19910183 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19910202

? ra STivgq
y r? ° Yjs
•? aNw ?Y
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # [phone]
TELECOPY TO:
FAX NUMBER:
FROM: y.' Cff PHONE: ? ??
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:.
COMMENTS: cull- `e
CLIPPING OF LEGAL
ADVERTISEMENT
ATTACHED HERE
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION'OF
'ENVIRONMENTAL.
="MANAGEMENT
s3 9 "z'fPUd>(l?Tl?'Ei`)s`rebyz even that
Noah" I irita'ffaCtnc ?Il?rnbership
Corpora or3 E iea?F NVat?rvd e' North
Carolinat11hb-§''a pif+?d dE'the' North
Carolirxakvivis(onF o }Envir'o-nmental
'-
Management:': for +a•.:Water,zQuality
Certification pursuant to Section.
401,of the Federal Clean Water Act
and.,; Environmental , Management;
Commission rules in 15 A NCAC 214
.0500 and 15A NCAC 2B..0109. The
activity for which ;`the ..certification
is sought for at FERC license for the
Walters. Hydroelectric Plan on the
Pigeon; River at Waterville Lake in
.
Haywood 'County
The public is invited xo comment on
theabove mentioned application to
the, Division of Environmental
Management. Comments shall be in
writing and shall be received by the
Division no later than July 22
1991 Comments should be sent to
N.C.: Division of 'Environmental
Management;' Water , C:ualitY
Planrr)ng; Post Office Box'W29535,
Raleigh, North Carolina.' 27626
0535, Attention: John Dorney. A
copy of the application is on file at .
the Division office at 59--Woodfin
Place, Asheville, North Carolina
28801 (Asheville Regional, Office, %.
704/251-6208) during, normal
business 'hours ? and'. may be
inspected by the public.
Gepr&e T.- Everett, Oirector ,
Not ho 'Carolina DhOloojmi `.ai _,?o i"
ErtVi opmental.; Man4g§00, w*
June ?26, 1991,
NORTH CAROLINA
HAYWOOD COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and
State, duly commissioned, qualified and authorized
by law t dminister oaths, personally appeared
i
<_ - Q! who being first
d s orn, deposes ands s: that he (she) is
(Owner, partner, publisher or other ficer or employee
authorized to make this affidavit)
of THE ENTERPRISE
engaged in the publication of a newspaper known as
THE ENTERPRISE
published, issued, and entered as second class mail in
the City of CANTON
in said County and State; that he (she) is authorized to
make this affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or other
legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in THE ENTERPRISE on the following dates:
191/
and at the id newspaper in which said notice, paper, docu-
ment, or legal advertisement was published was, at the time of
each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
requirements and qualifications of Section I.597 of the General
Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within
the meaning of Section I-597 of the General Statutes of North
Carolina. Q
This /Zday ,19 ! /.
M C ? ignature of rson making affidavit)
,.r o and subsWci before me this
day of " q?'V ; ,19 ./ / .

IN'$*(Notary Public)
?d / i. l 9 9?,2
My CofAQy-si??wre+`
Legal; no. 2862 7/3 ' Legal #
2061 4
Tf'tP Erlr?rnrl _? Statement
rit_i.x ._' ,8
'Canton, N.C. 28? ' Page 1 Page 1
Attn: John Dorney
Attu; , iorln Dorney
N.C. Division of Ervlrc)nryi?nta'
P.O. BOX 29535
Paleigh, N.C. 27626-053,5
j Gate I Ref. * Description ; Change j Credit. I balance I Ref. # i Amount. Due i
7 /10 3 / t 28 Public Notice ltr/401/D-5
Vol ?u a 91
Lid '•' . , ' ? ,., f ..._.
nj
?J'nn. ;JTY may,. .70
a %' , '.CJ
Cl Ct v
w

;Q VE
AEG o 7 1991
D.E.1W BUDGET OFFCF
0-30 Days ! 3?-60 gays ? 61-90 Days F 904 Days ? Balance ; Balance Due r
Za + 2 i 0 Op j 0001 r% 00 1
24 ?? i ^4

A
A
D

A

m
m
z z
z

N
c
v
v O
? O
70 v
m C 0 j m
_
' O

., Ny
_ m
A z
<

m O
r A

Z
C
IM
z Q r
v

z v
x
W
v
13 Im
m 0
IM 0 0

Z A
z
- <
d o e`

d v
A
W

N
N 9

AA
m
A
? m
N
o
D
(D IM

m
z
A _I
O
Cl)
W
c m

N , m <

C
a
N O
'

a I
I
Z
a-i Z
as
,13

N
a a
c Z m

?(0
o v D Z
a ;;
I
M
-?
c
a
x =
n
v a a
my O
°' d A m
3 IM
c.;
D
0 IM
Z

3 o

m A
v
IM r z
50
v N
n ?? D
v o' a°° n z
7
o
a. Z
O o
z zm
m Z
. n D
x
ch --I
m
x ° = C
.t

o
a m D
n -? r
m
m
W
IM
O

A C

< n
?
A
v m

IM
m
zA cl)
a cm
o Wz
a mm
A
1 0
H H H H H E H IM

a - '*
John Dorney
Memorandum
August 5, 1991
Page Two
Staff recommendations receiving specific ARO comment relate to a $10
Million cap (weight dependent by study) over the dioxin laden sediment,
the.$16 Million Cataloochee Creek diversion project to the dewatered
riverbed,to enhance water quality, fish and wildlife, and recreation.
FERC Staff recommendations addressing other recreational and whitewater
concerns generally are supported in this office with only minimal
comment:;
In regards=,to the proposed $10 Million cap on the dioxin-containing
sedimentsARO Staff question the feasibility and practicality of this
project from both a cost and water quality perspective. First, there is
no documentation of the relationship between dioxin in the sediments and
exposure:to:aquatic life. Simply, how does the dioxin in the bottom
sediments.get into the water column and into the aquatic life, and how
much dioxin do the sediments release. Recent dioxin monitoring results
from fish tissue samples below identified sources (bleached kraft paper
mills), while preliminary in nature, show decreased dioxin content in
some fish. These results imply that dioxin reduction efforts (changes
in processes.at some mills have resulted in significant dioxin
concentration reductions) undertaken by the source have reduced the
accumulation rate in exposed aquatic life. This alone indicates that
dioxin-containing sediments play a less important role in exposure than
the day.to day.water,column releases. While acknowledging that the
sediments in Walters Reservoir represent a source of dioxin, it is not
clearwthat role `those sediments will play in the time necessary to
reducefish tissue concentrations to an acceptable level. Certainly,
natural (passive) cover of this sediment by suspended material generated
in the drainage basin would delay physical separation of the aquatic
environment from this bottom material., however, until it is established
that the sediments play an important role in dioxin exposure, natural
"capping" should be the selected alternative for dealing with the bottom
of Walters Lake. Just the physical problems of applying the artificial
"cap" are enough to question such an action. The general unstable
nature of lake bottoms make a "clean" application of a "cap" impossible
and risks releases of dioxin greater tban. those occurring right now
(even though no one really knows what those release rates are at
present). Without answers to these and other important questions
placement of an artificial cap on bottom sediments is not justified.
The EA identifies keeping lake levels up to lower scouring velocities in
shallow areas as a reasonable step in minimizing exposure of sediments
to dioxin release. This office agrees with that assessment and
recommends that approval of the operating rule curve take this factor
into consideration.
The ARO agrees that the NCEMC proposed Cataloochee Creek diversion
project would result in significant damages to the vegetative and
aquatic community adjacent to and downstream of the construction site
even with unusual measures to minimize damages. Considering the
'Cataloochee Creek Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) designation, ARO
a 10
John Dorney
Memorandum
August 5, 1991
Page Three
Staff preference in diverting this stream is to follow the FERC staff
recommendation of a gravity line constructed in Waterville Lake and
connected through the Johnson Valve (including riser construction at the
valve) to provide the 40 cfs flow to downstream waters. The ARO is
concerned, however, that the 40 cfs will not have the desired effect on
the dewatered segment for the first four. (4) miles until the confluence
with existing'streams due to the rock and boulders present in the
dewater stretch. Pooling in isolated areas would appear to be the best
result in this dewatered stretch and the effects upon the recreational
fishery and visual resources may be minimal.. Expansion of the wetted
area beginning at the `four (4) mile mark would be the best reason for
this diversion (see page 43, Visual Resources, NCEMC proposal). Of the
available options for providing habitat enhancement to the dewatered
segment, the-Cataloochee Creek option is the most effective and stable
choice available. Water quality improvements due to Champion activities
cannot assure that Walters Lake quality will ever be suitable for
enhancement releases to the dewatered segment. While the EA implies
improvements to `the oxygen balance in the Lake due to Champion's
modernization project., it must be pointed out that those changes are
aimed directly atreducing color and dioxin in the Pigeon River. The
wastewater flow,reductions to be achieved at the mill cited it the EA
are not aimed at reducing BOD loading. Reduced flows, oxygen
delignification 'instAIlation, and bleaching changes at Champion will
resuPt in overall effluent quality improvement, but those improvements
cannot,'. be specifically projected and the EPA permit addresses only color
and dioxin as parameters further limited over previous permits. We
concur with staff recommendations that no further mitigation is
warranted and continue to take the position that no lake water be
released until indicated by water quality studies in the lake following
completion of the Champion project.
Previous ARO reservations to diversion of Cataloochee Creek from
Waterville Lake based upon.a loss of a large percentage of this valuable
dissolved oxygen resource and the positive addition (dilution) to the
lake's aquatic community during low flow conditions, is tempered by the
persuasive argument noted on page 81, Staff Conclusions, Waterville Lake
Fisheries, noting that the significantly colder Cataloochee Creek makes
this arm of the lake less (not really available due to the higher
density of the creek water) of a fish refuge during low flow conditions.
The ARO continues to take the position that release of Waterville Lake
water to the downstream segment between the dam and the powerhouse hinge
upon completion of improvements at the Champion facility as required by
the EPA issued NPDES'Permit and the resulting water quality
improvements.. ARO concurs with Staff Conclusions, page 40, Water
Quality Monitoring, which recommend development of a comprehensive water
quality plan as part of the FERC license to include sampling locations,
frequencies, parameters, and associated monitoring program requirements
to determine suitability of lake water release downstream.

eto
John Dorney
Memorandum
August 5, 1991
Page Four
Consideration of the level of tolerance of the established, downstream
aquatic community to lake water (improvements not-with-standing) must
continue to be integral to study conclusions and recommendations to
release lake water downstream.
Finally, in regards to the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
proposed by the EA conclusions and in consideration of the water quality
related limits:of this review, ARO agrees that construction of the
submerged, 40 cfs, Cataloochee Creek gravity diversion structure/ pipe
to discharge creek water to the downstream segment via riser
modifications to the Johnson Valve should have only minimal, short-lived
environmental damage or adverse effect and is supported by ARO.
Installation "61 a cap on the dioxin-laden.ed sediment in Waterville Lake
upstream of the dam, however, should be studied beyond simply
determining if the sediment can physically withstand the weight of the
cap material and its volume. The potential for resuspension problems
aside, the feasibility and practicality of this project should be
considered against the value of the separation of this sediment from the
aquatic community.
Should you wish to discuss this matter in more detail, please advise.

