Document Type:
Index Field:
Project Name:
Project Number:
EA-Administrative Record
Final Environmental
Document
Occidental Chemical Barge
Terminal
2012-7
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION BARGE
TERMINAL AND OUTFALL, PROPOSED 26A APPROVAL
Kentucky Reservoir,
Humphreys County, Tennessee
PREPARED BY:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
COOPERATING AGENCY:
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DECEMBER 2012
For more information, please contact:
Lisa R. Morris, Project Manager
Nashville District Regulatory Branch
United States Army Corps of Engineers
3701 Bell Road
Nashville, Tennessee 37214
Phone:
(615) 369-7504
Fax:
(615) 369-7501
E-mail:
[email protected]
Richard L. Toennisson, Senior NEPA Specialist
NEPA Interface
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Phone:
(865) 632-8517
Fax:
(865) 632-3451
E-mail:
[email protected]
Page intentionally blank
Purpose, Need, and Proposed Action
Occidental Chemical Corporation, Dallas, Texas (OxyChem) has applied to the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for permits to modify
and operate an existing E.I. DuPont De Nemours (DuPont) dock facility, and to install a
waste water outfall into the Tennessee River (Attachment A). The proposed project
location is on Kentucky Reservoir on the right descending bank (R) of the Tennessee River
at approximate Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 98.1 in Humphreys County near New
Johnsonville, Tennessee (Figure 1). The modified dock and new waste water outfall would
support a new membrane-cell chlor-alkali production plant which would supply chlorine and
caustic soda to the adjacent DuPont Chemical plant. DuPont has operated a facility at this
location, which relies on chlorine and liquid caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) as
components of their manufacturing process, for approximately the last 53 years.
Currently, chlorine is delivered to the DuPont facility via barge. However, the proposed site
changes are part of the development by OxyChem of an onsite membrane-cell chlor-alkali
plant to be located adjacent to the existing DuPont plant, thereby eliminating the need for
chlorine delivery via the river.
The proposed OxyChem plant would require large amounts of rock salt to produce chlorine,
caustic soda, and hydrogen. The bulk rock salt is most efficiently handled by barge
transportation. The proposed facility would also be used to load caustic soda to ship to
customers other than DuPont.
The existing dock facility would be extended toward the channel to support solid-cargo
barges and a slurry-holding tank. It would be modified by OxyChem to include: a clamshell
crane for offloading rock salt; a conveyer; and a tank to collect any slurry rock salt to be
transported via pipeline to the plant (Attachment B). One additional mooring dolphin would
be placed near the shoreline and additional pilling would be installed under the existing
dock to support the new equipment. The proposed discharge process wastewater (effluent)
pipe would extend into the channel no more than 280 feet from shore at TRM 98 right
descending bank (R). The proposed outfall would be part of a waste water treatment
system to treat all the process related water, as well as all rainwater runoff from the new
plant. Modification of the terminal and construction of the outfall would require about 250
cubic yards of fill in Kentucky Reservoir.
Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act, (U.S. Congress, 1933, as
amended) 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 modification of the existing DuPont barge terminal to unload bulk
rock salt and load caustic soda, and construction of a new wastewater. 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 (RHA) and section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA).
1
Background
OxyChem is one of the nation’s leading producers of chlorine and liquid caustic (sodium
hydroxide solution), which are required raw materials in the production of many consumer
and industrial products, including those produced by DuPont at its New Johnsonville facility.
In July 2011, OxyChem announced plans to construct a chlor-alkali plant adjacent to
DuPont’s New Johnsonville titanium dioxide plant. Completion of the project would
eliminate the need for DuPont to barge chlorine long distances in support of its operation
(Attachment C). OxyChem would produce chlorine and caustic soda onsite, which would
only require long distance transport of non-hazardous raw materials such as common rock
salt (sodium chloride).
The production would occur via a new ion-exchange membrane-cell chlor-alkali plant
currently being constructed on DuPont property under a long term lease, with chlorine being
delivered to DuPont via an interplant pipeline. OxyChem has chosen the use of this
technology over other available methods because it provides good economics and is the
best alternative for minimization of overall environmental impacts.
To support the production of chlorine and liquid caustic at the site, OxyChem requires a
dock facility for the unloading of raw material (salt) and the loading of liquid caustic soda
product (the portion of the liquid caustic produced that is not utilized by DuPont). In
addition, the chlor-alkali plant would require an outfall to effluent and storm water into the
Tennessee River.
Currently, DuPont has an existing dock facility on-site which is currently utilized to unload
chlorine from barges in support of its manufacturing operation. OxyChem is proposing to
modify this dock facility (under a long term lease from DuPont) to allow for the unloading of
rock salt for use in the chlorine-caustic production process, as well as for loading of liquid
caustic into barges for transport to customers. Caustic is a co-product of the chlorine
generation process, and a portion of the caustic produced would be utilized by DuPont with
the remaining caustic being sold to other facilities. Currently, it is estimated that DuPont
would utilize less than 50 percent of the liquid caustic generated with the remaining caustic
being transported offsite by railcar, truck, and barge. Once OxyChem begins producing
chlorine on site, DuPont would no longer need the dock facility for unloading chlorine.
In addition to the dock facility, DuPont also has an outfall that discharges into the
Tennessee River approximately 625 feet upstream of the proposed OxyChem outfall
discharge point. Figure 2 shows the location of the production facility, dock, and proposed
effluent diffuser.
DuPont plans to cease unloading chlorine barges, and remove all associated equipment
and piping for unloading of barges from the existing dock in the fall of 2012. The dock
modifications would consist of installing a salt unloading crane, salt hopper, salt conveyor,
diesel fuel tank, salt slurry tank and pumps, caustic loading equipment and their associated
piping, instrumentation, and electrical systems. The dock would be re-designed to
accommodate docking and unloading of rock salt (Attachment B) and loading of liquid
caustic barges simultaneously.
In-water modifications to the dock would consist of installing approximately 20 16-inch
diameter piles in open water to provide for barge mooring and to support the required
barge-moving winch anchors. In addition, approximately 12 16-inch piles would be installed
within the confines of the existing dock to support the crane, hopper, and conveyor, and
approximately four 24-inch piles would be installed to support the salt slurry tank. This
construction activity is expected to require approximately three months to complete.
The total amount of rock salt required at full chlorine production by OxyChem would be
about 910 tons per day. The rock salt would be unloaded from barges with the clamshell
crane and put into a salt slurry tank. The slurry would be pumped to salt saturators in the
production area of the plant. OxyChem also plans to ship some of the caustic soda
produced to additional customers via, barge, railcar, and truck. Barge traffic would consist
of approximately 4 barges of rock salt per week and approximately 2 barges of caustic soda
being loaded per week.
In order to minimize disturbance to the river bottom, and specifically to the mussel
community, installation of the outfall line would be performed by directional boring from onshore beneath the river bottom. By constructing the line in this manner, with the exception
of any potential effect from drilling mud (typically composed primarily of bentonite clay),
bottom disturbance would be limited to that required to sink and install the 68 feet long
diffuser section.
The property was allocated as marginal strip in the 1985 Kentucky Reservoir Land Plan; it
fronts an active industrial area in the vicinity of the TVA New Johnsonville Fossil Plant
(JOF: Figure 1). There is also access to railroads and several major highways. DuPont
currently has and has granted an easement to Oxychem that provides the appropriate land
use rights which would accommodate the proposed facilities by OxyChem.
Other Environmental Reviews and Documentation
On February 10, 2010, TVA completed an EA and issued a finding of no significant impact
for a proposal to enhance the stability of approximately 1,600 linear feet of a dike that
supports the northeast side of an ash storage area at JOF located near New Johnsonville in
Humphreys County, Tennessee. The proposed dike stabilization was necessary to meet
safety standards set by the USACE as well as to allow TVA to perform routine dike
maintenance without affecting slope stability. Implementation of the Action Alternative was
likely to adversely affect the federally endangered pink mucket mussel. Measures were
adopted to mitigate impacts to the mussel and monitor to outcome. USACE was a
cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
3
Figure 1.
Aerial Photograph of Vicinity of OxyChem Proposal (Black Circle)
Figure 2.
Proposed Project Site
Alternatives and Comparison
Scoping by TVA and USACE 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 that would have required the trenching of the
river bottom to install the effluent pipeline is no longer considered feasible. The modified
Action Alternative is proposed with special conditions to mitigate impacts to aquatic
resources along with moving of the location of the outfall pipeline to avoid mussel beds and
use of directional boring during construction. It would likely lessen impacts to aquatic
resources and mitigation costs.
The No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative the proposed OxyChem facilities would not be approved by
TVA under section 26a of the TVA Act and USACE would not approve the project under
section 10 of the RHA and section 404 of the CWA. The barge terminal would not be
modified and waste water outfall would not be constructed. This alternative would not meet
the needs of the applicant.
