US Army 

Corps of Engineers 

Nashville District

Tennessee 

Valley 

Authority

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

Cookeville, TN

 

 COOPERATING AGENCIES 

CENTER HILL DAM AND LAKE 

DEKALB COUNTY, TENNESSEE 

CHANGES TO CENTER HILL LAKE ELEVATIONS 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

November 2007 

CENTER HILL DAM AND LAKE 

DEKALB COUNTY, TENNESSEE 

CHANGES TO OPERATIONAL GUIDE CURVES 

POOL ELEVATIONS 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Responsible Federal Agency:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Cooperating Agency:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

Alternatives:

(1) No Action – Maintain Existing Guide Curve and Pool Elevations. 

 (2) Operate Below the Guide Curve with Low Pool Elevations. 

 

Location:

 DeKalb County, Tennessee 

Abstract:

Center Hill Dam is located in northern DeKalb County in central Tennessee. The dam is located 

on the Caney Fork River at Mile 26.6 (36O 05’ 51”N; 85O 49’ 35”W) a major tributary of the 

Cumberland River. The combination concrete and earthen embankment dam was designed & built 

in the 1930’s through the 1940’s. A saddle dam was constructed in 1946 to close a V-notch 

through the right rim. The entire Project was completed in 1951. The dam impounds the second 

largest flood control reservoir owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Nashville District (Corps). The three-generator unit hydroelectric plant located immediately 

downstream on the left descending bank of the Caney Fork River has a total capacity of 135,000 

kilowatts (kw). The average discharge from the dam is approximately 3,800 cubic feet per second. 

Center Hill Lake has a drainage area of 2,174 square miles and a surface area of 18,220 acres. The 

lake impounds 2,092,000 acre-feet at its maximum flood control pool elevation (EL, National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, commonly referred to as feet above mean sea level) EL 685. 

The average depth is 73 feet and the retention time is about 130 days. The concrete dam, earthen 

embankment, saddle dam, left and right rims have been plagued with increasing seepage problems 

since construction of the dam. Two Environmental Assessments were completed in 2006 to 

address seepage repairs and Findings of No Significant Impact were executed for each. At that 

time, no significant changes to the customary pool elevations were considered necessary. 

However, these repairs will take a number of years to implement. As a proactive measure, the 

Corps is evaluating different interim lake elevations that would reduce hydrostatic pressure and 

balance the risk of dam failure with the impact to project purposes and environmental resources. 

The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement is to cover possible impacts due to 

interim pool elevations including extreme elevation changes that could occur during the 7-year 

repairs of the dam’s foundation and abutments. 

Review comments must be received no later than December 10, 2007. 

For additional information or to send review comments, contact: Ms. Joy Broach, Project Planning Branch, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 1070, Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070, (615) 736-7956. An 

electronic copy of the DEIS can be found at http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/CenterHill, and comments may 

be e-mailed to: CenterHill.Repair@lrn02.usace.army.mil.

S-1 

SUMMARY 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District (Corps) operates Center Hill Dam 

and Lake. Center Hill Dam is located at Mile 26.6 on the Caney Fork River in DeKalb 

County, Tennessee. The Caney Fork is a major tributary to the Cumberland River. The 

Center Hill project has been in service for 56 years (1951-2007) providing important 

benefits of flood control, hydropower, recreation, water supply, water quality, fish and 

wildlife. The dam is 250 feet high and consists of a 1,382 foot long concrete section and a 

778 foot long rolled earth embankment. A 770 foot long earthen saddle dam is located in 

the right descending rim. A three-generator-unit power plant, with a capacity of 135,000 

kW, and switchyard are located immediately downstream. TN State Highway 96 traverses 

the top of the dam. Center Hill Lake, created by the dam, impounds 2,092,000 acre-feet at 

its maximum flood control pool elevation (EL, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, 

commonly referred to as feet above mean sea level) EL 685. All project uses except flood 

control, are drawn from the power pool located between elevations EL 648 and EL 618. 

Under normal operations, the average maximum summer lake is EL 648, and the average 

minimum winter lake is EL 623.5. 

Since construction, seepage problems through the karst limestone foundation have required 

diligent monitoring, subsurface investigations and grouting. Despite past work, seepage has 

increased to an unprecedented level of approximately 130 cubic feet per second under 

normal lake operations. Foundation conditions are deteriorating because clay-filled joints 

in the rock within the rims and dam foundation are eroding. This chronic erosion 

jeopardizes the two earthen embankment dams, the abutments and the integrity of the rims 

resulting in a high potential for dam failure. Center Hill Dam is ranked in Dam Safety 

Action Classification I -- the highest category of risk and urgency for dam safety major 

rehabilitation. A report titled, Center Hill Dam, DeKalb County, Tennessee, Seepage 

Control, Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Final Report, 14 July 2006, evaluated seepage 

problems and provided justification for a major rehabilitation project at Center Hill Dam. 

The report also contains Environmental Assessments that considered different dam repair 

alternatives. The repair alternative selected will use a combination of grout injection and 

cut-off walls. 

Continued, uncontrolled seepage creates the potential for partial loss of the reservoir or for 

dam failure. Karst foundation seepage is difficult to accurately predict, however, in the 

unlikely event of failure, downstream damages would likely exceed a billion dollars. 

Potential loss of life could exceed several hundred people. 

An unscheduled emergency action would likely result in lowering the pool as quickly as 

possible, well below the existing normal maximum and minimum pool elevations to reduce 

risk downstream to people and property. However, this action would result in significant 

impacts. As a proactive measure, the Corps is evaluating different interim lake elevations 

that would reduce hydrostatic pressure and balance the risk of dam failure with the impact 

to project purposes and environmental resources. The purpose of this Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement is to analyze possible impacts resulting from interim pool elevation 

alternatives and an unscheduled emergency drawdown that could occur during 7 – 10 years 
S-2 

of repairs to the main and saddle dam foundations, earth embankment, dam abutments, and 

rim walls. When repairs are complete, the increase in reliability extends the project life 

resulting in continuing project benefits, and Center Hill Dam and Lake would return to 

status quo lake operations. 

The Corps has recently modified the normal maximum summer pool elevation (EL 648) to 

a maximum average EL 640, the bottom of the normal pool, to reduce the risk of dam 

failure. The aim of reducing high pools typically experienced in the winter and spring 

months, will take some stress off the dam foundation and associated structures. This 

modified operation also preserves the coldwater fisheries below the dam. 

The lower summer pool (EL 640) will be maintained until repairs are sufficiently complete 

to reduce the risk of dam failure. However, repairs will take 7 - 10 years to complete and 

during this time, it is possible that lake elevations could drop below the current average 

maximum and minimum pool elevations of EL 640 and EL 623.5 respectively. 

Significantly lower lake elevations could substantially impact project purposes and 

important resources. 

Corps personnel are closely monitoring the dam. Seepage repairs will also be closely 

monitored. The District has identified a number of distress indicators that would prompt an 

immediate unscheduled emergency drawdown of the lake. These distress indicators are: 

• worsening seepage conditions, 

• the occurrence of abnormal piezometer water level readings, 

• the presence of increased wet areas and springs downstream the embankment toe, 

• the development of muddy water below the dam, 

• worsening conditions in current sinkholes or the development of new ones, 

• developing cold zones and settlement of the dam embankment, 

• development of a whirlpool above the dam, 

• the results of a Formal Risk Assessment, or, other new information 

The national economic development (NED) plan is the alternative that yields the 

highest positive net benefits. The NED plan, and recommended plan, is to install 

permanent cutoff walls and supplemental grouting into the main dam embankment, main 

dam and saddle dam foundations, and rim walls to arrest seepage. The recommended plan 

includes installation of an orifice gate over a sluice gate to provide a continuous and well 

oxygenated minimum flow of 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) to augment flow for water 

quality downstream of the dam. The recommendation yields net NED annual benefits of 

over $36 Million and has a Benefit-to-Cost ratio of 3.4. The total cost of the plan is $240 

Million. The dam repairs are estimated to be completed in 7 – 10 years. The cut-off wall is 

designed for a 50 year life. During the fifty year period, two maintenance grouting projects 

are planned. The first is scheduled about 18 years after completion of dam repairs followed 

a second grouting program, 18 years later. 

 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS i 

Table of Contents (UNDER REVISION) 

Summary ...................................................................................................................S-1 

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................i 

1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action..........................................................................1 

1.1 Authority .....................................................................................................1 

1.2 Background .................................................................................................2 

 1.2.1 Center Hill Water Control Manual ...................................................3 

 1.2.2 Significant Pool Elevations...............................................................5 

 1.2.3 Standard Pool Elevation Operations .................................................6 

 1.2.4 Normal Operating Guide Curve........................................................9 

 1.2.5 Modified Operating Guide Curve .....................................................10 

1.3 Previous Studies ..........................................................................................12 

 1.3.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .......................12 

 1.3.2 Selected Seepage Rehabilitation Plan...............................................13 

 1.3.3 Emergency Action Planning .............................................................13 

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action .....................................................................13 

1.5. Public Review Process ................................................................................14 

1.6. Consultation and Required Permits.............................................................15 

2.0 Alternatives.........................................................................................................16 

2.1 Description of Interim Pool Elevation Alternatives ....................................16 

 2.1.1 Alternative 1, No Action, Lake EL 648.0/623.5...............................16 

 2.1.2 Alternative 2, Lake EL 645.0/623.5..................................................16 

 2.1.3 Alternative 3, Existing Condition, Lake EL 640.0/623.5 .................17 

 2.1.4 Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, 

 Lake EL 635.0/623.5 ........................................................................17 

 2.1.5 Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred 

Alternative, Lake EL 630.0/618.0 ....................................................18 

 2.1.6 Alternative 6, Lake EL 625.0/623.5..................................................18 

 2.1.7 Alternative 7, Lake EL 625.0/618.0..................................................18 

 2.1.8 , Lake EL 622.0.................................................................................19 

 2.1.9 Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, EL 618.0/496.0....................19 

2.2 Summary of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts............................................21 

2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects......................................................................23 

2.4 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................24 

 2.4.1 Installation of an Orifice Gate Over a Sluice Gate ...........................24 

 2.4.2 Blending Turbine and Sluice Gate Discharges .................................24 

 2.4.3 Supplemental Flows From Other Tributary Lakes ...........................25 

 2.4.4 Spill vs. Generation...........................................................................25 

 2.4.5 Recreation Improvement...................................................................25 

2.5 Comparison of Alternative Pool Elevations and Resource Impacts............25 

2.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................27 

3.0 Affected Environment (Baseline Conditions).....................................................28 

 3.1 Environmental and Physiographic Setting ............................................28 

 3.2 Hydrology and the Cumberland River Reservoir System .....................30 

 3.3 Water Quantity.......................................................................................32 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS ii 

 3.4 Water Quality.........................................................................................32 

 3.5 Tailwater Releases .................................................................................34 

 3.6 Aquatic Resources ................................................................................35 

 3.7 Minimum Flow for Trout Fishery..........................................................37 

 3.8 Wetlands ...............................................................................................38 

 3.9 Upland Habitat........................................................................................39 

 3.10 Wildlife Resources ...............................................................................40 

 3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................40 

 3.12 Historic Properties – Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural 

 Resources ...........................................................................................41 

 3.13 Environmental Justice...........................................................................42 

 3.14 Hydroelectric Resources .......................................................................42 

 3.15 Flood Control .......................................................................................43 

 3.16 Water Supply .......................................................................................43 

 3.17 Air Quality ............................................................................................44 

 3.18 Noise .....................................................................................................44 

 3.19 Recreation .............................................................................................44 

 3.20 Aesthetics..............................................................................................45 

 3.21 Economics.............................................................................................46 

 3.22 Navigation.............................................................................................46 

 3.23 Hazardous, Toxic, or Radiological Wastes...........................................47 

 3.24 Traffic ...................................................................................................47 

 3.25 Safety ....................................................................................................47 

 3.26 Floodplains............................................................................................47 

4.0 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................48 

 4.1 Environmental and Physiographic Setting ............................................48 

 4.2 Hydrology and the Cumberland River Reservoir System......................48 

 4.3 Water Quantity.......................................................................................49 

 4.4 Water Quality.........................................................................................50 

 4.5 Tailwater Releases .................................................................................52 

 4.6 Aquatic Resources .................................................................................53 

 4.7 Minimum Flow for Trout Fishery..........................................................55 

 4.8 Wetlands ................................................................................................56 

 4.9 Upland Habitat.......................................................................................57 

 4.10 Wildlife Resources.................................................................................57 

 4.11 Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................57 

 4.12 Historic Properties – Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural 

 Resources ...........................................................................................58 

 4.13 Environmental Justice............................................................................58 

 4.14 Hydroelectric Resources ........................................................................58 

 4.15 Flood Control .......................................................................................59 

 4.16 Water Supply .......................................................................................61 

 4.17 Air Quality ............................................................................................62 

 4.18 Noise .....................................................................................................62 

 4.19 Recreation .............................................................................................62 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS iii 

 4.20 Aesthetics..............................................................................................64 

 4.21 Economics.............................................................................................64 

 4.22 Navigation.............................................................................................65 

 4.23 Hazardous, Toxic, or Radiological Wastes...........................................67 

 4.24 Traffic ...................................................................................................67 

 4.25 Safety ....................................................................................................67 

 4.26 Floodplains............................................................................................68 

 4.27 Cumulative Effects................................................................................68 

5.0 List of Preparers..................................................................................................75 

6.0 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the 

Scoping Letter was Sent.....................................................................................77 

7.0 Index ...................................................................................................................90? 

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Biological Assessment .......................................................................A-1 

Appendix B – Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System Water Management 

Operating Plan During Interim Pool Restrictions at Wolf Creek 

and Center Hill Dams.........................................................................B-1 

Appendix C – Responses to Scoping Letter and Notice of Intent .............................C-1 

Appendix D – References ..........................................................................................D-1 

Appendix E – List of Acronyms ................................................................................E-1 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS iv 

List of Tables 

Table 1 - Significant Pool elevations.........................................................................6 

Table 2 - Interim Lake Elevation Alternatives for Center Hill Lake.........................20 

Table 3 - Comparison of Interim Pool Elevation Alternatives and Negative 

 Impact to Resources ..........................................................................26 

Table 4.- Old Hickory Tailwater Releases ................................................................35 

Table 5 - Live Mussels in Center Hill Lake and Tailwater, 1993..............................37 

Table 6 - Federally listed species in Center Hill Project and study areas..................41 

Table 7 - Center Hill Lake Boat Ramp Elevations (EL)............................................45 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 – The Cumberland River Basin, Center Hill Dam, and Potential 

 Flood Damage Centers....................................................................... 2 

Figure 2 – Center Hill Dam Location Map within Tennessee ............................ 3 

Figure 3 – Center Hill Lake – Congressionally Authorized Pool Elevations 

 and Power Marketing Band (PMB) ................................................... 5 

Figure 4 – Center Hill Lake inflows for 2000 – 2007.........................................11 

Figure 5 – Existing Pool Elevation Operation (EL 640/623.5), Center Hill 

 Lake ...................................................................................................12 

Figure 6 – Comparison of Interim Pool Elevation Alternatives and Impact to 

 Project Benefits .................................................................................17 

Figure 7 – Average Maximum and Minimum Pool EL for Each Alternative ....21 

Figure 8 – Caney Fork River Watershed in Tennessee. TDEC 10-digit HUC 

codes denoting drainage patterns into Great Falls Reservoir, 

Center Hill Lake, and into the Caney Fork River below Center 

 Hill Dam ............................................................................................29 

Figure 9 - Cumberland River System of mainstem and tributary reservoirs......30 

 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 1 

1.0 Purpose And Need For Action

1.1. Authority. The Flood Control Act of 1938 authorized construction of Center Hill Dam. 

Supplementing authorizations were the Third Supplemental Defense Act of 1941, the Flood 

Control Act of 1944, and the River and Harbor Act of 1946. Section 4 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1944 authorized the Chief of Engineers to construct, maintain, and operate public park and 

recreational facilities and to permit construction, maintenance and operation of such facilities. 

The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 established development of the recreational 

potential at federal water resource projects as a full project purpose. The Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (16 USC 661) and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC §§ 

2901 – 2911) recognized “...the vital contribution of our wildlife resources to the Nation...” and 

provided that “...wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration and be coordinated with 

other features of water-resource development programs...” The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1252 § 102(b)) added water quality to the Corps’ mission at water-resource development 

projects. The River and Harbor Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), authorizes the Secretary of the 

Army to include municipal and industrial water storage in Corps projects and to reallocate 

storage in existing projects to municipal and industrial water supply. As a result of these 

legislative actions, the currently authorized project purposes for the Center Hill Lake Project are 

flood control, hydropower generation, recreation, fish and wildlife management, water quality, 

and municipal water supply. Although not specifically authorized, the water flowing through 

Center Hill Dam for the above authorized purposes also contributes to navigation on the lower 

Cumberland, Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as Amended, requires that prior to 

making any decision that would entail any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources, a Federal agency shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency 

which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact 

involved, and shall solicit public input and comment. The Corps, nevertheless, has the authority 

in cases of emergency to prevent or reduce imminent risk of life, health, property, or severe 

economic losses, to take immediate action under the conditions set forth under 33 CFR 230 – 

Procedures for Implementing NEPA; part 230.8 – Emergency actions. However, this DEIS is 

being processed as a proactive measure to avoid the potential need to employ emergency NEPA 

procedures. 

It should be noted that Wolf Creek Dam near Jamestown, Kentucky, is experiencing similar 

foundation problems. At Wolf Creek an emergency was declared and the lake levels were 

lowered significantly. A DEIS for that action is being prepared concurrently with this document. 

Together the two dams control the flow of approximately 80% of the water in the Cumberland 

River. Ordinarily, if only one reservoir was affected the other would be available to alleviate the 

impacts. However, with both reservoirs affected the problems are compounded. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the Federal Agency with jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise to work with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service helps protect 

a healthy environment for people, fish and wildlife, and helps Americans conserve and enjoy the 

outdoors and their living treasures. The USFWS's major responsibilities pertaining to the Center 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 2 

Hill Project are for migratory birds, endangered species, and freshwater and anadromous fish. 

Because of this expertise, the USFWS is a Cooperating Agency for this DEIS. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a federal corporation and the nation’s largest public 

power company. TVA’s major responsibilities are to minimize flood risk, produce power, 

maintain navigation, provide recreational opportunities, and protect water quality within the 

Tennessee River Basin. However, Great Falls Dam, acquired by TVA from a private company, 

is the only TVA-owned dam within the Cumberland River Basin and outside the Tennessee 

River watershed. Great Falls Dam is located on the Caney Fork River, upstream from Center 

Hill Dam near river mile 91.1 in Warren County, Tennessee. TVA also has two coal-fired power 

plants along the Cumberland River that might be affected by any flow changes in the 

Cumberland River. Because of water management expertise, and potential effects from 

operation changes at Center Hill Dam, TVA is a Cooperating Agency for this DEIS. 

1.2. Background. Center Hill Dam is a significant feature of the Cumberland River Basin. In 

the early part of the 20th century, major floods occurred in the Ohio and Mississippi River basins, 

which resulted in disastrous losses of lives, property, and economic stability. Ensuing public outcry 

for government agencies to take protective measures led to the development in 1937 of a 

comprehensive flood control plan by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The 

comprehensive plan proposed construction of 45 flood control reservoirs in the Ohio River basin. 

Six flood control reservoirs were recommended for the Cumberland River Basin, of which four 

were eventually built. These four are Wolf Creek (Lake Cumberland), Dale Hollow, Center Hill, 

and J. Percy Priest Dams. Figure 1 shows the location of Center Hill Dam and major downstream 

potential flood damage centers. 

Figure 1 – The Cumberland River Basin, Center Hill Dam, and Potential Flood Damage Centers. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 3 

Center Hill Dam is a large, high head dam located near Lancaster, Tennessee at Caney Fork 

River Mile 26.6 (Figure 2). It controls runoff from a drainage area of 2,174 square miles, which 

includes the 1,675 square miles controlled upstream by TVA’s Great Falls Dam. The dam is a 

combination earth fill and concrete structure 2,160 feet long and 250 feet high, with a gated 

spillway structure. Construction began in March 1942 and was delayed for three years by World 

War II. Dam closure was started November 27, 1948 and was completed December 1949. The 

average discharge below the dam is 3,800 cubic feet per second. The maximum lake depth is 

173 feet and the approximate lake retention time (the average length of time water remains in the 

lake) is 130 days. The first power unit was placed in commercial production in December 1950. 

The power plant consists of three 45 mega watt units that generate an estimated average of 

351,000 mega watt hours annually. Under full operation, each unit discharges 3,750 (11,250 

total) cubic feet per second of flow below the dam. 

Figure 2 – Center Hill Dam Location Map within Tennessee. 

1.2.1 Center Hill Water Control Manual. In order to understand the effect pool elevations 

have on Center Hill project purposes and ultimately on important resources, it is important to 

understand how the pool is managed. The information summarized below comes from the 

following 1998 document: Cumberland River Basin, Volume VIII, Center Hill Water Control 

Manual. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 4 

The Center Hill Project Guide Curve (Figure 3) represents the primary guidance for operations at 

Center Hill Dam. The Center Hill pool is divided into distinct pools (layers) based on three 

congressionally authorized elevations (EL 685, 648, and 618) which form operating boundaries 

for project purposes throughout the year. These operating pools are described below. 

Inactive Storage Pool. The bottom layer of Center Hill Lake is the inactive storage pool, also 

referred to as the conservation or permanent pool, extends from the bottom of the reservoir up to 

EL 618. The hypolimnion develops in this layer during the summer. Water is not released if it 

would bring the surface of the pool below EL 618. Inactive storage is provided primarily to 

offset lake sedimentation and provide head for hydropower. Other project purposes supported by 

this permanent pool include depth for recreation in the lake, water intake coverage, and lake 

habitat for fish and other aquatic life. 

Power Pool. The power pool extends from EL 618 up to EL 648. This 30 foot depth is the 

"normal" operating zone of the reservoir. This is the zone in which water is stored for 

hydropower and other project purposes. The average maximum pool, EL 648, is commonly 

referred to as the Normal Summer Pool. And the average minimum pool, EL 623.5, is 

commonly referred to as the Normal Winter Pool. 

The power pool is further subdivided by two curves which define a continually varying zone or 

band of water within the power pool. This area is commonly referred to as the "SEPA power 

marketing zone" but is more accurately called the “Power Marketing Band” (PMB) in this 

document. SEPA is the acronym for the Southeastern Power Administration which is the 

Federal entity responsible for marketing the power generated by all Corps projects in the 

Nashville District. The PMB ranges in depth from 4.85 to 8.5 feet, but commonly operates 

between 6.0 and 6.5 feet. The location of the band within the full power pool varies depending 

on season. The power pool is usually permitted to fill during wet winter and spring months and 

remain around EL 648 from mid-May through mid-June. During the summer and fall seasons, 

hydropower releases result in a steady drawdown of the reservoir, following the PMB. The PMB 

is targeted to reach EL 623.5 near the end of the calendar year. This elevation is 5.5 feet above 

the bottom of the power pool (EL 618). 

The PMB band represents the optimal range for power generation within the power pool. As a 

result of a daily analysis of current hydrologic conditions, the Corps’ Water Management Section 

coordinates with TVA to schedule a specific amount of energy production for the week at Center 

Hill and, if needed, to modify the generating schedule for the current day. TVA accepts this daily 

total generation schedule and then schedules the energy on an hourly basis to best meet power 

demands. The Corps and TVA work together to prevent deviations from the prescribed daily 

generation schedule. 

Flood Control Pool. The flood control pool extends from EL 648 to EL 685. The normal 

condition is for this pool to remain empty so that space is available for flood water storage. 

Following a flood event, water is released from this pool as quickly as possible based on 

downstream conditions in order to restore the capability to provide protection from future flood 

events. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 5 

Figure 3. Center Hill Lake – Congressionally Authorized Pool Elevations and Power Marketing 

Band (PMB). 

1.2.2 Significant Pool Elevations. In addition to congressionally authorized pool elevations, 

location of specific structural features in the dam limit water withdrawal at specific elevations. 

Significant pool elevations are shown in Table 1. These elevations were considered in 

developing interim pool elevation alternatives. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 6 

Table 1. Significant Pool elevations. Bold denotes congressionally authorized elevations. 

Center Hill Pool Elevations (ft) Physical Feature 

696.0 Top of Dam 

685.0 Top of Flood Control Pool 

681.5 Flood of Record (May 1984) 

648.0 

Top of Power Pool and spillway crest 

Top of PMB 

(Average Maximum Summer Pool) 

640.0 Modified Summer Pool – Current Conditions 

635.0 First problems with boat launching ramps 

625.0 First boating issues at marinas 

623.5 Bottom of PMB (Average Minimum Winter Pool) 

622.0 90% of the Boat Ramps out of service 

620.0 Cavitation Issues with turbines during Power Production 

All boat ramps out of service; all 9 marinas impacted 

618.0 Bottom of Power Pool 

616.0 Upper Water Intake (City of Smithville) 

540.0 Penstock openings to hydropower generators 

496.0 Bottom of Sluice Gate 

1.2.3 Standard Pool Elevation Operations. It is important to understand standard operations so 

that deviations can be identified and the degree of impact interpreted. Center Hill Dam and Lake 

have operated under a water control plan since project completion. The Center Hill Water 

Control Manual (1998) guides day to day and emergency regulation of the Center Hill project. It 

also contains special regulations to cover special circumstances such as providing specific water 

levels or releases for construction activities, project maintenance, inspections, and response to 

emergency situations such as drownings and chemical spills. Emergency procedures exist for 

flooding and drought conditions. A 1994 Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) guides operations 

during a dry rainfall year. Because of a 56 year history, the project has experienced all ranges of 

elevation so some perspective of impact can be assessed.

Flood Control. As illustrated by Figure 3, storing water for flood control is a primary function of 

the Center Hill Project. Any water elevation that drops below the PMB and power pool, 

increases flood water storage and protection. This would be true under any rainfall condition. 

Under normal flood operation, dam releases are reduced to provide flood protection to 

downstream damage centers. Flood control operations include limiting Center Hill Dam releases 

to the channel capacity of the Caney Fork River below the dam, which is about 30,000 cfs. 

Large surges in releases can cause bank erosion, adversely impact recreational users below the 

dam, and make commercial navigation much more difficult downstream on the Cumberland 

River. Under the Emergency Operations Schedule (EOS) downstream flood reduction is an 

objective, but protection of the dam structure is the prime concern. In extreme cases, if limiting 

the project discharge to 30,000 cfs results in exceeding the flood pool (EL 685.0) then more 

water is released to prevent overtopping the dam while minimizing releases as much as practical. 

Hydropower. Under normal operations, the water surface elevation behind Center Hill Dam is 

maintained within the PMB. Releases are made through the turbines as governed by the demand 

for power. Hydropower is optimized when the power pool is above or within the PMB. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 7 

As discussed in the Drought Contingency Plan (Corps, 1994), hydropower is incrementally 

reduced as the power pool is reduced when there is not enough water in Center Hill Lake to 

support all project uses. And if the combined volume of water in the power pools of Wolf Creek, 

Dale Hollow and Center Hill are cumulatively reduced by nearly 30%, below the PMB, then 

hydropower releases may be reduced to a combined minimum daily average of 3,600 cfs. If the 

combined volume of water in the three power pools is less than 70% below the PMB, then 

hydropower releases may be reduced to a combined minimum daily average of 2,000 cfs. Under 

drought conditions, hydropower is severely affected. When it becomes apparent during a 

drought condition that there is not enough water available in the Cumberland River system to 

meet hydropower needs without endangering the long-term viability of public water supplies and 

coal-fired steam plant needs, then hydropower from the dams may be temporarily suspended. 

Cooling water supply for electrical generation at steam plants, is not an authorized project 

purpose at Center Hill, however, it is tied to hydropower generation. The Cumberland Steam 

Plant alone needs a minimum daily flow between 4,000 and 6,000 cfs to provide electricity to the 

power grid. Power generation at this plant is almost three times the capacity of all nine Corps 

plants in the Cumberland River Basin combined, using only about 9% of the water required by 

the dam hydropower plants. Therefore, every effort is made to provide this flow as long as other 

project purposes are not impacted. In an effort to meet a more uniform flow, peaking operation 

at the hydropower plants can be eliminated to support thermal power. During drought, it may be 

necessary to provide flows which are less than the optimal amount. 

Minimum Flows. In general, hydropower releases are scheduled to meet peak energy demands. 

Normally this results in more water being discharged during the week and less on the weekends. 

Strict adherence to peak power demand scheduling would result in adverse affects to the aquatic 

life in the tailwater, particularly during the low flow, low dissolved oxygen, high temperature 

months of the late summer and early fall. Every effort is made to provide some discharge in 

excess of the minimum requirement every day of the week to supply cold water flow 

downstream of the dam to support the coldwater fishery and downstream TVA coal fired steam 

plants. The tailwater trout fishery, and steam plants are sensitive to water temperature increases. 

Warm water temperatures are detrimental to trout, and the steam plants need cold water for 

cooling purposes. 

Water Quality. Water quality is a primary consideration for the operation of Center Hill during 

both normal and drought periods for public health and safety. Old Hickory Dam is considered 

the water quality trigger point for Cumberland basin system operations. Generally, when 

desirable dissolved oxygen conditions in releases from Old Hickory are maintained, acceptable 

water quality conditions along the Cumberland River mainstem are assured. The Tennessee 

water quality standard for dissolved oxygen is a minimum of 5.0 mg/1 to support a warm water 

fishery. Minimum bi-weekly average flows needed to meet this standard below Old Hickory 

have been estimated and are presented in Section 3.5 Tailwater Releases, Table 4.

Old Hickory discharges are influenced by hydrologic conditions and the Cumberland River 

system requirements to move water through the basin. There is no significant storage capacity in 

Old Hickory Lake to supply such flows therefore it depends on combined releases from the 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 8 

upstream storage projects of Center Hill, Dale Hollow, and Wolf Creek Dams to meet this need. 

Every effort is made to maintain an acceptable level of dissolved oxygen in the Old Hickory 

tailwaters. 

Center Hill Lake water quality can be described as good, even though it has some dissolved 

oxygen (DO) problems. Mean summer depth in the reservoir is about 73 feet and mean retention 

time is about 140 days. At times the hypolimnion has exhibited low DO causing cool water fish 

to migrate away from the center of the lake. This typically occurs during the summer months. 

Nutrients can also be a problem. The runoff into the lake is from mostly agricultural areas, and 

some high nutrient levels are cause for concern at times. Major wastewater discharges into the 

lake are from the cities of Cookeville, McMinnville, Smithville and Sparta. 

Tailwater Trout Fishery. The Caney Fork River below Center Hill Dam supports a viable put, 

grow, and take trout fishery. The tailwater is classified as a trout stream by the state (TDEC, 

2004a and 2004b). The Tennessee water quality dissolved oxygen standard for a trout stream is 

6.0 mg/l; and a water temperature of less than 20o C (68o F). In the late summer and early fall 

months the dissolved oxygen level of the Center Hill discharge often falls below this standard. 

During such occurrences the turbines may be operated at reduced capacity to increase the 

tailwater dissolved oxygen level to protect the fishery resource. However to avoid excessive 

wear, the turbines are generally not operated below their cavitation limits (EL 620). To improve 

the dissolved oxygen, a sluice gate is opened. The gate is located near the bottom of the dam. It 

draws from the coldest water in the lake. Hydraulic pressure creates a turbulent flow that 

oxygenates the discharge. This method has been effective in improving dissolved oxygen and 

maintaining cold water temperature in the tailwater. 

Drought Regulation. Operations under drought conditions are specified in the Corps’ 1994 

Drought Contingency Plan (DCP). The DCP was developed because of the 1988 drought, and 

contains emergency measures that would be followed in the Cumberland River system in the 

event of future droughts. The DCP prioritizes project and system purposes in the event of a 

water shortage. When there is not enough water in Center Hill Lake or in the Cumberland River 

system, priorities for drought regulation are: 1) Water Supply (For Public Health and Safety); 2) 

Water Quality (For Public Health and Safety); 3) Navigation; 4) Hydropower; and 5) Recreation. 

These priorities will remain in effect at Center Hill Dam during the 7 – 10 year dam repair period 

regardless of the interim pool elevation alternative selected. Center Hill serves as one of the 

prime reservoirs maintaining desired Cumberland River flows during drought. Under drought 

conditions, most of the water flowing in the Cumberland River is comprised of the combined 

releases from Center Hill, Dale Hollow, and Wolf Creek Dams. 

Only hydropower and flood control are specifically mentioned as authorized project purposes. 

However, during drought, flood control is not a factor. Center Hill Dam is also operated for 

water quality and fish and wildlife under the general authorities of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act Amendments and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act respectively. 

Municipal Water Supply. Center Hill Lake serves as the water supply source for the cities of 

Smithville and Cookeville. The minimum pool level at which the two systems withdraw water is 

EL 616; two feet below the top of the inactive pool. Water supply storage has been reallocated 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 9 

at Center Hill Dam. The current users are the City of Cookeville, City of Smithville, and 

Riverwatch Resort. Consequently, in the interest of public health and safety, high priority is 

given to maintaining the lake level at an elevation that ensures all water supply intakes covered, 

unless an emergency drawdown below EL 618 is required for safety reasons. 

Navigation. Navigation is not a project purpose at Center Hill. However, hydropower and 

minimum flow releases provide flow that coincidentally supports navigation while addressing 

other project purposes. Flows from Center Hill, in combination with other sources, contribute to 

adequate depths for navigation through the lower Cumberland River. 

Recreation. Recreation is prioritized last in the DCP. Water would be conserved in the power 

pool to meet recreation needs to the extent possible. However, under drought or emergency 

conditions, recreation may be sacrificed to meet other higher priority purposes. The lake would 

still be open to the public even if there were no usable boat ramps for easy lake access. 

Fish and Wildlife. Usually in late April or early May, the largemouth bass and crappie spawn 

occurs. For a two to three week period during this event it is critical to keep a relatively stable 

pool for good spawning conditions. If however, water should rise in the flood control pool and 

releases are necessary, an attempt would be made to release as rapidly as practical to attempt a 

delay in the spawn until the pool is stable. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) 

identifies the beginning of the spawning period for all lakes in Tennessee when water 

temperature at a five-foot depth is at or above 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Stabilization efforts are 

initiated when the Corps determines that temperatures are appropriate for the spawn to occur. 

Lake level stabilization to enhance the fish spawn is a cooperative effort between the Corps, 

TWRA, SEPA, and TVA. 

Safety. Special regulations cover changes to lake operations under unique circumstances. 

Temporary changes to lake elevations or release volume may be necessary during construction 

activities, project maintenance, inspections, or response to emergency situations such as 

drowning and chemical spills. Normally unique events can occur within normal lake operations. 

In rare circumstances when long-term deviation from normal operations is necessary, prior 

approval from the Corps’ Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD) Office is required. 

Maintaining the integrity of the dam structure under all conditions of pool elevations takes 

precedence over maintaining any project purpose. This requirement assures the safety of the 

general public in the lake and in the river system below the Center Hill project. The Center Hill 

Water Control Manual (Corps, 1998) and the Drought Contingency Plan (Corps, 1994) are 

intended to result in safe conditions for all anticipated circumstances. However, if conditions 

arise where adherence to either plan would jeopardize structural integrity of the dam or the 

general public, safety conditions should prevail. 

1.2.4 Normal Operating Guide Curve. As previously stated, in order to understand the effect 

interim pool elevations has on Center Hill project purposes and ultimately important resources, it 

is important to understand how the existing pool elevations are managed. Center Hill Lake pool 

elevations follow a prescribed schedule of elevations designed to best meet all the project 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 10 

purposes of flood control, hydropower, recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality, and water 

supply. 

The PMB is actually a narrow band of water elevations that range between 4.8 and 8.5 feet deep 

(Figure 3.) This narrow band of water elevations rises and falls in a predicable pattern over the 

calendar year. The customary summer pool elevation in June is usually EL 648. However, a 

summer pool at EL 640, while near the bottom of the PMB, would still be considered within the 

normal operating range. Winter pool is the lowest elevation maintained in December customarily 

around EL 623.5. However, under normal operating conditions, a winter pool of 632, though at 

the top of the PMB, would still be considered within normal operations. 

In order to regulate Center Hill Lake pool elevations, headwater and tailwater elevations must be 

monitored. Lake levels are measured at the dam and are referred to as headwater elevations that 

are shown in Figure 4 for years 2000 - 2007. Water released below the dam is referred to as 

tailwater discharge. Tailwater elevation varies with discharge volume.

Prior to 2005, winter and spring rainfall was routinely captured in Center Hill Lake to maximize 

downstream flood protection and hydropower generation. Headwater elevations commonly 

exceeded the top of the normal operating guide curve. Since one of the primary purposes of the 

project is flood control, flood water is stored and then slowly released, sometimes via 

hydropower generation, in a regulated discharge with the final goal of maintaining the pool 

within the Guide Curve elevations. Examples of routine pool elevation management are shown 

in Figure 4 for the years 2000 to 2004. 

It is important to note how rainfall events affect pool elevation management. During periods of 

little rain, pool elevation can dip below the bottom of the PMB. This situation occurred in 2000 

because other project purposes were still drawing from the pool. Eventually inflows add enough 

water to raise the pool within the PMB. Under drought conditions, the pool may fall below the 

PMB for an extended period of time. The pool is still managed to meet project uses though at 

the expense of hydropower generation. 

Wet years, as seen for 2003 and 2004 (Figure 4) routinely produced high headwater elevations 

that were routinely above the top of the power pool (EL 648). These two years exemplify the 

resilient flood storage capacity of the project. Under normal conditions, high lake levels could 

be sustained above EL 648 for a long period of time. 

1.2.5 Modified Operating Guide Curve. In 2004, Center Hill Dam inspections revealed 

increasing seepage and structural problems. Several alternatives to address these problems were 

considered as previously described. The alternative selected was to repair the project structures 

using a combination of grouting and cut-off walls. Beginning in March 2005, the pool has been 

managed more aggressively to reduce inflow peaks and to maintain the lake elevations within, 

the PMB (Figure 5). This action markedly reduced the high peaks of pressure on the main and 

saddle dam foundations, earth embankments, and right and left rim walls. Over the last two 

years there has been a documented reduction in the size of wet spots at the embankment toe. 

There has also been a marked decrease in the flows from the springs immediately below the dam 

that serve as seepage indicators. As a result, the Corps planned to maintain lower lake elevations. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 11 

Figure 4. Center Hill Lake inflows for 2000 – 2007. 

In December 2006, the Corps determined that the safest operation that would also maintain 

project purposes would be to aggressively adhere to the bottom of the PMB (Figure 5). This 

modified operation plan is anticipated to remain in effect until repairs are sufficiently complete. 

However, repair time will take many years. It is therefore possible that emergency 

circumstances could dictate lowering lake elevations well below the PMB substantially 

impacting project purposes and important resources. For this reason, this DEIS is written to 

address significant impacts that could result from highly altered interim pool elevations including 

No Action (Existing pool operations). 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 12 

Figure 5. Existing Pool Elevation Operation (EL 640/623.5), Center Hill Lake. 

1.3 Previous Studies. Numerous reports and studies have been completed at Center Hill Dam and 

Lake and are cited in the document entitled, Center Hill Dam, DeKalb County, Tennessee, Seepage 

Control, Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Final Report, LRD Review, 14 July 2006. These 

documents include Center Hill Dam and Lake Master Plans, O&M Plans, design plans, security 

plans, and spill plans. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed for remediation of the 

left and right rim and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on July 17, 2005. 

During the study process, additional repair alternatives were identified for the main dam 

embankment and saddle dam. Therefore, a Supplemental EA was completed and a FONSI was 

signed on 19 May 2006. All these documents are incorporated by reference in this DEIS and 

may be viewed in the Corps’ library in Nashville, Tennessee.

1.3.1. Seepage Rehabilitation Alternatives Considered. The 2005 and 2006 NEPA 

documents considered and screened several alternatives to reduce the potential of dam failure 

and reduce risk to downstream populations. Alternatives considered are: 1) no action to repair 

the dam, 2) roller-compacted concrete dam constructed at the toes of the main dam and saddle 

dam earthen embankments, 3) remove generators to allow the water to flow freely through the 

dam, 4) dam removal, 5) grouting only, and 6) permanently lowering the lake. Details can be 

found in the EAs noted above. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 13 

1.3.2. Selected Seepage Rehabilitation Plan. The alternative selected to control seepage and 

strengthen main and saddle dam foundations, earthen embankments, and rim walls was to repair 

the structures. Repairs are scheduled to begin in Fall 2007. The repair alternative finally 

selected consists of a combination of grouting and installation of cement cut-off walls into the 

earth embankments of the main and saddle dams. Grouting would consist of conventional 

cement grout alone or in combination with hot bitumen. A cut-off wall is constructed using 

panels or piles that are overlapped to form a continuous wall unit into the foundation rock to cut 

off seepage. This plan is expected to be highly effective in reducing seepage, strengthening the 

dams, embankments, and rim walls, and reducing risk of dam failure. 

It is anticipated that dam repairs will take 7 – 10 years to complete. During this time period, the 

dam and associated structures are vulnerable due to substantial hydrostatic pressure resulting 

from high lake elevations. While not expected, in the emergency of rapid erosion of solution 

features, or appearance of some other distress indicator, the lake could be drawn down as quickly 

as possible until safety concerns were reduced to an acceptable level. 

Several steps have already been taken to reduce the potential for dam failure and minimize risk 

to downstream populations. While safety is the priority, attempts are on-going to safely maintain 

all lake purposes. Protective actions include: 1) increased dam inspections and monitoring, 2) 

emergency action planning with state and local emergency management services (EMS), 3) dam 

safety training for project personnel, 4) installation of monitoring equipment, 5) public meetings 

to inform the public of the seepage problems, potential dam fail, and repair options at Center Hill 

Dam, and 6) recreational facilities and boat ramp notifications. 

1.3.3. Emergency Action Planning. The Corps and State Emergency Management teams have 

conducted a number of exercises and have revised emergency notification procedures through 

the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency’s National Weather Service and the Weather Radio 

System. The Corps is collaborating with the federal, state, and local` agencies to develop an 

emergency action plan in the event of an extreme lake drawdown emergency. 

1.4. Purpose and Need for Action. The Flood Control Act of 1938 authorized Center Hill Dam 

construction. The dam was designed in the 1930s, constructed in the 1940s, and completed in 

April 1951. The dam was built on a karst geology using accepted engineering practices of the 

day. Since the 1960s seepage through the main and saddle dam foundations, earthen 

embankments, left and right rims, has been a concern. Repairs have been implemented at 

various times including grout injection into the main dam foundation and the left and right rims. 

Those repairs are credited with saving the dam and significantly reducing seepage. However, 

over the years continued seepage has undermined geology unaffected by grouting. Over the last 

three decades the problems have increased and based upon the Dam Safety Portfolio Risk 

Assessment, the dam is now classed as being in an active failure mode. 

Due to the risk imposed on downstream populations by the dam’s instability, the Corps found it 

necessary to modify lake operations until repairs are completed. Since March 2005, the Corps 

has attempted to keep fall, winter and early spring lake levels from extreme rises due to high 

inflow. Seepage problems are made worse during continual high lake levels. As a result, the 

Corps plans to maintain lower lake levels, but still within the normal operating guide curve, to 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 14 

reduce pressure on the main and saddle dam foundations, earth embankments, and rim walls until 

a permanent remedy is in place. A major grouting project to address the dam seepage is 

scheduled for the fall of 2007, followed by installation of a cutoff wall through the earthen 

portions of the main and saddle dams. These repairs are scheduled for completion in 2014. 

Although not expected, the Corps may have to rapidly lower the lake pool significantly below 

the operating pool at any time during the 7-year repair phase because of the following distress 

indicators: 

• seepage conditions worsen 

• occurrence of abnormal piezometer water level readings 

• the presence of increased wet areas and springs downstream the embankment toe 

• the development of muddy water 

• worsening conditions in current sinkholes or development of new ones 

• development of cold zones and settlement of the dam embankment 

• development of a whirlpool above the dam, 

• results of a Formal Risk Assessment, or 

• other new information 

Any one or a combination of the above distress indicators may determine that an unscheduled 

emergency drawdown of Center Hill Lake is necessary to reduce risk to the public’s safety and 

welfare. 

The purpose of lowering the lake is to reduce stress on the foundation and the consequences of a 

failure. Lowering the lake significantly below the operating curve under interim pool elevations 

or emergency drawdown for extended periods of time would have many significant impacts to 

hydropower production, thermal power plant generation, water quality, fish and wildlife, 

recreation, municipal water supplies, economics, navigation, and possibly cultural resources. 

Accordingly, the Corps has prepared this DEIS prior to making any long-term decisions 

regarding interim pool elevations in compliance with environmental laws and regulations 

including NEPA. 

1.5. Public Review Process. Prior to this review, the Corps has conducted numerous public 

meetings to advise the public of problems with the dam, and has created a website on the 

Nashville District’s home page to provide the public a status report of the project and current 

actions. The Corps has also collaborated with the emergency management community to update 

emergency notification and evacuation planning. The purpose of this DEIS is to review current 

actions taken, consider other possible alternatives to reduce stress on the dam, and to address 

operational changes that could significantly affect pool elevations. In preparing this DEIS, a 

Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2007. A Scoping Letter 

was issued on April 9, 2007 to all known interested groups and individuals. A total of two 

comments were received in response to this notice. One comment was from a Utility and the 

second comment was from a Federal Agency. The concern was the environmental and human 

effect of significantly dropping the lake suddenly for a long period of time. The comments and 

Corps responses are included in Appendix C. 

On completion of the DEIS, a Notice of Availability will be issued inviting public review and 

comment on the draft document during a 45-day review period. Comments will be considered 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 15 

and included in the final document. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be 

circulated for public review and comment for 30 days. Additional comments will be considered 

and if there are no significant changes, a Record of Decision (ROD) will be signed, completing 

the NEPA process. 

It should be noted that a DEIS for Wolf Creek Dam, which is also experiencing foundation 

seepage problems, is being prepared concurrently with this document. Both are continuing 

studies and any alternative selected is subject to being changed as new data becomes available or 

the situation requires. 

1.6. Consultation and Required Permits. The Corps has the authority in an emergency to alter 

lake levels without observing the provisions of the regulations, but must consult with the 

agencies regarding alternative (after the fact) compliance arrangements. However, any other 

deviations to established operating levels require normal, full NEPA compliance, consultation 

and coordination with all relevant government agencies and obtaining any necessary federal, 

state, and local permits. Anticipated permits and other approvals include: 

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permits are being 

sought for the construction operations associated with the dam repairs described in 

previous NEPA documents, however, NPDES permits will not be required for altering lake 

levels. 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 procedures will not be required for altering lake 

levels. 

• A Section 401 State Water Quality Certification or Aquatic Resources Alteration Permit 

has been obtained for construction activities associated with dam repairs described in 

previous NEPA documents; however, 401 Certification will not be required for altering 

lake levels. 

• Air Quality is not affected by altering lake levels. 

• National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 review. Consultation with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer is currently underway. The degree of effect on cultural 

resources will depend on the lake levels that are finally decided upon. Drawdowns within 

the normal range of operations will require no action. Radical drawdowns will require 

additional consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the implementation 

of historic property surveys. 

• Section 7 – Endangered Species Act. The USFWS has agreed to be a cooperating agency. 

Informal Consultation has been initiated with the USFWS to determine what if any impact 

reduced lake levels may have on threatened or endangered species. 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. A Fish and Wildlife Final Coordination Act 

Report has been requested from USFWS. 

• Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management. Alternatives 1 has the potential of 

increasing the risk of a “base flood”, but only in the event of a dam failure. All other 

alternatives increasingly reduce the risk of a "base flood" as the top pool elevation is 

lowered under each following alternatives. 

• The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has agreed to be a cooperating agency; however, a 

TVA 26a permit is not required for this action. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 16 

2.0 Alternatives

2.1. Description of Interim Pool Elevation Alternatives. Nine interim pool elevation 

alternatives (operating bands) have been developed out of safety considerations. During the 7 – 

10 year dam repair period, it may be necessary to significantly lower the lake for an extended 

period of time to ensure a low risk of dam failure. As the structural integrity of the dam 

increases and risk of failure decreases during the repair period, it may be possible to raise Center 

Hill Lake incrementally to the Normal Operating Band. The goal of the dam repairs is to return 

to the status quo condition which is the Normal Operating Band. Alternatives include a No 

Action (Existing Operation Band), Full Fill (Normal Operating Band), Partial Fills, and 

Emergency Operating Bands (Table 2). 

2.1.1. Alternative 1, Lake EL 648.0/623.5. This alternative would continue to optimize all of 

the authorized project purposes. This alternative would, however, do nothing to alleviate the risk 

associated with maintaining the pool at this elevation. This alternative would maintain the PMB 

and normal water management practices of capturing and storing winter and spring rains for later 

hydropower releases. No consideration to reduce stress on the dam foundations or minimize 

seepage flow would be attempted. Damages from dam failure were estimated at about $1.3 

billion. Potential loss of life depends on many variables including the speed of dam failure, 

warning times, severity of the flood event, and the effectiveness of evacuation measures. 

Under this alternative, the average maximum summer pool (EL 648) and average minimum winter 

pool (EL 623.5) would be maintained. At this elevation, winter and spring rains can quickly 

exceed the top of the power pool, particularly in a wet year, which would substantially increase 

the potential risk of dam failure. The failure could be slow, allowing time for a controlled 

release to empty the reservoir, or it could be sudden. A sudden dam breach failure would be 

catastrophic. In addition to the potential loss of lives, damages would be excessive and would 

entail severe disruptions throughout the Cumberland River Basin. Although this alternative is 

unacceptable, it will be evaluated throughout this document to provide a comparison of the other 

alternatives against the impact of unmodified pool operations. 

In the emergency of severe dam foundation or rim stress, as determined by stress criteria listed in 

Section 1.3, the lake may need to be drawn down as quickly as possible to reduce the risk of dam 

failure. The lake would remain drawn down until the emergency has passed and the dam and rim 

walls can safely contain Center Hill Lake at these elevations.

It is assumed that Center Hill Lake would be returned to this operating band after repairs have 

been completed.

2.1.2. Alternative 2, Lake EL 645.0/623.5. This alternative would operate Center Hill at normal 

winter pool, but would only raise the top of the pool to EL 645, i.e., about 3 feet below the top of 

the power pool during the summer. These elevations would likely have a few minor impacts 

(Figure 6). Hydropower would lose some added water storage reserved for peaking hours. The 

hypolimnion would be slightly reduced resulting in less cold water storage for downstream water 

quality, fish, and coal fired power plants. This elevation would not significantly reduce 

hydrologic pressure or reduce the risk of dam failure, which would decrease protection to 

downstream populations. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 17 

Figure 6. Comparison of Interim Pool Elevation Alternatives and Impact to Project Benefits. 

Flood 

Damage 

Reduction 

Hydropower Navigation Recreation Fish and 

Wildlife 

Water 

Quality 

Water 

Supply 

Year * Year Year Year Year Year Year 

Alternative 

Top Pool 

Elevation (ft) T D W T D W T D W T D W T D W T D W T D W

1 648/623.5 

2 645/623.5 

 3 640/623.5 

4 635/623.5 

5 630/618 

6 625/623.5 

7 625/618 

8 622 (Flat-line) 

9 Emergency 

618-496 

* Study Year; Rainfall Conditions: T – Typical D – Dry W – Wet 

Negative Impact: 

2.1.3. Alternative 3, Modified, Lake EL 640.0/623.5. This alternative is the current operating 

band which serves as the No Action alternative. Under this alternative lake elevations would be 

aggressively managed to follow the bottom of the PMB. Center Hill Lake would operate at the 

customary minimum (winter) pool (EL 623.5), and would only rise to EL 640, i.e., about 8 feet 

below the top of the power pool. These elevations would likely have some minor to moderate 

environmental and economic impacts (see Figure 6) which may be worse in dry years. 

Hydropower would lose some water storage reserved for peaking hours. The hypolimnion would 

be reduced resulting in less cold water storage for downstream water quality, fish, and coal fired 

plants. Recreation would be slightly impacted as shorelines are exposed and aesthetics are 

reduced. This elevation could reduce hydrostatic pressure and reduce the risk of dam failure and 

increase protection to downstream populations. 

2.1.4. Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, Lake EL 635.0/623.5. Under 

this alternative, Center Hill Lake would operate at the customary minimum (winter) pool (EL 

623.5), and would only rise to EL 635, i.e., about 13 feet below the summer recreation elevations 

to which the public has become accustomed. This top elevation appears to be a breakpoint where 

most authorized project purposes are still being met, albeit with some minor to moderate impacts 

depending on the year’s rainfall (Figure 6). Hydropower would maintain peaking power 

capabilities except in a dry year. The hypolimnion would be moderately reduced but would 

contain enough cold water to support coal fired power plants, water supply, water quality, and a 

cold water fishery. Recreation would be slightly impacted as shorelines are exposed and 

aesthetics are reduced. A few boat ramps would no longer be useable. Water quality would be 

moderately to severely impacted. Poor water quality would, in turn, negatively affect water 

supply and the fisheries. The low water elevations could also impact fish spawning in the lake. 

 None Minor Moderate Severe 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 18 

On the other hand, this elevation would reduce hydrostatic pressure and the risk of dam failure and 

would increase protection to downstream populations. Although normal operations would be 

favored, i.e., a return to a summer elevation of EL 648, this is the environmentally preferred 

alternative during the period of repairs because it represents a breakpoint below which the negative 

impacts suddenly change from predominately minor to moderate or severe yet it still relieves some 

pressure on the dam foundation. After repairs are completed the lake would once again resume 

“normal” operations between El623.5 and EL 648. 

2.1.5. Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, Lake EL 

630.0/618.0. This alternative would operate Center Hill between the bottom of the 

Congressionally authorized power pool (EL 618.0) and EL 630, i.e., about 18 feet below the 

summer recreation elevations to which the public has become accustomed. At this operating band 

virtually all project purposes except for flood control would be moderately to severely impacted 

(Figure 6). Even in a typical rainfall year, severe impacts would be seen for hydropower, fish and 

wildlife, and water quality needs. Many boat ramps would be unusable at various times of the 

year. At EL 620, all boat ramps would be unusable. Water quality, particularly DO and 

temperature would become major concerns, particularly in the tailwater. The fisheries both in the 

lake and in the tailwater would be stressed. Poor water quality together with algal and bacterial 

blooms would require additional processing by municipal water suppliers. Less cold water would 

be available for cooling fossil fuel electrical plants. Reduced water releases during a dry year 

could affect navigation with reduced water depth in the navigation channel. At EL 618 virtually all 

project purposes would be gravely impacted if not eliminated except that water supply would still 

be protected. The reduction of hydrostatic pressure and risk of dam failure would further reduce 

hydrologic pressure and reduce the risk of dam failure, which would increase protection to 

downstream populations. This alternative is preferred from a dam safety and engineering 

perspective as it provides a balance between sustaining some project uses while lending greater 

priority to safety. This band provides 12 feet of safe storage during flooding, and allows 12 feet of 

storage for downstream uses during a potential drought. 

2.1.6. Alternative 6, Lake EL 625.0/623.5. This alternative would operate Center Hill at the 

customary winter pool elevation, but would only raise the top of the pool to EL 625, i.e., about 23 

feet below the summer recreation elevations to which the public has become accustomed. The 

operating curve would be almost flat. At this operating band virtually all project purposes except 

flood control would be impacted (see Figure 6). Hydropower production would be impacted. 

Most boat ramps would be unusable. Water quality, particularly DO and temperature would 

become major concerns, particularly in the tailwater. The fisheries both in the lake and in the 

tailwater would be stressed. Poor water quality together with algal and bacterial blooms would 

require additional processing by municipal water suppliers. Less cold water would be available for 

cooling fossil fuel electrical plants. Navigation could be affected due to restricted water releases 

that may result in a reduced navigation depth once this elevation is met and maintained within this 

band. On the other hand, this elevation would reduce hydrostatic pressure and the risk of dam 

failure and would increase protection to downstream populations. 

2.1.7. Alternative 7, Lake EL 625.0/618.0. This alternative would affect both normal summer 

and winter pool elevations to which the public has become accustomed. The top elevation is 23 

feet below the customary summer pool (EL 648) and the bottom elevation is 6.5 feet below the 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 19 

customary winter pool (623.5). This alternative would allow water releases to support some of the 

downstream project uses. At this top elevation virtually all project purposes except for flood 

damage reduction would be impacted (see Figure 6). Significant impacts to hydropower, thermal 

power, recreation, navigation, fish and wildlife and water quality could occur. At EL 618 virtually 

all project purposes would be impacted if not eliminated except that water supply would still be 

protected. The reduction of hydrostatic pressure and risk of dam failure would further reduce 

hydrologic pressure and reduce the risk of dam failure, which would increase protection to 

downstream populations. 

2.1.8. Alternative 8, Flat-line, Lake EL 622.0. Under this alternative, the pool would operate at 

this targeted pool elevation all year long to reduce hydrostatic pressure on the dam foundation. 

This elevation is about 1.5 feet below the customary winter pool (EL 623.5) and about 26 feet 

below the summer recreation elevations to which the public has become accustomed. Every 

attempt would be made to hold the lake steady at this elevation. This is the worst alternative 

available as it allows no flexibility in operation. During a storm event, all available outlets would 

be used to rapidly release water, without exceeding the downstream channel capacity, but slightly 

elevating flooding risks downstream. By the same token, if water is needed for some reason such 

as maintaining water quality, supporting thermal plants, maintaining navigation, or providing 

minimum flows in the tailwater for the trout fishery, it could not be released. At this elevation 

virtually all project purposes would be impacted (Figure 6). 

2.1.9. Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, EL 618.0/496.0. Under this alternative, Center 

Hill would operate below the bottom of the power pool. Attempting to generate hydropower at this 

elevation would likely damage the hydropower units. Water releases might be allowed to ensure 

downstream water supplies unless lowering the lake further jeopardizes upstream water supplies. 

Below this elevation, water can only be discharged through the sluice gates. During an emergency, 

every attempt would be made to hold the lake below this elevation. During a storm event, all 

available outlets would be used to release water, without exceeding the downstream channel 

capacity, but this action would elevate flooding risks downstream. At this elevation virtually all 

project purposes would be severely impacted if not eliminated. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 20 

Table 2. Interim Lake Elevation Alternatives for Center Hill Lake. 

 

Pool Elevation Alternatives Average 

Minimum Lake 

Elevations (ft) 

Average 

Maximum Lake 

Elevations (ft) 

Time of Maximum 

Lake Elevation 

Alternative 1 

Normal Operating Band 

623.5 648.0 Full Fill – June 

Alternative 2 623.5 645.0 Partial Fill - June 

Alternative 3 

Existing Condition 623.5 640.0 Partial Fill – June 

Alternative 4 

Environmentally Preferred 623.5 635.0 Partial Fill – June 

Alternative 5 

Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred 618.0 630.0 Partial Fill – June 

Alternative 6 623.5 625.0 Partial Fill – June 

Alternative 7 618.0 625.0 Partial Fill – June 

Alternative 8 622.0 622.0 Flat-line – year round 

Alternative 9 496.0 618.0 Emergency Drawdown 

For Alternatives 1 - 4, and 6, lake levels start at the same elevation (EL 623.5) at the beginning 

of the year and are allowed to fill to a maximum elevation of EL 648.0, EL 645.0, EL 640, EL 

635.0, and EL 625.0 respectively by June of that year. Alternative 4 is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Alternative 5, the plan preferred for safety and engineering reasons, begins 

at 618 and is allowed to fill to a maximum elevation of EL 630. Alternative 7 would begin at EL 

618 and would reach a maximum elevation of 625. Alternative 8 maintains the pool all year long 

at a flat-line elevation of 622.0. Alternative 9 would occur only under an emergency when the 

lake is emptied below EL 618.0 to a minimum EL 496, when the sluice gates would remain open 

to allow the Caney Fork River to flow freely through the dam. The anticipated operating curve 

for each pool elevation alternative is shown in Figure 7. This figure is not drawn to scale and is 

a conceptual drawing as depicted by the straight line operating curves. Once an alternative is 

selected, a detailed model will be used to refine the real-time operating curve. No matter what 

alternative is selected, elevations along the curve will be intimately tied to hydrologic conditions 

and system requirements at that specific date and time. 

 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 21 

Figure 7. Average Maximum and Average Minimum Pool EL for Each Alternative. 

2.2. Summary of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.

Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the (proposed) action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions (40 

CFR 1508.7)”. Based on the public and agency scoping and review performed for the previous 

NEPA documents conducted for this project, the following resources were identified as target 

resources within the assessment goals: socioeconomics, water quantity, water quality, aquatic 

resources, threatened and endangered species, recreation/tourism, river navigation, and cultural 

and historic resources. 

The ten multipurpose projects in the Cumberland River Basin are operated as a unified system. 

