The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20030147 Ver 2_More Info Received_20071213G ~ ' ~ ~~ Progress Energy December 13, 2007 John R. Dorney 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit Division of Water Quality 2321 Crabtree Boulevard Suite 250 Raleigh, NC 27604 Robert B. Krebs Mooresville Regional Office Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 ~ L~~L~LI 1:1 DCC 1 u 2007 t)ENR -WATER QUALITY VVETlAND3 AMD STfT~MI~'~'f ER 9RANCH Re: Response to Request for Additional Information Yadkin-Pee Dee Project for Tillery and Blewett Falls Reservoirs DWQ Project #2003-0147 Dear Mr. Dorney and Mr. Krebs: This letter provides responses to the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) letter of November 13, 2007, requesting additional information on minimum flows and mitigation. The responses are numbered to correspond to the numbering of the inquiries in the November 13 letter from DWQ. In providing these responses, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. ("PEC"), reserves the right to assert that the DWQ has waived its right to issue a 401 Certification, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507. Therefore, these responses in no way constitute a written agreement to extension of the regulatory timeframe for DWQ's decision on the application for the 401 Certification, and PEC hereby rejects any request for extension. In addition, this response does not constitute an admission on Progress' part that the information provided is necessary for the Director's decision on the 401 Certification. PEC denies the information requested is necessary for the Director's decision. Similarly, PEC denies, and makes no admission to the contrary, that mitigation is required or conceptually appropriate for this project. Progress Energy Carolinas,lnc. 1001 Pinecrestlioad Raleigh, NC 77613 John R. Dorney Robert B. Krebs December 13, 2007 Page 2 D ~~~~~ ~~ ~L ~N ~/ o~'n1~ - warE ~ n a-uos ago s fQ'~~ r In addition to the foregoing general comments, we also have observations on some of the particular requests for information from the November 13 letter: 1. Minimum Flows a. Economic Analysis An economic analysis would be appropriate to determining whether there are practical alternatives to the project, but because the project does not remove or degrade existing uses, no examination of practical alternatives is required. See 15A NCAC 2H .0506(a). b. Flow Projections With and Without Dams Comparison of flow projections to compare proposed flows to flows which "would have occurred naturally in the river" both ignores the rules as they pertain to existing uses, and assumes that flow in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River, even without the Tillery and Blewett Falls dams is "natural." DWQ has recently issued to Alcoa Power Generation, Inc. ("APGI"), a 401 certification for its FERC relicense application. APGI operates a series of hydroelectric dams upstream of the Blewett-Tillery project. Flows in the Yadkin-Pee Dee downstream of the APGI project are controlled in large part by releases from the APGI dams. Thus, even ignoring the concept of "existing uses", flows in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River in the project area are not "naturally occurring," as recognized, and certified, by DWQ. Although not applied in this state regulatory context, but still appropriate, is that FERC relies on existing conditions, not pre- project conditions, in making relicensing judgments on hydro projects. 2. Mitigation a. Calculations and comparison to DWQ policy guidance The document entitled "Stream Mitigation for FERC-related 401 Certifications, Internal DWQ Guidance, NC Division of Water Quality, Version 1.5" (August 24, 20071, states that the guidelines "assume that the FERC project has been reviewed for avoidance and minimization and that the remaining unavoidable impacts to stream channels are to be addressed through compensatory stream mitigation. In .some cases, stream restoration or enhancement can be done to replace unavoidably lost uses" (emphasis added). John R. Dorney Robert B. Krebs December 13, 2007 Page 3 EMC rules make it clear that the existing uses were those attained as of November 28, 1975. Thus, according to the plain language of the rules, there are no unavoidably lost uses that have to be replaced. No need for mitigation has been established, nor can such a need be established, in accordance with the rules. To the extent the guidance suggests that mitigation is required for FERC projects where stream conditions are not significantly changed since November 28, 1975, it is unsupported by EMC rules and reliance on the guidance is misplaced. Notwithstanding PEC's legal positions on these issues, PEC wishes to work cooperatively with DWQ, to the extent that its cooperation does not compromise its rights under EMC rules and the N.C. General Statutes. In response to DWQ's request for information, ostensibly made under the authority of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.3(a)(2), without further inquiry into whether the request is appropriate and lawful, PEC herewith provides information responsive to the requests. We will be glad to discuss the information or the comments in further detail at your convenience. Sincerely yours, ~ Q~c~Cti Larry Mann Project Relicensing Manager cc: Cecil Gurganus Craig Bromby - Hunton & Williams