DOCSLIB.ORG

Municipal Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Municipal Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Municipal Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 1235-017 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 November 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................ v 1.0 NTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER .................................. 2 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .............................................................................. 2 1.2.2 Need for Power .................................................................................. 4 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................... 4 1.3.1 Federal Power Act .............................................................................. 4 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 COMMENT ......................................................... 8 1.4.1 Scoping............................................................................................... 9 1.4.2 Interventions ...................................................................................... 9 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application .............................................. 9 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 10 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................. 10 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ................................................................ 10 2.1.2 Project Safety ................................................................................... 11 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation ............................................................... 11 2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures ................................................... 13 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ...................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................... 13 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation ............................................................. 13 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures.................................................. 14 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 14 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 15 2.4.1 Retiring the Project .......................................................................... 15 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 17 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN .............................. 17 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................ 17 3.2.1 Geographic Scope ............................................................................ 18 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ............................................................................... 19 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................... 19 i 3.3.1 Geology and Soil Resources ............................................................ 20 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................... 22 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ....................................................................... 43 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................... 48 3.3.5 Recreation Resources ....................................................................... 53 3.3.6 Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 58 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................. 64 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 65 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT .................. 65 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 66 4.2.1 No-action Alternative ....................................................................... 67 4.2.2 City’s Proposal ................................................................................. 67 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................... 67 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES........................................... 68 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 74 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................... 74 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by the City........................................................ 74 5.1.2 Additional Staff-Recommended Measures ...................................... 75 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ................................................... 81 5.3 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(J) RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 81 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS .............................. 85 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................................ 86 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................... 87 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Little River Dam at the Municipal Hydroelectric Project No. 1235 (Source: staff)...................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Bathymetry of the project impoundment based on a bathymetric survey that was conducted in August 2015 while the impoundment water level was held at an elevation of 1,772.3 feet (0.3 foot above full pool). Note that elevations are color- coded, whereby greens represent the deepest locations and browns the shallowest locations as indicated in the figure legend (Source: license application, as modified by staff). ...................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3. Example of riffle habitat located approximately 900 feet downstream of the project dam (just below the Route 605 bridge). Picture was taken on October 2, 2017, when outflow from the Municipal Project was 142 cfs (Source: staff). .......... 27 Figure 4. Length frequency distributions of common centrarchids in the project impoundment, based on boat electrofishing surveys conducted during September 2013 (“n” refers to the number of each species collected) (Source: staff). ............... 33 Figure 5. Time series of impoundment elevations (blue line) and project inflows (orange line) during the summer of 2003 (June through August), which was the wettest on record across years 1997 through 2012. Periods when the Municipal Project was peaking, denoted on the graph below, were inferred from patterns in impoundment stage data (Source: staff). ........................................................................................... 