Water releases are coordinated among the projects to minimize flooding throughout the 

Cumberland River system. A reduced pool would directly affect project purposes at Center Hill 

and indirectly affect the system purposes of hydro and thermal power production, water quality, 

water supply, aquatic resources, endangered species, recreation, and navigation. The severity of 

impacts is related to rainfall year. A wet year would replenish water within the system, while a 

dry year would exacerbate problems. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 22 

Wolf Creek Dam is suffering similar problems that Center Hill is experiencing and has required 

lowering the storage of Lake Cumberland. Dale Hollow, Wolf Creek, and Center Hill Dams 

provide most of the water flow in the Cumberland River. Great demand would be placed on 

Dale Hollow Lake to store additional water early in the year and to release it throughout the dry 

periods to supplement the flow of the Cumberland River. Storage restrictions at Center Hill and 

Wolf Creek Dams could result in reduced water quantity in the Cumberland River. 

The impacts of water storage (or lack thereof) could be felt to confluence of the Cumberland and 

Ohio Rivers. Without water storage at Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dam, the entire Cumberland 

River System has the potential to stagnate. The resultant low flows in the Cumberland River 

could affect electrical production at both hydro and thermal power plants, water quality, aquatic 

resources, threatened and endangered species, municipal water supply, economics, recreation, 

flood damage reduction, and navigation. 

Electrical Power Production. TVA’s Gallatin and Cumberland City steam plants rely on the 

water supply provided by the Cumberland River system for cooling water flow. The lack of 

storage in Center Hill would mean that there is less water available for release into the 

Cumberland River. If there is insufficient flow in the Cumberland River, then cool water may 

be unavailable to dilute the hot water discharged by the thermal plants. In addition, lack of water 

storage would mean that there is less water available for the hydropower plants to provide 

peaking power when it is most needed. Loss of hydro and thermal power production could result 

in brownouts or even blackouts if other sources of supply are insufficient. 

Water Supply. The three water supply intakes on Center Hill are located below the bottom of 

the power pool (EL 618) and are unlikely to be affected. Nevertheless, if the lake experiences 

algal booms there could be taste and odor problems which would require increased water 

treatment costs. There is one intake about 19 miles downstream of the dam in the Caney Fork 

River tailwater. Under drought conditions, low flows could result in its forced closure. 

Socioeconomics. Center Hill Dam and Reservoir has contributed to the regions socioeconomics 

by providing inexpensive hydropower, cooling water for thermal power plants, reliable water 

supply, recreation, flood damage reduction, and to a limited extent it has aided in navigation and 

inexpensive transportation of goods. The lower Center Hill pool is maintained, the less water is 

stored to meet these demands. Each of these uses would be negatively affected to a greater or 

lesser degree depending on the lake storage level attained and the amount of rainfall. 

Water Quality. Good water quality is a key to Center Hill Lake supporting all its designated 

uses. Lower lake levels and less storage capacity could result in poorer water quality not just in 

the Caney Fork tailwater, but throughout the entire downstream length of the Cumberland River 

to its confluence with the Ohio River. Municipal and commercial water suppliers would face 

greater treatment costs and up to seven Federally listed endangered or candidate mussel species 

could be affected. Discharges from Center Hill Dam could violate state water quality standards 

for a trout stream classification. There are water quality concerns within the Center Hill Lake as 

well. High nutrient levels from runoff into the lake from some agricultural areas and waste water 

plants are cause for concern at times. As the lake level drops, hydraulic residence time could 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 23 

increase as less water is released. Nutrients could concentrate, resulting in algal blooms. Algal 

die-offs deplete dissolved oxygen, resulting in the potential for fish kills. Under drought 

conditions, and a very long retention time, lake water quality could worsen without the addition 

of fresh rain water. 

Aquatic Resources. As noted above, water quality becomes poorer if there is insufficient stored 

water in the Center Hill reservoir. Poor water quality directly affects aquatic organisms. Under 

worst-case circumstances low DO and higher temperatures would add stress to fish and mussels. 

Poor conditions could also trigger algal and bacterial blooms which would further distress the 

ecosystem. Fish and mussel kills could be anticipated. Major die-offs would negatively affect 

recreation which, in turn, would affect the economy. However, water quality mitigation 

measures discussed in Section 2.4, below would address these potential impacts. 

Flood Damage Reduction. Allowing the dam to be lost by failing to effect repairs would be 

catastrophic for downstream populations. An unintended side effect of maintaining a reduced 

pool to alleviate pressure on the dam’s foundation is that it would actually create additional flood 

storage capacity and would temporarily increase flood protection. The primary difference is that 

the captured flood waters would be evacuated as quickly as possible instead of the current 

practice of releasing them so as to optimize their potential uses.

Recreation. During the 7-10 year dam repairs, recreation on Center Hill Lake would be 

negatively impacted. Depending on the elevation selected, all of the boat ramps could become 

unusable, all of the marinas could be impacted and at least one marina may be closed, and half of 

the private docks could be inaccessible. As fishing conditions declined, so too would recreation. 

Access to the lake would be highly restricted resulting in economic hardship for the local 

economy. Though the effects would be temporary, it could take years to recoup the financial 

losses. Safety concerns would also increase as navigation hazards (submerged logs, rocks, 

shallow gravel bars) develop in Center Hill Lake. 

Navigation. Navigation is not a project purpose at Center Hill. However, under normal 

operations, tailwater releases augment flow in the Cumberland River to aid navigation. During 

repairs, tailwater flow would be restricted, providing little water to the system. A nine-foot 

commercial navigation channel on the Cumberland River upstream of Barkley Dam is generally 

supported by the maintenance of full, flat pools at the four main-stem dams. If the customary 

releases from Wolf Creek and Center Hill are not available, the Corps’ ability to maintain the 

nine-foot channel may be compromised. This would, in turn, affect transportation costs and the 

economy. 

2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects. Although all of the interim pool elevation alternatives carry 

some risk of dam failure, this risk is reduced with each successive alternative. Alternatives 1 and 

2 carry the most risk because of the high hydrostatic pressure placed on the dam. This risk is 

significantly reduced under Alternative 3 (Current operating band) and is increasingly reduced 

under Alternative 4 to Alternative 8. Under Alternative 9, Center Hill Lake would be drained, 

which would ensure no risk of dam failure. However, as each successive alternative reduces the 

risk of failure, it also detracts from the authorized project purposes and increases negative 

impacts on several important resources. The goal of this DEIS is to select an alternative that 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 24 

balances safety against the loss of project purposes the impact to those resources. Lowering and 

maintaining a reduced pool would have negative effects on hydropower, water supply, 

recreation, water quality, fish and wildlife management, threatened and endangered species, and 

navigation. Under the worst case scenario hydropower production would be foregone, thermal 

power plants could be de-rated due to lack of cooling water, recreation would decline as boat 

ramps and marinas were closed, navigation would be reduced, water quality would decrease to 

the point of violating state water quality standards, Federally listed threatened and endangered 

species would be stressed and some could be lost, algal blooms and fish kills would increase, 

water treatment costs would increase, and the economy would be impacted. The actual severity 

of the impacts would depend on a number of factors including the chosen level to be maintained, 

weather including rainfall and temperatures, and conditions at other lakes within the Cumberland 

River Basin. Some would be greatly minimized by water quality mitigation measures to be 

employed. Theses negative short-term affects are unavoidable, but considered prudent when 

weighed against the risk of dam failure. 

2.4 Mitigation Measures Negative environmental impacts are to be avoided wherever and 

whenever possible. When they can not be avoided, they must be minimized. Compensation 

must be made for impacts that can not be avoided or minimized. It may be possible to avoid or 

minimize impacts by installing structural features on dams, or changing system operations. 

These following discretionary measures have been developed for consideration by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers as actions that could be undertaken by the Nashville District as reasonable 

and prudent measures. However, in order for mitigation to be undertaken, the District must have 

both authority and appropriations to perform any proposed mitigation. 

2.4.1 Measure No. 1. Installation of an Orifice Gate Over a Sluice Gate. In 2004 the Corps 

Conducted a study titled Center Hill Tailwater Modeling for Minimum Flow Evaluation that 

found the optimum minimum flow below Center Hill is about 200 cfs. Even a single sluice gate 

far exceeds this volume (about 1,500 cfs) and it often exceeds the inflow into the lake. To 

provide minimum flow the Corps has tried pulsing the flows through a single sluice gate with 

unsatisfactory results. The flow is too much to be sustained and the slope of the river bed rapidly 

drains the discharged water so that frequent pulsing is required. One solution may be installing 

an orifice gate over a sluice gate. The orifice gate would limit the discharge to a constant 200 

cfs, providing a constant minimum flow with high levels of DO. This would benefit both the 

tailwater and the upper end of Old Hickory Lake. 

2.4.2 Blending Turbine and Sluice Gate Discharges. The average discharge of water from a 

turbine at Center Hill is between 3,500 and 4,000 cfs depending on the lake level. During the 

warmer months of the year, i.e., roughly May through October, the water stratifies and virtually 

all DO in the deeper portions of the lake is consumed by ongoing chemical and biological 

processes. Consequently, water discharged through the turbines is very low in DO and the 

tailwater ecology suffers. In recent years the Corps has been experimenting with releases 

through the sluice gates to compensate for this problem. Water discharged through the sluice 

gates can have as much as 10 mg/l of DO. Each of the six sluice gates can discharge about 1,700 

cfs. Thus, when generation is required during the warmer months a sluice gate can be opened 

and as the waters from the turbines and the sluices blend adequate DO is achieved. This would 

benefit both the tailwater and the upper end of Old Hickory Lake. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 25 

2.4.3 Supplemental Flows from Other Tributary Lakes. It may be possible to store some 

excess water in Dale Hollow and/or J. Percy Priest Lakes early in the year and slowly release this 

water over the summer to mitigate for the reduced flows from Center Hill. This course of action 

would be dependent on several factors including the amount of rainfall and several operational 

factors. This was done to a limited extent in 2007 when Dale Hollow was filled to about EL 653, 

or approximately two feet above the top of the power pool. This action would have to be 

planned and approved in advance to make any significant difference. 

2.4.4 Spill vs. Generation. As noted above, the preferred method for regulating lake levels is 

by hydropower generation. However, during the summer months when water quality in the 

mainstem lakes typically decreases, the Corps has occasionally resorted to spilling water through 

the mainstem tainter gates rather than by generating because this increases the DO in the 

tailwater where most of the species of concern are likely to be found. The disadvantage of this, 

of course, is the power lost by foregoing hydropower generation. Center Hill can only discharge 

water through its flood gates when the pool is in flood stage, i.e., above EL 648.0. This form of 

mitigation would not, therefore, apply to Center Hill or any of the upstream tributary lakes. But 

it can apply to the lock and dam projects on the mainstem of the Cumberland River. 

2.4.5 Recreation Improvement. Where practicable, boat ramps would be extended to allow 

access to the lake. Marinas would be allowed to re-configure and/or relocate to more suitable 

areas. 

2.5 Comparison of Alternative Pool Elevations and Resource Impacts. Impacts are most 

notable during the summer months when demands on project uses are the greatest. Additional 

impacts occur when the lake is dropped below the customary winter pool (EL 623.5). Based on 

historical operations, the range of conditions that may occur to project uses as the lake is 

operated under each alternative can be predicted (Figure 6). Table 3 compares the impact each 

alternative would have on important resources. It is important to note that Alternative 1 

represents the normal operating band under normal conditions. Only in the event of a dam 

failure, the impact to important resources would be severe under Alternative 1, and moderate 

under Alternative 2. Studies have shown that maintaining a high summer pool increases the risk 

of dam failure until such time repairs are complete enough to support the hydrostatic pressure 

without loss of dam integrity. It is expected that in the event of a dam failure, the lower the pool 

elevation the lower the flood damage downstream. Table 3 provides an indication of the impact 

to important resources under each interim pool elevation alternative. The dash line indicates no 

significant impact to that resource.
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 26 

Table 3. Comparison of Interim Pool Elevation Alternatives and Negative Impact to Resources. 

Environmental and 

Economic Impacts 

Alternative 1 

Normal 

EL 648/623.5 

Alternative 2 

Lower Pool 

 

EL 645/623.5 

Alternative 3 

Lower Pool 

Current 

Condition 

EL 640/623.5 

Alternative 4 

Lower Pool 

Environmentally 

Preferred 

EL 635/623.5 

Alternative 5 

Lower Pool 

Safety & 

Engineering 

Preferred 

EL 630/618 

Alternative 6 

Lower Pool 

EL 625/623.5 

Alternative 7 

Lower Pool 

EL 625/618 

Alternative 8 

Flat-line 

EL 622 

 Alternative 9 

Emergency 

EL 540/496 

Safety Severe Severe Severe Moderate Moderate Minor Minor Minor - 

T & E Species - - Minor - Moderate Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Aquatic Resources - - Minor - Moderate Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Coldwater Fishery - - Minor Minor Moderate Severe Severe Eliminated Eliminated 

Water Quality - - Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe

Wildlife Resources - - - Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Severe

Wetland Impacts - - - - - - - - - 

Water Supply - - - Minor Moderate Minor Moderate Severe Severe

Historic Properties - - - - - Minor Minor Moderate Severe

Low Water Flow - - Minor Moderate Minor Severe Severe Severe Severe

Increased Tailwater Heights - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe

Shoreline Erosion - - Minor Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe

Environmental Justice - - - - - - - - - 

Recreation - - Minor Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe

Aesthetics - - Minor Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe

Air Quality - - - - - - - - - 

Noise - - - - - - - - - 

HTRW - - - - - - - - - 

Flood Control - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Hydropower - - Minor Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Eliminated 

Thermal Power - - Minor Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe

O & M Costs - - - Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe

Economics - - - Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe

Traffic - - - - - - - - - 

Navigation - - Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Severe

Man-made Resources - - - - - - - Moderate Moderate

Public Facilities - - - Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Eliminated 

Public Services - - - Minor Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe

Employment - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Tax Values - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Property Values - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Community Cohesion - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Displace People - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Displace Businesses - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Farms - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Disrupt Community Growth - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

Disrupt Regional Growth - - - - Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe

- = No Significant Effect 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 27 

2.6 Conclusions. One purpose of this study is to attempt to identify a level or operating band at 

which all concerns, including safety, are recognized. All of the alternatives have their own 

individual benefits and drawbacks. Alternative 1 optimizes the authorized project purposes. The 

tradeoff, however, is that it also carries the greatest risk of dam failure. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 

all begin with the same minimum pool elevation as Alternative 1, but they each show an 

incremental decrease in the maximum allowable pool elevation. As the maximum pool decreases, 

so too does the risk of dam failure, but at the cost of increasing impact to resources. Alternative 4 

represents a breakpoint below which the negative impacts suddenly change from predominately 

minor to moderate or severe. Alternative 4 is, therefore, considered to be the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Alternative 5 is preferred from a safety and engineering perspective. 

Alternative 7 is less preferred because of the severity of impacts. Alternative 8, Flat-line, 

represents the worst of all possible alternatives as it offers no flexibility in operating the system. 

Alternative 9 represents an emergency drawdown during which every available method of drawing 

down the lake would be used to prevent a catastrophic failure. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 28 

3.0 Affected Environment (Baseline Conditions)

The proposed project area for pool elevation alternatives is located at Center Hill Dam and 

Lake. The impacts of altering pool elevations below the established PMB band have 

consequences that reach far beyond the immediate lake. River flows, water quality, dissolved 

oxygen, water temperature, and economics, just to name a few, would be impacted throughout 

the length of the Cumberland River Valley. This section describes the physical, biological, 

social, historic property, and economic resources in the Cumberland River Basin that could be 

affected. 

3.1. Environmental and Physiographic Setting. The climate of the area is distinctly 

continental with moderate temperatures averaging about 60 degrees Fahrenheit and rarely 

exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit or falling below zero. The length of the average growing 

season is about 210 days, extending from early April to the end of October. Annual 

precipitation for the basin averages 45 to 50 inches. 

The dam lies within Ecoregion 71, the Interior Plateau, (EPA Ecoregions 2004). Ecoregion 71 

varies from mountainous areas in the eastern sections to rolling plateau, undulating plains and 

hills in karst terrain. Deep, narrow valleys through which creeks and rivers flow cut the area. 

Near the Cumberland River steep bluffs, springs, cascades, and wide bottomlands occur. The 

bedrock of the basin is Paleozoic Age with sandstone, limestone, shale, coal, and conglomerate 

members. The natural vegetation is primarily oak-hickory forest. Streams have a moderate 

gradient with productive, nutrient-rich waters. Rainfall averages between 48 and 56 inches per 

year. 

The Caney Fork watershed covers nearly 2,174 square miles. The Caney Fork River Watershed 

is identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with an 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 

(HUC05130108). Because of the large size of the 8-digit HUC watersheds, USGS worked with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Service (NRCS) to divide the watershed 

in to smaller units of 10-digit HUC watersheds. The advantage of dividing the watershed this 

way, is that drainage patterns can be easily seen and all water draining into a specific areas like 

Center Hill Lake, can be separated from streams draining into other areas of the watershed. In 

addition, large rivers, like the Caney Fork, can be divided into several pieces that have the same 

name, but different 10-digit HUC numbers (Figure 8). About one quarter of HUC0513010804, 

all of HUC0513010807, and nearly half of HUC0513010808 drain into Center Hill Lake. 

Roughly half of HUC0513010808 and all of HUC0513010809 drain directly into the Caney 

Fork River below Center Hill Dam. The rest of the Caney Fork Watershed (approximately one 

third) drains directly into Great Falls Reservoir on the Caney Fork River mile 91.1 (Figure 8). 

This DEIS covers detailed information on landuse, landcover, soils, permitted dischargers, and 

nonpoint pollution sources in HUCs that drain directly into Center Hill. Refer to TDEC’s 

Caney Fork Watershed Plan to see detailed information for the entire Caney Fork River 

watershed. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 29 

Figure 8. Caney Fork River Watershed in Tennessee. TDEC 10-digit HUC codes denoting 

drainage patterns into Great Falls Reservoir, Center Hill Lake, and into the Caney Fork River 

below Center Hill Dam. 

 

Most of the remaining agricultural land not inundated by the lake, lies on top of the plateau, 

although historically even relatively steep hillsides were cleared and farmed. Virtually all 

lands suitable for farming in the river valleys have been utilized for agriculture since 

settlement in the early nineteenth century, although farming many of the hillsides by modern 

mechanized methods would be impractical. The hills too steep for cultivation or pasture were 

allowed to remain forested, and the usable timber on them has been harvested periodically. 

Early commercial uses of the Caney Fork and Cumberland Rivers were for transportation of 

merchandise by boat, and floating log rafts to downstream markets. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 30 

Figure 9 - Cumberland River System of mainstem and tributary reservoirs. 

 

3.2. Hydrology and the Cumberland River Reservoir System. The Cumberland River 

Basin covers about 17,700 square miles that spans Kentucky and Tennessee. While the total 

quantity of water within the Cumberland Basin can be estimated, that water is distributed 

unevenly. Precipitation is the major influence. Rain Storms can develop anywhere in the 

basin. However, the effect on river flow will depend on location, duration, intensity, season, 

and timing. An unregulated flow could result in severe flooding and high flows, or drought 

and very low flows. In order to minimize the extreme flow conditions, the hydrology of the 

basin was altered to a regulated system consisting of 10 Corps dams (Figure 10). Dams are 

common structures used to alter the natural flow of water through the landscape and are 

generally built to store water for flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power generation, 

industrial cooling, potable and industrial water supplies, recreation, water quality, fish and 

wildlife needs, and navigation. When dams are built, they alter the structure of a river system, 

causing it to change from a river (free flow) to lake (static) and tailwater discharge (regulated 

flow). This alteration changes the flow patterns and flow timing of a river system, which can 

affect water quantity, quality, sediment transport, and habitat upstream and downstream of a 

dam (EPA 2007). Where dams are part of a larger river basin, cumulative impact assessment 

considers how the human and environmental impacts of one dam are related to the same 

impacts of other dams and other water management operations within a river basin. 

 

The system approach allows water to be stored or withdrawn anywhere in the system to 

equalize velocity and depth throughout the mainstem of the Cumberland River. 

Consequently, any one or combination of dams could be drawn to ensure a consistent river 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 31 

flow. Storing water provides a great advantage during drought or flooding by minimizing the 

impact of the climatic event. 

Center Hill is an integral part of the coordinated system to manage water quantity and quality 

for flood protection in the Cumberland and Ohio River Valleys. Impoundment of the Caney 

Fork River by Center Hill Dam changed the river from a free flowing stream to an 

impoundment (static reservoir), and regulated river downstream of the dam. The change in 

flow pattern affects water quantity, water quality, riparian, and aquatic habitat, and aquatic 

communities above and below the dam. These changes also affect the Cumberland River 

system. 

The Corps constructed and operates ten dams and reservoirs within the Cumberland River Basin 

(see Figure 4). These dams were authorized and constructed at different times for different 

purposes. Barkley, Cheatham, Old Hickory, and Cordell Hull Dams are located on the 

mainstem of the Cumberland River with navigation locks that cumulatively, provide 452 miles 

of navigation from the mouth of the Cumberland River up to Celina, Tennessee. In addition to 

navigation, Barkley Dam has large water storage capacity of greater than one million acre-feet. 

Wolf Creek Dam is considered a tributary lake. It spans the Cumberland River, does not permit 

navigation, and also has a large water storage capacity in excess of one million acre-feet. The 

other Cumberland River tributary dams are Martins Fork Dam on Martins Fork in the 

headwaters of the Cumberland River, Laurel Dam on the Laurel River; Dale Hollow Dam on 

the Obey River, Center Hill Dam on the Caney Fork River, and, J. Percy Priest Dam on the 

Stones River. Besides Barkley and Wolf Creek, Dale Hollow, and Center Hill Dams are the 

only other projects that have a water storage capacity of greater than one million acre-feet. 

The 10 projects are managed as a single system with the goal of managing the flow of water 

through the entire Cumberland River basin. This system drains parts of Kentucky and 

Tennessee. This systems approach manages the Cumberland River flow to be held or released 

at different projects depending on climatic conditions within the river basin. During floods, 

water is stored and time released to minimize damage downstream. During typical and dry 

years, water releases are coordinated to ensure enough water to meet downstream needs. 

Under normal conditions, only three dams sustain the desired Cumberland River flows through 

Barkley Dam during drought. Wolf Creek, Dale Hollow, and Center Hill Dams supply 69%, 

15%, and 16% of the total flow in the Cumberland River system respectively. The ability of a 

project to contribute flow to the system is linked to the summer pool storage elevation and the 

corresponding storage volume maintained at a Wolf Creek, Dale Hollow and Center Hill 

projects. 

Currently Wolf Creek Dam is under repair and can not supply 69% summer storage water to the 

system. Wolf Creek is maintaining a flat-line elevation of 680. This increases the pressure for 

Dale Hollow and Center Hill to supply summer storage water to the system. How much water 

Center Hill would be able to store and release to the system would be dependant on the 

alternative selected. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 32 

Center Hill Dam is the second largest storage dam and a major contributor to the Cumberland 

River system. At the top of the flood control pool (EL 685), Center Hill’s reservoir extends 

64 miles upstream and covers 23,060 acres. The water’s normal residence time is 

approximately 130 days. Center Hill Dam’s tailwater extends 26.6 miles to the junction of the 

Cumberland River and backwater of Old Hickory Lake at Cumberland River Mile 309.2, just 

over four miles below Cordell Hull Dam. Center Hill tailwater traverses almost 107 miles to 

Old Hickory Dam (CRM 216.2) and its impact is felt much farther downstream. 

3.3. Water Quantity. Center Hill is considered a high-head, long-term, storage dam with a 

large, deep pool (reservoir), long detention time, and a control over the volume of water 

released from the impoundment. Storage dams are designed to hold stormwater to prevent 

flood damage downstream. In addition, the large amount of stored water directly and 

incidentally supports many uses like hydroelectric power generation, municipal and industrial 

water supply, irrigation, fish and wildlife, recreation, water quality, navigation (EPA, 2007) 

and waste assimilation. 

The large quantity of stored water in Center Hill reservoir simulates a deep lake. The pool 

undergoes processes such as thermal stratification, seasonal turnover, chemical cycling, and 

sediment storage. These processes occur primarily as a result of the presence of the dam 

creating the reservoir, not the operation of the dam. Most effects from dams are manifested 

downstream. (EPA, 2007). 

3.4. Water Quality. The Center Hill Lake water quality can be described as good, even 

though it has some dissolved oxygen (DO) and nutrient problems. The mean lake depth is 

about 73 feet and mean retention time is about 130 days. In the past, the lake metalimnion 

(cool water layer several feet below the surface of the lake, with decreasing temperature and 

DO) contained so little DO that few cool water fish species were present in the lake. This 

situation typically occurs during the summer months, when this low oxygen, cool water band 

can be as much as 50 feet thick. High nutrient runoff into the lake from agricultural areas, 

and waste water plants are cause for concern at times. Major wastewater discharges into the 

lake are from the cities of Cookeville, McMinnville, Smithville and Sparta. It is not unusual 

for outflow (discharge below the dam) DO to fall below 5.0 mg/l and even approach 3.0 mg/l 

during the September and October low flow period. Outflow temperatures are relatively cold, 

ranging between 8o C to 14o C (46 o to 57 o F), which is somewhat predictable for a deep 

storage reservoir. The lake is temperature stratified from May through the fall months 

(Manual, 1998). 

Lake Stratification. Retention time varies with pool volume and amount of inflow and 

outflow. Deep reservoirs such as Center Hill Lake undergo thermal stratification during the 

warmest six months of the year, from mid-Spring to mid-Fall. Thermal stratification is a 

natural lake effect (EPA, 1993). During this time, the pool divides into 3 layers: the 

epilimnion (top, warm water with high DO), the metalimnion (middle, cool water with 

decreasing temperature and DO), and the hypolimnion (bottom, cold water with low DO). 

The impacts of water quality outflows below a dam are an outcome of the seasonal 

temperature fluctuations and the location of outflow outlets (EPA, 2007). 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 33 

High pool elevations ensure a large hypolimnion with lots of cold water volume for downstream 

use. Low pool elevations reduce the volume of the hypolimnion. Unlike lakes, reservoirs 

usually release water from the hypolimnion, as this is often the location of the turbine inlet. 

Center Hill Dam normally releases water during power generation from elevation 540, however 

the turbine withdrawal zone can extend considerably above this elevation depending on the 

magnitude of the releases. If the pool level is low, some warmer water above the hypolimnion is 

drawn into the turbines and released below the dam. 

Center Hill Dam releases are generally cold due to the cold hypolimnetic withdrawal. Dam 

release temperatures can also be influenced by rainfall condition (wet, typical or dry years). 

During a dry year with low pool elevations, a warm tropical storm can add a high inflow of 

warm water, which must be evacuated and can flush out the hypolimnion. 

In mid- to late fall the lake undergoes a turnover due to cooling of the lake surface, which 

eventually mixes the pool to create a uniform water quality and chemistry throughout the lake. 

During this time, temperature and dissolved oxygen requirements can be met downstream, even 

at normal winter pool elevations. The lake remains in a well-mixed state until mid-Spring when 

air temperatures warm the water surface, and stratification begins to occur again. 

Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen. During the period when the lake stratifies, depletion of 

dissolved oxygen occurs below the epilimnion in the major tributary embayments. In the 

main channel of the reservoir, temperature and dissolved oxygen decrease in the metalimnion 

(thermocline) and is depleted in the hypolimnion of the reservoir. Dissolved oxygen levels 

are usually too low to sustain most fish and invertebrate life in the hypolimnion. 

The extent of changes in downstream temperature and dissolved oxygen from reservoir 

releases depends on the retention time of water in the reservoir and the withdrawal depth of 

releases from the reservoir. Long residence time allows greater solar radiation absorption into 

the epilimnion, extending its depth. Reservoirs with short hydraulic residence times have 

reduced impacts on tailwaters. Storage reservoir releases are usually colder than inflows. The 

outflow temperature is usually sufficient for cold-water fish, even with warm inflows (EPA, 

2007). The consequence of impoundment replaced the native warmwater fishery and 

freshwater mussels, including a number of now endangered mussel species, downstream of 

the dam with a coldwater fishery dominated by rainbow trout. 

“Some impacts downstream can be perceived as beneficial to some and negative to others. For 

example, when water released from a dam is cooler than water downstream and it causes the 

downstream system to become colder, trout might relocate to this new habitat and displace 

native warm water species. Although increased trout is viewed by some as a positive effect, 

displacing native species may not be perceived as beneficial to others.” (EPA, 1993). 

Nutrients. Reservoirs, like lakes, can be classified on nutrient content. Reservoirs with low, 

medium, and high nutrient content simulate oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and euthrophic lakes 

respectively. However, reservoir water quality reflects the watershed it drains. Under normal 

conditions, the large volume in the reservoir naturally dilutes and recycles nutrients. As pool 

volume drops, nutrients are concentrated. With a long retention time, nutrients exert a 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 34 

biological oxygen demand (BOD) and use up the dissolved oxygen contributing to a large 

layer of anoxic water (hypolimnion) behind the dam. According to TDEC’s Caney Fork 

Watershed plan, there are 21 sewer treatment plants in the Caney Fork watershed. Only 3 

sewage treatment plants discharge directly into the Caney Fork River below the dam. Eight 

discharge into Center Hill Lake watershed, and 10 discharge upstream of Great Falls Dam, 

which discharges flow into Center Hill Lake. Industrial discharges can exert a chemical 

oxygen demand (COD) and use up the dissolved oxygen contributing to anoxic conditions in 

the hypolimnion behind the dam. There are a total of 48 industrial discharges in the Caney 

Fork watershed (TDEC, 2002). Seven discharge downstream of Center Hill Dam, 24 

discharge into the Center Hill Lake watershed, and 17 discharge upstream of Great Falls Dam 

(TDEC, 2002). Nonpoint sources of nutrients include cattle, chicken, hog and sheep farming 

within the Caney Fork River watershed. Without adequate dilution, these nutrient and 

industrial sources contribute to oxygen demand in the hypolimnion of Center Hill Lake. 

Pathogens, such as E. coli, are associated with high nutrient loading. In 2005, a Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for pathogens in the Caney Fork River watershed was 

completed. The purpose of the TMDL was to determine the allowable pollutant load that 

streams can assimilate before violating water quality standards. A number of streams in the 

Caney Fork River watershed are listed on Tennessee’s 2006 303(d) list as not supporting 

recreation use due, in part, to discharge of pathogens from sewage treatment plants, pasture 

land runoff, livestock in the creeks, and sewage collection system failure. The listed streams 

are Hickman, Fall, Hudgens, Pigeon Roost, and Mine Lick Creeks. Hickman flows into the 

Caney Fork River downstream Center Hill Dam. The other four creeks flow into Center Hill 

Lake. The TMDL establishes allowable loadings of pathogens to reduce in-stream 

concentrations enough to meet state water quality standards. The TMDL determined that 

pathogen loading needed to be reduced between 43-88% in the listed streams (TDEC, 2005). 

Land usage in the drainage basin above Center Hill Lake consists of forestry, mining, 

agriculture, urban, industrial, and recreational uses. Runoff from these land uses directly 

affects the water quality of the lake. Mining, agriculture, and urban development in particular 

contribute nutrients that affect the oxygen requirements in the lakes. Like all reservoirs, 

Center Hill Lake can be expected to undergo future nutrient loading that will ultimately 

decrease the available dissolved oxygen in the tailwaters. The long-term status of all 

tailwaters will depend on engineering solutions to improve water quality as human 

development continues to degrade water quality in the watershed upstream (TWRA, 2006). 

3.5. Tailwater Releases. Under normal operating conditions, with the exception of low 

dissolved oxygen during the stratified periods, the quality of the releases flowing through the 

Center Hill tailwater is good since this water is largely drawn from winter stored water from 

deep in the reservoir. This water is cold and low in dissolved and settleable solids, however, 

the released water can be low in dissolved oxygen in the summer through early fall. There are 

no known pollutants in the releases. 

 According to the Center Hill Lake Water Management Manual (1998), water quality needs 

are a primary consideration during the normally dry portion of the year, June through 

October. Old Hickory Dam is considered the water quality control point for Cumberland 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 35 

basin system operations. Generally, when desirable dissolved oxygen conditions in releases 

from Old Hickory are maintained, acceptable water quality conditions within the Cumberland 

River system are assured. The Tennessee water quality standard for dissolved oxygen 

(warmwater fishery) is a minimum of 5.0 mg/1. The estimated bi-weekly minimum average 

flow needed below Old Hickory to meet this DO requirement is presented in Table___. The 

10-year average monthly discharges from Old Hickory are presented for comparison. These 

flows are calculated in cubic feet per second (cfs). In September, higher flows may be needed 

until Old Hickory destratifies. 

Table 4. Old Hickory Tailwater Releases. 

Month 

Estimated Bi-Weekly 

Minimum Flow (cfs) 

Ten year Average Monthly 

Discharges (cfs) 

April 2,000 23,263 

May 4,900 19,250 

June 7,600 16,875 

July 9,100 12,434 

August 9,400 12,637 

September 7,400 10,518 

October 2,000 8,948 

Actual flow requirements during a specific year may vary significantly from these numbers 

since they are influenced by hydrologic conditions and the Cumberland River system 

requirements to move water through the basin. Since there is no significant storage capacity 

at Old Hickory to supply such flows, releases from the upstream storage projects, including 

Center Hill, would be used to meet this need. At times, particularly during the summer 

months, water in Old Hickory and Cheatham Lakes can become stagnant and suffer from low 

dissolved oxygen (DO) and elevated water temperature. Water released from Center Hill 

Dam helps to reduce the water temperature and DO problems in the Cumberland River system 

(Corps, 1998). 

3.6. Aquatic Resources. Lake Fishery. Prior to impoundment, the Cumberland and Caney 

Fork Rivers supported highly diverse assemblages of fish and aquatic life. Fisheries 

managers often refer to upper reaches of similar streams as smallmouth-rock bass streams. 

The lower river reaches graded into the "warm water" stream types. Since no aquatic survey 

data is available prior to the construction of dams, we must extrapolate from surveys of 

similar rivers. 

Streams like the historic rivers mentioned characteristically had game fish species, 

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) in its 

upper reaches and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) occupying the warmer lower 

reaches. Panfish would include rockbass (Ambloplites rupestris), white crappie (Pomoxis 

annularis), longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green 

sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), and various sunfish hybrids, 

channel (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead (Pylodictis olivaris), and bullhead (Ameiuris spp.) 

catfish. The list of pre-impoundment fish would include many other species such as minnows 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 36 

and shiners (Cyprinidae spp.), darters (Percidae spp.), sculpins (Cottidae spp.), various 

members of the sucker family (Catostomidae spp.), and probably some uncommon species. 

Center Hill Lake supports good cool and warm water fisheries. Weekly fishing reports are 

provided on the TWRA, Region 3 website. Depending on season, a variety of fish species are 

caught including walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), sauger (Stizostedion canadense), bass 

(largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted), catfish, bluegill, and to a less extent, white bass 

(Morone chrysops) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). The best fish are caught along the 

main lake bluffs in brush. The TWRA has placed around 40 fish attractors throughout Center 

Hill Lake to ensure good fishing. 

 

Tailwater Fishery. Once Center Hill Dam was constructed the seasonal flows, water 

temperature, and water quality changed radically. Upper tailwater temperatures near the dam 

remain between 6 and 10 degrees Centigrade (42 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit) for much of the 

year. This would approach the winter average of a free flowing stream. Cold discharges and 

highly variable flows from the dam created an environment that can be tolerated by only a 

few native species of fish and aquatic invertebrates. Presently, the fish communities in the 

Caney Fork River below the dam is composed of remnants of the pre-impoundment 

populations, but include artificially propagated, stocked rainbow and brown trout, and species 

reaching the tailwater by way of entrainment from the lakes during operation of the turbines 

and spillways. Blacknosed crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), were stocked in the Center 

Hill reservoir, and now occur in the tailwater. Seasonally, however, walleye, sauger, and 

white bass enter the tailwaters and congregate near the dam in the winter and early spring. 

Entrained gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) 

provide the bulk of the forage for predatory species. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and 

white bass-striped bass hybrids, originating from fingerlings stocked in the Cumberland 

River, are increasingly taken in the lower reaches of the tailwater. Several rough fish species 

are common, including common carp (Cyprinus carpio), buffalo (Ictiobus spp.), river herring 

(Clupeidae spp.), and drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), while channel (Ictalurus punctatus) and 

flathead (Pylodictus olivais) catfish are also caught. 

Beginning in the 1950s, the tailwaters were periodically stocked with rainbow trout 

(Oncorhyncus mykiss) produced at federal hatcheries. With the completion of Dale Hollow 

National Fish Hatchery by the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

additional rainbow and subsequently, brown trout (Salmo trutta), were stocked each year. 

These fisheries have grown steadily in popularity and complement the recreational fisheries of 

Center Hill Lake. 

In the past, instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) analyses were applied to the 

Caney Fork tailwater. In the mid-nineteen eighties, for example, a preliminary Physical 

Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) was used to analyze the physical habitat for trout in 

the tailwater. This work was accomplished cooperatively between the Nashville District, the 

Waterways Experiment Station, and the USFWS. The PHABSIM analyzed the availability of 

habitat of suitable depth, velocity, and substrate (particle dominance and cover value) for 

rainbow and brown trout. The results of this study indicate that the optimal minimum flow 

requirement for trout below Center Hill Dam is approximately 200 cfs. Consistent water 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 37 

quality and flow improvements would greatly improve the fishery and management options 

below Center Hill Dam (TWRA, 2006). 

Freshwater mussels The streams in the Caney Fork watershed were known for their extensive 

freshwater mussel beds that were exploited by local residents seeking freshwater pearls 

(Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Walker (1964) provides a local report on the fate of many 

historical mussel beds. In 1880, a large pearl was found at the confluence of Indian Creek and 

the Caney Fork River. The find resulted in massive pearl hunting where millions of mussels 

were split open in search of pearls. Caney Fork mussels were gravely depleted. Pearling 

continued for nearly 35 years. Great Falls and Center Hill Dams changed the river habitat 

into slow moving, large, deep pools that eliminated the fast, shallow current, riffles and gravel 

bars required for mussel survival. 

Historically, 60 mussel species were found in the Caney Fork River watershed (Layzer et.al., 

1993). Ten mussel species, including the endangered Cumberland pigtoe (Pleurobema 

gibberum) were reported upstream of Great Falls Dam. Fifty-one species were reported 

downstream, in the rest of Caney Fork River watershed (Layzer et. al., 2003). At least 37 

(62%) of the 60 pre-impoundment species in the entire Caney Fork River watershed, have 

been extirpated, including 2 which are now extinct, and seven that are federally listed as 

endangered. (Layzer, 1993). Currently, two species have been found in Center Hill Lake. 

Downstream of Center Hill Dam, 6 species were found alive among relic shells of 31 

additional species. No living mussels were found for 12 km (7.5 miles) in the tailwater below 

Center Hill Dam. Species found alive further downstream in the tailwater, were few and old. 

The existing condition in the tailwater shows that species that could not adapt to the 

fluctuating daily flows, cold hypolimnetic water discharges, alternating bed scouring and 

dewatering, low DO, and loss of nutrients, did not survive. 

Table 5. Live Mussels in Center Hill Lake and Tailwater, 1993. 

Common Name Scientific Name Location 

Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina Tailwater 

Threeridge Amblema plicata Tailwater 

Spectaclecase* Cumberlandia monodonta Tailwater 

Elephantear Elliptio cassidens Tailwater 

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa Tailwater 

Pink Heelsplitter Proptera (Potamilus) alata Center Hill Lake 

Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa Tailwater 

Lilliput** Toxolasma parvus Center Hill Lake 

* Federally listed as a Candidate Species 

** State listed as under Special Concern in Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

Aquatic Insects. Cold discharges and highly variable flows from Center Hill Dam have 

created an environment that can be tolerated by only a few species of aquatic invertebrates. 

Invertebrate populations of the tailwaters increase in diversity in direct proportion to distance 

from the dams (TN Dept Health 1967, TWRA, 2006). The species found nearest the dam are 

akin to communities occurring in natural springs. Isopods of the genus Lirceus, amphipods 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 38 

(Gammaridae), and midges (Chironomidae) are the most frequently encountered groups. 

Mayflies (Ephemeroptera spp.), stone flies (Plecoptera spp.), and caddis flies (Trichoptera 

spp.), crayfish (Decapoda spp.), and small populations of freshwater mussels (Unionidae 

spp.) are present in the down stream reaches. 

3.7 Minimum Flow for Trout Fishery. The Caney Fork River tailwater, from river mile 25.4 

to the mouth, is classified as a trout stream (TDEC, 2004b). Under this designated use, State 

water quality criteria (TDEC, 2004a and 2004b) stipulates a DO of not less than 6 mg/l, and a 

temperature limit of no greater than 20o C (68o F). In June 1992, an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) of the effects of grouting the right and left embankments of Center Hill Dam was prepared 

and a mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on June 19, 1992. The 

FONSI concluded that if the grouting was successful the minimum flow that sustained the trout 

fishery below the dam would be significantly diminished. The FONSI committed the Corps to 

mitigate successful grouting at Center Hill Dam by a combination of turbine pulsing and 

operation of the station service generator. Since that time two additional studies were done at 

Center Hill Dam to look into alternate methods to improve DO in the tailwater and provide 

minimum flows for trout. These alternatives included a re-regulation weir and a Howell Bunger 

valve. Both methods were deemed either inefficient or ineffective. To date the Corps has been 

unsuccessful at restricting the seepage at the dam that currently provides DO and flow during 

times of no generation. 

From August to October of each year, oxygen is depleted in the water released during power 

generation that stresses the trout fishery below Center Hill Dam. In 2004, the Corps 

experimented with various structural options to address the lack of minimum flow for trout and 

seasonally stressed DO conditions in the tailwater. The Corps modified the turbines in the 

hydropower plant by installing hub baffles and supplemental air supply lines to inject air into the 

turbines to raise the DO level in the tailwater. These changes improved the DO levels but failed 

to solve the problem (Corps, 2004). In the fall of 2005, the Corps implemented an innovative 

scheme of blending hydropower generation discharges with sluice gate releases. The sluice gate 

is a 4ft X 6ft opening through the dam located at EL 496 and provides about 1,200 cfs. Water 

from the sluice gate draws from the lower portion of the hypolimnion and flows directly through 

the dam and not through the generators. The water rushes through the sluice gate producing a 

turbulent flow, but greatly improved DO in the tailwater, enough to keep the trout fishery intact 

into the cold months. As a result, the Caney Fork River has the potential to support trout 

survival over several years (Corps, 2006). 

In 2005 and 2006, two EAs were completed to address impacts of repairs at Center Hill Dam. 

As with the 1992 grouting FONSI, both EAs concluded that if repairs were successful, the 

seepage flow that sustains the trout fishery below the dam would be significantly diminished. 

The Corps committed to mitigate successful grouting at Center Hill Dam by ensuring a 

continuous flow for trout, in addition to the minimum flow needed for Old Hickory Dam 

discharges. Seepage currently supplies a steady flow of about 127 cfs of cold oxygenated water 

when there is no discharge from Center Hill Dam. To replace the seepage flow, the Corps is 

installing an orifice gate over a sluice gate to provide a minimum of 200 cfs of cold oxygenated 

water below the dam. The orifice gate is planned for operation in the fall of 2007. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 39 

3.8 Wetlands. The dam site and switchyards are highly developed, completely artificial 

areas. The sites were examined for jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, 

through a combination of in-house research and field investigations. In-house research 

included a review of published information sources such as U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute 

quadrangle topographic maps and U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 

soil survey maps. A search of the National Wetland Inventory indicated that many pockets of 

freshwater emergent and forested/shrub wetlands are scattered adjacent the tailwater of the 

Caney Fork River. Very few wetlands of any type exist along the shoreline of Center Hill 

Lake. It is likely that the variable lake elevations, rocky shoreline and bluffs do not support 

wetlands. One large expanse of freshwater emergent and forested/shrub wetlands are 

indicated in the tailwater of Great Falls Reservoir (USFWS, 1979). Dam construction may 

have deprived wetlands and shorelines of enriching sediments, changed the ability of natural 

systems to both absorb hydraulic energy and filter pollutants from surface waters, and caused 

interruptions in the different life stages of aquatic organisms (EPA: Guidance 1993). As these 

changes would have occurred more than fifty years ago, none of this was documented. 

3.9. Upland Habitat. The Center Hill project can be characterized as having a mixed 

mesophytic deciduous forest vegetation type. Forest community classifications for the Center 

Hill area include upland hardwoods, red cedar stands, cove hardwoods and wetlands. 

Surrounding areas are labeled as an oak-hickory complex interspersed with Eastern red cedar. 

Trees common to the area include oaks (Quercus spp.), hickories (Carya spp.), yellow poplar 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), black walnut (Juglans nigra), white ash (Fraxinus Americana), 

hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), elms (Ulmus spp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and 

blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). Common understory species associated with this type include 

flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina), redbud (Cercis 

Canadensis), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). The State-listed species known to occur 

within a 1-mile radius of the project area are Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana), Svenson’s 

wild-rye (Elymus svensonii), Harper’s umbrella-plant (Eriogonium longifolium var. harperi), 

Western wallflower (Erysimum capitatum), fen orchis (Liparis loeselii), and nodding 

rattlesnake-root (Prenanthes crepidinea). 

Forests in the area have been repeatedly cut. Prior to acquisition by the federal government, 

the lands now surrounding the lake were often burned to remove unwanted stubble and to 

regenerate growth of wild grasses. As a result of this burning, fire scars may still be seen on 

older trees. Because of the change in land practices brought about by federal management, 

good stands, particularly of yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), now occupy the heads of 

coves and abandoned fields. 

Center Hill Lake receives a high degree of recreational use. Conversely, where the terrain is 

steep around the lake, most of the public lands receive very little use. Undeveloped public 

lands predominantly consist of maturing mixed hardwood forests, which are separated from 

open fields on adjacent private property by borders of fencerows lined with secondary growth. 

A small percentage of the lands are leased to adjacent landowners for hay and/or grazing 

purposes and provide a small amount of open field habitat. Wildlife habitat on the dam is 

almost non-existent and is, in fact, discouraged. The earth embankment is planted in grass 

and mowed so it can be monitored for structural integrity. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 40 

3.10. Wildlife Resources. More than 15,000 acres of public land and 4,500 acres of 

TWRA-operated Wildlife Management Area are available for wildlife habitat. Lands 

surrounding Center Hill Reservoir are managed to promote beneficial habitat conditions for 

both game and non-game species of wildlife. Present conditions are most favorable to species 

such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 

squirrel (Sciurus spp.) and other animals associated with mature forest habitat. The state 

listed Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) is known to occur within a 1-mile radius of the 

project area. 

3.11. Threatened and Endangered Species. Several species known to reside in the region 

around Center Hill Dam or in the tailwater are listed as either threatened or endangered by 

state or federal agencies. Several bird species such as the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) which have recovered and been delisted may 

transit or migrate through the area. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and the gray bat 

(Myotis grisescens) may also occasionally visit the area. A few mussels may still survive in 

the tailwaters. Many of the records are based on old, weathered shells. Based on information 

provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, these mussels do not reproduce in the 

temperatures that currently exist below the dams. If any still survive it is unlikely that they 

are reproducing. A list of endangered species with records within the immediate project area 

and the broader study area are found in Table 5. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 41 

Table 6. Federally listed species in Center Hill Project and study areas. 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad C 

Apios priceana Price's Potato-bean LT 

Arabis perstellata Braun's Rockcress LE 

Astragalus bibullatus Pyne's Ground-plum LE 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LE 

Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rosemary LT 

Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase C 

Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell LE 

Dalea foliosa Leafy Prairie-clover LE 

Dromus dromas Dromedary Pearlymussel LE 

Echinacea tennesseensis Tennessee Coneflower LE 

Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell LE 

Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel LE 

Epioblasma florentina florentina Yellow-blossom pearly mussel LE 

Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan Riffleshell LE 

Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Catspaw or Purple Cat's Paw LE 

Epioblasma torulosa torulosa Tuberculed-blossom pearly mussel LE 

Etheostoma boschungi Slackwater Darter LT 

Etheostoma sp. D Bluemask (=Jewel) Darter LE 

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon LE 

Hemistena lata Cracking Pearlymussel LE 

Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket LE 

Lesquerella globosa Short's Bladderpod C 

Lesquerella perforata Spring Creek Bladderpod LE 

Lexingtonia dolabelloides Slabside Pearlymussel C 

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat LE 

C – Candidate for Federal List 

LE – Federally listed as endangered. 

LT – Federally listed as threatened. 

3.12. Historic Properties - Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources. Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account 

the effect of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic Property means any prehistoric 

or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, 

the National Register of Historic Places. The term includes artifacts, records, and remains 

that are related to and located within such properties. The term also includes properties of 

traditional religious and cultural importance to Indian tribes that meet the National Register 

criteria of significance. Regulations at 36 CFR 800 define a process for taking such effects 

into account. 

Studies undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District, have concluded 

that the Center Hill Dam and original facilities associated with the dam are considered eligible 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 42 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. These studies included an inventory of 

the historic features, objects, and fabric of the Center Hill Dam and Powerhouse. 

An archeological survey of the Center Hill reservoir pool area was conducted in 1947 

immediately prior to the filling of the reservoir under the auspices of the Smithsonian 

Institution’s River Basin Surveys program. Thirty-nine archeological sites or locations were 

recorded in the survey, including three large “temple” mounds, three small earth-rock 

mounds, and two other sites which may be artificial mounds. In addition, the survey recorded 

three caves with indications of possible prehistoric occupation, and twenty-eight open village 

sites. The survey report recommended fairly extensive excavations to salvage important 

archeological data and materials that would otherwise be irretrievably lost with the closing of 

the dam and inundation of the pool area; however, no funding was provided to implement the 

excavations. Unfortunately, the results of the 1947 survey were not provided to the State of 

Tennessee and the sites that were recorded do not appear in the state’s archeological site files. 

On-going and proposed archival research at the Smithsonian and other institutional locations 

will attempt to rectify this situation and complete the site file record for the Center Hill 

reservoir area. 

Several subsequent archeological surveys have been conducted within floodplain areas along 

the Caney Fork below Center Hill Dam, primarily as a consequence of highway and bridge 

construction. These surveys have recorded numerous significant archeological sites 

representing the full timeline of human occupation in the region. 

3.13. Environmental Justice. Executive Order 12898 requires that extensive outreach and 

opportunity for involvement will address concerns of all communities and that minority 

residents and low-income residents receive fair and equitable consideration for any potential 

adverse health and environmental effects from proposed actions. Demographic information 

of the surrounding area, based on US Census information and other web searches, indicates 

no differential demographics based on ethnic or cultural factors. The percentage of minority 

communities in the surrounding area in DeKalb County (7.6%) is far below the state (22.1%) 

and national average (33.1%). The poverty level of DeKalb County (16.4%) is above the 

state (15.0%) and national average (12.7%). 

3.14. Hydroelectric Resources. Hydropower was one of the two originally authorized project 

purposes. Tailwater releases are used to generate hydropower and it helps maintain electricity 

generated by thermal power production on the Cumberland River (Corps, 1998 Manual). The 

electrical energy produced by the project is sufficient to supply the needs of an average city 

with a population of 375,000. Between 1983 and 2004, hydropower returned an average of 

$3.8 million in hydropower revenues to the Treasury annually. Maximum hydropower benefits 

depend on the lake elevation being kept around Elevation 648. The daily generation schedule 

typically follows the peak demand for power, which occurs in morning and evening in winter, 

and afternoons in summer. Center Hill has three 45-MW turbines, for a total hydropower plant 

capacity of 135-MW. Peak flow capacity through the turbines is approximately 11,000 cfs. 

In general, hydropower releases are scheduled to meet peak energy demands. Normally this 

results in more water being discharged during the Monday through Friday period with lesser 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 43 

amounts on the weekend. Strict adherence to peak power demand scheduling would result in 

adverse affects to the aquatic life in the tailwater, particularly during the low flow, low 

dissolved oxygen, high temperature months of the late summer and early fall. The minimum 

requirement effective from June 1 through November 30 is the discharge resulting from one 

unit generation for one hour within any 48-hour period. Every effort is made to provide some 

discharge in excess of the minimum requirement every day of the week for the benefit of the 

ecosystem of the Caney Fork below the dam (Corps, 1998). 

3.15. Flood Control. Flood control is one of the originally authorized project purposes for 

Center Hill Dam. There are two distinct modes of operation relative to flood regulation: 1) 

Normal flood operation where outflows are reduced to provide flood protection to Carthage, 

Tennessee and other points downstream including the primary damage center of Nashville, 

Tennessee; and, 2) Emergency flood operation where downstream flood reduction is an 

objective, but protection of the dam structure is the prime concern (Corps, 1998). 

The general result of such regulation is a seasonal variation in the reservoir surface elevations. 

Under normal operating conditions, the routine pattern is to lower the reservoir close to the 

bottom of the power pool (EL 623.5) by November. Winter and spring runoff events result in 

peak reservoir surface elevations between April and June. Floods are held in the reservoirs 

until the Cumberland River water levels recede to non-damaging levels at which time the 

flood storage volume is discharged. Then, beginning in June, the reservoir level is gradually 

lowered throughout the summer and fall in preparation for flood storage to capture winter and 

spring storm events. Releases are usually made through the turbines for power production. 

This routine operation has significantly reduced flood stages at Nashville, Tennessee, the 

major damage center on the river, and has contributed to flood damage reduction as far 

downstream as the lower Mississippi River. Since its completion, Center Hill Dam has 

prevented $35.5 million per year in flood damage. 

The flood damage area from a catastrophic dam failure would encompass the floodplain of 

nearly 30 miles the Caney Fork and over 250 miles of the Cumberland River to Barkley 

reservoir. The communities immediately downstream of the dam (Lancaster, Gordonsville 

and Carthage) are primarily agricultural and residential. Five interstate highway bridges (I40) could be overtopped with damage. The Cumberland River floodplain would be damaged 

and downstream cities of Hartsville, Gallatin and Hendersonville would suffer residential, 

commercial, agricultural and extensive infrastructure damage. The Tennessee Valley 

Authority’s (TVA) Gallatin Steam Plant could experience property damage. The largest 

damage center is the metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County. Over 9,000 structures in 

the 100-year floodplain could incur damage estimated at approximately $1.3 billion. Large 

industrial areas along the river would be especially impacted. Downstream of Nashville, 

Ashland City and Clarksville would incur extensive damages. Three Corps of Engineers 

dams on the Cumberland River may be overtopped – Cordell Hull, Old Hickory and 

Cheatham (Corps, 2006 rehab report).

3.16. Water Supply. Although water supply was not originally an authorized project purpose 

at any Nashville District project, all but one project is used by municipalities for this purpose. 

Out of 10 projects, Center Hill ranks fifth in terms of the population served. In 1990 it was 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 44 

estimated that this project serves as the water supply source for about 45,000 people through 

two water systems which directly access the lake and through seven additional systems which 

purchase water from those systems. The two direct access systems withdraw approximately 11 

cfs from Center Hill Lake. A significant portion of this amount is returned to the Cumberland 

Basin via sewage treatment plant discharges (Corps, 1998). 

3.17. Air Quality. Ambient air quality is described by comparing current pollutant 

concentrations to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the 

Clean Air Act. NAAQS are threshold concentrations of criteria pollutants set to protect 

human health and welfare. There are six criteria air pollutants: lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). When measured 

concentrations of these pollutants exceed the NAAQS, the area is usually designated as a 

“non-attainment” area by the EPA. The air quality in the Center Hill Dam area is generally 

good and is in attainment for all NAAQS criteria (USEPA website, 2007). 

3.18. Noise. The Center Hill project is located in a rural setting. Most of the noise associated 

with operating a hydropower plant is contained within the structure. The remainder is 

localized and incidental except for warning horns that sound prior to beginning generation. 

The main source of continuous noise is Highway 96 which runs across the top of the dam. 

3.19. Recreation. Recreation was not originally an authorized project purpose. The Federal 

Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 established development of the recreational potential at 

federal water resource projects as a full project purpose. Because of the temperate climate 

and relatively long recreation season, visitors have many opportunities to fish, hunt, camp, 

picnic, boat, canoe, hike, and enjoy the outdoors. Recreational fishing and boating, 

particularly trout fishing and canoeing, are by far the major activities accounting for 

visitation. A total of 35 useable boat ramps are available for lake access (Table 6). Corps 

facilities at the dam include camping facilities, boat ramps, comfort stations, RV hookups, 

picnic pavilions, and playground facilities. Many users camp in conjunction with fishing for 

trout. There are 4 boat ramps and 5 access points to the Caney Fork River tailwater below the 

dam. Center Hill Lake includes nine developed Corps recreation areas with 3 swimming 

beaches, 8 playgrounds, 3 campgrounds (230 total campsites), 9 commercial marinas (2,453 

boat slips, 690 houseboats), 2 state parks, Burgess Falls State Natural Area, and five 

restaurants. The number of boat slips/houseboats on Center Hill ranks third behind Lake 

Cumberland and Dale Hollow. Center Hill Lake is the fourth most visited lake in the Corps 

Nashville District. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 45 

Table 7. Center Hill Lake Boat Ramp Elevations (EL) 

Boat Ramp Location EL Boat Ramp Location EL 

Center Hill Recreation Area 622.0 Horseshoe Bend Marina – formerly Webb's Camp 628.93 

Center Point 625.93 Hurricane Bridge Recreation Area Old – East 620.85 

Cookeville Dock (Badly broken below 625) 622.0 Hurricane Bridge Recreation Area New - West 626.16 

Cove Hollow #1 – ramp closest to store 627.0 Hurricane Dock 618.0 

Cove Hollow #2 622.0 Indian Creek 624.0 

Cove Hollow Recreation Area (Closed Area) 622.0 Indian Creek Youth Camp 633.0 

Dubland Access – Mountain Harbor-Riverwatch 626.5 Johnson Chapel 622.5 

Edgar Evins State Park Ramp #1 630.0 Lakeside Resort 634.3 

Edgar Evins State Park Ramp #2 622.6 Lakeview Mountain Estates 624.0 

Falling Water Retreat 635.0 Pates Ford Marina 618.0 

Floating Mill Campground (Extended 1-07) 620.3 Puckett's Point 627.36 

Floating Mill Day Use (Fully extended 1-07) 624.0 Ragland Bottom Campground (Fully extended 1-07) 629.1 

Four Seasons Marina 626.57 Ragland Bottom Day Use (Extended 1-07) 618.0 

Hickey Access 630.9 Rock Island State Park 629.07 

Hidden Harbor Dock (Unusable below 625) 620.0 Sligo Dock (Unusable below 625) 622.0 

Holiday Haven Access 630.31 Still Point 628.37 

Holmes Creek Campground* 627.9 South Shore 626.5 

Holmes Creek Day Use* 623.4 Warren County Park (Closed Area) 626.62 

Holmes Creek Old Dock Site 636.0 

* New Hidden Harbor Marina Sites 

The number of visitations at the project was provided by the Operations staff for the ten year 

period starting in 1996 and ending in 2005. The annual numbers were summed and averaged 

to get a normalized visitation count, which equaled 3.6 million per year. The recreation 

benefits were computed by multiplying the number of visitations by the unit day value of 

$7.94 per visitor. The results were an average of $29.0 million in recreation benefits per year 

for the Center Hill project (Seepage Report, 2007). During February 2007, four boat ramps 

were extended to provide improved access to the lake. 

3.20. Aesthetics. Center Hill Dam is in a rural location surrounded by rolling, wooded hills. 

The dam is comprised of a gray concrete structure and a mowed grass earthen embankment, 

and topped by a highway. The tailwater shoreline and Center Hill Lake shoreline are virtually 

all wooded with scattered areas of farm fields. In Center Hill Lake, the customary summer 

pool (EL 648.0) extends to the tree line. The customary winter pool drops approximately 24.5 

feet (EL 623.5) exposing a rugged lake shore of cobble and bluffs. Protecting the shoreline 

from overuse and the preservation of the natural beauty of the public lands and water for all 

citizens is a major goal of the Center Hill Lake Shoreline Management Plan that is 

implemented by the Corps Resource Manager and staff. The Corps recreation program 

mission is to provide quality outdoor public recreation experiences to serve the needs of 

present and future generations. The Corps recreation program goal is to enhance the quality 

of American life by providing benefits to individuals, communities, the national economy, 

and the environment. Pedestrian access, boating, fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, birding, 

and photography are allowed in the project area as long as they are compatible with the 

aesthetic protection of the shoreline, the Center Hill project and with state hunting, fishing, 

and boating laws. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 46 

3.21. Economics. Center Hill dam is a significant economic factor in the region. In addition 

to the recreation, hydropower, and flood control, the dam provides many other advantages 

including ancillary navigation benefits, municipal water supply, increased property values, 

increased tax revenues, and employment opportunities. 

Center Hill Dam has prevented significant flood related damages over the years. It is 

estimated that more than $285 million of damages have been prevented. The level of safety 

provided by the dams has encouraged the development of communities and businesses along 

the Caney Fork and Cumberland Rivers. 

The relatively inexpensive and dependable electricity provided by the power plants has 

contributed to the region’s economic well-being. Center Hill annually generates an average 

of 415,919 MW at an estimated value of more than $3.2 million. 

Recreation has become a major factor in the regional economy. Center Hill claims an average 

of more than $92 million in recreation benefits. In 2002, visitors spent over $110 million 

within 30 miles of Center Hill. 

Since Center Hill Dam altered the temperatures of the tailwaters from cool to a cold-water 

stream, the wildlife agencies have developed trout fisheries in the tailwater. These fisheries 

provide many hours of recreational benefits and have a strong effect on the local economy. 

