West Fork Tuckasegee River Hydroelectric Projects FERC # 2686

Transcription

West Fork Tuckasegee River
Hydroelectric Projects
FERC # 2686
Draft License Application
Volume I
Copyright© 2003 Duke Energy Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
No portion of this publication may be reprinted without permission of Duke Energy Corporation
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1
TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................... .a
INITIAL STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................... I
EXHIBIT A: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ....................................................................................... A-1
A1.0
PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................................... A-1
A2.0
PROJECT HISTORY.............................................................................................................. A-1
A2.1
Tuckasegee.......................................................................................................................... A-1
A2.2
Thorpe ................................................................................................................................. A-1
A3.0
EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES..................................................................................... A-1
A3.1
Dams and Spillways ............................................................................................................ A-1
A3.1.1
Tuckasegee Dam and Spillway .................................................................................... A-1
A3.1.2
Thorpe Dam and Spillway ........................................................................................... A-3
A3.2
Reservoirs............................................................................................................................ A-3
A3.2.1
Tuckasegee Reservoir .................................................................................................. A-3
A3.2.2
Lake Glenville.............................................................................................................. A-3
A3.3
Powerhouse, Generator and Turbine Data........................................................................... A-4
A3.3.1
Tuckasegee Powerhouse, Generator and Turbine Data................................................ A-4
A3.3.2
Thorpe Powerhouse, Generator and Turbine Data ....................................................... A-4
A3.4
Transformers ....................................................................................................................... A-4
A4.0
TRANSMISSION LINES AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT .......................................... A-5
A5.0
FEDERAL LANDS .................................................................................................................. A-5
EXHIBIT B: PROJECT OPERATION & RESOURCE UTILIZATION .......................................... B-1
B1.0
PROJECT OPERATION ........................................................................................................ B-1
B1.1
Overview ............................................................................................................................. B-1
B1.1.1
Thorpe Development.................................................................................................... B-1
B1.1.2
Tuckasegee Development ............................................................................................ B-1
B1.2
Annual Plant Factor............................................................................................................. B-2
B1.3
Operation During Adverse, Mean, and High Water Years.................................................. B-2
B2.0
B1.3.1
Thorpe Development.................................................................................................... B-3
B1.3.2
Tuckasegee Development ............................................................................................ B-3
ENERGY PRODUCTION....................................................................................................... B-3
B2.1
Dependable Capacity and Average Energy Production...................................................... B-3
B2.2
Supporting Data .................................................................................................................. B-4
B2.2.1
B2.2.2
Historical Flow Data .................................................................................................... B-4
B2.2.1.1.
Thorpe Flow Duration Curves ....................................................................... B-4
B2.2.1.2
Tuckasegee Flow Duration Curves ...............................................................B-11
Period of Critical Streamflow .....................................................................................B-18
i
Table of Contents
B2.2.4
Hydraulic Capacity ....................................................................................................B-21
B2.2.5
Curves Tailwater Rating ............................................................................................B-21
B2.2.6
Power Plant Capability................................................................................................B-21
B3.0 POWER UTILIZATION............................................................................................................B-23
B4.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................B-23
EXHIBIT C: CONSTRUCTION HISTORY ....................................................................................... C1-1
C1.0
THORPE DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................. C1-1
C1.1
Construction History ..........................................................................................................C1-1
C1.2
Proposed Development ......................................................................................................C1-1
C2.0
TUCKASEGEE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... C2-1
C2.1
Construction History ..........................................................................................................C2-1
EXHIBIT D: COSTS AND FINANCING .............................................................................................. D-1
D1.0
ORIGINAL COST OF PROJECT ......................................................................................... D-1
D2.0
AMOUNT PAYABLE IN EVENT OF PROJECT TAKEOVER – FAIR VALUE, NET
INVESTMENT, AND SEVERANCE DAMAGES................................................................ D-1
D2.1
Fair Value............................................................................................................................ D-1
D2.2
Net Investment .................................................................................................................... D-1
D2.3
Severance Damages............................................................................................................. D-1
D3.0
ESTIMATED COST OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... D-4
D4.0
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF THE PROJECT...................................... D-4
D5.0
ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT POWER........................................ D-5
D6.0
SOURCES OF FINANCING AND ANNUAL REVENUES ................................................ D-6
EXHIBIT E: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT .....................................................................................E1-1
E1.0
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ...................................................E1-1
E1.1
Location .............................................................................................................................E1-1
E1.2
Drainage Basin Hydrology.................................................................................................E1-3
E1.2.1
Thorpe Development...................................................................................................E1-3
E1.2.2
Tuckasegee Development ...........................................................................................E1-3
E1.3
Climate ...............................................................................................................................E1-3
E1.4
Topography ........................................................................................................................E1-3
E1.5
Geology..............................................................................................................................E1-4
E1.6
Soils....................................................................................................................................E1-4
E1.7
Botanical and Wetland Resources......................................................................................E1-4
E1.7.1
E1.7.2
E1.8
Vegetative Cover................................................................................................................E1-5
ii
Table of Contents
E1.8.1
E1.8.2
E1.9
Wildlife and Fisheries ........................................................................................................E1-6
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................E1-6
E1.9.1
E1.10
Land Development .............................................................................................................E1-7
E1.11
Demographics ....................................................................................................................E1-7
E1.12
Floodplains and Flood Events ............................................................................................E1-7
E1.13
Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures in this Exhibit E ...............E1-8
E1.14
Relicensing Consultation..................................................................................................E1-28
E1.14.1
Stage One Consultation............................................................................................E1-28
E1.14.2 Stage Two Consultation ............................................................................................E1-28
E2.0
WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY ................................................................................E2-1
E2.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................E2-1
E2.2
Water Quantity ...................................................................................................................E2-2
E2.2.1
Surface Water..............................................................................................................E2-2
E2.2.2
Groundwater................................................................................................................E2-3
E2.3
Applicable Water Quality Standards ..................................................................................E2-6
E2.3.1
Use Support Status of the West Fork Project and Adjacent Waters............................E2-6
E2.3.2
Compliance with Applicable Standards ......................................................................E2-7
E2.4
Existing and Proposed Use of Project Waters ....................................................................E2-8
E2.4.1
E2.5
Water Discharges .............................................................................................................E2-10
E2.5.1
E2.6
Existing Minimum and Maximum Flow Releases ......................................................E2-8
Point Sources.............................................................................................................E2-10
Historical and Current Water Quality...............................................................................E2-11
E2.6.1
Summary of Previous Studies ...................................................................................E2-11
E2.6.2
Water Chemistry and Other Parameters....................................................................E2-11
E2.6.2.1
Temperature................................................................................................E2-14
E2.6.2.2
Conductivity ...............................................................................................E2-14
E2.6.2.3
Dissolved Oxygen......................................................................................E2-15
E2.6.2.4
pH ...............................................................................................................E2-15
E2.6.2.5
Turbidity .....................................................................................................E2-15
E2.6.2.6
Bacteria .......................................................................................................E2-16
E2.6.2.7
Nutrients .....................................................................................................E2-16
E2.7.1
State and Federal Agencies .......................................................................................E2-17
E2.7.2
Existing Resource Management Plans ......................................................................E2-18
E2.7.2.1
Little Tennessee River Basinwide Assessment Plan...................................E2-18
E2.7.2.2
Nantahala National Forest Management Plan.............................................E2-18
iii
Table of Contents
E2.7.3
E2.8
Compliance with FERC Approved Comprehensive Plans ........................................E2-19
Summary of Consultation on Water Quantity/Quality .....................................................E2-21
E2.8.1
E2.9
Summary of Comments Associated with Agency Requested Study Plans ...............E2-25
Water Quality and Quantity Studies.................................................................................E2-29
E2.9.1
Previous Studies........................................................................................................E2-29
E2.9.2
Relicensing Studies ...................................................................................................E2-29
E2.9.2.1
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Study ................................................E2-29
E2.10
Proposed Studies ..............................................................................................................E2-54
E2.11
Project Effects on Water Quality......................................................................................E2-54
E2.12
Existing Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..........................................E2-55
E2.13
Proposed Water Quality Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures.................E2-55
E2.13.1
Monitoring ...............................................................................................................E2-59
E2.13.2 Spill Containment and Emergency Response Plan ...................................................E2-59
E2.14
E3.0
List of Literature ..............................................................................................................E2-60
REPORT ON FISH, WILDLIFE, AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES..............................E3-1
E3.1
Fishery Resources ..............................................................................................................E3-1
E3.1.1
General Overview of Fishery Resources in the Basin.................................................E3-1
E3.1.2
Description of Current Fishery Resources of the Project and Its Vicinity ..................E3-2
E3.1.3
E3.1.4
E3.1.2.1
Existing Fisheries Upstream of the Project...................................................E3-5
E3.1.2.2
Existing Fisheries in the Project Area Bypass Reach ...................................E3-5
E3.1.2.3
Historical Fisheries within Project Reservoirs............................................E3-11
E3.1.2.4
Existing Fisheries Downstream of the Project ............................................E3-12
E3.1.2.5
Rare Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................................E3-18
Fisheries Management Framework ...........................................................................E3-19
E3.1.3.1
E3.1.3.2
Spotfin Chub Recovery Plan.......................................................................E3-20
E3.1.3.3
Summary of Consultation on Fishery Resources ......................................................E3-24
E3.1.4.1
Summary of Comments Associated with Agency Requested Study ...................
Plans............................................................................................................E3-26
E3.1.5
Fishery Resource Studies ..........................................................................................E3-31
E3.1.5.1
Previous Studies..........................................................................................E3-31
E3.1.5.2
Studies Currently Underway.......................................................................E3-31
E3.1.5.3
Relicensing Studies.....................................................................................E3-31
E3.1.6
Project Effects on Fisheries Resources from Continued Project Operation ..............E3-44
E3.1.7
Existing Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures...................................E3-45
E3.1.8
Proposed Fishery Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ....................E3-45
iv
Table of Contents
E3.1.9
E3.2
List of Literature .......................................................................................................E3-50
Report on Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................E3-51
E3.2.1
General Overview of Macroinvertebrate Resources in the Basin .............................E3-51
E3.2.2
Description of Historic and Current Macroinvertebrate Resources of the Project ............
and Its Vicinity..........................................................................................................E3-52
E3.2.3
E3.2.4
E3.2.2.1
Existing Macroinvertebrate Community Upstream of the Project..............E3-52
E3.2.2.2
Existing Macroinvertebrate Community in the Project Area......................E3-52
E3.2.2.3
Existing Macroinvertebrate Downstream of the Project .............................E3-59
E3.2.2.4
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................E3-59
Existing Macroinvertebrate Resource Management .................................................E3-62
E3.2.3.1
E3.2.3.2
Appalachian Elktoe Recovery Plan.............................................................E3-63
E3.2.3.3
E3.2.3.4
Compliance with FERC Approved Comprehensive Plans..........................E3-64
Summary of Consultation on Macroinvertebrate Resources.....................................E3-66
E3.2.4.1
E3.2.5
E3.2.6
Summary of Comments Associated with Agency Requested Study Plans E3-68
Macroinvertebrate Resource Studies.........................................................................E3-69
E3.2.5.1
E3.2.5.2
E3.2.5.3
E3.2.5.4
Proposed Studies.........................................................................................E3-70
Project Effects on Macroinvertebrates Resources from Continued Project
Operation...................................................................................................................E3-70
E3.2.7
Existing Macroinvertebrate Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ....E3-72
E3.2.8
Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures .................................E3-72
E3.2.9
List of Literature .......................................................................................................E3-76
E3.3
Report on Botanical Resources ........................................................................................E3-78
E3.3.1
Description of Existing Resources ............................................................................E3-78
E3.3.1.1
General Features .........................................................................................E3-78
E3.3.1.1.1 Thorpe Development............................................................................E3-78
E3.3.1.1.2 Tuckasegee Development ....................................................................E3-80
E3.3.1.2
Vegetation Cover Type Mapping................................................................E3-82
E3.3.1.3
Wetlands .....................................................................................................E3-87
E3.3.1.3.1 Thorpe Development............................................................................E3-87
E3.3.1.3.2 Tuckasegee Development ....................................................................E3-88
E3.3.1.4
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................E3-91
E3.3.1.5
Habitats of Special Concern........................................................................E3-91
v
Table of Contents
E3.3.1.6
E3.3.2
E3.3.3
Other Plant Species of Special Interest .......................................................E3-91
Botanical Resource Management Framework ..........................................................E3-91
E3.3.2.1
Federal Management...................................................................................E3-91
E3.3.2.2
State Management.......................................................................................E3-93
E3.3.2.3
Compliance with FERC-Approved Comprehensive Plans .........................E3-93
Consultation on Botanical Resources........................................................................E3-94
E3.3.3.1
Summary of Comments Associated with Agency Requested
Study Plans .................................................................................................E3-96
E3.3.4
Botanical Resource Studies.......................................................................................E3-97
E3.3.4.1
E3.3.4.2
E3.3.4.3
E3.3.4.4
E3.3.5
Project Effects on Botanical Resources from Continued Project Operation .............E3-99
E3.3.6
Existing Botanical resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ....E3-99
E3.3.7
Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ...............................E3-100
E3.3.9
List of Literature .....................................................................................................E3-108
E3.4
Report on Wildlife Resources ........................................................................................E3-110
E3.4.1
Introduction.............................................................................................................E3-110
E3.4.2
Description of Existing Resources ..........................................................................E3-110
E3.4.3
E3.4.4
E3.4.2.1
Priority Habitats........................................................................................E3-110
E3.4.2.2
Big Game ..................................................................................................E3-111
E3.4.2.3
Other Mammals ........................................................................................E3-111
E3.4.2.4
Avian Species ...........................................................................................E3-112
E3.4.2.5
Reptiles and Amphibians ..........................................................................E3-114
E3.4.2.6
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ...............................................E3-115
Wildlife Resource Management Framework ..........................................................E3-117
E3.4.3.1
Federal Management................................................................................E3-117
E3.4.3.2
State Management.....................................................................................E3-119
E3.4.3.3
Tribal Management...................................................................................E3-119
E3.4.3.4
Compliance with FERC-Approved Comprehensive Plans .......................E3-119
Summary of Consultation on Wildlife Resources ...................................................E3-120
E3.4.4.1
Study Plans ...............................................................................................E3-123
E3.4.5
Wildlife Studies.......................................................................................................E3-124
E3.4.5.1
Previous Studies........................................................................................E3-124
E3.4.5.2
Studies Currently Underway....................................................................E3-124
vi
Table of Contents
E4.0
E3.4.5.3
Relicensing Studies...................................................................................E3-124
E3.4.5.4
Proposed Studies.......................................................................................E3-132
E3.4.6
Project Effects on Wildlife Resources from Continued Project Operation .............E3-133
E3.4.7
Existing Wildlife Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures...E3-133
E3.4.8
Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ...............................E3-133
E3.4.9
List of Literature .....................................................................................................E3-143
REPORT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................E4-1
E4.1
General Overview of Historical and Archaeological Resources in the Basin ....................E4-1
E4.1.1
E4.1.2
E4.2
Prehistoric Ethnography..............................................................................................E4-1
E4.1.1.1
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000–8,000 b.c.) ..................................................E4-1
E4.1.1.2
Archaic Period (ca. 8,000–1,000 b.c.)...........................................................E4-2
E4.1.1.3
Woodland Period (ca. 1,000 b.c.–a.d. 1000).................................................E4-2
E4.1.1.4
Mississippian Period (ca. a.d. 1000–1540) ...................................................E4-3
Historic Native American and Euro-American Occupation........................................E4-3
National Register of Historic Places Eligibility .................................................................E4-5
E4.2.1
Archaeological Resources...........................................................................................E4-5
E4.2.2
Historical Resources ...................................................................................................E4-6
E4.3
Cultural Resources Management Framework ....................................................................E4-7
E4.3.1
Federal Management...................................................................................................E4-7
E4.3.2
State Management.......................................................................................................E4-9
E4.3.3
Tribal Management .....................................................................................................E4-9
E4.3.4
Compliance with FERC-Approved Comprehensive Plans..........................................E4-9
E4.4
Summary of Agency Consultation ...................................................................................E4-10
E4.4.1
Section 106 Consultation ..........................................................................................E4-10
E4.4.2
Summary of Comments Associated with Agency Requested Study Plans ...............E4-12
E4.5
Cultural Resource Studies ................................................................................................E4-12
E4.5.1
Previous Cultural Resource Studies ..........................................................................E4-12
E4.5.2
E4.5.3
E4.5.2.1
NRHP Assessment......................................................................................E4-13
E4.5.2.2
Phase I Archeological Survey.....................................................................E4-13
Proposed Studies .......................................................................................................E4-16
E4.6
Project Effects on Cultural Resources from Continued Project Operation.......................E4-16
E4.7
Existing Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures..........................................E4-17
E4.8
Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ........................................E4-17
E4.8
E5.0
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................E5-1
E5.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................E5-1
vii
Table of Contents
E5.1.1
National Forests, Parks and Reservations in the Vicinity of the Project .....................E5-2
E5.1.2
Other Regional Recreation Opportunities .................................................................E5-10
E5.2
Existing Recreational Resources and Facilities within the Project Area..........................E5-11
E5.3
Existing Recreational Use ................................................................................................E5-12
E5.3.1
Recreation Use at Project Area Recreation Sites ......................................................E5-12
E5.3.2
Perceptions of Recreationists ....................................................................................E5-15
E5.3.3
Perceptions of Agencies, Outfitters, and NGOs........................................................E5-19
E5.3.4
Future Use Assessment .............................................................................................E5-20
E5.3.5
Carrying Capacity .....................................................................................................E5-20
E5.4
Existing Resource Management Framework....................................................................E5-22
E5.4.1
E5.4.2
E5.5
State and Federal Agencies .......................................................................................E5-22
E5.4.1.1
Federal Management...................................................................................E5-23
E5.4.1.2
State Management.......................................................................................E5-26
Summary of Consultation Regarding Recreational Resources.........................................E5-30
E5.5.1
Consultation Summary..............................................................................................E5-30
E5.5.1.1
Study Plans .................................................................................................E5-33
E5.6
Recreational Resource Studies .........................................................................................E5-35
E5.6.1
Studies Previously Conducted...................................................................................E5-35
E5.6.2
Studies Currently Underway .....................................................................................E5-35
E5.6.3
E5.6.4
E5.7
Impacts to Recreational Resources from Continued Project Operation ...........................E5-79
E5.8
Existing Recreation Resource Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures.........E5-80
E5.9
Proposed Recreation Resource Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures .......E5-80
E5.10
E6.0
LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................E6-1
E6.1
Regional Land Use .............................................................................................................E6-1
E6.2
Project Area Land Use and Ownership ..............................................................................E6-2
E6.2.1
E6.3
Project Area Land Use ................................................................................................E6-2
Description of Wetlands and Floodplains ..........................................................................E6-3
E6.3.1
Wetlands .....................................................................................................................E6-3
E6.3.2
Floodplains..................................................................................................................E6-3
E6.4
Land Management Framework ..........................................................................................E6-7
E6.4.1
E6.4.2
viii
Table of Contents
E6.4.3
E6.5
Consultation Regarding Land Use ...................................................................................E6-11
E6.5.1
Consultation Summary..............................................................................................E6-11
E6.5.1.1
E6.5.2
Summary of Comments Associated with Agency Requested Study Plans .E6-14
Land Use Studies ......................................................................................................E6-15
E6.5.2.1
E6.5.2.2
E6.5.2.3
E6.5.2.4
E6.6
Project Effects on Land Resources from Continued Project Operation ...........................E6-15
E6.7
Existing Land Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures.................E6-15
E6.8
Proposed Land Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ...............E6-15
E7.0
AESTHETIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................................E7-1
E7.1
Existing Resources .............................................................................................................E7-1
E7.1.1
Regional Landscape Character....................................................................................E7-1
E7.1.2
Project Features and Setting........................................................................................E7-1
E7.1.2.1
Thorpe Development ....................................................................................E7-2
E7.1.2.2
Tuckasegee Development .............................................................................E7-2
E7.1.3
Viewpoints and Viewing Conditions ..........................................................................E7-3
E7.1.4
USFS Viewsheds.........................................................................................................E7-3
E7.2
Existing Resource Management.........................................................................................E7-3
E7.2.1
E7.2.2
Compliance with FERC Approved Comprehensive Plans ..........................................E7-5
E7.3
Consultation Regarding Aesthetic Resources ....................................................................E7-6
E7.3.1
Consultation Summary................................................................................................E7-6
E7.3.2
Summary of Comments Associated with Agency Requested Study Plans .................E7-8
E7.4
Aesthetic Resource Studies ................................................................................................E7-9
E7.4.1
Previous Studies..........................................................................................................E7-9
E7.4.2
Studies Currently Underway .......................................................................................E7-9
E7.4.3
Relicensing Studies .....................................................................................................E7-9
E7.4.4
Proposed Studies .........................................................................................................E7-9
E7.5
Project Effects on Aesthetic Resources from Continued Project Operation.......................E7-9
E7.6
Existing Aesthetic Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ............E7-9
E7.7
Proposed Aesthetic Resource Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures..........E7-10
E7.8
E8.0
REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES .................................................E8-1
E8.1
Description of Geological and Soil Resources ...................................................................E8-1
ix
Table of Contents
E8.1.1
Physiographic Setting..................................................................................................E8-1
E8.1.2
Geologic Setting..........................................................................................................E8-1
E8.1.3
Site Geology................................................................................................................E8-3
E8.1.4
Mineral Resources and Occurrences ...........................................................................E8-4
E8.1.5
Seismicity....................................................................................................................E8-4
E8.1.6
Description of Existing Soil Resources.......................................................................E8-5
E8.1.7
Soil Liquefaction Potential..........................................................................................E8-5
E8.2
Geological and Soil Resources Management Framework..................................................E8-6
E8.2.1
E8.2.2
E8.2.3
Compliance with FERC-Approved Comprehensive Plans..........................................E8-8
E8.3
Summary of Consultation on Geologic/Soil Resources .....................................................E8-9
E8.3.1
E8.4
Geological and Soil Resource Studies................................................................................E8-9
E8.4.1
E8.4.2
E8.4.3
E8.4.4
E8.5
Project Effects on Geological and Soil Resources from Continued Project Operation ....E8-10
E8.6
Existing Geological and Soil Resources Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures ..........................................................................................................................E8-10
E8.6
Proposed Geological and Soil Resources Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures ..........................................................................................................................E8-10
E8.8
E9.0
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................E9-1
E9.1
Current Economics and Demographic Conditions .............................................................E9-1
E9.1.1
Demographics .............................................................................................................E9-1
E9.1.2
Employment ................................................................................................................E9-1
E9.1.3
Income.........................................................................................................................E9-2
E9.2
Consultation Regarding Socioeconomic Resources ...........................................................E9-2
E9.2.1
Consultation Summary................................................................................................E9-2
E9.2.2
E9.3
Socioeconomic Studies ......................................................................................................E9-3
E9.3.1
E9.3.2
E9.3.3
Relicensing Studies .....................................................................................................E9-3
E9.3.4
x
Table of Contents
E9.4
Effects of Continued Project Operation ...........................................................................E9-13
E9.4.1
Population .................................................................................................................E9-13
E9.4.2
Employment ..............................................................................................................E9-13
E9.4.3
Housing .....................................................................................................................E9-13
E9.4.4
Recreation .................................................................................................................E9-13
E9.5
Existing Socioeconomic Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement .........................
Measures ..........................................................................................................................E9-13
E9.6
Proposed Socioeconomic Resource Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement ........................
Measures ..........................................................................................................................E9-13
E9.7
EXHIBIT F: PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SUPPORTING DESIGN REPORT .............................F-1
EXHIBIT G: MAPS ................................................................................................................................. G-1
EXHIBIT H SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION............................................................................. H-1
H1.0
EFFICIENCY AND RELIABILITY ...................................................................................... H-1
H1.1
Applicant’s Efforts and Plans to Increase Generation at the Project................................... H-1
H1.2
Coordination of the Plant Operation with Upstream or Downstream Projects.................... H-1
H1.3
Coordination of the Plant Operation with Applicant’s (or other) Electrical System to
Minimize Cost..................................................................................................................... H-1
H2.0
SHORT AND LONG TERM NEED FOR ELECTRICITY FROM THE PROJECT...... H-2
H2.1
Costs and Availability of Alternate Resources if a License is Not Granted........................ H-2
H2.2
Discussion of Increased Costs to Applicant or Customers if a License is Not Granted ...... H-2
H2.3
Effect of Alternate Sources of Power ................................................................................. H-3
H3.0
ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT NEED, PRICE AND AVAILABILITY OF ............................
ALTERNATE SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY .................................................................... H-3
H3.1
Cost of Power Produced by the Projects ............................................................................. H-3
H3.2
Resources to Meet Applicant’s Capacity and Energy Requirements .................................. H-4
H4.0
POWER CONSUMPTION FOR APPLICANT’S INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS ........... H-6
H5.0
ANALYSIS FOR PROJECTS LOCATED ON TRIBAL RESERVATION....................... H-6
H6.0
IMPACT OF PROJECT ON APPLICANT TRANSMISSION SYSTEM.......................... H-6
H7.0
ANTICIPATED MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT FACILITIES, IMPACT TO
WATERWAYS......................................................................................................................... H-6
H8.0
CONFORMANCE OF THE PROJECT WITH EXISTING PLANS.................................. H-7
H9.0
APPLICANT’S FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES TO MEET LICENSE
OBLIGATIONS...................................................................................................................... H-11
H9.1
Financial Resources........................................................................................................... H-12
H9.2
Personnel Resources.......................................................................................................... H-12
H10.0 APPLICANTS INTENTIONS TO EXPAND PROJECT WITH ADDITIONAL
xi
Table of Contents
LANDS .................................................................................................................................... H-13
H11.0 APPLICANT’S ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM............................................................................................................................. H-13
H12.0 INFORMATION ON INDIAN TRIBES LOCATED WITHIN PROJECT
BOUNDARY........................................................................................................................... H-15
H13.0 APPLICANT’S PLANS FOR SAFETY, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.......... H-15
H13.1
A Description of Existing and Planned Operation of the Project during Flood
Conditions ......................................................................................................................... H-15
H13.2
A Discussion of Any Warning Signs Used to Ensure Downstream Safety....................... H-16
H13.3
A Discussion of Any Proposed Changes to the Operation of the Project or
Downstream Development That Might Affect the Existing Emergency Action Plan (EAP)
On File with the Commission............................................................................................ H-18
H13.4
A Discussion Of Any Existing And Planned Monitoring Devices To Detect
Structural Movement Or Stress, Seepage, Uplift, Equipment Failure, Or Water
Conduit Failure, Including A Description Of The Monitoring Programs Used Or Planned
In Conjunction With The Devices..................................................................................... H-18
H13.5
A Discussion Of The Project’s Employee Safety And Public Safety Record,
Including The Number Of Lost-Time Accidents Involving Employees And The
Record Of Injury Or Death To The Public Within The Project Boundary........................ H-18
H14.0 DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT PROJECT OPERATIONS ............................................ H-18
H15.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS.......................................................... H-18
H16.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOST GENERATION AND FORCED OUTAGES ........................ H-19
H17.0 DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING
LICENSE ................................................................................................................................ H-19
H18.0 DISCUSSION OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY APPLICANT WHICH IMPACT
THE PUBLIC ......................................................................................................................... H-19
H19.0 SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REDUCED EXPENSES IF LICENSE IS
TRANSFERRED .................................................................................................................... H-19
H20.0 STATEMENT OF ANNUAL FEES PAID BY APPLICANT FOR FEDERAL
OR TRIBAL LANDS ............................................................................................................. H-19
xii
List of Tables
Table A1-1.
Description of the various physical features for the Tuckasegee ...........................................
Hydroelectric Project ..................................................................................................... A1-6
Table A1-2.
Description of the various physical features for the Thorpe Hydroelectric Project ....... A1-7
Table C1.1-1.
Chronological History of the Thorpe Development .......................................................C1-1
Table C2.1-1.
Chronological History of the Tuckasegee Development ................................................C2-2
Table E1.1-1.
Jackson County Population Trends 1990-2010 .............................................................. E1-7
Table E2.4-2.
Historical Stream Flow Data (cfs) Associated with the Tuckasegee Development ...............
by Month for the Period 1945 through 2000 for the USGS Gage at Bryson City .................
(03513000) ................................................................................................................... E2-10
Table E2.5-1.
List of Sources to Obtain NPDES Permit Information ................................................. E2-11
Table E2.6-1.
Summary of Water Quality Parameters Collected from the Tuckasegee River- ....................
40.6 miles Downstream of the Tuckasegee Development near Bryson City During the
Period 9/1/94 to 8/31/99 (NCDENR-DWQ 2000)........................................................ E2-12
Table E2.6-1.
(continued) Summary of Water Quality Parameters Collected from the ..............................
Tuckasegee River- 40.6 miles Downstream of the Tuckasegee Development near ..............
Bryson City During the Period 9/1/94 to 8/31/99 (NCDENR-DWQ 2000) ................. E2-13
Table E2.7-1.
Water Quality Management Responsibilities of State and Federal ........................................
Regulatory Agencies..................................................................................................... E2-17
Table E2.9-1.
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Sampling Locations Associated with the ....................
West Fork Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Projects - Period of Deployments, Stream
Classifications, and Available Historical Data ............................................................. E2-31
Table E2.9-2.
Morphometric Characteristics of the West Fork Tuckasegee River Reservoirs ........... E2-34
Table E3.1-1.
Catch per unit effort (number per hour and number per 100 m of stream) for ......................
Locations WF-1 and WF-2, West Fork Tuckasegee River bypass during August and
September 2001 .............................................................................................................. E3-7
Table E3.1-2.
Fish species occurrence by year for the West Fork Tuckasegee River bypass ......................
reaches during 1988, 1997 through 1999, and 2001 .........................................
E3-8
Table E3.1-4.
Fish species historically collected by the NCWRC from Lake Glenville..................... E3-11
Table E3.1-5.
Fish species collected from Lake Glenville in 1998 and 1999 ..................................... E3-11
Table E3.1-6.
Fish species collected during sampling of the Tuckasegee River (T-4 and T-5) and The
West Fork bypass (WF-1 and WF-2)............................................................................ E3-15
Table E3.1-7.
Total number of fish collected at Station T-4 within the Tuckasegee River downstream of
the West Fork Project ................................................................................................... E3-15
Table E3.1-8.
Total number of fish collected at Station T-5 downstream of the Tuckasegee River
downstream of the West Fork Project........................................................................... E3-17
Table E3.1-9.
Summary of wounded darter collections from the Tuckasegee River .......................... E3-18
Table E3.1-10. Aquatic Resource and Water Quality Management Responsibilities of State and ..................
xiii
List of Tables
Federal Regulatory Agencies........................................................................................ E3-19
Table E3.1-11. Shoreline habitat survey results by habitat type for Lake Glenville ............................. E3-36
Table E3.1-12. Elevation (feet) and slope (°) associated with major littoral habitat types found ..................
in Lake Glenville .......................................................................................................... E3-42
Table E3.1-14. Percent reduction of total habitat acreage, by habitat type, associated with each ..................
5-foot incremental decrease in reservoir level on Lake Glenville ................................ E3-44
Table E3.2-1.
Procedure for developing bioclassification (from SOP NCDENR 2001)..................... E3-54
Table E3.2-2.
Qualitative Bioassessment of the West Fork Tuckasegee River downstream of Thorpe
Table E3.2-3.
Aquatic Resource and Water Quality Management Responsibilities of State and ................
Federal Regulatory Agencies........................................................................................ E3-62
Table E3.2-4.
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Information Associated with the West Fork Project ...... E3-71
Table E3.4-1.
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species documented in Jackson County ............. E3-115
Table E5.1-1.
National Forests, Parks, and Reservations Located Within a 50-Mile Radius of the ............
West Fork Project ........................................................................................................... E5-2
Table E5.1-2.
Recreation Facilities within the Nantahala National Forest............................................ E5-8
Table E5.1-3.
Recreation Facilities within the Southern Portion of Pisgah National Forest................. E5-8
Table E5.1-4.
Recreation Facilities within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park ....................... E5-9
Table E5.1-5.
Recreational Facilities within the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians Reservation E5-10
Table E5.2-1.
Public (Non-Commercial) Recreation Sites at the West Fork Project .......................... E5-12
Table E5.3-1.
Estimated Daytime Recreation Days at the West Fork Project..................................... E5-13
Table E5.3-2.
Estimated Nighttime Angler Use at the West Fork Project (Lake Glenville) ............... E5-13
Table E5.3-3.
Average Expenditures of Contact Survey Respondents (Access Site Users) and ..................
Commercial Patrons at the West Fork Project .............................................................. E5-15
Table E5.3-5.
Opinions on Crowding at the West Fork Project .......................................................... E5-18
Table E5.3-6.
Adequacy of Existing Recreation Facilities at the West Fork Project .......................... E5-18
Table E5.3-6.
(continued) Adequacy of Existing Recreation Facilities at the West Fork Project....... E5-19
Table E5.3-7.
Carrying Capacity Estimates for Lake Glenville .......................................................... E5-21
Table E5.3-8.
Recreation Site Carrying Capacity Estimates for Sites on Lake Glenville ................... E5-22
Table E5.6-1.
River sections assessed during the Tuckasegee River Angling Flow Study................. E5-36
Table E5.6-2.
Actual flows assessed during the Tuckasegee River Angling Flow Study ................... E5-40
Table E5.6-3.
River sections assessed during the Tuckasegee River Paddling Flow Study................ E5-47
Table E5.6-4.
Measured Study Flows in the Dillsboro Section........................................................... E5-52
Table E5.6-5.
Participant Information for the Dillsboro Section......................................................... E5-53
Table E5.6-6.
Summary of Participant Preferences for Possible Paddling Experiences ..................... E5-53
Table E5.6-7.
Summary of Participant Ratings for Paddling Characteristics...................................... E5-54
Table E5.6-8.
Summary Rating of Factors that Can Affect Satisfaction with a Whitewater Trip....... E5-55
xiv
List of Tables
Table E5.6-9.
Number of Participants Selecting the Skill Level Needed to Safely Paddle ..........................
each Flow...................................................................................................................... E5-55
Table E5.6-10. Number of Participants Rating the Whitewater Difficulty at the Four Flows................ E5-56
Table E5.6-11. Summary of the Number of Hits, Acceptable Hits, Stops, Drags, and Portages ...................
at the Four Flows .......................................................................................................... E5-56
Table E5.6-12. Summary Ratings for Overall Experience, Flow Preference, and Whether ...........................
Participants Would Paddle Flows Again ...................................................................... E5-57
Table E5.6-13. Mean and Median Flows designated by Participants for Specific Experiences............ E5-59
Table E5.6-14. Comparison to Other Rivers on a Local, Regional, and National Level....................... E5-61
Table E5.6-15. Measured Study Flows in the Whittier Section ............................................................ E5-63
Table E5.6-16. Participant Information for the Whittier Section .......................................................... E5-64
Table E5.6-17. Summary of Participant Preferences for Possible Paddling Experiences ..................... E5-64
Table E5.6-18. Summary of Participant Ratings for Paddling Characteristics...................................... E5-65
Table E5.6-19. Summary Ratings of Factors that Can Affect Satisfaction with a Whitewater Trip ..... E5-66
Table E5.6-20. Number of Participants Selecting the Skill Level Needed to Safely Paddle each ..................
Flow.............................................................................................................................. E5-62
Table E5.6-21. Number of Participants Rating the Whitewater Difficulty at each Flow ...................... E5-62
Table E5.6-22. Summary of the Number of Hits, Acceptable Hits, Stops, Drags, and Portages at ................
each Flow...................................................................................................................... E5-63
Table E5.6-23. Summary Ratings for Overall Experience, Flow Preference, and Whether Participants
Would Paddle Flows Again .......................................................................................... E5-63
Table E5.6-24. Mean and Median Flows designated by Participants for Specific Experiences.......... E5-659
Table E5.6-25. Comparision to other rivers on a Local, Regional, and National Level........................ E5-70
Table E5.6-26. Measured Flows in the West Fork By-Pass Section ..................................................... E5-73
Table E5.6-27. Summary of Participant Ratings1 for Paddling Characteristics.................................... E5-74
Table E5.6-28. Summary Ratings of Factors that Can Affect Satisfaction with a Whitewater Trip ..... E5-74
Table E5.6-29. Number of Participants Selecting the Skill Level Needed to Safely Paddle ..........................
each Flow...................................................................................................................... E5-75
Table E5.6-30. Number of Participants Rating the Whitewater Difficulty at the Two Flows................ E5-75
Table E5.6-31. Summary Ratings for Overall Experience, Flow Preference, and Whether ............................
Participants Would Paddle Flows Again ...................................................................... E5-75
Table E5.6-32. Mean and Median Flows Designated by Participants for Specific Experiences ........... E5-76
Table E5.6-33. Comparison to Other Rivers on a Local, Regional, and National Level....................... E5-76
Table E9.1-1.
Jackson County Population Trends 1990-2010 .............................................................. E9-1
Table E9.3-1.
Data Sources Associated with the Project ...................................................................... E9-9
xv
List of Figures
Figure A1.0-1
Project Location Map ...................................................................................................... A-2
Figure B2.2-1
Annual Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ...........................................................................B-5
Figure B2.2-2
January Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ..........................................................................B-5
Figure B2.2-3
February Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ........................................................................B-6
Figure B2.2-4
March Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ............................................................................B-6
Figure B2.2-5
April Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ..............................................................................B-7
Figure B2.2-6
May Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ...............................................................................B-7
Figure B2.2-7
June Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ...............................................................................B-8
Figure B2.2-8
July Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ................................................................................B-8
Figure B2.2-9
August Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe ...........................................................................B-9
Figure B2.2-10 September Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe .......................................................................B-9
Figure B2.2-11 October Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe .........................................................................B-10
Figure B2.2-12 November Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe .....................................................................B-10
Figure B2.2-13 December Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe......................................................................B-11
Figure B2.2-14 Annual Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee ...................................................................B-12
Figure B2.2-15 January Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee...................................................................B-12
Figure B2.2-16 February Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee.................................................................B-13
Figure B2.2-17 March Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee.....................................................................B-13
Figure B2.2-18 April Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee.......................................................................B-14
Figure B2.2-19 May Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee........................................................................B-14
Figure B2.2-20 June Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee........................................................................B-15
Figure B2.2-21 July Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee ........................................................................B-15
Figure B2.2-22 August Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee ...................................................................B-16
Figure B2.2-23 September Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee ..............................................................B-16
Figure B2.2-24 October Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee ..................................................................B-17
Figure B2.2-25 November Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee ..............................................................B-17
Figure B2.2-26 December Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee...............................................................B-18
Figure B2.2-27 Lake Glenville Reservoir Storage Curve.........................................................................B-19
Figure B2.2-28 Lake Glenville Rule Curve..............................................................................................B-19
Figure B2.2-29 Tuckasegee Rule Curve...................................................................................................B-20
Figure B2.2-30 Tuckasegee Tailwater Rating Curve ...............................................................................B-21
Figure B2.2-31 Thorpe Generator Output versus Net Head .....................................................................B-22
Figure B2.2-32 Tuckasegee Generator Output versus Net Head..............................................................B-22
Figure E1.1-1. Project Location Map ...................................................................................................... E1-2
Figure E2.9-2. 1983 Temperature Isopleths in Lake Glenville ............................................................. E2-39
Figure E2.9-3. August Temperature Profiles in Lake Glenville -.......................................................... E2-40
Figure E2.9-4. 1999 Summer Temperature Profiles in Lake Glenville .........................................................
xvi
List of Figures
1988, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001...................................................................... E2-40
Figure E2.9-5. Regression Analysis of the August Depth of the 12º, 16º, and 20º Isotherms in Lake
.......
Glenville as a Function of the Mean Daily Summer Outflow ...................................... E2-40
Figure E2.9-6. Lake Glenville Storage Curve ..............................................................................
E2-44
Figure E2.9-7. Potential Days of 20ºC (or less) Water Released from Thorpe Hydroelectric ............. E2-44
Station at Various Summer Tributary Inflows
Figure E2.9-8. Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Daily Water Temperatures, Thorpe By-Pass West Fork, Tuckasegee River........................................................................................ E2-45
Figure E2.9-9. Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Daily Water Temperatures, West Fork, .............................
Tuckasegee River RM 1.1, 100 meters downstream of Tuckasegee Powerhouse .......... E2-4
Figure E2.9-9.
Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Daily Water Temperatures, West Fork,
Tuckasegee River RM 1.1, 100 meters downstream of Tuckasegee Powerhouse ........ E2-44
Figure E2.9-10. Comparison of the June 15 minute Water Temperatures, West Fork Tuckasegee ................
River (RM 1.1), Thorpe By-Pass, and Air Temperatures to Tuckasegee Hydro ..................
Generation Flow ........................................................................................................... E2-45
Figure E2.9-11. Comparison of the July 15 minute Water Temperatures, West Fork Tuckasegee .................
River (RM 1.1), Thorpe By-Pass, and Air Temperatures to Tuckasegee Hydro ..................
Generation Flow ........................................................................................................... E2-45
Figure E2.9-12. August Dissolved Oxygen Profiles in Lake Glenville - .........................................................
Figure E2.9-13. 1999 Summer Dissolved Oxygen Profiles in Lake Glenville ...................................... E2-48
Figure E2.9-14 Comparison of the observed 5 minute Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Calculated
...
Oxygen Saturation Concentrations, and Generation Flow, August, 2001, West Fork,
Tuckasegee River (downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro) ............................................... E2-50
Figure E3.1-1. Location of fish sampling stations WF-1 and WF-2....................................................... E3-4
Figure E3.1-2. Location map showing Stations T-4 and T-5 ................................................................ E3-14
Figure E3.1-3. West Fork Project Shoreline Habitat Map (sheet 1 of 3)............................................... E3-39
Figure E3.2-1. Location of Macroinvertebrate sampling locations for the West Fork Project.............. E3-56
Figure E3.3-1. West Fork Development Covertype Map (Sheet 1 of 3) ............................................... E3-84
Figure E3.3-2. Lake Glenville Wetland Locations (sheet 1 of 2) .......................................................... E3-89
Figure E3.3-2. Lake Glenville Wetland Locations (sheet 2 of 2) .......................................................... E3-90
Figure E3.4-1. Location of amphibian sampling locations for the West Fork Project ........................ E3-129
Figure E5.1-1. Regional Recreation Opportunities Map ........................................................................ E5-3
Figure E5.1-1. (continued) Rec figure..................................................................................................... E5-4
xviii
List of Figures
Figure E5.3-1. Estimated Daytime Recreation Use at Lake Glenville by User Group.......................... E5-14
Figure E5.3-2.
Estimated Daytime Recreation Use at Lake Glenville by Season ............................... E5-14
Figure E5.3-3.
Distribution of Estimated Daytime Use of Public Access Site Users at ...............................
Lake Glenville ............................................................................................................. E5-15
Figure E5.3-4.
Estimated Future Daytime Recreation Use at the West Fork Project .......................... E5-20
Figure E5.6-1.
Tuckasegee River Angling Flow Study Location Map................................................ E5-37
Figure E5.6-2.
Tuckasegee River Paddling Flow Study Location Map............................................... E5-48
Figure E5.6-3
Tuckasegee River Recreational Flow Study Dillsboro Section - Overall .............................
Evaluation of Flows..................................................................................................... E5-55
Figure E5.6-4
Tuckasegee River Recreational Flow study - Dillsboro Section - Flow Level .....................
Choices for Four Different Trip Experiences .............................................................. E5-57
Figure E5.6.5.
Tuckasegee River Recreational Flow Study - Whittier Section - Overall ............................
Evluation of Flows....................................................................................................... E5-63
Figure E5.6.6.
Tuckasegee River Reacreationl Flow Study - Whittier Section - Flow Level ......................
Choices for Three Different Trip Experiences............................................................. E5-64
Figure E.6.3-1. Floodplain Map of West Fork Project (sheet 1 of 3) ...................................................... E6-4
Figure E.6.3-2. Floodplain Map of West fork Project (sheet 2 of 3). ...................................................... E6-5
Figure E.6.3-3. Floodplain Map of West Fork Project (sheet 3 of 3). ..................................................... E6-6
xviii
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Draft FERC License Application
TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
A
APE
A
Area of Potential Effect as pertaining to
Ampere
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act
AA
Federal Antiquities Act
Apr
April
ACHP
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
AR
American Rivers
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act
Aug
August
ac-ft
acre-foot, the amount of water needed to
Automatic/semi-automatic/manual
cover one acre to a depth of one foot
powerhouses
An automatic powerhouse can be started,
stopped, and have its load and voltage
Afterbay
A
reservoir
immediately
changed from a remote or master station,
powerhouse,
via supervisory control. A semi-automatic
sometimes used to re-regulate flows to the
powerhouse with SCADA may allow a
river or stream
remote station to change load and/or
downstream
located
from
a
voltage,
and
may
allow
a
remote
AGC
shutdown, but must be started manually.
Automatic Generation Control, the ability
A semi-automatic powerhouse without
to control the megawatt output of a given
SCADA will send alarms to a remote or
powerhouse from a remote site.
master station.
A manual powerhouse
must have all its functions performed at
the powerhouse
a
Duke Power
West Fork Project
AW
cf
American Whitewater
cubic foot
B
cfs
Before Christ
Conduit
cubic feet per second
BC
A pipe, flume or canal used for diverting
BI
or moving water from one point to
Biotic Index
another, usually used when there is no
existing streambed or waterway
Black Start Capability
The ability of a unit to start up without the
CWA
use
Federal Clean Water Act
of
an
external
transmission
or
distribution voltage power source
D
BMP
Best Management Practice
D
Day
BOD
Biological oxygen demand
DBH
Diameter at Breast Height
C
DEA
Draft environmental assessment
C
Celsius
Dec
December
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
b
Duke Power
West Fork Project
DEIR
EPT
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera
Distribution System
The substations, transformers and lines
ESA
that convey electricity from high-power
Endangered Species Act
transmission lines to the consumer
etc.
DO
et cetera
Dissolved oxygen
Eutrophication
Duke
In waterbodies such as lakes it is a
Duke Power, A Division of Duke Energy
condition of being nutrient rich.
Corporation, Nantahala Area
F
E
˚F
EA
Degrees Fahrenheit
Environmental Assessment
FAC
EAP
Federal Advisory Committee
Emergency Action Plan
FACA
EIR
Federal Advisory Committee Act
Environmental Impact Report
FE
EIS
A
Environmental Impact Statement
species
or
subspecies
listed
as
endangered under the Federal Endangered
Species Act
c
Duke Power
West Fork Project
FEMA
Forebay
Federal Emergency Management Agency
A
reservoir
upstream
from
the
powerhouse, from which water is drawn
FEPD
into a tunnel or penstock for delivery to
A federally-listed endangered species
the powerhouse
currently proposed for delisting under the
ESA
FPA
Federal Power Act
FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Francis Turbine
A radial-inflow reaction turbine, where
FERC Project Boundary
flow through the runner is radial to the
The area surrounding Project facilities and
turbine shaft
features as delineated in Exhibit G or K
and described in the FERC license.
FSC
Special
Concern
Species,
an
Flashboards
administrative designation by USFWS
Removable boards installed in reservoir
(former category 2 species)
spillways to increase storage capacity
FSCD
FLPMA
First Stage Consultation Document, also
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
known as Initial Consultation Document
or ICD
Flume
A lined structure, commonly made of
FSS
wood,
A species or subspecies designated as
metal
or
concrete,
used
for
conveyance of water, usually where no
“sensitive” by the USFS
streambed exists or the topography is not
suitable for a canal or tunnel
d
Duke Power
West Fork Project
gpm
FT
A
species
or
subspecies
listed
Gallons per minute
as
threatened under the Federal Endangered
Species Act
Generator
A machine powered by a turbine that
produces electric current
Ft
Foot
GPS
Global Positioning System
FTPD
A federally listed, threatened species
currently proposed for delisting under the
GWh
ESA
Gigawatt hour (equals one million kilowatt
hours)
Full Pond Elevation
The elevation, expressed in feet above
H
Mean Sea Level, of the spillway crest or
top of the flood control gates, whichever is
HABTAT
higher.
IFIM simulation mode
FWCA
Head
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Hydraulic head is the vertical distance
between the water surface elevation of a
reservoir and the water surface elevation at
G
the tailrace.
g
gram
Hp
Horsepower
GIS
Geographic Information System
hr
Hour
e
Duke Power
West Fork Project
HSI
kg
Habitat Suitability Indices
kilograms: 1,000 grams
Hydrograph
kg/day
Characteristics of flow volume, velocity,
kilograms per day
and other hydrologic characteristics of a
stream over a period of time, or a graph
kg/ha
showing these characteristics.
kilograms per hectare
Hz
kg/yr.
Hertz cycles per second
kilograms per year
I
kV
kilovolts: 1,000 volts
ICD
Initial Consultation Document, see FSCD
kVA
kilovolt amperes
IFIM
USFWS
Instream
Flow
Incremental
kW
Methodology
kilowatts: 1,000 watts
in
kWh
inch
kilowatt-hour: 1,000 watt hours
J
K
L
l
liter
k
kilometer: 1,000 meters
f
Duke Power
West Fork Project
min
M
minute
MA
Millions of years ago
mills/kWh
cents per kilowatt hour
MADF
Minimum average daily flow
MIR
Minimal implementation requirement, a
USFS system
m
meter
MIS
USFS Management Indicator Species
µ
micro
mm
Millimeters
mgC/m2
milligrams of carbon per square meter
MMI
Modified Mercalli Intensity
µg/l
Micrograms per liter
Must-Run
µmho/cm
Energy or ancillary services necessary to
Micromohos per centimeter, a
maintain system reliability
measurement of conductivity
mVA
megavolt-ampere
mg/l
Milligrams per liter
MW
Megawatt
mi.
Mile
g
Duke Power
West Fork Project
MWh
NGOS
megawatt-hours
Non-Governmental Organizations
N
NHI
Natural Heritage Institute
NCDWQ
NC Division of Water Quality
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NCDWR
NC Division of Water Resources
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NCDSWC
NC
Division
of
Soil
and
Water
NOI
Conservation
Notice of Intent
NCEMC
NPDES
NC Environmental Management
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System
NCWF
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
NPL
Nantahala Power & Light
NCWRC
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
NRHP
Commission
National Register of Historic Places
ND
NTU
no data available
Nephelometric turbidity unit
NEPA
NWI
National Environmental Policy Act
National Wetlands Inventory
h
Duke Power
West Fork Project
NWS
PH
National Weather Service
Powerhouse
O
PLC
P
PM&E
Operation of generating facilities to meet
PMF
maximum
Probable maximum flood
Programmable Project Controller
Protective Mitigation and Enhancement
Peaking
instantaneous
electrical
demands
Project
Penstock
Term describing the pertinent Duke
An inclined pressurized pipe through
Power–Nantahala
which water flows from a forebay or
and associated project boundaries
hydroelectric
facility
tunnel to the powerhouse turbine
Project Area
Area within the FERC Project Boundary
PETS
Protected,
Endangered,
Threatened,
Species
Protection
All of the relays and other equipment
pf
which are used to open the necessary
power factor, the ratio of actual power to
circuit breakers to separate pieces of
apparent power.
equipment from each other when trouble
Power factor is the
cosine of the phase angle difference
develops
between the current and voltage of a given
phase. Unity power factor exists when the
Protective Relay
voltage and current are in phase
A device whose function is to detect
defective lines or apparatus, or other
i
Duke Power
West Fork Project
power system conditions of an abnormal
Riparian
or dangerous nature, and to initiate
Relating to the bank of a natural course of
appropriate control circuit action
water
PURPA
RMS
Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act
River management system
Q
RM
River mile as measured along the river
course
QF
A qualifying facility, a co-generator or
small power producer that sells its excess
rpm
power to a public utility
revolutions per minute
R
RTE
Ramping
used in this document as a catch- all term
The act of increasing or decreasing stream
for
flows from a powerhouse, dam or division
species, regional sensitive species, Forest
structure
Service concern species, and species of
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered. RTE is
proposed/
concern
threatened/
regardless
of
endangered
the
specific
Relicensing
administrative listings used by the US
The process of acquiring a new or
Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife
subsequent license for a project that has an
Service, and NC Natural Heritage.
existing license from FERC
RTU
Reservoir Useable Capacity
Remote terminal unit. A remotely located
A volume measurement of the amount of
piece of equipment used for collecting
water that can be stored for generation,
data and/or for operating equipment via
down to a minimum level
SCADA
j
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Run-of-the-River
Spillway
A hydro project that uses the flow of a
A passage for releasing surplus water from
stream with little or no reservoir capacity
a reservoir
for storing water
sq. ft
square foot
S
SCADA
sq. mi.
Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition
square mile
system
Station Use
SCDHEC
Energy used to operate the generating
South Carolina Department of Health and
facility’s auxiliary equipment
Environmental Control
Study Area
SCDNR
The geographic area covered by a specific
South Carolina Department of Natural
study
Resources
T
Sluice
An artificial channel for conducting water,
Tailrace
with a valve or floodgate to regulate the
Channel
flow
through
which
water
is
discharged from the powerhouse turbines
SOP
Three-winding Transformer
Standard Operation Procedures
A transformer with a primary, secondary
and tertiary winding which may be used to
SPCC
Spill
connect generation with two different
Prevention
and
&
Control
voltage transmission circuits, or with both
Countermeasures
k
Duke Power
West Fork Project
distribution and transmission circuits,
USBIA
without the use of additional transformers
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs
TLT
Technical Leadership Team
USBLM
Land Management
Trash Rack
A mechanism, found on a dam or intake
structure, which clears the water of debris
USBR
before the water passes through the
structure
Reclamation
TSS
USC
Total suspended solids
United States Code
Turbine
USCOE
A machine that converts the energy of a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
stream of water into the mechanical
energy of rotation. This energy is then
USDA
used to turn an electrical generator or other
U.S. Department of Agriculture
device. Also called a “water wheel”
USDI
U.S. Department of Interior
TVA
Tennessee Valley Authority
USEPA
U
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
US
USFS
United States
U.S. Department of Agriculture
l
Duke Power
West Fork Project
USFWS
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
X
Wildlife Services
USGS
Y
U.S. Geologic Survey
USNPS
Z
U.S. Department of Interior, U.S National
Park Service
V
V
volts
W
W
Watts
WPCOG
Western
Piedmont
Council
of
Governments
WSEL
Water surface elevation
WUA
Weighted Usable Area
m
West Fork
INITIAL STATEMENT
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Application For License For Major Project - Existing Dam (18 C.F.R. Subpart F)
(1)
Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy Corporation, Nantahala Area, applies to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission for a new license for the West Fork Project No. 2686, as
described hereinafter.
(2)
The location of the Project is:
State or Territory:
Counties:
Township or nearby town:
Stream or other body of water:
(3)(i)
North Carolina
Jackson
Cashiers, North Carolina
West Fork of the Tuckasegee River
The exact name and telephone number of the applicant, are:
Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy Corporation, Nantahala Area
301 NP&L Loop Road
Franklin, NC 28734
Tel: (828) 369-4500
(3)(ii) The exact name, address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act as agent for the
applicant in this application, are:
Jeffrey G. Lineberger, P.E.
Manager, Hydro Licensing
Duke Power
526 South Church St.
PO Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
Tel: (704) 382-5942
jglinebe@duke-energy.com
John A. Whittaker, IV
Winston & Strawn
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 371-5766
Fax: (202) 371-5950
jwhittak@winston.com
John C. Wishon
Nantahala Area Relicensing Project Manager
Duke Power
301 NP&L Loop
Franklin, NC 28734
Tel: (828) 369-4604
Fax: (828) 321-3535
jcwishon@duke-energy.com
(4)
The applicant is a domestic corporation and is not claiming preference under section 7(a) of the
Federal Power Act. See 16 U.S.C. § 796.
(5)(i)
The statutory or regulatory requirements of the state(s) in which the Project would be located that
affect the Project as proposed with respect to bed and banks and the appropriation, diversion, and
use of water for power purposes, and with respect to the right to engage in the business of
developing, transmitting, and distributing power and in any other business necessary to
accomplish the purposes of the license under the Federal Power Act, are:
(a)
North Carolina law gives a riparian owner the right to make reasonable use of water in a
stream as it passes through its land. In Dunlap v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 212 N.C.
814, 195 S.E. 43 (1938), the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that reasonable use
includes the right to erect and maintain dams for power purposes. Applicant has fee title,
flooding rights and/or easements to and over all lands within the Project boundary and
thus has the right to operate and maintain Project facilities.
(b)
In order for the Commission to issue a subsequent license for the Project, the State of
North Carolina must issue a water quality certification for the Project pursuant to §
401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1), or waive compliance
therewith.
(c)
Applicant is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
North Carolina and is duly authorized by its Articles of Incorporation to engage in the
business of generating, transmitting, and distributing power to the public.
(5)(ii) The steps which the applicant has taken or plans to take to comply with each of the laws cited
above, are:
Applicant has fully complied with all applicable requirements of the laws of the State of North
Carolina except for obtaining § 401(a)(1) CWA water quality certification; applicant is applying
to the State of North Carolina for such certification.
(6)
The Applicant owns all existing Project facilities.
2
VERIFICATION
This application is executed in the
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ____________________
By:
Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy Corporation, Nantahala Area
301 NP&L Loop Road
Franklin, NC 28734
________________, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the contents of this
application are true to the best of his knowledge or belief. The undersigned applicant has signed this
application this __ day of _______, _____.
Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy
Corporation, Nantahala Area
By: ____________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me,
a Notary Public, of the State of
North Carolina,
this __, day of ________, ____.
_______________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: __________________
3
Duke Power
West Fork Project
EXHIBIT A: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A1.0
PROJECT LOCATION
The West Fork Project (FERC # 2686) is located on the west fork of the Tuckasegee River in
Jackson County, North Carolina (see Exhibit G and Figure A1.0-1). The West Fork Project
consists of two developments: Thorpe and Tuckasegee.
A2.0
A2.1
PROJECT HISTORY
Tuckasegee
Construction of the Tuckasegee Development began in April 1949 and the first electricity was
generated from the facility in May 1950. Initially operated by the Aluminum Company of
America (Alcoa) and its subsidiary, Nantahala Power & Light (NP&L), all assets of NP&L were
purchased by Duke Power in November 1988.
A2.2
Thorpe
Construction of the Thorpe Development began in September 1940 and the first electricity was
generated from the facility in October 1941. Initially operated by the Aluminum Company of
America (Alcoa) and its subsidiary, Nantahala Power & Light (NP&L), all assets of NP&L were
purchased by Duke Power in November 1988.
A3.0
EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES
Each development consists of a reservoir, dam, intake, water conveyance and a concrete
powerhouse containing a single generating unit.
A3.1
Dams and Spillways
A3.1.1
Tuckasegee Dam and Spillway
The Tuckasegee Dam (also referred to herein as the project Dam) is a concrete arch structure 254
feet in length with a maximum height of 61 feet. It is located on the west fork of the Tuckasegee
at River Mile 3.1, immediately downstream of the Thorpe Powerhouse.
Twenty-four steel
flashboards and one trashgate, all three feet in height, are located along the crest of the dam. One
flashboard is manually operated while the remainder are breaking-link type. The trashgate is 7.54
feet wide; the manual flashboard is 18.28 feet wide and remaining flashboards are 9.03 feet wide.
The total spillway length is 233.5 feet.
A-1
CARROLL CO.
VIRGINIA
TENNESSEE
PATRICK CO.
GRAYSON CO.
ASHE CO.
DAN
SURRY CO.
WILKES CO.
WATAUGA CO.
KIN
YAD
RIVE
R
FORSYTH CO.
A
AT
TO
OG
TY
UNION CO.
R
EN
RIV
ER
OR
CH
EE
ED
RIV
RIVER
ER
FAIRFIELD CO.
GEORGIA
RABUN CO.
R
NORTH CAROLINA
SO
GE UT
OR H C
GI A R
A
OL
IN
LEGEND
A
CEDAR CLIFF
BEAR CREEK
TUCKASEGEE
MACON CO.
RIV
ER
RIVE
CLAY CO.
CO
NG
AR
EE
WATEREE
NANTAHALA
LAKE
LEXINGTON CO.
EDGEFIELD CO.
STROM THURMOND
LAKE
JACKSON CO.
- HYDRO PLANTS
- NANTAHALA SERVICE AREA
THORPE
FRANKLIN
MISSION
ER
RICHLAND CO.
LAKE MURRAY
CO.
SYLVA
FRANKLIN
RIV
BUZZARD'S
ROOST
SALUDA CO.
DILLSBORO
WHITE OAK
KERSHAW CO.
WATEREE
LAKE
N
SO OR
U TH
TH C
C AR
A O
R L
O IN
LI A
N
A
GREENWOOD CO.
LINCOLN
LAKE
EMORY
CEDAR CREEK
Y
NANTAHALA
ROCKY CREEK
ROCKY CREEK LAKE
WATEREE
ELBERT CO.
QUEENS CREEK
DEARBORN
NEWBERRY CO.
McCORMICK
CO.
GRAHAM CO.
CHESTERFIELD CO.
FISHING CREEK
GREAT FALLS LAKE
ABBEVILLE CO.
CHEROKEE
ROBBINSVILLE
FISHING
CREEK
LAKE
GREAT FALLS
DEE
RE
R.B.
RUSSELL
LAKE
LAKE
SANTEELAH
LANCASTER CO.
CHESTER CO.
RIVER
ER
LAURENS CO.
LAKE
GREENWOOD
HART CO.
BRYSON
GE
RIV
HARTWELL
RESERVOIR
SWAIN CO.
RICHMOND CO.
ANSON CO.
E
PE
GREENVILLE
CO.
ANDERSON CO.
STEPHENS
CO.
ER
KEOWEE
RIVER
MOORE CO.
R
RIVE
UNION CO.
YORK CO.
BROAD
O
DA
LO
WYLIE
99 ISLANDS
R
STANLY CO.
SPARTANBURG CO.
SALU
GA
CO.
MONTGOMERY
CO.
LAKE
TILLERY
RIV
RIVE
LAKE
KEOWEE
TU
RIV
ER
LAKE
WYLIE
GASTON SHOALS
99 ISLANDS
RESERVOIR
T
LE
CO
PA
JOCASSEE
OCONEE CO.
HABERSHAM
CO.
ROCKY
MECKLENBURG
LEE CO.
BADIN
LAKE
CABARRUS CO.
MTN. ISLAND
LAKE
MTN. ISLAND
RIVER
CHEROKEE
CO.
PICKENS CO.
ER
RIV
COWANS
FORD
GASTON
CO.
ROCKY
FRANKLIN
CO.
FONTANA
LAKE
BR
OA
D
S. PACOLET
RESERVOIR
LAKE
JOCASSEE
BAD CREEK
RABUN CO.
WAKE CO.
FEAR
POLK CO.
LAKE SUMMIT
CLEVELAND
CO.
TRANSYLVANIA CO.
LAKE
TOXAWAY
HIGHLANDS
PE
CA
RUTHERFORD CO.
LAKE
ADGER
TUXEDO
TENNESSEE CREEK
LAKE
GLENVILLE
ROWAN CO.
LAKE LURE
HENDERSON CO.
CEDAR CLIFF
BEAR CREEK
FRANKLIN THORPE
FRANKLIN
MACON CO.
CHATHAM CO.
RANDOLPH CO.
LINCOLN CO.
FORK
WHITE OAK
NANTAHALA
LAKE
CLAY CO.
DEEP
HIGH ROCK
LAKE
CATAWBA CO.
R
SYLVIA
DURHAM
CO.
VE
DILLSBORO
TUCKASEGEE
LAKE
EMORY
ORANGE CO.
DAVIDSON
CO.
FO
RK
BRIDGEWATER
LAKE NORMAN
JACKSON CO.
QUEENS CREEK
DAVIE CO.
LOOKOUT
McDOWELL CO.
VANCE
CO.
IDOLS
RESERVOIR
UT
H
LOOKOUT SHOALS
LAKE
LAKE
HICKORY
RHODHISS
LAKE
JAMES
ALAMANCE
CO.
GUILFORD CO.
RI
NANTAHALA
MISSION
MURPHY
LAKE
RHODHISS
LAKE TAHOMA
BUNCOMBE CO.
SO
OXFORD
BURKE CO.
D
CHEROKEE
ROBBINSVILLE
R
NO
BRYSON
LAKE
SANTEELAH
CHEROKEE CO.
OA
IREDELL CO.
HAYWOOD CO.
FONTANA
LAKE
GRAHAM CO.
BR
RIVER
EE
SS
E
NN NA
TE
LI
RO
A
C
TH
SWAIN CO.
MADISON CO.
H
UT
SO
NORTH
E A
SE LIN
ES RO
NN A
TE TH C
R
NO
ALEXANDER
CO.
CALDWELL CO.
YANCEY CO.
GRANVILLE
CO.
PERSON CO.
BELEWS
LAKE
RIVER
YADKIN CO.
FR
EN
CH
CASWELL
CO.
ROCKINGHAM CO.
STOKES CO.
HALIFAX CO.
VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA
W. KERR SCOTT
RESERVOIR
AVERY CO.
MITCHELL
CO.
PITTSYLVANIA CO.
HENRY CO.
ALLEGHANY
CO.
LAKE
GLENVILLE
- RIVERS
TENNESSEE CREEK
HIGHLANDS
DUKE POWER, A DIVISION OF
DUKE ENERGY CORP., NANTAHALA AREA
SYSTEM MAP
Figure A1.0-1
5
0
5
10
15
20
SCALE - MILES
25
30
35
40
45
Duke Power
West Fork Project
A3.1.2
Thorpe Dam and Spillway
The Thorpe Dam (also referred to herein as the project Dam) is a rockfill dam with a sloping
earth core 900 feet in length with a maximum height of 150 feet. It is located at River Mile 9.7
on the west fork of the Tuckasegee River. An earth and rockfill saddle dam, 410 feet in length
with a maximum height of 122 feet is located approximately 500 feet from the main dam left
abutment. The spillway for Thorpe is located at the right abutment and consists of two radial
Tainter gates and six erodible fuse plug sections. The float controlled radial gates are 25 feet
wide and 12 feet high. Concrete walls separate the six fuse plugs. Two fuse plugs each are at
elevations 3,493.8 feet, 3494.8 feet and 3495.8 feet. The total length of the six fuse plugs is
approximately 224 feet. Four of the six fuse plugs were re-built in 2003 as part of a new state
highway bridge structure being constructed across the spillway.
A3.2
Reservoirs
A3.2.1
Tuckasegee Reservoir
The reservoir, referred to herein as the Project reservoir, has a surface area of 7.9 acres at
maximum normal pool Elevation 22778.75 feet.
The reservoir useful storage at maximum
normal pool is 35 acre-feet. The drainage area of Tuckasegee Reservoir is 54.7 square miles and
the average annual flow is approximately 158 cfs.
The intake to the water conduit leading to the powerhouse is located at the left side of the dam.
Steel trash racks protect the intake and a Tainter gate allows water to be shut off. The intake
directs water to the water conveyance system consisting of 3,246 feet of pressure tunnel, the
majority of which is unlined. Lined sections are 9 feet in diameter. The tunnel leads to the surge
tank that is 15 feet in diameter. A steel penstock, 198 feet long leads from the surge tank to the
turbine scroll case.
A3.2.2
Lake Glenville
The reservoir, referred to herein as the Lake Glenville, has a surface area of 1,462 acres at
maximum normal pool Elevation 3491.8 feet. The reservoir volume at maximum normal pool is
72,000 acre-feet. The drainage area of Lake Glenville is 36.7 square miles and the average
annual flow is approximately 115 cfs.
The intake to the water conduit leading to the powerhouse is located in the right abutment. Two
motor operated sluice gates provide a means of closure at the intake that is protected by steel
trashracks. The intake directs water to the water conveyance system consisting of three sections
A-3
Duke Power
West Fork Project
of tunnel, two sections of steel pipe and a steel penstock section. The tunnel varies in size from
12 feet by 12 feet unlined to 7 feet in diameter steel lined. Penstock diameter varies form 8 feet
to 6 feet and terminates at the two nozzles directing water to the turbine. The total length of the
water conveyance is 16,287 feet.
A bypass tunnel, 9 feet in diameter is located in the right abutment of the main dam and was used
as a diversion during construction. Two motor operated sluice gates control flow at the diversion
that is not utilized as part of normal operations.
A3.3
Powerhouse, Generator and Turbine Data
A3.3.1
Tuckasegee Powerhouse, Generator and Turbine Data
Tuckasegee powerhouse is constructed of reinforced concrete founded on rock with a steel frame
roof system. The principal dimensions of the structure are 32 feet long by 26.5 feet wide. The
powerhouse contains one generating unit on a vertical shaft. The generating unit consists of an S.
Morgan Smith Francis-type turbine producing 3,915 H.P. at best efficiency gate position under
118 feet design head and 360 revolutions per minute connected to a Electric Machinery
Manufacturing Company generator rated 3,333 kVA at 0.90 power factor, 6,600 volts, 3 phase,
60 cycle. The current turbine runner was installed as part of original construction in 1950.
A3.3.2
Thorpe Powerhouse, Generator and Turbine Data
Thorpe powerhouse is constructed of reinforced concrete founded on rock with a brick
superstructure and steel truss roof system. The principal dimensions of the structure are 102 feet
long by 50 feet wide by 84 feet high. The powerhouse contains one generating unit on a
horizontal shaft. The generating unit consists of an Allis-Chalmers Horizontal Impulse-type
turbine producing 30,000 H.P. at best efficiency gate position under 1,150 feet design head and
257 revolutions per minute connected to an Allis-Chalmers generator rated 27,000 kVA at 0.80
power factor, 6,600 volts, 3 phase, 60 cycle. The current turbine runner was installed as part of
original construction in 1941.
A3.4
Transformers
The Tuckasegee Development does not have a step-up transformer and power is transmitted at
generator voltage to the Thorpe switchyard.
The Thorpe Development has four single-phase step-up transformers; three in service and one
spare rated 6.6 kV primary / 161.25 kV secondary.
A-4
Duke Power
A4.0
West Fork Project
TRANSMISSION LINES AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
The power from the West Fork Projects is connected to the applicant’s transmission system at the
Thorpe substation. No primary transmission lines are included as part of the project.
A5.0
FEDERAL LANDS
There are no federal lands enclosed within the project boundaries of the East Fork Project.
A-5
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table A1-1: Description of the various physical features for the Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Project
Location:
River
County
State
Tuckasegee (West Fork)
Jackson
North Carolina
Date of Completion:
Dam
Powerhouse
1950
1950
Reservoir:
Drainage Area
Full Pond Elevation
Useful Storage
Average Annual Inflow
Surface Area at Full Pond Elevation
54.7 square miles
2278.75 feet
35 acre-feet
158 cfs
7.9 acres
Dams:
Main
Type
Total Length
Height
Concrete Arch
254 feet
61 feet
Powerhouse:
Structure
Installed Capacity at 0.90 p.f.
Average Annual Generation
Turbine
Number
Design Head
Rating
Reinforced concrete building
3,000 kW
10,669,000 kWh
1
118 feet
3,915 hp
A-6
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table A1-2: Description of the various physical features for the Thorpe Hydroelectric Project
Location:
River
County
State
Tuckasegee (West Fork)
Jackson
North Carolina
Date of Completion:
Dam
Powerhouse
1941
1941
Reservoir (Total):
Drainage Area
Full Pond Elevation
Useful Storage
Average Annual Inflow
Surface Area at Full Pond Elevation
36.7 square miles
3,491.8 feet
67,100 acre-feet
115 cfs
1,462 acres
Dams:
Main Dam
Type
Total Length
Height
Earth and Rock fill
900 feet
150 feet
Saddle Dam
Type
Total Length
Height
Earth and Rock fill
410 feet
122 feet
Powerhouse:
Structure
Installed Capacity at 0.80 p.f.
Average Annual Generation
Turbine
Number
Design Head
Rating
Reinforced concrete building
21,600 kW
84,805,000 kWh
1
1,150 feet
30,000 hp
A-7
Duke Power
West Fork Project
EXHIBIT B: PROJECT OPERATION & RESOURCE UTILIZATION
B1.0
B1.1
PROJECT OPERATION
Overview
The West Fork Hydroelectric Project is located on the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River and its
tributaries in Jackson County, North Carolina. The project includes two developments: Thorpe
and Tuckasegee.
B1.1.1
Thorpe Development
The Thorpe Development, originally named Glenville, consists of a reservoir (Lake Glenville),
earth and rock fill dam, tunnel, penstock, and powerhouse with a single generating unit. The
reservoir encompasses an area of 1,462 acres and is utilized for production of hydroelectric
power, recreational fishing, swimming, and boating. The watershed covers approximately 36.7
square miles.
The plant has been in commercial operation since 1941. Power is generated by a horizontal
impulse turbine rated at 30,000 HP at a design head of 1,150 ft. The generator is rated at 21,600
KW. The plant is staffed Monday through Thursday during the day shift and is unattended during
other hours. The plant is remotely monitored and automatically controlled at the Nantahala
Operations center in Franklin, North Carolina.
B1.1.2
Tuckasegee Development
The Tuckasegee Development consists of a reservoir, concrete arch dam, tunnel, steel penstock
and powerhouse with a single generating unit. The Tuckasegee Dam impounds a small (7.9
acres) reservoir, utilized for production of hydroelectric power and recreational fishing. The
watershed covers approximately 54.7 square miles.
The plant has been in commercial operation since 1950. Power is generated by a vertical Francis
type turbine rated at 3,915 HP at a head of 118 feet. The Generator is rated at 3,000 KW. The
project is unattended during normal operating conditions, with remote monitoring and automatic
control at the Nantahala Operations center in Franklin, North Carolina. Operating personnel from
the Nantahala or Thorpe plants normally check the Tuckasegee Development on a weekly basis.
B-1
Duke Power
B1.2
West Fork Project
Annual Plant Factor
The annual plant factor (APF) is calculated based on the following formula:
APF =
Average Annual Energy Production
× 100
Rated Capacity × 8760
For the two developments in the West Fork Project, the estimated annual plant factors are:
B1.3
Development
Generation Period
APF
Thorpe
1946-2002
44.8%
Tuckasegee
1951-2002
40.6%
Operation During Adverse, Mean, and High Water Years
Due to the small storage capacity of the Tuckasegee reservoir, Lake Glenville is the storage
reservoir for both developments.
The Tuckasegee plant operates (except for maintenance
outages) whenever the Thorpe unit is operating or if there is a discharge from the Thorpe
spillway. Both of the plants are operated in accordance with seasonal water availability and rule
curve guides, which are based on long-term historical records. Operating ranges are modified to
accommodate actual seasonal conditions such as drought or high inflow. These deviations are
based on information obtained from national meteorological sources and local rainfall and
reservoir elevation gages. Day to day operations are based on estimated inflows, current rule
curve, local recreational needs, and system load and voltage support needs.
Both of the
generating stations are operated as peaking units under normal flow and water conditions. If
peaking does not maintain the reservoir elevation within the normal operating range, the plants
are operated for an additional time period at a reduced load to lower the reservoir elevation.
During periods of high inflow and high reservoir elevation, the plants are operated at maximum
load, 24 hours a day to prevent spilling.
In general, during periods of normal inflow, the plants will generate a prescribed number of hours
per day to support electric customer needs and the downstream flow needs in the main stem of the
Tuckasegee River, typically during different periods each day. In addition, minimum flows are
provided from the Tuckasegee Dam and Tainter gate releases from Lake Glenville are scheduled
to enhance downstream recreational activities and to maintain lake levels above certain prescribed
minimum levels. During adverse water conditions and low inflow periods, generation is reduced
on a weekly basis, along with corresponding weekly reductions in bypass flows, Tainter gate
releases for recreation, and minimum reservoir levels in accordance with a Low Inflow Protocol
(LIP) agreement. The incremental reduction of all water demands on the system will continue
B-2
Duke Power
West Fork Project
until inflows are restored to a point where the reservoir returns to its normal operating range. Sitespecific operations follow.
B1.3.1
Thorpe Development
The reservoir is maintained at a constant elevation of 3,489.75 ft. (USGS) from June 1 to October
31. During the months of November, December, and January, the reservoir is drawn down to
elevation 3,477.75 ft. (USGS). During February, the reservoir is refilled. On a daily basis, the
reservoir is maintained with a normal operating range as shown in Fig B2.2-28. Full reservoir
elevation is elevation 3491.75 ft. (USGS)>
B1.3.2
The Tuckasegee Development is operated according to seasonal water availability while
maintaining a relatively constant water elevation of 2,276.5 ft. (USGS) annually. Full reservoir
elevation is 2278.75 ft. (USGS). Because of the 1998 Agreement between Duke Power and the
various resource agencies, Duke Power maintains a downstream instantaneous flow into the West
Fork of the Tuckasegee River. This instantaneous flow is 20 cfs or the stream flow entering the
Tuckasegee Reservoir from the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River, whichever is less. Currently
this water is bypassed directly through a gate in the Tuckasegee spillway. Daily operation of the
Tuckasegee Development is such that the reservoir elevation is essentially constant and varies
within a normal operating range as shown in Figure 2.2-29.
B2.0
B2.1
ENERGY PRODUCTION
Dependable Capacity and Average Energy Production
The estimated annual energy production for each development is:
Development
Generation Period
Avg. Annual Energy -MWH
Thorpe
1946-2002
84,805
Tuckasegee
1951-2002
10,669
The dependable capacity for each development is estimated to be:
Development
Dependable Capacity (MW)
Thorpe
Tuckasegee
5
0.6
B-3
Duke Power
B2.2
West Fork Project
Supporting Data
B2.2.1
Historical Flow Data
The minimum, mean and maximum recorded flows in cfs at the power plant intake for each
development are:
Flow
Thorpe
Tuckasegee
Minimum
1
20
Mean
116
181
Maximum
3,458
3,939
Inflow statistics and the flow duration curves for the West Fork Project were computed from a
calculated daily inflow series for the project. No upstream gaging stations are available for
determining inflow to the project. Daily project inflows were calculated from reservoir level and
generation records from the years 1956 to 1999. These daily flows were processed using SAS
Institute analytical analysis programs provided by NC WRC to compute the summary statistics
and flow-duration curves presented in this application.
No adjustments were made for
evaporation, leakage, minimum flow releases, or other reductions in available flow.
B2.2.1.1. Thorpe Flow Duration Curves
Annual and monthly flow duration curves for the Thorpe Development are presented in Figures
B2.2-1 to B2.2-13.
B-4
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-1 Annual Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
Flow in cubic feet per second
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of time flow is equalled or exceeded
Figure B2.2-2 January Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-5
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-3 February Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-4 March Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-6
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-5 April Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-6 May Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
May flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-7
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-7 June Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-8 July Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-8
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-9 August Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-10 September Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-9
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-11 October Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-12 November Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-10
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-13 December Flow Duration Curve – Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
B2.2.1.2
Tuckasegee Flow Duration Curves
Annual and monthly flow duration curves for the Tuckasegee Development are presented in
Figures B2.2-14 to B2.2-26
B-11
100%
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-14 Annual Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-15 January Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-12
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-16 February Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-17 March Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-13
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-18 April Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-19 May Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-14
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-20 June Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-21 July Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-15
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-22 August Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-23 September Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-16
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-24 October Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure B2.2-25 November Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
B-17
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-26 December Flow Duration Curve – Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
B2.2.2
Period of Critical Streamflow
Low inflow years were reviewed and ranked to determine the period of critical streamflow
experienced during the life of the project. Two low inflow years, 1986 and 2000, have been
experienced during the life of the project. The dependable capacity was calculated based on the
total generation for the year 2000.
B2.2.3
Storage Capacities and Rule Curves
Lake Glenville has a gross storage of 72,000 acre-feet at full reservoir elevation and a usable
storage capacity of 20,100 acre-feet between elevation 3,491.750 ft. and elevation 3,476.8 ft. as
shown on the area-capacity curve in Figure B2.2-27
B-18
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-27 Lake Glenville Reservoir Storage Curve
Lake Glenville (Thorpe) Reservoir Storage Curve
3,520
El. 3491.75
3,500
Reservoir Elevation
(ft - USGS Datum)
3,480
El. 3476.8
3,460
3,440
20,100 Acre Ft.
Useable Stroage
3,420
3,400
3,380
3,360
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Storage (acre ft)
Figure B2.2-28 Lake Glenville Rule Curve
Thorpe (Lake Glenville)Rule Curve
3,495
3,485
3,480
3,475
Normal
Operating
Range
3,470
ec
-0
1
D
ov
-0
1
N
ct
-0
1
O
Se
p01
Au
g01
Ju
l-0
1
Ju
n01
01
M
ay
-
01
Ap
r-
01
M
ar
-
Fe
b01
3,465
Ja
n01
Reservoir Elevation
(ft - USGS Datum)
3,490
Month of Year
HISTORIC RULE CURVE
NORMAL TARGET ELEVATION
NORMAL MAX. ELEV
NORMAL MIN. ELEVATION
B-19
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The Tuckasegee project maintains a constant reservoir elevation throughout the year.
The
reservoir is small in size and does not provide significant storage (35 acre ft) and therefore no
reservoir storage curve is provided.
Figure B2.2-29 Tuckasegee Rule Curve
Tuckasegee Lake Rule Curve
2,279
2,278
2,277
2,276
Month of Year
HISTORIC RULE CURVE
B-20
ec
-0
1
D
ov
-0
1
N
ct
-0
1
O
Se
p01
Au
g01
Ju
l-0
1
Ju
n01
01
M
ay
-
01
Ap
r-
01
M
ar
-
Fe
b01
2,275
Ja
n01
Reservoir Elevation
(ft - USGS Datum)
2,280
Duke Power
West Fork Project
B2.2.4
Hydraulic Capacity
The estimated hydraulic capacities of the power plants (maximum flow through the power plant)
for each development are:
Development
Hydraulic Capacity (cfs)
Thorpe
270
Tuckasegee
360
B2.2.5
Curves Tailwater Rating
There is no tailwater rating information available for the Thorpe Development because the
generating unit at the Thorpe Development is a Pelton unit. The Thorpe tailwater elevation is
basically the reservoir elevation of the Tuckasegee reservoir. The tailwater rating curve for the
Tuckasegee Development is presented in Figure B2.2-30.
Figure B2.2-30 Tuckasegee Tailwater Rating Curve
Tuckasegee Tailwater Rating Curve
2,185
Tailwater Elevation
(ft - USGS Datum)
2,180
2,175
2,170
2,165
2,160
2,155
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Discharge (cfs)
B2.2.6
Power Plant Capability
Power plant capability curves are presented in Figures B2.2-31 and B2.2-32.
B-21
50,000
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure B2.2-31 Thorpe Generator Output versus Net Head
Thorpe Hydro Station
Power Plant Capability Curve
1,205
1,201 Ft.
Max.
1,200
Net Head ( Ft. )
1,195
1,191 Ft.
Norm.
1,190
1,185
1,181 Ft.
Min.
1,180
1,175
16,400
16,450
16,500
16,550
16,600
16,650
16,700
16,750
16,800
Generator Output ( kW ) @
Peak Turbine Efficiency
Figure B2.2-32 Tuckasegee Generator Output versus Net Head
Tuckaseegee Hydro Station
Power Plant Capability Curve
120
119
118.5 Ft.
Max
Net Head ( Ft. )
118
117
116.5 Ft.
Norm.
116
115
114.5 Ft.
Min.
114
113
2,350
2,375
2,400
2,425
2,450
Generator Output ( kW ) @
Peak Turbine Efficiency
B-22
2,475
2,500
Duke Power
West Fork Project
B3.0 POWER UTILIZATION
The Nantahala Project is utilized to generate electricity for use by retail customers living in the
Duke Power-Nantahala area.
Approximately 0.25 percent of the energy generated by the West Fork Project is utilized on-site.
The remaining energy is used to supply a portion of the system requirements of the Applicant.
