FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
March 16, 2009
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Project No. 739-018 – Virginia
Claytor Project
Appalachian Power Company
Ms. Teresa Rogers
Appalachian Power Company
40 Franklin Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Reference: Commission Staff Comments on Update Study Report and
Meeting Summary
Dear Ms. Rogers:
Commission staff have reviewed the updated study meeting report for the
Claytor Project No. 739, filed on February 16, 2009. We have no comments on
the meeting summary. Our comments and requests for clarification on the final
study reports are provided in appendix A.
Any questions on these comments should be directed to John Smith at (202)
502-8972 or john.smith@ferc.gov.
Sincerely,
Vince Yearick, Chief
Hydro East Branch 1
cc:
Mailing List
Public Files
APPENDIX – A
Comments on Final Study Reports
Commission staff have reviewed the final study reports and meeting
summary pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.15(c)(4), and have the following comments and
clarifications:
Aquatic Resources Assessment
1.
In appendix D, the CE-QUAL-W2 study report indicates that the wind
sheltering coefficient (WSC) was adjusted to 1.1 for 2002 and 2007 and 0.8 for
2004. Please explain what these adjustments were based on.
2.
On pages 62 and 87 of the CE-QUAL-W2 study report, you state that many
expert modelers consider the CE-QUAL-W2 model to be acceptable when the
absolute mean error (AME) is less than 1.0 degree Celsius and less than 2.0
milligrams per liter dissolved oxygen. Please provide a reference for these
statements.
Erosion Study
1.
In section 1.4 of the Erosion study report, the surface area of Claytor Lake
is stated to be 4,472 acres which is consistent with the revised scoping document,
but the Preliminary Licensing Proposal lists the area as 4,363 acres at full pool.
Please clarify this discrepancy and explain if there is any difference in the original
lake area versus the current lake area.
2.
In Section 2.6.5, please clarify the DISFAC (downcutting) and BLERODE
(bluff erosion) coefficients. Specifically, are these coefficients unique to the
COSMOS model? Do they have physical significance or are they coefficients
used to calibrate the model? Does figure 2.17 represent a specific location or is it
an example of the DISFAC and BLERODE coefficients? If it is a physical
location, please indicate where it is. What do the measured downcutting points
represent?
3.
In section 3.1.1, it is stated that 86.2 miles of shoreline were observed
during field reconnaissance. However, in section 1.4, it is stated that Claytor Lake
has about 100 miles of shoreline. Please explain the rationale for not observing
the entire shoreline?
4.
In table 3.2, Material and Geomorphic Characteristics do not sum to the
same total. What material was not observed? Please clarify.
2
5.
The total and unprotected lengths of shoreline in table 3.1 and table 3.5
differ. Please clarify.
6.
You indicate that no other shoreline protection measures other than riprap
are present on the Claytor Lake islands so the shoreline is either covered by riprap
or it is not. Based on this, please explain why the percentages in table 3.7 do not
add to 100 percent?
7.
Objective 3 of the revised study plan required identification of the degrees
of susceptibility of areas along the project reservoir and downstream to the
VA/WV border for bank erosion. What figure(s) best illustrates the varying
degrees that banks are susceptible to erosion for both the shoreline around the lake
and downstream river channel? A plot of the degrees of susceptibility would be
helpful, along with an index.
8.
Objective 4 of the revised study plan required identification of areas subject
to accelerated bank erosion. What figure(s) best illustrates the varying degrees
that banks are subject to accelerated erosion for both the shoreline around the lake
and downstream river channel? A plot of the degrees of erosion would be helpful,
along with an index.
9.
Objective 7 of the revised study plan required an assessment of erosion
control measures in terms of effectiveness, costs, longevity and natural
compatibility? This analysis appears to be missing.
Instream Flow Needs Study
1.
In addition to the analyses presented in the report, a summary table
showing the percent of maximum weighted usable area for each species life stage
evaluated at various selected flows would be helpful for our analysis.
Navigational Aids Study
1.
The primary map of proposed aids to navigation (in Appendix F) should
include map insets that refer to the larger scale blow-up maps that follow for better
clarification. The maps should also include the locations of bridges and other
points of interest (hollows, creeks, etc.).
Sedimentation Study
1.
Some of the data tables would be easier to compare if similar units were
used. For example, table 4 has units of tonnes while table 5 uses tons.
3
2.
In the caption for figure 14, horizontal and vertical uncertainty bars are
referenced but not included in the figure.
3.
The extent of the riverbed or water surface elevation should be shown on
the cross sections included on figures 51 through 64.
4.
Please describe how particle size was determined for the distribution
presented on figures 51 through 64? Were these particle sizes used in any
sediment transport calculations (for example, WinXSPRO)?
5.
A legend or more detailed caption would be useful on figure 65 to explain
the bar, and “x” and “-” symbols.
6.
Please describe how stability was determined in figure 66?
7.
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to estimate the
sediment yield of 342 subwatersheds for a range of future conditions (table 5).
What is the average sediment yield of these subwatersheds for these future
conditions and how does average sediment yield of these subwatersheds compare
to the measured yield from 1939 through 2007?
Wetland, Riparian, Woody Debris, Littoral and Bald Eagle Habitat
1.
It would helpful if figure 1-1 Vegetation Cover Types map could be
provided in a scale similar to the one used for the Appendix B littoral habitat
mapping for clarity.