20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
y g r n e o n ry i E s to is l a Office of Energy Projects ra l m e u d g m August 2009 e e o F R C
FERC/FEIS-0230F FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE
SMITH MOUNTAIN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 2210 VIRGINIA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 888 FIRST STREET, NE WASHINGTON, DC 20426 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
FERC/FEIS-0230F
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER RELICENSING
Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project FERC Project No. 2210-169 Virginia
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426
August 2009 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
This page intentionally left blank. 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20426
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
To the Agency or Individual Addressed:
Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Attached is the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 2210-169), located on the Roanoke River, within the counties of Bedford, Campbell, Franklin, and Pittsylvania, Virginia.
This final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff. It contains staff’s evaluation of the applicant’s proposal, as well as alternatives for relicensing the Smith Mountain Project.
Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into account all concerns relevant to the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from which the Commission will make its decision. The final EIS was sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public in August 2009.
Copies of the final EIS are available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. An electronic copy of the final EIS may be viewed on the Commission’s website at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link. Please call (202) 502-8222, or TTY (202) 208-1659, for assistance.
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Statement
20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
This page intentionally left blank.
ii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
COVER SHEET
a. Title: Relicensing the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Project No. 2210-169.
b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement
c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
d. Abstract: Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian Power), dba American Electric Power, filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a new license under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), to continue operating the 636-megawatt Smith Mountain Project. The project is located on the Roanoke River, within the counties of Bedford, Campbell, Franklin, and Pittsylvania, Virginia.
e. Contact: Environmental Staff Staff Counsel Allan E. Creamer Carolyn Van Der Jagt Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commission Office of Energy Projects Office of General Counsel 888 First Street, NE 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502-8365 (202) 502-8620
f. Transmittal: This final environmental impact statement, prepared by the Commission’s staff on the hydroelectric license application filed by Appalachian Power for the existing Smith Mountain Project (FERC No. 2210), is being made available to the public on or about August 14, 2009, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.1 FOREWORD
1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, amended (Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982).
i 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA)2 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act,3 is authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of non- federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions:
That the project…shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e)…4
The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the project.5 Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6
2 16 USC §791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (1992), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 (2005).
3 Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977).
4 16 USC §803(a).
5 16 USC §803(g).
6 18 CFR §385.206 (1987).
ii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
This page intentionally left blank.
iii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES...... vii LIST OF TABLES...... viii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... xiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... - 1 - 1.1 Application ...... - 1 - 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power ...... - 1 - 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ...... - 1 - 1.2.2 Need for Power ...... - 3 - 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ...... - 4 - 1.3.1 Federal Power Act...... - 5 - 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ...... - 6 - 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act...... - 6 - 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act...... - 7 - 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act...... - 8 - 1.4 Public Review and Consultation...... - 9 - 1.4.1 Scoping ...... - 9 - 1.4.2 Interventions ...... - 10 - 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application...... - 11 - 1.4.4 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... - 11 - 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES...... - 13 - 2.1 No-action Alternative ...... - 13 - 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ...... - 13 - 2.1.2 Project Safety...... - 18 - 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation...... - 19 - 2.1.4 Current License Environmental Requirements ...... - 21 - 2.1.5 Existing Project Boundary ...... - 22 - 2.2 Applicant’s Proposed Action ...... - 23 - 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ...... - 23 - 2.2.2. Proposed Project Operation...... - 23 - 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Enhancement Measures...... - 23 - 2.2.4 Proposed Project Boundary ...... - 29 - 2.3 Proposed Action with Mandatory Conditions ...... - 30 - 2.4 Proposed Action with Mandatory Conditions and Additional Staff- Recommended Measures ...... - 31 - 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... - 36 - 2.5.1 Federal Government Takeover...... - 36 - 2.5.2 Non-power License...... - 36 - 2.5.3 Retiring the Project...... - 37 - 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... - 38 - 3.1 General Description of the Roanoke River Basin...... - 38 -
iv 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis...... - 40 - 3.2.1 Geographic Scope...... - 41 - 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ...... - 41 - 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives ...... - 41 - 3.3.1 Geology and Soils...... - 41 - 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... - 41 - 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects...... - 49 - 3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects...... - 60 - 3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 61 - 3.3.2 Water Resources...... - 61 - 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... - 61 - 3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects...... - 71 - 3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects...... - 89 - 3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 90 - 3.3.3 Aquatic Resources ...... - 91 - 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... - 91 - 3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects...... - 102 - 3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects...... - 132 - 3.3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 133 - 3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources...... - 134 - 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... - 134 - 3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects...... - 137 - 3.3.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 143 - 3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... - 143 - 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... - 143 - 3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects...... - 146 - 3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects...... - 150 - 3.3.5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 151 - 3.3.6 Recreation Resources...... - 151 - 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... - 151 - 3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects...... - 169 - 3.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 207 - 3.3.7 Land Management and Aesthetics...... - 208 - 3.3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... - 208 - 3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects...... - 209 - 3.3.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 215 - 3.3.8 Cultural Resources...... - 215 - 3.3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... - 215 - 3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects...... - 222 - 3.3.8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 225 - 3.3.9 Socioeconomic Resources ...... - 225 - 3.3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... - 225 - 3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects...... - 229 -
v 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
3.3.9.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... - 235 - 3.4 No-Action Alternative ...... - 235 - 3.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... - 239 - 3.6 Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity .. - 239 - 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS...... - 240 - 4.1 Power and Economic Benefits of the Project ...... - 240 - 4.2 Cost of Operational and Environmental Measures...... - 243 - 4.3 Economic Comparison of Alternatives ...... - 262 - 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... - 263 - 5.1 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative...... - 263 - 5.1.1 Recommended Alternative ...... - 263 - 5.1.2 Measures Not Recommended by Staff ...... - 304 - 5.1.3 Conclusion...... - 317 - 5.2 Summary and Consistency with Fish and Wildlife Recommendations [10(j) Recommendations]...... - 317 - 5.3 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ...... - 322 - 6.0 LITERATURE CITED...... - 325 - 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... - 335 - 8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS...... - 336 - Appendix A……………..…………………….………………………………………..A-1 Appendix B………....….....……………………………………………………………B-1 Appendix C……………….……………………………………………………………C-1 Appendix D…………………………………………………………………………….D-1
vi 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Smith Mountain Project (P-2210) within the Roanoke River Basin...... - 2 - Figure 2. Smith Mountain single spillway discharge curve...... - 14 - Figure 3. Smith Mountain storage volume curve...... - 15 - Figure 4. Smith Mountain single spillway discharge curve...... - 17 - Figure 5. Leesville storage volume curve...... - 18 - Figure 6. Drainage basin map and basin areas...... - 39 - Figure 7. The location of the impaired waters in the project area and connecting watersheds...... - 67 - Figure 8. Comparison of Smith Mountain Lake elevations under the HL_8 (proposed water management protocol) to historical lake elevations for 1995-2008...... - 77 - Figure 9. Comparison of Smith Mountain Lake elevations under the TCRC protocol to historical lake elevations for 1995-2008...... - 79 - Figure 10. Lower and upper limits of fluctuating flow downstream of Leesville during auto-cycling operations, as computed by a dynamic routing model of the reach between Leesville and AltaVista...... - 80 - Figure 11. Comparison of Operations Model-simulated Smith Mountain Lake Elevations for the Memorial Day to Labor Day time frame under the proposed (HL_8), Certification (HL_9), and Tri-County Committee water management protocols...... - 83 - Figure 12. Comparison of Smith Mountain Lake elevation-duration results under the proposed (HL_8), Certification (HL_9), and Tri-County Committee water management protocols...... - 83 - Figure 13. Comparison of Operations Model-simulated Brookneal flow-duration results for the Memorial Day to Labor Day time frame under the proposed (HL_8), Certification (HL_9), and Tri-County Committee water management protocols...... - 84 - Figure 14. Weighted usable area/physical habitat index values versus discharge based on a composite of all species and life stages for the Leesville to Brookneal reach, Roanoke River, Virginia...... - 106 - Figure 15. Average daily discharge in the Roanoke River at the Altavista gage between 1963 and 2006...... - 107 - Figure 16. Habitat duration for striped bass adults, juveniles, and spawning (combined) in April at the Altavista and Brookneal stream gages...... - 111 - Figure 17. Habitat duration for smallmouth bass juveniles in June at the Altavista and Brookneal stream gages...... - 112 - Figure 18. Location of the existing and proposed recreation sites for the Smith Mountain Project...... - 157 -
vii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Smith Mountain Project...... - 4 - Table 2. Outline of the bedrock geology of the Smith Mountain Project region...... - 43 - Table 3. Bank conditions on Smith Mountain Lake shoreline...... - 46 - Table 4. Bank conditions on Leesville Lake shoreline...... - 47 - Table 5. USGS gauging sites for flow monitoring of the Smith Mountain Project.. .. - 62 - Table 6. Annual flow frequency estimates for Smith Mountain Project reservoirs and downstream...... - 62 - Table 7. Historic average daily inflow values by month for Smith Mountain and Leesville Lakes...... - 63 - Table 8. Descriptions of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Stream Classifications that apply to the Smith Mountain Project...... - 65 - Table 9. Water quality standards for water within the Smith Mountain Project...... - 66 - Table 10. Estimated water domestic withdrawal rates for the Smith Mountain Project over the next 40 years...... - 74 - Table 11. Proposed probabilistic triggers, minimum flow reductions, and recreation flow requirements...... - 76 - Table 12. Mean and total lengths of shoreline types (N=number of shoreline units) in Smith Mountain Lake in 2003...... - 93 - Table 13. Estimates of annual dock construction and area of the littoral zone affected in Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes...... - 94 - Table 14. Spawning periodicity, depth, and temperature preferences for the fish species of concern...... - 97 - Table 15. Substrate preferences and nesting strategies used for spawning by the fish species of concern...... - 98 - Table 16. Mean and total lengths of shoreline types (N=number of shoreline units) in Leesville Lake in 2003...... - 99 - Table 17. Computed peak flows and range of flows (cfs) at various distances downstream from the Leesville dam under existing flow releases and proposed flow releases...... - 101 - Table 18. Average monthly flows (cfs) under different scenarios at the Brookneal gage on the Roanoke River...... - 104 - Table 19. Fish species and life stages for which flow-habitat responses were modeled in the Roanoke River...... - 105 - Table 20. Proposed flows (cfs) in the Roanoke River downstream from the Leesville dam to maintain fish populations...... - 109 - Table 21. Flows (cfs) in the Roanoke River under different alternatives...... - 115 - Table 22. Pertinent reservoir and turbine intake characteristics that may influence entrainment at the Smith Mountain Project...... - 121 -