B4.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
There are no plans for future development at the West Fork Project at this time.
B-23
Duke Power
West Fork Project
EXHIBIT C: CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
C1.0
C1.1
THORPE DEVELOPMENT
Construction History
Construction of the Thorpe Development began in September 1940 and the first electricity was
generated from the Thorpe Powerhouse in October 1941. The development was one of a series of
hydroelectric projects constructed in the mountains of western North Carolina by the Aluminum
Company of America (Alcoa) and its subsidiary, Nantahala Power and Light Company (NP&L).
In November, 1988 Duke Power Company purchased NP&L from Alcoa. Duke connected the
NP&L system to its electric transmission grid and in 1998; NP&L became a division of Duke
Power Company.
Table C1.1-1 lists a chronological summary of major events in the history of the Thorpe
Development.
Table C1.1-1
Date
Chronological History of the Thorpe Development
Event
September, 1940
Construction of the Thorpe (originally named Glenville) Development began
February 12, 1941
Closure of the dam is completed and the filling of the reservoir commences.
October 14, 1941
Facility dedication and commissioning date of generating unit with first power
generation.
1942
“New Fontana Agreement” signed with TVA gave the Tennessee Valley
Authority dispatch control over NP&L hydroelectric stations until December
31, 1982
July 14, 1951
Renamed Thorpe Development
1966
NP&L submits license application for the West Fork Project
January 28, 1981
FERC issues license for project No. 2686 with a term of twenty-five years
1995
Generator rewound
1997
Station controls are automated and operations are transferred to remote
operations center.
October 10, 2002
C1.2
Thorpe Reservoir is renamed Lake Glenville
Proposed Development
There is no new construction planned for the Thorpe Development of the West Fork Project at
this time.
C1-1
Duke Power
C2.0
C2.1
West Fork Project
TUCKASEGEE DEVELOPMENT
Construction History
Construction of the Tuckasegee Development began in April 1949 and the first electricity was
generated from the Tuckasegee Powerhouse in May, 1950. The development was one of a series
of hydroelectric projects constructed in the mountains of western North Carolina by the
Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) and its subsidiary, Nantahala Power and Light
Company (NP&L). In November, 1988 Duke Power Company purchased NP&L from Alcoa.
Duke connected the NP&L system to its electric transmission grid and in 1998 NP&L became a
division of Duke Power Company.
Table C2.1-1
Date
Chronological History of the Tuckasegee Development
Event
April, 1949
May 24, 1950
May 26, 1950
Construction of the Tuckasegee Development began
Closure of the dam is completed and the filling of the reservoir commences.
Facility dedication and commissioning date of generating unit with first power
generation.
1964
1966
January 28, 1981
1997
Rewound generator
NP&L submits license application for the West Fork Project
FERC issues license for project No. 2686 with a term of twenty-five years
Station controls are automated and operations are transferred to remote
operations center.
C2.2
Proposed Development
There is no new construction planned for the Tuckasegee Development of the West Fork Project
at this time.
C2-1
C1-1
Duke Power
West Fork Project
EXHIBIT D: COSTS AND FINANCING
D1.0
ORIGINAL COST OF PROJECT
This is not an application for an original license. Therefore, a tabulated statement of original cost
of Project land or water rights, structures, or facilities is not applicable.
D2.0
AMOUNT PAYABLE IN EVENT OF PROJECT TAKEOVER – FAIR
VALUE, NET INVESTMENT, AND SEVERANCE DAMAGES
The Applicant would be entitled to receive the net investment or a fair market value plus
severance damages in the event of a project takeover pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Power
Act. This amount is estimated to be $35,471,116 in 2003 dollars. The following information
regarding fair value, net investment, and severance damages provides detail for this estimate.
D2.1
Fair Value
A definition of fair value could be assumed to be, either a fair market value for the Project with
its associated generation and power delivery assets, or the current net investment plus severance
damages. Due to uncertainty in the generation market and a very limited number of recent hydro
facility divestitures, it would be difficult to support a determination of the market value of this
Project. Therefore, the basis for a fair value estimate has been assumed to be the net investment
plus severance damages.
D2.2
Net Investment
Net investment is assumed original cost plus the cost of additions and betterments minus the
accumulated depreciation balance for the Project assets. The net investment value as of the end
of 2002 is $2,177,764. This is the asset value listed in the Uniform System of Accounts for the
Thorpe and Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Stations as of December 31, 2002 and is on file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
D2.3
Severance Damages
Loss of the Project due to a takeover would impact the Applicant, its customers, and its investors
in many ways. Since the Project is a component of a power system mix that consists of multiple
types of generation with various fuel sources, impacts extend beyond the value of the firm
capacity and energy contribution from the Project itself. The full extent of actual severance
damages would be dependent upon the details of the system separation, assets involved, the
characteristics of the replacement power resource, and the compensation mechanism used to
reimburse the Applicant for the system value lost due to removing the power and reliability
provided by the Project. Since many of these details are unknown, some simplification and
D1-1
Duke Power
West Fork Project
assumptions must be made in preparing an estimate.
For purposes of this application, the
severance damage calculation has been limited to estimates of the value lost and additional costs
incurred by severing the Project from the system and by replacing it with an alternative hydro
generation resource. Severance damages are estimated to be $33,293,352 in 2003 dollars.
Project Severance Costs for Project Generation
The Applicant would incur various costs in replacing the power output from the licensed project
with alternative generation and/or purchased power. Actual replacement costs would depend on
many factors including the replacement source, location, fuel type, and availability. For purposes
of a severance damage calculation, the alternative has been assumed to be replacement with a
storage hydro project that is connected to the transmission grid and is being compensated at
current SCHEDULE PP-H (NC) 15-year fixed rates. The generation characteristics of the West
Fork Hydroelectric Project were used to define the generation profile for the alternative resource
to duplicate a replacement in kind.
The methodology used to estimate replacement cost uses two cost components, energy cost and
capacity cost. The SCHEDULE PP-H (NC) rate structure is designed to provide compensation
for both of these components on a generation profile basis. Historical generation projections and
profiles for the Project have been used to calculate an annual value of Project power estimate of
$3,084,333 in 2003 dollars for a typical year. The average annual cost of power produced by the
West Fork Hydroelectric Project is $866,624 as shown in the calculation within section H3.1 of
Exhibit H and section D4 within this Exhibit. The difference between the annual replacement
cost and cost of power produced is $2,217,710. This is considered the annual cost of replacing
the Project generation. The estimated net present value of this additional cost for the period
2003-2042 is $29,839,512. This is the generation component of severance damages.
Project Severance Costs for Transmission Facilities
The West Fork Project consists of the Thorpe Hydro (nominally rated 27 MVA) and the
Tuckasegee Hydro (nominally rated 3.3 MVA) Facilities which interconnect at an electrical
substation located immediately adjacent to the Thorpe Power House. Tuckasegee ties directly to
the 6.6 kV Thorpe Hydro generator bus. The West Fork Project interconnects to the transmission
system at 161 kV through the Generator Step-Up (GSU) Transformers. For the purposes of
generation interconnection the Interconnection Point shall be defined as the terminal pad on the
D1-2
Duke Power
West Fork Project
transformer side of the transformer isolating disconnect switch located on the 161 kV side of the
GSU transformer. This device utilizes a reference number of 9507 for identification purposes.
Significant transmission facilities are contained within the boundaries of the existing project. The
Thorpe Switchyard serves as a major bussing point for 1 (one) 161 kV transmission line, 3 (three)
66 kV transmission lines, 1 (one) 66 kV bus line supporting the East Fork Project, 1 (one) 161-66
kV transformer bank, 1 (one) 66-12 kV transformer bank, and 2 (two) 12 kV distribution lines. In
the event the West Fork Project would be severed from the Applicant’s Transmission System
certain system modifications would be required to maintain reliable and functional service. It is
assumed, that those properties currently allocated for substation application, would be retained for
such purposes even for those extreme cases where the existing generation facilities would be
removed in totality.
The severance damages that would be incurred by the Applicant due to the separation of the
project are estimated to be $2,728,600 based on 2003 dollars (including provisions for tax gross).
The following assumptions were made for compiling this estimate:
Title to all electrical equipment found in the substation yard between the power house wall
and the interconnection point shall be sold with the project. This shall include GSU
transformers, breakers, potential transformers, station service transformers, switches, fuses,
steel structures, bus, and wiring. All station components such as control cables, cable trays,
conduit, foundations, etc will be abandoned in place.
All relay and control equipment associated with the operation of the transmission equipment
shall be removed from the power house control room.
A new relay control building shall be required for the exclusive use of the transmission
system owner in support of all transmission facilities terminating at Thorpe Switchyard. The
house will contain all required relay and control equipment, station DC system, station
telemetry systems, station communication systems etc.
Substation fence shall be modified to assure compliance with all applicable codes and
standards.
The substation auxiliary service shall be upgraded to accommodate all required electrical
loads associated with the substation and new control building.
New relay and control systems replacing those previously located in the power house will be
installed in the new control building.
D1-3
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Transmission System thermal and voltage studies have been performed for the purpose of
evaluating whether any additional network improvement may be required remote to the Project.
Those studies indicate no system improvements are required based on known system conditions
and loadings at the time of the study (April 2, 2003). Power flow cases used in the study were
developed from the internal 2006 summer peak and the 2006-2007 winter peak cases. The results
of the Applicant’s annual internal screenings were used as a baseline to identify the impact of
Project severance.
Interconnection of the West Fork Project by New Applican
Any new applicant, seeking to interconnect the West Fork Project subsequent to severance from
the Applicant’s transmission system, will be required to make application for interconnection as
prescribed by FERC policy and Duke Power’s Transmission Open Access Tariff procedures in
affect at the time of the application. Interconnection voltage shall be 161 kV. The new applicant
will be responsible for installation of all necessary equipment between the facility generation and
the Interconnection Point (Transmission Owner’s Isolating Disconnects). The new applicant
must comply with all requirements as defined by the Transmission Owners Facility
Interconnection Requirements document.
The Interconnection cost, which would be incurred by the Applicant, is estimated to be $725,240
(includes tax gross-up provisions). This cost represents those efforts necessary to establish a
terminal position complete with all required protective devices, switches, bus, wiring, support
structures, relaying, controls, metering & telemetry to reliably accommodate interconnection and
monitor energy delivered to the transmission system.
The total transmission severance damages that would be incurred by the Applicant due to Project
separation and reconnection to a new applicant are estimated to be $3,453,840 in 2003 dollars.
D3.0
ESTIMATED COST OF NEW DEVELOPMENT
No new development is proposed for this project, therefore, a statement of estimated costs is not
applicable.
D4.0
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF THE PROJECT
The average annual cost of the West Fork Hydroelectric Project is $866,623 as calculated below.
This information is also provided in Section H3.1 of Exhibit H.
D1-4
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Thorpe Hydroelectric Station
A. Last two year average annual O&M cost
$ 404,491
B. Estimate of Fringe Benefit & Tax cost on O&M labor
$
25,285
C. Property Taxes
$
21,836
D. Estimate of depreciation using plant values & depreciation rates
$
63,955
E. Cost of Capital
1. Original Cost of Plant
$8,246,081
2. Estimated Accumulated Depreciation
$6,309,844
3. Net Plant Investment
$1,936,237
4. Annual Capital Cost Rate from last rate case
12.6 %
Annual Cost of Capital
$ 243,966
Total Annual Cost
$ 759,533
Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Station
$
57,425
$
2,922
C. Property Taxes
$
3,030
$
13,281
$
30,432
Total Annual Cost
$ 107,090
West Fork Project Total Annual Cost
$ 866,623
E. Cost of Capital
$1,120,920
$ 879,393
$ 241,527
D5.0
12.6 %
ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT POWER
The same methodology used to estimate the generation component of the severance damages in
section D2.3 is appropriate for an estimate of the annual value of the Project power. This
calculation uses a replacement with a storage hydro project that is connected to the transmission
grid and is being compensated at current SCHEDULE PP-H (NC) 15-year fixed rates. This is a
close approximation to a replacement in kind for the Project energy and capacity.
D1-5
The
Duke Power
West Fork Project
SCHEDULE PP-H (NC) rate structure is designed to provide compensation for both of these
components on a generation profile basis. Historical generation projections and profiles for the
Project have been used to calculate an annual replacement cost estimate of $3,084,333 in 2003
dollars for a typical year.
D6.0
SOURCES OF FINANCING AND ANNUAL REVENUES
The Applicant would expect the annual costs identified in D4 of this section to be recovered
through average annual revenues noted in D5 of this section. As estimated in these calculations,
overall revenues should exceed costs. In the event of the occurrence of certain investment
requirements or costs that may not be recoverable through annual revenues, the Applicant would
rely on corporate financing sources to cover the difference. The Applicant has established a
record of financially successful operation of generation facilities as noted in the financial
statements submitted annually to the Commission in FERC Form 1 reports.
D1-6
Duke Power
West Fork Project
EXHIBIT E: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
E1.0
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.51(f), Duke Power-Nantahala Area (Duke) has prepared this general
description of the West Fork Project (Project) environment. This section contains the following
information:
General location and Project description;
General description of the drainage basin hydrology;
General description of the Project area climate;
General description of the Project area topography;
General description of the Project area geology and soils;
General description of the Project area wetlands, botanical resources, aquatic resources, and
wildlife resources;
General description of the Project are land use and demographics;
General description of the Project area floodplains;
Proposed PM&E measures for the Project; and
A brief description on the development of relicensing studies for the Project.
The Project consists of two developments, the Thorpe Development and the Tuckasegee
Development. When substantial differences occur between the two developments for a specific
topic or resource they will be discussed separately.
Where differences between the two
developments are minor or nonexistent the Project will be discussed as a whole.
E1.1
Location
The Project is located in southwestern North Carolina on the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River
in Jackson County (Figure E1.1-1). The Project consists of two developments, the Thorpe
Development, and the Tuckasegee Development. These facilities are located southeast of the
town of Sylva, NC. Thorpe Dam is located on the West Fork Tuckasegee River at approximately
River Mile (RM) 9.7, and Tuckasegee Dam is located on the West Fork Tuckasegee River at
approximately RM 3.1.
E1-1
Duke Power
E1.2
West Fork Project
Drainage Basin Hydrology
E1.2.1
Thorpe Development
The Thorpe Development drains a 36.7 square mile watershed. The West Fork Tuckasegee River
and its many tributaries drain the entire development area. The West Fork Tuckasegee River,
unlike most rivers in the southeast, flows northward. It originates in the Nantahala National
Forest and flows into Fontana Lake in Swain County and then into the Tennessee River. The
Thorpe Dam forms an impoundment (Lake Glenville) of approximately 1,462 acres (full pool) at
a surface elevation of approximately 3,491 feet mean sea level (MSL) (See Exhibit G). The
average annual runoff (river inflow) into the Thorpe Development is 103 cfs with highly variable
seasonal flows.
E1.2.2
The Tuckasegee Development drains a 54.7 square mile watershed, which like the Thorpe
Development is drained by the West Fork Tuckasegee River and its many tributaries. The
Tuckasegee Dam forms an impoundment (Tuckasegee Reservoir) of approximately 7.9 acres (full
pool) at a surface elevation of approximately 2,278 feet MSL (See Exhibit G). The average
annual runoff (river inflow) into the Tuckasegee Development is 158 cfs with highly variable
seasonal flows like the Thorpe Development.
E1.3
Climate
The climate of the Project area is typical of the mountainous region of western North Carolina
with mild summers, cold winters, and a growing season limited to 141 days on average. Average
temperatures for winter and summer are 39o Fahrenheit (F) (4o Celsius) and 72o Fahrenheit (F)
(22o C), respectively (USDA 1997). The total annual precipitation averages 50 inches, including
an average snowfall of 12 inches (USDA 1997).
E1.4
Topography
The Project area is located in the Appalachian Mountains within the Blue Ridge Physiographic
Province (Schafale and Weakley 1990), which is characterized by its generally steep,
mountainous topography. Elevations in this area typically range from 2,400 to 4,000 feet MSL
with some higher peaks over 4,500 feet MSL. The topography of the area varies from relatively
flat basins to narrow valleys and from rolling hills to very steep mountains (USDA 1997).
Streams flow through coves, narrow and moderately wide floodplains, and small areas of rock
outcrops. The Project vicinity is also generally mountainous and contains large tracts of forest
with few population centers (i.e., Glenville, Sylva). Human developments generally occur in
E1-3
Duke Power
West Fork Project
stream and river valleys and are widely scattered due to the lack of suitable low gradient building
sites.
E1.5
Geology
The landscape around the Project area is very diverse geologically. The Appalachian Mountains,
including the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province are suggested to be some of the oldest
mountains in the world. Ancient tectonic plate and volcanic activity formed these mountains,
which were once as tall and rugged as the Sierra-Nevada range, but time and the erosive forces of
nature have reduced them to their current condition. However, the underlying material has not
been changed, and consists of material weathered from high-grade, metamorphic rocks such as
gneiss, and granite (USDA 1997). There are no known active faults in the Project vicinity.
Gold, silver, gems, and many semi-precious stones and minerals can be found in this area.
Commercial mining operations have utilized these resources in the past, but most areas are
currently used only recreationally.
E1.6
Soils
The soils of the Project area are composed primarily of the Plott-Edneyville-Chestnut-Cullasaja
general mapping unit (USDA 1997). This soil association has a loamy surface layer and subsoil
and is formed in material weathered from high-grade metamorphic rocks, colluvium, or alluvium,
and it includes areas of rock outcrop. Soils are moderately deep to very deep and well drained
and are developed on a landscape that consist of rugged, dissected intermediate mountains that
have long side slopes and narrow, winding ridge tops and drainage ways
Minor soils in the Project area include Cleveland soils near areas of rock outcrops, Chandler,
Fannin, and Cashiers soils on low to intermediate mountains, Evard, Cowee, and Trimont soils on
low mountains, Tuckasegee, Whiteside, and Sylva soils in coves, and Cullowhee, Dellwood,
Nikwasi, and Reddies soils along narrow flood plains.
E1.7
Botanical and Wetland Resources
There are several natural communities with many types of botanical resources located within the
Project area. These natural communities include Pine-Oak Heath, Acidic Cove Forest, Canada
Hemlock Forest, Spray Cliff, Sand, and Mud Bar, and Southern Appalachian Bog (Southern
Subtype) as described in Schafale and Weakley (1990). No state or federally listed plant species
E1-4
Duke Power
West Fork Project
are currently known to occur within the Project area. A more detailed description of the botanical
and wetland resources associated with the Project is provided in Section E3.3.
Wetlands are those areas intermittently or permanently covered by surface water or saturated by
groundwater. Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) criteria for jurisdictional wetlands requires that
the three-parameter criteria be met that includes the presence of hydrophytic vegetation,
hydrology, and hydric soils (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands are important habitats
for many species of wildlife, including avian, mammalian, reptilian, and amphibian species and
often contribute disproportionately to the wildlife species diversity of an area.
Wetland
development within the Project area is limited to shoreline areas, coves and stream confluences
by the relatively steep topography of the surrounding landscape.
E1.7.1
Thorpe Development
Fish and Wildlife Associates (FWA) identified 40 wetland areas adjacent to the Thorpe
Development during a July and August 1999 field survey. An additional 3 wetlands, (43 total),
were identified by Framatome ANP (FANP) during a September 2002 field survey. These
wetland areas consist of palustrine forested, palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent
wetland types.
E1.7.2
FWA identified four relatively small wetland areas adjacent to the Tuckasegee Development
during an August 1999 field survey. These wetland areas consist of palustrine scrub/shrub and
palustrine emergent wetland types.
E1.8
Vegetative Cover
E1.8.1
Thorpe Development
Most of the area near the Thorpe Development was previously forest, but a portion has been
cleared and a considerable amount of private development has occurred. Riparian vegetation has
been largely removed in many areas. The remaining wooded areas are still quite extensive and
consist primarily of white pine, and several species of oaks and hickory. Yellow birch, hemlock,
and red maple with an under story of rhododendron are common in the cove areas. All of the
original forest bordering the Project area has been cut at least once. Open and fallow fields are
also present
E1-5
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E1.8.2
Most of the area near the Tuckasegee Development is currently forested, however a small portion
has been cleared, and a limited amount of private development has occurred. Riparian vegetation
has been left largely intact, except where NC 107 borders the development. In this area a narrow
corridor of herbaceous vegetation with a few screening trees is all that remains. The forested
areas surrounding the Project consist primarily of several species of oaks, hickories, and pines
with rhododendron and laurel along the edge of the reservoir. Many other species are also
associated with this area and include tulip poplar, red maple, black locust and sourwood.
E1.9
Wildlife and Fisheries
The various habitats in the Project vicinity support a diversity of wildlife species.
Many
mammals have been reported in the area and include white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, raccoon, and
white-footed mouse. Avian species observed in the area include Canada goose, wood duck, redtailed hawk, indigo bunting, and Carolina chickadee. Several reptile and amphibian species have
also been reported from the area and include eastern box turtle, five-lined skink, northern water
snake, corn snake, northern dusky salamander, gray tree frog, and American toad.
Based on existing information, the Little Tennessee River Basin and specifically the Tuckasegee
River exhibits a wide variety of warmwater and coolwater fish species. These species include
bass and panfish, shiners and dace, suckers, darters, and trout. During the relicensing studies on
the Tuckasegee River, 42 species of fish were identified. The Project area and the surrounding
basin include some of the highest quality waters in North Carolina. Benthic macroinvertebrate
indices are characterized by Good to Excellent ratings.
E1.9.1
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
In addition to the partial list of species common to the Project area listed above several Rare,
Threatened and Endangered (RTE), species potentially occur in the Project vicinity as well.
During relicensing studies magnolia warbler was documented within the Project area and eastern
hellbender the wounded darter were documented in the Tuckasegee River downstream of the
Project. No other RTE species are currently known from the Project area. A more detailed
description of fish, macroinvertebrate, and wildlife resources associated with the Project are given
in Sections E3.1, E3.2, and E3.4.
E1-6
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E1.10 Land Development
Lands in the vicinity of the Project area are mostly rural with large areas of forest, mountains,
valleys, and some small scale farming operations. Few population centers exist with the majority
of homes being widely scattered. Land use within the vicinity of the Project area includes timber
harvesting, agriculture, industry, residential and urban developments, and recreation.
Highlands, Glenville, and Sylva, NC are located in the vicinity of the Project area. Several
residential developments and a few commercial developments are located along the West Fork
Tuckasegee River.
E1.11 Demographics
Jackson County is generally rural in nature and has a population density of 67.5 people per square
mile. Only 33,121 permanent residents were in Jackson County in 2000 (NC State Demographics
2002). Caucasians are by far the largest racial group representing 50.1 percent of the population.
By gender, the population is nearly equal, with slightly more males.
Jackson County experienced a population increase of approximately 6,200 people over the last 10
years, and is projected to continue to do so through at least 2010 (Table E1.1-1). This translates
into a 17.9 percent growth rate (NC State Demographics 2002), which is slightly higher than the
state average of 17.6 percent growth. Jackson County’s industrial base has demonstrated a slow
but steady growth and its economy is stable with an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent.
Additionally, Jackson County has a higher per capita income than the state average.
Table E1.1-1. Jackson County Population Trends 1990-2010
1990
1995
2000
JACKSON
COUNTY
26,860
29,242
33,121
2010 (projected)
39,053
E1.12 Floodplains and Flood Events
Due to the relatively steep topography of the Project area associated with the Thorpe and
Tuckasegee Developments, floodplains are generally narrow and limited to the Projectwaterbodies and adjacent lands.
Floodplains along the West Branch Tuckasegee River are
mapped on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. One hundred-year flood
areas (Zone A) include essentially the entire Project area and some adjacent lands. Flood events
have occurred both prior to and after construction of the Project developments.
E1-7
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E1.13 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures in this
Exhibit E
The following protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures (PM&E’s) have been proposed
for the West Fork Project. A Consensus Agreement was signed by the Primary Members of the
Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team, (TCST), on May 16, 2003. The primary members
and the organizations they represent who agree in consensus will work toward conversion of the
Consensus Agreement into a Settlement Agreement by September 15, 2002. A copy of the entire
Consensus Agreement, signed on May 16, 2003 is provided in Volume III.
Based on this Consensus Agreement, Duke proposes the following measures in association with
the West Fork Project:
RECREATION FACILITIES
1. Lake Glenville
Duke will provide a toilet, a public land based bank fishing area with trail (if the site is suitable),
lighting, and waste collection at each of the two existing access sites (Note: NCWRC to also
provide a barrier-free dock at each of the two existing public access areas).
a. Provided the necessary property rights are held or can be secured by Duke or the
American Whitewater Affiliation (AW), construct facilities to provide adequate access to
the Glenville Bypass, including any necessary parking and trail facilities (Note that since
initiating whitewater releases in the Glenville Bypass are contingent upon having
adequate access facilities, this item will be a top priority in scheduling construction of the
Tier 1 projects).
b. Partner with NCWRC to reconfigure the entrance road and remove a boulder in the lake
at one of the access areas.
2. Tuckasegee Lake
a. Construct a bank fishing trail and a gravel parking area on Duke property at the
headwaters of the reservoir. Provided the necessary property rights are held or can be
secured by Duke or AW to allow adequate access for a boating put-in point on the
Glenville Bypass, also construct a boating take-out at this location (Note that since
E1-8
Duke Power
West Fork Project
adequate access facilities, this item will be a top priority in scheduling construction of the
Tier 1 projects).
3. Main Stem of Tuckasegee River below Tuckasegee Hydros
a. Develop a public boat launch and gravel parking area at the Tuckasegee Powerhouse,
provided suitable agreements can be reached with the property owners.
4. Wildlife Viewing Platforms on Reservoirs
a. Work with the NCWRC, the USFS, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and Jackson County Government to evaluate wildlife viewing opportunities on the West
Fork project reservoirs at the following locations: (1) the public recreation areas
adjoining the reservoirs, (2) property owned by the USFS adjoining the reservoirs or (3)
Andrews Park on Lake Glenville. Provide a summary by 8/1/03 of any significant
viewing opportunities and the need, practicality and cost of providing one viewing
platform per reservoir at one of these three locations.
b. If such a viewing platform is needed and can cost-effectively be constructed, then it will
be added to the construction plans identified above (if it will be located at one of the
Duke-owned access areas) or Duke will pay for its construction once construction is
completed (if it will be located on USFS-owned property or at Andrews Park).
5. Public Swimming Area
a.
Work with the NCWRC, the USFS, the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and stakeholder team representatives from the Adjoining Property Owner
primary interest category to evaluate the West Fork project reservoirs and determine if a
public swimming area that meets accepted design standards can be incorporated at any of
the following places: (1) the public recreation areas or other Duke-owned properties
adjoining the reservoirs, (2) Andrews Park on Lake Glenville, or (3) property owned by
the USFS that adjoins a Duke reservoir. The public swimming area will consist of a
beach, marked boundaries within the lake and a gravel parking area. Provide a summary
by 8/1/03 of the most feasible location, an estimate of the construction and operational
costs and identify the entity that would maintain the public swimming area.
E1-9
Duke Power
b.
West Fork Project
If a site that meets the accepted design standards can be located, a single public
swimming area will be added to the applicable site construction plan identified above (if
it will be located at one of the public recreation areas, or on Duke-owned land) or Duke
will pay for its construction once construction is completed (if it will be located on
USFS-owned property or at Andrews Park).
6. Other Recreation Planning & Facilities Improvements
a. Work with stakeholder team members from the local governments in Jackson County to
prioritize other known recreation initiatives, particularly those that enhance use of the
Tuckasegee River either on or downstream of a Duke hydro reservoir or that highlight the
area’s cultural heritage. As a minimum, the following items must be considered and
prioritized accordingly:
i.
Greenway facilities that include river access
ii.
The Andrews Park Master Plan.
b. Review the prioritized list and select initiatives from the list to receive funding support
from Duke.
c. Contribute a total of $350,000 toward implementation of the Duke-selected initiatives.
d. Contributions will be made during the project timeframes.
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Reservoir information
a. Add the following to the Duke website - actual lake level readings, the Normal Operating
Ranges, recent lake level histories, near-term lake level projections and special messages
for all West Fork project reservoirs except Tuckasegee Lake.
b. Actual lake levels for all West Fork project reservoirs, except Tuckasegee Lake and
special messages, will be provided by the Duke telephone information line.
c. Special messages concerning modifications to lake level operating bands will be
communicated per the Low Inflow and Hydro Project Maintenance and Emergency
Protocols.
d. The above lake level information will be provided beginning in 2004.
E1-10
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Recreational flow information
a. Generation and bypass release flow schedules for the West Fork projects will be
maintained by the Duke telephone information line and website.
b. Special messages concerning modifications to the generation and bypass release
schedules will be communicated per the Low Inflow and Hydro Project Maintenance and
Emergency Protocols.
c. Establish a hotlink on the Duke website to access the real-time surface water gages on the
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) website that takes the user directly to the realtime data for USGS Gage # 03510500 at Dillsboro, NC and USGS Gage # 03508000 at
Tuckasegee, NC.
d. The above recreational flow information will be provided beginning in 2004.
Gage reactivation
a. Upon completion by the USGS, pay for reactivation and ongoing maintenance of USGS
Gage # 03510500 at Dillsboro, NC and USGS Gage # 03508000 at Tuckasegee, NC
(Potential additional partners – NCDWR, USFWS).
b. Gages operational by 2004 provided USGS, could complete reactivation by then.
Communications Technology Improvements
a. Duke will follow improvements in communication technology and infrastructure that
may occur over the life of the next hydro project licenses and will make cost-effective
enhancements to the delivery of reservoir and recreational flow information.
Other Recreation Information Improvements
a. Establish a Communications Working Group from interested members of the TCST to
evaluate the audiences and needs for additional recreation information relative to the
West Fork Projects and the access points on the main stem of the Tuckasegee River and
to prepare the necessary communications tools. Potential examples include but are not
limited to:
1) Signage at points of public access (e.g. show USFS and Duke property boundaries,
provide web addresses and telephone numbers, provide appropriate warnings,
wildlife interpretive information, etc.)
2) A recreation brochure
E1-11
Duke Power
West Fork Project
3) A staff gage at the put-in point on the West Fork Bypass to provide boaters and Duke
operators with field indications of flow rates in the West Fork Bypass.
4) A wildlife checklist or poster.
b. Focus effort primarily on improving existing communications tools and better public
access to information that already exists.
c. Working Group will conduct the evaluation and propose a schedule and cost-sharing plan
by August 15, 2003.
LAKE LEVELS
Conventions and Definitions - All elevations listed below are relative to the top of the dam
(including the flood gates, fuse plugs and flashboards where applicable), with 100.0 ft = Full
Pond. Normal Minimum, Normal Maximum, and Normal Target Elevations change on a daily
basis. The elevations shown are for the 1st day of the given month. Elevations for other days of
the month are determined by linear interpolation. The Normal Target Elevation = the lake level
that Duke will endeavor in good faith to achieve, unless operating in the Low Inflow or Hydro
Project Maintenance & Emergency Protocol.
Since inflows vary significantly and outflow
demands also vary, Duke will not always be able to maintain actual lake levels at the Normal
Target Elevations. As long as actual lake levels are within the Normal Operating Range and Duke
is not operating under the Low Inflow or Hydro Project Maintenance and Emergency Protocols,
Duke will be in compliance with any future settlement agreement, 401 Water Quality
Certification and license requirements with regard to lake levels.
1. Lake Glenville – Maintain the following Normal Operating Range:
Month
Normal Target
Elevation (ft)
Jan
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
85
90
Normal
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
94
Feb
85
90
94
Mar
88
91
94
Apr
90
93
96
May
95
97
99
Jun
95
97
99
E1-12
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Month
Normal Target
Elevation (ft)
Jul
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
95
97
Normal
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
99
Aug
93
95
98
Sep
90
93
94
Oct
90
93
94
Nov
86
90
94
Dec
85
90
94
2. Tuckasegee Lake – Maintain lake level as needed to provide minimum flow.
3. Any changes from current operation to begin in 2004.
MINIMUM FLOW AND BYPASS FLOW
Main Stem below Tuckasegee
a. 30 cfs combined minimum flow from December 1 through June 30 (assuming inflow to
Tuckasegee Lake is greater than or equal to 20 cfs) and provided by the same means as
the existing provision:
1) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less).
b. 55 cfs combined minimum flow from July 1 through November 30 (assuming inflow to
Tuckasegee Lake is greater than or equal to 20 cfs) and provided by:
1) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less).
a)
Implement new and additional minimum and bypass flows in 2006, or
within 1 year following receipt of FERC approval to modify project
facilities, whichever comes last.
ANGLING AND BOATING RECREATION FLOWS
Primary Angling Periods in the Main Stem Tuckasegee River
a. The first weekend after Labor Day through the last weekend of October and April 1st
through the first weekend of June are defined as primary angling periods with actual
E1-13
Duke Power
West Fork Project
flows at or below about 500 cfs being preferred (as measured at the reactivated USGS
gage at Dillsboro).
b. During part of this time-period, boating release schedules overlap. During this overlap
period (the Saturday that occurs nine days before Memorial Day through the first
weekend of June and Saturdays in September and October) the Normal Generation
Schedule to Support Recreation will be:
1) West Fork Release: Saturday and Sunday one week prior to Memorial Day Weekend,
Saturday and Monday of Memorial Day weekend and 3 of 4 Saturdays in September
and October plus Tuesday, Friday, Saturday for the period between Memorial Day
weekend through the first weekend in June for 6 hours, timed to arrive at the
reactivated USGS gage at Dillsboro at approximately 10:30 AM.
Primary Boating periods in the Main Stem Tuckasegee River
a. Primary boating periods = Period after the first weekend of June through Labor Day, with
actual flows at about 800 cfs (as measured at the reactivated USGS gage at Dillsboro)
being preferred.
b. During this time period, the Normal Generation Schedule to Support Recreation for 3 out
of 4 weeks will be:
1) West Fork Release: Tuesday, Friday, Sunday for 6 hours, timed to arrive at the
c. During this time period, the Normal Generation Schedule to Support Recreation for 1 out
of 4 weeks will be:
1) West Fork Release: Tuesday, Friday, Saturday for 6 hours, timed to arrive at the
d. Adjusting for Significant Baseline Flows - Duke will check the river flow daily at the
reactivated Dillsboro USGS Gage #03510500 and by doing so, Duke can project the
expected river flow at the Dillsboro Gage during the next scheduled generation release to
support recreation. When projected baseline river flow (i.e. the flow rate at the Dillsboro
USGS gage without Duke making the scheduled generation release to support recreation)
is expected to average more than 500 cfs over the period from 10:30 AM to 4:30 PM,
specific recreation flow releases from the Duke hydropower stations can be reduced or
stopped.
E1-14
Duke Power
West Fork Project
e. All main stem recreational releases are at or above the best efficiency flow for the
applicable hydro units.
Provided the necessary property rights are held or can be secured by Duke or AW to allow
adequate access, establish recreation flows in the Glenville Bypass using a Tainter Gate at
Glenville Dam according to the following schedule:
a. Release water for 6 hours per day for one weekend (Saturday and Sunday) per year in
April. Target flow rate will be approximately 250 cfs each day and will begin at 10:00
AM.
b. Provide five total afternoon releases per year for 6 hrs each, scheduled on days in the
months of May through September. Target flow rate will be approximately 250 cfs each
day and will begin at 10:00 AM.
c. Target Flow rates - The target flow rates stated above are for flow rates at the put-in
point. Actual release amounts from the Tainter gate needs to be large enough that when
combined with other tributary and accretion flows, the total is as close as possible to the
target flow rates.
Special Events – Requests for special generation releases that require additional generation hours
beyond the total number of hours as noted in Items 1 and 2 above will be handled on a case-bycase basis. To the maximum practical extent, releases will be integrated with the normal release
schedule so that additional release hours beyond the normal release schedule are not needed. The
requesting organization is required to consult with the Tuckasegee Gorge Association (TGA)
President to coordinate their activities as much as possible prior to making a special request to
Duke.
Alterations to the Normal Generation Schedule to Support Recreation - Duke will consider
requests on a case-by-case basis to temporarily alter the Normal Generation Schedule to Support
Recreation as noted in Items 1 and 2 above. Such alteration requests may shift the hours around
or reduce the total hours of releases to conserve the available water supply, but will not add
additional hours to the normal total number of hours scheduled for the given month. The
requesting organization is required to consult with the TGA President to coordinate their
activities as much as possible prior to making a request to Duke.
E1-15
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Annual Recreation Planning Meeting - each October beginning in 2004, Duke will convene a
meeting of the following parties to discuss recreation flow planning for the next calendar year:
NCWRC, NCDWR, USFWS, USFS, AW, TGA, Carolina Canoe Club (CCC), Trout Unlimited
(TU) and any other known entities desiring special releases from the West Fork Project during the
coming year, plus the Friends of Lake Glenville (FLG) and the Glenville Community
Development Club (GCDC).
Ongoing Duke Contact for Recreation Flow Issues – Duke will continue to provide an
employee, preferably with an office located in the Duke service area, to serve as a primary point
of contact for day-to-day, recreation flow-related issues. The employee will have additional
duties, but one of the employee’s priorities will be ensuring continued effective communications
with businesses and the general public that use the river sections that have flows affected by Duke
hydro stations.
Evaluation of First 5 Years - in October immediately following the first 5 full recreation
seasons of operation under the requirements of the new FERC license for the West Fork Projects,
Duke will convene a meeting of the following parties to discuss any lessons-learned from the
previous 5 years of operation and to identify any potential improvements that all the parties can
agree upon: NCWRC, NCDWR, USFWS, USFS, AW, TGA, CCC, TU and any other known
entities desiring special releases from the West Fork Project, plus the Friends of Lake Glenville
(FLG) and the Glenville Community Development Club (GCDC).
Implement the new recreation flow schedule on the main stem of the Tuckasegee River in 2006,
with Duke continuing voluntary recreation flow releases from its hydro stations until then in
coordination with the Tuckasegee Gorge Association.
Implement the recreation flow releases in the Glenville Bypass in 2006, or upon completion of
the following, whichever comes last:
a. Duke verifies that it holds the necessary property rights or it or AW acquires the
necessary property rights to allow adequate access to the Glenville Bypass.
b. Construction of the parking areas and any portage trails at a suitable put-in point and
take-out point are complete.
E1-16
Duke Power
West Fork Project
RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVES
Unique Fishery Identification
a. Provide support when requested, but not before the final FERC order concerning
Dillsboro Project license surrender is received and the closure of all legal challenge
periods has occurred, to the USFWS and the NCWRC on studies to determine the range
and distribution of the sicklefin redhorse sucker in the Little Tennessee, Hiwassee and
Tuckasegee Rivers.
b. Duke’s contribution may be in the form of a one-time funding contribution, in-kind
services or a combination of the two, not to exceed a total cost of $40,000.
Soil & Water Conservation Enhancement
a. Work with representatives from each county’s Soil & Water Conservation District board
to obtain each board’s prioritized list of initiatives that would either (1) make physical
improvements that protect soil or water resources, (2) educate landowners or school
children on proper soil or water conservation practices, or (3) improve agency
enforcement of existing soil or water conservation-related regulations. All initiatives
must support improved soil or water conservation on lands that drain to any of the Duke
hydro reservoirs or the river sections between DNPA hydro reservoirs and reservoirs
belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The prioritized initiative list will be
requested from each board by 7/1/05.
b. Review each board’s prioritized list and select initiatives from the list to receive funding
support from Duke.
c. Contribute $40,000 in Jackson County toward implementation of the Duke-selected
initiatives.
d. Contributions will be made between 1 and 15 years following the issuance of the
applicable new FERC licenses and the closure of all legal challenge periods.
Riparian Habitat Enhancement
a. Provide Duke funding to support initiatives within the Duke service area that would
either (1) protect or enhance fish and wildlife habitat directly, or (2) educate landowners
or school children about the importance of healthy riparian areas to fish and wildlife
habitat and about the related best management practices in riparian areas. All initiatives
must support protection or enhancement of fish or wildlife habitat on lands that drain to
E1-17
Duke Power
West Fork Project
any of the Duke hydro reservoirs or the river sections between Duke hydro reservoirs and
reservoirs belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
b. Work with other interested stakeholder team members to define the process by 8/1/03
that will be used to prioritize potential initiatives.
c. Once the prioritized list of initiatives is received (target date is 7/1/05), Duke will select
initiatives from the list to receive Duke funding support. The total Duke contribution will
be $200,000.
Provide Conservation Land
a. Purchase a selected tract of land and convey its interest in the land to a governmental
entity or a non-profit conservation organization.
b. If the tract that is currently being considered cannot be obtained at an acceptable cost to
Duke, then a replacement tract(s) of similar conservation value that can be obtained at an
acceptable cost to Duke, will be pursued.
c. Purchase of the selected tract or replacement tract(s) will be pursued in 2003 and 2004 by
Duke.
d. Conveyance of Duke’s interest in the property will occur in 2006 or within 1 year
following issuance of the new FERC license for the West Fork Project and the closure of
all legal challenge periods, whichever is longer.
e. If conservation lands cannot be purchased at an acceptable cost to Duke, then Duke will
meet with the USFS, USFWS, NCDWR, the NCWRC, and other interested parties to any
future settlement agreement to consider other mitigation possibilities.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
Interim Procedures - Until the new requirements identified in Item 4 below are implemented,
continue enforcing shoreline protection measures for environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. Dukedesignated wetlands) and continue limiting cutting of trees within the FERC project boundaries.
Maps - Develop shoreline classification maps for Lake Glenville, identifying any unique areas
that need protection for environmental, recreational, cultural or operational reasons and provide
the associated lake use restrictions.
E1-18
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Lake & River Clean Up - Beginning in 2004, work with others to support an annual “Lake Wide
Clean Up” on Lake Glenville and an annual “River Clean Up” on the main stem of the
Tuckasegee River. Duke’s contribution will be to remove trash during the week following the
clean-up from pre-designated disposal sites around these 4 lakes and the river.
1. Implement the final version of the lake use restrictions, vegetation management requirements
and the shoreline management guidelines on 7/1/03.
2. Duke will continue reviewing and addressing lake security issues.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. HPMP - Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the West Fork Project
to ensure that significant cultural resources within the FERC Project boundary are
documented and protected to the extent required by state and tribal historic preservation
offices.
2. Historic Properties Management Plan to be developed and implemented within 2 years
following FERC issuance of the new license and the closure of all legal challenge periods.
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
Duke will endeavor in good faith to operate its hydro projects in ways that minimize the need to
draw the reservoirs down to mechanically remove sediment.
SHARING THE BENEFITS OF OTHER PARTNERSHIPS
1. Duke will share the benefits of any additional cost share funding it receives, beyond any cost
share funding that is already specifically accounted for herein, to help reduce its costs
associated with Recreation Facilities construction and also the USGS Gage Reactivation and
Other Recreation Information Improvements activities identified herein.
2. Provided all the local government stakeholder team members from Jackson County are
parties to any future settlement agreement, Duke will contribute an amount equal in total to
the cost share funding it receives on the activities identified in 1 as follows:
a. 50% to the Other Recreation Planning and Facilities Improvements activity
b. 30% to the Riparian Habitat Enhancement activity
c. 20% to the Soil and Water Conservation Enhancement activity
E1-19
Duke Power
West Fork Project
3. If any of the local government stakeholder team members from Jackson County are not
parties to any future settlement agreement, Duke will contribute an amount equal in total to
the cost share funding it receives on the activities identified in 1 as follows:
a. 70% to the Riparian Habitat Enhancement activity
b. 30% to the Soil and Water Conservation Enhancement activity
4. Duke contributions will be made between 1 and 15 years following FERC issuance of the
new license for the West Fork Project and the closure of all legal challenge periods.
5. By 8/1/03, Duke will also investigate if there are any other potential additional cost savings
that it can achieve (e.g. is there a potential for tax credits associated with any of the property
conveyances or other activities noted herein). If so, Duke will determine if it can share some
of those savings in a manner similar to that noted in Items 2 through 4 above.
The Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team agrees in consensus to the following for the
relicensing process and the terms of the next FERC license periods for the West Fork Project
license:
Support continued operational flexibility for Duke’s West Fork Project
Flow Prescriptions – Provided Dillsboro Dam is removed, there will be no requests or support
for prescribed flows of any kind (minimum flows, bypass flows, recreation flows, channel
maintenance flows, etc.) other than the prescribed flows proposed herein, except for emergency
requests to support human health, environmental health, human safety or to avoid property
damage.
Lake Level Limitations – There will be no requests or support for lake level restrictions of any
kind other than those identified herein, except for emergency requests to support human health,
environmental health, human safety or to avoid property damage.
Operational Restrictions – There will be no requests or support for other hydro operational
restrictions of any kind, except for emergency requests to support human health, environmental
health, human safety or to avoid property damage.
E1-20
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Low Inflow Protocol – Agree to share the burden of low water availability in accordance with
the attached Low Inflow Protocol.
Hydro Project Maintenance & Emergency Protocol – Agree to the approach for temporary
deviation from certain license conditions to handle specific abnormal situations in accordance
with the attached Hydro Project Maintenance & Emergency Protocol.
Actively participate with Duke in recreation area construction and/or management.
Access Area Operation and Maintenance
a. NCWRC will enter into a cooperative maintenance agreement with Duke similar to the
existing agreement on other Duke Power lakes for the access areas located on property
owned by Duke at Lake Glenville (2), Tuckasegee Lake (1) and the access areas on the
mainstem of the Tuckasegee where Duke holds the public access property rights (up to
6).
b. AW will enter into a cooperative maintenance agreement for any portage trail providing
access to the Glenville Bypass.
c. Jackson County Parks Department will operate and maintain any facilities to be located
on property the county owns.
Access Area Construction
a. NCWRC will provide any cost-share funding and construction support as noted herein
and will repair / rebuild the facilities that they maintain as needed, including getting any
prior approvals from Duke as may be required by the maintenance agreement.
b. Jackson County Parks Department will repair / rebuild any facilities located on property
the county owns as needed.
Consideration of Additional Public Recreation Facilities in the Future
a. No additional public recreation facilities associated with the West Fork Project beyond
those noted herein will be requested by TCST members or the organizations they
represent within the first 15 years of the new FERC licenses.
b. Established mechanisms for monitoring growth in recreation facility demand (e.g. FERC
Form 80, NC State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, USFS recreation use
E1-21
Duke Power
West Fork Project
monitoring, etc.) will be utilized as indicators of any potential need for additional
facilities or facility expansions in the future.
c. Duke may also choose to undertake recreation use and needs studies if it desires to
evaluate any future recreation needs that may be directly related to its hydro projects.
d. After the first 15 years of operation under the new FERC licenses, additional recreation
facilities can be requested by TCST members or the organizations they represent. All
such requests should be justified by the requester with the necessary supporting data.
e. If Duke agrees that additional recreation facilities that are directly related to its hydro
projects are needed, it will endeavor in good faith to budget funds and make the
necessary improvements. Preference will be given to upgrades of existing facilities that
require no additional property rights and for which substantial cost-share funds are made
available from other sources.
Low Inflow Protocol
The Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) provides trigger points and procedures for how the West Fork
Project will be operated by the Licensee during periods of low inflow (i.e. periods when there is
not enough water flowing into West Fork Lakes to meet the normal needs for power generation,
recreation flows, minimum flows, any on-reservoir water withdrawals and lake level
maintenance). The protocol was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water
quantity will share the impact of low inflow.
In general during periods of normal inflow, the Licensee will provide at least a prescribed number
of hours per day of generation to support electric customer needs and the downstream flow needs
in the main stem of the Tuckasegee River (typically during different periods each day), in
addition to scheduled Tainter gate releases from Glenville Dam for recreation and maintaining
lake levels above certain prescribed minimum levels. During low inflow periods when the
Licensee cannot meet all of the above conditions, it will reduce generation by prescribed amounts
per generation or recreation period per day on a weekly basis, along with corresponding weekly
reductions in bypass flows, Tainter gate releases for recreation and minimum reservoir levels. In
addition, any large (i.e. greater than or equal to 1 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) maximum
instantaneous capacity) water intakes that are authorized on the West Fork Lakes in the future
will also have a reduction protocol incorporated into the easement documents that the Licensee
uses to approve of such intakes. The incremental reduction of all water demands on the system
will continue until inflows are restored to a point where the West Fork lake levels return to their
E1-22
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Normal Operating Ranges. See Volume III for the specific LIP assumptions associated with the
West Fork Project.
Maintenance and Emergency Protocol for the West Fork Hydro Projects
Under some emergency and equipment failure and maintenance situations, certain license
conditions may be impractical to meet or may need to be suspended or modified to avoid taking
unnecessary risks. The purpose of this protocol is to define the most likely situations of this type,
identify the potentially impacted license conditions, and outline the general approach that the
Licensee will take to mitigate the impacts to license conditions and to communicate with the
resource agencies and affected parties. Specific details associated with the Maintenance and
Emergency Protocols for the West Fork Project are provided in Volume III.
Shoreline Management Guidelines
Duke Power-Nantahala Area’s Shoreline Management Guidelines (SMG) applies to all reservoirs
owned by Duke Power in the Nantahala area, with the following exception. On Tuckasegee Lake
(as well as several other small reservoirs), pier/docking regulations will not apply. Due to their
small size and/or environmental concerns, pier/docks will not be permitted on these reservoirs. In
general, property owned by Duke includes the lakes, dams, power plants, substations, all land
below the full pool elevation of the reservoir and in most cases the land extending ten (10)
vertical feet above the full pool elevation of the reservoir. All Duke property lines above full
pool elevation extend vertically. See Volume III for specifics associated with the Shoreline
Management guidelines.
These Shoreline Management Guidelines set forth the rights and limitations as to the use of
Duke’s shoreline properties. These guidelines are designed to:
Meet Duke’s regulatory requirements.
Protect Duke’s generation interests.
Protect the scenic and environmental value of Duke’s shoreline property.
Provide recreational benefits to the general public.
Provide a guide to adjacent property owners on permitted uses of Duke properties.
E1-23
Duke Power
West Fork Project
CLASSIFICATIONS AND LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE NANTAHALA AREA
Duke also has developed new classifications and lake use restrictions for the Nantahala area
lakes. These requirements include restrictions on piers/docks, shoreline stabilization measures,
and excavation in certain vegetated and shoreline areas.
The lake use classifications and
restrictions are provided below and in Volume III.
Vegetated Areas/Coves with Stream Confluence - This habitat type exists where stable,
emergent, native vegetation (rooted within the normal operating range of lake levels and having a
minimum lakeward width of 5 feet) composes > 50% of the area for a minimum distance of 100
linear feet or where intermittent or permanent streams enter the upper ends of coves (with or
without vegetation). Where cove heads with a stream confluence exist but lack vegetation, this
classification will extend to 50 feet beyond the edge of an established sedimentation delta. In the
absence of an existing delta, this classification will extend 50 feet beyond each side of the
intersection of the stream centerline and the full pond contour. The following specific lake use
restrictions will apply: LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS – No piers, clearing, excavation, or
shoreline stabilization inside the project boundary.
Appeals for Piers/Docks Having No Practicable Alternative - Property owners may request to
have special consideration given to their proposal under the LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS to
place a pier/dock in vegetated areas within the Vegetated Areas/Coves with Steam Confluence
classification by providing compelling information that supports a contention that no practicable
alternative to the requested pier/dock access exists.
Mitigation - Successful appeals should be expected to include reasonable mitigation
requirements recommended by the natural resource agencies. Wildlife resource agencies (e.g.
NCWRC and USFWS) must be provided at least a 30-day review and mitigation plan
development period for any proposal.
Mitigation considerations include: 1) contribution to
enhancement comparable to the impact; 2) maintenance of the mitigation activities as long as the
facility exists; 3) implementation of the mitigation prior to facility construction; 4) allowance for
out- of- kind replacement involving different habitat types provided the recommended
replacement is greater than or equal to the total value of the habitat impacted, 5) in-kind
replacement as the preferred method although out-of-kind habitat enhancements can be deemed
acceptable, and; 6) a premise of no net loss of habitat important for fish and wildlife.
E1-24
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Construction Limitations - Individual simple piers/docks (serving single individual project front
property owners) that completely bridge by elevated pile or pole-supported walkway over the
vegetated area may be allowed, along with clearing of access corridors needed for such docks, no
clearing except for access corridors, no excavation or shoreline stabilization inside the project
boundary. Piers/docks cannot be placed within 50 feet of a stream confluence. The total number
of piers/docks that can potentially be constructed in an area > 100 feet classified as Vegetated
Areas/Coves with Stream Confluence is limited to one pier per 100 feet of shoreline within the
classification. This pier/dock per linear footage of shoreline limitation applies regardless of the
number of individual lots that adjoin the project boundary adjacent to areas with this
classification.
Consequences for Violations - Destruction of native emergent vegetation within the full pond
contour or unauthorized removal of vegetation within the project boundary may result in one or
more of the following: 1) restoration of the impacted area at the owner’s expense; 2) revocation
of a previously issued pier permit; 3) loss of consideration of any future lake use permitting
activities for up to five years or until vegetation is satisfactorily re-established; and/or 4) further
legal action being taken by Duke Power. Duke Power reserves the right to modify the lake use
restrictions associated with vegetated areas/coves with stream confluence to eliminate the
opportunity for future pier/dock construction within these areas if wholesale destruction of
vegetation within these areas becomes widespread.
Fractured Rock, Woody Debris and Sand/Cobble - These types of habitat exists where: 1) the
shallow-water substrate is composed primarily (> 50%) of medium to large broken boulders for a
minimum distance of 100 linear feet; or 2) 4 or more felled trees (> 10 inches in diameter at
breast height) extending from the shoreline into the water per 100 linear feet of shoreline are
present; or 3) the shallow-water substrate is composed primarily (> 50%) of stable sand or sand
and cobble for a minimum distance of 100 linear feet. Isolated boulders and gravel may also be
present, but are minor components (< 50%) of the substrate.
These areas consist of Project lands and waters that have specifically-identified importance from
an environmental standpoint but protection of those important values does not necessarily
preclude private, commercial, or other access to the lake. Applicants must first try to avoid these
habitat types, but if complete avoidance is not a practicable alternative, then the following
specific lake use restrictions will apply: LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS – No commercial piers
E1-25
Duke Power
West Fork Project
except True Public Marinas (Note 2), no boat ramps except those required for Public Recreation
and no excavation except the minimum amount necessary and approved as part of installation of a
dry-stacked boulder wall.
Applicants should expect to have specific reasonable mitigation
requirements imposed by the federal, and state wildlife resource agencies for construction within
areas classified as Woody Debris and/or Sand/Cobble. Wildlife resource agencies (e.g. NCWRC
and USFWS) must be provided at least a 30-day review and mitigation plan development period
for any proposal within an area classified as Woody Debris or Sand/Cobble. Downed trees within
the full pond contour should be allowed to remain as fish and/or wildlife habitat when possible.
Silt, Bedrock and Clay/Weathered Rock - These types of habitat exist where: 1) the shallowwater substrate is composed mostly (> 50 %) of silt from a nearby tributary stream for a
minimum linear distance of 100 feet; or 2) the shallow-water substrate is composed primarily (>
50%) of solid rock outcrops for a minimum distance of 100 linear feet; or 3) the shallow-water
substrate is composed mostly (> 50%) of clay or a combination of clay and weathered rock (e.g.,
gneiss and schist) for a minimum distance of 100 linear feet. LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS –
Construction activities in accordance with federal, state, local, and Duke Power-Nantahala Area
guidelines.
Rip Rap/Dry-Stacked Boulders - This type of habitat exists where these man-made structures
have been placed within the project boundary of the lake for a minimum distance of 100 linear
feet. LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS – No concrete, grout, or rock veneer utilized as part of drystack boulder wall construction. Rip rap must be placed along the base of all dry-stack boulder
walls. Construction activities in accordance with federal, state, local, and Duke Power-Nantahala
Area guidelines.
Pier/Dock- This type of habitat notes the presence of a pier and/or dock supporting various
public or private recreational amenities. Examples of the public recreation classification include
Duke-owned public access areas, True Public Marinas, and state, district, county, and city parks.
Examples of private recreational amenities include private piers and private marinas. LAKE
USE RESTRICTIONS - Construction activities in accordance with federal, state, local, and
Duke guidelines. No new construction without written authorization from Duke.
E1-26
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Notes
Public-need projects where the applicant has the power of eminent domain can be exempted from
the listed lake use restrictions provided there is no other acceptable alternative (similar to
practicable alternative (Note 3), except it allows more consideration for economics of alternatives
and desires of the applicant). Also note that the shoreline classifications and associated lake use
restrictions are considered to apply to the project boundary line and the area extending lakeward
and perpendicular to the shoreline for a minimum distance of one-third the cove width. Where
restrictive classifications (e.g. Vegetated areas/coves with stream confluence, Fractured Rock,
Woody Debris and Sand/Cobble) wrap around the heads of coves, the lake use restrictions will
also apply to the entire cove width in the wrapped area.
True Public Marinas provide public recreational opportunities with no predetermination of user
groups for any of the existing or proposed land or water based facilities.
a. No commercial/residential (existing or proposed)
b. No membership requirements
c. Transient services do not require wet or dry storage rental
Existing and/or proposed facilities will provide land and water based recreation services for
transient users at less than or equal to a reasonable and customary fee.
a. Services are available for transient users
b. Offers services for lake and land based users
An alternative is not considered practicable if choosing it over the desired option would result in
any of the following:
a) Violation of any applicable permitting criteria or lake use restriction.
b) Requiring the applicant to dredge the lakebed in order to use the requested facility,
whereas dredging would not be required if some allowance were made for crossing
into the restricted area.
c) Modification of the desired facility to the point that the resulting structure would be
of very limited usefulness.
The provisions of these requirements shall not apply to Duke-approved maintenance activities or
activities (e.g. piers, stabilization, mowing) which were allowed and/or approved by Duke before
E1-27
Duke Power
West Fork Project
the adoption of these requirements. When a facility currently located within the Vegetated
Areas/Coves with Stream Confluence must be rebuilt, the owner must relocate the facility outside
the classified area to the maximum practical extent. This provision, however, does not eliminate
the opportunity to rebuild a previously existing facility if there is no means of avoidance.
The Shoreline Management Plan Maps were generated from a Geographic Information System
(GIS) and are not intended to be survey quality. Actual start and stop points for transition
between classifications are subject to interpretation by Duke.
E1.14 Relicensing Consultation
As required by 18CFR16.8 (Procedures Relating to Relicensing of Licensed Projects), Duke
Power must consult with the relevant Federal, State, Interstate, and Tribal agencies that may be
affected by the Project. The following section summarizes the three-stage process used by Duke
in association with this project relicensing.
E1.14.1
Stage One Consultation
In the year 2000, a preliminary assessment of the resources within and adjacent to the Project area
was presented as part of the First Stage Consultation Document (FSCD).
The FSCD was
distributed to the pertinent agencies, Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians (EBCI), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other interested parties in March 2000. An onsite joint
meeting was held on April 25 and 26, 2000 to allow the interested parties to tour the Project
facilities. First Stage consultation letters from the interested parties are provided in Volume II of
the Draft License Application.
E1.14.2
Stage Two Consultation
The Stage Two consultation associated with this Project consists of the information-gathering
phase, development of the necessary study plans, preparation of the application and presentation
of the relicensing studies.
In association with the review of the FSCD, resource study plans were developed by Duke based
on initial Technical Leadership Team, (TLT), and agency comments (Table E1.14-1). The TLT´s
are comprised of representatives from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Forest Service (USFS), the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians (EBCI), as well as Duke. These study plans include
E1-28
Duke Power
West Fork Project
information on the targeted resource (e.g., mussels and water quality), study location specifics,
study methods, and report requirements. The TLT’s and the pertinent agencies were consulted
and briefed on study schedules and findings throughout the process through individual meetings
and monthly stakeholder meetings. The various Project studies are summarized in the associated
resource sections of this Exhibit. All the completed resource studies can be found in their entirety
on the Duke relicensing website at: http://www.nantahalapower.com/relicensing/hydro.htm.
Duke has entered into Consensus Agreements with the agencies as well numerous other
stakeholders (see Volume IV for the Agreement in its entirety). The details of cooperative
activities that need to occur in the future (e.g., fish passage prescriptions) will be defined during
discussions among the stakeholders. These discussions will convert the existing Consensus
Agreements into legally binding Settlement Agreements by the fall of 2003.
E1-29
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E1.14-1. West Fork Relicensing Studies Recommended by the Resource Agencies and Conducted by
Duke Power-Nantahala Area - page 1 of 6
ORIGINAL
STUDY
NAME
NPLAES1
REVISED STUDY NAME
AESTHETICS
EVALUATION
ACTION DESCRIPTION
DEVELOPMENT
Thorpe
Development
(2686)
Tuckasegee
Development
(2686)
x
x
x
x
YEAR(S)
OF
ACTIVITY
2001 2002
Assess the current visual conditions of the project facilities and
their operations.
x
Inventory, classify, and map plant communities, including RTE
NPLGWB1 &
BOTANICAL SURVEY
PETS2
plant species, within the project boundary or potentially affected by
project operations. Inventory, classify, and map riparian habitat in
x
the project boundary.
Conduct a Phase I archeological survey of the Lake Glenville's
NPLCULT1
PHASE I
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
shoreline, including assessing impacts of shoreline erosion and
assessing potential for sites in flood pool and plans for future
x
x
surveys during drawdowns.
NPLCULT2
NPLCULT3
POWER PLANT
Evaluate National Historic Register eligibility for project structures.
HISTORIC ASSESSMENT
Develop a cultural resources management plan for projects with
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT PLAN
significant archeological and National Historic Register Sites.
NPLGWB2 &
FISH SURVEY
NPLPETS1
Characterize the fish communities upstream and downstream of the
dams, in project reservoirs, and in applicable bypasses.
E1-30
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Duke Power
West Fork Project
ORIGINAL
STUDY
NAME
REVISED STUDY NAME
ACTION DESCRIPTION
DEVELOPMENT
YEAR(S)
OF
ACTIVITY
Thorpe
Development
(2686)
Tuckasegee
Development
(2686)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2001 2002
Fish passage feasibility study - Phase 1: determination of need for
NPLFPASS1
FISH PASSAGE
FEASIBILITY STUDY
fish passage, Phase 2: determination of feasibility of fish passage
relative to cost/benefit, at any stations with a substantiated need
TBA
from Phase 1.
NPLGWB3
SMP PROTECTION OF
RIPARIAN HABITAT
FOR WILDLIFE
Determine if any shoreline management policy changes are needed
to adequately protect riparian wildlife corridors, focusing on
undeveloped shoreline only.
Conduct new streamflow studies in three specific reaches:
(Tennessee Creek bypass, Tuckasegee River downstream of Caney
Fork Creek). Rerun streamflow analyses for: West Fork (Thorpe
NPLFLOW1
&
NPLFLOW2
FISH INSTREAM FLOW
STUDY
Bypass, West Fork between Tuckasegee Powerhouse and
confluence with East Fork and West Fork/East Fork confluence to
Caney Fork Creek). Rerun IFIM analysis using existing physical
habitat models and additional preference curves (i.e., mottled
sculpin and macroinvertebrates).
E1-31
Duke Power
West Fork Project
ORIGINAL
STUDY
NAME
REVISED STUDY NAME
RECREATIONAL
NPLFLOWR1
INSTREAM FLOW
& NPLREC3
STUDY
NPLLLM1
SHORELINE HABITAT
SURVEY
NPLLLM3
RULE CURVE
EVALUATION
ACTION DESCRIPTION
DEVELOPMENT
Thorpe
Development
(2686)
Tuckasegee
Development
(2686)
x
x
YEAR(S)
OF
ACTIVITY
2001 2002
Conduct recreational instream flow study in the West Fork
Tuckasegee River below Tuckasegee Powerhouse, and the
x
Tuckasegee River below Dillsboro.
Conduct survey of shoreline habitat to determine impacts, if any, of
x
drawdowns on aquatic habitats.
Maintain current minimal fluctuations on the West Fork Projects.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Characterization of the aquatic macrobenthos using the Standard
Qualitative Method as described in the state of NC Standard
NPLFLOW3 MACROINVERTEBRATE
& NPLGWB2 SURVEY
Operating Procedures upstream and downstream of the project
dams and in applicable bypasses, and conduct a mussel survey.
NPLOOP1
NPLOOP2
NPLOOP4
ZONE OF PEAKING
INFLUENCE STUDY
HISTORICAL
STREAMFLOW SERIES
EVALUATION
FLOW
COMMUNICATION
PLAN
Conduct a study to determine zone of peaking influence.
Determine current flow regime in bypass, including high, low,
7Q10, mean and median flows.
Develop a system to provide information to the public disclosing
instream flows and generation schedules for Tuckasegee sub-basin.
E1-32
Duke Power
West Fork Project
ORIGINAL
STUDY
NAME
REVISED STUDY NAME
ACTION DESCRIPTION
DEVELOPMENT
YEAR(S)
OF
ACTIVITY
Thorpe
Development
(2686)
Tuckasegee
Development
(2686)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2001 2002
Provide basic project and resource information per attachments A
NPLOTH1
BASIC PROJECT
INFORMATION
(Project Information Form) and B (Resource Information Checklist)
of NCWRC's letter requesting generic information for all NPL
projects.
NPLOTH2
TRASH REMOVAL PLAN Develop Trash Removal Plan for general litter and trashrack debris.
NPLOTH3
INTERNET WEBSITE
NPLOTH4
ENERGY
CONSERVATION
EVALUATION
NPLOTH5
RENAME THORPE
RESERVOIR
NPLOTH6
HYDROLOGICAL
SIMULATION MODEL
NPLOTH7
GIS DATABASE
NPLREC1
RECREATIONAL USE
AND NEEDS STUDY
Establish internet site to provide public with relicensing
information.
x
Review NPL's present record of energy conservation measures and
alternatives for new conservation programs.
x
Rename Thorpe Lake: Change all references to reservoir to Lake
x
Glenville.
x
Develop economic information to describe relative revenue impacts
to the generating assets of various operating schemes.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Develop a GIS-based mapping system to support cataloging and
data presentation and analysis for several other studies.
Conduct a recreation needs study to determine present and
projected future recreational demand and any additional public
E1-33
x
Duke Power
West Fork Project
ORIGINAL
STUDY
NAME
REVISED STUDY NAME
ACTION DESCRIPTION
DEVELOPMENT
YEAR(S)
OF
ACTIVITY
Thorpe
Development
(2686)
Tuckasegee
Development
(2686)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2001 2002
access needs.
Evaluate the effect of varying water release levels and schedules on
IMPACTS OF WATER
NPLREC2 & RELEASES ON
NPLREC3
RECREATIONAL
EVALUATION
NPLREC4
NPLREC5
NPLSED1
NPLWQ1
NPLWQ2
RECREATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY STUDY
recreational uses both on the reservoirs and downstream of the
reservoirs.
Determine impact of peaking flow on Boating and
x
Angling Opportunities.
Provide
project-related
data
for
recreational
opportunity
determination.
EVALUATION OF HIGH
Evaluate ability to provide weekend recreational flow releases
WATER AVAILABILITY
during higher flow periods.
FOR RECREATION
RELEASES
Development a sediment management plan to include rate of
SEDIMENT
sediment accumulation in reservoirs, project effects on bed-load
MANAGEMENT PLAN
transport and determination of downstream bank stability.
TEMPERATURE AND
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
SURVEY
POINT SOURCE
DISCHARGE
INVENTORY
x
Monitor and characterize Water Temperature and Dissolved
Oxygen above and within reservoirs, tailrace, and downstream.
x
Inventory point source discharges upstream, downstream and
within project waters.
E1-34
x
Duke Power
West Fork Project
ORIGINAL
STUDY
NAME
REVISED STUDY NAME
DEVELOPMENT
ACTION DESCRIPTION
Thorpe
Development
(2686)
Tuckasegee
Development
(2686)
x
x
YEAR(S)
OF
ACTIVITY
2001 2002
Conduct terrestrial surveys for RTE species within the project
boundary and areas potentially affected by project operations. RTE
is used in this document as a catch- all term for proposed/
threatened/ endangered species, regional sensitive species, Forest
Service concern species, and species of concern regardless of the
NPLPETS3 &
WILDLIFE SURVEY
NPLPETS1
specific administrative listings used by the US Forest Service, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, and NC Natural Heritage.
Evaluate
wetlands and floodplains as potential habitat for cerulean warblers,
blue-winged warblers, longtail salamanders, and other species of
concern.
Inventory wetlands and floodplains as appropriate to
determine the current status of these species.
E1-35
x
x
Duke Power
E2.0
West Fork Project
WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.51(f), Duke has prepared this report on the water quantity and quality
associated with the West Fork Project. This section contains the following information:
Resource introduction and background;
Description of surface water and groundwater quantity;
Description of applicable water quality standards;
Description of Project compliance with the water quality standards;
Description of historical and current water quality;
Description of existing resource management plans;
A summary of consultation;
A summary of studies conducted, in progress, or proposed;
A summary of Project effects; and
A summary of existing and proposed PM&E measures
E2.1
Introduction
This section summarizes water quantity and quality information including river hydrology, water
use and monitoring data within the Project area and the associated waterbodies. The West Fork
Project is located on the West Fork Tuckasegee River and associated tributaries in Jackson
County, North Carolina. The total drainage area of the project is 91.4 square miles. The Project
includes approximately 1,470 acres of reservoir surface area within the two developments. The
average annual inflow for the Project as a whole is 261 cfs.
The Tuckasegee River is located in the Little Tennessee River Basin within the Blue Ridge
Province of the Appalachian Mountains (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). This major North Carolina
river basin covers approximately 1,800 mi2 in Swain, Macon, Clay, Graham, Cherokee, and
Jackson counties. Much of the land within this basin is federally owned, forested, and within the
Nantahala National Forest (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). Landholdings associated with the Eastern
Band of the Cherokee Indians are also located within the Little Tennessee River basin.
According to NCDENR-DWQ (2000), three sub basins make up the large river basin. These
include the Upper Little Tennessee River, Middle, and Lower Little Tennessee River. The
Tuckasegee River is a major tributary within the Middle Little Tennessee River and drains the
eastern portions of the Nantahala National Forest. The Middle Little Tennessee River, including
E2-1
Duke Power
West Fork Project
the Project area, contains some of the most pristine and best water quality waters in North
Carolina (NCDENR-DWQ 2000).
The quality of water in the West Fork Project area and adjacent waterbodies has been monitored
by Duke, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resource-Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ). Although the USGS and
NCDENR-DWQ gage and monitoring stations are located near Bryson City, approximately 40.6
miles downstream of the West Fork Project. A comprehensive assessment of water quality and
descriptions of water monitoring programs for the Tuckasegee River and the associated Little
Tennessee River Basin has been recently published by the NCDENR-DWQ in April 2000
(NCDENR-DWQ 2000).
In general, ambient water quality monitoring data from the Tuckasegee River at Bryson City had
no indications of any water quality problems (NCDENR-DWQ 2000).
Fecal coliform
concentrations at this site have declined over time. In addition, the bioclassification (i.e., use of
macroinvertebrates as an indicator) of the river has varied between Good and Excellent with few
between-year changes in water quality (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). The bioclassification site, from
which this information is derived, is located approximately 18.6 miles downstream of the
Tuckasegee Dam.
Detailed information concerning the status and health of aquatic
macroinvertebrates in the West Fork Project vicinity can be found in Section E3.2
E2.2
Water Quantity
In general, hydrologic records are maintained by the USGS with data published yearly. The
nearest active flow gaging station (03513000) in the Project area is located approximately 40.6
miles downstream of the Tuckasegee Development on the Tuckasegee River at Bryson City
(Figure E2.2-1). The Bryson City location also includes an ambient water quality monitoring site
maintained by the NCDENR-DWQ (G8600000). Groundwater information is also based on
proximity site records and information by the USGS.
E2.2.1
Surface Water
The West Fork Tuckasegee River originates in Jackson County in southwestern North Carolina
on the northern slopes of the Eastern Continental Divide. The Project reservoirs are located in the
upper portion of the West Fork Tuckasegee River and have a significant influence on the water of
the West Fork Tuckasegee River (Figure E2.2-1).
E2-2
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The total drainage area of the West Fork Project, which is situated in the upper portion of the
Tuckasegee River, is 91.4 square miles. The Project includes approximately 1,470 acres of
reservoir surface area within the two developments at full pond. The average annual inflow of
the river at the Project is 261 cfs. Tributaries into the Project include streams such as Norton
Creek, Hurricane Creek, Cedar Creek, Mill Creek, Pine Creek, Coggins Creek, Hunter Jim Creek,
Trout Creek, and Grassy Creek.
E2.2.2
Groundwater
The predominant and most wide spread aquifer in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of
North Carolina, including the Project area, consists of crystalline-rock and undifferentiated
sedimentary rock aquifers (USGS 2002).
Most of the crystalline rocks are coarse-grained
gneisses and schists. Unconsolidated material called regoliths overlies the crystalline-rock and
sedimentary rock aquifers. This regolith consists of saprolite, colluvium, alluvium, and soil
(USGS 2002). The regolith is more permeable than the underlying rock. Groundwater stored in
the bedrock moves through the rock fractures, which form the only effective porosity in the
region (USGS 2002).
Groundwater recharge is highly variable in this aquifer because it is determined by local
precipitation and runoff. Both of these sources are influenced by topography and the capacity of
the land surface to accept infiltrating water (USGS 2002). The greatest annual runoff and
precipitation in the Blue Ridge area is found in southwestern North Carolina. Most of the
recharge in this area is from precipitation, which enters the aquifers through the porous regolith.
The recharge water moves laterally and slowly through this porous substrate and discharges to a
nearby stream shortly after a precipitation event (USGS 2002).
Well yields in the crystalline rock aquifer of the region are generally small with an average of 18
gallons per minute (USGS 2002). Wells in valleys and depressions generally have higher than
average yields due to commonly found rock fractures, reduced seasonal fluctuations, and a water
table that generally slopes down to the valley floor (USGS 2002).
The groundwater quality in this region is suitable for drinking and other uses; however, iron,
manganese, and sulfate may be high in certain locations (USGS 2002). According to the USGS,
the chemical composition of the groundwater in the Project area typically consists of calcium
(26.5 percent); magnesium (16.7 percent); sodium and potassium (10.4 percent); bicarbonate
E2-3
Duke Power
West Fork Project
(26.0 percent); sulfate (8.2 percent); chloride (7.5 percent); and nitrate and iron (4.7 percent).
Groundwater resources are not affected by this project.
E2-4
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure E2.2-1. Map of Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Sampling Locations in the Tuckasegee River - River Miles and Historical Data
Collection Sites
E2-5
Duke Power
E2.3
West Fork Project
Applicable Water Quality Standards
Temperature and dissolved oxygen are the primary water quality parameters used to assess the
suitability for many aquatic organisms. The NCDENR-DWQ has established water quality
standards for these parameters, as well as others, for all waters of the State. The standards
involve two primary considerations: 1) the designated water uses for each reach of stream (see
Section E.2.3.1) and, 2) water quality limits required to protect those uses. The applicable water
quality limits are summarized as follows in Section E2.3.1 and in Appendix 1 (NCDENR-DWQ
2002).
E2.3.1
Use Support Status of the West Fork Project and Adjacent Waters
The NCDENR-DWQ has assigned primary water quality use classifications and water quality
limits to all surface waters within North Carolina based on designated best uses. These standards
are pursuant to NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC .02B.0100 & .0200, effective January 1,
2002. The NCDENR assigns use support ratings based on a variety of chemical and biological
water quality assessments including trophic and biotic integrity indices, biological ratings based
on analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate communities, and water quality standards. Specific
water quality standards are associated with each classification. All waters must at least meet the
standards for Class C waters.
The other primary classifications provide another level of
protection for the waterbodies. The complete state water quality standards for the Tuckasegee
River can be found in Appendix 1.
NCDENR-DWQ classifies the Tuckasegee River within the West Fork Project area as Water
Supply III (WS-III), Primary Recreation (B), Trout Water (TR) and Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) (NCDENR-DWQ 2002b). Use classifications assigned to the West Fork Project area are
defined as the following:
Water Supply III (WS-III): Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or
food processing purposes for those users where a more protective WS-I or II classification is not
feasible, WS-III waters are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds (NCDENRDWQ 2002b).
Class B: Waters used for primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary
recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and similar uses involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a
frequent basis. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities. Discharges must
E2-6
Duke Power
West Fork Project
meet treatment reliability requirements such as backup power supplies and dual train design
(NCDENR-DWQ 2002b).
Class C: Waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life
propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. It includes other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types
of discharges (NCDENR-DWQ 2002b).
Trout Waters (TR): This is a supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters for
natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. This designation affects wastewater
quality but not the type of discharges, and there are no watershed development restrictions except
stream buffer zone requirements of the Division of Land Resources (NCDENR-DWQ 2002b).
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW):
This is a Supplemental classification intended to
protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or
national ecological or recreational significance. To qualify, waters must be rated Excellent by
DWQ and have on of the following outstanding resource values:
Outstanding fish habitat or fisheries,
Unusually high level of waterbased recreation,
Some special designation such as NC or National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Wildlife
Refuge, etc.
Important component of state or national park or forest,
Special ecological or scientific significance (rare or endangered species habitat, research or
educational areas).
No new or expanded wastewater discharges are allowed, and there are associated watershed
stormwater controls enforced by DWQ (NCDENR-DWQ 2002b).
E2.3.2
Compliance with Applicable Standards
As water is released from the upstream Tuckasegee River (i.e., West Fork) impoundments travels
downstream, water temperatures in the Tuckasegee River respond rapidly to changing
meteorological conditions.
As the water was released from the upstream projects, the
hypolimnetic water warms as it travels downstream during the spring and summer, and cools
E2-7
Duke Power
West Fork Project
during the fall and winter. The local meteorological conditions drive the heating and cooling of
the Tuckasegee River as the river temperatures respond to the meteorological equilibrium
conditions. Thus, the West Fork Project has measurable impact on downstream temperatures.
Based upon dissolved oxygen data collected in 2001 and the NCDENR-DWQ historical data,
oxygen concentrations consistently exceeded the minimum concentrations established by State
water quality standards for the Tuckasegee River.
As water travels downstream in the
Tuckasegee River, the dissolved oxygen concentrations decrease commensurate with the
warming that occurs.
The oxygen concentrations were at or near atmospheric saturation
throughout the entire river, with aquatic plant metabolism more pronounced in the downstream
reaches. As with temperature, a measurable impact on dissolved oxygen was detected from the
West Fork Project. The Project is in compliance and in support of all other applicable water
quality standards and designated uses. See Section E2.9 for a detailed study on temperature and
dissolved oxygen in the West Fork Project area.
E2.4
Existing and Proposed Use of Project Waters
E2.4.1
Existing Minimum and Maximum Flow Releases
The flow at the West Fork Projects was calculated by applying the method used to compute the
flows used for the IFIM studies on the Tuckasegee River. This method is based on knowing the
daily flow series at the three upper-most hydro projects at the top of the basin and the daily flow
series at the Bryson City gage at the bottom of the basin. The arithmetic difference between the
daily flow at the top and at the bottom of the basin is the accretion flow that comes into the river.
This accretion flow can be apportioned to any point on the river by using the methods based on
the equations presented in USGS WSP 2403 (1993). In addition to the equations, this paper
publishes mean annual runoff rates (cfs/sq mi) for the state of North Carolina in map form.
Using GIS tools, the average mean annual runoff rate can be computed for any defined area. The
relative proportion of the accretion flow can be computed for a drainage area by using the product
of the runoff rate and the drainage area (sq mi). This proportion, used in conjunction with the
daily time series, produces a daily time series for the intermediate point of interest on the river -in this case the West Fork Projects. This time series for the West Fork was then used with SAS
programs provided by NCWRC to compute the summary statistics and flow-duration curves
presented in this application for the Project locations (See Appendix 2 for the flow duration
curves).
E2-8
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The following information is pertinent to the historical stream flow data associated with the West
Fork projects:
Thorpe Development
Drainage Area (sq mi):
36.7
USGS Gage Number:
0351055 (1993-1981) and 03513000 (1897-2000);
USGS Gage Description:
Tuckasegee River at Dillsboro, NC and Bryson City, NC
Gage Drain Area (sq mi):
347;
Period of Record:
1993 to 1981 and Oct. 1897 to Sept. 2000 (w/o Jan. 1 to
Oct. 1983), (w/o Feb 1995 to Apr 1996);
Minimal Flow Recorded:
1 cfs;
Median Flow:
87 cfs;
Maximum Flow Recorded:
3,458 cfs;
Mean Flow:
116 cfs;
7Q10:
8 cfs
Min.
Median
Max.
Mean
7Q10
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
2
7
22
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
121
133
148
137
100
75
53
42
38
45
67
95
1,819
2,214
2,759
1,328
3,458
1,691
898
1,395
1,875
3,061
1,464
1,608
148
170
190
166
127
98
69
67
64
78
99
125
41
52
67
60
48
31
20
14
10
10
17
28
Drainage Area (sq mi):
54.7
USGS Gage Number:
0351055 (1993-1981) and 03513000 (1897-2000);
USGS Gage Description:
Tuckasegee River at Dillsboro, NC and Bryson City, NC
Gage Drain Area (sq mi):
347;
Period of Record:
1993 to 1981 and Oct. 1897 to Sept. 2000 (w/o Jan. 1 to
Oct. 1983), (w/o Feb 1995 to Apr 1996);
Minimal Flow Recorded:
20 cfs;
Median Flow:
140 cfs;
Maximum Flow Recorded:
3,939 cfs;
Mean Flow:
181 cfs;
E2-9
Duke Power
West Fork Project
7Q10:
30 cfs
Table E2.4-2. Historical Stream Flow Data (cfs) Associated with the Tuckasegee Development by
Month for the Period 1945 through 2000 for the USGS Gage at Bryson City (03513000)
JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
Min.
Median
Max.
Mean
24
48
69
48
31
28
26
22
20
20
20
29
191
211
239
221
167
130
99
82
71
77
106
153
2,173
2,813
3,173
1,713
3,939
2,116
1,197
1,699
1,905
3,400
1,539
1,806
226
261
295
258
200
157
119
112
101
116
144
191
73
86
110
104
88
65
53
40
31
31
38
55
7Q10
E2.5
DEC
Water Discharges
E2.5.1
Point Sources
NCDENR-DWQ is responsible for managing the water quality of the state’s freshwater resources.
The NCDENR-DWQ relies on the basinwide management plan developed for each river basin.
Each plan is evaluated and, based upon water quality monitoring, revised every 5-years. The
goals of the plan are to identify and restore full use to impaired waters, protect highly valued
resource waters, and manage problem pollutants. The primary component of a basinwide plan is
the process of permitting point source, wastewater treatment facilities through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
A portion of the water quality issues addressed by various agencies in the FERC relicensing
process was the identification and inventory of the point source discharges upstream, downstream
and within project waters. Therefore, the objective of this study is to provide an inventory of the
NPDES discharges for the entire watershed of the Tuckasegee River basin, including upstream of
the West Fork projects.
An inventory of the NPDES permits for the respective river basins was collated in January 2002.
Duke had in its GIS database a list of the NPDES permits on record as of November 1997. In
order to update the inventory, a data request from the NCDENR -DWQ for the NPDES permits
on record as of December 2001 was requested. Upon obtaining these records, a comparison with
the 1997 records revealed numerous point source discharges listed in the 1997 records were not
listed in the 2002 database. A complete record of the NPDES permits since 1997 was obtained
from the various sources listed in Table E2.5-1. Duplicate records between databases were
deleted. No known point sources discharges were documented upstream or within the West Fork
Project area.
E2-10
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E2.5-1. List of Sources to Obtain NPDES Permit
Information
Data
Source
Data
acquired
Download
from agency
website
http://www.ncmapnet.com/
08/24/00
North Carolina
Center for
Geographic
Information and
Analysis
Download
from agency
website
http://www.ncmapnet.com/
01/16/02
North Carolina
Department of
Environment
and Natural
Resources
Division of
Water Quality
Attachment to
email from
Charles
Weaver
responding to
request for
data
1994
11/06/97
E2.6
Internet URL
http://www.ganet.org//dnr/environ/
techguide_files/gsb/dr0021.zip
01/17/02
2001
Georgia
Department of
Natural
Resources
Environmental
Protection
Division
North Carolina
Center for
Geographic
Information and
Analysis
Obtained
via
Download
from agency
website
1999
2000
Source
Historical and Current Water Quality
The Tuckasegee River contains some of the most pristine areas and the cleanest waters in North
Carolina (NCDENR-DWQ 2000).
E2.6.1
Summary of Previous Studies
Prior to 1999, no water quality monitoring had been conducted on the West Fork by any
governmental resource agency or the Applicant. However, water quality data had been collected
on the Tuckasegee River by the NCDENR-DWQ at the monitoring station 40.6 miles
downstream of the Tuckasegee Development on the Tuckasegee River. This monitoring station is
one of a total of seven within the Little Tennessee River Basin (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). This
existing water quality information is discussed below.
E2.6.2
Water Chemistry and Other Parameters
Water quality data collected and analyzed as part of NCDENR-DWQ studies have been compiled
from previously reported data (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). The NCDENR collects ambient water
quality information from seven active monitoring stations in the Little Tennessee River Basin.
E2-11
Duke Power
West Fork Project
These stations are sampled monthly. The various parameters presented below are associated with
the monitoring station on the Tuckasegee River (Station G8600000). More recent water quality
data (i.e., dissolved oxygen and temperature) compiled and analyzed by Duke in association with
this relicensing study can be found in Section E2.9 of this Exhibit. A summary of water quality
parameters collected from the Tuckasegee River (Station G8600000) approximately 40.6 miles
downstream of the Tuckasegee Development from 1994 through 1999 is presented in the
following table (NCDENR-DWQ 2000) (Table E2.6-1). This is the nearest active water quality
monitoring station to the West Fork Project and it provides the best available data. This station
does not exhibit any indication of water quality problems.
Table E2.6-1. Summary of Water Quality Parameters Collected from the Tuckasegee River- 40.6
miles Downstream of the Tuckasegee Development near Bryson City During the Period 9/1/94 to
8/31/99 (NCDENR-DWQ 2000)
Percentiles
Parameter
N
N<RL Ref.
N>Ref. %>Ref. Min.
Max.
10
25
50
75
90
Temp. (oC)
56
-
-
-
-
3
24
6
9
14
19
22
Conductivity
56
-
-
-
-
15
37
21
22
24
26
28
Disslvd.Oxygen 56
-
5
0
-
8.1
14.0
8.4
9.2
10.1
11.0
11.8
pH (s.u.) 54
6-9
0
-
6.6
8.9
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.6
8.2
Field
-
Other
Tot. Residue
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tot. Sus. Solids
50
1
-
-
-
1
130
2
3
4
14
44
Hardness
50
0
-
-
-
2
14
4
5
7
8
9
Chloride
0
0
230
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Turbidity (NTU)50
0
50
4
8.0
1.3
110.0
1.9
2.2
3.2
6.9
28.5
Bacteria
Tot. Coliform
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fecal Coliform
50
13
200
4
8.0
1
690
1
1
5
17
89
E2-12
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E2.6-1. (continued) Summary of Water Quality Parameters Collected from the Tuckasegee
River- 40.6 miles Downstream of the Tuckasegee Development near Bryson City During the Period
9/1/94 to 8/31/99 (NCDENR-DWQ 2000)
Percentiles
Parameter
N
N<RL Ref.
N>Ref. %>Ref. Min.
Max.
10
25
50
75
90
NH3 as N
58
14
-
-
-
0.01
0.19
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.08
TKN as N
58
3
-
-
-
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
NO2+NO3 as N
58
0
10
0
-
0.01
1.80
0.06
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.23
7
-
-
-
0.01
0.25
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.10
Nutrients
Tot. Phosphorus58
Metals (total)
Arsenic
54
54
50
0
-
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cadmium
54
54
2.0
N/A
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Chromium
54
54
50
0
-
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Copper
54
19
7
11
20.4
2
17
2.0
2.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
Iron
54
0
1000
9
16.7
130
7400
169
200
315
710
3530
Lead
54
52
25
1
1.9
10
26
10
10
10
10
10
Manganese
2
1
-
-
-
10
10
-
10
10
10
-
Nickel
54
54
88
0
-
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Aluminum
54
0
-
-
-
77
9200
100
150
210
530
2900
Mercury 54
54
0.012
N/A
-
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Abbreviations:
N
Total number of samples
N<RL Number of samples less than the Division analytical reporting level (RL)
Ref
Water quality reference (standard or action level); see NC Administrative Code 15A
NCAC 2B.0200
N>Ref Number of samples greater than (or less than) the reference
%>Ref Proportion (%) of samples greater than the reference
Min
Minimum
Max
Maximum
N/A
Not Applicable because all samples were less than the reporting level
Units of measurement
Conductivity =umhos/cm; bacteria=no. colonies/100ml; metals=ug/l; all others=mg/l
E2-13
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E2.6.2.1
Temperature
Temperature is one of the primary water quality parameters used to assess the habitability and
suitability for aquatic organisms. The NCDENR temperature standard for designated trout waters
is an upper limit of 20o C. However, in much of the United States, ambient water temperatures
often exceed 20o C, even in natural trout streams (Ruane 2002).
The storage reservoirs associated with the West Fork Project on the upper Tuckasegee River
system exhibited characteristics of warm, monomictic reservoirs. The reservoirs experience a
prolonged mixing period during the fall and winter months, whereby temperatures decrease and
dissolved oxygen increased throughout the reservoir depths. As springtime conditions warmed
the surface layers, the reservoirs thermally stratified preventing additional atmospheric cooling or
atmospheric oxygen exchange with the deeper water. As the deep, cold water was progressively
released downstream via the deep water penstocks, the deeper water was subsequently replaced
by warmer, less oxygenated water. Since the reservoirs have limited storage, this process is
delayed with minimum volumes used for electrical generation and accelerated with larger
volumes released downstream. This process continued until the meteorological conditions cooled
enough to initiate the fall mixing period. The seasonal management, i.e. use of the deep, cold
water resource, is the key issue in maintaining desired temperatures downstream.
As the water released from the upstream storage impoundments traveled downstream, water
temperatures in the Tuckasegee River responded rapidly to changing meteorological conditions.
As the water was released from the upstream projects, the hypolimnetic water warmed as it
traveled downstream during the spring and summer, and cooled during the fall and winter. The
local meteorology forced the heating and cooling of the Tuckasegee River as the river
temperatures responded to the meteorological equilibrium conditions.
Thus, the West Fork
Project had measurable impact on downstream temperatures.
E2.6.2.2
Conductivity
Conductivity is a useful physical measurement of aquatic habitats and the associated water
quality. As a rule, the greater the conductivity, the greater the amount of ions in the water. Thus,
conductivity is an indirect measure of salinity that reflects the osmotic concentration of solutes
and the salt balance of organisms. Since polluted waters have a higher conductivity than natural
waters, this parameter is often used as a pollution index.
E2-14
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Conductivity measurements are relatively low and within the typical measurements for this region
(Table E2.6-1). No water quality issues associated with this parameter are apparent.
E2.6.2.3
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is an important determinant of aquatic health and one of the primary
parameters used to assess the suitability for many aquatic organisms. The 20-year historical