Action Alternative – The Proposed Action Alternative With Special Conditions
Under the Action Alternative the proposed OxyChem facilities would be approved by TVA
under section 26a of the TVA Act and USACE would approve the project under section 10
of the RHA and section 404 of the CWA. The barge terminal would be modified and waste
water outfall would be constructed (see Attachment B). These facilities would be available
5
to support the proposed OxyChem plant which could be constructed and operated. 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, and mitigation to offset adverse project impacts.
Affected Environment and Evaluation of Impacts
Site Description
The proposed project is in Humphreys County, Tennessee, on Kentucky Reservoir.
Kentucky Dam and Lock are about 76 miles downstream, and Pickwick Dam and Lock are
about 109 miles upstream. TVA maintains a 9-foot-deep navigation channel in the
Tennessee River. The area of the Kentucky 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 (chemical and
electric production). Nearby cities include New Johnsonville (2000 population 1,900) and
Waverly (2000 population 4,000) the county seat.
Humphreys County is within the Western Highland Rim of the Interior Low Plateau
Ecoregion. This Ecoregion is underlain by older limestone, chert and shale. The Western
Highland Rim is characterized by dissected rolling terrain of open hills. Historically the
native vegetation was Oak-Hickory communities that were deforested in the mid to late
1800’s for iron-ore mining and smelting of limonite. Much of the lands have been reforested
and some agriculture practices are found in areas of river flood plains (Griffith et al. 1998).
Impacts Evaluated
The applicant’s proposed activities under the action alternative would have no impact to
natural features, such as terrestrial endangered species; prime or unique farmland;
groundwater; unique or important terrestrial plant and wildlife habitats; recreation; visual
resources; solid waste; and Wild and Scenic Rivers.
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,
terrestrial resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice, noise, wetlands, air quality,
and natural areas.
Floodplains
Affected Environment
A floodplain is the relatively level land area along a stream or river that is subjected to
periodic flooding. The area subject to a 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year is
normally called the 100-year floodplain. The proposed project is located at about TRM 98.0
R on Kentucky Reservoir in Humphreys County, Tennessee. The 100-year floodplain on
Kentucky Reservoir is the area that would be inundated by the 100-year flood. The 100year flood and Flood Risk Profile (FRP) elevations at Tennessee River mile 98.0 are 375.0feet above mean sea level (NGVD 1929). At this location, the FRP elevation is equal to the
500-year flood elevation and is used to control flood damageable development for TVA
projects and on TVA Lands.
As a federal agency, TVA is subject to the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 11988,
Floodplain Management. The objective of EO 11988 is “…to avoid to the extent possible
the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification
of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever
there is a practicable alternative” (United States Water Resources Council 1978). The EO
is not intended to prohibit floodplain development in all cases, but rather to create a
consistent government policy against such development under most circumstances. The
EO requires that agencies avoid the 100-year floodplain unless there is no practicable
alternative.
Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed modifications to the existing dock would not
be made, and construction of the waste water outfall and breasting dolphin would not occur.
Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to floodplains because
there would be no physical changes to the current conditions found within the local
floodplains.
Action Alternative
The proposed project involves modifications to an existing barge terminal and construction
of a breasting dolphin and an outfall. The modifications to the existing barge terminal
include: the construction of a salt unloading hopper, salt conveyor, salt slurry tank and
pump, caustic soda loading arm, dock sump and pump, salt unloading crane and bobcat,
fuel tank, pig launcher/receiver, load center, and restroom on an existing dock. Some of
these facilities would be located within the 100-year floodplain. All of the proposed facilities
would be consistent with EO 11988. Due to the number of facilities that are involved in this
project (see Attachment C), they are listed below with information related to each facility.
The project would comply with the Flood Control Storage Loss Guideline because there
would be no loss of flood control storage.
•
•
Breasting Dolphin - The top of the dolphin would be at elevation 372.0 feet mean sea
level (msl) and no equipment would be located on the dolphin. This is a repetitive action
in the 100-year floodplain that should have no adverse floodplain impacts
Waste Water Outfall - This is a repetitive action in the 100-year floodplain that should
have no adverse floodplain impacts
The facilities addressed below would all be constructed on the existing dock: 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; and implementation of the flood contingency plan during periods of high water.
•
•
Salt Unloading Hopper – The hopper would be located within the 100-year floodplain at
about elevation 372.0 msl. There is no practicable alternative to locating the hopper on
the dock because it is necessary to load the salt onto the conveyor for transport to the
salt slurry tank. The bottom of the hopper is open and no flood damages would occur.
Salt Conveyor – The conveyor would be located within the 100-year floodplain at about
elevation 372.0 msl. There is no practicable alternative to locating the conveyor on the
dock because it is necessary to transport the salt to the salt slurry tank. The motor
would be located at about elevation 400 msl, which is well above the Flood Risk Profile
elevation.
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Salt Slurry Tank – The salt slurry tank would be located within the 100-year floodplain at
about elevation 369.0 msl. The applicant has documented that there is no land
available outside the 100-year floodplain to relocate the tank and elevating the tank
would be impractical and cost prohibitive. TVA and the Corps have determined that
there is no practicable alternative to the construction of the tank within the 100-year
floodplain. The tank would not be subject to damage if flooded.
Salt Slurry Tank Pump and Motor – The pump and motor would be permanently located
on the dock at about elevation 368 msl. The pump is designed to pump from the
bottom of the slurry tank so elevating the pump above elevation 375.0 msl would be
impractical unless the salt slurry tank was also raised. In the event of a flood, the
applicant plans to leave the pump because it is not subject to flood damage, but remove
the motor and relocate it to a flood-free site. TVA and the Corps have determined that
there is no practicable alternative to the construction of pump and motor within the 100year floodplain and adverse impacts would be minimized.
Caustic Soda Loading Arm - This component is similar to a tower crane and only the
support would be located within the 100-year floodplain. All of the motors and other
electrical equipment would be located well above the Flood Risk Profile elevation 375.0
msl.
Dock Sump - By definition, a sump has to be located at the lower portion of the facility.
The sump would not be subject to flood damage.
Dock Sump Pump – The pump and motor would be permanently located on the dock at
about elevation 364.0 msl. The pump is designed to pump from the bottom of the sump
so elevating the pump to elevation 375.0 msl would be impractical. In the event of a
flood, the applicant plans to leave the pump because it is not subject to flood damage,
but remove the motor and relocate it to a flood-free site. All of the instrumentation for
the dock sump pump would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. TVA and the
Corps have determined that there is no practicable alternative to the construction of
pump and motor within the 100-year floodplain and adverse impacts would be
minimized.
Salt Unloading Crane – The salt unloading crane would be located outside of the 100year floodplain which would be consistent with EO 11988.
Barge Sweeper (Bob Cat) - The barge sweeper would be located at about elevation
372.0 msl. Evaluations were made concerning raising the barge sweeper to elevation
375.0 msl, but it would be impractical. The applicant plans to relocate the barge
sweeper onto a barge in advance of a flood. They have provided information to
document that they have the resources and the lead time to undertake this action. TVA
and the Corps have determined that there is no practicable alternative to the locating
the barge sweeper within the 100-year floodplain and adverse impacts would be
minimized.
Fuel Oil Tank – The fuel oil tank would be elevated outside of the 100-year floodplain
(above 375 msl) which would be consistent with EO 11988.
Pig Launcher/Receiver – The pig launcher/receiver would be located on the dock at
about elevation 369.0. The pig launcher/receiver would not be subject to flood damage.
All of the instrumentation would be outside of the 100-year floodplain which would be
consistent with EO 11988.
Load Center – The Load Center would be outside of the 100-year floodplain which
would be consistent with EO 11988.
•
Dock’s Restroom Facility - The restroom would be outside of the 100-year floodplain
which would be consistent with EO 11988.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Affected Environment
Terrestrial Species. A review of the TVA Regional Natural Heritage database indicates
there are no federal-listed and one Tennessee state-listed plant species, hairy umbrella
sedge (Fuirena squarrosa) recorded from within five miles of the proposed project. Hairy
umbrella sedge is a species of special concern in Tennessee with a S1 status (critically
imperiled with 5 or fewer occurrences). The hairy umbrella sedge is a commonly occurring
species of the Gulf and Atlantic coastal plain growing in wet acid substrates, bogs, seeps,
ditches, savannas, flatwoods and edges of ponds and lakes (NatureServe 2012). No
federal-listed plant species are reported from Humphreys County.
Two federally listed terrestrial animal species have been reported from Benton County,
Tennessee, and one federally protected species (bald eagle) reported from both Humphries
and Benton Counties. In addition, four state-listed animal species have been reported from
within three miles of the project area (Table 1).
Table 1. Endangered, threatened, and other species of conservation concern known
from the project area near Benton and Humphries Counties, Tennessee.
