United States of America
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Appalachian Power Company Project No. 739-022-VA
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(April 8, 2011)
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the Claytor Hydroelectric Project, located on the New River in Pulaski County, Virginia, and prepared a final environmental assessment (EA). In the final EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project and conclude that issuing a license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the Commission’s website at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
For further information, contact Emily Carter at (202) 502-6512.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NEW HYDROPOWER LICENSE
Claytor Project FERC Project No. 739-022 Virginia
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426
April 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES...... iv LIST OF TABLES...... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... viii 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...... 2 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements...... 4 1.3.1 Federal Power Act...... 5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act...... 5 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act...... 6 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act...... 6 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act...... 7 1.4 Public Review and Comment...... 7 1.4.1 Scoping...... 8 1.4.2 Comments on the Application...... 9 1.4.3 Comments on the Draft EA...... 10 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES...... 11 2.1 No-action Alternative...... 11 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities...... 11 2.1.2 Project Safety...... 11 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation...... 12 2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures...... 13 2.1.5 Existing Project Boundary...... 14 2.2 Applicant’s Proposed Action...... 14 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities...... 14 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation...... 14 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures...... 15 2.2.4 Virginia Water Protection Permit...... 20 2.3 Proposed Action with Additional Staff-Recommended Measures...... 25 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study...... 27 2.4.1 Federal Government Takeover...... 27 2.4.2 Non-power License...... 27 2.4.3 Retiring the Project...... 27 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS...... 29 3.1 General Description of the New River Basin...... 29 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis...... 30 3.2.1 Geographic Scope...... 30 3.2.2 Temporal Scope...... 30 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives...... 31
i 3.3.1 Geology and Soils...... 31 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment...... 31 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects...... 38 3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects...... 52 3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...... 53 3.3.2 Water Resources...... 53 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment...... 53 3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects...... 68 3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects...... 78 3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...... 79 3.3.3 Aquatic Resources...... 79 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment...... 79 3.3.3.1 Environmental Effects...... 84 3.3.3.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...... 121 3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources...... 122 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment...... 122 3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects...... 124 3.3.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...... 130 3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species...... 131 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment...... 131 3.3.5.1 Environmental Effects...... 132 3.3.6 Recreation Resources...... 133 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment...... 133 3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects...... 157 3.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...... 181 3.3.7 Land Management and Aesthetics...... 181 3.3.7.1 Affected Environment...... 181 3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects...... 183 3.3.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...... 193 3.3.8 Cultural Resources...... 193 3.3.8.1 Affected Environment...... 193 3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects...... 198 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS...... 203 4.1 Power and Economic Benefits of the Project...... 203 4.2 Comparison of Alternatives...... 205 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative...... 205 4.2.2 Proposed Action...... 206 4.2.3 Staff Alternative...... 206 4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures...... 206 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS...... 214 5.1 Comparison of Alternatives...... 214 5.2 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative...... 219 5.2.1 Recommended Alternative...... 220
ii 5.2.2 Discussion of Key Issues...... 220 5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff...... 235 5.2.4 Conclusion...... 239 5.3 Summary and Consistency with Fish and Wildlife Recommendations.....240 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT...... 249 7.0 LITERATURE CITED...... 250 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS...... 254 APPENDIX A...... A-1 APPENDIX B...... B-1 APPENDIX C...... C-1 APPENDIX D...... D-1
iii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Claytor Project...... 3 Figure 2. Development of “S” shape profile...... 40 Figure 3. Comparison of average river temperature upstream and downstream...... 63 Figure 4. Claytor Lake tailwater continuous temperature and DO...... 65 Figure 5. Tailrace and intake zone average daily temperature...... 71 Figure 6. Tailrace and intake zone average daily DO...... 71 Figure 7. Habitat duration for smallmouth bass juveniles at the Radford stream gage....92 Figure 8. Habitat duration for logperch adults at the Radford stream gage...... 93 Figure 9. Public and commercial recreation facilities at the project...... 135 Figure 10. Project land dedicated to future potential recreation development...... 140 Figure 11. Public access sites on the New River downstream from the project...... 141 Figure 12. Boating density at Claytor Lake...... 149 Figure 13. Acceptable and optimal flow ranges for recreation on the New River...... 169 Figure 14. Typical flows at the USGS Radford Gage...... 170 Figure 15. Time for peaks to reach locations below Radford Gage...... 175
iv LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Claytor Project...... 4 Table 2: Minimum Instream Flow Requirements...... 22 Table 3. Description of project soils...... 32 Table 4. Bank materials along Claytor Lake shoreline...... 34 Table 5. Bank geomorphic characteristics along Claytor Lake shoreline...... 35 Table 6. Effects of lake drawdown on shoreline erosion...... 42 Table 7. Summary of modeled location...... 46 Table 8. Effects of boat wakes on shoreline erosion...... 46 Table 9. Monthly Average, maximum, and minimum flows measured at Allisonia...... 54 Table 10. Monthly average, maximum and minimum monthly flows at Radford...... 55 Table 11. VPDES Permits near the Claytor Project...... 59 Table 12. 2008 Fish Consumption Advisories...... 61 Table 13. Fish species and life stages...... 87 Table 14. Measured calibration flows (cfs) at three flows...... 88 Table 15. Percent of maximum WUA (PMWUA) for selected species...... 90 Table 16. Years selected to represent seasons and water year types...... 91 Table 17. Percent change of WUA values at the Radford stream gage...... 96 Table 18. Percent change of WUA values at the Glen Lyn stream gage...... 97 Table 19. Pertinent reservoir and turbine intake characteristics...... 101 Table 20. Comparison intake velocity data and fish swim speed information...... 102 Table 21. Appalachian Power's proposed monitoring and management plans...... 117 Table 22. Aquatic vegetation identified during field surveys...... 123 Table 23. Summary of recreation site facilities and amenities at the project...... 138 Table 24. New River rapids...... 142 Table 25. Visitation (in recreation days) by recreation site...... 146 Table 26. Distribution of recreation activity among the public and residents...... 147 Table 27. Type and size of boat used and shoreline property owners...... 148 Table 28. Summary of flow and recreation use report...... 151 Table 29. Future recreation activity day use estimates...... 155 Table 30. Proposed recreation facility enhancements...... 157 Table 31. Sites designated for future recreational development...... 162 Table 32. Acceptable and optimal flow ranges by recreation type...... 168 Table 33. Days with available flow for downstream recreation...... 170 Table 34. Summary of benefits to downstream recreation...... 172 Table 35. Shoreline classification...... 185 Table 36. Eligible and potentially eligible historic properties...... 196 Table 37. Staff parameters for economic analysis of the Claytor Project...... 204 Table 38. Annual cost, Power Benefits, and Annaul Net Benefits...... 205 Table 39. Cost of environmental enhancement...... 207 Table 40. Summary of environmental effects of alternatives...... 214 Table 41. Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations...... 241
v vi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AEP American Electric Power Appalachian Power Appalachian Power Company APE area of potential effects CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second Coast Guard U.S. Coast Guard Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPI Consumer Price Index CWA Clean Water Act Draft EA Draft Environmental Analysis DO dissolved oxygen EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ºF degrees Fahrenheit final EA Final Environmental Analysis FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FOCL Friends of Claytor Lake FONR Friends of New River FPA Federal Power Act FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan Interior U.S. Department of the Interior kV kilovolt MGD million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter MW megawatt MWh megawatt-hours National Register National Register of Historic Places NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NERC North American Electric Reliability Council NGO Non-governmental organization NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum PA Programmatic Agreement PAD Pre-Application Document certification Virginia Water Protection Permit Project Claytor Hydroelectric Project SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USGS U.S. Geological Survey
vii VA Archeological Society Archeological Society of Virginia Virginia DCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia DEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia DGIF Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Virginia DHR Virginia Department of Historic Resources Virginia DOT Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia SHPO Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer WUA Weighted usable area
viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Action
On June 29, 2009, Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian Power), a unit of American Electric Power, filed an application for a new license to operate and maintain its 75-megawatt (MW) Claytor Project. The project is located on the New River in Pulaski County in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
Project Description
The Claytor Project is an existing, conventional hydropower project consisting of: a 1,142-foot-long, 137-foot-high concrete gravity dam; a 4,363-acre reservoir with a storage capacity of 225,000 acre-feet at normal pool elevation 1,846.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD); four 16-foot-diameter penstocks; a powerhouse integral with the dam containing four generating units with a combined capacity of 75 MW; a 1,000-foot-long transmission line; and appurtenant facilities. The project has an estimated annual generation of 184,384 megawatt-hours (MWh).
Appalachian Power does not propose any new development pertaining to the hydroelectric facilities.
Project Operation
The project operates as a peaking facility, increasing generation during periods of highest electricity demand. Typically, the project provides peaking power during weekday mornings and evenings, drawing down the impoundment approximately 1 to 2 feet over the course of the week (between elevation 1,846 and 1,844 feet NGVD); generation is then curtailed over the weekend in order to refill the impoundment by Monday morning. During April 15 to October 15, Appalachian Power voluntarily limits peaking in order to provide stable impoundment levels to enhance fish spawning and rearing conditions and constant downstream flows to increase downstream water quality, such that releases over the course of a 24-hour period approximately equal inflow to the project during this time (“levelized flow”) and water levels are maintained within a 1-foot band (between elevation 1,845 and 1,846 feet NGVD). This mode of operation is pursuant to cooperative management agreement with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Virginia DGIF), under which Appalachian Power also voluntarily operates the project to maintain stable reservoir elevations at or above 1,844 feet NGVD from April 15 through June 15 to protect habitat for shallow water spawning fishes. Appalachian Power is required, by the existing license, to provide a minimum average daily flow of 750 cubic feet per second (cfs), though Appalachian Power voluntarily
ix targets a minimum average hourly flow of 750 cfs; when inflow is less than one unit’s discharge, this is accomplished through autocycling.1
In its relicense application, Appalachian Power proposes the following measure to enhance environmental and recreational resources: decrease its peaking period by approximately two months (from October 15 through April 15 to December 1 through March 31); implement ramping; and increase the minimum average hourly flow from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs or inflow, whichever is less. Appalachian Power would continue to maintain reservoir levels between 1,844 and 1,846 feet NGVD during the peaking period.
During the extended, non-peaking period (April 1 through November 30), Appalachian Power proposes to continue to maintain reservoir levels between 1,845 and 1,846 feet NGVD and to continue hourly releases of water that approximate project inflows over the course of a 24-hour period (“levelized flow”). Appalachian Power proposes to continue to provide a minimum average hourly flow of 750 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, downstream from the project through the autocycling of units.
Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a Water Protection Permit (certification)2 on February 8, 2011. The certification conditions are similar to the operating schedule proposed by Appalachian Power, except that from February 1st through March 31st, the minimum average hourly flow is increased from 1,000 cfs to 1,200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less.
Proposed Environmental Measures
In addition to its proposed operational changes, Appalachian Power proposes to eliminate annual wintertime drawdowns in order to protect state-listed mussel species and to finalize and implement the following management plans: (1) an Erosion Monitoring Plan to monitor and assess erosion at the project and develop a shoreline stabilization demonstration project; (2) a Sedimentation Monitoring Plan to monitor and assess sedimentation in areas of concern; (3) a Water Management Plan that includes the operational provisions described above, as well as flows for recreation, and provisions for variances, emergencies, flood control, monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management; (4) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan to monitor and assess dissolved oxygen (DO) and 1 If the required flow release is less than what one unit can discharge (2,000 cfs, on average), a unit is run in autocycle, meaning that the unit will use a higher flow to generate for a portion of 1 hour to provide the required flow. For example, to release an average hourly flow of 750 cfs, the unit would operate 23 minutes every hour.
2 While Virginia DEQ refers to the authorization issued pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act as a Water Protection Permit, it is Commission practice to refer to a section 401 authorization as a “water quality certification” or “certification.”
x temperature at the project and implement dissolved oxygen enhancement measures; (5) a Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan to monitor and assess mussel populations downstream from the project; (6) an Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan to monitor and control non-native, invasive vegetation at the project; (7) a Habitat Management Plan to protect and enhance valuable shoreline and riparian habitat at the project; (8) a Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan to protect this federally listed species; (9) a Recreation Management Plan to provide enhancements at existing recreation sites and to explore potential improvements to meet future demand; (10) a Debris Management Plan to control natural and man-made debris on Claytor Lake; (11) an Aids to Navigation Management Plan to mark marine features; (12) a Shoreline Management Plan to guide land use and protect environmental resources along the project shoreline; and (13) a Historic Properties Management Plan to protect cultural sites located at the project.
Alternatives Considered
This final environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the effects of continued project operation and recommends conditions for any new license that may be issued for the project. In addition to Appalachian Power’s proposal, we consider two alternatives: (1) the proposed action with additional staff-recommended measures (staff alternative); and (2) a no-action alternative.
Public Involvement and Areas of Concern
Prior to filing its license application with the Commission, Appalachian Power conducted a pre-filing consultation process in accordance with the Commission’s integrated licensing process. As part of the pre-filing process, staff conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. Staff distributed a scoping document to stakeholders and other interested entities on March 7, 2006. Scoping meetings were held in Dublin and Pulaski, Virginia on April 5 and 6, 2006, respectively.
On February 2, 2009, Appalachian Power filed its preliminary licensing proposal, which addressed issues raised by participating agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, and the public. Appalachian Power filed its license application on June 29, 2009. On September 30, 2009, staff requested comments, recommendations, and terms and conditions, in response to a notice that the relicense application was ready for environmental analysis. Staff issued a draft EA for the Claytor Project on August 13, 2010, with a September 13, 2010 deadline for filing comments.
The primary issues associated with relicensing this project are: (1) water management (e.g., lake levels and downstream flows); (2) erosion and sedimentation within Claytor Lake and downstream in the New River; (3) the project’s effect on the federally listed endangered Virginia fringed mountain snail; (4) the project’s effect on littoral zone habitat including state-listed mussel species; (5) controlling invasive aquatic
xi vegetation; (6) recreational access and shoreline structures; and (7) managing navigation aids and floating debris within the lake.
Staff Alternative
The staff alternative includes Appalachian Power’s proposed management plans with the modifications noted below, as well as the certification conditions.
Geology and Soils – Under Appalachian Power’s proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan, a demonstration project would stabilize a portion of the project’s shoreline and serve as an example that could lead to similar projects being implemented along the lake shoreline, cumulatively improving the lake and shoreline environment. Under this plan, as well as the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, monitoring and reporting would provide a mechanism for Appalachian Power, the Commission, and a technical committee to assess erosion and sedimentation and determine if any additional measures are needed to address project effects.
Staff’s modifications to the proposed Erosion and Sedimentation Monitoring Plans include: (1) using quantitative method(s) for monitoring erosion in the New River downstream from Claytor dam in order to enhance comparisons of the effects of erosion over time; (2) monitoring areas of sediment deposition in the New River downstream from Claytor dam to ensure that downstream effects are considered; and (3) providing a description of the types of actions Appalachian Power might implement to manage sedimentation (e.g., restricting shoreline use) and what conditions would trigger such actions.
Water Resources – Under Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Management Plan, and with the certification conditions, operating with minimum average hourly flows and limited reservoir fluctuations would provide more continuous flow downstream of the project while protecting aquatic and riparian habitat in the reservoir. During the peaking season, ramping would prevent fish and boat stranding and additional flow releases would enhance downstream aquatic habitat. Increased flows during weekends in August, September, and October would benefit tubing, scenic floating, and float-and powerboat-based fishing, while the increased minimum flow during peaking operation would benefit float- and powerboat-based boating (angling and hunting) and scenic floating. The proposed annual whitewater release would support the annual squirt boating competition. Publishing flow release schedules, with 24-hours’ notice, would benefit recreation users who seek a specific range of flows.
Discontinuing the annual reservoir drawdown for maintaining shoreline structures and erosion control materials would benefit mussels but negatively affect shoreline property owners that rely on this drawdown to perform dock maintenance and erosion control activities.
xii Staff modifications to Appalachian Power’s proposal include: (1) developing and implementing a reservoir drawdown plan to offset the lack of an annual drawdown for shoreline property owners to perform dock maintenance and erosion control activities: (2) a minimum of two additional whitewater releases each year to accommodate whitewater boating events and activities; and (3) including, on the Appalachian Power webpage, additional tools to help recreation users understand the seasonal flow regime and to predict when and where flow releases would be available.
Under Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan, using a deicing bubbler system would enhance DO levels discharged from the Claytor Project, while monitoring and reporting requirements would provide a mechanism for Appalachian Power, the Commission, and a technical committee to continue to assess project effects to downstream DO levels.
Staff modifications to the proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan, include: (1) continuous monitoring of inflow DO at the Allisonia USGS gage from March 1 to November 1 to identify any project-related low DO problems; (2) a study on the impacts of any proposed DO enhancement measures on fish and water quality; (3) a provision for developing alternative mitigation measures to address low DO in project outflows should an applied mitigation measure fail to resolve low tailrace DO within 120 days of the conclusion of an effectiveness demonstration study; and (4) continuous DO and temperature monitoring at five locations downstream of Claytor dam to the Route 11 bridge.
Aquatic Resources – Under Appalachian Power’s Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan, long-term monitoring of mussel species richness, abundance, growth and recruitment, paired with temperature and DO monitoring, would provide better information about how project operations under the new license might be impacting freshwater mussels. This information would help to inform Water Management Plan and Water Quality Monitoring Plan reviews regarding the need to mitigate any project- related effects (i.e., changes in DO or temperature) on the downstream mussel population.
Appalachian Power’s proposed Aquatic Habitat Management Plan would help control and prevent the spread of non-native invasive species in Claytor Lake, benefiting aquatic habitat.
Terrestrial Resources – Under Appalachian Power’s proposed Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan, the federally endangered Virginia fringed mountain snail, and its habitat, at the project would be protected from shoreline development. The proposed Habitat Management Plan, in combination with the proposed Shoreline Management Plan, would protect and enhance bald eagle and riparian habitat at the project by prohibiting shoreline development in sensitive areas and by requiring that riparian
xiii vegetation enhancement and protection measures be implemented during and after and permitted shoreline development in non-sensitive areas.
Recreation – Under Appalachian Power’s proposed Recreation Management Plan, improvements to the Allisonia boat launch, the New River Access, and the Appalachian Power Picnic Area, and installation of new portage facilities around Claytor dam, would improve access to recreation opportunities at the project. The monitoring and reporting requirements would provide a mechanism for continuing to assess recreational use and the adequacy of existing facilities to meet demand
Staff’s modification to the proposed Recreation Management Plan includes an updated schedule for completing consultation on portage facility siting and providing the proposed improvements, as well as a maintenance schedule, and would provide clarity regarding the plan’s requirements.
Under Appalachian Power’s proposed Aids to Navigation Management Plan, a navigational marker system would contribute to boating safety on the lake, as well as overall safety associated with recreational use of project waters.
Under Appalachian Power’s proposed Debris Management Plan, regular debris removal would provide for boater safety and access, while debris that benefits aquatic species and is located outside of the navigational channel would remain in place.
Land Use and Aesthetics – The proposed Shoreline Management Plan includes measures to protect shoreline vegetation, habitat, aesthetics, and cultural resources by placing certain restrictions on development activities along the lake’s shoreline. These measures would have positive benefits on multiple resources over time. Dock size limitations and shoreline stabilization recommendations, however, would limit some land- and dock-owner activities.
Staff’s modification to the proposed Shoreline Management Plan would require Appalachian Power to provide a justification for the dock size and shoreline stabilization specifications, in order to inform any future variance procedures (e.g. when a resident seeks a permit from Appalachian Power for a nonconforming structure). This would benefit applicants requesting nonconforming structures when those structures would not have negative impacts on other resources.
Cultural Resources – The proposed Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) includes provisions for consultation with the SHPO with regards to a site that is currently being eroded, which could lead to protection of this site. The plan identifies two eligible and two potentially eligible historic properties which would be protected from development via land classification designations in the proposed Shoreline
xiv Management Plan. The plan also includes protocols that would protect any newly discovered cultural sites.
Staff’s modification to the proposed HPMP would require Appalachian Power to complete consultation with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and determine what measures it would implement to address the effects of erosion on the eligible site. Staff also recommends modifications to the HPMP based on comments received by the SHPO, which include the incorporation of language that requires Appalachian Power to notify the SHPO, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians in the event of discovery of human remains. Staff intends to execute a Programmatic Agreement with the Virginia SHPO, which would require implementation of a revised HPMP.
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, environmental conditions at the project site would remain the same, with a gradual decrease in the suitability of recreational facilities to meet demand as population increases.
Conclusions
Based on our analysis, we recommend the staff alternative, which is licensing the project as proposed by Appalachian Power with staff modifications.
In section 4.0, Developmental Analysis, we estimate the likely cost of alternative power for each of the alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows that during the first year of operation under the Applicant’s proposed action alternative, project power would cost $6,825,000 [$36.70 /Megawatts per hour (MWh)] less than the likely alternative cost of power. Under the staff alternative, project power would cost $6,800,000 ($36.65 /MWh) less than the likely alternative cost of power. There are no costs associated with the no-action alternative other than Appalachian Power’s cost to prepare the license application.
We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because under this alternative: (1) the project would continue to provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region (184,384 MWh annually); (2) the project could save an equivalent amount of fossil-fueled generation and capacity, which may help conserve non-renewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and (3) the recommended environmental measures proposed by Appalachian Power, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the project. Based on staff’s analysis, the overall benefits of the staff alternative would be worth the cost of the proposed and recommended environmental measures.
xv On the basis of our independent analysis, we conclude that issuing a license for the project with the staff-recommended environmental measures would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
xvi 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1Application
On June 29, 2009, Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian Power), a unit of American Electric Power, filed an application for a new license to operate and maintain the 75-megawatt (MW) Claytor Project. The project is located on the New River in Pulaski County in the Commonwealth of Virginia (figure 1). The project generates an average of about 184,384 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually. Appalachian Power proposes no new capacity and no new construction. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
1.2Purpose of Action and Need for Power
1.2.1 Purpose of Action
The purpose of the Claytor Hydroelectric Project (Project) is to continue to provide a source of hydroelectric power. Therefore, under the provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission must decide whether to issue a license to Appalachian Power for the Claytor Project and what conditions should be placed on any license issued. In deciding whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (such as flood control, irrigation, or water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of: (1) energy conservation; (2) the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources; (3) the protection of recreational opportunities; and (4) the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
In this final environmental assessment (EA), we assess the effects of: (a) continued project operation as proposed in the application (proposed action); (b) alternatives to the proposed action; and (c) no action. We also make recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue a new license, and if so, what conditions should be included in any new license issued. The primary issues associated with relicensing this project are: (1) water management (e.g., lake levels and downstream flows); (2) erosion and sedimentation within Claytor Lake and downstream in the New River; (3) the project’s effect on the federally listed endangered Virginia fringed mountain snail; (4) the project’s effect on littoral zone habitat including state-listed mussel species; (5) controlling invasive aquatic vegetation; (6) recreational access and shoreline structures; and (7) managing navigation aids and debris within the lake.
1 Issuing a new license for the Claytor Project would allow Appalachian Power to continue to generate electricity at the project, making electric power from a renewable resource available to its customers.
1.2.2 Need for Power
The Claytor Project would provide hydroelectric generation to meet part of the region’s power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity needs. The project would have an installed capacity of 75.0 MW and generate 184,384 MWh annually. The project provides an average dependable capacity of approximately 75.0 MW. The power generated is used by Appalachian Power to help meet the demand of its customers.
The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) annually forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 10-year period. The project is located in the Reliability First Corporation (RFC) region of the NERC. RFC began operations on January 1, 2006, as the successor to three other NERC regional organizations. According to NERC’s 2009 forecast (NERC, 2009), during the summer season, which is the most critical electric generation season for the RFC region, the capacity demand will average an annual increase of 1.90 percent from 2009 through 2018.
The Claytor Project is a low-cost, clean, renewable source of generation, which displaces non-renewable fossil-fueled generation. In addition, the project provides power that contributes to a diverse generation portfolio in order to help meet the power needs of the area. Displacing the operation of fossil-fueled facilities may avoid some power plant emissions that would create an environmental benefit. Loss of all, or part of, the project’s capacity or generation would need to be replaced to prevent problems with system reliability. We conclude that power from the Claytor Project would help meet a need for power in the RFC region in both the short and long term.
2 Figure 1. Location of the Claytor Project. See application figure 1-1 on the Commission’s eLibrary to view a map in color. (Source: staff).
3 1.3Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A license for the project is subject to the requirements of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable statutes. The major regulatory and statutory requirements are summarized in table 1 and described below.
Table 1. Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Claytor Project. (Source: staff). Requirement Agency Status Section 18 of the FPA U.S. Department of Interior has neither prescribed fish (fishway prescriptions) the Interior (Interior) passage nor requested reservation of authority to prescribe fish passage.
Section 10(j) of the FPA Virginia Department Virginia DGIF provided 17 of Game and Inland section 10(j) recommendations on Fisheries (Virginia) November 24, 2009. DGIF)
Clean Water Act Virginia DEQ The Virginia DEQ received an application for water quality certification from Appalachian Power on March 29, 2010.3 Water quality certification was issued February 8, 2011.
Endangered Species Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife We requested concurrence from the Consultation Service (FWS) FWS on our “not likely to adversely effect” determination on listed species. On March 3, 2011, FWS filed a letter concurring with our conclusions in the EA.
Coastal Zone Virginia DEQ Coastal zone certification is not Management Act required by Virginia, as confirmed Consistency via email filed March 12, 2010.
National Historic Virginia State Historic A Programmatic Agreement is to be
3 The Virginia DEQ received an application for water quality certification on June 29, 2009; on March 29, 2010, Appalachian Power withdrew and simultaneously reapplied.
4 Requirement Agency Status Preservation Act Preservation Officer executed between the Commission (SHPO) and the Virginia SHPO.
1.3.1 Federal Power Act
Section 18 – Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission shall require the construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce. Neither Commerce nor Interior provided a fishway prescription, or a reservation of authority to prescribe fishways, under section 18 of the FPA.
Section 10(j) – Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these conditions, unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.
On November 24, 2009, the Virginia DGIF timely filed 17 recommendations under section 10(j). Commission staff held a 10(j) teleconference with Virginia DGIF on November 8, 2010, in an attempt to resolve the preliminary inconsistencies. We summarize the recommendations in table 41, analyze them in the appropriate resource sections in section 3, Environmental Analysis, and present our conclusions in section 5.2, Recommended Alternative. We also discuss and address the agency recommendations in section 5.3, Summary and Consistency with Fish and Wildlife Recommendations [10(j) Recommendations].
1.3.2 Clean Water Act
Under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant must obtain either certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying that any discharge from a project would comply with applicable provisions of the CWA, or a waiver of certification by the appropriate state agency.
On June 26, 2009, Appalachian Power applied to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Virginia DEQ) for a 401 water quality certification (certification) for the project. The Virginia DEQ received Appalachian Power’s request for certification on June 29, 2009. By letter dated March 29, 2010 (and filed April 22, 2010),
5 Appalachian Power withdrew and reapplied for certification. The Virginia DEQ timely issued a Water Protection Permit (certification) on February 8, 2011 and Appalachian Power filed the certification with the Commission on February 14, 2011.4 The conditions of the certification are described under section 2.2.4, Modifications to Applicant’s Proposed Action, Mandatory Conditions.
1.3.3 Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. Our analysis of project effects on the Virginia fringed mountain snail is presented in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. Our recommendations for species protection measures are found in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.
This final EA contains the information required for a biological assessment (BA) to evaluate potential effects of relicensing the project on the Virginia fringed mountain snail and serves as the requisite consultation document. Based on our analysis in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species, we conclude that relicensing the project, as proposed, is not likely to adversely affect Virginia fringed mountain snail. On December 12, 2010, we issued a letter seeking concurrence from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on this determination, indicating that the draft EA would serve as our biological assessment of the proposed action on the listed species. On March 3, 2011, FWS filed a letter concurring with our determination.
1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, requires review of the project’s consistency with a state’s Coastal Management Program (Coastal Program) for projects within or affecting the coastal zone. Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA, 16 U.S.C. § 1456(3)(A), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state’s coastal zone unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant’s certification of consistency with the state’s Coastal Program, or the agency’s concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant’s certification. The Virginia DEQ is responsible for reviewing projects for consistency within Virginia’s Coastal Program.
4 While Virginia DEQ refers to the permit issued pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act as a Water Protection Permit, it is Commission practice to refer to a section 401 permit as a “water quality certification” or “certification.”
6 The Claytor Project is located at approximate river mile 252 on the New River in Virginia. The New River, which originates in North Carolina at the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork New River, flows northward 320 miles through Virginia and West Virginia. The New River eventually joins the Gauley River, together forming the Kanawha River. The Kanawha River empties into the Ohio River, a Gulf of Mexico drainage basin. The project is not located within Virginia’s designated coastal zone, which extends as far inland as 100 miles on four tidal rivers (i.e., Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James). Moreover, the project would not affect Virginia’s coastal resources. Therefore, the project is not subject to Virginia coastal zone program review and no consistency certification is needed. Virginia DEQ concurred (email from Brenda Winn, Virginia DEQ to John Smith, FERC filed March 12, 2010).
1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to “take into account” how its undertakings could affect historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).
To meet the requirements of section 106, the Commission intends to execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the protection of historic properties from the effects of continued operation of the Claytor Project. The terms of the PA, a draft of which was issued December 1, 2010, would ensure that Appalachian Power addresses and treats all historic properties identified within the project’s area of potential effect (APE) through implementation of a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).
1.4Public Review and Comment
The Commission’s regulations (18 CFR, sections 5-1 to 5.16) require that applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other entities before filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the ESA, the NHPA, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the Commission’s regulations.
In August 2005, Appalachian Power initiated consultation with federal and state agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the public, with a public meeting being held on August 30, 2005.5 The purposes of the public meeting were
5 The entities contacted during the information gathering process are identified in volume II of the pre-application document (Appalachian Power, 2006).
7 to discuss the project generally and to begin identifying issues important to the stakeholders.
Between August 2005 and June 2009, Appalachian Power hosted over 30 stakeholder meetings, work-group meetings, and site visits to discuss resource issues, as well as develop its study plan, study reports, and the Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP). The resource management plans and other measures proposed by Appalachian Power are the result of the meetings and studies.
1.4.1 Scoping
During the pre-filing consultation process, scoping meetings were held to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed in the EA. Scoping Document 1 (SD1) was issued on March 7, 2006. Two scoping meetings were held in Dublin and Pulaski, Virginia on April 5 and 6, 2006, respectively, to request comments on the project. A court reporter recorded all comments and statements made at the scoping meetings, and these are part of the Commission’s public record for the project. Participants visited the project on April 5, 2006.
In addition to comments provided at the scoping meetings, the following entities provided written comments pertaining to SD1, the PAD, and additional study needs:
Commenting Entity Date Filed
Virginia DEQ April 7, 2006 May 3, 2006 Virginia Department of Historic Resources (SHPO) April 19, 2006 County of Pulaski, Virginia April 24, 2006 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation May 2, 2006 (Virginia DCR) Friends of the New River May 4, 2006 (2 filings) May 5, 2006 (2 filings) Virginia DGIF May 4, 2006 (3 filings) Friends of Claytor Lake, Inc. May 5, 2006 Laura Bullard May 5, 2006 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers May 5, 2006 (2 filings) Lawrence Bandolin May 8, 2006 New River Land Trust May 8, 2006 Mary Rhoades May 9, 2006 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians May 22, 2006
A revised scoping document, addressing these comments, was issued on June 15, 2006.
8 1.4.2 Comments on the Application
On September 30, 2009, the Commission issued a public notice accepting the application and soliciting motions to intervene, and requesting comments, final recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions. The filing deadline was November 30, 2009. The following entities filed comments and recommendations:
Commenting Agencies and Other Entities Date Filed
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians October 28, 2009 Charles P. Shorter November 5, 2009 Shepard M. Zedaker November 12, 2009 Virginia DEQ November 12, 2009 Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District November 19, 2009 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources November 19, 2009 Robert A. Strenz November 19, 2009 and July 27, 2010 Cheri Strenz November 19, 2009 Interior November 23, 2009 Larry N. Killough November 24, 2009 David and Susan Dobyns November 24, 2009 Alan W. Graybeal November 24, 2009 Virginia DGIF November 24, 2009 Thomas A. Warden, III November 25, 2009 FOCL November 25, 2009 Laura Walters November 30, 2009 Eric Rorrer November 30, 2009 Laura Bullard November 30, 2009 FONR November 30, 2009 Mark F. Williams November 30, 2009 James and Nancy Blair November 30, 2009 Travis J. Tysinger December 1, 2009
No motions to intervene were filed. Appalachian Power filed reply comments on January 8, 2010. We consider these comments herein.
9 1.4.3 Comments on the Draft EA
On August 12, 2010, we issued a draft EA for the Claytor Project. Comments on the draft EA were due by September 13, 2010.6 In Appendix D, we summarize the comments received; provide responses to those comments; and indicate, where appropriate, how we have modified the text of the final EA.
Written comments on the draft EA were filed by the following entities:
Commenting Entity Date Filed
Bill Fintel August 18, 2010 Johnny Garrett August 25, 2010 Jan Woodward September 2, 2010 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries September 9, 2010 Sara Metcalfe September 9, 2010 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality September 9, 2010 Richard Roth September 10, 2010 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality September 10, 2010 Appalachian Power September 10, 2010 Cheri Strenz September 13, 2010 Stacy Moran September 13, 2010 Cheri Strenz September 13, 2010 (3 filings) and October 25, 2010 Friends of Claytor Lake September 13, 2010, September 20, 2010, October 29, 2010, and November 23, 2010 Robert Strenz September 13, 2010 (3 filings) and October 26, 2010 Wayne Carlson September 13, 2010 Martha Harvey September 13, 2010 Jeff Arnold September 13, 2010 Laura Walters September 13, 2010 John Waugh September 13, 2010
6 Because September 11, 2010, was a Saturday, under the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, comments were due the next business day or Monday, September 13, 2010.
10 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality September 13, 2010 Pulaski County Board of Supervisors September 14, 2010 James Gibson September 14, 2010 Merri Beth Gibson September 14, 2010 David Dobyns September 14, 2010 Robert Strenz September 14, 2010 Cheri Strenz September 14, 2010 Lawrence Bandolin September 15, 2010 Virginia SHPO January 11, 2011
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1No-action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. We use this alternative as the baseline environmental condition for comparison with other alternatives.
2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities
The Claytor Project is located on the New River at river mile 252 about 3 miles upstream from the City of Radford, Virginia.
The project consists of: (1) a 1,142-foot-long, 137-foot-high concrete gravity dam; (2) a 4,363-acre reservoir with a storage capacity of 225,000 acre-feet at normal pool elevation 1,846.0 feet NGVD; (3) four 16-foot-diameter penstocks; (4) a powerhouse integral with the dam containing four generating units with a combined capacity of 75 MW; (5) a 1,000-foot-long transmission line; and (6) switching and appurtenant equipment (figure 2).
2.1.2 Project Safety
The project has been operating for more than 29 years under the existing license.7 During this time, Commission staff has conducted operational inspections focusing on the continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper maintenance. In addition, the Claytor Project has been inspected and evaluated every 7 The Commission issued a new license to Appalachian Power on August 20, 1980, with an effective date of July 1, 1981. 12 FERC ¶62,119 (1980).
11 5 years by an independent consultant and a consultant’s safety report has been submitted for Commission review. As part of the relicensing process, Commission staff will evaluate the continued adequacy of the proposed project facilities under a new license. Special articles would be included in any new license issued, as appropriate. Commission staff will continue to inspect the project during the new license term to assure adherence to Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license articles relating to construction (if any), operation and maintenance, and accepted engineering practices and procedures.
2.1.3 Existing Project Operation
The Claytor Project is operated as a peaking facility. During periods of peaking operation, the available water is used to generate as much power on-peak as possible, generally during the day on weekdays. The project can generate with flows up to a maximum of 10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow capacity is not normally utilized except during periods of high river flow when water would otherwise be spilled, or as needed to temporarily offset or balance system load. Normal operating flow releases from the project range from a flow of about 750 cfs to 8,000 cfs. When inflows are above the station capacity of 10,000 cfs and the reservoir is full, excess flows are spilled through the spillway gates.
The Claytor Project is operated on a weekly cycle. Typically, the project is operated so the impoundment is full on Monday morning and is drawn down approximately 1 to 2 feet over the course of the week (between elevation 1,846 and 1,844 feet NGVD), and then refilled over the weekend when generation is curtailed. As a result of the weekly cycle and peaking operations, daily fluctuations in the reservoir are typically less than 1 foot, and weekly fluctuations are typically 2 feet.
During the period April 15 to October 15, Appalachian Power voluntarily operates the project in a “levelized flow mode” to benefit downstream recreation.1 In this mode, peaking operations are more limited, and the elevation is maintained between 1,845 and 1,846 feet NGVD. Levelized operation may be suspended upon power system emergencies or in anticipation of heavy inflow due to forecasted rain events. The Claytor Project is not a flood control project; however, the reservoir is routinely lowered in anticipation of heavy inflow in order to retain water and release it downstream over a period of time. If a significant increased inflow is expected, the reservoir may be lowered to 1,841 feet NGVD.
1 Levelized flow is defined as releasing equal amounts of water over the course of a 24-hour period so that outflow of the project approximately equals inflow to the project.
12 In previous years, Claytor Lake was drawn down 5 to 6 feet in the late fall or winter to allow for maintenance and/or repair of docks, bulkheads, and boat ramps. The reservoir was typically held at this level for about 2 weeks before it was refilled.
The Claytor Project is operated to provide a minimum average daily flow of 750 cfs. This minimum flow is provided when inflow to the reservoir is greater than 750 cfs. Under extreme low flow conditions when inflow to the reservoir is less than 750 cfs for an extended period, the discharge may be decreased after consultation with and concurrence from Virginia DGIF.
Turbine operation at the Claytor Project can be monitored and controlled locally from the plant’s computer or remotely from the dispatch center located at American Electric Power’s corporate headquarters in Columbus, Ohio. The turbines also can be started remotely. Operation of the nine spillway gates can only be manually initiated and controlled locally at the gates by plant personnel. When the reservoir is full, river flow in excess of the turbine capacity is discharged through the spillway gates.
2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures
The existing water quality certification, issued on July 16, 1979, requires the release of the 7Q10 flow,8 or inflow, whichever is less, from the Claytor Project to the New River downstream of the dam.
Under a cooperative management agreement with Virginia DGIF, Appalachian Power currently voluntarily operates the project to maintain stable reservoir elevations at or above 1,844 feet NGVD from April 15 through June 15 to protect spawning habitat for shallow water spawning fishes. In addition, Appalachian Power coordinates with Virginia DGIF the fall/winter drawdown of the impoundment for residential boat dock repair and maintenance to ensure that it is conducted at a time and for a duration that would minimize effects on aquatic resources and recreation.
Appalachian Power’s shoreline management guidelines prohibit dredging between March 15 and June 30 of each year to protect spawning fish.
Appalachian Power voluntarily operates the project during the recreation season (April 15 to October 15) to maintain more constant downstream flows to enhance downstream recreational opportunities. Appalachian Power provides releases in support of the annual squirt boat competition that is held each year downstream of the project.
8 The lowest streamflow for 7 consecutive days that occurs on average once every 10 years. The 7Q10 at the U.S. Geological Survey’s gauge at Allisonia, Virginia upstream of the project is 722 cfs.
13 Three recreational facilities are owned by Appalachian Power and specifically designated as project facilities under the current license: (1) the Allisonia boat launch, which is managed by Virginia DGIF; (2) the New River Access, also managed by Virginia DGIF; and (3) the Appalachian Power Group Picnic Area, which is managed by Appalachian Power. In addition, under the existing license, Appalachian Power has dedicated two relatively large tracts of land within the project boundary to future potential recreation development: (1) a 41.5-acre parcel, located at the upper end of Peak Creek; and (2) a 78-acre site located at the mouth of Peak Creek.
2.1.5 Existing Project Boundary
The project boundary generally follows the reservoir at about the 1,850-foot contour, with the exception of a few steep shoreline areas and areas needed for project operation. The project boundary extends along the river bank about 2,000 feet downstream of the project dam. No federal or tribal lands are within the project boundary. The New River Access boat launch is partially within the project boundary, and the Appalachian Power Group Picnic Area, Allisonia boat launch, and two tracts of land that are reserved for future recreational development are fully located within the project boundary.
2.2Applicant’s Proposed Action
2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities
Appalachian Power proposes no changes to project facilities.
2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation
Appalachian Power proposes to implement a number of operational changes to provide environmental and recreation enhancements. Appalachian Power proposes to decrease its peaking period from October 16 through April 14 to December 1 through March 31. During this time, generating units would be brought on-line at 15-minute intervals, except during operations to meet a 10-minute response to electricity demands, and off-line at 30-minute intervals. Appalachian Power would increase its minimum average hourly downstream flow release from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs or inflow, whichever is less. Reservoir levels would be maintained between 1,846 feet and 1,844 feet NGVD except as a result of, or in preparation for, high or low inflow events. Appalachian Power proposes to continue to provide recreation releases for the annual squirt boat competition each May.
Appalachian Power proposes to expand the period that it operates in a levelized mode from April 15 through October 15 to April 1 through November 30. During this time period, reservoir levels would be maintained between elevations 1,845 feet and
14 1,846 feet NGVD and the average hourly discharge would be maintained at 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less.
When the required discharge is less than one unit’s discharge rate, Appalachian Power proposes to operate one unit for a portion of an hour to provide required flow (autocycling).
In addition to the above changes in operation, Appalachian Power would discontinue the current winter drawdown due to the effects on state-listed mussel species and other aquatic habitat.
To enhance downstream recreation, Appalachian Power proposes to provide weekend recreational releases of 1,000 cfs when inflow falls below 1,000 cfs but is above 800 cfs. In addition to the releases, Appalachian Power would provide flow information from the project via its website to better inform potential recreational users.
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures
Based on the results of studies completed during pre-filing consultation, Appalachian Power proposes various protection and enhancement measures, which are described in 13 proposed management or monitoring plans. These plans are summarized below, by resource area, and are discussed in more detail in section 3.3, Environmental Analysis – Proposed Action and Action Alternatives. The proposed plans are provided in volume VII of the license application.
1. Implement an Erosion Monitoring Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) monitoring areas identified in the relicensing erosion study as having erodible sands or saprolite soils, as shown on the revised shoreline material classification mapping; (b) monitoring ten sites along a segment of the New River extending 11.6 miles downstream of Claytor dam that were evaluated for the relicensing erosion study; (c) developing a demonstration project utilizing natural methods for stabilizing eroding shoreline on Claytor Lake; (d) identifying areas to be recommended for no-wake zones to address boating wake-related erosion, if determined from monitoring; (e) developing a report on the initial monitoring effort (and any subsequent monitoring); (f) forming a technical review committee; (g) coordinating the Erosion Monitoring Plan with other proposed plans; and
15 (h) including Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) in the erosion technical review committee as a relevant stakeholder.
2. Implement a Sedimentation Monitoring Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) monitoring areas of concern, including the headwaters of Claytor Lake from Allisonia boat ramp to above Lowman’s Ferry Bridge and Peak Creek, a major tributary to Claytor Lake, every 5 years over the term of a new license; (b) developing a report of the initial and subsequent monitoring efforts; (c) forming a technical review committee; (d) coordinating the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan with other proposed plans; and (e) including Skyline SWCD in the sedimentation technical review committee as a relevant stakeholder.
3. Implement a Water Management Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) operating with minimum average hourly discharge flows, seasonal peaking, and defined reservoir levels; (b) releasing recreation flows for a specific whitewater competition in May, and during weekends in August, September, and October when inflow is between 800-1,000 cfs; (c) publishing flow release information on Appalachian Power’s website; (d) providing for emergency drawdowns for maintenance requirements and a variance process for operational provisions and drawdowns; (e) providing for flood control operations, including notification requirements for upstream and downstream land owners, relevant agencies, and municipalities; (f) measuring water levels and flows in Claytor Lake and downstream of the dam; (g) monitoring and reporting of project operation; (h) forming a technical review committee; and (i) using adaptive management (i.e., a 5-year review and update provision).
4. Implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) utilizing an existing deicing bubbler system to increase the dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water discharged into the tailrace; (b) monitoring and assessing the proposed DO enhancement measure(s) on DO in the tailrace for 5 years following license issuance; (c) monitoring DO and temperature in the reservoir near the forebay once per year for 5 years following license issuance;
16 (d) forming a technical review to assess the results of the monitoring; (e) developing and issuing annual reports documenting the results of the monitoring and any recommendations for additional measures; and (f) coordinating the 5-year monitoring efforts with on-going water quality monitoring programs.
5. Implement a Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) compiling baseline data on mussel distribution and abundance in order to identify sites for long-term monitoring; (b) evaluating long-term trends in mussel fauna downstream of the project including species richness, abundance, growth, and recruitment; (c) evaluating potential influence of water quality of project releases on mussel fauna downstream of the project, with particular focus on water temperature and DO; and (d) forming a technical review committee to meet annually to review data collected during the previous year, evaluate additional data requirements, and report to the Commission on the outcome of the meetings.
In addition, based on comments on its application, Appalachian Power agrees to include hourly DO and temperature readings at the mussel monitoring locations for 1 year.
6. Implement an Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) implementing an ongoing methodology to identify and map aquatic vegetation in the lake; (b) managing and controlling non-native invasive vegetation in the lake to minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, habitats, and recreation; (c) identifying and promoting native, desirable aquatic vegetation; (d) prioritizing control sites and determining control plans; (e) establishing a permitting process; (f) educating the public; and (g) identifying methods to prevent introduction of non-native vegetation and other non-native species to the lake and from the lake to other water bodies.
7. Implement a Habitat Management Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) protecting wetlands, woody cover, bald eagle habitat, streams, and areas identified by the Virginia Natural Heritage Program under the Shoreline
17 Management Plan, including measures for ameliorating the loss of habitat due to shoreline disturbance associated with development; (b) enhancing and/or creating additional habitat in areas where there is limited or poor habitat, and developing a demonstration project that has a dual benefit of erosion control and improving habitat; (c) funding habitat enhancement projects for Claytor Lake ($5,000 annually, adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI)); (d) forming a technical review committee to assist in implementing item (b); (e) monitoring, consulting, and reporting on habitat projects; (f) educating the public; (g) using adaptive management and coordinating the Habitat Management Plan with other proposed plans.
8. Implement a Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) annually inspecting the six sites identified as potential habitat; (b) conducting an inventory for fringed mountain snail if there is a proposal to modify the current use of one of the six sites; and (c) consulting with FWS, Virginia DGIF, Virginia DCR, and the Commission.
9. Implement a Recreation Management Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) enhancing existing facilities at the Allisonia boat launch and New River Access; (b) improving bank fishing access at the New River Access site below Claytor dam; (c) enhancing Appalachian Power’s existing picnic area, and installing portage facilities that include this site (take-out), a portage trail, and a new downstream portage put-in, following consultation with regards to the portage trail route; (d) continuing to designate two sites for future recreational development (i.e., 41.5-acre Peak Creek Site No. 1 and 78-acre Peak Creek Site No.2); and (e) managing recreational use of the project area in the future through establishment of a technical review committee that would review the results of recreational use monitoring (every 6 years), establish criteria to evaluate and prioritize the need for additional facilities and amenities at existing public access sites and/or new facilities at the project, and recommend any necessary plan revisions.
In addition, based on comments on its application, Appalachian Power agrees to add provisions for improvements to bank fishing access at the New River Access site to the plan.
18 10. Implement a Debris Management Plan that defines beneficial debris that should not be removed and includes provisions for:
(a) continuing the existing debris removal process at Claytor Lake by contracting with either the Friends of Claytor Lake (FOCL) or other contractors as necessary to remove floating debris during the months April through October on a regular schedule; (b) using the sites owned by Appalachian Power or at commercial or private access areas for the off-load and disposal of debris and identify replacement sites should the currently used sites become unavailable during the term of the license; (c) continuing Appalachian Power’s involvement in volunteer lake clean-up efforts; (d) coordinating with FOCL, Pulaski County, Virginia DGIF, Virginia DEQ, and Virginia DCR to implement educational provisions of the plan; (e) developing an annual report documenting debris removal efforts; (f) forming a technical review committee to review the annual report and provide recommendations and comments; and (g) modifying the plan, as necessary, after approval by the Commission.
11. Implement an Aids to Navigation Management Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) installing and maintaining 68 lateral aids to navigation upon approval by Pulaski County and Virginia DGIF; (b) analyzing the cost and effectiveness of the installation of bridge lighting or markings on the Lowman’s Ferry Bridge and the train trestle; (c) developing an educational program; (d) developing efforts to warn mariners of unusually heavy debris and high or low water; (e) coordinating with Pulaski County and FOCL to update navigation maps of Claytor Lake; (f) modifying the Shoreline Management Plan to address the U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard’s) amber lighting requirements on certain docks; (g) implementing an “Adopt a Marker Program” for additional monitoring of markers on Claytor Lake; (h) forming a technical review committee to assist in implementing the plan; and (i) coordinating the Aids to Navigation Management Plan with other proposed management plans.
In addition, based on comments on its application, Appalachian Power agrees to include information with regards to height restrictions for sailboats.
19 12. Implement a Shoreline Management Plan that includes provisions for:
(a) protecting environmental attributes such as wetlands, habitat, and spawning areas; (b) preserving the natural scenic quality of the shoreline for both boaters and shore viewers and preserving specific scenic attributes; (c) protecting cultural resources; (d) enhancing recreational opportunities by considering boating densities and navigation and maximizing available use of the project waters by the public; (e) cooperating with Pulaski County to coordinate adjacent land uses and permitting efforts; and (f) minimizing impacts among conflicting users.
In addition, based on comments on its application, Appalachian Power also proposes to eliminate the requirement to include walkways in the calculation of total dock size square footage. Appalachian Power also proposes a change to the plan’s language concerning setbacks, to require a notarized waiver (of adjacent property owner(s)’ consent) to a setback of less than 15 feet.
13. Implement an HPMP, which provides background information on cultural resources at the site, including maps of the APE and archaeological sites, preservation goals and priorities, project effects, a list of activities that do not require prior consultation with the SHPO, and provisions for:
(a) consulting with the Commission, Virginia SHPO, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians on how to resolve the adverse effects to the historic components of an eligible archaeological site that is currently experiencing erosion (could include forms of shoreline protection, additional background research, or archaeological data recovery); and (b) implementing procedures for staff training, protection of any unidentified historic properties or discovered human remains, annual reporting, plan amendments, and dispute resolution.
2.2.4 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposed Action – Virginia Water Protection Permit
The following mandatory conditions have been provided as part of the water quality certification, which was issued pursuant to the Virginia State Water Control Law and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and are evaluated as part of Appalachian Power’s proposal.
20 Part I of the certification contains special conditions that specify the following:
(A) The permit authorizes the diversion of surface water from the New River and Claytor Lake. (B) The permit is valid for 15 years from the effective date of the issuance. (C) Standard Project Conditions 1. The activities of the permit shall be executed in such a manner that any impacts to the stream’s beneficial uses are minimized. 2. No activity shall substantially disrupt the movement of aquatic life indigenous to the water body, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water. 3. Flows downstream of the project area shall be maintained to protect all uses. 4. Measures shall be employed at all times to prevent and contain spills of fuels, lubricants, or other pollutants into the surface waters. 5. Virginia Water Quality Standards shall not be violated in any surface waters as a result of the project activities. (D) Instream Flow and Lake Level Conditions: 1. Lake levels and stream flows shall be measured as specified in Part I.E of the permit. 2. The facility shall operate in a levelized flow mode from April 1st through November 30th. Levelized flow is defined as maintaining Claytor Lake elevations between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD. 3. The facility shall be authorized to operate in a peaking mode from December 1st through March 31st. Peaking is defined as maintaining Claytor Lake elevations between 1,844 feet NGVD and 1,846 NGVD. 4. During times of higher than normal inflows into the project, Appalachian Power shall be authorized to allow lake levels to rise above elevations that define the operational modes in Part I.D.2 and I.D.3, provided that the applicable operational mode elevation is restored as soon as possible after the high inflow event. 5. During times where inflows are higher than the plant’s capacity, or during times of emergency drawdowns for project maintenance purposes, Appalachian Power shall be authorized to reduce the Claytor Lake elevation to 1,841 feet NGVD to provide additional storage capacity and lessen impacts on downstream habitat. 6. Reservoir drawdowns may occur in accordance with the final Water Management Plan approved by FERC.
21 7. Should independent research during the course of the permit term conclude that the individuals, populations, or habitat of the Eastern hellbender salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), as documented in the New River or its tributaries, is being adversely affected for any reason; or should the legal status of the species change to threatened or endangered during the permit term, as determined by the United States or Virginia ESA, Appalachian Power may be required to evaluate potential operational effects, or to cooperate with any cause-effect evaluation conducted by other interested parties, through coordination with an adaptive management committee or workgroup. Appalachian Power may be required to provide mitigation to minimize any identified project- related impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. 8. Appalachian Power shall ensure that minimum instream flows, as detailed in table 2, are released from the Claytor dam to the downstream New River.
Table 2: Minimum Instream Flow Requirements Required Average Operational Authorized Modifications to Month Hourly Minimum Instream Flow Minimum Instream Flow April 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less May 750 cfs, or Squirt Boating Competition: recreational inflow, flows may be released upon sufficient inflow, whichever is provided that reservoir elevations are less maintained between 1,845 feet and 1,846 feet NGVD June 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less July 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less
22 Required Average Operational Authorized Modifications to Month Hourly Minimum Instream Flow Minimum Instream Flow August 750 cfs, or When inflow rates average between 800 and inflow, 1,000 cfs during Monday through Friday, whichever is additional weekend releases may occur, less provided that reservoir elevations are maintained between 1,845 feet and 1,846 feet NGVD. September 750 cfs, or When inflow rates average between 800 and inflow, 1,000 cfs during Monday through Friday, whichever is additional weekend releases may occur, less provided that reservoir elevations are maintained between 1,845 feet and 1,846 feet NGVD. October 750 cfs, or When inflow rates average between 800 and inflow, 1,000 cfs during Monday through Friday, whichever is additional weekend releases may occur, less provided that reservoir elevations are maintained between 1,845 feet and 1,846 feet NGVD. November 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less December 1,000 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less January 1,000 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less February 1,200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less March 1,200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less
23 9. Variances to flows and lake elevations required by this permit may only be granted upon mutual agreement between Appalachian Power and Virginia DEQ, in consultation with Virginia DGIF and Virginia DCR, following appropriate public input. (E) Monitoring, Notification, and Reporting: 1. Elevations in Claytor Lake shall be measured in the forebay (reservoir) and tailrace (below dam), using water level transducers, staff gages located upstream and downstream that are calibrated with the transducers, and cameras located at the dam. 2. Releases of instream flows (discharges) from Claytor dam shall be based on the discharge curves developed for the existing generating units. 3. Flows into the project boundary (inflow) shall be determined through monitoring of the US Geologic Survey (USGS) New River at Allisonia (No. 03168000) and New River near Galax (No. 03164000) gages. 4. Appalachian Power shall implement the June 2009 Water Quality Monitoring Plan, with modifications. 5. Appalachian Power shall implement the June 2009 Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Monitoring Plan, with modifications. 6. Any fish kills or spills of fuels or oils shall be reported to Virginia DEQ. 7. Appalachian Power shall notify Virginia DEQ of any additional impacts to surface waters, including wetlands; of any modifications to the discharge works; and of any change to the type of surface water impacts associated with the project. 8. Appalachian Power shall include Virginia DEQ in all advisory groups. 9. Appalachian Power shall submit to Virginia DEQ a lake level and flow monitoring contingency plan in the case of equipment and/or gage failure within 60 days of license issuance. 10. Appalachian Power shall submit to Virginia DEQ the revised Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Monitoring Plan within 120 days of license issuance. 11. Appalachian Power shall submit to Virginia DEQ the results of all plan studies, demonstration projects, research, analysis, modeling, and stakeholder coordination efforts conducted for the authorized project activities. 12. Appalachian Power shall prepare an annual monitoring report to demonstrate compliance with the certification’s special conditions. 13. All reports required by the certification and other information requested by Virginia DEQ shall be signed by Appalachian Power,
24 or person acting on Appalachian Power’s behalf as a duly authorized representative. 14. All submittals to Virginia DEQ shall contain a signed certification statement.
Part II of the certification also contains 17 general conditions that pertain to: (A) Duty to comply; (B) Duty to cease or confine activity; (C) Duty to mitigate; (D) Permit actions; (E) Inspection and entry; (F) Duty to provide information; (G) Monitoring and records requirements; (H) Transferability; (I) Property rights; (J) Reopener; (K) Compliance with state and federal law; (L) Severability; (M) Permit modification; (N) Permit termination; (O) Civil and criminal liability; (P) Oil and hazardous substance liability; (Q) Unauthorized discharge of pollutants.
2.3 Proposed Action with Additional Staff-Recommended Measures
Under the staff alternative, the project license would include the proposed Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan, Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, Habitat Management Plan, Debris Management Plan, and Aids to Navigation Management Plan, as filed, as well as the other eight proposed management plans with the staff-recommended modifications detailed below.
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan be modified to:
(a) add the Skyline SWCD as a consulted party on the Erosion Technical Review Committee; and (b) include quantitative method(s) (i.e., bank pins) for monitoring erosion in the New River downstream from Claytor dam.
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Plan be modified to:
(a) add the Skyline SWCD as a consulted party on the Sedimentation Technical Review Committee; and (b) include provisions for monitoring areas of sediment deposition in the New River downstream from Claytor dam.
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Management Plan be modified to include:
(a) provisions for a minimum of two whitewater flow releases each year, in addition to the proposed release for the annual squirt boating competition, to be scheduled annually by the technical committee; and
25 (b) tools on the flow release notification website that help recreation users to understand the required seasonal flow regime and to predict flow arrival time.
We recommend that Appalachian Power develop and implement a reservoir drawdown plan that includes:
(a) a provision for submitting the plan to the Commission for approval 60-days prior to initiating a reservoir drawdown for project maintenance; and (b) notification of shoreline property owners 30-days prior to any reservoir drawdown, with the drawdown commencement date, drawdown rate, limit, and the duration of the drawdown.
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan be modified to include:
(a) continuous DO monitoring at the Allisonia USGS Gage as the inflow DO monitoring station from April 1 to November 1; (b) monitoring DO and temperature at a minimum of five locations downstream of the project between Claytor dam and the Route 11 bridge; (c) a provision for developing alternative mitigation measures to address low DO in the discharge should an applied mitigation measure fail to resolve low tailrace DO within 120 days of the conclusion of an effectiveness demonstration study; and (d) an evaluation of the impact of any proposed mitigation measure on reservoir fisheries and water quality.
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed draft Recreation Management Plan be modified to include:
(a) an updated schedule for providing a boat ramp, fishing pier, and trailer parking area at Appalachian Power’s picnic area, which would serve as the upstream portion of any new portage facility; (b) a schedule and procedure for consultation regarding the establishment of a new portage put-in downstream from the dam and a portage trail leading from Appalachian Power’s picnic area to this put-in; and (c) a maintenance schedule for project recreation sites (including those managed by the Virginia DGIF).
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Shoreline Management Plan be modified to include a justification for the dock size limitations and shoreline
26 stabilization methods that are prescribed by the proposed Shoreline Management Plan, in order to inform any variance procedures.
We recommend that that Appalachian Power’s proposed Shoreline Management Plan be modified to include a description of the measures that Appalachian Power would employ to address effects to an archaeological site that is adversely affected by shoreline erosion.
The Commission intends to execute a PA with the Virginia SHPO, with Appalachian Power and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians invited as concurring parties, that includes a stipulation that Appalachian Power finalize and implement the HPMP. During the procedure for finalizing the PA, the HPMP would be revised to ensure protection of cultural resources at the project.
2.4Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
We considered several alternatives to the applicant’s proposal, but eliminated them from further analysis because they are not reasonable in the circumstances of this case. These alternatives include: (1) federal takeover; (2) issuing a non-power license; and (3) project retirement via partial or total project removal.
2.4.1 Federal Government Takeover
We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal takeover and operation of the project would require Congressional approval. While that fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is currently no evidence to indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party has suggested federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency has expressed an interest in operating the project.
2.4.2 Non-power License
A non-power license is a temporary license that the Commission will terminate when it determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the non-power license. At this point, no agency has suggested a willingness or ability to do so. No party has sought a non-power license, and we have no basis for concluding that the Claytor Project should no longer be used to produce power. Thus, we do not consider issuing a non-power license a realistic alternative to relicensing in this circumstance.
27 2.4.3 Retiring the Project
Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either alternative would involve denial of the relicense application and surrender or termination of the existing license with appropriate conditions.
No participant has suggested that dam removal would be appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for recommending it. The power generated by the Claytor Project is an important resource, and is relied upon to provide clean, renewable energy. This source of power would be lost if the project were retired, and replacement power would need to be found. There would be significant costs associated with retiring the project’s powerhouse and appurtenant facilities. Finally, the project currently provides, and would continue to provide, some flood control benefits, many recreation opportunities, drinking water for surrounding communities, and a variety of socioeconomic benefits to the region. Thus, project retirement is not a reasonable alternative to relicensing the project with appropriate protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures.
28 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In this section, we describe the environmental setting for the proposed project and the scope of our cumulative effects analysis. We also present our analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed action and action alternatives. Sections are organized by resource area (geology and soils, aquatic resources, recreation, etc.). Under each resource area, we first describe current conditions. The existing condition is the baseline against which the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives are compared, including an assessment of the effects of proposed mitigation, protection and enhancement measures, and any potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Our conclusions and recommended measures are discussed in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.9
3.1General Description of the New River Basin
The Claytor Project is located on the New River in Pulaski County in southwestern Virginia. The project dam is located generally at river mile 252, with the project impoundment extending about 22 miles upstream. The New River originates in North Carolina at the confluence of the North Fork New River and the South Fork New River then flows northward for 320 miles through Virginia before entering West Virginia. In West Virginia the New River joins the Gauley River forming the Kanawha River. The Kanawha River empties into the Ohio River, its waters eventually draining into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River.
The drainage area for the New River Basin, which includes the states of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, is about 6,920 square miles. The drainage area upstream of Claytor dam is estimated at 2,380 square miles. Elevations in the New River Basin range from 680 feet at the confluence with the Gauley River in West Virginia to around 4,800 feet in the mountains of North Carolina.
Commission-licensed hydroelectric projects upstream of the Claytor Project include the Fries Project (FERC No. 2883) and Appalachian Power’s multi-development Buck and Byllesby Project (FERC No. 2514). Located 88 miles downstream of the Claytor Project is the Bluestone dam in Hinton, West Virginia operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to these mainstem facilities, the Town of Radford, Virginia operates the 1-MW Radford Project (FERC No. 1235) on the Little River, a tributary that enters the New River about 1 mile downstream from the Claytor dam.
9 Unless noted otherwise, the sources of our information are the license application (Appalachian Power, 2009a), additional information filed by Appalachian Power (Appalachian Power, 2009b), and reply comments filed by Appalachian Power (Appalachian Power, 2010a).
29 The project is located in the mountainous ridge valley physiographic provinces of Virginia. The project area generally experiences mild winters and warm humid summers with an average annual temperature of 54 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Average winter and summer temperatures measure 36°F and 71°F, respectively. Rainfall amounts within the basin average 38 inches and snowfall averages 17 inches annually.
3.2Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis
According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR, section 1508.7), an action may cause cumulative effects on the environment if its effects overlap in time and/or space with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities.
Based on our review of the pre-application document, license application, and agency and public comments, we have identified sedimentation (at Claytor Lake and downstream) and shoreline erosion, water quantity, and water quality as resources having the potential to be cumulatively affected by continued operation of the Claytor Project in combination with other activities in the basin. These include municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants, other hydroelectric generating projects and water withdrawals for drinking water.
3.2.1 Geographic Scope
The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of: (1) the proposed action’s effect on the resources; and (2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities within the New River Basin. For erosion and sedimentation, water quality, and water quantity, the scope of analysis encompasses the New River Basin upstream from Claytor dam and the portion of the basin downstream of the dam extending to the upstream extent of Bluestone Reservoir. We chose the above geographic bounds because the effects of proposed project operations and potential environmental measures on the identified resources in combination with other activities in the basin are limited to these areas.
3.2.2 Temporal Scope
The temporal scope of our cumulative effects analysis includes a discussion of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential new license term, the temporal scope looks 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effects on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion is
30 limited, by necessity, to the amount of available information. We identified the present resource conditions based on the license application, agency comments, and comprehensive plans.
3.3Proposed Action and Action Alternatives
3.3.1 Geology and Soils
3.3.1.1 Affected Environment
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Claytor Lake is located on a plateau in southwestern Virginia within the Valley and Ridge physiographic province, Great Valley subprovince. The Valley and Ridge province is generally characterized by linear ridges separated by linear valleys forming trellis drainage patterns. The Great Valley subprovince is characterized by a broad valley with low to moderate slopes. The Valley and Ridge province is bordered by the Blue Ridge province to the east and the Allegheny Plateau province to the west.
Headwaters and tributary streams of the New River are in the Valley and Ridge province of the central Appalachian Power Mountains in western North Carolina and southwestern Virginia. From here, the river flows in a northerly direction into Virginia and continues into West Virginia. In North Carolina and Virginia, the terrain consists of mountains and rolling hills. In West Virginia, the New River enters steep, entrenched gorges and is dominated by higher gradient, whitewater conditions of the New River Gorge National River (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b).
GEOLOGY
The Valley and Ridge province is underlain by folded Paleozoic sedimentary rock that forms the elongate parallel ridges and valleys. The characteristic topography of this region is the result of differential weathering of linear belts of rocks that have been repeated by folding and faulting (College of William & Mary, undated). Cambrian clastic sediments (sediment composed of rock fragments transported from their places of origin) characteristic of the eastern portion of the province are overlain by carbonates that were once deposited in a shallow ocean along the southeast edge of North America. These carbonates are exposed in the Great Valley subprovince in the easternmost portion of the Valley and Ridge province.
Within the Valley and Ridge province, rock strata are generally inclined from low to high angles and are most commonly bent upwards as anticlines or downward as synclines. The mountains are generally anticlines and the valleys (such as the New River
31 Valley) are synclines. The Paleozoic rocks that are the bedrock of the Valley and Ridge province are generally layered, sedimentary rocks that are rarely metamorphosed.
Well-developed karst topography is characteristic of the Great Valley subprovince and many caverns are located in the subsurface. Much of Pulaski County’s carbonate bedrock and subsurface topography consists of karst terrain. As is typical of karst terrain, soil cover is thin and rapid infiltration of surface water occurs through drainage into sinkholes. In karst terrain, pinnacle erosion is common and small cave-ins are not uncommon and usually develop after heavy rains, when water enters the earth through deep cracks in the dried out soil (Pulaski County Comprehensive Plan, undated, as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009). In the project area, sinkhole activity is confined to areas of limestone bedrock outcropping above the elevation of the operating pool (Appalachian Power, 1978, as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009).
Pulaski County is traversed by three major faults, one of which branches into several traces south of the project. The project area is located in a Seismic Risk Zone 2, corresponding to a Modified Mercali intensity of VIII. As such, the probability for geologic hazards to affect the stability and performance of the project is remote (Appalachian Power, 1978, as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009).
SOILS
There are five major soil associations mapped in the project area and include: Rayne-Berks-Groseclose, Carbo, Klinesville-Berks, Lowell, which are complexes found in upland hills, and Braddock, which is located on stream terraces in river valleys. Table 3 provides a brief description of each soil type found in these associations.
Table 3. Description of project soils. (Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010, adapted by staff). Soil type (from Steepness/ Typical surface Slowest Available parent depth/ layer type/organic permeability water material) drainage content/thickness capacity/sh rink swell potential Rayne (from Steep-very Silt loam/low Moderate Moderate/ shale) steep/deep-very organic content/~7 low deep/well drained inches Berks (from Steep-very Channery silt Moderate Very low/ shale and steep/moderately loam/low organic low siltstone) deep, well drained content/~7 inches Groseclose Steep-very Silt loam/low Slow Moderate/ (from limestone steep/very organic content/~8 high and shale) deep/well drained inches
32 Carbo Strongly sloping- Silty clay Slow Low/ (residuum moderately loam/moderately low high weathered from steep/moderately organic content/~5 limestone and deep/well drained inches shale) Klinesville Strongly sloping- Channery silt Moderately Very low/ moderately loam/moderately low rapid low steep/shallow/ organic content/ ~2 somewhat inches excessively drained Lowell Gently sloping- Silt loam/moderate Moderately Moderate/ (residuum moderately organic content/~11 slow moderate weathered from sloping/deep-very inches limestone and deep/well drained shale)
Braddock (from Gently sloping- Loam/moderately Moderate Moderate/ alluvium moderately low organic content/ low derived from sloping/very ~7 inches igneous, deep/well drained metamorphic and sedimentary rock)
SHORELINE AND STREAMBANK EROSION
Creation of Claytor Lake and operation of the project have resulted in shoreline erosion in the lake, as well as erosion of the riverbank and bed of the New River downstream from the dam. When the reservoir was created, former hill slopes were exposed to water and wave action. Soil and rock characteristics on the shoreline are one factor affecting erosion susceptibility. Soil is easily eroded, saprolite (a soft decomposed rock formed in place by chemical weathering) erodes less easily, and solid rock erodes much more slowly than either soil or saprolite.
Large sections of the reservoir shoreline have steep slopes, with the majority of the area at a slope of greater than 20 percent. Areas with slopes greater than 8 percent have the potential for erosion and land slippage in conjunction with a loss of ground cover. Erosion at Claytor Lake is known to occur along shorelines adjacent to boat launching ramps and docks, and severe erosion has occurred along much of the shoreline at Claytor Lake State Park. Most of the developed portions of park shoreline have been riprapped to combat erosion (Appalachian Power, 1978, as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009).
33 Claytor Lake
A detailed field survey of the Claytor Lake shoreline was conducted in May and June of 2007 to identify bank characteristics, existing protection, bank erosion mechanisms, and degree of erosion. Approximately 86.0 miles of shoreline were evaluated by boat. The remaining 14.9 miles of Claytor Lake shoreline were not surveyed due to navigation barriers.
The majority of the observed shoreline (58.3 miles, or 67.7 percent) was classified as natural and unprotected (table 4). Of the 86.0 miles of shoreline that were evaluated, the survey found that about 25.5 miles (29.6 percent) of the shoreline were provided with some form of shoreline protection. The predominant shoreline protection in use at Claytor Lake is rock riprap, and walls constructed using timber, concrete and block. Other types of shoreline protection measures include rock walls, gabions, and other methods and materials. Although there are no natural beaches, several artificial beaches are present. Much of the shoreline areas with stabilized riprap or other protection measures had been actively eroding before the shoreline protection measures were implemented. The current erosion condition of much of the shoreline could not be observed due to the presence of riprap or shoreline protection structures, but the survey found that about 53.7 miles (62.4 percent) of the observable shoreline was actively eroding (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b).
