DOCSLIB.ORG

Pre-Application Document (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pre-Application Document (PDF) PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT (PAD) MUNICIPAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 1235 Prepared for: The City of Radford Radford, Virginia Prepared by: www.KleinschmidtGroup.com Pittsfield, Maine www.KleinschmidtGroup.com May 2014 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT (PAD) MUNICIPAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 1235 Prepared by: The City of Radford Radford, Virginia Prepared by: www.KleinschmidtGroup.com Pittsfield, Maine www.KleinschmidtGroup.com May 2014 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT (PAD) MUNICIPAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 1235 TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................... VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE [§ 5.6 (D)(1)] ...................................................... 2-1 2.1 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION, INFORMATION GATHERING, AND STUDIES ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 2.2 PROPOSED LOCATION AND DATE FOR JOINT AGENCY MEETING AND FOR THE SITE VISIT [§ 5.8 (B)(3)(VIII)] .............................................................. 2-2 3.0 PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATIONS [§ 5.6 (D)(2)] ................ 3-1 3.1 CONTACT INFORMATION OF EACH PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACT AGENT FOR APPLICANT (EXACT NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER) ...... 3-1 3.2 MAPS OF LAND USE WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARIES (TOWNSHIP, RANGE AND SECTION, STATE, COUNTY, RIVER, RIVER MILE, AND CLOSEST TOWN) AND, IF APPLICABLE, FEDERAL AND TRIBAL LANDS, AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES ....................... 3-3 3.3.1 COMPOSITION, DIMENSIONS, AND CONFIGURATION OF DAMS, SPILLWAYS, PENSTOCKS, POWERHOUSES, TAILRACES, INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................. 3-3 3.3.2 RESERVOIR NORMAL MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE AREA AND ELEVATION AND GROSS STORAGE CAPACITY .......................................... 3-3 3.3.3 NUMBER, TYPE AND CAPACITIES OF TURBINES AND GENERATORS, AND INSTALLED (RATED) CAPACITY OF PROPOSED TURBINES OR GENERATORS ............................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.4 NUMBER, LENGTH, VOLTAGE, AND INTERCONNECTIONS OF ANY PRIMARY TRANSMISSION LINES ................................................................ 3-3 3.3.5 ENERGY PRODUCTION (ESTIMATE OF DEPENDABLE CAPACITY, AVERAGE ANNUAL, AND AVERAGE MONTHLY ENERGY PRODUCTION) ........................................................................................... 3-5 3.4 PROJECT OPERATION, INCLUDING ANY DAILY OR SEASONAL RAMPING RATES, FLUSHING FLOWS, RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AND FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................... 3-5 3.5 DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT LICENSE REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 3-6 3.6 A SUMMARY OF PROJECT GENERATION AND OUTFLOW RECORDS ....................... 3-6 3.7 CURRENT NET INVESTMENT ................................................................................. 3-6 3.8 PROJECT COMPLIANCE HISTORY ........................................................................... 3-6 3.9 PLANS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR REHABILITATION OF THE PROJECT, AND CHANGES IN PROJECT OPERATION ............................................................... 3-7 MAY 2014 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) 3.10 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 3-7 4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE IMPACTS [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(I)] ............ 4-1 4.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL FEATURES, INCLUDING BEDROCK LITHOLOGY, STRATIGRAPHY, STRUCTURAL FEATURES, GLACIAL FEATURES, UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF SOIL TYPES, OCCURRENCE, PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS, ERODABILITY AND POTENTIAL FOR MASS SOIL MOVEMENT, AND SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ............................ 4-2 4.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF RESERVOIR SHORELINES AND STREAMBANKS, INCLUDING STEEPNESS, COMPOSITION (BEDROCK AND UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS), AND VEGETATIVE COVER ........................ 4-5 4.1.4 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS AND ISSUES ............................................. 4-5 4.1.5 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ........................ 4-5 4.1.6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 4-5 4.2 WATER RESOURCES § 5.6 (D)(3)(III) .................................................................... 