20140255 Ver 1_Shoreline Stabilization_20140314

/ I
,f SWAT, �o 2 0 1 4 0 2 5 5 office Use Only:
Corps action IQ no.
# w ' DWQ, project no-
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s), of approval sought from the Corps. 0 Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number. or General Permit (G P) number: 198200030 (GP30)
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? Yes ❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that.apply):
E 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictidnal_General Permit
Q 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian'euffer Authorization'
1 e. is this notification solely for the-record For the record only for DWQ
because written approval Is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
® Yes j No
1f, is payment into a mitigation bank or in4ieu fee, program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? lf.so, attach' the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or, in -lieu fee program_
[] Yes No
1g, Is the project located in any of -NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, - answer 1h
below.
Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental. Concern tAEC)?
❑ Yes No
2. Project Information
29_ dame of project:
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoeh Boat Barrier
2b. County'
Swain and Graham counties, North Carolina
Robbinsville, North Carolina
2c. Nearest municipality ! town:
2d: Subdivision name:
NA
-2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
1 4 201
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Brookfield Smoky Mountain' Hydropower t1C
3b. Geed Book and Page No. Graham Co -Bopk 324, p242 -280; Swain Co -Book 407, p272 -310A
3c: Responsible Party (far - LLC if
applicable):
Marshall L. Olson (see attached SectGdn ,,A Block 3c.and attached Exhibit.A)
3d. Street address:
314 Grovidon Blvd.
3e. City, state. zip:
Tallassee, TN 37878
3f. Telephone no.:
865- 255 -4240
39. Fax no.:
3h_ Email address:
marshall ,[e-mail]
Page 1 of -10
PCN Farm — Version 1.4 January 2009

4, Applicant Information (if,different from owner)
4a. AppliCanfi is:
Agent [3 other, specify:
4b. Name.
4c. Business name
(if-applicable);
4d. Street address:
4e. City,-state. zip,
4f. Telephone no.:
49., Fax no.:
4h. Email bddress:'
5, Agent/Consultant information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c: Street address:
54 city, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no::
5f. Fax no::
5g. Email addr®ss:
Paige 2- of 10

B. Project Information,and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or- parcel ID): See. attached Section B 8lot�c 1a
1b. Site-coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35 -44865 Longitude: 83.93863
1c. Property size:
3.3 'acres - see,atiached Section B Block 1c
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Cheoah Reservoir
2b. Water Quality Ciassification of nearest receiving water.
Class C' and Trout -
2c. River basin:
Little Tennessee River
3. Project - Description
3a. s. Decribe'the existing conditions on the site and the'general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The boat barrier would be floating.on the surface of Cheoah Reservoir and anchored -to rock along the shoniline.'The NC Land -ocver categories,for tie
harrier) "exposed rock (where anchored to rock). The NC rani( use use classification for the
location of the boat barrier is inland watertiody (boat and
location of the boat barrier Is r�rvcar. Hardwood forest and mixed forest vegetation am im %diately adjacent to the this area.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 see- attached Section B Block.3b
3c, iist'the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (iritermittent'and perennial) on the property: 0
3d. -Explain -the purpose of the proposed project:-
See attached -- Section B Block 3d
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See attached,- Section B Block 3e
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the-
® Yes ] No ® Unknown
Carps, or State been requested or obtained for this-property t
Comments:
project (including all prior p bases in the ast?
4b. If the Corps made'the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preiirriiiiafy ❑ F +rtal
of deterM' inat'+on vras-made?
4c. If yes, who delineated.the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Other:
44 If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation,
s. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for El Yes R No ❑ Unknown
this project (including ail prior phases) In. thwpast?
sb. If yes, explain in detail according to 'help file° Instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ®Yes No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1: Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections,were completed below for your project (check'all that apply):
Q Wetlands ❑ Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ?[ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
i
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site; then complete this question for each wetland area impaeted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
-2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d,
Forested
2e,
Type:of jurisdicbon
Corps (404,10) or
DWO (441, other)
A
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W2 -
Choose one
Choose one.
Yes/No
-
W3 a
Choose one
Choose one
Yeartd0
W4 _
Choose one
Choose one
Yei/No
W5 -
Chooseorte
Choose one
YeINO
W6 -
Choose one
lChoose,one
YesJMo
2g. Total Wetland Impacts-
2h. Comments;
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (Including - tempbrary impacts) proposed.on the site, then complete'this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
internffttent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
39.
Impact
length
(linear
feety-
S1 -
Choose one
-
S2
Choose one
S3 -
Choose one
-
S4
Choose one
-
S5 -
Choose one -
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form ; Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
if there are proposed impacts to fakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S: then individual) list all o en water Impacts below'.
4a,
'Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) of
Temporary
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applica_ ble)
4c.
Type of impact
4d,
Waterbody
hype
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 P-
Cheoah Reservoir
t?tt<er
Lake
3 -3-
02 _
Choose one,
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f.-Total open water Impacts -
b
3.3
4g. Comments: Pr a i cm y or e os amer wou a s .
3.3 acres of the reservoir jusl-upst-reani of the dam rrem public use,' (see'atiaohad F`�t�m 2 in Appeaidix D for this irnpw am).
S. Pond or Lake Construction
if ond.or lake construction proposed. the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ,40 number
5b.
Proposed' use or
purpose-of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d,
Stream Inipacts'(feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Pt
Choose one
P2
C *ose ore
5f- Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam 'high-hazard permit rdquired?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
51. Expepted pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed {ages):
Sk. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the'chart below., if yes,'then indh4dually list alt buffer impacts
below. if an !T pacts require miti ation then MMUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which- protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Tem ra
6c.
Reason for impact
Bd.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
requlred?
Bf.
Zone 'l
impact
(square
feet )
6g-
Zone.2
impact
(square_
feet
B 1 -
YesrNe
62 -
YeslNo
83 m
Yes/No
B4 _
Yes1No
B5 _
Yes/No
86 _
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
considered various barrier layouts based on iho recreation area. - the
l BSMH considered various types and spacing of floating barrier devices and
proposed design and- locafion of the boat barrier were selected to enhance public safety, restrict public boA49 access in a minimal area immediately
afsove the Chowh dam, and reduce any impacts of the barrier. -
1 b. Speacatly describe rneastirestaken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques,
on each shoreline; attached to Large rocks along the shoreline
The proposed boat ba�erwould be anchored in place with t�vo rock anchors, one
the normal full pool elevation of the 'reservoir. BSMH is planning to use rock anchors to minimize impacts and to avoid any- ground-disturbance
aWye
during the installation of the boat barrier and anchor system.
2. Compensatory Miti ad n for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory, Mitigation for
[] Yes Qx No
impacts to Vtraters of the U.S. or Waters-of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
[] DWQ ❑ Corps
fl Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, -which mitigation option will be used'for this
[] payment'to in4eu fee program
project?
© Perrnitiee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Usin a Miti ation Bank
3a. blame of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose one Quantity:
3b, Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one Quantity:
Type: Choose one Quantity:
3c. Comments.
4. Com fete if Making a Payment to ln4leu Fee Program
4a. Approval-letter from in -lieu fee program is-attached.
(] Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature.
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e'. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f: Non- riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h, Comments:
5., Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible`Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permitter responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page.6 of 10
PtN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6, Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) —required by UWG
6a. Wilt the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires � Yes 0 No
buffer mitigation?
6b, if yes; then identity the square feet of impact.to each zone of, the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calcuiate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet}'
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what .type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration. payment into an approved in4leu fee fund.
6h, Comments:
Page 7of10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. toes the project include or is, it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
Q Yes No
within one`df the 'NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b, if yes, then is a diffuse flow plan- included? If no, explain why.
[] Yes Q No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent, imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b: goes this project require a Stormwater Mana ement Plan?
Q Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Flan, explain why
The propowd project is not subject to a non -404 Jurisdictional Permit, N dP 14,18,29.'39,41,42,44,46. or GP31. The proposed project is subject
to GP30 and a Stormwater Managemeni Pli n is not applicable.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management.Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for -the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local g6vernments jurisdiction is, this project?
NA
Q Phase 11
Q NSW
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
-all
❑ USMP
apply (check that apply):
Q Water Supply Watershed
Other.
3c. Has,the approved- Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
[]Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
OCoastal counties
QHQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
BORW
Session Law 2006 -248
❑Other
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
Q Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
Sa- Does the Stammater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
Q Yes ® No
6b, Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWO Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federallstatellocai) funds or the
® Yes
Q No
use,of public (federallstate) land?
ib, if you answered °yes' to the above, does the project require preparation of an
document pursuant'to the requirements of the National or State
❑Ye's
®No
environmental
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPAiSEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes' to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or $EPA, final approval
❑ Yes
[3 No
letter.)
Comments,
2. Volations'(DWO Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DVVQ Weiland Rules (I SA NCAC 2H .0500). isolated
Wetland -Rules (15A NCAC 211 .1300), DWQ Surftoe Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes
® NQ
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after- the=fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c. if you answered "yes" to one'or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the vialation(s).
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. VVlil this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in Oyes,
O No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes' to the above, submit a qualitakive or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWO policy. If you - answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWO Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail'the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge -or discharge) of.wastewater generated from
propose
;W of generaattei any feWate the subject facility,
wpa
NA -The posoed prole
Page 9'of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirern6nt)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species_ or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS coriceming Endangered Species Act
PlYes ❑ No
Impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville.
5d. What data sources did you use to:determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
See attached Section F Block 5d
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated.as essential' fish habitat?
❑Yes ® No
6b� What data I sources- did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
South Atlantic Fishery Managernent Council EFH Viewer, website:htip:,Iiocean.ttoridainarine.org/sa-eth/
NMFS EFH Mapper: http:flwww. habitat .noaa.govtprotectionlethlegir appertindex.html
.7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a, Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
® Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b, What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
See attached Section'F Block 7b
S. Flood Zone Designation.(Corps Requirement)
8a. U'Jill this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year ftoodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
The,propased boat barrier would be located within Zone AE. The proposed boat barrier would be floating on the surface of Cheoah Reservoir and
anchored in place with two rock anchors, one on each shoreline, attached to large rocks along the shoreline above the normal full pool elevation of
the reservoir. There would be no construction or ground.disturbance In the fioodplain.
8c. What sources) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA FIRM Panel 5635, Map No. 37005635WK, Revised 4/19 04ound digitally on the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping webstte:
http, /Avww,ncttoodmo,,os.com!
Marshall L_ Olson
March 10,2014
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
leftr from the a Gcant is Provided.
Page 10 of 10

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment
Section A Block 3c Responsible Party
Written authorization signed by a corporate officer is provided in Exhibit A.
Section B Block la Property ID No.
Parcel ID No.:
Graham County, NC — 565500000001, 562500000001, 565200020077, 565200000001
Swain County, NC - 563500164337
Section B Block lc Property Size
The acreage presented is for the project area, including the area that would be would be restricted
from public use by the proposed boat barrier.
Section B Block 3b Existing Wetlands
The acreage provided is at the site of the proposed boat barrier. During the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Smoky Mountain Hydro Project (FERC No.
2169), previously known as the Tapoco Hydroelectric Project, extensive resource studies were
conducted to prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment ( Tapoco Hydroelectric Project (FERC
No. 2169), North Carolina and Tennessee, Draft Environmental Assessment dated February
2003) that was submitted to FERC. Federal and state resource agencies were consulted during
the relicensing process, during the development of resource study plans, and during the resource
studies. These resource studies included a Terrestrial Resources Study, Terrestrial Study 1:
Riparian Habitat Assessment (Normandeau Associates, 2001), attached as Exhibit B. This report
discusses wetlands and other critical riparian habitat areas found within Cheoah Reservoir in
addition to the other project reservoirs. The study identified wetlands and riparian habitats by
classifying vegetation within a band 200 feet wide along the shoreline of Cheoah reservoir,
among the other project reservoirs, using The Nature Conservancy's national vegetation
classification. Terrestrial Study l found that priority riparian habitats and wetlands at Cheoah
Reservoir are confined to a few isolated areas associated with shallow flats, usually the result of
sediment deposition near the mouths of inflowing tributary streams. The study did not locate any
priority habitats or wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed boat barrier. Since then, there have
not been any changes in the vegetation in the area of the proposed boat barrier. Cheoah Reservoir
is a deep, riverine reservoir that supports few areas of coves or shallow water that are conducive
to the development of wetlands or aquatic vegetation. The shoreline surrounding the reservoir is
generally steep and is predominantly mature forest.
Section B Block 3d Proiect Purpose
The planned boat barrier is needed to improve public safety and reduce the risk for potential loss
of life or injury at the Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydroelectric Project. The planned boat
barrier would provide a permanent public safety barrier immediately above the Cheoah dam.
2

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment
The planned boat barrier would restrict public boating access in a minimal area immediately
above the dam and, more specifically, in the area of the gated spillways. Although public safety
measures such as audible sirens and cameras already exist, a physical barrier would provide an
added measure to ensure public safety in the vicinity of the Cheoah dam.
Section B Block 3e Project Description
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC (BSMH) is planning to install a floating boat
barrier approximately 200 feet (at the closet point) upstream of Cheoah Dam on Cheoah
Reservoir (see Exhibit C for a vicinity map). The boat barrier would be located just downstream
of the existing canoe portage and would not impede use of the existing canoe portage (see Figure
2 in Exhibit D). The boat barrier would run approximately 600 feet across the reservoir from
shoreline to shoreline. The boat barrier would be anchored in place with two rock anchors, one
on each shoreline, attached to large rocks along the shoreline above the normal full pool
elevation of the reservoir. Each rock anchor would include a steel swivel hoist ring attached to a
base plate that is anchored to the rock with 17 -inch long bolts with a minimum embedment of 12
inches. Figure 7 in Exhibit D provides plans showing the anchor system.
There would be no ground- disturbance and no discharge of dredged or fill material during the
installation of the Cheoah boat barrier or anchor system.
The Cheoah boat barrier will consist of 5/8 inch wire rope. The 24 inch round buoys will be hard
plastic. There will also be some stainless steel unlatching devices, bolts, and anchors. All
materials are standard throughout the industry.
Section F Block 5d Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat
BSMH consulted with various federal and state resource agencies on the proposed Cheoah boat
barrier. BSMH shared design drawings and location maps with the consulted agencies by email
on December 2, 2013. Agencies consulted included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
( USFWS), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC), North Carolina Division
of Water Resources ( NCDWR), NCDWR -Water Quality Programs, U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
Tennessee Department of Conservation (TDEC), and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
(TWRA). Tennessee agencies were contacted because BSMH is also proposing boat barriers on
two reservoirs in Tennessee. BSMH also shared a copy of the consultation package with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Nashville District, USACE Wilmington District, and
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). To date, BSMH has received a response from every agency
consulted with, except for TVA. None of the consulted agencies have objected to or raised
concerns about the proposed boat barriers.
Comments already received from the USFWS Asheville Field Office (Mr. Mark Cantrell) are
attached in Exhibit E. By letter dated December 10, 2013, the USFWS Asheville Field Office
noted that no endangered species are known at the sites of the proposed boat barriers; however
the sites are adjacent or upstream of designated Critical Habitat for the endangered Appalachian

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment
elktoe. By letter dated December 10, 2013, the USFWS determined that this project will have no
effect on listed species and indicated that it had no concerns with the placement of the boat
barriers.
Comments received from the NCWRC (Mr. Chris Goudreau) are attached in Exhibit E. By
email dated December 10, 2013, NCWRC commented that NCWRC staff have reviewed the
plans and proposal for the boat barriers and do not object to the proposed boat barrier barriers.
Comments received from the USACE Wilmington District (Mr. David Brown) are attached in
Exhibit E. By email dated December 4, 2013, the USACE Wilmington District commented that
although the proposed Cheoah boat barrier would not result in the discharge of fill material into
waters of the United States, USACE considers the floating boat barrier an impact under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act because the Little Tennessee River in the area of the proposed
boat barrier is a Section 10 navigable water. The USACE commented that USACE authorization
for the Cheoah boat barrier will be through one of the District's Regional General Permits (GP),
Regional General Permit 198200030 (GP30) which authorizes maintenance, repair, and
construction activities in lakes and reservoirs owned, operated, and/or regulated by public utility
companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority in the state of North Carolina.
Comments received from the NCDWR -Water Quality Programs, Asheville Regional Office,
(Mr. Kevin Barnett) are attached in Exhibit E. By email dated December 17, 2013, NCDWR-
Water Quality Programs (Mr. Kevin Barnett) commented that if the USACE requires a GP30
approval for this activity, then the NCDWR -Water Quality Programs would require an
application for written approval for a General Certification for this activity, utilizing the same
application (PCN) as the USACE.
Section F Block 7b Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources
During the FERC relicensing of the Smoky Mountain Hydro Project (FERC No. 2169), cultural
resource studies were performed at the hydro project, including Cheoah Reservoir and dam, in
the vicinity of proposed boat barrier. The 2002 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey included the
drawdown zone of Cheoah, in addition to the other project reservoirs. None of the sites
recommended as being eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) were located in the vicinity of the proposed boat barrier (Legacy, 2002). Additionally,
an investigation was conducted to determine the NRHP- eligibility of historic properties,
including powerhouses, dams, pipelines and other associated properties (Thomason and
Associates, 2002). From this assessment, the Cheoah development, including the dam located in
the vicinity of the proposed boat barrier, was entered into the NRHP on May 21, 2004.
In accordance with the FERC license, a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the
Smoky Mountain Hydro Project, including Cheoah dam and reservoir was developed in
consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO), Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office (EBCI THPO) and others, and
approved by FERC. Through an approved HPMP, FERC can require consideration and
4

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment
management of effects on historic properties for the license term; thus, meeting the requirements
of Section 106 for its undertakings. The HPMP outlines consultation requirements with the NC
SHPO when work is performed at the hydro project, including work at Cheoah dam and
reservoir. Because the proposed boat barrier would not impact the dam or "diminish the integrity
of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association of the dam ", which is
listed on the NRHP, consultation under the HPMP is not required. There are no archaeological
sites recommended as being eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP located in the vicinity
of the proposed boat barrier. Additionally, there is no proposed ground disturbing activity for
this project so no other consultation under the HPMP is required.

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment
Exhibit A

RESPONSIBLE PARTY AUTHORIZATION
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL ID No.:
Graham County, NC — 565500000001, 562500000001, 565200020077, 565200000001
Swain County, NC - 563500164337
STREET ADDRESS: 15152 Taaoco Road, Robbinsville, NC 28771
Property Owner: Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize Marshall L. Olson, of Brookfield Renewable Energy and Brookfield Smoky
Mountain Hydropower LLC, to represent corporate interests and serve as the contact and
responsible party for the Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier and to
take all actions necessary for the issuance and acceptance of this permit or certification or
the Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier and any and all standard and
special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address:
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC, 314 Growdon Blvd., Tallassee, TN 37878
Au horized Signature
04
Authorized Sig tune
Date: 31-�/1q Date:
l?R6s►bEeJ T-
0 A) c- 4 ev-

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment
Exhibit B

TAPOCO PROJECT
FERC NO. 2169
REPORT FOR
TERRESTRIAL STUDY 1: RIPARIAN HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Prepared by
NORMANDE AU ASSOCIATES INC.
25 Nashua Road
Bedford, NH 03110 -5500
R- 18563.005
August 2001

Page
,
1 �
~~^~.^~°C-^°' "-�-_..~.~~~_--.__'—.--'----..__~'.'---.-^--.-._~.,~'..-'-..�
L�
2,0
BACKGROUND .............. .......... ........................................ _______~,___._____,___.._____
�
38
3��Y ��� ------ ....... --'-'------~---^'---'--~...........................................................
Z
4.0
STUDY PURPOSE AND O8J}.(-FP/ES ................................................................... -.--'----.4
~�
5.0
STUDY METHODOLOGY .......................... ~~-^~'~--^--^'^'-^--^'-'~'5
0.0
LANDSCAPE SETTDNGOFTBE PRIORITY HABITATS
6
�
-----_-_-_---.-.--_.---.-'
6AVegetation ........................... . ................................... .............................. ............
.�7
6.2 Substrates -...----.'.-'^-'^_---------.-----._-.--,--------_.-'.---'.-.--...7
F�)
8-3 Hydrologic Regime ..................... .............................................................................
'
7.0
DESCPdPTIONS OFPRIC0RIrY` HABITATS ..........................................................................
24
�
N
8.0
WILDLIFE USE OF PRIOR= ITABITKI'S UNDER CURRENT OPERATING
COn~uF/IOmS ................................. ..........................................................................................
]1
-
8n
.l Tfern _^_--_-----'----.-~~'_-,----~~_'-._'--.--..-----~~------------~-.
34
8.2 Birds .......................................................................................................................
34
8'3 MuuzonuLs .,.-..'---.--''-----'--^~-^---_-----_..------. '
34
-_-- ,-' ---_-----~~.
'
8/4 ____,_________________^~_____________~~~_____._____.______-35
8.5 Summary --_------'----'-.----..---..-'_'-----'__--..-_'_-'-.-35
l8
--
A{)
WILDLIFE USE OF PRIORITY HABITATS UNDER UNTMANAGED CONDITIONS .......
36
9] Hernn .............. ^.................................... - .............. - ................................... - ............
39
92 Birds ............ ........ ............................................................................................. ~�9�
�
9] Mammals ........... ...... '............................................... ............................................
39
g& [ �d . __._^..____._~.'~----'----~-.~.-~~~..~'--~-...--4D
9.5 Summary ............................................................................
.................. -_---'--40
~t
10]]
OMPACISOP PROJECT OPERATION {YN PRIORITY HABITATS AND ASSOCIATED
WTIDLJFEUSE ............ .................................... - .......... ........ ......... ........ '.................. .........
4|l
l[il Potential for Reestablishment of Priority Hmbitats-------.-----.--'-.-,'.
43
10i2 Affect oy Increased Flows inthe Cheoab River onthe Existing Sorrub-Shrub
�
�
Comnuunky Type ................ ................ ........................................... .....................
43
10,3 Potential for Use of Exposed Flats uoSanteetlah Resmoir by Migratory
�x
�.
'-

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
12.0 LUERAT1iRFCl TED............ ...... ............ ....................................... ............................... ..45
ADDENDUM 1: (, uahfications of Specialists In Wildlife Habitat Assessment
ADDENDUM 2: Data for 97 Reservoir[Flowage Priority Habitats
List of Wildlife Species and Sign Qbsened
TNC Classifications and Descriptors
GPS Locations of Priority Habitats
ADDENDUM 3: Data for 16 Priority Habitats at RTE Locations
ADDFNDUM 4: Reports of Wildlife Specialists
ADDENDUM 5: Riparian Habitat Assessment (Terrestrial Study 1) Draft Report Comment
Summate
1876) Tcrm3. r=[ Sndy 1 FimWO- Aurwl 24.2001 11I

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3 -1. R
Riparian habitat assessment study area. . ................. -_ ........ .............................. __ .
............ 3
Figure 6 -1. V
Vegetation cover types in the immediate vicinity of the project reservoirs and
flowagc�,. .. .............. -.1 ................................................................. -- .............
Figure 6-2. M
Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Level Elevations in the
Santeetlah Reservoir for the Period of January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1999..............13
Figure 6-3- M
Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Level Elevations in the Cheoah
Reservoir for the Period of January 1. 1990 to December 31, 1999 ... .............................14
19561 Tvrm%1mJ Study I F ifW doe Aug= 14, 2W l iv

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
Lts,r OF TABLES
Page
Table 6-1. Summary of Water Elevation (Fr) Statistics in the Tapoco Reservoirs ..................... -.— 12
Table 6-2. Summary of Discharge Statistics for the Cheoah River at'Fapoco Lodge for the
penod of 1983 through 1999 . ........................................................ ................................
Table 6-3. Summary of Discharge Statistics for Calderwood Bypass on the Little Temieme
River fo:- the Period 1983 through 1999, .......................................... ......... .............. 21
18563'r-, WA1Sh*1F=t-4wALWML24.2Q01 v

fl
NORMANDEAV ASSOCIATES INC.
E
1.0 tNri'RODUCTION
�t
This report for Terrestrial Study I; Riparian Habitat Assessment, is based on the issue identified in
Scoping Document I (SDI) and on the study plan presented to the participants and the resource
agencies. The methods that were used were based on a review of project operations, a review of
existing information, a reconnaissance of the project facilities 2-nd experience on similar projects.
Field investigations were performed by a team comprised of Normandeau Associates staff
experienced in perfutmtng natural resource investigations for hydropower projects, and Dr, Ed
Clebsch, who recently participated as part of The Natw•e Conservancy of Tennessee's rare, threatened
and endangered (RT -) species searchers for the Tapoco Project (TNC, 1999). In addition several local
experts, John Byrd (herps), James Lowe (Iepidopterans) and Wayne Schacher (inammals) also
assisted in assessing impacts
of project operations on wildlife. Jeff Wollis, from Normandeau's
Amen South Carolina office, assisted the team with the logistics of conducting the reconnaissance.
_
At various times in the project Normandeau Associates coordinated with The Nature Conservancy of
Tennessee (TNC) and with the natural resource agencies_
a
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Tapoco Division -of Alcoa Powcr Generating, Inc. ("1'apoco) is in the process of relicerising its
3265 MW Tapoco Hydrocicciric Project (Tapoco Project or Project) with the Federal Energy
Regn,latory Commission {1 ERC). Tapoco is utilizing an alternztive approach to the traditional 1=ERC
relieensing process, the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA), which has been
approved by the FERC.. As part of the APEA process Tapoco has engaged agencies, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and tither interested parties (collectively, the Participants) in an
open process to identify issues to be addressed through relicensing and to prepare a Scoping
Document I (SDI), as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The issues
A
identified in SD) must be addressed sufficiently to comply with the requirements of NEPA and
generally to the satisfaction of the Participants.
The Tapoco Project is located on the Little Tennessee River and Chcoah River in North Carolina and
Tennessee. The Tapoco Project is a four - development hydroelectric project located in eastern
Tennessee and western North Carolina, The Project consists of four individual developments:
Santeetlah, Chcoah, Calderwood and Chiihow-ee. Three of the damns, Chcoah, Calderwood and
Chilhowe:e are located on the Little Tennessee Rives and are located betty -ecn two 'I'V!1 hydroelectric
Projects* Fontana (upstream) and Tellico (downstream). I he fourth dam. Santeetlah, is loi;aterd on
i
the Chcoah River, a tributary to the Little Tennessee River.
i
The 'Tapoco Project generates power for use at Alcoa's Tennessee Opt-rations. Santeetlah is a water
storage facility that is operated iii a store and release mode in accordance with an operating guide,
which establishes target seasonal reservoir levels. Under die current operating. guide, Tapoco
endeavors to maintain Santeetlah Reservoir within 5 feet of normal full ptxil elevation for the period
June through July to enhance rec-reationai use of the reservoir. Beginning about August 1. Tapoco
commences fall drawdown of the reservoir to allow for refill during the late fall, winter and spring.
The :seasonal drawdown at Santeetlah has averaged 20 feet since the current operating guide was
established in 1991 .
s
iW TE+ZRESTR.;L STUDY 1 FWA_ )DC AUGUST 2d, 2M

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
"Iine Santeetlah powerhouse m operated as a daily peaking facility using reservoir water available in
accordance with the guide curve_ The normal daily fluctuation of Santeetlah Reservoir resulting from
peaking operations is generally less than 1 foot. Santeetlah Reservoir may be operated during lower
flow periods to supplement the available discharg from Fontana, however the long -term average
flow from Santeetlah is small (519 efs) compared to that of Fontana (3,890 cfs). Under the current
operation cif Santeetlah, releases of water from the dam into the Cheoah River are limited to leakage
flows (2 cfs) and occasional spills during extreme high flow events. However, as a result of tributary
inflows hcinw Santeetlah Datrt, the estimated average river flow in the Chcoah 1bver at the Tupocu
Lodge is 136 cfs.
The other three Tapoco Project developments are operated as essentially daily cycle peaking
facilities. Ns- TVA's upstream Fontana Project serves as the primary flow control facility for the
lower Little Tennessee River, operations of the Cheoah, Calder+.vood and Chilhowee developments
are based on operation and planned discharges from Fontana. 'Through a series of agreements
between "rapoco and TVA, TVA assists Tapoco in determining the daily dispatch of the Tapoco
developments. Due to their limited ability to store water, the Chcoah, Caldenvood and Chilhowee
developments are operated with minimal fluctuations in water levels. Normal daily fluctuation at the
three reservoirs is generally 1 to 2 feet., with a maximum drawdown of to 7 feet_ Linder the current
FERC license, there are no minim mi flow requirements or reservoir level restrictions for Chcoah,
Calderwood or Chilhowee developments. However, during the period May to October, Chilhowee is
operated to ensure an average daily flow of I,000 efs doAnstream of the development,
3.0 STUD'S ARE A
17ie Tapoco Project consists of a system of four dams and reservoirs within the Little Tennessee
# River Basin in North Carolina and Tennessee (Figure 3-1). Two of the reservoirs, Santeetlah and
Cheoah, are located in North Carolina. Santeetlah has a convoluted shoreline with numerous
embaymc:nts and peninsulas_ Chcoah is narrow with a fairly steep forested shoreline. The Cheoah
River flows approximately 9 miles from the dam at Santeetlah to the Cheoah Dam. Calderwood is
similar to Cheoah, being narrow, with a rocky bottom and steep forested shoreline. This reservoir is
located partly in North Carolina and partly in Tennessee. Chilhowee Reservoir is located in
Tennessee and is more spread out with several tributaries, a more convoluted shoreline, and flatter
surrounding topography with a mixture of coniferous and hardwood forest. The drawdown zones of
all four reservoirs are of steep gradient and mostly unvegetated, with an exposed, predominantly clay
subsoil, On Chilhowee and Cheoah reservoirs there are islands that provide Habitat for Nvaterfowl.
The Calderwood Bypass reach is approximately a mile long and occurs between the Calderwood Dam
and powerhouse.
` For the four reservoirs, the area of study included all wetland and riparian habitats occurring at or
below the normal fuL pool elevation of the reservoir, as well as the location of RTE species
occurrences within 20(1 feet of the Project boundary as previously identified by The Nature
+
Conservancy (I-NC, 1999). For the Cheoah River the area of st tdy included wetland and riparian
habitats occurring at or below full bank and all RTE species locations above full bank but within 100
t feet of the Project ho izndary that had been previously identified by TNC ( i 999).
ik%E3 I ERRESMAL StUDY t FINNUX G AUMSr 24 ZM1
a

`�i �
`i\ `
_Tr`/ ',i' -
`•C - `
-`r� _
Ell
``1,, �i iii ' {' ��'i ``A` .� �� l ,•�• -' \ •^.i r.
1
J
- e
Weservoir 1
l�
10000 0 10000 Feet
1 `
- -1
✓ ?.rte ..
yy�� L'• -
lt'"*
r �
f/
Tapoeo Project
Figure: 3 -1
Riparian Habitat
Assessment Study Area
A Ma Mc
aWAAMWASS C647W
4R, NTS

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
4.0 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTMS
The purpose of this study was to address the fullowuig issue in SDI
Assess the impact qf current reservoir operation f )r u?lfitlr Tapoco Project reservoirs on
titi1ildl�e resources and their habitats, including important or unique. habitats, such as
vvetlandc, shoreline riparian zones, and "draw do" "zones.
Following att-, the objectives of this study.
i Utilizing vegetative cover type maps (previousiy prepares! by TNQ and color aerial
photography, prioritize areas of each of the Project reservoirs, along the Chcoah
River and along the Calderwood Bypass with the greatest potential for providing
unique or important habitats.
?. Conduct a reconnaissance level survey of the project reservoirs, the Cheoah River
and the Calderwood Bypass reach with an emphasis on the priority habitat areas
(including but not limited to wetlands and riparian habitats) found along the
shorelines and in the drawdown or fluctuation pones of each of the four Project
reservoirs, the Cheoah River and Coiderwood Bypass. Identify and map the basic
community structure of each of the priority habitat areas. Maps should be prepared
{ utilizing an appropriate classification system, such as The Nature Conservancy's
natural communities etassiftc3tton system, which can be "Cross- walked" witli rather
classification systems in use in North Carolina and Tennessee.
3. Note any unusual, rare, threatened or crihngerr d species (plants or animals) found in
the priority habitat areas, or elsewhere along/within the reservoir or river teaches.
4. Prepare a map(s) of priority habitat areas fount: within and along the Project
reservoirs, Cheoah Diver and Calder%vcK)d Bypass.
5. Conduct an assessment of the effect of fluctuations in reservoir water levels and river
flows under normal operating conditions on the community structure and associated
wildlife usage of the priority habitats found within/along each of the Project
reservoirs, the Cheoah River and the Calderwood Bypass_
6. Prepare a draft study report to be reviewed by'[apoco, resource agencies and other
interested Participants.
7. Mee: with'rapoco, resource agencies and other interested Participants to review the
study results and ruccive comments on the draft report.
8. Utilizing the results of the study and input from - rapoco and the Participants, prepare
specific recommendations for possible mitigation and enhancement measures that
could be undertaken to enhance important wetland. riparian or terrestrial
commuratics and habitats found along the four Project reservoirs, the Cheoah River,
and the Calderwood Bypass reach.
t85QTEtzMS FUALSWW 1 RhALDOCAUGUS124.200t

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
5.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
]'he methodology for this study is composed of the following fcur tasks:
Task 1 Review Project Operations
The information and data generated in this task provided much of the basis for the approaches used to
complete the remaining tasks. `Co become familiar with the pro_.ect area, a reconnaissance was
conducted by Normandeau staff and Dr_ Clcbsch to view the proaect facilities. This revr -411M that th1;
drawdown/tluctuation zones of all four reservoirs are of steep gradient and mostly unvegetated, with
an exposed, predomirandy clay subsoil and that the beds of the Cheoah River and Calderwood
Bypass are composed primarily of coarse rocky material and arc vegetated with patches of shrub
growth.
"170 assess the effects of current water level and flow operating regimes on riparian habitats, an
understanding of water level fluctuation characteristics was developed from data available for the four
Tapoco Reservoirs and river flows in the Cheoah River and the Calder-wood Bypass (see Section 6.3).
Mean short term (daily) water levels and discharges and standard deviations were calculated from the
long term means. The mean highest and lowest weeks in the long term period were calculated to
provide an indication of extremes in water level fluctuation and flow/discharge. `these data were
used to assess the extent, frequency, timing and duration of water level fluctuation and
flow /discharge, and acv displayed in graphs showing these trends in Section 6.3.
Existing vegetation cover type information and maps from the national vegetation classification
produced by TNC we-e used to prepare vegetation cover type maps for the Project facilities_
Task 2 Prioritize Areas with the Greatest Potential for Providing Unique or Important
Habitats
Stereo aerial photographs were used to identify locations within the Project study area having the
greatest potential for providing unique or important habitats. Based on the reconnaissance of the
Project facilities performed in Task 1, it was found that the locations likely to have the greatest
potential for providing priority habitats, which are subject to the effects of water level changes, lie
below full pond elevation and include islands and deltas formed at the mouths of inflowing streams.
These habitats often Contain wetland vegetation and riparian cover types. To provide a context for
presenting the priority habitat information and to be consistent with the threatened and endangered
species work done previously, the vegetation within a band 200 feet wide along the shorelines of the
four impoundments and 100 feet wide for the riparian corridors along the Chcoah River was classified
daring field investigations using TNC's national vegetation classification to a general level in the
hierarchy.
Based on the above tasks, the criteria for defining unique or important habitats include habitats of
:state or federally - listed species, and habitats subject to the effects of changes in water level such as
wetlands and riparian habitats.
''ask 3 Conduct a Reconnaissance -Lev el Survey
Normandeau staff and Dr. C:lebsch visited the priority habitats identified initially in Task 2 to
document their physical and vegetation characteristics and conducted a reconnaissance of the Project
study area to search for other priority habitats that may have been mussed during review of the aerial
IM3TERRE. TRIK 51tQY 1 F V.LDOGAU+A..7 24, 2001 12

