.
1. The Cedar Cliff development consists of the following: (a) an earth core and rockfill dam,
590 feet long with a maximum height of 173 feet (Cedar Cliff Dam); (b) a service spillway
excavated in rock at the right abutment, containing a 25-foot-wide by 25-foot-high Taintor
gate; (c) an emergency spillway at the left abutment, containing two erodible fuse plug
sections separated by a concrete wall with a total length of 221 feet--a 90-foot-long section
and a 131-foot-long section; (d) a 121-acre reservoir, with a maximum reservoir elevation of
2,330 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum and a usable storage capacity of 465 acre-feet;
(e) a power intake that contains one slide gate and trashracks with 3-inch clear bar spacing;
(f) a 1,138-foot-long power conveyance consisting of sections of 12-foot-diameter lined
tunnel, 13-foot by 15-foot unlined tunnel, 10-foot-diameter steel-lined tunnel, and a penstock
that decreases in diameter from 8 to 6 feet; (g) a 38-foot by 29.5-foot concrete powerhouse
containing one vertical Francis-type generating unit with an installed capacity of
6.1 megawatts (MW) and a hydraulic capacity of 555 cubic feet per second (cfs); (h) a
switchyard with four single-phase step-up transformers (6.6 to 66 kilovolts [kV]); and
(i) appurtenant facilities. The Cedar Cliff development has a 0.46-mile-long bypassed reach
(on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River) just downstream of the Cedar Cliff Dam that
bypasses the Cedar Cliff tunnels, pipelines, and powerhouse.
2. The Bear Creek development consists of the following: (a) an earth core and rockfill dam,
760 feet long with a maximum height of 215 feet (Bear Creek Dam); (b) a spillway at the
right abutment, containing a 25-foot-wide by 25-foot-high Taintor gate and two erodible fuse
plug sections separated by a concrete wall with a total length of 384 feet--a 107-foot-long
section and a 277-foot-long section; (c) a 476-acre reservoir, with a maximum reservoir
elevation of 2,560 feet and a usable storage capacity of 4,200 acre-feet; (d) a power intake
that contains one slide gate and trashracks with 3-inch clear bar spacing; (e) a
1,484-foot-long power conveyance consisting of sections of 12-foot-diameter lined tunnel,
13-foot by 15-foot unlined tunnel, 10-foot-diameter steel-lined tunnel, and a penstock that
decreases in diameter from 8 to 6 feet; (0 a 41-foot by 30.5-foot concrete powerhouse
containing one vertical Francis-type generating unit with an installed capacity of 8.2 MW and
a hydraulic capacity of 640 cfs; (g) a switchyard that contains one single-phase step-up
transformer (4.16 to 66 kV); and (h) appurtenant facilities. The Bear Creek development has
a 0.27-mile-long bypassed reach (on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River) just downstream
of the Bear Creek Dam that bypasses the Bear Creek tunnels, pipelines, and powerhouse.
3. The Tennessee Creek development consists of two separate dams and reservoirs, with power
tunnels that join in a wye ("Y") and lead to a single powerhouse. The Tennessee Creek
portion of the development includes the following: (a) an earth core and rockfill dam,
385 feet long with a maximum height of 140 feet (Tennessee Creek Dam); (b) an earth and
rockfill saddle dam, 225 feet long and 15 feet in height, located approximately 600 feet south
of the Tennessee Creek Dam left abutment; (c) a spillway with a 25-foot-wide by
19-foot-high Taintor gate and two erodible fuse plug sections separated by a concrete wall
with a total length of 140 feet--a 43-foot-long section and a 97-foot-long section; (d) a
40-acre reservoir (Tennessee Creek Lake), with a maximum reservoir elevation of 3,080 feet
and a usable storage capacity of 561 acre-feet; (e) an intake structure that contains one slide
gate and trashracks with 1-inch by 3.75-inch clear bar spacing; and (f) a 968-foot-long,
12.5-foot by 14.5-foot tunnel from the intake to the "Y" of the common Tennessee Creek
conveyance. The Wolf Creek portion of the development includes the following: (a) an
earth core and rockfill dam, 810 feet long with a maximum height of 175 feet (Wolf Creek
Dam); (b) a spillway with a 25-foot-wide by 19-foot-high Taintor gate and two erodible fuse
plug sections separated by a concrete wall with a total length of 73.6 feet--a 36.4-foot-long
section and a 37.2-foot-long section; (c) a 183-acre reservoir (Wolf Creek Lake), with a
maximum reservoir elevation of 3,080 feet and a usable storage capacity of 2,709 acre-feet;
(d) an intake structure that contains one slide gate with trashracks with 1-inch by 4-inch clear
bar spacing; and (e) a 1,704-foot-long, 12.5-foot by 14-foot tunnel from the intake to the "Y"
of the common Tennessee Creek conveyance with a total length of 1,074 feet. The
Tennessee Creek development also includes the following: (a) a 2,051-foot-long, 13-foot by
15-foot common conveyance tunnel that extends from the "Y" of the Tennessee Creek and
Wolf Creek conveyance tunnels; (b) a 2,468-foot-long penstock that decreases in diameter
from 6 to 5.5 feet; (c) a 40-foot-long by 33-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing one
vertical Francis-type generating unit with an installed capacity of 8.75 MW and a hydraulic
capacity of 268 cfs; (d) a switchyard that contains one three-phase step-up transformer
(4.16 to 67 kV); and (e) appurtenant facilities. The Tennessee Creek development has a
1.85-mile-long bypassed stream reach (Wolf Creek) just downstream of the Wolf Creek Dam
and a 1.46-mile-long bypassed reach (on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River) just below
the Tennessee Creek Dam that bypasses the Tennessee Creek tunnels, pipelines, and
powerhouse.
The East Fork Project also includes a common 69-kV single circuit transmission line from the
Tennessee Creek switchyard via the Bear Creek and Cedar Cliff switchyards to the Glenville
development (West Fork Project) switchyard.
West Fork Project. The West Fork Project (P-2686) is located on the West Fork of the
Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina. The original Project was licensed on
January 28, 1981, and that license expired on January 31, 2006. The licensed capacity of the
West Fork Project is 24,600 kW. The West Fork Project comprises the Glenville and
Tuckasegee developments.
The Glenville development consists of the following: (a) an earth core and rockfill dam,
900 feet long with a maximum height of 150 feet (Glenville Dam); (b) a rockfill saddle dam,
410 feet long with a maximum height of 122 feet located approximately 500 feet to the left of
the Glenville Dam left abutment; (c) a spillway, located approximately 200 feet to the right
of the Glenville Dam right abutment, that includes two 25-foot-wide by 12-foot-high Taintor
gates and six erodible fuse plug sections separated by concrete walls with a total length of
224 feet; (d) a 1,462-acre reservoir, with a maximum reservoir elevation of 3,491.75 feet and
a usable storage capacity of 20,100 acre-feet; (e) a low-level bypass, located in the right
abutment of the Glenville Dam (used during construction), that includes two sluice gates and
a 9-foot-diameter bypass tunnel through the dam; (f) a power intake with trashracks having a
1.25-inch clear bar spacing and two motor-operated sluice gates; (g) a 16,287-foot-long
power conveyance consisting of three sections of tunnel that vary from 12-foot by 12-foot
unlined sections to 7-foot-diameter steel-lined sections, two sections of steel pipe and a steel
penstock section that decreases from 8 to 6 feet in diameter and terminates in two nozzles;
(h) a 102-foot-long by 50-foot-wide concrete and brick powerhouse containing one
horizontal impulse-type generating unit with an installed capacity of 15.5 MW and a
hydraulic capacity of 270 cfs; (i) a 0.9-mile-long 6.6-kV transmission line that connects the
Glenville development to Tuckasegee powerhouse; and 0) appurtenant facilities. The
Glenville development has a 6.43-mile-long bypassed reach (on the West Fork of the
Tuckasegee River) just downstream of the Glenville Dam that bypasses the Glenville tunnels,
pipelines, and powerhouse.
2. The Tuckasegee development consists of the following: (a) concrete arch dam, 254 feet long
with a maximum height of 61 feet (Tuckasegee Dam), which includes a 233.5-foot-long
spillway with 23 flashboards that are 9.03 feet wide and 1 flashboard that is 18.28 feet wide
and one 7.54-foot-wide trashrack, all 3 feet high; (b) a 7.9-acre reservoir, with a maximum
reservoir elevation of 2,278.75 feet and a usable storage capacity of 35 acre-feet; (c) a power
intake with trashracks having a 1.25-inch clear bar; (d) a power conveyance consisting of a
3,246-foot-long pressure tunnel that is mostly unlined and approximately 9 feet in diameter, a
vertical surge tank that is 15 feet in diameter, and a 198-foot-long penstock that is
approximately 9 feet in diameter; (e) a 32-foot-long by 26.5-foot-wide concrete powerhouse
containing one vertical Francis-type generating unit with an installed capacity of 2.6 MW and
a hydraulic capacity of 360 cfs; and (f) appurtenant facilities. The Tuckasegee development
has a 1.24-mile-long bypassed reach (on the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River) just
downstream of the Tuckasegee Dam that bypasses the Tuckasegee tunnels, pipelines, and
powerhouse.
The West Fork Project includes a 0.9-mile-long 6.6-kV transmission line that connects the
Tuckasegee powerhouse to the Glenville powerhouse and interconnects at a substation
immediately adjacent to the Glenville powerhouse.
Bryson Project. The Bryson Project (P-2601) is located on the Oconaluftee River, a tributary to
the Tuckasegee River, just downstream of the Qualla Boundary of the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians (EBCI) in Swain County, North Carolina. The original Project was licensed
on July 22, 1980, and that license expired on July 31, 2005. The licensed capacity of the Bryson
Project is 980 kW. On July 22, 2003, Duke Power filed an application for a new license for the
Bryson Project. The Bryson Hydroelectric Project consists of the following: (a) a concrete
multiple arch dam, 341 feet long with a maximum height of 36 feet, including: (i) a concrete,
nonoverflow section, (ii) two gravity spillway sections, each surmounted by a 16.5-foot-wide by
16-foot-high Taintor gate, (iii) an uncontrolled multiple-arch spillway with four bays, and (iv) an
integral intake and powerhouse structure with three intake bays, each consisting of an
8.5-foot-diameter steel intake pipe with a trashrack having a clear bar spacing of between 2.25 to
2.5 inches; (b) a 1.5-mile-long, 38-acre impoundment at elevation 1,828.41 feet with no usable
storage; (c) two vertical Francis-type generating units, one with an installed capacity of 480 kW
and a hydraulic capacity of 263 cfs and one with an installed capacity of 500 kW and a hydraulic
capacity of 263 cfs; and (d) appurtenant facilities. The existing Bryson Hydroelectric Project
operates in a run-of-the-river (ROR) mode, within a 6-inch tolerance band. Project operation is
dependent on available flow in the Oconaluftee River.
Dillsboro Project. The Dillsboro Project (P-2602) is located at river mile (RM) 31.7 on the
Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina. The original Project was licensed on
July 17, 1980, and that license expired on July 31, 2005. The licensed capacity of the Dillsboro
Project is 225 kW. The Dillsboro Project impounds a 15-acre reservoir behind a concrete
masonry dam that is 310 feet long and 12 feet high. The Project also includes a powerhouse.
Duke Power previously sought a new license for this ROR Project; however, they are now
seeking approval to decommission and remove the Project works pursuant to a settlement
agreement with the FWS and others. The Dillsboro Project consists of the following: (a) a
concrete masonry dam, 310 feet long with a maximum height of 12 feet, which includes (i) a
concrete nonoverflow section, (ii) a 14-foot-long uncontrolled spillway section, (iii) a
20-foot-long spillway section with two 6-foot-wide spill gates, (iv) a 197-foot-long uncontrolled
spillway section, (v) an 80-foot-long intake/powerhouse section with three intake bays, each
consisting of a reinforced concrete flume and trashracks having a clear bar spacing varying from
2.0 to 3.38 inches, and (vi) a short 10-foot-wide concrete nonoverflow section; (b) an
0.8-mile-long, 15-acre impoundment at elevation 1,972.0 feet with no usable storage; (c) a
powerhouse containing two vertical Francis-type generating units, one with an installed capacity
of 175 kW and a hydraulic capacity of 228 cfs and one with an installed capacity of 50 kW and a
hydraulic capacity of 56 cfs; and (d) appurtenant facilities.
The Proposed Action
The proposed action is defined in the May 10, 2006, draft EA; the preferred alternative is
described on pages 318-322 (East Fork Project), pages 322-326 (West Fork Project), pages
328-329 (Bryson Project), and pages 326-328 (Dillsboro Project). The proposed action is further
detailed in the July 14, 2006, final EA; the comprehensive development and preferred alternative
is described on pages 343-347 (East Fork Project), pages 347-352 (West Fork Project), pages
354-355 (Bryson Project), and pages 352-354 (Dillsboro surrender). The BA is contained in
pages 174-184 of the final EA. As described in the final EA, the Commission must decide
whether to issue new major licenses to Duke Power for the East Fork and West Fork Projects and
a subsequent license for the Bryson Project and what, if any, conditions should be placed on any
licenses issued. In making licensing decisions, the Commission must determine that the Projects
will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In
addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (e.g., flood
control, irrigation, and water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to the
purposes of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of
fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat); the protection of recreational
opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. FERC staff has
analyzed the probable environmental effects of implementing the subject Projects and has
recommended appropriate environmental measures. In the final EA, FERC staff recommended
licensing the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Projects as proposed by Duke Power, with some
additional staff-recommended measures, and the surrender of the Dillsboro Project license with
removal of the dam and demolition of the powerhouse.
The Commission must decide whether the Dillsboro surrender should include decommissioning
the powerhouse, removal of the powerhouse, and/or removal of the dam as recommended by
FERC staff. On surrender of a license, the Commission applies a broad public interest standard
that is not the same as the public interest/comprehensive development standards applied to
licensing proceedings under sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act.
In its final EA, FERC staff assessed the effects associated with the operation/decommissioning
of the Projects and alternatives to the proposed actions and made recommendations to the
Commission as to whether to issue licenses for the East Fork and West Fork and Bryson
Projects, and if so, what terms and conditions are recommended to become part of any licenses
issued. In the case of the Dillsboro surrender, the final EA makes recommendations to the
Commission as to whether the Project should be decommissioned and whether some or all of the
Project features should be removed. The final EA assesses the environmental and economic
effects of implementing actions at the Projects: (1) as proposed by Duke Power, including
implementation of various measures of the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team
Settlement Agreement (TCSTSA); (2) as proposed, with staff-recommended measures; and
(3) the no-action alternative. Issues that are addressed include water quality, aquatic resources,
reservoir water levels, minimum flows below the powerhouses and in the bypassed reaches,
protection of endangered species, historical and cultural resource management and protection,
and recreational enhancements.
Duke Power is an integrated electric utility serving nearly two million people in a service area in
North Carolina and South Carolina of 22,000 square miles. Duke Power uses the Tuckasegee
Projects to generate electricity to serve its customers in southwestern North Carolina (the former
service territory of Nantahala Power and Light Company).
A. Action Area
The action area for this Opinion is the Tuckasegee River subbasin in Jackson and Swain
Counties, southwestern North Carolina (Figure 1). The Tuckasegee River, a tributary to the
Little Tennessee River, occurs within the upper Tennessee River basin. The Tuckasegee River
originates in the Nantahala National Forest and flows into Fontana Lake in Swain County, North
Carolina. The Tuckasegee River watershed encompasses about 734 square miles. The East
Fork, West Fork, and Dillsboro Projects are located in Jackson County, in southwestern North
Carolina, on the East Fork, West Fork, and main stem of the Tuckasegee River, respectively.
The Bryson Project is located on the Oconaluftee River in Swain County. The Oconaluftee
9
River originates in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and flows into the Tuckasegee
River upstream of Fontana Lake.
The four Projects are located in the Appalachian Mountains within the Blue Ridge Physiographic
Province, which is characterized by its generally steep, mountainous to rolling topography. The
vicinity of the Projects is generally mountainous and contains large tracts of forest, with few
population centers. Human developments generally occur in stream and river valleys and are
widely scattered due to the lack of suitable low gradient building sites.
The climate of the area is typical of the mountainous region of western North Carolina, with mild
summers, cold winters, and a growing season limited to about 142 days on average. Average
temperatures for winter and summer are 4°C and 22°C, respectively. The total annual
precipitation for the East Fork, West Fork, and Dillsboro Projects averages 50 inches, with an
average snowfall of 12 inches. The total annual precipitation for the Bryson Project averages
52 inches, including an average snowfall of 8 inches.
Land in the vicinity of the Projects is primarily rural, with large areas of forest, mountains, and
valleys and some small-scale farming operations. Few population centers exist, with the
majority of homes being widely scattered. Land use within the Project areas includes
timber-harvesting, agriculture, industry, residential or residential/urban development, and
recreation.
The East Fork Project is located on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River. The Bear Creek and
Cedar Cliff developments (each "development" comprises a dam, reservoir, powerhouse, and
associated Project facilities) are located on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River and have
drainage areas of 75.3 square miles and 80.7 square miles, respectively. The Tennessee Creek
development includes the Tennessee Creek reservoir on the East Fork with a drainage area of
24.9 square miles and the Wolf Creek reservoir on Wolf Creek with a drainage area of
15.2 square miles. Elevations in this area typically range from 2,250 to 3,800 feet, with some
peaks over 4,000 feet.
Most of the area in the vicinity of the Cedar Cliff and Tennessee Creek developments was
previously forested, and most of the area in the vicinity of the Bear Creek development is
currently forested. A small portion in the vicinity of all three developments has been cleared,
and a limited amount of private development has occurred. Riparian vegetation has been left
largely intact, except where public access and a few private residences border the developments.
A small amount of the Nantahala National Forest associated with the transmission corridors and
bypassed stream reaches is within the Project boundary.
The West Fork Project is located on the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River downstream of the
confluence of the East and West forks. The Thorpe development has a drainage area of
36.7 square miles, and the Tuckasegee development (downstream of Thorpe Dam) has a
drainage area of 54.7 square miles. Elevations in this area typically range from 2,400 to 4,000
feet, with some peaks over 4,500 feet.
10
Most of the area in the vicinity of the Thorpe development was previously forested, and the area
in the vicinity of the Tuckasegee development is currently forested. A portion of the land at each
development has been cleared, and a limited amount of private development has occurred.
Riparian vegetation around the Thorpe development has been largely removed in many areas,
while the area around the Tuckasegee development has been left largely intact, except where
NC 107 borders the development. Several residential developments and a few commercial
developments are located along the West Fork Tuckasegee River.
The Dillsboro Project is located on the main stem of the Tuckasegee River and has a drainage
area of 290 square miles. Elevations in this area typically range from 1,950 to 2,500 feet, with
some peaks over 3,200 feet. Most of the Project area was previously forested, but a large portion
has been cleared, and a considerable amount of private development has occurred both upstream
and downstream of the dam. Riparian vegetation has been largely removed, except for a narrow
band of trees immediately along the riverbanks. The Project is located within 5 miles of the
landholdings of the EBCI and less than 10 miles from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
and the Nantahala National Forest. However, there is no federal land within the Project
boundary.
The Bryson Project is located on the Oconaluftee River and has a drainage area of 188 square
miles. Elevations in this area typically range from 1,750 to 2,200 feet, with some higher peaks.
A large portion of the land covering the Project area and bordering land is currently forested.
However, all of the original forests bordering the Project area have been harvested at least once
or have been cleared for agricultural, residential, or industrial development. The Project is to the
EBCI Reservation, or Qualla Boundary.
Point-source Pollution - There are 15 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)3 permitted discharges in the Tuckasegee River subbasin, most of which are small
wastewater treatment plants (W WTP) that serve schools or subdivisions, including the
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority's WWTP (1.5 million gallons per day [MGD])
(Table 1)
Nonpoint-source Pollution - Nonpoint-source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through storm water or snowmelt. There are many types of land-use activities that are sources of
nonpoint-source pollution, including land development, construction activities, animal waste
2Point-source discharge refers to discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or other well-defined
point of discharge. These include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, small
domestic discharging treatment systems (i.e., schools, commercial offices, subdivisions, and individual residences),
and storm-water systems from large urban areas and industrial sites. The primary substances and compounds
associated with point-source discharge include nutrients, oxygen-demanding wastes, and toxic substances (such as
chlorine, ammonia, and metals).
3Under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA), the discharge of pollutants into surface waters is
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Section 402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES permitting
program, which delegates permitting authority to qualifying states. In North Carolina, the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ), is responsible
for the permitting and enforcement of the NPDES program.
11
Table 1. NPDES Dischargers in the Tuckasegee River Subbasin.
Permit Facility County MGD Receiving Stream
NC0000264 Jackson Development Corp. Jackson 0.005 Tuckasegee River
00020214 Tuckaseigee W&SA/Plant 2 - Sylva Jackson 0.5 Scott Creek
U.S. Department of the Interior -
N00025101 Smokemont Campground Swain 0.03 Oconaluftee River
NC0026557 Bryson City, Town - WWTP Swain 0.6 Tuckasegee River
NC0032808 Ensley Adult Care Home, Inc. Jackson 0.0085 Blanton Branch
NC0038687 Singing Waters Camping Resort Jackson 0.0075 Trout Creek
NC0039578 Tuckaseigee W&SA/Plant 1 Jackson 1.5 Tuckasegee River
NC0059200 Trillium Links & Village LLC Jackson 0.02 UT Thorpe Lake
NC0061620 Hide-Away Campground, Inc. Swain 0.01 Tuckasegee River
NC0066940 Jackson Co BOE - Scotts Creek School Jackson 0.0063 Scott Creek
NC0066958 Jackson Co BOE - Blue Ridge School Jackson 0.01 Hurricane Creek
NC0074250 Gateway Chevron, Inc. Jackson 0.005 Camp Creek
NC0074624 Western Carolina University - WTP Jackson 0.0005 Tuckasegee River
NC0075736 Whiteside Estates, Inc. Jackson 0.1 Grassy Camp Creek
NC0084441 Smoky Mountain Count Club Swain 0.12 Conle s Creek
disposal, mining, and agriculture and forestry operations, as well as impervious surfaces, such as
roadways and parking lots. On a statewide basis, including the Tuckasegee River
subbasin,various nonpoint-source management programs have been developed by a number of
agencies to control specific types of nonpoint-source pollution (e.g., forestry, pesticide, urban,
and construction-related pollution). Each of these management programs develop Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to control the specific type of nonpoint-source pollution.
Sedimentation is a process by which eroded particles of rock are primarily transported by
moving water from areas of relatively high elevation to areas of relatively low elevation where
the particles are deposited. Upland sediment transport is primarily accomplished by overland
flow and rill and gully development. Lowland or floodplain transport occurs in varying order
streams where upland sediment joins sediment eroded from floodplains, stream banks, and
streambeds. Erosion rates are often accelerated by human activity related to agriculture,
construction, timber-harvesting, unimproved roadways, or any activity where soils or geologic
units are exposed or disturbed. Sedimentation is detrimental to water quality, destroys biologic
habitat, reduces storage volume of water impoundments, impedes the usability of aquatic
recreational areas, and causes damage to structures (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991).
Sediment loads in streams are primarily composed of relatively small particles suspended in the
water column (suspended solids) and larger particles that move on or periodically near the
12
streambed (bedload). It is the accelerated supply or transportation of sediment that we consider
sedimentation.
The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Program applies to construction activities and is
established and authorized under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (SPCA). This
act delegates the responsibility of administration and enforcement to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resource (NCDENR), Division of Land Resources
(DLR) (Land Quality Section), and requires, prior to construction, the submission and approval
of erosion-control plans on all projects disturbing an acre or more. On-site inspections by the
NCDENR's DLR are conducted to determine compliance with the plan and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the BMPs that are being used. Jackson County has a delegated erosion-control
program that is basically the same as the minimum requirements of the SPCA. Jackson County's
ordinance is taken from a model provided by the State of North Carolina. These rules and
regulations were originally adopted by the State in the SPCA. This legislation has been
periodically amended and is also supported by Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative
Code.4
Water Quantity
There are several gaging stations operated by the U S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Water
Resources Division for varying periods of time (Figure 1). Based on these stream gages, the
stream flow in the Tuckasegee River watershed is seasonally variable, with highest flows
generally occurring during February and March (Figure 2), punctuated by peak flows (Figure 3).
The USGS operates more than 200 stream gages across North Carolina to monitor river stage
and stream flow. During flooding from Hurricanes Frances and Ivan in September 2004,
period-of-record peak river stages were recorded at more than 20 sites in western North Carolina.
Also very noticeable, is the pattern of extreme daily regulation on the Tuckasegee River
(Figure 4).
The Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority withdraws an average of 0.8 MGD from the
Tuckasegee River at Cullowhee, North Carolina. Other minor withdrawals for irrigation are not
registered and are seasonal.
B. Conservation Measures
Conservation measures represent actions, pledged in the project description, that the action
agency will implement in order to minimize the effects of the proposed action and further the
recovery of the species under review. Such measures should be closely related to the action and
should be achievable within the authority of the action agency. The beneficial effects of
conservation measures are taken into consideration in the FWS's conclusion of a jeopardy versus
a nonjeopardy opinion and in the analysis of incidental take. However, such measures must
4Additional erosion-control measures as outlined in Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds
(NCAC T15A:04B.0024) may be implemented for projects within WS-1 or WS-II water supply watersheds, critical
areas, waters designated for shellfishing, or any waters designated by the DWQ as High-Quality Waters. Other local
initiatives have targeted nonpoint-source pollution in the Tuckasegee River subbasin, including those by the
Watershed Association for the Tuckasegee River.
13
minimize impacts to listed species within the action area in order to be factored into the FWS's
analyses.
Conservation Measures Associated with the Dillsboro Dam Demolition..
As part of any surrender, FERC would ensure that the removal of Project facilities restores the
site to pre-Project conditions.
The Licensee will remove Appalachian elktoes from impact sites and relocate them to suitable
locations upstream of the impacted areas, according to the procedures in the mussel translocation
plan, once approved.
The existing Dillsboro Dam and powerhouse will be removed to grade, restoring the river to its
assumed pre-dam bank-to-bank width and depth. The removal plan would detail the sequence of
steps; the schedule; quantities of materials to be removed and disposed; disposal procedures;
safety precautions; flow control procedures; and all details of construction, demolition, and
transportation. This plan would be prepared in conjunction with, and would be approved by, the
resource agencies. Once completed, the plan will be filed with FERC for approval prior to
implementation.
To control sediment erosion and transport below the dam during the demolition process, a
detailed sediment management plan should be developed that incorporates the measures for
sediment removal, stream-bank and stream-channel stabilization, gradual drawdown, etc., from
the removal plan developed in coordination with the resources agencies, and promotes natural
and phased sediment transport using high-operational flows and natural high-water events at
intervals throughout the demolition process.
Duke's Power's proposed sediment management during demolition. In the EA it prepared,
Duke Power predicts that the high flow through the initial notch in the dam would result in
incision of an initial channel through the sediment deposits along the deepest part of the channel
in the existing reservoir (Duke Power 2004c). The channel would be deepened and widened by
erosion and rather quickly come to equilibrium. The eroded sediment, along with small pieces of
concrete and concrete fines from the demolition, would be deposited downstream. A
short-duration, staged, high-flow event would then flush the sediment deposited downstream of
the dam to a point farther downstream.
Duke Power proposes the following measures related to sediment management during dam
removal:
1. Demolish the dam in January through early April when flushing flows can be
provided by the upstream East and West Fork Projects.
2. To the extent possible, keep river flow low during excavation of the initial notch by
limiting releases from upstream Projects.
14
3. Pause demolition at the completion of the initial notch excavation and again at the
completion of each 3- to 4-foot stage, and during each pause, release 1,500-cfs
flushing flows from the upstream East Fork and West Fork Projects for 3 days. Duke
Power anticipates no more than four pauses, each lasting 1 week or less.
4. Allow sediment erosion and transport downstream of the dam during the demolition
process by natural and phased high-operational flows.
5. Implement a best management plan to address local erosion and sediment-stability
issues at the completion of each high-flow flushing event.
6. Remove a limited amount of sediment along the left bank (looking downstream) after
the pond level is lowered below the sediment surface, and remove enough sediment
from the forebay to allow access to the powerhouse for demolition. (Duke Power
stated that an estimate of the volume of sediment to be removed from the left bank, if
any, could not be made until the bank area is dewatered after dam removal is in
progress. Also, the volume of sediment to be removed from the forebay area could
not be estimated, but it would be limited to the quantity needed to access the
powerhouse for demolition.) Sediment will be mechanically removed with a backhoe
or similar equipment; the quantity to be removed will be determined during
demolition. Duke Power will employ BMPs for erosion control during sediment
removal.
7. Removed sediment, if any, will be disposed of at an unspecified off-site (upland)
location; BMPs for erosion and sediment control will be employed at that location.
In addition to the water quality component of the environmental monitoring plan discussed in the
Water Quality section of the final EA, Duke Power anticipates that the plan for the dam removal
period will include the monitoring of sediment deposition downstream of the dam. Duke Power
anticipates that the monitoring plan for the post-dam removal period will include downstream
sediment deposition/redistribution monitoring, substrate type analysis, flow velocity,
downstream and upstream cross-section changes, and sediment stabilization and vegetation. In
its 2-year post-removal program, Duke Power anticipates monitoring quarterly for the first year
and twice in the second year.
Duke Power proposes to remove sediment from the left bank forebay area of the Tuckasegee
River. Mechanical removal of sediment from the impoundment area after the reservoir has been
dewatered would benefit water quality by reducing the amount of sediment transported
downstream to Fontana Lake, reducing the concentration of suspended solids or turbidity during
any high-flow event and reducing (in the long term) the period over which increased suspended
solids and turbidity would occur.
The sediment moving into the lake would represent only 1 to 2 years of normal sediment input
from the Tuckasegee River drainage area upstream of Dillsboro; this sediment would be in
Fontana Lake now if the Dillsboro Dam had never been built (Milone and MacBroom 2004).
15
Prior to commencing dam removal, a detailed environmental monitoring plan will be prepared,
in coordination with the FWS, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC),
NCDENR's DWQ and Division of Water Resources (DWR) and EBCI. This monitoring plan
will include a pre-removal phase to establish baseline conditions for water quantity and quality;
aquatic resources; botanical and wildlife resources; rare, threatened, and endangered species;
cultural resources; recreation resources; and land-use and aesthetic resources.
During dam removal and demolition, a specific program associated with compliance with
regulatory standards and safety procedures will be implemented. The procedures will include
photographic documentation, water quality sampling, sediment deposition measurement, bank
erosion monitoring and stabilization, and monitoring of the Appalachian elktoe mussels relocated
upstream of the reservoir.
Post-removal monitoring will be implemented to determine the specific physical, chemical, and
biological changes in the Project area. The Licensee will fund the post-removal monitoring for
the first 2 years of an anticipated 4- or 5-year program. The post-removal monitoring will
include photographic documentation; documentation of physical stream changes; bank and
sediment stabilization and revegetation; upstream and downstream changes in aquatic life;
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa5 richness; and monitoring of the
relocated mussel population; water quality and riparian development.
Conservation Measures Associated with the East Fork and West Fork Operations.b
1. The Licensee will provide minimum flows and bypassed reach flows in accordance with the
TCSTSA (Article 404) (includes minimum flow plans, lost energy, and calibration of flow
meters). Based on in-stream flow studies, Duke Power determined that current fluctuating
stream flows downstream from the Cedar Cliff powerhouse affect aquatic habitat for about
40 miles downstream and that the proposed minimum flow releases, when combined with
accretion flows over the reach, will substantially enhance the flow regime for fish and
macro invertebrates.
a. At the West Fork Project, FERC staff recommends a continued year-round minimum
flow of 20 cfs from Tuckasegee Lake into the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River at the
Tuckasegee Dam.
b. At the East Fork Project, FERC staff recommends a minimum flow regime of 10 cfs
during nongeneration hours from December I through June 30 of each year and 35 cfs
from July 1 through November 30 of each year from the Cedar Cliff powerhouse.
These minimum flows described from the West Fork Project will combine with those from
the East Fork Project at the confluence of the West Fork Tuckasegee River and the East Fork
5EPT species are considered to be biological indicators of water quality/aquatic ecological quality whereby the more
taxa represented, the better the quality.
6There are additional conservation measures associated with the East Fork and West Fork Projects that will be
included in the license; however, we have only reiterated those that have identifiable conservation benefits to the
Appalachian elktoe and its critical habitat.
16
Tuckasegee River to the Tuckasegee River for 30 cfs from December 1 through June 30 of
each year and 55 cfs from July 1 through November 30. This flow regime is an increase over
the previous license, which required 20 cfs released from the East Fork Project only.
2. Temporary variances from the normal operating range, if required by conditions beyond
Duke Power's control by operating or maintenance needs, will be in accordance with the
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) or Hydro Project Maintenance and Emergency Protocol
(HPMEP) described in the TCSTSA.
3. The license will require Duke Power to operate the Project so as to minimize the need to
draw the reservoirs down to mechanically remove sediment and when required, consult and
reach an agreement with the FWS, and other agencies concerning reasonable and necessary
measures to minimize environmental effects prior to taking action.
4. During periods of low inflow, Duke Power will operate the Project reservoirs in accordance
with the LIP (paragraphs 1.3-1.5 and attachment B in the TCSTSA).
5. During emergency and equipment failure and maintenance situations, the reservoirs will be
operated in accordance with the HPMEP (paragraphs 1.3-1.5 and attachment C in the
TCSTSA).
6. The Licensee will implement the shoreline management guidelines in accordance with
attachment D in the TCSTSA (Article 408).
7. Duke Power will continue to implement its general trash removal plan for all of its intakes,
which calls for, on an as-required basis, the removal by hand of materials that have
accumulated through natural processes. Man-made debris is gathered and stored for off-site
disposal at appropriate intervals, and natural woody debris is passed downstream to function
as structure for aquatic habitat. Duke Power also participates in various clean-up efforts
(e.g., National River Clean-up Day) for trash removal from the shorelines of the reservoirs
and downstream riverbanks of its Projects.
Conservation Measures Associated with the Bryson Project.
Under its proposed operations at the Bryson Project, Duke Power will occasionally draw
down the Ela reservoir for operation and maintenance. Duke Power proposes, in agreement
with the FWS and other agencies and staff, that on those occasions, the September median
flow of 204 cfs will be released downstream during refill of the reservoir. Duke Power also
agrees to support the execution of post-licensing studies to determine a deliverable flow
should the 204 cfs prove inappropriate.
2. Historically, Duke Power has drawn down its ROR reservoirs, including Ela, every 7 to
8 years for 2 to 3 days to remove sediment and trash from the intake area, and it has used
various strategies for the disposal of the excavated material. Duke Power proposes to
conduct sediment management and reservoir drawdown studies at the first Project, among
Mission, Franklin, Dillsboro, and Bryson, when such actions would be required. Data
17
collected on the quantity and quality of dredged materials, the turbidity generated during
excavation, and the deposition of suspended materials would provide a database upon which
to develop a generic sediment plan for future dredging and maintenance/repair operations.
3. Duke Power will continue to implement its general trash removal plan for all of its intakes,
which calls for, on an as-required basis, the removal by hand of materials that have
accumulated through natural processes. Man-made debris is gathered and stored for off-site
disposal at appropriate intervals, and natural woody debris is passed downstream to function
as structure for aquatic habitat. Duke Power also participates in various clean-up efforts
(e.g., National River Clean-up Day) for trash removal from the shorelines of the reservoirs
and downstream riverbanks of its Projects.
STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND ITS CRITICAL HABITAT
Species Description and Life History
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, but not fragile, kidney-shaped shell, reaching up to about
3.2 inches in length, 1.4 inches in height, and 1 inch in width. Juveniles generally have a
yellowish-brown periostracum (outer shell surface), while the periostracum of the adults is
usually dark brown to greenish-black in color. Although rays are prominent on some shells,
particularly in the posterior portion of the shell, many individuals have only obscure greenish
rays. The shell nacre (inside shell surface) is shiny, often white to bluish-white, changing to a
salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shell; some
specimens may be marked with irregular brownish blotches.
The Appalachian elktoe has been reported from relatively shallow medium-sized creeks and
rivers with cool, clean, well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. The species is most
often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand
and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders, and/or bedrock (Gordon 1991; FWS 1994,
1996, 2002). Stability of the substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe, and the
species is seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or
cobble (FWS 2002). Individual specimens that have been encountered in these areas are
believed to have been scoured out of upstream areas during periods of heavy rain and have not
been found on subsequent surveys (FWS 2002).
Like other freshwater mussels, the Appalachian elktoe feeds by filtering food particles from the
water column. The specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other freshwater mussels
have been documented to feed on detritus (decaying organic matter), diatoms (various minute
algae) and other algae and phytoplankton (microscopic floating aquatic plants), and zooplankton
(microscopic floating aquatic animals).
The reproductive cycle of the Appalachian elktoe is similar to that of other native freshwater
mussels. Males release sperm into the water column, and the sperm are then taken in by the
females through their siphons during feeding and respiration. The females retain the fertilized
eggs in their gills until the larvae (glochidia) fully develop. The mussel glochidia are released
18
into the water and, within a few days, must attach to the appropriate species of fish, which they
then parasitize for a short time while they develop into juvenile mussels. They then detach from
their fish host and sink to the stream bottom where they continue to develop, provided they land
in a suitable substrate with the correct water conditions. The Appalachian elktoe is a long-term
brooder, a species in which the eggs are fertilized in late July/August and the glochidia are
released in the following spring, between late April and June. There are two critical periods in
the life cycle of mussels, both related to reproduction. The first critical period occurs when the
males release sperm into the water and the females receive the sperm for egg fertilization
through water drawn into their incurrent siphons. In general, this critical period is late
July/August for the Appalachian elktoe (Steve Fraley, NCWRC, personal communication, 2006).
The second critical period is when the glochidia are expelled from the females into the water,
and suitable fish hosts (Table 2) must be nearby. This critical period is in the spring for the
Appalachian elktoe. Both the banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) and the mottled sculpin
(C. bairdi) have been identified as host species for glochidia of the Appalachian elktoe (FWS
2002). Dr. Jim Layzer (Tennessee Technological University, unpublished data) has identified
ten species of fish that successfully transformed glochidia of Appalachian elktoes into juveniles
under laboratory condition (Table 2). The life span and many other aspects of the Appalachian
elktoe's life history are currently unknown.
Status and Distribution
The Appalachian elktoe is known only from the mountain streams of western North Carolina and
eastern Tennessee. Although the complete historical range of the Appalachian elktoe is
unknown, available information suggests that the species once lived in the majority of the rivers
and larger creeks of the upper Tennessee River system in North Carolina, with the possible
exception of the Hiwassee and Watauga River systems (the species has not been recorded from
either of these river systems). In Tennessee the species is known only from its present range in
the main stem of the Nolichucky River.
Distribution. The Appalachian elktoe has a very fragmented, relict distribution. The species
still survives in scattered pockets of suitable habitat in portions of the Little Tennessee River
system, Pigeon River system, Mills River, and Little River in the upper French Broad River
basin in North Carolina and the Nolichucky River system in North Carolina and Tennessee.
Little Tennessee River Subbasin. In the Little Tennessee River system in North Carolina,
populations survive in the reach of the main stem of the Little Tennessee River, between the city
of Franklin and the Fontana Reservoir, in Swain and Macon Counties (McGrath 1999; FWS
1994, 1996, 2002), and in scattered reaches of the main stem of the Tuckasegee River in Jackson
and Swain Counties (Mark Cantrell, FWS, Natural Heritage Report, 1996; McGrath 1998; Tim
Savidge, North Carolina Department of Transportation [NCDOT], personal communication,
2001; FWS 2002), from below the town of Cullowhee downstream to Bryson City. Numerous
project-specific surveys in the Tuckasegee River during 2002 and 2003 yielded specimens at
almost every site (Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc. 2002, 2003). Distribution in the
Tuckasegee River is typically contagious, occurring in patches wherever habitat conditions are
appropriate. Densities are variable but have been observed to be relatively high. In the
Tuckasegee River, areas of low density have been noted in the plume immediately downstream
19
Table 2. Potential Fish Hosts for the Appalachian Elktoe.
Fish Species Occurs in Dillsboro Project Vicinity
a
0
Records
E ?