39 Figure 6. Time series of impoundment elevations (blue line) and project inflows (orange line) during the summer of 2002 (June through August), which was the driest on record across years 1997 through 2012. Based on the pattern in impoundment stage data, the project appeared to be peaking for most of this 3-month period (Source: staff). ........................................................................................................................... 40 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Percent of days each month that daily impoundment fluctuations were less than 2 feet based on impoundment stage data (years 1997 through 2012) from USGS gage No. 03170500 (Source: staff). .................................................................................... 13 Table 2. Monthly project inflow statistics for years 1928 through 2017 (Source: Staff). ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 3. Species composition of the impoundment fish community based on boat electrofishing surveys conducted by Virginia DGIF during September 2013. For comparative purposes, species are included in this table that were not collected in the impoundment (e.g., walleye), but were collected downstream of the dam (see table 4) (Source: license application, as modified by staff). ................................................... 28 Table 4. Species composition of the fish community downstream of the dam
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Broadband Strategic Plan
    In Association with: September 30, 2016 TRANSMITTAL LETTER Mr. Peter Huber Board of Supervisors Pulaski County Administrator Pulaski County 143 Third Street, NW 143 Third Street, NW Pulaski, Virginia 24301 Pulaski, Virginia 24301 RE: Pulaski County, VA Community Broadband Telecommunications Strategic Planning Project Dear Mr. Huber and Pulaski County Board of Supervisors: Consulting Gateway Corporation (CGC) and Dewberry are pleased to provide the Community Broadband Telecommunications Planning Project study report for Pulaski County, VA. This report provides guidance to meet the established project milestones and expectations of the County while fulfilling the requirements of the Commonwealth of Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative funded through the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) consisting of 1) Analyzing Existing Conditions, 2) Setting Broadband Goals, and 3) Identifying Needed Action to Achieve Goals. After examining the options and roles for the County to consider, it is our recommendation that the County can best meet their stated goal of enhancing and encouraging high speed Internet connectivity throughout the county by partnering with private sector providers in implementing a variety of proposed solutions presented in the report. Such a partnership is intended to use funds in a fiscally responsible manner, take advantage of the typical funding opportunities while minimizing the need for other long term funding. Four (4) options are presented for consideration that are not exclusive of each other and it is believed the most impactful solution may be a combination of some of the solutions presented. Details on these options are outlined in the study report. Last Mile Connectivity Solutions Considerations Information Provided Option No.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Management Plan
    Claytor Project FERC No. 739 Shoreline Management Plan June 13, 2017* * includes revised language from Order Issuing New License dated December 27, 2011and Order Approving Amended Shoreline Management Plan issued January 7, 2014 Appalachian Power Company Claytor Project Shoreline Management Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents ………….………………………………………..………………. i List of Tables …………………………………………………..…………………….ii List of Figures ……………………………………………..………………………....ii Glossary…………………….…………………………..…………………………….iii 1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Purpose and Authority ……………………………………………… 1 1.2 Goals and Objectives ………………………………………………. 2 1.3 Project Area Description …………………………………………… 2 1.4 Consultation …………………………………………………………… 3 2.0 Methods and Planning Process ……………………………………………… 4 2.1 Data Collection 2.1.1 Land Use …………………………….……………………….4 2.1.2 Shoreline Condition and Stabilization …….…………………4 2.1.3 Ecological Resources ……………………………..………….4 2.1.4 Cultural Resources………………………………………..…..6 2.1.5 Bathymetric and Topographical Data… ……………… 7 2.1.6 Public and Private Recreation Facilities…………..………….7 2.1.7 Local, State, and Federal Regulations………………..………7 2.1.8 Recreation Use Density………………………………….…...7 2.1.9 Scenery Assessment……………………………………….…9 2.2 Mapping……………………………………………….………………..9 2.2.1 Mapping Revision Process…………………………..…..…10 2.3 Shoreline Classifications ……………………………………………...10 2.4 Parameters …………………………………………………………..…13 2.5 Regulations………….………………………………………………... 14 2.5.1 High Density Commercial ………………………………... 14 2.5.2 High Density Multi-Use
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Wild and Scenic Rivers
    7. Wild and Scenic Rivers Virginia Wild and Scenic Rivers Designation NEPAassist Maps Distance to Closest Wild and Scenic Rivers Downstream – Bluestone River WV Upstream – New River (So. Fork) NC New River Wild and Scenic River Study Executive Summary of Findings [2009] NEPAssist Map Distance by Direct Route NEPAssist Map Distance by Water Route Nationwide Rivers Inventory Inventory for Virginia NEPAssist Maps Distance to Little River Downstream by Direct Route Downstream by Water Route NEPAssist Maps Distance to Big Reed Island Crk Downstream by Direct Route Downstream by Water Route VA CDBG #15-15 Pulaski Kersey Bottom / Case Knife Road Revitalization Project Environmental Review Record 12/17/2015 Virginia HOME NATIONAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESOURCES PUBLICATIONS CONTACT US KID'S SITE VIRGINIA Virginia has approximately 49,350 miles of river, but no designated wild & scenic rivers. Virginia does not have any designated rivers. Virginia Go Choose A River Go While progress should never come to a halt, there are many places it should never come to at all. — Paul Newman NATIONWIDE RIVERS INVENTORY KID'S SITE CONTACT US PRIVACY NOTICE Q & A SEARCH ENGINE SITE MAP http://www.rivers.gov/virginia.php 1/2 12/17/2015 NEPAssist NEPAssist Measure Find address or place Print Basemap Imagery Measure Draw Erase Identify | Miles 37.705532, ­79.542102 + Measurement Result 39.5 Miles – 0 10 20mi The project area is located approximately 39.5 miles (direct route) from the location where the Bluestone River, a designated Wild and Scenic River in West Virginia, flows into the New River. The project area is located on Peak Creek, which flows into the New River upstream from this point where the Bluestone River flows into the New River.