I-

N
DIVISIATER QUALITY SECTIOMANAGEMENT
C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HE SHEHVE ATU?tA?L?RESOURCES
TO
FAX #: QlR-X33?q?l
FROM: a-?
FAX [phone]
DATE:
# O PAGES:
T0'd Jdrkm :Blum Ol ZdNHBQ Ml aIIT naysd woNj sz:zi T66T-90-onu
s t ?a
s??4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Ann B. Orr
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
August 5, 1991
TO: John Dorney, Special Projects Supervisor
Program Planning Unit 1
THROUGH: Roy M. Da isyv??on Regione Diiszo 1 agement
Forrest . WRegional 'Watupervisor
zaner
FROM: Max L.
Envir to SUBJECT; Comments and Recommendations
Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License
Walters/Waterville Project,
CP&L FERC Project # 432
NCEMC FERC Project #2748
Haywood County
The draft environmental assessment (EA) and proposed recommendations
relative to the Federal Energy RegulatO77y Commission (FERC) relicensing
of the Walters/Waterville Hydroelectric project as contested by Carolina
Power & Light Company (CP&L) and the North Carolina Electric Membership
Corporation (NCEMC) have been reviewed in this office in specific
regards to water quality considerations. Recommendations contained in
the draft EA as prepared by FERC staff (resource analysts) are derived
from EA analysis of environmental effects of removing or leaving in
place the dioxin-containing sediments on the bottom of Waterville Lake,
diverting 40 cfs of Cataloochee Creek to the dewatered riverbed
immediately downstream of the dam, providing recreational facilities on
relative adjacent project lands, providing sufficient tailrace flows
from the hydro project to meet Tennessee's dissolved oxygen standard,
and providing tailrace flows sufficient to allow whitewater boating
three days per week from May 15th thru September 15th of each year
(combination of CP&L and NCEMC proposals)-
Inmrhange Buikhng, 59 Woodfin place, Asheville, NC, 28801 • Telephone 704-251#208
Z0'd N AdI_kM glum 0i &H34 08 alt?^agSU WO?JA SZ:ET ti66Z-99-01d

John Dorney
Memorandum
August 5, 1991
Page Two
Staff recommendations receiving specific ARo comment relate to a $10
Million cap (weight dependent by study) over the dioxin laden sediment,
the $16 Million Cataloochee Creek diversion project to the dewatered
riverbed to enhance water quality, fish and wildlife, and recreation..
FERC Staff recommendations addressing other recreational and whitewater
concerns generally are supported in this office with only minimal
comment.
In regards to the proposed $10 Million cap on the dioxin-containing
sediments, ARO Staff question the feasibility and practicality of this
project from both a cost and water quality perspective. First, there is
no documentation of the relationship between dioxin in the sediments and
exposure to aquatic life. Simply, how does the dioxin in the bottom
sediments get into the water column and into the aquatic life, and how
much dioxin do the sediments release. Recent dioxin monitoring results
from fish tissue samples below identified sources (bleached kraft paper
mills), while preliminary in nature, show decreased dioxin content in
some fish. These results imply that dioxin reduction efforts (changes
in processes at some mills have resulted in significant dioxin
concentration reductions) undertaken by the source have reduced the
accumulation rate in exposed aquatic life. This alone indicates that
dioxin-containing sediments play a less important role in exposure than
the day to day water column releases. While acknowledging that the
sediments in Walters Reservoir represent a source of dioxin, it is not
clear what role those sediments will play in the time necessary to
reduce fish tissue concentrations to an acceptable level. Certainly,
natural (passive) cover of this sediment by suspended material generated
in the drainage basin would delay physical separation of the aquatic
environment from this bottom material,, however, until it is established
that the sediments play an important role In dioxin exposure, natural
"capping" should be the selected alternative for dealing with the bottom
of Walters Lake. Just the physical problems of applying the artificial
"cap" are enough to question such an action. The general unstable
nature of lake bottoms make a "clean" application of a "cap" impossible
and risks releases of dioxin greater tbrin.'those occurring right now
(even though no one really knows what those release rates are at
present). Without answers to these and other important questions
placement of an artificial cap on bottom sediments is not justified.
The EA identifies keeping lake levels up •ro lower scouring velocities in
shallow areas as a reasonable step in min,i.mizing exposure of sediments
to dioxin release. This office agrees with that assessment and
recommends that approval of the operating rule curve take this factor
into consideration.
The ARO agrees that the NCEMC,proposed Cataloochee Creek diversion
project would result in significant damages to the vegetative and
aquatic community adjacent to and downstream of the construction site
even with unusual measures to minimize damages. Considering the
Cataloochee Creek Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) designation, Ago
£0'd 8 AiI-krO ZOIUM 0i H+9a MI at IT naysd wm-j sz:zT Z66T-go-Enj

John Dorney
Memorandum
August S, 1991
Page Three
Staff preference in diverting this stream is to follow the FERC staff
recommendation of a gravity line constructed in Waterville Lake and
connected through the Johnson Valve (including riser construction at the
valve) to provide the 40 cfs flow to downstream waters. The ARd is
concerned, however, that the 40 cfs will not have the desired effect on
the dewatered segment for the first four. (4) males until the confluence
with existing streams due to the rock and boulders present in the
dewater stretch. Pooling in isolated areA s would appear to be the best
result in this dewatered stretch and the effects upon the recreational
fishery and visual resources maybe minimal. Expansion of the wetted
area beginning at the four (4) mile mark would be the best reason for
this diversion (see page 43, Visual Resources, NCEMC proposal). Of the
available options for providing habitat enhancement to the dewatered
segment, the Cataloochee Creek option is the most effective and stable
choice available. Water quality improvements due to Champion activities
cannot assure that Walters Lake quality will ever be suitable for
enhancement releases to the dewatered segment. While the EA implies
improvements to the oxygen balance in the Lake due to Champion's
modernization project, it must be pointed out that those changes are
aimed directly at reducing color and dioxin in the Pigeon River. The
wastewater flow reductions to be achieved at the mill cited it the EA
are not aimed at reducing BOD loading. Reduced flows, oxygen
delignification installation, and bleaching changes at Champion will
result in overall effluent quality improvement, but those improvements
cannot be specifically projected and the EPA permit addresses only color
and dioxin as parameters further limited over previous permits. We
concur with staff recommendations that no further mitigation is
warranted and continue to take the position that no lake water be
released until indicated by water quality studies in the lake following
completion of the Champion project.
Previous ARO reservations to diversion of. Cataloochee Creek from
Waterville Lake based upon a loss of a large percentage of this valuable
dissolved oxygen resource and the positive addition (dilution) to the
lake's aquatic community during low flow conditions, is tempered by the
persuasive argument noted on page 81, Staff Conclusions, Waterville Lake
Fisheries, noting that the significantly colder Cataloochee Creek makes
this arm of the lake less (not really available due to the higher
density of the creek water) of a fish refuge during low flow conditions.
The ARd continues to take the position that release of Waterville Lake
water to the downstream segment between the dam and the powerhouse hinge
upon completion of improvements at the Champion facility as required by
the EPA issued NPDES Permit and the resulting water quality
improvements. ARO concurs with Staff Conclusions, page 40, Water
Quality Monitoring, which recommend development of a comprehensive water
quality plan as part of the FERC license to include sampling locations,
frequencies, parameters, and associated monitoring program requirements
to determine suitability of take water release downstream.
b0'd d euI -Um ?SiUm 0i H+iX ON 91ITna4sU woNj 9z:2T T66T-90-snu

SO'd -1di0i
John Dorney
Memorandum
August 5, 1991
Page Four
Consideration of the level of tolerance of the established, downstream
aquatic community to lake water (improvements not-with-standing) must
continue to be integral to study conclusions and recommendations to
release lake water downstream.
Finally, in regards to the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
proposed by the,,-EA conclusions and in consideration of the water quality
related limits of this review, ARO agrees that construction of the
submerged, 40 c£$., Catalooch,ee Creek gravity diversion structure/ pipe
to discharge creep water to the downstream segment via riser
modifications to the Johnson Valve should have only minimal,, short-lived
environmental damage or adverse effect and is supported by ARa.
Installation of a cap on the dioxin-ladened sediment in Waterville Lake
upstream of the dam, however, should be studied beyond simply
determining if the sediment can physically withstand the weight of the
cap material and its volume. The potential for resuspension problems
aside, the feasibility and practicality of this project should be
considered against the value of the separation of this sediment from the
aquatic community.
Should you wish to discuss this matter in more detail, please advise.
S0'd N AiI 7 ':Slb" 01 8443G ON al IT naysd WONA Lz:2T T66T-90-alu
ate. srnh°
State of North Carolina
LACY H. THORNBURG Department of Justice
ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT
PURSUANT TO G.S. 132-1.1
--MEMORANDUM-- +k
TO: Ron Ferrell, Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management /
FROM: Kathryn Jones Cooper
Assistant Attorney Genera
DATE: July 25, 1991
SUBJECT: Carolina Power & Light Company, North Carolina Electric Member-
ship Corporation (FERC Project Nos. 432 and 2748), 401 Certifica-
tion for North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
Pursuant to your request for information from my files concerning the
revised proposal filed by the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
(NCEMC) in the above-referenced relicensing proceeding before the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is needed to assist the Division of
Environmental Management in determining whether to issue a 401 certification to
NCEMC, I have attached the following documents:
1. Letter concerning NCEMC's modified proposal to clean up Waterville
Lake and provide clean water to the bypass reach below the dam
(March 6, 1991);
2. Final Amendment to NCEMC's license application and attached dia-
grams (April 15, 1991);
3. Supplemental map and diagrams (April 26, 1991);
4. NCEMC's Response to FERC Staff's April 11, 1991 follow-up data
requests (April 26, 1991);
5. United States Environmental . Protection Agency's (EPA's) comments to
NCEMC's original proposal, FERC Hearing Exhibit 852 (June 12,
1991);
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer

Ron Ferrell
July 25, 1991
Page 2
6. EPA's comments to CP&L's original proposal, FERC Hearing Exhibit
851 (June 13, 1991);
7. Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment (June 1991);
8. FERC Staff's Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower
License, Walters/Waterville Project (June 1991);
9. Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License,
Walters/Waterville Project Exhibit A (June 1991);
10. Prepared Testimony (with exhibits) of FERC Staff Witnesses: John
E. Carlson, Jr., Jack C. Cox, David Crawford, Thomas V. Dupuis,
Tracy L. Galvin, Jeffrey J. Keiser, Larry D. Martin, Forrest W.
Olson, Sara A. Scott, and David Paul Simpson (June 1991);
11. , Prepared Rebuttal Testimony of FERC Staff Witness David E. Zehner
[which includes the Staff's supplemental Safety and Design Assess-
ment (S&DA),] (July 1, 1991) and Mr. Zehnr's revised version of the
Staff's S&DA (July 9, 1991); and,
12 CP&L's First Set of Data Requests to Commission Staff (July 10,
1991) If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me
at [phone].
Additionally, the following background information is provided.
Background
In 1926, the Federal Power Commission (the predecessor to the current
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)) issued a license to
Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) to construct and operate the Walters
Hydroelectric Project, which is located on the Pigeon River in Haywood County,
North Carolina. CP&L applied for a new license (Project No. 432) on January
8, 1974; its original license expired on November 22, 1976; and since that time
CP&L has been operating under an annual license. The North Carolina Electric
Membership Corporation (NCEMC) filed an application for a competing license
(Project No. 2748) on August 20, 1974. On August 20, 1975, a Notice of this
competing application for the Walters Project was issued and provided that all
comments, protests or petitions to intervene were required to be filed by
November 15, 1980. The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR or Department), through its predecessor agency, the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community Development, began submitting its
comments on the competing license applications to FERC on October 29, 1980.
These proceedings have been stayed from. time to time for various reasons since
September 27, 1975, and were reactivated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) in February 1990.
*-tb Ir '#
r
Ron Ferrell
July 25, 1991
Page 4
The Draft EA prepared by the FERC Staff recommends "that the new
licensee: (1) install a $10 million artificial cap over dioxin-containing bottom
sediments in the upper 3.5-mile segment of Waterville Lake as opposed to relying
on natural capping or NCEMC's dredging proposal; (2) construct a $16 million
diversion facility to convey high quality water from Cataloochee Creek to the
bypassed reach of the Pigeon River using a gravity pipeline system, as opposed
to NCEMC's proposal, to enhance water quality, fish and wildlife, and recreation;
(3) improve and expand a combination, of recreational facilities proposed by both
applicants and staff costing $950,000 and contribute $175,000 annually to maintain
selected recreational facilities on federal lands; and (4) provide 1,200 cfs of
water for whitewater boating 4 days per week from Memorial Day weekend to
Labor Day weekend."
Any comment on the Draft EA by the Department must be made in the
form of testimony. The first round of EA Rebuttal Testimony is due on August
15, 1991. The second round of EA Rebuttal Testimony is due on September 15,
1991. The next round of hearings on the Draft EA and rebuttal testimony is
scheduled for October 1, 1991, and should last approximately six weeks. I have
discussed this matter with Edythe McKinney and she has asked me to coordinate
all departmental responses to the Draft EA, and has asked that all written com-
ments be sent to her by by Thursday, August 8, 1991. Once she has received
the written comments, she 'will decide whether the Department will file rebuttal
testimony during this first round.
Please me advise of the Division's decision concerning NCEMC's 401 certi-
fication request. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at (919)
733-5725.
KJC/klj
Attachments
cc (without attachments):
Edythe McKinney
Steve Reed
Jim Borawa
I?
.,
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
?une 26, 1991
The Enterprise
Post Office Box 268
Canton, North Carolina 28716
ATTN: Legal Ad Department
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Public Notice
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Please publish the attached Public Notice one time in the
section set aside for Legal Advertisements in your newspaper.
The publication should run on or before July 5, 1991. Please
send the invoice for publication and three copies of the
affidavit of publication to the address given below.. Payment
cannot be processed without the affidavit of publication.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
Post Office 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Attn: John Dorney
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call
me at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
J n Dorney
401 Certifications
JRD/kls
PubNot.ltr/401/D-5
cc: John Dorney
Forrest Westall, ARO REGIONAL OFFICES
John Morris, Water Resources
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pavs
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
STATE n
V r ?