Federal
Status
TN State
Status
-
NMGT
(S2S3)
--
THR (S3)
THR (S2S3)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Charadrius melodus
Egretta caerulea
DM
LT
-
NMGT (S3)
TRKD (S2)
NMGT (S2)
Myotis grisescens
LE
END (S2)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Alligator snapping turtle
Northern pine snake
Western pigmy rattlesnake
Macrochelys temminckii
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus
Sistrurus miliarius streckeri
Bald eagle
Piping plover
Little blue heron
Gray bat
Reptiles
Birds
Mammals
Status abbreviations: DM = Delisted, recovered, and being monitored, LT = Listed threatened, LE = Listed
endangered, THR = Threatened, NMGT = Deemed in Need of Management, S1 = rare, S2 = imperiled, S3 =
rare or uncommon, S4 = abundant.
Alligator snapping turtles: are highly aquatic, emerging from water only for nesting and
rarely, basking. Suitable habitat includes slow-moving, deep water of rivers, sloughs,
oxbows, and canals or lakes associated with rivers (e.g., large impoundments). Individuals
have been captured by commercial fishermen within 3 miles of the project area. Suitable
habitat (open water) is present in the project area.
Northern pine snakes: inhabit well-drained sandy or loamy soils with dense vegetation and
are often fossorial (lives underground). They have been found in a variety of habitats,
including pine barrens, mixed scrub pine and oak woods, dry rocky mountain ridges, sand
hills, and old fields (Ernst and Ernst 2003). The closest location in which this species has
been documented is at Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park. Habitat for northern pine snakes
is not present in the project area.
9
Western pigmy rattlesnake: suitable habitat ranges from dry upland sandhills and mixed
hardwood and pine forests in some areas to low-lying, sometimes flooded, palmetto stands,
floodplains, and marshy habitats in others. This species also has been documented at
nearby Nathan Bedford Forest State Park. Suitable habitat is not present in the project
area.
Bald eagles: have recently been removed from the endangered species list but are still
protected by the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act. This species typically nests near large bodies of waters including
lakes, rivers and riparian wetlands. Numerous bald eagle nests have been documented
along the Kentucky Reservoir. The closest nest record is greater than 3 miles away.
Foraging habitat exists along the Tennessee River.
Piping plover: has been documented migrating through this area during spring and fall
migration periods. It occupies mudflats with exposed vegetation along impoundments. One
individual was observed along Kentucky Reservoir near Johnsonville Steam Plant during
August 2007. Suitable stopover habitat is not available in the project area.
Little blue heron: inhabits marshes, ponds, lakes, meadows, mudflats, lagoons, streams,
mangrove lagoons, and other bodies of calm shallow water (NatureServe 2012). A colony
of little blue herons was documented on an island near TRM 97, downstream of the project
area. Marginally suitable foraging habitat may be present along the shoreline.
Gray bats: roost in caves year-round and typically forage over streams, rivers, and
reservoirs. Foraging habitat exists along the Tennessee River. The closest cave used by
gray bats is greater than 3 miles away.
Aquatic Species. Six federally listed as endangered species (one fish, six mussels), one
proposed endangered mussel species, one proposed threatened mussel species, and 12
state-listed aquatic species (seven fish, two mussels, and three snails) are currently known
from Humphreys County and/or within a ten-mile radius of the proposed project area (Table
2).
Table 2. Federally and State-listed1 Aquatic Species known from Humphreys County
and/or within a Ten-Mile Radius of the Proposed Project
Common Name
FISHES
Scientific Name
Element
Rank2
Blotchside Logperch
Blue Sucker
Coppercheek Darter
Golden Darter
Highfin Carpsucker
Pygmy Madtom
Saddled Madtom
Slenderhead Darter
MUSSELS
Percina burtoni
Cycleptus elongatus
Etheostoma aquali
Etheostoma denoncourti
Carpiodes velifer
Noturus stanauli
Noturus fasciatus
Percina phoxocephala
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Clubshell
Pleurobema clava
H
Federal
Status3
END
END
State
Status3
State
Rank4
NMGT
THR
THR
NMGT
NMGT
END
THR
NMGT
S2
S2
S2S3
S2
S2S3
S1
S2
S3
END
SH
1
Orange-foot Pimpleback
Pink Mucket
Purple Lilliput
Rabbitsfoot
Ring Pink
Rough Pigtoe
Salamander Mussel
Slabside Pearlymussel
Spectaclecase
SNAILS
Plethobasus cooperianus
Lampsilis abrupta
Toxolasma lividus
Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica
Obovaria retusa
Pleurobema plenum
Simpsonaias ambigua
Lexingtonia dolabelloides
Cumberlandia monodonta
H
E
E
E
H
X
E
E
H
Helmet Rocksnail
Ornate Rocksnail
Rugose Rocksnail
Lithasia duttoniana
Lithasia geniculata
Lithasia jayana
H
E
H
END
END
PT
END
END
PE
END
END
END
TRKD
TRKD
END
END
TRKD
TRKD
TRKD
S1
S2
S1S2
S3
S1
S1
S1
S2
S2S3
TRKD
TRKD
TRKD
S2
S3
S2
Source: TVA Natural Heritage Database, November 2, 2012
Heritage Element Occurrence Rank; E = extant record ≤25 years old; H = historical record >25 years old; X
= considered extirpated
3
Status Codes: CAND = Candidate for federal listing; END = Endangered; NMGT = In Need of
Management; PE = Proposed Endangered; PT = Proposed Threatened, THR = Threatened; TRKD =
Tracked by state natural heritage program (no legal status)
4
State Ranks: S1 = Critically Imperiled; S2 = Imperiled; S3 = Vulnerable
2
A brief description of species potentially occurring within the project area can be found
below, with more extensive accounts described in Appendix A of the Biological Assessment
(BA; Attachment D). Habitat requirements for the species potentially occurring within the
project area are as described in NatureServe (2012) for fish and snails, Etnier and Starnes
(1993) for fish, and Parmalee and Bogan (1998) for mussels.
Blotchside logperch: is known to inhabit large creeks and small to medium rivers with low
turbidity. Typically in areas of large gravel and small cobble substrates with moderate
current. Therefore, habitat for this species is not likely to occur in the project area, and this
species will not be addressed further within the EA.
Blue sucker: is currently state listed as threatened in Tennessee. This species occurs in
larger rivers of the Gulf Coastal drainages from the Mobile Basin to the Rio Grande. The
blue sucker inhabits deep pools of large, free-flowing rivers with swift currents of up to 260
cubic meters per second. Once common throughout its range, populations of blue suckers
have drastically declined due to impoundments and increasing siltation of big rivers. This
species may occur in Kentucky Reservoir near the project area.
Coppercheek darter: frequents deep riffles, runs, and flowing pools of larger streams with
abundance of boulder or large rubble substrate. Spawning occurs from early may to mid
June. Habitat for this species is not likely to occur in the project area, and this species will
not be addressed further within the EA
Golden darter: was formerly included in Etheostoma tippecanoe but was confirmed
genetically to be separate. It prefers riffles and runs of medium rivers to creeks with
moderate gradient and small gravel substrate. Therefore, habitat for this species is not
likely to occur in the project area, and this species will not be addressed further within the
EA.
11
Highfin carpsucker: still occurs in parts of the Mississippi River basin, in various rivers
along the Gulf Coast to the Choctawhatchee River, and in the Santee and Cape Fear rivers
in the Atlantic drainage of North Carolina. This fish prefers a habitat of gravel substrate in
relatively clear, medium to large rivers. This species may occur in Kentucky Reservoir near
the project area.
Pygmy madtom: is thought to be one of the rarest fishes in North America. It seems to
prefer rivers with current over fine gravel substrate. Other aspects of its biology are
unknown. Habitat for this species does not occur in the project area, and this species will
not be addressed further within the EA
Saddled madtom: was formerly included in Noturus elegans and was formally described as
a distinct species in 2005. This madtom is a riverine species that occurs in second- or
third-order streams with clear water over riffles with gravel, cobble, rubble, or slate
substrate. Spawning is believed to occur in late spring to early summer. Habitat for this
species does not occur in the project area, and this species will not be addressed further
within the EA.
Slenderhead darter: is listed as “In Need of Management” by the state of Tennessee. In
recent years, this species was collected primarily from the Duck, Stones, Harpeth and Red
River drainages, with sporadic samples taken from the mainstream of the Tennessee and
Cumberland Rivers. The slenderhead darter is commonly found in gravel shoal areas of
medium to large rivers with moderate to swift current. The most likely threats to the species
are siltation, impoundment and channelization. This species can occur in Kentucky
Reservoir, but preferred habitat is not likely to occur in the project area. Therefore, this
species will not be addressed further within the EA.
Clubshell: inhabits medium-sized and large rivers with firm substrate of sand and gravel.
