DOCSLIB.ORG

Villosa Iris and Lampsilis Fasciola) Into the Upper Oconaluftee River in North Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Villosa Iris and Lampsilis Fasciola) Into the Upper Oconaluftee River in North Carolina FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR RESTORATION OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS (VILLOSA IRIS AND LAMPSILIS FASCIOLA) INTO THE UPPER OCONALUFTEE RIVER IN NORTH CAROLINA A thesis presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Western Carolina University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology. By Rachael Elizabeth Finigan Director: Dr. Thomas Martin Associate Professor Department of Biology Committee Members: Dr. Karen Kandl, Biology Mr. Michael LaVoie, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Natural Resources March 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Thomas Martin for his contributions to this project and dealing with my seemingly endless questions. Also, thank you to the rest of my committee, Dr. Karen Kandl and Mr. Michael LaVoie, for their advice throughout this process. Thank you to Dr. Jeremy Hyman for reading this thesis. Thank you to my field partner, Michelle Ruigrok, for helping me through long field days and keeping me laughing. Thank you to Rachael Hoch, Luke Etchison, and Stephania Maehrlein at the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for their help with tagging, installation, and advice. Thank you to numerous people from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Natural Resources for helping build enclosures and assisting with installation, including Caleb Hickman, Dallas Bradley, Josh Parrish, Nick Reed, and Aaron Ducker. Thank you to many others who helped with field work or provided advice, including Ethan Fite, Sierra Kincaid, Erin Clingerman, Steve Fraley, Jason Mays, Ezra Gardiner, and Mollie Cashner. Finally, thank you to TVA for funding this project, making it all possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................v Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Methods............................................................................................................................................8 Study Site and Animal Collection ...............................................................................................8 Experimental Design ...................................................................................................................9 Data Collection .........................................................................................................................12 Analysis .....................................................................................................................................13 Results ............................................................................................................................................15 Initial Length, Survival, and Growth ........................................................................................15 Water Quality, Urbanization, and Snorkel Surveys ..................................................................22 Tags ...........................................................................................................................................27 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................30 Survival and Growth ................................................................................................................30 Tags ..........................................................................................................................................36 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................37 Works Cited ...................................................................................................................................39 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Locations of each site described by river, GPS coordinates, and river kilometers. ...........9 Table 2. ANOVA summary for tests of differences in initial length of V. iris and L. fasciola .....16 Table 3. ANOVA summary for tests of differences in maximum length of V. iris .......................19 Table 4. ANOVA summary for tests of differences in maximum length of L. fasciola ................21 Table 5. ANCOVA summary table of specific conductivity (µs/cm) ...........................................23 Table 6. ANCOVA summary table of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) ..................................................24 Table 7. ANCOVA summary table of Temperature (°C) ..............................................................25 Table 8. ANOVA summary for analysis of velocity (m/s) ............................................................26 Table 9. ANOVA summary for tests of differences in tags ...........................................................28 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Mussel silo developed by Dr. M. Christopher Barnhart at Missouri State University and modified by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) (Barnhart et al. 2007) ......................................................................................... 