Attachment 1 - Agency letters of comment on the revised Exhibit S. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES Box 11104 Richmond, 23230 OEPR-LP Project No. 2716 - Virginia Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Our Game Division staff has examined the Wildlife Impact and Mitigation portion of the revised Exhibit S, prepared for Virginia Electric and Power Company's Bath County Pumped Storage Project #2716. Personnel of our agency's Game and Fish Divisions along with representatives of Virginia Electric and Power Company, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Polytechnic Institute's Department of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences met in Richmond, Virginia, on November 10, 1977, regarding suggested changes and additions to the draft Exhibit S, Appendices D and E. Relatively few changes or additions were recommended in regard to Appendix E, Fisheries Impact and Mitigation. Virginia Game Commission and U.S. Forest Service personnel, however, coordinated a joint response relative to numerous changes and additions to Appendix D, Restoration of Wildlife Habitat and Minimization of Adverse Wildlife Effects. Many of the suggested items, especially seeding mixtures, seeding rates, planting materials, planting methods, etc., were adopted in the revised Exhibit S as recommended. A number of other items of concern which were discussed, however, are not reflected in the revision. Items of concern deserving further consideration are as follows: It was noted in our meeting last fall that the draft exhibit consisted primarily of a series of recommendations and lacked adequate assurance as to the implementation of these recommendations or an organized action plan and periodic maintenance schedule. The revised Exhibit S would not appear to reflect any change in this regard. Additionally, it was noted that the accompanying maps were adequate for locating the general area of the project only and would certainly be inadequate for a reviewer or contractor to determine the precise location of developments as the somewhat detailed plan would require. Page S-3, revised Exhibit S, paragraph 1, under WILDLIFE, states that the proposed lower impoundment should have a minimal effect on wild turkeys and ruffed grouse. While this may be partially true for the ruffed grouse, quite the opposite is true for the wild turkey. The presently available wild turkey nesting and brooding range in the open fields to be inundated by the lower reservoir will be lost by this action and will be only partially compensated by the cleared area surrounding the upper reservoir. In addition the area surrounding the upper reservoir will be enclosed by an eight-foot chain link fence designed to exclude wildlife from the impoundment for their protection. It is our opinion that the planned action merely attempts to modify the proposed developments so that the resulting habitat conditions will be more acceptable to these species rather than compensate for their habitat that will be lost. Further, it is our opinion, and this was voiced at our meeting last fall, that a suitable alternative would be the development of a series of wildlife clearings on forested land now owned by VEPCO. The extent of cleared areas to be compensated and site locations should be determined jointly by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Virginia Game Commission. Additionally, a periodic maintenance schedule should be instituted for all cleared and developed areas within the project to insure perpetuation of their intended purpose. Our staff is available to meet with representatives of your agency and the other participating agencies and VEPCO as desired to insure responsible fish and wildlife mitigation for this project. R. H. CROSS, JR. Chief, Division of Game UNITED STates DeparTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE P. O. Box 2417 Washington, D.C. 20013 JUNE 30, 1978 Honorable Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary Your OEPR-LP letter of April 20 requested our comments on the revised Exhibit S filed by Virginia Electric and Power Company for Project No. 2716. Before submitting it to the Commission, the Company provided a draft to Forest Service personnel of the George Washington National Forest. They provided input on Appendices D and E, with most of it involving Appendix D. The Company revised the Exhibit to reflect most of the recommendations made at that time. The following points, however, should receive further consideration. 1. Exhibit S is mainly a series of recommendations. We are somewhat concerned about the implementation of these recommendations. They are not specific enough to formulate a total committed plan for action. [162,1391 2. In line with the above comment, the attached maps are not sufficient to meet the needs that a somewhat detailed plan might required. As a minimum, maps should have such detail as property boundaries, active construction areas, construction building sites, planting locations, etc. 3. Much of the lower reservoir area was agricultural land, primarily open fields used for grazing. These areas provided openings used heavily by wild turkey during the summer seasons. Virtually all of this habitat will be inundated. We can see no effort to "restore" this wildlife habitat. We believe that a suitable alternative would be the development of a series of wildlife clearings on forested acreage now owned by VEPCO. This proposal was suggested to Dr. Scanlon by Forest Service representatives last fall. 4. We question at this point the need for the station detail found on pages 27 to 54. These are at least only approximate locations since complete line surveys have not yet been completed on the ground, especially for the Bath Valley line. 5. Concerning a more site specific problem we question whether the 2-4" of topsoil dressing proposed for a fairly solid rock surface would provide an adequate environment for maintaining herbaceous cover on a long range basis. 