HomeMy WebLinkAboutFDP202100001 Study 2021-03-16,
wi
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Requested Studies 1
Adopted Study Requests and Studies Outlined in the Initial Consultation Document 3
Study Requests not Adopted 3
Proposed Studies 3
Mussel Surveys 3
Goals and Objectives 3
Existing Information 4
Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study 4
Methods 4
Consistency with Accepted Practices 5
Level of Cost and Effort 5
Schedule 5
Progress Reports 6
Water Quality 6
Goals and Objectives 6
Existing Information 6
Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study 7
Methods 7
Consistency with Accepted Practices 9
Level of Cost and Effort 9
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
Schedule
9
Progress Reports
9
Impingement Study
9
Goals and Objectives
10
Existing Information
10
Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
12
Methods
12
Consistency with Accepted Practices
13
Level of Cost and Effort
13
Schedule
13
Progress Reports
13
Fish Protection and Upstream and Downstream Passage Studies
14
Goals and Objectives
14
Existing Information
15
Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
15
Methods
15
Consistency with Accepted Practices
15
Level of Cost and Effort
16
Schedule
16
Progress Reports
16
Wetland Delineation
16
Goals and Objectives
16
Existing Information
16
Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
16
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
Methods
17
Consistency with Accepted Practices
17
Level of Cost and Effort
17
Schedule
17
Progress Reports
17
Study Requests not Adopted
18
Fish Surveys
18
Goals and Objectives
18
Existing Information
19
Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
20
Methods
20
Consistency with Accepted Practices
21
Level of Cost and Effort
21
References
22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
1. Introduction
On November 24, 2020, Let It Go, LLC (applicant) filed a Notice of intent (NOI) and
Initial Consultation Document (ICD) with the Federal Energy Commission (FERC) to
initiate a license exemption for the Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project (Project) FERC
No. 15038. The proposed Project would add 20 kilowatts (kW) of hydropower capacity to
an existing non -powered dam on the Hardware River in Virginia. Its small size and use of
an existing impoundment qualifies the Project for an exemption from certain provisions of
Part 1 of the Federal Power Act under 18 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 4.101.
This proposed study plan incorporates additional information gathered from
meetings with stakeholders as well as study requests and comments received regarding
the proposed Project. Natel Energy, Inc. (Natel) looks forward to working with FERC and
participating stakeholders in the development of a study plan that can best inform
evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed Project and prevent loss of, or damage
to, fish or wildlife resources.
2. Requested Studies
Three stakeholders filed study requests following the scoping meeting on
November 25, 2020 (Table 1). The following section summarizes the five studies
requested and details the response to each request. Subsequent sections will outline more
detailed descriptions of specific study plans. Copies of the full study requests filed with
FERC can be found on the FERC elibrary website, httos://eIibrary.ferc.goy/eLibrary/search.
Page 1 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
Table 1. Summary of Studies Requested for the Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project
Request ID Study Request Title
Status
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS-1 Fish Surveys
Not Adopted
USFWS-2 Mussel Surveys
Adopted
USFWS-3 Water Quality Study
Adopted
USFWS-4 Entrainment and Impingement Study Adopted
USFWS-5 Fish Protection and Upstream and Downstream Passage Adopted
Studies
Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources
DWR-1 Fish Surveys Not Adopted
DWR-2 Mussel Surveys Adopted
DWR-3 Water Quality Study Adopted
DWR-4 Entrainment and Impingement Study Adopted
DWR-5 Fish Protection and Upstream and Downstream Passage Adopted
Studies
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DEQ-1 Water Quality Study Adopted
Page 2 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
2.1. Adopted Study Requests and Studies Outlined in the
Initial Consultation Document
The applicant proposes to complete the mussel survey (3.1), Water Quality Study (3.2),
Impingement Study (3.3), and Fish Protection and Upstream and Downstream Passage
Studies (3.4) requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and supported by
the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). The applicant maintains its proposal to complete a wetland
delineation as described in the ICD (3.5). Details regarding proposed methodology,
schedule, and reporting are outlined under Section 3.0 Proposed Studies.
2.2. Study Requests not Adopted
The applicant does not propose adopting the fish surveys requested by USFWS and
Virginia DWR. Sufficient information exists to develop protective measures for the fish
resources in the Hardware River and prevent loss of or damage to fish resources.
Similarly, the applicant does not propose adopting the study of reservoir fish distribution
requested by USFWS and Virginia DFW. The applicant does not agree that this study
request satisfies the nexus requirement because the proposed Project will not alter
reservoir habitats and fish population data is not required to support the design of
protective measures. Further discussion is provided in Section 4.
3. Proposed Studies
3.1. Mussel Surveys
3.1.1. Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to assess the presence, distribution, and
abundance of freshwater mussels and their habitats within the area affected by the
Project and to assess the potential for the proposed Project to adversely affect federally
listed mussel species or other mussel species of conservation concern. An additional
objective is to collect the field data necessary to support development of protection and
mitigation measures for these species if a determination is made that such measures are
necessary and appropriate.
Page 3 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
3.1.2. Existing Information
Three species of freshwater mussels have the potential to occur in the Upper
Mainstem Hardware River where the Project is located, including the Eastern Elliptio
(Elliptio complanata), Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta), and James Spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina). Four species of freshwater mussels have the potential to occur in the
Lower Mainstem Hardware River, which begins 2.5 miles downstream of the Project
including the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis), Eastern Elliptio, Notched Rainbow, and
James Spinymussel. The primary source for this information was the Virginia Fish and
Wildlife Information Service (FWIS) (VaFWIS 2020). The USFWS notes a closer
occurrence of James spinymussel less than 0.9 miles downstream of the Project (Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation- Division of Natural Heritage 2020).
3.1.3. Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
If present, freshwater mussel populations could be impacted by the Project, both
directly (physical disturbance by construction activities) and indirectly (construction or
operation effects on water quality). The Jefferson Mill Dam is presumed to be an
upstream passage barrier to mussel host fish species under most flow conditions; the
proposed Project will not impact passage for mussel host species and there is no
mechanism for Project impacts on mussel population fragmentation or genetic exchange.
The Project is being designed to avoid impacts of Project construction or operation on
downstream water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen [DO] reduction during low -flow
conditions) which could result in reduced reproduction and recruitment or, in extreme
cases, mortality.
3.1.4. Methods
The survey proposed is the standard survey method of the Freshwater Mussels
Survey protocols for Virginia, with a slight modification. The modification will shift the
survey area downstream, to include all proposed in -water work areas and extend
downstream 1,000 meters from the downstream extent of in -water construction
activities rather than the standard survey area that includes 200-meters upstream and
800-meters downstream of the proposed activity. This modification maintains the total
survey effort while adjusting for the impact of the existing dam structure on host fish
distribution and the absence of preferred fluvial habitat upstream of the dam in the
impoundment.
Page 4 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
A detailed habitat assessment will be conducted by an approved surveyor to
identify suitable habitat within the survey area. Mussel surveys will be conducted within
all identified suitable habitat. Surveys are not needed if the approved surveyor determines
that no suitable habitat is present.
The survey will employ visual surveys using appropriate techniques including
waterscoping, SCUBA, and snorkeling as appropriate. Timed searches will be used to
produce catch per unit effort statistics. The entire length of the survey area will be
searched.
For each search interval, the following data will be recorded: the number of live
mussels, with species identified; the length of all mussels encountered; the general nature
of other molluscan fauna observed, including the presence of aquatic snails and the Asian
clam; search time used in the interval; and search methods used in the interval. For each
day work is performed in the field, general weather and water conditions including stream
discharge at the USGS gauging station (USGS 02030000 Hardware River below Briery
Run near Scottsville, VA) will be recorded. All live mussels, with species identified; other
biota as appropriate; the general nature of stream substrates and habitats; and general
photography of stream conditions will be documented using digital photography.
3.1.5. Consistency with Accepted Practices
The survey proposed is the standard survey method of the Freshwater Mussels
Survey protocols to be conducted by a surveyor approved for Atlantic Slope freshwater
mussel surveys by Virginia DWR.
3.1.6. Level of Cost and Effort
The project is expected to require 3 days of field effort and 1 day of reporting for a
cost less than $8,000.
3.1.7. Schedule
The proposed survey will be conducted as soon as river conditions are suitable for
visual surveys in late April or May. Time of year restrictions will not affect the proposed
survey schedule.
Page 5 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
3.1.8. Progress Reports
A draft study report will be circulated to agencies within 30 days of field study
completion for agency review and comment.
3.2. Water Quality
In response to the ICD, the USFWS, VDWR, and VDEQ requested that the
Applicant conduct a study to assess the impact of Project operations on water quality in
the Hardware River. Specifically, the agencies requested that the study monitor DO and
water temperature at the Project such that pre -operations baseline water quality could be
compared to water quality data collected during operations to assess impacts of
operations on water quality in the Hardware River.
3.2.1. Goals and Objectives
The goal of this study is to develop a water quality plan that outlines a framework
for identifying any potential water quality impacts and mitigation options. An initial task
of this plan will be to obtain pre -construction and pre -operation water quality information
to provide a baseline against which to compare water quality conditions following
commencement of Project operations. The water quality plan and monitoring efforts are
needed to allow a proper determination of potential impacts to aquatic organisms from
Project operations. Objectives of the baseline monitoring are the collection of continuous
(15-minute interval) measurements of water temperature and DO from May 1 through
September 30, 2021 at two locations:
• Upstream of the dam at the proposed intake location, and
• Downstream of the dam below the tailrace
3.2.2. Existing Information
As described in Exhibit E (Environmental Report) Section 1.3.4 of the ICD, available
water quality data in the Project area is limited. Water quality measurements collected
between October 2006 and September 2008 by VDEQ include daily minimum, mean and
maximum values for continuous monitoring of temperature and specific conductance, as
well as discrete water quality samples (USGS 2008). Water quality data collected by
Page 6 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
VDEQ also documented exceedances of fecal coliform and Escherichia coli standards over
the past 20 years (VDEQ 2019). It appears that no DO data is available in the vicinity of
the Project. The available data is insufficient to assess impacts from Project operations on
water quality.
3.2.3. Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
The existing dam impounds the river. Diverting water through the turbine instead
of over the dam crest could affect water quality in the Hardware River downstream of the
Project. Water quality parameters at discrete microhabitat locations that could be
affected by operations include water temperature and DO, which are critical to the quality
of the aquatic habitat. Of particular concern are low flow periods when all water flow
would be directed through the turbine and no flow would be allowed to flow over the dam
crest. This could affect water quality on the bank opposite the turbine discharge where
less flow would be provided. The applicant has agreed to provide flow through a
downstream bypass as part of downstream passage measures. These bypass flows have
the potential to mitigate any water quality effects immediately below the dam.
3.2.4. Methods
A water quality plan will be developed in consultation with the agencies. The plan
will identify specific DO and temperature monitoring locations, analytical methods,
appropriate standards, and any environmental flows provided in conjunction with
downstream passage provisions.
Under the purview of the water quality plan, DO and water temperature will be
monitored by deploying Onset Hobo U26 Dissolved Oxygen Data Loggers
(www.onsetcomp.com) or equivalent sonde technology. These loggers will record
continuous DO and water temperature data at 15-minute intervals. Loggers will be
deployed beginning May 1, 2021 and record data through September 30, 2021 to capture
the low-flow/high-temperature period. Two loggers will be deployed, one upstream of the
dam near the proposed location of the intake and one downstream of the dam below the
tailrace. Precise deployment locations will be determined on site to ensure that the
conditions monitored are representative of the channel, to ensure operability over a range
of flow conditions, and to facilitate retrieval. Specific sites will be georeferenced using
Global Positioning System (GPS) and coordinates will be provided in the draft study
report.