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
«w
:,

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that North Carolina Electric
Membership Corporation, near Waterville, North Carolina, has
applied to the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section
401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Environmental Management
Commission rules in 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0109. The
activity for which the certification is sought for a FERC
license for the Walters Hydroelectric Plan on the Pigeon River at
Waterville Lake in Haywood County.
The public is invited to comment on the above mentioned
application to the Division of Environmental Management.
Comments shall be in writing and shall be received by the
Division Igo later than July 22, 1991. Comments should be sent to
N.C. Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Planning, Post Office Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina
27626-0535, Attention: John Dorney. A copy of the application
is on file at the Division office at 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville,
North Carolina 28801 (Asheville Regional Office, 704/251-6208)
during normal business hours and may be inspected by the public.

George T. Everett, Director
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
DATE: June 26, 1991
o ?sr?q
State of North Carolina
LACY H. THORNBURG Department of Justice
ATTORNEY GENERAL - P.O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602.0629
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
PURSUANT TO G.S. 132-1.1
--MEMORANDUM--
TO: John C. Hunter
General Counsel
FROM: Kathryn Jones Coope
Assistant Attorney Gen ral
DATE: June 24, 1991
SUBJECT: 401 Certification for Carolina Power and Light Company and for
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation for Walters
Hydroelectric Project FERC License
Your June 24, 1991 memorandum to Dan McLawhorn concerning the
above-referenced 'matter was referred to me for reply. I have reviewed your
memorandum and the June 18, 1991 memorandum from Steve Tedder to you. I
have also discussed this matter briefly with John Dorney. The essential facts
are as follows. On April 27, 1991, Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L)
applied to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) for a 401
Certification for the Walters Hydroelectric Project. On June 1, 1990, without
having issued a public notice on CP&L's request (at least the Department has no
record of any public notice), the Department purported to grant CP&L a 401
Certification. However, the Department now believes the 401 Certification was
invalid. On July 27, 1991, - the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
(NCEMC) applied to DEM for a 401 Certification for the same project; however,
the application was lost, then resurfaced in mid-May 1991. No action has been
taken on NCEMC's application.
In his memorandum, Steve listed the following options for the Department:
1) Issue notices for both the CP&L and N.C. EMC 401s. These notices
would be for 15 days by our regulations. If we act before July, we
then decide on the EMC's application before the one year deadline.
This action would also give CP&L a properly noticed 401.
W w
•
John C. Hunter
June 24, 1991
Page 2
2) Issue a public notice for the N.C. EMC's 401 application. This
option would assume that CP&L's 401 was either a) legally okay or
b) now moot because of the one year deadline, or
3) Do nothing (i.e., waive both 401s).
First tion
Under §401 of the Clean Water Act, "if (a] State... fails or refuses to
act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which
shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification
requirements of this subsection shall be waived with respect to such Federal
application."
CP&L submitted its request for a 401 Certification to DEM on April 27,
1990. Under §401 of the Clean Water Act, the Department was required to act
on CP&L's request by April 27, 1991. The Department granted what it deems
to be an invalid 401 Certification to CP&L on June 1, 1990. The invalid 401
Certification is tantamount to no action, and the Department has taken no
further action to rectify the invalid 401 Certification. Since the Department
took no action on the request by April 27, 1991 (i.e., within one year of CP&L's
requesv, the Department has waived the 401 Certification requirements as to
CP&L for this project, and cannot issue n public notice for CP&L's request.
NCEMC submitted its request for a 401 Certification to DEM on July 27,
1990.. The Department can issue a public notice for NCEMC's request for a 401
Certification because the one year period has not expired and will not expire
before July 27, 1991.
Second. Option
As stated above, the Department can issue a public notice for NCEMC's
401 Certification request, as long as it is done before July 27, 1991. No
assumptions need to be made about CP&L's request for the Department to pursue
this option. As stated in the previous section, the Department has waived the
401 Certification requirements for CP&L.
Third Option
Again,. CP&L's 401 Certification has already been waived. Further, if it
chooses, the Department can also do nothing about NCEMC's request. If the
Department does not act by July 27, 1991, the Department will also waive the
401 Certification requirements for NCEMC.
Conclusion
As this office views this matter, (1) the CP&L 401 Certification has been
waived because the Department did not act on it within one year of CP&L's
request; (2) the Department can still act on NCEMC's 401 Certification request
we • f,
An C. Hunter
June 24, 1991
Page 3
because the one year period has not expired; and (3) the Department can also
waive NCEMC's 401 Certification if it does nothing by July 27, 1991.
If the Department chooses to act on NCEMC's 401 Certification, prior to
making a decision whether to grant or deny the request, the DEM needs to have
copies of the amended application and other supplementary materials that were
filed in the ongoing FER.C relicensing proceeding this year, copies of which were
provided to you and me. I have discussed these materials with John Dorney and
will provide or request that NCEMC provide two copies of them to him if the
Department chooses to act on NCEMC's 401 Certification request.
If you need further assistance or wish to discuss this matter further,
please call, me at 3-5725.
cc: John Morris, Division of Water Resources

r
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 18, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hunter
FROM: Steve Tedder
RE: 401 Certification for CP&L and for N.C. Electric
Membership Corporation (N.C. EMC) for Walters
Hydroelectric Plant FERC License
There is a controversy surrounding the FERC relicensing for
the Walters Hydroelectric Plant at Waterville Lake which needs
your review. The N.C. Electric Membership Corporation and CP&L
are competing for the FERC license for the plant. This means
each company will need a 401 Certification for the FERC license.
V? On 1 June 1990, DEM sent a letter to CP&L which was described
?P ?as a 401 Certification and signed by George Everett. However, we
have been unable to find any record of public notice for the
rv Certification'. Therefore, we believe it to be invalid.
?g
On 27 July 1990, the N.C. EMC applied to DEM for a 401
Certification. This application was lost until it resurfaced in
mid-May 1991. No action has been taken on this Certification.
The Asheville Regional office has expressed concerns over the
N.C. EMC's plans.
According to FERC, states have one year to act on 401
Certification or they are deemed to be waived. As far as we can
tell we have three options:
1) Issue public notices for both the CP&L and N.C. EMC
401s. These notices would be for 15 days by our
regulations. If we act before July 1, we could then
decide on the EMC's application before the one year
deadline. This action would also give CP&L a properly
noticed 401.
2) Issue a public notice for the N.C. EMC's 401
application. This option would assume that CP&L's 401
was either a) legally okay or b) now moot because of the
one year deadline,'or
?r.
jr Hunter
P Two
June 17, 1991
3) Do nothing (i.e., waive both 401s).
We prefer option # 1 - decide on 401's for each company after
public notice. This option is consistent with our increasingly
active 401 program (as compared to a waiver).
Please advise before June 26, 1990 so we can place public
notice(s) if necessary. Please call John Dorney at 5083 to
.discuss as needed.
ST:JD/kls
Hunter.ltr/401-D-5
CC: John Morris, Water Resources
4?
a 6jeba=G' MR T'
EMPLPEi: --OWNED r
RFCEIVF
;a ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS-CONSULTANTS Water Quality Section
fut. 34 1990 AJJG 1 419 0
?1s:>V?A?Ntl?1A,'Er1 July 27 , 1990
' As1;G?itie Re?,ionai•.Oftice
As evMe, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development:
77?? ,` U
Division of Environmental Management a
Mr. George T. Everett Aft v
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 'CATER
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation SEC.1•J01V
First Stage Consultation Package
FERC Proieet No. 2748 Natervill _.North Carolina)

Gentlemen:
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) is providing you the
enclosed consultation package in compliance with guidelines set by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for relicensing hydroelectric
facilities,
NCEMC is seeking a new license for operation of FERC Project No. 2748,
which is located on the Pigeon Rimer near Waterville, North Carolina, This
hydroelectric facility was originally licensed to Carolina Power & Light
Company (CP&L). CP&L's 50-year license has expired and the company
continues to operate the facility, which it calls the "Walters Plant,"
pending the FERC's determination of who should receive a new license
pursuant to.the Federal Power Act.
This package contains information on the following items regarding NCEMC's
proposed Waterville Lake Project.
o Project Background
o Existing Project
o Proposed Modifications
o Affected Environment
o Enhancement Plans
o Proposed Studies
NCEMC proposes to prepare an Exhibit E Environmental Report to address
environmental issues and impacts relative to this project.
With this consultations package, we solicit your agency's comments on issues
that should be considered in the Exhibit: E Report, resource studies that
may be necessary to prepare the report, regional resources of concern, and
the project's potential to help meet regional resource management goals and
objectives.
Mailing Address: Telephone: Courier Delivery Address:
P.O. Box 419173 [phone] 4800 E. 63rd St.
Kansas City, Missouri 64141.6173 Fax: [phone] or [phone] Kansas City, Missouri 64130-4686
Z0'd d AiI_km d3ibm 01 'NH3Q Oi=l aItTnaysd ? Ob:Sti T66T-OT-AbW

£0'd -U101
MnRII P
Your agency is also requested to consider this a request for a water
quality certificate under Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 USC 1341.
Because CP&Y, is competing with NCEMC for a new license for this facility,
it has or will also be consulting with you. We understand that CP&Y. has
taken the position that its consultation, and any information and materials
it may provide you are confidential. NCEMC requests that you treat this
package and its content--and your comments to us--with equal
confidentiality in the competitive spirit of the relicensing process.
Please provide your comments within 30 days to:
Mr. Bob Sholl
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, inc.
P. 0. Box 419173
Kansas City, MO 64141-6173
[phone]
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY
Bob Sholl, P.E.
Manager, Environmental Studies
BS/rrf575a, bs
Enclosure
€0'd a uI-Ibm J3ium 01 &+i3C Od at I T naysd WONJ TV:Sti Z66ti-OT-M_W
MEM(5----
DATE: b -.2 -,1
TO: SUBJECT:

J 1.4' -0V

From:
? SfATF'a
North Carolina Department of Environment
??{Y?g Health, and Natural Resources ??? printed on Recycled Paper
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 18, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hunter
FROM: Steve Tedder
RE: 401 Certification for CP&L and for N.C. Electric
Membership Corporation (N.C. EMC) for Walters
Hydroelectric Plant FERC License
There is a controversy surrounding the FERC relicensing for
the Walters Hydroelectric Plant at Waterville Lake which needs
your review. The N.C. Electric Membership Corporation and CP&L
are competing for the FERC license for the plant. This means
each company will need a 401 Certification for the FERC license.
On 1 June 1990, DEM sent a letter to CP&L which was described
as a 401 Certification and signed by George Everett. However, we
have been unable to "find any record of public notice for the
Certification. Therefore, we believe it to be invalid.
On 27 July 1990, the N.C. EMC applied to DEM for a 401
Certification. This application was lost until it resurfaced in
mid-May 1991. No action has been taken on this Certification.
The Asheville Regional office has expressed concerns over the
N.C. EMC's plans.
According to FERC, states have one year to act on 401
Certification or they are deemed to be waived. As far as we can
tell we have three options:
1) Issue public notices for both the CP&L
401s. These notices would be for 15 d
regulations. If we act before July 1,
decide on the EMC's application before
deadline. This action would also give
noticed 401.
and N.C. EMC
Sys by our
we could then
the one year
CP&L a properly
2) Issue a public notice for the N.C. EMC's 401
application. This option would assume that CP&L's 401
was either a) legally okay or b) now moot because of the
one year deadline, or
IWO`
s
s ?
-tu er
Pa Two
Jun 7, 1991
3) Do nothing (i.e., waive both 401s).
We prefer option # 1 - decide on 401's for each company after
public notice. This option is consistent with our increasingly
active 401 program (as compared to a waiver).
Please advise before June 26, 1990 so we can place public
notice(s) if necessary. Please call John Dorney at 5083 to
discuss as needed.
ST:JD/kls
Hunter.ltr/401-D-5
cc: John Morris, Water Resources

f \ ?' .,
"',

wa
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # 919[733-9919
TELECOPY TO:
FAX NUMBER:
FROM: PHONE: 33
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 3
?."?,
•