6. Although our involvement in Appendix E was minimal, we particularly endorse general recommendation C-1 found on page II-20 of the report. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with these comments. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 PEP ER-78/393 JULY 12, 1978 Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Mr. Plumb: Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1978, requesting our views and comments on the revised Exhibit S, Bath County Pumped Storage Project [No. 2716], Bath County, Virginia. We have completed our review and have the following comments. The Department believes the revised Exhibit S does not present a formalized and detailed plan for mitigation of fishery and wildlife impacts resulting from the project. The reports prepared by Drs. Scanlon, Ney and Garling contain a series of recommendations pertaining to general and specific actions required to achieve a certain degree of mitigation. There is little indication from Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) concerning the extent to which any of these recommendations will be employed. This shortcoming makes our evaluation of the Exhibit difficult, especially since it appears that much discretion is left to VEPCO regarding the implementation of mitigation recommendations. Based on our review of the prepared wildlife mitigation plan and on our coordination with personnel of the Game Division, it appears that there will be an unmitigated loss of turkey and grouse nesting and breeding range as a result of construction of the lower reservoir. The extent to which this loss is not being mitigated is difficult to determine given the detail of the maps contained in the Exhibit and the lack of a firm statement from VEPCO regarding the mitigation measures to be undertaken. We believe, however, additional mitigation in the form of clearing and developing openings in the nearby forest canopy is required. Such clearance should not be extensive or costly. The amount of clearing should be determined by the Game Division, the Forest Service, and our Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in conjunction with VEPCO after receipt of the aforementioned detailed maps and formal wildlife mitigation plans. With regard to the fishery mitigation, we believe a formal mitigation plan should be prepared by VEPCO based on the report of Drs. Ney and Garling. We recognize the plan for mitigation prepared by Drs. Ney and Garling is pioneer in terms of restructuring streams such as Back Creek. For this reason, we believe a follow-up evaluation program should be implemented to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures undertaken. This would allow for refinement of measures designed to assure continued maximum benefits to the fishery and to determine whether to continue maintenance of the stream enhancement measures, should it appear that such measures will not work. The evaluation should take place over a period of several years and include reviews of storm damage to the structure. In summary, we recommend that approval of the revised Exhibit S be held in abeyance pending further revision which would incorporate the following: (1) Formalized and specific plans for the mitigation of fish and wildlife resources impacted by the project; (2) Detailed maps showing the location and extent of planned development for the wildlife mitigation plan; (3) Additional mitigation measures for turkey and grouse. These measures should be decided by the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with VEPCO after the receipt of the information contained in recommendations 1 and 2; and (4) The addition of a follow-up evaluation program to ensure continued maintenance and refinement of the mitigation measures employed for the benefit of the fishery, should such be required, and to allow a determination of whether to continue maintenance of the structure should the follow-up evaluation program indicate significant project failure. The decision to suspend maintenance should be made only in coordination with the Fish Division of the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service. We hope these comments and recommendations have been of assistance. Attachment 2 - Agency letters of comment on the amendments to the revised Exhibit S. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES Box 11104 Richmond, 23230 Mr. William W. Lindsay, Director Re: Bath County Pumped Storage Project - Revised This is to advise you that on November 6, 1978, Mr. Jack Raybourne of our Agency along with Messrs. Gerard E. Jacques and R. E. Pennington, U.S. Forest Service, met at The Homestead, Hot Springs, Virginia, with Dr. Morris L. Brehmer, Virginia Electric and Power Company. The purpose of this meeting was to review the draft letter to you from Mr. W. L. Proffitt, VEPCO, relative to amendments to the Revised Exhibit S. Personnel of our Agency's Fish Division were not available to meet with us, and Dr. Brehmer was advised to contact Mr. Jack Hoffman, Chief, Fish Division, for any comments he may have regarding fisheries mitigation. Additionally, Dr. Brehmer advised that he would contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who was also not represented at this