Environmental Assessment - Tennessee Valley Authority

Document Type: EA-Administrative Record
Index Field: Final Environmental
Document
Project Name: Loudon Utilities Water Intake
and Pipeline
Project Number: 2010-45
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LOUDON UTILITIES WATER INTAKE AND PIPELINE
Loudon County, Tennessee
PREPARED BY:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
COOPERATING AGENCY:
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JUNE 2011
For more information, please contact:
Lisa R. Morris, Project Manager
Stanford E. Davis, Senior NEPA Specialist
Nashville District Regulatory Branch
NEPA Compliance
United States Army Corps of Engineers Tennessee Valley Authority
3701 Bell Road 400 West Summit Hill Drive
Nashville, Tennessee 37214 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Phone: (615) 369-7504 Phone: (865) 632-2915
Fax: (615) 369-7501 Fax: (865) 632-3451
E-mail: Lisa.R.Morris@usace.army.mil E-mail: sedavis2@tva.gov

Page intentionally blank

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LOUDON UTILITIES WATER INTAKE AND PIPELINE
LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
MAY 2011
The Proposed Decision and Need
Loudon Utilities Board (LUB) proposes to construct a new raw water intake structure and
intake pipe and a river crossing to replace a water line that was previously hung on the old
United States Highway (US) 11 bridge (see Attachment A). These improvements are part
of a project to expand the existing facilities at the Loudon Utilities Water Treatment Plant
(WTP).
The WTP currently has a capacity of 14.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The expansion
would increase this capacity to 20.0 MGD. The WTP supplies potable water to the cities of
Loudon and Philadelphia, in Loudon County, Tennessee. According to LUB, peak water
demands at the WTP have reached 95 percent of the current permitted capacity.
The proposed finished water pipeline river crossing would replace the water line that was
previously attached to the old State Route 2/US 11 bridge. The water main would provide
necessary water to residential, commercial, and industrial customers on the east side of the
river. Currently, there are no other alternatives that eliminate the need to cross the
Tennessee River. The current demand for water on the east side of the river continues to
increase, and the new highway bridge is not capable of supporting a 24-inch-diameter
water line.
Background
On October 8, 2008, LUB applied for Section 26a permits for a three-phase improvement
project to increase and improve potable water service to residents and businesses in
Loudon County. The first phase of this project was to provide maintenance for the raw
water intake and water line at the WTP at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 592.3 leftdescending
bank (L). Due to erosion along the riverbank, a 16-inch-diameter water main
crossing the river had become exposed and was in need of immediate stabilization.
Because of the expedient nature of the situation, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
approved the installation of approximately 200 tons of riprap and the removal of
approximately 200 cubic yards of silt and sediment (see Attachment B, Categorical
Exclusion Checklist 19649 and TVA Section 26a approval dated March 24, 2009).
The second phase includes construction of a new raw water intake structure and piping to
increase the water intake capacity from 14 MGD to 20 MGD. The new intake piping would
extend into the river approximately 500 linear feet with 48-inch-diameter ball and socket
jointed iron piping. The piping would be properly anchored to the river bottom and when
necessary installed below grade. Raw water would be drawn through five 27-inch-diameter
screens, with a maximum screen opening of 0.25 inch. Initially, only four screens would be
installed with a fifth reserved for future build out. In addition, there would be five 6-inchdiameter
compressed air lines connected to each of the screens for cleaning.
1

The third phase is a 24-inch-diameter finished water line crossing the Tennessee River at
TRM 591.6L (see Figure 1). The river crossing is being proposed to replace the former
water line that was on the old US 11 bridge, which was demolished and replaced in 2003.
The new US 11 bridge is not capable of supporting a 24-inch water line. The water line
would be trenched 3 feet deep, down each bank to elevation 721 feet and properly
anchored to the river bottom for the remainder of the crossing. The top of all anchors would
be below 721 feet elevation. The pipe used in the river crossing would consist of Class 250
cement-lined ductile iron ball joint pipe. The pipe is designed to provide a deflection angle
of 15 degrees.
Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, requires that TVA approval be obtained
prior to the construction, operation, or maintenance of a structure or construction activity
affecting navigation, flood control, or public lands. Therefore TVA’s action would be to
make a decision on the Section 26a approval request for the construction of a new 20-MGD
water intake and 48-inch raw water pipeline at the Loudon Utilities WTP and crossing of the
Tennessee River by a 24-inch-diameter water line under Section 26a of the TVA Act. To
address the potential environmental impacts of the proposal, TVA has agreed to be the lead
agency cooperating with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the
preparation of this environmental assessment (EA). USACE’s action would be to approve
the project under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
Other Environmental Reviews and Documentation
Categorical Exclusion Checklist Number 19649 (TVA 2009b)
On March 13, 2009, TVA completed an environmental review and approved Phase 1 of the
proposed LUB water intake and pipeline project to repair and maintain the existing water
pipeline and intake (see Attachment B).
Section 26a Approval for Tennessee State Route 2 (US 11) Bridge Over the Tennessee
River Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (TVA 2002)
In April 2002, TVA completed an EA and FONSI for the replacement of the US 11 bridge
over the Tennessee River at TRM 591.6 near Loudon, Tennessee. Under the Preferred
Alternative to construct a new bridge, there was the potential to kill or harm individuals of
the endangered pink mucket and orangefoot pimpleback mussels. Commitments and
additional requirements from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) revised
biological opinion (BO) reduced all impacts to the aquatic animals to insignificant levels. In
addition, a memorandum of agreement between the Tennessee State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), the Tennessee Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), and the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians ensured the recovery and preservation of any
archaeological information from an archaeological site that would be adversely affected by
the proposed project. The bridge has been successfully constructed with the application of
the conditions and mitigation and is currently in service.
2