3
C1
Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) Menhinick 1991, Duke

Power 2003a x - x o
-o rn
Banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) No
Wounded darter (Etheostoma Menhinick 1991, Duke

vulneratum
Power 2003a X _ x
Greenfin darter (Etheostoma Menhinick 1991, Duke

chlorobranchium
Power 2003a x _ x
Greenside darter (Etheostoma Menhinick 1991, Duke

blenniodes
Power 2003a X _ x
-o
River chub (Nocomis micropogon) Menhinick 1991
Duke
,
Power 2003a x - x
Northern hogsucker (Hypentilum Menhinick 1991, Duke

ni racans
Power 2003a x x x
o
Central stoneroller (Campostoma Menhinick 1991, Duke N
anomalum Power 2003a x - x
Longnose dace (Rhinichthys Menhinick 1991, Duke
cataractae Power 2003a x - x
Rosyside dace (Clinostomus Menhinick 1991

unduloides X _ x
of Scotts Creek confluence, likely due to successive water quality problems beginning with
point-source discharges (Mead Paper) and current nonpoint (sediment) contributions. The
Appalachian elktoe was first recorded in 2000 from the Cheoah River, though there was a prior
record from Tulula Creek (Clarke 1981), a tributary to the Cheoah River, below Santeetlah Lake,
in Graham County (FWS 2002). Also, biologists with the NCDOT, U.S. Forest Service, and our
staff have recorded Appalachian elktoes from the Cheoah River, below the Santeetlah Dam,
during surveys of portions of the river in each year since (in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005).
French Broad River Subbasin. In the Pigeon River system in North Carolina, the Appalachian
elktoe occurs in small, scattered sites in the West Fork Pigeon River and in the main stem of the
Pigeon River, above Canton, in Haywood County (McGrath 1999; FWS 2002, The Catena
Group 2005). The Little River (upper French Broad River system) population of the species, in
Transylvania County, North Carolina (FWS 2002), is restricted to small, scattered pockets of
20
suitable habitat downstream of Cascade Lake. In Mills River, Henderson County, North
Carolina, the Appalachian elktoe occurs in a short reach of the river from just above the
Highway 280 Bridge (Savidge, The Catena Group, personal communication, 2003) to about
1 mile below the bridge (Jeff Simmons, NCWRC, personal communication, 2004).
Nolichucky River Subbasin. In the Nolichucky River system, the Appalachian elktoe survives in
a few scattered areas of suitable habitat in the Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North
Carolina (McGrath 1996, 1999; FWS 1994, 1996); the Cane River, Yancey County, North
Carolina (McGrath 1997; FWS 1994, 1996); and the main stem of the Nolichucky River, Yancey
and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, extending downstream to the vicinity of Erwin in Unicoi
County, Tennessee (FWS 1994, 1996, 2002). Also, two individuals were found recently in the
North Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, below the confluence of
Crabtree Creek (McGrath 1999); and 15 live individuals, with no more than 2 to 3 at each site
(FWS 2002), and one shell (FWS 2002) have been recorded from the South Toe River, Yancey
County, North Carolina. The majority of the surviving occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe
appear to be small to extremely small and restricted to scattered pockets of suitable habitat.
Extirpated Sites. In addition to formerly occurring in Tulula Creek (see above), the species also
formerly occurred in the Swannanoa River (Clarke 1981, FWS 1994, 1996). There is also a
historical record of the Appalachian elktoe from the North Fork Holston River in Tennessee
(S. S. Haldeman collection); however, this record is believed to represent a mislabeled locality
(Gordon 1991). If the historical record for the species in the North Fork Holston River is
accurate, the species has apparently been eliminated from this river as well.
Status. Available information indicates that several factors have contributed to the decline and
loss of populations of the Appalachian elktoe and threaten the remaining populations. These
factors include pollutants in wastewater discharges (sewage treatment plants and industrial
discharges); habitat loss and alteration associated with impoundments, channelization, and
dredging operations; and the runoff of silt, fertilizers, pesticides, and other pollutants from
land-disturbing activities that were implemented without adequate measures to control erosion
and/or storm water (FWS 1994, 1996). Mussels are known to be sensitive to numerous
pollutants, including, but not limited to, a wide variety of heavy metals, high concentrations of
nutrients, ammonia, and chlorine-pollutants commonly found in many domestic and industrial
effluents. In the early 1900s, Ortmann (1909) noted that the disappearance of unionids (mussels)
is the first and most reliable indicator of stream pollution. Keller and Zam (1991) concluded that
mussels are more sensitive to metals than commonly tested fish and aquatic insects. The life
cycle of native mussels makes the reproductive stages especially vulnerable to pesticides and
other pollutants (Fuller 1974, Gardner et al. 1976, Stein 1971). Effluent from sewage treatment
facilities can be a significant source of pollution that can severely affect the diversity and
abundance of aquatic mollusks. The toxicity of chlorinated sewage effluents to aquatic life is
well documented (Bellanca and Bailey 1977, Goudreau et al. 1988, Tsai 1975), and mussel
glochidia (larvae) rank among the most sensitive invertebrates in their tolerance of toxicants
present in sewage effluents (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) also found that the
recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to 2 miles below the discharge points of
chlorinated sewage effluent.
21
Land-clearing and disturbance activities carried out without proper sedimentation and
storm-water control pose a significant threat to the Appalachian elktoe and other freshwater
mussels. Mussels are sedentary and are not able to move long distances to more suitable areas in
response to heavy silt loads. Natural sedimentation resulting from seasonal storm events
probably does not significantly affect mussels, but human activities often create excessively
heavy silt loads that can have severe effects on mussels and other aquatic organisms. Siltation
has been documented to adversely affect native freshwater mussels, both directly and indirectly
(Aldridge et al. 1987, Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Siltation degrades water and
substrate quality, limiting the available habitat for freshwater mussels (and their fish hosts),
thereby limiting their distribution and potential for the expansion and maintenance of their
populations; irritates and clogs the gills of filter-feeding mussels, resulting in reduced feeding
and respiration; smothers mussels if sufficient accumulation occurs; and increases the potential
exposure of the mussels to other pollutants. Ellis (1936) found that less than 1 inch of sediment
deposition caused high mortality in most mussel species. Sediment accumulations that are less
than lethal to adults may adversely affect or prevent the recruitment of juvenile mussels into the
population. Also, sediment loading in rivers and streams during periods of high discharge is
abrasive to mussel shells. Erosion of the outer shell allows acids to reach and corrode underlying
layers that are composed primarily of calcium, which dissolves under acid conditions. Though
Jackson and Swain Counties have made significant strides in controlling sediment and erosion,
agricultural practices and land development continue to stress riparian areas and remain a source
of fine sediments downstream.
The effects of impoundments on mussels are also well documented. Lakes do not occur
naturally in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee (most of them are man-made), and the
Appalachian elktoe, like the majority of our other native mussels, fish, and other aquatic species
in these areas, is adapted to stream conditions (flowing, highly oxygenated water and coarse sand
and gravel bottoms). Dams change the habitat from flowing to still water. Water depth
increases, flow decreases, and silt accumulates on the bottom (Williams et al. 1992), altering the
quality and stability of the remaining stream reaches by affecting water flow regimes, velocities,
temperature, and chemistry. Dams that operate by releasing cold water from near the bottom of
the reservoirs alter the downstream water temperature from those typical of warm- or cool-water
streams to that seen in cold-water streams; this may affect their suitability for many of the native
species inhabiting these stream reaches (Miller et al. 1984, Layzer et al. 1993). Impoundments
change fish communities (fish host species may be eliminated) and mussel communities (species
requiring clean gravel and sand substrates are eliminated) (Bates 1962). In addition, dams result
in the fragmentation and isolation of populations of species and act as effective barriers to the
natural upstream and downstream expansion or recruitment of mussel and fish species.
The information available demonstrates that habitat deterioration resulting from sedimentation
and pollution from numerous point and nonpoint sources, when combined with the effects of
other factors (including habitat destruction, alteration, and fragmentation resulting from
impoundments, channelization projects, etc.), has played a significant role in the decline of the
Appalachian elktoe. We believe this is particularly true of the extirpation of the Appalachian
elktoe from the Swannanoa and French Broad Rivers and portions of the Pigeon, upper Little
River, and upper Little Tennessee River systems. We believe these factors also have contributed
to the extirpation of the species from parts of the upper Tuckasegee River, Cheoah River, and
22
Tulula Creek, though the effects of impoundments are believed to have played an even more
significant role in the loss of the species in the upper reaches of these streams.
The most immediate threats to the remaining populations of the Appalachian elktoe are
associated with sediment and other pollutants (i.e., fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, oil, salts,
organic wastes, etc.) from nonpoint sources, and most of the remaining populations are restricted
to small, scattered pockets of stable, relatively clean, and gravelly substrates.
Critical Habitat. Critical habitat has been designated for the Appalachian elktoe. The areas
designated as critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe total about 144.3 miles of various
segments of rivers in North Carolina and one river in Tennessee. Critical habitat identifies
specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require
special management considerations or protection. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each
federal agency shall, in consultation with the FWS, ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The following constituent elements are essential to the conservation of the Appalachian elktoe:
1. Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water;
2. Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks;
3. Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel;
4. Stable sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder or bedrock substrates with no more than low
amounts of fine sediment;
5. Moderate to high stream gradient;
6. Periodic natural flooding; and
7. Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Critical habitat is designated for the Appalachian elktoe in the main stem of the Tuckasegee
River (Critical Habitat Unit 2, Figure 5), from the N.C. State Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee,
Jackson County, North Carolina, downstream to the N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson
City, Swain County, North Carolina.
Analysis of the Species Likely to be Affected
Duke Power contractors conducted mussel surveys in August and September 2001, in the
immediate Dillsboro Project area and several scattered sites within the area of effect of the
Project tailwaters. They located (in over 21 person-hours) a total of 40 Appalachian elktoes and
4 wavy-rayed lampmussels at eight of ten sites surveyed. They reported catch per unit of effort
23
of Appalachian elktoes at each of the sites where elktoes were found ranging from 0.5 to 9.3 (see
Table 2 in Fraley 2002).
Densities of Appalachian elktoes vary depending on many factors that make their distribution
pattern scattered and difficult to generalize. Also, mussels can be very difficult to locate in the
substrate, and most surveys for mussels detect only those specimens located at or on the surface
of the substrate. It is likely that additional mussels were present in the survey areas which were
overlooked or were not visible on the surface of the stream bottom. Based on surveys for
Appalachian elktoes from other drainages, the number below the surface is highly variable and
dependent on the available substrate. Therefore, accurate estimates of the total number of
Appalachian elktoes that will be impacted (both above and below the surface of the stream
bottom) are not possible, but the numbers are likely higher than those recorded above.
Analysis of the Critical Habitat
The following constituent elements are essential to the conservation of the Appalachian elktoe:
Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water. Though there is regular daily regulation, as
well as seasonal variation in stream flow within designated critical habitat Unit 2, the
USGS gaging station records show the permanent nature of the stream flow
(Appendix 2). To provide predictable and quality flow to support recreational
boating and angling in the main stem Tuckasegee River, FERC staff recommend
operating the East and West Fork powerhouses to provide releases equal to or greater
than the flow at which power can be produced most efficiently, on a predefined
schedule. This regulation will continue to affect the Tuckasegee River.
2. Geomorahically stable stream channels and banks. Most of the stream banks along
the Tuckasegee River are stable. Some of the unstable portions of the stream banks
are subjected to extreme rates of regulation by the East Fork and West Fork Projects.
Duke Power proposed to provide funding to address these areas as part of the
TCSTSA. Though FERC claimed to have found no nexus to Project operations, this
proposed measure should be recognized as necessary mitigation for ongoing Project
operations.
3. Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel The upper Tuckasegee River and
lower Tuckasegee River have natural pool, riffle, and run sequences, varied by the
local stream gradient and bedrock influence. The proposed removal of the Dillsboro
Dam will restore some localized impairments due to impoundment of the reservoir.
4. Stable sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder or bedrock substrates with no more than low
amounts of fine sediment. Most of the Tuckasegee River is dominated by bedrock,
boulder, cobble, and gravel substrates. Small patches of fine gravel and course sand
provide microhabitat requirements for the Appalachian elktoe. Silty sediment
deposits are regular, limited to some eddies and large pools, and the impounded
0.9-mile reach at the Dillsboro reservoir.
24
5. Moderate to high stream gradient. The Tuckasegee River is characterized as high
stream gradient. Lower portions in the alluvial floodplain have some moderate
stream gradient, but nowhere can the stream be characterized as low gradient.
6. Periodic natural flooding. Peak events like those in September 2004 (Figure 3) are
infrequent, though regular. Though the gaging records for the Tuckasegee River
basin are fragmented, periodic natural flooding has occurred. Some peak events are
limited to one or the other forks of the Tuckasegee River, while some large-scale
events affect the entire region. These natural flooding events provide ecologically
significant functions, re-sorting and redistributing substrate particles and influencing
organic inputs. The East Fork and West Fork Projects do have some potential to
reduce the intensity (magnitude and duration) of some natural flooding, within the
limited storage capacity at the time of large rain events, especially when reservoir
levels are at their lowest (winter). However, the seasonality and natural flooding of
highest magnitudes will largely continue to occur as it has since before these Projects
were constructed.
7. Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them. Recent
sampling by Duke Power (2003) has identified fairly diverse fish communities,
including many of the potential fish hosts for the Appalachian elktoe in the
Tuckasegee River (Table 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, when considering the "effects of the action" on federally listed
species, we are required to take into consideration the environmental baseline. The
environmental baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other activities in the action area (50 CFR
402.02), including federal actions in the area that have already undergone section 7 consultation,
and the impacts of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in
process. The environmental baseline for this Opinion considers all projects approved prior to the
initiation of formal consultation. It is an analysis of "the effects of past and ongoing human and
natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its habitat and ecosystem, within the
action area," including designated critical habitat. It does not include the effects of actions under
review (FWS 1998).
When the consultation is for an ongoing action, the task of assessing the effects on the
environmental baseline is complicated by the fact that certain preexisting aspects of the ongoing
project are also part of the environmental baseline, while other proposed aspects represent the
proposed action that is the subject of the consultation. It is important to recognize a fundamental
principle of an ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation; section 402.03 provides: "Section 7 and the
requirements of this part apply to all actions in which there is discretionary involvement or
control." Accordingly, the ESA requires a federal agency to consult on actions that it proposes
to authorize, fund, or carry out pursuant to its discretionary authority (see also 50 CFR section
402.02 "action" and ESA section 7(a)(2)). Thus it follows that the ESA does allow consultation
25
and analysis of conditions that are within the action agency's discretionary authority. In other
words, the ESA provides for analysis of baseline conditions without each Project because FERC,
the action agency, has discretionary authority to require removal of the Projects.
Since the discovery of the Appalachian elktoe in the Tuckasegee River system in May 1996,
various surveys of the Tuckasegee River subbasin have been accomplished (FWS 2002; Duke
Power 2003a, 2003b; Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc. 2002, 2003]. The results of these
surveys indicate that the Appalachian elktoe still occupies scattered areas of suitable habitat in
about 30 miles of river channel of the Tuckasegee River, extending from below Cullowhee, near
the confluence of Cullowhee Creek, down to the Fontana reservoir. The Appalachian elktoe has
not been found in any other tributaries to the Tuckasegee River or in the Tuckasegee River
within the Dillsboro Dam impoundment. In fact, the majority of the Tuckasegee River drainage
appears to be recovering from past pollution detailed above. Adequate systematic surveys to
estimate densities or population levels have not yet been conducted.
Further research is needed to determine the present and historic distribution of the Appalachian
elktoe throughout the drainage. Based on the current distribution in the Tuckasegee River
system, a reasonable estimate can be made that the Appalachian elktoe historically occurred as
one large contiguous population from at least the vicinity of the Tuckasegee Dam on the West
Fork Tuckasegee River and the Cedar Cliff Dam on the East Fork Tuckasegee River and
downstream in the Little Tennessee River to the Ridge and Valley Province in Tennessee. The
Appalachian elktoe occurs up to a corresponding elevation and drainage area in the adjacent
West Fork Pigeon River subbasin, as well as the Nolichucky River subbasin. A number of
factors, such as point-source (Ridenhour 1973) and nonpoint-source discharge and the loss of
riparian buffers, but especially hypolimnetic discharges, have likely contributed to the
elimination of the Appalachian elktoe from significant reaches of its historic range in the
Tuckasegee River, thus creating small, relict populations.
Although more survey work is needed to determine the distribution of the Appalachian elktoe
within the Tuckasegee River basin, the distribution in the action area covers about 36 RMs. The
mussel is rare in the upper portion of its range in the Tuckasegee River and patchily, but
regularly, distributed in the lower portions of this range downriver between RM 37 and RM 11.5,
excepting the impounded reach at the Dillsboro reservoir.
Status of the Species Within the Action Area
The Project area is essentially the entire portion of the known range of the Appalachian elktoe in
the Tuckasegee River subbasin. Because this population appears to be linearly distributed, it is
likely particularly vulnerable to changes in population numbers, and losses of only a few
individuals could alter population dynamics. Critical habitat was designated for the Appalachian
elktoe in the Tuckasegee River. The Appalachian Elktoe Recovery Plan (FWS 1996) was
published before the discovery of the Tuckasegee River population.
26
Factors Affecting the Species' Environment Within the Action Area
Residential development and agricultural practices have had serious impacts on the aquatic
habitat in the Project area. Much of the riparian habitat within the Project area has been severely
impacted by both agriculture and residential development. Because riparian areas have been
cleared of trees and other woody vegetation, recent high-water events have resulted in bank
erosion and failure along much of the Tuckasegee River, upstream, downstream, and within the
Project area. The poor condition of the riparian habitat also likely leads to excessive runoff from
adjacent agriculture fields that contain not only silt but also the fertilizers and pesticides used in
those fields. In addition to many seasonally used irrigation water withdrawals, the Tuckaseigee
Water and Sewer Authority water intake, there are also multiple point-source discharges into the
Tuckasegee River that affect water quality and quantity in the action area (see earlier
"Point-source Pollution" section).
During August and September of 2004, significant flooding occurred in the Tuckasegee River
drainage. Several areas within the Tuckasegee River were identified as having significant
stream-bank damage, and repairs were performed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) through its Emergency Watershed Protection program. We have consulted with the
NRCS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (if the action involved fill in "waters of the United
States") on each of these other projects. Stream-bank repairs should result in improved habitat
quality at these sites. Other federal actions proposed for the Tuckasegee River basin include
bridge replacement projects by the Federal Highway Administration/NCDOT for old,
substandard bridges. Most of these projects are not scheduled for at least 5 years. We do not
have any information concerning any additional federal actions ongoing or proposed for the
action area at the present time.
EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, "effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect effects
of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are
interrelated or interdependent with that action. The federal agency is responsible for analyzing
these effects. The effects of the proposed action are added to the environmental baseline to
determine the future baseline, which serves as the basis for the determination in this Opinion.
Should the effects of the federal action result in a situation that would jeopardize the continued
existence of the species, we may propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that the federal
agency can take to avoid a violation of section 7(a)(2). The discussion that follows is our
evaluation of the anticipated direct and indirect effects of issuance of new major licenses for the
East Fork and West Fork Hydroelectric Projects, a subsequent license for the Bryson
Hydroelectric Project, and the application for license surrender for the Dillsboro Hydroelectric
Project. Indirect effects are those caused by the proposed action that occur later in time but that
are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02).
27
Habitat Baseline Indicators
Habitat-altering actions can negatively affect mussel population viability. However, it is often
difficult to quantify the effects of a given habitat action in terms of its impact on biological
requirements for individual mussels. Thus it follows that while it is possible to draw an accurate
picture of a species' rangewide status (in fact, doing so is a critical consideration in any jeopardy
analysis), it is difficult to determine how that status may be affected by a given habitat-altering
action. With the current state of the science, typically the best that can be done is to determine
the effects an action has on a given habitat component and, because there is a direct relationship
between habitat condition and population viability, extrapolate that to the impacts on the species
as a whole. Thus by examining the effects a given action has on the habitat portion of a species'
biological requirements, the FWS can gauge how that action will affect the population variables
that constitute the rest of a species' biological requirements and, ultimately, how the action will
affect the species' current and future health.
Ideally, reliable scientific information on a species' biological requirements would exist at both
the population and the individual levels, and effects on habitat should be readily quantifiable in