IW'MMO
DATE:
TO: SUBJECT:
l/ !
40
erv,
.k
644
3 s/9? 1,
From:
eta STA7f o
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
?? aun'ns . Printed on Recycled Paper
P.
?r .t,

^.???
nn
of ?7D
.Phone /??L" l?
AREA CODE NUMBER' EXTENSION
Message Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
TELEPHONED PLEASE CA1L
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL '
NORTH` CAROLINA -DEPARTMENT OF ENV
HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOU
Date
To:
From:
?_.
+E?rA
Remarks: oil
ACTION
? Note and file ? Note, initial and forward '
? Note and return to me ? Your comments, please
? Note and see me about this] ? For your information
Q For your approval ? Prepare reply for my signature
? Per our conversation, ? Prepare information for me. to reply
? Per your request, -"-
`
? Please answer, with copy to me
.: Return with more details - To be filed
03/05/91 09:49 $202 219 0125 FERC/OHL/DPR 11002
"?d 7
B?CEIY'D JUN 1994
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
George T. Everett. PhD.
James G. Martin. Governor Dir?ecior
Willi m W. Cobey, Jr., See-retwy
June 1, 1990
Mr. Robert S. Stancil
Manager, Regulatory Services
Carolina Power and Light Company
Post Office Sox 1551
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Subject: Water Quality Certification
CP&I,' s Walters Hydroelectric
Plant FERC Relicensing Project
Haywood County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Stancil:
'J In accordance with your written request of April 27, 1990, this
letter will serve as this Division's Water Quality Certification to
Carolina Power rx Light Company in its response to the Federal Electric
Power Commission's permitting activities for Waterville Dam and the
Walters Hydroelectric Plant situated on the Pigeon River in Raywood
County. Specifically, comments entered herein will pertain to current
and ro ected water quality of the surface waters Stored behind the Dam
and discharged from the turbines, CP&L's compliance status with its
14FDES Permit No. NCO027511 for the Walters Hydroelectric Plant, and
support for recreational usage of these `esters in accordance with the
I Class "C" classification protected by this Division.
Currently, the water quality of the Figeon River as stored by
Waterville Dam supports the Class "C" classification but experiences
significant influence from both point acid non-point source discharges
to the drainage basin to include treated wastewater from Champion
International, a pulp and paper mill located in Canton, N.C.,
approximately 27 river miles upstream of t Watleville Da , as welly.
as discharges from the Towns of Clyde, Waynesvil, and e Val
During drought conditions, Champion requires use of the entire river
flow, discharging somewhat less than the capacity of its existing a48 t.5
MGD wastewater treatment facility. The Figeon River is augmented
the Champion intake by regulated release from Lake Logan, a Champion
owned and operated recreational lake used for water supply during low
river flow conditions. The present NFDZ5 Permit for Champion's
discharge to the Pigeon River (involved in an adjudicatory process)
contains a three year compliance schedule to reduce'color by
?„?, Fin 3 8
P.O. $-w 7-7687. Raid ¢h. Nonh Ca{plirA 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
03/05/91 69:50

t
1
r.i
lid
$202 219 0125 FERC/OHL/DPR
Robert S. Stancil
June 1, 1990
Page 2
Ca 003
approximately 5o% and total daily flow to the river to 29.0 MGD. Even
though the NPDES Permit-for the discharge requires reduction of theLake
permitted wastewater flow from 48.5 MGD to 29.0 MOD, management of
Logan will remain under Championts control for continued mill
operation during drought conditions, not necessarily to provide
additional dilution to these downstream waters during these low flow
periods except for compliance with permit or water quality conditions.
The dioxin minimization project also required by the permit and already
approved by EPA will only have long term improvement
Waterville Lake. The presence of the Waterville Dam serves to
collect contaminants contributed to this drainage basin by both point
and non-point sources such that the natural process of removing these
materials from this river is enhanced and the water discharged through
the turbines to a great extent is free of material removed by the Dam.
The Pigeon River downstream of the Walters Hydroelectric Plant is
considered to benefit from water quality improvements contributed by
Waterville Dam.
CP&L's compliance with terms and conditions of NPDES Permit
No. NCO027511 has been consistently noted by this Division. It is other
important to understand that the discharges of cooling water and plant drainages approved in CP&L's permit are of such a
comparatively small volume and good quality such that there is no
measurable effect on the water quality of the Pigeon River downstream
of the Hydroelectric Plant. Continued water quality improvements
upstream of the Dam will not result in a change in the minimal impact
of discharges. The Company's responsiveness to environmental concerns
expressed by this Division demonstrates a proper and effective
environmental program.
In relation to the issue of minimum release from the Waterville
Dam to the 12 mile stream segment downstream of the Dam, consideration
of this matter represents a very difficult and critical problem.
Because of the documented water quality concerns of the water stored
behind the Dam, this Division believes that it is in the best interest
of water quality and resource protection to forgo a minimum release at
this time. It is this Division's opinion that the tributaries
contributing to the existing flow in this 12 mile downstream segment
are of such a high quality as to have fostered a small but valuable
aquatic and wildlife habitat in this downstream segment. Even
minimal release from the Dam of water of questionable quality could
significantly alter this habitat. Considering expected waaterDquision
improvements in the drainage basin upstream of the Dam, this
recommends and is supportive of a detailed study to include extensive
water quality monitoring and data collection at five year intervals;
Following each study, this Division will be pleased to review the
matter of minimum release from a water quality standpoint and forward
appropriate recommendations based upon these data. Without these
additional.' water quality data, the effects of any water quality It is
improvements cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy_
expected that gradual improvement to the aesthetics of this river wil:
be realized from color removal and will contribute to the downstream
recreation potential of these waters.
39
j) F
03/05/91 V9:51 '$202 219 0125 FERC/OHL/DPR
Robert S. Stancil
"Une 1, 1990
Page 3
T'hank you for the opportunity to comment in this most important
matter. In summary, this Division believes that the operation of the
Waterville Dam and Walters Hydroelectric Plant has been an asset to
this Division's water quality program in the western region of this
4 state. GP ehas been rns. :Should tyoulwishstondiscuss thLis SmaPermit tter innmore other
Division concerns.
detail, do not hesitate to contact me.
yp
G4orge U.
i
i
i
i
r
r
i
xc: Steve Tedder
Forrest R. Westall
:nett
. 40
004
/05/91 09
$202 219 0125
FMC/OHL/DPR
f •
• 4
4
:r?duG:.l:I:
a
?EI?EFt?.Y.. EN?FtGY Z?EGTJLPr'?'?.?EtY CQfi?s=SSXON
WASHINGTON OFFICE
TELECOPY MESSAGE (Facsimile) - Machine No. 202, 219-0125
FTS, 299-0125
Ca 001
DATE: 3-r-91
TIME : 7. y' J?dlirh?
TO:/
OFFICE:, ERIY/ 1P F
• :
FROM: ?J? X Awlocv h I PRONE.
OFFICE
SUBJECT: 41MI
HL / DP A
;rj*eATr G.4 lVALVAS RVO-40- O'I*Vr
This transmittal consists of cover sheet plus _z pages.
REMARKS:
PIER3c k7 ME' k4ow WH47' 711111 I.S.
-rlf)4AIX S.
•?:_
.?:
EMPLOYEE - OWNED
Burns & McDonnell
ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS -CONSULTANTS
July 27, 1990
NCDEHNR
Division of Water Quality
Mr. Bill Mills
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
First Stage Consultation Package
FERC Project No. 2748 (Waterville, North Carolina)
Gentlemen:
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) is providing you the
enclosed consultation package in compliance with guidelines set by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for relicensing hydroelectric
facilities.
NCEMC is seeking a new license for operation of FERC Project No. 2748,
which is located on the Pigeon River near Waterville, North Carolina. This
hydroelectric facility was originally licensed to Carolina Power & Light
Company {CP&L). CP&L's 50-year license has expired and the company
continues to operate the facility, which it calls the "Walters Plant,"
pending the FERC's determination of who should receive a new license
pursuant to-the Federal Power Act.
This package contains information on the following items regarding NCEMC's
proposed Waterville Lake Project.
o Project Background
o Existing Project
o Proposed Modifications
o Affected Environment
o Enhancement Plans
o Proposed Studies
NCEMC proposes to prepare an Exhibit E Environmental Report to address
environmental issues and impacts relative to this project.
With this consultation package, we solicit your agency's comments on issues
that should be considered in the Exhibit E Report, resource studies that
may be necessary to prepare the report, regional resources of concern, and
the project's potential to help meet regional resource management goals and
objectives.
Mailing Address: Telephone: Courier Delivery Address:
P.O. Box 419173 [phone] 4800 E. 63rd St.
Kansas City, Missouri 64141-6173 Fax: [phone] or [phone] Kansas City, Missouri 64130-4696
L&MCDOnnell
Because CP&L is competing with NCEMC for a new license for this facility,
it has or will also be consulting with you. We understand that CP&L has
taken the position that its consultation, and any information and materials
it may provide you are confidential. NCEMC requests that you treat this
package and its content--and your comments to us--with equal
confidentiality in the competitive spirit of the relicensing process.
Please provide your comments within 30 days to:
Mr. Bob Sholl
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 419173
Kansas City, MO 64141-6173
[phone]
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY
Bob Sholl, P.E.
Manager, Environmental Studies
BS/mf575.bs
Enclosure
,.
EMPLOYEE - OWNED
Burns & McDonnell
ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS -CONSULTANTS
October 4, 1990
NCDEHNR 90
6) X
Division of Water Quality
Mr. Bill Mills',
512 North Salisbury Street. g?rdn?h
Raleigh, NC 27611
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
Supplemental Application Materials
FERC Project No. 2748 (Waterville, North Carolina)
Dear Sir or Madam:
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation ("NCEMC") encloses a copy of
its recent filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") in
NCEMG's competing application for a new license for Project No. 2748,
located on the Pigeon River near Waterville, North Carolina. NCEMC refers
to.. this project as the "Waterville Lake Project." The materials comprise
two volumes, one captioned "Exhibit E, Environmental Report for the
Waterville Lake Project for North Carolina Electric Membership
Corporation," and a second captioned "North Carolina Electric Membership
Corporation's Supplemental Application Materials."
You are being served with these materials pursuant to the FERC's
regulations, because NCEMC has consulted with you previously regarding this
application. The Exhibit E, Environmental Report, responds to comments and
recommendations made by agencies during prior consultation. It also
contains and discusses the results of studies performed by NCEMC. You will
see that some of NCEMC's studies -- those to improve the reservoir's water
quality and to provide high quality water to the bypass area below the dam
-- are ongoing. We are hopeful that the FERC will permit those studies to
continue notwithstanding the expedited procedural schedule and that it will
take the results into account in its ultimate relicensing decision. Your
support for the further study of NCEMC's proposals may be helpful in that
regard.
CP&L's environmental proposals, which were filed with the FERC on the same
day as NCEMC filed its materials, appear quite limited. CP&L proposes no
diversion of water from Cataloochee Creek for enhancement of instream
flows. They mention measures to enhance future fishery and recreational
resources once water quality at the project has improved. Just what these
measures are and how they expect water quality at the project to improve is
not-set forth in any materials we have seen. We ask that you carefully
compare and consider the NCEMC and CP&L plans for enhancement of
environmental and recreational resources.
0
Mailing Address: Telephone: Courier Delivery Address:
P.O. Box 419173 [phone] 4800 E. 63rd St.
Kansas City, Missouri 64141-6173 Fax: [phone] or [phone] Kansas City, Missouri 64130-4696
a T
??z
'I
??,
??
_,
funs & McDonnell
NCEMC respectfully requests your further comments on the enclosed
materials. As before, please provide those comments to
Mr. Bob Sholl
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 419173
Kansas City, MO 64141-6173
[phone]
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY
Bob Sholl, P.E.
Manager, Environmental Studies
BS/j1575
R
WALLACE EDWARD BRAND
DAVID A. LECKIE
SEAN T. BEENY
MELVIN G.BERGER
JOHN D. WHITLER
WILLIAM S. MORROW, JR.
DONRITA Y. COTTRELL`
ADMRTED IN NEW YORK ONLY
BRAND & LECKIE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
August 21, 1990
SUITE 1000
1730 K STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C.20006
[phone]
?? 3119 2.??S
SFp 1990
F/a""i" 4L,ht?i
9 B? ? ti
i
?Sl 1t ?y??Q
Re: North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
First Stage Consultation Package
FERC Project No. 2748 (Waterville, North Carolina)
Gentlemen:
Recent developments in the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission proceeding. concerning rel'icensing of the Waterville
Lake Project may have a bearing on your agency's response to
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation's consultation
package of July 27, 1990.
In resolving a'question regarding the schedule for the FERC
proceeding, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge running the
case declined at this time to allot additional time to perform
the more time-consuming'of the studies NCEMC proposed to
undertake in support of its plans to enhance the environmental
and recreational aspects of the project. He did so because it
was his understanding that state and federal agencies had not
"required" that-these studies be done. The Judge appears to have
relied heavily on Carolina Power & Light Company's representation
that state agencies had not requested CP&L to do studies of the
kind NCEMC proposes to make and CP&L's suggestion that,
therefore, NCEMC did not really need time to make the studies.
If your agency shares tNCEMC's view that the public would be
well-served by the environmental and recreational enhancements
that NCEMC proposes, it appears that it will be important for the
agency's response to NCEMC's consultation package to voice that
view in the strongest possible terms and for the response to be
made as soon as possible.
W
BRAND 6 LECKIE
August 21, 1990
Page 2
NCEMC requested previously that your response be addressed
to:
Mr. - Bob Shol l
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 419173
Kansas City, MO 64141-6173
($16) 822-3154
The FERC.Staff has requested that it be advised also of any
agency support for the improvements NCEMC proposed to study. The
appropriate address'is:`
Mr. John Bartus
Staff Counsel
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825N. Capitol, St., N.E.
Room 8608C
Washington, DC 20426
I am sure you agree that it would be a pity if the status
quo on the Pigeon River were allowed to continue for another 30
years merely because the FERC determined that there was
inadequate support for improvement among other agencies..
Very truly yours,
David A. Leckie
BRAND & LECKIE
1730 K St., N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
Attorneys for North Carolina
,. Electric Membership Corporation
j