Page 7 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
As necessary, and consistent with manufacturer specifications, loggers will be
equipped with a protective housing and bio-fouling guard and suspended from a weight
that is anchored to shore to facilitate retrieval and prevent displacement. Prior to
deployment, each logger will be calibrated per manufacturer specifications. Loggers will
subsequently be retrieved every two weeks to verify operation, download data, and clean
any fouling. During the study period, loggers will be recalibrated consistent with
manufacturer specifications, as necessary. Given the short two -week interval between
site visits, any data gaps due to logger loss or malfunction would likewise be short, limited
to the interval prior to deployment of a new logger. Nonetheless, a level of redundancy
will be provided by also deploying a water temperature logger (e.g., HOBO Pendant® MX
Water Temperature Data Logger) at each of the two sites. This would help ensure
continuity of water temperature data. Moreover, depending on the antecedent
relationship between water temperature and percent saturation of DO (as influenced by
atmospheric pressure and primary productivity), the redundant water temperature data
could potentially also be used to interpolate theoretical DO (mg/L) concentrations for a
missing period of record.
Data would be used to evaluate the change in DO saturation associated with the
current flow over the dam, rather than absolute DO levels. Future evaluation of
antidegradation standards would compare any aerating effect of the plunging flow over
the dam to the aeration provided by any future environmental flow commitments.
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that includes quality control (QC)
protocols and standard operating procedures will be submitted to VDEQ and other
interested agencies prior to initiation of the study. The QAPP will be adapted from
VDEQ's Water Quality Assessment Guidance Manual (VDEQ 2019) and Standard
Operating Procedures Manual (VDEQ 2020).
A study report will be produced that includes the following sections:
• Project information and background
• Study goals and objectives
• Study area
• Methods
• Results and analysis
• Summary
• References
• Appendices
Page 8 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
o Stakeholder consultation
o Raw data
o QA/QC data
3.2.5. Consistency with Accepted Practices
The proposed study is consistent with accepted professional practices and uses
standard scientific water quality sampling techniques used in most hydropower licensing
activities. The manufacturer of the proposed Onset Hobo U26 Dissolved Oxygen Data
Loggers reports that DO is recorded with an accuracy of ±0.2 mg/L (at <_8.0 mg/L) to ±0.5
mg/L (at 8.0 to 20 mg/L), and temperature with an accuracy of ±0.2°C.
3.2.6. Level of Cost and Effort
The study would be completed over a single field season (i.e., May through
September) in 2021, requiring site visits every two weeks to download data, verify
operation, and maintain equipment. The estimated cost for conducting this study is
$19,000 and the estimated level of effort is 133 hours.
3.2.7. Schedule
The water quality study plan, including the QAPP, will be developed in March and
April, and submitted to VDEQ and other interested agencies by April 30, 2021. The
proposed monitoring efforts will be conducted between May 1 and September 30, 2021.
3.2.8. Progress Reports
A final water quality study plan incorporating comments on this draft plan will be
submitted to the agencies by April 30, 2021. A draft study report providing the results of
the baseline monitoring will be provided to the agencies for review and comment by
October 31, 2021.
3.3. Impingement Study
In response to the ICD, the USFWS and VDWR requested that the Applicant
conduct an entrainment and impingement study to assess potential negative effects of
Project operations on the fish community. The USFWS, and VDWR by way of
Page 9 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
concurrence, also recommended that the Project incorporate a trash rack with a 0.75-inch
rather than a 2-inch clear spacing to offer greater protection for American Eels. The
USFWS stipulates that if a 0.75-inch spacing is adopted, only an impingement study needs
to be performed as the narrower spacing should exclude most fish from entering the
intake and passing through the turbine. In consultation with the agencies, the Applicant
has decided to adopt the recommendation of a 0.75-inch clear spacing. As such, this
proposed study does not assess entrainment, and rather focuses exclusively on assessing
impingement risks.
3.3.1. Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to evaluate the risk of impingement
mortality for all species and life stages of fish that may be impinged on the powerhouse
intake trash rack.
3.3.2. Existing Information
According to the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS 2020), 43
species of fish have been documented in the Upper Mainstem, North Fork, or South Fork
of the Hardware River (Table 2). Because Jefferson Mill Dam is located within the Upper
Mainstem, it is unclear whether all the species reported in that reach are present
upstream of the dam. Because this is a new Project, there is no information available on
impingement specific to this Project. For the documented species, information relevant to
assessing impingement risks (i.e., morphology, swimming ability, and length ranges) is
likely available to varying degrees from the literature.
Table 2. Fish species to be considered for Impingement Study based on their prior
documentation in the Upper Mainstem, South Fork, or North Fork Hardware River (Source: ICD
Exhibit Q. Note: the Project is located within the Upper Mainstem reach.
Family/Taxon Common Name
Scientific Name
Upper
Mainstem
South
Fork
North
Fork
Anguillidae Eel, American
Anguilla rostrata
✓
✓
✓
Catostomidae Chubsucker, Creek
Erimyzonoblongus
✓
Jumprock, Black
Moxostomacervinum
✓
Sucker, Northern Hog
Hypentelium nigricans
✓
Sucker, Torrent
Thoburniarhothoeca
✓
✓
✓
Sucker, White
Catostomuscommersonii
✓
✓
✓
Page 10 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
Centrarchidae
Bass, Largemouth
Micropterussalmoides
✓
✓
Bass, Rock
Ambloplites rupestris
✓
Bass,Smallmouth
Micropterusdolomieu
✓
✓
Bluegill
Lepomismacrochirus
✓
✓
✓
Sunfish, Green
Lepomiscyanellus
✓
✓
Sunfish, Redbreast
Lepomisauritus
✓
✓
✓
Sunfish,Redear
Lepomismicrolophus
✓
Warmouth
Lepomisgulosus
✓
Cyprinidae
Chub, Bluehead
Nocomisleptocephalus
✓
✓
✓
Chub, Bull
Nocomisraneyi
✓
Chub,Creek
Semotilusatromaculatus
✓
✓
✓
Chub, River
Nocomismicropogon
✓
Dace, Blacknose
Rhinichthysatratulus
✓
✓
✓
Dace, Longnose
Rhinichthyscataractae
✓
✓
Dace, Mountain Redbelly
Chrosomusoreas
✓
✓
✓
Dace, Rosyside
Clinostomusfunduloides
✓
✓
✓
Fallfish
Semotiluscorporalis
✓
✓
✓
Shiner,Comely
Notropisamoenus
✓
Shiner,Common
Luxiluscornutus
✓
✓
✓
Shiner,Golden
Notemigonuscrysoleucas
✓
✓
Shiner, Rosefin
Lythrurusardens
✓
Shiner, Rosyface
Notropisrubellus
✓
Shiner,Satinfin
Cyprinellaanalostana
✓
✓
✓
Shiner,Spottail
Notropishudsonius
✓
✓
Shiner, Swallowtail
Notropisprocne
✓
Shiner, Telescope
Notropistelescopus
✓
Stoneroller, Central
Campostoma anomalum
✓
Esocidae
Pickerel, Chain
Esoxniger
✓
Ictaluridae
Madtomspp.
Noturusspp.
✓
Madtom, Margined
Noturus insignis
✓
✓
✓
Lepisosteidae
Gar, Longnose
Lepisosteusosseus
✓
Percidae
Darter, Fantail
Etheostomaflabellare
✓
✓
✓
Darter, Glassy
Etheostomavitreum
✓
Darter, Johnny
Etheostomanigrum
✓
✓
✓
Page 11 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
Darter, Roanoke
Darter, Stripeback
Percina roanoka ✓
Percinanotogramma ✓
Petromyzontidae Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus
Poeciliidae Mosquitofish, Eastern Gambusiaholbrooki ✓
3.3.3. Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
Operations of hydropower projects often result in injury and mortality of a
percentage of fish that are impinged on powerhouse intake trash racks or entrained in
Project turbines. Data from this study would provide information necessary to conduct a
Project effects analysis and develop protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures to
improve downstream passage and survival at the Project.
3.3.4. Methods
Impingement at the Project may occur if intake velocities exceed the swimming
ability of fish approaching the trash rack, AND those fish are too large to become
entrained through the trash rack. Thus, impingement risk will be a function of intake
velocity, trash rack spacing, fish swimming ability, and fish size, as well as the probability of
a given species or life stage to encounter the intake. This study will consist of a desktop
analysis that will integrate each of these factors to evaluate the risk of impingement
mortality.
The impingement study will be accomplished through the following process:
1. For each species in Table 3.3-1, review literature for available information
regarding:
a. Body length range, by life stage if available
b. Relationship between body length and width
c. Swimming ability (burst and prolonged/critical) by body length
2. Define species guilds based on information availability, taxonomic family, and/or
similarities in morphometry and swimming ability.
3. Using available body length vs. width relationships for each species guild, identify
the minimum width -critical body length (L,idth), defined as the body length
corresponding to a width that would be excluded by a 0.75-inch rack.
Page 12 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
4. Using available length vs. swimming ability relationships for each species guild,
identify the swimming -critical body length (Ls.;.), defined as the maximum body
length for which intake velocity exceeds swimming ability.
5. Based on available data, best professional judgement, or an assumed probability
distribution, develop a theoretical length -frequency distribution for each species
guild.
6. Integrate each theoretical length -frequency distribution with Lwidth and Ls„,i. to
identify the proportion at risk of impingement for each species guild.
7. Review available information regarding life history, abundance, migratory behavior,
habitat utilization, or other biological factors that may influence impingement risk
at a population level. This step would only be necessary for those species guilds
with a portion of the length frequency distribution at risk of impingement.
8. For species guilds at risk of impingement, review the literature to assess whether
post -impingement survival could be greater than zero percent.
3.3.5. Consistency with Accepted Practices
This study uses standard desktop analyses used in many hydropower licensing
activities to evaluate impingement risk.
3.3.6. Level of Cost and Effort
The estimated cost for conducting this desktop study is $9,500 and the estimated
level of effort is 88 hours.
3.3.7. Schedule
The impingement study will be conducted during April 2021.
3.3.8. Progress Reports
A draft study report will be provided to the agencies for review and comment by
April 30, 2021.
Page 13 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
3.4. Fish Protection and Upstream and Downstream Passage
Studies
Currently, the only viable downstream fish passage alternative is over the dam.
Once the Project is constructed, there wiI I be two options for the downstream passage of
fish: (1) over the dam during high flows, and (2) through the powerhouse turbine. During
periods of lower flow, the majority of the flow would be routed through the turbine.
During periods of higher flow, flow would be routed through the unit as well as over the
dam. However, without an adequate downstream passage facility and plunge pool, fish
moving over the dam could be susceptible to injury or mortality. Fish moving downstream
through the powerhouse would be subjected to potential injury or mortality from
impingement or entrainment. Many hydroelectric project licenses have incorporated trash
racks with 1-inch clear bar spacing (0.75 inch if American eels are present) to physically
exclude most adult fish from the turbines. Alternate downstream passage routes, and
other features (e.g., reduced approach velocities, adequate plunge pools, etc.) may
encourage safe, timely, and effective downstream fish passage.
The USFWS, and VDWR by way of concurrence, requested that upstream and
downstream passage studies be completed. In consultation with the agencies, the
Applicant has agreed to 1) reduce the proposed trash rack clear spacing to 0.75 inches to
mitigate entrainment risks, 2) explore intake design alternatives to mitigate impingement
risks, 3) provide upstream passage for American Eel and Sea Lamprey, 4) provide safe,
timely, and effective downstream passage during Project operation via a downstream
bypass and suitable plunge pool, and 5) summarize the feasibility of alternatives
considered for upstream passage of additional species.
3.4.1. Goals and Objectives
The goal of this study is to provide information on potential fish passage and
protection structures, or other measures that could be utilized at this Project. The
information obtained will allow the Service's fish passage engineers to evaluate the
potential effectiveness of various upstream and downstream fish passage facilities
options. Specific objectives for this study are to continue agency consultation and develop
a framework for evaluating fish passage and protection alternatives within a fish passage
plan.
Page 14 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
3.4.2. Existing Information
No information is provided regarding currently available passage alternatives.
