UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Duke Power Company, LLC Project Nos. 2698-033, 2686-032, 2602-007, and 2601-007
North Carolina
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(May 10, 2006)
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations (18 CFR Part 380), Commission staff reviewed the applications for new major licenses for the East and West Fork projects, a subsequent license for the Bryson Project, and the application for license surrender for the Dillsboro Project. We prepared a draft combined environmental assessment (EA) on the proposed actions. The East and West Fork and Dillsboro projects are located on the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina. The Bryson Project is located on the Oconaluftee River (a tributary to the Tuckasegee River) in Swain County, North Carolina.
In this draft EA, Commission staff analyze the probable environmental effects of implementing the projects and conclude that approval of the projects, with appropriate staff-recommended environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Copies of the draft EA are available for review in Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission’s offices at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC. The draft EA also may be viewed on the Commission’s Internet website () using the “eLibrary” link. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission’s Office of External Affairs at (202) 502-6088, or on the Commission’s website using the eLibrary link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact or call toll-free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY call (202) 502-8659.
Any comments on the draft EA should be filed within 30 days of the date of this notice and should be addressed to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the specific project and FERC Project No. on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s website under the “e-Filing” link.
Project Nos. 2698-033 et al -2-
For further information, please contact Carolyn Holsopple at (202) 502-6407 or at .
Magalie R. Salas
Secretary
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSES
Tuckasegee Projects
East Fork Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 2698-033
West Fork Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 2686-032
Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 2602-007
Bryson Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 2601-007
North Carolina
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Hydropower Licensing
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
May 2006
This page intentionally left blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY xiii
I. APPLICATIONS 1
II. PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER 2
A. Purpose of Action 2
B. Need for Power 3
III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4
A. East Fork Project 4
1. Proposed Action 4
a. Project Facilities: 4
b. Existing and Proposed Project Operations: 6
c. Description of Project Boundary: 7
d. Project Safety: 8
e. Duke’s Proposed Environmental Measures: 8
2. Proposed Action with Additional Staff-recommended Measures 13
3. No Action 14
B. west fork project 14
1. Proposed Action 14
a. Project Facilities: 14
b. Existing and Proposed Project Operations: 15
c. Description of Project Boundary: 16
d. Project Safety: 17
e. Duke’s Proposed Environmental Measures: 17
2. Proposed Action with Additional Staff-recommended Measures 21
3. No Action 21
C. dillsboro surrender 21
1. Proposed Action 21
a. Project Facilities: 21
b. Existing and Proposed Project Operations: 22
c. Description of Project Boundary: 22
d. Project Safety: 22
e. Duke’s Proposed Environmental Measures: 22
3. No Action 24
D. Bryson Project 24
1. Proposed Action 24
a. Project Facilities: 24
b. Existing and Proposed Project Operations: 25
c. Description of Project Boundary: 25
d. Project Safety: 25
e. Duke’s Proposed Environmental Measures: 26
2. Proposed Action with Additional Staff-recommended Measures 27
3. No Action 27
E. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 27
1. Federal Government Takeover 27
2. Nonpower License 28
3. Project Retirement 28
IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE 28
A. Consultation 28
1. Scoping 29
a. East Fork Project: 29
b. West Fork Project: 29
c. Dillsboro Surrender: 30
d. Bryson Project: 31
2. Interventions 31
3. Comments on the Settlement Agreement 33
4. Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice 35
B. Compliance 35
1. Water Quality Certification 35
2. Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions 36
3. Section 10(j) Recommendations 36
4. Section 4(e) Conditions 37
5. Endangered Species Act 38
6. National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) 39
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 39
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION of the tuckasegee watershed 39
B. Scope of cumulative EFFECTS Analysis 41
1. Geographic Scope 42
2. Temporal Scope 42
C. Proposed action and action alternatives 42
1. Geology and Soils 42
a. Affected Environment: 42
b. Environmental Effects: 44
c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 45
2. Water Quantity and Quality 45
a. Affected Environment: 45
b. Environmental Effects: 65
c. Cumulative Effects: 97
d. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 98
3. Aquatic Resources 99
a. Affected Environment: 99
b. Environmental Effects: 111
c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 145
d. Cumulative Effects: 145
4. Terrestrial Resources 146
a. Affected Environment: 146
b. Environmental Effects: 166
c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 174
5. Threatened and Endangered Species 174
a. Affected Environment: 174
b. Environmental Effects: 177
c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 183
