LONDON/MARMET HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 1175 ...1175) and the Winfield Hydroelectric Project (FERC...

LONDON/MARMET HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 1175

AND WINFIELD HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 1290:

WATER QUALITY STUDY

FINAL REPORT

May 2011

LONDON/MARMET HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 1175 AND

WINFIELD HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 1290:WATER QUALITY STUDY

FINAL REPORT

Prepared forAPPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY

PO Box 2021Roanoke, VA 24022-2121

Prepared byNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.

25 Nashua RoadBedford, NH 03110

R-21722.000

May 2011

LONDON/MARMET AND WINFIELD RELICENSING PROJECT WATER QUALITY STUDY

NAI_Kanawha River_WQ_Report.docx 6/1/11 ii Normandeau Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1

2.0 WATER QUALITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK ...............................................................2

2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................22.2 STUDY METHODS AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE....................................................................2

2.2.1 Objective 1: Assemble and Review Available Water Quality Data ...................22.2.2 Objective 2: Characterize Existing Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

Conditions in the Kanawha River........................................................................32.2.3 Objective 3: Collect Additional Water Quality Data Along Transects

Located Upstream and Downstream of London, Marmet and WinfieldPowerhouses Weekly From 15 June through 17 October during theStudy Year ...........................................................................................................3

2.2.4 Objective 4: Identify the Impact of Projects’ Operations on WaterQuality of Each Project Reservoir and Downstream Pool...................................4

2.2.5 Objective 5: Identify Measures that Could Enhance Dissolved OxygenConcentrations Downstream of the Projects Dams, and in ExtremeConditions Mitigate Natural Drought Dissolved Oxygen Depressions ifNecessary.............................................................................................................4

2.3 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..................................................................................................52.3.1 Objective 1: Assemble and Review Available Water Quality Data ...................52.3.2 Objective 2: Characterize Existing Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

Conditions in the Kanawha River........................................................................52.3.3 Objective 3: Collect Additional Water Quality Data Along Transects

Located Upstream and Downstream of London, Marmet and WinfieldPowerhouses Weekly from 15 June through 17 October during the StudyYear .....................................................................................................................5

2.3.4 Objective 4: Identify the Impact of Projects’ Operations on WaterQuality of Each Project Reservoir and Downstream Pool.................................10

2.2.5 Objective 5: Identify Measures that Could Enhance Dissolved OxygenConcentrations Downstream of the Projects Dams, and in ExtremeConditions Mitigate Natural Drought Dissolved Oxygen Depressions ifNecessary...........................................................................................................11

3.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................19

APPENDIX AATTACHMENT CD


NAI_Kanawha River_WQ_Report.docx 6/1/11 iii Normandeau Associates, Inc.

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1a. Site Map of London Hydroelectric Project and Vicinity. Water QualitySampling Stations are Shown and Labeled Sequentially...................................................20

Figure 1b. Site Map of Marmet Hydroelectric Project and Vicinity. Water QualitySampling Stations are Shown and Labeled Sequentially...................................................21

Figure 1c. Site Map of Winfield Hydroelectric Project and Vicinity. Water QualitySampling Stations are Shown and Labeled Sequentially...................................................22

Figure 2. Colormap/Contour Plot of Water Quality Data – Profile View – Survey 1......................23









Figure 11. Colormap/Contour Plot of Water Quality Data – Profile View – Survey 10....................32









Figure 20. Scatter Plots of Water Quality Data Presented as Global Averages at each Station.........41

Figure 21. Colormap/Contour Plot of Water Quality Data – Plan View – Survey 1..........................42








NAI_Kanawha River_WQ_Report.docx 6/1/11 iv Normandeau Associates, Inc.



Figure 30. Colormap/Contour Plot of Water Quality Data – Plan View – Survey 10........................51









Figure 39. Time Series of Water Quality Data – Daily Averages .......................................................60

Figure 40. Kanawha River Streamflow Data – Summer/Early Fall 2009...........................................61


NAI_Kanawha River_WQ_Report.docx 6/1/11 1 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects are existing conventional hydroelectric

projects located on the Kanawha River in West Virginia. Each project is located at an existing Army

Corps of Engineers (ACOE) lock and dam facility. The London and Marmet Projects, located at river

mile (RM) 82.8 near Handley, WV and RM 67.7 in Marmet, WV, respectively, each have 3 generating

units with a combined hydraulic capacity of about 10,000 cfs and generating capacity of 14.4 MW.