Although once numerous, the clubshell has been nearly extirpated from most of the state
due to loss of desirable habitat from impoundments. The host fish for the glochidia is
unknown. Therefore, habitat for this species is not likely to occur in the project area, and
this species will not be addressed further within the EA.
Orangefoot pimpleback: can be found primarily in big rivers. Individuals have been found
at depths of 12 to 18 feet in sand and coarse gravel substrate. It is considered to be
tachytictic but host fish for glochidia is currently unknown. This species can occur in
Kentucky Reservoir and will be evaluated further in the EA.
Pink mucket: is typically a big river species but occasionally individuals become
established in small to medium sized tributaries of large rivers. It inhabits rocky bottoms
with swift current usually but is tolerant of impounded rivers and can persist in low densities
in Kentucky Reservoir. This species is evaluated further in the EA.
Purple lilliput: has a wide distribution. It prefers mud, sand, and gravel substrate of small to
medium-sized rivers. However, it can be found on shallow, rocky gravel points or sandbars
in impoundments. Females become gravid in May or June. The green sunfish and the
longear sunfish have been identified as glochidia host. Habitat for this species does not
occur in the project area, and this species will not be addressed further within the EA.
Rabbitsfoot: is closely related to the rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical strigillata). It is
typically found in the Tennessee River drainage below Pickwick Landing Dam. The
rabbitsfoot inhabits shoals and riffles in the current at depths of 9 to 12 feet. Spawning
occurs between May and July. Habitat for this species does not occur in the project area,
and this species will not be addressed further within the EA.
Ring pink: is typically found in large rivers with gravel bars. The glochidia host is unknown.
This species has not been found near the project site in many decades and is presumed
extirpated or occurring in extremely low numbers within Kentucky Reservoir. This species
will not be addressed further within the EA.
Rough pigtoe: can be found in medium to large rivers over substrate composed of firmly
packed gravel and sand. The fish host is unknown. This species is considered extirpated
from this reach of the Tennessee River, and therefore will not be addressed further in the
EA.
Salamander mussel: is the only North American freshwater mussel to utilize a salamander,
the mudpuppy, as glochidia host. It prefers living under flat rocks in sandy substrate but has
been observed in mud and gravel substrates. Habitat for this species does not occur in the
project area, and this species will not be addressed further within the EA.
Slabside pearlymussel: can be found in shoal areas of the Tennessee river as well as in
small to medium-sized streams and rivers. A moderately strong current and a substrate
composed of sand, fine gravel, and cobbles appear to provide the most suitable habitat for
this species. Habitat for this species does not occur in the project area, and this species
will not be addressed further within the EA.
Spectaclecase: has been documented in various types of substrate, including gravel, sand,
and mud, in medium-sized to large rivers. However, it is typically found wedged in large
rocks adjacent areas with moderate flow conditions. Habitat for this species does not occur
in the project area, and this species will not be addressed further within the EA.
Helmet rocksnail: occurs on rocky substrate in riffle systems in medium to big rivers.
Habitat for this species does not occur in the project area, and this species will not be
addressed further within the EA.
Ornate rocksnail: occurs on rocky substrate with sandy gravel in big rivers with moderate
gradient. It has been eliminated from much of its original range by pollution and
construction of dams and reservoirs. This species has been recorded in tributaries of the
Tennessee River (i. e., Duck and Buffalo Rivers) and in the lower mainstream river, but
habit is unlikely to exist in the project area.
Rugose rocksnail: is thought to occur in the vicinity of riffles in flowing water with coarse
particle substrate. Little else is currently known about this species life history. This species
is known from the Buffalo River (Tennessee River tributary upstream of the project area),
and is considered extirpated from the area. This species will not be addressed further in
the EA.
Environmental Consequences
Given the potential for some federally listed species to occur near the project site, Oxychem
supported a mussel survey of the project area to help determine the potential project effects
on federally listed mussels. Although no federally listed mussels were found during the
mussel survey (Appendix A of Attachment D) or in surveys near JOF immediately upstream
13
(Third Rock 2009, 2010a, 2010b), a portion of the project area near the proposed effluent
site supported a diverse mussel community and therefore habitat capable of supporting
some federally listed mussels.
No Action Alternative
Under a No Action Alternative, the barge terminal would not be modified and waste water
outfall would not be constructed. No changes to environmental conditions would occur, thus
no effects to threatened or endangered species would occur.
Action Alternative With Modification
Under the Action Alternative the barge terminal would be modified and waste water outfall
would be constructed. These facilities would be available to support the proposed
OxyChem plant which could be constructed and operated. Since suitable habitat for rare
plant communities, northern pine snake, western pigmy rattlesnake, and piping plover is not
available in the project area, impacts to these species would not occur as a result of
proposed actions.
The Tennessee River within and surrounding the project area provides suitable habitat for
alligator snapping turtle. Given the abundance of similar habitat and the mobile nature of
this species, no impacts are expected. If alligator snapping turtles are present during the
onset of any construction related activities, it is highly likely that the species would move
over to adjacent suitable habitat. As well, implementation of standard BMPs to protect
water quality (minimization of sediment and pollutants into the river) would further reduce
impacts to this species.
Both bald eagles and gray bats forage over water while in flight. Therefore no direct
impacts to either of these species are expected as a result of proposed actions.
Implementation of standard BMPs to protect water quality would further prevent any indirect
impacts to aquatically associated food sources for either of these species.
Little blue herons forage while wading along the shoreline or while in shallow water. No
suitable nesting habitat and only marginally suitable foraging habitat is available along the
shoreline within the project footprint. Because more suitable habitat is abundant along the
Tennessee River both upstream and downstream of the project area, impacts to this
species are not expected
Although no federally listed mussels were found during surveys at the project site
(Appendix A of Attachment D) or nearby at JOF (Third Rock 2009, 2010a, 2010b), sufficient
habitat conditions exist in a portion of the project area near the outfall that support a healthy
mussel community capable of supporting rare mussels.
During formal consultation TVA and the USFWS determined that only the federally
endangered pink mucket and orangefoot pimpleback could potentially be affected by the
Oxychem project (Attachment D). TVA determined that the project may adversely affect the
pink mucket but was not likely to adversely affect the orangefoot pimpleback because it was
unlikely to occur in the project area. The USFWS concurred with these determinations in its
Biological Opinion (BO). A detailed analysis of the potential project impacts to these two
species is described in the attached BA (Attachment D) and BO (Attachment E). Given the
project methods and mandatory conservation measures outlined in the BO, the USFWS
has allowed incidental take of 112 pink muckets in the following forms: lethal take (26
individuals), harm (19 individuals), and harassment (67 individuals). USFWS concluded
that the project was not likely to jeopardize the existence of the endangered pink muckets ,
provided conservation measures and other conditions were implemented.
Cultural Resources
Affected Environment
TVA determined the area of potential effect (APE) to be all areas planned for ground
disturbance, which consisted of the proposed chlor-alkali plant, barge terminal expansion,
pipelines, and outfall. Based on information provided in the Tennessee state
archaeological site file and TVA’s archaeological site database, there are no known
archaeological sites located within the APE. One site, (40HS27), is located in proximity to
the APE. Initially recorded in 1942 prior to the flooding of Kentucky Lake Reservoir, the site
was relocated and more accurately mapped during an archeological inventory-level survey
of TVA lands along Kentucky Lake shoreline (Kerr 1996). During the revisit, it was noted
that the archaeological deposits had been deflated by cyclical inundation and wave action
and recommended that site 40HS27 was not eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). The site would not be affected by planned modifications of this
facility. The proposed effluent pipe would not extend into the historic river channel and thus
would have no effect on Civil War shipwreck sites if present. In January 2012, TVA
conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of the APE and identified no historic
properties.
Environmental Consequences
TVA determined that the proposed undertaking would have no effect to historic properties.
In a letter dated April 30, 2012 (Attachment F) TVA made these determinations in
consultation with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the
following federally recognized tribes: Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, United Keetoowah
Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of
Oklahoma, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Kialegee Tribal Town, Thlopthlocco Tribal
Town, The Chickasaw Nation, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Shawnee Tribe, Eastern
Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. The SHPO
concurred with TVA’s determination in a letter dated May 23, 2012 (Attachment F), and
TVA received no comments from the federally recognized tribes.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the barge terminal would not be modified nor would the
waste water outfall 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 barge terminal would be modified and the outfall be
constructed, however, no historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
would be adversely affected by the proposed undertaking.
Navigation and Transportation
Affected Environment
Methods of transportation available to OxyChem for the shipment of materials are by barge,
rail or truck. The proposed facility could be accessed by trucks directly from US 70 most
likely via three routes from Interstate 40. Access to US 70 from Interstate 40 is available
from Tennessee State Routes (SR) 13 and 191 and US 641. There is rail access to the
15
area via railroad (CSX). This stretch of the Tennessee River has significant recreation and
commercial traffic in the form of small recreational vessels and commercial barge tows.