Figure 1.
Map of Vicinity and Proposed Water Line
3

Alternatives and Comparison
Scoping by TVA has determined that from the standpoint of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), there are two viable alternatives available: the No Action Alternative
and the Proposed Action Alternative With Special Conditions. The original Action
Alternative proposed by the applicant did not contain special conditions necessary to
mitigate impacts to aquatic species and is no longer considered feasible.
The No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in the denial or withdrawal of the applicant’s request
for a Section 26a approval for construction of the new water intake and finished water line
across the reservoir. This alternative would not meet the needs of the applicant.
Action Alternative – The Proposed Action Alternative With Special Conditions
Under the Action Alternative, TVA would issue a Section 26a approval for a 20-MGD water
intake and a finished water line across the Tennessee River near the US 11 bridge.
However, the applicant would implement best management practices (BMPs), standard and
special conditions to minimize or reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project
to levels of insignificance or mitigation to offset adverse project impacts.
Affected Environment and Evaluation of Impacts
Site Description
The proposed LUB project is in Loudon County, Tennessee, on Watts Bar Reservoir. Watts
Bar Dam and Lock are about 62 miles downstream, and the Fort Loudoun Dam and Lock
are about 10 miles upstream. The Tennessee River is over 1,000 feet wide in this area and
ranges from 8 to 35 feet deep. TVA maintains a 9-foot-deep navigation channel. The area
of Watts Bar Reservoir surrounding the proposed project is influenced by various activities
and features, including commercial river navigation, recreational boating, private land use,
municipal water use and wastewater treatment, agriculture (primarily pasturelands),
forested areas, roads, and industry (food product manufacturers and ethanol production).
The proposed project, along with the existing water intake and treatment plant, is located in
the Ridge and Valley ecoregion of East Tennessee. In this area, the Tennessee River
flows between parallel low rolling hills and valleys. Much of the underlying bedrock is
limestone and dolomite, leading to a karst topography. The city of Loudon is located
adjacent to the proposed project on the west side of the Tennessee River with the US 11
bridge downstream and the WTP about a mile upstream (see Figure 1). The river is broad
in appearance at the bridge and water intake site, but the presence of a large island just
downstream of the bridge restricts navigation to a narrow channel on the left-descending
(Loudon city) side of the river. A city park and homes have been built along the leftdescending
bank between the WTP and proposed pipeline crossing. The right-descending
side of the river includes several industrial sites and agricultural land. The riverbanks
outside the city of Loudon are mostly forested, with openings for fields and homes.
Impacts Evaluated
The applicant’s proposed activities subsequent to TVA’s selection of the Action Alternative
would have no impact to natural features, such as terrestrial endangered species; wetlands;
prime or unique farmland; groundwater; unique or important terrestrial plant and wildlife
habitats; recreation; parks or natural areas; visual resources; socioeconomics;
environmental justice; air quality; noise; transportation; solid waste; and Wild and Scenic
Rivers, or contribute to the spread of exotic or invasive species.
4

Resources that could be affected by the proposed action have been given further
consideration in this EA and include floodplains, threatened and endangered aquatic
species, cultural resources, commercial navigation, aquatic ecology and water quality, and
water withdrawal.
Floodplains
Construction of the intake and pipeline would occur within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain. Consistent with Executive Order 11988, TVA has determined that there is no
practical alternative to the proposal other than to site it in the floodplain. From the
standpoint of flood control, TVA has determined that the proposed action would not result in
adverse impacts provided the following conditions are included in the permit:
implementation of construction BMPs and applicable TVA General and Standard
Conditions.
Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species
Two federally listed as endangered mussel species (orangefoot pimpleback and pink
mucket) and one federally listed as threatened fish species (snail darter) have been
reported within 10 river miles of the proposed project, downstream of Fort Loudoun Dam
(Table 1). Additionally, one state-listed mussel species and two fish species are also
known from this area (Table 1). No federally designated critical habitat (DCH) is present
near the project area. According to a November 21, 1997, letter from McKinney
(Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency [TWRA]) to Brisson (Tennessee Department of
Transportation [TDOT]), the most recent survey near the proposed project (at US 11 bridge)
found three live pink mucket mussels, which equated to about 2.7 percent of the total
mussels collected (USFWS 2011); see Attachment C.
A 2011 revised biological assessment (BA) prepared by CCR Environmental, recognized
that the pink mucket, orangefoot pimpleback, and snail darter could potentially be impacted
by the proposed project (see Attachment D). The USFWS BO concurred (see attachment
C) that these species likely occur within the project’s action area.
Table 1. Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species Known Within 10 River Miles
of the Loudon Utilities Project 1
Common Name
Scientific Name
State Status 2
(Rank) 3
Federal
Status 3
Fish
Flame chub Hemitremia flammea NMGT (S3) -
Snail darter Percina tanasi THR (S2S3) THR
Tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca NMGT (S3) -
Mussels
Orangefoot pimpleback 4 Plethobasus cooperianus END (S1) END
Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta END (S2) END
Tennessee clubshell 3 Pleurobema oviforme TRKD (S2S3) -
1 Source: TVA Natural Heritage database; records upstream of Fort Loudoun and Tellico dams were omitted
due to barrier effects and significant change in habitat conditions by dams.
2 Status Codes: END = Endangered; NMGT = In need of management; THR = Threatened; TRKD = Tracked
as sensitive, but has no legal status
3 State Ranks: S1 = Critically imperiled; S2 = Imperiled; S3 = Vulnerable; S#S# = Occurrence numbers are
uncertain
4 Historical = Database records are ≥25 years old.
5