Recent surveys of trout fishermen below Center Hill indicate that more than 21,000 visits are 

made annually and that they contributed $675,233 to the economy. TWRA’s goal is to 

increase that to 25,000. On several instances, newly released trout have been killed by 

hydropower releases containing low DO levels. In addition, low flows impact the fisheries by 

limiting available habitat and food sources. 

Economic impacts refer to employment, employment income, industrial output and federal 

and state tax revenue that occur as the result of consumer expenditures on hatchery-related 

goods and services. TWRA estimates that the trout fishery below Center Hill had a total 

economic impact of $1.8 million dollars (TWRA 2003). Studies indicate that in a diminished 

condition, sport fishing on the Caney Fork River tailwater generated in excess of one million 

dollars annually for the local economy. According to TWRA, the existing fishery is only 

about 50 percent of what the Caney Fork is capable of supporting with restored water quality. 

3.22. Navigation. Center Hill Dam has no lock, and navigation is not an authorized project 

purpose. However, the regulated stream flow and water releases for project purposes provide 

ancillary benefits to navigation by contributing to the flows needed to maintain a 

commercially navigable channel on the lower Cumberland, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. 

The Cumberland River provides a 9-foot, commercially navigable waterway from the mouth 

to Celina, Tennessee, a distance of approximately 381 river miles. There are 36 commercial 

river terminals downstream of Cordell Hull Dam. There are 154 small boat harbors, ramps, 

and landings below Cordell Hull Dam. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 47 

In 2005, over 23 million tons of commodities, valued near 2.1 billion dollars, were 

transported on the Cumberland River. Typical commodities shipped on the Cumberland 

River include coal, limestone, asphalt, grains, aggregates, zinc ores and concentrates, iron and 

steel, petroleum products, bulk cement, and chemicals. 

3.23. Hazardous, Toxic, or Radiological Wastes. At a minimum the dam is inspected 

annually for any HTRW or other environmental concerns through the Corps’ Environmental 

Guide Review for Operations (ERGO) and OSHA programs. Currently there are no known 

Hazardous, Toxic, or Radiological Waste (HTRW) concerns in the project study area. 

3.24. Traffic. US Highway 96 traverses the top of the dam and serves as a major 

connection between the two sides of the Caney Fork River. 

3.25. Safety. Safety is an intrinsic consideration in the planning and operation of Center 

Hill Dam. One of the authorization purposes for constructing Center Hill Dam was to reduce 

the loss of lives and property from flooding. Maintaining the structural integrity of the dam 

is, therefore, a priority. 

3.26. Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires 

federal agencies to evaluate and minimize impact on floodplains. Center Hill Dam repairs 

and Center Hill Lake pool operations would inherently occur within the Caney Fork River 

floodplain.
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 48 

4.0 Environmental Consequences

The proposed project area for interim pool elevation alternatives is located at Center Hill Dam 

and Lake. However, the impacts of altering pool elevations below the PMB have 

consequences that reach far beyond the immediate lake. Many impacts would be felt 

throughout the Cumberland River Valley. This section describes important resources that 

could be affected by the various alternatives including the No Action, Existing, and Preferred 

Alternatives. Alternatives 1 – 7 denote interim pool elevations showing the top and bottom 

pool elevations respectively. Alternatives 8 is a pool with a goal to maintain the one pool 

elevation listed all year long. Alternative 9 represents an emergency drawdown. 

4.1. Environmental Setting and Physiography. No alternative would affect 

physiographic location. 

4.2. Hydrology and the Cumberland River Reservoir System. The regulated hydrology 

of the Cumberland River Basin has resulted in an interdependence on the 10 Corps projects to 

meet project purposed not only at each individual project, but to contribute or regulate the 

mainstem of the Cumberland River. However, when a major storage dam is not able to 

contribute or hold back stored water, other projects must make up the shortfall during 

drought, or store water during a flood. Localized effects could be significant at the impaired 

project site. Wolf Creek Dam is also undergoing repairs and its pool level has been drawn 

down. Wolf Creek normally contributes up to 69% of the Cumberland River flow. A lack of 

customary flows from Wolf Creek and a drawdown at Center Hill, would put pressure is on 

Dale Hollow to make up adequate flow contributions. It is very likely that Dale Hollow 

would be unable to meet these demands, even if it was drained. How much water Center Hill 

would be able to store and release to the system under drought conditions is dependant on the 

interim elevation alternative selected and weather: 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, the pool elevation 

would be managed to operate at or above the top of the summer PMB curve, which 

would dramatically raise the risk of dam failure. This alternative would be able to 

supply all 16% of the water needs to the system. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – This alternative is within the summer PMB curve. 

This alternative would be able to supply slightly less than 16% of the water needs to 

the system. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) - This alternative is at the bottom 

of the summer PMB curve. This alternative would be able to supply around half of the 

usual supply (16%) of the water needs to the system. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

proposed summer pool elevation (EL 635.0) would operate the pool just under the 

bottom of the summer PMB curve. This alternative may be able to supply some of the 

water needs critical to the system. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) - This alternative would set the lake elevation 10 feet below the summer 

PMB curve. This alternative would barely be able to supply any water including 

critical needs to the system. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 49 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, pool elevation would be 

managed to operate 15 feet below the summer PMB curve. This alternative would not 

likely be able to supply any of the water needs to the system. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - Under this alternative, pool elevation would be 

managed to operate 15 feet below the summer PMB curve. This alternative would not 

likely be able to supply any of the water needs to the system. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative is 18 feet below the summer 

PMB curve. This alternative would not supply water to the system except during 

sporadic releases to maintain the flat-line during high inflow events. Minor flooding 

could occur downstream in order to maintain the flat-line. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – This alternative is 78 ft 

below the congressionally authorized minimum pool elevation of EL 618.0; and 108 ft 

below normal summer pool (EL 648.0). This alternative would eliminate any supply 

of water to the system except during sporadic releases to maintain the emergency 

drawdown during high inflow events. Minor flooding could occur downstream in 

order to maintain the emergency drawdown. 

4.3. Water Quantity. Water quantity contribution from Center Hill (16%) is described in 

Section 4.2 Cumberland River Reservoir System. Water quantity is an important 

consideration during typical and drought years as described here. It is understood that 

lowering pool elevations would increasingly benefit flood storage, however, the availability of 

water quantity downstream and upstream Center Hill dam to meet other project purposes are 

described below: 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, the pool elevation 

(normal summer pool) provides 100% of the water quantity needed to support all 

project uses, the Cumberland River system, and drought conditions. However, during 

dam repairs, a dam failure or minimally, loss of the pool would eliminate all water 

storage. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – This alternative would supply about 85% of the 

quantity of water needed for all project uses, the system, and drought conditions. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) - This alternative would supply 

approximately 71% of water quantity needed for all project uses, the system, and 

drought conditions. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) –This 

alternative would supply approximately 54 % of water quantity minimally needed for 

all project uses, the system, and drought conditions. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) - This alternative would supply approximately 37% of water quantity 

needed for all project uses, the system, and drought conditions. Under extended 

drought conditions, this volume could be depleted resulting in no water to the system 

and loss of some project uses. 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) –This alternative would supply approximately 21% 

of water quantity needed for all project uses, the system. Under extended drought 

conditions, this volume is expected to be quickly depleted resulting in no water to the 

system and loss of most project uses of hydropower, recreation, fish and wildlife, and 

water quality downstream of Center Hill Dam. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 50 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - This alternative would supply approximately 21% of 

water quantity needed for all project uses, the system. Under extended drought 

conditions, this volume is expected to be quickly depleted resulting in no water to the 

system and loss of most project uses of Hydropower, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife, 

and Water Quality downstream of Center Hill Dam. This alternative would provide a 

wider operating band, and thus greater flexibility in operating the system than 

Alternative 6. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative would supply approximately 

12% of water quantity needed for all project uses, the system and drought conditions. 

This volume of water would barely supply any water critically needed for drought 

conditions and loss of project uses of Hydropower, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife, 

irrigation, and Water Quality downstream of Center Hill Dam. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – Under this alternative, 

there is no water to supply project uses, the system, or drought conditions up or 

downstream of Center Hill Dam. 

4.4. Water Quality. The various alternatives affect water quality, which includes 

stratification, DO and temperature, and nutrient concentration in Center Hill Lake, which 

affects these parameters in the tailwater. 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) – Until 2005 this was the customary operating range. 

Under this alternative, the pool elevation (normal summer pool) provides 100% of the 

water quantity needed to support water quality status quo both up and downstream 

Center Hill Dam. However, during dam repairs, a dam failure or loss of the pool 

would alter water quality. Eliminating the Center Hill pool would eliminate cold 

water storage. The Caney Fork River would revert back to a warmer water river both 

up and downstream of the dam. Warm water does not hold as much DO as cold water. 

Under this scenario it is likely that the Caney Fork River could no longer support its 

classification as a trout stream. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) –This alternative is virtually the same as the No 

Action alternative. The primary differences are that there would be slightly less stress 

on the dam foundation and there would be less cold water storage. Impacts to 

hydropower would be small. Fish and wildlife, and water supply would be unaffected. 

Water quality could be lightly impacted as there would be less cold water reserves for 

use during peak demands during the summer. The existing water quality in the 

tailwater releases would likely be maintained. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – In December, 2006, when the 

seriousness of the situation became apparent, the Corps lowered the operating band to 

reduce stress on the dam’s foundation until the problems could be more fully assessed. 

This action had the potential to create a few negative impacts, however, it was 

determined that the interest of the public’s safety and welfare was of primary 

importance. Potential impacts were that there could be minor impacts resulting from 

less cold water storage. Less cold water could result in minor impacts to water quality 

which, in turn, could impact the downstream trout fishery. If the fisheries are 

negatively impacted, recreation could also decline slightly. Under drought conditions 

and a longer retention time, anoxic conditions would likely prevail in the hypolimnion 

as BOD increased with nutrient concentration from point and nonpoint sources. High 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 51 

BOD in tailwater releases would be compensated for by sluicing which adds the 

necessary DO and cold water. Cold water temperatures can be maintained as long as 

the hypolimnion is maintained. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) –This 

alternative would have similar but increasingly severe impacts as Alternative 3. 

Within this operating band less cold water is stored than in the previous alternatives. 

During warmer months the cold water could be depleted if no effort is made to 

conserve the pool such as reducing hydropower generation. Warmer water retains less 

DO. Maintaining water quality standards of DO and temperature for a trout stream 

classification in the tailwater could become problematic and the downstream trout 

fishery could be affected. Releases of warmer water would not likely be detrimental 

to any surviving mussels in the tailwater. However, the amount of flow released from 

Center Hill Dam may be reduced to conserve the pool and therefore its contribution is 

not likely to increase water temperature in the Cumberland River. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.5) – Within this operating band there is less cold water storage. 

Maintaining low temperatures and high DO in the tailwater would be difficult and the 

situation could be described as serious. A summer storm event could flush the small 

hypolimnion of the remaining cold water. As a consequence there may be sporadic 

die-offs of trout in the tailwater and recreation, particularly among trout fishermen 

would decline. Under drought conditions, low pool, long lake retention time, and 

continued point and nonpoint source inputs, poor water quality conditions and algal 

and bacterial blooms could occur in Center Hill Lake. Water supply treatment costs to 

remove bad tastes and odors could increase. Potential warm water releases from 

Center Hill Dam would sustain or increase warm water temperatures in the 

Cumberland River. Warmer water holds less DO which could stress the Cumberland 

River fishery. Warmer water would also impact the thermal plants that draw water 

from the Cumberland River for cooling. For thermal plants, the warmer the 

withdrawal water, the warmer the release water, the warmer the Cumberland River, 

the more stressed the fishery. Fish kills could occur in the Cumberland. Thermal 

plants would have to withdraw less water or shut down to prevent increasing water 

temperature in the Cumberland River. 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – Water quality would be noticeably impacted as 

water temperatures rose and DO declined in the hypolimnion of the lake. There would 

be little oxygenated cold water in reserve to support downstream water quality for 

river fish. The trout stream criteria in the Caney Fork River tailwater may be violated 

and the cold water fishery could be lost in its entirety. In the lake, poor water quality 

conditions and algal and bacterial blooms may become problematic and water supply 

treatment costs to remove bad tastes and odors would increase. Fish kills could occur 

in the Cumberland River which would reduce recreational and commercial fishing. 

Thermal plants would have to reduce or eliminate power generation to prevent 

warming the Cumberland River further. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - Under this alternative, the impact to water quality 

become increasingly worse and of longer duration than Alternative 6. At the top 

elevation, there would be little water in reserve to moderate poor downstream water 

quality in the Caney Fork tailwater or the Cumberland River. Once the lake hits EL 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 52 

618, no water would be released except to meet downstream water supply needs, The 

tailwater trout fishery would be eliminated as well as any associated recreation 

benefits. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – Water quality would be notably impacted as 

water temperatures rose and DO declined. There would be little water in reserve for 

downstream uses such as, thermal power support, fish and wildlife, or recreational and 

commercial fishing in the Cumberland River. The trout stream criteria may be 

violated and the cold water fishery could be lost in its entirety. Poor water quality 

conditions and algal and bacterial blooms may become an issue and water supply 

treatment costs to remove bad tastes and odors would increase. Under a operation, no 

water would be released when Center Hill Lake reached EL 622.At this elevation, the 

effects seen at EL 618, under Alternative 7 would be the same. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – Water quality would be 

severely impacted because Center Hill Lake would be eliminated. There would be no 

water for downstream uses such as fish and wild life, recreation, hydropower, or fish 

and wildlife. The downstream trout and lake fishery would be eliminated. Without 

additional water from Center Hill, poor water quality conditions and algal and 

bacterial blooms may become a problem in the Cumberland River. At these 

elevations, water supply would be eliminated. 

4.5. Tailwater Releases. Water releases from Center Hill Dam augment discharge flows 

below Old Hickory Dam to support a minimum DO of 5 mg/l for the Cumberland River warm 

water fishery. The effect of each alternative would be similar to water quantity and quality 

impacts on the quantity and quality of releases are as follows: 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, the pool elevation 

(normal summer pool) could provide a majority of the water quantity and quality 

needed to support Old Hickory Dam water releases even under drought conditions. 

However, during Center Hill Dam repairs, a dam failure or minimally, loss of the pool 

would eliminate any releases that would support Old Hickory Dam discharges. A 

catastrophic Center Hill Dam failure could severely damage Old Hickory Dam by 

overtopping resulting in injury to the Cumberland River fishery. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, the high pool elevation 

provides a large percent of the water quantity and quality needed to support warm 

water fisheries in the Cumberland River system, even under drought conditions. Some 

hydrostatic pressure on the dam would exist. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – This alternative reduces water 

storage, and consequently thereby water releases for part of the year. Shallow 

tailwater would likely warm. There would be some difficulty supplying cold and well 

oxygenated water to Old Hickory Dam to support the discharge needed to support the 

Cumberland River warm water fishery and thermal plants. A large tropical rain event 

could flush some of the hypolimnetic water resulting in a warmer water discharge. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative would have similar but worse impacts then Alternative 3. The reduced 

hypolimnion would be susceptible to flushing with a sudden large tropical inflow, 

resulting in warm water releases. Warm water holds less oxygen. Reduced stored 

water quantity would reduce proportionally, water releases, by nearly half. There 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 53 

would be less water for Old Hickory Dam releases. The Cumberland River warm 

water fishery and thermal plants would be impaired. A dry year would preserve the 

hypolimnion so that some cold water would be released. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) - This alternative would have similar but worse impacts than Alternative 

4. The significantly reduced hypolimnion would be likely be flushed with a sudden 

large tropical inflow, resulting in warm water releases. Under a typical and wet year, 

the small water releases would likely be warm and poorly oxygenated. Some cold and 

oxygen sustaining releases would possibly occur in a drought year, but there would be 

little volume to support Old Hickory Dam needs. 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative would have similar but worse 

impacts than Alternative 5. A small volume of warm, oxygen poor water could be 

released from Center Hill Dam resulting in little improvement in Old Hickory Dam 

releases with no water temperature support for thermal plants. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - This alternative would be similar to Alternative 6, but 

would offer a greater operating band, and thus more flexibility. A small volume of 

warm, oxygen poor water could be released from Center Hill Dam resulting in little 

improvement in Old Hickory Dam releases with no water temperature support for 

thermal plants. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line (EL 622.0) – This alternative would have similar but worse 

impacts than Alternative 6. A sudden tropical storm event would result in sporadic 

minor flooding as attempts are made to sustain a pool elevation. Surges of warm, 

turbulent flows may improve oxygen content for the Cumberland River warm water 

fishery but provide little water temperature relief for thermal plants. Once a Flat-line 

is met, Center Hill releases would likely stop. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – This alternative would 

have similar to Alternative 8. A sudden tropical storm event would result in sporadic 

moderate flooding as attempts are made to sustain a pool elevation. Once a Flat-line is 

met, Center Hill releases would likely stop, including no minimum flow releases. 

4.6. Aquatic Resources. - Aquatic resources in Center Hill Lake would be affected by the 

various alternatives. The tailwater fish and freshwater mussel communities are addressed 

under minimum flow. The aquatic insect communities would also be affected, but they are 

ubiquitous and, resilient, and can adapt to a wider range of conditions over a relatively short 

period of time. Aquatic insects are the first to colonize newly altered aquatic habitat 

(Caughlin, 2004; Drury and Kelson, 2000) therefore long-term impacts are restricted to fish 

and freshwater mussels. 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, Center Hill Lake 

would sustain current fish and mussels. However, during Center Hill Dam repairs, a 

dam failure or minimally, loss of the pool would severely damage these communities. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, Center Hill Lake would 

sustain current fish and mussels. These elevations are within normal and routine range 

of lake elevations. However, this alternative has some risk of dam failure or loss of 

pool due to some hydrostatic press placed on the dam. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 54 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, Center 

Hill Lake would sustain current fish and mussels. These elevations are within normal 

and routine range of lake elevations. Impacts would be minimal. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – Under 

this alternative, Center Hill Lake would sustain current fish and mussels with some 

minimal impact. During the spring, the low summer pool elevation (EL 635.0) may 

reduce available fish spawning habitat. The proposed winter pool is about 1.5 feet 

below the customary winter pool (EL 623.5). Fish attractors, native brush and logs, 

and under cut banks could be exposed out of water, reducing fish cover, particularly 

for young-of-the-year. As long as the water level reduction is slow, mussels could 

move to deeper water. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) – This alternative would have similar impacts as Alternative 4, but more 

problematic in terms of spawning. Center Hill Lake would likely sustain current fish 

with moderate impact. Available fish spawning habitat could be highly restricted 

reducing the number of young-of-the-year. As long as the water level reduction is 

slow, mussels could move to deeper water. Under the customary winter pool (EL 

623.5) available fish cover would not be expected to change. 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative would have similar impacts as 

Alternative 5, but more of a problem in terms of spawning and crowding. Available 

fish spawning habitat could be highly restricted reducing the number of young-of-theyear. The spawning window could be delayed as pool levels slowly climb to the new 

summer elevation (EL625.0). Some fish species are territorial. Crowding could 

increase stress. . 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - This alternative would have similar impacts as 

Alternative 6, but would offer greater flexibility. Available fish spawning habitat 

could be highly restricted reducing the number of young-of-the-year. The spawning 

window could be delayed as pool levels slowly climb to the new summer elevation 

(EL625.0). Some fish species are territorial. Crowding could increase stress. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative would have similar impacts as 

Alternative 6, but severe in terms of spawning and crowding. Available fish spawning 

habitat could be highly restricted reducing the number of young-of-the-year. The 

spawning window could be eliminated as sporadic pool elevations move up and down 

to maintain the elevation. Crowding due to a low pool could increase stress. Fish 

attractors would be deeply submerged during a storm event and quickly exposed when 

is obtained. Mussels may move to shallower depth only to be exposed when the pool 

is quickly drawn down to meet the . 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – This alternative would 

have similar impacts as Alternative 8, but more severe. Spawning and young-of-theyear would likely be eliminated. Over crowding could result in fish kills. Below EL 

620, only the 4 sluice gates, with a combined discharge of approximately 4,800 cfs, 

could be used to lower pool. Many lake fish are likely to be flushed through the sluice 

gates. Dropping the pool fast and low could expose mussels. It would likely take 

many years for the fish and mussel lake communities to recover. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 55 

4.7. Maintenance of the Trout Fishery Seepage flow currently provides 127 cfs of 

continuous flow into the tailwater even when there is no hydropower generation. For many 

years, seepage enhanced trout survivability during the warm months under low flow 

conditions. This action will fulfill the minimum flow requirement in the tailwater. The trout 

fishery in the tailwater exists because Center Hill Dam provides a reliable source of cold 

water typically less than 20° C (68° F) year round. In fact, every effort is made to manage the 

tailwater to best meet the needs of the trout stocked by TWRA. Even with adequate flow and 

DO, water temperatures above 25° C (77° F) are lethal to trout. However, freshwater mussels 

require, water temperatures consistently above 15.5° C (60° F) to reproduce. Aquatic insects 

are also affected by water temperature which changes the community make-up. However, 

they are highly adaptable and communities can quickly re-establish to new conditions. As a 

result, while all alternatives would affect aquatic insects, the impact would be temporary and 

insignificant. 

A continuous cold water discharge is determined not only by the location of the outlet 

structures that access the hypolimnion, but the size and depth of the hypolimnion, and 

weather. The location of the turbine penstocks (EL 540) and sluice gates (EL 496) are fixed, 

but the size and depth of the hypolimnion is dependent on pool elevation. How weather 

affects the hypolimnion is dependant on the existing size of the pool and the volume of 

inflow. The impact of the interim pool elevation alternatives on the aquatic resources below 

the dam are considered below: 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, the hypolimnion 

is large and deep and easily accessed by the outlet structures. Because of its size, 

normal storm inflows during the summer have little effect. The customary summer 

pool has supplied enough cold water to sustain a trout fishery for nearly 50 years, but 

to the detriment of the freshwater mussel community. However, during Center Hill 

Dam repairs, a dam failure or minimally, loss of the pool would severely damage these 

communities. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) –Under this alternative, the high pool elevation still 

supports a large deep hypolimnion. This option provides the water quantity and 

quality needed to support the tailwater trout fishery. Though lowered, some 

hydrostatic pressure still exits on the dam. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – This alternative reduces water 

storage by nearly a third, which reduces the depth of the hypolimnion. Consequently, 

the penstocks could draw some of the warmer water above the hypolimnion. Even if 

DO and flow are adequate, the potential of warmer water releases, even by a few 

degrees, would stress trout, but not mussels. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – Impacts 

of this alternative are similar to Alternative 3 but weather has a greater influence. 

Water storage is reduced by nearly half, which reduces the depth of the hypolimnion. 

Consequently, the penstocks would draw some of the warmer water above the 

hypolimnion. During a wet year, high warm inflows could partially mix in the 

hypolimnion. A flood event could mix and warm the hypolimnion. Even with 

minimum flow and adequate DO, warmer water for a sustained length of time would 

stress trout and potentially be lethal. However such a condition would be very 

beneficial to the mussels. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 56 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) - Impacts of this alternative is similar to Alternative 4 but worse, and 

weather has a greater influence. Water storage is reduced by nearly two-thirds, which 

reduces the depth of the hypolimnion. Consequently, the penstocks would draw 

warmer water above the hypolimnion. During a typical and wet year, high warm 

inflows could partially mix in the hypolimnion. A flood event could mix and warm 

the hypolimnion. Even with minimum flow and adequate DO, warmer water for a 

sustained length of time would stress, and potentially be lethal to trout, but such a 

condition would be very beneficial to the tailwater mussels. 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – Impacts of this alternative is similar to Alternative 

5 but worse, and weather would have a greater influence. Water storage is reduced by 

nearly three-quarters, which reduces the depth of the hypolimnion. It is likely that a 

significant rainfall event could flush the hypolimnion. Even with adequate flow and 

DO, water temperatures above 25O C (77O F) are lethal to trout. Under this same 

condition, tailwater mussels may thrive. Warm water host fish may move into the tail 

water long enough to allow glochidia transfers. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - Impacts of this alternative is similar to Alternative 5 but 

are more problematic, and weather would have a greater influence. It offers greater 

flexibility that Alternative 6. Water storage is reduced by nearly three-quarters, which 

reduces the depth of the hypolimnion. It is likely that a significant rainfall event could 

flush the hypolimnion. Even with adequate flow and DO, water temperatures above 

25O C (77O F) are lethal to trout. Under this same condition, tailwater mussels may 

thrive. Warm water host fish may move into the tail water long enough to allow 

glochidia transfers. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – Impacts of this alternative are similar to 

Alternative 6 but worse. Water storage is reduced by nearly 90% which reduces the 

depth of the hypolimnion. In order to maintain a , pool elevation would be drawn 

down as quickly as possible. Under a significant storm event, the dam could release 

up to 30,000 cfs with the potential for minor flooding downstream. The hypolimnion 

would easily be flushed. If trout do not die from warm water temperatures, they may 

be flushed downstream during high dam releases to the Cumberland River where the 

water is significantly warmer. Warm water would benefit the mussels, but sustained 

high flows may dislodge them. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – Impacts of this alternative 

are similar to Alternative 8. Below EL 620, only the 4 sluice gates, with a combined 

discharge of approximately 4,800 cfs, could be used to lower the pool. The constant 

flow of warm water would be lethal to trout, and tiring to any fish that tried to stay in 

the tailwater. Continuous fast water would not be a problem for the mussels except 

the need for host fish. 

4.8. Wetlands. The NWI indicates that wetlands are scarce around the shoreline of Center 

Hill Lake and therefore are not likely to be affected by any of the alternatives. But many 

small patches of emergent and forested/shrub wetlands line the tailwater of the Caney Fork 

River. Some of the interim pool alternatives and their associated tailwater discharge may 

affect tailwater wetlands and are described below. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 57 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, normal pool 

operation would maintain the tailwater wetlands. However, during dam repairs, a dam 

failure, and minimally, loss of the pool would eliminate downstream wetlands through 

scour, or burial by sediment. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – This alternative would maintain the tailwater 

wetlands with some reduced risk of dam failure that could destroy the wetlands. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) - This alternative would maintain 

the tailwater wetlands.

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative would maintain the tailwater wetlands.

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) - This alternative would maintain the tailwater wetlands.

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative would maintain the tailwater 

wetlands. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - This alternative would maintain the tailwater wetlands. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative would likely have little effect 

on tailwater wetlands. Sporadic and prolonged high flows could scour some of them, 

but likely not more than what occurs under flood conditions. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – This alternative would 

likely have some affect on tailwater wetlands. Sporadic and prolonged high flows 

could scour some of them. A reduced flow could dry out the river bed, reducing 

wetland size. However, this situation is short-term and temporary. On dam repair 

completion, the condition of the riparian wetlands is expected to return to pre-repair 

condition. 

4.9. Upland Habitat. Under a catastrophic dam failure, the Center Hill Lake pool, could 

scour or bury large areas under sediment downstream of the dam. The degree of damage 

would likely be linked to the elevation of the pool at the time of this unlikely event. A pool at 

EL 648 (Alternative 1) would likely produce the greatest damage with less damage and 

reduced risk of failure with each lower pool elevation alternative (2-9). Such damage would 

change the landscape that would take many decades to recover. Above the dam, no 

alternative would have a significant impact on upland habitat. However, with a long term 

drawdown of the lake, revegetation of the shoreline to the new water’s edge would occur in 

the short term.. 

4.10. Wildlife Resources. Wildlife would be similarly impacted as upland habitat. Many 

animals could drown or be buried under sediment downstream of the dam. Such damage 

would impact population size that would take many years to recover. The loss of upland 

habitat could force surrounding wildlife to relocate such as fish eating raptors. Above the 

dam, no alternative would have a significant impact on wildlife. However, with a long term 

drawdown of the lake, animals may have to find alternate routes to drink from the lake. 

4.11. Threatened and Endangered Species. Listed species occur in communities 

described under Aquatic Resources (Section 3.7), Upland Habitat (Section 3.10 ) and Wildlife 

Resources (3.11). The impact of each alternative on listed species would be the same as the 

impacts described for these resources under Sections 4.7, 4.10, and 4.11. A Biological 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 58 

Assessment was completed, detailing listed species impacts and is attached as Appendix A. 

Screening down from the species list on the national U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website, 

the Biological assessment considered 36 species in detail after species that no longer appear 

on the Cookeville and Frankfort Field Office county lists or that are known only from historic 

records (i.e. are considered extirpated) were eliminated from further consideration. In 

summary, the Biological Assessment supports determinations of “May Affect, but Not likely 

to Adversely Affect” for six endangered and one Candidate mussel species under the action 

alternatives, in general. The seven mussel species, listed in Table 5, above, are the 

Spectaclecase, Dromedary Pearlymussel. Cumberlandian Combshell, Catspaw (or Purple 

Cat's Paw), Pink Mucket, Ring Pink, and Orange-foot Pimpleback. The Biological 

Assessment supports “No Effect” determinations for the remainder of the species listed in 

Table 5. The Biological Assessment did not evaluate the No Action Alternative. However, in 

the event of a dam failure under the No Action Alternative there would likely be serious short 

term negative impacts to listed fish and mussel species, as well as other listed species situated 

in harms way from flooding. 

4.12. Historic Properties - Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources. Center 

Hill Dam and the facilities associated with the dam are considered eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. Under Alternative 1, failure of the dam would result in 

the loss of a structure that is eligible for listing as well as eligible archaeological, historical, 

and cultural resources located and recorded downstream of Center Hill Dam. Under 

Alternatives 2-8, the risk of dam failure, which would damage or destroy the dam, is 

increasingly reduced. The potential loss of the pool under Alternative 1, and Alternative 9, 

Emergency Drawdown, would lower the lake enough to expose significant archeological sites 

that would be subject to erosion, vandalism and illegal collection of artifacts and objects. As 

long as the lake exists under Alternatives 2 – 7, the lowest pool elevations are well above the 

bottom of the power pool (EL 618) so as not to expose archeological sites that have not been 

accessible since creation of Center Hill Lake. These resources are not adversely affected as 

long as the lake remains above EL 618. 

4.13. Environmental Justice. Any effects resulting from operational changes at Center Hill 

Dam would affect all human populations equally. In addition Public Meetings are planned to 

equally inform the public about the interim pool elevation alternatives. As a result, the 

requirements of this executive order have been met. The analysis concludes that for all 

alternatives, there were no disproportionate effects on minority or low-income populations. 

4.14. Hydroelectric Resources. Some interim pool elevations would affect both hydro and 

thermal power generation. Hydropower relies on head pressure to run the turbines. Lower 

pool elevations reduce head pressure and increase the potential to damage the turbines. 

Reduced releases reduce the water flow needed by downstream thermal power plants for both 

generation and cooling. The impacts on these resources are described below. 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, the high pool 

elevation (normal summer pool) would sustain hydropower and enough flow for 

downstream thermal power generation. However, during Center Hill Dam repairs, a 

dam failure or minimally, loss of the pool would eliminate hydropower and any 

releases that would support thermal power generation. A catastrophic Center Hill 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 59 

Dam failure could severely damage Center Hill Dam, and Old Hickory Dam could be 

damaged by overtopping as well. Hydropower generation would be eliminated at both 

dams. Such a catastrophic event would also likely damage downstream thermal power 

plants. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, the high pool elevation 

provides a large percentage of the water quantity needed to support hydropower 

during typical and wet years. During a dry year there would be some minor impact to 

hydropower peaking capability. Tailwater releases would likely augment the water 

flow needed by thermal power plants during typical and wet years. Some hydrostatic 

pressure on the dam would still exist. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, the high 

pool elevation would minimally provide enough water quantity with some minor 

impacts to hydropower peaking during a wet year. Typical and dry years would 

moderately impact hydropower providing little water to support continuous 

hydropower peaking abilities. Tailwater releases for thermal power would be 

similarly affected since it relies on the water releases during hydropower generation. 

However, hydrostatic pressure on the dam would be significantly reduced. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative would have similar but worse impacts than Alternative 3. Hydropower 

peaking would be minimized during a typical and wet year, and noticeably reduced to 

critical peaking needs during a dry year. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/6218.0) - This alternative would have similar but worse impacts than 

Alternative 4. Hydropower peaking would be minimized in a wet year, and restricted 

to critical peaking needs during a typical and dry year. 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative would have similar but worse 

impacts than Alternative 5. Hydropower peaking would be reduced to a few hours of 

critical peaking needs during any rainfall type year. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - This alternative would have similar impacts to 

Alternative 6, but because it allows for a greater operating band it allows greater 

flexibility. Hydropower peaking would be reduced to a few hours of critical peaking 

needs during any rainfall type year. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative would have similar but worse 

impacts than Alternative 6. Hydropower generation would occur for only a few hours 

as water is released to augment flow for thermal power plants. A storm event would 

result in a sporadic and prolonged flow that could generate hydropower as water is 

released, but once this elevation is reached, water releases would likely stop. Zero 

releases would result in reduced generation from downstream thermal plants. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – Under this alternative, 

hydropower would be eliminated. The only way water can be released is through the 

sluice gates. No water would be released once the is reached. Zero releases would 

result in de-ratings to downstream thermal plants. 

4.15. Flood Control. Flood control is a primary project purpose and under emergency 

operation, protection of the dam is the prime objective. Interim pool elevations would affect 

this purpose as follows. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 60 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, normal pool 

operation would maintain existing tailwater releases that attenuate high flood flows 

and maintain a minimum flow. However, during dam repairs, a dam failure, and 

minimally, partial or total loss of the pool would result in extensive damage of over 

$1.3 billion dollars to infrastructure and buildings downstream. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 1 except 

the lower top elevation would relieve some hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of 

dam failure and loss of the pool. Reduced risk reduces the occurrence of flood 

damage. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, some 

water storage would be possible without increasing a significant risk of dam failure or 

loss of the pool due to hydrostatic pressure. This alternative would likely maintain the 

status quo of flood protection. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative is similar to Alternative 3. A significant amount of water storage would be 

possible without increasing a significant risk of dam failure or loss of the pool due to 

hydrostatic pressure. This alternative would maintain the status quo of flood 

protection even during a wet year. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 4. A significant amount of 

water storage would be possible without increasing a significant risk of dam failure or 

loss of the pool due to hydrostatic pressure. This alternative would ensure 

maintenance of the status quo of flood protection even during a wet year.

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 5. A 

significant amount of water storage would be possible without increasing the risk of 

dam failure or loss of the pool due to hydrostatic pressure. However, this alternative 

would likely increase tailwater flows during any stormwater event because releases 

would have to be higher and longer than usual to maintain the top elevation, but no 

flood damage would be expected. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - This alternative is similar to Alternative 5. A 

significant amount of water storage would be possible without increasing the risk of 

dam failure or loss of the pool due to hydrostatic pressure. However, this alternative 

would likely increase tailwater flows during and immediately after any stormwater 

event because releases would have to be higher and longer than usual to maintain the 

top elevation, but no flood damage would be expected. Due to the broader operating 

band it has the potential to offer even greater protection than alternative 6. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 6. A 

significant amount of water storage would be possible as this alternative drastically 

reduces the risk of dam failure or loss of the pool. However, this alternative is 

expected to produce minor downstream flooding during any stormwater event because 

releases would have to be sudden, higher, and prolonged for an extended period of 

time to maintain this elevation. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – This alternative is similar 

to Alternative 7. A significant amount of water storage would be possible as this 

alternative drastically reduces the risk of dam failure or loss of the pool. However, 

this alternative is expected to produce prolonged, minor downstream flooding during 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 61 

any stormwater event because releases would have to be sudden, higher, and nearly 

continuous for an extended period of time to maintain this elevation. 

4.16. Water Supply. Water supply is a significant concern of the Center Hill project. 

Water supply storage has been reallocated at Center Hill Dam. The current users are the City 

of Cookeville, City of Smithville, and Riverwatch Resort. 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, normal pool 

operation would maintain all the water intakes. However, during dam repairs, a dam 

failure, and minimally, partial or total loss of the pool would result in long-term loss of 

water supply in the lake and downstream of the dam. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 1 except 

the lower top elevation would relieve some hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of 

dam failure and loss of the pool. Reducing risk would be more protective of the water 

supplies which would still be fully supported under this top elevation. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to 

Alternative 2 except the lower top elevation would significantly relieve hydrostatic 

pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool. Reducing risk would be 

more protective of the water supplies which would still be fully supported under this 

top elevation. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative is similar to Alternative 3 except the lower top elevation would 

significantly relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of 

the pool. Reducing risk would be more protective of the water supplies which would 

still be fully supported under this top elevation under any water year condition. There 

could be some minor water quality issues that would require some adjustments in 

water supply treatment. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 except the lower top 

elevation would relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss 

of the pool. Reducing risk would be more protective of the water supplies which 

would still be fully supported under this top elevation under any water year condition. 

There could be some minor water quality issues that would require some adjustments 

in water supply treatment. The bottom elevation would be close to the intake 

elevations of the municipal water and pumps could pull in air. However, intakes can 

be extended to eliminate this problem

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 5 except 

the lower top elevation would significantly relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the 

risk of dam failure and loss of the pool. Reducing risk would be more protective of 

the water supplies which would still be fully supported under this top elevation under 

any water year condition. There could be some major water quality issues that would 

require significant adjustments in water supply treatment. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - This alternative is similar to Alternative 6 except the 

bottom elevation would be close to the intake elevations of the municipal water 

intakes. Even though the intakes would still have at least two feet of water above 

them, if the water was drawn down to 618 the intake could create a vortex to the 

surface which would pull air and trash into the system. In addition, as the water 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 62 

becomes lower and warmer, there could be some major water quality issues that would 

require significant adjustments in water supply treatment. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 6 

except the lower top elevation would drastically relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce 

the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool. Reducing risk would be more protective 

of the water supplies which would still be fully supported under this top elevation 

under any water year condition. There could be some major water quality issues that 

would require significant adjustments in water supply treatment particularly 

downstream of the dam. During any stormwater event, releases would have to be 

sudden, higher, and prolonged for an extended period of time, and then restricted to 

maintain this elevation. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – Under this alternative, 

water supply would be eliminated in Center Hill Lake since the lowest intake is 

located at EL 616. Nearly 50,000 people would be without water in addition to the 

lack of water for fire fighting. This alternative is expected to negatively impact the 

tailwater intake water treatment since it would produce sudden, higher, and nearly 

continuous for an extended period of time followed by no flow to maintain these 

elevations. 

4.17. Air Quality. All alternatives would have virtually no impact on air quality. 

4.18. Noise. No alternative would have a significant impact on noise levels. 

4.19. Recreation. Recreation was not originally an authorized purpose of Center Hill Dam 

and Lake, but was added in 1965. The recreation areas in the study area are classified as 

campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, boat ramps, and marinas. Of the 37 ramps available, 2 

are closed resulting in a total of 35 ramps that would be affected. Recreation would be 

affected not only by the number of usable ramps but the reduced window of time these ramps 

would be available. Fewer people recreate during the winter when the lake is normally 

maintained at lower levels. Historically, the lake levels reach 623.5 from a few weeks to a 

few months in the winter and then hover around the upper boundary of the winter PMB 

(632.0) during the remainder of winter. The public heavily uses the lake during the summer 

and is accustomed to a summer pool of EL 648. At some pool elevation, reduction in the 

summer pool will expose the unknowing public to navigation hazards. The impact of the 

interim pool elevations on recreation are described below. 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) – Under this alternative all recreational areas would 

be sustained during the summer months. However, EL 623.5, results in 5 ramps being 

usable, 3 marginal, and 27 being unusable. At the more common winter pool, EL 

632.0, 28 of the 35 launching ramps are usable. However, during dam repairs, a dam 

failure, and minimally, partial or total loss of the pool would likely result in loss of all 

recreational areas both upstream and downstream of the dam. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, all boat ramps would still be 

useable during the summer months under EL 645.0. An extended winter pool of EL 

623.5 would have the same effects as Alternative 1. This alternative would relieve 

some hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool 

Reducing risk would be more protective of recreational areas 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 63 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to 

Alternative 2. All boat ramps would still be useable during the summer months at EL 

640. Ramp impacts would be the same as Alternative 1 at EL 623.5. This alternative 

would relieve more hydrostatic pressure than Alternative 2. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except the impact is worse. At a summer EL 

635.0, all four swimming beaches would be unusable. Also, 31 boat ramps would be 

useable, 1 marginal, and 3 would be unusable. At EL 623.5, the impacts are the same 

as Alternative 1. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 4, but worse. At a summer 

pool of EL 630.0, 21 boat ramps would be useable, 4 marginal, and 10 would be 

unusable. At EL 618, no launching ramps would be usable. At least two of the nine 

commercial marinas would have to relocate portions of their facilities and one marina, 

that is currently approved to relocate to a new site, would be required to accelerate 

their planned relocation. 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) –This alternative would result in a near year-round 

winter pool. There would be major impacts in the number of usable boat ramps. At 

EL 625.0, 5 boat ramps would be useable, 7 marginal, and 23 would be unusable. All 

swimming beaches would be unusable. Two of the nine commercial marinas would 

have to relocate portions of their facilities and one marina, that is currently approved 

to relocate to a new site, would be required to accelerate their planned relocation. 

Approximately 10 of the 28 privately permitted boat docks would be unusable. 

Major navigation hazards, such as mud or rock bottom surfaces and debris, common in 

the winter, would be exposed during the summer months of high recreation use. This 

situation exposes the public to a high rate of accidents. Impact during the winter pool 

of EL 623.5 would be the same as in Alternative 1. 

• Alternative 7, (EL 625.0/618.0) – The impacts of this alternative are the same as 

Alternative 6 but, worse at EL 618.0. At the low winter elevation (618.0), all boat 

ramps would be unusable. Marinas would have to reconfigure or move. A large 

number of additional major navigation hazards, would be exposed; such as mud or 

rock bottom surfaces and debris. The 40 fish attractors placed by the Tennessee 

Wildlife Agency (TWRA) would have to be moved in deeper water. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 6 

except the impact is more severe. At this elevation, 2 launching ramps would be 

usable, 2 marginal, and 31 would be unusable. All swimming beaches would be 

unusable. At least two of the nine commercial marinas would have to relocate 

portions of their facilities and one marina, that is currently approved to relocate to a 

new site, would be required to accelerate their planned relocation. Approximately 10 

of the 28 privately permitted boat docks would be unusable. Major navigation 

hazards, such as mud or rock bottom surfaces and debris, common in the winter, 

would be exposed during the summer months of high recreation use. During any 

stormwater event, releases would have to be sudden, higher, and prolonged for an 

extended period of time exposing fishermen in the tailwater to high water releases. 

This situation exposes the public to a high rate of accidents.
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 64 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618-496) – Under the top elevation of 618, 

impacts would be the same as noted in Alternative 7. At EL 496.0, the lake would be 

drained. All recreation would be eliminated. 

4.20 Aesthetics. The Center Hill Lake watershed is known for its scenic and natural 

qualities (TDEC, 1998). Caney Fork River and many of its tributaries wind through rugged 

gorges lined with limestone ledges, cliffs, and bluffs. Aesthetics address the viewshed of both 

Center Hill Lake and the landscape downstream of the dam. Under Alternative 1 – No 

Action, the viewshed would not be affected, unless, during dam repairs, a dam failure, and 

minimally, partial or total loss of the pool occurs. Under this scenario, Center Hill Lake 

would resemble a river running through bare earth and rock. Downstream of the dam, the 

landscape would be scoured or buried under sediment Such damage would change the 

landscape that would take many decades to recover. All other alternatives would have little 

affect on the viewshed upstream or downstream of the Center Hill Dam. 

4.21. Economics. The Center Hill Project provides numerous economic benefits not only to 

the local economy but to the region as well. Such benefits include, jobs, taxes, land values, 

recreation, hydropower and cooling water for thermal power plants, navigation, water supply, 

and flood protection. The degree of impact to the economy associated with each alternative is 

described below. 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, the local and 

regional economy would be sustained. However, during dam repairs, a dam failure, 

and minimally, partial or total loss of the pool would likely result in economic 

hardship both upstream and downstream of the dam. Downstream flood and 

infrastructure damage could exceed $1.3 billion dollars. The economic loss of the lake 

could exceed $ 109 million annually. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 1. All 

economic benefits would be sustained at this top pool elevation. The lower top 

elevation would relieve some hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and 

loss of the pool. Reducing risk would increase protection against economic losses. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to 

Alternative 2. The lower top elevation would significantly relieve hydrostatic pressure 

to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool. All economic benefits would be 

sustained at this top pool elevation with some minor impacts. The time window 

(summer season) for generating these annual benefits could be slightly reduced. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except economic impacts would be increased in 

Center Hill Lake. There would be impacts to visitation at Center Hill Lake with 

closure of all 4 beaches. At this top pool elevation 31 of 35 boat ramps would be 

usable. Marinas would remain open. The lower top elevation would significantly 

relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 4, except economic impacts 

would be more noticeable in Center Hill Lake. All 4 beaches would be closed. At the 

top elevation, 21 of the 35 boat ramps would be useable. At the lower elevation, 5 

ramps would be useable, 3 marginal, and 27 would be unusable. Many boat ramps, 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 65 

where possible, would need to be extended for safe lake access. Marinas would 

remain open, but some may have to re-configure their boat slips, or possibly move to 

another location. The lower elevation would significantly relieve hydrostatic pressure 

to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool reducing the risk of incurring 1.3 

billion dollars in damages downstream of the dam.

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 5, except 

economic impacts would be greater in Center Hill Lake. Nearly a third of the annual 

income (36 million dollars) generated by the Lake would be lost. A one-time loss of 

$283 million is projected, although jobs may recover when normal pool levels return. 

The lower top elevation would dramatically relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the 

risk of dam failure and loss of the pool reducing the risk of incurring 1.3 billion dollars 

in damages downstream of the dam. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) – As in alternative 6, economic impacts would be 

greater. Nearly a third of the annual income (36 million dollars) generated by the 

Lake would be lost. A one-time loss of 283 is projected. Jobs may recover when 

normal pool levels return. The lower elevation would reduce the risk of dam failure 

and the risk of incurring 1.3 billion dollars in damages downstream of the dam. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 6, 

except economic impacts would be more severe in Center Hill Lake. Over half of the 

annual income (60 million dollars) generated by the Lake would likely be lost. A onetime loss of 283 is projected, although jobs may be recovered when normal pool levels 

return. The lower top elevation would dramatically relieve hydrostatic pressure to 

reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool reducing the risk of incurring 1.3 

billion dollars in damages downstream of the dam. Revenue from the tailwater 

fishery, which generates over one million annually, would likely be impacted. During 

any stormwater event, releases would have to be sudden, higher, and prolonged for an 

extended period of time significantly reducing fishing in the tailwater during high 

water releases.

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – Under this alternative, all 

project purposes are severely impacted or eliminated. The immediate economic 

impact would be total, start locally, and ripple through the regional economy. Total 

annual losses related to recreation could reach $ 109 million for lost visitations, trip 

spending, personal income, trout fishing, federal, and state taxes. Annual hydropower 

loss to the federal treasury would exceed $ 14 million. And annual loss of water 

supply and fire protection would exceed several millions of dollars. However, this 

elevation would dramatically relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam 

failure and loss of the pool reducing the risk of incurring 1.3 billion dollars in damages 

downstream of the dam. 

4.22. Navigation. A nine-foot commercial navigation channel on the Cumberland River is 

generally supported by the maintenance of full, flat pools and minimum tailwater elevations at 

the four main-stem projects (Barkley, Cheatham, Old Hickory, and Cordell Hull Lock and 

Dams. Tows are dependent on favorable release schedules to transit reaches below the 

navigation projects. Although navigation is not an authorized project purpose, releases from 

Center Hill Dam for other project purposes (minimum flow and water quality) do contribute 

to the available flows. There are navigation impediments in the approaches to both Old 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 66 

Hickory and Cheatham Locks than can effect navigation. Possible impacts to navigation are 

noted below 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) – Under this alternative, navigation throughout the 

Cumberland River would be sustained. However, during dam repairs, a dam failure, 

and minimally, partial or total loss of the pool would likely result in severe economic 

impacts downstream of Center Hill Dam. Flooding would damage downstream 

infrastructure including ports, commercial terminals, locks, TVA fossil plants, and 

other water related businesses. Debris would likely accumulate in the navigation 

channel prohibiting safe passage for an extended period of time. Such an event would 

eliminate moving commodities such as coal to the TVA Gallatin and Cumberland 

Steam Plants. Without electricity provided by the steam plants, rolling blackouts 

could occur with the loss of power. This alternative does little to reduce hydrostatic 

pressure on the dam nor reduce the risk of dam failure during dam repairs. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 1. All 

navigation benefits would be sustained at this top pool elevation. This top elevation 

(EL 645) would relieve some hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and 

loss of the pool. Reducing risk would increase protection for navigation benefits. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to 

Alternative 2. The lower top elevation (EL 640) would significantly relieve 

hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool. All 

navigation benefits would be sustained at this top pool elevation with some minor 

impacts. The time window for providing a navigation window of safe transit through 

Cheatham and Old Hickory Locks could be slightly shortened. 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except navigation impacts could be moderate. 

This alternative would probably result in further shortening the windows of 

opportunity for barge traffic to maneuver through Cheatham and Old Hickory Lock 

approaches. The lower top elevation would significantly relieve hydrostatic pressure 

to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 4, except economic impacts 

could be more with less water available for project uses such as minimum flows and 

water quality, which means less flow to augment navigation needs. Small transit 

windows would likely occur. However, with a wide band of nearly 18 feet of stored 

water, there may be some flexibility to meet critical water releases downstream (i.e., 

water quality) which would help navigation. The time window for providing a 

navigation window of safe transit through Cheatham and Old Hickory Locks could be 

shortened to a matter of hours. The upper and lower elevations would significantly 

relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool.

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 5, except 

navigation impacts would be greater, but still moderate in nature. There would be less 

water available for releases during drier months. There is the potential that barges 

may have to re-configure or light-load to move past navigation impediments at 

Cheatham and Old Hickory Locks. The lower top elevation would dramatically 

relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of the pool. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 67 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) – As in alternative 6, navigation impacts would be 

moderate. There would be less water available for releases during drier months. 

Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative is similar to Alternative 6, 

except navigation impacts would be more severe. The lower top elevation would 

dramatically relieve hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of dam failure and loss of 

the pool. During any stormwater event, releases would have to be sudden, higher, and 

prolonged for an extended period of time significantly impacting navigation 

downstream.

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – Under this alternative, all 

project purposes are severely impacted or eliminated. Navigation would also be 

affected. The immediate economic impact would be total, start locally, and ripple 

through the regional economy. 

4.23. Hazardous, Toxic, or Radiological Wastes. No alternative would result in HTRW 

concerns except Alternative 1 – No Action. During dam repairs, a dam failure, and 

minimally, partial or total loss of the pool would likely damage and expose HTRW sites 

downstream of the dam. 

4.24Traffic. No alternative would result in changes to traffic patterns except Alternative 1 – 

No Action. During dam repairs, a dam failure, and minimally, partial or total loss of the pool 

would result in closure of Highway 96 crossing the dam. Traffic would have to detour around 

Center Hill Lake which would increase travel distance by at least 15 miles. 

4.25. Safety. One of the authorization purposes for constructing Center Hill Dam was to 

reduce the loss of lives and property from downstream flooding. An important consideration 

regarding safety is to determine if the reduction in hydrostatic pressure to reduce the risk of 

dam failure or loss of the pool, outweighs the ecological and economic impacts that would 

occur by lowering the lake. The impact on safety is described below. 

• Alternative 1, (EL 648.0/623.5) No Action – Under this alternative, the high risk of 

dam failure virtually eliminates any safety from downstream flood or upstream and 

downstream drought. Under Alternative 1, dam failure or loss of the pool would result 

in severe repercussions (EPA, 2007.) including: 1.) loss of life from surging flows, 2.) 

destruction of property, 3.) harm to the downstream river environment, 4.) risks of life 

threatening hazards to river users, and 5.) loss of delivery of critical services to 

communities with the loss of power generation, roads, bridges, and other 

infrastructure. 

• Alternative 2, (EL 645.0/623.5) – This alternative is about 3 feet below normal 

summer pool. This alternative reduces the risk of dam failure and increases safety. 

However, EL 645.0 does not provide much additional storage to maintain low 

hydrostatic pressure on the dam during significant storm events over an extended 

period of time. 

• Alternative 3, Existing Condition, (EL 640.0/623.5) - This alternative is about 8 feet 

below normal summer pool. This alternative reduces the risk of dam failure and 

greatly increases safety. A significant storm event could raise the pool several feet, 

but the initial low pool would maintain low hydrostatic pressure. During drought, this 

elevation ensures a water supply for fire fighting to upstream and downstream uses. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 68 

• Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred Alternative, (EL 635.0/623.5) – This 

alternative is about 13 feet below normal summer pool. This alternative would have 

the same effect as Alternative 3 but with a reduction in risk and increased dam safety. 

• Alternative 5, Dam Safety and Engineering Preferred Alternative, (EL 

630.0/618.0) - This alternative is about 18 feet below normal summer pool. This 

alternative would reduce risk and increase dam safety. The pool could hold a 

significant storm event with little increase in risk. 

• Alternative 6, (EL 625.0/623.5) – This alternative is about 23 feet below normal 

summer pool. This alternative would reduce risk and increase dam safety. The pool 

could hold a significant storm event with little increase in risk. 

• Alternative 7, (625.0/618.0) - This alternative is about 23 feet below normal summer 

pool. This alternative would reduce risk and increase dam safety. The pool could 

hold a significant storm event with little increase in risk. 

• Alternative 8, Flat-line, (EL 622.0) – This alternative is about 26 feet below normal 

summer pool. This alternative would reduce risk and increase dam safety. The pool 

could hold a significant storm event with little increase in risk. During drought, this 

elevation would likely restrict water supply for fire fighting to upstream and 

downstream users. 

• Alternative 9, Emergency Drawdown, (EL 618.0/496.0) – This alternative is 78 ft 

below the congressionally authorized minimum pool elevation of EL 618.0; and 108 ft 

below normal summer pool (EL 648.0). This alternative would reduce risk and ensure 

dam safety the most. The pool could hold a significant storm event with little increase 

in risk. This elevation would eliminate potable water supplies in Center Hill Lake and 

any fire fighting ability to upstream and downstream users. 

4.26. Floodplain Management. The No Action alternative (1) would have a high risk of a 

“base flood” and catastrophic impact to the floodplain. In the event of a dam failure during 

the 7-year dam repair period, the Caney Fork and Cumberland River floodplains downstream 

of Center Hill Dam would be radically altered. The rock features would remain intact, but the 

riparian and adjacent floodplain vegetative cover would likely be scoured or buried under 

deposited sediment. The risk of dam failure decreases incrementally with each successive 

alternative. Dam repairs and lowering hydrostatic pressure on the dam with lower top pool 

elevations for an extended period is necessary to minimize potential dam failure and reduce 

risk to downstream populations. There is no practical alternative to working in the Caney 

Fork River and floodplain. 

4.27. Cumulative Effects. Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the (proposed) action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or 

person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7)”. Council for Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) guidance identifies an 11-step process for evaluating cumulative effects. For the 

purposes of cumulative effects, the spatial boundary includes Center Hill Lake and the Caney 

Fork River tailwater (26.4 miles) to the confluence of the Cumberland River (mile 309) 

downstream to Barkley Dam at Cumberland River mile 30.7. The temporal boundary covers 

the past 60 years, after impoundment of Center Hill Lake, and 10 years into the future, on 

completion of dam repairs. These boundaries were selected because they cover the entire 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 69 

Center Hill project and its impact to the Cumberland River System. Past, present, and 

foreseeable actions that could combine for cumulative effects include, dam safety 

considerations, weather, human population growth, and land and water developments. 

The assessment can be defined as “what resource goals is the proposed action going to 

affect”. Effects can result from either direct-project related, indirect-project related, and 

independent indirect causes. Based on public and agency scoping and review on previous 

NEPA documents, the following resources have been identified as target resources within the 

assessment goals: 1.) Water quantity, 2.) Hydropower, 3.) water supply, 4.) water quality, 5.) 

aquatic resources including threatened and endangered fish and freshwater mussel species, 6.) 

socioeconomics, 7.) recreation/tourism, 8.) river navigation. 

Water Quantity. For the purposes of cumulative effects, the spatial boundary is located from 

the headwaters of Center Hill Lake, just below Great Falls Dam (Caney Fork River mile 91.1) 

to the confluence of the Cumberland River (mile 309) downstream to Barkley Dam at 

Cumberland River mile 30.7. The temporal boundary covers the past 60 years, after 

impoundment of Center Hill Lake, to 10 years into the future, when dam repairs are 

completed. Demands for this resource include withdrawals for municipal and industrial 

purposes, hydropower generation, water quality, aquatic resources including threatened and 

endangered species, recreation, and to a lesser degree, maintaining commercial navigation. 

Weather conditions, such as drought or storm events, also affects water quantity. A key 

component of water quantity is water temperature that affects the amount of cold water stored 

within the reservoir. Cold water is particularly in demand because it retains more dissolved 

oxygen, supports a cold water fishery, and is necessary to maintain water quality for 

downstream thermal plants. In particularly wet years, warm rain may produce a large enough 

volume of warm inflowing water that may raise lake temperatures and dilute the available 

cold water stored in the hypolimnion. During dry years, the quantity of cold water is finite. 

Lowering Center Hill Lake reduces the amount of cold water and retention time. 

Historically, under normal operations, there has been sufficient cold water to meet demands. 

Lowering the lake level is likely to result in insufficient storage of cold water. Lack of cold 

water could result in decreased water quality since cold water holds more oxygen. Negative 

impacts to aquatic resources, including threatened and endangered species could occur, as low 

DO could affect the warmwater fishery in the Cumberland River, and the trout fishery in the 

tailwater of the Caney Fork River. Warm water, even if well oxygenated, is lethal to trout. 

Lack of water reduces hydropower generation, and insufficient cold water reduces the cooling 

requirements of the thermal plants, which may lead to reduced electrical production. Lack of 

water could limit navigation downstream. If Center Hill was the only reservoir affected then 

the other nine reservoirs of the Cumberland River system could meet most of the needs. 

However, when more than one storage reservoir is affected by lower lake levels, then there 

may not be enough water to meet the demands of all users. Potential impacts could include 

rolling black-outs due to insufficient thermal power generation, grounded barges, fish kills, 

and damage to the regional economy. Loss of power, even temporary, could have detrimental 

effects on human health. Potable water systems could loose pressure forcing a boil-water 

advisory. Sewage treatment plants could malfunction, resulting in discharge of untreated 

waste water into rivers and lakes. Transportation effects would include highway traffic 

gridlock, and shutting down gas stations, railways and airports. The loss of power would 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 70 

affect hospitals, fire stations, schools, stores, and industry. Cellular communication services 

could be disrupted. This situation could jeopardize public safety and welfare. Mitigation 

measures might include a prioritization of water uses. A drought contingency plan has 

already been developed to cover such exigencies. Mitigation measures under the drought 

contingency plan were implemented during the extreme to exceptional drought of 2007, and 

the impacts discussed above were avoided. While there are no guarantees of future weather 

conditions, the mitigation measures under the drought contingency plan are expected to 

adequately address these impacts. Water quantity would be constantly monitored and the 

situation would be continuously reassessed. On completion of dam repairs, Center Hill Dam 

would return to the status quo condition of supporting all project purposes including it’s flow 

contribution to the Cumberland River Reservoir system. The cumulative effect of the 

completion of both Center Hill and Wolf Creek Dams would return the Cumberland River 

system to pre-repair condition. 

Hydropower. For the purposes of cumulative effects, the spatial boundary coincides with the 

SEPA power grid. The temporal boundary covers the past 60 years, after impoundment of 

Center Hill Lake, to 10 years into the future, when dam repairs are completed. Demands for 

this resource include peaking power at Center Hill Dam and its contribution to the power grid. 

Demands for the water used for hydropower include water for minimum flow, water quality, 

fish and wildlife management, and recreation. Under minimum flow releases, hydropower 

generation adds little oxygen to improve downstream water quality to support the cold water 

fishery. Instead, water for hydropower is diverted through a sluice gate to meet both 

minimum flow and water quality needs. Lowering the lake reduces the amount of water 

available for hydropower. When lake levels reach EL 620, no hydropower is generated. 

Because of the lack of hydraulic pressure at lower lake levels, generating hydropower below 

EL 620 endangers the equipment. Historically, under normal operations, the high summer 

lake level easily provided sufficient hydraulic pressure for hydropower peaking needs and 

excess power could be sold on the power grid. During the winter pool, winter and spring 

rainfalls were captured and stored, often to EL 632 and higher, and released by hydropower 

generation to produce excess and cheap electricity to the grid. Lowering the lake would 

reduce hydropower generation, and at a low enough pool, eliminate hydropower generation. 

Under this condition, power would have to be bought from another source to supply electrical 

power to the grid which is likely to raise costs to the local utilities and ultimately, their 

customers. The higher cost of electricity could force local businesses to reduce production 

and cut jobs, which would impact the local economy. If Center Hill was the only reservoir 

affected by low lake levels, the other nine dams could meet the hydropower needs, however, 

when more than one dam is affected, more electricity has to be bought to supply the power 

grid. The cumulative effect of the high cost of electricity on a regional scale would likely 

reduce business production, cut jobs, and negatively impact the regional economy. When 

dam repairs are complete, hydropower generation would be expected to return to status quo 

condition at Center Hill Dam and its contribution to the power grid. 