terms of population impacts. In the absence of such information, our analyses must rely on
generally applicable scientific research that one may reasonably extrapolate to the action area
and to the population(s) in question.
A. Factors to be Considered
Proximity of the Action - Though no Appalachian elktoe specimens have been observed in the
immediate vicinity of the East Fork and West Fork Hydroelectric Projects, the effects of these
Projects on the tailwater reach of the Tuckasegee River occupied by the Appalachian elktoe have
been documented ("Zone of Peaking Influence Study" in Duke Power 2004a, 2004b). Similarly,
the Bryson Hydroelectric Project is immediately upstream of waters occupied by the
Appalachian elktoe and designated as critical habitat. The Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project
occurs within and separates the Appalachian elktoe population by its dam and reservoir.
Although measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the Tuckasegee River and the Appalachian
elktoe are included in the Project plans, implementation of these Projects will result in
unavoidable impacts to the river habitat and to individual mussels.
Project Purpose. The purpose of the new Project licenses is to continue operations with a
balance of power and nonpower uses of the Tuckasegee River. Although the proposed surrender
and removal of the Dillsboro Dam will result in some unavoidable adverse effects to the
Appalachian elktoe, the objective of this part of the action is to restore the impounded reach of
the Tuckasegee River and to then stabilize the stream banks and reduce impacts in the river
system.
Timing - To minimize effects to the Appalachian elktoe, the relocation of individual mussels and
the demolition of the Dillsboro Dam should begin in late summer or early fall and continue for
less than 3 months. This is a time during the early stages of larval brooding that will minimize
the potential for female mussels to abort larvae, while air and water temperatures are moderate
(and similar), and most mussel metabolism is at a moderate level. This time frame would likely
28
be the least stressful for relocated mussels and is the time when stream flows are most
predictable during this low-flow period.
Nature of the Effect - Suitable in-stream habitat at the Dillsboro Dam and downstream will be
affected for the duration of the demolition activities and likely for some period after completion
of the Project. A small portion of the riparian areas at the dam and powerhouse site will be
cleared for equipment access (mostly kudzu now) and at the future recreation access site and
may result in a temporary reduction in riparian vegetation until revegetation can occur. Direct
effects will include harm and harassment in the form of translocation of all Appalachian elktoes
found during implementation of the translocation plan (Cope and Waller 1995, Cope et al. 2003)
and sediment redistribution from demolition activities (Brim Box and Mossa 1999). Portions of
the habitat and flow conditions will continue to be impacted by the operation of the East Fork
and West Fork Projects (Moog 1993, Layzer and Madison 1995). Portions of the habitat and
flow conditions may be impacted by the infrequent operation and maintenance problems at the
Bryson Project.
Sediment Supply. Removal of the Dillsboro Dam would have one unavoidable short-term
effect and one long-term effect. In the immediate aftermath of each phase of dam removal,
suspended solids and turbidity levels in the Tuckasegee River would increase substantially and
would remain high for several days until high-flushing flows clean out the river. Turbidity levels
are likely to exceed the state standard. Under the proposed action, the sediment that has
accumulated behind the Dillsboro Dam--an estimated 102,168 cubic yards (Milone and
MacBroom 2004)--would be partially removed prior to demolition (estimated 19,739 cubic yards
in dam forebay [first 300 feet upstream of dam, based on transect volumes]). The remainder
would be stabilized in place or eroded away and transported downstream to Fontana Lake.
Because of its bedrock geology and the underlying cobble/boulder substrate, the channel reach at
and upstream of the currently impounded Dillsboro Dam reach will not headcut or erode
significantly (Wohl and Cenderelli 2000). Only the smaller, fine sandy particles of the surficial
bedload, more recently deposited, will be mobilized during and immediately following
demolition (Pizzuto 2002). The unconsolidated sediment volume in the pool is only about two
percent of the watershed's yield since the dam was constructed in the 1920s. The impounded
sediment volume thus does not have long-term significance on bedload and sediment supply in
downstream areas because it is such a small fraction of the watershed total yield during the 80+
years of the dam. However, the impact on aquatic biota, including the Appalachian elktoe and
its fish hosts, may be significant in the short term. The detailed dam removal plan and its
companion sediment management plan, with additional measures for controlling or removing
sediment, are expected to minimize these effects. Upstream of the dam, the Tuckasegee River
would return to its natural geometry, similar to that currently existing downstream stream of the
dam. The sediment yield of the basin upstream of the Dillsboro Dam area, between 55,419 and
121,110 tons per year (USGS 2003, Milone and MacBroom 2004), will not change because of
the dam removal. Rather, the sediment storage and transport capacity through'the currently
impounded reach of the Tuckasegee River will be restored. There are specific measures in Duke
Power's demolition plan to stabilize and restore the channel rather than allowing this to happen
on its own over time. Fontana Lake is large enough to accommodate the additional sediment
load with no major effects.
29
Stream Regulation. The presence of the East Fork, West Fork, Dillsboro, and Bryson Dams
and their alteration of flows have affected the timing, magnitude, and duration of daily (Figure 7)
and seasonal changes in river stage and velocity (Richter et al. 1996), which has many associated
effects to lotic (riverine) habitats (Moog 1993). The drop in water velocity in the East Fork and
West Fork reservoirs increases water residence time and results in altered water temperatures and
reductions in dissolved oxygen. The hypolimnetic deep-water intakes at the East Fork and West
Fork developments result in discharges that are colder than normal from April through
September. Water-transported sediments, which would normally be flushed downstream,
transported, deposited, and redeposited in pools, eddies, and other still-water environments with
each high-water event, are now restricted to areas between dams and transported by events of
greatly reduced magnitude given the flood-control mechanisms provided by these dams.
Waterborne sediments that were transported and deposited throughout the river are now
deposited in each reservoir, withholding riverborne sediments from the tailwater areas. The
habitat now provided by the reservoirs is not suitable for the Appalachian elktoe, which is unable
to adapt to the lentic conditions. The extant river populations of Appalachian elktoes are now
separated by the Dillsboro Dam and its reservoir. Hence, the hydroelectric projects isolate these
mussels into distinct reaches of the river, making them demographically, if not also genetically,
separate from one another (Wafters 1996).
The habitats in the Dillsboro reservoir are vastly different from the river habitats they have
replaced and have changed the water characteristics (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen,
sediment deposition, and nutrient load). Not only do the lentic conditions of the reservoirs
exclude species like the Appalachian elktoe, which require free-flowing lotic habitats, but the
altered flows of the river below the dams that are affected by their operation also impact the
river-reliant members of the biotic community (Freeman et al. 2001, Bain et al. 1988). Of the
four projects addressed in this document, East Fork and West Fork have historically and
currently operate in a peaking mode. The operation results in a substantial amount of habitat
being dewatered at frequent and regular intervals in the tailwaters. Figure 6 illustrates how
dramatic daily habitat flooding and dewatering can be as a result of the East Fork and West Fork
operations. Following dewatering episodes, species of fish hosts for the Appalachian elktoe that
are vagile enough to recolonize flooded areas of the dewatered riverbed may be stranded and
exposed to desiccation and/or predators. For shallow-water species that are more sedentary and
not able to recolonize dewatered zones, like the Appalachian elktoe, dewatered areas represent a
loss of habitat. Species that are stranded when water is withheld during peak loading become
more vulnerable to terrestrial predators that are excluded from deeper habitats (e.g., raccoon
predation on exposed mussel beds). In addition, frequent dewatering greatly reduces the
diversity and productivity of this otherwise productive river zone, reducing or eliminating its
trophic contribution to the river ecosystem. With daily water fluctuations of the magnitude of
those that can currently be conducted at the above Projects, the amount of mid- and deep-water
habitat in stretches of river that are affected by load-following also undergo sizable fluctuations.
The rapid, daily changes in water volume and velocity in the tailrace and downstream also make
this zone less habitable for more sedentary species (e.g., mollusks). Because the level of
dewatering can fluctuate between days, seasons, and water year types, less sedentary organisms
(e.g., snails) may have time to recolonize zones that will be dewatered during subsequent days.
The magnitude of effect is related to the speed with which water levels fluctuate. The more
quickly levels change, the more severe the effects to benthic species. The effects of the
30
operation is apparent well downstream of these Projects to the Fontana reservoir (Nantahala
Power and Light 2001). Because the Project effects are recognized all the way downstream to
the Fontana reservoir, the data do not allow us to determine at what distance below a dam the
effects of operation become insignificant or discountable because these effects are confounded.
Minimum In-stream Flows. The Bryson Project will continue to be run as an ROR operation,
with a new definition, recommended by FERC staff, developed in consultation with the FWS,
NCWRC, and NCDENR's DWR, to require maintenance of the reservoir level within a range
from 0.1 foot to 0.3 foot of full pond and develop a Lake Level Plan. That is, the average daily
inflow will nearly equal the average daily outflow. The Project will essentially follow the
Oconaluftee River hydrograph, which is not altered by upstream storage, diversion, or irrigation
projects. The proposed action will provide more protective minimum in-stream flows
downstream of the Bryson Project by requiring higher target minimum flow releases during
maintenance and refill. Maintenance drawdown and refill rates will be described in detail in a
proposed license article. In addition, the Licensee will be required to hold the reservoir stable to
within plus or minus 0.1 foot under most conditions (99 percent of the time), thereby balancing
Project inflows and outflows. Contingency plans allow the Licensee to maintain 204 cfs
(September median inflow).
The East Fork and West Fork Projects will continue to be operated as storage/peaking facilities,
though the proposed action will provide more protective minimum in-stream flows. Minimum
flows from the West Fork Project combine with those from the East Fork Project at the
confluence of the West Fork Tuckasegee River and the East Fork Tuckasegee River to the
Tuckasegee River to total 30 cfs from December 1 through June 30 of each year and 55 cfs from
July 1 through November 30. This combined minimum flow regime will be in addition to other
tributary accretions, thereby increasing the minimum wetted area of suitable habitat for the
Appalachian elktoe. In addition, the Licensee will schedule generation to provide flows to
within the middle Tuckasegee River to coincide with peak whitewater or angling recreation
under most conditions. In-stream flows are described in detail in the license application,
TCSTSA, and final EA.
The installation and provision of operating funds for the USGS "real time" gages at Moody
Bridge and Barkers Creek will allow the East Fork and West Fork Projects to more accurately
monitor discharge, which should translate into better management of downstream flows and
maintenance of the proposed minimum flow targets. All these measures will be monitored and
enforced under the terms of the TCSTSA and the licenses.
The combined in-stream flows will reduce impacts of the East Fork and West Fork Projects to
Tuckasegee River habitats used by the Appalachian elktoe, providing slightly more water into
the Lower Tuckasegee River, which is expected to have a positive effect on mussel spawning,
recruitment, and growth as well as abundance and diversity of fish host populations.
Thermal Alteration. Virtually all biological and ecological processes are affected by water
temperature. Temperature not only directly influences chemical equilibria, but invertebrate and
fish communities are also extremely sensitive to temperature (Clarkson and Childs 2000). In
terms of impacts on biota, water temperature has direct but often subtle effects on life history
31
timing, habitat suitability, growth rates, rates of infection, mortality from disease and toxic
chemicals, and increased exposure to both native and nonnative aquatic predators better adapted
to warm-water temperatures. Impacts of hydroelectric project operations on the natural
temperature regime of riverine sites may sometimes be related to changes in riparian shading due
to tree clearing for roads, power lines, and other facilities. However, the primary impacts on
temperature are related to alterations in water surface area, depth, and velocity due to water
diversions into or out of the stream corridor (Moog 1993). Changes in the water prism along a
stream reach influence the balance of heat flux into (e.g., solar radiation, air convection, ground
conduction) and out of (e.g., nighttime reradiation, evaporative cooling, and ground conduction)
the reach. These impacts are even more pronounced at reservoir sites, where the ratio of water
surface area to reservoir volume is much smaller than that found in riverine sites, which alters
the rates and balance of heat exchange with the surrounding environment. The hypolimnetic
deep-water intakes at the East Fork and West Fork developments result in discharges that are
colder than normal from April through September (Duke Power 2004a, 2004b).
Disturbance Duration, Frequency, and Intensity - Again, two distinct situations will have
adverse effects on the Appalachian elktoe: (1) continued operation of the East Fork and West
Fork Projects and (2) demolition of the Dillsboro Dam. Continued operation of the East Fork
and West Fork Projects will be most pronounced during extremes periods of stream-flow
regulation, almost daily. Depression of the thermal characteristics of the Tuckasegee River is
more pronounced during generation and seasonally during the summer, when discharged water is
colder than ambient, attenuating downstream from the East Fork and West Fork powerhouses.
These effects are ongoing and limit the upstream extent of occupied habitat. However, it is
anticipated that these effects will not increase under the new flow regime. Rather, they will be
indiscernible or will extend only slightly less distance downstream. The continued operation of
these Projects is anticipated for the 30-year term of the new licenses. Demolition of the
Dillsboro Dam will include disturbance to the riverbed and will be of relatively short duration.
Initially, there will be a relocation of mussels from the immediate vicinity of the Dillsboro Dam.
Riverbed disturbance and increased turbidity will then occur as work begins in the river.
Riparian vegetation removal will be conducted and stabilized through erosion-control measures
and a combination of hardened work pads or immediate seeding and mulching. In-channel work
will generate variable, yet certainly increased, levels of suspended sediments daily.
Develop Various Monitoring and Work Plans
In conjunction with the surrender and removal of the Dillsboro Dam, the proposed action
requires the Licensee to develop:
1. Detailed Demolition Plan. A plan for demolition of the Dillsboro Dam should be
prepared in coordination with, and approved by, the resource agencies.
2. Sediment Management Plan. Measures associated with demolition of the Dillsboro
Dam may be modified as needed based on results of the sediment removal and
monitoring elements of the sediment management plan.
32
Mussel Relocation Plan. This plan will be developed following a more detailed
survey of the Project tailwaters. It will be developed in close coordination with the
FWS and NCWRC.
As part of the new license for the Bryson Project, the proposed action requires the Licensee to
develop:
Bryson Maintenance and Refill Plan. Under its proposed operations at the Bryson
Project, Duke Power would occasionally draw down the Ela reservoir for
maintenance. Duke Power proposes, in agreement with the resource agencies and
staff, that on those occasions, the September median flow of 204 cfs should be
released downstream during refill of the reservoir. Duke Power also agrees to support
the execution of post-licensing studies to determine a deliverable flow should the
204 cfs prove inappropriate.
Sediment Management Plan. As described in the final EA, a generic plan will be
developed in consultation with the resource agencies and would contain elements,
such as the disposition of large woody debris, sediment characterization, disposal
options, runoff-control plans, protocols for deriving site-specific factors, and
monitoring of removal and disposal activities. The generic sediment management
plan will be supplemented with required site-specific variations (e.g., the proposed
sediment disposal sites and measures to protect adjacent waters, as appropriate, and
monitoring requirements during sediment and debris removal, as well as follow-up
monitoring of disposal sites following stabilization).
As part of the new licenses for the East Fork and West Fork Projects, the proposed action
requires the Licensee to develop:
1. Minimum Flow Plan. The Licensee will prepare this plan for FERC approval within
6 months of licensing. The Licensee will carry out a monitoring program to track and
report near-term implementation of flow releases. This information will be used to
monitor compliance with the terms of the license and ensure proper maintenance.
This extensive program of monitoring will ensure that measures taken to protect
natural resources, including the Appalachian elktoe, are implemented.
B. Analyses of Effects of the Action
Potential Beneficial Effects
The demolition and stabilization of the Dillsboro Dam site will have some temporary negative
impacts, but is also intended to have long-term beneficial effects. Specifically, FERC has
described the following beneficial effects resulting from these Projects:
1. Restoration of 0.9 mile of the Tuckasegee River currently inundated by the Dillsboro
reservoir.
33
2. Increased minimum flows from the East Fork and West Fork Projects into the
Tuckasegee River
Direct Impacts - Actions that may result in direct impacts include the operation of equipment in
the channel, construction of temporary work access for the demolition and installation of the
channel structures in the stream, resuspension of fine sediments during removal of sediment,
removal of woody debris, land-clearing for access, potential toxic spills, the removal of
temporary structures after construction, and the potential change in stream-flow velocities or
sediment transport capacities on a microscale. All of these activities have the potential to kill or
injure mussels, either by crushing them, poisoning them with the release of some toxic
substance, or causing siltation that may suffocate them or disrupt, alter, or interrupt feeding or
spawning activity. Translocation of individual mussels, though intended to minimize the
potential adverse effects of demolition activities, will have an effect in itself. These actions may
result in direct harm to individuals or negative changes in currently suitable habitat.
Substrate Disturbance and/or Habitat Loss - Preliminary plans for demolition indicate that work
will be accomplished primarily from the top of the dam and from the stream bank, although
some work in the stream channel will occur. The impact of this work will be limited in duration
and scope to those areas that have already been surveyed and from which mussels have been
relocated. The preliminary plans propose the reestablishment of the stream-channel
configuration to that similar to conditions prior to the impoundment so there will be a net gain of
0.9-mile of stream habitat.
Sedimentation and/or Siltation Impacts - Because of the topography and the erodible nature of
the soils in the Project area (fine loamy soils with moderate erodibility), Project demolition has
the potential to result in sedimentation in the Tuckasegee River. To minimize the potential for
sedimentation, Duke Power has developed specific erosion-control measures, including a
detailed construction sequence, phased drawdown, turbidity monitoring, and bank stabilization
for this Project that are designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Sediment inputs
from demolition activities should be of relatively short duration. However, if sediment transport
occurs in waves, it could be sequentially significant. The proposed demolition activities will
probably require no more than 2 weeks for completion (depending on weather and stream flows).
However, demolition may require longer or be extended based on conditions or circumstances
that develop at the time.
Indirect Impacts - Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the proposed action and
are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects to the
Appalachian elktoe may include permanent changes in channel substrate or stability that
adversely affect the availability of suitable habitat downstream of the demolition activities.
Additional indirect effects could result from infrastructure improvements and any resulting
changes that could have land development impacts outside the Project area. Careful
implementation of the demolition plans, including work access, should reduce permanent
impacts to Tuckasegee River habitat. Given that the Dillsboro Dam demolition will involve
removal of the dam, followed by the stabilization of existing stream banks at the dam and
reservoir, it is unlikely that the removal will result in changes in adjacent land uses or other
indirect effects not already described.
34
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions - An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the
proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent
activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation. A
determination of whether other activities are interrelated to, or interdependent with, the proposed
action under consultation is made by applying a "but for" test. That is, it must be determined
that the other activity under question would not occur "but for" the proposed action under
consultation. There are no other projects planned that would satisfy the "but for" test; therefore,
there are no interrelated or interdependent actions that should be considered in this Opinion.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Action Area
Cumulative effects include the combined effects of any future state, local, or private actions that
are reasonably certain to occur within the action area covered in this Opinion. Future federal
actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they
require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Projects (TIP). Numerous TIP projects are planned for the
Tuckasegee River subbasin. These include rural projects, bridge replacements, repaving of state
and U.S. routes, and secondary road improvements (see Table 3). Many of these projects
involve federal funds or permits and will undergo separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of
the ESA.
Cherokee Casino. The Cherokee Casino and Hotel/Conference Center was opened by the EBCI
in 1997. Subsequently expanded, the casino is the single largest influence shaping recent
economic trends in the Tuckasegee River subbasin. The casino has become the area's largest
employer. Through its local purchases of goods and services and expenditures by the more than
3.3 million visitors annually, the casino indirectly supports many more jobs in construction,
lodging and food service establishments, trade, and the services sector. Gaming-related revenues
have allowed tribal operations to expand, funded infrastructure investments, and added services
and programs.
Relocation of Great Smoky Mountains Railroad Headquarters to Bryson City. The Great Smoky
Mountains Railroad is headquartered in Dillsboro, near the confluence of Scotts Creek with the
Tuckasegee River. Each year more than 200,000 passengers enjoy the scenery aboard the
excursion trains. American Heritage Railways purchased the Great Smoky Mountains Railroad
in December of 1999. The Great Smoky Mountains Railway operates today as the newly
organized Great Smoky Mountains Railroad. In 2005, the railroad ran 932 excursions. The
Great Smoky Mountains Railroad has renewed the Dillsboro community's downtown district. It
is expected that the Great Smoky Mountains Railroad headquarters will be relocated to
downtown Bryson City soon and will have a similar revitalizing effect there. Implementation of
a strategic relocation plan has begun with the renovation of an existing building near the Bryson
City depot to include a combination of ground-floor retail and second-floor offices for the
35
Table 3. Transportation Improvement Program.

