20011420 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20010902

\NATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
\O?O RQG WilliamG. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
cting Director
Division ofWater Quality
April 15, 2002
Martin L. Bowling, Jr.
Dominion Energy & Dominion Generation
Innsbrook Technical Center
50100 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Dear Mr. Bowling;
Re: Roanoke Rapids and Lake Gaston FERC Relicensing Project
Halifax County
DWQ# 01-1420
Thank you for your letter of March 8, 2002 concerning this project. As you know, DWQ wrote you a letter on
November 6, 2001 acknowledging receipt of your applications to renew the PERC permit for Roanoke Rapids and Lake
Gaston. The letter stated that if we did not hear from you in writing, we would consider the application withdrawn.
Your recent letter does not dispute that decision but rather asks whether 1) the information we received is
satisfactory, 2) on file, and 3) only awaiting a signed settlement agreement. You also requested that the payment received
on October 18, 2001 suffice for any resubmittals.
As you know, there has been and continues to a lot of work underway by the wide variety of agencies and
individuals on this application as outlined in our letter of November 6, 2001. Until that process is complete, we cannot
determine whether your earlier submittal is satisfactory or whether conditions will need to be added to the 401
Certification beyond the settlement agreement (although we anticipate that the settlement agreement should suffice as we
discussed in our meeting on September 27, 2001). We will certainly keep the information you sent with your earlier
application on file and will then supplement it with the final information for your eventual, new application.
With respect to your last question about payment of the fee, you will need to pay an additional $475.00 when the
final, complete application is submitted to DWQ since the previous application was considered withdrawn per the
provision in our November letter.
I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
ly Yours,
Dorney
cc: Central Files
File Copy

Z W"
NCDENR
1
1
N. C. Division of Water Quality. 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Martin Bowling, Jr.
Dominiow
Vice President Operations
Fossil and Hydro
Dominion Energy & Dominion Generation
Innsbrook Technical Center
5000 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, VA 23060
Phone: [phone]
March 8, 2002
Mr. John Dorney 4W
Director, Water Resources w oROUP
North Carolina Department of ;?Tert !lALl S Ulm!
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-16540
Dominion Generation Roanoke Rapids and Gaston
FERC Hydropower Relicensing Project 2099
North Carolina CWA 401 Certification
Dear Mr. Morris:
This letter is in reference to your November 6, 2001 letter to Mr. Martin L. Bowling, Jr.
concerning a 401 certification, DWQ # 01-1420. There are several areas that Dominion
is requesting clarification.
It is Dominion's understanding that since settlement discussions are active and
proceeding in a productive manner, the documentation submitted to NCDWQ on
September 21, 2001 will be held as long as settlement discussions are still ongoing.
Upon completion of settlement discussions, Dominion will provide the requested
information. We would like to ensure that all the documentation that you received from
Dominion is satisfactory, on file, and a signed settlement is the only information that is
keeping the application from being deemed complete.
Also, Dominion submitted to NCDWQ the certification request and accompanying
payment per request of the FERC. At the time of submittal, both NCDWQ and
Dominion understood that the certification documentation would not be complete for
quite some time. It would therefore seem fair that the certification processing fee
received by NCDWQ on October 18, 2001 will cover the final submittal when that
occurs.
We would appreciate concurrence or clarification on these issues. If you have questions,
please contact Mr. Jim Thornton at [phone]•
Sincerely,
Martin L. Bowling, Jr.

Phone message about Roanoke/Albemarle water quality
Y
Y
Subject: Phone message about Roanoke/Albemarle water quality
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:23:00 -0500
From: "Norman White" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Greetings,
Recently (March 22, more or less), I sent an e-mail to a high school classmate, Marvin
I have never considered myself to be an environmentalist because many of the people ca.
I grew up in Plymouth and spent much of my youth fishing in Conaby Creek, which emptie;
Even though I live in Texas at present, where I study environmental aspects of soils,
At least part of the problem is probably the drought. A bigger problem could be the 1
As a professional in soils, I can only say that I believe that the continuation of the
I am not an expert in water rights law or environmental law but I am extremely disappo.
When I started planning to write you this e-mail, I did not know of the stupid idea of
I also read in the Roanoke Beacon about testing the river for chlorinated hydrocarbons
All the Albemarle-Pamlico planning may as well be thrown out the window if the water t:
In the long term, if the Roanoke becomes saline from the interbasin water removal, the:
I hope this will not be allowed to happen. Check the environmental impact statement f•
I would be very interested to see the complete report by CH2M Hill supporting the remo-
Like I said before, I have never considered myself to be an environmentalist or at lea;
Thanks for your attention.
Norman White
[e-mail]
Dept of Soil and Crop Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-2474
979-845-7386 (work)
home address:
300A Nimitz
College Station, TX 77840
979-846-2691 (home, after 7 pm CDT)

1 of 1 4/12/02 8:53 AM

. . Department of Justice
Transportation Section
-ansporta-don 3utijinu
:)?:e outil WHminaton Jtr::L-t
?I)5 \,lail Scr.,We C4nter
i?:lieiuh. NC _ 7699- i 505
119- -5316
Fux: 919-733-93--9
FAX TRANSNUSSION COVER SHEET
Date: 2, -
To: /7.41 bo'4cme 197 A)
Fay: No: 7-5 3 --
Subject: pQo?t`j
Sender: x'0 1/>rt? l (nJ?, ?" ?4S' XsS7-,
You should receive jX p ges,.including this cover sheet. If ou du not r?????? .,11 the
pages or if you have any questions, please call 919-733-3316. --?
Tile In Cot-matlutl ,;utlt,ttIlt:d lit tills ti]Csi mile message is contidential and int::tld4:i oil l?,i tll +_
of the rt;uipicnt. if -:ou have received this communication in error, plcuse notify its itt11t,,:.lisLC:
by telephone. Thank vou.

TM•.-I gp?:'A 91911. 6TG NOIJU1?30dSNUdi EOQ ON 2S=VT Z00Z-Z0-8dd

Subk Future of Roanoke River
Date: 3/21/02 10:09:24 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: [e-mail] (Norman White)
To: [e-mail]
Marvin,
, cr ?f IT , G'ff 9 3
As a person who grew up on the Roanoke Fiver, I am sure that you know of its importance. I have newer considered myself to
be an environmentalist but this letter will make me sound like one.
Even though 1 live in Texas at present, 1 receive the Roanoke Beacon every week and have been reading about the problems
with the Roanoke River Ed Plymouth becoming salty. The Weyerhaeuser paper mill has at times had to close down even
though they ran a pipe 3 miles further up stream to obtain water for their use.
At least part of the problem is probably the drought. A bigger problem could be the loss of flow due to the removal of water by
Virginia Beach, VA. I am sure that when they got permission to construct their pipeline, they gave figums in their
Environmental Impact Statement for what they considered to be the rrdnimum hoe" flow for the river. I can only assume
that these slows are either being ignored or the figures they were not calculated correctly.
As a professional in soils, I can only say that I believe that the continuation of the salt water influx into the Roanoke River at
Plymouth will likely result in the death of the dwrine forest on the other side of the over from Plymouth that was bought by the
National Wildlife Federation among others and is now a Wlldllfe Refuge. This change in the ecosystem would W irreversible.
Cypress trees are sensitive to salt water and dle if the water becomes salty. These trees are hundreds to thousands of years
old and can not be replaced in a few years. I also assume that there are endangered species involved. This is not legally
allowed according to Federal law as the health of the refuges must be maintained.
I am not an expert in water rights law or environmental law but I am extremely disappointed to see that the cities in the comer
of the state are looking at increasing the destruction of the river by removing water themselves. Why are they not removing
the water from their own lakes that are around tomb
When I started planning to write you this a-mail, I did not know of the stupid idea of Raleigh, etc. to steal even more water
from the Roanoke. I was planning to suggest that the state of NC combine with Weyerhaeuser Paper Co., the US govt. (Fish
and Wildlife Service, EPA, etc), and the National Wildlife Federation (after all they bought the land) to try to save the river- I
left that having the federal govemment, Weyerhaeuser and the National Wildlife Federation on the some side with the state of
NC would give the political and financial muscle to save the river. it would also be unusual by putting two parties that are
normally against each other on the same side, I can only assume that having the state of NC on the side of the good guys is
not possible if Raleigh, etc. wants to steal the water also.
All the Albernade-Pamlico planning may as well be thrown out the window if the water theft is allowed to continue. Water
removal by Virginia Beach should be reduced to levels that return the health of the river at its mouth even if that means that
they can remove no water. I can only assume that there is no one watching to see that Virginia Beach is abiding by the
figures they used in their environmental impact statement to gain approval. I hope that this is changed and that NC drops the
idea of Increasing the water theft.
If the Roanoke becomes salty, then the Albemarle Sound will become completely salty also. In the long run, this will cause
salt water intrusion along the entire peninsula that includes Dare, Hyde, Tyrell, Washington, and part of Beaufort county and
the north side of the sound also. The forests along the shoreline will die, then those inland and the population, as small as R
is, will have to move out of the salt desert that will result. This area would eventually include all of northeastern North Carolina.
I hope this will not be allowed to happen. Check the environmental impact statement when It comes to the state for the further
removal of water and insure that it allows for adequate flow in the river at Plymouth to prevent the salt water intrusion.
I would be very Interested to see it myself along with the one used by Virginia Beach to obtain the right to remove water.
Thanks for your attention.
Your classmate (1971, Plymouth ligh)
Thond v. Muth 21. 2M Aerie. Onlln Mabcowd Paa.e 7
ZO'd 6226 22L 6T6 NOIldlHOdSNdal tOQ ON 2S:bT Z00Z-TO-dcJU
20'd -1d101

Norman White
[e-mail]
300A Nimnz
College Station, 1X 77840
979+46-2691
Headers
Retum-Path: <gn-white(Damu.edu}
Recenred: from dy-xc03.=.aol.com (dy xc03.mail.aol.com 1172.20.105.136]) by air-xc03.mail.aol.com (v83.45) with ESM'IP
id MAIUNX=-0321100924; Thu, 21 Mar 200210:09:24 -0500
Received: from ag.tamu.edu (taexgw.tamu.edu [165.91.106.93]) by rly-xcO3.mx.aol.com (03,45) with ESMTP id
MAILRELAYIN)C3"321100903; "Thu, 21 Mar 200210:09:03 -0500
Received: from wpodoml-Message Server by ag.tamu.edu
Wth Novell_GroupWlse; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:01:49 -0600
Messag": <[e-mail]
X-Mailer. Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:01:31 -0600
From "Nommn White" <[e-mail];p.
To: <[e-mail],-
Subject: Future of Roanoke River
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-I!Vpe: text/plain; chamet=US-ASCII
Content Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content43spasition: inline
20'd 6E26 22L 6T6 NOIiUiNOdSNU8i f0a ON t7s:VT EOOZ-TO-Ndd
Michael F. Easley, Governor
?0F W ATE90 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
?O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
> - l Acting Director
0 < Division of Water Quality
November 6, 2001
DWQ # 01-1420
Halifax County
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Martin L. Bowling, Jr.
Dominion Power
Innsbrook Technical Center
5000 Dominion BLVD
Glen Allen, VA 2360
Dear Mr. Bowling:
On September 27, 2001 (check received on October 18, 2001) the Diinsion of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your
applications regarding your plans to renew the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (FERC Project No. 2009) to relicense
Roanoke Rapids and Lake Gaston hydropower dam in Halifax Courity. Approval from DWQ is required to impact these waters. Please
provide seven copies of the following infiorinatim and rirW to the DWQ number fisted above in your reply. Your application is not
complete because issues being mutually worked on have not yet been completed and are therefore not fully addressed in your
application. These issues include,( but are not firnited to) fbw in the bypass reach: mirnnwm releases and/or a release schedule from
the dam in order to protect downstream aquatic fife and water quality standards: flooding and subsequent drainage of the flood plain
and resultant low DO in the main clh rnet and the language for`ireopense clauses in tle Certification
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any quesbom or would require copies of our rules or procedural materials. This project
will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15 A NCAlil 2-I.05051J_ The processing tune for this application will begin when
this information is received. It we do not hear from you Y&in flares (3) weeks of the rac* of this letter, we will assume that you no
longer want to pursue this project and vA consider it widika mi