4-7 4.2.1 DRAINAGE AREA ...................................................................................... 4-7 4.2.2 INFLOWS, OUTFLOWS AND MONTHLY FLOW DURATION CURVES............. 4-7 4.2.3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF PROJECT WATERS ............................. 4-8 4.2.4 RELEVANT FEDERALLY-APPROVED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROJECT WATERS ........................................................... 4-9 4.2.5 PROJECT EFFECTS ON SEASONAL VARIATION OF WATER QUALITY DATA, INCLUDING EXISTING WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY .................................................................................. 4-10 4.2.6 RESERVOIR SURFACE AREA, VOLUME AND SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION ......................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.7 GRADIENT FOR AFFECTED DOWNSTREAM REACHES............................... 4-16 4.2.8 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS AND ISSUES ........................................... 4-17 4.2.9 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ...................... 4-17 4.2.10 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-17 4.3 FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(IV)] ............................................ 4-19 4.3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING FISH AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ......... 4-19 4.3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AS DEFINED UNDER THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT AND ESTABLISHED BY THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ................................................................................. 4-22 4.3.3 TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FISH AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES AND TRENDS ................................................................... 4-22 4.3.4 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS AND ISSUES ........................................... 4-26 4.3.5 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ...................... 4-27 4.3.6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-27 4.4 WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(V)] ................................ 4-30 MAY 2014 - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) 4.4.1 UPLAND HABITAT(S) IN THE PROJECT VICINITY, INCLUDING THE PROJECT'S TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR OR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A LISTING OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES THAT USE THE HABITAT(S) ............................................................................................. 4-30 4.4.2 EXOTIC UPLAND PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES ................................... 4-31 4.4.3 TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR – UPLAND HABITAT ............................. 4-32 4.4.4 TEMPORAL OR SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIALLY, RECREATIONALLY, OR CULTURALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES .................... 4-32 4.4.5 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS AND ISSUES ........................................... 4-32 4.4.6 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ...................... 4-33 4.4.7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-33 4.5 FLOODPLAINS, WETLANDS, RIPARIAN, AND LITTORAL HABITAT [§ 5.6(D)(3)(VI)] .................................................................................................... 4-34 4.5.1 MAP OF WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AND LITTORAL HABITAT ...................... 4-34 4.5.2 A LIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES, INCLUDING INVASIVE SPECIES, THAT USE THE WETLAND, LITTORAL, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT ................................................................................................. 4-37 4.5.3 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS AND ISSUES ........................................... 4-38 4.5.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ...................... 4-38 4.5.5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 4-38 4.6 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES [§ 5.6 (D)(3)(VII)] ............... 4-39 4.6.1 DESCRIPTION OF LISTED RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ................................................................................................. 4-39 4.6.2 IDENTIFICATION OF HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES....................................................................................... 4-44 4.6.3 REFERENCES TO KNOWN BIOLOGICAL OPINION, STATUS REPORTS, OR RECOVERY PLANS PERTAINING TO A LISTED SPECIES ...................... 4-48 4.6.4 EXTENT AND LOCATION OF FEDERALLY-DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT OR OTHER HABITAT FOR LISTED SPECIES IN THE PROJECT AREA