A brief description of species potentially occurring near the project can be found below.
Biology and habitat requirements are described in Etnier and Starnes (1993) and
NatureServe (2011) for fish and in Parmalee and Bogan (1998) for mussels.
Flame Chub: An inhabitant of springs and spring runs, the flame chub, usually occurs in
areas of lush aquatic vegetation. It occurs in the Tennessee River drainage from the
Knoxville area downstream through the Mud Creek system south of Savannah (Hardin
County), Tennessee. The species also occurs in the upper Duck River and in the middle
Cumberland drainage, primarily in the upper Caney Fork system. Habitat for flame chub is
not expected to occur within impact areas of the proposed project in Watts Bar Reservoir;
therefore, this species is not considered further in this EA.
Snail Darter: This species occurs in deeper portions of rivers and reservoirs where current
is present. The snail darter spawns from February to mid-May through August. Larvae drift
downstream into deeper, lower-velocity areas. In late summer, the juveniles migrate
upstream to shoal areas where they spawn. Snail darter larvae and juveniles may occur
within the project impact area.
Tangerine Darter: The tangerine darter inhabits clearer portions of large to moderate-sized
headwater tributaries of the Tennessee River. It frequents deeper riffles and runs with
boulders, large rubble, and bedrock most of the year but moves into deeper pools in winter.
It is confined to the upper Tennessee River drainage and reaches maximum abundance in
smaller tributaries such as the Emory, Little Emory, Little Pigeon, Tellico, and Hiwassee
rivers. Habitat for tangerine darter is not expected to occur within impact areas of the
proposed project in Watts Bar Reservoir; therefore, this species is not considered further in
this assessment.
Orangefoot Pimpleback: This species inhabits medium to large rivers in moderate current
in sand, gravel, and/or cobble substrate often in deeper water. Historical records are
known to occur within a 10-mile radius of the proposed project area. The USFWS issued a
2007 Final Rule to reintroduce experimental populations in the lower French Broad and
lower Holston rivers. As recognized in the 2011 BA and BO associated with this project,
orangefoot pimpleback is believed to occur within the project impact area in very low
numbers. However, the USFWS BO concluded that, given the extremely rare occurrence
of orangefoot pimpleback and nature of potential indirect impacts from the proposed
project, the level of impacts to this species would not rise to the level of “take.” Therefore,
orangefoot pimpleback is not considered further in this EA.
Pink Mucket: Typically, a big river species, the pink mucket occasionally becomes
established in small to medium-sized tributaries of large rivers. It generally inhabits rocky to
sand/gravel substrates with swift current, usually in less than 3 feet of water; however, it
has been found living and reproducing in reservoir habitat containing adequate flow.
Suitable habitat occurs near the project, and it is believed to inhabit the project impact area
in low densities (CCR Environmental 2011; USFWS 2011).
Tennessee Clubshell: This species occurs in the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers’
drainages. The Tennessee clubshell prefers substrate of coarse gravel and sand in small,
shallow creeks and rivers with good current. Spawning likely takes place in spring, and
larvae are expelled during summer, with several fish species shown to serve as
reproductive hosts. The project impact area does not likely support appropriate habitat for
Tennessee clubshell; therefore, this species is not evaluated further in this assessment.
6

No Action Alternative - Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to environmental
conditions would occur; thus, no impacts to threatened or endangered species within the
project area would occur.
Action Alternative With Modification - Under the Action Alternative, TVA would approve
construction and operation of a 20-MGD water intake at TRM 592.3L and a water line
across the Tennessee River at TRM 591.6 with implementation of the mitigative measures
of the BA to minimize or reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project to
federally listed aquatic species (Attachment D), as well as the reasonable and prudent
measures and supporting terms and conditions, along with stipulations and requirements,
provided in the USFWS BO (Attachment C).
The BA (CCR Environmental 2011) and BO evaluated potential project impacts to federally
listed aquatic species and determined that the project was likely to adversely affect the pink
mucket (federally listed as endangered) and snail darter (federally listed as threatened).
Although the USFWS (2011) believed that the orangefoot pimpleback was likely to occur in
the project action area, it determined that the extremely rare occurrence of this species, in
combination with the project methods and conservation measures, would result in project
effects that were not likely to reach a level of take. Therefore, the action agencies and
USFWS agree that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect orangefoot
pimpleback. All of the agencies also agreed that no DCH for any of the three federally
listed aquatic species would be adversely modified or destroyed since no DCH was present
in the action area for the project. Based on the project description and conservation
measures, size of the project’s action area, nature of the project’s impacts on the aquatic
habitat, and status of the pink mucket and snail darter in the action area, the USFWS
estimated that 45 pink muckets and six snail darters would be incidentally taken (in the form
of harassment, harm, and/or death) by the construction and operation of the proposed
project within the action area. Lastly, the USFWS determined that incidental take of the
pink mucket and snail darter by the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of these two species.
The BA (CCR Environmental 2011) and the BO (USFWS 2011) provided detailed analyses
on the likely effects to the pink mucket and orangefoot pimpleback from the proposed
project. In summary, direct effects would include:
1. Increased turbidity during instream construction activities would compel snail darters
and fish that serve as hosts for pink mucket to relocate to less suitable habitat
outside of the action area.
2. Increased turbidity and/or deposition of sediment during instream construction would
interfere with the respiration, feeding, and reproduction activities of pink mucket, as
well as clog fish gills and reduce feeding and growth in larval snail darters.
3. Physical injury or death of pink mucket from dredging and placement of the finished
water pipeline, finished water line anchors, raw water intake structure, raw water
intake screen anchor, and raw water pipeline on the stream bottom.
4. Mortality of snail darter and pink mucket larvae from impingement against the intake
screens or passing through the screens and becoming entrained within the intake
structure.
7