There are several existing commercial barge terminals in the vicinity which provide barge
transportation to various manufacturers at TRM 95.4R downstream (Sceptor, Inc.) and
upstream at TRM 98.1R (Du Pointe), 99.0R (TVA JOF), at TRM 100.3 (SanGravel Co. and
Cargil AG Horizons) next to the United States Highway (US) 70 bridge, and at TRM 102.2
(Vanguard Services). There are recreation marinas downstream at TRM 95.5 left
descending (L) (Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park) and upstream at 98.8L (Beaver Dam
Lodge). Water intakes are at TRM 93.5 R, 95.4R, and 98.7R (DuPont). The DuPont outfall
is at TRM 98.0. Currently, barge traffic in the immediate area, excluding those passing in
the main river channel, consists of deliveries of chlorine for the DuPont plant and coal for
JOF.
When in full operation, Johnsonville requires 9,600 tons of coal per day which is more than
10 times the tonnage required for the OxyChem facility.
Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
The barge terminal modifications would not occur and the waste water outfall would not be
installed; consequently, there would be no additional impacts to navigation or
transportation, and the chlorine would likely continue to be transported as before.
Action Alternative with Modification
A new dolphin would be the only proposed modifications addition outside the existing
terminal area to assist with barge unloading.
The outfall would be below the 336 feet msl elevation. No portion of the outfall should
extend above elevation 336 feet msl, which is 3 feet below the main channel grade of 339
feet msl at TRM 98.1R. The elevation of the terminal is at 368.0 feet msl as originally
constructed, the terminal and portions of the proposed structures would be under water at a
100 year flood. Modifications have been made to the proposed facilities for the occurrence
of high water situations (see the floodplains section and Attachment C). TVA agrees that
during periods of high water unloading and loading of barges would cease and the barges
would be moved to secure locations.
Using the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) limits of 34,000 pounds for
tandem axles, approximately 54 trucks would be required to meet the 910 ton daily demand
on US 70. Counting round trips, 108 additional trips would take place on the selected route
of delivery. US 70 is a divided 4 lane highway with shoulders that should easily
accommodate the additional roadway truck traffic. A review of 2011 TDOT data indicates a
minimal annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of 6,353 vehicles. The additional truck
traffic would result in a 1.7 percent increase of roadway traffic.
Access to US 70 from Interstate 40 is available from Tennessee State Routes (SR) 13 and
191 and US 641. SR 13 is a two lane road with limited or no shoulders that accesses rural
terrain. A review of 2011 TDOT data indicates a minimal AADT count of 2,240 vehicles.
The additional truck traffic would result in a 4.8 percent increase of roadway traffic. SR 191
is a two lane road with no shoulders that accesses rural terrain. A review of 2011 TDOT
date indicates a minimal AADT count of 381 vehicles.
The additional truck traffic would result in a 28.3 percent increase of roadway traffic. US
641 is a two lane road with shoulders that again accesses rural terrain. A review of 2011
TDOT data indicates a minimal AADT count of 4,218 vehicles. The additional traffic would
result in a 2.6 percent increase of roadway traffic.
It appears that all roadways evaluated for the truck delivery of the rock salt would safely
accommodate the additional roadway traffic. Delivery by truck is a viable alternative
however there would be the heavy truck traffic 7 days a week in some rural areas and
possible adverse impacts from a noise perspective. Potential rail access to the area would
have similar but lesser impacts and likewise require additional infrastructure.
Based on the available information, the use of the barge access appears to be the best
alternative for delivery of the materials as it would have minimal impact on the waterway
transportation and would have no adverse impact on local communities.
At full production rates, about 910 tons of rock salt would be required per day at the
proposed plant. OxyChem states that all rock salt would be initially shipped via barge to the
existing barge terminal used by DuPont for chlorine barge unloading. Barge traffic would
consist of approximately 4 barges being unloaded and 2 barges of caustic product being
loaded per week, this is equivalent to the amount of traffic currently occurring at this
terminal. Also, coal delivery to JOF may be reduced or cease in the future if the plant is
retired. Therefore, with the Section 26a permit contingent upon the special conditions
described in the Mitigation section, the OxyChem facility would not result in a major impact
to navigation and any transportation impacts to navigation would be temporary and minor.
Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality
Affected Environment
The Oxychem proposed barge terminal modification and proposed outfall within the
Kentucky Reservoir impoundment of the Tennessee River, which extends from Kentucky
Dam (TRM 23) upstream to Pickwick Dam (TRM 207). Kentucky Reservoir features 2,064
miles of shoreline and about 160,300 acres of water surface. This multi-purpose reservoir
supports a variety of uses including flood control, hydropower generation, navigation, and
recreation. This reservoir is home to significant recreational and commercial fisheries,
commercial mussel operations, and is a major waterfowl hunting destination. To maintain
the depth required for navigation, the water level in the reservoir is kept at a minimum
winter elevation of 354 feet msl. The typical summer target level is 359 feet msl. Water
temperatures measured at the JOF intake near the proposed project are typically highest in
July/August near the mid-80’s degrees fahrenheit (F) and lowest in February near the mid40’s ۫F.
Residential and commercial/ industrial development on private land adjoining TVA
shoreland has resulted in a loss of riparian woody vegetation in many locations, including
the portion of Kentucky Reservoir at the project site. In some cases, clearing of trees and
brush may have accelerated shoreline erosion, resulting in the placement of seawalls or
other shoreline stabilization.
The aquatic habitat of Kentucky Reservoir adjacent the proposed project has been heavily
influenced, particularly to the south, for many decades by development and activity
associated with JOF and the existing DuPont Chemical facility. The proposed dock area
sits along a back-channel where flow is significantly reduced. Consequently, the riverbed
substrate adjacent the dock facility is dominated by depositional sediments such as clay
17
and silt (Appendix A of Attachment D). Therefore, the slow-water habitat surrounding the
dock is much less productive for benthic organisms such as mollusks, insects and other
invertebrates, compared to habitats with greater flow and more stable substrate
composition, which is more often found near the main river channel.
TVA developed the Ecological Health Monitoring Program to determine reservoir health as
compared to other reservoirs in the TVA system, provide data for comparing future water
quality conditions, and to be a screening program for targeting more detailed studies if the
need arises. The ecological health scoring system is based on five indicators 1) dissolved
oxygen (DO); chlorophyll, a measure of the amount of algae in the water; (3) sediment
contaminants – Polychlorinated biphenyls (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) examination of ecological conditions in tributary streams to
the Tennessee River; (2) monitoring of 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 of
bacteriological concentrations at recreational areas to evaluate their suitability for water
contact recreation. Kentucky Reservoir was monitored on a semi - annual basis from 1995
to 2009. For the nine sample years, Kentucky Reservoir has rated “fair” to “good”.
Figure 3. Kentucky Reservoir Ecological Health Ratings, 1994-2009.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are included in aquatic monitoring programs because of their
importance to the aquatic food chain, and because they have limited capability of
movement, thereby preventing them from avoiding undesirable conditions. Sampling and
data analysis that are indicative of good (and poor) water quality include total abundance of
all species, except those indicative of poor water quality, and proportions of samples with
no organisms present. Benthic community scores near the OxyChem project site were
“Excellent” for past five years sampled (Table 3).
Table 3. Recent (2001-2009) benthic community scores1 collected as part of the Vital
Signs monitoring program in Kentucky Reservoir.
1
Pickwick Reservoir
Tansition TNRM 85
Benthic Community Score
Community Condition
2001
Excellent
7-12
Very Poor
13-18
Poor
2003
Excellent
19-23
Fair
2005
Excellent
24-29
Good
2007
Excellent
2009
Excellent
30-35
Excellent
Fish are included 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 omnivore and insectivores, overall number or fish collected,
and the occurrence of fish with anomalies such as diseases, lesions, parasites, deformities,
etc. (TVA 1999). Kentucky Reservoir rated “Good for the past seven years sampled near
the OxyChem project site.
Table 4. Recent (1999-2010) RFAI scores1 collected as part of the Vital Signs
monitoring program
Station River Mile 1999
Transition TRM85
Good
1
RFAI Score
Community Condition
12-21
Very Poor
2001
Good
22-31
Poor
2003
Good
32-40
Fair
2005
Good
2007
Good
41-50
Good
2009
Good
2010
Good
51-60
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, Kentucky Reservoir rated above the valley-wide
average for sport fish with the exception of striped bass and white bass (Table 5).
Table 5. SFI scores for selected sport fish species in Kentucky Reservoir, 2008.