The Winfield Project, located at RM 31.1 in Winfield, WV, has 3 generating units with a combined

hydraulic capacity of about 10,600 cfs and generating capacity of 14.76 MW. Appalachian Power

Company (Appalachian) is making an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC or Commission) for a new license for the London/Marmet Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.

1175) and the Winfield Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1290). The existing Project license for the

London/Marmet Project was issued on September 23, 1983 and expires on January 31, 2014. The

existing Project license for the Winfield Hydroelectric Project was issued on September 26, 1983 and

also expires on January 31, 2014. The process being utilized to apply for a new license is the

Integrated Licensing Process (ILP, 18 CFR Part 5). As part of this licensing process, Appalachian

has solicited input in stakeholder meetings, including governmental agencies, local governments,

non-governmental organizations (NGO) and individuals to identify potential project-related issues

needing to be addressed during the licensing process.

One of the issues raised by Stakeholders was water quality, especially dissolved oxygen and

especially during low flows. Recent historic data (1995-present) indicate few water quality

standards violations for dissolved oxygen (DO) within the study area and those violations were

limited to one station (Winfield) with a water quality standard of 4.0 mg/l. We believe most of

the apparent violations may in fact be data quality control issues, nevertheless values at or below

the standards have occurred. The ACOE has historically maintained a water release program

from the Sutton and Summersville Reservoirs during low flow/high temperature periods to

maintain DO levels. The ACOE has proposed modifying their release plan which has increased

the level of stakeholder concern.

During the relicensing process, water quality study plans were developed and revised to incorporate

Stakeholder feedback from the Stakeholder meetings. The study plans required the collection of

projects-specific DO, temperature and ancillary water quality parameters in sufficient detail and

during important low flow/high temperature time frames to determine the impact of each facility, if

any, on Kanawha River DO and temperature levels. This report provides the results of the water

quality studies agreed to by Appalachian Power, the stakeholders and FERC.



2.0 WATER QUALITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK

2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The goal of the Water Quality Study was to gather sufficient water quality data to prepare a

demonstration that details the impact of the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects (the

Projects) on water quality in project waters, defined as those waters both upstream and downstream of

the project dams that are potentially influenced by the Projects and primarily as it relates to DO and

temperature. This effort involved gathering, verifying, compiling, analyzing and displaying

comprehensively in report format all relatively recent and reasonably available existing and newly

collected water quality data. The water quality focus was on DO and temperature, because those

parameters were the ones most typically affected by hydroelectric operations and also the ones that

play overriding roles in supporting other aquatic resources, but other traditional water quality

parameters (e.g., pH, conductivity) were collected and analyzed as well. Specifically, the tasks

included:

1. Assemble and review available water quality data collected by the ACOE, West Virginia

Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and other entities, as appropriate.

2. Characterize existing DO and temperature conditions within and downstream of the

projects.

3. Supplement the existing database by collecting additional DO, temperature, pH and

conductivity data at selected locations upstream and downstream of the

London/Marmet/Winfield powerhouses during high temperature/low flow conditions.

4. Identify the impacts of the Projects’ operations on impoundment and downstream water

quality.

5. Identify measures that could enhance DO concentrations downstream of the

powerhouses, and in extreme conditions, mitigate natural drought-related DO

depressions, if necessary.

2.2 STUDY METHODS AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

To accomplish the Study Objectives listed in Section 2.1, the Water Quality Study consisted of three

primary components: 1) a literature/data search to compile existing data; 2) new data collection; and,

3) data synthesis/analysis.

2.2.1 Objective 1: Assemble and Review Available Water Quality Data

Normandeau reviewed, verified and compiled all recent (within the last 15 years) and reasonably

available, relevant water quality data that were potentially influenced or were influenced by the

Projects. This collection effort focused on temperature, DO, pH and conductivity, but other water

parameters were collected such as metals, pesticides and organic chemicals where these parameters

were available and indicative of existing water quality. The area evaluated included upstream and

downstream reaches within the project area (inflow to the London impoundment downstream to but

not including the Ohio River). Sources of data included the ACOE, WVDEP and the U.S. Geological



Survey (USGS). Other sources of data were explored but no additional source of recent water quality

data was located.