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fries Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Fries Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2883-009 Virginia Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 December 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ v 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER .................................. 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .............................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Need for Power .................................................................................. 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................... 4 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ......................................................... 4 1.4.1 Scoping .............................................................................................. 4
    [Show full text]
  • Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    APPENDIX A. VIRGINIA SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Taxa Common Scientific Name Tier Cons. Opp. Habitat Descriptive Habitat Notes Name Ranking Amphibians Barking Hyla gratiosa II a Forest Forests near or within The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System indicates treefrog shallow wetlands the loss suitable wetlands constitute the greatest threats to this species. DGIF recommends working to maintain or restore forested buffers surrounding occupied wetlands. These needs are consistent with action plan priorities to conserve and restore wetland habitats and associated buffers. Recently discovered populations within its known range, may indicate this species is more abundant than previously believed. An in-depth investigation into its status may warrant delisting. This species will be prioritized as Tier 2a. Amphibians Blue Ridge Desmognathus IV c Forest High elevation seeps, This species' distribution is very limited. Other than limiting dusky orestes streams, wet rock faces, logging activity in the occupied areas, no conservation salamander and riparian forests actions have been identified. Unless other threats or actions are identified, this species will be listed as Tier 4c. Amphibians Blue Ridge Eurycea III a Wetland Mountain streams and The needs of this species are consistent with priorities for two-lined wilderae adjacent riparian areas maintaining and enhancing riparian forests and aquatic salamander with mixed hardwood or habitats. This species will be listed as Tier 3a. spruce-fir forests up to 6000 feet. Amphibians Carpenter Lithobates III a Wetland Freshwater wetlands with The needs of this species are consistent with action plan frog virgatipes sphagnum moss priorities to preserve and restore aquatic and wetland habitats and water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Fauna of New Zealand Website Copy 2010, Fnz.Landcareresearch.Co.Nz
    aua o ew eaa Ko te Aiaga eeke o Aoeaoa IEEAE SYSEMAICS AISOY GOU EESEAIES O ACAE ESEAC ema acae eseac ico Agicuue & Sciece Cee P O o 9 ico ew eaa K Cosy a M-C aiièe acae eseac Mou Ae eseac Cee iae ag 917 Aucka ew eaa EESEAIE O UIESIIES M Emeso eame o Eomoogy & Aima Ecoogy PO o ico Uiesiy ew eaa EESEAIE O MUSEUMS M ama aua Eiome eame Museum o ew eaa e aa ogaewa O o 7 Weigo ew eaa EESEAIE O OESEAS ISIUIOS awece CSIO iisio o Eomoogy GO o 17 Caea Ciy AC 1 Ausaia SEIES EIO AUA O EW EAA M C ua (ecease ue 199 acae eseac Mou Ae eseac Cee iae ag 917 Aucka ew eaa Fauna of New Zealand Ko te Aitanga Pepeke o Aotearoa Number / Nama 38 Naturalised terrestrial Stylommatophora (Mousca Gasooa Gay M ake acae eseac iae ag 317 amio ew eaa 4 Maaaki Whenua Ρ Ε S S ico Caeuy ew eaa 1999 Coyig © acae eseac ew eaa 1999 o a o is wok coee y coyig may e eouce o coie i ay om o y ay meas (gaic eecoic o mecaica icuig oocoyig ecoig aig iomaio eiea sysems o oewise wiou e wie emissio o e uise Caaoguig i uicaio AKE G Μ (Gay Micae 195— auase eesia Syommaooa (Mousca Gasooa / G Μ ake — ico Caeuy Maaaki Weua ess 1999 (aua o ew eaa ISS 111-533 ; o 3 IS -7-93-5 I ie 11 Seies UC 593(931 eae o uIicaio y e seies eio (a comee y eo Cosy usig comue-ase e ocessig ayou scaig a iig a acae eseac M Ae eseac Cee iae ag 917 Aucka ew eaa Māoi summay e y aco uaau Cosuas Weigo uise y Maaaki Weua ess acae eseac O o ico Caeuy Wesie //wwwmwessco/ ie y G i Weigo o coe eoceas eicuaum (ue a eigo oaa (owe (IIusao G M ake oucio o e coou Iaes was ue y e ew eaIa oey oa ue oeies eseac
    [Show full text]
  • Broadband Strategic Plan