monthly data presented in Table E2.6.1, and in Section E2.9.2.1, for the downstream station,
indicate that the area consistently had oxygen concentrations greater than State water quality
minimum in 2001 and 2002.
Even though dissolved oxygen concentrations in the deeper depths of the upstream storage
reservoirs decreased throughout the stratified period, the deep water released from the reservoirs
were at least three (3) mg/l greater than the minimum standard for North Carolina trout waters.
oxygen concentrations consistently exceeded the minimum concentrations established by State
water quality standards for the Tuckasegee River. As with temperature, a measurable impact on
dissolved oxygen was detected from the West Fork Project.
E2.6.2.4
pH
The term pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of the water. Acidic waterbodies have a
lower pH and alkaline waters have a higher pH. A pH of seven is neutral. Aquatic plants,
pollutants, local and regional geology, and biological activity can affect the pH of a system. Most
of the Project area is characterized by a pH measurement that is slightly alkaline (Table E2.6-1)
and within the state standard of 6.0 to 9.0. The NCDENR-DWQ (2000) did report that low pH
values (near 6.0) were observed in the Tuckasegee River and other mountainous river basins in
the early 1900’s. After 1994, pH values increased to the present values. The values associated
with pH are well within the state standard and no project effects on this parameter are apparent.
E2.6.2.5
Turbidity
Turbidity is a function of at least three variables including dissolved chemicals such as acids and
tannins; suspended particles such as silt and organic matter; and the density of microbial life.
Water transparency, as measured by turbidity, affects the occurrence and intensity of
photosynthesis in the water body.
E2-15
Duke Power
West Fork Project
As with the other water quality parameters, turbidity measurements at the station were well below
the established standard throughout the period as sampled by the NCDENR-DWQ (2000) (Table
E2.6-1). Periodically, turbidity measurements above the standard of 50 NTU were recorded (i.e.,
increased turbidity). However, these episodes were infrequent and most likely the result of high
flows and rain events.
E2.6.2.6
Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria are relatively harmless microorganisms that live in large numbers in the
intestines of humans and warm-blooded animals. These bacteria, the most common member
being Escherichia coli, aid in the digestion of food. These organisms may be separated from the
total coliform group by their ability to grow at elevated temperatures and are associated only with
the fecal material of warm-blooded animals. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in aquatic
environments indicates that the water have been contaminated with the fecal material of humans
or other animals. The presence of fecal contamination is an indicator that a potential health risk
exists for individuals exposed to this water. Fecal coliform bacteria may occur in ambient water
because of the overflow of domestic sewage or non-point sources of human and animal waste
such as farms and kennels.
As in most of the Little Tennessee River Basin, fecal coliform bacteria concentrations have
decreased considerably in the Project area from samples collected before 1989 and only
occasionally have they exceeded the reference level (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). Fecal coliform
measurements as recorded from the downstream Bryson station were typically well below the
standard 200 colonies/100 ml (Table E2.6-1). Few samples in this record period exceeded the
reference levels. Where they did exceed reference levels, these values corresponded to high
flows, increased turbidity and recent runoff (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). The Project has no effect
on the bacteria levels downstream of the Project.
E2.6.2.7
Nutrients
Nutrient values in a waterbody are associated with phosphorus and nitrogen compounds.
Phosphorus is usually present in river water as phosphates, and is in very small amounts unless
there has been human caused enrichment of the water. The natural scarcity of phosphorus can be
explained by its attraction to organic matter in soil particles. Generally the lower the total
phosphorus value in the water, the better. Total phosphorus includes organic and inorganic
phosphate. Organic phosphate is a part of living plants and animals. Inorganic phosphates
comprise the ions bonded to soil particles, and phosphates present in laundry detergents
E2-16
Duke Power
West Fork Project
(polyphosphates). Phosphorus is considered a limiting factor in aquatic systems, meaning that it
is not freely available for easy consumption by aquatic organisms.
Nitrogen is a much more abundant element in nature than phosphorus. Nitrogen is known to be
an important plant nutrient, thus it is used often as a fertilizer and is found in high concentrations
in agricultural runoff. Nitrogen can be in the form of nitrate, ammonia, and organic nitrogen.
Organic nitrogen and ammonia can be measured together as total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN).
Nitrate is typically the most common inorganic form of nitrogen in surface waters.
The
concentrations of nitrates are associated with surrounding land use activities such as farming. As
with phosphorus, too much nitrogen also contributes to eutrophication of lakes and streams.
Overall, nutrient levels at the downstream Bryson station were low and well within typical
regional levels (NCDNR-DWQ 2000) (Table E2.6-1). The Project has no effect on the nutrient
levels downstream of the dam.
E2.7
Existing Resource Management
E2.7.1
State and Federal Agencies
State and federal agencies have management responsibilities affecting water quality along the
Tuckasegee River and associated headwaters. Their responsibilities upstream, downstream and
within the West Fork Project area are summarized in the following table.
Table E2.7-1. Water Quality Management Responsibilities of State and Federal Regulatory Agencies
Agency
Management
Responsibilities
Area1
Administers statewide water quality regulations. Establishes, regulates,
NCDENRUS; DS; PA
DWQ
and implements water quality management plan in the Little Tennessee
River Basin.
Regulates point and non-point source issues as well
NPDES permit.
Reviews and issues Section 401 Water Quality
Certification
USACOE
US; DS; PA
Reviews and issues Section 404/10 permits for dredge and fill permits,
and navigable waters, including wetlands
USNRCS
US: DS; PA
The Natural Resource Conservation Service provides leadership in a
partnership effort the help people conserve, maintain, and improve our
natural resources and environment. Administers water quality related
programs such as the soil and water conservation service, the soil
survey, watershed protection, watershed rehabilitation, wetlands reserve
E2-17
Duke Power
Agency
West Fork Project
Management
Area1
Responsibilities
program, and agricultural management assistance.
USFS
US; DS; PA
Administers the Nantahala National Forest Plan. Owns and manages
land both upstream and downstream of project area
1
US – Upstream of Project area; DS – Downstream of Project area; PA - In the Project area
E2.7.2
Existing Resource Management Plans
E2.7.2.1
Little Tennessee River Basinwide Assessment Plan
The DWQ uses a basinwide approach to water quality management (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). The
DWQ is responsible for permitting, monitoring, modeling, non-point source assessments, and
planning for each of the 17 river basins in North Carolina (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). All basins are
assessed every five years with the last assessment taken place in 1999. The primary program
areas associated with the Little Tennessee River Basin plan, as well as the others, includes
benthic invertebrates, lake assessment, ambient monitoring, and aquatic toxicity monitoring.
Most of the water quality information associated with the Tuckasegee River and the Project area,
as presented in this section is derived from the basinwide assessment report.
The Little
Tennessee River Basinwide Plan is listed by FERC as a state comprehensive plan that satisfies
Order No. 481-A criteria for comprehensive plan status (FERC 2002).
E2.7.2.2
Nantahala National Forest Management Plan
The USFS Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests guides all natural
resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the
National Forest lands. The goal of the plan is to provide a management program that has a
mixture of management activities that allow use and protection of the forest resources; fulfill
legislative requirements; and address local, regional, and national issues and concerns (USDAUSFS 1987). The plan is reviewed and updated at least every five years. Plan Amendment 5 was
published in 1994.
The plan includes specific goals and standards in the protection of water quality within Forest
Service lands (USDA-USFS 1994). These include:
Manage all areas within riparian areas;
Emphasize the protection of all developed stream channels and protect the integrity of
intermittent and ephemeral stream channels;
Manage activities occurring in specifically listed watersheds to meet water resource
objectives;
E2-18
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Maintain appropriate stream temperatures and bank protections;
Protect water quality by applying mitigation measures wherever there is construction within
300 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream or lake;
Set priorities for watershed restoration; and
Minimize soil damage.
The Nantahala National Forest Management Plan is listed by FERC as a federal comprehensive
plan that satisfies Order No. 481-A criteria for comprehensive plan status (FERC 2002).
E2.7.3
Compliance with FERC Approved Comprehensive Plans
Under 18 CFR, Section 16.8, each license application must identify relevant comprehensive plans
and explain how and why a proposed project would or would not comply with the pertinent plans.
The FERC’s list of comprehensive plans, dated April 2002, list several management and land use
plans for North Carolina (FERC 2002). The majority of these plans are not associated with,
specific to, or in the same geographic region as the Duke Power-Nantahala Area projects. The
following section evaluates the consistency of the West Fork Project with the FERC approved
water quality related comprehensive plans relevant to the Project.
Information provided in this assessment plan indicates that there is good water quality in the
Project area and the overall river basin.
Ambient water quality data for the West Fork
Tuckasegee River had no indications of water quality problems.
The Projects are currently in compliance with and will continue to be in support of all applicable
state water quality standards and designated uses for the Tuckasegee River. Thus, continued
operations of the Projects are consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and
conclusions outlined in this comprehensive plan.
Proposed PM&E measures such as
implementation of a sediment management agreement, implementation of a future shoreline
management program and enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program will ensure
continued support of the comprehensive plan.
2B-Surface Water and Wetland Standards
The surface water and wetland standards, NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B.0100 &
.0200 (so called “Redbook”) have been implemented and are regulated by the NCDENR-DWQ
(2000). These rules provide the procedures, use classifications, and water quality standards for
surface waters and wetlands in North Carolina.
E2-19
These rules also provide protection and
Duke Power
West Fork Project
maintenance management strategies for existing riparian buffers along certain waterbodies in
North Carolina. The “Redbook” has been revised for 2002.
As mentioned above, the basinwide assessment plan indicates that there is good to excellent water
quality in the Project area and the overall river basin. Ambient water quality data for the West
Fork Tuckasegee River had no indications of water quality problems.
The Projects are currently in compliance with and will continue to be in support of all applicable
state water quality standards and classifications for the Tuckasegee River including dissolved
oxygen and temperature (see section E2.9.2). Thus, continued operations of the Project are
consistent with the spirit, procedures, classifications, and standards provided for surface waters
and wetlands associated with the Projects.
Water Quality Progress in North Carolina 1998-1999 305(b) Report
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially to the US
Environmental Protection Agency on water quality in their state (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). The
2000 305(b) report provides updates on water quality information for streams, lakes, estuaries,
and groundwater, as well as summarizes the status of the wetlands in the state. The updated
water quality information is provided by the 17 river basins within the state; however, specific
Project waterbodies are not mentioned by name. For the most part, streams within the Little
Tennessee River Basin are fully supporting their designated uses such as Class C and/or Trout
(TR) waters. Urban runoff is the major source of stream impairment within this river basin.
The Project is currently in compliance with and will continue to be in support of all applicable
oxygen and temperature (see section E2.9.2). The Project does not contribute to any water
quality degradation or impairment in the river basin. Thus, continued operations of the Project
are consistent with the spirit, status, and designated uses provided for surface waters and wetlands
associated with the Project. Proposed PM&E measures such as implementation of a sediment
management agreement, implementation of a future shoreline management program and
enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program will ensure continued support of the
comprehensive plan.
E2-20
Duke Power
West Fork Project
associated National Forest lands. In association with water quality, the management plan outlines
objectives and measures to protect and maintain water quality conditions within forestlands.
The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation or impairment in the river basin.
Through proposed PM&E measures such as implementation of a sediment management
agreement, implementation of a future shoreline management program, and enhancement of a
shoreline habitat protection program, the continued operations of the Project are consistent with
the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the water quality
management portion of the Plan.
E2.8
Summary of Consultation on Water Quantity/Quality
A preliminary assessment of the water resources within the Project area was presented as part of
the First Stage Consultation Document (FSCD) (FWA 2000). The FSCD was distributed to the
pertinent agencies in March 2000. An onsite meeting was held on April 25 and 26, 2000 to allow
the agencies to tour the facilities. The following agencies were contacted in association with this
issue:
State
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality;
Resources; and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Federal
United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
United States Forest Service.
Non-governmental Organizations
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians;
American Rivers;
Western North Carolina Alliance; and
American Whitewater
E2-21
Duke Power
West Fork Project
In association with the review of the FSCD, First Stage Consultation comments were received
from the various agencies. Copies of this correspondence can be found in Volume II. A
summary of the comments and the associated Duke action is as follows:
1-a)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
(Hydropower Relicensing Coordinator), letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power
& Light Project Manager, dated June 23, 2000
The NCWRC recommended that NP&L determine the quantity and composition of sediment
inputs into the Project, as well as chemical composition of any sediment that may be released
by flushing or removal.
The NCWRC recommended that NP&L should remove all non-biodegradable materials
caught on the trash rack or dam from the stream system.
Additionally the NCWRC
recommended a management plan for disbursement of debris.
Duke Response: Duke conducted a sediment assessment within the Project area and is proposing
sediment management as a PM&E (see Section E2.13). A trash management plan (i.e., Trash
Removal Plan) was also prepared for the Project. This plan is summarized in Section E7.7 of this
application.
1-b)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC recommended that NP&L should conduct studies concerning instream flows
for the bypass and tailrace sections of the Project to determine if the present flows are
adequate for the aquatic community.
The NCWRC recommended that NP&L should conduct studies concerning temperature and
dissolved oxygen.
Duke Response: Instream Flow studies were conducted for several of the Nantahala relicensing
Projects including the West Fork Project (see Section E3.1.5).
Temperature and dissolved
oxygen studies were also conducted for this Project. These studies are summarized in this water
quality section (see Section E2.9.2).
E2-22
Duke Power
2)
West Fork Project
United States Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Dr. Garland B.
Pardue (Ecological Services Supervisor), letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala
Power & Light Relicensing Project Manager, dated June 24, 2000
The USFWS recommended NP&L determine how far downstream peaking operations of the
West Fork Project alone and in conjunction with those of the East Fork Project influence the
integrity of the Tuckasegee River.
The USFWS recommended collection of temperature and dissolved oxygen variations
associated with the Project for three full years. The study plan should include a schedule of
data collection and locations of data points.
The USFWS recommended conducting a site-specific habitat-based instream flow study to
determine the appropriate instream flows necessary to restore and maintain the natural
aquatic ecosystem of the river.
The USFWS recommended a study to determine the Project effects on bed load transport, and
should include a determination of the rate of accumulation within the reservoirs and a
determination of bank stability downstream.
Duke Response: A water quality assessment of the Project waters was conducted by Duke (i.e.,
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Survey) and is found in Section E2.9.2 of this application.
Instream Flow studies were conducted on the West Fork Projects within the Tuckasegee River
(see Section E3.1.5). Duke conducted a sediment assessment within the Project area and is
proposing sediment management as a PM&E (see Section E2.13).
3)
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Division of Water
Resources, Mr. John N. Morris, letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power &
Light Relicensing Project Manager, dated June 22, 2000
The NCDENR recommended conducting an IFIM analysis using the existing models of
physical habitat so that the habitat part of the procedure uses Habitat Suitability Indices for
macroinvertebrates and mottled sculpin.
The NCDENR recommended conducting additional studies using hydrologic flow records
and habitat data to evaluate the effect of the Project on downstream hydrology and aquatic
habitat.
The NCDENR recommended conducting new site-specific instream flow studies in several
reaches to determine the relationship between flow and aquatic habitat for the species of
interest.
E2-23
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The NCDENR recommended conducting an inventory of point and non-point source
discharges upstream and downstream of the Project, and the collection of water temperature
data including upstream, impoundment, and downstream temperatures.
The NCDENR recommended conducting studies to evaluate existing and alternative lake
level management options in terms of their effects on recreational use, littoral zone habitat,
aesthetics, and power generation.
Duke Response: Instream Flow studies were conducted on the West Fork Projects within the
Tuckasegee River (see Section E3.1.5). A water quality assessment of the Project waters was
conducted by Duke (i.e., Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Survey) and is found in Section
E2.9.2 of this application. The requested Point Source Discharge Inventory is summarized in
Section E2.5.
4)
Resources, Mr. Kevin Barnett, letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light
Relicensing Project Manager, dated March 5, 2001
The NCDENR would like to see an ongoing sediment removal plan, and within this plan, a
feasibility study in relation to sediment releases during high flow storm events to reduce the
need for dredging.
Duke Response: Duke conducted a sediment assessment within the Project area and is proposing
sediment management as a PM&E (see Section E2.13).
5)
United States Forest Service, Mr. John F. Ramey (Forest Supervisor), letter to Mr. John
Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Project Manager, dated June 21, 2000
The USFS recommended establishing a sediment management agreement for the Project that
has solutions to sediment accumulation other than downstream releases.
Duke Response: A sediment assessment was conducted by Duke within the Project area and is
proposing sediment management as a PM&E (see Section E2.13).
E2-24
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E2.8.1
Summary of Comments Associated with Agency Requested Study Plans
A preliminary assessment of the water resources within the Project area was presented as part of
the FSCD. In association with the review of the Project resources, study plans were developed
based on initial Technical Leadership Team (TLT) and agency/NGO comments.
In association with the review of the study plans, additional comments were received from
various interested parties. Copies of this correspondence can be found in Volume II of this
Application. A summary of the comments and the Duke action is as follows:
1)
American Whitewater, Mr. John T. Gangemi (Conservation Director), letter to Mr. John
Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Relicensing Project Manager, dated, January 12,
2001
American Whitewater suggests that Duke conduct a recreational instream flow study using
the controlled flow methodology described by Whittaker et al. This controlled flow study
should be documented with photographs and video cameras. American Whitewater also
encourages Duke to undertake robust physical and biological studies of the stream channel
concurrently with the controlled flow studies in each reach.
These studies should be
developed in consultation with stakeholders focusing on aquatic organisms.
American Whitewater recommends that Duke provide current and historical hydrologic data
for the project. This data should include instream flows above project impoundments, storage
capacity of respective impoundments, bypass reach flows and flows below powerhouses.
The hydrologic component should include comparative analysis between unimpaired and
regulated flows using Richter et al. Index of Hydrologic Alteration.
American Whitewater suggests that Duke develop a system to provide information to the
public disclosing instream flows and generation for the Nantahala and Tuckasegee subbasins.
Duke Response: The study plans recommended were conducted as agreed upon by the TLT and
can be found in this Exhibit. Recreational Instream Flow studies were conducted on the West
Fork Projects within the Tuckasegee River (see Section E5.6). Current and historic flow data can
be found in this section of the Application and in Appendix 2 (flow duration curves).
2)
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Division of Water
Resources, Mr. Tom Fransen, letter to Mr. Ed Bruce, Duke Energy, dated January 25, 2001
E2-25
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The NCDENR made several suggestions/comments concerning study plan NPLOTH6 –
Reservoir Operations Model. These include:
a) Model nodes- Model nodes are needed at each of the instream flow study sites (both
aquatic habitat and recreational) are needed to supplement all nodes previously
discussed.
b) Output at Instream Flow Model Nodes- The types of output that are needed at each
node include: a flow time series data set in the format needed for instream flow
analyses; basic descriptive statistics; duration curves both annual and monthly and
graphical and tabular; 7Q10 and 30Q2 log-pearson and can select which starting
month for annual analysis or just select part of a year; capability to display modeled
water elevations, inflows, outflows, etc.; longitudinal river profiles showing flow
statistics such as minimum, maximum, 7Q10, or discharges at a specified time-step;
all graphical output have the capability to superimpose multiple simulations for
comparison.
c) One vs. Two Tuckasegee Models- The Tuckasegee needs to be modeled as a single
system.
d) Nantahala Excel Spreadsheet Model- after reviewing the instream flow issues, an
Excel spreadsheet will not be adequate. In addition, for review consistency using the
same model package for both basins makes it easier and quicker for everyone
involved. (No alternative programs were suggested.)
e) Constant Travel Time- NCDENR cannot support a model approach with a constant
time of travel relative to recreational flow releases. A channel routing routine will
need to be included.
f) Economic Analysis- More information about the approach Duke proposed using for the
economic analysis is needed before an agreement can be reached.
Duke Response: The study plan was revised as necessary to reflect the above recommendations.
3)
Resources, Mr. Steven Reed, letter to Mr. Ed Bruce, Duke Energy, dated March 7, 2001
It was suggested that an additional two Leveloggers should be added to the Zone of Peaking
Influence Study and velocity profiles at selected Levelogger placement sites under a range of
flow conditions should be collected to better determine the “zone of peaking influence” from
E2-26
Duke Power
West Fork Project
an environmental perspective. Also, it was suggested that the study be repeated in the fall;
stating “A week in October should be selected and reserved now for this activity.”
Additionally, some wording clarification and changes were suggested.
Duke Response: The study plan was revised as necessary to reflect the above recommendations.
4)
United States Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Brian P. Cole
(State Supervisor), letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Relicensing
Project Manager, dated March 16, 2001
The USFWS recommended the use of a habitat based flow study in each bypassed reach and
those reach affected by peaking operations. Additionally, the USFWS encouraged Duke to
use a combination of IFIM, flow demonstration, expert opinion and adaptive management,
especially in the bypassed reaches.
Duke Response:
The study plans were revised as necessary to reflect the above
recommendations. A summary of Instream Flow studies will be provided in Section E3.1.5 of the
Final Exhibit E.
5)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
& Light Project Manager, dated April 20, 2001
The NCWRC suggested that the various plan names be revised from the original acronyms to
a more descriptive name. Additionally, the NCWRC stated that they strongly recommend
that the temperature probes be deployed prior to any controlled water releases in the bypass
sections as part of any instream flow studies, and the controlled releases will also provide an
opportunity to collect spot checks of dissolved oxygen in the bypass section.
Duke Response: The study plan names were revised by Duke and are provided in Table E1.14-1.
The requested water quality information can be found in Section E2.9.2.
6)
Resources, Mr. Jim Mead, letter to Mr. Stephen R. Gaffney, Duke Energy, dated March 20, 2001
E2-27
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The NCDENR suggested that the historical streamflow series or NPLOOP2 study should
include the approach of using lake level and generation records to back-calculate inflows to
the projects as well as stream gauge information.
Duke Response: These recommended methods were applied to the associated plan and study.
E2-28
Duke Power
E2.9
West Fork Project
Water Quality and Quantity Studies
E2.9.1
Previous Studies
Previous water quality and quantity studies conducted in the Project vicinity are summarized in
Sections E2.4 and E2.6.
E2.9.2
Relicensing Studies
In association with the West Fork Project, several relicensing studies were recommended by the
various resource agencies and these studies are summarized in Table E1.14-1. The studies
represented in this summary include all the studies recommended not just those associated with
water quality issues. Water quality specific studies are discussed in the following section.
During the relicensing process, several agencies recommended that several water quality related
issues be studied and analyzed in association with this project.
This section provides the
requested water quality information. These studies can be found in their entirety on the Duke
Power-Nantahala Area relicensing website at:
http://www.nantahalapower.com/relicensing/hydro.htm.
See study items Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Survey, Point Source Discharge Inventory
and Sediment management agreement in association with these studies.
The sediment
management agreement is discussed in the Section E2.13 (Proposed PM&E Measures) of this
application. The point source discharge inventory has been previously discussed in Section E2.5.
E2.9.2.1
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Study
Even though the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ) has reported that the water quality in the Tuckasegee River
supported its designated use, the measurement of water quality is a portion of the basic
information requirement of 18CFR4.51 and 18CFR4.61. Pursuant to obtaining a Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) license, a State 401 water quality certification (maintenance of
water quality standards associated with a project) is required for the project.
Traditionally, temperature and dissolved oxygen are the primary water quality parameters used to
assess the habitability and suitability for many aquatic organisms. The NCDENR-DWQ has
established water quality standards for these parameters for all waters of the State. The standards
involve two primary considerations: first, the designated water uses for each reach of stream and,
E2-29
Duke Power
West Fork Project
second, water quality limits required protecting those uses. The applicable water quality limits
are summarized as follows (NCDENR-DWQ, 2002a):
(a) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/l daily average for trout waters; for non-trout waters,
not less than a daily average of 5.0 mg/l with an instantaneous minimum value of not less
than 4.0 mg/l. Swamp waters, lake coves, or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have
lower values if caused by natural conditions;
(b) Temperature: not to exceed 2.8 degrees C (5.04 degrees F) above the natural water
temperature, and in no case to exceed 29 degrees C (84.2 degrees F) for mountain and upper
piedmont waters and 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F) for lower piedmont and coastal plain
waters. The temperature for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5 degrees C
(0.9 degrees F) due to the discharge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20 degrees C
(68 degrees F);
The NCDENR water quality temperature standard for designated trout waters is an upper limit of
20°C. However, in much of the United States, ambient water temperatures often exceed 20º C,
even in natural trout streams (Ruane, 2002). Wildlife resource agencies (most notably the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) have
requested the characterization of the water temperature and dissolved oxygen regimes in the
Tuckasegee River system to provide information regarding the management of aquatic wildlife.
The objectives of this report are to describe the temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations in
the West Fork impoundments and the subsequent use of that water for power generation on the
downstream temperatures, and dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Tuckasegee River.
Methods
In May 2001, recording thermistors (StowAwayTidbit, Onset Computer Corp.) were
programmed by Duke Power Company (DPC) to record temperatures at 15-minute intervals. The
temperature loggers were deployed in the Tuckasegee River system at ten locations (Figure E2.21 and Table E2.9-1). The thermistors were deployed beginning on 11 May 2001 and recorded
temperatures for a period of 370 days.
The loggers were attached to a loop of ⅛” wire rope cable. The loop was crimped with stainless
steel sleeves. The tethered loggers were usually placed in a deep pool. The shore end of the
E2-30
Duke Power
West Fork Project
cable was looped around an inconspicuous tree (or other permanent object), and again crimped
with stainless steel sleeves. Two temperature loggers were deployed at each location (Figure
E2.2-1 and Table E2.9-1) to provide redundancy in the event of logger failure and to minimize
the loss of data due to vandalism (most loggers were deployed on individual tethers).
Data were downloaded from the loggers at approximately monthly intervals.
For each
deployment period, data editing involved plotting and comparing the data from individual loggers
from each site and then comparing the similarity in trends and magnitude of differences to data
from the nearest upstream or downstream location. Data that were obviously erroneous were
discarded.
The process of double deployment and monthly data retrieval resulted in a
temperature data recovery of 100 % from all West Fork Tuckasegee River sites (Table E2.9-1).
The 15-minute temperature data from each location were averaged from midnight to midnight
resulting in the daily average temperatures for each river location. Daily minimum and maximum
values represent the range of individual readings during the given 24-hr period.
Table E2.9-1. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Sampling Locations Associated with the West
Fork Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Projects - Period of Deployments, Stream Classifications, and
Available Historical Data
Current Study
Site Location
River
Historical Data
Period of Deployment
Period of Record
(% Data Recovery)
(Stream Classification)
Fish and
Mile
Temperature
Hydrolabs
NCDENR-
Wildlife
Loggers
2001
DWQ
Associates,
Inc.
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
Lake Profiles
1988 - 1990
West Fork
Tuckasegee River
- Lake Glenville
N/A
N/A
N/A
Forebay
1993 - 1995
Lake Profiles
Lake Profiles
1999
1999 - 2000
1983
N/A
N/A
(B;WS-III;
HQW)
West Fork
11 May, 2001
Tuckasegee River
- Thorpe By-Pass
upstream of Thorpe
Powerhouse
3.8
to
14 May, 2002
N/A
(100%)
E2-31
N/A
(B;WS-III; Tr)
Duke Power
West Fork Project
6 Aug - 10 Aug
West Fork
11 May, 2001
Tuckasegee River
- downstream of
Tuckasegee
1.1
(100 %)
to
&
N/A
14 May, 2002
16 Sep - 20
(B;WS-III; Tr)
(100%)
Powerhouse
N/A
N/A
Sep
(100 %)
Stream Classification
Water Quality Standards
Symbol
Designated Use
Temperature
B
Primary Recreation
Less than 29 C
Tr
Trout Water
Less than or equal to 20 C
HQW
High Quality Water
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WS-III
Dissolved Oxygen
5 mg/l daily mean,
o
4 mg/l minimum
o
Water Supply - Low to
Moderately Developed
6 mg/l daily mean,
5 mg/l minimum
Dissolved oxygen measurements (as well as conductivity, temperature, and depth) were collected
with programmable Hydrolab DataSondes. The DataSondes were suspended off the bottom by
an anchored float (Knight, 1998) at the locations in the Tuckasegee River (Table E2.9-1). The
Hydrolabs were programmed to record data at 5-minute intervals during a 4-day period in August
and September 2001. These deployments were conducted during times when baseflow was low
(minimum rainfall) but with normal project operations. August and September were the warmest
months and were used to represent the lowest dissolved oxygen concentrations exhibited during
the year.
Even though the North Carolina Certified Laboratory Procedures only require calibration of in
situ monitors according to the manufacturer’s recommendation, additional quality control
procedures designed to measure the accuracy and precision of the instruments were employed
prior to and after the river deployments. The recording thermistors were placed in a controlled
temperature oil bath (traceable to NBS standards). The oil bath was adjusted in ~5C° increments
while the instruments recorded the temperature at minute intervals. These data were within the
manufacturer’s specifications.
The Hydrolab DataSondes were calibrated for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and depth prior
to each deployment. After initial calibration, the instruments were placed in a circulating water
bath.
The oxygen concentrations in the water bath were lowered by bubbling nitrogen or
E2-32
Duke Power
West Fork Project
increased by bubbling oxygen. The DataSondes recorded the changes at one-minute intervals.
After each change of oxygen concentration, a Winkler determination was made from the water
bath. The dissolved oxygen concentrations recorded by the Hydrolabs and the Winkler method
were compared over the range of dissolved oxygen concentrations. Results showed that the
Hydrolab DataSonde dissolved oxygen concentrations were within the manufacturer’s
specifications prior to deployment; but, after deployment, the oxygen concentrations recorded by
the Hydrolabs were slightly lower than the concentrations determined by the Winkler method.
This instrument drift indicated slight membrane fouling during the time the instruments were in
the river. No attempt was made to adjust the data recorded during the river deployments for this
fouling. Therefore, the oxygen concentrations reported would represent slight underestimates of
the actual river concentrations.
Reservoir temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles were obtained from TVA (stored files), Fish
and Wildlife Associates, Inc., and the NCDENR-DWQ (Table E2.9-1). Reservoir morphometry
(elevations, storage, structures, etc.) were obtained from the original drawings associated with the
various projects (Nantahala Power and Light, 2002a) and the various metrics were calculated
according to Hakanson (1981). Hourly generation data was provided by Duke Power Company,
Hydro Operations (Holland, 2002). Bryson City meteorological data was obtained from the
NCDENR - Division of Air Quality (Mullur, 2002).
Historical records of water quality (temperature and dissolved oxygen, monthly grab samples)
collected at Tuckasegee (1974 -1980) were obtained from NCDENR-DWQ (Sauber, 2002).
Historical records of the West Fork flows were obtained from Nantahala Power and Light
operational data. Mean (or median) daily summer flows (June - September) were calculated for
each year for the period of record (1955 - 2001). Summer flows within ±25% of the ‘grand’
mean summer flow for the period of record were designated as normal flow years. The years
where mean summer flows were greater than 25% of the ‘grand’ mean were designated as high
flow, conversely, those years with summer flows less than 25% of the ‘grand’ mean were
considered low flow years.
Mean daily incremental flows at various sections throughout the Tuckasegee River system were
calculated by the method described by Giese and Mason (1993).
E2-33
Duke Power
West Fork Project
SITE DESCRIPTION
West Fork - Tuckasegee River
Five major tributaries that drain the northern slope of the eastern continental divide flow directly
into Lake Glenville, the reservoir associated with the Thorpe Development.
From Lake
Glenville, a penstock supplies water to the Thorpe Powerhouse. The 5.8 mile long river channel
from the Lake Glenville dam to the Thorpe Powerhouse is referred to as the Thorpe By-Pass. The
by-pass channel receives leakage and/or spill from Lake Glenville as well as flow from the
immediate drainage area. Water from the Thorpe Powerhouse and the Thorpe By-pass flows
directly into the Tuckasegee Reservoir. A penstock from this reservoir supplies water to the
Tuckasegee Powerhouse. Approximately 1 mile of river channel below Tuckasegee Reservoir is
by-passed by the Tuckasegee Penstock, however a 20 cfs supplemental flow is passed from the
Tuckasegee Dam to the by-passed channel. Due to the very limited storage of Tuckasegee
Reservoir, both Thorpe and Tuckasegee hydroelectric facilities are usually operated in tandem.
Water from the Tuckasegee facility and from the Tuckasegee By-pass flows approximately 1.54
miles to the confluence with the East Fork Tuckasegee River. Morphometric characteristics of
the West Fork Tuckasegee River reservoirs are summarized in Table E2.9-2.
The NCDENR-DWQ (2002b) has classified Lake Glenville as High Quality Waters.
The
NCWRC (Yow, 2002) manages Lake Glenville as a warm water fishery with its tributaries
managed as ‘Wild Trout Waters’. The Thorpe By-Pass is managed as a Hatchery Supported trout
fishery from Shoal Creek to the head of Tuckasegee Reservoir. From that point downstream to
the confluence with the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River, the fishery is undesignated by the
NCWRC.
Table E2.9-2. Morphometric Characteristics of the West Fork Tuckasegee River Reservoirs
Development
Reservoir Parameter
Lake Glenville
Tuckasegee Reservoir
Full Pond
Elevation
(m-msl)
1064.3
694.6
(ft-msl)
3491.7
2278.8
Tainter Gate
Bottom Elevation
(m-msl)
1061.1
693.6
(ft-msl)
3481.3
2275.8
Penstock Center
Elevation
(m-msl)
1040.6
692.4
(ft-msl)
3414.1
2271.5
E2-34
Duke Power
Penstock Invert
Elevation
West Fork Project
(m-msl)
1036.9
690.4
(ft-msl)
3401.8
2265.1
(m )
8.91E+07
4.32E+04
(acre-ft)
72193.0
35.0
(m )
5.84E+06
3.20E+04
(acre)
1444.0
7.9
3
Volume
2
Area
(m)
39.6
10
(ft)
130.0
32.8
(m)
15.2
1.4
(ft)
49.9
4.4
Relative Depth
(%)
1.5
0.5
Mean Daily
Inflow+
(cms)
2.8
5.0
(cfs)
100.0
175.9
(days)
363.7
0.1
Maximum Depth
Mean Depth
Mean Retention
Time
+ calculated by the method described by Giese and Mason (1993)
RESULTS
Temperature
The daily average temperatures calculated from the West Fork (WF RM 1.1) and East Fork (RM
51.6) sites revealed significant colder temperatures from April through September compared to
sites on the lower Tuckasegee River (Nantahala Power and Light, 2002b), Hiwassee River
(Nantahala Power and Light, 2002c), and the Cullasaja River (Nantahala Power and Light,
2002d) (Figure E2.9-1). Water temperatures at those latter three sites were clearly in response to
the prevailing meteorological conditions (evidenced by the changes in water temperature to
changes of the daily mean air temperature1). In addition, the water temperatures measured at
those latter sites represent the probable water temperatures of the upper Tuckasegee River
without the hypolimnetic withdrawal from the West Fork and East Fork hydroelectric projects.
This hypolimnetic use by the hydroelectric projects, and subsequent release of the cool water
downstream, has permitted the NCWRC (and the NCDENR-DWQ) to manage a trout fishery,
albeit hatchery supported, in the Tuckasegee River during the summer months. This report
addresses the availability of the hypolimnetic cold water resource and its rate of heating as the
water travels downstream in the Tuckasegee River.
1
Air Temperature is used in this report as a surrogate for equilibrium temperature (the theoretical
temperature that the water would achieve under the prevailing meteorological conditions)
E2-35
Duke Power
West Fork Project
West Fork - Lake Glenville
As with most reservoirs in the Southeastern United States, Lake Glenville exhibited
characteristics of a warm, monomictic lake (Figure E2.9-2). The reservoir exhibited one mixing
period during the winter and a prolonged, thermally stratified period during the spring-summerfall months. The minimum water temperature (and the time of occurrence of the minimum
temperature) was a function of the severity of the winter weather conditions. The temperatures at
the bottom of the lake did not change during the stratified period (Figure E2.9-4) indicating that
the bottom temperatures recorded from the various years (Figure E2.9-3) were indicative of the
severity of the winter meteorological conditions. Lake Glenville’s large relative depth (measure
of the resistance to deep water mixing), long retention time (Table E2.9-2), and summer/fall heat
storage greatly impacted the extent of mixing and the minimum water column temperatures. As
the weather warmed and solar radiation increased during the spring, the surface heating of the
reservoir initiated thermal stratification. The timing of the vernal stratification was dependent
upon the late winter/early spring meteorology. As Lake Glenville’s surface water continued to
warm, water density gradients were formed, isolating the lower depths from atmospheric heat
exchange (Figures E2.9-2 and E2.9-4). Thus, the amount of heat dissipated from the lake to the
atmosphere during the winter dictated the amount of cold water stored in Lake Glenville for the
proceeding stratified period.
E2-36
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Tuckasegee at Whittier
East Fork Powerhouse
West Fork Powerhouse
Hiwassee at Murphy
Cullasaja River at Franklin
Air Temp
28
26
24
22
Temperature (C)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5/1/01
6/1/01 7/1/01
8/1/01
9/1/01 10/1/01 11/1/01 12/1/01 1/1/02
2/1/02 3/1/02
4/1/02 5/1/02
Date
Figure E2.9-1. Comparison of the West Fork and East Fork Tuckasegee Powerhouse Flow
Temperatures to the Temperatures Measured in the Tuckasegee River at Whittier (RM 19.2),
Hiwassee River (RM 99.1), and Cullasaja River (RM 1.2)
Maximum summer surface temperature usually occurred in August (Figure E2.9-4). Although
the patterns of heating and cooling were unique for each summer, the summer surface water
temperatures were similar between the various years (Figure E2.9-3) since the summer
meteorological conditions between the years were also similar.
Since the surface water
temperatures were a function of the atmospheric heat exchange across the air/water interface, diel
heating and cooling during the summer (as well as the limited wind fetch) contributed to the
depth of the epilimnion (upper mixed layer).
Similar to the initiation of thermal stratification in the spring, the meteorological conditions in the
fall and winter determined the timing and the extent of reservoir cooling and subsequent mixing.
For example, by the middle of September 1999 (Figure E2.9-4), the loss of heat to the atmosphere
had mixed the water column to a depth of 15 meters. In 1983, (Figure E2.9-2) mixing began in
late September and continued through December.
Complete water column mixing had not
occurred by the end of that year. Evidence of Lake Glenville mixing was also apparent from the
temperatures recorded from the location in the West Fork-Tuckasegee River downstream of the
E2-37
Duke Power
Tuckasegee Powerhouse (Figure E2.9-1).
West Fork Project
As air temperatures rapidly decreased from mid-
December to mid-January, a similar decrease was observed in the stream temperatures (Figure
E2.9-1). These data indicate that Lake Glenville was mixed to at least the depth of the penstock
opening by mid-December when the stream temperatures began to decrease significantly. This
trend of decreasing temperatures continued until mid-January, indicating the lake was still
cooling and mixing until weather conditions warmed to prevent further cooling
The most notable differences in water column temperatures during all of the stratified periods
were observed in the metalimnetic region (region of increased thermal gradients) (Figures E2.9-2,
E2.9-3 and E2.9-4). Unlike natural lakes where the formation of the metalimnion is solely a
function of wind fetch and diel convection2, thermal stratification patterns in reservoirs are also
strongly influenced by advection. In the case of Lake Glenville, cold water was removed from
the lake via the deep water penstock thereby deepening the metalimnion and warming the
successive layers. As long as water was removed during the stratified period, this warming
would continue to the depths of the penstock (Figure E2.9-2).
The rate of heating of the
metalimnion was a function of the rate of deep water removal from Lake Glenville (Figure E2.95). The average daily penstock flow to Thorpe Powerhouse (calculated from June through
August for each year) removed the cooler water from the lake at the penstock depth, this cooler
water was ‘replaced’ by warmer water from above. Of all of the summers where data was
available (Figure E2.9-3), the rate of the hypolimnetic loss was most pronounced in 1988, where
the average flow through the penstock was 262 cfs.
In contrast, 2001 exhibited minimal
hypolimnetic loss since only an average of 43 cfs was used by Thorpe hydro. Coincidentally, the
y-intercept of the depths of the isotherms (Figure E2.9-5 at zero flow) corresponded to the
theoretical thermocline depth2 calculated for natural lakes (Lerman, 1978).
2
Since natural lakes do not have a deep water withdrawal, the thermocline depth is a function of the wind
fetch of a lake, Lake Glenville’s average fetch was estimated at 2.4 km.
E2-38
DukePower
West Fork Project
Figure E2.9-2. 1983 Temperature Isopleths in Lake Glenville
E2-39
DukePower
West Fork Project
Lake Glenville Forebay - August
1988
1999
Penstock
5
Temperature (°C)
10
15
20
1995
2001
max depth
25
0
30
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
30
35
40
Depth from Full Pond (m)
0
1990
2000
Tainter Gate
Lake Glenville Forebay - 1999
August
Sept
Penstock
Tainter Gate
max depth
5
Temperature (°C)
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
35
40
45
45
50
50
55
55
60
60
Figure E2.9-3. August Temperature Profiles in Lake Glenville 1988, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001
June
Figure E2.9-4. 1999 Summer Temperature Profiles in Lake Glenville
E2-40
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Depth of 12 deg-C
Poly. (Depth of 12 deg-C)
Depth of 16 deg-C)
Poly. (Depth of 16 deg-C))
Depth of 20 deg-C
Poly. (Depth of 20 deg-C)
Depth of August Isotherm (m below full pond)
30
25
2
y = -0.0004x + 0.165x + 7.7618
2
R = 0.9439
20
2
y = -0.0003x + 0.1268x + 6.138
2
R = 0.9889
15
2
y = -0.0002x + 0.0817x + 6.1286
2
R = 0.9942
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Mean Daily Outflow (June - Aug, cfs)
Figure E2.9-5. Regression Analysis of the August Depth of the 12º, 16º, and 20º Isotherms in Lake
Glenville as a Function of the Mean Daily Summer Outflow
Since the amount of cold water stored in Lake Glenville was determined at the beginning of the
stratified period and since this cold water is supplied to the Tuckasegee River via Thorpe hydro,
the management of the rate of warming in the deeper depths of Lake Glenville becomes very
significant to the water quality objectives in the Tuckasegee River.
Unlike the empirical
relationship (Figure E2.9-5), which used the arbitrary time frame of June - August, the
availability of cold water3 throughout the stratified period was calculated based upon the amount
of water stored in Lake Glenville (Figure E2.9-6). Using the 20ºC temperature standard for trout
as an example4, the number of days that water equal to or less than 20ºC that may be released
from Lake Glenville was calculated for various flow rates (Figure E2.9-7). The flow rates used
for the calculations were derived from the historical inflows5 to Lake Glenville. The results of
3
The actual temperature of the water was a function of the winter meteorological severity.
The same calculation may be made for any desired temperature.
5
The use of the statistically derived inflows (1955-1999) for the calculation was based upon keeping the
lake level constant during the stratified period, if the outflows exceed the inflows (as in Figure E2.9-5),
the lake level would drop, but the prediction in Figure E2.9-7 would remain the same.
4
E2-41
Duke Power
West Fork Project
the calculations revealed that the total amount of water used from the penstock must be
considered for both lake level and downstream temperature management.
West Fork - Thorpe By-Pass
The daily average, minimum, and maximum temperatures calculated from the 15-minute
temperature recordings from the Thorpe By-Pass, upstream of the Thorpe Powerhouse flow,
(Figure E2.9-8) paralleled the mean daily air temperatures. Within the general seasonal trends of
temperature, shorter intervals of heating and cooling periods were observed, indicating a rapid
response of river temperatures to the prevailing meteorological conditions. Temperatures in the
by-pass exhibited warmest temperatures during July and August with coolest temperatures in late
January and early February. Even though the by-pass temperatures were a function of the
meteorological trends, the by-pass temperatures were cooler than those measured from other river
sites (Figure E2.9-1). This was not surprising since the Thorpe By-pass was at a greater altitude
(cooler meteorological conditions) and was shaded from solar radiation by the extensive tree
canopy much more than the other river sites. Although the by-pass was cooler, maximum daily
temperatures routinely exceeded the state water quality standard of 20°C for trout waters from
June through August.
West Fork - Tuckasegee River (Downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro)
The daily average, minimum, and maximum temperatures calculated from the 15-minute
temperature data recorded from the West Fork - Tuckasegee River (Figure E2.9-9), 50 meters
downstream of the confluence with the Tuckasegee Powerhouse flow and Tuckasegee Hydro Bypass flow, were a function of the operation of Thorpe Hydroelectric Station 6. The minimum
water temperatures recorded during the spring, summer, and fall were indicative of the
temperatures of the hypolimnion of Lake Glenville.
Whereas the maximum temperatures
recorded in spring, summer, and fall were a result of the relative contribution of water originating
from the Thorpe By-Pass as it passed through Tuckasegee Reservoir. The situation was reversed
in the winter when the water originating from Lake Glenville was warmer than the water from the
Thorpe By-Pass.
The temperatures recorded downstream of Tuckasegee Powerhouse flow were a function of the
relative contribution to the total West Fork flow from either the Thorpe By-Pass or Thorpe hydro
generation (with very small incremental flow directly into Tuckasegee Reservoir). The Thorpe
6
Since the storage in Tuckasegee reservoir was minimal, Tuckasegee Hydro was operated in tandem with
Thorpe Hydro
E2-42
Duke Power
West Fork Project
By-pass flows continuously into the headwaters of Tuckasegee. When Thorpe Hydro generated
power, the water from Thorpe Hydro flowed into Tuckasegee Reservoir about 50 meters
downstream of the Thorpe By-Pass inflow 7. During generation, the large amount of cold water
from Thorpe Hydro replaced the water in Tuckasegee Reservoir as the Tuckasegee Hydro
released water downstream into the West Fork. Cooler temperatures measured downstream of
Tuckasegee Hydro during generation (Figures E2.9-10 and E2.9-11) were the result of the Thorpe
release of the deep water from Lake Glenville. Each successive generation period continually
replaced the Tuckasegee Reservoir water with the water released by Thorpe Hydro. The resultant
temperatures downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro remained consistently cool (Figure E2.9-11).
However, during longer periods of non-generation (Figures E2.9-10 and E2.9-11), the warmer
water from the Thorpe By-pass overflowed the colder water stored in Tuckasegee7. If the period
of non-generation was long enough (about 3 days, Figure E2.9-10), the downstream temperatures
began to increase as the surface water from Tuckasegee was released from the surface gate into
the Tuckasegee By-pass.
7
Based upon historical records from Nantahala Power and Light, the mean daily flow of the Thorpe Bypass was 44 cfs. However, since the normal summer flow for 2001 was 83% of mean flow (based upon
the Bryson USGS gage), the Thorpe By-pass flow averaged 36 cfs during the summer of 2001. Using this
figure, during generation, the Thorpe Hydro contributed 5.6 times as much water to Tuckasegee Reservoir
as did the Thorpe By-pass.
E2-43
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Lake Glenville
Lake Glenville
Storage
0
20000
Penstock
Tainter Gate
Storage (acre-feet)
40000
60000
max depth
80000
0
0
5
5
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Depth from Full Pond of 20 deg-C Temperature (m)
0
10
73 cfs (Average Flow)
38 cfs (25 % less than median)
Penstock
150 cfs
Days of 20-deg Water
200
300
400
500
600
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
50
55
55
60
60
Figure E2.9-6. Lake Glenville Storage Curve
100
51 cfs (Median flow)
64 cfs (25 % greater than median)
Tainter Gate
max depth
Figure E2.9-7. Potential Days of 20ºC (or less) Water Released from Thorpe
Hydroelectric Station at Various Summer Tributary Inflows
E2-44
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Thorpe Bypass Mean
Thorpe Bypass Max
Thorpe Bypass Min
Daily Mean Air Temperature
28
26
24
22
Temperature (C)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5/1/01
6/1/01 7/1/01
8/1/01
9/1/01 10/1/01 11/1/01 12/1/01 1/1/02
2/1/02 3/1/02
4/1/02 5/1/02
6/1/02
Date
Figure E2.9-8. Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Daily Water Temperatures, Thorpe By-Pass West Fork, Tuckasegee River
West Fork Mean
West Fork Max
West Fork Min
Daily Mean Air Temperature
28
26
24
22
Temperature (C)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5/1/01
6/1/01 7/1/01
8/1/01
9/1/01 10/1/01 11/1/01 12/1/01 1/1/02
2/1/02 3/1/02
4/1/02 5/1/02
Date
Figure E2.9-9. Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Daily Water Temperatures, West Fork,
Tuckasegee River RM 1.1, 100 meters downstream of Tuckasegee Powerhouse
E2-45
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Thorpe Bypass
West Fork
Air Temps
Generation flow
28
700
26
24
600
22
500
18
16
400
14
12
300
10
8
Generation Flow (cfs)
Temperature (C)
20
200
6
4
100
2
0
6-Jun
0
7-Jun
8-Jun
9-Jun 10-Jun 11-Jun 12-Jun 13-Jun 14-Jun 15-Jun 16-Jun
2001
Figure E2.9-10. Comparison of the June 15 minute Water Temperatures, West Fork Tuckasegee
River (RM 1.1), Thorpe By-Pass, and Air Temperatures to Tuckasegee Hydro Generation Flow
Thorpe Bypass
West Fork
28
Air Temps
Generation flow
700
26
24
600
22
500
18
16
400
14
12
300
10
8
Generation Flow (cfs)
Temperature (C)
20
200
6
4
100
2
0
5-Jul
0
6-Jul
7-Jul
8-Jul
9-Jul
10-Jul 11-Jul 12-Jul 13-Jul 14-Jul 15-Jul
2001
Figure E2.9-11. Comparison of the July 15 minute Water Temperatures, West Fork Tuckasegee
River (RM 1.1), Thorpe By-Pass, and Air Temperatures to Tuckasegee Hydro Generation Flow
The periodic thermal stratification reported in Tuckasegee Reservoir (Nantahala Power and
Light, 2001) was probably the result of this overflow of the warmer water from Thorpe ByE2-46
Duke Power
pass.
West Fork Project
As the period of non-generation from the West Fork projects increased, the
temperatures downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro also increased as they approached the
temperatures of the Thorpe By-pass (Figures E2.9-10 and E2.9-11). However, as with any
inflow to a reservoir, as the warmer water flowed over the underlying cooler water, turbulent
mixing occurred in the boundary layers which slowed the process of intensifying thermal
stratification which delayed the warming downstream.
When the West Fork projects
commenced generation, the high flow from Tuckasegee Hydro rapidly released the warmer
water that had accumulated in Tuckasegee Reservoir, resulting in a short lived temperature
spike’ downstream of the Tuckasegee Hydro.
The dial, meterologically induced temperature changes were most notable in the Thorpe Bypass, with daily temperature changes routinely exceeding 3.5ºC.
In contrast, the water
temperatures downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro exhibited one very small incremental
temperature increase and subsequent decrease around noon each day irrespective of
generation flow (Figures E2.9-10 and E2.9-11).
Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved oxygen concentrations in an aquatic system are a function of the
interrelationships and relative rates of physical, chemical, and biological processes. The
construction of deep reservoirs on the West and East Forks of the Tuckasegee River has
slowed and deepened the ‘old’ river. This combination resulted in increased retention times
and incomplete vertical mixing (stratification) of the reservoir.
As a rule, the shorter time the water is in the reservoir, the greater the similarity of water
quality coming into the reservoir and the water going out of the reservoir. Conversely, with
increased retention times, the amount and type of dissolved or particulate material is
progressively altered within the reservoir, by chemical or biological activity. The oxygen
concentrations within a reservoir are a function of allochthanous (externally derived, from
either point or non-point sources) organic loading and the autochthonous (internal) organic
production. As the reservoir receives organic compounds from the watershed (external),
these materials oxidize (consume oxygen) by bacterial decomposition.
Additionally,
inorganic nutrients (primarily phosphorus and nitrogen) are also transported from the
watershed. These nutrients stimulate algal growth within the reservoir (internal); which,
while growing, produce oxygen, but as they sink and decompose, consume oxygen. The
E2-47
Duke Power
West Fork Project
relative rates of the ‘BOD’ from either source are a function of how much material was added
to the reservoir and over what period of time the organic material decomposes.
In reservoirs, different layers of water form as a result of reduced vertical mixing (thermal
stratification). Complete vertical mixing (water in contact with the atmosphere) is reduced or
eliminated with the onset of vernal warming of the surface water. This warmer water,
exhibiting less specific gravity due to increased temperatures, floats over the cooler, denser
water (hypolimnion).
As radiant energy and air temperatures increase, the top layer
(epilimnion) is further warmed, thereby creating a stronger vertical temperature gradient. As
the thermal gradient intensifies, the cool, lower layers become increasingly isolated from the
atmosphere.
Dissolved oxygen progressively decreases in the lower layers due to the
bacterial decomposition of organic material derived from the watershed or from the ‘algal
rain’ from the upper layer where the algae were produced. The downstream release of this
deep, cool, low oxygenated water via the powerhouse penstocks typically results in the
concern for depressed oxygen concentrations in the tailwaters of the hydroelectric facilities.
West Fork - Lake Glenville
The dissolved oxygen concentrations in Lake Glenville (Figures E2.9-12 and E2.9-13) were
typical for warm, monomictic southeastern reservoirs. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were
highest in the spring due to the mixing of the water column and subsequent atmospheric
reaeration throughout the winter. The maximum water column concentration achieved in the
spring was a function of the extent and duration of the mixing period.
As reservoir
stratification became more pronounced (Figure E2.9-4), the dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the deeper depths (Figure E2.9-13) decreased due to microbial respiration.
The
decomposition of organic material (either supplied by the inflow and/or algal production
within the reservoir) was centered in the metalimnetic region (layer of maximum thermal
gradients). The changes of the dissolved oxygen distribution in the water column from
August to September (Figure E2.9-13) indicate that as deep water was withdrawn from the
penstocks, the metalimnetic water, with lower dissolved oxygen concentrations, was ‘pulled’
deeper in the reservoir.
E2-48
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Lake Glenville Forebay - August
1988
1990
1995
June
August
Sept
1999
2000
2001
Penstock
Tainter Gate
max depth
Penstock
Tainter Gate
max depth
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
2
4
6
8
10
0
12
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
30
35
40
0
Lake Glenville Forebay - 1999
12
25
30
35
40
45
45
50
50
55
55
60
60
Figure E2.9-12. August Dissolved Oxygen Profiles in Lake Glenville 1988, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
2
4
6
8
10
Figure E2.9-13. 1999 Summer Dissolved Oxygen Profiles in Lake
Glenville
E2-49
Duke Power
West Fork Project
However, in some years, the reservoir also experienced metalimnetic oxygen maximum with
enhanced rates of oxygen loss in the deeper layers (Figure E2.9-12). Metalimnetic oxygen
increases are usually attributed to high oxygen concentrations in the tributary inflow as that
cooler, high oxygenated water would flow under the warm epilimnion, or, if metalimnetic light
intensity was sufficient to sustain algal contribution of oxygen by photosynthesis. In either case,
the extent of the deep water dissolved oxygen deficits were lower in 2000 and 2001 (low flow
years) than in the previous years. This difference in the yearly deep water oxygen concentrations,
analogous to increased heating in the hypolimnion, would indicate that the deep water oxygen
concentrations at the level of the penstocks were a function of the total amount of water
withdrawn from the penstocks.
Even though the deep water layers in Lake Glenville experienced oxygen deficits, the amount of
oxygen lost by microbial decomposition was not sufficient to create anoxic water.
This
observation, coupled with the high retention time of Lake Glenville (Table E2.9-2) and the very
low conductivity values and primary nutrient concentrations reported by NCDENR-DWQ
(2002b) suggest that Lake Glenville exhibited very low algal productivity. The lowest dissolved
oxygen concentrations were observed at depths greater than the penstock opening. These deep
water minimum oxygen concentrations were a result of either incomplete winter mixing due to
the high relative depth or significant sediment oxygen demand.
West Fork - Tuckasegee River (Downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro)
Even though Lake Glenville experienced oxygen concentrations of approximately 6 mg/l in the
vicinity of the penstock opening in 2001, the oxygen concentrations measured downstream of
Tuckasegee Hydro were not less than 9 mg/l (Figures E2.9-14 and E2.9-15). These values
represented concentrations when the hydros (Thorpe and Tuckasegee) were not generating. As
soon as generation began, the oxygen concentrations increased to 9.5 to over 10 mg/L
downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro. The double Pelton type turbine used by Thorpe Hydro
sufficiently aerated the water as the water struck the runner buckets on the turbine. This turbine
design effectively maintained high oxygen concentrations in the water released to the West Fork Tuckasegee River.
In August 2001 (Figure E2.9-14) the difference between generation and non-generation times of
the concentration of water at atmospheric concentrations was the result of the temperature
difference of the Tuckasegee By-pass water and water from Thorpe Hydro. This difference was
E2-50
Duke Power
West Fork Project
not realized in September (Figure E2.9-15) since generation was sufficiently longer, particularly
in the morning, to minimize heating of the by-pass water (see temperature section).
Tuckasegee Reservoir may have exerted an oxygen demand on the water during non-generation
times (longer retention time) as evidenced by the very slight decrease in oxygen during those
times. Oxygen concentrations did not correspond to solar radiation, which indicated very little
aquatic plant metabolism in Tuckasegee Reservoir.
Solar Radiation
12
3000
11
2750
10
2500
9
2250
8
2000
7
1750
6
1500
5
1250
4
1000
3
750
2
500
1
250
0
08/06/01
Generation (cfs)
West Fork Generation
2
mg Saturation - West Fork
Solar Radiaton (W/m )
mg observed West Fork
0
08/07/01
08/08/01
08/09/01
08/10/01
08/11/01
Date
Figure E2.9-14. Comparison of the observed 5 minute Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Calculated
Oxygen Saturation Concentrations, and Generation Flow, August, 2001, West Fork, Tuckasegee
River (downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro)
E2-51
West Fork Project
West Fork Generation
Solar Radiation
12
3000
11
2750
10
2500
9
2250
8
2000
7
1750
6
1500
5
1250
4
1000
3
750
2
500
1
250
0
09/16/01
Generation (cfs)
mg Saturation - West Fork
2
mg observed West Fork
Solar Radiaton (W/m )
Duke Power
0
09/17/01
09/18/01
09/19/01
09/20/01
09/21/01
Date
Figure E2.9-15. Comparison of the observed 5 minute Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Calculated
Oxygen Saturation Concentrations, and Generation Flow, September, 2001, West Fork, Tuckasegee
River (downstream of Tuckasegee Hydro)
Historical Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
The fourteen years of monthly ‘grab’ dissolved oxygen data collected by the NCDENR-DWQ at
Dillsboro (Figure E2.9-16) revealed dissolved oxygen concentrations that were consistently
greater than the state water quality standard of 6 mg/l for trout waters. Given the variability of
the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the source water (hypolimnions of the upper Tuckasegee
Reservoirs), the monthly ‘grab’ samples illustrated a remarkable similarity between the various
years in the Tuckasegee River. The dissolved oxygen concentrations were at or near saturation
with the atmosphere throughout the seasons.
E2-52
Duke Power
West Fork Project
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
Month
Figure E2.9-16. Monthly ‘grab’ Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Collected by NCDENR-DWQ at
RM 31.5, Tuckasegee River at Dillsboro (flows at USGS gage in Bryson City: blue = summer flow >
1485, green = 891 < summer flow > 1485, and red = summer flow < 891)
CONCLUSIONS
The Tuckasegee River originates on the northern slopes of the eastern continental divide in
Southwestern North Carolina. Both the West and East Forks of the Tuckasegee River have
relatively large storage impoundments, which provide water to the Nantahala Power and Light
Hydroelectric Projects via penstocks. The diversion of the majority of the water through the long
penstocks that supply water to the Thorpe and Tennessee Creek Powerhouses has minimized the
flow in the river channels by-passing the penstocks. The West and East Forks combine to form
the Tuckasegee River, which travels approximately 35 miles northwesterly to Lake Fontana (a
large TVA storage reservoir). Approximately 20 miles downstream of the East and West Fork
confluence, Dillsboro Dam provides a low head, non-storage water supply to Dillsboro
Hydroelectric Station.
Since the upper reaches of the West and East Forks have water temperatures suitable for trout, the
NCWRC manages those sections for wild trout. However, since the storage reservoirs on both
forks have deep water penstocks, cold water is also supplied to the downstream reaches of the
E2-53
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Tuckasegee River providing additional sections of the river suitable for a hatchery supported trout
fishery.
Wildlife resource agencies (most notably the NCWRC and USFWS) have requested the
characterization of the water temperature and dissolved oxygen regimes in the Tuckasegee River
system (including the by-pass reaches) to provide information regarding the management of
aquatic wildlife. The objectives of this report are to describe the temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the West Fork impoundments and the subsequent use of that water for power
generation on the downstream temperatures, and dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
Tuckasegee River.
The storage reservoirs on the Tuckasegee system exhibited characteristics of warm, monomictic
reservoirs. The reservoirs experience a prolonged mixing period during the fall and winter
months whereby temperatures decrease and dissolved oxygen increased throughout the reservoir
depths. As springtime conditions warmed the surface layers, the reservoirs thermally stratified
preventing additional atmospheric cooling or atmospheric oxygen exchange with the deeper
water. As the deep, cold water was progressively released downstream via the deep water
penstocks, the deeper water was subsequently replaced by warmer, less oxygenated water. Since
the reservoirs have limited storage, this process is delayed with minimum volumes used for
electrical generation and accelerated with larger volumes released downstream. This process
continued until the meteorological conditions cooled enough to initiate the fall mixing period.
The seasonal management, i.e. use of the deep, cold water resource, is the key issue in
maintaining desired temperatures downstream.
As the water released from the impoundments traveled downstream, water temperatures in the
Tuckasegee River responded rapidly to changing meteorological conditions. Dillsboro pond had
no discernable effect on downstream temperatures. As the water was released from the upstream
projects, the hypolimnetic water warmed as it traveled downstream during the spring and
summer, and cooled during the fall and winter. The local meteorology forced the heating and
cooling of the Tuckasegee River as the river temperatures responded to the meteorological
equilibrium conditions.
At low flows, the water warms at a greater rate over a shorter distance as it travels downstream
and approaches meteorological equilibrium.
At higher flow rates, the warming rate was
E2-54
Duke Power
West Fork Project
decreased which resulted in cooler water at further distances downstream. At flows less than 80
cfs, the majority of the heating took place prior to the water reaching the Webster area. However,
periodic generation releases from the upstream projects maintained a cooler minimum
temperature, which, with the same amount of heating, would keep the maximum daily
temperatures cooler.
The temperatures of the Wolf Creek By-Pass, Bonas Defeat By-Pass, and the Thorpe By-Pass
were a function of the meteorological heat exchange at all times during the year. All three bypasses exhibited remarkably similar temperatures, with Bonas Defeat slightly warmer due to the
open canopy and exposed rocks in the river channel.
Even though dissolved oxygen concentrations in the deeper depths of the storage reservoirs
decreased throughout the stratified period, the deep water released from the reservoirs were at
least 3 mg/l greater than the minimum standard for North Carolina trout waters. Based upon
dissolved oxygen data collected in 2001 and the NCDENR-DWQ historical data, oxygen
concentrations consistently exceeded the minimum concentrations established by State water
quality standards for the Tuckasegee River.
As the water traveled downstream in the Tuckasegee River, the dissolved oxygen concentrations
decreased commensurate with the warming that occurred. The oxygen concentrations were at or
near atmospheric saturation throughout the entire river, with aquatic plant metabolism more
pronounced in the downstream reaches. As with temperature, no discernable effect on dissolved
oxygen was detected from the Dillsboro project.
E2.10 Proposed Studies
The Applicant proposes no additional water quality or quantity studies in association with the
West Fork Project. However, as part of the Consensus Agreement Duke proposes that annual
recreation planning meetings be held to discuss flow planning for the upcoming calendar year and
also that an evaluation meeting will be held 5-years after the new license is granted to discuss the
results of the proposed recreation PM&E measures related to flow releases (see Sections E1.13
and E5.9).
E2.11 Project Effects on Water Quality
As water is released from the upstream Tuckasegee River (i.e., West Fork) impoundments travels
downstream, water temperatures in the Tuckasegee River respond rapidly to changing
E2-55
Duke Power
West Fork Project
meteorological conditions.
As the water was released from the upstream projects, the
hypolimnetic water warms as it travels downstream during the spring and summer, and cools
during the fall and winter. The local meteorological conditions drive the heating and cooling of
the Tuckasegee River as the river temperatures respond to the meteorological equilibrium
conditions. Thus, the West Fork Project has measurable impact on downstream temperatures.
oxygen concentrations consistently exceeded the minimum concentrations established by state
water quality standards for the Tuckasegee River.
As water travels downstream in the
Tuckasegee River, the dissolved oxygen concentrations decrease commensurate with the
warming that occurs.
The oxygen concentrations were at or near atmospheric saturation
throughout the entire river, with aquatic plant metabolism more pronounced in the downstream
reaches. As with temperature, a measurable impact on dissolved oxygen was detected from the
West Fork Project. The Project is in compliance and in support of all other applicable water
quality standards and designated uses.
E2.12 Existing Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
The existing license and the May 5, 1999 Order approving settlement (Article 32) currently states
that the licensee release a minimum instantaneous flow of 20 cfs or the stream flow entering
Little Glenville Lake from the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River.
This is to provide a
continuous flow in the two miles of stream between the Tuckasegee Development powerhouse
and the confluence with the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River.
E2.13 Proposed Water Quality Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures
The following water quality and quantity PM&E’s have been proposed for the West Fork
Projects. On May 16, 2003, a Consensus Agreement was signed by the Primary Members of the
Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team (TCST). The primary members and the organizations
they represent who agree in consensus will work toward conversion of the Consensus Agreement
into a Settlement Agreement by September 15, 2002. A copy of the entire Consensus Agreement,
signed on May 16, 2003 is provided in Volume III.
Based on this Consensus Agreement, Duke proposes the following measures in association with
the West Fork Projects (Note: Any changes from current Project operation to begin in 2004):
E2-56
Duke Power
West Fork Project
a. Add the following to the Duke website - actual lake level readings, the Normal Operating
Ranges, recent lake level histories, near-term lake level projections and special messages
for all West Fork project reservoirs except Tuckasegee Lake.
b. Actual lake levels for all West Fork project reservoirs except Tuckasegee Lake and
special messages will be provided by the Duke telephone information line.
Protocols.
Gage reactivation
a. Upon completion by the USGS, pay for reactivation and ongoing maintenance of USGS
Gage # 03510500 at Dillsboro, NC (Potential additional partners – NCDWR, USFWS)
b. Gages operational by 2004 provided USGS could complete reactivation by then.
hydro reservoirs or the river sections between Duke hydro reservoirs and reservoirs
support from Duke.
c. Contribute $40,000 per county in Jackson County toward implementation of the Dukeselected initiatives.
E2-57
Duke Power
West Fork Project
a. Provide Duke funding to support initiatives within the Nantahala service area that would
be $200,000.
Lake Glenville – Maintain the following Normal Operating Range:
Month
Normal Target
Elevation (ft)
Jan
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
85
90
Normal
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
94
Feb
85
90
94
Mar
88
91
94
Apr
90
93
96
May
95
97
99
Jun
95
97
99
Jul
95
97
99
Aug
93
95
98
Sep
90
93
94
Oct
90
93
94
Nov
86
90
94
Dec
85
90
94
Tuckasegee Lake – Maintain lake level as needed to provide minimum flow.
E2-58
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Minimum Flow and Bypass Flow
a) 30 cfs combined minimum flow from December 1 through June 30 (assuming inflow to
the existing provision.
b) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less).
c) 55 cfs combined minimum flow from July 1 through November 30 (assuming inflow to
d) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less).
e) Implement new and additional minimum and bypass flows in 2006, or within 1 year
following receipt of FERC approval to modify project facilities, whichever comes last.
Sediment Management
Low Inflow Protocol
The Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) provides trigger points and procedures for how the West Fork
Projects will be operated by the Licensee during periods of low inflow (i.e. periods when there is
not enough water flowing into West Fork Lakes to meet the normal needs for power generation,
recreation flows, minimum flows, any on-reservoir water withdrawals and lake level
maintenance). The protocol was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water
quantity will share the impact of low inflow.
In general during periods of normal inflow, the Licensee will provide at least a prescribed number
of hours per day of generation to support electric customer needs and the downstream flow needs
in the main stem of the Tuckasegee River (typically during different periods each day), in
addition to scheduled Tainter gate releases from Glenville Dam for recreation and maintaining
lake levels above certain prescribed minimum levels. During low inflow periods when the
Licensee cannot meet all of the above conditions, it will reduce generation by prescribed amounts
per generation or recreation period per day on a weekly basis, along with corresponding weekly
reductions in bypass flows, Tainter gate releases for recreation and minimum reservoir levels. In
addition, any large (i.e. greater than or equal to 1 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) maximum
instantaneous capacity) water intakes that are authorized on the West Fork Lakes in the future
will also have a reduction protocol incorporated into the easement documents that the Licensee
E2-59
Duke Power
West Fork Project
uses to approve of such intakes. The incremental reduction of all water demands on the system
will continue until inflows are restored to a point where the West Fork lake levels return to their
Normal Operating Ranges.
Maintenance and Emergency Protocol for the West Fork Hydro Projects
Under some emergency and equipment failure and maintenance situations, certain license
conditions may be impractical to meet or may need to be suspended or modified to avoid taking
unnecessary risks. The purpose of this protocol is to define the most likely situations of this type,
identify the potentially impacted license conditions and outline the general approach that the
Licensee will take to mitigate the impacts to license conditions and to communicate with the
resource agencies and affected parties. Specific details associated with the Maintenance and
Emergency Protocols for the West Fork Projects are provided in Volume III.
E2.13.1
Monitoring
Duke proposes no additional water quality monitoring in association with the West Fork Project.
The NCDENR-DWQ and the USGS will continue the monitoring at the established stations on
the Tuckasegee River downstream of the project.
E2.13.2
Spill Containment and Emergency Response Plan
Duke has established and implemented a comprehensive Spill Containment and Emergency
Response Plan (SPCC) guide to minimizing hazards to human health and the environment
through the prevention and control of oil spills at the West Fork Project and associated facilities.
This plan is intended to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR Part 112 (Oil Pollution Prevention).
This plan outlines the general responsibilities of the facility personnel and coordinators, sources
and controls of potential oil spills, cleanup procedures, spill reporting, and SPCC training. This
plan is maintained at the West Fork Project Powerhouses. Duke has established an Automated
Environmental and Spill Reporting Hot Line at: 1-800-527-3853 (specify Nantahala Zone).
E2-60
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E2.14 List of Literature
FERC. 2002. List of Revised Comprehensive Plans. Office of Energy Projects. Washington,
D.C. April.
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc (FWA). 2000. FERC Relicensing First Stage Consultation
Package – West Fork Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2686-NC.
Whittier, North
Carolina. 92 pp. Prepared for Duke Power.
Giese, G.L. and R.R. Mason, Jr. 1993. Low-Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina.
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2403. U.S. Geological Survey, Map Distribution,
Denver, Co.
Hakanson, L. 1981. A Manual of Lake Morphometry. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Holland, S. 2002. Duke Power Company, Operations Department, Charlotte, NC.
Knight, Jonathan C. 1998. Evaluation of the Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Tailrace of
Buzzards Roost Hydroelectric Station. Submitted to FERC, Project No. 1267-000, by Duke
Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Lineberger, J.G. 2002. East Fork Project (2698-016) – Cedar Cliff Minimum Flow Release Valve
Maintenance, January 2, 2002, Letter to FERC. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Mullur, P. 2002. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division
of Air Quality, Asheville Regional Office, Asheville, NC.
Nantahala Power and Light. 2002a. FERC files, Exhibit F drawings. Duke Energy Corporation,
301 NP&L Loop, Franklin, NC 28734.
Nantahala Power and Light. 2002b. Bryson Final Report - Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen.
http://nantahalapower.com/relicensing/hydro.htm Duke Energy Corporation, 301 NP&L Loop,
Franklin, NC 28734.
E2-61
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Nantahala Power and Light. 2002c. Mission Final Report - Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen.
Franklin, NC 28734.
Nantahala Power and Light. 2002d. Franklin Final Report - Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen.
Franklin, NC 28734.
Nantahala Power and Light. 2003.
Tuckasegee Final Report - Temperature and Dissolved
Oxygen. http://nantahalapower.com/relicensing/hydro.htm Duke Energy Corporation, 301 NP&L
Loop, Franklin, NC 28734.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Division of Water Quality.
2000. Basinwide Assessment Report-Little Tennessee River. Raleigh, North Carolina. April
2000. 83 pp.
2000. Water Quality Progress Report in North Carolina 1998-1999 305(b). Raleigh, North
Carolina. April 2000. 34 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division Of Water Quality.
2002a. "Redbook" Surface Water and Wetland Standards, NC Administrative Code 15a NCAC
02b .0100 & .0200, Amended, Effective: Jan 1, 2002, Raleigh, NC
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division Of Water Quality.
2002b. Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS). Online Document. North Carolina
Waterbodies Report. Jackson County. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html
Ruane, Richard J. 2002. Reservoir Environmental Management, Inc., Chattanooga, TN.
Sauber, J. 2002. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division
of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
USDA-USFS. 1987. Land and Resource Management Plan – Nantahala and Pisgah National
Forests: 1986-2000. USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Management Bulletin R8-MB 4.
E2-62
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Forests: Amendment 5. USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Management Bulletin R8-MB
4. March 1994.
United States Geological Service (USGS). 2002. Groundwater Atlas of the United StatesDelaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia:
Piedmont and Blue Ridge Aquifers. Online Document:
http://capp.water.usgs.gov/gwa/ch_1/L-text4.html
Yow, D. 2002. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Asheville, NC.
E2-63
Duke Power
E3.0
West Fork Project
REPORT ON FISH, WILDLIFE, AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.51(f), Duke has prepared this report on the fish, wildlife, and botanical
resources associated with the West Fork Project. This section contains the following information:
Description of the general fish, macroinvertebrate, wildlife, and botanical resources;
Description of the resources found upstream, downstream, and within the Project boundaries;
Description of rare, threatened, and endangered species associated with the Project area;
A summary of existing and proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures
E3.1
Fishery Resources
E3.1.1
General Overview of Fishery Resources in the Basin
Based on existing information, the Little Tennessee River Basin and specifically the Tuckasegee
River exhibits a wide variety of warmwater and coolwater fish species. These species include
bass and panfish, minnows, suckers, darters, and trout. During the relicensing studies on the
Tuckasegee River, 42 species of fish were identified. The Project area, and the surrounding basin
include some of the highest quality waters in North Carolina. Benthic macroinvertebrate indices
are characterized by Good to Excellent ratings.
During the relicensing fishery study, 1,348 fish representing 13 species were collected from the
two sampling stations within the West Fork Tuckasegee River bypass. Fish abundance and
species diversity varied by location and increased from upstream to downstream within the
bypass.
Within the Tuckasegee River downstream of the West Fork Project, fish abundance and diversity
was generally higher than in the Project bypass and increased from upstream to downstream
(Duke Power-Nantahala Area 2003). Minnows, suckers, darters and sculpins were the most
common species captured in the Tuckasegee River downstream of the Project and minnows and
sculpin were the most abundant species captured within the Project bypass.
The NCWRC has designated the West Fork Tuckasegee River from Shoal Creek to Tuckasegee
Lake as Hatchery Supported trout waters. In Hatchery Supported Waters there is no size limit or
E3-1
Duke Power
West Fork Project
bait restriction and the creel limit is seven trout per day. Hatchery Supported Trout Waters are
marked with green and white signs that are posted conspicuously along the watercourses.
Additionally, the NCWRC has designated Delayed-Harvest trout waters (i.e., artificial lures with
single hook only and no harvesting between October 1 and June 6) in the Tuckasegee River from
the NC Highway 107 bridge at Love Field downstream to the Dillsboro Dam. These waters are
marked with black and white signs.
The DWQ has classified the project waters as High Quality (HQW) from Lake Glenville to the
Thorpe Dam and as Trout Water (TR) from Thorpe Dam to the Tuckasegee River. These are
supplemental water quality classifications intended to protect waters with quality higher than state
water standards and for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout, respectively.
E3.1.2
Description of Current Fishery Resources of the Project and Its Vicinity
During the biological studies consultation process subsequent to the issuance of the First Stage
Consultation Package for the West Fork Hydroelectric Project, state and federal resource agencies
identified the need for additional fisheries data in the vicinity of the project. Accordingly, a
Technical Leadership Team (TLT) comprised of representatives from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
United States Forest Service (USFS), the Land Trust for the Little Tennessee and the applicant
was established to develop fisheries studies for the various Nantahala Area hydro projects. The
study for the West Fork Project consisted of qualitative fisheries surveys in the bypassed reach of
the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River between the Project dam and powerhouse. The objectives
of the study were to: (1) Describe the fishery resources in the West Fork Tuckasegee River
bypass, and (2) Determine any potential project-related impacts to the fishery resources present in
the bypass.
The fisheries study consisted of a review of historical data collected by the NCWRC during 1988
(unpublished data) and Fish and Wildlife Associates (FWA) during 1997, 1998 and 1999 (FWA
2000) at two locations in the West Fork Tuckasegee River bypass and additional sampling at the
same locations during the Summer and Fall 2001. The historical NCWRC survey consisted of
qualitative sampling, and no population data were calculated.
However, for comparative
purposes, total sample area (ha) and catch numbers and biomass by species were used to estimate
fish density and standing crop. The historical FWA data and the current study consisted of
population estimates derived utilizing the depletion sampling methodology. Field sampling and
E3-2
Duke Power
West Fork Project
data analyses for the current study were conducted according to the protocols outlined in the
NCWRC’s Trout Stream Management Standardized Sampling and Data Analysis Methods
(Borawa 1996).
Depletion population estimates were conducted at two locations in the West Fork Tuckasegee
River bypass. Both locations were selected to generally coincide with locations sampled by the
NCWRC during 1988. The most downstream site, WF-1, was located approximately 50 m
upstream of a small bridge that crosses the bypass channel at it’s confluence with the Tuckasegee
Project reservoir (Figure E3.1-1). The sample reach was 100 m in length and averaged 8.9 m in
width. Sampling at WF-1 was conducted on September 11, 2001. Prior to sampling, block nets
were placed across the stream at the upstream and downstream ends of the study reach to ensure
that fish did not move into or out of the study reach during sampling. Three backpack electro
fishing units were used to conduct a standard three-pass depletion sample.
The second site, WF-2, was located upstream of WF-1 and immediately downstream of Rough
Run Falls (Figure E3.1-1). This sample reach was 100 m in length and averaged 4.8 m in width.
Sampling at WF-2 was conducted on August 8, 2001. At this location, the sample reach was
bounded on the upstream end by Rough Run Falls and on the downstream end by a block net. As
with Location WF-1, a standard three-pass depletion sample was conducted, however, due to the
narrower channel width, only two backpack electro fishing units were required to sample
Location WF-2.
The specific methods associated with the Fishery Survey can be found at the Duke relicensing
website:
http://www.nantahalapower.com/relicensing/hydro.htm
The following descriptions are summaries from the fisheries surveys conducted by Duke.
E3-3
WF-1
WF-2
Area Sampled
1,000
0
1,000
2,000 Feet
Figure E3.1-1
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Fish Sampling Locations
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.1.2.1
Existing Fisheries Upstream of the Project
Due to the high gradient nature and remoteness of the upstream areas, logistical and safety
concerns necessitated that no specific fish sampling was conducted upstream of the Project.
E3.1.2.2
Existing Fisheries in the Project Area Bypass Reach
The fisheries study for the West Fork Project consisted of qualitative fisheries surveys in the
West Fork Tuckasegee River bypass between the Tuckasegee Dam and powerhouse.
Location WF-1
Depletion sampling at Location WF-1 in 2001 yielded, 1,186 fish representing 13 species (Table
E3.1-1).
The overall catch was representative of a relatively diverse assemblage of
coolwater/coldwater species. In terms of abundance, minnows and mottled sculpin comprised the
majority of the catch. Both rainbow and brown trout were also collected from this site. This
diverse assemblage of species at Location WF-1 is likely related to its proximity to the
Tuckasegee Reservoir and the movement of fishes from the reservoir to the lower reaches of the
bypass channel.
Fish species diversity (13 species), density (14,367 fish/ha), and standing crop (89.9 kg/ha) at
Location WF-1 during 2001 were within the range of data collected during previous years (Tables
E3.1-2 and E3.1-3). Species diversity ranged from a low of 10 species in 1988 to a high of 16
species in 1997. Density ranged from a low of 4,215 fish/ha in 1999 to a high of 23,370 fish/ha
in 1988. Standing crop ranged from a low of 55.75 kg/ha in 1999 to a high of 277.68 kg/ha in
1997. Overall, minnows and mottled sculpin tended to dominate the catch during all years.
Brown trout were collected during all years. The brown trout population in 2001 was estimated
to range from 13 to 15 fish, yielding density and standing crop estimates of 156 fish/ha and 6.5
kg/ha, respectively (Table E3.1-3). Brown trout density ranged from a low of 12 fish/ha in 1988
to a high of 1,459 fish/ha in 1997. The extremely high catch during 1997 was attributable to the
collection of large numbers of yearling trout. Rainbow trout were collected during all years,
except 1988. The rainbow trout population in this 100-m reach of stream during 2001 was
estimated to range from 27 to 29 fish, yielding density and standing crop estimates of 311 fish/ha
and 4.6 kg/ha, respectively (Table E3.1-3). Rainbow trout densities ranged from a low of 35
fish/ha in 1998 to a high of 311 fish/ha in 2001.
E3-5
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Location WF-2
Depletion sampling at Location WF-2 yielded an overall catch that was low in both total
abundance and species diversity (Table E3.1-1). Only 162 fish representing two species were
collected in this 100 m reach of stream. The only species collected from this site were brown
trout and blacknose dace.
Fish species diversity (2 species) and total standing crop (20.50 kg/ha) at Location WF-2 during
2001 were lower than for any previous sample year (Tables E3.1-2 and E3.1-3). Total fish
density (3,340 fish/ha) during 2001 was the second lowest recorded for this location. Species
diversity ranged from a low of 2 species in 2001 to a high of 10 species in 1997 and 1999.
Density ranged from a low of 1,371 fish/ha in 1988 to a high of 10,711 fish/ha in 1997. Standing
crop ranged from a low of 20.50 kg/ha in 2001 to a high of 100.11 kg/ha in 1997.
Brown trout were collected during all years at Location WF-2. The brown trout population at this
site in 2001 was estimated to range from 52 to 54 fish, yielding density and standing crop
estimates of 1,060 fish/ha and 15.5 kg/ha, respectively (Table E3.1-3). Brown trout density
ranged from a low of 61 fish/ha in 1998 to a high of 1,060 fish/ha in 2001. Although the overall
population of fishes at WF-2 was substantially lower than that at WF-1, the brown trout standing
crop at WF-2 was 2.4 times higher than the brown trout standing crop at WF-1. Rainbow trout
were collected at location WF-2 during all years except 2001. Rainbow trout density ranged from
a low of 20 fish/ha in 1998 to a high of 201 fish/ha in 1988.
A notable observation about historical species diversity at Location WF-2 is the very low
diversity during 1988 and 2001 (3 species and 2 species, respectively), as compared to diversity
during 1997 through 1999 (Table E3.1-2).
During 1988, blacknose dace, brown trout and
rainbow trout were the only species collected, while 2001 sampling produced only blacknose
dace and brown trout. Although total standing crop estimates during 1988 and 2001 were similar
(24.58 kg/ha and 20.50 kg/ha, respectively), total fish density in 2001 was almost 2.5 times higher
than density in 1988 (Table E3.1-3).
E3-6
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.1-1. Catch per unit effort (number per hour and number per 100 m of stream) for Locations WF-1 and WF-2, West Fork Tuckasegee River
bypass during August and September 2001
Common Name
Scientific Name
WF-1
WF-2
WF-1
WF-2
Total Catch
No./hr.
Total Catch
No./hr.
No./100 m
No./100 m
28
18
--28
-Rainbow trout (wild)
Salmo trutta
14
9
53
29
14
53
Brown trout (wild)
Salmo trutta
322
201
--322
-Central stoneroller
Campostoma anomalum
161
101
--161
-River chub
Nocomis micropogon
120
75
--120
-Warpaint shiner
Luxilus coccogenis
53
33
--53
-Tennessee shiner
Notropis leuciodus
104
65
--104
-Mirror shiner
Notropis spectrunculus
10
6
109
61
10
109
Blacknose dace
Rhinichthys atratulus
10
6
--10
-Longnose dace
Rhinichthys cataractae
33
21
--33
-Northern hog sucker
Hypentelium nigricans
5
3
--5
-Rock bass
Ambloplites rupestris
5
3
--5
-Greenside darter
Etheostoma blennoiides
321
201
--321
-Mottled sculpin
Cottus bairdi
Total
1,186
735
E3-7
162
90
1,186
162
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.1-2. Fish species occurrence by year for the West Fork Tuckasegee River bypass reaches
during 1988, 1997 through 1999, and 2001
Location WF-1
Species
1
2
2
Location WF-2
2
1988 1997 1998 1999 2001
3
1
1988 1997 2 1998 2 1999 2 2001 3
Central stoneroller
Campostoma anomalum
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Warpaint shiner
Luxilus coccogenis
X
X
River chub
Nocomis micropogon
X
X
X
X
X
Tennessee shiner
Notropis leuciodus
X
X
Mirror shiner
X
X
X
Fatlips minnow
Phenacobius crassilabrum
X
X
Blacknose dace
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Longnose dace
X
White sucker
Catostomus commersoni
Northern hog sucker
X
X
X
Black redhorse
Moxostoma duquesnei
Golden redhorse
Moxostoma erythrurum
X
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
X
Brook trout
Salvelinus fontinalis
X
Mottled sculpin
Cottus bairdi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rockbass
E3-8
X
X
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Location WF-1
Species
1
Location WF-2
2
2
2
1988 1997 1998 1999 2001
3
1988 1 1997 2 1998 2 1999 2 2001 3
Redbreast sunfish
Lepomis auritus
X
X
Greenside darter
Etheostoma blennioides
X
X
X
Greenfin darter
Et. hlorobranchium
X
X
X
Unidentified darters
Etheostoma spp.
X
Gilt darter
Percina evides
Total Number of Species
1
NCWRC data
2
FWA data
3
Current Study
X
12
16
15
E3-9
10
13
3
10
9
10
2
Duke Power
Table E3.1-3.
West Fork Project
Fish density (no/ha) and standing crop (kg/ha) estimates for the West Fork Tuckasegee River bypass reaches during 1988, 1997 through 1999 and 2001.
Location WF-1
1988
Species
Central stoneroller
Campostoma anomalum
Warpaint shiner
Luxilus coccogenis
River chub
Nocomis micropogon
Tennessee shiner
Notropis leuciodus
Mirror shiner
Fatlips minnow
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
Black redhorse
Moxostoma duquesnei
Golden redhorse
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Brown trout
Salmo trutta
Brook trout
Mottled sculpin
Cottus bairdi
Rockbass
Redbreast sunfish
Lepomis auritus
Greenside darter
Greenfin darter
Et. chlorobranchium
Unidentified darters
Etheostoma spp.
Gilt darter
Percina evides
Total
1
2
3
1
1997
2
1998
Location WF-2
2
1999
2
3
2001
1988
No/ha
Kg/ha
No/ha
Kg/ha
No/ha
Kg/ha
No/ha
Kg/ha
No/ha
Kg/ha
No/ha
794
11.16
222
2.73
222
3.34
211
2.60
3,856
21.90
--
1,306
5.19
292
0.20
23
0.07
--
--
1,389
5.50
1,856
17.11
2,077
35.59
1,050
22.24
794
11.26
1,911
916
1.45
--
--
--
--
--
--
15,189
34.51
--
--
82
0.88
--
--
1
1997
Kg/ha
2
1998
2
1999
2
2001
No/ha
3
No/ha
Kg/ha
No/ha
Kg/ha
No/ha
Kg/ha
Kg/ha
--
142
1.14
92
0.49
261
2.27
--
--
--
--
--
--
122
0.14
--
--
--
--
16.00
--
--
61
1.09
153
8.61
54
0.95
--
--
611
1.40
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1,211
1.70
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
17
0.08
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
9
0.04
317
0.94
292
0.49
117
0.24
211
0.29
111
0.30
591
1.52
356
1.09
234
0.19
144
0.51
73
0.50
82
0.16
12
0.07
--
--
111
0.40
--
--
722
5.53
122
0.61
90
0.09
--
--
--
--
58
16.48
35
9.10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
175
24.80
93
24.91
25
2.72
433
--
--
--
--
102
27
2.67
--
--
10.29
47
6.49
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
17
7.33
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
635
13.63
10.60
10.80
2,280
5.00
--
--
23
--
--
--
--
--
187
22.31
35
6.35
101
8.03
311
4.60
201
4.43
51
2.05
20
0.22
27
0.43
12
1.22
1,459
111.12
490
49.11
101
9.99
156
6.50
579
18.63
529
18.57
61
4.94
63
4.56
--
--
12
1.84
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1,661
7.41
6,056
23.98
2,415
13.14
2,628
8.98
4,067
19.10
--
--
15.92
--
--
147
6.65
315
22.89
58
5.28
110
4.46
144
1.50
--
--
--
--
--
--
9
0.25
--
--
--
--
117
4.74
35
0.98
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
12
0.05
--
--
--
--
56
0.40
--
--
10
0.01
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
12
0.01
23
0.02
--
--
--
--
--
--
10
0.04
--
--
--
--
--
--
464
2.28
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
10
0.02
--
--
--
--
--
--
23,370
102.05
11,391
--
277.68
4,737
--
142.22
4,215
55.75
14,367
89.90
NCWRC data
FWA data
Current Study
E3-10
1,371
24.58
-8,820
10,711
-70.56
100.11
3,683
4,589
15.16
41.17
3,046
3,730
27.70
1,060
3,340
15.50
20.50
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.1.2.3
Historical Fisheries within Project Reservoirs
Lake Glenville is managed by the NCWRC as a warm water fishery. Historically, the reservoir
supported a diverse fishery consisting of trout, bass, sunfish, walleye, suckers and minnows
(Nantahala Power and Light Company 1972, FWA 2000) (Table E3.1-4).
Fishery surveys
conducted within the reservoir by FWA in coordination with the NCWRC during 1998 and 1999
resulted in the collection of 12 species (Table E3.1-5). A diverse prey base is present and
includes gizzard shad, threadfin shad, alewife, and golden shiner. Game fish present include
walleye, largemouth bass, small mouth bass, black crappie, rainbow trout, and bluegill. No
previous fishery surveys have been conducted on Tuckasegee Reservoir by Duke. No current
studies were conducted within the Project impoundments during relicensing.
Table E3.1-4. Fish species historically collected by the NCWRC from Lake Glenville
Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Rainbow Trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Brown Trout
Salmo trutta
Gizzard Shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
River Chub
Nocomis micropogon
Whitetail Shiner
Notropis galacturus
Golden Shiner
White Sucker
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Northern Hogsucker
Hypertilium nigricans
Redhorse
Moxostoma sp.
Walleye
Stizostedion vitreum
Green Sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
Redbreast Sunfish
Lepomis auritus
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
Small mouth Bass
Micropterus dolomieui
Large mouth Bass
Micropterus salmoides
White Crappie
Pomoxis annularis
Table E3.1-5. Fish species collected from Lake Glenville in 1998 and 1999
October 1998
April 1999
Species
No.
CPUE1
No.
CPUE1
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
Black Crappie
1
0.04
2
0.08
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
E3-11
September 1999
No.
CPUE1
47
1.96
2
0.08
Duke Power
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
Gizzard Shad
94
Dorosoma cepedianum
Golden Shiner
15
Largemouth Bass
2
Rainbow Trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Smallmouth Bass
4
Threadfin Shad
8
Dorosoma petenense
Walleye
10
White Sucker
Whitetail Shiner
Notropis galacturus
1
Captures per unit effort (No./net-night).
West Fork Project
-
-
-
2
0.08
3.92
-
-
70
2.92
0.63
8
0.33
28
1.17
0.08
1
0.04
13
0.54
-
2
0.08
1
0.04
0.17
3
0.13
5
0.21
0.33
-
-
-
-
0.42
3
0.13
11
0.46
-
27
1.13
5
0.21
-
1
0.04
5
0.21
E3.1.2.4
Existing Fisheries Downstream of the Project
Fish sampling was conducted within the Tuckasegee River downstream of the West Fork Project
during 2001 and 2002 in association with the Dillsboro Project relicensing studies (Duke PowerNantahala Area 2003). Two sampling stations (T-4 and T-5) were located on the Tuckasegee
River downstream of the West Fork Project and upstream of the Dillsboro Project (Figure E3.12). Station T-4 is located off Old Settlement Road. Downstream river sampling was also
conducted upstream of the confluence with the Caney Fork Creek at Station T-5. Most of the fish
habitat in this section of the river consists of riffle and pool complex with a substrate varying
from bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, to sand. Riparian vegetation along the riverbanks includes
large canopy trees and shrubs.
Twenty-four species of fish were documented in the Tuckasegee River downstream of the West
Fork Project at each of the sample locations (Stations T-4 and T-5) (Table E3.1-6). These species
included both warm water and cool water fish and minnows, suckers, darters and sculpins were
among the most abundant species. All three species of trout (i.e., brook, brown, and rainbow)
were collected in this reach of the river. Fewer species were documented at both Station WF-1
(13) and WF-2 (2). A wide range of size classes, indicative of multiple year classes, was
observed for the most frequently collected species. Overall, the size distributions for these
species appeared to be similar throughout the Project area sampled. The downstream reach also
E3-12
Duke Power
West Fork Project
had more total fish captures, 2,467 at T-4 and 1,435 at T-5 (Tables E3.1-7 and E3.1-8), than WF1 (1,186) and WF-2 (162) (Table E3.1-1).
E3-13
T-4
Area Sampled
2,000
0
2,000 Feet
T-5
Figure E3.1-2
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Fish Sampling Locations
Tuckasegee River
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.1-6. Fish species collected during sampling of the Tuckasegee River (T-4 and T-5) and The
West Fork bypass (WF-1 and WF-2)
Station
Common Name
Mountain brook lamprey
Rainbow trout (stocked)
Rainbow trout (wild)
Brown trout (stocked)
Brown trout (wild)
Brook trout (stocked)
Central stoneroller
Whitetail shiner
Warpaint shiner
River chub
Creek chub
Tennessee shiner
Mirror shiner
Telescope shiner
Fatlips minnow
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
Black redhorse
Mottled sculpin
Rock bass
Redbreast sunfish
Bluegill
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Greenside darter
Greenfin darter
Wounded darter
Banded darter
Gilt darter
Total Fish Species
Scientific Name
Ichthyomyzon greeleyi
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo trutta
Salmo trutta
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinella galacturus
Luxilus coccogenis
Nocomis micropogon
Semotilus atromaculatus
Notropis leuciodus
Notropis telescopus
Moxostoma duquesnei
Cottus bairdi
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus punctulatus
Etheostoma chlorobranchium
Etheostoma vulneratum
Etheostoma zonale
Percina evides
WF-1 WF-2 T-4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
2
T-5