Table 4. Bank materials along Claytor Lake shoreline. (Source: Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). Percentage of Bank material Length (mi) total shoreline Bedrock 44.04 51.2 Saprolite 9.74 11.3 Cobble 0.00 0.0 Sand 4.01 4.7 Mix 0.47 0.5 Other 0.00 0.0 Shore protected 25.45 29.6 Not observed 2.31 2.7 Total 86.03 100.0
Bedrock, predominantly in the form of karst (limestone/dolerite) outcrops, was found to represent 44.0 miles (51.2 percent) of the shoreline. Where limestone rock
34 outcrops are more prominent, steeper cliffs have developed. A loosely-consolidated saprolite (weathered parent material that has not been subject to any transport, sorting or soil forming processes) was found to represent 11.3 percent of the shoreline. In general, the saprolites around the lake are much more erodible than the karst outcrops, which erode by solutional processes at a slow rate. Sand and mixed particle size clastic materials form approximately 4.5 miles (5.2 percent) of the lake-shoreline interface. These clastic materials can be eroded, transported and deposited, often over short distances such as from the shoreline face to the toe of the slope, and may form lag deposits where finer material has been removed from the site, leaving the coarser material behind (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b).
Within the classification of “actively eroding,” two types of substrate vary in their susceptibility to erosion (table 5). The majority of the unprotected shoreline with bare slope faces (and therefore identified as “actively eroding”) are limestone bedrock scarps around the lake (48.6 percent of shoreline or 41.8 miles). The limestone bedrock scarps are highly resistant to erosion resulting in a very slow rate (i.e., on a geologic timescale) of retreat through solutional processes. Bedrock banks around Claytor Lake have vertical faces, 3 to 4 feet high, and lack a topsoil layer, which was most likely eroded early in the history of the project. The remaining 13.2 percent of observed shoreline length (11.4 miles) is occurring on highly erodible sand and saprolite materials. The most erodible saprolite or sand shorelines may be eroding at rates of up to 0.5 meters per year where they are subject to high-energy wave climates (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b).
Table 5. Bank geomorphic characteristics along Claytor Lake shoreline. (Source: Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). Bank geomorphic Percentage of characteristics Length (mi) total shoreline Eroding bedrock 41.79 48.6 Eroding saprolite 9.61 11.2 Eroding sand 1.77 2.1 Slumping 0.17 0.2 Not actively eroding 32.38 37.6 Beach – natural 0.00 0.0 Beach – manmade 0.33 0.4 Total 86.03 100.0
The banks on the lake’s observable shoreline were classified by scarp height and erosion status. Most of the shoreline has scarps that are less than 4 feet high, with just less than 25 percent in the 3- to 4-foot range. Active erosion was observed at more than
35 80 percent of all scarp classes and at more than 90 percent at five of the seven scarp classes.
New River downstream from Claytor Dam
A field reconnaissance of the New River from Claytor dam downstream to the U.S. Route 460 bridge near Glen Lyn, Virginia was conducted in May through July 2007. Information was collected to characterize sediment, hydraulic variables and stability along the surveyed reach of river. The observed pattern of bank erosion along the New River was sporadic and influenced by numerous factors including substrate, geology, gradient, water level fluctuation, and project operations. In general, less erosion took place in wider, slower moving sections of the river, whereas greater erosion was evident in more constrained sections of the river.
Study results indicated that the potential effects of hydropower generation and “clear water” releases from Claytor Lake are very limited in scope and do not extend beyond the southern border of the Town of Radford (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008a). The study identified a 1-mile reach of the New River immediately downstream of the Claytor dam where channel scour has deepened the river channel and over-steepened river banks, leading to reduced stability and erosion of lower banks (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). The erosion was limited to the zone of fluctuating flow releases from the dam.
Further downstream, accelerated erosion was identified in areas where there are highly erodible soils combined with landowner disturbances such as overgrazing and cattle trampling of the riverbank, or geologic constrictions on river channel dimensions (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). However, these areas of elevated rates of erosion were not attributed to project operations, but to current land use impacts to the riparian zone. When vegetation is removed from the bank, as occurs through livestock grazing, tree harvesting, clearing for recreation, etc., the internal strength of the bank is greatly reduced. Such weakening of the bank leads to mass wasting, such as the block and slip10 erosion observed at the few severely eroding locations documented during the study.
In addition to the areas exhibiting accelerated erosion, there were areas exhibiting slow rates of erosion. The channel bank extending from the Interstate 81 bridge to the Town of Radford displayed characteristics of periodic erosion within a 2- to 3-foot-wide zone. Although fluctuating water levels related to project discharges were evident at these locations, the field investigation was unable to distinguish between natural and operationally induced erosion. The bank failure mechanisms at these locations were a combination of block and slip. Block and slip conditions are typical of fluvial systems
10 Block and slip are processes in which the susceptible bank collapses either by slipping or falling in blocks as the flow of water undercuts the bank.
36 with sandy, non-cohesive bank materials. Much of the New River exhibits natural rates of erosion resulting from river meandering and meander migration, and are not representative of accelerated erosion processes.
LAKE AND RIVER SEDIMENTATION
A bathymetric study of Claytor Lake was performed to provide a basis for estimating lake sedimentation, including the effect of sedimentation on water volume and depth (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008a). At its full-pool water level of 1,846 feet, Claytor Lake was estimated to have received sediment at an average rate of 325 acre-feet per year between its creation in 1939 and the bathymetric survey conducted in 2007. If this sediment were evenly distributed, the annual deposition would be equal to a thickness of 0.87 inches of sediment across the lake. This historical sedimentation has resulted in 59 inches of total sedimentation over the entire lake area, causing a decrease the storage volume of 22,114 acre-feet or 9.8 percent.
Sedimentation and shoaling were not uniform, but rather were concentrated in the inlets and coves where tributary rivers and streams enter Claytor Lake. Approximately 56.5 percent of the sedimentation occurred in the elevation range of 1,810 to 1,846 feet. These deposits included comparatively coarse sediments delivered to the lake by tributaries. Sedimentation within the shallowest depths, up to 6 feet of depth, was more uniformly distributed by continual disturbance from boat traffic, wave action, and water level fluctuations. Sedimentation from shoreline erosion was limited to lake margins where soils had eroded. This sediment was concentrated as bench deposits and formed thin littoral zones beginning below the normal low water pool elevation. In forested coves and small bays with limited watershed sources, shoaling and sedimentation were relatively insignificant. Deep water sedimentation (greater than 36 feet below the full pool water level) represented 43.5 percent of the total sediment accumulation and occurred as a more uniform layer of fine sediments that require more time to settle.
The sediment study identified the primary source of sediment in Claytor Lake to be watershed disturbances, primarily soil erosion from agricultural lands. Erosion along disturbed shorelines was identified as a cause of sedimentation in localized areas; however, this was considered a minor component of the total sediment accumulation for the lake. Elevated erosion rates were found in the subwatersheds that are dominated by land-disturbing activities, particularly in locations such as the rapidly developing Sloan Branch subwatershed near Draper. Sediment yield rates of 10 to more than 300 times natural background rates were identified for the most disturbed areas. The study predicted that land-disturbing activities associated with development would greatly increase sediment yields even with implementation of existing soil conservation practices (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008a).
37 The sedimentation study included a survey of the New River, which was coordinated with the erosion study, to collect data on depositional features, river hydraulic variables, and potential sediment sinks and sources. Study results indicated that sedimentation of the New River downstream of the project was primarily influenced by geography but also affected by project operations. The reach of the river downstream of the project contains bedrock outcrops with deep pools. As flow enters these pools, water velocities decrease, causing sediments to settle at the wider sections of the river on the downstream end of the pools. Project operations reduce some flow velocities that in turn reduce migration of fine materials. Hydraulic analysis showed hydropower generation at Claytor Lake attenuates the most frequent natural flow range by about half resulting in a small decrease in bed shear velocity (5 to 10 percent), which is the mechanism for sediment transport immediately below the project (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008a). However, this slight reduction in flow velocity was not expected to affect transport of larger materials or result in the formation of depositional areas, which would be controlled by larger flood flows in the New River.
3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Erosion of Lake Shoreline
Fluctuation of the water surface in Claytor Lake has the potential to have an effect on shoreline erosion. From April 15th through October 15th, Appalachian Power voluntarily maintains water surface elevations between 1,845 to 1,846 feet. From April 15th through June 15th, Appalachian Power operates the project to maintain stable water surface elevations equal to or greater than 1,844 feet. From October 16th through April 14th, the water surface is allowed to vary from 1,844 to 1,846 feet. To allow lake residents to maintain their shoreline and docks, Appalachian Power draws the water surface down 5 feet to an elevation of 1,841 feet for a period of 2 weeks, typically in November and/or December.
Four issues related to erosion of the lake’s shoreline were identified, and include: (1) project operation; (2) fall drawdown; (3) stabilization measures; and (4) boating. These four issues are discussed below.
(1) Project Operation
Under the proposed action, Appalachian Power proposes to modify project operation by limiting the water surface fluctuations to 2 feet from December 1st through March 31st and 1 foot from April 1st through November 30th. Although this proposed modification was not specifically developed to address erosion of the lake shoreline, this action could have an effect on shoreline erosion.
38 In addition to the modification to project operation, Appalachian Power proposes to implement an Erosion Monitoring Plan, in which erosion would be monitored at 27 locations that have been identified as having erodible sand or saprolite soils. For each monitoring location along the shoreline of Claytor Lake, this monitoring would include detailed topographic surveys, GPS data collection, and photographs. An initial survey would be completed within 2 years of Commission approval of the Erosion Monitoring Plan. The findings would be compared with the results of detailed mapping of the shoreline that was conducted in 2007 as part of relicensing of the project. The monitoring plan would include development of a report within 6 months of the completion of the survey describing the erosion rates at each of the monitored sites. Following the initial survey, an assessment would be made regarding any project-related effects at the monitored sites and the frequency of any future monitoring. Activities conducted under the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan would be coordinated with other management plans. Various technical review committees established by Appalachian Power would review the reports before they are filed with the Commission.
Skyline SWCD requests that they be included on the erosion and sedimentation technical committees.
Virginia DGIF agrees with Appalachian Power’s proposal to limit the water surface fluctuations to 2 feet from December 1st through March 31st and 1 foot from April 1st through November 30th (10(j) recommendations #1 and #3).
Certification condition D.2 specifies that the project operate in a levelized flow mode from April 1st through November 30th that would maintain water surface elevations in the lake between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD. Also, certification condition D.3 specifies that the project would be authorized to operate in a peaking mode from December 1st through March 31st that would maintain water surface elevations in the lake between 1,844 feet and 1,846 feet.
Staff Analysis
Numeric modeling was used to determine the relative role of wind-waves, boat wakes, slope processes, and project operations in causing or contributing to shoreline erosion. It was determined that boat wakes are the most significant source of erosive energy directed at the shoreline and wind-generated waves are the second most significant source of erosive energy directed at the shoreline (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). The Erosion Study Report concludes that the effects of water level fluctuation alone were identified as minor compared to wave energy. However, water level does determine where wave energy is expended on the shoreline and how much wave energy is expended in the nearshore zone before the wave hits the shoreline. Lake operations affect the vertical position on the shore where wave energy is directed. The shape of the shoreline profile has a significant influence on the rate of shoreline erosion. Areas with
39 gently sloping shallow offshore (underwater) shelves are less likely to erode than sites with steeper offshore profiles because more of the wave energy is dissipated on the offshore shelf before reaching the shoreline (figure 2). When water levels are low or average, a significant amount of wave energy is expended on the shelf (causing minimal shoreline erosion). However, when water levels are high, the shelf is less effective at attenuating energy, and large waves can attack the toe of the shoreline (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b).
Figure 2. Development of “S” shape profile. (Source: Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b).
Under the proposed action, erosion would continue to occur on the shoreline of Claytor Lake, and some loss of land would continue due to shoreline retreat. Waves also would continue to move eroded material and sediment away from shore, resulting in formation of a shelf, which is a wide, flat feature at the base of the eroding bank below the water surface. The size of the shelf is a function of the local wave energy, water levels, sediment properties, and length of time the shoreline has been eroding. By limiting water-level fluctuations in Claytor Lake to 2 feet between December 1st and March 31st, and 1 foot between April 1st and November 30th, the effect of wave energy is focused within a narrower vertical range, which may lead to a slight increase in erosion at sites with an “S”-shaped profile as repeated wave battering can lead to bank undercutting. However, the increase in shoreline erosion from extending the time that the project operates with a 1-foot fluctuation (April 1st and November 30th) rather than a 2-foot fluctuation (December 1st through March 31st) would be minimal. The change in the discharge schedule under the proposed action would not noticeably affect water levels in the lake because the overall volume of water released would be the same.
The proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan would inform future decisions regarding erosion control efforts. The proposed erosion monitoring would assist Appalachian Power, government agencies, the lake association, and affected landowners in managing erosion by identifying areas of high erosion where corrective actions may be needed.
40 (2) Fall Drawdown
Under the proposed action, Appalachian Power proposes to modify project operation by discontinuing the practice of annual drawdowns to eliminate the mortality that results on mussels due to exposure and predation. These drawdowns are not required for project operation or maintenance but are utilized by landowners for shoreline cleanup, maintenance of docks, and shoreline stabilization. Although this proposed modification was not specifically developed to address erosion of the lake shoreline, this action could have an effect on shoreline erosion.
Cheri Strenz, Robert Strenz, Skyline SWCD, Thomas Warden, III, Mark Williams, James and Nancy Blair, Eric Rorrer, Laura Bullard, Laura Walters, and Travis Tysinger recommend that the annual drawdown not be discontinued so that residents may continue to provide and maintain shoreline stabilization measures. Skyline SWCD recommends two alternatives to the complete elimination of the annual drawdown proposed by Appalachian Power including reducing the frequency of drawdowns from every year to every other year, and scheduling the 2-week drawdown between September 15th and October 15th to avoid freezing weather. Laura Bullard suggests that the drawdown actually benefits mussels because the detrimental effects of erosion and sedimentation on mussels would be minimized by timely stabilization of the shoreline. Virginia DGIF supports Appalachian Power’s proposal to discontinue the annual drawdown to prevent loss of mussels (10(j) recommendation #8). Recognizing the challenges faced by landowners needing to perform maintenance, Virginia DGIF encourages Appalachian Power, resource agencies, FERC, and stakeholders to investigate other measures that could be used to accomplish the goals of the landowners in lieu of the drawdown. Virginia DGIF recommends the evaluation of various alternative techniques to stabilize the shoreline. David and Susan Dobyns recommend a review of drawdown depth, frequency, and timing that would minimize effects on the mussel population. Friends of Claytor Lake (FOCL) disagree with Appalachian Power’s proposal to discontinue the annual lake drawdown stating that eliminating the drawdown would result in increased erosion and sedimentation FOCL states that the erosion caused by increased recreational boating must be mitigated. FOCL suggests alternatives such as less frequent drawdowns (e.g., every 2 or 3 years), a lesser magnitude drawdown than the historic 5-foot drawdown, and a drawdown in warmer weather to avoid freezing conditions.
Certification condition D.6 specifies that the project would be authorized to provide reservoir drawdowns in accordance with the approved final Water Management Plan, which does not include provisions for annual drawdowns. Certification condition D.9 specifies that variances to lake elevations required by this certification are authorized only upon mutual agreement between Appalachian Power and Virginia DEQ, in consultation with Virginia DGIF and Virginia DCR.
41 Staff Analysis
Existing project operations include an annual drawdown when the lake level is lowered 5 feet to allow residents to perform construction and maintenance activities, mostly for structural shoreline protection. The modeling determined that the effects of lake level fluctuations and annual drawdown on shoreline erosion are negligible (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). The model was used to evaluate the effects of discontinuing the annual drawdown on shoreline erosion. The model was configured using the 2007 measured shoreline profiles as the starting condition and 11 years of wind and water level data to forecast shoreline profiles in 2017. As shown in table 6, the modeling of the drawdown alternatives predict a slight increase of the estimated bank recession at profile 4, and a slight decrease of the estimated bank recession at profile 10, relative to no drawdown. For profiles 1 and 7, there was no change in the predicted bank recession between the drawdown and no drawdown alternatives. (See table 7 in the boating section, below, for a description of profile locations.)
Table 6. Effects of lake drawdown on shoreline erosion for the period 2006 – 2017. (Source: Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). Annual recession rate (ft / yr) 2006 – 2017 Profile With Without No. drawdown drawdown 1 1.0 1.0 4 0.3 0.2 7 0.2 0.2 10 0.4 0.5
Although the modeling shows that the drawdown has a nearly negligible impact on shoreline erosion, the potential of a reduction of construction and maintenance activities for structural shoreline protection associated with the elimination of the annual drawdown would likely result in additional shoreline erosion, sedimentation and water quality impairments. Additional discussion of the elimination of the annual drawdown is provided in section 3.3.3, aquatic resources and section 3.3.7, land use and aesthetics.
(3) Stabilization Measures
Under the proposed Shoreline Management Plan, Appalachian Power proposes to modify the existing shoreline stabilization guidelines. These guidelines provide preferred types of erosion mitigation concepts, applicable locations/scenarios, criteria for shoreline stabilization techniques, and design standards for riprap and bulkheads. Although the
42 existing erosion control methods used around the lake are effective, the erosion study report recommended incorporating an “ecosystem approach” as an alternative to hardened measures such as riprap and bulkheads. In addition to stabilizing the shoreline, the “ecosystem approach” also encourages natural recruitment and development of riparian ecosystems. Although this proposed action was not specifically developed to address erosion of the lake shoreline, it could have an effect on shoreline erosion.
Additionally, as part of the Erosion Monitoring Plan described in project operation, Appalachian Power would develop one demonstration project on the shoreline of Claytor Lake to demonstrate the use of natural methods for stabilizing eroding shoreline that would also enhance the shoreline habitat. The demonstration project would be developed in consultation with the Virginia DGIF, Virginia DCR, Virginia VDEQ, and other applicable local, state and federal agencies. The demonstration project would be implemented within 3 years following Commission approval of the plan. The demonstration project would be located at a shoreline location that is easily accessible and owned and managed by Appalachian Power. The final site selection would be identified in consultation with the following technical committees: aquatic vegetation management, debris management, habitat management, shoreline management, erosion monitoring, and sedimentation monitoring. The project site would be monitored as part of the Habitat Management Plan to assess the effectiveness of the methods chosen. Methods found to be effective would be considered for use in other areas and would be shared with others within the lake community.
Several stakeholders disagree with Appalachian Power’s preference of using riprap for shoreline stabilization and state that erosion control using bulkheads should be allowed as a cost effective, easily implemented method that requires less disturbance of the shoreline. Laura Bullard suggests that to facilitate shoreline protection, flexibility in design and construction are needed.
Alan Graybeal and Laura Bullard recommend that the Commission require Appalachian Power to protect the lake shoreline from erosion in highly erodible areas. Alan Graybeal recommends that Appalachian Power be required to protect archaeologically-significant areas threatened by shoreline erosion, regardless of whether those areas are listed in the National Registry of Historic Places or included in Appalachian Power’s Historic Properties Management Plan. Laura Bullard recommends that Appalachian Power either install erosion control measures or provide funding to landowners that would be used for shoreline stabilization.
Virginia DGIF recommends the evaluation of various alternative techniques to stabilize the shoreline.
43 Staff Analysis
Riprap, seawalls, and other artificial shoreline protection measures have been constructed to stabilize the shoreline. Vegetation along the shoreline increases the cohesion of soil particles resulting in less erosion. The field reconnaissance found that 3.2 percent of the artificial shoreline protection features have failed. Failure of the stabilization measures include: gaps and absence of sufficient geotechnical filter fabric making them prone to loss of soil, insufficient crest elevation, and lack of toe protection (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b).
Over time, rates of erosion and shoreline retreat are likely to continue to decline at the project because of the previous removal of much of the erodible soil and saprolite, the continuing evolution of the shoreline toward relatively stable shoreline landforms, and increased implementation of effective shoreline protection methods.
Several commenters questioned Appalachian Power’s preference of riprap to stabilize shorelines for most conditions and situations. These commenters state that other stabilization techniques would be more appropriate and cost effective. Although alternative stabilization techniques have the potential to benefit shoreline erosion, changes to the shoreline erosion, if any, would be captured under the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan. Additional discussion of the use of riprap for shoreline stabilization is provided in section 3.3.7, land management and aesthetics.
Several commenters recommend that Appalachian Power protect the lake shoreline in highly erodible areas or provide funding to property owners toward shoreline stabilization efforts. This recommendation would benefit property owners by reducing or eliminating loss of land to shoreline erosion, whether project related or not. Stabilizing eroding shorelines may also reduce one source of sediment to the lakes. However, any benefit from shoreline stabilization would at least be partially off-set by adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat that result from replacing natural shoreline vegetation with riprap and other structures. In addition, implementing this recommendation could negatively alter the viewshed of the lake’s shoreline. This recommendation to stabilize the lake shoreline would likely have a very high cost. Because operation of the project is not the primary cause of shoreline erosion, the cost would not necessarily be commensurate with the effect of continued project operation. The proposed program of erosion monitoring and developing projects to demonstrate shoreline stabilization techniques should, however, provide benefits to private owners of lakeshore property by informing their decisions regarding measures to protect the shoreline.
In lieu of stabilizing the lake shoreline, Laura Bullard recommends that Appalachian Power provide funding to property owners toward shoreline stabilization efforts. This recommendation would benefit the entities that own and manage these
44 areas, but would not necessarily address effects related to the continued operation of the project.
The proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan would inform future decisions regarding erosion control efforts. The proposed erosion monitoring would assist Appalachian Power, government agencies, the lake association, and affected landowners in managing erosion by identifying areas of high erosion where corrective actions may be needed. The proposed demonstration project, which would entail natural shoreline stabilization techniques, is intended to be an example of techniques that could be implemented to reduce erosion levels in those areas of high erosion where corrective actions are needed. The proposed demonstration project would assist in addressing the effects of shoreline erosion on the lake by guiding managers and landowners in identifying and implementing long-lasting, effective responses to shoreline erosion, as well as in avoiding installations that fail prematurely.
(4) Boating
Under the proposed action, Appalachian Power proposes to enhance existing boat launches and to provide an additional boat ramp at the Appalachian Power Picnic Area as a take-out for portage; these measures are designed to address existing and future recreational demand, which is closely connected to local and regional population growth. Although this proposed action is not related to project operation, it could have a significant effect on shoreline erosion.
To mitigate the effects of recreational boating on shoreline erosion, Skyline SWCD suggests that the lake level be lowered within the 1-foot operating range (between 1,845 and 1,846 feet) when increased boating is expected to minimize wave action on the shoreline. Laura Bullard suggests that the lake level be limited to the range of 1,845.0 to 1,845.5 feet during periods of heavy boating activity.
FOCL states that the erosion caused by increased recreational boating must be mitigated.
Staff Analysis
Numeric modeling was used to determine the relative role of wind-waves, boat wakes, slope processes, and project operations in causing or contributing to shoreline erosion. Historic shoreline erosion rates at four locations described in table 7 were estimated for the period 1939 to 2007.
45 Table 7. Summary of modeled location. (Source: Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). Profile No. Location description Rationale for selection rapid erosion rates reported by eroding shoreline of 1 landowner; highly erodible Bullard’s farm shoreline material 4 mouth of Peak Creek boating activity; low fetch opposite side of Claytor boating activity; moderate 7 Lake from Peak Creek fetch; comparison to profile # 4 boating activity; moderate 10 Claytor Lake State Park fetch; now riprapped
The modeling determined that boat wake-induced erosion around Claytor Lake was the key factor in accelerating bank erosion above levels that would be caused by wind-generated waves. High-energy wind-waves are limited at Claytor Lake because of the small size of the lake and sheltering from steep terrain, which results in short wind fetches. Results of the modeling using wind input conditions, with and without boat wakes, showed that boat waves contributed an additional 0.5 feet to the overall wave height. For sigmoidal waves, boat-generated waves result in waves that are 0.25 feet above calm water level. The disproportionate influence of boat wakes may have accelerated historic erosion rates in excess of 100 percent (table 8). The most erodible saprolite or sand shorelines may be eroding at rates of up to 0.5 meters per year where they are subject to boat-induced high-energy wave climates.
Table 8. Effects of boat wakes on shoreline erosion for the period 1939 to 2007. (Source: Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). Total calculated recession (ft) Annual recession rate (ft / yr) Profile Without Without No. With boats boats With boats boats 1 61 26 0.9 0.40 4 23 5 0.3 0.10 7 17 3 0.2 0.05 10 29 4 0.4 0.10
Data analysis, modeling, and observations on the lake all indicate that the primary force accelerating erosion at vulnerable banks is boat wave action, which is likely to increase with increased recreation at the lake. Wind-generated waves are the second most significant source of erosive energy directed at the shoreline. The proposed project
46 operations would affect the vertical position on the shore where the wave energy is directed, which may lead to a slight increase in the amount of erosive energy directed at the shoreline at some locations. As a result of the proposed action, a slight increase in erosion at locations with “S”-shaped profiles may occur.
Commenters suggest that the lake level be lowered within the proposed 1-foot operational range when increased boating is expected to minimize the effect of shoreline erosion. However, as stated in the erosion study report, offshore shelves are effective in dissipating wave energy for average water levels, which would be maintained between 1,844 and 1,846 feet. Therefore, lowering the lake to the levels proposed by the commenters would not reduce shoreline erosion.
The monitoring, assessment, and reporting provisions of the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan could help to identify areas of erosion that may be affected by recreational activity on the lake, allowing those areas to be targeted for measures to reduce shoreline erosion. Measures that reduce erosion from boat wakes could include establishing no-wake zones.
Sediment Transport along New River downstream from Claytor Dam
Fluctuating releases from Claytor dam due to project operation affect sediment transport in the New River downstream of the project. The alteration in sediment transport can result in deposition and erosion in and along the river. Under the current 401 certification, Appalachian Power is required to release an average daily flow rate of 750 cfs (7Q10) downstream of the dam or inflow, whichever is less. The project operates as a peaking facility from October 16th through April 14th. Outside the peaking hours, Appalachian Power maintains an average hourly minimum flow of 750 cfs. If the inflow is less than the hydraulic capacity of one unit, one unit is run in autocycle. A unit in autocycle will operate for a portion of the hour and remain off for a portion of the hour so the average hourly discharge is 750 cfs or inflow, whichever is less. Although autocycling results in an average flow of 750 cfs, flows and water levels both fluctuate significantly, ranging from essentially zero flow up to 2,000 cfs immediately below the dam. The magnitude of fluctuations is greatest near Claytor dam and is attenuated with distance.
Under the proposed action, Appalachian Power proposes several modifications to project operation. Although these proposed actions were not specifically developed to address sediment transport in the New River downstream of Claytor dam, five of these actions could have an effect on sediment transport. These five actions are: (1) implementing flow ramping so that individual units would be brought on line in 15-minute intervals and off-line at 30-minute intervals, (2) limiting the water surface fluctuations to 2 feet from December 1st through March 31st and 1 foot from April 1st through November 30th, (3) meeting the required minimum flows based on an hourly
47 average rather than daily average, (4) increasing the minimum flow rate to 1,000 cfs from December 1st through March 31st, and (5) using the lake storage to manage the flood flows.
To assess project operation on sediment transport in the New River, Appalachian Power proposes to implement an Erosion Monitoring Plan, in which erosion would be monitored at 10 locations that were monitored for the erosion study. These sites extend 11.6 miles downstream of the dam. For each monitoring location along the banks of the New River, monitoring would include photographs and GPS data collection. An initial survey would be completed within 2 years after Commission approval of the Erosion Monitoring Plan. The findings would be compared with the results of photographic documentation of the streambanks that was collected in 2007 as part of relicensing of the project. The monitoring plan would include development of a report within 6 months of the completion of the survey describing the erosion rates at each of the monitored sites. Following the initial survey, an assessment would be made regarding any project-related effects at the monitored sites and the frequency of any future monitoring. Activities conducted under the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan would be coordinated with other management plans. Various technical review committees established by Appalachian Power would review the reports before they are filed with the Commission. Appalachian Power did not propose in the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan to monitor the locations where deposition was observed during the 2007 survey.
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (West Virginia DNR) and Virginia DGIF concur with the proposed operation from April 1st through November 30th. West Virginia DNR suggests that bank erosion should be reduced by limiting the number of significant water-level fluctuations per day.
West Virginia DNR and Virginia DGIF recommend that minimum flow from December 1st through January 31st be maintained at an average hourly flow rate of 1,250 cfs, whichever is less. They also recommend that minimum flow from February 1st through March 31st be maintained at an average hourly flow rate of 1,500 cfs, whichever is less. They state that the greater minimum flow rates would more closely approximate the natural annual hydrograph contributing to more stable stream morphology. Additionally, Virginia DGIF recommends increasing the minimum flow rates from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs on Saturday and Sunday during the months of August through October. Although a stable stream morphology is cited as a beneficial byproduct, the change in minimum flow was recommended to benefit recreation.
West Virginia DNR and Virginia DGIF concur with Appalachian Power’s ramping proposals.
48 Virginia DGIF supports Appalachian Power’s proposal to vary the water surface in Claytor Lake between the elevations of 1,841 and 1,847 feet during periods of abnormally high inflow to provide additional storage capacity to manage the flood flows.
Certification conditions D.2 and D.3 specify that the project implement flow ramping so that individual units would be brought on line in 15-minute intervals (ramp up) and off-line at 30-minute intervals (ramp down). Certification condition D.2 specifies that the project would be required to operate in a levelized flow mode from April 1st through November 30th that would maintain water surface elevations in the lake between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD. Certification condition D.3 specifies that the project would be authorized to operate in a peaking mode from December 1st through March 31st that would maintain water surface elevations in the lake between 1,844 feet and 1,846 feet. Certification condition D.8 specifies that the project would be required to meet the minimum instream flow rate using average hourly values. Certification condition D.8 specifies required minimum instream flow rates of 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, from April 1st through November 30th; 1,000 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, from December 1st through January 31st; and 1,200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, from February 1st through March 31st. Certification conditions D.4 and D.5 specify that the project is authorized to use the lake storage to manage the flood flows.
Staff Analysis
The sedimentation study report found that hydropower generation at the Claytor Project attenuates flows from the 1,000 to 2,000 cfs range to the 750 to 1,000 cfs range, which represent one third of the flows observed for the New River at Allisonia. Project operation decreases the sediment transport capacity of the New River by decreasing the most frequent natural flow range by as much as 50 percent. These flow reductions downstream of Claytor dam produce a minor, perhaps insignificant, decrease in the sediment transport capacity. Claytor Lake traps much of the sediment flowing in the New River which results in flow released from Claytor dam that is relatively free of sediment (termed “clear water” releases). The sedimentation study report concluded that the potential effects of hydropower generation and “clear water” releases from Claytor dam are very limited in scope and do not extend in the New River beyond the southern border of Radford, Virginia (approximately 1 mile downstream of Claytor dam). The report goes on to state that, based on field reconnaissance and analytical methods, the New River was determined to be relatively stable from the southern border of Radford to the end of the survey extent in Glen Lyn, Virginia, at the Highway 460 bridge (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008a). The erosion study report identified localized areas of accelerated erosion along the banks of the New River downstream of Claytor dam throughout the survey extent. These localized areas of accelerated erosion were associated with disturbance from landowner activities such as overgrazing and cattle trampling the riverbank, and with geologic constrictions on river channel dimensions,
49 rather than the general background fluctuations from project operation. Areas of accelerated erosion immediately downstream from Claytor dam in the New River were identified, but erosion appears limited to the zone of fluctuating water level as a result of flood flow releases from the project. Additional bank erosion was observed on the river banks that resulted from typical fluvial erosion processes, such as from channel migration, which creates erosion on the outside bank of meander bends (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b).
Although Appalachian Power’s proposed operation measures were not specifically developed to address sediment transport in the New River downstream of Claytor dam, the five proposed actions presented above (concerning ramping, water surface fluctuation limitations, hourly and increased minimum flows, and flood storage) could have an effect on sediment transport by altering the magnitude, frequency, and duration of the project’s flows as well as the rate at which flows are reached. These operational changes would impact the magnitude of fluctuations in both water levels and flow rates in the New River below the Claytor dam. The impacts of the proposed operational changes were not assessed by either the sedimentation or erosion study reports. However, some bank erosion and sedimentation of the river channel can be expected to occur as a result of project operation, natural stream channel processes, and land management along the riparian areas. Although agency-recommended changes to project operations were not specifically developed to address sediment transport in the New River downstream of Claytor dam, agencies cited associated benefits with these changes, including close approximation of the natural annual hydrograph that would contribute to more stable stream morphology, reduction of bank erosion, and management of flood flows.
As provided under the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan, visual comparisons of differences in bank conditions over time and between stream reaches with and without continuing flow fluctuations would be beneficial in providing information for evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in project operation in reducing bank erosion. This information also could be beneficial in helping to determine whether additional corrective action is needed to reduce erosion downstream from the dam. The downstream limit of the monitoring appears to be adequate to provide the comparative data needed to estimate how much riverbank erosion would be occurring in the absence of operations-related fluctuations. However, visual observations alone would not allow for determination of the amount of bank recession due to erosion. The use of bank pins would allow quantitative measurement and assessments of riverbank erosion. Expanding the study scope in this manner would (a) make the Erosion Monitoring Plan more effective in achieving its objective of informing future management decisions, and (b) enhance the comparative information necessary to distinguish operations-related streambank erosion from erosion resulting from other processes.
The proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Plan does not include provisions to monitor changes to the depositional features included in the sedimentation study report.
50 To assess the impacts of the proposed project operation to sediment transport, depositional areas in the New River should be included in the proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Plan. Expanding the study scope in this manner would (a) make the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan more effective in achieving its objective of informing future management decisions, and (b) enhance the comparative information necessary to distinguish operations-related deposition from deposition resulting from other processes.
Lake Sedimentation
Sedimentation of Claytor Lake has led to a reduction in water-storage capacity of the lake. Although some sediment deposited in Claytor Lake is derived from shoreline erosion, the primary source of sediment is from soil erosion within the watershed. Under the proposed action, Appalachian Power proposes to modify project operations as described previously in the section entitled Erosion of Lake Shoreline. Although these proposed actions were not specifically developed to address erosion of the reservoir shoreline, these actions could have an effect on shoreline erosion and, therefore, lake sedimentation.
As part of the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, Appalachian Power proposes to monitor sediment conditions in those areas within the project boundary identified in the sedimentation study as having sustained significant sediment accumulation. Two areas that would be monitored include the New River from the Allisonia boat ramp to Lowman’s Ferry bridge (a distance of approximately 8.8 miles) and a 5.8-mile reach of Peak Creek. Monitoring would include high-resolution digital bathymetric survey data. An initial survey would be completed within 1 year after Commission approval of the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan. The data would be compared with previously collected data to determine the changes in sediment deposition. The monitoring plan would include development of a report within 6 months of the completion of the survey describing the sedimentation at each of the monitored areas. The report would identify actions to be taken by Appalachian Power to address impacts of sediment deposits on public access sites as well as identifying measures and actions to be implemented under the license and those actions that should be considered outside of the license. The bathymetric survey would be completed every 5 years.
Activities conducted under the proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Plan would be coordinated with other management plans. Sedimentation survey findings, including comparisons to previous survey findings and an assessment of the effects of sedimentation, and any proposed actions to address sedimentation, would be reported every 5 years. Various technical review committees established by Appalachian Power would review the reports before they are filed with the Commission.
Laura Bullard states that the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan should include the flexibility to monitor areas in addition to those areas proposed in the plan.
51 Staff Analysis
Sedimentation of Claytor Lake is primarily caused by erosion within the watershed outside of the project boundary. Therefore, it is expected that implementation of the proposed changes to project operation would only have a minor effect on sedimentation within the lake.
Under the proposed action, sediment would continue to accumulate in the lake. The sedimentation study report indicated that the primary source of sediment to the lake is soil erosion due to agricultural activity, mining activity, and land development in tributary watersheds. Sedimentation within Claytor Lake was found to be significant in the shallow coves, Peak Creek, and the shallow upstream reach of the lake near Allisonia. Sedimentation was not significant in areas near steep shorelines and in deeper water. Water level fluctuations, wind-generated waves and boat wakes act to facilitate the migration of sediments to the deeper sections of the lake. However, project operations did not significantly influence the actual sedimentation process of Claytor Lake (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008a).
Although most of the sedimentation within Claytor Lake was a result of watershed activities and not associated with project operation, Appalachian Power’s proposed monitoring plan would provide a mechanism to identify any effects from project operation, and actions that could be implemented to address any such effects.
Identification of the two monitoring areas in the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan was based on information provided in the sedimentation study report. These areas were selected because they had the highest rates of sedimentation. If the results of the monitoring indicate that additional areas need to be monitored, there is flexibility in the plan to have those areas included in future monitoring.
3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects
Recreational boating activity can be expected to increase on the lake, which can contribute to shoreline erosion. Recreational boating activity contributes to erosion because boat wakes generate waves that can erode shorelines. Because of its narrow shape, Claytor Lake experiences limited high-energy wind-generated waves due to the small size of the lake and sheltering of the lake by the steep topography. Therefore, increased boating activity could become a particularly significant source of wave action that would contribute to shoreline erosion.
The monitoring, assessment, and reporting provisions of the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan could help to address the aforementioned cumulative effects by identification of areas of erosion that may be affected by recreational activity, allowing
52 those areas to be targeted for measures to reduce shoreline erosion. In addition, the proposed demonstration project (of shoreline protection measures) could help to reduce cumulative effects by assisting landowners in identifying and implementing effective responses to shoreline erosion.
Flooding and seasonal high flows, unrelated to project operations, would continue to alter natural sediment transport in reaches of the New River downstream from Claytor dam. Because project operation reduces some of the natural seasonal variations in stream flow, continued operation would alter natural sediment transport in the river downstream where project operations cause significant flow fluctuations. Sediment would continue to be trapped in the lake thereby altering the natural sediment transport in the river.
Sediment would continue to accumulate in the lake as a result of soil erosion in tributary watersheds outside the project area. Soil erosion within the New River watershed is expected to continue to increase as development continues, particularly in smaller tributary watersheds.
3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Under all alternatives, continued shoreline erosion and recession would be unavoidable at Claytor Lake, due to the effects of wave action generated by wind and boat wakes. Wave action and the introduction of sediment from watershed sources would continue to contribute to the sedimentation within Claytor Lake. Although boating on Claytor Lake is expected to increase, which would result in additional shoreline erosion, the rates of shoreline erosion should continue to decline over time as the shoreline continues to move to equilibrium shapes. The operation of the project would continue to alter the sediment transport within the New River downstream of Claytor dam.
3.3.2 Water Resources
3.1.1 Affected Environment
WATER QUANTITY
The Claytor Project is located at river mile 252 on the New River in Pulaski County, Virginia with the waters of Claytor Lake extending a distance approximately 22 miles upstream. The New River is 750 miles long from the headwaters of its South Fork in Watauga County, North Carolina to the confluence with the Kanawha River in West Virginia. The North Fork originates in the mountainous northwest corner of North Carolina and joins the South Fork near the town of Crumpler, West Virginia. In total, the New River travels through three states - North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The New River eventually joins the Gauley River, which subsequently forms the Kanawha
53 River. The Kanawha River in-turn empties into the Ohio River, the waters of which ultimately drain into the Gulf of Mexico.
Hydrologic Information
The project receives flow primarily from the New River with substantially less contribution from Peak Creek, the principal tributary to Claytor Lake. The magnitude of inflows is highly variable because of the flashy character of the New River above Claytor Lake. The steep river gradient, estimated at an average of 9.5 feet per mile, combined with substantial regional rainfall in the area can result in sudden flows.
Inflows to the project are monitored at the USGS gage at Allisonia (No. 03168000) and Galax (No. 03164000) located upstream of Claytor Lake. The flow at Galax is multiplied by a drainage area ratio of 1.75 to give an approximation of inflow to the project. For the period of record at the Allisonia gage, 1930 to 2008, the average annual flow was 3,165 cfs. A maximum flow of 95,000 cfs was recorded on August 14, 1940, and a minimum flow of 369 cfs was recorded on August 26, 2008. The monthly minimum, maximum, and average flows for the Allisonia gage are presented in table 9. Generally, flows are lowest during the summer and highest during early spring.
Table 9. Monthly Average, maximum, and minimum flows measured at Allisonia (USGS Gauge No. 03168000) for the period of record, 1929 to 2008. Average Minimum Maximum Month (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) January 3,681 500 84,700 February 4,339 662 38,100 March 4,899 939 50,900 April 4,506 1,100 44,100 May 3,601 997 46,100 June 2,845 627 56,500 July 2,256 535 30,000 August 2,147 369 95,000 September 2,033 446 59,200 October 2,197 534 38,100 November 2,607 608 86,500 December 2,951 600 36,200
The project is operated as a peaking facility from October 16th to April 14th. Typically the project is operated so that the impoundment is full on Monday morning and is drawn down approximately 1 to 2 feet over the course of the week (between 1,846 feet
54 and 1,844 feet NGVD), and then refilled over the weekend during the lower demand period. Peaking involves discharging flows during a morning peaking period and evening peaking period. The amount and duration of the peaking depends on the amount of water available but generally unit discharges peak at approximately 6,000 cfs or 8,000 cfs. The minimum flow requirement of 750 cfs (average daily flow) is met in the hours between peaking events. A component of peaking operations is the ability to maintain a 10-minute response time to electricity demands. Unless there is an emergency demand within the system, individual turbine units are brought on-line and off-line at 15-minute intervals when more than one turbine would be operating.
From April 15th to October 15th, Appalachian Power voluntarily operates the project to maintain more constant downstream flows. This is referred to as “levelized flow”11 operating mode. During this period, the project is operated to maintain reservoir elevations between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 NGVD. If inflow is less than one unit flow, a unit is run in autocycle, meaning that the unit would operate for a portion of 1 hour to provide the required flow. For example, to release an average hourly flow of 750 cfs, the unit would operate 23 minutes every hour. Under the 1979 water quality certification, Appalachian Power is required to release an average daily flow of 750 cfs (7Q10) below the dam or inflow, whichever is less. Appalachian Power also provides special releases for downstream recreation events and would lower the reservoir to provide emergency storage in anticipation of high inflows.
Discharge from the project is measured at the USGS gage in Radford (No. 03171000), 8 miles downstream of the project and Glen Lyn (No. 03164000), approximately 56 miles downstream of the dam. The Radford gage records drainage from approximately 2,750 square miles including outflow from the Claytor Project and the Little River, which is just downstream of Claytor dam. Table 10 provides a summary of monthly flow data for the period when the project began fill operation in 1941 through 2009. For this period of record, the average annual discharge was 3,082 cfs. The maximum and minimum flows were 82,500 cfs (November 7, 1977) and 568 cfs (August 24, 2008).
Table 10. Monthly average, maximum and minimum monthly flows at the Radford USGS Gauge No. 03171000 (1941 – 2009). Average Maximum Minimum Month (cfs/MGD) (cfs) (cfs) January 4,296/2,776 74,000 798 February 5,253/3,395 45,300 754 March 5,902/3,817 57,700 842 April 5,425/3,506 49,600 816
11 Levelized flow is defined as releasing equal amounts of water over the course of a 24-hour period so that outflow of the project approximately equals inflow to the project.
55 May 4,365/2,821 50,400 873 June 3,552/2,296 50,700 728 July 2,753/1,779 29,800 715 August 2,443/1,579 42,200 568 September 2,465/1,593 65,600 652 October 2,625/1,696 45,700 693 November 3,086/1,994 82,500 627 December 3,568/2,306 44,800 795
Water Use
Power generation is the primary use of Claytor Lake. Other uses within the project boundary include a drinking water withdrawal from the reservoir. There are also water withdraws from the New River downstream of the project as described below and numerous point source discharge permits in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Water Withdrawal
The only water withdrawal from Claytor Lake is operated by the Pulaski County Public Service Authority (PSA), which serves Pulaski County and the Town of Dublin. Water is withdrawn from the reservoir and subsequently treated at a facility operated by the PSA with a capacity of 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The PSA has the right to withdraw up to 6.0 MGD. Since 1998, the amount of water withdrawn from Claytor Lake has averaged close to 2.0 MGD, while the average withdrawal in 2005 was 2.07 MGD. In 2004, the amount of water returned to the New River from the PSA Water Treatment Plant averaged about 0.039 MGD, as reported to Virginia DEQ.
Water withdrawals also occur from the New River upstream and downstream of the project. The rate of withdrawal from the New River Valley region between Roanoke and Wytheville totals 340 MGD. The majority of this occurs downstream of Claytor Lake by the American Electric Company plant in Glen Lyn for fossil fuel energy generation. Peak Creek, a tributary to the New River at Claytor Lake, serves the Town of Pulaski at 1.8 MGD. The City of Radford, also withdraws approximately 2.0 MGD from the New River downstream of the project although their permitted withdrawal is 8.0 MGD.
Demand for water is increasing across Virginia due to an increasing population and changing land uses, which includes more urban development. This is expected to lead to increases in water withdrawals, particularly because more than 90 percent of Virginia’s public water supply currently originates from surface water withdrawals. Of all surface water withdrawals in the state, 83 percent goes to public water supply. In 2006, the primary water use within the New River watershed was for manufacturing, which accounted for 75 percent of the consumption. In contrast, only 20 percent was
56 used for public water supply. In the project area, the population of Pulaski County is only expected to increase by 2 percent over the next 4 decades. The population of both the City of Radford and the Town of Pulaski are projected to slightly decline over the next several decades.
The New River Valley Planning District Commission, with the participation of 13 local governments, prepared a regional water supply plan for the New River Valley. In general, preliminary research indicates that the majority of the New River Valley has abundant water resources. However, periodic droughts, such as that experienced from 1999 to 2002, have led to local water shortages particularly for localities with inadequate storage. Studies are underway to determine the feasibility of interconnecting existing major public water systems, which would provide additional storage and access to multiple water sources for all.
Future new developments in Pulaski County include Commerce Park, an industrial park located north of the Town of Dublin, as well as residential projects in the Fairlawn area. The Virginia Department of Public Health regulations require water service providers to begin making plans for additional capacity when production reaches 80 percent of the system’s total capacity. According to the projected water demand model, the PSA is in the 60 percent capacity range and is not anticipated to exceed 80 percent during the projected term of any new license. Nevertheless, they have begun their planning process well in advance of the requirement. To address the future water needs of the planned developments, the PSA has identified three potential sources of water including 1) purchasing water from the City of Radford (currently withdrawing downstream of the project), 2) withdrawing from Little/Big Reed Island Creek (below the Allisonia USGS gage, or 3) in emergency situations purchasing limited amounts of water from the Town of Pulaski.
Groundwater Resources
The communities in the New River Valley that use groundwater systems include Montgomery, Floyd, and Giles Counties, the Town of Floyd and Giles County towns of Glen Lyn, Narrows, Pearisburg, Pembroke, and Rich Creek. The most significant users of groundwater in the region, however, are not PSAs but private industries, primarily mining operations in Giles County. Private entities in the New River Valley collectively are permitted to withdraw groundwater at a rate of 10,684,985 MGD. Daily groundwater permits for public use include Montgomery County at 67,072 MGD, Floyd County at 108,548 MGD, and Giles County at 1,238,884 MGD.
Recently, significant numbers of wells and springs have been drying up in Floyd County, which lacks true aquifers and relies instead on water-filled fractures. During drought conditions of 1999 through 2002, the New River had 337 replacement well applications in Floyd County. Many of the new wells had depths of 600 to 800 feet.
57 Groundwater shortages for the county were the consequence of prolonged drought, increased development, and Floyd County’s particular geology. The county is scheduled to add a new well system when the demand requires. The county is scheduled to reach 80 percent capacity by 2020.
Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permits
The Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) is Virginia’s version of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems, and is mandated by regulations implementing the Clean Water Act. The Virginia DEQ has issued 8 VPDES permits among Claytor Lake, its tributaries and the New River in the vicinity of the project. Five dischargers are located upstream of the project, three are located downstream. The permitted dischargers are presented in table 11.
58 Table 11. VPDES Permits near the Claytor Project March 22, 2010. (Source: http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home). Design Approximate Receiving Facility VPDES# discharge distance from waterbody (MGD) Claytor dam Upstream Pulaski Co. Public unnamed 14 miles upstream Service Authority tributary to of the dam Water Treatment Plant Claytor Lake VA0051799 0.03200 Town of Pulaski Water Tract Fork VA0079863 0.2620 18 miles upstream Treatment Plant (tributary to of the dam Peak Creek Days Inn unnamed VA0060321 0.03900 13 miles upstream tributary to Peak of the dam Creek Magnox Specialty Peak Creek VA0000281 0.81 18 miles upstream Pigments, Inc. Pulaski of the dam AEP – Claytor New River VA0087084 4.244 Hydroelectric Project Total = 5.36 MGD Downstream Radford City – Water New River VA0054780 0.79 3 miles below the Treatment Plant dam Internet Corporation – New River VA0000213 1.94 4 miles below the Radford dam Peppers Ferry Regional New River VA0062685 9.0 6 miles below the WTP dam Total = 11.73 MGD
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Standards
The state of Virginia has established water quality standards to protect all state waters for recreation, wildlife, the growth of a balanced population of aquatic life, and the production of edible fish and shellfish. Virginia DEQ classifies the New River at the Claytor Project as Class IV, Mountainous Zone. The water quality standards for Class IV waters require that the DO concentration be maintained at not less than 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and 4 mg/l for the daily average and minimum concentrations, respectively. In addition, pH must not be less than 6.0 or more than 9.0 and maximum
59 temperatures shall not exceed 29 degrees Celsius (oC). Water quality standards for temperature, pH and DO do not apply when water flows are below the 7Q10 flow.12
Virginia DEQ also has designated Claytor Lake (New River) and its tributaries as “nutrient enriched waters” from the Claytor dam upstream to Big Reed Island Creek. In addition, Virginia DEQ has designated Peak Creek from its headwaters to the confluence of Claytor Lake as nutrient enriched waters. Nutrient enriched waters are defined by Virginia DEQ as waters having one or more of the following indicators of nutrient enrichment: high chlorophyll a concentrations, high DO fluctuations, and/or high phosphorous. The current nutrient criteria for Claytor Lake are 25 micrograms per liter (μg/L) for chlorophyll a and 20 μg/L for total phosphorous.
Water Quality Impairments
The Virginia DEQ develops and submits a Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report (Integrated Report) which combines the 305(b) report (Water Quality Monitoring) and 303(d) list of impaired waters for the EPA on a 2-year cycle. The Integrated Report summarizes water quality conditions in Virginia based on data collected through the State’s Water Quality Monitoring Strategy. The 2008 Integrated Report summarizes data collected from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2006. It reports 2,263 acres of Claytor Lake, including Peak Creek, under EPA Category 4C for low DO. Under Category 4C, the water body is impaired for one or more designated uses (in this case aquatic life) but does not require a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant and/or is determined to be caused by natural conditions (Virginia DEQ, 2008). In Claytor Lake’s case, low DO in project waters results from thermal stratification which isolates cooler oxygen deficient waters near the bottom of the lake from the oxygen rich surface layers of the lake.
The 2008 Integrated Report also states that fish consumption uses were not supported for the New River at Claytor Lake including the Peak Creek and Reed Creek tributaries. These waters were impaired due to potentially harmful levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue. The Virginia Department of Heath has issued fish consumption advisories to anglers that keep, cook, and eat certain species of fish found in portions of the New River upstream of the project and the entire reach of the New River downstream of the project to the Virginia-West Virginia state line. Table 12 summarizes fish consumption advisories for waters in the vicinity of the Claytor Project.
12 The 7Q10 is the lowest stream flow, averaged over seven consecutive days that would not be expected to occur once in ten climatic years (climatic year begins April 1 and ends March 31). The 7Q10 flow value for the New River upstream of the project at the Allisonia stream gauge is 722 cfs; the 7Q10 flow for the New River downstream of the project at the Radford stream gauge is 922 cfs. The 7Q10 flow value for the Claytor Project is 750 cfs.
60
Table 12. 2008 Fish Consumption Advisories for waters in the vicinity of the Claytor Project. (Source: Virginia Department of Health, 2008). Advisories/ Water body/affected boundaries Contaminant Species restrictions PCBs carp do not eat New River from below Claytor Lake dam PCBs flathead downstream ~ 68 miles to the VA/WV state no more than catfish line near the town of Glen Lyn in Giles two PCBs channel County, VA (8/6/01; modified 12/13/04) meals/month catfish New River/Claytor Lake from the Rt. 77 PCBs carp no more than bridge near Jackson Ferry downstream to PCBs smallmouth two Claytor Lake dam including its tributaries, bass meals/month Peak Creek up to the confluence with North Fork Peak Creek (Tract Fork) in Pulaski and Reed Creek up to the confluence with Miller near Rt. 121 bridge near Max Meadows. These river segments comprise ~68 miles. (12/13/04)
Water Quality Studies
Water quality information for the Claytor Project was available from Virginia DEQ, Virginia DGIF, FOCL, and Virginia Tech, and Appalachian Power conducted additional water quality monitoring in support of the Claytor Project relicensing. A summary of the sources of information is found below.
Virginia DEQ and Virginia Tech Water Quality Monitoring:
Beginning in the 1990s, Virginia DEQ began regular water quality monitoring within the project waters including Claytor Lake, the Peak Creek arm, and periodic sampling on the New River just below Claytor dam. Virginia DEQ monitors 10 stations in the reservoir, generally between spring and fall, collecting ambient water quality data and conducting fish tissue sampling. Occasionally, at the request of Virginia DGIF, Virginia DEQ conducts additional sampling on the New River below the Claytor Project. Results of prior monitoring show a majority of the values recorded for DO are compliant with state water quality standards, although there are a few instances of excursions below state water quality standards for DO; there were no temperature excursions above state water quality standards.
61 In September 2002, DO dropped below the 4.0 mg/l water quality standard downstream of Claytor dam. During this period, incoming mean daily flows recorded upstream of the project at the Allisonia gage were below the 7Q10 of 722 cfs for 10 days. Downstream of the project, flows at the Radford gage were below the 7Q10 of 921 cfs for 23 days. Because incoming and discharge flows were below the 7Q10, compliance with the standard was not applicable.
Virginia DEQ has collected depth profiles at six stations in the deeper portions of Claytor Lake and the Peak Creek arm of Claytor Lake annually, April through October, since 1983. The DO and water depth profile for the deepest station of Claytor Lake (station 9-NEW087.14), located near the dam, shows that Claytor Lake experiences thermal stratification during the summer months which leads to a sharp decline in water temperature and DO concentrations in the deeper levels of the lake. For the warm summer months of May through September, surface water temperatures near the dam ranged from 10.0 to 29.4oC; temperatures near the bottom of the water column ranged from 5 to 12.4oC. Typical with reservoirs of this size, DO at the bottom of the reservoir during warm summer periods was limited. Dissolved oxygen at the bottom of the water column ranged from 0 to 8.2 mg/L for the period of 1983 to 2007. At the surface, dissolved oxygen ranged from 2.9 to 16.3 mg/L including dissolved oxygen measured when flows were less than the 7Q10.
Kilpatrick (2003) also reported on the thermal stratification pattern of Claytor Lake. Kilpatrick (2003) collected monthly DO and temperature data from 1- to 2-meter intervals from July 2001 to August 2002. Results of this study showed that DO and temperature varied by depth only from May through December. During January through April, DO and temperature were more or less equal throughout the water column. The data also showed that by mid summer, DO levels greater than 5 mg/L were limited to water depths of less than 6 meters.
Virginia DGIF Water Quality Monitoring:
Since 2004, the Virginia DGIF has collected continuous temperature data upstream and downstream of Claytor Lake (Kleinschmidt and Baird, 2008b). This data is useful for evaluating the recent thermal history of the river and to help determine the influence of Claytor Lake on the downstream temperature regime. Figure 3 shows a comparison of average monthly river temperature upstream and downstream of Claytor Lake. During late summer, fall and early winter, all downstream stations were warmer than the upstream station while the reverse was true during late winter, spring and early summer. The observed pattern of water temperature shows that the temperature of the downstream reach of the New River is moderated by discharges of the project, the temperature of which is determined at the intake zone.
62 Figure 3. Comparison of average monthly river temperature upstream and downstream of Claytor Lake. (Source: application).
Friends of Claytor Lake Water Quality Monitoring:
In addition to Virginia DEQ, FOCL and Ferrum College jointly monitor water quality every summer on Claytor Lake. Data are summarized in annual reports and posted on FOCL website (www.focl.org) for the public. The purpose of the program is to assess the degree of nutrient enrichment, or trophic status, in Claytor Lake. FOCL uses Carlson’s Trophic State Index (TSI) for assessing the trophic status of Claytor Lake, which incorporates total phosphorous, chlorophyll a, and Secchi depth measurements (Carlson, 1977, as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009). Based on this index, Claytor Lake can be characterized as a moderately eutrophic riverine impoundment, with characteristics of both rivers and lakes (Normandeau, 2008, as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009). For the 12-year period of record, the Claytor Lake trophic status appears to be relatively stable and no long-term trends on trophic status are apparent.
2007 Water Quality Survey:
In support of Appalachian Power’s license application, Normandeau Associates conducted a water quality study in 2007 to assess potential impacts of the project on water quality. Sampling occurred during the spring, summer, and fall of 2007 at locations upstream and downstream of Claytor dam and from a mussel bed located upstream of Claytor Lake. Vertical profile data was collected at one transect above the dam, and 10 individual profiles distributed throughout Claytor Lake at mid-channel, the mouth of Dublin Hollow, at Allisonia, and 1-mile up Peak Creek. Downstream, four
63 vertical profiles were taken at the tailrace, Route 11 bridge (5 miles downstream), just downstream of Plum Creek (approximately 8 miles downstream), and in the Pembroke area (approximately 29 miles downstream). Finally, the mussel bed located upriver at the New River Trail State Park was monitored for temperature.
Claytor Lake Water Temperature and DO:
Results of the water quality data collected in 2007 for Claytor Lake were largely consistent with historic data. Surface water temperatures generally increased from mid- June until mid-August with shallow waters reaching their maximum seasonal levels (28- 29oC) by August 8. Surface water temperatures then began a gradual cooling trend around September 1 continuing until the end of the study. Temperature in deeper lake waters (below 25 meters) was consistent, and remained less than 10oC or less throughout the study.
Changes in the depths of the lake strata were observed over the course of the study. In mid June, the epilimnion was approximately 5 meters deep, and then deepened throughout the summer and fall to as much as 20 meters by late October. The metalimnion was found between depths of 5 to 25 meters in mid June, shrinking to a zone between 20 and 25 meters by late October. The thermocline was generally located at depths ranging from 20 to 24 meters and the hypolimnion was always greater than 25 meters during the course of the study. The thermal structure of Claytor Lake was found to be typical for a large and sufficiently deep lake at this latitude and elevation, except that the thermocline was substantially deeper than what might be expected in the earlier summer period. The depth of the thermocline was a function of the depth of the intake zone.
The 2007 DO levels were also consistent with historic data. DO levels were consistently high in the epilimnion (0 to 5 meters deep in mid June; 0 to 20 meters deep in late October) and consistently low in the metalimnion and hypolimnion. Observed DO levels in the epilimnion were often 9.0 mg/L or greater, well above the saturation levels at the associated temperatures, indicating that algal growth was occurring near the surface. There was one exception to this pattern observed in the metalimnion. In late July there existed a pocket of reasonably well-oxygenated, colder water in the lower 3 miles of Claytor Lake. The pocket dissipated by late August. In the metalimnion, the primary influence on DO is from sediment oxygen demand (SOD) and respiring, dying and/or decaying algal cells from water column above.
Results of the water quality study for Claytor Lake also show that water quality does not fluctuate diurnally. At all depths, temperature and dissolved oxygen were relatively consistent throughout the day.
Tailrace DO and Temperature:
64 Continuous monitoring of the tailrace showed a drop in DO as the summer progressed (figure 4). At the first sampling day, DO was 6.0 mg/L and then fell below the 5 mg/L daily average state standard by June 26. By July 9, instantaneous DO measurements fell below the 4 mg/L instantaneous state standard and continued to fall, reaching a minimum instantaneous value of 2 to 3 mg/L for all of August and part of September. DO levels rose above the instantaneous standard by mid October but did not exceed the average daily standard of 5 mg/L until the last week of October. During this period, water temperature rose consistently from 20oC to 24.5oC by mid September, declining thereafter.
Figure 4. Claytor Lake tailwater continuous temperature and dissolved oxygen measurement, June 18 through October 31, 2007. See application figure 4.3.2.1-6 on the Commission’s eLibrary to view in color. (Source: application).
The low DO levels in the tailrace observed during the survey period were also likely exacerbated by extremely low river flow in 2007. Between August and September, average daily inflow dropped from 100 cfs to 600 cfs, below the minimum flow requirement for the project. Average daily flows at the Allisonia gage upstream were also below the 7Q10 value of 722 cfs for 12 days between late August and mid September in which case water quality standards would not apply. However, it is important to note that this 12-day period represents only a portion of the total days extending from late June through late October when tailwater DO levels did not meet instantaneous and daily average criteria.
Water quality data also showed that conditions in the tailrace were directly related to water quality conditions of Claytor Lake, measured at the intake zone at a depth between 6.6 and 20.8 meters below full pond. Continuous monitoring for water temperature and DO support this observation. Water temperature measured at the intake zone was similar to temperature measured in the tailrace. DO levels measured in the
65 tailrace were slightly higher (0.5 to 1.0 mg/L) indicating a slight aeration of the discharge, most likely from air entrainment by the turbines or discharge turbulence.
The potential impact of daily and hourly auto-cycling on tailrace water quality was also evaluated as part of this study. Both temperature and DO appear to change cyclically and on a daily basis. Both parameters spiked in parallel initially suggesting either hydro operations or natural diurnal patterns were responsible for the observed increase. Temperature varied by only a few tenths of a degree while DO varied by as much as 1 mg/L. Subsequent examination of the spikes showed that the increases in temperature and DO occurred in the early to late afternoon, which is most likely the result of normal diurnal patterns. A similar diurnal pattern was observed for temperature and DO at the intake zone level in Claytor Lake. Hydro operations were subsequently discounted as the cause of daily changes because daily changes in temperature and DO did not correlate to auto-cycling patterns.
New River Downstream Water Quality:
Results of the downstream monitoring were similar to historic data. When water temperatures were naturally warming, water temperatures 8 miles downstream of Claytor Lake dam were substantially cooler by as much as 4oC, compared to conditions upstream of Claytor Lake. When water temperatures were naturally falling, temperatures as far downstream as Pembroke were higher than upstream temperatures.
DO levels showed a different trend with levels gradually rising downstream from the tailrace to Pembroke. In the tailrace, DO was consistently below 4.0 mg/L from late June through early October. At the Route 11 bridge, 5.3 miles downstream of the project, the river assimilated the low DO discharge with measured values above 4.0 mg/L. DO levels continued to rise 8 and 29.2 miles downstream of the project, respectively.
Mussel Bed Temperatures:
Water temperature was measured upstream at a mussel bed near the New River Trail State Park. Temperatures ranged from 0 oC in January to a high of 29oC during mid August. Typical of most rivers, river temperature followed seasonal trends for warming and cooling.
Water Quality Modeling
Impacts of project operations on suitable water quality for fisheries resources (particularly striped bass) was assessed by Reservoir Environmental Management using CE-QUAL-W2, a two dimensional model for water quality. Modeling of Claytor Lake water quality was proposed to further investigate if project operations limit striped bass
66 habitat in Claytor Lake. Kilpatrick (2003) identified a narrow band of suitable habitat near the thermocline 17 to 23 meters below the lake surface in 2003. This area had suitable temperature but often had relatively low dissolved oxygen due to anaerobic conditions near the lake bottom creating a phenomena referred to as “summer temperature-oxygen squeeze.” This phenomenon is known to limit the growth and survival of striped bass (REMI, 2008).
The model was used to simulate tolerable and optimal striped bass habitat during the period of time that Claytor Lake stratifies (from late spring to early fall) under different operating regimes and hydrologic conditions. Criteria for optimal striped bass habitat were temperatures between 15.0 and 20.0 oC and DO exceeding 5.0 mg/L. Criteria for tolerable habitat were defined as temperatures between 25 and 27oC and DO greater than 2.5 mg/L. Four operating scenarios were simulated by the model existing conditions (peaking from October 15 through April 15 with a fall drawdown); existing conditions without a drawdown; peaking year-round without a drawdown; and run-of- river year-round. Results of the modeling showed the formation of a lens of water with suitable habitat at the depth of the intake structure in Claytor Lake in early June. This lens of water is pulled toward the intake and disappears approximately 1 month later as the temperature increases. Optimum habitat was not available during the summer months (June through August) but tolerable habitat was available during this period.
Results of the modeling showed that project operations did not affect the water quality conditions, residence time, or available volume of suitable striped bass habitat. Rather, variations in inflow conditions had more of an effect on the available volume of striped bass habitat than project operations.
2007 Instream Flow Needs Study
In support of the relicensing, an Instream Flow Needs (IFN) Study was conducted to evaluate flow needs from Claytor dam downstream to the head of Bluestone Reservoir, a distance of approximately 59 miles. The Stream Network Temperature Model (SNTEMP), a widely-applied, peer-reviewed, and published model was developed as a component of the IFN to predict water temperatures in the New River. The SNTEMP model was calibrated using mean daily data collected over 2 years, including stream flows, temperatures, and climatological data as well as fixed measurements of topographic shading and stream geometry. In general, the model indicated that seasonal ambient conditions have a greater effect on water temperature in the New River downstream of Claytor dam than project operational scenarios. This is consistent with results of the 2007 water quality study (Normandeau, 2008).
3.1.2 Environmental Effects
67 Good water quality is critical for the survival, growth and propagation of fish, invertebrates and other aquatic life. It is also important for human health and safety. This section discusses the effects of project operations on water quality and quantity. Refer to the aquatic resources section (3.3.3) for analysis of proposed operation on fish and other aquatic species and the terrestrial resources section (3.3.4) for effects on sensitive shoreline habitat. The recreation resources section (3.3.6) includes an analysis of the proposed recreational flow releases on downstream activities while both the land use and aesthetic resources section (3.3.7) and the geology and soils section (3.3.1) address how elimination of an annual late fall/winter drawdown affects shoreline protection and use.
Project Operation and Effects on Water Quality
At certain times of the year, DO in the New River below Claytor Dam does not meet state standards and falls below the 4.0 mg/L daily average water quality standard. Project operation not only affects DO but also temperature in the New River below the dam by withdrawing water for power generation from deep elevations of the reservoir that are cool with low DO. Low DO and temperature at the reservoir withdraw elevation is a result of natural conditions such as lake stratification13 and algal bloom die-offs.
As described in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Appalachian Power proposes to enhance DO conditions in the project discharge by utilizing the existing deicing bubbler system located in front of the headgates to increase the DO in the water discharged by the project. An engineering evaluation would be conducted to determine how this system could be configured to achieve maximum aeration efficiency.
Appalachian Power also proposes to monitor DO and temperature for the first 5 years of any new license. DO concentrations and water temperatures would be monitored continuously year-round for the first 5 years after license issuance downstream in the Claytor dam tailrace (approximately 0.5 mile from the dam). Appalachian Power proposes to extend the monitoring period beyond 5 years if adequate DO enhancement testing opportunity does not occur (i.e., a low-flow of less than 826 cfs persisting over several days and/or persistent depressed DO concentrations of less than 5.0 mg/L). If an adequate testing period occurs, Appalachian Power plans to monitor tailrace DO with and without an enhancement measure in place to assess the effectiveness of the implemented measure. In addition, at least once per year during the 5-year monitoring period, Appalachian Power would measure vertical profile water temperatures and DO
13 Lake stratification is a natural condition found on deep lakes where water is separated into three distinct layers based on temperature and density. Higher density cool water is found at the lowest level called the hypolimnion. The uppermost lake layer with the warmest water is called the epliminion and the middle layer where a rapid change in temperature is found is called the thermocline.
68 concentrations across 2 transects. One transect would be located upstream of the Claytor Lake dam at the forebay; the other would be 1 km upstream of the dam. Measurements would be made during the period of thermal stratification and while the project is generating, at four locations across the transect, and at each location measurements would be made at 1-m depth intervals from surface to bottom.
Appalachian Power’s definition of a depressed DO condition requires more clarification, specifically what is meant by DO measurements <5.0 mg/L apart from inflow. From the information provided it appears that a depressed DO condition is one where DO is less than 5.0 mg/L in the tailrace. Appalachian Power’s definition of a depressed DO condition also suggests that DO monitoring is planned for the inflow. The plan, however, did not include provisions for where and how inflow DO would be monitored.
As part of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Appalachian Power also plans to establish a water quality technical review committee to review and comment on the monitoring results to be presented in an annual report. The technical committee would also evaluate the success of the DO enhancement measures. Finally, as an arrangement outside of any new license, Appalachian Power would provide funding assistance to FOCL to assist in their on-going water quality monitoring programs. The results of the monitoring activities of these associations would be incorporated into the annual report to the water quality technical review committee and the Commission.
Virginia DGIF is concerned that the proposed mitigation measure for low DO (deicing bubbler) would form refugia for striped bass near the front of the headgates, which could result in the loss of a recreationally important species by entrainment and impingement. As such, Virginia DGIF recommends that this potential impact should be considered in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
Virginia DEQ is concerned about the project’s potential to impact water temperature and DO levels in the New River, particularly below the project dam. In addition, Virginia DEQ is concerned about the proposal to add oxygen to the release water during low-flow conditions through the use of the existing deicing system or modification of the system.
Certification condition E.4 specifies implementation of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan with three revisions. Certification condition E.4.(a) specifies a minimum of five DO and temperature monitoring stations downstream of Claytor dam to the Route 11 bridge. Certification condition E.4.(b) specifies an extension of the study period to identify depressed DO conditions if a low-flow event does not occur within the initial 5-year period or if depressed DO levels continues during the initial 5-year period. Certification condition E.4.(c) specifies that Appalachian Power is required to provide alternative measures to mitigate for low DO if the deicing system fails to resolve low DO
69 in the tailrace within 120 days of completion of effectiveness studies. The revisions to the Water Quality Monitoring Plan would also require consultation with the Water Quality/Water Management Technical Review Committee to determine the downstream temperature and DO monitoring stations, the period for extending the study to identify depressed DO conditions (if necessary), and alternative mitigation measures for enhancing DO in the tailrace.
Certification condition E.10 would require Appalachian Power to file the revisions to the Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan within 120 days of issuance of the new license.
Staff Analysis
Results of Appalachian Power’s 2007 water quality monitoring showed that, within Claytor Lake, water quality conditions were similar to typical deep water lakes, where the reservoir thermally stratifies in the summer and is relatively isothermal in the late fall and winter. When Claytor Lake stratifies, as it does during the late spring and summer, the project’s intake withdraws water from the lower reservoir depths which are low in DO. Supporting evidence can be seen in the water quality conditions measured at the intake depth of the reservoir, which were very similar to water quality conditions found in the tailrace. Figure 5 presents continuous temperature readings in the tailrace and average temperatures at Station 12, the dam intake zone. This figure shows that intake zone temperature is very similar to the tailrace temperature. Figure 6 presents the same data for DO. From this figure, DO is also very similar in both zones, with DO in the tailwaters approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L higher than in the intake zone. The slight increase in tailrace DO was the result of air entrainment from water passed through the turbine and/or from turbulence in the dam tailwaters.
