THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 30, 1995 TAG: 9507290103
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 202 lines
Following are excerpts from last Wednesday's order by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the Gaston pipeline.
For the reasons discussed below, we will approve Virginia Beach's proposed withdrawal of water . . . . In reaching this decision, however, we are very cognizant of the concerns expressed by the other parties in the proceeding. . attention by the State of North Carolina and a multitude of both public officials and private citizens.
BACKGROUND
Virginia Beach's proposal has undergone rigorous environmental scrutiny and analysis, both by our commission and by other federal agencies in related proceedings. . . .
(O)n May 19, 1994, the secretary of commerce . . . determined that: (1) the project will foster development of the coastal zone and coastal-zone resources, thus furthering objectives and purposes of the CZMA; (2) the project's individual and cumulative adverse effects of the Coastal Zone are outweighed by its contribution to the national interest; (3) the project will not violate the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act; and (4) there are no reasonable alternatives available which would permit the project to be conducted in a manner consistent with the state of North Carolina's coastal-management program.
North Carolina filed a petition for review of the secretary's CZMA decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The court appointed a mediator to facilitate a settlement between North Carolina and Virginia Beach. the settlement did not become effective. The CZMA litigation is currently pending before that court.
In another related proceeding, the Corps of Engineers issued a dredge-and-fill permit to Virginia Beach . . . The sufficiency of the Corps' environmental analysis associated with the issuance of that permit was approved on court review.
On April 28, 1995, the commission's staff sent a letter to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, concluding that there are no historic properties within the area of potential effect . . . On May 1, 1995, the Virginia department responded with a letter concurring in (that) de-ter-mi-na-tion . . .
On May 1, 1995, counsel for North Carolina filed a copy of a settlement between the state of North Carolina and the city of Virginia Beach. . . .
On June 28, 1995, Virginia Beach filed with the commission an amended settlement agreement between itself and North Carolina. By separate letters dated July 6, 1995, North Carolina and Virginia Beach notified the commission that the settlement . . . did not take effect . . . .
This order, and the authorizations . . . contained herein, are based entirely on the record now before us as that record was compiled at the commission. . . . (T)he order is not premised on any agreements, offers or representations (either express or implied) that occurred as a part of the settlement process.
THE FEIS
. . . (T)he FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) evaluates the five-city area's need for water by analyzing the supply and demand projections of previous water-supply studies using more recent population and per-capita water-use information, and concludes that the five-city area will need the 60 mgd that would be supplied by the proposed Lake Gaston diversion. . . .
(T)he FEIS . . . concludes that the impacts from the water-supply project will not adversely affect water availability in the reservoir area, the upper basin or the lower basin. . . .
The FEIS concludes that the proposed water-supply project will ensure a safe, reliable and relatively inexpensive source of potable water for Virginia Beach and secondary users now and in the future, and that it is the best source for meeting Virginia Beach's and other municipalities' potable-water needs. The project will have similar minor environmental effects as the other alternatives, but at 32 percent of the cost of the equally reliable desalination alternative and at 58 percent of the cost of the less reliable conjunctive-use alternative. . . .
PENDING MOTIONS
On May 31, 1994, the state of North Carolina filed a motion for a stay of the proceeding based . . . until Virginia Power obtains water-quality certification (or waiver thereof) from North Carolina. It argues that . . . the water-supply project will also affect the water quality in the hydropower project's discharge, which is from a dam located in North Carolina. . . .
Section 401(a) (1) of the (Clean Water Act) provides, in pertinent part, that ``(a)ny applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including . . . the construction or operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or will orig-i-nate . . . ''
The impact of an approximately 1 percent reduction in flow releases into the Roanoke River from the project dam is exhaustively analyzed by the FEIS . will not have a material adverse impact on the water quality in the discharge from the project. Accordingly, the license can be amended without water-quality certification from North Carolina. . . .
(O)n July 10, 1995, North Carolina . . . reiterated its request for an evidentiary hearing with cross-examination of witnesses under oath . . . North Carolina has . . . amply availed itself of every opportunity to submit and comment on data and other evidence. . . . Indeed, as we read the motion, North Carolina's real concern is not the procedures by which the data is elicited and evaluated by the data and analysis itself, and the conclusions derived therefrom. The record before us is exhaustive. We do not perceive any useful purpose to be served by setting this case down for a hearing . . . nor any justification for the delay such a procedure would entail. . . .
On July 20, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order staying the effectiveness of the secretary of commerce's decision and findings in the CZMA proceeding. . . . Given the current posture of the case, we believe that the most appropriate resolution is to issue this order and to condition the effectiveness of the license amendment and authorization . . . on the filing by Virginia Beach of proof that the court has lifted its July 20 stay, or until the further order of the com-mis-sion.