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Place
SECTION I INTRODUCTION . . . .. . I=1
SECTION II -'DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROJECT`
A. Project Location . . . • . . . II-1
B. Waterville Lake Project IT-1
. . . .
C. Mode of Operation II-4
•
D. S"treamflow Data • • • II-6
?. SECTION III - PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING 1
PROJECT . . . . . III-1
_ A. Reservoir Improvements . .. .. . . . . . . . :. III-1
Enhancement of Flows,in the Bypassed` Section
B . III-2
w -
C installation of Warning Mechanism . . ., • III-4
D. .Modification of Reservoir Operations to. Enhance
Fish Spawning . . . III-5`

" l _
'
'
CTION IV -AFFECTED ENVOI=RQNMENT . . . .
si IV-1
.
`A. Geology . . . . . . IV-1
B. Socioeconomics
• IV-1
'. . . . :
G. Historic and Archaeological Resources IV-2
D. Recreation. .. IV-2'
E. Terrestrial Habitat . . . IV-3
F. Aquatic Resources . . . IV-S
=
G. Land Use . . . . • • • . IV
6
H." Visual Resources . . • • . . IV-7
SECTION V - RESOURCE ENHANCEMENTANDPROTECTION PLANS..
A. Enhancement of Flows to the Bypassed, Section of
the Pigeon River . . . . . . .
• V-1
` and the Fishery
B. Plan to Enhance.Water•Quality
Within Waterville.Lake • . . . .. . V=.2
C. Enhancement of R6breational Facilities and
opportunities . . . . . V=3'
D.; Enhancement of Fish Spawning V-5'
SECTION VI"- PROPOSED STUDIES VI-1

BLH)7C. CP ?, TC-1

r
r.
�r
,. _
.,
_, ��
iY
��<
I
f /
�. �.
/�..
�-
1
`f�
�. '�-
`;...
�'
z� �=
.
� h Y
�
P{
��
��
,tir Sx
�,:���
�
`
x ��
t p.nt
.t � �
�
�.�.
7
�
1
.� l
;
J \ ,
S
/ � ,
e��
-...
/ \ � .. �
�.
1
�,..
\
//
�. "
-
:'y..
:.
♦.. � -
,,�
E
S��
"�
\
-
/:
�
����
..
f:
�..
��
��.
/... :.
Lt, t
r -
�.
.� � ,
..
i
r.
\.
�
.�

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Paee
II-1 Average Monthly Flow, Pigeon River
Near Hepco, NC II-10
II-2 Average Monthly Flow, Cataloochie
Creek Near Cataloochie,, NC II-11
II-3 Average Monthly ;Inflow to Waterville
Lake II-12

rp4 i

? TG-2 BLHYTC..CP

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Follows
Exhibit No. Page . .
1 Waterville Lake Project and
d
l
TI
11'
ifications
Proposed,Mo -
2 inflow Duration Curve, Waterville
.Late, NC 1I-9

t

t

BLHYTC.CP - TC-3

a
4
u h
q

C'
Section
Introduction
lilt
t :.

SECTION I
INTRODUCTION

North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) is an electric membership
corporation headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina which was organized as a
generation and transmission cooperative by North Carolina's rural distribution
cooperatives. NCEMC provides wholesale electrical power to its 27 member
distribution cooperatives within the state of North Carolina. The distribution
cooperatives, in turn, provide electrical power to their residential, commercial,
a..
and industrial consumer members.
The Waterville Lake Project (the project) consists of a storage reservoir, a long
water conduit, and a powerhouse located approximately 12 miles downstream from
the dam.-„ The project has an installed total generating capacity of. 108 MW. The
original license for the project was issued in 1926 to Carolina Power & Light
Company Incorporated (CP&L). The original 50-year license for operation of the
project expired in 1976. NCEMC is seeking a new license to operate the facility.
CP&L's license has been renewed on an annual basis, since the original license
expired, pending resolution of who will be issued a 30-year license by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power Act for
operation of the facility.
r
NCEMC believes that it is the party that can operate the Waterville Lake Project
in a manner that will best serve the public interest. As a consequence, it
BLHYINT.CP I-1
,. _,'
•• 1. A+ y'

I believes that it should be granted the new license for the operation of this
I facility.
The purpose of this document is to provide a general description of the facility
and modifications to the proposed facility that NCEMC is currently investigating.
In addition, this document is intended to provide other appropriate background
information to enable the FERC and other resource agencies to comment on the
project as modified by NCEMC and how it may potentially affect local resources.
This consultation package is organized in the following sections so as to provide
appropriate information to the agencies in their review of the project.
o Section I. Introduction. Background on the project, the applicant and
the purpose of the consultation package are described.
o Suction II. Description of Existing Project. In this section,
information on the project location, the general layout of the existing
project and streamflow data are provided.
o Section III. Proposed Modifications to the Existing Project. Proposed
physical modif cations to the project as well as operational modifications
are described.
o Section IV. Affected Environment. In this section, the existing
environment, both terrestrial and aquatic, as it pertains to the
Waterville Lake Project is described.
f:-` I-2 BLHYINT.CP

1
1
1
1
1
_

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
o Section V. Resource Enhancement and Protection Plans. NCEMC proposes
to initiate significant resource enhancement plans for the Waterville Lake
Project which would greatly improve the public benefit of this project.
These plans are described in this section.
o Section VI. Proposed Studies. In this section, the studies that NCEMC
proposes to conduct in order to prepare its amended application for a
license to operate the Waterville Lake Project are discussed.

I-3

11

I ft

r

SECTION II
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROJECT
This section describes the Waterville Lake Project as it currently exists, its
location, its layout and its operation.
A. PROJECT LOCATION
The Waterville Lake Project is located entirely within Haywood County, North
Carolina. The project is located on the Pigeon River downstream from the
city of Canton, North Carolina. Project facilities consist of a powerhouse,
hydroelectric tunnel and surge tank, a concrete.arch dam and the Waterville .
Lake which is impounded by the dam. The enclosed map, Exhibit 1, shows the
location of the project facilities. The concrete arch dam is located near
river mile 38 on the Pigeon River. The dam is located approximately 17
miles downstream from Clyde, North Carolina, and 22 miles downstream from
Canton, North Carolina. From the intake structure which is located in an
inlet near the 'west abutment of the dam, water is diverted through a
hydroelectric tunnel which extends downstream to a powerhouse located on the
Pigeon River, very near the Tennessee/North Carolina border at river mile 0.
Waterville Lake ex ends upstream approximately 5.2 miles from the concrete
`arch dam at full pool.
B. WATERVILLE LAKE PROJECT
The Waterville Lace P..ject`consists of three primary elements, a storage
,
reservoir, a powerhouse located approximately 12 miles downstream from the

BLHY2.CP
II-1
1 E
C. i fi
0 CD
Cd _ L .i V d Cc
d
> V
c o o 0 p o
c c O _o c d° o
cc cc
d == 0 3 v 3 3 0 r
?; J S
L R /7
mot.
r N M OOOOOO ? / ? i
aL F? .
-?o
r N W p ?o
4) CL
cis co
40
[L 9L
`) R 9
0 o'
L L Fay ? ? .L-? .t ,
! ?I? ?r
• ?,), ?• ? y //n .:PPP ? -?? iZ? .. :\,
_ }a
Z
'~> z , ? ? ".mil `e ?' v? ?/ ? 1 ? r?,? ` ' ? "1 ; { ? ? ?•?
O'.
ta 0- f
Exhibit 1
??`•?Y-?'•_ -. '\.°_, /...... \ q =a._? L ?'.:w„yi 'V. [r.iorE[•ownED
n t ?'` - s. r Sums&M Donnell WATERVILLE LAKE PROJECT
-rte t .. -ICAY Mn rwrs
AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
L

V

1

r
F

dam and a horseshoe-shaped water tunnel which connects the dam to the
powerhouse. The concrete arch dam was constructed at a narrow point in the
Pigeon River Gorge and is approximately 185 feet high. It is approximately
390 feet long at the river bed and approximately 900 feet long at its crest.
The center of the arch of the dam is designed to serve as the spillway.
Fourteen steel tainter gates, each of which are 24 feet long and 10 feet
high, are used to control releases when they are necessary. The tainter
gates are operated by three movable, motor-operated, drum-type hoists.
A reservoir discharge or drain pipe is located at the base of the dam. The
pipe is approximately five feet in diameter and is equipped with concrete
screens and a steel flap gate at its entrance to exclude large debris.
Discha"rges through this- pipe are controlled by a Johnson free-discharge
valve in the downstream face of the dam. The reservoir can be drained
through this valve to ,expose the entire power intake structure within the
reservoir.
The'intake structure is approximately 120 feet high and is equipped with
screens which consist of 24 panels, each 5"-4" by 16'. Bars on the screens
are 3" by 3/8". Water flows through the screens into a tunnel through an
opening that is controlled by a 14!.4-1/2" by 12'-6" steel gate. The gate,
which weighs approximately' 91 tons, is opened by a twin screw stem hoist
with capacity'of 450;tons and can be closed by its own weight.
II-2
BLHY2CP