Kentucky Reservoir
Fish Species
2008 Score
2008 Valleywide Average
Black Basses
37
37
Black Crappie
35
31
Crappie
38
31
Largemouth Bass
42
35
Smallmouth Bass
32
31
Spotted Bass
38
33
Striped Bass
24
35
White Bass
32
40
White Crappie
38
33
19
The native mussel fauna of the Tennessee River basin is one of the richest in the world,
supporting 102 species within Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan 1998) and 93 species in
the reach within Alabama (Williams et al 2008). This group of animals has changed
dramatically in much of the Tennessee River over the last century due to loss of habitat
(primarily from impoundment by dams), commercial mussel harvesting, water quality
problems, and introduction of non-native species like the zebra mussel. While many
species have been decimated or lost, some species that are tolerant of low-flow habitats
and finer substrates have persisted or invaded the Tennessee River reservoirs. Riverine
habitat is now primarily found only in tailwaters downstream of dams, which have provided
refuge habitat for many of the mussels historically found here. Kentucky Reservoir is one of
the most productive reaches for freshwater mussels, including many state and federally
listed species, within the current mainstream Tennessee River. Mussel surveys near JOF
boat harbor and Johnsonville Island (Third Rock 2010) found 28 species and densities (on
the riverbed surface) averaging 2.5 mussels per square meter.
In 2011 a survey of the mussel community and habitat conditions within the Oxychem
project action area was conducted (Appendix A of Attachment D) to determine if and how
the project may affect the mussel fauna, particularly federally listed species. The survey
found 3,494 live mussels representing 23 species, but did not collect any federally listed
species. The study area within the back-channel and adjacent the proposed dock
contained relatively few mussels and poor habitat conditions for most mussel species,
which consisted of little or no flow and soft, depositional substrate dominated by silt and
clay. However, habitat conditions and mussel density improved dramatically in areas west
of the dock and closer to the main river channel. Based on the survey results, TVA
determined that a portion of the project area that could be affected by the Oxychem waste
water outfall may provide suitable habitat for some federally listed mussel species, including
the pink mucket and the orangefoot pimpleback.
Snails are not particularly abundant in Kentucky Reservoir, particularly near the Oxychem
site, because of the abundance of fine substrates like clay and silt. TVA’s database only
indicated records of three snail species that are tracked by the state heritage program,
which carries no legal status for these species (see Table 2).
Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are an exotic fauna that were introduced to the
U.S. in the 1980's, allegedly via ballast water of ships from Europe entering the Great
Lakes. They can smother native mollusks, compete with native mussels for food, and are
blamed for the serious depletion of native mussels throughout the Mississippi River basin
and Great Lakes (Schloesser et al. 1996, Ricciardi et al. 1998). While densities in the
Tennessee River haven't appeared to reach levels needed to decimate native mussels
(presumably because of drainage-specific water quality conditions), they pose a serious
threat should favorable conditions develop (TVA 1994, TWRA 2008). Zebra mussels are
present in Kentucky Reservoir and are expected to be continually reintroduced by barge
and recreational boat traffic (TVA 1994a). Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA)
reported zebra mussels between TRM 195 and 203 (TWRA 2008), however, very few zebra
mussels were encountered during surveys near the JOF (Third Rock Consulting 2009,
2010a, b) or at the Oxychem site (Appendix A of Attachment D).
Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
Under a No Action Alternative, the barge terminal would not be modified and waste water
outfall would not be constructed. No changes to environmental conditions would occur, thus
no effects to the aquatic ecology of the project area would occur.
Action Alternative With Modification
Under this Alternative, the barge terminal would be modified and waste water outfall would
be constructed. These facilities would be available to support the proposed OxyChem plant.
Aquatic life would be most directly affected by the modification of the barge terminal,
operation of the terminal (via tow propeller wash), and construction/operation of the effluent
discharge. A detailed analysis of the potential impacts of these project actions is presented
in the BA, which was developed to evaluate potential effects specifically on the federally
endangered pink muck and orangefoot pimpleback. Information about the activities,
locations, and nature of impact to the aquatic environment described in the BA also
describe overall impacts to aquatic habitat and fauna within the project area.
Aquatic life could also be indirectly affected by modification of the riparian zone and storm
water runoff resulting from construction and maintenance activities on the project site;
however, pre-existing development along the shoreline suggests that very little modification
of the bank would occur, and effects from sediment or stormwater runoff would be
insignificant relative to existing conditions.
Currently, the DuPont outfall line discharges between 62 and 63 million gallons per day
(mgd). The proposed OxyChem outfall line would be much smaller, discharging
approximately 0.5 mgd which includes 0.25 mgd of river or storm dilution water to improve
discharge wastewater quality. The proposed discharge volume would allow the use of a
relatively small, 8 inch diameter pipe. In order to reach the edge of the historical river
channel, approximately 500 feet of pipe would extend from shore (at low-pool elevation of
354 feet msl for Kentucky Reservoir) to a location approximately 260 feet from the shore
end of Transect 3 (see Attachment D, figure 3), where it would then connect to a 68 feet
effluent mixing diffuser section.
In order to eliminate or minimize potential direct and indirect impacts to the aquatic
environment, OxyChem would implement appropriate industry BMPs during construction
activities at the existing barge terminal. Additionally, OxyChem would implement all of the
conservation methods described in the BO (Attachment E) listed under the nondiscretionary Reasonable and Prudent Measures and the Terms and Conditions. For
example, Oxychem modified construction methods such that the effluent pipe would be
installed using horizontal boring for most of its path to the outfall site to minimize impacts to
the riverbed and the local fauna compared to trenching.
The chemical composition of the effluent water would be within acceptable ranges currently
set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Tennessee
Department of Conservation (TDEC) in order to protect aquatic life near the project.
However, some components of the effluent could potentially be toxic to native mussels,
particularly juveniles, so additional effluent modeling and analyses were conducted as part
of the BA used to evaluate project effects on federally listed species. The specific natures
of these effects are described in the BA and BO, as well as the Environmental
Consequences to Threatened and Endangered Species section of the EA.
21
Given the modified project construction methods, existing aquatic habitat in the project
area, and conservation measures implemented to minimize impacts to federally listed
mussels, the overall project impacts to the aquatic environment and overall fauna would be
insignificant.
Terrestrial Ecology
Affected Environment
The proposed project site is primarily in the Tennessee River where the habitat within the
location is mostly open water. The edge of the site occurs along shoreline that has been
reinforced with riprap and contains scattered shrubby vegetation and otherwise either
exposed soil or paved surface. The open water and shoreline front an industrial site. No
uncommon vegetative communities or designated critical plant habitats occur within or
adjacent to the area of the proposed OxyChem waste water outfall on Kentucky Reservoir
at TRM 98.1. Common invasive species known from the area include: Chinese privet,
Japanese honeysuckle, Japanese stilt grass, multiflora rose, and sericea lespedeza.The
open water and shoreline may provide marginal foraging habitat for wading birds such as
great blue heron and double-crested cormorant, ring-billed and laughing gulls and songbird
species such as red-winged blackbird and song sparrow. Raccoons and opossums are
mammals that may use the area for foraging. Reptiles that may be present include turtle
species that may bask along the bank, including yellow slider and river cooter.
Herbaceous fields are a type of early successional habitat and provide habitat for birds
including eastern bluebird, American robin, brown thrasher, northern cardinal, American
kestrel, and mourning dove. Common mammals in this habitat type include striped skunk,
eastern cottontail rabbit, white-tailed deer, Virginia opossum and various rodents such as
white-footed mouse. Reptiles often found in early successional habitats include black
racer, rat snake, milk snake, and eastern garter snake.
Two wading bird colonies have been documented within three miles of the project area.
One is located approximately one mile downstream and across the reservoir on an island.
The other colony is located approximately two miles upstream along the shoreline. No
caves have been documented within three miles of the project area.
Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative the proposed OxyChem facilities would not be approved.
The barge terminal would not be modified and waste water outfall would not be constructed.
Terrestrial wildlife habitats would not be directly or indirectly affected by any project-related
actions. Adoption of the No Action Alternative would not result in any project related
impacts due to the introduction or spread of invasive terrestrial plant species.
Action Alternative
Under the Action Alternative the proposed OxyChem facilities would not be approved. The
barge terminal would be modified and waste water outfall would be constructed. The
project area has previously been cleared and modified, and is immediately adjacent to and
surrounded by other industrial activities. Most of the project footprint occurs within
Kentucky Reservoir; therefore, no significant impacts are expected as a result of the
proposed Action Alternative to the spread of invasive species.
Although construction activities may result in displacement of any individuals present on
site to adjacent areas, most species present on site have likely habituated to disturbance
associated with adjacent industrial activities and would not be significantly impacted by
proposed actions. The action alternative is not expected to result in significant direct or
indirect impacts to terrestrial wildlife or habitats.
