HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030147 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