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
24
x
x
x
x
x
24
Table E3.1-7. Total number of fish collected at Station T-4 within the Tuckasegee River downstream
of the West Fork Project
Station T-4
Mar
Common Name
Scientific Name
May July Sept Mar Seine
7
4
1
14
-Rainbow trout (stocked)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
1
1
-2
-Rainbow trout (wild)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
--1
3
-Brown trout (stocked)
Salmo trutta
-2
-4
-Brown trout (wild)
Salmo trutta
2
--4
-Brook trout (stocked)
3
--11
1
E3-15
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Station T-4
Common Name
Central stoneroller
Whitetail shiner
Common carp
Warpaint shiner
River chub
Golden shiner
Tennessee shiner
Silver shiner
Mirror shiner
Telescope shiner
Fatlips minnow
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
River redhorse
Black redhorse
Golden redhorse
Shorthead redhorse
Black bullhead
Brown bullhead
Mottled sculpin
Rock bass
Redbreast sunfish
Green sunfish
Bluegill
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Greenside darter
Greenfin darter
Wounded darter
Banded darter
Yellow perch
Tangerine darter
Gilt darter
Olive darter
Walleye
Scientific Name
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinus carpio
Luxilus coccogenis
Nocomis micropogon
Notropis leuciodus
Notropis photogenis
Notropis telescopus
Moxostoma carinatum
Moxostoma duquesnei
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Ameiurus melas
Ameiurus nebulosus
Cottus bairdi
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Etheostoma zonale
Perca flavescens
Percina aurantiaca
Percina evides
Percina squamata
Total Fish Collected
Total Fish Species
Mar
May July Sept Mar Seine
16
27
43
25
-10
15
19
7
-------7
21
29
-31
52
65
64
4
-----25
56
69
64
1
-----22
42
51
50
-------4
16
26
--1
---3
1
1
-------2
6
9
5
------3
2
2
5
---------------------108 155 169 120
10
9
7
6
7
----1
-----------1
3
5
1
-----------32
32
29
28
-88 163 151 63
8
54
48
47
10
-7
10
9
8
-----------29
25
33
27
2
-------453
20
E3-16
663
22
747
20
578
22
26
6
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.1-8. Total number of fish collected at Station T-5 downstream of the Tuckasegee River
downstream of the West Fork Project.
Station T-5
Common Name
Rainbow trout (stocked)
Rainbow trout (wild)
Brown trout (stocked)
Brown trout (wild)
Brook trout (stocked)
Central stoneroller
Whitetail shiner
Common carp
Warpaint shiner
River chub
Golden shiner
Tennessee shiner
Silver shiner
Mirror shiner
Telescope shiner
Fatlips minnow
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
River redhorse
Black redhorse
Golden redhorse
Shorthead redhorse
Black bullhead
Brown bullhead
Mottled sculpin
Rock bass
Redbreast sunfish
Green sunfish
Bluegill
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Greenside darter
Greenfin darter
Wounded darter
Banded darter
Yellow perch
Tangerine darter
Gilt darter
Olive darter
Walleye
Total Fish Collected
Total Fish Species
Scientific Name
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo trutta
Salmo trutta
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinus carpio
Luxilus coccogenis
Nocomis micropogon
Notropis leuciodus
Notropis photogenis
Notropis telescopus
Moxostoma carinatum
Moxostoma duquesnei
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Ameiurus melas
Ameiurus nebulosus
Cottus bairdi
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Etheostoma zonale
Perca flavescens
Percina aurantiaca
Percina evides
Percina squamata
E3-17
May
12
-6
-4
-8
5
-2
56
-2
--1
--2
9
5
-84
----100
13
2
----1
1
7
5
---1
--
July
--2
-7
-5
---58
-2
-----14
3
-6
----176
5
------6
4
4
------
Sept Mar
1
1
--3
7
1
-4
1
-1
4
24
-----20
108 81
--4
2
-------5
--1
-7
-5
8
--10
18
--------230 112
4
7
-------1
----16
10
12
1
--------2
6
---
326
21
292
13
412
15
305
17
Mar
Seine
----2
-1
---------1
-1
--------84
-------5
-----6
-100
7
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.1.2.5
Rare Threatened and Endangered Species
The North Carolina Special Concern species, wounded darter, was collected downstream of the
West Fork Project at sample stations T-4 and T-5 on the Tuckasegee River (Table E3.1-9). No
other species listed as state and/or federal RTE or on the USFS list of sensitive species was
documented in the Project area during relicensing studies.
Table E3.1-9. Summary of wounded darter collections from the Tuckasegee River
Date
5/21/2001
Total Length Total Weight
(mm)
(g)
25-49
20
50-74
7
25-49
13
50-74
37
77
Station
T-4
Method
BP
BP
BP
BP
Number
19
4
19
12
54
T-4
BP
BP
39
9
48
25-49
50-74
42
20
62
T-4
BP
BP
26
21
47
25-49
50-74
26
44
70
T-4
BP
BP
9
1
25-49
60
18
2
Subtotal
7/11/2001
Subtotal
9/6/2001
Subtotal
4/4/2002
Subtotal
5/18/2001
10
7/10/2001
Subtotal
Total fish collected
20
T-5
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
1
1
1
1
1
5
62
52
60
56
51
3
1
3
3
1
11
T-5
BP
Boat
3
1
4
25-49
34
<1
<1
Subtotal
Spawning
Condition
Mature
Mature
Ripe
Ripe
400
Ripe
Ripe
Ripe
Ripe
Ripe
686
Wounded Darter (Etheostoma vulneratum)
The wounded darter is a member of the Family Percidae (the perches) in the Order Perciformes
and of the Etheostoma maculatum species group of the subgenus Nothonotus.
information associated with the wounded darter is provided below.
E3-18
General
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Protection Status: The wounded darter is listed as a species of concern by the NCWRC and as a
sensitive species by the USFS. The wounded darter is not listed by the USFWS.
Distribution: The wounded darter is confined to the upper Tennessee River downstream through
Whites Creek and the Little Tennessee River. The wounded darter occurs in the Little Tennessee
River drainage in North Carolina (abundant above Fontana Reservoir) in the Appalachian
Mountain Province. This species was found in the Tuckasegee River at Stations T-1 through T-5.
Habitat Preference: Wounded darter habitat includes moderate to large rivers in areas of gentle
to moderate current. They seem to prefer boulder or coarse cobble substrates; and overhanging
ledges or rocks piled on top of each other are necessary to provide optimum nesting and resting
areas.
E3.1.3
Fisheries Management Framework
State and federal agencies, as well as the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, have management
responsibilities for aquatic resources, including fish and water quality along the Tuckasegee River
and associated headwaters. Their responsibilities upstream, downstream and within the West
Fork Project area are summarized in Table E3.1-10.
Table E3.1-10. Aquatic Resource and Water Quality Management Responsibilities of State and
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Agency
Management
Responsibilities
Area1
NCDENRDWQ
US; DS; PA
River Basin.
Samples and monitors benthic macroinvertebrate
populations in association with bioclassification
Establishes, lists, monitors, and protects endangered, threatened, and
species of concern including fish through the Endangered Species Act
NCWRC
US; DS; PA
(Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the Gen. Statutes). The NCWRC also has
the management responsibility for all other fish and wildlife, and
freshwater crustaceans (crayfish), and mollusks (snails and mussels).
Establishes, lists, monitors, and protects federally listed endangered,
threatened, and species of concern including fish through the Endangered
USFWS
US; DS; PA
Species Act of 1973. Also prepares and enacts various federally listed
species recovery plans such as the Spotfin Chub
E3-19
Duke Power
Agency
West Fork Project
Management
Area
Responsibilities
1
USFS
land both upstream and downstream of project area.
US; DS; PA
Monitors and
manages federally listed species.
1
E3.1.3.1
The Division of Water Quality uses a basinwide approach to water quality management
(NCDENR-DWQ 2000).
The Division is responsible for water quality issues regarding
permitting, monitoring, modeling, nonpoint source assessments, and planning for each of the 17
river basins in North Carolina (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). All basins are assessed every five years
with the last assessment occurring in 1999. The primary assessments associated with the Little
Tennessee River plan (includes the Oconaluftee and Tuckasegee rivers), as well as the other river
basins, includes benthic invertebrates, lake assessment, ambient monitoring, and aquatic toxicity
monitoring.
The use of benthic macroinvertebrates sampling data has proven to be a reliable monitoring tool
to monitor water quality changes (NCDNR-DWQ 2000). Macroinvertebrate sampling criteria
and methods have been developed to assign bioclassification ratings to benthic samples
(NCDENR-DWQ 2000).
These bioclassifications reflect the influence of pollutants on a
waterbodies water quality.
E3.1.3.2
Spotfin Chub Recovery Plan
In association with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the USFWS has prepared and enacted a
species recovery plan for the federally threatened spotfin chub (USFWS 1983 [as updated in
1996]). The actions for the recovery of the spotfin chub include:
Continue to utilize existing legal mechanisms to protect the species and its habitat;
Conduct population and habitat surveys to determine the status and range of the species;
Determine present and foreseeable threats to the species. Potential threats include sediments
from farming and mining, pollution, dredging, herbicides, pesticides, road maintenance
actions, and development;
Investigate the use of Scenic River status and/or other designations to protect the species;
Determine the feasibility of reestablishing the species into its historic range. Determine the
best methods of reintroduction; and
E3-20
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Investigate the necessity for habitat improvement and implement where needed to obtain
recovery.
Except for utilizing the above-mentioned existing legal mechanisms, there are no ongoing
recovery efforts for this species. However, as with all listed species the goals for the spotfin chub
are to maintain known surviving populations and to protect the remaining habitat from present
and future threats as well as recover the species to a point where it can be removed from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS 1983).
E3.1.3.3
The USFS Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests
guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and
guidelines for the National Forest lands. The goal of the plan is to provide a management
program that has a mixture of management activities that allow use and protection of the forest
resources; fulfill legislative requirements; and address local, regional, and national issues and
concerns (USDA-USFS 1987). The plan is reviewed and updated at least every five years. Plan
Amendment 5, the most recent update, was published in 1994.
The plan includes specific goals and standards for the protection of certain listed species such as
the spotfin chub, and water quality within Forest Service Lands (USDA-USFS 1994). These
include:
Species Based Management Goals and Standards
Use Management Indicator Species (MIS) for monitoring populations and habitat conditions for
all existing native vertebrates;
Coordinate fish management activities with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and provide an opportunity for early input to all proposed projects;
Maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species;
Provide site specific analysis of occurrence and effects on RTE species (including the spotfin
chub);
Use vegetative management practices, including commercial and noncommercial timber
harvest to accomplish fish habitat objectives;
Protect and improve fisheries habitat for self-sustaining fish populations where appropriate;
and
E3-21
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Utilize interpretive and educational materials to increase the public’s awareness of the
importance of habitat quality to fisheries resources.
Habitat Based Management Goals and Standards
objectives;
Set priorities for watershed restoration;
Minimize soil damage; and
Develop conservation strategies that address the management needs of National Forest listed
species, including the spotfin chub.
E3.1.3.4
fishery related comprehensive plans relevant to the project.
Project area and the overall river basin. Ambient water quality data for the Tuckasegee River
below Dillsboro Dam (nearest station) had no indications of water quality problems.
operations of the Project are consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and
E3-22
Duke Power
West Fork Project
associated National Forest lands. In association with water quality, the management plan outlines
objectives and measures to protect and maintain water quality conditions within forestlands.
The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation or overall fishery resource
impairment such as impact of RTE species.
Through proposed PM&E measures such as
management program, and enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program, the continued
conclusions associated with the fishery management portion of the Plan.
Protection of Aquatic Biodiversity in the Southern Appalachians Plan
The purpose of this plan is to list and prioritize stream reaches and their watersheds in order to
develop strategies to protect aquatic biodiversity in and around the southern Appalachian
National Forests (SAFC 1999).
This objective is important for project-level planning in
preparation of timber removal, building, road construction activities, and carrying out other
activities that can impact aquatic communities. According to the SAFC, the report is intended to
be a rapid assessment tool to aid the protection of aquatic diversity in the region.
In this report, key watersheds are classified as Aquatic Diversity Areas (ADA’s) based on a
synthesis of information regarding diversity and imperilment of native aquatic organisms (SAFC
1999). The report prioritizes the ADA’s based on the number of imperiled aquatic species and on
the presence of critical refugia for the species. Sites classified as critical refugia serve as a
benchmark or reference waters that would capture the full range of diversity characteristics of the
regional aquatic ecosystems (SAFC 1999). The report summarizes the imperiled aquatic species
and their distribution in each watershed.
The recommendations of this plan include the
following:
Identify the areas that are the best examples of intact aquatic systems on public lands or
functional portions of intact watersheds;
E3-23
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Restoration of the priority areas that recover the natural processes that support the
imperiled species where the likelihood of success is the greatest;
Continued work on improving riparian protection, using a meaningful definition of riparian areas,
and improvements in the protection of roadless areas, and the restoration of poorly constructed
roads.
The Tuckasegee River (ADA 28) and tributaries, a priority ADA, are mentioned as having
improved water quality and high Biotic Index scores.
The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation or overall fishery resource
management program and enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program, the continued
conclusions associated with the Plan.
E3.1.4
Summary of Consultation on Fishery Resources
A preliminary assessment of the fishery resources within the Project area was presented as part of
the First Stage Consultation Document (FSCD) (FWA 2000). The FSCD was distributed to the
pertinent agencies in March 2000. An onsite meeting was held on April 25 and 26, 2000 to allow
the agencies to tour the facilities. The following agencies were contacted in association with this
issue:
State
Quality; and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Federal
United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
United States Forest Service
E3-24
Duke Power
West Fork Project
American Rivers;
American Whitewater
Indian Tribes
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
summary of the comments and the associated Duke actions is as follows:
1)
United States Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Malka Pattison, letter
to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Relicensing Project Manager, dated
June 22, 2000
The BIA recommended that NP&L provide an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the
Project on fish species, particularly on species of interest to or utilized by the Eastern
Cherokee.
Duke Response: A relicensing Fishery Study was conducted by Duke in 2001 and 2002. A
summary of this study has been provided in Section E3.1
2)
The USFWS recommended an historical literature and records search to determine what
species, if any, historically occurring in the Tuckasegee River are no longer present either
upstream or downstream of the Project.
The USFWS recommended an impingement and entrainment study to document mortality
rates of fish species.
Duke Response:
A relicensing Fishery Study, including a historical literature search, was
conducted by Duke in 2001 and 2002. A summary of this study has been provided in Section
E3.1.
E3-25
Duke Power
3)
North
West Fork Project
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC recommended conducting studies to determine the fish community present
within the Project. It is recommended that boat electrofishing occur in representative habitats
during spring, summer, and fall. In addition, backpack electrofishing should be conducted in
shallow riffles to sample for darter species.
The NCWRC recommended conducting studies at full pond and at full drawdown to
determine the amount of fish habitat present at the two extreme lake levels.
Duke Response: A relicensing Fishery Study, using the methods described above was conducted
by Duke in 2001 and 2002. A summary of this study has been provided in Section E3.1.
4)
The NCDENR recommended that NP&L coordinate with the NCWRC and the USFWS to
determine the impacts of Project operations on fish impingement and entrainment at intakes.
The NCDENR recommended that NP&L inventory fish and other aquatic organisms
following sampling protocols acceptable to the NCWRC and Division of Water Quality –
Biological Assessment Unit.
Duke Response: A Fishery Study was conducted for the Project and a summary is provided in
this application (Section E3.1).
Information on macroinvertebrates (including mussels) is
provided in Section E3.2 of this application.
E3.1.4.1
A preliminary assessment of the fishery resources within the Project area was presented as part of
various interested parties. Copies of this correspondence can be found in Volume II. A summary
of the comments and the Duke action is as follows:
E3-26
Duke Power
1)
North
West Fork Project
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
& Light Project Manager, dated March 5, 2001
The NCWRC suggested that qualitative surveys conducted in streams or riverine reaches
should be done so as to sample representative habitat (i.e., at least on riffle-run-pool
sequence). This may require more than a 200-m reach of river.
The NCWRC suggested depletion (quantitative) surveys conducted in trout streams should
follow the protocols used by the NCWRC to enable comparisons with our long-term trout
database.
Additionally, the NCWRC stated “Specific surveys or techniques may need to be expended to
adequately sample PETS species such as spotfin chub, olive darter and sicklefin redhorse.
Duke Response: Duke has made the necessary study revisions based on the NCWRC comments
where applicable.
2)
United States Forest Service, Mr. Donley M. Hill (Forest Fisheries Biologist), letter to
Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Project Manager, dated March 6, 2001
The USFS stated that “…, sampling methods should be designed to produce objective,
defensible, reliable data that best addresses the resource issues at a particular project. If
historical or existing information is to be used for an area, it should be of recent origin
(generally less than five years) and should have been collected according to protocols that
best facilitate comparisons with information from other waters of the same type.”
The USFS stated that the American Fisheries Society depletion sampling protocol should be
used for all stream fish sampling wherever conditions permit and existing information is not
adequate.
Duke Response:
Duke has included the study revisions/suggestions based on the USFS
comments where applicable.
3)
The USFWS stated that “…we recommend including not only historical data but actual
sampling to describe the fish communities. In general, even though individual reaches should
E3-27
Duke Power
West Fork Project
be sampled according to site-specific conditions, we recommend collection of data in a
standard format, with standard methods to allow for comparisons among and between sites.”
The USFWS further recommended that, to adequately describe the fish stocks and if these
populations have not previously been typed, present samples should be collected for genetic
analysis of brook trout wherever they are encountered at higher elevation streams.
Duke Response: Duke has made the necessary study revisions based on the USFWS comments
where applicable. However, upon further consultation with the TLT Duke decided not to pursue
genetic sampling to describe the strain(s) of brook trout present.
4)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC suggested that several of the studies be renamed from the original acronyms to
descriptive text.
Also, the existing objective of the study should be replaced with the
following:
1) To quantify and evaluate the relationship between flow rate and habitat for aquatic
biological communities in stream reaches affected by the Project;
2) To provide a basis for reaching agreement on site-specific, habitat-based, seasonal
instream flow requirements;
3) To identify and evaluate a range of specific flow management options and
alternatives (e.g., minimum flows, maximum flows) that will be analyzed;
4) Address flow needs for critical biological periods, such as spawning and rearing
periods, which may be particularly susceptible to the effects of fluctuating flows.
Additionally, the NCWRC stated that the following tasks should be completed prior to selecting
transects:
1) Review of aerial photography to confirm initial study reaches and determine
transect weighting and number of transects required;
2) Additional field habitat mapping if necessary;
3) List of fish species collected in each river reach during the first fish data
collection;
4) Review or development of HSI’s (habitat suitability indices) for species or
functional fish guilds to be modeled;
E3-28
Duke Power
West Fork Project
5) In addition, the record of historical unregulated daily flows needs to be developed
prior to data collection so that maximum and minimum monthly median flows can
be calculated, and in turn the target flows for data collection can be determined for
each of the stream reaches.
Also the NCWRC stated “Although this is listed as a fish passage feasibility study, a number of
details and decision criteria need to be included before proceeding any further. First, the list of
migratory and native species needs to be determined. Second, the definitions of ‘preclusion of
some portion of that species life cycle’ and ‘resulting in a definable and demonstrated population
impact’ need to be agreed upon. These two issues may likely require a very different set of
aquatic biota sampling than is currently envisioned in the Fish Survey and Invert Survey. Also,
inadequate sampling of the various river reaches may overlook rare species in the first place. We
recommend that the study participants meet soon to work on this plan further.”
Duke Response: Duke has renamed the appropriate study plans and made the necessary study
revisions based on the NCWRC comments.
5)
Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Project Manager, dated April 22, 2001
The USFS suggested that the existing objective of the study should be replaced with the
following:
1) To quantify and evaluate the relationship between flow rate and habitat for aquatic
biological communities in stream reaches affected by the Project;
2) To provide a basis for reaching agreement on site-specific, habitat-based, seasonal
instream flow requirements;
3) To identify and evaluate a range of specific flow management options and
alternatives (e.g., minimum flows, maximum flows) that will be analyzed;
4) Address flow needs for critical biological periods, such as spawning and rearing
periods, which may be particularly susceptible to the effects of fluctuating flows.
Additionally the USFS suggested that Duke:
1) Modify the proposed fish sampling study plans to include habitat-based sampling
or sub-sampling. The habitat units for fish sampling and habitat measurements
should be consistent with the habitat classifications being used for the instream
E3-29
Duke Power
West Fork Project
flow studies.
The fieldwork should include habitat characterizations and
measurements within the sampled habitat unit, and should at a minimum include
measurements of water column depth, mean water column velocity, substrate
classification, and cover rating or classification;
2) Modify the proposed habitat suitability criteria (HSC) to more clearly outline the
details of the process proposed; reflect the discussions of the TLT and propose a
process by which the needs for these rare species criteria can be assessed and the
criteria developed;
3) Utilize an alternative method to identify breaks in habitat types for the placement
of reach boundaries and transects associated with the flow study if the aerial
photographs are not of high enough quality to achieve this goal;
4) Modify the proposed study plans to address the use of variable flow habitatmodeling methodologies, outline the proposed methodologies and the details of
the analysis, and include references to studies that have used this approach in the
Southeast United States. The USFS also requests that Duke consider and use as
appropriate, information and approaches now being used elsewhere in the Little
Tennessee River basin (e.g., Tapoco Relicensing studies);
5) Develop for review by the TLT a substrate and cover protocol that would cover
all eventualities in terms of target species/guilds/associations and modeling. The
USFS also emphasized that even if this is done, it is not out of the question that a
deficiency in the field data might be identified if there is an inconsistency
between the HSC and the field data.
Duke Response: The study plans and associated studies, especially the agreed upon IFIM studies,
incorporated the above mentioned recommendations.
6)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
(Hydropower Relicensing Coordinator), letter to Mr. Raymond D. Harrell, Duke Energy, dated
May 16, 2001
Donley Hill with the USFS and Mark Cantrell with the USFWS agreed with the fish sampling
sites and methodology selected by Chris Goudreau and Stephen Brown for the Tuckasegee
River Fish Survey Study Plan.
E3-30
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Duke Response: Duke has revised the Fish Survey Study Plan to reflect the selected sites and
methodology.
E3.1.5
Fishery Resource Studies
E3.1.5.1
Previous Studies
Other than the studies summarized in Section E3.1.2 there are no other known previous fishery
studies for the West Fork Project.
E3.1.5.2
Studies Currently Underway
There are no fisheries studies currently underway for the relicensing of the West Fork Project.
E3.1.5.3
Relicensing Studies
Several fisheries studies were recommended by the agencies during the consultation process.
Several of these studies are summarized in Section E3.1.2 and the Shoreline Habitat Survey is
summarized below. Summaries of the Entrainment Study and Instream Flow Study will be
provided in the Final Applications. All fisheries study reports can be found in their entirety on
the Duke Power-Nantahala Area relicensing website at:
E3-31
Duke Power
West Fork Project
SHORELINE HABITAT SURVEY
Introduction
During the biological studies consultation process subsequent to the issuance of the First Stage
Consultation Package for the West Fork Hydroelectric Project, the state and federal resource
agencies identified the need for shoreline habitat data for the projects’ reservoirs. A Technical
Leadership Team (TLT) comprised of representatives from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
United States Forest Service (USFS), the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Resources, Friends of Lake Glenville and the applicant was
established to develop a study plan for shoreline habitat surveys of the projects’ reservoirs. The
shoreline habitat surveys were conducted primarily to identify critical spawning and nursery
habitat for reservoir fishes.
The objectives of this study were: (1) develop shoreline habitat classifications for Lake Glenville,
(2) map the littoral shoreline habitat of Lake Glenville, based upon the classifications developed
in objective 1, and (3) evaluate any project-related impacts on aquatic habitat identified in
mapping study.
Methods
The study plan called for the aquatic habitat surveys to be conducted through a two-phase
approach. The first phase involved an initial identification of shoreline features and exposed
lakebed from an examination of aerial photography. The second phase involved ground surveys
for actual mapping and quantification of the various habitat types. The aerial photography that
was to be used for the initial phase was generated for the GIS Database study.
Shoreline Habitat Mapping
During the initial phase of the study, the TLT determined that the resolution of the aerial
photographs was insufficient to delineate shoreline habitat as the basis for identifying areas of
focus for the ground surveys. Consequently, the TLT conducted site visits to Lake Glenville to
develop the habitat classifications. A pontoon boat was used to tour the shoreline of the reservoir.
Based on the site tour, the TLT developed the shoreline habitat classifications that were used in
the habitat mapping conducted during the second phase of the study. Standard criteria were
established for each habitat classification to ensure consistent habitat mapping. The habitat
classifications and associated criteria were: (1) bedrock - greater than 50% solid rock outcrops
for a distance of 100 linear feet, (2) clay/weathered rock - greater than 50% clay or a combination
E3-32
Duke Power
West Fork Project
of clay and weathered rock (e.g., gneiss and schist) for a distance of 100 linear feet, (3) fractured
rock - greater than 50% medium to large broken boulders for a distance of 100 linear feet, (4)
riprap/stacked rock - man-induced structures within the project boundary for a distance of 100
linear feet, (5) sand/cobble - greater than 50% sand or sand and cobble for a distance of 100 linear
feet, (6) silt - greater than 50% silt (primarily organic in origin) for a distance of 100 linear feet,
(7) woody debris - four or more felled trees (>10 inches in diameter at breast height) extending
from the shoreline within a distance of 100 linear feet and (8) vegetated areas/coves with stream
confluences - greater than 50% of the area composed of stable, emergent vegetation (minimum
width of 5 feet) for a minimum distance of 100 linear feet or where intermittent or permanent
streams enter the upper ends of coves (may or may not contain vegetation).
The delineation of the shallow water habitats developed above was conducted in Lake Glenville
during the summer 2002. Habitat mapping was conducted at water elevations that generally
ranged from two to three feet below full pool. The habitat delineations were made by two
observers and were conducted in all areas of the reservoir that were accessible by boat.
The field maps and data were provided to Orbis GIS, Inc., Charlotte, NC, for incorporation into a
GIS database for each reservoir. The databases were then used to produce habitat distribution
maps for Lake Glenville.
Additionally, a tabular summary of habitat types and respective
percentages of overall lake shoreline was prepared.
Slope and Elevation Evaluations of Lake Glenville
In addition to identifying and mapping the shallow water habitat of Lake Glenville, the resource
agencies were interested in lakebed slope as a function of habitat changes with lake elevation
changes. The agencies were concerned about the potential loss of shoreline habitat as reservoir
elevation decreased. To address this concern, a subsample of each of the shoreline habitats
within Lake Glenville was selected for evaluation of lakebed slope and elevation during the fall
2002.
Generally, five transects were selected from each of the habitat types; bedrock, clay/weathered
rock, fractured rock, riprap, sand, woody debris, and vegetated/stream confluence. Transects
were selected to be representative of that habitat type and were distributed throughout the
reservoir. Each transect was perpendicular to the shoreline and extended along the lakebed from
the normal pool elevation (i.e., about one foot below maximum full pool elevation) to the water
E3-33
Duke Power
West Fork Project
level at the time of the field survey. The slope determinations were conducted at lake levels that
were at or near the lowest annual lake level target for Lake Glenville. The lower water elevations
afforded excellent visual observation of the vertical distribution of the various habitat types.
An Abney™ level and surveyor’s stadia rod were used to measure the range in elevation and
overall slope of the habitats along each transect. All measurements began at the elevation of the
reservoir on the day of the survey and ranged up to the normal pool elevation. Data were
summarized by habitat type and transect as the elevation range, and overall transect slope.
Additionally, mean elevation range and slope were calculated for each habitat type.
To address concerns about habitat losses associated with lake level decreases, the slope and
elevation data for Lake Glenville were used to calculate the approximate lakewide habitat losses
(both shoreline distance and acreage) associated with 5-foot incremental decreases in lake
elevation. Although the lowest lake elevation observed on Lake Glenville during this study was
elevation 86 feet (Lake Glenville minimum lake elevation target), the habitat loss evaluation for
Lake Glenville was conducted for lake elevations down to elevation 70 feet. This decision was
based on observations of habitat on Nantahala Lake, where clay/weathered rock, fractured rock
and bedrock habitat were observed to extend down to and, in some cases, well below elevation 70
feet. On Lake Glenville, these same habitat types were observed to extend below elevation 86
feet, but limited visibility prohibited the direct observation of the full extent of these habitats.
Accordingly, for the habitat loss evaluation on Lake Glenville, it was assumed that these habitats
in Lake Glenville exhibited vertical distributions similar to those in Nantahala Lake.
To estimate shoreline distance and habitat area at lake elevations less than full pool, it was
necessary to assume that Lake Glenville is essentially a cone-shaped basin that exhibits uniform
changes in shoreline distance and lakebed area with decreasing lake elevations.
A direct
relationship between lake elevation and shoreline distance was not available; however, equations
relating lake elevation and lake storage volume were available. These equations were used to
calculate the storage volumes of the two reservoirs at 5-foot increment lake elevations, from the
full pool elevation, 100 feet, to elevation 70 feet. Since shoreline distances and corresponding
storage volumes at full pool elevation were available and were used to establish a simple ratio
between shoreline distance and storage volume. Those ratios were then applied to the storage
volume calculated from the lake elevation/storage volume equations mentioned above, to estimate
E3-34
Duke Power
West Fork Project
the shoreline distances associated with storage volumes at each of the 5-foot increment lake
elevations (i.e., 95 feet, 90 feet, 85 feet, etc.)
The next step was to calculate, for each habitat type, the maximum lakebed distance. This is the
distance that a habitat type extended within the 30-foot fluctuation range between full pool
elevation 100 feet and elevation 70 feet (i.e., the length of a straight line perpendicular to the
shoreline, parallel to the lakebed and terminating at the end of the habitat type). The maximum
lakebed distance represents the maximum habitat available at that transect at full pool elevation.
For example, since bedrock substrate extended over the entire 30-foot range of fluctuation, the
maximum lakebed distance for bedrock habitat would be the entire lakebed distance between full
pool elevation and elevation 70 feet. To calculate this maximum lakebed distance, the lakebed
slope (measured during field survey) and maximum depth of habitat (determined based on habitat
elevation range from field survey) were used to construct a right triangle, in which the right angle
(∠ C) was formed by the intersection of the lake surface (side b) with a perpendicular line
extending from the lake surface to the lakebed (side a) at the point of maximum habitat depth.
The hypotenuse of this right triangle (side c) was the unknown maximum lakebed distance. Since
the angle formed by the intersection of the lake surface with the lakebed (∠ A) was known (the
measured lakebed slope) and the vertical distance from the lake surface to the maximum habitat
depth (side a) was known (the difference between the elevations at which a habitat type began
and ended), the maximum lakebed distance (side c) could be calculated using the sine function for
∠ A, where sin A = a/c.
Since decreases in lake elevation result in dewatering of a portion of the lakebed, habitats in the
dewatered zone are eliminated. To account for those habitat losses and to estimate the remaining
habitat at the lower lake elevations, the lakebed habitat distances had to be recalculated for each
5-foot decrease in lake elevation.
These calculations were performed using the same sine
function and equation described above, but decreasing the maximum habitat depth (side a) by 5
feet for each successive 5-foot drop in lake elevation. The resulting dataset contained lakebed
habitat in linear feet for each habitat type at full pool elevation and at every 5-foot decrease in
lake elevation down to elevation 70 feet.
With estimates of shoreline distances and lakebed habitat for all lake elevations from full pool to
elevation 70 feet, the next step was to determine shoreline mileages and total lake acreages for
each habitat type at each lake elevation. To determine the shoreline mileage for each habitat type
E3-35
Duke Power
West Fork Project
at each lake elevation, the habitat percentages determined from the field surveys were applied to
the recalculated shoreline distances for each of the elevations below full pool (i.e., 95 feet, 90
feet, 85 feet, 80 feet, 75 feet and 70 feet) to yield the total lake shoreline distance for each habitat
type at each lake elevation. To determine the total acreage for each habitat type at each lake
elevation, the shoreline mileages calculated above were converted to distances in feet. Those
shoreline distances were then multiplied by the corresponding lakebed habitat distances in feet to
yield habitat areas in square feet. Those areas were then converted to acreages by dividing by
43,560, the number of square feet in one acre. The resulting shoreline miles and lake acreages for
each habitat type at each lake elevation were tabulated for easy comparison and evaluation of
habitat changes associated with lake elevation changes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Shoreline Habitat Mapping
The most abundant habitat type in Lake Glenville is clay/fractured rock, which comprises 56.8%
of the shoreline habitat (Table E3.1-11). The majority of the remaining habitat consists of the
other three “rock” habitats (riprap/stacked rock, fractured rock and bedrock), which, collectively,
comprise 31.4% of the shoreline habitat.
Woody debris (1.6%), sand/cobble (6.1%) and
vegetated/stream confluence (4.2%) habitats collectively comprise only 11.9% of the Lake
Glenville shoreline habitat. Shoreline habitat mapping for Lake Glenville is shown in Figure
E3.1-3.
Table E3.1-11. Shoreline habitat survey results by habitat type for Lake Glenville
Habitat Type
Vegetated/Stream Confluence
Sand/Cobble
Woody Debris
Clay/Weathered Rock
Bedrock
Fractured Rock
Riprap/Stacked Rock
Silt
Not Surveyed
Total
No. of
Segments
54
57
24
209
56
57
64
0
0
521
Total
Length
(feet)
6,119.7
8,900.8
2,372.6
83,204.6
10,853.4
16,958.7
18,103.9
0.0
0.0
146,513.7
Effect of Reservoir Level Decreases on Shoreline Habitat
E3-36
Mean
Segment
Length
113.3
156.2
98.9
398.1
193.8
298.2
282.9
NA
NA
281.2
Percent of
Shoreline
4.2
6.1
1.6
56.8
7.4
11.6
12.4
0.0
0.0
100.1
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Average lakebed slopes and elevation ranges in Lake Glenville varied by habitat type (Table
E3.1-12) and exhibited trends similar to those in Nantahala Lake. The habitat types associated
with the steepest average lakebed slopes are the natural “rock” habitats, bedrock (22° slope) and
fractured rock (21° slope), and the man-made “rock” habitat riprap (27° slope). The habitat types
associated with moderate lakebed slopes are woody debris (14° slope) and clay/weathered rock
(10° slope). The sand (8° slope) and vegetated/stream confluence (4° slope) habitat types are
found in areas of the reservoir with marginal lakebed slopes.
All habitat types except the vegetated/stream confluence and riprap habitats extend over the entire
normal operating range of target reservoir levels (elevation 100 feet to elevation 86 feet).
The
riprap habitat is generally limited to the upper ten feet of the reservoir, while the vegetated/stream
confluence habitat is limited to the upper five feet of the reservoir.
The effect of reservoir level decreases on habitat in Lake Glenville varies by habitat type and is a
function of the vertical distribution of a particular habitat. A comparison of the estimated total
lake habitat area (acres) at full pool to the total lake habitat area (acres) at various lower
elevations (Table E3.1.13) shows the relative changes in habitat with changes in reservoir
elevation. It should be noted that habitat estimates may not represent absolute lake-wide habitat
quantities. Additionally, the estimates of available habitat in Lake Glenville at various reservoir
elevations are the result of extrapolating beyond the surveyed reservoir elevation 86 feet, based
on the distribution of the same habitat types in Nantahala Lake. As with Nantahala Lake, the
most abundant habitat types, the natural “rock” habitats, were distributed from full pool elevation
to below the minimum reservoir level target (elevation 86 feet).
The percentages of shoreline habitat reductions resulting from reservoir level decreases in Lake
Glenville vary by habitat type (Table E3.1-14). Although substantially reduced in total area, four
of the six identified natural habitats in Lake Glenville (woody debris, clay/weathered rock,
bedrock and fractured rock) are still available at reservoir elevations down to and below the
normal minimum reservoir target elevation 86 feet. Sand habitat disappears at the minimum
reservoir target elevation.
Because of its association with very low gradient shoreline,
vegetated/stream confluence habitat is the most severely impacted habitat and generally
disappears at reservoir elevations between 100 and 95 feet.
E3-37
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Concerning any potential adverse impacts of reservoir level decreases and associated habitat
reductions on the Lake Glenville fishery, the period of the year when reservoir levels are the
lowest (November - February) is generally the period when fish are the least active. As fish
activity increases in the early spring, reservoir levels are rising.
On Lake Glenville, the
vegetated/stream confluence habitat is only present at reservoir elevations at or above elevation
95 feet. Reservoir elevations in Lake Glenville generally reach this level around the first of April,
so the vegetated/stream confluence habitat is available for most of the spawning season. Even if
the vegetated/stream confluence habitat was unavailable during a portion of the spawning season
this habitat type comprises a small percentage of the total shoreline in Lake Glenville (4.2 %),
and it is likely that the spawning/nursery habitat function in Lake Glenville is also being provided
by other more abundant and more widely available habitats.
In considering potential impacts to fish spawning, reservoir level changes after spawning
activities have begun can be critically important, especially for nest-building fish species. If
reservoir levels decrease appreciably after nests have been constructed and eggs deposited, nests
and eggs can be dewatered. Since the reservoir level targets and operating guidelines for Lake
Glenville provide for rising reservoir levels from early spring through mid summer, the risk of
reservoir level decreases during the spring/early summer spawning season are minimal.
E3-38
Ar
an Rd.
eek
Tea r
dr
op Ln.
d ia
oa
W
.
Rd
Pine
Rd
.
7
a
Sh o
NC 10
Cr
eek
Sm
ok
yR
id g
k
ree
eR
d.
lC
Pin
e
ek R
T ra il
NC 10
7
ek R
ek
re
w
n
C re
Pine
Tr
in
M
ou
nt
a
in
Rd
.
e
nd r
d.
od
s
R
Wo
Rd
.
hA
il l
ta
H
ou
n
ws P a
rk
re e k
ry
And re
Ralp
ra
wb
er
Ga p Rd.
ws P
uM
Ralph
St
Sh
ep
he
rd
s
S ho al C
ail
d.
Ar
ro
T
o
R
ar k
d.
Ralph Andrews Par k
ne
Pi
e ek
Cr
.
Rd
G
C
ne
Pi
n
ra
yL
re
Shepherds Gap Rd.
Tr
a il
a in
ou
ee
kR
10 7
d.
il
L
n.
No
H
ry
rto n R d.
St
ra
wb
er
rt h
Wo
o ds
i ll
r
G
ne
vi
ap
Rd
.
Tr a
k
ree
No
ou
M
in
n ta
lC
Quie
t
a
Sh o
Lake Glenville
Wa
te r
C
n.
NC
.
Rd
.
r
k
Rd
C
ee
W
S
ll
Hi
ry
be r
tr aw
r yso n Rd.
Cr
ne
Pi
cl e
ir
oo
M
ds
n.
ine L
B
rt
Pin e
ek
C re
v
Gra p
be
Ro
k
ee
ek
C re
Pi ne
nt
ne
Pi
d.
Cr
.
Rd
kR
re e
eC
tle P
ine
ek
Pi n
L it
3
r.
Sheperd D
Sheperd Dr.
.
n
ai
ai
nt
Rd
M
nt
ou
a rk Rd.
n
ai
ad
he
th
Pa
ou
tP
ou
Woo ds M
il
ra
Low Water
Access Area
eB
M
Pi
ne
C
W hit e Roc k
l if
.
nt
r ib
Ca
Macon
County
d.
u
Rd
.
ek
Rd
C re
il d
R d.
o
ib
ar
C re
Pi ne
W
C
a in
nt
.
Rd
r
Robert B
Rd
.
Lak
NC 11
56
esid
eC
irc l
e
Dr .
oo n R d.
Lag
r.
Trai
l
rt
27.8
Public Parks (e.g. city, regional, etc.)
n
do
no
K
bR
d.
d.
Glen vi
lle Sch
o ol R
r.
D
Public Access Area
Project Waters
Piers
ke
sid
e
n
Ra
d.
dR
.
.
Dr
No
TOTAL:
Project Structures
Feet
La
500
ool Rd
0%
0%
0
Cir
e S ch
12%
0.0
0.0
Un
d
3.4
Silt
Not Surveyed
Pipe
Lo n
Riprap/Stacked Rock
500
c le
Disclaimer:
Dr
.
This map is for internal planning purposes only. The data contained herein was generated from a Geographic Information
System (GIS) and is not intended to be survey quality. All information on this map has been checked with data made available to and generated by Orbis GIS, Inc. Duke Energy and Orbis
GIS, Inc. make no warranty, expressed or implied and assume
no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, and completeness represented herein.
Gl
en
v i ll
Norto n Rd.
12%
Rd .
3.2
Full Pond
Tunnel Pipe
rt o
n
Fractured Rock
r.
Project Boundary Line
No
57%
7%
ree
k
15.8
2.1
h
Mi
ll C
2%
a
al
07
NC 1
0.4
n t.
4%
6%
Clay/WeatheredNorRock
to
nR
d.
Bedrock
irc
aM
iv
pt
1.2
1.7
.
Rd
ill
dH
Lakes id e C
t on Rd.
Mi
ll C
Sand/Cobble
ree
kR
d.
Woody Debris
Miles Percent
Rd
.
N or
C a Habitat
Thorpe Development Shoreline
ll P
oin
t
h
No rt
Figure E3.1-3. West Fork Project Shoreline Habitat Map.
West Fork Project
Jackson County, North Carolina
FERC No. 2686
Ra
n
le Sheet 1 of 3
D
S ti
l
Wild C h
e r ry Way La k
e
W
ke
T r ai
La
Bl u eBer y
r
6
.
Hil l Rd
ry
be r
aw
ay
5
11
S tr
La
ke
si
NC
.
Rd
de
C
irc
to n
or
le
D
hN
Adm
N ort
i r al
Dr
.
Hare Ho l low R
d.
ys o n
Lakesi de Circle Dr.
ou
ree k
Jackson County
1
Lake Glenville
2
Rd.
he e M
C
Pine
Pine Creek
Access Area
Wo
o ds
Cullo w
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
un
k
Slo an
R
ee
ay
Cr
ne
Pi
e
Be
Tr
C
ee
re
ek
.
Rd
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
r.
re
ek
3
.
Rd
e Sc ho
S ti
eC
Gl
en
v il l
r.
66 KV
R d.
tO
ff
ice R
Old Po st O ff ice R
d.
d.
07
NC 1
Lo n
ir c
le D
re
eT
Be
rd
va
.
Ln
cone
d.
Tr l
in
R
S te
n.
d Rd
ar
e
Bee Tree Cre
R id
ge R
d.
n.
Wis
te
ri a
Wa
y
Cr
i tt
er
Hill
Rd .
Kn ob b
.
NC
10
7
s on
r est
Tr
k
ai
l
re
st
Tr
a
NC
il
d.
a r Cr
e
Bee T ek R
re e d.
7
10
k
Ced a
rC
Ced
ar C
reek
.
Rd
ek
re
W
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Sheet 2 of 3
l n ut
a
Jolly H ill s R d.
Tob y B ryson Rd.
.
Dr
eek
d.
t. R
ht M
Br
i
Sc
e
nic
L
n.
esho
La
k
d.
R
at
tM
gh
t.
Rd
.
ne
A l bu
r y R id
i t h D r.
Pipe
Wh eat s
T ra il
NC 107
Ln .
eD
r.
Public Access Area
Project Waters
Piers
Fe
n le
yF
0
500
Feet
Project Structures
ton
sy
Dai
sy
Up
500
Tunnel Pipe
.
ge R d
Fenl ey F o
re s
t
Brig
ht M
t.
W
Rd.
l
il
12%
12%
0%
0%
il
tH
asa n
ra
3.2
3.4
0.0
0.0
27.8
Ple
ll T
Fa
2%
57%
7%
er
0.4
15.8
2.1
Full Pond
ig
Br
o
No
NC 1148
La ke sho re Dr.
4%
6%
M
r th
TOTAL:
re
o
1.2
sh
ke
La
1.7
re D r
.
Cr
No
Sand/Cobble
rt o
nR
Woody Debris
d.
Clay/Weathered Rock
Cr eek
Bedrock
t on
N or
Fractured Rock
Riprap/Stacked Rock
Kn obSilt
Cr e
NotekSurveyed
7
10
Thorpe Development Shoreline Habitat Miles Percent
NC
Rd
.
D Norto
r.
n
n
eC
r ee
Ced
Fo
d.
y Fo
ley
k
ac
or
to
T re
re
e k Rd.
re
eC
eT
Be
Fe
n
Fe n
le
o rest Trail
yF
N
.
Rd
66 KV
Fe
pp i
ng S
t on e
iev e
r Ln
.
Re
tr
ne
ss
T
W
id
er
n.
7
11
4
NC
d.
n le
Fe
Nort h
k
ee
Cr
R d.
R
tain
ou n
en M
Bl
Co
v
Ow
l
n s Trai
as o
Se
by B
ry
Rd.
ur
To
R
H ill
Fo
t
es
or
Fa
l ls
in g
Fen ley F
eR
K nob b
d.
il
Rd .
ov
Sho
be r r y L
tr
es
d Ln
Woo d Fern T
ra
re
esh o
La k
Ln .
Hill
Fall s C
n.
B ir
p py
Ha
eR
Br
i ar
v
Ri
ai
l
mi
ng
Tr
ail
Prism Ln
.
Rd
Do e T r
Lake Glenville
.
d.
ai n R
Lake Glenville
Hu
m
r
La ke B r ee z e D
t
oun
i
ay
aW
re st Tra il
Fo
L
mi
oca
Riv
a rd
Ab
be
yL
en
NC 10 7
W is
t er
tL
r on
Wa t er f
D
M
il
ra
y
nl e
Fe
Rd
.
T
le
rc
Ci
il
ra
ng
a
ge
T
st
i L n.
So
o unt
Sa
re
Fo
m
ca
m
me
r
nM
O we
Ow
d
le y
Fen
To
Su
R
ar d
R iv
e Dr.
Ma ry
Tra il
nl
ey
P in e
r.
Hickory
Ln .
Bee
Rd .
Ll
oy
07
NC 1
dH
oop
er
Ri
W a yside L
n.
Old P o s
Rd
shor
Glen
2
.
Rd
ol Rd.
ll P
oin
t
Rd
.
Un
d
D
nd
Ra
La
ke
sid
eC
b
no
K
Jackson County
1
Lake Glenville
e
Macon
County
07
NC 1
.
Rd
Glen vi
lle Sch
o ol R
i ll
dH
rc
r.
a
al
re
d.
Ra
n
le
D
n
do
ee k Rd.
C
r
Ci
Lakesid e
T
Bee
Disclaimer:
e
sh or
.
y Fo
r e st
Tr
ail
Fa
l ls
Jolly Hi lls Rd.
Toby Bryso n R d.
Cr
eek
n.
ht M
t. R
d.
o re D
Sc
e
La
nic
L
k e sh
d.
A lbu ry
Fenley F or
ll
Fa
a
Tr
il
Cr ee
k
sy
Up
Da
isy
Ln
es t
R d.
W h eat s
T ra il
.
wT
Ne
o re
s t Tra il
n.
W
sy
ium
i
wT
rill
Da
k
Cr
ee
d.
No
rto
n
ay
il
Tr
a
W
m
No
i
r t h N o r t o n R d.
Sw
.
Ln
iss
hi
te
.
New
W
Rd.
v en R d.
i rr
White S qu
ir
el R
Rd
No
rt
re
en h
a
r el Rd.
d.
d.
NC
er
Shiv
10 7
Ridg
ra il
on k T
No
d.
ay
um W
Chipm
nR
r to
on R
illi
Tr
u
k
st
Sq
C ree
u
Gu ise Ln .
No rto
n
re
T rill
G
N or
on
or t
th N
.
Rd
Fo
ley
No
rth
id
ge
R
.
t
nu
st
he
Fe
n
C
N ew
d
Mac Lake Dr.
Rd
ee B
en
Cha pel H ill R
d.
d.
h No
rt on
ey
B
R
Ch est n
H on
.
Rd
10 7
ut R i
dge R
l
rai
No rt
NC
st T
Fen ley F or e
NC 114 8
Ne
sy
Up
D r.
ay
L n.
Dr a
ke
66 KV
d.
L
Upsy D ais y
07
NC1
.R
Mt
Lake Glenville
Whit e Duc
kW
ay
8
nR
rt o
d.
No
11 4
ht
r.
m Way
rt h
No
NC
nle
yF
iu
ri ll
Fe
B r ig
ton
eD
NC 107
Brig
ht M
t.
er
at
ne
i th Dr .
Hi
l lt
op
W
R id g e
o rn
n C reek
Rd.
Rd
.
Br
i
R
rH
D rN ort
. on
r.
t.
tM
o
gh
ll
t Hi
as a n
Ple
.
3
g
Br i
M
nR
d.
Macon
County
7
10
.
Jackson County
1
Lake Glenville
2
NC
rt o
Rd
.
Dr
La k esh ore Dr
re
ho
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
Ceda
rC
Ced
ar C
reek
a
s
ke
o
No
k
l nut
Ma
tte
Co
v
To b
.
Rd
Fo res t Trail
N
rth
La
rto
7
10
k
ree
ve
W
o
Fa ll s C
Rd
.
NC 1148
NC
il
ck
eR
No
Kn ob
st
Tr
a
C eda
r Cre
B e e ek R
Tre e d
.
y
nl e
rt
on
re
Fe
No
Fo
Bla
Prism Ln
.
Nort h
ley
d.
y Br
ys
on
F enle
ee
Cr
R d.
Fe
n
Rd .
La ke B r ee
r.
ze D
.
e Rd
North
d.
7
10
R d.
NC
Do
m
in
i
Norton
R
on
No
rt o
nR
d.
No
rto
n
Cr
ee
k
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Sheet 3 of 3
Thorpe Development Shoreline Habitat Miles Percent
rt h
No
Hur rica ne Creek
no
b
el
ur
0
500
Feet
Pipe
d.
La
nR
rt o
n Rd
.
ch
an
Br
500
Tunnel Pipe
No
Norto
el K Creek
Laur Cam p
ssy
Gra
.
Rd
0%
d.
0.0
27.8
eR
TOTAL:
12%
12%
0%
i dg
0.0
2%
57%
7%
Full Pond
il R
Silt
Not Surveyed
4%
6%
a
Qu
1.2
Sand/Cobble
1.7
Woody Debris
0.4
ek
C re 15.8
Clay/Weathered Rock
tr on
No
Bedrock
2.1
Rd.
to n
Fractured Rock
3.2
Nor
Riprap/Stacked Rock
3.4
Project Structures
Public Access Area
Public Parks (e.g.
Project Waters
Piers
city,
regional,
66 KV
etc.)
Disclaimer:
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.1-12. Elevation (feet) and slope (°) associated with major littoral habitat types found in Lake Glenville
Bedrock
Transect
Clay/weathered rock
Fractured rock
Riprap
Sand
Woody debris
Vegetation
Elevation Slope
Elevation
Slope
Elevation Slope
Elevation Slope
Elevation Slope
Elevation Slope
Elevation Slope
1
99.0-86.1
16
99.0-86.1
7
99.0-86.1
24
99.0-88.9
27
99.0-86.1
8
99.0-78.2
14
99.0-94.1
2
2
99.0-86.1
13
99.0-86.1
12
99.0-86.1
17
99.0-94.0
38
99.0-86.1
6
99.0-80.1
12
99.0-94.1
2
3
99.0-86.1
23
99.0-85.9
10
99.0-86.1
24
99.0-93.0
20
99.0-85.9
9
99.0-78.9
13
99.0-97.5
6
4
99.0-86.1
39
99.0-89.1
15
99.0-85.9
19
99.0-96.3
32
99.0-85.9
7
99.0-78.9
16
99.0-96.5
7
5
99.0-85.9
21
99.0-85.9
8
99.0-85.9
20
99.0-93.2
18
99.0-85.9
8
99.0-80.4
15
99.0-93.9
1
Mean
99.0-86.0
22
99.0-86.6
10
99.0-86.0
21
99.0-93.1
27
99.0-86.0
8
99.0-79.3
14
99.0-95.2
4
E3-42
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.1-13. Lake Glenville shoreline habitat distance (mi.) and area (ac.) at various lake levels below full pool
LAKE GLENVILLE SHORELINE HABITAT DISTANCE (MI.) AT VARIOUS LAKE LEVELS
Habitat Type
Sand/Cobble
Woody Debris
Clay/Weathered Rock
Bedrock
Fractured Rock
Riprap/Stacked Rock
Silt
Total
Full Pool
Miles
Percentage
1.2
4.2%
1.7
6.1%
0.4
1.6%
15.8
56.8%
2.1
7.4%
3.2
11.6%
3.4
12.4%
0.0
0.0%
27.7
100.0%
100
95
1.2
1.7
0.4
15.8
2.1
3.2
3.4
N/A
27.7
0.0
1.5
0.4
14.1
1.8
2.9
3.1
N/A
23.9
Lake Level
85
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.4
0.3
12.7
11.3
1.7
1.5
2.6
2.3
0.0
0.0
N/A
N/A
18.6
15.4
90
80
0.0
0.0
0.3
9.9
1.3
2.0
0.0
N/A
13.5
75
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
1.1
1.8
0.0
N/A
11.7
70
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.6
1.0
1.5
0.0
N/A
10.1
LAKE GLENVILLE SHORELINE HABITAT AREA (AC.) AT VARIOUS LAKE LEVELS
Habitat Type
Sand/Cobble
Woody Debris
Clay/Weathered Rock
Bedrock
Fractured Rock
Riprap/Stacked Rock
Silt
Total
Full Pool
Feet
Percentage
6,120
4.2%
8,901
6.1%
2,373
1.6%
83,205
56.8%
10,853
7.4%
16,959
11.6%
18,104
12.4%
0
0.0%
146,514
100.0%
100
9.7
20.6
4.7
446.6
22.0
37.5
6.3
N/A
547.3
95
0.0
11.8
3.2
351.4
16.8
28.8
1.6
N/A
413.5
Lake Level
90
85
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
1.9
0.9
270.2
201.9
12.4
8.6
21.4
15.2
0.0
0.0
N/A
N/A
310.6
226.7
* Assumes habitat extends beyond surveyed lake level of 86.0, based on Nantahala Lake
E3-43
80
0.0
0.0
0.1
142.9
5.5
9.9
0.0
N/A
158.4
75
0.0
0.0
0.0
95.2
3.0
5.7
0.0
N/A
103.9
70
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.9 *
1.0 *
2.4 *
0.0
N/A
59.2
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.1-14. Percent reduction of total habitat acreage, by habitat type, associated with each 5foot incremental decrease in reservoir level on Lake Glenville
Habitat Type
Sand/Cobble
Woody Debris
Clay/Weathered Rock
Bedrock
Fractured Rock
Riprap/Stacked Rock
Silt
Percent Habitat Reduction for Reservoir Level Decreases
100 to 95
95 to 90
90 to 85 85 to 80 80 to 75 75 to 70
100.0%
42.5%
77.0%
100.0%
32.5%
58.8%
80.4%
97.9%
100.0%
21.3%
39.5%
54.8%
68.0%
78.7%
87.5% *
23.8%
43.8%
60.8%
75.0%
86.4%
95.5% *
23.2%
42.9%
59.5%
73.5%
84.7%
93.7% *
75.1%
100.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* Assumes habitat extends beyond surveyed lake level of 86.0, based on Nantahala Lake
FISH ENTRAINMENT STUDY
A summary of this study will be provided in the Final Application.
INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
A summary of this study will be provided in the Final Application.
E3.1.5.4
Proposed Studies
There are no additional proposed fishery studies associated with the relicensing of the West Fork
Project.
E3.1.6
Project Effects on Fisheries Resources from Continued Project Operation
Fisheries surveys conducted in the Project bypass documented fewer species and numbers of
individuals than within the mainstem Tuckasegee River downstream of the Project. The bypass
sites also were dominated by coolwater/coldwater species while the mainstem sites included
mainly warmwater and coolwater species. These differences in observed fish communities are
likely the result of habitat changes associated with the original construction of the Project and
differences in meteorological conditions. The bypass reaches receive water from dam leakage,
spills, and the immediate drainage area, but receive lower volumes than non-bypassed reaches.
The Thorpe bypass also generally has colder water temperatures than downstream reaches (see
Section E2.9). This reduced water volume limits the available habitat and the colder water
temperatures limit use to coolwater/coldwater species. As water travels downstream of the West
Fork Project both water volumes, due to releases for generation and drainage basin additions, and
temperatures due to meteorological conditions, increase resulting in more available structural
habitat and water temperatures that are suitable for a wider range of fish species (e.g. warmwater
E3-44
Duke Power
West Fork Project
and coolwater species). These differences are a result of the original Project construction and
prevailing meteorological conditions and continued operation will maintain this community
structure.
Concerning any potential adverse impacts of reservoir level decreases and associated habitat
reductions on the Lake Glenville fishery, the period of the year when reservoir levels are the
lowest (November - February) is generally the period when fish are the least active. As fish
activity increases in the early spring, reservoir levels are rising.
On Lake Glenville, the
vegetated/stream confluence habitat is only present at reservoir elevations at or above elevation
95 feet. Reservoir elevations in Lake Glenville generally reach this level around the first of April,
so the vegetated/stream confluence habitat is available for most of the spawning season. Even if
the vegetated/stream confluence habitat was unavailable during a portion of the spawning season
this habitat type comprises a small percentage of the total shoreline in Lake Glenville (4.2 %),
and it is likely that the spawning/nursery habitat function in Lake Glenville is also being provided
by other more abundant and more widely available habitats.
In considering potential impacts to fish spawning, reservoir level changes after spawning
activities have begun can be critically important, especially for nest-building fish species. If
reservoir levels decrease appreciably after nests have been constructed and eggs deposited, nests
and eggs can be dewatered. Since the reservoir level targets and operating guidelines for Lake
Glenville provide for rising reservoir levels from early spring through mid summer, the risk of
reservoir level decreases during the spring/early summer spawning season are minimal.
E3.1.7
Existing Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
The existing license and the May 5 1999 Order approving settlement (Article 32) currently states
and the confluence with the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River. This continuous minimum flow
has enhanced the quality of the fishery in this stretch of river, particularily during periods of 0 cfs
discharge.
E3.1.8
Proposed Fishery Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
The following fishery PM&E’s have been proposed for the West Fork Projects. On May 16,
2003, a Consensus Agreement was signed by the Primary Members of the Tuckasegee
E3-45
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Cooperative Stakeholder Team. The primary members and the organizations they represent who
agree in consensus will work toward conversion of the Consensus Agreement into a Settlement
Agreement by September 15, 2002. A copy of the entire Consensus Agreement, signed on May
16, 2003 is provided in Volume III.
Based on this Consensus Agreement, Duke proposes to the following measures in association
with the West Fork Projects:
LAKE LEVELS
Pond. Normal Minimum, Normal Maximum and Normal Target Elevations change on a daily
demands vary, Duke will not always be able to maintain actual lake levels at the Normal Target
Elevations. As long as actual lake levels are within the Normal Operating Range and Duke is not
operating under the Low Inflow or Hydro Project Maintenance and Emergency Protocols, Duke
will be in compliance with any future settlement agreement, 401 Water Quality Certification and
license requirements with regard to lake levels.
Month
Normal Target
Elevation (ft)
Jan
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
85
90
Normal
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
94
Feb
85
90
94
Mar
88
91
94
Apr
90
93
96
May
95
97
99
Jun
95
97
99
Jul
95
97
99
E3-46
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Month
Normal Target
Elevation (ft)
Aug
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
93
95
Normal
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
98
Sep
90
93
94
Oct
90
93
94
Nov
86
90
94
Dec
85
90
94
Any changes from current operation to begin in 2004.
Minimum Flow and Bypass Flow
the existing provision
b)
Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less)
c)
55 cfs combined minimum flow from July 1 through November 30 (assuming inflow to
Tuckasegee Lake is greater than or equal to 20 cfs) and provided by
d)
Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less)
e)
Implement new and additional minimum and bypass flows in 2006, or within 1 year
following receipt of FERC approval to modify project facilities, whichever comes last.
Resource Enhancement Initiatives
Unique Fishery Identification
a. Provide support when requested, but not before the final FERC order concerning
Dillsboro Project license surrender is received and the closure of all legal challenge
periods has occurred, to the USFWS and the NCWRC on studies to determine the range
and distribution of the sicklefin redhorse sucker in the Tuckasegee Rivers
b. Duke’s contribution may be in the form of a one-time funding contribution, in-kind
services or a combination of the two, not to exceed a total cost of $40,000
E3-47
Duke Power
West Fork Project
belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The prioritized initiatives list will
be requested from each board by 7/1/05
support from Duke
c. Contribute $40,000 per county in Jackson County toward implementation of the Dukeselected initiatives
applicable new FERC licenses and the closure of all legal challenge periods
reservoirs belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
that will be used to prioritize potential initiatives
be $200,000
applicable new FERC licenses and the closure of all legal challenge periods
E3-48
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Sediment Management
E3-49
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.1.9
Borawa, J. C.
methods.
List of Literature
1996. Trout stream management standardized sampling and data analysis
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries. 8 pp.
Duke Power-Nantahala Area.
2003.
Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2602) Draft
License Application. Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
FERC. 2002. List of Revised Comprehensive Plans. Office of Energy Projects. Washington,
D.C. April.
Whittier, North
Nantahala Power and Light Company. 1972. Environmental Statement: West Fork Project No.
2686, North Carolina.
2000. Basinwide Assessment Report-Little Tennessee River. Raleigh, North Carolina. April
2000. 83 pp.
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition and Pacific Rivers Council (SAFC). 1999. Protection of
Aquatic Biodiversity in the Southern Appalachian National Forests and their Watersheds.
Compiled by Dr. William O. McLarney. 27 pp.
4. March 1994.
E3-50
Duke Power
E3.2
West Fork Project
Report on Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
E3.2.1
General Overview of Macroinvertebrate Resources in the Basin
Water quality in the Little Tennessee River basin, as assessed using benthic invertebrate indices,
is generally Good or Excellent (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). Two hundred seven ratable samples
representing 112 sites have been collected since 1983. Good or Excellent ratings have been
assigned for 77 percent of these samples. The remaining 23 percent of the samples are rated
Good-Fair, Fair, and Poor. Overall, the water quality in the basin has improved slightly since the
last monitoring cycle.
However, many of these short-term changes were more related to
differences in flow rather than actual improvements in water quality.
One short-term decline in water quality was found at the uppermost site on the Little Tennessee
River in Macon County. A decrease in bioclassification was accompanied by a sharp increase in
conductivity. This problem seemed to be associated with an upstream discharger in Georgia.
The distribution of ratings was very similar for the 1999 collections and for all collections made
since 1983. This suggested there has been little overall change in water quality within the basin.
Individual sites, however, sometimes showed distinct long-term or short-term changes in water
quality.
The Little Tennessee River in Subbasin 02, which includes the West Fork Project area, is critical
habitat for two federally and state listed endangered species of mussels: the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) and the little-wing pearly mussel (Pegias fabula). Other listed mussel
species in this subbasin include the slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis) and the Tennessee
pigtoe (Fusconaia barnesiana), which are listed as endangered in North Carolina. The wavyrayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola), a species of Special Concern in North Carolina, is also
found in this area.
In addition to the endangered species listed above several other notable macroinvertebrates occur
in the Little Tennessee River Basin.
These species include Baetopus sp. nov. (a mayfly),
Heterocloeon sp. nov. (a mayfly), Serratella spiculosa (a mayfly), Agapetus spp. (a caddisfly),
Micrasema sprulesi (a caddisfly), Cambarus sp. nov. (a crayfish), Megaleuctra willamsae and
Zapada chila (stoneflies).
E3-51
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.2.2
Description of Historic and Current Macroinvertebrate Resources of the
Project and Its Vicinity
A literature survey was conducted by Fish and Wildlife Associates (FWA) to assist in providing
macroinvertebrate community information and identifies RTE species, which might occur in the
project area. The literature survey identified one source of macroinvertebrate data in the general
vicinity of the West Fork Project: The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources’ (NCDENR) Basinwide Assessment Report-Little Tennessee River (NCDENR 2000).
The studies identified in the FWA survey have been incorporated into the discussion of the results
of the benthic field surveys conducted by Duke at the West Fork Project.
E3.2.2.1
Existing Macroinvertebrate Community Upstream of the Project
No existing macroinvertebrate information is available upstream of the West Fork Project.
E3.2.2.2
Existing Macroinvertebrate Community in the Project Area
The Tuckasegee River watershed, located in the Little Tennessee River Subbasin 02, “contains
some of the highest quality waters of the state” (NCDENR 2000). Clean water indicators of the
EPT insect orders (Ephemeroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera [stoneflies] and Trichoptera
[caddisflies]) tend to dominate the benthic community. The Environmental Science Branch of the
NC Division of Water Quality (ESB) monitored a location near the confluence of the West and
East Forks of the Tuckasegee River about 2.5 mi downstream of Cedar Cliff dam, in 1999. This
site was assigned a water quality rating (bioclassification) of Good. The ESB also sampled a site
in Panthertown Valley, approximately 8 mi upstream of Tennessee Creek development, and
assigned a rating of Excellent.
Field sampling associated with Project relicensing was conducted downstream of the Thorpe
Powerhouse and below Glenville Dam in August 2001, using the Standard Operating Procedures
for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (SOP) developed by the ESB (NCDENR 2001). The SOP uses a
bioclassification system of data analysis based on the sensitivity of aquatic insects to pollution.
The system is based on two metrics; one based on the total number of EPT taxa and one based on
relative tolerance of each species to water pollution. The most sensitive species are those of the
EPT taxa.
In terms of species tolerance, the classification system uses a rating called the Biotic Index (BI).
The BI is derived by assigning tolerance values to aquatic insect species and then summing the
individual species tolerance value times that species abundance and then dividing the overall sum
E3-52
Duke Power
West Fork Project
by the sum of all abundance values. Species with a low tolerance for pollution have a low score
and more tolerant species have a higher score, so that the lower the BI the better the water quality.
The two metrics, EPT taxa and BI are used to derive the bioclassification for a particular stretch
of a river or stream and are scored as Excellent-5, Good-4, Good-Fair-3, Fair-2, and Poor-1. The
details of BI index calculations, EPT taxa, and BI index values and their scores, and the assigning
of a bioclassification were taken from the SOP and are presented in Table E3.2-1.
E3-53
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.2-1. Procedure for developing bioclassification (from SOP NCDENR 2001)
The Biotic Index for a sample is a summary measure of the tolerance values of organisms found
in the sample, relative to their abundance.
Biotic Index (BI) = Sum (TVi) (ni) /N
TVi = ith taxa's tolerance value
ni = ith taxa's abundance value (1, 3 or 10)
N = sum of all abundance values
Table of values used to determine the scores for EPT taxa richness values and Biotic Index
values for all standard qualitative samples:
Score
BI Values
Mt*
5
P**
EPT Values
CA***
<4.00
<5.14
<5.42
4.6
4.00-4.04
5.14-5.18
4.4
4.05-4.09
4
MT*
P**
CA***
>43
>33
>29
5.42-5.46
42-43
32-33
28
5.19-5.23
5.47-5.51
40-41
30-31
27
4.10-4.83
5.24-5.73
5.52-6.00
34-39
26-29
22-26
3.6
4.84-4.88
5.74-5.78
6.01-6.05
32-33
24-25
21
3.4
4.89-4.93
5.79-5.83
6.06-6.10
30-31
22-23
20
3
4.94-5.69
5.84-6.43
6.11-6.67
24-29
18-21
15-19
2.6
5.70-5.74
6.44-6.48
6.68-6.72
22-23
16-17
14
2.4
5.75-5.79
6.49-6.53
6.73-6.77
20-21
14-15
13
2
5.80-6.95
6.54-7.43
6.78-7.68
14-19
10-13
8-12
1.6
6.96-7.00
7.44-7.48
7.69-7.73
12-13
8-9
7
1.4
7.01-7.05
7.49-7.53
7.74-7.79
10-11
6-7
6
>7.05
>7.53
>7.79
0-9
0-5
0-5
1
* Mountain
**Piedmont
*** Coastal A
Derivation of Final Bioclassification for Standard Qualitative Samples
For most mountain streams, equal weight is given to both the NC Biotic Index value and EPT
taxa richness value in assigning bioclassifications. For these metrics, bioclassifications are
assigned from the following scores: Excellent: 5 Good: 4 Good-Fair: 3 Fair: 2 Poor: 1.
E3-54
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in representative reaches at a location
downstream of Thorpe Powerhouse (WFTR-1) and a location downstream of Glenville Dam
(WFTR-2) (Figure E3.2-1).
The use of the SOP resulted in a representative inventory of the macroinvertebrate fauna at each
site. Field sampling consisted of two kick net samples, three sweep net samples, one leaf pack
sample, two fine-mesh rock wash samples, one sand sample, and visual collections. The samples
were field sorted and the insects transferred to glass vials containing 95% ethanol preservative.
The samples were returned to the Duke Energy Environmental Laboratory for processing and
identification. In some instances identification to the species level was not possible because the
animal was immature, damaged during collection, and/or a recently described species that have
not been incorporated into taxonomic identification keys or are undescribed species. All first
form male crayfish, the adult morphological stage required for identification, were sent to Dr.
Guenter Schuster of Eastern Kentucky University for positive identification. All crayfish that
were collected by Duke were Cambarus bartonii, a species that is not in the RTE listing. The
data were then entered in the computerized database and analyzed according to SOP procedures.
Data were tabulated by location for total taxa, number of EPT taxa, BI value, and
bioclassification.
The Duke sampling of the two West Fork locations yielded water quality bioclassifications of
Good and Excellent (Table E3.2-2). Location WFTR-1, the reach of the West Fork downstream
of the Thorpe Powerhouse, was sampled on August 29, 2001and a total of 35 EPT taxa (score
4.0) were collected and a BI value of 3.60 (score 5.0) was calculated for the sample. This yielded
a bioclassification of Good but was “rounded up” to Excellent based on guidance provided in the
SOP. Location WFTR-2, downstream of the Glenville dam, was sampled on August 30, 2001and
a total of 29 EPT taxa (score 3.0) were collected and a BI value of 3.40 (score 5.0) was calculated
for the sample (Table E3.2-2). The difference in EPT taxa (fewer at Location WFTR-2 than at
WFTR-1) seems to be due to habitat differences. The sampling field notes indicate that the
location downstream of the powerhouse had bank habitat and more leaf packs than did the
location downstream of Glenville dam. The ESB sampling at their Location B-16, approximately
5.5 mi downstream of the Glenville dam, resulted in assigned a rating of Good in 1999
(NCDENR 2000). The ESB and Duke sampling results are in general agreement.
E3-55
WFTR-2
WFTR-1
Area Sampled
1,000
0
1,000 Feet
Figure E3.2-1
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Locations
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.2-2. Qualitative Bioassessment of the West Fork Tuckasegee River downstream of Thorpe
Powerhouse (WFTR-1) and downstream of Glenville dam (WFTR-2) 2001
TAXON
WFTR 1
Annelida
Oligochaeta
Branchiobdellida
Branchiobdellidae
Branchiobdellidae
Haplotaxida
Enchytraeidae
Enchytraeidae
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
Lumbriculidae
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambarus spp.
Insecta
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus lithophilus
Elmidae
Promoresia elegans
Promoresia tardella
Psephenidae
Ectopria nervosa
Psephenus herricki
Diptera
Athericidae
Atherix lantha
Ceratopogonidae
Palpomyia-Bezzia complex
Chironomidae-Chironominae
Cladotanytarsus spp.
Cryptochironmus spp.
Demicryptochironomus cuneatus
Microtendipes pedellus gp.
Microtendipes rydalensis gp.
Paracladopelma spp.
Paralauterborniella spp.
Polypedilum flavum
Polypedilum laetum
Polypedilum scalaenum
Robackia demeijerei
Tanytarsus spp.
Chironomidae-Diamesinae
Pagastia spp.
Chironomidae-Orthocladiinae
Cardiocladius spp.
Corynoneura spp.
Cricotopus annulator
Cricotopus bicinctus
Cricotopus cylindraceus
Cricotopus politus
Eukiefferiella brehmi
Eukiefferiella gracei
Lopescladius spp.
Parakiefferiella spp.
Parametriocnemus spp.
Platysmittia fimbriata
Thienemanniella spp.
Xylotopus spp.
Zalutschia zalutschicola
Chironomidae-Tanypodinae
Ablabesmyia mallochi
Brundiniella spp.
Conchapelopia gp.
Nilotanypus spp.
Zavrelimyia gp.
Dixidae
Dixa spp.
Simuliidae
Simulium spp.
Tipulidae
E3-57
WFTR 2
A
A
.
R
R
C
R
R
R
.
R
C
.
R
.
A
C
A
.
R
R
R
A
R
R
R
.
R
R
R
R
R
C
A
.
.
.
.
R
.
.
C
.
.
.
C
A
.
.
.
.
C
.
.
R
.
.
R
.
.
A
.
.
R
R
R
R
R
R
.
R
C
.
C
R
C
C
R
R
R
.
R
R
.
A
C
R
C
.
R
A
R
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Antocha spp.
Dicranota spp.
Hexatoma spp.
Limonia spp.
Tipula spp.
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis anoka
Baetis bimaculatus
Baetis brunneicolor
Baetis flavistriga
Baetis frondalis
Baetis pluto
Baetis punctiventris
Baetis spp.
Heterocloeon curiosum
Pseudocentroptiloides spp.
Baetiscidae
Baetisca carolina
Caenidae
Caenis spp.
Ephemerellidae
Drunella allegheniensis
Drunella tuberculata
Ephemerella catawba
Serratella serratoides
Timpanoga simplex
Ephemeridae
Ephemera blanda
Ephemera spp.
Hexagenia spp.
Heptageniidae
Epeorus rubidus
A
R
R
.
.
C
Heptagenia marginalis
Heptagenia spp.
Stenonema meririvulanum
Stenonema modestum
Leptophlebiidae
Paraleptophlebia spp.
Oligoneuriidae
Isonychia spp.
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Nigronia serricornis
Odonata-Anisoptera
Aeshnidae
Boyeria grafiana
Boyeria vinosa
Cordulegastridae
Cordulegaster maculata
Gomphidae
Hylogomphus spp.
Lanthus vernalis
Stylurus laurae
Odonata-Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp.
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp.
Peltoperlidae
Tallaperla spp.
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis
Paragnetina immarginata
Pteronarcyidae
Pteronarcys dorsata
Pteronarcys spp.
Glossosoma spp.
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp.
Diplectrona modesta
Hydropsyche betteni
Hydropsyche sparna
Leptoceridae
Nectopsyche exquisita
E3-58
.
R
C
A
.
C
R
.
C
A
.
.
R
C
C
C
R
.
R
C
.
R
.
C
.
C
C
.
.
C
R
.
C
.
R
.
A
.
A
C
.
C
.
A
.
.
C
A
R
R
C
C
A
R
C
.
C
R
.
R
C
.
.
C
R
C
.
C
.
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
.
C
.
C
R
.
.
.
C
C
.
.
A
R
A
R
A
R
.
C
Trichoptera
Brachycentridae
Micrasema rusticum
Micrasema wataga
Glossosomatidae
.
R
C
R
R
.
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Triaenodes marginatus
Limnephilidae
Goera spp.
Hydatophylax argus
Pycnopsyche spp.
Philopotamidae
Dolophilodes spp.
Polycentropodidae
Cyrnellus fraternus
Rhyacophilidae
Rhyacophila spp.
Uenoidae
Neophylax consimilis
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Limnophila
Ancylidae
Ferrissia spp.
Pelecypoda
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium spp.
DATE
29AUG2001
30AUG2001
LOCATION
WFTR-1
WFTR-2
Total
Taxa
74
70
No.
EPT
35
29
Biotic
Index
Value
.
R
R
C
.
C
.
C
C
C
.
R
R
.
R
.
R
R
R
.
EPT
Score
3.60
3.40
4
3
Biotic
Index
Score
5
5
Bioclassif.
Excellent
Good
E3.2.2.3
Existing Macroinvertebrate Downstream of the Project
No existing macroinvertebrate information is available downstream of the Project on the West
Fork Tuckasegee River.
E3.2.2.4
To evaluate the potential presence of RTE species for the West Fork Project, listings of RTE
species were obtained from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (Nantahala Power and Light 2000). The only federal endangered species listed
for the Project area were two species of mussel, the Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana
and the littlewing pearlymussel, Pegias fabula. A relicensing study reconnaissance of the stretch
of the West Fork Tuckasegee River between the Thorpe Powerhouse and the Glenville dam
revealed that there was “No promising habitat or other evidence of mussel occurrence”; therefore,
no further instream surveys were conducted (Fraley 2002).
No species in the RTE listing were found within the Project area. All first form male crayfish, the
stage that is capable of breeding, were sent to Dr. Guenter Schuster of Eastern Kentucky
University for positive identification. All crayfish that were collected by Duke were Cambarus
bartonii, a species that is not in the RTE listing.
Several individuals of the caddisfly genus Goera were found at both locations and are mentioned
here only since Goera fuscula is listed as “SR” …”exists in the state in small numbers and has
E3-59
Duke Power
West Fork Project
been determined by the NC Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.” It is possible that this
single specimen might be G. fuscula. A single individual of the caddisfly genus Rhyacophila
was found at WFTR-1 and is mentioned here because it might be any one of the following species
which are listed “SR”: R. amicus, R. melita, R. mycata, and R. vibox.
Appalachian Elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana (I. Lea, 1834)
Protection Status: Federal Endangered and North Carolina Endangered Species.
The USFWS has proposed critical habitat for this species (Fridell 2001), includes: 24 river miles
(38.5 km) of the Little Tennessee River from Franklin Dam downstream to the backwaters of
Fontana Reservoir, Swain and Macon counties, North Carolina; and 26 river miles (41.6 km) of
the Tuckasegee River from the N.C. State Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, downstream to the
N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Jackson and Swain counties, North Carolina.
These areas are not within the West Fork Project area.
Distribution: The known range of the Appalachian elktoe is restricted to tributaries of the
Tennessee River in East Tennessee and western North Carolina. In Tennessee, the species is
known only from a short reach of the Nolichucky River. In North Carolina, it is now known to
occur in short reaches of the Nolichucky, North Toe, South Toe, Cane, Pigeon, and Little rivers
(French Broad River system); and the Little Tennessee, Tuckasegee, and Cheoah rivers (Little
Tennessee River system). Historically, it was also found in Tulula Creek (Little Tennessee River
system), the mainstem of the French Broad River, and the Swannanoa River (French Broad River
system), but has apparently been eliminated from those streams. The Appalachian elktoe has
never been recorded from the Hiwassee River system.
Habitat Preferences: Relatively little is known about the micro-habitat requirements of this
animal. The Appalachian elktoe is known to inhabit relatively shallow, medium-sized rivers and
large creeks with cool, well-oxygenated and moderate to fast-flowing water, generally at depths
of less than three feet. It is found in a variety of substrate types including gravel mixed with
cobble and boulders; in cracks in bedrock; and in relatively silt-free, coarse sand. Substrate
stability appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe, and it is seldom found in stream reaches
with excessive accumulations of silt or other shifting substrata.
E3-60
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Life History: The Appalachian elktoe is generally identified as a long-term brooder. Ortmann
(1921) reported that the breeding season ended in May, based on four gravid females collected
from the Pigeon River in May 1914. Gravid Appalachian elktoes have been found in the Little
Tennessee River in October through January. Both the banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) and the
mottled sculpin (C. bairdi) have been identified as fish hosts for this mussel. Based on current
sculpin taxonomy and distributions, the mottled sculpin most likely serves as a host in North
Carolina streams. The life span and many other aspects of this mussel’s life history are presently
unknown. Anecdotal observations suggest that it is relatively fast-growing and short-lived (~10
years).
Littlewing Pearlymussel, Pegias fabula (I. Lea, 1838)
Protection Status: Federal and North Carolina Endangered Species.
Distribution:
The littlewing pearlymussel once inhabited tributaries of the Tennessee and
Cumberland River systems in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia and North Carolina.
Historical records are known from 24 stream reaches in these states, but it is presently known
from only six stream reaches. In the Nantahala area, it is known from recent collections (19901995) from the Little Tennessee River (LTRM 90-95-- within the reach between Franklin Dam
and Fontana Reservoir) and an historical collection (date unknown) from “Valley Creek” in the
Hiwassee River drainage in Cherokee County (exact locality unknown-- probably Valley River).
Habitat Preferences: This small mussel inhabits cool, clear, small creeks to medium-sized
rivers. Individuals have been found in the transition zone between pools and riffles, buried under
large flat rocks, and in sand and gravel substrata adjacent to waterwillow (Justicia americana)
beds, generally in water less than 2 feet deep. During spawning, it is often found lying on the
substrate surface.
Life History: Relatively little is known about the life history requirements of this now extremely
rare animal. Ortmann (1914, cited in Parmalee and Bogan 1998) collected a gravid female
littlewing pearlymussel in mid-September, suggesting that it is a long-term brooder.
The
greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides) and emerald darter (E. baileyi) [does not occur in the
Tennessee River system] have been identified as hosts for this species. The banded sculpin,
redline darter (E. rufilineatum), and wounded darter (E. vulneratum) have been su
E3-61
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.2.3
Existing Macroinvertebrate Resource Management
State and federal agencies, as well as the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, have management
responsibilities for aquatic resources, including macroinvertebrates, and water quality along the
Tuckasegee River and associated headwaters. Their responsibilities upstream, downstream and
within the West Fork Project area are summarized in the Table E3.2-3.
Table E3.2-3. Aquatic Resource and Water Quality Management Responsibilities of State and
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Agency
Management
Responsibilities
Area1
NCDENRDWQ
US; DS; PA
River Basin.
Samples and monitors benthic macroinvertebrate
populations in association with bioclassification
NCWRC
US; DS; PA
Establishes, lists, monitors, and protects endangered, threatened, and
species of concern including macroinvert crayfish, and mussels through
the Endangered Species Act (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the Gen.
Statutes). The NCWRC also has the management responsibility for all
other fish and wildlife, and freshwater crustaceans (crayfish), and
mollusks (snails and mussels).
USFWS
US; DS; PA
Establishes, lists, monitors, and protects federally listed endangered,
threatened, and species of concern including macroinvert crayfish, and
mussels through the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Also prepares
and enacts various federally listed species recovery plans such as the
Appalachian elktoe
U.S Forest
Service
US; DS; PA
land both upstream and downstream of project area. Monitors and
manages federally listed species.
1
E3.2.3.1
The Division of Water Quality uses a basinwide approach to water quality management
(NCDENR-DWQ 2000).
The Division is responsible for water quality issues regarding
permitting, monitoring, modeling, nonpoint source assessments, and planning for each of the 17
river basins in North Carolina (NCDENR-DWQ 2000). All basins are assessed every five years
with the last assessment occurring in 1999. The primary assessments associated with the Little
Tennessee River plan (includes the Oconaluftee and Tuckasegee rivers), as well as the other river
E3-62
Duke Power
West Fork Project
basins, includes benthic invertebrates, lake assessment, ambient monitoring, and aquatic toxicity
monitoring.
The use of benthic macroinvertebrates sampling data has proven to be a reliable monitoring tool
to monitor water quality changes (NCDNR-DWQ 2000). Macroinvertebrate sampling criteria
and methods have been developed to assign bioclassification ratings to benthic samples
(NCDENR-DWQ 2000).
These bioclassifications reflect the influence of pollutants on a
waterbodies water quality.
E3.2.3.2
Appalachian Elktoe Recovery Plan
In association with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the USFWS has prepared and enacted a
species recovery plan for the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel (USFWS 1996).
The immediate goal of this plan is to maintain the only known surviving populations and to
protect the remaining habitat from present and future threats (USFWS 1996). According to the
USFWS, the intermediate goal of the plan is to restore and maintain the species throughout a
significant portion of its historic range in the Little Tennessee, French Broad, and Nolichucky
River systems and to downlist the species from endangered to threatened. The ultimate goal of
the recovery plan is to recover the species to a point where it can be removed from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS 1996). Although, this may not be possible
due to the restricted distribution of the mussel and the lack of suitable habitat remaining in the
historic range.
E3.2.3.3
The USFS Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests
guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and
guidelines for the National Forest lands. The goal of the Plan is to provide a management
concerns (USDA-USFS 1987). The Plan is reviewed and updated at least every five years. Plan
Amendment 5 was published in 1994.
The Plan includes specific goals and standards in the protection of certain listed species such as
the Appalachian elktoe and the associated water quality within Forest Service Lands (USDAUSFS 1994). These include:
E3-63
Duke Power
West Fork Project
objectives;
Set priorities for watershed restoration;
Minimize soil damage; and
Develop conservation strategies that address the management needs of National Forest listed
species including the Appalachian elktoe.
E3.2.3.4
aquatic resource related comprehensive plans relevant to the project.
below Dillsboro Dam (nearest station) had no indications of water quality problems.
E3-64
Duke Power
West Fork Project
associated National Forest lands. In association with aquatic resources, the management plan
outlines objectives and measures to protect and maintain water quality conditions within
forestlands.
The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation or overall aquatic resource
conclusions associated with the aquatic resources management portion of the Plan.
The purpose of this plan is to list and prioritize stream reaches and their watersheds in order to
develop strategies to protect aquatic biodiversity in and around the southern Appalachian
National Forests (SAFC 1999).
This objective is important for project-level planning in
preparation of timber removal, building, road construction activities, and carrying out other
activities that can impact aquatic communities. According to the SAFC, the report is intended to
be a rapid assessment tool to aid the protection of aquatic diversity in the region.
In this report, key watersheds are classified as Aquatic Diversity Areas (ADA’s) based on a
synthesis of information regarding diversity and imperilment of native aquatic organisms (SAFC
1999). The report prioritizes the ADA’s based on the number of imperiled aquatic species and on
the presence of critical refugia for the species. Sites classified as critical refugia serve as a
benchmark or reference waters that would capture the full range of diversity characteristics of the
regional aquatic ecosystems (SAFC 1999). The report summarizes the imperiled aquatic species
and their distribution in each watershed.
The recommendations of this plan include the following:
E3-65
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Identify the areas that are the best examples of intact aquatic systems on public lands or
functional portions of intact watersheds;
Restoration of the priority areas that recover the natural processes that support the imperiled
species where the likelihood of success is the greatest;
Continued work on improving riparian protection, using a meaningful definition of riparian
areas, and improvements in the protection of roadless areas, and the restoration of poorly
constructed roads.
Within the project area, the Tuckasegee River (ADA 28) and tributaries, a priority ADA, are
mentioned as having improved water quality and high Biotic Index scores. Two listed mussel
species are also found in this stretch.
The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation or overall aquatic resource
E3.2.4
Summary of Consultation on Macroinvertebrate Resources
A preliminary assessment of the macroinvertebrate resources within the Project area was
presented as part of the First Stage Consultation Document (FSCD) (FWA 2000). The FSCD
was distributed to the pertinent agencies in March 2000. An onsite meeting was held on April 25
and 26, 2000 to allow the agencies to tour the facilities. The following agencies were contacted
in association with this issue:
State
Quality; and
Federal
E3-66
Duke Power
West Fork Project
1)
The USFWS recommended that aquatic sampling should not be limited to fish, but should
also include aquatic macroinvertebrates and other components of the aquatic community.
Sampling sites should include the areas above, within, and below the reservoir, and samples
should be collected during spring, summer, and fall.
The USFWS recommended that the reservoir shoreline should be surveyed to determine the
amount of habitat available to aquatic organisms at various reservoir levels.
Duke Response: Duke conducted a macroinvertebrate survey upstream, downstream, and within
the Project area. However, mussel surveys were only conducted downstream of the Project area
due to the presence of cold water releases and lack of suitable habitat. Duke also conducted a
shoreline habitat survey of Lake Glenville (see Section E3.1.5)
2)
The USFS recommended that Duke compare existing and historical aquatic species
distribution records for the West Fork Tuckasegee River and assess the Project effects on
aquatic species habitat fragmentation and community composition.
The USFS recommended that Duke survey for the presence of threatened, endangered, and
sensitive aquatic species in waters within or affected by the Project and determine the Project
effects on those species.
Duke Response: Duke reviewed available macroinvertebrate data from the Project vicinity and
conducted a macroinvertebrate survey upstream, downstream, and within the Project area.
However, mussel surveys were only conducted downstream of the Project area due to the
presence of cold water releases and lack of suitable habitat.
E3-67
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.2.4.1
A preliminary assessment of the macroinvertebrate resources within the Project area was
presented as part of the FSCD. In association with the review of the Project resources, study
plans were developed based on initial Technical Leadership Team (TLT) and agency comments.
various agencies. Copies of this correspondence can be found in Volume II. A summary of the
comments and the associated Duke actions is as follows:
1)
Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Project Manager, dated March 6, 2001
The USFS stated that every effort should be expended to collect sound, objective data
according to standard methodologies and that historical data or extrapolations from similar
upstream or downstream reaches should be used as a supplement to the collected data.
Duke Response:
Duke has incorporated this suggestion in the appropriate study plan as
appropriate and collected data according to the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates (SOP) developed by the Environmental Sciences Branch (ESB) of the NC
Division of Water Quality.
2)
The USFWS recommended treatment of macroinvertebrates, rather than just aquatic insects
in the study. Additionally, the USFWS recommended visual searches for adult life stages of
Odonata, and light trapping for adult caddis flies.
Duke Response:
Duke has incorporated this suggestion in the appropriate study plan as
appropriate. No surveys for Odonates or caddisflies were conducted by Duke
3)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
E3-68
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The NCWRC suggested more specific information related to the survey locations for mussel
species (i.e. immediately above impounded water and immediately below dams, etc.)
Duke Response: Duke has incorporated this suggestion in the appropriate study plan.
4)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC suggested renaming INVERT SURVEY to “Invertebrate Survey”.
Duke Response: Duke has renamed all of the pertinent study plans.
E3.2.5
Macroinvertebrate Resource Studies
E3.2.5.1
Previous Studies
Information concerning macroinvertebrate studies previously conducted by the NCDENR-DWQ
in the Project area is presented in Section E3.2.2. There are no previous macroinvertebrate
studies associated specifically with the West Fork Reservoirs.
E3.2.5.2
In association with macroinvertebrates and mussels, there are no studies currently underway.
E3.2.5.3
Relicensing Studies
Based on information in the FSCD (Nantahala Power and Light 2000) the TLT identified a need
to provide basic information about macroinvertebrate communities and RTE species and evaluate
any potential project-related effects on macroinvertebrate resources at the Project. Section E3.2.2
summarizes the results of a literature survey and a field survey conducted at the West Fork
Project.
These studies can be found in their entirety on the Duke Power-Nantahala Area
relicensing website at: http://www.nantahalapower.com/relicensing/hydro.htm.
See study items Macroinvertebrate Survey and the Mussel Survey, in association with these
studies. A summary of the Mussel Survey is provided below.
As a part of the relicensing process, the USFWS and the NCWRC requested that surveys for the
federal and state endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel and other mussel resources be conducted
E3-69
Duke Power
West Fork Project
at localities near Duke Hydropower facilities. Duke agreed to conduct mussel surveys in stream
reaches associated with four riverine hydropower facilities on the Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
Oconaluftee, and Tuckasegee rivers (Mission, Franklin, Bryson, and Dillsboro); and peaking
hydropower projects on the Nantahala River, and the East and West Forks (and other tributaries)
of the Tuckasegee River (Nantahala Project, East Fork Project, and West Fork Project) (Fraley
2002).
A reconnaissance of the West Fork Tuckasegee River, similar to the East Fork, was conducted to
determine if any suitable mussel habitat exists. No promising habitat or other evidence of mussel
occurrence was discovered and no further instream surveys were conducted (Fraley 2002).
Previous surveys conducted in the Tuckasegee River indicate that Appalachian elktoe mussels
were not found upstream of Cullowhee; Fraley (2002) found no Appalachian elktoe mussels
beyond RM 42.5. Based on this information no mussel survey was conducted in the West Fork
Tuckasegee River.
MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY (excluding mussels)
Based on agency consultation, a study of macroinvertebrates in the Project area was also
conducted by Duke. The methods and results of this study are summarized in Section E3.2.2.
E3.2.5.4
Proposed Studies
No additional macroinvertebrate or mussel studies are proposed for the West Fork Project.
E3.2.6
Project Effects on Macroinvertebrates Resources from Continued
Project Operation
As discussed in Section E3.2.2 there were two macroinvertebrate sampling locations within the
West Fork Project area. The locations of the sampling sites and the overall results of the surveys
are provided in Table E3.2-4.
E3-70
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E3.2-4. Macroinvertebrate Sampling Information Associated with the West Fork Project
Sample Site
Location
Bioclassification
Total No. of
No. of EPT
Biotic Index
Taxa
Taxa
Value
Downstream of
Excellent
74
35
3.60
WFTR-1
Thorpe
Powerhouse
Downstream of
Good
70
29
3.40
WFTR-2
Glenville Dam
The bioclassifications for the two stations in the West Fork Project area were Good and Excellent.
Location WFTR-1, the reach of the West Fork downstream of the Thorpe Powerhouse, had a total
of 35 EPT taxa (score 4.0) and a BI value of 3.60 (score 5.0) was calculated for the sample. This
yielded a bioclassification of Good that was “rounded up” to Excellent based on guidance
provided in the SOP. Location WFTR-2, downstream of the Glenville dam, had a total of 29 EPT
taxa (score 3.0) and a BI value of 3.40 (score 5.0) was calculated for the sample. The difference
in EPT taxa (fewer at Location WFTR-2 than at WFTR-1) seems to be due to habitat differences.
The sampling field notes indicate that the location downstream of the Thorpe Powerhouse had
bank habitat and more leaf packs than did the location downstream of Glenville Dam. The survey
results indicate that the water quality in the West Fork Tuckasegee is not limiting the EPT taxa
and the number of EPT taxa present at a site is related to the availability of suitable habitat.
Nantahala area storage-peaking projects on upper Tuckasegee River tributaries (East and West
Fork projects) release cold, hypolimnetic water into the Tuckasegee River. This results in a fish
community that is dominated by cold water species downstream to the vicinity of the Dillsboro
impoundment (TVA unpublished data). Both Appalachian elktoes and wavyrayed lampmussels
are present within this reach; however, their densities were considerably lower immediately
upstream from the Dillsboro impoundment than they were downstream from Dillsboro Dam
(Fraley 2002). By all indications, mussels become scarcer as you move upstream from the
Dillsboro area toward Webster, where Appalachian elktoes reach their known upstream limit.
While determination of specific limiting factors and their relative importance was beyond the
scope of the Fraley (2002) report, some reasonable conclusions can be drawn from his
observations. Cold water releases appear to be the primary factor limiting the present upstream
distribution of both Appalachian elktoes and wavyrayed lampmussels. Whatever effects the other
potential limiting factors may be having on potential mussel habitat within this reach, they are
likely masked by the overriding influence of cold water conditions.
E3-71
Duke Power
West Fork Project
As water temperatures are ameliorated farther downstream, effects from peaking discharge may
have some limiting effect on mussel distributions (Fraley 2002). Some small areas of shallow
habitat may be degraded by dewatering. Alterations in seasonal flow patterns may have some
effect on mussel recruitment and distribution. Habitat may also be degraded by siltation and
water quality resulting from local runoff along this reach of the Tuckasegee River and its
tributaries. The relative importance of these various factors in limiting the potential for mussel
resources in the lower Tuckasegee River is unclear.
E3.2.7
Existing Macroinvertebrate Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures
and the confluence with the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River.
E3.2.8
Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
The following aquatic resource PM&E’s have been proposed for the West Fork Projects. A
Consensus Agreement was signed May 16, 2003 by the Primary Members of the Tuckasegee
LAKE LEVELS
E3-72
Duke Power
West Fork Project
1. Lake Glenville – Maintain the following Normal Operating Range:
Month
Normal Target
Elevation (ft)
Jan
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
85
90
Normal
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
94
Feb
85
90
94
Mar
88
91
94
Apr
90
93
96
May
95
97
99
Jun
95
97
99
Jul
95
97
99
Aug
93
95
98
Sep
90
93
94
Oct
90
93
94
Nov
86
90
94
Dec
85
90
94
2. Tuckasegee Lake – Maintain lake level as needed to provide minimum flow.
3. Any changes from current operation to begin in 2004.
MINIMUM FLOW AND BYPASS FLOW
the existing provision
b) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less).
E3-73
Duke Power
West Fork Project
c) 55 cfs combined minimum flow from July 1 through November 30 (assuming inflow to
d) Continue existing minimum flow at Tuckasegee (20 cfs or inflow, whichever is less)
e) Implement new and additional minimum and bypass flows in 2006, or within 1 year
following receipt of FERC approval to modify project facilities, whichever comes last
RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE
support from Duke.
E3-74
Duke Power
West Fork Project
be $200,000.
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
E3-75
Duke Power
E3.2.9
West Fork Project
List of Literature
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2002. Revised List of Comprehensive Plans.
Office of Energy Projects. Washington, DC. 78 pp.
Whittier, North
Fraley, S.J. 2002. Mussel surveys associated with Duke Power Nantahala area projects in the
Little Tennessee and Hiwassee River Systems.
Unpublished report to Duke Power Company,
Charlotte, North Carolina. 37 pp.
Fridell, J.A. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe. 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AH33. Federal Register
66(27): 9540-9555.
Nantahala Power and Light. 2000. FERC Relicensing First Stage Consultation Package. West
Fork Hydroelectric Project. Nantahala Power and Light, Division of Duke Energy, Franklin, NC.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2000. Basinwide Assessment Report – Little Tennessee River. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. Water Quality
Section. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2001. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Biological
Assessment Unit. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of
Water Quality. Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
Ortmann, A.E. 1921. The Anatomy of Certain Mussels from the Upper Tennessee. The Nautilus
34(3):81-91.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 328p.
E3-76
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition and Pacific Rivers Council (SAFC). 1999. Protection of
Aquatic Biodiversity in the Southern Appalachian National Forests and their Watersheds.
Compiled by Dr. William O. McLarney. 27 pp.
Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P.M.
Mikkelson, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, M. J. Sweeney, F. G.
Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic
invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 16, 2nd ed. 277p.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Tennessee River
and reservoir system operation and planning review. Unpublished report TVA/RDG/EQS-91/1,
Knoxville, TN.
4. March 1994.
USFWS. 1996. Recovery Plan for the Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana). USFWS,
Southeast Region. Atlanta, Georgia. 44 pp.
E3-77
Duke Power
E3.3
West Fork Project
Report on Botanical Resources
E3.3.1
Description of Existing Resources
The existing botanical resources associated with the West Fork Project (Project) are comprised of
the predominate vegetation that is characteristic of the area and also rare plant species and
communities. Unique and rare plant species, communities include federally, and state listed
plants, high quality native plant communities, and other plant species of special interest. In
addition, the presence of noxious or invasive weeds is of concern and will be addressed.
Known information about existing botanical resources within the Project area includes a plant
species list for Jackson County and documented rare plant species occurring in the vicinity of the
Project area (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 2001). The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) maintains information on the status and location of rare plant
occurrences. Additional information on rare plants and other species of special interest within the
Project area was obtained from field surveys conducted by a regional botanist contracted by Duke
Power.
E3.3.1.1
General Features
The Project is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province (Schafale and Weakley 1990),
and contains a wide variety of natural communities. Six separate natural communities are present
within and adjacent to the two developments within the Project area. These natural communities
include Pine-Oak Heath, Acidic Cove Forest, Canada Hemlock Forest, Spray Cliff, Sand and
Mud Bar, and Southern Appalachian Bog (Southern Subtype) as described in Schafale and
Weakley (1990). These natural communities are described below for the development where they
occur.
E3.3.1.1.1
Thorpe Development
Pine-Oak Heath (S4/G5) – This natural community is typically found on sites positioned on
exposed sharp ridges, knobs, low elevation peaks and steep southern slopes (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). The vegetation is often variable with an open to nearly closed canopy that is
commonly stunted or gnarled due to periodic severe fires and a shrub layer that is generally very
dense. The canopy is typically dominated by combinations of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana);
table mountain pine (Pinus pungens); pitch pine (Pinus rigida); and scarlet oak (Quercus
coccinea). Some other trees present may include chestnut oak (Quercus montana), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum); black gum (Nyssa sylvatica); red maple (Acer rubrum); Carolina hemlock
(Tsuga caroliniana); and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum).
E3-78
The shrub layer is generally
Duke Power
West Fork Project
dominated by ericaceous species, most commonly mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia);
huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.); blueberries (Vaccinium spp.); Catawba rhododendron
(Rododendron catawbiense); great rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum); sweetleaf
(Symplocos tinctoria;, sweetfern (Comptonia peregrina); and mountain doghobble (Leucothoe
recurva). Greenbriers (Smilax spp.) are sometimes abundant. The herb layer is generally sparse
with trailing arbutus (Epigaeea repens); pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata); galax (Galax
urceolata); little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium); cow-wheat (Melampyrum lineare); greater
coreopsis (Coreopsis major); bracken (Pteridium aquilinum); teaberry (Gaultheria procumbens);
and beargrass (Xerophyllum asphodeloides) being characteristic.
Acidic Cove Forest (S5/G5) – This natural community is typically found on sheltered low and
moderate elevation sites, primarily within narrow, rocky gorges; steep ravines; and low, gentle
ridges within coves (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Vegetation typical of this natural community
includes a dense forest canopy with a limited number of mesophytic tree species present. These
species include tulip popular (Liriodendron tulipifera); sweet birch (Betula lenta); yellow birch
(Betula alleghaniensis); Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis); red maple (Acer rubrum); and red
oak (Quercus rubra). The open understory may include Fraser’s magnolia (Magnolia fraseri);
silverbell (Halesia tetraptera), and saplings of canopy species. The shrub layer is often well
developed and includes great rhododendron and highland doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana).
The herb layer is typically not well developed and consists of a few acid loving plants such as