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Affected Environment
The proposed barge terminal would be located in Humphreys County, Tennessee, Census
Tract 1305, near the boundary between block groups 1 and 2. The total population of
Humphreys County in 2010 was 18,538, of which 3,061 lived in Census Tract 1305, with
553 in block group 1 and 996 in block group 2
(http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t). The
minority population in Census Tract 1305 was 154, about 5.0 percent of the total. The
minority population share was slightly higher in the county, at 5.6 percent, and much higher
in the state, 24.4 percent, and the nation, 36.3 percent. Minority populations are scattered
widely across the Census Tract. Poverty levels are also low in Census Tract 1305, with
only 7.3 percent of the population below the poverty level, according to the American
Community Survey 2006-2010 estimates. This is well below the county level of 12.9 percent
and the state and national levels of 16.5 and 13.8 percent, respectively
(http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t).
Per capita personal income in Humphreys County is $30,551, as of 2010, about 76 percent
of the national level of $39,937 and 87 percent of the state level of $34,921
(http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm). Employment in Humphreys County is more
dependent on farming, manufacturing, and federal government than statewide or nationally,
but less dependent on service and trade sectors of the economy.
Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative the proposed OxyChem facilities would not be approved.
The barge terminal would not be modified and waste water outfall would not be constructed.
There would be no impacts to socioeconomics or environmental justice as no action would
occur.
Action Alternative with Modification
The immediate vicinity around the proposed terminal site, as well as most of the nearby
area, is unpopulated. Most of the population in Census Tract 1305 is located well away
from the site. Therefore, any construction or operation activities related to the proposed
facility would be remote from the area’s population and not likely to have any noticeable
impact on residents of the area. The proposed changes would not affect barge shipments
or other activities on or around the reservoir. Therefore, no noticeable impacts on
commercial activity, recreation, or other activities in the area are likely to occur.
Facility staffing requirements for the barge terminal likely would be slightly different if the
proposed facility is built. However, any differences would be small and are not expected to
result in significant differences in the number or type of jobs at the site. Therefore, no
significant impacts to employment or income are likely to occur.
23
Minority and low-income populations are small in the area around the proposed terminal
site, with no notable concentrations in the area. Therefore, any impacts that might occur
would not disproportionately affect disadvantaged populations.
Noise
Affected Environment
The proposed project would be located in an existing industrial operations area within the
boundary of the current DuPont’s operations and ownership. No residential development is
adjacent to the project area, there are several natural areas in the vicinity.
Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative the proposed OxyChem facilities would not be approved.
The barge terminal would not be modified and waste water outfall would not be constructed.
There would be no changes in noise impacts.
Action Alternative With Modification
Under the Action Alternative, there would be a small increase in noise from the diesel
engines used in the unloading of the rock salt. However, any noise from the proposed
modifications to the barge terminal and outfall would likely have no impact on the
surrounding environment.
Wetlands
Affected Environment
Wetlands are areas inundated by surface water or groundwater such that vegetation
adapted to saturated soil conditions is prevalent. Examples include swamps, marshes,
bogs, wet meadows, and shoreline fringes. The OxyChem Terminal is located in the
Interior plateau physiographic province. Wetlands in this region are typically associated with
low-lying, poorly drained areas, or linear in feature and associated with the floodplain areas
of streams, rivers, and the reservoir. In this region, wetlands are relatively common along
the margins of Kentucky reservoir; data analyzed for the 2004 Reservoir Operations Study
indicated there were approximately 43,000 acres of wetlands located along the entire
reservoir (TVA 2004).
In the immediate project area, there are scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands located along
the margin of the treatment pond at the northeast corner of the site. There are also
scattered areas of scrub-shrub wetland vegetation along the margins of the shoreline and a
forested wetland/island complex just north of the existing dock facility.
Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
The proposed OxyChem facilities would not be approved. The barge terminal would not be
modified and waste water outfall would not be constructed. There would be no impacts to
wetland as no action would occur.
Action Alternative with Modification
Under this alternative the proposed OxyChem facilities would be approved. Based on site
plans, there would be no impacts to wetlands associated with modifications to the existing
dock and expansion of the terminal as there are no wetlands within the project footprints.
Depending on exact siting of the effluent piping, there could be impacts to the scrub-shrub
wetlands along the margins of the wastewater treatment pond. These wetlands are not
regulated under state or federal law, and impacts would be expected to be minor and
temporary. Overall project impacts to wetlands would be insignificant.
Air Quality
Affected Environment
Through its passage of the Clean Air Act, Congress has mandated the protection and
enhancement of our nation’s air quality resources. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for the following criteria pollutants have been set to protect the public health and
welfare:
• sulfur dioxide (SO2),
• ozone (O3),
• nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
• particulate matter,
• carbon monoxide (CO), and
• lead (Pb).
Humphreys County, Tennessee’s air quality is in attainment with all the aforementioned.
Current industries impacts to air quality in the vicinity of the proposal include to adjoining
DuPont and TVA’s JOF. Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative TVA would not approve the section 26a permit for the
proposed OxyChem facilities. The barge terminal would not be modified and waste water
outfall would not be constructed. Therefore, the three reciprocating engine systems would
not be installed, and any impact to air quality would not occur.
Action Alternative With Modification
A total of three diesel reciprocating engines are proposed at the terminal site for unloading
the rock salt and for emergency firefighting. These engines would release CO, SO2,
Particulate Matter, Volatile Organic Compounds, Non-methane hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides (NMHC + NOx). Also there could be fugitive dust emissions from the unloading of
the rock salt with the clam shell crane.
Combustion (i.e., burning) breaks fuel down into water, NO2 and CO. Other by-products
may be sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. CO, NO2, SO2, and particulate matter are
regulated by state and federal laws, and facilities generating these compounds over a
certain threshold amount must obtain permits to operate. The combustion of fossil fuel
produces carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas and a climate change contributor
(USEPA 2010b). The proposed engines would be subject to the 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
JJJJ - Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines.
Air quality permits have been issued for by TDEC (Attachment G).
The Project meets requirements of all applicable air quality regulations. Emissions from the
three reciprocating engines would have negligible emissions. They would also meet TDEC
requirements for stationary reciprocating engines. Compliance with applicable permit limits
and mitigation measures provided below would ensure potential impacts to air quality
remain insignificant. Therefore, direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to air quality would be
minor.
25
Natural Areas
Affected Environment
The natural areas include: ecologically significant sites, federal, state, or local park lands,
national or state forests, wilderness areas, scenic areas, wildlife management areas,
recreational areas, greenways, trails, Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) streams and Wild
and Scenic (WS) Rivers.
No natural areas are within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project footprint. One
natural area is within (1.0 mile) of the project footprint. Six natural areas are located within
(1.1 to 3.0 miles) of the proposed project. There are no NRI streams or WS Rivers within
3.0 miles.
Johnsonville State Historic Area is located in Humphreys County TN, approximately 0.8
mile east of the northern boundary of the project location. This 600 acre park on the eastern
side of Kentucky Lake overlooks the site of the Battle of Johnsonville. A six mile hiking trail
leads the visitors throughout the park area.
Six natural areas, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Nathan Bedford State Historical Area, Nathan
Bedford State Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Eva Park, Camden State Wildlife
Management Area (WMA) and Tennessee River Trail Scenic Byway are located within (1.1
to 3.0 miles) of the proposed project.
Environmental Consequences
No Action Alternative
The proposed facilities would not be approved. The barge terminal would not be modified
and waste water outfall would not be constructed. No direct or indirect impacts to natural
areas within 3.0 miles are anticipated. No cumulative impact to natural areas is foreseeable
as a result of the no action alternative within the time and geographic bounds of this project.
Action Alternative With Modification
Under the action alternative B, the proposed facility would be approved. The barge terminal
would be modified and waste water outfall would be constructed. Because the modifications
to the existing barge terminal and construction of the waste water outfall would not affect
the scenic or aesthetic values of the Johnsonville State Historic Area due to an adequate
buffer provided by a large expanse of deciduous forest that is in between the natural area
and the project, no direct or indirect impacts to natural areas is anticipated. No cumulative
impacts are foreseeable as a result of the Action Alternative, within the time and geographic
bounds of this project. The additional natural areas: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Nathan
Bedford State Historical Area, Nathan Bedford State Wildlife Management Area, Eva Park,
Camden State Wildlife Management Area and Tennessee River Trail Scenic Byway are
located within (1.0 to 3.0 miles) of the proposed project. The scenic and aesthetic values
associated with Eva Park, located directly across the river from the project site, would not
be affected due to existing industrial development already in place that has previously
altered the landscape and because of the distance (1.0 mile) of the project from the park.
Because the distance is sufficient (1.0 to 3.0 miles), for the type work indicated, no direct,
indirect or cumulative impacts to natural areas is anticipated.
Cumulative Impacts
Resources that could cumulatively be affected by the new waste water outfall and barge
terminal modifications are aquatic ecology, water quality, and aquatic threatened and
endangered species. 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 the barge terminal modifications and construction of the outfall 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. Therefore, TVA
has determined that cumulative impacts of this action would be insignificant.