6. Land Use and Aesthetics 184
a. Affected Environment: 184
b. Environmental Effects: 192
c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 205
7. Recreational Resources 205
a. Affected Environment: 205
b. Environmental Effects: 227
c. Cumulative Effects: 261
d. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 262
8. Cultural Resources 262
a. Affected Environment: 262
b. Environmental Effects: 266
c. Unavoidable Adverse Effects: 269
D. No-action Alternative 269
VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 269
A. East Fork Project 270
1. Power and Economic Benefits of the Proposed Project 270
2. Power and Economic Benefits of the Staff-recommended Alternative 270
3. Power and Economic Benefits of the No-action Alternative 272
B. West Fork Project 289
1. Power and Economic Benefits of the Proposed Project 289
2. Power and Economic Benefits of the Staff-recommended Alternative 289
3. Power and Economic Benefits of the No-action Alternative 289
C. DILLSBORO Project 306
1. Power and Economic Benefits of the Proposed Project 306
2. Power and Economic Benefits of Alternative 1 307
3. Power and Economic Benefits of Alternative 2 307
4. Power and Economic Benefits of the No-action Alternative 307
5. Comparison of Alternatives 307
D. Bryson Project 308
1. Power and Economic Benefits of the Proposed Project 308
2. Power and Economic Benefits of the Staff-recommended Alternative 308
3. Power and Economic Benefits of the No-action Alternative 309
VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 317
A. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 317
1. East Fork Project 318
a. Measures Proposed by Duke: 318
b. Additional Measures Recommended by Staff: 322
2. West Fork Project 322
a. Measures Proposed by Duke: 322
b. Additional Measures Recommended by Staff: 326
3. Dillsboro Surrender 326
a. Measures Proposed by Duke: 326
4. Bryson Project 328
a. Measures Proposed by Duke: 328
b. Additional Measures Recommended by Staff: 329
B. DISCUSSION 329
1. Shoreline Management Plans (East Fork, West Fork, and Bryson) 329
2. Trash Removal Plan 330
3. Compliance Monitoring/Reporting 330
4. Historic Property Management Plans 331
5. Change in Project Boundaries 332
6. Lake Levels 333
7. Sediment Management at Project Reservoirs 333
8. Minimum Flow Agreements in the Tuckasegee River Mainstem and Bypassed Reaches 334
9. Recreational Flows from East Fork and West Fork Powerhouses 335
10. Recreational Flows from Thorpe dam 336
11. Recreational Facilities 337
12. Public Information 340
13. Dam and Powerhouse Removal 341
14. Appalachian Elktoe Transplantation 341
15. Bat Removal 342
16. Monitoring - Pre, During, and Post-Dam Removal 342
17. Site Restoration/Recreational Facilities 343
18. Cultural Resources 343
19. ROR Operations 343
20. Maintenance Flow during Reservoir Refill 344
21. Long-term Sediment Management 344
22. Wood Duck Nesting Boxes 345
23. Recreational Facilities 345
24. Proposed Measures not Recommended by Staff 346
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 346
1. Recommendations Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the FPA 347
2. Recommendations Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FPA 358
IX. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 359
X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 361
XI. LITERATURE CITED 361
XII. LIST OF PREPARERS 365
APPENDIX A—FIGURES 367
APPENDIX B—PRELIMINARY 4(E) TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project location A-1
Figure 2. Hydraulic configuration of the Tuckasegee Projects A-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Tennessee Creek development inflows in cubic feet per second. 47
Table 2. Bear Creek development inflows in cfs. 48
Table 3. Cedar Cliff development inflows in cfs 48
Table 4. Estimated existing flow along the bypassed reaches of the East Fork Project in cfs 49
Table 5. Spillage at East Fork development for the year 1971 49
Table 6. Water use classifications for waters of the East Fork Project 51
Table 7. State of North Carolina water quality standards for selected parameters of concern for the Tuckasegee Projects 51
Table 8. DO concentrations (mg/l) in the East Fork reservoirs in September 2000 52
Table 9. Thorpe development inflows in cfs. 55
Table 10. Tuckasegee development inflows in cfs. 55
Table 11. Estimated flow along the bypassed reaches of the West Fork Project under current conditions 56
Table 12. Dillsboro Project inflows in cfs. 59
Table 13. Bryson Project inflows in cfs. 62
Table 14. Proposed and existing water level management regime for the East Fork Project 112
Table 15. Proposed and existing water level management regime for the West Fork Project 114
Table 16. Percentage of the maximum habitat quantity that is provided by the proposed minimum flow plus estimated September accretion flow. Focus species and reaches are from the Duke IFIM study of the Tuckasegee River downstream of the Cedar cliff powerhouse 120
Table 17. Percentage of the maximum habitat quantity that is provided by the proposed minimum flow plus estimated September accretion flow. Focus species and reaches are from the Duke IFIM study of the Wolf Creek and Tanasee Creek bypassed reaches 123
Table 18. Estimated September accretion flows in the Duke IFIM study reaches of the West Fork Tuckasegee River. 129
Table 19. North Carolina rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife species documented at the East Fork Project 155
Table 20. North Carolina rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife species documented at the West Fork Project 160
Table 21. VQO classifications for East Fork Project Area. (Source: FS, 1994) 189
Table 22. Recreation flow schedule using a Taintor gate at 247
Table 23. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the East Fork, West Fork, Dillsboro, and Bryson projects. 270