LOCATION

ID NO.

DESCRIPTION COST
LENGTH ESTIMATE
(mi) ($k)

SCHEDULE
JACKSQNCO"TY
RURAL PROJECTS
US 19 SR 1152 (HUGHES BRANCH ROAD)
IN BRYSON CITY TO US 441
NORTH IN CHEROKEE, UPGRADE
R-4751 ROADWAY. 9.0 93100 POST YEARS
US 19 CHEROKEE RESERVATION,
R-4758 SLOPE STABILIZATION. 0.3 4300 SFY 06
US 23, US 74 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
R-4412 GUARDRAIL. 750 FFY 07
US 25-176 REHABILITATION, UPGRADE
SUBSTANDARD.
CONNECTOR GUARDRAIL, END TREATMENTS,
AND BRIDGE ANCHOR UNITS.
US 64 NC 107 AT CASHIERS TO US 178
AT ROSMAN, SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS AND CLIMBING
LANES AT SELECTED
R-2409 LOCATIONS. 4426
NC 107 SR 1002 TO NC 281, UPGRADE
R-4753 EXISTING ROADWAY. 4.1 19400
NC 281
(LITTLE SR 1756 IN JACKSON COUNTY TO
CAMNADA, NORTH OF SR 1307 IN
LAKE TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, PAVE
TOXAWAY) TO SECONDARY ROAD
FH 3 R-619 STANDARDS. 14.7 17269
NEW SYLVA/DILLSBORO SOUTHERN
LOCATION LOOP, US 23-441 SOUTH OF
DILLSBORO TO US 23-74 EAST OF
SYLVA, CONSTRUCT
MULTI-LANE FREEWAY ON NEW
R-4745 LOCATION. 7.5 220000
BLUE RIDGE PRA-BLRI 2Y11, REHABILITATE
PARKWAY LICKSTONE AND BUNCHES BALD
R-4728 TUNNELS. 670
QUALLA S5240103. HYATT COVE ROAD,
BOUNDARY R-4709 RECONSTRUCTION. 6.3 880
QUALLA S5240105. WATERFALL CHURCH
BOUNDARY R-4711 ROAD, RECONSTRUCTION. 0.1 345
QUALLA S5280300. SMITH ROAD,
BOUNDARY R-4716 RECONSTRUCTION 0.3 10
WESTERN SR 1325 (CENTENNIAL DRIVE),
CAROLINA NC 107 TO EAST OF SR 1330
UNIVERSITY (FOREST HILLS DRIVE),
RELOCATE ROADWAY THROUGH
CAMPUS AND IMPROVE MAIN
R-4465 ENTRANCE TO CAMPUS. 0.4 2300
GUARDRAIL INSTALLATION AND
VARIOUS R-4048 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. 1405 1155
FEDERAL BRIDGE PROJECTS
US 23-74 SR 1705, SOUTHERN RAILROAD,
SCOTT CREEK, REHABILITATE
B-4554 BRIDGE NO. 145. 1730 300
NC 107 EAST FORK TUCKASEGEE RIVER,
B-3480 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39. 2130 305
SR 1002 TUCKESEGEA RIVER, REPLACE
B-4159 DECK ON BRIDGE NO. 108. 540 100
SR 1002 TUCKASEGEE RIVER, REPLACE
B-4160 DECK BRIDGE NO. 82. 1585 100
SR 1107 NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST,
FH 82 PFH 1107(7), NORTON MILL
B-4347 CREEK, REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 3. 290 40
SR 1120 CEDAR CREEK, REPLACE BRIDGE FFY 07
B-4768 NO. 8. 440 FFY 08
SR 1120 CEDAR CREEK, REPLACE BRIDGE FFY 06
B-4769 NO. 10. 440 FFY 07
SR 1131 TROUT CREEK, REPLACE BRIDGE FFY 07
B-3667 NO. 47 AND BRIDGE NO. 48. 996 996 FFY 07
SR 1132 TUCKASEGEE RIVER, REPLACE
B-4161 BRIDGE NO. 211. 716 100
SR 1388 NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST,
FH 79 PFH 1388(1), DICK'S CREEK,
B-4348 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 156. 340 80
SR 1388 FH NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST,
79 PFH 1388(2), DICK'S CREEK,
B-4349 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 36. 250 80
SR 1432 SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REPLACE FFY 07
B-4162 BRIDGE NO. 320. 970 200 FFY 08
SR 1437 SCOTTS CREEK, REPLACE FFY 07
B-4163 BRIDGE NO. 123. 700 150 FFY 08
SR 1731 TUCKASEGEE RIVER, REPLACE
B-3861 BRIDGE NO. 107. 680 150
SR 1737 NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST,
B-4472 PFH 102-1(1). 500 500 FFY06
FH 102 CANEY CREEK, REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 80.
SR 1737 NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST,
B-4612 PFH 102-1(1). 480 480 FFY06
FH 102 CANEY CREEK, REPLACE BRIDGE
NO. 79.
SR 1756 NANTAHALA FOREST,
B-3275 SECTION A, PFH 58-1(1). 2226 1426
37
CHARLIE REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 76
CREEK (CHARLEYS CREEK).SECTION B,
ROAD PFH 58-1(2), REPLACE BRIDGE NO.
(FH 58) 167 (WOLF CREEK) AND BRIDGE
NO. 225 (SOLS CREEK) AND
SECTION C, PFH 58-1(3), REPLACE
BRIDGE NO. 294 (GAGE CREEK)
AND BRIDGE NO. 304,
TANNASSEE CREEK.
VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
FOR BRIDGE PROJECTS IN
B-4914 DIVISION 14.
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
CULLOWHE CULLOWHEE GREENWAY
E CONNECTOR, CULLOWHEE
VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AND SR 1329 (LYLE WILSON
ROAD) TO SR 1330 (COUNTRY
CLUB DRIVE) PROVIDING
ACCESS TO WESTERN CAROLINA
E-4823 UNIVERSITY.
JACKSON PHASE I: CONSTRUCT SCOTTS
COUNTY CREEK GREENWAY, SYLVA TO
E-4971 DILLSBORO.
SYLVA PHASE A: RENOVATION AND/OR
CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES IN THE MILL STREET
AREA OF DOWNTOWN. IMPROVE
MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT ON
RAILROAD AVENUE,
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER
SCOTTS CREEK AND
STREETSCAPING ON MILL
E-4824 STREET.
VARIOUS BLUE RIDGE NATIONAL
HERITAGE SITES,
INTERPRETATIVE AND
E-4975 GATEWAY MARKERS.
HAZARD ELIMINATION PROJECTS
EAST OF SR 1391 TO
SR 1514/SR 1387, REMOVE AND
US 74-441 W-4713 REPLACE CONCRETE ISLAND.
REMOVE AND REPLACE
CONCRETE ISLAND.
HAYWOOD COUNTY LINE TO
NC 28 (NORTH), INSTALL MILLED
RUMBLE STRIPS ON THE MEDIAN
US 74 W-4846 AND SHOULDERS.
2025
22
79
2025
22
163 15
533
5600 200
193 CONSTRUCTION
FFY 07
FFY 07
FFY 06
FFY 08
FFY 07
FFY 07
FFY 06
FFY 07
FFY 07
FFY 08
FFY 07
38
RURAL PROJECTS
US 19 SR 1152 (HUGHES BRANCH ROAD)
IN BRYSON CITY TO US 441
NORTH IN CHEROKEE, UPGRADE
R-4751 ROADWAY. 9.0 93100
US 23, US 74, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
US 25-176 GUARDRAIL REHABILITATION,
CONNECTOR UPGRADE SUBSTANDARD
GUARDRAIL, END TREATMENTS
R-4412 AND BRIDGE ANCHOR UNITS. 750 FFY 07
US 74 CORRIDOR "K," US 19-74-129 AT
ANDREWS TO NC 28 EAST OF
ALMOND, FOUR LANE DIVIDED
FACILITY, PRIMARILY ON NEW
A-9* LOCATION. 27.1 792577
SR 1364/SR SR 1369 (BYRD ROAD) IN MACON
1114 COUNTY TO EXISTING IN
NEEDMORE PAVEMENT IN SWAIN COUNTY, PROGRESS
ROAD UPGRADE TO SECONDARY ROAD FFY 07 POST
R-4440 STANDARDS. 3.3 1615 YEARS
GREAT PHASE A - PRA-GRSM 1B17,
SMOKY REHABILITATE NEWFOUND GAP
MOUNTAINS ROAD. PHASE B - PRA-GRSM
NATIONAL 1B19, REHABILITATE NEWFOUND
PARK R-4730 GAP ROAD. 16600
QUALLA S5240104. CODY LAMBERT ROAD,
BOUNDARY R-4710 RECONSTRUCTION. 0.1 310
QUALLA S5271197. OLD NO.4 STAND,
BOUNDARY R-4713 RECONSTRUCTION. 0.2 10
QUALLA S5280100. BOYD CATOLSTER,
BOUNDARY R-4714 RECONSTRUCTION 0.2 10 FFY 06
QUALLA S5280200. OLLIE JUMPER ROAD,
BOUNDARY R-4715 RECONSTRUCTION. 0.7 871
VARIOUS GUARDRAIL INSTALLATION AND
R-4048 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. 1405 1155
FEDERAL BRIDGE PROJECTS
US 19-74 NANTAHALA RIVER, REPLACE
B-4286 BRIDGE NO. 3. 1365 100
US 19-441 OCONALUFTEE RIVER, REPLACE
BUS. B-4696 BRIDGE NO. 24. 3000 200 FFY 06
SR 1100 NANTAHALA RIVER, REPLACE
BRIDGE NO. 99 AND BRIDGE
B-4287 NO. 100. 945 100 FFY08, 09
SR 1309 ALARKA CREEK, REPLACE
B-3701 BRIDGE NO. 106. 1458 308 FFY 07
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
FOR BRIDGE PROJECTS IN
VARIOUS B-4914 DIVISION 14. 2025 2025
39
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
US 19 NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST,
UPGRADE PULL-OFF AT TEN
SITES (SITES 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13,
AND 14) IN THE NANTAHALA
E-4825 GORGE. 31 31 FFY 07
US 19 IMPROVEMENTS TO SCENIC
OVERLOOK SITE #6 ON US 19 IN
E-4969 THE NANTAHALA GORGE. 75 FFY 07
BRYSON PHASE C: EVERETT STREET,
CITY MAIN STREET TO DEPOT STREET.
PHASE D: MITCHELL STREET,
EVERETT STREET TO SLOPE
E-4588 STREET, STREETSCAPE. 627 627 FFY 07
BRYSON DEPOT STREET, EVERETT STREET
CITY TO COLLINS STREET,
E-4972 STREETSCAPING. 169 FFY 07
CHEROKEE CONSTRUCT VISITOR
RESERVATI CENTER/TOURISM INFORMATION
ON BUILDING IN THE BUSINESS
DISTRICT ON THE CHEROKEE
E-4586 RESERVATION. 125 125 FFY 07
VARIOUS BLUE RIDGE NATIONAL
HERITAGE SITES,
INTERPRETATIVE AND
E-4975 GATEWAY MARKERS. 533 FFY 07
MOUNTAIN
WATERS
NATIONAL SCENIC BEAUTIFICATION,
SCENIC MOUNTAIN WATERS NATIONAL IN
BYWAY 61.3 SCENIC BYWAY. 16 PROGRESS
VARIOUS MOUNTAIN WATERS NATIONAL
S-4001 SCENIC BYWAY, SIGNING. 61.3 16
HAZARD ELIMINATION PROJECTS
US 19 SR 1152 (HUGHES BRANCH
ROAD), CONSTRUCT LEFT TURN
SI-4815 LANE. 100
US 74 HAYWOOD COUNTY LINE TO
NC 28 (NORTH), INSTALL MILLED
RUMBLE STRIPS ON THE MEDIAN
W-4846 AND OUTSIDE SHOULDERS. 193
SR 1323
SLOPE MITCHELL STREET, INSTALL RIGHT-OF-WAY
STREET SI-4816 TRAFFIC SIGNAL. 155 CONSTRUCTION
company's administrative functions. Those functions expect to relocate within the year. Future
plans include additional redevelopment of existing buildings, construction of a roundhouse and
turntable for the storage and maintenance of the company's locomotives and rolling stock, a
hotel/motel, and expanded parking. Full implementation will be a long-term endeavor, requiring
10 or more years. However, even prior to full implementation, Bryson City will become the
primary terminal for most of the scheduled excursions. That change will dramatically increase
40
the number of people and traffic in downtown Bryson City, lengthen the duration of their visits,
and provide an economic infusion that would ripple across the downtown landscape, stimulating
new business start-ups, reinvestment in existing structures, and new development on the lower
Tuckasegee River. The relocation will relieve some traffic in the Dillsboro area, though much of
the tourist traffic is expected to remain.
Private Development (Outside the Project Boundary). With its outstanding scenic and
recreational resources, western North Carolina has long been host to many second homes for use
on a seasonal or occasional basis. Development in Jackson and Swain Counties, which has
increased in recent years, includes substantial retirement and second-home construction, intended
primarily for seasonal or occasional occupancy. Meeting the needs and wishes of the owners and
guests of these units, in addition to those of traditional tourists, is seen as becoming a driving
force for economic development and redevelopment in Swain and Graham Counties and
elsewhere in the region. There are several certified industrial sites in the Tuckasegee River
subbasin (Table 4) promoted by regional and local economic development organizations through
long-term incentives and tax advantages for companies who make investments in the
community, create jobs, and provide worker training.
Table 4. Certified Industrial Sites and Buildings in the
Tuckasegee River Subbasin.
Site Name
Swain County #2
Swain County #2
Jackson Industrial Site - Whittier
Bernice C. Gough Property
Hidden Valley
Brendle Site
Green
Building Name
Carolina Mountain Antiques
Ashley Building
Tuckaseigee Mills
City County Acreage
Bryson City Swain 9.34
Bryson City Swain 9.34
Whittier Jackson 11
Sylva Jackson 19
Sylva Jackson 29.7
Bryson City Swain 30
Bryson City Swain 99.1
Sq. Footage
Whittier Jackson 14339
Sylva Jackson 23324
Sylva Jackson 101000
Tuckaseigee Mills2 Bryson City Swain 117262
*Source: AdvantageWest - North Carolina - http://www.awnc.org
Other Trends. As demonstrated by the designation of western North Carolina as the Blue Ridge
National Heritage Area, heritage tourism plays an important role in the regional economy.
Tourism and recreation visitation are the major drivers of long-term economic growth across the
region. While the number of visitors to the area is not expected to see large year-over-year
41
increases, expenditures by those who do visit the area are expected to rise. The number of
touring motorcyclists, which increased in the study area region over the last 10 to 15 years, can
be expected to remain a part of the tourism market for the foreseeable future.
Continued residential development could have the potential to significantly impact the
Tuckasegee River subbasin and the Appalachian elktoe. However, given the uncertainty of this
action, we will not address residential development further in this Opinion. We are not aware of
any other future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the
action area that would not be subject to section 7 reviews. Therefore, cumulative effects, as
defined by the ESA, will not occur and will not be addressed further in this Opinion.
Cumulative Impacts of Incidental Take Anticipated by the FWS in Previously Issued Biological
Opinions.
In reaching a decision as to whether the implementation of activities outlined in the BA are likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe, we must factor into our analysis
previous biological opinions issued involving the species, especially those opinions where
incidental take was presented as the area of habitat disturbed. All previously issued biological
opinions involving the Appalachian elktoe involved activities in other subbasins. All of these
opinions have been nonjeopardy, and they assessed the amount of take to be "minimal."
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status of the Appalachian elktoe; the environmental baseline for the
action area; the effects of relicensing the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Hydroelectric
Projects and the removal of the Dillsboro Dam; measures identified in the final EA and BA to
help minimize the potential impacts of the proposed Projects and assist in the protection,
management, and recovery of the species; previously issued FWS nonjeopardy biological
opinions that allow various levels of incidental take; any potential interrelated and
interdependent actions associated with the proposed action; and any potential cumulative effects,
it is the FWS's biological opinion that implementing these Projects is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe. Critical habitat will not be adversely affected or
destroyed by implementing these Projects as proposed.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the
taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the FWS to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is
defined by the FWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to
listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns that include,
42
but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not for the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under
the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as
part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the ESA, provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.
Amount of Take Anticipated
We anticipate that incidental take of the Appalachian elktoe may occur as a result of the
continued operation of the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Hydroelectric Projects and as a
result of demolition activities associated with the decommissioning and removal of the Dillsboro
Dam. During operation of the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Hydroelectric Projects,
hypolimnetic discharges will continue to alter the natural flow regime and limit the upstream
extent of cool-water habitat. During demolition, individual mussels may be crushed, harmed by
siltation or other water quality degradation, or dislocated because of physical changes in their
habitat.
Operation of the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Hydroelectric Projects. During operation of
the East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson Hydroelectric Projects, hypolimnetic discharges will
continue to alter the natural flow regime and limit the upstream extent of cool-water habitat.
Even with the proposed minimum flow regime (an improvement that will minimize take)
(Travnicheck et al. 1995), some areas of habitat will be altered daily as peaking occurs.
Adult Appalachian Elktoes:
Harassment - Harassment, as defined above, will be permitted for 100 percent of
individuals occupying the East Fork and West Fork tailwaters to the Fontana reservoir
and for 100 percent of the individuals used for long-term monitoring purposes. The FWS
expects that the most common form of harassment will be the altering of normal feeding,
spawning, and siphoning behavior. This form of harassment is expected to occur for the
term of the new licenses. This form of harassment is not above and beyond the level of
harassment that is currently resulting from the operation of the Projects. Each mussel is
affected to some degree by this form of harassment. This form of harassment is not
expected to negatively impact Tuckasegee River basin population numbers beyond the
current level; rather, it will continue to limit the longitudinal and lateral distribution of
the species.
Mortality - Mortality is not expected to occur due to operational, maintenance, or
emergency operational changes in tailwater discharges that depart from the proposed
minimum flow levels and the proposed reregulation. The level of lethal incidental take
resulting from these activities is estimated to be zero. Potential mortality associated with
any no-standard operations during demolition of the Dillsboro Dam is addressed below.
43
Juvenile Appalachian Elktoes:
Harassment - Harassment, as defined above, will be permitted for 100 percent of the
individuals affected by stream-flow alterations during demolition and for 100 percent of
the individuals displaced from the substrate but later located in suitable habitat. The
FWS anticipates that the most common form of harassment will be the altering of normal
feeding behavior and depression of initial growth. This form of harassment is not
expected to negatively impact the population numbers or distribution above the current
level.
Mortality - Mortality is anticipated to be limited to a small number of the total number of
individuals dislodged and transported into unsuitable habitat during peak generation,
including potentially suitable habitat that is periodically desiccated during low-flow
periods. Mortality is likely to occur on the exposed gravel bars. The level of lethal
incidental take resulting from these activities cannot be reasonably estimated or
quantified at this time and therefore is defined as unquantifiable.
Dillsboro Dam Demolition. Within the "footprint" of the proposed dam demolition, the
streambed will be impacted by construction equipment or access structures placed in the river.
Downstream impacts (sedimentation) are expected close to the demolition sites and will extend
throughout the regulated Tuckasegee River and into the Fontana reservoir. Because there are
limited data on the number of Appalachian elktoes buried in the substrate compared to those on
the surface (and even those on the surface are difficult to detect), it is not possible to base the
amount of incidental take on numbers of individual mussels (except those relocated and
monitored as part of the plan). The Licensee has requested that the Commission limit its
responsibilities regarding the Appalachian elktoe mussel to its proposal to relocate the part of the
population currently located downstream of the Dillsboro Dam to an area upstream of the
reservoir in order to minimize the effects of dam removal on the population. Instead of requiring
the propagation of juvenile mussels and the release of host species as recommended in the EA,
Duke Power has requested that it be allowed to determine jointly with FWS and NCWRC the
best alternatives to address the possibility of the relocation plan being unsuccessful. The final
EA noted that the potential impact of moving the individual mussels below the Dillsboro Dam to
an area upstream will be scrutinized in a mussel protection plan. The draft plan is, at best,
conceptual in nature; therefore, assessing the specific effects of these measures and alternatives
associated with the plan in more detail would be speculative and premature at this time. The
actual level of incidental take will be estimated based on the results of a more detailed, updated
mussel survey of the Dillsboro tailwater area, including the entire reach of the Tuckasegee River
upstream of the Tuckasegee Gorge, to at least the railroad trestle (RM 30.3), as well as
representative sample reaches at regular intervals from the Gorge to the Fontana reservoir.
Adult Appalachian Elktoes:
Harassment - Harassment, as defined above, will be permitted for 100 percent of the
individuals collected and relocated from the Dillsboro tailwaters to the relocation sites
identified above the Dillsboro reservoir and for 100 percent of the individuals used for
long-term monitoring purposes. The FWS expects that the most common form of
44
harassment will be the altering of normal feeding, spawning, and siphoning behavior.
This form of harassment is not expected to negatively impact Tuckasegee River basin
population numbers.
Mortality - Mortality is anticipated to be limited to 50 percent of the individuals relocated
and all adults in the immediate demolition area that are missed during the relocation,
from the Dillsboro tailwaters to upstream sites above the Project for the first year after
initiation of relocation and shall not exceed 10 percent thereafter.
Mortality is likely to occur on a small number of individuals used for long-term
monitoring, sampling for pathogens, and reservoir passage and possibly other elements of
Project operations. The level of lethal incidental take resulting from these activities or
those that are downstream of the relocation area and affected by increased sedimentation
and scour cannot be reasonably estimated or quantified at this time and therefore is
defined as unquantifiable.
Juvenile Appalachian Elktoes:
Harm and harassment - Harm and harassment, as defined above, will be permitted for
100 percent of the individuals affected by sediment redeposition and stream-flow
alterations during demolition and for 100 percent of individuals displaced from suitable
substrate. The FWS anticipates that the most common form of harassment will be the
altering of normal feeding behavior. This form of harassment is not expected to
negatively impact the population numbers.
Mortality - Mortality shall be limited to small number of individuals of the total number
of individuals affected by deposition of the bedload, those dislodged and transported into
unsuitable habitat during demolition and the associated flow regulation above and below
the Dillsboro Dam. Mortality is likely to occur. The level of lethal incidental take
resulting from these activities cannot be reasonably estimated or quantified at this time
and therefore is defined as unquantifiable. However, the temporal scale, though
uncertain and experimental in nature, will be limited to less than two age classes.
Adaptive management will be employed to reduce the effects of sediment redistribution.
As soon as each dam section is successively removed, higher flows will likely begin
moving bedload material that was not removed prior to demolition into the channel
downstream from the site. Initially, much of this material would be fine-grained silt and
sand because it could be moved more easily than cobbles and other large particles.
Modeling suggests that fine sand could travel all the way to the mouth of the Tuckasegee
River.
EFFECT OF THE TAKE
In this Opinion we have determined that this level of take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the
Appalachian elktoe.
45
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
We believe the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take of the Appalachian elktoe. These nondiscretionary measures
include, but are not limited to, the terms and conditions outlined in this Opinion. They must be
implemented as binding conditions for the exemption in section 7(a)(2) to apply. FERC has the