3.4.3. Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
Available options for safe downstream passage are currently limited, and some fish
attempting to move downstream are likely to be attracted to the powerhouse intake and
become entrained in the Project turbine, resulting in some immediate mortality, as well as
the potential for latent mortality and cumulative mortality from downstream hydropower
Projects (e.g., James River Projects) for diadromous species migrating to the ocean.
Without an adequate downstream passage facility and plunge pool, fish moving over the
dam are susceptible to injury. Although upstream passage is proposed for American Eel
and Sea Lamprey, there is currently no alternative for other migratory fish to move
upstream past the Project.
3.4.4. Methods
To date, consultation between the agencies and the Applicant has identified
prospective fish passage and protection measures to address certain concerns, including a
reduction in bar rack spacing, evaluating the feasibility of upstream passage for American
Eel and Sea Lamprey, and developing a downstream bypass alternative to provide safe,
timely, and effective downstream passage.
This study will entail the development of a fish passage plan. The plan will
summarize consultation, design alternatives, and feasibility assessment efforts to date for
fish passage and protection measures. Alternatives that have been fully developed
through agency consultation (e.g., reduced trash rack spacing) will be described in detail.
For measures of an experimental nature (e.g., upstream lamprey passage), or that require
additional design efforts or adaptive management, the plan will identify discrete steps
towards specific milestones for achieving fish passage and protection goals.
3.4.5. Consistency with Accepted Practices
The recommended study uses standard literature reviews and site -specific data
collection techniques common to most hydropower licensing activities.
Page 15 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
3.4.6. Level of Cost and Effort
The level of effort would involve a moderate literature review, discussions with
fishway engineers, and site -specific data collection. The fish passage plan will require an
estimated 40 hours to develop. Implementation of the fish passage plan may be
completed in less than one year but may require more time to design effective facilities or
measures. The actual cost is unknown and would depend on the number of alternatives
examined. The existing information is inadequate to allow for a thorough examination of
alternatives; however, most of the information needed should be available in the existing
literature.
3.4.7. Schedule
A draft fish passage plan will be completed during April and submitted for agency
review by April 30, 2021.
3.4.8. Progress Reports
The fish passage plan will summarize the schedule and content of progress reports
regarding fish passage and protection activities.
3.5. Wetland Delineation
3.5.1. Goals and Objectives
The goal of this study is to identify wetland habitats within the study area. The
objective is to document the location and extent of jurisdictional wetlands in the vicinity
of all areas affected by proposed construction activities within the Project area.
3.5.2. Existing Information
As summarized in the ICD, the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
identified two primary wetland types present within the study area: Riverine and
Freshwater Forested -Shrub Wetland.
3.5.3. Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
The proposed hydroelectric Project and associated fish passage features will
include construction activities that have the potential to affect waters of the United
Page 16 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
States, including wetland and stream habitats. The proposed study wiI I delineate these
sensitive habitats to ensure that appropriate protective, mitigative, and enhancement
measures can be developed.
3.5.4. Methods
Routine wetland determination methods described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2012 Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Regional Supplement will be applied throughout the survey area. Plots will be
placed within representative areas to characterize vegetation, record hydrology
indicators, and describe local soils. The boundaries of the wetland sites will be mapped
using survey data recorded with a global positioning system (GPS). A wetland delineation
report will be submitted to an USACE regulatory specialist, because the USACE is
responsible for determining jurisdiction over wetland sites.
3.5.5. Consistency with Accepted Practices
The wetland delineation will follow the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual
and the 2012 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement.
3.5.6. Level of Cost and Effort
The proposed delineation and reporting will take 4 to 6 days of effort and cost
approximately $5,000.
3.5.7. Schedule
A wetland delineation will be completed between late March and April of 2021.
3.5.8. Progress Reports
A wetland delineation report will be submitted to the USACE for jurisdictional
determination within 30 days of field study completion.
Page 17 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
4. Study Requests not Adopted
4.1. Fish Surveys
4.1.1. Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study request were to provide information on the
existing fishery resources near the Project including information on the current
distribution of the diadromous fish species including American Shad, American Eel, and
Sea Lamprey, and mussel host fish species near the Project. Fish surveys were requested
both upstream and downstream of the Project to aid in the determination of Project
impacts and to establish a baseline for future assessments. The applicant disagrees that
fish surveys are needed to determine the effects of the proposed Project or that baseline
surveys would support future evaluation of Project effects, particularly for diadromous or
anadromous fish species.
The Project proposes to add a small hydropower turbine to an existing dam that
currently effectively blocks upstream fish passage. The Project is applying for an
exemption from FERC licensing that is available for this type of retrofit project due to its
limited environmental impact. The Project proposes to add upstream passage facilities for
diadromous American Eel and Sea Lamprey. The impact of the Project would be a net
benefit for these diadromous fishes and would be neutral for American Shad and mussel
host species.
Using baseline fisheries surveys to evaluate the benefit provided by an eel ramp or
other Project effects is not common practice due to the wide range of factors affecting fish
populations. The Project has no nexus with a wide range of factors affecting fish
populations in this river network including: hydrology, predation, disease, fishery
pressure, stocking, or the ocean conditions relevant for diadromous species. Most
evaluations of fish passage benefits are more mechanistic, directly measuring either
metrics of access to fish habitat or measures of fish movement, rather than attempting to
estimate the impacts of those improvements to dynamic fish population numbers. For
example, the Jefferson Mill Dam has been ranked by the Chesapeake Bay Fish Passage
Prioritization Tool based on the presence of diadromous fish in the watershed below the
barrier, landscape condition and stream habitat to be gained by providing fish passage.
The study request also states that a comprehensive list of species found in the
Project reservoir is also necessary to inform the requested entrainment and impingement
Page 18 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
study (3.3). It goes on to request that study results include both the temporal and spatial
aspects of species distribution; age, size, sex, and condition data; habitat utilization; and
fish movement patterns. These data are not necessary to evaluate entrainment and
impingement risks to reservoir fishes. The goal of the entrainment and impingement study
is to protect downstream migrating fishes. The Project is adopting USFWS's request to
add a V trash rack to exclude larger -bodied fishes from the proposed Project. Regardless
of the temporal and spatial aspects of fish species distribution, the fishes currently
present, and any future fishes, will be protected. Impingement risk can be evaluated for all
potentially present fish species to develop approach velocity criteria that are protective
for both current and future fish populations. Further, the Project will be required to
improve the suitability of the downstream passage route over the dam by increasing the
plunge pool depth to meet passage criteria. This will again provide a net benefit for all
fishes, regardless of age, size, sex, condition, or season.
The USFWS request includes a request for information on the habitat present in
the river. As a run -of -river Project using an existing dam and powerhouse structure, any
impacts to physical habitat will be temporary and minimal.
4.1.2. Existing Information
The applicant is not aware of any information on recent fish surveys conducted
near the Project. According to Table E1-2 in Exhibit E - Environmental Report of the ICD,
40 species of fish have the potential to occur in the Upper Mainstem Hardware River
where the Project is located. Table E1-2 shows the potential for 36 species of fish to occur
in the Lower Mainstem Hardware River, which begins 2.5 miles downstream of the
Project. The primary source for this information was the VaFWIS (VaFWIS 2020).
Beginning in 1992, American Shad fry were stocked in the James River to help with the
recovery of this species. This stocking was discontinued in 2017. Despite the stocking
efforts, the American Shad population in the James River has not recovered, even in the
lower reaches of the James River (https://dwrvirginia.eov/fishing/shad-restoration/).
Although site -specific distribution and abundance data are not available, criteria to
support protective measures including exclusion of American Eels from the turbine,
upstream passage for American Eel, and downstream passage for all species support
protection of all fishes. Exclusion of larger fishes combined with high survival rates for
smaller -bodied fishes in the Natel turbine provide assurance of year-round protection of
both current and future fish populations.
Page 19 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
4.1.3. Nexus Between Project and Proposed Study
The existing Jefferson Mill Dam serves as a barrier to upstream and downstream
fish migration. The Project proposes to provide upstream passage for American Eel and
Sea Lamprey and improve existing downstream passage conditions by increasing the
depth of the plunge pool for flows over the dam, particularly during low flow conditions.
Once constructed and operating, there is the potential for the Project to reduce survival
of downstream migrating fish due to turbine entrainment and/or impingement on the
debris rack at the intake, although measures have been proposed to minimize this
potential impact. Once operating, the Project could also alter fish habitat by redirecting
flow and changing tailrace flow patterns, which could reduce aeration, channel
morphology, and sedimentation patterns in downstream areas, although most sediment
transport occurs at higher flows when the Project would represent a relatively small
proportion of overall flow.
4.1.4. Methods
The study request includes standard scientific collecting techniques used in most
hydropower licensing activities. Spring fish surveys were requested below the Project to
assess the presence and abundance of anadromous fish species. Comprehensive fish
surveys were requested during the low flow period in late summer/early fall upstream of,
within, and downstream of the reservoir in the tailrace area, and in the Hardware River
within the downstream extent of the potential Project effects. A variety of sampling gear,
including gill nets, trap nets, seines, and electroshocking were requested to be used as
appropriate for site conditions. The USFWS and other resource agencies indicated that
they may recommend a second year of fish surveys if river flows are atypical during the
initial study year. Study results were requested to include species, size, age, sex, and
condition, as well as movement patterns and habitat utilization. Standard water quality
data (i.e., water temperature, DO, pH, and conductivity) were requested to be collected in
conjunction with these surveys.
For spring fish surveys, the USFWS recommended fish surveys be conducted every
2 weeks beginning in mid -April and continuing until June 30 to assess the presence and
abundance of migratory fish species (e.g., American Shad) downstream of the Project. A
one-time fish survey for these migratory species would not be sufficient given the
year-to-year variability and the environmental factors that can affect migration (e.g.,
temperature and flow). Fish surveys over a longer time -frame were requested to ensure
these migratory fish are captured during their migration. It could be possible to use the
Page 20 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
monitoring data from Boshers Dam as an indication of when migratory fish species are
likely to appear in the Hardware River and narrow the sampling window based on the
migration timing observed downstream in that year.
For late summer/early fall fish surveys, the USFWS recommends fish surveys be
performed upstream of, within, and downstream of the reservoir. These fish surveys were
requested during the low flow period so that a more comprehensive assessment of the
fish community could be performed. These fish surveys would be used to determine what
fish species may be impacted by entrainment/impingement and to determine baseline
conditions prior to the initiation of operations to assess impact from Project operations
once the Project is operating.
4.1.5. Consistency with Accepted Practices
The methods requested are commonly used to establish fish distribution and
abundance in stream and reservoir environments.
4.1.6. Level of Cost and Effort
The level of effort would involve one field crew sampling on a seasonal basis. The
study would last 1 year but could be extended to a second year if river conditions were
atypical. The applicant estimates costs of approximately $95,000 (for 1 year) although
cost would depend upon the gear types used, number of sampling locations, years of study
required due to flow conditions, and the ability to combine field studies (e.g., fisheries and
water quality) into more efficient multi -study field efforts.
The study request indicated that there are no existing data to fully assess Project
impacts, and there are no alternatives to conducting standard fishery surveys. The
applicant strongly disagrees with this characterization. The studies requested are not
standard for retrofit hydroelectric projects built on existing dam structures. The Project is
proposing to improve both upstream and downstream fish passage at Jefferson Mill Dam.