cc: Raleigh DWQ RegkM Office
Raleigh Corps Engneers
Central Files
File Copy
Jim Mead; DWR
Marc Bernstein, NC AblomeY General
Robin Smith, DENR
G1? Allen, VA 23060
James Thomton, Dornkiion Resoriarces Services; 500 DOnWc n BLVD--
Frank McBride, WRC
Callie Dobson, DWQ
Wetlands/401 Unit 1660 Mail Ser'ice Center Raleth, NC 27=o Px (91g)73$.7o15 Fax [phone]
M
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch
Regional Contact:
WO Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT:
WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Ronoake Rapids / Gaston FERC (Dominion Power) County Halifax
Project Number 01 1420 County2 Northampton
Recvd From APP Region Raleigh
Received Date 9/27/01 Recvd By Region
Project Type relicencing dam
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type' Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. - Basin Req. Req. am
FERC F- PT O N F_ 23-(22.5) WSIv CA 30,208. ?-
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y 0 N
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss)
Recommendation: 0 Issue 0 Issue/fond 0 Deny
Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
Make more power v relicensing the dam. No problem with me with youse guys handling it,
cc: Regional Office v ° \
Central Office Page Number 1
Martin L. Bowling, Jr.
Vice President Operations
Fossil and Hydro
?-
Dominion-
Dominion Energy & Dominion Generation
Innsbrook Technical Center
5000 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, VA 23060
Phone: [phone]
September 27, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
IST 2 7 9PW
FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
TRANSMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401
CERTIFICATION AND COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
REPORT
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Virginia Electric and Power Company, operating as Dominion Generation, owns and operates the
Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydropower Project. The current Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) license for the project expired on January 31, 2001 and the project is
currently operating on an annual license. In order to complete the new license requirements, the
Federal Power Act requires that we file an Application for Major License - Existing Dam - with
the FERC. This was done in January of 1999. Prior to filing, FERC regulations require that we
submit an application for Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certification to the certifying
agency. Accordingly, we submitted our application for CWA Section 401 Certification to the
NC Division of Water Quality, along with a Coastal Zone Consistency Determination Report.
However, following advice from your agency, we withdrew that application until additional
studies requested by North Carolina natural resource agencies were completed.
We submitted to FERC in April of 2001 a supplement to the January 1999 license application. In
order for FERC to consider the application complete and begin its regulatory assessment, a
Section 401 Certification again has to be submitted to, and proof of receipt received from, the
NC Division of Water Quality [18 CFR 16.8]. Accordingly, we are submitting the completed
Section 401 application along with the required Coastal Zone Consistency Determination Report.
We completed a Draft Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (DAPEA) as part of our
license application to the FERC. The DAPEA provides a comprehensive analysis of the effects
of the existing operation and six alternatives on environmental and human resources. It provides
supporting information for our application for CWA Section 401 Certification. A copy of the ;
license application, the April 2001 license supplement and the DAPEA is enclosed. In January of
1999, we transmitted the license application and DAPEA to the NC Division of Water
Resources, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the NC Division of Water Quality, the NC Division of Marine
Fisheries, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the NC Division of Coastal Management, the
NC State Historic Preservation Office, local counties and others. (Refer to the license application
amendment for a distribution list.) Each of the listed agencies received the license application
supplement as well.
In January of 1999, we deferred planned instream flow studies on the lower Roanoke River to the
spring and summer 1999 because of a multi-year effort to rebuild the Interstate 95 bridges over
the Roanoke River. Bridge construction affected flows and water levels in the river and would
have affected the instream flow results. The instream flow studies are now complete. In
September of 2000, agency and Dominion Generation representatives reached agreement on
species and life stages that were specifically modeled according to instream analysis. Analysis
and modeling results are currently being reviewed by North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Service. Most habitat analyses are complete. We have begun negotiations with
these agencies to determine appropriate flow regimes to meet NCDENR goals and objectives.
We also plan to continue discussions with relicensing participants and hope to reach settlement
by early 2002. It is our plan that the operating license issued by FERC will reflect any settlement
agreements attained.
In September of 2000 and again in July of 2001, Dominion, in cooperation with the DENR staff,
NCWRC and USFWS, conducted a lower river floodplain study. The intent of the study was to
assess the effects of load following at the Roanoke Rapids power station on the lower river
floodplain water quality, water quality in the mainstem river and determine the extent of flooding
caused by a worse case load following scenario. Though the data analysis from the July 2001
study is not yet complete, Dominion is confident it validates the September 2000 study. The
study indicates the Roanoke Rapids peaking operation can, under some conditions, contribute to
floodplain flooding, but also demonstrates that water quality degradation in the Roanoke River
resulting from such floodplain inundation is limited to small, well defined areas.
Enclosed are a number of submittals to FERC and studies that have been completed since the
1999 initial certification request. Dominion believes these will be useful in your analysis. These
documents are:
FERC License Application and Exhibits
Draft Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (DAPEA)
Appendices to the DAPEA
Supplement to the DAPEA Lower Roanoke River Instream Flow Analysis
Supplement to the Lower Roanoke River Instream Flow Analysis - Weighted Usable
Area
Cumulative Impacts Assessment Studies
Roanoke River Unsteady Flow Model Report
Effect of Load Following at Roanoke Rapids Power Station on Lower Roanoke River
Mainstem And Floodplain Water Quality
Shoreline Management Plan
In addition to myself, the following person is authorized to act as agent for the applicant in this
application:
James W. Thornton
Technical Advisor, Relicensing Project Team Leader
Dominion Resources Services
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Sincerely,
Martin L. Bowling, r.
cc: Mr. Ron McKitrick - FERC (w/ 3 copies of 401 application and CZMA)
Mr. John Dorney ( w/ 6 copies of 401 application)
Mr. John Morris (w/ copy of 401 application)
Dr. Stephen B. Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management (w/ 401 application)
Mr. Marc Bernstein, NC Attorney General's Office
ROANOKE RAPIDS & GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING, FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
FERC 401 Water Quality Certification Application Page 1 of 8
DWQ ID:
FERC 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR EXISTING FERC PERMITS
* SEND SEVEN (7) COPIES AND THE APPROPRIATE FEE (SEE ITEM
#16)* OF THIS APPLICATION TO:
THE NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
ATTN: TODD ST. JOHN
4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD
RALEIGH, NC 27607.
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.)
1. OWNER'S NAME: Dominion Generation.
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Martin L. Bowling, Jr., Vice President, Fossil and Hydro
Operations, Innsbrook Technical Center, 5000 Dominion Blvd.
PROJECT NAME: Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydropower Project, FERC project No.
2009.
CITY: Glen Allen STATE: VA ZIP CODE: 23060
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT FROM MAILING ADDRESS
ABOVE)
Roanoke Rapids Power Station
100 Oakwood Avenue
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (WORK) (804) 273- 3034
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
James W. Thornton
Relicensing Project Team Leader
Dominion Generation
Innsbrook Technical Center, 1NE
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Telephone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
N:\401 - CZM\VP 401 8-10 draft.doc
ROANOKE RAPIDS & GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING, FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
FERC 401 Water Quality Certification Application Page 2 of 8
5. LOCATION PROJECT (PROVIDE A MAP, INCLUDING A COPY
OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Halifax, Northampton and Warren Counties in North Carolina, and
Brunswick and Mecklenburg Counties in Virginia.
NEAREST TOWN: Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ECT.):
The Project comprises two developments (Gaston and Roanoke Rapids), located
immediately downstream of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) John H. Kerr
Dam and Reservoir along the middle portion of the Roanoke River Basin.
See attached Draft Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) for detailed
maps.
6. IMPACTED STREAM/RIVER: Roanoke River RIVER BASIN: Roanoke
CURRENT DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY (DWQ) CLASIFICATION:
Lake Gaston (below normal full power pool elevation of 200 ft. MSL)
From NC/VA State line to Warren/Northampton County line: WS-V&B
From Warren/Northampton County line to 0.5 mi upstream of
Gaston Dam:
WS-IV&B
Roanoke Rapids Lake (below normal full power pool elevation of 132 ft. MSL)
From 0.5 mi upstream of Gaston Dam (Lake Gaston) to Roanoke
Rapids Dam: WS-IV&B CA
Roanoke River below Roanoke Rapids Dam
From Roanoke Rapids Dam to 0.6 mi. upstream of N.C. Highway
48 Bridge: WS-IV
From 0.6 mi. upstream of N.C. Highway 48 Bridge to 50 ft. downstream
Of N.C. Highway 48 Bridge (City of Roanoke Rapids, Town of
Weldon water supply intakes) WS-IV CA
From 50 ft. downstream of N.C. Highway Bridge to 18 mile marker
At Jamesville
C.
7. (a) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?
YES_ NO X
Project operations affect hydrology of Roanoke River from John H. Kerr Dam to Scotland Neck (river
mile 98). Effects of project operations on hydrology and water quality below Scotland Neck were
investigated in September 2000 and in July 2001, as part of a cooperative effort involving Dominion,
DWQ, U.S. FWS, N.C. WRC, The Nature Conservancy and other interested parties. Please see Effects of
Load Following at Roanoke Rapids Power Station on Lower Roanoke River Mainstem and Floodplain
N:\401 - CZM\VP 401 8-10 draft.doc
ROANOKE RAPIDS & GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING, FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
FERC 401 Water Quality Certification Application Page 3 of 8
Water Quality September 2000 (Graham and Cannon, 2001) and Consistency Determination Report,
attached.
(b) IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7
FOR LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP)
DESIGNATION? NA
8. (a) ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN
THE FUTURE? YES_ NO X IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9. (a) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN PROJECT:
Approximately 31,100 (6,200 land, 20,300 Lake Gaston at elev. 200 ft, and 4,600
Roanoke Rapids Lake at elev. 132 ft)
10. PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. THE
DOCUMENT SHOULD ADDRESS:
(a) DATA SHOWING THAT A 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOW WILL BE PROVIDED
The 7Q 10 minimum flow in the Roanoke River has been calculated by FERC for pre-
impoundment at 1,013 cfs and for post-impoundment at 1,194 cfs (EIS, Virginia
Beach Water Diversion). Dominion proposed as part of the settlement alternative to
provide a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs (Section 3.3.7 of the April 2001 Supplement to
the Draft APEA). Since the time of the submittal of the Supplement to the Draft
APEA, Dominion has continued to work with the NC DENR staff to refine the 2000
cfs minimum proposal.
(b) A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT SHOWING WHY THE
PROJECT IS STILL NECESSARY
Please see Section 7 of the Draft APEA and Section 7 of the April 2001 Supplement
to the Draft APEA.
(c) DESCRIPTION OF LENGTH OF BYPASS REACH (IF ANY) AND
MEASURES TO PROVIDE FLOW TO THE REACH IN LOW FLOW
CONDITIONS.
The bypass reach is approximately 7,800 feet long. As part of the settlement
alternative, Dominion proposes to provide a minimum flow in the bypass reach of
325 cfs year-round, supplemented to a total flow of 500 cfs for a 24-hour period once
every 21 days. Please see Section 5.5.4 of the Draft APEA and Section 3.3.7 of the
April 2001 Supplement to the Draft APEA.
(d) MEASURES PLANNED OR TAKEN TO MAINTAIN DOWNSTREAM
WATER QUALITY SUCH AS ADEQUATE DISSOLVED OXYGEN.
N:\401 - CZM\VP 401 8-10 draft.doc
ROANOKE RAPIDS & GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING, FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
FERC 401 Water Quality Certification Application Page 4 of 8
Please see Section 3.3.7 of the April 2001 Supplement to the Draft APEA and
Graham and Cannon 2001. Additionally, Dominion conducted a water quality field
study July 7 to July 20, 2001. Participants in the study included the N.C. Division of
Water Quality, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and The Nature Conservancy. This study expanded on field investigations conducted
in September 2000, with greater focus on potential cumulative effects of Dominion
load following operations on water quality in the lower Roanoke River. Preliminary
indications are the study conclusions will differ little from the September 2000 report.
Additional information will be available in the draft report to quantify the extent of
flooding caused by load following operations. The draft report of the study is
anticipated in late September of 2001.
11. WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED? The Roanoke River drains an
area of 9,666 square miles, 8,384 of which are within the project watershed.
WHAT IS THE FULL-POND SURFACE AREA? Approximately 24,900 acres
(20,300 Lake Gaston at elev. 200 ft, and 4,600 Roanoke Rapids Lake at elev. 132 ft)
12. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING THE
PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE
PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service an National Marine Fisheries Service were contacted
by letters in 1998. Consultation with the U.S. FWS and NMFS has been ongoing since
1993 on the project. Meetings with these agencies in 2000 and 2001include:
Party Affiliation Date
Tom Augspurger USFWS 5/19/00
6/4/01
6/5/01
Prescott Brownell NMFS 5/16/00
8/28/00
9/14/00
10/11/00
10/12/00
11/11/00
11/12/00
12/14/00
1/31/01
3/1/01
3/28/01
3/29/01
5/8/01
5/10/01
6/13/01
7/24/01
7/25/01
John Ellis USFWS 7/6/00
N:\401 - CZM\VP 401 8-10 draft.doc
ROANOKE RAPIDS & GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING, FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
FERC 401 Water Quality Certification Application Page 5 of 8
9/14/00
5/8/01
5/10/01
5/24/01
6/13/01
7/24/01
7/25/01
Jerry Holloman USFWS 5/19/00
7/6/00
8/28/00
9/22/00
5/8/01
5/24/01
6/4/01
6/5/01
Wilson Laney USFWS 5/16/00
5/19/00
8/28/00
9/14/00
10/11/00
11/9/00
3/1/01
3/28/01
3/29/01
5/10/01
Kevin Moody USFWS 2/7/00
5/4/00
7/6/00
9/14/00
1/31/01
3/1/01
Jean Richter USFWS 7/6/00
9/14/00
11/9/00
1/31/01
2/15/01
3/28/01
6/4/01
6/5/01
6/25/01
Ron Sechler NMFS 5/4/00
David Sutherland USFWS 9/14/00
13. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OFFICER (SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN
THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: We have consulted with the NC SHPO on numerous occasions
since 1993. Below are listed 1998 meetings we had with representatives from the SHPO.
Since 1998, there have been no formal meetings with either NC or VA. Dominion has
continued to keep the SHPOs updated in the relicensing process by sending to them
minutes from meetings, and the draft and final submittal of the Applicant Prepared
Environmental Assessment. Dominion has also had several discussions with North
Carolina SHPO in 2001 (Renee Gledhill-Earley). FERC is currently drafting a
Programatic Agreement for North Carolina and Virginia. Once the programatic
agreement is in place with the two states, Dominion and the SHPOs will continue
discussions to ensure preservation of historically significant sites.
N:\401 - CZM\VP 4018- 10 draft.doc
ROANOKE RAPIDS & GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING, FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
FERC 401 Water Quality Certification Application Page 6 of 8
Party Affiliation Date
Ethel Eaton Virginia SHPO 7/10/1998
Mark Mathis North Carolina Dept. of
Cultural Resources 2/21/1998
7/10/1998
14. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE
USE OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND? YES NO-X- (IF NO, GO TO 15)
(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES NO
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE? YES NO
IF ANSWER 14(b) IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION
FROM THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW
PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH
CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
15. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL
MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
The activity does not involve the discharge of excavated or fill material into wetlands.
(a) WETLANDS DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS,
STREAMS, LAKES, AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38). ALL
STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH
EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR
EQUIVALENT.
(b) IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO
BE IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
N:\401 - CZM\VP 4018- 10 draft.doc
ROANOKE RAPIDS & GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING, FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
FERC 401 Water Quality Certification Application Page 7 of 8
(c) IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE
ALL DATA SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE
DELINEATION LINE.
(d) ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF
REQUIRED.
(e) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?.
(f) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE
DISPOSAL?
16. CERTIFICATION FEE
(a) IF THE IMPACT IS LESS THAN 1 ACRE OF WETLAND OR WATER AND
LESS THAN 150 FEET OF STREAM, PLEASE ENCLOSE A CHECK FOR
$200.00 MADE OUT TO THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY.
(b) IF THE IMPACT EXCEEDS EITHER OR BOTH OF THE LEVELS IN (a),
PLEASE ENCLOSE A CHECK FOR $475.00 MADE OUT TO THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY.
17. PUBLIC NOTICE IS RQUIRED FOR ALL FERC PROJECTS. PLEASE NOTE THAT
THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO REIMBURSE THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NOTICE, REFERENCE 15A NCAC 2H.0503(f).
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY) A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE
PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SI ATURE
q A61--l-vol
DATE
N:\401 - CZM\VP 401 8-10 draft.doc
•6
ROANOKE RAPIDS & GASTON HYDROPOWER RELICENSING, FERC PROJECT NO. 2009
FERC 401 Water Quality Certification Application Page 8 of 8
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM THE
OWNER IS PROVIDED).
N:\401 - CZM\VP 401 8-10 draft.doc
COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR
THE
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON HYDROPOWER
RELICENSING PROJECT
FERC No. 2009
September 2001
DOMINION GENERATION
Consistency Report
Table of Contents
CONSISTENCY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1.0 SUMMARY DETERMINATION ...........................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT ....................................................................2
2.1 Background ..................................................................................................2
2.2 Authority ......................................................................................................3
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................4
3.1 Description of the Proposed Action of the Settlement Alternative ..............6
4.0 EFFECTS OF PROJECT .........................................................................................8
4.1 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................8
5.0 CONSISTENCY WITH LEGISLATIVE GOALS .................................................9
6.0 AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN .....................................................12
6.1 Subchapter 7H and 7K - State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental
Concern ......................................................................................................12
7.0 STATE GUIDELINES ..........................................................................................15
7.1 Subchapter 7B - Land Use Planning Guidelines .......................................15
7.2 Subchapter 7M - General Policy Guidelines for the Coastal Area ...........15
8.0 NETWORKED AGENCIES STANDARDS ........................................................21
\\INFH01\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc i DOMM,
Consistency Report
Table of Contents
9.0 OTHER STATE POLICIES ..................................................................................23
9.1 Consistency with the Enforceable Policies of the North Carolina Coastal
Management Plan .......................................................................................23
9.2 Consistency with the Enforceable Policies of the North Carolina Coastal
Area Management Act ...............................................................................27
10.0 LOCAL LAND USE PLANS ................................................................................29
11.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................30
\\INFHO I \SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc ii DONIIM
Consistency Report Summary Determination
1.0 SUMMARY DETERMINATION
Dominion Generation (Dominion) is in the process of relicensing the Roanoke Rapids
and Gaston Hydroelectric Project. It is the intent of Dominion to comply with the
consistency requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and State Law to
the extent practicable. This Consistency Report was prepared based on guidance
received from the NC Division of Coastal Management (letter from Dr. Stephen Benton,
Consistency Coordinator, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resource, Division of Coastal Management, dated February 13, 1998). Dr. Benton's
letter identifies the coastal management program enforceable policies with which the
project must comply.
The coastal management program contains five basic categories of enforceable policies:
• The goals set forth in Section 102(b) of CAMA (G.S. 113A-102);
• State Guidelines adopted pursuant to CAMA (See 15A NCAC subchapter 7H and
7K);
• all federally approved Land Use Plans (LUPs) and State Guidelines related
thereto;
• the standards applied by networked agencies (which include the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, etc.); and
• the state policies concerning coastal management set forth in 15A NCAC 7M.
The information contained in this Consistency Determination is derived largely from the
Draft Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) for the Roanoke Rapids
and Gaston Hydropower Project, and the Supplement to the APEA prepared in April
2001. Detailed information regarding the proposed environmental
enhancement/mitigation is presented in the Draft APEA and the Supplement.
In accordance with the five policies listed above, the operation of the Roanoke Rapids
and Gaston Hydropower Project, is being carried out in a manner which is, to the
maximum extent. practicable, consistent with the enforceable polices of the approved
North Carolina Coastal Management Plan. The evaluation of the proposed action plan
supporting the determination is presented in Section 5 through 10 of this Consistency
Determination (CD).
\\INFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 1 DOMM, 10MIN11
Consistency Report
Background of the Project
2.1.2 Coastal Jurisdictions in the Project Vicinity
Although the project is located outside the Coastal Jurisdiction of North Carolina, the