    In Association with: September 30, 2016 TRANSMITTAL LETTER Mr. Peter Huber Board of Supervisors Pulaski County Administrator Pulaski County 143 Third Street, NW 143 Third Street, NW Pulaski, Virginia 24301 Pulaski, Virginia 24301 RE: Pulaski County, VA Community Broadband Telecommunications Strategic Planning Project Dear Mr. Huber and Pulaski County Board of Supervisors: Consulting Gateway Corporation (CGC) and Dewberry are pleased to provide the Community Broadband Telecommunications Planning Project study report for Pulaski County, VA. This report provides guidance to meet the established project milestones and expectations of the County while fulfilling the requirements of the Commonwealth of Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative funded through the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) consisting of 1) Analyzing Existing Conditions, 2) Setting Broadband Goals, and 3) Identifying Needed Action to Achieve Goals. After examining the options and roles for the County to consider, it is our recommendation that the County can best meet their stated goal of enhancing and encouraging high speed Internet connectivity throughout the county by partnering with private sector providers in implementing a variety of proposed solutions presented in the report. Such a partnership is intended to use funds in a fiscally responsible manner, take advantage of the typical funding opportunities while minimizing the need for other long term funding. Four (4) options are presented for consideration that are not exclusive of each other and it is believed the most impactful solution may be a combination of some of the solutions presented. Details on these options are outlined in the study report. Last Mile Connectivity Solutions Considerations Information Provided Option No.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Management Plan
    Claytor Project FERC No. 739 Shoreline Management Plan June 13, 2017* * includes revised language from Order Issuing New License dated December 27, 2011and Order Approving Amended Shoreline Management Plan issued January 7, 2014 Appalachian Power Company Claytor Project Shoreline Management Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents ………….………………………………………..………………. i List of Tables …………………………………………………..…………………….ii List of Figures ……………………………………………..………………………....ii Glossary…………………….…………………………..…………………………….iii 1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Purpose and Authority ……………………………………………… 1 1.2 Goals and Objectives ………………………………………………. 2 1.3 Project Area Description …………………………………………… 2 1.4 Consultation …………………………………………………………… 3 2.0 Methods and Planning Process ……………………………………………… 4 2.1 Data Collection 2.1.1 Land Use …………………………….……………………….4 2.1.2 Shoreline Condition and Stabilization …….…………………4 2.1.3 Ecological Resources ……………………………..………….4 2.1.4 Cultural Resources………………………………………..…..6 2.1.5 Bathymetric and Topographical Data… ……………… 7 2.1.6 Public and Private Recreation Facilities…………..………….7 2.1.7 Local, State, and Federal Regulations………………..………7 2.1.8 Recreation Use Density………………………………….…...7 2.1.9 Scenery Assessment……………………………………….…9 2.2 Mapping……………………………………………….………………..9 2.2.1 Mapping Revision Process…………………………..…..…10 2.3 Shoreline Classifications ……………………………………………...10 2.4 Parameters …………………………………………………………..…13 2.5 Regulations………….………………………………………………... 14 2.5.1 High Density Commercial ………………………………... 14 2.5.2 High Density Multi-Use
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Wild and Scenic Rivers
    7. Wild and Scenic Rivers Virginia Wild and Scenic Rivers Designation NEPAassist Maps Distance to Closest Wild and Scenic Rivers Downstream – Bluestone River WV Upstream – New River (So. Fork) NC New River Wild and Scenic River Study Executive Summary of Findings [2009] NEPAssist Map Distance by Direct Route NEPAssist Map Distance by Water Route Nationwide Rivers Inventory Inventory for Virginia NEPAssist Maps Distance to Little River Downstream by Direct Route Downstream by Water Route NEPAssist Maps Distance to Big Reed Island Crk Downstream by Direct Route Downstream by Water Route VA CDBG #15-15 Pulaski Kersey Bottom / Case Knife Road Revitalization Project Environmental Review Record 12/17/2015 Virginia HOME NATIONAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESOURCES PUBLICATIONS CONTACT US KID'S SITE VIRGINIA Virginia has approximately 49,350 miles of river, but no designated wild & scenic rivers. Virginia does not have any designated rivers. Virginia Go Choose A River Go While progress should never come to a halt, there are many places it should never come to at all. — Paul Newman NATIONWIDE RIVERS INVENTORY KID'S SITE CONTACT US PRIVACY NOTICE Q & A SEARCH ENGINE SITE MAP http://www.rivers.gov/virginia.php 1/2 12/17/2015 NEPAssist NEPAssist Measure Find address or place Print Basemap Imagery Measure Draw Erase Identify | Miles 37.705532, ­79.542102 + Measurement Result 39.5 Miles – 0 10 20mi The project area is located approximately 39.5 miles (direct route) from the location where the Bluestone River, a designated Wild and Scenic River in West Virginia, flows into the New River. The project area is located on Peak Creek, which flows into the New River upstream from this point where the Bluestone River flows into the New River.