11 Figure 2. Hallprint shellfish tags (left), queen bee tags (right top of mussel), laser etched tags (right bottom of mussel) on L. fasciola (top) and V. iris (bottom) ................................11 Figure 3. Initial length (mm) of L. fasciola (left) and V. iris (right) at site 1 (red circle), site 2 (green triangle), site 3 (blue square), and control (purple cross) ..................................16 Figure 4. Percent survival of L. fasciola (circle) and V. iris (triangle) at sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), 3 (blue square), and control (purple cross) from May to November. The purple arrow shows experiment installation month, when no measurements were taken. .............................................................................................................................17 Figure 5. Average length (mm) of V. iris at sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), 3 (blue square), and control (purple cross) from March to November. Initial measurements were taken in March and the purple arrow shows experiment installation month, when no measurements were taken. May data was removed from the analysis ..........................18 Figure 6. Average growth in length (mm) of V. iris at sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), 3 (blue square), and control (purple cross) from March to November. Initial measurements were taken in March and the purple arrow shows experiment installation month, when no measurements were taken. May data was removed from the analysis ....................................................................................................................19 Figure 7. Average length (mm) of L. fasciola at sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), 3 (blue square), and control (purple cross) from March to November. Initial measurements were taken in March and the purple arrow shows experiment installation month, when no measurements were taken. May data was removed from the analysis .....................20 Figure 8. Average growth in length (mm) of L. fasciola at sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), 3 (blue square), and control (purple cross) from March to November. Initial measurements were taken in March and the purple arrow shows experiment installation month, when no measurements were taken. May data was removed from the analysis ....................................................................................................................21 Figure 9. Specific conductivity (µs/cm) of sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), and 3 (blue square) plotted against USGS gauge specific conductivity (µs/cm) .............................23 Figure 10. Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) of sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), and 3 (blue square) plotted against USGS gauge dissolved oxygen (mg/L) .................................................24 Figure 11. Temperature (°C) of sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), and 3 (blue square) plotted against USGS gauge temperature (°C) ..........................................................................25 Figure 12. Velocity (m/s) from May to November at sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), and 3 (blue square) ..................................................................................................................26 Figure 13. Urbanization criteria scores at sites 1, 2, 3, and control ...............................................27 Figure 14. Average tag condition of queen bee tags (red circle), Hallprint tags (green triangle), and laser tags (blue square) of L. fasciola and V. iris ...................................................28 v Figure 15. Average Hallprint (A), queen bee (B), and laser tag (C) condition of L. fasciola and V. iris at sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), 3 (blue square), and control (purple cross) from May to November. ................................................................................................29 Figure 16. Percent survival of A. viridis (left), L. fasciola (middle), and V. iris (right) at sites 1 (red circle), 2 (green triangle), 3 (blue
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Surface Water Supply of the United States
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OEOJUGE OTIS SMITH. DiBKCTOK WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 243 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES 1907-8 PART III. OHIO RIYER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF M. 0. LEIGHTON BY A. H. HORTON, M. R. HALL, AND R. H. BOLSTER WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1910 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 243 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES 1907-8 PART III. OHIO RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF M. 0. LEIGHTON BY A. H. HORTON, M. R. HALL, AND R. H. BOLSTER Water Resources Branch, Geological Survey, WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1910 CONTENTS. Page. Introduction.............................................................. 7 Authority for investigations........................................... 7 Scope of investigations................................................ 8 Purposes of the work. ............................^.................... 9 Publications.......................................................... 10 Definition of terms................................................... 13 Convenient equivalents................................................ 14 Explanation of tables................................................. 15 Field methods of measuring stream flow................................. 16 Office methods of computing and studying discharge and run-off.......... 21 Accuracy and reliability of field data and comparative results........... 26 Use of the data.......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly)