The Jefferson Mill Dam has already been assessed as a fish passage barrier, in the
absence of site -specific data. The benefits of the proposed eel ramp do not require
extensive fish surveys to assess. Fish size and abundance data collected in a study period
would be expanded to include ages and life stages not observed, and population levels
anticipated under recovery efforts, regardless of current abundance levels. The potential
risks of turbine mortality associated with entrainment and impingement should be
Page 21 of 22
Jefferson Mill Study Plan
evaluated more broadly than on the basis of a study period's catch data. Impingement risk
can be assessed for all species with the potential to occur, resulting in a more protective
design. Capture efficiencies for any field study are likely to be less than 100 percent, and
field surveys may miss some fishes in space or time. Presuming potential presence for all
fishes observed in the basin is both a less costly study and more protective to fisheries
resources. Modifying the tailrace to bring downstream passage over the dam into
compliance with passage criteria allows the applicant to be protective of fish resources
without collecting a costly snapshot of fish use of the existing reservoir. The proposed eel
ramp and downstream passage modification are passive measures, allowing volitional
passage across a wide range of flow conditions and do not require preliminary data on
migration timing or run size to design for maximum benefit.
5. References
VaFWIS. 2020. Data queries for Fish and Mussel Species in the Hardware River. Accessed
online April 10, 2020 at: https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation -Division of Natural Heritage. 2020.
Natural Heritage Data Explorer.
http://www.dcrvirginia.gov/natural-heritage/nhdeinfo; accessed November 4,
2020.
Page 22 of 22
Commonwealth of Virginia
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL Q UALITY
Matthew J. Strickler
Secretary of Natural Resources
February 11, 2021
Ms. Jessica Penrod
Project Developer
Natel Energy, Inc.
2401 Monarch St
Alameda, CA 94502
1111 E. Main Street, Suite 1400, Richmond, Virginia 23219
P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218
(800)592-5482
www.deg.virginia.gov
VIA EMAIL
Re: Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC #15038), Albemarle County, VA,
Review of the Initial Consultation Document and Study Request
Dear Ms. Penrod:
David K. Paylor
Director
(804)698-4000
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has reviewed the Revised
Consultation Document provided via email on November 25, 2020, and a second Revised
Consultation Document (referred to as the ICD in this letter) provided via email on January 22,
2021. The ICD contained a revised layout of the proposed design for the Jefferson Mill
Hydroelectric Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No. 15038 [Project]).
The Project is located on the Hardware River in Albemarle County, VA.
On January 6, 2021, DEQ participated in a virtual meeting with agency stakeholders, when the
November 25, 2020 document and conceptual plans for fish passage around the existing
Jefferson Mill dam were discussed. Representatives from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) expressed concerns that
the project design, as proposed, may not adequately protect fish species in the Hardware River.
Both USFWS and DWR expressed support for the applicant's effort to include fish passage
infrastructure in the project design. DEQ recommends that the applicant continue to coordinate
with the USFWS and DWR in finalizing a project design that provides fish passage over the
existing dam and that is protective of instream beneficial uses of the Hardware River, including
fish and benthic species.
Comments on the ICD
Exhibit A - Description of the Project:
Table 1 lists the maximum hydraulic capacity of the proposed project as 50 cubic feet per second
(cfs) and the minimum hydraulic capacity of the project as 15 cfs. DEQ operates a stream -gage
station (No. 02030000, Hardware River below Briery Run near Scottsville, VA) that is located
approximately 3 miles downstream of the proposed project. Flow records from this station,
which has a period of record of daily discharge estimates from 1938 to the present, indicate that
the median flows during August, September, and October are less than the maximum hydraulic
capacity of the proposed project. The monthly exceedance flows listed in the ICD (Table E14)
for the Hardware River at the Project site also indicate that the July median flow is within the
operating range. Therefore, the operating range of the proposed project may exceed inflow more
than half of the time during these months. The stream gage records also indicate that low flows
during other months may be less than the Project's maximum operating capacity. Diversion of
all or nearly all inflow would result in little to no flow over the dam during these periods,
potentially impacting the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat, as well as water quality, in the
area immediately below the dam.
Exhibit E — Environmental Report:
Section 1.1 states that the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping tool was used to
identify jurisdictional wetlands to gain a general sense of the distribution and characteristics of
wetlands near the project location. It also states that freshwater forested /shrub wetlands are
present just upstream of the powerhouse. DEQ recommends that the applicant contact the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District — Regulatory Branch to obtain a
jurisdictional wetland determination for the proposed project area. The areal extent of any
jurisdictional wetlands that would be impacted by construction of the proposed penstock intake
and outfall should be determined prior to finalization of the project design.
Section 2.3 does not mention the frequency of occurrences when the Project operation would
result in no flow over the dam spillway. The potential for impacts to aquatic resources or water
quality in the portion of the Hardware River immediately below the dam is not specifically
addressed. DEQ recommends that this issue be addressed via a water quality monitoring study,
especially if the presence of an island that separates draft tube outflow from the plunge pool
below the dam is confirmed (see below). Another approach would be to design an operations
plan that would allow a minimum flow over the dam crest (such as a "one -inch veil" flow) at all
times to ensure impacts to aquatic habitat and water quality directly below the dam are
minimized.
Exhibit F — Drawings:
The figure showing the areal layout and topography for the project area (page 16 of the ICD)
shows a small island adjacent to the draft tube outflow point that may direct turbine outflow
away from the plunge pool area immediately below the dam. This island is not shown on the
other maps contained in Exhibit G. DEQ recommends that the presence of this island be
confirmed and that the potential effect of the proposed design upon the hydrology of the river
immediately downstream of the dam be estimated.
2
Study Request
DEQ requests that the applicant be required to conduct the following study to assist in
identifying potential impacts to beneficial uses in the Hardware River.
Water Quality Study
A water quality study is requested to assess the impact of Project operations on water quality in
the Hardware River. The pre -operations baseline water quality study would be compared to
water quality data collected during operations to assess impacts of operations on water quality in
the Hardware River.
1. Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to provide pre -construction and pre -operation water
quality information to provide a baseline against which to compare dissolved oxygen (DO) and
temperature conditions following commencement of Project operations. The water quality study
is needed to provide an estimation of the potential effects of the Project upon downstream
beneficial uses.
2. Resource Management Goals
The Hardware River in the vicinity of the proposed project is managed by DWR as a warm water
fishery. Exhibit E also notes a documented population of federally listed endangered James
Spiny Mussel in the Hardware River that could be impacted by Project operations. It is
important that Project operations do not impact water quality downstream of the Project to
protect aquatic resources and other beneficial uses.
3. Public Interest
The requestor is a resource agency responsible for administering and implementing the State
Water Control Law to manage state waters for the benefit of all in -stream and off -stream
beneficial uses.
4. Existing Information
Section 1.3.4 of the Environmental Report in Exhibit E states that limited water quality data is
available in the project area. According to this section, limited data is available for temperature
and specific conductance in the Hardware River. Water quality data collected by DEQ has
documented exceedances of fecal coliform and Escherichia coli standards over the past 20 years.
It appears that no dissolved oxygen (DO) data are available in the vicinity of the Project. The
available water quality data are insufficient to assess impacts from Project operations on water
quality. However, daily flow records from a gaging station located approximately 3 miles
downstream indicate that the median flow during July through October is less than the maximum
hydraulic capacity of the project as proposed. The same flow records also indicate that low
flows during most other months are also within the operating range of the proposed project,
suggesting that during a drought there could be little to no flow over the dam crest for weeks to
months.
5. Nexus to Project Operations and Effects
The existing dam impounds the river. Diverting water through the turbine instead of over the
dam crest could affect water quality in the Hardware River downstream of the Project. Water
quality parameters that could be affected by operations include water temperature and DO, which
are critical to the quality of the aquatic habitat. The proposed operation would divert all flow
around the dam during periods of relatively low to normal flow in the summer and fall, and
during very -low to low percentile flows during all other months. This could affect water quality
immediately below the dam and along the bank opposite the turbine discharge where less flow
would be provided.
In particular, project -related reductions to the August Low Flow (ALF) in these areas may result
in aquatic life impacts. The ALF is the minimum flow observed in a watershed during the month
of August during any particular year.
6. Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice
The water quality study should include measurements of water temperature and DO on a
continuous (15 minute intervals) basis using multi -parameter water quality instrumentation (i.e.
sondes) upstream and downstream of the dam at the proposed location of the intake and below
the tailrace. Water quality measurements should be collected from May 1 until the end of
September to include periods of relatively high temperature and low flows. During these low
flow periods in late summer/early fall, most or all of the flow would be passing through the
turbine and little, if any, flow would be going over the dam crest. Every two weeks, the probes
should be checked and cleaned to avoid fouling and data should be downloaded. The
recommended study uses standard scientific water quality sampling techniques used in most
hydropower licensing activities.
7. Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice
The level of effort would be low and would involve the deployment of water quality sondes, and
downloading of data and cleaning the probes every two weeks. The actual cost is unknown but
would be relatively low.
Potential for DEQ permitting requirements
The diversion of surface water in the Hardware River proposed for the project may be subject to
the requirements of the Virginia Water Protection Permit (VWPP) requirements (9VAC25-210).
DEQ recommends that the applicant arrange a pre -application meeting with the DEQ Office of
Water Supply staff to determine any permitting requirements that may be needed.
13
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ICD. If you have any questions, please contact
Brian McGurk of this office at (804)-698-4180 or via email at brian.mc urk @deq.vir ig nia.gov.
Sincerely,
Joseph Grist
Water Withdrawal Permitting and Compliance Manager
DEQ Office of Water Supply
Cc: Alan Weaver, DWR - via Email
Scott Smith, DWR — via Email
John McCloskey, USFWS — via Email
Brian McGurk, Water Withdrawal Permit Writer — DEQ
Matthew J. Strickler COMMONWEALTH of VIR GINIA
Secretary of Natural Resources Depurtrnent of Wlldl fe Resources
January 25, 2021
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St., N.E., Room IA
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Ms. Bose:
Ryan J. Brown
Executive Director
Re: Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project
(FERC #15038), Albemarle County, VA,
Review of the Initial Consultation
Document and Study Requests, ESSLog#
40462
The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR, Department), as the
Commonwealth's wildlife and freshwater fish management agency, exercises law enforcement
and regulatory jurisdiction over those resources, inclusive of State or Federally Endangered
or Threatened species, but excluding listed insects. We are a consulting agency under the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and we
provide environmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated through the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the
Virginia Department of Transportation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and other state or federal agencies. Our role in these procedures is to
determine likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and to recommend
appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts.
We have reviewed the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) provided via email on
November 9, 2020, and the Revised ICD provided via email on November 25, 2020 with a
revised layout of the proposed design for the Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project (Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No. 15038 [Project]). The Project is located on the
Hardware River in Albemarle County, VA. The Department participated in the Public meeting
held virtually on November 25, 2020. The Department offers the following comments on the
ICD and Revised ICD and concurs with the list of study requests to fill data gaps and to assess
the impacts from Project operations, described in greater detail in the attached U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) letter. This list was developed based on the Department's and the
Service's discussions with the proponent.
Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities
7870 VILLA PARK DRIVE, SUITE 400, P.O. BOX 90778, HENRICO, VA 23228
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 25, 2021
Page 2
Natel Energy, Inc. (Natel) provided a presentation on several revised designs for the
turbine intake and discharge and turbine configuration on a conference call held on January 6,
2021. A presentation on a design for upstream fish passage was also provided. Several issues
on these designs were discussed. However, no resolution on these issues was reached. As
recent as January 22, 2021, Natel modified its design represented in the ICD. The Department
will continue discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and Natel to develop
a design that addresses our concerns. Therefore, the Department did not provide comments on
these revised designs in this letter. The Department will provide comments on these revised
designs at a later date.
The dam currently presents an obstacle to recreational boaters, as they must portage
around it to proceed upstream or downstream, likely limiting recreational boating in this reach.
Natel proposes creating designated portage upstream of the dam and downstream parking and
hand -carry boat launch facilities that would enhance recreational use by boaters facilitating
portage around the dam. Furthermore, the Virginia Outdoors Plan (VOP, VDCR 2018) assessed
outdoor recreation trends and identified long-term recreation and land conservation needs. Water
and land trails were identified as the third most popular activity, according to 43 percent of
respondents to the VOP's Virginia Outdoors Demand Survey. The proposed parking and hand -
carry launch will provide boating access that connects this reach of the Hardware River with an
existing boating access at the DWR Hardware River Wildlife Management Area (WMA), and other
access points downstream on the James River.