Waterville Lake extends upstream from the dam approximately 5.2 miles when
.? the reservoir is at its maximum elevation of 2,258.6 feet above mean sea
level (MSL). The reservoir has a surface area of approximately 340 acres,
and it occupies a narrow gorge in the river. There are approximately 13
miles of reservoir shoreline, and the banks of the reservoir are quite
steep.
' Water entering the intake structure at the dam passes into a concrete-lined,
horseshoe-shaped tunnel which extends approximately 32,700 feet to the
penstocks at the powerhouse. The tunnel is mostly underground except at the
i crossing of Sterling Creek. At this point, an aboveground section is
present for a short distance. When the generators of the powerhouse are
t
l
i
l i
operating at their maximum output, the ma
e
y
s approx
flow in the tunne
1,900 cubic feet per second (cfs).
A surge tank is located approximately 2,000 feet from the end of the
penstocks at the powerhouse. The surge tank has an inside diameter of
approximately 42 feet and a riser pipe with a spill pipe inside.
_,The powerhouse. is a box-like, steel frame brick structure approximately
170 feet long, 69 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It contains three main
hydroelectric generators, one house service generator, hydroelectric and
electrical `control equipment, and service shops for this equipment. The
main generating units are vertical shaft, reaction turbines rated at 49,000
horsepower at. 400 revolutions per minute (rpm). The turbines drive 3-phase,
60-hertz generators rated.,. at 36,000 kW. The house service unit is a
BLHY2.CP II-3

r horizontal shaft, impulse turbine rated at 850 hp that drives a 600-kW,
r 575-volt generator.
r The switchyard, which is located behind and adjacent to the powerhouse,
contains the step-up transformers, switching equipment for the main
generator transformer units, and four high-voltage transmission lines. The
structure consists of steel lattice columns and trusses set on concrete
footings. The main transformers are single-phase units, rated 15,000 kVA,
13.2 kV to 115 kV, and are arranged in three banks of 45,000 kVA each. The
switching equipment includes oil circuit breakers with isolated disconnects,
one set for each line in each transformer bank.
The dam is served by a wood pole, 11-kV transmission line which extends from
the powerhouse to the dam. This line is approximately 6.24 miles in length.
C. MODE OF OPERATION
The Waterville Lake Project is currently operated so as to use the total

water resource available from the basin at the point of the dam, except for
floodwaters passed through the spillway, for the production of electrical
:-'.`energy. NCEMC proposes to operate the Waterville Lake Project in a similar
fashion;.hgwever, proposed modifications are `described briefly in this
section and in more deltail in Section III of this report. One modification
r
would increase the potential of the Pigeon River between the dam.and the

powerhouse 'to sustain a meaningful fishery while causing only a minor
reduction in, the output of electric energy from the project. The other
Y

II-4 BLHY2.CP

proposed modification would increase the potential of the reservoir as a
fishery by maintaining a more constant reservoir level during spawning
season.

t

There are seasonal variations in the operation of the project which relate
to the normal stream flow in the Pigeon River as well as the height of water
that is maintained within the reservoir. In the months of January through
mid-April, water surface elevation is maintained at approximately 2,220 feet
in order to allow full utilization of increased flows in the Pigeon River
which are normally expected due to heavy spring rainfall events. Thirty-
eight feet of storage capacity is allowed when the reservoir is maintained
at this level. This amount of storage capacity is considered to be enough
to adequately capture increased flows in the river without the need.to pass
water through the spillway and, therefore, bypass the electrical generating
facilities in the powerhouse.
Beginning in mid-April, the reservoir is allowed to begin to fill. The goal
is to. have the reservoir at its peak elevation of 2,258 feet by the end of
June in order to have the potential to generate the maximum amount of
peaking energy from the facility during the summer months. In North
Carolina., demand for electrical energy normally peaks during the summer
months of Auly and August. By having the reservoir full, it can be used on
a daily basis to generate electrical energy during times of peak demand.
1
During the months of September through December, rainfall is normally
sparse. During this time, the water surface elevation is allowed to drop
BLHY2.CP
II-5

to approximately 2,210 feet and then to increase to 2,220 feet for the
January to April period.
The Waterville Lake Project is used to meet daily peak demands during the
summer. At other times during the year, it is available to meet unusually
r heavy energy demands in conjunction with less than normal rainfall. During
periods of excess flow in the Pigeon River, the project is operated so as
to provide energy to meet baseload demands of the regional systems. If it
appears that sufficient water is entering the reservoir so that water will
have to be passed through the spillway', the project is operated at maximum
capacity on a continuous basis.

D. STREAMFLOW DATA
Waterville Lake is located on the Pigeon River in Haywood County, North
Carolina. It was formed by the construction of a dam at river mile 38.0 on
the Pigeon River. The major tributaries of the lake are the Pigeon River,
Cataloochee Creek and Fines Creek.

1. DRAINAGE AREA
The drainage area of the Pigeon River above the dam is reported to be
455 ,square miles: by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS
mainta ns alake level gage at Watervil le Dam, NC (Station No.

03460242).

II-6 BLHY2.CP

2. LAKE INFLOW
The historic inflow to Waterville Lake was estimated from available
stream flow information since there is no stream gaging station located
at the dam itself. The records from two USGS stream gaging stations
were used to develop a stream flow record at the dam. These were the
' Pigeon River near Hepco, North Carolina (Station No. 03459500) and the
' Cataloochee Creek near Cataloochee, North Carolina (Station No.
03460000) stream gages. The period of record and drainage area of these
gages are listed below.
The Pigeon River gage is located 2.0 miles south of Hepco and 0.8 miles
downstream of Jonathan Creek at river mile 45.1. This gage is located
about seven miles upstream of the dam. The period of record for this
gage is from July, 1927 to the present and it has a drainage area of 350
square miles.
The Cataloochee Creek gage is located just downstream of the State
Highway 284 bridge over Cataloochee Creek. The period of record for
this gage ..is-ftom October, 1933 to September, 1952 and from October,
1962 to the present. The drainage area'of Cataloochee Creek at the gage
is 49.2 square miles.
Inflows to Waterville Lake were estimated from the stream flow data
available At the two gages discussed above. Only a portion of the data
available for these two gages was utilized in this analysis. Data from
the Pigeon River gage prior to October, 1933 and between September, 1952
BLHY2.CP II-7

t

1

1

1
and October, 1962 were not used because there are no matching data for
the Cataloochee Creek gage. Data for both gages for water years 1971
through 1979 were also not available for this analysis. Therefore,
inflows to the lake were estimated for the following periods.
• October, 1933 through September, 1952
• October, 1962 through September, 1970
• October, 1979 through September, 1988
Inflows to Waterville Lake were assumed to be proportional to the
drainage area behind the dam. The average monthly flow data for the
Pigeon River and Cataloochee Creek gages were added together for each
month and multiplied by the ratio of the drainage area at the dam (455
square miles) to the combined drainage area of the two gages (399.2
square miles) to estimate lake inflows. Tables II-1 and II-2 list the
average monthly discharge data for the two gages which were used in this
analysis. Table II-3 lists inflows to Waterville Lake which were
estimated using the procedure discussed above.
Period-of-record average monthly lake inflows are also listed at the
bottom, of Table ZI-3. These data range from a low of 442 cfs in
September to a high of 1,492 cfs in March. During this same period of
record, the lowest average monthly lake inflow was estimated to be 187
cfs in October, 1942 and the high was estimate to be 3,012 cfs in March,
1963.
1I-8
BLHY2.CP
t
t
Exhibit 2 is a flow duration curve developed from the estimated inflow
data presented in Table II-3. This figure shows that monthly lake
inflows can be expected to average about 700 cfs or more 50 percent of
the time.
BLHY2.CP
II-9
,?
., ?
1
1
Ul
>U
O
? Z
O ULL
N o5
eW
O
' ? c>
0
)
_0
ow
(D

Q) z
O
00 U
x
LL1

L c
c
c
O O L
?
N c
_
? m

I^
OJ
(.L J
LLf

C
O
U
m
lf?

O
O `'-

O
O U
? U

U
O
N +'
O
U
L
O O
•--- n
Vi i
O O O
O O O O
O O
p O O
0 O O
Ln O LO
N O
N Ln
T- O Ln
r
(S?:D)- MOIJUI XIq?UOJN a6DJaAV

lift-
1
1
1
1
I Table II-1
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW
PIGEON RIVER NEAR HEPCO, NC
(Station No. 03459500)
(cfs)

Water
Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
1935 419 523 697 1,057 695 979 925 632 359 394 600 353
1936 221 511 349 2,171 1,704 1,622 2,010 588 329 341 344 346
1937 892 425 775 2,275 1,274 730 861 616 424 350 510 575
1938 689 454 461 654 606 997 783 574 568 658 459 282
1939 180 522 356 728 2,047 1,286 816 528 408 259 366 198
1941 344 325 452 471 319 503 498 283 209 720 313 176
1942 141 214 410 430 762 1,170 507 688 487 411 466 509
1943 330 273 1,080 1,135 1,247 1,097 889 721 531 646 374 228
1944 183 231 215 390 1,167 1,450 1,059 660 427 293 225 255
' 1945 292 315 437 627 984 850 1,039 770 380 306 319 641
1946 385 534 792 1,610 1,583 1,433 977 937 454 408 264 269
1947 423. 370 380 1,708 678 771 859 438 333 245 214 161
1948 496 774 468 458 1,347 1,057 985 428 312 478 496 420
1949 257 1,199 1,073 1,157 1,227 759 922 872 1,131 1,005 1,002 743
1950 611 773 786 1,019 992. 1,322 713 483 576 322 233 880
1951 491 382 791 533 673 917 958 503 471 469 335 280
' 1952
1963 213
351 460
414 1,141
371 1,045
540 934
579 1,683
2,147 867
661 526
515 372
390 240
375 259
244 257
212
1964 167 260 320 890 737 1,684 1,608 787 358 329 556 490
1965 1,353 603 817 823 972 1,490 1,043 737 530 325 242 312
1966 526 280 224 254 1,565 870 579 713 396 280 273 305
1967 525 848 666 822 972 945 484 713 1,502 969 1,008 714
1968 442 585 1,189 1,209 604 1,051 938 556 766 408 351 255
1969 398 438 563 643 1,298 1,030 1,026 595 520 379 584 450
1970 477 570 639 618 795 638 883 442 662 300 345 230
1980 649 1,627 748 815 603 1,830 1,498 847 560 326 226 250
1981 259 301 281 236 740 540 653 673 483 255 171 193
1982 170 181 371 1,015 1,447 956 673 548 382 370 299 208
1983 227 439 1,047 597 1,303 1,379 1,866 920 522 343 211 225
1984 335 494 1,274 662 1,144 1,188 1,010 1,630 573 543 541 244
1985 259 382 443 445 1,073 537 547 415 272 286 433 215
1986• 186 657 461 274 426 677 359 328 263 183 206 179
1987 239 578 843 608 819 1,122 1,128 555 492 288 231 314
' 1988 183 316 394 692 453 346 600 312 200 195 196 209

r
II-10 BLHY2.CP

f',

1
C]
0
u

Table II-2
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW
CATALOOCHEE CREEK NEAR CATALOOCHEE, NC
(Station No. 03460000)
(cfs)
Water
Year Oct Nov
- Dec Jan Feb
----- Mar
----- Apr
----- May
----- Jun
----- Jul
----- Aug
----- Sep
-----
-----
1935 -----
61 -
---
67 -----
84 -----
134 133 218 220 117 61 72 90 45
1936 31 58 53 362 242 266 305 69 45 42 40 45
1937 99 61 115 392 185 114 137 101 62 57 105 71
1938 78 63 78 132 116 222 154 129 126 141 90 53
1939 31 54 53 116 336 221 131 74 55 48 40 26
1940 22 22 26 36 74 133 116 70 86 115 223 100
1941 43 44 46 65 50 99 91 52 35 97 43 25
1942 23 30 40 70 127 167 75 88 62 62 83 60
1943 51 50 192 200 252 182 134 97 72 91 63 37
1944 27 30 30 46 225 271 173 90 50 32 31 36
1945 39 48 88 114 208 147 124 135 66 63 103 94
1946 58 78 137 324 283 182 162 147 79 84 52 38
1947 47 52 91 382 110 138 139 76 53 55 45 34
1948 36 82 67 91 265 160 167 70 50 39 50 34
1949 26 129 190 208 230 132 151 134 10 182 131 93
1950 83 136 157 240 247 267 121 86 86 78 50 51
1951 43 51 105 95 120 179 181 82 78 98 58 46
1952 33 76 237 226 143 261 104 69 58 38 32 33
1963 42 87 68 117 111 496 95 81 66 65 47 36
1964 27 35 49 161 122 384 275 149 58 53 85 62
1965 133 99 170 168 148 292 172 114 85 55 47 38
1966 49 41 36 41 264 141 84 92 49 58 104 61
1967 112 144 125 145 221 157 81 178 252 112 155 87
1968 55 89 232 201 90 151 141 90 93 51 57 36
1969 40 57 74 89 229 147 153 75 84 61 80 71
1970 46 59 106 105 109 103 171 92 88 46 40 32
1980 72 159 87 146 101 312 184 105 71 49 34 33
1981 36 45 46 39 129 109 140 87 80 49 39 46
1982 35 37 95 240 252 172 112 93 73 56 75 51
1983 52 105 168 86 145 156 245 183 90 62 37 34
1984 40 61 164 97 172 199 167 283 91 165 114 47
1985 38 47 61 83 226 96 90 67 44 48 56 36
1986 28 51 70 45 83 115 59 46 35 30 27 32
1987 38 74 111 96 133 161 158 78 74 38 27 33
1988 22 25 56 159 90 63 101 76 42 33 34 40
r
r- BLHY2.CP
r
t
II-11