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
photographs. Any dent trees suitabltr for Indiana Bat were also noted. All pnonty habitats were
located using GPS and presented on base mapping of the Project study area. These areas, and any
locations that are also considered priortty habitat areas owing ter. occurrence of rare, thm- atoned or
endangered (RTE) species within the 200-foot and I00 -foot bands, were classified using TNC's
national classification to a detailed level in the hierarchy. During the searches conducted by Dr.
C.lebseh and other 'MC subcontractors within the 200 -foot and 100 -foot bands 16 RTE locations
were found ('17NC, 1999). Each of these areas was revisited in order to classify the habitats_
During the reconnaissance level survey all %riidlife sigh observed such as tracks and droppings were
recorded. Particular attention was paid to the reservoir and riparian shorelines, and wetland habitats
because they have the highest likelihood of being impacted by water lewcl fluctuations. Any low
gradient area, observed during the reconnaissance that Wright offer potential for future enhancement,
particularly areas with some emergent growth, were noted_ Any RTE species found were also noted.
After the reconnaissance survey was completed and the characteristics of those priority habitats which
are subject to the effects of water level change were Down, local experts in mammals, hems and
Icpidopterans were enlisted for assistance in evaluating; the quality of the priority habitats and how it
is affected by Project operations. This assessment was arrived at by consensus, based on a second site
reconnaissance witli these: experts and their experience with similar habitats associated with non -
fluctuating impoundrrents and unmanaged rivers. (qualifications for each of the three experts (John
Byrd, .lames Lowe and Wayne Schacher) are provided as biog=raphical sketchers in Addendum 1.
Utilizing the inf0miation collected in pe;rtorm.ing= the above work, maps of priority habitat arras found
in the Project study area were prepared and each priority habitat was classified using TNC's national
vegetation classification system.
Task 4 Assess the Effects of Project Operations on Community Structure and Associated
"Wildlife Usage ofthe Priority Habitats in the Project Area
T'he effects of reservoir drawdowns and fluctuations in water levels and river flows on the pnority
habitats anti on wildlife usage of those habitats were assessed_
For wildlife, impacts on habitat quality were assessed by describing the effect that water level
fluctuations have had on the overall value of each habitat for particular groups of species likely to use
the habitats, e.g, birds, mammals, herps and lepidopterans. The assessment wall; bastA on the
consensus of the experts, based on their experience with similar habitats associated with non -
flticttrating impoundme=ntc The assessment is in a pritnanly rtarxati -e for=t and addresses how
habitat changes that result from fluctuating water levels which occur as part of normal Project
operation affect the st.itability of each particular habitat type for the various species groups_ Impacts
to habitat value are expressed as qualitative changes in habitat suitability and wildlife use.
bA LANDSCAPE SETTING OF THE PRIORITY HABITATS
Much of the shoreline of Santectlah Reservoir is developed with recreational homes and access roads_
Portions of Ghilhowee Reservoir, the Cheoah River and Chzoah Reservoir are bordered by roads,
whereas C:aiderwood Reservoir is remote, accessible only from coat launches. Following; are
descriptions of the vegetation. substrate and hydrologic characteristics of the project area tinder
c;trtre;nt operating conditions.
- 4;563 I ERKJTPJAt ST1rttY 1 RW_DCC AUGUST 7A. 2001

0
D
1
J
y b..
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
6.1 VEGETATION
The Tapoco Project lies within the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains eco - region of Tennessee and
North Carolina. This eco - region is a subset of the US National Vegetation Classification published by
The Nature Conservancy (TN(- 1999). The TNC classifications and descriptors for the plant
communities surrounding the reservoirs and flowage£ are provided in the following table:
TNC C Odes and Community Names for the Vegetation Types on the Tapoco Project
Land Type
Code
Name -
Fields
`JAN
fern erate grassland v.
Emergent
wetlands
V132NNA5N
Temperate perennial forb vegetatiorL temperate grassland
Forested wetlands
I IB2N
Flooded cold- deciduous focrest
Hardwood forest
IB2N
Cold deciduous forest
Mixed forest
10141110N
Mixed needle - leaved evergreen forest/Mixed needle - leaved
evergreen woodland
Shrub -scrub
wetlands
MB2N
Cold - deciduous shrubland
Softwood forest I
LN8N I
—Temperate or sub-polar nexWle- leaved temp to forest
To classify the vegetation on the `C'apoco Project lands using the TNC classification, field
tstt°estigations had been performed by UT. C lebsch as part of another assignment. The results of these
investigations reveal that the plant communities above full pond within a 200 -foot band of the
reservoirs and a 100 -foot band of the C:heoah River consist of hardwood forest, sofhvood forest.
mixed forest and licks. Wetland types occumng above and below full pond and associated with the
flowages are composed of emergent, shrub -scrub and forested wetland. These: plant communities and
land use eategorics ar: shown on the map in Figure 6-1.
iW3 TE(RETetuL STUDY t F1K11 =AMGUST Za, ii)lt
s
6.2 SUBSTR itTES
Withm the drawdown 7oncs of the impoundments fluctuating water levels caused by Project
operation have resulted in a winnowing of fines and organic ma --enal, leaving a resistant substrata:
composed of coarse stoney or clayey subsoil along a steep gradient. In the vicinity of some islands
and the mouths of the larger inflowing streams, the gradients are gradual, winch has allowed fines and
organic material to develop_ In the hed% of C'hensh River and C's lrierunM Rypacc the -.u»hctrAte.c air
predominantly coarse, consisting of boulders, cobbles and gravel interspersed with pools where fines
and organic niateriai have built up.
63 HYDROLOGIC REGINIF,
The purpose of this assessment was to dctcrmmc the maximum, minunum, mean and the range of
water elevations at each of Tapeco's four rtN-etvoirs over the pe-iod of a year, based on a 10 year
0990 -1999) data record. In addition, the streamflow for the Cheoah River, downstream of the
Santeetlah Dam and for a section of the Little Tennessee River (the Calderwood Bypass) downstream
iW3 TE(RETetuL STUDY t F1K11 =AMGUST Za, ii)lt
s

r� �A
a
O•
-
7 /
_ ! i
r
t .
r
k
1111 1 U a
V
-0 (n 20 0- -K in, mn�
.~Z' ,���
o
a
OC�OZm,xopKE)-
�W �G)U)mm°
:*
ov" ��Z ox C)
oM:v nn
O "r�dQQ
�7
w
m
°��� >D° o
n z t0 tC O
o n4
�,_
m°
mc�
'° -MM Xzm
na
O -I
pQ
y
-4 -4 oo PNim'
� p
(n r o
mrtD
D t
2
ITA
� s

!, Reservoir
-- OR : -
Idle
1�
-
3, Key Map
N Figure: 6 -1 3 o 3
Tapoco Project � .1.
Vegetation Cover Types
Vegetation Cover Types
COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL AREAS
in the immediate Vicinity
II
_
''> >
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
of the Project Reservoirs
2 t
'
FIELDS
EMERGENT WETLANDS
and Flo wages.
i FORESTED WETLANDS
OPEN WATER
HARDWOOD FOREST
MIXED FOREST
- SHRUB -SCRUB WETLANDS
"
- SOFTWOOD FOREST
/1Y114A601AOF.All.4SSOG/A 7E5 MAC.
'
4000 0
4000
� E! -: •� u a i : -. n =� . - . - -

R NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
of the Calderwood Darn were evaluated to document seasonal variations. The results of the
investigation of the variability of the reservoir water elevations and streamllow will be used to assess
the potential impact on their respective aquatic and riparian hab, tats.
The Tapoco Project a;,nsists of four darns and their associated reservoirs along the little Tennessee
River and the Cheoah River, ThE Santeetlah Dam is located on the Cheoah River, which is a tnhutary
to the Little Tennessee River. Releases from the Santeetlah Darr are diverted, via a pipelmelrunnel,
to the Little Tennessee- River downstream of the Fontana Dani. The combined releases from the
Santeetlah power house and 1"ontana Dam then pass through each of the three downstream dams
(Cheoah, Calderwood and Chilhowee) and their reservoirs. Spilled flow through the gates at
Santeetlah Dam is directly contributed to the Cheoah River_
The data obtained for this evaluation was provided by Tapoco, and consisted of hourly water surface
elevations recorded at each of the reservoirs from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1999. The hourly
data were used to calculate daily, weekly, monthly and annual water surface elevations for each year
and for the 10 year- period of record. The mean. minimum, maximum, and range of the surface water
elevations, for the 10 year period of record, were then determined on daily, weekly, monthly and
annual time scales using the SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems) Institute's statistical computer
program. The daily, weekly, monthly and annual data are stm>named in Table 6-1.
The daily minimum, ifiaximum and mean reservoir water surface elevations, based on the 10 year
period of record, were then plotted for each of the reservoirs to show how the water elevations change
�1 throe out the e' t` i es 6-2 to 6-S _ The minimum and mw-unum values re
� Y �` �` ) present hourly
values recorded from 1990 through 1999, while the mean value represents the average of the daily
' values recorded from 1990 throe 1999. For co arison the full
� tttp pond elevation for each of the
reservoirs was also platted on each graph.
Reservoir Surface Water Elevations
Table 6-1 sun= -ri -: monthly, weekly and daily w-atcr levels at Santec:tlah. To illustrate the
seasonal variation in the Santectlah Reservoir water levels, the daily values for the 10 year period of
record were plotted_ As shown in Figure 6 -2, the maximum daily water levels at the Santeetlah
Reservoir typically occur from February to May, Runoff is stored during the winter and spring to
maximize storage volume in the reservoir. During the summer, ss inflow to the reservoir declines, the
water levels in the resrivoir also decline, with the minimum daily surface water elevations
experienced during th late fall (November) and early winter (December to mud. January) (Figure 6-2
and Table ti- l). Over the 10 year period of record, the highest rrean daily surface water elevations
are experienced during the late spring and summer, while the lowest mean daily surface water
elevations are experienced during the late fall (Figure 6-2).
The Cheoah, Calderwtiod and Chilhowee dams and reservoirs are located downstream of the
:Santeedah Dam and as a result have progressively lower elevations. As shown in figure 2.5 -1 in the
lnitial Information Package document, the highest elevation decline between the darns in the Tapoco
Project occurs between die Santeetlah Dam and the Chemb Clam. The Cheoah Liam is roughly 660
feet below the Santeetlah Dam, while the average elevation char: -ge between the Cheoah and
Calderwood Darn and the Calderwood and Chilhowee Dam is just over 200 feet. As expected, the
lowest reservoir water surface elevations have been recorded at :he Chilhowee Reservoir, which is
I&W TERRMRIAL sfi U1 1 %11#k DOC AUGdJS S s 24 2001 11
Via`'

is
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
Table 6-1. Summary of Water Flevation (FT) Statistics in the Tapucti Reset -voirs
Now Elevations referenced to local Tapoco datum.
*PcnW of record is January 1. 19%) to December 31, 1999-
"Based on highest or lowest hourly value in a given day,
'"Occurred on multiple days.
1&W7EF�,STFM STUM 1 FIM-DUCAL1G47T24. 401 12
Sanfeetiali
Reservoir
1817
Cheoah Reservoir
1154
Calderwood
Reservoir
965
Chillhowee
Reservoir
874
,Normal Full Pond Elrvati on
jMcan Annual Range
19.88
4.79
4,15
4.04
Maximum Annual Range
23-21
1 6.28
4.81
7.10
M
'Minimum Annual Rangc
13-97
-3;
3.01
146
Mean Monthly Elevation
1807-69
1152.21
963.63
872,91
.Maximum Monthly Elcvatpon
1816.53 (Mar9O)
1153.711 (1`690)
964,79 (F090)
873-54 (Jaj193)
Minimum Monthly EleVahDn
1794.62 (Dec97)
1 150 82 (Jun96)
96218 (Ju193)
869.96 (Jan90)
Mean Monthly Range
4.26
2.71
2.28
1.90
Maximum Monthly Range
gC
12-95 Nax97)
i+{1$ (JU197)
4.36 (JuI90)
7.05 (May96)
Minimum Monthly Range
-7--1w.71
10.46 (Jul96)
0.30 (F690)
0.38 (Feb90)
0 .S8 Oul%)
IvIcan Weekly Elevation
1152-20
963-62
872-93
Maximum Weekly Elcvmdcn
1916.77(3t5-11/90)
1153.9(9/24-30/90)1
96415(2/5-111/90)
97336(2/26-3/4-%)
Minimum Weekly Elevation
1793.4 (12124-30/95)
1149.96 (712-8193)
960,72 (7/8-15190)
867.77 (1129-214190)
Mean Weekly Range
1-15
1 1.51 (2126-34/97)
160
1 4.74 (7123-29197)
1.28
•.01 (101114. 20192)
99
5.46 (4129-5/5P96)
Maximum Weekly Rangc
Minimum Weekly Range
0.07 (3/5-1119 0)
LO 16 (1029-214190)
0.07 (118-1"0)
0= (1/222-28190)
Mean Daily Elevation
1
1807.69
1152.20
963,62
872.93
Maximum Daily Elevation'*
1817.67 (3127194)
1154.46 (1/29196)
965.44 (3131/98)
87450 (2116/")
Minimum Daily Elevation"
Mean Daily Range
1792.66 (116/95)
1146,25 (9110x94)
958,56 (8127197)
865.67 (511196)
016
1.89
1.09
1,16
Maximum Daily Range
6.73 (2116195)
7 (11115/94)
5,96 (12I5198)
4,47 (2116192)
Minimum Daitv Range
0.()()006
0.00 (7131 /99)
0.006*.
0.0001/31199)
Now Elevations referenced to local Tapoco datum.
*PcnW of record is January 1. 19%) to December 31, 1999-
"Based on highest or lowest hourly value in a given day,
'"Occurred on multiple days.
1&W7EF�,STFM STUM 1 FIM-DUCAL1G47T24. 401 12

s
I
i
� j
! ��
� k
1
i
I y
t
i
t
f
� �
I
ii
3
I 1
I i
i

Yid
c
0
(I1 NOUVATS
14
CD
cu
s E ,�

m d
- O
!71
{
E r
S S5
� tt7
CLT" NOLVA3'13
1 =.

C
x m
ro as
2 2 2
c
E 9
(0" NC3tiVAM
m
G
,S
s �
S s
v
S �
.Im
r
.d
� E
s
0
E �=
s C
15
s �$
E
s
ui
ro

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
located at the lowest point, related to the Tapoco Project, alori& the Little Tennessee River, The
minimum, mean and maximum reservoir water surface clevaticns for the three lower dams are
summarized in Table & f .
i
As illustrated in Figures 6 -3 to 6 -5 the maximum, mimmum and mean daily water levels in the
Cheaoh, Calderwood and Chilhowee reservoirs exhibit little seasonal variation. In each of these
reservoirs the maximum daily water levels are very close to the full pond level. The minimum daily
reservoi r levels are typically withal five feet of the maximum daily water levels. The lack of seasonal
variation in the reservoir water levels is due to the lunited usable Storage of the impoundments and
the daily cycle, modified run -ofthe- ri,%vr operation of these developments. Since these three
developments are operated in a "modified run -of- river" mode, the inflow and outflow from each
development typically balance out on a daily basis.
Range of Reservoir Surface Water Elevations
Due to the releases from each of the dams for hydropower production and the natural variation to
runoff, the water levels in each reservoir vary with rebpeet to ti,nc. The range in water levels on an
annual, monthly, weeid_y and daily basis for each of the reservoirs, for the period 1 990 through 1999,
is presented in Table 5-1. On an annual and monthly basis, the Santeetlah Reservoir experiences the
greatest range of water levels. The mean annual range in water level is from roughly 20 feet at the
Santeetlah Reservoir to just over four feet at the Chilhowee Reservoir_ The decrease in the range of
water levels in the downstream reservoirs is a direct response to the management of the reservoir
levels and the releases from each of the dams.
i
The magnitude of time range in water levels also decreases as the measurement period decreases from
monthly to daily readings. On a monthly basis, water levels in the four reservoirs range from just
over four feet in the Santeetlah Reservoir to just under two feet at the Chithowee Reservoir. Chia
weekly and daily basis the range in water levels at all four reservoirs is generally less than two feet.
Cheaah River
The discharge of the Cheooh River located below the Santeetia:i Dam has not been measured on a
continuous basis so no historical streatnflow records were available for "this assessment. In the past
year a stream gaging station has been constricted on the Cheoah River near the Tapoco Lodge and
water level data are now being recorded continuously. Conside -ing the short period of time that this
water level and discharge data have been recorded, its use for an analysis of historical s"amflows
-aud water levels r5 litnited. However, since the year 2000 inalvded a relatively dry summer and the
minimum observed flow was approximately 19 cfs, a lowest daily mean discharge of IS cfs was
assumed for this analysis_
Estimates of the strearnflow for the Cheaoh River have been previously made based on estimated
flows into the Santeetlah Reservoir for the period from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1999.
Inflow to the Santeetlah Reservoir was estimated using the gate and turbine discharge data, the lake
elevation for the Santeetlah Dam and the lake elevation versus storage volume relationship. The
discharge of the Cheoath River was then calculated by multmplyrig the estimated inflow into the
reservoir by the ratio of the drainage basin areas for the lower (40.6 sq. mile) and upper { 176 sq_ mile)
Cheaah River and there adding the discharge from the Santeetlah Dam. The major assumption in
rising this type of ratio approach is that the runoff per unit area produced by each part of the
watershed is similar.
t""i TEit,STR" $TUUY 7 FROLDOC AUGUS1 24. M1 17

Using, the estimated daily inflow data for the Cheoah River, for the period of 1983 through 1999, the
daily discharge of tht- lower Cheoah River at the Tapoco Lodge was estimated. Based on these
estimated flows the total discharge, mean discharge and the antrum seven -day mmimum discha ge for
the Iower Cheoah River were also estimated (Table 6 -2). In ad6tion, the mean prorated inflow for
the Cheoah River, based on the period of record 1983 through 1999, is presented to Figtm 6-6a-
Table 6-2. Summary of Discharge Statistics for the Cheoah River at Tapia► Ledge for the period of
1983 through 1999.
S ii hest Annual Total Flow DSI )'
90,766
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
Lowest - kantai Total Flow (DSF)
Using, the estimated daily inflow data for the Cheoah River, for the period of 1983 through 1999, the
daily discharge of tht- lower Cheoah River at the Tapoco Lodge was estimated. Based on these
estimated flows the total discharge, mean discharge and the antrum seven -day mmimum discha ge for
the Iower Cheoah River were also estimated (Table 6 -2). In ad6tion, the mean prorated inflow for
the Cheoah River, based on the period of record 1983 through 1999, is presented to Figtm 6-6a-
Table 6-2. Summary of Discharge Statistics for the Cheoah River at Tapia► Ledge for the period of
1983 through 1999.
S ii hest Annual Total Flow DSI )'
90,766
Year 1994
Lowest - kantai Total Flow (DSF)
24,884
Year 1988
Average Annual Total Flow (DSF)
47,673
Hi r est Annual Mean Discharge (CFS)
249
Year 1994
lowest Annual Mean Dischar c (CFS)
68
Year 1988
Avers a Annual Mean Discharge (aS)
131
Ili hest Daily Mean Discharge (CFS)
8,104
17- Mar -90
Lowest Daily Mean Disc}tar c WFS)
15
528 Days
Averse Annual 7-DaZ Minimum Discharge (CFS)
20
10 Percent Of Discharges Exceed (CFS)
180
50 Percent OfDischar es f xomd (CFS)
62
90 Percent Of Discharges Exceed (CFS)
16.4
' Day strand fert
The highest streaniflc•ws on the Cheoah River typically occur doing the late winter and early spring,
while the lowest flows occur during the summer. The higher flews in the late winter and early sprang
are in response to storm events, while during the summer streatr flow typically declines in response to
increased evapotranTptration losses and reduced ground water recharge.
['he annual total flow in the Cheoah River has ranged from 24,884 dsf (1988) to 90,766 dsf (1994),
with an average annual total flow of 47,673 dsf. The annual total flow- is the sum of the daily mcan
values of discharge for a year. The average annual mean discharge for the Cheoah River is 131 cfs
and it has ranged from a mirumum of 68 cfs (in 1988) to a maxunum of 249 cis (in 1994). Fite daily
estimated discharge for the lower Cheoah River ranges from an assumed minimum of 15 cfs to an
estimated maximum of 8,104 cfs on March 17, 1990. The estirrirated annual minimum seven day flow
has ranged from 13 cfs (in 1983, 1986, 1987, 1993 and 1997 -1999) to 42 cfs (in 1989), with an
average annual minimum seven day flow of 20.2 cfs, The daily discharge data were. then used to
develop a flow duration curve for the Cheoah River (Figure 6-6b). Based on this flow duration curve,
discharge in the Chmah River exceeds I5 cfs 91.5 percent of the time, approximately 62 cfs 50
pment of the time ar_d approximately 180 cfs 10 percent of the time.
Calderwood Bypass
The Calderwood Bypass is a 1.2 mile long section of the Little Tennessee River located between the
Calderwood Reservoir and its powerhouse tailrace. Stream discharge is not recorded along this reach
MW 1ERMSTRIAI STUIl' f "N^1 -DCC �J..�G= 224.200 18

-pis,
(sp) MOLA
19
CL
Is
o

MI,
1000
U.
rn
Qse
Q.
Base flow = 15 cis
.0
0.01 01 1 10 30 so 70 90
Exceedance Frequency
Figure 6-6b. Flow Duration Curve for Cheoan River at Tapoco Lodge for
the period of January 1983 through December 1999
Figure 6-6b- Flow Duration Curve for Chcoah River atfapoco Lodge. January 1981 through
December 1999.
iMTErQEST%& STUDY i 8-4-01DOC AMUST24. ^.-,1 20
In
'R,

.c ..«...,...::+ M.,,,. dre_. �•. ,.u..�sY::L'daY.::.4'AuA4aMr... •'vCs'ia&� s `= •. ,+�- ........ .......v..., ..,. JWr�if��&L. .-•.•..•, �. �swr '°"ali�ral.iif�iiYil�iYJ4V(4kw, ta5a'+w' t:
i
{
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
of the river so it had tai be estimated using a drainage basin ratio analysts. Stream discharge was
estimated by multiplying the inflow at Santectlah Reservoir (fir. the period of 1983 through 1999) by
the ratio of the drainage basin area of interest to the drainage bzsm area of the Santectlah Reservoir.
The drainage basin area for the Santectlah Reservoir is 176 sq, miles. while the combined area for the
drainage basins of First Creek, Goal Creek and the uplands north of the ever is 3.97 sq. miles_ [-he
recorded discharge of releases from the Calderwood Dann were then added to the discharge values
derived from the drainage basin analysts to estimate stream discharge to the vicinity of the
powerhouse tailrace, Estimates of annual total flow, annual mean discharge and daily mean discharge
for the Caldrtwwood Bypass are presented in Table 6 -3. The estimated mean prorated daily discharge
in the Caldenvtxxi Bypass, for the period of 1983 through 1999, is oresented in Figure 6-7a.
'Table 6-3. Summary of Mscharge Statistics for C:aldenvood Bypass on the Little Tennessee River
for the Period 1983 through 1999.
110eat Annual Total Flow (DSF)
337,433
Year 1990
Lowest Annual Total Flow (DSF)
2,468
Year 1986
Average Annual Total Flow (DSF)
76,955
Highest Annual Mcan Discharge (CFS)
925
Year 1990
Lowest Annml Mean Discharge (CFS)
6.8
Year 1 996
Average Annual Mean Dischart C (CTS)
211
1iighest Daily Mean Discharge (CFS)
15,379
21 - lurt -89
Lowest Daily Mean Discharge (CFS)
0
110 Dars
Asera a Annual 7 -Day Minimmn Discharge (CFS)
1.5
10 Percent Of Discharges Exceed (CFS)
24
50 Percent Of Discharges Exceed (CFS) v
,
90 percent Of Discharges Exceed (M)�
As with the Chcoah River, streamflow in the Calderwood Bypass is highest during the lair winter and
early spring, while the lowest flows occur during the summer. The higher flows in the late winter and
early spring are in response to regional storm events, while during the summer flow typically declines
in response to increased evapotranspiration losses and reduced ground water recharge.
The annual total flow in the Calderwood Bypass has ranged from 2.465 dsf (1986) to 337,433 dsf
(1990), with an average annual total flow of 76,955 dsf. The annual total flow is the sum of the daily
mean values of'discharge for a year. The annual mean discharge has ranged from a low of &8 cfs
(1986) to a maximum of 925 cfs (1990) with an average value of 211 cfs, On a daily basis, stream
discharge has ranged firom periods of no flow (1 10 days) to a maximum flow of 15, 379 cfs (June 21,
1989). The annual minimum seven day flew has ranged from less than 0.1 cfs (in 1998) to «.4 cfs (►n
1989), will-, an average annual minimum seven day flow of 1.5 cfs.
As with the Chcoah River a flow duration curve was developed for the Calderwood Bypass (Figure 6-
7b). It is estimated that 10 percent of the daily discharges exceed approxunately 24 cfs. 50 pereent
exceed 5 cfs and 90 percent exceed 1 cfs.
k5563 7ERRESIML STWf t fW:,L X}C AUGUST 24, Zrj 1 21

Y'
(80) Mou
22
Y
s
r
Z S]
s
s �
T
s
s
s �
s
s
t
m

k
I
NORMA NDEA U ASSOCIATES INC.
0
4!
Q5
11W
1001
101
11
C
01 10 30 50 70 90
Exceedance Frequency (%)
Figure 6-7b. Flow Duration Curve for Calderwood Bypass for the Period of, January 19831 dirough
December 1999
tW TEFO*StRAt SIUOV I 8-Z2-01= AUGUST Fa, 2M, 23

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
7.0 DESCRIPTIONS OF PRIORITY HABITATS
Locations within the Project study area which have the greatcA potential for providing important or
unique habitats for wildlife, and which are subject to the effects of water level changes, have been
designated priority habitats for purposes of ttus study. These habitats lie at or below full pond
elevation within the drawdown zone, and include wetland and riparian vegetation and cover types that
generally occur on islands and on deltas formed at the mouths ofinflowutg streams. These conditions
under which priority habitats occur and the priority habitat locations were determined from aerial
photos and the findings of the first of two held reconnaissance events. A total of 160 priority habitats
were identified and visited in order to classify and characterise them. Data and individual
descriptions of each of these habitats, lists of wildlife species and sign observed, the TNC
classifications and descriptors and the GPS locations are included in Addendum I At two locations a
den tree suitable for use by Indiana Bat was observed, one in Calderwood Reservoir (CAL -9) and
another on Santeetlah Reservoir (SAN -1 S).
During this first field reconnaissance to the 160 sample sites the investigators found 63 of these
habitat samples to be lacking in priority wetland value, primarily as a result of topography. Often
wetlands were lacking as a result of steep slopes into the water where there was no sediment
accumulation or aquatic vegetation. In many cases the low wedand habitat value found at such sites
v.-As further compromised by local human disturbance (roads, housing etc.). Such sites were
consequently designated negligible wetland and excluded from further investigatinn ac pnority
habitats, leaving 97 priority habitats. The locations of these' 97 habitats are shown in Figure -1-1. The
distribution of the 97 priority habitats among the four rescrvoim and the Cheoah River is given in the
following table:
Number of Priority plumber of Representative
Reservoi r/Fl owage Habitats Locations
Chilhowee 21 ?
Calderwood 3 -� w3
Cheoah _,._ 2
Santectlah 47 3
Chcoah Rive- 17 1
In addition to the 97 priority Habitat locations within the drawdown Zone, there arc 16 locations above
Will pond within a 2(Wfoot band along each reservoir and within a 100 -foot band along the Cheoah
4 River. These 16 locations are also priority habitats owing to the discovery of RTE Species during
searches conducted by Dr. Clebsch and other TNC subcontractors in 1999. The TNC classifications
-4 and descriptors, and tune notes taken at each of the 16 locations ay Dr. Clebsch m a follow -up visit to
each site as part of the current effort are also provided in Addendum 3.
To maximize efficiency during a second visit to priority habitats to assess habitat quality for wildlife
and wildlife use, a sample of 11 of the 97 priority locations (i.e:, the representative locations in the
above table) was selected to be visited by a team of four local stecialists having expertise in
evaluating habitat quality for herps, birds, mammals and leptdopteratk. These 11 locations were
�- selected based on findings of the first field reconnaissance and are considered to be representative of
ee56 TEOWST u srutry + MW-Dac auGAM 24, Zone 24

r-
♦.Y ^i�
,'� y.' - ^� i ' sue♦ l_ 9z ",,r''
r \E,
-- ac sm g z /���� r' it I � ♦ ,
_ g
Ai
Ac-
�" \- __„� ! . •� ice, '1 \� \♦ - - i
1�
C) c) o o cn Q>
= >xx >q Z Tj
m y omo oO I d4 �..p� A -. E �^
N X
NC i m
w NO
CIF
1 n
\
ri
\
r ;
i
\i r!
`yam
�
'• !mil �
� z
+ O
t _
IC
Be
O
r \E,
-- ac sm g z /���� r' it I � ♦ ,
_ g
Ai
Ac-
�" \- __„� ! . •� ice, '1 \� \♦ - - i
1�
C) c) o o cn Q>
= >xx >q Z Tj
m y omo oO I d4 �..p� A -. E �^
N X
NC i m
w NO
CIF
1 n
\
ri

r'
All
ML
vt
1 i 1 • ._��{ r 1, /i "�. r= i e yl� .
\
tl
ii I ° ) 11 (n �-
_ -2
m omomm <p
N�NZ�
y o a
ry �`
a-
V
I
11
I' y
{ Ai
i
i
•m
`` S2 We
►�
1 i 1 • ._��{ r 1, /i "�. r= i e yl� .
\
tl
ii I ° ) 11 (n �-
_ -2
m omomm <p
N�NZ�
y o a
ry �`
a-
V
I
11
I' y
{ Ai
i
i

i
/ f
i
f /
i/ i
,1
! % CHI 17-R r /••
4 ' l
' / slj
"CHI 19-R \�
CH Z4 I
A, eservoli
` - - - -y \
CHI 11 \
I CHI 30
CM 06
"X06 CA '\ 1i
CAL 17-R
CAL 06-R
r,
10-R-
/'
%
\
-\ 1 CHE06i
is
31 Key Map N
Tapoco Project
LEGEND:
CHI z • Priority Habitat Locations
Figure: 7 -I 3 of 3
Locations oF97
J
i
w
e
'
SAN 33R IV Representative Priority
N 33-
Reservoir and
S
A liar s. Habitat Locations
Flowage Priority
2
SAN = Santeetlah Res.
CHER = Cheoah River
Habitats.
Roads
CHE = Cheoah Res.
,
CAL = Calderwood Res. TRAILS
1
CHI = Chilhowee Res.
./ Transmission lines
4000 0
.. .. -... -.
-_. --
4000 % ` \' Streams I AMMMEOWAMOCA4 IMA is
I �I.'. 1!i l•`il.i_tlY tt •_: fib +_LTFIV?�
Feet
----- - -- - -.,

1:
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES INC.
The- rarite of conditions and characteristics that occur throughout the 97 sites. The I 1 locations are
highlighted in Figure 7 -1. which of the other 97 habitats each of the 11 locations is intended to
represent are shown in the table entitled "Data Recorded at 97 Priority Habitat Stations" in the far
right column in Addendum 2 "Data for 97 ReservoirfFlowage Pnority Habitats" During the
reconnaissance of the 11 locations with the specialists, large segments of the Project reservoirs and
€" flowages were toured to provide them an ovemew of the project facilities as well as the opportunity
to view a large number of other priority habitats. Following are descriptions of each of these 1 t
rpriority habitats.
CAL-17 Caide "rwood Bypass at Goat Creel:
On the C.alde-rwoo d Bypass, at the Goat Creek Road crossing, the bed of the Little Tennessee River
had negligible flow, with only isolated, shallow pools among bedrock outcrops and boulders grading
to cobble and silt. The floodplain shrubs included Amorpha frueicosa. Rosa palustris, Cephalanthus
vccidentalis, Alnus serrulata, Cornus amomum, Salix sericea, overtopped in places by young trees of
Lirluidambar styracijlua, ricer rubntm. Ullmus alata, Betulu nigrca, Platanus nccidetualis, and Robinia
psewdoacacia. Herbaceous species, primarily associated with the pools, included Justicia americana,
Potaniogeton sp., Bidens sp., Dsmunda regales, Juncus sp., Carex spp„ and Eleocharis rnelanocarpa.
One Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica) was found new the river. Birds sighted included Belted
Kingfisher, Song Sparrow., Indigo Bunting, Yellow- breasted Chat, and Carolina Wren.
Riparian vegetation comprised rind- successional forest of Fraxinus americana. Rohinia
pseudoacacia, Liriodendron tulipifera, and Plutanus occidentaks, to about 70-ft height. Shrub -size
Ifale,sia tetraptera occupied the sparse lower woody stratum_ Equally sparse, herbs included
Polymnia and Osmortei a species, Laportea c•anadensis, and EiLyworium ncgosum. Loose moulders
on the steep slope pro-.ide low to moderate opportunities for small- animal denning. Litter has
accumulated to a depth to about 2 inches, over rock. There are ";ow amounts of small, down -dead
wood, and negligible standing -dead wood. Birds observed here included Downy Woodpecker and
Red -eyed Virco
CHER -5 Cheetah River at Cochran Creek
This habitat centers on the mouth of Cochran Creek, just upstream of the banksidc store. The
roadside river bank has been cleared of woody vegetation down to the channel. The bouldery river
bed supports scrub - shrub wetland (Atttorpha fruticosa, Sambucus canadensts, Alnus serrulata,
Platanus occidentalis, Salix riigra ) on higher- elevations. emergents (T'ypho latifolia, Impatiem
capensis, grasses etc.) in depressions of exposed fine sediment, and sparse growth of a Poiamogeton
species in pools. This dense woody and herbaceous vegetation extends about 75 feet along the lower
reach of Cochran Creek and 150 to 250 feet from its mouth up and down the near river bank in a
s"lath up to .50 feet wide. There is negligible dead woody material. Black Swallowtail (a butterfly)
and Ruby - throated Hummingbird were observed nectaring among the abundant flowers.
CBEI -19 Chilhowee Reservoir-- Chilagatee Branch Etniiayment
The last 300 feet of taus embavment comprises dense aquatic bed (Mvriopkv/lum species), fringed
t with emergents (Scirpw cyperinus, S validus, Iris pseudacorus etc,) and scrrtb -shrub wetland. The
level bt -onsists of a fine - particulate substrate. The woody wetland and riparian growth is very
young. There is good Muskrat habitat- Beaver feeding sign was noted, and 6-inch burrows in the
1W TEFWS i7va. STUDY 1 H"AM AUGUST 24, M1 28