Water Supply. For the purposes of cumulative effects, the spatial boundary covers Center 

Hill Lake, Center Hill Dam, and the downstream tailwater (26.4 miles) to the confluence of 

the Cumberland River (mile 309) downstream to Barkley Dam at Cumberland River mile 

30.7. The temporal boundary covers the past 60 years, after impoundment of Center Hill 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 71 

Lake, to 10 years into the future, when dam repairs are completed. There are three water 

supply intakes on Center Hill and they are all located below the bottom of the power pool (EL 

618). Other demands for water include hydropower, water quality, aquatic resources, and 

minimum flow in the tailwater. Under normal operations, there has been abundant water of 

good quality to fully meet water supply demands. Low lake levels would provide only a few 

feet of water coverage over the intakes in Center Hill Lake, and the potential to create a 

vortex to the surface which would pull air and trash into the system. Algae and low flows 

may cause higher water treatment costs to control taste and odor problems in drinking water 

supplies, not only in Center Hill Lake, but throughout the entire downstream length of the 

Cumberland River. Water utilities may need to enforce water restrictions. As population 

increases over the next 10 years, so will demands for water supply. Wolf Creek Dam is also 

undergoing repairs and can not contribute water to the system to meet water demands. It is 

unlikely that Dale Hollow would be able to make-up for the lack of water to meet all the 

demands. During the next 10 years, water rationing is more likely to be required in portions 

of the Cumberland River system under prolonged exceptional drought conditions and if lake 

levels in Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dams remain reduced. A mitigation measure for water 

supplies drawn from Center Hill Lake would be to lower water intakes deeper into the pool. 

Mitigation measures might include a prioritization of water uses. A drought contingency plan 

has already been developed to cover such exigencies. Water supply would take priority over 

all other purposes to protect human life and welfare. Water supplies would be constantly 

monitored and the situation would be continuously reassessed. On completion of dam repairs 

at both Center Hill and Wolf Creek Dam, water can be stored to meet current and projected 

water supply demands. 

Water Quality. For the purposes of cumulative effects, the spatial boundary covers Center 

Hill Lake, Center Hill Dam, and the downstream tailwater (26.4 miles) to the confluence of 

the Cumberland River (mile 309) downstream to Barkley Dam at Cumberland River mile 

30.7. The temporal boundary covers the past 60 years, after impoundment of Center Hill 

Lake, to 10 years into the future, when dam repairs are completed. Demands for this resource 

includes, aquatic resources including threatened and endangered fish and freshwater mussels, 

water supply, and recreation. Weather conditions, such as drought or storm events, also affect 

water quality. Water temperature is addressed above under “Water Quantity”. While water 

temperature affects the type of aquatic community present (cold, cool, or warm water 

fisheries) all aquatic life requires adequate dissolved oxygen. Oxygen is the second key 

component of water quality that is considered under this section. Historically, DO in Center 

Hill Lake and in the tailwater below the dam, was sufficient to maintain fish and freshwater 

mussels. Lower lake levels could change the water quality in Center Hill Lake and in the 

tailwater. Dissolved oxygen and appropriate water temperature is critical in maintaining the 

health of aquatic organisms, including threatened and endangered species. For warm water 

species, a DO of 5 mg /l is required for the lake fishery. The tailwater trout fishery below the 

dam requires a DO of 6 mg/l to maintain healthy populations. Cumulative impacts on 

dissolved oxygen could occur in several ways. Center Hill Lake water quality is affected by 

watershed development, point and nonpoint sources of pollution that enter the lake resulting 

in added nutrients and biological oxygen demand that can seriously reduce oxygen in the lake 

to the point of producing fish and mussel kills. The tailwater draws cold water from the 

bottom of the lake. As a result of the lost oxygen in the lake, the tailwater contains little or no 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 72 

oxygen. Operational and structural changes at the dam are needed to improve water quality 

and replace oxygen in the tailwater by opening a sluice gate, or future installation of an orifice 

gate. Without these engineered changes, the Center Hill tailwater would remain deficient of 

oxygen during critical summer months. Lower lake levels could result in drawing warmer 

water from the lake, which holds less oxygen, therefore oxygen added at the dam, may 

dissipate by the time it reaches the Cumberland River. The combined lower lake levels in 

both Center Hill and Wolf Creek Dams can have a cumulative effect that could result in 

decreased water quality and development of anoxic conditions downstream the entire 

Cumberland River. Under drought conditions, the potential for cumulative anoxic conditions 

increases in the Cumberland River for a limited time, during late July and August as a result 

of longer retention times as compared to historical flow regimes. Mitigation measures at 

Center Hill include maintaining a minimum flow, installing an orifice gate, or continue to 

sluice. Add these measures in addition to spilling at the mainstem dams (Cordell Hull, Old 

Hickory, and Cheatham Lock and Dams) and the cumulative effect appears to reduce low 

dissolved oxygen effects. In fact, during the extreme to exceptional drought of 2007, the 

impacts discussed above were avoided. While there are no guarantees of future weather 

conditions, the mitigation measures are expected to adequately address these cumulative 

water quality impacts. In the next 10 years, human development around Center Hill Lake, as 

well as in the Cumberland River are likely to increase resulting in increased point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution. Ensuring point sources meet their discharge requirements, and 

preventing nonpoint sources from entering the waterways would do much to preserve the 

water quality of Center Hill Lake and downstream the Cumberland River. 

Aquatic Resources, Including Threatened and Endangered Fish and Freshwater 

Mussels. Since its impoundment about 60 years ago, Center Hill has significantly altered the 

hydrology and water quality both of the lake and to areas as far downstream as the Ohio 

River. The geographic scope of this section, therefore, is all of Center Hill Lake, the Caney 

Fork River below the dam to its confluence with the Cumberland River, and the Cumberland 

River downstream to Barkley Dam. The temporal boundaries are from the impoundment of 

Center Hill in 1948 when all of the changes to the waterway became permanent, to fifty years 

in the future. Because of the size and depth of Center Hill Lake, the water regime quickly 

became a cold water system downstream of the dam. The native warm water species below 

Center Hill Dam have been largely displaced by cold water species including trout which are 

stocked in the Caney Fork tailwater on a put-grow-and-take basis. The mussels of the Caney 

Fork River, which were unable to move, died because they could not adapt to lake conditions, 

or due to the cold water released below the dam, were unable to reproduce. Mussel surveys 

over the last 20 years reveal that many mussels have largely died out although a few relic 

species may yet remain. Because of the year round low water temperatures below Center Hill 

Dam, this portion of the Caney Fork River has been classified as a trout stream. 

Impoundment of the other dams also extirpated many species throughout much of their 

reaches. The exception is in the tailwater areas which are similar in habitat to the original 

river. In addition to the cold water, the greatest stress on these animals is water quality, or the 

lack thereof. As Center Hill and Wolf Creek are drawn down during repairs, there will be less 

flow in the rivers during the summers. A warmer water regime would return, but would likely 

be accompanied by poorer water quality. As water temperatures increase, so too would algal 

blooms. As the algae dies, the DO could be reduced to near zero. As Tennessee’s population 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 73 

increases and more and more of the areas around the reservoirs are developed, it is expected 

that future nutrient loading, which supports algal growth, will increase and DO in the 

tailwaters will decrease. The cool water and the native warm water ecosystem could then see 

fish kills and major die-off of the macroinvertebrate community. Seven species of Federallylisted endangered species have been identified as possibly being affected, but not likely to be 

adversely affected, by these changes. Several methods of mitigation discussed elsewhere in 

this document appear to have mitigated the situation during the extreme to exceptional 

drought of 2007. After the repairs have been effected the dams would be returned to full 

service and conditions such as reverting to a cold water regime would again be in place for the 

foreseeable future. Under this scenario, it would likely take years for the lake fishery to 

recover. 

Recreation/Tourism. For the purposes of cumulative effects, the spatial boundary covers 

Center Hill Lake, Center Hill Dam, and the downstream tailwater (26.4 miles) to the 

confluence of the Cumberland River (mile 309). The temporal boundary covers the past 60 

years, after impoundment of Center Hill Lake, to 10 years into the future, when dam repairs 

are completed. Demands on this resource include, water supply, water quantity, water 

quality, and aquatic resources including endangered species. Under normal operations, 

customary summer and higher winter pool (above El 632) can be easily maintained. The 

winter pool can be slightly elevated for easier access into the lake, and increased water supply 

for hydropower, and increased cold water storage for other uses. Though some boating 

occurs in the winter, recreation activities (boating, camping, and swimming) predominantly 

occur during the warm summer months, creating a recreational season. Therefore recreation 

is most impacted when lake levels are lowered during the summer pool, though some impact 

would occur during the winter months. These recreation users have an economic impact on 

the local and regional economy. Lower lake levels, would affect access to the lake, marina 

operations, and safe boating and fishing. At particularly low lake levels, swimming beaches, 

boat ramps, boat slips, and some private docks are unusable. Lost access to the lake reduces 

recreational use which impacts income generated at the lake and the local economy. A loss of 

nearly 100 million dollars annually could be seen under this condition. During the 7-10 year 

dam repairs, maintaining very low lake elevations could result in several hundred millions of 

dollars of lost revenue. Couple a low lake pool with drought conditions, possible critical 

hydropower releases, continued water supply withdrawals, and minimum flow requirements 

for water quality, the lake could remain or even fall lower for an extended period of time even 

throughout the summer months resulting in economic hardship for the local economy. The 

cumulative effect of low lake conditions at both Center Hill and Wolf Creek Dams could 

result in economic hardship for the regional economy. Dale Hollow Lake may also be 

lowered as it attempts to supply nearly all the water to the Cumberland River system. Though 

the effects would be temporary, possibly occurring through the entire dam repair period, it 

could take years to recoup the financial losses. Mitigation efforts may include extending boat 

ramps, both in the lake and below the dam, re-configuring boat slips, relocating marinas into 

deeper water around the lake. Over the next 10 years, recreational demands and development 

pressures will increase, yet the total amount of public land and water remains fixed. Land 

around the lakes is expected to become increasingly urbanized. There will be increasing 

pressure for more water related recreation. Balancing the needs of recreation with other 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 74 

project uses will become the challenge. Water resources must be managed in the interest of 

public health as constant pressure tips the balance toward other interests of the growing 

population: more water control for water supply, water quality, hydropower, and navigation, 

in addition to more access for outdoor recreation. On completion of Center Hill Dam repairs 

(7-10 years) routine operations would be restored along with a customary summer and winter 

pool elevations. Completion of Wolf Creek Dam repairs (7-10 years) and maintaining the 

storage pool at Dale Hollow Dam would have the cumulative effect of restoring the status quo 

of recreation throughout the region. 

Navigation. The geographic scope of this section is from Cordell Hull Dam, immediately 

upstream the confluence of the Caney Fork River and the Cumberland River, downstream to 

the Ohio River. The temporal period begins in the 1950s when the Cumberland River 

mainstem lock and dams were constructed and ranges out to about fifty years in the future. A 

nine-foot commercial navigation channel on the Cumberland River upstream of Barkley Dam 

is generally supported by the maintenance of full, flat pools and minimum tailwater elevations 

at the four main-stem dams (Barkley, Cheatham, Old Hickory, and Cordell Hull). Several 

factors affect navigation including regional economics and ease of passage. Navigation is not 

a project purpose at Center Hill. Under normal operations, tailwater releases augment flow in 

the Cumberland River. During periods of low flows, navigation of fully loaded barges can 

become problematic, particularly as the barges enter the tailwater areas below the locks as 

these are normally some of the shallowest areas of the river. Water releases from the 

upstream tributary lakes are usually sufficient to keep the navigable reservoir levels above the 

inactive pools in the mainstem. However, as Wolf Creek and Center hill undergo repairs, the 

lack of stored water which is usually released during the summer for hydropower and other 

project functions may be lacking. Without these customary flows navigation may become 

difficult. In the past this has resulted in limiting passage to certain windows of opportunity, 

i.e., releases are scheduled for predetermined times. As water flow drops these windows 

become shorter in duration and farther apart. Some companies “light load” their barges so 

that they draft less water and can still pass the shallow areas. Sometimes cargo is diverted to 

other means of transportation such as trains or trucks. This is usually more expensive, but by 

saving time may become more economical for some products. Once alternative forms of 

transportation are found is can be hard for shippers to reclaim their business. It is assumed 

that after repairs to the dam are effected in seven to ten years that normal operations would 

resume for the foreseeable future. 

Socioeconomics. For the purposes of cumulative effects, the spatial boundary covers Center 

Hill Lake, Center Hill Dam, and the downstream tailwater (26.4 miles) to the confluence of 

the Cumberland River (mile 309) downstream to the Ohio River, but is actually regional in 

effect and not limited to the river itself. The temporal boundary covers the past 60 years, after 

impoundment of Center Hill Lake, to 10 years into the future, when dam repairs are complete. 

Factors influencing socioeconomics include recreation, hydropower, thermal power plant 

generation, water quantity, water quality, water supply, navigation, aquatic resources, 

including and property values. Socioeconomic activities include employment, personal 

income, tax base, local and regional spending on, and the cost of, goods and services. 

Historically Center Hill Lake has had an increasingly positive impact on local 

socioeconomics; however, lowering the lake is expected to have the opposite effect. A lower 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 75 

lake would negatively impact recreation, a large generator of local revenue and employment. 

Many jobs at the lake would be lost as fewer people visit the lake. Reduced visits would 

reduce the number of jobs supporting tourism as there would be less spending on lodging, 

eating, fuel, boats, boating, fishing, camping and swimming equipment. Lowering the lake 

would increase the cost of electricity, as hydropower generation is reduced or eliminated, and 

the quantity of cold water for thermal plants is reduced. A lower lake with reduced dissolved 

oxygen would impact tailwater water quality with the possible elimination of the profitable 

trout fishery, and potential harm to other aquatic life. Under these conditions, water treatment 

costs are likely to increase. A depressed local economy may reduce land values and property 

sales. This economic situation could continue through the 7 – 10 years of dam repairs. Other 

factors, such as drought and the repairs at Wolf Creek Dam, could compound the situation. 

The cumulative effect of the reduced water quantity in the Cumberland River system would 

affect navigation, resulting in delivery delays, lighter loading, and re-configuration of barges, 

resulting in lost revenue. In addition to mitigation measures previously mentioned, public 

relations might be used to monitor the situation and keep the public current of the actual local 

conditions. 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 76 

5.0 List of Preparers 

Linda Adcock – Project Study Manager 

Position: Civil Engineer 

Education: B.S., Civil Engineering 

Experience: 26 years Project Planning and Program Management 

Joy Broach – Primary Author of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Position: Biologist, Project Planning Branch, U.S. Corps of Engineers 

Education: M.S., Biology 

Experience: 17 years Aquatic Biologist, TDEC 

. 1⁄2 year Research Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 61⁄2 years Biologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Patty Coffey – Chief, Project Planning Branch 

Position: Biologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Education: M.S., Biology 

Experience: 2 years Park Ranger 

24 years Biologist, Project Planning Branch 

3 years Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Tim Dunn – Lake Resources 

Position: Resource Manager, Center Hill Project 

Education: B. S., Natural Resources Management 

Experience: 10 years Park Ranger 

2 years Conservation Biologist 

5 years Resource Manager, Center Hill Lake 

Wayne Easterling – Principle Author of the Biological Assessment 

Position: Biologist, Project Planning Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Education: B.A., Biology 

Experience: 18 years Park Ranger 

8 years Biologist, Project Planning Branch 

3 years Project Manager 

Ray Hedrick – Independent Technical Review Team Leader 

Position: Ecologist, Project Planning Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Education: B.S., Wildlife Biology 

Experience: 3 years Park Ranger 

29 years Ecologist, Project Planning Branch 

Phillip Jones – Regional Economist 

Education: BA Economics 

Education: 2 0 Years Project Planning Branch 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 77 

Robert Karwedsky: Historic Properties – Archeological, Historic and Cultural Resources 

Position: District Archaeologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Education: M.S., Anthropology 

Experience: 33 years Archaeologist 

Carol Lestourgeon: Water Management Section 

Education: BS, MS Civil Engineering 

Experience: 28 years U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulics & Hydrology Branch 

Bob Sneed: Chief, Water Management Section 

Education: BE, ME Environmental and Water Resources Engineering 

Experience: 27 years U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulics & Hydrology Branch 

Richard Tippit: Water Management Section 

Education: BS Biology 

Experience: 31 years U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulics & Hydrology Branch 

Hershel Whitworth: Water Management Section 

Education: BS Civil Engineering 

Experience: 31 years U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulics & Hydrology Branch 

Jim Widlak: Coordination Act Report and Biological Opinion 

Position: Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Education: M.S., Fisheries Science 

Experience: 23 Years Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 78 

6.0 List Of Agencies, Organizations, And Persons To Whom Copies The Scoping Letter 

Was Sent 

Honorble James H. Fyke, Commissioner 

Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation 

L & C Tower; 21st Floor 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-0435 

Mr. Ron Zurawski, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Tennessee Division of Geology 

13th Floor, L & C Tower 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-0445 

Mr. Barry Stephens, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

9th Floor L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1531 

Mr. Mark Tummons, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Recreation Educational Services 

10th Floor, L&C Tower 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-0439 

Mr. Paul E. Davis, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Water Pollution Control 

6th Floor L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1534 

Mr. Reggie Reeves, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Natural Heritage and Scenic Rivers 

7th Floor, L&C Annex 

401 Church Steet 

Nashville, TN 37243-0447 

Mr. Dan Eagar, NRS Manager 

TDEC - Division of Water Pollution Control 

7th Floor L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1534 

Mr. Robert D. Baker, Natural Resources Section 

TDEC - Division of Water Pollution Control 

7th Floor, L & C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1534 

Mr. Gregory M. Denton, PAS Manager 

TDEC - Division of Water Pollution Control 

6th Floor L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1534 

Ms. Sherry Wang, WMS Manager 

TDEC - Division of Water Pollution Control 

6th Floor L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1534 

Mr. David Draughon, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Water Supply 

6th Floor, L&C Tower 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1549 

Mr. Kent Taylor, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Ground Water Protection 

10th Floor, L&C Tower 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1540 

Mr. James W. Haynes, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Remediation 

4th Floor, L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1538 

Mr. Stan Boyd, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Underground Storage Tanks 

4th Floor, L&C Tower 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1541 

Mr. Mike Apple, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management 

5th Floor, L&C Tower 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1535 

Mr. Lawrence E. Nanney, Director, TDEC NEPA Contact 

Division of Radiological Heath 

3th Floor, L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-0364 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 79 

TDEC - Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs 

1st Floor, L & C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-0435 

Kevin Brown, State Conservationist 

USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service 

675 U.S. Courthouse 

801 Broadway 

 Nashville, TN 37203 

Mr. James D. Slabaugh, State Soil Scientist 

USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service 

675 U.S. Courthouse 

801 Broadway 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Jenny Adkins, Water Quality Specialist 

USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service 

675 U.S. Courthouse 

801 Broadway 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Farm Services Agency 

Mr. David McDoyle, Executive Director 

579 U.S. Courthouse 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Honorable Susan Whitaker, Commissioner 

TN Department of Tourist Development 

312 8th Avenue North, 25th Floor 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Honorable Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General and Reporter 

P.O. Box 20207 

Nashville, TN 37202-0207 

Honorable Barry Turner, Deputy Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General and Reporter 

Environnemental Division 

P.O. Box 20207 

Nashville, TN 37202-0207 

Mr. Scott Gain, District Chief 

US Geological Survey 

640 Grassmere Park 

Suite 100 

Nashville, TN 37211 

Honorable Harry A. Green, PhD, Executive Director 

TN Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 

226 Capitol Blvd., Suite 508 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Mr. Ron Gatlin 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Regulatory Branch 

3701 Bell Road 

Nashville, TN 37214 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Memphis District 

ATTN PLS: Regulatory Branch 

167 North Main Street, B202 

 Memphis, TN 38103-1894 

Gus L. Hargett, Adjutant General 

Department of Military 

P.O. Box 41502 

Nashville, TN 37204-1502 

James Bassham, Director 

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency 

3041 Sidco Drive 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Honorable David Mitchell, Commissioner 

Office of Homeland Security 

William R. Snodgrass, TN Tower, 25th Floor 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Honorable Phil Bredesen, Governor 

Governor’s Office 

Tennessee State Capitol 

Nashville, TN 37243-0001 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 80 

Honorable Gerald F. Nicely, Commissioner 

Tennessee Department of Transportation 

James K. Polk Building, Suite 700 

505 Deaderick Street 

Nashville, TN 34243-0349 

Honorable Alan Jones 

TDOT - Environmental Planning and Permits Division 

James K. Polk Building, Suite 900 

505 Deaderick Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-0334 

John L. Hewitt 

TDOT - Environmental Planning and Permits Division 

James K. Polk Building, Suite 1200 

505 Deaderick Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-0334 

Larosa Collier 

TDOT – Rail and Water Department 

James K. Polk Building, Suite 400 

505 Deaderick Street, 

Nashville, TN 37243-0325 

John Fisher, Transportation Manager II 

TDOT – Office of Rail & Water Transportation 

James K. Polk Bldg., Suite 1800 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Honorable Leslie A. Newman, Commissioner 

TN Department of Commerce & Insurance 

500 James Robertson Parkway 

Davy Crockett Tower 

Nashville, TN 37243-0565 

Mr. David Stuki, Manager 

Aquaity Biology Section 

Laboratory Services 

630 Hart Lane 

Nashville, TN 37247 

Honorable Susan Cooper, Commissioner 

Tennessee Department of Health 

425 Fifth Avenue, North 

Cordell Hull Building, 3rd Floor 

Nashville, TN 37247 

Honorable Matt Kisber, Commisioner 

TN Department of Economic & Community Development 

312 8th Avenue North, 11th Floor 

Nashville TN 37243-0405 

Mr. Michael Atchison, Director, NEPA Contact 

TN Department of Economic & Community Development 

312 8th Avenue North, 11th Floor 

Nashville TN 37243-0405 

Honorable Ken Givens, Commissioner 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

Ellington Agricultural Center, Melrose Station 

Box 40627 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Honorable John McClurkan, Administrator 

TDA – Water Resources Section/Nonpoint Source 

Ellington Agricultural Center - Holeman Building 

P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Mr. Herbert L. Harper, Director, TDEC NEPA 2 

Attn: Mr. Joe Garrison and Mr. Nick Fielder 

Tennessee Historic Commission, Clover Bottom Mansion 

2941 Lebanon Road 

Nashville, TN 37243-0442

Mr. Nick Fielder, Director 

TDEC – Division of Archaeology 

Cole Building #3 

1216 Foster Avenue 

Nashville, TN 37210 

Tennessee State Planning Office 

307 John Sevier Building 

500 Charlotte Avenue 

Nashville, TN 37219-5082 

Pete Connolly 

National Parks Conservation Association 

706 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 81 

Dr. Dick Urban, Manager, Water Pollution Control 

Chattanooga Environmental Assisstance Center 

State Office Building, Suite 550 

540 McCallie Avenue 

Chattanooga, TN 37402 

Mr. William R. Slater, Manager, Underground Storage Tanks 

Chattanooga Environmental Assisstance Center 

State Office Building, Suite 550 

540 McCallie Avenue 

Chattanooga, TN 37402 

Mr. Jon M. Loney, Manager 

Environmental Stewardship and Policy 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

400 West Summit Hill Drive 

Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 

Mr. Charles P. Nicholson, PhD 

NEPA Policy Program Manager 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

400 West Summit Hill Drive 

Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 

Mr. Steve Bakaletz 

Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area 

4564 Leatherwood Road 

Oneida, TN 37841 

Dr. Lee A. Barclay, Field Supervisor 

Ecological Services 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

446 Neal Street 

Cookeville, TN 38501 

Mr. Gary Anderson 

The Wildlife Society – Tennessee Chapter 

Ellington Agricultural Center 

P.O. Box 40747 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Mr. Robert M. Todd, Fish & Wildlife Environmentalist 

Environnemental Services Division – TWRA NEPA Contact 

TWRA - Ellington Agricultural Center 

P.O. Box 40747 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Mr. John Mayer, Regional Manager 

TWRA, Region 3 

464 Industrial Boulevard 

Crossville, TN 38555 

Mr. Scotty D. Sorrells, P.G. 

TDEC / DWS / Ground Water Management Section 

L & C Tower, 6th Floor 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1549 

Commander – Flotilla 082-11-02 

US Coast Guard Marine Safety 

220 Great Circle Road #148 

Nashville, TN 37228-1700 

Director 

Western River Operations 

8th Coast Guard District 

1222 Spruce Street 

Saint Louis, MO 63103-2832 

Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief 

EPA IV – Wetlands Section 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth St., S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Mr. Doug Johnson, Regional Sediment Quality Coordinator 

USEPA – Region 4, Wetlands, Coastal, & Nonpoint Source 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Ms. Lisa McKinley, EPA Contact for Tennessee 

USEPA 4 – Nonpoint Source & Wetlands Planning 

Section 

61 Forsyth Street, S. W. 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Mr. Bill Cox, Chief 

EPA IV – Watersheds and Nonpoint Section 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth St., S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 82 

Mr. Heinz Mueller, NEPA Regional Coordinator 

USEPA – Region 4 

Office of Environmental Assessment 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Federal Center 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Mr. Tom Welborn 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, Regional Director 

US Fish and Wildlife Service – Southeast Region 

Century Center, Suite 400 

1875 Century Boulevard 

Atlanta, GA 30345 

U.S Department of the Interior 

Office of Enviromental Policy & Compliance 

Loretta Sutton, Environmental Review Officer 

Mail Stop: 2342 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Mr. Steve Ahlstedt, President Elect 

Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 

U.S. Geological Survey 

1820 Midpark Drive 

Knoxville, TN 37828 

Executive Director 

The Tennessee Conservation League 

300 Orlando Avenue 

Nashville, TN 37209 

Dr. Martin V. Stewart, President, TN Academy of Science 

Department of Chemistry, Middle Tennessee State 

University 

P.O. Box 68 

Murfreesboro, TN 37132 

The Nature Conservancy of Tennessee 

2021 21st Avenue South, Suite C-400 

Nashville, TN 37212 

Environmental Literacy Council 

Honorable Roger A. Sedjo, Council Chair 

1625 K Street, NW, Suite 1020 

Washington, DC 20006-3868 

Society for Conservation Biology 

Environmental Section 

4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 400 

Arlington, VA, 22203-1651 

Mr. Vawter “Buck” Parker, Executive Director 

Earthjustice 

National Headquarters 

426 17th Street, 6th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612-2820 

Dr. Martin V. Stewart, President 

The Tennessee Academy of Science 

MTSU – Department of Chemistry 

MTSU Box 123 

Murfreesboro, TN 37132 

Director, Forestry Division 

P.O. Box 40627 

Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Mr. Don Richardson, Chapter Chair 

Sierra Club – Tennessee Chapter 

2021 21St Avenue South, Suite 436 

Nashville, TN 37212 

Mr. Bruce Dawson, Field Manager 

Bureau of Land Management – Eastern States 

Jackson Field Office 

411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 

Jackson, MS 39206 

National Wildlife Federation 

Southeastern Natural Resource Center 

1330 West Peachtree Street, Suite 475 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 83 

Mr. William R. Bokey, Chief 

USEPA 4 - Science and Ecosystem Support Division 

Ecological Assessment Branch 

980 College Station Road 

Athens, GA 30605 

Ms. Demetria Smith-Wilson 

National Park Service, Atlanta Federal Center 

1924 Building 

100 Alabama Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Commander Robert Atkin, Director of Auxiliary 

U.S. Coast Guard, District 8 Eastern Region 

Room 415 

600 West Martin Luther King Jr. Place 

Louisville, KY 40202-2287 

Dr. Richard Allen 

History and Culture Office 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma 74465 

Mr. Chad Pregracke, President & Founder 

Living Lands & Waters 

17624 Route 84 N 

East Moline, IL 61244 

Waterways Council, Inc. 

801 North Quincy Street 

Suite 200 

Arlington, VA 22203 

FEMA 

Regional Environmental Officer 

3003 Chamblee Tucker Road 

Atlanta, GA 30341 

TEMA 

Mr. James Bassham, Director 

3041 Sidco Drive 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Center for Watershed Protection 

Ms. Hye Yeong Kwon, Executive Director 

Second Floor 

8390 Main Street 

Ellicott City, MD 21043-4605 

Mr. James Bird 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

Post Office Box 455 

Cherokee, North Carolina 28719 

Diversity Institute at Vanderbilt University 

1207 18th Avenue, South 

Nashville, TN 37212 

Mr. Don Spann 

Burns, TN 37029 

Ms. Jan Jones, Executive Director 

Tennessee River Valley Association 

PO Box 1745 

Decatur, AL 35602-1745 

The American Waterways Operators 

Suite 200 

801 North Quincy Street 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Mr. Allen Harjo 

Tribal Administrator 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

Post Office Box 188 

Okemah, Oklahoma 74859 

Ms. Lisa C. Stopp, Tribal NAGPRA POC 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

Cherokee Nation Culutral Resource Center 

P.O. Box 948 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma 74465 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 84 

Mr. Walter Celestine 

Alabama-Cousatta Tribe 

Route 3, Box 640 

Livingston, Texas 77351 

Mr. Tryg Jorgensen 

Tribal Administrator 

Kialegee Tribal Town 

Post Office Box 332 

Wetumka, Oklahoma 74883 

Ms. Joyce Bear 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma 

Post Office Box 580 

Okmulgee, Oklahoma 74447 

Mr. Bill Day 

Tribal Historic Perservation Officer 

Poarch Band of Cherokee Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Road 

Atmore, Alabama 36502 

Honorable Joe Haynes, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 20 

5 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0220 

Honorable Douglas Henry, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 21 

11 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0021 

Honorable Lamar Alexander, United States Senator 

3322 West End Avenue 

Suite #120 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Honorable Bob Corker, United States Senator 

3322 West End Avenue 

Suite 610 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Honorable Lincoln Davis, United States Representative 

Tennessee 4th Congressional District 

800 Market Street, Suite 110 

Knoxville, TN 37902 

Honorable Zach Wamp, United States Representative 

Tennessee 5th Congressional District 

900 Georgia Avenue, Suite 126 

Chattanooga, TN 37402 

Honorable Bart Gordon, United States Representative 

Tennessee 6th Congressional District 

15 South Jefferson 

Cookeville, TN 38501 

Honorable Marsha Blackburn, United States Representative 

Tennessee 7th Congressional District 

1850 Memorial Drive 

Clarksville, TN 37043 

Honorable John S. Tanner, United States Representative 

Tennessee 8th Congressional District 

P.O. Box 639 

Union City, TN 38281 

Jim Stubblefield 

Field Representative 

305 W. Main Street 

Murfreesboro, TN 37130 

Billy G. Smith 

Field Representative 

15 South Jefferson 

Cookeville, TN 38501 

John Robbins 

Field Representative 

P.O. Box 964 

Jamestown, TN 38566 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 85 

Honorable Jerry Cooper, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 14 

G19 War Memorial Building 

Nashville, TN 37243-0214 

Honorable Mae Beavers, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 17 

308 War Memorial Building 

Nashville, TN 37243-0217 

Honorable Charlotte Burks, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 15 

9 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0215 

Honorable Susan M. Lynn, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 57 

215 War Memorial Building 

Nashville, TN 37243-0157 

Honorable Curtis Johnson, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 68 

207 War Memorial Building 

Nashville, TN 37243-0168 

Honorable Phillip Johnson, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 78 

104 War Memorial Building 

Nashville, TN 37243-0178 

Honorable Charlotte Burks, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 15 

9 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0215 

Honorable Thelma Harper, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 19 

8 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0219 

Smith County – Honorable Mike Nesbit 

122 Turner High Circle 

Suite 100 

Carthage, TN 37030 

Smithville – DeKalb County Chamber of Commerce 

Executive Director: Suzanne Williams 

P.O. Box 64 

Smithville, TN 37166 

Honorable Rosalind Kurita, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 22 

6 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0022 

Honorable Roy Herron, Tennessee Senator 

Tennessee District 24 

7 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0024 

Honorable Frank Buck, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 40 

22 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0140 

Honorable Charles Curtiss, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 43 

34 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0143 

Honorable Stratton Bone Jr., Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 46 

23 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0146 

Honorable Judd Matheny, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 47 

205 War Memorial Building 

Nashville, TN 37243-0147 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 86 

Cookeville Area – Putnam County Chamber of Commerce 

George Halford, President and CEO 

Leslie Town Center 

1 West First Street 

Cookeville, TN 38501 

Honorable Gary W. Moore, Sr., Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 50 

35 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0150 

Honorable Mike Turner, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 51 

37 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0151 

Honorable Rob Briley, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 52 

32 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0152 

Honorable Brenda Gilmore, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 54 

22 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0154 

Honorable Gary Odom, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 55 

18A Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0155 

Honorable Willie Butch Borchert, TN Representative 

Tennessee District 75 

23 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0175 

Honorable Mary Pruitt, Tennessee Representative 

Tennessee District 58 

25 Legislative Plaza 

Nashville, TN 37243-0158 

DeKalb County – Honorable Mike Foster 

1 Public Square 

Room 204 

Smithville, TN 37166 

Putnam County – Honorable Kim Blaylock 

Putnam County Courthouse, Room 8 

300 East Spring Street 

Cookeville, TN 38501 

White County – Honorable Herd Sullivan 

Room 205 

Courthouse 

Sparta, TN 38583 

Warren County – Honorable John Pelham 

201 Locust Street 

Suite 1 

McMinnville, TN 37110 

Southern Standard - Newspaper 

105 College Street 

McMinnville, TN 37110 

Herald Citizen – Newspaper 

P.O. Box 2729 

1300 Neal Street 

Cookeville, TN 38502-2729 

The Lebanon Democrat - Newspaper 

402 North Cumberland Street 

Lebanon, TN 37087 

Sparta – White County Chamber of Commerce 

16 West Bockman 

Sparta, TN 38583 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 87 

McMinnville – Warren County Chamber of Commerce 

Lea Chrisawn, President 

110 South Court Square 

P.O. Box 574 

McMinnville, TN 37111 

Upper Cumberland Tourism Association 

P.O. Box 2411 

Cookeville, TN 38502 

Center Hill Marina 

450 Cove Hollow Circle 

Lancaster, TN 38569 

Cookeville Boat Dock 

13800 Cookeville Boat Dock Road 

Baxter, TN 38544 

Edgar Evins Marina 

2100 Edgar Evins Park Road 

Silver Point, TN 38582 

Four Seasons Marina 

FSD Corporation 

P.O. Box 210734 

Nashville, TN 37221-0734 

Hidden Harbor Marina 

2700 Holmes Creek Road 

Smithville, TN 37166 

Horseshoe Bend Marina 

6040 Webb’s Camp Road 

Walling, TN 38587 

Hurricane Marina 

864 Floating Mill Road 

Silver Point, TN 38582 

Pates Ford Marina 

6323 Jefferson Road 

Smithville, TN 37166 

Sligo Marina 

P.O. Box 300 

Smithville, TN 37166 

Burgess Falls State Park 

4000 Burgess Falls Drive 

Sparta, TN 38583-8456 

Edgar Evins State Park 

1630 Edgar Evins State Park Road 

Silver Point, TN 38582 

Rock Island State Park 

82 Beach Road 

Rock Island, TN 38581-4200 

Lakeside Resort (UCHRA) 

358 Relax Drive 

Smithville, TN 37166 

Indian Creek Youth Camp 

Kentucky-Tennessee Conference 

Association of Seventh-Day Adventists 

P.O. Box 1088 

Goodlettsville, TN 37070-1088 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 88 

Regional Forester 

Southern Region 

1720 Peachtree Road, NW 

Atlanta, GA 36367 

Cindy Smith 

Clarksville, TN 37043 

T. Arlin Dean 

Life Cycle Products 

22204 Pepper Road 

Athens, AL 35613 

The Tennessean - Newspaper 

1100 Broadway 

Nashville, TN 37203 

The Leaf-Chronical 

PO Box 31029 

Clarksville, TN 37040-0018 

WANT FM / WCOR AM - Radio 

P.O. Box 399 

Lebanon, TN 37088 

WJLE Radio 

2606 McMinnville Highway 

Smithville, TN 37166 

WSM Radio 

2804 Opryland Drive 

Nashville, TN 37214 

U.S. Post Office – Smithville Postmaster Please Post 

100 S 1st, Suite 104 

Smithville, TN 37166-9998 

U.S. Post Office – McMinnville Postmaster Please Post 

231 Northgate Drive 

McMinnville, TN 37110-1439 

U.S. Post Office – Cookeville Postmaster Please Post 

1000 North Dixie Avenue 

Cookeville, TN 38505-0001 

U.S. Post Office – Carthage Postmast Please Post 

115 Main Street, North Front 

Carthage, TN 37030-9998 

U.S. Post Office – Gallatin Postmaster Please Post 

380 Maple Street 

Gallatin, TN 37066-9998 

U.S. Post Office – Hendersonville Postmaster Please Post 

247 West Main Street 

Hendersonville, TN 37075-7320 

U.S. Post Office – Nashville Postmaster Please 

Post 

525 Royal Parkway, Room 9998 

Nashville, TN 37230-9998 

U.S. Post Office – Ashland City Postmaster Please Post 

102 North Vine Street 

Ashland City, TN 37015-9998 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 89 

U.S. Post Office – Clarksville Postmaster Please Post 

306 Madison Street 

Clarksville, TN 37040-9997 

U.S. Post Office – Dover Postmaster Please Post 

326 Spring Street 

Dover, TN 37058-9998 

U.S. Post Office – Grand Rivers Postmaster Please Post 

1818 JH Obryan Avenue 

Grand Rivers, KY 42045-9998 

J.E. Mohead 

Ford Construction 

P.O. Box 527 

Dyersburg, TN 38025 

Ecoho Bridge Inc. 

P.O. Box 89 

Elmira, NY 14902 

Honorable Leigh Henry 

Hunton & Williams 

1900 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Barbara Owen 

Seward International Inc. 

3470 Martinsburg Pike 

Clearbrook, VA 22624 

Sea Technology, ltc 

P.O. Box 489 

Gloucester, VA 23061 

Randy Kimberlin 

Cellofoam 

P.O. Box 406 

Conyers, GA 30207 

Mr. Greg Easton, Materials International 

4501 Circle 75 Parkway 

Suite E5370 

Atlanta, GA 30339 

CSX Transportation, Inc. 

500 Water Street 

Suite 200 

Jacksonville, FL 32202 

Ravens Manufacturing Co., Inc. 

3295 Old Dixie Highway 

Kissimmee, FL 32804 

The Ohio River Company LLC 

2500 Chamber Center Drive 

Fort Mitchell, KY 41017 

Ms. Ann Murray 

Tennessee Conservation League 

300 Orlando Avenue 

Nashville, TN 37209 

Dredge and Marine Corporation 

P.O. Box 358 

Mt. Juliet, TN 37122 

John B. (Jack) Herbert, Herbert Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. 

P.O. Box 279 

900 Herbert Road 

New Johnsonville, TN 37134-0279 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 90 

David Liles 

Sullivan Floatation System 

P.O. Box 758 

Little River, SC 29566 

Robinsong Ecological Resources, Inc. 

107 Kaufmann Circle 

Madison AL 35758 

Andrew C. Welch 

Marine Operations CN71 

MarshallSpace Flight Center 

Huntsville, AL 35812 

Howard Powell, Jr. 

Powell Towing & Leasing Co. 

P.O. Box 87 

Guntersville, AL 35976-0087 

J. Michael Noll 

Covington, KY 41011 

Erik S. Kousen 

Burlington, KY 41005 

Bryan 

Verona KY 41092 

Steve Perry 

Cincinnati, OH 45255 

Gil Lackey 

Nashville, TN 37205 

Jeff Wade 

Kingston, TN 37763 

President, Ingram Materials Company 

C/O Mr. Charles J. Sanders, III 

4400 Harding Road 

Nashville, TN 37205 

Buddy Loonce 

Nashville, TN 37205 

Lone Star Industries, Inc. 

Sales Office 

1702 2nd Avenue, North 

Nashville, TN 37208-2250 

W.R. Coles & Associates 

1 Burton Hills Blvd # 360 

Nashville, TN 37215 

Federal Highway Administration 

Division of Engineer Harbor Tennessee 

640 Grassmere Park Road 

Nashville, TN 37211 

Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association Inc. 

P.O. Box 159041 

Nashville, TN 37215-9041 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 91 

Adelle Wood 

Nashville, TN 37215 

Adelle Wood 

Nashville, TN 37217 

Gullett, Sanford, Robinson & Martin PLLC 

Suite 1100 

PO Box 198888 

315 Deadrick Street 

Nashville, TN 37219-8888 

Norman Ketchman & Associates 

5515 Alpine Ridge 

Stevensville, MI 49127 

Honorable Wilkey 

1150 Shackleford Ridge Road 

Signal Mountain, TN 37377-1221 

Pete Serodino, Southern Marine Construction 

100 Hamm Road 

P.O. Box 4539 

Chattanooga, TN 37405-0539 

Tennessee River Gorge Trust 

535 Chestnut Street 

Chattanooga, TN 37402-4908 

Carline Bryant, Tennessee Valley Authority 

West Tower 10C 

400 West Summit Hill Drive 

Knoxville, TN 37902 

Catherine Murray 

Johnson City, TN 37604 

Burkhart Enterprises 

P.O. Box 6131 

2435 Asbury Road 

Knoxville, TN 37914 

Christopher Todd 

Humboldt, TN 38343-8427 

Glenda Rickman 

Lexington, TN 38351 

Betty DeVita 

Lakeside Park, KY 41017 

O’Donley Dredging Co., Inc. 

4710 Clarks River Road 

Paducah, KY 42003-0936 

Badgett Terminal Corporation 

P.O. Box 247 

Grand Rivers, KY 42045-0202 

Vulcan Materials Company 

Grand Rivers Quarry, Environmental Quality/Permits 

947 U.S. Hwy 62 

Grand Rivers, KY 42045 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 92 

American Commercial Barge Line Co. 

ATTN PLS: Chris Brinkop 

1701 E. Market Street 

Jeffersonville, IN 47130-4747 

Siemens Westinghouse 

10270 Alliance Road 

Cincinnati, OH 45242 

Southwind Construction 

ATTN PLS: George L. Hicks 

14649 Highway 41 North 

Evansville, IN 47711 

Ray Harper 

Evansville Press 

P.O. Box 454 

Evansville, IN 47708 

Paul J. Dusing 

Florence, KY 41042 

Joseph Melching 

Burlington, KY 41005 

Bob Zeik, Bunge Corporation 

11720 Borman Drive 

P.O. Box 28500 

St. Louis, MO 63146 

Tom Croskey 

Petraflex 

4444 West 78th Street 

Minneapolis, MN 55435 

Mara Corti 

International Dredging Review 

P.O. Box 1487 

Fort Collins, CO 80522 

Massman Construction Company 

8901 State Line Road 

Kansas City, MO 64114 

Water Structures Unlimited 

P.O. Box 206 

Carlotta, CA 95528 

Aquatic Habitat Management Corp 

2150 Franklin Canyon Road 

Martinez, CA 94553 

Ernie Paquette 

3001 West End Ave. 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Donald N. Jones 

Nashville, TN 37205-3244 

Keith Haungs 

Cincinnati, OH 45238 

Merle Olmsted 

Walton, KY 41094 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 93 

Sam Fenimore 

Brentwood, TN 37027 

Juni Fisher 

Franklin, TN 37064 

Jay Clementi 

Game Fair Ltd. 

5703 Old Harding Pike 

Nashville, TN 37205 

Tim Johnson 

Nashville, TN 37212 

Jim Catino 

Arista Nashville 

1400 18th Avenue South 

Nashville, TN 37212-2893 

Trout Unlimited – National Office 

1300 N. 17th Street 

Suite 500 

Arlington, VA 22209-2404 

Robert M. Koehler 

Louisville, KY 40207 

Lee Squires 

Louisville, Kentucky 40207 

Jackson Harris 

Nashville, TN 37215-1859 

Charles R. Miller 

Franklin, TN 37067 

Dr. Richard Davis 

Nashville, TN 37220-1531 

Wendy Smith, Director, World Wildlife Fund 

Southeast Rivers and Streams Project 

2021 21st Avenue S., Suite 200 

Nashville, TN 37212 

Gary Kelley 

Nashville, TN 37221 

John Cliff 

Franklin, Tennessee 37069 

Don Becher 

Park Hills, KY 41011 

Bernard Blau 

Fort Thomas, KY 41075 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 94 

Jeff Barrrett – MTFF Conservation Chairman 

143 Ridgemont Place 

Franklin, TN 37064 

Roger Guth 

Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 

Emmet Boyers 

Alexandria, KY 41001 

Cheryl Blau 

Fort Thomas, KY 41075 

Rick Parrish 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

201 West Main Street 

Charlottesville, VA 22902 

Volunteer Barge & Transport 

P.O. Box 1563 

Brentwood, TN 37024-1563 

Harpeth River Watershed Association 

PO Box 1127 

Franklin, TN 37065 

David H. Kessler, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor Of Biology, Rhodes College 

2000 N. Parkway 

Memphis, TN 38112 

William B Caldwell 

Columbia TN 38401 

Gene Cotton 

Franklin, TN 37064 

Joe McCaleb 

Hendersonville, TN 37075 

Dorene Bolze 

Harpeth River Watershed Association 

P.O. Box 1127 

Franklin, TN 37065 

Leslie Colley 

The Nature Conservancy 

715 North Main Street 

Columbia, TN 38401 

Barry Sulkin 

Nashville, TN 37281 

Tom Heineke 

Heineke & Associates 

3014 Sycamore View Road 

Bartlett, TN 38134-5962 

Kevin Bremer 

Villa Hills, KY 41017 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 95 

Steve Culp 

W. L. Hailey & Co. Inc. 

PO Box 40646 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Eva Long, National Parks Service 

1924 Building 

100 Alabama Street, SW 

Altlanta, GA 30303 

Danielle Droitsch 

Tennessee Clean Water Network 

PO Box 1521 

Knoxville, TN 37901 

Richard Hanks 

Dover, TN 37058 

Honorable Ken Winters, Senator 

Kentucky District 1 

Annex Room 209 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Honorable J. R. Gray, Representative 

Kentucky District 6 

Annex Room 324D 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Honorable Jim Bunning, U.S. Senator – Kentucky 

316 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Honorable Mitch McConnel, U.S. Senator – Kentucky 

361-A Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington D.C. 20510 

Honorable Ed Whitfield, U.S. Representative 

Kentucky District 1 

2411 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Honorable John Tilley, Representative 

Kentucky District 8 

Annex Room 332A 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Honorable Dorsey Ridley, Senator 

Kentucky District 4 

Annex Room 251 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Honorable Mike Cherry, Representative 

Kentucky District 4 

Annex Room 370A 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Honorable Melvin B. Henley, Representative 

Kentucky District 5 

Annex Room 432C 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

Environmental Policy Office 

L & C Tower, 21st Floor 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-0454 

Tennessee Department of Transportation 

Mr. Glen Beckwith, Planning Division 

James Polk Building, Suite 900 

Nashville, TN 37243-0334 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 

Mr. Gerald Miller, Office of Environmental Assessment 

61 Forsythe Street 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 96 

Mr. Jimmie Clark, Field Office Director 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

Cookeville Environmental Field Office 

1221 South Willow Avenue 

Cookeville, TN 38506 

Mr. Rob Howard, Field Office Manager 

TDEC – Division of Water Pollution Control 

Cookeville Environmental Field Office 

1221 South Willow Avenue 

Cookeville, TN 38506 

D. W. Couts 

Springfield, TN 37172 

Jack Brown 

Old Hickory, TN 37138 

Mr. Tim Dunn, Resource Manager 

Resource Managers Office 

Center Hill Lake 

158 Resource Lane 

Lancaster, Tennessee 38569 

Mr. Kenneth Blanchard, Lt. Governor 

Absentee – Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

2025 South Gordon Cooper Drive 

Shawnee, OK 74801-9381 

Smithville Review 

106 South First Street 

Smithville, TN 37166 

Middle Tennessee Times 

206 E. Public Square 

Smithville, TN 37166 

William Federhofer 

Liberty, MO 64068-1157 

James C. Pierce 

Burkesville, KY 42717 

Bernard J. Blau 

Jolly, Blau, Kriege & Terner, P.L.L.C. 

3699 Alexandria Pike 

P.O. Box 249 

Cold Spring, KY 41076 

Tim Guilfoile 

Edgewood, KY 41017-2317 

Gary Wisniewski 

Florence, KY 41042 

Michael Arnold 

Wilder, KY 41076 

Steve Moermond 

Covington, KY 41015 

Ron Kilmer 

Walton, KY 41094 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 97 

Joe Jackman 

Union, KY 41091 

James E. Patrick 

Covington, KY 41015 

Larry Drake 

Louisville, KY 40219 

B. Mcdaniel 

Alexandria, KY 41001 

Tom Rust 

Cold Spring, KY 41076 

Angelo Randaci 

Cincinnati, OH 45150 

Dean Moby 

Covington, KY 41017 

Clinton Gray 

Louisville, KY 40222 

Art Vernon 

Florence, KY 41042 

Mike Glindmeyer 

Burlington, KY 41005 

Jim Blasdel 

Burlington, KY 41005 

James Wilmoth 

Stamping Ground, KY 40379 

Dave DeWolfe 

6370 Cliffside Drive 

Florence, TN 41042 

Mike Groeschon 

Cold Spring, KY 40076 

Sherry or Judith Huseman 

Fort Mitchell, KY 41017 

Scott Spilla 

Independence, KY 41051 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 98 

Tom Gier 

Fort Wright, KY 41011 

Tom Owen 

Independence, KY 41051 

Dan Dykes 

Alexandria, KY 41001 

Ed Jody 

Covington, KY 41011 

Francis Trambarger 

Cincinnati, OH 45255 

Jack Randall 

Fort Mitchell, KY 41017 

Harry Leidy III 

Florence, KY 41042 

Ben West, NEPA Program Office 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Morris F. Cecil 

Park Hills, KY 41011 

Mark England 

Erlanger, KY 41018 

Lanny Setters 

Independence, KY 41051 

Daniel Dykes 

Alexandria, KY 41001 

Dave Barnett 

Cincinnati, OH 45220 

Evelyn Trambarger 

Cincinnati, OH 45255 

Tom Garner 

Covington, KY 41011 

Craig Troescher 

Cincinnati, OH 45230 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 99 

Scott Reusing 

Newport, KY 41071 

Tom Keener 

Southgate, KY 41071 

Brian Bamberger 

Edgewood, KY 41017 

Mel Whitehead 

Southgate, KY 41071 

Richard Bushman 

Walton, KY 41094 

Hal Burch 

Cincinnati, OH 45239 

John Novak III 

Edgewood, KY 41017 

Frank Reusing 

Newport, KY 41071 

David Campbell 

Goshen, KY 40026 

Ginger Novak 

Edgewood, KY 41017 

Alex Lockstead 

Burlington, KY 41005 

D Willmoth 

Cold Spring, KY 41076 

Robert Brock 

Richmond, KY 40475 

Richard J. Kordal, Ph.D, Director of Intellectual Poperty 

Wherry Hall, Room G-07 

3223 Eden Avenue 

Box 670829 

Cincinnati, OH 45267-0829 

Steve Haubner 

Falmouth KY 41040 

John Stevie 

Taylor Mill, KY 41015 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 100 

Joseph Mohlenkamp 

Cincinnati, OH 25251 

Gary Turney 

Florence, KY 41042 

Paul Stegeman 

Cold Spring, KY 41076 

Don Wilmoth 

Cold Spring, KY 41076 

Mary Stegeman 

Cold Spring, KY 41076 

Northern Kentucky Fly Fishers 

Burlington, KY 41005-9109 

Thomas Bader 

Walton, KY 41094 

Robert Kist 

Lawrenceburg, IN 47025 
Center Hill Dam and Lake DEIS 101 

7.0 Index 

Aesthetics...........................................17, 26, 45, 64 

Air Quality .........................................15, 26, 44, 62 

Aquatic Resources .............................15, 21-23, 26, 35, 53, 55, 57, 68-71, 73 

Cultural Resources.............................14, 15, 41, 58 

Cumulative Effects.............................67 - 73 

Economics..........................................S-2, 1, 2, 14, 17, 21-23, 26, 28, 46, 64-66, 68, 72, 73 

Endangered Species ...........................1, 15, 21-24, 33, 37, 40, 41, 57, 68, 70, 71 

Flood Control.....................................S-1, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30-32, 43, 

 46-49, 53, 55, 56-58, 60, 61, 64, 66, 67 

Hydropower .......................................S-1, 1, 4, 6, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-19, 22, 24-26, 30, 32, 36, 

 38, 42, 44, 46, 48-50, 52, 54, 59, 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 

 71-73 

Navigation..........................................1, 6, 8, 9, 17, 21-24, 26, 30-32, 46, 63-66, 68, 72, 73 

Noise ..................................................26, 44, 62 

Power Marketing Band ......................4-7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 28, 48, 49, 62 

Recreation ..........................................S-1, 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17-19, 21-26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 

 39, 44-46, 49-52, 62-65, 68-73 

Tailwaters...........................................7, 8, 10, 18, 19, 22-26, 30, 32-34, 36-40, 42, 44-46, 

 50-62, 64, 65, 67, 69-73 

Trout...................................................7, 8, 33, 36-38, 44, 46, 50-52, 54-56, 65, 70, 71, 73 

Water Quality.....................................S-1, S-2, 1, 4, 7-10, 14-19, 21-26, 28, 30-37, 46, 49-52, 

 61, 62, 67, 68, 70-73 

Water Quantity...................................21, 22, 30-33, 49, 50, 52, 55, 59, 68, 70, 71, 73 

Water Supply .....................................S-1, 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 22, 24, 26, 32, 43, 46, 50-52, 

 61, 62, 64-73 

Wetlands ............................................26, 38, 39, 56-58 

Wildlife ..............................................S-1, 1, 8-19, 14, 17, 18, 24, 26, 30, 32, 39, 40, 46, 

 49-52, 57, 63, 69 

 
APPENDIX A 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSEMENT 

Center Hill Lake and Dam 

DeKalb County, Tennessee 

Center Hill Lake and Dam 

Changes To Operational Guide Curves Pool 

Biological Assessment 

Nashville District 

CENTER HILL LAKE AND DAM 

DEKALB COUNTY, TENNESSEE 

CHANGES TO 

OPERATIONAL GUIDE CURVES POOL 

ELEVATIONS 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

November 2007 
Center Hill Lake and Dam 

Changes To Operational Guide Curves Pool 

Biological Assessment 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Purpose Statement ................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Scope...................................................................................................... 2 

1.3 Previous NEPA documents, Section 7 Consultation, and Studies .......... 2 

2.0 Description of the Cumberland and Tennessee River Systems.................... 3 

2.1 History and Authority............................................................................... 3 

2.2 Description of Reservoirs ........................................................................ 4 

2.3 General Environmental and Socioeconomic Setting of the Region......... 7 

2.3.1 Cumberland River System................................................................. 7 

2.3.2 Tennessee River System................................................................... 8 

3.0 Approach and Process ................................................................................. 9 

3.1 Defining the Action Area..........................................................................10 

3.2 Listing and Definition of Activities............................................................13 

3.3 Screening of Activities and Species ........................................................16 

4.0 Individual Activity/Species Impacts...............................................................16 

4.1 Birds............................................................................................................19 

4.1.1 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) ..................................................19 

4.1.2 Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos)..............................20 

4.2 Mammals.................................................................................................21 

4.2.1 Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens).............................................................21 

4.2.2 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)...............................................................22 
ii 

4.3 Reptiles ...................................................................................................23 

4.3.1 Eastern Slender Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus longicaudus).23 

4.4 Insects ........................................................................................................24 

4.4.1 A Cave Obligate Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis)...........24 

4.4.2 Baker Station Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus insularis)...............24 

4.4.3 Indian Grave Point Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus tiresias) ........25 

4.5 Terrestrial Plants.........................................................................................26 

4.5.1 Price's Potato-bean (Apios priceana) ................................................26 

4.5.2 Braun's Rock-cress (Arabis perstellata).............................................26 

4.5.3 Pyne's (Guthrie’s) Ground-plum (Astragalus bibullatus).....................27 

4.5.4 Cumberland Rosemary (Conradina verticillata) ..................................27 

4.5.5 Leafy Prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa).....................................................29 

4.5.6 Tennessee Coneflower (Echinacea tennesseensis)...........................31 

4.5.7 Short's Bladderpod (Lesquerella globosa).........................................31 

4.5.8 Spring Creek Bladderpod (Lesquerella perforata - Rollins) ...............32 

4.5.9 White Fringeless Orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) .............................34 

4.6 Crustaceans................................................................................................35 

4.6.1 Nashville Crayfish (Orconectes shoupi).............................................35 

4.7 Fish .............................................................................................................36 

4.7.1 Slackwater Darter (Etheostoma boschungi) .......................................36 

4.7.2 Bluemask (=Jewel) Darter (Etheostoma sp. D) ..................................37 

37 

4.7.3 Pygmy Madtom (Noturus stanauli) .....................................................38 
iii 

4.8 Mussels.......................................................................................................40 

4.8.1 Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta)........................................43 

4.8.2 Fanshell Pearly Mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria) ...................................46 

4.8.3 Dromedary Pearlymussel (Dromus dromas).......................................48 

4.8.4 Cumberlandian Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens)...........................50 

4.8.5 Catspaw or Purple Cat's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) ........56 

4.8.6 Cracking Pearlymussel (Hemistena lata)............................................58 

4.8.7 Pink Mucket (Lampsilis abrupta)..........................................................59 

4.8.8 Ring Pink (Obovaria retusa) ................................................................62 

4.8.9 Little-wing Pearlymussel (Pegias fabula).............................................64 

4.8.10 White Wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus).....................................65 

4.8.11Orange-foot Pimpleback (Plethobasus cooperianus) .........................66 

4.8.12 Clubshell (Pleurobema clava)............................................................68 

4.8.13 Cumberland Pigtoe (Pleurobema gibberum) .....................................70 

4.8.14 Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) .................................................72 

5.0 Potential Conservation Measures.....................................................................77 

5.1 Measure No. 1. Installation of an Orifice Gate Over a Sluice Gate ............77 

5.2 Blending Turbine and Sluice Gate Discharges............................................78 

5.3 Supplemental Flows from Other Tributary Lakes........................................78 

5.4 Spill vs. Generation.....................................................................................78 

6.0 Species/Impact Summary/Conclusions and Determinations ............................78 
1 
2 

1.0. Introduction 

The Corps of Engineers, Nashville District, is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) to address proposed operational changes at Center Hill Dam that 

could affect pool elevations in Center Hill Lake. Center Hill Dam is located in DeKalb 

County in central Tennessee. 

Center Hill Dam, impounded in the early 1950s, was built on karst geology using 

accepted engineering practices of the day. Since the 1960s, seepage flows through the 

dam’s right abutment and left rim wall have been monitored. Repairs have been made 

at various times and include grout injection into the dam foundation, earthen 

embankment, right abutment and left rim. These repairs were effective; however recent 

increased seepage and development of turbid flows through springs below the left rim 

wall have become concerns. A comprehensive plan to repair the dam was approved, 

but will take a number of years to complete. The plan includes a major grouting project 

scheduled to start in fall 2007, to address the dam seepage, followed by installation of a 

cutoff wall through the main dam and saddle dam. These repairs along with other 

alternatives were discussed in the following NEPA documents: Proposed Center Hill 

Dam Seepage Rehabilitation, Environmental Assessment, July 2005; and Proposed 

Center Hill Dam Seepage Rehabilitation, Environmental Assessment Supplement 1, 

March 2006. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed for each of these 

documents. 

Since March 2005, the Corps has attempted to keep fall, winter and early spring lake 

levels from extreme rises due to high inflow. Seepage problems are made worse during 

continual high lake levels. Until repairs are sufficiently complete, the Corps has 

determined that it is in the public’s interest to operate Center Hill Lake at the lower 

range of the operations guide curve to reduce pressure on the dam foundation, 

abutments, and rim walls. A formal risk assessment is expected to recommend that the 

lake level be dropped and maintained year round in a band between elevation 618 and 

elevation 625 until the foundation’s integrity is restored. 

This Biological Assessment (BA) is necessary to provide a basis for informal or formal 

(if required) Section 7 Consultation and for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

compliance to address impacts that could occur due to possible changes in lake levels

1.1. Purpose Statement 

The primary objective of this informal Section 7 consultation process is to determine if 

lowering the lake levels below the normal guide curves at Center Hill Lake may 

adversely affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat. If so, the Corps 

Nashville District will enter formal consultation, and the USFWS will develop reasonable 

and prudent measures and incidental take terms and conditions while required repairs 

are effected. 