70 Figure 5. Tailrace and intake zone average daily temperature. (Source: 2008 Water Quality Report).
Figure 6. Tailrace and intake zone average daily DO. (Source: 2008 Water Quality Report).
71 Downstream of the tailrace, DO was found to increase with distance downstream. All DO measurements downstream of the tailrace met state water quality standards for instantaneous values.
Project discharges affect temperature downstream for a much longer distance; up to 30 miles under some conditions. Between late summer and early winter, the thermal mass of Claytor Lake causes project discharges to be warmer relative to upstream waters. From late winter to early summer, the discharge consists of cooler waters, which leads to cooling of the downstream water up to 4oC, relative to upstream waters. Although the project influences temperature below the project, all measurements were in compliance with state water quality criteria standards.
Results of the 2007 monitoring program and subsequent modeling of project operation showed that incoming flow, meteorological conditions, and depth of the intake zone were the dominant factors influencing DO concentrations in the project discharge. The 2007 monitoring period was classified as low flow, which contributed to the extended period of low DO conditions in the tailrace. Streamflow during the 2007 monitoring period was significantly below average except for a handful of days during the study period. From early July through September 2007, the DO intake zone was consistently below the instantaneous water quality standard for average daily DO (5.0 mg/L). Daily inflow to the project dropped from 1,000 cfs in early August to less than 600 cfs in early September. Low flows continued to the end of October when heavy rainfall raised river levels. This in turn led to increased DO at the end of October. Extended low-flow periods that reduced flushing of Claytor Lake allowed for the accumulation of low DO water at the intake zone for an extended period of time.
Appalachian Power’s proposal to enhance DO conditions in the project discharge by utilizing the existing deicing system to increase DO in the water discharged from the project would be feasible provided there is sufficient contact time prior to discharge and provided the system can supply sufficient aeration to raise DO levels to the instantaneous minimum standard. Appalachian Power plans to implement this measure within 1 year of approval of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Fine bubble aeration could be evaluated, as it is frequently employed at wastewater treatment plants to provide enhanced DO, and would be effective in raising low DO at the intake to Virginia state water quality standards. Appalachian Power’s proposed implementation period (July through September) also corresponds to the observed period of low DO in the monitoring study. A plan to continuously monitor DO and water temperature in the tailrace would also help determine if the deicer system successfully enhances DO in the tailrace. The plan, however, did not provide a period of time to implement a new measure should the deicing measure fail to enhance low tailrace DO. A 120-day period to develop an alternative mitigation method in consultation with the Water Quality/Water Management Technical Review Committee would ensure continued progress in addressing low DO in the tailrace.
72 Depending on the type of deicing system planned to enhance low DO, there is the potential to cause enhanced mixing in the hypolimnion which could destratify Claytor Lake. This water quality impact should be evaluated in the development of an enhancement measure for low DO. In addition, because the proposed plan could provide refugia for striped bass, which in turn could possibly lead to entrainment and impingement of a valued game fish, the final engineering design should consider impacts on reservoir fisheries resources. Evaluating the potential mixing effects using existing CE-QUAL-W2 model data should be initially explored in evaluating this measure.
Addressing low DO in the tailrace would directly benefit the New River downstream of the project. In addition to improving aquatic habitat for benthic and pelagic species, improving discharge DO would provide a source of oxygenated water that can be mixed with wastewater discharges downstream of the project, thus improving water quality conditions downstream of the project.
Appalachian Power’s plan to continuously monitor DO and temperature in the tailrace for 5 years post-licensing would also ensure that project effects on DO are measured year-round, rather than just the identified period of concern (July through September). To further investigate the impact of low inflow on DO in the tailrace, Appalachian Power plans to monitor incoming flow to identify a low-flow period (<826 cfs) and monitor for low DO (<5.0 mg/L apart from inflow). Measuring DO at an upstream location (e.g. Allisonia gage) ensures that differences in DO are accurately captured between incoming flow and the tailrace. Year-round continuous DO monitoring at the inflow is not needed to identify depressed DO conditions. If the Allisonia gage were continuously monitored for DO from April 1 to November 1, Appalachian Power could identify a depressed DO event if one occurred outside the historic period of record for low DO.14 Appalachian Power’s plan to extend monitoring beyond 5 years if an incoming low-flow period is not observed is warranted to ensure that the proposed measure would enhance DO in the tailrace. In addition, the proposed plan to measure vertical profile DO and temperature in the forebay also would identify periods of low DO at the intake zone, which ultimately characterizes water quality conditions in the project discharge.
The formation of a technical advisory committee to review and comment on the water quality data and the success of the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that the appropriate entities are informed and able to provide input regarding mitigation measures. Appalachian Power should provide the DO and temperature data to the stakeholders in a timely manner to allow the agencies, and other stakeholders sufficient
14 Depressed DO levels historically occur in the tailrace from late spring through early fall depending on inflow and meteorological conditions. The duration of a depressed DO period varies.
73 time to evaluate the monitoring data for accuracy and make any needed recommendations.
Certification condition E.4.(a) specifies that Appalachian Power monitor DO and temperature in five locations downstream of Claytor dam to the Route 11 bridge. This condition did not include any methodology details such as frequency or duration of monitoring; therefore, we interpret this measure to mean continuous monitoring for DO and temperature year-round at a total of five locations downstream of the project to the Route 11 bridge for a period of 5 years. In the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Appalachian Power plans to continuously monitor DO and temperature in the tailrace, therefore, this certification condition specifies an additional four continuous monitoring stations.
Results of the water quality monitoring study showed that during a low water year (2007), DO levels in the tailrace were below the instantaneous 4.0 mg/L state standard. At the next downstream monitoring station, the Route 11 bridge located 5.3 miles downstream of the project, all DO readings were greater than 4.0 mg/L. Because the study design did not include any monitoring stations between the tailrace and the Route 11 bridge, the results could not clearly identify areas of the New River downstream of the project affected by low DO. Deploying continuous temperature and DO monitors at locations between the tailrace and Route 11 bridge would help to identify downstream areas of the New River affected by low DO and identify the area where low DO is assimilated by the New River.
The formation of a technical advisory committee to review and comment on the water quality data and the success of the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that the appropriate entities are informed and able to provide input regarding enhancement measures. Appalachian Power should provide the DO and temperature data to the stakeholders in a timely manner to allow the agencies, and other stakeholders sufficient time to evaluate the monitoring data for accuracy and make any needed recommendations. If the proposed deicing system enhances low DO in the project discharge, the additional downstream continuous DO monitoring would not likely be necessary and could be suspended after consultation with the Water Quality/Water Management Technical Review Committee.
Project Operation and Effects on Water Use
During project scoping, Pulaski County, FOCL, and other stakeholders expressed concern over the project’s effect on existing and future water withdrawals by other entities within and outside the project area. Project operation can affect the rate and timing of discharges to the New River and as such, can affect the availability of water supply on the New River for users downstream.
74 There is only one withdraw from Claytor Lake (Pulaski PSA) and there are multiple downstream consumptive uses of water including public water supply, mining, commercial uses, institutional uses, livestock watering, and steam-electric power generation. Preliminary research by the New River Valley Planning District Commission indicated that the majority of the New River Valley has abundant water resources and current system capacity will remain the same into the year 2050.
Appalachian Power did not propose any specific measures that would affect current or future water withdraws.
Staff Analysis
According to the New River Valley Water Management Plan, the New River Valley has abundant water supplies, including those in the vicinity of the project. Only the Pulaski PSA withdraws water from Claytor Lake, and is currently taking 66 percent of their permitted system capacity, or 2 mgd of the permitted 3 mgd. They return about 1.5 percent of their withdrawal to the New River downstream of the project. The City of Radford withdraws 30 percent of its system’s permitted capacity, or 2.4 mgd of 8 mgd, from the New River downstream of the project. Projections based on population growth in the New River Valley predict that both of these users will continue to use the same percentage of system capacity into the year 2050 (NRVPDC, 2007). The project would operate in a levelized flow mode for 8 months of the year and in a peaking mode for 4 months of the year. In addition, during times of drought, the average hourly project discharge is matched to inflow to provide water downstream. As such, project operation would not likely impact future water use because there would be sufficient water to meet future demands.
Project Operation and Effects on Groundwater Resources
During scoping of the Claytor Project, Lyn Sharp of the New River Watershed Roundtable requested that the environmental document include an analysis of the effects of project operation on groundwater resources. This issue was raised due to the increased number of wells that dried up in Floyd County during the prolonged drought period (1992 to 2002).
Appalachian Power did not propose any specific measures in its Water Management Plan that pertain to groundwater resources and none of the agencies or other stakeholders made any recommendations to address the effects on groundwater resources.
Staff Analysis
75 Impounding water for reservoirs and forebays creates spatial shifts in groundwater infiltration. When a reservoir is in hydrologic connection with an aquifer, changes in reservoir elevation will induce changes in the water level of the aquifer. As the reservoir elevation decreases, water will move from the aquifer to the reservoir, thereby decreasing the aquifer water table and increasing the reservoir volume until the reservoir elevation and the aquifer water table are in equilibrium (USGS, 2006). The rate of response of the aquifer to reservoir elevation changes is a function of underlying geology and the duration of time between shifts in reservoir elevation. Drawing a reservoir down over an extended time directly impacts groundwater availability by reducing the water table as water from the aquifer flows into the reservoir.
The project would not have a major impact on groundwater availability because Appalachian Power’s future operating plan does not include a substantial reservoir drawdown for power generation. Appalachian Power plans to operate the reservoir within a small range of reservoir stage elevation (maximum of 2-foot variation) over the course of a short period of time (1 week) during an off-peak period for water demand (fall through winter). During periods of peak demand for water (spring through summer), the project would be operated with only a 1-foot change in reservoir elevation. Operating with minimal reservoir elevation changes would not impact groundwater resources.
Sediment Contamination
According to the 2008 Integrated Report, fish tissue from the New River and Claytor Lake contained PCBs at levels high enough to require a fish consumption advisory. PCBs and other contaminants bind to sediments and enter the project from non-point source runoff, and are subsequently deposited to the bottom as river flow reduces approaching the dam. Other contaminants may enter the project via atmospheric deposition. Flood events can transport contamination downstream.
Water quality conditions at the bottom of a reservoir can affect the bioavailability of sediment contaminants, as can resuspension of contaminated sediments, which could be caused by wind, wave action (natural or from boat wakes), or reservoir elevation fluctuation. This resuspension, combined with changes in water chemistry, therefore affects aquatic resources. Legacy contaminants such as PCBs, some metals and other organic contaminants are recalcitrant to degradation, can bioaccumulate in fish, and persist in the environment for decades. Mitigation often requires removal through dredging or capping in place.
Appalachian Power does not propose specific measures to address sediment contamination and states that since PCBs were banned, the bioavailability of contaminated sediments would be reduced in Claytor Lake by covering and mixing contaminated sediments with progressively cleaner sediment, gradually eliminating the problem of PCB contamination in Claytor Lake.
76 The Skyline SWCD is concerned that the elimination of the annual drawdown on Claytor Lake would contribute to the degradation of aquatic resources by increased erosion, subsequently allowing sediment, nutrients, and contaminants to enter Claytor Lake because residents would no longer be able to stabilize the shoreline without incurring additional expense and effort.
FOCL is concerned that elimination of the annual drawdown would negatively impact Claytor Lake water quality because residents would forego necessary property maintenance due to the increased cost of shoreline stabilization without a drawdown. This would result in increased debris, sedimentation, and erosion which would impair water quality in Claytor Lake. In addition, FOCL states that other reasonable alternatives exist to the annual drawdown and should be explored including less frequent drawdowns (e.g. every 2 to 3 years), less than a full 5-foot drawdown (e.g. 4 feet), and drawdowns during warmer weather to prevent mussel mortality from freezing temperatures.
Laura Bullard states that the elimination of the annual drawdown would negatively impact the ability of landowners to conduct shoreline maintenance activities by making them physically more difficult or impossible, and/or financially more costly or prohibitive to accomplish. The result would be continued erosion and sedimentation and degraded water quality.
Staff Analysis
PCBs are most likely transported to the project from areas well outside the project boundary on incoming river flows. Although PCBs have been banned from use since 1978, they still could be entering the system from an undiscovered outside source. It would take a number of years to completely eliminate the bioavailability of PCBs through Appalachian Power’s suggested means of covering contaminated sediments in place using progressively cleaner sediment over time. Fish are exposed to PCBs by ingesting bottom dwelling prey items and cannot completely eliminate PCBs through metabolic processes. As such, PCBs are sequestered in fatty tissue where they can biomagnify at levels much higher than the surrounding environment. Natural attenuation of PCBs is often slow and difficult to complete, but under anaerobic sediment conditions methanogenic bacteria can reduce the number of chlorine atoms of the PCB ring, thus reducing bioavailability, carcinogenicity, and toxicity of the compound (EPA, 1997). Bioavailability is also influenced by depth of bioturbation in sediment and sediment organic content (Bjork, 1995).
There is the possibility of localized impact to water quality from recreational boat wakes or incoming river flow with higher turbidity. Project related shoreline development, such as building docks, piers, retaining walls, and boat ramps might require
77 dredging or excavation in the flood zone which could re-suspend contaminated sediments. These activities could facilitate bioaccumulation of PCBs in aquatic organisms in the New River Basin.
The volume, location, and concentration of contaminated sediments in Claytor Lake cannot be determined with the available information, as such, the potential for disturbing contaminated sediments or the potential risk to ecological resources from activities that could resuspend sediments cannot be determined. A requirement for testing sediments before implementing any sediment-disturbing activities could provide data to evaluate the potential for re-suspending sediments contaminated with PCBs and potentially adversely affecting aquatic resources.
3.1.3 Cumulative Effects
During scoping, water quantity and water quality were identified as resources that may be cumulatively affected by the proposed continued operation and maintenance of the Claytor Project in conjunction with other activities in the basin.
As discussed above, the Claytor Project affects the timing and rate of discharges to the New River. This in turn affects the availability of water downstream for other uses. Population growth in the area also can impact water availability as additional users tie into the existing system. Over the term of any new license, users on the system are expected to remain steady. Current usage of Claytor Lake for water withdrawals is currently at 66 percent of capacity. Downstream withdrawals are at 30 percent of capacity.
Water quality at the project is related to inflow point source and non-point source pollution. Point sources of pollution include industrial and municipal water treatment plants. Non-point sources of pollution include agricultural runoff and stormwater. Within Claytor Lake, decomposition of organic matter and sediment oxygen demand lowers the DO concentration in the hypolimnion.
Appalachian Power has little control over inputs to the lakes, but is able to control discharges through its project. The depth of the intake releases low DO water downstream during generation and during certain seasons. In addition, discharges have a thermal effect on the New River downstream of the project during certain times of the year. The manner in which water is withdrawn from the lake may also affect water quality in Claytor Lake by disturbing the hypolimnion.
Nevertheless, the proposed project would be operated in a manner that provides more level flows downstream through average hourly minimum flows and ramping, and water quality monitoring and enhancement measures would help mitigate project effects.
78 3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
During periods of temperature stratification in late spring to early fall, the release of water from Claytor Lake through the deep intakes lowers the DO concentration in the tailrace. However, Appalachian Power’s proposal to use the deicing system to provide aeration at the level of the deep intakes is expected to prevent the DO concentrations from dropping below the Virginia water quality standard of 4.0 mg/L. In addition, the monitoring provisions included in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan could lead to measures that would further enhance water quality in the New River downstream of the project should the deicing system fail to raise DO to state standards.
3.3.3 Aquatic Resources
3.3.3.1 Affected Environment
CLAYTOR LAKE
Habitat
The Claytor Project reservoir otherwise known as Claytor Lake is about 21.5 miles long, encompasses about 4,363 acres, has about 100 miles of shoreline, and has a maximum depth of about 115 feet, and a mean depth of 49 feet (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., 2008). The reservoir supports several aquatic habitat types, including upstream riverine habitats near Allisonia, Virginia, littoral habitats in shallow coves, and deep-water habitats closer to the dam.
Habitat features in Claytor Lake were mapped in November 2008 during Appalachian Power’s annual 5-foot drawdown (Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2009). The total littoral habitat exposed for a 2-foot and 5-foot drawdown was 153.1 acres (elevations 1,846 feet to 1,844 feet) and 538.1 acres (elevations 1,846 feet to 1,841 feet), respectively. The dominant littoral habitat classification type for the 2-foot drawdown zone was sand-mud-clay (55 percent), followed by rock (30 percent), woody cover (9 percent), riprap (3 percent), and retaining wall (2 percent). Cobble (12 percent) and ledge (11 percent) were the dominant rock substrate types within the 2-foot drawdown zone. Habitat classification types over the entire 5-foot drawdown zone were similarly distributed as the 2-foot drawdown zone. The dominant habitat classification type for the 5-foot drawdown zone was also sand-mud-clay (67 percent). Cobble (9 percent) and ledge (7 percent) were the next two most abundant habitat types present. High quality habitat types included rock substrates, woody debris, and riprap, and those accounted for 167.8 acres or 31 percent of the total drawdown zone habitat.
The Claytor Lake debris study conducted in 2007 showed that most of the debris found in the project reservoir is natural. The primary source of this debris is from the
79 New River and Peak Creek as well as land clearing and landscaping activities around the lake. The amount of debris in the lake, especially man-made debris, increases during high flow events.
The total area affected by docks and piers within the 5-foot drawdown zone (1,846 feet to 1,841 feet) was 7.4 acres. The majority of the docks and piers were built over sand-mud-clay substrates followed by cobble. However, relative to the total amount of habitat available for each habitat type throughout the entire drawdown zone, the most common built-over habitat types were concrete wall (13 percent) and wood wall (11 percent). Most of the new dock and pier construction since 2007 has occurred over cobble and riprap habitat. Retaining wall construction and riprap placement are two additional construction activities that occur within the littoral zone of Claytor Lake. Existing retaining wall structures and riprap occupied 10 acres (about 2 percent) and 18.2 acres (about 3 percent), respectively, of the total habitat available within the 5-foot drawdown. Larger construction projects such as marinas from 2004 to 2007 affected about 1.4 acres of littoral habitat.
In addition to the natural habitats and man-made structures associated with shoreline development, several artificial fish attraction structures have been placed in Claytor Lake in recent years by Virginia DGIF and Virginia DCR.
Fish Communities
Claytor Lake supports a diverse assemblage of cool and warmwater fishes. The most recent aquatic resources report lists 30 different species (Devine Tarbell & Associates, 2008). Warmwater species such as black bass (largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass), flathead catfish, channel catfish, white bass, crappie (white and black), and various sunfishes maintain self-sustaining populations. Coolwater species such as walleye, striped bass and hybrid striped bass have been maintained through regular stockings by Virginia DGIF. A variety of nongame species is also present, including various sunfish, sucker, minnow, catfish, and perch species. Introduced forage fish in Claytor Lake include gizzard shad and alewife. No rare, threatened, or endangered fish species have been documented from the lake.
Black bass (largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted) were the most sought after fish in Claytor Lake (about 58 percent of the total fishing effort) based on a Virginia DGIF creel survey conducted from 1998 to 1999 (Copeland, 2007). Game and Inland Fish conducted numerous electrofishing surveys throughout the 1990s. Largemouth bass represented about 30 percent of the electrofishing catch of the three black bass species. Largemouth bass were distributed fairly evenly among upper, mid, and lower lake areas. The largemouth bass population appears to be increasing but growth is slow (Copeland 2007). Smallmouth bass represented about 38 percent of the total black bass catch during the surveys. Smallmouth bass were most abundant in lower and mid-lake areas, which
80 afford an abundance of steeper, rocky shoreline areas (Copeland, 2007). In 2006, Claytor Lake produced the second highest number of trophy-sized (over 5 pounds or over 20 inches) smallmouth bass in the state. The spotted bass is the most abundant black bass based on electrofishing catch-per-unit-effort and were most abundant in the upper portion of the lake (Copeland, 1999, as cited in Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2009). The state record spotted bass came out of Claytor Lake in 1993 (http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/waterbodies/display.asp?id=163).
Striped bass are considered a significant recreational species in Claytor Lake, accounting for about 10 percent of angler effort based on the 1998 to 1999 creel survey (Copeland, 2004, as cited in Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2009). The striped bass population has been maintained through yearly stocking. Stocking densities since 2001 have been about 13 to 17 fingerlings per acre. The distribution of adult striped bass in Claytor Lake is water temperature or food supply driven with the larger adults seeking the coolest water available with suitable dissolved oxygen levels. During the summer months when the lake is stratified, the preferred habitat for striped bass can become confined to areas near the thermocline (50 to 70 feet deep) and in some years become quite limited. This phenomenon known as a “summer temperature oxygen squeeze” can limit growth and survival of striped bass. Despite the potential habitat issues, strong year classes were observed in 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2003 (Copeland, 2007). Hybrids between striped bass and white bass (hybrid striped bass) also contribute to the pelagic fishery at Claytor Lake. Hybrid striped bass have been stocked yearly at Claytor Lake since 1992. Hybrid striped bass tend to have a higher temperature tolerance than striped bass allowing them to exist higher in the water column during the summer months (Kilpatrick, 2003, as cited in Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2009).
Walleye, which are native to the New River Basin, represent another important fishery in Claytor Lake although this species is primarily sought after in the New River upstream of Claytor Lake during the spring spawning period (Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2009). A nonindigenous strain of walleye was stocked in Claytor Lake from 1975 until 1996. However, because breeding between the nonindigenous and native strains could have diluted the native gene pool, only native strain walleye have been stocked since 2004. Since 2004, walleye numbers in Claytor Lake have increased (Copeland, 2007).
Mussels
Field studies for mussels conducted during 2007 on Claytor Lake as part of relicensing documented a total of six different species of mussels including the state- listed pistolgrip (Trigonia verrucosa).15 Additionally, non-native Asian clams are present in the reservoir.
15 The pistolgrip was listed as state threatened in January 2008.
81 NEW RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF THE PROJECT
Habitat
As part of the IFN study (Payne and Berger, 2008), habitat mapping was conducted along the reach of the New River from Claytor dam to the head of Bluestone reservoir downstream from Indian Creek. Pool habitat was the most dominant habitat type accounting for 52 percent by length mapped. Glide, run, and slow riffle habitat were the next most abundant habitat types encountered representing about 25, 11, and 8 percent, respectively, of the length mapped. In addition, several steep cascades occurred throughout the study reach and about 2 percent of the study reach was composed of riffle and run sequences separated by bedrock spines.
Fish Communities
The New River downstream from the project supports a diverse fish assemblage of as many as 67 species. A 2002 angler survey conducted by Virginia DGIF found that smallmouth bass were the most sought after species, followed by rock bass, bluegill, redbreast sunfish, channel catfish, largemouth bass, and suckers. Virginia DGIF considers the New River to be one of the best fishing rivers in Virginia rivaling the James and Rappahannock Rivers (http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/waterbodies/display.asp? id=163). It supports outstanding populations of just about every major freshwater game fish in the state: smallmouth bass, spotted bass, largemouth bass, rock bass, striped bass, white bass, hybrid striped bass, muskellunge, walleye, black crappie, channel catfish, flathead catfish, yellow perch, redbreast sunfish, and bluegill. State records that have been caught in the New River include muskellunge (45 lbs. 8 oz.), smallmouth bass (8 lbs. 1 oz.), and yellow perch (2 lbs. 7 oz.) (http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/waterbodies/display.asp?id=163).
The American eel is native to the New River drainage, but is currently considered very rare in the basin. There are no recent records of American eel in the vicinity of the project and the presence of dams on the Ohio, Kanawha, and New rivers likely limits its distribution to areas a considerable distance downstream of the project. There are no existing management or restoration plans for eel in the New River.
Mussels
Historically, 11 mussel species have been collected in the New River, four species are considered common and seven species are considered rare, extremely rare, or threatened in the State of Virginia. Species documented by Virginia DGIF in the New River downstream of the Claytor Project include the purple wartyback (Cyclonaias tuberculata) and spike (Elliptio dilatata) (both were common); the pocketbook
82 (Lampsilis ovata) (uncommon); the wavy-rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola), Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and pistolgrip (all were rare); and the elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata)which was considered extremely rare (Appalachian Power, 2006, as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009EA). The green floater and pistolgrip have been listed as state threatened species. During a 1998 to 1999 survey downstream of the Claytor Project no live individuals of green floater or pistolgrip were found (Pinder et al., 2002, as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009).
Field studies for mussels were conducted during 2007 on about 60 miles of the New River downstream from Claytor dam as part of relicensing. Very few live mussels were found including one pistolgrip. Additional surveys were conducted in 2008 in the New River both upstream and downstream of the project. A total of 189 live mussels from six different species were found from four sites downstream of the project. Eight live pistolgrip were found at one site located about 4.4 miles downstream from the dam. Upstream of the project reservoir, a total of 989 live mussels representing six species were found at eight sites. A relatively abundant population of pistolgrip was found downstream of Buck dam. The purple wartyback was the most abundant mussel species found in the New River.
Eastern Hellbender
The Eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) is a large, stout-bodied, fully-aquatic salamander that requires clear, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated streams and rivers and seeks refuge under large flat boulders, logs, and debris. It is found throughout the Eastern U.S. in the Susquehanna, Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. Specifically in Virginia it can be found in the New River and the tributaries of the Upper Tennessee River. Hellbenders feed primarily on crayfish but also eat insects, snails, minnows and worms. In Virginia, mating occurs in late summer and early fall after which the males defend the nest and actively oxygenate the eggs for 2 to 3 months (Virginia DGIF, 2010).
The Eastern hellbender is a Federal species of concern because it has declined throughout most of its range due to habitat alteration, water pollution and indiscriminant killing. In Virginia, it is listed as a tier II species of special concern meaning that Virginia DGIF has determined that it is at a high risk of extinction or extirpation (Virginia DGIF, 2010b). Very little is known about the population of Eastern hellbenders residing in the New River, although they were once considered abundant (Mitchell and Raey 1999, as cited in Virginia DGIF letter filed April 30, 2009). The New River population is considered unique because the hellbender is typically found in smaller tributary streams.
Hellbenders are most active at night and seek refuge under large rocks during the day. Hellbenders also have small home ranges limited to a few shelter rocks and are
83 difficult to observe without active sampling by hand under boulders, electroshocking, or trapping. Recent observations of the Eastern hellbender were reported in the New River by Virginia DGIF and Virginia Tech fisheries biologists in October and November 2008. Searches during the relicensing mussel and crayfish surveys in 2008 yielded no observations upstream or downstream of the project.
3.1.1 Environmental Effects
Flow Releases and Effects to downstream Fish Habitat
The Claytor Project is operated as a peaking facility, normally operating over a range of releases from 750 cfs to 8,000 cfs. The project can generate with flows up to a maximum of 10,000 cfs. During the period April 15 to October 15, Appalachian Power voluntarily operates the project, so as to maintain more constant downstream flows to enhance recreation opportunities. The Claytor Project provides a minimum average daily flow of 750 cfs. This minimum flow is provided when inflow to the reservoir is greater than 750 cfs. Under extreme low flow conditions when inflow to the reservoir is less than 750 cfs for an extended period, the discharge may be decreased after consultation with and concurrence from Virginia DGIF.
Appalachian Power proposes to decrease its peaking period from October 16 through April 14 to December 1 through March 31. Appalachian Power would increase its minimum average hourly downstream flow release from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs or inflow, whichever is less. Reservoir levels would be maintained between 1,846 feet and 1,844 feet NGVD except as a result of or in preparation for, high or low inflow events. During the peaking season, Appalachian Power would bring individual turbine units on- line in 15-minute intervals and off-line in 30-minute intervals except when they must meet 10-minute emergency response and blackstart conditions. Appalachian Power proposes to expand the period that it operates in a levelized mode from April 15 through October 15 to April 1 through November 30. During this time period, reservoir levels would be maintained between elevations 1,845 feet and 1,846 feet NGVD, and the average hourly discharge would be maintained at 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less.
Virginia DGIF recommends under section 10(j) that Appalachian Power operate in a levelized mode from April 1 to November 30. During that time period, minimum instream flows may be kept at an average hourly flow of 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, using autocycling if inflow is less than one unit flow. Virginia DGIF recommends that reservoir levels under the levelized mode be maintained between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1846 feet NGVD.16 During the peaking season (December 1 through March 31),
16 Virginia DGIF specifically recommended that Appalachian Power protect spawning habitat between April 1 through June 30 by maintaining stable reservoir levels between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD.
84 Virginia DGIF recommends that the minimum instream flow releases be increased from 750 cfs to 1,250 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, during December and January and to 1,500 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, during February and March. The increased wintertime minimum flows would limit the stranding of anglers, recreational boaters, and waterfowl hunters. In addition, Virginia DGIF states that higher winter minimum flows would more naturally mimic the long-term hydrograph and provide better base flows for aquatic species.
West Virginia DNR concurred with Appalachian Power’s proposed mode of operation during the April 1 to November 30 timeframe. However, West Virginia DNR recommends that during December and January, the minimum flow be 1,250 cfs and during February and March the minimum flow be 1,500 cfs.
Virginia DGIF and West Virginia DNR recommend the ramping provisions proposed by Appalachian Power be implemented during peaking periods.
Certification condition D.2 specifies that Appalachian Power operate the project in a levelized flow mode from April 1st through November 30th with reservoir elevation levels held between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD. Levelized flow mode of operation also includes bringing individual turbine units on-line in 15-minute intervals and off-line in 30-minute intervals except when Appalachian Power must meet 10-minute emergency response and “blackstart” conditions.17 During the period when the project operates in a levelized flow mode, condition D.8 would require Appalachian Power to release a minimum average hourly instream flow of 750 cfs (or inflow, whichever is less) from the Claytor dam downstream to the New River. Certification condition D.2 would also allow Appalachian Power to cycle one turbine unit on for a portion of an hour to maintain required minimum average hourly instream flows downstream of Claytor dam.
Certification condition D.3 would authorize Appalachian Power to operate the project in a peaking mode from December 1st through March 31st with reservoir levels held between 1,844 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD. The peaking mode of operation also includes bringing individual turbine units on-line in 15-minute intervals and off-line in 30-minute intervals except when they must meet 10-minute emergency response and “blackstart” conditions. During the period when the project operates in a peaking mode Certification condition D.8 would require Appalachian Power to release a minimum hourly instream flow of 1,000 cfs (or inflow, whichever is less) from Claytor dam in January and February and release a minimum hourly instream flow 1,200 cfs (or inflow, whichever is less) in February and March.
17 Blackstart is a mode of operation where units are brought on-line within 10- minutes when there is loss of generating or an outage at a key transmission facility.
85 Certification condition D.5 would authorize Appalachian Power to reduce the elevation of Claytor Lake to 1,841 feet NGVD to provide additional storage capacity during periods when inflows exceed plant capacity or during emergency drawdowns for project maintenance. This condition also requires Appalachian Power to notify Virginia DGIF, Virginia DEQ, and interested stakeholders identified in the Water Management Plan.
Certification condition D.9 would grant Appalachian Power variances for flows and lake elevation after consultation with Virginia DEQ, Virginia DGIF, and Virginia DCR, following appropriate public input as determined through coordination with Virginia DEQ.
Certification condition E.1 would require Appalachian Power to measure elevations in Claytor Lake in the forebay and tailrace using water level transducers, calibrated staff gages located upstream and downstream of the dam, and cameras located at the dam.
Certification condition E.2 would require release of instream flows based on the discharge curve developed for the existing units, as submitted in the 401 application.
Certification condition E.9 would require Appalachian Power to submit a lake level and flow monitoring contingency plan within 60-days of issuing a new license in case monitoring equipment for lake elevations and project discharges fails.
Certification condition E.3 would require Appalachian Power to determine project inflow by monitoring the USGS gages for the New River at Allisonia (03168000) and at Galax (03164000). Inflow at Allisonia and Galax would be multiplied by 1.07 and 1.75, respectively, to correct for the drainage area. If inflows drop below 335 cfs (the lowest instantaneous flow recorded at Allisonia), Appalachian Power would develop flow releases after consultation with Virginia DEQ, Virginia DGIF, Virginia DCR, and other interested parties.
Staff Analysis
The effects of flows on fish habitat in the New River downstream from Claytor dam were modeled using an Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) approach (Payne and Berger, 2008). The IFIM provides a technical basis for evaluating flow release alternatives on the basis of the effects that those flows have on important fish habitats and other flow-related resources. Within the IFIM framework, a PHABSIM model was used to determine the relationships between flow in the New River and a habitat index (weighted usable area; WUA) for selected fish species life stages (table 13).
86 Table 13. Fish species and life stages for which flow-habitat responses were modeled in the New River. (Source: Payne and Berger, 2008). Fish species Life stage Rock bass Fry, juvenile, adult, spawning Smallmouth bass Fry, juvenile, adult, spawning Flathead catfish Adult (summer and winter), spawning Channel catfish Juvenile, Adult, spawning Muskellunge Adult (summer and winter), spawning Redbreast sunfish Fry, juvenile, adult, spawning Bigmouth chub Adult, spawning Greenside darter Fry, juvenile, adult, spawning Logperch Adult, spawning Common shiner (surrogate for silver Fry, juvenile, adult, spawning shiner and white shiner) Northern hogsucker Fry, adult, spawning Walleye Fry, juvenile, adult, spawning Shallow-fast guild Mussels (purple wartyback, spike) Crayfish (New River, spiny, northern virile) Macroinvertebrates
Walleye and the shallow-fast guild were not part of the original species list but were added at the request of various stakeholders. The spike mussel replaced the pocketbook mussel, which was originally included in the species list, because of the pocketbook mussel’s preference for lacustrine habitat. Common shiner was used in place of silver shiner and white shiner because habitat suitability curves were not available for the latter two species.
The geographic scope of the PHABSIM modeling extended from Claytor dam downstream for about 59 miles to the head of Bluestone reservoir. The study scope was further divided into two study reaches to account for differences in hydrology due to tributary inflows: reach 1 (Radford reach) extended from Claytor dam downstream to just above Sinking Creek near Pembroke, Virginia (about 30 miles); and reach 2 (Glen Lyn reach) extended from Sinking Creek to the upper end of Bluestone Lake (about 35 miles).
Seven study sites were selected between Claytor dam and the head of Bluestone reservoir. Either four or five transects were located in each of the seven study sites for a total of 33 habitat transects. Transects were located in the following habitat types: pool (less than or equal to 15 feet), deep pool (greater than 15 feet), run, glide, riffle, and slow riffle. Three study sites included two transects with islands: Whitethorne, Berton, and
87 Rich Creek. Transects were assigned a weighting factor to ensure that each transect’s contribution to the habitat modeling was indicative of its relative proportional representation to the total amount of habitat of the study area being modeled. Three habitat types identified during the habitat mapping—fast riffle, lateral riffle, and cascade —were removed from the transect selection process due to their low overall abundance and the likelihood that they could not be reliably modeled.
Field data were collected at three calibration flows (low, middle, high) (table 14), allowing a range of flows from 500 cfs to 12,500 cfs to be modeled based on the generally accepted simulation range of 40 percent of the low flow to 250 percent of the high calibration flow.
Table 14. Measured calibration flows (cfs) at three flow levels for the seven instream flow study sites between Claytor dam and the head of Bluestone reservoir, New River, Virginia and West Virginia. (Source: Payne and Berger, 2008). Study site Low flow discharge Middle flow High flow discharge discharge Radford 1,082 2,180 4,993 Whitethorne 1,284 2,153 5,052 Berton 1,173 2,198 5,045 Eggleston 1,173 2,198 5,026 Ripplemead 1,290 2,270 5,347 Rich Creek 1,582 2,535 5,967 Shanklin’s Ferry 1,579 2,493 5,630
Because of the different habitat requirements among the species and life stages targeted by the study, the results of the instream flow study did not yield a single flow that would maximize WUA for all species and life stages (table 15).18 Maximum amounts of suitable habitats for many of the species/life stage combinations that were modeled occur at the lower end of the modeled flows (500 to 700 cfs), and decline with increasing flows. This was particularly true for some of the centrarchid species such as smallmouth bass juveniles and other species such as flathead catfish adults (summer habitat) and spawning life stages. However, habitat quantities for other species (e.g., various life stages of bigmouth chub, greenside darter, and logperch) peaked at higher streamflows (1,300-5,000 cfs). Maximum WUA for smallmouth bass adults, the primary management species in the New River, peaked at 1,300 cfs, but was within the range of 90 to 100 percent of the maximum WUA over a range of flows from 700 cfs to 2,100 cfs.
18 Table 14 represents a subset of the species life stages evaluated in the final instream flow needs study report. See Appendix A of Appalachian Power’s April 9, 2009, response to the Commission staff’s comments on the final study reports for a summary of the percent maximum WUA for all of the species life stages evaluated over a range of flows from 500 to 14,000 cfs.
88
Table 15. Percent of maximum WUA (PMWUA) for selected species life stages at flows ranging from 500 to 10,000 cfs in the New River, Virginia downstream of the Claytor Project (highlighted cells represent the peak PMWUA values for the flows presented in the table). Selected Percent of maximum WUA for selected species life stages flows Smallmouth bass Flathead catfish Bigmouth chub Greenside darter Logperch (cfs) Juvenile Adult Adult Spawning Adult Spawning Juvenile Adult Spawning Adult Spawning (summer) 500 97.08 77.86 100.00 100.00 62.94 67.48 83.01 55.53 31.16 58.48 14.30 700 100.00 89.79 79.08 80.94 75.09 84.44 90.42 66.99 41.34 66.02 19.76 900 99.83 96.29 66.18 66.69 83.66 91.56 96.44 76.23 50.06 72.68 25.55 1100 98.65 99.32 56.68 55.77 90.34 93.92 99.74 84.08 58.34 78.54 31.74 1300 95.91 100.00 49.06 47.43 94.98 93.53 100.00 90.05 65.62 83.61 38.35 1500 92.38 99.10 42.87 40.96 98.08 98.40 98.53 94.46 71.94 88.06 45.10 2100 79.61 92.14 30.83 28.65 99.27 91.32 86.74 99.89 87.62 96.40 64.25 3000 60.80 77.33 21.94 19.49 90.16 64.58 64.39 96.84 98.92 100.00 85.75 4000 44.99 60.54 16.35 14.41 74.88 39.48 42.77 85.84 98.65 97.18 98.22 5000 33.82 45.77 13.29 11.99 59.37 23.70 27.47 70.66 90.82 91.15 99.14 10000 13.63 14.46 11.07 10.56 19.46 2.92 6.41 20.21 32.95 57.97 47.74
89 However, because the WUA values above represent a fixed relationship between flow and habitat, independent of the flow regime, Payne and Berger (2008) conducted a time series analysis and generated habitat duration graphs to better represent the amount of habitat available under different flow scenarios (dry, average, and wet water years, as identified in table 16). 19 Generally, those species with greater WUA at lower discharges such as smallmouth bass juveniles had more habitat available during dry years compared to average or wet years (figure 7). Species that preferred higher discharges such as logperch adults had more habitat available during average and wet years compared to dry years (figure 8).
Table 16. Years selected to represent seasons and water year types for the flow data from the Radford and Glen Lyn gages on the New River, Virginia used in the habitat duration analyses. Radford gage Glen Lyn Season Average Dry Wet Average Dry Wet Winter 2003 2001 1994 2006 2001 1994 (December – February) Spring 2005 2002 1993 1992 2006 1998 (March – May) Summer 1991 2002 2003 2005 2002 2003 (June – August) Fall 1995 2001 2004 1994 2001 2004 (September – November)
19 Time series analyses were conducted for smallmouth bass (juvenile and adult), flathead catfish (summer adult and spawning), bigmouth chub (adult and spawning), greenside darter (juvenile, adult, and spawning), and logperch (adult and spawning) (Payne and Berger, 2008).
90 Figure 7. Habitat duration for smallmouth bass juveniles July through September at the Radford stream gage.
91
Figure 8. Habitat duration for logperch adults July through September at the Radford stream gage.
For the April 1 through November 30 period, Appalachian Power’s proposed minimum flow of 750 cfs would be most beneficial during dry water years when low inflows would require auto-cycling of one turbine unit resulting in flows approaching the minimum flow on an average hourly basis. The 750-cfs minimum flow would provide some level of protection for all of the species evaluated but optimum or nearly optimum for many of the centrarchid species life stages including smallmouth bass juveniles. This time period is also when many of the fish species spawn and rear in the New River. Therefore, even though some of the adult life stages prefer higher flows, many of the spawning or early life stages would benefit from a minimum flow of 750 cfs. For example, the percent maximum WUA for bigmouth chub and greenside darter adults is highest at flows above 2,000 cfs, but habitat for spawning bigmouth chub and juvenile greenside darter would be over 84 percent and 90 percent, respectively, at a minimum flow of 750 cfs. Based on the flow duration curves, minimum flows during average and wet years would typically be higher than 750 cfs due to less autocycling which would also provide more habitat for those species preferring higher flows. Although the effects of the proposed 750-cfs minimum flow on the multitude of aquatic species in the New River is complex and dependent on the amount of inflow in any given year, compared to
92 the flow requirements included in the existing license, the magnitude of downstream water level fluctuations would be reduced and would provide more stable habitats for fish and other aquatic species.
To evaluate the differences in habitat between Appalachian Power’s proposed 1,000-cfs minimum flow and the agencies’ recommended 1,250- to 1,500-cfs alternative, Appalachian Power compared the percent change in WUA values relative to the existing minimum flow of 750 cfs for representative species life stages for dry, average, and wet years at the Radford and Glen Lyn stream gage locations. Table 17 represents a subset of the total species life stages that were evaluated at the Radford stream gage and includes life stages that would be present during the winter time period and includes species that prefer higher velocities (e.g., bigmouth chub adults) as well as those that prefer lower velocities (e.g., smallmouth bass juveniles).20 In an average water year, all species life stages would benefit from the two flow alternatives except smallmouth bass juveniles under the agencies recommended flows. However, the percent change in WUA under either alternative was less than 5 percent for the 1,000-cfs flow and less than 10 percent for any species under the 1,250/1,500-cfs flow. In a dry water year, both flow alternatives would improve habitat conditions for all of the species evaluated in table 17. The agency-recommended flows were most beneficial for species preferring higher velocities such as bigmouth chub adults, greenside darter adults, and channel catfish adults. In a wet year, the results were more mixed. Habitat for some species life stages like smallmouth bass juveniles was less under either alternative compared to the 750-cfs minimum flow. Habitat for adult muskellunge under the agency-recommended alternative would also be slightly lower than either the 750-cfs or 1,000 cfs alternative. However, for smallmouth bass adults, the primary management species in the river, habitat improvements under the 1,000-cfs and 1,250/1,500 cfs alternatives were nearly the same and in both cases less than 5 percent better than under existing conditions.
In general, the differences in WUA between the flow alternatives for most of the selected species life stages at the Glen Lyn stream gage were less noticeable (table 18). In an average water year, WUA would increase for only two species life stages in table 18—greenside darter adults and channel catfish adults—under either of the two alternative flows compared to baseline. However, the percent change in WUA for those two species life stages was less than 1 percent between the 1,000-cfs flow and the 1,250/1,500 cfs flow. In a dry water year, WUA for most species life stages was slightly higher under the 1,000-cfs flow but neither alternative was much more than 1 or 2 percent different from baseline. In a wet year, the results were mixed but WUA for most of the species life stages in table 18 were less than under baseline conditions. Looking just at habitat for smallmouth bass adults, WUA was better than baseline only during a dry year and the two alternative flows were virtually indistinguishable.
20 See figures 4.3.3.2-1, 4.3.3.2-3, and 4.3.3.2-5 in Appalachian Power (2008- Exhibit E) for the complete analysis.
93 Table 17. Percent change of WUA values for representative species life stages under various minimum flow scenarios for the period December through March during average, dry, and wet water years at the Radford stream gage location. Selected Average water year Dry water year Wet water year species life 750 1,000 1,250/1,500 750 1,000 1,250/1,500 750 1,000 1,250/1,500 stages cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs Smallmouth 0 0.47 -1.74 0 1.47 0.04 0 -0.36 -2.25 bass juveniles
Smallmouth 0 2.28 3.26 0 4.46 4.76 0 1.75 2.37 bass adults Bigmouth 0 3.88 8.34 0 7.47 10.21 0 3.78 7.20 chub adults Greenside 0 3.03 2.98 0 5.79 5.78 0 2.10 1.79 darter juveniles Greenside 0 4.11 9.78 0 8.00 11.57 0 4.44 8.88 darter adults Channel 0 1.75 4.95 0 3.89 6.40 0 1.83 4.09 catfish adults
Muskellunge 0 2.40 0.69 0 5.25 4.48 0 1.15 -0.57 adults (winter)
94 Table 18. Percent change of WUA values for representative species life stages under various minimum flow scenarios for the period December through March during average, dry, and wet water years at the Glen Lyn stream gage location. Selected Average water year Dry water year Wet water year species life 750 1,000 1,250/1,500 750 1,000 1,250/1,500 750 1,000 1,250/1,500 stages cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs Smallmouth 0 -2.00 -4.82 0 0.18 -1.37 0 -3.05 -4.03 bass juveniles
Smallmouth 0 -0.93 -2.50 0 1.02 0.23 0 -2.97 -2.34 bass adults Bigmouth 0 -0.10 -0.69 0 2.03 1.95 0 -3.60 -0.58 chub adults Greenside 0 -2.38 -6.08 0 1.47 -0.07 0 -2.01 -5.58 darter juveniles Greenside 0 0.52 0.83 0 2.10 2.51 0 -1.08 1.04 darter adults Channel 0 0.60 1.24 0 1.14 1.83 0 -2.74 0.96 catfish adults
Muskellunge 0 -3.04 -7.32 0 1.28 -0.82 0 0.96 -5.97 adults (winter)
95 The flow releases for the winter peaking periods proposed by Appalachian Power, recommended by Virginia DGIF and West Virginia DNR, and described in certification condition D.8 would result in different quantities of habitat for each of the species life stages evaluated. The majority of the differences between the 1,000 cfs and 1,200 cfs flow alternatives do not appear to be large with many of the differences within 1 or 2 percent of each other. Virginia DGIF indicates that its recommended flow releases more closely mimic the river’s natural flow regime, and that this should mitigate project effects on the fishery of the lower river. However, based on the very mixed results described above for habitat alone, we have no basis to expect that a more natural flow regime or one that would narrow the gap between the base flow and the generation flow would enhance the fish community of the New River downstream from Claytor dam.
Based on the above analysis, the minimum flow schedule described in certification condition D.8 would maintain and enhance habitat for most of the fish species in the New River downstream of Claytor dam, as well as support other water uses. Compared to the flow requirements included in the existing license, the hourly auto-cycling would reduce the magnitude of downstream water level fluctuations and provide more stable habitats for fish for much of the year; particularly during the primary spawning and rearing periods for most fish species.
Drawing down Claytor Lake to elevation 1,841 feet NGVD in advance of high inflow events, as allowed under condition D.5, would provide additional storage in Claytor Lake and would lessen the effects of high flows on downstream aquatic habitat. High flows have the potential to displace fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates downstream of the project and modify habitat by scouring. Storing and gradually releasing flood waters would significantly reduce these effects by providing more constant flow downstream of the project. Storing and gradually releasing flood waters also would limit the effect of adverse water quality conditions on aquatic organisms downstream of the project. Flood waters can have elevated levels of suspended solids and high biological oxygen demand (BOD) which can negatively affect fish and aquatic organisms by physically covering benthic organisms, such as mussels or by covering spawning beds. Elevated BOD could also deplete oxygen levels in the New River downstream of the project. Storing and gradually releasing flood waters would likely reduce these effects because the dam can trap suspended solids in the reservoir and the large volume of the reservoir can assimilate water with high BOD.
The ramping protocol proposed by Appalachian Power and recommended by the agencies would help minimize any fish stranding associated with the shift from peaking flow to the minimum flow particularly during the late winter or early spring periods when fish may be moving to shallower water.
96 Monitoring project inflows and elevations in Claytor Lake as described in certification conditions E.1 to E.3 is consistent with Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Management Plan. Specifying the locations where project inflow and lake elevations are measured, and the method for calculating project inflows, would provide a means for Appalachian Power and resources agencies to ensure compliance with conditions of the certification. Developing a contingency plan to measure inflows and lake elevation in the event of an equipment failure would allow Appalachian Power to maintain compliance with conditions of the certification during atypical operating conditions.
The process for issuing a variance for flows and lake elevations, as required by condition D.9, would ensure that atypical operations such as emergency drawdowns and other extreme events do not negatively affect aquatic resources or residents that live on Claytor Lake or downstream of Claytor dam. In addition, a consultation feature for any decision on a variance would ensure that appropriate measures are in place to protect or mitigate effects to aquatic resources during the variance period. Obtaining appropriate input from residents that live on Claytor Lake and downstream of the project would allow residents to express their concerns related to a change project discharge or lake level elevation.
Project Operation and Fish Entrainment
Fish that reside in the project impoundment could be susceptible to impingement on the trash racks or entrainment through the project’s turbine units when the project is operating. For any fish entrained through the turbines, a certain number may be killed due to turbine-induced mortality (e.g., turbine blade strikes). Fish that are entrained and killed are removed from the lake fishery and no longer available for recruitment to the downstream riverine fishery.
Virginia DGIF estimates that losses of recreationally important species through the project are significant and recommends that Appalachian Power provide partial compensation for entrainment losses to striped bass and hybrid striped bass, whose populations are maintained by stocking. Virginia DGIF states that the cost to stock fingerlings of these two species in 2008 was about $28,000. Virginia DGIF is also concerned that the deicing bubbler system that may be used to enhance the dissolved oxygen of water discharged through the project may act as a refugia for certain pelagic species (e.g., striped bass and hybrid striped bass) and, therefore, increase entrainment of these popular sport species.
Staff Analysis
To address concerns related to fish entrainment, a qualitative assessment of fish entrainment and impingement was performed for the Claytor Project (Normandeau
97 Associates, Inc., 2009). Normandeau Associates, Inc., (2009) evaluated entrainment potential for selected species based on reservoir and turbine intake characteristics (table 19), water velocity and swim speed data (table 20), and life history characteristics. The species evaluated included juveniles and adults of striped bass, striped bass hybrids, gizzard shad, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, white bass, walleye, black crappie, bluegill, and alewife.
98 Table 19. Pertinent reservoir and turbine intake characteristics that may influence entrainment at the Claytor Project. (Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2009). Intake elevations (ft) Trash rack bars Development Surfac Maximum Normal Top CL Bottom Unit Unit Width Clear Design Normal Approach and units e area and mean full pond intake screened (inches) spacing hydraulic operating velocity – full depth (ft) elevation width area (sq (inches) capacity discharge (ft/s) pond (ft) (ft) ft) (cfs) (cfs) (acres) Claytor 4,363 115 (49) 1,846.0 1,832.0 1,808.5 1,785.0 0.5 4.0 #1 34.0 1,598.0 2,500 2,000 1.50 #2 34.0 1,598.0 2,500 2,000 1.50 #3 34.0 1,598.0 2,500 2,000 1.50 #4 34.0 1,598.0 2,500 2,000 1.50
Notes:
1. Elevations are USGS data. 2. Normal hydraulic capacity (turbine discharge) at most efficient point. 3. Each unit has two intake bays, each 17 feet wide by 47 feet high. 4. Calculated velocity in front of racks at intake plane.
99 Table 20. Comparison of Claytor Lake intake velocity data and synthesis of fish swim speed information. (Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2009).
Velocity estimate type Approach velocity (ft/s) Engineering drawing at 1.5 rack ADCP fixed profile @ 0.60 to 0.68 10,000 cfs ADCP fixed profile @ ≤ 0.2 2,000 cfs ADCP tangential and < 1.5 normal profiles
Burst swim Species Life stage Size (in) speed (ft/s) Striped bass Juv 1 - 5 2.0 - 5.0 Adult 21.8 14.9 Hybrid striped bass Swim speed intermediate between striped bass and white bass Gizzard shad Juv N/A Adult 8.0
Largemouth bass Juv 2 - 4 3.2 Juv 5.9 - 10.6 4.3 Adult N/A
Smallmouth bass Juv 3.6 Adult 7.8
White bass Juv N/A Adult 7.9
Walleye Juv ~1 1.25 Juv 3.1 2.5 Juv 6.3 6.02 Juv 12.5 11.0 Adult 22 8.57
Alewife Juv 2.5 - 3 ~3.0 Adult 9.3 11.2 Bluegill Juv 2 1.8 Adult 4 – 6 2.4
100 Adult 6 4.3 Crappie Juv ~3 ~1-2
In this evaluation, Normandeau Associates, Inc., (2009) described the size distribution, species composition, and seasonal distribution of fish entrainment that could be occurring at the Claytor Project based on a database of 43 sites compiled by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1997). Results of this evaluation indicate that entrainment at the project is likely to be numerically dominated by small fishes less than 8 inches. Prey species such as alewife and gizzard shad (clupeids) would tend to have the highest entrainment potential compared to other fishes, with the highest entrainment potential typically occurring in the fall or winter months when clupeids become more lethargic. Most of the other Claytor Lake species evaluated were assessed an entrainment potential of moderate to high including bluegill, largemouth and smallmouth bass, and black crappie (the centrarchids); and walleye. Striped bass and striped bass hybrids were not assessed directly due to a lack of information in the database. However, based on an evaluation of white perch and white bass as surrogate species, stocked striped bass and hybrid striped bass entrainment potential would range from low to high depending on the size range of the individuals. Normandeau Associates, Inc., (2009) concluded that stocked predators such as walleye, striped bass, and hybrid striped bass would be more likely to be entrained as juveniles, but that older and larger fish would be better able to avoid entrainment through better swimming abilities.
Swimming performance is one of several other factors affecting entrainment potential. Most juvenile and adult fish burst speeds exceeded the approach velocities (≤ 1.5 feet per second) in front of the Claytor intakes, suggesting that those life stages for most reservoir species would be able to escape from velocities near, and at, the intake face. Any fish passing beyond the intake face would enter higher velocity areas at the trashracks (2.4 feet per second) and would be more susceptible to entrainment. However, burst speeds for many of the adults and some of the juveniles would still be sufficient to avoid entrainment. Therefore, it is likely that the majority of the entrained fish would be composed of the poorest swimmers particularly when compromised by cold water temperatures (e.g., fall or winter entrainment of juvenile clupeids).
Factors other than swimming performance that relate to the potential for species to become entrained include their exposure to entrainment, based on life history, habitat, and water temperature. At the Claytor Project the intakes are located away from the shoreline, over moderately-deep water, and there is limited shoreline habitat in the intake area that would be preferred by fry and juvenile stages of some of the target species such as the centrarchids. Therefore, the potential for entrainment of species that would normally be at a moderate or high risk due to their abundance in the reservoir and poor swimming speeds would be mediated due to the separation of the intakes from the preferred habitat areas.
101 Adults and large juveniles of some species may exhibit behavior that would potentially expose them to entrainment at the Claytor Project, such as striped bass, hybrid striped bass, or alewife seeking out cool, deep water during summer, or deep-water refuge during winter. Striped bass and hybrid striped bass do emigrate out of Claytor Lake and have become established to some extent in the New River and downstream reservoirs, but neither the route of passage or the specific life stage during passage has been determined (Kilpatrick, 2003; cited in Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2009). In addition, alewife in Claytor Lake has been shown to be prone to die offs during cold winters and increased susceptibility to entrainment as they lose swimming ability in cold water (Kohler and Ney, 1981; and Boaze and Lackey, 1974; as cited in Normandeau, 2009). However, under typical conditions, large juveniles and adult life stages generally have a swimming performance that would exceed the approach and screen velocities at the Claytor Project.
Normandeau Associates, Inc., (2009) calculated survival rates for fish of various lengths passing through the Claytor Project using the Franke et al. (1997) model. Predicted survival rates for fish less than 8 inches were greater than 90 percent at unit flows ranging from 2,000 cfs to 2,500 cfs. For medium-sized fish (8 to 15 inches), survival estimates remained above 81 percent. In addition, a review of empirical data from six projects21 with Francis units similar to Claytor corroborated, for the most part, the estimates of the Franke et al. model. Survival of the majority of species and size classes tested at those sites exceeded 90 percent (range 71 to 100 percent). Therefore, for the majority of the fish species and size ranges most susceptible to entrainment, the mortality rate is likely to be less than 10 percent.
In addition to entrainment effects, fish can become impinged on the bars of a trash rack if they are not able to overcome the approach velocity. As stated above, water velocities at the Claytor intake are less than or equal to 1.5 feet per second and accelerate to about 2.4 feet per second in the neighborhood of the trashracks. The 4-inch trash rack spacing at Claytor is large enough that nearly all reservoir fish that are unable to avoid the intake would pass through the racks and become entrained rather than impinged. Healthy fish large enough to become impinged should have sufficient swimming abilities to avoid impingement. For example, common carp are reported to have sustained speeds of 4 feet per second and darting speeds of over 12 feet per second, which are well above the highest intake velocities at the project (Bell, 1991).
Based on the intake velocities and the size of the bar spacing, most fish residing in Claytor Lake would be able to avoid impingement on the trashrack but would be susceptible to entrainment through the turbines. For the most part, the fish involved
21 The operating head at Claytor (116 feet) was higher than any of the comparison sites with the highest being 62 feet at the Holtwood Project (FERC No. 1881) in Pennsylvania.
102 would likely consist of young fish and be comprised of highly prolific species that have the ability to compensate for losses. For those species that are not already compromised by other factors, such as clupeids affected by cold water, survival rates would be expected to be quite high. However, Virginia DGIF does manage striped bass and hybrid striped bass fisheries in Claytor Lake through stocking efforts and these species are known to emigrate out of the lake. The exact pathway of this emigration and the extent to which entrainment may affect the fishable population is not clear.22 Despite the probability for relatively high entrainment rates for prey species such as alewife and gizzard shad and the likely entrainment of some of the popular pelagic sport species, the fishery in Claytor Lake remains productive. The effects on the fishery due to entrainment appear to be minimal for most species populations. As described above, the sport fishery in project waters is very popular and highly pursued, with many citations for trophy fish awarded for numerous species.
Lake Level Management Effects on Aquatic Resources
Manipulation of lake levels can have varied effects on aquatic resources, depending on the magnitude and the time of year. An annual drawdown in the fall and winter has the potential to expose substrate that may be important habitat for macroinvertebrates and mussels, contributing to substrate desiccation and freezing, while spring and summer water level fluctuations can affect spawning and rearing success for a variety of aquatic species.
Extreme fluctuations have the potential to affect fish habitat and behavior by creating an unstable environment where temporary loss of habitat can occur. In addition, success of littoral spawning species such as blackbass, crappie, sunfish, and catfish could be reduced by extreme fluctuations where nests and rearing grounds are subjected to dewatering. However, as is the case in areas influenced by regular, persistent water level changes, some populations have adapted to the changing levels and nest below the lowest water levels. If, however, water levels fluctuate on an irregular basis, nest failure can be more likely to occur especially if nests are constructed during periods of extended high water levels and then are suddenly reduced.
Appalachian Power proposes to continue to operate the Claytor Project as a peaking facility from December 1 through March 31, and to maintain the reservoir elevations between 1,844 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD. From April 1 through November 30, Appalachian Power would operate in a levelized mode with reservoir levels remaining between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD under normal
22 There are other factors that may affect the striped bass and hybrid striped bass populations in Claytor Lake such as the reduction in habitat during some years due to the temperature and oxygen squeeze discussed previously.
103 operating conditions as defined in the Water Management Plan. In addition, Appalachian Power proposes to discontinue the annual drawdown.
Virginia DGIF concurs with the proposed mode of operation and reservoir levels. Virginia DGIF also recommends that Appalachian Power extend a current cooperative agreement with Virginia DGIF to maintain stable reservoir levels at or above 1,844 feet NGVD from April 1 through June 30 to protect spawning habitat for a longer period of time than under the current agreement. The current agreement covers the period April 15 through June 15. Virginia DGIF supports Appalachian Power’s proposal to discontinue annual drawdowns in order to protect mussels.
Certification condition D.4 specifies that Appalachian Power is authorized to allow lake levels to rise above elevations defined in the peaking and levelized flow modes of operation when there are periods of higher than normal inflows to the project, provided that project operations are restored to the applicable mode of operation (levelized flow or peaking) as soon as possible after a high inflow event.
Certification condition D.5 would authorize Appalachian Power to reduce the elevation of Claytor Lake to 1,841 feet NGVD to provide additional storage capacity during periods of high inflow or during emergency drawdowns for project maintenance. This condition also requires Appalachian Power to notify Virginia DGIF, Virginia DEQ, and interested stakeholders identified in the Water Management Plan.
Certification condition D.6 would authorize Appalachian Power to draw down Claytor Lake in accordance with the final Water Management Plan.
Certification condition D.9 would grant Appalachian Power variances for flows and lake elevation after consultation with Virginia DEQ, Virginia DGIF, and Virginia DCR, following appropriate public input as determined through coordination with Virginia DEQ.
Certification condition E.1 would require Appalachian Power to measure elevations in Claytor Lake in the forebay and tailrace using water level transducers, calibrated staff gages located upstream and downstream of the dam, and cameras located at the dam.
Certification condition E.9 would require Appalachian Power to submit a lake level and flow monitoring contingency plan within 60-days of issuing a new license in case monitoring equipment for lake elevations and project discharges fails.
104 Staff Analysis
Currently, Appalachian Power voluntarily operates the project from mid-April to mid-October to maintain impoundment levels within elevations 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD. Under a cooperative agreement with Virginia DGIF, Appalachian Power maintains stable reservoir elevations at or above 1,844 feet NGVD from mid-April through mid-June to protect spawning habitat for shallow-water spawning fish.
The existing fisheries in Claytor Lake, particularly for species that require near shore littoral habitat for spawning and rearing (e.g., blackbass, crappie, sunfish, catfish, etc.) are healthy and popular, and appear to benefit from Appalachian Power’s voluntary measures. Extending the 1-foot limitation on reservoir elevations a total of 2 weeks in the spring to April 1 and about 6 weeks in the fall to November 30 as proposed by Appalachian Power would provide additional benefits to species using near-shore habitats for spawning and rearing. In addition, maintaining relatively stable reservoir levels would benefit aquatic vegetation beds near the shoreline providing additional habitat for aquatic organisms. Erosion of shoreline areas and resultant turbidity as well as sediment mobilization would also be reduced when the reservoir is held relatively stable.
If adopted as a license condition, Appalachian Power’s proposed operating mode would provide greater protection than the current voluntary agreement with Virginia DGIF since the latter would allow the reservoir elevation to drop an additional foot and did not specify a maximum allowable elevation under normal operating conditions.
During most of the year, current lake level management practices at Claytor Lake are likely to have minimal effects on freshwater mussels. During peaking operation (8 months of the year), elevation change is usually less than 2 feet and less than 1 foot for the remaining 4 months of the year. The proposed “levelized flow operations” during the fish spawning season (April 1 through November 30) would further reduce impacts to freshwater mussels because many New River species of mussels spawn and/or release larvae during this same time period.
Studies conducted by Virginia DGIF in 2005 and additional studies conducted in 2008 in support of relicensing have shown that the annual fall maintenance drawdown of Claytor Lake negatively impacts freshwater mussel populations in the reservoir. The 2008 study showed that approximately 500 acres of littoral habitat were dewatered causing an estimated 300,000 individuals to perish due to freezing and predation. The 2005 study showed only slightly higher survival rates due to slightly higher temperatures. The proposed discontinuation of the annual fall drawdown would significantly benefit mussel populations in Claytor Lake, especially species such as the giant floater, paper pondshell, and the pistolgrip.
105 Certification condition D.4 specifies that Appalachian Power is authorized to allow lake levels to rise during higher than normal inflows to the project provided that the operational mode elevation is restored as quickly as possible after a high inflow event. The language in this condition does not clearly define “higher than normal inflow” or “quickly as possible.” We interpret “higher than normal inflow” to mean flow exceeding the 75 percent exceedance for the applicable month at the Allisonia gage (No. 0316800). Based on the flashy nature of the New River, it is possible that storm events could have a short-term impact on reservoir elevations. These events are outside the control of Appalachian Power and would likely have a minimal impact on aquatic habitat in Claytor Lake.
To interpret “as quickly possible,” we surveyed discharge data from the Allisonia gage and analyzed the length of time it takes for a peak flow in the New River to return to base flow after a high-flow event. Our analysis found that approximately 2 weeks after the hydrograph peaks for a high-flow event, the New River returns to more stable flows. Therefore, we interpret “as soon as possible” to mean restoration of the reservoir levels within 2 weeks following a peak in the hydrograph that exceeds the 75 percent exceedance flow for the Allisonia USGS gage. Defining a specific period of time for restoring the impoundment level after a higher inflow event would ensure compliance with an easily measurable benchmark. Our analysis of certification conditions D.9, E.1, and E.9 can be found in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Flow Releases and Effects to downstream Fish Habitat.
Water Quality Effects on Aquatic Resources
Claytor Lake stratifies in the summer, which can limit refuge habitat for cool water species, primarily striped bass. This creates a phenomenon known as “the summer temperature oxygen squeeze” due to a narrow band of water with suitable temperature that is often low in DO. The low DO and availability of optimal temperatures for these species creates physiological stress, increases intraspecific competition, and can often result in mortality (Kilpatrick 2003). Furthermore, the availability and extent of this habitat refuge may be affected by the high flushing rate of Claytor Lake, which may also be influencing plankton production and the time it is available to forage fish.
To address this issue, a Dynamic Stratification Model (CE-QUAL-W2 v3.11) was created during relicensing as part of the fisheries component of the Aquatic Resources Assessment (DTA, 2008). The model simulated reservoir water quality and quantity during different years and operating regimes, focusing on temperature, DO, plankton dynamics, and how these factors collectively relate to summer refuge habitat for striped bass. CE-QUAL-W2 model simulations were run for two low inflow (drought) years that have historically experienced striped bass mortalities (2002 and 2007), as well as one normal water year (2004). Model simulations showed that the timing and extent of stratification, mixing, and availability of striped bass habitat (temperature and DO) varied
106 throughout the year and between years. Much of this variability appears to be controlled by inflow, as well as meteorological conditions. Tolerable striped bass habitat (25.0°C < T < 27.0°C and DO > 2.5 mg/L) was available throughout the year in all years, although it became extremely narrow and patchy in the upper, warmer water column in 2002 and 2007. Optimal habitat (15.0°C < T < 20.0°C and DO > 5.0 mg/L) disappeared during mid to late summer of all years, often reappearing in small patches until turnover in October for years 2002 and 2007. Higher inflow in 2004 created optimal habitat in the upper reaches of the lake in late August, and turnover in 2004 occurred much earlier because of high inflow from consecutive tropical depressions. During all of the simulations, inflow events caused optimal habitat to increase in upper reaches of the lake; however, Kilpatrick (2003) did not locate striped bass above reservoir km 16 in the summer of 2001 or 2002.
Findings from the CE-QUAL-W2 analysis found that the volume of striped bass habitat and other modeled parameters, including residence time, algae, and particulate organic matter, were insensitive to the reservoir operating scenarios modeled. In other words, peaking-year-round versus run-of-river operations year-round resulted in similar amounts of available habitat. As mentioned, the natural hydrologic conditions (i.e., low flow versus normal flow years) were the main cause for the variations of striped bass habitat and other parameters modeled.
Staff Analysis
Results of the modeling showed that suitable striped bass habitat was not directly linked to project discharges. The depth of the intake had the tendency to draw the lens of water with suitable habitat towards the dam as the hypolimnion deepened over the summer. Appalachian Power proposes to provide supplemental aeration at the level of the intake zone in Claytor Lake to mitigate low DO in the tailrace. Operation changes include operating the project in a levelized flow mode for 8 months of the year during the period of stratification and as a peaking facility 4 months of the year when the lake is more or less isothermal.
Virginia DGIF is concerned that fish entrainment and estimated losses of recreationally important species through the dam are significant. The use of the deicing system has the potential to create refugia for striped bass in front of the headgates and could result in additional fish passage downstream during periods of low flow.
Based on our review, there is potential to create refugia for striped bass if the waters at the depth of the intake zone are aerated for a period of time prior to discharge. The design and feasibility study for the ability of the deicing system to provide additional flow should consider the impact to fisheries resources as part of the initial evaluation.
107 Debris Management and Effects on Aquatic Habitat
Currently, debris removal activities are coordinated with FOCL or contractors from April through October of each year. Landowners currently contact FOCL to request debris removal. FOCL then employs a specially retrofitted barge to carry the debris to offload sites owned by Appalachian Power or private access areas. The debris is sorted such that natural debris is stacked, dried and burned while man-made debris is placed in dumpsters for proper disposal. Woody debris that does not pose boating hazards or cause access problems is retained to provide fishery habitat.
Appalachian Power’s proposed Debris Management Plan includes measures for identification and retention of woody debris for habitat enhancement as well as the establishment of a technical review committee for aquatic vegetation, debris, habitat, and shoreline management.
Staff Analysis
Natural, woody debris plays an important role in transferring nutrients and structure from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems. Both floating and submerged debris can provide sheltering and foraging habitat for important sport fish as well as fish eating birds. Woody debris retains organic and inorganic matter providing food for invertebrates which in turn provide food for vertebrates such as fish and birds. Studies by Angermeier (1984; as cited in Kleinschmidt 2008) have shown that aquatic life is more diverse where woody debris is present. Studies have also shown that fish prefer littoral areas where woody debris is present (Francis and Schindler 2006). Additionally, fish growth rates are positively correlated with the woody debris density (Francis and Schindler 2006). More complex debris structures such as root wads provide the most benefit to fisheries.
Floating debris often becomes lodged in backwater areas and coves where microorganisms then begin to break it down. This combined with the deposition and accumulation of suspended solids eventually forms soil and leads to the development of wetlands. Woody debris that becomes lodged along the lake shore and river bank can serve a bank stabilization function by absorbing and redirecting erosive forces. Debris that becomes waterlogged will sink enhancing substrate structure and creating velocity shelters (CTDEP 2007).
Appalachian Power’s proposed Debris Management Plan would help to manage debris in a way that provides for boater safety and access, but also maintains sufficient habitat for aquatic species. The proposed plan would establish a mechanism for better management of natural debris on Claytor Lake to allow the transfer of nutrients and structure from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems. Maintaining an adequate density of
108 woody debris would provide structure and cover for important sport fish, and other aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates.
Project Effects on Freshwater Mussels
Factors influencing mussel communities in the New River downstream of the project are not well understood. It is theorized that water temperatures and DO levels influenced by project operations may be affecting freshwater mussel populations below Claytor dam. In addition, the presence or absence of suitable host fish, point and non- point source pollution, and increased sedimentation could be impacting mussel fauna downstream of the project.