operation of the Project may impact coastal regions in the State of North Carolina. This
requires an evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the coastal zone. The
proposed activity needs to be consistent with the State's Management Program.
2.2 AUTHORITY
The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 USC 141 et seq., as amended, is
the legislative authority regarding the consistency of Federal actions with state coastal
policies. Section 1456 (c) (1) (A) of the CZMA states: "Each Federal agency activity
within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of
the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved state management
programs." A federal activity is defined as any function, including the planning and/or
construction of facilities, that is performed on behalf of a Federal agency in the exercise
of its statutory responsibilities.
To implement the CZMA and to establish procedures for compliance with its federal
consistency provisions, the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration has promulgated regulations, 15 CFR Part 930. This
Consistency Determination is being submitted in compliance with 930.30 through 930.44
of those regulations.
UNFHO1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOn401 - CZnVP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 3 DOMM,
Consistency Report Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Gaston development consists of a combination concrete and earth dam and a lake
approximately 34 miles long. The maximum dam height is approximately 105 feet and
the total length of all earth and concrete sections is 3,600 feet. The powerhouse has four
generating units with a total rated capacity of about 225 megawatts (MW) (1 Kaplan/3
fixed-blade). The full capacity flow from the units is 44,000 cfs. Lake Gaston has a total
volume of 450,000 acre-feet and a surface area of 20,300 acres at elevation 200 ft.
The Roanoke Rapids development includes a concrete gravity dam and a lake
approximately 8 miles long. The maximum dam height above the riverbed is about 72
feet. The total length of all dam and powerhouse structures is approximately 3,050 feet.
The powerhouse has four generating units with a total rated capacity of about 99 MW (1
Kaplan / 3 fixed-blade). The full capacity flow from the units is approximately 20,000
cfs. Roanoke Rapids Lake has a total storage volume of 77,140 acre-feet and a total
surface area of 4,600 acres at elevation 132 feet.
Dominion operates the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project in close coordination with the
ACOE Kerr Project. Based on river inflow and Kerr Reservoir operating guidelines, the
ACOE schedules flow on a weekly basis. During normal operations, Dominion operates
Gaston Power Station in a peaking or load following manner. With close coordination
with Kerr operation, Gaston typically operates between elevations 199 to 200 feet.
Roanoke Rapids is also operated in a load following manner with a few exceptions.
Roanoke Rapids dam releases a minimum flow to the lower Roanoke River of 2000 cubic
feet per second (cfs). It also does not peak but follows a flow release regime from April
1 to June 15 (as provided by the ACOE in consultation with North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission) to enhance spawning of anadromous fish found in the river. The
Gaston Power Station generates an average of 336,362 MWh annually and the Roanoke
Rapids Power Station generates an average of 336,408 MWh.
Dominion is in the process of relicensing the project with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. As part of the relicensing process, Dominion has prepared a Draft
Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment (APEA) and a Supplement. Within the
Draft APEA and Supplement, Dominion has evaluated seven alternatives (Table 3-1).
One of the alternatives being evaluated is the settlement alternative. Relicensing
participants are engaged in a settlement process, the goal of which is to reach consensus
\WHO 1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 4 DOMINI,
Consistency Report
Project Description
on a relicensing plan that balances public interest needs. Dominion believes that the
settlement alternative will be consistent with federal, state, and local comprehensive
plans for improving, developing, or conserving waterways affected by the project.
Table 3-1: Alternative Objectives
Alternative'
1. Current Operations (No Action)
2. Current Operations with Increased
Downstream Minimum Flow Release
3. Natural Flow Regime Modified for
Flood Control
4. Current Operations with Reduced
Roanoke Rapids Lake Fluctuation
5. Current Operations with Roanoke
Rapids Bypass Reach Flows
6. Environmental Resource Alternative
7. Settlement Alternative
Objective
• Provide existing environmental
conditions as basis for comparison.
• Would be alternative for annual licenses
without a settlement agreement.
• Provide increased aquatic habitat and
assimilative capacity- in lower river.
• Meet the resource management
objectives of the resource agencies to
have a more natural ecosystem and
provide a basis for evaluating potential
enhancements (i.e., comparison to
"without project" conditions).
• Enhance value of Roanoke Rapids Lake
to users through more stable water
levels, enhance value of adjacent
property, increase desirability of
additional shoreline development, and
enhance aquatic habitat of lake.
Restore unique aquatic habitat in bypass
reaches and provide additional angling
opportunities.
• Within existing lake operating levels,
operate the Kerr, Gaston, and Roanoke
Rapids developments to more closely
mimic the natural ecosystem.
• Provide natural resource and social
mitigation/enhancements to balance
public interest needs.
\\INFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 5 DONM%
Consistency Report Project Description
The Roanoke River Flow Committee has previously recommended an annual flow
regime for the lower Roanoke River. Alternative 6 meets the primary objectives of
the Roanoke River Flow Committee and is analyzed in lieu of an annual flow regime.
2 Assimilative capacity is the ability of a water body to absorb or buffer chemical and
organic discharges.
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE SETTLEMENT
ALTERNATIVE
Dominion proposes a number of enhancements that would benefit water quality,
fisheries, vegetation and wildlife, recreation, cultural resources, land use, and aesthetics.
Dominion proposes the following enhancements/mitigation.
Table 3-2: Summary of Proposed Settlement Alternative Enhancement/Mitigation
Resource Enhancement/Mitigation Under Discussion
Water Quality • Continue to implement Shoreline Management Plan.
• Increase minimum flow in lower Roanoke River to at least 2,000 cfs year
round, except for extreme dry periods.
• Continue to implement plan to gradually reduce flows in river after summer
high flow events.
Aquatic Resources • Provide flow in bypass reach to provide riverine habitat.
u Increase rear-ro.:nd minimum flows in lower Roanoke River to improve
aquatic habitat.
• Maintain anadromous fish spawning flows from April 1 to June 15
annually.
• Help fund American shad restoration program.
• Fund program to enhance sport fisheries in reservoirs.
• Continue to implement Shoreline Management Plan.
• Continue to work with agencies and other parties on a cooperative
management approach.
\\TNFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 6 DOMIN11
Consistency Report Project Description
Terrestrial Resources • Develop a waterfowl management area upstream of U.S. Route 1 at Lake
Gaston.
• Conduct shoreline survey of eagle perching and roosting habitat.
• Manage transmission line right-of-way for wildlife habitat.
• Continue evaluation of effects of flows on lower river terrestrial resources.
• Continue to work with agencies and other parties on a cooperative
management approach.
Resource Enhancement/Mitigation Under Discussion
Recreational Resources • Create day use facilities at Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake.
• Develop bankfishing sites at Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake; five
sites initially.
• Develop a water-to-land facility at Lake Gaston.
• Contribute funds to the NCWRC for construction of a boat ramp at
Hawtree Creek.
• Conduct creel survey in 2003 and every 5 years thereafter.
• Install information kiosks.
• Provide funding for USGS gage site for river stage to better predict good
canoe/kayack conditions and establish an internet web site to provide flow
information.
• Provide flows for canoeing/kayaking on selected weekends in lower river
betw;;en State Route 48 and Weldon.
Cultural Resources • Develop and implement a cultural resources management plan.
Land Use • Continue to implement Shoreline Management Plan.
• Implement trash removal program.
\\I4FHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 7 DOMI41
Consistency Report
Effects of Project
4.0 EFFECTS OF PROJECT
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The effects of the project are described in Chapter 6 of the Draft APEA and the
Supplement to the Draft APEA.
\UNFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 8 DOM 41,
Consistency Report
Areas of Environmental Concern
5.0 CONSISTENCY WITH LEGISLATIVE GOALS
Dominion intends for the relicensing of the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project to be
consistent with the legislative goals set forth in Section 102(b) of CAMA (GS 113A-
102). The goals of the coastal area management system to be created pursuant to this
Article are as follows:
1. To provide a management system capable of preserving and managing the natural
ecological conditions of the estuarine system, the barrier dune system, and the
beaches, so as to safeguard and perpetuate their natural productivity and their
biological, economic, and esthetic values;
2. To ensure that the development or preservation of the land and water resources of
the coastal area proceeds in a manner consistent with the capability of the land
and water for development, use, or preservation based on ecological
considerations;
3. To ensure the orderly and balanced use and preservation of our coastal resources
on behalf of the people of North Carolina and the nation;
4. To establish policies, guidelines, and standards for:
a) Protection, preservation, and conservation of natural resource, including
but not limited to, water use, scenic vistas, and fish and wildlife; and
management of transitional or intensely developed areas and areas
especially suited to intensive use or development, as well as areas of
significant natural value;
b) The economic development of the coastal area, including but not limited
to, construction, location and design of industries, port facilities,
commercial establishments and other developments;
C) Recreation and tourist facilities and parklands;
d) Transportation and circulation patterns for the coastal area including major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, navigation channels and harbors, and
other public utilities and facilities;
e) Preservation and enhancement of the historic, cultural, and scientific
aspects of the coastal area;
f) Protection of present common-law and statutory public rights in the lands
and waters of the coastal area; and
\\INFHO1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401- CZNM ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 9 DOMM,
Consistency Report
Areas of Environmental Concern
g) Any other purposes deemed necessary or appropriate to effectuate the
policy of this Article. (1973, c. 1284, s. 1; 1975, c. 452, s. 5; 1981, c. 932,
s.2.1.)
We believe that the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project is consistent with the goals of
the coastal area management system for the following reasons:
1. Operation of the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project does not affect the natural
ecological conditions of the estuarine system, the barrier dune system, or the
beaches. The hourly and mean daily flow fluctuations of the Roanoke Rapids
Power Station have measurable effects for a considerable distance downstream
(e.g., Hamilton, which is at River Mile 55). However, gage data at Woodard (RM
28) suggest that the effects do not extent this far downstream (see Chapters 5 and
6 of the APEA). Effects of hourly load following at Hamilton are typically on the
order of 0.5 feet, and the changes from weekday to weekend can approach 9 feet.
However, flow changes from week to week determined by the US Army Corps of
Engineers can be on the order of 12 feet at Hamilton with flow changes from
2,000 to 20,000 cfs. Dominion has conducted investigations in conjunction with
resource agencies and N.C. Division of Water Quality, to determine what effect
maximum weekly changes in river stage associated with load following have on
back swamp hydrology and water quality in the lower river. The results indicate
that the load following has minimal effect on mainstem water quality. At the
project site, Dominion has implemented a draft Shoreline Management Plan to
preserve and manage the natural ecological conditions of Lake Gaston and
Roanoke Rapids Lake.
2. Operation of the project helps to ensue the development or preservation of the
land and water resources of the coastal area. Dominion is working with resource
agencies to restore American shad and American eel in the lower river. We also
plan to maintain the recommended flow regime during the April 1 to June 15
anadromous fish spawning period. We have proposed an increase in the
minimum downstream flow in the mainstream Roanoke River which should assist
downstream industries in maintaining acceptable dissolved oxygen levels in the
river. We have also implemented a plan to ensure that acceptable DO levels are
maintained during hot temperature conditions following a high flow event so that
fish mortality can be prevented. Our plan also helps to prevent stranding of
migratory fishes in the Roanoke Rapids bypass.
\\INFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 10 DOMM,
Consistency Report Areas of Environmental Concern
3. The settlement agreement that we are negotiating with the other relicensing
participants has a goal of balancing the use and preservation of the natural
resources on behalf of the people of North Carolina and the nation.
4. (a) The NC Division of Water Resources has estimated consumptive water use in
the Roanoke River basin through the year 2030. Each alternative has been
evaluated based on current and future consumptive use. Based on the projected
demand, Dominion would be able to supply a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs in the
lower Roanoke River for the protection, preservation, and conservation of natural
resources. This would affect both water use and fish and wildlife and be
consistent with the goals of the coastal area management system. Furthermore,
Dominion proposes to participate in assessing the feasibility of Cooperative
Management approaches that would protect or enhance the vegetation and
wildlife resources in the lower Roanoke River floodplain.
(b) Dominion believes that operation of its project would be compatible with the
economic development of the coastal area. With stable and dependable minimum
flows and protection against flood flows that the ACOE Kerr Reservoir provides,
we believe that conditions are appropriate for the construction, location and
design of industries, port facilities, commercial establishments, and other
developments.
(c) Dominion's proposed recreation facilities are directed at the project reservoir
and the immediate area downstream and would not affect the coastal resources.
No recreation facilities are planned for the coastal area. However, we will
continue to cooperate with downstream interests so that the project would remain
compatible with recreation and tourist facilities and parklands. Dominion plans to
continue to participate with the USFWS, North Carolina, and other parties to
maintain the value of existing parklands, like the Roanoke River National
Wildlife Refuge.
(d) The project would have no discernable effect on transportation and circulation
patterns for the coastal area.
(e) Through the development of a Cultural Resource Management Plan,
Dominion proposes to protect the historic, cultural, and scientific aspects of the
project area. Since the project has a much less impact on erosion in the lower
river than naturally occurring flood events, there should be minimum effects on
cultural resources in the lower river.
(f) It is the strong desire of Dominion to protect the present common-law and
statutory public rights in the lands and waters of the coastal areas.
\T4FHO1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 11 DOMINI,
Consistency Report
Areas of Environmental Concern
6.0 AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
6.1 SUBCHAPTER 7H AND 7K - STATE GUIDELINES FOR AREAS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
6.1.1 Section 0.0200 - The Estuarine System
Included in the Estuarine System are estuarine waters, coastal wetlands, public trust
areas, and estuarine shorelines. As presented in the Draft APEA and discussed above, the
project has no impact on any of these systems.
6.1.2 Section 0.0300 - Ocean Hazard Areas
The project has no impact on Ocean Hazard Areas.
6.1.3 Section 0.0400 - Public Water Supply
0.0401 - "The CRC objective is regulating development within critical water supply
areas is the protection and preservation of public water supply well fields and A-11
streams and to coordinate and establish a management system capable of maintaining
public water supplies so as to perpetuate their values to the public health, safety, and
welfare."
Evaluation
The most recent estimate of consumptive water uses for the year 2030 in the Roanoke
River basin equaled 313 MGD (Tom Fransen, Memo, NC Division of Water Resources,
November 13, 1998). For planning purposes, it is appropriate to account for potential
uses, even though some of those uses may not be realized within the planning horizon.
The Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority is currently developing Randleman Lake
in the Cape Fear Basin for municipal supply. As the project is in the development stage,
it is not certain that the lake will indeed be constructed. The Authority has identified the
Roanoke River Basin as one potential alternative in the event that it cannot complete the
48 MGD Randleman project. Therefore, this potential withdrawal is included in the
\\INFHO1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 12 DOMM,
Consistency Report Areas of Environmental Concern
withdrawal estimate for the basin. The full Virginia Beach allotment of 60 MGD also
was used to estimate future withdrawal. Based on this information and a reservoir model
operation study, Dominion determined that the project should be capable of meeting the
future water supply requirements. This information is presented in the Draft APEA.
6.1.4 Section 0.0500 - Natural and Cultural Resource Areas
0.0506 - "To protect the natural conditions or the sites that function as key or unique
components of coastal systems. The interactions of various life forms are the foremost
concern and include sites that are necessary for the completion of life cycles, areas that
function as links to other wildlife areas (wildlife corridors) and localities where the links
between biological and physical environments are most fragile.
To protect the identified scientific and educational values and to ensure that the site will
be accessible for related study purposes.
To protect the values of the designated coastal complex natural area as expressed by the
local government and citizenry. These values should be related to the educational and
aesthetic qualities of the feature."
Evaluation
Dominion's mitigation and enhancement proposals for diadromous fish are consistent
with the goal of protecting natural conditions or sites that function as key or unique
components of coastal systems. Dominion is working with state and federal resource
agencies to restore American shad and American eel in the lower Roanoke River. As part
of the restoration plan, Dominion plans to assist in feasibility studies to address fish
passage upstream of the dams. We acknowledge that the dams are a barrier to upstream
migration for some diadromous species, but note that there also have been barriers to fish
migration on the river well before the developments were constructed. At this time our
primary focus is on restoration of spawning stocks in the lower Roanoke River. In
coordination with the ACOE and resource agencies we plan to continue the anadromous
fish spawning flow regime that was initiated in 1989. We are also evaluating the
potential for effects on shortnose sturgeon in cooperation with resource agencies.
Regarding the wildlife that use the lower Roanoke River, we recognize that the
magnitude and timing of flood events may be having a long-term effect on the resources.
\\INFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 13 DOMINI,
Consistency Report
Areas of Environmental Concern
Accordingly, we believe that the settlement alternative that is being developed will be
consistent with protecting natural and cultural resource areas.
We believe that the concerns expressed by the local government and citizenry are key
components of the relicensing, State 401 Water Quality Certification, and Coastal Zone
Management Consistency. We have worked closely with the local governments who
have attended our meetings and value their input.
6.1.5 Section 0.0600 - Development Standards Applicable to all AECs
Those policies are not applicable, since the project is not considered within or is not
known to impact any AECs.
\\INFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401- CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 14 DOMIK
Consistency Report State Guidelines
7.0 STATE GUIDELINES
7.1 SUBCHAPTER 7B - LAND USE PLANNING GUIDELINES
The purpose of these guidelines is to assist local government in the coastal zone with the
preparation of local land use plans. As such, these guidelines are not relevant to the
project. Approved local land use plans are examined individually in Section 10.
7.2 SUBCHAPTER 7M - GENERAL POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE
COASTAL AREA
7.2.1 Section 0.0200 - Shoreline Erosion Policies
0.0201 "It is hereby declared that the general welfare and public interest require that
development along the ocean and estuarine shorelines be conducted in a manner that
avoids loss of life, property, and amenities. It is also declared that protection of the
recreational use of the shorelines of the state is in the public interest. In order to
accomplish these public purposes, the planning of future land uses, reasonable rules, and
public expenditures should be created or accomplished in a coordinated manner so as to
minimize the likelihood of damage to private and public resources resulting from
recognized coastal hazards."
Evaluation
Project operation has no impact on any ocean or estuarine shorelines. As discussed in the
Draft APEA and supplement to the Draft APEA, some shoreline erosion is observed in
both Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake. In the lower Roanoke River, shoreline
erosion was not determined to be a significant problem, although there are isolated
locations (e.g., at river bends) where erosion is occurring. Dominion has established
sampling sites to monitor erosion in the Roanoke River reach between Weldon and the
Route 258 Bridge (Scotland Neck) . The objective of this monitoring program is to
identify the relationship between any observed erosion patterns with Dominion load
following operations and U.S. Corp of Engineers operations at the Kerr Reservoir and
Dam. Farther downstream, such as at Woodard, significant water level effects from
project operations have not been observed. Therefore, the project has no effect on
erosion in the coastal portion of the lower Roanoke River.
\\INFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOT\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 15 DONEN
Consistency Report State Guidelines
7.2.2 Section 0.0300 - Shorefront Access Policies
0.0301 "It is the policy of the State of North Carolina to foster, protect, improve, and
ensure optimum access to recreational opportunities at ocean and estuarine water beach
areas consistent with public rights, rights of private property owners, and the need to
protect natural resource, especially sand dunes and marsh vegetation. The State's ocean
and estuarine water beaches are a resource of statewide significance held in trust for the
use and enjoyment of all the citizens. The public has traditionally and customarily freely
used and had access to these resources and the State has a responsibility to provide
continued reasonable access to its beaches and estuarine waters. The Sate of North
Carolina, therefore, has created a Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program for
the purpose of acquiring, improving, and maintaining recreational property at frequently
located intervals along the oceanfront and estuarine shoreline.