    [Show full text]
  • Cla Ytor Lake Festival Claytor Lake State
    In the Fall of 2014, FOCL was invited to partner with the local chapter of The U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary to teach a Boater/Water Safety Class at the Hensel Eckman YMCA in Pulaski. Allison Hunter, Director of the “Y”, Sharon Eifred of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and Cheri Strenz from FOCL, developed a plan to introduce Boater and Water Safety to young children. Volunteer instructors from FOCL included, Laura Walters, Larry Bandolin, and Cheri Strenz. For six weeks, second grade students from the elementary schools in Pulaski County attend swim classes at the “Y”. One of these sessions is to teaching what a family should know before going out on a boat for the day. This includes the equipment required for boating, general rules of navigation, and how to identify and select a Coast Guard Approved life jacket. Many of these children have made numerous trips to Claytor Lake and are aware that a life jacket should be worn. Sadly, many did not know that a life jacket is required to be worn by all children 12 and under. They also learned, by trying on various sizes, that a properly fitted Coast Guard Approved lifejacket is essential to providing the proper amount of life saving protection. This critical information about boating and being around the water is important having a fun and safe day at Claytor Lake, or any other body of water. FOCL is looking forward to continued participation in this worthwhile program. This year the Pulaski County Chamber of Commerce awarded its first Non-Profit Award for outstanding work in the community at The Draper Claytor Lake Community Programs Community Lake Claytor Mercantile.
    [Show full text]
  • Dunkard's Bottom: Memories on the Virginia Landscape, 1745 to 1940
    DUNKARD’S BOTTOM: MEMORIES ON THE VIRGINIA LANDSCAPE, 1745 TO 1940 HISTORICAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR SITE 44PU164 AT THE CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PULASKI COUNTY, VIRGINIA FERC PROJECT NO. 739 Prepared for: Prepared by: Appalachian Power Company S&ME, Inc. 40 Franklin Road 134 Suber Road Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Columbia, South Carolina 29210 and and Kleinschmidt Associates, Inc. Harvey Research and Consulting 2 East Main Street 4948 Limehill Drive Strasburg, Pennsylvania 17579 Syracuse, New York 13215 Authors: Heather C. Jones, M.A., and Bruce Harvey, Ph.D. Final Report – July 2012 History of Dunkard’s Bottom Appalachian Power Company Claytor Hydroelectric Project July 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3 DUNKARD‘S BOTTOM ............................................................................................................... 3 The Dunkards ......................................................................................................................................... 4 William Christian ................................................................................................................................. 12 The Cloyd Family
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Claytor Lake Fisheries Report from the Department of Wildlife
    Claytor Lake: More than a Wide Spot in the New River John R. Copeland, Fisheries Biologist, Blacksburg Office April 1, 2020 Imagine yourself on a waterbody that is more like a wide river than a lake. When you do, you have a picture of Claytor Lake. Claytor Lake, a 4,363 acre reservoir, stretches northeastward from Allisonia across the Pulaski County countryside for about 21 miles to its dam near Radford. From Claytor Lake State Park, visitors view a sparkling lake, bustling with boating activity, with the top of Claytor Lake dam in the distance. Visitors who want to explore can ride 15 miles upstream to Allisonia, where the New River enters the lake. Claytor Lake is shallow in areas upstream from Lighthouse Bridge, the only bridge that crosses the main lake (Pulaski County Route 672), so be cautious if you roam upstream from the bridge. Near the midpoint of Claytor Lake, the only major tributary, Peak Creek, enters the lake. If you are not familiar with Claytor Lake’s key locations, refer to the lake overview map on the last page of this report. View of Claytor Lake dam from Claytor Lake State Park’s boat ramp. American Electric Power Company (now known as Appalachian Power Company) constructed Claytor Dam in 1939 to produce hydroelectric power from the incessant flow of the New River, installing 4 hydroelectric turbines to produce electricity. Because Claytor Lake is a main stem impoundment with a large watershed upstream, water passes through more quickly than in most large Virginia reservoirs. As a result, Claytor Lake has different temperature and oxygen 1 levels than other nearby reservoirs like Smith Mountain Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of the Bald Eagle Population Along Claytor Lake, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks CCB Technical Reports Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) 2007 An assessment of the bald eagle population along Claytor Lake, Virginia B. D. Watts The Center for Conservation Biology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports Recommended Citation Watts, B. D., "An assessment of the bald eagle population along Claytor Lake, Virginia" (2007). CCB Technical Reports. 370. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports/370 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CCB Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE BALD EAGLE POPULATION ALONG CLAYTOR LAKE, VIRGINIA January, 2008 Bryan D. Watts, PhD Center for Conservation Biology College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 Recommended Citation: Watts, B. D. 2007. An assessment of the bald eagle population along Claytor Lake, Virginia. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-07- 12. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 13 p. A Cooperative Project By: Normandeau Associates, Inc. & Center for Conservation Biology College of William and Mary BACKGROUND Context The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) originally listed the Bald Eagle as federally endangered on 11 March 1967 under The Endangered Species Protection Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa-668cc) and subsequently under The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq). The primary reason cited for the original listing was broad-scale population declines linked to dichloro-dephenyl- trichloroethane (DDT) and associated reproductive failure.