viii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Table 23. Comparison of field velocity data and synthesis of fish swim speed information...... - 122 - Table 24. Estimated entrainment losses for species of interest at Smith Mountain Lake, where annual density is shown as fish per million cubic feet of water...... - 124 - Table 25. Estimated entrainment losses for species of interest at Leesville Lake, where annual density is shown as fish per million cubic feet of water.... - 125 - Table 26. SAV species identified in Smith Mountain Lake...... - 135 - Table 27. Public recreation facilities at the Smith Mountain Project...... - 155 - Table 28. Recreation use estimates for public, commercial and private use (2005 through 2006)...... - 159 - Table 29. Recreation use estimates for public recreation sites at the project during the peak recreation season April 1 to October 31(1996 and 2006)...... - 160 - Table 30. Smith Mountain Project distribution of recreation activity among shoreline and regional residents...... - 162 - Table 31. Smith Mountain Project angling effort (in hours and trips)...... - 163 - Table 32. Public access site use estimates and projections during the peak recreation season – April 1 through October 31 (2006 – 2050)...... - 164 - Table 33. Site utilization estimates for public recreation sites at the project (April 1 through October 31, 2006)...... - 165 - Table 34. Recommended facilities by location...... - 166 - Table 35. Proposed and recommended recreational facility improvement measures at the Smith Mountain Project...... - 170 - Table 36. Proposed and recommended future recreational facilities for the Smith Mountain Project...... - 183 - Table 37. Proposed water releases from Leesville Dam to support recreation in the Roanoke River...... - 196 - Table 38. Minimum number of days (out of 214) between March 1 and September 30 that flow releases of 650 cfs and stream flows greater than or equal to 1,018 cfs would occur in the Roanoke River downstream from the Leesville dam...... - 199 - Table 39. Shoreline classification with total miles and percent of total shoreline.... - 210 - Table 40. Previously identified archaeological sites...... - 218 - Table 41. The 26 newly identified archaeological sites at Leesville Lake...... - 219 - Table 42. National Register Status and Recommendations for 20 sites on Leesville Lake...... - 221 - Table 43. Total population and percent change in the four-county study region...... - 225 - Table 44. Labor force and unemployment in the four-county study region...... - 226 - Table 45. Income and poverty in the four-county study region...... - 227 - Table 46. Housing data for the four-county study region...... - 227 - Table 47. Property tax revenue in the project area, 2005...... - 228 - Table 48. Estimated economic impact of the Smith Mountain Project...... - 230 - Table 49. Staff parameters for economic analysis of the Smith Mountain Project.. - 241 -
ix 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Table 50. Cost of environmental enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental effects of continuing to operate the Smith Mountain Pump Storage Project...... - 244 - Table 51. Summary of annual net benefits of the alternatives for the Smith Mountain Project...... - 262 - Table 52. Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations for the Smith Mountain Project...... - 319 -
x 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act Advisory Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AEP American Electric Power Appalachian Power Appalachian Power Company APE area of potential effects ºC degrees Celsius CEQ Council on Environmental Quality Certification water quality certification CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second Coast Guard U.S. Coast Guard Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Conservation Site Leesville Lake Conservation Site Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPI Consumer Price Index CWA Clean Water Act DFA Demonstration Flow Assessment DO dissolved oxygen Dominion Dominion Power EastLake EastLake Business Association EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ºF degrees Fahrenheit FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 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 kVA kilo volt-ampere Leesville Association Leesville Lake Association 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 NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum
xi 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
PA programmatic agreement PAD Pre-Application Document Project, the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project PWC Personal Watercraft RM river mile RTE rare, threatened, and endangered SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Smith Mountain Association Smith Mountain Lake Association Smith Mtn Fire/Rescue Company Smith Mountain Lake Marine Volunteer Fire/Rescue Co. Smith Mountain WMA Smith Mountain Wildlife Management Area SMP shoreline management plan TMDL total maximum daily load Tri-County Association Tri-County Lake Administrative Committee Tri-County Committee Tri-County Relicensing Committee USGS United States Geological Survey VA Archeological Society Archeological Society of Virginia Virginia CI Virginia Council on Indians Virginia DACS Virginia Depart of Agriculture and Consumer Services Virginia DCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia DEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia DGIF Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Virginia DH Virginia Department of Health Virginia DOT Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia NHP Virginia Natural Heritage Program Virginia SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer WUA weighted usable area
xii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 27, 2008, Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian Power), a unit of American Electric Power, filed an application for a new license to operate and maintain the 636-megawatt (MW) Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (Project). The Project is located on the headwaters of the Roanoke River in Bedford, Campbell, Franklin, and Pittsylvania counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
Proposed Action
The Project is an existing, two-dam, two-reservoir combination pumped storage and conventional hydroelectric project. The 586-MW Smith Mountain pumped storage development (Smith Mountain development) consists of a 235-foot-high, 816-foot-long concrete arch dam, a 20,260-acre reservoir (Smith Mountain Lake), and a powerhouse with five generating units (two conventional units and three reversible pump/turbine units). The 50-MW conventional Leesville development consists of a 94-foot-high, 980- foot-long concrete gravity dam, a 3,260-acre reservoir (Leesville Lake), and a powerhouse containing two turbine-generating units. The Project operates as a peaking facility, with generation occurring during peak usage periods. During off-peak periods, water passed through the Smith Mountain development to Leesville Lake is pumped pack into Smith Mountain Lake to be used again for generation. The Leesville development is operated in an auto-cycling mode to provide an average weekly flow of 650 cubic feet per second (cfs) downstream in the Roanoke River. The project and its operation are described in more detail in section 2.1.
Appalachian Power does not propose any new development, nor to modify project operation, except to discharge flows downstream of Leesville in accordance with its proposed Water Management Plan. Appalachian Power also proposes to implement a variety of resource management plans, including those relating to: (1) sedimentation and erosion; (2) water quality; (3) the federally endangered Roanoke logperch (Percina rex); (4) littoral zone aquatic habitat in both lakes; (5) nuisance/invasive aquatic vegetation; (6) recreation and shoreline management; (7) navigation aids; (8) floating debris; and (9) cultural resources. These measures are described in detail in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
Alternatives Considered
This final environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes the effects of continued project operation and recommends conditions for a new license for the project. In addition to Appalachian Power’s proposed action, we consider three alternatives: (1) the proposed action with mandatory conditions (e.g., water quality certification conditions);
xiii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
(2) the proposed action with mandatory conditions and additional staff-recommended measures (Staff Alternative); and (3) no-action.
The Staff Alternative includes Appalachian Power’s proposals for implementing: (a) erosion and sedimentation monitoring plans; (b) a water management plan; (c) a water quality monitoring plan; (d) a Roanoke logperch enhancement plan; (e) a habitat management plan; (f) an aquatic vegetation management plan; (g) recreation, aids to navigation, and debris management plans; (h) the existing shoreline management plan; and (i) a historic properties management plan (HPMP). The Staff Alternative also includes all the conditions outlined in the water quality certification (Certification), but would modify the scope of the Certification’s study of auto-cycling versus continuous releases to expand the duration and geographic scope of the study.
As detailed below, the Staff Alternative includes modifications to Appalachian Power’s proposed plans. The additional staff measures include the following:
• modifying the proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan to (a) add monitoring locations along the shorelines of Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes, (b) specify quantitative method(s) for monitoring erosion downstream from Leesville (e.g., bank pins), and (c) require erosion monitoring along the Roanoke River for more than 1 year and cover the reach from the Leesville dam downstream to Altavista, VA;
• modifying the proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Plan to (a) include a requirement that Appalachian Power identify the types of actions it would implement and under what conditions it would propose dredging at a recreation site, and (b) add Craddock Creek, Mitchells Cove, and areas near Mariners Landing to the list of areas to be monitored because public use of these areas is affected by sedimentation;
• modifying the proposed Water Management Plan to include (a) the provisions of Conditions D (Instream Flow Conditions), E (Adaptive Management),7 and G (Instream Flow Monitoring and Reporting Conditions)8 of the Certification, (b) a revised study plan for Part I, Condition D.3 of the Certification (Study of Auto- Cycling versus Continuous Release) that modifies the study design (i.e., a study duration of 3 years, unless data collected in year 1 indicates that monitoring in years 2 and 3 is not needed) to address effects on the Roanoke River from Leesville downstream to Altavista, a level-logger study on the lower reaches of
7 Consultation would occur every 5 years during the term of a new license.
8 An annual report would be filed with the Virginia DEQ, the Virginia DGIF, and the Commission.
xiv 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Goose Creek, and fieldwork (empirical data collection) in years 2 and 3 of the study), and (c) a requirement to consult with appropriate entities regarding how the forecast model would be updated between the 5-year review cycles;
• modifying the proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan to include (a) the provisions of Conditions F.1 (Water Quality Enhancement Measures) and F.4 (Feasibility of Measures to Enhance DO) of the Certification, (b) a more frequent reporting procedure, and (c) developing a plan to monitor water quality in Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes;
• modifying the proposed Habitat Management Plan to include (a) certain Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries-recommended editorial revisions, (b) a stipulation that proposed habitat projects not be limited to certain areas, (c) photographic documentation as part of the monitoring program, (d) marking large habitat projects as “fish attractors,” and (e) development of educational material;
• modifying the proposed Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan to include (a) a procedure for notifying adjacent landowners regarding the treatment to take place prior to its implementation, with the notification period to be worked out by the Aquatic Vegeation Technical Review Committee, (b) a requirement that the report filed by the Licensed Applicator identify the type of herbicide used in any treatment, and (c) a provision for Appalachian Power to control invasive aquatic vegetation at public boat ramps and other public areas, where determined appropriate;
• modifying the proposed Roanoke Logperch Enhancement Plan to stipulate that the implementation funds ($50,000) be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index;
• revising the proposed Recreation Management Plan (and filing it for Commission approval) to include (a) ensuring access at public boat ramps that are project facilities and that are the responsibility of Appalachian Power (including those sites maintained by the Virginia DGIF) by lengthening the ramps, dredging, or some combination thereof, (b) installing permanent toilets at all public recreation sites that are the responsibility of Appalachian Power, (c) assessing the appropriateness of providing picnic pavilions at three public recreation sites, (d) providing between 63 and 70 parking spaces at the Hardy Ford Public Boat Launch, (e) a procedure to determine the need for additional recreation facilities, in addition to the three facilities proposed by Appalachian Power, that includes conducting an assessment of the feasibility of providing amenities at five sites around the project, (f) developing procedures for managing recreational use of the islands on Smith Mountain Lake, (g) surveying recreation use on weekend days
xv 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
• modifying the Certification’s required study of auto-cycling versus continuous releases to account for the influence of altered fish populations on fishing effort and success;
• modifying the proposed Aids to Navigation Management Plan to include (a) installing and maintaining a lighted navigation system on Leesville Lake, and (b) coordinating the plan with the Aquatic Vegetation, Recreation, and Debris Management Plans;
• modifying the proposed Debris Management Plan to include (a) consultation with the Debris Technical Review Committee, and (b) development of procedures for monitoring and controlling debris, from Memorial to Labor Day, at public swimming beaches, the public recreation areas maintained by the Virginia DGIF and Appalachian Power, and other areas, as appropriate; and
• implementing the PA, executed on July 23, 2009, that requires Appalachian Power to develop an HPMP to protect historical properties and other resources affected by, or potentially affected by, the continued operation of the Project.