continuing duty to regulate the activities covered in this incidental take statement. If FERC fails
to require the Licensee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement
through enforceable terms that are in the license or fails to retain the oversight to ensure
compliance with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may
lapse. Activities carried out in a manner consistent with these RPMs, except those otherwise
identified, will not necessitate further site-specific consultation. Activities that do not comply
with all relevant RPMs will require further consultation.
1. Project operation and demolition activities shall be implemented consistent with
measures developed to protect the Appalachian elktoe, including those designed to
maintain, improve, or enhance its habitat.
2. FERC, its Licensee, and/or their consultants will remove Appalachian elktoes from
the immediate vicinity of the Dillsboro tailwater site and relocate them to suitable
locations agreed to by the FWS, according to the procedures of a mussel translocation
plan developed by FERC, its Licensee, and/or their consultants and approved by the
FWS.
3. FERC, its Licensee, and/or consultants will monitor the river channel and banks at
sites upstream, at the demolition sites, and downstream to determine changes in
habitat resulting from activities at these sites, according to the procedures of a mussel
monitoring plan developed by FERC, its Licensee, and/or their consultants and
approved by the FWS.
4. FERC, its Licensee, and/or consultants will protect riparian areas along the
Tuckasegee River and its major tributaries within the Project boundaries of the
Dillsboro Project, and wherever Project activities are conducted, through
conservation easements held by an appropriate land conservation organization.
Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, FERC must include in the
new license, or otherwise comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the
reasonable and prudent measures described previously and outline required reporting and/or
monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary and apply to the
Tuckasegee River subbasin.
1. The Licensee will notify the FWS at least 2 weeks in advance of demolition so
that a biologist from our staff can be present at the preconstruction meeting to
46
cover permit conditions and discuss any questions the contractor has regarding
implementation of these measures in order to minimize impacts or to avoid the
take of Appalachian elktoes.
2. FERC and its Licensee will ensure that a qualified aquatics biologist is present
at critical times to monitor certain phases of demolition of the Dillsboro Dam,
including, but not limited to, initial clearing, when any in-channel work is
conducted, and when temporary work accesses are removed.
3. Upon completion of demolition of the Dillsboro Dam, the temporary access
fills will be removed to the natural grade, and the area will be planted with
native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
4. Activities in the floodplain will be limited to those absolutely necessary to
conduct the demolition. Areas used for borrow, demolition, or construction
by-products will not be located in wetlands or the 100-year floodplain. No
stone or fill materials will be obtained or purchased from any unauthorized
floodplain or in-channel sources.
5. All construction equipment should be refueled outside the 100-year floodplain
or at least 200 feet from all water bodies (whichever distance is greater) and
should be protected with secondary containment. Hazardous materials, fuel,
lubricating oils, or other chemicals will be stored outside the 100-year
floodplain or at least 200 feet from all water bodies (whichever distance is
greater), preferably at an upland site.
6. Riparian vegetation, especially large trees, will be maintained within the
Project boundaries to the maximum extent possible.
7. If riparian areas are disturbed, they will be revegetated with native woody
species as soon as possible.
8. The relocation of mussels at the Dillsboro Dam and tailwater vicinity will
occur during low flow (likely early summer), after Appalachian elktoe
spawning; exact dates to be determined in consultation with the FWS and
NCWRC.
9. Demolition of the Dillsboro Dam will occur during low flow (likely early
summer), after Appalachian elktoe discharge of glochidia; exact dates to be
determined in consultation with the FWS and NCWRC.
10. The Licensee will provide an opportunity for the FWS to review and approve
the plans for mussel relocation, developed and implemented by FERC and its
Licensee, for the Appalachian elktoe in the Tuckasegee River. The plan will
detail appropriate collection methods, tagging and recapture, handling and
47
transportation of individuals, relocation after demolition, and monitoring
protocols.
11. FERC or Licensee will provide a report to the FWS for each monitoring
period outlined in the relocation plan. In addition, a complete report of the
data taken during the relocation and a visual survey 1 month after relocation
will be required.
12. The Licensee will develop a detailed demolition plan that addresses the timing,
methods, and disposition for dam removal. Due diligence should be used to contain
demolition materials and remove them from the river. A standard oil boom should be
in place downstream of the dam prior to reservoir drawdown or any other attempts to
remove the Project works with power equipment. Provisions should be made to
dispose of any material collected on the boom.
13. Drawdown rates should not vary more than 20 percent from the inflow to the
reservoir. During drawdown, the outflow of the reservoir should be no more than
20 percent above the inflow. We recommend that the Licensee maintain regular
estimates of the total inflow to the reservoir base during drawdown and more often
during upstream generation changes and/or precipitation events in the headwaters. If
there are changes in the estimated inflow to the reservoir, the gates should be adjusted
accordingly.
14. During drawdown, turbidity readings should be collected at two points and should be
compared every quarter hour, one at the inflow to the reservoir and the other
immediately downstream of the reservoir, probably upstream of Scotts Creek. We
will then be able to detect increases in turbidity from within the reservoir. Increases
of reservoir outflow greater than 20 NTU above reservoir inflow should trigger a
pause in the drawdown to allow fine sediments to settle and be removed.
Additionally, a silt curtain should be used to contain sediment within the reservoir
and immediately downstream. All sediments captured by the silt curtain will be
removed to an approved location outside the stream.
15. Because no vegetation will be present on the newly exposed shoreline along the
margins of the Dillsboro reservoir, appropriate measures should be taken (as it is
exposed), to minimize the erosion of these disturbed areas, to stabilize them as soon
as possible, and to establish vegetation as soon as these areas are ready for it. More
than likely, the emerging slopes of the river valley would be stabilized and
revegetated in bands as the water level is being lowered in the reservoir. Some
erosion from these areas will occur in spite of the control measures, largely because
vegetation will not provide its maximum protection until between 5 and 10 years after
it was planted. In the interim, biodegradable fabrics should be used to stabilize the
areas prone to slumping, caving, or subsidence until they can be stabilized with
vegetation.
48
16. A plan for monitoring the physical characteristics of the river will be reviewed
and agreed to by FERC and the FWS prior to the beginning of demolition,
with enough lead time to record a baseline for the target parameters. The
intent of the monitoring is to characterize any changes to mussel habitat as a
result of the demolition and removal activities. Additionally, a decision to
move the relocated mussels back to their original location will be based, in
part, on the suitability of the habitat after demolition. This monitoring will
provide critical information for making that decision.
17. FERC or its Licensee will provide a report to us for each monitoring period
outlined in the monitoring plan detailed above.
18. Demolition cannot proceed until the FWS has approved the mussel relocation
plan and sediment management plan.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes
of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. The following conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to
minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
1. Pursue funding and partnership opportunities to complete any additional research,
inventory, and monitoring work in order to better understand the distribution and
autecology of the Appalachian elktoe in the Tuckasegee River.
2. Where opportunities exist, work with landowners, the general public, and other
agencies to promote education and information about endangered mussels and their
conservation.
3. Pursue additional buffers and conservation opportunities along the main stem of the
Tuckasegee River and its tributaries, either individually or in concert with other
conservation programs.
4. Explore opportunities to work with local and state water quality officials in order to
minimize or eliminate wastewater and storm-water discharges into the Tuckasegee
River.
5. Fund and/or conduct research necessary for reestablishing the species in suitable
portions of the Oconaluftee River above the Bryson Project and/or other streams from
which the species has been extirpated.
49
Fund or conduct research necessary for determining the number of Appalachian
elktoes necessary for maintaining a viable population (as defined the species'
recovery plan).
7. Implement measures at the East Fork and West Fork Projects to eliminate the effects
of the hypolimnetic discharges from these Projects.
In order to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting
listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any conservation
recommendations.
SUMMARY
In this Opinion, we have analyzed potential effects of the proposed new major licenses for the
East Fork and West Fork Hydroelectric Projects and a subsequent license for the Bryson
Hydroelectric Project. We also have considered in detail the potential effects of the surrender
and demolition of the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project.
We expect that the continued regulation of stream flow and hypolimnetic discharge by the East
Fork and West Fork Hydroelectric Projects will continue to limit the distribution and abundance
of the Appalachian elktoe in the Tuckasegee River. We expect that the removal of the Dillsboro
Dam will benefit the Appalachian elktoe by to reconnecting the subpopulations. We also
acknowledge the potential short-term adverse effects of the demolition and sediment discharge
and the need for more detailed plans of action, to include contingency measures.
Much of our analysis of the effects of the demolition of the Dillsboro Dam relies on the
development of more detailed plans for: (1) mussel relocation and monitoring, (2) sediment
management, and (3) demolition. We expect that with the subsequent development of these
detailed plans, we will amend this Opinion to incorporate the more precise estimates of numbers
of Appalachian elktoes affected by the demolition, measures to minimize take, and the precise
schedule of events.
The following statement describes the potential circumstances for which we would need to
reconsider the effects of the proposed licensing and surrender actions.
REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the final EA and your May 17,
2006, request for formal consultation. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal
consultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the
action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental
take is exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion, (3) the
agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or
critical habitat not considered in this Opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
50
designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of
incidental take is exceeded, any operation causing such take must cease, pending reinitiation.
Consultation should also be reinitiated if new biological information comes to light that
invalidates the assumptions made regarding the biology or distribution of the Appalachian elktoe
in the Tuckasegee River.
If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Mark Cantrell of our staff at 828/258-3939,
Ext. 227, or me, Ext. 223. We have assigned our Log No. 4-2-06-324 to this consultation; please
refer to this number in any future correspondence concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
- original signed -
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Steve Fraley, Aquatic Nongame Coordinator, Western Region, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 50 Trillium Way, Clyde, NC 28721
Mr. William T. Walker, Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Electronic copy to:
Regional Director, FWS, Atlanta, GA (ES, Attention: Mr. Joe Johnston)
Regional Director, FWS, Atlanta, GA (ES, Attention: Ms. Susan Cielinski)
OEPC (Alam, ER 06/0455)
51
Literature Cited
Aldridge, D. W., B. S. Payne, and A. C. Miller. 1987. The effects on intermittent exposure to
suspended solids and turbulence on three species of freshwater mussels. Environmental
Pollution, 1987:17-28.
Bain, M. B., J. T. Finn, and H. E. Booke. 1988. Streamflow regulations and fish community
structure. Ecology 69:382-392.
Bates, J. M. 1962. The impacts of impoundment on the mussel fauna of Kentucky Reservoir,
Tennessee River. Am. Midl. Nat. 68:232-236.
Bellanca, M. A., and D. S. Bailey. 1977. Effects of chlorinated effluents on aquatic ecosystem
in the lower James River. Jour. of Water Pollution Control Federation 49(4):639-645.
Brim Box, J., and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
problems. Jour. Am. Benthol. Soc. 18:99-117.
The Catena Group. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey report for Natural Resources Conservation
Service restoration efforts on the Pigeon River. 18 pp.
Clarkson, R. W., and M. R. Childs. 2000. Temperature effects of hypolimnial-release dams on
early life stages of Colorado River basin big-river fishes. Copeia 2000:402-412.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part 1: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 326:1-101.
Cope, W. G., and D. L. Waller. 1995. Evaluation of freshwater mussel relocation as a
conservation and management strategy. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management,
11:147-155.
Cope, W. G., M. C. Hove, D. L. Waller, D. J. Hornbach, M. R. Bartsch, L. A. Cunningham,
H. L. Dunn, and A. R. Kapuscinski. 2003. Evaluation of relocation of unionid mussels
to in situ refugia. Jour. Moll. Stud. 69:27-34.
Duke Power Company. 2003a. Application for License for the Dillsboro Project.
2003b. Application for License for the Bryson Project.
. 2004a. Application for License for the West Fork Project (No. 2686-032).
. 2004b. Application for License for the East Fork Project (No. 2698-033).
------- 2004c. Application for Surrender of the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project (FERC
No. 2602-007).
52
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc. 2002. Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) survey
on the Tuckasegee River, Whittier, Swain County, North Carolina. Prepared for PSNC
Energy. 5 pp.
2003. Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) survey on the Tuckasegee River,
Whittier, Swain County, North Carolina. Prepared for PSNC Energy. 6 pp.
Fraley, S. J. 2002. Mussel surveys associated with the Duke Power - Nantahala Area relicensing
projects in the Little Tennessee and Hiwassee River systems. Prepared for Duke Power
Company. Tennessee Valley Authority. 40 pp.
Freeman, M. C., Z. H. Bowen, K. D. Bovee, and E. R. Irwin. 2001. Flow and habitat effects on
juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecological Applications
11:179-190.
Fuller, S. L. H. 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pp. 215-273 in C. W. Hart, Jr.,
and S. L. H. Fuller (eds.), pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. Academic
Press, NY.
Gardner, J. A., W. R. Woodall, Jr., A. A. Staats, Jr., and J. F. Napoli. 1976. The invasion of the
Asiatic clam in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Nautilus 90(3):117-125.
Gordon, M. E. 1991. Species account for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana).
Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy. 5 pp.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment effluents on
mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. Final Report,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 128 pp.
Keller, A. E., and S. G. Zam. 1991. The acute toxicity of selected metals to the freshwater
mussel, Anodonta imbelecilis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:539-546.
Layzer, J. B., M. E. Gordon, and R. M. Anderson. 1993. Mussels: the forgotten fauna of
regulated rivers. A case study of the Caney Fork River. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 8:63-71.
Layzer, J. B., and L. M. Madison. 1995. Microhabitat use by freshwater mussels and
recommendations for determining their instream flow needs. Regulated Rivers:
Research and Management 10:329-345.
Marking, L. L., and T. D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J. L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC
symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock
Island, IL. 270 pp.
53
McGrath, C. 1996. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 22-26 in Annual Performance Report
Vol. V, July 1995 - June 1996, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 185 pp.
1997. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 14-24 in Annual Performance Report Vol. VI, July
1996 - June 1997, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. 200 pp.
------- 1998. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 12-16 in Annual Performance Report Vol. VII, July
1997 - June 1998, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. 184 pp.
------.1999. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 28-36 in Annual Performance Report Vol. VIII, July
1998 - June 1999, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. 225 pp.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991. Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. 227 pp.
Miller, A. C., L. Rhodes, and R. Tippit. 1984. Changes in the naiad fauna of the Cumberland
River below Lake Cumberland in central Kentucky. The Nautilus 98:107-110.
Milone and MacBroom. 2004. Sediment study relating to the removal of the Dillsboro Dam,
Tuckasegee River, Jackson County, North Carolina. Prepared for Devine Tarbell &
Associates, Charlotte, NC. Milone and MacBroom, Inc., Greenville, SC. 16 pp.
Moog, O. 1993. Quantification of daily peak hydropower effects on aquatic fauna and
management to minimize environmental impacts. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 8:5-14.
Nantahala Power and Light. 2001. Nantahala and Tuckasegee Projects - Zone of Peaking
influence study summary report. Duke Energy Corporation, Franklin, NC
Newcombe, C. P., and D. D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic
ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72-82.
Ortmann, A. E. 1909. The destruction of the freshwater fauna in western Pennsylvania. Proc.
of the Amer. Phil. Soc. 48(1):90-110.
Pizzuto, J. E. 2002. Effects of dam removal on river form and process. BioScience 52:683-691.
Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D. P. Braun. 1996. A method for assessing
hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10:1163-1174.
54
Ridenhour, G.S., Jr. 1973. The limiting effects of pollutants on the benthic macroinvertebrates
in the Tuckasegee River. M.S. Thesis, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC,
103 pp.
Stein, C. B. 1971. Naiad life cycles: their significance in the conservation of the fauna.
Pp. 19-25 in Jorgensen and Sharp (eds.). Proceedings of a Symposium on Rare and
Endangered Mollusks (Naiads) of the United States. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and
Wildl. Serv. Bur. of Sport Fish. and Wildl.
Tsai, C. F. 1975. Effects of sewage treatment plant effluents on fish: a review of literature.
Chesapeake Res. Consort., Inc., Publ. No. 36. Center for Env. and Estuarine Studies.
Univ. of Maryland, Solomons, MD.
Travnicheck, V. H., M. B. Bain, and M. J. Maceina. 1995. Recovery of a warmwater fish
assemblage after the initiation of a minimum flow-release downstream from a
hydroelectric dam. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:836-844.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Appalachian elktoe determined to be an endangered species. Federal Register
59(225):60324-60334.
------- 1996. Recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) Lea.
Atlanta, GA. 31 pp.
------- 1998. Endangered Species Act consultation handbook: procedures for conducting
section 7 consultations and conferences. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Portland, OR.
------- 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for
the Appalachian Elktoe. Federal Register 67(188):61016-61040.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Sediment Characteristics of North Carolina Streams, 1970-79.
Water Supply Paper 2364. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Watters, G. T. 1996. Small dams as barriers to freshwater mussels (Bivalvia, Unionidae) and
their hosts. Biological Conservation 75:79-85.
Williams, J. D., S. L. H. Fuller, and R. Grace. 1992. Effects of impoundments on freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural
History 13:1-10.
Wohl, E. E., and D. A. Cenderelli. 2000. Sediment deposition and transport patterns following a
reservoir sediment release. Water Resources Research 36:319-333.
55
Figure 1. Tuckasegee River subbasin, action area for the East Fork Hydroelectric Project
(FERC Project No. 2698-033), West Fork Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2686-
032), a subsequent license for the Bryson Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2601-
007), and the application for license surrender for the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project (FERC
Project No. 2602-007), Jackson and Swain Counties, North Carolina.
!9
9
I i
$f)/son i6conaluliee R_ at Rirdrown
4
(0-2601)
uckasegee Rat ryson City
T R a t atBarkers Creek
Dillsboro
(P-2602) :- d
""tic C_a?sl
«r- TuckasegeeR. at Cu o
East Fork
(P-2698)
West Forl?t
(P-268 °f
fl?
r
r'aorgia SGUN, Carolina fl
mark ca ws,gov
0-200S
U
U
N ?
? •3
U
M b
W
co
O Q
.? O
A
Q w
LIP)
a) 0
to
O 0 N
U
3(L)
dam"
?
?v
> o
C/] 2u O
O c¢
O
? u
c E
O U
ct3
c?
U
U Ln U
C6
sue, ? O
cd ?
0-0
O ? U
to O +?+
cts
U U
3 ?
o .°
U U cl
+Ln
to
N y '?
on
U
W 00
H
O
M
Qi
0
U ?
Z°
H O
U F"
Z
? O
?a
N j O
Q _ LL
?LU
W O
L •`
ova
QyQ O
e=o Y a
H R
o U
M w
v
?r
M
O C
m
E
> >.
r
C
O
2