As part of its proposed Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan, Appalachian Power proposes to survey mussels every other year for 10 years at four downstream sites and one upstream reference site and to record hourly water temperature measurements at each mussel monitoring site for 1 year. The plan also includes provisions for: 1) baseline characterization of the mussel fauna downstream of the project; 2) long-term data collection (mussel abundance, species richness, recruitment and growth); and 3) evaluation of potential water quality influences. In addition, a technical review committee would meet annually to review the applicant’s annual report and make recommendations regarding any necessary changes to the plan or project operations or other mitigation, as necessary.
Certification condition E.5 specifies that Appalachian Power implement the June 2009 Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Monitoring Plan (mussel plan) with some revisions. Certification condition E.5(a) requires an initial meeting of the Freshwater Mussel Technical Review Committee to review planned activities and propose any necessary changes to meet the goals and objectives of the plan. Certification condition E.5(b) requires collection of baseline mussel fauna data as qualitative field surveys immediately upstream of the project and downstream to at least the Route 11 bridge crossing. Certification condition E.5(c) would require long-term quantitative field surveys of mussel fauna and condition E.5(d) would allow changes in data collections during the course of the mussel plan to directly assess how depressed DO and temperature affect mussel fauna. Modifications may allow additional or alternative collection and analysis methods such as mussel tissue sampling and analysis, extended or additional water quality monitoring, and partnering with other groups conducting research. Certification condition E.5(d) would allow for a literature review to support results of direct monitoring. In addition to the items listed above, condition E.5 would require consultation with the Freshwater Mussel Technical Review Committee to determine locations for the baseline survey, long-term survey, and any alternative sampling and analysis methods.
109 Certification condition E.10 specifies that Appalachian Power submit the revisions to the Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Monitoring Plan within 120 days of issuance of the new license.
In its letter filed November 24, 2009, the Virginia DGIF recommends that Appalachian Power join a study already in progress at Virginia Tech which is evaluating the effects of low DO on mussels. Virginia DGIF further recommends that both temperature and DO studies be made part of the Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan in order to determine if these water quality parameters are affecting mussels downstream of the dam.
In a letter filed January 11, 2010, Appalachian Power responded to Virginia DEQ and Virginia DGIF comments stating that they would modify the Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan to include hourly DO readings at the mussel monitoring locations for 1 year.
Staff Analysis
Although suitable habitat has been found in several locations below Claytor dam, the data indicate depressed mussel populations at these locations. Comparison of mussel surveys conducted during 1997 through 1999, and 2007 through 2008, both upstream and downstream of Claytor Lake show that there are higher numbers of individuals and higher species diversity found upstream of the project. Additionally, the number of individuals and diversity of mussels species have declined downstream of the project between the 1997 through 1999 surveys and the 2007 through 2008 surveys. A baseline survey of mussel populations developed in consultation with the technical review committee would provide a foundation for interpreting how project operations affect mussel populations. The 2007 Water Quality Study showed that project discharges affected the DO of downstream waters for 6 miles and temperature for up to 30 miles. These altered water temperatures may impact mussels by prohibiting spawning or delaying spawning and release of larvae. The required water quality monitoring study would help to quantify the effects of temperature and DO downstream on mussel populations below Claytor dam.
Appalachian Power’s literature review for the Instream Flow Needs Study showed that there is very limited information available about the habitat requirements of many of the mussel species occurring in the New River. Habitat suitability curves were developed for the spike and the purple wartyback. The PHABSIM modeling suggests that the current 750-cfs minimum flow provides suitable habitat for the purple wartyback and the spike would benefit from slightly higher flows of about 2000 to 2,500 cfs. However, these slightly higher flows would likely cause a slight decrease in suitable habitat for the purple wartyback during average to wet water years.
110 We agree that current information does not adequately distinguish effects of the Claytor Project from those due to watershed-level impacts. It is likely that factors such as altered water temperature, increased sedimentation, and impediments to host fish movement are impacting freshwater mussels below Claytor dam more than flows. Long- term monitoring of mussel species richness, abundance, growth, and recruitment under different flow regimes may provide more useful information about possible project- related impacts to freshwater mussels. In addition, adaptive management of the data collection over the course of the monitoring would also help assess potential effects on mussels from direct or indirect project operations.
In a letter filed January 11, 2010, Appalachian Power responded to Virginia DEQ and Virginia DGIF comments stating that it would modify the Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan to include hourly DO readings at the mussel monitoring locations for 1 year. However, Virginia DGIF did not provide sufficient detail about how they would like Appalachian Power to “join” the Virginia Tech study. Therefore, once the results of the Virginia Tech study are available, the information should be included in the proposed literature review and the annual report, which is a provision of the plan, along with the data from the proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
Certification conditions E.5.(b), E.5.(c), and E.5,(d) are consistent with Appalachian Power’s proposed Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan.
Project Effects on Eastern Hellbender
The effects of controlled flows or dam-induced variations in water temperature on hellbenders are not known. During preliminary licensing proceedings, Friends of the New River (FONR) and Virginia DGIF recommended that Appalachian Power conduct distributional surveys and collect habitat information for the Eastern hellbender to determine the effects of dam induced variations of flow and water temperature.
Appalachian Power does not propose to conduct studies of the hellbender as part of the new license since a nexus to project operations has not been established.23
23 In a letter issued November 17, 2006, Commission staff determined that FONR and Virginia DGIF did not address the seven study criteria described under section 5.9(b) of the Commission’s regulations and did not clearly demonstrate a project nexus or the goals and objectives of such a study. Staff recommended that the effects of project operations on the hellbender be addressed through the instream flow needs and reservoir elevation studies and that necessary habitat information can be obtained through a literature review. Therefore, Appalachian Power was not required to conduct surveys for hellbenders during preliminary licensing studies.
111 Virginia DGIF recommends under section 10(j) that Appalachian Power conduct long-term monitoring of hellbenders to determine habitat requirements, distribution, and status of the hellbender below Claytor dam. Virginia DGIF states that current project operations may be having a significant impact on the hellbender population downstream of Claytor dam. Virginia DGIF also expressed concern that there is no mechanism to investigate impacts in the future should the hellbenders’ state or federal listing status change.
Certification condition D.7 specifies that Appalachian Power may be required to evaluate effects of project operations on Eastern hellbender salamander, cooperate with studies to evaluate the effects of the project on Eastern hellbender, and mitigate any identified project-related effects on the hellbender salamander (individuals, populations or habitat), if independent research documents adverse effects or if the legal status of the species changes to threatened or endangered during the certification term.
Staff Analysis
During the second season study meeting, Appalachian Power reported that the results of the literature review on the Eastern hellbender showed that available data are based on other river systems and were not transferrable to the New River population in determining habitat suitability curves for use in the IFIM. Appalachian Power proposed to collect habitat information about any hellbenders encountered during the mussel and crayfish surveys. However, because Commission staff determined in a letter issued September 9, 2008, that site-specific information obtained from the proposed surveys may not provide the necessary information typically incorporated in an IFIM analysis, further data collection was not recommended for the hellbender. Commission staff suggested that long-term monitoring under different flow regimes may provide more useful information and would be more appropriately addressed as a recommendation for a future license condition.
Appalachian Power’s final aquatic resources assessment report stated that in 2008, upstream and downstream mussel and crayfish surveys consisting of approximately 115 person-hours of visual and tactile surveys resulted in no hellbender observations. These surveys included lifting large rocks to search for crayfish, the hellbender’s primary food source. In a letter filed May 1, 2009, Virginia DGIF stated that any hellbenders present could have easily been missed during the mussel and crayfish surveys which were conducted during the day when hellbenders are not most active and in habitat that is not preferable to hellbenders.
Although long-term monitoring under an adaptive management approach is an appropriate strategy for measuring population responses of certain species to license conditions and providing a mechanism to make adjustments over the term of any new license, it may not be justifiable in all circumstances. It appears that in this case, Virginia
112 DGIF’s primary interest is in seeking information to support a potential change to the hellbender’s current status under Virginia’s endangered species program and to have a mechanism in place in any new license to address issues that arise during the license term. In situations where a clear nexus to project operations has not been established, as here, the responsibility for obtaining the requested information would seem to rest more appropriately with the Virginia DGIF.
Nevertheless, Appalachian Power’s proposed enhancements to water quality and flow releases would provide ecological benefits to downstream aquatic biota. However, if independent research shows that the individuals, populations, or habitat of the hellbender is adversely affected or if the legal status of the species changes to threatened or endangered, certification condition D.7 provides a means to identify project-related effects on hellbenders. If the project is affecting hellbenders, Appalachian Power would be required to mitigate project effects.
Adaptive Management Approach
FONR recommends establishment of a standing adaptive management review panel, which would review and prioritize issues related to management of natural resources potentially affected by project operation. FONR references the limited scope of two of the proposed technical review committees (for water quality/water management and for freshwater mussels), and notes that these committees may be concerned with other, broader reaching aspects of the project, such as changes to the flow regime. An adaptive management review panel, FONR states, could meet annually to determine any necessary additional studies (biological, recreational, or other) during the license term, the design of such studies, and the ensuing recommendations with regards to operational changes. Studies would typically involve new management actions, coupled with monitoring, based on an experimental approach, and submitted to the Commission for approval. FONR believes this would satisfy both the need to implement additional studies to inform a wide range of resources issues and to act quickly on unforeseen but pressing issues. FONR recommends that Appalachian Power establish a New River Management and Enhancement Fund to support the panel’s activities, with $100,000 contributed in 2010, and $50,000 annually, thereafter.
Virginia DGIF also recommends an adaptive management approach be included in any new license to address any unforeseen issues that may arise in the future or issues that cannot be resolved without additional monitoring. Virginia DGIF recommends that project funding for this purpose be $100,000 beginning in the year after any license is issued, with an additional $30,000 annually, thereafter. The fund would be held in trust by the licensee; however, it would be disbursed as needed to participating agencies or their contractors to support projects initiated by the technical review committee.
113 Appalachian Power responded that it anticipates that any unintended impacts could be addressed through consultation with stakeholders via the proposed management plans. Further, Appalachian Power disagrees with the requests for adaptive management funding because they are too broad and undefined. It states that if unintended impacts occur, with a definitive project nexus, then the information can be conveyed to the Commission through the consultation procedures contained within the monitoring and management plans.
Staff Analysis
Appalachian Power’s proposed changes to project operation are generally for the purpose of protecting and enhancing natural and recreational resources, while still supporting the project’s purpose as a hydroelectricity generator. However, all stakeholders, including Appalachian Power, agree that the effects of these changes on resources at the lake and downstream in the New River are not entirely understood or predictable, thus additional monitoring and management measures are needed throughout the license term. As such, Appalachian Power has proposed a suite of monitoring and management plans, each with its own technical review committee. Table 21 shows the proposed plans and committees, as well as their review intervals and reports.
114 Table 21. Appalachian Power's proposed monitoring and management plans. Post-licensing committee Monitoring or Technical Review Committee Coordination with other tasks and meeting Management Plan Representatives plans intervals Erosion Monitoring Appalachian Power, Virginia DGIF, Review of initial erosion Initial erosion survey Plan Virginia DCR, Virginia DEQ, FONR, survey, provide input reviewed by other FOCL regarding frequency of committees as noted subsequent surveys, and consult regarding erosion control demonstration project Sedimentation Appalachian Power, Virginia DGIF, Review of 5-year Review of initial erosion Monitoring Plan Virginia DCR, Virginia DEQ, US sedimentation survey reports survey and 5-year Corps of Engineers, Pulaski County, sedimentation reports FOCL Water Quality Appalachian Power, Virginia DGIF, Review of the annual water Review of initial erosion Monitoring Plan Virginia DCR, Virginia DEQ, FONR, quality report; to meet as survey and 5-year FOCL, county governments, needed; to share information sedimentation reports representatives from downstream with FOCL and Virginia recreation organizations/outfitters, DEQ, given these entities’ and other stakeholders as appropriate ongoing water quality monitoring programs Water Management Same as above Annual review of the plan Review of initial erosion Plan regarding minor survey and 5-year modifications, including sedimentation reports special recreation releases; a broader review of the plan every 5 years Freshwater Mussel Appalachian Power, Virginia DGIF, Review of annual report, and Coordination with water Adaptive Monitoring Virginia DEQ, Virginia DCR, and meetings at least annually to management and water Plan other interested stakeholders. make adjustments to quality monitoring plans monitoring plan
115 Post-licensing committee Monitoring or Technical Review Committee Coordination with other tasks and meeting Management Plan Representatives plans intervals Aquatic Vegetation Appalachian Power, Virginia DGIF, Review of annual and 5-year Review of initial erosion Management Plan Virginia DCR, Virginia DEQ, Pulaski reports, and meetings at least survey and 5-year County, FOCL annually and as needed sedimentation reports Habitat Management Same group that is addressing aquatic Development of overall plan Review of initial erosion Plan vegetation, debris, and shoreline for habitat enhancement survey, debris, aquatic management projects; meetings annually vegetation, and 5-year and as needed to determine sedimentation reports; necessary modifications; fifth consultation regarding year assessment by Virginia erosion control DGIF demonstration project; close coordination with Shoreline Management Plan with regards to mitigation for lost habitat and Impact Minimization Zone designations Fringed Mountain Snail No identified technical committee; Review of annual inspection No structures allowed in Management Plan FWS, Virginia DGIF, and Virginia reports at six sites Shoreline Management DCR to be consulted (summaries filed with Plan’s Impact Minimization Commission every 5 years) Zones without prior consultation with FWS, Virginia DGIF, and Virginia DCR and Commission approval Recreation Appalachian Power, Virginia DGIF, Review of 6-year recreation Review of initial erosion Management Plan Virginia DCR, Coast Guard, Pulaski use monitoring reports to survey and 5-year County, FOCL, and “other interested assess need for additional sedimentation reports; SHPO recreation groups” facilities consulted with regards to new facilities
116 Post-licensing committee Monitoring or Technical Review Committee Coordination with other tasks and meeting Management Plan Representatives plans intervals Aids to Navigation Same as above Review of annual (by March Review of initial erosion Management Plan 15) inspection of Claytor survey and 5-year Lake lateral mark system; sedimentation reports; review meetings annually and as of any updated bathymetric needed to determine data, and shoal locations so necessary modifications that committee may adjust for changes in water depth Debris Management Same group that is addressing aquatic Review of annual report Review of initial erosion Plan vegetation, habitat, and shoreline documenting education and survey; review of habitat management debris removal efforts (by report for recommendations January 30) from the and comments; note that the preceding year and review of same committee would also annual plan (by April) for review aquatic vegetation, removal of debris during the and Shoreline Management coming year; review of Plans monthly inspection reports (April-October) Shoreline Management Same group that is addressing aquatic To participate in a review of Review of initial erosion Plan vegetation, debris, and habitat Shoreline Management Plan survey and 5-year every 5 years to determine sedimentation reports; review necessary modifications of any additional historic properties; closely coordinated with Habitat Management Plan with regards to mitigation for lost habitat and Impact Minimization Zone designations Historic Properties No technical review committee; Review of annual report; HPMP group notified when
117 Post-licensing committee Monitoring or Technical Review Committee Coordination with other tasks and meeting Management Plan Representatives plans intervals Management Plan however, FERC, SHPO, Eastern Band signatories to the PA and unidentified historic of Cherokee Indians, and VIC would concurring parties may properties are discovered be consulted regarding mitigation and recommend modifications to new discoveries the HPMP
118 The concerns of one committee may overlap, complement, or in rare instances, conflict with the concerns of another. In these cases, members of each committee would need to be informed of any related monitoring or management plans in order to conduct a thorough review of their particular resource of concern. As proposed, the plans are designed to encourage coordination among different management plan and committee reviews; however, due to the complexity and the significant amount of information to be disseminated, there may be some missed opportunities for coordination. Annual reports would be filed with the Commission and, thus, would be on the record and publicly accessible. Appalachian Power could choose to enhance coordination through an appropriate communications plan and administrative procedures. For example, Appalachian Power could publish all reports on a website, as it did during the relicensing process, so that all relevant information is available in one place for committees to review. Alternatively, Appalachian Power could establish a communications protocol, whereby committee members are notified, via email or mail, of relevant filings. A single adaptive management review panel, as recommended, could also serve to coordinate overlapping resource management; however it may be redundant to the work performed in other committees.
Appalachian Power has estimated the costs associated with each monitoring and management plan, and typically acknowledges that additional costs could be incurred. If a plan is approved by the Commission and required by the license, Appalachian Power would be obligated to provide for implementation of the plan. It is therefore not the Commission’s policy to require a standing fund, as it is not directed towards a specific project purpose. By building adaptive management components into each monitoring or management plan, unintended effects would be addressed by the appropriate committee. If, however, an unintended effect is not appropriately addressed by a particular plan, the Commission may exercise its standard reservation of authority to reopen the license for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources.
3.1.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Continuing to alter downstream flow releases with the pulsed (hourly auto- cycling) mode of releasing flows would result in some level of unavoidable adverse effects to the fish communities downstream from Claytor dam. Close to the dam, the water flows would fluctuate more than areas further downstream, reducing the suitability of fish habitats. As a consequence, the abundance and diversity of the fish community would be reduced in the river reaches most affected by the flow fluctuations. Flow fluctuations would attenuate (reduce) with distance downstream, and the resulting fish habitats and fish populations would become more stable.
Operation of the project would continue to entrain and impinge fish to some degree. The majority of the fish involved would likely consist of young fish and be
119 composed of highly prolific species that have the ability to compensate for losses, however, some entrainment of pelagic game species and their forage base would likely occur.
3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources
3.1.1 Affected Environment
The project lies within the Ridge and Valley physiographic province of Virginia in the New River drainage basin in southwestern Virginia. The terrain varies in elevation from 1,800 to 2,700 feet. Second-growth forests of oak dominated, oak-hickory-pine, and northern hardwood dominate the landscape, with some grasslands and agricultural lands.
The shoreline of Claytor Lake varies from low wetland areas to steep exposed bedrock walls. The riparian habitat is primarily consists of forest and residential development with the remaining habitat consisting of grass lands and shrublands. The forested habitat within the project primarily consists of cool mesic flora typical for the region. Forests are commonly dominated by red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) (Normandeau, 2009). North facing slopes tend to include eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) and eastern hemlock (Tsuga occidentalis) as dominant tree species. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) and redbud (Cercis canadensis) dominate the varied understory within the upland forests. The grassland cover type included agricultural lands such as pastures, row crops, and abandoned fields (Normandeau, 2009). Hawthorne (Crataegus spp.), crabapple (Malus coronaria), and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) are common species found in abandoned agricultural fields in the area (VDGIF, 2008). The shrubland cover type defined in the project area is limited and consists of regenerating abandoned agricultural fields or powerline right of ways (Normandeau, 2009). The majority of the shoreline occupied by residential development is stabilized and the primary method of shoreline stabilization is riprap; other artificial stabilization techniques used include block walls, timber walls, and concrete.
WETLANDS
Wetlands along Claytor Lake are primarily located in the narrow coves and inlets along the shoreline as well as portions of the shoreline that are low and not confined by steep topography. The Claytor Basin is characterized by steep topography and as such it is the primary feature controlling vegetation development along the shoreline and within the lake. Wetlands are primarily located within the upper third of Claytor Lake where sediments settle out as velocity begins to slow within the impoundment.
120 Within this portion of the impoundment emergent wetlands develop along the soft, saturated sediment bars. Herbaceous vegetation within the emergent wetland communities are varied, but dominated primarily by reed canary grass, small spiked nettle, spotted touch-me-not, arrow-leaved tear thumb, and wingstem. Wetter sites support the growth of obligates such as broad-leaved cattail, wool grass, soft bulrush, and broad-leaved arrowhead.
Wetland vegetation within the project boundary has developed as a function of the hydrological management of Claytor Lake (i.e., the wetland species that have become established are able to tolerate the impoundment fluctuation regimes). When the impoundment is drawn down, the fine textured soils retain and wick water up to 2 feet from the reservoir water surface because of water tension and capillary action (Tiner, 1999). The resultant communities consist of plants adapted to this cycle.
AQUATIC VEGETATION
The aquatic vegetation beds within the project total 288.6 acres. These areas often occurred in portions of the impoundment that provide adequate protection from wave action, shallow water, and suitable substrates. Aquatic bed habitat occupies a zone extending from the shoreline to depths reaching 12.5 feet. Generally, aquatic bed habitats were found in quiet coves (in the north), in sand deposits, and along coarse sand and gravel beds in the southern portion of the impoundment. The deep bathymetry and rocky substrate preclude aquatic vegetation from establishing between river miles 7 and 13. Appalachian Power identified a total of eleven aquatic species including nine macrophytes, one moss, and one algae (table 22). Of the eleven species, slender naiad (Najas minor) was the most prevalent within the Claytor impoundment. This species is not native and was often co-dominant with hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) another non- native species. These exotic species form dense aquatic vegetation beds and force most fish to the edges for cover. At night these dense stands can reduce oxygen in the immediate area which also reduces fish and macroinvertebrate use of the dense vegetation. The reduced fish and insect prey caused by the exotic invasive species makes these aquatic beds less useful to species such as waterfowl and herons (Normandeau, 2008).
Table 22. Aquatic vegetation identified during field surveys. (Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2009b). Common name Scientific name Slender naiad* Najas minor Hydrilla* Hydrilla verticiallata Water weed Elodea Canadensis Water celery Vallisneria Americana Long-leaf pondweed Potomogeton nodosus Curly pondweed* Potomogeton crispus
121 Algae Algae Water-thread pondweed Potomogeton diversifolius Muskgrass Chara sp. Leafy pondweed Potomogeton foliosus Small pondweed Potomogeton pusillus Bare Bare *Exotic species
WILDLIFE
Wildlife habitat within the project area includes the riparian and forested areas between the 1846 and 1850 contour, as well as the areas where the project boundary extends beyond the 1850 contour; the multiple islands in Claytor Lake; and the wetland and aquatic beds that are found throughout the project.
A diverse wildlife fauna exists around the project. Wildlife species that utilize a forest habitat include wood frog, red-backed salamander, eastern milk snake, eastern screech-owl, chestnut-sided warbler, pileated woodpecker, and common eastern chipmunk. Brown-headed cowbird, common grackle, northern mockingbird, white-tailed deer, and meadow jumping mouse are all species that commonly exploit agricultural and grass lands. Snowshoe hare, white-footed mouse, fox sparrow, and blue-winged warbler are all closely associated with early successional shrubland habitat. Wetlands and aquatic beds provide foraging and cover habitat vital for multiple wildlife species such as wood ducks, great blue herons, belted kingfishers, painted turtles, and river otter.
Also known to occur at the project is the bald eagle, which was removed from the federal endangered species list in 2007, but is still federally protected under the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act. In 2007, Appalachian Power completed an aerial survey and habitat assessment of project lands for this species. Appalachian Power completed an aerial survey in the spring of 2007 to search the area within 3,300 feet of the Claytor Lake shoreline for bald eagle nests, or potential roosting and perching habitat. One active nest was discovered near Claytor dam which was determined to be the likely maximum that could be supported by the habitat at the impoundment. This nest was unsuccessful in 2007, but this is common for eagle pairs that are nesting for the first time (Normandeau, 2009).
3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Water Management
Soil saturation and/or inundation maintain emergent wetland vegetation that grows within the zone of inundation from the impoundment. Under the proposed Water Management Plan, proposed operation of the project would include a daily water level
122 fluctuation of approximately 1 foot and a weekly fluctuation of approximately 2 feet. In addition, Appalachian Power proposes to discontinue the annual 5-foot drawdown which typically occurred for approximately 2 weeks in the months of November or December.
Staff Analysis
The existing plant community and soils would persist as long as the impoundment periodically inundates the soil and the soils remain saturated between inundation periods. The emergent vegetation would be tolerant of a drawdown if the soils remain saturated. The fine soils of the impoundment would likely wick water from the impoundment and the groundwater that extends laterally from the impoundment approximately 1 to 2 feet above the water surface elevation (Tiner, 1999). This capillary fringe effect likely draws water up from the impoundment and maintains the emergent wetland vegetation during the typical 1- to 2-foot drawdown that occurs each day or week. The wetlands that currently persist along the impoundment have been established and maintained by these abiotic characteristics of the habitat.
About 261 acres of wetlands and aquatic vegetation are located within the 5-foot drawdown zone. A 5-foot drawdown is likely enough to allow the soils along the impoundment to desiccate or freeze in some years. Although the drawdown does not occur during the growing season, perennial plants and their roots are at risk of freezing. Without the drawdown, the vegetation in the 5-foot drawdown zone would no longer be threatened. With removal of this threat, vegetation in this 5-foot drawdown zone has a better chance of survival, which would decrease the effects of the project on this habitat and the wildlife species that depend on it. Additionally, the wetlands and aquatic plants in the 5-foot drawdown would survive the winter months and may provide better protection against waves produced by wind and boats because the roots would persist throughout the year. These qualities may lower sedimentation and erosion along the shores of the impoundment.
Riparian and Shoreline Management
Appalachian Power proposes a Shoreline Management Plan to protect the wetlands, aquatic vegetation, and riparian vegetation along the shoreline and to the 1,850-foot contour. To protect riparian resources and preserve vegetative cover along the shoreline, the plan includes the following provisions: (1) vegetation within the project boundary must be preserved, if present; (2) ground-disturbing activities in this area must be minimal in order to maintain the function of the shoreline vegetation buffer zone; (3) a property owner may apply for a permit to modify the existing vegetative cover by removing vegetation when the proposal is to: a) provide for a reasonable view of the water; b) construct access paths to the shoreline and/or dock; c) construct erosion control measures along the shoreline; and /or d) provide general maintenance to the vegetated area.
123 The riparian habitat downstream of the dam is not included in the Shoreline Management Plan. However, changes to the flow regime have been proposed to address the downstream riparian habitat. Appalachian Power proposes to increase the minimum flows to 1,000 cfs during the peaking season (December 1st through March 31st). In addition, certification condition D.8 would require minimum flows of 1,000 cfs in December and January and minimum flows of 1,200 cfs in February and March.
Staff Analysis
Without the annual fall drawdown, the shoreline wetlands would likely become dominated by more perennial wetland species. This would not likely represent a shift in the type of wetland community (i.e. emergent, scrub-shrub, or forested) but rather a change in the plants that dominate the community. The increase in perennial species may benefit shoreline stabilization of the impoundment by providing shoreline protection from waves generated by wind and boats. The proposed Shoreline Management Plan would protect or minimize the effect of future development on wetland and riparian habitat and its associated wildlife through the above-mentioned provisions.
Operation of the project as proposed would likely not affect the downstream riparian habitat. Annual flooding structures the downstream riparian habitat by providing the hydrology and sediment deposition required to create floodplain wetlands. While the project does lower reservoir levels to absorb forecasted flood flows, the project is not operated for flood control. The project therefore does not control the abiotic conditions that shape the downstream riparian habitat. Since annual flooding would continue to occur, the proposed action would likely not affect riparian habitat. In addition, the wetlands, riparian habitat, and associated wildlife presently occurring downstream of Claytor Lake are those tolerant of, and adapted to, the stresses associated with the current operation.
Aquatic Vegetation Management
Appalachian Power has proposed an Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan that would include provisions to monitor and map aquatic vegetation, and with the oversight of a Technical Review Committee, permit measures to control invasive aquatic species. Additionally, the plan includes components for public education and the identification of methods to prevent the introduction and spread of exotic species in the reservoir. Appalachian Power would work with the Virginia DGIF as an equal partner in dealing with the control of exotic invasive species. This management plan would control the spread of invasive species such as hydrilla, slender naiad, and curly pondweed. Appalachian Power would issue permits to control the methods used to manage aquatic vegetation. Appalachian Power would only issue permits for managing exotic invasive species or aquatic vegetation that is affecting recreation. A full scale aquatic vegetation
124 survey would occur on a 5-year basis, beginning the year following the issuance of any new license, and small-scale surveys would occur annually with the inspection of designated beneficial use areas.
FOCL recommends that landowners adjacent to the permitted treatment areas be notified prior to conducting treatment.
Staff Analysis
Implementing the proposed Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan would help to control and prevent the spread of non-native aggressive invasive aquatic vegetation in Claytor Lake. It would also help to provide quality fish and macroinvertebrate habitat by promoting the growth and expansion of native species, in turn improving waterfowl and heron habitat. Although it is not likely that the non-native species can be completely eradicated from the project impoundment, proper management can help to ensure the beneficial uses of the lake. Additionally, notifying landowners adjacent to the permitted areas prior to conducting treatment would ensure that these landowners were aware of the activity and could take any necessary precaution measures on their own lands.
The project, itself, while providing the environment to grow, is not the primary cause of slender naid and hydrilla and other invasive aquatic vegetation becoming established in Claytor Lake. Invasive species were likely introduced to Claytor Lake via boat prop, bilge water, or from upstream sources. Therefore, the aforementioned integrated management strategy would be appropriate.
As part of its operating license, Appalachian Power would be required to provide public access at the Claytor Project. Controlling invasive aquatic vegetation is but one management activity that would help ensure such access at public access sites.
Sedimentation
The effects of sedimentation on point bars and other wetland habitat at Claytor Lake was an issue identified during scoping.
As part of the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, Appalachian Power proposes to monitor sediment conditions in those areas within the project boundary identified in the sedimentation study as having sustained significant sediment accumulation. Two areas that would be monitored include the New River from the Allisonia boat ramp to Lowman’s Ferry bridge (a distance of approximately 8.8 miles) and a 5.8-mile reach of Peak Creek. Monitoring would include high-resolution digital bathymetric survey data. The data would be compared with previously collected data to determine the changes in sediment deposition. The monitoring plan would include development of a report within 6 months of the completion of the survey describing the sedimentation at each of the
125 monitored areas. The report would identify actions to be taken by Appalachian Power to address impacts of sediment deposits on public access sites as well as identifying measures and actions to be implemented under the license and those actions that should be considered outside of the license.
Staff Analysis
A substantial sediment load enters Claytor Lake from the New River and its tributaries (Baird, 2008). Much of this sediment settles out as it enters the quieter waters of the impoundment. Deposition is most visible in the delta areas forming on the bends in the upper end of the impoundment from the project boundary in Allisonia to approximately 10 miles downstream at Lowman’s Ferry Bridge. Beginning below the riffle area in Allisonia, flow slows gradually as it enters the more lacustrine portion of the impoundment. The length and magnitude of the gradient varies with river conditions, being most pronounced during periods of high flow. In this 10-mile reach, the main channel is scoured by high flows and deposition results in extensive sediment bars that are transient in some areas, and fairly stable in others. Sediment is steadily accreting in this area, with shallow bars behind river bends that, while extremely dynamic, are continuing to expand. Where the sediment has accreted sufficiently and is stable, aquatic beds, and emergent and woody wetlands have established. The persistence of these wetlands can be attributed to the sediment load of the river and the protection afforded by the river bends during periods of high flows.
The size of the three wetlands appears to be gradually increasing, based on the maturity of the vegetation. The peninsula in Hiwassee is the largest and most developed, supporting mature trees and almost completely infilled between the peninsula and shore. The earliest successional vegetation is found on the trailing end of the peninsula where emergent marsh and aquatic beds continue to trap sediments and gradually build the elevation of, and stabilize the substrates. Three miles downstream at Paradise Point, a peninsula is also forming (now hastened by some fill and shoreline armoring at the upstream end). This area is considerably younger, based on the lower proportion of trees to emergent marsh and shrub swamp, as well as less infilling between the shore and peninsula. This condition was enhanced by periodic scour during high flows through a narrow channel which persisted prior to the fill placement. This Paradise Point peninsula shows evidence of continued infilling in the backwaters and extension downstream as more sediment is deposited and accreted. The newest and smallest terrestrial wetland is at Brown’s Hollow. Dominated by emergent marsh and shrubs, this is clearly a recent formation. Not coincidentally, this location corresponds with the current depositional front, with the 10-foot depth contour located just upstream. According to the project’s sedimentation study (Baird, 2008), the depositional front is continually moving downstream as more sediment enters and deposits in the system, therefore it is reasonable to anticipate that all of these wetlands would continue to expand. The Brown’s Hollow site would be limited by both the narrow configuration of the channel, which would
126 continue to scour. In addition, dredging of new sediment to maintain access for residences and the boat ramp on the northern end would prevent the establishment of a large wetland complex on the sediment shoals. Under the proposed action, sediment would continue to settle out within the impoundment due to slower water velocities. The influences of the New River and Peak Creek on sedimentation in the impoundment would continue to be a more significant source of sedimentation than project operation.
Rare Species Management
Bald eagles frequent the project area and a known nest is present near the dam. Project operation is unlikely to affect wildlife habitat because reservoir levels are kept fairly stable with a narrow band of fluctuation. However, human disturbance from recreation and project maintenance activities could disturb bald eagles.
In 2007, Appalachian Power performed a bald eagle habitat study and located a single nest on project lands near Claytor dam. In addition to the nest survey, Appalachian Power surveyed the project lands to identify good foraging habitat or likely future nesting sites. The study concluded that the impoundment would likely not support more than two eagle pairs (Normandeau, 2009). Appalachian Power has proposed to construct a canoe portage route around Claytor dam to improve recreation facilities at the project. Portions of the portage route would be within 330 feet of the bald eagle nest. The Virginia DGIF and DCR have not opposed the proposed portage route.
Appalachian Power proposes, through the Habitat Management Plan and the Shoreline Management Plan, to implement measures to protect existing nesting sites, as well as potential habitat within the project boundary. The bald eagle habitat requirements contained in the Habitat Management Plan for Claytor Lake are modeled after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007). This guidance document instructs property owners about ways to not disturb bald eagles. In addition to following these guidelines, Appalachian Power proposes to designate the 11 suitable bald eagle habitats as Impact Minimization Zones. Under the Impact Minimization Zone classification, a permit for disturbance or construction within the project boundary cannot be issued without prior consultation with the resource agencies. For shoreline identified as an Impact Minimization Zone due to its potential bald eagle habitat, the resource agencies to be consulted would include the FWS, Virginia DGIF, and Virginia DCR. This process would allow proper consultation to occur and minimize activities that would likely disturb bald eagle habitat.
The Virginia DGIF and Interior commented that human entry activities such as fishing and boating shouldn’t be restricted in the primary management zone for bald eagles because it could severely impact recreational opportunities at the tailrace, and
127 because the nest became established under the current level of water-based recreation activities.
Staff Analysis
Bald eagles can benefit from habitat provided by dams, utilizing both the open water of the impoundment and the tailrace area. Eagle presence has a positive correlation with large bodies of open water (Newbrey, 2005; Buehler, 2000) and at Claytor, eagles can find open water throughout the year. The tailrace area below Claytor dam provides such favorable open-water habitat and abundant fish at certain periods of the year, as several species concentrate in the vicinity to spawn. During the nesting season, the large open water of the impoundment and abundant fish populations have the potential to support several pairs of nesting eagles. Waterfowl, another preferred prey, are abundant both on the impoundment and below the dam.
Bald eagles are well known to be sensitive to human disturbance, particularly during the nesting season (Buehler, 2000; FWS, 2007). Bald Eagles have lower reproductive success on lakes with higher levels of human disturbance, although there is some evidence that their tolerance to disturbance may be increasing (Newbrey, 2005). Disturbance occurs primarily from boat and personal watercraft traffic on the Claytor Project which disrupts eagle foraging during the recreational and fishing seasons. Eagles prefer to hunt from large branches with a clear view of the water, and are forced off the shoreline by recreational boating, personal watercraft, and fishing. Similar disturbance occurs in the tailrace area during spawning periods, when many fishermen utilize the site.
The location of the one documented nest in the study area is close to the water, making the state-recommended primary 750-foot and secondary 0.25-mile protective radii around a nest site (FWS and Virginia DGIF, 2007) difficult to achieve. The birds failed in their nesting attempt in 2007 for undocumented reasons; however, the bald eagles at Claytor Lake have succeeded in establishing a residence with existing operations and the measures proposed in the Habitat Management Plan and Shoreline Management Plan would only improve the bald eagle habitat at Claytor Lake. Negative effects from foot traffic on the proposed portage trail near the existing nest is not anticipated given that there is an area with existing human disturbance nearby at the tailrace. Before a final canoe portage route is established, Appalachian Power would coordinate with the state agencies and the FWS, via the Recreation Management Plan.
3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Increasing levels of development in and adjacent to the project boundary, as well as recreation on Claytor Lake and the tailrace, would likely disturb the bald eagles at the project and would also lead to degradation of riparian habitat.
128 3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.3.5.1 Affected Environment
According to the website maintained by the FWS Virginia Field Office, five endangered species potentially occur in Pulaski County: Mitchell’s satyr, Virginia fringed mountain snail, Virginia big-eared bat, Indiana bat, and smooth coneflower. State agencies and local stakeholders only identified the Virginia fringed mountain snail as likely to be found in the project area.
VIRGINIA FRINGED MOUNTAIN SNAIL
Ecology and Life History
The Virginia fringed mountain snail (Polygyriscus virginianus) is approximately four millimeters in diameter and is endemic to a small portion of the New River (FWS, 1983). Shells have been found along a 9.9-kilometer stretch of bluff along the New River in Pulaski County. This area is permanently damp, free of humus, lacks leaf litter, and is overgrown with honeysuckle Lonicera spp. and other vines (FWS, 1983). This species is subterranean, unpigmented, and likely blind; nothing further is known of its natural history or ecology (FWS, 1983).
Distribution
The Virginia fringed mountain snail is a globally rare land snail that is endemic to the New River in Pulaski County, Virginia. The only location where live specimens have been observed is downstream of the project along the north shore of the New River in Radford, Virginia. The last live specimen observed was in 1986. The Virginia fringed mountain snail was not found during Appalachian Power’s 2007 survey although considerable area along the impoundment shoreline was found to have suitable habitat for this species. In 2005 two relic shells were found below the dam in river-deposited sediments. A single relic shell was discovered in June 2009 in a parcel located within the project boundary above the 1,850-foot contour. No living populations of the snail have been found within the Claytor project boundary.
Threat
No specific stresses to this species were reported, but potential threats to the species include: herbicide spraying, road widening, and reactivating a local quarry. In addition, because digging is required, even surveying for the snail poses a threat to its habitat.
129 Current Status
This snail was listed as federally endangered by the FWS in July 1978. In 1983 the FWS published a recovery plan for this species, which lists several conservation actions including protection of known habitat areas through easements, cooperative agreements and acquisitions, summer and fall surveys, and the establishment of monitoring and management programs. The FWS published a 5-Year Review of the Virginia fringed mountain snail in August 2007. The review indicated the snail remains on the endangered species list due to the lack of information about the snail’s status, existence, and habitat protection. No critical habitat has been designated for the species.
3.1.1 Environmental Effects
Appalachian Power proposes to implement the Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan. Although studies performed have shown no occurrence of snails within the project boundary, it was found that suitable habitat for this species does exist. Six sites were identified as potential habitat during a reconnaissance survey completed in March 2007. The proposed Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan includes a monitoring schedule and a species survey, if site disturbance is proposed, of these six sites. Appalachian Power has also proposed the Shoreline Management Plan, which classifies the six areas under the Impact Minimization Zone classification and limits development. Appalachian Power proposes to notify and consult with the resource agencies before any development activities occur. Additionally, an inventory for the Virginia fringed mountain snail would be conducted if there is a proposal to modify the current use of the above referenced sites. Furthermore, each of the six sites identified as potential habitat areas would be inspected annually and a 5-year report would be provided to the Commission detailing the findings of annual reports.
Staff Analysis
As part of its relicensing studies, Appalachian Power surveyed for the Virginia fringed mountain snail in habitat that varied widely in its characteristics, ranging from small areas at pool-level to nearly vertical dry cliffs, and from acidic soils beneath oak- pine stands to rich oak-eastern red cedar limestone ledges. Because reconnaissance was conducted prior to spring leaf-out, few herbaceous plants were identified; however, most tree species could be determined by bark and branch patterns. Thirty-three species of land snails were observed on the surface at the richer sites. No P. virginianus individuals were seen during the reconnaissance. Six sites contained suitable habitat for P. virginianus based mainly upon habitat characteristics of sites where this species has been found previously. These sites contained significant areas (greater than 0.25 hectare) of possible suitable habitat for P. virginianus and five are forested, have rich soils, and
130 have either well-drained soil or rock structure that would provide habitat for this putatively fossorial snail.
The proposed Shoreline Management Plan would protect endangered species habitat from future development. In the Fringed Mountain Snail Habitat Management Plan, Appalachian Power has identified six areas of the project where the Virginia fringed mountain snail is likely to occur. The shoreline classification for this property under the Shoreline Management Plan would be designated an Impact Minimization Zone. No structures or shoreline stabilization are allowed within this classification without prior consultation with FWS, Virginia DGIF, and Virginia DCR. Based on consultation with the resource agencies regarding any proposed changes in use of this property, an inventory may be required. Annual monitoring of these six sites would also be completed. In this way, the Virginia fringed mountain snail habitat would be protected by the Shoreline Management Plan.
3.3.6 Recreation Resources
3.1.1 Affected Environment
REGIONAL RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
The region surrounding the project provides a wide range of recreational opportunities, including angling, hiking, sightseeing, motorized and non-motorized boating, picnicking, and swimming opportunities. Jefferson National Forest is located approximately 10 miles northwest of the project. The Mount Rogers National Recreation Area of the Jefferson National Forest is within approximately 20 miles of the project. State, county, and municipal governments provide many recreational opportunities within the region, including Randolph Park in Dublin and the Draper Mountain Overlook in Pulaski.
Several lakes and rivers, such as Smith Mountain Lake, Leesville Lake, and Elkhorn reservoir offer a number of water-based recreation opportunities in the region. The New River also provides a variety of recreation opportunities below Claytor dam, as discussed further below.
SPECIALLY DESIGNATED RECREATION AREAS
The Claytor Project is not within or directly adjacent to any known National Wild or Scenic River System (under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 90-542, as amended), and no segments of the New River in Virginia are known to be state-protected.
Downstream from the project, a 20-mile stretch of the New River is currently being examined for National Wild and Scenic River determination. In 1994, the National
131 Park Service classified the New River as eligible for the “scenic” designation, from Glen Lyn, Virginia, downstream to the maximum summer elevation of Bluestone Lake. However, the study was delayed in 1997 and reactivated in 2003. Management alternatives are currently being evaluated under the study process before any recommendations would be made regarding official designation.
The project is not within or directly adjacent to any known designated wilderness areas (under the Wilderness Preservation Act, Public Law 88-577). The New River Trail, a National Scenic Trail, follows 39 miles of the New River, including the upstream reaches of Claytor Lake, while the Appalachian Power Trail traverses the state 40 miles west of the project.
RECREATION AT THE PROJECT
Recreational opportunities within the Claytor Project boundary include public, commercial, and private facilities, which support a variety of uses such as boating, angling, hiking, camping, swimming, canoeing, kayaking, and picnicking. The project does not have an existing Recreation Management Plan. For the purpose of this relicensing, we consider use at, and adequacy of, seven public sites, two commercial marinas, and two sites reserved for future recreational development, with general references to private recreation facilities.
Based on the existing exhibit R recreation map and FERC Form 80 filings,24 three of the public recreation sites (the New River Access boat launch, the Appalachian Power Group Picnic Area, and the Allisonia boat launch) and two tracts of land that are reserved for future recreational development are identified as FERC-approved project recreation sites and located within the project boundary. All other recreation sites with direct access to the water would have some portion of the site, particularly boat ramps and piers/docks, located within the project boundary, which typically follows the 1,850-foot contour.
Public Recreation Sites
There are seven public recreation sites that provide direct access to project land and water, including: three boat launch areas; Harry DeHaven County Park; Claytor Lake State Park; New River Trail State Park; and the Appalachian Power Group Picnic Area at the Claytor dam (see figure 10 and table 23).
24 The Commission requires recreation reports filed in 6-year intervals (18 C.F.R. §141.14), which are used to collect data at licensed projects. Data collected include the number and type of facilities, total miles/acres by resource, facility capacity, and the number of visits to all recreation areas.
132 The Virginia DGIF maintains three free boat launches at the project. These boat launches include Allisonia, at the upstream end of the impoundment, the Dublin boat launch, located in the middle portion of Claytor Lake, and the New River Access boat launch immediately downstream from the dam. Appalachian Power entered into a lease agreement with the Virginia DGIF for the Allisonia and New River Access sites in 1995. Under these agreements, Appalachian Power provides the property and Virginia DGIF has provided for installation, maintenance, and operation of the boat ramps and parking areas. Both sites offer single-lane concrete launching ramps with gravel parking areas that are estimated to accommodate up to 35 and 50 vehicles with trailers, respectively. The Allisonia boat launch provides about 150 feet of shoreline frontage, where bank fishing is possible but not ideal due to heavy vegetation. It also serves as a trail head parking lot for the New River Trail State Park (described below). The New River Access includes approximately 500 feet of New River shoreline that is adequate for bank fishing. The Dublin boat launch is also managed by Virginia DFIG, but it is located on land owned by the Virginia DCR. This site consists of three concrete launching lanes, courtesy piers, seasonal toilets, and a gravel parking area that is estimated to accommodate between 49 and 75 vehicles with trailers.
Figure 9. Public and commercial recreation facilities at the project. See application figure 4.3.6.1-1 on the Commission’s eLibrary to view in color. Source: Berger, 2008
133 Boat launch facilities are also provided at Harry DeHaven Park, situated on the southern shoreline of the reservoir in Pulaski County. The park is managed and maintained by Pulaski County and covers 3 acres of property (2 acres are owned by the county and 1 acre is leased from Appalachian Power). The park is open year-round free of charge and provides picnic tables, trash receptacles, portable toilets, and a volleyball court, as well as the boat launch. The launch is a double-lane concrete boat ramp with courtesy piers and an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant accessible fishing pier. Parking access at the park includes a gravel parking lot that accommodates approximately ten vehicles without trailers or five vehicles with trailers. Additional car parking is available throughout the park.
Claytor Lake State Park encompasses 472 acres with about 3 miles of shoreline along Claytor Lake. The park provides a marina, which includes three boat docks with slips; three single-lane, concrete boat launches; two angling docks; a swimming beach; 3 miles of hiking trails; a snack bar; a gift shop; a beach house; playground areas; a gazebo; and a visitors’ center and Discovery Center that are used for special programs and exhibits. The park also contains seven picnic shelters with tables, grills, trash receptacles, restroom facilities, and water hydrants. Hunting within the park is allowed annually by reservation during 2 days in January. The park offers 110 campsites, approximately 75 of which accommodate tents or small trailers and 40 of which accommodate large RV units, with water and electric hookups. The RV campground has a dump station and an ADA-compliant restroom. Formal parking areas at the main boat ramp provide spaces for 50 vehicles with trailers and 10 cars, as well as 3 ADA- compliant spaces. An additional parking area serving the beach and picnic areas is also paved and has room for about 108 cars and 3 ADA-compliant spaces. The park can accommodate additional parking at the beach and boat launch via overflow parking lots.
The Appalachian Power Group Picnic Area is located adjacent to the dam on 10 acres of Appalachian Power land. The area functions as a group picnic facility and is open for public use by reservation only from April to October. The site features a picnic pavilion, picnic tables, trash receptacles, benches, bathroom facilities, a courtesy pier, and a boat dock with one slip. Shoreline angling is permitted at the site, but swimming is not allowed.
The New River Trail State Park follows an abandoned railroad right-of-way for 57 miles through Grayson, Carroll, Wythe, and Pulaski counties. The trail parallels the upstream reaches of the reservoir on the southern shoreline, crosses an old railroad bridge, located downstream from Allisonia, and follows the reservoir for a few miles on the northern shoreline before turning north towards the Town of Pulaski. Appalachian Power leases 9.62 acres of land adjacent to the park to Virginia DCR to protect the integrity of the trail in the project vicinity. Parking is available at the Allisonia boat launch and at an informal gravel area near where the trail crosses Claytor Lake.
134 135 Table 23. Summary of recreation site facilities and amenities at the project. (Source: Berger, 2008, adapted by staff). s e g g y p e t g n n i i i i m l a t i i e a d k c * n r r a s a R c a u
o e t t F P c
A L r a
f a o r e o o y p t
e p s l B e a S i e p
Name Owner Manager t p a m r O y r i
u x T T g o o n r i C p h k s c p i o A F D Allisonia boat Appalachian Virginia DGIF Boat launch 2.7 20-30 yes no yes launch Power Lowman’s Ferry Private Private Boat launch (for a fee) 0.5 13 yes yes yes Harry DeHaven Pulaski Pulaski County County park, boat launch, 3 5 yes yes yes County Park County & swim area, bank/pier fishing Appalachian Power Dublin boat Virginia DCR Virginia DGIF Boat launch 49-75 yes yes yes launch Claytor Lake Virginia DCR Virginia DCR Multi-use state park 472 50 yes yes yes State Park Claytor Dam Appalachian Appalachian Picnic area, boat launch 10 n/a yes yes yes Picnic Area Power Power New River Appalachian Virginia DGIF Boat launch 2.1 30-50 yes no yes Access Power COMMERCIAL MARINAS Conrad Brothers Private Private Commercial marina, boat 30 Yes Yes Yes Marine launch Rock House Private Private Commercial marina, boat 15 Yes Yes yes Marina launch
136 *Ranges are due to discrepancies between Berger staff, Virginia DGIF, and owner estimates.
137 Commercial Recreation Facilities
Public access to Claytor Lake is also provided by several commercial facilities, including a boat launch facility (Lowman’s Ferry Bridge) and two commercial marinas, Conrad Brothers Marine and Rockhouse Marina. In addition, commercial operations contribute to recreation opportunities at the project through boat rentals, shoreline event venues, and fishing tournaments.
The Lowman’s Ferry Bridge site, located at the Route 672 bridge, provides boat launch facilities that are available to the public for a fee. The boat ramp is adjacent to a gas station and convenience store and provides a gravel parking lot that can accommodate approximately 13 vehicles with trailers. The single-lane boat ramp is concrete and accompanied by two courtesy loading piers and two boat docks. Other amenities at the site include picnic tables, trash receptacles, and a gas pump for boats. Bank angling is also permitted.
Conrad Brothers Marine is located on the Peak Creek arm of Claytor Lake. The site has a gravel parking lot that can accommodate approximately 30 vehicles with trailers and 75 vehicles without trailers. The marina features one single-lane, concrete boat ramp and a boat dock with 83 slips. The marina also provides shoreline angling, picnic tables, a restroom, boatlifts, dry boat storage, a dump station, boat pumps, boat fuel, and a store. The marina hosts several fishing tournaments a year. It also manages 20 campsites, which are accessible by boat only, on a 41-acre tract leased to the marina by Appalachian Power.
Rock House Marina is also located on Peak Creek. The marina has a gravel parking lot that can accommodate approximately 15 vehicles with trailers and 30 vehicles without trailers. The marina provides a single-lane, concrete boat ramp and courtesy pier, as well as picnic tables, benches, trash receptacles, and restroom facilities. There is a dock with 140 boat slips at the marina, as well as dry boat storage, boat pumps, boat rentals, fuel, boat cleaning services, and a store.
Claytor Lake Water Sports, a private concessionaire located at Claytor Lake State park, rents several types of motorized boats, including cruisers, bass boats, and pontoon boats; conducts interpretive lake tours; and provides water sports packages for waterskiing and tubing. Guided fishing, boating, tubing, and camping tours are provided by multiple outfitters located on the reservoir and in the downstream reaches of the New River.
Private Recreation Facilities
Private facilities located within the project area include private camps, such as the Boy Scouts Claytor Lake Aquatics Base and church group sites. These sites provide their
138 members recreational opportunities, particularly during the summer recreation season, for such activities as camping, picnicking, and shoreline angling. In addition, there are private boat ramps, owned by shoreline homeowners and communities, which provide boating access to the lake. Numerous private docks and swimming areas provide access for shoreline property owners.
Land Dedicated to Future Recreation Development
Under the existing license, Appalachian Power has dedicated two relatively large tracts of land within the project boundary to future potential recreation development. A 41.5-acre parcel is located at the upper end of Peak Creek and a 78-acre site is located at the mouth of Peak Creek (figure 12).The sites were selected for their potential to provide suitable access to the creek and Claytor Lake for canoeing, boating and angling, as well as to provide for picnicking, camping, and hiking.
Figure 10. Project land dedicated to future potential recreation development. See application figure 4.3.6.1-2 on the Commission’s eLibrary to view a map in color. Source: license application
RECREATION ON THE NEW RIVER DOWNSTREAM FROM THE PROJECT
Downstream from Claytor dam, the New River meanders approximately 56 miles to the town of Glen Lyn near the border of West Virginia. This segment provides high quality fishing, hunting, scenic floating, tubing, and boating opportunities, as well as many swimming spots.
There are 13 public access areas between the New River Access boat launch below Claytor dam and the US 460 bridge at Glen Lyn; figure 13 shows their locations on the New River. These sites include both concrete and unimproved boat ramps. Access is
139 also available along this stretch of the New River at numerous private homes, campgrounds, and commercial outfitters located along or operating on the New River.
Radford
Figure 11. Public access sites on the New River downstream from the project. See application figure 4.3.6.1-3 on the Commission’s eLibrary to view a map in color. (Source: Berger, 2008).
The New River is notable as one of the best fishing rivers in Virginia, home to some of Virginia’s largest fish on record. Major freshwater game fish populations reside in the New River, including: smallmouth bass, spotted bass, largemouth bass, rock bass, striped bass, white bass, hybrid striped bass, muskellunge, walleye, black crappie, channel catfish, flathead catfish, yellow perch, redbreast sunfish, and bluegill.
In addition to being a prized fishing river, the New River provides smooth flowing Class I25 shoals and rapids that are ideal for beginners in tubing, canoeing, kayaking, or rafting, with some Class II play spots interspersed at substantial distances from each other
25 The American Whitewater Scale of River Difficulty: Class I, Easy: Fast moving water with riffles and small waves; Class II, Novice: Straight-forward rapids with wide, clear channels which are evident without scouting; Class III, Intermediate; Class IV, Advanced; Class V, Expert; Class VI, Extreme and Exploratory.
140 (see table 24). This scenic floating activity usually occurs in canoes and recreational kayaks on several different segments and is concentrated during the April to October recreation season, with some use outside of this time period. Many boaters rent canoes or kayaks, and some scenic trips are accompanied by a guide. Tubing occurs almost exclusively in the summer with most tubing activity focused at three locations: Bissett Park (Radford), McCoy Falls, and near Pembroke. There are a few widely-spaced challenging rapids on the New River that offer whitewater boating opportunities with the Class III-IV McCoy Falls being the most popular site. Whitewater boating use occurs year-round, but it is highly flow-dependent because water levels affect the power and magnitude of the current, waves, and hydraulics for downstream navigation (river running) and executing whitewater maneuvers.
Table 24. New River rapids. (Source: American Whitewater, 2008 as cited in CRC, 2009). River Segment Class Length Name and Class (miles) Claytor Lake to I-II 26 Pepper’s Ferry Riffle (Class I-II) above McCoy Arsenal Falls (Class II) Falls McCoy Falls to McCoy Falls (Class III-IV) I-IV 5 Eggleston Eggleston to Unnamed I-II 9 Ripplemead Ripplemead to Pembroke Chute (Class II) Pearisburg Quarry Rapids (Class II) Railroad Rapids (Class II) I-II 8 Horseshoe Falls (Class II) Scott’s Rapid (Class II) Clendennin Shoals (Class II-III) Bluff City Wave (Class II) Pearisburg to Glen Narrows Falls (Class III) I-III 17 Lyn
Swimming occurs in many places on the river with Radford, Eggleston, and near Pembroke being popular locations. Waterfowl hunting and personal water craft use also occur on the New River downstream from the project.
EXISTING PROJECT RECREATION USE
141 Recreation Use at the Project (Claytor Lake and Immediately Downstream)
The Commission requires that licensees, such as Appalachian Power, monitor and submit data on publicly accessible recreation sites at licensed hydropower projects every 6 years, using its standardized “FERC Form 80—Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report.” The most recent Form 80 for the Claytor Project, filed March 30, 2009, estimates 452,000 annual recreation days26 (day and night combined), and peak weekend average recreation days may reach 13,800 or higher. In addition to these project-wide estimates from Appalachian Power, state park rangers estimate annual recreational visitor numbers at the New River Trail State Park and Claytor Lake State Park at 1.1 million and 300,000 visitors, respectively.
To inform its relicensing application with more detailed information than provided by the Form 80s, Appalachian Power commissioned a study of recreation use in 2008 that included a recreation use and needs assessment (Berger, 2008). The study team included representatives from federal, state, and local government, Appalachian Power, recreation groups, commercial interests, and the public. Recreation use estimates for public access areas were based on traffic counts, spot counts, interview data, and facility operator estimates. Shoreline property owner use was characterized by processing completed questionnaires.
Key findings of the study include:
Overall recreation use. More than 450,000 recreation days were recorded at the public recreation sites and commercial marinas in 2007. Shoreline property owners contributed an additional 449,000 recreation days, for a total estimated use of 900,742 recreation days. Capacity at public boat launch facilities. The Allisonia and Dublin boat launches and New River Access are well below capacity most of the year. Claytor Lake State Park and Harry DeHaven County Park fill to near capacity during summer weekends; however, the state park can accommodate additional parking via overflow parking lots. Trailer parking at Harry DeHaven is limited when beach, picnic, and bank anglers use the parking near the ramp. Boating Density. The main channel of Claytor Lake between the dam and Peak Creek is most popular for boating during summer weekends, with the areas near existing ramps the most popular. Density estimates indicate that on the busiest days boats typically have at least 25 acres of water per boat. Public site users perceive the sites and water to have at most the “average number of people” and
26 Recreation days are defined as each visit by a person to a development for recreational purposes during any portion of a 24-hour period.
142 “average number of water craft”, respectively, while shoreline property owners felt weekend crowding on the water was above average. Adequacy of Facilities. Public site users were satisfied with the type and number of recreational facilities around the lake, but generally recommended more boat launches, bank fishing, parks (with shade, picnic tables, beaches, and boat rentals), and restaurants. According to respondents, site maintenance and upgrades are needed at almost all public boat ramps. Shoreline property owners want more restaurants with boat access, as well as gas stations and a boat launch on the east side of the lake. Four percent (19) of site users identified their primary activity as canoe/kayak and 17 of those participated in this activity for less than 4 hours, suggesting that they were single day users who did not require portage around the dam. Scenery. Trash and debris are the primary detractors from the scenery according to public site users, shoreline property owners, and regional residents. However, when asked about how much debris was on the water, 77 percent of interview respondents reported “little” or “no debris.” The natural environment (bluffs, trees, water, undeveloped shore) was the most commonly cited scenic attribute by all survey respondents. Man-made scenic features included the state park (general and gazebo), bridges, and the lighthouse near Lowman’s Ferry Bridge. Impoundment water levels. Site users responded that water levels were appropriate. Marina owners felt lake levels in the spring are too low and pose a risk to clients who store boats at the marinas. Safety. Only 2 percent of site users felt “unsafe” or “very unsafe.” Cited reasons included the condition of docks, vandalism, congestion, lighting, and uneven or steep surfaces.
Visitation by the general public at public and commercial access sites accounted for approximately 50 percent of total use at the project, with Claytor Lake State Park supporting the highest number of recreation users (51 percent of total use by the general public). Of the public boat launch sites, the Dublin boat launch was the most popular (20 percent of general public use during spring-fall), and of the commercial sites, Rock House Marina had the highest use levels (8 percent of general public use March- November). Table 25 shows visitation across the nine sites.
Although public boat launch facilities at Allisonia and the New River Access are below capacity, on average, for most of the year, the Dublin boat launch approached capacity (65 percent of trailer parking and 90 percent of vehicle parking) on summer weekends in 2007. Claytor Lake State Park and Harry DeHaven County Park were reported to fill to slightly over 60 percent average capacity (vehicle parking) during summer weekends in 2007, and the marina at Claytor Lake State Park is likely to be close to capacity. Lowman’s Ferry received very light use, Conrad Brothers Marine was well
143 under capacity for weekdays and weekends, and Rock House Marina approached 93 percent of vehicle parking average capacity on peak summer weekends.
Table 26 shows the distribution of recreation activity. The most popular activities among public access site users were: (1) boat fishing at Claytor Lake; (2) motor boating; (3) bank/pier/dock fishing; (4) visiting a beach; and (5) picnicking/family gathering. Among shoreline residents, activities were ranked: (1) visiting a beach; (2) motor boating; (3) water skiing/tubing; (4) bank/pier/dock fishing; and (5) boat fishing.
Nighttime activities, particularly fishing, are also popular. Creel surveys indicated that 35 percent of interviewed anglers have fished Claytor Lake at night. The majority of night anglers access the lake from a state-maintained ramp, while a small amount access it from private property or a private ramp. The typical period of activity is 6:00 p.m. to 3:30 a.m. Black bass, catfish, and striped bass are the most popular fish pursued by nighttime anglers.
144 Table 25. Visitation (in recreation days) by recreation site (March-November 2007). (Source: Berger, 2008).
145 Table 26. Distribution of recreation activity among public access users and shoreline and regional residents. (Source: Berger, 2008).
146 Public site users and shoreline owners were surveyed about the type and size of boats they use. Of the 866 people questioned at recreation sites, 82 percent used a boat on the day of the interview. Table 27 shows the type and size of boats used by the respondents, with the majority (77 percent) using motorboats. Shoreline homeowners have easy access to boating on the lake and are more likely to own watercraft than the general public. Of the 399 homeowners surveyed, 84 percent own a watercraft, and may own more than one type. Table 27 also shows boat ownership information from shoreline residents. One significant boating group, those keeping their boats at private or commercial marinas, is not reflected in these tables.
Table 27. Type and size of boat used by recreation site users (top) and shoreline property owners (bottom). (Source: Berger, 2008).
As a part of the recreation study, 13 “boat-at-one-time” counts were conducted between April 21st and October 20th. The highest recorded boat counts occurred on weekends (28-59 watercraft on Claytor Lake), with the greatest amount of use occurring
147 on Labor Day. On a busy day at the lake, average boat densities can reach about 25 acres of water per boat in the main channel area. This was the case on Saturday, July 14, 2007, for example, and figure 28 shows boating density and spatial distribution of watercraft recorded that day (data collected via aerial photography during fly-overs).
Figure 12. Boating density at Claytor Lake on July 14, 2007. (Source: Berger, 2008).
Recreation Use Downstream from the Project (to Glen Lyn)
The recreation assessment study confirmed that the New River downstream from the dam (from Radford to Glen Lyn) is a popular segment for anglers and various boating interests, with an estimated 123,112 visits to public boat ramps during March 1st through November 30th of 2007. In addition to this use, there are numerous shoreline properties, campgrounds, seasonal RV camps, private ramps, and guide services that provide access to the river. A July 29th (mid-afternoon) boat count revealed approximately 179 watercraft on the river, with the highest concentrated use located between Eggleston and Bluff City. Counts in April and October were 59 and 12, respectively.
148 Results indicated that boat and bank fishing are the two most popular activities for visitors to New River, with 34 percent of survey respondents indicating that they participated in these activities on that particular trip. Respondents also identified canoeing and kayaking (22 percent) and visiting the beach (22 percent) as popular activities.
Because several factors (including naturally low-flow conditions, a non-uniform study group, and differences in how users perceived flows) limited the usefulness of the recreation assessment study in terms of gaging flow preferences on the 56-mile segment between Claytor Lake and Glen Lyn, Appalachian Power commissioned a supplemental study on flows and recreation on the New River (CRC, 2009). The goal of the study was to identify acceptable flow ranges and flow fluctuation tolerances for major recreation opportunities on the New River from Claytor dam to Glen Lyn. The study involved a review of existing information, fieldwork (for observation of summer recreation opportunities during summertime low base flows), interviews and focus groups with key resource experts or experienced recreation users, and analysis. Key findings with regards to flow-sensitive recreation opportunities are summarized in table 28. A summary of acceptable and optimal flow ranges by type and project effects are discussed in the environmental effects, staff analysis section.
149 Table 28. Summary of flow and recreation use report. (Source: CRC, 2009 report information, adapted by staff). Highest use Timing of Type General use Flow-dependent attributes locations use g - About 43 percent of New Particularly Highest in - Ability to wade and reach fishable water: high n i l
g River anglers fish from concentrated at summer, with flows make wading difficult and stranding is a n
a shore or while wading * public access substantial safety concern
d - Smallmouth or other sites, with the shore-based - Water clarity and lack of debris in the water: high e s bass are main target, but highest use fishing in flows less desirable a b
- anglers also seek catfish, between Parrott spring and - Fish activity and fishing success: steady or rising g
n sunfish, bluegill, crappie, and Ripplemead fall; higher flows tied to fishing success, while decreasing i
d or other species during flows (after storm or cease in a peaking period) a
w weekends & reduce success
d afternoons Note: Flow changes may affect trips, but few let n a
and early this information determine whether or not to take e
r evenings trip o h S
- Of those fishing from Various March - Boatability: higher flows allow smooth travel, boats, a significant segments from through mid- greater access, and avoidance of grounding g n
i amount use non- Whitethorne to November, - Water clarity/lack of debris in water: see above l
g motorized craft (9-41 Bluff City; with some - Fish activity and fishing success: see above; float n a
percent depending on the Narrows to Rich use outside of guides target times with steady or slowly rising d
e segment)* Creek this season flows s
a - Most target smallmouth - Rate of travel: lower flows may force anglers to b -
t bass, with some interest choose shorter segments to keep schedule a
o in musky (winter) Note: Flow changes may affect trips, but few let l
F this information determine whether or not to take trip
150 Highest use Timing of Type General use Flow-dependent attributes locations use - About 57 percent of New Whitethorne Year-round; - Boatability: higher flows allow smooth travel,
g River anglers fish from (10-15 boats Musky greater access, and avoidance of grounding n i
l boats, the majority of launched on fishing - Mooring/anchoring effects: fast-dropping flows g
n which use motorized some summer popular from may strand moored boats, while fast-rising flows a craft (59-91 percent weekend days), November- may swamp them d e
s depending on the with additional March - Water clarity/lack of debris in water: see above a
b segment)* use at other - Fish activity and fishing success: see above - t - Most use 14-16-foot flat- launches; rapids Note: Flow changes may affect trips, but few let a o hulled johnboats (25-60 divide the river this information determine whether or not to take b r
e horsepower) into seven short, trip
w - Target smallmouth bass, (< 1-6-mile) o
P with some interest in segments musky (winter) - Use by both private ¼-½-mile reach Concentrated - Tube-ability: low flows constrain access and tubers and tubing at New River between late increase chances of contact (“hits”) or sticking on concessions; New River Junction/ May and (“stops”) rocks and injury; tubers may tolerate Junction tubing is by far McCoy Falls mid- some hits and stops, or even walks through the most popular, with (“slow to September; shallow areas, as long as there are other parts of hundreds of tubes for “higher tube rentals the float with deeper water rent and an associated intensity” are available - Rate of travel: at lower flows, some of the slower
g campground, shuttle, and tubing); 2-mile from 11 a.m. parts of the river may be “too lazy” n i
b other amenities reach from to 6 p.m. - Tubing challenge and safety (McCoy only): high u
T Bisset Park to most summer quality trips require enough flow to create Radford (“lazy days, interesting, but not unsafe, hydraulics float”); ¾-mile depending on - Aesthetics: water clarity and lack of debris, reach at flows turbidity, and algal blooms is valued Pembroke (“lazy Note: concessioners are aware of flow levels, and float” with one for New River Junction, there is a “green-yellow- riffle) red light” system that associates flows with specific challenges and safety recommendations
151 Highest use Timing of Type General use Flow-dependent attributes locations use - Canoes and kayaks Six reaches are Year-round, - Boatability: sufficient flows required to minimize typical, with some use of popular for trips, but with light hits, including paddle hits, stops, the need to “line” rafts and fish-cats ranging from 6- use outside of or walk boats through sections, and to provide - Trips often made by 11 miles, with a April- more route options; 6-8 inches required to pass families or other variety of October; over an obstacle; lower flows require more skill in
g organized groups; some conditions highest use “reading” the water n i t trips are fully guided; (pools, runs, between - Rate of travel: floaters prefer flows that allow a o
l many boaters rent canoes riffles, rapids, Memorial them to make steady progress, without constant f
c and kayaks and scenery) Day and paddling, to keep on schedule i
n Labor Day - Aesthetics: flows affect appearance of water, e c
S with moderate flows generally preferable to low or high flows Note: For some floating reaches, knowledge of whether flows are “high-medium-low” affect whether or not boaters would go on trip; for other reaches, volume is less important - Kayaks (playboats or Class III-IV Year-round, - Boatability: sufficient flows required to negotiate squirt boats) most McCoy Falls but highly an area without undue hits and stops common, with some (and nearby flow- - Whitewater challenge and play: challenging
g canoe use rapids and dependent; rapids provide sharp eddy lines, changes in current n i t - “Locational playboating” ledges) is the typically use direction, holes and waves, and boulders; for play, a
o more typical than down most popular the river for boaters require sufficient flows to complete b
r river trips segment, with 2-3-hour freestyle or squirt boat maneuvers at specific e t - Groups (2-4) and solo several sessions, whitewater features a
w paddlers typical, with important higher use on - Whitewater safety: more difficult hydraulics may e t i some organized groups whitewater weekends create safety concerns; certain flows may create h for outdoor programs features; other and weekday specific safety hazards W - Annual competitions rapids are widely evenings Note: Knowledge of flow volume is critical for spaced along (after work) whitewater boating trip planning and competitions New River
152 Highest use Timing of Type General use Flow-dependent attributes locations use - Common use, may be Occurs at many May- - Swimability: sufficient flows required to reach primary activity or in locations, September, appropriate depths in riffles and pools for conjunction with tubing including at rope with highest swimming and diving; low velocities in pools g
n or scenic boating swings, private use in June- prevent problems for less strong swimmers; too i
m docks or trails August little flow could cause prohibitive stagnation or m
i from homes, algae growth in pools
w camps, public S access sites, rapids, and beaches - Waterfowl hunting, Popular duck Fall and Attributes are similar to those described under typically with and geese winter “Powerboat-based angling,” since both activities g
n powerboats but hunting (November- occur during the winter (peaking) months; in i t sometimes from canoes locations at mid- January); addition, swift water level changes may dislocate n
u or rafts channel islands typically two decoys. h
d - Target Canada geese, downstream of short seasons e
s mallards, and other duck Interstate 81 for ducks and a b
- species near Radford, geese, with t
a - Use during short hunting Whitethorne, an extension o
b seasons can exceed and Ripplemead of the geese r e summer angling use to Bluff City seasons w
o levels (8-10 boats in depending on P some popular segments, estimated with 2-3 hunters each) harvest *Data based on 2002 creel surveys (VDGIF, 2008)
153 FUTURE PROJECT RECREATION USE
In general, the population around the project is expected to grow more slowly than the regional recreation area. Berger’s 2008 recreation assessment included projections of future recreation use estimates to the year 2050 (table 29). The recreation use projections were estimated by incorporating growth index values for each recreation activity from Cordell et al. (1999).
Table 29. Future recreation activity day use estimates in 10-year increments from 2007- 2050.27 (Source: Berger, 2008).