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 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 December 27, 2004. Scoping meetings were held in Gretna, Virginia on January 26 and 27, 2005.
In employing the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process, Appalachian Power filed, on November 2, 2007, 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 March 27, 2008. On August 7, 2008, staff requested comments, recommendations, and terms and conditions, in response to a notice that the relicense application was ready for environmental analysis.
The primary issues associated with relicensing this project are: (1) water management (e.g., lake levels and instream flows); (2) erosion and sedimentation within Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes; (3) the project’s effect on the Roanoke logperch; (4) loss of littoral zone habitat in both lakes; (5) controlling invasive aquatic vegetation; (6)
xvi 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
recreational access needs; and (7) managing navigation aids and floating debris within the two lakes.
Project Effects
Geology and Soils – Fluctuating lake levels due to pump-back operation contributes to shoreline erosion at Smith Mountain Lake, and the auto-cycling mode of operation at Leesville results in fluctuating flows downstream, which contributes to downstream erosion. Appalachian Power’s proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan includes a survey component, as well as provisions to develop demonstration projects and address any project-related erosion effects. These measures would facilitate implementation of measures that would improve the stability of portions of the lakes’ shorelines and improve aquatic habitat in the lakes.
Sedimentation in the Blackwater and Roanoke river arms, as well as in other localized areas (e.g., public boat ramps, near islands, etc.) creates a navigation hazard. Although sediment input to the lakes is not a project effect, Appalachian Power proposes to implement a Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, which provides for monitoring every 5 years and the establishment of a Basin-wide Watershed Committee. These measures would provide a mechanism to manage sediment input into the project impoundments and could reduce the sediment load entering the lakes. In addition, on-going monitoring would provide information that Appalachian Power and the Committee could use to identify measures that could facilitiate the public’s use of the lakes.
Staff’s modifications to the proposed erosion and sedimentation plans would improve the plans’ value as a tool to manage these issues at the Project. These modifications would (a) expand the areas to be monitored for erosion, (b) require the use of quantitative method(s) for monitoring erosion downstream from Leesville, and (c) clarify the methods used to address sedimentation, as well as the conditions for use.
Water and Aquatic Resources – Under Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Management Plan, the Project would continue to operate as a pumped storage facility, utilizing up to a daily 2-foot drawdown in Smith Mountain Lake and a daily 13-foot drawdown in Leesville Lake. The operational parameters included in the proposed plan would provide slightly higher yearly lake levels in Smith Mountain Lake when compared to existing conditions, particularly during low-inflow periods. The additional restrictions outlined in the Certification (i.e., expanding Trigger 3 events and placing caps on the flows released downstream), which we recommend, would help to maintain even higher lake levels in Smith Mountain Lake.
The flows outlined in the proposed Water Management Plan, as well as those required in the Certification, would provide nearly optimal habitat for the species of concern in the Roanoke River, mainly blackbass and striped bass. In addition, the
xvii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Certification requires, and staff recommend, a flow release from Leesville to the Roanoke River downstream for recreation under Trigger 3 (the most severe) drought events. This measure would ensure that recreational use of the river downstream from the project is maintained during droughts.
The Certification requires a study of auto-cycling operation versus continuous releases at Leesville. This measure would ensure that the operation of Leesville is not adversely affecting resources in, and along, the Roanoke River for 3 miles downstream from the Project.
Staff’s modifications to the proposed action and the Certification’s conditions would (a) enhance the effectiveness of the forecast model used in the plan, and (b) increase the duration and coverage of the Certification’s required flow study, which would improve the quality of information used in making decision regarding the future operational mode for the Leesville development.
Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan, as well as Condition F of the Certification would improve the dissolved oxygen levels discharged from the Smith Mountain development. Staff modifications to these measures would (a) enhance data reporting, and (b) ensure that water quality monitoring on the lakes continues throughout a new license term.
Appalachian Power’s proposed Habitat Management Plan would protect and/or enhance existing riparian and aquatic habitats in Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes, as well as provide a mechanism to ameliorate the loss of these habitats in the lakes due to shoreline development. Staff’s modifications to the proposed plan would enhance the effectiveness of the plan in terms of (a) selecting project sites, (b) site monitoring, (c) marking sites as fish habitat, and (d) education.
Threatened and Endangered Species – The federally endangered Roanoke logperch (Percina rex) would benefit from the implementation of Appalachian Power’s proposed Roanoke Logperch Enhancement Plan. Under the proposed plan, Appalachian Power would work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Virginia DGIF) to enhance the species’ habitat in the upper Roanoke River Basin, including areas potentially affected by the operation of the project. Staff’s modification to the proposed plan would ensure that Appalachian Power’s commitments under the plan remain constant throughout the term of any new license. In addition, continuing to operate the Project would have no affect on the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a population of which occurs along Leesville Lake, in the Leesville Conservation site, but does not occur within the project boundary.
Terrestrial Resources – Appalachian Power proposed to implement an Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. The proposed plan would establish Appalachian Power’s
xviii 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
responsibilities towards vegetation management within the boundary of the Project. The proposed plan would establish a treatment permitting program, and provide a framework for working with other entities to manage vegetation at the Project. Appalachian Power’s proposal to develop an agreement among itself, the Virginia DGIF, and the Tri-County Lake Administrative Committee (Tri-County Association) would foster cooperation among the entities in treating aggressive, invasive vegetation. Staff’s modifications to the proposed plan would clarify certain procedures towards implementing the plan (i.e., notifying adjacent landowners and documenting the herbicide used).
Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics – Appalachian Power’s proposed Recreation Management Plan would (a) enhance various existing public access sites within the project boundary, and (b) ensure that future recreation needs are met based on monitoring recreation use, as well as supporting Virginia DGIF’s angler surveys, every 6 years. Staff’s modifications to the proposed plan would further enhance recreational opportunities at the project by (a) improving access at public boat ramps, (b) installing permanent toilets at public recreational sites, (c) assessing the need to provide picnic pavilions at three public access sites and expanding parking at two sites, (d) determining the need for additional facilities at six locations around the project, (e) developing procedures to manage recreational use on the island in Smith Mountain Lake, and (f) ensuring recreational use monitoring would occur during high demand periods and adding a requirement to conduct angler surveys.
Appalachian Power proposes to set aside three parcels of land for future recreation development. Placing these parcels, as well as the existing public access sites, within the project boundary would ensure that the existing and planned recreation facilities remain under Commission jurisdiction.
Appalachian Power’s proposed Aids to Navigation Management Plan would contribute to boating safety on the lakes, as well as overall safety associated with recreational use of project waters. Staff’s modifications to the proposed plan (i.e., the installation of a lighted navigation system on Leesville Lake and coordination with other proposed plans) would enhance boating safety at the project, particularly on Leesville Lake.
Appalachian Power’s proposed Debris Management Plan would provide a mechanism 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 enhance recreation opportunities at the project.
The existing Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) includes measures to protect shoreline vegetation by placing certain restrictions on development activities along the lakes’ shorelines. These measures, as well as the measures included in the proposed
xix 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Habitat Management Plan (which would be incorporated into the SMP in its next update) should have positive benefits over time.
Cultural Resources – The proposed Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) would provide a level of protection to sites affected by Project operation. Staff’s recommendation to execute the Programmatic Agreement that includes the development of an HPMP would provide an additional level of protection to project facilities and other properties affected by Project operations.
Conclusions
Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by Appalachian Power, with some modifications and additional measures (including mandatory conditions), as described above under Alternatives Considered.
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; (2) the 636 MW of electric energy generation from a renewable resource may offset the use of fossil-fueled, steam-electric generating plants, thereby conserving non- renewable resources and reducing atmospheric pollution; (3) the recommended environmental measures proposed by Appalachian Power, as modified by staff (with mandatory conditions), 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.
In section 4.0, Developmental Analysis, we estimate the annual net benefits of operating and maintaining the project under the four alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows that the annual net benefit would be $8,606,389 (16.06 mills/kWh) for the proposed action; $8,549,080 (15.95 mills/kWh) for the proposed action with mandatory conditions; $8,600,183 (16.04 mills/kWh) for the Staff Alternative; and $9,866,785 (18.41 mills/kWh) for the no-action alternative.
xx 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Application
On March 27, 2008, Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian Power), a unit of American Electric Power (AEP), filed an application for a new license to operate and maintain the 636-megawatt (MW) Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (Project). The Project is located on the headwaters of the Roanoke River in Bedford, Campbell, Franklin, and Pittsylvania counties in Virginia (figure 1). The project generates an average of about 536,016 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually. Appalachian Power proposes no new capacity or no new construction. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power
1.2.1 Purpose of Action
The Commission must decide whether to issue a new license to Appalachian Power for the Project, and what, if any, conditions to include in 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 (e.g., flood control, irrigation, and water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
In this final environmental impact statement (EIS), Commission staff 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. Staff 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 the project are: (1) water management (e.g., lake levels and instream flows); (2) erosion and sedimentation within Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes; (3) the project’s effect on the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex); (4) loss of littoral zone habitat in both lakes; (5) controlling invasive aquatic vegetation; (6) recreational access needs; and (7) managing navigation aids and floating debris within the two lakes.
Issuing a new license for the Smith Mountain 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 - 20090807-4001 FERCPDF(Unofficial)08/07/2009
Figure 1. Location of the Smith Mountain Project (P-2210) within the Roanoke River Basin. (Source: Appalachian Power, 2008a).
- 2 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
1.2.2 Need for Power
The Smith Mountain Project is an integral part of AEP’s system of generation, which includes nearly 38,000 MW of generating capacity.1 Coal-fired plants account for 73 percent of the capacity, while natural gas represents 16 percent and nuclear 8 percent.2 The remaining 3 percent comes from wind, hydro, pumped storage and other sources. AEP owns and operates 17 hydroelectric facilities (878 MW) located on six river systems in five states. There are 17 generating facilities (8,018.1 MW) within Appalachian Power’s service area: six coal-fired plants; one natural gas facility; and ten hydro/pump storage projects.3 Of the 8,018.1 MW, Appalachian Power owns 6,415 MW. Hydro and pump storage projects represent 823.1 MW, with the Project being 636 MW.
As described in further detail under section 2.1.2, the units for the Smith Mountain Project are brought on-line and taken off-line based upon the needs of the power grid identified from the AEP System Control Center located in Columbus, Ohio. When generation is required, the units at the Smith Mountain development can be brought on- line within 10 minutes. This quick response to system needs is important in maintaining grid stability, while other methods of generation may not be brought on-line so quickly during a time of immediate need. The pump storage feature of the Project allows Appalachian Power to store energy by pumping water from Leesville Lake to Smith Mountain Lake during off-peak times (i.e., night time) for use in generating power during peak demand periods (i.e., weekdays).