galax, Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides); trailing arbutus, partridgeberry (Mitchella
repens); New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis); jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum);
violets (Viola spp.); sedges (Carex spp.) and others.
Canada Hemlock Forest (S5/G5) – This natural community is typically found on sites slightly
less mesic than Cove Forest sites, including open valley flats, slopes above Cove Forests,
sheltered low ridges, narrow ravines, and open north-facing slopes at fairly high elevations
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community type as its name implies is dominated by Canada
hemlock with few other trees present. The undergrowth is generally a dense thicket of great
rhododendron, sometimes with mountain laurel, and highland doghobble. Typical herb species
include partridgeberry, roundleaf violet (Viola rotundifolia); foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia);
common blue wood aster (Aster cordifolius); Indian cucumber root (Medeola virginica);
mountain bugbane (Cimicifuga racemosa); mountain meadowrue (Thalictrum clavatum);
Christmas fern, New York fern, and sessile leaf bellwort (Uvularia sessilifolia).
E3-79
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Spray Cliff (S2/G2) - This natural community is typically found on sites described as vertical to
gently sloping rock faces, constantly wet from the spray of waterfalls (Schafale and Weakley
1990). The Spray Cliff natural community is comprised of a variable collection of mosses,
liverworts, algae, vascular herbs, and an occasional shrub, most of them requiring constantly
moist substrate and very high relative humidity. Many of the typical species of this community
are bryophytes and ferns disjunct from tropical regions.
There are also many endemic
bryophytes. Vascular species in this community include rock clubmoss (Huperzia porophila);
mountain spleenwort (Asplenium montanum); maidenhair spleenwort (A. trichomanes); walking
fern (A. rhizophyllum), single-sorus spleenwort (A. monanthes); cove bladder-fern (Cystopteris
protrusa); rockcap fern (Polypodium virginianum); Appalachian filmy-fern (Trichomanes
boschianum); dwarf polypody (Grammitis nimbata); Appalachian gametophyte (Vittaria sp.)
(gametophyte only); filmy-fern gametophyte (Hymenophyllum sp.) (gametophyte only); filmyfern gametophyte (Trichomanes sp.) (gametophyte only); northern beech fern (Phegopteris
connectilis); maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum); Carey’s saxifrage (Saxifraga careyana);
Canada hemlock, great rhododendron, mountain laurel, and many others. In addition to the
vascular plants listed above several bryophyte species are found in this community. Many of
these bryophytes are nearly or entirely limited to this community and include a peatmoss
(Sphagnum quinquefarium); a peatmoss (S. girgensohnii); Carolina mnium (Mnium
carolinianum); a mnium (M. affine); a mnium (M. marginatum); a moss (Isopterygium
distichaceum); gorge moss (Bryocrumia vivicolor); Hooker’s moss (Hookeria acutifolia); a moss
(Oncophorus raui); liverworts (Radula spp.); a pocket moss (Fissidens osmundioides); and an
aquatic liverwort (Riccardia multifida) to name a few representative species.
E3.3.1.1.2
Sand and Mud Bar (S5/G5) – This natural community is typically found on sites comprised of
sand and mud deposits in and adjacent to streams and rivers, which are too wet, too young, or too
severely flooded to support a forest canopy (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The vegetation
structure is quite variable, ranging from dense to sparse shrubs or herbs, with or without sparse
trees.
Typical shrubs include buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis); swamp rose (Rosa
palustris); elderberry (Sambucus canadensis); and stiff dogwood (Cornus stricta).
Some
common herbs include sedges (Carex spp.); rushes (Juncus spp.), common cattail (Typha
latifolia); and dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum). A few small trees may also be present
including river birch (Betula nigra); black willow (Salix nigra); and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
E3-80
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Southern Appalachian Bog (Southern Subtype) (S1/G1T1) – This natural community is typically
found on flat or gently sloping areas, generally in valley bottoms that are not subject to flooding
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). Species composition is often a mosaic or zoned pattern of shrub
thickets and herb-dominated areas, much of it underlain by Sphagnum mats (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). Some trees may also be present within the bog itself, but are more often found
on the edges. These species include red maple, white pine (Pinus strobus), and hemlock. Some
common shrubs may include tag alder (Alnus serrulata), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), silky
willow (Salix sericea), great rhododendron, and many others. The herb layer may include sedges,
bullrushes (Scirpus spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), regal fern (Osmunda regalis),
soft rush (Juncus effusus), chainferns (Woodwardia spp.), and numerous others all underlain by
sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum spp.) (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
State Rank (NCNHP 2002 Website):
S1: Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable
to extirpation in the state
S2: Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in the
state
S3: Rare or uncommon in North Carolina
S4: Apparently secure in North Carolina, with many occurrences
S5: Demonstrably secure in North Carolina and essentially ineradicable under present conditions
Global Rank (NCNHP 2002 Website):
G1: Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to
extinction throughout its range
G2: Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extinction throughout its
range
G3: Either very rare or local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area
G4: Apparently secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at
the periphery)
G5: Demonstrably secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially
at the periphery)
G?: Unranked, or rank uncertain
G1T1: Status of subspecies or variety; the G-rank refers to the species as a whole, the T-rank to
the subspecies. Source: NCNHP 2002 Website
E3-81
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.3.1.2
Vegetation Cover Type Mapping
Duke conducted vegetation cover type mapping within the general Project vicinity. The existing
general vegetation/land cover types are depicted in Figure E3.3-1. Vegetative and other cover
types were delineated using color aerial photographs (1:500 scale) and USGS 7.5 minute series
topographic quadrangles. Cover types selected for this mapping were generally comparable to
the USGS Land Use and Land Cover Classification System (Anderson et al. 1976).
Duke utilized a covertype mapping area much larger than the designated FERC Project boundary.
The defined area for the vegetation cover type mapping includes an area large enough to
accurately depict all major cover types within and adjacent to the Project. Generally, the area
extends several hundred feet beyond the Project boundary.
Duke identified a cover type unit as an area of homogenous vegetation bordered by different
types of vegetation on all sides. Cover type units were identified on aerial photographs and
transferred to geographic information system (GIS) base maps. Individual cover type units were
assigned identification numbers and then digitized and stored in a GIS database along with
attribute data specific to each cover type. GIS based cover type maps were then generated;
however, no field verification of data was conducted. Eight cover types were identified within
the general Project area and each type is described briefly below.
Grass/Pasture: This type consisted of areas dominated by grasses or other herbaceous species
with little or no trees or shrubs. Grass/Pasture habitats are located primarily near developed areas
such as residential dwellings. Many of these areas are actively maintained in an herbaceous state
by human activities or grazing. Typical species of this habitat unit include fescue (Festuca spp.),
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) and numerous other herbaceous species.
Hardwood Forest: This type consisted of areas dominated by deciduous trees. Hardwood forest
habitats are located primarily away from roads and residential dwellings. Typical species of this
habitat unit include tulip tree, red maple, oaks (Quercus spp.) and hickories (Carya spp.).
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest: This type consisted of forested areas dominated by neither
hardwoods nor pines. Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest habitats are located throughout the study
area, typically away from roads and residential dwellings. Typical species of this habitat unit
E3-82
Duke Power
West Fork Project
include red maple, oaks, hickories, tulip tree, white pine, pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and Virginia
pine.
Pine Forest: This type consisted of forested areas dominated by evergreen trees, both naturally
occurring and pine plantations. Pine Forest habitats are generally located on ridge tops and along
undisturbed drainage ways. Typical species of this habitat unit include white pine, pitch pine,
Virginia pine and hemlock.
Scrub/Shrub: This type consisted of areas dominated by shrubby vegetation. Typically, these
areas are former crop or pasture lands (cleared from original forestland) that have grown up in
brush in transition back to forestland (Anderson et al. 1976). Scrub/Shrub habitats are generally
located near roads and residential dwellings, especially current or former farms and along
maintained rights-of-way. Typical species of this habitat unit include dogwoods (Cornus spp.),
alders (Alnus spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), blackberries (Rubus spp.) and elderberry.
Barren: This type consisted of areas devoid of vegetation or so sparsely vegetated that it could
not be included in another category. This lack of vegetation could be natural or due to human
related activities.
Water: This type consisted of areas covered by surface water. This habitat type consisted of the
Project Reservoirs.
Agriculture: This type consists of cultivated trees, shrubs, and crops (corn and wheat).
E3-83
Figure E3.3-1
West Fork Development
FERC No. 2686
Covertype Map
Sheet 1 of 3
Land Cover Legend
Barren
Pine Forest
Public Roads
Grass/Pasture
Scrub/Shrub
Streams
Hardwood Forest
Water
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest
Agriculture
Designated Project
Boundary
The covertypes depicted include areas adjacent to the designated project boundary.
00
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
Feet
Feet
le
vil
en
Gl
Reservoir
Figure E3.3-1
FERC No. 2686
Covertype Map
Sheet 2 of 3
Land Cover Legend
Barren
Pine Forest
Public Roads
Grass/Pasture
Scrub/Shrub
Streams
Hardwood Forest
Water
Agriculture
Designated Project
Boundary
0
500
1,000
2,000
Feet
3,000
Gl
en
vil
le
Res erv
oir
Figure E3.3-1
FERC No. 2686
Covertype Map
Sheet 3 of 3
Land Cover Legend
Barren
Pine Forest
Public Roads
Grass/Pasture
Scrub/Shrub
Streams
Hardwood Forest
Water
Agriculture
Designated Project
Boundary
00
500
500
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
Feet
Feet
3,000
3,000
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.3.1.3
Wetlands
Wetlands are those areas intermittently or permanently covered by surface water or saturated by
groundwater. Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) criteria for jurisdictional wetlands requires that
the three-parameter criteria be met that includes the presence of hydrophytic vegetation,
hydrology, and hydric soils (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Wetland development within the Project area is mainly limited to areas with relatively level
topography, such as tributary confluences, coves, and gentle slopes and hillsides. Forty wetland
areas were delineated along the shoreline of Lake Glenville (Figure E3.3-2) in a 1999 field survey
(FWA 2000). A follow-up survey along the shoreline of Lake Glenville in September 2002
documented an additional three wetlands (43 total, see Figure E3.3-2). Wetland types delineated
include palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub/shrub, and palustrine forested.
E3.3.1.3.1
Thorpe Development
Emergent Wetlands
Emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (Cowardin et al.
1979). There were six wetland areas of this type present along Lake Glenville. Common species
of emergent wetlands in the Project area include spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis),
Canada wood-nettle (Laportea canadensis), hemlock water-parsnip (Sium suave), reed canary
grass (Phalaris arundinacea), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp.), spotted joe-pye
weed (Eupatorium maculatum), and asters (Aster spp.).
Scrub/Shrub Wetlands
Scrub-Shrub wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation (shrubs or trees) less than 6-meters
tall (Cowardin et al. 1979). There were thirty-seven wetland areas of predominantly this type
present along Lake Glenville. Common species of scrub/shrub wetlands in the Project area
include silky dogwood (Cornus ammomum), red maple (Acer rubrum), smooth alder (Alnus
serrulata), black willow (Salix nigra), silky willow (Salix sericea), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), Viburnum spp., river birch (Betula nigra), and
steeplebush spirea (Spiraea tomentosa).
These wetlands also contain species common to
emergent wetlands.
E3-87
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Forested Wetlands
Forested wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation that is 6-meters tall or taller (Cowardin
et al. 1979). No wetlands along Lake Glenville were predominantly of this type but several
scrub-shrub wetlands had a forested component. Common species of forested wetlands in the
Project area include black willow (Salix nigra), red maple, and river birch. These wetlands also
contain species common to emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands.
E3.3.1.3.2
Emergent Wetlands
Emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (Cowardin et al.
1979). There were two wetland areas of this type present along the Tuckasegee Reservoir.
Common species of emergent wetlands in the Project area include soft rush (Juncus effusus),
sedges (Carex spp.); woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus); cattail (Typha latifolia); arrow-leaf
tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum); square-stemmed monkey-flower (Mimulus ringens); false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica); spotted touch-me-not; fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata), and St.
Johnswort (Hypericum sp.)
Scrub/Shrub Wetlands
Scrub/Shrub wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation (shrubs or trees) less than 6-meters
tall (Cowardin et al. 1979). There were two wetland areas of this type along the Tuckasegee
Reservoir. Common species of scrub-shrub wetlands in the development area include silky
dogwood (Cornus ammomum); smooth alder (Alnus serrulata); and elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis). These wetlands also contain species common to emergent wetlands.
E3-88
Wetland 40
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
Wetland 1
Palustrine Emergent
Wetland 39
Wetland 4
Wetland 38
Wetland 41
Wetland 36
Palsutrine Scrub-Shrub
le
Wetland 43
Palustrine Emergent
vil
l en
G
Wetland 3
Wetland 5
Wetland 10
Reservoior
Wetland 2
Palustrine Emergent
Wetland 9
Wetland 37
Wetland 33
Wetland 42
Wetland 11
Wetland 12
Palustrine Emergent
Wetland 32
Wetland 35
Wetland 28
Wetland 34
Wetland 8
Wetland 7
Wetland 30
Wetland 27
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Wetland Locations
1,0 00
0
1,0 00
Fe et
2,0 00
Wetland 29
Wetland 26
Figure E3.3-2
Lake Glenville
FERC No. 2686
Wetland Locations
Sheet 1 of 2
Wetland 14
Wetland 25
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Wetland 15
Wetland 31
Wetland 24
Wetland 16
Wetland 44
Wetland 17
Wetland 13
Wetland 18
Gl
en
vi l
le
Wetland 20
Wetland 23
Reserv
Wetland 21
Palustrine Emergent
oir
Wetland 19
Palustrine Emergent
Wetland 22
Wetland Locations
1,0 00
0
1,0 00
Fe et
2,0 00
Figure E3.3-2
Lake Glenville
FERC No. 2686
Wetland Locations
Sheet 2 of 2
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.3.1.4
One plant species with Federal and/or State status was documented as having occurred within the
Project area during a NCNHP database search conducted prior to botanical field surveys
conducted within the Project area in 2001. This record is an historical occurrence for the Blue
Ridge bindweed (Calystegia catesbeiana ssp. sericata), which is not listed by the Forest Service
(Personal Communication Gary Kaufman, United Stated Forest Service, 2001), however it has a
NCNHP status of SR-T, Significantly Rare-Throughout (NCNHP 2002). However, neither this
population nor any other plant species with Federal and/or State Status were documented within
or adjacent to the Project area during the 2001 field searches conducted by a regional botanist
(Gaddy 2002).
E3.3.1.5
Habitats of Special Concern
The NCNHP maintains a list of outstanding natural communities occurring in the state. These are
natural communities that meet a strict set of requirements necessary for inclusion, such as
minimal human disturbance, high species diversity and minimal invasion by weedy species. All
state habitats of special concern are included in this list.
Based on a NCNHP records review and field surveys conducted from April to October 2001 no
habitats of special concern occur within or adjacent to the Project area.
E3.3.1.6
Other Plant Species of Special Interest
Based on a NCNHP records review and field surveys conducted from April to October 2001 no
other plant species of special interest are known to occur within or adjacent to the Project area.
E3.3.2
Botanical Resource Management Framework
The Project area is bordered by numerous private landowners. The Project is in the vicinity of
lands owned and managed by the USFS, Jackson County and the town of Glenville. As a result
many individuals and agencies have management responsibilities related to botanical resources in
the Project vicinity. Agency management objectives in the Project vicinity are summarized
below.
E3.3.2.1
Federal Management
Federal agencies responsible for managing botanical resources in the Project vicinity include the
USFWS and the USFS.
E3-91
Duke Power
West Fork Project
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The USFWS administers the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, which provides protection
for federally listed endangered and threatened species by prohibiting harming or trading in
federally listed species. It utilizes agreements between federal and state governments to develop
programs for the conservation of federally listed species. In addition, all federal departments and
agencies are directed to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of
listed species and “. . . by taking such action necessary to insure that actions authorized, funded,
or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of such endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of habitats of such species. . . .”
There are no known, federally listed plant species within the West Fork Project area.
US Forest Service (USFS)
The USFS has the responsibility under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that no action they
authorize, fund or carry out is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species listed as
threatened or endangered. The Project area, and all of North Carolina, is located in USFS Region
8. The USFS maintains a list of sensitive plant species known or suspected to occur on USFS
managed lands. However, no sensitive plants are known to occur on or adjacent to Project
controlled lands.
published in 1994.
The plan includes specific goals, recovery objectives, and standards in the protection of certain
listed plant species and the associated habitats within Forest Service lands (USDA-USFS 1994).
These include in general:
The documentation of species occurrence on Forest Service lands through continued surveys;
The identification of site specific current and future threats to existing populations;
Cooperation with the USFWS in developing a management plan with specific USFS tasks in
support of conservation or in recovery;
E3-92
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Monitor population trends for all known populations and associated habitats; and
Manage recreation use such that the species are protected.
The plan also provides general direction and standards concerning issues such as habitat and
vegetation management, soil and water management, and recreation management. The Nantahala
National Forest Management Plan is listed by FERC as a federal comprehensive plan that
satisfies Order No. 481-A criteria for comprehensive plan status (FERC 2002).
E3.3.2.2
State Management
State management of botanical resources is controlled by the NCNHP. The NCNHP is a part of
the Division of Parks and Recreation within the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. The program inventories, catalogues, and facilitates protection of the rarest and the
most outstanding elements of the natural diversity of North Carolina. These elements of natural
diversity include plants, which are so rare that they merit special consideration as land-use
decisions are made (NCNHP Website 2002). However, no plant species listed by the NCNHP are
currently known to occur on or adjacent to Project controlled lands.
E3.3.2.3
Compliance with FERC-Approved Comprehensive Plans
The FERC’s list of comprehensive plans, dated April 2002, lists several management and land
use plans for North Carolina (FERC 2002). The majority of these plans are not associated with,
following section evaluates the consistency of the West Fork Project with the pertinent FERC
approved botanical related comprehensive plans relevant to the project.
associated National Forest lands. In association with botanical resources, the management plan
outlines objectives and measures to protect and maintain habitat conditions within forestlands.
These measures include maintenance, protection, and improvement of habitat, analysis and
monitoring of the occurrence and effects to listed species, and the management of recreation use
for species protection.
E3-93
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The Project does not include any National Forest lands within or immediately adjacent the project
boundary. The Project does not contribute to any overall botanical resource impairment such as
impact of RTE species or habitats. Through proposed PM&E measures such as implementation
of a future shoreline management program, enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection
program, and the future purchase of conservation lands, the continued operations of the Project
are consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the
botanical management portion of the Plan.
E3.3.3
Consultation on Botanical Resources
A preliminary assessment of the botanical resources within the Project area was presented as part
of the FSCD (FWA 2000). The FSCD was distributed to the pertinent agencies in March 2000.
An onsite meeting was held on April 25 and 26, 2000 to allow the agencies to tour the facilities.
The following agencies were contacted in association with this issue:
State
Quality; and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Federal
American Rivers;
American Whitewater
Indian Tribes
from the various agencies. Copies of this correspondence can be found in Volume II.
E3-94
A
Duke Power
1)
West Fork Project
The NCDENR requested that NP&L collect baseline data to characterize the existing
environment. Surveys for state and federal rare, threatened, and endangered species should
be conducted.
Duke Response: In association with this comment, Duke conducted a rare plant survey for the
Project area.
2)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC requested that NP&L conduct surveys for state and federal rare, threatened, and
endangered species including candidate species.
Duke Response: In association with this comment, Duke conducted a rare plant survey for the
Project area.
3)
The USFS requested that NP&L conduct site-specific inventories for all protected,
endangered, threatened, sensitive (PETS) and Forest Service Concern species within the
Project area and adjacent lands.
NP&L was requested to determine if the transmission lines adjacent to Forest Service lands
are currently being maintained through the aerial application of herbicides and if so what
effect this management may have on PETS species occupying adjacent Forest Service lands.
NP&L was requested to list the current vegetation management practices under Project
transmission lines, transmission lines along river corridors and transmission lines rights-ofway.
NP&L was requested to evaluate potential changes to vegetation management practices
(including comparison to Forest Service practices), and to inventory and evaluate occurrences
of exotic/invasive vegetation and develop control measures.
E3-95
Duke Power
West Fork Project
NP&L was also requested to determine if any exotic/evasive species pose a threat to habitat
management initiatives located on lands adjoining the Project and evaluate measures for
controlling these species in conjunction with adjoining land managers.
Duke Response: Duke conducted a rare plant survey for the Project area. Duke also has an
agreement that covers the operation and maintenance of the company rights-of-way.
This
agreement covers herbicide spraying. However, the majority of the area transmission lines are
outside of the Project boundaries and are not associated with the relicensing process.
An
exotic/invasive plant survey was also conducted concurrently with Duke’s rare plant survey.
4)
The USFWS recommended surveys for threatened and endangered species.
The USFWS also recommended protecting the area around the reservoir by maintaining a
natural vegetated buffer with limited clearing.
Duke Response: Duke has prepared a shoreline management plan for the project that includes
protective buffers. The requested botanical studies were conducted in the Spring and Summer of
2001.
E3.3.3.1
A preliminary assessment of the botanical resources within the Project area was presented as part
of the FSCD. In association with the review of the Project resources, study plans were developed
based on initial Technical Leadership Team (TLT) and agency comments.
1)
The USFWS recommended that the geographic scope of the project include all project lands,
as well as those potentially affected by project operations.
E3-96
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Duke Response: Duke included this comment in the pertinent study plans and study methods.
2)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
descriptive text. Additionally, the NCWRC stated that “While the surveys may focus on
riparian areas around storage reservoirs, the plan should explicitly state that all Project lands
and those potentially impacted by Project operations will be evaluated to identify critical
habitats. There could be significant wetlands, plant communities and their associated wildlife
species at any of the Projects.” Additionally, the NCWRC stated that this information will be
useful for targeted species surveys listed in the Wildlife Survey plan.
Duke Response: Duke has renamed the appropriate study plans and has included this comment in
the pertinent study plans and study methods. No critical habitats were identified during the
studies.
E3.3.4
Botanical Resource Studies
E3.3.4.1
Previous Studies
Information from previous botanical surveys in the Project vicinity is summarized in the Vascular
Plant Study (see Section E3.3.4.3).
E3.3.4.2
No botanical studies are currently underway in the Project area.
E3.3.4.3
Relicensing Studies
During the relicensing consultation process, several agencies recommended that botanical surveys
be conducted in association with the Project. These studies can be found in their entirety on the
Duke Power-Nantahala Area relicensing website at:
See study item Botanical Surveys in association with these relicensing studies. A summary of
these studies is as follows:
E3-97
Duke Power
West Fork Project
VASCULAR PLANT STUDY
A detailed field investigation, including a rare plant survey, was conducted in the Project area by
a regional botanist from April through October 2001 to identify plant populations, to assess the
effects of Project operation, and determine possible protection, enhancement and mitigation
measures. In the winter of 2001, the NCNHP was contacted with the request to provide all
element occurrence data (field records) for state- and federally-listed vascular and non-vascular
(mosses, lichens, and liverworts) plants and plant communities from the Project area. The
NCNHP provided the file in late winter of 2001. From the NCNHP data, infrared photographs of
the Project area, and general knowledge of southern Appalachian ecology, a table of community
types [using community terminology from Schafale and Weakley (1990)] occurring within the
Project area was compiled.
From the NCNHP data, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service county lists, and the principal
investigator’s knowledge of species/community relationships, a list of potentially occurring
endangered, threatened, and otherwise noteworthy plant species was compiled in the spring of
2001. During the endangered species fieldwork, habitat/community data was used to determine
which listed species could potentially occur in a given plant community or habitat type.
Fieldwork began in early April of 2001 and continued into October of 2001. All habitats within
the Project area suitable for the listed species were searched. Gorges and coves were inventoried
on foot; lake margins, dams, and river channels were surveyed by canoe and motorboat. An
inventory of disturbed penstock areas within the nearby Nantahala Project area and the West Fork
Project area were conducted to determine the potential occurrence of exotic species on the Project
penstock. Finally, a master species list was compiled for the Project area. No RTE plant species
were located within the Project boundaries.
FLUCTUATION ZONE STUDY
The fluctuation zone study was undertaken to assess the effects of fluctuating water levels on
shoreline wetland communities. This study was conducted on the Thorpe Development, but the
results can be extrapolated to the Tuckasegee Development.
Thorpe Development
The majority of wetlands along Lake Glenville are small elliptical wetlands along the shore
associated with other sources of water (perennial streams, intermittent streams, and seeps) or
wetlands perched on shallow shelves along the lake. These drainage-associated wetlands often
E3-98
Duke Power
West Fork Project
extend up the drainage a short distance, but this is limited by the steep topography and coarse
substrates of the shoreline area. The wetlands on shallow shelves along the shoreline receive
moisture form the lake and typically do not extend upslope.
The vast majority of the substrates within the fluctuation zone of Lake Glenville are coarse;
consisting of sands, gravel, cobbles, boulders, and bedrock. There are some small pockets of
finer substrates and organic material typically associated with drainages and seeps. A small
portion of the wetlands along Lake Glenville exhibited some emergent vegetation within the
fluctuation zone. These wetlands were limited to those fed by water sources other than just the
lake (perennial streams, intermittent streams, and seeps). These wetlands also generally had
pockets of finer substrates and organic materials conducive to plant growth.
Overall, the substrates are too coarse and slopes to steep to support wetland vegetation in the
fluctuation zone of Lake Glenville. Vegetation within the fluctuation zone is largely limited to
small areas with alternate water sources and finer substrates. Because wetlands within the
fluctuation zone often have alternative water sources, continued operation of the Project is
expected to result in no new impacts to the wetland resources located within the fluctuation zone.
E3.3.4.4
Proposed Studies
No additional botanical studies are proposed for the Project area.
E3.3.5
Project Effects on Botanical Resources from Continued Project
Operation
The botanical resources associated with the Project have developed under the current operation
regime and are stable, mature, and well established. No ongoing effects of Project operation on
existing botanical communities or RTE species were documented. Changes in Project operations
have been proposed as part of the PM&E measures associated with the Consensus Agreement
(see Section E1.13 and Volume III). These changes are designed to enhance and/or protect
existing resources and are unlikely to negatively affect botanical resources. Because of this no
new impacts to these resources are expected from continued Project operation.
E3.3.6
Existing Botanical resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures
There are currently no botanical PM&E measures for the West Fork Projects.
E3-99
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.3.7
The following botanical, vegetation management and wetland PM&E’s have been proposed for
the West Fork Projects. A Consensus Agreement was signed on May 16, 2003 by the Primary
Members of the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team. The primary members and the
organizations they represent who agree in consensus will work toward conversion of the
Consensus Agreement into a Settlement Agreement by September 15, 2002. A copy of the entire
Consensus Agreement, signed on May 16, 2003 is provided in Volume III.
LAKE LEVELS
E3-100
Duke Power
1.
West Fork Project
Month
Normal Target
Elevation (ft)
Jan
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
85
90
Normal
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
94
Feb
85
90
94
Mar
88
91
94
Apr
90
93
96
May
95
97
99
Jun
95
97
99
Jul
95
97
99
Aug
93
95
98
Sep
90
93
94
Oct
90
93
94
Nov
86
90
94
Dec
85
90
94
2.
3.
RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVES
either (1) protect or enhance fish and wildlife habitat directly, or (2) educate landowners or
school children about the importance of healthy riparian areas to fish and wildlife habitat
and about the related best management practices in riparian areas. All initiatives must
support protection or enhancement of fish or wildlife habitat on lands that drain to any of
the Duke hydro reservoirs or the river sections between Duke hydro reservoirs and
b. Work with other interested stakeholder team members to define the process by 8/1/03 that
will be used to prioritize potential initiatives.
E3-101
Duke Power
West Fork Project
be $200,000.
a. Purchase a selected tract of land and convey its interest in the land to a governmental entity
or a non-profit conservation organization.
acceptable cost to Duke, will be pursued.
Duke.
meet with the USFS, USFWS, NCDWR, the NCWRC and other interested parties to any
E3-102
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Implement the final version of the lake use restrictions, vegetation management requirements and
the shoreline management guidelines on 7/1/03.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
owned by Duke Power in the Nantahala area, with the following exception. On Tuckasegee
Reservoir (as well as several other small reservoirs), pier/docking regulations will not apply. Due
to their small size and/or environmental concerns, pier/docks will not be permitted on this
reservoir.
In general, property owned by Duke includes the lakes, dams, power plants,
substations, all land below the full pool elevation of the reservoir and in most cases the land
extending ten (10) vertical feet above the full pool elevation of the reservoir. All Duke property
lines above full pool elevation extend vertically. See Volume III for specifics associated with the
Shoreline Management guidelines.
Meet Duke’s regulatory requirements
Protect Duke’s generation interests
Protect the scenic and environmental value of Duke’s shoreline property
Provide recreational benefits to the general public
Provide a guide to adjacent property owners on permitted uses of Duke properties
lakes. These requirements include restrictions on piers/docks, shoreline stabilization measures
E3-103
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Appeals for Piers/Docks Having No Practicable Alternative-Property owners may request to
Mitigation-Successful appeals should be expected to include reasonable mitigation requirements
recommended by the natural resource agencies. Wildlife resource agencies (e.g. NCWRC and
USFWS) must be provided at least a 30-day review and mitigation plan development period for
any proposal. Mitigation considerations include: 1) contribution to enhancement comparable to
the impact; 2) maintenance of the mitigation activities as long as the facility exists; 3)
implementation of the mitigation prior to facility construction; 4) allowance for out- of- kind
replacement involving different habitat types provided the recommended replacement is greater
than or equal to the total value of the habitat impacted, 5) in-kind replacement as the preferred
method although out-of-kind habitat enhancements can be deemed acceptable, and; 6) a premise
of no net loss of habitat important for fish and wildlife.
Construction Limitations-Individual simple piers/docks (serving single individual projectfront
boundary. Piers/docks are not to be placed within 50 feet of a stream confluence. The total
number of piers/docks that can potentially be constructed in an area > 100 feet classified as
Vegetated Areas/Coves with Stream Confluence is limited to one pier per 100 feet of shoreline
within the classification.
This pier/dock per linear footage of shoreline limitation applies
E3-104
Duke Power
West Fork Project
regardless of the number of individual lots that adjoin the project boundary adjacent to areas with
this classification.
Consequences for Violations-Destruction of native emergent vegetation within the full pond
requirements imposed by the federal and state wildlife resource agencies for construction within
E3-105
Duke Power
West Fork Project
guidelines.
feet. LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS – No concrete, grout or rock veneer utilized as part of drystack boulder wall construction. Rip rap must be placed along the base of all dry-stack boulder
Area guidelines.
Pier/Dock - This type of habitat notes the presence of a pier and/or dock supporting various
DPNA guidelines. No new construction without the written authorization from DPNA.
Notes
1. Public-need projects where the applicant has the power of eminent domain can be exempted
from the listed lake use restrictions provided there is no other acceptable alternative (similar
to practicable alternative (Note 3), except it allows more consideration for economics of
alternatives and desires of the applicant). Also note that the shoreline classifications and
associated lake use restrictions are considered to apply to the project boundary line and the
area extending lakeward and perpendicular to the shoreline for a minimum distance of onethird the cove width. Where restrictive classifications (e.g. Vegetated areas/coves with stream
confluence, Fractured Rock, Woody Debris and Sand/Cobble) wrap around the heads of
coves, the lake use restrictions will also apply to the entire cove width in the wrapped area.
E3-106
Duke Power
West Fork Project
2. True Public Marinas provide public recreational opportunities with no predetermination of
user groups for any of the existing or proposed land or water based facilities.
a.
No commercial/residential (existing or proposed)
b.
No membership requirements
c.
Transient services do not require wet or dry storage rental
3. An alternative is not considered practicable if choosing it over the desired option would result
in any of the following:
a. Violation of any applicable permitting criteria or lake use restriction
b. Requiring the applicant to dredge the lake bed in order to use the requested facility,
c. Modification of the desired facility to the point that the resulting structure would be of
very limited usefulness
4. The provisions of these requirements shall not apply to Duke-approved maintenance activities
or activities (e.g. piers, stabilization, mowing) which were allowed and/or approved by Duke
prior to the adoption of these requirements. When a facility currently located within the
Vegetated Areas/Coves with Stream Confluence must be rebuilt, the owner must relocate the
facility outside the classified area to the maximum practical extent. This provision, however,
does not eliminate the opportunity to rebuild a previously existing facility if there is no means
of avoidance.
5. The Shoreline Management Plan Maps were generated from a Geographic Information
System (GIS) and are not intended to be survey quality. Actual start and stop points for
transition between classifications are subject to interpretation by Duke.
E3-107
Duke Power
E3.3.9
West Fork Project
List of Literature
Amoroso, J.L., Editor. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 109 pp.
Amoroso, J.L., Editor. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological
Services Program: FWS/OBS-79/31. 104 pp.
Environmental Laboratory.
1987.
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Department of Army Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. Technical Report Y87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp.
Whittier, North
Gaddy, L.L. 2002. Plant Communities, Wetlands, and Rare Plants of Thirteen Nantahala Power
Company Project Areas. Unpublished Report Prepared for Duke Power. Columbia, South
Carolina. 15 pp.
Kaufman, G. 2001. Personal Communication, Gary Kaufman, United States Forest Service
(USFS). Transylvania and Jackson County Rare Plants. May 02, 2001
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2002. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program: Element of Occurrence Search Page: Online Document,
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1184 pp.
E3-108
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
E3-109
Duke Power
E3.4
West Fork Project
Report on Wildlife Resources
E3.4.1
Introduction
The West Fork Project (Project) is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province (Schafale
and Weakley 1990), in which forested conditions are common. All or nearly all of the original
forests in the vicinity of the Project have been logged or burned at least once, or permanently
cleared for agriculture or residential development. A large part of the landscape in the vicinity of
the Project is currently in second growth forest, and only a small percentage is now in fields and
or urban development. However, much of the forested areas have clearings containing scattered
home sites and roads, resulting in relatively few areas of unbroken forest in the Project area.
Wetland habitats also occur in the Project area. Wetlands are important habitats for many species
of wildlife within the Project area, and often contribute disproportionately to the wildlife species
diversity of an area. Wetland development within the Project area is mainly limited to areas with
relatively level topography, such as tributary confluences, coves, and gentle slopes and hillsides.
Wetland types present include palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub-shrub, and palustrine forested
(FWA 2000). Overall, 47 wetland areas were identified within the Project boundaries during
recent field surveys (see Section 3.3.1.1).
E3.4.2
Description of Existing Resources
The study area for general wildlife observations was defined as Lake Glenville, Tuckasegee
Reservoir, major tributaries, the associated shorelines, and adjacent uplands. Although some
specific wildlife surveys were conducted for avian, bat and amphibian species, opportunistic
sightings of other animals and sign were noted as well. These specific as well as general
observations provide species occurrence data and information on habitat use. In addition to these
observations, a review of existing information from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases,
and other literature was conducted to identify any species that could potentially occur within the
defined Project area.
E3.4.2.1
Priority Habitats
Priority habitats are those habitats deemed important by the various natural resource agencies.
No priority habitats have been designated within the Project area; however, one priority habitat
has been designated in the vicinity of the Project area. This priority habitat has been designated
as critical habitat for the spotfin chub (Hybopsis monacha) (NCNHP 2000). The critical habitat
consists of the main channel of the Little Tennessee River from the backwaters of Fontana Lake
E3-110
Duke Power
West Fork Project
upstream to the North Carolina-Georgia state line. This critical habitat is well out of the Project
area.
E3.4.2.2
Big Game
Due to the relatively limited land area associated with the Project very few if any big game
species permanently reside within the Project boundaries.
However, white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) is the most common big-game species in the general Project area. It
occurs in a wide variety of habitats ranging from dense forests to agricultural land. The species is
most prevalent along forest edges characterized by brushy and woody vegetation that is essential
for concealment and food (Merritt 1987). Black bears (Ursus americanus) are also believed to be
present as transients within the Project area and typically reside in heavily forested areas. Wild
boars (Sus scrofa) are also known to reside in the area, and typically inhabit oak-hickory forests,
occasionally visiting brushy and open areas. All three of the big game species discussed in this
section can be found in the appropriate natural communities found within the Project area, as
described by Schafale and Weakley 1990.
E3.4.2.3
Other Mammals
Mammals have not been systematically surveyed in the Project area, but opportunistic sightings
and sign indicate a relatively diverse assemblage. Species common to wetland and riparian
habitats as well as upland areas are well represented. In addition to the big game species
discussed in the previous section, other mammals believed to be present include furbearers, small
game species, rodents, insectivores and bats. These wildlife species inhabit many different
habitat types such as woodland, scrub/shrub or early successional areas, grassland, and wetland
areas. Use of these areas may shift during different life stages and/or times of year. These habitat
types within and adjacent to the Project area are found within the six natural communities, as
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), identified within the Project area: Pine-Oak Heath,
Acidic Cove Forest, Canada Hemlock Forest, Spray Cliff, Sand and Mud Bar, and Southern
Appalachian Bog (Southern Subtype). For example, scrub/shrub habitat may be found within
early successional forest and wetlands may be associated with bogs or adjacent to shoreline
communities. Although grasslands were not identified as a natural community, small patches of
grassy habitat may occur within forest openings or in association with bogs. A full description of
these natural communities can be found in Exhibit E Section 3.3.1.1.
Species typically found in wetland areas include beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), and mink (Mustela vison). These semi-aquatic mammals are normally found in
E3-111
Duke Power
West Fork Project
wetland areas due to food and den requirements, however open water areas may be used by
beaver and muskrats.
Species typically found in woodland areas include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata); gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis); eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus); southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans);
striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis); golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli); white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus); and masked shrew (Sorex cinereus). These mammals are normally found
in woodland areas due to food requirements, predator/prey relationships as well as a preference
for trees by several species as den or nest sites.
Species typically found in scrub/shrub or early successional areas include coyote (Canis latrans),
red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). These mammals are
normally found in scrub/shrub areas due to food requirements, predator/prey relationships and in
the case of the eastern cottontail escape cover.
Species typically found in grassland areas include meadow-jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius)
and eastern mole (Scalopous aquaticus). Several species of bats also utilize these areas as well as
man made structures associated with the Project. Additionally, several of these species can be
found in multiple habitat types due to their generalized requirements. Coyotes for example use
woodlands, wetlands and grasslands in addition to scrub/shrub areas for foraging, dens and travel
corridors.
E3.4.2.4
Avian Species
Several species of waterfowl and water-related birds are known to use the Project reservoirs and
the West Fork Tuckasegee River near the Project, especially during periods of migration.
Additionally, twelve species of raptors are known or suspected to use the Project area and the
upland areas immediately adjacent, and several other species of birds were observed during pointcounts conducted by DE&S scientists in 2001 (DE&S 2002).
passerines.
Most of these species were
These avian species inhabit many different habitat types such as woodland,
scrub/shrub or early successional areas, grassland, and wetland and open water areas. These
habitat types within and adjacent to the Project area are found within the six natural communities,
as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), identified within the Project area: Pine-Oak Heath,
Acidic Cove Forest, Canada Hemlock Forest, Spray Cliff, Sand and Mud Bar, and Southern
E3-112
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Appalachian Bog (Southern Subtype). For example, scrub/shrub habitat may be found within
early successional forest and wetlands may be associated with bogs or adjacent to shoreline
communities. Although grasslands were not identified as a natural community, small patches of
grassy habitat may occur within forest openings or in association with bogs. A full description of
these natural communities can be found in Exhibit E Section 3.3.1.1.
Species typically found in wetland and open water areas include Canada goose (Branta
canadensis); American black duck (Anas rubripes); mallard (Anas platyrhynchos); wood duck
(Aix sponsa); ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris); hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus);
pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps); American coot (Fulica americana); great blue heron
(Ardea herodias); and green heron (Butorides striatus). These waterfowl and water-related birds
are normally found in wetland areas due to food requirements, however open water areas are
often used as safe resting locations.
Species typically found in woodland areas include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus);
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii); sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus); barred owl (Strix
varia); red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus); American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla); blue-headed
vireo (Vireo solitarius); northern parula warbler (Parula americana); black-throated blue warbler
(Dendroica caerulescens); ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus); and Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis). These avian species are normally found in woodland areas, due to structural
habitat requirements for activities such as feeding and nesting.
Species typically found in scrub/shrub or early successional areas include indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea); yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens); and field sparrow (Spizella pusilla).
Often times these scrub/shrub areas border grasslands and/or woodlands. These avian species are
normally found in scrub/shrub or early successional areas due to structural habitat requirements
for activities such as feeding and nesting.
Species typically found in grassland areas include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American
kestrel (Falco sparverius), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). Additionally, several of
these species can be found in multiple habitat types due to their generalized requirements. Redtailed hawks use woodlands and scrub/shrub areas in addition to grasslands for foraging and
nesting.
E3-113
Duke Power
West Fork Project
This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of avian species found in the Project area, but
rather a representation of species common to the area.
E3.4.2.5
Reptiles and Amphibians
Reptiles and amphibians are common and well represented in the Project area and include both
aquatic and terrestrial species. These reptile and amphibian species inhabit many different habitat
types such as woodland, scrub/shrub or early successional areas, grassland, and wetland areas.
Use of these areas may shift during different life stages and/or times of year. These habitat types
within and adjacent to the Project area are found within the six natural communities, as described
by Schafale and Weakley (1990), identified within the Project area: Pine-Oak Heath, Acidic Cove
Forest, Canada Hemlock Forest, Spray Cliff, Sand and Mud Bar, and Southern Appalachian Bog
(Southern Subtype). For example, scrub/shrub habitat may be found within early successional
forest and wetlands may be associated with bogs or adjacent to shoreline communities. Although
grasslands were not identified as a natural community, small patches of grassy habitat may occur
within forest openings or in association with bogs.
A full description of these natural
communities can be found in Exhibit E Section 3.3.1.1.
Species typically found in wetland and open water areas include snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina); eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta); northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon); queen snake (Regina septemvittata); red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens
viridescens); blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus); blue ridge two-lined
salamander (Eurycea wilderae); three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata); green frog (Rana
clamitans melanota); bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana); and pickerel frog (Rana palustris). These
reptiles and amphibians are normally found in wetland areas due to food and reproductive
requirements.
Species typically found in woodland areas include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina
carolina),
five-lined
skink
(Eumeces
fasciatus);
northern
redbelly
snake
(Storeria
occipitomaculata occipitomaculata); corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata); northern copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen); spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum); northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus fuscus); seal salamander (Desmognathus monticola);
American toad (Bufo americanus); Fowler’s toad (Bufo woodhousii fowleri); gray treefrog (Hyla
versicolor); and northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer). These reptiles and amphibians are
normally found in woodland areas due to food and reproductive requirements.
E3-114
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Species typically found in scrub/shrub or early successional areas include northern ringneck
snake (Diadophis punctatus edwardsii); rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus); northern black
racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor); and black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta). These
reptiles and amphibians are normally found in scrub/shrub areas due to food and reproductive
requirements.
Species typically found in grassland areas include northern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus)
and eastern garter snake (Thamnopohis sirtalis sirtalis). Additionally, several of these species
can be found in multiple habitat types due to their generalized requirements. For example
American toads, Fowler’s toads and black rat snakes use most all habitat types present in the
Project area during the course of a year or during different life stages.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of reptile and amphibian species found in the
Project area, but rather a representation of species common to the area.
E3.4.2.6
Based on lists of RTE species provided by the NCNHP (NCNHP 2002) and known species
distributions and habitat requirements, no State or Federally listed threatened or endangered
wildlife species are likely to occur in terrestrial or wetland habitats within the Project area. A list
of all potentially occurring RTE species in Jackson County is given in Table E3.4-1. A North
Carolina significantly rare species the magnolia warbler (Dendroica magnolia) is the only RTE
species known to occur within the Project area (see Section E3.4.5.3).
Table E3.4-1. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species documented in Jackson County
Common Name
Scientific Name
State/
General Habitat
Comments
Federal
Status
Carolina Northern
Glaucomys
E/LE
High elevation forests,
Not found in
Flying Squirrel
sabrinus coloratus
mainly spruce-fir
Project area-found
in high elevation
areas
Southern Rock
Microtus
SC/FSC
Rocky areas at high
Not found in
Vole
chrothrrhinus
elevations, forests or fields
Project area-found
carolinensis
in high elevation
areas
Least Weasel
Mustela nivalis
SR/-Fields and forests, mostly at
high elevations
Indiana Bat
Myotis sodalis
E/LE
Roosts in hollow trees or
under loose bark (warmer
months), in caves (winter)
E3-115
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Common Name
Scientific Name
Eastern Woodrat
(Southern
Appalachian
Population)
Neotoma floridana
haematoreia
Southern
Appalachian
Northern Sawwhet Owl
Aegolius acadius
State/
Federal
Status
SC/FSC
SC(PT)/F
SC
Brown Creeper
Certhia americana
SR/--
Black-billed
Cuckoo
Coccyzus
erythropthalmus
Magnolia Warbler
Dendroica
magnolia
SR/--
Alder Flycatcher
Empidonax
alnorum
SR/--
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
E/LE
SR/--
Southern
Appalachian Red
Crossbill
Loxia curvirostra
Southern
Appalachian
Black-capped
Chickadee
Poecile atricapilla
practica
SC/FSC
Appalachian
Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker
Sphyrapicus varius
appalachiensis
SR(PSC)/
FSC
SR/FSC
Appalachian
Bewick’s Wren
Thryomanes
bewickii altus
E/FSC
Timber
Rattlesnake
Crotalus horridus
SR/--
Northern Pine
Snake
Pituophis
melanoleucus
melanoleucus
SC/FSC
Green Salamander
Aneides aeneus
General Habitat
Rocky places in deciduous
or mixed forests, in
southern mountains
High elevation spruce-fir
forests or mixed
hardwood/spruce forests
(for nesting) [breeding
season only]
favoring spruce-fir mixed
with hardwoods
Deciduous forests, mainly
at higher elevations
[breeding season and
habitat only]
Spruce-fir forests,
especially in immature
stands [breeding season
only]
Spruce-fir forests,
especially in immature
stands [breeding season
only]
Cliffs (for nesting)
High elevation coniferous
forests, preferably sprucefir
mainly spruce-fir [breeding
season only]
Mature, open hardwoods
with scattered dead trees
[breeding season only]
Woodland borders or
openings, farmlands or
brushy fields, at high
elevations [breeding season
only]
Rocky, upland forests
Dry and sandy woods
E/FSC
Comments
Damp, shaded crevices of
cliffs or rock outcrops in
deciduous forests (southern
mountains)
E3-116
Not found in
Project area-found
in high elevation
areas
Not found in
Project area-found
in high elevation
areas
Documented in
Project area during
Avian Surveys.
Not found in
Project area-found
in high elevation
areas
Not found in
Project area-found
in high elevation
areas
Not found in
Project area-found
in high elevation
areas
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Common Name
Scientific Name
State/
Federal
Status
Hellbender
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis
SC/FSC
Santeetlah Dusky
Salamander
Desmognathus
santeetlah
SR/--
Waterrock Knob
Salamander
Desmognathus sp.
SR/--
General Habitat
Comments
Large and clear fastflowing streams
Documented in
mainstem
Tuckasegee River
Stream headwaters and
seepage areas; southwestern
mountains
Forests in the vicinity of
Waterrock Knob
Source: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP): Element of Occurrence Search
Page. 2002.
NOTE: LE: Federal Endangered; LT: Federal Threatened; FSC: Federal Species of Concern;
T/(SA): Threatened/Due to Similar Appearance; E: State Endangered; T: State Threatened; SC:
State Special Concern; SR: Significantly Rare; P-: Proposed for Listing.
E3.4.3
Wildlife Resource Management Framework
State and federal agencies have management responsibilities for wildlife resources within and
adjacent to the Project area.
E3.4.3.1
Federal Management
United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The Endangered Species Act provides protection for the rare species by prohibiting the harming,
trading in, or taking of federally listed threatened and endangered species. "Taking" has been
interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the destruction or degradation of habitats critical to
the survival of these species. All federal departments and agencies are directed to utilize their
authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species and not to authorize, fund,
or directly take actions that jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. The Endangered
Species Act is administered by the Department of Interior, USFWS, which seeks cooperative
agreements with other federal and state agencies, and large private landowners.
United States Forest Service (USFS)
The Project area is not under the control of the USFS; however, it is within the sphere of lands
administered by the Nantahala National Forest of the USFS. As a result, these lands are subject
to the management guidelines and objectives of the National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan developed by the Nantahala National Forest. The forest plan was created to
direct the management of the nearby Nantahala National Forest. The goal of the forest plan is to
E3-117
Duke Power
West Fork Project
provide a comprehensive, flexible management program that allows use and protection of the
forest resources; fulfills legislative requirements; and addresses local, regional, and national
issues and concerns (USFS 1987). In keeping with this plan, USFS policy has been to manage
habitats of listed species to advance species recovery objectives consistent with USFWS
Recovery Plans. Recovery is the process by which the decline of threatened or endangered
species is arrested, or reversed, and threats to survival are neutralized, ensuring long-term
survival in nature. The goal of recovery is the maintenance of secure, self-sustaining wild
populations of species with the minimum necessary investment of resources. USFS lands are also
managed for species of concern that are not federally listed or protected under the Endangered
Species Act. The emphasis of the forest plan is not on site-specific decisions or specific resource
outputs, but rather, on applying various management practices with standards and guidelines for
areas of land. The USFS goal for wildlife is to continue to “manage to assure a diversity of
habitats for viable populations of native animals” (USFS 1987).
published in 1994.
The plan includes specific goals, recovery objectives, and standards in the protection of certain
listed wildlife species and the associated habitats within Forest Service lands (USDA-USFS
1994). These include in general:
The documentation of species occurrence on Forest Service lands through continued surveys;
The identification of site specific current and future threats to existing populations;
Cooperation with the USFWS in developing a management plan with specific USFS tasks in
support of conservation or in recovery;
Monitor population trends for all known populations and associated habitats; and
Manage recreation use such that the species are protected.
vegetation management, soil and water management, and recreation management.
E3-118
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.4.3.2
State Management
The NCWRC is North Carolina’s lead agency responsible for the management of the state’s
wildlife resources and enforcement of wildlife laws. The NCWRC is responsible for managing
both game and non-game species. The NCWRC strives to prevent species from becoming
endangered through maintaining viable, self-sustaining populations of all native wildlife, with an
emphasis on species in decline.
The agency also establishes, lists, monitors, and protects
endangered, threatened, and species of concern including wildlife, fish and invertebrates through
the Endangered Species Act (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the Gen. Statutes). In addition to the
NCWRC, the state through the NCNHP, governs the legal classification of species as Threatened
or Endangered as well as other rare species including those classified as of “Special Concern”.
E3.4.3.3
Tribal Management
Because the Project is not located on or adjacent to tribal lands, no consultation with the regional
Indian Tribes (Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians) was necessary.
E3.4.3.4
and explain how and why a proposed Project would or would not comply with the pertinent plans.
wildlife related comprehensive plans relevant to the project.
boundary. The Project does not contribute to any overall wildllife resource impairment such as
impact of RTE species or habitats. Through proposed PM&E measures such as implementation
of a future shoreline management program, enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection
program, and the future purchase of conservation lands, the continued operations of the Project
are consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the
wildlife management portion of the Plan.
E3-119
Duke Power
West Fork Project
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan-Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan was
developed to describe what management strategies need to be implemented, where and by whom,
and at what cost to protect and manage priority habitats within the Atlantic coast focus area from
Maine to South Carolina (NAWMP undated). The Joint Venture goals and objectives include
(NAWMP undated):
Protecting 50,000 additional acres of migration and wintering waterfowl habitat on the east
coast;
Improving habitat quality of other areas in the region; and
Affecting a 25 percent increase in carrying capacity on 382,500 acres of land managed for
waterfowl use by wildlife agencies in the eastern United States.
Overall, the plan identifies the wetland areas that are designated as high priority winter,
migration, or production habitats for waterfowl and similar species. The only North Carolina
Focus Areas listed in the Plan include the Roanoke River, Currituck Outer Banks, Currituck
Sound, Pamlico Sound, Pamlico-Albemarle Peninsula, and the Pee Dee River area.
The
Nantahala area waterbodies, including those in the Project area are not classified as a focus area,
according to the Plan.
Thus, the guidelines and recommendations associated with this
comprehensive plan are not pertinent to the Project area.
E3.4.4
Summary of Consultation on Wildlife Resources
A preliminary assessment of the wildlife resources within the Project area was presented as part
The following agencies were contacted in association with this issue:
State
Quality; and
Federal
United States Forest Service.
E3-120
Duke Power
West Fork Project
1)
environment. Surveys for state and federal rare, threatened, and endangered species should
be conducted.
Duke Response: In association with this request, Duke conducted surveys for listed and rare
wildlife species.
2)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC requested that NP&L conduct surveys for state and federal rare, threatened, and
endangered species including candidate species.
Duke Response: In association with this comment, Duke conducted surveys for the requested
wildlife species.
3)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC requested that NP&L conduct mist net and ANABAT (vocalization surveys)
surveys to determine whether Indiana bats occur on Project lands.
wildlife species including listed bats.
4)
E3-121
Duke Power
West Fork Project
NP&L was requested to conduct site-specific inventories for all protected, endangered,
threatened, sensitive (PETS) and Forest Service Concern vertebrate species within the Project
area and adjacent lands.
Additionally, NP&L was requested to evaluate wetlands and
floodplains as potential habitat for bog turtles, blue-winged warblers, longtail salamanders
and other species of concern, and inventory wetlands and floodplains as appropriate to
determine the present status of these species. NP&L was requested to determine the effects
of current management on these species and evaluate potential changes to current
management, which might enhance habitat for these species.
wildlife species. These surveys also assessed the effect of Project operations on these species.
NP&L was requested to determine if the transmission lines adjacent to Forest Service lands
are currently being maintained through the aerial application of herbicides and if so what
effect this management may have on PETS species occupying adjacent Forest Service lands.
NP&L was requested to evaluate the impact of reservoir and transmission line operations on
wildlife resources and their habitat, and include the effects of the current condition and
continuing management of associated tunnels, penstocks, pipelines and primary distribution
lines; especially where these exist as easements across the National Forest.
The USFS recommended wildlife habitat management for the Project Reservoirs including
erecting osprey nest platforms where this species is frequently seen, installing Canada goose
nesting platforms, installing nest boxes that may benefit other species such as wood ducks,
tree swallows, etc. and evaluate the potential to create predator-free spoil islands.
NP&L was requested to identify any exotic species located within the Project and evaluate
their potential impacts on native species.
Duke Response: Duke currently has a right-of-way maintenance agreement with the USFS that
covers the operation and maintenance of company rights-of-way including herbicide spraying.
However, the majority of the transmission lines found in the area are outside of the Project
boundary and are not included in this relicensing process.
Rights-of-way associated with
reservoir operator were assessed for wildlife impacts. Proposed Project enhancements that may
affect wildlife resources are presented in Section E3.4.8.
E3-122
Duke Power
5)
West Fork Project
The USFWS recommended surveys for threatened and endangered species.
The USFWS also recommended protecting the area around the reservoir for wildlife by
maintaining a natural vegetated buffer with limited clearing.
wildlife species and also prepared a shoreline management plan for the project that includes
management of all Project lands and vegetation.
E3.4.4.1
A preliminary assessment of the wildlife resources within the Project area was presented as part
1)
The USFWS recommended surveys if there is suitable habitat for any birds noted on our
North Carolina County Species list and the Partners in Flight Plan for the Southern Blue
Ridge Physiographic Province. Additionally, the USFWS recommended compilation of data
from the Breeding Bird Survey routes and Christmas bird counts.
Duke Response: Duke has incorporated these suggestions in the appropriate study plan.
2)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
E3-123
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The NCWRC suggested that some combination of mist-netting and ANABAT will be
required to determine the presence of Indiana bats.
The NCWRC stated “The section on salamanders is quite vague and seems to be saying that
surveys will only occur on the upper Nantahala. While that will be an important area to focus
upon, there may be suitable habitats for these species on any of the projects. Particularly
once the Botanical surveys are done, if any wetland habitats are identified that might be
suitable, they should be surveyed for these species. Also, there is no distinction as to the
different techniques which may be used for these very different species/habitats.”
Duke Response: Duke has incorporated these suggestions in the appropriate study plans.
E3.4.5
Wildlife Studies
E3.4.5.1
Previous Studies
There are no previous wildlife studies associated with the Project area.
E3.4.5.2
No wildlife studies are currently underway in the Project area.
E3.4.5.3
Relicensing Studies
During the relicensing consultation process, several agencies recommended that wildlife surveys
be conducted in association with the Project. A summary of these studies is provided below and
these studies can be found in their entirety on the Duke Power-Nantahala Area relicensing
website at: http://www.nantahalapower.com/relicensing/hydro.htm.
BAT HABITAT SURVEY
Introduction
Environmental Solutions and Innovations, LLC (ESI) was contracted to complete habitat surveys
in the Project area including the reservoirs and in and around buildings for proposed, endangered,
threatened, and species of concern (PETS) bat species, with an emphasis on the Federallyendangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Habitat surveys were conducted to determine the
presence/absence of suitable habitat for this species.
E3-124
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Methods
The Project facilities were visually inspected for potential use by bats or bat activity during July
2001. Bat activity is characterized as the presence of bat droppings (guano) and/or insect parts
(i.e., wings, exoskeleton) within or outside of the facility. The inspection also included a search
for live and dead bats. Special attention was paid to areas that might be warm in summer and
provide an opportunity for nursery colonies, and areas that might be cold (but not freezing) in
winter, providing a site for hibernation. Areas that were less exposed to human activity and/or
less exposed to light were given special attention.
A team of two biologists visually inspected the wooded and riparian habitat adjacent to the
Project Reservoirs during July 2001. Habitat was surveyed along the two reservoirs for its
potential to provide summer habitat for Indiana bats. Surveys of woodland habitat along the
edges of the reservoirs were completed by boat and included the area from normal water level to
10 vertical feet above.
Results
Within the licensing perimeter, the Project did not provide potential habitat for a maternity colony
of Indiana bats. This is based on the 1) lack of large potential roost trees and travel/foraging
corridors, and 2) the presence of shoreline erosion. Facilities associated with the Project did not
exhibit signs of bat use or presence. For these reasons netting surveys were not recommended for
any of the West Fork Project reservoirs or facilities.
AMPHIBIAN SURVEY
Introduction
Based on specific requirements of the FERC and other federal agencies such as the USFWS and
USFS for relicensing hydroelectric generation projects, the identification of Project-related
wildlife resources relative to any federally listed RTE species is required. In addition, other RTE
species in the Project area were requested to be surveyed by certain Project stakeholders such as
the USFWS, USFS, and the NCWRC. The 12 salamander and two frog RTE species proposed
for survey were the eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis)(FSC, NCSC); common
mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus)(NCSC); mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) (NCSC);
green salamander (Aneides aeneus) (NCE, FSC); seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus)
(FSC, NCSR); Santeetlah dusky salamander (Desmognathus santeetlah) (NCSR); pygmy
salamander (Desmognathus wrighti) (FSC, NCW5); brownback salamander (Eurycea aquatica);
longtail salamander (Eurycea l. longicauda)(NCSC); Junaluska salamander (Eurycea
E3-125
Duke Power
West Fork Project
junaluska)(FSC, NCSC); four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)(NCSC); southern
Appalachian salamander (Plethodon oconaluftee)(removed from NCW); mountain chorus frog
(Pseudacris brachyphona) (NCSC); and Carolina gopher frog (Rana c. capito) (FSC, NCSC).
After consultation, the brownback salamander and Carolina gopher frog were deleted from the list
of RTE species because their geographic distributions are well outside the Project boundary,
reducing the list of RTE species to 11 salamanders and one frog.
The objective of this study was to characterize suitable habitat within Project boundary for use by
eleven salamander and one frog species noted by the USFWS, USFS, and the NCWRC,
document species occurrence, and evaluate the extent of any potential Project-related impacts on
those species.
Methods
Survey locations were chosen based on a review of county and quadrangle databases and records
and known habitat preferences. Based on this information, a review of aerial photography, land
use classifications, and other large-scale mapping sources were used to determine the locations of
suitable habitat types for the 11 salamander and one frog species in or immediately adjacent to the
FERC Project boundary.
Twelve sites were selected for the amphibian surveys in the Project area. Sites were chosen in
such a way as to represent both the range of habitats within the FERC Project area and the
specific habitats preferred by the 12 RTE species. Survey sites are generally grouped into two
categories. One group focused on FERC Project areas associated with the reservoir. The second
group of survey sites tended to focus on areas associated with above ground or below ground
tunnels, power stations, power-line rights-of-way, and additional riverine habitats located below
the dam. Locations of the sites and the approximate amount of area ground-truthed in the survey
sites are shown in Figure E3.4-1.
In order to survey adequately the amphibian fauna in the riparian habitats in the FERC Project
areas, 32 full days were spent in the entire study region including the other Duke-Nantahala Area
hydro projects. Field surveys consisted of traditional techniques in areas thought to harbor RTE
species, focusing both on areas that provided the narrow habitat requirements used by stenotypic
species, such as the green salamander, and on specific localities where specimens of RTE species
had been reported previously. Daytime surveys were rotated among sites in close proximity and
E3-126
Duke Power
West Fork Project
typically involved spending 1 to 2 hours at each site. If the site was unusually large, they
included 4 to 8 hours of survey for each site. Several 2- to 3-hour nocturnal surveys were
conducted at the FERC Project area. Creeks and their adjacent slopes were canvassed on foot,
turning over rocks and logs; crevices in rock walls were examined; and a limited amount of
seining was conducted in aquatic sites conducive to those survey techniques, respectively. In
general, survey effort was proportionate to the amount of area and suitable habitat at each site.
The number of visits and amount of time in the Project area followed a similar trend.
Results
The most ubiquitous and numerically abundant species of salamanders encountered during the
survey period were those commonly associated with clear fast-flowing brooks and streams or
stagnant pools that had few, if any, predaceous fish (Table E3.4-2). Newts were abundant in
stagnant pools and ditches, whereas the other salamanders were common to abundant in brooks
and streams feeding the reservoir and lotic habitats immediately below the dam.
These
salamanders included the red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus v. viridescens); seal salamander
(Desmognathus monticolus); and northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus). Newts
were abundant in stagnant pools and ditches, whereas the other salamanders were common to
abundant in brooks and streams feeding the reservoirs and lotic habitats immediately below dams.
The largest concentration of salamanders was encountered in late September on the north-facing
rock wall below Glenville Dam, where scores of red-spotted newts and four species of
desmognaths were active.
Slopes and seepages associated with the streams and pools mentioned above, also were surveyed.
Surveys did extend beyond the FERC Project area boundaries on occasion because some species
rely to some extent on the brooks, streams, and pools for part of their lives and these species may
be affected by Project operations and maintenance measures.
No amphibian species classified as RTE were encountered during the amphibian survey period;
however, eastern hellbenders were encountered during macroinvertebrate surveys (Fraley, 2002)
and fisheries surveys on the mainstem Tuckasegee River. The lengths and weights of these
individuals indicate healthy populations in the Tuckasegee River system, with most individuals of
sufficient size to be sexually mature or approaching sexual maturity. Some individuals were
likely 20-25 years old given their sizes. In addition to the specimens reported here, there are
museum voucher specimens from the vicinity of FERC Project areas on the Hiwassee River in
E3-127
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Cherokee County (N.C. State Museum of Natural Science and the University of Michigan
Museum of Zoology) and the Little Tennessee River in Macon County, ostensibly near the Emory
Reservoir (U.S. National Museum of Natural History). Moreover, there are NC Natural Heritage
Program records from the last 20 years from all counties in the mountain physiographic province
except Ashe, Avery, and Swain counties, and there are historic records (>20 years old) from Ashe
and Avery counties. Given these records, it appears that the eastern hellbender is relatively
ubiquitous in western North Carolina and that suitable habitat exists within the FERC Project
areas in the Tuckasegee River drainages. It is believed that the continued operation of the Project
will have no negative impacts to this documented amphibian RTE species.
E3-128
G3
G1
G2
G4
G5
G7
G6
G12
G8
G9
G9
G10
G12
Area Surveyed
Transect Surveyed
2,000
0
2,000 4,000 Feet
G11
Figure E3.4-1
West Fork Project
Project FERC No. 2686
Salamander Sampling Locations
Tuckasegee River
Duke Power
SITE
NAME
West Fork Project
GENERAL
LOCATION
HABITAT
DESCRIPTION
SPECIES OBSERVED AND
NUMBER FOUND
G1
Tuckasegee
Reservoir near
Powerhouse
Open water with submerged and
emergent vegetation around perimeter,
some greatly disturbed and sparsely
vegetated, and one rock wall; Sand &
Mud Bar and Spray Cliff
Rana catesbeiana (Bullfrog) (2)
G2
Wetlands along
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
Greatly disturbed habitat with sparsely
to densely vegetated areas; Rocky Bar
& Shore and Sand and Mud Bar
G3
West
Fork
Tuckasegee
River at Mill
Creek
Small to large submerged
and
emergent rocks, shoreline sparsely
vegetated; Rocky Bar & Shore and
Rich Cove Forest
G4
Thorpe
Penstock near
Trout Creek
South-facing hardwood forests and
north-facing cove forests sloping to
rocky stream with rhododendron
thickets and sparsely vegetated
shoreline; Acidic Cove Forest, Rich
Cove Forest, and Rocky Bar & Shore
G5
Thorpe
Penstock near
Shoal Creek
Small to large submerged and emergent
rocks, shoreline sparsely vegetated;
Rocky Bar & Shore and Rich Cove
Forest
G6
Below Thorpe
Dam and along
the West Fork
Tuckasegee
River
Hardwood forests sloping to a variety
of wetlands, including wet cliffs,
stagnant pools, and lotic habitats;
Rocky Bar & Shore, Spray Cliff, Rich
Cove Forest, and Montane Alluvial
Forest
G7
Lake Glenville
north shore
vegetated shoreline; Sand & Mud Bar
E3-130
Notophthalmus v. viridescens
(Red-spotted Newt) (6)
Thamnophis s. sirtalis (Eastern
Garter Snake) (2)
Desmognathus
fuscus
(N.
Dusky Salamander) (3)
Desmognathus monticolus (Seal
Salamander) (3)
Desmognathus
quadramaculatus (Blackbelly
Salamander)(1)
Desmognathus fuscus
(N.
Salamander) (1)
Desmognathus ocoee (Ocoee
Salamander) (4)
Desmognathus
Salamander)(1)
Elaphe o. obsoleta (Black Rat
Snake) (1)
Salamander) (2)
Desmognathus fuscus (N.
Salamander) (7)
Salamander) (3)
Desmognathus
Salamander)(2)
Eurycea guttolineata (Threelined Salamander)(2)
Notopthalmus v. viridescens
(Red-spotted Newt) (35)
Rana catesbeiana (Bullfrog)
(50)
Sceloporus undulatus
hyacinthinus (N. Fence Lizard)
(6)
Rana catesbeiana (Bullfrog)
(calling)
Duke Power
SITE
NAME
West Fork Project
GENERAL
LOCATION
Pine
Creek
confluence with
Lake Glenville
Islands within
Lake Glenville
HABITAT
DESCRIPTION
SPECIES OBSERVED AND
NUMBER FOUND
None observed
None observed
G10
Cedar
Creek
confluence with
Jenkins Lake
Rocky creek bed and densely vegetated
shoreline; Rocky Bar & Shore and Rich
Cove Forest
Salamander) (1)
Salamander) (5)
Rana catesbeiana (Bullfrog) (1)
G11
Lake Glenville
near Hurricane
Creek
Sparsely to densely vegetated shoreline
in hardwood forest; Rocky Bar &
Shore, Sand & Mud Bar, and Rich
Cove Forest
None observed
G12
Lake Glenville
near Pine and
Norton creeks
None observed
G8
G9
AVIAN SURVEY
Introduction
Duke Engineering & Services (DE&S) was requested by NP&L to conduct surveys for avian
RTE species suspected to be present within Project boundaries. The objective of the avian study
was to characterize suitable habitat within the Project boundaries, determine actual occurrence of
avian RTE species, and evaluate any potential Project-related impacts to these species (DE&S
2002).
Methods
After consultation with the interested agencies, site selection was achieved by first reviewing
existing information to determine if any avian RTE species were previously documented in the
Project area. Three species were selected, the cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) (Federal
Species of Concern and NC Significantly Rare), the blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus) (NC
Significantly Rare), and the golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) (NC Significantly
Rare). Secondly, a review of aerial photographs, land use classifications, and other large-scale
representations were used to determine the locations of suitable habitat types within or
immediately adjacent to Project boundaries for the three avian RTE species selected. A field
reconnaissance was then conducted on the various listed habitats in an effort to determine habitat
suitability.
E3-131
Duke Power
West Fork Project
It was determined that suitable habitat existed for the blue-winged warbler and the golden-winged
warbler within the Project area. The habitat type selected can be described generically as rightof-way or manipulated early succession or semi-permanent scrub/shrub areas due to the regular
maintenance and periodic clearing. Three points within the Project area were sampled using the
standard point count method (Ralph et al. 1993; Ralph et al. 1995). Standard point counts require
a qualified observer to stand in a fixed position and record all the birds seen and heard over a time
period of five minutes. All three-survey points were located along the transmission line right-ofway east of the Tuckasegee Power House. These points were selected based on the habitat
preferences of the blue-winged warbler and golden-winged warbler. The altered community
present at these points was composed of the same general vegetation within the two stratums
present.
The shrub layer was dominated by blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis); elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis); fire cherry (Prunus pensylvanica); Viburnum spp., smooth sumac (Rhus
glabra); and white oak (Quercus alba). The herbaceous layer was dominated by goldenrod
(Solidago spp.); spotted joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum); common mullein (Verbascum
thapsus); daisy fleabane (Erigeron spp.); bluestem broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus); and
bullbrier greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox). These points were visited in June 2001 (i.e.; the breeding
season) during the territorial males’ peak singing times.
No targeted avian RTE species were encountered during the survey. The most common species
recorded at the three sampling points were chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica); redeyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus); American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis); indigo bunting (Passerina
cyanea); American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla); yellow breasted chat (Icteria virens); field
sparrow (Spizella pusilla); northern parula warbler (Parula americana); common yellow throat
(Geothlypis trichas); and blue headed vireo (Vireo solitarius). In addition to the species common
to this area a non-target avian RTE species was recorded. This RTE species, the magnolia
warbler (Dendroica magnolia); was found at the extreme southern edge of its breeding range and
is only located in the Project vicinity due to the elevation range (2,200 feet + MSL). The
magnolia warbler is listed as Significantly Rare by the NCNHP. However, this species is not
listed by the USFWS. This species is doing well across its entire range and may be increasing in
numbers due to the maturing of abandoned farmland.
E3.4.5.4
Proposed Studies
No other studies concerning wildlife resources were requested and; therefore, no others are
proposed.
E3-132
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.4.6
Project Effects on Wildlife Resources from Continued Project Operation
No ongoing effects of Project operation on wildlife resources were documented. Changes in
Project operations have been proposed as part of the PM&E measures associated with the
Consensus Agreement (see Section E1.13 and Volume III). These changes are designed to
enhance and/or protect existing resources and are unlikely to negatively affect wildlife resources.
Because of this, no new impacts to wildlife or their habitats are expected from continued Project
operation.
E3.4.7
Existing Wildlife Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures
Due to the very small area controlled by the Applicant in association with this Project, wildlife
enhancement measures were not cost effective and none have been initiated.
E3.4.8
The following wildlife and habitat related PM&E’s have been proposed for the West Fork
Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team. The primary members and the organizations they
represent who agree in consensus will work toward conversion of the Consensus Agreement into
a Settlement Agreement by September 15, 2002. A copy of the entire Consensus Agreement,
WILDLIFE VIEWING PLATFORMS ON RESERVOIRS
a. Work with the NCWRC, the USFS, the USFWS and Jackson County Government to
evaluate wildlife viewing opportunities on the West Fork project reservoirs at the
following locations: (1) the public recreation areas adjoining the reservoirs, (2) property
owned by the USFS adjoining the reservoirs or (3) Andrews Park on Lake Glenville.
Provide a summary by 8/1/03 of any significant viewing opportunities and the need,
practicality and cost of providing one viewing platform per reservoir at one of these three
locations.
b. If such a viewing platform is needed and can cost-effectively be constructed, then it will be
added to the construction plans identified above (if it will be located at one of the Dukeowned access areas) or Duke will pay for its construction once construction is completed
(if it will be located on USFS-owned property or at Andrews Park).
E3-133
Duke Power
West Fork Project
LAKE LEVELS
1.
Normal Target
Elevation (ft)
Jan
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
85
90
Normal
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
94
Feb
85
90
94
Mar
88
91
94
Apr
90
93
96
May
95
97
99
Jun
95
97
99
Jul
95
97
99
Aug
93
95
98
Sep
90
93
94
Oct
90
93
94
Nov
86
90
94
Dec
85
90
94
Month
2.
3.
E3-134
Duke Power
West Fork Project
RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT MEASURES
either (1) protect or enhance fish and wildlife habitat directly, or (2) educate landowners or
school children about the importance of healthy riparian areas to fish and wildlife habitat
and about the related best management practices in riparian areas. All initiatives must
support protection or enhancement of fish or wildlife habitat on lands that drain to any of
the Duke hydro reservoirs or the river sections between Duke hydro reservoirs and
b. Work with other interested stakeholder team members to define the process by 8/1/03 that
will be used to prioritize potential initiatives.
be $200,000.
a. Purchase a selected tract of land and convey its interest in the land to a governmental entity
or a non-profit conservation organization.
acceptable cost to Duke will be pursued.
Duke.
E3-135
Duke Power
West Fork Project
clean-up from pre-designated disposal sites around these four lakes and the river.
reservoir.
Meet Duke’s regulatory requirements;
Protect Duke’s generation interests;
Protect the scenic and environmental value of Duke’s shoreline property;
E3-136
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Provide recreational benefits to the general public;
Provide a guide to adjacent property owners on permitted uses of Duke properties.
Appeals for Piers/Docks Having No Practicable Alternative-Property owners may request to
Mitigation-Successful appeals should be expected to include reasonable mitigation requirements
E3-137
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Construction Limitations-Individual simple piers/docks (serving single individual projectfront
boundary. Piers/docks are not be placed within 50 feet of a stream confluence. The total number
classification. This pier/dock per linear footage of shoreline limitation applies regardless of the
classification.
Consequences for Violations- Destruction of native emergent vegetation within the full pond
E3-138
Duke Power
West Fork Project
guidelines.
Area guidelines.
Pier/Dock - This type of habitat notes the presence of a pier and/or dock supporting various
E3-139
Duke Power
West Fork Project
DPNA guidelines. No new construction without written authorization from DPNA.
Notes
a.
No commercial/residential (existing or proposed)
b.
No membership requirements
c.
Transient services do not require wet or dry storage rental
3. An alternative is not considered practicable if choosing it over the desired option would
result in any of the following:
a. Violation of any applicable permitting criteria or lake use restriction
b. Requiring the applicant to dredge the lake bed in order to use the requested facility,
c. Modification of the desired facility to the point that the resulting structure would be of
very limited usefulness
E3-140
Duke Power
West Fork Project
of avoidance.
5. The Shoreline Management Plan Maps were generated from a Geographic Information
System (GIS) and are not intended to be survey quality. Actual start and stop points for
transition between classifications are subject to interpretation by Duke.
E3-141
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E3.4.9
List of Literature
Duke Engineering & Services, Inc. 2002.
A Biological Survey for Rare Avian Species
Associated with the Nantahala Power & Light Relicensing Project Area – Clay, Macon, and
Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Unpublished Report Prepared for Duke Power. Charlotte,
North Carolina. 33 pp.
Environmental Laboratory.
1987.
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Department of Army Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. Technical Report Y87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi.100 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc. (FWA). 2000. FERC Relicensing First Stage Consultation
Whittier, North
Merritt, J.F. 1987. White-tailed Deer. Pages 316-322. Matinko, R.A. Editor. Guide to the
Mammals of Pennsylvania.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2002. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program: Element of Occurrence Search Page: Online Document,
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html
North Carolina State Demographics (NCSD). 2002. Jackson County, NC Population by Age,
Race, Sex and Hispanic Origin: Online Document,
http://www.statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/iss/NC_data/Jackson.html
Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of Field
Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144. Albany, CA: Pacific
Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 41 pp.
Ralph, C.J., J.R.Sauer, and S. Droege, Technical Editors. 1995. Monitoring Bird Populations by
Point Counts.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149.
Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 187 pp.
E3-142
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
Sherrill, M.L. 1997. Soil Survey of Jackson County, North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Sylva, North
Carolina. 322 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Forest Service (USFS): Forest
Service Southern Region. 1987. Final - Land and Resource Management Plan 1986-2000,
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Asheville, North Carolina.
E3-143
Duke Power
E4.0
West Fork Project
REPORT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.51(f), Duke has prepared this report on the historical and archaeological
resources associated with the West Fork Project. This section contains the following information:
Description of the general historical and archaeological resources;
Description of the National Register of Historic Places Registry;
A summary of existing and proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures.
E4.1
General Overview of Historical and Archaeological Resources in the Basin
TRC Garrow Associates, Inc. (2002) prepared a detailed report on archeological surveys
completed within the West Fork Project (Project) area.
This report also summarized the
prehistoric and historic background of the Project vicinity. This section presents a summary of
this report.
E4.1.1
Prehistoric Ethnography
The prehistory of southwestern North Carolina can be divided into four basic time/cultural
periods. These periods, Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian, relate to both social
and technological factors. Several authors (e.g., Dickens 1976, Keel 1976, Ward and Davis 1999)
divide some or all of these periods into phases, some of which overlap in time and name, but vary
in precise definitions.
E4.1.1.1
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000–8,000 B.C.)
The Paleoindian period represents the earliest well-documented human occupation of the
Southeast. Key diagnostic artifacts of this period are fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile
points. Formal flake tools, such as endscrapers, gravers, retouched blades, and burins; are also
associated with the Paleoindian period. Almost all of the Paleoindian materials found to date in
the region have come from surface contexts, and as a result few data are available concerning
subsistence or social organization in the region (Anderson 1990). Hunting of late Pleistocene
megafauna is inferred based on evidence from other regions, although direct evidence for use of
animals of any kind is rare in the Southeast. Most if not all Paleoindian populations probably
relied extensively on other animal and plant foods (Meltzer and Smith 1986, Purrington 1983).
Paleoindian populations are believed to have been highly mobile, and settlements are thought to
E4-1
Duke Power
West Fork Project
have included small temporary camps and less common base camps that were occupied by
loosely organized bands. Paleoindians selected high-quality lithic materials for tools, and many
sites are linked to important source areas.
E4.1.1.2
Archaic Period (ca. 8,000–1,000 B.C.)
The Archaic period began with the onset of Holocene, post-glacial climatic conditions in the
eastern U.S., and has been subdivided into three subperiods: the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic.
Diagnostic projectile points form the primary criteria used to identify and date distinct Archaic
manifestations.
As a whole, the Archaic period may be seen as a relatively long and successful foraging
adaptation, with subsistence based on hunting, fishing, and the collection of wild plant resources.
The existence of formal residential base camps occupied seasonally or longer is inferred, together
with a range of smaller resource-exploitation sites, such as hunting, fishing, or plant collecting
stations (Claggett and Cable 1982, Mathis 1979, Ward 1983). Many sites from this period
contain evidence of prepared floors, post molds from structures, and features such as storage pits,
all of which indicate a more sedentary lifestyle than is suggested for earlier periods. Grinding
implements, polished stone tools, and carved soapstone bowls become fairly common, suggesting
increased use of plant resources, and possibly changes in subsistence strategies and cooking
technologies. Although regional evidence is minimal, the first experiments with horticulture
probably occurred at this time, with the cultivation of plants such as squash (Cucurbita pepo),
sunflower (Helianthus sp.), and Chenopodium (Cowan 1985, Ford 1981, Smith 1989). The
period is also marked by a general increase in the density and dispersal of archaeological remains.
Group size gradually increased during this period, culminating in relatively large populations.
E4.1.1.3
Woodland Period (ca. 1,000 b.c.–a.d. 1000)
The Woodland period began about 1000 B.C. and continued until the appearance of the
Mississippian period, around A.D. 1000. Across the eastern U.S. this period is marked by the
appearance of widespread pottery use, a greatly increased role for horticulture in subsistence
economies, intensified long distance trade, and an elaboration of mortuary ceremonialism,
including the appearance of burial mounds (Griffin 1967). Large triangular projectile points are
diagnostic of the Woodland period.
In the greater southeastern U.S., the Woodland period began with a gradual transition from the
Late Archaic period.
Although this transition period is not well understood, Woodland
E4-2
Duke Power
West Fork Project
occupations appear to be marked by increased sedentariness and improvements in food storage
and preparation technologies. Subsistence strategies represent a continuation of earlier hunterforager ways, but with an increased reliance on the cultivation of native plants (Yarnell and Black
1985). Religious expressions, as evidenced by increased ceremonialism and the development of
burial mounds, seems to have become more complex during the Woodland period. Ceramics
became more refined and regional differentiation of wares, particularly in temper, paste, and
surface decoration, became evident during the period. The Late Woodland period (ca. A.D. 800–
1000) in much of the southeast saw the emergence of sedentary village life based on intensive
maize (Zea mays) horticulture and the development of complex tribal and chiefdom-level political
structures.
E4.1.1.4
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000–1540)
The Mississippian period in the southeast is marked primarily by the increasing intensification of
maize horticulture, the establishment of increasingly hierarchical social structures and settlement
systems (chiefdoms), and an increase in ceremonialism expressed architecturally in the
construction of flat-topped substructure mounds.
Evidence exists that territorial boundaries
between chiefdoms were closely maintained during the Mississippian period, although individual
chiefdoms rose and fell in cyclical patterns. Although maize and other crops were important
sources of food, analyses of floral and faunal remains from Mississippian sites document the
persistence of wild resources as a major component of the diet. Artifacts diagnostic of the
Mississippian period in the southern Appalachians include small triangular projectile points and a
variety of plain, complicated stamped and check-stamped ceramics.
The Mississippian period represents the final centuries of Native American autonomy in the
region. Although elements of the material culture, belief systems, place names, and social
structure of Mississippian society lingered in the region well into the nineteenth century (and in
some cases to the present day), this period is largely one of social change due to increasing EuroAmerican contact and settlement in the region. This part of the Native American occupation of
the region is discussed below as part of the historic background of the region.
E4.1.2
Historic Native American and Euro-American Occupation
The first Cherokee contact with Europeans occurred in the mid sixteenth century when two
Spanish expeditions passed through western North Carolina. These encounters were to have
dramatic effects. The introduction of European diseases to which the native populations had little
resistance caused a major reduction in Native American population levels and extensive changes
E4-3
Duke Power
in political organization.
West Fork Project
Elsewhere in the southeast, the fragmentation and reformation of
political groups resulted in a general decrease in social complexity and the total disappearance of
some prehistoric societies (Smith 1987).
Although the Cherokee underwent substantial
disruption, they managed to retain control of portions of their homeland.
The historic-period Cherokee occupation (ca. a.d. 1450–1838) of western North Carolina is
known archaeologically as the Qualla phase. The material culture of the early Qualla phase
represents to some extent a continuation of earlier cultures. The subsistence base was mixed, and
included cultivation of maize, beans, and other foods as well as wild plant gathering, hunting, and
fishing (Dickens 1976). The late Qualla phase (ca. a.d. 1650–1838) is marked by the increasing
appearance of European goods at Cherokee sites, as well as shifts towards more European-style
architecture (Dickens 1976).
During most of the eighteenth century, the Cherokee were concentrated in towns and villages
scattered throughout much of present-day western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and
portions of Georgia and South Carolina. Although the late eighteenth century was marked by a
general shift to a more dispersed settlement pattern (Dickens 1976), some nucleated settlements
remained in the region into the nineteenth century. Although some Cherokees resisted changes to
their traditional lifestyles, the early nineteenth century witnessed the increasing acculturation of
many Cherokee, largely a result of increasing contact and intermarriage with white traders and
settlers.
The eighteenth century also brought the continuous arrival of Europeans and the resulting loss of
Cherokee lands. With the signing of the Treaty of Hopewell in 1785, the Cherokee lost their
lands east of the Blue Ridge (Mooney 1900). Subsequent treaties in 1791, 1798, 1817, and 1819
resulted in the ceding of much of the remainder of present-day western North Carolina to the U.S.
Government. These treaties were intended to encourage the Cherokee to migrate west of the
Mississippi River to Arkansas. Most of the remaining Cherokee land claims in North Carolina
were abolished with the signing of the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, which set in motion the
forced removal of most of the remaining Cherokee in 1838 to lands in present-day Oklahoma
(Mooney 1900).
There were few white settlers along the rugged mountainous Tuckasegee River and its tributaries.
The earliest migrated to the area after the Cherokee removal in 1838. As with much of the
E4-4
Duke Power
West Fork Project
region, settlers in the Project vicinity were predominantly of Scotch-Irish descent, along with
Pennsylvania Germans, Virginians, and North Carolinians.
Jackson County was formed from portions of neighboring Macon and Haywood counties in 1851,
and was named for former President Andrew Jackson. Sylva became the county seat in 1913.
E4.2
National Register of Historic Places Eligibility
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that FERC take into
account the effects of its relicensing decision on historic properties, and to allow the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on FERC's
relicensing decision.
To meet these requirements, a thorough review of the history and
architecture of Project structures was required along with evaluations and recommendations for
properties meeting the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
According to 36 CFR 60.4 sites are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP if “The quality of
significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” Generally, only properties that are at least 50
years old are eligible for listing, although properties less than 50 years old, which are
exceptionally important, may be considered.
If a site meets the above standards, it must also meet one of the four criteria below to be eligible
for the NRHP:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or
B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.”
E4.2.1
Archaeological Resources
Only two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within a one-mile radius of Lake
Glenville. One site is situated on a terrace above Mill Creek. This site has a prehistoric
E4-5
Duke Power
West Fork Project
component, but no site form could be located. The other site is situated on a terrace above the
north side of Jenkins Lake near the confluence of Cedar Creek with Lake Glenville. Hiram
Wilburn reported this site in 1937 as the location of a possible mound. No artifacts were
recovered, but the possible mound was described as 18 ft tall with an ovoid base.
A Phase I archeological survey was conducted within the Project study area in December 2001
(TRC Garrow Associates, Inc. 2002). Seven new archaeological sites and twelve isolated finds
were identified within the Project study area. In general, the sites are represented by a low
density of cultural material scattered across the ground surface, with no subsurface integrity.