Boater registration data for nearby counties (Carroll, Floyd, Montgomery, Pulaski, and Wythe, as well as the city of Radford) has grown by 7.6 percent from 1997-2006.
27 Note that the Claytor Lake Sailing Association, in its letter filed November 12, 2009, disagreed with the estimated decline in sailing. It states that in the past 20 years the number of sailboats relative to motor boats at the Claytor Lake State Park Marina and tied at private docks has increased.
154 Pulaski County has the largest number of registered boats, and it is the only county where boat registration has fallen in the 10-year period.
SAFETY & NAVIGATION
On March 3, 1995, the Commission approved Appalachian Power’s Public Safety Plan for the Claytor Project. This plan outlines such provisions as signage, boat barriers, and other measures to assure public safety. In addition to the log boom and boat barrier on Claytor Lake upstream from the dam, Appalachian Power maintains warning signs in the tailrace area and a 2-minute warning siren sounds when the project begins generating, to warn anglers and boaters about the pending change in flow conditions.
Virginia DGIF data from 2004-2006 for Claytor Lake show few reports of boating accidents and no fatalities. In both 2004 and 2005, four boating accidents with injuries were reported. In 2006, two accidents were reported. In 2007, there was one fatality (August 8) and five accidents with injuries reported.
Debris
Claytor Lake has a drainage area of 2,380 square miles. The majority of the drainage area is rural in nature. A debris study was undertaken by Appalachian Power in 2007 to investigate the effect of debris on project operation, navigation, recreation, safety, shoreline aesthetics, and wildlife and fishery habitat. For the most part, debris at the project has been characterized as being primarily natural, such as logs, trees, and branches, with the primary sources being the New River, Peak Creek, and land-clearing and landscaping activities around the lake. However, during high inflow events, large amounts of man-made debris are observed.
During the recreation assessment surveys, visitors to Claytor Lake were asked about their perception of floating debris on the water, and 77 percent reported little or no debris on the water. An average amount of debris was reported by 12 percent of respondents, and 11 percent of respondents reported between average and far too much debris.
Sedimentation
Sedimentation occurs throughout Claytor Lake but is most pronounced in bays, coves, and tributary inlets. Sediment in bays, coves, and inlets is a mixture of course sand and gravel from upstream channel sources, fine sediments from upland soil erosion, and organic matter deposits from terrestrial and aquatic sources.
3.1.2 Environmental Effects
155 Project land and water provides a highly valued recreational resource to residents and visitors. Currently, there is no formal plan for managing recreation at the project. Appalachian Power’s proposed Recreation Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, outlines its proposed recreation facility enhancements, recreation use monitoring, procedures for determining the need for additional access sites in the future, and the formation of an aids to navigation/recreation technical review committee for the purpose of implementing and modifying the plan as needed throughout the term of any new license.
In addition to the Recreation Management Plan, Appalachian Power also proposes to implement a suite of management plans that affect recreational resources. Such plans include: Water Management Plan (including flows for recreation), Aids to Navigation Management Plan, Debris Management Plant, Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, and Erosion Monitoring Plan. The effect of these plans on project and downstream recreation are discussed in the appropriate subsections below. Appalachian Power’s proposed Shoreline Management Plan, which addresses the permitting of shoreline facilities, including docks and piers, is addressed in the following section.
Proposed Recreation Facility Enhancements and Monitoring
As described in the Recreation Management Plan, Appalachian Power proposes the following enhancements to recreation facilities and opportunities at the project (table 30).
Table 30. Proposed recreation facility enhancements. (Source: license application and letters filed by Appalachian Power on October 5, 2009, and January 11, 2010). Location Proposed facilities Details of proposal Allisonia Portable toilets (2) Scheduled completion: 2010 Estimated cost: $500/month Picnic tables (2) Scheduled completion: 2010 Estimated cost: $5,000 Bank fishing area Scheduled completion: 2010 Estimated cost: $1,000 New River Access Picnic tables (2) Scheduled completion: 2010 (below Claytor dam) Estimated cost: $5,000 Courtesy pier at Scheduled completion: 2014 ramp Estimated cost: $50,000 Portable toilets (2) Scheduled completion: 2010 Estimated cost: $500/month Appalachian Power Canoe portage The portage trail would cross both Picnic Area with boat ramp project and non-project, Appalachian (take-out) and Power-owned property along an courtesy pier at the abandoned roadway.
156 existing picnic Appalachian Power proposes to area, portage trail, consult with stakeholders and file a and boat ramp proposed plan for the portage within 6 (put-in) months of any license issuance; downstream from construction would occur within 6 dam months of Commission approval Estimated cost: $300,000 Open site to the To be opened after public boat ramp is public without constructed reservations (currently only allowed by reservation)
Appalachian Power notes that final plans for each site would need to be site- specific based on the terrain, both on land and underwater, and in consultation with Virginia DGIF, Virginia DCR, the SHPO, as well as the aids to navigation/recreation technical committee. Appalachian Power proposes to submit detailed plans for each site to the Commission for review and approval prior to construction. These plans would include details of the structures, an overall site layout map, schedule, and costs.
In order to monitor recreation use at the above access sites, Appalachian Power would conduct a recreation use survey every 6 years in conjunction with its filing of the FERC Form 80 report. The survey data collected would consist of spot counts at each of the sites to determine site utilization and parking area capacity, identification of the different types of recreation that are being conducted, and an overall assessment of site conditions. Data would be collected during 25 days (including week days, weekends, and holiday periods) during the recreation season between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Appalachian Power intends to consult with Virginia DGIF, Virginia DCR, and the other members of the technical review committee prior to conducting the survey to finalize data collection sheets, methods, and schedule.
Appalachian Power proposes to begin consultation regarding the need to provide additional capacity when existing sites reach a facility capacity of 80 percent, as reported by the 6-year survey and Form 80 report. Once it has been determined that an additional recreation facility is necessary, Appalachian Power anticipates a 2- to 3-year period for planning, designing, budgeting, and constructing recreation facilities.
Concerning the five recreation sites that provide public access to the project but are owned and operated by entities other than Appalachian Power, Appalachian Power states that it is willing to work with the entities on identifying additional access opportunities and is willing to enter into partnering agreements for providing this access when it is mutually beneficial.
157 Virginia DGIF suggests that the technical review committee discuss whether a shorter interval is necessary for the recreational surveys, as 6 years may be too long to address pressures increasing annually on the reservoir. It also has concerns with the 80 percent capacity threshold at existing facilities, which, under the proposed plan, must be reached before consultation would occur with regards to opening additional access or expanding existing access. Virginia DGIF would like to discuss this further in a technical review committee setting. In its letter filed January 11, 2010, Appalachian Power responded that the proposed 6-year interval should provide adequate use data to analyze recreation use trends and to make decisions regarding the need for new facilities. In addition, Appalachian Power believes that the 80 percent threshold trigger to begin consultation is adequate to provide for an increase in recreation facilities when sites are needed.
Virginia DGIF notes that an alternate location for a new fishing pier, originally recommended for Allisonia, was not included in the proposal, and that potential sites may include the Appalachian Power Picnic Area or the shoreline at Claytor Lake State Park. Virginia DGIF also notes that improved tailrace fishing access below Claytor dam is needed. Appalachian Power responded that it intends to place a fishing pier at the Appalachian Power Picnic Area, and to construct it in conjunction with the boat launch proposed for that site, as reflected in table 30. It also notes that the New River Access site provides access to the tailrace for boat fishermen, and agrees to make improvements to bank fishing access at this site as well.
Laura Bullard commented that the Appalachian Power Picnic Area is accessed by narrow two-lane roads which she believes cannot safely accommodate the increased vehicle and boat trailer traffic that would result from the proposed public boat ramp.
Staff Analysis
Overall, most sites appear able to accommodate current levels of recreational use (Berger, 2008). Furthermore, 86 percent of the public access site users at Claytor Lake reported being satisfied or very satisfied with existing recreation facilities. However, those surveyed still recommended more boat ramps and launches, bank fishing, parks (with shade, picnic tables, beaches, and boat rentals), and restaurants. According to respondents, site maintenance and upgrades are needed at almost all public boat ramps. In addition to this existing perceived need, if participation in recreation increases at the rate estimated in table 29 (26 percent increase by 2050), one can expect to see increased need for improved or additional recreation sites and amenities in the future.
Appalachian Power’s proposed improvements to the Allisonia boat launch and the New River Access would enable these sites to better accommodate existing and future needs. Neither site currently has bathrooms or picnic facilities. Allisonia’s shoreline is
158 not ideal for angling due to overgrowth of vegetation, so provision of a bank fishing area would provide for new use at this site. A new fishing pier at the New River Access would increase access to fishing on the river. Adding the proposed amenities to these sites would transform them from simple boat launches to multi-use sites. Once installed, these improvements could attract additional use. Because the two sites are located at each end of the project and would offer similar amenities to the Dublin boat launch, the enhancements could work to alleviate crowding, both at the Dublin launch and other sites, as well as on the lake itself. This would be particularly important as recreation use increases over the term of the license.
With regards to Virginia DGIF’s request for improved tailrace fishing access below the dam, the New River Access, which is located 3,500 feet below the dam, provides access to the tailrace area for those fishing from boats. The site also provides approximately 500 feet of shoreline for angling, which Appalachian Power intends to enhance, and the proposed courtesy pier would provide additional fishing opportunities, as discussed. However, this still excludes shore- and wading-based anglers from the tailrace vicinity. Appalachian Power’s proposed portage would include a portage trail from the Appalachian Power Picnic Area to a new put-in just downstream from the dam, on the north bank of the New River. This additional access would provide formal access to the tailrace for boaters and shore- and wade-based anglers.
Neither comments on the application nor the results of the recreation survey indicate a need for portage for the purpose of multi-day boating trips. Four percent of site users identified their primary activity as canoe/kayak and 17 of those participated in this activity for less than 4 hours, suggesting that they were single day users who did not require portage around the dam. However, given that portage does not currently exist, it is difficult to characterize how many boaters would use such a facility. Recreational kayaking/canoeing occurs on both Claytor Lake and the New River; the closest popular scenic float reach starts at Riverview Park, located in Radford (about 5 miles downstream from the dam). The preceding reach (Claytor dam to Riverview Park) was not evaluated during the recreation flow study, but flow volume is likely to be acceptable in most parts of the reach between the dam and Radford, particularly during moderate inflow; however, in this reach significant fluctuations can occur as a result of auto-cycling, which are generally attenuated at downstream reaches. Those willing to use available flows could experience both lake paddling and riverine paddling/scenic floating during the same trip. The boat ramps and courtesy pier would benefit boaters that do not require portage as well, both on the lake and downstream; a put-in downstream from the dam would particularly benefit anglers (boat- and shore/wade-based) by opening up access to the area immediately downstream from the dam. In addition to consultation regarding the portage trail route (to avoid sensitive habitat), Appalachian Power could also consider the adequacy of the existing access road to accommodate increased use at the Appalachian Power Picnic Area.
159 Currently, two of the three public boat launch sites that Appalachian Power leases to the Virginia DGIF are within the project boundary. These sites provide public access at the upstream end of the lake (Allisonia) and to the New River downstream from the dam (New River Access). The Dublin boat launch is important in that it provides access closer to the main navigation channel in Claytor Lake. It is very popular, with an estimated 89,541 recreation days’ use during the recreation season in 2007, as compared to 6,469 at Allisonia and 6,420 at the New River Access (Berger, 2008).
In order to ensure that the above facilities are maintained throughout the course of the license, section 3.0 of the proposed Recreation Management Plan, concerning management and monitoring measures, could be updated to include details describing: a maintenance schedule for trash and waste disposal and any other necessary maintenance measures (for parking lots, piers, docks, boat ramps and picnic areas).
With regards to future recreation improvements, there has been, and would continue to be, an increase in recreational use at the project. Recreation use surveys would provide use data to analyze recreation use trends and to make decisions regarding the need for new facilities. Appalachian Power is not required to use a specific methodology for the FERC Form 80 estimates, which could include any combination of, or only: traffic counts, attendance records, staff observation, visitor assessment, and estimates. The proposal to conduct spot counts at each of the sites to determine site utilization and parking area capacity, recreational use, and site condition assessments during 25 days (including weekends and holidays) from Memorial Day through Labor Day would provide the information necessary to characterize the adequacy of facilities during peak recreational use at the project.
Virginia DGIF questioned the proposed 6-year interval, which would follow the schedule for filing Form 80 reports, as well as the 80 percent threshold for consulting on the need for improved or new facilities. The 6-year recurrence period and 80 percent threshold seem reasonable given an expected increase of approximately 3-9 percent every 10 years (table 29). In addition, with a plan for scheduled maintenance, each site should remain in good condition and able to accommodate use up to 100 percent during the 6- year interim.
Overall, Appalachian Power’s proposed measures listed in table 30 and outlined in its draft Recreation Management Plan would increase and enhance recreational opportunities by expanding upon existing facilities and adding a new portage facility, and would provide procedures for monitoring use and modifying the plan as needed. These measures represent an improvement over existing conditions and would provide additional capacity in an area where existing recreational facilities would continue to receive heavy recreational use, particularly on weekends and holidays during April- October.
160 Proposed Future Recreational Enhancements
Appalachian Power has identified the following plans and priorities for the two tracts of land that are dedicated to recreational purposes, as summarized in table 31.
Table 31. Sites that Appalachian Power designated for future recreational development. Location Proposed facilities Details of proposal Peak Creek Site No. 1 Potential uses Appalachian Power would provide an 41.5-acre wooded include boat ramp, easement across non-project land to parcel at upper end of bank fishing, pier allow for road access to the site Peak Creek, owned by fishing, Appalachian Power picnicking, hiking, and currently leased camping, and to adjacent marina for canoeing/kayaking primitive camping Peak Creek Site No. 2 Potential uses Appalachian Power would provide an 78-acre parcel at include fishing easement across non-project land to mouth of Peak Creek, pier, picnicking, allow for road access to the site owned by Appalachian hiking, Power and currently canoeing/kayaking leased to a hunt club
Staff Analysis
By reserving these parcels for potential future recreation access, Appalachian Power provides a means for managing access to the lake such that future development is located in appropriate areas and with appropriate facilities. These undeveloped sites are ideally situated to provide recreational access to Claytor Lake, as demonstrated by use at the two private marinas on Peak Creek. Because the mouth of Peak Creek is located a few miles upstream from the wider portion of the lake, which contains the highest boat density on summer weekends and holidays, access at these sites would benefit both recreation users and natural resources by permitting development in areas that can accommodate the additional public access, and limiting further development in locations where use density is heavy and safety issues are of concern. Because development of these sites would not be considered until an existing site reaches 80 percent capacity, it is likely that a boat launch, including a parking lot, fishing access, and other facilities, would ultimately be required. The details regarding the facilities could be developed in consultation with the aids to navigation/recreation technical review committee.
Flow Releases for Recreation on New River
Appalachian Power currently operates the project as a peaking facility during the fall/winter season (October 16th through April 14th), typically without ramping, and
161 voluntarily operates the project to maintain more constant downstream flows during the recreation season (Apri1 15th through October 15th). The only flow-related requirement under the existing certification is that Appalachian Power release an average daily flow of 750 cfs below the dam or inflow, whichever is less, though Appalachian Power generally targets this volume as an average hourly minimum flow. See the water and aquatic resources sections (3.3.2-3) for a detailed review of historic operation.
As described in its proposed Water Management Plan, under a new license Appalachian Power intends to maintain reservoir levels between 1,845 and 1,846 feet NGVD from April 1st through November 30th. During this time, daily outflow at the project would equal inflow over each 24-hour day, but with a minimum average hourly flow of 750 cfs or inflow, whichever is less. Although Appalachian Power does not state an intention to peak for the purpose of generation within this 1-foot fluctuation range (which provides approximately 190 million cubic feet of storage), it does note that recreation releases may be provided.
From December 1st through March 31st, Appalachian Power proposes to operate in a peaking mode (with highest releases typically during weekday mornings and evenings), with individual units brought on-line in 15-minute intervals and off-line in 30-minute intervals. During this time, Appalachian Power proposes to maintain reservoir levels between 1,844 and 1,846 feet NGVD and to provide a minimum average hourly flow of 1,000 cfs or inflow, whichever is less.
Based on the results of the recreation flow study, Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Management Plan also includes provisions for downstream recreation flows. Appalachian Power proposes to release flows such that the Radford gage reads between 2.7 feet and 3.2 feet, (3,000 to 5,000 cfs) for one Thursday through Sunday in May to accommodate an annual squirt boat competition. Appalachian Power notes that this flow would be accommodated if inflow is sufficient during this period and while maintaining reservoir elevations between 1,845 and 1,846 feet. Appalachian Power also proposes to release weekend recreation flows of 1,000 cfs so that the McCoy Falls reach receives this flow between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays in August, September, and October. This would be provided when inflow is between 800 and 1,000 cfs;28 when not releasing recreation flows, discharge would be 750 cfs or inflow, whichever is less.
The proposed Water Management Plan notes that special recreation releases may be considered following a review by the water management technical review committee,
28 Although the plan states that weekend recreation flows would be provided when inflow is between 800 and 1,000 cfs, we assume that when flow is above 1,000 cfs, Appalachian Power would provide recreation flows of 1,000 or higher. We received no comments from Appalachian Power that refutes this assumption.
162 which would include representatives from Virginia DGIF, Virginia DEQ, Virginia DCR, FOCL, FONR, county governments, representatives from downstream recreation organizations/outfitters, and other interested stakeholders as appropriate. This committee would meet each year to review the plan and recommend minor modifications, including any requests for downstream recreation flows. In addition to this committee work, a broader review of the Water Management Plan would be conducted every 5 years.
Virginia DGIF recommends “levelized flow” operation (10(j) recommendation #1), as proposed by Appalachian Power, from April 1st through November 30th, in order to provide a longer recreation season with fewer disruptions from peaking and to benefit aquatic biota. West Virginia DNR also supports Appalachian Power’s proposed operation during this time period to provide improved flow conditions for aquatic life, especially during the fish spawning season (April through June), to reduce bank erosion by limiting the amount of water level fluctuations per day, and to reduce stranding of boaters and wading anglers.
However, Virginia DGIF supports “modified levelized flows” (10(j) recommendation #7) during the recreational season, as needed, by storing water in Claytor Lake during the week to save it for weekend discharges to benefit whitewater boaters and powerboat-based anglers during the late summer/early fall period. Under this mode of operation, if inflow is at or below a minimum threshold level (e.g. 1,000 cfs), surplus water stored during weekdays would be released on the weekends. The intent would be to create weekend flows in the lower end of the acceptable range for whitewater boaters and powerboat-based anglers. Virginia DGIF requests that Appalachian Power create “modified levelized flows” on a pilot basis when inflow is at or below 1,000 cfs (likely August through October) for 2 years, starting in 2010, while conducting surveys to determine recreational user’s responses to these flows and impacts on reservoir levels.
Concerning wintertime operation, Virginia DGIF supports Appalachian Power’s proposal to maintain reservoir levels between 1,844 and 1,846 feet. However, Virginia DGIF recommends higher minimum instream flows: 1,250 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) during December and January and 1,500 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) in February and March (10(j) recommendation #3), for the purpose of limiting stranding of anglers, recreational boaters, and waterfowl hunters, to better mimic the long-term hydrograph, and to provide better base flows for aquatic species.
West Virginia DNR recommends the same seasonal increases in minimum average hourly flows during the peaking period as Virginia DGIF. The rationale for this recommendation is that the increased minimum flows would limit stranding of anglers, recreational boaters, and waterfowl hunters, and that additional flows would benefit aquatic resources by more closely approximating the natural hydrograph of the New River.
163 Virginia DGIF supports Appalachian Power’s efforts to honor whitewater boater requests for higher flows at McCoy Falls during daylight hours for special events (10(j) recommendation #6).
Virginia DGIF supports the 10-minute response time and the proposed ramping rates for the project stating that gradual reduction in flow over 30-minutes would reduce stranding of aquatic biota (10(j) recommendation #5). West Virginia DNR also agrees with the proposed ramping rates.
In response to Virginia DGIF’s recommendation to provide “modified levelized flow” during the recreation season, Appalachian Power states that this would result in the project generating more power during the lower demand periods on the weekends and generating less power during the higher demand periods of the weekdays, which would significantly reduce the value of the project to Appalachian Power. It also notes that flows released at the dam take 8 hours to reach McCoy Falls, which means that generation would need to be increased at midnight in order for flows to reach McCoy Falls at 8:00 a.m. to benefit whitewater boaters. Appalachian Power does not believe this to be the most efficient use of the resource for power generation, especially if required during the entire recreation season.
Concerning Virginia DGIF’s request for a 2-year pilot program for the 1,000-cfs minimum flow during weekends in August, September, and October, Appalachian Power states that it is willing to begin testing the increased flow prior to a new license, but does not intend to conduct additional surveys to determine recreational users’ responses to these flows. Rather, Appalachian Power intends to use the technical review committee consultation process to consult with those entities who can gather input on the response to flow modifications from their constituents. This information would then be discussed within the context of the technical review committee and the Water Management Plan once any new license is in effect.
Concerning Virginia DGIF’s and West Virginia DNR’s recommended increased minimum flows during December 1st through March 31st, Appalachian Power notes that the project is currently licensed as a peaking project, and it has already proposed to reduce true peaking operation to four months of the year, and to increase the minimum flow during this time from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs to enhance recreation on the river. Appalachian Power states that the additional increases (1,260/1,500 cfs or inflow), as recommended by the agencies, would decrease its ability to peak during that time, with an estimated loss of 673 MWh of generation annually (costing $111,520) as compared to a loss of 55 MWh (costing $893) under its proposal. Appalachian Power does not believe that the benefits that could occur under the agencies’ flow proposal outweigh the additional loss in generation. Appalachian Power also notes that it would provide the peaking schedule to the public so they would have this information when planning recreation activities.
164 Certification conditions D.2, D.3, D.6, D.8, and D.9 specify instream flow and lake level conditions that affect recreational opportunities at the project. Certification condition D.2 specifies that the facility should operate in levelized flow mode from April 1st through November 30th. Certification condition D.3 specifies that the facility should be authorized to operate in peaking mode from December 1st through March 31st. Certification condition D.6 specifies that Appalachian Power draw down Claytor Lake in accordance with the final Water Management Plan. Certification condition D.8 provides minimum instream flow requirements that specify: from April through July, and in November, the required average hourly minimum instream flow should be 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less; from August through October, the required average hourly minimum instream flow should be 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, with modifications allowed for weekend recreation flow releases when inflow rates average between 800 and 1,000 cfs during Monday through Friday and provided the reservoir elevations are maintained between 1,845 to 1,846 feet NGVD; from December through January the required average hourly minimum instream flow should be 1,000 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less; and from February through March, the required average hourly minimum instream flow should be 1,200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less. Certification condition D.9 specifies granting Appalachian Power variances for flows and lake elevation, such as those for additional whitewater boating flows, after consultation with Virginia DEQ, Virginia DGIF, and Virginia DCR, following appropriate public input as determined through coordination with Virginia DEQ. The conditions of the certification related to recreational flow releases are similar to Appalachian Power’s proposed flow releases with the only difference being that that the certification specifies a required minimum instream flow of 1,200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, in February and March, whereas Appalachian Power’s proposal is for a minimum instream flow of 1,000 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, for these months.
Staff Analysis
As described, several popular recreation-based activities occur on the New River, and each has a slightly different set of flow-dependent attributes. Thus, flow volume ideal for one recreation type may be inadequate for another. Acceptable and optimal flow ranges for the seven recreation types presented in the recreation flows report (CRC, 2009) are depicted in table 32 and figure 13. These flow range estimates are based on readings at the Radford gage, which is located 5 miles downstream from Claytor dam.
The report notes that because the New River immediately below the dam is wide and has a very large pool, hourly autocycle releases are almost completely attenuated (smoothed out) by the time they reach Radford. Input from tributaries downstream from Radford (i.e., those near Whitethorne, Walker Creek, and Wolf Creek) are an assumed constant for the purpose of flow analysis, but would, of course, vary along with New
165 River inflow, based on precipitation events. Input from the Little River, however, would join the Claytor dam’s release prior to Radford, and thus would supplement the proposed flow. Due to an independent hydroelectric project on the Little River, this input is often provided in the form of approximately 400-cfs peaking releases. However, the recreation flow report (CRC, 2009) notes that the Little River Project fluctuations of 300 to 400 cfs were not noticed by any of the recreation groups, particularly given that late afternoon pulses generally reach McCoy Falls at night and are generally attenuated by the time they arrive further downstream .
166 Table 32. Acceptable and optimal flow ranges for various reaches by recreation type.29 (Source: CRC, 2009).
29 The following are relevant whitewater boating flows term definitions: (1) marginal, “exercise-only” flows are generally navigable by kayaks but don’t offer specific whitewater features; (2) conditions supporting “technical whitewater boating” include the appearance of hydraulic features, e.g., places where boaters can surf, execute rock moves, and practice eddy turns; (3) “standard” whitewater opportunities have more established hydraulic features, e.g., holes developing good retention and eddy service; boaters may execute many freestyle maneuvers; (4) “big water” boating opportunities provide larger and more powerful hydraulics that require higher skill levels; and (5) squirt boating involves crossing strong eddylines and sinking part or all of the boat, then rotating under water with the current; squirt boats have low displacement and sharper edges than regular playboating kayaks (CRC, 2009).
167 Figure 13. Acceptable (light blue) and optimal flow (dark blue) ranges for recreation on the New River. (Source: CRC, 2009).
In order to understand the seasonal flows that are generally available at the project, figure 14 shows median, 80 percent exceedance, and 95 percent exceedance flows, as well as historic minimum flows, at the USGS Radford gage, located approximately 5 miles downstream from the Claytor dam, for 1907-2007. Note that average daily flow masks daily and hourly variation in downstream flows, which is substantial during peaking operation.
168 Figure 14. Typical flows at the USGS Radford Gage. (Source: CRC and Berger, 2009).
Table 33 shows the amount of days that downstream flows were available for each recreation type, using median daily flow at the Radford Gage from 1990-2007. Because median daily flow masks high/low flow days, as well as high/low flow years, the table also includes data from the year within this range that exhibited the least amount of flow (2008) and the most amount of flow (2003) in order to show what has occurred during a “dry” and a “wet” year. Swimming, as a recreation type, is not included in this recreation flows analysis because swimmers would opportunistically focus on pools and low velocity areas during the hottest months, and the project would not generally affect swimming during these times.
Table 33. Days with available flow for downstream recreation. (Source: USGS Radford Gage data, adapted by staff). Activity Range April 1 – Nov. 30 (244 days) Dec. 1-March 31 (121 days) Median “Dry” “Wet” Median “Dry” “Wet” Shore/wade Acceptable 160 days 216 days 33 days fishing 66% 89% 14% Optimal 94 days 167 days 8 days 39% 68% 3% Float Acceptable 244 days 236 days 208 days 121 days 120 days 101 days fishing 100% 97% 85% 100% 98% 84% Optimal 109 days 122 days 120 days 87 days 92 days 45 days 93% 50% 49% 71% 75% 37% Powerboat Acceptable 244 days 206 days 208 days 121 days 118 days 98 days fishing 100% 84% 85% 100% 97% 81%
169 Activity Range April 1 – Nov. 30 (244 days) Dec. 1-March 31 (121 days) Median “Dry” “Wet” Median “Dry” “Wet” Optimal 109 days 38 days 160 days 112 days 57 days 59 days 45% 16% 66% 93% 47% 48% Tubing* Acceptable 152 days 142 days 74 days 99% 93% 48% Optimal 76 days 38 days 3 days 50% 25% 2% Scenic Acceptable 244 days 236 days 220 days 121 days 122 days 111 days floating 100% 97% 90% 100% 100% 92% (McCoy- Optimal 109 days 38 days 160 days 112 days 57 days 59 days Glen Lyn) 45% 16% 66% 93% 47% 49% Whitewater Acceptable 13 days 9 days 92 days 34 days 12 days 58 days boating 5% 4% 38% 28% 10% 48% (McCoy Optimal 2 days 9 days 57 days 13 days 6 days 44 days “standard”) 1% 4% 23% 11% 5% 36% * Time period evaluated for tubing is May 1-September 30 (153 days)
Appendix C contains a detailed analysis of the effects of current, proposed, and recommended flows on downstream recreation, considering the preferred flow ranges and availabilities outlined above. Table 34, below, provides a summary of this analysis. The category “Agency recommendations” refers to Virginia DGIF’s recommended “modified levelized flows,” which would likely require the impoundment to be full (1,846 feet) by Friday night so that higher flows may be released during the weekends, as well as Virginia DGIF’s and West Virginia DNR’s recommended minimum flows during December through March.
170 Table 34. Summary of benefits to downstream recreation, based on type, for each season and under proposed and recommended flows. (Source: staff, see Appendix C). Activity Season Under Proposed With Agency Operation and Recommendations WQC Shore- and wading- Apr. 1-Nov. 30 ↑↑ ↓↓ based fishing Float-based fishing Apr. 1-Nov. 30 ↑↑ ↑↑ Dec. 1-Mar. 31 ↑↑ ↑↑↑ Powerboat-based Apr. 1-Nov. 30 ↑ ↑↑ fishing and hunting Dec. 1-Mar. 31 ↑ ↑↑ Tubing May 1-Sept. 30 ↑↑ ↑↑↑ or ↓↓↓* Scenic floating Apr. 1-Nov. 30 ↑↑ ↑↑ Dec. 1-Mar. 31 ↑ ↑↑ Whitewater boating Apr. 1-Nov. 30 ↑ ↑↑ Dec. 1-Mar. 31 ↑ ↓ TOTAL BENEFIT Year-round +15 +9-15* *Depends on timing and volume of weekend releases during August through October
Although staff assigned a qualitative “net” benefit or negative effect for each alternative by season and recreation type, this would naturally vary according to the flow available and how Appalachian Power distributes the flow beyond any required minimum flows. By publishing flow release information, recreation users may have more opportunities to take advantage of the correct flows, at the location and time that they are available (as discussed in the following section).
In summary, Appalachian Power’s proposal and the certification conditions would accomplish a mix of benefits (totaling “+15”), so that no significant recreation type is excluded and each receives beneficial flows at some point during its peak season. As compared to requirements under the existing license and the 1979 certification, proposed operation would provide benefits to downstream recreation by extending the main recreational season with fewer disruptions from peaking; implementing ramping procedures, which benefits all recreation types through steadier flows and reduction of stranding; increasing minimum flows during the winter and some summer weekends; and would also indirectly benefit downstream anglers through protection of aquatic habitat.
Specifically, the above measures would provide moderate benefits to most recreation types. Powerboat-based recreation would receive fewer benefits because of its higher minimum acceptable flow, but minimum flows during some summer weekends and winter months would still be marginally acceptable for powerboat-based activities. Proposed operation does not provide adequate flows for whitewater boating during the non-peaking season, but this could be mitigated by Appalachian Power’s willingness to
171 release specific flows for whitewater events, via discussions and planning with the water management technical committee, and this is provided for in certification condition D.9. Releasing the 1,000 cfs during weekends in August-October would be particularly helpful to downstream recreation during this typically dry time period, and given the flexibility afforded by the 1-foot impoundment fluctuation allowance, Appalachian Power could ensure that enough water is stored prior to weekends to release this amount, even when instantaneous inflow above 800 cfs during the recreation releases is not available. This could result in some lost generation time as flows are stored towards the end of the week.
The agencies’ recommended flows would also accomplish a mix of benefits (totaling “+9-15”, depending on the timing and volume of weekend flow releases in August through October). Virginia DGIF’s recommended “modified levelized flow” could result in flows (e.g., higher than 3,300 cfs), which would increase opportunities for fishing from boats, scenic floating, and some whitewater activities, but could exclude shore- and wading-based fishing and tubing, which are two popular sports during the summertime and early fall. This conflict might be avoided if the releases are provided late enough in the season (October and November). In either case, this mode of operation would result in a loss of generation towards the end of the week because flows would have to be stored by late Friday night to begin recreation releases at approximately midnight (to reach McCoy Falls around 8:00 a.m.). This “modified levelized flow” would therefore negatively affect project economics and generation.
Both state agencies’ recommended higher minimum flows during the winter/early spring months would benefit all non-whitewater boating use during the winter and early spring, and could be particularly useful to those hunting from powerboats (November through February) and anglers at the beginning of the season (March). The flows would generally not benefit whitewater boaters during this period. The resulting decrease in the amplitude of peaking releases would have a negative effect on project economics and power generation. Although the certification also specifies a higher flow release during the peaking season, it is only for the months of February and March and is only 200 cfs greater than Appalachian Power’s proposal. The modification would result in a decrease in peaking releases, but the economic impact would be far less than under the agencies’ recommendations. In addition, the increased flows in March and February would provide slight benefits to powerboat hunters and anglers at the beginning of the fishing season.
It is possible that other options, which were not fully evaluated by the stakeholders, could provide flows that are optimal for boating and adequate for whitewater during the winter months, without having a significant impact on project generation. Such options could include: higher minimum base flows during key weekends when inflow is already significant (e.g., during extended hunting seasons and the beginning of the fishing season); modified magnitude, duration, shape, or frequency of peaking releases; and whitewater flow releases during 1 to 2 key weekends in early spring or late fall.
172 The Water Management Plan includes an adaptive management component and a procedure for the technical committee to discuss how best to exercise flexibility within the parameters of the “levelized” and peaking modes. As the relationship between operation and quality of downstream recreation becomes better understood, stakeholders may recommend minor modifications, including but not limited to those listed above, during the plan’s annual review.
Flow Release Reporting and Forecasting for Recreation on New River
As described in the proposed Water Management Plan, Appalachian Power intends to provide flow information related to releases from the dam to the public via its website, www.AEP.com. Appalachian Power aims to provide 24-hour notice of flow release schedules.
Virginia DGIF supports Appalachian Power’s proposal to provide better flow information for New River recreational users.
Staff analysis
Several types of recreation users, particularly whitewater boaters, scenic floaters, and tubing concessioners, use flow information from gages to decide when and where to take trips. Appalachian Power’s proposal to provide flow release schedules (with 24- hour notice) would provide a useful service to those using the river. Boaters and concessioners could consult the website the day before in order to plan trip logistics. This would benefit those who would otherwise have used the river, and may even draw in additional boaters, floaters, or anglers when releases are optimal for their particular activities.
However, differential flow arrival times at downstream locations complicate users’ interpretation of the gage information. In order for dam release information to be useful, the target audience would need to have an understanding of how a certain release at Claytor dam would affect flows where they recreate downstream. As described in the recreation flow report, experienced recreation users have developed estimates of flow arrival times at downstream locations, but there is considerable uncertainty among these estimates and the average or new user would not have a workable model. In order to better inform users, Appalachian Power could include tools for calculating flow arrival times on the flow release website. Although a true predictive hydrograph may be difficult to provide, at a minimum, Appalachian Power could provide the flow arrival estimates that are described in the dynamic flow modeling report (Berger, 2009b), in the form of tables or graphs. For example, during peaking, the following figure could be provided to aid whitewater boaters in trip planning.
173 Figure 15. Time for peaks to reach locations below Radford Gage (at different starting flows). (Source: CRC and Berger, 2009).
Stage versus flow information, by boat launch, could also aid the public in determining the suitability of approaching releases to a particular activity, such as powerboating, which requires a certain level of clearance above rocks.
Appalachian Power’s proposal to provide flow information in 24-hour increments does not aid in advanced planning of recreation trips. These recreation users would therefore continue to rely on best-guess predictions based on Appalachian Power’s past operational trends and weather events. For normal operation, it would be a burden on Appalachian Power to provide flow forecasts beyond 24 hours, because forecasting may commit to a peaking schedule that constrains the ability to follow power demand (which may change), and signaling power generation plans has the potential to affect market prices. However, by stating on the website, in plain and understandable language, what the operational parameters are, as defined by any new license, Appalachian Power could help recreation users understand the potential range of flows and how best to take advantage of any increased minimum or specific flows for recreation.
174 For kayak competitions, forecasts weeks in advance are required. Once specific whitewater releases are determined for the season, Appalachian Power could provide this information on the website.
Navigation
In addition to the boat barriers, signs, and sirens used at the dam under the existing public safety plan, informational buoys denoting rocks (in two areas), no-wake zones (in nine areas), and swimming areas (three areas) are currently in place at the project. As a result of a 2007 navigation study, which examined these existing markers and the need for additional aids, Appalachian Power concluded that there is a strong need to have all existing aids meet federal, state, and local rules and regulations and to provide mariners a defined waterway navigable under various water levels and through areas experiencing sedimentation.
The draft Aids to Navigation Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, was developed in consultation with the Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, Virginia DGIF, Pulaski County, and FOCL. The plan identifies management goals and objectives, proposed changes to the Claytor Lake aids to navigation, measures for monitoring and maintenance of aids, and provisions for communication with mariners. This plan would be coordinated with other management plans through the aids to navigation/recreation technical review committee. In addition to this committee’s roles regarding recreation facilities and flows, as previously discussed, it would also be responsible for evaluating the navigation system and considering relevant reports from other management and monitoring plans (erosion and sedimentation reports). The committee would convene annually and on an ad hoc basis as needed.
As described in the plan, Appalachian Power proposes to mark and maintain a defined waterway from the dam to Allisonia and within Peak Creek using lighted lateral markers to delineate the main boating channel. Appendix C of the Aids to Navigation Management Plan provides a map of the approximately 68 proposed markers. Appalachian Power (or its designee) would inspect Claytor Lake at night every spring to ensure that the lateral marks are functioning, remove any osprey nests on markers each fall, and would pursue an “Adopt a Marker” program in order to keep track of outages during the season. The plan also notes that Virginia DGIF is encouraged to continue its oversight of non-lateral marks at Claytor Lake, and to inspect them each spring to ensure that the aids are located correctly, are legible, and function as intended.
The plan explains that the Coast Guard has delegated its authority with regards to aids to navigation on Claytor Lake to the Virginia DGIF. Virginia DGIF regulations, in turn, require county approval. Appalachian Power has, therefore, identified the following additional consultation and approvals that must be completed prior to implementation of the plan: (1) consultation with, and approval, from the Virginia Department of
175 Transportation (Virginia DOT) regarding markings or lighting for the Lowman’s Ferry Bridge; (2) approval from the Virginia DCR on proposed markings to the train trestle; (3) approval of all proposed aids to navigation (including removal of existing shoal buoys) from Pulaski County, which would then; (4) forward the proposal to the Virginia DGIF for approval.
The Claytor Lake Sailing Association commented that the published height of power lines and conductors in the navigation study report do not seem to account for the television and phone lines that are substantially below the conductors and represent a significant safety and navigation hazard for sailboats on the lake. The association therefore requests that Appalachian Power publish both the conductor and ancillary line heights and mark these crossings with appropriate signage consistent with Coast Guard requirements for marking bridge clearance heights and other overhead hazards to navigation. Appalachian Power responded that it is currently reviewing this information and will publish the heights.
Resident Thomas A. Warden states that he opposes any type of markers to be placed in or around Dublin Cove. He notes that this is probably the most active and populated cove during the summer months and home to 30 to 40 year-round residences with boats and a campground with over 300 camp sites, many of them housing boat owners. Mr. Warden does not explain why he opposes the markers.
Property owners James and Nancy Blair state that there is too much unregulated recreational use and that their experience of the lake shore is negatively affected by traffic, noise, and boat wakes in Dublin Hollow, particularly in the summer and on weekends.
Laura Walters notes that markers located in narrow coves and channels (such as Peak Creek and Dublin Hollow) create safety hazards for wake boarders and water skiers in high density use areas. Ms. Walters believes that they are unnecessary.
Staff Analysis
Claytor Lake hosts a significant amount of daytime and nighttime boating, with boating densities during busy weekend days in July reaching approximately 25 acres of open water per boat in the main channel. At this density, the full suite of boating activities can be accommodated at existing use levels. Thus, reducing the amount of boating traffic is less of an issue than maintaining appropriate facilities, as discussed previously, and providing a safe environment for boaters. Regardless of the specific amount of boating traffic, traffic on the lake would benefit from navigational aids to enhance safety and ease of travel. The amount of boating traffic in and around Dublin Cove simply provides further justification of the need to provide navigational aids. If the
176 coves are too narrow and use is too dense to allow for safe waterskiing and wake boarding, these activities should be relocated to wider portions of the channel.
As stated earlier, there is no existing marker system that systematically indicates the location of the navigable channel at Claytor Lake. Developing and implementing the proposed Aids to Navigation Management Plan, which would include acquisition of the required state and county approvals, would ensure that a new, and appropriate, system is established at the project, contributing to the ease of boating navigation on the lake and increasing safety associated with recreational use of project waters. Specifically, installation and maintenance of the lighted lateral marker system to delineate the main boating channel would assist boaters in avoiding navigational hazards such as shoals, submerged rocks, and shallow areas and could help to control the flow of traffic in heavily used areas of the lake.
By reviewing the results of the sedimentation and debris monitoring plans, the aids to navigation/recreation technical committee would be informed as to issues relating to navigation at the project, including clearance and obstructions, and would thus be able to make any necessary modifications to the Aids to Navigation Management Plan during its annual review.
In order to assist sailboating at the project, the plan could be updated to include any necessary height restrictions and overhead hazards to navigation (e.g., power lines) within the navigable areas of the lake. In the case of a height restriction likely to affect sailboats, Appalachian Power could consult with Coast Guard and/or Virginia DGIF regulations with regards to the appropriate marking of these hazards.
Identifying the entities responsible for each monitoring and maintenance activity would help to avoid confusion with regards to compliance of the plan. In addition, once the Virginia DGIF approves the navigation markers, the plan should be updated to include the final location and types of all markers, including any existing informational buoys that would be removed or maintained.
The proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan, discussed in the geology and soils section (3.3.1) would require Appalachian Power to file a report following the initial survey. The report would include identification of areas to be recommended for no-wake zones to address boating wake-related erosion. These no-wake zones could help to mitigate some of the effects of boat-induced erosion at the lake, and additional erosion monitoring could confirm this. The establishment of no-wake zones would affect boating activity in these areas, and the recommended no-wake zones should be discussed by the aids to navigation/recreation work group as well.
177 Sedimentation Management
Sedimentation is most pronounced in bays and tributary inlets, where recreational access is often located. In its draft Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, Appalachian Power proposes to monitor sedimentation on Claytor Lake from the Allisonia boat ramp to the Lowman’s Ferry Bridge, as well as at Peak Creek, every 5 years. A survey report would be provided to a sediment/erosion technical review committee made up of representatives from Virginia DGIF, Virginia DCR, Virginia DEQ, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pulaski County, and FOCL for review and comment. It would also be reviewed by other management plan-related committees, including the aids to navigation/recreation technical committee. The report would identify actions to be taken by Appalachian Power to address the impacts of sediment deposits on public access sites. The section on geology and soils (3.3.1) provides further details and analysis of this proposal.
Staff Analysis
The accumulation of sediment can affect recreational access and the boating experience. The proposed Sediment Monitoring Plan focuses on 5-year monitoring and reporting, but includes a placeholder for mitigation measures, if necessary. This would ensure that public access sites remain accessible in the case that sedimentation begins to infringe upon access. In addition, the results of the monitoring would inform any necessary modifications to navigational aids delineating the navigable channel.
However, the plan does not identify what types of actions Appalachian Power would implement or under what conditions Appalachian Power would propose dredging at a recreation facility (e.g., standards for assessing the severity of the accumulation of sediment and the effect on boating access, and identification of a sedimentation threshold for when actions would be taken by Appalachian Power). Additional detail would provide guidance to the technical committees in determining the range of potential activities they could evaluate if sedimentation begins to significantly inhibit access and navigation.
Debris Management
Although abundant, complex, woody debris benefits fisheries (as discussed in the aquatic resources section, 3.3.3), and therefore improves angling success, debris can also present negative effects, such as boating and water skiing hazards, recreational access obstruction, and decreased enjoyment of project aesthetics. Currently, Appalachian Power does not directly manage debris removal at Claytor Lake. Rather, FOCL has a debris removal program, towards which Appalachian Power provides certain removal equipment (conveyor), monetary contributions, and use of property to support the removal effort. Additional funding for this effort is provided by FOCL’s membership and Pulaski County. Through this program, lake users contact FOCL with debris
178 removal requests. Debris is removed using a barge and dumpsters. Natural debris is stacked on shore and allowed to dry. Once dry, the material is either burned on-site or taken off-site for appropriate disposal.
Appalachian Power’s proposed Debris Management Plan formalizes this existing partnership with regards to debris removal. Each April, an overall plan for debris removal over the upcoming months would be developed, in consultation with the aquatic vegetation /debris/habitat/ Shoreline Management Plan technical review committee (FOCL, Pulaski County, Virginia DGIF, Virginia DCR, and Virginia DEQ). Appalachian Power (or its designee) would inspect the lake once each month from April through October, and following heavy inflow events, and report on the observed debris load. The monthly inspection reports would be provided to the technical committee for review, and the overall plan would be revised as necessary based on the reports. The committee would also receive a copy of an annual report documenting debris removal efforts from the preceding year (filed each January 30th).
The plan prioritizes debris removal activities in the following order: (1) floating debris that is considered to present a hazard to boating; (2) debris that blocks access or is considered aesthetically unpleasant in the vicinity of public recreation access areas; and (3) debris that blocks access or is considered aesthetically unpleasant in the vicinity of private access areas. Debris that is considered beneficial fish habitat would not be removed.
Appalachian Power would work with FOCL to annually establish a blanket contract with contractor(s) to assist in debris removal efforts when it is determined to be essential. That assistance would also include the removal of dead animals, large man- made items or other debris that presents a boating hazard. Virginia DEQ would be contacted regarding the removal of containers potentially containing hazardous materials.
Under the proposed Debris Management Plan, existing debris disposal practices would continue, with consideration of additional disposal sites only when Appalachian Power-owned or privately owned sites are no longer available. In addition, the plan includes provisions for: an Appalachian Power-sponsored annual lake clean-up day, to be coordinated with FOCL and Pulaski County; and specific public education measures regarding the impact of debris on recreation, the environment, and aesthetics.
Staff Analysis
Debris, both natural and man-made, can have a negative effect on project recreation. It poses a hazard to boating, and other activities, such as swimming, tubing, and water skiing can also be adversely affected by debris. Although recreation surveys did not reveal debris to be a major concern for boaters and other recreation users at the project (12 percent reported an “average” amount of debris in the area), this is likely due
179 to the existing debris removal program undertaken by FOCL and supported by Appalachian Power and Pulaski County. These efforts have been beneficial in maintaining aesthetics and use at the lake.
Continuing to monitor and remove debris, as proposed in the Debris Management Plan, would ensure that these resources are protected throughout the term of any new license, particularly in inlets and coves, where debris tends to accumulate. The plan prioritizes debris removal measures in order to maintain the aesthetic values, reduce access difficulties and reduce boating hazards associated with floating debris, while benefiting fish habitat of both lakes. The plan includes removal methods, identification of natural debris that should remain within the lakes, and proposals for public education relative to debris. Therefore, the plan deals with debris management in a comprehensive way that addresses boater safety and access and project aesthetics. This would promote and enhance the recreation experience at the project.
Consultation with the technical review committee would ensure that various user and resource perspectives are considered when determining the debris type, method, location, and disposal activities of debris removal events.
3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Peaking operations, when flow varies between the minimum flow and the maximum hydraulic discharge, would continue to affect downstream recreation. Shoreline development, and its effects on recreation access and use at the project, could continue but likely be limited by provisions included in the Shoreline Management Plan.
3.3.7 Land Management and Aesthetics
3.1.1 Affected Environment
Land use in Pulaski County is predominantly agricultural, with farmlands, pastures, croplands, and other agricultural lands comprising over 60 percent of the land area. Residential lands make up approximately 12 percent of the land area. The county also features a Boy Scout reservation, the Jefferson National Forest, and Claytor Lake. The lake provides hydroelectricity and public drinking water, and is a high-value recreational resource.
180 The Claytor Project boundary30 generally follows the 1,850-foot contour around the impoundment, and extends 2,000 feet downstream from the dam along the New River. The boundary encompasses approximately 3,487 acres of land, including those containing project works, recreational access, and upland parcels committed for future recreation. The 22-mile-long Claytor Lake has a surface area of 4,363 acres (at elevation 1,846 feet) and approximately 100 miles of shoreline. Undeveloped land along the shoreline includes wetlands, woody debris (particularly in coves), and cliffs and other steep, inaccessible terrain. The scenic beauty of Claytor Lake is appreciated by locals and visitors as a place for recreation as well as a scenic attraction. Much of the land adjacent to the boundary is privately owned, and these property owners often use land within the project boundary for private boat docks and piers.
Appalachian Power manages land within the project boundary through its existing lease and permitting program. It has granted approximately 101 private leases for non- commercial boat docks, mooring structures, and landscaping activities located within the project boundary. The leases are typically for a 3-year term, and Appalachian Power’s real estate asset management office conducts an inspection near the end of a lease, prior to entering a new lease. Of the approximately 119 acres of land reserved for future recreational use, Conrad Brothers Marine leases approximately 41 acres for a primitive campground, with the remaining acres leased by a local hunt club and kept in a natural state.
The permitting program31 provides for activities such as private and commercial dock construction, shoreline stabilization, dredging, minor water withdrawals, and other uses of project water and land. In addition to any required lease, all shoreline uses and structures must comply with Appalachian Power’s guidelines and receive a permit. Specifications for private facilities, such as piers and docks, are defined by the Pulaski County Zoning Ordinance. Appalachian Power works with Pulaski County as well as state and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations to coordinate permitting processes.
30 The project boundary serves the function of indicating that the lands within are used in some manner for project purposes, and includes infrastructure associated with the project dam and powerhouse, the primary transmission line, and primary access road(s), as well as land needed for recreational access and the protection of significant, project- specific resources (e.g., ecological and cultural).
31 Article 36 of the existing license authorizes Appalachian Power to permit residential docks, shoreline stabilization measures, and a number of other types of development. This authority is granted to Appalachian Power provided the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and other environmental values of the project.
181 Appalachian Power also owns approximately 1,922 acres of non-project land, which is outside of the project boundary. Approximately 300 acres are leased to private parties, mostly adjacent property owners.
Management of private property adjacent to the project is administered through the Pulaski County Zoning Ordinance and the Pulaski County Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance classifies land use districts on land within is jurisdiction and outlines prohibited and permitted activities within the districts, as well as design guidelines for structures. The majority of land along the northern shoreline of the lake is zoned for agricultural use while the majority of land along the southern shoreline of the lake is zoned for residential use. The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to guide future development in consideration of the natural and socioeconomic resources of the residents of the county. These documents provide for land management and regulation of land uses for private properties surrounding the project (Pulaski County, 2008b).
3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Elimination of Annual Drawdowns
Appalachian Power voluntarily and routinely provides a drawdown in the late fall or early winter to allow lake residents to perform maintenance of docks, shoreline stabilization, and boat ramps. Appalachian Power proposes to discontinue annual drawdowns in order to eliminate mussel mortality due to exposure and predation. Related comments and the effects of discontinuing the annual drawdown on shoreline erosion, water quality, and freshwater mussels are discussed in the geology and soils section (3.3.1), the water resources section (3.3.2) and the aquatic resources section (3.3.3), respectively. This section discusses the effects of the proposal on existing land use and access at the project.
Multiple stakeholders (Cheri and Robert A. Strenz, Thomas A. Warden, Mark F. Williams, Laura Walters, Travis J. Tysinger) state that the drawdown is necessary for residents to build and maintain docks, with several indicating that elimination of the drawdown would present hardship for shoreline residents. Several stakeholders referenced Appalachian Power’s recreation study findings, which showed that 75 percent of respondents use the drawdowns to perform property maintenance. FOCL notes that stakeholders may forgo property maintenance if drawdowns are discontinued, which would negatively impact the quality of the human environment. Laura Bullard states that restricted dock maintenance and repair would impair recreational access, enjoyment and safety, and negatively impact property values and the scenic quality of the lake.
FOCL suggests evaluation of other alternatives, such as less frequent drawdowns (e.g., every 2 to 3 years), less amplitude of drawdown (e.g., 4 feet), or drawdowns in warmer weather to avoid effects to mussels. David and Susan Dobyns note that
182 drawdown depth, frequency, and timing could be reviewed to minimize the effect on the mussel population. Mr. Tysinger requests that a schedule for lowering the lake be provided to property owners well in advance to allow residents to plan for and schedule work.
Appalachian Power, in its response to comments, recognizes that not having a drawdown may be an inconvenience to those performing maintenance to their facilities. However, it notes that these activities can be accomplished without the benefit of a drawdown.
Staff Analysis
Providing an annual drawdown of up to 5 feet for 2 weeks each year allows residents to plan for and implement measures to maintain docks. Allowing for well- maintained docks benefits recreation, safety, and aesthetics at the project. Elimination of the fall/winter drawdown would present hardship to those who wish to conduct dry work on their docks in the following ways: (1) they may have to find different techniques to conduct work while the dock remains submerged, which could be more costly; or (2) they would be forced to mobilize quickly if they wish to take advantage of any unanticipated drawdowns, which may or may not be possible depending on the work required. Given these hardships, some residents might forgo maintenance activities.
Although not directly necessary for project operations, it is typical for licensees to provide drawdowns that are generally necessary for the licensee itself to conduct maintenance or other activities at project structures, and may occur on a fairly regular basis (e.g., every 3 to 5 years) throughout the term of the license. These drawdowns can then also be used by shoreline residents to conduct maintenance on individual shoreline structures during the drawdowns. Developing and implementing a reservoir drawdown plan would provide shoreline property owners advance notice of the commencement date for a reservoir drawdown, the drawdown rate, limit, and term of the drawdown. In addition, a reservoir drawdown plan that provides for the notification of scheduled drawdowns would allow residents to plan for sufficient time to schedule and perform shoreline property maintenance when Appalachian Power conducts maintenance at its facilities. Opportunities to conduct maintenance would likely be less frequent, but impacts to aquatic vegetation and mussels would be minimized.
Shoreline Management
Appalachian Power proposes to consolidate its existing permitting and various resource management programs into a single comprehensive plan for resource protection through shoreline classifications and development planning through permitting and regulation of shoreline uses. This would be accomplished through implementation of a Shoreline Management Plan, in consultation with local stakeholders, state, and federal
183 agencies. The proposed Shoreline Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, includes: (1) a description of shoreline conditions, based on the results of relicensing studies, and shoreline classifications; (2) requirements and guidelines for shoreline management, such as permitted structures and activities within shoreline classifications, shoreline stabilization requirements, vegetative cover requirements, and provisions regarding woody debris and cultural resources; and (3) implementation procedures, including permitting responsibilities, fees, variance procedures, enforcement, and provisions for Shoreline Management Plan review and update.
In comments on the draft EA, Appalachian Power proposes to amend section 2.5.4 of the Shoreline Management Plan, Low Density Use Regulations with updated language that removes references to filing the agreement or waiver with the Clerk of the Pulaski County Circuit Court. Instead, the waiver or agreement shall be permanently filed only with Appalachian Power. Appalachian Power states that this amendment is necessary so that the company can retain the ability to ensure that agreements and waivers are appropriate and properly obtained. The company also clarifies that the waiver process defined by Appalachian Power does not affect land ownership issues, but serves to clarify where docks may be located.
The focal point of the plan is the classification of the shorelines. The Shoreline Management Plan identifies six land use classifications for the shoreline: (1) high- density commercial; (2) high-density multi-use; (3) public use; (4) low-density use; (5) steep slope protection (6) impact minimization zone; and (7) conservation/ environmental.
The shoreline totals and percentages of total shoreline for each of the classifications are presented in table 35.
Table 35. Shoreline classification with total miles and percent of total shoreline. (Source: Shoreline Management Plan). Shoreline classification Total miles Percentage High-density commercial 0.72 0.75 High-density multi-use 2.37 2.22 Public use 2.8 2.6 Low-density use 26.9 25.1 Steep slope protection 7.7 7.2 Impact minimization zone 50.08 46.81 Conservation/environmental 16.4 15.33 Total 106.97 100
The classifications are not exclusive, but are inclusive from the “top down.” For example, an area designated for High-Density Commercial facilities could be used for
184 any other use, but not vice-versa. Appalachian Power has developed requirements for each of the classifications as part of the Shoreline Management Plan.
Staff Analysis
The proposed Shoreline Management Plan would indirectly benefit the various resources affected by land management activities, such as land-clearing, construction, and any resulting increased traffic and use. The plan’s impact minimization zones and conservation/environmental classifications directly benefit significant recreational, ecological, aesthetic, and cultural resources at the lake by protecting them from inappropriate development. The plan would allow for continued shoreline use and access while protecting existing recreational uses and public safety through control of the size, density, and placement of docks and piers. In addition, the plan provides for permitted uses beyond what is allowed for by the Commission’s standard land use article. Thus, if approved, Appalachian Power would have the authority to permit such activities without requesting an amendment or other order from the Commission, which could result in quicker processing of applications.
The provision for Shoreline Management Plan review and update indicates that Appalachian Power would review the Shoreline Management Plan every 5 years, through consultation with stakeholders. Updates to the plan would include any revisions deemed necessary in order to protect public recreation opportunities, aesthetic features, environmental resources, and power production capability at the project. Note that other management plans (e.g., for debris, habitat, and cultural resources) are also directly related to shoreline use, resource protection, and aesthetics. The aquatics resources section (3.3.3) includes staff’s discussion of adaptive management and the interaction between various technical review committees.
Because this proposed Shoreline Management Plan influences all activities pertaining to the shoreline, it has overarching effects. Its relationship to geology and soils, water resources, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, threatened and endangered species, and cultural resources are addressed and analyzed in the appropriate sections (3.3.1-8) throughout this final EA. The following subsections specifically address concerns with regards to the proposed Shoreline Management Plan’s effects on how residents use the shoreline and project aesthetics.
In regards to the proposal to amend section 2.5.4 of the Shoreline Management Plan, Low Density Use Regulations with updated language that removes references to filing the agreement or waiver with the Clerk of the Pulaski County Circuit Court, the revised language references agreements or waivers signed between adjacent landowners in respect to dock location. The new language no longer requires the landowner to file the agreement or waiver with the county courts, but only with Appalachian Power. As
185 Appalachian Power is the federal licensee with authority over the shoreline, this revised language seems appropriate.
Regulations for Private Docks and Piers
The Shoreline Management Plan provides specifications for low-density use, including specifications for single family residential docks and piers.32 The below requirements within the Shoreline Management Plan are pertinent to the following discussion.
Section 2.5.4, Low Density Use:
12. The total overall size of a property owner’s structure and slip areas shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. The square footage shall be calculated utilizing the structure, the open slip area and all existing upland improvements within the project boundary. The maximum number of slips shall be two (2). Floats and slips designed for personal watercraft use are considered slips.
14. Enclosed storage areas may be permitted on docks but shall not exceed 48 square feet in size and shall be located on the lower level within ten feet of the back of the dock as measured from the landward side, excluding the walkway. The storage area may be enclosed with siding or screening or a combination of both. Structures within the project boundary shall not be used for human habitation and shall not be equipped with household fixtures such as kitchen equipment, sinks, showers, toilets, etc. The bulk storage of petroleum and chemical products is not permitted within the project boundary, nor are sanitary sewer lines or drain fields allowed. Sinks, toilets, showers, etc. or any type of equipment or construction which will increase or cause any liquid or solid waste to be discharged into the waters of the lake will not be permitted.
16. The maximum height of any dock structure shall not exceed 16 feet above the base elevation. For Claytor Lake the base elevation is considered to be 1846 feet above mean sea level. Additional roofs creating a second story are not allowed.
Section 2.5.6, Steep Slope Protection:
32 In its letter filed January 22, 2010, Appalachian Power updated requirements with regards to setback areas; these modifications are reflected in the draft license article that would require finalization and implementation of the HPMP (Appendix B).
186 13. For docks serving a single family use, the maximum number of slips shall be one (1). Floats and slips designed for personal watercraft use are considered slips. The total overall size of a property owner’s structure and slip areas shall not exceed 500 square feet. The square footage shall be calculated utilizing the structure, the open slip area and all existing upland improvements within the project boundary.
Throughout the licensing proceeding, a number of residents and landowners submitted comments with regards to the above requirements. The comments can generally be grouped into concerns regarding: (1) dock size limitations of 1,000 square feet for individual docks; (2) dock size of 500 square feet for individual docks on steep slopes; (3) height restrictions of 16 feet; and (4) storage area of 48 square feet.
(1) Dock size limitations. Pulaski County Board of Supervisors, FOCL, Cheri Strenz, Robert Strenz, David and Susan Dobyns, Larry N. Killough, Thomas A. Warden III, Eric Rorrer, Jim Gibson, Ralph and Martha Harvey, Stacy Moran, Jan Woodward, Bill Fintel and Laura Walters disagree with the proposed dock size limitation of 1,000 square feet. Reasons for opposition include:
(a) the size is inadequate to dock 21- to 26-foot boats or 22- to 32-foot pontoon boats; (b) though the proposed limits may work for a single-bay boat lift, the limitation for two-bay boat lifts presents serious safety hazards and does not meet changing needs or boat sizes; (c) with a two-bay boat slip, almost half the square footage allowed is taken up by the slip space; (d) the size is inadequate to allow for the storage of personal water craft on a boat lift; (e) the size is inadequate to support both boat storage and other recreational activities (family gatherings) on the dock; (f) because of the latter, people would be inclined to use the roof-top as additional deck space, which could pose safety hazards; (g) the size is inadequate to support both the dock and the walkway to the dock, especially since it would include the 48 square feet of storage area; (h) restrictions limit variation and ingenuity used in designing boat docks; (i) fingers of the dock would be narrow (mostly 3 feet in width) and thus would not allow for accessibility and safety; (j) dock requirements for the nearby, Appalachian Power-managed Smith Mountain Lake allow for 1,500 to 3,000 square feet based on shoreline frontage and do not include the walkway in the calculation of dock area; (k) Appalachian Power shoreline management has not allowed for approved county zoning variances in specific instances in the recent past;
187 (l) Appalachian Power permitting results in lengthy delays (up to 1 year for approval); and (m) the most visually appealing docks were built prior to the 2003 Pulaski County Ordinance, or following the ordinance but with special use permits.
Recommendations from the stakeholders include: (1) exhibit greater flexibility in dock size requirements; (2) set the square footage limitation for docks based on the amount of lake frontage (presumably for land that is owned by the permit seeker) (e.g., consider 1,000 square feet for lots with less than 100 feet of frontage, and 1,800 square feet for lots with over 100 feet of frontage); (3) exclude the boat slip, the staircase to the second floor level, the 48-square-foot storage area, and the ramp area when calculating square footage; (4) consider the multiple uses of docks when determining appropriate size (swimming and gathering); (5) provide additional time for comments; (6) retain Pulaski County as the entity responsible for permitting variances and zoning and ensure that Appalachian Power management is not in conflict with these variances.
Travis J. Tysinger does not state opposition to the proposed requirements, but recommends that a panel review them to determine if the requirements are reasonable and avoid any undue restrictions or financial burden on property owners.
(2) Dock size limitation on steep slopes: FOCL, Cheri Strenz, and Robert Strenz disagree with the 500-square-foot size restriction for docks located off of steep slopes. Reasons for their opposition include:
(a) residents with steep slopes do not have usable shoreline, thus, the only access to the lake is the dock; and (b) since the slope is so great, little, if any, viewshed issues are in play.
FOCL and Mr. and Ms. Strenz therefore recommend increasing the size limit for docks on steep slopes.
Height restrictions: FOCL, Ms. and Mr. Strenz, Ms. and Mr. Dobyns, and Mr. Rorrer, disagree with the 16-foot height restriction. Reasons for opposition include:
(1) this restriction does not allow for the construction of a roof over the main dock space and boat lifts, which is generally desired in order to create a covered leisure area; and (2) dock requirements for the nearby, Appalachian Power-managed Smith Mountain Lake allow for roof height of 26 feet.
Mr. Rorrer recommends that Pulaski County review special use permit requests in cases where views of adjoining neighbors would not be impeded.
188 Storage size restrictions: FOCL, Mr. and Ms. Strenz, and Mr. and Ms. Dobyns oppose the 48-square-foot size limitation for enclosed storage, stating that this is not adequate for boating-related secure storage. They request consideration of a 72-square- foot limitation, as allowed at Smith Mountain Lake.
Mr. and Ms. Dobyns note that Appalachian Power’s Shoreline Management Plan appears to remove Pulaski County from the permitting and inspection process except for final building inspection. They, along with several other commenters, recommend that Appalachian Power continue to cooperate with Pulaski County in providing a streamlined local process which accommodates property owners.
Appalachian Power provided background on the collaborative nature of the guideline development in its letter filed January 11, 2010. The guidelines were originally developed in 2003 by a committee made up of representatives from Appalachian Power, Pulaski County, and FOCL, with input from various state and federal agencies. It notes that the Pulaski County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors advertised and held several public meetings prior to revising their dock ordinance to reflect Appalachian Power’s guidelines. During relicensing, the guidelines were again reviewed by the shoreline management work group and minor modifications were made, as reflected in the proposed Shoreline Management Plan.
Appalachian Power also provided its rationale for the proposed dock specifications. It notes that the 1,000-square-foot limitation has been used since 2003 without incident and disagrees that it is unsafe. In addition, Appalachian Power refers to the results of the recreation and scenic studies, which indicate that the scenic quality of the lake is very important to the residents who live there, that natural shoreline and background is an important scenic attribute, and that limiting the impact from man-made structures located along the shoreline is important. Appalachian Power believes that the guidelines contained within the Shoreline Management Plan would protect the scenic attributes of the shoreline.
Further, because the guidelines were developed with input from various stakeholders, Appalachian Power does not find it appropriate to revise the Shoreline Management Plan to reflect the additional requested modifications. It does, however, agree to delete the requirement to include the walkway in the calculation of total square footage, as this is not the current practice. In their comments on the draft EA, Mr. and Ms. Strenz state that this requirement was never meant to be included in the calculation and Appalachian Power indicated that this requirement was included as a mistake in the June 2009 Shoreline Management Plan.
Staff Analysis
189 Boat docks, including platforms and walkways, are man-made features that allow the shoreline residents of Claytor Lake to enjoy the recreational opportunities and scenic quality available at Appalachian Power’s project reservoir. These private features, however, are located within a public space, and their presence eliminates that space from use by others. Further, if the docks are constructed in a visually intrusive manner, they can further detract from the recreational opportunities and aesthetics at the lake.
As discussed in the recreation section (3.3.6), boating use by shoreline residents is a historic and continuing use, and as such, a Shoreline Management Plan that includes permits for private boat docks would be a reasonable means of ensuring continued access by this group. We agree with the comments that, with two boat slips, approximately half of the total footprint allowed by the proposed requirements would remain for deck space and the walkway. With Appalachian Power’s modification to exclude the walkway from the calculation, whether it corrects a mistake or is a concession based on comments, would allow approximately 500 square feet of total deck space, excluding the walkway and boat slips, to be available to support other uses. In addition, the height restrictions do not prohibit use of a roof as additional deck space, they simply prohibit an additional roof over this second story.
The size (including for storage facilities) and height limitations are identical to those determined by Pulaski County’s zoning ordinance and are supported by the conclusions of the scenery management study of Claytor Lake, which was conducted during the relicensing process (Virginia Tech, 2009). The report notes that if these features are constructed in a visually intrusive manner they can detract from the recreational opportunities and scenic quality of the lake. These recreational and scenic features have recommended standards associated with them and these standards are incorporated into the Shoreline Management Plan.
In order to continue to support residents’ boating use on the lake, simple, single- level docks far less than 1,000 square feet would likely suffice. However, Appalachian Power has provided for a dock size of up to 1,000 square feet in deference to the historic, multi-use nature of docks at Claytor Lake. The Commission’s standard land use article, which is included in any license issued for a hydroelectric project, grants Appalachian Power the authority to permit non-commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and where said facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings. Every lake is unique and the guidelines developed by each applicant should address local resources and needs. The proposed guidelines are therefore reasonable in that they support boat storage and access, as well as historic, multi-uses at private docks, but with limitations to prevent these docks from dominating a public resource.
In section 2.5 of the Shoreline Management Plan, Appalachian Power acknowledges that every possible scenario cannot be anticipated, and reserves the right to
190 issue decisions in situations not specifically covered by the requirements. In addition, section 3.3 describes a variance process, whereby requirements and land use classifications may be reconsidered by Appalachian Power on a case-by-case basis. This built-in flexibility would allow Appalachian Power to respond to any unique needs in the case that an applicant seeks approval for a nonconforming structure. Flexible use of this stipulation should address many of the residents’ concerns with regards to visually appealing and safe facilities.
Also, note that the proposed requirements allow for the grandfathering of docks, piers, and similar structures constructed within the 1,846-foot contour prior to the implementation of the Shoreline Management Plan. These structures would not need to be modified to meet the new requirements and would continue to exist unless maintenance requires more than 50 percent of the physical structure to be replaced or repaired. Thus, the proposed Shoreline Management Plan would not impose costs on those who already own nonconforming structures.
The final Shoreline Management Plan could be updated to provide a brief justification for these specifications. This information would help to inform landowners and regulators as to the purpose behind the requirements and in what situations a variance might be permissible, which would also provide a better understanding of when a variance could be requested and when one might be granted. If Appalachian Power exercises its variance procedures in a flexible manner and evaluates, on a case-by-case basis, any proposed non-conforming structure, then some structures could be approved that might benefit project aesthetics while not eliminating an excessive amount of space from public use.
With regards to county permitting processes, Appalachian Power may coordinate with Pulaski County, as appropriate, but as a federal licensee, Appalachian Power would have authority over use of the shoreline, as dictated by the Commission’s standard land use article and any approved Shoreline Management Plan.
Regulations for Shoreline Stabilization Regulations
As discussed in section 3.3.1, Geology and Soils, under the proposed Shoreline Management Plan, Appalachian Power proposes to modify the existing shoreline stabilization guidelines. These guidelines provide preferred types of erosion mitigation concepts, applicable locations/scenarios, criteria for shoreline stabilization techniques, and design standards for riprap and bulkheads. Specifically, native vegetation planting and other bioengineering is preferred, but alternative methods may be considered and riprap and bulkheads may be used when appropriate.
Additionally, as part of the Erosion Monitoring Plan, Appalachian Power would develop one demonstration project on the shoreline of Claytor Lake to demonstrate the
191 use of natural methods for stabilizing eroding shoreline that would also enhance the shoreline habitat.
Several stakeholders disagree with Appalachian Power’s preference of using riprap for shoreline stabilization and state that erosion control using bulkheads should be allowed as a cost effective, easily implemented method that requires less disturbance of the shoreline. Laura Bullard, FOCL, Cheri Strenz, and David Dobyns suggest that to facilitate shoreline protection, flexibility in design and construction are needed.
Staff Analysis
The erosion study report recommended incorporating an “ecosystem approach” as an alternative to hardened measures such as riprap and bulkheads. In addition to stabilizing the shoreline, the “ecosystem approach” also encourages natural recruitment and development of riparian ecosystems. The scenic management study report notes that, while erosion itself can have a negative effect on project aesthetics, shoreline protection measures such as riprap and retaining walls can also detract from scenic value. Thus, native vegetation and other bioengineering (e.g., live staking, natural fiber matting, etc) would benefit both habitat and scenery at the project. Appalachian Power’s proposal to demonstrate use of such materials would assist those that seek additional erosion control.