1.2. Scope 
3 

The Corps of Engineers Nashville District is committed to full compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act regarding its operations and maintenance activities on the 

Cumberland River. Because the lower pool elevations have the potential to affect TVA 

operations at two fossil fuel power plants and affect the lake levels and navigation in 

Kentucky Lake via the Lake Barkley/Kentucky Lake canal, the Corps has requested that 

TVA serve as a cooperating agency for the EIS. The geographical areas to be 

addressed in this Biological Assessment and informal Section 7 consultation process 

consist of the Cumberland River from its mouth through Barkley, Cheatham, and Old 

Hickory lakes, the Caney Fork River between Center Hill Dam and its confluence with 

Old Hickory Lake, Center Hill Lake, and Kentucky Lake and its tailwaters on the 

Tennessee River. Paragraph 3.1 and Table 1 below further define the action area and 

multi-purpose projects within the study areas of the Tennessee and Cumberland River 

systems. The table also provides Internet links to the Navigation Charts (river mapping) 

for those rivers and projects. This Biological Assessment examines impacts of the 

possible lowered operating levels associated with Dam repairs to determine whether 

any are likely to adversely affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat. 

This process does not consider the effects of construction which was covered under 

previous NEPA assessments. 

1.3. Previous NEPA Documents, Section 7 Consultations, and Studies. 

Final Environmental Impact Statements for open channel maintenance of the 

Tennessee River and tributaries and for operation, maintenance and management of 

water resource projects on the commercially navigable portion of the Cumberland River 

were filed in March 1976 and November 1975, respectively. Both were prepared as 

composite or “umbrella” statements as defined in Corps implementing regulations at the 

time (ER 1105-2-507). Both statements followed fairly closely the enactment of the 

Endangered Species Act, and clear implementation procedures for Section 7 of the Act 

had not been established. Also many species had not yet been federally listed. 

Endangered Species Act compliance was not raised as an issue in the agency review 

comments. These “umbrella” statements were followed-up by site specific NEPA 

Documents as each substantial specific operation and maintenance action was 

proposed. Section 7 compliance was completed for each individual action, when 

appropriate, within the respective individual NEPA processes and under the 

consultation regulations in effect at the time. 

In July, 2007 the Corps submitted a BA titled, Biological Assessment Operation and 

Maintenance of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers Navigation Systems, to 

determine if any Corps of Engineers operation and maintenance activities associated 

with navigation along the Tennessee/Cumberland Rivers adversely affect federally 

listed species or designated critical habitat. A list of previous NEPA Documents and/or 

Section 7 consultations and studies related to the Tennessee and Cumberland 

Navigation Systems is provided in Appendix B. 
4 

Numerous reports and studies have been completed at Center Hill Dam and Lake and are 

cited in the document titled, Center Hill Dam, DeKalb County, Tennessee, Seepage 

Control, Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Final Report, LRD Review, 14 July 2006. These 

documents include Center Hill Dam and Lake Master Plans, O&M Plans, Continued 

Operation, Maintenance, and Management EA, design plans, security plans, spill plans, 

and more. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed for remediation of the 

left and right rim and a Finding of No Significant Impact was signed. During the study 

process, additional alternatives were identified for the main dam embankment and 

saddle dam and a Supplemental EA was completed and a FONSI. Rehabilitation 

alternatives considered, potential impacts analyzed, and public and agency comments 

considered were included in the two EAs. They were titled, Proposed Center Hill Dam 

Seepage Rehabilitation, Environmental Assessment, July 2005; and Proposed Center 

Hill Dam Seepage Rehabilitation, Environmental Assessment Supplement 1, March 

2006.

2.0. Description of the Tennessee and Cumberland River Systems 

2.1. History and Authority 

The River and Harbor Act of 3 July 1832 authorized the first open-channel work on the 

Cumberland River (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 1975). Since then, 

the Corps of Engineers, Nashville District has been responsible for planning, 

construction, operation, maintenance and management of facilities, waters, and lands 

associated with water resource development projects in the Cumberland River 

Watershed. 

In the early part of the 20th century, major floods occurred in the Ohio and Mississippi 

River basins, which resulted in disastrous losses of lives, property, and economic stability. 

Ensuing public outcry for government agencies to take protective measures led to the 

development in 1937 of a comprehensive flood control plan by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps). The comprehensive plan proposed construction of 45 flood control 

reservoirs in the Ohio River basin. Six flood control reservoirs were recommended for the 

Cumberland River Basin, of which four were eventually built. These four are Wolf Creek 

(Lake Cumberland), Dale Hollow, Center Hill, and J. Percy Priest Dams. 

The Flood Control Act of 1938 authorized dam construction for Center Hill Dam. 

Supplementing authorizations were the Third Supplemental Defense Act of 1941, the 

Flood Control Act of 1944, and the River and Harbor Act of 1946. Section 4 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the Chief of Engineers to construct, maintain, and 

operate public park and recreational facilities and to permit construction, maintenance 

and operation of such facilities. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 

established development of the recreational potential at federal water resource projects 

as a full project purpose. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661) and the 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC §§ 2901 – 2911) recognized “...the 

vital contribution of our wildlife resources to the Nation...” and provided that “...wildlife 

conservation shall receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of 
5 

water-resource development programs...” The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1252 § 

102(b)) added water quality to the Corps’ mission at water-resource development 

projects. The River and Harbor Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Army to include municipal and industrial water storage in Corps projects and to 

reallocate storage in existing projects to municipal and industrial water supply. 

As a result of these legislative actions, the currently authorized project purposes for the 

Center Hill Lake Project are flood control, hydropower generation, recreation, fish and 

wildlife management, water quality, and municipal water supply. Although not 

specifically authorized for the purpose, Center Hill Dam also makes some contribution 

to navigation as a by-product of its releases, particularly on the lower Ohio and 

Mississippi Rivers. 

2.2. Description of Reservoirs 

The Corps of Engineers constructed, operates, and maintains ten dams in the 

Cumberland River Basin. All of the dams are operated as multiple-use projects, 

although not all dams can support all uses. The “mainstem” dams, Barkley, Cheatham, 

Old Hickory, and Cordell Hull were all authorized and designed for navigation and have 

locks associated with the dams. The other six dams, including Wolf Creek Dam, are 

considered “tributary” dams. All of the dams and reservoirs are, of necessity, operated 

as a single system. The vast majority of the water that passes through the mainstem 

lakes originates at one of three large reservoirs, Lake Cumberland (Wolf Creek Dam), 

Dale Hollow, and Center Hill. In a typical year, Lake Cumberland supplies about 60% of 

the water in the Cumberland River, with Dale Hollow and Center Hill each supplying 

between 15% and 18%. How these reservoirs are operated, and the timing and volume 

of their releases is, therefore, of great concern for all of the downstream resources. 

Center Hill Dam is a large, high head dam located near Lancaster, Tennessee at Caney 

Fork River Mile 26.6 (Figure 1). It was originally designed for flood control and 

hydropower generation. Subsequent authorizations added water quality, recreation, fish 

and wildlife management, and water supply to the project purposes. The average 

discharge below the dam is 3,800 cubic feet per second. The maximum lake depth is 

173 feet and the lake retention time is 131 days. The length of the pool at elevation 685 

is 64 miles. The length, depth, and retention time have combined to alter the lake and 

particularly the tailwater from a warm-water fishery to a cold-water fishery. The tailwater 

of Center Hill Dam flows into the upper end of Old Hickory Lake at Carthage, 

Tennessee. The Center Hill Lake and the Caney Fork River contribute about 15% to 

18% of the total flow of the Cumberland River below Cordell Hull Dam. Center Hill 

typically has a winter pool elevation of 623. Under normal conditions, late winter and 

spring rains are captured and retained to reduce flooding downstream and to store the 

water for later use. Usually Center Hill is allowed to fill to elevation 648 by the Fourth of 

July. This is done in part for recreational enhancement, but primarily to allow peaking 

hydropower generation during the summer when power demands are greatest and to 

supply fresh water to sustain water quality in the mainstem lakes. From about the 
6 

Fourth of July on Center Hill Lake is slowly drained until the winter lake levels are 

reached and the cycle begins once again. 

Old Hickory Lock and Dam, located on the Cumberland River at mile 216.2 in Sumner 

and Davidson Counties, Tennessee, is approximately 25 miles upstream from Nashville, 

Tennessee. The lake extends 97.3 miles upstream to Cordell Hull Lock and Dam near 

Carthage, Tennessee. Old Hickory Lock and Dam was authorized for construction by 

the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946 as a unit of a comprehensive development plan for 

the Cumberland River Basin and is a mainstream storage impoundment on the 

Cumberland River. Its primary authorization was for navigation and hydropower 

production. Other authorized project purposes now include recreation, water quality, 

municipal and residential water supply, and fish and wildlife management. Old Hickory 

has no flood storage capacity and its water level fluctuations are minimal. Its tailwaters 

flow into Cheatham Lake. 

Figure 1 

Congress authorized the Cheatham Lock and Dam Project in 1946 as a navigation unit 

of a comprehensive plan of development for the Cumberland River Basin. The original 

purpose of this water resources development project was to replace three smaller, 

aging locks built at the turn of the century. In 1952, Congress added authorization for 

the production of hydroelectric power as a project function. The lake is a “run-of-theriver” type that operates basically on normal streamflow. The Corps uses as much of 

the inflow as practicable for hydropower generation. The dam was not constructed to 
7 

provide a designated capacity for regulating floodwaters. Therefore, during periods of 

heavy rainfall and high streamflow, the spillway gates are opened to pass waters in 

excess of the capacity of hydropower turbines. Cheatham Lock and Dam backs water 

for 67.5 miles to Old Hickory Lock and Dam. Other authorized project purposes now 

include recreation, water quality, municipal and residential water supply, and fish and 

wildlife management. Cheatham’s tailwaters flow into Lake Barkley. 

Lake Barkley is a multi-purpose project designed for flood control, navigation, and 

hydropower. Other authorized project purposes now include recreation, water quality, 

municipal and residential water supply, and fish and wildlife management. Located at 

Cumberland River Mile (CRM) 30.6, Barkley Lock and Dam on the lower Cumberland 

River functions as an auxiliary lock for the Kentucky Lock since the Barkley Lock is 

accessible to Tennessee River traffic through the Barkley Canal. Two additional 

purposes for which Lake Barkley is managed are recreation and fish and wildlife. It has 

a 118.1 backwater which ends at Cheatham Lake. Below Barkley Lock and Dam the 

Cumberland River flows to its confluence with the lower Ohio River. The tailwater is 

greatly influenced by backwater from Lock and Dam 52 and the discharges from 

Smithland Lock and Dam on the Ohio River. 

Kentucky Lake is on the Tennessee River, but is connected to Lake Barkley by a 1.5-

mile long unregulated canal that connects the Tennessee and Cumberland Navigation 

Systems. The Nashville District operates and maintains the locks at this project, while 

TVA operates and maintains the associated dam, pool, and hydropower facilities. It is 

because of the connection through the canal that Kentucky Lake is included in this BA. 

Kentucky Lock and Dam are located at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 22.4. Kentucky 

Lock and Dam (TRM 22.4) backs up water for 184 miles to Pickwick Lock and Dam. 

Cordell Hull is not a concern for this BA, but delineates the upstream boundaries of 

effects. As previously mentioned, Barkley Lock and Dam also has a collateral function 

as an auxiliary lock for Kentucky Lock since it is accessible to Tennessee River traffic 

through the Barkley Canal. The Nashville District has primary responsibility for 

operation, maintenance, and management of the multi-purpose projects including 

hydropower, flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife, navigation, and recreation. In 

addition to operating, maintaining and managing the four lock and dam projects and 

Center Hill, the Nashville District is responsible for operating and maintaining five other 

tributary projects. These are J. Percy Priest, Dale Hollow, Cumberland, Laurel River, 

and Martins Fork Lakes. None of these is of direct concern for this BA although their 

flows do influence the cumulative impacts. 

The Cumberland River is considered a very scenic river with numerous historic 

locations along the shoreline. It draws many of the same large inland cruise ships each 

year that run the Tennessee River. The major difference is they only travel 190 miles 

up the Cumberland to Nashville, Tennessee. Commercial traffic is comprised primarily 

of barges loaded with commodities and raw materials. Tows traveling the Cumberland 

River typically consist of nine to twelve barges. Each year approximately 23.0 million 
8 

tons of commodities are transported on the Cumberland River. Commodities most often 

shipped on the Cumberland parallel those seen on the Tennessee River. 

 

2.3. General Environmental and Socioeconomic Setting of the Region 

Although dated, the “umbrella” environmental impact statements referenced in 

Paragraph 1.3 above included the most comprehensive description of the environmental 

and socioeconomic setting of the twin navigation systems available at the time and until 

the turn of the 21st century. The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Tennessee Valley Authority Reservoir Operations Study provides a contemporary 

description of the Tennessee River Valley setting, although coverage is much broader 

than the navigable portion of the Tennessee River. There is no contemporary 

comprehensive description of the Cumberland River System, although limited individual 

project NEPA documents and resource assessments provide localized descriptions of 

the setting along the river corridor. 

2.3.1. Cumberland River System 

The Cumberland River is formed by the confluence of the Poor and Clover Forks of the 

Cumberland River near Harlan, Kentucky some 692.8 miles above its mouth at the Ohio 

River at Smithland, KY. With a drainage area of 17, 598 square miles and navigable 

length of 381.0 miles, the Cumberland River could in many ways be considered a 

scaled-down twin of the Tennessee River. The river flows through three Physiographic 

Regions; the Highland Rim, Central Basin and Pennyroyal Plateau Regions. The 

Cumberland River Watershed is characterized by Karst topography. Within the 

navigable length of the river, the slope averages a low to moderate 0.52 feet per mile, 

more gradual than the slope of the Tennessee River. The majority of the navigable 

portion of the river meets both state and federal water quality criteria and guidelines, 

except the lower portion (Livingston Co., KY) which is affected by the presence of 

pathogens from septic tanks, municipal sewage treatment plants, sewer overflow, land 

disposal, and agriculture. 

As previously mentioned, the Tennessee-Cumberland River ecoregions have the 

highest number of fish, crayfish mussels and endemic species in North America; 

however, the greatest diversity in the Cumberland System is upstream of the navigation 

system, i.e., beyond the scope of this BA. The water quality and physical environment 

of the Cumberland River were significantly altered with the construction of the reservoir 

system when free-flowing river habitat was converted to reservoir pools. A higher 

proportion of the Cumberland Navigation System retains riverine characteristics in 

comparison with the Tennessee, but the river flows slower because of the low to 

moderate gradient. In addition to the conversion from riverine habitat to reservoir pools, 

a cold water fishery developed in the upper portion of the navigation system due to the 

discharge of Wolf Creek, Center Hill, and Dale Hollow dams as well as construction of 

the relatively deep Cordell Hull Reservoir. As a result, a combination of lotic, lentic, 

warm and cold water species inhabit the navigable portion of the Cumberland River, 
9 

with the majority of the fishery being warm water. The mussels of the navigable 

Cumberland River are characterized by relatively poor quality shells, and have little 

commercial demand. As a result, little emphasis has been placed on their study, and 

most available data is related to proposals such as maintenance dredging. There are, 

however, viable sport and commercial fisheries with the sport fishery notably flourishing 

from Cordell Hull Dam downstream. 

There are three major forest types in the Cumberland River Watershed; Bottomland 

Hardwood, Western Mesophytic, and Cedar Glade. Of these, the Bottomland 

Hardwood and Western Mesophytic types generally characterize the study area. A 

mosaic of forest and agricultural lands with corresponding wildlife diversity dominate the 

lands surrounding the system, except in the larger population centers of Clarksville – 

Montgomery County, Tennessee and the Nashville – Davidson, Tennessee SMSA 

(Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area). The population centers along the river are 

rapidly growing, and the primary threats to terrestrial plant and animal communities are 

loss of habitat to human development and introduction of exotic invasive species. 

Based on informal observation, residential development is the most prevalent 

developed land use around the system, although two major recreational marinas are 

proposed in the Nashville area. 

Social and economic resources in the Cumberland River Valley Region have generally 

grown since 1990. The population has grown at a greater rate than the overall state 

rate for the more rural counties and at a lesser rate for Metropolitan Nashville – 

Davidson County, reflecting a trend away from that large population center. Since 

1990, employment has increased throughout the study area, with unemployment 

remaining in the single digits, ranging from 3.4% to 8.7% (for Stewart County, TN, which 

has traditionally had a depressed economy). The region has a high percentage of its 

workers employed in the service, goods-producing, and construction sectors and a 

lower share of its workers in the mining, farming/fishing/ forestry and government 

sectors. Navigation, along with power supply, water supply, transportation corridors and 

other factors, is considered a direct economic driver for the region. 

2.3.2. Tennessee River System 

The Tennessee River is formed by the confluence of the French Broad and Holston 

Rivers at Tennessee River Mile 652.0 and drains approximately 41,000 square miles in 

seven states. The only portion of the river that this BA is concerned with is between the 

mouth of the river at its confluence with the Ohio River, through Kentucky Lock and 

Dam up to Pickwick Lock and Dam. This portion of the Tennessee River flows through 

two physiographic regions, the Southeastern Plains and the Interior Plateau in portions 

of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. The area is characterized by Karst 

topography. The average slope of the navigable portion of the river is gradual at 0.77 

feet per mile (Tennessee Valley Authority, 2004). The Kentucky Lake is highly 

regulated, with free flowing reaches only in the Pickwick tailwater1

. The relatively heavy 

 

1

 a stream segment downstream of a dam, in which the discharge and resulting flows create river-like 

conditions similar to those of an unimpounded stream. 
10 

annual rainfall of 50 – 60 inches is concentrated in the cool months of the year, with 

March usually being the wettest month. Average annual temperature ranges from 56.3 

degrees F to 60.1 degrees F, depending on location within the valley. July and August 

are the warmest months, and January is the coolest. Current air quality meets the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Kentucky Lake and tailwater meet 

both state and federal water quality criteria and guidelines. 

The Tennessee-Cumberland River ecoregions have the highest number of fish, crayfish 

mussels and endemic species in North America, and the Tennessee is the most diverse 

temperate freshwater ecosystem in the world (Tennessee Valley Authority, 2004). With 

the construction of the TVA and Corps reservoir systems both the water quality and 

physical environment of the rivers were significantly altered. The reservoir system’s 

primary impact was to convert free-flowing river habitat to reservoir pools. Many 

riverine2

 species, especially mollusks, minnows and darters, could not adapt to the 

switch in environments and were extirpated from their former habitats. For a number of 

species that were not extirpated, the habitat alterations affected their abundance so that 

they became rare and are listed as state or federal threatened or endangered species. 

Some riverine species continue to live in remnant habitats that mimic riverine 

conditions, while other species that thrive in impoundments have increased in 

abundance and expanded their ranges. For example, freshwater mussels adapted to 

riverine conditions are the largest category of threatened or endangered species in the 

system and are doing poorly, while mussels that are adapted to pool; conditions are 

doing well. The best surviving riverine mussel communities are in the tailwaters, 

defined as the flowing mainstem river reaches below dams, but their status there is still 

only fair. Recent efforts have improved tailwater habitats, and state and federal 

agencies are reintroducing experimental populations of rare native species to some 

tailwater areas. On the other hand, there are thriving commercial and sport fisheries in 

the system, based on species of fish and mussels that are well adapted to impounded 

waters. 

3.0 Approach and Process 

This assessment was begun as a part of a study of the potential impacts of possible 

need to lower Center Hill Lake until foundation and structural problems with the dam 

can be rectified. The principle concern was that the study should strike the appropriate 

balance between scientific rigor and responsible fiscal practice. To reach the proper 

scope for the study, it was decided to apply a sensitivity test in the broadest possible 

sense (i.e. determine whether the prolonged lowering of the Center Hill Lake pool would 

have any influence on an activity or an area). Starting, then, with the broadest possible 

scope for the action area, activities and species, the scope was then narrowed, based 

on scientifically valid reasoning, until it reached a focus on the relevant action area, 

activities and species. All three elements of the BA – the action area, activities list, and 

species list – were considered as starting points, to be amended should additional 

information become available during preparation of the BA. 

 

2

 related to, or resembling a river. 
11 

3.1 Defining the Action Area 

Definition of the action area was determined to be Center Hill Lake itself and all of the 

downstream waterways affected by the Center Hill waters, to their confluence with the 

Ohio River. This includes Old Hickory Lake, Cheatham Lake, Lake Barkley, and the 

Barkley tailwater. Kentucky Lake and its tailwater were also included due to its 

connection with the Cumberland River in Lake Barkley via an unregulated navigation 

channel and it is included when discussing the mainstem lakes. To ensure that all 

species of concern were included, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state’s 

natural heritage agencies were contacted and all federally threatened or endangered 

species listed in any county adjoining the waterways were included. Each species was 

then considered individually with regard to whether or not a prolonged lowering of 

Center Hill Lake would impact the species. Upstream and tributary projects on the 

Cumberland and Tennessee River Systems were quickly eliminated from the action 

area because they are not affected by the operations of Center Hill Lake and Dam (i.e. 

water is already coming through the dams for other purposes, and the “but for” test is 

not met.). TVA may release waters from its Tennessee River system above Pickwick 

Lock and Dam, but TVA’s activities are outside the scope of this BA. Table 1 delineates 

these waters. Landward boundaries of reservations and facilities that meet the “but for” 

test are included in the action area and the full terrestrial extent of the action area is 

“case-by-case” based on the species and the impact area of each specific activity. 
12 

Figure 2 
13 

Table 1 

Study Areas 

Tennessee and Cumberland River Systems by River Mile 

WATER COURSE MILE 

(Start)

MILE

(End) 

Navigation Chart Reference

Cumberland River 0.0 389.0 http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/opn/CumbRiver/ (Use 

this Internet link for waterways listed below.)

River below Lake 

Barkley 

0.0 30.6

Lake Barkley 30.6 148.6

 Lower Barkley 30.6 102.3

 Barkley Canal 0.0 1.5

 Hammonds Creek 0.0 1.7

 Lick Creek 0.0 6.4

 Eddy Creek 0.0 7.0

 Little River 0.0 18.0

 Upper Barkley 102.3 148.6

 Red River 0.0 10.8

Cheatham Lake 148.7 216.1

 Lower Cheatham 148.7 166.0

 Harpeth River 0.0 10.3

 Upper Cheatham 166.0 216.1

Old Hickory Lake 216.2 313.4

 Lower Old Hickory 216.2 265.0

 Drakes Creek 0.0 4.0

 Spencer Creek 0.0 11.0

 Station Camp Creek 0.0 3.0

 Bledsoe Creek 0.0 4.8

 Barton Creek 0.0 6.7

 Spring Creek 0.0 6.8

 Upper Old Hickory 265.0 313.4

Caney Fork River below 

Center Hill Lake 

0.0 26.6

Center Hill Lake 26.6 90.6
14 

Table 1 Continued 

Tennessee River 0.0 652.0 http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/opn/TNRiver/ (Use this 

Internet link for waterways listed below.)

River below Kentucky 

Lake 

0.0 22.4

Kentucky Lake 22.4 206.7

 Lower Kentucky Lake 22.4 145.0

 Jonathon Creek 0.0 6.3

 Blood River 0.0 8.8

 Big Sandy River 0.0 15.0

 Duck River 0.0 19.4

 Beech River 0.0 15.0

 Upper Kentucky Lake 145.0 206.7 

3.2 Listing and Definition of Activities 

Reservoir releases are defined as discharge of water through a hydroelectric plant or 

spillway gates. On the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers the most frequent purposes 

of reservoir releases are for hydropower production or creation/maintenance of flood 

storage capacity. Under drought or emergency conditions (such as a grounded vessel) 

a reservoir release may be rarely used to provide minimum navigation depth. Although 

this has been done on the Tennessee and other rivers there is no record of increased 

flows having been used for this purpose on the Cumberland River. As noted above, the 

Nashville District has primary responsibility for operation, maintenance, and 

management of the multi-purpose projects for the purposes of hydropower, flood 

control, water supply, fish and wildlife, navigation, and recreation although not all lakes 

are operated to fulfill all of these functions. For example, Center Hill Lake is operated 

for hydropower, flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation, but is not 

directly concerned with navigation, although water released from Center Hill does 

incidentally contribute to the water used for navigation. The lakes are necessarily 

operated as a single system. Below Cordell Hull Lock and Dam, Center Hill and the 

Caney Fork supply between 15% and 18% of the water in the Cumberland during the 

course of a normal year. 

Working through each of the project purposes, i.e., navigation, hydropower, flood 

damage reduction, water supply, fish and wildlife management, and recreation, we can 

draw the following conclusions. 

As previously noted, Center Hill has no direct authority to support navigation. The 

impacts of navigation on threatened or endangered species has been thoroughly 

covered in the Biological Assessment Operation and Maintenance of the Tennessee 

and Cumberland Rivers Navigation Systems. The mainstem lakes are always 
15 

maintained at certain lake levels to ensure adequate depths for navigation. As a result 

they show relatively little fluctuation. Although Center Hill’s releases make some 

contribution to navigation as a by-product of its releases, particularly on the lower Ohio 

and Mississippi Rivers, lowering the Center Hill pool would not have a direct impact on 

navigation, nor would it cause an appreciable change in the pool levels of any of the 

mainstem lakes. Navigation is not, therefore, a consideration for this BA. 

Center Hill Lake has two municipal water intakes and one intake for a golf course. The 

intakes are located deep within the lake below the bottom of the power pool. It is 

estimated that 75 to 80 percent of the water withdrawn is eventually returned to the 

Cumberland River system. Water allocated for water supplies is considered to be low in 

the lake and the volumes withdrawn have little impact on the overall lake levels. 

Municipal and industrial water withdrawals are relatively small in comparison to the 

volume of the system and are replaced in any case by the lakes maintaining navigation 

depths. Municipal water supply, therefore, is not a consideration for this BA. 

All of the lakes are operated with recreation in mind. Barkley and Kentucky Lakes enjoy 

increased water depths (about a five foot increase) during the summer months to 

enhance recreational activities. Center Hill differs from the mainstem lakes in that it was 

designed for flood damage reduction and hydropower generation. It typically has a 

winter pool elevation of 623. Late winter and spring rains are captured and retained to 

reduce flooding downstream and to store the water for later use. Usually Center Hill is 

allowed to fill to elevation 648 by the Fourth of July. This is done in part with 

recreational enhancement in mind, but primarily to allow peaking hydropower 

generation during the summer when power demands are greatest and to supply fresh 

water to sustain water quality in the mainstem lakes. Recreation is not the determining 

factor in establishing Center Hill’s elevations and, therefore, has little direct effect on 

any species of concern. Recreation, therefore, is not a consideration for this BA. 

Center Hill was designed and is operated for flood damage reduction. Typically flood 

waters are captured and retained in Center Hill until they can be released safely 

downstream. This has little or no impact on the species in question although it may 

occasionally benefit some of them as it reduces particularly violent scouring of the 

streambed and banks. If Center Hill must operate at lowered levels or on a flat-line 

regime while the dam is repaired, then whatever water flows into the lake will be 

immediately released. This will essentially mimic what would have been the natural flow 

had the dam never been built and should not unduly impact any species of concern. 

Flood damage reduction is not, therefore, a consideration for this BA. 

Center Hill was designed and is operated for hydropower production. It produces 

hydropower from stored water in the lake and hydropower is the preferred method for 

regulating the lake level. The power pool is between elevations 618 and 648. Water 

from Center Hill’s generation is also used by the mainstem lakes to produce power. 

Hydropower generation has caused fish and wildlife losses in the past by scouring the 

river beds with pulsed flows and then suddenly cutting off flows. However, hydropower 

production is not the primary cause of the overall losses. It is anticipated that if a 
16 

reduced lake level or flat-line regime is adopted while repairs on the dam are effected, 

hydropower will continue to be the primary method of maintaining the levels. Reducing 

the lake level in Center Hill would not affect the impacts of the hydropower generation 

by the mainstem lakes, except possibly the timing of their releases. That is, the same 

volume of water would be passed to the mainstem lakes for their uses, but rather than 

retaining it for release during the summer when flows are typically lower, the releases 

would be made immediately as the water flowed into Center Hill Lake, mainly during the 

late winter and spring months. Hydropower, therefore, is not a consideration for this BA. 

Water quality is a complex and difficult problem at Corps lakes. Although the dams 

themselves do not cause pollution, they do contribute to the problems. The Center Hill 

Lake is much deeper than the original Caney Fork River. The riverine ecology above 

the dam was drowned out and converted to a lacustrian ecology. Unable to move, 

mussels that once existed there were extirpated. The long retention time of Center Hill 

has greatly reduced the water temperatures. In the tailwater below Center Hill the warm 

water fishery was forced out by the new cold water regime to the extent that the Caney 

Fork has been classified as a trout stream. Nutrients entering the lake are held long 

enough for bacterial action to virtually eliminate dissolved oxygen (DO) at certain times 

of the year. Mussels in the Caney Fork tailwater are too cold to successfully reproduce 

and their host fish may no longer present in any case. It is believed that the original 

native mussel population has been extirpated from the Caney Fork. Hydropower 

discharges during the summer months had very low DO and in recent years the Corps 

has been experimenting with discharging water through the sluice gates to provide both 

minimum flow and adequate DO. If Center Hill is operated at a reduced level or flat-line 

regime, there will be less cold water storage. Water releases may be warmer than 

experienced under the current operating guide curves. There would also be less water 

available during the summer months for mitigating water quality issues in the mainstem 

lakes. Lower flows in the mainstem lakes would translate to longer retention times, 

which, in turn, usually result in decreased water quality and increased stress on aquatic 

organisms. As Center Hill only contributes about 15% of the total water in the 

Cumberland River, the reduction in water quality and increase in stress to aquatics 

caused by changes in Center Hills operations would be minor. 

Center Hill and the mainstem lakes are operated with fish and wildlife in mind. 

Examples include trying to maintain level pools during fish spawning periods, 

committing to minimum flow releases, and discharging water through the sluice gates to 

maintain adequate oxygen levels in the tailwaters. Whenever another authorized 

project purpose has the potential to negatively impact fish or wildlife resources, every 

effort is made to avoid or mitigate the impacts. 

Working under the concept of focusing down from the broadest possible scope, a list 

was compiled of all authorized project purposes potentially meeting the sensitivity test 

as they relate to the water passing through and released by Center Hill Dam. As can be 

seen from the discussion above, the only significant impact Center Hill can have on 

endangered species is through its impact on water quality and the methods chosen to 

manage and mitigate for fish and wildlife 
17 

3.3 Screening of Activities and Species 

Working from the national U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website, a complete list was 

compiled of all Federally listed species recorded in the counties that include or touch the 

Kentucky, Barkley, Cheatham, Old Hickory, and Center Hill Lakes, and the lower 

Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers below Kentucky and Barkley Lakes This consisted 

of 47 species. Then, working from the Cookeville updated list, 3 species of mussels 

and 1 species of fish were dropped from consideration because they are no longer 

listed for the above counties. Working from the Frankfort Ecological Services Office list 

1 species of fish and I species of bird were also dropped from consideration for the 

same reason. Additionally, 2 species of mussels from the national website were 

dropped from consideration because they are listed only from historic (pre- 1970) 

records in the above counties and are considered extirpated in the study area. Finally, 

3 mussel species appearing on the Cookeville list, but not on the national website for 

the above counties were not considered because they also are listed only from historic 

(pre- 1970) records and are considered extirpated in the study area. This screening 

resulted in 36 species receiving detailed consideration in this Biological Assessment 

(see Table 2.). Then the activities and species were each assessed on a case-by-case 

basis to determine if changes to water quality caused by the lowering of Center Hill’s 

pool could affect that species. The results of this assessment were then plotted in a 

matrix (see Table 3). Working through the remaining list, twenty-nine species that 

would not be affected by changes resulting from altering Center Hill’s lake level (for 

example glade species such as Stones River bladderpod or species found only in upper 

Kentucky Lake) were noted as “No Effect”. The remaining 7 species which were 

determined to potentially be disturbed were noted as “May Affect. 

4.0 Individual Activity/Species Impacts 

The following is an assessment of possible impacts of implementing reduced lake levels 

or a flat-line regime on Center Hill Lake on each species selected for evaluation, in light 

of best available information and professional judgment. Each discussion begins with a 

summary of the species account for the species under consideration. 
18 

Scientific Name Common Name Status Class County Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad C Actinopterygii Not listed in study area – Eliminated 

consideration. 

Apios priceana Price's Potato-bean LT Magnoliopsid

a 

Stewart, Montgomery, Davidson, Wa

Arabis perstellata Braun's Rockcress LE Magnoliopsid

a 

Davidson, Wilson 

Astragalus bibullatus Pyne's Ground-plum LE Magnoliopsid

a 

Davidson 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LE Aves CALLOWAY, MARSHALL Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rosemary LT Magnoliopsid

a 

White 

Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase C Bivalvia Smith Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell LE Bivalvia MARSHALL, Hardin, Decatur Dalea foliosa Leafy Prairie-clover LE Magnoliopsid

a 

Davidson, Wilson, Sumner 

Dromus dromas Dromedary Pearlymussel LE Bivalvia Davidson*,Trousdale, DeKalb*, Smith Echinacea tennesseensis Tennessee Coneflower LE Magnoliopsid

a 

Davidson, Wilson 

Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian 

Combshell 

 LE Bivalvia Davidson*, Smith, Trousdale*, Wilson 

Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel LE Bivalvia Not in study area – Eliminated from dEpioblasma florentina florentina

Yellow-blossom pearly mussel

LE Bivalvia Smith* - Historic. Eliminated from det

Epioblasma florentina walkeri 

Tan Riffleshell LE Bivalvia Davidson*, Perry* - Historic. Eliminat

consideration. 

Epioblasma obliquata obliquata 

Catspaw or Purple Cat's Paw 

 LE Bivalvia Wilson, Trousdale, Smith 

Epioblasma torulosa torulosa

Tuberculed-blossom pearly mussel

LE Bivalvia Davidson*, Benton* - Historic. Elimin

consideration. 

Etheostoma boschungi Slackwater Darter LT Actinopterygii Wayne Etheostoma sp. D Bluemask (=Jewel) 

Darter 

 LE Actinopterygii White, Warren 

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon LE Aves Not listed in study area – Eliminated 

consideration. 

Hemistena lata Cracking Pearlymussel LE Bivalvia Wayne, Hardin Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket LE Bivalvia Stewart, Wilson, Hardin, Decatur, Hu

Wayne*, Trousdale, Perry, MARSHA

Lesquerella globosa Short's Bladderpod C Magnoliopsid

a 

Montgomery, Cheatham, Davidson, T

Lesquerella perforata Spring Creek Bladderpod LE Magnoliopsid

a 

Wilson 
19 

Lexingtonia dolabelloides Slabside Pearlymussel C Bivalvia Hardin* - Historic. Eliminated from deMyotis grisescens Gray Bat LE Mammalia Stewart, Houston, Hardin, Montgome

Wilson, Smith, DeKalb, Putnam, WhiPerry, Decatur, Wayne, CALLOWAY

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat LE Mammalia Stewart, Montgomery, White, Warren

TRIGG 

Noturus stanauli Pygmy Madtom LE Actinopterygii Humphreys Obovaria retusa Ring Pink LE Bivalvia Smith, Benton*, Trousdale*, Humphr

Hardin*, MARSHALL, TRIGG 

Ophisaurus attenuatus longicaudus 

Eastern Slender Glass Lizard 

 D Reptilia White 

Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish LE Malacostraca Davidson Pegias fabula Little-wing Pearlymussel LE Bivalvia Warren Platanthera integrilabia White Fringeless Orchid C Liliopsida Warren Plethobasus cicatricosus White Wartyback LE Bivalvia Davidson*, Smith*, Hardin, DeKalb*, Plethobasus cooperianus Orange-foot Pimpleback LE Bivalvia Benton*, Davidson*, DeKalb*, Trousd

Decatur, Perry, Humphreys*, MARSHTRIGG 

Pleurobema clava Clubshell LE Bivalvia Hardin*, Pleurobema gibberum Cumberland Pigtoe LE Bivalvia White, Warren Pleurobema plenum Rough Pigtoe LE Bivalvia Davidson*, Trousdale*, Smith*, Hard

Humphreys*, Perry*, Wayne* 

Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis 

A Cave Obligate Beetle C Insecta Montgomery 

Pseudanophthalmus insularis 

Baker Station Cave Beetle 

 C Insecta Davidson 

Pseudanophthalmus tiresias 

Indian Grave Point Cave Beetle 

 C Insecta DeKalb 

Quadrula sparsa Appalachian Monkeyface LE Bivalvia Not in study area – Eliminated from dSorex longirostris Southeastern Shrew D Mammalia White Sterna antillarum athalassos 

Interior Least Tern LE Aves MARSHALL 

Toxolasma cylindrella Pale lilliput pearly 

mussel

LE Bivalvia Wayne*, Perry* - Historic. Eliminated 

consideration. 

Typhlichthys subterraneus Southern Cavefish D Actinopterygii Not in study area – Eliminated from dVillosa trabalis Cumberland Bean LE Bivalvia Not in study area – Eliminated from d

* - “historic” (pre-1970) record All Caps – County in Kentucky 
20 

4.1 Birds 

4.1.1 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 

4.1.1.1 Species Account Summary. The following information is adapted from 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Species Profile at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/B079.html. The piping plover is a small, 

stocky, sandy-colored bird resembling a sandpiper. The adult has yellow-orange 

legs, a black band across the forehead from eye to eye, and a black ring around 

the base of its neck. Like other plovers, it runs in short starts and stops. When 

still, the piping plover blends into the pale background of open, sandy habitat on 

outer beaches where it feeds and nests. The bird's name derives from its call 

notes, plaintive bell-like whistles which are often heard before the birds are seen. 

Piping plovers return to their breeding grounds in late March or early April. 

 Following establishment of nesting territories and courtship rituals, the pair forms 

a depression in the sand. The nest is sometimes lined with small stones or 

fragments of shell. Both sexes incubate to constantly protect eggs from extreme 

temperatures. The average clutch size is four eggs and the precocial downy 

young immediately use the “peck-and-run” foraging behavior of adults. When 

predators or intruders come close, the young squat motionless on the sand while 

the parents attempt to attract the attention of the intruders to themselves, often 

by feigning a broken wing. Plovers will re-nest and fledglings from these late 

nesting efforts may not be flying until late August. Plovers often gather in groups 

on undisturbed beaches prior to their southward migration. By mid-September, 

both adult and young plovers will have departed from their wintering areas. 

 Piping plovers may live to be 8-10 years old. 

The historic breeding range of the Great Lakes population of piping plover 

encompasses the Great Lakes' shorelines in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York and Ontario. These birds 

winter primarily on the Gulf Coast, in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida. 

 Critical habitat for the Great Lakes Piping plover has been designated for 

breeding habitat along the shorelines of the Great Lakes in New York, 

Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 

 Critical habitat for wintering piping plovers has been designated along the Gulf 

Coast in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida. 

 Great Lakes piping plovers utilize the open, sandy beaches, barrier islands, and 

sand spits formed along the Great Lakes' perimeters by wave action. They do 

not inhabit lakeshore areas where high bluffs formed by severe erosion have 

replaced beach habitat. They prefer sparsely vegetation open sand, gravel, or 

cobble for a nest site. They forage along the rack line where invertebrates are 

most readily available. In the winter, they inhabit beaches, mudflats, and 

sandflats along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts. Also barrier island 

beaches and spoil islands on the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway. 
21 

The piping plover nearly disappeared due to excessive hunting for the millinery 

trade during the 19th century. The Great Lakes population decline is attributed to 

losses of lakeshore habitat due to huge fluctuations in lake levels caused by 

intensive water management throughout the watershed and in the St. Lawrence 

River, as well as increased development and recreational use of beaches. 

 Human disturbance often curtails breeding success. Developments near 

beaches also provide food that attracts increased numbers of predators such as 

raccoons, skunks, and foxes, and domestic pets. Stormtides may inundate 

nests. 

4.1.1.2 Effects. Nesting sites are unlikely to be found in the study area. A slight 

decrease in water quality in the form of increased temperatures and lowered DO 

is the only impact identified that would occur throughout the study area. This 

decreased water quality would not affect the piping plover. 

4.1.1.3 Cumulative Effects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the piping 

plover.

4.1.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for this species. 

4.1.2 Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) 

4.1.2.1 Species Account Summary. The following information is adapted from 

Tennessee Valley Authority 2005 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The least 

tern, as the name implies is the smallest of the tern subfamily (Sterninae). This 

smallest of the terns has a body length of approximately 9 inches (21 – 24 cm) 

and a wingspan of 20 inches (51 cm). The sexes are similar in appearance. The 

breeding adult has a black crown and nape, white forehead, black-tipped bill, 

gray back and dorsal wing surfaces, and snowy white underwing surfaces. In 

flight, the black wedge on the outer primaries and the short, deeply forked tail are 

conspicuous (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1998). The least tern feeds almost 

entirely on small fishes such as minnows and shiners. Its breeding biology 

primarily centers around 3 ecological factors: (1) the presence of bare or nearly 

bare alluvial islands or sandbars, (2) the existence of favorable water levels 

during the nesting seasons, and (3) the availability of food. 

4.1.2.2 Effects. Nesting sites are unlikely to be found in the study area. A slight 

decrease in water quality in the form of increased temperatures and lowered DO 

would not affect the least tern.
22 

4.1.2.3 Cumulative Effects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the least tern.

4.1.2.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for this species. 

4.2 Mammals 

4.2.1 Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens - Howell) 

4.2.1.1 Species Account Summary. The gray bat is the largest of its genus, 

having a forearm averaging 42 mm. in length and weighing up to 16 grams. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1991c) in its species account further describes 

the species as follows: “One feature which distinguishes this species from all 

other eastern bats is its uni-colored dorsal fur. The other bats have bi- or tricolored fur on their backs. Also, the gray bat's wing membrane connects to the 

foot at the ankle instead of at the base of the first toe, as in other species of 

Myotis. For a short period after molt in July or August, gray bats are dark gray; 

but their fur usually bleaches to russet between molts. This difference in fur color 

is especially apparent in females during their reproductive season in May or 

June.)” Gray bats are considered a wide-ranging species, and are known from 

suitable caves over virtually the entire Cumberland and Tennessee navigation 

systems. The species was Federally listed as Endangered in 1976. Populations 

are considered stable and have increased across portions of its range. Gray bat 

colonies are residents exclusively of limestone caves or cave-like habitats, and 

migrate seasonally between maternity and hibernating caves. During the 

summer, the colonies are segregated into maternity caves and bachelor caves. 

Gray bats are highly selective concerning caves, and consequently as few as 

nine hibernating caves may house roughly 95 percent of the population. Flying 

insects that have an aquatic life cycle make up the majority of food consumed by 

gray bats. Consequently, gray bats feed primarily along reservoirs, streams and 

riparian habitats, particularly above aquatic macrophyte beds. Concentration of 

large numbers of gray bats into a relatively small number of caves makes the 

species particularly vulnerable to instances of habitat disturbance. Human 

intrusions into maternity caves causing young to perish and into hibernating 

caves causing individuals to starve are thought to be primarily responsible for the 

species decline. Other factors attributed to threatening the species are pesticide 

poisoning, reduction of insect prey because of stream degradation, and flooding 

of caves by impoundment or natural causes. 

4.2.1.2 Effects. None of the factors implicated in the decline of the Indiana bat 

have any readily apparent relationship to poor water quality. A slight decrease in 
23 

water quality in the form of increased temperatures and lowered DO would not 

affect the gray bat. 

4.2.1.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the gray bat . 

4.2.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the gray bat.

4.2.2 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis – Millen & Allen) 

4.2.2.1 Species Account Summary. The Indiana bat is medium sized in 

comparison with the gray bat, and closely resembles the little brown bat (Myotis 

lucifugus), except for coloration (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991c). The 

Indiana bat generally has a body less than 2 inches long and a wingspread of 

approximately 10 inches. Coloration is a dull grayish chestnut, and the basal 

portion of the hairs of the back is a dull lead color. The calcar (heel of the foot) 

has a strong keel or flap of skin. The species was Federally listed as 

Endangered in 1967, and, although important protections are in place, 

populations have continued to decline. Although the species ranges throughout 

most of the eastern portion of the United States, hibernating colonies are known 

only from Indiana, Missouri, and Kentucky where approximately 87 percent of the 

population hibernate in only 7 limestone caves. The Indiana bat has rigid 

requirements for temperature and relative humidity in hibernating caves, hence 

the high concentration of individuals hibernating in a few caves. During the 

summer Indiana bats have been found in limestone caves and cave-like habitats 

under bridges and in old buildings and maternity colonies may be found under 

loose bark and in the hollows of trees. Bats forage at a height of 7 to 98 feet; 

they feed primarily on moths and aquatic insects. Indiana bats may forage up to 

3.1 miles from their roost site. Roost trees generally have exfoliating bark, which 

allows the bat to roost between the bark and bole of the tree. Cavities and 

crevices in trees may also be used for roosting. In addition to having exfoliating 

bark, roost trees must be of sufficient diameter. Preferred trees are nine inches 

in diameter at breast height (dbh), or larger. Bachelor males have been found in 

trees with loose bark as small as 3 inches dbh. Small numbers of Indiana bats 

have been recorded within 1 mile of six Tennessee and Cumberland River 

navigation projects; Pickwick, Wheeler, Guntersville, Barkley, and Nickajack 

(Tennessee Valley Authority, 2003). The bat’s diet consists of insects and it 

forages through riparian and floodplain trees. The decline of the species is 

attributed to commercialization of roosting caves, activities changing the climate 

of hibernacula caves, destruction by vandals, disturbances by increasing 

numbers of spelunkers and bat banding programs, use as laboratory animals, 

and potential insecticide poisoning. 
24 

4.2.2.2 Effects. None of the factors implicated in the decline of the Indiana bat 

have any readily apparent relationship to poor water quality. A slight decrease in 

water quality in the form of increased temperatures and lowered DO is the only 

impact identified that would occur throughout the study area in which the Indiana 

bat is likely to be found. This decreased water quality would not affect the 

Indiana bat. 

4.2.2.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the Indiana 

bat . 

4.2.2.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Indiana bat.

4.3 Reptiles 

4.3.1 Eastern Slender Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus longicaudus) 

4.3.1.1 Species Account Summary. The eastern slender glass lizard is 

deemed in need of management. This species account summary was adapted 

from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ description at 

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/species/display.asp?id=030009 . This lizard 

looks like a snake, as it has no legs. From the head to the base of the tail, it 

measures as long as 13 in. (330 mm.) and including the tail, up to 41.9 in. (1,065 

mm.). This lizard has a groove on each side of the body, and it is smooth and 

glossy, with scales that overlap. It has a tan stripe, with a narrow black stripe in 

the center that runs from head to tail, and stripes that run down the sides above 

and below the groove. The fragile tail is often broken and the regenerated part is 

a solid light brown. The eastern slender glass lizard is seldom seen, as it is very 

secretive and tends to hide in burrows or under dry grass. 

This species is found in the coastal plain region in grasslands and pine 

woodlands with dry soils, and in the piedmont on dry, grassy ridges. It is always 

associated with grassy areas when found in urban/suburban areas and farms. 

This species lives in old rodent burrows and under grass mats, and winters 

underground. 

This species feeds on a wide variety of invertebrates, including grasshoppers 

(appear to be preferred), snails, spiders, caterpillars, beetles, cave crickets, and 

the young of small mammals. 
25 

4.3.1.2 Effects. A slight decrease in water quality in the form of increased 

temperatures and lowered DO would not affect the eastern slender glass lizard. 

4.3.1.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the Eastern 

Slender Glass Lizard. 

4.3.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Eastern Slender Glass Lizard. 

4.4 Insects 

4.4.1 A Cave Obligate Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis) 

4.4.1.1 Species Account Summary. Little is known about this rare beetle 

called Coleman Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis), which has 

only been found in three caves in Tennessee. TNC purchased a cave with the 

help of a private donor and a grant from the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. The cave and 3/4 acres will be transferred to the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Agency for ownership and management as an endangered species 

sanctuary. 

4.4.1.2 Effects. This is a cave obligate species. No caves would be affected by 

the proposed lowering of Center Hill Lake. As decreased water quality in the 

Caney Fork and Cumberland Rivers is the only identified impact, it is believed 

that Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis would be unaffected. 

4.4.1.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the cave 

obligate beetle Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis. 

4.4.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the cave obligate beetle 

Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis. 

4.4.2 Baker Station Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus insularis) 

4.4.1.1 Species Account Summary. The Baker Station Cave Beetle is an 

eyeless, lightly pigmented subterranean obligate ground beetle that is found in 

only one cave in Davidson County, Tennessee. Little is known about its behavior 
26 

other than it eats detritus and small invertebrates, and is a scavenger although if 

the opportunity presents itself it probably takes live prey. It is listed as critically 

imperiled and possibly extirpated or extinct. 

4.4.1.2 Effects. This is a cave obligate species found in a single cave in 

Davidson County. Altering the lake level at Center Hill would not in any way 

impact the cave or the beetle. 

4.4.1.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the Baker 

Station Cave Beetle. 

4.4.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Baker Station Cave Beetle. 

4.4.3 Indian Grave Point Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus tiresias) 

4.4.1.1 Species Account Summary. Little is known about this cave obligate 

beetle. It is currently known only in Alabama, Maryland, Tennessee, and West 

Virginia. It is presumed to scavenge on detritus and small invertebrates, 

although if the opportunity presents itself it probably takes live prey. 

4.4.1.2 Effects. This is a cave obligate species. No caves would be affected by 

the proposed lowering of Center Hill Lake. As decreased water quality in the 

Caney Fork and Cumberland Rivers is the only identified impact, it is believed 

that Pseudanophthalmus tiresias would be unaffected. 

4.4.1.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the Indian 

Grave Point Cave Beetle. 

4.4.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Indian Grave Point Cave Beetle. 
27 

4.5 Terrestrial Plants 

4.5.1 Price's Potato-bean (Apios priceana) 

4.5.1.1 Species Account Summary. Price’s potato-bean is found in five states. 

It is currently thought extant at only 13 sites including 4 sites in Mississippi and 3 

sites each in Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee. Approximately 40 percent of 

its populations have not been sited in recent years. Only 5 of the extant sites 

support populations of any significant size (50 - individuals). Many of these 

populations are declining and are threatened by the adverse modification or loss 

of habitat through cattle grazing, trampling, clear-cutting and succession. Those 

sites near roadsides or powerline rights-of-way are potentially threatened by 

herbicide application. 

4.5.1.2 Effects. Price’s potato-bean is an upland plant. None of the possible 

effects of lowering Center Hill Lake, could possibly affect this plant. 

4.5.1.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on Price's 

Potato-bean. 

4.5.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for Price's Potato-bean. 

4.5.2 Braun's Rock-cress (Arabis perstellata) 

4.5.2.1 Species Account Summary. This endangered species is restricted to 

two counties (Rutherford and Wilson) in Tennessee and three counties (Franklin, 

Owen, and Henry) in Kentucky. It is a perennial herb of the mustard family 

(Brassicaceae). It occurs on slopes composed of calcium carbonate, calcium, or 

limestone in moderately moist to almost dry forests. The soils at Arabis 

perstellata sites are limestone-derived, and a rock outcrop component is usually 

present in the soil complex. Arabis perstellata is presently known from 42 

populations in two separate sections of the Interior Low Plateaus Physiographic 

Province—the Blue Grass Section (Kentucky) and the Central Basin Section 

(Tennessee). Both areas where this species is found are predominantly underlain 

by sediments of Ordovician age (510–438 million years ago) (Quarterman and 

Powell 1978). The Kentucky populations occur in Franklin, Henry, and Owen 

counties along the Kentucky River and its tributaries (primarily Elkhorn Creek). 

The Tennessee populations occur in Rutherford and Wilson counties, principally 

along the Stones River. 
28 

4.5.2.2 Effects. Braun's Rock-cress is an upland plant. None of the possible 

effects of lowering Center Hill Lake could possibly affect this plant. 

4.5.2.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on Braun's 

Rockcress. 

4.5.2.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Braun's Rockcress. 

4.5.3 Pyne's (Guthrie’s) Ground-plum (Astragalus bibullatus) 

4.5.3.1 Species Account Summary. Astragalus bibullatus (Guthrie’s groundplum) is a perennial member of the pea family (Fabaceae) that is presently 

known to exist only in Rutherford County in Tennessee’s central basin. Guthrie’s 

ground-plum is endemic to the cedar glades of middle Tennessee. All sites are 

associated with thin bedded, fossiliferous Lebanon limestone outcroppings that 

support the unique cedar glade communities founding Tennessee’s central basin. 

The species only grows along glade margins with deeper soil or in areas within 

the glades .that are partially shaded. Soil depths vary between 5 and 20 cm (2 to 

8 inches) at the known sites. Cedar glades are typically wet in winter and spring 

and dry and very hot in the summer and fall (Somers and Gunn 1990, 

Quarterman 1986). 

4.5.3.2 Effects. Pyne's ground-plum is an upland plant found only in the cedar 

glades. None of the possible effects of lowering Center Hill Lake could possibly 

affect this plant. 

4.5.3.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on Pyne's 

Ground-plum. 

4.5.3.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for Pyne's Ground-plum. 

4.5.4 Cumberland Rosemary (Conradina verticillata) 

4.5.4.1 Species Account Summary. Cumberland rosemary (Conradina 

verticillata Jennison), a shrub in the mint family (Lamiaceae), is endemic to the 
29 

Cumberland Plateau of north-central Tennessee and adjacent southeastern 

Kentucky. Cumberland rosemary is known from five counties in north-central 

Tennessee and one county in southeastern Kentucky (Figure 2). At present, 91 

occurrences (colonies) are thought to be extant. (Occurrences believed to be 

extant are those that have been observed in the recent past.) These are along 

nine major streams of the Cumberland Plateau--Big South Fork River, New 

River, Clear Fork River, White Oak Creek, Caney Fork River, Obed River, 

Daddys Creek, Clear Creek, and Emory River (Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation 1995, Kentucky State Nature Preserves 

Commission 1994). There are three distinct populations. Within these 

populations genetic exchange is believed to occur on a frequent basis, while it is 

less frequent between the populations. These populations are located along the 

following rivers: (1) the Big South Fork River and its tributaries in Morgan, Scott, 

and Fentress Counties; (2) the Obed River in Morgan and Cumberland Counties; 

and, (3) the Caney Fork River in Cumberland and White Counties. The locations 

in Kentucky are considered part of the Big South Fork River population of 

Tennessee (Figure 3). Although it is widespread along several of these streams, 

it is often disjunct and seldom abundant, often with only a single plant (see 

Appendix). There are fewer than ten locations that are known to have more than 

100 clumps (see Life History section for explanation of clumps) and probably 

fewer than 4,000 total clumps from all known locations (Table 2). Population 

data for each extant occurrence is presented by stream or river in the Appendix. 

One occurrence is assumed extirpated. Lucy Braun collected Conradina 

verticillata from a site 50 miles downstream of the type locality in McCreary 

County, Kentucky, within the area now inundated by Lake Cumberland, which 

was formed by the Wolf Creek Dam (Patrick and Wofford 1981). The current 

status of the type locality is not known. In 1979 and 1992, attempts were made 

to relocate Cumberland rosemary along the north bank of the Clear Fork in 

Fentress County, Tennessee. High water levels were detrimental to both search 

efforts (field search by Roulston in 1993, Patrick and Wofford 1981). 

Cumberland rosemary grows in full to moderate sunlight in the floodplain of major 

streams flowing over sandstone bedrock. The substrate varies from expanses of 

deep, pure sand to densely rocky areas that are always well drained and devoid 

of organic matter. Plants occur on boulder bars, bouldery gravel bars, sandy 

gravel bars, terraces of sand on gradually sloped riverbanks and islands, and 

sandy pockets between boulders. Seasonal flooding occurs along these major 

Cumberland Plateau rivers and streams. Essential habitat requirements for 

Cumberland rosemary include periodic flooding to maintain openness, 

topographic features to enhance sand deposition, and periods of inundation of at 

least 2 weeks to induce rooting at the lower nodes of the stems (Service 1984). 

The primary importance of the periodic flooding is probably the elimination or 

reduction of trees and shrubs that would out-compete Cumberland rosemary for 

light. Although it will tolerate moderate amounts of shade, the species will 
30 

produce fewer flowers and appear less vigorous. Other possible benefits of 

flooding include the induction of roots at the nodes by inundation or sand 

deposition, thereby increasing the clump size; the downstream dispersal of 

seeds; and the transport and deposition of viable plant fragments downstream. 

The duration, severity, and frequency of flooding varies greatly from year to year 

within, as well as between, populations. Available data show that some 

populations may be flooded three to seven times a year for up to 3 days at a 

time. Floods are most common during the winter (Pennington 1992). 

Although Cumberland rosemary tolerates extended periods of submersion and 

thrives in full sunlight, it seldom, if ever, grows directly beside the normal 

(nonflooded) riverbed, probably because of the soil saturation associated with the 

higher water table at these locations. Such habitat constraints greatly limit the 

distribution of the species within a river system. The banks of Cumberland 

Plateau rivers are very steep in some areas and forested to the edge, leaving no 

marginal area of well-drained soil. With few exceptions, the only place where 

Cumberland rosemary is found in any abundance (more than 50 clumps) is on 

wide gravel/boulder bars of river bends or low-lying islands. These frequently 

occur where major tributaries enter the main channel, depositing sediment and 

widening the floodplain. 

4.5.4.2 Effects. The only place within the study area that this plant is known to 

exist is in White County near the upper end of Center Hill Lake. As noted above, 

“it seldom, if ever, grows directly beside the normal (nonflooded) riverbed, 

probably because of the soil saturation associated with the higher water table at 

these locations.” It is, therefore, unlikely that it would be growing directly 

adjacent to either Center Hill or any of the mainstem lakes. Even if it was 

present, the only identified impact of lowering Center Hill Lake is reduced water 

quality such as increased temperatures and lowered DO. This reduced water 

quality would not affect the Cumberland rosemary in any way. 

4.5.4.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the 

Cumberland Rosemary. 

4.5.4.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Cumberland Rosemary. 

4.5.5 Leafy Prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) 

4.5.5.1 Species Account Summary. This plant is presently known from only 

one site in Alabama, seven sites in Tennessee, and four sites in Illinois. It is 
31 

threatened throughout its range by habitat alteration; residential, commercial, or 

industrial development; livestock grazing; and conversion of its limited habitat to 

pasture. Dalea foliosa, a perennial, is a member of the pea family (Fabaceae) 

that has only been collected from Illinois, Tennessee, and Alabama. Dalea 

foliosa is typically found growing in close association with the cedar glades of 

central Tennessee and northern Alabama. However, it seems to prefer the 

deeper soil of the prairie-like areas along the boundaries of, and within, the rocky 

cedar glades (Smith and Wofford 1980). Only 7 populations of Dalea foliosa are 

known to survive in Tennessee, and most of these populations are small, 

containing fewer than 30 individual plants. Historically, the plant was known from 

five Rutherford County sites. One of these sites was destroyed by industrial 

construction, and the species has not been observed on three other Rutherford 

County sites in the recent past. In Rutherford County the only known currently 

occupied site is in a State park, and it contains 25 to 30 individuals. Wilson 

County supports one small privately owned population containing 12 plants. 

Marshall County had one known Dalea foliosa site, but the species has not been 

observed in the recent past and is likely extirpated from the county. Davidson 

County once supported four populations. One of the sites has been bulldozed for 

development and is considered to be lost to the species. Another site is slated 

for development and is expected to be lost, and two very small populations, 

discovered in 1985, have not been observed since their discovery. Williamson 

County supports one population of the species, and most of this site has been 

acquired through donation by The Nature Conservancy and is protected. 

However, a small portion remains in private ownership and could be lost. The 

largest and healthiest Tennessee population is owned by the Tennessee Valley 

Authority and is located in Maury County. This site is within the flood pool of the 

proposed Columbia Dam project and will be flooded if the project is constructed 

as originally proposed (See the “Summary of Factors Affecting the Species” 

section of this proposed rule for further discussion of this project). The 

Tennessee Department of Conservation conducted a survey of over 200 cedar 

glades and cedar glade remnants in the central basin of Tennessee during 1987 

and 1988. Despite this thorough search of most of the available habitat for Dalea 

foliosa, no new populations of the species were found. 

4.5.5.2 Effects. The leafy prairie-clover is an upland plant found in close 

association with the cedar glades. None of the possible effects of lowering 

Center Hill Lake could possibly affect this plant. 

4.5.5.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the Leafy 

Prairie-clover. 
32 

4.5.5.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the leafy prairie-clover. 

4.5.6 Tennessee Coneflower (Echinacea tennesseensis) 

4.5.6.1 Species Account Summary. The Tennessee purple coneflower), a 

native plant of Tennessee, is an Endangered species. There are, at present, 

only five known populations for E. tennesseensis, all in cedar glade communities 

and located within 14 miles of one another in Davidson, Rutherford, and Wilson 

Counties in middle Tennessee. All of the known natural colonies for Echinacea 

tennesseensis, past and present, are in cedar glades. Cedar glades are 

openings in forests that are dominated by red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and 

where the bedrock, Lebanon limestone of Ordovician age, is exposed or covered 

by a very thin layer of soil. These glades provide an extremely harsh 

environment subject to extremes in light, temperature, and moisture (Freeman 

1933, Turner 1966). Past and potential loss of this species; habitat due to 

residential development is threatening the continued existence of the species. 

Over-utilization of this species due to its esthetic and possibly medicinal qualities 

also poses a threat to this species. 

4.5.6.2 Effects. The Tennessee coneflower is an upland plant found only in the 

cedar glades. None of the possible effects of lowering Center Hill Lake could 

possibly affect this plant. 

4.5.6.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the 

Tennessee Coneflower. 

4.5.6.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Tennessee Coneflower. 