    [Show full text]
  • Cla Ytor Lake Festival Claytor Lake State
    In the Fall of 2014, FOCL was invited to partner with the local chapter of The U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary to teach a Boater/Water Safety Class at the Hensel Eckman YMCA in Pulaski. Allison Hunter, Director of the “Y”, Sharon Eifred of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and Cheri Strenz from FOCL, developed a plan to introduce Boater and Water Safety to young children. Volunteer instructors from FOCL included, Laura Walters, Larry Bandolin, and Cheri Strenz. For six weeks, second grade students from the elementary schools in Pulaski County attend swim classes at the “Y”. One of these sessions is to teaching what a family should know before going out on a boat for the day. This includes the equipment required for boating, general rules of navigation, and how to identify and select a Coast Guard Approved life jacket. Many of these children have made numerous trips to Claytor Lake and are aware that a life jacket should be worn. Sadly, many did not know that a life jacket is required to be worn by all children 12 and under. They also learned, by trying on various sizes, that a properly fitted Coast Guard Approved lifejacket is essential to providing the proper amount of life saving protection. This critical information about boating and being around the water is important having a fun and safe day at Claytor Lake, or any other body of water. FOCL is looking forward to continued participation in this worthwhile program. This year the Pulaski County Chamber of Commerce awarded its first Non-Profit Award for outstanding work in the community at The Draper Claytor Lake Community Programs Community Lake Claytor Mercantile.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 49 (2) Fall 2019
    American Malacological Society Newsletter Fall 2019 NEWSLETTER OF THE AMERICAN MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY POPULATION MANAGEMENT CENTER, LINCOLN PARK ZOO 2001 NORTH CLARK STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60614, USA VOLUME 49, NO 2. FALL 2019 https://ams.wildapricot.org/ ISSN 1041-5300 terrestrial habitats, and within a short drive to the NEXT M EETING Everglades to the north and Key West to the south. Those interested in the night life can explore Key AMS 2020 IN THE CONCH REPUBLIC West or Miami Beach, and there are numerous state 86TH ANNUAL MEETING and national parks, museums, art galleries and exciting destinations within easy reach. Enjoy the laid-back vibe of the Conch Republic. For those coming by air, flights into Miami International Airport (MIA) will be most convenient, with regular shuttle service from MIA to the Keys. Those driving will come down to I 95 and then south on US 1 to Mile Marker 48. I look forward to seeing you in the Keys next summer! ֍ FARO BLANCO RESORT FLORIDA KEYS, FL JULY 13-17, 2020 OTHER UPCOMING MEETING Submitted by Tim Collins, president AMS AMS 2021 The 86th meeting of the American Malacological CAPE BRETON, CANADA Society (AMS) will take place Monday July 13th – JUNE 14-18, 2021 Friday July 17th at the Faro Blanco Resort in the Submitted by Timothy Rawlings, president-elect AMS middle Florida Keys. The program will include The 2021 AMS meeting will be held in Sydney, Cape symposia, contributed talks and posters, pre or post Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada, from Monday meeting workshops (if proposed), an auction in June 14th – Friday June 18th.
    [Show full text]
  • Dunkard's Bottom: Memories on the Virginia Landscape, 1745 to 1940
    DUNKARD’S BOTTOM: MEMORIES ON THE VIRGINIA LANDSCAPE, 1745 TO 1940 HISTORICAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR SITE 44PU164 AT THE CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PULASKI COUNTY, VIRGINIA FERC PROJECT NO. 739 Prepared for: Prepared by: Appalachian Power Company S&ME, Inc. 40 Franklin Road 134 Suber Road Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Columbia, South Carolina 29210 and and Kleinschmidt Associates, Inc. Harvey Research and Consulting 2 East Main Street 4948 Limehill Drive Strasburg, Pennsylvania 17579 Syracuse, New York 13215 Authors: Heather C. Jones, M.A., and Bruce Harvey, Ph.D. Final Report – July 2012 History of Dunkard’s Bottom Appalachian Power Company Claytor Hydroelectric Project July 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3 DUNKARD‘S BOTTOM ............................................................................................................... 3 The Dunkards ......................................................................................................................................... 4 William Christian ................................................................................................................................. 12 The Cloyd Family
    [Show full text]
  • Pulaski County Serve Pulaski County Unserved Last Mile Broadband - Phase One