    [Show full text]
  • CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT and IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Normandeau Associates, Inc
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Unpublished Works Joint EWRI-AFS Fish Passage Reference Database 2009 CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Normandeau Associates, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ fishpassage_unpublished_works Recommended Citation Normandeau Associates, Inc., "CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT" (2009). Unpublished Works. 237. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_unpublished_works/237 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Joint EWRI-AFS Fish Passage Reference Database at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Unpublished Works by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT January 2009 CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Prepared for APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Hydro Generation Department 40 Franklin Road Roanoke, VA 24011 Prepared by NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1921 River Road Drumore, PA 17518 and 25 Nashua Road Bedford, NH 03110 R-20979.001 January 2009 CLAYTOR HYDRO FISH ENTRAINMENT & IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Table of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL APPROACH ..............................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Project Summary NEW RIVER, VIRGINIA This Summary
    Hydropower Project Summary NEW RIVER, VIRGINIA CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-739) Photo: bgh6363 Hydroelectric Photo Stream This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society April, 2013 New River, Virginia NEW RIVER, VIRGINIA CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-739) Description: This project is located on the New River in Pulaski County in Virginia. The stretch of river from Claytor Dam to Eggleston offers recreationists ample opportunities to fish and float the wide and relatively slow flow with beautiful scenery of high cliffs. Downstream of the Peppers Ferry Bridge is a series of Class I-II ledges for whitewater paddling. McCoy Falls, also known as Big Falls, is located further downstream where the river breaks through Walker Mountain. This ledge provides a popular whitewater play spot, and location of the New River rodeo with adequate water levels. The new license does not include any new development or modifications to project operation other than the measures contained within the resource management plans that were developed in consultation with project stakeholders, including: (1) the June 2009 Erosion Monitoring Plan, (2) the June 2009 Sedimentation Monitoring Plan, (3) the June 2009 Water Management Plan,11 (4) the June 2009 Water Quality Monitoring Plan, (5) the June 2009 Freshwater Mussel Adaptive Management Plan, (6) the June 2009 Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, (7) the June 2009 Habitat Management Plan, (8) the June 2009 Fringed Mountain Snail Management Plan, (9) the June 2009 Recreation Management Plan, (10) the June 2009 Debris Management Plan, (11) the June 2009 Aids to Navigation Management Plan, and (12) the June 2009 Shoreline Management Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Form
    (Rev. 1C-90) h'm Form 10-9m hlnilcd States Department of the lnterior National Park Service NATIONAL REGlSTER OF RlSTORIC PIJACKS REGISTRATION FORM This form is for use in nmnlnMmgor requcs~mgdacrminalronsfur indlvldllal pmperfrcb nnd dtsrr~cls Sce in<tructions~n Ilow to CornpreterfreNatlnnsl Rtparcr of 1-IIF~OIIC PIaca Hc~imhonI-'orrn /Nnlional RCRIFIC?Rullctln 16A) Compicle mch trm hyrnarklng "x" ln thc npprqwatc houor %ycntering tht lnformat~onrequested If airy llcm docs not ~pplytn thc propcg kmgdocorncn!rd. entcr "KIA" for "nnt appficahle " For functiuns. arch~tcctrtml cla?slfimiun. mater~als,nnd arcaq of ~rgn~f~~nce,rnler only cattjyrle\ ad511bc~1tgorre~ t+om the mcrnrctmns I'l~aaddi~jonnl enrrln and narratlvc Items on conr1nuarmn sheets (NPS Form 10-ma) Ilsc a rypewrricr. word prcessat, nt computer, lo complcte all 1iems 1. Name of Pro~crtv historic name Havcn B. Howe House. VDHa # 077-0047 other namdsitc number Claytor Lake State Park street & number 4400 State Park Road not for publication NA city or town Dublin vicinity N A state Vir~inia code VA county Pulnski code 155 Zip 24084 3. StateFederal Aqency Certification As the dcslpn:!ted aulhnr~rv~~nder thc Na~ronnIt Ir5ronc Presrrva!lon Act of 1986, as arnenrlerl. Ihereby ccnify that ih19Xmmntlon mquest for dclcrrnlnnhrrl~or ellg~hllltymecrs rhc docli~ncnrarlonslt~ndardq l'or rcglsterrn3 proprtlc? In the National Regrsicr af%ror!c ~'laccs~mcers rhu proccd\~raland pmftrstonal requlrcments sct fnnh In Yr CFR Par1 60 In my open ton, !he prope*-X- mmls doKnm mcct the Nnlmnal Rcg~sirr Critcrih 1 rccnmrnend thn1 fhrs propee k cnnsrdc~cdsign~frcant - nai~rmallv- st3ierv1dc-XL ImlSy ( -Seecontrnual~on shccl fwadrlir~ona! comments.) 