N
m )
O)
M N hl /
U U?t ??
I
T T C ? ? ? 1
L O T
O Q E w
/

E E O O i
E a E i 1
7
N
? I
i

?

I i 1
,
f I
i
l i l + i 1
?
i

i
i

1 !
1 1! I
If! '

I

? v

ft i 1

? ?I 1
o °o °0 0 0
f? (O L6 'i cl(sjo) o6jeyosia

0 0
N
U
N
0
Z
U
O
CL
d
rn
Q

c
T
m
Q
m
m
N
LL
o?
O
M 41
00
Q Q
Q '
Z
z
N
0
M v?
00 11) V)
C'4 b yj O
O cr
^d ? O ?
O
C N
o cC
M ?
°.cq3
C(
x?QC?
U
U
0
J-
H
a
LJJ
Cate
L LI
W
Ca
LU
i
0
O
0
Vn
M
O
m m m m m m
? m ? m m m
m m a ?+, su ?
puoaas
jad jaal 3ign3 uz •noljueajlS lead
m
m
m
c?
m
m
o?
co
m
a
m
m
m
a
C11
m
e-I
?I
a
m
ei
co
GL, U
0
CA E
o W
v' H a >
W
U ?
U ? U
vi H ? CN .?.
00 p U C/1
r?
-z: Con Z
?C70.-.0
to ? u
.0U4.
4- O
Z a?
O LW ; E
N
M
f1.
too 0
o? U Cl)
ct3
Q. Z U
A,
en U
> ¢ C',
>? i
ul '
w?wz
H Con
?¢ bo
=u ??
Gz,HUwco
U
I I 1 1 14
p--...d WJ -Tgna '-3-4-sTO
Y

a?
R o
RR
Q
?i
a"
no
P-- .gad 3MJ aTgm 'a -p.TO
b

:E
a .?
g
.a
R6
R
3
?o
? F
W'
R?
R
a -d !-J -Tgna -B-4--TO
p-n d I"J „qn, -83. q=TO
Figure 5. The Tuckasegee River is designated as critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) from the N.C. State Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson
County, NC, downstream to the N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain
County, NC.
I
?I
4
Bryson '-bconalufree K at Birdrown
t
? ?!P-2601) ?..
1-4
y
uckasegee - at ryson City
Tuckasegee R at Barkers Creek DillsborO
(P-2602)
r
Tuckasegee K arCullowhee 0
East Fork
(P-2698)
West For{" ® +tl.
(P-26$ "
" c r
- - •- •? .r'"""? _..? ?.. Legend N
Georgia <South Carolina 6 USGS Gages
- Critical Habitat
Ir
` mark_a_car?treli@N(s.gov Tuckasegee sub-basin
?-10-2006
O U
O C/1 +>+
00
M ? O
O ?
c??x
_ O
1 ? Cn
1
b
w
U N
H ?
b O U
k U
O O
O ? O
s..
x
0
on C,3
wu
C) U cl
W
oz?
. w
aw o
x
?o
Cd? 3
o U
w ?
Cd
O _
Q "Cli
C
G
1
?w
a3 W 1 pp
W w U N
dA ? ? O
G=rHU

v ?
z
L
w
3 m
O
? I
I
?
V o

Z ? N
N A ? p?
h
ti

?a
w
w

I
M, ?
ao
O ?
O
c
= m n m n m n m
0 h IM f f OI T
7001 '44ar04 0899
N
a
U.