    americanmalacologists, inc. PUBLISHERS OF DISTINCTIVE BOOKS ON MOLLUSKS THE NAUTILUS (Quarterly) MONOGRAPHS OF MARINE MOLLUSCA STANDARD CATALOG OF SHELLS INDEXES TO THE NAUTILUS {Geographical, vols 1-90; Scientific Names, vols 61-90) REGISTER OF AMERICAN MALACOLOGISTS JANUARY 30, 1984 THE NAUTILUS ISSN 0028-1344 Vol. 98 No. 1 A quarterly devoted to malacology and the interests of conchologists Founded 1889 by Henry A. Pilsbry. Continued by H. Burrington Baker. Editor-in-Chief: R. Tucker Abbott EDITORIAL COMMITTEE CONSULTING EDITORS Dr. William J. Clench Dr. Donald R. Moore Curator Emeritus Division of Marine Geology Museum of Comparative Zoology School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Cambridge, MA 02138 10 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149 Dr. William K. Emerson Department of Living Invertebrates Dr. Joseph Rosewater The American Museum of Natural History Division of Mollusks New York, NY 10024 U.S. National Museum Washington, D.C. 20560 Dr. M. G. Harasewych 363 Crescendo Way Dr. G. Alan Solem Silver Spring, MD 20901 Department of Invertebrates Field Museum of Natural History Dr. Aurele La Rocque Chicago, IL 60605 Department of Geology The Ohio State University Dr. David H. Stansbery Columbus, OH 43210 Museum of Zoology The Ohio State University Dr. James H. McLean Columbus, OH 43210 Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History 900 Exposition Boulevard Dr. Ruth D. Turner Los Angeles, CA 90007 Department of Mollusks Museum of Comparative Zoology Dr. Arthur S. Merrill Cambridge, MA 02138 c/o Department of Mollusks Museum of Comparative Zoology Dr. Gilbert L. Voss Cambridge, MA 02138 Division of Biology School of Marine and Atmospheric Science 10 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF The Nautilus (USPS 374-980) ISSN 0028-1344 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Villosa Iris
    Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Villeuse irisée Villosa iris au Canada ESPÈCE EN VOIE DE DISPARITION 2006 COSEPAC COSEWIC COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION DES COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL ENDANGERED WILDLIFE AU CANADA IN CANADA Les rapports de situation du COSEPAC sont des documents de travail servant à déterminer le statut des espèces sauvages que l’on croit en péril. On peut citer le présent rapport de la façon suivante : COSEPAC. 2006. Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Villeuse irisée (Villosa iris) au Canada. Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada. Ottawa. vii + 44 p. (www.registrelep.gc.ca/Status/Status_f.cfm). Note de production : Le COSEPAC aimerait remercier Daryl J. McGoldrick et Janice L. Metcalfe-Smith qui ont rédigé le rapport de situation sur la villeuse irisée (Villosa iris), en vertu d’un contrat avec Environnement Canada. Gerald L. Mackie, coprésident du Sous-comité de spécialistes des mollusques du COSEPAC, a supervisé le présent rapport et en a fait la révision. Pour obtenir des exemplaires supplémentaires, s’adresser au : Secrétariat du COSEPAC a/s Service canadien de la faune Environnement Canada Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0H3 Tél. : (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Téléc. : (819) 994-3684 Courriel : COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosepac.gc.ca Also available in English under the title COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Rainbow Mussel Villosa iris in Canada. Illustration de la couverture : Villeuse irisée — Photographie par Philip McColl, section de conception graphique, Institut national de recherche sur les eaux.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Status Assessment Report for the Rayed Bean, Villosa Fabalis
    Status Assessment Report for the rayed bean, Villosa fabalis, occurring in the Mississippi River and Great Lakes systems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 3, 4, and 5, and Canada) Prepared by Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup Robert S. Butler, Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville NC 28801 September 2002 1 Disclaimer This document is a compilation of biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future threats to the rayed bean (Villosa fabalis). It does not represent a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on whether this taxon should be designated as a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document; other relevant biological and threat data not included herein; and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The result of the decision will be posted on the Service's Region 3 Web site (refer to: http://midwest.fws.gov/eco_serv/endangrd/lists/concern.html). If designated as a candidate species, the taxon will subsequently be added to the Service's candidate species list that is periodically published in the Federal Register and posted on the World Wide Web (refer to: http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html). Even if the taxon does not warrant candidate status it should benefit from the conservation recommendations that are contained in this document. 2 Common name: rayed bean Scientific name: Villosa fabalis Controversial or unsettled taxonomic issues: The rayed bean is a member of the mussel family Unionidae and was originally described as Unio fabalis Lea, 1831.
    [Show full text]
  • Rainbow Villosa Iris