Continued operation of the Project would provide hydroelectric generation to meet part of region’s power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity needs. As proposed, the project would continue to have an installed capacity of 636.0 MW and generate 536,016 MWh annually. The project provides an average dependable capacity from the two developments of approximately 134 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 2008 forecast (NERC, 2008), during the summer
1 See http://www.appalachianpower.com/about/ (accessed March 12, 2009).
2 See http://www.aep.com/about/powerplants/ (accessed March 12, 2009).
3 See http://www.appalachianpower.com/about/serviceTerritory/docs/ AppalachianPowerFactSheet2007.pdf (accessed March 12, 2009).
- 3 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
season, which is the most critical electric generation season for the RFC region, the average annual demand is projected to grow at a rate of 1.67 percent from 2008 through 2017.
The Project is a low-cost, clean, renewable source of generation that 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. 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 Project would help meet a need for power in the RFC region, in both the short and long term.
1.3 Statutory 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 Smith Mountain Project. (Source: staff). Requirement Agency Status Section 18 of the FPA FWS, NMFS NMFS requested reservation of (fishway prescriptions) authority to prescribe fish passage on October 3, 2008. FWS has neither prescribed fish passage nor requested reservation of authority to prescribe fish passage. Section 10(j) of the FPA Virginia DGIF Virginia DGIF provided section 10(j) recommendations on October 1, 2008. Clean Water Act Virginia DEQ The Virginia DEQ received an application for water quality certification from Appalachian Power on March 26, 2008. The Certification was issued on October 31, 2008.
- 4 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Requirement Agency Status Endangered Species Act FWS Completed: FWS concurred with Consultation staff’s finding of “not likely to adversely affect” for the federally endangered Roanoke logperch (Percina rex) by letter filed on May 6, 2009. Relicensing the Project would have “no affect” on the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). Coastal Zone Management Virginia DEQ Coastal zone certification not Act Consistency required by Virginia or North Carolina. National Historic Virginia SHPO Programmatic Agreement executed Preservation Act on July 23, 2009.
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. The U.S. Department of Commerce, on behalf of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in a letter filed October 3, 2008, requests that a reservation of authority to prescribe fishways under section 18 be included in any new license issued for the project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), through the U.S. Department of the Interior, did not provide 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 recommendations, 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.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Virginia DGIF) timely filed, on October 6, 2008, recommendations under section 10(j). These recommendations are summarized in table 52, section 5.2, Summary and Consistency with Fish and Wildlife
- 5 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Recommendations [10(j) Recommendations]. In section 5.2, we discuss how we address the agency recommendations and comply with section 10(j).
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 March 25, 2008, Appalachian Power applied to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Virginia DEQ) for 401 water quality certification (Certification) for the Project. The Virginia DEQ received Appalachian Power’s request for a Certification on March 26, 2008. The Virginia DEQ timely issued the Certification on October 31, 2008 (letter from Joseph P. Hassel, Environmental Program Manager, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia, October 31, 2008). The conditions of the Certification are described in section 2.2.4, Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal – 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. According to the FWS, the federally endangered Roanoke logperch is known to occur in the Roanoke River drainage, in the vicinity of the Smith Mountain Project (FWS, 2008). No critical habitat has been designated for the Roanoke logperch.
Our analysis of project effects on the Roanoke logperch 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.
Based on our analysis in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species, we conclude that relicensing the Project, as outlined in the Staff Alternative (proposed action with staff-recommended measures and mandatory conditions), is not likely to adversely affect Roanoke logperch.4 We requested FWS concurrence with our conclusion by letter
4 The FWS, in a letter filed March 12, 2008, states that “Based on the project location and on-going operations, the Service believes that this project is not currently adversely affecting federally listed species or adversely modifying critical habitat.” The FWS concluded that no further section 7 consultation was required. Because the Staff
- 6 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
dated March 31, 2009. FWS concurred with our determination on May 6, 2009 (letter from Cindy Schulz, Supervisor, Virginia Field Office, FWS, Gloucester, VA to Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC).5
The Virginia DEQ, on behalf of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (Virginia DCR) – Division of Natural Heritage, in its comments on the draft EIS, filed May 11, 2009, noted the presence of the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) within the Leesville Lake Conservation Site (Conservation Site). The small whorled pogonia is federally listed as threatened.
As documented in Appendix C of this final EIS, we reviewed available information on the Conservation Site and the small whorled pogonia to determine if the Project would affect the small whorled pogonia within the Conservation Site. Based on our analysis provided in Appendix C,6 we conclude that relicensing the Project, as outlined in the Staff Alternative, would have no affect on the small whorled pogonia. On June 18, 2009, we notified the FWS of our finding. The FWS has not commented on staff’s finding.
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 that would affect 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
Alternative is different than the proposed action, we conclude that additional consultation is warranted.
5 In a letter sent the FWS (filed with the Commission on July 7, 2009), the Natural Heritage Institute, on behalf of the Tri-County Committee, challenged the FWS’ concurrence with staff’s finding of “not likely to adversely affect.” The Natural Heritage Institute requests that the FWS initiate formal consultation with the Commission to evaluate the potential negative effects the Smith Mountain Project likely will have on the Roanoke logperch.
6 In an email from Rene Hypes, Virginia DCR to Jeffrey Browning, FERC, filed on June 11, 2009, the Virginia DCR stated that the population of small whorled pogonia within the Conservation Site does not extend below the 620-foot contour and would not be affected by the proposed project.
- 7 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
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.
The Smith Mountain development is located at river mile (RM) 314 and the Leesville development is located at RM 296 on the Roanoke River in Virginia. In addition, the Roanoke River flows south-easterly before entering Albemarle Sound in North Carolina. Thus, the Project is not located within the state-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. As noted by Appalachian Power in its license application (Appalachian Power, 2008a; page 4-12, Vol. II, Exhibit E), the Virginia DEQ concurred.
Regarding the Projects potential affects on coastal resources in North Carolina, we note that the Project is located in Virginia, well above Virginia’s border with North Carolina. The Project’s two dams are the 4th and 5th dams on the mainstream Roanoke River, located approximately 75 miles upstream of the Corps-owned Kerr Project. The Kerr Project, as a flood control reservoir, is operated in a way that regulates flows in the lower Roanoke River in North Carolina. In addition, there are not fish passage facilities at the Corps-owned project, so no diadromous (or migratory) fish species access habitats that may be affected by the day-to-day operations of Smith Mountain. Therefore, the Project is not subject to North Carolina coastal zone program review, and no consistency certification is needed. In a letter filed April 14, 2009, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management concurred (letter from Stephen Rynas, AICP, Federal Consistency Coordinator, North Carolina DENR – DCM, Morehead City, NC to Allan Creamer, FERC, Washington, DC).
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 executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) on July 23, 2009, for the protection of historic properties from the effects of continued operation of the Project. The terms of the PA would ensure that Appalachian Power addresses and treats all historic properties identified within the project’s area of potential effect (APE) through a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).
- 8 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
1.4 Public Review and Consultation
The Commission’s regulations (18 CFR, sections 5-1 to 5.16) require that applicant’s 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 October 2002, Appalachian Power initiated consultation with federal and state agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the public, with a public meeting being held in November 2002.7 The purposes of the public meeting were to discuss the project generally and to begin identifying issues important to the stakeholders.
Between November 2002 and March 2008, Appalachian Power hosted over 45 stakeholder meetings, work-group meetings, and site visits to discuss resource issues, as well as develop its study plan, study reports, and the 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 EIS. Scoping Document 1 (SD1) was issued on December 27, 2004. Two scoping meetings, both advertised in the Alta Vista Journal, Smith Mountain Eagle, The Roanoke Times, and the Star Tribune, were held on January 26 and 27, 2005, in Gretna, Virginia, 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 January 26, 2005.
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 Roanoke River Basin Association February 3, 2005 Lars Hagen February 3, 2005 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation February 14, 2005
7 The entities contacted during the information gathering process are identified in the license application (Appalachian Power, 2008a; pages 4-1 to 4-3, Vol. II, Exhibit E).
- 9 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Turner’s Building, Inc. February 14, 2005 Runaway Bay Homeowner’s Association February 15, 2005 Association of Lake Area Communities February 21, 2005 Robert P. Mathewson February 22, 2005 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries March 1, 2005 Citizens for the Preservation of the River February 24, 2005 Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission February 28, 2005 Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce/ Partnership February 28, 2005 Michael A. Lobue February 28, 2005 Julia B. Moore February 28, 2005 American Rivers March 1, 2005 Smith Mountain Lake Association March 1, 2005 Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission March 1, 2005 Lynn E. Stelle March 1, 2005 Dale & Linda Quinn March 2, 2005 County of Roanoke, Virginia March 7, 2005 Tri-County AEP Relicensing Committee March 11, 2005 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality March 28, 2005 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 1, 2005
A revised Scoping Document (SD2), addressing these comments, was issued on April 15, 2005.
1.4.2 Interventions
On August 7, 2008, the Commission issued a public notice accepting the application and soliciting motions to intervene, with a filing deadline of October 6, 2008. Timely motions to intervene were filed by:8
Intervening Entity Date Filed American Rivers August 20, 2008 Dominion Virginia Power September 4, 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries October 3, 2008 Tri-County AEP Relicensing Committee October 6, 2008 William C. Brush October 6, 2008
8 The motions were timely and unopposed, and were, therefore, automatically granted by operation of 18 C.F.R. §385.214(c)(1)(2008).
- 10 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
1.4.3 Comments on the License Application
On August 7, 2008, the Commission issued a public notice requesting comments, final recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions. The filing deadline was October 6, 2008. The following entities filed comments and recommendations:
Commenting Agencies and Other Entities Date Filed American Rivers August 20, 2008 Paul L. Angermeier, PhD August 25, 20089 Dominion Virginia Power September 4, 2008 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries September 24, 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries October 3, 2008 Tri-County AEP Relicensing Committee October 6, 2008 Smith Mountain Lake Association October 6, 2008 William C. Brush October 6, 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior October 8, 200810 John and Kimberly Puterio October 28, 200811
In addition, approximately 90 individuals and other entities filed comments on the Water Management Plan, and about 25 individuals and other entities filed comments on the Aids to Navigation Plan.12 We consider these comments herein. Appalachian Power filed reply comments on November 17, 2008.
1.4.4 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Commission sent the draft EIS to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and made the draft EIS available to the public on March 31, 2009. The Commission requested that comments on the draft EIS be filed by May 11, 2009. Appendix D lists the
9 The Virginia DGIF responded to Dr. Angermeier’s comments in a letter filed October 1, 2008.
10 In its letter, Interior indicated that it had no comments on the Commission August 7, 2008, public notice.
11 The correspondence from John and Kimberly Puterio is dated August 8, 2008.
12 As part of the relicensing effort, Appalachian Power developed several management plans that it proposes to implement during a new license term. Two of the plans pertain to water management at the Project, as well as navigation aids on Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes.