All retrieved data were evaluated for Quality Assurance/Quality Control to ensure that the data meet

generally accepted standards of collection, handling and analysis. The ACOE and the WVDEP are to

be the final arbiters regarding the validity and acceptability of the data gathered by this task. Certain

limitations of the data, where present, were noted and discussed in our analysis.

The “existing data” report is provided in Appendix A of this report.

2.2.2 Objective 2: Characterize Existing Dissolved Oxygen and TemperatureConditions in the Kanawha River

Using information gathered in Objective 1, this report characterizes the existing DO, temperature, pH

and conductivity conditions from the impoundments above and below the London, Marmet and

Winfield dams. This effort presents year-round data but focuses on the summer/early fall season

when high temperature/low flow conditions tend to contribute to declining DO levels. These data are

supplemented by data collected in Objective 3 below to fully describe, within the limits of the data,

the DO/temperature/ pH/conductivity regimes within Projects waters.

This characterization provides a temporal and spatial evaluation of DO and temperature conditions, to

the extent supported by available and newly collected data. Temporal aspects focus on the early

summer to early fall seasons, but other seasons (late fall, winter, early spring) are also presented,

where data was available. Spatial characterization includes longitudinal (upstream and downstream),

horizontal (bank-to-bank) and vertical (water column) dimensions in all areas where depth and

transect data were available. In general, only newly collected data in Objective 3 below were

sufficient to allow spatial characterization.

Detailed graphical and tabular displays of these data are provided, to the extent allowable by the data.

Existing data were generally only sufficient to provide a temporal display of the study parameters, but

newly collected data are presented in a variety of temporal and spatial displays. To the extent

supported by the data, Objective 2 provides an assessment of the impact of the existing DO and

temperature conditions on impoundment and downstream aquatic resources.

The results of Objective 2 are provided in Section 3 of this report.

2.2.3 Objective 3: Collect Additional Water Quality Data Along Transects LocatedUpstream and Downstream of London, Marmet and Winfield PowerhousesWeekly From 15 June through 17 October during the Study Year

To supplement the existing database, Normandeau collected additional water quality data upstream

and downstream of the Projects on a weekly basis for the period 15 June through 17 October, 2009.

These data included DO, temperature, pH and conductivity at all sampling points. Downstream of

each of the Projects, four locations were sampled: Projects tailraces and three transect locations

determined by field review and in consultation with the stakeholders. All downstream transect

sampling was conducted in the pre-dawn or early daylight hours (1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after

sunrise) to ensure that measured dissolved oxygen concentrations reflected the minimum or near-

minimum values of a diurnal dissolved oxygen cycle, if present. In the tailraces, we installed four-

parameter (as noted above), continuously-recording (at least every 15 minutes) monitors that with few

exceptions, successfully recorded 15-minute data for the duration of the study. These continuous

monitors provided superior and complete data collection at these sampling locations without the need



for spot sampling, data review, or agency consultation as was originally specified in the Appalachian

Power Study Plan. The continuous monitors were maintained and calibrated weekly and data were

downloaded from the units, also on a weekly basis. At the three additional downstream sampling

locations below each of the Projects dams (total of nine locations), horizontal transects were

established and water quality measurements were taken by vertical profile (1-meter increments) and

at the quarter points (left bank, right bank, middle) of each transect.

Upstream of the Projects dams, water quality data were collected at two locations: adjacent to the

upstream end of the locks, approximately 100 meters upstream from the dams, and a second location

about 0.8 km upstream of the dams. Transects were established at each sampling location and water

quality measurements were taken by vertical profile (1-meter increments) at four locations, equally

spaced along each transect. As noted above, water quality parameters included dissolved oxygen,

temperature, pH and conductivity at all sampling points. Upstream water quality monitoring at each

Project was conducted on the same day as the downstream monitoring for the same Project, but as

noted above, downstream monitoring were conducted during the pre-dawn-early morning hours only.

Above-dam monitoring was generally conducted at midday. To keep staffing requirements to a single

crew, we sampled each Project on separate but consecutive days, starting with the London Project on

the first day and finishing with the Winfield Project on the third day.

All sampling locations, transects and transect sampling points were marked and relocated by

handheld GPS unit.

2.2.4 Objective 4: Identify the Impact of Projects’ Operations on Water Quality ofEach Project Reservoir and Downstream Pool

We evaluated the impact of Projects’ operations on water quality within and downstream of each

Project, to the extent allowable by the existing and newly collected water quality data. This

evaluation included potential impacts from water level fluctuations, hydrologic variations in water

residence times and the influence of the turbine intake zone of withdrawal on in-reservoir and

downstream water quality.