Many privately owned properties in close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and to
estuarine shorelines have been and will be adversely affected by coastal hazards, making
them unsuitable for permanent residences. A public purpose can be served by the
acquisition and/or improvement of such properties for beach access by general public,
provided that such properties are appropriately maintained for this and future generations.
The state should acquire the lands, which are most vulnerable to severe erosion only
when these lands may be used for some valid public purpose, such as beach access and
use. The state should seek opportunities for the acquisition of inexpensive properties,
where feasible, donations and bargain acquisitions should be encouraged."
Evaluation
The Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project has no effect on shoreline access in the coastal
area. Within the project area, Dominion proposes to develop public use facilities in Lake
Gaston, Roanoke Rapids Lake and the Roanoke Rapids bypass reach. These
enhancements would have the effect of improving public access to the project.
Dominion is currently working with resource agencies to develop a flow regime for the
bypass reach. Dominion has proposed to provide flows of between 2,000 cfs and 3,500
cfs on a"number of select weekends from July 1 through October 31 for enhancement of
canoeing and kayaking.
\T4FHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZWVP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 16 DOMINI,
Consistency Report State Guidelines
7.2.3 Section 0.0400 - Coastal Energy Policies
0.0401 - "It is hereby declared that the general welfare and public interest require that a
reliable source of energy be made available to the citizens of North Carolina. It is further
declared that the development of energy facilities within the state can serve important
regional and national interests. However, unwise development of energy facilities can
conflict with the recognized and equally important public interest that rests in conserving
and protecting the valuable land and water resources of the state and nation, particularly
coastal land and waters. Therefore, in order to balance the public benefits attached to
necessary energy development against the need to protect valuable coastal resources, the
planning of future land uses and the exercise of regulatory authority shall assure that the
development of energy facilities shall avoid significant adverse impacts upon vital
physical resources."
Evaluation
The project provides clean (i.e. no air pollution and no hazardous waste), renewable, and
efficient domestically produced hydroelectric energy to the citizens of North Carolina.
The project displaces thermal generation that would otherwise need to be produced to
meet electrical demand. This has the effect of preventing air emissions, helping to
maintain good regional air quality. Continued operation of the project would be
undertaken in a manner that would avoid significant adverse impacts upon vital physical
resources.
7.2.4 Section 0.0500 - Post-Disaster Policies
These policies call for the preparation and coordination of adequate plans for post-
disaster reconstruction by local governments. As such, they are not relevant to the
project. However, the project does have an Emergency Action Plan should an emergency
occur.
7.2.5 Section 0.0600 - Floating Structure Policies
0.0601 "It is hereby declared that the general welfare and public interest require that
floating structures to be used for residential or commercial purposes not infringe upon the
\\INFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 17 DOM U
Consistency Report
State Guidelines
public trust rights nor discharge into the public trust water of the coastal area of North
Carolina."
This policy is not relevant in that there are no project-related floating structures in the
coastal area of North Carolina.
7.2.6 Section 0.0700 - Mitigation Policy
0.0701 "a) It is the policy of the State of North Carolina to require that adverse impacts to
coastal lands and waters be mitigated or minimized through proper planning, site
selection, compliance with standards for development, and creation or restoration of
coastal resources. Coastal ecosystems shall be protected and maintained as complete and
functional systems by mitigating the adverse impacts of development as much as feasible
by enhancing, creating, or restoring areas with the goal of improving or maintaining
ecosystem function and aerial proportion.
b) The CRC shall apply mitigation requirements as defined in the Section consistent with
the goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the Coastal Area Management Act for
coastal resource management and development. Mitigation shall be used to enhance
coastal resources and offset any potential losses occurring from approved and
unauthorized development. Proposals to mitigate losses of coastal resources shall be
considered only for those projects shown to be in the public interest, as defined by the
standards in 15A NCAC 7M .0703, and only after all other reasonable means of avoiding
or minimizing such losses have been exhausted."
Evaluation
The project is consistent with this policy. Enhancement/mitigation of adverse impacts is
a fundamental part of the Project. See the Draft APEA and supplement to the Draft
APEA. It is the intent of Dominion to continue to work with resource agencies and other
parties to mitigate or minimize the effects of the project on downstream resources, while
taking into account the public benefit of the project. Enhancement/mitigation measures
that have already been planned include:
• Implement a shoreline management plan.
• Provide flow in bypass reach to restore riverine habitat.
\\INFHO1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZAVP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 18 DOMINIl
Consistency Report
State Guidelines
• Increase minimum flows in lower Roanoke River to 2,000 cfs year-round.
• Maintain anadromous fish spawning flow from April 1 to June 15 annually.
• Help fund American shad restoration program, fund program of supplementing
game fisheries in reservoirs.
• Explore ways to mitigate for lost riverine American eel habitat.
• Develop a waterfowl management area.
• Conduct shoreline survey of eagle perching and roosting habitat.
• Continue evaluation of effects of flows on lower river terrestrial resources.
• Investigate feasibility of a Cooperative Management Approach.
• Create day use facilities at Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake.
• Develop bankfishing sites at Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake.
• Develop a water-to-land facility at Lake Gaston.
• Conduct creel survey in 2003 and every 5 years thereafter.
• Install kiosks and lighting at NCWRC boat ramps.
• Establish an Internet web site to provide flow information.
• Develop and implement a cultural resources management plan.
• Implement trash removal program.
• Provide flows for canoeing/kayaking on select weekends in lower river.
The mitigation measures of the project are, therefore, consistent with the approved State
policy on mitigation.
7.2.7 Section 0.0800 - Coastal Water Policies
0.0802 "a) All of the water of the state within the coastal area have a potential for uses
which require optimal water quality. Therefore, at every possible opportunity, existing
development adjacent to these waters shall be upgraded to reduce discharge of pollutants.
b) Basinwide management to control sources of pollution both within and outside of the
coastal area which will impact waters flowing into the rivers and sounds of the coastal
area is necessary to preserve the quality of coastal waters.
c) The adoption of methods to control development so as to eliminate harmful runoff
which may impact the sounds and rivers of the coastal area and the adoption of best
management practices to control runoff from undeveloped lands is necessary to prevent
the deterioration of coastal waters."
\\INFH01\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 19 DOMINI,
Consistency Report State Guidelines
Evaluation
The water quality of Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake is generally good except that
during the summer months the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are reduced, particularly in
the upper area of Lake Gaston because DO levels in the inflow from Kerr Reservoir can
be less than one milligram per liter (mg/1). Because of the submerged weirs at Gaston
and Roanoke Rapids power stations, DO in discharge waters is greater than the North
Carolina State standard of 5 mg/1, except for unusual circumstances.
The lower Roanoke River downstream to Williamston is considered fully supporting of
its uses, which is an indication that the water quality is good. Further downstream, there
have been water quality problems most often associated with low DO. These problems
typically occur when the lower river backswamps drain into the Roanoke River after high
flow events. The resource agencies, the ACOE and Dominion, have developed and
implemented a plan to minimize the potential for future occurrences of this problem.
Dominion supports the concept of basinwide management to control pollution within and
outside of the coastal area.
Both Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake help to control runoff from undeveloped
lands. Through the Shoreline Management Plan, best practices are being put into place to
protect the water quality of the Roanoke River. This should assist in maintaining good
water quality as the Roanoke reaches the coastal area.
\WHO1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 20 DOM al
Consistency Report
Networked Agencies Standards
8.0 NETWORKED AGENCIES STANDARDS
The primary entities and agencies involved in the process thus far include:
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• US Geological Survey
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• US Department of Energy
• National Park Service
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
• National Marine Fisheries Services
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
• North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries
• North Carolina Division of Water
Quality
• North Carolina Division of Water
Resources
• North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources
• North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources
• North Carolina Department of Justice
• Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries
• Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation
• Virginia Department of Historic
Resources
• Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality
• Representatives from Halifax,
Northampton, and Warren Counties of
North Carolina, and Brunswick and
Mecklenburg Counties in Virginia
• City of Roanoke Rapids Parks and
Recreation Department
• City of Virginia Beach
• The Lake Gaston Association
• Roanoke Rapids Lake Association
• Roanoke River Basin Association
• The Nature Conservancy
• Members of the General Public
\UNFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401- CZWVP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 21 DOM 10
Consistency Report
Networked Agencies Standards
Dominion believes that the settlement alternative will be in accordance with the standards
and guidelines of the above agencies. In addition, Dominion has responded to all formal
and informal recommendations regarding the project.
\\INFHO l\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 22 DOMM,
Consistency Report Other State Policies
9.0 OTHER STATE POLICIES
9.1 CONSISTENCY WITH THE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.1.1 Coastal Industry Policies
9.1.1.1 Fishing and Seafood
The lakes are managed to support the recreational fishery with emphasis on maintaining
healthy largemouth bass populations and stocking of striped bass and walleye to enhance
the fishery. Monitoring of largemouth bass has been an ongoing activity in Lake Gaston.
Recent study efforts have been directed at evaluation prey resources (resident clupeids),
water quality influences on stocked striped bass, and potential walleye spawning in Lake
Gaston.
The lower Roanoke River has a major run of striped bass, which supports both
commercial and recreational fisheries. Accordingly, the NCWRC has monitored striped
bass spawning annually and conducted creel surveys of the harvest of this stock in the
region below the Roanoke Rapids Dam. Various agencies including the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF),
and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have conducted additional monitoring of
juvenile life stages, movement, and abundance of the stock in the lower River and
Albemarle Sound. As part of its relicensing studies, Dominion also has conducted a
number of studies of the fisheries in the lower Roanoke River (see Draft APEA). Recent
efforts by management agencies in the lower Roanoke River have also been directed at
other anadromous stocks including American shad, river herring, and sturgeon.
Dominion is continuing to work with the resource agencies to develop a settlement
agreement that serves the public interest.
9.1.1.2Agriculture and Forestry
"That prime agriculture lands should not be converted to non-agricultural uses where
alternative lands are available."
\\INFHO1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 23 DONIM,
Consistency Report Other State Policies
Evaluation
The project is consistent with this policy since no agriculture land would be converted to
non-agricultural uses.
"That productive agricultural and forest lands should be managed for productive resource
utilization and provided with limited public services."
Evaluation
Dominion proposes to continue to cooperate with resource agencies and other interests to
assess changes in the vegetation resources of the lower river and to participate in the
feasibility of a Cooperative Management Approach Program.
"That construction of ditches in coastal wetlands for the purpose of draining upland
agricultural and forest lands is acceptable only where there will be no significant adverse
effect on the use of the water by the public, on the value and enjoyment of the property of
any riparian Owners, on the conservation of public and private water supplies, on wildlife
or fisheries, or on other valid aspects of the public health, safety or welfare as determined
by the Coastal Resources Commission of the State of North Carolina."
Evaluation
The project is consistent with this policy. There are no coastal wetlands within the
project boundary. Further, the project did not require the draining of wetlands.
9.1.1.3 Mining
The policies regarding mining are not relevant to the project.
9.1.1.4 Manufacturing
The policies regarding manufacturing are not relevant to the project.
9.1.2 Transportation Policies
\\I FHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 dmft.doc 24 DOMINI,
Consistency Report
Other State Policies
9.1.2.1 Highways
"That roads, bridges, and other major highway transportation facilities shall be
constructed according to a sedimentation control plan that has been approved by the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commissions."
Evaluation
The project is consistent with this policy. Any proposed construction within the project
boundary would be done in accordance with the applicable requirements of the North
Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
9.1.2.2 Ports
This provision is not relevant to the project.
9.1.2.3 Navigation
This provision is not relevant to the project.
9.1.3 Recreational and Tourism Resource Policies
9.1.3.1 Beach Access
"That in the 75 foot estuarine shoreline AEC high priority of land use allocation shall be
given water access proposals provided that public resources will not be detrimentally
affected."
Evaluation
The project is consistent with the policy. Beach access in the coastal area is not relevant
to the project.
"That in the ocean hazard area (ocean beaches, frontal dunes, and inlet lands), structural
access ways to the beach may be permitted on or seaward of the frontal dunes, provided
\TI FHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 25 DOMINI,
Consistency Report
Other State Policies
that their specific location and design are demonstrated to be the most suitable
alternatives and will not damage the dunes."
Evaluation
This provision is not relevant to the project.
9.1.4 Environmental Policies
9.1.4.1 Development in Coastal Hazard Areas
This provision is not relevant, as the project does not involve development in Coastal
Hazard Areas.
9.1.4.2 Drainage
"That construction of ditches in coastal wetland for the purpose of draining low lands will
be allowed only where there are no significant adverse effects on the use of the water by
the public, the property of riparian Owners, public and private water, wildlife or fisheries
or the public health, safety or welfare."
Evaluation
This provision is not relevant to the project, as there are no "coastal wetlands" in the
project site.
"That where drainage ditches are permitted in wetlands, erosion control methods, such as
grassing, must be employed on fresh dikes and on freshly cleared (or spoiled upon)
upland areas."
Evaluation
The project is consistent with this policy. Appropriate erosion control measures would be
taken wherever drainage ditches, dikes, or clearing of uplands occurs at the project site.
\WHO1\SYS3THUSERS\USERS\THORNT0A401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 26 DONM%
Consistency Report
Other State Policies
9.1.4.3 Wetland Preservation
"That the construction of drainage canals or ditches solely for the purpose of draining
coastal marshlands will not be allowed."
Evaluation
This provision is not relevant to the project, as there are no coastal marshlands on the
project site.
9.1.4.4 Protection of Unique Coastal Environments
"That it is necessary to balance the conduct of man and the preservation of the natural
beauty along the many rivers of the State. This policy includes retaining the natural and
scenic conditions in some of the State's valuable rivers by maintaining them in a free-
flowing state and protecting their water quality and adjacent lands by retaining these
natural and scenic conditions."
Evaluation
The project is consistent with this policy, as Dominion proposes a number of
enhancements that would benefit water quality, the riverine and anadromous fisheries,
vegetation and wildlife, recreation, cultural resource, land use, and aesthetics. The Draft
APEA and the supplement to the APEA provide Dominion's balancing of the
developmental benefits and environmental effects of the project.
9.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT
"One of the goals of CAMA is to insure that the development or preservation of the land
and water resources of the coastal area proceeds in a manner consistent with the
capability of the land and water development, use, or preservation based on ecological
considerations. Another goal of CAMA is to insure the orderly and balanced use and
preservation of our coastal resources on behalf of the people of North Carolina and the
nation."
\\INFHO1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401- CZMIVP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 27 DOMM-
Consistency Report
Evaluation
Other State Policies
Dominion believes that the development of the project is consistent with the capability of
the land and water for development use and that through the relicensing process, the
ecological effects of the project have been considered. The project does not affect the
orderly and balanced use of the coastal resources.
\\INFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - M&W ConsistencyRpt 09-01 dmft.doc 28 DOM M,
Consistency Report Local Land Use Plans
10.0 LOCAL LAND USE PLANS
Local jurisdictions adjacent to Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake have developed
comprehensive land use plans and/or zoning ordinances to guide growth in the various
jurisdictions. The Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydroelectric Project meets local zoning
ordinances and other relevant plans to their maximum extent. A discussion of all the
zoning designations for the project is discussed in detail in section 5.7 of the Draft APEA
report.
As mentioned earlier, the project straddles the Virginia/North Carolina border in
Brunswick and Mecklenburg counties in Virginia, and Halifax, Northampton, and
Warren counties in North Carolina. None of the counties mentioned here are classified as
coastal counties. Since the project is not located within any coastal counties, no Land
Use Plan designation is applicable.
\\INFHO 1\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOJ\401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 draft.doc 29 DOMM,
Consistency Report
Conclusion
11.0 CONCLUSION
In accordance with CZMA, 16 USC 1456(c), as amended, Dominion has determined that
the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydropower Project is being carried out in a manner
which is consistent to the maximum extend practicable with the enforceable policies of
the North Carolina Coastal Management Plan. This determination applies to the
proposed action plan discussed in Section 3.1 of this Consistency Determination, and the
effects on the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as directed by
15 CFR 930.39.
\UNFHOI\SYS3\FHUSERS\USERS\THORNTOA401 - CZM\VP ConsistencyRpt 09-01 dra8.doc 30 DOM R,
?r
M 1
I
-P 1
I. §
35
n ?
5,
903