None of these sites contains intact subsurface deposits or represents a significant cultural
resource. All 19 sites are recommended not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) and no further archaeological investigation of these resources is recommended in
association with this project.
E4.2.2
Historical Resources
In 2001, the Project structures were assessed for their eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP
(Thomason and Associates 2001). Each structure was field inspected to determine its components,
to evaluate its architectural or engineering significance, and to assess its degree of integrity.
Extensive historical research was conducted on these hydroelectric facilities and the overall history
of hydropower in the state, at the archives of Duke Power in Franklin, North Carolina, and at the
State Archives in Raleigh.
Generally, hydroelectric power plants can be significant under NRHP criteria A, B, and C. These
facilities will most often have the potential to be significant under NRHP criterion A in the
categories of Commerce, Engineering, Military, Industry, and Social History.
Under NRHP
criterion B, hydroelectric power plants may be significant for their association with a master
builder, architect, engineer, or person of particular influence or vision. Hydroelectric power plants
may also be significant under criterion C for their architectural design or engineering components.
The Project consists of the Thorpe Powerhouse, dam, and associated buildings and structures
completed in 1942, and the Tuckasegee Dam and powerhouse built in 1949. In 1994, the Thorpe
Powerhouse and the adjacent worker's housing were deemed potentially eligible for the NRHP, and
placed on the Study List following a survey of Macon County. These properties were considered
eligible under criterion A and C for their historical and architectural significance. In addition, the
E4-6
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Thorpe Dam Complex Historic District was determined eligible for the National Register in 1999.
This complex includes the dam and associated gatehouses. The current assessment concurs with
these assessments and concludes that the Thorpe Powerhouse, dam, pipelines, tunnels, and
gatehouses meet NRHP criterion A and C.
The Thorpe Dam is also significant in the category of Engineering for its overall design. This earth
and rock dam was the first in the nation to utilize safety fuse plugs at its spillway entrance. The
Thorpe Powerhouse is significant under criterion C as a notable example of an electrical
powerhouse of its period. Designed with the influence of the Gothic Revival style, the building is
similar to other powerhouses in the region. The Thorpe Worker's Housing, not located within the
Thorpe Project boundary, also retains sufficient integrity to meet registration requirements. The
water pipelines and tunnels connecting the powerhouse and dam also meet registration requirements
for the NRHP. These structures are integral to the operation of the Project, and the steel pipeline
and tunnels appear much as they did when they were built, and retain integrity of their original
design.
The Tuckasegee Development does not meet the criteria of the NRHP. This plant and dam lack any
demonstrable significance under NRHP criteria A or C.
The NRHP assessment report recommending the Thorpe structures as eligible was submitted to the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) on November 8, 2001. If the Thorpe
structures are ultimately determined to be eligible for the NRHP, a Historic Properties Management
Plan will be developed for the Project.
E4.3
Cultural Resources Management Framework
E4.3.1
Federal Management
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established a comprehensive program to
preserve the historical and cultural foundations of the United States as a living part of community
life. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to identify and assess the effects of their
actions on historic resources. The responsible agency must consult with appropriate state and
local officials, Indian tribes, applicants for federal assistance, and members of the public and
consider their views and concerns about historic resource issues when making final project
decisions. Concerns are resolved by mutual agreement, usually among the affected state’s State
Historic Preservation Officer and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, the federal agency,
E4-7
Duke Power
West Fork Project
and any other involved parties. Section 106 applies when two criteria are met: there is a federal
or federally licensed action, including grants, licenses, and permits, and that action has the
potential to affect properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), established by NHPA, is an independent
federal agency that provides a forum for influencing federal activities, programs, and policies as
they affect historic resources. ACHP oversees the Section 106 review process, and provides
guidance on the process and mediates controversial cases as needed. The 20-member ACHP is
made up of appointees from the general public, historic preservation experts, Native Americans,
and state and local elected officials. In addition, federal agency heads are members of the ACHP,
including the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior. The United States Forest
Service and National Park Service have management guidelines for historic resources on lands
they administer.
The USFS Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests guides all heritage
published in 1994.
The plan includes specific goals, recovery objectives, and standards in the protection of heritage
resources (i.e., Native American religious sites, cultural areas) within Forest Service lands
(USDA-USFS 1994). These include in general:
The protection of heritage resources through inventory, disturbance avoidance, prescribed
mitigation measures, permit issuance, protecting properties for ceremonial and religious
purposes, maintaining the appropriate confidentiality of known cultural sites; and eliminating
conflicts between Native Americans ceremonies and other forest uses;
Fostering public use and enjoyment of heritage resources;
Nominating significant heritage resources to the National Register of Historic Places;
Protecting all listed or eligible for listing sites;
Ensuring that all land permits, contracts, and other forest use authorizations contain adequate
protection measures; and
E4-8
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Consulting with other federal, state, and Native American agencies for survey, evaluation,
and protection measures.
E4.3.2
State Management
State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), were established in response to the NHPA. The
SHPO has the official responsibility for a number of functions aimed at the preservation of
significant historic properties within individual states. Those functions include identifying and
maintaining inventories of culturally significant properties, nominating properties to the NRHP,
conducting Section 106 reviews of federal actions, and conducting educational programs on the
importance of preserving historic properties. The NCSHPO is North Carolina’s lead agency
responsible for the state’s historic resources.
E4.3.3
Tribal Management
In 1992 the U.S. Congress adopted amendments to the NHPA (P.L. 102-575) that allow federally
recognized Indian tribes to take on more formal responsibility for the preservation of significant
historic resources on tribal lands. Specifically, Section 101(d)(2) allows tribes to assume any or
all of the functions of a State Historic Preservation Officer with respect to tribal land (see Section
E4.3.2). The decision to participate or not rests with the tribe. The Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians has formally assumed the responsibilities of SHPO on their tribal lands. Federal agencies
must also consult with Indian tribes that attach religious and cultural significance to historic
properties, regardless of their location.
E4.3.4
The FERC’s list of comprehensive plans, dated April 2002, lists several management and land
specific to, or in the same geographic region as the Duke Power-Nantahala Area projects. There
are no FERC approved cultural resource comprehensive plans listed for North Carolina or the
general project area.
E4-9
Duke Power
E4.4
West Fork Project
Summary of Agency Consultation
E4.4.1
Section 106 Consultation
A preliminary assessment of the cultural resources within the Project area was presented as part
Duke Power consulted with the NCSHPO, United States Forest Service (USFS), the Eastern Band
of Cherokee Indians (EBCI), the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and the Cherokee
Nation of Oklahoma concerning cultural resources potentially affected by the Project.
In
association with the review of the FSCD, First Stage Consultation comments were received from
the various agencies. Copies of this correspondence can be found in Volume II. A summary of
the comments and the associated Duke actions is as follows:
1)
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources; State Historic Preservation Office, Mr.
David L. S. Brook (Administrator), letter to Ms. Pamela Boaze, President, Fish and Wildlife
Associates, Inc., dated December 16, 1999.
The NCSHPO stated that there may be unrecorded archeological sites present along the
shoreline of Lake Glenville and recommended that Duke Power conduct a Phase I
archeological survey along the shoreline of Lake Glenville. The NCSHPO also stated that
there are no known archaeological sites located within the flood pool or shoreline of the other
Project reservoir or likely to be found there.
The NCSHPO also recommended that Duke Power assess the affects of erosion on any
archeological sites found
The NCSHPO also recommended that Duke Power assess the probability of additional
archeological sites within the Project flood pool and make recommendations for future
surveys should drawdowns occur.
Duke Response: A Phase I archaeological assessment, that incorporates the above mentioned
items, was conducted for the West Fork Project. A summary of that survey is provided in this
section of the Exhibit E.
2)
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources; State Historic Preservation Office, Mr.
David L. S. Brook (Administrator), letter to Ms. Pamela Boaze, President, Fish and Wildlife
Associates, Inc., dated June 16, 2000
E4-10
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The NCSHPO recommended that Duke Power assess the Project structures for NRHP
eligibility.
Duke Response: A Phase I archaeological assessment and Project structure NRHP eligibility
survey, which incorporates the above mentioned items, was conducted for the West Fork Project.
A summary of those surveys is provided in this section of the Exhibit E.
3)
The USFS requested that Duke Power complete a Cultural Resource Management Plan for
the Project. Consult with NCSHPO, American Indians, and USFS to prepare these plans.
Duke Power was requested to complete studies on the Project structures to determine
eligibility for the NRHP.
Duke Power was requested to complete heritage resource surveys and determinations of
NRHP eligibility of sites along the shorelines and adjacent areas being used/impacted by
recreationists/fishers.
Complete surveys and determination of eligibility for areas that
become exposed during times of lower water levels.
Duke Power was requested to determine impacts to cultural resource sites from Project
operation. Document effects from wave action and water level changes, as well as from
recreational use and looting. Develop and implement mitigation plan for significant sites that
are being adversely affected.
Duke Power was requested to develop public interpretation for site protection and for visitor
enjoyment.
Duke Power was also requested to complete heritage resource surveys and determinations of
eligibility along all access routes and power distribution lines to and from the Project.
survey (Power Plant Historic Assessment), which incorporates many of the above mentioned
items, was conducted for the West Fork Project. A summary of those surveys is provided in this
section of the Exhibit E. A Historic Properties Management Plan for the Project has been
proposed as part of the Consensus Agreement (see Section E4.8). In addition, since the access
roads and power distribution lines are largely outside the FERC Project boundary, surveys of
those corridors were not conducted.
E4-11
Duke Power
4)
West Fork Project
United States Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Ms. Malka Pattison,
letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Relicensing Project Manager,
dated June 22, 2000.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs requested that Duke Power identify the appropriate “area of
potential effect” for cultural resources in consultation with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee
Indians.
The Bureau of Indian affairs requested an opportunity to review and comment on a draft
Programmatic Agreement or Cultural Resource Management Plan developed for the Project.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs also suggested that Duke Power consult with the NPS when
developing the required report on historic and archeological resources.
survey (Power Plant Historic Assessment), which incorporates many of the above mentioned
items, was conducted for the West Fork Project. A summary of those surveys is provided in this
section of the Exhibit E. A Historic Properties Management Plan for the Project has been
proposed as part of the Consensus Agreement (see Section E4.8).
E4.4.2
A preliminary assessment of the cultural resources within the Project area was presented as part
In association with the review of the study plans, no additional comments were received from
various agencies.
E4.5
Cultural Resource Studies
E4.5.1
Previous Cultural Resource Studies
The University of North Carolina conducted extensive archeological surveys in the 1960s in the
Appalachian Summit region during the Cherokee Project. These studies focused on developing a
prehistoric cultural chronology and determining the origins of Cherokee culture in western North
Carolina. These investigations included the Tuckasegee site (31Jk12) in Jackson County.
In the 1970's and early 1980's, surveys and excavations were conducted in the area by
archeologists from Western Carolina University, Appalachian State University, the University of
E4-12
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Tennessee, and the Archeology Branch of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History
(see Legacy Associates, Inc. 2002 for citations). Archeological studies on USFS lands also
represent a large portion of the published work for Jackson County (see Legacy Associates, Inc.
2002 for citations).
E4.5.2
Relicensing Studies
During the relicensing consultation process, several agencies recommended that cultural resource
surveys be conducted in association with the Project. A summary of these studies is provided
below and these studies can be found in their entirety on the Duke Power-Nantahala Area
E4.5.2.1
NRHP Assessment
The NCSHPO recommended in a letter dated 16 June 2000 that Duke Power assess the Project
structures for eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP. Thomason and Associates (2001) conducted
the draft NRHP assessment of the Project structures and recommended that Thorpe Powerhouse,
dams, pipeline, tunnels, and associated gatehouses are eligible for the NRHP (see Section E4.2.2).
The Tuckasegee Powerhouse and dam did not meet NRHP criteria. A report summarizing the
NRHP Assessment was submitted to NCSHPO, USFS and EBCI on November 8, 2001. If the
Thorpe Development structures are ultimately determined to be eligible for the NRHP, a Historic
Properties Management Plan will be developed for the Project (see Section E4.8).
E4.5.2.2
Phase I Archeological Survey
A Phase I archeological survey was conducted along Lake Glenville in December 2001 (TRC
Garrow Associates, Inc. 2002). This study is summarized below.
Methods
Background Research
Background data on the environment, prehistory, and history of the tract and region, as well as on
previous archeological investigations in the area were obtained from a variety of previously
published environmental, archeological, and historical studies. In addition, various agencies,
repositories, and individuals were contacted for relevant information. Agencies and repositories
contacted included the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, North Carolina State
Archives and Library, and North Carolina Collection at the University of North Carolina–Chapel
Hill. Consultations also were held with other archeologists familiar with the region, including
Brett Riggs of UNC-Chapel Hill, David Moore of Warren Wilson College, and Rodney Snedeker
E4-13
Duke Power
West Fork Project
of the National Forests in North Carolina in Asheville. Pre-inundation maps were also examined
to identify potential historic site locations (the former town of Glenville [Hamburg] lies
submerged below the lake).
Field Investigations
The survey strategy was dictated by the ruggedness of terrain, the current lake level, and the
boundaries of Duke Power’s property. Initially, a visual inspection was made of the entire length
of the Lake Glenville shoreline by boat. The shoreline was divided into “Survey Areas” defined
by physical characteristics such as slope, soil, and landform types. All areas characterized by 15
percent slope or greater were visually inspected by boat for habitable areas, possible rock shelters,
or the remains of historic structures. Areas characterized by less than 15 percent slope and
greater than 50 percent surface visibility were subject to intensive pedestrian survey. This
consisted of walking systematic transects parallel to the shoreline, looking for prehistoric or
historic period artifacts, structural remains, and other indications of archaeological sites. These
transects were spaced no greater than 20 m apart and reduced to 3 m when sites were identified.
The areas with less than 15 percent slope account for approximately seven miles (less than 27
percent) of the approximately 26-mile shoreline affected by the draw down. The field surveys
were conducted from December 3rd through December 17th, 2001.
Archaeological sites were defined as occurrences of three or more artifacts within a discrete
locale, and/or localities that exhibited evidence of intact surface or subsurface cultural features.
Occurrences of fewer than three artifacts were designated as isolated finds and sufficient
investigation was made to verify the isolated nature of these occurrences. Limited shovel testing
was conducted in select non-site areas where alluvial or colluvial deposits were evident. These
tests were excavated in accordance with North Carolina guidelines; at intervals of 30 m,
measuring about 35 cm in diameter, and excavated to sterile subsoil or a depth of at least 65 cm.
Delineation and evaluation of archaeological sites with greater than 50 percent surface visibility
was accomplished through the use of both visual inspection and the excavation of at least two
shovel test pits (STPs) in order to determine the impact of erosion on the site. Each shovel test
was excavated through the A horizon and at least 5 cm into the subsoil, or to a maximum depth of
65 cm, in potential alluvial or colluvial settings. The walls of each pit were inspected for
artifacts, features, and other indications of an archeological site, and the soil removed was
screened through one-quarter-inch mesh hardware cloth. Each test was described by depth,
E4-14
Duke Power
West Fork Project
stratigraphy, artifact recovery, and soil texture and Munsell color in field notebooks, and the
locations of key shovel tests and sites were placed on detailed 1:500 scale plan sheets. Any
artifacts recovered were placed in a clearly labeled plastic zippered bag. A site sketch map was
prepared for each site showing the location of each shovel test and any other significant features,
and the site and its limits were entered on the study map. Site and isolated find locations were
recorded with the use of a Magellan™ MAP 330 GPS unit using the North Carolina State Plane
NAD 83 datum. The error range of the receiver is estimated to be within 15 m. Most GPS points
are centroids of smaller sites. Points were obtained for the center of each site. Each site was
photographed, and general notes were taken concerning site condition and potential.
Artifact Analysis
Following completion of fieldwork, all artifacts were returned to TRC’s Columbia facility for
cleaning and analysis. Initially, the artifacts were washed so that they could be further processed
and analyzed.
The artifacts then were classified and catalogued according to regionally
appropriate typologies, and the collection from each site was analyzed to determine the
prehistoric or historic components present and the range of materials and activities represented.
Lithic debitage was categorized using the criteria set forth by Sullivan and Rozen (1985). Lithic
tools were classified according to raw material and tool type based on morphology, and hafted
bifaces were assigned to recognized types when possible. No functional or use-wear analysis was
performed.
Historic artifacts were classified according to published artifact descriptions such as Noël Hume
(1969) and South (1977). Ceramic artifacts were classified according to type (i.e. pearlware,
whiteware, ironstone), and any decoration present was described. Rim and base fragments were
identified. Glass items were classified according to function or shape and color. Rim and base
fragments were identified.
Any additional detail evident was noted, such as embossing or
labeling. Metal objects were classified by function where possible. Brick fragments were noted
on the surface but did not appear to be associated with a feature and were not collected.
Assessing Site Significance and Recommendations
A final step in the analysis involved assessing the significance of the identified sites and
developing recommendations for further work. Site significance was assessed in accordance with
the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36CFR 60.4). Several factors were considered in
assessing site significance and research potential, including artifact variety and quantity, site
E4-15
Duke Power
West Fork Project
clarity and integrity, and environmental context (Glassow 1977), as well as potential for
providing data concerning locally, regionally, or nationally relevant research topics.
Curation
All written records, photographs, and project materials are currently being stored on a temporary
basis at the TRC facility in Durham, North Carolina. The permanent curation repository of all
project materials and collections will be the Museum of the Cherokee Indian. Curation reparation
will follow the guidelines of the OSA.
Results
Only two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within a one-mile radius of Lake
Glenville. One site is situated on a terrace above Mill Creek. This site has a prehistoric
component, but no site form could be located. The other site is situated on a terrace above the
north side of Jenkins Lake near the confluence of Cedar Creek with Lake Glenville. This site was
reported by Hiram Wilburn in 1937 as the location of a possible mound. No artifacts were
recovered, but the possible mound was described as 18 ft tall with an ovoid base. Very little
archaeological survey work has been conducted in the Project area, and no sites were previously
recorded along the shoreline of Lake Glenville.
During this survey, seven new archaeological sites (31JK385/385**, 31JK386/386**,
31JK387/387**, 31JK388**, 31JK389/389**, 31JK390**, 31JK391/391**) and twelve isolated
finds (31JK394** and 31JK395–405) were identified within the study area. In general, the sites
are represented by a low density of cultural material scattered across the ground surface, with no
subsurface integrity. None of these sites contains intact subsurface deposits or represents a
significant cultural resource. All 19 sites are recommended not eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) and no further archaeological investigation of these resources is
recommended in association with this project. The results of this survey are discussed in more
detail in TRC Garrow Associates, Inc. 2002.
E4.5.3
Proposed Studies
No additional cultural resource studies are proposed for the Project.
E4.6
Project Effects on Cultural Resources from Continued Project Operation
Although there are several known archeological sites located within the Project area and several
of the Project structures are considered eligible for the NRHP, continued Project operation is
E4-16
Duke Power
West Fork Project
unlikely to affect these cultural resources because no major changes in Project operation are
proposed. However, future drawdowns that exceed the present level (ten vertical feet below full
pool elevation) could expose additional archaeological sites.
Land exposed at lower lake
elevations could reveal more historic structures depicted on the NP&L West Fork property maps
and associated artifact remains. Lower drawdowns could also expose landforms not examined
during relicensing surveys that are conducive for prehistoric archaeological sites. Therefore,
additional survey work is recommended if future planned drawdowns are five or more vertical
feet below current drawdown levels.
Changes in Project operations have been proposed as part of the PM&E measures associated with
the Consensus Agreement (see Sections E1.13 and E4.8 and Volume III). These changes are
designed to enhance and/or protect existing resources and are unlikely to negatively affect
cultural resources. For example, based on the proposed Consensus Agreement, the Normal
Target Elevation = the lake level that Duke will endeavor in good faith to achieve, unless
operating in the Low Inflow or Hydro Project Maintenance & Emergency Protocol (see Section
E1.13). These target operational lake levels will alleviate any lake drawdowns and the exposure
of potential cultural resources.
E4.7
Existing Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
In association with the Project, there are no existing protection, mitigation, and enhancement
measures for cultural resources.
E4.8
The following cultural and historic resource related PM&E’s have been proposed for the West
Fork Projects. On May 16, 2003, a Consensus Agreement was signed by the Primary Members
of the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team. The primary members and the organizations
they represent who agree in consensus will work toward conversion of the Consensus Agreement
into a Settlement Agreement by September 15, 2002. A copy of the entire Consensus Agreement,
signed on May 16, 2003, is provided in Volume III.
E4-17
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Cultural Resources
1.
HPMP - Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the West Fork
Project to ensure that significant cultural resources within the FERC Project boundary are
documented and protected to the extent required by state and tribal historic preservation
offices.
2.
Historic Properties Management Plan to be developed and implemented within 2 years
following FERC issuance of the new license and the closure of all legal challenge
periods.
Lake Levels
E4-18
Duke Power
1.
West Fork Project
Month
Normal
Normal Target
Normal
Minimum
Elevation (ft)
Maximum
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Jan
85
90
94
Feb
85
90
94
Mar
88
91
94
Apr
90
93
96
May
95
97
99
Jun
95
97
99
Jul
95
97
99
Aug
93
95
98
Sep
90
93
94
Oct
90
93
94
Nov
86
90
94
Dec
85
90
94
2.
3.
E4-19
Duke Power
E4.8
West Fork Project
List of Literature
Anderson, D.G. 1990. The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from
the Southeastern United States. In Research in Economic Anthropology, edited by JAI Press,
Inc., pp. 163–216, Supplement 5. Greenwich, Connecticut.
Claggett, S.R., and J.S. Cable. 1982. The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two
Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont.
Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson,
Michigan. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Cowan, C.W. 1985. Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America:
Lessons from Botany, Ethnography, and Archaeology. In Prehistoric Food Production in North
America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 205–243. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dickens, R.S. 1976. Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region.
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Ford, R.I. 1981. Gathering and Farming before A.D. 1000: Patterns of Prehistoric Cultivation
North of Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 1:6-27.
Glassow, M.
1977.
Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources.
American Antiquity 42:413-420.
Griffin, J.B. 1967. Eastern North America Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175–191.
Keel, B.C. 1976. Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Legacy Research Associates, Inc. 2002. Archeological Survey and Evaluation for the West Fork
Hydroelectric Project (Thorpe Lake): Jackson County, North Carolina.
Unpublished report
prepared for Duke Power, Charlotte, NC.
Mathis, M. 1979. General Settlement Models. In North Carolina Statewide Archaeological
Survey: Introduction and Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe
E4-20
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Counties, North Carolina, assembled by Mark Mathis, pp. 24-37. North Carolina Archaeological
Council, Raleigh.
Meltzer, D.J., and B.D. Smith. 1986. Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in
Eastern North America. In Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and
Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 3–31. Occasional Paper
No. 6. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Mooney, J. 1900. Myths of the Cherokee. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology, 1897–1898, Pt. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Noel Hume, I. 1969. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Vintage Books, New York, NY.
Purrington, B.L. 1983. Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of
North Carolina’s Western Mountain Range. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An
Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83–160. North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Smith, B.D. 1989. Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566–1571.
Smith, M.T.
1987.
Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
South, S. 1977. Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York,
NY.
Sullivan, A.P., and K.C. Rozen. 1985. Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation.
American Antiquity 50(4): 755-779.
Thomason and Associates. 2001. National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Study of Seven
Hydroelectric Projects in the Nantahala Area, North Carolina. Unpublished Report Prepared for
Duke Power, Nashville, Tennessee.
E4-21
Duke Power
West Fork Project
TRC Garrow Associates, Inc. 2002. Phase I Archeological Survey of the Thorpe Lake (Lake
Glenville) Shoreline for the West Fork Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2686): Jackson
County, North Carolina. Unpublished report prepared for Duke Power, Charlotte, NC.
Ward, H.T. 1983. A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of
Change. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M.
Mathis and J. Crow, pp. 53–81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of
Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Ward, H.T., and R.P.S. Davis, Jr. 1999. Time before History: The Archaeology of North
Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and London.
Yarnell, R.A., and M.J. Black. 1985. Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and
Woodland Plant Food Remains from Southeastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology
4(2):93–102.
E4-22
Duke Power
E5.0
West Fork Project
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.51(f), Duke has prepared this report on the recreational resources
Description of the general recreational resources;
Description of the existing recreation use in the Project area;
E5.1
Introduction
The Nantahala Region of North Carolina is mountainous being near the southern extent of the
Appalachian Mountain chain (i.e., Blue Ridge). The geographic area surrounding the Project area
has limited numbers of year round residents, with an average county population of 67.5 people
per square mile. Most of the population tends to be located in small village centers in valleys and
other level areas of the region.
While the study area is rural and mountainous in character, it is located within 200 miles of some
major population centers (i.e., 175 miles from Chattanooga, TN; 160 miles from Atlanta, GA;
195 miles from Charlotte, NC). The Projects’ proximity to these population areas coupled with
the resources available (e.g., lakes, whitewater) serve to attract recreational users, with the peak
generally occurring during the summer months.
Some portions of the region also provide
seasonal retreats in which people locate during the summer and relocate to Florida and other
warmer areas during the winter months. Recreational use by full-time residents appears to focus
on fishing, swimming, sightseeing, and biking (NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources 1995).
This introductory section details the regional recreation opportunities available, both land and
water based, that are within approximately 50 miles of the Project area. Section E5.2 provides
the available project area-specific resources.
E5-1
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E5.1.1
National Forests, Parks and Reservations in the Vicinity of the Project
Two national forests, one national park, and Indian landholdings are located in close proximity to
the West Fork Project area. Table E5.1-1 provides information on the proximity of these national
forests or parks to the Project area. Figure E5.1-1 shows the location of national forests and parks
in close proximity to the Project.
Table E5.1-1.National Forests, Parks, and Reservations Located Within a 50-Mile Radius of the West
Fork Project
Approximate Distance
National Forest, Park, or Reservation
(in direct miles; not road miles)
Nantahala National Forest
2
Pisgah National Forest
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
10
22
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians Reservation
15
Nantahala National Forest
Although the West Fork Project area is within the Nantahala National Forest, no National Forest
lands are directly adjacent to Project facilities. The closest National Forest lands are within
approximately 2-miles.
The Nantahala National Forest was established in 1920 under the
authority of the Weeks Act, the intent of which was to provide for timber production and to
regulate the flow of navigable streams. Today, the Forest is managed under the design of
sustainable natural resource management while promoting the interests of a multiple use
ecosystem (http://www.franklin-chamber.com/nantahala.html).
Nantahala National Forest is located in the western mountains of North Carolina. It stretches
from the tri-state border of North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia to Balsam, North Carolina in
the northeast corner. Nantahala National Forest is home to approximately 30 formal recreation
sites that provide a multitude of outdoor recreation opportunities such as camping, hiking,
E5-2
1
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
2
Jackson County
3
Lake Glenville
Rd
.
ek
R
4
5
d.
Gr as sy
Fr
ed
Cre
Sm
it h
Macon
County
es
tF
o rk
Tu
c
ka s
e ge
e Ri
v er
NC
10
Fr
ed
Sm
i th
Rd
.
W
7
Grassy Creek
y
a ss
Gr
R
eek
Cr
d.
66 KV
66 KV
161 KV
We st Fo rk Tuckasege e River
NC 1
07
NC 1
G ra s
s y Cree k
07
TU C K A S E
GE
i ll ag
e Rd
.
IR
VO
ER
F
or
V
Th
S
RE
es
t
or
pe
E
W
kT
10
ee
r
ve
Ri
NC
eg
as
7
k
uc
Dick
son
NC
Dou
107
Thorp
e
Dr.
Fortre
ss
M t. R
Cree
k
d.
ble
HD
NC
10
7
r.
Th o
d.
rpe R
Figure E5.1-1. Location of Features
in the Vicinity of the Project Area.
Tuc
k
as egee River
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Sheet 1 of 5
rk
st
Fo
NC
10
66 KV
We
7
Full Pond
500
0
500
Tunnel Pipe
Feet
Pipe
Project Structures
R iv
rR
il l Rd.
B ridg e M
e
i d ge
P rkwy.
ve
R
r
oo
.
Ln
Public Access Area
Ri
o
To o G o D
7
ek
Cre
NC 10
ssy
G ra
id g e Prk
w y.
Granad a D
r.
Project Waters
Disclaimer:
1
i d ge
ve
R
o
To o G o D
r
w y.
Granad a D
r.
Jackson County
3
k
ree
it D
Lake Glenville
r.
kR
re e
Riv e r Ridg
e
Macon
County
P
rkwy.
Tr
ou
tC
NC 107
.
Ln
id g e Pr k
Su mm
u
ut C
Tro
s t Fo r k T
We
e gee River
c k as
oo
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
2
P rk wy.
Ri
NC 10
e
7
R iv
rR
i ll Rd.
Brid ge M
4
d.
d.
Cul
hee
For
Tr ou t C
re
est
R
d.
r.
Sta
lo
wh
e
e
5
re
ek
Rd
.
Trou
tC
Fi v
e
Cu
l
te D
C
reek
Betsy Br anch
Par
ach
u
r.
est Rd.
rD
d.
kR
Cul lowhee For
NC 107
e
Cr e
Parachute Dr.
F
es
or
r ee
eR
iver
k
t
7
e
seg
10
a
West For k Tu c k
NC
ns
C
s t Fork Tu
c k a gee R
se
iver
d.
tR
Co
ggi
ts y
Be
66 K
V
We
Br
c
an
h
l
Shoa
k
Cree
gg
Co
ins
Cr
eek
Bet s y
Br
an
ch
7
58
10
11
NC
NC
W es t Fork Tu cka se gee River
NC
NC
11
11
58
58
t
es
W
Fo
r
kT
Ru n
u
ck
a se
iver
oa
ge e
R
Sh
h
Roug
reek
lC
Rough Run
Rd.
H
o
St
h
ep
Sh
se
or
7
d
er
m
H
e
ig
p in
g Br.
d.
ts R
e ig h
lH
Re
s tf
u
.
s Rd
ht
We
st F
o rk
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Sheet 2 of 5
Tu
ckas
eg
ra il
ee
Ri
ve
r
Full Pond
Tunnel Pipe
di a
oa
Ar
T ea rd
ro p Ln.
Sloan Rd.
k
ree
al C
Sho
Project Structures
Public Access Area
ay
Pin
d.
7
k
ree
al C
Sho
ree
kR
NC 1 0
eC
n
ek
re
0
500
Feet
Pipe
W
Pi
C
ne
.
Rd
500
Sloan
Ru
k y R id ge
NC 10
Sm o
Galloi ng Goph er T
C oggi
ns
Cu
ll
low
ar Dr.
Fi ve St
ow
h
ee
tR
t
ou
Tr ek
r es
Fo
Project Waters
Disclaimer:
u cka
se
ge
eR
ive
Galloing G oph er T
rai
kT
r
k
ree
T ea rd
d
oa
Ar
ro p Ln.
Sloan Rd.
al C
Sho
1
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
2
W
ia
Pin
d.
Macon
County
Jackson County
3
Lake Glenville
4
Sm
ok y
k
ree
Rid
ge
Rd
.
7
al C
Sho
ree
kR
NC 1 0
eC
n
.
Rd
Sloan
Ru
k
ee
ay
n
Pi
r
eC
Pine Creek
Access Area
ou
nt
Pin
R d.
M
re
ek
eC
ou
nt
ai
n
Tr
ail
Ar
.
R
u
Pa r
o
rib
e ws
ndr
d.
Wo
od
sM
Rd
.
ph A
il l
nt
ain
Rd
ree k
y
S hoa l C
rr
A n dre
ws Pa
rk
Ral
ds
wb
e
H
ou
7
St
ra
Ga p Rd.
M
Shepe rd Dr.
Rd.
R al ph
Sh
ep
he
r
NC 1 0
ods
r ail
reek
ro
w
nT
C
Pine
nt
ou
Low Water
Access Area
ou
Sheperd Dr.
.
M
Woods M
il
ai
nt
Rd
h
Pat
ad
he
ain
a
Tr
.
ar k Rd
ai n
Pi
n
Whi te Roc k
P
Bt
ou
nt
Ca
d.
e
li f
ou
ib
d.
kR
d.
Ralph Andrews Park
n
Pi
e
Cr
ee
d.
kR
eC
y
an
Gr
n
Pi
Shepherds Gap Rd.
il
ra
nT
ai
ee
kR
7
ou
.
Rd
ill
10
at e
r
C
.
Ln
yH
Cr
err
e
W
b
raw
d.
ry s on Rd.
e
cl
ir
St
n.
B
.
Rd
o
od
sM
L
vine
rt
be
Ro
il
Tra
n
vi
eL
n.
i ll
G
p
ra
Rd
.
in
H
rr
y
St
r ton Rd.
ra
wb
e
No
Wo
rth
ods
No
n ta
ou
M
k
ree
Q uie
tW
Lake Glenville
al C
Sho
e
eek
n
Pi
k
ee
Cr
eek
Pi n e Cr
Grap
NC
d.
ek
Cre
Pi ne
nt
n
Pi
R
Cr
.
Rd
k
re e
tle P
in e
ek
re
eC
P in
Ro ber t
Bry s o n
.
Rd
L ak
NC 1 1
56
esid
eC
ircle
D r.
on Rd.
La go
d.
le
D
r.
d.
ool R
ille Sch
Glenv
ool R
d.
e S ch
Rd
.
oi n
t
Project Waters
v il l
r.
D
d
Un
R d.
Public Parks (e.g. city,
on
nR
d.
.
Rd
k
ee
Disclaimer:
Cr
e
e
This map is for internal planning purposes only. The data
conr
eT
tained herein was generated from a Geographic Information
Be
System (GIS) and is not intended
to be survey quality. All inford.
R
and been checked with data made availaregional, etc.) mation on this map Rhas
ble to and generated by Orbis GIS, Inc. Duke Energy and Orbis
La
k es
no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, and completeid e
Cir ness represented herein.
cle
Dr
.
Gl
en
Norton Rd.
k
ree
Mi
ll C
Public Access Area
No
rt
rt o
Project Structures
Feet
07
r.
No
r.
Pipe
NC 1
D
nt.
h
a
500
n
R d.
M
rt
No
d.
le
Tunnel Pipe
D
al
0
Ra
i ll
dH
iv a
kR
500
irc
pt
ree
La
k
l
ke T r
ai
C
Lakesi de
n Rd.
Full Pond
ll P
o rto
th N
Sheet 3 of 5
St i
e
N or
Ca
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Wil d Ch
e r r y Way La
B l u e Be r y
W
l
T rai
56
r
Rd.
11
r y Hill
be r
aw
ay
esi
.
NC
Rd
Str
Mi
ll C
de
C
ton
irc
N or
Ad m
N orth
i ra l
Dr
.
Hare Hol lo w R
Lak
L it
Lake s ide Ci rcle Dr.
Rd
.
ar
ree
k
Cr e
ek R
i ld
W
C
R
ain
eC
Pine
Rd.
eM
5
.
Rd
Wo
Cullo w
he
k
C re e
P ine
1
Ra
2
Dr
d.
Jackson County
k
ee
Macon
County
4
ool R
d.
Cr
Lake Glenville
5
e S ch
le
.
Rd
e
re
.
.
v il l
irc
eT
Be
Rd
no
bR
d.
66 KV
Ways id e L
n.
d
ar
.
M a ry
r ai l
D
d.
S te
in
n.
dR
d
ar
n.
Bee Tree Cree
R d.
R id
ge
Rd .
H ill
Wa
y
Cr
itte
r
Hill
R d.
Knob b
Kn ob b
W is
t er
ia
en
Ow
Mo
unt
a in
Rd
.
NC
10
7
eT
Be
47
11
NC
R d.
re
st
Tr
ai
l
Tr
NC
ai
l
1
Ced
ar C r
B ee T e e k R
r ee d.
07
k
C eda
Jolly H il l s Rd .
Toby Bryson Rd.
.
ht M
Ln
Sc
e
ni
c
kesh
La
t. R
d.
or e D
r.
Cr
e ek
D rNor t
. on
Br
i
d.
R
d.
R
Al b u
ry
n ei
t h D r.
R d.
R i dg e
Full Pond
500
0
500
Rd .
at
l
al
t M t.
Fen l ey For
es
Wh e ats
t Tr a il
ton
eD
Tunnel Pipe
Feet
r.
Tr
Pipe
l
ai
D
sy
Up
yL
a is
n.
NC 107
Brig
h
W
F
er
Cree
k
t.
o
ill
M
ht
M
H
as a n t
Ple
n C reek
r to
No
7
10
No
g
d.
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Sheet 4 of 5
NC
Fo res t Trail
ig
Br
d.
kR
.
Dr
y
nle
Lakes hor e Dr.
rC
eek
ree
r Cr
a
l n ut
Fe
r th
No
ke
La
nR
Ced
a
W
Fa
lls
C
.
Rd
k
ov
d.
B ry
son
Fo
ee
Cr
ore s
t
ley
ac
Bl
To
by
re
il
eC
re
ek
n s T ra
so
Rd.
a
Se
ur
Fo
Fe
n
F en
le y F
e
or
sh
Cr e
ek
ra
il
Tre
e
Wood Fe r n T
t
es
or
o ve
d.
Bee
Fenle y F
Fall s C
R
Ln .
Rd .
eR
k
66 KV
T
id
W
n.
d.
R
ri
Do e T r
Bi rd
e
shor
.
Rd
.
NC 1148
Sh o
be r r y L
e
Lak
n.
i ll L
r.
Lake B r e ez e D
r to
Kno
b
Br
ia r
v
Ri
ai l
i ng
yH
on
d
g
in
ores t Trail
Hu
mm
pp
Ha
Prism Ln
rt
ard
R
ay
aW
yF
Lake Glenville
Tr
ai
l
No
Riv
L
tr
es
t
ro n
W at e rf
NC 107
nle
Wi s
te
Lake Glenville
Nor th
R
St on e
ppi
ng
iev er
Ln.
Re
tr
er
ne
ss
il
ra
Fe
iL
cam
To
d.
a in R
il
ra
.
nt
ou
tT
Rd
M
le
rc
Ci
s
re
on
g
a
ou nt
ge
Sa
Fo
er
S
Rd
ey
i Ln.
m
a rd
nl
Fe
c am
To
Su
m
nM
O we
Ab
be
yL
Ow
en
n.
e Dr.
R iv
s hor
Gl en
T rl
Fe
nl
ey
Ln
c on e T
Pine
Ln.
r.
Hickory
07
Ll
oy
NC 1
Rd
dH
oop
Ol d P o s
Riv
er R
d.
tO
Old Post Off ic e R
d.
ffi
ce Rd
.
K
07
n
do
NC 1
Lon
Gl
en
ide
C
ee
ool R
Rd
.
oi n
t
ll P
St i
nd
Ra
La
k es
Tr
3
07
Glenv
ille Sch
D
r.
a
al
NC 1
.
Rd
il l
r.
c
dH
C ir
n
le
D
Un
d
e ek Rd.
C
r
Lakes ide
B ee
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
Project Structures
Public Access Area
Project Waters
w
Ne
Tr
or e
st Tra il
No
n
rt o
um Way
yF
illi
rth
No
Fe
n le
Lake Glenville
Disclaimer:
R
Tr
ra
il
ai
l
ov
Fa ll s C
sC
To
eR
.
Rd
Ced
a
Ced a
r
r Cr
l n ut
eek
C
1
Dr
.
Rd
a
Fa
ll
ove
ek
re
.
kW
Prism Ln
ac
Bl
d.
by B
rys
on
R
rest
T
Jolly Hi ll s Rd.
Toby Bryson Rd.
.
ni
c
ht M
Ln
.
t. R
d.
kes h
o re D
r.
Cr
eek
La
Sc
e
ig
Br
.
Rd
Rd .
W
at
a il
Tr
Cree
k
D
sy
Up
y
ais
i t h D r.
5
es t
Wh ea ts
Tra i l
L n.
to n
eD
r.
NC 107
Brig
h
ll
Fa
Ne
w
r e s t Tra il
8
t. R
n.
Upsy D ais y L
k e Dr.
sy
L
Wa
y
n.
.
Dr a
66 KV
Rd
M
ht
07
NC1
n
rt o
d.
No
114
B r ig
Lake Glenville
um Way
Fo
illi
Tr
NC
rth
No
F en
le y
ai
ril l
ium
D
sy
ton
Cr
ee
k
Fe nle y F ore
Ne
wT
Up
No
r
il
Tr
a
ay
W
m
te
ir r
Whit e Squ
ir
el R
d.
ay
hi
r e l Rd.
d.
pR
r t h N o r to n R d.
Whit e Du c
kW
No
Sw
i ss
.
Ln
Hi
ll t
o
No
r th
W
d.
h av en Rd.
Ho r
nR
en
tt er
re
Ma
Ne w
e
id g
Fe
n
i
ut Ri
dge R
Ch es tn
R
or
t
d.
ay
N
on R
um W
.
107
e Rd
Ridg
rail
NC
er
Shiv
onk T
No
Rd
d.
illi
Tr
Chipm
n
rto
st
u
Sq
Cr e e
k
or e
New
u
T r ill
nd
Guise Ln.
Norto
n
F
ley
Be
G
n
r to
h No
No rt
R
ut
stn
he
107
C
d.
ee
d.
Mac Lake Dr.
nR
ey B
Chape l Hill R
d.
N o rto
R
d.
R
N orth
Ho n
NC
rail
d.
st T
NC 1148
.
North
07
C1
ee
k
Cr
ton
No
r
nR
d.
West Fork Project
FERC No. 2686
Sheet 5 of 5
rth
No
il R
ur
La
rel K Cree k
Lau Ca m p
ssy
no
b
ch
an
Br
el
Hur ricane Creek
Rd .
Gra
ton
Nor
Rd .
ton
d.
Nor
nR
e ek
rt o
Cr
No
n
d.
eR
id g
r to
Do
N
n Rd .
a
Qu
No
.
Rd
m
in
i
Norto
on
No
rto
Kno
b
Fe n le y F or
t M t.
NC 1148
on Cr eek
er
rt
No
ll
Hi
as an t
Ple
ne
4
A l bu r
d.
y R i dg e R
R
d.
Br
i
t.
M
o
No
t
gh
d.
Macon
County
M
rth
r to
nR
Lake Glenville
7
10
No
ke
La
Lake s hor e Dr.
e
or
sh
Jackson County
3
NC
Rd
.
D rNo rt
. on
n
orest Trail
yF
or
to
2
n le
Fe
Nort h
N
Tuckasegee
Reservoir
Full Pond
500
0
500
Feet
Tunnel Pipe
Pipe
66 KV
Project Structures
.
Rd
Public Access Area
Project Waters
Disclaimer:
Duke Power
West Fork Project
horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, fishing, boating, canoeing, kayaking, and biking. In
addition to formal recreation facilities and amenities, Nantahala National Forest provides over
400 campsites along trails through such peaks as the Valley River Mountains, Snowbird
Mountains,
and
Tusquittee
Mountains
(http://www.gorp.com/dow/southern/nantcmp.htm;
Carolina Connections, April 2002). Table E5.1-2 provides a summary of the amenities that are
available at the Nantahala National Forest.
Table E5.1-2.
Recreation Facilities within the Nantahala National Forest
Type of Facilities
Picnic Areas
Approximate Quantity
17
Boat Launches
5
Formal Campgrounds
15
Number of Developed Campsites (including large group
406
sites)
Pisgah National Forest
Pisgah National Forest is comprised of two tracts of forestland separated by a major metropolitan
area (Asheville, North Carolina), several smaller urban development areas and Interstate 40. The
larger section of Pisgah National Forest is located north of Asheville (further away from the
project) while the smaller section is located southwest of Asheville and is within approximately
10 miles of the West Fork Project. Pisgah National Forest is home to several scenic drives
including the Forest Heritage Scenic Byway and the Blue Ridge Parkway and provides a
multitude of recreation opportunities including horseback riding, biking, camping, hiking, fishing,
and swimming on over 500,000 acres of forestland. There are 13 formal recreation sites within
the southeast section of Pisgah National Forest, all within 30 miles of the West Fork Project
(Carolina Connections, April 2002). Table E5.1-3 provides a summary of the amenities that are
available in the southern section of Pisgah National Forest.
Table E5.1-3. Recreation Facilities within the Southern Portion of Pisgah National Forest
Type of Facilities
Picnic Areas
7
Boat Launches
0
Formal Campgrounds
7
Number of Developed Campsites (including large group sites)
E5-8
306
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Great Smoky Mountains National Park serves as the backdrop for a portion of the Appalachian
Trail and is located on the border between Tennessee and North Carolina. The park covers
approximately 800 square miles of which 95 percent is forested.
Great Smoky Mountains
National Park is one of the most popular in the National Park System, receiving over 9 million
visitors annually, and charges no entrance fee for admittance (EDAW 2002).
Recreational
opportunities in the park include camping, hiking the park's more than 800 miles of trails,
picnicking, sightseeing, fishing, and swimming. Guided horseback rides are also available in
season at four horse stables in the park (http://www.nps.gov/grsm/).
There are 10 formal
campgrounds within park boundaries, each of which is within 50 miles of the West Fork Project
(Great Smoky Mountains National Park Map; http://www.wildernet.com/). Table E5.1-4 provides
a summary of the amenities that are available in that portion of the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park.
Table E5.1-4.
Recreation Facilities within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Type of Facilities
10
Picnic Areas
Boat Launches
10 (Fontana Lake)
Formal Campgrounds
10
sites)
1001
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians Reservation
The Cherokee Indian Reservation is located in western North Carolina and is home to 12,500
enrolled members of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. There are multiple cultural and
recreational attractions within the boundaries of the reservation. The Oconaluftee Indian Village
is a re-creation of a 250-year old village and serves as the backdrop for the outdoor drama
production “Unto These Hills,” shown nightly from mid-June through July. In addition, the
Reservation is home to several museums and zoos and an arts and crafts cooperative.
There are many recreational opportunities on the 56,000 acres of the Reservation. Among its
offerings are opportunities for mountain biking, hiking, tubing and rafting, and fishing. The
Cherokee landholdings are home to approximately 30 miles of regularly stocked trout streams and
three trout ponds with an open season from the end of March through the end of the following
February.
The landholdings also provide camping opportunities at 24 formal campgrounds.
E5-9
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.1-5 provides a summary of the amenities that are available within the Eastern Band of
the Cherokee Indians Reservation.
Table E5.1-5.
Reservation
Recreational Facilities within the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
Type of Facilities
Picnic Areas
Unknown
Boat Launches
Unknown
Formal Campgrounds
24
2,283
sites)
E5.1.2
Other Regional Recreation Opportunities
In addition to the National Forests, Parks and Reservations described in Section E5.1.1, there are
also several formal and undeveloped access sites along the 45 miles of the Tuckasegee River
downstream of the West Fork Project below the confluence of the West and East Forks of the
River. East LaPorte River Access is a formal access site located downstream of the confluence of
the Tuckasegee River and Caney Fork Creek. It is a Jackson County-owned multiple-use county
park and provides parking for approximately 30 vehicles, a put-in location for paddle boats,
basketball and volleyball courts, and a picnic area. In addition, the East LaPorte site provides
restroom facilities and a shelter. Lena Davis Landing is downstream of the East LaPorte River
Access in the town of Cullowhee and provides parking for 8 – 10 vehicles, carry in access for
paddle boats, and gates for whitewater slalom practice.
There are three undeveloped river access sites downstream on the Tuckasegee River between the
towns of Cullowhee and Dillsboro, NC. One undeveloped access site is located on the River
Road near an ice cream parlor, Jack the Dipper. The site is used as informal access for drift boats
and provides parking for only approximately five vehicles. Further downstream, there are various
road-side, undeveloped access points along the river. There are several access points along the
1.3-mile stretch of River Road to Webster Bridge. Parking is road-side and access is walk-in only
along the banks of the river. Likewise, there are several access points along the North River
Road between Webster Bridge and the Town of Dillsboro. Again, parking is only provided along
the road and access is walk-in only.
E5-10
Duke Power
West Fork Project
There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers, eligible for listing Wild and Scenic Rivers, or designated
wilderness areas within or adjacent to the West Fork Project area. However, the Tuckasegee
River is listed by the U.S. National Park Service on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI 2000).
From river mile 15 at Bryson City to river mile 53 at Cedar Cliff Reservoir, this water body
includes values such as diverse scenery and visual appeal, existing and significant potential for
recreational opportunities, interesting geology, significant historical sites, and high quality fish
and wildlife habitat. The NRI describes the Tuckasegee River as a scenic, natural flowing stream
that flows through the ancestral home of the Cherokee Indians (NRI 2002). They also state that
this river segment has significant potential for recreational activities (NRI 2002).
E5.2
Existing Recreational Resources and Facilities within the Project Area
There are three public access sites located within the West Fork Project boundary (Table E5.2-1).
Two areas are owned by Duke and managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission: Pine Creek Public Boat Access and a Low Water Wildlife Boating Access close to
the dam. A third access area, Ralph Andrews Park, is a 56-acre site donated to Jackson County
by Nantahala Power and Light for the development of a park.
Lake Glenville provides public access points and marinas that provide recreation opportunities
and amenities on the lake. The Pine Creek Boat Access has parking for approximately 40 – 50
vehicles with trailers. There are three ramps available for boat access, one single ramp and one
double ramp. Low water precludes the use of this site as access to the main lake.
The Low Water Wildlife Boating Access has one boat ramp with parking for approximately 30 –
45 vehicles with trailers. This site provides access to Lake Glenville in times of low water.
Ralph Andrews Park offers full RV hookups, tent camping, picnicking, hot showers and trailered
boat access to Lake Glenville. It is open from the second week in April until the last week in
October and closes at 10:00 p.m. during the operating season. The boat ramp is paved and there
are 49 campsites, a picnic area, shelter and an informal county park office. There are two sets of
restrooms and showers in the camping areas. Peak visitation to this park occurs between May
and July.
E5-11
Duke Power
West Fork Project
One marina on Lake Glenville also provides access to the water. Signal Ridge Marina is open
from March to November and provides parking on site and across the street from the marina. Use
of the boat ramp is free for members of the marina or boat rental customers. All others must pay
a $5 use fee. There is a marina store and winter storage on site, as well as, restrooms inside the
marina.
There are no developed, formal public access sites on Tuckasegee Lake. Likewise, there are no
marinas or commercial operators on Tuckasegee Lake. There are several recreation sites, access
sites, and commercial facilities downstream of the West Fork Project on the Tuckasegee River
(see Section E5.1.2).
Table E5.2-1.
Public (Non-Commercial) Recreation Sites at the West Fork Project
Characteristics and Amenities
Pine Creek Public
Low Water Wildlife
Jackson County
Boat Access
Boating Access
Ralph Andrews
Park
Location
Lake Glenville
Lake Glenville
Lake Glenville
Owner/Operator
Duke / NCWRC
Duke / NCWRC
Jackson County
No
No
No
40-50 (with trailers)
30-45 (with trailers)
20
3
1
1
Swimming Area
No
No
No
Picnic Area
No
No
Yes
Restrooms
No
No
Yes
Camping
No
No
Yes
Fees Required
Parking Capacity (Number of
Vehicles)
Boat Launch Lanes
Other Facilities
E5.3
County Park Office
Existing Recreational Use
Recreation surveys conducted for the Nantahala Area Recreation Use and Needs Study (Duke
Power 2003) are summarized in this section for the West Fork Project.
E5.3.1
Recreation Use at Project Area Recreation Sites
Lake Glenville received approximately 245,200 recreation days during the period from November
2001 through October 2002 (Duke Power 2003) (Table E5.3-1). Some nighttime angler activity
also occurs at Lake Glenville, distributed throughout the year (Table E5.3-2).
E5-12
Duke Power
West Fork Project
At the West Fork Project, a majority of recreation use is attributed to residents of adjacent
properties (Duke Power 2003) (Figure E5.3-1). Recreators using public access sites typically
have an average party size of 3.6 people. Individuals using the services of commercial operators
have an average party size of 5.7 people.
Shoreline residents living adjacent to the project area represent the primary users of the West
Fork Project, using the project for recreational purposes year round, though mostly in the fair
weather months (March through November) (Duke Power 2003) (Figure E5.3.2). Motor boating
was listed as the primary activity within the project area (Figure E5.3-3).
Average expenditures by recreators at the West Fork Project are provided in Table E5.3-3 (from
Duke Power 2003). Public access site users reported an average of $96 in trip expenses, while
commercial patrons reported substantially more, at $1,182 per trip. Assuming respondents' trip
destinations were to the Western North Carolina Area, the total estimated recreation-related
expenditures is $4.8 million [(7,621 access site recreators * $96 * 0.88 expenses incurred within a
30 mile radius of the destination /3.6 people) + (24,192 commercial patrons * 1,182 * 0.93 / 5.7
people)]. Access site users and commercial patrons reported expenses for average party sizes of
3.6 people and 5.7 people respectively.
Table E5.3-1. Estimated Daytime Recreation Days at the West Fork Project
Location
Lake Glenville
Public Access
Sites
7,621
Commercial Use
24,192
Shoreline
Property Owners
213,359
Table E5.3-2. Estimated Nighttime Angler Use at the West Fork Project (Lake Glenville)
Season
Winter
Estimated Use
2
Spring weekends
39
Summer
79
Holiday
38
Fall weekends
42
Total
200
E5-13
Total
245,173
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure E5.3-1. Estimated Daytime Recreation Use at Lake Glenville by User Group
Figure E5.3-2. Estimated Daytime Recreation Use at Lake Glenville by Season
E5-14
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure E5.3-3. Distribution of Estimated Daytime Use of Public Access Site Users at Lake Glenville
Table E5.3-3. Average Expenditures of Contact Survey Respondents (Access Site Users) and
Commercial Patrons at the West Fork Project
Average Expenditures
Access Site Usersa
Commercial Patronsa
Food and Drink
$26
$299
Hotel/Motel/Lodging/Rent
$35
$461
Boating Rentals and Supplies
$3
$194
Bait and Tackle
$5
$13
Gasoline (Auto and Boat)
$25
$80
Guide Fees or User Fees
$1
$2
Other
$1
$133
Total Average
$96
$1,182
n = 142
n = 44
Expenditure Categories
No.of Respondents
a
Weighted data.
E5.3.2
Perceptions of Recreationists
When asked about water levels with respect to the recreation activities they participate in,
recreation users of the Project felt that overall water levels were adequate (Duke Power 2003)
(Table E5.3-4). Commercial patrons indicated most often that lower water levels would have
made their recreation experience worse while higher water levels would have had no impact on
their recreational experience for the date during which they participated in recreational activities
at the West Fork Project. Recreators intercepted at public access sites indicated that, on average,
E5-15
Duke Power
West Fork Project
lower water levels would have had no impact or made their recreational experience worse. When
asked about the impact of higher water levels, public access site users indicated most often that
higher water levels would have had no impact on their recreational experience.
When asked about the crowdedness of the location of their trip, both public access site users and
commercial patrons felt that crowding was relatively light at both the lake/river they visited and
at the specific recreation site they recreated at (Table E5.3-5).
All survey respondents, regardless of where they were interviewed, where they state that they
recreate, or where they reside, were provided an opportunity to state whether they had
encountered any problems at any projects in the Western North Carolina Area, and if so, where.
Of recreational users reporting a negative experience at Nantahala Area Projects, two percent of
commercial patrons, two percent of public access site users, and six percent of registered boaters
reported experiencing a negative incident at the West Fork Project; specifically Lake Glenville.
Seventeen percent of shoreline property owners reported a negative experience at Lake
Glennville. The most often cited issues were reckless boaters and jet-ski operators. Essentially,
none of the recreator groups reported a negative incident at Tuckasegee Lake.
Additional facilities were cited as being needed at the West Fork Project (Lake Glenville) by
approximately eight percent of shoreline property owners, seven percent of registered boaters, six
percent of public access site users, and one percent of commercial patrons (Table E5.3-6). Of the
facilities indicated as being needed, restrooms, swimming areas, and fishing piers were cited most
often. Additionally, picnic shelters, boat docks, and trash cans were also indicated as being
needed at Lake Glenville recreation sites.
E5-16
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.3-4. Opinions on Water Levels at the West Fork Project
Percent Respondentsa
Access Site Usersb
Commercial Patronsb
Water levels on the day of the interview or commercial trip were:
Too low
14%
14%
Adequate
77%
86%
Too high
9%
0%
n = 175
n = 21
No. Respondents
Lower water levels on the day of the interview or commercial trip would have:
Improved the
20%
5%
38%
27%
41%
68%
99%
100%
n = 172
n = 22
experience
Had no impact on
the experience
Made the
experience worse
Total
No. Respondents
Higher water levels on the day of the trip would have:
Improved the
30%
32%
52%
64%
18%
5%
100%
101%
n = 174
n = 22
experience
Had no impact on
the experience
Made the
experience worse
Total
No. Respondents
a
b
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Weighted data.
E5-17
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.3-5. Opinions on Crowding at the West Fork Project
Percent Respondentsa
Access Site Usersb
Commercial Patronsb
Crowding at the lake/river on the day of the interview on a scale of 1 to 5:
(1) Light
33%
25%
(2)
31%
40%
(3) Moderate
23%
22%
(4)
9%
13%
(5) Heavy
5%
0%
101%
100%
n = 173
n = 44
2.2
2.2
Total
No. Respondents
Average rating
Crowding at the individual recreation site or location on the day of the interview on a scale
of 1 to 5:
(1) Light
33%
21%
(2)
29%
40%
(3) Moderate
17%
31%
(4)
13%
4%
(5) Heavy
8%
4%
100%
101%
n = 174
n = 44
2.3
2.3
Total
No. Respondents
Average rating
a
b
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Weighted data.
Table E5.3-6. Adequacy of Existing Recreation Facilities at the West Fork Project
Percent of all
survey
respondents
stating that
additional
facilities are
needed at Lake
Glenville
Public
Access Site
Usersa
Commercial
Patronsa
6%
1%
Shoreline
Property
Ownersa
8%
E5-18
Registered Canoe and
Boaters
Kayak Club
Members
7%
0%
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.3-6. (continued) Adequacy of Existing Recreation Facilities at the West Fork Project
Shoreline
Property
Ownersa
Public
Access Site
Usersa
Commercial
Patronsa
n = 1,723
n = 289
n = 1,214
n = 230
n = 64
Restrooms
72%
50%
51%
80%
N/A
Trash cans
59%
0%
29%
47%
N/A
Camping area
54%
50%
8%
27%
N/A
Swimming area
32%
50%
30%
27%
N/A
Picnic shelter
32%
50%
15%
33%
N/A
Boat dock
23%
0%
18%
20%
N/A
Fishing pier
19%
50%
30%
27%
N/A
18%
0%
19%
20%
N/A
Lighting
17%
0%
8%
27%
N/A
Boat launch
13%
0%
13%
20%
N/A
Paving/grading
10%
50%
0%
7%
N/A
Signs
8%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
Other
14%
0%
23%
7%
N/A
n = 96
n=4
n= 91
n = 15
Registered Canoe and
Boaters
Kayak Club
Members
No.of
Respondents
Additional
facilities
reportedb,c:
Better lake/river
access
No. Respondents
a
Weighted data.
Percentages may sum greater than 100 due to multiple responses.
c
Some user groups had a low number of respondents to this question. Caution should be used when
interpreting results.
b
E5.3.3
Perceptions of Agencies, Outfitters, and NGOs
Two commercial outfitter/marina and ten management agencies/NGOs indicated that they
operate, use, and/or manage resources in the West Fork Project area (Duke Power 2003). The
services indicated as being provided by commercial operators most often are pontoon boat
rentals, boat supply sales, fishing supply sales, boat storage and launching, and a gas dock.
Operators providing services at the West Fork Project indicated moderate to heavy use levels on
weekends and moderate use levels during the week.
E5-19
Duke Power
West Fork Project
None of the commercial operators surveyed indicated that additional facilities were needed at the
West Fork Project. Eighteen percent of management agencies/NGOs indicated that additional
facilities are needed. Among the most mentioned additional facilities needed were a fishing pier,
better lake/river access, a camping area, and trash cans.
E5.3.4
Future Use Assessment
It is estimated that the West Fork Project currently supports 245,100 recreation days within the
Project area. Projections based on population growth in the area show that use will increase to
approximately 690,000 recreation days by the year 2055 (Duke Power 2003) (Figure E5.3-4).
Figure E5.3-4. Estimated Future Daytime Recreation Use at the West Fork Project
E5.3.5
Carrying Capacity
Carrying capacity estimates for Lake Glenville at the West Fork Project for peak weekday,
weekend, and holiday boating use by public access site users are presented in Table E5.3-7 (Duke
Power 2003). It is estimated that Lake Glenville could support approximately 134 boats at any
one time. Further, based on estimates of use originating from public access sites, the lake is
currently used at 7%, 14%, and 58% capacity on weekdays, weekend days, and holidays by
public access site users.
E5-20
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Factor assessment ratings for Lake Glenville were:
Multiple use of water area
-1
Shoreline configuration
-1
Amount of open water
1
Amount of facility development
1
Crowdedness
-1
Total Factor Adjustment
-1
Two developed access sites on Lake Glenville were monitored during the course of the recreation
surveys: the Pine Creek Public Boat Access and the Low Water Wildlife Boating Access.
Carrying capacity estimates for these sites and the percent capacity at which they were observed
being used are reported in Table E5.3-8 (Duke Power 2003). Both sites were below carrying
capacity during weekdays, weekends, and holidays.
Table E5.3-7. Carrying Capacity Estimates for Lake Glenville
Boat Activity Usable
Use
Max
Percent
Acreage a
Factor b No.
Usage d
c
Boats
Power
1,256.8
10.8
116.4
0.8
Boat
Activity
Mix e
98.2
Persons
per
Boat f
4.4
Total
Users g
428.3
Boating
(Unlimited)
Canoeing and
1,256.8
1.5
816.1
0.0
12.7
2.0
25.3
Water Skiing
1,256.8
5.4
231.0
0.1
16.4
5.2
84.9
Jet Skiing
1,256.8
13.6
92.4
0.1
6.6
2.0
12.9
134
3
453
Kayaking
(flat water)
Estimated Maximum Boating Use
Average Peak
33
Weekday Use
Average Peak
Holiday
10
66
Average Number of
19
Boats (Weekend)
264
Average Number of
Boats (Holiday)
Percent Capacity
7%
(weekday)h
Boats (Weekday)
Weekend Use
Average Peak
Average Number of
Percent Capacity
(weekend)
78
Percent Capacity
(holiday)
14%
h
58%
h
Use
a
Acreage of reservoir minus islands, secluded lake segments and - 50 ft. from all shoreline, computed from
GPS files
b
The Boating Activity Use Factor for each activity comes from standards published by BOR, 1977.
E5-21
Duke Power
West Fork Project
c
Usable Acreage/Use Factor per activity
d
Derived from use estimates
e
Maximum Number of Boats * Percent Usage per activity
f
Derived from survey data - Respondents seemed to provide the total number of individuals in their
recreator group for each activity (as opposed to per boat). Because most jet skis, canoes, and kayaks have
a maximum capacity of 2 people, the average persons/boat were adjusted for these activities to 2.00.
g
Boat Activity Mix * Average Persons/Boat per activity
h
(Average Peak Observed Use/Average Persons per Boat)/Estimated Maximum Boating Use
Table E5.3-8. Recreation Site Carrying Capacity Estimates for Sites on Lake Glenville
Pine Creek Public Boat Access
Low Water Wildlife Boating Access
Number of Available
45
40
Parking Spaces
Weekday Use
Average Number of
2
2
4%
4%
6
5
13%
13%
13
9
29%
20%
Vehicles
Percent Capacity Used
Weekend Use
Average Number of
Vehicles
Holiday Use
Average Number of
Vehicles
E5.4
Existing Resource Management Framework
E5.4.1
State and Federal Agencies
Several state and federal agencies have management responsibilities affecting recreational
resources along the Tuckasegee River and associated headwaters.
E5-22
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E5.4.1.1
Federal Management
administered by the USFS and the Nantahala National Forest. As a result, these lands are subject
to the management guidelines and objectives of the National Forest Management Plan developed
by the Nantahala National Forest. The forest plan was created to direct the management of the
Nantahala National Forest.
resource management activities, and land use and establishes management standards and
The plan includes specific goals, objectives, and standards in the protection and regulation of
forest lands and use within Forest Service lands (USDA-USFS 1994). These include in general:
Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the forest through various vegetative
management measures;
Require a permit for the collection of forest products for commercial or personal use;
Manage all activities within riparian areas which include perennial streams, lakes, wetlands
and floodplains;
Utilize mineral resources only when forest-wide and management area direction and cultural
resources can be protected. Also require an operating plan before a site can be developed;
Prioritize Special Use permits relating to public safety, general public benefit, and private
use. Also issue no new special use permits for domestic, agricultural, or fish production
water uses;
Acquire or exchange lands within proclamation boundaries to provide or improve protection
of significant resources, access opportunities, recreation management, and fish and wildlife
management.
Also use plan amendments to designate management areas to new land
acquisitions; and
E5-23
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Manage transportation systems such as roads, trails, and other travelways consistent with
Management Area direction. In addition, designate roads open to specific uses such as
vehicles, and non-motorized uses such as bikes, and horses.
Specifically regarding recreational resources, the plan provides the following general direction
(USDA-USFS 1994):
Provide the opportunity for visitors to experience a variety of recreation activities with
minimum regulation; manage use through information rather than regulation where possible.
This will be accomplished through allowing specialized uses such as hang gliding, rock
climbing, mountain biking where not in conflict with other recreation uses or management
requirements;
Implement the “no-trace” concept through public education;
Allow recreational collection of minerals where minerals are loose and free on the surface, in
federal ownership, and not restricted by permit;
Allow primitive camping except in areas where such use is in conflict with other Forest uses
or creates resource damage. Determine conflict and damage on a case-by-case basis;
Design and manage the trail system to complement Forest-wide and management area
objectives, provide a variety of opportunities, accommodate the intended type and level of
use, and require minimal maintenance;
Allow hiking use on all trails and allow other trail use only when compatible with the
management area objectives;
Emphasize development of existing trails into loop systems with the exception of existing
long distance trails such as the Appalachian Trail;
Consider additional long distance through trails when the public need is evident and
appropriate planning has been completed;
Design, build and maintain trails for their intended use and desired experience level;
Provide appropriate maps, brochures, handouts, posters, and signage to facilitate public use;
Require a permit for all commercial recreation use of Forest lands;
Allow organized recreational events when they meet management direction; and
Issue no new permits for recreational residences.
E5-24
Duke Power
West Fork Project
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
In 1988, the USFWS initiated a multilateral effort to establish a National Recreational Fisheries
Policy that is structured to serve as a rallying point for agencies, organizations, and individuals to
enhance the vitality of recreational fisheries at the local, state, and national level (USFWS 1989).
This policy defines the USFWS stewardship role in the management of the Nation’s recreational
fishery resources.
Through this policy, the USFWS is committed to promote and enhance
freshwater, anadromous, and coastal fishery resources for maximum long-term public benefit.
The policy objectives are as follows (USFWS 1989):
Preserve, restore, and enhance fish populations and their habitats;
Promote recreational fishing on USFWS and other lands to provide the public with a high
quality recreational experience;
Ensure that recommendations concerning recreational fisheries potentials and opportunities
are included as part of appropriate field studies and management assistance efforts performed
by the USFWS on non-USFWS waters;
Serve as an active partner with other Federal governmental agencies, States, Tribes,
conservation groups, and the public in developing recreational fisheries programs;
Promote conservation and enhancement of the nation’s recreational fisheries through the
Service’s grants in aid programs; and
Improve and expand quantifiable economic valuations of the nation’s recreational fisheries to
demonstrate the importance of this resource to the health and welfare of our society and to the
nation’s economy.
This policy is listed by FERC as a federal comprehensive plan that satisfies Order No. 481-A
criteria for comprehensive plan status (FERC 2002).
United States National Park Service (NPS)
Section 5(d) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) requires that “in
all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall
be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential wild, scenic and recreational river areas.”
Moreover, it states that “the Secretary of the Interior shall make specific studies and
investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic, and recreational river areas… shall be
evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential alternative uses of water and
related land resources involved” (NPS 1982).
E5-25
Duke Power
West Fork Project
In partial fulfillment of the Section 5(d) requirements, the NPS has compiled and maintains a
Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), a register of river segments that potentially qualify as
national wild, scenic, or recreational river areas. A Presidential Directive requires that each
federal agency, as part of its normal planning and environmental review processes, take care to
avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified in the NRI compiled by the NPS. All
agencies are required to consult with the NPS prior to taking actions that could effectively
foreclose wild, scenic, or recreational status for rivers on the inventory (NPS 1982).
In order for a river to be listed on the NRI, a river must be free-flowing and possess one or more
Outstandingly Remarkable Values such scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife and history
(NRI 2002). In order to be assessed as Outstandingly Remarkable, a value must be unique, rare,
or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale (NRI 2002).
The NRI is listed by FERC as a federal comprehensive plan that satisfies Order No. 481-A
E5.4.1.2
State Management
Several divisions of the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources have
management responsibilities for recreational resources in the Project vicinity. These include the
Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR), Division of Forest Resources (DFR), Office of
Conservation and Community Affairs (OCCA), as well as the NCWRC.
Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
The North Carolina State Parks System exists for the enjoyment, education, health and inspiration
of all citizens and visitors. The mission of the state parks system is to conserve and protect
representative examples of the natural beauty, ecological features and recreational resources of
statewide significance; to provide outdoor recreational opportunities in a safe and healthy
environment; and to provide environmental education opportunities that promote stewardship of
the state's natural heritage.
The division has a systemwide plan that evaluates the state parks system's current standing,
considers anticipated trends in parks and recreation needs, and details how the division plans to
continue fulfilling its mission statement. Part of the systemwide plan details each state park's
current and proposed facilities; personnel and land; recent visitation; and more. The plan can be
found at the following address: http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/swplan/home.html.
E5-26
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Also, this agency administers the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)
(NCDNER 1984). The SCORP discusses recreational issues such as the supply, demand, and
need for outdoor recreation in North Carolina, a countywide comparison of recreational resources
and populations, results of an outdoor recreation participation survey, future recreational needs,
and priorities for outdoor recreation funding (NCDNER 1984).
The SCORP is listed by FERC as a state comprehensive plan that satisfies Order No. 481-A
Division of Forest Resources (DFR)
The mission of the DFR is to promote the wise use and protection of the state’s forest resources
through scientific investigations, wise management, stewardship, and protection programs.
Public education in the forest sciences and technical assistance in regulatory programs and
management practices are essential elements of this mission. Key programs of this division
include the administration of Forest Practice Guidelines and Best Management Practices that
include water quality and buffer protection, providing recreational opportunities in the state’s
forests, management assistance and forest stewardship programs, fire control programs, pest
management programs, law enforcement, and natural disaster assistance.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
The NCWRC is North Carolina’s lead agency responsible for the management of the state’s
wildlife and fishery resources, as well as the enforcement of wildlife laws. The NCWRC is
responsible for managing both game and non-game species.
The NCWRC’s management
responsibilities also include providing and maintaining boating access areas, public fishing areas,
and enforcement of boating safety laws.
The mission of the Division of Wildlife Management is to monitor the health and status of
wildlife populations, develop and administer programs for their management and wise
recreational use, and when necessary help resolve human-wildlife interactions in a manner which
will assure a diverse wildlife resource for future generations of North Carolinians. This division
provides the following services:
Provides 1.8 million acres of public hunting, fishing and trapping through the Game Lands
Program
Provides Special Hunting Opportunities through a lottery system
Provides Technical Guidance to landowners wanting to manage wildlife on their lands
E5-27
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Monitors the health and status of wildlife populations to help secure a diverse wildlife
resource for future generations
As far as recreational fisheries, the agency conducts a variety of fishery management activities on
reservoirs, rivers and streams across the state to improve sport fisheries. Other management
activities include providing readily accessible fishing opportunities for young people, senior
citizens and physically impaired anglers.
The Division of Inland Fisheries operates six fish hatcheries, rearing a variety of fishes for
stocking into the public waters of the state. Pisgah Forest Hatchery in Transylvania County,
Armstrong Hatchery in McDowell County, and Marion Hatchery in McDowell County produce
more than a half million brook, brown and rainbow trout annually for recreational use throughout
the western part of the state.
E5.4.2
approved recreational resource related comprehensive plans relevant to the project.
associated National Forest lands.
The Project does not contribute to any overall recreational resource impairment.
Through
proposed PM&E measures such as implementation of a future shoreline management program,
implementation of a sediment management agreement, enhancement of a shoreline habitat
protection program, the construction of additional recreational facilities and improvements, and
the maintenance of lake levels and minimum flow enhancements, the continued operations of the
Project are consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated
with the recreational management portion of the Plan.
E5-28
Duke Power
West Fork Project
National Recreational Fisheries Policy
This policy defines the USFWS stewardship role in the management of the Nation’s recreational
fishery resources.
Through this policy, the USFWS is committed to promote and enhance
freshwater, anadromous, and coastal fishery resources for maximum long-term public benefit.
The major goals include restoring, preserving, and enhancing fish populations and habitats,
promoting recreational fishing, ensuring that fishery recommendations are included in appropriate
field studies and management activities, promoting conservation and enhancement of the
recreational fisheries, and improving the economic valuations of the nation’s recreational
fisheries (USFWS 1989).
To meet these objectives the policy states that the increased demand for recreational fishing must
be met through the following items (USFWS 1989):
Ensuring that recreational fisheries are given full consideration in future water resource
projects;
Identifying and remediating the affects of contaminants on fisheries;
Developing access to waters previously unavailable for fishing;
Restoring or enhancing depleted or declining fisheries;
Optimizing productivity of existing fisheries through habitat and water quality; and
Utilizing angler education programs.
The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation or overall recreational fishery
resource impairment such as affecting current fish populations.
Through proposed PM&E
measures such as implementation of a sediment management agreement, implementation of a
future shoreline management program, enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program,
the construction of additional recreational facilities and improvements, and the maintenance of
lake levels and minimum flow enhancements, the continued operations of the Project are
consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the Plan.
Nationwide Rivers Inventory
The Tuckasegee River is listed by the NPS on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI 2000). The
NRI (2002) lists the eligibility criteria of this segment as scenery, recreation, geology, fish,
wildlife, and history.
The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation, overall recreational impairment,
or negatively affect any other attribute of the NRI plan. Through proposed PM&E measures such
E5-29
Duke Power
West Fork Project
as implementation of a sediment management agreement, implementation of a future shoreline
management program, enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program, construction of
additional recreational facilities and improvements, and maintenance of lake levels and minimum
flow enhancements, the continued operations of the Project are consistent with the spirit,
objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the NRI.
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) discusses recreational issues
such as the supply, demand, and need for outdoor recreation in North Carolina (NCDENR 1984).
It also includes a countywide comparison of recreational resources and populations, results of an
outdoor recreational population survey, future recreational needs, and priorities for outdoor
recreation funding.
Through
proposed PM&E measures such as implementation of a sediment management agreement,
implementation of a future shoreline management program, enhancement of a shoreline habitat
protection program, the construction of additional recreational facilities and improvements, and
maintenance of lake levels and minimum flow enhancements, the continued operations of the
Project are consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated
with the SCORP.
E5.5
Summary of Consultation Regarding Recreational Resources
E5.5.1
Consultation Summary
A preliminary assessment of the recreational resources within the Project area was presented as
part of the FSCD (FWA 2000). The FSCD was distributed to the pertinent agencies in March
2000. An onsite meeting was held on April 25 and 26, 2000 to allow the agencies to tour the
facilities. The following parties were contacted in association with this issue:
State
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission;
Resources; and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Office of
Conservation and Community Affairs
E5-30
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Federal
Non-governmental Organizations and Other Interested Parties
Western North Carolina Alliance;
American Rivers; and
American Whitewater
Indian Tribes
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
1)
United States Department of Agriculture; Forest Service, Mr. Raymond M. Johns
(Hydroelectric Program Manager), letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power &
Light Relicensing Project Manager, dated March 12, 2001
The Forest Service recommended that the recreational setting be evaluated in a regional
context to determine the uniqueness of the area.
Studies should consider the users preferred recreational experience level utilizing the Forest
Service’s Recreational Opportunity Spectrum, and any data collected should include
information regarding the type and condition of existing facilities and if they are in
compliance with accessibility
The Forest Service recommended utilizing the Outdoor Developed Area Guidelines
developed by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Duke Response: Where pertinent, Duke conducted the requested relicensing studies using the
guidelines mentioned above. A study following these guidelines was submitted to the USFS.
2)
E5-31
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The USFWS recommended conducting a survey to identify and map current recreational
uses, both formal and informal, at the Project. The study should include the frequency and
volume of usage of the sites
Duke Response: The recreational studies conducted by Duke included the above mentioned
requests and are included in the recreation studies and summarized in Section E5.0.
3)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC recommended conducting recreational facility inventory and use study. The
location of existing recreational facilities on the Tuckasegee River, both within and outside of
the Project should be provided and use estimates of the sites should be determined by season,
type of day and type of use
The NCWRC recommended conducting studies to determine the impact of peaking flow on
angling opportunities
4)
The NCDENR recommended conducting a study of public access to the river above and
below the Project, existing recreational facilities and recreational use in the reservoirs and
river reaches to determine the potential for new or enhanced recreational access and facilities,
and conducting a recreational instream flow study in several reaches
E5-32
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E5.5.1.1
A preliminary assessment of the recreational resources within the Project was presented as part of
1)
American Whitewater, Mr. John T. Gangemi (Conservation Director), letter to Mr. John
Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Relicensing Project Manager, dated, January 12,
2001
American Whitewater suggests that Duke conduct a recreational use and needs study to
determine present and projected future recreational demand and any additional public access
needs. The objectives of this study are to provide data sufficient to indicate the present
recreation use at the project reservoirs, to provide information sufficient to estimate the future
potential development of the project reservoirs and river reaches for private facilities, service
marinas and public access and to indicate the present and foreseeable intensity of public use
in relation to the capacity of the project lands and waters to serve multiple uses without
impairment to the natural resources and the satisfaction of users.
Additonally, American Whitewater requests that Duke evaluate the ability to provide
weekend recreational flow releases during higher flow periods. Duke should provide current
and historical hydrologic data for the project. This data should include instream flows above
project impoundments, storage capacity of respective impoundments, bypass reach flows and
flows below powerhouses. The hydrologic component should include comparative analysis
between unimpaired and regulated flows using Richter, et al’s. Index of Hydrologic
Alteration.
Duke Response:
Where pertinent, Duke conducted the requested relicensing studies using
guidelines mentioned above.
2)
E5-33
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The Forest Service stated “The geographic scope of the project should include not only the
project areas and adjacent lands, but also the river reaches downstream of the powerhouses,
tailwaters and bypass reaches.”
In association with study plan NPLFLOWR1 the Forest Service requested video
documentation at selected viewpoints along the study reach for each flow and recommended
using a sequential approach for safety of the participants. Additionally, the Forest Service
requested a second phase of this study be initiated that includes provisions for when a river is
determined to be acceptable for boating under the controlled flow study and stated “In this
situation, a recreational facility study should be initiated to determine public access and
parking needs.
This study should identify both existing and potential sites that may
accommodate future increases in use in the area.”
Duke Response:
3)
Resources, Mr. Steven Reed, letter to Mr. Chuck Borawa, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light
Relicensing Recreation Specialist, dated March 6, 2001
The NCDENR in association with study plan NPLREC1 stated that “The geographic scope
needs to be made clearer that it includes more than just the project areas and adjacent lands.
The scope should include river reaches downstream of powerhouses, the tailwaters, and the
bypassed reaches.” Additionally, the NCDENR suggested that estimates of present and
future use will also need to be conduced for the bypassed reaches and tailwaters, and
evaluations of carrying capacity and recreationist’s perception will also need to be conducted
for the bypassed reaches and tailwaters.
Duke Response:
4)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
descriptive text. Additionally, the NCWRC stated, “We are familiar with the approach used
E5-34
Duke Power
West Fork Project
by Duke Power to determine recreational use and needs for the Catawba-Wateree project and
draw your attention to… problems with statistical assumptions and analyses. In general, we
suggest that the various user segments be surveyed in a statistically robust manner; these
segments should not be combined unless statistically similar; and that sufficient seasonal data
be collected for each reservoir to allow for appropriate statistical comparisons."
Duke Response: Duke has renamed the appropriate study plans and made the necessary study
revisions based on the NCWRC comments.
E5.6
Recreational Resource Studies
E5.6.1
Studies Previously Conducted
There are no previous recreational studies associated with the West Fork Project.
E5.6.2
In association with recreational resources, no studies are currently underway.
E5.6.3
Relicensing Studies
During the relicensing consultation process, several agencies recommended that recreational
surveys be conducted in association with this project. This section summarizes the requested
studies.
These studies can be found in their entirety on the Duke Power-Nantahala Area
See Action Item NPLFLOW1, NPLREC2, NPLREC4 and NPLREC5 in association with these
studies.
TUCKASEGEE RIVER ANGLING FLOW STUDY
Duke Power conducted an Angling Flow Study (Duke Power 2002) to assess the angling
experience on five sections of the Tuckasegee River and determine how flows affect the angling
experience. This study was requested by the NCWRC for both the West Fork and East Fork
Projects. Duke Power worked closely with the NCWRC, Trout Unlimited, local government
representatives and other organizations in this effort. This section summarizes the results of this
study.
E5-35
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The overall goal of this study was to assess the angling experiences on five reaches of the
Tuckasegee River and determine how flow levels affect various factors associated with the
angling experience. Specific objectives of the study included:
Describing the current public access to each section;
Describing key angling areas;
Developing associations between flow levels and the quality of angling experience and
identification of flows acceptable for angling; and
Identification other recreation opportunities and assessment of the relative impacts of angling
flows on these activities.
Study Area
Both the East and West forks of the Tuckasegee River arise in the Blue Ridge Mountains of
southwestern North Carolina in the area between Highlands and Brevard.
The river flows
through the cities of Cullowhee, Sylva, and Bryson City before it joins the Little Tennessee River
in Fontana Reservoir almost fifty miles from the headwaters. Five river sections were assessed in
this study (Table E5.6-1); their locations are shown in Figure E5.6-1. Reaches 2, 3, 4, and 5 are
influenced by the operation of the West Fork Project.
Table E5.6-1. River sections assessed during the Tuckasegee River Angling Flow Study
Reach
Study
Location on River
Length
Dates
1
10/18/01
East Fork: Cedar Cliff Powerhouse to Main Stem
2.0 miles
2
10/18/01
West Fork: Tuckasegee Powerhouse to Main Stem
1.5 miles
3
10/19-20/01
Main Stem: East and West Forks confluence to Wayehutta
7.5 miles
Creek (Cullowhee Dam backwater)
4
10/19-20/01
Main Stem: Cullowhee Dam to NC 116 bridge at Webster
6.0 miles
5
10/16-17/01
Main Stem: Barkers Creek to Camp Creek above Whittier
4.5 miles
Reach 4 (“delayed harvest” section) is the most popular angling section with local, regional, and
out-of-state anglers in the area around Webster, NC. Commercial fishing guides use this area
frequently, using drift boats as well as wading. Both private and commercial anglers using drift
boats and wading also use Reaches 3 and 5 regularly. Reaches 1 and 2 are primarily used by
local anglers.
E5-36
Cr
ee
k
ee
Reach 5
ott
Tu
c ka
seg
1
44
Legend
US 23
Lakes
s
Tuckasegee
watershed boundary
er
k
Bar ree k
C
Dillsboro
Sylva
Primary road
NC 107
C re
Webster
ek
Reach 4
River or stream
County boundary
R iv e r
Municipality
Western
Carolina
University
k
ey
e ek
Ca n
r
Fo
Cr
Sa
v
41
an n
ah
Reach 3
3- 4
Cedar Cliff
Res.
Bear
Creek
Res.
1
We
st
28
low h e e
Reach 1
Reach 2
NC
US
Cul
.
kson C o
Jac
ai n Co.
Sw
Sc
2
Bryson
City
S
For k
U
US 19
1
Wolf
Creek Res.
10
NC
East
Fork
Res.
0
1
2
3
Miles
Tennessee
Creek
Lake
7
Lake
Glenville
Figure E5.6-1.
Tuckasegee River
Angling Flow Study
Location Map
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Project Operations
Five Duke Hydropower Developments (the East and West Fork Projects) are located on the
Tuckasegee River approximately 20 miles above the Dillsboro Project. The Tuckasegee Plant
and Thorpe Plant (FERC # 2686), located on the West Fork, are operated in tandem. The usual
release from the Tuckasegee Plant (the downstream plant) is approximately 205 cfs plus a
continuous release of 10 cfs from Cedar Cliff (when it is not generating) for a total of
approximately 215-cfs in the riverbed at the confluence from power generation and continuous
releases. Average annual runoff in the West Fork (at the Tuckasegee Reservoir) is approximately
158 cfs with significant seasonal variations. The Tennessee Creek, Bear Creek, and Cedar Cliff
developments (FERC # 2698) on the East Fork are operationally linked to each other and are
operated in synchronization. The usual release from the Cedar Cliff Plant (the downstream plant)
is approximately 480 cfs plus a continuous release of 20 cfs from the West Fork for a total of
approximately 500-cfs at the confluence from power generation and continuous releases.
Average annual runoff in the East Fork (at Cedar Cliff Reservoir) is approximately 249 cfs with
significant seasonal variations. The Dillsboro Project does not significantly affect flow levels in
the Tuckasegee River. Water either flows through the generator(s) and back into the riverbed
below the 12-foot high dam or it runs over the dam or both. The average annual runoff at
Dillsboro is approximately 779 cfs with significant seasonal variations.
Methods
A controlled flow assessment technique (Whittaker, et al., 1993) was used to evaluate angling
opportunities across a range of flow conditions. Study participants fished each reach at base flow
(no water from hydro generation) and at one to three additional flow conditions. Participants
completed two survey forms as a means of documenting the quality of the angling experience.
A Single Flow Survey form was used to describe the quality of the angling experience specific to
each flow. Anglers were asked to rate the flow with regard to: 1) specific angling experience
characteristics, 2) their overall angling experience, 3) how well suited it was for different angling
skill levels, 4) whether they would prefer a higher or lower flow level, 5) whether they would
choose to fish the flow level again, and 6) the advantages and disadvantages of the flow.
After fishing each section at all the test flows, anglers filled out a Comparative (Overall) Survey
to evaluate the flows relative to one another. Specifically, they were asked to: 1) rank the
importance of specific angling experience characteristics, 2) rank the flows in order of preference
with regards to specific angling experience characteristics, and 3) make an overall evaluation of
E5-38
Duke Power
West Fork Project
the flows. The anglers were also asked to describe safety hazards or outstanding angling features
for each flow and provide any other pertinent comments.
Anglers were recruited with the assistance of the state and local Trout Unlimited organizations,
newspaper articles about the study, state fish and game employees, Duke Power employees,
regional angling outfitters, and non-affiliated private anglers. The study was extended over 5
days to allow for maximum participation with a reasonable time commitment. All participants
signed a waiver and participated in a short orientation to the study that included an explanation of
the questionnaires including definitions of terms used in the study, a safety briefing, and a
briefing on the duration of each test flow for a given reach of the river. The gear options were
fly, bait, and spin/lure. Anglers could access the river from the bank, by wading, by boat, or a
combination of these.
Two flow levels were assessed in Reaches 1 and 2, base flow and 60 cfs (targeted), with 1 to 1.5
hours to fish each flow level. On Reach 1 (East Fork), the targeted flow was obtained by opening
the Tainter gate and spilling into the river channel. On Reach 2 (West Fork) the targeted flow
was obtained by operating Thorpe Power Plant at a very low flow.
This flow cannot be
maintained for long periods of time because of harm to the equipment. The release target of 60
cfs was chosen based on the narrow river channel in each section.
Four flow levels were assessed in Reaches 3, 4, and 5:
1. Base flow,
2. Base flow plus 205 cfs from generation at Thorpe Powerhouse plus 10 cfs continuous flow
from Cedar Cliff,
3. Base flow plus 440 cfs from generation at Cedar Cliff Powerhouse plus 20 cfs continuous
flow from the West Fork, and
4. Base flow plus 205 cfs from generation at Thorpe Powerhouse plus 440 cfs from generation
at Cedar Cliff Powerhouse.
Two to four hours were allotted to fish each of these flow levels. These flows are “best efficiency
flows” for these facilities and it is difficult to maintain significantly different flows for long
periods of time without harming the equipment. The flow duration was sufficient for participants
to fish several locations within each reach or to fish the reach by means of a boat. In all sections,
the flow progression was from the lowest flow (base flow) to the highest flow.
E5-39
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The actual flows assessed are provided in Table E5.6-2 and were measured at the following
locations:
Reach 1 – Approximately 1.0 mile downstream from Cedar Cliff Powerhouse;
Reach 2 – Approximately 100 yards downstream of Tuckasegee Powerhouse;
Reach 3 – Approximately 200 yards downstream of Moody Bridge;
Reach 4 – Approximately 300 yards upstream of Webster Bridge; and
Reach 5 – At the Barker’s Creek Bridge.
Table E5.6-2. Actual flows assessed during the Tuckasegee River Angling Flow Study
Reach
Flow 1
Flow 2
Flow 3
Flow 4
Reach 1
13 cfs
105 cfs
NA
NA
NA
NA
(60 cfs target)
Reach 2
16 cfs
72 cfs
(60 cfs target)
Reach 3
75 cfs
285 cfs
656 cfs
769 cfs
Reach 4
273 cfs
485 cfs
764 cfs
911 cfs
Reach 5
316 cfs
468 cfs
812 cfs
993 cfs
Results and Discussion
Results from this study are presented for each reach in the following sections. Despite the
considerable effort made to involve participants, the number of anglers in each study was
relatively low and thus no detailed statistical analysis was done. However, participant responses
were generally very similar and provide insight to angling flow preferences.
Of equal
importance, most of the anglers were intermediate to advanced in skill level, which also lends
weight to the study since their responses are based on considerable experience.
Reach 1
This 2-mile reach is located on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River and begins at the Cedar
Cliff Powerhouse and ends at the confluence with the West Fork. A fairly continuous gradient
and a narrow rocky bedrock river channel with some shoals, small ledges, and pools characterize
this reach. The banks are densely vegetated in spots with few easy entrances to the river channel.
This section is relatively unknown compared to the main stem reaches and is mostly fished by
local anglers.
As with all sections of the Tuckasegee River, public access sites are limited and sites that provide
easy access for small boats, particularly those with trailers, are practically unknown. Reach 1 has
E5-40
Duke Power
West Fork Project
access along the Highway 281 right-of-way on one side of the river and along Shook Cove Road
on the other side. Parking is restricted to a few roadside pull-offs. Access across private property
requires the permission of landowners.
Three anglers participated in the assessment of this reach, two had never fished this reach and one
was very familiar with it. The survey results indicate that the most acceptable angling flow is
between Flow 1 (13 cfs) and Flow 2 (105 cfs). Although Flow 1 is easy to wade and fish are
easily spotted; the angling opportunities were limited. There were a lot of shallow areas with
little structure, and there was not enough water for a good fishery. Flow 2 was too high for a
good fishing experience and the murky fast water made wading hazardous.
Informal
conversation between the participants indicated that the targeted flow of 50 to 60 cfs would
probably provide acceptable angling. Two of three anglers surveyed said they would return to
fish this reach again.
Reach 2
This 1.5-mile reach is located on the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River, and begins at the
Tuckasegee Powerhouse and ends at the confluence with the East Fork. A continuous gradient
and a narrow rocky bedrock river channel with some shoals, small riffles, and pools characterize
this reach. The channel is generally narrower than the East Fork with many riffle areas. The
banks are densely vegetated in spots but there are several easy entrances to the channel. This
section is relatively unknown compared to the main stem reaches and is fished mostly by local
anglers.
access for small boats, particularly those with trailers, are practically unknown. Reach 2 has
access to the river at the Tuckasegee Powerhouse and at the bridge crossings on Grassy Creek and
Fred Smith Roads (both within 50 feet of Highway 107). There is a pull-off at the Sanctified
Church of God and a few other establishments along Highway 107. There is a safety concern on
Highway 107 due to many blind turns and vehicles traveling at high rates of speed relative to road
conditions. There is a private dirt road on the other side of the river that can be accessed from
Grassy Creek Road and Fred Smith Road that are utilized by local anglers. All of these access
areas appear to be on private property.
E5-41
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Six anglers participated in the assessment of this reach; only one had fished this reach previously.
All the anglers were intermediate in skill level with a variety of fishing experience on the
Tuckasegee and other rivers.
The survey results indicate that the most acceptable angling flow is between Flow 1 (16 cfs) and
Flow 2 (72 cfs). Flow 1 was noted for several long glides and pools that were easy to wade/fish
and it was characterized as good for beginners. Flow 2 had more surface ripples that made it
easier to sneak up on fish, had bigger eddies, and there seemed to be larger fish. The only
concern with Flow 2 was the ability to wade in parts of the channel due to the velocity of the
water. Several participants noted that a flow between Flows 1 and 2 would probably have been
the most fishable since Flow 1 was too low and Flow 2 was difficult to wade.
Reach 3
This 7.5-mile river section is located on the main stem of the Tuckasegee River, and begins at the
confluence of the East and West Forks and ends in the town of Cullowhee, NC above the pond
formed by the Cullowhee Dam. A continuous average gradient of 8 feet per mile and a rocky
bedrock river channel with some shoals, pools and deeper moving water characterize this reach.
This reach flows through rural mountain farmland and the banks are generally vegetated with
shrubs or small trees and are steep and high along several sections of the river. Some other
sections provide relatively easy access to the river from short trails through sparse vegetation.
This section is well known to local and regional anglers, but is generally not used as much as the
better known delayed harvest area of Reach 4.
easy access for small boats, particularly those with trailers, are practically unknown. Roads
parallel this reach and public access is mainly at bridge crossings and along road rights-of-way.
Much of the land along the river is private property with access still possible for anglers with the
permission of the landowner.
Public access in this reach is available at:
Moody Bridge. Located approximately 1.25 miles downstream from the confluence of the
two forks, there are small dirt pull-offs on both sides of the bridge with parking for
approximately 12 cars.
E5-42
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Jackson County Recreation Park at the confluence with Caney Fork Creek is approximately
2.25 miles downstream from Moody Bridge. Parking and rest rooms are available as well as
a short trail to the river that can be used to launch small watercraft such as canoes and small
fishing boats.
Western Carolina University/Tennessee Valley Authority Access Area at the old Cullowhee
powerhouse site in the ponded area approximately 100 feet above the dam. There is a small
parking area and small boats could be taken out at this location.
Small pull-offs along county roads 1002 (old Highway 107) and 1732 where these roads
parallel the river for approximately 3.5 miles.
Seven anglers participated in the assessment of this reach; four of the participants were familiar
with the Tuckasegee River having fished it 11 or more days in the past. There was a mix of skill
levels as well as frequency of fishing each year.
The survey results indicate that acceptable flows for angling occur at Flow 1 (Base Flow) and
Flow 2 (215 cfs) or somewhere in between these flows. At these two flows, wading is relatively
easy for both novice and experienced anglers in most parts of the river, although the substrate can
be slippery from sediment and some algae growth. Flow 1 was noted as a good angling resource
for novices due to the ease of spotting fish and the many areas where the water flowed through
narrows. At Flow 2, participants generally noted an increase in fishable spots due to the higher
water. Several participants indicated that Flow 1 was too low for good fishing opportunities and
for good fish habitat and that they would prefer a flow between Flows 1 and 2. Boat fishing,
which appears to be increasing in popularity was noted as an advantage of Flow 2 but would be
difficult or impossible at Flow 1. Flows 3 and 4 were too high to wade safely. Five of the six
participants stated they would return to fish at Flows 1 and 2 but none of the participants would
do so at Flows 3 and 4.
Reach 4
This 6-mile reach is located on the main stem of the Tuckasegee River, and begins below the
Cullowhee Dam and ends at the NC 116 Bridge in Webster, NC. From the dam downstream to
the 4-lane Highway 107, this reach has a fairly continuous average gradient of approximately 7
feet per mile and a rocky bedrock river channel with some shoals, pools and deeper moving
water. This section flows through the town of Cullowhee and associated residential areas with
developments on both sides of the river. From Highway 107 to the backwaters of the Dillsboro
E5-43
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Dam the river drops over a series of small ledges, known as “Jack the Dipper”, which is one of
the best angling areas on the river. This “delayed harvest” section of the Tuckasegee River is
popular with local and regional anglers including outfitters. Scattered residential areas occur
along this section of the river, which ends just outside the town of Dillsboro.
access for small boats, particularly those with trailers, are practically unknown. There is public
access to the river above the Cullowhee Dam at the Western Carolina University/TVA Access
Area. In the 3 miles below Cullowhee Dam the river is generally bordered by Old Highway 107
and by several trailer parks and housing developments as well as various commercial
establishments that limit access to the river. The last mile of this section, though approximately
30 feet above the river, has several trails to the river and ample parking along the road. The river
section along South River Road (a narrow 2-lane dirt road) is generally within 5 to 20 feet of the
river and parking is available in small pull-offs along the road. At the upstream end of South
River Road there is a small pull-off that can accommodate approximately four cars and provides