2.2.5 Objective 5: Identify Measures that Could Enhance Dissolved OxygenConcentrations Downstream of the Projects Dams, and in Extreme ConditionsMitigate Natural Drought Dissolved Oxygen Depressions if Necessary

Based on the results provided in Objectives 1, 2 and 3 above, we discuss the possibility of the

occurrence of low DO events downstream of each of the Projects. We also conducted a literature

review to compile a description and summary of methods used at other hydroelectric facilities to

enhance downstream DO levels. Mitigation measures included such methods as: turbine venting,

varying turbine intake depths, controlled spillage or DO injection. A discussion of the applicability of

various DO enhancement methods to each of the Projects is included that takes into consideration the

physical constraints associated with each Project and the potential estimated enhancement.



2.3 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

2.3.1 Objective 1: Assemble and Review Available Water Quality Data

The results of Objective 1 are contained in Appendix A of this report.

2.3.2 Objective 2: Characterize Existing Dissolved Oxygen and TemperatureConditions in the Kanawha River

Objective 1 satisfies a portion of Objective 2 by providing an assessment of existing dissolved

oxygen and temperature conditions in the Kanawha River, based on existing data. That assessment is

found in Appendix A. Further characterization based on newly collected data is contained in Section

2.3.3.

2.3.3 Objective 3: Collect Additional Water Quality Data Along Transects LocatedUpstream and Downstream of London, Marmet and Winfield PowerhousesWeekly from 15 June through 17 October during the Study Year

As noted above, the 2009 water quality sampling program consisted of above and below dam

sampling at each of the project dams. We established a total of 6 above-dam transects with 4

sampling stations per transect and 9 below-dam transects with 3 sampling stations per transect that

were sampled once per week for 18 weeks and 3 tailrace sampling sites that were monitored

continuously. Figures 1a-c present overview maps of the project area and the sampling locations.

Our field program generated voluminous data. We present these data graphically in a variety of

consolidated forms and in tabular form in an attached CD. Even in consolidated form, there are far

too many graphs to include in the text. Consequently, all data graphs are included “en masse” at the

end of the report.

Figures 2-19 provide temperature, dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen percent saturation, specific

conductance and pH for each of the 18 weekly surveys. These data are presented as

colormaps/contour plots and show the vertical and lateral interpolation of the water quality data. The

x axis represents the channel distance from the mouth of the Kanawha (river miles), from

approximately 0.5 miles above the London facility to approximately 20 miles below the Winfield

facility, while the y axis represents depth below the river surface in meters. Data were averaged

horizontally at each transect such that each data point represents the average cross channel

concentration/measure for each parameter for a given depth. Breaks in the data in the Marmet and

Winfield headponds were included to indicate that no sampling occurred in these locations and also to

reinforce with the reader that sampling at each facility occurred on separate days, which at times

affected the longitudinal variability in the data. In Figure 20 we present the same data as above

however, rather than showing individual sampling events we present the global means for all

sampling events at each transect and depth. This figure consists of an array of scatter plots and

demonstrates the general patterns of water quality with depth at each of the dams. To ensure equal

sample sizes at each station and depth, it was necessary to remove two surveys (Surveys 10 and 17,

which had missing data), and any depths that were not sampled in all of the remaining 16 surveys at a

given station (the lowest depth was not always consistent due to changes in river stage).

Although these data are complex and voluminous, viewed as a whole, they reveal several general

patterns. These are:



Temperature generally increased upstream to downstream;

Dissolved oxygen generally decreased upstream to downstream;

Specific Conductivity generally increased upstream to downstream; and

pH generally decreased upstream to downstream.

It can also be seen that vertical stratification was minimal during most sampling events and at most of

the sampling locations. There were a few instances where this was not the case for some parameters.

For example, there appeared to be slight temperature stratification at times at some of the sampling

transects, particularly in the upper two meters of water above the Marmet and Winfield dams. For

example, Figure 2 (Survey 1) shows slight temperature stratification (from ~22.5 to 23.5 °F)

immediately upstream of the Marmet and Winfield dams, but nowhere else in the study area. Figures

3 and 4, (Surveys 2 and 3) show slight temperature stratification (from ~24.5 to 25.5°F and from

~26.0 to 26.5°F, respectively), above both the London and Marmet dams, but little anywhere else.