In 1999 installation of a vertical slot fishway at Bosher's Dam on the James River near
Richmond provided fish passage to the Jefferson Mill Dam on the Hardware River. Annual DWR
monitoring identified at least 25 fish species using the fishway including American Shad (Alosa
sapidissima), Sea Lamprey (PetronrFon marinus) and American Eel (Anguilla rostrata). This
provision of migratory access to the watershed upstream of Bosher's warrants fish passage at the
Project.
The Virginia Wildlife Action Plan (WAP, VDGIF 2015) identifies strategies to conserve and
restore the 883 species that are identified as either critically imperiled or in decline. The WAP was
recently accepted as a comprehensive plan by FERC for projects in Virginia. Several migratory fish
species found within the James River and its tributaries are identified in the plan as needing
conservation and restoration efforts, including the American Shad (Tier IV), Alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) (Tier IV), and American Eel (Tier III). Tiers in the WAP range from Tier I species,
which are most at risk of extinction and in greatest need of conservation actions, to Tier IV species
with a lower risk and conservation need. Specifically regarding rivers and streams, the WAP
identifies lack of aquatic connectivity as a significant threat to the conservation of aquatic species.
The WAP recommends enhancing aquatic connectivity by removing or modifying dams and other
impediments so that fish and other aquatic species may move more freely. Providing fish passage at
this dam would benefit these migratory species and be consistent with the WAP recommendations.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 25, 2021
Page 3
Mussel species in the Hardware River include James Spinymussel (Parvaspina collina;
FESE, Tier I), Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta; Tier III), Creeper (Strophitus undulatus;
Tier IV), and Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata). Creeper was a new find during an August
2019 survey. DWR does not currently have any records for Green Floater (Lasmigona
subviridis; ST, Tier II; currently under federal review) in the Hardware River, but we have
found the species in the James River both upstream and downstream of the confluence with the
Hardware River, and the Hardware River models as potential habitat for this species.
The Jefferson Mill Dam is the most downstream dam in the Hardware River with no
upstream fish passage; thus the dam restricts movement of migratory and resident fish species.
The James River below the dam provides important spawning habitat for anadromous species
including American Shad and Sea Lamprey, and it provides habitat for the catadromous
American Eel. A recent study concluded that provision of fish passage resulting from the
removal of Embrey Dam from the Rappahannock River led to increased abundance and size
class diversity in the American Eel population in headwater tributaries up to 150 km distant from
Embrey Dam (Hitt et al. 2012). Other migratory fish species including Striped Bass (Morone
saxatilis) and Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) are known to occupy the James River
downstream of Bosher's Dam. These species also may currently, or in the future, utilize the
Bosher's Dam fishway and may thereby benefit from fish passage at Jefferson Mill Dam.
In fact, approximately seven (7) additional Hardware River miles would be available to
migratory fish if fish passage is provided. Allowing upstream access for migratory fish would
also facilitate restoration of freshwater mussel populations, which depend on particular fish
species as hosts to complete their life cycle. Restoration of mussel populations in turn would
result in water quality improvements, due to the well -documented filtering capacities of
freshwater mussels. Providing upstream access to diadromous fish also would enhance the food
supply for fish -eating wildlife as these fish move into habitats above the dam.
DWR's top priority for fish passage at Jefferson Mill Dam is for American Eel and Sea
Lamprey followed in priority by passage for resident fish species that may include freshwater
mussel hosts. While American Shad migrate each spring into the James watershed beyond the
Boshers fishway, the James River population remains very low thus, there is no current need for
American Shad passage at Jefferson Mill Dam. However, in the future, American Shad use of
the middle James River and its tributaries such as the Hardware River may increase to the point
that American Shad passage needs at Jefferson Mill Dam will need to be re-evaluated.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 25, 2021
Page 4
Further supporting this argument, the Chesapeake Bay Fish Passage Prioritization Tool
(https://maps.freshwatemetwork.org/chesapeake/#) ranks barriers based on ecological metrics
such as the presence of diadromous fish in the watershed below a barrier, landscape condition
and stream habitat to be gained by providing fish passage. Jefferson Mill Dam currently ranks
as a Tier 2 priority that equates to the top 10% of nearly 4,000 ranked dams in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed in terms of potential benefits to be gained by providing fish passage at this dam.
In conclusion, the Department concurs with the USFWS comments and request that the
applicant be required to conduct studies, identified in the USFWS letter (attached), to identify
what resources may be affected by Project operations is in the public interest.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ICD. If you have any questions,
please contact Ernie Aschenbach at (804) 367-2733 or via email at
emie.aschenbach(a,dwr.virginia.gov.
Sincerely,
Raymond T. Fernald, Manager
Wildlife Information and Environmental Services
RTF/EFA
Attachment
Cc: Ryan J. Brown, DWR
Michael Bednarski, DWR
Ernie Aschenbach, DWR
Cindy Schulz, USFWS
John McCloskey, USFWS
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 25, 2021
Page 5
Literature Cited
American Rivers. 2002. Ecology of Dam Removal. Washington, DC. 17 pp.
Bednarek, A.T. 2001. Undamming Rivers: A Review of the Ecological Impacts of Dam
Removal. Environmental Management 27(6): 803-814.
Hitt, N.P., S. Eyler and J.E.B. Wofford. 2012. Dam Removal Increases American Eel Abundance
in Distant Headwater Streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141(5):
1171-1179.
Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP). 2020. Comprehensive Southeast Aquatic
Barrier Inventory. https://southeastaquatics.net/. (downloaded 2020-07-27 from
http://connectivity.sarpdata.com/). SARP/USFWS.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2018. Virginia Outdoors Plan. Richmond,
VA. 211 pp.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2015. Virginia Wildlife Action Plan.
Henrico, VA. 1135 pp.
N� HT FT D.5.
is &WILDLIFE
A United States Department of the Interior SERVICE
7
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
0 U4'"n7
Virginia Field Office
6669 Short Lane
Gloucester, VA 23061
January 22, 2021
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St., N.E., Room lA
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC
# 15038), Review of Initial Consultation
Document and Study Requests, Albemarle
County, VA
Dear Secretary Bose:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Initial Consultation Document (ICD)
provided via email on November 9, 2020, and the Revised ICD provided via email on November 25,
2020 with a revised layout of the proposed design for the Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project (Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No. 15038 [Project]). The Project is located on the Hardware
River in Albemarle County, VA. The Service participated in the Public meeting held virtually on
November 25, 2020. The Service offers the following comments on the ICD and Revised ICD and
provides a list of study requests to fill data gaps and to assess the impacts from Project operations.
Natel Energy, Inc. (Natel) provided a presentation on several revised designs for the turbine intake and
discharge and turbine configuration on a January 6, 2021 conference call. A presentation on a design for
upstream fish passage was also provided. Several issues related to these designs were discussed.
However, no resolution on these issues was achieved. The Service will continue discussions with Natel
to develop a design that addresses our concerns. Therefore, the Service will provide comments on these
revised designs at a later date.
Fees Required to Develop Section 30(c) Conditions
The FERC regulations [ 18 CFR 4.30l (b)] specify that a fish and wildlife agency must provide a
prospective Section 30(c) Applicant with a reasonable estimate of the total costs the agency anticipates it
will incur to set mandatory terms and conditions for the proposed project within the comment period
provided in section 4.38(b)(2)(iv). Based on the size and scope of the proposed Project and associated
resource issues, we estimate the Service will incur a total cost of $39,675, to set terms and conditions for
the proposed Project.
Initial Consultation Document
INTERIOR REGION 1 • NORTH ATLANTIC-APPALACHIAN
CONNECTICUT. DELAWARE. DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA. KENTUCKY. MAINE. MARYLAND. MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE. NEW JERSEY. NEW YORK. PENNSYLVANIA. RHODE ISLAND. VERMONT
VIRGINIA. WEST VIRGINIA
Exhibit A, Description of the Project, Proposed Facilities: This section states that a single D-058
Restoration Hydro Turbine engineered by Natel is proposed for installation with an installed capacity of
22 Kilowatts. The section states that the proposed turbine is a vertical propeller turbine with 8.5 feet of
design head. Natel states that the Restoration Hydro Turbine proposed for installation is fish -friendly
with greater than 99% safe passage of fish less than 300 millimeters at 7 meters of head
(https://www.natelenergy.com/turbines/). This conclusion is based primarily on studies using rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Amaral et al. 2020). Rainbow trout were selected as the test species for
the study because they are representative of many salmonids and other boney fishes commonly entrained
at hydropower projects. It is not clear from this study that large adult American eels (Anguilla rostrata)
migrating downstream can safely pass through the turbine. Adult American eels would be particularly
susceptible to injury or mortality because of their large body size and long (4-5 feet), cylindrical shape.
To protect American eels, the Service recommends that American eels be excluded from entering the
intake. If American eels are excluded from the intake, either an alternative downstream passage needs to
be provided (e.g., downstream bypass) or sufficient flow needs to be provided over the dam crest to
allow safe, timely, and effective downstream passage for American eel. In either case, a sufficient
plunge pool would need to be provided either below the downstream bypass discharge or below the dam
for safe downstream passage depending on which downstream passage route is provided.
Exhibit A, Description of the Project, Proposed Facilities, Intake: This section states that a 4.5-feet
wide by 9.3-feet tall rack, angled at 70 degrees from horizontal, will prevent river debris from entering
the intake. The vertical rack blades will be 0.5-inch thick and have a 2-inch wide clear gap between
blades. This spacing will not prevent American eels (and other large fish) from entering the intake. To
protect fish from entering the intake, the Service's standard recommends spacing for trash racks is f-
inch (0.75 inch if American eel is present) clear spacing and an approach velocity not exceeding 2 feet
per second measured at a distance of 1 foot upstream of the trash tracks. Because American eels have
been documented in the Hardware River, 0.75 inch spacing for the trash rack and an approach velocity
less than 2 feet per second is recommended.
The use of horizontal bars on the trash racks has been shown to exclude more fish than those with
vertical bars having the same spacing, and impinged fish are better able to escape trash racks with
horizontal bars because their side -to -side movements are not restricted as they would be when impinged
between vertical bars. Trash racks with rounded bars also allow for tighter spacing with less associated
head loss.
Exhibit A, Description of the Project, Proposed Facilities, Draft Tube: This section states that the
draft tube will exit the downstream end of the turbine room and continue through a notch cut into the
existing dam abutment. According to Exhibit F — Drawings, Hydro Site Layout of the Revised Layout
provided via email on November 25, 2020, the turbine discharge would be on the right descending bank
alongside the old mill building. The diversion of water through the turbine could have an impact on river
channel hydrology, water quality and aquatic habitat below the dam as a large portion of the flow is
discharged through the turbine on the right descending bank and less flow will be passing over the dam.
The impacts on river flow below the dam during operations can impact the quantity and quality of
aquatic habitat below the dam, particularly during low flow periods. The Service recommends that Natel
work with the Service and the other resource agencies to develop an approach for assessing how
operations may affect aquatic habitat below the dam and whether operations should be modified to
improve aquatic habitat. One possible solution would be to develop an approach for providing a
minimum flow over the dam crest to ensure impacts to aquatic habitat and water quality directly below
the dam are minimized.
Exhibit A, Description of the Project, Proposed Facilities, Fish Passage Facilities: This section
states that after initial consultation with the Service and Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources
2
(VDWR), the applicant understands the need for upstream passage for American eel and sea lamprey
(Petromyzon marinus) at the Project. The Service supports this effort to provide fish passage for these
species at the Project. Natel will need to work with the Service and the VDWR to develop an approach
for providing safe, timely and effective upstream passage for these species.