access to the river for small boats.
Eleven anglers participated in the assessment of this reach. While there was a mix of skill levels
it was biased toward the advanced level and four anglers were quite familiar with the Tuckasegee
having fished it over 30 times.
The survey results indicate that the most acceptable flow for angling is Flow 2, particularly for
intermediate and advanced anglers. Flow 1 was noted as the best level for wading and seeing
fish, but would be difficult or impossible to fish by boat. Flow 2 was generally noted as the best
fishing level in that it allows good fishing by either wading or boating and has the most fishable
spots of any of the flows. Flow 3 was also rated highly for boat fishing, but both Flows 3 and 4
are too high to wade safely for most anglers. Flow 4 was noted as being too high for boat fishing
due to the difficulty of navigating in the fast current. Participants would have preferred higher
water at Flow 1, no change at Flow 2, lower water at Flow 3, and much lower water at Flow 4.
All participants said they would return to fish Flow 2, six of eight and five of seven would return
to fish Flows 1 and 3, respectively, and only one of six (fished from a boat) would return for Flow
4. Other general comments included the difficulty of getting accurate information about water
flow, the need for increased public access, and the recreational and economic value of a good
clean tailwater fishery.
E5-44
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Reach 5
This 4.5-mile reach begins at the Barker’s Creek Bridge and ends at the confluence of Camp
Creek and the Tuckasegee River, which is near the Highway 441 interchange with US 74 between
Dillsboro and Whittier, NC. A fairly continuous average gradient of approximately 7 feet per
mile and a rocky bedrock river channel with some shoals, pools and deeper moving water
characterize this reach. There is more deep moving water in this section than in Reaches 3 and 4.
The banks are heavily vegetated with shrubs and small trees and access to the river is generally
limited to small primitive trails in some sections. This section is relatively unknown compared to
reaches 3 and 4 but is used often by local fishing guides, particularly those using drift boats to
access the river.
access for small boats, particularly those with trailers, are practically unknown. Reach 5 has
public access along the highway right-of-way between the Barker’s Creek Bridge and Cullowhee
Outfitters and at the State Route 1534 Bridge. Parking is very limited in both areas. Cullowhee
Outfitters currently allows parking and access on their property. The river closely parallels
Highway 74 along most of the reach with short primitive trails to the river in four or five places.
Again, parking in these areas is limited and traffic is relatively heavy in this four-lane section of
highway. There is considerable commercial development along Highway 74, including vegetable
farming, flea markets, and river outfitters, limits but does not currently preclude access.
Ten anglers participated in the assessment of this reach. While there was a mix of skill levels, it
was biased toward the intermediate/advanced level. The survey results indicate that the most
generally acceptable flow for angling is Flow 2, followed by Flow 1 or somewhere in between
these two flows. At these flows wading is relatively easy for the novice and experienced angler
in most parts of the river although the substrate can be slippery from sediment and algae growth.
Boat fishing was noted as an advantage of Flow 2 and is possible at Flow 1 with an experienced
boatman. Both Flows 3 and 4 are too high to wade safely. All participants said that they would
return to fish Flows 1 and 2 while only one would return for Flow 3 and none for Flow 4. Several
participants mentioned the difficulty of accessing the river from Highway 74.
TUCKASEGEE RIVER PADDLING FLOW STUDY
Duke Power-Nantahala Area conducted a Paddling Flow Study (Duke Power 2002) to assess the
paddling experience on two sections of the main stem Tuckasegee, a section of the West Fork ByPass, a section of the East Fork By-Pass (Bonas Defeat Section) and determined how flows affect
E5-45
Duke Power
West Fork Project
the paddling experience. Duke Power worked closely with American Whitewater, Western
Carolina University, the Carolina Canoe Club, local outfitters, local government representatives
and other organizations as well as the TLT in this effort. This section summarizes the results of
this study. The complete study report can be viewed on the Duke Power-Nantahala Area website
(DPNA 2002).
Study Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of this study was to assess the paddling experiences on four sections of the
Tuckasegee River, identify minimum and optimal flow ranges for paddling, and determine how
flow levels affect various factors associated with the paddling experience. Specific objectives of
the study included:
Describing the current access to each section;
Describing key paddling areas;
Developing associations between flow levels and the quality of paddling experience for the
three study reaches that were paddled to identify minimum and optimum flow ranges for
paddling; and
Identifying other recreation opportunities and assess the relative impacts of paddling flows on
these activities.
Study Area
Both the East and West forks of the Tuckasegee River arise in the Blue Ridge Mountains of
southwestern North Carolina in the area between Highlands and Brevard.
The river flows
through the cities of Cullowhee, Sylva, and Bryson City before it joins the Little Tennessee River
in Fontana Reservoir almost fifty miles from the headwaters. Four river sections were assessed in
this study (Table E5.6-3); their locations are shown in Figure E5.6-2. The West Fork By-Pass,
Dillsboro, and Whittier sections are influenced by the operation of the West Fork Project.
E5-46
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.6-3. River sections assessed during the Tuckasegee River Paddling Flow Study
Section
Study
Location on River
Dates
Dillsboro July 2-3,
Main Stem: Dillsboro to Barker’s Creek
2001
Whittier
July 2-3,
Length
4.5
miles
Main Stem: Whittier to Ela
2001
3.0
miles
West
June 29,
West Fork: By-pass between
4.5
Fork
2001
Lake Glenville and Thorpe Powerhouse
miles
East Fork
July 9, 2002
East Fork: By-pass between East Fork Reservoir and confluence
1.5
with Wolf Creek
miles
The Dillsboro Section is the most popular of the four sections. Whitewater rafting outfitters,
whitewater canoe/kayak outfitters, summer camps, schools, canoe clubs, and private paddlers all
use this class II stretch of whitewater, primarily in the summer and on late spring and early fall
weekends. The three local outfitters estimated 40,000 guests (numbers provided by Tuckasegee
Outfitters Association) on the river in 2001.
The Whittier Section is used occasionally by canoe clubs, summer camps, and private paddlers
but is not generally well known. It is class II whitewater with a short section of fairly continuous
ledges including one steep ledge (class II +) worthy of being named.
Local paddlers have used the class III/IV West Fork By-Pass Section occasionally. This section
requires substantial rainfall before it can be run. There have been five spills from the dam at
Lake Glenville in the 60-year history of the project prior to the paddling study releases.
The East Fork By-Pass (Bonas Defeat) section is popular with local and regional hikers who
value it for the extremely rugged terrain, natural beauty, and remoteness. It is not known whether
this reach has ever been paddled.
Paddling information about all sections (except the Bonas Defeat Gorge) from the confluence to
Bryson City is provided in “A Canoeing & Kayaking Guide to the Carolinas” (Benner and
Benner, 2002).
E5-47
US 19
U
Whittier Section
Take-Out
Whittier Section
Put-In
Cr
ee
k
ee
ott
Dillsboro Section
Take-Out
Legend
US 23
Lakes
s
Tuckasegee
watershed boundary
er
Dillsboro
Primary road
ek
River or stream
County boundary
R iv e r
Municipality
r
Fo
Western
Carolina
University
Ca n
k
ey
e ek
an n
ah
C re
Webster
Sa
v
41
Sylva
NC 107
Dillsboro Section
Put-In
Cr
k
Bar ree k
C
3- 4
low h e e
Cedar Cliff
Res.
Bear
Creek
Res.
West Fork Section
1
West Fork Section
Put-In
28
For k
NC
US
Cul
.
kson C o
Jac
ai n Co.
Sw
Sc
We
st
Tu
c ka
seg
1
44
2
Bryson
City
S
Take-Out
East Fork Section
Take-Out
10
NC
East Fork Section
Put-In
1
Wolf
Creek Res.
East
Fork
Res.
0
1
2
3
Miles
Tennessee
Creek
Lake
7
Lake
Glenville
Figure E5.6-2.
Tuckasegee River
Paddling Flow Study
Location Map
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Project Operations
Five Duke Hydropower Developments (the East and West Fork Projects) are located on the
Tuckasegee River approximately 20 miles above the Dillsboro Project. The Tuckasegee Plant
and Thorpe Plant (FERC # 2686), located on the West Fork, are operated in tandem. The usual
release from the Tuckasegee Plant (the downstream plant) is approximately 205 cfs plus a
continuous release of 10 cfs from Cedar Cliff (when it is not generating) for a total of
approximately 215 cfs in the riverbed at the confluence from power generation and continuous
releases. Average annual runoff in the West Fork (at the Tuckasegee Reservoir) is approximately
158 cfs with significant seasonal variations. The Tennessee Creek, Bear Creek, and Cedar Cliff
developments (FERC # 2698) on the East Fork are operationally linked to each other and are
operated in synchronization. The usual release from the Cedar Cliff Plant (the downstream plant)
is approximately 480 cfs plus a continuous release of 20 cfs from the West Fork for a total of
approximately 500 cfs at the confluence from power generation and continuous releases.
Average annual runoff in the East Fork (at Cedar Cliff Reservoir) is approximately 249 cfs with
significant seasonal variations. The Dillsboro Project does not significantly affect flow levels in
the Tuckasegee River. Water either flows through the generator(s) and back into the riverbed
below the 12-foot high dam or it runs over the dam or both. The average annual runoff at
Dillsboro is approximately 779 cfs with significant seasonal variations.
Methods
A controlled flow assessment technique (Whittaker, et al., 1993) was used to evaluate paddling
opportunities across a range of flow conditions. Study participants paddled the Dillsboro Section
at four different flows, the Whittier Section at two different flows, and the West Fork By-Pass at
two different flows. Participants completed two survey forms after each flow as a means of
documenting the quality of the paddling experience. They also filled out a Pre-Run Information
Survey.
All survey forms can be viewed on the Duke Power-Nantahala Area website at:
A Single Flow Survey form was used to describe the quality of the paddling experience specific
to each flow. For each flow participants were asked to: 1) rate the flow based upon paddling
experience characteristics, 2) indicate whether they would choose to paddle the level again in the
future, 3) rate the whitewater difficulty of the flow, 4) rate how well suited it was for different
skill levels, 5) indicate whether they would prefer a higher or lower flow level to define minimum
acceptable and optimal flows, 6) identify particularly challenging rapids, 7) identify the number
of boat hits, stops, drags, and portages, 8) identify portage areas, and 9) identify significant
E5-49
Duke Power
problems such as a swim, pin, etc.
West Fork Project
They were also asked to provide other comments as
warranted.
After paddling each section at all the test flows, participants filled out a Comparative (Overall)
Survey to evaluate the flows relative to one another. Specifically, they were asked to: 1) rank the
importance of the paddling experience characteristics, 2) to rate the flows as to how well they
contributed to a high quality trip, 3) make an overall evaluation of the flows, 4) suggest flow
levels for minimum acceptable, optimum, “standard” trip optimum, high challenge trip optimum,
highest safe flow, and a flow if only one flow could be provided, 5) make an opinion of whether a
variety of flows was important, 6) whether they would recommend a standard trip or high
challenge trip flow to other paddlers, 7) compare the section to other rivers locally, regionally,
and nationally, and 8) compare the section to other rivers in the region with regard to paddling
characteristics. They were also asked to provide any additional comments. Survey responses
were compared across the different flow conditions to see how the flows affected the quality of
the paddling experience and to determine minimal acceptable and optimal flow levels. All
written comments made on the surveys were also compiled.
Paddlers were recruited with the assistance of American Whitewater sources, Western Carolina
University staff, local outfitters, Carolina Canoe Club members, local summer camp staff, Duke
Power employees, newspaper articles about the study, and nonaffiliated private paddlers. All
participants signed a waiver and participated in a short orientation to the study that included an
explanation of why the study was being conducted, background on the questionnaires including
an explanation of the American Whitewater International Scale of River Difficulty, a safety
briefing, and the study schedule. The gear options were kayak (river, play, or creek), decked
canoe, open canoe (solo or tandem), raft, and inflatable kayak (or “duckie”).
Tuckasegee
Outfitters provided the necessary shuttles and other logistical support.
Four flow levels were studied in the Dillsboro Section: 1) base flow + “maximum flow” from
generation at Thorpe Powerhouse, 2) base flow + “most efficient flow” from generation at Cedar
Cliff Powerhouse, 3) base flow + “most efficient flow” from generation at Thorpe Powerhouse,
and 4) base flow + “most efficient flow” from generation at both Thorpe and Cedar Cliff
Powerhouses. Flow 1 is a maximum flow that is at the limit of the capability of the machinery.
Flows 2, 3, and 4 are “best efficiency flows” for these facilities and it is difficult to maintain
significantly different flows for long periods of time without harming the equipment.
E5-50
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The flow levels for the Whittier Section were Flows 2 and 4 from the Dillsboro study plus
incremental flow from the intervening watershed; base flow + “most efficient flow” from
generation at Cedar Cliff Powerhouse, and base flow + “most efficient flow” from generation at
both Thorpe and Cedar Cliff Powerhouses. This study was conducted in the evening after the
Dillsboro Study was completed and was possible due to the downstream travel times of the flows.
Some participants also participated in the Dillsboro Study and others only participated in the
Whittier Study.
A four-phase approach was used in the West Fork By-Pass study (DPNA 2002, Appendix G –
Description of Four Phase Approach). The initial flow level for the West Fork By-Pass Study
was determined after a preliminary paddle at a lower flow level on May 9, 2001 to evaluate
whether the resource values warranted further study (DPNA 2002, Appendix G – West Fork
Results of Phases 1 and 2). The results indicated that further study was warranted and that the
flow level on May 9 was below the minimum acceptable. The initial flow for the June 29, 2001
study was chosen as a best guess at the minimum acceptable flow range. The second flow on that
day was determined after the completion of the first flow by the study team. All flows were
obtained by raising the Tainter gates at Lake Glenville by an amount predicted from a gate
opening/cfs chart.
A four-phase approach was used in the East Fork By-Pass study (DPNA 2002, Appendix G –
Description of Four Phase Approach). The visual assessment of flows in Phase 2 resulted in a
decision to end the study at this point so no paddling flow study was done in the East Fork ByPass (DPNA 2002, Appendix G – East Fork Results of Phases 1 and 2).
The flow progression was from the lowest flow (base flow) to the highest flow in the Whittier and
West Fork By-Pass studies. The flow progression for each day of the Dillsboro study was low in
the morning and higher in the afternoon however the progression from lowest flow to highest
flow was Flow 3 (morning of July 3), Flow 1 (morning of July 2), Flow 2 (afternoon of July 2)
and Flow 4 (afternoon of July 3). The flow duration was sufficient for all studies for participants
to “play the river” at spots as well as paddle down the section.
All flows were documented by video photography. The Dillsboro and West Fork By-Pass studies
were also documented by still photography.
E5-51
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Results and Discussion
Results from this paddling recreation flow study are presented in the following sections. These
results are taken from the Pre-Run Information Form, the Single Flow Survey, filled out after
each flow experience, and the Comparative Survey, filled out after the completion of the last flow
condition.
Actual flow was measured for each section at each flow during the paddling
experience. Actual flow (in cfs) is provided in the data tables but discussion of flows, uses the
Flow 1, Flow 2, etc. terminology. Each section is presented and discussed separately starting
with Dillsboro, then Whittier, followed by the West Fork By-Pass and the East Fork By-Pass.
Dillsboro Section
This 4.5-mile river section starts at a public access area below the Dillsboro Dam, which is
maintained by the town of Dillsboro. It ends at the Barker’s Creek Bridge that is just upstream of
Tuckasegee Outfitters. As noted above, this is currently the most popular section for paddling on
the Tuckasegee River.
Public access is available at the Dillsboro put-in below the Dillsboro Dam.
This site is
maintained by the town of Dillsboro and has parking space for about 8 vehicles plus a small turn
around area for vehicles with trailers. On peak summer days, the area is congested. Public access
at the take-out is limited to the highway and bridge right of way areas at the Barker’s Creek
Bridge. There is virtually no public parking. Tuckasegee Outfitters currently allows private and
commercial paddling groups to park on its property just downstream of the Barker’s Creek
Bridge. They also provide shuttles for a small fee.
Measured flows within the Dillsboro Section during this study are provided in Table E5.6-4.
Historically (about 40 years of measurements) the mean and median base flow in July at
Dillsboro is about 576 cfs and 483 cfs respectively compared to the measured base flow in this
study of about 315 cfs. This appears to be consistent with the drought conditions encountered in
this area over the last three or so years.
Table E5.6-4. Measured Study Flows in the Dillsboro Section
Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3 Flow 4
Base Flow
315
315
315
315
Flow from Generation
239
506
170
698
Total cfs
554
821
485
1013
Participant information is summarized in Table E5.6-5. One participant paddled only on day one
(raft) and another paddled only on day two (tandem “duckie”). A third participant missed Flow 3
E5-52
Duke Power
West Fork Project
only. A variety of boat types were used in the study and there were a variety of skill levels
represented although intermediate paddlers were the largest single group. While the mean days
paddled per year was 33, almost 50% of the participants paddled 0 to 10 days per year.
Table E5.6-5. Participant Information for the Dillsboro Section
Kayak = 9; Decked C1 = 3; Solo Open Canoe = 6; Tandem Open Canoe = 10
Participants
(5 Boats); Raft = 9 (2 Boats); Inflatable Kayak = 7 (6 Boats)
Beginner = 7; Novice = 7; Intermediate = 20; Advanced = 8; Expert = 2
Skill Level
Mean = 10; Median = 8; Range = 0 to 35
Years Using Craft
Mean = 2.3; Median = 2.0; 8 Participants had never paddled it and 4 had
Times Boated
paddled it >30 times
Dillsboro Section1
Mean = 33; Median = 15; 27 participants paddled 21 days/year; 18
Paddle Whitewater
participants paddled >21 days/year; Range: 0 to 200 days/year
– Days/Year
Age
1
Times Boated Score: 1 = 0 times; 2 = 1-10 times; 3 = 11-20 times; 4 = 21-30 times; 5 = >30 times
Table E5.6-6 presents data from the Pre-Run Form concerning participant preferences for
different kinds of paddling experiences. In general, this group preferred running easy (class II
and III) whitewater, particularly if it was a unique or interesting place and they tolerated difficult
access to rivers and/or portages if they could run a section with interesting whitewater. They also
enjoyed running both easy and difficult rivers. They generally did not prefer paddling class IV/V
whitewater, rivers with big waves and powerful hydraulics or steep technical rivers. They also
would not usually choose to run a short section just for the challenging rapids.
%
I Prefer Running Rivers with Class II/III Rapids
0
0
2
5
5
42 46
6.3
I Prefer Running Rivers with difficult Class IV/V Rapids
30 14 20 7
7
11 11
3.2
Running Challenging Whitewater is Most Important Part of
9
14 20 14 25 11 7
3.9
Boating
I Often Boat Short Sections (< 4 miles) for the “Play Areas”
18 11 14 9
16 23 9
4.0
I Often Boat a Section to Experience a Unique/Interesting
5
5
2
2
14 20 52
5.9
Place
I Often Boat Short Sections to Run Challenging Rapids
23 11 18 7
18 18 5
3.6
I Boat Sections Based on Length/Experience Regardless of
29 6
18 18 18 6
6
3.3
Difficulty
I tolerate difficult put-ins/portages to run interesting whitewater 0
11 11 6
22 39 11
5.0
I prefer rivers with large waves and powerful hydraulics
44 6
11 11 22 6
0
2.8
I prefer boating steep technical rivers
22 28 6
11 17 17 0
3.2
I enjoy boating both difficult and easy rivers
0
6
11 6
22 6
50
5.6
1
7-Point Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Moderately Disagree; 3 = Slightly Disagree; 4 = No Opinion; 5
Slightly Agree; 6 = Moderately Agree; 7 = Strongly Agree.
E5-53
Median
Experience Preference
7
Mean
Table E5.6-6. Summary of Participant Preferences for Possible Paddling Experiences
Scale1
1
2
3
4
5
6
6.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
5.5
2.5
2.5
6.5
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Participant ratings from the Single Flow Survey for paddling experience characteristics under the
four different flow conditions are shown in Table E5.6-7.
The mean rating for “Safety”,
“Aesthetics”, “Length of Run”, and “Number of Portages” for all flows was between
“Acceptable” (+1) and “Totally Acceptable (+2) with little variation in the numerical values
between flows.
For “Navigability”, “Availability of Challenging Technical Boating”,
“Availability of Powerful Hydraulics”, and Availability of Whitewater Play Areas”, Flow 3 (485
cfs) with “Neutral” (0) ratings had the lowest ratings followed by Flow 1(554 cfs) with mostly
“Neutral” ratings but slightly higher numerical values. Flows 2 (821 cfs) and 4 (1013 cfs) had
“Acceptable” to “Totally Acceptable” ratings.
Table E5.6-7. Summary of Participant Ratings1 for Paddling Characteristics
Flow 1
Flow 2
Flow 3
554 cfs
821 cfs
485 cfs
Characteristic
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
1.0
1.0
1.7
2.0
0.5
1.0
Navigability
0.3
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
Availability of challenging
technical boating
-0.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
-0.4
0.0
Availability of powerful
hydraulics
0.4
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.1
0.0
Availability of whitewater
“play areas”
0.2
0.0
1.1
1.0
0.1
0.0
Overall whitewater
challenge
1.5
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.5
2.0
Safety
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.2
1.0
Aesthetics
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.0
Length of Run
1.0
1.0
1.3
2.0
1.1
1.0
Number of Portages
0.9
1.0
1.4
1.0
0.5
1.0
Overall rating
Flow 4
1013 cfs
Mean Median
1.6
2.0
0.7
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.1
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
15-point scale: -2 = Totally Unacceptable; -1 = Unacceptable; 0 = Neutral; +1 = Acceptable; +2 = Totally Acceptable.
Participants were asked in the Comparative Survey to rate the importance of some other factors
that can affect participant satisfaction with a whitewater trip. These factors are shown in Table
E5.6-8 in order of importance to the participants. The top five are “Safe Trip”, “Number of
Rapids”, “Attractive Scenery”, “Water Quality”, and “Difficulty of Rapids”.
E5-54
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.6-8. Summary Rating of Factors that Can Affect Satisfaction with a Whitewater Trip
Importance of
Characteristic1
Characteristic
Mean Median
Safe Trip
4.1
5.0
1
Number of Rapids
3.8
4.0
Attractive Scenery
3.8
4.0
Water Quality
3.8
4.0
Difficulty of Rapids
3.8
4.0
Crowding
3.5
3.5
Accessibility
3.3
3.0
Driving Distance to River
3.1
3.0
Thrilling Experience
3.1
3.0
Good Guide
2.8
3.0
Weather
2.7
3.0
Shuttle Availability
2.6
2.5
Water Temperature
2.4
2.0
Importance Scale: 5-Point Scale where 1 = Not Important; 3 = Somewhat Important; 5 = Very Important
A summary of participant responses to the skill level required to safely paddle each flow is
provided in Table E5.6-9. Flows 1 (485cfs) and 3 (554 cfs) were noted as primarily “Beginner”
and “Novice” levels. Flows 2 (821 cfs) and 4 (1013 cfs) were noted as mainly “novice” with a
few participants indicating these flows required an intermediate skill level.
Table E5.6-9. Number of Participants Selecting the Skill Level Needed to Safely Paddle each Flow
Skill Level
554 cfs 821 cfs 485 cfs 1013 cfs
Beginner
20
11
25
7
Novice
19
23
11
30
Intermediate
0
2
0
7
The majority of participants rated the Dillsboro Section as class II on the American Whitewater
International Scale of River Difficulty at all flow levels (Table E5.6-10). Smaller numbers rated
it at class I, particularly at the two lower flows (Flows 1 and 3).
E5-55
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.6-10. Number of Participants Rating the Whitewater Difficulty at the Four Flows
Difficulty Rating 554 cfs 821 cfs 485 cfs 1013 cfs
Class I
12
5
12
4
Class II
26
29
21
31
Class III
0
3
0
0
The number of “hits” (hit an obstacle but did not stop) was highest at Flows 3 (485 cfs) and 1
(554 cfs) with a median of 20 and 15 respectively (Table E5.6-11). At Flows 2 (821 cfs) and 4
(1013 cfs) the number of hits decreased to a median of 5. The median number of “hits” that
would be acceptable to participants was 8-10 for all flows so Flows 3 and 1 exceeded the
acceptable range of “hits” but Flows 2 and 4 did not. The number of “stops” (boat stopped but
participant(s) did not have to get out of the boat to get it moving again) was 3 or less for all flows
with Flow 4 having no “stops”. The total number of “drags” (boat stopped and participant(s) had
to get out to drag the boat to get it moving again) ranged from 2-5. There were no portages at any
of the flows.
Table E5.6-11. Summary of the Number of Hits, Acceptable Hits, Stops, Drags, and Portages at the
Four Flows
Flow 1
Flow 2
Flow 3
Flow 4
554 cfs
821 cfs
485 cfs
1013 cfs
Estimate of:
Median Range
Median Range
Median Range
Median Range
No. of Hits
15
3-100
5
1- 29 20
4- 68
5
0- 20
No. of Hits
10
2-100
10
1-100
10
2-100
8
2-100
No. of Stops
2
0- 10
1
0- 3
3
0- 16
0
0- 4
No. of Drags
0
0-
0
0- 2
0
0- 4
0
0- 2
No. of Portages
0
Acceptable
5
0
0
0
The Overall Rating for the Dillsboro Section from the Single Flow Survey and the Overall
Evaluation from the Comparative Survey show similar trends (Table E5.6-12) with Flow 2 (821
cfs) having the highest rating followed by Flows 1 and 4. Figure E5.6-3 shows the number of
responses (as a %) for each rating on the comparative overall survey. For “Minimal” flow
participants desired “No Change” at Flow 1 (554 cfs), a little “Higher” at Flow 3 (485 cfs), a little
“Lower” at Flow 2 (821 cfs), and “Lower” at Flow 4 (1013 cfs). For “Optimal” flow participants
wanted “Higher” to “Much Higher” levels at Flows 1 and 3, “No Change” at Flow 2 (821 cfs),
and “Lower” at Flow 4. Participants would “Possibly” paddle Flow 3 again, “Probably” paddle
Flows 1 and 4, and “Definitely” paddle Flow 2.
E5-56
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.6-12. Summary Ratings for Overall Experience1, Flow Preference2, and Whether
Participants Would Paddle Flows Again3
Flow 1
Flow 2
Flow 3
Flow 4
Questions
554 cfs
821 cfs
485 cfs
1013 cfs
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
Single Flow Overall Rating
0.9
1.0
1.4
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.8
1.0
Minimal Acceptable Flow
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.5
4.0
1.8
2.0
Optimum Flow Preference
4.4
4.0
3.3
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.3
2.0
Paddle Again?
2.8
3.0
3.5
4.0
2.3
2.0
3.3
3.0
Comparative Overall Rating
0.7
1.0
1.6
2.0
0.1
0.0
0.9
1.0
Preference
1
Overall Rating Scale: -2 = Totally Unacceptable; -1 = Unacceptable; 0 = Neutral; 1 = Acceptable; 2 =
Totally Acceptable
2
Flow Preference Scale: 1 = Much Lower; 2 = Lower; 3 = No change; 4 = Higher; 5 = Much Higher
3
Paddle Again Scale: 1 = Definitely No; 2 = Possibly; 3 = Probably; 4 = Definitely Yes
E5-57
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure E5.6-3 Tuckasegee River Recreational Flow Study Dillsboro Section - Overall Evaluation of Flows
100%
90%
80%
% Responses
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
485
554
821
1013
Measured Flow (cfs)
Totally Acceptable
Acceptable
E5-58
Neutral
Unacceptable
Totally Unacceptable
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Table E5.6-13 shows participant responses when asked to specify flows for specific experiences.
The minimal acceptable flow is between Flows 3 and 1 of the study. The flow with the highest
ratings (Flow 2 of the study) is between the designated optimal and standard trip flows and close
to the 803 cfs desired if there could be only one flow. The highest safe flow is estimated to be
1000 to 2000 cfs though a few participants would be willing to paddle at considerably higher
levels. Figure E5.6-4 shows the number and distribution of participant choices for flows for
minimal acceptable, optimum, high challenge, and safe flow trips. About 98% of the participants
would recommend the standard trip to others while only 54% would recommend the high
challenge trip to others. In general participants thought it was moderately to very important to
have a variety of flows to provide “different types of boating experiences” and “opportunities for
people with different skill levels and craft types”. The scale choices were “not at all important”,
“slightly important”, “moderately important”, “very important”, and “extremely important”.
Table E5.6-13. Mean and Median Flows designated by Participants for Specific Experiences
Specify Flows For:
Mean Median
Comments
cfs
cfs
538
540
31 of 43 participants designated 485 and 554 cfs; 4 below & 8
Minimal Acceptable
above
854
815
17 of 42 participants designated 815 cfs; 5 below & 20 above
Optimum
746
815
18 of 43 participants designated 815 cfs; 17 below & 8 above;
Standard Trip at
98% would recommend this trip to others
Medium flows
1493
1015
16 of 39 participants designated 1015 & 1115 cfs; 19 below & 4
High Challenge Trip
above including 1 at 8215 and 1 at 15215; 54% would
at Higher flows
recommend this trip to others
1828
1015
22 of 31 participants designated 1015 to 1215 cfs; 4 below & 5
Highest safe flow
above including 1 at 10,215 and 1 at 12,215
803
815
30 of 44 participants designated 688 to 917; 7 below & 7 above
Only One Flow
E5-59
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Figure E5.6-4 Tuckasegee River Recreational Flow study - Dillsboro Section - Flow Level Choices for Four Different Trip Experiences
35
25
20
15
10
5
Flow Range (cfs)
Minimum Acceptable
Optimum
E5-60
High Challenge
Safety
>1200
1141-1200
1081-1140
1021-1080
961-1020
901-960
841-900
781-840
721-780
661-720
601-660
541-600
481-540
421-480
0
361-420
Number of Responses
30
Duke Power
West Fork Project
When asked to rate the Dillsboro Section with regard to other boating opportunities, participants
rated it average when compared to other rivers locally, regionally, and nationally (Table E5.6-14).
Median
Mean
Table E5.6-14. Comparison1 to Other Rivers on a Local, Regional, and National Level
% Rating and (No. Responses): The Tuckasegee River is:
Compared to
Worse
Average
Better
Excellent
Among
Other Rivers In:
than
than
the Very
Average
Average
Best
1 Hour Drive
2.0 2.3
26 (10)
39 (15)
13 (5)
21 (8)
0
Western NC
2.0
2.1
32 (12)
41 (15)
14 (5)
14 (5)
0
Southeast
2.0
2.1
33 (10)
40 (12)
13 (4)
10 (3)
3 (1)
USA
2.0
2.0
37 (10)
41 (11)
11 (3)
11 (3)
0
1
Rating Scale: 1 = Worse than Average; 2 = Average/ 3 = Better than Average; 4 = Excellent; 5 = Among
the Very Best
Participants were also asked to compare the boating opportunities at various regional rivers
(Nantahala, Little Tennessee, Chattooga II, III, and IV, French Broad/Hot Springs section,
Pigeon, Middle and Upper Ocoee, and Hiwassee) to those at the Dillsboro Section of the
Tuckasegee.
In general, Dillsboro was considered about equal to the Little Tennessee and
Chattooga II for novice boaters and more desirable than the other rivers for this skill level boater.
For intermediate paddlers, Dillsboro was considered equal to all the other rivers except the
Nantahala and Section III of the Chattooga, which were rated more desirable. Most of the other
rivers were considered more desirable for advanced boaters except for the Little Tennessee,
Section II of the Chattooga and the Hiwassee Rivers.
For boating characteristics such as
size/difficulty of rapids, play boating, rafting, river running, eddy hopping, technical
maneuvering, and river gradient most of the other rivers were considered more desirable than
Dillsboro with the exception of the Hiwassee that was similar and the Little Tennessee which was
less desirable. For logistical characteristics (driving distance to river, shuttles, and access to
river), Dillsboro was considered similar to or more desirable than the rest of the rivers. For
scenery, all the rivers were rated similar to Dillsboro except the Chattooga where all sections
were rated more desirable. For water quality, the Nantahala and all sections of the Chattooga
were rated more desirable, the Pigeon and Upper Ocoee were rated less desirable and the rest
were considered equal to Dillsboro.
For an overall rating, participants scored the Little
Tennessee, Chattooga II, French Broad, and Hiwassee as similar to Dillsboro and the rest of the
rivers as more desirable.
E5-61
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Summary of Written Comments from Single Flow Surveys and Comparative Surveys
When asked to identify particularly challenging rapids or sections and rate their difficulty (using
the International Whitewater Scale), the rapids most often named were “First Hole”, “Second
Hole”, “Tanya’s Rock”, “Double Drop”, “Surprise”, and “Shark’s Tooth”. All were generally
rated Class I-II+ at all flows. At all flows, many participants either did not answer the question or
noted that none of the rapids/sections were particularly challenging. There were no portages
made during the study. While several participants fell out of rafts, swam from their hard boats, or
were pinned momentarily on rocks, these incidents are considered part of the sport of whitewater
paddling and thus not significant for the purposes of this study.
When asked for additional comments at the end of the Single Flow Surveys, participants noted
that Flows 1 (554 cfs) and 3 (485 cfs) were minimal flows with many hits and stops, and many of
them said they still had a good time. Several people noted that this section was very good for
teaching people to paddle and for people renting rafts and “duckies”, particularly for a family
outing where children would be present. After Flow 3 (821 cfs), participants noted the fast fun
rapids with places to surf and play, the clear channels, and generally thought it was more fun with
less work to get through the rapids, particularly in the shallower places.
While several
participants liked the bigger waves and faster current of Flow 4 (1013 cfs), many participants
commented it was too fast, the river features were less distinct, and that they would prefer a lower
level with more defined river features. Several participants noted that this flow would not be as
good for teaching novice hard boaters or for family rafting.
Comments from the Comparative Survey included the need for public access at the take-out and
the value of this section for teaching people to paddle and for family recreation.
CONCLUSIONS FOR THE DILLSBORO SECTION
The Dillsboro Section of the Tuckasegee River is characterized by a continuous average gradient
of about 15 feet per mile and a rocky bedrock river channel with rapids, shoals, and pools. The
river is generally rated as class II on the International Whitewater Scale. The banks are generally
vegetated with shrubs or small trees and are both steep and high along sections of the river.
The put-in has public access courtesy of the Town of Dillsboro, but the area is congested and
parking is inadequate for the number of people who utilize the area on busy summer days. The
take-out at Barker’s Creek is along the highway and bridge right-of-ways with little or no parking
available. Parking is currently available on private property courtesy of Tuckasegee Outfitters.
E5-62
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Land along the river in this section is in private ownership with business development on both
sides of the river in Dillsboro and a trailer park and private homes along the remainder of the
stretch on the river left side (left facing downstream).
The results of the controlled flow study indicate that the minimum acceptable flow for paddling is
between Flows 1 (554cfs) and 3 (485 cfs), the optimum flow was at Flow 2 (821 cfs), and if only
one flow could be provided, participants would prefer it be around 800 cfs. Participants often
noted the lower flows as being well suited to beginner/novice users both, in rafts and hard boats.
Beginner/novice users probably make up a large percentage of the current use on this section of
river as evidenced by the 40,000 or so participants in commercial raft trips and the extensive use
of the river for canoe/kayak instruction by commercial outfitters, summer camps, county/city
recreation departments, universities and paddling clubs.
Whittier Section
This 3-mile section begins in the town of Whittier at a small dirt pull-off about a quarter mile
downstream of the Whittier Post Office on Old Highway 19. The put-in area is on private
property, but has wooden steps to the river and anglers and boaters regularly access the river at
this point. There is room for about eight cars in the area. The river parallels Old Highway 19 for
about a mile where the river channel is about 300 feet wide with many small ledges. As the road
separates from the river, the ledges become higher and more continuous, culminating in a
beautiful ledge drop (class II+) about a quarter of a mile above the confluence with the
Oconoluftee River. The publicly owned take-out at a TVA/Swain County Access Area in the
Town of Ela has parking for about 6 cars, stairs to the river, a grill, and picnic table.
Measured flows within the Whittier Section during this study are provided in Table E5.6-15.
These flows correspond to Flows 2 and 4 of the Dillsboro Section.
Table E5.6-15. Measured Study Flows in the Whittier Section
Flow 1 Flow 2
Base Flow
410
410
Flow from Generation
403
575
Total cfs
813
985
Participant information is summarized in Table E5.6-16. Five participants paddled only on day
one (1 tandem open canoe and 3 kayaks). A variety of boat types were used in the study and
there were a variety of skill levels represented although intermediate paddlers were the largest
single group. The mean days paddled per year were 49 compared to 33 for the Dillsboro Section.
E5-63
Duke Power
West Fork Project
Only two paddlers in this group paddled less than 20 days per year whereas 50% of the Dillsboro
participants paddled 0 to 10 days per year.
Table E5.6-16. Participant Information for the Whittier Section
Participants
Kayak = 9; Decked C1 = 1; Solo Open Canoe = 1; Tandem Open Canoe = 2
(1Boat); Raft = 3 (1 Boat); Sit-on-Top Kayak = 1
Skill Level
Beginner = 1; Novice = 1; Intermediate = 10; Advanced = 4; Expert = 1
Years Using Craft
Times Boated
Mean Score = 1.5; Median = 2.0; 6 Participants had never paddled it and 7
1
Whittier Section
had paddled it 1-10 times
Paddle Whitewater –
Mean = 49; Median = 20; 9 participants paddled <21 days/year; 7 participants
Days/Year
paddled >21 days/year ; Range: 0 to 200 days/year
Age
1Times Boated Score: 1 = 0 times; 2 = 1-10 times; 3 = 11-20 times; 4 = 21-30 times; 5 = >30 times
Table E5.6-17 presents data from the Pre-Run Form concerning participant preferences for
different kinds of paddling experiences. In general, this group preferred running easy (class II
and III) whitewater, particularly if it was a unique or interesting place and they tolerated difficult
access to rivers and/or portages if they could run a section with interesting whitewater. They also
enjoyed running both easy and difficult rivers. They generally did not prefer rivers with big
waves and powerful hydraulics and were generally more neutral about the other types of paddling
Median
Scale1
Table E5.6-17. Summary of Participant Preferences for Possible Paddling Experiences
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
%
Mean
experiences.
I Prefer Running Rivers with Class II/III Rapids
0
0
6
0
0
50
44
6.3
6.0
I Prefer Running Rivers with difficult Class IV/V
19
6
12
0
25
19
19
4.4
5.0
18
24
12
0
35
12
0
3.5
3.0
6
18
18
6
18
23
12
4.3
5.0
0
6
0
0
12
12
70
6.4
7.0
12
6
12
12
29
23
6
4.4
5.0
Rapids
Running Challenging Whitewater is Most Important
Part of Boating
I Often Boat Short Sections (< 4 miles) for the “Play
Areas”
I Often Boat a Section to Experience a
Unique/Interesting Place
I Often Boat Short Sections to Run Challenging Rapids
E5-64
West Fork Project
2
3
4
%
5
6
7
I Boat Sections Based on Length/Experience
Mean
1
Scale1
Median
Duke Power
17
0
17
33
17
0
17
4.0
4.0
0
0
0
0
33
33
33
6.0
6.0
33
17
0
17
33
0
0
3.0
3.0
I prefer boating steep technical rivers
17
17
0
17
17
33
0
4.0
4.5
I enjoy boating both difficult and easy rivers
0
17
0
0
0
0
83
6.2
7.0
Regardless of Difficulty
I tolerate difficult put-ins/portages to run interesting
whitewater
I prefer rivers with large waves and powerful
hydraulics
1
7-Point Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Moderately Disagree; 3 = Slightly Disagree; 4 = No Opinion; 5
= Slightly Agree; 6 = Moderately Agree; 7 = Strongly Agree.
two different flow conditions are shown in Table E5.6-18. There is some slight preference for
Flow 1 for most characteristics and they all score in the acceptable range except for “availability
of powerful hydraulics” and “aesthetics” (neutral at Flow 2). The overall rating is generally
“acceptable” for both flows.
Flow 1
Flow 2
Characteristic
813 cfs
985 cfs
Mean Median Mean Median
Navigability
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.o
Availability of challenging technical boating
0.9
1.0
0.6
1.0
Availability of powerful hydraulics
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
Availability of whitewater “play areas”
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.5
Overall whitewater challenge
0.9
1.0
0.6
1.0
Safety
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Aesthetics
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
Length of Run
1.4
1.0
0.7
1.0
Number of Portages
1.0
2.0
1.1
1.0
Overall rating
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.0
1
5-point scale: -2 = Totally Unacceptable; -1 = Unacceptable; 0 = Neutral; +1 = Acceptable; +2 = Totally
Acceptable. Flow values are in cfs.
E5-65
Duke Power
West Fork Project
E5.6-19 in order of importance to the participants. The top five are “Safe Trip”, “Crowding”,
“Water Quality”, “Difficulty of Rapids”, and “Number of Rapids”.
Table E5.6-19. Summary Ratings of Factors that Can Affect Satisfaction with a Whitewater Trip
Importance of Characteristic1
Characteristic
Mean Score Median Score
1
Safe Trip
3.8
4.0
Crowding
3.6
4.0
Water Quality
3.4
3.5
Difficulty of Rapids
3.4
3.0
Number of Rapids
3.4
3.0
Accessibility
3.2
3.0
Driving Distance to River
3.1
3.0
Attractive Scenery
3.1
3.0
Thrilling Experience
2.9
3.0
Good Guide
2.8
2.0
Shuttle Availability
2.4
1.5
Weather
2.3
2.0
Water Temperature
2.3
2.0
Importance Scale: 5-Point Scale where 1 = Not Important; 3 = Somewhat Important; 5 = Very Important
A summary of participant responses to the skill level required to safely paddle each flow is
provided in Table E5.6-20. Both flows were rated as suitable for “Beginner” and “Novice” levels
primarily though 15-20% of this group rated it an intermediate section of river.
Table E5.6-20. Number of Participants Selecting the Skill Level Needed to Safely Paddle each Flow.
Flow 1 Flow 2
Skill Level
813 cfs 985 cfs
Beginner
3
6
Novice
9
3
Intermediate
3
4
The majority of participants rated the Whittier Section as class II on the American Whitewater
International Scale of River Difficulty at both flow levels (Table E5.6-21). Smaller numbers
rated it at class III at the lower flow.
Table E5.6-21. Number of Participants Rating the Whitewater Difficulty at each Flow
Flow 1 Flow 2
Difficulty Rating 813 cfs 985 cfs
Class I
1
0
Class II
9
10
Class III
3
1
E5-66
Duke Power
West Fork Project
The median number of “hits” (hit an obstacle but did not stop) was the same for both flow levels
(10) (Table E5.6-22). The number of “acceptable hits” was close at 8-10. There were few
“stops” (stopped by a hit but did not get out of boat) at either level and no “drags” (had to get out
of boat to move it from the “stop”). There were 2 “portages” at the Class II+ ledge at Flow 1 and
no portages at Flow 2.
Table E5.6-22. Summary of the Number of Hits, Acceptable Hits, Stops, Drags, and Portages at each
Flow
Flow 1
Flow 2
813 cfs
985 cfs
Estimate of:
Median Range Median Range
No. of Hits
No. of Hits
Acceptable
No. of Stops
No. of Drags
No. of Portages
10
10
1-40
4-60
10
8
2-44
1-35
0
0
0
0- 3
0
0- 2
0
0
0
0- 4
0
0
The Overall Rating for the Whittier Section from the Single Flow Survey and the Overall
Evaluation from the Comparative Survey indicate a generally “Acceptable” rating for both flows
(Table E5.6-23). Figure E5.6-5 shows the number of responses (as a %) for each rating on the
comparative overall survey. For “Minimal” flow participants desired “No Change” at Flow 1 and
“Lower” to “No Change” at Flow 2. For “Optimal” flow participants wanted “Higher” water at
Flow 1 and “No Change” to “Higher” at Flow 2. Participants would “Possibly” to “Probably”,
paddle both flows again.
Flow 1
Flow 2
Questions
813 cfs
985 cfs
Mean
Median Mean Median
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.0
Flow Preference – Minimal Acceptable
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.5
Flow Preference – Optimum Flow
3.9
4.0
3.4
3.5
Paddle Again?
2.8
3.0
2.6
3.0
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.0
Flow
1
Totally Acceptable
2
3
Figure E5.6.5. Tuckasegee River Recreational Flow Study - Whittier Section - Overall Evluation of
Flows
E5-67
% Responses
Duke Power
West Fork Project
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
813
985
Measured Flow (cfs)
Totally Acceptable
Acceptable
Neutral
Unacceptable
Figure E5.6.6. Tuckasegee River Reacreationl Flow Study - Whittier Section - Flow Level Choices
for Three Different Trip Experiences
6
5
4
3
2
1
Flow Range (cfs)
Minimum Acceptable
Optimum
E5-68
High Challenge
Safety
>4000
20014000
18012000
16011800
14011600
12011400
10011200
801-1000
601-800
0
400-600
Number of Responses
7
DukePower
West Fork Project
The “minimal acceptable” flow is below the 813 cfs of Flow 1.
Close to a majority of
participants noted 900 to 1000 cfs as the flow range for an “optimum trip”, “standard trip at
medium flows”, “highest safe flow”, and if “only one flow” could be provided. The means for
“highest safe flow” and “only one flow” drop from 2451 cfs and 1925 cfs respectively to 1073 cfs
and 907 cfs when the high estimate of 12,100 cfs is removed (medians for both are 1100). Figure
E5.6-6 shows the number and distribution of participant choices for flows for a minimal
acceptable, optimum, high challenge, and safe flow trips. About 71% of the participants would
recommend the standard trip to others while only 15% would recommend the high challenge trip
to others. Half of the participants did not believe a variety of flows for either different types of
boating experiences or providing opportunities for different skill levels and craft types was
important for this section. Of the six that thought flow variety would be important for providing
different types of boating experiences, half rated it as “not at all important” and the other half
rated it not higher than “moderately important”. Of the six that thought flow variety would be
important for providing opportunities for different skill levels and craft types the ratings were
between “slightly important” to “moderately important”. The scale choices were “not at all
important”, “slightly important”, “moderately important”, “very important”, and “extremely
important”.
Table E5.6-24. Mean and Median Flows designated by Participants for Specific Experiences
Specify Flows
Mean
Median
Comments
For:
cfs
cfs
Minimal
749
800
Range: 400-900; 8 of 12 participants noted 700-813
Acceptable
Optimum
1067
1075
Standard Trip at
951
1000
Medium Flows
High Challenge
1568
1100
Trip
at Higher Flows
Highest safe flow
2451
1100
Range: 1100-12,100; 7 of 8 participants noted 900-1000;
mean is 1073 when the 12,100 estimate is removed
Only One Flow
1925
1008
Range: 400-12,100; 6 of 11 participants noted 900-1000;
mean is 907 when the 12,100 estimate is removed
When asked to rate the Whittier Section with regard to other boating opportunities, participants
generally rated it “worse than average” when compared to other rivers locally, regionally, and
nationally (Table E5.6-25).
E5-69
DukePower
West Fork Project
Media
n
Mean
% Rating (and No. Responses): The Tuckasegee River is:
Worse than
Average
Better than Excellent Among the
Average
Average
Very Best
55 (6)
36 (4)
9 (1)
0
0
Compared to
Other Rivers In:
1 Hour Drive
1.0
1.5
Western NC
1.0
1.2
83 (10)
17 (2)
0
0
0
Southeast
1.0
1.1
83 (10)
17 (2)
0
0
0
USA
1.0
1.1
91 (10)
9 (1)
0
0
0
1
Rating Scale: 1 = Worse than Average; 2 = Average/ 3 = Better than Average; 4 = Excellent; 5 = Among
the Very Best
Participants were also asked to compare the boating opportunities at various regional rivers
(Nantahala, Little Tennessee, Chattooga II, III, and IV, French Broad/Hot Springs section,
Pigeon, Middle and Upper Ocoee, and Hiwassee) to those at the Whittier Section of the
Tuckasegee. Overall, all the rivers were rated “more desirable” than Whittier except for the Little
Tennessee and the Hiwassee which were considered “similar to” the Whittier section.
Participants rated Chattooga Section II as “more desirable” to the Whittier Section for novice
paddlers and the rest of the rivers were rated “similar to” Whittier. Generally the other rivers
were rated “more desirable” for intermediate and advanced paddlers with the exception of the
Little Tennessee, Chattooga Section II, and the Hiwassee which were “similar to” Whittier. For
boating characteristics such as size/difficulty of rapids, play boating, rafting, river running, eddy
hopping, technical maneuvering, and river gradient most of the other rivers were considered
“more desirable” than Whittier with the exception of the Hiwassee and the Little Tennessee that
were generally considered “similar to” Whittier. For logistical characteristics (driving distance to
river, shuttles, and access to river) Whittier was generally considered “similar to” all the rivers
except the Nantahala, Pigeon, Middle Ocoee, and Upper Ocoee which were considered “more
desirable”. For scenery, all the rivers were rated “more desirable” than Whittier except the Little
Tennessee, the Middle Ocoee, and the Upper Ocoee, which were rated “similar to”. For water
quality, all rivers were rated “more desirable than Whittier with the exception of the Pigeon
which was considered “similar to” Whittier.
Written Comments from Single Flow Surveys and Comparative Surveys
When asked to identify particularly challenging rapids or sections and rate their difficulty (using
the International Whitewater Scale), the rapid most often named was the steepest ledge, which
was called Overlook Rapid by several participants. This rapid was rated Class II+ to III at both
water levels. Two participants noted that they portaged Overlook Rapid at Flow 1. Neither of
E5-70
DukePower
West Fork Project
these participants paddled Flow 2 and none of the other participants portaged any rapids during
Flow 2. There were no significant problems noted during the two flows and the only incidents
noted were one short pin and a swim, which are part of normal paddling trips.
In the “additional comments” section of the Single Flow Survey, participants said that they
enjoyed the section with plenty of places to play and to teach others at both levels. A couple of
people wanted more water at Flow 1 and another suggested improved access at the put-in and a
river gauge.
Comments from the Comparative Survey included a statement about no fees to paddle the river or
park while paddling, a question about water quality after perceiving pipes entering the river as
possible septic pipes and the value of this section for teaching people to paddle.
Conclusions for the Whittier Section
The Tuckasegee River above Whittier has an average gradient of about 10 feet per mile. The
river through the Whittier section has an average gradient of about 18 feet per mile with the
majority of the drop in the mile of ledges above the confluence with the Oconoluftee River. Just
below the put-in at the Town of Whittier, the riverbed widens significantly. For a mile, small
ledges characterize the river.
The next mile features larger, more continuous ledges that
culminate in the rapid now called Overlook and this section drops at about 30 feet/mile. The 0.8mile section below the confluence with the Oconoluftee has long swift riffles but few ledges or
rapids of significance. The entire section is generally rated on the International Whitewater Scale
as Class I-II+ with a mile of relatively continuous Class II ledges and one Class II+ to III ledge
(Overlook Rapid). On the river left bank (looking downstream), the river is paralleled by the
Great Smoky Mountain Railroad and for the first mile (on river right bank) by Old Highway 19
with home and business development between the road and river. The second mile has little
development (two homes) and is characterized by vegetated banks. The last 0.8-miles of this
section also has both home and business development along both sides of the river including a
trailer park which is densely developed.
The put-in is apparently on private land that has traditionally been made available for public use.
There are old wooden steps leading to the river. The take-out is at the TVA/Swain County Public
Access Area, which has a ramp and space for about 8 vehicles. This section is not currently
utilized much by boaters.
E5-71
DukePower
West Fork Project
around Flow 1 (813 cfs) and the optimum flow would be slightly higher (1,067 cfs) than Flow 2
(985 cfs).
West Fork By-Pass Section
The entire By-Pass section below the dam at Lake Glenville to the Tuckasegee Powerhouse is
about 6.9 miles.
Due to the lack of definitive information on the feasibility of providing
whitewater recreation on this section and the quality of those resources, a phased approach was
used to analyze the possible opportunities. The phases were:
Phase 1: This was an on-land assessment of the By-Pass Section using desktop analysis
(length, gradient, hydrology, access, etc) followed by a site visit to inspect the characteristics
of the section. The conclusions from this phase indicated that further study of the 1.2-mile
section between the Glenville Dam and the put-in section for this study was not needed due in
part to difficult portages around three waterfalls, a series of beaver dams obstructing
downstream navigation, and the encroachment of vegetation into the river channel.
Phase 2: This was an on-water reconnaissance at a conservative flow level to determine the
quality of the whitewater resource and see if further test releases were needed.
The
conclusions from this phase indicated that the 1.2-mile section below the Tuckasegee Dam to
the Tuckasegee Powerhouse could be eliminated due to access difficulties, lack of whitewater
features and the similarity of the section to other sections on the main stem of the Tuckasegee
River.
The section starting 1.2 miles below the Lake Glenville Dam to the Thorpe
Powerhouse was determined to have recreation opportunities that required further study.
Phase 3: This was an on-water assessment of two additional test flows that are documented
here utilizing the methodology of Whittaker, et al (1993).
Phase 4: If needed, this phase provides the additional information necessary to determine
minimum acceptable and optimum flows and other resource characteristics and participant
preferences. This was not needed for the West Fork since minimum acceptable and optimum
flows were determined on the West Fork in Phase 3 as well as sufficient information about
participant preferences.
The 4.5-mile study section begins about 1.2 miles below the dam at Lake Glenville. The put-in
area is on private property and currently requires a quarter mile hike to the river. Shoal Creek
Road is a small dirt road with parking for 8 to 10 cars near the trailhead. The first 1.7 miles of the
section is away from public roads though the river flows next to the Cullowhee Forest
E5-72
DukePower
West Fork Project
Development with a view of three houses. While Highway 107 parallels the river for the next 2.8
miles, the road is often high above the river with steep vegetated banks on one or both sides.
Downstream there are three access areas: one onto private property at the Cullowhee Forest
Bridge; one onto probable Highway 107 right-of-way at a small wooden bridge to the Sapphire
Development (take-out for Flow 2 on June 29); and at either the bridge 50 yards above
Tuckasegee Reservoir (take-out for Flow 1 on June 29) or at the head of Tuckasegee Reservoir.
The area at the head of Tuckasegee Reservoir is in a dirt pull-off area with a capacity for about
six cars. Additional parking might be available across Highway 107 in the area between the
Thorpe Powerhouse and the unoccupied employee housing area. The access areas at Cullowhee
Forest Bridge and the Sapphire Development Bridge have very limited parking.
Estimated flows (from the Tainter gate/cfs chart) during this study (June 29, 2001) and the
reconnaissance study (May 8, 2001) are shown in Table E5.6-26 for the West Fork By-Pass
Section. An additional 10 to 15 cfs was estimated visually as base flow prior to the releases.
Table E5.6-26. Measured Flows in the West Fork By-Pass Section
5/8/01
6/29/01
Flows in cfs from:
Flow 1 Flow 1 Flow 2
Tainter Gate/cfs Chart
63
160
250
Visual Estimate of Base Flow
12
12
12
Total Estimate of cfs
75
172
262
Six paddlers participated in the May 8, 2001 river test flow of 75 cfs. On June 29, 2001 eight
participants paddled Flow 1 (5 of the 6 participants from the May 4 release plus 3 additional
paddlers) and six paddled Flow 2 (2 participants opted out of the higher flow). On May 8, 4
paddlers were in kayaks and 2 were in inflatable kayaks. For the June 29 study 7 participants
were in kayaks and one was in a sit-on-top kayak during Flow 1 and all 6 paddled kayaks during
Flow 2. One participant was an intermediate and the rest were advanced to expert in skill level.
All had at least 10 years of paddling experience. One participant had paddled the section between
Cullowhee Forest Bridge and Thorpe Powerhouse several times before the study. None of the
other participants had paddled any part of the section. The average age was about 36 and the
average days paddled per year are estimated at over 100.
two different flow conditions are shown in Table E5.6-27. There is a definite preference for Flow
2.
E5-73
DukePower
West Fork Project
Flow 1
Flow 2
Characteristic
172 cfs
262 cfs
Navigability
0.5
1.0
1.8
2.0
Availability of challenging technical boating
0.6
1.0
2.0
2.0
Availability of powerful hydraulics
-0.3
0.0
1.8
2.0
Availability of whitewater “play areas”
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
Overall whitewater challenge
0.1
0.0
2.0
2.0
Safety
0.4
0.5
1.3
1.5
Aesthetics
0.8
1.0
1.7
2.0
Length of Run
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
Number of Portages
0.0
0.0
1.7
2.0
Overall rating
0.4
0.5
2.0
2.0
1
5-point scale: -2 = Totally Unacceptable; -1 = Unacceptable; 0 = Neutral; +1 = Acceptable; +2 = Totally
Acceptable.
E5.6-28 in order of importance to the participants. The top five are “Availability of Challenging
Technical Boating”, “Navigability”, “Safety”, “Overall Whitewater Challenge”, and “High
Quality Aesthetics”.
Table E5.6-28. Summary Ratings of Factors that Can Affect Satisfaction with a Whitewater Trip
Importance of Characteristic1
Characteristic
Mean Score Median Score
Availability of Challenging Technical Boating
4.7
5.0
Navigability
4.5
5.0
Safety
4.5
5.0
Overall Whitewater Challenge
4.5
4.5
High Quality Aesthetics
3.8
4.0
Availability of Powerful Hydraulics
3.0
3.0
Few Portages
2.7
3.0
Availability of Whitewater “Play Areas”
2.5
3.0
Length of Run
2.5
2.5
Easy Access
2.5
2.5
1
Importance Scale: 5-Point Scale where 1 = Not at All Important; 2 = Slightly Important; 3 = Moderately
Important; 4 = Very Important; 5 = Extremely Important
E5-74
DukePower
West Fork Project
When asked what skill level a paddler would need to safely paddle the West Fork Section, both
flows were rated as suitable for “Advanced” levels primarily (Table E5.6-29).
Table E5.6-29. Number of Participants Selecting the Skill Level Needed to Safely Paddle each Flow
Flow 1
Flow 2
Skill Level
172 cfs
272 cfs
Intermediate
2
1
Advanced
4
4
Expert
0
0
The majority of participants rated the West Fork By-Pass Section as class IV on the American
Whitewater International Scale of River Difficulty at both flow levels (Table E5.6-30). There
were 17 portages (had to get out of the boat) at Flow 1 (range of 0 to 4 per participant) and 1
portage at Flow 2.
Table E5.6-30. Number of Participants Rating the Whitewater Difficulty at the Two Flows
Flow 1 Flow 2
Difficulty Rating 172 cfs 262 cfs
Class III
0
1
Class IV
2
5
Class V
0
0
The Overall Rating from the Single Flow Survey and the Overall Evaluation from the
Comparative Survey show the same trend but with a greater scoring difference between the two
flows and a change from a “Neutral” rating at Flow 1 to an “Unacceptable” rating at Flow 2
(Table E5.6-31). For “Minimal” flow participants desired “No Change” at Flow 1 and “Lower”
at Flow 2. For “Optimal” flow participants wanted “Higher” water at Flow 1 and “No Change” at
Flow 2. Participants would “Possibly” to “Probably” paddle Flow 1 and “Definitely Yes” paddle
Flow 2 again.
Flow 1
Flow 2
Questions
172 cfs
262 cfs
0.4
0.5
2.0
2.0
Flow Preference – Minimal Acceptable Flow
3.4
3.5
2.2
2.0
Flow Preference – Optimum Flow
4.1
4.0
3.0
3.0
Paddle Again
2.6
3.0
4.0
4.0
-1.0
-1.0
2.0
2.0
E5-75
DukePower
West Fork Project
1
Totally Acceptable
2
3
The “Minimum Acceptable” flow designation is slightly higher than Flow 1 (172 cfs) while all
participants selected 262 (250 cfs + 12 cfs) cfs as the “optimal” level. The selection for a
“standard trip at medium flows” was in the range of 200-210 cfs. All of the participants would
recommend both the “Standard Trip” and the “High Challenge Trip” to others. On average, the
participants thought it was “Very Important” to provide a variety of flows for different types of
boating experiences and to provide opportunities for people with different skill levels and craft
types.
Table E5.6-32. Mean and Median Flows Designated by Participants for Specific Experiences
Specify Flows For:
Mean
Median
Comments
cfs
cfs
Minimal Acceptable
189
195
Range = 187-212 cfs
Optimum
250
250
All participants noted 262
Standard Trip at Medium Flows
213
200
Range = 212-262
High Challenge Trip at Higher
308
300
Range = 262-412
Highest safe flow
375
350
Range = 312-512
Only One Flow
250
250
All participants noted 262
flows
When asked to rate the West Fork By-Pass Section with regard to other boating opportunities,
participants generally rated it “Better than Average” to “Excellent” when compared to other
rivers locally, regionally, and nationally (Table E5.6-33). The West Fork moves from a general
rating of “Excellent” in a local context to “Better than Average” in a regional/national context.
Median
Mean
% Rating and (No. Responses): The Tuckasegee River is:
Compared to
Worse than
Average
Better than Excellent Among the
Other: Rivers In
Average
Average
Very Best
1 Hour Drive
4.0
3.7
0
Western NC
3.5
3.3
0
Southeast
3.0
3.0
USA
3.0
2.5
0
33 (2)
67 (4)
0
17 (1)
33 (2)
50 (3)
0
0
17 (1)
67 (4)
17 (1)
0
0
20 (1)
60 (3)
20 (1)
0
1
Rating Scale: 1 = Worse than Average; 2 = Average; 3 = Better than Average; 4 = Excellent; 5 = Among
the Very Best
E5-76
DukePower
West Fork Project
Written Comments from Single Flow Surveys
Participants where asked to identify particularly challenging rapids or sections and rate the
difficulty (using the International Whitewater Scale) at both flow levels. At Flow 1 (172 cfs) the
following rapids/sections were named by most participants:
First Falls (100 yards below put-in) – Class III+ to V- (river left run easier than river right
run)
Second Falls (0.25-mile above Cullowhee Forest Bridge - Class III)
Gorge Section (0.75-mile section below Cullowhee Forest Bridge- Class III-IV)
At Flow 2 (262 cfs), First Falls was again identified as particularly challenging (Class IV-V-). A
rapid called High Turn Over (Class IV-V) located just below the Cullowhee Forest Bridge was
also named by most participants due to the fierce hole that developed there, which allowed a
number of participants to cartwheel in the hole before being able to exit.
Participants were asked to identify rapids/sections they portaged and rate the difficulty of those
portages. Seventeen portages were made by the group at Flow 1 (172 cfs). One paddler took out
after portaging First Falls due to the difficulty of the river for an intermediate paddler. Four of
the 17 portages were rated “slightly difficult” and the rest were rated as “easy”. Only one portage
was recorded during Flow 2 (262 cfs) and it was rated as “easy”.
Participants were asked if they had any significant problems during the run. At Flow 1 there was
a swim below First Falls that led a participant to leave the study indicating a lack of the skills
necessary to paddle at this flow level. At Flow 2, a participant was pinned briefly but was able to
free himself, and several paddlers were surfed in holes but nothing really out of the ordinary for a
river at this difficulty for this skill level paddler.
When asked to provide additional comments, most participants noted the danger presented by the
trees (“wood”) in the channel at both flow levels. At Flow 1, there were more encounters with
trees but the current was not as pushy. Generally, paddlers felt that more water would reduce the
number of rock scrapes and open up more channels. At Flow 2, additional channels did open up
which made portages less likely but there was stronger current pushing toward the two
significantly dangerous logs in the river channel.
Generally, paddlers said Flow 2 was
“awesome”, “excellent”, “great” and something they would return to paddle again.
E5-77
DukePower
West Fork Project
CONCLUSIONS FOR WEST FORK BY-PASS SECTION
The 4.5-mile study section of the 9-mile By-Pass of the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River can
be divided into three sub-sections. The first sub-section from the put-in to Cullowhee Forest
Bridge is about 1.7 miles long, drops about 240 feet or about 141 feet per mile, and is rated Class
III-IV+. The river channel is a combination of bedrock slides/ledges and boulder garden. The
second sub-section is about a mile long, drops 120 feet, and is rated Class III-IV. The river
channel is bedrock slide/ledge and then enters a narrow bedrock gorge. The third sub-section is
about 1.8 miles long, drops about 120 feet or 67 feet per mile, and is rated Class II-III. The river
channel is generally a boulder garden. All of the 4.5-mile study section is bordered on both sides
by private property. Currently there are three houses and a trailer visible from the river and
traffic noise can be heard where Highway 107 parallels the river. Otherwise, the river is fairly
isolated due to the steep vegetated riverbanks and the height of the road above the river.
There are three significant whitewater features: First Falls and Second Falls, which are in the
first sub-section and the Gorge Section that is in the second sub-section. The entire study section
was generally rated “Better than Average” to “Excellent” when compared to other rivers locally,
regionally, and nationally.
around Flow 1 (187 –212 cfs) and the optimum flow is around Flow 2 at 262 cfs.
East Fork By-Pass (Bonas Defeat) Section
The entire By-Pass section below the dam at the East Fork Reservoir to the Powerhouse is about
1.5 miles. Due to the lack of definitive information on the feasibility of providing whitewater
recreation on this section and the quality of those resources, a phased approach was used to
analyze the possible opportunities. The phases were:
Phase 1: This was an on-land assessment of the By-Pass Section using desktop analysis
(length, gradient, hydrology, access, etc) followed by a site visit to inspect the characteristics
of the section. The conclusions from this phase indicated that there were potential paddling
opportunities for extremely skilled paddlers (teams of experts). Because of the potential
hazards in all sections, a visual inspection of flows by paddlers experienced in running Class
V water was indicated.
E5-78
DukePower
West Fork Project
Phase 2: This was a visual flow assessment of three different flows (approximately 170 cfs,
190 cfs, and 325 cfs) utilizing teams of observers with cameras at the most significant rapids.
The conclusions from this phase indicated that flow of around 325 cfs is needed to open up
the majority of the lines in the rapids. Lower flows do not cover up many of the dangerous
features of the riverbed, and higher flows would create dangerously large hydraulics. Section
2 (0.5 miles) is generally Class V+. Section 1 (0.5 miles) is primarily Class III+ after the
Class 5 Spillway slide. Section 2 (0.5 miles) is generally Class V+ and Section 3 (0.5 miles)
is generally Class III+. As anticipated, Bonas Defeat Gorge is a dangerous and challenging
whitewater run. However, several members of the study team wanted the opportunity to
paddle the gorge and thought other high caliber boaters would also want such an opportunity.
This section should only be paddled by small teams of experts using all precautions. The sections
are relatively short but stopping before the most difficult areas might be extremely difficult for all
but the most experienced paddlers.
Due to the conclusive results of this study, the pressing schedule of the relicensing process and
the logistical requirements of a flow study in Bonas Defeat Gorge, a paddling flow study with
boats will not be done. Other ways for paddlers who wish to experience this section will be
explored.
E5.6.4
Proposed Studies
No other recreation studies are currently proposed; however, as part of the Consensus Agreement
Duke proposes that annual recreation planning meetings be held to discuss flow planning for the
upcoming calendar year, and also an evaluation meeting be held 5-years after the new license is
granted to discuss the results of the proposed recreation PM&E measures (see Sections E1.13 and
E5.9).
E5.7
Impacts to Recreational Resources from Continued Project Operation
Duke Power recognizes that the dams create barriers to traditional, free-flowing river based
recreation including angling, paddling, and wildlife observation associated with unimpounded
river stretches. However, the resulting impoundments provide a wider variety of public reservoir
recreation opportunities including lake angling, a wide variety motor boating, camping,
swimming, as well as wildlife observation, that serve a much broader segment of the population
than do river types of recreation alone. Operation of the West Fork Project can affect river and
E5-79
DukePower
West Fork Project
bypass flows and reservoir water levels thereby influencing recreational opportunities in these
areas. To address this Duke is proposing recreation PM&E measures as part of the Consensus
Agreement (see Sections E1.13 and E5.9).
E5.8
Existing Recreation Resource Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement
Measures
In association with the West Fork Project, there are no existing protection, mitigation, and
enhancement measures for recreational resources. The Project currently has several warning
signs at the various powerhouses to increase downstream safety to recreational users.
E5.9
Proposed Recreation Resource Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement
Measures
The following recreation PM&E’s have been proposed for the West Fork Projects. On May 16,
2003, a Consensus Agreement was signed by the Primary Members of the Tuckasegee
E5-80
DukePower
West Fork Project
Recreation Facilities
Lake Glenville
Duke will provide a toilet, a public land based bank fishing area with trail (if the site is suitable),
lighting, and waste collection at each of the two existing access sites (Note: NCWRC to also
provide a barrier-free dock at each of the two existing public access areas).
a. Provided the necessary property rights are held or can be secured by Duke or the
American Whitewater Affiliation (AW), construct facilities to provide adequate
access to the Glenville Bypass, including any necessary parking and trail facilities
(Note that since initiating whitewater releases in the Glenville Bypass are contingent
upon having adequate access facilities, this item will be a top priority in scheduling
construction of the Tier 1 projects).
b. Partner with NCWRC to reconfigure the entrance road and remove a boulder in the
lake at one of the access areas.
Tuckasegee Lake
a. Construct a bank fishing trail and a gravel parking area on Duke property at the
headwaters of the reservoir. Provided the necessary property rights are held or can be
secured by Duke or AW to allow adequate access for a boating put-in point on the
Glenville Bypass, also construct a boating take-out at this location (Note that since
adequate access facilities, this item will be a top priority in scheduling construction
of the Tier 1 projects).
Main Stem of Tuckasegee River below Tuckasegee Hydros
a. Develop a public boat launch and gravel parking area at the Tuckasegee Powerhouse,
provided suitable agreements can be reached with the property owners.
Wildlife Viewing Platforms on Reservoirs
a. Work with the NCWRC, the USFS, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and Jackson County Government to evaluate wildlife viewing
opportunities on the West Fork project reservoirs at the following locations: (1) the
public recreation areas adjoining the reservoirs, (2) property owned by the USFS
adjoining the reservoirs or (3) Andrews Park on Lake Glenville. Provide a summary
by 8/1/03 of any significant viewing opportunities and the need, practicality and cost
of providing one viewing platform per reservoir at one of these three locations.
E5-81
DukePower
West Fork Project
b. If such a viewing platform is needed and can cost-effectively be constructed, then it
will be added to the construction plans identified above (if it will be located at one of
the Duke-owned access areas) or Duke will pay for its construction once construction
is completed (if it will be located on USFS-owned property or at Andrews Park).
Public Swimming Area
a. Work with the NCWRC, the USFS, the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and stakeholder team representatives from the adjoining property owner
primary interest category to evaluate the West Fork project reservoirs and determine
if a public swimming area that meets accepted design standards can be incorporated
at any of the following places: (1) the public recreation areas or other Duke-owned
properties adjoining the reservoirs, (2) Andrews Park on Lake Glenville, or (3)
property owned by the USFS that adjoins a Duke reservoir. The public swimming
area will consist of a beach, marked boundaries within the lake and a gravel parking
area. Provide a summary by 8/1/03 of the most feasible location, an estimate of the
construction and operational costs and identify the entity that would maintain the
public swimming area.
b. If a site that meets the accepted design standards can be located, a single public
swimming area will be added to the applicable site construction plan identified above
(if it will be located at one of the public recreation areas, or on Duke-owned land) or
Duke will pay for its construction once construction is completed (if it will be located
on USFS-owned property or at Andrews Park).
Other Recreation Planning & Facilities Improvements
a. Work with stakeholder team members from the local governments in Jackson County
to prioritize other known recreation initiatives, particularly those that enhance use of
the Tuckasegee River either on or downstream of a Duke hydro reservoir or that
highlight the area’s cultural heritage. As a minimum, the following items must be
considered and prioritized accordingly:
1. Greenway facilities that include river access
2. The Andrews Park Master Plan
b. Review the prioritized list and select initiatives from the list to receive funding
support from Duke.
E5-82
DukePower
West Fork Project
c. Contribute a total of $350,000 toward implementation of the Duke-selected
initiatives.
d. Contributions will be made during the project timeframes.
PUBLIC INFORMATION
a. Add the following to the Duke website - actual lake level readings, the Normal
Operating Ranges, recent lake level histories, near-term lake level projections and
special messages for all West Fork project reservoirs except Tuckasegee Lake.
b. Actual lake levels for all West Fork project reservoirs except Tuckasegee Lake and
special messages will be provided by the Duke telephone information line.
Protocols.
Recreational flow information
a. Generation and bypass release flow schedules for the West Fork projects will be
maintained by the Duke telephone information line and website.
b. Special messages concerning modifications to the generation and bypass release
schedules will be communicated per the Low Inflow and Hydro Project Maintenance
and Emergency Protocols.
c. Establish a hotlink on the Duke website to access the real-time surface water gages
on the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) website that takes the user directly to
the real-time data for USGS Gage # 03510500 at Dillsboro, NC and USGS Gage #
03508000 at Tuckasegee, NC.
d. The above recreational flow information will be provided beginning in 2004.
Gage reactivation
a. Upon completion by the USGS, pay for reactivation and ongoing maintenance of
USGS Gage # 03510500 at Dillsboro, NC and USGS Gage # 03508000 at
Tuckasegee, NC (Potential additional partners – NCDWR, USFWS).
b. Gages operational by 2004 provided USGS could complete reactivation by then.
E5-83
DukePower
West Fork Project
Communications Technology Improvements
a. Duke will follow improvements in communication technology and infrastructure that
may occur over the life of the next hydro project licenses and will make costeffective enhancements to the delivery of reservoir and recreational flow information.
Other Recreation Information Improvements
a. Establish a Communications Working Group from interested members of the TCST
to evaluate the audiences and needs for additional recreation information relative to
the West Fork Projects and the access points on the main stem of the Tuckasegee
River and to prepare the necessary communications tools. Potential examples include
but are not limited to:
1) Signage at points of public access (e.g. show USFS and Duke property boundaries,
provide web addresses and telephone numbers, provide appropriate warnings,
wildlife interpretive information, etc.)
2) A recreation brochure
3) A staff gage at the put-in point on the West Fork Bypass to provide boaters and
Duke operators with field indications of flowrates in the West Fork Bypass.
4) A wildlife checklist or poster.
b. Focus effort primarily on improving existing communications tools and better public
access to information that already exists.
c. Working Group will conduct the evaluation and propose a schedule and cost-sharing
plan by August 15, 2003.
ANGLING AND BOATING RECREATION FLOWS
Primary Angling Periods in the Main Stem Tuckasegee River
a. The first weekend after Labor Day through the last weekend of October and April 1st
through the first weekend of June are defined as primary angling periods with actual
flows at or below about 500 cfs being preferred (as measured at the reactivated USGS
gage at Dillsboro).
b. During part of this time-period, boating release schedules overlap. During this overlap
period (the Saturday that occurs nine days before Memorial Day through the first
E5-84
DukePower
West Fork Project
weekend of June and Saturdays in September and October) the Normal Generation
Schedule to Support Recreation will be:
1) West Fork Release: Saturday and Sunday one week prior to Memorial Day
Weekend, Saturday and Monday of Memorial Day Weekend and 3 of 4
Saturdays in September and October plus Tuesday, Friday Saturday for the
period between Memorial Day Weekend through the first weekend in June for 6
hours, timed to arrive at the reactivated USGS gage at Dillsboro at
approximately 10:30 AM.
Primary Boating periods in the Main Stem Tuckasegee River
a. Primary boating periods = Period after the first weekend of June through Labor Day, with
actual flows at about 800 cfs (as measured at the reactivated USGS gage at Dillsboro)
being preferred.
b. During this time period, the Normal Generation Schedule to Support Recreation for 3 out
of 4 weeks will be:
1) West Fork Release: Tuesday, Friday, Sunday for 6 hours, timed to arrive at the
c. During this time period, the Normal Generation Schedule to Support Recreation for 1 out
of 4 weeks will be:
1) West Fork Release: Tuesday, Friday, Saturday for 6 hours, timed to arrive at the
d. Adjusting for Significant Baseline Flows - Duke will check the river flow daily at the
reactivated Dillsboro USGS Gage #03510500 and by doing so, Duke can project the
expected river flow at the Dillsboro Gage during the next scheduled generation release to
support recreation. When projected baseline river flow (i.e. the flow rate at the Dillsboro
USGS gage without Duke making the scheduled generation release to support recreation)
is expected to average more than 500 cfs over the period from 10:30 AM to 4:30 PM,
specific recreation flow releases from the Duke hydropower stations can be reduced or
stopped.
e. All main stem recreational releases are at or above the best efficiency flow for the
applicable hydro units.
E5-85
DukePower
West Fork Project
Provided the necessary property rights are held or can be secured by Duke or AW to allow
adequate access, establish recreation flows in the Glenville Bypass using a Tainter Gate at
Glenville Dam according to the following schedule:
a. Release water for 6 hours per day for one weekend (Saturday and Sunday) per year in
April. Target flowrate will be approximately 250 cfs each day and will begin at 10:00
AM.
b. Provide five total afternoon releases per year for 6 hrs each, scheduled on days in the
months of May through September. Target flowrate will be approximately 250 cfs each
day and will begin at 10:00 AM.
c. Target Flowrates - The target flowrates stated above are for flowrates at the put-in point.
Actual release amounts from the Tainter gate needs to be large enough that when
combined with other tributary and accretion flows, the total is as close as possible to the
target flowrates.
Special Events – Requests for special generation releases that require additional generation hours
beyond the total number of hours as noted in Items 1 and 2 above will be handled on a case-bycase basis. To the maximum practical extent, releases will be integrated with the normal release
schedule so that additional release hours beyond the normal release schedule are not needed. The
requesting organization is required to consult with the Tuckasegee Gorge Association (TGA)
President to coordinate their activities as much as possible prior to making a special request to
Duke.
Alterations to the Normal Generation Schedule to Support Recreation - Duke will consider
requests on a case-by-case basis to temporarily alter the Normal Generation Schedule to Support
Recreation as noted in Items 1 and 2 above. Such alteration requests may shift the hours around
or reduce the total hours of releases to conserve the available water supply, but will not add
additional hours to the normal total number of hours scheduled for the given month. The
requesting organization is required to consult with the TGA President to coordinate their
activities as much as possible prior to making a request to Duke.
Annual Recreation Planning Meeting - Each October beginning in 2004, Duke will convene a
meeting of the following parties to discuss recreation flow planning for the next calendar year:
NCWRC, NCDWR, USFWS, USFS, AW, TGA, Carolina Canoe Club (CCC), Trout Unlimited
(TU) and any other known entities desiring special releases from the West Fork Project during the
E5-86
DukePower
West Fork Project
coming year, plus the Friends of Lake Glenville (FLG) and the Glenville Community
Development Club (GCDC).
Ongoing Duke Contact for Recreation Flow Issues – Duke will continue to provide an
employee, preferably with an office located in the Duke service area, to serve as a primary point
of contact for day-to-day, recreation flow-related issues. The employee will have additional
duties, but one of the employee’s priorities will be ensuring continued effective communications
with businesses and the general public that use the river sections that have flows affected by Duke
hydro stations.
Evaluation of First 5 Years - In October immediately following the first 5 full recreation
seasons of operation under the requirements of the new FERC license for the West Fork Projects,
Duke will convene a meeting of the following parties to discuss any lessons-learned from the
previous 5 years of operation and to identify any potential improvements that all the parties can
agree upon: NCWRC, NCDWR, USFWS, USFS, AW, TGA, CCC, TU and any other known
entities desiring special releases from the West Fork Project, plus the Friends of Lake Glenville,
(FLG) and the Glenville Community Development Club (GCDC).
Implement the new recreation flow schedule on the main stem of the Tuckasegee River in 2006,
with Duke continuing voluntary recreation flow releases from its hydro stations until then in
coordination with the Tuckasegee Gorge Association.
Implement the recreation flow releases in the Glenville Bypass in 2006, or upon completion of
the following, whichever comes last:
a. Duke verifies that it holds the necessary property rights or it or AW acquires the
necessary property rights to allow adequate access to the Glenville Bypass.
b. Construction of the parking areas and any portage trails at a suitable put-in point and
take-out point are complete.
E5-87
DukePower
West Fork Project
ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE WITH DUKE IN RECREATION AREA CONSTRUCTION
AND/OR MANAGEMENT
Access Area Operation and Maintenance
a. NCWRC will enter into a cooperative maintenance agreement with Duke similar to the
existing agreement on other Duke Power lakes for the access areas located on property
owned by Duke at Lake Glenville (2), Tuckasegee Lake (1) and the access areas on the
mainstem of the Tuckasegee where Duke holds the public access property rights (up to 6).
b. AW will enter into a cooperative maintenance agreement for any portage trail providing
access to the Glenville Bypass.
c. Jackson County Parks Department will operate and maintain any facilities to be located on
property the county owns.
Access Area Construction
a. NCWRC will provide any cost-share funding and construction support as noted herein and
will repair / rebuild the facilities that they maintain as needed, including getting any prior
approvals from Duke as may be required by the maintenance agreement.
b. Jackson County Parks Department will repair / rebuild any facilities located on property
the county owns as needed.
Consideration of Additional Public Recreation Facilities in the Future
a. No additional public recreation facilities associated with the West Fork Project beyond
those noted herein will be requested by TCST members or the organizations they represent
within the first 15 years of the new FERC licenses.
b. Established mechanisms for monitoring growth in recreation facility demand (e.g. FERC
Form 80, NC State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, USFS recreation use
monitoring, etc.) will be utilized as indicators of any potential need for additional facilities
or facility expansions in the future.
c. Duke may also choose to undertake recreation use and needs studies if it desires to evaluate
any future recreation needs that may be directly related to its hydro projects.
d. After the first 15 years of operation under the new FERC licenses, additional recreation
facilities can be requested by TCST members or the organizations they represent. All such
requests should be justified by the requester with the necessary supporting data.
e. If Duke agrees that additional recreation facilities that are directly related to its hydro
projects are needed, it will endeavor in good faith to budget funds and make the necessary
E5-88
DukePower
West Fork Project
improvements. Preference will be given to upgrades of existing facilities that require no
additional property rights and for which substantial cost-share funds are made available
from other sources.
E5-89
DukePower
West Fork Project
E5.10 List of Literature
Benner, B. and Benner, D. 2002. A Canoeing & Kayaking Guide to the Carolinas. Menasha
Ridge Press.
Carolina Connections.
2002.
Online Document.
Great Outdoor Recreation Pages.
Campgrounds of the National Forests. http://www.gorp.com/dow/southern/nantcmp.htm
Duke Power. 2002. Tuckasegee River Paddling Recreational Instream Flow Study: West Fork
Hydroelectric Project. Duke Power, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power – Nantahala Area.
2002.
Online Document.
Main Relicensing Page.
Duke Power. 2003. Nantahala Area Recreation Use and Needs Study. Duke Power, Charlotte,
NC.
EDAW, Inc.
2002.
Recreation Study 3: Tapoco Project Regional Recreation Evaluation.
Prepared for: Tapoco Division Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
FERC. 2002. Revised List of Comprehensive Plans. Office of Energy Projects. Washington,
D.C. April.
Knight, J.
2002.
Zone of Peaking Influence Study. Duke Power Relicensing Study for
Tuckasegee River Hydropower Projects. Study in Progress.
Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 2002. North Carolina Segments. National Park Service, Dept. of
Interior. Online Document, http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/programs/rtca/nri/STATES/nc.html
National Park Service. 1982. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. January. 432 pp.
National Park Service.
2003.
Online Document.
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/
E5-90
Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
DukePower
West Fork Project
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources. 1984. Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1984-1989. Raleigh, North Carolina. September 1984.
327 pp. and appendices.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources. 1995. Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1994-1995. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2002. Online Document. Western Mountain
Region Table – Boating Access Areas.
http://www.wildlife.state.nc.us/pg05_Boating
Waterways/pg5a1.htm.
4. March 1994.
USFWS. 1989. Fisheries-USA: Recreational Fisheries Policy of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. Washington, D.C. December 1989. 12 pp.
Whittaker, et. al. 1993. Instream Flows for Recreation: A Handbook on Concepts and Research
Methods. National Park Service Publication, Alaska Region.
Wildernet. 2003. Your Guide to Outdoor Recreation. Online Document.
http://www.wildernet.com/
E5-91
DukePower
E6.0
West Fork Project
LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.51(f), Duke has prepared this report on the land resources associated with
the West Fork Project. This section contains the following information:
Description of the land use within the Project area;
E6.1
Regional Land Use
The West Fork Project (Project) is located on the West Fork Tuckasegee River in the western
portion of North Carolina near the town of Glenville. The Project is located within Jackson
County. Thorpe Dam is located on the West Fork Tuckasegee River at approximately River Mile
(RM) 9.7, and Tuckasegee Dam is located on the West Fork Tuckasegee River at approximately
RM 3.1. The Project boundary includes the West Fork Tuckasegee River and adjacent lands. The
Project area, as discussed in this report, refers to the Project boundary and adjacent lands.
Although much of the lands within the Project area have been cleared, the overall landscape of
the region is mostly rural with large areas of forest, mountains, valleys, and some pastures with
widely dispersed homes and small farms.
Human activities and developments within the
Tuckasegee River drainage area include timber harvesting, agricultural practices, industry, urban
and residential development, and recreation sites.
Current land use in Jackson County is
categorized as public lands, private forest, agriculture, rural residential, and industrial. Most of
the forestlands in the area are public-owned national forests, administered by the Nantahala
National Forest or are owned by the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indian Tribe or corporations.
U.S. Highways 19, 74 and 23 to the north of the Project and U.S. Highway 64 to the south of the
Project along with NC Highways 107 and 281 are the major travel routes in the area. These roads
connect several small communities in the vicinity of the Project including Dillsboro, Webster,
Cullowhee, Glenville, Cashiers, and Highlands. These communities all offer limited commercial
and/or industrial employment opportunities for the local residents.
Recreational land use
activities such as hiking and camping are important to the area. Singing Waters Camping Resort
located off NC 107 has a capacity of 70 tent sites and 64 RV sites. Many other recreational
E6-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
activities are available on the nearby National Forest and National Park as well as the Cherokee
Indian lands.
There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers, eligible for listing Wild and Scenic Rivers, or designated
wilderness areas within or adjacent the West Fork Project area. However, the Tuckasegee River
is listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory by the U.S. National Park Service (NRI 2000).
From river mile 15 at Bryson City to river mile 53 at Cedar Cliff Reservoir, this water body
includes values such as diverse scenery and visual appeal, existing and significant potential for
recreational opportunities, interesting geology, significant historical sites, and high quality fish
and wildlife habitat.
The NRI describes the Tuckasegee River as a scenic, natural flowing stream that flows through
the ancestral home of the Cherokee Indians (NRI 2002). They also state that this river segment
has significant potential for recreational activities (NRI 2002).
E6.2
Project Area Land Use and Ownership
E6.2.1
Project Area Land Use
Land use within and adjacent to the Project boundary include the following general categories:
Agricultural (includes scattered houses and other structures)
Open Forested (generally undeveloped)
Open Riparian Trees and Shrubs (generally undeveloped)
Commercial Developed/Dense Housing/Powerlines/Paved Areas
Residential/Scattered Houses
Recreational and Public Access Sites
A few single-family residences and public-recreation/access sites (i.e., pull-off and picnic areas)
are also located along the West Fork Tuckasegee River.
Residential and commercial
development along the Project Reservoir, Lake Glenville, at the Thorpe Development has
increased in recent years.
Most of the land in Jackson County and in the vicinity of the Project area is publicly owned.
Publicly held lands include those managed by the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest
Service. However, privately held lands are also present. Private lands include towns, farmland,
homes, cabins, and corporate holdings. Other landowners include the Cherokee Indian Tribe.
E6-2
DukePower
West Fork Project
Lake Glenville and Tuckasegee Reservoir have approximately 26.9 and 1.1 miles of shoreline
respectively. There are no federally owned lands within the Project boundary.
E6.3
Description of Wetlands and Floodplains
E6.3.1
Wetlands
A description of wetlands documented within the Project boundary is provided in Section E3.3.1
(Botanical Resources).
The main protection for wetlands at the federal level is the Clean Water Act. The intention of this
act is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the nation’s
waters, primarily through the regulation of discharge of fill materials into the waters of the United
States.
Under Section 404, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory
responsibility for regulating the discharge of dredge and fill materials placed into waters of the
United States, including wetlands.
E6.3.2
Floodplains
Floodplains are mapped along the West Fork Tuckasegee River on Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Maps. Zone A, on FEMA maps shows areas within the one
hundred-year flood zone. Due to the relatively steep topography of the Project area, Zone A is
largely confined to the Project area and includes only a limited amount of adjacent land (Figure
E6.3-1 through E6.3-3).
The primary legislation related to floodplains at the federal level is Executive Order 11988. This
order directs federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of any potential actions within
floodplains to avoid any short and long-term adverse impacts associated with their modification.
Determination of floodplain areas is based on National Flood Insurance Program Maps or the best
existing available information.
E6-3
Figure E6.3-1
FERC No. 2686
Flood Area Map
Legend
Zone A 100-year Flood Area
Designated Project Boundary
Flood area data were obtained from Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood
Insurance Rate Maps effective May 17, 1989.
0
0
500
500
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
FeetFeet
3,000
3,000
Figure E6.3-2
FERC No. 2686
Flood Area Map
Legend
0
500
1,000
2,000
Feet
3,000
Figure E6.3-3
FERC No. 2686
Flood Area Map
Legend
0
500
1,000
2,000
Feet
3,000
DukePower
E6.4
West Fork Project
Land Management Framework
State and federal agencies have management responsibilities for land resources along the West
Fork Tuckasegee River and associated headwaters. Their responsibilities are summarized below.
E6.4.1
Federal Management
The Project area is not directly within the area administered by the USFS, but National forest
lands are in the general vicinity of the Project. Lands that are within USFS administered areas are
subject to the management guidelines and objectives of the National Forest Management Plan
developed by the Nantahala National Forest.
The forest plan was created to direct the
management of the Nantahala National Forest.
forest lands and use within Forest Service lands (USDA-USFS 1994). These include in general:
Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the National Forest through various
vegetative management measures;
Require a permit for the collection of forest products for commercial or personal use;
Manage all activities within riparian areas which include perennial streams, lakes, wetlands
and floodplains;
Utilize mineral resources only when forest-wide and management area direction and cultural
resources can be protected. Also require an operating plan before a site can be developed
Prioritize Special Use permits relating to public safety, general public benefit, and private
use. Also issue no new special use permits for domestic, agricultural, or fish production
water uses;
Acquire or exchange lands within proclamation boundaries to provide or improve protection
of significant resources, access opportunities, recreation management, and fish and wildlife
E6-7
DukePower
management.
West Fork Project
Also use plan amendments to designate management areas to new land
acquisitions; and
Manage transportation systems such as roads, trails, and other travelways consistent with
Management Area direction. Also, designate roads open to specific uses such as vehicles,
and non-motorized uses such as bikes, and horses.
vegetation management, land management and development, soil and water management, and
recreation management.
NRI, a register of river segments that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic or recreational
river areas. A Presidential Directive requires that each federal agency, as part of its normal
planning and environmental review processes, to take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on
rivers identified in the NRI compiled by the NPS. All agencies are required to consult with the
NPS prior to taking actions that could effectively foreclose wild, scenic, or recreational status for
rivers on the inventory (NPS 1982).
In order for a river to be listed on the NRI, a river must be free flowing and possess one or more
E6-8
DukePower
West Fork Project
E6.4.2
State Management
Several divisions of the NCDENR have management responsibilities for land resources in the
Project vicinity.
These include the Division of Land Resources (DLR), North Carolina
Geological Survey (NCGS), Division of Forest Resources (DFR), and Division of Soil and Water
Conservation (DSWC).
Division of Land Resources (DLR)
The mission of the DLR is to promote the wise use and protection of the state’s land and geologic
resources through scientific investigations and maps of the NCGS, and through the sedimentation
control, mining, and dam safety programs of the DLR’s Land Quality Section. Public education
in the earth sciences and technical assistance in regulatory programs are essential elements of this
mission. The mission of the three programs of the Land Quality Section is as follows.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control: To allow development within North Carolina while
preventing pollution by sedimentation.
Mining Program: To provide for the mining of mineral resources while ensuring the
usefulness, productivity, and scenic value of all lands and water of North Carolina.
Dam Safety Program: To prevent property damage, personal injury, and loss of life from the
failure of dams.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
The NCGS’s primary responsibilities are to study, describe and map the geologic and mineral
resources of the state and publish reports and maps summarizing their findings. The NCGS
administers cooperative geologic and topographic map agreements with the USGS, other federal
agencies, and state and local government agencies.
Division of Forest Resources (DFR)
The mission of the DFR is to promote the wise use and protection of the state’s forest resources
through scientific investigations, wise management, stewardship, and protection programs.
Public education in the forest sciences and technical assistance in regulatory programs and
management practices are essential elements of this mission. Key programs of this division
include the administration of Forest Practice Guidelines and Best Management Practices that
include water quality and buffer protection, management assistance and forest stewardship
E6-9
DukePower
West Fork Project
programs, fire control programs, pest management programs, law enforcement, and natural
disaster assistance.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC)
The DSWC cooperates with federal agencies and local partners to administer a comprehensive
statewide program to protect and conserve the state’s soil and water resources. DSWC serves as
staff for the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission to help deliver
conservation programs at the local level. DSWC provides leadership and assistance to the state’s
96 local Soil and Water Conservation Districts by providing financial, technical, and educational
assistance to districts, landowners, agricultural producers, and the general public. DSWC also
delivers programs in nonpoint source pollution management, cost share for agricultural best
management practices, technical and engineering assistance, soil surveys, conservation
easements, and environmental and conservation education.
E6.4.3
approved land resource related comprehensive plans relevant to the project.
The Project does not include any National Forest lands within the project boundary, and the
Project does not contribute to any overall land resource impairment. Through proposed PM&E
measures such as implementation of a future shoreline management program, enhancement of a
shoreline habitat protection program, the construction of additional recreational facilities, and the
future purchase of conservation lands, the continued operations of the Project are consistent with
the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the land management
portion of the Plan.
E6-10
DukePower
West Fork Project
The Tuckasegee River, from River Mile 15 through 53, is classified as a Nationwide Rivers
Inventory (NRI) segment by the NPS. The NRI (2002) lists the eligibility criteria and values of
this segment as scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, and history.
as implementation of a sediment management program, implementation of a future shoreline
management program, enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection agreement, the construction
of additional recreational facilities, and the enhancement of minimum flows, the continued
conclusions associated with the NRI.
E6.5
Consultation Regarding Land Use
E6.5.1
A preliminary assessment of land use within the Project area was presented as part of the FSCD
(FWA 2000). The FSCD was distributed to the pertinent agencies in March 2000. An onsite
meeting was held on April 25 and 26, 2000 to allow the agencies to tour the facilities. The
following agencies were contacted in association with this issue:
State
Quality; and
Federal
United States Forest Service; and
Bureau of Indian Affairs
American Rivers;
American Whitewater
E6-11
DukePower
West Fork Project
Indian Tribes
1)
environment.
Land ownership maps should be developed that accurately delineate
boundaries between public land, NP&L property, and private property.
Duke Response: Duke has included this request in the associated Project maps located in Exhibit
G.
2)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC requested that NP&L provide better representation of boundaries found within
the Project, which identify potentially important habitats, such as wetlands. Inventories of
riparian and wetland habitat should be conducted.
Duke Response: Duke has included this boundary information in the associated Project maps.
Wetlands and other habitats were also mapped (Section E3.3).
3)
NP&L was requested to determine how much upland use is occurring by hunters and
recreationists from boats on the Project reservoirs and to quantify the impacts by management
area and by season.
NP&L was requested to inventory, classify and map riparian habitat in the Project area.
E6-12
DukePower
West Fork Project
NP&L was requested to survey and map current conditions of vegetation under Project
transmission lines, transmission lines along river corridors and transmission lines rights-ofway.
Duke Response: Where applicable Duke has addressed these comments in pertinent Project land
use and recreational studies. Recreational use of the Project area is described in Section E5.0.
Riparian habitat was inventoried and classified in association with the botanical studies (see
Section E3.3).
4)
The USFWS recommended establishing a shoreline management plan around the Project
Reservoir.
Duke Response: A shoreline management plan was prepared, in association with the Consensus
Agreement, for the West Fork Project (Volume III).
5)
United States Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Malka Pattison, letter
to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Relicensing Project Manager, dated
June 22, 2000
The BIA recommended that NP&L provide a map indicating the boundaries of all lands and
their location in relation to lands in the Project area. Accompanying the map should be the
legal land description for all Project lands.
Duke Response: Within this application, Duke has included information on the legal Project
boundaries. A map of this FERC Project boundary is provided in Exhibit G. Legal ownership
descriptions (i.e., deeds) have not been included in this application, but they can be obtained at
the Macon County Tax Office.
6)
Jackson County Recreation and Parks Department, Mr. Jeff Carpenter (Director), letter to
Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala Power & Light Project Manager, dated June 20, 2000
The Jackson County Parks Department requested assistance with the development and
planning of greenways and financial assistance for construction and greenway development.
E6-13
DukePower
West Fork Project
Duke Response: This greenway program was presented to Duke as an item for project mitigation.
Duke would rather treat requests such as this as an enhancement measure.
Enhancement
measures for the Project are summarized in Sections E1.13 and E6.8.
E6.5.1.1
A preliminary assessment of land use within the Project area was presented as part of the FSCD.
In association with the review of the Project resources, study plans were developed based on
initial TLT and agency comments.
1)
The USFWS recommended collection of digital data according to standards of the Federal
Government, as noted by the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Duke Response: Duke has incorporated this recommendation in the appropriate study plan.
2)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC suggested that study plan GWB3 be renamed as “Shoreline Management
Policy Revision Study”. The NCWRC suggested that study plan LLM1 be renamed as
“Shoreline Habitat Survey”. Additionally, the NCWRC stated: “Data gathered during this
study also will be useful in GWB3 (Shoreline Management Policy Study) to protect important