Figures 5 and 6 (Surveys 4 and 5) also show slight temperature stratification (from ~24.0 to 25.5°F)

immediately above Marmet and Winfield and also slight thermal stratification in the middle of the

Winfield headpond (~RM 46). Slight temperature stratification was found during a few other

sampling events, but again, most were located immediately upstream of one or more dams. Figure 20

reinforces these observations showing on average little variation in temperature with depth except for

in the upper two meters of the water column and generally in the stations above each dam.

While we note the measurement of slight temperature stratification, it must be emphasized that the

observed level of temperature stratification was very small by traditional limnological measures and

as a result, was likely to be of very short duration, perhaps only a few hours. Temperature differences

in the range seen in this data do not produce density differences that are strong enough to resist

mixing from even modest mixing forces such as moderate winds. Thus, we expect that the

stratification seen resulted largely from the diurnal heating and cooling of surface water on those days

when heating was occurring. We also note that the sampling protocol of sampling the below-dam

stations in the pre-dawn/early morning hours and the above-dam stations in late morning/early

afternoon likely contributed to the measured temperature patterns. It is our expectation that had we

sampled all locations at the same time, all stations likely would have experienced the same

stratification pattern; that is, all with slight stratification if we sampled at midday on a sunny day or

none with stratification if we sampled in the early morning or on a cloudy day. Thus, we conclude

that the majority of the thermal stratification events we measured were primarily related to sampling

protocol and not related to the dams themselves.

Similarly, a small amount of stratification was seen in each of the other parameters measured, but

only during some of the surveys and only at some of the sampling stations. For example, Figure 2

(Survey 1) shows slight DO stratification (from ~ 8.0 to 8.5 mg/l) at the lowest depths immediately

below the Winfield dam. Figure 4 shows slight DO stratification (from ~8.5 to 9.2 mg/l) above and

immediately below the London dam. Figure 20 shows that on average DO was highest near the

surface and generally decreased with depth, with the most pronounced patterns in the stations located

above the dams, particularly Winfield. In most cases, DO stratification patterns also coincided with

pH stratification patterns, especially where DO levels were in excess of 100% of saturation. This

strongly suggests that algal growth was causing the elevated DO levels near the surface because algal

growth also results in elevated pH levels. These algae are expected to have been free-floating since

water depth was too great and water clarity was too low to support attached algae. As with



temperature, we suspect that the apparent association of elevated levels of dissolved oxygen and pH

above the dams was likely an artifact of the sampling protocol. Algae respond to sunlight, so elevated

levels of DO and pH would be expected to be positively correlated with sunlight. Consequently,

measurements taken in the pre-dawn/early daylight hours would be expected to show little DO or pH

stratification because algae would be respiring at all depths (and diurnal cooling of surface waters

enhances mixing of the water column top to bottom) ; measurements taken at mid-day or later could

show significant stratification on sunny days because of algal growth in the surface waters and algal

respiration in the deeper waters below the photic zone (and also because diurnal heating of surface

waters tends to inhibit mixing of the water column, creating temporary thermal stratification noted

above).

Our measurements showed slight DO and pH stratification on relatively few days during our water

quality study and in even fewer sampling locations. We believe that this slight stratification resulted

from occasional daytime algal growth that would likely be eliminated by nighttime algal respiration.

Although secchi depth was not measured, our observations of water clarity lead us to believe that the

photic zone was generally quite shallow during most of the study period, perhaps on the order of a

couple of meters. A shallow photic zone relative to total depth would imply that the potential

influence of algae on the DO/pH regime in the Kanawha River was limited; this implied limitation

was supported by the relatively small changes we observed in DO/pH, both in the surface waters and

at depth. Thus, we conclude that large (on the order of several mg/l or pH units) changes in DO/pH

are not likely to occur.

With respect to absolute DO levels measured during our weekly field surveys, we did not measure a

single DO value that was less than 5 mg/l at any transect, sampling point or sampling depth. The DO

levels at the five transects surrounding the London facility were generally greater than 7.0 mg/l, with

the minimum value measured at 6.2 mg/l. Similarly, DO levels at sampling stations above and below

Marmet were almost always greater than 7.0 mg/l, with a minimum recorded value of 6.22 mg/l. At

Winfield, DO levels were almost always above 6.0 mg/l, with a minimum reading of 5.56 mg/l.