- 11 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
commenters, summarizes the comments that were filed, and includes staff’s responses to those comments, as well as indicates where changes were made to the draft EIS. In addition, the Commission accepted oral testimony on the draft EIS at a public meeting held on April 30, 2009, in Rocky Mount, VA. The transcript and notes from this meeting are in the record for the Project. Staff modified the text of the EIS in response to oral and written comments received, as appropriate.
- 12 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 No-action Alternative
2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities
The Project is an existing, two-dam, two-reservoir combination pumped storage and conventional hydroelectric project located on the headwaters of the Roanoke (Staunton) River in south-central Virginia (see figure 1). The pumped storage development is known as the Smith Mountain development, while the conventional hydro development is referred to as the Leesville development. The Smith Mountain dam is located at river mile (RM) 314, while the Leesville dam is located at RM 296.
Smith Mountain Development
The Smith Mountain development has five generating units. Of those five units, two are strictly conventional generators (Units 2 and 4), while the other three (Units 1, 3, and 5) are reversible pump/turbine units. All five units are vertical Francis-type units, with a direct connection to the generators. The two 262,000-horsepower (hp) conventional units are connected to two 174,000-kilowatt (kW) generators. The two 87,000-hp reversible pump units are connected to two 66,000-kW reversible-motor generators. The remaining unit (a 137,400-hp reversible pump unit) is connected to a 106,000-kW reversible-motor generator. The Smith Mountain development has a total installed capacity of 586 MW. The average annual generation for this development is 476,640 megawatt-hours (MWh), while the average annual power utilized for generation is 495,712 MWh (based on data recorded for 1975-2007).
The dam for the Smith Mountain development is a concrete arch dam, with a crest elevation of 812.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a length along its crest of 816.0 feet. The dam has a maximum height of 235.0 feet above the streambed. At each end of the dam is an ogee-crest, free overflow spillway, each 100.0 feet in length with a crest elevation of 795.0 feet NGVD. Each of the ogee-crest overflow spillways has a hydraulic capacity of 25,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) when the reservoir surface is at elevation 812.0 feet NGVD. Above that elevation, flow overtops the dam. The discharge curve for the overflow spillways is provided in figure 2. Directly below the spillways are concrete chutes that direct emergency overflows downstream.
13 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Figure 2. Smith Mountain single spillway discharge curve. (Source: Appalachian Power, 2008a).
The powerhouse, which contains the five generating units is located immediately downstream from the toe of the dam. Five intakes, which provide flow to steel penstocks and onward to the development’s turbines, penetrate the concrete arch dam. The intakes are equipped with trashracks that have a clear spacing of 4⅜ inches. As described below, the intakes are situated at three different elevations, and the penstocks have diameters ranging from 20 to 26 feet.
Intake Invert Elevation (ft.) Unit # (NGVD) Intake Diameter (ft.) 1 655 20 2 737 26 3 737 26 4 737 26 5 600 20
As described more fully in section 2.1.2, Existing Project Operation, the Smith Mountain development serves as a peaking facility. During off-peak periods, water is pumped from Leesville Lake for use during peak demand periods. The normal operating head of the Smith Mountain development is 185 feet, and the mean annual flow through the development is 1,211 cfs. Smith Mountain Lake has a surface area of 20,260 acres and a storage volume of 1,082,480 acre-feet, at the normal operating level of 795.0 feet NGVD. The storage-volume curve for the development is presented in figure 3.
14 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Figure 3. Smith Mountain storage volume curve. (Source: Appalachian Power, 2008a).
At maximum pool, the Smith Mountain development has a hydraulic capacity of approximately 47,400 cfs. Individually, the maximum and minimum hydraulic capacities for the five units at the development are listed below. The estimated maximum drawdown rate for the Smith Mountain Lake is 0.19 feet per hour (ft/hr).
Hydraulic Capacity Hydraulic Capacity Unit # Minimum (cfs) Maximum (cfs) 1 2,700 5,200 2 10,000 14,000 3 5,700 9,000 4 10,000 14,000 5 2,700 5,400
15 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
As noted previously, Units 1, 3, and 5 have the ability to pump water from Leesville Lake to Smith Mountain Lake. The pumping capacities for each unit are:
Pumping Capacity Unit # (cfs) 1 655 3 737 5 600
The combined pumping capacity for the three units is approximately 15,810 cfs. The associated maximum rate at which Smith Mountain Lake can be filled is about 0.065 ft/hr.
The Smith Mountain development has appurtenant electrical and mechanical equipment necessary to transmit power to AEP’s interconnected system. This is accomplished through a 600,000 kilo volt-ampere (kVA) substation located in vicinity of the powerhouse, and double-circuit 138-kilovolt (kV) tie-in lines. The tie-in lines vary in length from 946 feet (Unit 4) to 998 feet (Unit 2) (Appalachian Power, 2008b).
Leesville Development
The Leesville development has two conventional generating units. The turbines for both units are identical, 32,000 hp vertical propeller-type units directly connected to two 25,000-kW vertical-shaft generators. All of the generating equipment and associated controls are housed in the powerhouse that is an integral part of the dam for the Leesville development. There are two intakes, which are equipped with trashracks having a clear bar spacing of 6½ inches, that supply water to the generating units. The Leesville development has a total installed capacity of 50 MW and an average annual generation of 59,376 MWh (based on data recorded for 1975-2007).
The Leesville dam is a concrete gravity structure, 980 feet in length along its crest. The dam has a crest elevation of 615.67 feet NGVD, resulting in a maximum height above the streambed of 94 feet. Near the center of the dam are four gated spillway sections (totaling 224 feet in length), each equipped with a tainter gate measuring 50 feet wide by 35 feet high. The crest elevation of each spillway section is 578.0 feet NGVD.
The hydraulic capacity of the spillway for the Leesville development is approximately 175,100 cfs, with a reservoir surface elevation of 615.67 feet NGVD. Above that elevation, the dam is overtopped. The discharge curve for the spillway is included in figure 4.
16 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Figure 4. Smith Mountain single spillway discharge curve. (Source: Development of PMP Report by Schnabel Engineering, as presented in Appalachian Power, 2008a).
Leesville Lake is the lower reservoir for the Project. Leesville fluctuates between 600.0 and 613.0 feet NGVD, which results in an average operating head of 70 feet. Leesville Lake has a surface area of about 3,260 acres and a storage volume of 89,210 acre-feet at an elevation of 613.0 feet NGVD. The storage-volume curve is provided in figure 5.
Each of the two generating units at the Leesville development has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 4,500 cfs and a minimum hydraulic capacity of 3,750 cfs. The total capacity of the units is 9,000 cfs. This development has an estimated maximum refill rate of 1.33 ft/hr. The maximum rate for lowering the pool level is estimated at 0.46 ft/hr, due to the pump back operation at Smith Mountain.
The Leesville development has appurtenant electrical and mechanical equipment necessary to transmit power to AEP’s interconnected system. This is accomplished through a 50,000 kVA substation located in vicinity of the powerhouse, and a 317-foot- long, double-circuit 138-kilovolt (kV) tie-in line (Appalachian Power, 2008b).
17 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Figure 5. Leesville storage volume curve. (Source: Appalachian Power, 2008a).
2.1.2 Project Safety
The Project has been operating for more than 45 years under the existing license.13 During this time, Commission staff have conducted operational inspections focusing on the continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications,
13 The Federal Power Commission issued, to Appalachian Power, an original license for the Project on April 25, 1960. Appalachian Power Co., 23 FPC 624 (1960).
18 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper maintenance. In addition, the Smith Mountain Project has been inspected and evaluated every 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 will 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 Project is an integral part of the AEP system. As such, units for the project are brought on-line and taken off-line based on system needs identified from the AEP System Control Center in Columbus, Ohio. Actual project operations, however, are dispatched from the Hydro Operations Center located in Roanoke, Virginia. The hydro Operations Center is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
When generation is required on the AEP system, the units at the Smith Mountain development can be remotely started and brought on-line within 10 minutes. Generation from the Smith Mountain development occurs during peak usage periods, while the Leesville is operated, in an auto-cycle mode, to provide flow to the Roanoke River downstream from the project. During off-peak periods, when generation does not occur at the Smith Mountain development, the water that passed through the Smith Mountain development to Leesville Lake is pumped back into Smith Mountain Lake to be used again for generating during the next on-peak demand period. There are no specific license requirements for lake level restrictions on either lake.
Under normal conditions,14 the Smith Mountain Lake is maintained at elevation 795.0 feet NGVD. When generation is required from the Smith Mountain development, flow passes through the development’s units to the downstream Leesville Lake. The maximum volume of flow that can pass from Smith Mountain Lake to Leesville Lake results in a lowering of the operating level for Smith Mountain Lake of about 2 feet. That same inflow into Leesville Lake increases the operating level for Leesville from the minimum level of 600.0 feet to 613.0 feet NGVD. The tailwater elevation downstream from the Leesville development is 531.5 feet NGVD prior to bringing the units on-line. Flow through the units typically results in the tailwater elevation increasing by slightly over 5 feet, to 536.9 feet NGVD.
14 Appalachian Power does not define “normal conditions” in its license application or supporting documents.
19 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Depending on the generation needs of the AEP system and project inflows, the levels on both lakes and the number of units operating at any one time can vary. Those values referenced above indicate the extremes for both Smith Mountain and Leesville Lake. Operation of the project, on a year-round basis, is accomplished so as to maintain an elevation of 795.0 feet NGVD, as the target or adjusted reservoir elevation for the Smith Mountain development.15
The two developments of the Smith Mountain Project were not designed with flood control capabilities. However, under high inflow events and in coordination with the U.S. Corps of Engineers (Corps), Appalachian Power modifies project operation in an attempt to assist with flood control.16 During high flow periods, the Leesville development is to be operated so as to attempt to limit flood flows at the town of Altavista, Virginia to 20,000 cfs, as measured at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage (No. 02060500) at Altavista.
During periods when inflows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the units for the Smith Mountain development, the reservoir level increases above elevation 795.0 feet NGVD and flow passes over the overflow spillways located at each abutment for the dam. Similarly, if project inflows are higher than what can be controlled by the units at the Leesville development, flow is passed through the spillway tainter gates.
If inflows to the Smith Mountain Project are less than project outflows, the water level at Smith Mountain Lake drops. As the lake level decreases, generation continues with fluctuations still approaching 2 feet. Lake levels approaching elevation 787.0 feet NGVD are hazardous to navigation because the tops of trees left within the lower portions of the lake at the time of project construction are approximately 5 feet below this elevation.