Sea lamprey is an anadromous species that migrates upstream to spawn during the spring and early
summer. Information regarding sea lamprey upstream passage is limited. Sea lamprey use traditional
fish ladders but little is known of actual passage effectiveness. While Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus
tridentatus) structures have been developed, implemented, and studied on the Columbia River, there are
few fish passage facilities that are designed specifically to provide upstream passage for sea lamprey. In
the Great Lakes region, sea lamprey are trapped utilizing an American eel ladder with peg substrate.
Natel will need to work closely with the resource agencies to develop an effective upstream passage
approach for sea lamprey.
While fish passage for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) may not be justified at this point given their
low numbers in the James River, this species remains a high priority for restoration. Consistent with our
responsibilities to prevent loss of, or damage to, fish and wildlife resources and pursuant to Section
30(c) of the Federal Power Act, the Service will be providing terms and conditions for inclusion in the
exemption that will include the design, construction and operation of upstream and downstream fish
passage for American shad and any other target species identified in the future at the exemptee's
expense when notified to do so by the Service. The Service will recommend upstream and downstream
passage for American shad in the future if their populations in the James River improve and they are
present at sufficient numbers in the Hardware River below the Project to justify passage.
Exhibit A, Description of the Project, Construction, Cofferdam — Downstream: This section states
that if the federally listed endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) (JSM) are identified in
the construction area during the pre -construction survey, all mussels will be relocated as per federal and
state guidelines. No specific information on the mussel surveys and relocations is provided. Natel should
work with the Service and VDWR to develop an acceptable survey protocol and relocation plan. The
Freshwater Mussel Guidelines for Virginia provide recommendations for developing a plan for
conducting freshwater mussel surveys and relocations. The guidelines can be found at
httos://dwr.vir ig nia. ovg /wp-content/uploads/mussel-guidelines-11-2018.pdf. As noted in the guidelines,
federally listed mussels must not be relocated during the initial survey. If federally listed mussels are
found, they must remain exactly where found and all specimens should be photo documented, if
possible. Coordinate with the Service and VDWR to determine future actions.
Exhibit E — Environmental Report, Environmental Setting, Fish and Wildlife Resources: This
section states that for the most comprehensive assessment of fish and wildlife species distribution in the
Hardware River, an online query of the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) was
used as the primary source of information for this review. The Service's Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) system is used to identify any federal trust resources (including federally listed or
proposed threatened and endangered species) that may occur within the action area. The action area
should include not only the footprint of the dam but areas upstream and downstream of the dam in the
Hardware River that could be impacted from construction and/or operations. IPaC can be found at:
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/. IPaC should be utilized to ensure information on federal trust species is up to
date for this Project. The identification of federally listed species in the Project action area in IPaC is
part of the Service's Virginia Field Office's online project review process to facilitate compliance with
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended (ESA). As a
reminder, Federal agencies, including FERC, have responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to
consult with the Service regarding projects that may affect federally listed species or designated critical
habitat and confer with the Service regarding projects that may affect federally proposed species or proposed
critical habitat. Pursuant to 50 CFR§402.08, Federal agencies have the option to designate a non-federal
representative for the purposes of conducting informal consultation or preparation of a Biological
Assessment. The Service recommends that FERC or its designated non-federal representative utilize the
online project review process regarding construction and operation of the Project. The online project review
process can be found at https://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/endaneg red/projectreviews.html.
Exhibit E — Environmental Report, Environmental Impacts, Fish and Wildlife Resources,
Potential Impacts of Project: This section provides a list of potential impacts of Project operations on
fish and wildlife resources including impingement of fish on the debris rack, entrainment of fish, loss of
aquatic habitat in the footprint of the proposed powerhouse and localized changes to aquatic habitat in
forebay and tailrace. An additional potential impact from Project operations is from changes in water
quality below the Project because there will be less water flowing over the dam. During low flow
periods, it appears no flow would be passing over the dam. Thus, this potential impact would be a
particular concern at lower river flows.
Exhibit E — Environmental Report, Environmental Impacts, Fish and Wildlife Resources,
Resource Protection and Mitigation: This section provides a list of mitigation measures for fish,
wildlife, and botanical resources. The Service supports the use of the mitigation measures provided in
this section. There is currently no data to demonstrate that adult American eels can pass safely through
the proposed turbine. To protect American eels from entering the intake and from injury/mortality, the
Service recommends the use of a debris rack with 0.75-inch clear spacing as an additional mitigation
measure. This would allow for safer downstream passage through a downstream bypass or over the dam.
If no downstream bypass is provided and transport over the dam is the only viable alternative for
downstream migration, Natel will need to ensure sufficient flow is provided over the dam crest to allow
for safe, timely, and effective passage for American eels. Sufficient depth will also need to be provided
in the plunge pool below the downstream bypass or below the dam to allow safe, timely and effective
downstream passage.
Exhibit E — Environmental Report, Environmental Impacts, Fish and Wildlife Resources,
Resource Protection and Mitigation: This section states that where feasible, the applicant plans to
adhere to best management practices for fish, wildlife, and botanical resources. The last bullet in this lisl
states that any significant tree removal and ground clearing activities would be conducted outside of the
primary songbird nesting season of March 15 through August 15. The Service agrees with this
mitigation measure. The Service also recommends that no tree removal occur between April 15 to
September 15 to protect federally listed threatened northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis),
which roost in trees during this time period. The Service recommends that all stream work, including
ground disturbance on adjacent streambanks, be conducted outside of the time -of -year restriction period
of May 15 to July 31 of any year, to be protective of the reproductive timeframe of the JSM.
Exhibit E — Environmental Report, Environmental Impacts, Recreational Use, Resource
Protection and Mitigation: This section states that the applicant proposes to provide a new portage trail
around the existing dam on the eastern bank of the Hardware River for recreational boaters (Exhibit 3E).
The Service supports the construction of a portage trail around the dam for recreational users. Access for
launching canoes and kayaks below the dam should also be provided as part of the Project. A small
number of parking spaces should be made available to these recreational users. There are several access
points downstream that would be accessible within a day from this additional access point.
Appendix 2 — Agency Consultation: This appendix contains a contact list for initial consultation
outreach via mail March and April 2020. The mailing addresses for Service staff are incorrect. Listed
below are the Service staff involved with the Project and their correct mailing addresses:
9
John McCloskey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Virginia Field Office
6669 Short Lane
Gloucester, VA 23061
Rick McCorkle
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pennsylvania Field Office
110 Radnor Road, Suite 101
State College, PA 16801
Jessica Pica
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035-9589
Studv Reauests
The Service requests that the applicant be required to conduct the following studies to identify what
resources may be affected by Project operations:
I. Fish surveys
Comprehensive fish surveys are requested to determine what fish species are present in the Hardware
River near the Project and what fish species may be impacted by Project operations.
1. Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to provide information on the existing fishery resources near
the Project including information on the current distribution of the diadromous fish species including
American shad, American eel and sea lamprey, and mussel host fish species near the Project. Fish
surveys should be performed both upstream and downstream of the Project to aid in the determination of
Project impacts and to establish a baseline for future assessments. A comprehensive list of species found
in the Project reservoir is also necessary to inform the requested entrainment and impingement study
(below). The information to be obtained should include both the temporal and spatial aspects of species
distribution; age, size, sex, and condition data; habitat utilization; and fish movement patterns.
Information on the habitat present in the river should also be collected.
2. Resource Management Goals
Resource management goals include: (1) protecting populations of diadromous fish species; (2)
protecting the existing warmwater fishery; (3) ensuring protection of species that are known or potential
hosts for the glochidia (larvae) of federally listed and/or rare freshwater mussels; and (5) possibly
developing passage measures for these species, as well.
3. Public Interest
The requestor is a resource agency
4. Existing Information
The Environmental Report provided in Exhibit E does not provide any information on recent fish
surveys conducted near the Project. According to Table El-2 in Exhibit E — Environmental Report, 40
species of fish have the potential to occur in the Upper Mainstem Hardware River where the Project is
located. Table El-2 shows the potential for 36 species of fish to occur in the Lower Mainstem Hardware
River, which begins 2.5 miles downstream of the Project. The primary source for this information was
the VaFWIS (VaFWIS 2020). Starting in 1992, American shad fry were stocked in the James River to
help with the recovery of this species. This stocking was discontinued in 2017. Despite the stocking
efforts, the American shad population in the James River has not recovered.
(https:Hdwr.virginia.gov/fishing/shad-restoratio
5. Nexus to Project Operations and Ejects
The Project serves as a barrier to upstream and downstream fish migration and once constructed and
operating may reduce survival of downstream migrating fish due to turbine entrainment and/or
impingement on the debris rack at the intake. Once operating, the Project can also alter fish habitat by
redirecting flow and changing flow patterns, which can impact water quality, channel morphology and
sedimentation patterns in downstream areas.
6. Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice
The recommended study uses standard scientific collecting techniques used in most hydropower
licensing activities. Fish surveys should be performed in the spring below the Project to assess the
presence and abundance of anadromous fish species. Comprehensive fish surveys should also be
performed during the low flow period in late summer/early fall upstream of, within and downstream of
the reservoir in the tailrace area, and in the Hardware River within the downstream extent of the
potential Project effects. A variety of sampling gear, including gill nets, trap nets, seines, and
electroshocking should be used as appropriate for site conditions. The Service and other resource
agencies may recommend a second year of fish surveys if river flows are atypical during the initial study
year. Information to be collected should include species, size, age, sex, and condition, as well as
movement patterns and habitat utilization. Standard water quality data (i.e., water temperature, dissolved
oxygen [DO], pH, and conductivity) should be collected in conjunction with these surveys.
For spring fish surveys, the Service recommends fish surveys be conducted every two weeks starting in
mid -April and running until June 30 to assess the presence and abundance of migratory fish species
(e.g., American shad) downstream of the Project. A one-time fish survey for these migratory species is
not sufficient given the year-to-year variability and the environmental factors that can affect migration
(e.g., temperature and flow). Fish surveys over a longer time -frame are needed to ensure these migratory
fish are captured during their migration. It could be possible to use monitoring data at Boshers Dam as
an indication of when migratory fish species are likely to appear in the Hardware River and narrow the
sampling window based on the actual migration for that year.
For late summer/early fall fish surveys, the Service recommends fish surveys be performed upstream of,
within, and downstream of the reservoir. These fish surveys should be performed during the low flow
period so that a more comprehensive assessment of the fish community can be performed. These fish
surveys will be used to determine what fish species may be impacted by entrainment/impingement and
to determine baseline conditions prior to the initiation of operations to assess impact from Project
operations once the Project is operating.
7. Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice
0
The level of effort would involve one field crew sampling on a seasonal basis. The study would last for
one year but could be extended to a second year if river conditions are atypical. The actual cost is
unknown and would depend upon the gear types used, number of sampling locations, local labor costs,
and the ability to combine multiple studies (e.g., fisheries and water quality) into one task. The
Environmental Report in Exhibit E does not provide any information on recent comprehensive fish
surveys in the vicinity of the Project. There are no existing data to fully assess Project impacts, and there
are no alternatives to conducting standard fishery surveys. However, Natel has flexibility to design the
most cost-effective way to acquire the necessary data.
VaFWIS. 2020. Data queries for Fish and Mussel Species in the Hardware River. Accessed online
April 10, 2020 at: httos://vafwis.d ig f.virginia.gov/fwis/.
II. Mussel Surveys
A comprehensive mussel survey is requested to determine whether any federally listed and/or rare
freshwater mussel species are present within the potentially affected area (i.e., action area), and to
determine baseline conditions of the mussel community to be able to evaluate impacts of the Project on
the mussel community once construction and operations are initiated.
1. Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to assess the presence, distribution and abundance of
freshwater mussels and their habitats within the area affected by the Project and upstream of the
reservoir, to establish baseline conditions of the mussel community to be able to assess the potential for
the proposed Project to adversely affect federally listed mussel species or other mussel species of
conservation concern once construction and operations are initiated. An additional objective would be to
develop protection and mitigation measures for these species if a determination is made that such
measures are necessary and appropriate.