1 Signature of certifying oficial Thze Virpinis Department of Historic Resources Srnit ut rderjl agcncy and trtrre:~u In my gininn, fl)c pvm- mectr dmnot meel thv National Rcg~stcrcrllcrla 4 -Scc continuation sheet for nddrr~onalwmcnir ) -- Signature of commenting or other official Dare State or Federal agency and bureau 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Flea Market Weekend
    Claytor Lake Beach Festival Preview Inside! Distributed Free Each Friday Since 2009 June 2, 2017 www.pcpatriot.com Locally Owned And Operated FLEA MARKET WEEKEND www.pulaskicountyfleamarket.com Two Big Days In Dublin The popular Pulaski County Flea Market invades the New River Valley Fairgrounds this weekend in Dublin. Sponsored by the Dublin Lions Club, this is the 43rd year of the flea market, which is held twice each year. Admission is only $1, with children 6 and under admitted free. Parking is free too! Money raised by the Lions Club at the flea market helps fund a variety of people-serving projects conducted by the Dublin Lions Club. Crafts, antiques, food and much, much more await! Fleenor: Shooting by deputy WEEKEND WEATHER SATURDAY SUNDAY ‘appropriate, legally justified’ Staff Report ing the incident, follows: A slight chance of showers. Showers and thunderstorms Pulaski County Commonwealth's Attorney Mike Mostly sunny, with a high near likely, mainly after 2pm. Partly Fleenor on Tuesday issued an opinion stating the Dear Special Agent Burnett: 80. Calm wind becoming north- sunny, with a high near 80. shooting by a Pulaski County Deputy in a May 14 This letter shall constitute the Commonwealth's west around 6 mph in the morn- Chance of precipitation is 60%. incident in the Town of Pulaski was "appropriate and opinion letter for the officer involved shooting that ing. Chance of precipitation is legally justified based on the facts and circumstances led to the death of James Alvis Burton, Sr. Thank you 20%. of the incident." very much for your thorough investigation and The incident resulted in the death of James Alvis detailed report.
    [Show full text]
  • New River Wild & Scenic River Study West Virginia and Virginia
    New River Wild & Scenic River Study West Virginia and Virginia Study Report 2009 Prepared By: U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service Northeast Regional Office Philadelphia Participating Agencies: National Park Service: New River Gorge National River Northeast Regional Office Washington Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Bluestone Dam Huntington District Office Virginia Secretariat of Natural Resources: Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Department of Conservation and Recreation West Virginia Division of Natural Resources: Parks and Recreation Section Wildlife Resources Section Acronyms and Abbreviations ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers APCO Appalachian Power Company (subsidiary of the American Electric Power Company) BMP Best management practices (management practices generally recognized to be effective and practicable in minimizing the impacts of land management activities such as agriculture and forestry) CFS Cubic feet per second (measurement of river flow) DCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation DGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries DNR West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (includes the Wildlife Resources Section and the Parks and Recreation Section) DNR-Parks The Parks and Recreation Section within the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources DNR-WRS The Wildlife Resources Section within the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources DOI United States Department of the Interior EA Environmental Assessment (report required by the National Environmental Policy Act) FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERI New River Gorge National River (internal National Park Service acronym used for administrative purposes) NERO Northeast Regional Office of the National Park Service, headquartered in Philadelphia, PA NPS U.S. National Park Service NRA National Recreation Area (examples: Gauley River NRA, Mt.
    [Show full text]