A summary of indirect effects from the project on federally listed species, which were
detailed in the BA and BO, includes the following:
1. Changes in hydraulics and riverbed substrate would dislodge and induce stress on
adult and/or juvenile pink mucket mussels. Stress to listed mussels could result in
decreased ability to respire, reproduce, and feed.
2. Adverse impacts, including mortality, to pink muckets and snail darters from
pollutants (petroleum and hydraulic fluids) entering the river during project
construction; impacts to water quality could affect respiration, feeding, and
reproduction capabilities of adults and juveniles of both pink mucket and snail
darters.
Cultural Resources
East Tennessee has been an area of human occupation for the last 12,000 years. This
includes five broad cultural periods: Paleo-Indian (11,000-8,000 B.C.), Archaic (8000-1600
B.C.), Woodland (1600 B.C.-A.D. 1000), Mississippian (A.D. 1000-1700), and Historic (A.D.
1700-present). Prehistoric land use and settlement patterns varied during each period, but
short- and long-term habitation sites were generally located on floodplains and alluvial
terraces along rivers and tributaries. Specialized campsites tended to be located on older
alluvial terraces and in the uplands. In East Tennessee, during the 17th and 18th centuries,
Europeans and Native Americans began interacting through the fur trading industry.
European-American settlement increased in the early 19th century as the Cherokee were
forced to give up their land.
On June 2, 1870, Loudon County was established from parts of Roane, Monroe, and Blount
counties. No major battles were fought in the area that became Loudon County during the
Civil War; however, the Loudon bridge across the Tennessee River was an important link
between Knoxville and Chattanooga. Following the Civil War, industrialization slowly
developed in the county. The creation of Fort Loudoun Reservoir in the 1940s and Tellico
Reservoir in the 1970s, along with the residential community Tellico Village, contributed
significantly to the local economy (Spence 1998).
The archaeological area of potential effect (APE) for the project was determined to be all
areas where ground disturbance would occur, which includes the proposed 9,500 feet of
24-inch pipeline and the proposed location of the new intake/pump station. The APE for
architectural resources includes a 0.5-mile area surrounding the proposed new intake/pump
station, as well as any areas where the project would alter existing topography or
vegetation in view of a historic resource. A preliminary records search was conducted prior
to the survey and identified two previously recorded archaeological resources (40LD0013
and 40LD0032) within the APE. Both of these sites are prehistoric. Existing roads and
utility lines are running through both sites, and the proposed pipeline would be placed into
the existing disturbed road rights-of-way and utility trenches. Two previously recorded
architectural resources (Blair’s Ferry Storehouse and Dunbar Public School) were identified
within the APE. A Phase I cultural resources survey was conducted during Fall 2010
(Susano and Guymon 2011). No previously unrecorded archaeological resources and 21
previously unrecorded architectural resources (LD-TVA 01- 21) were identified within the
APE.
8

No Action Alternative - Under the No Action Alternative, the water intake and pipeline would
not be constructed and no historic properties currently listed or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be affected.
Action Alternative With Modification - Under the Action Alternative, the proposed pipeline
would be placed into the existing disturbed road rights-of-way and utility trenches, and the
undertaking would not affect intact archaeological deposits in the two prehistoric sites
(40LD0013 and 40LD0032). Both the Blair’s Ferry Storehouse and the Dunbar Public
School are listed in the NRHP, and neither has a direct line of sight to the proposed
intake/pump station. The 21 previously unrecorded architectural resources (LD-TVA 01-21)
are considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP. Therefore, under the Action Alternative, no
historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP would be adversely
affected by the proposed undertaking.
Navigation
This stretch of the Tennessee River has recreation and commercial traffic in the form of
small recreational vessels and commercial barge tows. Over 1.2 million tons of commercial
barge cargo moved on Watts Bar Reservoir in 2005 (TVA 2009a). Over 800,000 tons of
this traffic either originated or terminated at the four active commercial barge terminals
located on Watts Bar Reservoir. On the average, 200-250 barge tows per year transport
such commodities as grains and grain products, iron and steel, minerals, asphalt, sand,
salt, and fertilizers. In 2006, 1,800 to 1,900 recreational vessels locked through at Watts
Bar and Fort Loudoun dams.
The LUB pipeline for the proposed new raw water intake structure and submarine crossing
would be assembled in sections (approximately 80 feet in length) on shore. Each section
would be hoisted by a barge-mounted crane into the river, sunk, and moved into position
and anchored by divers. This process would be repeated for each section until the entire
pipeline is in place and secured. Potentially, during construction, these activities could
temporarily and on an intermittent basis interfere with recreational and commercial traffic
near the US 11 bridge and at the proposed intake site at the WTP.
Tate and Lyle, a grain processing facility, is on the north shore of the reservoir across from
the proposed water intake site. This facility has an operating barge terminal for offloading
grain.
The approximately 500-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter ball joint ductile iron pipe extending to
the new water intake would be buried below the river bottom when the existing river bottom
elevation is greater than 721 feet above mean sea level (msl). When the river bottom
elevation is less than 721 feet above msl, the pipe would be anchored to the river bottom
through the use of concrete anchors. The pipe would be strapped down to the anchors.
LUB would also install a new 24-inch water main from the existing WTP to Blair Bend Drive.
The proposed route would begin on Grove Street, proceed north to the intersection of Main
Street, then cross Watts Bar Reservoir/Tennessee River (near TRM 591.6), and intersect
Blair Bend Drive. The finished water line would be trenched down each bank to below
elevation 721 feet and properly secured using concrete anchors to the river bottom. The
top of all anchors and pipe would be below 721 feet elevation. The length of pipe crossing
the river would be approximately 1,300 feet.
9