meeting. Basically, the concerns previously expressed by the three involved agencies appear to be satisfactorily addressed by VEPCO in this draft letter, with minor corrections as follows: Page 2, paragraph 2, the date of January 1, 1979, should be changed to February 1, 1979, whereby representatives of our Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will investigate potential areas for wild turkey and ruffed grouse mitigation to be developed by VEPCO near the project site on U.S. Forest Service lands. Page 2, paragraph 3, regarding construction and seeding of access roads to mitigation sites, VEPCO is to provide assurance that these areas will be properly revegetated in the event of unsuccessful nitial planting efforts. Page 2, paragraph 4, the question of mainteance responsibility for mitigation sites and access Foads will be determined following location of these sites. While it is possible that future maintenance may be assumed by our Agency or the U.S. Forest Service, it is felt that VEPCO will be in the best position to conduct periodic maintenance since it will have maintenance equipment on site in the future. Additionally, it appears that VEPCO's maintenance of this mitigation activity is in line with maintenance of other mitigation measures located elsewhere on the project to insure perpetual care of mitigation measures necessitated by the loss of fish and wildlife habitat to the project. It is expected that maintenance will consist simply of periodic annual or biennial mowing to control sprout growth to keep the areas open. Page 2, paragraph 6, regarding vegetation reportedly planted on site, VEPCO will supply a map detailing the location, type and extent of planting conducted to date for our on site verification. We are pleased with the spirit of cooperation of Dr. Morris Brehmer of VEPCO and his willingness to work with us fully and fairly. His cooperation with us and, no doubt, his tolerance of us, during the various stages of the mitigation process are commendable and we have no doubt that this relationship will continue throughout the duration of the project. UNITED STAtes DepartMENT OF Richmond, VA. 23261 Dear Dr. Brehmer: We have reviewed your draft response to Mr. William W. Lindsay's letter of September 5, 1978 concerning the Bath County Pumped Storage Project Revised Exhibit S. This was provided to us by your letter of October 31, 1978. This letter will confirm our approval of your Revised Exhibit S as amended by the information provided in your draft response to Mr. Lindsay. This approval was previously relayed to your office in a phone conversation between Mr. John White of your staff and Mr. Robert Kelsey of mine on November 20, 1978. -Footnotes 'Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation, under Section 3.5(g) of the Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR 3.5(g) (as amended August 14, 1978, FERC Statutes and Regulations 30,016). 2 Article 44. Within one year after the issuance of the license, the Licensee shall, in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Forest Service, and the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, file for Commission approval a revised Exhibit S, prepared pursuant to Section 4.41 of the Commission's Regulations under the Federal Power Act, containing a detailed plan to avoid or to mitigate expected adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources in the project area, including the transmission line rights-of-way, resulting from the construction and operation of the project works, including cost estimates for implementing the detailed plan. With respect to fishery resources, the plan shall provide for the improvement of fishery habitat for warm water species (and put-to-take trout fishing) for a distance along Back Creek below the lower dam which would not exceed the length of that stream to be inundated by the lower reservoir, and the acquisition of lands, to be included within the project boundary, to provide public access thereto. The Commission reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to require such reasonable changes in the plan, the construction of the project and/or the operation of the project works as are found necessary and appropriate to avoid or to mitigate adverse impact on fish and wildlife. › Order issuing major license (unconstructed) Virginia Electric and Power Company, FERC No. 2716 (January 10, 1977, 57 FPC 24). [162,140] Iowa Public Service Company, Docket No. ES79-24 Letter-Order Authorizing the Issuance of Securities (Issued March 20, 1979) Iowa Public Service Company Post Office Box 778 Sioux City, Iowa 51102 Attention: J. C. Carlson, Vice President On January 22, 1979, we received your application pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for authority to issue (from time to time) up to $50 million of short-term debt on or before March 31, 1980, with a final maturity date of not later than March 31, 1981. The short-term debt consisting of promissory notes and commercial paper will be issued from time to time to finance construction, extension and improvement of facilities and to repay maturing short-term debt. The interest rate applicable to the notes will bear interest at the prevailing prime rate for notes and at the prevailing market rate for commercial paper. Written notice of the Application has been given to Iowa State Commerce Commission and the South Dakota Utilities Commission and to the Governor of each of the aforementioned states. Notice has also been given by publication in the Federal Register stating any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to the