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
shaiy bank lust above the: water line. A possible Belted Kingfisher nest hole and other smaller holes
were observed in the same bank. Indigo Bunting and Black - capped Chickadee were observed, and a
probable Turkey Vulture feeding along the shore; I I Cliff Swal loo nests were active under the Rte.
129 bridge.
CAL-10 Calderwoad Reservoir at Dalton Branch Gap
`Tills is the mouth of the Dalton Gap Branch, which has deposited a large ovoid sedimentation delta of
silty sand on rocks, about 200 feet by 75 feet. The delta's sparse herbaceous plant cover is don orated
by Brikeron strigosus. The upstream ravine includes Liriodendron tulipifera and Liquidambar
styraeiJlum Upland riparian forest comprises Quercus prinus. Q. rubra, Q. eoccinea, Tsuga
canadensis, Liriodendron udipifera, Betula alleghanienris. Tilia heterophylla; and it woody
undcrstory of Rhododendron maximum and R. minus throughout. There are only low amounts of
dead woody material.
The absence of soil and perennial vegetation from the delta indicates the incidence of alternate
scouring and deposition on an annual basis, with a net accumulation of sediment as the turbid
mountain stream slows in the reservoir's still water. Few plant species appear to have been able to
withstand such physical stress, and some may also experience reduced opportunities for germination,
establishment and survival in the absence of a seasonal water -level decline. Only a few short - lived
annuals contribute substantially to the delta's small plant biomass. it is expected that with the passage
of time (decades to centuries) tinder existing reservoir management, this rapid progradation of the
shoreline by new sediment will create conditions supportive of a much more diverse wetland
vegetation at this anc similar points of stream discharge in the study area.
CFLE -25 Cheoah Reservoir at Fox Creek
This emergent wetland at the mouth of Fox Creek occupies a peninsula of silt trained parallel to the
upland shoreline by current and wave action. Principal herbaceous species include Rudbec a
latiniwa. Chelone Rlabra, Vernania noveboracensis. Juncus efjusus. Impatiens capensis. Bidens
pol ylepts, Carex crinita, and 0ioclea sensibihs: in deeper water are Scirpus validus and Isoetes
engelmannii. Signs were noted of White- tailed Deer foraging, also of Great Blue Heron, and
probably Muskrat. Beaver (lodging in bank) have felled all sapling woody vegetation. thus
contributing to maintenance of the wetland in a predominantly herbaceous condition_ Wood Duck
nest boxes here emphasize the apparent suitability of the habitat for this bird. Two butterfly species,
Black Swallowtail ar. d Silverspat Skipper were observed nectaring in good number, especially on
Vernonra.
CHE 31 Cheoah Reservoir island at Sweet Branch
This is a forested island dominated by Betula nigra, with Catalpa speciosa, and Platanus
occidentalis_ Around the edge grow Corpus amomum and Celastrus orbieulatus; on the lower -lying
strand, Acer rubrunt. There is low dead -wood accumulation. The lake bottom consists of gently
sloping silty sand, covered (to about 30 %) by patches of Vallisreria. Utter scat was found on the
batik, Beaver track it the back - channel mud. Also in the back channel, there were many small
earthworm casts and crayfish holes. A Brown Snake (Storeria dekayii) neonate was found in the
central forested area.
1a5Q TFRRESiR4L SIMY 1 FINALfjpf,AtJGUST 24. ZW1 29
1
•

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES INC.
";AN-M Santeetlah Reservoir—Upper Snowbird Creek Einbayment
The Mbayment here is closely surrounded by it road and two houses. The forest between road and
water includes Tsuga canadensts, Liriodendror, fulipirera. Accr rubrum, some large (to 20 inches
dhh), and also, border ng water, Benda nigra (the doniln-ant), Platanus r),rcidentalis. Querc7ls alha,
Robinia pseudoaracia, anti Cornus amomuni. There is a dense understmy of Rhododendron
maximum, '11kere is it moderate amount of standing-dead and down-dead wood, much of the latter
apparently recent flotsom deposit. Along the immediate banks of the embayment, The large Benda
nigra and dense Cionz umvinum presently dominating the wetland Cringe probably survive because
of substantial drawdown, during the latter part of the growing, season. There is no aquatic vegetation
in the lake at the creek mouth.
Birds observed here included Carolina Chickadee, American Crow, Hooded Warbler, Northern Parula
Warbler, Acadian Flycatcher, Red -eyed Vireo. Song Sparrow, Yellow - throated Warbler, Wood Duck
with 4 young, and a Great Bitic Heron nearby.
SAN-52 Santeetlab Reservoir—Upper East Buffalo Creek Embayment
This is the upper end of East Buffalo Creek. The mouth of the stream lies just above the bridge. with
flooded Safix nigra to 10 Inches dbh. No aquatic vegetation is apparent. One side of the stream is in
pasture. the other in young forest fragmented by development. There is negligible dead woody
material. Dmwdown. exposes a stroamside flat of silt partly stabilized by Eleacharis acicularis.
Ground cover tinder the young Saft y migri, trf-i-t., ixeu
I t: pies up to 15% of toW area icowT, mostly of an
irrimature (cf.Avler) species.
Animal observations included Rona caresheiara calling from strearriside cover. Tracks of Raccoon
and Beaver were miter: in drawdown mud. Birds identified were Mourning Dove, lied- winged
Blackbird, Wood Duck (with young), Common Grackle, Carolina Wren. Song Sparrow, Cardinal.
Camlina Chickadee, Indigo Bunting, American Robin, Northern Flicker, Green Heron (2 nests in the
floodplain -willow thicket), and Great Blue Heron.
CHJ-17 Chilhowee Reservoir—Abrams Creek Embayment (includes Panther Creek)
Abrams Creek and Panther Creek share a common outlet Ch intn
I , ilhowet RcseTvo1r­_ Comparable in
both kind and size, they receive equal consideration here as rnanifestations of the same habitat type,
At the navigable head �:)f Panther Creek, gravelly sand forms the sediment base, overlain sparsely with
organic patches to a 1 -inch depth. No aquatic vegetation was observed. No dead wood or cavities
were seen in the surrounding young forest, which comprises chiefly Pinu• virginiana, P. strobus.
Quercus alba, and Vrwdendron tulipifera. North-facing, relatively mcsic slopes include Tsuga
canadcnsis in the canopy, Rhododendron maximum in the understory- Good rock ledge structure is
present for surnmer-misting bats (c. g. Eastern Small-footed Bw '), and other small mummal dens.
The Creek supports a big population of Two-lined SalarnandeTs.
As at Panther Creek,, at the upper limit of still water. rapids enter the navigable head ofAbrarris Creek
with seasonally scouring force,, depositing little fine sediment and promoting no aquatic plant growth-
Good Ilelibender habitat extends upstream from just above the �,tillwajer z-onc. Them is no dead
wood or cavity fo=r-on in the surrounding vigorous young forest. Cove for" here includes
Fraxinus americana, Ltriodendr(in tulipifera, Fagus grandi/blia, Betuld alleghaniensis, Tsuga
canadensis, Acer ruhrum, A, sarcharurn. Tdia hereropikOla, and Quercus rubra- Drier, rocky sites
18_r,QTEF3X_VWL8rMY I PAM DOGAUGUS32A. 2001 30

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
support good growth of Pint4v strobes and Robinia pseudoatacia; the driest sites, ehicliy Pinrcv
rigidu, P virginiana, Canna glabra. Quercm prinus, and U, falrata. Acadian Flycatcher, Carolina
Chickadee, and Belted Kingfisher were observed, as were Barn Swallows anti Chff Swallows nesting
under the Rte. 129 bridge_ A Green Heron was observed nearby, and one Map Turtle basting in sight
of the bridge downstream, Friable rock along the main channel disintegrates into coarse sand that
may enhance turtle nest - excavation opportunities.
CAL-6 Calderwood Reservoir at Slick Rack C'rtrk
This is the Slickrock Creek embayment. The shallow, cobble -rock sandy bottom is almost level from
the head of still water for about 500 feet, or nearly it) the embayment mouth. Absentee of aquatic
vegetation may be due to the probable force of discharge from Slickrock Crrck at certain times of the
year, and the resultant effects of bedload scouring and heavy sedtmcntation in erratic but frequent
alteration. Bordering; the water is young forest (to 12 -itich dbh) composing Quereus alba, Q,
prinus. Acer rubrum. 07 )y ndnmr arborerum, Betula alleghaniersis, Tsuga canudensis, Pinncs
strobes, and P virginiana, with a woody understor v of Rhododendron maximum and R_ mints. There
are low amounts of dead woody material. Carolina Chiclaidee, Tufted Titmouse, and Acadian
Flvcatcher were observed.
SAN -33 Salnteetlah Reservoir —upper Chcoah River Embayment
At this location the river runts (fast and shallow over bare boulders interspersed with silty pockets. No
aquatic: vegetation was obsery +ed here. There was no vegetated wetland, although the river channel
may occasionally back up high enough to spill over into level npanan forest. This comprises young
trees (to 7 -inch dbh) of Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus alba, Ck stellata, Acer rubrum, Carpima
carohniana; a woody understory of scattered Kalmia Imifolia. Rhododendron maximum, R
arborescens, and Viburnum dentatum, and a herbaceous cover most notably of dense Dennstuedtia
punctilobela patches. Only low amounts of standing -dead and down -dead wood are Present.
Small- rnammaI burrows were observed under logs, also apparently in the vertical riverbank face.
There were recently gmawed Beaver stumps, and Raccoon tracks m the streamside mud. Pools in the
river silt up and are therefore not suitable for most macroanvertearate life or dependent amphibians.
Following the commencement of dmwdown, the channel becomes too shallow for good Hellbender
habitat. Drawdown Tway help to concentrate prey species (e. g. crayfish) and improve accessibility to
the channel for their predators (e. g. Raccoon, Great Blue Heron). Birds observed here were Carolina
Wren. Indigo Bunting, Wood Duck, Great Blue Heron, Cardinal, and Belted Kingfisher.
8.0 WILDLIFE USE OF PRIORITY HABITATS UNDER CURRENT
OPERATING CONDITIONS
Prior to the second reconnaissance, descriptions of each of the 13 priority habitats selected for
eN21uatton were provided to each of the specialist: for their use in preparing preliminary lists of
wildlife species potentially using the priority habitats, including any listed species or species of
concern. During the second reconnaissance, notes were made by the specialists on habitat quality for
various species and (where appropriate) uses along with lists of species that would b- expected to use
the habitats (these lists being a refinement of the preliminary lists) at each of the I I locations.
11160 TEriritS ri"L STUDY I FW1XM At?GUST 21.2011 31
IA

NORMANOEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
After the reconnaissance it was decided by the specialists that the t 1 prionty habitats, representing a
more detailed classiftz -ation of habitat types, could be combined into five general types based on
commonalities important in making distinctions relative to habitat quality and species utilization Tlie
rive types, the I f priority habitats and the listing of the 97 sites represented are presented in the table
"Data Recorded at 97 Priority Habitat Stations" in the far right column in Addendum 7 "Data for 97
Reservoir/Flowage Priority Habitats." The five types and the l l corresponding priority habitat
locations are:
Abbreviations Priority Habitat Types Priority Habitat Locations
SS Scrub Shrub CAL -17, CHfiR -5
F Emerput CHI -19, CAL -tq, C1IE -25
FE Forested Wetland with Emergent Fringe CHE -31 j
Rj Forested Wetland with Urivege:tated Stream Bottom SAN -52, SAN -31
OF Unv--getated Flat 0111-17, CAL-6, SAN -33
Following are descrili-jons of each of the five types together wi --h the number of the 97 sites
represented by each type:
Scrub -Shrub Wetland (SS)
As a wetland plant community, scrub-shrub habitat represents a zone intermediate between the
forested and emergent wetland types in its tolerance of inundation. In the study area, human
disturbance sometimes augmentts this type by maintaining the scrub component at unnaturally high
levels. For recreational or other purposes, wetland tree species, e.g.. Red Maple (Acer rubrum), River
Birch (8etula *ra) and Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) may be periodically cut back, thus
perpetuating a shrub -like cover of stump sprouts_ Prevalent members of the senib -shrub community,
e.g.. Smooth Alder (,4'nus serrulata), Silky Dogwood (Cormrs amonium) and small willows (Salix
spp_), appear as individuals or narrow linear populations along most shorelines of the study area.
However, only where the typically steep gradient of the study area markedly lessens, e. g. at the
mouth of some tributary streams, does this community occasiomlly develop noteworthy dimensions
as a distinct habitat.
A total of 18 habitat samples, or I S.S % of all those recorders, ww; found to belong to this type.
Emergent Wetland (E)
Vary few locations in the study area possess level areas extensive enough near the summertime rudder
level to promote signi cant development of this habitat type, in places; e.g., the silt bar islands,
beaver depredation on trees and shrubs may help maintain herbaceous wetland growth in competition
with woody vegetation. Typically, the cmergcnt community forms a narrow fringe along the water's
edge, either as an abrupt transitional zone between water and upland, or as part of a more extensive
woody wetland qpe (see the description below of wetland habitat FE). Occasionally, as in the first
sample description below, the emergent type changes almost imperceptibly into aquatic bead habitat
downgradient and scrub -shrub swamp upgradient,
! M3 TERF STRIAlSttlp'r I F#W_DW AW;0JSr 24, 2W1 32

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
A total of 8 habitat samples, or 8 % of all those recorded, was found to belong to this tvlie.
Forested Wetland with Emergent Fringe (FE)
Weiland forest in the study area extends landward from the water's edge along swales, seeps and
moist ravine bottoms, taking advantage of its height to exclude other wetland typos which might
other'"se occur there. `these lower- growing types find favorable conditions only near open water,
where they commonly appear as inclusions at the downgradient edge of the pre roiling forested
wetland habitat. Tiw complex of habitat types may extend well out beyond the emergent zone under
water rn the form of aquatic beds comprising primarily submergent species of Myriophyllum,
Potumogeton, Vallismeria. Pilularia and Elodea, particularly in the Chilhowee Reservoir_ Over half
the habitats recorded of this forested wetland type (10 of 16) included significant areas of aquatic bed
on the periphery..
A total of 16 habitat samples, or 16.5 % of all those recorded, was found to belong to this type.
Forested Wetland with Unvegetated Stream Bottom (FU)
The expected transition in wetland habitat changing downgradient from tall woody tee r%ort woody to
herbaceous growth often fails to appear in the study area, even in the presence of apparently suitable
shallow, level bottoms within the range of strong light. Some of these bottoms lie at the mouth of
streams which are too Physically active to promote stable growth conditions for plants. At tunes of
maximum discharge. the stream flow across these hottnms may achieve scouring velocity; and as
velocity slackens, heavy sediment loads may be deposited on any growth that does manage to survive
full flood conditions. In other cases, stream water levels may m-ntain too high over bottoms that
under natural hydropenod conditions would dry out seasonally and promote the germination and /or
maturation of many emergent species. Whatever the causes, the effect can often be an abrupt
discontinuity betwccn wetland vegetation and open water.
A total of 45 habitat samples, or 46% of all those recorded. was found to belong to thus type.
Vnivegetated Flat (UF).
'Ms habitat type usually occurs as a shallow at the mouth of any major tributary stream with a steeply
sloping bed at the point of discharge. Unvegetated Flat represents the most barren of wetland
environments in the study area. For the reasons given above in the description of habitat type FU,
physical factors combine to make conditions frequently too unstable for plants to become established.
or to persist long foll mring establishment. In the present case, no other wetland habitat of priority
value occurs together with Unvegetated Flat_ However, because of its potential sensitivity to water -
level changes within the projected range, IInvogetated Flat deserves attention, despite its low present
value.
A total of 10 habitat samples, or 10.3 % of all those recorded, was found to belong to this type.
Each of the specialists next prepared final lists of species expected to use each of the five priority
habitat types and assigned a value ratmg to each priority habitat type of 3 (high), 2 (moderate) or 1
(low). This simple rasing system was agreed upon as a convenient means of enabling the specialists to
express their general impressions of habitat quality in a semi - quantitative manner based on their
experience and judgment. This approach is similar m concept and objecnves to the US Fish and
Wildlife Service Habitat E,%aluation Procedure (HEP) in building consensus based on the judgment of
1WTEM31RIAtSTuDy1FVW.D0CAbGUST24,M 33
k'

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
experts. although it lacks the quantitative rigor of a formal I -IF.P. To provide flexibility to pr"i —ing
an assessment appropriate for each of the tour groups of wildlife (helps, birds, mammals and
lepidopterans) each specialist took ant independent approach differing somewhat from the lathers. In
has treatment of birds, for example, Dr. Clebsch provided habitat ratings for each .9wics for each of
the I I priority habitat locations as well as a general rating. By contrast, Dr_ Lowe assigned each of
the five types a general rating for all lepidopteran species. Following is a summary of the approach
takers, results and evaluations of each specialist for the four wildlife groups: The full reports of each
of the specialists for the four groups of wildlife. arr provided in,Addendurn 4.
Criteria for evaluating general habitat suitability for amphibians and reptiles is presented. These
criteria include size of the habitat, suitability for breeding, potential for foraging, availability of
shelter, calling or basiang sites and number of different species that would repeatedly use the habitat.
An overview of two of the priority habitats and the remaining four priority habitat types is provided
from the standpoint of habitat characteristics impotent for herps and use by various here species_
Fach overview is accompanied by an overall habitat suitability rating for herps. Habitat type OF
received the lowest rating (0.5) and has 6 potential species users- CHER -5 was rated I and provides
uses for 30 species. CAL -17 was rated 1.5 and provides habitat for 24 species, and types FE. E and
FU received ratings between 2 and 2.5 and provide habitat for 3'_ to aft species, Habitat quality ratings
are also provided in a table for each species for each of the priority habitat types. The ratings reflect
an Overall value for all uses of the habitat by herps. The table also contains state, federal and global
status for here species of special concern and/or in need of management. Of the total of 80 heap
species for which the priority habitats potentially provide habitat 4 are of special concern and/or are
considered to be in need of management,
8.3 MAMMALS
The state and federal status of each mammal species potentially using the priority habitats in the
project area is provided in a Table of Results. The legal protective status designations were assigned
by Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and North Carolina Deparonertt of Environment and
Natural Resources. Brief habitat descriptions are given for each spocics. Habitat quality ratings arc
11150 TERRESTRlai. 51UUY i M441-GOCAUGU5r 24,37ot 34
8.2 BIRDS
Criteria for evaluating habitat quality for birds is presented separately for each of the five priority
habitat types. These criteria include considerations such as presence of food producing plants,
vegetation structural chversity, presence of perches, shags, nesting and foraging sites, and presence of
open water nearby. Habitat quality ratings are provided in a table for each species for each of the 11
priority habitats. The ratings reflect an overall value for all cases of the habitat (i.e., feeding,
rcpmductive cover, escape cover, etc. ), An average score, a habitat score and total number of
potential species users are also pmvirlesi Unbitat types FE, FU, and W. tecciycd a rating of 3 and
provide potential habitat for 44 to 47 species. Habitats SS and L were assigned ratings of `? and
provide potential habitat for 19 to 36 species.
None of the priority habitats is thought to provide potential habitat for any bird species that are listed
or of concern.
8.3 MAMMALS
The state and federal status of each mammal species potentially using the priority habitats in the
project area is provided in a Table of Results. The legal protective status designations were assigned
by Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and North Carolina Deparonertt of Environment and
Natural Resources. Brief habitat descriptions are given for each spocics. Habitat quality ratings arc
11150 TERRESTRlai. 51UUY i M441-GOCAUGU5r 24,37ot 34

a.:
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
provided in the table for each species for each of the five priority habitat types and in addition for two
of the I i priority habitats. The ratings (3, 2 or 1) indicate the degree to which habitat contains the
species' full range of needs. Where the ratings are accompanied by a letter (f Sit, Lt) this indicates
the components of a species` habitat needs being fulfilled in the priority habitat type (i.e_, F- foraging
habitat only or SR- suimtirr roost habitat. Cie.). The criteria for evaluating habitat quality for mammals
include such considerations as vegetation type: diversity. structural diversity, interspersion of Water
and saturated mink soils and presence of burrowing substrates and rotting logs. An overall rating for
each of the five pricmty habitat types and for two of the 11 priority habitats is pie vidi:d. Habitat type
rE and priority habitat SAN -52, (FU) received a rating of 2.5 and provide potential habitat for 38 to
40 species, Habitat types SS, E. OF and FU were rated 2.0 and provide potential habitat for 29 to 35
species. Priority habitat CAL -10 (E) was rated 0.5 and provides potential habitat for 16 species. Of
the total of 54 mamrrAl species for which the priority habitats potentially provide habitat, 23 arc
listed, or have potential for listing, or are of concern or considered to be. in need of management.
8.4 LEPIDOPTERAitiS
A general discussion of the natural history of butterflies in the project area is provided. All 79 species
of butterflies and skippers for which potential habitat occurs in the project area utilize the vegetation
components of the priority habitats as adults or in the larval stage. Other important habitat elements
are open areas such as pool edges, stream deltas and island date, periodically inundated sites in the
Chcoah River and Calderwood Bypass and the drawdown Zones of the impoundments. Of the five
priority habitat types SS, somir E (ME-25) and some FE (CHE -31) were assigned a 3 rating, some E
(CM -19) a 2 rating, and some E (CAL-10) and OF a l rating fb all lepidopterati species (it was not
appropriate to prepare a separate list of user species for each of the five types since various
lepidopterans may us? any or all of the types as well as the entire project area). Habitats assigned a 3
rating contain plants that serve as larval food sources for many of the butterfly species and also
provide food and habitat for the adults. The priority habitat type rued 2 is similar to the types rated 3,
but offers much more limited resources. Habitats rated 1 lack sources of larval and adult foods and
provide only small amounts of flight corridor and minimal habitat for other uses. A list of the 79
butterflies and skippm is provided, Of the 79 species, 12 are species of special concern and 11 of
these were assigned a Nature Conservancy Global Rank (NCGR) lower than 5, all 12 arc considered
to be deserving of habitat management consideration. Notes on status, habitat preferences, natural
history and priority habitat types most typically associated with am provided for the 12 species of
concern. Of these 12, six were observed during the second site reconnaissance. (see lepidopteran
report, Addendum 4). Anuthet 28 of the 79 species are either rare or uncommon in the area and
ranked NCGR GS_ Of these 28, rive were observed_
8S SUMMARY
The results of the investigations of the four local specialists have established a baseline for habitat
quality and associated wildlife use of the priority habitats for the existing (managed) scenano,
Assessmcnis of the duality of the priority habitats under existing conditions for herps, birds,
niamnials and lepidopterans and lists, of user species are provided above and/or in the full reports of
each of the specialist, in Addendum 4. Assessment of the effects of Project operations on wildlife
resources and their habitats will be based on a comparison of habitat quality and wildlife use under
existing conditions with quality and use under an unmanaged so onano. Although the approach taken
IM IERRES PJAL SILVV 1 FWkL WC AUMST 24. ZW1 35

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
in the assessment differed somewhat among the four specialists. one commonality throughout the
process was the assignment of value ratings. To facilitate this comparison the value ratings assigned
to the priority habitat types by the four specialists under existing conditions are provided in the
follow-mg summary table, A corresponding summary table is provided in Section 9.5 for the
unmanaged scenario, and a synthesis of the information for existing and unmanaged scenarios is
presented in Section 10.0 as an assessment of impact of project operation.
Summary of Value Ratings Assigned to the Five Priority Habitat 'rylr_c irrider EAstiag
projed
Operations (Managed Condition).
Habitat Types
Wildlife Croups SS
E )FE
FU
OF
lierps 1_5
2S 2
2.5
.5
Bir& 2
2 3
3
3
Mammals 2
? 2.5
2
2
L epidoptrrans ;
2 3
l
1
Total Rating SS
8.5 10.5
8.5
6.5
The above summary of value ratings for the priority habitat types is for the managed condition for the
Project its a whole_ However, these results also need to he considered in the context of how the
individual project reservoirs are operated. Tlic Chcoah, Calderwood and Chilhowee developments
are operated with minimal fluctuations in water levels, maxunum drawdown for these reservoirs is in
the range of four to seven feet_ However, Santeetlah Reservoir is maintained within five feet of
normal full pool elevation during ,Tune and July, undergoes full drawdown from August tbtrough
November and has an average seasonal drawdown of 20 feet, As such Santeetlah represents the lower
extreme of the four reservoirs relative to habitat quality under tLe managed scenario. Where
surrounding topography is somewhat more rugged, the mouths of many of the inflowing streams are
steep and aquatic vegetation is lacking (i.e., San -3 I -Upper Snowbird Creek Embayment and San -33-
Upper Cheoah River Embayment). At many such locations habitat quality is diminished due to the
current management regime, whereas at other locations habitat quality is inherently low due to high
seasonal discharge, erosion and sediment deposition. At other locations, the surrounding land is
flatter and certain areas are in agriculture (i.e., San -52 -Upper East Buffalo Creels Ernbayment). At
such location; habitat quality hus been less impacted by operation of Santectlah. T'he locations oil
Santeetlah Reservoir where adverse impacts to priority habitats from project operation have been
relatively low are shown in Figure 8-1.
9.0 WILDLIFE USE OF PRIORITV HABITATS UNDER UNMANAGED
CONDITIONS
If the four Tapoco Project impoundments were maintained at approximately full pond water levels
would not fluctuate u the mariner described for the existing condition (see Section 6.3). Assuming
none of the four dams is removed and that they are all maintained at full pond, water levels would
remain relatively constant with comparatively minor magnitudes of fluctuation in response to
r,<
evaporation and natural cycles of rainfall and dry periods. Over the course of a year this magnitude
18%:3 rEWE5iR1AL Sri f r FINDLrXX A k W-)I A. M 36

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
-ould be on the order of a fraction of a foot to as much as two feet- based on observations of
unmanaged impounchnients of sirrulat size in this region. Under this same "unmanaged" full pond
Scenario the Calder-sviaod Bypass would continue to rcecive leafage flow throughout much of the
year, w0h pcnods ofincTmsed flow in January, in spring during runoff and in late stmt yearly fall
when troPical storms, occur. The C.'alderwood Bypass would ho receive additional discharges as a
result cif increased "spill events" from the Calder- -vood Reservoir spill gate from several days to 7 it)
10 days per month throughout the YCOT Based on the hydrologic record of January V I to December 3 1.
1997 (average year). these additional discharges; would range from lest; than 100 cfs to 300 cfs the
majority of the time with flows of up to 400 to 600 cfs occurring on several occasions, The Cheoah
River, in addition to leakage flow and penods of increased flow in spring and in late sunimer/carly
fall, would receive additional discharge5 as a result of increases "Sisill cVcnts" from the Santectlah
Reservoir spill gate in late January, from l -ate February to early April, in early May and for brief
periods in the fall in a typical year. Ba.scd on the hydrologic record of January I to December 31,
1997. the majonty of the time these discharges would be less than 500 cf.-,, but during the first week in
March and on several days in mid March flows of more than I UOO cfs may occur', on one or two days
in March flows on the order of 3,000 to over 4,000 c fs may occur. The above simulation of releases
assumes that headpond elevation is maintained Nvithin one to tNoo feet of full- The historical turbine,
flow is used as the basis of the analysis and the turbine flow was reduced when necessary to keep the
headpond within one foot of full or at full, the excess flow was spilled when the headpond elevation
reached full-
° 11C 1-111pliLU11UHS Of LhjN full pond "Unmanaged' hydrology scenario on the priority habitats provided
the basis for assessing habitat quality and associated wildlife use under unmanaged conditions- Since
the priority habitats in the Chcoah, Caldetwood and Chi lhoweedevelopments lie at or below full
pond within the zone of water level change, a full pond condition in the unmanaged scenario would
partially to completely inundate these habitats. However in Sara teetlah Reservoir the absence ot'a 20-
foot seasonal dr-.iwdoNvn would allow sediments to build up over time and aquatic vegetation to
develop in certain kxalion& in the Calderwood Bypass the additional discharges of up to several
hundred cfs several days each month would have minimal effecLs on vegetation structure and habitat
conditions. In the Chcoah River the high flows for brief periods in late winterlearly spring due to
spillage could be expected it) redistribute deposits of fine sediments in localized areas and remove
shallow rooted vegetation such as aquatic plants- The patches cf shrubs and saplings that dominate
most of the riverbed, however, have well established root systerns and would be expected to
withstand the brief periods, of high flow. Overall, the effects of spillage flows in combination with
the bigh_r leakage tl(-ws of late winierlearly spring, nn vegetation structure and habitat oondifioni;,
would lx relatively minor_
With TC.9peCt to wildlife, changes in habitat quality and associated use under the unmanaged scenano
would benefit some species and be detrimental to others. both for the resmoirs and the two flow-dges.
The above considerations were taken into account by each of the four specialists in preparing the
assessments for each of the fi,►tit groups of wildlife. Following is a summary of the assessments for
hcrps, birds, itiammais and lepidopterans. The individual report of each specialist is provided in
Addendum 4
I M-4 TERRES'MAI, STUDY t FIN .W— MGUST 24 M 3 9

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
9.11 HERPS
An overview of habitat quality under the unmanaged scenario is; provided for each of the five priority
habitat types by means of comparisons between existing and ful l pond conditions. Each overview is
accompanied by an overall habitat suitability rating for hops in the unmanaged scenario. The rating
for CAL -17 was reduced from a rating of 1.5 to 1, and CHER -5 changed from 1 to .5. Habitat type F
was reduced from a rating of 2.5 to 1.5. Similar reductions occurred for the FF. and the FU types,
whereas type OF was increased from .5 to 1.5. Habitat quality *stings are also provided in a table for
each species for each of the p rut ity habitat types for the urittsanaged scenario, Numbers of potential
user species changed mom 24 for the managed condition to 6 for CAL -17 and from 30 to 29 for
CHER -5. For type E species utilization changed from 34 to 19 in the unmanaged condition. Similar
magnitudes of change occurred for FE and FU. Type OF increased from 6 in the managed to 14 to the
unmanaged condition. The rating changes reflect the assessment that due; to loss of suitable habitat
most help species will not benefit from the more aquatic regime that will result from a full pond
condition- However, certain turtle species would benefit more from a full pond condition. Overall, the
largest number of here species benefit more from the existing, managed scenario than they would
from the unmanaged scenario.
9-2 BIRDS
Habitat quality ratings for the unmanaged condition are provided in a table for each species for nine
of the 11 priority habitats. The two habitats comprising the scrub shrub type were not rated because
habitat characteristics for birds at these locations (Cit:oah River and Calderwood Bypass) will change
little if any compared to the existing, managed scenario. An average score, a habitat score and total
number of potential species users are provided for the unmanaged scenatio. Habitat type FU received
a 3 rating, the same as the existing condition, but the number of potential species .users dropped from
47 in the existing to 43 in the unmanaged condition. Habitat types FE and OF both changed from a 3
rating in the existing condition to a 2 rating in the unmanaged condition. Numbers of potential user
bpecies changed from 46 to 48 for FE (despite the downward shift in habitat quality) and from 44 to
39 for UF. Types SS and E remained essentially unchanged relative to habitat score from the existing
condition (2) and would provide habitat for 16 to 36 species_ T1:ese comparisons indicate that overall
habitat suitability of the priority habitats for birds would not be as high under unnvmged conditions
compared to the existing condition due to changes in vegetation structure and composition at full
pond_ There would be a loss m habitat suitability for some species and a gain for others, but the net
result would be somewhat poorer habitat quality for birds in the unmanaged condition_
9.3 MAMMALS
Overviews of habitat quality for the unmanaged condition are provided for each of the five priority
habitat types. Two to d ree unmanaged scenarios are discussed or each type, each with different
assumptions relative to amounts and types of habitat inundated at full pond, along with anticipated
changes in habitat quality and suitability for various groups of nianunals. The rating for SS did not
change but for the E and OF types; the ratings decreased from 2 to I for the unmanaged scenario_
Type FE decreased from 2.5 to 1 but 1=U increased in value from 2 in the managed to 2.5 in the-
unmanaged scenario. These changes in habitat quality and suitability, and in species utilization in
comparison with the raungs assigned to each habitat type in the existing, managed condition provide
the basis for assessing impacts of project operation. In general_ habitat for mammals with small
1L%3 TU R--SrfM $l Urh '. i WALDXAUGL1ST ?d, 3M1 39

NORMANDEAW ASSOCIATES INC
ranges, such as shrews, motes, jumping, mice, rats, mice and voles would be completely or mostly
eliminated, and use by carnivores such as fox and coyotes would be diminished because of the
reduction in these prey species. For other species, such as raccoon, weasel and mink feeding
opportunities would improve due to the shift in prey to crustaceans, amphibians and fish. Habitat
suitability for aquatic manuals, such as beaver and otter and for bats would remain essentially
unchanged in most cases, although spillage flows in late winter /tarty spring in the Chcoah River
might destroy beaver lodges in some loccation%, which would not be rebuilt in the seasons between the
high flow period_ This analysis indicates that there would be a lows in habitat cnilabttity for many
species that would be somewhat offset by a gain for others. The overall result, however, would be
lower habitat quality for the majority of mammal species in the _m anagtd condition.
9.4 LPPEDOPTERANS
In the analysis of habitat quality and suitability for lepidepterans under existing conditions,
consideration was given to how this would change in the unmated, full pond scenario. It was
concluded that, due to the limited spatial extent of the priority habitats (and hence their limited
contribution to the habitat requirements of butterflies and skippers compared to other available
habitat), water level management is not critical to the survival of the 79 species of butterflies and
skippers potentially using the priority habi tats. Stated differently, these species would continue to use
the project area if the priority habitats were eliminated or diminished under full pond conditions.
MW tEMLSTFaat srutrr 1 FKtLDQC wGUSt 24 2mi 40
9.5 SUNUW"V
" r
Each of the four specialists considered how quality and suitability of each of the five priority habitat
w
types would change in the unmanaged condition. The analyses for birds and herps provide habitat
quality ratings for each species and for the habitat types, along with numbers of potential species
users. For mammals and lepidopterans the analyses consist of predictions for changes in habitat
quality and species utilization for each type and in general. The analyses in the unmanaged scenario
provide the basis for comparison with existing conditions needed to assess impacts of project
operation. Assessments of priority habitat quality under unmanaged conditions for herps, birds.
marnmals and lepidopterans and where appropriate, lists of user species, are presented above and/or
in Addendum 4. Value ratings assigned to the habitat types by the four specialists under unmanaged
conditions are provide d m the following summary table:
Summary of Value Ratings Assigned to the Five Priority Habitat Types (Unmanaged Condition).
Habitat Types
Wildlife Groups SS E FE Fli OF
llerps i 1.5 1 1.5 1..5
Birds 2 2 2 2 3
Mammals 2 l 1 2.5 1
Lcpidoptcram 3 2 3 1 1
Total Rating 8 6.5 7 7 6.5
MW tEMLSTFaat srutrr 1 FKtLDQC wGUSt 24 2mi 40

_. NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
The overall duality r-e ing for four of the five priority habitat types is lower for the unmanaged (full
pond) sc:enano than it is for the existing, managed scenario. The greatest change in value is in the FE
V
ype (Forested Wetland with Emergent Fringe) followed by E (Emergent Wetland) and Fl✓f (Forested
Wetland with Unvegetated Stream Bottom). There is a slightly lower rating for the SS type (Scrub
Shrub Wetland) and no change for the OF type (Unvegetated fiat)
The generally lower rating in habitat quality for all wildlife groups in the unmanaged scenario is due
to the disappearance, reduction or change to priority habitats corder full pond conditions that are
available and with certain attributes under existing conditions. However, smnlar to the Summary for
Section 8.0, this finding for the unmanaged condition is for the entire Project and needs also to be
considered in the context of how the individual Project developments are operated, The above
finding applies mainly to the Cheoah, Calderwood and C idhowee dcvtlopmcnts, which are operated
with minimal fluctuation in water levels. Santeetlah, however, must be considered separately because
it is operated with a 30 foot seasonal drawdowu. In the unmanaged scenario for Santeetlah buildup of
sediments would occur at the mouths of certain inflowing streams and aquatic vegetation would
become established, which would improve habitat quality. Due to the minimal water level change in
the three other reservoirs these habitats have already formed over the years and so the fill pond
condition would inundate these habitats and diminish habitat quality. In the Calderwood Bypass the
effects of additional flows of several hundred efs several days per month throughout the year due to
increased spillage from Calderwood Reservoir on wildlife habitat quality would be minimal. In the
Cheoah River the effects of high flows due to increased spillage from Santeetlah in late winter /early
spring would impact aquatic beds and habitat duality fbi wildlife that use such habitats as well as use
by beaver. although overall, habitat quality for the majority of wildlife would not change
substantially.
t
10.0 IMPACTS OF PROJECT OPERATION ON PRIORITY HABITATS
AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE USE
J5
Over the several decades cornprismg the current period of license, Project operation during a typical
s
year has necessitated d awdowns on each of the four impoundments_ These drawdowns range from a
maximum of four to seven feet in the Cheoah, Calderwood and Chclhowee reservoirs to up to 20 feet
in Santeetlah Reservoir_ Over the years wave action across the drawdown zone has resulted in a
winnowing of the fines and organic material, leaving only a souse. resistant substrate. Sub."ti •ntly,
the drawdown zone in all four reservoirs is of steep gradient fo- the most part, with an exposed
predominantly clay subsoil. However, in the Chenah, Calderwond and ChithnwPr rrcwrvoirs in the
vicinity of some islands and the mouths of the larger inflowing streams where priority habitats occur.
the gradient is gradual and the substrate includes fines and organic material. In the Santeetlah
Reservoir such locations occur in areas with a somewhat gentler sumunding landscape and /or
drawdowtt zone and at the mouths of certain infiowing streams.
18563 iMf S MAL STIV7 t FIWf LDkX AUGUST U, Mt 41
•t
�,4.s
The plant communities of many of the priority habitats that have developed at the Cheoah,
Caldetwood and Chilhowee developments, and at certain locations on the Santeetlah, are composed
J5
of plant species that r<rsist under the alternating conditions of inundation and exposure within the
zone of water level change. The priority habitats associated with the deltaic deposits at the mouths of
the tnflowing streams are often supported by a hydrology that is largely independent of reservoir
water levels. These comparatively stable regimes of water supply and energy support conditions that
have been favorable from the standpoint of plant community structure and composition. The priority
18563 iMf S MAL STIV7 t FIWf LDkX AUGUST U, Mt 41
•t
�,4.s

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
habitats associated voth some of the islands consist of plant communities with plant species adapted
to changes in water level, 'I he structure and composition of the above communities have given rise to
wildlife habitat that is of value to a wide range ofherps, birds, srammals and lepidopterans. Much the
same is true for Cheuah River and Calderwooti Bypass, where leakage flows and the higher flows that
occur several times during a typical year have given rise to a scrub shrub community type having a
diverse structure and composition. This community provides habitat that is of value to a wide range of
wildlife species. With the exception of the two Bypass river reaches, these habitats would not occur
or would be greatly diminished under unmanaged, ful I pnnrl rnnditinrr$, since under existing
conditions they are located below the level of full pond.
In the Santeetlah Reservoir the priority habitats located below full pond occur within the zone of a 20
foot seasonal drawdown and for the most part, lack aquatic or emergent vegetation; subsequently,
wildlife habitat value at these locations is low. As noted above exceptions occur in areas of flatter
surrounding topograrhy, such as at Upper East Buffalo Creep, where the infiowing stream is
meandering and with a flatter bed compared to the streams with deep cut beds that occur in steeper
surrounding topography-, the effect of the drawdown is less dramatic at the locations in the flatter
landscapes. At such locations erosive forces across the drawdown Bone are dispersed over a large
area and etTects on st•il structure have been minimal. subsequenly aquatic and emergent vegetation
has been able to persist, Such plant communities would have better growing conditions under a more
stable hydrologic regime. Based on the results of this study the priority habitats along portions of the
shoreline of Santeetlah would benefit from an unmanaged, full pond condition. However, at other
locations exposed fiats on Santeetlalt Reservoir undet curt ent uperating conditions potentially provide
seasonal habitat for migrating shorebirds (see Section 10.3). Following is a summary table of habitat
value under existing and unmanaged conditions for all four reservoirs:
Comparison of Value. Ratings for Managed and Unmanaged Conditions.
HaWtat Types
XMIdlife Groups
SS
E
FL FU
Ul~
u M
U M
U M u
M u M
Herps
1 1.5
13 2.5
1 2 1-5
2.5 1.5 5
Birds
2 a
2 2
2 3 2
3 3 3
Nf ammals
2 2
1 2
1 15 23
2 1 2
Lcnidopteranss
3 3
2 2
3 3 1
1 1 1
ti Total Rating
8 8.S
63 83
7 10.5 7
8.5 6-5 6.5
Total Combined Ratings:
Unnumaged 35
Managed 42.5
`i"he above cotnpariscu of ratings under "unmanaged" (full pond) and "massaged" (existing operations)
conditions indicates that, overall, the effect of fluctuarions of reservoir water levels and river flows
under existing Project operating conditions on community structure and associated wildlife use of the
priority habitats and their supportive annbutes has been favorable. As stated in Section 9.5 for
Cheoah, Calderwood and Chilhowee developments, full pond conditions would cause the
disappearance, reduclon or change in the priority habitats that are available under existing conditions.
In the case of the Santeetlah development however, the effect of existing Project operations on quality
1W TERRFSTPY11 STi10V i MILDOC; AUGUST 774, Mi 42

t
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
of the pnonty habitats has., for the most part, not been favorable (with the exception that exposed fiats
potentially provide habitat for migrating shorebirds Isee Section 10,31). Here, full pond conditions
would produce a net unpmvernent in habitat quality at certain locations. For the f alderwood Bypass
and the Cheoah River the effect of existing Project operations has allowed colonization by shrub
communities to occur, which provide habitat for numerous wildlife species. For the Cheoah River the
full pond, "unmanaged" condition high flows resulting from increased spill events during March
could aMct utilization by some species, most notably beaver.
10.1 POTENTiAi, FOR REESTABL1SIVYIENT OF PRIORITY HABITATS
The potential exists for priority habitats (wetlands) to become reestablished at higher elevations under
loll pond conditions at certain locations at each of the four impoundments_ Of the 97 priority habitat
locations approximately one - quartet to a third of them would appear to offer some potential for
priority habitat reestablishment. Examples of such locations include the Chilogatee Branch
Embayment on CWhowee Reservotr. Fox Creek on the Cheoah Reservoir and the Upper East Buffalo
Creek Embayment on Sanuectlah Reservoir. At such locations the surrounding topography is
relatively gentle and the hydrologic forces are such that sediment buildup and colonization by
emergent plants can occur. During the site visits to priority habitats sediment deposits and well
established communities of perennial emergents were observed at these locations. :the time period
for priority habitats to become reestablished under a full pond scenario would be can the order of three
to eight years depending on location. The degree of similarity or dissimilarity of the reestablished
corrtmtmity to the existing community under conditions of constant, year round water levels will vary
with factors such as bathymetry and hydrology at the new elevation. After a decade or more,
however, degree of similarity to the existing condition should increase given the topographic and
hydrologic factors at work at a given location. The remaining priority habitat locations do not appear
to afford potential for reestablishment because soil and aquatic vegetation were sparse or absent
during the site visit due to factors such as steep surrounding topography, high seasonal discharge and
high erosive and depositional forces.
10.: AFFECT OF 1NCR .ASFD FLOWS IN THE CMOAII RIN'ER ON THE EXISTING
SCRU"EIRUB COA MUNITY TYPE
In addition to the existing condition and the unmanaged condition the impacts of operating the Project
at higher !lows were also considered. In assessing the effects of increased flows in the Cheoah Inver
on the scrub -shrub community type, hydraulic model mformation on cross section wetted area. depths
and velocities developed for the IFIM study was reviewed.
The scrub -shrub community type that that dominates most of the rivertx:d is composed of species
such as willow (Salix aigra, S sericea), alder (Alnus serrulata). silky dogwood (Cornets amomum),
Virginia willow (Ilea virginica) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Common along the banks are
red maple (Acer nibrum), false indigo (Amorpha fruticasa) and sycamore (Platanus vccidentahs).
Over the several decades comprising the current period of license this community type has become
adapted to the existing flow regime of leakage flow and periods of increased flow in early spring and
late suinn er /early fall, The patches of shrubs and saplings also serve to anchor fine sedimcrits that
occur in protected locations in the riverbed. Flows of over 1000 cfs (and rarely as high as several
thousand cfs) occur for one to several days under existing operations as a result of periodic spills
18663 TERRESTRIAL STUDY t FUui ,10(_ AUR)ST 24, ZT1 43
4

w_ NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
during; the seasonal periods of increased flow and during major storm events. These flows flush out
the system, redistributing fine sediments that have deposited in the interstices between boulders and at
the mouths of tributaries and removing shallow rooted vegetation.
Given the armored streambed (comprised predominantly of bedrock boulders and cobbles) and
vegetation adapted to a wade range of flow conditions. the effects of periodic high flows for
whitewater boating (around 1200 cfs) are not likely to substantially alter the scrub -shrub community,
provided the frequency, duration and seasonality of the releases do not vary greatly from the high
flows occurring under existing conditions_ lC the frequency of high flaw releases is substantially
higher than the numb,°r of high flow days occurring to a typical year or the seasonality differs greatly,
reworking of the strearnbed and uprooting of vegetation could occur to a correspondingly greater
degree. Over time th,.s could alter the nature of this community.
Increasing the base flow to a bank full condition (104 -150 cis) would substantially change factors
such as velocity, sediment deposition and transport, and the depth and duration that plants would be
inundated. The nature of the plant community would change dramatically to one dominated by
submerged aquatics adapted to the deeper water and continuous higher flows. Shrubs and saplings
that became established in large portions of exposed streambod under the existing low flow regime,
would be virtually eliminated in a bank full flow mgtnse. 'lire value of thr habitat provided by the
scrub -shrub commum ty for a wide variety of wildlife would be greatly reduced for many species as
this habitat is replace3 by a riverme one having value primarriiy for aquatic and riparian wvildhfe.
10.3 POTENTIAL FOR USE OF EXPOSED FLATS ON SANTEETLAH RESERVOIR BY
MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS
Use of exposed flats by migratory shorebirds is a phenomenon that has been documented on other
storage reservoirs. The flats that are exposed throughout part of the year on Santectlah Reservoir
provide habitat for shorebirds that visit the area during spring and fall migration as well as for
passible winter residents. Information for this assessment Wass provided by Dr. Jim Lowe, an active
member of the Carolina Bird Club. who observes the drawdown zone on Santeetlah and is a dedicated
reader of the Carolina Bird Net where unusual sightings are regularly reported, and Dr. Ed Clebsch
with 60 years experience in field ornithology in the region and three years of seasonal fieldwork on
the "Capoco Project, Based on the observations of Tar. Lowe. and Dr Clebsch two bird species
regularly use the exposed flats on Santeetlah, the killdeer (Charadrrus vociferous) and the spotted
sandpiper (Acritus mecuiuria). There may be occasional use of the flats during spring and fall
migration by otbcr sandpipers or by plovers but there we nu kiiowo teWits of such use by thus:
groups of birds. There may also be casual uses of the flats (overflights, hawking feeding, ground
feeding or grit foraging) by other birds in the area but these would not be dependent uses,
11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOW ENDATIONS
Results of the assessment occurrent reservoir operations on priority habitats and associated wildlife
use by the four local wildlife expert., have revealed that, with the exception of much ofSanteetlah
Reservoir. the effects of current operations have been favorable, There is variability in habitat quality
among the priority habitats depending on location and hydrologic budget factors, but for the most
part, the priority habitats in the Cheoah, Calderwood and Chilhowee developments and at certain
locations on Santeetlah have adapted to the alternating conditions of inundation and exposure within
185%3 TEFRESTRIAL STUDY 9 RNAL012k. AUGUST 24 M1 44

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
the zone of water level change and have developed structure and composition characteristics that are
of value to a wide variety of wildlife species_ This finding is also true for the Calderwood Bypass and
the C ieoah River. On the reservoirs these habitats would not occur or would be greatly dim' inished
under unmanaged. full pond conditions. Since the impacts of current project operation on th above
three reservoirs and the C.alderwood Bypass and Chcoah River is positive, any enhancement or
mitigation eftinis should focus on Santeetlah.
Given the dynamic; energy characteristics of the Santeetlah reservoir, mitigation efforts that focus on
enhancing the soil andtor vegetation components by traditional lamciscaping approaches are likely to
be costly to implement and require long-term mamtcnance_ Expericnce on similar projects, however,
has demonstrated that hydrologic budget factors can be improved at the appropriate: locations in a
cost - effective manner. For example, at pnority habitat locations of low quality because of poor
substrate and vegetation development, and with water budgets closely linked to reservoir levels,
structures can he designed to create low energy environments with improved water residence times.
This can result in the accumulation of fines and organic material, which over time, will lead to the
establishment of a richer abundance and variety of plant growth; this will, in turn, greatly improve
habitat quality and use by wildlife. Such structures could include berms, weirs and floodgates
depending upon the designs appropriate for specific locations, and constitute long-term or senu-
permanent mitigation measures.
12.0 LITERATURE CITED
Tapoco, Inc. March 1999. Initial Information Package.
The Nature Conservancy. December 3I, 1999. Tapoco Project: Rare, Threatened and Endangered
Species Inventory -Final Report_
The Nature Conservancy. 1999_ CIS National Vegetation Classification- Southern Blue Ridim
Mountains Ecoregion.
+as63MMSTrAtsM", IFIN DOCAucus =2CUt 45

r
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
ADDENDUM I
Qualifications of Specialists in Wildlife Impact Assessment
iaw uRRESTRAL snav I FINALooc AL*UST ?a. 2Mi
John Byrd
James Lowe
Wayne Shacher

NORAIANDEW ASSOCIATES INC.
Mr. John Byrd -- Herpetology
Mr_ Byrd is a teacher of courses in advanced biology at Clinton High School in Clinton, 'UN. He
founded the Clinch River Environmental Studies Organization, a partnership effort that includes the
Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, and Anderson County Schools. Mr. Byrd is a specialist in herpe-
tology and teaches two summer courses for the Smoky Mountain Geld school on amphibians and rep.
tiles. He has presented papers at numerous workshops and regional and national conferences on the
identification and defensive, feeding and reproductive strategies ifherpetofauna. He has authored or
coauthored various papers on herpetology in professional journals including The Snakes of Tennessee
in the Tennessee Conservationist. Between 1998 and 2000 he worked for TNC on the Tapoco Project
and prepared RTE species reports and a review of selected species on Tapoco and adjacent lands in
Tennessee and North Carolina.
Dr. James Lowe — Entomology
Dr. Lowe is an entomologist with 36 years experience. For a six year period lie conducted research
and wrote technical reports on the Eastern Spruce Budworm for the US Forest Service, Northeast
Forest Experiment Station. For approximately 30 years he taught courses, conducted research and
published papers on various aspects of insect ecology and forest ecosystem responses to insect popu-
lations. He conducts collecting activities as a volunteer in Talula Wetlands, a protected South Appa-
lachian mountain bog under study by researchers at U.N. Carolina and participates in the Great
Smoky Mountain All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory. His area of interest includes lepidoptermts as an
observer and survey volunteer. Dr. Lowee has attended participant meetings for die Tapoco project
and is familiar with the project and the study area.
Mr. Wayne Schacher — Mammalogy
Mr. Schacher is a wildlife biologist with Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and a specialist in
mammalogy. He has performed field investigations for TVA on :heir Fontana Reservoir. Prior to
TVA Mr. Schacher held a position with the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency and assisted in
making decisions regarding RTE species listings. During his years in this position he performed field
investigations on the Chilhowee Reservoir. Mr. Schacher has a broad understanding of the Tapoco
proiect area habitats and ecosystems.
I MI TERRESTA;AL STUDY i.DOC FEVV AW 20,2W

3
t
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
ADDENDUM Z
Data for 97 Reservoir /Flowage Priority Habitats
Data Recorded at 97 Priority Habitat Stations
Individual Habitat Descriptions
List of Wildlife Species and Sign Observed
TNC Classifications and descriptors
GPS Locations of Priority Habitats
IMW TERRESTRik STLA)y 1 FINAL000 AWUST 24.2001

NORMA NDEA U ASSOCIATES INC.
DATA FOR 97 RESERVOIR/FLOWAGE PRIORITY HABITATS
18W TERRESTRIAL STUDY 1 FINALEOC #,V�
.k)ST 14.2001
WNS

�j .
F,
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
DATA RECORDED AT 97 PRIORITY HABITAT STATIONS
IM TERRESTRIAL SIUM I FiWt LCXXAUGWT24.2Wl

a
}
m
a
+ Q.
0
Q
V
y fi.
a
Ott
IL
ww0
nutuwi`"
An m
°t
�•�:.
x
coo
8
°0
°D
via
1
opt
pO
ep
S) t7
cu
w
w`
to
8i
ai ay
too
W
°g
qq11
_U
p
pp(�p��pp
fyW
a°uID
py
poi
{•C�
O
.s
a
p
smi
mi
x
x
z
p
�
Y
le
w
p�yU�j
U
m
y#
Z
m
O
_
J
4+
(
LL
JWb
LL!tl1
tlt
0!J tit
tp
aWi to
�yyZ
WtA!0N�
H�°'aS
WWaYfN��.LL
tu
Ir��LLu
�LLLL
is. 4.
��7Wu
}7k��W
��a
U
U U
V V
iZcc�
UU.0
V
U
��^
Yl
V
O
g�
t
r
U....
a sr
�MSA
--
I
MIR

N
Z
O
H
d
H
t-
a
m
d
z
c�
a
a.
d
Q
W
a
Ix
O
U
W
Q
F—
d
W
IL
F
w
D
4
o ti
U
J
o
NN�N
Via
d
--�
43 (/1
JJ�
Uf t�jNNUIN
LJ
O.J
1
41
{{{yYy
N
N N
O
K
�7uODD
N N
as
C3
0
N
Y
a
w
�m
W
-3
O
Tm
wmm.
t
goy
rZnoZi
�o
a=i
as
V¢
qm
tna
F
a
Z
U
Z
(K
G7
CD
S
47
uP<i
W
u
LL�
(K03S
Q
Y
y
O
of
p
U
u
2
p
0
0
0
sti
m
z�
D
N
Z
it
Y'LLL
ti
W LL
- -LL
-LL
l4
tsi LL
LL 4.
�.7LL
LL k
�a
w
m
LL lb
LL
LL
2
r+•
MMM14
���oas
ViN(fF
zt
.NC
tV tN
�4(V
md`(
Nn
Z
tn�lM
T<Z
a�[[�z[
{T
22(2
Z2{�41msr,
VKi ttl
V}((222
r
..y

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
INDIVIDUAL HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
IW IMtESTRAL STUDY 1 FNALlXX At)WSf 2E, M

FIELD NOTES FROM PRIORITY IiABITAT SURVEY FOR NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
JUNE 25-30,20W. CARRIED OUT ON i'HE CALDERWOOD BYPASS, C:IILHOWEE LAKE (JUNE-;
26), CALDERWOOD AND CHEOAH LAKES (RUNE 27), CHEOAH RIVER. AND SOUTHERN PART
OF SANTELq'LAH LAKE (JUNE 28), AND NORTHERN PART OF SANTtiETLAH LAKE (JME 29
PERSONNEL: Ed Clebsch, Pauick Fairbairn, Joann Munson, and Jeffrey Wallis
PURPOSES: Charactenze the vegetation in such ways that the classification of The Nature Conservancy
subset for the Southern Blue Ridge could be used to the lowest level possible; observe use by wildlife,
charactertzt aquatic vegetation and substrates, be alert for additional priority habitats; obtain GPS
coordinates for all stations; photograph each station; note potential maternity trees for Indiana bat; note any
areas with potential for wetland enhancerrtent; re -visit all RTE species locations ot, FERC boundary for
characterization of vegetation for use in TNC classification (to be accomplished later).
ME1iiODS: Locations of priority habitats had been identified by NAI personnel from aerial photographs
prior to field work, and GPS coordinates had been loaded into a handheld Garrnin instntment. Stations were
coded by letter and number combinations, GIS was used to generate segment maps, and one set of maps
was laminated for field use. USGS topographic maps were also used in the fte;d for general orientation and
for deriving place nines.
CALDERWOOD BYPASS The Calderwood bypass station was assigned number CA 17 The location
was at the Goat Creek Road crossing.
Bird voices: Indigo bunting, Yellow- breasted cleat, Carolina wren, iced -eyed vireo
A turtle was tentatively identified, as a Map turtle (Graptemysgeographica).
in the floodplain: Amorpha fturi_osa. Rosa palustrir, G�piurlantlius of t Akntults, sinus serrulaia,
Liquidambar styraciflua, Comas amomum, Acer rubrum, b7mus alata, Salix sericea.
In the pools there is Jusricia americans, Potamogetan sp., Cep occ., Bet nig, Bident sp., Osm reg, Jun sp,
Carsp., -Ele ocharis quadrangulasa „Rosa palustHa.Rob pse, Pla ocx.
Overstory of Liq xoJ, Bet mg, Ace rub.
Shrub cover of Alnus serrulata, Salix sericea, Carnes amomum.
Station CHI I
Forest dominants back to 200' are Liriodendron tulipifera, Fraxinus americans, Robinia pseudoacacia,
Liquidambar styracitlua, Platanus occidentahs. Undetrstory inside canopy has Lindera bettzoin, Halesia
tetraptera, much Acer saccharurn. Toxicodendroo radicans, Laportea canadens is, Polymnia camdensis,
Osmorhiza sp., Aster divaricatus.
Station CHI 2 —Upper island. Dominants ate Platanus occ, Robinia pse, Prunus scrotum, shrubs are
Hypericum sp., Anrorpha fru, Corpus arrmorru m, Alnus ser_ Herbs Panicum sp (broad leaved), Eup.fis.
Orchard oriole, song sparrow. Carolina chickadee
Station CHI 3-- Dominants in shrub layer include Cep occ and Ara ser_ Piiulana sp, on exposed soil. 5atix
nig on shore. Canopy includes .Linodendron tul & Liquidambar sty.
Station CHI 4— Liriodendron tul, Liquidambar sty. Shrub border toward Calderwood Village site is of
Amorpha fru and Ccphalanthus occ. Could be a wetland. Carex spp_ and Juncus spp, dominant herbs.
Station CHI S-- -mouth of cT"k. Submerged—Potartiogeton sp., Myriophyllum aquaticurn, Pilulasta sp.,
VaUisneria sp. (where there is current). A little bit of Elodea sp.
Station Cliff 6— Similar to that of CHI 5. Silty clay substrate.
Station CHI 7 was passed over because we could not get to it by boat_ Wr fs:i,.rt to n.t t. if r...A c..e.:.....

Station CITE 23• -Boat ramp. Farley Branch. Overstory ofTsu cart, Bet:iig, Bet lut, Pla occ, Ace rub, 1-it
tul. understory of C.or flo. Defined by boat rarnp and road to powerhouse-. Sci val in delta.
Station CHE 24- -A small cmbaymcnt right beside the switchyard at the Sanieetlah Powerhouse on Cbeoah
take. Bounded by switchyard on one side and Rhymer Ferry Road on the other. Bet nig, Pia occ, Oxy arb,
Lir till, Fra ante, Ros mul, Cel orb, Lig sin, Ros pal, Ain ser
Station CIiL 25- -Mouth of Fox Creck- The peninsula with the wood duck boxes —a good wetland. We
beached and walked around- Rudbeckia laciniata, Chclone glabra, Vernonia noveboran rncis, luncue
cllusus, Isoetes nielanocaipa, lrnpatietts capensis, Bidens polylepis, Carex crinita, Onoclea sensilibis,
Scrrpus validus (deeper water)_
Station CHE 26— Almost entirely Scirpus validus on the island, with the lower end (toe) of the island a
semi- aquatic grass.
Station CHE 27 —Delta at the mouth of an unnamed tr17b. Bct nig, Pla occ, Are rub, Sci val, Jun efl; Ver
nov.
Downstream from CHIT 28 there is a wetland bar on the road side of die lake that could be used for
rrutigation.
Station CHF 28 —A road shoulder and a culvert- Lir till, Bet nig, Pla oil, Car car, more of the same up the
hill.
Beaver activity is apparent can downed trees in the water betweeen CHE 28 and CHE 29,
Station C.'iiE 29 —Is another bar deposit with dead stumps in the edge of the water_ Veg. consists of Jun eff,
Bet nig, Fra pen, Aln ser, PLs occ, Dill 21711, Che gla. Vcr nov, Rup fis, Ace rub (in the canopy).
Station CHE' 3l}- -- Mouth of Sweet Branch_ Culvert with grass on either side_ Across the road is Pla occ,
Rob pse, Lir tul.
Station CITE 31 A forrstcd island with Bet nig (clear dominant), Cat spe, Pla occ, Cor amo (on the
margin), fair amount of Celastrus orbiculatus. Acre rub on the strand_
Station CHE 32 —Mouth of Llewetlin Branch. lust a roadside fringe witf, Rob pse, Pla occ, Bet nig, Pin
vir, Car car. Abundant Ccl orb and Ligusirum sinerisc.
Station CHE 37 —Mouth of Panel Branch_ Scruliy_ Lir tul, Pla occ, Aln ser, Bet Ica, Ace rub.
Station CITE 34-- -Road mar .yiin to campground below Fontana Dam. Lit tul, Bet nig, Fra ame, Jug nig, Rot)
rte, Til het as scattcrrd track.
Station CITE 35— Roadside fringe. Lir tul, Rob pse, Fra ame, Bet nig, Til het.
Station CHE 36--- Fringe between road and river. Shrubby Sal nig, young Ain ser, young Lir tul.
Station CHE 37 added A little bar above OfF 26. Add Rud lac.
CHEOAH RIVER REACH
Station CR I -- Between road to base of Santectiah Dam and river_ Jug nig, Rob pse, Car car, Lir tul. Edge
of snot creek has Sal nig, Aln ser, Car amo, Jun off. large Carex sp.
N. Parula warbler

Station CR 2 —Mouth of unnamed trib that enters rivet just upstream of bridg,- that goes to Joyce Kilmet
From bridge, riparian fringe has Ain set, Ace rub, Lit tul, Cor amo_ Bach bay stand of Typ lat. Forest fringe
between road and river has Lir tul, Plat occ, Ace neg, Ace rub, Fra ame.
Song sparrow
Cardinal
Station CR 3- -Mouth of Gladden Branch Narrow forest fringe between toad and rimer wf Lit occ, Plat occ,
Ace sac, Bet lut. Riparian frnge of Cor amo, Aln set, E?up fis, Rubus sp., Sal trig, Vit rup, Wis nrp, Lig stn.
Ace rub, Pla occ.
Station CR 4— Unnamed tributary that runs under old US 129 and road to Joyce Kilmer. Comments
concem area between road and river. Tsu can up to 20" dbh, Lit tul, young, Tsu can, Pin sir, Pla occ, Fringe
W Ain ser, Vib den, Lyo rig, Cor amo, Sam can
Acadian flycatcher
Station CR 5-- -Mouth of Cochran Creel";. Just upstream from store. All cleared of woody vegetation to
river. At mouth of creek there is a stand of Typ lat, Imp cap, Rum cri, viny 3- leaflet (largeleaflets)
unknown legume. Sal nig. In islands Arco fin, Sam can, Aln ser, Pla occ.
Station CR 6-- Unnamed tributary at jct, with Yellow Creek road. Between road and ever there are Sal ser,
Ace nab, Ain ser, Rhu cop, Pla occ, Arno feu, Vib cas.
Station CR 7— Unnamed trio from across river. Wall has Tsu can, Pin stm, Bet lut, Ace rub, Oxy arb,
Pretty well choked with Rhe tnax. On the fringe and islands there are Pla Dec, Aln ser, Cor amo, Osm reg.
Kingfisher
Station CR 8 —Mouth of Gold Mine Branch_ Big Tsu can, Pin str, Bet lut, Que rub, Ace sac. Stream
margins and islands have Rob psc, Aln ser, Pla occ, Cor amo, Wis fru, Vil lab
Song sparrow
Station CR 9 —Mouth of Rock Creek from across river. Wall has Pin stro, Tsu can, Bet len, Mag fra, Ace
rub, lira ame, Mag fra. Understory choked wl Rho nux_ Islands in river w.+ Pla occ, Ace rub, Aln ser, Cor
arrto.
Acadian flycatcher
Carolina wren
[hack - throated green warbler
Station CR 14-- Unnamed tributary on road side of river. In fringe betwom road and river there is young
vegetation of Pla occ, Sal nig, Ain ser, Cor amo, Ire vir.
Acadian flycatcher
Station CR I 1— Unnamed tributary from across river. Tsu can. Bet lut_ Pin s>?. In tstantis Aln ter. C'nr
amo, Pla occ, lots of Vit lab, Ite vir, Sam can, Amo fru.
Station CR 12— Unnamed tributary from across river. Site of 1993 tornado. Some tall trees near mouth,
but mostly 30' or less. Bet len, Ace rub, Mag fra, Lit tul. Some Rho max in the understory. Riparian fringe
of Aln ser, Cor amo, Bet nig.
Louisiana water thrush
Song sparrow
Carolina wren
N. Parula warbler
Acadian flycatcher
Red -eyed vireo
Station CR 13- -Mouth of Cochran Creek, river side of mad. Very narrow fringe of trees Rob pse. Fra ame.
'Tall riparian vcg with Vib darn, Cor amo, Pla occ, Bet nig, Aln ser. Top of shnnb layer about 15' high.