2. Resource Management Goals
The resource management goal is to restore and protect viable populations of freshwater mussels,
including federally listed species and other species of conservation concern upstream and downstream of
the Project. The federally listed endangered JSM has been documented downstream of the Project.
3. Public Interest
The requestor is a resource agency
4. Existing Information
The Environmental Report provided in Exhibit E does not provide any information on recent mussel
surveys that have been conducted near the Project. According to Table El-2 in Exhibit E —
Environmental Report, 3 species of freshwater mussels have the potential to occur in the Upper
Mainstem Hardware River where the Project is located, including the eastern elliptio (Elliptio
complanata), notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), and JSM. According to Table E1-2, 4 species of
freshwater mussels have the potential to occur in the Lower Mainstem Hardware River, which begins
2.5 miles downstream of the Project including the green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), eastern elliptio,
notched rainbow, and JSM. The primary source for this information was the VaFW1S (VaFWIS 2020).
The Service notes a closer occurrence of JSM less than 0.9 miles downstream of the Project (Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation -Division of Natural Heritage 2020).
7
5. Nexus to Project Operations and Effects
If present, freshwater mussel populations could be impacted by the Project, both directly (scouring,
sedimentation, changes in flow distribution) and indirectly (effects on upstream and downstream
movements and survival of host fish species, and entrainment impacts to host species and glochidia).
Lack of host fish passage options can result in fragmentation of mussel populations and lost genetic
exchange, leading to reduced genetic diversity. Project effects can also include downstream water
quality issues (i.e., DO and temperature effects) which can result in reduced reproduction and
recruitment or, in extreme cases, mortality.
6. Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice
A detailed habitat assessment should be conducted by an approved surveyor to identify suitable habitat
within the action area. Mussel surveys should be conducted within all identified suitable habitat. Surveys
are not needed if the approved surveyor determines that no suitable habitat is present within the action
area. The Freshwater Mussel Guidelines for Virginia provide recommendations for conducting
freshwater mussel surveys. The guidelines can be found at https://dwr.vir ig nia. og v/ -
content/uploads/mussel-guidelines-11-2018.pdf. The Virginia guidelines include a link to the list of
approved surveyors in Virginia for Atlantic Slope freshwater mussels.
7. Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice
The level of effort would be moderate. At a minimum, the river channel and banks upstream and
downstream of the Project should be surveyed, extending downstream beyond the influence (e.g.,
sedimentation, flow alteration) of the Project. A few to several person -days would be required. Costs
would be moderate, depending on the number of person -days needed to thoroughly survey the area, and
methods used. There are no known alternative approaches to determining presence, distribution and
abundance of freshwater mussels.
VaFWIS. 2020. Data queries for Fish and Mussel Species in the Hardware River. Accessed online
April 10, 2020 at: https://vafwis.d ig f.virginia.gov/fwis/
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation -Division of Natural Heritage. 2020. Natural
Heritage Data Explorer. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/nhdeinfo; accessed
November 4, 2020.
III. Water Quality
A water quality study is requested to assess the impact of Project operations on water quality in the
Hardware River. The pre -operations baseline water quality study would be compared to water quality
data collected during operations to assess impacts of operations on water quality in the Hardware River
1. Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to provide pre -construction and pre -operation water quality
information to provide a baseline against which to compare water quality conditions following
commencement of Project operations. The water quality study is needed to allow a proper determination
of potential impacts to aquatic organisms from Project operations.
2. Resource Management Goals
The Hardware River in the vicinity of the proposed project is managed by VDWR as a warmwater
fishery. There is also a documented population of federally listed endangered JSM downstream of the
Project that could be impacted by Project operations. Several diadromous fish species are known or have
the potential to use the Hardware River including American eel, sea lamprey, and American shad. It is
important that Project operations do not impact water quality downstream of the Project to protect these
important aquatic resources.
3. Public Interest
The requestor is a resource agency
4. Existing Information
Section 1.3.4 of the Environmental Report in Exhibit E states that limited water quality data is available
in the project area. According to this section, limited data is available for temperature and specific
conductance in the Hardware River. Water quality data collected by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality has documented exceedances of fecal coliform and Escherichia coli standards
over the past 20 years. It appears that no DO data is available in the vicinity of the Project. The available
data is insufficient to assess impacts from Project operations on water quality.
5. Nexus to Project Operations and Effects
jects
The existing dam impounds the river. Diverting water through the turbine instead of over the dam crest
could affect water quality in the Hardware River downstream of the Project. Water quality parameters
that could be affected by operations include water temperature and DO, which are critical to the quality
of the aquatic habitat. Of particular concern are low flow periods when all water flow would be directed
through the turbine and no flow would be allowed to flow over the dam crest. This could affect water
quality on the bank opposite the turbine discharge where less flow would be provided.
6. Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice
The water quality study should include measurements of water temperature and DO on a continuous (15
minute intervals) basis using multiparameter water quality instrumentation (i.e., sondes) upstream and
downstream of the dam at the proposed location of the intake and below the tailrace. Water quality
measurements should be collected from May 1 through September 30 to capture the high temperature
and low flow period. During these low flow periods in late summer/early fall, most or all of the flow
would be passing through the turbine and little, if any, flow would be going over the dam crest. Every
two weeks, the probes should be checked and cleaned to avoid fouling and data should be downloaded.
The recommended study uses standard scientific water quality sampling techniques used in most
hydropower licensing activities.
7. Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice
The level of effort would be low and would involve the deployment of water quality sondes, and
downloading of data and cleaning the probes every two weeks. The actual cost is unknown but would be
relatively low. There are little existing water quality data near the Project.
IV. Entrainment and Impingement Study
0
An entrainment and impingement study is requested to assess potential negative effects of Project
operations on the fish community.
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to provide information on survival rates of all species and life
stages of fish that may be impinged on the powerhouse intake trash rack or entrained in the powerhouse
turbine, and to develop estimates of annual mortality rates for all species and life stages. Estimates
should also consider indirect, latent mortality of injured fish that are subjected to predation (e.g., due to
disorientation or loss of equilibrium), disease (e.g., as a result of cavitation injuries) or physiological
stress.
2. Resource Management Goals
To protect migratory and native fish populations and ensure that entrainment and impingement impacts
are not resulting in population -level effects to species of conservation concern, including host fish
species for the federally listed endangered JSM.
3. Public Interest
The requestor is a resource agency.
4. Existing Information
Because this is a new project, there is no information available on entrainment and impingement for this
Project. Limited data is available on the potential for injury and mortality of fish from this type of
turbine.
5. Nexus to Project Operations and Effects
jects
Operations of hydropower projects often result in injury and mortality of a percentage of fish that are
impinged on powerhouse intake trash racks or entrained in project turbines. Data from this study would
provide information necessary to conduct a project effects analysis and develop protection, mitigation,
and enhancement measures to limit project induced migration delay and improve downstream passage
and survival at the project.
6. Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice
The analysis should include evaluating impact to fish populations, including all sensitive and rare fish
species. This evaluation should also consider the attraction of migratory species to the intake. The
Service's Fish Passage Engineering group and others have developed a turbine blade strike analysis tool
based on a study by Franke et al. (1997) to assess impacts to fish from entrainment. This desktop tool is
not applicable for estimating turbine blade strike for the untested proposed unit. An empirical study to
assess fish mortality, particularly for adult American eel, through the proposed Natel Energy Restoration
Hydro Turbine is requested. If Natel adopts the Service's recommendation to use a debris rack with 0.75
inch spacing, an impingement study only needs to be performed as the narrower spacing should exclude
most fish from entering the intake and passing through the turbine. The recommended study uses
standard methodologies used in many hydropower licensing activities.
7. Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice
10
If fish are not excluded from the intake, the cost to perform an empirical study on survival of American
eels passing through the proposed turbine would be moderate. The level of effort would also be
moderate. There are no existing data available on the survival of adult American eels passing through
the proposed turbine. Because the Project has not been built, there are no project specific survival data
for the proposed unit for important diadromous fish species in the Hardware River.
Franke, G.F., D.R. Webb, R.K. Fisher, Jr., D. Mathur, P.N. Hopping, P.A. March, M.R. Headrick, I.T.
Laczo, Y. Ventikos, and F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Development of Environmentally Advanced
Hydropower Turbine System Design Concepts. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, Renewable Energy Products Department, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies
Company, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy and Hydropower Research Foundation, Inc. INEEL/EXT-97-00639.
Voith Report No. 2677-0141.
V. Fish Protection and Upstream and Downstream Passage Studies
Currently, the only viable downstream fish passage alternative is over the dam. Once the Project is
constructed, there will be two options for the downstream passage of fish: (1) over the dam during high
flows, and (2) through the powerhouse turbine. During periods of lower flow, the majority of the flow
would be routed through the turbine. During periods of higher flow, flow would be routed through the
unit and over the dam. However, without an adequate downstream passage facility and plunge pool, fish
moving over the dam would be susceptible to injury or mortality. Fish moving downstream through the
powerhouse would be subjected to potential injury or mortality from impingement or entrainment. Many
hydroelectric project licenses have incorporated trash racks with 1-inch clear bar spacing (0.75 inch if
American eels are present) to physically exclude most adult fish from the turbines, alternate downstream
passage routes, and other features (e.g., reduced approach velocities, adequate plunge pools, etc.) to
encourage safe, timely, and effective downstream fish passage. Therefore, we request that upstream and
downstream passage studies be completed.
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this study are to provide information on potential fish passage and protection
structures, or other measures that could be utilized at this Project. The information obtained will allow
the Service's fish passage engineers to evaluate the potential effectiveness of various upstream and
downstream fish passage facilities options.
2. Resource Management Goals
Resource management goals include providing safe, timely and effective passage to diadromous fish
species (e.g., American eels, sea lamprey), resident migratory fish species (e.g., smallmouth bass
[Micropterus dolomieu]), and fish species that serve as glochidial hosts for JSM and any other
freshwater mussels found in the Project area.
Public Interest
The requestor is a resource agency.
4. Existing Information
No information is provided regarding currently available passage alternatives.
11
5. Nexus to Project Operations and Effects
jects
Available options for safe downstream passage are currently limited, and any fish attempting to move
downstream are likely to be attracted to the powerhouse intake and become entrained in the Project
turbine, resulting in some immediate mortality, as well as latent mortality and cumulative mortality from
multiple, stacked hydropower projects (i.e., including James River projects). Without an adequate
downstream passage facility and plunge pool, fish moving over the dam are susceptible to injury.
Although upstream passage is proposed for American eel and sea lamprey, there is currently no
alternative for other migratory fish to move upstream past the Project.
6. Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice
The recommended study uses standard literature reviews and site -specific data collection techniques
common to most hydropower licensing activities.
7. Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice
The level of effort would involve a moderate literature review, discussions with fishway engineers, and
site -specific data collection. The study could be completed in less than one year, but may require more
time to design effective facilities or measures. The actual cost is unknown and would depend on the
number of alternatives examined. The existing information is inadequate to allow for a thorough
examination of alternatives; however, most of the information needed should be available in the existing
literature.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ICD. If you have any questions, please contact John
McCloskey of this office at (804) 824-2404 or via email at john_mccloskey@fws.gov.
Sincerely,
(, for
Cindy Schulz
Field Supervisor
Virginia Ecological Services
cc: Service, State College, PA (Attn: Rick McCorkle)
Service, Hadley, MA (Attn: Jessica Pica)
VDEQ, Richmond, VA (Attn: Brian McGurk)
VDWR, Forest, VA (Attn: Scott Smith)
VDWR, Hemico, VA (Attn: Alan Weaver)
VDWR, Hemico, VA (Attn: Ernie Aschenbach)
VDWR, Verona, VA (Attn: Stephen Reeser)
12
Literature Cited
Amaral S.V., S.M. Watson, A.D. Schneider, J. Rackovan, and A. Baumgartner. 2020. Improving
survival: injury and mortality of fish struck by blades with slanted, blunt leading edges. Journal
ofEcohydraulics. DOI: 10.1080/24705357.2020.1768166.