Given that State water quality standards for DO are 5.0 mg/l upstream of RM 72 (including all five

transects associated with the London facility) and 4.0 mg/l for RM 0 to 72 (including all of Marmet

and Winfield sampling locations), it is clear that DO levels were easily in compliance with State

standards for the entire study period at all sampling locations.

With respect to conductivity, values increased upstream to downstream by several tens of µS/cm

under high river flow conditions and by as much as 150 µS/cm under lower river flow conditions.

There was little vertical stratification observed in any of our data, except at one transect and only

under certain low flow situations. In Figure 11 (Survey 10), a pocket of relatively highly conductive

(and lower temperature and DO) water was found in the lowest 1 meter of water at ~RM 46, located

in the middle portion of the Winfield impoundment. Similar high conductivity/low temperature-DO

water was again noted in the same location in Survey 13 (Figure 14) and Survey 14 (Figure 15). The

source of this water is unknown. One would expect a large tributary or major wastewater discharge

to be a potential source. However, this site was located upriver of where the Coal River enters the

Kanawha and 11 miles downstream of the Elk River. It is unlikely that either could influence only

the deepest meter of the river at this location. It is possible that a nearby wastewater discharge or

another smaller tributary was the source, but each would have to be quite sizable, because this lower

quality water was found at all three quarter point sampling stations, spanning a river width of several

hundred feet. Regardless of the source, the impact was minor from a water quality perspective and



limited both spatially and to low flow situations. There was no observable effect at the next closest

downstream sampling transect at ~RM 32.

We also evaluated potential horizontal (bank to bank) differences in the measured water quality

parameters. Figures 21 though 38 present these data. With a few notable exceptions, it can be

concluded from these figures that there was generally little horizontal variation in any of the water

quality parameters measured. Thus, a single measured profile at each transect would generally have

provided as accurate a characterization of existing quality as did multiple profiles along the transect.

There were a few exceptions. For example, Figure 21 (Survey 1) shows a relatively high DO

concentration at the right bank station of the transect immediately downstream of the Winfield facility

(TR13-1 in Figure 1c). The elevated DO levels were found throughout the water column but only at

this sampling station. There was no indication of DO elevation either at the station in the middle of

the transect (TR13-2) or at any transect station upstream or downstream from this station. This

pattern was seen again during the August 4-6 and 11-13 surveys (Figures 28 and 29) with DO levels

elevated to a bit above 100% saturation, but no other stations, either immediately upstream,

downstream or within the same transect, showed any elevation of DO levels. There are only a couple

of ways that supersaturation of DO can occur in a natural environment. The most common is

biological. As mentioned above, algal growth can raise DO levels substantially above saturation

levels, but in doing so, modification of pH levels would accompany the DO increase. No such pH

modification is noted, so it can be reasonably concluded that algae growth was not the cause of the

elevation DO in this location.

The second way that oxygen can become supersaturated is by entraining large volumes of air into

water and at considerable depth (generally 10s of feet) where the water pressure increases the amount

of DO that the water can hold. This phenomenon is common at high head dams in the western US

where water spilling over the dam crests plunges to substantial depths in the “plunge pools” below the

dams, thereby increasing the concentration of oxygen (and more significantly, nitrogen) above

saturation levels. Supersaturated conditions can remain for 10s of miles downstream of the dam, as

dissolved gas levels slowly re-equilibrate with atmospheric pressure. The dams on the Kanawha

River are all low-head dams that wouldn’t be expected to have the capacity to cause gas

supersaturation due to the limited plunge height and relatively shallow plunge depth. Furthermore, if

the facilities were capable of supersaturating under high flow conditions, it would be expected that

elevated gas levels would be found below each dam and not just below Winfield, since each is

similarly constructed (roll-type gates, with locks on the right bank and powerhouse on the left) and of

similar height (24 to 28ft).

Accordingly, we can discover no logical reason for the elevated DO levels found below Winfield dam

on the days mentioned above. We note that the three events occurred on the three highest flow

Winfield sampling days (13,000, 11,000 and 13,000 cfs, respectively at Charleston), but these values

are still not particularly high for the Kanawha River. The cause, then, remains an interesting mystery,

but fortunately it is of no particular significance for the purposes of this study.