No Action Alternative - The water intake and pipeline would not be installed; consequently,
there would be no impacts to navigation.
Action Alternative With Modification - The TVA navigation guideline for submarine pipeline
crossings in commercial navigation channels on mainstream rivers is that the top elevation
of the pipe or anchors should not be less than 3 feet below channel bottom grade. Channel
bottom grade in the area is 724 feet. The original plans provided by LUB did not meet TVA
navigation guidelines for installing water intakes. Minor design changes were required to
lower the elevation of the main run of the pipeline (see Attachment E). The top of the
buried pipeline and anchors would emerge from the bank below elevation 721 feet above
msl and extend out along the river bottom perpendicular to the shoreline. At the end of the
pipeline, the top of the intake screens are proposed to be at elevation 720.83 feet above
msl, or 3.17 feet below channel bottom grade. The proposed action meets the minimum
depth requirements. Additionally, shoreline warning signage indicating the presence of
submerged pipelines should be clearly visible and legible from the water.
Due to the amount of commercial and recreational activity in this area, timely
communication of in-water work activities and schedules is imperative to reduce impacts to
navigation. All in-water work activities and schedules should be coordinated with the
USACE Nashville District for inclusion in a Notice to Navigation Interests as soon as the
information is available. LUB should follow USACE’s guidance to minimize impacts from
potential navigational situations during construction of the facilities, such as potential delays
or rerouting during construction. Therefore, with the Section 26a Permit contingent upon
the special conditions described in the Mitigation section, any impacts to navigation would
be temporary and minor.
Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality
The Tennessee River has been impounded at numerous locations, including Fort Loudoun
Dam that occurs upstream of the proposed project and Watts Bar Dam downstream.
Sedimentation from agricultural practices, residential, commercial, and industrial
development in the Watts Bar watershed has adversely impacted the aquatic habitat in the
area. TDEC has the project area listed on the state’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list
as impaired due to contaminated sediments from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and low
dissolved oxygen (DO) from releases at Fort Loudoun Dam (TDEC 2008). Watts Bar
Reservoir also has a fish consumption advisory for numerous species due to PCBs.
The construction of a new raw water intake structure and piping would affect an area of
riverbed approximately 500 feet long and 9.5 feet wide from installation of a 48-inch pipe
and water from the water column withdrawn through five 27-inch intake screens at TRM
592.3L. The construction of a 1,300-foot-long 24-inch-diameter water line entrenched in the
riverbed across the Tennessee River at TRM 591.6, within 100 feet upstream of the US 11
bridge, would affect approximately 1,000 feet of the riverbed within a path of up to 6 feet
wide. An additional 50 feet downstream from each structure is expected to be influenced
by indirect effects such as sedimentation and changes in hydrology.
Substrate within the project area is predominately sand, gravel, and cobble occurring in the
“transition zone” of Watts Bar Reservoir. Various habitats within Watts Bar Reservoir (and
others throughout the TVA system) are routinely evaluated using TVA’s Ecological Health
Monitoring Program to monitor reservoir health. The program provides data for comparing
future water quality conditions, and serves as a screening program for targeting more
detailed studies if the need arises. The ecological health scoring system is based on five
10

indicators: (1) DO; (2) chlorophyll, a measure of the amount of algae in the water;
(3) sediment contaminants–PCBs, pesticides, and metals; (4) benthic macroinvertebrates;
and (5) fish assemblage. Each indicator is evaluated separately, and then individual ratings
are combined into a single, composite score for each reservoir. Reservoir Ecological
Health Monitoring is one of five components of TVA’s overall river and reservoir monitoring
effort, termed Vital Signs Monitoring. Other components of the monitoring program include:
(1) examining ecological conditions in tributary streams to the Tennessee River;
(2) monitoring toxic contaminants in fish flesh to determine their suitability for consumption;
(3) evaluating the number and size of important game fish species to help ensure their
populations remain abundant and robust; and (4) sampling bacteriological concentrations at
recreational areas to evaluate their suitability for water contact with people.
Fisheries Monitoring - Fish are included in Vital Signs Monitoring because they are
important to the aquatic food chain and because they have a long life cycle that allows them
to reflect water quality conditions over time. Fish are also important to the public for
aesthetic, recreational, and commercial reasons. Ratings are based primarily on fish
community structure and function using a metric known as the Reservoir Fish Assemblage
Index (RFAI). Also considered in the rating is the percentage of the sample represented by
omnivores and insectivores, overall number of fish collected, and the occurrence of fish with
anomalies such as diseases, lesions, parasites, deformities, etc. (TVA 1999). Watts Bar
Reservoir has been monitored on an annual basis from 2006 to 2010. Over the past five
years, it has rated “good” or “fair” at all sites (Table 2).
Table 2. Recent (2006-2010) RFAI Scores 1 on Watts Bar Reservoir Collected as Part
of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program
Station River Mile 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Forebay TRM 531 Good Fair Fair Good Good
Inflow Tennessee
River
TRM 601 Good - Good Good Good
Inflow Clinch River Clinch River Mile 22 Good - Good Good Good
Transition TRM 560.8 Good - Fair Fair Good
1 RFAI Score 12-21 22-31 32-40 41-50 51-60
Community Condition Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent
A Sport Fishing Index (SFI) has been developed to measure sport fishing quality for various
species in Tennessee and Cumberland Valley reservoirs. The SFI is based on the results
of fish population sampling by TVA and state resources agencies and, when available,
results of angler success as measured by state resource agencies (i.e., bass tournament
results and creel surveys). In 2008, Watts Bar Reservoir rated above the Valleywide
average for black crappie, largemouth bass, and spotted bass and lower than the
Valleywide average for the other sport fish species monitored (Table 3).
11