Headwater elevations for Smith Mountain and Leesville Lakes, tailwater elevations downstream from each dam, generation from the units, and tainter gate openings are monitored continuously at AEP’s System Control Center and Hydro Operations Center. Appalachian Power also monitors (a) numerous USGS gages that provide inflow information for the project, and (b) a system of rain gauges located throughout the drainage basin for the Smith Mountain Project.
15 Adjusted elevation is the elevation that could be maintained at Smith Mountain Lake at any time when giving consideration to project inflow, the volume of water within Leesville Lake between elevations 600.0 feet and 613.0 feet NGVD.
16 The operating agreement with the Corps was developed pursuant to Article 28 of the existing license. Appalachian Power Co., 23 FPC 624 (1960).
20 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
2.1.4 Current License Environmental Requirements
ROANOKE RIVER FLOWS – The existing license requires Appalachian Power to provide a minimum average weekly flow of 650 cfs downstream from the Leesville dam (Article 29),17 which is provided by auto-cycling the units.18 The existing minimum flow release pattern is to operate the two Leesville units once every 2 hours for a period of about 20 minutes. The flow released is dependent on the volume of water available at the project, as well as project inflows. However, the flow released is to average no less than 650 cfs, as measured at the USGS Altavista gage (No. 02060500).
Appalachian Power is required to release, from the Leesville development, a minimum average daily flow of 60 cfs, measured at the USGS gate in Altavista. The average daily flow released during the spring striped bass spawning season is increased to an average daily flow not to exceed 2,000 cfs. Article 34 of the existing project license requires these flows,19 unless additional flows are required by the Virginia DGIF to support its spawning and hatchery operations at Brookneal, Virginia (30.6 miles downstream from Altavista and slightly more than 40 miles downstream from Leesville dam).20
On May 19, 2000, the Commission amended Article 29 of the existing license.21 This amendment allows Appalachian Power to modify (i.e., reduce) the 650-cfs weekly average flow requirement under extreme low inflow conditions. The amendment is intended to ameliorate concerns for boating safety on Smith Mountain Lake, while also providing adequate flows downstream of the Leesville development. Under low inflow conditions, the flows to be provided downstream of Leesville, pursuant to the Article 29
17 Appalachian Power Co., 23 FPC (624-629).
18 Historically, the Leesville development was operated as a peaking facility. In 1988, at the request of downstream landowners (to address significant bank erosion and loss of riparian property), Appalachian Power changed Leesville operation from a peaking facility to the current auto-cycling operation.
19 Appalachian Power Co., 55 FPC (1892-1893).
20 Article 34 requires Appalachian Power to release up to 2,000 cfs for 19 days. However, since the late 1960s and in coordination with the Virginia DGIF, the Appalachian Power has released a minimum flow of 1,150 cfs (measured at Brookneal, Virginia) for a period of 45 days, beginning generally in mid-April and extending until around June 1.
21 Appalachian Power Co., 91 FERC ¶62,124 (2000).
21 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
amendment, are determined through consultation among Appalachian Power, the appropriate agencies, and other stakeholder groups.
On July 5, 2005, the Commission approved a shoreline management plan (SMP) for the Smith Mountain Project.22 The SMP provides guidelines and regulations for shoreline development along Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes to ensure the protection and enhancement of the project’s recreational, environmental, cultural, and scenic resources and the project’s primary function, the production of electricity.
The SMP was subsequently amended on April 14, 2006,23 and February 23, 2007.24 The April 14, 2006 amendment banned all in-water construction (including dredging), except pile driving and associated above water dock construction activities, from February 15 through June 15, to protect spawning habitat for blackbass and other shallow water species. The February 23, 2007 amendment lifted that ban in all SMP classification zones, except those zones identified as either “Conservation/ Environmental” or “Impact Minimization Zone.” The February 23, 2007 amendment also required the completion of in-water surveys of any area to be disturbed (from April 15 through June 15). Dredging continues to be prohibited in all areas from February 15 through June 15.
There are no recreational facilities specifically designated as project facilities in the current license. However, Appalachian owns and manages (a) the Smith Mountain Lake Visitor’s Center and Picnic Area, and (b) the Leesville Dam Picnic Area and Public Boat Launch (managed in coordination with the Virginia DGIF). Appalachian Power also owns (a) the Hardy’s Ford Public Boat Launch, (b) the Hales Ford Public Boat Launch, (c) the Scrugg’s Public Boat Launch, (d) the Penhook Boat Dock and Public Boat Launch, (e) the Anthony Ford Public Boat Launch, (f) the Myers Creek Public Boast Launch, and (g) the Leesville Dam fishing Platform(s) along the tailrace. The Virginia DGIF manages these seven facilities. The Smith Mountain Lake Visitor’s Center and Picnic Area is the only facility currently located within the project boundary, as noted below.
2.1.5 Existing Project Boundary
The current project boundary for the Project encompasses about 25,600 acres of land and water (e-mail communication from Teresa Rogers, Appalachian Power
22 112 FERC ¶ 61,026 (2005).
23 115 FERC ¶ 62,071 (2006).
24 118 FERC ¶ 62,149 (2007).
22 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Company to Allan Creamer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; filed February 9, 2009).25 The project boundary for the Smith Mountain development generally follows the 800-foot contour around the perimeter of Smith Mountain Lake. For the Leesville development, the project boundary generally follows the 620-foot contour around Leesville Lake. No federal or tribal lands are within the project boundary. The shoreline buffer, the area between the normal operating level and the boundary contour, varies in width, due to the slope of the lakes’ shoreline.
2.2 Applicant’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 discharge flows, to the Roanoke River downstream from the Leesville dam, in accordance with its proposed Water Management Plan. The Water Management Plan considers aquatic habitat and recreation needs on a monthly basis. During low inflow periods, the plan adjusts downstream minimum flow releases based on a statistical model with various trigger points. Changes in the flow regime are made to achieve a balance between maintaining lake levels and providing downstream flows. The Water Management Plan is summarized below, and provided in its entirety in Appalachian Power (2008b).
To ameliorate potential effects on water quality in Leesville Lake during the months of July through September, Appalachian Power proposes to (a) first generate at the Smith Mountain development using the units (Units 2,3, and 4) nearer to the water surface, and (b) generate with the units (Units 1 and 5) having deeper intakes last. The plan for implementing this operational modification, as well as monitoring its effectiveness, is outlined in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. This plan is summarized below, and provided in its entirety in Appalachian Power (2008b).
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Enhancement Measures
Based on the results of studies completed during pre-filing consultation, Appalachian Power proposes various protection and enhancement measures. These measures are summarized below, by resource area, and are discussed in more detail in
25 The existing project boundary, as estimated with 1964 data, encompasses 25,330 acres. The estimate of 25,600 acres is based on new Exhibit G mapping, which was created using modern photogrammetric and LiDAR techniques and methodology.
23 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
section 3.3, Environmental Analysis – Proposed Action and Action Alternatives. The proposed plans are provided in volume VII of the license application, and supplemented in Appalachian Power (2008b).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS MEASURES
• Implement an Erosion Monitoring Plan that includes (a) monitoring areas of high erosion, with scarp heights greater than 5 feet, for a minimum of 2 years, (b) developing demonstration projects designed to improve areas of eroding shoreline, potentially including islands within Smith Mountain Lake (as part of the proposed Habitat Management Plan), (c) developing a report on the initial monitoring effort (and any subsequent monitoring), and (d) coordinating the Erosion Monitoring Plan with other proposed plans.
• Implement a Sediment Monitoring Plan, which includes provisions for (a) monitoring areas of concern (tributaries to both Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes and certain public access sites) every 5 years over the term of a new license, (b) initiating and participating in a basin-wide watershed committee, (c) developing a report of the initial and subsequent monitoring efforts, and (d) coordinating the Sediment Monitoring Plan with other proposed plans.
• Remove sediment that has accumulated at, and is affecting, the Hardy Ford Public access site that is operated by the Virginia DGIF and remove sediment from other public boat launch sites, as needed.
WATER RESOURCE MEASURES
• Implement a Water Management Plan that includes: (a) lake level drawdowns, as well as monthly instream flows for aquatic organisms, habitat and recreation, in the Roanoke River downstream from Leesville; (b) operational restrictions during periods of drought; (c) upper limits on water withdrawals;26 (d) a variance process for the operational provisions; (e) flood control operations (i.e., Memorandum of Understanding with the Corps and notification requirements for upstream and downstream land owners); (f) project operation monitoring and reporting; and
26 Appalachian Power proposes to eliminate this provision from its proposed Water Management Plan (Appalachian Power, 2008c).
24 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
(g) an adaptive management component (i.e., a 5-year review and update provision).
• Implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan that includes: (a) monitoring and assessing the proposed operational changes on dissolved oxygen (DO) in the Smith Mountain tailrace for 5 years following license issuance; (b) monitoring water quality near the forebay of the Smith Mountain development for multiple water quality parameters once per year for 5 years following license issuance; (c) forming a Water Quality Technical Advisory Committee to assist in implementing the plan and assessing the results of the monitoring; (d) developing and issuing annual reports documenting the results of the monitoring and any recommendations for additional measures; (e) investigating the feasibility of other non-operational measures should additional measures be necessary to improve water quality; and (f) coordinating the 5-year monitoring efforts with on-going water quality monitoring programs.
• Provide funding (up to $25,000 annually, adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index; CPI) to the Smith Mountain Lake Association (Smith Mountain Association) and the Leesville Lake Association (Leesville Association) to support their respective, on-going water quality monitoring programs on Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes.27
AQUATIC RESOURCE MEASURES
• Implement a Roanoke Logperch Enhancement Plan that includes provisions for: (a) partnering with the FWS and the Virginia DGIF in developing, funding, and completing projects related to the recovery of the species in the upper Roanoke River watershed;28
27 To implement this provision, Appalachian Power would develop agreements with the Smith Mountain and Leesville associations. These agreements would be outside the project license. Should either or both of the associations’ programs dissolve, the respective funding would be discontinued.
28 Enhancement projects would include habitat restoration and reintroduction efforts, as described in http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc113.pdf, and in letters from the FWS (letter dated June 10, 2008, from Karen L. Mayne, Supervisor, Virginia Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Commission) and the Virginia DGIF (letter dated July 9, 2008 from A.L. LaRoche, III, Regional Fisheries Manager, Virginia DGIF to Teresa Rogers, Appalachian Power).
25 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
(b) meeting annually, for the term of any new license, with the FWS and the Virginia DGIF to identify projects; (c) developing and filing a report documenting enhancement/recovery efforts every 5 years; (d) providing matching funds (totaling $50,000 annually) for use in stream restoration and stocking projects designed to benefit the Roanoke logperch in the upper Roanoke River watershed; and (e) implementing the plan in accordance with a defined schedule.