The Shoreline Management Plan allows for a variety of different erosion control measures and materials, including the use of riprap, with bulkheads identified as a last resort. Including a variance process in the guidelines affords Appalachian Power and the homeowners an opportunity for flexibility. Providing more detail regarding the variance process and cases where Appalachian Power might consider an exception to the Shoreline Management Plan guidelines would make homeowners more aware of the specific types of cases that Appalachian Power might consider when issuing a variance. It also might result in Appalachian Power receiving fewer permits for variance requests it considers inappropriate.
3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Elimination of the annual drawdown would result in less frequent opportunities for dock maintenance.
192 3.3.8 Cultural Resources
3.1.1 Affected Environment
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT
Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, the Commission must take into account whether any historic property could be affected by a proposed new license within the project’s APE. The APE is defined as the geographic area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. In this case, the APE for the project includes the following: (a) lands enclosed by the project boundary; and (b) lands or properties outside the project boundary where project operation, recreational development, or other project-related development or use may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any historic properties exist.
HISTORY OF THE REGION
Use of the region over time, from prehistory to European contact to the modernization and industrialization of the New River Valley, indicates what types of cultural resources might be found in the project area. This overview is summarized from Green et al. (2008).
Archaeologists have identified evidence of humans in the southwestern part of Virginia as early as 11,000 years before present (B.P.). The New River Valley area has not been extensively studied, but the earliest evidence of occupation in the project area dates from the Early Archaic Period (ca. 10,000-8,000 years B.P.). Late in the Archaic Period (5,000-3,000 B.P.) humans in the region began settling in permanent camps. These settlements became larger and more permanent in the Woodland Period (3,000- 1,000 B.P.) as people began to develop and rely on agriculture for subsistence. The first European explorers and settlers arrived in what is now Virginia late in the 16th century, permanently reducing and altering native communities through the introduction of new diseases, colonial warfare, and a new economic system.
European settlement in the project area, specifically, began with German immigrants from Pennsylvania (called “Dunkards) in the early 1740s, and other settlers from Pennsylvania and throughout Virginia continued to arrive. The region’s American Indians, particularly the Shawnee, resisted this development and aligned themselves with the British during the French and Indian War (1757-1763). Given both the resistance from the region’s American Indians and the lack of reliable transportation routes, the rate of settlement in western Virginia was slow throughout the 18th century.
193 In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, more settlers continued to arrive in the region, prompting various investment companies to attempt to build new roads that could provide improved access. In addition to roads, the Roanoke Navigation Company was formed in 1817 to improve the Roanoke River for navigation.
The landscape and use of Pulaski County were changed irrevocably with the completion of the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad (predecessor to the Norfolk & Southern Railroad) in 1855. The railroad entered the county through Central Depot, what is now Radford, and extended to the community of Dublin. From Dublin, the line extended eight miles to the west to a water tank on Robert Martin’s plantation near Peak Creek. This railroad stop was the origin of modern-day Pulaski. With the railroad connection, the Pulaski area attracted a number of mining industries in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Due to the railroad, the New River was relatively untouched with regards to navigation, with little-to-no industrial use. In 1909, O.L. Stearnes began to acquire land along the river and sought outside capital to help develop the river. With local partners and a New York City-based electrical and hydraulic engineering firm (Viele, Blackwell and Buck), Stearnes was able to form a syndicate, purchase the necessary land and rights, and form the New River Power Company, which ultimately created the Appalachian Power Company in 1926. Appalachian Power Company then merged with Appalachian Power and Light Company to form the Appalachian Power Electric Power Company.
Meanwhile, after two decades of planning, the present location of the Claytor Project was determined. Construction was delayed by a legal challenge from the federal government, which asserted its authority to require a license for the construction and operation of the project. A lower court disagreed with the Federal Power Commission, which provided the Appalachian Power Company with the opening to begin construction in 1935, with completion of the dam and powerhouse in 1939. The federal government pursued the case, and the Supreme Court heard arguments in 1940, ultimately upholding the government’s position regarding an expansion of the concept of navigability. With this decision, the Supreme Court ordered that the Federal Power Commission issue a license for the Claytor Project; a fifty-year license, backdated to 1931, was issued.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
To support its application for relicensing, Appalachian Power commissioned a cultural resources study at the Claytor Project in 2007, which was developed in consultation with the Virginia SHPO, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Virginia Council of Indians, and Commission staff. The archaeological component of this Phase I study identified 2 previously recorded sites, 15 new sites, and 2 isolated finds in the
194 project area33 (Green et al., 2008). Green et al. recommended seven of these sites as potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register, with five of these requiring either protection from project effects or further study. In addition, one site could not be assessed due to a state prohibition on excavating inside of rock shelters. The SHPO, in its comments dated March 25, 2008 (filed June 29, 2009), agreed with the findings and noted that the rock shelter that was not investigated should be considered potentially eligible. In addition, the SHPO identified additional concerns with regards to previously recorded sites that were not relocated during the survey, which warranted further investigation.
In order to further evaluate the six potentially eligible sites that could be affected by the project, Appalachian Power provided for a Phase II archaeological investigation (Green et al., 2009). Green et al. concluded that three of the five sites are ineligible, and the SHPO, in its comments dated February 27, 2009 (filed June 29, 2009), concurs. Of the two sites that Green et al. recommended as potentially eligible, the SHPO disagrees with regards to one (#44PU162), determining it to be not eligible, and finds only the historic component (not the prehistoric component) of the other to be eligible (#44PU164).
The initial Phase I survey did not include the reservoir’s drawdown zone, so Appalachian Power commissioned an additional Phase I survey of the shoreline exposed during the wintertime drawdown of 2008 (Green et al., 2009). Green et al. identified a new rock shelter, and, because this site was mostly submerged and could not be assessed, the SHPO recommends that it be treated as potentially eligible. And finally, the survey re-located one previously recorded site, New River Diversion Canal (#44PU49), and the report recommended it to be ineligible; however, the SHPO recommends that this also be considered potentially eligible due to insufficient information to make this determination.
In conclusion, based on the results of the Phase I and II investigations and the SHPO’s recommendations, there is one eligible and two potentially eligible archaeological sites to be addressed in any proposed HPMP for this project (table 36). One additional site was recommended eligible by Green et al., but was determined ineligible by the SHPO (44PU162).
Table 36. Eligible and potentially eligible historic properties at the Claytor Project. Site No. Site Type Green et al. SHPO Recommendation Recommendation 44PU49 New River Not eligible Potentially Diversion Canal eligible
33 Information on specific sites or property locations is privileged information and not disclosed in this draft EA.
195 n/a Rock shelter Not investigated Should be treated as potentially eligible 44PU164 Woodland seasonal Eligible Prehistoric base camp: Late component not 18th to early 20th eligible; historic century domestic component structures eligible
HISTORIC RESOURCES
The Phase I survey included an evaluation of above-ground resources at the project. The only above-ground resources identified within the APE are the project facilities, including the dam, powerhouse, and appurtenant facilities. The historic architectural survey consisted of an on-site inspection of the interior and exterior of these structures.
The project facilities, consisting of the masonry gravity dam and an integral powerhouse completed in 1939, were recommended by Green et al. (2008) as eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for their association with the New River Case, which was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, and under Criterion C for their engineering and architectural design. Although the powerhouse had been altered with the replacement of the original industrial multi-pane windows and the addition of a modern control room, Green et al. concluded that the structure retained its integrity. The SHPO responded that intensive level documentation for the Claytor Lake Dam and Powerhouse would be required in order to comment on the significance of this property. Thus, this property may be considered potentially eligible.
Native American Inhabitants
The archaeological record indicates that the New River region has been inhabited by Native Americans for at least 10,000 years, as shown in the number of prehistoric archaeological sites within the region. Native Americans had a strong presence in western Virginia in the early 18th century when European explorers first entered the region and it continued well into the period of European settlement. This presents a well- justified traditional connection to the region, which includes the project area, on the part of Native Americans.
Under Section 106 of the NHPA, the Commission is obligated to seek out any federally recognized Indian tribe that can demonstrate a traditional cultural or religious connection to land under its jurisdiction and to involve them in the relicensing process.
196 There are no federally recognized Indian tribes located in Virginia. However, the Virginia Council of Indians is participating in the licensing procedure to represent the interest of American Indians that reside in Virginia.
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina, the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, and the United Keetoowah Bank of Cherokee Indians are on the mailing list for project-related documents. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina were directly contacted (by letters issued July 1, 2005) to determine if they have an interest in the licensing proceeding. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma did not respond. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians filed comments in response to the Commission’s notice of scoping, describing the potential existence of Cherokee cultural resources at the project. The Eastern Band of Cherokee and the Virginia Council of Indians participated in the development of the cultural resources studies.
Neither of the two archaeological sites identified as potentially eligible have prehistoric components.
3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Appalachian Power proposes to continue to operate the project with similar reservoir fluctuations as it does currently (1 to 2 feet depending on the season), with a shorter peaking season, and also proposes improvements to recreational access at the lake. While the degree to which project operations cause erosion that is affecting these archaeological sites is limited, historic properties within the project boundary are being adversely affected by erosive forces, which are primarily caused by boat wakes. Other potential impacts include project-related ground-disturbing activities (i.e., constructing recreation facilities and habitat improvement projects), and looting and vandalism associated with public use of project facilities.
Appalachian Power proposes to finalize and implement its draft Historic Properties Management Plan, which was distributed to the SHPO, the Eastern Band of Cherokee, the Virginia Council of Indians, and Commission staff in February 2009, and filed with the license application in June 2009. A revised HPMP was filed with the Commission on June 30, 2010.
The plan contains an overview and background information; project management, preservation goals and priorities; project effects and mitigation/management measures; implementation procedures; and a list of activities that do not adversely affect historic properties.
Because the drawdown and Phase II archaeological surveys were completed after the draft HPMP was circulated, Appalachian Power identifies, in its letter filed October 5,
197 2009, the following items for inclusion in any final HPMP, based on SHPO comments and additional information requests from Commission staff: descriptions of the re- located archaeological site (#44PU49) and new rock shelter, both of which are potentially eligible; revision with regards to eligibility characteristics of the eligible archaeological site (#44PU164); a revised definition of the APE as the project boundary at elevation 1,850 feet, as no improvements or project-related effects are expected above the boundary; incorporation of the results of discussion with the SHPO with regards to appropriate mitigation measures for sites along the shoreline and Claytor dam and powerhouse eligibility.
In its letter filed October 28, 2009, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma states that it has no objection to the project; however, if any remains, artifacts, or other items are inadvertently discovered, it requests that Appalachian Power cease construction immediately and contact the tribe.
Resident Alan W. Beal notes that, regardless of the SHPO’s finding that one of the sites (#44PU162) characterized by the Phase II study is not eligible, it contains an abundance of artifacts and is therefore archaeologically significant. Mr. Beal states that, given the site’s location on a highly erodible area of the lake shoreline, it should be protected from further erosion.
In addition to the proposed HPMP, Appalachian Power proposes to protect significant cultural resources at the project through the proposed Shoreline Management Plan’s Impact Minimization Zones. Development in these zones would be limited, but possible, based on a review of the Shoreline Management Plan and any necessary mitigation. Further, Appalachian Power proposes, as a component of the Erosion Monitoring Plan, to entertain requests for no-wake zones in areas experiencing high erosion due to boat wakes. This could include shoreline areas containing sensitive cultural resources that are experiencing erosion.
In comments on the draft Programmatic Agreement, the SHPO provided several comments related to the HPMP. Most of the comments were general in nature, correcting typographical errors or suggesting revised language in order to present a more complete HPMP. Some of these comments include:
in section 1.2 of the HPMP, Purpose, Pulaski County and the local historical society should be included in the fifth bullet; section 4.3 of the HPMP, Project Effects and Mitigation/Management Measures, Future Effects, should be revised to specify the materials the SHPO would need for review; several typographical and editorial comments that address multiple sections of the HPMP that should be corrected/addressed; and
198 in Appendix D, List of Activities that Do Not Require Prior Consultation with the SHPO, under Powerhouse, “or upgrade” should be removed from the bullet dealing with in-kind repair of historic windows and doors.
The Virginia SHPO states that under section 2.4.1.4 of the HPMP, Claytor Powerhouse and Dam, additional consultation is required on the contributing and non- contributing elements of the powerhouse. Additionally, the Virginia SHPO recommends the following specific language be added to section 5.4, Protection of Discovered Human Remains:
All reasonable efforts would be made to avoid disturbing gravesites, including those containing Native American human remains and associated artifacts. To the extent possible, Appalachian Power shall ensure that the general public is excluded from viewing any gravesites and associated artifacts. All consulting parties agree to release no photographs of any gravesites and/or funerary objects to the press or to the general public. If human remains encountered appear to be Native American origin, whether prehistoric or historic, Appalachian Power shall notify FERC, who shall immediately notify the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Virginia Council of Indians. If it is agreed that avoidance of the human remains is not prudent and feasible, Appalachian Power shall apply for a permit from the Virginia DHR for archaeological removal of human remains. In considering issuance of a permit involving removal of Native American human remains, the Virginia DHR shall consult with other parties, including Appalachian Power, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians.
Staff Analysis
Because archaeological sites are often found immediately adjacent to water bodies, shoreline erosion can affect historic properties at hydropower projects. Waves caused by wind and, particularly, by boats contribute to erosion. Appalachian Power’s proposed Shoreline Management Plan and HPMP both address mitigation and protection of potentially eligible sites at the project. Specifically, the eligible archaeological site (#44PU164) is being adversely affected by both erosion and vandalism. The HPMP states that Appalachian Power proposes to consult with the Commission, Virginia SHPO, and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians on ways to resolve the adverse effects to this archaeological site. It explains that methods may include forms of shoreline protection or archaeological data recovery.
To ensure adequate consultation in the case of new discoveries, the HPMP outlines a specific procedure for consulting with the Virginia SHPO and the Virginia
199 Council of Indians regarding identification and evaluation of historic properties, determination of effects, and ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. In addition, to ensure adequate implementation of the plan, it includes procedures for training Appalachian Power staff in their responsibility to protect historic properties and the requirements of the HPMP.
The shoreline classification parameters and requirements sections of the proposed Shoreline Management Plan (as discussed in section 3.3.7), would protect areas of cultural importance, or within 100 feet of a known historic property, as an Impact Minimization Zone. In addition, the provisions of the Shoreline Management Plan are consistent with the HPMP in that they require consultation with the SHPO prior to any new construction to ensure the protection of unknown cultural resources.
Finally, there are provisions in the Erosion Monitoring Plan to request “no-wake” zones for areas experiencing high erosion due to boat wakes. This could include shoreline areas containing sensitive resources that are experiencing erosion.
Because an eligible archaeological site is adversely affected by shoreline erosion, the final HPMP could provide a description of the measures that Appalachian Power would employ to address these effects. In addition, to ensure that effects on eligible historic properties, and to any as-yet unidentified archaeological resources, are satisfactorily resolved over the term of any new license, we intend to execute a PA with the Virginia SHPO. The PA would require Appalachian Power to implement the final HPMP. The proposed measures would thus ensure that cultural resources would be accorded proper treatment and, as appropriate, protection over the term of the license.
The Virginia SHPO provided several comments relating to the HPMP and most of the comments are general or editorial in nature and would not affect the overall intent of the HPMP, but would provide for a more complete document. Some of the comments, however, were more specific in nature. In regards to the consultation on the contributing and non-contributing elements of the Claytor powerhouse, the SHPO does not indicate why additional consultation is necessary. Allowing for additional consultation on these features in the future, however, would ensure that they were appropriately protected and considered during decision-making processes. Including them in section 2.4.1.1 of the HPMP, however, seems inappropriate. Instead, including these future consultations in section 2.4.2 of the HPMP, Recommendations for Future Work, would ensure that these consultations would be considered during the planning of future work.
Notifying the Virginia SHPO, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians in the discovery of human remains is an important step to ensuring the SHPO and the tribes are aware of the discovery. Some of the specific language recommended by the SHPO, however, seems inappropriate. While inclusion of the first and third bullets of the recommend language would add more comprehensive
200 procedures and better protections if human remains are accidently discovered, the second bullet requires FERC to contact the Indian Tribes. As a regulatory agency, the Commission cannot be beholden to a requirement contained within a management plan. Additionally, we have designated Appalachian Power as our non-federal representative to deal with the day-to-day activities under section 106. As such, it would be more appropriate for Appalachian Power, instead of the Commission, to immediately notify the SHPO, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians.
201 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
In this section, we look at the Claytor Project’s use of the New River for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have on the project’s costs and power benefits. Consistent with the Commission’s approach to economic analysis, the power benefit of the project is determined by estimating the cost of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using the likely alternative generating resources available in the region. In keeping with Commission policy, as described in Mead, our economic analysis is based on current electric power cost conditions and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the hydropower project’s power benefits.34
For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an estimate of: (1) the cost of individual measures considered in the EA for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of environmental resources affected by the project; (2) the cost of alternative power; (3) the estimated annual project cost (i.e. for operation, maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference between the cost of alternative power and estimated annual project cost. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and estimated annual project cost is positive, the project produces power for less than the cost of alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and estimated annual project cost is negative, the project produces power for more than the cost of alternative power. This estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is only one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in determining whether, and under what conditions, to issue a license.
4.1Power and Economic Benefits of the Project
Table 37 summarizes the parameters and economic information we use in our analysis. Appalachian Power provided some of this information in its license application. We find that the values provided by Appalachian Power are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); estimated future capital investment required to maintain and extend the life of plant equipment and facilities; relicensing costs; normal operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. Throughout this section all dollars are 2010 unless otherwise specified.
34 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 at 61,128 (1995). In most cases, electricity from hydropower would displace some form of fossil-fueled generation, in which fuel cost is the largest component of the cost of electricity production.
202 Table 37. Staff parameters for economic analysis of the Claytor Project. (Source: Staff and exhibit D of license application). Parameters Value Period of Analysis 30 years Term of Financing 20 years Installed capacity 75 MW Generation under existing operation1 184.384 Gigawatt hours Dependable Capacity 75 MW Cost of Money 14.0 percent* Discount Rate 7.2 percent* Remaining undepreciated net investment $5,662,150 Cost of FERC license Application $6,683,000 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs $909,300 Federal and State Tax Rate 35 percent Property Rate 3.05 percent Start Date March 2011 Escalation Rate after 2010 0% Alternative cost: on-peak 59.86 $/MWh off-peak 38.01 $/MWh composite value under existing operation 42.04 $/MWh composite value under proposed operation 40.24 $/MWh Capacity value 40.00 $/kW-year *Revised according to Appalachian Power comment letter page 10, filed September 10, 2010.
203 4.2Comparison of Alternatives
Table 38 summarizes the annual generation, annual cost of alternative power, estimated annual project cost, and the difference between the cost of alternative power and the estimated annual project cost for each of the alternatives considered in this EA.
Table 38. Summary of the annual generation, annual cost of alternative power, estimated annual project cost, and the difference between the cost of alternative power and the estimated annual project cost for each of the alternatives for the Claytor Project. (Source: staff). Appalachian Power Parameter No-Action Proposal Staff Alternative Generation (GWh) 184.384 185.968 185.551
Annual cost of 10,751,000 10,482,000 10,466,000 alternative power($)
$/MWh 58.31 56.37 56.40
Annual project costs 3,175,000 3,658,000 3,667,000 ($) $/MWh 17.22 19.67 19.76
Difference between 7,575,000 6,825,000 6,800,000 the cost of alternative power and project cost ($) $/MWh 41.08 36.70 36.65
4.2.1 No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, Appalachian Power would continue to operate the Claytor Project under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. The project would have an installed capacity of 75 MW, and generate an average of 184,384 GWh of electricity annually. The average annual cost of alternative power would be $10,751,000, or about $58.31/MWh. The estimated annual project cost would be $3,175,000, or about $17.22/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost which is $7,575,000, or $41.08/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.
204 4.2.2 Proposed Action
For the proposed action, we present the annual cost that includes operating the Claytor Project with Appalachian Power’s proposed environmental measures.
Based on the parameters in table 37 and the cost of measures identified in table 38, we estimate that the annual cost of Appalachian Power’s proposed Claytor Project would be about $3,658,000 ($19.67 /MWh). The cost of alternative power would be $10,482,000 ($56.37 /MWh) for the estimated annual generation of 185.968 GWh. The resulting difference between the cost of alternative power and the estimated annual project cost would be $6,825,000 ($36.70 /MWh).
4.2.3 Staff Alternative
The staff alternative, as described herein, includes measures that are part of the proposed action, with additional staff-recommended measures and agency mandatory measures.
Based on the parameters in table 37 and the cost of measures identified in table 38, we estimate that the annual cost of the Claytor Project under the staff alternative would be about $3,665,000 ($19.76 /MWh). The cost of alternative power would be $10,466,000 ($56.40 /MWh) for the estimated annual generation of 185.551 GWh. The resulting difference between the cost of alternative power and the estimated annual project cost would be $ 6,800,000 ($36.65 /MWh).
4.3Cost of Environmental Measures
Table 39 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period of analysis to give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost.
205 Table 39. Cost of environmental enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental effects of continuing to operate the Claytor Lake. (Sources: Appalachian Power, 2009; modified by staff).
Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) TO ADDRESS SHORELINE EROSION: Implement the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan, Appalachian $25,000 (for $5,000 per year $16,218 as filed June 29, 2009, with Skyline SWCD Power, FERC demonstration for first 5 years added as a consulted party on the technical staff, Skyline project); (for review committee SWCD $50,000 (for photographic initial contour documentation) survey) Add provisions for the use of bank pins during FERC staff $5,000 $0 $918 erosion monitoring to the final Erosion Monitoring Plan Protect the shoreline from erosion in highly Laura Bullard $396,162 (to $0 $72,720 erodible areas or provide funding to landowners and Alan protect for shoreline stabilization measures Graybeal 10 percent of erodible shoreline)1 TO ADDRESS SEDIMENTATION AND EFFECTS ON ACCESS: Implement the proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Appalachian $0 $150,000 every $22,693 Plan, as filed on June 29, 2009, with Skyline Power, FERC 5 years (for SWCD added as a consulted party on the staff, Skyline surveys) technical review committee SWCD Add provisions for downstream depositional FERC staff $10,000 (total $1,836 area monitoring in the New River and identify for 1st and 5th the conditions under which, and the types of year monitoring) actions that, Appalachian Power would
206 Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) undertake to mitigate sediment-related boat access issues in Claytor Lake as described in the final Sedimentation Monitoring Plan TO ADDRESS PROJECT OPERATION’S EFFECTS TO MULTIPLE RESOURCES: Implement the proposed Water Management Plan, Appalachian $5,0002 $50,000 every 5 $8,482 filed on June 29, 2009 Power, FERC years (for plan staff reviews)
Add provisions for higher seasonal minimum Virginia DEQ, 0 See note3 $17,529 flows to the final Water Management Plan to FERC staff benefit aquatic resources: 1,200 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) in February and March Add provisions for two additional annual FERC staff $2,000 $0 $367 whitewater flow releases, additional tools and information (regarding flow arrival times, stage versus flow, and operational parameters) to be provided on the flow notification website, and advanced notification to landowners of maintenance drawdowns in the final Water Management Plan Add provisions for “modified levelized flow” Virginia DGIF $0 See note1 $387 (e.g., higher than 3,300 cfs) on weekends from August through October to benefit recreation Add provisions for higher seasonal minimum Virginia DGIF $0 See note 2 $28,290 flows to the final Water Management Plan to and West benefit recreation and aquatic resources: 1,250 Virginia DNR cfs or inflow (whichever is less) during
207 Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) December and January and 1,500 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) in February and March Discontinue annual drawdowns that are for the Appalachian $0 See note 3 -33,292 purpose of private dock maintenance and Power, shoreline stabilization to benefit aquatic Virginia resources DGIF, FERC staff Develop and implement a reservoir drawdown Appalachian $500 $0 $92 plan to provide shoreline property owners Power, FERC sufficient time to schedule and perform staff shoreline property maintenance when Appalachian Power requires a drawdown to conduct maintenance at their facilities Continue to provide annual drawdowns for the Cheri Strenz, $0 See note 4 $33,292 purpose of dock maintenance and shoreline Robert Strenz, stabilization; or consider alternatives with Skyline regards to the depth, timing, and frequency of SWCD, drawdowns in order to protect aquatic resources Thomas while providing regular opportunities for Warden, III, shoreline work Mark Williams, James and Nancy Blair, Eric Rorrer, Laura Bullard, Laura Walters, Travis
208 Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) Tysinger, FOCL, and David and Susan Dobyns Lower the lake within 1-foot operating range when Skyline Unknown Unknown Unknown increased boating is expected SWCD, Laura Bullard Provide financial compensation for entrainment Virginia DGIF Unknown Unknown Unknown losses to striped bass and hybrid striped bass Implement the proposed Water Quality Monitoring Appalachian $200,000 (for $40,000 per year $56,322 Plan, filed on June 29, 2009 Power, FERC deicing bubbler for first 5 years staff system) (for DO (excluding monitoring)3 funding to FOCL) Add provisions for continuous DO monitoring FERC staff Additional Additional $1,164 at the Allisonia USGS station from March 1 to $1,000 $2,000 per year November 1, provide a 120-day target date to for first 5 years develop an alternative to address low DO include a provision for developing alternative mitigation measures to address low DO in the discharge should an applied mitigation measure fail to resolve low tailrace, and include a discussion of any ancillary impacts (of DO mitigation measures) to fisheries and water quality in the final Water Quality Monitoring Plan
209 Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) Add a provision for year-round continuous DO Virginia DEQ Additional Additional $4,656 and temperature monitoring at five locations FERC staff $4,000 $8,000 per year downstream of the project to the Route 11 for first 5 years bridge Implement the proposed Freshwater Mussel Appalachian $0 $12,000 every $41,769 Adaptive Management Plan, as filed on June Power, other year for 10 29, 2009, with added provisions for hourly Virginia years for a total temperature and DO measurements at DGIF, of $600,000 monitoring sites for a period of 1 year Virginia DEQ, FERC staff Implement the proposed Aquatic Vegetation Appalachian $0 $25,000 per $53,782 Management Plan, as filed on June 26, 2009 Power, FERC year, increase to staff $50,000 on each fifth year for a full-lake survey; $25,000 per year for treatments Provide monetary support for nuisance aquatic Virginia DGIF Unknown Unknown Unknown vegetation in beneficial use areas Implement the proposed Habitat Management Plan Appalachian $0 $5,000 per year $10,000 Power, FERC to fund staff enhancement projects; $5,000 per year for education4 Implement the proposed Fringed Mountain Snail Appalachian $0 $1,500 per year $1,500 Management Plan, as filed on June 29, 2009 Power, FERC
210 Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) staff Conduct long-term hellbender monitoring Virginia DGIF Unknown Unknown Unknown Implement an adaptive management approach to Virginia $0 $100,000 the $56,263 respond to potential impacts resulting form the DGIF, FOCL first year, proposed changes to operation $50,000 each year thereafter TO ADDRESS RECREATION MANAGEMENT: Implement the proposed Recreation Management Appalachian $395,000 (cap $75,000 per $123,293 Plan, as filed on June 23, 2009, with added Power, FERC costs for survey, every 6 provisions for improvements to bank fishing staff recreation sites)5 years; access at the New River Access site $42,000 (annual O&M for recreation sites)
Add an updated schedule for establishment of FERC staff $0 $0 $0 portage facilities and a maintenance schedule for all recreation sites (including those managed by the Virginia DGIF), with identification of the entity responsible for each maintenance measure, to the final Recreation Management Plan Implement the proposed Debris Management Plan Appalachian $0 $30,000 per year $30,000 Power, FERC staff Implement the proposed Aids to Navigation Appalachian $150,000 cap $12,000 per year $39,534 Management Plan with added provisions for Power, FERC cost for inspections sailboat height restrictions staff and maintenance
211 Levelized Capital Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost Enhancement Measure Entity (2010$) (2010$) (2010$) TO ADDRESS SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: Implement the proposed Shoreline Management Appalachian $0 $75,000 per year $75,000 Plan, as filed on June 29, 2009, with a Power, FERC modification that eliminates walkways from the staff calculation of total dock square footage Add information concerning rationale for dock FERC staff $0 $0 $0 size and shoreline stabilization restrictions, to inform variance procedures, to the final Shoreline Management Plan TO ADDRESS HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT: Implement the proposed Historic Properties Appalachian $20,000 $0 $3,671 Management Plan Power, FERC staff Add provisions for measures Appalachian Power FERC staff Unknown Unknown Unknown would employ to address effects to an archaeological site to the final Historic Properties Management Plan Implement a Programmatic Agreement, executed FERC staff N/A N/A N/A between the Virginia SHPO and FERC 1 For this measure, staff estimates that this measure would decrease the project’s generation by 9.2 MWH/year. 2 Appalachian Power estimates this measure would decrease the project’s generation by 673 MWh/year. 3 For this measure, Appalachian Power estimates that generation would increase by 417 MWH/year.35 4 For this measure, Appalachian Power estimates that generation would increase by 792 MWH/year. 5 This measure would prevent the project from generating an additional 792 MWh/year.
35 See Appalachian Power’s letter to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, dated May 20, 2011, page 4.
212 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS
5.1 Comparison of Alternatives
In this section we compare the development and non-developmental effects of Appalachian Power’s proposal, Appalachian Power’s proposal as modified by staff, and the no-action alternative. Table 40 summarizes the environmental effects of the different alternatives.
Table 40. Summary of environmental effects of alternatives. No-action Resource Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative
Annual Generation 184,384 185,968 185,551 (MWh)
Geology and Soils The shoreline would The Erosion Effects are the same Resources likely continue to Monitoring Plan as under the erode because of would identify areas proposed action, but boat and wind of high erosion and use of bank pins generated waves. demonstration would help to project and technical quantify Sedimentation, committee reviews downstream erosion; would not change would inform any depositional areas in from present erosion management the New River conditions decisions by would be monitored; stakeholders and the reports would identify what The Sedimentation types of actions Monitoring Plan Appalachian Power would ensure would implement, monitoring of areas and under what of concern, and conditions or technical committee thresholds, to reviews would address any inform any sediment sediment-related management access issues, for decisions by consideration by the stakeholders. review committee.
213 No-action Resource Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative
Water Resources Reservoir water The Water Quality Effects are the same as level elevation Monitoring Plan under the proposed would remain would ensure action, but continuous stable only during monitoring of DO DO monitoring at an fish spawning and temperature, as upstream site season (April 15th well as (Allisonia) and through June implementation of downstream sites would 15th). Project DO enhancement allow identification of discharge measures if needed. depressed DO minimum flows conditions caused by would be Technical the project; impacts of provided on an committee reviews any DO enhancement average daily for both plans measures (to other flow of 750 cfs would inform any resources) would be and there would water considered by the be no additional management/quality technical review minimum flow decisions by committee; and provided during stakeholders. Appalachian Power the late fall and would develop any winter. alternative DO enhancement measures Water quality within 120-days of the conditions in the conclusion of project tailrace effectiveness studies for would be an implemented impaired during mitigation measure. certain seasons. Aquatic Same as above; The Water Effects are the same as Resources mussels are Management Plan’s under the proposed negatively water level targets, action. affected by 5-foot minimum flow annual schedule, ramping, drawdown. and hourly auto- cycling would benefit aquatic resources at the project and downstream.
The Freshwater
214 No-action Resource Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative
Mussel Adaptive Management Plan would provide useful information about possible project-related impacts to freshwater mussels; elimination of the annual drawdown would benefit mussels.
The Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan would benefit aquatic habitat through monitoring, education, and identification of any necessary control measures.
Technical review committees would consult on reports and plans regularly.
Terrestrial Wetlands, aquatic The Habitat Effects are the same as Resources vegetation, and Management Plan under the proposed riparian would protect and action. vegetation would enhance bald eagle persist along the and riparian habitat shoreline. at the project
The Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan would ensure that
215 No-action Resource Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative
appropriate surveys and consultation occurs with regards to this endangered species; the Shoreline Management Plan includes appropriate zoning-related protection of its habitat.
Technical review committees would consult on reports and plans regularly.
Recreation There are no The Water Effects are the same as existing Management Plan’s under the proposed recreation or aids flow releases for action, but additional to navigation recreation and flow whitewater flow plans for the notification would releases and information project; project benefit downstream on the flow notification facilities are recreational use. website would benefit adequate with downstream recreation some areas The Recreation users; maintenance identified for Management Plan schedules for improvement and would result in recreational access sites with expected improvements to would be provided. increases in popular recreational future use; some access and facilities downstream at the project, as recreation well as monitoring activities often to ensure that receive demand continues insufficient to be met. flows. The Debris Management Plan provides a
216 No-action Resource Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative
mechanism to manage debris in such a way that addresses boater safety and access, while maintaining sufficient habitat for aquatic species.
The Aids to Navigation Management Plan would provide for boating safety on the lake.
Technical review committees would consult on reports and plans regularly. Land Use, and The annual The Shoreline Effects are the same as Aesthetics reservoir Management Plan under the proposed drawdown would would benefit action, but the continue to significant uses and Shoreline Management provide aesthetics at the Plan would be updated opportunities for project through to provide rationale for dock maintenance impact dock size and shoreline and shoreline minimization and stabilization restrictions, stabilization. other zones and to better inform any requirements; dock variance procedures; size would be filing a reservoir limited for any new drawdown plan would docks and shoreline provide shoreline stabilization property owners measures sufficient time to prescribed. schedule and perform shoreline property The Water maintenance when Management Plan Appalachian Power does not provide for conducts a drawdown
217 No-action Resource Alternative Proposed Action Staff Alternative
an annual to conduct maintenance drawdown, so at their facilities. landowners would need to schedule any dock or shoreline stabilization maintenance around Appalachian Power’s maintenance drawdowns.
Technical review committees would consult on reports and plans regularly.
Cultural There is no plan The HPMP Effects are the same as Resources for protecting provides under the proposed historic properties information on action, but the plan at the project; one historic properties would include a archaeological at the project and description of the site is currently provides procedures measures Appalachian being affected by for consultation Power would implement shoreline erosion. with regards to to protect the project impacts. archaeological site from erosion; implementation of a PA between FERC and the Virginia SHPO would require implementation of the HPMP.
5.2 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative
Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to the power development purposes and to the purposes of energy
218 conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the Commission’s judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our recommendations for relicensing the Claytor Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed measures.
5.2.1 Recommended Alternative
Based on our independent review and evaluation of the environmental and economic effects of no action, the proposed action, and the proposed action with staff modified measures (staff alternative), we recommend the staff alternative.
We recommend this alternative because: (1) issuing a new license for the project would allow Appalachian Power to continue to operate the project and provide a beneficial and dependable source of electric energy; (2) the project, with an installed capacity of 75.0 MW, would eliminate the need for an equivalent amount of fossil-fuel- produced energy and capacity, which would help conserve these nonrenewable resources and limits atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and (3) the recommended environmental measures would protect water quality, aquatic resources, historic properties, and would improve public recreational access and land use.
Appalachian Power’s proposed operation and environmental measures are described throughout its 13 proposed management plans, which are summarized below. In addition to the measures described in Appalachian Power’s proposed plans, we recommend additional environmental measures to be included in any new license issued for the project.36 We discuss the rationale for the measures we are recommending or not recommending below.
5.2.2 Discussion of Key Issues
1. Erosion Monitoring Plan
To address on-going erosion concerns, Appalachian Power proposes to implement an Erosion Monitoring Plan that includes:
(a) monitoring areas identified as having erodible sands or saprolite soils, as shown on the revised shoreline material classification mapping;
36 Should Appalachian Power file satisfactory final plans prior to any license order issuance, the final articles could be revised to simply approve the plans and require their implementation.
219 (b) monitoring ten sites along a segment of the New River extending 11.6 miles downstream of Claytor dam that were evaluated for the relicensing erosion study; (c) developing a demonstration project utilizing natural methods for stabilizing eroding shoreline on Claytor Lake; (d) identifying areas to be recommended for no-wake zones to address boating wake-related erosion, if determined from monitoring; (e) developing a report on the initial monitoring effort (and any subsequent monitoring); (f) forming a technical review committee; (g) coordinating the Erosion Monitoring Plan with other proposed plans; and (h) including Skyline SWCD in the erosion technical review committee, given its interest and natural resource stewardship expertise.
The proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan includes activities that would help to reduce erosion effects by informing future decisions regarding erosion control efforts. The proposed erosion monitoring would assist Appalachian Power, government agencies, and affected landowners in managing erosion by identifying areas of high erosion where corrective actions may be needed. The proposed demonstration project, which would use natural shoreline stabilization techniques, would serve as examples that could lead to similar projects being implemented along the lake.
In order to quantify the amount of bank recession that occurs, we recommend that the final plan include provisions for installation and use of bank pins at New River erosion monitoring sites.
We estimate that the use of the bank pins would cost an additional $918 annually. We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan, with our minor modification, would be worth the estimated annual cost of $16,218. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
2. Sedimentation Monitoring Plan
To address sedimentation in Claytor Lake, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) monitoring areas of concern, including the headwaters of Claytor Lake from Allisonia boat ramp to above Lowman’s Ferry Bridge and Peak Creek, a major tributary to Claytor Lake, every 5 years over the term of a new license; (b) developing a report of the initial and subsequent monitoring efforts; (c) forming a technical review committee;
220 (d) coordinating the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan with other proposed plans; and (e) including Skyline SWCD in the sedimentation technical review committee as a relevant stakeholder, given its interest and natural resource stewardship expertise.
The Sedimentation Monitoring Plan’s reporting requirement would serve as a mechanism for the Commission and others to assess sedimentation on an on-going basis, and determine if any additional measures are needed to address a project effect. We recommend the final plan include the following additions that would enhance its value as a management tool.
First, to assess the impacts of the proposed project operation on sediment transport, depositional areas in the New River should be included in the plan. The extent of monitoring should include cross sections 1 through 6, which extend from Claytor dam to Route 114, Peppers Ferry Boulevard. Expanding the study scope in this manner would make the plan more effective in achieving its objective of informing future management decisions, and would enhance the comparative information necessary to distinguish operations-related deposition from deposition resulting from other processes.
Second, the monitoring reports should identify what types of actions Appalachian Power would implement or under what conditions Appalachian Power would propose dredging at a recreation facility (e.g., standards for assessing the severity of the accumulation of sediment effect on boating access, and to what degree the effect of sedimentation on boating access is acceptable before action would be taken by Appalachian Power). This additional detail would provide guidance to the technical committees in determining the range of potential activities they could evaluate if sedimentation begins to significantly inhibit access and navigation.
These additional recommendations would have an annual cost of $1,836. We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, with our recommended modifications, would be worth the estimated annual cost of $22,639. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
3. Water Management Plan
To address project operation and flow releases, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Water Management Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) operating with minimum average hourly discharge flows, seasonal peaking, and defined reservoir levels;
221 (b) releasing recreation flows for a specific whitewater competition in May, and during weekends in August, September, and October when inflow is between 800-1,000 cfs; (c) publishing flow release information on Appalachian Power’s website; (d) providing for emergency drawdowns for maintenance requirements and a variance process for operational provisions and drawdowns; (e) providing for flood control operations, including notification requirements for upstream and downstream land owners, relevant agencies, and municipalities; (f) measuring water levels and flows in the Claytor Lake and downstream of the dam; (g) monitoring and reporting of project operation; (h) forming a technical review committee; and (i) using adaptive management (i.e., a 5-year review and update provision).
The proposed plan does not provide for an annual drawdown, which Appalachian Power proposes to eliminate in order to protect mussels at Claytor Lake.
Regarding aquatic resources, our analysis shows that operating the project with minimum average hourly flow releases versus minimum average daily flow releases would provide more continuous flows downstream of the project while protecting fish habitat in the reservoir. Maintaining reservoir elevations earlier in the spring during the levelized flow period would provide additional habitat to early spawning fish. When the project is operated in peaking mode, providing a 30-minute down ramping rate as generating units are brought off-line prevents fish stranding downstream of the project. The additional flow provided during the peaking season would also enhance fish habitat downstream of the project. During low-flow periods, the average hourly project discharge is also matched to inflow, to provide water downstream during times of drought. Eliminating the annual drawdown would protect state-listed mussel species that inhabit the reservoir.
The proposed Water Management Plan also would affect recreation at the project. Increasing the minimum flow from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs during the December 1st through January 31st peaking period and to 1,200 cfs during the February 1st through March 31st peaking period, as specified by the water quality certification, would benefit boating, float-based fishing, and powerboat-based fishing and hunting downstream from the project. The additional 1,000 cfs minimum flow releases for recreation during weekends in August, September, and October would also benefit these recreation types, as well as tubing, during this typically dry period. Planned whitewater releases during the annual squirt boating competition would provide optimal flows for this event when they would otherwise not be provided. Additionally, Appalachian Power’s proposal to provide flow release schedules (with 24-hour notice) would provide a useful service to recreation users who use flow information from gages to decide when and where to take trips.
222 Through the plan’s adaptive management component and technical committee reviews, stakeholders may recommend minor modifications and exercise flexibility within the parameters of the “levelized” and peaking modes. As the relationship between operation and quality of downstream recreation becomes better understood, stakeholders may evaluate options for providing more opportunities for optimal flows for boating (which might be adequate for whitewater uses) during the winter and early spring months while avoiding significant impacts to project generation.
Because proposed minimum flows are generally insufficient for whitewater use, we recommend the plan require a minimum of three special whitewater releases each year, including the squirt boating competition, to be scheduled annually in consultation with the technical committee. The flow notification website should publish the dates of these releases.
Also, the flow notification website would be more effective if it includes additional information. Because differential flow arrival times at downstream locations complicate users’ interpretation of flow release information, we recommend that Appalachian Power include tools for calculating flow arrival times. Appalachian Power should also include available stage versus flow information, by boat launch, to aid the public in determining the suitability of approaching releases to a particular activity. And finally, though it would be impractical for Appalachian Power to provide flow information more than 24 hours in advance, it could provide a description of the project’s operational parameters, as defined by any new license, so that recreation users understand the potential range of flows and how best to take advantage of any increased minimum or specific flows for recreation.
In order to address issues relating to the elimination of the annual drawdown for shoreline maintenance, we recommend Appalachian Power develop and implement a reservoir drawdown plan. The reservoir drawdown plan would provide residents with advance notice when Appalachian Power plans a drawdown to conduct maintenance at its facilities. The reservoir drawdown plan would include the commencement date, drawdown rate, drawdown term and limit of the drawdown. The reservoir drawdown plan would provide shoreline residents the opportunity to perform shoreline maintenance while Appalachian Power conducts necessary maintenance.
We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Water Management Plan, with our recommended modifications, would be worth the estimated annual cost of $26,470. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
223 4. Water Quality Monitoring Plan
To address operational effects on water quality, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) utilizing an existing deicing bubbler system to increase the DO in the water discharged into the tailrace; (b) monitoring and assessing the proposed DO enhancement measure(s) on DO in the tailrace for 5 years following license issuance; (c) monitoring DO and temperature in the reservoir near the forebay once per year for 5 years following license issuance; (d) forming a technical review committee to assess the results of the monitoring; (e) developing and issuing annual reports documenting the results of the monitoring and any recommendations for additional measures; and (f) coordinating the 5-year monitoring efforts with on-going water quality monitoring programs.
Based on our review, we agree that the provisions of Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan would generally address water quality concerns at the project. We recommend three modifications to the plan that would enhance its value as a monitoring and management tool.
The final Water Quality Monitoring Plan should specify a location (e.g. at the Allisonia gage) and method for measurement of DO upstream from the project. Because Appalachian Power’s proposal requires it to identify depressed DO conditions caused by the project (<5.0 mg/L apart from inflow), the plan should include similar DO monitoring methods both upstream from the project and in the tailrace. Thus, we recommend continuous monitoring for DO at the Allisonia USGS station from March 1 to November 1 in order to readily identify depressed DO conditions caused by the project.
The plan should also be revised to include a schedule for implementing alternative low DO mitigation measures, in the case that the proposed deicing bubbler system fails to satisfactorily enhance DO. We recommend a time period of 120 days to develop and propose a new mitigation measure should any deployed measure fail to mitigate low DO in the tailrace. This would ensure that there is continual progress addressing low DO and its water quality implications in the New River.
Because any DO mitigation measure could affect other resources (e.g., the deicing bubble system could attract fish at the intake and increase entrainment or could alter lake temperatures through aeration of the hypolimnion), section 3.0 of the plan should include evaluating such ancillary impacts on fisheries and water quality.
224 The final Water Quality Monitoring Plan also should include continuous monitoring of DO and temperature at five locations downstream of the project to the Route 11 bridge for 5 years. The additional monitoring would help to determine how far downstream low DO from project discharges affects aquatic resources.
We estimate the annualized cost of implementing Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan to be $56,322. The additional continuous DO monitoring at the Allisonia station we recommend would add approximately $1,164 to the annual costs and the provision for year-round continuous DO and temperature monitoring at five locations downstream of the Route 11 bridge would add approximately $4,656 to the annual costs. We conclude that the benefits of implementing the plan with our modifications would be worth the estimated annual cost of $62,142. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
5. Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan
To address operational effects on mussels located in the New River, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) compiling baseline data on mussel distribution and abundance in order to identify sites for long-term monitoring; (b) evaluating long-term trends in mussel fauna downstream of the project including species richness, abundance, growth, and recruitment; (c) evaluating potential influence of water quality of project releases on mussel fauna downstream of the project, with particular focus on water temperature and DO; and (d) forming a technical review committee to meet annually to review data collected during the previous year, evaluate additional data requirements, and report to the Commission on the outcome of the meetings.
Appalachian Power, responding to Virginia DEQ and Virginia DGIF comments, also agrees to include hourly DO and temperature readings at the mussel monitoring locations for 1 year.
Long-term monitoring of mussel species richness, abundance, growth and recruitment under different flow regimes would provide useful information about possible project related impacts to freshwater mussels. We recommend that the literature review and annual report include the results of the Virginia Tech mussel study. The annual report should also include the raw data, an analysis summarizing the data, and recommendations for changes to the plan, project operations or additional mitigation measures if necessary. In addition, we recommend that the plan include a description of the equipment for monitoring water quality at the long-term mussel monitoring sites, how the equipment
225 would be calibrated and how the data would be stored. Further, the revised mussel monitoring plan should be prepared in consultation with the technical review committee, including Virginia DGIF, Virginia DEQ, Virginia DCR, and.
We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan would be worth the estimated annual cost of $41,769. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
6. Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
To address aquatic vegetation at the project, Appalachian Power proposes to implement an Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) implementing an ongoing methodology to identify and map aquatic vegetation in the lake; (b) managing and controlling non-native invasive vegetation in the lake to minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, habitats, and recreation; (c) identifying and promoting native, desirable aquatic vegetation; (d) prioritizing control sites and determining control plans; (e) establishing a permitting process; (f) educating the public; and (g) identifying methods to prevent introduction of non-native vegetation and other non-native species to the lake and from the lake to other water bodies.
Implementing the proposed Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan would help to control and prevent the spread of non-native aggressive invasive aquatic vegetation in Claytor Lake. It would also help to provide quality fish and macroinvertebrate habitat by promoting the growth and expansion of native species, in turn improving waterfowl and heron habitat. Although it is not likely that the non-native species can be completely eradicated from the project impoundment, proper management can help to ensure the beneficial uses of the lake. Furthermore, revising section 8.1, Issuance of Permit, of the plan to include notification of landowners adjacent to treatment areas that treatment is going to occur would ensure those adjacent landowners are aware of the treatment and would allow for those adjacent landowners to take any necessary precautions on their own land.
We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, with our modification to notify adjacent landowners, would be worth the estimated annual cost of $53,782. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
226 7. Habitat Management Plan
To address valuable shoreline habitat at the project, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Habitat Management Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) protecting wetlands, woody cover, bald eagle habitat, streams, and areas identified by the Virginia Natural Heritage Program under the Shoreline Management Plan, including measures for ameliorating the loss of habitat due to shoreline disturbance associated with development; (b) enhancing and/or creating additional habitat in areas where there is limited or poor habitat, and developing a demonstration project that has a dual benefit of erosion control and habitat improvement; (c) funding habitat enhancement projects for Claytor Lake ($5,000 annually, adjusted by the CPI); (d) forming a technical review committee to assist in implementing item (b); (e) monitoring, consulting, and reporting on habitat projects; (f) educating the public; (g) using adaptive management and coordinating the Habitat Management Plan with other proposed plans.
The proposed plan would protect and enhance bald eagle and riparian habitat at the project. We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Habitat Management Plan would be worth the estimated annual cost of $10,000. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
8. Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan
To protect any federally endangered Virginia fringed mountain snails at the project, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) annually inspecting the six sites at the project identified as potential habitat; (b) conducting an inventory for fringed mountain snail if there is a proposal to modify the current use of any of the six sites; and (c) provisions for consultation and approvals by FWS, Virginia DGIF, Virginia DCR, and the Commission.
We conclude that continued operation of the Claytor Project, as proposed, and implementation of the Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan and the Shoreline Management Plan would not likely adversely affect the Virginia fringed mountain snail along the New River. This monitoring required by the proposed plan, along with the zoning-related counterpart measures in the proposed Shoreline Management Plan, would protect any Virginia fringed mountain snails at the project. We conclude that the benefits
227 of implementing the proposed Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan would be worth the estimated annual cost of $1,500. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
9. Recreation Management Plan
To provide adequate public access at the project, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Recreation Management Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) enhancing existing facilities at the Allisonia boat launch and New River Access; (b) improving bank fishing access at the New River Access site below Claytor dam; (c) enhancing Appalachian Power’s existing picnic area, and installing portage facilities that include this site (take-out), a portage trail, and new downstream portage put-in, following consultation with regards to the portage trail route; (d) continuing to designate two sites for future recreational development (i.e., 41.5-acre Peak Creek Site No. 1 and 78-acre Peak Creek Site No.2); and (e) managing recreational use of the project area in the future through establishment of a technical review committee that would review the results of recreational use monitoring (every 6 years), establish criteria to evaluate and prioritize the need for additional facilities and amenities at existing public access sites and/or new facilities at the project, and recommend any necessary plan revisions.
In response to comments from Virginia DGIF, Appalachian Power agrees to add provisions for improvements to bank fishing access at the New River Access site to the plan.
Overall, Appalachian Power’s proposed plan would increase and enhance recreational opportunities by expanding upon existing facilities and adding a new portage facility, and would provide procedures for monitoring use and modifying the plan as needed to meet increased future demand.
For clarity, the final plan should include an updated schedule for providing a boat ramp, fishing pier, and trailer parking area at Appalachian Power’s picnic area, which would serve as the upstream portion of any new portage facility, as well as a schedule and procedure for consultation regarding the establishment of the new portage put-in downstream from the dam and a portage trail leading from the picnic area to this put-in. This consultation and the final plan should also consider the adequacy of the access road to these sites to ensure it can support an increase in traffic. In order to ensure that the above facilities are maintained throughout the course of the license, section 3.0 of the
228 proposed recreation plan, concerning management and monitoring measures, should be updated to include details describing a maintenance schedule for trash and waste disposal and any other necessary maintenance measures (for parking lots, piers, docks, boat ramps and picnic areas).
Our recommendations would add negligible additional cost. We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Recreation Management Plan, with our recommended modifications, would be worth the estimated annual cost of $123,293. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
10. Debris Management Plan
To enhance both recreational access and aquatic habitat, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Debris Management Plan that defines beneficial debris that should not be removed and includes provisions for:
(a) continuing the existing debris removal process at Claytor Lake by contracting with either FOCL or other contractors as necessary to remove floating debris during the months April through October on a regular schedule; (b) using the sites owned by Appalachian Power or at commercial or private access areas for the off-load and disposal of debris and identify replacement sites should the currently used sites become unavailable during the term of the license; (c) continuing Appalachian Power’s involvement in volunteer lake clean-up efforts; (d) coordinating with FOCL, Pulaski County, Virginia DGIF, Virginia DEQ, and Virginia DCR to implement educational provisions of the plan; (e) developing an annual report documenting debris removal efforts; (f) forming a technical review committee to review the annual report and provide recommendations and comments; and (g) modifying the plan, as necessary, after approval by the Commission.
Appalachian Power’s proposed plan provides a mechanism to manage debris in such a way that addresses boater safety and access, while maintaining sufficient habitat for aquatic species.
We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Debris Management Plan would be worth the annual cost of $30,000. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
229 11. Aids to Navigation Management Plan
In order to provide for delineation of the navigable channel, Appalachian Power proposes an Aids to Navigation Management Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) installing and maintaining 68 lateral aids to navigation upon approval by Pulaski County and Virginia DGIF; (b) analyzing the cost and effectiveness of the installation of bridge lighting or markings on the Lowman’s Ferry Bridge and the train trestle; (c) developing an educational program; (d) efforts to warn mariners of unusually heavy debris and high or low water; (e) coordinating with Pulaski County and FOCL to update navigation maps of Claytor Lake; (f) modifying the Shoreline Management Plan to address the Coast Guard’s amber lighting requirements on certain docks; (g) implementing an “Adopt a Marker Program” for additional monitoring of markers on Claytor Lake; (h) forming a technical review committee to assist in implementing the plan; and (i) coordinating the Aids to Navigation Management Plan with other proposed management plans.
Appalachian Power also agrees to publish information with regards to height restrictions for sailboats. If any such restrictions occur within the navigable channel, the plan should be updated to include this information, as well as measures to mark these locations, as determined in consultation with the technical review committee.
Implementing the navigation plan, in consultation with the committee, as well as other interested individuals and entities, and coordinating the plan with other proposed plans would contribute to boating safety on the lake and contribute to the overall safety associated with recreational use of the project waters.
We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Aids to Navigation Management Plan, with the recommended modification, would be worth the annual cost of $39,534. We recommend it be required in any new license issued for the project.
12. Shoreline Management Plan
To protect shoreline uses and resources at the project, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Shoreline Management Plan, which includes provisions for:
(a) protecting key environmental areas such as wetlands, habitat, and spawning areas;
230 (b) preserving the natural scenic quality of the shoreline for both boaters and shore viewers and preserving specific scenic attributes; (c) protecting cultural resources; (d) enhancing recreational opportunities by considering boating densities and navigation and maximizing available use of the project waters by the public; (e) cooperating with Pulaski County to coordinate adjacent land uses and permitting efforts; and (f) minimizing impacts among conflicting users.
Appalachian Power also proposes to eliminate the requirement to include walkways in the calculation of total square footage. Appalachian Power also noted a change to the language concerning setbacks, to require a notarized waiver (of adjacent property owner(s)’ consent) to a setback of less than 15 feet.
In comments on the draft EA, Appalachian Power proposed to amend section 2.5.4 of the Shoreline Management Plan, Low Density Use Regulations with updated language that removes references to filing the agreement or waiver with the Clerk of the Pulaski County Circuit Court. Instead, the waiver or agreement shall be permanently filed only with Appalachian Power. Appalachian Power states that this amendment is necessary so the company can retain the ability to ensure that agreements and waivers are appropriate and properly obtained. The company also clarifies that the waiver process defined by Appalachian Power does not affect land ownership issues, but serves to clarify where docks may be located. As Appalachian Power is a federal licensee with authority over the shoreline, we find this revision to be adequate.
The proposed Shoreline Management Plan would benefit the various resources affected by land management activities, such as land-clearing, construction, and any resulting increased traffic and use. The plan’s impact minimization zones and conservation/environmental classifications directly benefit significant recreational, ecological, aesthetic, and cultural resources at the lake by protecting them from inappropriate development. The plan would allow for continued shoreline use and access while protecting existing recreational uses and public safety through control of the size, density, and placement of docks and piers. In addition, the plan provides for permitted uses beyond what is allowed for by the Commission’s standard land use article. Thus, if approved, Appalachian Power would have the authority to permit such activities without requesting a license amendment or other order from the Commission.
Under the provision for reviewing and updating the Shoreline Management Plan, Appalachian Power would review the Shoreline Management Plan every 5 years, through consultation with stakeholders. Updates to the plan would include any revisions deemed necessary to protect public recreation opportunities, aesthetics, environmental resources, and power production capability at the project.
231 In order to address landowner concerns regarding dock size limitations, we recommend that the Shoreline Management Plan be updated to provide a more detailed description and justification for these specifications. This information would help to inform landowners and regulators as to the purpose behind the specifications, and also would provide a better understanding of when a variance might be permissible and under what conditions an exception might be granted. Likewise, the variance process outlined in the Shoreline Management Plan also appears to allow for flexibility with regard to shoreline stabilization method requirements, which would help to accommodate land owners’ individual needs in unique situations and encourage greater flexibility.
We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed Shoreline Management Plan would be worth the annual cost of $75,000. We recommend it be updated to omit walkways from dock size calculations and the clarifications described above, and included in any new license issued for the project.
13. Historic Properties Management Plan
To protect any cultural resources at the project, Appalachian Power proposes to implement an HPMP, which provides background information on cultural resources at the site, including maps of the APE and archaeological sites, preservation goals and priorities, project effects, a list of activities that do not require prior consultation with the SHPO, and provisions for:
(a) consulting with the Commission, SHPO, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians on how to resolve the adverse effects to the historic components of an eligible archaeological site that is currently experiencing erosion (could include forms of shoreline protection, additional background research, or archaeological data recovery); and (b) implementing procedures for staff training, protection of any unidentified historic properties or discovered human remains, annual reporting, plan amendments, and dispute resolution.
Two National Register-eligible sites (# 44PU164 and the Claytor powerhouse and dam) and two sites potentially eligible for the National Register (# 44PU049 and the rock shelter) are located at the project and we concur with Appalachian Power’s assessment of these sites’ eligibility determinations.
The HPMP describes these four eligible/potentially eligible properties, and measures to protect these properties from any future ground-disturbing activities. It also provides procedures to follow in the event of new discoveries. Provisions in the Shoreline Management Plan (Impact Minimization Zone classification at cultural sites) and the Erosion Monitoring Plan (provisions for “no-wake” zones) would provide
232 additional protection for areas of cultural importance. The provisions of the Shoreline Management Plan are consistent with the HPMP in that they require consultation with the SHPO prior to any new construction to ensure the protection of unknown cultural resources.
Because a National Register-eligible archaeological site is adversely affected by shoreline erosion, we recommend the final HPMP provide a description of the measures that Appalachian Power would employ to address these effects. In addition, in order to address comments made by the Virginia SHPO in its January 11, 2011 letter, and to present a more thorough and complete document, we recommend the following revisions to the HPMP:
In section 1.2 of the HPMP, Purpose, Pulaski County and the local historical society should be included in the fifth bullet (see SHPO comment number 1); Section 4.3 of the HPMP, Project Effects and Mitigation/Management Measures, Future Effects, should be revised to specify the materials the SHPO would need for review (see SHPO comment number 5); Several typographical and editorial comments suggested by the SHPO that address multiple sections of the HPMP (see SHPO comment numbers 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14); In Appendix D, List of Activities that Do Not Require Prior Consultation with the SHPO, under Powerhouse, “or upgrade” should be removed from the bullet dealing with in-kind repair of historic windows and doors (see SHPO comment number 11); Update section 2.4.2 of the HPMP, Recommendations for Future Work, to include a statement regarding the need for future consultations on contributing and non-contributing elements of the Claytor powerhouse (see SHPO comment number 2); Include the following language in section 5.4, Protection of Discovered Human Remains (see SHPO comment number 7):
o All reasonable efforts would be made to avoid disturbing gravesites, including those containing Native American human remains and associated artifacts. To the extent possible, Appalachian Power shall ensure that the general public is excluded from viewing any gravesites and associated artifacts. All consulting parties agree to release no photographs of any gravesites and/or funerary objects to the press or to the general public. o If human remains encountered appear to be Native American origin, whether prehistoric or historic, Appalachian Power shall
233 immediately notify the Virginia SHPO, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians. o If it is agreed that avoidance of the human remains is not prudent and feasible, Appalachian Power shall apply for a permit from the Virginia DHR for archaeological removal of human remains. In considering issuance of a permit involving removal of Native American human remains, the Virginia DHR shall consult with other parties, including Appalachian Power, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians. In sections 5.6 and 5.7 of the HPMP, references to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation should be removed (see SHPO comment number 8).
To ensure that effects on eligible historic properties, and to any as-yet unidentified archaeological resources, are satisfactorily resolved over the term of any new license, we intend to execute a PA with the Virginia SHPO. The PA would require Appalachian Power to implement a revised HPMP.
We conclude that the benefits of implementing the proposed HPMP, with further information on methods to protect the eroding site, would justify the estimated annual cost of $3,671. We recommend these measures be required in any new license issued for the project.
5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff
Some of the measures recommended for the project are not included in the staff alternative. The following discusses the basis for our conclusion not to recommend such measures.
Shoreline Erosion – To minimize the effects of wave action on the shoreline, Skyline SWCD and Laura Bullard recommend that the lake level be lowered within the 1-foot operating range (limited to 1,845.0 to 1,845.5 feet NGVD) when increased boating is expected. Several shoreline residents recommend that the Commission require either that Appalachian Power protect the reservoir shoreline from erosion in highly erodible areas or provide funding to landowners that would be used for shoreline stabilization. We do not concur with the recommendation to lower the lake level within the proposed 1-foot operational range when increased boating is expected because offshore shelves are effective in dissipating wave energy for average water levels, which would be maintained between 1,844 and 1,846 feet NGVD. Therefore, lowering the lake to the levels proposed by the commenters would not reduce shoreline erosion. We also do not recommend that Appalachian Power be required to stabilize the reservoir shoreline because the majority of on-going erosion is due to wave action (from boat wakes or wind action), which is not an effect from operating the project. For similar reasons, we do not agree that Appalachian Power provide funding to landowners that would be used for
234 shoreline stabilization. Rather, Appalachian Power’s proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan would provide a means to address erosion within the project boundary, mainly through on-going monitoring and development of an erosion control demonstration project along the shoreline.
Fish Compensation – Virginia DGIF estimates that losses of recreationally important species through the project due to entrainment is significant and recommends that Appalachian Power provide partial compensation for losses to striped bass and hybrid striped bass, whose populations are maintained by stocking. Virginia DGIF states that the cost to stock fingerlings of these two species in 2008 was about $28,000. Based on our analysis, the effects on the fishery due to entrainment appear to be minimal for most species populations, and the sport fishery in project waters is very popular and highly pursued, with many citations for trophy fish awarded for numerous species. Therefore, we do not recommend Appalachian Power provide compensation for entrainment losses.
Hellbender Study – Virginia DGIF recommends that Appalachian Power conduct long-term monitoring of hellbenders to determine habitat requirements, distribution, and status of the hellbender below Claytor dam. Although long-term monitoring under an adaptive management approach is an appropriate strategy for measuring population responses of certain species to license conditions and providing a mechanism to make adjustments over the term of any new license, it may not be justifiable in all circumstances. In situations where a clear nexus to project operations has not been established, as here, the responsibility for obtaining the requested information would seem to rest more appropriately with the Virginia DGIF.
Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation Control Funding – In the draft EA, we made a preliminary determination that Virginia DGIF’s proposal to provide monetary support for the control of nuisance aquatic vegetation is not a specific measure for the protection, mitigation or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project and, therefore, does not fall within the scope of section 10(j).
During the November 8, 2010 10(j) meeting, Virginia DGIF stated that hydrilla was the invasive species of concern and, absent any monetary support, Claytor Lake could become infested with hydrilla. Unlike other invasive aquatic species which can be controlled via manual cutting or harvesting, these methods are ineffective for controlling hydrilla because hydrilla stem fragments remain viable after cutting and can be transported outside the affected area of the reservoir. Virginia DGIF further stated that chemical treatments (herbicides) are the most effective method to control hydrilla and these chemical treatments are more expensive than manual methods and, for these reasons, monetary support for controlling hydrilla is crucial to addressing hydrilla infestation at Claytor Lake. In addition, Virginia DGIF stated that the lake monitoring component of the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (the entire lake once every five
235 years) was insufficient for preventing the spread of hydrilla. Instead, monitoring the lake every 2 to 3 years would ensure that hydrilla is not spreading to unaffected areas of Claytor Lake.
The Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan includes a provision for controlling nuisance aquatic vegetation in beneficial use areas. 37 The plan also includes provisions for determining appropriate control measures; educating the public; and identifying methods to prevent introduction of non-native vegetation and other non-native species to the lake and from the lake to other water bodies. Collectively, these measures would control and prevent the spread of nuisance aquatic vegetation within and outside Claytor Lake.
No additional information was provided to support the need for monitoring the entire lake more than once every 5 years. However, if Virginia DGIF requests additional lake-wide monitoring based on lake survey data, this request would be evaluated by the plan’s Technical Review Committee. The Technical Review Committee, which includes representatives from Virginia DGIF, reviews lake survey information and provides recommendations on proposed treatments. The plan takes an adaptive management approach to the control of nuisance aquatic vegetation by ensuring additional consultation, monitoring, and control measures during seasonal periods when nuisance aquatic vegetation is more of a problem. For these reasons, we do not feel it is necessary to provide monetary support for the control of nuisance aquatic vegetation.
Adaptive Management and Funding – FONR and Virginia DGIF recommend an adaptive management approach with a standing fund provided by Appalachian Power. Appalachian Power has proposed a suite of monitoring and management plans, each with its own technical review committee (see table 21 in section 3). Appalachian Power could choose to enhance coordination through an appropriate communications protocol and administrative procedures, as it sees fit. Once a plan is approved by the Commission and required by the license, Appalachian Power would be obligated to provide for implementation of the plan. It is therefore not the Commission’s policy to require a standing fund if it is not directed towards a specific project purpose. By building adaptive management components into each monitoring or management plan, unintended effects would be addressed. If, however, an unintended effect is not appropriately addressed by a particular plan, the Commission may exercise its standard reservation of authority to reopen the license for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources.
37 Beneficial use areas include public access boat ramps, Claytor Lake State Park, public water withdraws, Harry Dehaven Park, sensitive habitat areas for fish and wildlife, fishing piers and designated bank fishing areas and sites designated for future recreation.
236 Weekend Releases in August-October – Virginia DGIF recommends a “modified levelized flow” release schedule (e.g., releases higher than 3,300 cfs) on weekends from August through October. Although a stable stream morphology is cited as a beneficial byproduct, the change in minimum flow was recommended to benefit recreation. This flow would increase opportunities for fishing from boats, scenic floating, and some whitewater activities, but could exclude shore- and wading-based fishing and tubing, which are two popular sports during the summertime and early fall. This conflict might be avoided if the releases are provided late enough in the season (October and November). In either case, this mode of operation would result in a loss of generation towards the end of the week because flows would have to be stored by late Friday night to begin recreation releases at approximately midnight (to reach McCoy Falls around 8:00 a.m.). This “modified levelized flow” would decrease the project’s generation by 9.2 MWH/year, which would negatively affect project economics and generation. The technical committee may be able to plan for such releases such that losses to tubing and generation are acceptable, but we do not recommend this as a license requirement.
Minimum Flows during Peaking Period – See the 10(j) section below for our rationale for not including Virginia DGIF’s recommended higher minimum flows in the staff alternative, based on our analysis of effects to aquatic resources and wildlife. Note that West Virginia DNR recommends the same seasonal increases in minimum average hourly flows during the peaking period as Virginia DGIF. With regard to recreation, both state agencies’ recommended higher minimum flows during the winter/early spring months would benefit all non-whitewater boating use during the winter and early spring, and could be particularly useful to those hunting from powerboats (November through February) and anglers at the beginning of the season (March). The flows would generally not benefit whitewater boaters during this period. The resulting decrease in the amplitude of peaking releases would have a negative effect on project economics and power generation. The Water Management Plan includes an adaptive management component and a procedure for the technical committee to discuss how best to exercise flexibility within the operational parameters. As the relationship between operation and quality of downstream recreation becomes better understood, stakeholders may recommend minor modifications during the plan’s annual review, but we do not recommend the higher minimum flows as a license requirement because the benefits do not appear to outweigh the estimated annual cost of $28,290.
Annual Reservoir Drawdowns – Laura Bullard recommends that Appalachian Power lower the reservoir four feet to allow residents to clean up and stabilize the shoreline every 2 to 3 years in early to mid October for 2 to 3 weeks. FOCL, which provided a petition signed by 961 individuals requesting continuance of the drawdown, recommends exploration of other alternatives to the annual reservoir drawdown including: (1) less frequent drawdowns, (2) less than a 5-foot drawdown, and (3) drawdown in warmer weather to avoid freezing. Skyline SWCD recommends that a drawdown occur every 2 years in a 2-week timeframe between September 15 and
237 October 15 to prevent freezing weather from damaging mussels that live in the drawdown zone. Although these recommendations would shift the timing of the drawdown to a time when mussels would not be subject to freezing conditions, if mussel beds are exposed to dry conditions over 2 weeks, one can expect significant mortality. The staff-proposed alternative of notifying residents of non-emergency drawdowns and maintenance drawdowns affords residents the opportunity to perform dock and shoreline maintenance when Appalachian Power performs maintenance at the dam.
Monitoring Recreation Use – The Virginia DGIF is concerned that 6 years is too long an interval between recreational use surveys, and recommends that the recreation technical review committee consider a higher frequency. We believe recreation use surveys conducted every 6 years provide adequate use data to assess recreation use trends and make decisions regarding the need for new facilities. Therefore, we do not recommend that recreation use surveys be conducted on a more frequent basis .
5.2.4 Conclusion
Based on our review of the agency and public comments filed on the project and our independent analysis pursuant to sections 4(e), 10(a)(1), and 10(a)(2) of the FPA, we conclude that licensing the Claytor Project, as proposed by Appalachian Power with the additional staff-recommended measures, would be best adapted to a plan for improving or developing the New River.
238 5.3 Summary and Consistency with Fish and Wildlife Recommendations
Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission finds that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of the agency.
In response to the Commission’s Ready for Environmental Analysis notice, issued September 30, 2009, the Virginia DGIF filed a letter providing comments and terms and conditions for the Claytor Project, including 17 conditions filed pursuant to section 10(j). In response to the Commission’s draft EA, Virginia DGIF also filed a letter on September 9, 1010, providing comments on the draft EA and requesting a meeting with Commission staff to the discuss our preliminary determinations of inconsistency. Commission staff conducted a 10(j) meeting over the telephone with representatives from Virginia DGIF on November 8, 2010, in an attempt to resolve the preliminary inconsistencies. Participants in the meeting discussed: (1) providing minimum average hourly discharge flows of 1,250 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) during December and January, and 1,500 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) during February and March; and (2) monetary support for the control of nuisance aquatic vegetation in the beneficial use areas of Claytor Lake. 38
Of the 17 recommendations filed by Virginia DGIF, we make the preliminary determination that seven of the recommendations are within the scope of section 10(j). Of those seven recommendations we determined to be within the scope of 10(j), we adopt six. Table 41 summarizes the agency recommendations made under section 10(j), as well as whether the recommendations are adopted under the staff alternative. Following table 41, we discuss the basis for our preliminary determinations. Environmental measures that we consider outside the scope of section 10(j) have been considered under section 10(a) of the FPA and are addressed in the specific resource sections of this document and in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.