,
R
."Piney Point '?
f
Subdivision 15

{
)

w

i 34
?
,
I
a f

3

i
38 I ? Yi %
1 't
:
i ??? 4?
t
? ?".a
Iii ,
I, S}tllho?s tsp
1
/? e B
^
1 Lakeview Estate . f} r
qp Subdivision H
t

L
644

?y n"S
i
ll l1? S a 0 BRUNSWICK COUNTY
If Jr ??
9I
- ?, Caf0ll118 ` _ .u. WARREN COUNTY o
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT Shoreline LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Roads County
County line a Resevoir
State line -_ J
Project boundary + T I Scab in Feet Parcels
Special Menapsment Area (SHa)
500 0 1000 2000
Sensitive Areas -- Undevelopable Area
Umlted Use Area
Brunswick County
General Development Area (GDA) = 37.1 MI. Parcel Map
Special Management Area (SMA) = 27.9 MI.
Sensitive Area = 17.2 MI. Sheet 1 Of 3
Undevelopable Area = 9.1 Ml.
Limited Use Area = 1.6 MI. -----------
Total Project Boundary Distance 65 MI. April 21, 2000 DRAFT
kaa4/"Pco 7hm1a981p-pxnwo u023arn1craatinobmmwic

17'.1 EX
p
i.f Pd ?J
c ? i ; `Oe 3 tea`'
I
If
F as Y ?,. ? f '0. ? )/
J
T 1`
? d I
4 a{'' " ' d
667
_
r
P t
717
y ?, s
%
626 q
7
L
I
t
t
I
?? .
.. I-0
? 9 t
b.
ii 23
}
? uS
i
r.
4
y,
i
m 644 tendy. Shore 485
t t
Subdivision K, J
Su
e ,
1
x..10 ." , bd k
27
GINIA
I _ BRUNSWICK COUNTY { ..? VIR
r?
26
r
-- ` I`
NORTH. CAROLINA
.M WARREN COUNTY
. i?
J
II
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
Shoreline Brunswick County
I ? County
Roads General Development Area (GDA) = 37.1 Mi.
ri - = Parcel Map
coon line ReeevPir
State line Special Management Area (SMA) = 27.9 MI.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 17.2 MI. Sheet 2 of 3
Parole Undevelopable Area = 9.1 MI.
Special MenegementAree ISPA)
Sensitive Areas Undevelopable Area Limited Use Area = 1.6 MI. - -
Umlted Use Area
Total Project Boundary Distance= 65 MI. April 21, 2000 DRAFT
Jca*4Mpco 7hmr!9elPl-ktan+!Le1"3_ml4naigrg bMnwviek.W AwiI;L3440_
s? Via, s
I1
?r
1 r
i ?
` Scale in Feet
500 0 1000 2000
J
y
' - s P
?s a E ,
'P.^_
15
,
YY ? ha
_ 626
^
µm
t dal .?^^ ? v
s
F
?t
i Colony Club
t' Subdivision
46
114
..J 4
W ; Hidden Acres Z, ..,
Subdivision V
y
A
BRUNSWICK COUNT VIRGINIA
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
Shoreline LEGEND Analysis (Countywide) Brunswick County
Shoreline 1 County
Road° J General Development Area (GDA) = 37.1 MI. Parcel Map
County line
Reaevolr
State line ?__-- Special Management Area (SMA) = 27.9 MI.
- Project boundary Sensitive Area = 17.2 MI. Sheet 3 of 3
Percale Undevelopable Area = 9.1 MI.
Special Management Area ISPAI
Sensitive Areas UndevelopableArea Limited Use Area = 1.6 MI.
Llmlted Use Area I
Total Project Boundary Distance = 65 MI. April 21, 2000 DRAFT
kaa4rv_ag0 7hrnl*9 a'N->oIl+Q• a*23amlcnatiftbmnny,c*.p*_Aprin2400
ti4 d r''?'/?f F ?
%r
Fern Cliff
Subdivision x
x
? _ 1 a
IJ /-?i `V`I 4
41,
i% ?? tiMel ` 1 3
l? r ??e?,?eo r
Timber Cre r
Subdivision
L ;I
9 ?
o i
t ? I I J-.
J ?I
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
r` Scale in, Feet
500 0 1000 1000
r
f
l +
J ' 3 a w?.
J
fi ?'_ . r
4
pea
Halt k
s
4
S
?J
4 !
f
7
gr
' +a
i
y t ?
LAKE GASTON SxA
60 62
L'
Shores ark
NORTHgMPT
i
rr
0N CO
64
ir. , ....mr.....,.e .rw,n.rw...
?,., 147 ?w.?.u },.. ,.. .?.... ?. ?, .. r..d, ,, ...
...:.. ,.. D1
Roanoke,
HALIFAX
„r?? ?o Nr Rapids
Lake South
Lake
a e1Q 1 C; `. y \
Shom S,Ubdiw I ?
,? r 5 r t y i ?1 i
h i't pyr{ i7'
?Y 1 0':?' I` ?o FoxWo?ow
Y I;
6 1
9
\ ! Z W `l (• Mynck Mates Qe yn ?. $
} l ai- r} Subdivision I
1 }
P ti !
o
Crosscut,
N
Subdivision
a p ?r
1458
s ?
N', rI j ?o a i r--
+ p
63
-- 3-
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide) Halifax County
Shoreline County
Roads General Development Area (GDA) = 48.4 MI.
County line r Resevoir Parcel Map
- State line Special Management Area (SMA) = 16.9 MI.
- Project boundary Sensitive Area = 11.7 MI. ? Sheet 1 of 3
Parcels
Special Mana"ment Area (SPA) Undevelopable Area = 0Mi.
Limited Use Area = 5.2 MI. -
Sensitive Areas UndevelopaWe Area
umiroduseArea Total Project Boundary Distance = 65.3 Ml. April 21, 2000 L - DRAFT
-- _. ku4MVooJhlnl}Y6/Ea?L.?niWSK123dLMcreating Mlihx 9g21.3000
'f ? ?,p' { ?•Y
'r.
r 6
,
s
?5 9
r
f b," I
J,- J
i a ?1 I ? .Y`
fi ;r? at
f p%
r
Lake
- Gaston J
? 46
i 1
64
A
't r
,
Mir J ? ? I .T Iy?y} ? ?'? y { 1 j
t `-
1 1 11 r ',
r.
,l MSuybrwdik vu@aaYn b'ts U l \. _ 68
t ?
?
q
9
?; ROANOKE RAPIDS LAKE..
Subdivision
1458 ?r Ui
8
63 COP
P
sto
a ?o
r ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSINGPRO ECT LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
NORTH CAROLINA POWER Shoreline Halifax County
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION County
R°°?° General Development Area (GDA) = 48.4 MI. Parcel Map
County line Resevolr
Statelin. Special Management Area (SMA) = 16.9 MI.
- - Project boundary
Sensitive Area = 11.7 MI. Sheet 2 Of 3
Is in Feet Parcels
Special Management Area ISFAJ Undevelopable Area = 0 MI.
500 0 1000 2000 Limited Use Area = 5.2 MI.
- - - - -- --- - -
i ? Sensitive Arose Undevetopable Area
umltetlUse Area Total Project Boundary Distance - = 65.3 MI. April 21, 2000 DRAFT
kee4MPco_7hr_N18eJpw-taxrrwpV vec123am1 creatinq Mlihx,w April 21, 2000
i
l
i
i
I
i
Deep
a
i 1 1?Y 'a
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Stale in Feet
S00 0 1000 2000

4fp
roNGov
Nq? JF
COUNTY
qkCn,.

LEGEND Analysis (Countywide) l
Halifax County
Shoreline County
Roads General Development Area (GDA) = 48.4 MI. PafC81 Map
County line Resevoa
state line Special Management Area (SMA) = 16.9 MI.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 11.7 Ml. Sheet 3 of 3
R'rc°I' Undevelo able Area = 0 MI.
Special Management Area (SPA) p
Limited Use Area = 5.2 MI. -
Sensitive Areas Undevelopable Area
-"" Umited Use Area Total Project Boundary Distance = 65.3 MI. April 21, 2000 DRAFT
1p41"m. 7hmMe8/m-tan m c-123-1 cnrtina h lif-- Aui 21.2000

({Y Sil
f I
I
1
A
" <. Y0
T--

?~j e al
1 -.
a ;
KERR - "
RESERVOIR
p i ,c

ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT LEGEND
NORTH CAROLINA POWER Shoreline
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION County
Floods
County line ?I Reeevoir
State line U
. ? r Protect boundary
Scale in Feet Parcels
- _r pee Management Area (SFA)
600 0 1000 2000
Sensitive Areas Undevelopable Area
Umlted Use Area
46 47 3 c
1 '
?113 ? ? f
i?
Analysis (Countywide) Mecklenburg County
General Development Area (GDA) = 59.3 MI. Parcel Map
Special Management Area (SMA) = 102.1 Ml.
Sensitive Area = 22.7 MI. Sheet 1 of 6
Undevelopable Area = 75 MI.
Limited Use Area = 4
Total Proiect Boundary Distance ML161.4 ML l April 21, 2000 DRAFT
Mn4lv*pco_7Hmb_9.81 -pxmpr,rw123?mlcn?tirg rT-klmburg.pa April 21, 2000
I
C
j
40
617
a ...,
3 9 A

S

Y

a
}
?
k
} D
?
r e
i

? ? 7-- - - r
4 1 '
i ?? Q1
m.'m ?
..m?"?"?r?n?? ?
,.: I
i...
Y ur"

r
41
,

' ?4,
r
F
4 ?s
903 1 ii
.
o
Great Croak ?
d
i ¢ _ 39
A
< division
r hub
G
o
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWERRELICENSINGPROJECT LEGEND Analysis (Countywide) 1,
NORTH CAROLINA POWER Shoreline - Mecklenburg County
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION County
ROB?° ?f General Development Area (GDA) = 59.3 MI.
County line Resevoir Parcel Map
- State line Special Management Area (SMA) = 102.1 MI.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 22.7 MI. Sheet 2 of 6
Scale in Feet Parcels
500 0 1000 2000 Special Management Area (SFA) Undevelopable Area = 75 MI.
Sensitive Areas Undevelopeble Area
Limited Use Area = 4.4 MI. - - - - -
--'°-' Limited Use Area
- Total ProLct Boundary Distance 161.4 MI. April 21, 2000 DRAFT
/cn4N*p o 7hm1.90tp•hxm?fn!"123.aLrrJq;r9 ng mwkl?!?YumTa Apr# Z _
r
D
?. 5 a
y
?N• _. ?,,
y ,
F J ,' f W
0 :D
r b
r C ? ? F
1f) { 5
t ? !
Y. t

Sj ,I
{Q f w" b fr.

;
'37
I
&j
// fa{{

r
t
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON

HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT LEGEND

' (Countywide)
Analysis

NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Shoreline

County Mecklenburg County
Ronda General Development Area (GDA) = 59.3 MI.

County line
Steteline
? I Resevoir
u

Special Management Area (SMA) = 102
1 MI

Parcel Ma
Map
.
.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 22.7 MI. Sheet 3 of 6
Scale in Feet Parcels
Special Management Area (SPA)
Undevelopable Area = 75 MI.
500 0 1000 2000
Sensitive Areas
?'- Undevelopable Area Limited Use Area = 4.4 MI.
- - - -- - --- - - -
r
Limited Use Area Total Project Bo
nd
r
Di
= 161
4 ML L ril 21
A
2000 DRAFT
u
y
a
stance_
. p
,

- - - - - - - . _ K?A41Ytao Jhmh4?!?xmap 1KtY?JmlcnetingmKkIont
.r AiP
t : fig iq?

?il Yp
r ?? r
a'" 'a? \ 1
Kerr
Reservoir .
2-?
y t.
6
f
b
{
1
I
1
2
1
t
M
Virgir
11,Y North ?
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
I Seale in Poet
500 0 1000 2000

e?a
k
a
Shoreline
County
Roach
County line Resevoir
State line
-- Project boundary
Parcels
Special ManagennentArea (SFAI
Sensitive Areas Undevelopable Area

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
WARREN COUNTY
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
General Development Area (GDA) = 59.3 MI.
Special Management Area (SMA) = 102.1 Ml.
Sensitive Area = 22.7 MI.
Undevelopable Area = 75 MI.
Limited Use Area = 4.4 MI.
Total Project Bounder Distance _= 161.4 MI.
N
i
4
Mecklenburg County
Parcel Map
Sheet 4 of 6
April 21, 2000 1 DRAFT
'Y
l

F
p F
zr"
Rive Wdg
4
,p / 1 d r division t'.
r,
Sub
y?

9
3
Y

Great Creek
Subdivision
e
?
r I - - -
'
--
:Af
r

k z
ZP,
dll
f t j /
Lake Gaston
d
Run ??F p
Subdivision
i
3
f a?
J
i
50a
--d Ili, .1.
4 /
50
4 t
ro % ? s I `I
St I ? 3 ? 1
? 9 ^ t, t
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
WARREN COUNTY
n.
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER Shoreline
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Roads C 1 County
County line Resevoir
State line
Project boundary
Scale in Feet Paroele
500 0 0 T 1000 -' 2000 Special Management Area ISFAI
Sensitive Areas Undevelopable Area
limited Uee Area
Al
J ?? d
_ vv
51
I"'
VIRGINIA??'
s
NORTH CAROL?1?4
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
Mecklenburg County
General Development Area (GDA) = 59.3 MI. Parcel Map
Special Management Area (SMA) = 102.1 MI.
Sensitive Area = 22.7 MI. Sheet 5 Of 6
Undevelopable Area = 75 MI.
Limited Use Area = 4.4 MI. - - - - - -
Total Project Boundary Distance = 161.4 MI. April 21, 2000 a__ -DRAFT
Mw4Afeeou71am1vse1uafi2cmaoaaac123,arrJcm"namackl9nWrq.w Awl 21.3.000
\ 'y I
v,. ?4A
r
k

rte, ,?

ra

iglgbvops
DIr
SdIN1810ts, ? ? ? ? `?