Table 3. SFI Scores for Selected Sport Fish
Species in Watts Bar Reservoir,
2008
Fish Species 2008 Score 2008 Valleywide Average
Black Basses 30 37
Black Crappie 33 31
Channel Catfish 26 34
Crappie 28 31
Largemouth Bass 40 35
Smallmouth Bass 26 31
Spotted Bass 40 33
Striped Bass 24 35
White Bass 36 40
White Crappie 31 33
Benthic Monitoring - Benthic macroinvertebrates (primarily insects and mollusks) are
included in aquatic monitoring programs because of their importance to the aquatic food
chain and because these species have limited capability of movement compared to fish,
thereby serving as more site-specific indicators of aquatic community health. Sampling and
data analysis that are indicative of good (and poor) water quality include total abundance of
species (except those indicative of poor water quality) and proportions of samples with no
organisms present. Areas sampled on Watts Bar Reservoir near the project site include the
Tennessee River inflow station (TRM 600) and the transition station (TRM 560.8). Benthic
scores were variable among sites, ranging from very poor to good, with the best scores
occurring in the transition zone (Table 4).
Table 4. Recent (2006-2010) Benthic Community Scores 1 Collected as Part of the
Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Watts Bar Reservoir
Station River Mile 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Forebay TRM 533.3 Poor Poor Poor Very Poor -
Inflow Tennessee
River
TRM 600 Very Poor - Poor Fair -
Inflow Clinch River Clinch River Mile 19, 21 Good - Fair, Good Good -
Transition TRM 560.8 Fair - Fair Good -
1 Benthic Community Score 7-12 13-18 19-23 24-29 30-35
Community Condition Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent
Mussels - A 1997 mussel (Family: Unionidae) survey conducted by TWRA (November 21,
1997, letter from McKinney [TWRA] to Brisson [TDOT]) at five locations immediately upand
downstream of the project site documented 12 species of unionid mussels, including
three individuals of the pink mucket pearlymussel (federally listed as endangered). Based
on five 100-foot-long transects sampled near the project site in 1997 (TWRA), estimated
mussel density in the area was 0.07 mussel per square foot (ft 2 ) (or 0.75 mussel per square
meter) (USFWS 2011). Additionally, the invasive zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)
12

was documented to have colonized much of the substrate and attached to many of the
native mussel shells.
No Action Alternative - Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to environmental
conditions would occur; thus, no effects to the aquatic environment or water quality would
occur.
Action Alternative With Modification - Under the Action Alternative, TVA would approve,
under Section 26a of the TVA Act, LUB to construct and operate a 20-MGD water intake at
TRM 592.3L and a water line across the Tennessee River at TRM 591.6.
Aquatic life could be directly and indirectly affected due to modification of the riverbed,
riparian zone, and storm water runoff resulting from construction and maintenance activities
on the project site. Potential impacts due to removal of streamside vegetation within the
riparian zone include increased erosion and siltation, loss of instream habitat, and
increased stream temperatures adjacent the bank. Other potential construction and
maintenance impacts include alteration of stream banks from construction equipment and
runoff of herbicides from vegetation control into streams. Excavation of a trench for the
water lines and anchoring water lines on the surface of the riverbed would likely result in the
permanent or long-term loss of existing habitat and would likely cause modification of the
surrounding riverbed (particularly downstream) due to elevated levels of suspended
sediment during construction, as well as altered flow patterns that could change physical
characteristics of the riverbed. The introduction of riprap to stabilize modified banks and
protect exposed water lines would cause loss or degradation of habitat for some species,
but would also provide refuge and improve habitat for other species such as snails or
species (fish and macroinvertebrates) that prefer rock crevices.
Siltation has a detrimental effect on many aquatic animals adapted to riverine
environments. Elevated suspended fine sediments can negatively impact respiration,
feeding, and spawning of many fish species (Sutherland et al. 2002). Likewise,
macroinvertebrates and mussel species adapted to a heterogeneous mixture of sediment
particles can be impaired by changes in sediment. For example, concentrations of silt can
clog gills and hinder intake of food. Scouring of finer sediments can result in compacted
substrate that prevents burrowing and colonization of macroinvertebrates and mussels.
Changes to the habitat that affect fish community composition, particularly benthic (bottomdwelling)
species, may also affect mussel reproduction that relies on specific fish hosts to
complete their life cycle.
In addition to the mitigative measures proposed by the applicant in the BA, the applicant
would also comply with the reasonable and prudent measures (and supporting terms and
conditions) outlined in the BO (USFWS 2011).
Some loss or changes to the aquatic community are expected. The USFWS BO describes
an area of 23,905 ft 2 (or 0.55 acre) that would be directly impacted by trenching/excavation
and water lines. An estimated 6.36 million ft 2 (or 146 acres) could be affected indirectly by
changes in substrate composition or water quality including the entire river width below the
normal winter pool level from TRM 591.1 upstream to TRM 592.3 (USFWS 2011).
However, in addition to any standard construction BMPs, the applicant would implement
“special conditions” (mitigative measures) to minimize or reduce the environmental effects
of the proposed project to federally listed aquatic species (CCR Environmental 2011), which
would also benefit other nonlisted aquatic animals. Given the environmental protective
13

measures associated with the Action Alternative, impacts to aquatic organisms and water
quality from disturbance or modification of adjacent land and the riverbed would be
minimized.
Water Withdrawal
For LUB to meet increasing water demands, the treatment plant and intake structure will
need to be expanded from the current capacity of 14 to 20 MGD. While the existing raw
water intake has sufficient capacity to supply 22 MGD to the plant, the intake does not
provide adequate firm pumping capacity for the expanded plant capacity of 20 MGD.
Jordan, Jones & Goulding, engineering consultants for LUB (see Attachment A), provided
historic and projected water demand from 2005 to 2020. This demand was categorized as
minimum day, average day, and peak day demand. Analyses of the 2009 demand
projections indicated that average day demand would be approximately 80 percent of
capacity and would likely exceed plant capacity by 2015. Analyses also indicated that peak
day demand would likely exceed plant capacity during 2010.
No Action Alternative - If TVA adopts the No Action Alternative, the volume of water
withdrawn from the Tennessee River by LUB would not be increased. There would be no
effect on water withdrawal. If the existing treatment plant and intake structure capacities
are not expanded, water demand would exceed capacity over the next few years, and LUB
would not be able to meet customer demand.
Action Alternative With Modification - The Action Alternative is to construct a new raw water
intake structure and piping to support expansion of the WTP. This new intake structure
would increase Loudon Utilities’ pumping capacity from 14 MGD to 20 MGD. An analysis of
increased water withdrawal was conducted to determine the following:
• Whether the withdrawal increase would adversely impact downstream
municipal/industrial water supplies
• Whether the water intake structure was at a sufficient depth to prevent operational
impacts during low flows
• Whether the water withdrawal increase aligned with forecasted customer water
demand in the future
Two industrial water intake facilities are immediately downstream of LUB’s proposed water
intake structure. Viskase Corporation (TRM 591.7) withdraws approximately 1.5 MGD,
while Kimberly Clark Corporation (TRM 589.9) withdraws approximately 5.0 MGD.
Because of flows in the river at these locations (approximately 9,000 MGD average flow
and 1,265 MGD on lowest-flow day of 2007, which was the driest year of record),
increasing Loudon Utilities’ withdrawal from 14 MGD to 20 MGD represents only 0.07
percent of the average flow, or 0.5 percent of the 2007 low-flow day. This degree of
increase in withdrawals should have no adverse effect on downstream municipal/industrial
water withdrawals by others.
The proposed water intake structure would have a top-of-screen elevation of no higher than
721 feet msl. Maximum drawdown elevation for Watts Bar Reservoir is 733 feet msl,
leaving at least 12 feet of water over the top of the intake structure. This would likely
ensure continuous operation during normal low water elevations in the reservoir.
14