38 Beneficial use areas include public access boat ramps, Claytor Lake State Park, public water withdraws, Harry Dehaven Park, sensitive habitat areas for fish and wildlife, fishing piers and designated bank fishing areas, and sites designated for future recreation.
239 Table 41. Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations for the Claytor Project. Within the scope of section Annualized Recommendation Agency 10(j) cost Adopted? Water Management Plan Implement the proposed Water Management Plan, herein, for the duration of any new license according to the conditions below:
(1) Levelized flow operations from April 1 to November 30 with average hourly discharge flow of 750 cfs or inflow, whichever is less using autocycling to Included in provide flow if inflow is less than one Virginia DGIF Yes costs of Yes generating unit’s flow. Reservoir proposal elevations held between 1845 to 1846 NGVD.
(2) Reservoir elevations held between 1845 Included in to 1846 NGVD from April 1 to June 30. Virginia DGIF Yes costs of Yesa proposal (3) Minimum average hourly flows of 1,250 cfs or inflow, whichever is less for December and January. Minimum average hourly flows of 1,500 cfs or Virginia DGIF Yes $28,290 No inflow whichever is less in the months of February and March
(4) During periods of high inflow, lowering Included in Virginia DGIF No(b) Yes the reservoir to 1841 feet NGVD to costs of
240 Within the scope of section Annualized Recommendation Agency 10(j) cost Adopted? provide additional storage and allowing reservoir elevations to rise above 1847 proposal feet NGVD (5) Shaping discharge flows to provide ramping rates by bringing individual Included in generating units on-line every 15 Virginia DGIF Yes costs of Yes minutes and off-line in 30 minute proposal intervals (6) Honor whitewater boaters’ requests for Included in higher flows at McCoy Falls during Virginia DGIF No(b) costs of Yes daylight hours [for special events] proposal (7) Provide “modified levelized flows” during the recreation season, as needed, by storing water in Claytor Lake during the week to save it for weekend Virginia DGIF No(b) $387 No discharges to benefit whitewater boaters and powerboat-based anglers during the late summer/early fall (8) Discontinue annual drawdown for Included in shoreline cleanup, maintenance of Virginia DGIF Yes costs of Yes docks shoreline stabilization and proposal viewing of sedimentation deposits (9) Provide better flow information to New Included in River recreation users Virginia DGIF No(b) costs of Yes proposal
241 Within the scope of section Annualized Recommendation Agency 10(j) cost Adopted? (10) Implement, in consultation with the Included in resource agencies, a variance process Virginia DGIF No(b) costs of Yes for extreme events or emergencies proposal (11) Establish a Water Quality/Water Included in Management Plan Technical Review Virginia DGIF No(b) costs of Yes Committee to meet annually to review proposal the plan Water Quality Monitoring Plan (12) Implement the proposed Water Quality Included in Monitoring Plan, including mitigation, Virginia DGIF Yes costs of Yes monitoring, and consulting components proposal Freshwater Mussel Management Plan (13) Include temperature and DO studies in the Freshwater Mussel Management Virginia DGIF Yes $879 Yes Plan
Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (14) Consider providing monetary support for nuisance aquatic vegetation control Virginia DGIF No(b) Unspecified No in beneficial use areas
Aquatic Resources (15) Provide partial compensation for entrainment losses Virginia DGIF No(b) Unspecified No
(16) Conduct a hellbender study Virginia DGIF No(c) Unspecified No
242 Within the scope of section Annualized Recommendation Agency 10(j) cost Adopted? Adaptive Management (17) Provide a fund to support projects initiated by the Technical Review Virginia DGIF No(b) $54,359 No Committees (a) Included under levelized flow operations, therefore not adopted. (b) Proposed measure is not a specific measure for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project, therefore is not analyzed in this section. (c) Recommendation lacks a clear nexus to project effects.
243 Higher Minimum Flows during December-March
In the draft EA, we made a preliminary determination that Virginia DGIF’s 10(j) recommendation #3, that Appalachian Power release 1,250 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) during December and January and 1,500 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) in February and March, was inconsistent with the comprehensive development and public interest standard of sections 10(a) and 4(e) of the FPA.39 Virginia DGIF recommended this flow schedule to: limit the stranding of anglers, recreational boaters, and waterfowl hunters; to mimic the long-term hydrograph; and to provide better base flows for aquatic species.
Based on the results of the instream flow study and Physical Habitat Simulation Model (PHABSIM) modeling, in the draft EA we recommended Appalachian Power provide 1,000 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) in December through March to maintain and enhance aquatic and recreation resources. We also recommended bringing the generating units on-line at 15-minute intervals and off-line at 30-minute intervals and maintaining reservoir elevations between 1,844 and 1,846 feet NGVD to minimize the potential for fish stranding as project operations shift from peaking to minimal flow.
During the November 8, 2010 10(j) teleconference call, Virginia DGIF stated that results of the PHABSIM showed that its proposed higher wintertime flows provided additional habitat for channel catfish, greenside darter, bigmouth chub, smallmouth bass, northern hogsucker and muskellunge. In the draft EA, our analysis indicated that results of the PHABSIM model did not show significant differences in available habitat between Appalachian Power’s proposal (1,000 cfs) and Virginia DGIF’s proposed higher wintertime flows, with many of the differences in available habitat within 1 or 2 percent of each other.
Commission staff requested that Virginia DGIF provide additional information (empirical or modeled) showing that the proposed higher wintertime flows would provide additional benefit to other fish species not included in the PHABSIM model. In its comments on the 10(j) teleconference summary, Virginia DGIF included results of a flow modeling study used by Virginia DEQ to inform a decision regarding the section 401 water quality certification. The Virginia DEQ flow modeling study evaluated effects of Appalachian Power’s proposed flow release, Virginia DGIF’s proposed flow release, and Virginia DEQ’s proposed flow release [1,000 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) in December and January and 1,200 cfs or inflow (whichever is less) in February and March] on water level and associated power generation. The model did not evaluate effects of various flow releases on available aquatic habitat. Virginia DGIF also stated in
39 For this discussion we collectively refer to this measure as “higher wintertime flows.”
244 its comment letter that it did not have any additional species-specific information to support higher wintertime flows.
Absent any new information demonstrating how Virginia DGIF’s proposed wintertime flow schedule would provide greater benefits to aquatic species, we find that the additional cost of lost generation does not outweigh the benefits of the higher flow releases. Therefore, we do not find the benefits of the increased minimum flow to be worth the annual cost of $28,290.
Summary of Staff’s Recommended Fish and Wildlife Measures
Although the noted inconsistencies remain unresolved, we recommend numerous measures that would benefit fish and wildlife resources affected by the project, including: (1) a Water Management Plan that includes minimum instream flow requirements that benefit fisheries and recreational activities; (2) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan that requires continuous DO monitoring; (3) Erosion and Sediment Monitoring Plans to prevent adverse water quality conditions; (4) an Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan that includes methods for controlling and preventing the spread of non-native invasive species in Claytor Lake; (5) a Habitat Management Plan to protect habitats at the project; and (6) several other plans that provide protective environmental management measures for Claytor Lake. These plans and associated protection measures would ensure that water quality, fish populations, and habitats at the project are not significantly adversely affected by project operation and maintenance.
245 5.4 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C., § 803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. We reviewed six qualifying comprehensive plans that are applicable to the Claytor Project, located in Virginia. No inconsistencies were found.
Forest Service. 2004. Jefferson National Forest revised land and resource management plan. Department of Agriculture, Roanoke, Virginia. January 2004.
National Park Service. 1982. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. January 1982.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. The 2007 Virginia outdoors plan (SCORP). Richmond, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources. Undated. Virginia's scenic rivers. Richmond, Virginia.
In our review of the License Application, exhibit E, we also consider the following plans:
New River Valley Planning District Commission. 2007. New River Valley Water Supply Plan. Draft. September, 2007.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2004. Claytor Lake Management Report (1999)(2004).
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2003. Virginia’s Precious Heritage: A Report on the Status of Virginia’s Natural Communities, Plants, and Animals, and a Plan for Preserving Virginia’s Natural Resources.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2005. Draft Virginia Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
246 New River Trail State Park Master Plan. 2003.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2000. Claytor Lake State Park Master Plan. December 12, 2000.
Pulaski County. 2008. Pulaski County Comprehensive Plan.
247 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
If the Claytor Project is issued a new license as proposed with the additional staff- recommended measures, the project would continue to operate while providing enhancements to fish and wildlife resources, improvements to recreation facilities and flows, and protection of aesthetic, cultural, and historic resources in the project area.
Based on our independent analysis, we find that the issuance of a license for the Claytor Project, with our recommended environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
248 7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian Power). 2009. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739, Application for New License. June, 2009.
Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian Power). 1978. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739, Application for New License.
Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian Power). 2006. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739. Integrated Licensing Process Pre-Application Document, Volume I.
Baird, Inc. 2008. Sedimentation Report, Final Draft. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, VA. November, 2008.
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, no. 506. A. Poole and F. Gill (eds). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.
Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22:361-369.
College of William & Mary, Department of Geology. Undated. The Geology of Virginia, Valley & Ridge Province. Accessed April 9, 2010 at: http://web.wm.edu/geology/virginia/provinces/valleyridge/valley_ridge.html.
Confluence Research and Consulting (CRC) and The Louis Berger Group (Berger). Authors Doug Whittaker and Bo Shelby with CRC and Jot Splenda with Berger. 2009. Flows and recreation on the New River, Virginia. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. January 2009.
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA). 2008. Aquatic Resources Assessment, Final Report. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. December, 2008.
Green, W., B.G. Harvey, and M. Nelson. 2008. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Claytor Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. June, 2008.
249 Green, W., H. Jones, and B.G Harvey. 2009. Phase II testing of five archaeological sites and the results of a drawdown survey conducted for the Claytor Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. January, 2009.
Kleinschmidt and Baird. 2008a. Sedimentation Study Report. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. November, 2008.
Kleinschmidt and Baird. 2008b. Erosion Study Report, Final Draft. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. November, 2008.
Kilpatrick, J.M. 2003. Habitat use, movements, and exploitation of striped bass and hybrid striped bass in Claytor Lake, Virginia. Master of Science Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 326 pp.
Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger). 2008. Recreation Assessment Study, Final Report. Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 739. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, VA. December 2008.
National Park Service. 1982. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. January 1982.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Soil series descriptions and mapping data on http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx? Survey=VA155&UseState=VA. Accessed April 21, 2010.
Newbrey, J.L., M.A. Bozek, and N.D. Niemuth. 2005. Effects of lake characteristics and human disturbance on the presence of piscivorous birds in northern Wisconsin, USA. Waterbirds 28(4):478-486.
Normandeau Associates. 2007. Native and Exotic Vegetation Survey. Table 4.3.4.1-2. Natural Communities in Pulaski and Montgomery Counties
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2009. Wetland, riparian, woody debris, littoral and bald eagle habitat studies. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company. 86 pp.
Normandeau Associates. 2008. Water Quality Study Report. Claytor Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 739. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. December, 2008.
250 Payne, T.R. and the Louis Berger Group (Payne and Berger). 2008. Instream Flow Needs Study, Final Report. . Claytor Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 739. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. December, 2008.
Pinder, M.J., E.S. Wilhelm, and J.W. Jones. 2002. Status survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae)., as cited in Appalachian Power, 2009.
Pulaski County Comprehensive Plan located on Pulaski County website: http://www.pulaskicounty.org/pc_comp_plan/.
Tiner, Ralph W. 1999. Wetland Indicators, A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. CRC Press, New York. 392 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/guidelines/index.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1983. Virginia Fringed Mountain Snail Recovery Plan. Prepared by U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Region 5. January, 1983.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Virginia DGIF). 2007. Bald eagle protection guidelines for Virginia. Prepared by U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Gloucester, VA and VA Dept. Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. Integrated Geologic Map Databases for the United States: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia Edition: Version 1.0. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report. Issue Identification: 2005-1325.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service. Species List Report (by Geographic Search). Accessed November 13, 2008.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. The 2007 Virginia outdoors plan (SCORP). Richmond, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Virginia DEQ). 2008. 2008 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. Available at http://www.deq.virginia.gov.wqa/ir2008.html.
Virginia Department of Health. 2008. New River Basin PCB Fish Consumption Advisories. Available online at
251 http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/DEE/publichealthtoxicology/Advisori es/NewRiver.htm.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). 2009. Scenery Management Study of Claytor Lake. Prepared for Appalachian Power Company, Roanoke, Virginia. May, 2009.
252 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Emily Carter – EA Coordinator, Recreation, Land Use, Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources (Environmental Biologist, B.A., Environmental Studies).
John Baummer – Aquatic Resources, Water Quality, and Water Quantity (Fisheries Biologist; B.S., Biology and M.S., Environmental Science).
Jeffrey Browning – Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Aquatic Resources: Mussels, Eastern Hellbender (Environmental Protection Specialist; B.S., Rangeland Ecology and Management and M.S., Environmental Science and Policy).
Paul Makowski – Geology and Soils (Civil Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering and M.Eng., Hydrosystems).
John Smith – Aquatic Resources (Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Zoology and Physiology; B.S., Fisheries and Wildlife).
Mike Spencer – Need for Power, Developmental Analysis (Civil Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering).
Brandi Sangunett – Aquatic Resources: Mussels, Eastern Hellbender, and Debris Management (Ecologist: B.S. Zoology, B.A. Geography, M.S. Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences).
253 APPENDIX A
VIRGINIA WATER PROTECTION PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW AND SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
VWP Individual Permit Issuance Number 09-0892 Effective Date: [Date that Federal Energy Regulatory License is effective for the Claytor Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project P-739] Expiration Date: [15 years after the effective date of this permit]
Part I Special Conditions
A. Authorized Activities
This permit authorizes the diversion of surface water from the New River and Claytor Lake in accordance with all permit conditions contained herein, and specifically detailed in Part I.D for the purposes of hydroelectric power generation at the Appalachian Power Company’s Claytor Hydroelectric Project (hereafter "project"). The authorization is based on information contained in the application materials dated June 26, 2009, received by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on June 29, 2009, and deemed complete by DEQ on September 21, 2009; on additional correspondence from the applicant dated August 20, 2009, January 8, 2010, and April 15, 2010; and on coordination held from 2008 through 2010 as part of the permittee's application for a hydropower license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
B. Permit Term
This permit is valid for 15 years from the effective date of the issuance. A new permit may be necessary for the continuance of the authorized activities, including water withdrawals, or any permit requirement that has not been completed. At least 120 calendar days prior to the expiration date of this permit, the permittee shall notify DEQ in writing of his or her intent to continue one or more of the authorized activities. A new permit application shall be required by DEQ at that time. DEQ, acting on behalf of the State Water Control Board (board), may issue a new permit or may issue a new permit with new or modified conditions. Any consideration given to issuance of a new permit shall be, at a minimum, contingent upon the completion of various studies and analyses required by this permit within its term and the submittal of the results of such studies and analyses to DEQ. The board may also deny the issuance of a permit at that time.
DEQ, on behalf of the board, may reopen and modify this permit if after issuance the project operations are determined to have adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources or to water quality. If applicable, any necessary major modifications to the permit shall include similar public participation procedures as those implemented during the issuance of the permit. Modifications shall not include extension of the permit term beyond 15 years.
C. Standard Project Conditions
1. The activities authorized by this permit shall be executed in such a manner that any impacts to stream beneficial uses are minimized. As defined in §62.1-1O(b) of the Code, "beneficial use" means both instream and offstream uses. Instream beneficial uses include, but are not limited to, the protection of fish and wildlife habitat, maintenance of waste assimilation, recreation, navigation, and cultural and aesthetic values. Offstream beneficial uses include, but are not limited to, domestic (including public water supply), agricultural, electric power generation, commercial, and industrial uses. Public water supply uses for human consumption shall be considered the highest priority.
2. No activity shall substantially disrupt the movement of aquatic life indigenous to the water body, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water.
3. Flows downstream of the project area shall be maintained to protect all uses.
4. Measures shall be employed at all times to prevent and contain spills of fuels, lubricants, or other pollutants into surface waters.
5. Virginia Water Quality Standards shall not be violated in any surface waters as a result of the project activities.
D. Instream Flow and Lake Level Conditions
1. Lake levels and stream flows shall be measured in accordance with Part I.E of these permit conditions.
B-2 2. The facility shall operate in levelized flow mode from April 1st through November 30th. Levelized flow is defined as maintaining Claytor Lake elevations between 1845 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and 1846 feet NGVD. Operating under this mode includes bringing a unit or units into operation within 15 minutes (ramp up) and taking a unit or units out of operation within 30 minutes (ramp down), and may also include a "blackstart," where units are brought into operation within ten minutes when a loss of generating capacity or an outage of a key transmission facility occurs. Operating under this mode may also include the use of autocycling, where a generating unit operates for a portion of each hour to maintain required instream flows when inflow to the project is less than one unit flow. The rate of one unit flow varies between 2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 2,500 cfs, depending on unit efficiency.
3. The facility shall be authorized to operate in peaking mode from December 1st through March 31st. Peaking is defined as maintaining Claytor Lake elevations between 1844 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and 1846 feet NGVD. Operating under this mode includes bringing a unit or units into operation within 15 minutes (ramp up) and taking a unit or units out of operation within 30 minutes (ramp down), and may also include a "blackstart," where units are brought into operation within ten minutes when a loss of generating capacity or an outage of a key transmission facility occurs.
4. During times of higher than normal inflows into the project, the permittee shall be authorized to allow lake levels to rise above the elevations that define the operational modes in Part I.D.2 and I.D.3, provided that the applicable operational mode elevation is restored as soon as possible after the high inflow event.
5. During times where inflows are higher than the plant's capacity, or during times of emergency drawdowns for project maintenance purposes, the permittee shall be authorized to reduce the Claytor Lake elevation to 1841 feet NGVD to provide additional storage capacity and lessen impacts on downstream habitat. The permittee shall notify DEQ, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), and interested stakeholders in accordance with the Water Management Plan approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
6. Reservoir drawdowns may occur in accordance with the Final Water Management Plan approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Claytor Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-739).
B-3 7. Should independent research during the course of the permit term conclude that the individuals, populations, or habitat of the Eastern Hellbender salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), as documented in the New River or its tributaries, is being adversely affected for any reason; or should the legal status of the species changes to threatened or endangered during the permit term, as determined under the United States or Virginia Endangered Species Acts, the permittee may be required to evaluate potential operational effects, or to cooperate with any cause-effect evaluation conducted by other interested parties, through coordination with an adaptive management committee or workgroup, including but not limited to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The permittee may be required to provide mitigation to minimize any identified project-related impacts to fish and wildlife habitat.
8. The permittee shall ensure that minimum instream flows (cubic feet per second), as detailed in Table 1, are released from the Claytor dam to the downstream New River. Other special recreational releases may be considered following a review by one or more of the advisory groups stated in Part I.E of this permit.
Table 42: Minimum Instream Flow (MIF) Requirements and Options Month Required Optional Authorized Modification to MIF Average Hourly MIF April 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less May 750 cfs, or Squirt Boat Competition: recreational flows may be inflow, released upon sufficient inflow, provided that reservoir whichever is elevations are maintained between 1845 feet and less 1846 feet NGVD.
June 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less July 750 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less August 750 cfs, or When inflow rates average between 800 and 1,000 cfs
B-4 inflow, during Monday through Friday, additional weekend whichever is releases may occur, provided that reservoir elevations less are maintained between 1845 feet and 1846 feet NGVD. September 750 cfs, or When inflow rates average between 800 and 1,000 cfs inflow, during Monday through Friday, additional weekend whichever is releases may occur, provided that reservoir elevations less are maintained between 1845 feet and 1846 feet NGVD. October 750 cfs, or When inflow rates average between 800 and 1,000 cfs inflow, during Monday through Friday, additional weekend whichever is releases may occur, provided that reservoir elevations less are maintained between 1845 feet and 1846 feet NGVD. November 750 cfs , or inflow, whichever is less December 1,000 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less January 1,000 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less February 1,200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less March 1,200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less
9. Variances to flows and lake elevations required by this permit may only be granted upon mutual agreement between the permittee and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), in consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), following appropriate public input as determined through coordination with DEQ.
B-5 E. Monitoring, Notification, and Reporting
Monitoring:
1. Elevations in Claytor Lake shall be measured in the forebay (reservoir) and tailrace (below dam) using water level transducers, staff gages located upstream and downstream that are calibrated with the transducers, and cameras located at that dam. Elevations shall be monitored at the American Electric Power System Control Center in Columbus, Ohio.
2. Releases of instream flows (discharges) from Claytor dam shall be based on the discharge curves developed for the existing generating units, as submitted to the board in the permittee's application. The permittee or its authorized agent(s) shall monitor discharges and adjust unit operations as needed to meet the required flows in Table 1 of this permit.
3. Flows into the project boundary (inflow) shall be determined through monitoring of the USGS gage New River at Allisonia (No. 03168000) and at the USGS gage New River near Galax (No.03164000) at the American Electric Power System Control Center in Columbus, Ohio. When using the gage at Galax to approximate inflow to the project, the flow at Galax shall be multiplied by the permittee-calculated, drainage area ratio factor of 1.75. When using the gage at Allisonia to approximate inflow to the project, the flow at Allisonia shall be multiplied by the permittee-calculated, drainage area ratio factor of 1.07. Should inflow to the project fall below 335 cubic feet per second, the lowest instantaneous flow recorded since 1930 at Allisonia, the permittee shall coordinate with the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Games and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and other interested stakeholders to develop flow release protocols during these periods.
4. The permittee shall implement the June 2009 Water Quality Monitoring Plan, as approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), except that DEQ shall require the following revisions:
a. A minimum of five (5) dissolved oxygen and temperature monitoring locations shall be identified between the Claytor dam and the Route 11 bridge, located downstream of the project. The locations shall be approved by the Water Quality / Water Management Technical Review Committee (Technical Review Committee) provided for in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Monitoring equipment shall be deployed at each identified monitoring location.
B-6 b. The study period shall be extended if a low flow event does not occur within the initial five-year period, or if depressed dissolved oxygen levels continue during the initial five-year period. The appropriate period for extending the study, and any proposed changes to the study methods, shall be determined in consultation with the Water Quality / Water Management Technical Review Committee (Technical Review Committee), as detailed in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
c. The permittee shall provide alternative mitigation should the results of the study conclude that the actions taken to date are not effective. Such alternative mitigation shall be developed in consultation with the Water Quality / Water Management Technical Review Committee (Technical Review Committee) within 120 days of concluding the study, and such alternative mitigation shall be approved by DEQ.
5. The permittee shall implement the June 2009 Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Monitoring Plan (mussel plan), as approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), except that DEQ shall require the following revisions:
a. The plan shall provide for an initial meeting of the Freshwater Mussel Technical Review Committee (TRC) prior to beginning any work identified in the mussel plan. The purpose of the meeting will be to review the planned activities and for participants to identify any potential changes to the plan in order to meet the plan's goals and objectives, or any potential impediments to conducting the plan activities, as described in the plan and in accordance with these permit conditions. The scope of any necessary changes or revisions shall pertain to the goals and objectives of the mussel plan over the term of this permit. The conclusions reached during this meeting shall be documented, and any necessary revisions to the mussel plan shall be submitted to DEQ and FERC within 60 days of the meeting. At a minimum, the mussel plan shall be revised to address the requirements of this permit in Part I.E.5.
b. Baseline mussel fauna data collection shall include, at a minimum, qualitative field surveys for mussel individuals and populations within the study area identified on the New River in the mussel plan. Baseline field survey locations shall be identified in consultation with the Freshwater Mussel Technical Review Committee (TRC) in
B-7 order to meet the specific goals and objectives of the mussel plan. Baseline qualitative surveys shall be conducted immediately upstream of the project and downstream of the project to at least the Route 11 bridge crossing. The necessity of further field survey locations downstream of the Route 11 Bridge to the Route 460 Bridge shall be determined in consultation with the Freshwater Mussel Technical Review Committee (TRC). Existing data from research conducted in the subject areas shall be accepted as supplemental information to in-the-field survey results.
c. Long-term mussel fauna data collection shall include, at a minimum, quantitative field surveys at locations determined through consultation with the Freshwater Mussel Technical Review Committee (TRC), as deemed necessary and appropriate to meet the specific goals and objectives of the mussel plan.
d. The data collected during the term of the mussel plan shall be adapted as necessary in consultation with the TRC to directly assess how depressed dissolved oxygen and temperature may affect mussel fauna. To meet the specific goals and objectives of the plan, additional or alternative collection and analysis methods may be deemed necessary, such as but not limited to, mussel tissue sampling and analysis, extended or additional water quality parameter monitoring, and partnering with others who are currently conducting or planning to conduct such studies, research, or analyses. The permittee may conduct such data collection through partnerships with other groups or organizations, or through other permittee studies, provided that those efforts address the goals and objectives of the mussel plan and assess potential effects on mussels from direct or indirect project operations. In addition to the direct data collection detailed in the mussel plan, information from a literature review shall be acceptable as supporting documentation to the studies and analyses required by this permit. Notification:
6. Any fish kills or spills of fuels or oils shall be reported to DEQ Blue Ridge Regional Office-Roanoke immediately upon discovery at 540-562-6700. Additionally, any fish kills shall also be reported to the DEQ Central Office, Virginia Water Protection Permit Program at 804-698-4290. If DEQ cannot be reached, the spill shall be reported to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (DEM) at 1-800-468-8892 or the National Response Center (NRC) at 1-800-424-8802. Mitigation for aquatic impacts may be required.
B-8 7. The permittee shall notify DEQ of any additional impacts to surface waters, including wetlands; of any modifications to the discharge works; and of any change to the type of surface water impacts associated with this project. Any additional impacts, modifications, or changes shall be subject to individual permit review and/or modification of this permit.
8. The permittee shall include DEQ in all advisory groups, such as but not limited to committees and workgroups, formed for the purposes of coordination of project activities with interested stakeholders regarding water management, water quality management, erosion and sediment management, fish and wildlife management, vegetation management, debris management, habitat management, shoreline management, recreation management, and adaptive management. The permittee shall give DEQ a minimum of one week's notice for any meetings or conference calls planned for the advisory groups.
Reporting:
9. The permittee shall submit to DEQ a lake level and flow monitoring contingency plan in the case of equipment and/or gage failure within 60 days of license issuance by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The plan shall include all protocols that will be implemented to ensure compliance with this permit.
10. The permittee shall submit to DEQ the revised Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Monitoring Plan, as required by Part I.E.4 and 1.E.5, within 120 days of license issuance by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. DEQ in consultation with appropriate advisory agencies shall review and comment on or approve the plans within 60 days of receipt.
11. The permittee shall submit to DEQ the results of all plan studies, demonstration projects, research, analyses, modeling, and stakeholder coordination efforts conducted for the authorized project activities. Unless specified otherwise in this permit or otherwise agreed upon through coordination efforts that involve DEQ, submittals shall be made in a timely manner after completing the subject activity, but in no case shall be submitted later than one year after completion of the activity.
12. The permittee shall prepare an annual monitoring report to demonstrate compliance with Part LD of the permit Special Conditions. The report shall be submitted by January 31st of the year following data collection and
B-9 mailed to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Water Protection (VWP) Permit Program, P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia, 23218. Electronic submittal to the VWP permit manager shall be acceptable, provided the permittee confirms with the manager that the information was received. The annual monitoring report shall contain the following information at a minimum:
a. the permittee's name and address; b. the VWP permit number (09-0892); c. the calendar date; d. the average daily inflow to the project (cfs) as measured at the USGS Allisonia and/or Galax gages; e. the average daily reservoir level (feet NGVD) as measured at the Roanoke Operations Center and/or the American Electric Power System Control Center; f. the required average hourly discharge (cfs) from the dam per Table 1; g. the actual average daily discharge (cfs) from the dam; h. any periods when the project operated under a DEQ- or FERC- issued variance; and any periods when the project operated in an emergency drawdown or a high-inflow drawdown mode.
13. All reports required by this permit and other information requested by DEQ shall be signed by the permittee, or a person acting on the permittee's behalf as a duly authorized representative with the authority to bind the permittee. A person is a duly authorized representative only if 1) the authorization is made in writing by the permittee; AND 2) the authorization specifies either the named individual or the named position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent, or position of equivalent responsibility. If a change of the duly authorized representative occurs, the permittee shall immediately notify DEQ in writing, providing the new named individual or named position and contact information for the new duly authorized representative.
14. All submittals to DEQ shall contain the following signed certification statement:
“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for
B-10 gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Part II - General Conditions
A. Duty to Comply
The permittee shall comply with all conditions of the VWP permit. Nothing in the VWP permit regulations shall be construed to relieve the permittee of the duty to comply with all applicable federal and state statutes, regulations and prohibitions. Any VWP permit violation is a violation of the law, and is grounds for enforcement action, VWP permit termination, revocation, modification, or denial of an application for a VWP permit extension or reissuance.
B. Duty to Cease or Confine Activity
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the activity for which a VWP permit has been granted in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of the VWP permit.
C. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any impacts in violation of the permit which may have a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.
D. VWP Permit Action
1. VWP permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated as set forth in 9 VAC 25-210 et seq.
2. If a permittee files a request for VWP permit modification, revocation, or termination, or files a notification of planned changes, or anticipated noncompliance, the VWP permit terms and conditions shall remain effective until the request is acted upon by the board. This provision shall not be used to extend the expiration date of the effective VWP permit. If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by the VWP permit after the expiration date of the VWP permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new VWP permit or comply with the provisions of 9 VAC 25-210- 185 (VWP Permit Extension).
B-11 3. VWP permits may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated upon the request of the permittee or other person at the board's discretion, or upon board initiative to reflect the requirements of any changes in the statutes or regulations, or as a result of VWP permit noncompliance as indicated in the Duty to Comply subsection above, or for other reasons listed in 9 VAC 25-210-180 (Rules for Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, and Termination of VWP permits).
E. Inspection and Entry
Upon presentation of credentials, any duly authorized agent of the board may, at reasonable times and under reasonable circumstances:
1. Enter upon any permittee's property, public or private, and have access to, inspect and copy any records that must be kept as part of the VWP permit conditions;
2. Inspect any facilities, operations or practices (including monitoring and control equipment) regulated or required under the VWP permit; and
3. Sample or monitor any substance, parameter or activity for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the conditions of the VWP permit or as otherwise authorized by law.
F. Duty to Provide Information
1. The permittee shall furnish to the board any information which the board may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking, reissuing or terminating the VWP permit, or to determine compliance with the VWP permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the board, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by the permittee.
2. Plans, specifications, maps, conceptual reports and other relevant information shall be submitted as required by the board prior to commencing construction.
G. Monitoring and Records Requirements
1. Monitoring of parameters, other than pollutants, shall be conducted according to approved analytical methods as specified in the VWP permit. Analysis of pollutants will be conducted according to 40 CFR Part 136 (2000), Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants.
B-12 2. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity.
3. The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart or electronic recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by the VWP permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for the VWP permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the expiration of a granted VWP permit. This period may be extended by request of the board at any time.
4. Records of monitoring information shall include:
a. The date, exact place and time of sampling or measurements; b. The name of the individuals who performed the sampling or measurements; c. The date and time the analyses were performed; d. The name of the individuals who performed the analyses; e. The analytical techniques or methods supporting the information such as observations, readings, calculations and bench data used; f. The results of such analyses; and g. Chain of custody documentation.
H. Transferability
This VWP permit may be transferred to a new permittee only by modification to reflect the transfer, by revoking and reissuing the permit, or by automatic transfer. Automatic transfer to a new permittee shall occur if:
1. The current permittee notifies the board within 30 days of the proposed transfer of the title to the facility or property;
2. The notice to the board includes a written agreement between the existing and proposed permittee containing a specific date of transfer of VWP permit responsibility, coverage and liability to the new permittee, or that the existing permittee will retain such responsibility, coverage, or liability, including liability for compliance with the requirements of any enforcement activities related to the permitted activity; and
3. The board does not within the 30-day time period notify the existing permittee and the new permittee of its intent to modify or revoke and reissue the VWP permit.
B-13 I. Property rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights or any infringement of federal, state or local law or regulation.
J. Reopener
Each VWP permit shall have a condition allowing the reopening of the VWP permit for the purpose of modifying the conditions of the VWP permit to meet new regulatory standards duly adopted by the board. Cause for reopening VWP permits includes, but is not limited to when the circumstances on which the previous VWP permit was based have materially and substantially changed, or special studies conducted by the board or the permittee show material and substantial change, since the time the VWP permit was issued and thereby constitute cause for VWP permit modification or revocation and reissuance.
K. Compliance with State and Federal Law
Compliance with this VWP permit constitutes compliance with the VWP permit requirements of the State Water Control Law. Nothing in this VWP permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action under or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or other penalties established pursuant to any other state law or regulation or under the authority preserved by § 510 of the Clean Water Act.
L. Severability
The provisions of this VWP permit are severable.
M. Permit Modification
A VWP permit may be modified, but not revoked and reissued except when the permittee agrees or requests, when any of the following developments occur:
1. When additions or alterations have been made to the affected facility or activity which require the application of VWP permit conditions that differ from those of the existing VWP permit or are absent from it;
2. When new information becomes available about the operation or activity covered by the VWP permit which was not available at VWP permit
B-14 issuance and would have justified the application of different VWP permit conditions at the time of VWP permit issuance;
3. When a change is made in the promulgated standards or regulations on which the VWP permit was based;
4. When it becomes necessary to change final dates in schedules due to circumstances over which the permittee has little or no control such as acts of God, materials shortages, etc. However, in no case may a compliance schedule be modified to extend beyond any applicable statutory deadline of the Act;
5. When changes occur which are subject to "reopener clauses" in the VWP permit; or
6. When the board determines that minimum instream flow levels resulting from the permittee's withdrawal of water are detrimental to the in stream beneficial use and the withdrawal of water should be subject to further net limitations or when an area is declared a Surface Water Management Area pursuant to §§ 62.1-242 through 62.1-253 of the Code of Virginia, during the term of the VWP permit.
N. Permit Termination
After notice and opportunity for a formal hearing pursuant to Procedural Rule No.1 (9 VAC 25-230-100) a VWP permit can be terminated for cause. Causes for termination are as follows:
1. Noncompliance by the permittee with any condition of the VWP permit;
2. The permittee's failure in the application or during the VWP permit issuance process to disclose fully all relevant facts or the permittee's misrepresentation of any relevant facts at any time;
3. The permittee's violation of a special or judicial order;
4. A determination by the board that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment and can be regulated to acceptable levels by VWP permit modification or termination;
5. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of any activity controlled by the VWP permit; and
B-15 6. A determination that the permitted activity has ceased and that the compensatory mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts has been successfully completed.
O. Civil and Criminal Liability
Nothing in this VWP permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
P. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this VWP permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under § 311 of the Clean Water Act or §§ 62.1-44.34:14 through 62.1-44.34:23 of the State Water Control Law.
Q. Unauthorized Discharge of Pollutants
Except in compliance with this VWP permit, it shall be unlawful for the permittee to:
1. Discharge into state waters sewage, industrial wastes, other wastes, or any noxious or deleterious substances;
2. Excavate in a wetland;
3. Otherwise alter the physical, chemical, or biological properties of state waters and make them detrimental to the public health, to animal or aquatic life, to the uses of such waters for domestic or industrial consumption, for recreation, or for other uses;
4. On or after October 1, 2001, conduct the following activities in a wetland:
a. New activities to cause draining that significantly alters or degrades existing wetland acreage or functions; b. Filling or dumping; c. Permanent flooding or impounding; d. New activities that cause significant alteration or degradation of existing wetland acreage or functions.
B-16 APPENDIX B
Commission Staff Recommended License Conditions
We recommend including the following license articles for any license issued for the project:
Article 2XX. Administrative Annual Charges. The licensee shall pay the United States annual charges, effective the first day of the month in which the license becomes effective, and as determined in accordance with provisions of the Commission’s regulations in effect from time to time, for the purposes of reimbursing the United States for the cost of administration of Part I of the Federal Power Act. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 75,000 kilowatts.
Article 2XX. Exhibit F Drawings. Within 45 days of the date of the effective date of the license, the licensee shall file the approved exhibit drawings in aperture card and electronic file formats.
(a) Three sets of the approved exhibit drawings shall be reproduced on silver or gelatin 35 mm microfilm. All microfilm shall be mounted on type D (3-1/4” X 7-3/8”) aperture cards. Prior to microfilming, the FERC Project-Drawing Number (i.e., P-739-#### through P-739-####) shall be shown in the margin below the title block of the approved drawing. After mounting, the FERC Drawing Number shall be typed on the upper right corner of each aperture card. Additionally, the Project Number, FERC Exhibit (i.e., F-1, G-1, etc.), Drawing Title, and date of this license shall be typed on the upper left corner of each aperture card.
Two of the sets of aperture cards shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, ATTN: OEP/DHAC. The third set shall be filed with the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, Atlanta Regional Office.
(b) The licensee shall file two separate sets of exhibit drawings in electronic raster format with the Secretary of the Commission, ATTN: OEP/DHAC. A third set shall be filed with the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, Atlanta Regional Office. Exhibit F drawings must be segregated from other project exhibits and identified as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) material under 18 CFR §388.113(c). Each drawing must be a separate electronic file, and the file name shall include: FERC Project-Drawing Number, FERC Exhibit, Drawing Title, date of this license, and file extension in the following format [P-739-####, G-1, Project Boundary, MM-DD-YYYY.TIF]. Electronic drawings shall meet the following format specification:
IMAGERY – black & white raster file FILE TYPE – Tagged Image File Format (TIFF), CCITT Group 4 RESOLUTION – 300 dpi desired, (200 dpi min) DRAWING SIZE FORMAT – 24” X 36” (min), 28” X 40” (max) FILE SIZE – less than 1 MB desired
Each Exhibit G drawing that includes the project boundary must contain a minimum of three known reference points (i.e., latitude and longitude coordinates, or state plane coordinates). The points must be arranged in a triangular format for GIS geo- referencing the project boundary drawing to the polygon data, and must be based on a standard map coordinate system. The spatial reference for the drawing (i.e., map projection, map datum, and units of measurement) must be identified on the drawing and each reference point must be labeled. In addition, each project boundary drawing must be stamped by a registered land surveyor.
(c) The licensee shall file two separate sets of the project boundary data in a geo- referenced electronic file format (such as ArcView shape files, GeoMedia files, MapInfo files, or a similar GIS format) with the Secretary of the Commission, ATTN: OEP/DHAC. The filing shall include both polygon data and all reference points shown on the individual project boundary drawings. A single electronic boundary polygon data file is required for the project boundary. Depending on the electronic file format, the polygon and point data can be included in a single file with multiple layers. The geo-referenced electronic boundary data file must be positionally accurate to ±40 feet in order to comply with National Map Accuracy Standards for maps at a 1:24,000 scale. The file name(s) shall include: FERC Project Number, data description, date of this license, and file extension in the following format [P-739 boundary polygon/or point data, MM-DD-YYYY.SHP]. The data must be accompanied by a separate text file describing the spatial reference for the geo-referenced data: map projection used (i.e., UTM, State Plane, Decimal Degrees, etc.), the map datum (i.e., North American 27, North American 83, etc.), and the units of measurement (i.e., feet, meters, miles, etc.). The text file name shall include: FERC Project Number, data description, date of this license, and file extension in the following format [P-739, project boundary metadata, MM-DD-YYYY.TXT].
Article 2XX. Amortization Reserve. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Power Act, a specified reasonable rate of return upon the net investment in the project shall be used for determining surplus earnings of the project for the establishment and maintenance of amortization reserves. The licensee shall set aside a project amortization reserve account at the end of each fiscal year one half of the project surplus earnings, if any, in excess of the specified rate of return per annum on the net investment. To the
B-2 extend that there is a deficiency of project earnings below the specified rate of return per annum for any fiscal year, the licensee shall deduct the amount of that deficiency from the amount of any surplus earnings subsequently accumulated, until absorbed. The licensee shall set aside one-half of the remaining surplus earnings, if any, cumulatively computed, in the project amortization reserve account. The licensee shall maintain the amounts established in the project amortization reserve account until further order of the Commission.
The specified reasonable rate of return used in computing amortization reserves shall be calculated annually based on current capital ratios developed from an average of 13 monthly balances of amounts properly included in the licensee’s long-term debt and proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission’s Uniform System of Accounts. The cost rate for such ratios shall be the weighted average cost of long-term debt and preferred stock for the year, and the cost of common equity shall be the interest rate on 10-year government bonds (reported as the Treasury Department’s 10-year constant maturity series) computed on the monthly average for the year in question plus four percentage points (400 basis points).
Article 2XX. Headwater Benefits. If the licensee’s project was directly benefited by the construction work of another licensee, a permittee, or the United States on a storage reservoir or other headwater improvement during the term of the original license (including extensions of that term by annual licenses), and if those headwater benefits were not previously assessed and reimbursed to the owner of the headwater improvement, the licensee shall reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for those benefits, at such time as they are assessed, in the same manner as for benefits received during the term of this new license. The benefits will be assessed in accordance with Part 11, Subpart B, of the Commission’s regulations.
Article 3XX. As-Built Drawings. Within 3 months of completion of any recreation facility and/or other facility constructed pursuant to this license, the licensee shall file for Commission approval, revised exhibits A, F, and G, as applicable, to describe and show those project facilities, as built. A courtesy copy shall be filed with the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI) – Atlanta Regional Engineer, the Director, D2SI, and the Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance.
Article 4XX. Erosion Monitoring. Within 6 months of the effective date of this license, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a final Erosion Monitoring Plan that addresses erosion monitoring, as appropriate, at the Claytor Project. The plan shall include the provisions of the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan, filed June 29, 2009, with, at a minimum, the following revisions:
B-3 (a) add the Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District as a consulted party on the Erosion Technical Review Committee; and (b) include quantitative method(s) (i.e., bank pins) for monitoring erosion in the New River downstream from Claytor dam.
The final Erosion Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District, the Friends of the New River, and the Friends of Claytor Lake. The licensee shall include with the Erosion Monitoring Plan documentation of consultation, copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has prepared and provided to the aforementioned consulted entities, and specific descriptions of how their comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensees’ reasons, based on project-specific information.
The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the final Erosion Monitoring Plan. Implementation of the Erosion Monitoring Plan, including any land- disturbing activities therein, shall not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement any such modification(s), including any changes required by the Commission.
Article 4XX. Sedimentation Monitoring. Within 6 months of the effective date of this license, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a final Sedimentation Monitoring Plan that addresses sedimentation monitoring and remediation measures, as appropriate, at the Claytor Project. The plan shall include the provisions of the proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, filed June 29, 2009, with, at a minimum, the following revisions:
(a) add the Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District as a consulted party on the Sedimentation Technical Review Committee; (b) include monitoring areas of sediment deposition in the New River downstream from Claytor dam; and (c) define criteria for determining the need to dredge and provide a description of the types of actions that would be implemented to manage sediment (e.g., if it is restricting recreational access) and what conditions would trigger such actions.
The revised Sedimentation Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the County of Pulaski, the Skyline Soil and Water
B-4 Conservation District, and Friends of Claytor Lake. The licensee shall include with the sedimentation monitoring plan documentation of consultation, copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has prepared and provided to the aforementioned consulted entities, and specific descriptions of how their comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensees’ reasons, based on project- specific information.
The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the revised sedimentation monitoring plan. Implementation of the sedimentation monitoring plan, including any land-disturbing activities therein, shall not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement any such modification(s), including any changes required by the Commission.
Article 4XX. Water Management. Within 6 months of the effective date of this license, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a final Water Management Plan to address water management activities at the Claytor Project. The plan shall include the provisions of the proposed Water Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, with, at a minimum, the following revisions:
(a) provisions for a minimum of two annual whitewater flow releases, in addition to the May squirt boat competition, to be scheduled during each annual review; (b) provisions for providing, via a publically-accessible website: the dates and timing of planned whitewater flow releases; a clear description of the project’s flow regime, as required by this license and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s section 401 Water Quality Certification; and tools to assist the public in predicting flow travel time from Claytor dam to reaches between the project and Glen Lyn.
The revised Water Management Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Friends of Claytor Lake, Friends of the New River, New River Valley Planning District Committee, and representatives of Pulaski and Montgomery County governments. The licensee shall include with the Water Management Plan an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed plan after it has prepared and provided to the entities listed above, and specific descriptions of how their recommendations are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensees’ reasons, based on project-specific reasons.
B-5 The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the revised Water Management Plan. Implementation of the plan shall not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement any such modification(s), including any changes required by the Commission.
Article 4XX. Reservoir Drawdown. At least 3 months prior to implementing a reservoir drawdown, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a reservoir drawdown plan. The purpose of the drawdown plan is to minimize the impact of any project maintenance activity requiring a reservoir drawdown on aquatic resources in the project impoundment and downstream of the project and to allow shoreline property owners sufficient time to plan shoreline maintenance activities.
The licensee shall prepare the plan after consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Pulaski County, New River Valley Planning District Committee, and the Friends of Claytor Lake.
The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation, copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons based on project-specific information.
The licensee shall notify the public of the reservoir drawdown and shall notify property owners along the shoreline by mail of the drawdown 45 days prior to implementing the drawdown to allow property owners sufficient time to plan shoreline maintenance activities. The notification shall include rate (feet per day), limit in feet, and term of the drawdown.
The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes required by the Commission.
Article 4XX. Water Quality Monitoring. Upon the effective date of this license, the licensee shall implement the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, filed June 29, 2009, and shall include the following modifications:
(a) a provision to include an evaluation of the effects of any proposed mitigation measure for low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the tailrace on
B-6 reservoir fisheries and water quality in section 3.0 (Mitigation Measures for Low Dissolved Oxygen on the Tailrace); (b) a provision to provide a period of one year to evaluate a new mitigation measure for low DO in the tailrace (effectiveness demonstration study) should any implemented measure fail to raise DO levels to state water quality standards described in section 4.1 of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan; (c) a provision to continuously monitor DO of inflow to the project at the Allisonia USGS gage station (No. 03168000) from April 1 to November 1. Monitoring records for DO shall be maintained by Appalachian Power and summarized in an annual report filed with the Commission; and (d) a provision to develop alternative mitigation measures to address low DO in the discharge should an applied mitigation measure fail to resolve low tailrace DO, within 120 days of the conclusion of an effectiveness demonstration study, as referenced in (a) above.
The Water Quality Monitoring Plan is approved and made part of this license and may not be amended without prior Commission approval.
Article 4XX. Mussel Monitoring. Upon the effective date of this license, the licensee shall implement the Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, and shall include the following modifications:
(a) a provision to include hourly temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements at the long-term mussel monitoring sites for a period of 1 year; (b) a description of the equipment for monitoring water quality at the long-term mussel monitoring sites, how the equipment will be calibrated and how the data will be stored; and (c) the annual reports shall include at a minimum, the raw data, an analysis summarizing the data, and recommendations for changes to the plan, project operations or additional mitigation measures if necessary.
The Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan is approved and made part of this license and may not be amended without prior Commission approval.
B-7 Article 4XX. Aquatic Vegetation Management. Upon the effective date of this license, the licensee shall implement the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, with the following modification: section 8.1, Issuance of Permit by Appalachian Power to Control Aquatic Vegetation, shall be revised to include a provision that when applying for a treatment permit, each permittee must notify adjacent landowners that treatment is going to occur and when.
The Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan is approved and made part of this license and may not be amended without prior Commission approval.
Article 4XX. Habitat Management. Upon the effective date of this license, the licensee shall implement the Habitat Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009.
The Habitat Management Plan is approved and made part of this license and may not be amended without prior Commission approval.
Article 4XX. Fringed Mountain Snail Management. Upon the effective date of this license, the licensee shall implement the Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009.
The Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan is approved and made part of this license and may not be amended without prior Commission approval.
Article 4XX. Recreation Management. Within 6 months of the effective date of this license, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a final Recreation Management Plan that addresses recreation enhancement and management activities. The plan shall include the provisions of the proposed Recreation Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, with, at a minimum, the following revisions:
(a) an updated schedule for providing a boat ramp, fishing pier, and trailer parking area at Appalachian Power’s picnic area, which would serve as the upstream portion of any new portage facility; (b) a proposed plan, including a schedule and documentation of consultation, regarding the establishment of a new portage put-in downstream from the dam, a portage trail leading from Appalachian Power’s picnic area to this put-in, and the adequacy of the access road to access these sites; (c) a provision to improve bank fishing access at the New River Access site below Claytor dam; (d) a maintenance schedule for all recreation sites (including those managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries).
The Recreation Management Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Department of
B-8 Conservation and Recreation, Pulaski County, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, Friends of Claytor Lake, Friends of the New River, New River Valley Planning District Committee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Recreation Technical Review Committee. The licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation, copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the aforementioned consulted entities, and specific descriptions of how their comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensees’ reasons, based on project-specific information.
The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the Recreation Management Plan. Implementation of the plan shall not begin until the plan is approved by the Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the provisions of the plan, including any changes required by the Commission.
Article 4XX. Debris Management. Upon the effective date of this license, the licensee shall implement the Debris Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009.
The Debris Management Plan is approved and made part of this license and may not be amended without prior Commission approval.
Article 4XX. Aids to Navigation. Within 1 year of the effective date of this license, the licensee shall complete consultation and submit its final Aids to Navigation Management Plan for Commission approval. The plan shall include the provisions of the Aids to Navigation Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, with, at a minimum, the following modifications:
(a) a detailed implementation schedule; (b) a description of any height restrictions for sailboats, as well as provisions for marking any height-related hazards on Claytor Lake, subject to Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and U.S. Coast Guard approval, as appropriate; and (c) a stipulation in section 9 that any updates to the Aids to Navigation Management Plan shall be reported to the Commission within 30 days of the technical committee consultations.
The Aids to Navigation Management Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Pulaski County, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, and Friends of Claytor Lake. The licensee shall include with the navigation plan documentation of consultation, copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has prepared and provided to the aforementioned consulted
B-9 entities, and specific descriptions of how their comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensees’ reasons, based on project-specific information.
The Commission reserves the right to require changes to any future proposed modification(s) to the plan. Implementation of the plan shall not begin until the plan is approved by the Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement any such modification(s), including any changes required by the Commission.
Article 4XX. Shoreline Management. Within 6 months of the effective date of this license, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a final Shoreline Management Plan that addresses shoreline enhancement and management activities. The plan shall include the provisions of the proposed Shoreline Management Plan, filed June 29, 2009, the revisions included in Appalachian Power Company’s letter filed October 5, 2009, and, at a minimum, the following modifications:
(a) an expanded discussion of the variance procedures that includes, at a minimum, a description of, and explanation for, the criteria and justification to be used to determine suitability of any non-conforming shoreline structures, such as docks or shoreline stabilization methods. This additional detail should provide guidance on when it is appropriate to apply for a variance and what exceptions might be considered; and (b) revised language to section 2.5.4, Low Density Use Regulations that removes references to filing the agreement or waiver with the Clerk of the Pulaski County Circuit Court, as filed with the Commission on September 10, 2010.
The licensee shall file revised shoreline maps when the classifications are modified, or to correct any shoreline classification errors, as they are determined. The Commission reserves the right to revisit and modify the Shoreline Management Plan at any time if evidence warrants a change. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the provisions of the plan, including any changes required by the Commission.
Article 4XX. Historic Properties Management Plan. Within 3 months of the effective date of this license, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, a final Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) that addresses cultural resources, as appropriate, at the Claytor Project. The HPMP shall include the provisions contained in the July 2010 HPMP, with, at a minimum, the following revisions:
(a) consulting with the Commission, SHPO, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians on how to resolve the adverse effects to the historic components of an eligible archaeological site that is currently
B-10 experiencing erosion (could include forms of shoreline protection, additional background research, or archaeological data recovery); (b) implementing procedures for staff training, protection of any unidentified historic properties or discovered human remains, annual reporting, plan amendments, and dispute resolution; (c) in section 1.2 of the HPMP, Purpose, Pulaski County and the local historical society should be included in the fifth bullet; (d) section 4.3 of the HPMP, Project Effects and Mitigation/Management Measures, Future Effects, should be revised to specify the materials the SHPO will need for review; (e) several typographical and editorial comments that address multiple sections of the HPMP; (f) in Appendix D, List of Activities that Do Not Require Prior Consultation with the SHPO, under Powerhouse, “or upgrade” should be removed from the bullet dealing with in-kind repair of historic windows and doors; (g) update section 2.4.2 of the HPMP, Recommendations for Future Work, to include a statement regarding the need for future consultations on contributing and non-contributing elements of the Claytor powerhouse; (h) include the following language in section 5.4, Protection of Discovered Human Remains:
o All reasonable efforts will be made to avoid disturbing gravesites, including those containing Native American human remains and associated artifacts. To the extent possible, Appalachian Power shall ensure that the general public is excluded from viewing any gravesites and associated artifacts. All consulting parties agree to release no photographs of any gravesites and/or funerary objects to the press or to the general public. o If human remains encountered appear to be Native American origin, whether prehistoric or historic, Appalachian Power shall immediately notify the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Virginia Council of Indians. o If it is agreed that avoidance of the human remains is not prudent and feasible, Appalachian Power shall apply for a permit from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for archaeological removal of human remains. In considering issuance of a permit involving removal of Native American human remains, the Virginia DHR shall consult with other parties, including Appalachian Power, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians; and
B-11 (i) in sections 5.6 and 5.7 of the HPMP, references to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation should be removed.
The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the final HPMP. The HPMP is approved and made part of this license and may not be amended without prior Commission approval.
Article 4XX. Programmatic Agreement. The licensee shall implement the Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that may be Affected by Issuing a License to Claytor Hydroelectric Company for the Construction and Operation of the Claytor Project in Pulaski County, Virginia (FERC No. 739), executed on [pending], including but not limited to the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project. In the event that the Programmatic Agreement is terminated, the licensee shall continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP. The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the term of the license. If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated, the licensee shall obtain approvals from or make notifications to the Commission and the Virginia State Historic Preservation Offices where the HPMP calls upon the licensee to do so.
Article 4XX. Use and Occupancy. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this article, the licensee shall have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the licensee shall also have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies, for which it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under this article.
If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other condition imposed by the licensee for protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made under the authority of this article is violated, the licensee shall take any lawful action necessary to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, such action includes, as necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities.
(b) The types of use and occupancy of project lands and water for which the licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape
B-12 plantings; (2) piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and facilities, as determined under the Commission-approved Shoreline Management Plan; (3) embankments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement.
To the extent feasible and desirable to protect and enhance the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the licensee shall require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands or waters. The licensee shall also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission's authorized representative, the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety requirements.
Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining walls, the licensee shall: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction; (2) consider whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control erosion at the site; and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would not change the basic contour of the reservoir shoreline.
To implement this paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee's costs of administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or procedures.
(c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of, project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges or roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV or less); and (8) water intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day from a project reservoir.
No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee shall file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location of the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was conveyed.
B-13 (d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary, for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or public marinas, as determined under the Commission-approved Shoreline Management Plan; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved report on recreational resources of an exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year.
At least 60 days before conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must submit a letter to the Director, Office of Energy Projects, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked exhibit G map may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. Unless the Director, within 45 days from the filing date, requires the licensee to file an application for prior approval, the licensee may convey the intended interest at the end of that period.
(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under paragraph (c) or (d) of this article: (1) before conveying the interest, the licensee shall consult with federal and state fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic Preservation Officer; (2) before conveying the interest, the licensee shall determine that the proposed use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved report on recreational resources of an exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved report on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value; (3) the instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; (ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the construction, operation, and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project; and (iii) the grantee shall not unduly restrict public access to project waters; and (4) the Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values.
B-14 (f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised exhibit G drawings (project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude lands conveyed under this article from the project shall be consolidated for consideration when revised exhibit G drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes.
(g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article shall not apply to any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the project boundary.
B-15 APPENDIX C
The tables below provide staff’s analysis of the effect of different flow releases on downstream recreation, which was used to support table 34 in section 3.3.6.
Shore- and wading-based fishing, April 1 st through November 30 th : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - Because available storage is are less than optimal but still would be less than optimal approximately 190 million acceptable, with natural but still acceptable, with cubic feet, up to 3,300 cfs inflow generally acceptable or natural inflow generally could be released during two optimal acceptable or optimal weekend, 8-hour recreation - Average daily minimum - Requiring average hourly periods before requiring refill; flows, as required by the 1979 minimum flow would but flows above 3,000 cfs Certification, could result in minimize fluctuations during would preclude shore- and detrimental flow fluctuations the day, benefiting anglers wading-based fishing throughout the day, but (less stranding and higher - Fluctuations (750 to 3,300+ voluntary operation with quality fishing); cfs) could be detrimental to average hourly minimum - Extension of non-peaking fishing quality and could flows generally avoids this mode (60 days) would strand downstream anglers, effect provide additional days with but ramping could dampen - Peaking releases over 3,000 acceptable and optimal flows some of these effects cfs during April 1-15 and - 1,000-cfs minimum releases ↓↓ net, moderate to November would be on weekends (Aug-Oct) significant negative effect unacceptable for shore- and would likely increase the wading-based angling number of optimal opportunities; - Whitewater releases above 2,000-3,000 cfs could preclude shore and wading- based angling, but would be infrequent ↑↑ net, moderate benefit
Winter operation is not analyzed because use is low for this activity Float-based fishing, April 1 st -November 30 th : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - Because available storage is are less than optimal but still would be less than optimal 190 million cubic feet, up to acceptable, with natural but still acceptable, with 3,300 cfs could be released inflow generally acceptable or natural inflow generally during two weekend, 8-hour optimal; acceptable or optimal recreation periods before - Average daily minimum - Requiring average hourly requiring refill which would flows, as required by the 1979 minimum flow minimizes increase the number of days Certification, could result in fluctuations during the day, in the optimal range for float- detrimental flow fluctuations benefiting anglers (less based fishing throughout the day, but stranding and higher quality - Fluctuations (750-3,300+ cfs) voluntary operation with fishing); could be detrimental to average hourly minimum - Extension of non-peaking fishing quality and could flows generally avoids this mode (60 days) increases the strand downstream boaters, effect; number of acceptable days but ramping could dampen - Peaking releases up to 8,000 but provides fewer some of these effects cfs during April 1-15 and opportunities for flows in the ↑↑↑ net, moderate benefit November could provide higher optimal range; flows within optimal and - 1,000-cfs minimum releases acceptable range, but it is on weekends in Aug-Oct difficult to predict timing, would slightly increase the duration, and arrival time of amount of acceptable days flows (more segments boatable) during dry months, when flows are above 800, but are still below optimal range - Flow information would help anglers to understand where and when segments are floatable, particularly during dry months ↑↑ net, moderate benefit
D-2 Float-based fishing, December 1 st -March 31 st : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WCQ - 750-cfs minimum flow is - An increase to 1,000-cfs - An increase to 1,200-cfs marginally acceptable during average hourly minimum flow (Dec-Jan) and 1,500-cfs (Feb- a time when natural inflow is would increase the number of March) minimum flows acceptable, and often optimal, acceptable opportunities would increase opportunities, while peaking releases above (more segments boatable) providing optimal flows 6,000-8,000 cfs could during non-peaking periods during non-peaking periods preclude float angling but would still be below - The increased flows would be - Reduced fishing success when optimal during a time when particularly beneficial during flows drop or with large natural inflow is often optimal the beginning of the fishing increase in flows (from 750 - An increase to 1,200-cfs in season in March cfs to 6,000-8,000 cfs) due to February and March would - Higher minimum flows (as debris and turbidity; increase the number of compared to proposed) would - Some safety issues if peaking acceptable opportunities reduce the amplitude of fluctuations are large and fast; closer to, but still not at the peaking fluctuations, which - Average daily minimum optimal level. could dampen some of the flows, as required by the 1979 - Peaking up to 6,000 cfs could negative effects associated Certification, would increase result in short periods of with these changes (decreased fluctuations, but voluntary optimal flows during fishing quality and potential operation with average hourly weekdays, but users would for stranding) minimum flows provides a require advanced and in-depth ↑↑↑ net, significant benefit small amount of smoothing knowledge of the arrival time out and duration of minimum versus peaking releases; - Peaking releases above 6,000- 8,000 cfs could preclude float angling - Higher minimum flows (as compared to existing) and ramping would reduce some of the negative effects on fishing that could occur around peaking periods - Flow information would help anglers to understand where and when segments are floatable, particularly given the complexities of peaking ↑↑net, moderate benefit
D-3 Powerboat-based fishing and hunting, April 1 st -November 30 th : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - Because available storage is are too low for extensive would be too low for 190 million cubic feet, up to powerboat navigation, with extensive powerboat 3,300 cfs could be released natural inflow is generally navigation, with natural during two weekend, 8-hour acceptable to optimal; inflow generally acceptable to recreation periods before - Average daily minimum optimal; requiring refill, increase the flows, as required by the 1979 - Requiring average hourly number of days in the optimal Certification, would increase minimum flow minimizes range for powerboats during chance of fluctuations, but fluctuations during the day, key weekends voluntary operation with benefiting boaters (less - Fluctuations (750-3,300+ cfs) average hourly minimum stranding and higher quality could be detrimental to flows generally avoids this fishing); fishing quality and could effect - Extension (60 days) of non- strand boaters, but ramping - Peaking releases up to 8,000 peaking mode provides a could dampen some of these cfs during April 1-15 and more stable environment for effects November could provide powerboaters, but fewer ↑↑ net, moderate benefit flows within optimal and opportunities in the high acceptable range, but it is optimal range difficult to predict timing, - 1,000-cfs minimum releases duration, and arrival time of on weekends in Aug-Oct flows would slightly increase the - Swift fluctuations can strand number of acceptable days powerboaters or displace (more segments boatable) but decoys are marginally acceptable - Flow information would help powerboaters to understand where and when segments are boatable, particularly during dry months ↑ net: minor to moderate benefits
Powerboat-based fishing and hunting, December 1 st -March 31 st : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - Minimum flow (750-cfs) too - An increase to 1,000-cfs - An increase to 1,200-cfs low for extensive powerboat minimum flow would be (Dec-Jan) and 1,500-cfs (Feb- navigation, and provided marginally acceptable, thus March) minimum flows more often than would slightly increases quality would provide additional days naturally occur (more segments boatable) in the acceptable range for - Peaking releases above 6,000- during non-peaking periods, powerboats during non- 8,000 cfs could preclude however, it is below optimal peaking periods but would
D-4 powerboat use, thus only range during a time when still be below optimal range ramping periods may provide natural inflow is often optimal - The increased flows would be acceptable or optimal flow - An increase to 1,200-cfs particularly beneficial during (difficult to predict volume minimum flow in February the beginning of the fishing and timing) and March would be season in March and would - Swift fluctuations can strand acceptable, but still below the benefit powerboat-based powerboaters or displace optimal range. hunting decoys - Higher minimum flow (as - Higher minimum flow (as - Reduced fishing success when compared to existing) and compared to proposed) would flows drop or with large ramping would reduce some reduce the amplitude of increase in flows (from 750 of the negative effects on peaking fluctuations, which cfs to 6,000-8,000 cfs) due to fishing and powerboat could dampen some of the debris and turbidity stranding that could occur negative effects associated around peaking periods with these changes (decreased - Flow information would help fishing quality and potential scenic floaters to understand for stranding) where and when segments are ↑↑ net, moderate benefit boatable, particularly with regards to the complexities of peaking operation ↑ net, minor benefit
Tubing, May 1 st -September 30 th (peak season for tubing): Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - Because available storage is are less than optimal but still would be acceptable, with 190 million cubic feet, up to acceptable for all tubing natural inflow generally 3,300 cfs could be released reaches, with natural inflow acceptable or optimal during two weekend, 8-hour generally acceptable or - Requiring average hourly recreation periods before optimal minimum flow minimizes requiring refill, which would - Average daily minimum fluctuations during the day, exclude tubing downstream, flows, as required by the 1979 benefiting tubers having a significant negative Certification, could result in - Extension of non-peaking impact during weekends from detrimental flow fluctuations season would not impact August through September throughout the day, but tubing, a warm-weather - Fluctuations (from 750 to voluntary operation with activity 3,300+ cfs) could be average hourly minimum - 1,000-cfs minimum releases detrimental to tubers, but flows generally avoids this on weekends (Aug-Oct) ramping could dampen some effect; would increase the number of of these effects - Peaking releases over 2,600 acceptable and optimal days ↑↑↑ or ↓↓↓ net, could be cfs during April 1-15 and during these dry months, significant negative effect or November exclude tubing, but when flows are above 800 significant benefit, depending
D-5 tubing is rare during these - Whitewater releases above on the volume and timing of times 4,500 cfs could shut down weekend flow releases tubing at New River Junction (McCoy), but would be infrequent and likely to occur outside of the peak tubing season - Flow information would help concessioners to understand where and when segments are tubeable, particularly during dry months ↑↑ net, moderate benefit
Scenic floating, April 1 st -November 30 th : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - Because available storage is are too low for most reaches would be too low for most 190 million cubic feet, up to (but acceptable for McCoy to reaches (except for McCoy to 3,300 cfs could be released Glen Lyn), with natural Glen Lyn), with natural during two weekend, 8-hour inflow generally acceptable or inflow generally acceptable or recreation periods before optimal optimal during this time requiring refill, which would - Rising flows (during - Extension of non-peaking increase the number of fluctuations) may enhance season (60 days) decreases optimal days at popular trips, dropping flows probably the number of days that reaches decrease quality, but boaters may take advantage of ↑↑ net, moderate to voluntary operation with acceptable or optimal peaking significant benefit average hourly minimum releases flows generally avoids both - 1,000-cfs minimum releases effects on weekends in Aug-Oct - Peaking releases above 2,500 would increase the number of cfs during April 1-15 and acceptable days for all November could provide reaches except McCoy to flows within optimal range, Glen Lyn but it is difficult to predict - Flow information would help amplitude, timing, duration, scenic floaters to understand and arrival time of flows where and when segments are floatable ↑↑ net moderate benefit
D-6 Scenic floating, December 1 st -March 31 st : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - When releasing 750 cfs, - An increase to 1,000-cfs - An increase to 1,200-cfs during non-peaking periods, minimum flow would produce (Dec-Jan) and 1,500-cfs (Feb- flows are too low for most marginally acceptable flows, March) minimum flows reaches (but acceptable for but well below optimal and would create opportunities McCoy to Glen Lyn) would still preclude the higher into the acceptable - Rising flows (during peaking Whitethorne to McCoy reach range but still below optimal fluctuations) may enhance - An increase to 1,200-cfs in and precludes the trips, dropping flows probably February and March would Whitethorne to McCoy reach decrease quality, and both are produce flows close to the - Higher minimum flows would difficult to predict acceptable range, but still far reduce the amplitude of below the optimal range. peaking fluctuations, which - Peaking operation may could benefit scenic floaters provide opportunities for during day-long trips optimal floating ↑↑ net, moderate benefit - Flow information would help scenic floaters to understand where and when segments are floatable, particularly with regards to the complexities of peaking operation ↑ net, minor to moderate benefit
Whitewater boating, April 1 st -November 31 st : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - When releasing 750 cfs, flows - Because available storage is are too low for any activity would be too low for any 190 million cubic feet, up to beyond mere “exercise” levels activity beyond mere 3,300 cfs could be released for all reaches, with natural “exercise” levels for all during two 8-hour recreation inflow generally too low to reaches, with natural inflow periods before requiring refill, support use at this time generally too low to support which would increase the - Peaking releases above 4,500 use at this time number of acceptable to cfs during April 1-15 and - Requiring average hourly optimal days at popular November could provide minimum flow minimizes whitewater segments flows within “standard” fluctuations during the day, ↑↑ net, moderate to whitewater acceptable range, benefiting floaters by significant benefit but it is difficult to predict eliminating drops, but with amplitude, timing, duration, loss of opportunities to ride and arrival time of flows rising flows - Extension of non-peaking season (60 days) could
D-7 eliminate opportunities in the optimal range (from peaking) - 1,000-cfs minimum releases on weekends in Aug-Oct would be too low for any activity beyond mere “exercise” levels for all reaches - Whitewater releases for special events would provide optimal flows during seasons when they are not otherwise available - Flow information would help whitewater boaters to plan for special releases and to understand how releases following a storm event may provide optimal opportunities downstream ↑ net, minor benefit, but significant benefit for whitewater events
Whitewater boating, December 1 st -March 31 st : Proposed operation and Current operation Agency recommendations WQC - When releasing 750 cfs, - An increase to 1,000-cfs - An increase to 1,200-cfs during non-peaking periods, minimum flow would (Dec-Jan) and 1,500-cfs (Feb- flows are too low for any increase acceptability for March) minimum flow would activity beyond mere kayaking exercises, but would not benefit whitewater “exercise” levels for all still be outside of true boaters, beyond those doing reaches, with natural inflow whitewater range during non- “exercise” occasionally supporting peaking periods, at a time - Higher minimum flow (as acceptable or optimal flows when natural inflow compared to proposed) would during this time occasionally supports reduce the amplitude of - Peaking releases, which are acceptable or optimal flows peaking fluctuations, which often 4,000-8,000 cfs, - An increase to 1,200-cfs could decrease opportunities provides optimal range for minimum flow in February in the higher optimal range various types of whitewater and March would offer a for some whitewater boating boating, but it is difficult to slight increase in acceptability activities predict amplitude, timing, for kayaking exercises, but is ↓ net, minor negative effect duration, and arrival time of still outside the of the true flows whitewater range. - Higher minimum flow would
D-8 likely reduce the amplitude of peaking releases, which could decrease opportunities for certain types of whitewater activities (such as “big water” at McCoy Falls) - Flow information would help scenic floaters to understand where and when segments are floatable, particularly with regards to the complexities of peaking operation ↑ net, minor benefit
D-9 APPENDIX D STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Commission staff issued its draft environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed relicensing of the Claytor Hydroelectric Project on August 12, 2010. Staff requested comments on the draft EA be filed within 30 days from the issuance date, or by September 13, 2010. The following entities and individuals filed comments on the draft EA.
Commenting Entity Date Filed
Bill Fintel August 18, 2010 Johnny Garrett August 25, 2010 Jan Woodward September 2, 2010 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries September 9, 2010 Sara and Tom Metcalfe September 9, 2010 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality September 9, 201040 September 10, 201041 September 13, 201042 Friends of the New River September 10, 2010 Appalachian Power Company September 10, 2010
Cheri Strenz September 13, 2010 40 Virginia DEQ’s filing includes the draft Virginia Water Protection Permit provided to Appalachian Power Company on June 8, 2010.
41 Virginia DEQ is responsible for coordinating Virginia’s review of federal environmental documents prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and responding to appropriate federal officials on behalf of the Commonwealth. Virginia DEQ’s filing includes comments from Virginia DEQ’s Office of Environmental Impact Review, Virginia DEQ’s Blue Ridge Regional Office, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Virginia DEQ’s Division of Air Program Coordination, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Division of Natural Heritage, Virginia DCR’s Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Virginia DCR’s Division of Planning and Recreational Resources and New River Valley Planning District Commission.