903
\

rt(liy; {
w,
,.A
w
? j
T

F?
1
d
717
4 !
903
r

-- a t
p`
i
p?
] W
0 4_1
Lake Gaston he
w
... "5' r U ?. t E 6
t 1 ?' E' I i ...' d
LLJ
"'w
VIRGINIA
v
NORTH CARGLfN"?_l ' Npoa"e
1 Sobdivision WARREN COUNTY
r
'J.
Y
y '
t
ROKE RAPIDS AND GASTON Analysis (Countywide)
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT LEGEND
NORTH CAROLINA POWER Shoreline Mecklenburg County
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION County Roads County line J Ree°"air General Development Area (GDA) = 59.3 MI. Parcel Map
Count C?
State line Special Management Area (SMA) = 102.1 MI.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 22.7 MI. Sheet 6 of 6
Scale in Feet Parcels
" Special Management Area (SPA) Undevelopable Area = 75 MI,
soo o 10,00 soon -
Senaltloe Areas Undevelopeble Area Limited Use Area = 4.4 MI.
T
umltedUse Area = 161.4 MI. April 21, 2000 DRAFT
Total Project Boundary Distance
rtw4ty*Kq 7/ampse/p9-tmxnrpep 122AmlcmatimmecklrnbummAwl 21.200(

l„ Indian Rock
Subdivision
s-?ss %%0 Vuvwi I
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
'OSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Sale in Feet
Soo 0 1000 2000
{ i
a
F
- - ?6RVW HICK COUNTY
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
4B
e
i
x 5
..
4 ?'t 1
f S
ling Solomon !. ?yove
J uOdivision p
Tllf o?

rowers mmromt yr ?. ?, • ?, ?' 1
V Subdivision ':tom
` ,, ? ?,.
+ 4
,u
„i u y '?
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
Shoreline

Roads
1 County
` North Hampton County
t
- General Development Area (GDA) = 53.3 Ml.

County line
Resevoir

Special Mana
ement Area (SMA) = 15
5 MI Parcel Map
State line g
.
.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 13.7 MI. Sheet 1 of 4
Parcels
el Management Area (SPA) Undevelo able Area = 0 MI.
p

Sensitive Areas
Undevelopable Area
Limited Use Area = 1.8 ML I - -

I
" Umlrod Use Area
Total Project Boundary Distance = 68.8 Mi.
( April 21, 2000 DRAFT
fRetin9 n9rtllhemD9on.pl
II
b.
iK
f
f
a
46
21
BRUNSwIcIEOUNTY --- I R MA
i r
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY FORTH CAROLINA
4s
i
t>
1214
r,
King adomon dove
i 1. Subdivision, ?(I ?,,, <o
? Y
r
:
?, ?,. 2 __ }F(§
t,
-77
gee
Free 7. Cresent Beach ? ? -
Subdivision
Four Seasons y -
Subdivision
Lake Gaston ?
--
46
??
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT LEGEND Analysis (Countywide) North Hampton County
NORTH CAROLINA POWER Shoreline
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION County R°°?e General Development Area (GDA) = 53.3 MI. Parcel Map
County fine Resevolr
' Statelirre Special Management Area ISMA1 = 15.5 MI.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 13.7 MI. Sheet 2 of 4
Seaa6 I et - Parcels Undevelopable Area = 0 MI.
aoo o tooo sooo Special Management Area i$FAl Sensitive Areas ? Undevelopeble Area Limited Use Area = 1.8 MI.
Llmised Use Area
Total Project Boundary Distance = 68.8 ML April 21, 2000 DRAFT
- -. - - k?4Mpco_7hmb99 •S?iwm
-- -M!!ft??Aml coerjne northhempton.w MH T1,1QOe
" ?,,.»-.,:...•,,,,?„ ? ? tip `"`q?,` .?^'
? Lr
C
t
A
/f f 4
G
k
a
0e €
f

T

011P j

?.r I I
r,
d 't
j3
%
{, 4
{
i'
Roanoke Rapids Lake,'
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER Shoreline
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Roads I County
County linen 1 Reaevoh
State line u
?E __ Sc r Project boundary
ale in Feet Parcele
500 0 1000 2000 Special Management Area (SPA)
46
JORTH CAOPLANA
Y, f
F--

j r:
oa
9 I/
_ o•
0

r
"JI
Iri ?
North Hampton County
Parcel Map
Sheet 3 of 4
April 21, 2000 DRAFT
A, 1
71 t T/ _
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
General Development Area (GDA) = 53.3 MI.
Special Management Area (SMA) = 15.5 MI.
Sensitive Area = 13.7 MI.
Undevelopable Area = 0 Ml,
Limited Use Area = 1.8 MI.
Total Project Boundary Distance = 68.8 MI.
i
fr
f
I
t 1 F
NORTH CAROLINA
.
t"
i %
}} (( sly ? ?N .>,,2 t
hx
I pp j k y g?
S
h f
y?
? ?\ r t t r
-
't
y
I
1 r
u
,
fff +
???
}
r t = ( Yl?.rl J -
N?J
NORTHAMPTON COUNT(,1
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT LEGEND Analysis (Countywide) North Hampton CAROLINA POWER Shoreline Y
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION County
Roads ?-1 General Development Area (GDA) = 53.3 MI. Parcel Map
County line Reaevolr
State line Special Management Area (SMA) = 15.5 MI.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 13.7 MI. Sheet 4 of 4
w{ --s°ebl°Feet Parcels Undevelo able Area = 0MI.
500 o tooo Special ManayementArea (SPA) p
sooo SensitiveAreas Undevelopable Area Limited Use Area = 1.8 MI.
Limited Use Area
Total Project Boundary Distance = 68.8 MI. April 21, 2000 DRAFT
_. - - ------ - _... -. k??4MPS4_7Hm1?981P?'r+grt1? ?!c7?3ar?en?si_ng_no_rtF?il?m?Qin.nAPLUZ 000

LAKE GASTON
_ Virginia".
Noaheroli

1307 /
A
i
)
i
1304

Six on
n
IT
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
.?Scab in FeTTt
` Goo 0 1000 2000

Shoreline
County
Roads
County line Resevoir
u
State fine
Project boundary
Parcels
Special Management Area ISPA)
Sensitive Areas "- Undevelopable Area
Umlted Use Area

` A "Six Poun"

9

L?
C
M i
W
r
ato
n
rt
S b iavrl
div

; . 1335
i
1334
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
General Development Area (GDA) = 99.9 MI.
Special Management Area (SMA) = 48.1 Mi.
Sensitive Area = 13.3 MI.
Undevelopable Area = 20.E Mi.
Limited Use Area = 14.3 MI.
Total Project Boundary Distance 148.0 Mi. April
-- - kai4t
a
i
i
Gate
i?

r?
k N I
! of "YYY44?
?- a
f
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
.?E
r Scale in Feet
500 0 1000 2000
}
Lyons C1sak Old Bridge Foint 1
Subdivision $UW iaNM
f
1330)
1? M
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
Shoreline County
Roads General Development Area (GDA) = 99.9 MI.
County line Resevoir
State line Special Management Area (SMA) = 48.1 MI.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 13.3 MI.
Parcels Undevelopable Area = 20.5 MI.
Special Management Area ISPAI
Sensitive Areas - Undevelopable Area Limited Use Area = 14.3 MI.
umltedUse Area Total Project Boundary Distance = 148.0 M
LAKE GASTON
`S I
Y li
i
UIt i
f
Warren County
Parcel Map
Sheet 2 of 5
121, 2000 L DRAFT

ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
?_Scab in Feet r
` 500 0 1000 2000
LAKE GASTON
Shoreline
County
Roads
County line ?J Resevoir
state line
Project boundary
Parcels
Special Management Area (SPA)
Sensitive Areas --- Undevelopable Area
Limited Use Area
Wildwood
Point
Subdivision
OJ
V

LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
General Development Area (GDA) = 99.9 MI.
Special Management Area (SMA) = 48.1 MI.
Sensitive Area = 13.3 MI.
Undevelopable Area = 20.5 MI.
Limited Use Area = 14.3 MI.
Total Project Boundary Distance = 148.0 MI.
N COUNTY

s
13
1
Lab Gaston
Estate Subdi
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA POWER
FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
?[ r ScabinFeeTT
Soo 0 1000 2000
? f
(f 1 w l
Nil
4
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
Shoreline r -- County
Roads ED General Development Area (GDA) = 99.9 MI.
County line I Reaevdr
State fine -- Special Management Area (SMA) = 48.1 MI.
-- Project boundary Sensitive Area = 13.3 MI.
Pe`te9le Undevelopable Area = 20.5 MI.
Special Management Area (SPAI
Sensitive Areas -- UndevelopebleArea Limited Use Area = 14.3 MI.
Limited Use Area Total Project Boundary Distance = 148.0 MI
Warren County
Parcel Map
Sheet 4 of 5
' s.
o' t 903
r'
1
,jf"
LAKE GASTON

c

i
I
3
1352
u
OSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
Scale in Feet
500 0 1000 2000
tom.. 903
a
s
>` e
?s
4
OJT ??
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
;
HALIFAX( C?&**
C Y
N
5 8
LEGEND Analysis (Countywide)
Roads -A County
General Development Area (GDA) = 99.9 MI.
County line Reaevoir
State rrm Special Management Area (SMA) = 48.1 MI.
Project boundary Sensitive Area = 13.3 MI.
Parcels
0 Management Area (SPA) Undevelopable Area = 20.5 MI.
Sensitive Areas Undevelopable Area Limited Use Area = 14.3 MI.
Limited Use Area
Total Project Bound ar Distance = 148.0 MI.

Ar2b
- --/Sl
- - -?._a
}
Dominica-
ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING
FERC Project 2009
401 Certification
Presentation to North Carolina
Department of Water Quality
Department of Water Resources

September 27, 2001
Introduction
Meeting Objectives
? Improve understanding of the benefits hydro power brings to NC
? Identify hydro power's role in supporting the state's inter-connected electric grid
? Recognize Licensee's view of 401 issues in FERC relicensing process
? Suggest some potential options for better implementation of the 401 Water Quality
Certification process.
? Discuss Licensee's view of specific 401 issues in current relicensing
Hydropower Relicensing Facts
• Licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for 30-50 years.
• Next 15 years, 240 hydro projects in 38 states (29,000 MW) will go through the relicensing
process.
• North Carolina hydros, 50% of the existing 28 licenses will also expire by 2015, representing
1368 MW of hydropower.
• Six hydro developments plus part of a seventh in the Catawba Basin
• Six in the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin
• Two in the Roanoke Basin,
• Three in the Little Tennessee Basin
• Six in the Tuckasegee Basin
• Two in the Nantahala Basin.
Goal: Ensure there is a good understanding between NCDENR and Dominion continues to be
cooperative, the process balances all socio-economic issues and the 401 process does not subject
Dominion to "double jeopardy". .
? U'1?o Q?YYIA
?? cevre?'s
Hydropower in North Carolina at a Glance
Duke Energy Corporation:
• Eighteen hydro stations in North Carolina with a total capacity of 623 Mw.
• Seventeen of these projects with a capacity of 617 Mw are licensed by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC)
• Most capacity located on the Catawba River, some in Nantahala area of the NC mountains
• The Catawba River stations license expires in 2008 and the Nantahala Area stations licenses
expire in 2005 and 2006.
Carolina Power & Light (CP&L):
• Four hydro stations in North Carolina with a total capacity of 218 Mw
• Three of the stations are licensed by FERC.
• The Tillery and Blewett Falls stations are located on the Yadkin/Pee Dee River and the
Walters station is located on the Pigeon River.
• The Yadkin/Pee Dee River stations license expires in 2008, the Walters license expires in
2034.
Dominion:
• Two hydro stations in North Carolina with a total capacity of 325 Mw.
• Hydro makes up about 10% of Dominion "native" capacity
• Roanoke Rapids / Gaston about 1.7% Dominion "native" capacity
• Both stations are licensed by FERC (one license)
• All capacity is located on the Roanoke River.
• The license expired in 2001 and the relicensing of the stations is in the final stages.
The following table lists key information about each of the hydro stations owned and operated by
the companies:
Company Hydro Stations in North Carolina
Company Project Developments/Lake Name Capacit
y
(MW) Surface
Area
Acres Shoreline
miles
Duke
Power Catawba-
Wateree Bridgewater/James 20 6812 137.5
Rhodhiss 25.5 3060 97.5
Oxford/Hickory 36 4223 106.4
Lookout Shoals/Lookout 25.77 1305 33.2
Cowans Ford/Norman 350 32,475 569.6
Mountain Island 60 3281 79.7
Nantahala Nantahala 43.2 1605 22
West Fork Thorpe/Glenville 21.6 1462 21
Tuckasegee 3 7.9 2
East Fork Bear Creek 9 476 11
Cedar Cliff 6.375 476 11
Tennessee Creek/Wolf Creek 10.8 183 6
Tennessee Creek/East Fork - 40 3.5
Bryson Bryson/Ela .98 42.9 2
Dillsboro Dillsboro .225 13.9 4
Franklin Franklin/Emory 1.04 198 7
Mission Mission 1.8 61.4 4
Queens Creek Queens Creek 1.44 37 1
CP&L Yadkin-Pee
Dee Tillery 84 5260 104
Blewett Falls 24.6 2560 27
Walters Walters 108 340 15
NC Power Gaston and
Roanoke
Rapids Roanoke Rapids 100 4600 44
Gaston 225 20,300 464
Hydroelectric power is important to NC's future because:
D Renewable, emissions-free source of energy
Reliable public water source
D Major public recreation opportunities
In-lake fish/wildlife habitats ?L5 ?t
a Significant funding resource for NCWRC ??~
?econ ary was e treatment---?
D Ability to significantly attenuate flood effects
.??? ffps

Hydroelectric power has a very important role in supporting the electric grid:
)!- Quick start capability-Normal operation can go from shutdown, through start-up to full
power and back to shutdown in less than 10 minutes. This compares to 2 hours for new
combustion turbines, 6-8 hours for the best coal-fired plants and 72 hours or longer for the
largest fossil-fueled plants.
)!- Load following capability-Can start/stop units in increments to help follow load. Hydro
er
units on automatic generation control (AGC) automatically absorb the 75-150 Mw COT
demand swings typically seen every hour.
Voltage Support-Hydro units can be operated as synchronous condensers to increase
qct ve. "-W on the grid. Some amount of reactive power is always required in the grid for
the grid o be stable and to allow the real power to be transferred to meet the system demand.
Regulatory Issues
• Distinguish the 401-certification process for hydros an a FERC licensing process by
limiting 401 to a review of applicable state numerical water quality standards.
• Limit DWQ 401 review to examination of effects on "existing uses" as of November 28,
1975. In addition, DWQ's authority for 401's comes from the Clean Water Act and N.C.
Statute. Under 401 (d), the State can impose "other appropriate requirements of state law".
For hydro facilities, however, there are no other requirements - DWQ must issue 401 if no
existing uses are removed.
• Add hydropower as an official, designated use for each applicable river. A?J
• Clarify that it is not the intent of the General Assembly to subject a hydroelectric facility
ii R 11 applying for FERC relicensing to double jeopardy. liZ.?- yO
FERC's Relicensing Process:
The following FERC licensing process is from the FERC website located at:
htti)://w-%vw.ferc.gov/'hydro/docs/licensing handbook.pdf
As outlined in the FERC relicensing guidelines, the following issues are required to be addressed
in the licensing process:
D Water Use and Quality
D Fishery Resources
D Wildlife and Botanical Resources
D Historical and Archeological Resources
D Socioeconomic
D Geology and Soils
D Recreation Resources
Visual Resources
D Land Use and Comprehensive Plans
Dominion Concerns

• Do not want to disrupt process at this time.
• Negotiations in good faith
• Commendable scientific effort by agency
• Have come to reasonable agreement on most
• Areas of concern
• Bypass flow
Loss of 14,800 MWH
• Minimum flows - Winter
• Downstream water quality
Fish Passage "l\
• Swamp Flooding
• Administrative 60 day waiver
A

?.ffia5
w
5 C
.y (4%) RR, 2% of Project \
?a
c?
561;'"
YD'
M^v??