f Table II-3
AVERAGE MONTHLY INFLOW
TO WATERVILLE LAKE, NC
' (cfs)
Water
Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
-----
1935 -----
547 -----
672 -----
890 -----
1,357 ----
944
1,364
1,305
854
478
531
786
454
1936 287 648 459 2,887 2,218 2,152 2,639 748 426 437 438 446
1937 1,129 554 1,014 3,040 1,663 962 1,138 817 554 464 701 736
1938 874 589 614 896 823 1,389 1,068 801 791 911 626 382
1939 240 656 466 962 2,716 1,718 1,079 686 527 350 463 255
1940 231 620 435 870 2,417 1,617 1,062 682 564 426 671 340
1941 441 420 568 611 420 686 671 382 278 931 405 229
1942 187 278 512 570 1,013 1,524 663 884 626 539 625 649
1943 434 368 1,450 1,522 1,709 1,458 1,166 932 688 840 498 302
1944 239 297 279 496 1,587 1,962 1,404 855 544 371 291 332
1945 377 414 598 845 1,359 1,136 1,326 1,032 508 420 481 837
1946 505 698 1,059 2,204 2,127 1,841 1,298 1,236 608 561 360 349
1947 535 480 537 2,382 898 1,036 1,138 586 439 342 296 222
1948 606 975 610 625 1,837 1,387 1,313 567 412 590 622 518
1949 323 1,514 1,440 1,556 1,661 1,016 1,223 1,147 1,300 1,353 1,291 953
1950 791 1,036 1,075 1,435 1,412 1,811 951 649 755 456 323 1,062
1951 609 493 1,021 715 904 1,249 1,298 667 626 647 447 372
1952 280 611 1,571 1,449 1,228 2,216 1,107 678 490 316 331 330
1963 448 570 500 749 786 3,012 861 680 520 502 332 283
1964 221 336 421 1,198 979 2,357 2,146 1,067 474 436 731 629
1965 1,694 800 1,125 1,130 1,277 2,031 1,385 970 701 433 330 399
1966 655 366 296 336 2,085 1,152 755 917 507 385 430 417
1967 726 1,131 902 1,102 1,360 1,256 644 1,016 1,999 1,232 1,326 913
1968 567 768 1,620 1,607 791 1,370 1,230 736 979 523 465 332
1969 499 564 726 835 1,740 1,342 1,344 764 689 501 757 594
1970 596 717 849 824 1,030 845 1,201 608 854 394 438 298
1980 822 2,036 952 1,095 803 2,441 1,918 1,086 720 428 296 323
1981 337 395 373 313 991 740 904 865 642 346 239 273
1 1982 234 248 532 1,430 1,937 1,286 895 731 519 485 426 295
1983 318 620 1,385 778 1,651 1,749 2,406 1,257 698 462 282 295
1984 427 633 1,638 865 1,499 1,580 1,341 2,181 757 806 746 332
1985 338 489 574 602 1,480 722 726 549 360 380 558 286
1986 244 807 606 363 580 903 476 427 339 243 265 241
1987 315 743 1,088 802 1,085 1,462 1,465 722 645 372 293 395
1988 315 743 1,088 802 1,085 1,462 1,465 722 645 372 293 395
' Average 497 665 836 1,122 1,374 1,492 1,229 843 647 537 510 442

II-12 BLHY2.CP

SECTION III
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING PROJECT
NCEMC proposes certain structural and operational modifications to the existing
project which would enhance water quality and the fishery both in the reservoir
and in. the bypassed section of the Pigeon River. These modifications are
' described below.
A. RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS
' The quality of the fishery in Waterville Lake is poor due`to the reservoir's
polluted state. Since its construction in the late 1920s,.it has served as
' a catch basin for massive quantities of sediments which have been-carried
from an upstream paper mill down the river to the reservoir. Currently, it
is believed that the reservoir contains approximately 200,000 to 500,000
' tons of organic sediments which have steadily accumulated in the reservoir.
In 1980, the reservoir was drained for inspection and repairs on the
' facility. When the reservoir was drained, significant quantities of
' sediment from the reservoir were released through the discharge pipe and
carried downstream. Residents and governmental agencies in Tennessee
' expressed great concern regarding this release event and the potential
adverse impacts.on downstream ecosystems and residents.
' NCEMC is investigating the economic and technical feasibility of removing
significant quantitiegof the sediments that reside in the reservoir. NCEMC
proposes to dredge sediments from the reservoir and deposit the sediments
BLHY3.CP III-1

' in a landfill that would be constructed for the sole purpose of containing
the dredged materials. An area on the east bank of the reservoir, Exhibit
1, is currently being considered as a site for this landfill. The removal
' of the sediments is expected to result in improvement of reservoir water
quality as well as improvement in the odor of the reservoir. It is also
expected to reduce the potential adverse environmental impacts of the
project on the downstream community and improve the recreational value of
the reservoir.
It is anticipated that once the organic 'sediments in the reservoir have been
' removed, a sport fishery can be developed in Waterville Lake. The fish that
are present in the reservoir are rough species and dioxin has been detected
' in samples of these fish. When organic sediments are removed, it is
anticipated that the dissolved oxygen levels in the reservoir and overall
water and reservoir bottom quality will significantly increase and allow for
stocking of gamefish by state agencies.-
It is also anticipated that removing the sediments will reduce or eliminate
' the risk of releasing large quantities of sediments from the reservoir in
the event it has to be drained for inspections or repairs at some time in
1 the future. More detail regarding this proposal to clean-up the reservoir
is provided in Section V of this report.
' B. ENHANCEMENT OF FLOWS IN THE BYPASSED SECTION
Currently, water from Waterville Lake passes through a tunnel to the
powerhouse and thereby bypasses a 12 mile section of the Pigeon River
III-2 BLHY3.CP
w

0

11

occurring between the dam and the powerhouse. Currently this part of the
Pigeon River, the bypassed section, is fed only by minor leakage through the
dam, small springs and tributaries.
NCEMC is investigating the technical and economic feasibility of providing
a continuous flow of water to the bypassed section of the Pigeon River to
enhance the fishery. This would be accomplished through diversion of good
quality water over or around the dam to a discharge point at the base of the
dam. While the diversion of this water around the dam would reduce the
total annual expected electrical generation of the project, it is
anticipated that a continuous flow of good quality water into the Pigeon
River through the stretch from the dam to the powerhouse would allow a
significant increase in the quality of the fishery that could be sustained
in this area. NCEMC is investigating three alternative means of introducing
water to the bypassed section. The alternatives are described below.
1. Following the removal of contaminated sediments from the reservoir,.
water would be provided to the bypassed section by release over the dam
through a siphon or through the tainter gates. This would reduce the
energy that would be generated by the project unless a small generator
could be installed at the base of the dam in conjunction with a
generator. NCEMC will investigate the feasibility of installing such
a generator.
2. Following the removal of contaminated sediments from the reservoir, a
tap into the existing power intake tunnel would be built. This tap
BLHY3.CP III-3
u
would divert water from the tunnel to the bypassed section near the base
of the dam. The outlet structure would be designed to dissipate energy
and control erosion. NCEMC will also investigate the feasibility of
installing a small generator in conjunction with this alternative in
order to recover electrical energy that otherwise would be lost due to
this diversion of water.
3. NCEMC will also investigate constructing an intake structure with a weir
in Cataloochee Creek. Good quality water would be diverted through
pipes to an outflow below the dam. Two alternative routes for the pipes
from Cataloochee Creek would be considered. These are shown in
Exhibit 1. The possible installation of a small generator to recover
electrical energy that otherwise would be lost through this diversion
of water would also be investigated.
C. INSTALLATION OF WARNING MECHANISM
In section V-C, a number of steps that NCEMC proposes to take to enhance
e
recreational use of the project area are listed. One of thes
steps
' involves providing access to the bypassed section of the Pigeon River to
fishermen once the fishery in this area is improved. It would then become
necessary to install a warning device such as a large horn to alert
fishermen of a potential hazard which could develop if w ater were to be

released from the valve in the base of the dam.

III-4
BLHY3.CP

. ?
t
s
D. MODIFICATION OF RESERVOIR OPERATIONS TO ENHANCE FISH SPAWNING
NCEMC also proposes to investigate the economic feasibility of maintaining,
a more constant reservoir level during the months of March to June each
year. This is expected to enhance the spawning of fish in the reservoir.

BLHY3.CP

III-5

u

I

SECTION IV
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
In this Section, the terrestrial, aquatic, and other environmental resources
pertaining to the Waterville Lake Project are described.
A. GEOLOGY
The Waterville Lake Project is located in Haywood: County, North Carolina.
Most of.the project area is mountainous with many deep narrow valleys. The.
dominant geologic feature of the area is the Ocone Series metamorphosed
sediments which are underlain by basement rocks composed of a granitic-
gneissic complex.
L
s

r
n

There are several faults in the general area of the Waterville Lake Project.
Waterville Lake lies on the Green Brier fault and the hydroelectric tunnel
crosses several faults. These faults were formed in the Paleozoic Era by
low angle thrust faulting of the Ocone Series rock. These faults have been
inactive for 200 million years.
B. SOCIOECONOMICS
Haywood County, North Carolina had a 1986 population of 48,400. The County
has an area of approximately 551 square miles with a population density of
87 persons per square mile. The Pigeon River flows through Clyde, North
Carolina (population 900) and Canton, North Carolina (population 4,490).
The Waterville Lake Dam is located 17 river miles downstream from Canton.
BLHY4.CP
IV-1

a

11

All three towns are Southeast of the project area. Newport, Tennessee
(population 7,480) is located approximately 18 miles downstream from the dam.
site.
The immediate project vicinity is sparsely populated. The nearest major
city is Asheville, North Carolina (population 60,290). Asheville is located
approximately 35 miles east-southeast of the project via Interstate 40.
Interstate 40 parallels the Pigeon River in the project vicinity.
Some of the major industries in ' Haywood County include Champion
International Corporation in Canton and Waynesville, Dayco Corporation in
Waynesville, Unagusta Manufacturing in Waynesville and Wellco Shoe Company
in Hazelwood.
C. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As of 1973, no national or local historic or archeological sites were known
to be located within the project area.
I D. RECREATION
The Waterville Lake Project borders the Smoky Mountains National Park and
the Pisgah National Forest. Many recreational facilities are located within
the park and forest including fishing, golfing, camping, hiking, skiing and
scenic sites.

Many of the local streams that feed Waterville Lake support excellent trout
populations. Cataloochee Creek, from its mouth at the reservoir to the
IV-2
BLHY4.CP

1
1

1

1 national park boundary (0.5 miles), is a state Designated Public Mountain
Trout Water. Natural populations of brown trout and rainbow trout exist in
this area. Public fishing pressure is light due to limited access.
Recreational facilities on the Waterville Lake Project are limited.
Waterville Lake does not have boating access facilities. The lake itself
does support a limited fishery. However, following an assessment of dioxin
contamination of the water, sediment and fish in the Pigeon River, the state
of North Carolina issued an advisory that fish caught in the Pigeon River
from Canton, North Carolina to the Tennessee border should not be consumed
because of dioxin concentrations in the fish.
1 The stretch of the Pigeon River between the dam and the powerhouse does
receive moderate fishing pressure. This area contains a fair smallmouth
bass population. Access to this area is quite limited except for the Harmon
Den Access Road.
A small recreation area is located at the powerhouse. The facilities
consist of covered picnic tables, playground equipment, restrooms and a
basketball goal. There is also a parking lot at the powerhouse.
E. TERRESTRIAL HABITAT
The Waterville Lake Project is located within the Great Smoky Mountains
' region. This' region has diverse flora and fauna due to the abundant
rainfall and fertile soil. Most of the land west of the project area is in

1

I the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Much of the area to the east and
adjacent to the project area is within the Pisgah National Forest.
The forested areas near the project area contains a diverse flora, including
oak, hickory, beech, hemlock and pine trees. These species are common
within the Oak Chestnut Region of the southern Appalachian Mountains in
which the project occurs. Most of the timbered stands within the project
area were cut at least once and now only regrowth timber remains.
There are also small parcels of land used for agricultural purposes near the
project area. The three main agricultural uses in the area are livestock,
dairying, and tobacco farming. There are also several apple orchards in the
area.