Chimney swift.
Station SL 26. Quo alb, Que fal, Pin ech, oxv arb. In the crease there is Lrr tut, Ace rub, F'ta ante. Fringe
Pia occ, Ace rub, Low on water Cor amo
Station SI, 27 Pin ech, Lu tul, Car gla, Ace rub, Que fal, Pin str, Uxy arb. Car car in understory on the
fringe there is Ile vu, Cor amo, Dio vir.
Station SL 28. Pin vir, Put sir, Pin rig, Pin ech, Ace tub, Rho max dominant in understory. Kal fat also.
Drowned mouth'is 2 Sal ntg. drowned Din vir, Cor arne. Quo alb in uncemory.
Station SL 29. A little cove right next to road. Margins have Que fal, Lir tuf, Pla occ, Ace rub, Bet len,
Que coc, Que Coe, Pin ech, Pin str. Undetstory with Lou fan, Rho max, Tsu can. All a fringe between
water and road.
Station SL 30. Que fal, Pin str, Que alb, Pin vir. On wet fringe Fra amr, Ace rub, Airs ser, Cor amo. Nys
syl as understory.
Station SL 31-- (repeated because of hard rain at time ofvisitin boat)—Mouth of unn in trio, From
roadway, at mouth of unnamed Ob., forest is Tsu can, Ur tul, Ace rub. Full Rho rnax understory. From
water in hard rain, fringe between river and road -dominant in canopy -s Lirtul with mixture of Rob pse,
Ace rub, Que alb, Pla occ, Bet nig, Cor amo.
Yellow- throated warbler
Blue - headed vireo
Chickadee
Common crow
Acadian flycatcher
Hooded warbler
Parula warbler
Between 31 and 32 saw 2 wood ducks
Station SI_ 32- -(repeated because of hard rain at time of visit in boat} --At slack water, near creek bank
there is Rho max in understory, Ain ser, Cor amo along bank. Tsu can & Pin sir & Que alb & Ace rub Rob
pse. Cor flo in undcrstory
Yellow- throated warbler
Blue - headed Vireo
Common crow
Great blue heron
Acadian flycatcher
Parula warbler
Station SL 33. Bush sides of stream. tsar car. Ur tul, Clue ste, Act rub. Understory of scattered Kalm fat and
Rho max Very heavy cover of Dennsteadtia punctilobula. On the opposite bank, add Que alb, Rho arb,
Vib den. Alf in a flood plain
Carolina wren.
Indigo bunting
Wood duck hen
Station SL 34. Mouth of Mountain Creek with fairly deep water. Bridge about 60 m- up. Pla occ. Frittl;e of
(`.or amo. Lig sin_
Parula warbler
Station SL 35. Frwgc between roadway and the lake. Canopy Pla occ, Rob pse, Que rub, Ace rub
Wood thrush

Up Cheoah River uma, Little Green heron, saw 2 domestic ducks
Station SL 36. Drowned creek mouth w/ Ilea occ and Sal rug. Back of that Fra pen, Ace rub,
2 mallard aldults, 3 young
Carolina wren
Farmly of tufted titmouse
Station SL 37. Mouth of creek right next to a !rouse w/ road on the other side of the cove.. Pla oce, Que
alb, Que coc, Rosa multiilora. Cor amo on the fringe,
Station SL 38. [gowned cove - Canopy upstream mostly Ace rub, Lie tul, Que rub. To the sides Que fal.
Fringe Ain ser, Cor anro_
Station SL 39. Put -in oppos =tc USFS Chcoah District Ranger Station. Submerged Sal nig, Bet rug-
Upstream in the groove Ace rub, Pla occ. About 12 feet of water.
Station SL 40_ A narrow fringe between a drowned creek mouth and the roadway_ Que alb & Que coc on
higher ground on one side, Que alb on higher ground on the other side. In the embayment proper Pia occ,
Sal nig, Lit tul, Bet I= In the water —Sal nig, Aln ser, Ace rub, Cor arm.
Station SL 41, Big Sal nig in the submerged zone, a fringe of big Ace rub. Beyond them Que fat, Que alb,
understory of Rho max and Rho min. Cor amo and A Ln set in the fringe. Dio vir and Pin rig to 20' tall in
about 4' of water.
Station SL 42_ Broad creel! mouth. Fla oce ,Ace rub, some Nys syl. Lir tul farther back in_ On the drier
upland is Pin ech, Quc fat. Que alb. Sal rug on the water fringe.
Station SL 43. Left side is snowed to water's edge, with a fringe of Ace rub. In the water is all Sal nig. To
the right is Ace rub, Pin vir_ Shallow. Ras pat, Set cyp. Cor amo on the wet margins.
Carolina wren
Chickadee
Song sparrow
Station SL 44 —Right hand side is a road bank coverers its fescue. Willows in the mouth. Pin vir, Que nab,
Ace rub, Lir tul make up the rest.
2 male, 1 female mallard
Station SL 45--On fire slope, Que alb, Fra a me, Ace rub (close to water), Lir tul, No aquatic fringe of trees
(looks Ue they stay have been cleared out). On one side of the creek thee- is a real estate sign. The lot has
obviously beta cleared of undergrowth
Station SL 46--Shallow indentation. Fringe of Aln set, Kat lat down to water. Que, alb, Pin str, Pin vir, Que
coc, Ace rub. No other drowned cmergcnts.
Station S!_, 47— Creek mouth with Pla occ, Act tub, Dio vir, Cor amo. Back is Ace rub. Pin ng, Que alb.
Pin vir
Station SL 48 —Head of Ground Squirrel Branch. Drowned willows. On margin Ace rub. Right margin is
mowed. In stream mouth is Bet nig. Li=ft upland Pin vir, Pin ech, Ace rub, Pla occ, Lit tul. Amongst
willows are Cor amo and a little Sci cyp.
Mallard male w/ 2 young.
Station SL 49—Lir tul. Ace rub. Left side is a road (cleared), right side is forest of 50' trees.
Red-eyed vireo

Ele
Ed
Eup
Eup
Fag
Fra
Fra
Gay
Hal
Ham
Hyd
Hyp
Imp
Iri
]so
Ite
Jug
Jun
Kai
Lap
Leu
Lin
Lig
Liq
Lit
Lyo
Mag
Mon
My(
Nys
Ono
Cis")
Osm
Ost
Oxy
Pan
Par
Pau
Pit
Pin
Pin
Pin
Pla
Pot
Pot
Pot
Pru
Que
Que
Que
Que
sp.
Eleoctiaris species
stri
Edgeron strigosus
rug
Eupatorium rugosum
fis
Eupatorium fistulosum
gra
Fagus grandifolia
ame
Fraxinus americana
pen
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
bac
Gaylussacia baccata
tel
Halesia tetraptera
vir
Hamamelis virginiana
art's
Hydrangea arborescens
sp.
Hypericum species
c�alr
Impatiens capensis
pse
Iris pseudacorus
Mel
Isoetes melanopoda
vir
Itea virginica
nig
Juglans nigra
eff
Juncus effusus
lat
Kalmia latifolia
can
Laportea canadensis
fon
Leucothoe fontanesiana
ben
Lindera benzoin
sin
Ligustrum sinense
sty
Liquidambar styraciffua
tut
Liriodendron tutipifera
fig
Lyonla ligustrina
fra
Magnolia frased
fis
Monarda fistulosa
aqu
Myriophyllum aquaticum
syl
Nyssa syivatica
sen
Onoclea sensibilis
sp.
Osmo biza species
reg
Osmunda regalis
vir
Ostrya virginiana
arb
Oxydendrum arboreum
sp.
Panicum species
qui
Parthenoassus quinquefolia
tam
Paulownia tomentosa
sp.
Pilularia species
stri
Minus strorius
vir
Pinus virginiana
rig
Pinus rigida
occ
Piatanus occidentalis
app
Polypodiurn appaiachianum
acr
Polystichum acrostichoides
sp.
Potamogeton species
ser
Prunus serotina
coc
Quercus ooccinea
rub
Quercus rubra
pri
Quercus prinus
fal
Quercus falcata

r7
w
F.
Q ue
Q ue
Clue
Que
Rho
Rho
Rhu
Rob
R.os
Ros
Rub
Rud
Rum
Sal
Sal
Sam
Sci
Sci
Smi
Tit
Tax
Tra
Tsu
Typ
Ulm
Ulm
Vac
Val
Vib
Vib
Vib
Vit
Vit
Wis
Xan
alb
vel
shu
mue
min
max
GOP
pse
mul
pal
sp.
lac
cri
nig
ser
can
Val
cyp
rac
het
rad
hir
can
iat
rub
ala
arts
sp.
ace
den
cas
rot
tab
fru
Sim
Quercus aiba
Quercus velutina
Quercus shumardii
Quercus muehlenbergii
Rhododendron minus
Rhododendron maximum
Rhus copallina
Robinia pseudoacacia
Rosa rnultiflora
Rosa Falusiris
Rubus species
Rudbeckia laciniata
Rumex crispus
Salix nigra
Salix sericea
Sambucus canadensis
Scirpus validus
Scirpus cyperinus
Smilacina racemosa
Tilia heterophylla
Toxicodendron radicans
Tradescantia hirsuticauiis
Tsuga canadensis
Typha latifolia
Ulmus rubra
Ulmus alata
Vacan_um arboreum
Vallisneria species
Viburnum acerifolium
Viburnum dentatum
Viburnum cassinoides
Vitis rotundifolia
Vitis labrusca
Wisteria frutescens
Xanthorrhiza simplicissima
F

FIFI
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES AND SIGN OBSERVED

c
A
BIRDS AND OTHER ANIMALS OBSERVED OR HEARD AT TAPOCO PRIORITY
HABITAT SITES, JUNE 25 -28, 2000,
BY EDWARD E. C. CLEBSCH AND PATRICK FAIRRATUN
SITE
BIRDS
ANIMALS
CA 17
yellow- breasted chat, Carolina wren, red -eyed vireo
CHI 2
orchard oriole, song sparrow, Carolina chickadee - —
CHI 7
carolina chickadee, red -eyed vireo
CHI 4
CHI IO
indigo burnting
yellow - throated warbler
CHI 12
2 phoebe nests in viaduct, tufted titmouse, yellow-throated-
warbler
CHI 13
Carolina wren, phoebe nest in culvert
CHI 19
11 cliff swallow nests in culvert
CHI 24
Carolina wren
CHI 25
red -eyed vireo
CHI 27
spotted sandpiper
CAL I
yellow- throated warbler; cliff swallows working the lake
surface
CAL 3
beaver sign on shore trees
between CAL 3 and CAL 4
CAL 5
acadian flycatcher i
CAL 7
acadian flycatcher
CAL 9
1 tree suitable for Indiana ball
CAL 13
great blue heron
CHE 2
Carolina wren
CHE 17
female wood duck
CHE 19
beaver sign on some of the
exposed living bunks in the
water 9
CHE
28/29
beaver activity on downed
trees in the water between
these two sites
CR 1
northern parula warbler
CR 2
song sparrow,cardinal
CR 7
belted kingfisher
CR 8
song sparrow
CR 9
acadian flycatcher, Carolina wren, black - throated green warbler
CR 1 0
acadian flycatcher

CR 12
CR 17
Louisiana water thrush, song sparrow, Carolina wren, acadian
flycatcher, northern parula warbler
acadian flycatcher, cardinal
SL I I
yellow- throated warbler
--
Potential Indiana bat tree
SL 12
SL 13
SL 15
SL I9
ovenbird
ovenbird, common crow, turkey vulture
northern parula warbler, hooded warbler
SL 22
eastern phoebe, finale wood duck wit_h8 /10 ducklings
SL 2525
chimney swift
SL 31
yellow- throated warbler, blue- headcd vireo, caroling chickadee,
common crow, acadian flycatcher, hooded warbler, northern
paring warbler
SL 3182
2 wood ducks
SL 32
yellow- throated warbler, blue - headed vireo, common crow,
great blue heron, acadian flycatcher, norther parula warbler
SL 33
SL 34
earolina wren_ indigo bunting, wood duck hen
northern parula warbler
-
SL 35
wood thnch
SL 36
SL 43
Carolina wren, family of tufted titmice
caroling wren, Carolina chickadee, song sparrow
SL 44
SL 48
SL 49
SL 50
2 male, 1 female mallard duck
male mallard duck with 2 young
red -eyed vireo
song sparrow, Canada goose, mallard duck, eastern phoebe,
domestic duck
SL 51
song sparrow, blue jay, cnglish starling
SL 52
flicker, cardinal, american robn, caroling wren, cedar waxwing,
rte- winged blackbird, song sparrow, gray catbird, family of
wood ducks
bull frog
SL 54
little green heron (re- named)

✓
'll 'I."
I ,
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
TNC CLASSIFICATIONS AND DESCRIPTORS
1850 tEM*5nM StW%' 1 f0tAL-)0C MrGUST 24, M

n
j
TAPOCO PROJECT: VEGETATION CODES AND NAMES FOR PRIORITY HABITATS 1
NORMANDEAU
STATION #
TNC
TNC NAME
MAP NAME
OR SPECIES
CODE
Calderwood
CA 17
1_132Nd
Temporarily flooded cold - deciduous Forest fornation
bypass
IIIB2Nd
'Temp. flooded cold - deciduous shrubland formation
V132Nd
Temp. flooded temperate perennial forb vegetation
formation
Chilhowee Lake
CHI 1
IB2Na23
Liriodendron tudipifera -Tilia americana var. heterophyllapa___
Aesculus flava -Acer saccharum forest alliance
CHI 2
1132Nb
Temporarily flooded cold - deciduous woodland formation
VB2Nd
Temporarily flooded temperate perennial form vegetation
formation
CHI 3
IB2Na23
As CHI I
II1B2Nd
Temporarily flooded cold - deciduous sh.rubland formatior.
CHI 4
IB2Na23
As CHI 3
1I1B2Nd
As CHI 2
CHI 5
VC2Na
Permanently flooded temperate or subpolar hydromorphic
rooted vegetation formation
CHI 6
VC2Na
As above
CHI 7
1132Na23
As CHI 3
CHI 8
VC2Na
As CHI 5
CHI 9
1B2Na
Lowland or submontane cold- deciduous forest formation
CHI 10
IC3Na28
Pinus virginiana- Quercus (eoeeinea, prinus) forest alliance
CHI I I
IA8Nb5
Pinus echinata forest alliance
CHI 12
IC3Na28
As CHI 10
IC8Na33
Tsuga canadensis- iriodendron tulipifera forest alliance
CHI 13
IB2Na27
Quercus alba -(Q. rubra, Carya spp.) forest alliance
I132Na_37
Quercus prinus-QLercus (albs, falcata, rubra, velutina)
forest alliance
CHI 14
IC3Na28
As CHI 10
CHI 15
IB2Na23
As CHI 3
CHI 16
I132Na23
As CHI 3
IC3Na28
As CHI 10
CHI 17
IB2Na23
As 0-113
IC3Na21
Pinus strobus- Quercus (albs, rubra, velutina) forest alliance
IC3Na28
As CHI 10
CHI 18
Discarded as priority habitat
CHI 19
VASNk
Seasonally flooded temperate or subpolar &*rassland 2
formation
CHI 20
IC3Na28
As CHI 10
CHI 21
IC3Na21
As CHI 17
IC3Na28
As CHI 10
C 111 22
1B2Na23
As CHI 3
IC3Na28
As CHI 10

CHI 2 2 31
IC3Na21
As CHI 17
Clil 24
IC3Na28
As Cliff 10
CM 25
IC3Na28
-fC-3Na28
As CHI 10
CHI 26
As CHI 10
CHI 27
IB2Na36
Quercus prinus-(Q coccinea, Q. velutina) forest alliance
IC3Na28
-ifi-2Na23
As CHI 10
CIII 28
'IC3Na28
As Clil 3
CHI 29
As CHI I()
Juglans
Not yet surveyed
cinerea # I
Juglans
Not yet surveyed
cincrea # 2
-fB —2Nal
Draba.
0 1
Quercus muehienbergii-(Acer sacclianim) forest alliance
ramosissima/
Acer
leucoderme
(13/16)
Draba
I-B2NaI01
As above
rainosissima/
Clematis
glaucophylla
(13/16)
Mnium
Not yet surveyed
carolinianurn/
Trichomanc-s
petersii (I
Mnium
Not yet —surveyed
carolinianurn/
Trichomanes
petersli
(26/27)
Caldenvood Lake
CAL I
-192N —a2 3
—Liriode-ndron tulipif=-Tilia arnericana var. —heterophylla- 3
-CXE —2
-ff2—Na23
Aesculus flava-Ater saccharum forest alliance
As CAL I
CAI, 3
LB2Na23
As CAL t
CAL 4
IB2Na23
As CAL I
CAL 5
II32Na21—
As CAL I
CAL 6
IC3Na21
Pinus strobus-Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina) forest alliance
IC3Na28
Pinus virginiana-Quercus (coccinea, prinus) forest alliance
CAL 7
TB2Na23
As CAL I
CAL 8
EB2Na.36
Quercus pnnus-(Q. coccinea, Q. velutina) forest alliance
IC3Na28
As CAL 6
---- --------- --
CAL 9
lB2Na.23
As CAL I
CAL 10
IB2Na23
As CAI I
IB2Na38
Quercus prinus-Quercus rubra forest alliance

i
CAL 11
I- B2Na38
As CAL 10
CAL 12
IB2Na23
As CAL 1
CAL 13
IB2Na23
As CAL l
IC3Na28
As CAL 6
CAL 14
n32Na
Lowland or submortane cold - deciduous forest formation
CAL 15
IB2N08
As CAL 10
CAL 16
IC3Na28
As CAL 6
Trichomanes
Not yet surveyed
petersii 1
Mnium
Not yet surveyed
carolinianum/
Trichomanes
petersii (5/6)
Mnium
Not yet surveyed
carolinianum/
Trichomanes
petersii (6/7)
Trichomanes
Not yet surveyed
petersii
(opp.8)
Acer
Not yet surveyed
leucoderm(
(8/9)
Juglans
Not yet surveyed
cinerea
(10/12)
Cheoah Lake
CHE I
IB2Na23
Liriodendron tuiipifera -Tilia americana var. heterophylla -�-
Aesculus flava -Ater sacchamm forest alliance
CHE 2
IB2Na23
As CHE 1
CHE 3
IB2Na37
Quercus prinus- Quercus (alba, flacata, rubs, velutina)
forest alliance
CITE 4
IB2Na37
As CHE 3
CHE 5
IC3Na21
Pinus strobus- Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina) forest alliance
CHE 6
IB2Na37
As CHE 3
CHE 7
1132Na23
As CHE 1 j
1
CHE 8
IB2Na23
As CHE I
CHE 9
IB2Na27
Quercus alba- (Quercus rubra. Carya spp.) forest alliance
CHE 10
IB2Na23
As CHE 1
CHE 11
IB2Na23
As CHE 1
CHE 12
IB2Na
Lowland or submcntane cold - deciduous forest formation
CITE 13
IB2Na23
As CHE I
IC3Na28
Pinus virginiana- Quercus (eoceinea, prinus) forest alliance
CITE 14
IB2Na
As CFiE 12

I
CHE IS
IB2Na38
Quercus prinus- Quercus nibra forest alliance
CHE 16
IB2Na23
As CHE 1
CHE 17
IB2Na23
As CHE 1
CHE 18
IB2Na23
-
As CHE I
CHE 19
1132Na23
As CHE 1
CHE 20
CHE 21
LB2Na
LB2Na
As CHE 12
As CHE 12
As CHE l
CHE 22
IB2Na23
CHE 23
I132Na23
As CHE I
CHE 24
IB2Nd 14
i- latanus occidentalis (Liyuidambar styraciflua,
briodendron tulipifera) temporarily flooded forest alliance
CI 2525
VA5Nk14
Juncus eNusus seasonally flooded heruaceous alliance
CHE 26
VB2Ne
Semipermanently flooded temperate perennial form 5
vegetation formation
CHE 27
IB2Nd
VB2Ne
Temporarily flooded cold - deciduous forest formation
As CITE 26
_.,,..
CHE 28
IB2Na23
As CHE 1
CIiE 29
LB2Nd
VA5N1r
Temporarily flooded cold- deciduous forest formation
Seasonally flooded tcrnperate or subpolw grassland
formation
CHE 30
IB2Na23
VA5C
As CHE 1
Cultivated
CHE 31rt
IB2Nd
As CHE 29
CHE 32
IC3Na28
As CHE 13
CHE 33
I$2Na23
As CIiE I
CHE 34
IB2Na23
As CHE 1
CHE 35
IB2Na23
As CHE 1
CHE 36
I62Na
Lowland or submontane cold-deciduous—forest formation
CHE 37
IB2Ne
As CHE 26
Cheoah River
South
CR I
IB2Na
Lowland or submontane cold- dciduous forest formation
CR 2
IB2Na23
IB2Ne
Liriodendron tulipifem -Tilia americana var. heterophylla-
Aesculus flava -Acer saccharum forest alliance
Seasonally flooded cold- deciduous forest formation
CR 3
IB2Na23
IHB2Nd
As CR 2
Temporarily flooded cold- deciduous forest formation
CR 4
IA8Nb13
Pinus strobus -Tsuga canadensis forest alliance
CR 5
II7B2Nd
VB2Nf
As CR 3
Saturated temperate perennial fort vegetation formation
CR 6
MB2Nd
As CR 3
I

7
SL 14
I32Na
As SL 13
IC3Na2I
As SL 7
SL 15
IB2Nd
As SL 4
IONa14
Pinus eehinata- Quercus (coccinea, prinus) forest alliance
SL 16
1B2Na
As SL 13
LB2Nd22
As SL 1
SL 17
lB2Na27
As SL 8
IB2N -d
As SL 15
Santeetlah Lake
SL 18
1F32Na23
As SL 5
South
1132Nd
As SI, 15
SL 1 cl
IA8Nb5
Pinus echinata fore_et alliance- —�
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
SL 20
IB2Na23
As SL 5 - -
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
As SL 9 -
51.21
IA8Nb13
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
SL 22
IB2Na23
As 5L 5
IB2Nd
As SL 15
IC3Na32
Tsuga canadensis- Betula alleghaniensis forest alliance
SL 23
1B2Na
As SL. 2
SL. 24
IB2Na103
Quercus albs montane forest alliance
IB2Nd
As SL 15
SL 25
1B2Nd22
As SL I
IMNa2I
A:, SL 7
SL 26
IB2Na23
As SL 5
IC3Nal4
As SL 15
SL 27
IA8Nb5
As SL 19
SL 28
IA8Nb5
As SL 19
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
SL 29
IC3Na21
As SL 7 _ -_-
SL 30
IC3Na21
As SL 7
SL 31
IA8Nc8
Tsuga canadensis forest alliance
I32Na23
As SL 5
SL 32
IA8Nb13
As SL 9
Sl.. 33
IB2Na
As SL 2
IB2Na23
As SL 5
SL 34
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
Santettlah Lakc
SL 35
TB2Na
As SL 2 g
North
SL 36
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
SL 37
IB2Na
As SL 2
SL 38
IB2Na23
As S1.5
SL 39
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
SL 40
LB2Na
As SL 2
IB2Nd22
As SL I
7

SL 41
LB2Na
As SL 2
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
SL 42
IB2Na
As SL 2
I32Nd22
As SL I
SL 43
IB22Nd22
As SL I
IC3Na28
As SL I
VA5C
Cultivated
VA5Nk
Seasonally floodec: temperate or subpolar grassland
formation
Sl_ 44
IB2Nd22
As SE I
IC3Na28
As SL I
SL 45
IB2Na2?
As SL 8
SL 46
IC3Na2l
As SL 7
SL 47
1"IB2Nd
As SL 4
IC3Na21
As Sl, 7
SL 48
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
IONa14
As SL 15
VA5N`'I:
As SL 43
SL. 49
I132Na
As SI., 2
SL 50
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
IC3Na28
-
St . 51
V A.5Nk
As SL 43
SL 52
VA5C
Cultivated
D32Nd22
As SL 1
SL 53
IB2Nd
As SL 4
1C3Na
Mixed needle - leaved evergreen cold - deciduous forest
formation
SL 54
IB2Nd22
As SL 1
1C3Nal4
As SI 15
SL 55
iB2Na36
Quercus prinus- (Quercus coccinea, Quercus velutina) 9
forest alliance
SL 56
IC3Na14
As SL 15

5�
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
CPS LOCATIONS OF PRIORITY HABITATS
JMW If Pd*STF4ALSTLjDY I LJNAJ =,'AU"l 74, 2001
1,

~
0
to
to
CL
fj
ca
to
LU
Lul
11
UJWWWWWWWWWW
ww<fflwww!�
w
0
cc
to
00
Ol
0
EO
Cl
fm
CO
In
w
FN

Mco
m'
N
A
m
O
CD
M
tfi
r
N
N
f+
�
A
A
A
t+
h.
Q6
CO
a0
7Q
tD
o
O
Q
0
0
0
0
O
O
Q
O
W
I—
o
C�000c)000moo
Cl
o
O
0
Q
Co
O
d
0
0
p
ta
N
aCDo
N
N
o
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
t•
A
A
t�.
A
P.
A
Y�
1+
N�
N
t0
N
tp
M
tp
N
40
C_4
t0
O
Sp
t`a
t`D
!C
rII
v
Q
o
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
Q
W
to
m
_m
�mmmwa��m`mm�m
o�c�Qa�000d�sc�
U
0.
0
O
N
m
m
c i
to
to
V
Q
cn
W
III
UJ
0mzQm�m�mmm�
�o
0
o
U10000
d
N
�
�
OC30
010p000O
X?Cq
XX
❑XXp
p
O
�W
W
❑
Q
0
W
❑
w
Y
U
Z
OX
W
Y
U
f
m
W
CL
cY
U
co
w
U
�
w
W
Q
O
OO
C?
0
CY.)
�
U
W
C]
Mvcawrno`
-NC7rp
tC'i
Z
Q
Q
Q
Q
J
,j
_i
J
J
Q
J
�7C}UU(�U`ZUUUUU
U
F-
Q
VJ
Z
N
N
cq
A
cn
CO
A
QS
N
r
r
to
V)
tO
to
{t
Of
CO
A
z
oMODCOArAtnW
r`
v
o
of
v
•=
Gi
ri
OD
0
a
rs
hu7
Q'
a0
W
N
tncaNrni"S
A
ch
Q
v
A
?r
iD
A
C74?
rD
A
zA
p
on
0
m
(a
Q
r-
Aa
O
*-
Aa
M
to
tT
cc o
r
c
tt o
c
0
c
w
m
co
am�¢
M
01
Ca
c�D
b
V
_N
stW
N
t?
tD
N
N
try
p
!�
w
to
m
tD
O
r
"t
N
Ci
(Q
CV
C*
A
W_
tW) JU)
ofjmM7
I
iNA
in
tr)
to
tNrn
LO

trt�
u`r
�aaaaaaaQ¢(LCLCL0
-CL
-a_
T
41
N
C
n
eti
l7
N
s!'Nf
(A
hl
�d
^0V
@V
u7
IR
O
O
N
77
Ln
C
trl
K�S
ko
(D
O
Ur
0
Q
0
r
0 '-
0—
r
r
—
w
t
r
r-
r
.-
�
N
'-
N
e-
T
Q
0 fl
r
Q
O
N
Q
Woo
H
0
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
C
C;)
O
p
O
t7
p
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
gq
O
O
O
G p
0
N
0
pp
0
O
N
N
ti
N
lQ
h
N
N
C�
P
(/}
D.
h-
Q1
(D
h
Q
(D
N
f-
N
(D
N
o
Q
f+
N
o
Y�
,C�.J
N
tD
N
^
—CN
N
n
�V
►�
IN-
N
�V
o
c3
to
o
n
p
`8
0
to
0
o
O
Cl
(p
G7
(0
cn
CO
o©
m
(�
O
(D
c5
c
c
c
c
c
c
e
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
m
►.
al
L
as
w
tv
as
m
c
m
m
m
m�
a�
m
m
�/
L
V
V
L
4
4.
L.
�.
L
y.
O
1d
❑
L
C�
❑❑
Q
y
�
LI
O1
J❑
�
y
{.-i
tl
cl
d
Cri
f�
d
M
of
iD
tCl
T
M
Ol
M
(O
CO
t`1
Q5
et
Mu)d
NMt'?+
tt)N
CV)N
mtoM
D
0
C)OW
ww
W
COWC17
W
JJ.30
W
W
0000000
DDDnnujw
►.
u)►-
?zm
¢mmCD
-1
.j
CID
-j
tor.nmmz
mmmQt
--F
?
F-t-mm
J,J
mm
to
=i0)0000oo0
- ��-
�-��00
UUUUUU
OWWWWUU
z
O
m
=
co
n
c
o
o
n©
w
h
O❑
O
o
O
O
Q
C
O
z
z
z
z
O
O
w
st
�
w
Xx
w
M
W
x
;❑
5
a�
4
W
=❑
a
❑❑
U
U
❑o❑
U
cl
U
v
W
F
W
w
w
xOz
U
w
a
o
o
0
a
a
Q
w
=
uj
Z
0
w�zcw�
U
❑z
°z°z�
z
a
m
mzZ
Uj
W
Y�15
�
(4)
tu
Q
cQ
:�3:
3:
W
xwWwWwwWwwwWWWwWW
U.,
N
N
M
M.M
ODU
U
UUUUUC?UUU
a
h
0
�r
p
N
Nl
w
to
(D
M
u)
A
rT
N
h
t'-
N
W
M
f-
M
CO
ti
IT
0
M
O
IT
T
w
r
o
N
w
M
M
N
ti
ui
K
m
O
f-
to
a;
tt5
4
r
O
r-
ffl
d
ttl
r
t70
F
Cr
r-
LO
O
�-
N
M
W
W
IO
w
tt]
M
O
s-
C`
tt7
T
p
w
ti
a
tY 1
W
�t
T
N
t~
N
N
tD
Q
to
ttn
tin
to
ei0
�9�p
0
10
tdlJ
tt}
l�1
eL7
z(D(0CD(D
(D
(d
CD
(Dmw0(Oto(D
m
UD
0
tO
M
M
N
N
d
d
N
ti
fl-
T
0
M
N
M
M
N
tD
t-
r•
.-
N
0
O
W
W
M
T
0
CV
W
M
z
t�
(D
Min
CO
CD
O
i~
d
u)
d
d
LO
N
M
O
d
Ol
d
M
IN
O
to
N
N
00
M
(i7
�Q
co
0
M
M
oO
M
O
N
ti7
T
�
ttl
W
ISC2
r
r
Q
n
T
f•
m
w
m
(D
t�
N
e�
tt'1
C4
t
tt7
d
M
.'0
'd7
M
to
UD
M
V
�!}
3
0
.0
0
to
W
(D
tD
tD
�n
V)
to
'a.-
idl
l?
�
trt�
u`r

w
�
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
2
<
2
d
M212
¢
2
2
2
M
M
F'
N
Cn
Ca
M
N
th
r
Q
do
Q
O
O
¢
m
N
Q
till
O
¢
C)
O��
w
Q
CD
Q.
W
M
Q
Q
N
Ur
CD
O
CD
a
cLU
0
�
0
t�
0
A.
G
c0
O
�p
;j
CT
U
�
CD
aj
CJ
a
r-
O
wC)ooC)0oC3a0oaoao
F-
O
O
O
O
CD
O
o
0
0
0
a
Ca
o
CD
Q
d
Q
CQ
0
N
C7
N
o
N
W
Q
N
00
a
CV
co
a
N
W
0
:V
m
0
N
C*
C3
Q
O00
p
N
00
o
N
w
0
N
W
a
r4
C41
N
N
CV
N
fD
N
CV
d
N
N
CD
Q1
CO
N
CD
N
CAD
N
C)
CD
O
O
O
C)
O
C)
O
t7
C7
0
0
0
w
w
w
iv
io
to
io
s�
is
m
is
C
w
cn
C
m
C
in
C
®
CD
CU
(b
N
m
C
Cti
m
®
w
ir
Uon
©G]C]��Oapppn0
CL
O
Q,
to
C
T
d
CD
t0
CD
m
rn
et
tD
N
r
t.7
er
ui
M
1G)
u->
t+
CG
d
Z
W
2
J
.�
2.'-
W
J
J
_�
J
J
v~iF'
10
►=
�l03comm�mm
LD
�0
0000
00
Z
o
�
n
o
cn
F-
Q
flnciaa❑am0CcZZCO
w
w
w
W
W
W
W
5
5
5
xxxxxxxaoaf.�o
z
w
w
z
�
w
��
w
�
�d
W
m
.�
-
—
—
—
m
co
ti
tty
V'
m
N
TT�
.i.
�
�rpo
li
ryT
a•.
LL.
4i
LL.
►Ty
LL.
:L
6L
Ll
LL
�L
Q
lL
y
p
w
2
W
S=
W
w
2
w
x
W
2
w
2
w
2
w
2
w
m=
w
w
z3:
w
w
z
Q
F-
(,
Cn
t.-
CD
tD
N
C7
cD
N
CO
cfl
taD
N
=
to
O
O
C7
M
t`
to
M
et
N
N
O
co
C�
N
t7D
,-
co
t~
0)
N
"1
QS
f.
ti
CW1
N
O
C73
ti
tD
to
tNA
r
N
m
0
cM7
Z
CD
CD
C9
O
CD
CD
CD
O
tD
CD
tD
cf)
tD
g.
P�
N
ti
N
Ct3
CD
m
M
to
m
CD
co
Cb
M
M
to
~
ONO
A
CM r)
°G�
to
m
m
t-
fir)
c`7
Cif)
O
N
m
80s
M
CC05
pm
tt)
m
in
ttt
17
�'
tc{T
to
n
A
3
�
ttj
t�f!
t(j
t�
k

w
s
m
m
m
2
zi
��-.z
m
2
m
2
2
m
m
2
2��,::F
2¢dIL(La-
.n.aaa4(LCL0.aL
afL(Lmma.
(10
7
O
0
t`
r
C
O
40
9
O
M"
Co
to
_
U7
O
n
O
f+
V?
N
?
th
O
m
t1
w
tO
�
N
ti
M
M
��
It
sf
M
tV
'V
N
to
Ot
O
N
•^-
N
t*i
r~-
p"
tV
0
m
w
�t
M
7
O
D
7:
r
m
n
MIN
D
Q
O
C)
r
O
D
C)
D
Cl
0
0
O
Cl
tD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
9
w
!-
D
Q
O
O©
C1
d
0
C
0
b
6
b
O
a
Q
p
O
Q
0
0
0
C)
0
O
O
O
Q
pp
CS
O
Ca
O
0
d
0
O
0
d
0
pp
G1
Q
a
D
N�
O
O
N
d
N
6,
cV
O
N
O
N
Q
N
c�
N
o
N
c,7
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
s
t7
_N
C?
N
o
N
o
N_
O
N
t
N
I
U)
D
M
O
E2
QS
N
Q7
N
t7i
h1
O
N
to
g
N
tT
N
t90
N
m
N
M
N
CA
N
CO
N
O
N
tI3
N
to
N
QI
N
to
N
to
N
ati�toKnvatptc�mua
(+)
O
Q
4
p
0
D
O
O
«`>c�COcoc`ocotom
b
b
O
O
Co
0
a
a
oc`o((pptD0
Q
b
0
0
O
uj
CL
(6
t�
i6
f9
�0
tD
{C
<9
SD
tD
t4
f9
d
W
R3
f4
t4
CO
W
OC
C
C
G
C
G
C
C
r
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
G
tD
@
tII
QS
C?
Q3
2
e
2
e
e
M1t
@
@
@
ttl!
o
D
C:
Q
U
[]
O
a
�
�
d
D
O
O
G7
D
a
�
D❑❑
0
Cti
O
tL
tD
tD
t(7
r
t(]
�
Q
q
C4
7
0
to
tT
!+
ti
Q
t71
to
{A
r
rf
M
b'
C+
t'9
+t
cr!
th
'cf
'�
c+S
tJ7
Ua
@
tt
t(')
V
V•
N
et
t0
tw -tnV❑o
❑c
iauao❑❑a❑❑
❑0atnrYj
�-
J
m
D
D
D
Cj
Z::F
D
D
2�i
m
D
2�
D
D
2
D
D
2
D
D
:��
D
D
m
D
x�
D
w❑
m
2
C7
[/J
tll
Qr►-
cn
rr-
r►-
F-
�F
-f-►�i
*'
0
�mmO00omm❑
cn
CA
U)
:3
U)
M
U)
:3
n
0
cMozmzmmmm02
U)
D
❑
U)
0
(o
w
(j)
to
U)
❑
D
D
D
X
D
D
D
D
D
w
D
Q
D
5
D
g
D
D
D
D
D
g
O
w
w
w
V
LL�i
w
m
w
Lu
CO
CO
fsl)
Cam!)
cs!)
iJ�3
>
❑❑❑
DS-.
Y
W
>
Q
w
?
)C8>8
>
>
>
>
>
>
w
awa
0600
C:j
U
0
o
0000�'1
CL
v
❑050w0►www
z
11,
m
w
°w❑w❑wa,V5
w
t)
CC
a
(D
z
t9
0
C7
0t
U'
C1
t7
0
0
0
`
zz
��
wow
-�a�Ix
w
www
ww
w
wawxmE
wwww
WO
aam
:L:)
m
02D
a
m
IWI
aim
WW(iV)iacn
v=im��co
Chu)
im
(n
(0
m
w
�N
c*tv�ncpotnN
vt+�ra�o.
-N
z
Z<<<
Otowwwwwwwwwo.)
2
z
z
Z
¢
z
<<<
z
2z
�t
Z
¢
d
z
¢
z
z
¢
mtnmm
z
a
z
a
z
¢
z
j
g
z
z
¢
H
I--
m
u.
Zmt?.
co
.-
co
t+
tD
-Qmco
Lr,
t�
to
t3
M
O
M
r-
0rncomwMo
r`
N
LO
t0
v
N
t0
O
to
V
M
O
(D
th
N
M
W
m
N
1A
O�
r
tp
r-
_
Cfi
tli
t�
N
N
C'1
tp
to
r-
r
CD
t0
t�y0
M
r
N*gNdogry
©O©
tO
O
t 7
N
th
CIj
to
CD
M
Q
�?
O
r
to
r
m
O_
r
tTJ
r
lD
t0
07
N
O
M
m
O
M
tt2
t�7
t�
Kt
tt?
N
M
w
r
to
z,t�OOCOtDtDtow0
tD000tto0wfiJtNV
tNGQDw(00
('
N
t`
r-
p
0
V'
N
(D
to
V
to
r-
to
C
cn
`tt
m
r
M
n
to
Cl)
co
t0
Ir
M
Cn
00
N
to
r}
m
,
c0
et
z
M
CS
O
tOp
ti3
R
to
ttD{
O
A
F-
a,
cri
tM.
V•
M
O
Ol
G3
1t
M
a!
N
O?
tl;
4
0
mr
µ�1}
t )
t�
1MQ�d
W[
U�
CO3
cn
(tC~p�3
4ti
���
in
•�-
1
u�5
tt7
+ .
,.'
to
ul�
tdfl
Wi
to
V7
ko
in

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
ADDENDUA_
Data for 16 Priority Habitats at RTE Locations
TNC Classifications and Descriptors
M%I TEFUMSTR.AL SIUCY t RNALrpOC AUi�lJST 21.2001
i

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
DATA FOR 16 PRIORITY HABITATS AT RTE LOCATIONS
lWtEF4RESTWLSTLXYy 1 FKALCM AUGUST 24,2MI

C "'
FIELD NOTES, FROM RTE SITE VISITS ON TAPOCO FERC BOUNDARIES FOR
NORMANDEAU A.SSOCIATFS, INC., 4 JULY, IS AUGUST 2000, AND 18
AUGUST 2000. FOLLOWUP PLANT COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION FROM
TNC SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS
4 July 2000
Chilhowee I a ko
Between CHI 13 and CHI 16
The two sites along; the road (U.S. Highway 129) where there were RTE species
records but no priority habitat stations from Norrnandeau.
%baba ramosissitna and Acer leucoderme site: Ground cover of Polymnia
canadensis, Eupatorium rugosum, Chasmanthium latifolium, and Tradescantia
hirsuticaulis. Shrubs and vines included Viburnum acerifolium. Overstory with
Cercis canadensis, Cary glabra, Ostrya virginiana, C'_arya cordiformis, Ciuercus
velutina.
Between CHI 13 and CHI 16
Second Draba ramosissirra site,with Clematis glaucophylla (milepost 12.2):
Overstory includes Cercis canadensis, Pinus virginiana, Pin-us rigida, Quercus
shunwdii, and Q. muliienbergii. Shrubs and vines include Vitis rotundifolia.
Herbs include Polymnia canadensis,
15 August 2000
— Cheoah Lake —CHE 25 in accompanying table
Mouth of Fax Creek (drzw which enters at emergent wetland with wood duck
boxes) . Location for Tri pet. Good representative cove hardwtx)ds: Tsu can, Lir
tul, Fra ame, Til het, Bet all, Que rub Ari mac On the fringe are Cor amo anti
Aln ser_
I female wood duck
'C.alderwood Lake
Near CAL 1
Just downstream from the location for Tri pet along the trail from U.S. 129. Goad
cove hardwoods: Lir tuI, Ace rub, Bet all, Fra ame, Car cor, Liq sty, Que rub.
Trichomanes petersii I in accompanying table
Between CAL 5 and CAL 6
Just upstream from the embayment at the mouth of Slickrock Creek. Good cove
hardwoods. Tri pet site. Dominants are Til het, Ace sac, Tsu can, Lir tul, Bet all,
4

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
TNC CLASSIFICATIONS AND DESCRIPTORS
IM T MEMI& STUDY t FINALDX AUCMT 24.2Wl

i
•a
TAPOCO PROJECT: VEGETATION CODES AND NAMESS AT RTE LOCA'T'IONS 1
NC►RMANDEAIf
NORMANDIJ1l1
TNC COTE
TNC NAME
MAP NAME
PRIORITY
HABITAT NO. OR
SPECIES NAME
Chilhowee Lake
CH I 3— Pilularia
IB2Na23
Liriodendron tulipifera -Tilia Americana var: heterophyila- Aesculus
Americana
flava -Acer saccharum forest alliance
llIB2Nd
Temporarily flooded cold- deciduous shrubland formation
Cli1 4— Pilularia
1132N a23
As CHI s
Americana
111132Nd
IB2Na36
As CHI 3
Quercus prinus -(Q. coccinea, Q. velutina) forest alliance:
luglans cinerea .
(CHI 11/12)+
Juglans cineren 0 2
IE32 N 00 AAs
above
(CHI 11112)
Drabs
1I3 2Nair11
(?uercus muehlenbCrgii -(Acer saccharum) forest alliance
ramosissima'Acer
(Field notes from 9 July 2004)
leucoderme (CNI
13/16)
Draba
IB2Na141
As above
ramosissimalClerna
(Field notes from 9 Jul}, 2004)
tis giaucophylla
(CHI 13116)
Mnitun
IB2Na13
As CH! 3 —
carolinianunv Frich
omanes petersii
(CHI I7)
IMNa28
1
Pinus vrrginiana- Quercus (Q. coocinca. Q. prinus) forest a111anct
Mnium
carolinianurmTrich
omanes petersii
(CHI 26127)
Calderwood Lakc
Trichomanes
IB2Na23
As CHI 3
petersii (CAL 1)
Mnium
1132Na2
As CHI 3
carolinianum/ Trich
omanes petersi
(CAI. 5!6)
Mnium
1132Na�3
As CHI 3
carolinianumJTrich
omanes pet:ersi
(CAL 617)
Trichomanes
LI32Na23
As CHI 3
petersii (opp. CAL.
8)
Acer leucoderme
IB2Na1_3
As 0111
(CAL, 8/h)
Juglans cinerea
IB2Na23
As CHI 3
(CAL 14/12)
Cheoah Lake
CHE; 25—
IB2Na23
As CHI 3
Trichomanes
petersii
Cheoah River
CR 19—
IB2Na23
Liriodendron tulipifera -Tilia Americana var. heteroph }ilia- Aesculus
North
Trichomanes
flava -Acer saccharum forest alliance
petersii
Spimea virginiana
No appropriate plant community name currently exists in the
(CR 15116. CR
classification scheme used. The sites lie between mowed road shoulder
1 1!12. CR 6,17)
and sprout/vine growth on road fill.
i..cuc�r:�uit�vcr 6ulit Ui[rilel Ut�1 In parentrieses refer to locations between numbered priority habitat sites.