The proposed intake would be located in the Tennessee River below Fort Loudoun Dam.
TVA operates its system of dams and reservoirs according to an operational policy adopted
in 2004. This policy is based upon meeting future consumptive use above Fort Loudoun
Dam of 241 MGD (Bohac and Koroa, 2004, Tables 2-1 and 3-1). The consumptive use
above Fort Loudoun Dam in 2005 was 143 MGD (Bohac and McCall, 2008, Table 2-1).
The consumptive use increase for the additional 6 MGD peak withdrawal is 1.37 MGD or
approximately 0.9 MGD for average withdrawal (based on the consumptive use in Loudon
County of approximately 23 percent; see Bohac and McCall, 2008, Table 2-3). Therefore,
the proposed increase in withdrawal would be within the limits of TVA’s modeling of water
withdrawals and returns developed for its Reservoir Operations Policy.
Cumulative Impacts
Resources that could cumulatively be affected by the new water intake and pipeline are
aquatic ecology, water quality, and aquatic threatened and endangered species. The
Action Alternative would result in a loss of individual pick mucket mussels and snail darters
in the project area. However, this action would not result in cumulative impacts to these
species on a regional or Valleywide basis because of the existence of other populations.
Water quality would continue to be affected by general population, industrial use, and
lakefront development growth in the area. In order to avoid contributing to degradation of
aquatic ecology and water quality in the area, TVA would require use of erosion-control
measures during construction of the water intake and pipeline. Although it would have a
somewhat greater impact than the No Action Alternative, the Action Alternative would result
in a minimal impact on the environment and improve availability of local potable water
supply when the proposal was completed. Therefore, TVA has determined that cumulative
impacts of this action would be insignificant.
Necessary Permits and Public Involvement
Approval under Section 26a of the TVA Act of 1933, as amended, is required for the
construction of any obstructions in and along the Tennessee River or its tributaries. The
proposal would also require approval by USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, on September 2, 2009, a Water Quality Certification/Aquatic Resources
Alteration Permit (ARAP) was issued for both the water intake and the pipeline crossing of
the Tennessee River by TDEC’s Division of Water Pollution Control.
The proposed action was the subject of Public Notice 09-51 issued by USACE on June 24,
2009, for a 30-day public comment period. The comments received during this period,
along with a copy of the joint public notice, are located in Attachment F of the EA. In a
letter to USACE dated July 17, 2009, the USFWS identified the following species as
possibly occurring in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project: the endangered pink
mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) and orange-foot pimpleback (Plethobasus cooperianus) and the
threatened snail darter (Percina tanasi). TWRA identified the same three species as
potentially being impacted by the project in a July 23, 2009, letter. In a June 30, 2010,
letter to USACE and TVA, the USFWS provided a BO to the BA prepared under USACE
direction. Following a modification of plans to lower the depth of the river crossing and
water intake, USACE prepared a revised BA. USFWS then provided a revised BO and
commented that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, had been
fulfilled.
15

The Tennessee SHPO commented by letter dated June 29, 2009, that in order to complete
a review of the project, the SHPO would require the recommendation of TVA’s Cultural
Resources staff. On March 23, 2011, TVA sent a letter to the SHPO stating that the water
intake and pipeline would not adversely affect historic structures eligible for or listed in the
NRHP. In a letter dated April 4, 2011, the SHPO concurred that the project would have no
effect.
Mitigation Measures
To minimize or reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project to aquatic
resources including federally listed aquatic species (CCR Environmental 2011), LUB shall
implement the mitigative measures (a through k) described in the BA (Attachment D).
To minimize the take of the pink mucket mussel and snail darter, LUB shall comply with the
reasonable and prudent measures and supporting terms and conditions, along with
stipulations and requirements of the BO (Attachment C), issued by the USFWS on May 4,
2011.
TVA Special Conditions
The TVA Section 26a approval would require LUB to implement BMPs and other measures
as well as comply with General and Standard Conditions of its TVA Section 26a Permit.
Further, the TVA Section 26a Permit would require LUB to adhere to special conditions and
requirements (listed below). The Section 26a Permit would expire at the end of 15 years
from the date of its issuance.
1. The applicant’s maximum peak daily water withdrawal rate from the proposed intake
shall not exceed 20 MGD; LUB shall prepare an annual usage report of the amount
of water withdrawn; and sale or transfer of water from this source outside the
existing LUB utility service territory is prohibited.
2. LUB shall provide shoreline warning signage, clearly visible and legible from the
water, indicating the presence of submerged pipelines. The sign shall also provide
an emergency point of contact(s).
3. All in-water work activities and schedules will be coordinated with the United States
Army Corps of Engineers Nashville District for inclusion in a Notice to Navigation
Interests as soon as the information is available.
USACE Special Conditions
1. The work must be in accordance with any plans attached to the permit. You must
have a copy of the permit available on the work site and ensure all contractors are
aware of its conditions and abide by them.
2. Your use of the permitted activity must not interfere with the public’s right to free
navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. A Navigation Data Sheet
(provided as part of any USACE permit for this type activity) shall be completed by
the permittee and submitted to the USACE Nashville District office at least 10 days
prior to commencement of construction, so that we may advise the commercial
towing industry to be advised of a potential navigation hazard.
3. Material resulting from trench excavation may be temporarily side cast into waters of
the United States for no more than three months; then, the excess is to be removed
16