Application shall file petitions or protests on or before February 16, 1979, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426. No petition, protest or request to be heard in opposition to the granting of the application has been received. The Office of Chief Accountant finds: (1) Iowa Public Service Company, a corporation, is a public utility within the meaning of Section 204 of the Federal Power Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. (2) The proposed issuance of short-term debt in the aggregate principal amount of $50 million will constitute an issuance of securities within the purview of Section 204 of the Act. (3) The proposed issuance of securities, will be in excess of 5% of the par value of the other securities of the Applicant and, therefore, will not be exempt by virtue of Section 204(e) from the requirements of Section 204(a) of the Act. (4) Iowa Public Service Company is not organized and operating in a State under the laws of which the security issue here involved is regulated by a state commission within the meaning of Section 204(f) of the Act, and the proposed issuance is, therefore, not exempt by virue of that Section from the requirements of Section 204 of the Act. (5) The proposed issuance of short-term debt will be exempt from the competitive bidding re quirements of Section 34.1a of the Commission's Regulations under the Federal Power Act by reason of paragraph 34.1a(a)(2) thereof. (6) The proposed issuance of securities is consistent with the provisions of Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act. Pursuant to the Authority Delegated in Docket No. RM78-19, August 14, 1978, FERC Statutes and Regulations 30,016, the Office of Chief Accountant Authorizes: The proposed issuance of short-term debt in the aggregate principal amount not exceeding $50 million outstanding at any one time, upon the terms and conditions and for the purpose set forth in the Application, subject to the provisions set forth below: (A) This authorization is expressly conditioned that all short-term debt is to be issued on or before March 31, 1980, and bear final maturities of not later than March 31, 1981. (B) The foregoing authorization is without prejudice of the authority of the Commission or any other regulatory body with respect to rates, service, accounts, valuation, estimates or determinations of cost or any other matter whatsoever now pending or which may come before the Commission. (C) Nothing in this letter shall be construed to imply any quarantee or obligation on the part of the United States in respect to any security to which this order relates. L. H. DRENNAN, JR. Chief Accountant. [162,141] Iowa Public Service Company, Docket No. ES79-25 Letter-Order Authorizing Issuance of Securities Iowa Public Service Company Post Office Box 778 Sioux City, Iowa 51102 Attention: J. C. Carlson Gentlemen: (Issued March 20, 1979) On February 6, 1979, we received your application pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for Authority to issue 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $5 per share, with an estimated market value of $22.5 million, via competitive bidding. Applicant is incorporated under the laws of the State of Iowa, with its principal business office in Sioux City, Iowa, and is domesticated in Nebraska and qualified to do business in South Dakota. Applicant is engaged in the production, transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy in Iowa and South Dakota, and sells natural gas in the states of Iowa, South Dakota and Nebraska. The net proceeds will be used to fund the construction program, repay short-term debt and for other corporate purposes. Written notice of the application has been given to the Iowa State Commerce Commission and the South Dakota Utility Commission, and to the Governor of each of those states. Notice has also been given by publication in the Federal Register stating any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to the application shall file petitions or protests on or before February 26, 1979, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426. No petition, protest or request to be heard in opposition to the granting of the application has been received. The Office of Chief Accountant finds: (1) The Applicant, a corporation, is a public utility within the meaning of Section 204 of the Federal Power Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. (2) The proposed issue of Common Stock, as described above, will constitute an issue of securities within the purview of Section 204 of the Act. (3) Applicant is not organized and operating in a State under the laws of which the security issue here involved is regulated by a state commission within the meaning of Section 204(f) of the Act; and the proposed issuance of securities is, therefore, not exempt by virtue of that Section from the requirements of Section 204 of the Act. (4) The proposed issue and sale of Common Stock as hereinafter authorized is consistent with the provisions of Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act. Pursuant to the Authority Delegated in Docket No. ·RM78–19, August 14, 1978, FERC Statutes and Regulations || 30,016, the Office of Chief Accountant Authorizes: The proposed issue and sale of 1,000,000 additional shares of Common Stock upon the terms and conditions and for the purposes specified in the application subject to the provisions of this order. (A) If, pursuant to a public invitation, at least two independent proposals for the purchase or underwriting of the issuance of 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $5 per share, are re |