Kendall Bowman John Crutchfield John Devine Response to the North Carolina DENR -Division of Water Quality 401 Water Quality Certificate Application Request for Additional Information Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2206-030 DWQ Project #2003-0147 Prepared for: North Carolina DENR -Division of Water Quality Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Prepared by: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 December 2007 INTRODUCTION Progress Energy is submitting this response to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) November 13, 2007 "Request For More Information" related to its application for Water Quality Certification for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project. As noted in the attached letter transmitting these responses, Progress contends that the information requested is not necessary for the Director's decision. Moreover, in providing these responses, Progress denies that it has sought or agreed to a longer period for review than that provided at 15A NCAC 2H .0507, and makes no admissions or concessions that mitigation under 15A NCAC 2H .0506, or any other provision of state law or regulation, is required or appropriate for this Project. The responses to each question are provided in a sequence that follows the information request. RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED 1. Minimum Flows A. Economic Analysis -Please provide a detailed economic analysis which describes the process and supports the ultimate conclusion that minimum flows higher than 330 cfs are not economically practical for this project. Also please clarify how the flows below Blewett Falls dam correspond with the in-stream flow study. For the record, Progress Energy notes that "economic practicality" is not a standard articulated anywhere in the applicable statutes or regulations governing 401 certification. Because this project neither removes nor degrades existing uses, as that term is defined at 15A NCAC 2B .0202(30), no examination of practical alternatives is required. See 15A NCAC 2H .0506(a). Thus, an economic analysis as requested is neither necessary nor appropriate to the 401 decision making process. Notwithstanding that fact and without admitting or conceding the contrary, Progress Energy provides the following response. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as part of its responsibilities to evaluate the environmental effects of projects seeking a FERC license. In this DEIS, FERC conducted an independent technical analysis and economic assessment of the minimum flows included in Progress Energy's Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (CSA). More specifically, FERC evaluated the economic feasibility of minimum flows greater than that contained in the CSA. Progress Energy has reviewed FERC's analysis and is in general agreement with its technical approach and valuations. FERC's analysis can be found in Section 3.3.3.2 of the DEIS (Attachment 1 - pg 105). FERC concluded that the cost of increasing the minimum flows from those in the CSA to 900 cfs (and 1,750 cfs during spring spawning season) was not economically justified given the relatively minor overall increase in fish habitat that would result for the increased flow. z Specifically, FERC found that the minimum flows at Tillery Dam contained in the CSA would reduce energy production by 7,200,000 kWh per year at a cost of $535,000 per year. The minimum flows proposed by the USFWS (which match those being proposed by American Rivers and the City of Rockingham) of 800- 1000 cfs year round and 1,500-1,800 during spawning season would reduce energy output by 13,850,000 kWh per year at a cost of $1,227,500 per year. FERC found that the incremental cost of $692,500 was not justified. Progress agrees with this assessment. Progress Energy would point out, as we have in our comments on the DEIS (which are in the public record and available to NCDWQ), the record before FERC (or the NCDWQ) is devoid of any evidence or data that can be relied upon to establish that the increased flows above the CSA would actually result in an increase in the numbers of native fish. There is also no analysis of how increased flows may benefit non-native aquatic species in comparison to (and likely to the detriment of) native species. Increases in habitat can not be assumed to automatically result in increases in fish as there are many other factors (such as dominance of non-native species) that may have greater influence than a small increase in habitat. FERC found that the comparison of alternative minimum flows for the Tillery Reach utilizing a method in which flows were placed upon Weighted Usable Area (WUA) curves indicated that overall there was not a large difference in the percentage of maximum habitat attained when comparing the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement flows and the flows recommended by American Rivers and the City of Rockingham. FERC also indicates that the annual generation losses would increase from $535,000 to $1,227,500 as a result of an increase in the minimum flow from 330 cfs to 900 cfs. FERC then went on to conclude that the habitat benefits provided by the additional flows did not justify the annual economic loss to Progress Energy of $692,500 (page 242 of FERC's DEIS in Attachment 1). At flows between these two proposals, the incremental