UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - American Whitewater

1、UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Duke Power Company, LLCProject 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 ame

2、nded, 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 P

3、roject. 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

4、) 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 significant

5、ly affecting the quality of the human environment. Copies of the draft EA are available for review in Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commissions offices at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC. The draft EA also may be viewed on the Commissions Internet website () using the “eLibrary”

6、link. Additional information about the project is available from the Commissions Office of External Affairs at (202) 502-6088, or on the Commissions website using the eLibrary link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact FERCOnlineS or call toll-free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY call (202

7、) 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 a

8、ll 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 Commissions website under the “e-Filing” link. Project Nos. 2698-033 et al -2- For further information, please contact Carolyn Holsopple at (202) 502-6407

9、 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.

10、 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 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY .xiii I.

11、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

12、Safety:.8 e.Dukes 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

13、Safety:.17 e.Dukes 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.Proj

14、ect Safety:.22 e.Dukes 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 iv e.Dukes Proposed Environmental Measures:.26 2.P

15、roposed 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 Pro

16、ject:.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) Recommend

17、ations.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 ACT

18、ION 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.Aquati

19、c Resources.99 v 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.A

20、ffected 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

21、 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 th

22、e 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 Alter

23、native.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

24、-action Alternative .307 5.Comparison of Alternatives.307 D.BRYSON PROJECT.308 1.Power and Economic Benefits of the Proposed Project.308 vi 2.Power and Economic Benefits of the Staff-recommended Alternative.308 3.Power and Economic Benefits of the No-action Alternative .309 VII.COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOP

25、MENT 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 Surrende

26、r .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.Histo

27、ric 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. Recreatio

28、nal 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. Cul

29、tural 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 vii VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENC

30、IES.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 AFIGURES.367 APPENDIX BPRELIMI

31、NARY 4(E) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.1 viii 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

32、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 w

33、ater 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

34、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 mana

35、gement 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 powerho

36、use.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 fl

37、ows 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

38、 ix 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

39、benefits for the applicants proposed action, applicants 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 th

40、e applicant and recommended by staff and others for the East Fork Project. .273 Table 26.Summary of the annual net benefits for the applicants proposed action, applicants proposed action with additional or alternative staff- adopted measures, and the no-action alternative, for the West Fork Project.

41、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 Dukes proposed action, alternative 1, and alternative 2 for the Dills

42、boro Project.308 Table 29.Summary of the annual net benefits for the applicants proposed action, applicants 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 annualize

43、d 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) re

44、commendations for the Dillsboro Surrender .351 Table 33.Fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the Bryson Project .351 x ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS g/l micrograms per liter ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act AIRadditional information request APEarea of potential effects AWAmerica

45、n Whitewater Affiliation BBSbreeding bird survey BIABureau of Indian Affairs Cdegrees Celsius CCCCarolina Canoe Club cfscubic feet per second CommissionFederal Energy Regulatory Commission CorpsUnited States Army Corps of Engineers DOdissolved oxygen DukeDuke Power Company, LLC EAenvironmental asses

46、sment EBCIEastern Band of Cherokee Indians EPTEphemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa ESAEndangered Species Act FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission FPAFederal Power Act FOLGAFriends of Lake Glenville Association FSUnited States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service FWSUnited States

47、Fish and Wildlife Service GCDCGlenville Community Development Club HPMEPhydro project maintenance and emergency protocol HPMPHistoric Properties Management Plan HQWhigh quality waters IFIMinstream flow incremental methodology InteriorUnited States Department of the Interior kVkilovolt kWkilowatts kW

48、hkilowatt-hours LIPlow inflow protocol LRMPLand and Resource Management Plan mg/lmilligrams per liter MOAMemorandum of Agreement MWmegawatts MWhmegawatt-hours National RegisterNational Register of Historic Places NCDENRNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources xi NCDWQNorth Caro

49、lina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality NCNHPNorth Carolina Natural Heritage Program NCWRCNorth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission NERCNorth American Electric Reliability Council NFSNational Forest System NGOnon-governmental organization NGSSRnormal genera

50、tion schedule to support recreation NHPANational Historic Preservation Act NP Jackson County SWCD; Jackson County Parks and Recreation Department Advisory Board; Jackson County Greenway Commission; Macon County Government; town of Franklin; town of Webster; Dillsboro Inn and T.J. Walker; FOLGA; GCDC

51、; Cullowhee Falls Inc., and Cullowhee Forest Property Owners Association, Inc. xiv In this draft EA, we evaluate the site-specific and cumulative effects of the continued operation of the Tuckasegee Projects and recommend conditions for new licenses for the projects. We consider three alternatives:

52、(1) Dukes proposal as reflected in the TCST SA with additional measures developed during the relicensing process; (2) the staff alternative, which is Dukes proposal with additional staff-recommended enhancement measures; and (3) the no-action alternative, or continued operation of the projects as cu

53、rrently licensed. After evaluating Dukes proposal and the recommendations from resource agencies and interested parties, we considered what environmental measures would be necessary or appropriate for continued operations of the projects. Based on this analysis, we recommend licensing the East Fork,

54、 West Fork, and Bryson projects as proposed by Duke with some additional staff-recommended measures, and the surrender of the Dillsboro Project with removal of the dam and demolition of the powerhouse. East Fork Project Water Resources: (1) Maintain Tanasee Creek, Wolf Creek, Bear Creek, and Cedar C

55、liff Lake within the normal operating ranges as defined in article 401(B) of the TCST SA; monitor actual levels and make best efforts to achieve the normal target elevations; (2) Consult with agencies and file a minimum flow plan for Commission approval within 6 months of licensing; (3) Provide mini

56、mum flows from the East Fork Project as follows: (a) 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) during non-generation hours from December 1 through June 30 of each year and 35 cfs from July 1 through November 30 of each year from the Cedar Cliff powerhouse, and (b) 6 cfs from January 1 through December 31 of ea

57、ch year into the Wolf Creek bypassed reach from Wolf Creek dam; (4) Operate the project so as to minimize the need to draw the reservoirs down to mechanically remove sediment and when required, consult and reach agreement with North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), United States Fish

58、and Wildlife Service (FWS), the FS, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and NCDENR, Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) concerning reasonable and necessary measures to minimize environmental effects, prior to takin

59、g action. Recreational Facilities: (1) Consult with agencies and interested parties to prepare a recreation facilities plan filed with the Commission for approval; (2) Provide trash collection and lighting at the Wolf Creek Lake public boating access area; (3) Reimburse the FS up to $25,000 for scat

60、tered, boat-accessible primitive campsites on National Forest System (NFS) land along Wolf Creek and Bear Creek lakes; (4) construct a fishing trail along the Wolf Creek bypassed reach downstream to Tennessee Creek powerhouse; (5) Develop tote and float boating access at Tanasee Creek Lake; (6) Form