We noted a second location where another parameter, in this case pH, was occasionally lower at the

right bank than in the middle or left bank sampling locations. This station was in the most

downstream transect below the London project (TR5-1 in Figure 1a). Figures 21, 22, 28, 31, 33, 35

and 38 (Surveys 1, 2, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 18, respectively) all show evidence of right bank quarter point

to left bank quarter point variation in pH of as much as 0.5 pH units, averaged throughout the entire



water column. As with the DO variability discussed above, we could find no reason for the cross-

channel pH variability measured here. However, because the pH scale is logarithmic (i.e., each unit

represents a 10-fold increase in hydrogen ion concentration, a small, very low pH source could cause

a ½ unit change in pH in a fairly large amount of water. Regardless, it is believed to be entirely

unrelated to the operations of the hydroelectric facilities.

No other parameters had notable bank to bank variability.

Figure 39 presents the results of the continuous monitors that were located immediately below each of

the projects. Here we plot the daily average values (calculated from 15-minute records) for

temperature, DO, DO % saturation, specific conductance and pH. For comparison purposes, results

for each of the three stations are shown on the same plots. Temperature at all three monitoring

locations followed more or less expected patterns, generally rising throughout the first half of the

study period, peaking at around 28°C in the third week of August and then generally falling during

the second half of the study. Significant decreases in water temperature occurred coincidentally with

major precipitation and runoff events, as evidenced by the steep temperature reductions at all stations

around July 5th, July 28th and September 27th (see Figure 40 for flow data). As noted previously,

temperature generally increased from upstream to downstream, except for the month of August when

this relationship seemed to be more variable.

With respect to continuously-recorded DO, patterns were similar to those observed in our weekly

survey data. DO levels tended to decline upstream to downstream although there was some

variability in that pattern from time to time. Average daily values were never less than 7.0 mg/l in the

London tailrace, seldom less than 7.0 mg/l in the Marmet tailrace and then only for a couple of days

in early September when average daily DO values fall to the low 6s (mg/l) and almost always greater

than 6.0 mg/l in the Winfield tailrace, again except for a couple of days in mid-September when DO

fell to the upper 5s (mg/l). As with the weekly data, average daily DO values showed compliance

with State DO standards at all facility tailwaters for the entire study period.

Daily average conductivity and pH values also followed patterns that were similar to trends observed

in the weekly survey data. Conductivity almost always increased upstream to downstream while pH

followed a reverse trend. Both parameters were influenced by large runoff events (for example, the

late July/early August high flow events, see Figure 40), where both conductivity and pH declined

sharply with high flow, but impacts from other flow events, either low or high are less definitive.

Although it was shown above that average daily and the once per week measured DO levels were

always in compliance with State DO standards, a definitive compliance statement cannot be made

based solely on average daily values, especially in rivers where algal growth may be occasionally

influencing DO levels. A common DO condition in water bodies that support at least moderate algal

growth is higher DO levels during the day when the plants are actively growing and producing

oxygen and lower levels at night when the algal cells are respiring and therefore using DO. To

complete our analysis of DO conditions in the project area, we need to evaluate DO behavior on a

timeframe shorter than the daily average.

Figure 41 presents hourly average DO levels at the London, Marmet and Winfield continuous

monitoring stations just below each dam. Hourly average values were derived from the 15-minute

data recorded at each station. Each panel in the figure provides one month of hourly data. These data

clearly show that DO fluctuated on a daily basis at all three monitoring stations throughout most of



the study period. A typical daily fluctuation range was approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mg/l with some

occasional fluctuations approaching 2.0 mg/l. With respect to minimum observed DO levels, the

conclusions drawn for the hourly data are the same as for the average daily data, except that the

observed minimum values are a few tenths of a mg/l less than the average daily values. The absolute

minimum value recorded was 5.6 mg/l recorded in the Winfield tailrace on September 12th while the

minimums at both London and Marmet were in excess of 6.0 mg/l. Thus, we conclude that the hourly

data collected in the tailraces of each facility also showed compliance with State water quality

standards for the entire study period. It is also interesting to note that those times when there was

little daily fluctuation in dissolved oxygen levels (for example, June 15 -20, August 1-10 and

September 30 – October 6) coincide with high flow events indicating little algal influence on the DO

regime during high flows.