• Implement a Habitat Management Plan that includes: (a) littoral zone and riparian habitat protection and enhancement measures, as outlined in the Commission-approved SMP; (b) measures to ameliorate the loss of habitat due to shoreline disturbance associated with development, including modifying the SMP to include such measures; (c) enforcement provisions for not complying with item (b) and the SMP; (d) a process for enhancing and/or creating additional habitat in areas where there is limited or poor habitat, and developing two demonstration projects to address erosion sites and improve shoreline/littoral-zone habitats; (e) a funding provision ($25,000 annually, adjusted by the CPI); (f) an adaptive management component and a provision to form a Habitat Management Technical Advisory Committee to assist in implementing item (d); (g) monitoring, consultation, and reporting provisions; (h) educational efforts; and (i) provisions to coordinate the Habitat Management Plan with other proposed plans.
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES MEASURES
• Implement a Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, for the Project, that includes an Integrated Management Action Strategy and provisions to: (a) form an Aquatic Vegetation Technical Review Committee to review survey information [item (e)] and reports [item(f)]; (b) develop and maintain a list of appropriate weed control methods; (c) establish and implement a permit program for aquatic vegetation control; (d) coordinate the activities of the plan with the Tri-County Lake Administrative Committee’s (Tri-County Association) on-going vegetation control program for Smith Mountain Lake; (e) monitor and review survey data (e.g., annual surveys, with a full-lake survey every 5 years);
26 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
(f) consult with various entities to develop annual reports of vegetation management activities, including updating maps of submerge aquatic vegetation location data; (g) work with the Aquatic Vegetation Technical Review Committee to develop education material; and (h) coordinate the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan with other proposed plans.
• Develop a cooperative agreement with the Virginia DGIF and the Tri-County Association to implement measures to control/remove non-native aggressive invasive aquatic vegetation (e.g., Hydrilla) in the Project area.
RECREATION, AESTHETICS, AND LAND USE RELATED MEASURES
• Implement a Recreation Management Plan that includes provisions to: (a) enhance existing facilities at eight public recreation sites (i.e., Anthony Ford,29 Hales Ford,30 Penhook,31 Scruggs,32 Myers Creek,33 Leesville dam,34 Leesville Tailrace,35 and the Leesville Picnic sites36); (b) upon approval of the Recreation Management Plan, install portable toilets within 6 months and expand parking within 1 year, as well as ensure access at boat ramps at public access sites;
29 Add a bank fishing area and picnic area, as well as install potable toilets.
30 Harden a grassy overflow parking area, as well as install portably toilets and lighting.
31 Add a bank fishing area and picnic area, as well as install a fishing pier.
32 Expand the parking area, add a bank fishing area, a picnic area, and lighting, as well as install a fishing pier and portable toilets.
33 Install portable toilets.
34 Install portable toilets.
35 Add a canoe portage, as well as install a ramp for “official use” and portable toilets.
36 Install a fishing pier and add a boat docking area to access the picnic area from water.
27 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
(c) submit plans to upgrade the Hardy Ford Public Boat Launch once the Virginia Department of Transportation (Virginia DOT) replaces the Hardy Bridge; (d) designate three sites for future recreational development (i.e., 45-acre Hardy parcel, 9-acre Oak Court parcel, and 265-acre Bull Run parcel); (e) modify the existing project boundary to include the facilities identified in items (a) and (b); (f) manage recreational use of the project area in the future, by (i) monitoring recreational use and assisting the Virginia DGIF with angler surveys at the project every 6 years to coincide with FERC Form 80 reports, (ii) convening a Recreation Technical Review Committee, (iii) establishing criteria to evaluate and prioritize the need for additional facilities and amenities at existing public access sites and/or new facilities at the project, (iv) consulting with the Recreation Technical Review Committee in developing, reviewing, and implementing the plan; (g) implement the Recreation Management Plan in accordance with a schedule and in coordination with other proposed management plans; and (h) modify the plan as necessary.
• Implement a Aids to Navigation Management Plan that includes provisions to: (a) mark (install) and maintain the aids to navigation with a defined navigation channel on both Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes, in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) standards; (b) work with the Tri-County Association, who would continue to be responsible for navigation aids outside the defined navigation channel, to develop a cooperative agreement that would address maintenance responsibilities and funding off-channel navigation markers (i.e., those marking obstructions outside the defined navigation channel); (c) coordinate with the Coast Guard, the Virginia DGIF, Tri-County Association, and the Leesville Association to develop (i) a navigation aids educational program, (ii) a protocol for warning boaters of heavy debris and high/low water, (iii) a maintenance program for the navigation system on both lakes, and (iv) procedures to remove unauthorized regulatory buoys; (d) coordinate with the National Ocean Service and the Leesville Association to produce navigation maps of Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes; (e) modify the SMP to address the Coast Guard’s amber lighting requirements on certain docks; (f) form an Aids to Navigation Technical Review Committee to assist in implementing the plan; and (g) coordinate the Aids to Navigation Management Plan with other proposed management plans.
28 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
• Implement a Debris Management Plan that defines beneficial debris that should not be removed and includes provisions to: (a) improve the existing debris removal process at Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes (i.e., equipment, operating schedules, and contractor support); (b) evaluate, on an on-going basis, the need to establish dedicated off-load and disposal sites for debris, as well as identifying potential sites for potential debris diversion and collection devices; (c) continue Appalachian Power’s involvement in volunteer lake clean-up efforts, and address need for additional clean-up days; (d) coordinate with the Tri-County Association, the Leesville Association, and other stakeholders to implement educational and enforcement aspects of the plan; (e) form a Debris Technical Review Committee to assist in implementing the plan; (f) coordinate the Debris Management Plan with other proposed management plans; (g) develop an annual report documenting debris removal efforts; (h) modify the plan as necessary.
• Continue to implement the existing, Commission-approved Shoreline Management Plan, with the minor modifications notes.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MEASURES
• develop and implement an HPMP (Historic Properties Management Plan).
2.2.4 Proposed Project Boundary
Appalachian Power proposes to modify the current project boundary to include the recreation sites identified above in section 2.1.4, Current Environmental License Requirements, as well as the additional parcels of land identified in section 2.2.3, Proposed Environmental Enhancement Measures. As a result, the project boundary would be expanded to enclose an additional 391.44 acres (e-mail communication from Teresa Rogers, Appalachian Power Company to Allan Creamer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; filed February 9, 2009).37
37 A portion of the 391.44 acres lies within the existing project boundary. However, the exact number of acres is not known at this time. Staff asked that Appalachian Power clarify this issue in any comments it may file on the draft EIS. Appalachian Power did not address staff’s request in its comments.
29 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
2.3 Proposed Action with Mandatory Conditions
Based on our analysis of the Certification conditions, as outlined in Part I of the Certification and presented herein, the Certification conditions are reasonable. As such, those conditions are included in the Staff Alternative.
The Certification contains seven special conditions (Part I, conditions A-G) and 17 general conditions (Part II, conditions A-Q). These conditions are summarized below and included in their entirety in Appendix A.
AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES
Conditions A.1, A.2, and A.3, respectively, authorize (a) the discharge of water from Leesville Lake to the Roanoke River, (b) the discharge of water from Smith Mountain Lake to Leesville Lake, and (c) the discharge of pumped water from Leesville Lake to Smith Mountain Lake.
PERMIT TERM
Condition B indicates that the certification is valid for 15 years.
STANDARD PROJECT CONDITIONS
Condition C includes nine project-specific requirements regarding maintenance of beneficial uses; passage of flows downstream; spills of fuels and other pollutants; submittal of reports; and notification procedures for fish kills, fuel spills, and other environmental threats.
INSTREAM FLOW CONDITIONS
Condition D describes the Smith Mountain Project’s operational constraints (i.e., lake level and seasonal flow requirements), as well as a study to determine the relative effect of providing flows through auto-cycling versus continuous releases at the Leesville dam.
The operational and flow requirements of Condition D are similar to the provisions outlined in Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Management Plan. The differences are as follows:
• trigger 3 also activates if adjusted elevation drops below 791.0 feet NGVD29 after September 30;
30 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
• trigger 3 includes a 650-cfs recreational release for 12 hours on one weekend day for all weekends from Memorial to Labor Day; and • the caps listed below are placed on Leesville releases (a) normal conditions (June only) – 700 cfs (b) trigger 1 – June = 650 cfs, July through November = 480 cfs (c) trigger 2 – June = 650 cfs, July through November = 480 cfs.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Condition E outlines the conditions for which variances in project operations will be permitted. Condition E also outlines the review and update procedures (to occur within 5 years after the flow conditions become effective).
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONDITIONS, MONITORING AND REPORTING
Condition F.1 stipulates that Appalachian Power operate the units at the Smith Mountain development, from July 1 through September 30, in a manner so as to minimize or eliminate DO violations in the Smith Mountain tailrace. Condition F.2 requires Appalachian Power to develop a water quality monitoring plan to monitor water quality in the Smith Mountain tailrace/Leesville Lake. Condition F.3 requires that Appalachian Power prepare a report within 5 years of the effective date of the Certification. Condition F.4 requires the development and implementation of a feasibility study of alternative methods to improve DO should the provisions of Condition F.1 are not successful in eliminating DO violations.
INSTREAM FLOW MONITORING AND REPORTING CONDITIONS
Condition G.1 requires Appalachian Power to monitor, on a daily basis, adjusted storage levels in Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes, inflows to the project, and discharge from Leesville. Condition G.2 stipulates that Appalachian Power file an annual report documenting the operational conditions at the project.
2.4 Proposed Action with Mandatory Conditions and Additional Staff- Recommended Measures
Under the Staff Alternative, the project license would include Appalachian Power’s proposals for implementing: (a) erosion and sedimentation monitoring plans; (b) a water management plan; (c) a water quality monitoring plan; (d) a Roanoke logperch enhancement plan; (e) a habitat management plan; (f) an aquatic vegetation management plan; (g) recreation, aids to navigation, and debris management plans; (h) the existing SMP; and (i) an HPMP. As detailed below, staff recommend some modifications to Appalachian Power’s proposed plans.
31 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Staff also recommend all the conditions outlined in the Certification, but recommend modifying the scope of the required operational study of flows downstream to better define the length of the study and expand the geographic scope of the study.
The additional staff measures include the following:
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION)
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Erosion Monitoring Plan be modified to:
(a) require Appalachian Power to monitor shoreline locations that represent a full range of scarp heights; (b) include quantitative method(s) (e.g., bank pins) for monitoring erosion downstream from Leesville; and (c) expand the operational study required by the Certification to (i) include multiple years (i.e., 3 years) and (ii) monitoring the reach of the Roanoke River between Leesville and Altavista.
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Sedimentation Monitoring Plan be modified to:
(a) specify the types of actions Appalachian Power would implement (e.g., methods used for dredging) and under what conditions Appalachian Power would propose dredging at a recreation site; and (b) add Craddock Creek, Mitchells Cove, and areas near Mariners Landing to the list of areas to be monitored under the plan because public use of these areas is affected by on-going sedimentation.