increase in habitat and the economic impact can be assumed to be near linear, therefore, the same conclusion would apply. In any event, the critical question is not simply whether Progress Energy ratepayers can "afford" the higher cost, but whether any significant environmental improvement would actually result. The improvement in habitat and water quality provided by the CSA is already very substantial, and the record before the NCDWQ shows that Project stakeholders agree with this conclusion (Final CSA pg 19). Again, there is no data or information in the record that can be relied upon to show (with evidence) that flows higher than that proposed by Progress would actually benefit fish, especially native fish species. It is important to recognize and acknowledge the nature and limitations of any instream flow assessment. Instream flow analyses on the Pee Dee River were 3 performed utilizing several different techniques, some quantitative, others qualitative. The Instream Flow Study, which was submitted to NCDWQ as part of the Progress' application, utilized a quantitative model as well as visual observations and field measurements to identify the characteristics of different operational flow rates. This report describes how flow rates were evaluated in the flow study, indicating that "the end result of an instream flow study is not a set value, but models of simulated ranges of values to be used as tools in concert with other analytical tools to evaluate the effect of alternative stream flows on Project operations and fish and aquatic habitat." Progress Energy and project stakeholders analyzed these results for a multitude of alternative flow releases at each of Progress' two hydroelectric developments. In many cases, the results were viewed and analyzed using interactive computer programs that allowed those involved to efficiently and effectively analyze the effect of alternative flow regimes on fish habitat. Blewett Falls Flow Release Analysis The decision to adopt a minimum flow recommendation of 1200\1800\2400 cfs at Blewett Falls was a function of analyzing the separate technical tools discussed above that were available to the relicensing stakeholders. Throughout the FERC relicensing process, no resource agency or other stakeholder objected to the minimum flow regime proposed below Blewett Falls Dam. Progress Energy is proposing significant minimum base flow increase below Blewett Falls for both non-spawning season minimum instantaneous flow (from 200 to 1,200 cfs from June 1 to January 31), and spawning season minimum instantaneous flow (from 200 to 2,400 cfs from February 1 to May 15 and 1,800 cfs from May 16 to May 31). In addition, Progress Energy has proposed to provide flow adjustment periods in an effort to further enhance conditions for fish spawning. Based on the Instream Flow Study, enhancements to the Pee Dee River below Blewett Falls include the following: ^ Robust redhorse -under low-flow conditions, the IFIM model predicts that increasing minimum flows from 200 to 2,400 cfs during spawning season will provide up to 1,000 percent (10 times) more robust redhorse spawning habitat (about 90 percent of maximum attainable habitat at any flows) than existing base flow conditions. ^ Carolina redhorse -adult and juvenile modeled habitat show that for minimum flow periods outside of spawning season, habitat availability will increase by approximately 50 percent, and an additional 50 to 100 percent during spawning season. ^ Shortnose sturgeon -Under low-flow conditions, the model predicts the Progress Energy proposed minimum flows will provide sturgeon spawning habitat in the Blewett tailwater at a level approximately 25 percent of a maximum habitat modeled, where virtually none is available under existing conditions. ^ Striped Bass -habitat availability over the existing base flow condition will increase to 10 percent of maximum modeled habitat. ^ American shad -habitat availability will increase to 80-90 percent of maximum modeled habitat as compared to existing base flow conditions close to Blewett Falls B. Flow Projections With and Without Dams -Please provide a detailed description of minimum flow projections with and without the existing dams so we can compare the proposed flows to what would have occurred naturally in the river. For the record, Progress Energy would like to point out our concerns regarding the legitimacy of any efforts to compare CSA flows, or flows from any regulated system, to "natural" or "unregulated" river flows. These types of analyses are fraught with difficulties and unjustified assumptions about past or future watershed characteristics. Even more importantly, a "natural flow" regime cannot be considered a legitimate benchmark of a river's "health" in and of itself. Many unregulated rivers (e.g. the Rocky River) lack healthy biota. To Progress' knowledge, there is nothing in the record before NCDWQ evidencing that "natural flow" is a legitimate measure of health, or even a goal, for the Pee Dee River. Therefore, with regard to comparisons to "natural flow", Progress Energy submits that there is no reasonable basis for drawing any conclusions based on such a comparison because: (1) "natural flow" has no regulatory meaning, and there is nothing in the record that uses or justifies the use of "natural flow" as some form of benchmark for a "healthy ecosystem," and (2) there is no proposal