Necessary Permits
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 CWA.
Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, a Water Quality Certification/Aquatic Resources
Alteration Permit (Attachment F) and to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the TDEC would be required.
Permit to Construct or Modify an Air Contaminant Source Pursuant to Tennessee Air
Quality Act from the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board, TDEC (Attachment G).
Public and Agency Involvement
On April 30, 2012, TVA sent a letter to the SHPO stating that the terminal modification and
outfall would not adversely affect historic structures eligible for or listed in the NRHP. In a
letter dated May 23, 2012 the SHPO concurred that the project would have no effect.
USACE released a joint public notice (JPN) for the proposed project on June 7, 2012 for a
30 day comment period (Attachment H). TDEC responded with a June 27, 2012 letter
saying that DuPont should be notified that the proposal was in their source water protection
area. The USFWS also responded with a July 2, 2012 e-mail acknowledging the JPN and
saying they would provide comments when consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act was completed. No other comments were received.
In discussions with the USFWS, endangered mussel species were identified as possibly
occurring in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. By letter dated June 12, 2012
TVA provided a BA to the USFWS prepared under their direction. In this letter TVA asked
for concurrence that the proposal would not likely to adversely affect the orangefoot
pimpleback mussel and is likely to adversely affect the pink mucket. The USFWS
responded with a July 2, 2012 letter concurring with TVA’s determination and initiated
consultation. On October 22, 2012 the USFWS provided a Biological Opinion which stated
that the proposal in not likely to jeopardize the existence of the pink mucket and provided
requirements for mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
To minimize or reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project to aquatic
resources including federally listed aquatic species, OxyChem shall implement the Terms
and Conditions described in the BO (Attachment E).
27
TVA Special Conditions
The TVA Section 26a approval would require OxyChem to implement appropriate 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 OxyChem to
adhere to special conditions and requirements (listed below).
1. To minimize or reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project to aquatic
resources including federally listed aquatic species, OxyChem shall implement the
Terms and Conditions described in the BO (Attachment E).
2. During periods of high water unloading and loading of barges would cease and the
barges would be moved to safe secure locations.
3. OxyChem shall provide shoreline warning signage indicating the presence of
submerged pipelines will be clearly visible and legible from the water. The sign shall
state an emergency point of contact(s) that can be clearly seen from the waterway.
USACE Special Conditions
1. The work must be in accordance with any plans attached to the USACE permit.
2. OxyChem (Permittee) must have a copy of the permit available on the site and ensure
all contractors are aware of its conditions and abide by them.
3. Navigation Data Sheet: Permittee must submit a Notice to Navigation Interests data
sheet to the USACE (Corps) not less than two weeks prior to the commencement of
any construction. The data sheet notifies the Corps of the upcoming construction
schedule and specifics about the in-river construction activities. The applicant is
responsible for updating the information provided to the Corps as needed. (Data
sheet will be attached to permit).
4. The permittee’s use of the permitted activity must not interfere with the public’s right to
free navigation on all navigable waters of the US. Fleeting and mooring at the facility
shall at no times exceed what is permitted. Also, the effluent pipeline cannot have a
top elevation higher than Elevation 336 (+/-), which is three feet below the
maintained channel grade, Elevation 339 feet.
5. The floating plant used to install the pipeline must display proper lights and signals as
required by the current Inland Navigation Rules. 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.
6. Rock to be used for stabilization shall be quarry-run, clean and material free of
waste metal products, organic materials, toxic pollutants, unsightly debris, etc, and
sized in a random mixture of 6” to 18” diameter.
7. Upon project completion, you shall post and maintain one 8’ by 16’ “Utility” sign on the
bank above the outfall that can be clearly seen from the waterway.
8. A post-construction bottom survey shall be conducted within three months of
pipeline installation and submitted to the Corps for final concurrence. Certified “asbuilt” drawings shall be furnished to this office within 60 days of completion of
construction showing the location and alignment of the pipe as well as all pertinent
dimensions and elevations.
9. The effluent from the outfall is authorized and in compliance with regulations issued
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (Section 402 of
the CWA).
10. The disturbance to riparian vegetation must be kept to a minimum during
construction.
Preferred Alternative
TVA’s Preferred Alternative is the Action Alternative with Modifications where the barge
terminal is modified and the outfall is constructed with the conditions and mitigation
implemented to minimize environmental impacts. USACE does not have a Preferred
Alternative.
Preparers
Tennessee Valley Authority
James Eblen, Contract Economist, NEPA Interface, Socioeconomics and Environmental
Justice
Heather M. Hart, Biologist, Biological Resources, Natural Areas
Charles S. Howard, Aquatic Community Ecologist, Aquatic Ecology and Aquatic
Threatened and Endangered Species
Holly G. LeGrand, Biologist, Biological Resources, Terrestrial Resources
Mark C. Lowe, Manager, Environmental Engineering Projects, Transportation
Mary A. McBryar, Environmental Scientist, Environmental Permits and Compliance
Susan E. McCollum, Mechanical Engineer, River Operations, Navigation
D. Keith McPeters, Industrial Hygienist, Environmental Services, Noise
Scott D. Marsh, Industrial Hygienist, Environmental Services, Noise
Craig L. Phillips, Contract Aquatic Ecologist, Biological Resources, Aquatic Ecology
Roger Milstead, Program Manager, River Operations, Floodplains
Kim Pilarski, Biologist, Biological Resources, Wetlands
Rick M. Sherrard, Environmental Scientist; Inspection, Testing, Monitoring & Analysis;
Water Quality and Toxicology
Samantha Strickland, Project Manager, Property and Natural Resources
Richard L. Toennisson, Contract Senior NEPA Specialist, NEPA Compliance and
Document Preparation
Edward Wells, III, Archaeologist, Cultural Resources, National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 Compliance
29
USACE
Lisa R. Morris, Project Manager, Nashville District Regulatory Branch, Nashville,
Tennessee
Agencies and Others Consulted
Tennessee Historical Commission, Nashville Tennessee
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville, Tennessee
References
Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Griffith, G. E, J.M. Omernik and S. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of Tennessee (color poster
with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale1:1,250,000).
Kerr, J. P. 1996. Archaeological Survey of Kentucky Lake, Western Tennessee and
Kentucky, Volume I. Cultural Resources Analysis, Lexington, Kentucky.
NatureServe. 2011. Nature Serve Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
application]. Version 7.1 Nature Serve, Arlington, Virginia. Available:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (Accessed 30 March 2012).
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. The
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Department of Transportation. 2011. Average Annual Daily Transportation
Book for 2011. http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/projectplanning/adt/2011ADTBOOK.pdf
Nashville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1994. Tennessee Valley vulnerability to zebra mussels.
Prepared by D. J. Rucker and R. D. Urban. TVA/WM-94-004 Water Management
Services. 107pp.
____________. 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.
__________. 2004. Reservoir Operations Study.
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/ros_eis/4-08_wetlands.pdf <Accessed May
2012>
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2008. 2007 Statewide commercial mussel report.
43pp.
__________. (Mr. Don Hubbs). 2009. Personal communication via email from Don Hubbs
to Chuck Howard.
Third Rock Consultants, LLC. 2009. Embayment survey for dike maintenance Johnsonville Fossil Plant, Humphreys County, Tennessee. Prepared for Tennessee
Valley Authority, December 8, 2009. 5pp + appendices.
__________. 2010a. Phase IA and IB Mussel Survey Results, Johnsonville Fossil Plant,
Humphreys County, Tennessee. Prepared for Tennessee Valley Authority (May 24,
2010).
__________. 2010b. Phase II Mussel Survey Results, Johnsonville Fossil Plant,
Humphreys County, Tennessee. Prepared for Tennessee Valley Authority (September
29, 2010).
United States Census Bureau. 2012. American Fact Finder
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
United States Department of Commerce. 2007. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional
Economic Accounts. http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm
United States Geological Survey. 1929. National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
Washington, D, C.
United States Water Resources Council. 1978. Floodplain management guidelines for
implementing Executive Order 11988. 43 FR 6030, Federal Register 43(29), Feb. 1978.
Attachments
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Application and Summary
Project Plans
No Practicable Alternative Analysis
Biological Assessment
Biological Opinion
Agency Correspondence
Air Permits
Public Notice and Comments
31
Page intentionally blank
Attachment A - Application and Summary
Page intentionally blank
Attachment B – Project Plans
Page intentionally blank
Attachment C –No Practicable Alternative Analysis
Page intentionally blank
Attachment D – Biological Assessment
Page intentionally blank
Attachment E – Biological Opinion
Page intentionally blank
Attachment F – Agency Correspondence
Page intentionally blank
Attachment G – Air Quality Permits
Page intentionally blank
Attachment H – Public Notice and Comments
Page intentionally blank
1