    Application to DHCD Submitted through CAMS Pulaski County Serve Pulaski County Unserved Last Mile Broadband - Phase One Application ID: 64508312019091002 Application Status: Pending Program Name: Virginia Telecommunications Initiative 2020 Organization Name: Pulaski County Organization Address: 143 Third St, NW Pulaski, VA 24301-4900 Profile Manager Name: Jared Linkous Profile Manager Phone: (540) 980-7710 Profile Manager Email: [email protected] Project Name: Serve Pulaski County Unserved Last Mile Broadband - Phase One Project Contact Name: Jonathan Sweet Project Contact Phone: (540) 980-7710 Project Contact Email: [email protected] Project Location: 143 Third Street Pulaski, VA 24301-4900 Project Service Area: Pulaski County Total Requested Amount: $612,475.00 Required Annual Audit Status: Pending Review 9/4/2019 1:50:08 PM Pages: 1 of 17 Application to DHCD Submitted through CAMS Pulaski County Serve Pulaski County Unserved Last Mile Broadband - Phase One Budget Information: Cost/Activity Category DHCD Request Other Funding Total Telecommunications $612,475.00 $410,000.00 $1,022,475.00 Construction $342,900.00 $235,600.00 $578,500.00 Construction Related Soft Costs $122,049.00 $80,400.00 $202,449.00 Other: Equipment, Redundancy $147,526.00 $94,000.00 $241,526.00 Total: $612,475.00 $410,000.00 $1,022,475.00 Budget Narrative: The total cost of the last mile broadband shovel ready project is $1,022,475. The project includes network design, engineering, and configuration for a cost of $ 100,000; Network Operations Center
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Appalachian Power Company Claytor Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 739 Debris Management Plan June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………… 1 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 2 1.1 Project Lands and Waters…………………………………………. 2 1.2 Debris Study Objectives and Conclusion………………………… 2 2.0 Debris Management………………………………………………………. 3 2.1 Existing Efforts…………………………………………………… 3 2.2 Beneficial Debris…………………………………………………. 4 3.0 Management Measures…………………………………………………… 4 3.1 Debris Removal………………………………………………….. 4 3.2 Offload/Disposal Sites……………………………………………. 5 3.3 Volunteer Lake Clean-up Efforts………………………………… 5 3.4 Education…………………………………………………………. 5 3.5 Coordination……………………………………………………… 6 3.6 Costs……………………………………………………………… 6 3.7 Schedule………………………………………………………….. 6 4.0 Modifications to Plan…………………………………………………….. 7 5.0 Report ……………………………………………………………………. 7 SUMMARY The Claytor Project (No. 739) is licensed to Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian) and is a conventional hydroelectric project located on the New River in Pulaski County, Virginia. The project boundary for the Claytor Project generally follows the 1850 foot contour around the perimeter of the reservoir. Elevations are referred to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The purpose of this Debris Management Plan is to identify debris removal and control measures within the project boundary for the Claytor Project that maintains the aesthetic values, reduce access difficulties, and reduce boating hazards associated with floating debris while also benefiting
    [Show full text]
  • Creel & Length Limit Table
    CREEL (HARVEST) AND LENGTH LIMITS How to Measure a Fish The tables that follow give statewide creel (harvest) and length limits for major sport fish and -ex ceptions for major rivers and lakes. Regulations for many smaller lakes and boat access areas are posted on site, and posted regulations are in effect (see “OTHER USES” under Department-owned Lakes, Ponds, Streams or Boat Access Sites, page 14). For smaller lakes, information can be found online at: www.virginiawildlife.gov/fishing. Creel limits are per person per day. Total Length CREEL OR LENGTH LIMITS CREEL AND LENGTH LIMIT GEOGRAPHIC EXCEPTIONS FOR EXCEPTIONS Largemouth, Smallmouth Bass LAKES No largemouth or smallmouth bass 16 to 24 Briery Creek Lake inches, only 1 per day longer than 24 inches Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Buggs Island Lake/Kerr Reservoir bass less than 14 inches Claytor Lake No smallmouth less than 14 inches No largemouth bass less than 12 inches; Flannagan Reservoir no smallmouth bass less than 15 inches Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Lake Gaston bass less than 14 inches Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Leesville Reservoir bass less than 14 inches No largemouth or smallmouth bass less Lake Moomaw than 12 inches No largemouth or smallmouth bass less Philpott Reservoir than 12 inches No largemouth or smallmouth bass 12 to Quantico Marine Base waters 15 inches Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Smith Mt. Lake and its tributaries below Niagara Dam bass less than 14 inches South Holston Reservoir No smallmouth less than 15 inches RIVERS No largemouth or smallmouth bass less Clinch River–within the boundaries of Scott, Wise, Russell or Taze- than 20 inches, only 1 per day longer than well counties 5 per day in the aggregate (combined) 20 inches No statewide length limits Dan River and tributaries downstream from the Union Street Dam, Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Danville bass less than 14 inches James River–Confluence of the Jackson and Cowpasture rivers No largemouth or smallmouth bass 14 to 22 (Botetourt Cty) downstream to the 14th St.
    [Show full text]