being put forward by any stakeholder that in the future the Pee Dee river should be a "natural flow" river; therefore, this is not an alternative for future river conditions, nor could it be given the NCDWQ's recent 401 Certification granted to APGL The only possible alternatives for future flow conditions in the Pee Dee must recognize that the NCDWQ has already issued a 401Certification for APGI that allows zero flows in the Pee Dee River for almost 30 percent of the time on an annual basis. Additionally, Progress Energy notes that on November 16, 2007, NCDWQ issued to Alcoa Power Generation, Inc. ("APGI"), a 401 Water Quality Certification for its FERC relicense application. APGI operates a series of hydroelectric dams upstream of the Blewett and Tillery developments. Flows in the Pee Dee River downstream of the APGI projects are controlled in large part by the releases made from the APGI dams. Thus, flows in the Pee Dee River at Progress' Tillery Dam cannot accurately be characterized as flows that would have occurred naturally in the river. s Related to the issue of "natural" flows, American Rivers commented on October 19, 2007 that a 330 cfs minimum flow is lower than any flow expected if "natural flow conditions" were adopted. As stated above, the only reasonably possible future flow conditions must include APGI's operations of its dams upstream of the Tillery dam. We assume that American Rivers recognizes this because it is a signatory to the APGI settlement. Based on the flows agreed to by American Rivers, flows in the Yadkin River below Falls Dam can be expected to be no more than leakage and approach zero for significant periods of time. Also, American Rivers has claimed that the spawning flow of 725 cfs "is considerably less than the 7Q 10 flow" in this stretch of the river. Regarding the spawning flows, Progress Energy prepared a calculation of the 7Q 10 flow at Tillery Dam using historic data for the period 1983 through 2003. Under current operations the 7Q10 flow is 2,085 cfs. The calculated 7Q10 flow for the two month spring spawning season under the CSA operating proposal is 2,157 cfs. The implementation of the CSA will result in an increase of the actual 7Q 10 flows during the spring spawning period. In its request for additional information, NCDWQ requested that Progress Energy provide projections of future flows in the Pee Dee River with and without the Progress Energy projects in place. Based on a subsequent clarification provided by NCDWQ (phone conversation on November 19, 2007 between Rob Krebs, NCDWQ and John Crutchfield, Progress Energy), Progress was advised to assume for this analysis that the APGI projects remain in place, and the Progress Energy developments be assumed to be removed. Progress Energy furthered assumed that the APGI projects would be operated in the future within the limits established by their recent 401 Certification. Progress Energy has performed acomputer-based simulation of the future operation of APGI's facilities under the recent 401 Certification granted to APGI by the NCDWQ using hourly data for the period of 1983 to 2003. It is important to recognize that the recent 401 Certification granted by the NCDWQ allows APGI to release flows on an average daily basis. Based on a reasonable preference to maximize its revenues within allowable parameters, and consistent with the peaking operation of the facilities, water will be saved for release during periods of the day when the value of power is higher, and no water will be released when the value of power is low (off-peak periods) all in a manner that meets the average daily flow requirements of the 401 Certification. It is reasonable to assume that available water would be used during on-peak hours, and little to no water would be released during off-peak hours. Our simulation indicates that, based on hourly data, it is likely that no release would occur from Falls Dam approximately 33 percent of the time in any given year on an hourly basis. This is shown in the resulting diagram of flows released at Falls Dam under Progress' simulation (see the flow duration curve below). This flow duration curve is based upon the projected hourly flows that would be expected from Falls Dam under future operations within the limits prescribed by the recent NCDWQ 401 Certification. We have used this hourly release schedule at Falls Dam to project flows below Tillery Dam with and without Progress Energy's Project. The results are shown in Table 1 below. The table shows the projected future flows at Tillery Dam and in the Tillery Reach with and without Progress' Energy's project. As the table shows, flows in the Tillery reach without the Progress Energy projects will be less than the CSA minimum flow of 330 cfs approximately 29% of the time. Therefore, flows in the Tillery reach are projected to be greater, with Progress' Project than without the Project, about 30% of the time. In fact, without the CSA, flows in the Tillery reach would be less than 40 cfs 10% of the time. Table 1 Projected Flows at Tille Dam Percentage of Time a Given Flow is Exceeded With Tillery Dam and CSA cfs Without Tillery Dam* (cfs) 100 330 0 95 330 0 90 330 37 85 725 79 80 1395 137 75 1803 219 70 2092 384 65 2400 2119 60 2728 2696 55 3017 4813 50 3345 5056 40 4064 7196 30 4944 7511 20 5641 8820 10 7294 10390 *These flows have been modeled to include releases from Falls Dam and inflows from the Uwharrie River, whose confluence with the Yadkin is between Falls and Tillery dams. Figure 1 -Inflows to Tillery Dam 20,000 18,000 16,000 .