19910326 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_19940720

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
DATE: July 20, 1994
SUBJECT: Comments on SCH #95-0011
Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the proposed Virginia Beach Water
Supply Project FERC 2009-003. Applicant: Virginia Power, Brunswick County,
Virginia.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists have reviewed the
FEA for the proposed Virginia Beach Water Supply Project and provide the following comments
and recommendations. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Federal
Power Act (16 U. S. C. 791a et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U. S. C. 661-667d).
NCWRC concurs with FERC staff conclusions that the proposed project constitutes a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore
requires that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared. We recommend that in
preparation of the EIS the following subjects be thoroughly analyzed to evaluate potential
impacts and alternatives.
1.. An instream flow study should be conducted to evaluate available habitat under
various flow regimes. This analysis will provide information relevant to
minimum flow releases in the Roanoke River.
2. The waste assimilative capacity of the lower Roanoke River should be modeled to
evaluate habitat quality impacts from the proposed action in concert with existing
and future withdrawals and discharges. We are especially concerned that water
quality problems will manifest themselves in the lower Roanoke River as a result
of increased consumptive demands. While fisheries issues have concentrated on
striped bass (Morone sazatilis), the river supports recreationally and economically
important fisheries for a variety of other anadromous species [blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis), alewife (A. pseudoharengus), hickory shad (A. mediocris), and
American shad (A. sapidissima)] and non-migratory species [largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), white perch (Morone americana), and various catfishes
and sunfishes]. Resident species and migratory species dependent on nursery

FEA, FERC # 2009-003 2 July 20, 1994
areas within the lower river will be especially vulnerable to degradation of water
quality during summer-fall, low flow periods.
3. A detailed presentation and analysis of proposed flow mitigation under both the
51-day and 76-day "experimental" spring augmentation flow period should be
included. The relationship between inflows into Kerr Reservoir, the "guide
curve", water storage rights of Virginia Beach, and Roanoke River discharges
needs clarification. Potential changes of minimum flow requirements within the
Roanoke River as a result of FERC relicensing of Virginia Power facilities should
also be examined.
4. A fisheries survey should be conducted to determine if shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) occur in the Roanoke River. We feel that shortnose
sturgeon may occur in the river even though a literature review conducted by
Sweet (1993) indicated that there was no record of the species occurring the
watershed. However, the literature review confirmed that shortnose sturgeon had
been collected in the Albemarle Sound drainage area with historical records from
the lower Chowan River and Salmon Creek.
5. An extensive mussel survey should be conducted in the Roanoke River from
Roanoke Rapids Dam downstream to Scotland Neck, North Carolina. Based on
limited survey data from the Roanoke River below Weldon, North Carolina, there
are three known extant mussel species which are state listed special concern
species:
Eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata),
Variable spike (Elliptio icterina), and
Alewife floater (Anodonta implicata).
Additionally, there is shell evidence that the Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis), a state listed threatened species, may still have an extant population
in the Roanoke River. For additional mussel information contact Mr. John
Alderman at [phone].
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this FEA. If you would like to
discuss these comments or need additional information, please contact Mr. Frank McBride at
[phone].
cc: Kent Nelson, Fisheries Research Coordinator
Pete Kornegay, District 1 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
John Alderman, Non-Game and Endangered Species Project Leader