42 Virginia DEQ’s filing duplicates the September 10th filing.
D-1 September 14, 201043 October 25, 2010 Stacy Moran September 13, 2010 Friends of Claytor Lake September 13, 2010 September 20, 2010 October 29, 2010 November 23, 201044 Robert Strenz September 13, 2010 September 14, 201045 October 26, 2010 Wayne Carlson September 13, 2010 Ralph and Martha Harvey September 13, 2010 Jeff Arnold September 13, 2010 Laura Walters September 13, 2010 John Waugh September 13, 2010 Pulaski County Board of Supervisors September 14, 2010 Jim Gibson September 14, 2010 Merri Beth Gibson September 14, 2010 David Dobyns September 14, 2010 Lawrence Bandolin September 15, 2010 Virginia SHPO January 11, 2011
Below, we summarize the substance of the comments received, provide responses to those comments, and explain how the text of the draft EA was modified, as appropriate, to address the comments. Unless otherwise noted, changes addressing editorial comments were made to the final EA, but are not described below. Comments are grouped by topic for convenience.
GENERAL
Comment: Appalachian Power states that the Roanoke Dispatch Center referred to on page 11 of the draft EA has since been relocated to American Electric Power’s corporate headquarters building in Columbus, Ohio.
43 The September 14th filing duplicates the September 13th filing.
44 Two of the filings made by Friends of Claytor Lake contain a petition to continue scheduled maintenance drawdowns that include the names of more than 961 stakeholders.
45 The September 14th filing duplicates the September 13th filing.
D-2 Response: We have revised section 2.1.3 of the final EA, Existing Project Operation, to acknowledge that the Dispatch Center is now located in Columbus, Ohio.
Comment: The Virginia DEQ states that the Commonwealth of Virginia has no objection to the Commission granting Appalachian Power a new license for the continued operation of the Claytor Project. In addition, the Virginia DEQ concurs that the operation and maintenance of the project would not pose a significant, negative effect to the Commonwealth’s natural resources, provided all applicable state, federal, and local laws, regulations, and certifications are followed. The Virginia DEQ provides a consolidated set of comments from other state and local agencies, and asks that these comments be addressed in the final EA.
Response: We have addressed the Commonwealth’s comments and recommendations, herein, and have updated the EA, where necessary, to reflect responses to those comments and recommendations.
Comment: FOCL and Lawrence Bandolin state that the draft EA does not warrant a finding of No Significant Impact. They believe that the recommended alternative would significantly and negatively impact the quality of the human environment at Claytor Lake.
Response: While FOCL and Mr. Bandolin provide comments and recommendations based on information contained within the draft EA, neither provides specifics on what aspects of the document do not warrant a finding of No Significant Impact. As such, we continue to find, on the basis of our independent analysis, that issuance of a license for the Claytor Hydroelectric Project, with our recommended environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Comment: Lawrence Bandolin also states that the draft EA should be rewritten to take these public comments into consideration.
Response: This final EA takes into account all comments received on the draft EA and we have made modifications to the EA based on the comments, as necessary.
Comment: Laura Walters, FOCL, and the Pulaski County Board of Supervisors comment that the environmental measures recommended in the draft EA do not adequately protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the project. Furthermore, they believe that the draft EA does not provide sufficient alternatives to reflect a comprehensive plan for improving Claytor Lake for all beneficial uses. FOCL specifically believes that the Shoreline Management Plan, with staff
D-3 modifications, does not give equal consideration to the protection and enhancement of the Claytor Lake environment, will negatively affect the quality of the human environment, and does not reflect a sufficiently comprehensive plan for resource management.
Response: We disagree with the assessment of the draft EA made by Laura Walters, FOCL, and the Pulaski County Board of Supervisors. We developed the alternatives based on comments received during the scoping process and comments filed on Appalachian Power’s application for relicense. This EA is a review of the potential costs and effects associated with relicensing the Claytor Project and we have addressed both resource-specific and cumulative effects of a multitude of measures proposed by Appalachian Power, and recommended by resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, individuals, and staff. Based on our analysis, our recommended alternative gives equal consideration to developmental and environmental values and ensures that any license issued for the Claytor Project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing the waterway for beneficial public purposes.
Comment: Robert Strenz states that footnote 6 on page 21 of the draft EA gives rise to serious concern because it states that all information, unless otherwise noted, was obtained from Appalachian Power’s license application. He asks about whether the input from stakeholders was incorporated.
Response: As stated, this footnote is just a general statement that, unless otherwise noted, the project-specific information and study results used in the development of the affected environment and analysis portions of both the draft and final EA came from Appalachian Power’s license application. This footnote acts as a blanket citation so that we do not have to continually cite the license application throughout the EA, but it does not mean that we only used information from the license application in development of the EA. For a full list of the sources we referenced in developing the EA, please see section 7.0, Literature Cited. In addition, and as noted throughout both documents, we also reference and analyze the comments and recommendations received from all stakeholders.
Comment: Friends of the New River states that while section 2.2.1 of the draft EA states that Appalachian Power does not propose any new facilities, the proposed canoe portage around the dam could be considered a new facility. Furthermore, Friends of the New River requests that a timeline for the development of the canoe portage be provided.
Response: Section 2.2.2 of the EA, Proposed Project Facilities, refers to facilities necessary for project operation. The canoe portage is a new recreation facility and that recommendation is included in section 2.2.3, Proposed
D-4 Environmental Measures. Additionally, the staff recommendation discussed in section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, of both the draft and final EA includes a recommendation that Appalachian Power modify the Recreation Management Plan to include a schedule and procedure for consultation regarding the establishment of the new canoe portage.
DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
Comment: Robert Strenz asks how much power is lost by the drawdown at Claytor Lake. He requests the formula and exactly how Appalachian Power calculated the loss of money by producing less power. He states that in the past, Appalachian Power left Claytor Lake drawn down for extended periods and questions whether two weeks really makes that big of a difference. He requests that the loss of value to an owner’s real estate be given consideration.
Response: In exhibit D of the application (page 8), Appalachian Power estimates that elimination of the drawdown would result in an increase in generation of 792 MWh annually. The developmental analysis section of the EA explains the economic analysis of the project. In table 38 of section 4, Developmental Analysis, the value of the 792 MWh is estimated at $33,292.
Comment: Appalachian Power states that the “Cost of Money” parameter in table 36 (page 184 of the draft EA), should be renamed “Capitol Recovery Factor” and the value should be revised from 12.3 percent to 14 percent to reflect the information provided on page 5 of exhibit D of Appalachian Power’s Application for New License.
Appalachian Power also states that the value for “Discount Rate” in table 36 of the draft EA should be revised to reflect the information contained in the license application.
Response: We have updated the information in the final EA to acknowledge the correct “cost of money” and “discount rate” percentages.
Comment: Appalachian Power states that at the top of page 185 of the draft EA, the capacity value is too high. Appalachian Power states that the values provided in exhibit H-6 of the license application present a more accurate representation of alternative costs.
Response: Table 37 of the draft EA and table 38 of the final EA do not specify preferred value, as provided in exhibit H-6 of the application. Additionally, the values provided in exhibit H-6 are higher than the capacity value used in our
D-5 developmental analysis. As such, we do not see a need to revise the calculations in the final EA.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Erosion of Lake Shoreline
Comment: Jan Woodward and Cheri Strenz comment that shoreline stabilization needs additional study. Cheri Strenz recommends that shoreline stabilization decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, with meaningful input from homeowners. Additionally, Jan Woodward and Cheri Strenz recommend that Appalachian Power needs to take the lead in addressing stabilization of shoreline of its own property.
Response: Additional study relative to shoreline stabilization is an integral part of Appalachian Power’s Erosion Monitoring Plan, which includes on-going monitoring and development of an erosion control demonstration project along the shoreline. The demonstration project would be located along the shoreline owned by Appalachian Power. Potential benefits of erosion monitoring and the demonstration project are discussed in section 3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils – Environmental Effects.
Comment: The Virginia DCR made several comments and suggestions concerning the draft Erosion Monitoring Plan.
Response: In the final EA, we recommend that the Erosion Monitoring Plan be revised and filed with the Commission for approval. Additionally, we recommend in our draft license articles that the plan be prepared in consultation with the Virginia DGIF, the Virginia DEQ, the Virginia DCR, the Skyline SWCD, the Friends of the New River, and FOCL. It would be appropriate for Appalachian Power to address the Virginia DCR comments and suggestions on the draft Erosion Monitoring Plan during that consultation and Appalachian Power could be considered for incorporation into the final plan to be submitted to the Commission for approval.
Comment: FOCL comments that the proposed demonstration project would be too limited to control shoreline erosion. They also state that it is unclear as to how many demonstration projects would be conducted because the draft EA has varying references to singular and plural projects.
Response: We agree that the demonstration project would by itself not control erosion of the shoreline of Claytor Lake. However, the primary objective of the project would be to demonstrate the use of natural methods for stabilizing eroding
D-6 shoreline. The use of natural methods also would enhance the shoreline habitat. The proposed demonstration project would assist in addressing the effects of shoreline erosion on the lake by guiding managers and landowners in identifying and implementing long-lasting, effective responses to shoreline erosion, as well as in avoiding installations that fail prematurely.
The final EA is revised to clarify that Appalachian Power would implement one demonstration project.
Comment: FOCL comments that establishing no-wake zones to reduce boat wake-related erosion does not provide for a comprehensive plan to protect recreational and environmental resources. They suggest installation of adequate shoreline control measures along highly erodible shorelines and those subject to high boat traffic.
Response: The modeling conducted as part of the Erosion Study Report found that boat wake-induced erosion around Claytor Lake was the key factor in accelerating bank erosion. Measures that reduce erosion from boat wakes could include establishing no-wake zones. Landowners would also have the option of installing shoreline protection measures consistent with the Shoreline Management Plan.
Comment: FOCL states that the staff analysis completely dismisses the effects of ongoing shoreline erosion on the adjacent property and associated deposition of sediment in the lake.
Response: We acknowledge that under the proposed action, erosion would continue to occur on the shoreline of Claytor Lake and some loss of land would continue due to shoreline retreat. Waves also would continue to move eroded material and sediment away from shore, resulting in formation of a shelf, which is a wide, flat feature at the base of the eroding bank below the water surface. These offshore shelves would dissipate wave energy before reaching the shoreline resulting in a reduction of shoreline erosion. The proposed erosion monitoring would assist Appalachian Power, government agencies, the lake association, and affected landowners in managing erosion by identifying areas of high erosion where corrective actions may be needed. The proposed demonstration project would guide managers and landowners in identifying and implementing long- lasting, effective responses to shoreline erosion, as well as in avoiding installations that fail prematurely.
Comment: FOCL states the Appalachian Power should take a more active role in addressing erosion than is currently proposed in the Erosion Monitoring Plan. They request that Appalachian Power be required to either stabilize highly eroding
D-7 areas or fund landowners. The Pulaski County Board of Supervisors requests that erosion control measures be installed on all excess properties retained by Appalachian Power.
Response: Appalachian Power’s proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan would provide a means to address erosion within the project boundary that would include development of an erosion control demonstration project along the shoreline. The proposed demonstration project would guide managers and landowners in identifying and implementing long-lasting, effective responses to shoreline erosion, as well as in avoiding installations that fail prematurely. However, as stated in section 5.1.2, Measures Not Recommended by Staff, stabilization of the reservoir shoreline, including along non-project lands owned by Appalachian Power, is outside the scope of Appalachian Power’s responsibility because the majority of on-going erosion is due to wave action (from boat wakes or wind action), which are not effects from operating the project.
Simple funding for shoreline stabilization would be inconsistent with the Commission’s settlement policy [Settlements in Hydropower Licensing Proceedings under Part I of the Federal Power Act, 116 FERC § 61,270 at P 2-12 (2006)]. Therefore, staff would not recommend outright funding as a license requirement. However, Appalachian Power’s proposed management plans would obligate Appalachian Power to work with state and federal agencies, as well as local stakeholders, to implement the provisions of the plans.
Comment: FOCL states that Appalachian Power’s maintenance of water level at a consistently high elevation increases shoreline erosion. FOCL cites the Erosion Study Report that states: “At higher water levels the erosion will be focused near the bluff toe and lead to more immediate bank face retreat.” The group also states that water levels are typically maintained close to full pond, described as 1,845.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and above. FOCL suggests that Appalachian Power mitigate for increased erosion rates due to higher water levels and higher boat waves by maintaining water surface elevations no more than 1,845.5 feet NGVD during periods of increased watercraft activity.
Response: FOCL may be misinterpreting the meaning of “higher water levels.” The historic project operation maintained the water surface elevation in the range of 1,844 and 1,846 feet NGVD, which represents the normal or average range of water surface elevations. The existing shoreline and nearshore shelves were formed in response to this range of water surface elevations. Therefore, the “higher water levels” described in the Erosion Study Report are those water surface elevations that are greater than the average range. Maintaining water surface elevations within the average range would not subject the shoreline to above-average wave energy. Proposed project operations described in the Water
D-8 Management Plan would continue to maintain reservoir elevations between 1,844 and 1,846 feet NGVD.
Comment: FOCL requests that Appalachian Power modify the Erosion Monitoring Plan to specify the actions that they would take to stabilize eroding shorelines and under what conditions those actions would be taken.
Response: The Erosion Monitoring Plan does not include shoreline stabilization requirements. This plan is limited to erosion monitoring and a demonstration project for erosion control. The Shoreline Management Plan describes shoreline stabilization and erosion control techniques. Regardless of the plan, it would be premature to make decisions regarding protocols for shoreline erosion remediation until after conducting the additional monitoring and demonstration project included in the Erosion Monitoring Plan. Appalachian Power is expected to coordinate with other management plans and ensure that the Erosion / Sedimentation Technical Committee receives and considers public input.
Sediment Transport
Comment: Appalachian Power states that sedimentation in the New River downstream of Claytor dam was addressed in the Sedimentation Study Report. They state the report confirmed that proposed project operations would have a minor, and possibly insignificant, decrease in sediment transport capacity of the New River downstream of Claytor dam. Based on these findings, Appalachian Power requests that the Commission staff recommendation that the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan be modified to include provisions for monitoring areas of sediment deposition in the New River downstream from Claytor dam not be incorporated in the new license.
Response: We find no evidence in the Sedimentation Study Report to support Appalachian Power’s contention that the report addressed sediment transport capacity of the New River downstream of Claytor dam. In its comment, Appalachian Power states the potential effects that various flow regimes would have on sediment transport were assessed in the Sedimentation Study Report and referenced page 37 of the report. The referenced section of the Sedimentation Study Report occurs in a subsection entitled Hydraulic Analyses and references the third inset graphs in the channel hydraulic analysis figures (figures 51 – 64 for cross sections 1 – 15, respectively). The third inset graphs’ have flow rate (cubic feet per second) on the abscissa and shear stress (pounds per square foot) on the ordinate. The graphs include uncertainty bars as well as the upper and lower turbine capacity that bracket the potential project flow rates. Although these graphs show the magnitude of shear stress as it relates to flow rate, proposed project operation includes modifying both the magnitude and duration of the
D-9 project discharges. Furthermore, the sediment transport capacity (typically having units of tons per day) depends on both the shear stress and the particle size distribution of the bed material. Staff finds that the Sedimentation Study Report provides no analysis or discussion of the comparative effects of proposed project operation on the sediment transport capacity in the New River downstream from Claytor dam. No new information was provided with the comment letter. Therefore, to determine the effects of proposed project operation on sediment transport, staff continues to recommend that the Sedimentation Monitoring Plan be modified to include provisions for monitoring areas of sediment deposition in the New River downstream from Claytor dam.
Lake Sedimentation
Comment: FOCL and Pulaski County Board of Supervisors recommend that the new license require Appalachian Power to fund, or provide a portion of the local match to, the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project.
Response: Simple funding for the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project would be inconsistent with the Commission’s settlement policy [Settlements in Hydropower Licensing Proceedings under Part I of the Federal Power Act, 116 FERC § 61,270 at P 2-12 (2006)]. Therefore, staff would not recommend outright funding as a license requirement. However, Appalachian Power’s proposed management plans would obligate Appalachian Power to work with state and federal agencies, as well as local stakeholders, to implement the provisions of the plans.
Comment: FOCL requests that Appalachian Power modify the Sediment Management Plan to include all areas of the lake where sedimentation is impeding recreational access and navigation.
Response: There is no Sediment Management Plan proposed by Appalachian Power or recommended by staff for the Claytor Project. Rather, Appalachian Power proposes and staff recommends a Sedimentation Monitoring Plan that includes provisions to monitor those areas in Claytor Lake identified in the Sedimentation Study Report to be the most impacted by sedimentation. As discussed in section 3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils – Environmental Effects, if the results of the monitoring indicate that additional areas need to be monitored, there is flexibility in the plan to have those areas included in future monitoring.
D-10 WATER RESOURCES
Water Quality
Comment: Jan Woodward comments that Appalachian Power needs to fund the water quality monitoring program and the water quality monitoring program should include deep water testing.
Response: Appalachian Power’s Water Quality Monitoring Plan includes sampling of the reservoir from the surface to the bottom for temperature and dissolved oxygen along two transects. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan is a condition of the new license and Appalachian Power would be responsible for funding and executing the plan.
Comment: FOCL and Jan Woodward comment that Appalachian Power should be required to provide funding for the continued water quality monitoring within Claytor Lake, educational programs for water quality technicians, and literature for safety awareness. The funding would be used to cover contracting costs with laboratories and consultants to analyze water samples and produce an annual report. In consideration of funding, FOCL agrees to continue the water quality monitoring program and modify the program to meet requirements of the new license.
Response: The Commission cannot require applicants to make funding provisions to third parties. Appalachian Power may agree to pay a third party to perform mitigation and monitoring activities; however, the Commission has jurisdiction only over its licensee and thus cannot ensure that a mitigation measure would be carried out if only funding is required. The Commission would leave it to Appalachian Power to determine how to best fulfill the requirements of any license issued for the Claytor Project. For additional information regarding the Commission’s policy on simple funding, please see the Commission’s settlement policy: Settlements in Hydropower Licensing Proceedings under Part I of the Federal Power Act, 116 FERC § 61,270 at P 2-12 (2006).
Notwithstanding the settlement policy, however, we note that Appalachian Power’s proposed management plans, as modified by staff, would obligate Appalachian Power to work with state and federal agencies, as well as local stakeholders, to implement the provisions of the plans. Such an arrangement should address the stakeholders’ concerns. Furthermore, we note that Appalachian Power has agreed to provide funding assistance outside of the license for the water quality monitoring program managed by FOCL for the duration of the program.
D-11 Comment: Appalachian Power states that the one year time period for implementing new DO enhancement measures, should an intended mitigation measure fail to resolve low tailrace DO, is too short a time period to consult with stakeholders, obtain Commission approval, and construct approved measures. Appalachian Power further recommends that the Water Quality Monitoring plan be revised to require Appalachian Power to submit a schedule for implementing new DO enhancement measures to the Commission for approval within 90 days of the Commission’s decision that DO enhancement measures have not resolved low DO in the tailrace.
Response: We do not agree that a one-year time period for the implementation of a new DO enhancement measure is too short, should an intended mitigation measure fail to raise DO in the tailrace. The December 2008 final Water Quality Report provided a preliminary assessment of methods that could enhance DO in the tailrace. However, if Appalachian Power determines that additional time is necessary to evaluate and implement a new enhancement measure, a letter requesting an extension of time can be filed with the Commission for consideration.
Water Management
Comment: The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Virginia DGIF) states that on page 218 of the draft EA, the Water Management Plan described in table 40 in the draft incorrectly defined the recommended time period for maintaining reservoir elevations between 1,845 and 1,846 NGVD as April 15 to June 15. The recommended time period for maintaining reservoir elevations is from April 1 to June 30.
Response: We have revised table 41 of the final EA to reflect Virginia DGIF’s comment.
Comment: FONR comments that in section 2.4, a full range of alternatives was not evaluated under NEPA and the EA does not consider any alternative water management scenarios such as a run-of-river mode of operation or the higher wintertime flows proposed by the Virginia DGIF. In addition, FONR further states that the higher wintertime flows proposed by West Virginia DNR and Virginia DGIF would mitigate the effects of fish stranding and dewatering fish habitat from operating the project in a peaking mode.
Response: Although the range of alternatives in section 2.4 of the EA does not specify an evaluation of run-of-river operations, staff evaluated operating the project in a run-of-river mode for impacts to water quality and fish habitat. An analysis of the recommended flow releases, including run-of-river and the
D-12 wintertime flows proposed by West Virginia DNR and Virginia DGIF, can be found in section 3.3.3 of the EA, Aquatic Resources. Our conclusions can be found in section 5.2.1 of the EA, Recommended Alternative.
We disagree with the statement that higher wintertime flows would lessen the impact of stranding and dewatering of fish habitat. Increasing discharge flows only transfers the location of the impact to an area higher up the shoreline because increasing the discharge flow raises the water surface elevation downstream of the project. Our proposed ramping rates would reduce the possibility of stranding and dewatering of fish habitat by gradually reducing flow, which would gradually reduce water surface elevations downstream of the project, allowing fish to escape to deeper water.
Comment: FONR comments that Appalachian Power could contribute to watershed restoration efforts and projects conducted by The Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the New River Roundtable.
Response: Watershed restoration efforts and associated projects could be brought before the appropriate Technical Review Committee for review. In the EA, we recommended that Appalachian Power form technical review committees to address sedimentation, water management, and water quality. If there is an effort or project Appalachian Power should consider, the appropriate technical review committee could review these proposals. In terms of funding, as we noted earlier, the Commission only has jurisdiction over the project’s licensee. We cannot require other entities to participate in any license measures, nor is it our policy to require Appalachian Power to fund these other entities.
Comment: FONR comments that work done by Brian Richter and colleagues contradict statements in the draft EA that a more natural flow regime would not narrow the gap in habitat between generation flow and base flow.
Response: The studies completed by Appalachian Power for the Claytor Project relicensing agree with the analysis in the EA that a more natural flow regime would not greatly enhance habitat and the costs associated with the loss of generation do not exceed the benefits gained. Furthermore, the work referenced by FONR has not been filed with the Commission and staff is not aware of any evidence in the public record for the Claytor Project that would support FONR’s conclusion.
Comment: FONR comments that the loss of power generation from providing the enhanced flows recommended by Virginia DGIF are insignificant compared to annual generation estimate for the project. FONR further states that the cost of
D-13 providing the additional flow would be offset by the discontinuation of the annual drawdown.
Response: We evaluated the benefit and cost of providing the additional flow in section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, of the EA. Based on the mixed results for fish habitat, we do not think that the additional flow is worth the annual cost of $28,290. The additional flow provided by the minimum flow schedule proposed by Appalachian Power would maintain and enhance habitat for most of the fish species in the New River downstream of Claytor dam, as well as support other water uses.
Comment: Appalachian Power comments that revising the Water Management Plan to include a schedule of planned reservoir drawdowns is impractical because drawdowns for maintenance are not done on a routine basis and the need for a future drawdown is unknown. Appalachian Power further states that a license article requiring Appalachian Power to file a reservoir drawdown plan prior to initiating a drawdown would allow for consultation with stakeholders and would provide a means to notify property owners with substantive details regarding the rate, limit, and term of the drawdown to allow property owners along the shoreline sufficient time to schedule and conduct maintenance activities.
Response: After considering the rationale put forth by Appalachian Power regarding a reservoir drawdown plan, we concur that filing a plan prior to initiating a drawdown would allow appropriate stakeholder consultation and notification. As such, we have revised the final EA and draft license articles, accordingly, to include this recommendation.
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Fisheries Resources
Comment: Appalachian Power states that the Claytor Hydroelectric Project Fish Entrainment and Impingement Assessment addresses the potential of the deicing system to create a refugia for striped bass and that the deicing system would not likely create sizeable refugia within the lake for striped bass or other fish species due to the close proximity of the deicing system to the dam face.
Response: Appalachian Power did not provide sufficient supporting documentation to support its claim that the deicing system would not create sizeable refugia due to the proximity of the deicing system to the dam face. In the EA, staff recommended using CE-QUAL-W2 to evaluate the effect of using deicers to aerate the hypolimnion because CE-QUAL-W2 has a module that allows users to evaluate hypolimnetic aeration and associated mixing. Running
D-14 the model with this module, which has already been calibrated with several years of water quality data, would provide useful information on the impact of aerating the hypolimnion on lake water quality with limited effort and cost. Furthermore, this module allows Appalachian Power to evaluate ancillary impacts to water quality, such as enhanced mixing from the use of deicers.
Mussels
Comment: Jeff Arnold comments that Appalachian Power should consider a periodic drawdown of the Claytor Lake to allow residents to maintain their shoreline, install erosion control devices, and remove debris because endangered species of mussels were found in an environment where the drawdown was occurring on an annual basis. Furthermore, Jeff Arnold states that discontinuation of the drawdown would result in increased erosion, debris, and deterioration of waterfront structures.
Response: The pistolgrip mussel that was found in Claytor Lake is a species of freshwater mussel that prefers large rivers as its habitat. A brief description of this organism’s life-cycle may help to clarify how this species could be found in Claytor Lake. Freshwater mussels have complex life-cycles that require fish hosts to complete their reproductive cycle. Immature mussels attach themselves to the gills of their fish-hosts until the immature mussel reaches a certain stage of development, at which time the mussels then drop off their fish-host. This strategy allows the mussels to colonize new areas with suitable habitat. The fish- host for the pistolgrip mussels is the flathead catfish. Flathead catfish are found in both Claytor Lake and the New River. It is likely that immature pistolgrip mussels were transported on the gills of flathead catfish. Although this is a riverine species of mussel, there appears to be suitable habitat based on the numbers of purple wartyback mussels (a similar species of riverine mussels).
Discontinuing the regular drawdown also is not likely to increase erosion or debris. Appalachian Power developed management plans to address both debris and shoreline erosion. The Erosion Monitoring Plan and the Shoreline Management Plan would ensure that erosion is monitored and controlled within Claytor Lake. The Debris Management Plan ensures the removal of debris from public access areas of Claytor Lake, including boating and private access areas where debris is aesthetically unappealing.
Comment: Cheri Strenz comments that no studies have been done to determine populations of the state-listed pistolgrip mussel in Claytor Lake, nor were any studies done to evaluate changing the timing and duration of drawdown. In addition, no studies were completed to evaluate mitigation measures for mussels
D-15 during the drawdown. She states that another year of study is needed to determine impacts on the pistolgrip mussel.
Response: Mussels were surveyed in Claytor Lake before and during the draw down of Claytor dam in 2007, using accepted scientific methods. Prior to this effort, mussels were surveyed in the New River Basin from 1997 to 1998. Results of the 2007 mussel survey, completed by Devine Tarbell Associates for Appalachian Power, can be found in the Claytor Hydroelectric Project Aquatic Resources Assessment – 2008 report, filed with the Commission on January 15, 2009.
Changing the timing or duration of the drawdown presumably to a period where mussels would not be subject to below freezing temperatures might not serve as a sufficient mitigation measure to prevent the loss of mussels. Results of the drawdown survey indicate that the mussels are susceptible to desiccation during the drawdown period. Changing the timing and duration of the drawdown could possibly eliminate one threat to survival (desiccation or freezing) but would not eliminate the threat of predation. Furthermore, exposing mussels to these adverse environmental conditions (elimination of food, temperature variances, etc) causes stress. Chronic exposure to adverse environmental conditions could reduce the population’s viability over time.
Comment: FOCL and Peter M. Huber, Pulaski County Board of Supervisors comment that the reservoir drawdown could be conducted at alternate times to minimize impacts to mussels. Modifications to the reservoir drawdown in combination with further mussel study and conservation measures would provide an appropriate balance between mitigating for mussel losses and providing citizens with a means of protecting shorelines. Protecting shorelines directly benefits water quality by reducing soil erosion.
Response: We address alternative timing of reservoir drawdowns and potential water quality impacts from shoreline erosion in a previous response, as noted above.
We acknowledge that the loss of routine reservoir drawdowns impacts shoreline property owners. To mitigate for the loss of annual drawdowns, Appalachian Power proposes and staff recommends that a reservoir drawdown plan be developed and implemented to allow shoreline property owners sufficient time to plan and execute shoreline maintenance or install erosion control measures during periods when Appalachian Power requires a drawdown for necessary maintenance. The frequency of drawdowns would be less than the current annual drawdown but this plan would afford shoreline property owners the same opportunity that Appalachian Power has for conducting routine maintenance.
D-16 Comment: FOCL comments that the Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan should be expanded to include Claytor Lake. Expanding the study would clarify and expand knowledge of mussel abundance and distribution in Claytor Lake. Information that could be collected in the Claytor Lake study includes DO, temperature, sedimentation, contaminants, aquatic vegetation such as hydrilla, and non-native mussel species. The information from the study could then be used to differentiate between the effects of a reservoir drawdown from the effects of lake conditions on riverine mussels. As part of this study, FOCL also recommends surveying property owners to determine frequency, depth and duration needed for property maintenance. Results of the study would inform future decisions on reservoir management and strategies for erosion and sedimentation control. This information could also be used to protect and promote mussel populations in other areas of the New River Basin.
Response: FOCL provides no information on the design of the lake monitoring study. We would expect the additional monitoring in Claytor Lake to be a labor intensive effort and estimate the cost of the additional recommend studies and monitoring to be approximately $12,000 per year. The cost of the Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan without modification is $600,000 over the course of 10 years.
Appalachian Power proposes to eliminate the annual drawdown and reduce reservoir fluctuations. These measures would mitigate impacts of the project to mussels within Claytor Lake. Therefore, we do not think any additional monitoring in Claytor Lake is worth the added cost and do not recommend including the reservoir as part of the Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan.
Comment: FOCL recommends propagating pistolgrip mussels at the Virginia Tech Mollusk Conservation Center and then reseed pistolgrip mussels in the New River system as a measure to mitigate for the loss of pistolgrip mussels during the annual drawdown. Information from research and propagation would increase knowledge of similar mussel species.
Response: FOCL did not provide any evidence that this measure could successfully mitigate for mussel mortality that occurs during a reservoir drawdown. In addition, FOCL did not provide the cost of propagating and reseeding pistolgrip mussels. Therefore, we are reluctant to recommend that Appalachian Power provide for mitigation of mussels killed during a drawdown by reseeding impacted areas.
D-17 Comment: FOCL requests that regular drawdowns continue through the Water Management Plan and that Appalachian Power monitor impacts of mussels during the drawdown through the Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan.
Response: The mussel drawdown survey clearly demonstrated the effects of the reservoir drawdown on mussels. Additional monitoring of mussels during the drawdown would not provide any new information on the impacts of the drawdown on mussels; therefore, we do not recommend any additional monitoring of mussels during a drawdown. However, we understand the impacts of discontinuing regular drawdowns on shoreline property owners. Periodic maintenance drawdowns to ensure proper operation and safety of Appalachian Power’s facilities would still occur periodically over the term of any license issued. To mitigate for the loss of routine drawdowns, Appalachian Power proposes and staff recommends that a reservoir drawdown plan be developed and implemented that includes advance notice of the timing and duration of a drawdown to allow shoreline property owners time to schedule and conduct maintenance at their properties in dry conditions.
Hellbender
Comment: FONR comments that Appalachian Power should fund a long-term hellbender monitoring program for hellbender salamanders. This monitoring program is necessary to ensure an adaptive management approach to aquatic resources.
Response: As stated previously, the Commission cannot require applicants to make funding provisions to third parties. The Commission only has jurisdiction over its licensee and funding requirements cannot ensure that measures are carried out when needed. Furthermore, no information has been presented on the record to determine if the project is affecting the hellbender population in the New River. It appears that the primary interest of this study is information to support a change to the hellbender’s status under Virginia’s endangered species program and to have a mechanism in place in the new license to address issues that arise during the license term. In situations where no clear nexus to project operations has been established, we do not recommend that Appalachian Power conduct a long-term monitoring program (see section 5.2.1 of the final EA, Recommended Alternative). Further, should project effects on the hellbender salamander be determined during the license term, the Commission’s standard fish and wildlife reopener article 15 would allow the Commission to entertain changes in project operation, facilities, or measures after an opportunity for hearing.
Comment: FONR believes that faulty reasoning was used in determining the project effects on Eastern hellbender. The group states that the draft EA
D-18 acknowledges a lack of information regarding the hellbender and this lack of information is then used to justify not requiring Appalachian Power to conduct studies related to the hellbender. FONR goes on to state that long-term monitoring, which is not recommended in the draft EA, is necessary for the adaptive management approach recommended throughout this relicensing.
Response: We disagree with FONR’s characterization of staff’s analysis related to the hellbender. As stated in the EA, neither FONR nor Virginia DGIF clearly demonstrated a project nexus related to the hellbender. Furthermore, no hellbender observations occurred during upstream and downstream mussel and crayfish surveys. As stated previously, where no clear nexus to project operations has been established, we cannot recommend long-term monitoring.
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES
Aquatic Plant Management
Comment: Bill Fintel and FOCL request that Appalachian Power be responsible for controlling aquatic vegetation along property owners’ shorelines, including Appalachian Power’s property shoreline, and anywhere within project waters.
Response: As mention in the draft EA, the project is not the cause of the introduction of the invasive aquatic plants; therefore, Appalachian Power is not responsible for controlling the invasive aquatic vegetation throughout the lake. Appalachian Power is responsible, however, for providing recreational access to the lake; therefore, as a requirement in the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, Appalachian Power would control the aquatic vegetation at beneficial use areas, as listed in the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Private shorelines do not fall under beneficial use areas and it is not the responsibility of Appalachian Power to control aquatic vegetation adjacent to them.
Comment: Jan Woodward requests that Appalachian Power take financial control of the maintenance and eradication of hydrilla.
Response: Both the EA and the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan indicate that Appalachian Power would be an equal partner in controlling aquatic vegetation in beneficial use areas.
Comment: Virginia DGIF recommends that Appalachian Power provide monetary support for aquatic nuisance vegetation control in beneficial use areas.
Response: Table 39 of the final EA depicts the annual costs to implement the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Furthermore, the EA and the Aquatic
D-19 Vegetation Management Plan state that Appalachian Power would be an equal partner in controlling the aquatic vegetation at beneficial use areas. The actual amount of monetary support would have to be determined as a result of the annual surveys and determination from the Technical Review Committee. In addition, as previously noted, the Commission cannot require applicant’s to make funding provisions to third parties. While Appalachian Power may pay a third party to perform mitigation and monitoring activities, the Commission only has jurisdiction over the licensee.
Comment: Virginia DGIF requests that full lake surveys for aquatic vegetation be completed every 2 to 3 years instead of every 5 years in order to ensure that hydrilla is not spreading in Claytor Lake.
Response: Appalachian Power’s proposed and the staff-recommended Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan states that Appalachian Power would conduct a survey of the entire lake every 5 years. In addition, Appalachian Power would survey the beneficial use areas on an annual basis. At the 10j meeting, Virginia DGIF agreed that Appalachian Power was not responsible for the entire lake, only the beneficial use areas; therefore, we do not recommend increasing the frequency of the full lake survey. Should future monitoring indicate that the full lake should be surveyed more frequently, the technical review committee could consider that recommendation.
Comment: FOCL recommends that within three months of license issuance, Appalachian Power enter into a cooperative agreement with Pulaski County and FOCL that describes each entity's obligations, financial and otherwise, to control invasive aquatic vegetation. FOCL also states that the final agreement should be placed on file with Pulaski County.
Response: According to the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, Appalachian Power would form an Aquatic Vegetation Technical Review Committee comprised of multiple stakeholders to address aquatic vegetation control methods in the beneficial use areas. Appalachian Power would be an equal partner in implementing the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, including control of aquatic vegetation in the beneficial use areas. As mentioned previously, however, Appalachian Power is not responsible for aquatic vegetation control throughout project waters.
Additionally, Appalachian Power may enter into a cooperative agreement; however, the Commission only has jurisdiction over its licensee and thus cannot require a third party to participate in such an agreement. As such, we leave it to Appalachian Power to determine how to best fulfill the requirements of any license issued for the Claytor Project. Appalachian Power may coordinate with
D-20 Pulaski County, as appropriate; however, as a federal licensee, Appalachian Power would have authority over control of aquatic vegetation along the project’s shoreline.
Comment: FOCL proposes an extension of the aquatic vegetation control permit period from three to five months during the recreation season (May through September) in order to allow for multiple treatments under one permit.
Response: The Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan would allow for a 3-month permit to be extended if the contractor was unable to access the vegetation bed within that time period. Should a separate treatment be necessary after the first application, then a separate permit would be required at that time.
Comment: FOCL recommends that if treatment for aquatic vegetation is performed by someone other than the landowner, then the landowner should be required to provide notification to adjacent landowners prior to the treatment activity.
Response: We would like to clarify that landowners cannot perform control treatments. According to the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, only licensed herbicide applicators would be able to perform control treatments. However, staff agrees that adjacent landowners should be notified of the treatment. Therefore, we have modified section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, and the draft license article, accordingly.
RECREATION RESOURCES
Comment: The Commonwealth of Virginia states that Appalachian Power should coordinate with the New River Valley Planning District Committee on any drawdowns and during development of the canoe portage trail.
Response: We have revised the final EA (Appendix B, draft license articles) to include the New River Valley Planning Commission in the consultations included in the Water Management Plan, the reservoir drawdown plan, and the Recreation Management Plan.
Comment: Appalachian Power states that the characterization in the draft EA of a new boat ramp at the dam should be revised because the company is only proposing a “portage put-in,” and not a full boat ramp. The portage put-in is meant for the portaging of hand carried watercraft from upstream of the dam to the tailrace and would not be constructed for use by motorized boats, as implied by the term “boat ramp.”
D-21 Response: We acknowledge this clarification and have modified the final EA to indicate that Appalachian Power’s proposal includes the development of a portage trail and put-in facility downstream of Claytor dam.
Comment: Appalachian Power states that the draft EA recommends that the Recreation Management Plan be revised to include a maintenance schedule for all recreation sites with identification of the entity responsible for each maintenance measure. Appalachian Power states that this measure is unnecessary because the company is ultimately responsible for maintaining all project recreation facilities, regardless of which party is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of each facility. Additionally, Appalachian Power believes paragraph (d) of draft license article 409 also should be deleted for this reason.
Response: While we agree that Appalachian Power is correct in its assessment that the company would be responsible for the maintenance of any project recreation facilities, we continue to recommend that the Recreation Management Plan be updated to include a maintenance schedule for updates to the project recreation sites. We acknowledge, however, that agreements between entities regarding site-specific maintenance can change and because Appalachian Power is ultimately responsible for the maintenance, these changes should not require an amendment to the plan. Therefore, we have revised section 5.2.1 of the final EA, Recommended alternative, to remove the recommendation that the maintenance schedule include the entity responsible for the maintenance.
Comment: Britt Stoudenmire comments that the proposed schedule, magnitude, and duration of flows released from the project, which affect sediment transport in the New River downstream of the project, requires revision to meet recreational needs.
Response: The impacts of the flow releases on recreational activities is analyzed in section 3.3.6.2 of the EA, Recreation Resources, Environmental Effects, Flow Releases for Recreation on the New River. Based on the analysis in section 3.3.6.2, we made our final recommendations in section 5.2.1 of the EA, Recommended Alternative. As stated in section 5.2.1, the Water Management Plan includes staff-recommended flow releases that benefit recreational opportunities at the project, including scenic floating, float-based fishing, and powerboat-based fishing and hunting downstream of the project. We continue to recommend these flow releases because our analysis indicates that the recommended flows would enhance recreational opportunities at the project.
Appalachian Power’s Picnic Area
D-22 Comment: Pulaski County Board of Supervisors, FOCL, Jan Woodward, Jim Gibson, and Cheri Strenz state that the proposal to convert picnic grounds on Claytor dam road to a public facility that includes a public boat launch needs to be revisited. Jim Gibson states that the conversion of the Appalachian Power picnic grounds into a public boat launch is not supported by any highway traffic engineering studies. Cheri Strenz states that the roads to access this site are narrow, windy, and hilly country roads that require constant attention to the many hazards that are always possible. They also state that the proximity of the site to the dam might be a Homeland Security issue and Cheri Strenz recommends that Appalachian Power consider using some of its other land holdings around the lake instead of this site.
Response: As stated in the EA, Claytor Lake is an important recreational destination in Pulaski County and Appalachian Power’s proposal would increase and enhance recreational opportunities by enhancing the picnic site at Claytor dam and providing a canoe portage around the dam. While we acknowledge that this proposal would most likely increase the use of this area, we continue to recommend its development because of the benefits of increased public access. We also note that for most of its length, Claytor dam road is a state road (State Road 799) and any issues regarding safety and engineering for this road should be brought up with the Virginia Department of Transportation. As stated in the draft EA, however, during the consultation for the portage trail, Appalachian Power could consider the adequacy of the existing, access road to accommodate increased use at the Appalachian Power Picnic Area. Section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, of the final EA has been expanded to clarify this recommendation and the recommended draft license articles have been updated to include consultation with the Virginia Department of Transportation regarding the Recreation Management Plan.
Regarding the issue you raise about the vulnerability of project structures based on the proximity of the proposed recreation site to Claytor dam, the Commission works very closely with Appalachian Power on matters of security, as defined in our Security Program for Hydropower Projects dated June 3, 2009. Engineers from the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections inspect the project annually, and specifically include a security inspection of Claytor dam as part of the inspection to ensure that project security is adequately addressed. The purpose of these inspections, and the guidance provided in the Security Program, is to specifically ensure that the risk to potentially vulnerable features is minimized to all practical and realistic levels. The Commission and Appalachian Power would continue to monitor security at this site to protect the interests of the dam owner as well as the public during the term of any new license.
Navigation
D-23 Comment: FOCL, Cheri Strenz, Jim Gibson, Laura Walters, Jeff Arnold, John Waugh, Johnny Garrett, and Jan Woodward state that because Claytor Lake is a long, narrow lake, including navigation markers seems like an unnecessary hazard to boaters and waterskiers. Several commenters agreed that full-fledged, lighted lateral markers would be overkill on Claytor Lake and would negatively impact the homeowners’ quality of life and property values. Most of the commenters also agreed that it seemed especially unnecessary to include navigational markers in Dublin Hollow and Peak Creek.
Response: As stated in the EA, Claytor Lake hosts a significant amount of daytime and nighttime boating and current boating densities would benefit from navigational aids and would enhance safety and ease of travel. While we recognize the landowners concerns, we continue to recommend the navigational aids because of the benefits to boaters’ navigational safety. We also note that Appalachian Power would be required to consult and receive all appropriate and necessary permits prior to installation of the navigational markers, which would most likely allow for some of the commenters’ concerns to be addressed.
Comment: FOCL states that the Aids to Navigation Management Plan does not include consultation with property owners. FOCL also recommends that the technical committee established by the Aids to Navigation Management Plan further analyze the need for the type and number of navigational markers and makes several recommendations regarding details of the plan.
Response: We note that draft license article 411 contained in the draft EA would require Appalachian Power to develop the plan in consultation with state and federal agencies, “Friends of Claytor Lake, and other interested parties,” which would include property owners. In deference to the comments on the plan, however, we have revised draft license article 411 in the final EA to include property owners. Furthermore, we note that Appalachian Power’s proposed Aids to Navigation Management Plan and the staff recommendation in the final EA include consultation, at which time recommendations and proposed solutions can be discussed.
Debris Management
Comment: FOCL states that the Debris Management Plan provides for an annual cost of $30,000 for implementation, but the cost of removing debris is much greater. In recognition of the importance of debris management to the quality, safety, and enjoyment of Claytor Lake, FOCL requests that the plan be modified to require Appalachian Power to provide increased funding for annual debris management, whether through FOCL’s clean-up efforts or contract labor. Pulaski
D-24 County Board of Supervisors requests that the on-going clean-up efforts of FOCL be fully funded by Appalachian Power. Cheri Strenz also requests that the FOCL clean-up effort be funded by Appalachian Power. Jan Woodward states that Appalachian Power’s Debris Management Plan needs to maintain an inflationary scale of financial responsibility for the next 50 years.
Response: The costs included in the EA, including the $30,000 associated with the Debris Management Plan, are estimates of how much it would cost to implement a proposed measure and are used compare the benefits of the measure to its costs. Our recommendation is for Appalachian Power to implement the Debris Management Plan. Compliance with that recommendation would be dependant on whether the debris in Claytor Lake is properly monitored and removed and not on how much it cost to monitor and remove it.
In regards to providing funds for the clean-up, we note that, as stated previously, the Commission cannot require applicants to make funding provisions to third parties. Appalachian Power may agree to pay a third party to perform mitigation and monitoring activities; however, the Commission has jurisdiction only over its licensee and thus cannot ensure that a mitigation measure would be carried out if only funding is required. As such, we do not recommend outright funding as a license requirement and the Commission’s would leave it to Appalachian Power to determine how to best fulfill the requirements of any license issued for the Claytor Project.46 We also note, however, that Appalachian Power’s Debris Management Plan, includes provisions for contracting with either FOCL or other contractors, as necessary, for debris removal activities and continuing Appalachian Power’s volunteer lake clean-up efforts.
Comment: Cheri Strenz states that the Debris Management Plan needs to address upstream areas, specifically areas above Lowman’s Ferry Bridge. She states that since the river flows from this direction, removing debris as close as possible to the upstream source is both practical and logical. She states that including this area in annual clean-ups would allow for a substantially more effective clean-up of the entire lake. Bill Fintel states that Appalachian Power should do more debris management.
Response: The Debris Management Plan proposed by Appalachian Power and recommended by staff would ensure that debris in Claytor Lake would continue to be monitored and removed, ensuring that debris is managed throughout the term of
46 For additional information regarding the Commission’s policy on simple funding, please see the Commission’s settlement policy: Settlements in Hydropower Licensing Proceedings under Part I of the Federal Power Act, 116 FERC § 61,270 at P 2-12 (2006).
D-25 any license issued for Claytor Lake. Further, we note that this plan would require Appalachian Power to monitor and remove debris within the project boundary, which includes areas above Lowman’s Ferry Bridge.
LAND MANAGEMENT AND AESTHETICS
Drawdown
Comment: Pulaski County Board of Supervisors, FOCL, Bill Fintel, Robert Strenz, Ralph and Martha Harvey, Jeff Arnold, John Waugh, Pulaski County Board of Supervisors, Jim Gibson, David Dobyns, Lawrence Bandolin, Jim Gibson, Wayne Carlson, Jan Woodward, Stacy Moran, and Pulaski County Clean Community Council comment that the scheduled drawdowns are needed so residents may continue to construct and maintain shoreline stabilization measures. They state that discontinuance of the drawdown would increase homeowners’ costs, decrease real estate values, and decrease shoreline maintenance, which would cause the shoreline to suffer, decrease water quality, and decrease the aesthetic and scenic value of the lake. Stacy Moran also states that the drawdown should be continued in order to minimize threatening accidents for boaters, water skiers, and fisherman. Jeff Arnold recommends that Appalachian Power study the issue further and consider some other type of periodic drawdown.
Additionally, FOCL provided a petition signed by 961 individuals requesting the continuation of the annual drawdown of Claytor Lake.
Response: While we understand the desire to continue the drawdown in order to provide homeowners with an opportunity to conduct shoreline maintenance, we note that an annual drawdown is not necessary for typical project operations and we continue to acknowledge the harm the annual drawdown causes on the pistolgrip mussel. As such, we continue to recommend the staff alternative discussed in section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, which would require Appalachian Power to notify residents of non-emergency drawdowns, which would afford homeowners the opportunity to plan for and perform shoreline maintenance at that time.
D-26 Shoreline Management Plan
Comment: Appalachian Power provided comments and a request to amend section 2.5.4 of the Shoreline Management Plan, Low Density Use Regulations. Appalachian Power states that this amendment is necessary so that the company can retain the ability to ensure that agreements and waivers are appropriate and properly obtained. The waiver process defined by Appalachian Power does not affect land ownership issues, but serves to clarify where docks may be located. The updated language removes references to filing the agreement or waiver with the Clerk of the Pulaski County Circuit Court. Instead, the waiver or agreement shall be permanently filed only with Appalachian Power.
Response: The revised language references agreements or waivers signed between adjacent landowners in respect to dock location. The new language no longer requires the landowner to file the agreement or waiver with the county courts, but only with Appalachian Power. As Appalachian Power is the federal licensee with authority over the shoreline, we find this revision to be appropriate. We have revised section 3.3.7, Land Management and Aesthetics, of the final EA with a discussion of this amendment request and have included our recommendation in section 5.2.2, Recommended Alternative.
Comment: FOCL states and many commenters agree, including Robert Strenz, Cheri Strenz, Merri Beth Gibson, Laura Walters, Wayne Carlson, and Sara and Tom Metcalf, that Appalachian Power’s Shoreline Management Plan was developed without adequate public input.
Response: Appalachian Power developed its license application by using the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process, which provides for early stakeholder involvement, early issue identification, and full integration of stakeholder input. For the Claytor Project, Appalachian Power first met with stakeholders regarding the relicensing of the Claytor Project in August 2005 and this meeting served as an opportunity to discuss the project and begin identifying issues important to the stakeholders. Between August 2005 and June 2009, Appalachian Power hosted over 30 stakeholder meetings, work-group meetings, and site visits to discuss resource issues, including issues related to the Shoreline Management Plan.
Additionally, as noted by Appalachian Power in its comments on the draft EA, Appalachian Power began developing the Shoreline Management Plan guidelines in 2000. These guidelines were developed specific to Claytor Lake and the process included research and review of existing rules and regulations, consultation with state, federal, and local agencies, and stakeholder input. These guidelines, which were finalized in 2003, were reviewed again during the relicensing process. Furthermore, the Shoreline Management Plan includes a
D-27 requirement that Appalachian Power would review and update the plan every 5 years and this review would be accomplished through consultation with a group of stakeholders. Any updates or revisions to the plan would then be submitted to the Commission for final approval. As such, we do not see sufficient cause for delaying the process to revisit the Shoreline Management Plan at this time.
Comment: FOCL states and several commenters agree, including Sara and Tom Metcalf, Robert Strenz, Cheri Strenz, Jan Woodward, that more time is needed to develop practical and reasonable solutions for a Shoreline Management Plan that protects the human environment. FOCL states that the Shoreline Management Plan review process has not been completed, nor has sufficient stakeholder involvement been included.
Additionally, FOCL and Robert Strenz state that although the Shoreline Management Plan includes a requirement for a 5-year review, many additional modifications about which stakeholders did not get to provide input, the Shoreline Management Plan should be updated right away and not 5 years after license issuance. As such, they recommend that at least one additional year following license issuance be allowed for stakeholder input and collaboration in the finalization of the Shoreline Management Plan. FOCL also provided information on the current number of docks currently on Claytor Lake.
Response: As stated previously, Appalachian Power conducted several public meetings during the development of the Shoreline Management Plan and the document was put out for public comment on multiple occasions. Although we acknowledge the difficulties involved in getting numerous stakeholders together, we note that Appalachian Power made several attempts to hold public meetings. Additionally, stakeholders had the opportunity to comment directly to the Commission and those comments were taken into account in the development of the Shoreline Management Plan. As such, we do not see sufficient cause for delaying the process to revisit the Shoreline Management Plan. Furthermore, the 5-year review process included in the plan would allow the Shoreline Management Plan to be updated in an adaptive manner that takes the changing environment, both human and natural, into consideration.
Comment: FOCL requests that Appalachian Power upgrade its website for Claytor Lake to one comparable to the Smith Mountain Lake website, which is easier to follow and far more informative.
Response: While we recommend that Appalachian Power develop a flow notification website that is kept up to date regarding flow releases and stage versus flow information, we note that maintenance and design of the site is within Appalachian Power’s purview.
D-28 Comment: Appalachian Power commented that draft license article 412 indicates the Shoreline Management Plan should be modified to include a description of, and explanation for, the criteria used to determine suitability of any non- conforming structures applied for under the variance process. Appalachian Power clarifies that the variance process is included mainly to address those lots that were created prior to the development and implementation of the guidelines established in 2003 and the Shoreline Management Plan. Appalachian Power states that is unclear what type of justification the Commission seeks.
Response: As evidenced by the comments received throughout the relicensing process, the residents of Claytor Lake desire some flexibility when it comes to implementing the guidelines set forth in the Shoreline Management Plan. While we continue to recommend most of the measures contained within the plan because they protect the scenic and recreational integrity of Claytor Lake, we acknowledge that some cases might arise where the guidelines do not allow for the flexibility necessary to deal with an individual site’s specific needs. Appalachian Power has included a variance process, set forth in section 3.3, Variance Process, of the Shoreline Management Plan that would address these exceptions. Although Appalachian Power states that the process was included mostly to address those lots created prior to development of the Shoreline Management Plan guidelines, it remains evident that flexibility in the process is necessary and the variance process set forth in section 3.3 of the Shoreline Management Plan remains vague.
While we understand Appalachian Power’s position that the Shoreline Management Plan guidelines were developed after careful consideration and consultation, we note that Appalachian Power has acknowledged the need for flexibility in certain cases, as evidenced by the inclusion of the variance process in the plan. Further, we note that section 3.3 of the Shoreline Management Plan, Variance Process, states that there may be cases that warrant exception from the requirements and the classifications and Appalachian Power would consider whether variance from the guidelines is warranted on a case-by-case basis. The variance guidelines in the Shoreline Management Plan do not state that they are meant only to address lots created prior to the development of the 2003 guidelines, as indicated in Appalachian Power’s comments.
In order to address the commenters’ concerns regarding flexibility, but also to ensure that homeowners know exactly what situations might afford consideration under the variance process, we continue to recommend that Appalachian Power provide a description of, and an explanation for, the criteria used to determine suitability of any non-conforming structures, whether it be docks or shoreline stabilization methods. By providing more detail regarding the cases where Appalachian Power might consider an exception to the Shoreline
D-29 Management Plan guidelines, homeowners would be made aware of the specific types of cases that Appalachian Power might consider when issuing a variance. In addition, Appalachian Power most likely would receive fewer permits for variance requests it considers inappropriate. We have updated section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, and the draft license articles in Appendix B to provide more detail on this recommendation.
Comment: FOCL, Cheri Strenz, Robert Strenz, and Bill Fintel, state that Appalachian Power’s Shoreline Management Plan variance process related to dock-size requirements is not adequate for homeowners on Claytor Lake. Cheri Strenz notes that Pulaski County has worked with Appalachian Power in previous years by issuing permits for dock plans, conducting inspections during the construction process, and signing off on completed docks on Claytor Lake and she recommends that this process stay in place with Pulaski County. The commenters recommend that the established Special Exception Process provided for under Pulaski County ordinance be continued over the vague variance process proposed by Appalachian Power in the Shoreline Management Plan.
Response: Appalachian Power states, in its comments on the draft EA (filed September 10, 2010), the variance process contained within the Shoreline Management Plan is mainly to address those lots that were created prior to the development and implementation of the Shoreline Management Plan guidelines established in 2003. Lots purchased prior to implementation of those guidelines did not have the benefit of the Shoreline Management Plan at the time of purchase and the variance process is an attempt to work with these upland owners to provide them with a structure to access the lake, even if it is not the structure the owner prefers.
We acknowledge the desire of residents with unique shoreline situations to have flexibility in the design of their shoreline structures. As such, and as stated previously, we continue to recommend that Appalachian Power provide a better description of, and an explanation for, the criteria used to determine suitability of any non-conforming structures, whether it be docks or shoreline stabilization methods. Including a variance process in the guidelines affords Appalachian Power and homeowners the desired flexibility and by providing more detail in the guidelines, Appalachian Power can better inform the public about what is an appropriate request. We have updated section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, and the draft license articles in Appendix B to provide more detail on this recommendation.
Comment: Several commenters, including Pulaski County Board of Supervisors, FOCL, request that Pulaski County be allowed to continue to serve as the permitting authority for docks and state that in order to satisfy Appalachian
D-30 Power’s responsibility in the oversight of activities within its project boundary, the Pulaski County Zoning Ordinance of 2003 should be amended to coincide with the finalized Shoreline Management Plan dock requirements. In the event that this request cannot be granted, Pulaski County and FOCL ask that Appalachian Power be held to the same standards of timeliness in responding to the public as is currently in place and that a publically accountable variance process be a part of the license agreement.
Response: As stated in the EA, Appalachian Power may coordinate with Pulaski County, as appropriate; however, as a federal licensee, Appalachian Power would have authority over use of the shoreline, as dictated by the Commission’s land use article and any Commission-approved Shoreline Management Plan.
Dock Size
Comment: Many commenters, including Pulaski County Board of Supervisors, FOCL, Cheri Strenz, Robert Strenz, Jim Gibson, Ralph and Martha Harvey, Stacy Moran, Jan Woodward, and Bill Fintel disagree with the proposed dock requirements and the size limitation of 1,000 square feet, stating that they are too restrictive. Specific reasons for the opposition include:
the proposed restrictions limit variation and ingenuity used in designing boat docks and do not allow for a practical, safe, or beautiful solution; the inclusion of slip space, storage, jet-ski lift, and upland improvements in the overall square-footage erodes the usable area that should be considered dock space; with a two-bay boat slip, almost half of the square footage allowed is taken up by the slip space; this size dock does not allow for safe boatlift access, a safe swim area, safe walkways, or Americans with Disabilities Act requirements; the size is inadequate to support both boat storage and other recreational activities (family gatherings) on the dock; the size is inadequate to allow for the storage of personal water craft on a boat lift; including personal watercraft square footage in total boat slip square footage is inappropriate because a personal watercraft only takes up about 60 square feet, while a boat slip takes up 240-250 square feet; banning the use of boat covers that are attached to the boatlifts with roofs is unnecessary considering there are fewer than 10 of these structures on the lake; the 48-square-foot storage restriction is inadequate and should be increased to 72 square feet;
D-31 the current height restrictions do not allow for variation in style or design and should be increased from 16 feet to 26 feet; upland improvements, including walkways, stairs, pavers, or other materials used to stabilize the shoreline approach to the waterfront, are not part of the dock and should not be included in the 1,000 square foot restriction; and limiting the dock size to 1,000 square feet detracts from the aesthetic beauty of the shoreline that results from varied architectural boat dock designs.
Response: As discussed in section 3.3.6, Recreation Resources, boating use by shoreline residents at Claytor Lake is a historic and continuing use, and a Shoreline Management Plan that sets forth a specific permitting process for private boat docks would be a reasonable means of ensuring continued access for this use. The size and height limitations are identical to those determined by Pulaski County’s zoning ordinance and are supported by the conclusions of the scenery management study of Claytor Lake. In its comments on the draft EA, Appalachian Power stated that Claytor Lake has over 100 miles of shoreline and much of the shoreline is steep, with limited shallow-water habitat. The idea behind the size of the docks is that it would keep some of the shoreline open and a portion of the shallow-water habitat undisturbed, while still allowing a 1,000- square-foot structure. Appalachian Power states that it does not dictate how the 1,000 square feet is utilized, but allows the dock owners to design the dock to best meet their needs. Additionally, we point out that Appalachian Power began developing the guidelines in 2000 and they are specific to Claytor Lake. The development process included research and review of existing rules and regulations, state agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ involvement, and preview by Pulaski County, FOCL, dock and bulkhead contractors, and the public. The guidelines were finalized in 2003 and then reviewed again during the relicensing process.
In order to continue to support the residents’ boating use on the lake and to continue to provide adequate public access and enjoyment of the public resource, we continue to recommend Appalachian Power’s proposal to provide for 1,000- square-foot dock space restrictions, in deference to the historic, multi-use, nature of docks at the lake. We note that the Commission’s standard land use article, which would be included in any license issued for the project, grants Appalachian Power the authority to permit non-commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and facilities. Every lake is unique and while we recognize that some of the stipulations included in the FERC-approved Shoreline Management Plan for Smith Mountain Lake (Project No. 2210) might provide greater flexibility in dock size and design, we note that Claytor Lake is a smaller reservoir that offers a different user experience than what is offered at Smith Mountain Lake. As such, we continue to recommend the dock size stipulations proposed by Appalachian
D-32 Power in the Claytor Lake Shoreline Management Plan because they support boat storage and access, as well as the historic multi-use activities that occur at Claytor Lake’s private docks, but include limitations to protect the unique character of Claytor Lake.
Additionally, we note that the proposed requirements allow for the grandfathering of docks, piers, and similar structures constructed within the 1,846-foot contour prior to the implementation of the Shoreline Management Plan. These structures would not need to be modified to meet the new requirements and would continue to exist unless maintenance requires more than 50 percent of the physical structure to be replaced or repaired. Thus, the proposed Shoreline Management Plan would not impose costs on those who already own nonconforming structures.
Comment: FOCL, Cheri Strenz, and Robert Strenz disagree with Appalachian Power’s proposal to restrict the size of docks located in areas with steep slopes to 500 square feet. They state that these landowners already have limited access to the water due to the steep slope and therefore should be granted the same rights as landowners with non-steep slopes. With smaller dock sizes, use of the lake for recreational value would be greatly impaired for these landowners. FOCL states that docks adjacent to steep slopes should have the same requirements as docks elsewhere on the lake and that protection of steep slopes be pursued through development and application of stricter County land-disturbance regulations.
Response: In order to continue to allow residents’ to enjoy use of the lake, simple, single-level docks would be sufficient. Appalachian Power, however, has provided for docks up to 1,000 square feet along most of the shoreline and limited that size to 500 square feet in areas with a steep slope. In its comments on the draft EA, Appalachian Power states that the idea behind limiting the overall size of the docks is that it would keep some of the shoreline open and a portion of the shallow-water habitat undisturbed. This limitation is made as both a means to protect the shoreline and still provide residents with the ability to access Claytor Lake. Although we understand the desire for larger docks, we continue to agree that limiting dock space in area’s of steep slope is appropriate.
Comment: Robert Strenz disagrees with the draft EA statement on page 174 that manmade features eliminate space from other users. He states that these features add visual enjoyment and recreation for other users and they provide increased fish habitat. He also disagrees with the statement that if docks are constructed in a visually intrusive manner, they can further detract from the recreational opportunities and aesthetics at Claytor Lake, stating that this is not happening at Claytor Lake.
D-33 Response: As stated in the EA, boat docks are man-made features that allow shoreline residents to access and enjoy the recreational opportunities and scenic quality of Claytor Lake. While we understand homeowner’s desires to own an ideal dock structure on the reservoir, we also note that Claytor Lake is a public space and Appalachian Power is required to provide public access to this space. The purpose of the restrictions contained in the Shoreline Management Plan are to maintain the scenic quality of Claytor Lake for both visitors and landowners alike and ensure that future dock structures are not allowed to detract from that setting.
Comment: Cheri Strenz and Robert Strenz state that the draft EA incorrectly claims that Appalachian Power agreed to take out the requirement to include walkways in the dock size calculations based on public comments. They claim that Appalachian Power acknowledged this restriction was actually included as a mistake; therefore, its removal from the calculation does not count as Appalachian Power “giving” anything back. Furthermore, they disagree with the statement in the draft EA that “giving back” the walkway space creates an additional 500 square feet of dock space, because no walkways on Claytor Lake are 500 square feet in size.
Response: We appreciate this clarification regarding the size of walkways; however, we note that the comment in the draft EA did not claim that removal of the walkway would add an additional 500 square feet to the dock space. Instead, that comment referenced the fact that without the walkway included in the calculation, homeowners would now have, in total, over 500 square feet of deck space. We have updated section 3.3.7, Land Management and Aesthetics, of the final EA, to clarify this point.
Shoreline Stabilization
Comment: Cheri Strenz, FOCL, and David Dobyns comment that shoreline stabilization measures prescribed in the Shoreline Management Plan are too restrictive and may discourage property owners from addressing shoreline erosion. The Pulaski County Board of Supervisors requests that shoreline management standards be coordinated with the Pulaski County Subdivision, Zoning, and Erosion and Sediment Control ordinances. FOCL provides numerous recommendations to update section 2.5.8 of the Shoreline Management Plan to allow for more freedom in designing and constructing shoreline stabilization methods.
Response: As stated by Appalachian Power in its comments on the draft EA, the guidelines contained within the Shoreline Management Plan have a long history. Appalachian Power began developing the guidelines in 2000 and they are specific to Claytor Lake. The development process included research and review of
D-34 existing rules and regulations, state agency, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers involvement, and preview by Pulaski County, FOCL, dock and bulkhead contractors, and the public. The guidelines were finalized in 2003 and then reviewed again during the relicensing process. These measures are meant to protect Claytor Lake’s scenic and recreation integrity, which was identified during the relicensing studies as being important to residents and visitors alike. The guidelines contained within the Shoreline Management Plan are meant to protect the scenic attributes of the shoreline and we do not see sufficient reason to change those guidelines at this time.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Comment: The Virginia SHPO provided comments on the draft PA proposed by the Commission for the Claytor Project. The draft PA, which was circulated for review and comment, contains a summary of the analysis of the effects of continued project operation on cultural resources as outlined in the draft EA. The SHPO provided comments on both the draft PA and the HPMP, and we respond to the SHPO’s comments on the HPMP in this final EA.
In addition to the resource specific comments, the Virginia SHPO also provided several general comments related to the HPMP, including:
in section 1.2 of the HPMP, Purpose, Pulaski County and the local historical society should be included in the fifth bullet (see SHPO HPMP comment number 1); section 4.3 of the HPMP, Project Effects and Mitigation/Management Measures, Future Effects, should be revised to specify the materials the SHPO will need for review (see SHPO HPMP comment number 5); several typographical and editorial comments that address multiple sections of the HPMP (see SHPO HPMP comment number 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14); and in Appendix D, List of Activities that Do Not Require Prior Consultation with the SHPO, under Powerhouse, “or upgrade” should be removed from the bullet dealing with in-kind repair of historic windows and doors (see SHPO HPMP comment number 11).
Response: These revisions would present a more thorough and complete HPMP. As such, we revised section 5.2.1 of the final EA, Recommended Alternative, and our draft license articles (Appendix B) to recommend that Appalachian Power file a revised HPMP that addresses these comments.
D-35 Comment: The Virginia SHPO asks if FERC concurs with the SHPO’s recommendations regarding the eligibility of site #44PH164 and states that if so, this should be added to section 2.4.1 of the HPMP (see SHPO HPMP comment number 2).
Response: Yes, as stated in the EA, the Commission agrees that site 44PH164 is eligible for listing on the NRHP. We have revised section 5.2.1 of the final EA, Recommended Alternative, to clarify this concurrence. As our concurrence is included in the EA, and the EA is the Commission’s environmental document, we do not see the need to require Appalachian Power to update the HPMP with a statement regarding our concurrence.
Comment: The Virginia SHPO states that under section 2.4.1.4 of the HPMP, Claytor Powerhouse and Dam, additional consultation is required on the contributing and non-contributing elements of the powerhouse (see SHPO HPMP comment number 3).
Response: The SHPO sent Appalachian Power a letter on October 30, 2009, (attached to the July 2010 HPMP) that states concurrence with Appalachian Power’s determination of eligibility and directs Appalachian Power to update the HPMP to state this concurrence, which was completed. The October 30, 2009 letter, however, does not indicate the need for additional consultation regarding the contributing and non-contributing elements of the powerhouse and in its January 11, 2011 letter the SHPO does not indicate why additional consultation is necessary. In order to ensure that the historic integrity of the powerhouse is maintained, however, we agree that some future consultations may be necessary. We do not, however, agree that section 2.4.1.1 of the HPMP is the appropriate place to recommend future consultation work. Instead, we recommend that section 2.4.2 of the HPMP, Recommendations for Future Work, be updated to include a statement regarding the need for future consultations on contributing and non-contributing elements of the Claytor powerhouse.
Comment: The Virginia SHPO states that the SHPO, the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians should be notified of the discovery of human remains and recommends specific language to be added to section 5.4, Protection of Discovered Human Remains (see SHPO HPMP comment number 7). The language the SHPO would like to see included is:
All reasonable efforts would be made to avoid disturbing gravesites, including those containing Native American human remains and associated artifacts. To the extent possible, Appalachian Power shall ensure that the general is excluded from viewing any gravesites and associated artifacts.
D-36 All consulting parties agree to release no photographs of any gravesites and/or funerary objects to the press or to the general public. If human remains encountered appear to be Native American origin, whether prehistoric or historic, Appalachian Power shall notify FERC, who shall immediately notify the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Virginia Council of Indians. If it is agreed that avoidance of the human remains is not prudent and feasible, Appalachian Power shall apply for a permit from the Virginia DHR for archaeological removal of human remains. In considering issuance of a permit involving removal of Native American human remains, the Virginia DHR shall consult with other parties, including Appalachian Power, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians.
Response: We agree that the SHPO, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians should be notified of the discovery of human remains and have revised the final EA, section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, and the draft license articles (Appendix B) to recommend that Appalachian Power file a revised HPMP with these modifications. We also agree that inclusion of the first and third bullets of the recommend language would add more comprehensive procedures and better protections if human remains are accidently discovered; however, we do not agree with the second bullet that requires FERC to contact the Indian Tribes. As a regulatory agency, we cannot be beholden to a requirement contained within a management plan or license order. Additionally, we have designated Appalachian Power as our non-federal representative to deal with the day-to-day activities under section 106. As such, we recommend that the language be revised to require Appalachian Power to immediately notify the SHPO, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Virginia Council of Indians and we have revised section 5.2.1, Recommended Alternative, and our draft license articles (Appendix B) to recommend that Appalachian Power file a revised HPMP that includes the modified language.
Comment: The Virginia SHPO states that in sections 5.6 and 5.7 of the HPMP, the term “Council” appears and is not defined. The SHPO also requests that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be referred to as “ACHP” and not “Council.” Finally, the SHPO states that if the Advisory Council is not participating in the PA, then reference to the Council should be removed from these sections (see SHPO HPMP comment number 8).
Response: It is Commission policy to refrain from using acronyms unless they are widely accepted and for over a decade, it has been our practice to refer to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as the “Council.” If the term “Council” is unacceptable, however, we recommend referring to the “Advisory
D-37 Council,” instead. Also, we note that the Commission had not yet issued a draft PA when Appalachian Power filed the HPMP in July 2010, so the company did not have the benefit of knowing whether the Advisory Council would be participating. As we have now issued a draft PA and the Advisory Council has decided not to participate, we recommend that this section be revised to remove reference to the Advisory Council. We have revised section 5.2.1 of the final EA, Recommended Alternative, and the draft license articles (Appendix B) to address these concerns.
Comment: The Virginia SHPO asks why section 5.7 of the HPMP, Dispute Resolution, does not allow for objections raised by interested public (see SHPO HPMP comment number 9).
Response: As stated in section 5.7 of the HPMP, the dispute resolution process is consistent with the dispute resolution process of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) and we note that it is under the PA that any disputes would be addressed. The dispute resolution process in the PA involves the signatories and concurring parties to the PA and does not include members of the public. The public, however, can file comments with the Commission at any time and we would work with all parties involved to resolve any issues and concerns. We also note that we conduct our section 106 responsibilities in concurrence with our NEPA analysis, so the public is included and has had opportunities to comment and participate on cultural resource issues throughout the Claytor Project’s relicensing process. As such, we do not see a need to revise the HPMP to specify “interested parties.”
D-38