-. 14,000 C 0 12,000 a~ A 10,000 W 0 ~ 8,000 too ~, ~ 6,000 A 4,000 2,000 ~, 100% 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Exceedance 8 Progress Energy believes it is important to recognize the benefits to the entire watershed that are provided by the Tillery and Blewett facilities. It is clear that without the operation of these two dams, the flows throughout the entire lower half of the watershed would be substantially lower much of the time, assuming operation of the Falls Dam under the terms of the November 16, 2007 401 Certification, a certification containing minimum flows agreed to by American Rivers. C. Flow Rate Exceedances-Please provide a breakdown on the percentage of time the flows at both Tillery and Blewett Falls would have exceeded the proposed minimum flow rates (including fish spawning time frames and proposed minimum flow rates) over the past two years. Also include two years worth (June 1, 2005-June 1 2007) of daily flow rate averages for both Tillery and Blewett Falls Reservoirs. Progress Energy has completed a flow duration curve for the total flows from Tillery and Blewett Falls for the time period between June 1, 2005 and June 1, 2007 (see Figure 2). Based upon our calculations, river flows less than the minimum flow rates proposed by the CSA occurred about 12% of the time at Tillery, and 15% of the time at Blewett Falls. This indicates that the proposed CSA minimum flows would have resulted in higher flows below Tillery and Blewett Falls 12 and 15% of the time, respectively. At Tillery, flows exceeded the CSA minimum spawning flows 87 percent of the time within the spawning window, and at Blewett Falls, exceedance of minimum spawning flows occurred 79 percent of the time within the spawning window. D. Effects of Projected Increased Flow Rates- Detail effects (economic, aquatic, biological integrity, etc) of projected minimum continuous flow rates of 800-1000 cfs (year round and 1,500-1,800 cfs (During spring spawning season, see item e) for the Lake Tillery reach. In response to the USFWS' request that FERC consider higher minimum flow releases at Tillery Dam, FERC included an analysis in their DEIS of the potential ecological benefits of higher minimum flows than the 330 cfs (and 725 cfs spawning flows) presented in the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement. (See Section 3.3.3.2 of the DEIS (Attachment 1, Page 105) pertaining to FERC's analysis of the recommended minimum flow rates.) A summary of the analysis performed by FERC related to the effects of the USFWS' higher minimum flows on project economics and aquatic resources is included in the response to Question 1.A. above. Again, Progress Energy is in general agreement with this analysis and, therefore, did not believe it needed to be repeated herein, but only referenced. y Figure 2 -Progress Energy -Tillery Development Discharges Jun 1, 2005 through June 1, 2007 100.000 ~ o,ooo wo ~, 0 ~. ~ 1,000 .., 0 s. 0. ~. 0 F 100 - Tillery Mean Daily Record - - - - 330 cfs 88% Exceedenee - - - 725 cfs 85% Exceedence Mean Daily Flow Data from Progress Energy Plant Records 87.3% 85% Spawning Period 3/ I S - 5/ 16 U% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Exceedance in Figure 2 -Progress Energy -Blewett Development Discharges Jun 1, 2005 through June 1, 2007 ~ oo,ooo Mean Daily Flow Data from Progress Energy Plant Records 10,000 a~ wo L C~ ~'.. U A ~ 1,000 .~ 0 ~. a e~ 0 E~ 100 10 0% 79% 73 Blewett Mean Daily Record - - - 1200 cfs 85%Exceedence 2,400 cfs 73% Annual Exceedence Spawning Period 2/1 - 5/16 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent Exceedance 70% 80% 90% 100% rr replace or compensate for lost or degraded uses is accepted at certain ratios, reflecting the fact that the compensating by substitution of uses which are similar, or even enhanced, in ecological value, is nevertheless not identical to the uses lost or degraded at a particular location. A multiplier is utilized in an attempt to achieve a degree of equivalence between the lost uses and the substituted uses. However, in this case, there is no removal or degradation of the existing uses of the waters in the Progress Energy Project. Progress Energy has reviewed NCDWQ's mitigation policy as it applies to the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Project and as outlined in a memo dated July 6, 2007 from Jim Mead to John Dorney. In this memo, Jim Mead summarizes both the studies performed and the evaluation of proposed project flow changes. Mr. Mead also describes NCDENR's position regarding the potential effects associated with the continued operation of the Project, and details how NCDWQ's mitigation policy is satisfied by the measures proposed by Progress Energy. Progress Energy has reviewed Mr. Mead's technical evaluation and has no objection to the calculations and numerical analysis completed by NCDENR as they relate to the PM&E measures contained in the CSA dealing with riparian lands and streamflow (including, for example, stream corridor protection distances). With regard to his conclusion that the measures proposed under the CSA satisfy the NCDWQ mitigation policy, we accept his conclusion but note that use of the NCDWQ mitigation policy is inappropriate to this Project. References Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower Licenses FERC /DEIS - 0215D. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects. Washington, DC. 321pp. Progress Energy. 2006. Application for License, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project, FERC No. 2206. Progress Energy, Raleigh, N.C. /4 Attachment 1 FERC DEIS Section 3.3.3.2 -Page 105 Section 4.2.3 -Pages 242 and 243 Progress Energy selected key life stages and provided Index C values for those life stages at alternative minimum flow levels. As part of additional information filed December 13, 2006, Progress Energy presented Reach 3 Index C results for 7 life stages/habitat types at three alternative flow levels from Tillery: the existing minimum flow of 70 cfs, the final license application proposed minimum flows of 200/750 cfs, and the Yadkin-Pee Dee Settlement minimum flows of 330/725 cfs. For these 7 life stages/types, the Yadkin-Pee Dee Settlement minimum flows provided the highest Index C values of the three flow alternatives. FWS and American Rivers' recommended flows (800/1,000 cfs year-round and 1,500/1,800 cfs during spring spawning) were not presented until their filing in response to the ready for environmental analysis notice. Therefore, no Index C analysis is available for those flows. As an alternative, we examined the flow versus WUA curves for the Yadkin-Pee Dee Settlement flows compared to the FWS and American Rivers' flows. This analysis includes accretion flows at the head of subreaches 1 and 2, because of the major tributaries that enter those subreaches. There is no accretion flow estimated for subreach 3 because it starts at the base of Tillery dam. We added median accretion flows for the spring months (March, April, and May) and a median accretion flow for the remainder of the year. Because FWS and American Rivers recommend a range of flows, we use the midpoint of those ranges in our analysis (900 and 1,650 cfs). We examined the same 7 life stages/types as included in the Index C analysis filed December 13, 2006. The results of our analysis are presented in tables 26, 27, 28, and 29, which show the modeled WUA for each life stage/habitat types, along with the percent of the maximum WUA available for that life stage. This gives an idea of the habitat that would be available at each minimum flow, although it does not show the duration (in time) of that habitat, or the habitat that would be available during higher project releases. Our analysis shows that the alternative minimum flows would have different effects on species/habitat types, varying by subreach. Overall, however, there does not appear to be a large difference in the percentage of the maximum habitat that would be available under the Yadkin-Dee Pee Settlement flows when compared with the FWS and American Rivers' recommended flows. Table 29 summarizes the percent of maximum WUA for all the species and habitat types, and by subreach within the reach 3 study area. The results (percent of maximum WUA) indicate that the Yadkin-Dee Pee Settlement and FWS/American Rivers flows provide essentially identical habitat conditions in subreach 1 (69 and 71 percent of maximum WUA, respectively), while in subreach 2 Progress Energy's proposed flows provide somewhat better habitat conditions in the spring (85 percent of maximum WUA), but FWS/American Rivers flows provide better habitat value the rest of the year (86 percent of maximum WUA). For subreach 3 (the 5-mile reach below Tillery dam), the FWS/American Rivers flows provide better habitat value in both the spring (77 percent of maximum WUA) and the rest of the year (81 percent of maximum WUA). For the larger part of the 20-mile study reach 3 (subreaches 1 and 2 that total about 15 miles), however, the Yadkin-Dee Pee Settlement and FWS/American Rivers flows provide similar habitat value. 105 Table 55. Summary of capital, annual costs, and total annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by the Progress Energy and recommended by staff and others for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project (P-2206). (Source: Staff) Annual Costs, Including Total Capital O&M and Annualized Recommending Costs Energy Cost Adopted Environmental Measures Entities (2007$) (2007$) (2007$) By Staff? Notes Water Resources 1. Develop habitat duration analysis American $5,000 $0 $880 No a information as well as an analysis of Rivers measures necessary to mitigate peaking and load following operations ~ 2. Provide minimum flows from Tillery Yadkin-Pee Dee $0 $535,000 $535,000 Yes b N dam of 330 cfs year-round and 725 cfs Parties60 (lost for 8 weeks during the spring spawning energy) period, beginning March 15-22 (in year 2010 or at the first passage of American shad above Blewett Falls dam) 3. Provide minimum flows from Tillery FWS, city of $0 $1,227,500 $1,227,500 No b dam of 800-1,000 cfs year round and Rockingham, (lost Provide minimum flows at Tillery dam American energy) during the spring fish spawning season Rivers of 1,500-1,800 cfs 60Yadkin-Pee Dee Parties are the parties to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Settlement (see section 1.5.2.2 for list of parties). Annual Costs, Including Total Capital O&M and Annualized Recommending Costs Energy Cost Adopted Environmental Measures Entities (2007$) (2007$) (2007$) By Staff? Notes 4. Provide minimum flow