9067
ice: ivieeung 3cyi. ?,
Su c . Re: Meeting Sept. 27
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:23:41 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Sorry for the delay in reply, I have been our of the office
General agenda:
1. Face to face talk. I have been working on the project for over a year and
have yet to meet you, and only met John Morris briefly at a settlement meeting.
2. Dominion's understanding of 401. We have been looking pretty hard at the
whole 401 process. We believe the scope of negotiations have exceeded the our
understanding of what a state 401 certification is intended to accomplish. We'd
like to talk about that so we each understand where the other is coming
from.
3. Balance of interests. Dominion believes hydropower is a clean,
environmentally friendly, inexpensive method of meeting NC citizens energy
needs. We want to discuss this to ensure both state and Dominion have
similar views of the balance required by FERC.
4. 401 requirements. Dominion is negotiating in good faith. We are
interested in having the 401 match what is negotiated in settlement. Would like
to discuss the settlement vs. 401 process.
5. Sixty day action.. It is unlikely the state can act on the 401 if it is to
reflect settlement negotiations. NC's regulations require action within 60
days. How will this be resolved?
We are certainly open to discussing any other issues you or your staff deem
relevant.
Looking forward to meeting you.
Jim Thornton
Dominion Resources Services .
F&H Operations Support, IN-1NE
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Pager: 804-273-3030,#9464
[e-mail]
John Dorney <j ohn. dorney@ncmail. net> on 09/22/2001 10:10:13 AM
To: James Thornton/ IN/ FH/VANC POWER@VANC POWER
CC: John_Dorney@h2o. enr. state. nc. us, Bill Bolin/ LR/ FH/VANCPOWER@VANC POWER,
Bryant Brooks/GOVCOM/VANCPOWER@VANCPOWER, Jim Mead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Meeting Sept. 27
my office is not the same as john morrisI. meeting will be at 2321 Crabtree
Blvd in
Raleigh. plese give me a quasi-agenda for the meeting (or what you hope to get
f rom
it) so i can see who else needs to attend. thankx
jim - can you attend too?
1 of 2 9/27/018:42 P
?a
q4l\ Po? 4-- 1
C
D I '?
l?C
s tt?
°-t I Irk S?J
Y\e
Sous ?
1Vh _
Ilj
(7 V „ ""_`
stu. ?t)
P"?
?? ? ? ? aL sJz ??
Q k?
ii
ac OY,4tk cio Ll%-"?

0 ?10
0
MOL YV-
4 4o ?
U 0
t u5? ?wj
'ys
Mam ?. ?+ nu?E
1 © Q d
pct
V
i
i
G
I
i
I
?-
?"lA?? ?Q?vJ ? ? nr1? ?M?C7? Vt?f
tin
z _
?;
Nl?

W ATFgQ
?J G
4 'r
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross Jr.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
March 6, 2001
Bob Graham
Dominion Generation
4111 Castlewood Road
Richmond, VA 23234
Re: Comments on the Draft Effects of Load Following at Roanoke Rapids Power Station on Lower Roanoke
River Mainstem and Floodplain Water Quality
A study of this nature is key in understanding the water quality effects in the Roanoke River of aseasonal
inundation of the floodplain and subsequent drainage back into the mainstem. The study showed that dissolved
oxygen levels declined rapidly on inundated portions of the floodplain and drainage from these floodplain areas
caused a localized decline in dissolved oxygen levels in the Roanoke River mainstem. That is the extent to
which the study provided water quality information on the effects of load following on the lower Roanoke River
mainstem and floodplain. [Note that this study (by design) was completed in September, rather than July or
August when both ambient air and water temperatures tend to be higher, and therefore the data may not
represent a "worst case scenario" in terms of this decline.]
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) notes the following shortfalls of the study:
• The study did not take into account (despite its title) the "big picture" in terms of lower Roanoke River and
floodplain water quality. There was no effort to take into account water quality above all influence of
floodplain drainage or to summarize existing water quality data (USGS continuous water quality station
downstream) below the majority of floodplain drainage influences during the load following operation. At
a minimum, all USGS continuous monitoring station data should be retrieved, analyzed and summarized
for the study period and findings included within this report. It should be noted that both Black Gut and
Coniott Creek are relatively high in the watershed, so that even data upstream of each input (Stations
BGUT-LA & CCL-A) may not accurately reflect cumulative inputs that could be observed further
downstream (i.e. worst case scenario).
• Monitoring of both stage levels in the floodplain and water quality parameters was terminated prematurely.
There was no measured water standing on the floodplain in Black Gut at the beginning of the study, yet the
study was terminated with "about one foot of standing water" remaining. At Coniott Creek, water levels
were reported at just over one foot at the beginning of the study, but when monitoring was terminated,
water levels had only dropped to three and a half feet. In order to effectively determine the effect of
floodplain drainage on water quality in the Roanoke River, data should have been collected until water
levels returned to "baseline" (the point at which the study was begun). At a minimum, stage measurements
should have continued until baseline was achieved so that existing water quality data in the river
downstream could be analyzed throughout the duration of inundation.
• No effort to statistically remove the effects of rainfall was undertaken. Rainfall events during the study
period resulted in an elevation of dissolved oxygen levels, confounding the results.
NM
Customer Service Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
1-877-623-6748
http://www.enr.state.nc.us
W AT ?9pG
co
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross Jr.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
t Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
In summary, the DWQ observes that two specific objectives, set out on pages 1-3 and 1-4, (which are vital to
the DWQ's 401 Certification process) were not accomplished by the study. Specifically to:
• determine the rate of change in water quality parameters of floodplain waters over the duration of the flood
event (the study was terminated before the flood event was complete); and
• identify the effects of floodplain drainage on river water quality (no accounting of upstream/downstream
effects overall was undertaken by the study).
The Division of Water Quality recommends that the load following event be repeated in 2001 to evaluate water
quality in the Roanoke River upstream (above swamp stream influence) and downstream (below the majority of
floodplain drainage), and that data be collected until floodplain stage returns to baseline. In addition, the study
should evaluate the spatial extent and duration of inundation and their effects on the decline in dissolved oxygen
levels. The DWQ will provide guidance during development of the study plan and written approval prior to the
commencement of load following and monitoring.
The Division of Water Quality also recommends that all USGS continuous monitoring station data, collected
from September 15, 2000 to October 15, 2000, be retrieved, charted, analyzed and summarized within this
current draft report.
Please contact me with any questions or comments regarding this correspondence via email at
[e-mail] or by calling [phone], ext. 583.
Sincerely,
/s/ Callie Dobson
Callie Dobson
Roanoke River Basinwide Planner
Cc (electronically): Coleen Sullins, NCDENR-DWQ
John Dorney, NCDENR-DWQ
Adugna Kebede, NCDENR-DWQ
Susan A. Wilson, NCDENR-DWQ
Milt Rhodes, NCDENR-DWQ
Jay Sauber, NCDENR-DWQ
Jim Mead, NCDENR-DWR
Franklin T. McBride, NCWRC
Pete Kornegay, NCWRC
Jean Richter, USFWS
Kevin Moody, USFWS
Jeff Horton, The Nature Conservancy
Tom Brawner, Roanoke River Basin Association
Guy Stefanski, APNEP-Roanoke Regional Council
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
http://www.enr. state. nc. us
D ?-

,=
)171 A
Cc u f
M dYI 0 ? Cl 's
rrd
M dvAm - 64 ?Alrom
-Uc
n64J -

C???
__ ._ __.
__ _ . _ ___ _ . l.? --
n
- �n-a.� ��u C�vkl -

Callie Dobson (x583) and Adugna Kebede (x515) attended, on behalf of D meeting of the Fisheries Technical Work
Group of the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydropower Relicensing Project at the Roanoke Rapids Power Station on
January 31, 2001.
frhe meeting began with a review of the December 13, 2000 meeting minutes, of which we did nothave copies. Jim Mead
agreed to forward them to us and I'll follow up with him to get those. During this review the question was asked:
If Dominion Generation, through successive hydropeaking operations,
floods the backswamps (especially during warm summer months) resulting
in DO levels below state standards - is it a violation of WQ standards when f
those backswamp waters drain back into the river when the power company goes back to base flow release? • I had a chance to discuss this question with Boyd in advance of the meeting and basically responded that if the dissolved
oxygen in the mainstem of the Roanoke (where it is not classified Sw) drops below 5.0 mg/l, water quality standards have
been violated. And that under the scenario described above, hydromodification (by Dominion Generation) would be
considered a source (maybe not the only source) of the low DO. I didn't get into whether the swamp streams would be
considered point sources or discuss anything about any investigation/enforcement on the part of DWQ. That was really it.
The other piece of interest in this portion of the agenda, was comments made by US Fish & Wildlife staff regarding the
potential cumulative effects of all these low DO inputs along the river on the mainstem below Jamesville. The Service and
USGS have a continuous monitoring station at Jamesville and they believe the data point to "lower than normal" DO
concentrations as a cumulative result of this hydromodification activity.
Minimum Instream Flow Study Results
An instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) has been conducted at four locations in a reach of the Roanoke River that
extends from the bottom of the "bypass reach" to a point below Weldon. [There was much discussion of these results at the
inter-agency meeting John Dorney, Adugna & I attended previously.] The purpose of this study was to get at a good bracket
of flows (minimum and maximum) in order to protect fish and other aquatic life. Some of the lower end brackets for various
species are down around the 7Q10 flow (and below) especially during Aug-Oct and this is where some of the other questions
we need to answer come up. It's my understanding that the 7Q10 flow is -1100 CFS?
• What did DWQ actually use for low flow to determine NPDES permit limits for existing dischargers?
• How would DWQ view having a very low flow (700 CFS) event once or twice in 30 years?
• What is DWQ's position overall about the current flow regime for maintaining water quality in the Roanoke River?
Right now the agencies have to prioritize species and determine whether the critical spawning period should be expanded
from the current April 1 to June 15 time frame.
Lower Roanoke River Floodplain Water Ouality Report
We didn't realize that folks were expected to provide comments on this report at this meeting. Neither Adugna nor myself
received this report, so Dominion agreed to FedEx three copies to us immediately. I told them DWQ would try to have
comments back to them within two weeks. Clearly, many new questions were raised by this report and, based on other
agencies' comments, it doesn't seem to have done the job in terms of examining the effects of existing flow management on
water quality in the lower Roanoke. This is a key area where our input is needed into the process.
There were five other topics on the agenda which really required no DWQ input and I have extensive notes on the IFIM
discussions as well as other agencies' comments on the water quality report, The next inter-agency meeting
(DWR/DWQ/WRC/USF&WS/DMF) will likely be €'hursdany, Feb. 22 in Ras:€eigb. The next Fis€s.crics Work daroup
k' x%,,fing is phaanned for March I in Roanoke Rapids and is specifically to discuss the IFIM and instream flow. The next
regular Fisheries Work Group meeting is planned for March 28 in Roanoke Rapids.
Please let me know if there are questions or comments regarding this meeting. I'd be glad to talk with anyone further.
Callie D.

jj? ? 1 esl
W?l i iC2 "?11v?s 00,
r
?o 6L ?J5 a-3 r Aga
J-?
III v l f--?cn
4- a?g
YV\O-OYOY-
wi
A' A
ujd-,.-5C-5-4e 10
l C• (?C?j 1
C ice-- E?Y^?c

lj,l, I o
-10
?,
1
sw.?ILrAoI?
i
XV1916 low
---
?e
A
4 04.
C?1CY1 ;' ?a i
"IF
O-v
??I
Lt
9,--
/?Uv

Roanoke River MAIN Site 1212012000 ? ' +?? Cam/ V P%??
aL4-
PRELIMINARY FIRST CUT DRAFT FLOW TARGETS
tilill Cm SPECIES LIFE STAGE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

AMERICAN SHAD
JUVENILE raisemax to 11975 max peak 11084 max peak 11312 max peak 11700 max peak 12106
lower min to 790 lower min to 907 lower min to 674 lower min to 1324 lower min to 776
SPAWNING raise max to 1683 raise max to 15365 max peak 17248
lower min to 2253 lower min to 2442 adjust min l0 210
7 Dail av
STRIPED BASS
ADULT peaking OK
raise min to 2579
SPAWNING peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
- lower min to 4161 "lower min to3804 ad iist m ' ro :.,57
SHORTNOSESTURGEON
WINTER ADULT peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
'raise min to 3207 raise min to 3622 raise min to 2690
JUVENILE peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
raise min to raise min to 3212 raise min to 3410 lower min to 3292 lower min to 3047 adjust rain to 231 1-;e grim to 1623 lower rnin to 1540 tor.- ui rmr+ i^E4 lower n n to 19.38 }.es mm a 1933 raise min to 2497
SPAWNING peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
,,lse min to $875 rals® min tc 4151 tower min to 3844 _
punting OK t , aping OK peaking OK rake max to 18163 raise n,a, tr, 1 tt+lb roar. p ek 1 1,:ir1 max psak 11312 max peag.117Q0 max peak 11109 peakc?y GK pearin? DK _ l,eaF n0 GK
OVERAI 1.. ANAIDROMOUS i rlso min to 3207 :a ae min to 3875 :raise nun to 4-151 lower min to 4161 lower min t6 a )4 aJjust r. in to ?B5'T Tower into to 1823 lower min to 1540 bµer non to 1208 lower p- to 1438 keep min a! 19J3 raise min to 2890

CHANNEL CATI-ISH
ADULT peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK max peak 13657 max peak 14609 peaking OK peaking UK r_,rt ii _4 OK max peak 13473 peaking OK
towar"mia to 673 lower min to 641 lower min to 636 lower min to 886 lower min to 766 lower min to 837 lower min to 812 +bwer min to 781.. lower min to 718 ltrvor m,n to 762 ; lower min to 849 lower min I0 767
peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
FALLJUVI @I min 71,6 I2&?r nInto1c2 lowernnry1o
high daily av
max peak 8562 max peak 7343 max peak 6277
FRY lower min to 124 lower min to 150 lower min to 176
_ high daily av
max peak 7565 max peak 6645 max peak 6200
SPAWNING lower min to 283 lower min to 349 lower min to 394
high daily av
REDBREAST SUNFISH
max peak 12499 max peak 14162 max peak 14485 max peak 12938 max peak 10451 max peak 8329 max peak 6716 max peak 5890 max peak 5016 max peak 5556 max peak 6894 max peak 10096
ADULT lower min to 80 lower min to 62 lower min to 60 lower min to 75 lower min to 111 lower min to 152 lower min to 190 lower min to 224 lower min to 289 lower min to 247 lower min to 184 lower min to 117
high daily avg high daily av high daily av
maz'peak 1p934 max peak 13193 max peak 13480 max peak 11632 max peak 6224 - max peak 7478 max peak 6480 max peak 5624' , max peak 4852 max peak 5529 max peak Si max peak 8818
JUVENILE lower min to 20 lower min to 14 lower min to 14 lower min to 18 lower min to 31 lower min to 49 lower min to 54 lower min to 78 lower min to 108 lower min to 87 lower min to 62 lower min to 35
high nail avg high daily av high daily av
max peak 8517 max peak 7234 max peak 6502 max peak 5782
SPAWNING lower min to 68 lower min to 78 lower min to 66 lower min to 103
_ high daily av
WALLEYE
max peak 12015 max peak 14399 max peak 14654 max peak 12893 max peak 9416 max peak 7342, ". max peak 6653 max peak 6142 max peak 5420 max peak 5846 max peak 6777 max peak 8794
JUVENILE lower min to 36 lower min to 25 lower min to 24 lower min to 32 lower min to 55 lower min to 87 lower min to 107 lower min to 126 lower min to 167 lower min to 139 lower min to 103 lower min to 62
high daily av high dais av high daily av
_
<maxpcit 12402 max peak 12670
SPAWNING lower min to 689 lower min to 654
high dally avg
'max peek 10030 maw peek 12 40? m.u peak 12570 max peak 1163; r 1x p -l-, 1;220 nox I - !,,702 own poaF. Catio max peak 5424 rna r.,ur:4b52 max Pe k 5528 nws pegh ,600. Trial peak 679,4
OVERALL RESIDENT lower n-lo to 673 tenor min to 65., lD-r min to 654 lower min to 88fi to ar n. Ito 7do csor + to E,37 ,vr min tc 812 lower. min to 761 tower ,run to 118 iswer rna+ to 762 lower rnln to 849 lawor min to 767
SPECIES
D 1
-'.
I? VIII P
_. h nd,l

Ili a

?I iii II
I1 IL'