4.5.7 Short's Bladderpod (Lesquerella globosa) 

4.5.7.1 Species Account Summary. Short’s bladderpod is a perennial member 

of the mustard family (Brassicaceae) that occurs in Indiana, Kentucky, and 

Tennessee. Lesquerella globosa grows on steep, rocky wooded slopes and 

talus areas. It also occurs along cliff tops and bases and cliff ledges. The 

species usually is found adjacent to rivers or streams and on south to west facing 

slopes. Most populations are closely associated with outcrops of calcareous rock 

(Shea 1993). The Tennessee populations occur within the Highland Rim and 

Central Basin sections of the Interior Low Plateau Province (Fenneman 1938, 

Quarterman and Powell 1978). 
33 

In 1993, Tennessee supported 11 populations of the species. In 1998, the 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TNDEC) conducted 

extensive searches for additional populations of Short’s bladderpod and revisited 

most of the previously known sites. Andrea Shea (TNDEC, pers. comm. 1999) 

reported that these searches revealed the presence of 7 additional sites for the 

species in Tennessee. These new sites varied in size from 3 to 60 plants. At the 

present time, there are 18 known locations for Short’s bladderpod in Tennessee. 

Cheatham County has six sites. The two largest known populations occur in 

Cheatham County; one of these large sites contains 1,000 plants and the other 

contains 1,500 plants. The remaining four populations have 6, 6, 7, and 50 

plants respectively. Davidson County has four sites that currently support the 

species. These vary in size from 13 to 50 plants. Jackson County has three 

locations supporting Short’s bladderpod and these contain 3, 5, and 50 plants, 

respectively. Montgomery County has two populations; one of these contains 10 

plants and the other 21 plants. Smith County also has two populations, one of 

which has 10 plants and the other has 30 plants. Trousdale County only 

supports one population which contained 100 to 150 plants in 1998. Estimates of 

the current (1998) population levels for all of the known Tennessee sites were 

provided by Andrea Shea (TNDEC, pers. comm. 1999). David Lincicome 

(TNDEC, pers. Comm.., 2004, 2005) stated that there has been no change in the 

status of the species in Tennessee. 

4.5.7.2 Effects. Short’s bladderpod is an upland plant. None of the possible 

effects of lowering Center Hill Lake would affect this plant. 

4.5.7.3 Cumulative Affects. Shea (1993) notes that impoundments and 

artificial water level manipulation threatened and, in a case along the 

Cumberland River, have destroyed sites supporting the species. Many of the 

Short’s bladderpod locations are adjacent to rivers and streams, and 

impoundment and water level manipulation still threaten the species. There are 

no known future state, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain 

to occur in the action area and that would combine with navigation, water supply, 

recreation, flood damage reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality 

issues related to lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects 

on the Short's Bladderpod. 

4.5.7.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Short's Bladderpod. 

4.5.8 Spring Creek Bladderpod (Lesquerella perforata - Rollins )

4.5.8.1 Species Account Summary. This rare plant is presently known from 

only a limited area within Tennessee’s Central Basin. It is threatened by habitat 

alteration; residential, commercial, or industrial development; livestock grazing; 

conversion of its limited habitat to pasture; and habitat encroachment by woody 

vegetation and herbaceous perennials. Lesquerella perforata (Spring Creek 
34 

bladderpod), described by R. C. Rollins (Rollins 1952), occurs within a small area 

in Wilson County in the vicinity of Lebanon, Tennessee. This species is typically 

found growing on flood plains. It requires annual disturbance in order to 

complete its life cycle. Historically, this disturbance was probably provided by 

periodic flooding of the streams along which it occurs. This flooding is thought to 

have removed the perennial grasses and woody plants that quickly invade the 

flood plains without regular natural or artificial disturbance. Cultivation of annual 

crops, such as corn, provides an excellent means of artificially maintaining the 

habitat, provided there is no fall plowing and herbicide use is limited. No-till 

farming techniques are believed to adversely affect the species because of the 

extensive use of herbicides required to successfully implement the technique. 

Row-crop cultivation, which avoids the use of fall plowing and delays spring 

plowing until the majority of the plants have set fruit, does not seem to adversely 

affect the species (Somers et al. 1993; Somers, Massachusetts Natural Heritage 

and Endangered Species Program, personal communication, 1992). 

Lesquerella perforata is known from four populations consisting of 13 extant sites 

in Wilson County, Tennessee. Three additional sites no longer support the 

species. One of the extant populations occurs along Spring Creek and consists 

of five groups of plants. Another, consisting of four groups of plants, is found 

along Lower Bartons Creek. Two sites are located farther upstream and are 

designated the Middle Bartons Creek population. The fourth population consists 

of two sites and is located along a tributary of Bartons Creek. All of the known 

sites for the species are found within a few miles of each other; with only one 

exception, sites are within the flood plains of Spring and Bartons Creeks or within 

the floodplain of a Bartons Creek tributary. The only non-floodplain location is 

within a gladey area slightly above the floodplain of Spring Creek (Somers et al. 

1993). All of the known sites supporting L. perforata are privately owned, and 

none are protected through cooperative management agreements with the State 

or the Service. 

4.5.8.2 Effects. Spring Creek bladderpod appears to have been dependent on 

the fluctuation of water levels disturbing the soil and drowning its competition. It 

would not be disturbed by any of the possible effects of lowering Center Hill 

Lake. 

4.5.8.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the Spring 

Creek Bladderpod. 

4.5.8.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Spring Creek Bladderpod. 

4.5.9 White Fringeless Orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 
35 

4.5.9.1 Species Account Summary. White fringeless orchid is a perennial herb 

with a light green, 60 centimeter (cm) (23 inches (in)) long, stem that arises from 

a tuber. The leaves are alternate with entire margins and are narrowly elliptic to 

lanceolate in shape. The lower leaves are 20 cm (8 in) long and 3 cm (1 in) 

wide. The upper stem leaves are much smaller. The white flowers are borne in 

a loose cluster at the end of the stem. The upper two flower petals are about 7 

millimeters (mm) (0.3 in) long and the lower petal (the lip) is about 13 mm (0.5 in) 

long. The plants flower from late July through September and the small narrow 

fruiting capsule matures in October (Shea 1992). 

Platanthera integrilabia grows in wet, boggy areas at the head of streams and on 

seepage slopes. It is often associated with Sphagnum in partially, but not fully, 

shaded areas. The species currently occurs within the Appalachian Plateau 

Physiographic Province in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, the Coastal Plain 

Physiographic Province in Alabama, and the Blue Ridge Province in Georgia and 

Tennessee (Shea 1992). 

Historically, there were at least 90 populations of Platanthera integrilabia. 

Currently there are only 53 extant sites supporting the species. The species was 

originally known from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. It has been extirpated from 

Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia. 

In Tennessee, Franklin County supports five privately owned Platanthera 

integrilabia sites. Four of these are very small and contained 2, 3, 5 and 10 

plants, respectively, in 1991. The fourth site is larger and contained 200 to 300 

plants in 1998. Grundy County supports nine populations. Three of these are on 

State owned lands and in the most recent surveys contained 6, 6 and 34 plants, 

respectively. The remaining six sites are on privately owned land and in the most 

recent surveys contained 0, 4, 118, 150, 250, and 1,000+ plants, respectively. 

Sequatchie County has three privately owned populations, one of these had 7 

flowering plants in 1991, the second had 12 in that same year, and the third had 

91 plants in 1996. Marion County has three populations. Two of the Marion 

County sites are small and privately owned, one of these had 2 plants and the 

other 10 plants in 1991. The third site is State owned and supported 65 flowering 

plants in 1998. Van Buren County has four privately owned sites supporting P. 

integrilabia. In the most recent surveys of these populations, they contained 76, 

86, 128, and 525 flowering plants, respectively. Bledsoe County has two State 

owned sites; one had 50 plants in 1989 and the other had 600 plants in 1998. 

There are two federally owned sites in the State, one is in McMinn County on 

land managed as a botanical area by the Cherokee National Forest. In 1998, 

thousands of plants were observed at this site. The other federally owned site is 

also on the Cherokee National Forest and is in Polk County. In 1996, this site 

contained 40 plants. 
36 

Current threats include invasive plants, poor land use practices upstream or 

upslope of the sites and, at least in the past, herbivory (deer), and the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range. Little, 

if any, vegetative reproduction takes place in Platanthera integrilabia, and it is 

apparently primarily dependent upon sexual reproduction. Zettler and Fairey 

(1990) reported that only 2.8 percent to 4.6 percent of the plants within a 

population flower in any given year and of these, only 6.9 percent to 20.3 percent 

will set seed. This results in a very low production of seeds and, consequently, a 

limited ability to reproduce at most sites. White (1998) notes that the recovery of 

this species will be dependent upon active habitat management rather than just 

habitat preservation. Because of the species’ dependence upon moderate to 

high light levels, some type of active management to prevent complete canopy 

closure is required at most locations. Invasive nonnative plants such as 

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and kudzu (Pueraria lobata) threaten 

several sites and, if left uncontrolled, can extirpate the species (Zettler and Fairey 

1990). 

4.5.9.2 Effects. The white fringeless orchid is found in wet, boggy areas at the 

head of streams and on seepage slopes above or outside the zone of hydraulic 

influence. The only place within the study area it is found is in Warren County, 

Tennessee above the headwaters of Center Hill Lake. None of the possible 

effects of lowering Center Hill Lake could possibly affect this plant. 

4.5.9.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the white 

fringeless orchid. 

4.5.9.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the white fringeless orchid.

4.6 Crustaceans 

4.6.1 Nashville Crayfish (Orconectes shoupi)

4.6.1.1 Species Account Summary. This species is currently known to exist 

only in the Mill Creek basin in Davidson and Williamson Counties. Tennessee. 

The species is threatened by siltation, stream alterations, and general water 

quality deterioration resulting from development pressures in the urbanized areas 

surrounding Xashvi1le. Tennessee. The species’ limited distribution also makes 

it vulnerable to a single catastrophic event, such as a toxic chemical spill or other 

contamination. The Nashville crayfish, which attains a length of over 6 inches 

(15 centimeters], has been observed to inhabit pools and riffle areas with 

moderate current. Very little is known concerning the species’ biology, but, like 
37 

related crayfish, it probably feeds on vegetation fragments and animal matter. 

Reproduction occurs in the winter months, and females have been observed 

carrying eggs in the spring. The species’ restricted range makes it vulnerable to 

toxic chemical spills. The species is also subjected to water quality and other 

habitat deterioration associated with urban runoff, land disturbance, and 

development within the Mill Creek watershed. 

4.6.1.2 Effects. The Nashville crayfish is only found in Mill Creek in the pool 

and riffle areas, i.e., above the Cheatham Lake pool. As such, it would not be 

disturbed by any of the possible effects of lowering Center Hill Lake. 

4.6.1.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the Nashville 

Crayfish. A flood control project being planned for the Mill Creek basin by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-(COE) could also impact the species, but 

separate consultation will be pursued, as appropriate for the feasibility study. 

4.6.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Nashville Crayfish. 

4.7 Fish 

4.7.1 Slackwater Darter (Etheostoma boschungi) 

4.7.1.1 Species Account Summary. The area occupied by the slackwater 

darter is the Highland Rim of the Nashville Basin. Presently it occupies 

headwater streams arising from the highlands of Lawrence and Wayne counties, 

Tennessee. The darter is not known from the Elk River, the largest tributary in 

the south bend of the Tennessee River. However, the Elk interposes the Buffalo 

and Flint rivers, two streams where slackwater darters are found. They are also 

absent from Bear Creek, the largest north-flowing tributary. The slackwater 

darters occur in two distinctly different, but necessarily adjacent, habitats: nonbreeding and breeding habitats. The two distinctly different habitats must be 

adjacent; that is, the fish must be able to swim from stream to spawning area and 

vice versa. The species typically inhabits gentle riffles and slackwater areas of 

small to medium-sized shallow, upland tributary streams no more than 40ft wide 

and less than 7ft deep (Williams and Robinson 1980). Breeding sites are usually 

30-45cm above the adjacent streams, and therefore depend on heavy rains to 

raise the stream level and allow the darters access to the sites. Breeding site 

substrates are characterized by Lee cherty silt loams, Lobelville cherty loam, and 

Staffell, Bodine and Etowah silt loams. At these sites the water is usually about 

4-8cm deep and flows slowly into an adjacent stream. 
38 

Slackwater darter populations are affected by any factor that negatively 

influences their habitat, both breeding and non-breeding habitat. Increased 

development has caused erosion and draining of areas with shallow groundwater 

limiting slackwater darter breeding habitat. Farming and cattle are the principal 

industries surrounding the darter’s habitat, which has exposed darter habitat to 

pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and stockyard runoff. Other threats include 

degradation of surface and groundwater caused by the intrusion of toxins and 

industrial and domestic wastes from sewage lines and septic tank seepage. The 

slackwater darters are also threatened by predation from the green sunfish, 

Lepomis cyanellus, and the pirate perch, Aphredoderus sayanus. 

Since breeding sites are located above the stream level any factor that limits 

accessibility to the sites would be detrimental to the darter population. Factors 

would include those listed under “Past Threats” with the inclusion of a drought. 

4.7.1.2 Effects. The slackwater darter is not found in the Cumberland River or 

any of its tributaries. Its inclusion in this BA is based on its presence in streams 

tributary to Kentucky Lake. As noted above, The species typically inhabits gentle 

riffles and slackwater areas of small to medium-sized shallow, upland tributary 

streams no more than 40ft wide and less than 7ft deep, i.e., It would not be found 

in Kentucky Lake itself. None of the possible effects of lowering Center Hill Lake 

would affect the water quality in the Kentucky Lake tributaries. 

4.7.1.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the 

slackwater darter. 

4.7.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the slackwater darter. 

4.7.2 Bluemask (=Jewel) Darter (Doration) (Etheostoma sp. D) 

4.7.2.1 Species Account Summary. The bluemask darter is a small (13⁄4-inch) 

fish, closely related to E. stigmaeum. Breeding males are nearly covered by a 

bright blue color. Females and non-breeding males are not as brightly colored. 

They have six dark saddle-like markings across the back and seven to eight 

lateral blotches. The species inhabits areas of slow to moderate current over 

sand and fine gravel, a habitat type that is very limited in some of the occupied 

streams, The bluemask darter is endemic to the Caney Fork River system (above 

Great Falls), Cumberland River basin, in central Tennessee. Based on current 

and historic records reviewed by Layman (1991), the species has been collected 

from five rivers in the Caney Fork River system—Upper Caney Fork River, 

Collins River, Rocky River, Calfkiller River, and Cane Creek in Grundy, Warren, 
39 

Van Buren, and White Counties. A 1991 fish survey (Layman 1991) of the 

Caney Fork River system above and below Great Falls revealed that the species 

is now restricted to isolated populations in reaches of four rivers in the Caney 

Fork River system—Cane Creek, Van Buren County: Collins River, Warren and 

Grundy Counties; Rocky River, Van Buren County; and Upper Caney Fork River, 

White County. The bluemask darter has been impacted by such factors as 

impoundments, water withdrawals, and the general deterioration of water and 

substrate quality resulting from siltation and other pollutants contributed by coal 

mining, gravel mining, poor land use practices, water withdrawal, and waste 

discharges. These factors continue to impact the species and its habitat. 

4.7.2.2 Effects. Based on the above information, the bluemask darter is only 

found in streams above the headwaters of Center Hill Lake. None of the possible 

effects of lowering Center Hill Lake would affect the bluemask darter. 

4.7.2.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the bluemask 

darter. 

4.7.2.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the bluemask darter. 

4.7.3Pygmy Madtom (Noturus stanauli) 

4.7.3.1 Species Account Summary. The pygmy madtom is a member of the 

Ictaluridae family. This species is the smallest of the known madtoms reaching a 

maximum length of 1.5 inches (Etnier and Jenkins 1980). The average life span 

of most madtoms is 2 or 3 years. Etnier and Jenkins (1980) noted that only two 

age groups were evident in collections of the species, indicating a life span of 1+ 

years. Madtoms almost exclusively prey on aquatic insect larvae. Most authors 

have suggested that they are primarily opportunistic feeders and take prey items 

in proportion to their abundance (Starnes and Starnes 1985, Gutowski and 

Stauffer 1990). 

Much of the species’ life history is unknown. However, much can be inferred 

from comparisons with closely related species. Related madtoms nest in cavities 

beneath slabrocks and at times use other cover objects, such as cans and 

bottles. As native mussels are abundant in pygmy madtom habitat, it is possible 

that this species might use empty mussel shells for nesting cover. Reproduction 

likely occurs from spring to early summer; smoky madtom and least madtom 

reproduction occurs between late May and mid-July (Dinkins and Shute 1993). 
40 

The species has been collected from only two short river reaches separated by 

about 600 river miles (Etnier and Jenkins 1980, O’Bara 1991). It has been taken 

from the Duck River, Humphreys, and Hickman Counties, Tennessee; and from 

the Clinch River, Hancock County, Tennessee. In 1993, three pygmy madtoms 

were taken in the Duck River, Hickman County (Saylor, Tennessee Valley 

Authority, in litt., 1993). Etnier and Jenkins (1980), in their description of this 

species, reported that it had been taken in only about one-half of the collections 

made at the Clinch River and only about one-fourth of the collection at the Duck 

River site. 

Pygmy madtoms occur in moderate to large rivers, in shallow shoals where the 

current is moderate to strong, and there is pea-sized gravel or fine sand 

substrates. Although there are no observations of seasonal habitat shifts, the 

closely related smoky madtom is known to switch from riffles to overwinter in 

shallow pools (Dinkins 1984). Many individuals are also found in the flowing 

portions of pools during the reproductive season (Dinkins and Shute 1993). The 

Duck River where the species has historically been taken is being seriously 

threatened by stream bank erosion. The runoff from large urban areas has 

degraded water and substrate quality. 

As the two known populations are isolated from each other by impoundments, 

recolonization of any extirpated population would not be possible without human 

intervention. The absence of natural gene flow among populations of these 

fishes leaves the long-term genetic viability of these isolated populations in 

question. 

Additionally, several madtom species have, for unexplained reasons, been 

extirpated from portions of their range. Etnier and Jenkins (1980) speculated that 

this may "...in addition to visible habitat degradation be related to their being 

unable to cope with olfactory 'noise' being added to riverine ecosystems in the 

form of a wide variety of complex organic chemicals that may occur only in trace 

amounts." If madtoms are adversely impacted by increased concentrations of 

complex organic chemicals, an increase in the presence of these materials could 

be a problem for the pygmy madtom.

4.7.3.2 Effects. The pygmy madtom was included in this BA because one of 

their two known populations occurs in the Duck River, a tributary of Kentucky 

Lake. Because this population is in a tributary area and therefore upstream of 

any possible effects of any possible influence by the proposed lowering of Center 

Hill Lake it is unlikely that the pygmy madtom could be affected in any way. 

4.7.3.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 
41 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the pygmy 

madtom. 

4.7.3.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the pygmy madtom. 

4.8 Mussels 

Parmalee and Bogan (1998) provided a brief synopsis on unionoid faunal provinces 

of North America, which is summarized in this section. Approximately one-third of 

the nearly 1000 freshwater mussels species in the world have been recorded in 

North America. Through taxonomic studies, mussel surveys, and collection, it was 

recognized that the freshwater mussel species within North America congregated in 

distinct geographic regions termed unionoid faunal provinces. Boundaries were 

marked by the river systems they drained, and the mussel fauna that was endemic 

within each province. Approximately 45 mussel species that were historically 

confined to the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages were called 

Cumberlandian species. Species included in this Biological Assessment; the 

Dromedary pearlymussel (Dromus dromas, Lea, 1834), Cumberlandian combshell 

(Epioblasma brevidens, Lea, 1834), and Oyster mussel (Epiobasma capsaeformis, 

Lea, 1834) are Cumberlandian mussels. The Cumberlandian province nests within 

the Mississippi River drainage basin that is known as the Interior Basin 

(Mississippian) province. Mussel species recorded in this region were historically 

widely distributed. Other species included in this Biological Assessment; the 

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), Pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), Cracking 

pearlymussel (Hemistena lata), White wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus), 

Orangefoot pimpleback (Plethobasus cooperianus), Clubshell (Pleurobema clava), 

and the Rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) are species that were historically found 

in the Interior Basin province. Presently, the mussel fauna in the Nashville District 

reflect a blend of species represented in these two unionoid faunal provinces. 

Cumberlandian mussels tend to be somewhat confined to the Tennessee and 

Cumberland River systems, however species from the broader Interior Basin have 

been able to spread into and colonize a large portion of the Cumberlandian province. 

Impoundments result in the dramatic modification of riffle and shoal habitats and the 

resulting loss of mussel resources, especially in larger rivers. Impoundment impacts 

are most profound in riffle and shoal areas, which harbor the largest assemblages of 

mussel species. Dams interrupt most of a river's ecological processes by modifying 

flood pulses; controlling impounded water elevations; altering water flow, sediments, 

nutrients, energy inputs and outputs; increasing depth; decreasing habitat 

heterogeneity; and decreasing stability due to subsequent sedimentation. The 

reproductive process of riverine mussels is generally disrupted by impoundments 

making mussels unable to successfully reproduce and recruit under reservoir 

conditions. 
42 

In addition, dams can also seriously alter downstream water quality and riverine 

habitat, and negatively impact tailwater mussel populations. These changes include 

thermal alterations immediately below dams; changes in channel characteristics, 

habitat availability, and flow regime; daily discharge fluctuations; increased silt loads; 

and altered host fish communities. Coldwater releases from large non-navigational 

dams and scouring of the river bed from highly fluctuating, turbulent tailwater flows 

have also been implicated in the demise of mussel faunas. 

Population losses due to impoundments have probably contributed more to the 

decline of the mussels and other Cumberlandian Region mussels than any other 

single factor. Contaminants contained in point and non-point discharges can 

degrade water and substrate quality and adversely impact mussel populations. The 

effects are especially profound on juvenile mussels, which can readily ingest 

contaminants, and glochidia, which appear to be very sensitive to certain toxicants. 

Mussels are very intolerant of heavy metals, and even at low levels, certain heavy 

metals may inhibit glochidial attachment to fish hosts. 

Water pollution over historic times has been a slow but widespread process often 

attributed to poor land use practices. Water quality degradation included siltation, 

sediment contamination, excessive nutrient, fertilizer, and urban runoff, as well as 

point and nonpoint source pollution. Siltation is the largest single pollutant, affecting 

over 4,800 miles of streams. Siltation fills navigation channels, increasing the need 

for maintenance dredging and disposal (TN 305(b) Report, 2002). Point and 

nonpoint Source pollution control are implemented by non-Corps agencies. 

Exploitation has affected all mussel populations. Native Americans used them for 

food and tools; however decimation of large mussel beds resulted from pearl 

collecting, the pearl button industry, and most recently, the cultured pearl industry. 

As commercial size mussels decline, there is the potential for over harvesting and 

illegal take. Currently, however, a marked decline in the cultured pearl industry has 

greatly reduced the market demand for freshwater mussel shells. It is unknown 

when and if the market demand will reverse. 

Natural predation is a concern for remnant mussel populations. Muskrats (Ondatra 

zibethicus) prey upon adult and sub-adult mussels while crayfish, fish, and other 

invertebrates prey upon the juvenile mussels. Exotic invasive aquatic species pose 

additional threats. Asiatic Clams (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra mussels 

(Dreissena polymorpha) compete with native freshwater mussels. Zebra mussels 

pose the greatest threat because of their ability to colonize on native mussels. 

Attachment on to any waterborne vessel or boat trailer has facilitated the spread of 

these mussels. 

Commercial sand and gravel dredging is a regulated activity that permanently 

removes sand, gravel, and benthic organisms from the river bottom. Secondary 

impacts include a localized temporary increase in turbidity and a change in the river 

bottom topography. Sand and gravel extraction creates underwater holes and 
43 

furrows tens of feet deeper than the natural river bottom elevation. Permitting helps 

protect mussel beds by confining extraction to disturbed areas to reduce the 

likelihood of encountering mussels. 

Current threats to the species listed above are not totally understood (USFWS, 

1985) but are predominantly anthropic in nature. The activities are under the 

authority of varying federal, state, local, and private entities. 

Water levels are regulated on the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers by the Corps 

and TVA respectively to maintain the minimum 9-foot channel depth and, under 

emergency conditions, to rescue grounded barges. Water level regulation for these 

purposes may be accomplished by holding pool levels, by releases from one 

navigation project to another, or by a combination of both. The result is a kind of 

minimum flow, or, at least, avoidance of dewatering some mussel habitat outside the 

channel as could occur in absence of the navigation purpose. Riverine conditions 

found below dams provide refugia for mussel populations in the over bank and back 

chutes of islands. Mussel sanctuaries have been established below several locks 

and dams by state natural resource agencies. In summation, this feature may 

positively affect listed species by maintaining a status quo of existing populations. 

While not a direct result of Corps O&M activities, zebra mussels were introduced into 

the inland waterways via bilge water from commercial vessels and have spread 

quickly throughout the inland navigation system and other water bodies by attaching 

to both commercial and recreational vessels. Zebra mussels affect native mussel 

species at all ages. Filtering water containing glochidia reduces recruitment. 

Attaching to juvenile and adult mussels impairs growth, reproduction, and survival if 

the mussel is unable to open to feed, breath, or reproduce. The loss of all ages 

indirectly results in lower population densities. The Corps and TVA have evaluated 

control of zebra mussels and related species at their facilities (U. S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Nashville District and Tennessee Valley Authority, 1992). The Corps 

found that implementing control of Zebra mussels and related species at its facilities 

would have no affect on listed mussel species, but that an increase in zebra mussel 

populations, independent of Corps activities, could have a profoundly negative 

impact on native mussels. Since that time, Corps observations are that the 

expected zebra mussel population explosion has not materialized and that, instead, 

populations seem to have waned somewhat. Zebra mussel control measures are 

still “on the shelf” should they be needed, but the nexus of any invasion may be 

more toward recreational navigation – i.e. with or without commercial navigation and 

O&M activities, zebra mussels may continue to spread. Long-term impact to the 

viability of freshwater mussel communities is unknown. 

Cumulative impacts to the aquatic environment from non-federal actions have 

additionally contributed to the decline, endangerment or extinction of many mussel 

species in the last century. The direct destruction of species or habitat and the 

indirect impact of degrading habitat and water quality, though individually minor, 

have collectively resulted in significant cumulative actions. 
44 

As the human population increases, human threats to the remaining populations of 

freshwater mussels will continue to grow. Urbanization and the need for water 

supply, wastewater treatment, waterborne recreation and mineral extraction are 

expected to increase with future development. Permits for a host of activities (bridge 

construction, utility crossings, diffusion pipe outfalls, etc.) that potentially affect 

mussels, will continue to be requested. Secondary impacts may include urban 

runoff, sedimentation, water pollution, sediment contamination, clean water scarcity, 

additional marinas, spills, and the spread of exotics. These activities may combine 

to adversely affect mussels. On the other hand, regulatory programs primarily 

aimed at improving water quality (Total Maximum Daily Load, NPDES, Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Permits, etc) will be beneficial to mussels. With or without O&M 

activities, increased human-related changes in the watershed are expected to 

continue and likely to increase in the future. Whether existing and future 

conservation and regulatory programs will prevent these changes from translating to 

increased impacts on mussels remains to be seen. 

4.8.1 Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) 

4.8.1.1 Species Account Summary. The spectaclecase, a candidate species, 

is a large mussel that reaches at least 9.25 inches in length. As a group, 

mussels are extremely long-lived, particularly among the margaritiferids (e.g., 

eastern pearlshell, Margaritifera margaritifera, up to 200 years [Mutvei et al. 

1994]; Louisiana pearlshell, M. hembeli, up to 75 years [Johnson and Brown 

1998]). Baird (2000) aged 278 specimens of the spectaclecase in Missouri by 

sectioning the hinge ligament. The maximum age he determined was 56 years, 

but he surmised that some large individuals may have been older. A very large 

specimen (9.25 inches) from the St. Croix River, Minnesota and Wisconsin, was 

estimated (qualitatively based on external growth rings counts) to be aged at 

approximately 70 years (Havlik 1994). 

Hermaphroditism may occur in the spectaclecase (van der Schalie 1966), 

although it is not generally reported in the literature, nor from Baird’s (2000) life 

history study in Missouri. Another margaritiferid, the eastern pearlshell, has been 

shown to produce glochidia hermaphroditically (Bauer 1987). This reproductive 

mechanism, which is thought to be rare in dense populations, may be 

implemented when populations exhibit low densities and high dispersion levels. 

Females changing to hermaphrodites may be an adaptive response (Bauer 

1987) assuring that a recruitment class may not be lost in small populations. If 

hermaphroditism does occur in the spectaclecase, it may explain the occurrence 

of small, but persistent populations (e.g., in cold tailwaters receiving hypolimnetic 

discharges from large dams [Gordon and Layzer 1989]). 

The spectaclecase occurs in large rivers and is a habitat-specialist, relative to 

other mussel species. Baird (2000) noted its occurrence on outside river bends 

below bluff lines. It most often inhabits riverine microhabitats that are sheltered 
45 

from the main force of current. Utterback’s (1915) record of this species in the 

Northwest Missouri Lakes is puzzling but may refer to seasonally flooded oxbow 

lakes along the Missouri River. It occurs in substrates from mud and sand to 

gravel, cobble, and boulders in relatively shallow riffles and shoals with slow to 

swift current (Buchanan 1980, Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Baird 2000). 

According to Stansbery (1967), the spectaclecase is usually found in firm mud 

between large rocks in quiet water very near the interface with swift currents. 

Specimens also have been reported in tree stumps, root masses, and in beds of 

rooted vegetation (Stansbery 1967, Oesch 1984). Similar to other 

margaritiferids, spectaclecase tend to be aggregated (Gordon and Layzer 1989), 

particularly under slab boulders or bedrock shelves (Call 1900, Hinkley 1906, 

Buchanan 1980, Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Baird 2000) where they are 

protected from the current. Up to 200 specimens have been reported from under 

a single large slab in the Tennessee River at Muscle Shoals (Hinkley 1906). 

Unlike most species that move about to some degree, the spectaclecase may 

seldom, if ever, move except to burrow deeper; they may die from stranding 

during droughts (Oesch 1984). 

The spectaclecase was considered as extant if live or fresh-dead specimens 

have been collected since the mid-1980s. Extant populations of the 

spectaclecase are known from 20 streams in 10 states and three Service 

regions. These include the Cumberland River system (Caney Fork) and the 

Tennessee River system (Tennessee River, Clinch, Nolichucky, Duck Rivers). 

Although the spectaclecase is not listed on the Cookeville website as occurring in 

the study area, a single specimen was found during an intensive survey of the 

Caney Fork (Lazer et al, 1993) 

The decline of the spectaclecase is primarily the result of habitat loss and 

degradation (Neves 1991). These losses have been documented well since the 

mid-19th century (Higgins 1858). Chief among the causes of decline are 

impoundments, channelization, chemical contaminants, mining, and 

sedimentation (Williams et al. 1993; Neves 1991, 1993; Neves et al. 1997; 

Watters 2000) 

Population losses due to impoundments have probably contributed more to the 

decline and imperilment of the spectaclecase than any other factor. Dams 

impound large river habitats throughout almost the entire range of the species. 

These impoundments have left short and isolated patches of remnant habitat, 

typically just downstream of the dams. Dams impound most of the Tennessee 

and Cumberland Rivers and many of their tributaries; these systems were once 

strongholds for the spectaclecase (Ortmann 1924). 

Dams either impound or alter the temperature regimes of approximately 90 

percent of the 562-mile length of the Cumberland River downstream of 

Cumberland Falls. Other major U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

impoundments on Cumberland River tributaries (e.g., Stones River, Caney Fork) 
46 

have inundated an additional 100 miles or more of riverine habitat for the 

spectaclecase. Coldwater releases from Wolf Creek, Dale Hollow (Obey River), 

and Center Hill (Caney Fork) Dams continue to affect adversely riverine habitat 

for the spectaclecase in the Cumberland River system. One-third of the streams 

that the spectaclecase historically occupied are in the Tennessee and 

Cumberland River systems. 

The effects of contaminants are especially profound on juvenile mussels 

(Robison et al. 1996), which readily ingest contaminants adsorbed to sediment 

particles while feeding, and on glochidia, which appear to be very sensitive to 

toxicants (Goudreau et al. 1993, Jacobson et al. 1997). Mussels are very 

intolerant of heavy metals (Keller and Zam 1991, Havlik and Marking 1987), and 

even at low levels, certain heavy metals may inhibit glochidial attachment to fish 

hosts (Huebner and Pynnönen 1992). Cadmium appears to be the heavy metal 

most toxic to mussels (Havlik and Marking 1987), although chromium, copper, 

mercury, and zinc also adversely affect biological processes (Naimo 1995, Keller 

and Zam 1991, Jacobson et al. 1997, Keller and Lydy 1997). Bogan and 

Parmalee (1983) considered the spectaclecase “apparently...unable to survive 

even minimal amounts of organic pollution or chemical waste.” 

4.8.1.2 Effects. Although the spectaclecase may be still extant in the Caney 

Fork River, the water releases from Center Hill Dam are so cold as to preclude 

reproduction. The Caney Fork has been classified as a trout stream by the State 

of Tennessee and any attempt to intentionally warm the water above 20° C would 

require approval from the state’s water board. Nevertheless, lowering Center Hill 

Lake’s levels will reduce the cold water storage which could result in somewhat 

warmer waters until the repairs to the dam are completed. Although it is unlikely, 

if a remnant population does exist below Center Hill it may be able to reproduce 

for a short time. Of more concern, perhaps, is the possibility of reduced water 

quality. Although the impact from Center Hill as compared to the entire 

Cumberland River system is minor, if Center Hill does not store and release its 

customary volumes of water during the summer months, all aquatic species 

downstream from Center Hill Dam could incur some slight additional stress. This 

would mimic to some extent what would occur in a natural system during low 

summer flows. Stressors would primarily be in the form of lowered DO and 

increased temperatures, but would also include less dilution of pollutants being 

discharged into the river. For pollution intolerant species such as the 

spectaclecase this could be particularly important. 

4.8.1.3 Cumulative Affects. The impact of Center Hill on the Cumberland River 

System in and of itself would be minor. However at the same time Wolf Creek 

Dam is also undergoing necessary repairs. In the interest of public safety and to 

relieve pressure on the foundation of Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland has 

been lowered also. Flows from Wolf Creek Dam are significantly lower than what 

the public has become accustomed to. Anticipated cumulative affects include 

significantly changed and reduced water quality for all reaches below Wolf Creek 
47 

Dam including lower DO, increased water temperatures, and lessened dilution of 

pollutants. Due to the decreased flows and the commitment of a minimum flow 

of at least 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) below Barkley Lock and Dam, water 

is flowing from Kentucky Lake, through the canal, into Lake Barkley. Kentucky 

Lake is, therefore, currently protected from the water quality impacts of the 

Cumberland River. 

4.8.1.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a May Effect But Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect determination has been reached for the spectaclecase. 

4.8.2 Fanshell Pearly Mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria) 

4.8.2.1. Species Account Summary. The fanshell is a medium-sized (reaching 

up to approximately 80 mm in length) freshwater mussel with light green or 

yellow with green mottling or rays (USFWS 2003). Like other freshwater 

mussels, the fanshell feeds by filtering food particles from the water column. The 

specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other juvenile and adult 

freshwater mussels have been documented to feed on detritus, diatoms, 

phytoplankton, and zooplankton (Churchill and Lewis 1924). The diet of fanshell 

glochidia, like other freshwater mussels, comprises water (until encysted on a 

fish host) and fish body fluids (once encysted). 

The reproductive cycle of the fanshell is similar to that of other native freshwater 

mussels. Males release sperm into the water column; the sperm are then taken 

in by the females through their siphons during feeding and respiration. The 

females retain the fertilized eggs in their gills until the larvae (glochidia) fully 

develop. The mussel glochidia are released into the water, and within a few days 

they must attach to the appropriate species of fish, which they parasitize for a 

short time while they develop into juvenile mussels. The species is a long-term 

brooder and holds glochidia overwinter for a spring release (Ortmann 1919). 

Fanshell glochidia are released in the form of a unique spiral worm-like 

conglutinate suggesting that this species relies on fish hosts that visually search 

for food (USFWS 1991). Recent induced infestations of glochidia on nine of 

sixteen fish species tested indicate that the following species are suitable hosts: 

mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae), greenside 

darter (Etheostoma blennioides), snubnose darter (Etheostoma simoterum), 

banded darter (Etheostoma zonale), tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca), 

blotchside logperch (Percina burtoni), logperch (Percina caprodes), and Roanoke 

darter (Percina roanoka) (Jones and Neves 2000). 

The fanshell has undergone a substantial range reduction. It was historically 

distributed in the Ohio, Wabash, Cumberland, And Tennessee Rivers and their 

larger tributaries in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia (Johnson 1980, KSNPC 1980, Ahlstedt 1986, 

Bates and Dennis 1985, Lauritsen 1987, Cummings et al. 1987 and 1988, 

Starnes and Bogan 1988, USFWS 1991). It is believed that reproducing 
48 

populations are now present in only three rivers, the Clinch River (Hancock 

County, TN and Scott County, VA), the Green River (Hart and Edmonson 

Counties, KY), and the Licking River (Kenton, Campbell, and Pendleton 

Counties, KY). In addition, based on collections of a few older individuals in the 

1980s, small remnant (apparently nonreproducing) populations may still persist in 

the Cumberland River. 

The fanshell inhabits medium to large rivers (Bates and Dennis 1985). It has 

been reported primarily from relatively deep water in gravelly substrate with 

moderate current (Gordon and Layzer 1989). The loss of many historic 

populations was likely due to the impacts of impoundments, navigation projects, 

water quality degradation, and other forms of habitat alteration, including gravel 

and sand dredging, that directly affected the species and reduced or eliminated 

its fish host(s) (USFWS 1991). Incidental take of the fanshell where it is colocated with commercially harvested mussel beds is also attributed to its decline 

(USFWS 1990, 1991). 

Most fanshell populations are small and are geographically isolated from one 

another. It is likely that many of the remaining populations are now small enough 

that they can no longer maintain long-term genetic viability (Soule 1980). Other 

current threats to freshwater mussels are well documented in the general mussel 

description. 

4.8.2.2 Effects. Individuals or small populations in the study area may still exist 

only in the Tennessee River, Kentucky Lake. Although Kentucky Lake is 

connected to the Cumberland River via an unregulated canal, the possible 

effects of lowering Center Hill’s pool could not reach so far upstream on 

Kentucky Lake. The proposed action could not, therefore, affect this species. 

4.8.2.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the fanshell. 

4.8.2.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Fanshell. 

4.8.3 Dromedary Pearlymussel (Dromus dromas - Lea, 1834) 

4.8.3.1 Species Account Summary. The dromedary pearlymussel is a 

medium-sized (reaching up to 90 mm in length) freshwater mussel with a 

yellowish green shell with two sets of broken green rays. The life span of the 

species is greater than 50 years (USFWS 1984, VFWIS 2003). Like other 

freshwater mussels, the dromedary pearlymussel feeds by filtering food particles 

from the water column. The specific food habits of the species are unknown, but 
49 

other juvenile and adult freshwater mussels have been documented to feed on 

detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton (Churchill and Lewis 1924). 

The diet of dromedary pearlymussel glochidia, like other freshwater mussels, 

comprises water (until encysted on a fish host) and fish body fluids (once 

encysted). 

The reproductive cycle of the dromedary pearlymussel is similar to that of other 

native freshwater mussels. Males release sperm into the water column; the 

sperm are then taken in by the females through their siphons during feeding and 

respiration. The females retain the fertilized eggs in their gills until the larvae 

(glochidia) fully develop. The mussel glochidia are released into the water, and 

within a few days they must attach to the appropriate species of fish, which they 

parasitize for a short time while they develop into juvenile mussels. The species 

is bradytictic and glochidia are contained in conglutinates that are similar in 

appearance to freshwater leeches or flatworms (Jones and Neves 2001). In a 

recent investigation, a fecundity of approximately 55 to 250,000 glochidia per 

mussel was estimated for the dromedary pearlymussel by determining the mean 

number of mature glochidia associated with conglutinates from four females. 

Ages of valves examined indicate that the species life span is as long as 25 

years (Jones and Neves 2001). Recent studies have identified the fantail darter 

(Etheostoma flabellare) as a glochidial host for the dromedary pearlymussel. 

Laboratory studies also identified the following potential host species: the banded 

darter (Etheostoma zonale), tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca), logperch 

(Percina caprodes), and gilt darter (Percina evides) (Watson and Neves 1998). 

Jones and Neves (2001) recently confirmed the suitability of the banded darter, 

tangerine darter, and logperch and identified the following additional glochidial 

host species: black sculpin (Cottus baileyi), greenside darter (Etheostoma 

blennioides), snubnose darter (Etheostoma simoterum), blotchside logperch 

(Percina burtoni), channel darter (Percina copelandi), and Roanoke darter 

(Percina roanoka). 

This species was historically widespread in the Cumberland and Tennessee 

River systems (Bogan and Parmalee 1983). It was last collected from Mussel 

Shoals, an 85 km reach of the Tennessee River in Alabama, prior to 1931 (van 

der Schalie 1939) and is presumed to be extirpated from the shoal. The species 

survives at a few shoals in the Powell and Clinch Rivers in Tennessee and 

Virginia, and possibly in the Cumberland River in Tennessee (USFWS 1984, 

Neves 1991). Nine occurrences of the species were recorded during a 1980 

survey by Virginia Tech and the Tennessee Valley Authority; however, the 

dromedary pearlymussel is currently believed to be reduced to only three 

reproducing populations (NatureServe 2003). 

The dromedary pearlymussel inhabits small to medium, low turbidity, high to 

moderate gradient streams. The species is commonly found near riffles on sand 

and gravel substrates with stable rubble (USFWS 1984). Though commonly 

associated with shallow, high velocity riffles and shoals, individuals have been 
50 

found in deeper (up to 18 feet in depth), slower waters (USFWS 1984). 

Many of the historic populations of the dromedary pearlymussel were apparently 

lost when the river sections they inhabited were impounded. Over 50 

impoundments on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers have eliminated the 

majority of riverine habitat for the species in its historic range (ESIS 1996, 

USFWS 1984). The Powell River and upper tributaries of the Clinch River, in 

particular, are also subject to sediment and particulate matter loading from coal 

mining activities (Stansbery 1973). Other threats that are attributed to population 

declines are similar to those described in the general mussel description. 

4.8.3.2 Effects. The dromedary pearlymussel was once found in the 

Cumberland River system. The current species listing by the Tennessee Natural 

Heritage Program lists it as possibly still surviving in Davidson, Trousdale, 

DeKalb, and Smith counties, but the Davidson and Dekalb County records are 

“historic” (pre-1977). Water quality is a concern for this species. Although the 

impact from Center Hill as compared to the entire Cumberland River system is 

minor, if Center Hill does not store and release its customary volumes of water 

during the summer months, all aquatic species downstream from Center Hill Dam 

could incur some slight additional stress. This would mimic to some extent what 

would occur in a natural system during low summer flows. Stressors would 

primarily be in the form of lowered DO and increased temperatures, but would 

also include less dilution of pollutants being discharged into the river. 

4.8.3.3 Cumulative Affects. The impact of Center Hill on the Cumberland River 

System in and of itself would be minor. However at the same time Wolf Creek 

Dam is also undergoing necessary repairs. In the interest of public safety and to 

relieve pressure on the foundation of Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland has 

been lowered. Flows from Wolf Creek Dam are significantly lower than what the 

public has become accustomed to. Anticipated cumulative affects include 

significantly changed and reduced water quality for all reaches below Wolf Creek 

Dam including lower DO, increased water temperatures, and lessened dilution of 

pollutants. . 

4.8.3.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a May Effect 

determination has been reached for the dromedary pearlymussel. 

4.8.4 Cumberlandian Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) 

4.8.4.1 Species Account Summary. The Cumberlandian combshell has a thick 

solid shell with a smooth to cloth-like periostracum, which is yellow to tawny 

brown in color with narrow green broken rays. The nacre is white. The shells of 

females are inflated, with serrated teeth-like structures along a portion of the 

shell margin. See Johnson (1978) and Parmalee and Bogan (1998) for a more 
51 

complete description of the species and Parmalee and Bogan (1998) for a 

synonymy of the species. Gordon (1991) provided diagnostic characters. 

Spawning in the lampsiline Cumberlandian combshell occurs in late summer 

(Gordon 1991). Females display until the water temperature drops below 

approximately 50°F in the fall, burrow into the substrate to overwinter, and begin 

displaying again as early as March (Jones, pers. comm., 2003). Gravid females, 

qualitatively estimated at 8 to 13 years of age, have been reported from early 

May to June at water temperatures of 59.0° to 64.0°F (Ahlstedt 1991a, Yeager 

and Saylor 1995). The female has a complex mantle display that resembles the 

cercae of insect larvae (e.g., stoneflies) protruding from under two or three small 

stones (Jones, pers. comm., 2003). One of its host fishes, the logperch (Percina 

caprodes), has the peculiar habit of flipping small stones in search of food (Etnier 

and Starnes 1993). Glochidial release generally is complete by mid-June (Jones, 

pers. comm., 2002). Several other native host fish species have been identified, 

including the wounded darter, redline darter, bluebreast darter, snubnose darter 

(E. simoterum), greenside darter (E. blennioides), banded sculpin, black sculpin, 

and mottled sculpin (Yeager and Saylor 1995; Jones and Neves, unpub. data). 

Transformation took from 16 to 48 days, at 60.4° to 62.4°F (Yeager and Saylor 

1995). 

The Cumberlandian combshell was described from the Cumberland River in 

Tennessee, possibly from Davidson County (Nashville). Historically, it ranged 

throughout the Cumberlandian Region, occurring in three physiographic 

provinces (i.e., Interior Low Plateau, Cumberland Plateau, Ridge and Valley) and 

five states (i.e., Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia). In the 

Cumberland River it occurred from the base of Cumberland Falls, McCreary and 

Whitley Counties, Kentucky, downstream to Stewart County, Tennessee. In the 

Tennessee River, it occurred throughout the main stem, downstream to Benton 

and Humphreys Counties, Tennessee. The Cumberlandian combshell also 

occurred in numerous tributaries in the Cumberland and Tennessee River 

systems. The most downstream records in both rivers are from archeological 

sites (Parmalee and Bogan 1998), indicating that at least in premodern times this 

species occurred further downstream from the area strictly defined as the 

Cumberlandian Region. 

The Cumberlandian combshell has been extirpated from a large percentage of its 

former range. Mainstem populations in both the Cumberland and Tennessee 

Rivers are now considered extirpated (Ahlstedt, pers. comm., 2003). This 

species has also apparently been eliminated from numerous tributaries in the 

Cumberland River system (e.g., Rockcastle River, Beaver Creek, Obey River, 

Caney Fork, Stones River, Red River) and the Tennessee River system (e.g., 

Station Creek, Wallen Creek, Holston River, Nolichucky River, West Prong Little 

Pigeon River, Little Tennessee River, Paint Rock River, Elk River, Little Bear 

Creek, Cedar Creek, Duck River). The Cumberlandian combshell has also been 

extirpated from large portions of additional tributaries in the Cumberlandian 
52 

Region (e.g., Clinch River, Powell River, North Fork Holston River, Bear Creek). 

Extant Cumberland River system populations occur in Buck Creek, Pulaski 

County, Kentucky; and Big South Fork, Scott County, Tennessee, and McCreary 

County, Kentucky (Table 3, USFWS 2003). In the Tennessee River system, 

populations are thought to remain in the Clinch River, Scott County, Virginia, and 

Hancock County, Tennessee; Powell River, Lee County, Virginia, and Claiborne 

and Hancock Counties, Tennessee; and Bear Creek, Colbert County, Alabama, 

and Tishimingo County, Mississippi (Table 3, USFWS 2003). Although the 

species was found in Alabama in Cedar Creek (tributary to Bear Creek) in 1988, 

a recent survey of the entire Bear Creek system failed to reveal even shells of 

the Cumberlandian combshell at nine sites in Cedar Creek (McGregor and 

Garner, in press). 

The Big South Fork population is sizable and recruiting (Ahlstedt, pers. comm., 

2003). Recent evidence of recruitment has also been detected in the Powell 

River (Jones, letter dated June 9, 2003), but populations in other stream reaches 

are small and of questionable long-term viability (e.g., Buck Creek, Bear Creek) 

(Wolcott and Neves 1994, Hagman 2000, McGregor and Garner, in press; 

Ahlstedt, pers. comm., 2003). 

This species inhabits medium-sized streams to large rivers on shoals and riffles 

in coarse sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders (Dennis 1985, Gordon 1991). It is 

not associated with small stream habitats (Dennis 1985) and tends not to extend 

as far upstream in tributaries. In general, it occurs in larger tributaries than does 

its congener the oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis). Gordon (1991) 

states that the species prefers depths less than 3 feet, but it appears to persist in 

the deep-water areas of the Old Hickory Reservoir on the Cumberland River, 

where there is still fairly strong flow from the Cordell Hull and Center Hill 

Reservoirs (Gordon and Layzer 1989). 

The abundance and distribution of the Cumberlandian combshell decreased 

historically from human-induced habitat loss and degradation (Williams et al. 

1993, Neves 1993) caused by impoundments (e.g., TVA impoundments on the 

Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers and their tributaries, Laurel River, Obey 

River, Caney Fork, Stones River), sedimentation and turbidity, channelization, 

and contaminants contained in numerous point and nonpoint sources. A 

comprehensive review of these past threats is provided elsewhere (USFWS 

2003, Williams et al. 1993, Neves 1993, Neves 1991, Neves et al. 1997, Watters 

2000, Richter et al. 1997). These habitat changes have resulted in significant 

extirpations (localized loss of populations), restricted and fragmented 

distributions, and poor recruitment of young. Numerous Cumberlandian Region 

streams have experienced mussel kills from toxic chemical spills and other 

causes (Cairns et al. 1971, Crossman et al. 1973, Neves 1986, Wolcott and 

Neves 1994). The Cumberlandian combshell and its habitat is currently being 

impacted by excessive sediment bed loads of smaller sediment particles, 
53 

changes in turbidity, increased suspended solids (primarily resulting from 

nonpoint-source loading from poor land-use practices and lack of, or 

maintenance of, best management practices [BMPs], and pesticides (USFWS 

2003, Williams et al. 1993, Neves 1993, Neves 1991, Neves et al. 1997, Watters 

2000, Richter et al. 1997). Other primarily localized impacts include coal mining, 

gravel mining, reduced water quality below dams, developmental activities, water 

withdrawal, impoundments, and alien species. Their restricted ranges and low 

population levels also increase their vulnerability to toxic chemical spills and the 

deleterious effects of genetic isolation. 

Although the dams of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers themselves 

probably contributed more to the destruction of riverine habitat for the 

Cumberlandian combshell, channel maintenance activities continue to cause 

substrate instability and alteration in these rivers and may serve to diminish what 

habitat remains for the recovery of these species. Impacts associated with coal 

mining activities have particularly altered upper Cumberland River system 

streams with diverse historical mussel faunas (Stansbery 1969, Blankenship 

1971, Blankenship and Crockett 1972, Starnes and Starnes 1980, Schuster et al. 

1989, Anderson et al. 1991) and have been implicated in the decline of 

Epioblasma species, especially in the Big South Fork (Neel and Allen 1964). 

Strip mining continues to threaten mussels in coal field drainages of the 

Cumberland Plateau (Anderson 1989, Warren et al. 1999) with increased 

sedimentation loads and acid mine drainage, including Cumberlandian combshell 

populations. 

4.8.4.2 Effects. The dromedary pearlymussel was once found in the 

Cumberland River system and appears to persist in the deep-water areas of the 

Old Hickory Reservoir on the Cumberland River, where there is still fairly strong 

flow from the Cordell Hull and Center Hill Reservoirs. The species is recorded 

from Davidson, Trousdale, DeKalb and Smith Counties, but the Davidson and 

Trousdale records are “historic” (pre-1977). Water quality is a concern for this 

species. Although the impact from Center Hill as compared to the entire 

Cumberland River system is minor, if Center Hill does not store and release its 

customary volumes of water during the summer months, all aquatic species 

downstream from Center Hill Dam could incur some slight additional stress. This 

would mimic to some extent what would occur in a natural system during low 

summer flows. Stressors would primarily be in the form of lowered DO and 

increased temperatures, but would also include less dilution of pollutants being 

discharged into the river. 

4.8.4.3 Cumulative Affects. The impact of Center Hill on the Cumberland River 

System in and of itself would be minor. However at the same time Wolf Creek 

Dam is also undergoing necessary repairs. In the interest of public safety and to 

relieve pressure on the foundation of Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland has 

been lowered. Flows from Wolf Creek Dam are significantly lower than what the 

public has become accustomed to. Anticipated cumulative affects include 
54 

significantly changed and reduced water quality for all reaches below Wolf Creek 

Dam including lower DO, increased water temperatures, and lessened dilution of 

pollutants. 

4.8.4.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a May Effect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect determination has been reached for the Cumberlandian 

combshell. 

4.8.5 Catspaw or Purple Cat's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) 

4.8.5.1 Species Account Summary. This freshwater mussel historically 

occurred in the Ohio River and its large tributaries in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. Presently the purple cat’s paw 

pearlymussel in known from only two relict, apparently nonreproducing 

populations—one in a reach of the Cumberland River in Tennessee and one in a 

reach of the Green River in Kentucky. The distribution and reproductive capacity 

of this species have been seriously impacted by the construction of 

impoundments on the large rivers it once inhabited. Unless reproducing 

populations are found or methods developed to maintain existing populations, 

this species will likely become extinct in the foreseeable future. 

The purple cat’s paw, which is characterized as a large river species (Bates and 

Dennis 1985), has a medium-size shell that is subquadrate in outline (Bogan and 

Parmalee 1983). The shell has fine, faint, wavy green rays with a smooth and 

shiny surface. The inside of the shell is purplish to deep purple (the inside shell 

of the white cat’s paw is white). Like other freshwater mussels, the purple cat’s 

paw feeds by filtering food particles from the water. It has a complex 

reproductive cycle in which the mussel’s larvae parasitize fish. The mussel’s life 

span, fish species its larvae parasitize, and other aspects of its life history are 

unknown. The purple cat’s paw pearlymussel was historically distributed in the 

Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River systems in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama (Bogan and Parmalee 1983, Isom, et al. 

1979, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 1980, Parmalee et al. 1980, 

Stansbery 1970, Watters 1986). Based on personal communications with 

knowledgeable experts (Steven Ahlstedt and John Jenkinson. Tennessee Valley 

Authority, 1987; Mark Gordon and Robert Anderson. Tennessee Technological 

University, 1988; Arthur Bogan, Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, 1988; 

Ronald Cicerello, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, 1988; David 

Stansbery, Ohio State University, 1987) and a review of current literature, the 

species is known to survive in only two river reaches, but apparently as 

nonreproducing populations. These are located in the Cumberland River, Smith 

County (although also listed in Trousdale and Wilson Counties), Tennessee, and 

the Green River, Warren and Butler Counties, Kentucky. The continued 

existence of these two populations is questionable. Unless reproducing 

populations can be found or methods can be developed to maintain these or 

create new populations, the species will become extinct in the foreseeable future. 
55 

Any individuals that do still survive in these two river reaches are also threatened 

from other factors. The individuals still surviving in the Cumberland River are 

potentially threatened by gravel dredging, channel maintenance, and commercial 

mussel fishing. Although the species is not commercially valuable, incidental 

take of the species does sometimes occur in the Cumberland River during 

commercial mussel fishing for other species. 

The purple cat’s paw pearlymussel was recognized by the Service as a category 

2 species (one that is being considered for possible addition to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife) in a May 22, 1984, notice published in the 

Federal Register (49FR 21664). On May 2, 1988, and September 8, 1988, the 

Service notified Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and interested 

individuals by mail that a status review was being conducted specifically on the 

purple cat’s paw pearlymussel and that the species could be proposed for listing. 

On July 27, 1989, the Service published in the Federal Register (54FR 31209) a 

proposal to list the purple cat’s paw pearlymussel as an endangered species. 

That proposal provided information on the species’ biology, status, and threats to 

its continued existence. 

4.8.5.2 Effects. The only area listed within the study area where the cat’s paw 

may still be extant is in the Cumberland River in Smith County, Tennessee, 

although if it is still present it does not appear to be reproducing. Water quality is 

a concern for this species. Although the impact from Center Hill as compared to 

the entire Cumberland River system is minor, if Center Hill does not store and 

release its customary volumes of water during the summer months, all aquatic 

species downstream from Center Hill Dam could incur some slight additional 

stress. This would mimic to some extent what would occur in a natural system 

during low summer flows. Stressors would primarily be in the form of lowered 

DO and increased temperatures, but would also include less dilution of pollutants 

being discharged into the river. 

4.8.5.3 Cumulative Affects. The impact of Center Hill on the Cumberland River 

System in and of itself would be minor. However at the same time Wolf Creek 

Dam is also undergoing necessary repairs. In the interest of public safety and to 

relieve pressure on the foundation of Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland has 

been lowered. Flows from Wolf Creek Dam are significantly lower than what the 

public has become accustomed to. Anticipated cumulative affects include 

significantly changed and reduced water quality for all reaches below Wolf Creek 

Dam including lower DO, increased water temperatures, and lessened dilution of 

pollutants. 

4.8.5.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a May Effect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect determination has been reached for the cat’s paw.

4.8.6 Cracking Pearlymussel (Hemistena lata) 
56 

4.8.6.1 Species Account Summary. Detailed species descriptions can be 

found in Mirarchi et. al. (2004), Parmalee and Bogan (1998), and USFWS 

(1991d) therefore only a description summary based on these three references is 

provided here. The shells of mature Cracking pearlymussels are slightly inflated, 

thin but fairly strong (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The shells are elongated and 

elliptical to rhomboidal in outline with a rounded anterior margin and pointed to 

obliquely truncate posterior margin (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). The umbos are 

flattened and sculptured with a few strong ridges (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

Shell color ranges from dull yellow, brownish-green, to brown (Parmalee and 

Bogan, 1998) and dark green broken rays are often found on the shell surface 

(USFWS, 1991d). The shells do not meet but gape along the anterior and 

posterior margins and the shell surface may be marked by uneven growth lines 

(Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The nacre is pale bluish white with a dark purple 

umbo cavity and adults can reach up to 90 mm (3.5 inches) in diameter 

(Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Cracking Pearlymussels are short-term brooders 

and glochidia have been observed in mid-May (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

Jones and Neves (2000) collected females that were gravid from late April to late 

June and noted that the Whitetail shiner (Cyprinella galactura), Streamline chub 

(Erimystax dissimilis), Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), and Banded 

sculpin (Cottus carolinae) could be possible hosts for this species.

The Cracking pearlymussel is widely distributed and is more numerous in 

medium sized rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Historically it was found 

throughout the Ohio, Tennessee, and Cumberland River systems in Ohio, 

Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia (USFWS, 1991d). 

These mussels are found deeply buried in substrate consisting of mud, sand, and 

fine gravel and usually occur in medium-sized rivers with moderate currents in 

less than 2 feet of water (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The Cracking 

pearlymussel was federally listed as and endangered species in 1989 and a 

recovery plan was written in 1991 (USFWS, 1989b, 1989c, 1991d). To date, 

critical habitat has not been designated for this species (TVA, 2003). In the 

Cumberland River watershed, this species was once found in the main stem of 

the Cumberland River from Clay County, Tennessee upstream to Pulaski 

County, Kentucky; and in the Big South Fork Cumberland River (Parmalee and 

Bogan, 1998). The Cracking pearlymussel is considered extirpated throughout 

much of its range and is thought to exist in a few reaches in the Clinch and 

Powell Rivers in Tennessee and Virginia, and possibly in the Green River, 

Kentucky (USFWS, 2001b). The Cracking pearlymussel occurs in Hancock, 

Lincoln, and Hardin Counties in Tennessee (TABS, 2002d). It survives below 

Pickwick and Wilson Dams on the Tennessee River, and between Fayetteville, 

Tennessee and Tims Ford Dam on the Elk River (TVA, 2003). In Alabama the 

Cracking Pearlymussel is extant only in the Elk River but in few numbers 

(Mirarchi et. al., 2004). In Kentucky, the Cracking pearlymussel may only exist in 

the upper Green River (KCWCS, 2005). The USFWS (2001b) plans to establish 

a nonessential experimental population (NEP) for 16 mussels, including the 
57 

Cracking pearlymussel, below Wilson Dam in Colbert County, Alabama. This 

area is located between Tennessee River miles (TRM 259.4 - 246.0) and 

includes the lower 5 mile reaches of tributaries entering the Wilson Dam 

tailwaters (USFWS, 2001b) that, under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species 

Act, cannot be designated as critical habitat for a NEP (USFWS, 2001b). The 

National Park Service (2003) plans to reintroduce the Cracking pearlymussel into 

the upper Cumberland River system in the Big South Fork National River and 

Recreational Area in Kentucky and Tennessee. The National Park Service 

(2003a) also plans to propagate and restore freshwater mussels in a reach of the 

Green River near Mammoth Cave Nation Park that is inhabited by seven 

federally endangered mussels including the Cracking pearlymussel. 