WATER RESOURCES
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Management Plan, as modified by the Certification, include:
(a) the provisions of Condition D (Instream Flow Conditions); (b) a revised study plan for Part I, Condition D.3 of the Certification (Study of Auto- Cycling versus Continuous Release) that modifies the study design to (i) extend from the Leesville dam downstream to Altavista, (ii) include a study duration of 3 years (unless data collected in year 1 indicates that monitoring in years 2 and 3 is not needed), (iii) include a level-logger study on the lower reaches of Goose Creek, and (iv) include fieldwork (empirical data collection) in years 2 and 3 of the study;
32 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
(c) the provisions of Condition E (Adaptive Management), except consultation would occur every 5 years during the term of a new license; (d) the provisions of Condition G (Instream Flow Monitoring and Reporting Conditions), including filing an annual report with the Virginia DEQ, the Virginia DGIF, and the Commission; and (e) a requirement that Appalachian Power consult with agencies and other stakeholders identified in the proposed Water Management Plan and the Certification, including NMFS and Dominion Power, regarding how the forecast model would be updated with hydrologic data that becomes available between the 5-year review cycles.
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan, as modified by the Certification, include:
(a) the provisions of Condition F.1 of the Certification (Water Quality Enhancement Measures); (b) the provisions of Condition F.4 of the Certification (Feasibility of Measures to Enhance DO); (c) a provision to provide the Water Quality Technical Review Committee with the water quality data collected on a monthly (May 1 to October 31) and bi-monthly (November 1 to 30) basis; and (d) a requirement to develop a plan to monitor water quality on Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes, consistent with the current programs implemented by the Smith Mountain Lake Association and the Leesville Lake Association.
AQUATIC RESOURCES
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Habitat Management Plan include:
(a) a revision to the 1st sentence on page 5, section 2.1.4, of the proposed plan to read, “A property owner may apply for a permit to modify the existing vegetation for the following reasons, as defined in the SMP: …;” (b) a stipulation whereby habitat enhancement projects not be limited to areas adjacent to public access areas, islands, and areas adjacent to undeveloped shoreline, but could include appropriate areas adjacent to some homeowner developments and commercial areas; (c) a stipulation that monitoring of project sites include photographs that can be downloaded into a GIS database; (d) a provision that all large habitat projects constructed specifically as structures to attract fish for angling purposes, be marked by buoys as “fish attractors;” and (e) the development of education material.
33 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES
We recommend that Appalachian Power's proposed Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan include:
(a) a procedure for notifying adjacent landowners prior to treatment of invasive aquatic plant beds, with the notification period to be worked out by the Aquatic Vegetation Technical Review Committee; (b) a stipulation that the report filed by the Licensed Applicator identify the type of herbicide used in treatment; and (c) a provision for Appalachian Power to control invasive aquatic vegetation at public boat ramps and other public areas (e.g., state and county parks, swimming areas, etc.), where determined appropriate.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Roanoke Logperch Enhancement Plan stipulate that the implementation funds ($50,000) be adjusted annually by the CPI.
RECREATION
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed draft Recreation Management Plan be revised to include:
(a) a provision to ensure that access is maintained at public boat ramps maintained by the Virginia DGIF, or that are otherwise the responsibility of Appalachian Power, by lengthening the ramps, dredging, or some combination thereof; (b) a requirement to install permanent toilets at all public recreation facilities that are located within the project boundary and that are the responsibility of Appalachian Power; (c) a provision to assess the appropriateness of providing picnic pavilions at Anthony Ford Public Boat Ramp, Penhook Boat Dock and Public Boat Launch, and Scruggs Public Boast Launch; (d) after the Hardy Ford Public Boat Launch is developed, provide between 63 and 70 parking spaces for vehicles with trailers; (e) a provision to improve the parking at the Penhook Boat Dock and Public Boat Launch; (f) a procedure for determining the need for additional recreation facilities, in addition to the three facilities proposed by Appalachian Power, that includes conducting a study to determine the feasibility of providing (i) additional parking at the Leesville Dam Fishing Access/Platform, (ii) additional parking and fishing facilities at the site on the Roanoke River between Hardy Ford and
34 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Hales Ford Bridge, (iii) additional parking and fishing facilities at the Virginia DOT’s Webster Road Access Area, (iv) a canoe access facility on the lower Pigg River, and (v) a boat ramp and fishing facility on the north side of Leesville Lake; (g) a provision to consult with the Recreation Technical Review Committee to develop procedures for managing the islands on Smith Mountain Lake to minimize resource damage and public health problems; (h) a stipulation to survey recreation use on weekend days and holidays during April though October so that this use is considered in planning for future recreation facilities; and (i) a requirement to conduct an angler use survey of Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes every 6 years, in consultation with the Virginia DGIF.
In addition to the aforementioned changes to the proposed Recreation Management Plan, we also recommend that the operational/flow study required by the Certification be expanded to take into account the influence of altered fish populations on fishing effort and success.
AIDS TO NAVIGATION
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Aids to Navigation Management Plan include:
(a) the installation and maintenance of a lighted navigation system on Leesville Lake; and (b) coordination of the Aids to Navigation Management Plan with the Aquatic Vegetation, Recreation, and Debris Management Plans.
DEBRIS MANAGEMENT
We recommend that Appalachian Power’s proposed Debris Management Plan include:
(a) consultation with the Debris Technical Review Committee; and (b) develop procedures for monitoring and controlling debris, from Memorial to Labor Day, at public swimming beaches, the public recreation areas maintained by the Virginia DGIF and Appalachian Power, and other areas, as appropriate
CULTURAL RESOURCES
On July 23, 2009, the Commission executed a PA with the Virginia SHPO that includes a stipulation that Appalachian Power develop and implement an HPMP. We
35 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
recommend that the HPMP proposed by Appalachian Power address, at a minimum, the following tasks, in addition to those proposed by Appalachian Power:
(a) surveying the three parcels (Penhook, Hardy, and Oak Court) planned for future recreation development prior to constructing any facilities at those sites; (b) evaluating the project facilities for eligibility to the National Register when they reach 50 years of age; (c) consulting with the Virginia SHPO and the Virginia Council on Indians regarding the identification and evaluation of historic properties, determination of effects, and ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects; and (d) training for Appalachian Power staff in their responsibility to protect historic properties and the requirements of the HPMP.
2.5 Alternatives 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.
2.5.1 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 take over would be appropriate, and no federal agency has expressed an interest in operating the project.
2.5.2 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 Smith Mountain 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.
36 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
2.5.3 Retiring the Project
Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either alternative would involve denial of the relicense application and surrender of 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 Smith Mountain 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 two powerhouses 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.
37 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
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 (water resources, 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 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, of the final EIS.1
3.1 General Description of the Roanoke River Basin
MAINSTEM DAMS
The Project is located on the Roanoke River in the south central region of Virginia. The Roanoke River originates from the eastern slope of the Appalachian Mountains west of Salem, Virginia and flows in a south-easterly direction through Virginia and into North Carolina, where it empties into the Albemarle Sound. Six mainstream reservoirs are located along the Roanoke River. Beginning at Albemarle Sound and progressing upstream, these are Roanoke Rapids Lake, Gaston Lake, John H. Kerr Reservoir, Leesville Lake, Smith Mountain Lake, and Niagara Reservoir. The stretch of the Roanoke River between the upper reach of the John H. Kerr Reservoir and the face of the dam for Leesville Lake is identified locally as the Staunton River.
DRAINAGE BASIN AND TRIBUTARY STREAMS
The total drainage area for the Smith Mountain Project is estimated at 1,505 square miles (mi2) at the Leesville dam. Elevations range from 600 feet at around Leesville Lake to around 3,000 feet at the western basin divide. The drainage basin is divided into eight sub-basins, each associated with a major tributary to the Project. The sub-basins are shown in figure 6 and listed below.
1 Unless noted otherwise, the sources of our information are the license application (Appalachian Power, 2008a), additional information filed by Appalachian Power (Appalachian Power, 2008b), and reply comments filed by Appalachian Power (Appalachian Power, 2008c).
- 38 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
Figure 1. Drainage basin map and basin areas. (Source: Appalachian Power, 2008a).
Basin Area Basin (square miles) No. 1 (Roanoke River) 257 No. 2 (Roanoke River) 255 No. 3 (Back Creek) 59 No. 4 (Beaver Dam Creek) 108 No. 5 (Gill Creek) 39 No. 6 (Blackwater River) 208 No. 7 (Roanoke River) 105 No. 8 (Pigg River) 476
MAJOR WATER USES
The primary water uses in the basin are agricultural, municipal and commercial/ industrial. Raw water reservoirs to service the cities of Salem and Roanoke, as well as Roanoke County and Bedford County, are located within the basin. The Smith Mountain Project either affects, or is affected by, three hydroelectric projects on the Roanoke River. The 2.4-MW Niagara Project (FERC No. 2466), owned and operated by Appalachian Power, is located on the Roanoke River approximately 10 miles northwest of the upstream limit of Smith Mountain Lake. Two hydropower projects are located
- 39 - 20090807-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/07/2009
downstream of the Smith Mountain Project. The 227-MW John H. Kerr Project is located approximately 60 miles downstream from the Leesville dam. This project, completed in 1953, is operated by the Corps for power production and flood control. The 329-MW Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Project (FERC No. 2009) is located directly downstream from the Kerr dam. This project, which is owned and operated by Dominion North Carolina Power, consists of two dams and reservoirs. The Gaston development is located 34 miles downstream from the Kerr dam, while the Roanoke Rapids development is located 7.5 miles downstream from the Gaston dam.
MAJOR LAND USES
Upstream of the Smith Mountain dam, the drainage basin is mostly rural, with limited agricultural and extensive wooded areas. The nearest metropolitan area is the city of Roanoke, Virginia, which is located 45 miles upstream of the dam and has a population of approximately 95,000. Urban and residential land uses associated with the city of Roanoke cover an area of approximately 85 mi2. The Roanoke metropolitan area has a total population of just in excess of 235,000. Downstream from the Leesville dam, agricultural activities are more pronounced, with the city of Altavista, Virginia being the nearest community (about 10 miles downstream from the dam).
TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
The Smith Mountain Project lies primarily within the Piedmont Physiographic Province, which is characterized by rolling hills, with elevations ranging from 150 to 900 feet in height. The climate is temperate, with an annual average temperature of 56.3o Fahrenheit (F). Temperatures range from a maximum average of 87.2oF in July to a minimum average of 26.6oF in January. Rainfall amounts within the basin average 40.8 inches, while snowfall averages 22.6 inches. The average growing season is 190 days, from April 15 through October 22.
3.2 Scope 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.
There are four dams located either upstream of, or downstream from, the Smith Mountain Project. In addition, water is withdrawn from the Roanoke River upstream of, and downstream from, the project, as well as from within Smith Mountain Lake for
- 40 -