releases from NMFS $0 Tillery dam of 330 cfs (May 16 to January 31) and 725 cfs (February 1 to May 15) - for a period of 8 weeks or as determined by an agency team 5. Provide minimum flows at Tillery American $0 similar to the flow naturalization regime Rivers ~ proposed for Blewett Falls `'' 6. Install sluice gate or turbine capable FWS $0 of providing 800 to 1,000 cfs continuous year-round minimum flow below Tillery dam 7. Provide minimum flows from Tillery Yadkin-Pee Dee $0 in such a way so as to avoid high Parties temperature water from the uppermost surface of Lake Tillery if high temperature gradients are found to occur in the upper 6 inches 8. Provide minimum flow compliance Yadkin-Pee Dee $31,200 and monitoring at Tillery dam Parties $535,000 $535,000 No b (lost energy) $0 $0 No c $0 $0 No c $0 $0 Yes c $14,560 $20,020 Yes d Attachment 2 Wetted Perimeter Transect Illustrations Regarding biological integrity, Progress Energy would like to first point out that there are no specific reference or benchmark conditions for large river systems such as the Pee Dee to evaluate or predict the fish community health relative to the existing conditions or future proposed flow modifications. Given this premise, no data have been provided or can be provided by any commenter in this 401 record that can authoritatively and definitively predict or state the degree of biological integrity impact to this community with their proposed alternative flows. As we have discussed previously, there are several coinciding factors present, including the presence of non-native species, which make predictions on biological integrity problematic at best. Reference metrics for evaluating the health of the benthic invertebrate community (i.e., N.C. Biotic Index) have been applied to the Tillery Reach. However, there are limitations in that changes solely attributable to flow can not be readily parsed out from other interacting factors (DO and other water quality variables, sedimentation, non-native predators, competing species, etc.) with this type of metric ranking method under field sampling conditions. This method cannot be used on a predictive basis to trend future health or biological integrity conditions; it is based on a real-time field assessment of community conditions at one point in time. Moreover, this methodology can not be used to incrementally predict biological health with corresponding incremental changes in flow (e.g., a ranking prediction for every 10 cfs change in flow). As such, the use of instream flow results (available habitat for various species and life stages), including wetted perimeter analysis, serves as the acceptable surrogate to make predictions regarding available future habitat conditions for fish and benthic invertebrates under the CSA minimum flows and other flow proposals. Again, it should be pointed out that available habitat does not necessarily translate into increased populations or a corresponding increase in overall health or biological integrity for the cited reasons (i.e., nonnative species that affect the balanced and indigenous concept of biological integrity). In fact, a converse is that any increased flow may provide advantage to non-native fish which will, in turn, suppress native fish populations and affect overall community structure. Effects on available habitat were addressed during the relicensing studies through the IFIM evaluation of Index C weighted useable area and wetted perimeter coverage associated with different flows. The IFIM analysis have consistently shown that the proposed alternative flows do not provide a significant amount of habitat gain for the target species over the CSA minimum flow especially when balanced with the economic loss to generation at the project. Wetted perimeter analysis is particularly suitable for evaluating habitat available for benthic macroinvertebrates and, especially, mussels. Mussel species, along iz with early life stages of of several fish species, utilize channel margin habitat, and the wetted perimeter analysis provides a relative prediction on this type of available habitat with different types of flow releases. An example of this type of analysis can be found through the evaluation of three transects between Tillery Dam and the Rocky River, which were selected by the Instream Flow Workgroup (including USFWS) to evaluate wetted perimeter at shallow broad channel locations providing suitable habitat for mussels. The increase in wetted perimeter that results by increasing the minimum flow from 330 cfs to 900 cfs is only one percent at two transects and 12 percent at the third, or an average increase of less than 5 percent fora 242 percent increase in flow. This minimal increase in wetted perimeter coverage is consistent with FERC's findings, and once again confirms that increases in flows above what is currently presented by Progress Energy provides very little additional mussel habitat. A graphical representation of water levels at each of the transects corresponding to 330 and 900 cfs flows is included in Attachment 2. E. Please clarify the minimum continuous flow scheduling since there appears to be a discrepancy in the proposed time frame for minimum flow within the application For instance, page 1 S(note2) of the application states the minimum flow schedule has a projected start date of March 1 S while on page 9, the schedule has an Aprill, date. Please clarify this conflict. Progress Energy confirms that the correct start date is March 15`" for Tillery spawning flows (as specified in note 2 of page 15 of the 401 application). 