4.8.6.2 Effects. This species was included in this BA because of its presence in 

the upper reaches of Kentucky Lake. Although Kentucky Lake is connected to 

the Cumberland River via an unregulated canal, the possible effects of lowering 

Center Hill’s pool could not reach so far upstream on Kentucky Lake. The 

proposed action could not, therefore, affect this species. 

4.8.6.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the Cracking 

Pearlymussel. 

4.8.6.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Cracking Pearlymussel. 

4.8.7 Pink Mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) 

4.8.7.1 Species Account Summary. Detailed species descriptions can be 

found in Parmalee and Bogan (1998) Mirarchi et. al. (2004) and the Endangered 

Species Information System (ESIS, 1996e) therefore only a description summary 

based on these three references is provided here. The shells of mature Pink 

muckets are relatively large, thick, heavy, inflated, and subovate to subquadrate 

in outline (ESIS, 1996e). The umbos are located in the anterior third of the shell 

and in young individuals they are marked with faint scarcely looped ridges 

(Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The posterior shell margin in males is rounded to 

very bluntly pointed, while female shells are broadly rounded to truncate with 

values that often gap at the posterior margin especially in females (Mirarchi, et. 

al., 2004). The posterior ridge is prominent in males and is distinct along the 

dorsal margin (ESIS, 1996e). The shell surface is smooth and marked by 

uneven concentric growth lines (ESIS, 1996e). The exterior shell color varies 

from a light yellow in juveniles, to a yellowish brown or dark brown with 

occasional markings of broken fine to fairly wide dark green rays (Parmalee and 

Bogan, 1998). The nacre ranges from white to pink or salmon in color (Mirarchi 
58 

et. al., 2004). Adults can grow up to 120 mm (4.75 in) in diameter (Parmalee and 

Bogan, 1998). Pink muckets are long-term brooders (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). 

Females become gravid in August and contain glochidia in September that are 

released the following June (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). According to Mirarchi 

et. al. (2004), possible host fish for the Pink mucket include Largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), Spotted bass 

(Micropterus punctulatus) Sauger (Stizostedion canadense) and Freshwater 

drum (Aplodinotus grunniens). 

The Pink mucket is a wide ranging Interior Basin species historically inhabiting 

the Mississippi, Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee Rivers (Parmalee and 

Bogan, 1998) in the states of Louisiana Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama 

(USFWS, 1997b). Pink muckets have been found in medium to large rivers, and 

riverine sections of impoundments (TVA, 2003). They have been collected in 

habitat ranging from silt to boulders, but the more typical habitat consists of 

cobble, gravel and sand with individuals found in water depths ranging from 0.8 

to 8 m (2.6 – 26.2 feet) deep (ESIS, 1996e). The Pink Mucket was federally 

listed in 1976 and a recovery plan was written in 1985 (ESIS, 1996e). To date, 

critical habitat for this species has not been designated (TVA, 2003). According 

to TVA (2003), the pink mucket has been encountered within the last 30 years in 

nearly all the tailwaters of the mainstem Tennessee River dams and in parts of 

Bear Creek and the Clinch, French Broad, and Holston rivers, and although 

always uncommon or rare, old individuals have been found with a few more 

individuals found more often below Pickwick and Guntersville Dams. On the 

Cumberland River, populations tend to be localized with one of the larger 

populations occurring in the Carthage-Rome area in Smith County, Tennessee 

(Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The most recently collected individuals in 

Tennessee are old adults or relicts of former populations and though the species 

is widely distributed, it is usually not abundant in the Cumberland and Tennessee 

Rivers (TABS, 2002h). The Pink mucket only occurs in the riverine reaches 

below Wilson and Guntersville Dams in Alabama where individuals less than ten 

years of age are reportedly rare (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). In Kentucky, Pink 

muckets sporadically occur in the upper Green River (KCWCS, 2005). According 

to the USFWS (1997b), new Pink mucket populations have been discovered in 

the Ohio River after an absence of 75 years. The Pink mucket is currently known 

in 16 rivers and tributaries from seven states (USDOE, 2003). The greatest 

concentrations are in the Tennessee (Tennessee, Alabama), Cumberland 

(Tennessee, Kentucky), Osage and Meramec Rivers (Missouri); with smaller 

numbers found in the Clinch (Tennessee); Green (Kentucky); Ohio (Illinois); 

Kwanawha (West Virginia); Big Black, Little Black, and Gasconde (Missouri); and 

Current and Spring Rivers (Arkansas) (USDOE, 2003). 

4.8.7.2 Effects. Water quality is a concern for this species. Although the impact 

from Center Hill as compared to the entire Cumberland River system is minor, if 

Center Hill does not store and release its customary volumes of water during the 
59 

summer months, all aquatic species downstream from Center Hill Dam could 

incur some slight additional stress. This would mimic to some extent what would 

occur in a natural system during low summer flows. Stressors would primarily be 

in the form of lowered DO and increased temperatures, but would also include 

less dilution of pollutants being discharged into the river. 

4.8.7.3 Cumulative Affects. The impact of Center Hill on the Cumberland River 

System in and of itself would be minor. However at the same time Wolf Creek 

Dam is also undergoing necessary repairs. In the interest of public safety and to 

relieve pressure on the foundation of Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland has 

been lowered. Flows from Wolf Creek Dam are significantly lower than what the 

public has become accustomed to. Anticipated cumulative affects include 

significantly changed and reduced water quality for all reaches below Wolf Creek 

Dam including lower DO, increased water temperatures, and lessened dilution of 

pollutants. 

4.8.7.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a May Effect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect determination has been reached for the pink mucket.

4.8.8 Ring Pink (Obovaria retusa - Lamarck, 1819) 

4.8.8.1 Species Account Summary. Detailed species descriptions can be 

found in Mirarchi et. al. (2004), Parmalee and Bogan (1998), and USFWS 

(1991e) therefore only a description summary based on these three references is 

provided here. The shells of mature Ring Pinks (also known as the golf stick 

pearly mussel) are ovate to subquadrate in outline (USFWS, 1991e). The ventral 

and posterior shell margins are evenly rounded and the shells are inflated, solid, 

and thick (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The umbos are sculptured with a few 

weak double-looped ridges and are swollen and turned anteriorly, elevated well 

above the hinge line (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). The shell surface is marked with 

noticeable low, irregular, concentric growth lines (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

The shell exterior lacks rays and the color ranges from yellow-green to brown 

generally becoming darker brown to black in older individuals (USFWS, 1991e). 

The nacre ranges from deep purple to salmon to pink surrounded by a white shell 

border (USFWS, 1991e). Adults can grow to 3.75 inches (95 mm) in diameter 

(Mirarchi, et. al., 2004). Ring Pinks are long-term brooders and have been found 

gravid in August and September (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). To date, no host 

fish are known for this species (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). 

The Ring Pink is an Interior Basin species with a wide range (Parmalee and 

Bogan, 1998). Historically it was found throughout the Ohio, Tennessee, and 

Cumberland River systems including major tributaries in the states of 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and 

Alabama (USFWS, 1991e). The Ring Pink was federally listed as an 

Endangered species in 1989 and a recover plan was written in 1991 (USFWS, 

1989a, 1991e). Ring Pinks are considered big river species however they have 
60 

been collected in shallow water (approximately 2 feet deep) in habitat typically 

consisting of sand and gravel (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). To date, critical 

habitat has not been designated for this species (TVA, 2003). Since the 1970s, 

TVA (2003) noted that Ring Pinks were collected only from the Tennessee River 

below Kentucky and Pickwick dams, the Cumberland River in central Tennessee, 

the Green River in Kentucky and the Kanawha River in West Virginia. Ring 

Pinks once inhabited the Cumberland River from Jackson County downstream to 

Stewart County and in the early 1990s, commercial mussel men collected a 

couple of relic individuals in Wilson, Trousdale, and Smith Counties in 

Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Old relict individuals have recently 

been collected in the lower Tennessee, Holston, and middle Cumberland Rivers, 

however, no reproducing populations have been located in recent years (TABS, 

2002c). Based on a report from the 1990s individuals may still exist in low 

numbers below Wilson Dam in Alabama (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). An extant 

population may exist in the Green River in Kentucky (KCWCS, 2005) The 

National Park Service (2003a) plans to propagate and restore freshwater 

mussels in a reach of the Green River near the Mammoth Cave Nation Park that 

is inhabited by seven federally endangered mussels including the Ring pink. 

4.8.8.2 Effects. Individuals or small populations may still exist throughout the 

study area, particularly in the tailwaters below the dams. Water quality is a 

concern for this species. Although the impact from Center Hill as compared to 

the entire Cumberland River system is minor, if Center Hill does not store and 

release its customary volumes of water during the summer months, all aquatic 

species downstream from Center Hill Dam could incur some slight additional 

stress. This would mimic to some extent what would occur in a natural system 

during low summer flows. Stressors would primarily be in the form of lowered 

DO and increased temperatures, but would also include less dilution of pollutants 

being discharged into the river. 

4.8.8.3 Cumulative Affects. The impact of Center Hill on the Cumberland River 

System in and of itself would be minor. However at the same time Wolf Creek 

Dam is also undergoing necessary repairs. In the interest of public safety and to 

relieve pressure on the foundation of Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland has 

been lowered. Flows from Wolf Creek Dam are significantly lower than what the 

public has become accustomed to. Anticipated cumulative affects include 

significantly changed and reduced water quality for all reaches below Wolf Creek 

Dam including lower DO, increased water temperatures, and lessened dilution of 

pollutants. 

4.8.8.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a May Effect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect determination has been reached for the ring pink.

4.8.9 Little-wing Pearlymussel (Pegias fabula) 
61 

4.8.9.1 Species Account Summary. The little-wing pearlymussel is small, not 

exceeding 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) in length and 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) in width. Like 

other freshwater mussels, the little-wing pearly mussel feeds by filtering food 

particles from the water column. The specific food habits of the species are 

unknown, but other juvenile and adult freshwater mussels have been 

documented to feed on detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton 

(Churchill and Lewis 1924). The diet of little-wing pearly mussel glochidia, like 

other freshwater mussels, comprises water (until encysted on a fish host) and 

fish body fluids (once encysted). 

The reproductive cycle of the little-wing pearly mussel is similar to that of other 

native freshwater mussels. Ahlstedt (1986) suggests that the species is a winter 

or long-term brooder, holding glochidia from midsummer until the following 

spring. Ahlstedt (1986) reports that the banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) and 

redline darter (Etheostoma rufilineatum) are found in the same habitat as this 

mussel in parts of its range and may be prime candidates as host species. The 

greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides) and emerald darter (Etheostoma 

baileyi) have also been identified as glochidial hosts (NCNHP 2003). 

This freshwater mussel has been reported historically from 27 river reaches in 

Alabama, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Only a few small 

populations are known to survive in Horse Lick Creek (Jackson and Rockcastle 

Counties, KY), Big South Fork Cumberland River (McCreary and Wayne 

Counties, KY), Little South Fork Cumberland River (McCreary and Wayne 

Counties, KY), Cane Creek (Van Buren County, TN), North Fork Holston River 

(Smyth and Washington Counties, VA), Clinch River (Tazewell County, VA), and 

Little Tennessee River (Swain and Macon Counties, NC) (USFWS 1989, 2003). 

The little-wing pearly mussel inhabits small to medium, low turbidity, cool-water, 

high to moderate gradient streams in the Cumberland and Tennessee River 

basins (Bogan and Parmalee 1983, Ahlstedt 1986). The species is commonly 

found near riffles on sand and gravel substrates with scattered cobbles or in sand 

pockets between rocks, cobbles and boulders (Gordon and Layzer 1989, 

NatureServe 2003). Individuals have been found lying on top of the substratum, 

buried in or on top of the substratum in the transition zone between a long pool 

and riffle, or buried in gravel or beneath boulders and slabrock (Blankenship 

1971, Starnes and Starnes 1980, Di Stefano 1984). 

The species’ decline has resulted primarily from habitat and water quality 

deterioration caused by impoundments and by pollution and siltation resulting 

from mining, agriculture, and construction activities. Owing to the species’ limited 

distribution, any factor that adversely modifies habitat or water quality in the short 

river reaches that the species inhabits could threaten its survival (USFWS 1988). 
62 

4.8.9.2 Effects. This species was included as it may be found in Warren 

County, Tennessee. If it is present it is above the headwaters of Center Hill Lake 

and would be unaffected by any changes made to Center Hill’s pool. 

4.8.9.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the little-wing 

pearlymussel. 

4.8.9.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the little-wing pearlymussel.

4.8.10 White Wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus) 

4.8.10.1 Species Account Summary. Detailed species descriptions can be 

found in Mirarchi et. al. (2004), Parmalee and Bogan (1998), and the 

Endangered Species Information System (1996b) therefore only a description 

summary based on these three references is provided here. The shells of white 

wartyback mussels range from subovate to subtriangular in outline (ESIS, 

1996b). The dorsal shell margin is almost straight and the posterior and ventral 

shell margins are evenly rounded (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The posterior 

ridge is low, narrowly rounded to somewhat flattened, and the umbos are full and 

elevated well above the hinge line and turn anteriorly (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). The 

shells are thick, solid, and considerably inflated with uneven concentric growth 

lines, and a row of low irregular knobs that extend diagonally across the shell 

surface (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The shell surface is cloth-like in texture 

and rayless (Mirarchi et. al, 2004). Shell color ranges from yellow to greenish 

yellow in juveniles becoming yellowish brown, in adults (Parmalee and Bogan, 

2004). The nacre is silvery white and iridescent posteriorly and adults can reach 

up to 100 mm (3.9 inches) in diameter (Parmalee and Bogan, 2004). White 

wartybacks are thought to be short-term brooders that spawn in the spring and 

release glochidia in the summer (ESIS, 1996b). Fish hosts are unknown; 

however TVA (2003) notes that the 1984 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1984c) 

recovery plan suspects that sauger (Stizostedion canadense) may be a possible 

host fish. 

The White Wartyback is an Interior Basin species (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

Populations were once found in the shoals and riffles of the Cumberland, Ohio, 

Kanawha, Tennessee and Wabash Rivers (TVA, 2003) in the states of Alabama, 

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia (ESIS, 1996b). White 

Wartybacks have been collected in habitat consisting of a silt-free mixture of 

gravel and sand (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). 
63 

It was historically distributed in the Wabash, Ohio, Kanawha, Cumberland, 

Holston, and Tennessee Rivers of the Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River 

systems; however, no live specimens have been recovered from these drainages 

since the early 1900s (NatureServe 2003). According to Ahlstedt (1984), the 

white wartyback may still exist in a short reach of the Tennessee River below 

Pickwick Dam. No living populations have been found in numerous surveys 

conducted in the Tennessee River since the 1960s; however, fresh dead 

specimens were collected in 1979 and 1982 below Pickwick Dam near 

Savannah, Tennessee. If this species still exists, the viability of remaining 

populations is extremely threatened (NatureServe 2003). 

4.8.10.2 Effects. If this species still exists at all it is in the upper end of 

Kentucky Lake immediately below Pickwick Lock and Dam. All records except 

for Hardin County, Tennessee are historic (pre-1970). Although Kentucky Lake 

is connected to the Cumberland River via an unregulated canal, the possible 

effects of lowering Center Hill’s pool could not reach so far upstream on 

Kentucky Lake. The proposed action could not, therefore, affect this species. 

4.8.10.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the white 

wartyback. 

4.8.10.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the white wartyback.

4.8.11 Orange-foot Pimpleback (Plethobasus cooperianus) 

4.8. 11.1 Species Account Summary. Detailed species descriptions can be 

found in Mirarchi et. al. (2004), Parmalee and Bogan (1998), and the 

Endangered Species Information System (ESIS, 1996c), therefore only a 

description summary based on these three references is provided here. The 

shells of Orangefoot pimplebacks appear nearly circular or subtriangular in 

outline (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The anterior shell margin is rounded; and 

the posterior shell margin is obliquely truncate dorsally and rounded ventrally 

(Mirarchi, et. al., 2004). The shells are solid, heavy, moderately inflated, and 

marked with concentric, irregular growth lines and contains numerous raised and 

irregular pustules on the posterior two-thirds (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) of the 

shell. The umbos are high, full, and directed forward (Parmalee and Bogan, 

1998). Juvenile shells contain many dark green rays that disappear with age 

(Mirarchi, et. al., 2004). Shell color varies from yellow-brown to a chestnut brown 

in color and is darker on old individuals (ESIS, 1996c). The umbo cavity is 

compressed and deep (ESIS, 1996c). The nacre is white to varying shades of 

pink inside the pallial line (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Living specimens have a 
64 

bright orange colored foot (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). Adults can grow up to 95 mm 

(3.75 inches) in diameter (ESIS, 1996c). Orangefoot pimplebacks are thought to 

be short-term brooders that spawn in the spring and release glochidia in the 

summer (ESIS, 1996c). Females have been found gravid from early June 

through early August (Mirarchi, et. al., 2004). Fish hosts are unknown (Mirarchi 

et. al., 2004). 

The Orangefoot pimpleback is an Interior Basin species (Parmalee and Bogan, 

1998). Historically it was found in parts of the Ohio, Cumberland, Tennessee and 

Wabash Rivers in the states of Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

and Tennessee (ESIS, 1996c). The species was once commonly found in the 

shoals of medium to large rivers with sand and gravel substrate (ESIS, 1996c). 

The Orangefoot pimpleback was federally listed in 1976 and a recovery plan was 

written in 1984 (ESIS, 1996c). To date, critical habitat has not been designated 

for this species (TVA, 2003). Since the 1970s, it was found in the lower Ohio, 

middle reach of the Cumberland River, and flowing reaches of the Tennessee 

River (TVA, 2003). In recent years, a few individuals have been located in the 

tailwaters of Kentucky, Pickwick, Wilson, Guntersville, Watts Bar, and Fort 

Loudoun Dams with the most individuals encountered below Pickwick Dam (TVA, 

2003). On the Cumberland River, populations were once commonly found from 

Clay to Stewart Counties, however, in 1980, only a relic population was identified 

in Smith County, Tennessee on the Cumberland River (Parmalee and Bogan, 

1998; TABS, 2002f). Living individuals are now restricted to a few places on the 

Tennessee River and limited reproduction appears to be taking place in Hardin 

County, Tennessee (TABS, 2002f), where Mirarchi et. al.(2004) noted the 

presence of Orangefoot pimplebacks in the tailwaters of Pickwick Dam. In 

Alabama, the Orangefoot pimpleback has not been reported since 1979 but it 

may exist in very few numbers below Wilson or Guntersville Dams (Mirarchi et. 

al., 2004). In Kentucky, (KCWCS, 2005) the Orangefoot pimpleback is 

sporadically found in the lower Ohio and Tennessee Rivers in western Kentucky. 

The National Park Service (2003) plans to reintroduce the Orangefoot 

Pimpleback into the upper Cumberland River system in the Big South Fork 

National River and Recreational Area in Kentucky and Tennessee. 

4.8.11.2 Effects. Individuals or small populations may still exist throughout the 

study area, particularly in the tailwaters below the dams. Water quality is a 

concern for this species. Although the impact from Center Hill as compared to 

the entire Cumberland River system is minor, if Center Hill does not store and 

release its customary volumes of water during the summer months, all aquatic 

species downstream from Center Hill Dam could incur some slight additional 

stress. This would mimic to some extent what would occur in a natural system 

during low summer flows. Stressors would primarily be in the form of lowered 

DO and increased temperatures, but would also include less dilution of pollutants 

being discharged into the river. 
65 

4.8.11.3 Cumulative Affects. The impact of Center Hill on the Cumberland 

River System in and of itself would be minor. However at the same time Wolf 

Creek Dam is also undergoing necessary repairs. In the interest of public safety 

and to relieve pressure on the foundation of Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland 

has been lowered. Flows from Wolf Creek Dam are significantly lower than what 

the public has become accustomed to. Anticipated cumulative affects include 

significantly changed and reduced water quality for all reaches below Wolf Creek 

Dam including lower DO, increased water temperatures, and lessened dilution of 

pollutants. 

4.8.11.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a May Effect, but Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect determination has been reached for the orange-foot 

pimpleback.

4.8.12 Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) 

4.8.12.1 Species Account Summary. Detailed species descriptions can be 

found in Parmalee and Bogan (1998), Mirarchi et. al. (2004), and the USFWS 

(1994) therefore only a description summary based on these three references is 

provided here. The shells of mature Clubshells are wedge shaped (USFWS, 

1994), solid, elongated, and triangular in outline with the umbos full and elevated 

above the hinge line and often projecting past the anterior margin of the shell 

(Mirarchi et. al., 2004). Umbo sculpture consists of a few strong, irregular and 

often broken ridges (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). A sulcus may be present on 

older specimens. Shell color ranges from straw-yellow to light brown with distinct 

dark green rays that may appear as thick blotches or thin lines that are usually 

interrupted at the growth lines (USFWS, 1994). The nacre is white tending to be 

iridescent posteriorly particularly in juveniles (USFWS, 1994). Adults can grow 

up to 65 mm (2.6 in) in diameter (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Clubshells are 

short-term brooders that spawn in the Spring and release glochidia in the late 

summer of the same year, usually by July or August (USFWS, 1994). Females 

were found to be gravid from May to July (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). Laboratory 

studies indicate that potential fish hosts may include Blackside darter (Percina 

maculata), Striped shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), Logperch (Percina 

caprodes), and Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum) (TVA, 2003).

The Clubshell is an Interior Basin species (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

Historically this species was widespread and typically collected within the Ohio 

River drainage system in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky, although some 

populations were present in the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers (USFWS, 

1994). Isolated populations were collected in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West 

Virginia (USFWS, 1994). Clubshells are typically found in medium to large rivers 

in riffle and shoal areas with a gravel and sand substrate, although a few 

individuals have been found in firm sand and gravel substrate at depths of 4.6 – 

5.5 m (15 –18 ft) (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The Clubshell was federally 

listed as Endangered in 1993 and a recovery plan was written in 1994 (USFWS, 
66 

1994). To date, critical habitat has not been designated for this species (TVA, 

2003). In 1993, the USFWS estimated that the Clubshell’s range had been 

reduced by at least 95% (USFWS, 1994). In 1994, this species was present in 

small populations in 13 different river segments in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, 

Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania with the largest viable population was 

found in the Tippecanoe River in Indiana (USFWS, 1994). It appears to be 

nearly extirpated in Tennessee with the collection of an occasional relic individual 

that has survived since impoundment (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998), and it is 

believed to be extirpated in the mainstem Tennessee River (TVA 2005) except 

for the nonessential experimental population discussed below. It is extirpated 

from Alabama (USFWS, 1993, Mirarchi et. al., 2004) and considered extirpated 

from Illinois (USFWS, 1993). In Kentucky, Clubshells occur sporadically in the 

upper Green River where populations seem to be recruiting (KCWCS, 2005). 

According to TVA (2003) live specimens have been reported downstream of 

Pickwick Dam on the Tennessee River. The USFWS (2001b) plans to establish 

a nonessential experimental population (NEP) for 16 mussels including the 

Clubshell, below Wilson Dam in Colbert County, Alabama. This area is located 

between Tennessee River miles (TRM 259.4 - 246.0) and includes the lower 5 

mile reaches of tributaries entering the Wilson Dam tailwaters (USFWS, 2001b) 

that under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, cannot be designated as 

critical habitat for a NEP (USFWS, 2001b). The NPS (2003) plans to reintroduce 

the Clubshell into the upper Cumberland River system in the Big South Fork 

National River and Recreational Area in Kentucky and Tennessee. The NPS 

(2003a) also plans to propagate and restore freshwater mussels in a reach of the 

Green River near the Mammoth Cave Nation Park that is inhabited by seven 

federally endangered mussels including the Clubshell. 

4.8.12.2 Effects. Although it was once extant on both the Tennessee and 

Cumberland Rivers, this species appears to have been extirpated throughout the 

study area. None of the potential impacts of lowering Center Hill’s pool could in 

any way affect this species. 

4.8.12.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the clubshell. 

4.8.12.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the clubshell.

4.8.13 Cumberland Pigtoe (Pleurobema gibberum) 

4.8.13.1 Species Account Summary. The Cumberland pigtoe is a small 

freshwater mussel (rarely exceeding 60 mm in length) with a yellowish-brown 
67 

shell in juveniles and a dark mahogany brown coloration in adults (USFWS 

1991). Like other freshwater mussels, the Cumberland pigtoe feeds by filtering 

food particles from the water column. The specific food habits of the species are 

unknown, but other juvenile and adult freshwater mussels have been 

documented to feed on detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton 

(Churchill and Lewis 1924). The diet of Cumberland pigtoe glochidia, like other 

freshwater mussels, comprises water (until encysted on a fish host) and fish body 

fluids (once encysted). 

The reproductive cycle of the Cumberland pigtoe is similar to that of other native 

freshwater mussels. In a recent study, Layzer et al. (2003) observed and 

collected gravid Cumberland pigtoe individuals from late June through August. 

Anderson (1990) also observed gravid females (with bright red marsupial gills) in 

mid-July. In laboratory infestation tests, metamorphosis of Cumberland pigtoe 

glochidia occurred on the telescope shiner (Notropis telescopus) and the striped 

shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) (Layzer et al. 2003). The telescope shiner is 

believed to be the primary host for the Cumberland pigtoe given 1) the high 

frequency of occurrence of glochidia found on this host in the Collins River and 2) 

observed successful metamorphosis of glochidia from naturally infested 

telescope shiners collected from the Collins River under laboratory conditions 

(Layzer et al. 2003). 

Based on historic mussel collection records from the Cumberland River system 

(Anderson 1990, Gordon and Layzer 1989), the Cumberland pigtoe is restricted 

to the Caney Fork River basin above Great Falls. Within this isolated river basin, 

the species has been reported from only five Caney Fork River tributaries. 

However, historic mussel collection records from the upper Caney Fork system 

are very limited. The species once likely occurred in the main stem of the Caney 

Fork River, and it was historically collected from Hickory Creek and the Collins 

River. Anderson (1990) surveyed both areas and found the species in the 

Collins River but did not collect any specimens at his four sampling stations in 

the lower Hickory Creek system. However, a population was located in 1992 in 

the upper portion of Hickory Creek above the area previously searched. 

Anderson (1990) did not find the species in any unimpounded reaches of the 

Caney Fork River. It is believed that the species has now been extirpated from 

the Caney Fork River and lower Hickory Creek. 

Presently, the species is restricted to isolated populations in short reaches of five 

Caney Fork tributaries–Barren Fork (Warren County), Calfkiller River (White 

County), Cane Creek (Van Buren County), Hickory Creek (Warren County), and 

Collins River (Warren and Grundy Counties) (Anderson 1990, Widlak 1992). 

Anderson (1990) also surveyed other Caney Fork tributaries, and he did not find 

the mussel in Big Creek, Big Hickory Creek (Widlak [1992] later reported a 

population from this creek), Charles Creek, Dry Branch Barren River, Falling 

Water River, Firescald Creek, Fultz Creek, Little Hickory Creek, Mountain Creek, 

Pine Creek, Rocky River, Sink Creek, Smith Fork, Smith Fork Creek, and West 
68 

Fork Hickory Creek (USFWS 1992). 

The Cumberland pigtoe inhabits small to medium-sized rivers in riffle areas 

(Gordon and Layzer 1989, NatureServe 2003). This mussel’s preferred habitat is 

riffle areas with sand and gravel with occasional mud and cobble substratum 

(Anderson 1990, Gordon and Layzer 1989). Anderson (1990) found it inhabiting 

fast-flowing water in areas with predominately gravel, sand, and cobble 

substratum. Some sites where the species was collected had beds of 

macrophitic plants, but the mussel was usually found between, not within, these 

beds. Water depth ranged from about 10 centimeters to one meter. Anderson 

(1990) did not find any living specimens in pools or heavily silted areas (USFWS 

1992). 

The five extant populations are impacted by such factors as impoundments and 

the general deterioration of water quality resulting from domestic and industrial 

waste outfalls. Prior to the construction of Rock Island Reservoir in the 1910s, 

the preferred habitat for this species was more common. Nonpoint pollution 

sources have limited the distribution of mussels, including the Cumberland 

pigtoe, in the Caney Fork system. Runoff from surface and deep coal mining 

operations affects areas of the Collins River, Caney Fork River, Rocky River, and 

their headwater tributaries. Poor agricultural practices have resulted in soil loss 

and nutrient enrichment that impact scattered stream reaches throughout the 

species’ range. Construction of bridges, roads, and buildings without adequate 

siltation control appears to have reduced habitat in sections of the Calfkiller and 

Collins Rivers. Recent gravel removal operations have destroyed habitat and 

increased siltation in the upper Caney Fork River and some tributaries. The 

population in lower Hickory Creek appears to have been lost due to nutrient 

enrichment and siltation resulting from domestic animal waste (from cows and 

hogs), as well as from physical habitat alteration caused by allowing animals to 

have free access to the stream (USFWS 1992). 

Given the small size of remaining Cumberland pigtoe populations, any factor that 

adversely modifies habitat or water quality in the limited reaches where the 

species is found could threaten its survival in these areas. Also, because the 

populated reaches are physically isolated from each other by impoundments and 

unsuitable habitat, recolonization of any extirpated population would be unlikely 

without human intervention. Additionally, because natural gene flow among 

populations is no longer possible, the long-term genetic viability of these 

remaining isolated populations is questionable (USFWS 1992). 

4.8.13.2 Effects. Based on historic mussel collection records from the 

Cumberland River system, the Cumberland pigtoe is restricted to the Caney Fork 

River basin above Great Falls. It is believed that the species has now been 

extirpated from the Caney Fork River. As this is above the headwaters of Center 

Hill Lake, i.e., above the study area, none of the potential impacts of lowering 

Center Hill’s pool could in any way affect this species. 
69 

4.8.13.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the 

Cumberland pigtoe. 

4.8.13.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the Cumberland pigtoe.

4.8.14 Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) 

4.8.14.1 Species Account Summary. Detailed species descriptions can be 

found in Parmalee and Bogan (1998) Mirarchi et. al. (2004) and the Endangered 

Species Information System (ESIS, 1996d) therefore only a description summary 

based on these three references is provided here. The shells of mature rough 

pigtoes are solid, inflated, and subtriangular in outline (Parmalee and Bogan, 

1998). The umbos are full, high, turned forward, projecting well above the hinge 

line and are sculptured with a few irregular nodulous ridges (Parmalee and 

Bogan, 1998). The posterior ridge is narrowly rounded and ends bluntly; the 

median ridge is high, wide, and rounded and separated from the posterior ridge 

by a radial depression (ESIS, 1996d). A shallow sulcus is often present just 

anterior to the posterior ridge Mirarchi et. al., 2004). The shells are marked with 

irregular growth lines and are satin-like in appearance (ESIS, 1996d). Shells 

may be unrayed or marked with a series of fine dark green lines over the 

posterior half of the shell or umbo that often erodes away with age (Parmalee 

and Bogan, 1998). Shell color varies from yellowish brown to reddish brown and 

the nacre is usually white and occasionally pink (Mirarchi et. al., 2004). Adults 

can grow up to 80 mm (3.1 inches) in diameter (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

Rough pigtoes are thought to be short-term brooders with females found to be 

gravid in May (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). According to the Freshwater 

Mollusk Conservation Society’s Triennial Unionid Report (1998), host fish are 

unknown, however, possible host fish might be Bluegill (Lepomis marochirus), 

and Rosefin shiner (Lythrurus ardens). 

Rough pigtoes are Interior Basin species (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

Historically it was collected within the Ohio, Tennessee, and Cumberland River 

drainages in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (ESIS, 

1996d). Rough pigtoes were historically found in medium to large rivers with a 

firmly packed gravel and sand substrate (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). 

Specimens have been collected in muddy sand in the Green River and sand in 

the Clinch River in water depths of 0.8 m (2.6 ft) and 1.0 m (3.3 ft) respectively 

(ESIS, 1996d). Relic individuals have been collected from water depths ranging 

between 3.7 – 4.6 m (12 - 15 feet) deep in the Cumberland River in Smith 
70 

County, Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The Rough Pigtoe was 

federally listed in 1976, and a recovery plan was written in 1984 (ESIS, 1996d). 

To date, critical habitat has not been designated for this species (TVA, 2003). 

According to the USFWS (1984b) the Rough pigtoe has been collected from 20 

sites in the Green, Barren, Clinch, Tennessee, and Cumberland River systems. 

On the Cumberland, relic individuals were collected in Smith and Trousdale 

Counties in Tennessee and on the Tennessee River, upstream Chattanooga, 

Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). TVA (2003) encountered rough pigtoes 

in flowing reaches downstream of Pickwick, Wilson, Guntersville, and Watts Bar 

dams, and in the upstream reaches of Pickwick and Wheeler Reservoirs. In 

Alabama, rare, extant populations exist below Wilson Dam tailwaters and 

possibly below Guntersville Dam tailwaters on the Tennessee River (Mirarchi, et. 

al., 2004). In Kentucky, Rough pigtoes sporadically occur in the Green and 

Barren Rivers (KCWCS, 2005). In Tennessee, only a few relict specimens exist 

in remaining mussel beds of the lower Clinch and Holston rivers; and throughout 

the Tennessee and upper Cumberland Rivers (TABS, 2005f). The National Park 

Service (NPS) (2003a) plans to propagate and restore freshwater mussels in a 

reach of the Green River near the Mammoth Cave Nation Park that is inhabited 

by seven federally endangered mussels including the Rough Pigtoe. The species 

currently is known to survive downstream of three Tennessee River mainstem 

dams (Pickwick, Wilson, and Guntersville) and in the Clinch River (between river 

miles 323 and 154) (NatureServe 2003). In 1984, the rough pigtoe was also 

reported in the Green River in Kentucky (below locks 4 and 5) and in the Barren 

River (below lock and dam 1) (USFWS 1984). 

4.8.14.2 Effects. Only a few relict specimens may exist throughout the 

Tennessee and upper Cumberland Rivers. Only historic (pre 1970) records exist 

on the Cumberland River. Individuals or small populations may still exist in the 

Tennessee River, Kentucky Lake. Although Kentucky Lake is connected to the 

Cumberland River via an unregulated canal, the possible effects of lowering 

Center Hill’s pool could not reach so far upstream on Kentucky Lake. The 

proposed action could not, therefore, affect this species. 

4.8.14.3 Cumulative Affects. There are no known future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that 

would combine with navigation, water supply, recreation, flood damage 

reduction, hydropower, fish and wildlife, or water quality issues related to 

lowering the lake level of Center Hill Lake for cumulative effects on the rough 

pigtoe. 

4.8.14.4 Determination. Based on the information above, a No Effect 

determination has been reached for the rough pigtoe.
71 

5.0 Potential Conservation Measures 

These following discretionary measures have been developed for consideration by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as actions that could be undertaken by the 

Nashville District as reasonable and prudent measures. 

5.1 Measure No. 1. Installation of an Orifice Gate Over a Sluice Gate. In 

2004 the Corps Conducted a study titled Center Hill Tailwater Modeling for Minimum 

Flow Evaluation that found the optimum minimum flow below Center Hill is about 

200 cfs. Even a single sluice gate far exceeds this volume (about 1,500 cfs) and it 

often exceeds the inflow into the lake. To provide minimum flow the Corps has tried 

pulsing the flows through a single sluice gate with unsatisfactory results. The flow is 

too much to be sustained and the slope of the river bed rapidly drains the discharged 

water so that frequent pulsing is required. One solution may be installing an orifice 

gate over a sluice gate. The orifice gate would limit the discharge to a constant 200 

cfs, providing a constant minimum flow with high levels of DO. This would benefit 

both the tailwater and the upper end of Old Hickory Lake. 

5.2 Measure No. 2. Blending Turbine and Sluice Gate Discharges. The 

average discharge of water from a turbine at Center Hill is between 3,500 and 4,000 

cfs depending on the lake level. During the warmer months of the year, i.e., roughly 

May through October, the water stratifies and virtually all DO in the deeper portions 

of the lake is consumed by ongoing chemical and biological processes. 

Consequently, water discharged through the turbines is very low in DO and the 

tailwater ecology suffers. In recent years the Corps has been experimenting with 

releases through the sluice gates to compensate for this problem. Water discharged 

through the sluice gates can have as much as 10 mg/l of DO. Each of the six sluice 

gates can discharge about 1,500 cfs. Thus, when generation is required during the 

warmer months a sluice gate can be opened and as the waters from the turbines 

and the sluices blend adequate DO is achieved. This would benefit both the 

tailwater and the upper end of Old Hickory Lake. 

5.3 Measure No. 3. Supplemental Flows from Other Tributary Lakes. It may 

be possible to store some excess water in Dale Hollow and/or J. Percy Priest Lakes 

early in the year and slowly release this water over the summer to mitigate for the 

reduced flows from Center Hill. This course of action would be dependent on 

several factors including the amount of rainfall and several operational factors. This 

was done to a limited extent in 2007 when Dale Hollow was filled to about to about 

elevation 653, or approximately two feet above the top of the power pool. This 

action would have to be planned and approved in advance to make any significant 

difference. 

5.4 Measure No 4. Spill vs. Generation. As noted above, the preferred method 

for regulating lake levels is by hydropower generation. However, during the summer 

months when water quality in the mainstem lakes typically decreases, the Corps has 

occasionally resorted to spilling water through the tainter gates rather than by 
72 

generating because this increases the DO in the tailwater where most of the species 

of concern are likely to be found. The disadvantage of this, of course, is the power 

lost by foregoing hydropower generation. 

5.5 Measure No. 5. Monitoring. After review of the original iteration of this BA, 

the USFWS suggested the following potential Conservation Measure. "In addition to 

the areas along the Caney Fork River that the Nashville District have (sic) agreed to 

monitor, we request that additional monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, 

flow, and biological integrity (macroinvertebrates and fish community) occur at 

Happy Hollow (5 RM below the dam), Stonewall (RM 11 below the dam) and at 

Carthage. Over the course of the proposed seven-year life of the project , quarterly 

(seasonal) monitoring at these stations would provide valuable data on potential 

responses in the tailwater as the zone of cold water in the reservoir diminishes and 

minimum flows below the dam warm." 

The Corps agrees to monitor as proposed by the USFWS, in addition to current water 

quality monitoring occurring in the Caney Fork River tailwater. The following proposal is 

offered with requested locations denoted as approximate Caney Fork River Miles 

(CFM): 

• Happy Hollow (CFM 21.3) - Approximately 5 miles downstream of Center Hill 

Dam 

• Stonewall (CFM 11.1) - Approximately 15 miles downstream of Center Hill Dam 

• Carthage (CFM 7.3 ) - Approximately 20 miles downstream of Center Hill Dam. 

At these three sites, fish, macroinvertebrates, and water quality data would be collected 

to assess general community structure and Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) beginning 

in the spring of 2008 with subsequent collections in the summer, fall, and winter of 

2008. How (specific collection methods) and when (specific dates) collections would 

occur would be coordinated with TVA and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

(TWRA) so as not to interfere with trout stocking. The Corps would develop a sampling 

plan and share this plan with the participating agencies before the spring collection. 

Data would be reviewed by the Corps, TVA, TWRA, and USFWS to determine if 

monitoring should continue as planned, or if alternate sites should be selected, or a 

different mitigation measure should be considered during the approximate 7-year dam 

repair period. Additional agencies may be included (such as the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation and Environmental Protection Agency) at 

any time during the monitoring process. 

5.5 Measure No. 6. Locate any Temporarily Exposed Cave Openings. During 

discussions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed the concern that temporary 

drawdowns would expose cave openings which endangered bats would enter and 

become trapped or drown as the pool returns to normal. The Corps believes that there 
73 

is little or no risk of this scenario actually occurring, since the drawdown is not expected 

to be flat-line and the new lake level curve would somewhat follow the normal schedule 

with lowest levels in the winter when bats are hibernating. However, to address this 

concern, the Corps would examine historical maps and cruise the lake perimeter to 

locate temporarily exposed cave openings. Should any caves be located that are 

temporarily exposed during the time of year when bats are active, the Corps will confer 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for appropriate action. 

6.0 Species/Impact Summary/Conclusions and Determinations 

The effects of lowering Center Hill Lake were assessed and found to be limited to 

changes to water quality. Determination of these potential effects on the species list is 

summarized in Table 3, below. The analyses of the effects under Corps Nashville 

District purview in Chapter 4.0, above support an unqualified “no effect” determination 

for all mammal, bird, insect, reptile, and plant species. Several species of fish and 

bivalves were also determined to be in the No Effect category. By itself, the action of 

lowering Center Hill Lake would be unlikely to affect any of the remaining species of 

concern; however, when considered with other cumulative impacts a determination of 

May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect was reached for several species. These 

species are also identified in Table 3 below. 

The Endangered Species Act not only directs that Federal agencies insure that their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 

adversely affect its critical habitat, but also directs that they utilize their authorities to 

further the conservation of listed species. In the spirit of both directives of the Act, the 

Nashville District proposes a series of conservation measures in Chapter 5, above. 

Their implementation will not only help to avoid adversely impacting listed species by 

lowering Center Hill Lake, but proactively further the conservation of these species. 
74 

Summary of Effect Determinations 

Scientific Name Common Name US Status Class Impact 

Apios priceana Price's Potato-bean LT Magnoliopsida No Effect 

Arabis perstellata Braun's Rockcress LE Magnoliopsida No Effect 

Astragalus bibullatus Pyne's Ground-plum LE Magnoliopsida No Effect 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LE Aves No Effect 

Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rosemary LT Magnoliopsida No Effect 

Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase C Bivalvia May Affect, Not 

Likely to 

Adversely Affect 

Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell LE Bivalvia No Effect 

Dalea foliosa Leafy Prairie-clover LE Magnoliopsida No Effect 

Dromus dromas Dromedary Pearlymussel LE Bivalvia May Affect, Not 

Likely to 

Adversely Affect. 

Echinacea tennesseensis Tennessee Coneflower LE Magnoliopsida No Effect 

Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell LE Bivalvia May Affect, Not 

Likely to 

Adversely Affect. 

Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Catspaw or Purple Cat's Paw LE Bivalvia May Affect, Not 

Likely to 

Adversely Affect. 

Etheostoma boschungi Slackwater Darter LT Actinopterygii No Effect 

Etheostoma sp. D Bluemask (=Jewel) Darter 

(Doration) 

 LE Actinopterygii No Effect 

Hemistena lata Cracking Pearlymussel LE Bivalvia No Effect 

Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket LE Bivalvia May Affect, Not 

Likely to 

Adversely Affect. 

Lesquerella globosa Short's Bladderpod C Magnoliopsida No Effect 

Lesquerella perforata Spring Creek Bladderpod LE Magnoliopsida No Effect 

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat LE Mammalia No Effect 

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat LE Mammalia No Effect 

Noturus stanauli Pygmy Madtom LE Actinopterygii No Effect 

Obovaria retusa Ring Pink LE Bivalvia May Affect, Not 

Likely to 

Adversely Affect. 

Ophisaurus attenuatus 

longicaudus 

Eastern Slender Glass Lizard D Reptilia No Effect 

Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish LE Malacostraca No Effect 

Pegias fabula Little-wing Pearlymussel LE Bivalvia No Effect 

Platanthera integrilabia White Fringeless Orchid C Liliopsida No Effect 

Plethobasus cicatricosus White Wartyback LE Bivalvia No Effect 

Plethobasus cooperianus Orange-foot Pimpleback LE Bivalvia May Affect, Not 

Likely to 

Adversely Affect. 

Pleurobema clava Clubshell LE Bivalvia No Effect 

Pleurobema gibberum Cumberland Pigtoe LE Bivalvia No Effect 

Pleurobema plenum Rough Pigtoe LE Bivalvia No Effect 

Pseudanophthalmus 

colemanensis 

A Cave Obligate Beetle C Insecta No Effect 

Pseudanophthalmus insularis Baker Station Cave Beetle C Insecta No Effect 

Pseudanophthalmus tiresias Indian Grave Point Cave 

Beetle 

 C Insecta No Effect 

Sorex longirostris Southeastern Shrew D Mammalia No Effect 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE Aves No Effect 

Table 3 
APPENDIX B 

CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN 

RESERVOIR SYSTEM WATER 

MANAGEMENT OPERATING 

PLAN DURING INTERIM POOL 

RESTRICTIONS AT 

 WOLF CREEK AND 

 CENTER HILL DAMS 

Center Hill Lake and Dam 

DeKalb County, Tennessee 

August 24, 2007 

Version 1.2 

Cumberland River Basin 

Reservoir System 

Water Management Operating Plan 

During Interim Pool Restrictions at 

Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dams 

Nashville District Corps of Engineers 

Nashville, Tennessee 

August 2007

1

Cumberland River Basin 

Reservoir System 

Water Management Operating Plan 

During Interim Pool Restrictions at 

Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dams 

Table of Contents 

Page

1. Background 1

1.1. Purpose and Scope 1

1.2. Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System 1

1.3. Wolf Creek 3

1.4. Center Hill 5

1.5. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations 6

2. System Operations 6

2.1. Drought Contingency Planning 6

2.2. Control Points 7

2.3. Water Supply 8

2.4. Water Quality 10

2.5. Navigation 13

2.6. Hydropower 14

2.7. Recreation 15

2.8. Flood Risk Management 15

 2.9. Operational Modifications at Cumberland Basin Projects in 

 Addition to Wolf Creek and Center Hill 17

3. Communication and Coordination 18

3.1. Nashville District Water Management 18

3.2. National Weather Service Coordination 20

3.3. Decision Making Protocol 27

4. References 28
Table of Contents 

Page

Figures 

1 Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System 2

2 Wolf Creek Project Guide Curve 4

3 Center Hill Project Guide Curve 5

4 National Weather Service Hydrologic Service Areas 21

Tables 

1 Average Rainfall and Runoff For the Cumberland River Basin 3

2 Wolf Creek Project Inflow 1953-2006 9

3 Cumberland Basin Projects Weekly Minimum Energy 14

4 Guidelines for Evacuating Storage at Wolf Creek Dam 

 (Lake Cumberland) 16

5 Guidelines for Evaluating Storage at Center Hill Lake 17

6 Water Management Customers Organized by 

 Drought Contingency Plan Prioritized Purpose 19

7 Water Control Centers 22

8 Contact Information for the National Weather Service 22

 9 Water Management Phone List 24
Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System Water Management Operating Plan 

During Interim Pool Restrictions at Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dams 

1. Background 

1.1. Purpose and Scope. The Corps of Engineers (CE) has implemented interim water 

control operating restrictions at both Wolf Creek Dam (Lake Cumberland) in Kentucky 

and Center Hill Dam in Tennessee. Wolf Creek and Center Hill are both experiencing 

foundation seepage issues that have led the CE to implement a number of risk reduction 

measures. These pool restrictions are the latest and most significant of these actions. 

The lower lake levels associated with these actions will reduce the hydrostatic pressure 

on the foundation and lower the frequency of high lake levels, thus reducing risk at both 

projects. These interim water control operating restrictions are considered to be dynamic 

in nature and are subject to modification based on observed conditions. The interim 

operating restriction at Wolf Creek in 2007 is to operate for a year-round target elevation 

of 680. Likewise, in 2007 Center Hill has been operated to follow the lower band of the 

Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) power marketing zone within the 

hydropower pool. The operating restrictions at each project will be evaluated 

periodically as construction progresses. Future lake level restrictions may be more or less 

stringent than those adopted for 2007. The water management operational guidance 

outlined in this plan will be in effect until circumstances or data indicate that a different 

approach is warranted. 

1.2. Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System. 

1.2.1. The Cumberland River Basin Master Water Control Plan (dated December 

1998) has several general objectives for operation of the system of ten multipurpose 

water resources projects within the Cumberland River Basin. See Figure 1. 

• To provide a significant volume to store flood waters and thereby reduce 

downstream flood peaks and associated flood damages, particularly at the four 

damage centers: Celina, Carthage, Nashville, and Clarksville, Tennessee, and also 

on the lower Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. 

• To provide a significant volume to store water for the generation of hydropower 

at times of peak electrical demand. 

• To provide a nine-foot channel depth for commercial navigation from the mouth 

of the Cumberland River to mile 381 at Celina, Tennessee. 

• To provide a series of lake impoundments for the recreational enjoyment of the 

general public. 

• To maintain a minimum reservoir level to offset lake sedimentation, to sustain 

adequate depths of cover for water supply intakes, to maintain permanent habitat 

for fish, and to reserve water for severe drought emergencies. 

1
• To provide a sufficient flow of water in the system to enhance water quality for 

public consumption and aquatic life, and to maintain the availability of water for 

municipal and industrial users. 

Figure 1 

Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System 

1.2.2. The ability to meet these operating objectives will be challenged by the 

impacts that these pool restriction requirements will impart on the system. Real-time 

reservoir system management requires a great deal of judgment in operation. It is 

recognized that the demands of water resource management are at times conflicting and 

the water control manager must have some degree of operational flexibility. Depending 

on the objectives of reservoir operations, the ten multipurpose projects in the Cumberland 

River Basin can be considered to operate as a unified system, as sub groups of the 

system, or as individual projects. This plan will outline how project and system 

operations may be impacted during this period of pool restrictions. The actual system 

operations will reflect how rainfall, temperature, and other outside influences have 

altered the water management capabilities of the Cumberland Basin Reservoir System. 

1.2.3. The Cumberland River Basin receives an average of 51.64 inches of rainfall 

per year. Likewise, the average observed runoff generated by this rainfall is 21.82 

inches. As noted in Table 1, rainfall and runoff are not evenly distributed over the course 

of a year. 

2
Table 1 

Average Rainfall and Runoff 

For the Cumberland River Basin 

Month Rainfall 

(inches) 

Runoff 

(inches) 

January 4.75 3.47 

February 4.30 3.43 

March 5.75 4.07 

April 4.61 2.84 

May 4.52 1.87 

June 4.18 0.93 

July 4.45 0.67 

August 3.70 0.47 

September 3.75 0.38 

October 2.80 0.34 

November 4.08 1.07 

December 4.75 2.28 

TOTAL 51.64 21.82 

1.2.4. It is this uneven distribution of runoff that has lead to the current reservoir 

system operation. Runoff is captured during the late winter and spring in the tributary 

storage projects (Wolf Creek, Dale Hollow, and Center Hill) and subsequently released 

during the typically dry summer and fall. Wolf Creek and Center Hill are the two largest 

storage projects in the Cumberland system. The 2007 pool restrictions will reduce the 

volume of water in storage by almost two-thirds. Environmental and water resources 

development within the Cumberland River Basin is dependent on the storage of a large 

volume of cold water at these projects. Water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife, 

operation of fossil fuel plants, recreation, and navigation are being impacted by these 

pool restrictions. The reservoir system will continue to be operated to provide flood 

control benefits, but the manner in which that is done will also change. Of the ten 

multipurpose projects within the Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System, Martins 

Fork will be the only project not impacted by these operating restrictions. 

1.3. Wolf Creek. 

1.3.1. Wolf Creek Dam was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 and the 

River and Harbor Act of 1946 to provide flood control and hydropower benefits. Wolf 

Creek Dam is located on the Cumberland River at mile 460.9. The last of six 45-MW 

hydropower units was brought on line in August 1952. In addition to its originally 

authorized project purposes, the Wolf Creek project provides water supply, water quality, 

recreation, fish and wildlife, and drought mitigation benefits to the region. Wolf Creek 

has a drainage area of 5,789 mi2

, making it the largest tributary storage project within the 

Cumberland River Basin System. Lake Cumberland has an average depth of 80 ft and an 

average discharge of about 9,000 cfs. Wolf Creek is operated as part of the overall 

3
Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System according to an established guide curve. See 

Figure 2. 

Figure 2 

Wolf Creek Project Guide Curve 

1.3.2. The hydropower pool extends from the top of the conservation pool 

elevation of 673 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 to elevation 723 

ft. The flood control pool extends from 723 ft to 760 ft. The pool of record occurred in 

May 1984 when the lake reached elevation 751.7 ft. There is a seasonal operating guide 

within the power pool known as the SEPA power marketing zone. This operating zone 

was developed by SEPA, working closely with representatives from the Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA) and the CE. The SEPA power marketing zone starts the year 

low in the power pool, fills through the spring reaching the top of the power pool by 

summer, and then gradually falls through the summer and fall in time for the flood 

season. This is a non-binding operating guide that maximizes hydropower benefits while 

also supporting flood risk management, water quality, navigation, and other downstream 

uses dependent on the release of stored water through the summer and fall. The normal 

operation at Wolf Creek is to favor the top of the SEPA power marketing zone, targeting 

a June 1 elevation of 723 ft. The 2007 risk reduction measure for Wolf Creek Dam is to 

4
target a year-round elevation of 680 ft. This operation will reduce the volume of water 

stored in the hydropower pool by about 1,885,000 acre-feet (88.0%), and will severely 

impact both project specific and system operations. 

1.4. Center Hill. 

1.4.1. Center Hill Dam was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 and the 

River and Harbor Act of 1946 to provide flood control and hydropower benefits. Center 

Hill Dam is located on the Caney Fork River at mile 26.6. The last of three 45-MW 

hydropower units was brought on line in April 1951. In addition to its originally 

authorized project purposes, the Center Hill project provides water supply, water quality, 

recreation, fish and wildlife, and drought mitigation benefits to the region. Center Hill 

has a drainage area of 2,174 mi2

, making it second only to Wolf Creek in terms of flood 

risk management capability. Center Hill Lake has an average depth of 73 ft and an 

average discharge of about 3,800 cfs. Center Hill is operated as part of the overall 

Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System according to an established guide curve. See 

Figure 3. 

Figure 3 

Center Hill Project Guide Curve 

5
1.4.2. The hydropower pool extends from the top of the conservation pool 

elevation of 618 ft up to elevation 648 ft. The flood control pool extends from 648 ft up 

to 685 ft. The pool of record occurred in May 1984 when the lake reached elevation 

681.5 ft. Within the power pool, the SEPA power marketing zone starts the year low in 

the power pool, fills through the spring reaching the top of the power pool by summer, 

and then gradually falls through the summer and fall in time for the flood season. This is 

a non-binding operating guide that maximizes hydropower benefits while also supporting 

flood risk management, water quality, navigation, and other downstream uses dependent 

on the release of stored water through the summer and fall. The normal operation at 

Center Hill is to favor the top of the SEPA power marketing zone, targeting a June 1 

elevation of 648 ft. The 2007 risk reduction measure for Center Hill Dam is to follow the 

lower band of this zone, thus targeting a June 1 elevation of 640.6 ft. This operation will 

reduce the volume of water in storage by about 131,000 acre-feet (26.6%), but will retain 

some operational flexibility to support project and downstream water management 

objectives. 

1.5. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations. 

 1.5.1 The CE is preparing Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) to address 

operational changes at Wolf Creek Dam and Center Hill Dam. The two DEIS are 

necessary to provide NEPA compliance to address changes that could include, but are not 

limited to, water quality, aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat, recreation, water supply, 

flood storage, economics, hydropower production, and safety as a result of operating 

Lake Cumberland (Wolf Creek) and Center Hill Lake below normal pool elevations for 

extended periods of time. NEPA requires that prior to making any decision that would 

entail any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, a Federal agency shall 

consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved, and shall 

solicit public input and comment. Notices of Intent have been issued for both projects to 

initiate the NEPA process. 

2. System Operations 

2.1 Drought Contingency Planning. 

2.1.1 The pool restrictions at Wolf Creek and Center Hill have the effect of placing 

the Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System in a severe hydrologic drought. In fact, 

flow conditions will be more limited than any seen during operation of the developed 

reservoir system. From early 1985 through most of 1988, the Cumberland Basin 

experienced a severe drought; however, even in 1988 during the fourth year of that 

drought Lake Cumberland was filled to an elevation of 711.77 ft, about 32 ft higher than 

the 2007 criteria. Likewise, in 1988 Center Hill was filled to elevation 642.34 ft, about 

two feet above the bottom of the SEPA power marketing zone. The CE applied lessons 

learned from the 1985-1988 drought to develop an operating policy for drought 

conditions. The final product of this evaluation was the Cumberland River Basin 

6
Drought Contingency Plan, published in November 1994. Prior to the drought in the 

1980s there was not an effective drought contingency plan in place, making system 

operations during the drought problematic and often contentious. The 1994 drought 

contingency plan, coupled with recommendations developed in this plan, will form the 

basis for how the Cumberland River Basin Reservoir System will be operated during 

these pool restrictions. The established system regulation priorities are as follows. 

1. Water Supply 

2. Water Quality 

3. Navigation 

4. Hydropower 

5. Recreation 

2.1.2. These priorities are consistent with the logic that led to development of the pool 

restrictions where public health and safety was the overall guiding principle. In fact, dam 

safety and flood risk management considerations over-ride any other operating 

objectives. Otherwise, each of the operating objectives will be addressed both 

individually and from a system perspective. Because the pool restrictions impact the 

entire Cumberland River system, it will be necessary to have control points to monitor 

the effectiveness of the system operating plan. 

2.2. Control Points. While it is desirable to develop overall water management 

objectives, it is not practical to apply fixed operating rules. The day to day reservoir 

system operations will be highly dependent on meteorological conditions, specifically the 

amount and distribution of rainfall and observed air temperature. System conditions will 

be evaluated on a daily basis and a forecast will be developed consistent with the overall 

system operating objectives. The existing precipitation, stream flow, and water quality 

remote monitoring network is designed for routine system operations. It will be 

supplemented as necessary to collect the information needed to develop the best possible 

forecasts. A number of Cumberland River Basin control points have been identified that 

will serve as overall guides for system operations. The system will be managed for these 

control points through application of the system priorities contained within the drought 

contingency plan. It is anticipated that these control points will be dynamic in nature, 

with one or more factors influencing system operations at any given time. It will remain 

imperative that water managers retain a reasonable degree of flexibility to be able to react 

to changing conditions. The Cumberland Basin control points are as follows (presented 

from upstream to downstream): 

• John Sherman Cooper Power Plant 

- Maintain adequate supply of cooling water 

• Lake Cumberland municipal and industrial water supply intakes 

- Maintain adequate pool level (680 ft) 

• Lake Cumberland cold water budget 

- Protect coldwater fisheries in lake and tailwater 

- Project release objective: 6 mg/l dissolved oxygen 

• Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery 

7
 - Provide continuous supply of cold water 

• Cumberland County, KY and Burkesville, KY water supply 

 - Provide 500 cfs minimum mean daily release from Wolf Creek 

• Dale Hollow cold water budget 

- Protect coldwater fisheries in lake and tailwater 

• Cordell Hull project releases 

 - Project release objective: 5 mg/l dissolved oxygen 

 - Schedule releases to support navigation below Cordell Hull 

 - Schedule releases to support TVA Gallatin Fossil Fuel Plant 

• Center Hill cold water budget 

- Protect coldwater fisheries in lake and tailwater 

- Project release objective: 6 mg/l dissolved oxygen 

 - Schedule releases to support TVA Gallatin Fossil Fuel Plant 

• TVA Gallatin Fossil Fuel Plant 

- Provide cooling water flow – 1,300 cfs 

- Threshold temperature – 24.4 oC (76 oF) 

• Old Hickory project releases 

- Project release objective: 5 mg/l dissolved oxygen 

- Schedule releases to support navigation below Old Hickory 

• J. Percy Priest project releases 

- Project release objective: 5 mg/l dissolved oxygen 

• Cheatham project releases 

- Project release objective: 5 mg/l dissolved oxygen 

- Schedule releases to support navigation below Cheatham 

 - Schedule releases to support TVA Cumberland Fossil Fuel Plant 

• TVA Cumberland Fossil Fuel Plant 

- Provide cooling water flow – 4,000 cfs 

- Threshold temperature – 29.4 o

C (85 oF) 

• Barkley Canal 

- Manage Canal flows to support TVA Cumberland operations 

• Barkley and Kentucky project releases 

- Project release objective: 5 mg/l dissolved oxygen 

- Schedule releases to support navigation below Kentucky and Barkley 

- Ohio & Mississippi River flood risk management operations 

- Ohio & Mississippi River navigation concerns 

2.3. Water Supply. 

2.3.1. Lake Cumberland Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Users. The 

system will be operated to maintain a reliable and usable supply of water for both 

municipal and industrial users as hydrometeorological conditions permit. There are 

several municipal and industrial water supply users on Lake Cumberland with intakes 

located between the bottom of the power pool (673 ft) and the 2007 target elevation of 

680 ft. 

8
2.3.2. John Sherman Cooper Power Plant. The most vulnerable of these intakes is 

the one for the John Sherman Cooper Power Plant positioned at elevation 675 ft. This 

facility, that supplies power to over one million customers in Kentucky, experiences 

substantial reduction in megawatt production, depending on the water temperature in 

Lake Cumberland, at elevation 680 ft. Additional derates would be required for lake 

elevations below 680 ft. Once the lake elevation decreases to 675 ft John Sherman 

Cooper would be unable to generate power. 

 2.3.2. Cumberland County, KY and Burkesville, KY Water Supply Intakes.

Burkesville, Kentucky and adjacent areas within Cumberland County represent the first 

concentrated population centers downstream from Wolf Creek Dam. They withdraw 

water directly from the Cumberland River about 30-40 miles downstream from Wolf 

Creek Dam. Recently completed HEC-RAS modeling of this reach of the Cumberland 

River indicates that a minimum mean daily flow of around 500 cfs from Wolf Creek Dam 

will provide adequate water depth for these intakes. This flow is also supportive of 

downstream environmental requirements. The minimum mean daily flow from Wolf 

Creek Dam during normal operating conditions is 1,800 cfs. 