U N
Z
W
w
f
M
J

_

N
A ?
? Y

?
Q H U
a
?

a
cc ?
W
lL

U o
L H
0

O
I17
O
co

O

y

i
O
N
m
CO)
I :
pu9a0s -d 100y aTq- '0a.roga:Ta
3
C
R
V
R

z
Y
W
I
N
W
w

LG O
Q w u
W

ac q
W
w
m.

A
e I
s
M
N
h
tm. m n m n m
t N N
?aoi 'TgaT9g osos
Q)

Y
W m
?
U i
I

W

co
4 ?
a ?

W

LU o
Y ti '">
(?

A
A
Ln
O o
i

m ?
m
w
M
O y
i
U m

~
pu0a -d I00y aTgna •0a.194-Ta
3
O
C?
4-
Figure 7. Example photographs from a recent period of generation on the Tuckasegee River.
These shallow gravel shoal areas (see arrows in photographs) at the Tuckasegee River, near
Nations Creek (RM 24.3), are dewatered during intervals when generation flows are limited to
the minimum flow from the East Fork Hydroelectric Project (P-2698) and the West Fork
Hydroelectric Project (P-2686).
(b) Flow interval with headwater generation.
APPENDIX 2
Tuckasegee Stream-flow Characteristics
4)
L
>
R N
WO
07
H =
Y 0
V
? C
H ?
4)
2
O O O O O
O LO O to O
M N N .- r
(SP) a6JeyOsia
O
Cl
LO
U
N
O
0
Z
U
O
CL
N
N
7
Q
7
c
m
fl.
Q
m
.o
li.
C
c0
0
w
O
bA
c?
a
In
0
0
' N
) M a0
- M r
> r) U
Z
O
N
k
'G
C
N
LL
Q
USGS 03508000 TUCKASEGEE RIVER AT TUCKASEGEE, NC
Jackson County, North Carolina
Hydrologic Unit Code 06010203
Latitude 35°16'55", Longitude 83°07'37" NAD27
Drainage area 143.00 square miles
Gage datum 2,125.16 feet above sea level NGVD29
00060, Discharge, cubic feet per second,
YEAR Mont hl mean in cfs Calculation Per iod From:1 934-07-01 , To:1976-1 0-31
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec
1934 257.1 277. 207.3 343. 498. 519.9
1935 713. 407. 471.9 417. 323. 196.3 208. 341. 193.6 136.1 298. 215
1936 971. 777. 634.6 1,17 313. 181.5 167.21 17 255.7 544 283. 499.3
1937 1,22 754. 397.9 467. 335.1 222.7 162. 256. 311.3 422. 277. 255.9
1938 291. 263 439.4 452.1 318. 324.7 502. 398. 213.3 123. 395.1 255.1
1939 457. 1,3241 861 473.41 317. 280.2 197. 289.1 136.6 95.8 88.6 102
1940 122. 258 365.5 605. 309.71 280.7 224. 1,35 531.9 196. 254.31 359.9
1941 370. 191 249.1 228. 128. 108.2 432.1 208. 120.6 210.1 366.1 446.4
1942 249. 378. 469.4 359. 513 456.8 418. 323. 513.8 394.1 310.4 681.2
1943 626. 510. 475.5 400. 305. 359. 434. 416. 378.8 277. 262. 298.7
1944 359. 483. 602.1 49 311. 189.4 261. 272 297.2 270. 129. 150.2
1945 232. 448. 344.7 561. 459. 372.3 328. 190. 215. 158. 202.1 332
1946 731 794.1 868.4 665. 564.8 348.7 318. 348.8 250.4 189. 129.2 176.9
1947 615. 304. 305.6 449.1 378. 396.9 325. 341. 131.6 300. 320.1 249.3
1948 327. 632. 622.3 543. 262 214.5 560. 544 431.1 293. 776. 622.1
1949 628. 548. 447.7 707.1 614 632.1 609. 700. 544.1 535. 388. 378.9
1950 514. 533. 667.6 439. 327. 407. 229.1 199. 658 394. 303 562.4
1951 418. 436. 500.6 475. 257. 366.8 227. 181. 205.1 206. 289.31 460.4
1952 375. 409. 869.7 572. 482. 389.8 197.91 215 231.5 220. 167. 249.6
1953 497.21 606.81 435.3 253 437. 378.8 244.81 157. 195. 228. 157. 185.9
1954 372.61 364 490.1 512. 281. 205.1 172. 189. 150. 139 177.1 194.7
1955 261. 402.1 281.1 449. 548. 453.8 380. 418 187.3 323. 334.1 200
1956 153. 489 366.4 46 294. 159.5 3621 276. 118.4 232. 256.6 157.
1957 254. 642. 473.5 892.1 519. 521. 314.91 320. 351. 360. 615.5
1958 524. 568. 509.1 551. 755.1 364.4 488 228. 246.4 181 234.5
1959 386. 348.1 432 398.1 483. 436.8 271. 172 245.5 526. 433.5
1960 460. 569. 514.8 758 380. 357.9 225. 287. 363.7 405. 4 181.7
1961 220. 421. 525.8 488. 397. 440.6 278. 474. 422.3 257. 648.8
1962 530. 472. 538.3 758 457. 407.2 276. 236. 232 326. 311.6
1963 286. 309. 557.5 241. 305. 240.4 252. 17 205.9 168. 146.. 222.6
1964 411. 387 662 760 657.1 300.3 319. 310. 353. 1,05 446. 584.3
1965 501 603.5 652.1 490. 498. 402.1 309. 352.7 338.8 457. 334.5 344.6
1966 328. 652. 570.9 328. 454 341 262. 349. 263.7 293. 481. 330.9
1967 399.1 430. 344. 208. 281. 622. 718.1 724. 674.6 333. 406. 636.2
1968 657 395.9 462.4 442. 324 420.7 317.1 230.6 156. 196 263.4 361.1
1969 345 538.6 452.5 493. 458.1 429.3 297.1 315.2 327.9 393. 521. 564.
1970 428. 445. 412.5 379.2 1 274.1 423.1 299. 309. 256.5 335.1 396. 338.5
1971 373. 467.1 524.4 372.1 345.6 1 367.8 338. 412. 248.4 260.1 398. 617.8
1972 613. 434.1 434.3 352. 410. 430.8 329. 290. 256.3 26 440. 654.4
1973 590. 790. 879.3 705. 787. 665 356. 347. 267.5 184. 221. 579
1974 760. 838. 574.6 780. 637. 564.1 390. 544. 300.7 283. 307 436.4
1975 472. 579. 940.9 737. 470.1 382.9 265 265. 457.9 592. 567. 499.5
1976 653. 469. 467.2 467. 973. 716.2 359. 273. 259.4
Mean of
monthly
discharge

469

, 516

, 526

518

42

375

323

342

296

312

, 320

385
" No Incomplete Data is used for Statistics Calculation
Appendix 2 Page 2 of 10
USGS 03510500 TUCKASEGEE RIVER AT DILLSBORO, NC
Jackson County, North Carolina
Hydrologic Unit Code 06010203
Latitude 35°22'00", Longitude 83°15'37" NAD27
Drainage area 347.00 square miles
Gage datum 1,950.15 feet above sea level NGVD29
00060, Discharge, cubic feet per second,
YEAR Mont hl mean in cfs Calculation Period From:1 933-10-01 , To:1981-1 2-31
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec
1933 211.41 204. 237.5
1934 504.7 447. 1,294 686. 515. 711.5 510. 522.4 370.4 586. 784.1 898.2
1935 1,141 845 1,054 1,00 163. 492.6 445. 612.1 368. 268. 572 417.8
1936 1,84 1,601 1,41 2,38 767.4 474.3 408. 373. 490.4 863. 521. 901.2
1937 94 1,51 907.5 965. 784 619.4 467.5 1 611. 652.2 778. 534. 574.1
1938 669.1 634. 1,012 1,021 754. 775.7 1,070.0 608. 458.5 291. 657 , 470.1
1939 829. 2,42 1,644 974.1 723. 610.3 450.1 523.1 287.4 215.4 198. 233.6
1940 290. 581. 717.3 974.1 585. 535.8 528. 2,06 1,003 406. 444. 566.4
1941 632. 389. 524.8 497 311. 265.6 858. 424. 237.7 312. 502. 643.2
1942 473. 836. 11013 675. 947. 859.4 757. 632. 796.1 594. 490. 1,229
1943 1,316 1,260.0 1,142 903. 717. 687.8 904. 663. 573.5 406.7 404. 448.4
1944 581. 1,155 1 1,387 1,19 732. 461.4 467 , 442. 471.2 425 317. 409.5
1945 581. 987. 841.1 1,11 951.1 648.3 528 385. 455.7 373. 463.2 1 702.6
1946 1,55 1,6941 1,577 1,27 1,15 712.1 626. 542. 407.91 368. 302. 366.1
1947 1,42 687 725.5 834. 667. 618.4 492 540. 269.6 476. 602.1 483.2
1948 568. 1,270.0 1,262 1,204 593 448.8 787. 874. 608 426. 1,215 1,145
1949 1,36 1,270.00 1 975.1 1,27 1,22 1,262 1,24 1,25 1,050.0 910.1 848. 827.1
1950 1,200.0 1,199 1,474 967.1 691.7 823.3 498.1 402 936.2 603.3 493.7 873.6
1951 687. 752. 943.8 976. 580. 689.5 522. 382.1 398.7 346.21 540. 972.6
1952 935. 894. 1,756 1,11 854.7 640.6 379. 428. 379.7 336 324. 476.5
1953 875. 1,26 906.2 582 866.7 617.2 443. 308. 312.1 337.1 269. 422.3
1954 1,06 723. 1,067 976. 595. 452.7 325. 333. 246.3 243. 306.31 382.3
1955 440.1 815. 749.8 1,00 1,04 790.5 677. 680. 355.3 487 491. 407.6
1956 339. 1,059 , 984.3 1,134 770. 463.3 726. 472.7 290.1 433.1 449. 588.4
1957 794. 1,938 1 1,061 1,870.001 990. 1,064 619.4 545. 573.5 628. 1,10 1,173
1958 906. 1,08 1,011 1,1291 1,40 687 853.3 486.4 437.6 375. 350. 426.5
1959 778 721.4 842.5 1,061 1,000.0 914.8 581. 399.1 491. 929. 68 835.
1960 978.1 1,23 1,171 1,47 775.4 669.1 452.7 554. 551.7 619.31 310.6 389.7
1961 463. 1,06 1,232 1,05 831. 881.1 643 769. 662.5 451. 28. 1, 74
1962 1,26 1,31 1,429 1,69 899. 834.8 582 470 448.5 530. 503. 528.6
1963 563. 629. 1,611 684.4 706. 537.1 549. 418. 398.8 329 348. 462.5
1964 890 871.9 1,682 1,837 1,188 586.1 619. 716.2 680.7 1,951 811.3 1,033
1965 976. 1,16 1,460.0 1,19 1,00 786.7 563, 536. 531.1 696. 521.7 513.9
1966 518.1 1,40 1,104 723.4 961. 623.2 466.91 549.8 452.6 588. 90 884.7 689.9
1967 863.4 991. 920.2 560. 743.7 1,368 1,30 1,400.0 1,224 656.6 769.5 1,307
1968 1,44 799. 1,091 1,07 722. 886 591. 507. 349.6 377. 488.1 665.7
1969 684. 1,244 986.7 994.7 823. 785.2 515.7 611. 595.8 597. 726.2 827.9
1970 753. 861. 757 820. 539. 804.8 477. 501.3 424.6 517. 620.8 579.5
1911 822. 1,164 1,123 846. 726. 711.1 834. 862.2 480.6 478 645. 1,065
1972 1,310.0 934 957.9 930.2 880.5 767.3 657.2 529.7 448.4 549.4 826.5 1,325
1973 1,15 1,46 1,811 1,42 1,73 1,310.0 761.7 614. 463.1 351. 442. 1,018
1974 1,607 1,76 1,164 1,71 1,32 1,063 777. 979. 559.8 490. 580. 867.8
1975 1,110.0 1,571 2,232 1,550.0 977.7 745.6 518.8 494.6 793.7 928 1,007 844
1976 1,29 1,01 1,070.0 1,04 1,834 1,263 691. 499. 464.2 627. 578.1 833.5
1977 724. 615. 1,368 1,72 862.1 804 527.4 507.7 779.3 723. 991.1 1,087
1978 1,47 1,1031 1,141 635. 854. 614.6 445.4 918. 514.1 480.1 304. 60
1979 1,19 970.71 1,92 1,97 1,130.0 709.9 816.2 699. 909.9 852. 1,74 1,122
1980 1,051 750. 1,693 1,701 1,291 681.2 557.31 481. 382.9 373. 398. 464.5
1981 363. 727. 530.2 467. 690. 689.1 472. 331. 336
8 346. 326.1 577.4
Mean of
monthly
discharge

950

1,08

1,18

1,12

885

738

625

618 7r""

534

580

724
** No Incomplete Data is used for Statistics Calculation
Appendix 2 Page 3 of 10
USGS 03513000 TUCKASEGEE RIVER AT BRYSON CITY, NC
Swain County, North Carolina
Hydrologic Unit Code 06010203
Latitude 35°25'39", Longitude 83°26'49" NAD83
Drainage area 655.00 square miles
Gaae datum 1.714.54 feet above sea level NGVD29
00060, Discharge, cubic feet per second,
YEAR Mont hl mean in cfs Calculation Period From: 1 897-10-01 , To:2005-0 930)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Oct Nov Dec
1897 503. 509. 1,130.0
1898 1,980.0 1,020 1,765 2,247 1,266 828.3 1,28 M 3,654 1,881 1,968
1899 2,06 5,84 6,504 3,28 2,15 1,484 970. 594. 612. 1,364
1900 2,07 3,26 3,318 2,59 1,42 2,597 1,711 974. 1,19 1,394
1901 2,17 1,501 2,606 3,61 3,07 2,167 1,22 4251 1,940.00 1,01 707. 3,292
1902 2,09 2,92 4,138 2,24 1,37 950.7 734. 493. 996 642. 916. 1,679
1903 1,28 4,10 4,755 4,00 1,511 1,713 953. 705 503.5 445. 678 517.8
1904 954. 1,07 2,043 1,36 1,25 907.5 703. 886.1 554 367. 435. 777.2
1905 1,41 2,35 1,881 1,300.0 1,67 1,121 1,81 1,511 693.2 681. 528. 1,787
1906 2,82 1,37 2,193 2,18 1,28 1,746 1,94 1,90 2,955 2,93 2,89 2,055
1907 1,61 1,691 1,813 1,46 1,7691 1,628 1,14 822. 1,024 752. 1,45 1,966
1908 2,2741 2,6261 2,85 2,197, 2,02 1,233 1,2061 1,191 764. 749. 722 1,784
1909 1,8221 2,8821 3,66 2,25 3,080.0 3,19 2,3671 1,86 1,160.0 991. 722. 1,187
1910 1,4321 1,55 1,639 1,250.0 2,19 2,030.0 1,950.0 1,201 1,017 804. 596. 1,097
1911 1,9121 1,69 1,690.0 3,520.0 1,391 847 898. 806.8 684.8 997. 1,034 1,581
1912 1,7851 2,20 3,652 3,211 2,341 1,539 1,7651 1,231 993.5 791. 743. 1,105
1913 1,861.0 2,348 4,298 2,321 1,71 1,317 928.61 926.8 754.6 792.8 764.5 979.7
1914 934. 1,58 1,541.0 1,911 1,06 730.6 688.61 592. 428.6 966. 866 2,788
1915 2,81 2,73 1,579 1,28 1,38 1,294 1,41 916. 830.7 1,49 1,25 2,873
1916 2,75 2,49 1,834 1,44 1,36 1,781 3,3791 1,771 1,022 829. 820.1 1,388
1917 2,56 2,62 6,077 2,67 1,49 1,303 1,270.001 985. 1,069 934. 715.1 685.6
1918 2,4261 2,55 1,514 1,43 1,36 1,204 843. 749. 820.2 2,29 1,721 2,559
1919 2,64 2,11 2,553 1,84 1,59 1,27 1,2431 1,02 672 98 941.1 1,822
1920 1,97 1,801 2,968 4,84 1,85 1,355 1,0471 2,07 1,471 790. 962. 2,275
1921 1,991 2,92 1,635 1,89 1,80 1,287 1,290.001 1,610.0 965.9 741. 1,291 1,543
1922 2,81 2,610.0 3,993 2,85 2,61 1,762 1,5121 904. 618.7 569.1 481. 1,718
1923 1,92 2,77 2,747 2,18 2,85 2,26 1,380.001 1,2761 780.7 522. 698. 1,245
1924 2,30 1,62 1,868 2,12 1,89 1,321 1,31 704. 850.5 662. 490. 1,320.0
1925 2,180.0 1,314 1,251 990.9 902.5 619.7 503.4 220.1 195.1 654. 976.8 670.5
1926 1155 1,67 1,680.0 1,701, 975. 730.8 739. 997 692.9 528. 1,281 2,663
1927 1,65 2,12 2,552 1,46 1,151 1,575 988. 1,03 706.4 704.61 871. 2,345
1928 1,56 1,580.0 1,797 2,21 2,57 2,399 1,82 2,270.0 2,346 1,2691 1,01 902.6
1929 2,05 2,3121 4,432 2,281 3,23 2,021 1,711 1,02 1,286, 1,34 2,571 1,502
1930 1,40 1,52 2,118 1,501 1,85 1,011 695. 506.1 702 452. 903. 927.1
1931 1,07 1,16 1,228 2,64 1,3951 854. 924 770. 565.3 346. 378.1 2,040
1932 2,42 2,92 1,944 1,89 1,871.001 1,101 898. 779. 529.3 1,32 1,41 3,704
1933 2199 3,36 2,258 2,00 2,34 1,031 774. 812 778.8 438.1 385. 505.3
1934 1,18 925. 2,944 1,51 1,04 1,43 957. 1,03 698.4 984 1,24 1,487
1935 2,14 1,70 2,323 2,33 1,60 956. 934. 1,02 597 454. 977. 754.9
1936 3,99 3,25 3,034 4,63 1,3291 830. 781 754. 842.6 1,49 963. 1,720
1937 4,81 2,85 1,758 1,88 1,48 1,17 910. 1,23 1,097 1,39 985.1 1,109
1938 1,54 1,421 2,273 2,13 1,61 1,65 2,07 1,511 871.5 545. 1,03 833.1
1939 1,60 4,580.0 3,067 1,86 1,28 1,05 891. 840. 53 385. 382. 456.9
1940 598. 1,131 1,624 1,77 1,07 906.6 1,02 2,85 1,548 699.1 797.8 968.5
1941 1,20 735. 1,221 1,14 602.1 530.9 1,75 814. 430. 476 753. 1,036
1942 967. 1,70 2,30 1,19 1,58 1,416 1,45 1,360.0 1,28 981. 877. 2,750.0
1943 2,701 2,8741 2,528 1,93 1,56 1,259 1,80 1,26 899.4 689. 731. 747.3
1944 1,08 2,79 3,277 2,54 1,46 857.2 753.91 754. 817. 777 720. 1,077
1945 1,41 2,350.0 1,858 2,00 1,95 1,205 1,01 1,021 1,021 817. 1,06 1,584
1946 3,64 3,50 2,791 2,28 2,30 1,298 1,14 891. 690.5 669. 656. 927.9
1947 3,81 1,520.0 1,685 1,81 1,29 1,057 969. 971. 534.4 734. 1,128 1,036
1948 1,14 2,901 2,430.0 2,360.0 1,15 890.6 1,28 1,47 927.9 685. 2,32 2,513
1949 2,93 2,84 2,072 2,45 2,28 211 2,40 2,041 1,705 1,53 1,67 1,973
1950 2,88 2,93 3,185 1,87 1,42 1,646 1,191 841. 1,406 920. 823. 1,557
1951 1,35 1,64 2,399 2,211 1,20 1,34 1,0921 688. 782. 604. 1,15 2,258
1952 2,36 1,790.0 3,299 1,87 1,3951 1,05 622. 706.1 598.8 496 623 920.1
1953 1,800.00 1 2,843 2,001 1,24 1,73 1,068 910.6 641.6 525.6 507.8 485.5 1,038
1954 38 2,30 1,921 1,12 841.4 618. 611. 393. 356.1 473. 886.5
1955 .0 2,183 2,11 1,790.0 1,36 1,431 1,154 570.7 830 795.4 839.8
1956 77 2,394 2,521 1,54 882.8 1,330.0 736. 539.5 642. 705. 1,406
1957 566 1,957 3,278 1,647 1,728 982.7 830.1 899.7 1,116 2,194 2,485
1958 1,5841 18
2,185 2,030.0 2,28 2,611 1,176 1,62 906. 721.1 611. 624. 748.9
1959 M
612 1,749 2,316 1,711 1,696 1,074 813.8 828.6 1,504 1,512 1,925
1960 ,34 2,190.0 2,74 1,380.0 1,117 834. 1,181 890.2 987. 676. 861.4
,60 2,660.0 2,18 ' 1,53 1,470.0 1,22 1,20 989.6 775. 1,01 3,385
,32 3,195 3,19 1,48 1,33 1,02 874. 785. 837.41 1,030.0 995.7
,45 4,239 1,48 1,4691 1,175 1.274 1 818. 648.8 1 488. 628. 804.9
Appendix 2 Page 4 of 10
USGS 0351 3000 TUCKASEGEE RIVER AT BRYSON CITY, NC (continued...)
YEAR Mont hly mean in cfs (Calculation Period From:1 897-10-01 , To:2005-0 9-30)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec
1964 1,930.0 1,651 3,949 3,75 2,099 1,031 1,107 1,354
' 1,047 2,637 1,461 1,983
1965 2,05 2,22 3,228 2,34 1,746 1,374 992.5 892 826.8 1,04 790. 7557
1966 847. 2,880.0 2,021 1,30 1,72 954.1 870. 1,21 895.3 1,33 1,85 1,643
1967 1,80 2,17 1,943 1,16 1,67 2,469 2,28 2,34 1,820.0 1,06 1,421 2,784
1968 2,750.0 1,423 1,947 2,01 1,304 1,449 971 919.3 606.5 688.4 886.7 1,194
1969 1,33 2,53 1,894 2,145 , 1,37 1,346 915 1 1,14 963.5 883.1 1,22 1,614
1970 1,48 1,631 1,591 2,09 1,28 1,760.0 929. 917. 713.5 907. 1,117 1,261
1971 2,02 2,760.0 2,490.0 1,78 1,50 1,348 1,88 1,89 826.1 792. 1,04 1,995
1972 2,98 2,001 2,201 2,20 1,85 1,338 1,24 1,02 835.6 1,44 1,77 3,177
1973 2,19 2,75 3,805 2,80 3,17 2,361 1,40 1,20 861.3 626. 1,011 2,256
1974 3,89 3,58 2,371 3,541 2,61 1,909 1,377 1,580.0 974. 845. 1,161 1,799
1975 2,61 3,48 4,784 2,851 1,806 , 1,317 934.1 891.5 1,437 1,36 1,661 1,522
1976 2,60 2,02 2,245 2,02 2,99 2,116 1,269, 799. 753.1 1,261 1,02 1,626
1977 1,24 1,21 2,863 3,661 1,53 1,565 1,03 1,02 1,45 1,360.0 1,775 2,227
1978 2,947 1,830.0 2,428 1,37 1,86 1,281 833. 1,55 743.4 689.1 585. 1,504
1979 3,10 2,215 1 3,754 3,72 1,957 1,366 1,92 1,321 1,683 1,37 2,78 1,755
1980 2,142 1,451 3,899 3,184 2,23 1,247 939. 746. 663.6 696.1 828. 815.6
1981 603.1 1,76 1,218 1,5081 1,450.0 1,557 925.3 654.7 758.8 674. 671. 1,367
1983 678. 1,210.0 2,619
1984 1,44 2,26 2,805 2,5821 3,74 1,636 2,056, 1,407 763.7 690.7 1,00 1,108
1985 1,08 2,41 1,184 1,0891 992.7 741.5 822 992. 602.4 517. 1,16 1,176
1986 758. 1,075 1,316 841.21 820. 821.3 720. 647. 7067 692. 1,20 1,503
1987 1,41 1,841 2,275 2,160.001 1,28 1,266 1,050.0 803. 786.5 470.8 584. 876.3
1988 1,59 1,08 926.4 1,31 1,01 727.9 775. 975. 877.8 516. 873. 758.6
1989 1,801 1,980.0 2,808 2,240.0 2,641 3,091 3,310.0 1,766 1,993 2,211 1,956 1,981
1990 2,98 4,81 4,023 2,041 2,26 1,501 1,427 1,11 856.4 979.31 650. 2,046
1991 2,09 2,36 2,995 2,91 2,01 1,412 1,22 1,81 1,278 690. 1,19 2,276
1992 1,58 1,81 2,276 1,541.0 1,52 1,741 978. 1,43 1,301 1,10 2,30 3,224
1993 3,06 1,91 2,979 2,45 1,63 1,047 703.1 730. 872 859. 806.4 1,658
1994 2,240.0 3,124 4,202, 4,164 1,753 1,871.0 2,110.0 2,426 1,672 1,371 1,086 1,531
1995 2,65
1996 2,124 2,107 1,787 1,13 1,52 1,446, 1,12 1,4851 2,781
1997 2,531 2,711 4,361 2,79 2,514 2,469 1,3781 928. 820.3 1,01 1,06 1,106,
1998
, 3,701 3,32 2,960.0 3,39 2,1851 1,59 850.1 679. 525.5 592. 611.4 1,352
1
999 1,86 1,85 2,037 1,50 1,8731 1,378 1,941 729. 478.9 761.1 993. 1,145
2000 1,18 1,544 1,534 2,274 1,460.001 993.4 744. 722. 650.5 439.4 817.1 907.3
2001 1,161 1,56 1,555 1,311 873. 913 951. 1,08 972.5 801.3 697. 1,255
2002 1,73 1,241 1,579 1,563 1,630.0 876 762. 595 1,168 1,20 1,74 2,266
2003 1,51 2,67 2,349 2,331 3,98 1,761 1,87 1,194 1,174 823 1,78 1,951
2004 1,56 2,127 1,656 1,48 1,39 1,120.0 1,262 1,101 4,561, 1,40 2,311 2,921
2005 1,861.0 1,833 2,141 2,337 1,664 2,280.0 2,684 1,764 1,247
Mean of
monthly
discharge