habitats from shoreline development. The NCWRC suggested that study plan OTH7 be
renamed as “GIS Database”.
Duke Response: Duke has addressed these comments in the pertinent study plans and the
shoreline management plan for the project.
E6-14
DukePower
E6.5.2
West Fork Project
Land Use Studies
E6.5.2.1
Previous Studies
There are no previous land use studies associated with the Project area.
E6.5.2.2
No land use studies are currently underway within the Project area.
E6.5.2.3
Relicensing Studies
During the relicensing consultation process, several state and federal agencies recommended that
land use studies be conducted in association with this project and the other Duke PowerNantahala Area relicensing projects. A summary of the shoreline management plan can be found
in Section E6.8 and Volume III of this Exhibit E. These studies can be found in their entirety on
the Duke Power-Nantahala Area relicensing website at:
E6.5.2.4
Proposed Studies
No other studies concerning land use were requested and; therefore, no others are proposed.
E6.6
Project Effects on Land Resources from Continued Project Operation
No ongoing effects of Project operation on land resources were documented. Changes in Project
operations have been proposed as part of the PM&E measures associated with the Consensus
Agreement (see Section E1.13, Section E6.8 and Volume III). These changes are designed to
enhance and/or protect existing resources and are unlikely to negatively affect land resources.
Because of this, no new impacts to these resources are expected from continued Project operation.
E6.7
Existing Land Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures
There is currently no existing land resource PM&E measures associated with the Project.
E6.8
Proposed Land Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures
The following land resource PM&E’s have been proposed for the West Fork Projects. On May
16, 2003, a Consensus Agreement was signed by the Primary Members of the Tuckasegee
E6-15
DukePower
West Fork Project
b. Review each board’s prioritized list and select initiative from the list to receive funding
support from Duke.
c. Contribute $40,000 per county in Jackson County toward implementation of the Dukeselected initiative.
that will be used to prioritize potential initiative.
be $200,000.
E6-16
DukePower
West Fork Project
Duke.
following issuance of the new FERC licenses for the West Fork Projects and the closure
of all legal challenge periods, whichever is longer.
Shoreline Management
Maps - Develop shoreline classification maps for each lake on the Tuckasegee River, identifying
any unique areas that need protection for environmental, recreational, cultural or operational
reasons and provide the associated lake use restrictions.
E6-17
DukePower
West Fork Project
Duke will continue reviewing and addressing lake security issues.
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
Shoreline Management Guidelines
reservoir.
E6-18
DukePower
West Fork Project
Appeals for Piers/Docks Having No Practicable Alternative- Property owners may request to
Mitigation- Successful appeals should be expected to include reasonable mitigation requirements
Construction Limitations- Individual simple piers/docks (serving single individual projectfront
boundary. Piers/docks cannot be placed within 50 feet of a stream confluence. The total number
classification. This pier/dock per linear footage of shoreline limitation; applies regardless of the
E6-19
DukePower
West Fork Project
classification.
E6-20
DukePower
West Fork Project
guidelines.
feet. LAKE USE RESTRICTIONS – No concrete, grout or rock veneer utilized as part of drystack boulder wall construction. Riprap must be placed along the base of all dry-stack boulder
Area guidelines.
Notes
E6-21
DukePower
West Fork Project
b) Requiring the applicant to dredge the lake bed in order to use the requested facility,
of avoidance.
E6-22
DukePower
E6.9
West Fork Project
List of Literature
D.C. April.
4. March 1994.
E6-23
DukePower
E7.0
West Fork Project
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.51(f), Duke has prepared this report on the aesthetic resources associated
with the West Fork Project. This section contains the following information:
Description of the general existing resources;
A summary of existing and proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures.
E7.1
Existing Resources
E7.1.1
Regional Landscape Character
The Project is located on the West Fork Tuckasegee River in western North Carolina. The area is
characterized by forested mountains interspersed with wide river valleys historically utilized for
agriculture. Regional features include the Great Smoky Mountains to the north, Fontana Lake to
the west and the Nantahala National Forest. The region is primarily rural with the exception of
some small mountain communities including the towns of Dillsboro, Sylva and Cullowhee.
Development is slowly expanding in the region.
The Tuckasegee River from River Mile 15 at Bryson City through to River Mile 53 at Cedar Cliff
Reservoir is classified as a NRI segment by the U.S. Park Service. The NRI (2002) lists the
eligibility criteria values of this segment as scenery, recreation, fish, wildlife, geology and
history.
E7.1.2
Project Features and Setting
The West Fork Project consists of two separate developments, Thorpe and Tuckasegee, with two
reservoirs, two powerhouses, water conduits, and a transmission line. These developments will
be discussed separately within this section.
All activities occurring within the Project boundary are subject to Duke’s management oversight
and approval. All land management activities outside of the Project boundary are controlled by
individual property owners and are outside Duke’s control.
E7-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
E7.1.2.1
Thorpe Development
The Thorpe Development includes Lake Glenville, Thorpe Dam, Thorpe Powerhouse, and a
water conduit. Lake Glenville is approximately 1,400 surface acres in area with 27 miles of
shoreline. In addition to the land within the full pond contour, Duke generally owns all property
within 10 vertical feet of the full pond elevation of 3492 feet AMSL. Duke allows minimal
disturbance of this buffer for improving views of the lake and accessing the lake as stipulated in
Duke’s Shoreline Management Plan (SMP).
The reservoir level follows an operational schedule throughout the year with the peak drawdown
of twenty feet occurring in the winter. During the summer recreational season, this protocol calls
for the lake level to be maintained at two feet below full pool.
According to the Friends of Lake Glenville (Odell, personal communication), there are 570
waterfront homes on the lake. This equates to 21 houses per mile of shoreline or roughly one
home every 250 feet. The undeveloped shoreline areas consist of pine and mixed pine hardwood
forests. Pine Creek, Norton Creek, Hurricane Creek and Mill Creek flow into the reservoir over
small waterfalls.
The Thorpe Powerhouse is located approximately 6.9 river miles downstream of the Thorpe Dam.
Water from Lake Glenville travels 3 miles through tunnels and pipelines to power the Thorpe
Powerhouse. The bypassed section of the West Fork includes High Falls, a locally well-known
feature, as well as smaller falls. Public access to the bypass section of the river is relatively
limited as the land surrounding the river is privately owned. The Thorpe Powerhouse is a
distinctive structure of Gothic architecture. The Thorpe Development has been deemed eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places for the role the facility played in supporting
aluminum production during World War II as well as the distinctive architecture of the facility
(see Section E4.2).
E7.1.2.2
The Tuckasegee Reservoir is located immediately downstream of the Thorpe Powerhouse. The
reservoir has a surface area of 8 acres and just over 1 mile of shoreline. There is no development
on or designated public access to the reservoir. The lake level is maintained as close to full pond
as possible. The Tuckasegee Powerhouse is located approximately 1/2 mile from the Tuckasegee
Dam; a tunnel delivers water from the reservoir to the powerhouse. The powerhouse is a poured
E7-2
DukePower
West Fork Project
cement and metal siding structure. The Tuckasegee Powerhouse is connected to the Thorpe
Development by a 6.6 kV line on wood poles. The line is approximately 0.9 miles long.
E7.1.3
Viewpoints and Viewing Conditions
The Project is readily visible to local residents and visitors to the region. Views from the Project
reservoirs include open areas, scattered residences, forested areas and a state maintained road.
Very little of the land adjacent to the Project reservoirs has been cleared making the reservoirs
visible from only a few locations on the adjacent state maintained highway. The powerhouses
and dams are readily visible from NC Highway 107, a major transportation corridor in the region,
or other secondary roads.
There is a considerable amount of recreation activity within the Project area, particularly Lake
Glenville. Tuckasegee Reservoir has no public access and is not highly used by recreators. The
majority of individuals recreating within the Project area are from adjacent shoreline residences.
The remaining recreators access the Project from public access sites. The most common reported
recreational activity for the Project area was motor boating. However, on the Tuckasegee River
downstream of the Project, the single most popular activity is bank fishing.
E7.1.4
USFS Viewsheds
There are many views of the adjacent USFS lands from within the Project area. Among the most
aesthetically pleasing views are those of Chestnut Mountain and Blackrock Mountain to the east
of Lake Glenville. Both of these mountains are over 4000 feet MSL. The Project is visible from
few roads traversing the Nantahala National Forest.
E7.2
Existing Resource Management
Several agencies have management responsibilities for aesthetic resources along the West Fork
Tuckasegee River and associated headwaters. Their responsibilities within the West Fork Project
area are summarized below.
E7.2.1
Federal Management
administered by the USFS and the Nantahala National Forest. As a result, these lands are subject
to the management guidelines and objectives of the National Forest Management Plan developed
E7-3
DukePower
West Fork Project
by the Nantahala National Forest. The forest plan was created to direct the management of the
Nantahala National Forest.
forest lands and visual resources within Forest Service lands (USDA-USFS 1994). These include
in general:
Design forest management activities to meet the Visual Quality Objectives (VQO’s) for each
management area;
Meet the VQO’s for a new project by the end of the specified period;
Set priorities for rehabilitation of areas that do not meet the VQO’s specified for each
management area based on relative importance of the area, length of time it will take the
natural processes to reduce the visual impacts, length of time it will take to rehabilitate the
area, and benefits to other natural resource objectives;
Consider enhancement of the landscape through alteration of vegetation, rockform, water
features or structures; and
Recognize and consider wilderness values when planning resource management activities
adjacent to wilderness while meeting the objectives of adjacent management areas.
vegetation management, land management and development, soil and water management, and
recreation management.
E7-4
DukePower
West Fork Project
Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), a register of river segments that potentially qualify as
national wild, scenic or recreational river areas. A Presidential Directive requires that each
federal agency, as part of its normal planning and environmental review processes, to take care to
avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified in the NRI compiled by the NPS. All
agencies are required to consult with the NPS prior to taking actions that could effectively
foreclose wild, scenic, or recreational status for rivers on the inventory (NPS 1982).
In order for a river to be listed on the NRI, a river must be free-flowing and possess one or more
E7.2.2
The FERC’s list of comprehensive plans, dated April 2002 list several management and visual
resource plans for North Carolina (FERC 2002). The majority of these plans are not associated
with, specific to, or in the same geographic region as the Duke Power-Nantahala Area projects.
The following section evaluates the consistency of the West Fork Project with the pertinent FERC
approved visual resource related comprehensive plans relevant to the project.
E7-5
DukePower
West Fork Project
associated National Forest lands. In association with visual resources, the management plan
outlines objectives and measures to meet various visual standards and guidelines within
forestlands.
These measures include meeting the VQO guidelines, rehabilitating and
enhancement existing areas, and meeting wilderness management objectives.
The Project does not include any National Forest lands within the Project boundary but there are
National Forest lands in the general vicinity. However, the Project does not contribute to any
overall aesthetic resource impairment.
implementation of a future shoreline management program, enhancement of a shoreline habitat
protection program, construction of additional recreational facilities, and maintenance of lake
levels, the continued operations of the Project, are consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning
concepts, and conclusions associated with the aesthetic management portion of the Plan.
The Tuckasegee River from River Mile 15 at Bryson City through to River Mile 53 at Cedar Cliff
Reservoir is classified as a NRI segment by the U.S. National Park Service. The NRI (2002) lists
the eligibility criteria values of this segment as scenery, recreation, fish, wildlife, geology and
history.
The continued operation of the West Fork Project will not cause any adverse effects to the river,
which could change the scenic or recreational status of the river. The Project does not contribute
to any water quality degradation, overall recreational impairment, or negatively affect any other
attribute of the NRI plan. Through proposed PM&E measures such as implementation of a
sediment management agreement, implementation of a future shoreline management program,
enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program, the construction of additional recreational
facilities, and the enhancement of minimum flows, the continued operations of the Project are
consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the NRI.
E7.3
Consultation Regarding Aesthetic Resources
E7.3.1
A preliminary assessment of the aesthetic resources within the Project area was presented as part
E7-6
DukePower
West Fork Project
The following parties were contacted in association with this issue:
State
Quality; and
Federal
United States Forest Service; and
Bureau of Indian Affairs
American Rivers;
American Whitewater
Indian Tribes
1)
The Forest Service recommended the documentation of current aesthetic conditions along
with any alternatives and suggested these conditions should be contrasted and characterized
for National Forest System lands using their Landscape Management Standards.
Duke Response: Duke has addressed this comment in this section of the Exhibit E.
E7-7
DukePower
2)
West Fork Project
The USFS recommended that Duke assess the current visual conditions of the reservoirs,
transmission lines, Project facilities and surrounding landscapes.
The USFS recommended that Duke evaluate the visual effects all maintenance, reservoir
operations and management alternatives on the aesthetic quality of the reservoir areas,
transmission lines and facilities and on the scenery surrounding the reservoirs.
The USFS recommended that Duke evaluate the effects of instream flow levels on the
aesthetic quality of the rivers.
The USFS recommended that Duke evaluate the visual effects of all maintenance, reservoir
operations and management, and facilities on lands classified as backcountry.
Duke Response: Duke has addressed these comments in this section of the Exhibit E.
E7.3.2
A preliminary assessment of the aesthetic resources within the Project area was presented as part
1)
The objective of the study plan NPLAES1 should include consideration of the project in
context of the viewsheds in which they exist rather than being limited adjacent to the project.
In addition, the Approach and Analysis should identify representative viewpoints of not only
the Project structures, but should also include resources affected by operation of the project.
The documentation of current conditions along with any alternatives should be contrasted and
characterized for National Forest System lands using the our Landscape Management
Standards. They provide information necessary to evaluate the effects of the project and any
proposed modifications.
E7-8
DukePower
West Fork Project
Duke Response: Duke has addressed this comment in this section of the application.
E7.4
Aesthetic Resource Studies
E7.4.1
Previous Studies
There are no previous aesthetic resource studies associated with the Project area.
E7.4.2
No aesthetic resource studies are currently underway within the Project area.
E7.4.3
Relicensing Studies
During the relicensing consultation process, several state and federal agencies recommended that
aesthetic resource studies be conducted in association with this project and the other Duke PowerNantahala Area relicensing projects. These studies were summarized in this Section of the
Exhibit E and can be found in their entirety on the Duke Power-Nantahala Area relicensing
website at: http://www.nantahalapower.com/relicensing/hydro.htm.
E7.4.4
Proposed Studies
No other studies concerning aesthetic resources were requested and; therefore, no others are
proposed.
E7.5
Project Effects on Aesthetic Resources from Continued Project Operation
No ongoing effects of Project operation on aesthetic resources were documented. Changes in
Project operations have been proposed as part of the PM&E measures associated with the
Consensus Agreement (see Section E1.13 and Volume III). These changes are designed to
enhance and/or protect existing resources and are unlikely to negatively affect aesthetic resources.
Because of this, there are no new impacts to aesthetic resources expected from continued Project
operation.
E7.6
Existing Aesthetic Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures
and the confluence with the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River. The flow described above
E7-9
DukePower
West Fork Project
provide a beneficial affect on the aesthetics due to continuous flow across the riverbed as opposed
to dry riverbed.
E7.7
Proposed Aesthetic Resource Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement
Measures
The following proposed aesthetic resource PM&E’s have been proposed for the West Fork
a Settlement Agreement by September 15, 2002. A copy of the entire Consensus Agreement,
support from Duke.
E7-10
DukePower
West Fork Project
be $200,000.
Duke.
following issuance of the new FERC licenses for the West Fork Projects and the closure
of all legal challenge periods, whichever is longer.
E7-11
DukePower
West Fork Project
Maps - Develop shoreline classification maps for each lake on the Tuckasegee River, identifying
any unique areas that need protection for environmental, recreational, cultural or operational
reasons and provide the associated lake use restrictions.
Duke will continue reviewing and addressing lake security issues.
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
reservoir.
E7-12
DukePower
West Fork Project
Appeals for Piers/Docks Having No Practicable Alternative- Property owners may request to
Mitigation- Successful appeals should be expected to include reasonable mitigation requirements
E7-13
DukePower
West Fork Project
Construction Limitations- Individual simple piers/docks (serving single individual projectfront
boundary. Piers/docks may not to be placed within 50 feet of a stream confluence. The total
number of piers/docks that can potentially be constructed in an area > 100 feet classified as
Vegetated Areas/Coves with Stream Confluence is limited to one pier per 100 feet of shoreline
within the classification.
This pier/dock per linear footage of shoreline limitation, applies
regardless of the number of individual lots that adjoin the project boundary adjacent to areas with
this classification.
Fractured Rock, Woody Debris and Sand/Cobble- These types of habitat exists where: 1) the
E7-14
DukePower
West Fork Project
guidelines.
Rip Rap/Dry-Stacked Boulders -This type of habitat exists where these man-made structures
Area guidelines.
E7-15
DukePower
West Fork Project
Notes
E7-16
DukePower
West Fork Project
b) Requiring the applicant to dredge the lake bed in order to use the requested facility,
of avoidance.
WEST FORK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TRASH REMOVAL PLAN
Introduction
During March of 2000, Duke Power Nantahala Area filed a notice of intent to relicense the West
Fork Hydroelectric Project. Duke was requested to implement a trash and debris management
plan at the Tuckasegee Development portion of the West Fork Project during the initial scoping
process. In response to this request, Duke formed a Technical Leadership Team (TLT) to
develop an appropriate response.
Background
Trash and debris is common in and near all streams in the Nantahala Area and visual observation
indicates that the trash/debris loading in the area of this hydro project is not substantially greater
than it is at other large streams in this region. Some of this debris, that which is organic and
biodegradable, is an important component of stream ecosystems. Other trash, mostly man-made
and non-biodegradable, is better removed and disposed of properly. This trash and debris collects
on the intake racks and reduces water flow into the turbine at these plants. Over time, some of
this debris builds up in front of the intake racks, reducing intake area and causing increased
pressures on the racks.
In addition, only a small portion of the total trash in the river is deposited on the intake racks.
Most trash is moved down the river during high streamflow events. During these events, the
E7-17
DukePower
West Fork Project
Tainter gates are opened at the station to help stabilize reservoir levels. Since river currents are
greater near the open Tainter gates, most of the trash and debris goes through the Tainter gate
openings and down the river. Much of this trash is deposited on the riverbanks as flow in the
streams subsides.
Objectives
The primary objective of the trash removal study plan was to determine a safe, cost effective,
environmentally sound means of removing and disposing of debris that collects on the intake
racks. In addition, Duke agreed to consider ways to become an active partner in organized large
scale trash and debris management efforts.
Duke Trash Removal Program
Duke will initiate the following actions to improve trash removal and to help ensure a cleaner
environment:
Suitable collection containers will be placed at the project near the intake racks. On days
designated for trash collection, operators will separate the non-biodegradable from the
biodegradable. Biodegradable debris will be passed downstream. Non-biodegradable trash
will be placed in the collection container. A log sheet recording the results of this operation
will be kept at each plant. When the collection container becomes full, the operator will
dispose of the trash at an appropriate landfill. Date of disposal and the approximate amount
of trash will be recorded in the log for the station. The trash removal program described in
this section was implemented on March 31, 2001 at the Tuckasegee Development.
There are several groups and organizations that are involved in river clean up projects in the
Nantahala Area. Duke will actively support and participate in such river clean up efforts by
helping sponsor and/or promote these projects.
Duke will also help increase public
awareness on the benefits of clean rivers, streams, and reservoirs by working with the
appropriate state and local agencies. In alignment with this program, Duke will sponsor and
help promote the National River Clean-up Day each year during the month of May.
Duke already helps promote an annual reservoir cleanup effort, Big Sweep, on other hydro
project reservoirs. This same effort will be expanded onto the Nantahala Area reservoirs and
accordingly Duke will sponsor and help promote “Big Sweep” on Nantahala Area reservoirs each
year during September.
E7-18
DukePower
E7.8
West Fork Project
List of Literature
D.C. April.
Nantahala Power and Light.
2002.
Duke Power-Nantahala Area Relicensing Website.
Franklin, NC 28734.
4. March 1994.
E7-19
DukePower
E8.0
West Fork Project
REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.51(f), Duke has prepared this report on the soil and geological resources
Description of the existing soil and geological resources;
E8.1
Description of Geological and Soil Resources
E8.1.1
Physiographic Setting
The West Fork Project, which includes the Thorpe and Tuckasegee Developments, is located in
the Blue Ridge province, a mountainous zone that extends northeast-southwest from southern
Pennsylvania to central Alabama, varying in width from less than 15 miles to 70 miles. It is
characterized by rugged terrain with valleys ranging in elevation from 1,000 feet in the south to
greater than 1,500 feet in the north. Several mountain peaks have elevations greater than 6,000
feet with relief up to 3,500 feet.
In North Carolina, massive and resistant gneiss and
metasedimentary rocks underlie most of the province with the valleys tending to follow weakrock outcrops related to carbonate rocks and fracture or shear zones. Rock control has a strong
influence on topographic forms locally. Drainage is generally to the west; however, the slopes
separating the Blue Ridge from the Piedmont physiographic province are typically steep and
provide the initial run-off for some of the largest streams of the Piedmont, which drain to the east.
The West Fork Project is in Jackson County in the mountains of southwestern North Carolina.
The terrain varies from nearly level flood plains to almost vertical rock cliffs. The physiography
of the county consists of high, intermediate, and low mountains, flood plains, and low stream
terraces. The county is largely in the Tuckasegee River watershed that drains to the northwest.
E8.1.2
Geologic Setting
The developments are in the Blue Ridge geologic province. The province is defined as the region
bounded on the northwest by the Blue Ridge fault system and on the southwest by the Brevard
zone. These faults transported crystalline thrust sheets composed of Precambrian basement, late
Precambrian – early Paleozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, and Paleozoic plutons
E8-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
northwestward over Paleozoic sedimentary rocks of the Valley and Ridge geologic province. The
southern Blue Ridge is divided into two main belts of rock: 1) a western belt with thrust sheets
consisting of rift-facies, metamorphosed Precambrian and lower Paleozoic clastic sedimentary
rocks deposited on continental basement, and 2) an eastern belt with thrust sheets consisting of
metamorphosed Precambrian and lower Paleozoic slope and rise sedimentary sequences with
interlayered volcanic rocks deposited in part on continental basement and in part on oceanic
basement. The Hayesville Fault separates the two belts of rock in southwestern North Carolina.
Basement rocks of the Blue Ridge have considerable variation in lithology. Most are granitic to
quartz monzonitic gneisses with ages around 1200 Ma. They have been metamorphosed to
amphibolite to granulite facies. Most basement rocks are exposed in the western belt but there
are two exposures of basement rocks in the eastern belt.
In the western Blue Ridge belt, the basement rocks are unconformably overlain by a
metasedimentary cover sequence. These strata locally exceed 10 km (6.2 miles) in thickness and
have characteristics indicating deposition within fault block basins of varying depths and areal
extents. In southwestern North Carolina, the main metasedimentary cover sequence is the Ocoee
Supergroup, which has been divided into three lithologic units; the Snowbird Group, Great
Smoky Group, and Walden Creek Group. The Snowbird Group is predominantly quartzose and
feldspathic sandstones, siltstones, and argillaceous rocks. The Great Smoky Group overlies the
Snowbird Group in the eastern portion of the western belt and is a sequence of interbedded
conglomerates, sandstone, and argillites. The Walden Creek Group overlies the Snowbird Group
in the western portion of the western belt and consists of a sequence of siltstone, interbedded
feldspathic sandstones, argillites, conglomerates, and calcareous siltstones and conglomerates. It
is not know if the Great Smoky Group and Walden Creek Group are facies equivalents in a large
basin or unrelated sequences deposited in separate basins. Murphy group rocks in southwestern
North Carolinas and Georgia conformably overlie rocks of the Great Smoky Group. The Murphy
group consists of a sequence of dark shale and clean sandstone, metasiltstone, marble, calcareous
siltstone, and more clean quartzite and metasiltstone.
In the eastern Blue Ridge belt, a major metasedimentary and metavolcanic sequence is present.
This sequence is called the Tallulah Falls Formation in southwestern North Carolina. It consists
of a series of sandstones, shale, and mafic volcanic rocks. They are now metagraywackes
(gneisses) and schists interlayered with amphibolites. Overlying the Tallulah Falls Formation in
E8-2
DukePower
West Fork Project
this area are rocks of the Coweeta Group, a sequence of metasandstones and shales and a
discontinuous metamorphosed quartz diorite at the base of the unit. The Coweeta Group rocks
conformably overlie rocks of the Tallulah Falls Formation. Plutons of granitic to quartz dioritic
composition have intruded the metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of the eastern belt.
All the sedimentary and volcanic rocks in the Blue Ridge of southwestern North Carolina have
been metamorphosed from lower greenschist to upper amphibolite grade.
Surficial deposits in the Blue Ridge include alluvial deposits along the major streams, low and
high level stream terrace deposits, and colluvial deposits along the mountain slopes.
The Blue Ridge of southwestern North Carolina is dominated by a series of westward-directed
thrust faults of different age and character. The major transport along the youngest thrust faults
occurred about 250 Ma, thrusting the rocks of the Blue Ridge over the Paleozoic rocks of the
Valley and Ridge province. Portions of the Blue Ridge belt have been subjected to multiple
periods of folding and penetrative deformation.
The West Fork Project is within the eastern belt of the Blue Ridge and is underlain by rocks of
the Tallulah Falls Formation and the Whiteside Mountain Pluton. The Whiteside Mountain
Pluton intrudes rocks of the Tallulah Falls Formation.
E8.1.3
Site Geology
Rocks of the Tallulah Falls Formation, a sequence of metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks,
and the Whiteside Mountain Pluton (igneous rocks) underlie the Project. The Tallulah Falls
Formation in this area has three members: 1) the lower member consisting of biotite gneiss
(metagraywacke) interlayered with biotite-garnet gneiss, biotite-muscovite schist, garnet-mica
schist, and amphibolite, 2) the garnet-aluminous schist member consisting of muscovite-garnetkyanite schist with minor interlayered amphibolite, muscovite schist, and biotite gneiss, and 3)
the upper member consisting of muscovite-biotite gneiss, locally sulfidic, interlayered with mica
schist, minor amphibolite, and hornblende gneiss. The rocks of the Tallulah Falls Formation have
been metamorphosed to upper amphibolite facies. The Whiteside Mountain Pluton consists of
igneous rocks ranging from quartz diorite to granodiorite in composition. The Thorpe Dam is
underlain by quartz diorite of the Whiteside Mountain Pluton while rocks of the Tallulah Falls
E8-3
DukePower
West Fork Project
Formation underlie the majority of the reservoir. The Tuckasegee Development is underlain be
rocks of the Tallulah Falls Formation.
There are no known active faults in the Project vicinity.
E8.1.4
Mineral Resources and Occurrences
No commercial mineral resources are located in the immediate vicinity of the West Fork Project.
E8.1.5
Seismicity
Historical seismicity in the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge Physiographic/Geologic provinces
shows a general northeasterly trend, paralleling and generally lying within the Paleozoic thrust
and fold belts from Alabama to west-central Virginia. The largest earthquake known in this
region is the 1897 Giles County, Virginia event (MMI=VIII; mb=5.8).
Reliable hypocentral locations are available for the two most active regions in the Blue Ridge and
Valley and Ridge provinces: Giles County, Virginia seismic zone and Eastern Tennessee-Western
North Carolina seismic zone. The earthquakes in the Giles County area define a 40-km (24.8
miles) long, steeply dipping, northeast-trending seismogenic zone that includes the probable
epicenter of the 1897 earthquake. The orientation of the Giles County seismic zone differs from
the trend of surface geological structure; also, the earthquakes occur at depths ranging from 5 to
25 km (3.1 to 15.5 miles), entirely beneath the Paleozoic sedimentary cover rocks. Results from
earthquake monitoring obtained in a zone extending from eastern Tennessee and western North
Carolina through northwest Georgia and into northeast Alabama show significant similarities to
those of the Giles County seismic zone. Most hypocenters are located beneath the Paleozoic
cover rocks and crystalline thrust sheets, at depths between 3 km (1.9 miles) and 29 km (18
miles), with a concentration in the depth range 9 to 15 km (5.6 to 9.3 miles).
Epicenters located by modern seismic networks show a spatial pattern similar to that exhibited by
the earlier, pre-network data set. The most apparent difference between the two data sets is the
Blue Ridge region of western North Carolina is currently less active than it was in the past on the
basis of the earlier historical record. There is also a corresponding increase in activity in eastern
Tennessee. This may be a result of the short period of instrumental monitoring in that area or
mislocations of historical events due to population bias.
E8-4
DukePower
West Fork Project
The West Fork Project is in the Eastern Tennessee – Western North Carolina seismic zone. This
corresponds to the United States Geological Survey (1969) Seismic Zone 2, which is defined as
moderate damage corresponding to Modified Mercalli Intensity VII.
The interim National
Seismic Hazard Maps developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (1996) gives a peak acceleration
values for the Development area of 0.13g with a 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years
(return period of 1000 years).
E8.1.6
Description of Existing Soil Resources
The Plott-Edneyville-Chestnut-Cullasaja general soil map unit covers the area of the West Fork
Project. This soil association has a loamy surface layer and subsoil and is formed in material
weathered from high-grade metamorphic rocks, colluvium, or alluvium, and it includes areas of
rock outcrop. Soils are moderately deep to very deep and well drained and are developed on a
landscape that consist of rugged, dissected intermediate mountains that have long side slopes and
narrow, winding ridgetops and drainage ways
The Plott-Edneyville-Chestnut-Cullasaja general soil map unit consists of about 24% Plott soils,
19% Edneyville soils, 15% Chestnut soils, 15% Cullasaja soils, and 27% minor soils. The minor
soils include Cleveland soils near areas of rock outcrops, Chandler, Fannin, and Cashiers soils on
low to intermediate mountains, Evard, Cowee, and Trimont soils on low mountains, Tuckasegee,
Whiteside, and Sylva soils in coves, and Cullowhee, Dellwood, Nikwasi, and Reddies soils along
narrow flood plains.
E8.1.7
Soil Liquefaction Potential
When loose, saturated, granular soil is exposed to cyclic motion (earthquake motion) sufficient to
increase soil porewater pressure and thus, significantly reduce shear strength such that the soil
flows or settles significantly, liquefaction is defined to have occurred. This phenomenon can
result in surface settlement where the ground surface is flat. Where the ground surface is sloped,
soil flow or slope instability may occur. This loss of strength can cause structures founded on
these soils to move or otherwise fail.
Only alluvial soils in the area are susceptible to liquefaction and none of the Project structures are
founded on these soils. Liquefaction of soils in the reservoir area would result in no risk to the
reservoir or structures. In addition, liquefaction is associated with earthquake intensities of MMI
VIII or greater. The Project area experienced MMI V shaking during the 1897 Giles County
earthquake and may have experienced up to MM VII shaking during the 1916 Waynesville, North
E8-5
DukePower
West Fork Project
Carolina earthquake. The level of ground shaking needed for liquefaction in the area is greater
than has occurred in historical time.
E8.2
Geological and Soil Resources Management Framework
E8.2.1
Federal Management
Federal agencies that may have management responsibilities for geologic or soil resources in the
Project vicinity include the USGS, USFS, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS).
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS supplies scientific information needed to make sound natural resource management
decisions and provides information on the effects of natural hazards such as earthquakes and
volcanoes. The USGS is also a primary source of data on the quality and quantity of the nations’
water resources, and is the federal government’s principal civilian mapping agency. The mission
of the USGS is to provide reliable scientific information to:
Describe and understand the earth;
Minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters;
Manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and
Enhance and protect our quality of life.
published in 1994. The plan includes specific directives for soil and water resources. These
include:
Manage all activities within riparian areas
intermittent and ephemeral stream channels
objectives
Maintain appropriate stream temperatures and protect stream banks
E8-6
DukePower
West Fork Project
300 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream or lake
Set priorities for watershed restoration
Minimize soil damage
The plan includes specific directives for mineral resources, including:
Utilize mineral resources only when Forest-wide and Management Area direction and
cultural resources can be protected
Determine the need for special stipulation on all applications for permits, leases, and licenses
based on site-specific analysis
Require an operating plan before a site is developed
Natural Resource Conservation Service (USNRCS)
The NRCS provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and
improve our natural resources and environment. Activities include providing technical assistance
for conservation of natural resources on the Nation’s 1.6 billion acres of non-federal land;
developing and delivering technical assistance and information on conservation practices to
individuals, communities, Tribal governments, government agencies, and private-sector
organizations; helping protect life and property after fires, floods, and other natural disasters;
conducting natural resource surveys and analyses (including soil surveys); and helping land users
develop conservation plans for their land.
E8.2.2
State Management
Several divisions of the NCDENR have management responsibilities for geologic or soil
resources in the Project vicinity. These include the Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), North
Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), and Division of Soil and Water Conservation (NCDSWC).
Division of Land Resources (NCDLR)
The mission of the DLR is to promote the wise use and protection of the state’s land and geologic
resources through scientific investigations and geologic maps of the NCGS, and through the
sedimentation control, mining, and dam safety programs of the DLR’s Land Quality Section.
Public education in the earth sciences and technical assistance in regulatory programs are
E8-7
DukePower
West Fork Project
essential elements of this mission. The mission of the three programs of the Land Quality Section
is as follows.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control: To allow development within North Carolina while
preventing pollution by sedimentation
Mining Program: To provide for the mining of mineral resources while ensuring the
usefulness, productivity, and scenic value of all lands and water of North Carolina
Dam Safety Program: To prevent property damage, personal injury, and loss of life from the
failure of dams
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
The NCGS’s primary responsibilities are to study, describe and map the geologic and mineral
resources of the state and publish reports and maps summarizing their findings. The NCGS
administers cooperative geologic and topographic map agreements with the USGS, other federal
agencies, and state and local government agencies.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation (NCDSWC)
The DSWC cooperates with federal agencies and local partners to administer a comprehensive
statewide program to protect and conserve the state’s soil and water resources. DSWC serves as
staff for the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission to help deliver
conservation programs at the local level. DSWC provides leadership and assistance to the state’s
96 local Soil and Water Conservation Districts by providing financial, technical, and educational
assistance to districts, landowners, agricultural producers, and the general public. DSWC also
delivers programs in nonpoint source pollution management, cost share for agricultural best
management practices, technical and engineering assistance, soil surveys, conservation
easements, and environmental and conservation education.
E8.2.3
The FERC’s list of comprehensive plans, dated April 2002, lists several management,and land
following section evaluates the consistency of the Project with the pertinent FERC approved
geologic resource related comprehensive plans relevant to the Project.
E8-8
DukePower
West Fork Project
associated National Forest lands.
In association with geological related resources, the
management plan outlines objectives and measures to meet various standards and guidelines
within forestlands. These measures include meeting the soil and water protection guidelines, and
managing mineral activities.
The Project does not include any National Forest lands within or immediately adjacent to the
Project boundary, although National Forest lands are in the general vicinity of the Project.
However, the Project does not contribute to any overall geologic/soils resource impairment.
Through proposed PM&E measures such as implementation of a future shoreline management
program, enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program, and the preparation of the
sediment management agreement, the continued operations of the Project are consistent with the
spirit, objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the geologic management
E8.3
Summary of Consultation on Geologic/Soil Resources
A summary of comments regarding sedimentation associated with Project operation is provided
in the Water Quality and Use Section of the Exhibit E (Section E2.8). There were no other
agency or other interested party comments concerning geologic or soil resources.
E8.3.1
A summary of comments on study plans regarding sedimentation associated with Project
operation is provided in the Water Quality and Use Section of the Exhibit E (Section E2.8).
There were no other requested studies concerning geologic or soil resources.
E8.4
Geological and Soil Resource Studies
E8.4.1
Previous Studies
Information from previous geologic investigations is summarized in Section E8.1.
E8.4.2
No studies concerning geological or soil resources are currently underway in the Project area.
E8-9
DukePower
West Fork Project
E8.4.3
Relicensing Studies
Duke has proposed a Sediment Management agreement as part of the Concensus Agreement (see
Section E1.13 and E8.6)
E8.4.4
Proposed Studies
No other studies concerning geological or soil resources were requested and none are proposed.
E8.5
Project Effects on Geological and Soil Resources from Continued Project
Operation
No ongoing effects of Project operation on geologic and soil resources were documented.
Changes in Project operations have been proposed as part of the PM&E measures associated with
the Consensus Agreement (see Section E1.13 and Volume III). These changes are designed to
enhance and/or protect existing resources and are unlikely to negatively affect geologic and soil
resources. Because of this no new impacts to these resources are expected from continued Project
operation. However, should any land-disturbing activities be proposed, erosion and sediment
control measures related to these activities will be evaluated.
E8.6
Existing Geological and Soil Resources Protection, Mitigation, and
Enhancement Measures
There is currently no existing geological or soil resource protection, mitigation or enhancement
measures.
E8.6
Proposed Geological and Soil Resources Protection, Mitigation, and
Enhancement Measures
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENT
belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The prioritized initiatives list will
be requested from each board by 7/1/05.
support from Duke.
E8-10
DukePower
West Fork Project
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
draw the reservoirs down to mechanically remove sediment. No other geological or soil resource
PM&E measures are proposed for the West Fork Projects.
E8-11
DukePower
E8.8
West Fork Project
List of Literature
Algermissen, S. T. 1969. Seismic risk studies in the United States: Proceedings of the 4th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Santiago, Chile. v. 1. pp. 19-27.
Bollinger, G. A.
1973.
Seismicity of the southeastern United States.
Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America. v. 63. No. 5. pp. 1785-1808.
Bollinger, G. A.. 1977. Reinterpretation of the intensity data for the 1886 Charleston, South
Carolina, earthquake. pp. 17-32. In, Rankin, D. W. ed. Studies related to the Charleston, South
Carolina earthquake of 1886 - A preliminary report. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1028. 204 pp.
Bollinger, G. A., Johnston, A. C., Talwani, P., Long, L. T., Shedlock, K. M., Sibol, M. S., and
Chapman, M. C. 1991. Seismicity of the southeastern United States; 1698 to 1986. pp. 291-308,
in Slemmons, D. B., Engdahl, E. R., Zoback, M. D., and Blackwell, D. D., eds. Neotectonics of
North America. Geological Society of America. Decade Map. Volume 1. 498 pp.
Bollinger, G. A. and Wheeler, R. L. 1982. The Giles County, Virginia, seismogenic zone seismological results and geological interpretations. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
82-585. 136 pp.
Bolt, B. A.. 1988. Earthquakes. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York. 282 pp.
Butler, J. R. 1991. Metamorphism. pp. 127-141. In Horton, J. W., Jr. and Zullo, V. A. Eds.
The Geology of the Carolinas. The University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN. 406 pp.
Conrad, S. C. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. State of North Carolina. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development. Division of Land Resources. Scale 1:500,000.
Feiss, P. G. and Slack, J. F. 1989. Mineral deposits of the U.S. Appalachians. pp. 471-494, in,
Hatcher, R. D., Jr., Thomas, W. A., and Viele, G. W., eds. The Appalachian-Ouachita orogen in
the United States. Geological Society of America. The Geology of North America. Vol. F-2.
767 pp.
E8-12
DukePower
West Fork Project
Frankel, A. and Leyendecker, E. V. 2001. Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Response
Spectra for the United States. User Guide. Software Version 3.10. U. S Geological Survey. 23
pp.
Frankel, A., Mueller, C., Barnhard, T., Perkins, D., Leyendecker, E. V., Dickman, N., Hanson, S.,
and Hopper, M.
1996.
Interim National Seismic Hazard Maps:
Documentation: U. S.
Geological Survey. Preliminary Report. 31 pp.
Hack, J. T. 1982. Physiographic divisions and differential uplift in the Piedmont and Blue
Ridge. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1265. 49 pp.
Hatcher, R. D., Jr.
1978a.
Tectonics of the western Piedmont and Blue Ridge, southern
Appalachians: review and speculation. American Journal of Science. Vol. 278. pp. 276-304.
Hatcher, R. D., Jr. 1978b. Synthesis of the southern and central Appalachians, U.S.A., in IGCP
Project 27, Caledonian - Appalachian Orogen of the North Atlantic Region. Geological Survey
of Canada. Paper 78-13. pp. 149-157.
Hatcher, R. D., Jr. 1979. The Coweeta Group and Coweeta syncline: major features of the North
Carolina-Georgia Blue Ridge. Southeastern Geology. Vol. 21, no. 1. pp. 17–29.
Hatcher, R. D., Jr. and Goldberg, S. A.. 1991. The Blue Ridge Geologic Province, pp. 11–35, in
Horton, J. W., Jr. and Zullo, V. A., Eds., The Geology of the Carolinas. The University of
Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN. 406 pp.
Hatcher, R. D., Jr., Thomas, W. A., Geiser, P. A., Snoke, A. W., Mosher, S., Wiltschko, D. V.
1989. Alleghanian orogen, pp. 233-318, in Hatcher, R. D., Jr., Thomas, W. A., and Viele, G. W.,
eds., The Appalachian-Ouachita orogen in the United States: Geological Society of America. The
Geology of North America. V. F-2. 767 pp.
Johnston, A. C., Reinbold, D. J., and Brewer, S. I. 1985. Seismotectonics of the southern
Appalachians. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. v. 75. pp. 291.
E8-13
DukePower
West Fork Project
Odom, A. L. and Hatcher, R. D., Jr. 1980. A characterization of faults in the Appalachian
foldbelt. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/CR-1621. 315 pp.
Rodgers, J. 1970. The tectonics of the Appalachians. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 271
pp.
Sherrill, M. L. 1997. Soil survey of Jackson County, North Carolina. U. S. Department of
Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 322 pp.
Sibol, M. S. and Bollinger, G. A..
Southeastern U.S. Seismic Network.
1984.
Seismicity of the southeastern United States.
Bulletin No. 12A. Seismological Observatory. V.P.I. &
S.U. Blacksburg, Virginia. 44 pp.
Stover, C. W. and Coffman, J. L. 1993. Seismicity of the United States. 1568-1989 (Revised).
U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527. 418 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey and The U.S. Bureau of Mines.
1968.
Mineral resources of the
Appalachian region. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 580. 492 pp.
E8-14
DukePower
E9.0
E9.1
West Fork Project
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
Current Economics and Demographic Conditions
While not required, Duke Power believes it is in the publics and agencies’ interest to provide a
report on the socioeconomic resources in the West Fork Project (Project) area and other lands that
may be affected directly or indirectly by the Project. This section describes the economic and
social conditions of the Project area as well as Jackson County, NC in general.
E9.1.1
Demographics
Jackson County is generally rural in nature and has a population density of 67.5 people per square
mile. Only 33,121 permanent residents were in Jackson County in 2000 (NC State Demographics
2002). Jackson County experienced a population increase of approximately 6,200 people over
the last 10 years, and is projected to continue to do so through at least 2010 (Table E9.1-1). This
translates into a 17.9 percent growth rate (NC State Demographics 2002), which is slightly higher
than the state average of 17.6 percent growth. Its industrial base has demonstrated a slow but
steady growth and its economy is stable with an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. Additionally,
Jackson County has a higher per capita income than the state average. Caucasians are by far the
largest racial group. By gender, the population is nearly equal, with slightly more males.
Table E9.1-1. Jackson County Population Trends 1990-2010
1990
1995
2000
JACKSON
2010 (projected)
COUNTY
39,053
26,860
29,242
33,121
E9.1.2
Employment
Employment in Jackson County is supported by a large service sector, primarily within the travel
and tourism industry and retail trade. These two areas represent over 51 percent of the total
workforce (NC Dept. of Commerce 2002). There is also a high level of government employment
in Jackson County.
The relatively stable government employment helps keep the level of
unemployment low. ConMet Cashiers, located in the town of Cashiers began operations in 1969
and is currently the largest employer in the manufacturing sector with 150 total employees.
Webster Enterprises Inc., located in the town of Webster is the second largest employer in the
manufacturing sector and employs approximately 140 people, and Jackson Paper Manufacturing
Company is the third largest employer in the manufacturing sector and employees 125 people
(NC Dept. of Commerce 2002).
E9-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
E9.1.3
Income
The average weekly wage in Jackson County ($431) ranks 72 out of a total of 100 counties.
Average weekly wages are the total of all wages paid to covered workers (those insured under the
NC Unemployment Insurance Laws) for services performed during the week divided by the
average number of employees. The per capita personal income ($22,097) ranks 48 out of the 100
total counties. Per capita personal income is calculated by taking the total personal income of
residents of Jackson County and dividing by the total population of the county (NC Dept. of
Commerce 2002).
E9.2
Consultation Regarding Socioeconomic Resources
E9.2.1
1)
Friends of Lake Glenville, Mr. Douglas Odell, letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-
Nantahala Power & Light Relicensing Project Manager, dated June 18, 2000
The Friends of Lake Glenville requested that Duke change the reference to Thorpe Reservoir
to Lake Glenville in the FSCD and that all references for the Project reservoir be Lake
Glenville and that the necessary steps be taken to assure that the name change is reflected in
all mapping operations.
Duke Response: Duke has included this request in the Draft License Application and associated
Project maps.
2)
American Rivers, Mr. Dave Sligh, letter to Mr. John Wishon, Duke Power-Nantahala
Power & Light Project Manager, dated June 23, 2000
American Rivers requested that Duke complete a review of present energy conservation
measures and alternatives for new conservation programs.
Duke Response: Duke has completed an Energy Conservation Assessment.
E9-2
DukePower
West Fork Project
E9.2.2
comments and the associated Duke action is as follows:
1)
North
Carolina
Wildlife
Resources
Commission,
Mr.
Christopher
Goudreau
The NCWRC suggested that several of the study plans be renamed.
Duke Response: Duke has renamed these studies as requested.
E9.3
Socioeconomic Studies
E9.3.1
Previous Studies
No studies concerning socioeconomic resources were previously conducted.
E9.3.2
Relicensing studies have been completed and no additional studies concerning socioeconomic
resources were requested and; therefore, none are currently being conducted.
E9.3.3
Relicensing Studies
During the relicensing consultation process, several agencies recommended that socioeconomic
studies be conducted in association with this project and the other Duke Power-Nantahala Area
relicensing projects. These studies include an Energy Conservation Assessment and a GIS
Database Development Study. These studies are summarized below and can be found in their
entirety on the Duke Power-Nantahala Area relicensing website at:
ENERGY CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT
Introduction
During January of 2000, Duke Power Nantahala Area (DPNA) filed a notice of intent to relicense
the West Fork Hydro Project.
DPNA received requests for information about energy
conservation measures during the initial scoping process for this project. DPNA formed a
Technical Leadership Team (TLT) to evaluate energy conservation measures and recommend any
enhancements to existing programs.
E9-3
DukePower
West Fork Project
Objective
The objective of the program was to complete a review of present energy conservation measures
and propose alternatives for new conservation programs for consideration by DPNA.
Methods
The TLT formed to address this subject was chaired by a DPNA employee and the members of
the TLT were volunteers for the Nantahala Area representing local government, educational
institutions, and non-governmental organizations. The TLT met in August and November of
2001, and January 2002. The TLT discussed a number of energy conservation issues during these
meetings and developed the following four areas of focus for this assessment:
Information and Educational Programs
DPNA Hydro System Electricity Uses
Alternative Energy Technology and “Green Power”
Internal Energy Conservation Initiatives
Results of the Energy Conservation Evaluation
Energy Conservation Information and Education Programs
Energy conservation and education opportunities available within Duke Energy Corporation were
assessed. Following are the results of the assessment:
Energy Conservation Literature:
This kind of information has always been available historically to DPNA customers. Following
are a list of the publications that are currently available:
“What you should know about Hot Water”
“What you should know about Air Leaks and Your Home”
“What you should know about Electric Heat Pumps”
“What you should know about Refrigerators and Freezers”
“What you should know about Lighting Energy and Money”
“What you should know about Home Insulation”
“What you should know about Energy and Your Mobile Home”
“Your Energy Dollars at Work”
“Home Energy Conservation Checklist”
E9-4
DukePower
West Fork Project
While this material has historically been available, there has been no systematic means of
distributing this information to DPNA customers.
Energy Audits
In-home energy audits were formerly a part of the DPNA energy conservation program. This
labor intensive program was discontinued about 1998. Instead, DPNA now has made available
an online energy audit suitable for individual residences and small businesses. This detailed
energy audit can be accessed on the Internet at: http://www.energyguide.com.
For larger
businesses with more complex energy problems, Duke Power may be able to provide an on-site
energy needs assessment along with recommendations on how to solve energy-related problems.
Typically, these opportunities are discussed on a case-by-case basis with larger industrial or
commercial customers.
Environmental Education
Information on energy and energy conservation for students and teachers can be found on Duke
Power’s educational web site at http://zaxenergyzone.com.
Other Energy Conservation Programs
DPNA has always had programs available to customers that encourage energy conservation.
Special electric rates are available to customers who modify or build their homes to meet
insulation and other energy conservation requirements and to large industrial customers that shift
usage from peak times. Conservation brochures as mentioned above have been provided to
customers. Ads reminding customers to use energy wisely have been placed in many local
publications. As discussed, audits of energy use have been provided to customers, and self-audits
are currently available on the web-site. There are also external programs related to energy
conservation. One example is the Rebuild America Program (http://www.rebuild.org), which
provides grants for school and urban restoration projects seeking to rebuild areas in ways that
conserve energy.
Nantahala Area Hydro System Uses
DPNA projects have a combined total of 100 MW. In 1971, electrical demand in the Nantahala
Area surpassed the 100 MW capacity of the DPNA hydro stations and since then purchased
power has been needed to meet customer demand. Population and the related electric energy
requirements of customers in the Nantahala Area have increased considerably in the last 50 years.
Now, purchased power is meeting all new load growth and is an increasingly larger portion of the
E9-5
DukePower
West Fork Project
total energy supply. Power produced by the Nantahala Area hydro stations is always used
directly by NA customers.
Alternative Energy Technology and “Green Power” Opportunities
As with other generation technologies deployed by Duke Energy, renewable energy generation
technologies must be economically attractive and technologically feasible.
Duke Energy
considers the development of clean, renewable energy sources to be a matter of importance. Duke
Energy has been involved in the following related initiatives:
“Green Power”
Duke Power is participating in a collaborative effort with utilities, environmental and renewable
energy stakeholders to develop a statewide, voluntary green power program in North Carolina.
Advanced Energy has formed an advisory committee, of which Duke Power is a participant, to
develop, implement and market the program. More information about North Carolina’s “Green
Power” initiative can be found on the Internet at http://www.advancedenergy.org.
Internal Energy Conservation Initiatives
During the consultations with the TLT members, questions arose about what kind of energy
conservation measures Duke Energy business units had in place. Energy is one of the major
operational costs for all Duke Energy business units. Competition demands that energy costs
receive close scrutiny across all business units. As with all Duke generation assets, DPNA hydro
projects receive regular maintenance and upgrades to make them as efficient as possible. This
includes leakage protection and conservation of water resources whenever possible. For instance,
releases into bypass areas have a tremendous effect on resource conservation for the DPNA
hydros. Since these releases do not pass through electric generation equipment they contribute to
an overall loss of efficiency for the system and are very costly to DPNA requiring efficiencies to
be compensated for in other areas or increased purchases from other generating sources.
Recommendations for Enhancements
Based on the preceding assessment of energy conservation and other energy conservation related
programs within Duke Energy, DPNA will implement the following enhancements:
1. Printed Literature on Energy Conservation Measures:
Information will continue to be made available to all DPNA customers. This information will
be reviewed and updated as needed. In addition, a better system will be established for
getting this information to the customer.
E9-6
DukePower
West Fork Project
2. Energy Conservation Web-Site
An Energy Conservation website will be added to the Duke Power and/or Duke Power
Nantahala Area website that will contain electronic copies of printed literature and links to
sites mentioned in this report. This site will updated as needed to include new developments
and links as technological advances are made.
E9-7
DukePower
West Fork Project
GIS DATABASE DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
The relicensing process requires the applicant to file accurate maps depicting the projects, project
features and other geographic features. At the beginning of the relicensing process, Duke had
limited electronic maps of the West Fork project. Accordingly, Duke undertook an effort to
develop Geographic Information System (GIS) data for the projects. Duke’s objective was to
utilize the GIS data in preparing reports and maps for use in the relicensing process. In addition,
Duke will utilize the GIS data in the long-term management of the projects.
Database Development
Duke determined that it would utilize
high-resolution, geo-referenced aerial
photography of the projects for its base
data layer. All other data layers would
be built upon this base. The projects
were flown in early 2001 during leafoff conditions.
Leaf-off conditions
allowed the greatest opportunity to
identify individual structures and other
features. The data were collected in
wide area mosaic 3-foot Ground
Sample Distance imagery. See Figure
E9.3-1 for an example of the aerial images.
Figure E9.3-1. Hydroelectric Project Aerial Image
The firm Orbis GIS, Inc. was selected to develop the GIS database. Orbis obtained GIS data from
a number of sources including the United States Forest Service, local counties, the North Carolina
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) and other sources. The data is in GIS
projection North Carolina Stateplane NAD 83 in feet.
The Project boundaries were then digitized from FERC exhibit drawings and overlaid on the
aerial photography.
Where there were obvious discrepancies between the digitized project
boundaries and the aerial photography, the project boundary was adjusted to fit the georeferenced
aerial photography. Full pond elevation contour was developed from the aerial photography by
photo interpretation of the full pond elevation around each reservoir at the time of the aerial
E9-8
DukePower
photography.
West Fork Project
The locations of project structures including dams and powerhouses were
developed based upon photo interpretation of the aerial photography.
The GIS data developed as part of this effort is not intended to be survey quality. These data
layers were reviewed by Duke and others knowledgeable of the projects prior to being completed.
These data layers and associated metadata files are currently maintained by Duke and will be
utilized in administering Duke’s Lake Management Policies and Procedures. The data is also
being utilized in relicensing reports. Some of the additional data currently available is listed in
Table E9.3-1.
Table E9.3-1. Data Sources Associated with the Project
Data
Source
National Wetlands Inventory
US Fish & Wildlife Service
National Register Sites
North
Carolina
Department
of
Cultural
Resources
Federal Land Ownership
NCGIA
Jackson County Tax Parcels
Jackson County
Indian Lands and Native Entities
US Bureau of Indian Affairs
Natural Heritage Sites
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
US Forest Service Land Ownership
US Forest Service
US Forest Service Management Areas
US Forest Service
Trails
US Forest Service
RENAME THORPE RESERVOIR
Background/ History
The North Carolina Utilities Commission granted Nantahala Power & Light Company (NP&L),
owned at the time by the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), permission to construct the
Glenville project in 1940. The construction of this plant was to support aluminum production
necessary for the war effort. The construction of the Glenville project, which began on July 27,
1940, brought forth not only power for the war but also opportunity to the citizens of Western
North Carolina who were still recovering from the economic depression of the 1930’s. Many of
the 1500 workers that constructed the Glenville project were from the local area. The Glenville
E9-9
DukePower
West Fork Project
project was completed and the lake filled in sixteen months. The entire project was dedicated and
declared in service on October 13, 1941.
In 1950, Nantahala Power and Light President John Edward Sterling Thorpe died. In that same
year, the project was named in his honor.
The Thorpe Project, part of the West Fork Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2686)
licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This license was issued for 25
years beginning on January 28, 1981 and extending 25 years to January 28, 2006. Duke Power,
current owner of the project, is conducting the process to have that license renewed. As part of
the relicensing process, Duke Power has requested public comment on and participation in the
process. Representatives of the Glenville community requested that Thorpe Lake be legally
renamed “Lake Glenville.”
Study Purpose
The goal of the study was identify the necessary steps to officially change the name of Thorpe
Lake to “Lake Glenville” in publication(s), map(s), and other documents. Western North Carolina
depends heavily on the tourism industry. The presence of a lake in an area becomes a natural
destination for many people; however, inconsistent naming makes it difficult to locate and market
that destination. Regional promotional and marketing publications refer to the reservoir as “Lake
Glenville,” while official government maps identify Thorpe Lake. The Glenville community
expressed a desire to address this inconsistency.
Regulatory Process
The USGS Board of Geographic Names, which is a part of the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), has jurisdiction to change the names of places in the United States and its territory. The
USGS produces most publicly published federal maps. The US Board of Geographic Names also
requests advisory comments from other major stakeholders. In this case, the US Board of
Geographic Names requested comments from the State of North Carolina’s Geographic Names
Board, the USDA Forest Service, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Jackson County
Board of Commissioners. The North Carolina Board of Geographic Names serves as an advisor
to the federal board, which changes the actual name. The state board ensures that a name change
will not conflict with any other location within that state. The NC Board of Geographic Names
must also get consent from their parent organization, the NC State Mapping Advisory Council.
E9-10
DukePower
West Fork Project
The US Board of Geographic Names then hears the case to change or not to change the name of
the resource.
Project Timeline
June 18, 2000
The Friends of Lake Glenville submitted a letter requesting
to change the name of “Thorpe Reservoir” to “Lake Glenville” in
response to the first stage consultation report.
November 2000
A Technical Leadership Team (TLT) was formed to evaluate and begin
the proposed name change application process.
July 28, 2001
The Friends of Lake Glenville submitted a letter to Duke Power Nantahala Area and the Executive Director for Domestic Geographic
Names formally requesting changing the name of “Thorpe Reservoir” to
“Lake Glenville”
January 2002
Duke Power filed a request with the U.S. Geological Survey to officially
have the name “Thorpe Reservoir” changed to “Lake Glenville.”
February 19, 2002
The USGS Board of Geographic Names sent an application receipt letter
to Duke Power - Nantahala Area stating that the USGS Board of
Geographic Names had received the request and was requesting
comments on the proposed name change from the USDA Forest Service,
NC Board of Geographic Names, and the Jackson County Board of
Commissioners.
August 2002
The USGS Board of Geographic Names requested comments on the
proposed name change from the USDA Forest Service.
August 28, 2002
The USDA Forest Service sent a letter stating it had “no reason to
oppose” the renaming of the Thorpe Reservoir to “Lake Glenville.”
E9-11
DukePower
September 6, 2002
West Fork Project
The Jackson County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution
supporting and officially requesting that Duke Power change the name of
Thorpe Lake to the locally referred to name of Lake Glenville.
September 23, 2002
The USGS Board of Geographic Names was notified by the NC State
Mapping Advisory Council and the NC Board of Geographic names that
they had no opposition to the renaming of the Thorpe Reservoir to “Lake
Glenville”
September 27, 2002
The USGS Board of Geographic Names requested that the Duke Power
Company send a request for comments to the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians prior to case review by the USGS Board of Geographic Names.
Duke Power requested comments from the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians on Sept. 30, 2002.
October 6, 2002
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians sent a letter supporting the name
change of the Thorpe Reservoir to “Lake Glenville”
October 7, 2002
All comments were sent to USGS Board of Geographic Names for
consideration on Thursday October 10, 2002 during their regular board
meeting
October 10, 2002
The USGS Board of Geographic Names notifies Duke Power that the
name of the reservoir created by Thorpe Dam will be referred to as
“Lake Glenville.” This reference will take effect immediately on any
new document(s) referring to that reservoir. All new inferences and
acknowledgement on federally produced maps, applications, and other
documents shall bear the name of “Lake Glenville.” The USGS Board of
Geographic Names shall send out letters to involved stakeholders
acknowledging its actions.
E9.3.4
Proposed Studies
No other studies concerning socioeconomic resources were requested and; therefore, no others
are proposed.
E9-12
DukePower
E9.4
West Fork Project
Effects of Continued Project Operation
Continued operation of the Project is unlikely to change the social and economic conditions of the
Project vicinity. However, not relicensing the Project could potentially impact the area by
increasing future electricity rates thereby increasing living and business costs and causing fewer
businesses to be attracted to the area.
E9.4.1
Population
There is no reason to expect that relicensing the Project will cause any appreciable or permanent
migration to or from the area.
E9.4.2
Employment
There are not expected to be any local impacts to employment due to the relicensing of the
Project. The economic future of the area will remain tied to its traditional employment sources.
Services related to recreation and tourism, and retail sales positions are the major employers and
will likely remain so in the future.
E9.4.3
Housing
Housing in Jackson County should not be affected by the relicensing of the Project.
No
additional housing will be required. No residences or businesses will be displaced, nor are local
government expenditures expected to increase.
E9.4.4
Recreation
Recreation opportunities in Jackson County will be increased by the relicensing of the Project due
to the recreation enhancements proposed in the Tuckasegee Consensus Agreement (see Sections
E1.13 and E5.9 and Volume III).
E9.5
Existing Socioeconomic Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement
Measures
There are no existing socioeconomic PM&E measures associated with the West Fork project.
E9.6
Proposed Socioeconomic Resource Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement
Measures
Rename Thorpe Reservoir
On October 10, 2002, the USGS Board of Geographic Names notifies Duke Power that the name
of the reservoir created by Thorpe Dam will be referred to as “Lake Glenville.” This reference
will take effect immediately on any new document(s) referring to that reservoir.
E9-13
All new
DukePower
West Fork Project
inferences and acknowledgement on federally produced maps, applications, and other documents
shall bear the name of “Lake Glenville.” The USGS Board of Geographic Names shall send out
letters to involved stakeholders acknowledging its actions.
Recreation Facilities
On May 16, 2003, a Consensus Agreement was signed by the Primary Members of the
a Settlement Agreement by September 15, 2002. Enhancements regarding recreation facilities are
included in this agreement (see Sections E1.13 and E5.9). These enhancements may provide
socioeconomic benefits to the region through increased recreation and tourist activities.
E9-14
DukePower
E9.7
West Fork Project
List of Literature
Economic Development Information System (EDIS). 2002. Data Dictionary for North Carolina
County Profiles: Online Document,
http://cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/Countyprofiles/DataDictionary.pdf
North Carolina Department of Commerce. Economic Development Information System (EDIS).
2002. Jackson County, County Profiles: Online Document,
http://www.cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/countyprofiles/countyprofile.asp?county=Jackson
North Carolina State Demographics (NCSD). 2002. Jackson County, NC Population by Age,
Race, Sex and Hispanic Origin: Online Document,
http://www.statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/iss/NC_data/Jackson.html
E9-15
DukePower
West Fork Project
APPENDICES
1-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
APPENDIX 1
NORTH CAROLINA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE WEST FORK PROJECT
1-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
NCDENR-DWQ classifies the Tuckasegee River within the West Fork Project area as Water
Supply III (WS-III), Primary Recreation (B), Trout Water (TR) and Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) (NCDENR-DWQ 2002b). Use classifications assigned to the West Fork Project area are
defined as the following:
Water Supply III (WS-III): Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or
food processing purposes for those users where a more protective WS-I or II classification is not
feasible, WS-III waters are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds (NCDENRDWQ 2002b).
Class B: Waters used for primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary
recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and similar uses involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a
frequent basis. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities. Discharges must
meet treatment reliability requirements such as backup power supplies and dual train design
(NCDENR-DWQ 2002b).
Class C: Waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life
propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. It includes other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types
of discharges (NCDENR-DWQ 2002b).
Trout Waters (TR): This is a supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters for
natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. This designation affects wastewater
quality but not the type of discharges, and there are no watershed development restrictions except
stream buffer zone requirements of the Division of Land Resources (NCDENR-DWQ 2002b).
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW): -This is a Supplemental classification intended to
protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or
national ecological or recreational significance. To qualify, waters must be rated Excellent by
DWQ and have on of the following outstanding resource values:
Outstanding fish habitat or fisheries;
Unusually high level of waterbased recreation;
1-2
DukePower
West Fork Project
Some special designation such as NC or National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Wildlife
Refuge, etc;
Important component of state or national park or forest;
Special ecological or scientific significance (rare or endangered species habitat, research or
educational areas).
No new or expanded wastewater discharges are allowed and there are associated watershed
stormwater controls enforced by DWQ (NCDENR-DWQ 2002b).
Quality standards applicable to all Class C fresh surface waters. NOTE: water quality standards
applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 also apply to Class WS-III waters:
(a) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 ug/l for lakes, reservoirs, and other
waters subject to growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation not designated as
trout waters, and not greater than 15 ug/l for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters subject to
growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation designated as trout waters (not
applicable to lakes and reservoirs less than 10 acres in surface area); the Commission or
its designee may prohibit or limit any discharge of waste into surface waters if, in the
opinion of the Director, the surface waters experience or the discharge would result in
growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation such that the standards established
pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the intended best usage of the waters would be
impaired;
(b) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/l for trout waters; for non-trout waters, not
less than a daily average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than
4.0 mg/l; swamp waters, lake coves or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have
lower values if caused by natural conditions;
(c) Floating solids; settleable solids; sludge deposits: only such amounts attributable to
sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes as shall not make the water unsafe or unsuitable
for aquatic life and wildlife or impair the waters for any designated uses;
(d) Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110 percent of saturation;
1-3
DukePower
West Fork Project
(e) Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean
of 200/100ml (MF count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during
any 30 day period, nor exceed 400/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples
examined during such period; violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected
during rainfall events and, in some cases, this violation is expected to be caused by
uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution; all coliform concentrations are to be analyzed
using the membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or other adverse conditions
necessitate the tube dilution method; in case of controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube
dilution technique shall be used as the reference method;
(f) Oils; deleterious substances; colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall
not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation or to aquatic life
and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the
waters for any designated uses; for the purpose of implementing this Rule, oils,
deleterious substances, colored or other wastes shall include but not be limited to
substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or
adjoining shorelines pursuant to 40 CFR 110.4(a)-(b).
(g) pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between
6.0 and 9.0 except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of
natural conditions;
(h) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall not result in fish-flesh tainting or
impairment of other best usage;
(i) Radioactive substances:
(i) Combined radium-226 and radium-228: the maximum average annual activity
level (based on at least four samples collected quarterly) for combined radium226 and radium-228 shall not exceed five picoCuries per liter;
(ii) Alpha Emitters: the average annual gross alpha particle activity (including
radium-226, but excluding radon and uranium) shall not exceed 15 picoCuries
per liter;
(iii) Beta Emitters: the maximum average annual activity level (based on at least
four samples, collected quarterly) for strontium-90 shall not exceed eight
1-4
DukePower
West Fork Project
picoCuries per liter; nor shall the average annual gross beta particle activity
(excluding potassium-40 and other naturally occurring radio-nuclides) exceed 50
picoCuries per liter; nor shall the maximum average annual activity level for
tritium exceed 20,000 picoCuries per liter;
(j) Temperature: not to exceed 2.8 degrees C (5.04 degrees F) above the natural water
temperature, and in no case to exceed 29 degrees C (84.2 degrees F) for mountain and
upper piedmont waters and 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F) for lower piedmont and coastal
plain waters. The temperature for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5
degrees C (0.9 degrees F) due to the discharge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed
20 degrees C (68 degrees F);
(k) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric
Turbidity Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams,
lakes or reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as
trout waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due
to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level cannot be increased.
Compliance with this turbidity standard can be met when land management activities
employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) [as defined by Rule .0202(6) of this Section]
recommended by the Designated Nonpoint Source Agency [as defined by Rule .0202 of
this Section]. BMPs must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the
proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such BMPs;
(l) Toxic substances: numerical water quality standards (maximum permissible levels) to
protect aquatic life applicable to all fresh surface waters:
(i) Arsenic: 50 ug/l;
(ii) Beryllium: 6.5 ug/l;
(iii) Cadmium: 0.4 ug/l for trout waters and 2.0 ug/l for non-trout waters;
attainment of these water quality standards in surface waters shall be based on
measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations unless appropriate
studies have been conducted to translate total recoverable metals to a toxic form.
Studies used to determine the toxic form or translators must be designed
according to the "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition" published
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or "The Metals
1-5
DukePower
West Fork Project
Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a
Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated by reference including any
subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider conformance to EPA
guidance as well as the presence of environmental conditions that limit the
applicability of translators in approving the use of metal translators.
(iv) Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l for trout waters (Tr); (Action Level of 17
ug/l for all waters not classified as trout waters (Tr); see Item (4) of this Rule);
(v) Chromium, total recoverable: 50 ug/l;
(vi) Cyanide: 5.0 ug/l;
(vii) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l;
(viii) Lead, total recoverable: 25 ug/l; collection of data on sources, transport and
fate of lead shall be required as part of the toxicity reduction evaluation for
dischargers that are out of compliance with whole effluent toxicity testing
requirements and the concentration of lead in the effluent is concomitantly
determined to exceed an instream level of 3.1 ug/l from the discharge;
(ix) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active Substances): 0.5 mg/l;
(x) Mercury: 0.012 ug/l;
(xi) Nickel: 88 ug/l; attainment of these water quality standards in surface waters
shall be based on measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations unless
appropriate studies have been conducted to translate total recoverable metals to a
toxic form.
(xii) Pesticides:
(A) Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(B) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
(C) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(D) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
(E) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(F) Endosulfan: 0.05 ug/l;
(G) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(H) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(I) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l;
(J) Lindane: 0.01 ug/l;
(K) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l;
1-6
DukePower
West Fork Project
(L) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
(M) Parathion: 0.013 ug/l;
(N) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l;
(xiii) Polychlorinated biphenyls: 0.001 ug/l;
(xiv) Selenium: 5 ug/l;
(xv) Toluene: 11 ug/l or 0.36 ug/l in trout waters;
(xvi) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.008 ug/l expressed as tributyltin;
1-7
DukePower
West Fork Project
APPENDIX 2
FLOW DURATION CURVES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE WEST FORK PROJECT
1-8
DukePower
West Fork Project
Annual flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
January flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-9
DukePower
West Fork Project
February flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
March flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-10
DukePower
West Fork Project
April flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
May flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-11
DukePower
West Fork Project
June flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
July flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-12
DukePower
West Fork Project
August flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
September flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-13
70%
DukePower
West Fork Project
October flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
November flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-14
DukePower
West Fork Project
December flow-duration curve for Thorpe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
Annual flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-15
70%
DukePower
West Fork Project
January flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
February flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-16
70%
DukePower
West Fork Project
March flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
April flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-17
DukePower
West Fork Project
May flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70%
80%
90%
100%
June flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-18
DukePower
West Fork Project
July flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
August flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-19
70%
DukePower
West Fork Project
September flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
October flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-20
70%
DukePower
West Fork Project
November flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
December flow-duration curve for Tuckasegee
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-21
70%
DukePower
West Fork Project
EXHIBIT F: PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SUPPORTING DESIGN
REPORT
EXHIBIT F DRAWINGS AND THE SUPPORTING DESIGN REPORT HAVE BEEN
EXCLUDED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENT OF 18 CFR 388 AND FERC
ORDER 630.
THE CONTENTS OF THE EXHIBIT F DRAWINGS ARE
CONSIDERED "CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION" THEY
WILL BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 18 CFR 375
AND 18 CFR 388.
F-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
EXHIBIT G: MAPS
EXHIBIT G DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
INTENT OF 18 CFR 388 AND FERC ORDER 630.
EXHIBIT
G
DRAWINGS
ARE
CONSIDERED
THE CONTENTS OF THE
"CRITICAL
ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION." THEY WILL BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 18 CFR 375 AND 18 CFR 388.
G-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
EXHIBIT H - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
H1.0 EFFICIENCY AND RELIABILITY
H1.1
Applicant’s Efforts and Plans to Increase Generation at the Project
There are no plans to increase the generating capacity of the project. The Applicant, Duke Power
Nantahala Area (DPNA) (formerly known as Nantahala Power & Light), seeks to maximize
generation through the efficient use of water and by proper maintenance of existing generation
equipment. No economical way to increase generation is available via increases in turbine
efficiency, generator efficiency, available flow or head.
H1.2
Coordination of the Plant Operation with Upstream or Downstream
Projects
The West Fork Project is located on the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River and its tributaries in
Jackson County, North Carolina. The Project consists of two developments: the Thorpe
Hydroelectric Facility and the Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Facility. The Thorpe powerhouse is
located on the right bank of the Tuckasegee River approximately 3 miles north (downstream) of
Thorpe Dam.
The Tuckasegee Development is immediately downstream of the Thorpe
Powerhouse. It includes a dam, which impounds water in the Tuckasegee Reservoir. Operation
of the two hydroelectric stations is coordinated and managed by the Duke Power Hydro
Operations Center in Charlotte.
H1.3
Coordination of the Plant Operation with Applicant’s (or other) Electrical
System to Minimize Cost
The Thorpe and Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Facilities are dispatched remotely from Duke Power’s
Hydro Operations Center in Charlotte based on system demand and availability of water.
Plant operations are described more fully in Section H14.0 “Description of Current Project
Operations”. The two West Fork plants and the Applicant’s other hydro facilities produce the
lowest cost energy and are the most flexible with regard to operating characteristics of the
Applicant’s generating resources. These facilities are “energy limited” in terms of the available
water. The Applicant uses hydro to the maximum possible extent as peaking and emergency
standby resources.
H-1
DukePower
West Fork Project
The Applicant’s hydroelectric facilities have significant economic benefits by displacing higher
cost energy sources during peak periods and by allowing greater economy of system operation
through more flexible unit commitment strategies.
H2.0 SHORT AND LONG TERM NEED FOR ELECTRICITY FROM THE
PROJECT
H2.1
Costs and Availability of Alternate Resources if a License is Not Granted
The benefits of the West Fork Project as a resource for both capacity and energy can be expressed
in terms of avoided costs. For the purposes of this evaluation, avoided costs are energy and
capacity costs, which would be incurred if the two hydro stations were not available. These costs
can be estimated by the Applicant to evaluate alternative resources, which have a similar impact
on system energy and capacity costs.
The Applicant can connect to the main Duke Power system at the Tuckasegee Substation in
Jackson County. DPNA can additionally acquire power from Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
through an interconnection at the Santeetlah Substation in Graham County. Under normal
conditions, either of these two suppliers is capable of providing the necessary replacement energy
although at a higher system price.
The average annual generation for the West Fork Project was approximately 95,474 MWh. This
figure is based on a Thorpe Hydroelectric Station average of 84,805 MWh (1946-2002) and a
Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Station average of 10,669 MWh (1951-2002). If the license were not
granted the Applicant would incur an additional expenditure. Using the average annual generation
and the SCHEDULE PP-H (NC) 15-year fixed rates for a small hydro project with storage
capability and transmission connection as the proxy alternative, the current annual cost of
replacement would be approximately $3,084,333.
H2.2
Discussion of Increased Costs to Applicant or Customers if a License is Not
Granted
The Thorpe and Tuckasegee Hydroelectric facilities plus the Applicant’s other hydro facilities
produce the lowest cost energy available for the Applicant and its customers. By keeping its
costs low the Applicant can in turn keep its electric rates low for its retail and wholesale
customers. The increase in energy costs to customers if a license is not granted is computed as
the difference in the cost of replacement power and the cost of power produced by the Project. If
H-2
DukePower
West Fork Project
the license is not granted the subsequent increase in energy costs from purchased replacement
power (estimated currently at $3,084,333 annually as described above) may result in higher
electric rates for the Applicant’s retail and wholesale customers.
H2.3
Effect of Alternate Sources of Power On:
Applicant’s customers, including wholesale customers
Duke Power Nantahala Area (DPNA) derives all of its generation from its eleven (11)
hydroelectric stations. When water is available to run these units, they are the least cost option
for the Applicant and its customers. DPNA has a shortage of generation capacity relative to its
current area demand. During the majority of the year, DPNA must acquire additional power from
either TVA or the rest of Duke Power’s system to satisfy demand. Loss of the Thorpe and
Tuckasegee Hydroelectric facilities would therefore increase the generation shortfall and increase
dependence on external power supplies.
Applicant’s operating and load characteristics
The Applicant’s system has a rated total capacity of 99.46 MW. During the majority of the year
the DPNA native system load exceeds 100 MW, during hot summer months of June – September
the Duke Power Nantahala Area (DPNA) native system load often exceeds 200 MW. The
maximum system demand normally occurs during the cold winter months. The record demand for
the Nantahala system was over 297 MW.
Communities Served Or To Be Served, Including Any Reallocation Of Costs Associated
With The Transfer Of A License From The Existing Licensee.
The Applicant, Duke Power Nantahala Area (DPNA), serves electric customers in the Western
Carolina Counties of Clay, Cherokee, Graham, Jackson, Macon and Swain. The headquarters for
DPNA is based in Franklin, NC. The DPNA personnel responsible for maintenance of the
Thorpe and Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Facilities are based at the Nantahala Operations Center.
This staff is trained in the maintenance and operation of the Thorpe and Tuckasegee
Hydroelectric facilities along with DPNA’s nine (9) other hydroelectric facilities.
H3.0 ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT NEED, PRICE AND AVAILABILITY OF
ALTERNATE SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY
H3.1
Cost of Power Produced by the Projects
The average annual cost of the power produced by the West Fork Hydroelectric Project is
$866,623 as calculated below.
H-3
DukePower
West Fork Project
THORPE HYDROELECTRIC STATION
$ 404,491
$
25,285
C. Property Taxes
$
21,836
$
63,955
E. Cost of Capital
$8,246,081
$6,309,844
$1,936,237
12.6 %
$ 243,966
Total Annual Cost
$ 759,533
TUCKASEGEE HYDROELECTRIC STATION
$
57,425
$
2,922
C. Property Taxes
$
3,030
$
13,281
$
30,432
Total Annual Cost
$ 107,090
West Fork Project Total Annual Cost
$ 866,623
E. Cost of Capital
$1,120,920
$ 879,393
$ 241,527
H3.2
12.6 %
Resources to Meet Applicant’s Capacity and Energy Requirements
Applicant’s Capacity, Generation and Load Modification Measures
The Applicant, Duke Power Nantahala Area (DPNA), has an estimated peak power demand of
272 MW and an annual energy consumption of approximately 1,250,000 MWh. The Licensee’s
future load growth is expected to be in the order of 2.5% per year. The Licensee owns and
operates eleven (11) hydroelectric stations to provide approximately 35% of DPNA’s demand.
Nantahala West Fork Hydroelectric Projects - Capacity and Generation
H-4
DukePower
Project
Thorpe
Tuckasegee
West Fork Project
Rated
Capacity (kW)
21.6
10.8
Percentage of
Total Capacity
21.7%
10.9%
Annual Generation
(MWh)
84,805
10,669
Percentage of
Annual Generation
19.1%
2.4%
The Applicant utilizes available hydroelectric generating capacity from its eleven (11)
hydroelectric facilities to meet its system demand. When native load exceeds capacity, DPNA
must acquire the remaining required power from either TVA or Duke Power. There are no
independent power generators who provide power to the DPNA system. There also is no
interruptible load capability on the DPNA system.
Resource Analysis Including System Reserve Margins
The Licensee under normal conditions buys approximately 65% of the power consumed by its
customers. The Licensee for the majority of the year has no operating reserve and is forced to
purchase power to meet demand. Replacement energy for the two (2) West Fork hydroelectric
projects - Thorpe and Tuckasegee - would be purchased from Duke Power, which operates a mix
of hydroelectric, fossil fuel and nuclear facilities. The Licensee anticipates that Duke Power can
supply any required energy from existing generating facilities as necessary to replace the output
from the Thorpe and Tuckasegee hydroelectric facilities.
Effect of Load Management Measures
The Licensee has several programs in place for passive load control. These include 1) upgrade of
insulation 2) efficiency improvements and 3) off peak pricing for large customers. There is no
provision for interruptible service within the Licensee service territory.
Replacement Power Cost
The applicant would incur various costs in replacing the power output from the licensed project
with alternative generation and/or purchased power. Actual replacement costs would depend on
many factors including the replacement source, location, fuel type, and availability.
The
methodology used to estimate replacement cost uses two cost components, energy cost and
capacity cost.
Energy costs are estimated by using a generation system simulation model. The model is run for a
base case in which the licensed projects are included and a change case that excludes the licensed
projects. The cost difference between these two model analyses is assumed to be the energy cost
component of the replacement power. This cost difference determines an incremental cost profile
for 2003-2011. This profile is expanded beyond 2011 with a cost escalation assumption of 2.5%.
H-5
DukePower
West Fork Project
Capacity costs are estimated by applying a capacity credit payment to the generation profiles for
the licensed projects. The 15-year fixed long-term capacity credit rates contained in the latest
purchased power filing for hydroelectric qualifying facilities, SCHEDULE PP – H (NC), is the
basis for the capacity cost. This results in capacity cost estimates that are equivalent to those that
the applicant would pay a qualifying facility to replace the licensed project capacity. Generation
projections for the project are obtained by using either historical generation records or a river
systems computer operations model to project generation profiles.
The two cost component estimates are combined to determine a replacement power cost
projection for the licensed project.
The estimated net present value of the replacement power costs for the two (2) West Fork
hydroelectric projects for the period 2003-2042 is $ $3,084,333.
H4.0
POWER CONSUMPTION FOR APPLICANT’S INDUSTRIAL
OPERATIONS
The Applicant does not have industrial operations and therefore does not consume any power for
this purpose.
H5.0
ANALYSIS FOR PROJECTS LOCATED ON TRIBAL RESERVATION
Not Applicable to this project. This project is not located on tribal lands.
H6.0
IMPACT OF PROJECT ON APPLICANT TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
The power from the project is completely utilized within the DPNA system. The output from the
Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Station feeds into a 66 kV transmission line connecting at the Thorpe
switchyard. A 66 kV transmission line from the Thorpe switchyard connects at the Webster
substation. The project provides needed electricity to nearby DPNA customers. An electrical
one-line diagram for the West Fork Project will be provided in the final license application.
H7.0
ANTICIPATED MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT FACILITIES,
IMPACT TO WATERWAYS
The Applicant intends to upgrade the project control system with a programmable logic
controller. This will not impact the waterways and will lead to improved efficiency of operation.
H-6
DukePower
H8.0
West Fork Project
CONFORMANCE OF THE PROJECT WITH EXISTING PLANS
The West Fork Hydroelectric Project complies with applicable portions of the current
comprehensive resource plans as listed in the table below.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CONTACT AGENCY / PERSON
“Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land US Forest Service, Department of Agriculture,
and Resource Management Plan – Amendment
Asheville NC
5” North Carolina, 1994
Basinwide Assessment Report: Little Tennessee North Carolina Department of Environmental, Health
River Basin North Carolina, 2000
& Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
Raleigh NC
Surface Water and Wetland Standards – Sub- North Carolina Department of Environmental, Health
chapter 2B North Carolina, 2000
Raleigh NC
Water Quality Progress in North Carolina 1998- North Carolina Department of Environmental, Health
1999 305B Report North Carolina, 2000
Raleigh NC
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation North Carolina Department of Natural & Economic
Plan, 1984-1989 North Carolina, 1984
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh NC
Protection of Aquatic Biodiversity in the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition and Pacific
Southern Appalachian National Forests and Rivers Council
their Watersheds
No date
North American Waterfowl Management Plan - United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan, 1990
Fisheries USA: Recreational Fisheries Policy
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 1982
National Park Servvce
H-7
DukePower
West Fork Project
The one-line transmission line diagram associated with the West Fork Project will be provided in
the Final License Application.
H-8
DukePower
West Fork Project
Compliance with FERC Approved Comprehensive Plans-West Fork Project
Little Tennessee Basinwide Assessment Plan
below both Thorpe and Tuckasegee dams had no indications of water quality problems.
conclusions outlined in this comprehensive plan. Proposed PM&E measures such as improving
the sensitivity of lake level management and minimum downstream releases, implementation of a
sediment management plan, implementation of a future shoreline management program, and
enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program will ensure continued support of the
comprehensive plan.
2B-Surface Water and Wetland Standards
As mentioned above, the basinwide assessment plan indicates that there is good to excellent water
quality in the Project area and the overall river basin. Ambient water quality data for the
Tuckasegee River below both Thorpe and Tuckasegee dams had no indications of water quality
problems.
oxygen and temperature (see section E2.9.2). Thus, continued operations of the Project are
consistent with the spirit, procedures, classifications, and standards provided for surface waters
and wetlands associated with the Project.
Water Quality Progress in North Carolina 1998-1999 305(b) Report
oxygen and temperature (see section E2.9.2). The Project does not contribute to any water
quality degradation or impairment in the river basin. Thus, continued operations of the Project
are consistent with the spirit, status, and designated uses provided for surface waters and wetlands
associated with the Project. Proposed PM&E measures such as improving the sensitivity of lake
H-9
DukePower
West Fork Project
level management and minimum downstream releases, implementation of a sediment
management plan, implementation of a future shoreline management program, and enhancement
of a shoreline habitat protection program will ensure continued support of the comprehensive
plan.
Nantahala Forest Management Plan
boundary. The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation/impairment, fish or
wildlife resource, recreational or aesthetic resource impairment in the river basin. Through
proposed PM&E measures such as improving the sensitivity of lake level management and
minimum downstream releases, implementation of a sediment management plan, implementation
of a future shoreline management program, and enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection
program the continued operations of the Project are consistent with the spirit, objectives, planning
concepts, and conclusions associated with the water quality management portion of the Plan.
Within the Project area, the Tuckasegee River (ADA 28) and tributaries, a priority ADA, are
mentioned as having improved water quality and high Biotic Index scores. Two listed mussel
species are also found in this stretch. The project does not contribute to any water quality
degradation or overall fishery or aquatic resource impairment such as impact to RTE species.
Through proposed PM&E measures such as improving the sensitivity of lake level management
and minimum downstream releases, implementation of a sediment management plan,
implementation of a future shoreline management program, and enhancement of a shoreline
habitat protection program the continued operations of the Project are consistent with the spirit,
objectives, planning concepts, and conclusions associated with the water quality management
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan-Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan was
developed to describe what management strategies need to be implemented, where and by whom,
and at what cost to protect and manage priority habitats within the Atlantic coast focus area from
Maine to South Carolina (NAWMP undated).
Overall, the plan identifies the wetland areas that are designated as high priority winter,
migration, or production habitats for waterfowl and similar species. The only North Carolina
H-10
DukePower
West Fork Project
Focus Areas listed in the Plan include the Roanoke River, Currituck Outer Banks, Currituck
Sound, Pamlico Sound, Pamlico-Albemarle Peninsula, and the Pee Dee River area.
The
Nantahala area waterbodies, including those in the Project area are not classified as a focus area,
according to the Plan.
Thus, the guidelines and recommendations associated with this
comprehensive plan are not pertinent to the Project area.
National Recreational Fisheries Policy (Fisheries USA)
The Project does not contribute to any water quality degradation or overall recreational fishery
resource impairment such as affecting current fishery populations. Through proposed PM&E
measures such as improving the sensitivity of lake level management and minimum downstream
releases, implementation of a sediment management plan, implementation of a future shoreline
management program, and enhancement of a shoreline habitat protection program the continued
as improving the sensitivity of lake level management and minimum downstream releases,
implementation of a sediment management plan, implementation of a future shoreline
conclusions associated with the NRI.
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
Through
proposed P

West Fork Tuckasegee River Hydroelectric Projects FERC # 2686

Transcription

Similar documents

Fellows and Longtime Members Meet at ACC

Federal Express - Office of the University Registrar

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE

Get Your Kicks this Fall with LWYSA!

Untitled

In Touch Ministries

Marzocchi fork Travel change – MY2010+ air sprung forks

Providence at Harbour Club

pdf

Aseel , Dania , , Dania , , Dania , Jumana , Muna , Ru`a Alain Sara