 2.3.3. A review of the historical record of inflows to Lake Cumberland indicates 

that flows often get very low during the June through November period. See Table 2. 

The long term (1953 – 2006) minimum monthly inflow for the months of July, August, 

September, October, and November are all negative, indicating that evaporation from the 

lake surface exceeded inflow from the tributary streams. As a result it may be 

problematic to maintain a 680 elevation in Lake Cumberland during periods of low 

inflow and high evaporation. Beginning in December, inflows begin to increase 

significantly due to the increased frequency of rainfall events, making it much easier to 

meet various operating objectives. 

Table 2 

Wolf Creek Project Inflow 1953 – 2006 

Month 

Minimum 

(Daily Avg. 

CFS) 

Maximum 

(Daily Avg. 

CFS) 

Mean 

(Daily Avg. 

CFS) 

Median 

(Daily Avg. 

CFS) 

January 721 41,592 15,409 14,770 

February 3,417 50,760 17,798 15,887 

March 5,763 54,764 18,989 15,378 

April 1,883 34,603 14,683 13,685 

May 2,182 37,601 9,368 7,019 

June 108 20,730 5,240 3,256 

July -20 16,945 2,916 2,364 

August -182 10,652 1,863 1,127 

September -258 15,212 1,951 630 

October -266 17,780 1,960 1,027 

November -126 20,198 5,831 4,406 

December 201 41,922 12,230 11,233 

9
2.3.4. Center Hill Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Users. There are three 

water supply intakes on Center Hill. They are all located below the bottom of the power 

pool; therefore, an operational scenario where the target guide curve is to follow the 

bottom of the SEPA power marketing zone will not impact their operation. The Smith 

County Utility District has an intake on the Caney Fork River about 19 miles downstream 

from Center Hill Dam. With the seasonal storage provided by the SEPA power 

marketing zone there will not be any quantity related issues with this utility. This has 

been confirmed by HEC-RAS modeling completed for the Caney Fork River. The CE 

(Center Hill Lake Resource Management) routinely coordinates with staff at the water 

treatment plant when sluicing operations are initiated at Center Hill so that they can 

anticipate changes in raw water quality and adjust their treatment accordingly. 

2.3.5. Mainstem / Lock and Dam Water Supply Users. There are multiple 

municipal and industrial water supply intakes along the Cumberland River within the 

Cordell Hull, Old Hickory, Cheatham, and Barkley pools. There are no plans to lower 

the headwater operating guidelines for these projects, thus there will be sufficient water 

available for their continued operation. It is anticipated that there will be changes in the 

quality of water available for treatment and that treatment costs will go up accordingly. 

Quality impairments will be a byproduct of reduced flows through the system during the 

summer and fall. Water users can expect to experience warmer water temperatures, 

reduced dissolved oxygen levels, increased algal activity with associated taste and odor 

issues, and increased concentrations of certain metals and nutrients. The reservoir system 

will be operated to support water quality for water supply to the extent practical given the 

impacts of the anticipated flow reductions. 

2.4. Water Quality. 

2.4.1. Water quality impacts may be observed at Wolf Creek and Center Hill as a 

direct impact of the lower lake levels and/or may occur many miles downstream as a 

result of release schedule modification. The direct project impacts would be related to 

changes to the cold water budget. 

2.4.2. Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen at Wolf Creek. With an 

operational target of elevation 680 ft (2007 target elevation), Lake Cumberland will begin 

the summer with a significantly reduced volume of cold water in storage. The coldwater 

fisheries in the lake, primarily stripers and walleye, are dependent on the maintenance of 

a zone of cold, oxygenated water. Likewise, the tailwater fishery that includes rainbow 

and brown trout in addition to striper and walleye is dependent on the release of cold, 

oxygenated water. If the cumulative project releases through Wolf Creek Dam during the 

summer exceed the volume of cold water in storage, significant fish die-offs would be 

expected both in the lake and in the river below the dam. A late spring major storm event 

or a series of spring or summer storms would increase the likelihood of this happening. 

The only water management option available for the tailwater at Wolf Creek is to use 

sluice gate releases in lieu of hydropower releases to provide cold, oxygenated water for 

10
the tailwater. Sluicing will conserve the zone of cold water in the lake used by important 

fish species as long as adequate dissolved oxygen is available. This can be effective up to 

a point, but once the cold water is gone there is nothing that can be done to protect these 

fisheries. 

 

2.4.3. Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen at Center Hill. Center Hill will 

face similar cold water budget challenges; however, since the (2007) drawdown there is 

not as severe as that for Wolf Creek, the risk to these fisheries is less. Sluice gate 

releases are also a viable option at Center Hill to manage for either lake or tailwater cold 

water issues. 

2.4.4. Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen at Dale Hollow. While Dale 

Hollow does not have any imposed operating restrictions, cold water budget issues could 

arise due to the increased reliability on water pulled from storage at this project. Dale 

Hollow also has sluice gates with intakes located deep in the water column that can be 

used for temperature and/or dissolved oxygen management. 

2.4.5. Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen at Laurel and J. Percy Priest.

The revised operations at Wolf Creek and Center Hill should not have any water quality 

impacts to either Laurel River Lake or J. Percy Priest Lake. The existing spillway 

releases for water quality management, pending the availability of water, will continue to 

be employed at J. Percy Priest as needed for dissolved oxygen, metals, and taste and odor 

issues observed in the tailwater and at downstream water treatment plants. 

2.4.6. Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen at Mainstem Projects. Water 

quality impacts are also expected at the main-stem Cumberland River projects (Cordell 

Hull, Old Hickory, Cheatham, and Barkley) as a result of the reduced flows moving 

through the system. The lower flows will increase the hydraulic residence time in each of 

these projects resulting in warmer water temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen levels. 

There is little that can be done for temperature since temperature impacts are a direct 

function of the flow (residence time) through the system and weather conditions. In 

2007, with approximately two-thirds of the normal storage eliminated, the summer and 

fall flow regime will be significantly reduced. The option of releasing water through 

spillway gates at Cordell Hull, Old Hickory, Cheatham, and Barkley is available to 

increase dissolved oxygen concentrations. The State Water Quality Standard applicable 

at each of these projects is a minimum of 5 mg/l. 

2.5.6. Based on past experience during drought conditions the Old Hickory 

project is the most likely main-stem project to experience dissolved oxygen problems. 

Also, when Lake Cumberland was drawn down in the 1970s for construction of the 

existing cutoff wall, extremely low dissolved oxygen levels were observed in hydropower 

releases from Old Hickory. 

2.5.7. Prior to 2007, the Nashville District did not have any direct experience of 

using spillway releases to manage for dissolved oxygen at the main-stem projects. Prior 

to this year CE reaeration experts at the Waterways Experiment Station indicated that 

11
spillway releases are an effective means of aerating project releases. Their 

recommendation was to spread the flow out over several spillway gates to avoid spilling 

more than 1,000 cfs through any one gate. CE experience using this release scenario at 

similar projects has resulted in 85-90% dissolved oxygen saturation and total dissolved 

gas levels of around 110%. The results to date at projects along the Cumberland River 

(Cordell Hull, Old Hickory, and Cheatham) have been very favorable. Spillway releases 

have proven to be an effective method to provide water quality conditions supportive of 

downstream water treatment and aquatic environment conditions. 

2.5.8. TVA operates coal fired power plants at Gallatin and Cumberland City that 

are dependent on the Cumberland River for cooling water flow. The cooling water for 

these plants originates in the Cumberland River Basin storage projects (Wolf Creek, Dale 

Hollow, and Center Hill) during the summer and early fall when natural flows in the 

Cumberland River are typically very low. Given the elimination of storage at Wolf 

Creek and the reduction of storage at Center Hill, maintenance of adequate cooling water 

flow (both quantity and temperature) will become a primary driver for water management 

operations. 

2.5.9. TVA Gallatin Fossil Fuel Plant. The TVA Gallatin Fossil Fuel Plant is 

located in the Old Hickory pool and is downstream of the three primary storage projects. 

The cooling water requirement for this facility is 1,300 cfs. The threshold cooling water 

intake temperature for this facility is 24.4 oC (76 oF). The combination of this flow 

requirement, the physical layout of the intake and discharge structures, and the proximity 

of the Gallatin plant to upstream cold releases places this facility in a favorable position 

to maintain reliable service. Water temperature will be the primary concern for this 

facility. 

2.5.10. TVA Cumberland Fossil Fuel Plant. The TVA Cumberland Fossil Fuel 

Plant, located in the Lake Barkley pool, will be a much bigger challenge with regard to 

cooling water requirements. Cumberland is significantly larger than Gallatin and has a 

cooling water requirement of approximately 4,000 cfs and a threshold intake temperature 

of 29.4 o

C (85 oF). This plant has a history of cooling water issues during extended hot, 

dry periods. The plant discharge structure is located close enough to the intake that 

heated water can recirculate upstream and mix with the Cumberland River flow in the 

vicinity of the intake. When this occurs the plant must adjust operations to preclude 

violation of temperature permit requirements. The typical solution for this recirculation 

issue has been to forego hydropower peaking operations at Cheatham Dam and schedule 

a steady one unit use throughout the day. This translates to a flow of around 6,300 cfs. 

However, without the water in storage at the upstream projects there may not be enough 

water to run a continuous one unit schedule at Cheatham. 

2.5.11. A joint TVA/Corps team has been established to work on this issue. TVA 

has the capability to model temperature impacts to the Lake Barkley project including the 

immediate TVA Cumberland area. TVA has also made physical modifications to their 

discharge facility to significantly reduce the amount of heated water from reaching their 

intake. The cooling water requirements for TVA Cumberland will play an important role 

12
in how the Cumberland Basin reservoir system is operated. Water in storage will be 

conserved to the extent practical during the spring and early summer to save it for use 

during the critical July, August, and September period. This will be accomplished by 

only releasing from storage the volume of water necessary to meet flow and temperature 

requirements at TVA Cumberland. 

2.5.12. Wolf Creek and Center Hill will be operated according to the pool 

restriction criteria. The additional water needed to meet flow requirements will originate 

from Dale Hollow. This operation could result in higher lake levels than those typically 

observed in the spring and early summer at Dale Hollow. Likewise, depending on the 

rainfall pattern fall lake levels at Dale Hollow could be lower than normal. 

2.5. Navigation. 

2.5.1. A nine-foot commercial navigation channel on the Cumberland River is 

generally supported by the maintenance of full, flat pools and minimum tailwater 

elevations at the four main-stem projects. There are navigation impediments in the 

approaches to both Old Hickory and Cheatham that can effect navigation during low flow 

conditions. Navigation industry equipment and operations have evolved over time to 

match observed conditions on the Cumberland River. This includes the decision by some 

towing companies to run 10-ft draft tugs and to routinely run over-draft (> 9-ft) barges. 

These practices are due in large part to the water originating from Wolf Creek and Center 

Hill that augment Cumberland River flows during otherwise low flow periods. Currently, 

tows are dependent on favorable release schedules to transit reaches below the navigation 

projects. Their practice is to wait on windows of opportunity to navigate these critical 

reaches rather than reconfiguring their load to reduce their draft. There will need to be 

some project release scheduling considerations as well as adjustments by the shipping 

industry to maintain a reliable commercial navigation pattern during periods of low flow 

at the navigation projects. 

2.5.2. Impacts to Navigation due to Rapid Drawdowns. A rapid drawdown at 

Wolf Creek and/or Center Hill, followed by severe reductions in discharge, creates abrupt 

river fluctuations that result in adverse navigation conditions. These adverse conditions 

extend from the lower approach to Cheatham Lock through the Nashville harbor and into 

the Old Hickory pool. The lock approaches to Cheatham and Old Hickory along with the 

main river channel through Nashville are critical areas for commercial navigation. A 

lower than normal Old Hickory pool elevation has a significant impact to recreational 

boating, but less of an impact to commercial navigation. Therefore, when lowering Wolf 

Creek and Center Hill lakes a smooth transition is critical to avoiding navigation impacts 

downstream. 

2.5.3. Impacts to Navigation at Barkley Dam, Kentucky Dam, Ohio River and 

Mississippi River. Navigation conditions on the Cumberland River at Barkley Lock and 

Dam and on the lower Ohio River (Lock and Dam 52 and Lock and Dam 53) may be 

more severely impacted than those upstream along the Cumberland. The Cumberland 

below Barkley is dependent on either project releases or the Ohio River (Lock and Dam 

13
52 pool) or a combination of both to maintain a minimum tailwater elevation (302) to 

support navigation. The reduction of storage within the Cumberland system will limit the 

ability to maintain elevation 302 when Ohio River levels are low. Releases from Barkley 

and Kentucky are often scheduled to support navigation concerns on the lower Ohio and 

Mississippi. This capability will be reduced due to the reduction of storage within the 

Cumberland system and could lead to impaired conditions on the lower Ohio and 

Mississippi. 

2.5.4. The operation of Kentucky and Barkley dams involves complicated and 

often contradictory issues. Therefore, a predetermined plan to deal with low tailwater 

levels is not practical. The operational response to navigation conditions when Ohio 

River levels are low will require coordinated effort between LRD, LRL, LRN, and TVA. 

2.6. Hydropower. 

2.6.1. Hydropower generated at the Cumberland River Basin plants is marketed 

by the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA). In a 1984 Memorandum of 

Understanding between SEPA, TVA, and the Corps of Engineers minimum weekly 

energy goals were established. Since that time the CE has an excellent track record of 

meeting these hydropower goals. See Table 3 for a listing of the minimum energy 

requirements. 

Table 3 

Cumberland Basin Projects 

Weekly Minimum Energy 

Month Minimum Energy 

(MWH) 

January 24,000 

February 29,400 

March 32,000 

April 32,000 

May 22,600 

June 24,600 

July 32,200 

August 32,200 

September 21,000 

October 15,800 

November 16,000 

December 20,000 

2.6.2. Without the water in storage at Wolf Creek and Center Hill it will not be 

possible to meet these minimum energy goals. The marketing strategy has been revised 

to reflect only the energy available for production based on water allocations. Power is 

now marketed on a daily basis instead of a weekly basis. With the loss of storage due to 

14
restrictions at Wolf Creek, the Cumberland River basin will begin each summer at 

threshold level four of the Cumberland River Basin Drought Contingency Plan. 

Therefore, the priority for hydropower falls below those for water supply, water quality, 

and navigation. While a significant amount of the releases at the projects will be through 

generation, the scheduling will be based on the needs of the higher priority purposes. 

During periods when the conditions permit, more significance will be given to optimizing 

for hydropower benefits. 

2.6.3. An effort will be made at Laurel River Lake to hold higher summer pool 

elevations (not to exceed elevation 1018 ft) to support operation of the John Sherman 

Cooper Power Plant. This will require close coordination with SEPA and the East 

Kentucky Electric Cooperative. 

2.7. Recreation. 

2.7.1. The recreation impacts at Lake Cumberland and to a lesser extent Center 

Hill Lake have been well documented. Lake recreation tends to be elevation dependent. 

The revised operations at these projects coupled with recreation’s priority within the 

operating objectives established in the drought contingency plan, leaves little in the way 

of operational flexibility to support recreation interests. The lake level at Laurel can be 

held higher in the summer without significantly impacting other project purposes 

including system flood risk management capabilities. This operation would have the 

added benefit of supporting lake based recreation. 

2.7.2. Typical seasonal pool elevations will be maintained at the remaining 

Cumberland Basin projects. Water control actions implemented for water supply and 

water quality requirements will have the added benefit of supporting fish and aquatic life 

based recreational pursuits. Minimum daily project releases will continue to be made 

from the projects where they are required under the existing operating criteria. The 

relatively low summer and fall releases from Wolf Creek and Center Hill will enhance 

wade fishing opportunities in their tailwaters. 

2.8. Flood Risk Management. 

2.8.1. Even though the Cumberland Basin reservoir system will be operated 

following drought condition guidelines, the basin is never more than one storm event 

away from initiating flood risk management operations. Flood risk management will 

continue to be the over-riding priority for system operations. 

2.8.2. Although the lower pools targeted at Wolf Creek and Center Hill will 

actually increase the flood storage capacity of the system, the operation necessary to 

consistently maintain these lower levels could compromise the flood risk management 

benefits of the additional storage capacity. Following a significant runoff producing 

event, priority will be given to Wolf Creek and Center Hill to evacuate water stored 

above their target elevations. This presents a couple of issues that have the potential to 

compromise overall system flood risk management capability. First, if a series of events 

15
come in close succession, there is the potential to accumulate water in the other projects 

to a level that impacts system operation. Second, if a follow up event hits the 

downstream uncontrolled portion of the basin in conjunction with an aggressive release 

pattern at Wolf Creek and/or Center Hill to reduce their storage, flood crests could be 

higher than otherwise experienced. This could occur at any of the Cumberland River 

damage centers (Celina, Carthage, Nashville, and Clarksville) or along the lower Ohio or 

Mississippi Rivers. The following tables will be used as a guide on how to evacuate 

storage at Wolf Creek and Center Hill. Downstream impacts will always be a primary 

consideration when setting release schedules. 

 Table 4 

Guidelines for Evacuating Storage at 

Wolf Creek Dam (Lake Cumberland) 

Elevation Criteria 

Wolf Creek: 

0 – 3 ft above upper 

guide curve elevation 

Operate for most efficient use of water. 

3 – 5 ft above upper 

guide curve elevation 

Ramp up to turbine capacity as necessary to hold 

within 5 ft of the upper guide curve elevation if 

downstream conditions permit. 

5 – 10 ft above upper 

guide curve elevation 

Generate at turbine capacity to keep within 5 ft of 

the upper guide curve elevation. If the pool is 

forecast to exceed the upper guide curve elevation 

by more than 10 ft supplement flows with sluice 

gate releases. 

10 ft above upper 

guide curve elevation 

up to elevation 723 

Combination of turbine capacity and sluice gate 

releases unless downstream conditions require 

reductions. 

> 723 Combination of turbine, sluice, and spillway 

releases to manage according to established flood 

risk management criteria. Total flow not to exceed 

40,000 cfs. Full coordination with LRD required if 

Ohio River flooding is ongoing. 

16
 Table 5 

Guidelines for Evacuating Storage at 

Center Hill Lake 

Elevation Criteria 

Center Hill: 

0 – 3 ft above upper 

guide curve elevation 

Operate for most efficient use of water. 

3 – 5 ft above upper 

guide curve elevation 

Ramp up to turbine capacity as necessary to hold 

within 5 ft of the upper guide curve elevation if 

downstream conditions permit. 

5 – 10 ft above upper 

guide curve elevation 

Combination of turbine capacity and sluice gate 

releases unless downstream conditions require 

reductions. Discharges should be managed to stay 

within the downstream channel capacity of 30,000 

cfs. 

10 ft or more above 

upper guide curve 

elevation 

Combination of turbine, sluice, and spillway 

releases to manage according to established flood 

risk management criteria. Total flow in the Caney 

Fork River not to exceed 30,000 cfs. Full 

coordination with LRD required if Ohio River 

flooding is ongoing. 

2.9. Operational Modifications at Cumberland Basin Projects in Addition to Wolf 

Creek and Center Hill. 

2.9.1. The pool restrictions at Wolf Creek and Center Hill have the potential to 

impact operations at nine of the ten Cumberland Basin Projects. Martins Fork is the only 

project where no impacts are anticipated. For most of the projects the water control 

variants are more flow than lake level related; however, there will be a conscious effort to 

target higher pool elevations at some projects. In all cases where higher headwater 

elevations are targeted this can be done without significantly compromising system flood 

risk management capabilities. 

2.9.2. Laurel. Laurel has an uncontrolled spillway at elevation 1018.5 ft, and does 

not provide any flood risk management benefits. The top of the SEPA power marketing 

curve is at elevation 1018 ft. LRN will work closely with SEPA and the East Kentucky 

Power Electric Cooperative to target early summer lake levels higher than those typically 

observed (but not to exceed 1018 ft). The purpose of this operation is to support cooling 

water operations at the John Sherman Cooper Power Plant during the critical summer and 

early fall period. 

2.9.3. Dale Hollow. The top of the power pool at Dale Hollow is elevation 651 ft. 

LRN will target a 1 June elevation of 653 ft at Dale Hollow, thus placing two feet of 

17
water on the spillway gates and reducing the flood control pool by 15.9 %. This water 

will be conserved to the extent practical to support downstream water supply, water 

quality, and navigation requirements along the main-stem Cumberland River projects. 

Given the ratio of project storage to drainage area, Dale Hollow will be very difficult to 

overfill under dry conditions (when the extra water would be the most valuable). 

2.9.4. Mainstem Lock and Dams. A concerted effort will be made to hold the 

Cumberland River main-stem projects (Cordell Hull, Old Hickory, Cheatham, and 

Barkley) near the top to slightly over the top of the stated power pools when possible. 

The Cumberland River is flashy in nature; a condition that will be amplified due to the 

run of the river run operations adopted at Wolf Creek. This has the potential to create 

dramatic (relative to normal operations) swings in elevation along the navigable stretch of 

the Cumberland River. The maintenance of favorable conditions for commercial 

navigation is particularly vulnerable to sudden reductions in flow such as those created 

by operating for a fixed elevation at Wolf Creek. Since the overall dynamics of the mainstem system are difficult to predict under transitional flow regimes, this added water will 

be used as a buffer when conditions require. 

2.9.5. Cordell Hull. The fill to summer pool at Cordell Hull may require 

additional time and thus needs to begin earlier in order to capture water when available 

while still passing enough flow to meet downstream requirements. When necessary, the 

early fill will start at the beginning of April instead of the middle of the month. It may 

also be necessary to fill Barkley and Kentucky pools early; however, that is a joint 

decision between LRD, LRN, and TVA since it involves three separate river systems. 

3. Communication and Coordination 

3.1. Nashville District Water Management. The Nashville District Water Management 

Office coordinates daily with LRD Water Management, TVA River Operations, SEPA, 

National Weather Service, LRN Power Plant Operators, and members of the public. 

Automated data exchange procedures are in place with water management partners and 

stakeholders. The water management impacts of the revised Wolf Creek and Center Hill 

operations will require increased communication and coordination efforts in terms of the 

addition of individuals and groups and also to the frequency of information exchange. 

The following table summarizes stakeholders, organized by prioritized project purpose, 

that LRN Water Management has been in contact with since the pool restrictions were 

announced. This list is considered dynamic in nature and will be supplemented as this 

process evolves. 

18
 Table 6 

Water Management Customers 

Organized by 

Drought Contingency Plan Prioritized Purpose 

Agency or Group Issue 

Water Supply: 

Lake Cumberland water supply users Impacts of lake level on water supply intakes. 

Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) Water quality impacts to water supply. 

City of Burkesville Low flow impact to raw water intake. 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC) 

Water quality impacts to water supply. 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

(TWRA) 

Water quality impacts of flow modifications to 

fish and aquatic resources. 

East Kentucky Power Cooperative 

(EKPC) 

Cooling water at John Sherman Cooper Power 

Plant. 

TVA Fossil Fuel Plants Cooling water at Gallatin and Cumberland. 

TVA Environmental Compliance Cooling water at Gallatin and Cumberland. 

Metro Nashville Water quality impacts to water supply. 

Water Quality: 

Kentucky Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) 

Impacts to the coldwater budget in Lake 

Cumberland and the river below. 

Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) Impacts to the coldwater budget in Lake 

Cumberland and the river below. 

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Wolf Creek 

National Fish Hatchery (USFWS) 

Supply of cold water to the Wolf Creek 

National Fish Hatchery. 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC) 

Impacts to the Cumberland River 

impoundments in Tennessee. 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

(TWRA) 

Fishery impacts at Center Hill and 

Cumberland River projects and impacts to 

native mussels in Cumberland River. 

Metro Nashville Impacts of water quality changes to 

wastewater treatment plant operations. 

Trout Unlimited (TU) Impacts to cold water fisheries. 

Ohio Valley Fly Rod Club Impacts to cold water fisheries. 

Navigation: 

U. S. Coast Guard Impacts to commercial navigation resulting 

19
from reduced flows in the system. 

Navigation Industry Impacts to commercial navigation resulting 

from reduced flows in the system. 

Hydropower: 

Southeastern Power Administration 

(SEPA) 

Impacts to power marketing agreements. 

TVA River Operations Impact of revised system operations on 

hydropower production. 

TVA Power Scheduling Hourly scheduling of hydropower. 

East Kentucky Power Cooperative 

(EKPC) 

Hydropower scheduling at Laurel River Lake. 

Team Cumberland Impact of revised system operations on 

hydropower production. 

Recreation: 

Kentucky Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) 

Impact of Wolf Creek drawdown on fishing 

and boating opportunities. 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

(TWRA) 

Impact of Wolf Creek and Center Hill 

drawdowns on fishing and boating 

opportunities. 

Marina Operators Impact of lake level revisions on marina 

operations. 

Trout Unlimited (TU) Impacts to cold water fisheries. 

Ohio Valley Fly Rod Club Impacts to cold water fisheries. 

Middle Tennessee Amateur Retriever 

Club 

Impact of pool restrictions on system 

operations. 

Commercial Fishermen Impact of pool restrictions on system 

operations. 

3.2. National Weather Service Coordination. 

3.2.1. CE partners closely with the National Weather Service (NWS) and provides 

the agency with daily river and reservoir observations (flow and stage) and reservoir 

release schedules. The observations and reservoir release schedules are integral to the 

production of the NWS hydrologic forecasts. This information is transmitted daily from 

the Nashville District (and the other Ohio River District offices) in automated SHEFencoded reports to the Division office (LRD) located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Data is then 

exchanged with the NWS Ohio River Forecast Center (OHRFC) in Wilmington, Ohio via 

a dedicated communication line. 

3.2.2. The OHRFC has the primary responsibility for producing and 

disseminating stage and flow forecasts of the Ohio River and its tributaries. The OHRFC 

provides the forecasts to local Weather Forecast Offices by hydrologic service area 

20
(HSA) for the issuance of flood watches and warnings to the public. Four HSAs 

primarily encompass the Cumberland River System. The service areas and river system 

are shown in Figure 4. 

 Figure 4 

National Weather Service 

Hydrologic Service Areas 

3.2.3. During flood events on the lower Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, LRD 

communicates closely with the OHRFC and two other RFCs, the Lower Mississippi 

River Forecast Center (LMRFC) and the North Central River Forecast Center (NCRFC). 

The junction point for this delineation is located at Dover, TN, approximately 

Cumberland River Mile 89. Under Section 7 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, LRD 

directs the operations of Nashville District’s Lake Barkley, and the Tennessee Valley 

Authority’s Kentucky Lake, to reduce flood crests with the primary objective of 

preserving and protecting the Mississippi River levee system. LRD communicates 

closely with the RFCs in the production of the public river forecasts. 

3.2.4. During the interim period, established data flow and communication 

procedures will continue. However, if the Wolf Creek release schedule should 

significantly change after the normal transmission time to LRD, the reservoir scheduler 

should inform LRD Water Management. If LRD cannot be reached, the Ohio River 

Forecast Center should be contacted directly. See Table 6 below for information for the 

various water control centers associated with Cumberland River Basin system operations. 

21
 Table 7 

Water Control Centers 

Office Office Phone and Hours Non-Duty Phone 

LRD Water Management (###) ###-#### 

7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. (###) ###-#### 

LRN Water Management (###) ###-#### 

7:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. (###) ###-#### 

TVA River Operations (###) ###-#### 

24-hour operation (###) ###-#### 

Ohio River Forecast Center (###) ###-#### 

6:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. (###) ###-#### 

Lower Mississippi River 

Forecast Center 

(###) ###-#### 

6:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 

3.2.5. During flooding on the Cumberland System, LRN Water Management 

should maintain close contact with LRD Water Management, the NWS Ohio River 

Forecast Center, and the NWS Service Hydrologists for the four HSAs to keep all 

informed as to the flood control strategy. Should the strategy significantly change during 

the day invalidating the NWS publicly issued forecasts, LRN Water Management should 

notify the Service Hydrologists in addition to LRD and the OHRFC. NWS contact 

information is presented in Table 7. 

 Table 8 

Contact Information for the 

National Weather Service 

Hydrologic 

Service Area 

Service Hydrologist 

or Focal Point Office Phone 

Operations Desk 

Phone 

(24 x7) 

LMK **********, 

Louisville, KY WFO (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

JKL ********** 

Jackson, KY WFO (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

OHX ********** 

Nashville, TN WFO (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

PAH ********** 

Paducah, KY WFO (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

LCH ********** 

Slidell, LA WFO (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

22
3.2.6. When a lower Ohio flood control operation is in effect, decisions regarding 

Wolf Creek releases and other Cumberland System reservoirs must be coordinated with 

LRD Water Management to ensure that all system regulation objectives are met to the 

extent possible. This coordination must take place before Wolf Creek release decisions 

are effected, unless under conditions of imminent dam failure. This coordination should 

occur during the regularly scheduled flood coordination call at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time 

(7:30 a.m. Central) between LRD and LRN. In the event of an imminent dam failure, 

communication procedures as specified in the Wolf Creek Dam Emergency Operations 

plan are followed. A multi-agency phone list is presented in Table 9. 

23
 Table 9 

Water Management Phone List 

Position Name Office Home 

LRN Water Management:

Chief, H&H Branch ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Chief, Water Management ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Senior Forecaster ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Senior Forecaster ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Data Management ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Data Management ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Modeler ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Modeler ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Stream Gauging ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Biologist ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Chemist ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

LRN Offices:

District Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### 

LRN DPM ********** (###) ###-#### 

OC – Chief ********** (###) ###-#### 

OC - Environmental ********** (###) ###-#### 

NEPA Coordination ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chief, EC Division ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chief, Civil Design Branch ********** (###) ###-#### 

Dam Safety Coordinator ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chief, Operations Division ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chief, Hydropower Branch ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chief, Navigation Branch ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chief, Natural Resources ********** (###) ###-#### 

WOL Project Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

CEN Project Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chief, Public Affairs ********** (###) ###-#### 

East Kentucky OM ********** (###) ###-#### 

EKY Power Plant Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

WOL/P Superintendent ********** (###) ###-#### 

WOL/P Control Room ********** (###) ###-#### 

WOL/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

LAU/P Superintendent ********** (###) ###-#### 

LAU/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

Mid Cumberland OM ********** (###) ###-#### 

MCA Power Plant Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

DAL/P Superintendent ********** (###) ###-#### 

24
DAL/P Control Room ********** (###) ###-#### 

DAL/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

COR/P Superintendent ********** (###) ###-#### 

COR/P Control Room ********** (###) ###-#### 

COR/L Lock Master ********** (###) ###-#### 

COR/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

CEN/P Superintendent ********** (###) ###-#### 

CEN/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

Nashville Area OM ********** (###) ###-#### 

NAS Power Plant Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

OLD/P Superintendent ********** (###) ###-#### 

OLD/P Control Room ********** (###) ###-#### 

OLD/L Lock Master ********** (###) ###-#### 

OLD/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

JPP/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

CHE/P Superintendent ********** (###) ###-#### 

CHE/L Lock Master ********** (###) ###-#### 

CHE/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

West Kentucky OM ********** (###) ###-#### 

WKY Power Plant Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

BAR/P Superintendent ********** (###) ###-#### 

BAR/P Control Room ********** (###) ###-#### 

BAR/L Lock Master ********** (###) ###-#### 

BAR/R Resource Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

KY Lock Resident Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### 

KY Lock Field Office ********** (###) ###-#### 

KY/L Lock Master ********** (###) ###-#### 

WOL Resident Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### 

WOL Field Office ********** (###) ###-#### 

CEN Resident Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### 

CEN Field Office ********** (###) ###-#### 

LRD Offices:

Division Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### 

Deputy Division Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chief, Water Management ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Senior Hydraulic Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Regional WCDS Manager ********** (###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### 

Hydraulic Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### 

Hydraulic Engineer ********** (###) ###-#### 

IM Specialist ********** (###) ###-#### 

OC – NEPA ********** (###) ###-#### 

Dam Safety Coordinator ********** (###) ###-#### 

Environmental Business Line ********** (###) ###-#### 

25
HQ Offices: 

H&H COP ********** (###) ###-#### 

Water Quality ********** (###) ###-#### 

LRD RIT ********** (###) ###-#### 

HQ UOC ********** (###) ###-#### 

TVA Offices:

Knoxville:

Manager River Forecasting ********** (###) ###-#### 

Lead Engineer Assignment ********** (###) ###-#### 

Preschedule Assignment ********** (###) ###-#### 

Hydrothermal Modeling ********** (###) ###-#### 

Navigation ********** (###) ###-#### 

Chattanooga:

Daily Scheduling ********** (###) ###-#### 

Environmental Compliance ********** (###) ###-#### 

Gallatin Fossil Plant:

Plant Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

Navigation/Coal Handling ********** (###) ###-#### 

Engineering Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

Cumberland Fossil Plant:

Environmental Specialist ********** (###) ###-#### 

Engineering Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

Plant Operations ********** (###) ###-#### 

National Weather Service

ORFC Service Hydrologist ********** (###) ###-#### 

LMK Service Hydrologist ********** (###) ###-#### 

JKL Service Hydrologist ********** (###) ###-#### 

OHX Service Hydrologist ********** (###) ###-#### 

PAH Service Hydrologist ********** (###) ###-#### 

Power: 

SEPA Hourly Scheduling ********** (###) ###-#### 

SEPA System Operations ********** (###) ###-#### 

SEPA Operations Center ********** (###) ###-#### 

Sherman Cooper Power ********** (###) ###-#### 

Navigation: 

Coast Guard – Paducah ********** (###) ###-#### 

Coast Guard – Nashville ********** (###) ###-#### 

LRL–Chief, Operations ********** (###) ###-#### 

LRL–Chief, Tech Support ********** (###) ###-#### 

LRL-Chief, Maintenance ********** (###) ###-#### 

LRL-L/D 52 Project Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

26
27

LRL-Operations Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

Smithland Lock Master ********** (###) ###-#### 

L&D 52 Lock Master ********** (###) ###-#### 

L&D 53 Lock Master ********** (###) ###-#### 

Water Quality: 

USFWS (Cookeville) ********** (###) ###-#### 

KDOW – Technical Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

KDOW – Water Sampling ********** (###) ###-#### 

KDFWR – Water Quality ********** (###) ###-#### 

TDEC – Technical Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

TDEC – Permits ********** (###) ###-#### 

TWRA – Technical Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

Fish & Wildlife: 

USFWS – Regional Manager ********** (###) ###-#### 

USFWS – WOL Hatchery ********** (###) ###-#### 

USFWS – DAL Hatchery ********** (###) ###-#### 

KDFWR – Fisheries Director ********** (###) ###-#### 

KDFWR – Trout Coordinator ********** (###) ###-#### 

KDFWR – Regional Biologist ********** (###) ###-#### 

TWRA – Fisheries Director ********** (###) ###-#### 

TWRA – Trout Coordinator ********** (###) ###-#### 

TWRA – Regional Biologist ********** (###) ###-#### 

3.3. Decision Making Protocol. The intended purpose of this interim operating plan is 

to identify potential water management conflicts and outline how the Cumberland River 

Basin reservoir system would be operated to best address these issues. It is not 

reasonable to expect, given the inherent uncertainty associated with weather and related 

hydrologic conditions, that specific water control decisions can be made well in advance. 

Rather, this plan will provide LRN Water Management with an approved operational 

guide from which day to day water control decisions can be made. When water becomes 

short and water management actions become particularly contentious it may become 

necessary to elevate certain decisions. This will be done through application of existing 

protocol where established chain of command is followed. The nature of water 

management is that decisions have to be made quickly. There simply isn’t the luxury of 

time in many scenarios. Whenever LRN Water Management recognizes or otherwise is 

made aware of the sensitive nature of certain water control actions they will concurrently 

raise the issue to LRN Senior Staff and LRD Water Management (for coordination with 

LRD Senior Staff) for resolution. LRN Water Management will serve in an advisory, 

information providing role to support the decision making process. Once the decision is 

made LRN Water Management will be tasked with its implementation and subsequent 

tracking and evaluation. 
28

4. References 

Cumberland River Basin Master Water Control Reference Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1990. 

Cumberland River Basin Master Water Control Plan. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Barkley Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Cheatham Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Old Hickory Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Cordell Hull Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin J. Percy Priest Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Center Hill Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Dale Hollow Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Wolf Creek Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Laurel Water Control Manual. U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers Nashville District. Nashville, 1998. 

Cumberland River Basin Drought Contingency Plan. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 Nashville District. Nashville, 1994. 

Memorandum of Understanding (Operating Agreement) Between Corps of Engineers,

 U.S. Army, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Southeastern Power Administration, 

 Department of Energy, With Respect to Operations of the Cumberland System 

 Projects. 1984. 

Amended and Restated Agreement executed by The United States of America

 Department of Energy acting through the Southeastern Power Administration

 and Tennessee Valley Authority and Tennessee Valley Public Power 

 Association. 1997. 
APPENDIX C 

RESPONSES TO NOTICES, 

SCOPING, AND DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT

Center Hill Lake and Dam 

DeKalb County, Tennessee 

-1- 

COORDINATION 

Public and Agency Comments. 

For the last two years the Corps has conducted public meetings, and has meet with federal, state, 

local, public and private agencies regarding the seepage problems at Wolf Creek and Center Hill 

Dams. Websites for these projects were created at that time on the Corps’ website, under “Hot 

Topics” at: http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/. For their situational awareness, the citizens of 

Tennessee and Kentucky were informed of the seepage problems, potential for dam failure, 

emergency action planning, modified pool elevations, repair options and schedule at these projects. 

Several steps had been taken to minimize risk to downstream populations, and these had been 

posted on the Corps’ webpage, which is continuously updated. Interested parties are encouraged 

to visit the website often throughout the 7-10 year repair period. 

For Center Hill Lake, an immediate risk reduction measure was to maintain the pool at the bottom 

of the normal operating curve. This action lowered the summer pool approximately 8 feet to EL 

640, the existing condition. Seepage studies indicate that additional lowering may be required 

during the repair period. As a result, the Corps prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) that evaluated several Center Hill Lake pool elevation alternatives. The Corps’ outreach 

efforts include publications in the Federal Register, mass mailing of a Scoping Letter, circulation of 

the DEIS, and meetings with stakeholders (marina operators and water suppliers) and agencies. 

Comments received to date are summarized in the list below.. Copies of the letters and e-mail 

follow the table. Corps responses also appear on some of the emails, but have been copied into 

this list for the readers’ convenience: 

Page Document 

7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter – February 23, 2007. Notification to be a 

Cooperating Agency. 

Corp Response: Graciously accepts.

8. Federal Register – February 26, 2007. Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for Center Hill Dam and Lake. 

Corps Response: First Publication.

10. Corps letter – April 9, 2007. Corps Scoping Letter soliciting input to alternative Center 

Hill Lake pool elevations. 

Corps Response: First Notification.

13. City of Cookeville, Department of Water Quality Control, Ronnie Kelly, Director, e-mail

– April 26, 2007. Cookeville withdrawals approximately 11 million gallons of water per 

day. Their intake is located in Center Hill Lake. Critical elevations are 609 and 615 for 

year-round withdrawal. During the summer months, water can be withdrawn from an 

alternate intake gate located at elevation 626. Lowering the lake limits withdrawal 

flexibility, limits access to the highest quality of water available and therefore increases 

treatment costs, and decreases pumping efficiency. 

Corps Response: Comments taken under full consideration.
-2- 

14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter – August 3, 2007. Response to the notification of 

intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement. The agency identified potential 

impacts to the Caney Fork and Cumberland Rivers likely center around water quality and 

quantity issues directly related to tailwater discharges. Deviations from normal regulated 

flow patterns and typical temperature and dissolved oxygen regimes could adversely 

impact aquatic resources. The Agency acknowledges the Corps’ detailed and on-going 

water quality monitoring and modeling to identify issues as they develop and predict and 

avoid potential problems before they arise. The Agency requests additional water quality 

monitoring and an assessment of biological integrity (macroinvertebrate and fish) in the 

Caney Fork River tailwater. The Agency also provided instruction in case an emergency 

drawdown. 

Corps Response: The Corps agrees to the requested additional monitoring. A 

preliminary monitoring plan is found in this FEIS, Appendix A - Biological Assessment; 

Section 5 – Potential Conservation Measures. The Corps met with USFWS, TWRA, and 

TDEC on May 3, 2007 during an inter-agency meeting to discuss the intensive water 

quality monitoring that would be conducted by the Corps over the lifetime of the Center 

Hill repairs. The requested USFWS monitoring stations would be incorporated into the 

Corps’ existing monitoring plan.

16. Corps letter – August 30, 2007. Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for a 45-day review closing on October 23, 2007. 

Corps Response: Second Notification

17. Federal Register – September 7, 2007. Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for a 45-day review closing on October 23, 2007. 

Corps Response: Second Publication.

19. Peter Johnson e-mail – September 5, 2007. Mr. Johnson states that he fully understands 

the need to repair Center Hill Dam and recommends Alternative 4, Environmentally 

Preferred (EL 635/623.5). Mr. Johnson hopes residents will have some say in the Corps’ 

decision. 

Corps Response: Comments are appreciated and will be considered in the final decision. 

20. Brenda Tucker e-mail – September 10, 2007. Ms. Tucker wanted to know what areas 

could be affected if the dam breaks. 

Corps Response: Ms. Tucker was referred to her county Emergency Manager to review 

inundation maps for her area. Ms. Tucker was informed that public meetings would be 

planned in potentially affected areas.

21. Sheila Schoenmann e-mail – September 11, 2007. Ms. Schoenmann wanted to know 

what areas could be affected if the dam breaks and how long will people have to leave. 

Corps Response: Ms. Schoenmann was referred to her county Emergency Manager to 

review inundation maps for here area. Ms. Tucker was informed that public meetings 

would be planned in potentially affected areas.

22. City of Smithville, Mayor Taft Hendrixson letter – September 18, 2007. The Mayor 

states that the Smithville’s only intake is located adjacent Center Hill Lake. Elevation 

618 is the minimum elevation that would allow the intake to operate hydraulically, but 

lake elevations below EL 620 could cause pump turbulence which could result in the City 
-3- 

being out of water. In addition, lake elevations below EL 623.5 could result in poor raw 

water quality and treatment difficulties. The Mayor requests that lake be maintained at 

EL 623.5 or higher. 

Corps Response: Comments are appreciated and will be considered in the final decision 

23. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Supply letter

– September 18, 2007. The Division reviewed the DEIS and evaluated the 9 pool 

elevation alternatives. The Division understands the need for dam repairs to minimize the 

risk for dam failure and protect the this water supply source. The Division requested a 

meeting between the State, affected utility districts, and the Corps prior t the selection of 

an alternative so that water systems could make modifications if necessary. 

Corps Response: On October 12, 2007, the Corps meet with the State and utility districts 

to discuss the alternatives. The USFWS was also present. The following topics were 

discussed: status of dam repairs, minimum flows, future installation of an orifice gate, 

past and current lake elevation operations, effects of drought on lake operations, the use 

of spilling, generating, and sluicing, and potential water supply impacts and possible 

actions to minimize intake impacts. The 2006 Seepage Report and the 2007Consensus 

Report by the Peer Review were discussed. The Seepage Report notes significant 

reduction in seepage below EL 635. The Peer Review recommended lake elevations 

between 620 and 630 to significantly reduce risk of dam failure. A decision on the 

selected alternative is expected to be announced in January 2008.

26. Bob Richie e-mail – September 19, 2007. Mr. Richie asked if there was a summary 

report available and if there were a speaker available to talk at his church. 

Corps Response: Mr. Richie was informed that the Corps does not have a shortened 

version of the DEIS. Mr. Richie was informed that public meetings would be planned to 

discuss the status of the project and inundation maps in potentially affected areas. 

27. Mr. Michael Moon e-mail – September 22, 2007. Mr. Moon requested the status of the 

dam and its repairs. 

Corps Response: Mr. Moon was informed that contractor proposals to repair the dam 

are being evaluated. In the meantime, the dam is under continuous surveillance. The 

Corps would use new articles, websites, and public meetings to keep the public informed. 

28. Mr. Alan Sielbeck letter – September 25, 2007. Mr. Sielbeck has evaluated the lake 

elevation alternatives. He has made some tentative plans to reconfigure his boat dock and 

slips in the event the lake is lowered to EL 618. A substantial investment in hardware 

(cables and anchors) would be required. Gasoline, propane, electric, telephone, and 

sanitary sewer lines would have to be relocated. Some boats may not be able to exit the 

marina until the lake level reaches EL 623.5. At EL 618, the marina would be difficult to 

access and operate. The marina is valued in excess of 10 million dollars. Mr. Sielbeck 

recommends the selection of Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred, (EL 635/623.5) 

Corps Response: Comments are appreciated and will be considered in the final decision. 

30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service letter – October 2, 2007. The agency 

notes that activities as proposed would not likely affect the resources of the Daniel Boone 

National Forest. Additional contact with this agency is not necessary. 

31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance letter. – 
-4- 

October 17, 2007. The Agency voiced concerns regarding the potential impact to trout 

should the tailwater warm enough to stress or potentially kill them. The Agency noted 

that the Corps should consider potential mitigative actions to avoid or minimize such 

impacts. The Agency raised concerns for the least tern and gray bats, and noted no 

mitigative actions were recommended in either the DEIS or the BA. 

Corps Response: Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impact to the trout are noted 

in the DEIS in Section 2.4 – Mitigation Measures. These measures including sluicing 

(intermittent releases of cold, turbulent, and well oxygenated water from a special gate at 

the base of the dam) and installation of an orifice gate over the sluice gate to provide 

continuous less turbulent, but still cold, well oxygenated releases. These measure have 

been incorporated into the BA which also cites potential impacts to the gray bat and 

mitigation measures to minimize impact. Mitigation measures were not included in the 

Draft BA. This oversight has been corrected in the Final BA. Comments are appreciated 

and will be considered in the final decision. 

34. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution 

Control letter – October 16, 2006. The Division voiced concerns that lower lake 

elevations may affect water quality and designed uses including fish & aquatic life, 

livestock watering and wildlife, and irrigation. 

Corps Response: The Corps shares the same concerns and have taken steps to minimize 

impacts to water quality and designated uses. The Corps currently maintains contact 

with several representatives of the Division including Mr. Howard. The Corps has had 

several partnering meetings with the Commissioner and Division Directors. The Corps 

will continue to coordinate with the State over the lifetime of the project. Comments are 

appreciated and will be considered in the final decision 

36. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency letter – October 17, 2007. The Agency 

recommends Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred (EL 635/623.5). 

Corps Response: Comments are appreciated and will be considered in the final decision. 

37. U.S. Department of Energy, Southeastern Power Administration letter – October 17, 

2007. The Agency notes that Alternative 5 – Safety and Engineering Preferred (EL 

630/618) will reduce available generation scheduling flexibility and the value of power 

peaking capability. The Agency recommends that the cost of the project should be 

assigned to the Dam Safety program. 

Corps Response: Comments are appreciated and will be considered in the final decision. 

38. Environmental Protection Agency letter – October 23, 2007. The Agency requested 

additional information regarding the following topics: 

Alternatives – Alternative 1 is described as the “normal” operating band, yet Alternative 

3 is considered the “No Action.” Why? Why is Alternative 4 Environmentally Preferred 

and Alternative 5 Safety & Engineering Preferred? 

Corps Response: Alternative 1 represents customary summer and winter pool elevations, 

the “normal” operating band for a “normal” low risk dam. Center Hill Dam has been 

classified as a high risk dam. To reduce the risk of failure, the pool was lowered to 

follow Alternative 3, which is our “without project” alternative (existing condition). The 

without-project situation is that which would prevail without the project (repair the dam). 
-5- 

A comparison of the alternatives is found in the DEIS in Table 3. Alternative 1 and 2 

would support all the resources, but with a severe risk to safety. Alternative 3 still carries 

a severe risk to safety as compared to the remaining alternatives. However, as safety 

increases, impacts to the resources increase. Safety is tied to risk of dam failure. The 

dam has a higher chance of failing with increasing hydraulic pressure as measured by 

increasing seepage (leaking). When seepage increases, the water becomes muddy - an 

indication of piping and soil being washed away. The following two figures represent 

leaking below the dam on the Right Rim (Lower Leak Weir) and Left Rim walls. Both 

show that as the lake elevation rises, the seepage increases. As can be seen in the right 

rim, seepage exceeds the weir and cannot be measured. From a safety point of view 

alone, the lower the lake the better, however, the resources need to considered. 

 

Water Quality/Water Quantity – EPA recommends implementing mitigation measures as 

described in the DEIS Section 2.4. Water supply impacts for EL 618 in Alternative 5 is 

not the same as in 7. There is no discussion of water supply impacts to the water utility 

located below the dam. 

Corps Response: Mitigation measures as described in the DEIS in Section 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 

and 2.4.5, have been implemented, alone or in combination, as needed, for the last four 

years. The orifice gate (Section 2.4.1) has been delayed until 2008. Impacts at EL 618 

for Alternative 5 and 7 will be reviewed. Minimum flow provides water to the 

downstream utility. The utility is contacted when the Corps is sluicing so they can adjust 

water treatment if necessary. 

Mitigation and Monitoring Measures – EPA requests clarification on the mitigation 

measures described in Section 2.4. EPA requests information regarding water quality 

monitoring for the project. Does the Corps have a public outreach plan? 

Corps Response: Clarification for Section 2.4 is noted above. The Corps can send EPA 

profile data electronically, as it does to the Tennessee Division of Water Pollution 

Control. The Corps and TVA have been sending their data for years to the Planning and 

Standards section to be used in 305(b) assessments. Section 5 in the Biological 

Assessment shows additional water quality, macroinvertebrate, and fish monitoring 

requested from USFWS. The Corps website, listed in the DEIS, provides the public with 

detailed information regarding Center Hill. The Corps is part of the Cumberland River 

Compact (CRC) and has produced a report titled, “Water Management Report for the 
-6- 

Cumberland River Basin.” Please visit the CRC website to access this report:

http://www.cumberlandrivercompact.org/programs_wmr.shtml

Preferred Alternative –EPA requests additional inform regarding the degree in change in 

the risk of dam failure for each alternative and identification of distress indicators. 

Corps Response: The Corps will provide EPA with a copy of the Seepage Report. The 

Peer Report listed on the Corps’ website explains risk in detail. Distress indicators are 

explained in the Seepage Report and listed in the DEIS in Section 1.4 – Purpose and 

Need for Action. Comments are appreciated and will be considered in the final decision. 

44. Tennessee Valley Authority letter – October 24, 2007. The Agency recommends 

Alternative 4, Environmentally Preferred (EL 630/623.5). 

Corps Response: Comments are appreciated and will be considered in the final decision. 

45. City of Cookeville, Department of Water Quality Control, Ronnie Kelly, Director, e-mail 

– October 25, 2007. Mr. Kelly recommends the selection of Alternatives 1 – 4 for future 

pool elevations during dam repairs. Any of the other alternatives will require the use of 

the back-up pump. 

Corps Response: Comments are appreciated and will be considered in the final decision. 
-7- 
-8- 
-9- 
-10- 
-11- 
-12- 

Figure 1. Center Hill Dam and Lake Location Map. 
-13- 

From: Ronnie Kelly [mailto:rjk@cookeville-tn.org] 

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 10:37 AM 

To: Repair, CenterHill LRN 

Subject: Scoping Comments on Center Hill Pool Elevation 

April 26, 2007 

Mr. Steven J. Roemhildt, P.E. 

Lieutenant Colonel 

Corps of Engineers 

District Engineer 

Dear Mr. Roemhildt: 

I have reviewed the scoping letter published on April 9, 2007 which seeks comment on the proposed 

operational changes of the pool elevation of Center Hill Reservoir. I would like to offer the following 

comments from the City of Cookeville. 

The City of Cookeville withdraws approximately 11 million gallons of water per day from Center Hill 

Reservoir for processing at our Water Treatment Facility. The treated water is used for drinking, fire, 

and industrial use throughout the region. Cookeville provides potable water to the City of Baxter, City of 

Algood, Cookeville Boat Dock Utility District, Bangham Utility District, Double Springs Utility District, 

O'Connor Utility District, and the Old Gainesboro Grade Utility District. 

Cookeville's water intake is located on Mine Lick Creek. The pump suction is located at elevation 609.5 

while the floor elevation of the intake structure is located at elevation 609. Cookeville has two raw water 

intake gates located on the intake structure. The top of our lower intake gate, which is a 6' x 4', is 

located at elevation 615. The bottom of the upper intake gate is located at an elevation of 626. During 

normal pool operation Cookeville is able to withdraw water from the upper intake gate and/or the lower 

intake gate. This allows Cookeville to evaluate the quality and treatability of the raw lake water at 

different depths and withdraw the highest quality water for treatment. Operating the pool level below 

Cookeville's upper intake gate level would limit Cookeville's ability to withdraw the highest quality water 

for treatment and thus increase the cost of treatment. As the level of the pool is lowered, from its 

normal operational level, our ability to pump water from the lake is decreased. This loss of capacity is 

due to the increase in suction head created on the pumps when the lake pool is lowered. 

If you have any questions concerning my comments please feel free to give me a call @ 931-520-5259.. 

Sincerely, 

Ronnie J. Kelly, Director 

City of Cookeville 

Department of Water Quality Control 

rjk@cookeville-tn.org 

931-520-5259 
-14- 
-15- 
-16- 
-17- 
-18- 
-19- 
-20- 
-21- 
-22- 
-23- 
-24- 
-25- 
-26- 
-27- 
-28- 
-29- 
-30- 
-31- 
-32- 
-33- 
-34- 
-35- 
-36- 
-37- 
-38- 
-39- 
-40- 
-41- 
-42- 
-43- 
-44- 
-45- 
APPENDIX D 

REFERENCES 

Center Hill Lake and Dam 

DeKalb County, Tennessee 

References 

Caughlin, Trevor. 2004. Natural History of the Aquatic Hemiptera. 11pp. 

Drury, D.M., and Kelson, W.E. 2000. Invertebrate Colonization of Woody Debris in 

Coastal Plain Streams. 10pp. 

Glenn Griffith (USEPA), James Omernik (USEPA) and Sandra Azevedo (OAO 

Corporation). 1997. Ecoregions of Tennessee (color poster with map, descriptive text, 

summary tables, and photographs). 

Gary E. Hauser, P.E. (Loginetics, Inc.), Julian, H.E. (Independent Consultants), 

Chapman, G. (Paladin Water Quality Consulting). 2004. Center Hill Tailwater Modeling 

For Minimum Flow Evaluation.

Layzer, J.B., Gordon, M.E., and Anderson R.M. 1993. Mussels: The Forgotten Fauna of 

Regulated Rivers. A Case Study of the Caney Fork River. Regulated Rivers 8: 63 -71. 

Layzer, J.B., and Heinricher, J.R. 1999. Reproduction by Individuals of a Nonreproducing 

Population of Megalonaias nervosa (Mollusca: Unionidae) Following Translocation. 

American Midland Naturalist 141:140-148 

Layzer, J.B.; Adair, B.; Saha, S.; and Woods, L.M. 2003. Glochidial Hosts and Other 

Aspects of the Life History of the Cumberland Pigtoe (Pleurobema gibberum). 

Southeastern Naturalist 2(1):73.84 

National Academy of Public Administration. 2007. Prioritizing America’s Water 

Resources Investments: Budget Reform for Civil Works Construction Projects at the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 297pp. 

http://www.napawash.org/pc_management_studies/Corps_Summary_Report_03-02-07.pdf 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution 

Control. 2003. Caney Fork River Watershed (05130108) of the Cumberland River Basin, 

Water Quality Management Plan. 

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/watershed/wsmplans/caneyfork/

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Water Quality Control 

Board, Division of Water Pollution Control. 2004a. Chapter 1200-4-3 General Water 

Quality Criteria. 30 pp. http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/publications/ 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution 

Control, Amendments. 2004b. Chapter 1200-4-4 Use Classification for Surface Waters. 31 

pp. http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/publications/ 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution 

Control. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Pathogens in the Caney Fork 
Watershed (HUC 05130108) Bledsoe, Cannon, Cumberland, DeKalb, Putnam, Sequatchie, 

Smith, Van Buren, Warren, White and Wilson Counties, Tennessee. 97pp. 

http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/tmdl/approvedtmdl/CaneyForkPathF1.pdf 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution 

Control. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Siltation & Habitat Alteration in 

the Caney Fork Watershed (HUC 05130108) Bledsoe, Cannon, Cumberland, DeKalb, 

Putnam, Sequatchie, Smith, Van Buren, Warren, White and Wilson Counties, Tennessee. 

101 pp. http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/tmdl/approvedtmdl/CaneyForkSedFinal.pdf 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution 

Control. 2006. Final Version, Year 2006, 303(d) List. 178 pp. 

http://state.tn.us/environment/wpc/publications/ 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution 

Control. 2007. Chapter 1200-4-5, Permit Effluent Limitations and Standards. 36 pp. 

http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1200-04/1200-04-05.pdf

Tennessee Valley Authority. 2004. Reservoir Operations Study – Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement. http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/ros_eis/ 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. August 2003. Fisheries Report 03-21, Net Value of 

Trout Fishing Opportunities in Tennessee Tailwaters.

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. December 2003. Management Plan for the Center 

Hill Tailwater Trout Fishery 2004 – 2009.

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2009. Strategic Plan 2006-2012. 187 pp. 

http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2007. Region 3 Fish Report website: 

http://www.state.tn.us/twra/reg3fish.html 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 1990. Cumberland River Basin Master 

Water Control Reference Manual. 166 pp. 

US Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Nashville, Tennessee. June 

1992. Environmental Assessment Center Hill Dam DeKalb County, Tennessee Remedial 

Action Right Abutment and Left Reservoir Rim. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 1994. Cumberland River Basin Drought 

Contingency Plan. 216 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 1998. Cumberland River Basin, Volume 

VIII, Center Hill Water Control Manual. 137 pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers Office of the District Engineer Nashville, Tennessee. 2000. 

Water Quality Restoration Plan, Cumberland River Basin Kentucky and Tennessee. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 2004. TWRA Proposes Fix for Caney 

Fork Water Quality Problem. District Digest. Vol. 104, No. 3 12 pp. 

http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/pao/digestarchives.htm 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 2005. Environmental Assessment, 

Proposed Center Hill Dam Seepage Rehabilitation, DeKalb County, Tennessee. 71 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 2006. Environmental Assessment, 

Proposed Center Hill Dam Seepage Rehabilitation, DeKalb County, Tennessee, 

Supplement 1. 84 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 2006. Sneed named Water 

Conservationist of the Year. The Corps Environment. Vol. 7 No. 3. 16pp. 

https://eko.usace.army.mil/usacecop/pub/ecop/corps_environment/ 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District. 2007. Cumberland River Basin 

Reservoir System Water Management Operating Plan During Interim Pool Restrictions at 

Wolf Creek and Center Hill Dams. 30 pp. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. State and County Quickfacts Website: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47/47041.html 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/redbook.pdf. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures 

for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Chapter 6: Management Measures for 

Hydromodification: Channelization and Channel Modification, Dams, and Streambank and 

Shoreline Erosion. EPA 840-B-92-002. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/Chapter6/index.html

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Ecoregions of Tennessee. 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. National Management Measures to Control 

Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodification. 287pp. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/hydromod/pdf/Hydromod_all_web.pdf 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Economic Effects of Trout Production by National 

Fish Hatcheries in the Southeast.

Walker, Hugh. 1964. When Pearls Grew Big In Tennessee. The Nashville Tennessean 

Magazine, 1 March 1964. 
APPENDIX E 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

Center Hill Lake and Dam 

DeKalb County, Tennessee 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

BOD ...............biological oxygen demand 

CEN................Center Hill Dam 

CEQ................Council On Environmental Quality 

CFR................Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs...................cubic feet per second 

COD ...............chemical oxygen demand 

Corps..............U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CRM...............Cumberland River Mile 

CWA ..............Clean Water Act 

DAL ...............Dale Hollow Dam 

DCP................Drought Contingency Plan 

DEIS...............Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DNA...............Division of Natural Areas 

DO..................Dissolved Oxygen 

DWS...............Division of Water Supply 

EA ..................Environmental Assessment 

EIS..................Environmental Impact Statement 

EL...................elevation mean sea level 

EMS ...............emergency management services 

EOS................Emergency Operations Schedule 

EPA................U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERGO.............Environmental Guide Review for Operations 

ESA................Endangered Species Act 

FEIS ...............Final Environmental Impact Study 

fps...................feet per second 

ft .....................feet 

FONSI............Finding of No Significant Impact 

FWCA............Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

gpm ................Gallons per minute 

HTRW............hazardous, toxic and radiological waste 

HUC ...............Hydrologic Unit Code 

IFIM ...............instream flow incremental methodology 

KFWR............Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 

LRD................Corps’ Great Lakes and Ohio River Division 

mg/L...............milligrams per liter 

MSL ...............mean sea level 

MW ................megawatt 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

NAAQS..........National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NED ...............National Economic Development Plan 

NEPA .............National Environmental Policy Act 

NPDES...........National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS .............U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 

OSHA.............Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PHABSIM......Physical Habitat Simulation System 

PMB ...............Power Marketing Band 

ROD ...............Record of Decision 

SEPA..............South East Power Administration 

TDEC .............Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

TMDL ............Total Maximum Daily Load 

TVA ...............Tennessee Valley Authority 

TWRA............Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

USFWS ..........U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS .............U.S. Geological Survey 

WOL ..............Wolf Creek Dam 

WPC...............Water Pollution Control