2. Mitigation A. Calculation and comparison to DWQ policy guidance-Please provide a detailed analysis of your mitigation proposal as compared to DWQ's policy guidance on FERC mitigation dated August 24,2007 (version 1.5) (attached) Progress Energy's relicensing process resulted in the development of a wide- ranging suite of environmental improvements that became embodied in the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (CSA), a package of actions to be undertaken by Progress Energy that are frequently referred to in the industry as PM&E (Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement) measures. "PM&E measures" has become a catchall phrase associated with this process that describes the changes to operations and project improvements that are often negotiated as part of the FERC relicensing process. These actions encompass a wide range of issues and include an equally wide range of responses to the site-specific issues identified. PM&E measures are a feature of the FERC relicensing process and do not share the same conceptual basis as mitigation in the 401 certification context. Mitigation in the 401 context is a concept created for the purpose of justifying the unavoidable removal or degradation of uses of waters, especially wetlands, on the basis of replacement of, or compensation for, the removed or degraded uses. It is commonly used for certifying projects which destroy or impair wetlands, because a wetland fill project necessarily removes or degrades wetland uses. Mitigation to !3 ~ ~ ~ .-" ~. /' M~ ,~. ~~ .~ .;N~.+t,t ... ;1 -rY ~ 4~. ~k x ~. _ Transect 3 -Year Round Minimum Flows 330 cfs and 900 cfs Pee Dee Reach 3 Subreach 3 - Transect 3 95.0 94.0 93.0 92.0 91.0 90.0 89.0 88.0 87.0 86.0 85.0 84.0 Lg Bldr ^ Sm Bldr ~ Org ®Silt ^ Sand ^ Sm Grav Med Grav D Lg Grav ^ Sm Cob ~ Lg Cob ^ Bedrk Discharge:®cfs Water Surface Elevation 88.78 ft ~~ ~ Wetted Perimeter: 509.03 ft Average Depth: 0.76 ft Pee Dee Reach 3 Subreach 3 - Transect 3 95.0 94.0 93.0 92.0 91.0 90.0 89.0 88.0 87.0 86.0 85.0 84.0 ~ Lg Bldr ^ Med Grav ~Sm Bldr Lg Grav ®Silt D Lg Cob ~ Org Sm Cob Discharge:®cfs ^ Sand Bedrk ^ Sm Grav Water Surface Elevation 89.60 ft Wetted Perimeter: 572.91 ft Average Depth: 1.37 ft Transect 7 -Year Round Minimum Flows 330 cfs and 900 cfs Pee Dee Reach 3 Subreach 3 - Transect 7 100.0 - 100.0 99.0 99.0 98.0 98.0 97.0 97.0 96.0 - 96.0 95.0 95.0 94.0 94.0 ~ 93.0 - 93.0 O 92.0 92.0 +~ 91.0 91.0 ~ ~ 90.0 90.0 89.0 - - - --- 89.0 8 LLJ 88.0 ,. N ` ~ NNMNN -N N'' 7.0 8 86.0 85.0 5 ~y ,-;. -. ~. j. y ~ ~e ;- M M N MGM N 1 y MMMN.NN ~ M fi N N N N ~ ;. ; aN~.,,~ N w n. N~.~: - `. t 86.0 - 85.0 84.0 " 1 -:.~~. -. -. ~ . .-:. MMNNMN ' M+ N ': . ~ Nw $ 84.0 83.0 ~ .{ ,, . N N M M::y N '~ MMMN~ MM N - NN N M - ^N a = -'- 83.0 82.0 r ~;. y . ,, N~~~~N - NN, N ? 82.0 81.0 ~ ,:ti~ N ~~r~ NNiIN M N N MM M ~Y~ ~;': N K : ' ~ e M : i ~ 81.0 80.0 , .. , • • i. , i..: . . :: . _.. :.. _. : 80.0 O ~ In 1CY In N ~ O O l1'1 lf! O r lA In YY In r ~ ~ I[) In N lA IA to lA IA lA lA 1f1 ~('1 N 1n V N N N V7 N N In ~ N {n N ll') 1~ O M E T N N N N N M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~' 1(1 N N ~ t0 ~O C O <D ~O 1~ ~ ti h D Lg Bldr ^ Sm Bldr ®Org ®Silt ^ Sand ^ Sm Grav Med Grav D Lg Grav ^ Sm Cob ~ Lg Cob ^ Bedrk Discharge:®cfs Water Surface Elevation 88.28 ft Wetted Perimeter: 671.70 ft Average Depth: 0.71 ft Pee Dee Reach 3 Subreach 3 - Transect 7 C O r cv W D Lg Bldr Sm Bldr ^ Org Sm Cob ^ Med Grav D Lg Grav Discharge:®cfs ®Silt ~ Lg Cob 100.0 99.0 98.0 97.0 96.0 95.0 94.0 93.0 92.0 91.0 90.0 89.0 88.0 87.0 86.0 85.0 84.0 83.0 82.0 81.0 80.0 ^Sand ^Sm Grav D Bedrk Water Surface Elevation Wetted Perimeter: Average Depth: 88.71 ft 687.85 ft 1.09 ft Transect 8 -Year Round Minimum Flows 330 cfs and 900 cfs 96.0 95.0 C O 94.0 W 93.0 92.0 96.0 95.0 94.0 93.0 92.0 91.0 91.0 O M t~ O N M 1!9 ti O O N M 11Y h GO O N M M 1~ O O N M ll'J 1~ OO O N M 1!'1 f~ 00 O N M Y7 t0 01 N N ~ h 01 r M If) ~ O N ~ t0 OO O M tf1 ti 01 r M <O OO O N ~ !D Qf r M IL> ~ Q1 N ~ t0 00 O N N r r r r N N N N N M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~' O ~ 1!'f O N t0 {O !O <O !D N f~ h ~ 00 OD OD ~ Lg Bldr ^ Med Grav Discharge:cfs ®Silt ^ Sand ®Lg Cob ^ Bedrk Sm Grav Water Surface Elevation 92.78 ft Wetted Perimeter: 721.44 ft Average Depth: 0.63 ft 1 ^Sm Bldr Lq Grav ^ Org Sm Cob Pee Dee Reach 3 Subreach 3 - Transect 8 Pee Dee Reach 3 Subreach 3 - Transect 8 96.0 96.0 95.0 95.0 C , O 94.0 ~ 94.0 c3 `s W 93.0 __ ... , ... .; -~_~ - ... .. ~. .. ~,,.. .. ~ 93.0 ~ 92.0 _... -,-:.;~° ~ .m. a ..,..: 92.0 ". ~` . .;.-:. ~',~';`; ,' '.~' M N N'M-N N N N M M N ,. -:~ ?+_ ~:- '. N N M M N N N M N M N ; ": ; N N N N~.N N N N M`N N ;`., ,-.: s ~ i.,, ~ ; N 1 0 91 0 . O M f~ O N N V t` 01 M N h O O N M N h O O N M r M N ~ O N ~ t0 O O M 1n N IIY h O O N M 01 r M 10 O O 12'1 ti W O N M lf1 h O O N M to tD N ~ t0 Q1 r M N ~ 01 N ~ t0 O O T N N ~ r r r r N N N N N M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 22) N lA 12') 2D t0 20 O 10 h ~ ~ ~ O O O ® Lg Bldr ^ Sm Bldr ~ Org ®Silt ^ Sand ^ Sm Grav Med Grav ~ Lg Grav ^ Sm Cob ®Lg Cob ^ Bedrk - -- - - - Discharge:®cfs Water Surface Elevation 93.19 ft Wetted Perimeter: 736.32 ft Average Depth: 0.98 ft