Table 24. Summary of the annual net benefits for the applicant’s proposed action, applicant’s proposed action with additional or alternative staff-adopted measures, and the no-action alternative, for the East Fork Project. 272
Table 25. Summary of capital, annual costs, and total annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by the applicant and recommended by staff and others for the East Fork Project. 273
Table 26. Summary of the annual net benefits for the applicant’s proposed action, applicant’s proposed action with additional or alternative staff-adopted measures, and the no-action alternative, for the West Fork Project 290
Table 27. Summary of capital, annual costs, and total annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by the applicant and recommended by staff and others for the West Fork Project. 291
Table 28. Summary of the costs for the Duke’s proposed action, alternative 1, and alternative 2 for the Dillsboro Project. 308
Table 29. Summary of the annual net benefits for the applicant’s proposed action, applicant’s proposed action with additional or alternative staff-adopted measures, and the no-action alternative, for the Bryson Project. 309
Table 30. Summary of capital, annual costs, and total annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by the applicant and recommended by staff and others for the Bryson Project. 310
Table 31. Fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the East Fork and West Fork projects. (Source: Staff) 347
Table 32. Fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the Dillsboro Surrender 351
Table 33. Fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the Bryson Project 351
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/l micrograms per liter
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AIR additional information request
APE area of potential effects
AW American Whitewater Affiliation
BBS breeding bird survey
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
°C degrees Celsius
CCC Carolina Canoe Club
cfs cubic feet per second
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers
DO dissolved oxygen
Duke Duke Power Company, LLC
EA environmental assessment
EBCI Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
FOLGA Friends of Lake Glenville Association
FS United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
GCDC Glenville Community Development Club
HPMEP hydro project maintenance and emergency protocol
HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan
HQW high quality waters
IFIM instream flow incremental methodology
Interior United States Department of the Interior
kV kilovolt
kW kilowatts
kWh kilowatt-hours
LIP low inflow protocol
LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan
mg/l milligrams per liter
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MW megawatts
MWh megawatt-hours
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDWQ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NERC North American Electric Reliability Council
NFS National Forest System
NGO non-governmental organization
NGSSR normal generation schedule to support recreation
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NP&L Nantahala Power & Light
NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M operation and maintenance
PA programmatic agreement
PETS proposed endangered threatened species
PLC programmable logic controller
REA ready for environmental analysis
RM river mile
ROR run-of-river
ROW right-of-way
SA Settlement Agreement
SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
TCST Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team
TGA Tuckasegee Gorge Association
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
USGS United States Geological Survey
VQO visual quality objective
WUA weighted usable area
WNCA Western North Carolina Alliance
This page intentionally left blank
viii
SUMMARY
On January 26, 2004, Duke Power Company, LLC (Duke) filed applications with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) to relicense the existing 23.1- megawatt (MW) East Fork Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2698-033) and the existing 18.1-MW West Fork Project (FERC No. 2686-032). The East and West Fork projects are located on the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina. The West Fork Project does not affect any federal lands. The East Fork Project occupies 23.15 acres of United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS) land (Nantahala National Forest). The estimated average annual generation is 94,710 megawatt-hours (MWh) at the East Fork Project and 95,474 MWh at the West Fork Project.
On June 1, 2004, Duke filed an application for the surrender of the existing 0.225-MW Dillsboro Project (FERC No. 2602-007) located on the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina. There are no federal lands within the project boundary. The Dillsboro Project generates 912 MWh per year on average.
On November 7, 2003, Duke filed an application to relicense the existing 0.98-MW Bryson Project, located on the Oconaluftee River in Swain County, North Carolina. The project occupies no federal lands and generates 5,534 MWh of electricity per year on average.
On January 26, 2004, Duke also filed the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team (TCST) Settlement Agreement (SA) pertaining to the East Fork, West Fork, and Dillsboro projects. The TCST SA was signed by Duke and 21 other stakeholder parties.
On June 16, 2005, a group of municipal and local stakeholders (Community Stakeholders[1]) filed an alternative SA, which adopted many of the provisions of the TCST SA, deleted many, and substituted others. This SA differed fundamentally from the TCST SA in its requirement to retain Dillsboro dam.