IW TERKS1RUL SILOY i Mh-1 DOCAUGUS; 24, 2MI

Informal Notes:
Introduction: five cntena were primarily considered when evaluating habitat suitability for
amphibians and reptiles. `l`hcy include. (1) size of habitaL (2) suitability for breeding, (3)
potential for foraging, (4) availability of shelter, calling, or sun basking sites, and (5) number of
different species that would rmumcntly use the h2ibitat
Site: Cal 17 Shrub Scrub Wetland (SS) managed rating (l. 5) unmanaged rating (1)
overview — Although small in total area, this site has the unique combination of pools and
flowing water adjacent to each other. Vernal pools, critical habitat for a variety of frog species
and Ambystomid salamanders, arc uncommon in Tapoco. Many species of snakes have been
shown to be optimum foragers and would f - oquendy use this habitat if amphibian and small
mammal densities offered good feeding opportunities. Several species of turtle would also be
expected to use this area. The continuous flow scenario would likely reduce overall here
diversity. ]"be unmanaged rating was actually 1.5, but the reduced diversity (tivinly frog species)
as a result of high flow conditions lowered the score,
1. Anura — The pools should fill in the spring and thus make for duality brooding arenas for
several groups of flogs. There is enough vertical stratification of vegetation to provide protection
and good calling sites. I would expect both species of the genus Bzu o and several members of the
genus Raga (e.g, R s_yhwtica, and R. clamitans) to utilize this habitat. Members of the Hylidar
fatuity (e.g. Pseudacris crucifer) should also be found. 'Tire actual status of Cal 17 as an
ainphibian- breeding site needs to be determined before large amounts of water are released from
C.alderwood in the spring. The elimination of the pool habitats would essentially undermine the
reproductive potential for anurans at this site.
2. Caudata — Ambystornids (e.g. A. maculatum) might be attracted to this site for breeding and
egg laying. Most of the Uesmo:znathres and Eunvea species will remain in Goat Creek and First
Creek. 7be adjacent rivetine habitat associated with the main channel provides acceptable
conditions for hellbenders (a state listed species). A higher flow situation would benefit
helibe ceders (if present?), but may reduce overall herpetofauna complexity.
3. Testudints - The habitat provides foraging sites and enough open area for basking. Several
species of turtles (e.g. Chelvdra serpentina, Stemoiherus odoratus, lerrapene camfina,
GrnPtvniva gnngtvtphirtr, aid C'hr}rsemys pieta) may use this area Because of the small size of
Cal 17, incn-ased flow would probably have minimal impact on most turtle species.
4. Serpentes — I would expect several species of snakes (e.g. Nerodia sipedon, 7hamnophts
strtahs, and Aglastrodon conrortrix) to regularly forage in this area_ A high small mammal
density (check with Wa}mc) would make this site attractive to other species of snakes (e.g.
l ampropellu getula and Elaphe obsoleta). The area also offers good basking sites for snakes_
trim sed flow conditions would reduce amphibian prey species, resulting in a lower utilization
rating for snakes-
5 Lacertilis — Members of the genus Eumeces (e-g- C fasciatus) might visit this site for foraging
and sunning purposes_ The managed or unmanaged strategy will have little impact oti lizards.

i
i
1
1
f
a
L
i
i
h
CD
v
d
a
m
0
m
u
c
m
CD
0
L_
H
BCD
U
m
c
O
h
N
W
t?
CL
N
W
U
O
Z
W
s
c�
L
3
c
a
v
1
�s
0
c1
co
CL
I
B
c
w
io
a
N
v
W
-o
a�
E
Z
C
P cu
N
U
z
R
CL
U
W
cci
U
r
m
to
(n
r
c
�
Ew`
t
m
CO
C
h
r
N
—
E
m
U
+
+
+
+
++
z
+
I
C
!C
N
C
C
�
C
c
x
Y
C
M
C
O
E
v+
in
a10
O
a
Q
7
N
g
0
7
CL
Utt
�
W
C1
m
C
C
W
(9
t
icacjwuiuiuia0
?'vuiro
;ticd�oi
v
1
�s
0
c1
co
CL
I
B

ri
N
b
C
r0
d
4.3
d
C2
i-
0
0
0
0
O
�7
C
0
�U
d•
m
C
N
m
a
Q
4?
m
N
G7
CL
vs
c
W
L
4
E
vi
dn.
W
I--
0
0
0
a
�fy
0
1
tV
7
�4
C
d
`
0
CC
061
3
i
€
V
i
CD
z
0
0
U)
U)
�:
I
-
m
cx
It
i
I
E
in
m
ki
m
l
C
E
.e-
C
_
0
E
co
n
p
t0
tv
r
P
iVtV
a
cc
I
jfj
F
i
e
yy
i
44
i
w
a6
O
e
io
ro
3
v
c
E
se
E
E
.c
OL
S
E
E
E
•
ID
V
l
E
v
.�
'J
E
Y,
E
E
LM
CL
2
a
a
v+
E
c
c
.�
n
'"
E
'"
C
°
q
°
CL
tt�o7
44
4
"'
__
Q
cri
..0
7
F..
•
Z
v
"
0
-E
7
.,
laa
I
c
E
oil
v
o
»
E
Yf
w
E
°
a
wuiuiuit9z
°aa
0
a..a�n
z
xi
°a'
iSiC
-IV
3
V!
r
r
N
.-
M't
r :
�-
in
r
Od
r
T4
r
m
.-
ci
<+ .
N
r
N i
N�
C4
!"1
N
d
N �
G�
0 �
.�
-
N
vi
pi
�
��.
Y!
1`
Ol
-
CV
�fy
0
1
tV
7
�4
C
d

M
CL
D
.0
2-
0
0
0
kill, 0
CL
to
0
CD
L--
tQ
RO
-r-
E
o
CD
CD
31-A
0
O
QS
C)
O
N
co
lz
E
c
Z
CD
0
mtr
CN
C:,
E!
'v,
CD
CQ
4n
a
Q
c
r
C=b
m
9
0
70
9
lcl
1
(A
0
a
E
a
=,SE
Lo
a
#A
EE
a
0cw"
V
&
I
0,
c?,
D
E
z
ca
TL
'A
CL
'A
1-
3
40i
E
Cl
-C
C
.0
In
c
E
'E*
4E
41�
;.E
*
E
0
E
0
ULO
RC
sm
a
in
&
0
0 !&
'Lo
=
m
-0�
7-
,
a
0
0
Lox
CLr-
0
Cl
a
-1
lool
I
i=
e
E
o
"C
4'-
E
0
,E
A_-
CL
EL
0
CL
CL
E
go
cl
'12
CE
!,c
3
0
0
c
Lk
C
c
0
ID
w
w
Q.
00
Gi
—
—I—
--t
an
—i—
0
t-,
Cd
—
c;
C4
NIC
C4
C4
Z,CL
40
Iz
0
O
QS
C)
O
N

: #
\
2
\
#
&
/
&
E
k
d
.m
2
.
�/
..
,
.
2
!
' �
§
f
�^
8
�
�
2
2
}
it
Q,
E
q
!
E
|
&
IV
|
03
q
_
|
o
®
E
2
|
.
0
CD
�.�
o
|
��-
2
®
:
|
&
$
�
2
��
E
E
|2
-
5.
k-
v
J
3
f
2
�
k
$
£
.
_
3
J
§
f
'�■
�
«■
•\
f
f®
c
C
g
\0(fJLU
@�ui
u«0»
\
2
\
#
&
/
&
E
k
d

C14
0
0
C)
C
1,
UZ,
E
6
.0
t
2 ,
I
I
V
I
C
1 1-
1
-
rr•
-�Or
rrr
rr
ppj
{
�pj
E
Ql
N
I1
C4
C4
N
N
v
N
iN
cm
w
E
42
CA
O
E
O
cn
II
m
a
V
0
0
'A
'o
E
0
V
-,z
>,
to
;R
RD
E
E
al
F
A
=
c
- ca
Co
c
Va
30
E
CC
0
:
CC
75
v
CL
:
jay
2
CL
r-
oil
0
E5E
0
1
0
.2
I
ci
n�
Ir
m
CL
'o
E
E
,20
Cal
E
0
cr
ICL
a:
L7
U
a
0
C4
4
wi
Cd
to
cra
1
0
eq
V6
E
w
Cd
PZ
od
0;

cm
(U
0
V
c
m
9
0
z
F
T---
t
FFF
11
(
�
CL
if
z
CD
o
C3
'N
eq
C*4
o
iq
cq
CNI
C%j
El
a)
E
-cg
4=
ID
is
0
so
J,
0
o
a
CL
E
cc
C'I
E
.9
cL
C
E-0
05
0
IV
Ca
LD
E
;>
C,
.0
7
cr
e
c
OL
0
CL
'D
ip
2r--
a
EL
CL
in
E
0
r
4;
E
.0
0
E
!n
14
OL
o
0
V
0
0
go
E
1
'o
cl.
0
E
45
E
&
ID
c
c
c
E
CL
E
c
p
s+
co
o
E
VID
E
2�
ce
=1
0
I
V
0
0
U
0
-a
0
16
� L
-;
-
t
E IS
S
;
'o
0
ai
uj
Lj
uj
o
0�
a:
CL
0.
0:
tL
70-
z
0
i
21
-
0
a
a-
2!
CIA
':
m
1
C41
10 1
V
161
cli I
r-Z 106
cy;
-Z
C4

CN
1
(13
G
D
Oa
0
LL
co
00
va
-
E
CN
CM
cc
CPO
C
CL
c
ae
to
ic
rCt
C
E
0
E
E
"C
a
41
we
c
ar
CL
ra
c
c
VP
5s
a
Pr
L:
1A
a
CL
0
L
0
c
CL
CL
ti
45 a
0
C
iui
Vj
a
.a
C,
(
z
o
-i
-j
0
0101
11—IC41MI.011
46
46
C;
t
4n
"1
0
N

ry
to
O
(71
O
a
-----------
E
li
_
4
LL
CL
C
IMw
}
m
Qi
v,
C
�I
�i
=
6
E€
E
C
®
v
o
C
N
co
r
c
0
cc
a
��
C
E
co
E
N=
.
V
c
E
47
m
m
c
C
c
m
7
d
pE
m
p
O
�#
�p
v
C�--�fx'�+9na
—
�i
9>
..
>
'C
a
U
t
O
a
di
v
y
W
BS
c
o
1
EL
$
t7
4A
E
C
E
aG
c
O
3
�
N
ati
op
S
y�j
°
C
ae
g
?
7
rl!
@
C
ti
c
at
cc
C '
c
E°
'g
is
..
m
M
E
m
m
�Q(�
Q
y�y
C
y
ym(
Y
6
O
Os
V!'
C
4D
CL
0
C.
co
13
E
w
ip
2
@
;i
IUI
ttJ
t1J
1st
O.
Q
�
a:
C4
Q.
p`
Z
E
c
(3
Y
Z
c
Y
Q'
.r
C4
C6 c
w
r
p
t�
ID
ci i
Cif
O
ni
ui
ri
'4
=,wi
V
1-
Id
L7
C9
'I;
H
c l
'

i
i
mi
NN
N
C-4
C*4
N
cc
co
ic
to
4M
,min
4p
ig
V
E E
qj!
a
A
E
c
Em
E
r-
0
E
'r-
Q
MV
Fit,
LE,
—
i
eu
0
r-
0
to
CB,
ci
zi
ale
qi� 8
C5
vi
.2
c
EQ
Me
cx
CL�
w
&
a
01
V)
X
2
cr
to
OC
a
al
al
i,
�
C
IL
20
h1i
1VItFE
c
2',
a
0
Fu
tu
CL
1
I
0
1
.61
ri
4
d
—
9
;;
A
$310
0)
i.

� ��/
(
■
! �
� ��/
E
LL
a
LID
.(�
|'
|
c x,
(1)
it
�
/���
ca
E
k
T2
■
©
k |
E|
I
�|
0
`
E!
It
§|
f
$
2.
E
W
4b
>
2
LL
�
_�
U��t���
-��
Cll-
ce
40
■
2
E
c
f
§�2
§
«�Q
,Cc
§
\\
46
":
.6
-0�
� ��/

Q
O
c
0
tx
V
E
CD
Ej
ply
��
f
it
Ca
Co
C4
C14
cle
N
tV
CM
C4
C14
1
C'4
cm
0
co
m
c
m
E
j
fii
,
�►
it
,
10
o
c
c
in
0-
0
o
0
i
sc
W6
E
-0
CL
2
0
r:
Em
E! :%
11
E
c
A
0
0
eel
m mm
C
rD
0
0
c
-e E
tu
31
=
:1
1
9
m
z:
78
m
OE
0
E.
c
.3
—0
ja
C
CL
%.
im
cm. I
Z
E
E'
E
CD
Cd
(L
E
CL
0
n!
r)
ri
C4
m
vi
cd
V':
as
6
_0
0
C;i'

cv
0
0
a
N
0
m
O
kQ
M
L
i
o
U
U
Z
f
t
f
CA
m
m
c
}�
T
�+
cq
N�
r
C
la
tgt+S
�ri��
r(
N
r
€
C
mi
V
Le
4�
CL
h
ri
o
_s
z$
4�
o
3
E
E
E
r
z
$
C`
._
+-�
C
-p
O
O
7 t
10
dp
4
�a
a
i+
W
�
r
I
14
»
C
O
"fJ
c
m
tp
O
��
p
C
E
m
E
.O
E
m
'G
°,�
_
'
o
v
E
0
a
C
v
p
iD
im'
a
..
W
a[
7!
C
V
°
L
7
E
M
Ei
vt
y
»
V
T
�►
Y
c�
a
o
2
t1'
O
40
r:.
c
a
a°i
s°
>-
_
co
a
s
Q#
3
o
O
0
12
E
E`c
0
4
c
C
.+
E
o
m
c
`�'
a
o
a
a
7
of'�
a
H
b
a
.�
3
s�
a
z
m
u
a
a
a
c
m
C°
.,
a
ID
Cl.
v
w
a
?
o
E�
a
E
.
o
wuiLuuic9x0
-CL
C:o:d
Iz
z
m
m
c
c
w
c
E
o
m
L°
N
[V

't
0
a
0
i7n
O
v
�L
c
`)
�
m
LL
...
e
C
pi0
U• Z
�
I
i9i �
1
j
s
cn
j
j
{f ?
cm
s- g
�
O
r
r
I C4
'
t
'
7S E
Q1
tV
ffffff
N
NON
e-
N
N
N
!
N'
I
(
N
�
,
C�
1
CI w
®
a
'
4
oo€
a
�
Z�
1
p.' to
CfC
rY°�
m
I�
smI
®�
w'c
c
03
o
0
E
I
vp
2
P
0
in a
=
E
c
c,
O,
p(
n
E
E
p m
�,
o
El
aI
m
'�'i'aa
m'ok�
..pp
�
o
..
t0 31t1�
i
�
p
$
a
o�m
i x
c
a
.0
!
m
o
�
E
m
m
�i
E
vi
°
m,
c
w
o°
v
y
a
El
„
Elf�m'
��
"
n
'9
o
S
°
El
ii
?
°
m
t —
1
,Y
m
�
R�
YF
w
a
t_
�
� •—
U
h
�+�
�
O
E ' =
O
� O
OnomIa
1 O �.
O
O
U
'O
pG
L'
1
°
w
a
C
°
=L
m
a: �
t
L
o
Eia
c
'Oi;�
o°
}Aofa
o
w
'c
�
V
t�
EL
t�(gpIWui�d
o
o,8
c
0 E
41E
c�
c
m
E�
°4U
v
cr
o
a
I
��UI7I�
p11�
+-1N
vi
{t
V6
1,:
6
Q►�r'ir��-1
O
r
N
c3
a in
1�"I�
4�H
m I
�i• -;�-
aD as
t�
RV1N
w
i �j
S.j
v

v
C!
0
0
Y
[Q
1
O
vi
m
E
ILL
m
�
°
a�
r
E
m
EZ
C
m
E
p
c
E
to
N
-�
C
C
..
s
E
c
c
�
ILL
CD
it
`'
0
a
C
°
-,
m
tu
o
U.
�
�
a
m
w
N
�.
q
X
M
m
m
p
O
by
p
to
n
m
W
�'
`� C
sf9 r-%
O
y
I
m
mf
c
A
O
v
QJ
a7
.00
p e
q
I
C^S
o
c
E
c
ao m
CIO
w
u w
4
0
s��>

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
ED CLEBSCH:
Bird Report
f
i
s. W.
18563 TERR.ESTr'i 4 STWY s FINAI UQC AUGUST 24, 2001

CRITERIA FOR JUDGING QUALITY OF PRIORITV HABITATS
FOR BIRDS ON TAPOCO PROJECT RESERVOIRS
SS= Scrub /shrub wetland
The criteria used in judging the quality of scrubfshrub wetland habitat for birds
included the high number of flowering plant species present which are seed producers or
nectar producers. Open flYWays were bordered by human dwelling in one cast: and by
adjacent forest of tall trees in the other case. There was a mowed lawn adjacent in one
case. There were both small pools and flowing water available, but no wide or long
flowing stream reaches. There was high structural diversity in the vegetation.
E= Emergent herbaceous wetland
There was a variety of herbaceous flowering plant species present, elevated
perches in the wetland, potential nesting and foraging sites, an adjacent forest of tall
trees, proximity to roadways and to forested high gradient streams, and there were both
beaver trails and still water connected to a large reservoir.
UF= Unvegetated steam flat
There were abundant overhanging branches, snags in the adjacent forest, a bridge
over water, rhododendron thickets adjacent, openn land and houses adjacent, long, steep,
forest slopes adjacent, and high gradient streauis adjdtxttt.
FE= Forest wetland with herbaceous fringe
The habitat had adjacent open water with hawking perches and a closed canopy
forest with layered structure. There was adjacent herbaceous cover available and a small
stream nearby. There were dead snags in the forest.
FU= Forested wetland and unvegetated stream fiat
Branches from a forest with simple structure overhung the stream course, and the
forest had heavy rhododendron understory. There will be lack of escape cover from the
mudflats during maximum drawdown. At higher pool there is an open flyway over
ponded water.

w
M
M9
m'N
mlm�
to
m M
r-
m
M
t
M
m
I
m
N
m
M
N
N
UJ
J
0
U
z
Qw0uj
(n
Q
r
m
tr
+
j
N
M['?
Y
w
N
w
Mm
N
NMmrnNN
M
NM
m'
1M
mmt�
--
-`-
NIN
Z
W
Zo
j
I'
MM
MCV
r
MMMMMM
N,-
U�d
�
w
W
wo
-�
u_
'S
z
U
0
d
ro
N
N
N
NC.N
[7
dS
N
cvN
o-J
zz
i
I
o
Q
w
��
...
M
N
�
Q`
J
o
�
c
L)
I
f m
M
M
M
t�I
M'
--
el
M
m
m
w
w
r
.--
(`)
fn
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
N
n
N
N
E
.-
m
N
t�zz
j
U.
WO
w
i
r
r
r
r
M
NM
N
(D
m
U
tL
W
N
r
N
i�7
th
(N
r
•--
N
[t1
�
�
W
z
L)
W
I
rN
r
N
?�
NN
O
FQ�w
�5tl!
2
(n
w
>1
fV
F-
C?
co,
Z(Z
f
d
a
O
w
U
Z
N
Q
U
LL
m
r
r
m
P7
CY
M,—
M
•-
W
L)
t
f
�
�
c
C
�
(U
c@
m
o
v
x
u
°
v
v
a
m
o
o
CL
®
7
C
O
o
co
Co
0
>
�
u
c
=
m
c
v
w
3
0
0
C
°
c
C
OL
+
UOA3
-
W
Q
U
f°
j
jn
C
=
y
a
i
M
�l
Q
4
w
a
oymmw¢
z
'
2>
-�
m
vr
�N
a« �i
fz7
tF-
o
za°o
arn
w3
f
�`
wm
T
tS
h
m
C
'v
y
00
rn
�n
.
y
rrrr-
r
-
-
NNN
CNN"
No
NNC�n
mM
mmn-
mQ
vv
vo
c

IN
N
m
m
�
|�
|
.|
}|
N
A
m
N
m
m
n
m
�n
nnna
m
mq
|fn
!
qNr
q.m
\
F
(n
q»n.
n
.
�
nr
��
.
(v
|
m
m
N
�
!
�
�
|
\
nmkwnC)
mw
-
d&-
�MMmV)0C.)m
M
nrn
&
mrn
o
.
LL
! !
!
!
!
!
!
m
m
�..
|-
NN)
N
�
q
C4
N,C
-4
IN
n
u
-
N
��
q
��
a
�M
m
M
m
|
A
...
.
_
/
■
�
&
/
�
«
.
.■
k
2
\
$_�
fa
z
k£
.a
282
ea
��7�.
»�
k
&��
°�
£
»\
o
»
o
ƒ/
0=
o
w.
���
C
�v�
o-0
t2
o
«wff
p
§
a
_
77
e
&
-\
»
f3o©2©
%
m
m
c
.�
q
[
g
E
o_
s
e£
E
e
m»
e_
e
a
c_
=
c
m
.0
a-
E
c
2
7£
m
m
e
2_
�.
>£�
2
a
_E
m
o=
/_&«
2
o»
c
p
c
c
m
c
g
S
o
i°
$
cc
°
e
f
a$
f
2
7%
k
.-
a
f2
c
-oo�
k
.5
2
E
"S
i
E
2
m©
E
e
0
E
2
0
w
t
2
k$$
f
0#
/
m�
��
§
k
$
t§
wr20mF<
:Qe�b=aW�
<OZ@Qu,#m»ir
2»�x��I3:m0_
OlI
»q.Cn
2
o,
T
«
-_O
o-
eo
gmJS25222G
2G22
S$RQ.pp
/Cf%
�SQGGISSLS

A
J
�
i
Q
V
C'f
N
c`7
N
m
m
m
N
N
N
�-v
Ln
Kt
t�
Z
�
tn
N
I
LL
_...
.-
w
N
d
i
N
`M
N
N
r
M
M
N
r
M
N
Q
f
v
U
m
C7
U
i!i
a �
3
V
t0
v�
m
v
c
Wd
uj
H
°
U
o
o
o
o
o
Luj L
h
-
p
m
`
F
CN
O
c
i
CL
L
E
c
R
U
o
0
U
Q
w
V3
-5
=
m
�w0LL
z
°
(Dvo)xwUao0m.
o
w
m
0
2
E
a:44cn
-°
U
Q��
3:z�
c7i
W
CS
Ch
rN(n
C�
a
to
q
.
to
[q
(DI�GpOYOOOOp0000
O
m
,
A

• F
N)
i M
; M
'. c+3
cn
r
, R+?
cry
M
!
s
..d
U.,t
Z
U.
ntua6
w
W
z
w
z
¢.0
6
co
cc
J
M
C7
M
M
m
m
N
Y
©�
{
t
F
??W
U
t+f
} M
7
M
N
t4
0,
c+f
o
W
4
U-
U
tr
0j�
NM
C'3
N
NN
N�M
[V
eh
e�7NNch
c+)
CM)
U
LL
z
CL
W
Q
N
r
A.-
T
tr
�
w
N
N
N
N,
`_
i
.
.-
T
E e-
r
r
M
t'ry
N
N
N
N
�-
•-
t 7
iV
M
c+7
M
M
M
[+
z
z
z�
U
tui
4°
�N
,-
—
�m
d
Qin
U
_
W
U-
_C.
w
W
w
4n
N
N
cV
{
r-
r
�..
W<
0
0
d
.-
o�ww
w>
�
Mo
j
I
m
z
x�w
r-
� -
mzit
=w
i
f
!
I
cm
c
0
v
cut
t
ad
0
3
�
Cl.
v
�]�
W
it
qai
L
d
{
a%
N
to
O
S
G)
.�
C
L
H
0
3
Q
0
T
Y
�y
" 1.6
C}
U
"
3
ss
.D
a
`
F-
F
z
0
0)
t11
G
cu
y.
c
'3
�
c
c�
t)
Q
c
a�
y
c4
U
aG
C
m
E
rC
3
Q
y
3
o
0
m���
c
c
t4
m
'
_
o
3
?.
3
E
4l
]
Ly
t9
3
] C
4
C
cG
c
}
e
c
¢1
O
It
O
N
Q)
m
m
i
w
--o
lII
_
C
p
Q)
C
L
I
o+
z
cncnt
Q
coca
m
�r-
N
omm`�d�3z�a;
w
E
O
E
�rwC7mU
m
r0
L
z
QwcQw,mbmzEwd§
fl4
m
m
CD
O
m
r-
Ncrietu�spr�mrnw
•—
r
of
�--
r;
r
w'n0E-QSQSd,Ni°S
T
l'�
e—
�—
r
r
N
N
N
N
N
0cor,9b6
N
N
N
N
N
c
M
- NIVM�'tr
M
C1
M
M
Or-mc)
pTN

N N
N N M c7 N th N (q N
� ' �N N CJtri
1 9 tl
J
N N aT" (O M C"� N C�i ....,M �M .- r ' I I ( m r7 N M
Y � � � TI � N N t�7 " N .._..N.
N N' .- N M c'f c7 N
N CO) N N C)
M t'7
NN M ry_.
M M M N M c'7 M ..."_ m m M ch
TI
4
Ll.
f
^ r
}
I
r
3
0
m
Q U W = m '2 m 3 d N
a m C Y c o > -e m �
a) ao �rnm� c �c�viLZ +m z oea�
meu�3oo30 °UQUSm c�t� vccv,myo� m: msa� ��3m m„�( SO 0 C
CL O Y is ` '—eso
co c m 3 �' a c� c E c c 4' c> j coo E rn v � °' ,(n ' 3
Ec�E3E ,'' `°- -�m�3� ym Mmc�co >ra �oyA�a -m c m
ec m '� "p m n' —oo (D 4C`i r� ;v t c am�J 3 m E 3 L cv 3 w m o c} ac o
m h m C tt E r �. m O ny >+ 3 W m O .� o Y �+ 3 C l3 W U
W co o= W o E m o m o?, o r o a_= a a —° u o m -E v •_ c v, E
W
W. z Calm 1F -499C :LaiLut -:< zm0 -1 m m o - W ��� W a > p o o
coo mZ,> mY II.0 mS'cr1O_3
c cp !— 00 O .- N M tt) —to t~ 4d 67 t� N M �f t13 CD tiv a0 Gb O r _
*� et+�trykhui tnu]uJtnu7tDtDW
CO W CO DCDf`t�RrE2 n�Rr- �co co W og

�s
Jk
s
3
a
M
t M
-
i'T
r
N
N
eq
M
Eh
9
NNN
coC7
l+i
N
N
NN��
7
6
E
E
3
I
N
Nita
M
M j
4
ch
c�
N
N
N
e�
LL
t
:
LJ
r
N
CV
th
m
e
1
�
t!}
U}
�o-
Q7
W
x
m�
QO
m
m
p
YSa�mp
ac
m
°o�g
ti
O
H
m
��w
3
019
m
o
yo
c�
.0
3
L
°'
E
'cQ'oma'
0
�
m
v'
m
3QecmEychmmE`t_"m.0
E
c
w
O
G
y
H
w
y
�
l
v
m
�j
1-
o
di
m
o
M
U
Q=
'K
a�
>itq
MOOD
V1ZtY1I
w
t
.d)
ti
t7cnlYwUmQu]
w°
=<TVJ
E°
Zw
cm
rar
coi
so
co
to0
co
tnm0coO>o
r
C4t]vW
tDr-
Cb
01rno
rngplr"I""'Pf
OO
0
an

I
NORMANDEA U ASSOCIATES INC.
WAYNE S4
IWTEPWSTRV41 STWV 1 FlWDOCALIGUST 2t, 2001
MaMM2

TO: Dennis Magee, Vice President, Normandeau Associates
CC: Patrick Fairbairn, Ecological Planner, Normandeau Associates
FROM: Wayne H. Schacher, Consulting Mammalogist
SUBJECT: Priority Habitats, Tapoco Reservoirs - Habitat Suitability for Mammalian
Fauna, Tennessee & North, Carolina.
DATE: August 23, 2000
Dennis, Attached is a Microsoft Excel file containing the Table of Results from the
evaluation of the selected Priority habitats, regarding their suitability as habitat for mammalian
species. Within the Table of Results, columns are numbered left to right.
Footnotes Appropriate for the Respective Columns in the 'fable of Results
1) Nomenclature and Habitat (Columns 1, 11, IV, V): T'wo sources were used as references
in selecting mammalian species whose geographic distributions were inclusive of the
Tapoco Reservoirs. Brief habitat descriptions are given for each species. Introduced
species (Sus scrofa, Raw rattus. Rattus norLegicur, Mu, rriusculus) were not included in
habitat evaluation_&. References used were:
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. and W.I. Hamilton, Jr. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States. Third
edition. Cornell University Press_ Comstock Publishing Associates. Ithaca and
London. 583 pp.
Webster. W.D., J.F. Parrtell and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and Marvland. U. of NC Press. Chapel Hill and London_ 255 pp.
2) Species' Status (Column I1I): State and federal status were assigned to mammalian
species based upon legal protective status assigned by Tennessee and North Carolina. Base
lists of state tracked species were adapted from those used in TVA`s Regional Natural Heritage
Program.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Nashville, TN) specifies which mammalian
species in Tennessee are deemed "'endangered or threatened" within the document TWIZA
Proclamation No. 94 -17. Tennessee species deemed "in need of management" are included in
TWRA Proclamation No. 94 -16.
The North Carolina Department of Environment Find Natural Resources (Raleigh,
NC) specifies which mammalian species in North Carolina are deemed "endangered or
threatened ", "special concern", "status unknown", and "potential for listing" in similar
documents.
Status abbreviations contained within the Table of Results are as follows:
FE - federal - listed, Endangered NC -STUN - North Carolina, Status Undetermined
TN -E - Tennessee - listed, Endangered NC -F, - North Carolina, Endangered
TN -T - Tennessee-listed, Threatened NC -SPCO - North Carolina, Special Concern
TN -NGMT Tennessee- listed, In Need of Management
NC -POTL - Not on state list, recently extirpated or discovered, candidate for listing

3) Mammalian habitat Type and Quality Within Priority Habitats (Columns VI - X)
For each mammalian species potentially present within the geographic range of the
Tapoco Reservoirs, respective habitats within `Priority Habitats' were evaluated for their
suitability for each species. In the Table of Results, whole integers (1, 2, 3) indicate the
evaluated habitat contains the species' full range of needs (foraging, nesting/breeding, escape
cover /shelter)_ Where a letter (F, SR. D) accompanies the integer, this indicates the
components of the respective species' habitat needs fulfilled in tine priority habitat.
Habitat Values:
3 - top nanking in species' habitat quality
2 - intermediate
1 lowest ranking in species' habitat quality
Incidental - species' use of habitat is incidental
none -habitat unsuitable for respective mammalian species
Habitat Codes:
F - foraging habitat only
SR - summer roost habitat present
D - suitable den suss present
Overall Habitat Ouality Ranking for Priority 11abitat Columns
For each of the Priority Habitats (Columns VI through XII in Table of Results), a number was
assigned to indicate its zwerall quality for mammalian species. These rankings are as follows:
SS - (Scrub -Shrub Wetland, Column VI) -
F - (Emergent Wetland, Column VII) -
I''E - (Forested Wetland with emergent fringe, Column VIIf) -
UF - (Forested Wetland with unvegetated stream flat, Column IX) -
FU - (Forested Wetland with urrvegetated flat, Column X) -
SAN -52 - (Column XI)
CAI. -I0 - (Column Sal,
Priority Habitat Valuc-s:
2.0 to 3.0 - lop ranking in overall habitat quality
1.0 to 2.0 - intermediate
0 to 1.0 - lowest ranking in overall habitat quality
Overall Ranking = 2.0
Overall Ranking = 2.0
Overall Ranking = 2.5
Overall Ranking = 2.0
Overall Ranking = 2.0
Overall Ranking = 2.5
Overall Ranking = 0.5
Note: During the Priority habitat evaluation process, it was decided to break -out two sites to be
ranked individually. It was felt that habitats present on these sites were more easily evaluated
separately than lumped into a Priority Habitat category. The two sites were: SAN -52 (Column XI)
and CAL -10 (Column Xli).