The fauna within the national parks and forests are diverse and abundant.
The project area is populated by a diverse number of bird, amphibian,
reptile, and mammal species. Game species in the project area include black
bear, bobcat, raccoons, fox, and rabbit. Great blue herons and osprey
forage for fish within the project area.
Rare or endangered species have not been identified within the project area.
The Indiana bat (M?otis sodalis) is present in the adjacent Smoky Mountains
1 area. The federally endangered bald eagle and the federally threatened red
cockaded woodpecker could range into the general region. The U.S.'Fish and
Wildlife Service- indicated that three federally endangered species (the
small worled pogonia, the eastern congar, and the northern flying squirrel)

IV-4 BLHY4.CP
�'-. ;
t-;�_"<:

occur in Haywood County, North Carolina. These species are not expected to
be impacted by the project.
F. AQUATIC RESOURCES
The reservoir and the Pigeon River upstream of the dam is polluted due to
effluents from the Champion Paper Mill located in Canton, North Carolina.
In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), completed an
assessment of the dioxin contaminants in the water, sediment and fish of the
Pigeon River system. The level of dioxin contaminants in fish and sediments
located in the Pigeon River between Canton, North Carolina and the Tennessee
border was assessed. After the study, the state of North Carolina
recommended that fish from this part of the river not be consumed because
of dioxin concentrations present in the fish.
There is limited access to Waterville Lake and the fishing is poor. The
' lake contains mainly rough fish such as carp, suckers and goldfish.
However, some game fish are also present. During the EPA dioxin study,
black crappie, brown trout, largemouth bass and muskie were captured in the
reservoir using gill nets. However the study found the fish to contain
dioxin concentrations.
At the mouth of streams entering the reservoir, red-breasted sunfish,
bluegill, golden shiners and brown bullhead may be present. Cataloochee
Creek, which enters the reservoir, is a Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water (DPMTW). It supports native populations of both rainbow trout and
brown trout. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Cbmmission classified
BLHY4.CP IV-5

Catahoochee Creek as a Class A trout water, its highest classification.
The Class A designation signifies a high quality trout stream capable of
sustaining a fishery through natural reproduction alone.
1?
LJ
The 12-mile stretch of the Pigeon River between the dam and the powerhouse
' receives mostly local flows. Small amounts of leakage from the dam also
enter this stretch. The flow in this part of the river is too warm for good
trout water because of its width and the lack of shade. However, this
stretch does contain a fair population of smallmouth bass, redbreast sunfish
and brown trout. It receives moderate fishing pressure mostly via the.
Harmon Den access road.
G. LAND USE
The Waterville Lake Project is located in Haywood County, North Carolina.
The project area encompasses approximately 17 miles of the Pigeon River from
the headwaters of Waterville Lake to the powerhouse. The origin of the
Pigeon River lies within the high plateau between the Great Smoky Mountains
and the Blue Ridge Mountains. The river winds northwesterly to the
Tennessee State Line.
The East Fork and West Fork of the Pigeon River join upstream of Canton.
Several major tributaries (Big Branch, Jonathan Creek, Fines Creek, Mount
Sterling Creek, Cataloochee Creek and Big Creek) join the Pigeon River and
' Waterville Lake. Many of these streams are high quality waters that contain
trout fisheries. Cataloochee Creek enters the reservoir just above the dam.
i
I? IV-6 BLHY4.CP
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
i
1
1

The intake structure for the hydroelectric tunnel is located near the mouth
of this tributary.
In the project area, the Pigeon River flows through a deep, narrow, rocky
gorge. Prior to dam construction, there was a series of rapids and falls
through the gorge. From the dam to the powerhouse, the river falls
approximately 700 feet.
The land adjacent to the Waterville Lake Project is mostly undeveloped
national forest and national park land., Some logging occurs in the area and
most of the forest is second growth. Access to the reservoir and the Pigeon
River downstream of the reservoir is limited.
H. VISUAL RESOURCES
The area bordering the Waterville Lake Project is considered very scenic.
The Smoky Mountains National Park lies just south of the development and the
project area lies adjacent to the Pisgah National Forest.
Both these areas are undeveloped and mountainous. Interstate 40 follows the
river from the reservoir to the powerhouse. Although access to the river
is limited, the reservoir can be seen from the highway in several places.
The Pigeon River from the dam to the powerhouse is located in a deep gorge.
Interstate 40 follows this gorge and a scenic view of the reservoir, gorge
and river is available from this highway.

I BLHY4.CP
IV-7

1
t
1

Ll

1

u

SECTION V
RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION PLANS
NCEMC is currently investigating the feasibility of several plans for the
enhancement of environmental resources in relation to the project. These plans
involve the diversion of high quality water from the reservoir, or a feeder
stream to the reservoir, into the bypassed section of the Pigeon River downstream
from the dam. This is expected to result in the potential for significant
improvement in the fishery within the diversion area. A second plan for resource
enhancement involves improvement of the fishery within the reservoir itself.
A third plan involves enhancement of recreational facilities and opportunities

in the project area. These plans are described in more-detail in this section
I of this report.
A. ENHANCEMENT OF FLOWS TO THE BYPASSED SECTION OF THE PIGEON RIVER
NCEMC proposes to release a continuous flow of water from Cataloochie Creek
or Waterville Lake into the bypassed section directly below the dam. The

purpose of this release is to provide a dependable flow of good quality
water to this reach of the Pigeon River from which flows are currently
fl
t

t

diverted by the existing project. It is expected that this action would
result in a higher quality fishery in the diversion area.
In order to release a continuous flow of good quality water to the bypassed
section', it may be necessary to bypass the existing reservoir. As a
consequence, NCEMC is investigating installation of an intake device in
Cataloochie Creek, approximately 2,000 yards upstream from the conservation.
BLHY5.CP
V-1

pool level of the reservoir. A pipe or pipes made of steel would release
water to the bypassed section near the base of the dam. . The general
location for the intake device and the alternative routings that will be
considered for the pipeline are shown in Exhibit 1.
' As was discussed in Section III of this report, two alternative means of
providing good quality water to the bypassed section of the Pigeon River are
under consideration by NCEMC. These involve passing water from Waterville
Lake directly over the dam by means of a siphon or through the tainter
gates, or tapping the existing power intake tunnel. Both of these
alternatives involve previous removal of contaminated sediments from
Waterville Lake which would be expected to result in significant improvement
to the water quality within the reservoir.
r
B. PLAN TO ENHANCE WATER QUALITY AND THE FISHERY WITHIN WATERVILLE LAKE
Currently, the quality of water in Waterville Lake is poor. As was
described in Section III of this report, substantial quantities of sediments
have been deposited in the reservoir throughout its life. At the present
time, we estimate that at least 200,000 tons of sediment and possibly much
more are in the reservoir. The high organic content of this sediment
adversely affects the ability of the reservoir to sustain a significant
sport fishery. In addition, organic compounds in the sediments of the
reservoir have in some cases become concentrated in those fish that do
survive in the reservoir. As a consequence, it is recommended that fish
from the reservoir not be used for human consumption.
V-2 BLHYS.CP

NCEMC is investigating the economic feasibility of steps to improve the
quality of the fishery in the reservoir. This would involve the use of a
dredge to remove the sediments from the reservoir. As the sediments are
removed, they would be dewatered and deposited in an on-site landfill. It
is anticipated that the site for dewatering and landfilling would be on the
east bank of the reservoir as shown in Exhibit 1. Water from the dewatered
sediments would be returned to the reservoir. The landfill is expected to
occupy approximately 18 to 45 acres at an average depth of 30 feet,
providing space for approximately 1 to 2.5 million cubic yards of dewatered
sediments. A composite liner, composed,of compacted soil and a geomembrane,
would be used to contain water in the landfill, and a leachate collection
system would be provided to collect the water for removal. Once.a section
of the landfill is filled, it would be capped with 24 inches of soil. It
is anticipated that the entire operation for dredging the sediments,
dewatering, and landfilling would take approximately two to four years.
C. ENHANCEMENT OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES
In addition to steps to improve the fishery both within the diversion area
and the reservoir itself, NCEMC also proposes to develop several
recreational facilities within and adjacent to the Waterville Lake Project.
The anticipated improvement in water quality in the reservoir and the
diversion of high quality water into the bypassed stretch of the Pigeon
River is expected to improve the recreational draw of the Waterville Lake
Project.
BLHYS.CP
v-3
n
Within the Waterville Lake Project, NCEMC proposes to develop several
recreational facilities. Exhibit 1 shows the location of each of these
1 facilities. The proposed facilities include the following:
o Overlook Park - This small park area would provide day use facilities for
' picnicking. Historic information would be provided and access would be
' developed by scenic roadway.
o Waterville Lake Recreation Area - This proposed recreation area would
provide boat launching facilities, a parking area, and a nature trail.
It would also provide access for hunters and fishermen. This area would
be developed for day use activities.
o Generating Station - At this site parking would be provided for access
to the Appalachian Trail and for canoe trips on the Pigeon River.
o Linear Nature Park - This park area would include 1.8 miles of canyon on
' the north side of the Pigeon River with riding trails, camping and
fishing access. Visual enhancement through selective plantings is
anticipated for this area.
In addition, NCEMC proposes to coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service and
the North Carolina highway authorities to develop facilities adjacent to the
Waterville Lake Project. These facilities include the following:
o Cataloochee Creek - Would provide fishing, hunting, camping and
picnicking facilities.
V-4 BLHY5.CP

o Harmon Den - Would provide facilities for camping, group camping, fishing
and hunting.
o Hurricane Creek - Would provide facilities for camping and fishing.
o Wilkens Creek - Would provide facilities for lake access, camping,
boating and fishing.
o White Oak - Would provide boat launching and automobile parking
facilities.
Access to and development of the above recreation projects rely upon joint
efforts and coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and the North Carolina
highway authorities. Several reservoir use restrictions would be initiated.
These include no skiing and a 10-horsepower limit on outboard motors.
D. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH SPAWNING
NCEMC proposes to investigate the economic feasibility of maintaining a more
constant reservoir level during the months of March to June each year. This
is expected to enhance the spawning of fish in the reservoir.

BLHY5.CP
V-5

1
1
;.\. -
-
t�.�� -.
;.
��`
r � �
r?
� ..
,.�
/ - �
`
_ J _. /
��
�
,.
-� _.
`
�....
,..
S
� _ � -
;.
'.
.i .- -
:. � ..
- (....
- � -
..,
-
.
-. I � \ - �
.. �.
�:
�
�.'� �
\ �
j
� r
\
\
,'.
J _
.,> ;
�
a
_
a
� �y
_ -
•x; �:,
�
ti
� ���
_
��
�},
'r4 � .
9 :4 � ��
/ �
,. �;
'
�`r.
t �p}�.
'�'+
�
�� �,

1
1
1

L

1
1
SECTION VI
PROPOSED STUDIES
The Waterville Lake Project has been in place for many years. Over the years
an extensive amount of data have been collected on the facility and the area
surrounding the project. NCEMC proposes to utilize existing data to the fullest
extent possible in preparation of its amended application for relicensing the
facility. However, it is anticipated that the following studies will be
performed so as to prepare certain parts of the application for relicensing.
o Fishery studies will be conducted both on the bypassed section of the
Pigeon River and the portion of Cataloochie Creek where the proposed intake
structure would be installed. At this time, it is anticipated that fish
will be sampled through electroshocking. Benthic samples would be taken
in these areas with a Surber Sampler. The purpose of these studies will
be to characterize the nature of the aquatic community that currently
exists in these stream areas.
o A Plant Ecologist will describe the vegetative communities currently
existing in areas to be disturbed by the proposed landfill and the proposed
alternative pipeline routes from Cataloochie Creek to the bypassed section
of the Pigeon River. Woody-and herbaceous vegetation will be characterized
through an acceptable sampling method.
'B,PM. CP
VI-1

o The quantity of sediments in the reservoir will be estimated through sonar
sounding of the current level of the reservoir bottom. Cores of sediments
will be collected for chemical analysis.
r
o Engineering studies will be conducted to assess the technical and economic
feasibility of sediment removal from Waterville Lake and provision of a
continuous flow of good quality water to the bypassed stretch of the Pigeon
River.
o A study would be conducted to determine if amore constant reservoir level
in the spring months would be expected to have a significant positive
effect on the fishery.

VI-2
BLHY6.CP