to an upland location, provided the material is not placed in such a manner that it is
dispersed by currents or other forces. Buoys shall be floated above any temporarily
stockpiled material to warn of the temporary possible hazard (spaced at the end, in
the middle, and near the shoreline).
4. The floating plant used to construct the intake and install the pipeline must display
proper lighting and signals as required by the current Inland Navigation Rules (INR).
For INR information, please contact: Eighth Coast Guard District, Hale Boggs Federal
Building, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-6277 or
(504) 589-6236.
5. To verify finished elevations after the work in the river is finished, the permittee shall
furnish certified “as-built” drawings to the USACE Nashville District office within 90
days of completion of construction showing the location and alignment of the
pipeline/intake as well as all pertinent dimensions and elevations.
6. A water supply data sheet (provided as part of any USACE permit for this type
activity) shall be completed by the permittee and submitted to the USACE Nashville
District office within 90 days of the date of the permit.
7. If needed, future periodic dredging to remove accumulated sediments blocking or
restricting the intake is herein approved and may be performed under this permit for
10 years from the date of issuance of this permit. The permittee will advise the
USACE Nashville District office in writing at least two weeks before undertaking
maintenance dredging. The dredged material shall be deposited and retained at an
upland site, and proper soil erosion and sediment control measures shall be
implemented to minimize reentry of sediments into waters of the United States.
Preferred Alternative
TVA’s Preferred Alternative is the Action Alternative With Modifications where the water
intake and pipeline are constructed and the conditions and mitigation implemented to
minimize environmental impacts. USACE does not have a Preferred Alternative.
TVA Preparers
D. Chris Cooper, Manager, Land and Shoreline Management
Kemmy J. Garrison, Project Manager, Land and Shoreline Management, Project Leader
Charles S. Howard, Aquatic Community Ecologist, Aquatic Ecology and Aquatic
Threatened and Endangered Species
Andrew R. Lawson, Project Manager, Land and Shoreline Management, Project Leader
Mary A. McBryar, Environmental Scientist, Environmental Permits and Compliance
Susan E. McCollum, Mechanical Engineer, River Operations, Navigation
Craig L. Phillips, Contract Aquatic Ecologist, TVA Biological Resources, Aquatic Ecology
Marianne M. Shuler, Archaeologist, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
Compliance
17

Gary L. Springston, Program Manager, River Operations, Water Supply
Richard L. Toennisson, Contract Senior NEPA Specialist, NEPA Compliance and
Document Preparation
USACE Preparer
Lisa R. Morris, Project Manager, Nashville District Regulatory Branch, Nashville,
Tennessee
Agencies and Others Consulted
Tennessee Historical Commission, Nashville Tennessee
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville, Tennessee
References
Bohac, C. E., and M. C. Koroa. 2004. Water Supply Inventory and Needs Analysis.
Chattanooga: TVA, River Operations, Navigation and Hydraulic Engineering,
November 2004.
Bohac, C. E., and M. J. McCall. 2008. Water Use in the Tennessee Valley for 2005 and
Projected Use in 2030. Prepared by TVA River Operations in Cooperation With the
United States Geological Survey. Available from
.
CCR Environmental. 2011. Revised Biological Assessment for the Pink Mucket,
Orangefoot Pimpleback, and Snail Darter at the Proposed Water Line and Water Intake
Installation Project. Prepared for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, April
2011.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press.
NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1.
Arlington, Va.: NatureServe. Retrieved from
(February 2, 2011).
Parmalee, P.W., and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee.
Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
Spence, Joe. 1998. “Loudon County.” The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and
Culture. Edited by Carroll Van West, 556-558. Nashville: The Rutledge Hill Press.
Susano, Charles III, and Gail Guymon. 2011. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of
Loudon Utilities, Loudon County, Tennessee. Report submitted to Tennessee Valley
Authority, Cultural Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Sutherland, Andrew B., J. L. Meyer, and E. P. Gardiner. 2002. “Effects of Land Cover on
Sediment Regime and Fish Assemblage Structure in Four Southern Appalachian
Streams.” Freshwater Biology 47:1791-1805.
18

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2008. Final Year 2008
303(d) List. Nashville: TDEC, Division of Water Pollution Control, Planning and
Standards Section.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1999. Aquatic Ecological Health Determinations for TVA
Reservoirs—1998: An Informal Summary of 1998 Vital Signs Monitoring Results and
Ecological Health Determination Methods. Primary authors/editors: Don L. Dycus,
Dennis L. Meinert, and Tyler F. Baker. Chattanooga, Tenn.: TVA Water Management,
Clean Water Initiative.
———. 2002. Section 26a Approval for Tennessee State Route 2 (US 11) Bridge Over the
Tennessee River Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
———. 2009a. Watts Bar Reservoir Land Management Plan Environmental Impact
Statement, Knoxville, Tennessee.
———. 2009b. Categorical Exclusion Checklist Number 19649 – 26a Category 3 RLF
188609 Loudon Utilities Watts Bar Reservoir.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Biological Opinion of the Loudon Utilities
Board’s Proposed Raw Water Intake (TRM 592.3R) and Finished Waterline
Crossing (TRM 591.6), Loudon County, Tennessee. Issued May 4, 2011.
19

Attachments
A. LUB 26a Application - TVA Watts Bar/Clinch Watershed Team
B. Categorical Exclusion Checklist 19649 - TVA Watts Bar/Clinch Watershed Team
C. Biological Opinion - USFWS
D. Biological Assessment - USACE
E. Final Design With Modifications
F. Agency Letters and Joint Public Notice - USACE
20