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Rainbow Villosa iris in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2015 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2015. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rainbow Villosa iris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 82 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rainbow mussel Villosa iris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 38 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Julie Vanden Byllaardt and Todd Morris for writing the status report on the Rainbow (Villosa iris) in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Joseph Carney, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Molluscs Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Villeuse irisée (Villosa iris) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Rainbow — Provided by author. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2015. Catalogue No. CW69-14/492-2016E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-05005-8 COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2015 Common name Rainbow Scientific name Villosa iris Status Special Concern Reason for designation This small mussel is widely distributed in southern Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas of the Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae)
    1 Atlas of the Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) (Class Bivalvia: Order Unionoida) Recorded at the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve & State Nature Preserve, Ohio and surrounding watersheds by Robert A. Krebs Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio, USA 44115 September 2015 (Revised from 2009) 2 Atlas of the Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) (Class Bivalvia: Order Unionoida) Recorded at the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve & State Nature Preserve, Ohio, and surrounding watersheds Acknowledgements I thank Dr. David Klarer for providing the stimulus for this project and Kristin Arend for a thorough review of the present revision. The Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve provided housing and some equipment for local surveys while research support was provided by a Research Experiences for Undergraduates award from NSF (DBI 0243878) to B. Michael Walton, by an NOAA fellowship (NA07NOS4200018), and by an EFFRD award from Cleveland State University. Numerous students were instrumental in different aspects of the surveys: Mark Lyons, Trevor Prescott, Erin Steiner, Cal Borden, Louie Rundo, and John Hook. Specimens were collected under Ohio Scientific Collecting Permits 194 (2006), 141 (2007), and 11-101 (2008). The Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve in Ohio is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), established by section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended. Additional information on these preserves and programs is available from the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Si Management Report 10 06 10
    Sycamore Island Management Report Prepared by Applied Ecological Services Inc. 1110 East Hector Street Conshohocken PA, 19428 For Allegheny Land Trust 409 Broad Street, Suite 206A Sewickley, PA 15143 This report is made possible by the generous support from TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. PROJECT PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH 4. SITE CONTEXT ‐ p.1 4.1 Location ‐ p.1 4.1. Geology and the Shaping of the Allegheny River and Surrounding Watershed ‐ p.1 4.2. Soils, Topography, and Drainage ‐ p.2 4.3. Ecology ‐ p.2 4.4. Cultural History ‐ p.3 4.5. Impacts of a Regulated River ‐ p.5 5. NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY, ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Natural Community Mapping, Vegetation and Seedbank Studies ‐ p.7 5.2. Aquatic Species Surveys ‐ Fishes, Mollusks, and Macroinvertebrates ‐ p. 33 5.3. Vertebrate Species Surveys ‐ Reptiles, Amphibians, and Mammals ‐ p. 42 5.4. Avian Species Surveys ‐ p.48 5.5. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey and Existing Studies Review ‐ p. 57 5.6. Invasive Vegetative Species Management ‐ p. 63 5.7. Geotechnical Investigation ‐ p.68 5.8. Bathymetry Survey ‐ p.75 5.9. Human Use and Impact Study ‐ p. 76 6. TEST AND DEMONSTRATIONN PLOT TREATMENT AND MONITORING PLAN ‐ p.78 7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND VOLUNTEER STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES ‐ p.85 8. TRAIL AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE PLANS ‐ p.92 9. MANAGEMENT AND PRIORTIZATION STRATEGY FOR CARRYING OUT RECOMMENDATIONS ‐ p.96 10. REFERENCES ‐ p.106 APPENDICES A. Maps B. Soil Series C. Quadrat Datas D. T & E Species Search E. Invasive Vegetation Cut Sheets F.
    [Show full text]
  • Wavy-Rayed Lampmussel
    Species Status Assessment Class: Bivalvia Family: Unionidae Scientific Name: Lampsilis fasciola Common Name: Wavy-rayed lampmussel Species synopsis: Lampsilis fasciola belongs to the subfamily Ambleminae and the tribe Lampsilini, which includes 17 extant and 6 likely extirpated New York species of the genera Actinonaias, Epioblasma, Lampsilis, Leptodea, Ligumia, Obovaria, Potamilus, Ptychobranchus, Toxolasma, Truncilla, and Villosa (Haag, 2012; Graf and Cummings, 2011). L. fasciola is mainly found in and around riffle areas of clear, hydrologically stable, fast moving water (Watters et al., 2009). Since 1970, L. fasciola has been found in six New York waterbodies. Historically, it has been collected in the Erie, Western Lake Ontario, and Lower Genesee basins (Strayer & Jirka, 1997). L. fasciola no longer considered abundant in any New York location, however they are most commonly found in the Allegheny River and its tributaries (The Nature Conservancy, 2009). With a state rank of “critically imperiled,” L. fasciola is listed as threatened in New York State, although it is secure throughout its range (NatureServe, 2013). In North America, approximately ⅔ to ¾ of native mussel species are extinct, listed as endangered or threatened, or are in need of conservation status (Williams et al. 1993; Stein et al.2000). While population trends in New York are unknown, it is assumed that they too are declining, due to a myriad of environmental stressors. 1 Status a. Current and Legal Protected Status i. Federal ____ __ None_________________________________Candidate?