Priority Habitat Evaluation and Ranking Criteria
1) diversity of Wetland Habitats Present: habitat duality received a higher ranking with the
Presence of several strata of wetland habitats Oe. herbaceous, ground cover - emergent
component, scrub -shmb strata component, woodland strata component). Interspersion of these
components with saturated, muck soils and/or combinations of standing- sluggish - flowing
water additionally increase habitat diversity. Incorporation of more upland (damp mils, leaf
litter) in older forested wetlands or on land adjacent to wetlands, provides additional diversity,
The more diversity present in the habitat/vegetational community, the more diversity (and
higher value/rank) for mammalian species.
?) Surface water (flowing, sluggish, ponded) in or immediately adjacent to the priority habitat
provides foraging corridors for many mammalian species (bats, rodents, carnivores). The
presence of woodlands of good quality (mid -aged or mature hardwoods, pines) along the
riparian corridor increases the habitat value/rank in the evaluation by providing summer
roosting sites for bats, and den sites for carnivores, etc., in close proximity to suitable foraging
habitats. luring periods of high stream -flows, these riparian woodlands or other habitats
provide refuge for species (rodents) forced from the channel habitats (ie. CHER -5, CAL -17, in-
stream wetlands), before re- occupying the in -stream habitats when the [low recedes.
3) Surface water (flowing, sluggish. ponded) provides invertebrate (crustaceans, insects) and
vertebrate fauna (fish, amphibians, reptiles) to serve as forage for many mammalian species.
Channels represent foraging and travel corridors for many species (bats, carnivores, rodents).
4) Muck soils and soft, damp, loamy, organic associated with riparian woodland fiats or
wetlands provide foraging, nesting, escape cover /shelter for multiple species of Insectivores
and rodent~. The presence of suitable burrowing substrates, and the presence of rotting logs,
rocks, leaf litter or drill material increase habitat diversity and the habitat's value/rank,
5) The presence of rock outcrops along stream channels or it nearby woodland riparian zones
improve habitat diversity and quality (nest and den sites) for rodent. Soricidae and carnivore
species. Hollow trees or those with cavities (nest and den sites) were not observed within the
Priority habitats.

Marsupialia,
Variable; Woodlands, from dry
Didelphis
Didelphidae
VA opossum
none uplands to wet bottomlands
marsupialis
2F
Variable; Prefers moist b,C,
D!C woodlands with rocks,
lnssctivora,
logs, leaf litter, bogs, wet
Soricidae
Masked shrew
TN -NMGT meadows
Sorex cinereus
2
Deep crevices in cliffs, rocky
slopes, talus beds in cool,
moist forests; also mossy
Long - tailed
NC -SPCO rocks, logs along mountain
Sorex dispar
shrew
TN -NMGT streams
blitchi
2
Under leaf fitter in cool, moist
mountain forests (birch.
hemlock), associated with
Smoky shrew
TN -NMGT mossy rocks, logs
Snrar fumeus
2
Southem pygmy
Ridges and slopes of D forests
Sorex hop
shrew
NC -SPCO with rocks, logs, leaf litter
winnemana
2
Variable; Damp fields, thickets,
Southeasterr
NC -POTL lowland forests; also upland
shrew
TN -NMGT woodlands, dry fields
Sorex longirostris
2
Banks of flowing streams in
sugar maple, birch, beech
Southem water
NC -SPCO rhody woodlands; also bogs
Sorex palustris
shrew
TN -NMGT with spruce, hemlock, willow
punctulatus
t
Variable; woodlands with thick
Northem short-
leaf litter, also marshes, bogs,
tailed shrew
none grassy fields
Blanna brevicauda
2
Variable: woodlands with thick
Southern short-
leaf litter, also marshes, togs,
Slatina
tailed shrew
none grassy fields
carolinensis
None
Variable; Prefer open areas
Least shrew
none with herbaceous vegetation
CWtotis parva
None
H. C forests above 2,000 f;,
with well- drained, loamy soils;
Insectivora.,
Hairy- tailed
NC -POTL also pastures, old fields, rt�ody
Parascalops
Talpidae
mole
TN -NMGT thickets
breweri
None

r;
t
Y
Variable; Generally below 2040
Winter in caves, mines,
ft, and requiring well- drained,
Keen's
loamy soils; including grassy
fields, meadows, broken
scalopus
Eastem mote none forests
aquaticus
Moist meadows, fields,
septentrionalis (M.
swamps, woodlands; burrows
N(;-SPUU woodlands
Star -nosed NC -SPCO frequ4?ntly lei <ading to surface
Condylura cristata
mole TN -NMGT water
Parva
Limestone cave- dependent
during the winter, often with
year - round, often with water
within; Migratory; Colonial; Few
winter hibemacula; Maternity
winter hibemacula; Maternity
and summer roosts in cares
Chiroptera, FE, NC -E, near large waterbodies used
Vespertillionidae Gray bat TWE for foraging
Myotis grisescens
Roosts in hemlock forests,
wintering under boulders in
rock crevices or quarries cave
FE, NC -E, caves; forage in woodlands or
and mine entrances; buildings
Indiana myotis
are used for summer roosts;
Myotis sodaiis 2F
last species to enter
Eastem small- NC -SPCA hibernation, first to emerge-,
footed bat TN -NMGT forages over wooded hillsides
Myotis leibii
Winter in caves, mines:
summer roosts in buildings.
under loose tree bark; forages
over surface water or in
Little brown bat none fragmented woodlands Myotis lucifugus
Roost in heavy forested areas
None
0
1F
1F
2F
Winter in caves, mines,
Keen's
Summer roosts in hollow trees,
myotislNor.
under loose tree bark; solitary
Myotis
MyotislNor,
or small clusters; Forage in
septentrionalis (M.
Long -eared bat
N(;-SPUU woodlands
keeni) None
Limestone cave - depends nt
during the winter, often with
water within; Colonial; Few
winter hibemacula; Maternity
roosts in hollow trees or
beneath Loose tree bark,
summer roosts for mates in
FE, NC -E, caves; forage in woodlands or
Indiana myotis
TWE over streams
Myotis sodaiis 2F

2F
2F
2F
1F
2F
None
None
Summer roost near permanent
water in clumps of leaves, tree
cavities, under loose tree nark,
rock crevices; Winter roost
sites most secure of above;
Forages over ponds or streams Lasionyctens
Sitver- haired bat none in forested areas noctavagans
Winter and Summer roost< in
caves, mines, rock crevices;
matemity colonies in buildings;
forages at tree -level over
Eastern
permanent water and in clumps Pipistrellus
pipistrelle
none of trees subfiavus
Winter roosts in caves, mines,
buildings; Summer roosts in
large colonies in buildings,
occasionally using rock
crevices, hollow trees, loose
tree bark; forages over
streams, grasslands, broken
Big brown bat
none forests Eptesicus fuscus
roost in trees or shn,hc near
permanent water or open
fields; Forages over streams,
Eastern red bat
none fields, pastures Lasiurus borealis
Roost singly in forested
habitats (prefer C) near
clearings or permanent water.
Hoary bat
NC -PQTL used for foraging Lasiurus cinereus
Roosts in dense foliage witiin
15 feet of ground; Forages
over open water or in clearings Lasiurus
Seminole bat
none in pine barrens and hummocks seminolus
Winter roost in caves; Summer
and maternity roosts in run-
down buildings, near
permanent water, also in
hallow trees, under loose tree
bark, near cave or mine
entrances; forages in wooded
swamps, along wooded
Eastern big-
NC -SPCO riparian corridors, inland from Corynorhinus
eared bat
TN -NMGT shoreline rafrnesquii
2F
2F
2F
1F
2F
None
None

r
Woodland species that roosts
in hollow trees or crevices
under tree bark, also buildings
or under bridges; Forages over
Nycticeius
Evening bai
none
open habitats
humerafts
None
High elevations (above 2500 ft)
in Appalachians, with thick
cover (mt. Laurel, rhody,
blueberries) or coniferous
Lagomorpha,
New England
forests; also 5 -10 yer old
Sylvilagus
Leporidae
cottontail
NC -STUN
clearcuts
transWonalis
None
Inhabit old fields and brushy,
field margins of disturbed
Eastem
habitats; early successional or
Sylvilagus
cottontail
none
transitional habitats
floridanus
None
Dense cover of heaths
Allegheny
(Vaccinium. Kalmia ), and high
Sylvilagus
cottontail
none
elevation conifers
obscurus
None
Spruce -fir forests and rhody
Snowshoe hare
none
thickets of high mountains
Lepus americanus
None
Deciduous woodlands or forest
j
edges, or open, brushy forests
Rodentia,
Eastern
with rock piles, crevices,
Sciuridae
chipmunk
none
brushpiles to conceal burrows
Tamias striates
None
Burrow on forest edges
bordering open lands, along
fence rows, stream banks,
around buildings, along
Woodchuck
none
roadways
Marmota monax
None
Eastern gray
Extensive tracts of mast -
producing D forests In uplands
Sciurus
squirrel
none
or bottoms with natural czvities
carolinensis
None
Mature long -leaf pine -oak
'
forests, with open underscory,
forages on ground; nests in
Sciurus niger
Fox squirrel
NC -STUN
mature tree trunks
niger
None
D. C, O/C forests, with spruce
and hemlock; den in cavities or
Tamiasciurus
Red squirrel
none
leaf nests; active year -round
hudsonicus
None
Carolina
Above 5,000 ft elevation in
northern flying
TWE,
spruce -fir forests and mixed
Glaucomys
squirrel
NC -E
D/C forests
sabwus coloratus
None

1
Nocturnal; mature D and DIC
Southern flying
woodlands with abundant tree
squirrel
none cavities
Glaucomys Volans
None
Fiodeniia.
Semi- aquatic, residing along
Castoridae
Beaver
wooded streams in bank dens
Castor
none or lodges
canadensis
None
Cool, moist spruce-fir and
hemlock- hardwood forests in
mountains up to 2800 ft,
frequently along the banks of
Rodenba,
Woodland
streams and lakes with low
Zapodidae
ground cover, also in bogs,
Napaeozapus
jumping mouse
TN -NMGT swamps, damp rocky seeps
insignis
n
Inhabit mountains up to 3700 ft
in moist weedy or grassy fields,
Meadow
and in thick vegetation along
jumping mouse
TN -NMGT marshes, streams, ponds
Zapus hudsonius
I
Marshes and marsh edges,
Rodentia,
also upland grasslands
Q om s
Mundae
Marsh nce rat
none adjacent to marshes
p a ustris
7
Old field habitats with
broomsedge or other tall
Eastern harvest
grasses; occasionally wet
Reithrodontomys
mouse
none meadows
humulis
1
Hardwood forests, also field
margins, thickets, marshes,
White - footed
canebrakes; nesting under
Peromyscus
mouse
none logs, stumps or boulders
feucopus
Long - tailed Form inhabits cool,
damp mountain forests (C C/D
or D) or rhody thickets, nesting
under logs, stumps or
boulders; while short - tailed
race inhabits grasslands and
meadows, nesting under
Peromyscus
Deer mouse
►curie Surface debris (rocks, logs)
maniculatus
None
Variable: moist, rocky ridges
and woodlands to lowland
thickets and swampy
woodlands, with dense
Ochrotomys
Golden mouse
none vegetative, ground cover
nuttalf
2
Grasslands and weedy fields,
thick pastures, fallow fields
dominated by broomsedge, at
Sigmadon
Hispid cotton rat
none elevations less than 3000 ft
hispidus
t

Woodland species. in
mountains, preferring D forests
Southern
associated with talus slopes,
Appalachian
rock outcrops, bluffs, cliffs with
Neotoma flondana
woodrat
NC -SPCO bounders, crevices or caves
haematoreia
1
(MEUS only); Woodland
species, in mountains,
preferring D forests associated
with talus slopes, rock
Allegheny
NC -SPCO outcrops, bluffs, cliffs with
woodrat
TN -NMGT bounders, crevices or caves
Neotoma magister
None
High elevation (above 2530 ft)
in boreal forests (spruce,
hemlock) with thick ground
cover and moss - covered rocks.
Southern red-
rotting logs on cool, moist
Clethrionomys
backed vote
none shaded slopes
gapperi
None
Rocky habitats in high
mountain forests (over 3800 ft)
Micruutus
Southern rock
NC -SPCO or open fields, tunneling under
chrotorrhinus
vole
TN -NMGT leaf litter, rocks or logs
carohnensis
None
Variety of woodland or old field
habitats with well- drained soils
WoodlandfP ne
and deep leaf litter or dense
Microtus
vole
none ground vegetation
pinetorum
None
damp meadows, grassy upland
Microtus
Meadow vote
none fields
pennsytvanicus
None
Semi- aquatic, residing in
`
marshes dominated by cattails
and rushes, or along wooded
streams; build bank dens or
Ondatra
Muskrat
none houses
?ibethicus
3
Sphagnum hogs, moist
meadows, canebrakes, marsh
margins and various
grasslands and weedy fields;
Southern bog
also in moist woodlands, ,or
Synaptomys
lemming
TN -NMGT thickets
cooperi
2
Camivora,
Semi -open habitats with fields,
_ Canidae Coyote
none brushy edges, farmland
Canis latrans
Incidental
(Extirpated) Habitats with large
TN -E, amounts of cover in both
Red wolf
NC -E upland and swamp foresis
Canis rufus
None

Open habitats, rarely dense
woodlands: areas interspersed
with croplands, woodlots, old
Red fox
none
fields and edges
VU/Pes VU/Pes
None
Habitats similar to red fox, but
with stronger preference for
early successional woodlands
Urocyon
Gray fox
none
than red fox
cinemoaTellieus
1F
and mixed D
Camivora.
forests
forests in mountainous areas,
Ursus americanus
Ursidae
Black bear
NC-STUN
with thick cover
amerfcanus
None
Wetland habitats Imarshes,
Camivora,
swamps, streams) and moist
Pro--yonidae
Raccoon
none
upland habitats
Procyon lotor
3F
Variety of habitats including
woodlands, brushy areas, and
Camivora,
Long-tailed
woodland-field borders, at all
Mustelidae
weasel
none
elevations
Mustela Arenata
None
Open woodlands, brushy or
grassy fields, fencerows,
Least weasel
NC-STUN
marshes
Mustela nivalis
1
Wetland habitats (marshes,
swamps) and stream and take
Mink
none
margins
Mustela visors
3
Wide variety of aquatic habitats
River otter
TN-T
(streams, lakes)
Lutra canadensis
Incidental
Variable; from high mountain
forests to old fields, seldom in
Striped skunk
none
wetlands
Mephitis mephitis
None
in mountains, prefer open
forests with rocky outcrops as
Eastern spotted
none
den sites
S009ale Putorius
None
Variable-, Preferring forests with
extensive of dense thickets
(early regeneration): rock
Camivora,
ledges and outcrops are den
Felidae
$0d"-at
none
saes
Lynx rufus
Incidental
Mountain forests, and mixtures
AModactyla,
White-tailed
of young forests, old fields, and
Odocoileus
Cervidae
deer
none
farmlands
virginianus
None

r
2 3 1 2 None
None None None None None
1 3 2 1 1 None
None 2 1 1 1 None
3 3 1 1 3 None
None
FE -
OF - FU -
2
Forested
Forested Forested
3
wetland
wet-,and wetland
E-
with
with un- with un-
Emergent
emergent
vegetated vegetated
wetland
fringe
stream flat fiat SAN - 52 CAL - 10
2F
2F, 2D
2F IF 2F 1F
2 3 1 2 None
None None None None None
1 3 2 1 1 None
None 2 1 1 1 None
3 3 1 1 3 None
None
None
3
2
None
1F
3
3
1
1
2
None
None
None
None
None
None
gone
2
None
None
None
2
None
None None None None None None

None
2
None 2
2
1
I None
3 None
IF IF 2F 2F IF IF
None None None IF None None
2F 2F 2F 2F 2F 2F
None IF None IF None None
2F 2F 2F 2F IF 2F

c
� /
\
\
2F
2F.2RR
2R ISR
2F.1SR
1F
2F
\
r ,
. .
.
2F
2F
2F, I SR
1F
2
\
§ !
~'
ƒ
\
i k
2F
2F
2
2F
2
2
\
-
d!
2R 2SR
2F
2R R
2
$
\�
2F
2F
2F
2F. 2 R
None
2F
\
�
\
� !
Nye
Nom
None
None
Nom
Nom
\
\l!
~
None
2
1F
3
None
None
\
\

None None None None 2F None
None None None None None None
None
None
None
None
2
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None 1 1 2 None None
None None None None None None
None 2 None 3 None None
None None None 2F, 1D None None
None
None
None
2
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None

2 2 None None 2 None
t
k..
1
ttt{
None
2
None
2
None
None;
I:
r:
3
2
2
2
3
None
1
2
2
2
None
None
2
None
None
Noft
3
2
NOW
Norse
2
Norio,
1
Norte
Nor*
2
Npne
None
3
2
2
1
None
s
None
2
1
2
1
None
None
2
2
None
1
None
2 2 None None 2 None

None 1
None None None None None None
None None None None None None
None None None None None None
None
1
1
None
1
None
None
None
2 2 2 2
1 None
2 None
2 Incidental
3
2
1
None
3
None
Incidental
Incidental
Incidental
Incidental
2
None
None None Non= None None None

CC: Patrick Fairbairn, Ecological Planner, Normandeau Associates
FROM: Wayne H_ Schacher, Consulting Manimalogist
SI IR.IECT. Untnnatged Scenadoa /Operation at Dull Pond - Habitat Suitability fo, MannnaIiart
Fauna. Tennessee & North Carolina
DATE: August 31, 2000
Dennis.
The Table of Results, sent on August 23, 2000, provided species - specific and overall habitat val-
ues for each mammalian species expected in the selected Priority Habitats for the
four Tapoco Reservoirs. The contents of this Word file represent the impacts of the
Unmanaged /Operation at Full Pond Scenario can d.ese mammalian species (e -mail.
August 23. 2000, dmageennnrmandeaudcagt).
The specific details of the flow regime within the respective Priority Habitats under the hypo-
thetical, Full Pond scenario are unknown to me. Under the Full Pond scenario, for
example, water depth at inundation, duration of inundation, seasonality of inunda-
tion, spatial coverage of the Priority Habitats at inundation, stream/flow velocity,
and the response of the invertebrate and vertebrate aquatic fauna, are each factors
that have direct bearing on the suitability and quality of the effected habitats for
mammalian species. To accommodate these unknowns, I have given impacts ex-
pected on groups of mammalian species (by Family, or loose `guilds'), within each
Priority Habitat, for several sets of possible conditions. The changes predicted in
habitat suitability and quality under the Full Pond scenario are to be considered in
contrast to those Habitat. Values and Habitat Codes provided in the original 'Table
of Results.'
UNMANAGED /OPERATION AT FULL POND SCENARIO
Priority habitats:
A. ) SS (scrub -shrub wetland, Column VI in original Table of Results):

' 'These Priority Habitats (CHER -5, CAL -17) lie within existing stream channels. Herbaceous and
scrub -shrub wetland habitats have developed under the current scenario, with water
levels the result of dam leakage and flows from upstream tributaries.
Condition I -'Mere will be no change to the mammalian species originally predicted, or to their
respective habitat values, unless the Full Pond sccnario results in flows that will
permanently inundate these herbaceous and scrub -shrub wetland habitats.
Con on diti 2 - under year -round inundation conditions, mammalian species within the Families
x Soricidae, Talpidae, Zapodidae and Muridae (given in the original Table of Results)
will be eliminated from these habitats, or at best restricted to shoreline margins g of
these habitats, should remnant wetland habitats persist. Either way, habitat quality
and value will be greatly diminished for those species. Foraging habitat for Marsu-
pialia and Carnivora species originally predicted will be diminished because of the
elimination of the prey species originally found in the wetland habitats, or reduced
access to these habitats. However, the forage lost because of the inundation of the
1 J wetland habitats could be offset for some of these species (raccoon, mink) since
they are capable of shifting to aquatic forage ( crustaceans, amphibians, fish) which
would be enhanced under the Full Pond scenario_ Habitat suitability and quality for
the bat species originally predicted (Vespertillionidae) would remain unchanged at
worst, under the Full Pond scenario. At best, foraging habitat for stream- foraging
bat species would be improved due to the year -round flows, improved water qual-
ity, and increased production of aquatic insects available as forage.
B, ) E (emergent wetland. Column VII in original Table. of Results):
These Priority Habitats (CHI -1 g, CHE -25) are a vegetated stream delta, and reservoir point bar.
Herbaceous, emergent wetland habitats have developed under the current scenario.
with water levels the result of upstream dam discharge_
Condition 1 - There will be no change to the mammalian species originally predicted, or to their
respective habitat values, unless the l=ull Pond scenario results in flows that will
permanently inundate these herbaceous, emergent wetland habitats.
Condition 2 - Under year -round inundation conditions, mammalian species within the Families
Soricidae, Talpidae, Zapodidae and Muridae (given in the original Table of Results)
will be eliminated from these habitats, or at best restricted to shoreline margins of
these habitats, should remnant habitats persist. Ehher way, habitat quality and
value will be greatly diminished for those species. Habitat suitability for muskrat, a
semi- aquatic species, %vill be diminished, but will remain. Suitable habitat for a
00CMUTi airM

A
second semi- aquatic species, beaver, will retrain unchanged. Foraging habitat for
Marsupialia and Camivora species originally predicted will be diminished because
of the elimination of the prey species originally found in the wetland habitats, or re-
duced access to those habitats. habitat suitability and quality for the bat species
originally predicted (Vespertillionidae) would remain unchanged under the bull
Pond scenario.
) FE (forested wetland with emergent fringe. Column Vlll in original Table of
Results):
This Priority l labitat (CHE -31) is a reservoir island, Inland on :he island is a mid -aged and ma-
ture hardwood forested wetland, with scrub -shrub and herbaceous, emergent wet-
land habitats having developed in the shallows between the island and mainland.
Under the current scenario, water levels are the result of upstream dam discharge.
Condition 1 — There wil l be no change to the mammalian species originally predicted, or to their
respective habitat values, unless the Full Pond scenario results in flows that will
permanently inundate any or all of the forested, scrub -shrub and herbaceous, emer-
gent Nv tlan•3 habitats,,
Con_ dition 2 - If year -round inundation conditions completely ccver the island, mammalian spe-
cies within the Families Soricidae, Talpidae, Sciuridac, Zapodidae and Muridae
(given in the original Table of Results) will be eliminated from the forested„ scrub -
shrub and herbaceous, emergent wetland habitats. Habitat suitability for muskrat, a
semi - aquatic specie, will be diminished, but will remain. Suitable habitat for bea-
vers, will remain unchanged. Foraging habitat for Marsupialia and Camivora,
originally predicted, will be eliminated due to the loss of prey species from the cur-
rent habitats, and loss of shallow water access present between the island and the
mainland under current conditions, if the Full Pond scenario results in the death
and loss of the forested wetland component, both d°n sites (raccoon, opossum), and
summer roosting and foraging. habitat (Vespertilliomolae) and quality would be ul-
timately lost. Foraging habitat for open -water bat species (Vespertillionidae) would
remain unchanged.
Condition 3 - If portions of the forested wetland inland on the island are not subject to year -
round inundation, some of the predicted :species could remain, but habitat quality
and value will be greatly diminished for those species. Habitat suitability for musk-
rat, a semi- aquatic species, will be diminished, but will remain. Suitable habitat for
heavers, will remain unchanged. Foraging habitat for Marsupialia and Carnivora
spexies originally predicted will be diminished because of the elimination of the
prey species originally found in some of the wetland habitats, or reduced access to
those habitats. lien sites (raccoon, opossum), and summer roosting and foraging
habitat (Vespertillionidae) and quality would remain unchanged.

;K
) OF (forested wetland with unvegeta���
Table of Results):
zaludlll licit., uoturnn iA In anginal
These Priority Habitau; +CHI -17, CAL -6, SAN -33) are hardwood -pine riparian corridors along
large streams, including one forested wetland wid: an unvegetated flat. CHI -17 and
CAL-6 receive perennial, unregulated flow, while SAN 33 is subject to annual,
regulated drawdown to no flow conditions.
Condition 1 - Even though periods of high water along Abrams Creek, Panther Creek and Slick -
rock Creek might flood outside the current stream channels, flows would ultimately
return to the existing channel. On Priority Habitats C11I -17 and CAL -6, there will
be no change to the mammalian species originally predicted, or to their respective
habitat values under the Full Pond Scenario. The mammalian species predicted for
these Priority Habitats (Families Soricidae, Talpidae, Sciuridae, Zapodidae and
Muridae), are already subject to periodic flooding conditions, use the riparian
woodlands for refuge during high water, and re- occupy shoreline habitats when the
water levels return to normal flow. Other species predicted are semi- aquatic species
(beaver, muskrat, river otter), shoreline fumong species (opossum, raccoon, mink)
or aerial species (Chiroptera), and readily adapt to high flow conditions. Habitat
quality for Lhese three groups will remain unchanged.
Condition 2 -- Tlie Priority Habitat at SAN -33 is unique in that it is currently subject to annual.
regulated draw -down to low or no -flow conditions within the stream channel. tin-
der the Full Pond scenario, year -round stream flog would greatly improve habitat
suitability and value for mammalian species. Habitat for open -water and riparian
foraging bat species (Vespertillionidae) would be improved due to the year -round
flows, improved water quality, and increased production of aquatic insects available
as forage. Shoreline foraging habitat for Marsupialia and Carnivora, would simi-
larly benefit from the increased production of aquatic fauna (invertebrates, fish,
amphibians) as prey species. Habitat for semi- aquatic species (beaver, muskrat,
river otter) would be enhanced with unproved travel corridors, and increased pro-
duction of aquatic prey giver otter). Small mammal species (Soricidae, Talpidae,
Sciuridae, Zapodidae and Muridae) currently present in the riparian woodlands
would marginally benefit from improved conditions along the stream channel re-
sulting from year -round flow.
E, ) FU (forested wetland with unvegetated flat, Column X in original Table of
Results):
THIS PRIORITY HABITAT (SAN -31) IS A FORESTED
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR ON LOWER SNOWBIRD
cKXxrt o�a���

Under the current scenario, water levels are 7the result of perennial, unregulated flog.
Condition I —There Aril] be no change to the manmlian species originally predicted, or to their.
respective habitat values, unless the Full Pond scenario results in flows that will
permanently inundate any or all of the forested wetland and unvegetated flat.
Condition 2 - if year -round inundation conditions completely cover the forested, unvegetatcd
flat, mammalian species within the Soricidae, Talpidae, Sciuridae, 7- apodidae and
Muridae (given in the original Table of Results) will be eliminated from the
unvegetated flat. Ilabitat suitable for muskrat, beaver and river otter will remain
unchanged. Foraging habitat for Marsupialia and Camivora will be diminished due
to the loss of prey species from the unvegetated flat, and reduced access between
the riparian woodlands and the stream channel. If the Full Pond scenario results in
the death and loss of the forested wetland component, both den sites (raccoon, opos-
sum), and summer roostinp, habitat (Vespertillionidae) and quality would he Insr
Foraging, habitat for open -water and riparian woodland, bat species (Vespertillioni-
dae) would remain unchanged.
Condition 3 - If portions of the forested wetland and unvegetated flat are not subject to year -
round inundation, some of the predicted species (Soricidae, Talpidae, Sciuridae,
Zapodidae and Muridae) could remain, but habitat quality and value will be dimin-
ished for those species. Habitat suitability for muskrat, beaver, river otter will re-
main unchanged. Foraging habitat for Marsupialia and Carnivora species originally
predicted wil l be diminished because of the elimination of the prey species origi-
nally found in some of the forested wetland habitat, or reduced access to those; habi-
tats. Den sites (raccoon, opossum), and summer roasting and foraging habitat r
(Vespertillionidae) and quality would remain unchanged.
F. ) SAN -52 (Column XI in original Table of Results):
This low -lying Priority Habitat (SAM -31) has young forested, scrub -shrub and herbaceous,
emergent wetland components, and surrounds a small, perennial stream. Upstream -
right portion of the habitat has saturated, truck soils. The upstream -left portion of
the habitat shifts from saturated, muck soils near the stream to firm, moist soils and
clumped, herbaceous vegetation farther from the stream.
Condition I — There will he no change to the mammalian species originally predicted, or to their
respective habitat values, unless the Full Pond scenario results in flows that will
r9)rJ„FNT1 WIM

E -
permanently inundate these young forested, scrub -shrub and herbaceous, emergent.
wetland hahitarc
Condition 2 - Under year - round inundation conditions, marrtmalian species within the Families
Soricidae, Talpidae, Zapodidae, Muridae and Lep:)ridae (given in the original Table
of Results) kvill be eliminated from these habitats, or at best restricted to smaller,
more marginal patches of these habitats. Habitat quality and value will be dimin-
ished for these species. Habitat suitability for muskrat and beaver, both semi -
aquatic
c species, could be benefited with increased surface water in the wetland
habitats. Foraging habitat for Marsupialia and some Carnivora species (least wea-
sel, red and gray fox) originally predicted will be diminished because of the eiimi-
nation of the pry species originally found in the wetland habitats, or reduced ac-
cess to those habitats. However, some carnivores (raccoon, mink) might be benz-
lited since they are capable of shifting to aquatic forage (crustaceans, amphibians,
fish) which could be enhanced under the Full fond scenario. Habitat suitability and
quality for the bat species originally predicted (Vespertillionidae) would remain un-
changed at worst, under the Full Pond scenario. At best, foraging habitat for
stream - foraging bat species would be improved dtLe to the increased surface, water
and increased production of aquatic insects available as forage.
G. ) CAL-110 (Column XII in original Table of Results):
This Priority Habitat is a stream delta composed ol`silt, gravel and cobble, located approximately
100 yards upstream from the mouth on Dalton Gap Branch. The delta is small, low -
lying and very sparsely vegetated.
Condition l -- Any inerea_se in reservoir water level under the lull Pond scenario will inundate
this Priority Habitat. Inundation will eliminate the existing, marginal habitat suit-
ability for mammalian species predicted to be present. except Vespertillionidae.
The habitat suitability for open -water and riparian - foraging, bat species will remain
unchanged, under the Full Pond scenario_
DOCUMMS MIM 6

UNMANAGED SCENARIO - FULL PONDIYEAR -ROUND INUNDATION
Overall Habitat Quality Ranking for Priority Habitat Columns
t
each of the priority Habitats (Columns VI through X11 in Table of results), a number was assigned to
:ate its overall quality for mammalian species. These rankings are as follows:
(Scrub -Sluvb Wetland, Column VI) -
(Emergent Wetland, Column VII) -
(Forested Wetland with emergent fringe, Column V1I1) -
(Forested Wetland with unvegetated stream flat, Columr,
(Forested Wetland with unvegetated flat, Column X) -
-52 - (Column Xf) -
-10 - (Column XII) -
rity Habitat Values:
?.0 to 3.0 - top ranking in overall ha�itat quality
1.0 to 2.0 - intermediate
) to 1.0 - lowest ranking in overall habitat quality
Overall Ranking = 2.0
Overall Ranking = 1.0
Overall Ranking= 1.0
IX)- Overall Ra -wing = 2.5
Overall Ranking = 1.0
Overall Ranking = 2.0
Overall Ranking = 0.25

NORMAN ©EAU ASSOCIATES INC.
JAMES LOWE:
Lepidopterao Report
18W TUMSTRIAL STUDY t Fx4L PGC AUGi1ST 24. X01

Report to NonTwideau Associates, Inc. on the lepidopteran species reported in the
literature and observed by the investigator to inhabit and use the Priority Habitats in the
four Tapoco reservoirs and the Cheoah River and Calderwood bypass under existing
conditions, and a projection of the effect on their presence under unmanaged conditions.
Investigator: ,lames H. Lowe, Jr., PhD
5 September 2000
SCOPE
The butterflies ( *) included in this report are only those species listed in items ti, 7,8
and 9 in the Reference List for the counties of North Carolina (Graham) and Tennessee
(Monroe and Loudon) in which lakes Clulhowee, Calderwood, Cheoah and Santeetlah
and the Cheoah River valley are located.
The species of butterflies in this report are those the larvae of which feed both on trees
and shrub components of the surrounding forest, as well as herbaceous components even
of the deep forest, stxh. as toothworts (Deruaria), Goat's Beard (Aruncus), Black Cohosh
(Cimicifugu), various Viola spp. and the like. Others of the species included in this study,
however, are ones the lame of which feed on permanently exposed vegetation above full
pool and emergent vegetation, such as grasses and sedges, the ubiquitous Apiaceae and
A.stmw.eae, as well as meso- to hydrophytic woody plants such as Populus, Salix and
Alma. All included forms, however, are to be found either to feed as larvae or utilize as
adults the vegetation components of the priority habitats included is this study, both
peramnently exposed and emergent. Some of the species al&o "puddle" (L e., obtain water
and certain salts from muddy and sandy places) and otherwise aggregate on flats and
other moist habitats m the pool edges and periodically inundated sites in the Cheoah
River as well as in the Calderwood Bypass, and in addition on exposed drawdo%M shore
areas of the lakes and inlet deltas such as those of Sliekrock Creek, the Cheoah River
inlet into Cheoah Lake, the Abrams and Panther Creek inlets, and Chilogatee Creel-
IMPORTANCE OF DRAWDOWN ZONES AND THE EXPOSED
CHANNEL OF THE CCHEOAH RIVER
Adult butterflies, after emerging from the pupa, fly either in the vicinity of the host
plants upon which the larvae i or, rnore typically, over some appreciable distance away
from the site at which they passed the larval stages. Such behavior has two principal
functions, one, to achieve dispersal from their place of development, and the other to
move to locations that wtil provide the tequisites of the adults. Such requisites include
plants from which they derive nectar, the " puddling" localities mentioned above, as well
as various and seemingly unusual foods such as rotting fruit„ tree sap, dung and carrion.
(An example of a species that uiilim these foods as adults is the Question Manic, the
larvae of which feed on nettles, elms, hackberry and Japanese hop. It is a species present
but uncommon in the Tennessee and North Carolina counties of this investigation.)
(�) In this narrative the term butterfly will be used for simplicity to include
both the butterflies (Papilionidea) and the skippers (Hesperioidca).
I..owe, Tapoco Priority Habitats Study, butterflies, p.