2,00

2,27

2,560

2,22

1,76

1,410

1,26

1,16

992

926

1,08

1,600
Appendix 2 Page 5 of 10
Tuckasegee River at Tuckasegee, NC
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration
ruckes.g» a1w a rw...y»
Deily Dd. ((9341971)

vLT

' I
so I

i
I
p
?ILI
?, 0tn
3 ,Rl
.,pl

gnu
3.01

I j/A

?
I
I
I

I I
I III
I
Appendix 2 Page 6 of 10

Tuckasegee River at Tuckasegee, NC
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration
T6cknove- Riwr !1 Tackes.ga.
EnOr-nW Fi-Comp.-Mi 0P34-19771
lanx?
i.>ru
rlmt

;
wrui
3
L'
b U[
[,1'111
i
Appendix 2
Page 7 of 10
Tuckasegee River at Tuckasegee, NC
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration
Meh+3n=?Ji?d3 ro.. ?rl..,,`o??an?
hlwy9. ib4 -.0 5ut+t Tuckacagea River of Tuokaaegae -
- &Dey Mk*okrln
G? w roto
I,n
rat
lrs
In -
w
Ia.
1n
m
1g
il$
- Ia

x
u e5
m
U
h
3s
3c
5
f

?
931 1935 19S 1434 tilt 1913 1.6 1997 1919 1%1 IgSi 1956 Ir61 1959 1951 1*3 1965 194 f9FA I?YI 1913 11? '9Y?

M9? HA _ rYr41q
-0 UyeyP w..r+l.=I?t`w.'.r+i
n?Mp
M& ru 04W Tuckasegee River at TutUsegee
Derv of Mkuru flow
3a
m
m
3'0
m
w
is
M
:90
}p

:A
:10
In
I?
gi

?n
1s
m
31
rv
p
n
?

n1 lu5 +9X Is)! 1411 14a1 14<•. 191Y 13Y9 IY,1 1951 195y IYJ 13s1 1!Lt 111g 1F% 19N IYfH W. 191J 1415 znr
I
Appendix 2 Page 8 of 10

Tuckasegee River at Tuckasegee, NC
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration

i?
Appendix 2
I
f i? J 11 f }., 1
is
6 i

`I Y' ? 1 P (
s r°y i E t

'r
i
k t
,t ?
Page 9 of 10

Tuckasegee River at Tuckasegee, NC
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration
? i

- r
I i x II' i
1
ti
• t u ,
4
I

i

i
Ii
I?. 4
= f
,
J
i a
Appendix 2 Page 10 of 10
APPENDIX I
MUSSEL RELOCATION METHODS
APPENDIX 1
MUSSEL RELOCA TION METHODS
The following plan is a general description of methods for relocating all mussels, including the
Appalachian elktoe, from the footprint of project impact sites. A more detailed site-specific
mussel relocation plan, including proposed schedules, personnel, and salvage/relocation sites,
should be developed and approved prior to mussel relocation. The following methods were
developed based on recommendations outlined by Dunn et al. (2000) and from procedures
developed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) (Watson 2002).
These procedures were developed in order to relocate freshwater mussels in such a way as to
reduce stress and minimize the risk of injury while the species are in transit. If at any time
during the relocation it is determined that these procedures are not meeting the stated objectives,
more stringent methods may be developed, in cooperation with the NCWRC and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service), to ensure that the mussels are relocated successfully. Relocation
efforts will be carried out under the direct supervision of biologists with appropriate federal and
state permits.
Selection of Relocation Sites
The project proponent (or its qualified consultants) shall identify appropriate relocation sites in
close proximity to, but outside the area of effect of, the project. Potential sites should be selected
based on existing habitat conditions, including substrate suitability, hydraulic refugia, and
stream-bank stability and marked in the field with flagging and rebar. These relocation sites will
need the Service's approval. Descriptions of each relocation site will be provided and will
include detailed location, suitability, extant mussels species present, and a description of any
limitations as to capacity, access, or other concerns.
Collection of Mussels at Impact Site
All individual Appalachian elktoes found in the project footprint will be relocated to the specific
site approved for each project impact area. The salvage area will consist of the section of the
river that will be directly disturbed by construction procedures and extend one bank-full width
upstream and at least four bank-full widths downstream of the area of effect of the project. In
addition to the Appalachian elktoe, state species of special concern may also occur in the project
areas. All freshwater mussels found at the impact site will be relocated to the sites chosen.
Novices should not attempt to collect mussels for scientific purposes due to the difficulty in
accurately identifying species. Identification is usually conducted in the field based on differing
morphological shell characteristics (dentition, texture, color, sculpturing, umbo height and
location, and nacre color). This practice is sometimes referred to as "conchology" and remains
the most widely used method of mussel identification. A major concern of using conchology for
field identification is that the shell characteristics of particular species can vary substantially
from drainage to drainage, even among mussels of the same species and within the same river
system. Further complicating factors include sexual dimorphism (i.e., males and females have
different shell forms) and ontogenetic variability (shell morphology can change as juveniles
Appendix 1 Page 1 of 5
grow and mature). Although there are many useful published and web-based guides to help with
field identification (e.g., Parmalee and Bogan 1998; Cummins and Mayer 1992), individuals who
have the appropriate state and federal permits and have extensive experience and training in
identification should be present during all mussel surveys. The presence of such "experts" is
often a requirement in many states for obtaining the permits necessary for conducting mussel
surveys.
Mussels are usually buried in the substratum of a river, stream, or pond and are anchored using
their hatchet-shaped foot. Distribution can be patchy or irregular within a river or stream reach.
Densities are often greatest along the bank margins of a river or in stable shoals with moderate to
high flow. Mussels can occur in large aggregations (beds) just off shore, often making them
easily accessible for hand-searching. Tactile searches (feeling by hand while wading or making
repeated brief "dives") can be accomplished effectively in areas up to approximately 1.0 meter
(m) in depth. In slightly deeper water, less effective searching is still possible by wading.
Efficient searching in water deeper than 1 in requires scuba or hookah diving.
Three visual-survey sweeps of each site, as previously defined, must be conducted to salvage
freshwater mussels from the anticipated impact area(s). Additionally, a preconstruction site visit
and sweep of each site is to be performed approximately 1 week prior to construction at each of
the impact area(s). If any mussels are found during the preconstruction sweeps, subsequent
sweeps will be conducted if determined necessary by the appropriate agencies.
The type of visual method used (mask/snorkel, Batiscope, SCUBA gear, etc.) will be determined
during the salvage effort and will be based on depth, flow, visibility, and temperature. A
minimum of two people will perform the relocation. Dunn et al. (2000) stressed the importance
of using personnel who are experienced with handling freshwater mussels in successful
relocation projects. The relocation team will be supervised by one lead technical specialist, and
all of the personnel used will be experienced with handling freshwater mussels. A
review/training session will be conducted prior to beginning the relocation efforts to ensure that
each member of the relocation team is properly briefed and understands his/her respective role(s)
in the operation.
The team will spread out across the river, beginning at the downstream end of the salvage area
and proceeding upstream, collecting mussels by hand. Each team member will carry a mesh bag
in which to place the mussels. After the sweep of the salvage area has been performed, the
mussels collected will be carried to the banks for data recording.
Data Collection
All mussels will be: (1) measured (in millimeters) and tagged, (2) placed in a mesh bag, and
(3) kept in a shaded portion of the river until ready for transport. All mussel species will be
tagged on both valves. Numerous relocation projects report scrubbing mussels with burlap to
remove any algae, mud, or other debris and then drying to apply tags. This creates additional
stress on the mussels and does not appear to be necessary. Tags have been successfully applied
to uncleaned, moist mussels in other areas of North Carolina. To avoid unnecessary stress,
mussels will be kept as moist as possible while measuring and affixing the tags. The tags
Appendix 1 Page 2 of 5
(Hallprint Tags) are made of polyethylene, oval in shape, and approximately 9 mm long by 4 mm
wide. Each tag is colored (e.g., green) and has a unique four-character code that begins with a
letter followed by three numbers. The tags will be applied to the mussels using Instant Krazy
Glue° or another quick-drying epoxy. Once the adhesive is dry, the mussels will be placed back
into the stream in the designated mesh bags. This procedure will be repeated until all the
collected mussels are tagged and measured and ready for transport. Each individual mussel will
be kept out of the water for less than 5 minutes for measuring, recording data, and tagging.
Transportation to Relocation Site
After the animals are collected from their source area, they will be transported to the selected
relocation site. The first method merely involves layering the mussels in damp burlap in
10-gallon coolers, or other appropriate containers. Pieces of burlap soaked in the stream and will
be placed in the coolers. The tagged mussels will then be placed on top of the damp burlap so no
mussels are stacked on each other. A maximum of 50 mussels will be placed in each cooler with
about three to four layers per cooler.
Preparation of Relocation Site
Mussel relocations are sometimes conducted as a one-time relocation without follow-up
monitoring, such as the goal of a relocation that is simply to provide the impacted mussels a
chance of survival. This is the least expensive relocation option, and it gives the individual
mussels, which might otherwise be destroyed by the proposed action, a chance to survive.
However, without survival monitoring, the effectiveness of relocation as a mitigative measure for
these projects cannot be determined. This relocation option is not allowed for endangered or
threatened species.
If the mussel relocations include endangered or threatened species, or as part of any mitigation
plan, a detailed monitoring plan will be developed in conjunction with the Service and NCWRC
to gauge the success of the relocation in the future. The following simple protocol for placement
will be followed, to allow for monitoring. The relocation sites will be divided into a grid of 1-m2
segments, the number of which will be determined by the number of mussels found for
placement in the relocation sites. Each segment will be assigned a number. A permanent grid
will not be placed in the river because of concerns for an increased chance of vandalism due to
the shallow depth and high recreational use of the river. Two portable squares (1-m2) will be
utilized. Relocated mussels will then be placed into the substrate, by hand, within the numbered
squares. The number of each mussel species placed in each square will be recorded. The density
of each species within the square will not be increased by more than three times. Cope et al.
(2003) demonstrated that increasing the density of mussels two to three times did not adversely
affect survival rates. The number of mussels placed into each square will be dependent on the
number of mussels collected at the salvage sites and the quality of the relocation habitat.
Typically, resident mussels at relocation sites are also tagged and monitored as part of the mussel
relocation efforts in order to compare survival rates of relocated mussels to the resident mussels.
If there are resident individuals present in the relocation plots, they will be tagged and returned
to the relocation plots where they were found in order to gauge comparative survival.
Appendix 1 Page 3 of 5
Monitoring
The relocation sites will be monitored for recovery, survival (of recovered mussels), and
movement 1 month after all the mussels have been removed from the defined salvage areas. One
month after relocating the mussels, visual surveys for mussels will be conducted at the relocation
site. Mussels observed at the surface will be taken from the substrate and recorded and will be
placed back into the squares they were taken from. This initial survey will be conducted to
record any mortality that would result from the handling of mussels. Excavation of the grid will
not be performed in order to avoid additional stress on the mussels and to maintain substrate
stability. Visual surveys will also be conducted in a 10-m x 10-m area downstream of the
relocation grid to record any mussels moving out of the grid. A report detailing the findings of
this monitoring will be provided to the appropriate agencies.
Literature Cited and Additional References
Cope, W. G., and D. L. Waller. 1995. Evaluation of freshwater mussel relocations as a
conservation and management strategy. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management
11:147-155.
Cope W.G., M.C. Hove, D.L. Waller, D.J. Hornbach, M.R. Bartsch, L.A. Cunningham, H.L.
Dunn and A.R. Kapuscinski. 2003. Evaluation of relocation of unionid mussels to in situ
refugia. J. Mollus. Stud. 69:27-34.
Cummings, K.S., and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest.
Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5. 194 pp.
DiMaio, J., and L. D. Corkum. 1995. Relationship between the spatial distribution of
freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:Unionidae) and the hydrological variability of rivers.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:663-671.
Dunn, H. L., B. E. Sietman, and D. E. Kelner. 2000. Evaluation of recent Unionid (Bivalvia)
relocations and suggestions for future relocations and reintroductions. Pages 169-183 in
Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings (R. A. Tankersly, D. I. Warmolts, G. T.
Waters, B. J. Armitage, P. D. Johnson, and R. S. Butler, eds.). Ohio Biological Survey,
Columbus, OH.
Isom, B. G., and C. Gooch. 1986. Rationale and Sampling Designs for Freshwater Mussels
Unionidae in Streams, Large Rivers, Impoundments, and Lakes. American Society for
Testing and Materials:46-59.
Kat, P.W. 1982. Effects of population density and substratum type on growth and migration of
Elliptio complanata (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacological Review. 15:119-127.
Kovalak, W. P., S. D. Dennis, and J. M. Bates. 1986. Sampling effort required to find rare
species of freshwater mussels. Pages 46-59 in B. G. Isom (ed.), Rationale for Sampling
and Interpretation of Ecological Data in the Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication No. 894.
Appendix I Page 4 of 5
•
Neves, R. J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K. S. Cummings,
A. C. Buchanan, and L. M. Koch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island, IL.
189 pp.
Parmalee, P. W., and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. 328 pp.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, and S. M. Smith. 2001. Longitudinal Succession of fishes in the Dan
River in Virginia and North Carolina (Blue Ridge/Piedmont Provinces). Southeastern
Fishes Council Proceedings, 42:1-13.
Rosgen, D. L. 1998. River Restoration and Natural Channel Design. Course Handbook.
Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
Strayer, D. L., and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling
unionaceans (Bivalvia), including two rare species ofAlasmidonta. Jour. of N. Am.
Benthol. Soc. 12:247-258.
Strayer, D. L., and D. R. Smith. 2003. A guide for sampling freshwater mussel populations.
Maryland:American Fisheries Society.
Waller, D. L., J. J. Rach, W. G. Cope, and J. A. Luoma. 1993. A sampling method for
conducting relocation studies with freshwater mussels. Journal of Freshwater Ecology,
8:397-399.
Waller, D. L., J. J. Rach, W. G. Cope, and G. A. Miller. 1995. Effects of handling and aerial
exposure on the survival of unionid mussels. Journal of Freshwater Ecology,
10:199-207.
Watson, B. T. 2002. Freshwater Mussel and Snail Restoration in the Piedmont of North
Carolina: 2001 Progress Report. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Appendix I Page 5 of 5