DISCUSSION
Project need
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), North Carolina, the Sierra Club, the Roanoke River Basin Association and the town of Weldon (N.C.) suggested that the need for the water-supply project would be obviated by increased water conservation, development of other local water sources, use of emergency wells, regional water sharing, reduced military employment as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC), and slower than projected population growth. . . .
In order to assess project need, the commission staff developed its own water-supply and demand projectsion. These projections assumed continued aggressive water conservation efforts and regional water sharing, and reflected the most recent population-growth trends, recent increases in safe yields by several municipalities, and the 1995 BRAC recommendations. . . . The FEIS concluded that by the year 2030 the five-city area will need the 54 mgd of water that will be provided by the project. We agree . . . .
Downstream water quality
The EPA, North Carolina, Sierra Club and Roanoke River Basin Association raised concerns regarding the water-supply project's potential impacts on water quality, especially dissolved oxygen (DO), in the lower Roanoke River. Specifically, these parties expressed concern over ``depressed DO events'' and limits on future economic growth by further reduction of the lower Roanoke River's waste-assimilative capacity. . . .
The FEIS evaluated water-quality information from various sources. . . . (T)he effect of the 60-mgd withdrawal on DO levels in the lower Roanoke River would be either negligible or nonexistent. . . . DO levels are not sensitive to low-flow conditions but are very sensitive to temperature changes. . . . The withdrawal of 60 mgd will not measurably affect water temperatures in the Roanoke River. Additionally, there is no statistical support for the claim that the existing assimilative capacity will be com-pro-mised.
Fisheries resources
The Department of the Interior, NMFS, EPA and North Carolina raised concerns regarding the potential effects . . . on fishery resources in the Roanoke River. Of primary concern are potential impacts to striped bass and shortnose sturgeon. . . .
(T)he project will not affect the reproductive success of striped bass in the Roanoke River. . . .
Both Interior and NMFS state that shortnose sturgeon, an endangered species, may occur in North Carolina watersheds such as the Roanoke River. There is no recorded evidence of any shortnose sturgeon being collected in the Roanoke River. The nearest reported collection was from the Chowan River in 1881. . . . But even assuming . . . that there were any shortnose sturgeon in the Roanoke River, the proposed project would not have any impact on them.
Socioeconomics
EPA, North Carolina, the Roanoke River Basin Association and the town of Weldon raised concerns that the permanent removal of 60 mgd from the Roanoke River Basin would constrain future downstream economic development by making less water available for consumptive use by business and industry, and by reducing the assimilative capacity available to businesses needing to discharge effluent to the river. . . .
The (FEIS) analysis showed that sufficient water would be available to meet the consumptive water demands of both Virginia Beach's proposed withdrawal from Lake Gaston and projected economic development through 2030. The FEIS also determined that the Roanoke River's assimilative capacity will not be reduced and that upstream consumptive users and waste-water dischargers will not be affected. . . . (T)here will be no long-term reduction in employment and income within the Roanoke River Basin attributable to Virginia Beach's water-supply project.
N.C. WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED
The FEIS used very conservative assumptions in its analyses of future consumptive use, water-quality impacts and flow and lake level reductions, to ensure that there will be no significant impacts to North Carolina. . . .
By letter dated July 6, 1995, Virginia Beach has agreed to voluntarily implement a number of additional environmental enhancements. As required in any event by the terms of this order, Virginia Beach will cap withdrawals at 60 mgd. Virginia Beach will not resell the water to any communities outside of Southeastern Virginia (except for emergency deliveries to communities along the route of the pipeline). Virginia Beach has pledged to work with North Carolina to develop a drought index that will restrict water withdrawals in low-flow conditions. Virginia Beach pledges to maintain ``an active and ongoing conservation program'' and to ``encourage regional conservation programs.'' Virginia Beach will help finance a hydrilla-control program in the Roanoke Basin, and has promised to refrain from taking any measures that might interfere with the recreational use of Lake Gaston.
CONCLUSION
We have carefully considered all of the evidence in the record before us. We appreciate the efforts of all of the parties in assisting us in compiling such a complete record, and we understand and respect the importance of this case to all concerned. For the reasons discussed above and in the FEIS, we conclude that granting the application . . . is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway for beneficial public purposes. Virginia Beach will be relieved of the serious water-supply problems that have severely constrained the lifestyle of its citizens and clouded its economic future. At the same time, we believe that the conditions of the license will fully protect the vital interests of the people of the Lake Gaston area and the people of North Carolina who are dependent on the continued vitality of the Roanoke River for both economic and recreational uses.
KEYWORDS: LAKE GASTON WATER SUPPLY PLAN TIDEWATER by CNB