Even though several adult butterflies appear to be strong fliers, for the most part
energetic flight takes them into moving air streams, usually Lifting them above the canopy
of plants in the areas in which they emerged, and into open spaces. Thus, roadways,
Power lines, steam courses, take shores and other corridors provide avenues in which
butterflies are most f equently sehen. The butterflies found in the priority habitats that
include take shores wW stream mouths and bays, even though trees, shrubs and
herbaceous plant-. of the mirrounding forest may be the larw:l hosts, nectar zutd r�thc rwrisc
feed in and inhabit these e;arridors,
Gathering in open habitats, washes, moist sandy and muddy flats and shores,
vegetation edges. nectaring and other feeding locations, also provides aggregating
behavior essential to mating success in butterflies. The males patrol such areas for
females either by flying back and forth in the corridors or by perching on plant tops and
tips, flyer forth to capture the females. Thus fields, roadsides, and in general, disturbed
areas are essential habitats for mating, and the drawdown take shores, emergent islands
and inlets, as well as the Cheoah River channel (CAI. -17 and CHER -5) all constitute
usefid habitat for the species known from these areas.
RANKING OF THE PRIORITY HABITATS
All species etaimed in this report to have been recorded in the areas covered by the
Priority Habitats of this study, may use any and all of the habitats on which larval foods,
adult tbods and nectar, "puddling„ opportunities, and mate- seeking opportunities occur.
All of the Priority habitats offer at least some of these opportunities. However, certain of
them have at best only casual opportunities (such as flight corridors along the lake shores
at less than high -pool water level, and "puddling" places on the exposed areas in bays and
inlets which do not become colonized with vegetation as the drawdown interval.)
Accordingly, the Priority Habitats examined are hereby rated as #1, of the greatest
over -all value; #2, of medium value; and #1, of the very least and problematical value as
habitat for the lepidopterans species known to be present. None of the habitats included
the larval host plants for all of the species of butterflies included in this study, because
some of the larvae feed on plants of the nearby forest. In these cases, however, requisites
for the ensuing adults, mckWing flight corridors, nectaring plants, hawking, and
"puddling" localities, are present to varying degrees.
Ralik 3 Both Habitats designated SS, and C14E -25 of the E category and CHE-31 of
FE. All of these habitats have both the larval foods of many of the butterfly species in
question— sedges, grasses, and other herbaceous plants; flowering herbaceous plants and
shrubs for neetaring and perching, lengthy open corridors for hawking by the n>alm and
exposed muddy or sandy areas for "puddling.,`
Lowe, Tapoco Priority Habitats Study, butterflies, p. 2

S.
4'
Rank 2 This rank is represented only by Habitat CHI -19 of category E and SAN -52 of
category FU. Similar to Rank 3 above except that by all criteria, these Habitats offer
much more limited resources of all types, especially flowering herbaceous plants most
favored as nectar sources for butterflies in general, a smaller area of suitable perching and
hawking opportunities, and less exposed and unvegetated surface for "puddling."
Rant: l CAL -10 of E, CHI -17 of group UF, and SAN -31 of FU, by virtue of
essentially complete lack of larval foods (but see Creole Pearly Eye) and nectm* plus,
offer only a small amount of flight corridor and some minimal "puddling" opportunity.
The remaining Habitats, CAL-6 and SAN -33 of UF, lack food and nectaring plants on all
exposed areas below full pool, with only extensive muddy or sandy areas and open
r corridor.
THE SPECIES OF MOST CONCERN
Of the seventy -nine lepidopteran species included in this report, twelve (15.2 %) are
species of special concern as determined by reference to items 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the
Reference last. The Diana Frittillary is ranked NCGR (Nature Conservamy Global
` Rank) G' ), ten others are ranked G3 or G4, and only the Green Comma among these is
ranked G5. However, the latter species is considered very- to extremely rare. See the
summary list below, All these species deserve habitat- managernent consideration where
- ' manage(taaat activities may materW)y affm theif l d*m requirements.
Twenty- eight species (35.4°/9) are either rare or uncommon in the area encompassed
by the study, determined by reference to all literature consulted, even though ranked
NCGR G5. AU of these are species of concern where management practices may
adversely, affect their presence.
SUMMARY EVALUATION
The :`managed" condition, i. e. periodic drawdown of the lakes and possible change
of flow in the Cheoaa River channel, must have had, and will continue to have, some
implication for these lepidopteran species. No argument could be made, however, based
on this study of the Priority Habitats, that the management of these waters has already or
would in the future be critical to the continued presence of these species This conclusion
follows from the fact that the habitat areas that could be considered critics) are pre -'Wor in
so limited extent as influenced by reservoir management. Stated another way, the list of
species present, and the abundance of each of the species, would not change materially
should the management practice change from periodic drawdown to continuous full -pool
condition
C`.aveat: 'i'his study 'included only terrestrial lepidopteran species, and no
inference is made relative to aquatic insect forms.
I-owe. Tapoco Priority Habitat Study, butterflies, p. 3

BLrrTERFLI.FS AND SKIPPERS LISTED FOR AREA
COVERED BY THIS REPORT
SWALLOWTAILS
Pipevme Swallowtail (Bares philenor)
Zebra Swallowtail (Eur}+ti&ez morcelluv)
Black Swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes)
Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio glaucus)
Spicetwsh Swallowtail (Papilio troilus)
WHITES AND SULFURS
WHrM
Checkered Waite (Ponria protodice)
West Virginia White (Pteris virginiensis)
Cabbage White (Pieris rapae)
Falcate Orangetip (Anthocaris midea)
SULPHMS
t,louded Sulphur (Coliasphilodic,�)
Orange Sulphur (Colias maytheme)
Cloudless Sulphur (Phoebis sennae)
Little Yellow (Eurema llsa)
Spy Orange (Eurema nicippe)
GOSSiMER -WING BUTTERFLIES
HARVESTERS
Harvester (Feniseca tarquiniuv)
COPPERS
HAIRSTREAK,S
Brown Elfin (Zallophrys [Incisalial augustinus)
White M Haitstreal: (Parrhasius m- album)
Gray Hairstreak (Strjmon melimus)
Red-handed HafiV k (Calycopis cecrops)
Banded Haustreak (Sa"ium calanus)
Early Hairsuvak (Erora laetus (— laera))
I lickory Hairstreak (Satyrium caryaevorum)
Edward's Hairstreak Satyrium edwcrrdsii)
Ding's Hairstreak (Satyrium kingi)
Juniper Hairstreak (Callophryv gryneus)
Lowe. t apoco Priority Habitat Study, butter`l es, p. 4

BLUES
Eastern Tai le d -Blue (Everes comyntas)
Spring Azure (Celastrina ladon)
Summer Azure) (Celastrina neglecta)
Appalachian Azure (Celastrina neglecta- major))
Dusky Azure (Celastrina nigra (= ebenina))
Silvery Blue (Cilaucopsheye lygdamus)
BRUSH - FOOTED BLETTERFLIFS
SNOt.rrs
i
IIELICONIANS AND FRITILLARIES
Variegated Frid lary (Euptoieta claudia)
Gulf Fritillary (Agraulis Cdionel vanillae)
Diana (:Speyer=a diana)
Great Spangled Fritillary (Spe),eria Cybele)
Aphrodite Fritillary (5peyeria aphrodite)
TRUE BRUSH -FOOTS
Si very Checkerspot (Chlosyne nycteis)
-1 Pearl Cresent (Phyciodes tharos)
Tawny Creservt (Phyciodes batesii)
Question Mark- (Polygonia interrogationls)
Eastern Comma (Polygonia comma)
Green Comma (Polygonia faunas)
Gray Comma (Polygonia progme)
Mourning Ckaak (Nymphalis antiopa)
American Lady (Vanessa virginiensis)
Painted Lady (Vanessa cardui)
Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta)
Common Buckeye (Junonia caenia)
Baltimore, Baltirnore Checkerspot (Euphyrlryas phaeton)
ADMIRALS AND RELATIVES
Red - slotted Purple (Limenitis arthemis)
"Astyanax Red - spotted Purple (L. arthemis avt vanaz (incl. Arizonensis))
EMPERORS
Hackbem, Emperor (Asterocampa celtis)
Lowe, Tapoco Priority Habitat Study, butterflies, p. 5

SATYRES
Creole Pearly Eye (Enodia creola)
Gemmed Satyr (Cyllopsis gemma)
Carolina Satyr (Ilermeuptychia sosybius (= hermes))
Little Wood Satyr ( &fegisto cymela)
Common Wood Nymph (Cercyonis pegalcr)
MONARCHS
Monarch (nanaus plexippus
SKIPPERS
SPREAD -WING SKIPPERS
Silver- spotted Skipper (Eparg3eus clarus (Incl. huac)nrca))
Goldmbanded Skipper (Awochton cellos)
Hoary Edge (Achalarus lyciades)
Southern Cloudywing (Thorybes bathyllus ( =daunus))
Northern Cloudywing (Thorybes pylades)
Dreamy Duskywing (Erynnis icelus)
Sleepy Duskywing (Erynnis brixo)
duvenal's Duskywing (Erynnis juverurlis)
Horace's Du*ywing (Erynnis horatius)
Zarucco Dusk/,A* (Erynnis zarucco)
Wild Indigo Di skywing (Er)mis baptisiae)
Comrnon Sootywing (Pholisora catullus)
Hayhurst's Scallopwing (Staphylus hayhurstii)
Coffin Checkered - Skipper (Tyrgur communis)
GRASS SKIPPERS
Clouded Skipper (Lerema accius)
Fiery Skipper (Hylephila ploeus)
Sachem (Atalopedes campestris)
Zabulon Skipper (Poanes zabulon)
Earn Skipper (Euphyes vestries (= ruricolu))
Pepper and Sah Skipper (4mblyscirtes hegon (= .samoset))
Hobomok Skipper (Poanes hobomok)
Lowe, Tapoco Priority Habitat Study, butterflies, p. 6

SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
Comments on and assignment to Priority Habitats
(Refererrce to the priority habitats designated in this report are SS (Shrub -
Scrub; CAS. -17 and CHER -5); E (Emergent Wetland; CHI -19, CHE -25 and
CAL -10; FE (Forested Wetland with Emergent fringe; CHE -31); OF (Forest
wetland with Unvegetated stream Fiat; CHI -17, CAI. -6 and SAN -33; and FU
(Unvegetated stream Flat; SAN -52 and SAN -31.)
Rank 3 Habitats: both SS, and CHE -25 (E) and CHE -31 (FE)
Rank 2 Habitat: CHI -19 (E) and SAN -52 of FU
Rank l Habitats: CAI. -10 (E); CHI -17, CAL -6 and SAN -33 (UF); and
SAN -31 (Wi
An * following the name of a butterfly on this list indicates a species observed during the
field portion of the study on the Priority Habitats.
t
Diana Fritilary
Nantahala National Forest listed "Concerned "; Nature Conservancy Global Rank (NCGR)
G3, "...very raze or local... "and, "Ail populations should be monitored and those habitats
on public lands and preserves should be protected." Locally frequent in some areas of the
counties covered in this report, but the species is locally rare to locally uncommon
throughout its range. Principal larval host plant, Viola spp. Adults nectar on milkweeds,
ironweeds, Joe Pye weed, clovers, and many other plants found in SS, E and FE habitats.
West Virginia White *
NCGR G3G4. h6equent in area covered, larval food plants are taoothworts, rich, moist
woods species; adults nectar on bola spp.; hank 3 of E and FE.
(Note: NCGS G4: "...quite rare in parts of its range...")
King's Hairstreak
NCGR G3G4. Uncommon in area covered and locally rare; larval food plants are Conmion
Sweetleaf (= Horne -sugar = Yellowwood); adults nectar on chinquipin and sourwood
flowers; assumed only use of Priority Habitats as dispersal corridors and possible
"puddling."
Lowe, Tapoco Priority Habitat Study, butterflies, p. 7

Creole Pearty Eye
NCGR G3G4. Uncommon; larval food cane (Arundinaria); aduh food unspecified; in
moist cove habitats where cane stands develop; no cane observed in the priority habitats.
but found in areas along snores of the lakes in question; would be expected to occur near
such Habitats as CAL -6 and SAN -33 (CAL -6), each of which have some cane.
Checkered White *
NCGR G4_ Uncommon to rare here; more southerly in its range. Larval food plants marry '
Brassicaceae, especially Feppergrass, but including Shepherd's Purse, Winter Cress, and
others; also fleab nes. The drier hinges of all SS, FE and possibly F.
Harvester *
NCGR 64. Uncommon. Lzrvae are carnivorous, feeding on woolly aphids principally on
alder and beech, but also witch hazel, ash, hawthorn and currents; adults feed primarily on
aphid honeydew. Frequent wooded areas near watercourses and wet areas with alders.
Would occur in any Habitats along which these forest and riparian plants would occur, and
in which emergent vegetation exists. SS, L and FE. (Interesting note: nearest relatives am
in Africa.)
Appalachian Azure
NCGR G4. Locally rare; larval tbod is Black Cohosh; adults nectar on a wide variety of
flowers in many plant famiL`es; all SS, E and FE.
Dusky Azure
NCGR 4_ Uncommon; larval food Goatsbeard; adults nectar geranium; fiequent rich woods
and stream banks; because GoatsSeard occurs in open, sunny banks, Dusky Azure might
occur in Priority Habitats with geraniums and therefore SS and other Rank 3.
Tawny Crescent
NCGR 4. Locally rare; larval food many asters, especially Wavy - leaved Aster; adult
noctaring plants rnany, characteristic of higher elevations but found locally at 2000 -foot
level; frequents both dry places, disturbed areas, and moist habitats; of especial concern
because of its rarity; low likelihood in priority habitats. Might be found in any SS habitat
and eh -mentc of Rank 3 with continuously emergent vegetatiorL
Baltimore, also Baltimore Checkerspot
NCGR 4. Uncommon; larval foods are Turtlehead and English Plantain; adults visit flowers
infrequently, but Down to a=tar on milkweed, roses and viburnum; frequent marshes and
wet meadows as well as dry open areas; SS and Rank 3 elements of E and FE.
Lowe, Tapo: o Priority habitat Study, butterfiics, p. 8

fl
Green Comma
NCGR 5 "...no management necessary...." Locally rare; larval foods are willows, birch,
alder and gooseberry; adults nectar widely; wre common at higher elevations; of especial
concern because because of its local rarity; SS and Rank 3 elements of E and FE.
Golden - banded Skipper *
NCGR 4. Loyally rare; larval food is Hog Peanut; adults nectar on blackberry and Trailing
Arbutus; frequent wooded ravines with streams. SS, Rank 3 of E, FE, Rank 2, and all but
SAN -33 of Rank 1.
OTHER RARE AND UNCOMMON SPECIES
W'hite M Hairstreak
uncommon here (mare southerly); variety of oaks
Gray Hairs"A,
uncommon here (more southerly); variety of foods
Banded Hairstreak *
uncommon here (more southerly); oak and hickory
Early Hairstreak
rare to uncommon; beech
Hickory Hairstmak
rare to uncommon; hickory.
Edward's Hairstreak
uncommon; areas of poor soil; oaks
King's Hairstreak
rare; very specific to Common Sweetkaf ; woods
and bottomlands
Juniper Hairstreak
uncommon; juniper
Silvery Blue *
uncommon; wood vetch
Aphrodite Fritillary
uncommon violets; wooded, cool areas
Silvery Checkerspot
uncommon, sunflowers and other composits
Question Mark *
uncommon; neetles, elms, hackbmy
Eastern Comma *
uncommon: nettles
Gray Comma
uncommon; gooseberry
Painted Lady
uncommon; thistles
Red- Spotted Purple
J
uncommon; birch and poplar
Astyenax Red - Spotted Purple uncommon; cherry and other woody Rosace<ae
Hackberry Emperor
locally uncommon, hackber ry
Creole Pearly Eye
uncommon; carte
Crernmed Satyr
uncommon; grasses
I oary Edge
uncu umu; tiu:k trufbils
Southern Cloudywing
uncommon; beech
Northern Cloudywing
uncommon; beech
Dreeany Duskywing '`
uncommon; willow and poplar
Sleepy Duskywing
uncommon; Black Oak
Zamcco Duskywing
uncommon here (in edge of its range); , w ious
Fabaceae including Black Locust
Common Sootywing
uncommon; Lambsquarters
Clouded Skipper
edge of its range; grasses
Pepper and Salt Skipper
unusual; grasses
Lowe, Tapoco Priority Habitat Study, butterflies, p. 9

REFERENCE LIST
1. Borror, Donald J and Dwight M. De Long, 1964_ An in=roduction to the study of
insects. Newyork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 819 pp_ illus. Lib. Congress
No. 64 -11978
2. Giassberg, JeHrey O. 1999. Butterflies through binoculars. The East. A Geld guide
to butterflies of North America. New York: Oxford Univ_ Press. 242 pp. illus.
Color plates. ISBN 0-19- 510568 -7 (pbk.)
3. Holland, W_ J. 1898. The butterfly book. A popular guide to a knowledge of the
butterflies of North America.. New York: Doubleday & McClure CO. 382 pp. illus.
4. Opler, Paul A. and George O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies east of the Great Plaints.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 294 pp. illus. Isbn 0- 8018 - 2938.0
5. The Nature Conservency. Selected Invertebrates of the United States and Canada.
Butterflies and Skippers of the U. S. web site.
6. USDA Forest Service. Nantahala National Forest. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened,
and Sensitive (PETS) and Forest Concem Animal Spec -ies List -65
7- US Fish and Wilddfe Service listed invertebrate animal species as of 8/1 5/2000
8. ibid. Lead Region 4 listed species as of 8 /15/2000
9. USGS. Butterflies of Graham County NC and Butterflies of 7T1,
see*
www. np%'Tc. usgs. goviresourc.e/ DISTR/ LEPTD/ 13FLYUSA /cWdist/statesfcounties/ne -75
ditto rrN /toe
Note: "Endangered species in North Carolina and in Tennessee' neittlet list insm-ts.
(tinvw.mbanet,mobot. r _Wenvtra/danaer/TN and /NC)
Lowe, Tapoco Priority Habitat Study, butterflies, p. 10

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
ADDENDUM 5
Riparian Habitat Assessment (Terrestrial Study 1)
Draft Report Comment Summary
i
1&563 TEAF.ESMAL STtrJY 1 FINAt.D.Y-At1GLFST 24,2%1

z(
Riparian Habitat Assessment (Terrestrial Study 1) Draft Report
Cornment Summary
Tapoco solicited comments on the Riparian Habitat Assessment Draft Report at an April
17, 2001 and June 12, 2001 'Terrestrial and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
W orkgroup [Fleeting and on a July 6, 2001 conference call with Workgroup members.
Tapoeo received comments on the drafl report from the Tennessee Malley Authority
(TI/ A), the. Natiorml Park Service (Great Smoky "Mountain National Palk), the; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NICNV'RC). All of ttie comments on the drab report and Tapoco's response tea the
comments are summarized below.
USFWS (Richard Biggins, letter dated May 18, 2001) - "We are quite concerned
however about the under - representation of riverine riparian habitats (such as floodplain
forests, piedmont/low mountain alluvial forests, montane alluvial forests, floodpwn
pools, mountainlpiecxnont swamp forests, and rocky bar and shore natural communities)
in these portions of tie project area. These habitats are obviously inundated by the
project and the current project operation (continuous inundation) prevents there from
functioning as wildlife habitat.... We recommend Tapoco revise this document to
include consideration for these habitats, and identify measures to compensate for the
s
functions and values associated with these inundated riparian habitats."
Tapoco - The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does not require 'l'apoco
to consider pre- proje _-t impacts to riverinc riparian habitats.
MPS (Carroll Schell, electronic trail dated April 16, 2001) - "is there information
missing from the end of Wayne Schacher's report on mammals?"
Tapoco - Normandeau reviewed Wayne Scitacher's report can mammals and determined
it to be complete.
NC WRC (Chris Goudreau, electronic mail dated May 16, 200 1) -"The paragraph
heading on page 29 fear CHI; -25 should he C'heoah Reservoir (not River) at Fox Creek."
Tapoco - Notmandeau has collected lbe; paragraph heading on page 29 to read "CHE -25
Cheoah Reservoir at Fox Creek."
NCWRC (Chris Goudreau, electronic mail dated May 16, 2001) -'The report should
discuss the potential for-priority habitats to become reestabLshed at higher elevations
under a full -pool management scenario for the mainstem reservoirs. While: the
quantification of such a change is speculative, the probability is high, especially over the
term of a new license."
Tapoco Normandeau has added a section in the final report, Section 10. 1, which
discusses the potential for priority habitats to reestablish at higher elevations under full
pond conditions.

NCW"RC (Chris Goudreau. electronic mail dated May 16, 2001) "There also needs to
be more discussion cn the potential impacts of increased flows in the Chcoah River on
priority habitats (mostly scrub - shrub). Do the investigators expect this type of habitat to
be eliminated, reduced. or transformed to another type of priority habitat ?"
Tapoco - Normandeau has added a section in the final report. Section 10.2, which
disrimses the effects of increased flow, in the Chcoah ltivcr on the existing sci ub- Shrub
community.
NCWRC (Chris C►oudreau, electronic mail dated May 16, 2001) "We recommend that
the 97 identified priority habitats within the drawdown zone and the additional 16
locations (identified by Dr. Clebsch above ful l pond or within 100 feet of the Chcoah
River-) should be protected from land disturbing, activities by Tapoco or adjacent
landowners by implementing a Shoreline Management Plar."
Tapoco Priority habitats on or adjacent to Santeetlah Reservoir identified in the
Riparian Habitat Assessment will be considered for inclusion as protected areas in any
Shoreline Management Plan that may be developed for Santeetlah Reservoir. Other
mechanisms for protection will also be considered.
TVA (Chuck Nicholson, electronic mail dated May 15, 2001) - "The draft report lacks a
discussion of habitat for migrating shorebirds (plovers, sandpipers, and related species."
Tapoco - A Ithoug;h the study team did not directly observe migrating shorebirds using.
the exposed areas of Santeetlah Reservoir, the final report acknowledges that this is
phenomenon that has been documented on other storage reservoirs, and that migrating
shorebirds might use the exposed flats on Santeetlah Reservoir.
2

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower.LLC
P.CN Form Attachment
Exhibit C

Great Smoky Mountains
National Park
tea«
Mmr Name Elevalnn 12]68 A Fontana Dam
Chewh Dom
Powarltaws
--
.
,.„, -..
-.� Santeetlah Powerhouse
1
S
CD
CD
y t
Nantahala National
- - -
'af Forest
Santeetlah Dam
i—J
v
Joyce Kilmer- Urkrock
Creek Wilderness
-
Sanleetlah Resarvo!r
Ma>timum Normal Elevation 1500.9 fr
ApproAmate Acreage of BSMH Owned Property In North Carolina
Graham Swain TOW
Inside Project Boundary 1 1,085 465
4,549
Outside Project Boundary I 968 428
11396
- -
�__, Totall 5,052 893
5,945
--
All acreages are ESTIMATES ONLY
and should NOT be consldereC deed acreages
`
L PM+
Legend
— FERC Pmpd 9oudry B8MH Property
- -�eL Pm;dinswas,C. ty
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Project
- - - Gang Lore - PrqW In Gaham Cout
Roads
Ir"T
BSMH Property In North Carolina
Property `'
Non-P,.,W m Swain C—ty
I� Pmtad SiNLhaa.
Wldemea Areas Non-Pmedin Gm Curdy
a
National Faeat Lard.
Great Smoky Mamtaes Natiorul Park
O 11611H 7}enami 0- Line Corridors
o TVATror.m..iwr Ursa Conmr.
0.5 0.25 0
0.5 1 1.5 Mile
PARSOM
g roo kf i e l d
O DA. Trurniaaim U. Corridors
Mop No.: BatAH1Jf Mwe Delete: 28 Noroff

Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield'Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment
Exhibit D

J W Y O
° S z lil W Y W W
of f tom° tJ w ZFOO = "' �J N r5o°
w 33 z Ja� �oxWO v� aZW z Wc"�yc
LX
~ O ,Q U wSZ y�j ~W "Z� N Can U) �mpoy� OZ�<V K
'W' 11 S: �� K 'O W 1SW�, F- d'zm
,tF .r WO z u7i >aAa iii WE4- �'ozz €i�� Oo � Jo
O Q� W ZNm W' O� �=OaOpFWF� ;�UY=N W3Q1.-OJW
O �"• O ZOF JOUNx1'N- �jW�00f JW tL Z3r
Jd O O
W .a WO W -� iW 2u�,O. � fEW5 Q?¢ZZZ SryQ�aa QOU iZ 0-OmON
Z O O J_ p mJ`O� UZr Hz- oO�=N"y�ZWZOO Y _7N}
W N V' w �`-' J2',OJ Q� m W'N�ZK �'�y�KNlW -3•W w.Z- ojEOMZo,
° o ° °Zpipa 'gym... xz_� m--I���oZ °_ o =SNmoOUxlr JW'o W°
Nm} N wg (Al NxFN -�S a p� <U wW d'OJZaa2Kyx °KV3
`W J2 N N� N 'Wi •�SO0Z N, 0= OG-OJ °3�OWOYZ OI-y NOZ2
a w��Z° ,�Qm�o¢ °w 5 iaZ°�o�aas3$�iJC�m°' =� QUC2>
wti0 . Z��We UO'C $'xxW a- > +O i�i o W'-Z Iaoujo °a QY
i °U QJrW9 ���'oazma /QW(Q/��$�Wo -nu. 0ZWyt >�2a=W�Nz}oo
U Z H (7UWU Z Wp JQ, 91!9 l_ --m.Q I K WW WK Q U
�Q OOa ZJ W` J O NUJW WWZ Z wop
aQQ `J7 9p W3- S2WaQ J, QSQ Z2 UOY pQJOWUJm .�a. °OS]' WWU¢paO3�NQIai
X(�Fx-UNO Qw<i OU3Q Q=C7? 51�- ?WQLL'r Uf/1 'Z 1w/IHa S�QaQWNJUQ H
6 1611: m a; ° - t2 'r
1
'W H Z
L, . W.
QOW
O
60� wi
Oi
W
Z�Z
fL'
=e
^~CV
a
w ea
,8 J
Z =
W W
J W
O
a w
;..0
I U
d Z
3; - W 'o w Y tL
WY- W `OW
N v
w0 bra'
Wx
U
Z
O
U
f
O
i0l
a o
(du) ,f L
a
CIO
Z II
Z ?'�•W
�oF-
".w
o
mow
2 U J
J O J Z
W O Y
3N _U V?
,0Z
J,r
w
e
\
Z
\l
O
w
� o
Q
mw
r C�
< V1Z
g
3mZ
OOg
i II
J
a
Ld,m U
<Q
W
J
moo
N
O
W
-'¢ 3
O
16
Z-1
>
�:,n
'II
La
T4 Z
W
vil
�D
Q W'
W
Q�
W
H'
CIO
Z II
Z ?'�•W
�oF-
".w
o
mow
2 U J
J O J Z
W O Y
3N _U V?
,0Z
J,r
w
e
� W
W3
a
W
11
O,
w'
5"
00
w
w
Q
mw
r C�
< V1Z
g
a0M
,<WF
a
a'=rn
y
J K +W
ix a u-
16
Z-1
'II
La
vil
� W
W3
a
W
11

Brookfield Smoky.Mountain Hydro Cheoah Boat Barrier
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
PCN Form Attachment
Exhibit E

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
J Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
ARCH 3 �8�9 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
December 10, 2013
Ms. Marshall Olson, Compliance Manager
Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC
314 Growdon Boulevard
Tallassee, Tennessee 37878
Dear Mr. Olson:
Subject: Boat barriers, Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Project (FERC No. 2169)
We received your letter dated December 2, 2013, notifying us of the need to install
floating boat barriers on Santeetlah, Cheoah, Calderwood, and Chilhowee reservoirs
immediately upstream of the Santeetlah, Cheoah, Calderwood and Chilhowee dams,
respectively.
No endangered species are known from these sites; however the sites are adjacent or
upstream of designated Critical Habitat for the endangered Appalachian elktoe. We
agree that this project will have no effect on listed species. In view of this, we believe the
requirements under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under section 7 of the Act 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.
Based on our review of the available we have no concerns with the placement of boat
barriers at each dam. If you have any questions, please contact me at 828/258 -3939,
Ext. 227.
Sincerely,
-original signed -
Mark A. Cantrell
Fish & Wildlife Biologist
cc: Myra Hair - BSMH;

Hepper, Joyce
From:
Goudreau, Chris J. <chris.goudreau @ncwildlife.org>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:09 AM
To:
Hepper, Joyce; mark_a_cantrell @fws.gov; kfoster0l @fs.fed.us; Ibstull @fs.fed.us; Tarver,
Fred; Barnett, Kevin; David.W. Brown @usace.a rmy.mi 1;
Catherine.B.Elliott @usace.army.mil; Smet, Jody, Marshall L. Olson
(marshal l .oson @brookfieldrenewable.com); Myra .Hair @brookfieldrenewable.com
Cc:
Hamlett, Mark A.; Christofferson, Erik D.; Besler, Doug A.; Wheeler, A. Powell; Lominac,
Tim
Subject:
RE: Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Project (FERC No. 2169) Agency Consultation -
Boat Barriers
All,
Staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro's proposal
to install boat barriers on Santeetlah and Cheoah Reservoirs. Although the boat barriers will preclude some anglers
from fishing near the dam, we understand the safety issues and do not object to the project. There are multiple other
reservoirs in North Carolina that have boat barriers or boat exclusion zones near dams and spillways.
Chris
Chris Goudreau
Special Projects Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 28752
828 -652 -4360 ext. 223
From: Hepper, Joyce fmailto:jhepper(aDeaest.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:28 PM
To: mark a cantreUd fws.gov; kfoster01(@fs.fed.us; Ibstul*fs.fed.us; dan.eaaar(&tn.gov; john.mike(&tn.aov;
dave.mckinnev @state.tn.us; Tarver, Fred; Goudreau, Chris J.; Barnett, Kevin; David.W.Brown(a�usace.armv.mil,
Catherine. B. Ell iott(a@ usace. a rm y. m i I
Cc: Smet, Jody; Marshall L. Olson ( marshall. olson (&brookfieldrenewable.com); Myra .Hair @brookfieldrenewable.com
Subject: Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Project (FERC No. 2169) Agency Consultation - Boat Barriers
All,
Please review and respond to the attached letter.
Thank you.
Joyce (Brooks) Hepper
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology
179 Clarks Lane
Aylett, VA 23009
804 - 769 -1667 (office)

NEW EMAIL ADDRESS ** iheaaer(a)eaestcom **
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.0 Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Brown, David W SAW
To: HeRDer, Joyce
Cc: marshall. olson(u)brookfieldrenewable.com
Subject: Wilmington District Permitting Information for Cheoah Dam Boat Barrier Project (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:59:53 PM
Attachments: GP82- 0030sioned.Ddf
PCN -helD- complete -12- 29 -08. Ddf
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Joyce Hepper,
Reference is made to your e-mail of December 2, 2013, regarding the installation of boat saftey barriers
immediately upstream of the Cheoah Dam on Lake Cheoah (Little Tennessee River) in Graham County,
North Carolina. The e -mail requested an evaluation of possible impacts in jurisdictional waters of the
United States (U.S.) that could involve Department of Army (DA) permitting.
I have reviewed your e -mail, attachments to that e -mail and based upon this review and my
conversation with you today determined there will be impacts to jurisdictional waters. At the project
site, the Little Tennessee River is Section 10 naviagible waters. Please be aware that impacts
associated with activites in, over, or under a Section 10 naviagible waterway that has affect on or has
potential to affect the course, condition, or capacity of navigation are subject to the Corps' regulatory
authority pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act. Though there will be no discharge of a
fill material into waters of the U.S. during this project, under Section 10 the Corps considers the floating
boat safety barrier as an impact.
The following is a summary of our conversation about obtaining a permit from the Wilmington District
for this project.
1) The best way to obtain DA authorization for this project will be through one of the District's Regional
General Permits (GP). The permit verification can be issued under Regional General Permit 198200030
(GP30) which authorizes maintenance, repair, and construction activities in lakes and reservoirs owned,
operated, and /or regulated by public utility companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority in the state
of North Carolina (attached GP82- 0030signed.pdf file).
2) Fill out the attached PCN form /application (PCNv1.4.pdf) and send it back to me with supporting
documents and drawings.
Included in the attachments are instructions for the PCN. The long version is PCN - help - complete, the
short version is PCN General Instruction.
Thank you and have a good week,
David Brown, PG
Regulatory Specialist /Geologist
828 - 271 -7980, ext. 232
david.w.brown @usace.army.mil
USACE Wilmington District - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 -5006
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

From: Barnett. Kevin
To: Header. Joyce; mark a cantrelKOws.aov; kfoster01(d)fs.fed.us; Ibstull(a)fs.fed.us: dan.eaaar(a)tn.00v;
iohn.mike(dtn.aoy; daye.mckinney(Qlstate.tn.us: Tarver. Fred: Goudreau. Chris J.;
David, W. Brown(abusace.army.mil; Catherine. B. Ell iott(dlusace. army, mil
Cc: Smet, Jody; Marshall L. Olson ( marshall. olson (a)brookfieldrenewable.com); Myra. Hair(a)brookfieldrenewable.com
Subject: RE: Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Project (FERC No. 2169) Agency Consultation - Boat Barriers
Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:49:46 AM
Good afternoon Joyce:
If the Corps requires a GP30 approval for this activity, then the DWQ would require an application
for written approval for a General Certification for this activity. We utilize the same application
(PCN) as the Corps, and 5 copies should be submitted to the Central Office address in the
instructions along with the processing fee.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Barnett - Kevin, BarnettPncdenr.gov
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: 828 - 296 -4500
Fax: [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Hepper, Joyce [mailto:jhepper @eaest.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:28 PM
To: mark_a_cantrell @fws.gov; kfoster0l @fs.fed.us; Ibstull @fs.fed.us; dan.eagar @tn.gov;
john.mike @tn.gov; dave.mckinney @state.tn.us; Tarver, Fred; Goudreau, Chris J.; Barnett, Kevin;
David.W.Brown @usace.army.mil; [e-mail]
Cc: Smet, Jody; Marshall L. Olson ( marshall. olson @brookfieldrenewable.com);
Myra .Hair @brookfieldrenewable.com
Subject: Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydro Project (FERC No. 2169) Agency Consultation - Boat
Barriers
All,
Please review and respond to the attached letter.
Thank you.
Joyce (Brooks) Hepper
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology

179 Clarks Lane
Aylett VA 23009
804 - 769 -1667 (office)
NEW EMAIL ADDRESS ** jhew�.eaest.com **