13
USDAUnited States Forest Southern Region
Department of Service
- Agriculture
Jessica Penrod
Jefferson Mill
Natel Energy, Inc.
2401 Monarch Street
Alameda, CA 94502
1720 Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
File Code: 2770
Date: November 19, 2020
Dear Ms. Penrod:
After review of the Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-15038, it has been
determined that there are no affected National Forest System lands and resources in the vicinity
of the Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project area. Please remove the USDA Forest Service,
Southern Region, Regional Forester, 1720 Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30309 from the
mailing list for any further communication with respect to this project.
Sincerely,
KEN ARNEY
Regional Forester
cc: Bruce Prud'homme
V Caring for the Land and Serving People min«a on P« ciw Po r "O
MONACAN INDIAN NATION
11/18/2020
Natel Energy Inc.
Jessica Penrod
2401 Monarch Street
Alameda, CA 94502
RE: Request for Consulting Party Status on Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project (Scottsville,
VA)
Dear Ms. Penrod,
Thank you for contacting us regarding the proposed project in Albemarle County, VA
The Monacan Indian Nation is a federally recognized sovereign tribe, headquartered on Bear
Mountain in Amherst County. Citizens of the Nation are descended from Virginia and North
Carolina Eastern Siouan cultural and linguistic groups, and our ancestral territory includes
Virginia west of the fall line of the rivers, sections of southeastern West Virginia, and portions of
northern North Carolina. At this time, the active Monacan consultation areas include:
Virginia: Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Appomattox, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland,
Buchanan, Buckingham, Campbell, Carroll, Charlotte, Clarke, Craig, Culpepper, Cumberland,
Dickenson, Floyd, Fluvanna, Franklin, Frederick, Giles, Goochland, Grayson, Greene, Halifax,
Henry, Highland, Lee, Loudoun, Louisa, Madison, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Nelson, Orange,
Page, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Pulaski, Rappahannock, Roanoke,
Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, Washington,
Wise, and Wythe Counties, and all contiguous cities.
West Virginia: Greenbrier, Mercer, Monroe, Pendleton, Pocahontas, and Summers Counties.
North Carolina: Alamance, Caswell, Granville, Orange, Person, Rockingham, Vance, and
Warren Counties.
At this time, the Nation does not wish to actively participate in this consultation project, because:
This project is outside our ancestral territory
X
The ro'ect's impacts are anticipated to be minimal
The project is more closely related to , which should be contacted to participate in
consultation
The tribal office does not currently have the capacity to participate in this project
Other:
P. 0. Box 960, Amherst, VA 24521
(434) 363-4864 TribalOffice@MonacanNation.com
MONACAN INDIAN NATION
However, the Nation requests to be contacted if:
• Sites associated with native history may be impacted by this project;
• Adverse effects associated with this project are identified;
• Human remains are encountered during this project;
• Unanticipated native cultural remains are encountered during this project;
• Other tribes consulting on this project cease consultation; or
• The project size or scope becomes larger or more potentially destructive than currently
described.
Please do not make any assumptions about future consultation interests based on this decision, as
priorities and information may change. We request that you send any future consultation
communications in electronic form to TribalOffice(&MonacanNation.com AND hard copy to PO
Box 960, Amherst, VA 24521. We appreciate your outreach to the Monacan Indian Nation and
look forward to working with you in the future.
Respectfully,
AiefKanh
ennet
Monacan Indian Nation
P. 0. Box 960, Amherst, VA 24521
(434) 363-4864 TribalOffice@MonacanNation.com
C; i 31131 OMNIAMI N IIIM11r I W 0M
Matt Strickler Department of Historic Resources
Secretary of Natural Resources
2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221
February 22, 2021
Joseph Head
Director, Project Engineering
Natel Energy, Inc.
2401 Monarch Street
Alameda, CA 94501, USA
Re: Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project
DHR File No. 2020-0607
Dear Mr. Head:
Julie V. Langan
Director
Tel: (804) 367-2323
Fax: (804) 367-2391
w vdhr.virgmia.gov
The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has received your comments in response to our February 12,
2021 email in which we requested additional information for the project referenced above to support Natel Energy,
Inc.'s (Natel's) statement that the area of potential effects (APE) has been previously disturbed where project -related
ground disturbance is anticipated, and therefore no Phase I archaeological survey is warranted. Our comments are
provided to assist the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) fulfill its responsibilities under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Thank you for your commitment to install this renewable energy facility with minimum disturbance to the surrounding
structures and grounds. DHR acknowledges that the proposed project is limited in size, however this does not diminish
the potential for significant, intact archaeological resources within the APE that may contribute to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of Jefferson Mill (DHR ID #002-0089) and Jefferson -Carter Rural
Historic District (DHR ID #002-5045). We look forward to the opportunity to review Froehling & Robertson, Inc.'s
civil design drawings including instructions to the general contractor and construction personnel regarding post -review
discoveries pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13. In accordance with Federal regulations, should unexpected archaeological
resources be encountered during project implementation, all work in the immediate area should cease and our office
contacted to provide guidance on the treatment of the discovery. Please provide my name and contact information to
personnel for reporting unanticipated, post -review discoveries.
DHR understands that geof tbric and 6 inches of crushed rock will be placed on top of equipment laydown areas and
the new access road to protect potentially buried archaeological resources. However, removing these materials with a
mechanical excavator is likely to cause ground disturbance potentially impacting buried resources. DHR recommends
that either the area is subjected to Phase I archaeological survey prior to construction or a monitor is present to
document archaeological resources that may be exposed during the removal of the gravel and fabric. The survey and/or
monitoring must be conducted by or under the direct supervision of a qualified professional meeting the Secretary of
the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44738-39) in the appropriate discipline and should be
consistent with DHR's Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (September 2017).
Western Region Office Northern Region Office Eastern Region Office
962 Kime lane 5357 Main Street 2801 Kensington Avenue
Salem, VA 24153 PO Box 519 Richmond, VA 23221
Tel: (540) 387-5443 Stephens City, VA 22655 Tel: (804) 367-2323
Fax: (540) 387-5446 Tel: (540) 868-7029 Fax: (804) 367-2391
Fax:(540)868-7033
Page 2
February 22, 2021
DHR File No. 2020-0607
DHR understands that no grading is planned as part of this project. Our question regarding the silt fence installation
was meant to help identify activities with the potential to impact unrecorded historic properties, particularly buried
archaeological resources. If the fencing will be installed within a trench, the fence footprint should be included among
those areas where ground disturbance is anticipated.
DHR does not have sufficient information to provide a recommendation of effect for this project. Please provide a
detailed description of the nature of previous ground disturbance in the proposed locations for the equipment laydown
areas, the presently undeveloped access road north of the mill building, and the silt fence.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 804482-6103 or email
tim. roberts(a,dhr.virginia. eov.
Sincerely,
Timothy Roberts, Project Review Archaeologist
Review and Compliance Division
Western Region Office Northern Region Office Eastern Region Office
962 Kime lane 5357 Main Street 2801 Kensington Avenue
Salem, VA 24153 PO Box 519 Richmond, VA 23221
Tel: (540) 387-5443 Stephens City, VA 22655 Tel: (804) 367-2323
Fax: (540) 387-5446 Tel: (540) 868-7029 Fax: (804) 367-2391
Fax: (540) 868-7033
C; i 31131 OMNIAMI N IIIM11r I W 0M
Mail Strickler Department of Historic Resources
Secretary of Natural Resources
2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221
January 27, 2021
Jessica Penrod
Natel Energy
2401 Monarch St
Alameda, CA 94502
RE: Jefferson Mill Hydroelectric Project
DHR File No. 2020-0607
Dear Ms. Penrod:
Julie V. Langan
Director
Tel: (804) 367-2323
Fax:(804)367-2391
w .dhr.virgmia.gov
The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has received for the review the document entitled Jefferson Mill
Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document (ICD), as well as two subsequently revised versions of the ICD
prepared by Natel Energy, Inc. (Natel) and R2 Consulting on behalf of Let It Go, LLC (Let It Go). It is our understanding
that this project requires licensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and that the ICD is part of an
application for an exemption from certain provisions of Part I of the Federal Power Act as a small hydroelectric facility
that meets the requirements of 18 CFR Section 4.30(b)(31). The following comments are provided as technical assistance
to FERC in their reviews pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
The project is located on the Hardware River in Scottsville, Virginia and consists of a repowering of Jefferson Mill, built
circa 1800. The mill and its associated dam (DHR ID #002-5045-1154) are contributing resources to the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District (DHR ID 9002-5045), listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
According to the revised design we received on January 22, 2021, the project proposes to construct a reinforced concrete
intake structure upstream of the dam, on the west side of the river. Water will pass through a debris rack and into a
penstock that will enter the north side of the historic ledgestone powerhouse through an opening used by the historic mill
race. Within the powerhouse, a new horizontal bulb turbine will be installed, bolted to a new slab of reinforced concrete.
Water will pass through the turbine and exit through the base of the outer, east wall of the powerhouse. Two temporary
cofferdams will also be constructed as part of the project. The repowered mill is proposed operate strictly in run -of -the -
river mode with an installed capacity of 10 megawatts or less, and shall discharge water back into the river downstream
from the dam.
Relative to previously reviewed designs, the current design (January 22, 2021) is much more sympathetic to the historic
dam and mill, especially since the draft tube no longer needs to penetrate the dam due to the turbine now being housed in
the mill's powerhouse. Also, using the existing mill race opening to the rear of the water room for the penstock will further
minimize impacts to the historic property. If any stones from the water room need to be removed to accommodate the
penstock, DHR recommends removing them carefully and storing them safely onsite so that they can be reinstalled in the
future if necessary. Although we believe the current design will not adversely affect the historic Jefferson Mill and dam
(DHR ID #002-5045-1154), DHR will want to review and comment on the proposed American eel and sea lamprey ramp
and on how it will be attached to the dam once that information is available.
Fastem Region Office Western Region Office Northern Region Office
2801 Kensington Avenue 962 Kime Lane 5357 Main Street
Richmond, VA 23221 Salem, VA 24153 PO Box 519
Tel: (804) 367-2323 Tel: (540) 387-5443 Stephens City, VA 22655
Fax: (804) 367-2391 Fax: (540) 387-5446 Tel: (540) 868-7029
Fax: (540) 868-7033
Page 2
DHR File 2020-0607 (January 27, 2021)
The current design includes a number of ground disturbing activities such as road and trail construction, equipment
laydowns, and underground utility installations. DHR recommends that a Phase I archaeological survey be conducted of
all terrestrial portions of the project area that may be permanently or temporarily impacted by activities associated with
this project. Cultural resource surveys must be conducted by or under the direct supervision of a qualified professional
meeting the Secretary ofthe Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR44738-39) in the appropriate discipline
and should be consistent with DHR's Guidelinesfor Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (September 2017).
One (1) bound copy and one (1) digital copy of the resulting report should be submitted to our office for review and
approval, prior to any ground disturbance, to determine whether any further investigations or mitigative actions are
warranted.
Additionally, should unexpected archaeological resources be encountered in the riverbed during the construction and use
of the cofferdam, all work in the immediate area should cease and our office contacted to provide guidance on the
treatment of the discovery.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the ICD. We look forward to continuing consultation on this
project including the opportunity to review the cultural resources management plan we understand to be in development.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 804-482-6103 or, preferably
at tim.roberts(a�dhr.virginia.aov.
Sincerely,
Tim Roberts, Project Review Archaeologist
Review and Compliance Division
Eastern Region Office western Region Office Northern Region Office
2801 Kensington Avenue 962 Kime Lane 5357 Main Street
Richmond, VA 23221 Salem, VA 24153 PO Box 519
Tel: (804) 367-2323 Tel: (540) 387-5443 Stephens City, VA 22655
Fax: (804) 367-2391 Fax: (540) 387-5446 Tel: (540) 868-7029
Fax:(540)868-7033