    [Show full text]
  • Prospectus for Outfitting & Guide Services Nantahala National Forest Cheoah River – Graham County, N.C
    USDA Forest Service Prospectus for Outfitting & Guide Services Nantahala National Forest Cheoah River – Graham County, N.C. PROSPECTUS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMERCIAL WHITEWATER OUTFITTING AND GUIDING ON THE CHEOAH RIVER IN GRAHAM COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA CHEOAH RANGER DISTRICT NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST USDA FOREST SERVICE NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST CHEOAH RANGER DISTRICT 1070 MASSEY BRANCH ROAD ROBBINSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28771 For Further Information Contact Julie Moore at 828-837-5152 AUGUST 2010 1 USDA Forest Service Prospectus for Outfitting & Guide Services Nantahala National Forest Cheoah River – Graham County, N.C. I. Introduction The USDA Forest Service is soliciting proposals from interested parties to provide commercial whitewater outfitter and guide services for the Cheoah Ranger District on the Cheoah River located in Graham County, North Carolina. The forest intends to authorize four new special use permits as a result of this offering. This offering will allow individuals or organizations to conduct outfitter and guide services on National Forest lands within the areas described in this prospectus. Permit holders are an agent of the Forest Service that will provide services to the public, protect health and safety, and attain management objectives. The Cheoah River is located in the northern part of Graham County and follows US 129 approximately 9.1 miles from the base of Santeetlah Dam to Calderwood Lake on the Tennessee Border. Each year Alcoa Power Generating Inc. will release additional flows into the river for 19 days in accordance with their license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The schedule (Appendix A, 2011, High Flow Schedule) is established prior to the beginning of each year in accordance with their license and provides for ten events scheduled during the weekends primarily spring and fall of each year.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 North Carolina Integrated Report
    2012 North Carolina Integrated Report All 13,178 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species Category 5 Impaired assessments require development of a TMDL for the Parameter of Interest. This is the 303(d) List 2012 North Carolina Integrated Report Little Tennessee River Basin 10-digit Watershed 0601020201 Little Tennessee River Headwaters > AU Number Name Description Length or Area Units Classification Category Category Rating Use Reason for Rating Parameter Year Little Tennessee River Basin 8-digit Subbasin 06010202 Little Tennessee River Little Tennessee River Basin 10-digit Watershed 0601020201 Little Tennessee River Headwaters 12-digit Subwatershed 060102020103 Coweeta Creek-Little Tennessee River > 2-10 Coweeta Creek From source to Little Tennessee River 4.6 FW Miles B;Tr 2 1 Supporting Aquatic Life Good Bioclassification Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom 1 Supporting Aquatic Life Excellent Bioclassificatio Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos > 2-10-1-1 Pinnacle Branch From source to Shope Fork 0.6 FW Miles B 2 1 Not Rated Aquatic Life Not Rated Bioclassificati Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom > 2-10-1-2 Camprock Branch From source to Shope Fork 0.8 FW Miles B 2 1 Not Rated Aquatic Life Not Rated Bioclassificati Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom > 2-10-1-3 Cunningham Creek From source to Shope Fork 1.3 FW Miles B 2 1 Not Rated Aquatic Life Not Rated Bioclassificati Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom > 2-10-2-1 Henson Creek From
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Asheville Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, North Carolina 28801 February 21, 2012 Mr. Marshall Olson, APGI – Tapoco Project, P.O. Box 576 Badin, NC 28009 Subject: Comments on LIHI recertification, Tapoco Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2169) Dear Marshall: The purpose of this letter is to provide information for Alcoa Power Generating Inc (APGI) to use in its application for recertification by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI). On July 25, 2005, the LIHI certified Alcoa's Tapoco Hydroelectric Project as Low Impact. That certificate is set to expire July 25, 2013. The Tapoco project consists of four powerhouses and four dams in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina totaling 350 megawatts (MW) of electric generation capacity, which power Alcoa Tennessee Operations near Knoxville. The project is located on the Little Tennessee and Cheoah Rivers and is owned and operated by Alcoa Power Generating Inc. The Tapoco Project includes four developments - Santeetlah Development, Cheoah Development, Calderwood Development, and Chilhowee Development. The Tapoco Project extends along the Little Tennessee River from about River Mile 33 to just above RM 60, downstream of the Tennessee Valley Authority Fontana Dam. Chilhowee, Calderwood and Cheoah developments and Santeetlah Powerhouse are located on the Little Tennessee River. Santeetlah Dam and Reservoir are located on the Cheoah River, a tributary to the Little Tennessee River. The Project Boundary encompasses much of the Cheoah River corridor downstream of the Santeetlah Dam. Background USFWS Participation. The Fish and Wildlife Service was an active participant in the collaborative relicensing process.
    [Show full text]
  • Smoky Mountain Recertification Review Report
    FRANC LOGIC August 2020 Low Impact Hydropower Institute’s (LIHI) Stage II Recertification Review for Smoky Mountain Hydroelectric Project (LIHI #18) Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. LITTLE TENNESEE RIVER BASIN ............................................................................................................................. 4 3. ZONES OF EFFECT (ZOEs) ...................................................................................................................................... 6 4. PROJECT HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 13 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................................ 13 A. Santeetlah Dam .............................................................................................................................................. 14 B. Cheoah Dam .................................................................................................................................................... 16 C. Calderwood Dam ............................................................................................................................................ 18 D. Chilhowee Dam ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]