.
?','
Ipl i?Nii _n'ihpal f av.,

I. 11h hda:r?av ^

'll
It l ._ ?..,?..
Tjl
J II

rnax eat, 109
P
max at. 1 ^2
Po
.tiax eat 125; r.
G _
r
• Pns•. 1632
rt p ak Jl-o
max ek r.r12
oak 64oC
max p
puce. 5324
own
max yak t2
mar peat: 5529
max peak h804
rr45x pa.,k 8754
OVF.RALL r I. SPLCES raise min to 3207 raise min to _'„IS rump, , to 41S Is.,er n4,r t., 4191 lo-r:er m.n :u 3s 4 arlust r- i to ..05. bwer min to 1821 hirer min to 1540
I
towel min to '5°
lower In to 1431,
keep lidl at 1933
rain n
o to 2806
_ r iyh 3!ty ,+:y _ high 02Lly avg _hi9h daily a7g ?., .? .. ,_.
N01 E: The following species/life stages have relatively low quantities of WUA at the Main site:
Channel catfish fall juveniles; Redbreast sunfish juveniles and spawning; Shortnose sturgeon winter adults; Walleye juveniles and spawning
N01 E: For further analysis, the following species/life stages could be dropped because they do not "drive" file results:
Channel catfish fall juvenile, fry, and spawning; Redbreast sunfish adult OR juvenile (juvenile more sensitive but low WUA); Striped bass adults
NO E: Maximum peak was limited as needed to maintain constant WUA at 80% Index C or above
NO E: Minimum base flow was adjusted as needed to maintain constilint WUA at 80% Index C or above. For.lune this could involve lowering minimum for first 2 weeks and raising minimum fee last 2 weeks.
NO E: The minimum flows listed for some resident species are extremely low. Habitat at these flows is bil ad the range of reasonable extrapolation of the model.
Minimum flows were listed for these life stages simply to indicate that the minimum flow in thew cases is not an issue.
NO I E Daily average flow was determined to be too high for a month here Index C antler modified existing how conditions was less than 80% index C under unregulated flows
h

I? 40
Roanoke River SOUTH Site 12120/00
PRELIMINARY FIRST CUT DRAFT FLOW TARGETS

P-J, US -5°
SPECIES LIFE STAGE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
AMERICAN SHAD
JUVENILE peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
lower min to 2276 lower min to 1820 lower min to 1476 lower min to 1262 lower min to 1080
SPAWNING peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
lower min to 3731 lower min to 3303 adjust min to 2472
STRIPED BASS
ADULT peaking OK
raise min to 4138
SPAWNING peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
lower min to 4353 lower min la 3681 adjust m n to 2676
SHORTNOSE STURGEON
WINTER ADULT peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
raise min to 4547 raise giin to=B1l1 raise mIn to 3789
JUVENILE peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
raise min to 2966 raise min to 3415 raise min to 3779 , lower min to 3317 lower min to 2889 , adjust min to 2275 lower min to 1774 lo,-r n , :0 147,' lower min'io 1244 lower min to 1-07 lower min to 1909 raise min to 2483
SPAWNING peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
raise min to 4331 raise 'min to 4781 lower min to 4105
-
---
-

.
peakng 0K

?
peaking UK
peaking OK ^
3n
akiJ
K
.
7
pealsv Y.
i

peaking OK

peaklny OK

p.,akin0 UK -
-
paaklr,q OK

: Fain
p y OK

puaNnJ O
VERALLANADROMOU ca e min ta4&17 a se niln to 171 raise mn to 481 wo

, ow n 1 aJ ,,,t n rn N Z579 -6 nu to 7e orm a 7 c: min to 244 Ic- rdn0 47
low inin 9.:G
l 1
n to 3788
r
a sa nu
SPECIES
CHANNEL CATFISH
p
ADULT peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking K ?
F ?- aF ir3 e
aking OK
peaking k-F mg OK
lower min l0 1836 raise qiirt?la 2383 ral'se min to 2993 lower min to 222 lower mmto1699" lower min l0 1188 lower min l0 859 lower min to 694 lower min to 653 loV.er 'n nto 899 levier m(n to 972 lorwo: nun to 132a
max peak 5513 max peak 5943 max peak 6544
FALL JUVI lower min to 309 lower min to 269 lower min to 197
high daily av hi h dail av
max peak 9533 max peak 8136 max peak 7346
FRY lower min to 317 lower min to 361 lower min to 390
high daily av
peaking OK peaking OK
SPAWNING Iov?` io1 ,85 Iw, tmu1to1279

REDBREAST SUNFISH E
max peak 14088 max peak 16234 max peak 16534 raise peak to 1472 raise peak to 1144 max peak 8472 max peak 7926 max peak 7204 max peak 7721 max peak 8700 max peak 11145
ADULT lower min to 221 lower min to 184 lower min to 179 lower min to 210 lower min to 281 min lower min to 374 lower min to 397 lower min to 429 lower min to 406 lower min to 365 lower min to 288
hi h daily avg
max peak 11863 (pax peak 14139 max peak 14462 max peak 12607 1'91se. max to 9832

, ,?.
11 max pea7328 max peak
5847
max peak 5491
max paak 4910
max peak 5290
max peak 5691
max peak 9131-.
JUVENILE lower min to 44 lower min to 31 lower min to 30 lower min to 39 lower min to 65 lower min to 107 lower min to 152 lower min to 187 lower min to 246 lower min to 208 lower min to 148 lower into to 72
high daily av high daily av high daily av
max peak 7661 max peak 6374 max peak 5686 max peak 5047
SPAWNING lower min to 139 lower min to 185 lower min to 221 lower min to 281
high daily av
WALLEYE
max peak 16886 max peak 18817 max peak 19136 raise peak to 1743 raise peak to 1367,1 max peak 9603 max peak 7680 max peak 6879 max peak 5796 max pe: max peak 7790 max peak 13165
JUVENILE lower min to 208 lower min to 186 lower min to 183 lower min to 200 lower min to 245 lower min to 290 lower min to 335 lower min to 364 lower min to 403 lower m lower min to 331 lower min to 250
high daily av hi h d
av high daily av
max peak 17496 max peak 17308
SPAWNING raise min to 2174 raise min to 2201
9 Daily av
ma. pcuk 11063 ma- peak 14135 we, peak 14482 na. {oak 1 rp, r a rna io 0332 mqx pouk o 6 ma peak W' _rnax p h 5496 max past. 4810 max fbak 6209 ma peak b8J 1
_ ak $131
_N9
OVERALL R EJIDErJ lower m,p to 1836 raiso min l 2J83 rasa nun to 2683 lower mo to :221 Ic+.ar min to 1696 e ,ev rain to 2b/5 lower no to 1555 lower min to 1279 kowar min to X53 I., or mfn to 699 lower min ID 972 irnvaf m(n l0 1328
SPECIr > _-m?7
? ? Uall av
? _
ma ?
? hl n d3il ar,
'
sx r _
'? h- h da av hh
'
?
onk 11863

max p may fa 11
415
ra?x

r
paak 1-,1c.Z
pouk 12607, 1
ai,
. i to
p ah 7,120,
n
m ' o47
max peak. 5493
rra peak to10
max peak
52°
k+0

z peak 5891
na

1
m peak 81
OVERALL ALL SFL ,IFS raiso min to 4`x17 mrn t? 51 r I ra
sa m,n to 4rii 1 ?larrr (n,) to 415; lcvcr min to SSG1 ad;nal m n lo'-. 73 lower min to 1 /7d Iw.er mrn [0 1472;; Irrwto 1244 lowrrm n la 13Gt lo+cr min ti 19? j rE rso nu to 37FUf
.. 7 Po ly -J high day a. J I , high dept uw . high qa Ir a',_O .:_. «.. .
NOTE The following species/life stages have relatively low quantities of WUA at the Main site:
Redbreast sunfish juveniles and spawning; Shortnose sturgeon winter adults, juveniles and spawning; Walleye juveniles and spawning
NOTE: For further analysis, the following species/life stages could be dropped because they do not "drive" the results:
American shad juveniles and spawning; Channel catfish fall juvenile and fry; Redbreast sunfish adult OR juvenile [juvenile more sensitive but low WUA); Striped bass adults; Walleye juveniles and spawning
NOTE: Maximum peak was limited as needed to maintain constant WUA at 80% Index C or above
NOTE: Minimum base flow was adjusted as needed to maintain constant WUA at 80% Index C or above. For June this could involve lowering minimum for first 2 weeks and raising minimum for last 2 weeks.
NOTE: The minimum flows listed for some resident species are extremely low. Habitat at these flows Is beyond the range of reasonable extrapolation of the model.
Minimum flows were listed for these life stages simply to indicate that the minimum flow in these cases is not an issue.
NOTE: Daily average flow was determined to be too high for a month where Index C under modified existing flow conditions was less than 80% index C under unregulated flows
A wj_\
GLAAZ
V4 ?,?fi seun?,ti Tie
Roanok 3 River WELDON Site 12/20/00
PRELIA MARY FIRST CUT DRAFT FLOW TARGETS
WtIAr w
?5i?
n,c
CVY'!t/vl''?1 ?_
SPECIE LIFE STAVE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC_
AMERICAN SHAD
JUVENILE max peak 19831 max peak 19206 max peak 19632 peaking OK peaking OK
lower min to 672 lower min to 682 lower min to 675 lower min to 663 lower min to 653
SPAWNING peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
lower min to 1567 lower min to 1802 lower min l0 1418
STRIPED BASS
ADULT peaking OK
lower min to 1645
SPAWNING peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
lower min to 3563 lower min to 3172 adjust train to 26W
SHORTNOSESTURGEON
WINTER ADULT peaking Ok peaking OK peaking OK
raise min to 445'6 raise min to 5133 raise min to 3703
JUVENILE peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
raise min to 2992 raise min to 3237 raise min to 3357 lower min to 3225 lower min to 2991 adjust min to 2452 k ..... min at 1967. lower min to 1722 .weer rnln to 1457 lower min ro 1616 keep rain at 2094 raise min to 2621
SPA NNING peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
raise min to 4411 raise min to 48 J lower min to4232
..
_
pea( in0 0K, ;aaktng OK ? peaking OK peaking OK max peak 18&°N1 - -
ma Fe?ni92us max peak 1sx1,32 paakirig OK, pea k
t m9 OK po.4 InD 0'r: r
Peat.ir3 CK akin
Fd 0 OK
OVERALL ANADROMOUS rinse rnin ro 4a56 rat°a min to 5103 rain min tor46?d to„or min to 4_'a. I_wer n'am to 3172 adjust nw110 2558 kaep ,inn at 1Q67 loow nAn to 1123 1 Nor min to 1457 lower rnin tu 1616 koep rnin at 209.1 roiae m,n to 3703
SPECIES
CHANNEL CATFISH
ADULT peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK
lower min to 621 "lower min to 606 lower miri to 604 lower°Inin to 618 lower min to 646 lower min to 963 lower min to 672 lower min to 671 low r min to 668 lower min to 691 lower min to 682 ( er nun to I!W
max peak 8800 max peak 8650 max peak 8535
FRY lower min to, 683 lower min to 672 lower min to 571
max peak 10535 max peak 10373 max peak 10237
SPAWNING lower min to 63 lower min to 69 lower min to 73
REDBREAST SUNFISH
max peak 10620 max peak 11707 max peak 11927 max peak 10795. raise max to 9784 max peak 9320 max peak 9196 max peak 9096 max peak 8760 max peak 9080 max peak 9318 max peak 97 75
ADULT lower min to 42 lower min to 33 lower min to 32 lower min to 41 lower min to 56 lower min to 63 lower min to 69 lower min to 73 lower min to 100 lower min to 79 lower min to 66 lower min to 56
max peak 9500.
' peaking OK peaking OK peaking OK jnaX peak 8500 max peak 8050, ,max peak 7900 mnx peak 7800 _ max peak 7585 IT1ax peak 7760 max peak 7960 max peak 8390
JUVENILE lower min to 42 lower min to 33 lower min to 32 lower min to 41 lower min to 56 lower min to 69 lower min to 69 i„wer ;ua, to 73 lower min to 100 lower min to 79 lower min to 66 lower min to 86
daily av high daily av high
max peak 10535 max peak 10373 max peak 10237 max peak 8788
SPAWNING lower min to 63 lower min to 69 lower min to 73 lower min to 100
daily av high

WALLEYE: _
max peak 15030 max peak 16772 max peak 16953 raise max to 15627 raise max to 10194 max peak 9060 max peak 8655 max peak 8281 max peak o ' max peak 8057 max peak 8837 max peak 10u02
JUVENILE lower min to 87 lower min to 73 lower min to 72 lower min to 82 lower min to 110 lower min to 130 lower min to 138 lower min to 147 lower min to 169 lower min to 152 lower min to 134 lower min to 112

._.- -- daily avg hi h
--
-- -
d 1 ah.?-`_ O n d F- aF. 11 u7 n k I ak 11527 ntax peak 10795 max leak 8dC9 n . ptak. 0050 niaz puak 7 00 pack 600 may pe k.692e men paan 7760, Wax peck 796p rna<

OVERALL RESI[-E NT
la::ar min t? 621
lower :ou, I? oCkS
to low ar min 604
lower min to 618
lower m??n to 6q8
lo,var inn 1o 663
lower min to ?2
war min to 671
lower mh to 899
IoWer min to 691
lower rnin to 0 82 @r min to 647
lo w
SPECIES
IES ua &? With - '''. :: de1f ad hl?h
?7
l
II i?llllllllllllllll'I P II ?i.
11
111 '..,I
1
.
-,....._-ALL ?m'n'
?i
T
II?Innl r.....L:?11
?
ilia" peak H5W n ax peak 11707 maY pdak 11927 mik 1 r?4:5 mu peak 8,10i3 MUK peak &050 mat p"I, 7DOO _ ,(Wax peak 600 max peak i max puak 7700 ,,max poak7980_ max poa
k b3U0
OVERALL ALL SPECIES raise min to 4455 raise nlin to 5133 raise rnin to 4898 lower rnin t. 1232 Icwor min to 3172 adjust min I,) 2556 reop nun al 1907 lower ntin tc 1722 lower rnin to 1457 Isw@r nun to 1611] keep min el 1091
' ralS nup (P 370;; f,
d, I a, nigh ar<' .: h,
daily av .
NOTE: The following species/life stages have relatively low quantities of WUA at the Main site:
Channel catfish fry and spawning; Redbreast sunfish adults, juveniles, and spawning; Walleye juveniles;
NOTE: For further analysis, the following species/life stages could be dropped because they do not "drive" the results:
Channel catfish adult, fry, and spawning; Redbreast sunfish spawning; Striped bass adults; American shad juveniles and spawning
1(.F_
?t
17,01-14 1
S
t? Cl
NOTE: Maximum peak was limited as needed to maintain constant WUA at 80% Index C or above
NOTE: Minimum base flow was adjusted as needed to maintain constant WUA at 80% Index C or above. For June this could Involve lowering minimum for first 2 weeks and raising minimum for last 2 weeks.
NOTE: The minimum flows listed for some resident species are extremely low. Habitat at these flows is beyond the range of reasonable extrapolation of the model.
Minimum flows were listed for these life stages simply to indicate that the minimum flow In these cases is not an issue.
NOTE: Daily average flow was determined to be too high for a month where Index C under modified existing flow conditions was less than 80% Index C under unregulat, I flows
Meeting on 1/3
Subject: Meeting on 1/3
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:56:34 -0500
From: Jim Mead <[e-mail]>
To: "Ellis, John" <[e-mail]? "Kornegay, James W." <[e-mail]>
"Laney, Wilson" <"Wilson Laney/R4/FWS/DOI" @FWS.GOV?.
"McBride, Frank" <[e-mail]:
"Moody, Kevin" <[e-mail]> "Zoufaly, Steve" <[e-mail]>
"Dorney, John" <[e-mail]> "Reed, Steve" <Steven. Reed @ncmail.net>
Just a reminder that our meeting to begin discussing a recommended flow
regime for the Roanoke River below the Roanoke Rapids hydro station will
be tomorrow, January 3rd. The meeting starts at 10:00 AM and will be
held at the US Fish and Wildlife conference room at their offices on
Pylon Drive. Let me know it-you need directions.
I'm not sure how long this will last - at least until lunch time.
Rough agenda
1. background, explanation of instream flow study results
2. minimum flow (base flow) issues, possibility of creating one or two
growing season "droughts" during the 30 year license period to foster
cypress regeneration
3. peaking flow issues
4. integrating the four study sites and multiple species into one flow
regime, habitat potential and management priorities
5. big picture stuff - what are the most important things we want to
accomplish for the Roanoke during re-licensing - flows, corridor
protection (trust fund), fish passage, etc. - trade-offs?

1 of 1 1/3/01 8:32 AM