2.3.4 Objective 4: Identify the Impact of Projects’ Operations on Water Quality ofEach Project Reservoir and Downstream Pool

After careful review of existing and newly collected water quality data for the Kanawha River,

including weekly surveys throughout the study area and continuously-recorded data in each project’s

tailwaters for the period June 15 to August 17, 2009, we can identify no impact of the projects’

operations on temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity or pH. While each parameter exhibits an

increasing or decreasing trend from the upper portion of the study area to the lower, we think these

trends are largely a function of upriver to downriver tributary and wastewater discharge influence and

generally unrelated to project operations. With respect to DO, levels downriver of each hydroelectric

facility were essentially the same as upriver of the facility, indicating that hydroelectric operations

had little if any impact on DO levels.

We did see what appeared to be elevated temperature immediately above one or more of the dams on

a few instances. However, careful review of the data indicated that these slightly higher temperatures

were more likely a result of sampling protocol (i.e., sampling above the dams in midday versus below

the dams in the pre-dawn/early daylight hours) than of real temperature differences. Furthermore,

even if there was some minor warming occurring behind the dams under certain conditions, this

would likely be a result of the dams themselves and unrelated to projects operations.

With respect to the potential impact of water level fluctuation on water quality, we think it highly

unlikely that the small fluctuations that project operations are allowed to create (3 feet at London, 0.3

feet at Marmet and 0.2 feet at Winfield) would have any potential impact on water quality. These

fluctuations are fractions of the fluctuations that occur naturally during runoff events and also occur

within a water level zone that has been established over a period of decades. Furthermore, there was

nothing in the data that suggested that changing water levels had any influence on water quality.

During the study period, there were several runoff events that changed the hydraulic residence time

within the impoundments. These events clearly influenced water quality by decreasing temperature,

conductivity and pH throughout the study area, increasing dissolved oxygen and reducing daily

fluctuations in DO. These water quality changes likely resulted primarily from mixing of existing

Kanawha River water with new, cooler and more dilute runoff water rather than decreased hydraulic

time. From a typical DO/BOD perspective, the influence of hydraulic residence time is simply to

determine the location of “DO sag” (i.e., the location where the lowest DO levels are found). The

actual DO levels are controlled by a complex interrelationship between temperature, BOD and river

flow (for dilution of wasteloads), but not residence time, per se.



Nevertheless, it is understood that there is concern about the ACOE’s proposed modification of

historic flow enhancement policies. We estimated water residence time (time-of-travel) through the

study area from our transect data as approximately 3.5 days at a river flow of 20,000 cfs, 13.5 days at

a flow of 5,000 cfs and ~30 days at a flow of 2,250. For every change in river flow of 100 cfs,

residence time changes by about 0.25 days or 6 hours. Given that at low flow, residence time is likely

in the 20 to 30 day range, it seems unlikely that flow changes of a few hundred or even a couple of

thousand cfs would significantly influence residence time. Instead, the more important influence of

flow augmentation is increased dilution of wasteloads. The extent to which flow augmentation is

needed to maintain desired DO levels can only be determined by water quality modeling of the

complex temperature/BOD/river flow relationship.

It is important to note that river flow conditions during portions of the study period would have to be

characterized as abnormally high. We had three significant runoff events during mid-June, late

July/early August and early October that each would be expected to be exceeded less than 10% of the

time (Figure 40). However, we did have extended lower flow periods during July and September

when river flow was substantially below median flows. For example, during late June to late July,

river flow was less than the median daily flow (based on the historic record from 1965-2009) for all

but three days. We therefore conclude that this study provides a reasonable demonstration of

expected water quality and potential project impacts under relatively low flow conditions.

Finally, we found no evidence that the turbine intake zone had any influence on water quality in the

study area. While the intake inverts are all in excess of 20 feet in depth, water quality upstream of the

dams was generally uniform top to bottom, so whether the turbine intakes were at the surface or near

the bottom would make no appreciable difference in water quality. Other than small and apparently

occasional stratification of temperature and DO above the dams, there was no indication of

stratification of other water quality parameters.

2.2.5 Objective 5: Identify Measures that Could Enhance Dissolved OxygenConcentrations Downstream of the Projects Dams, and in Extreme ConditionsMitigate Natural Drought Dissolved Oxygen Depressions if Necessary

Methods for increasing dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in hydropower releases include selective

withdrawal intakes, aerating weirs, surface pumps, diffusers, compressors and obstruction devices

such as hub and draft tube baffles. All methods vary in cost effectiveness, performance and potential

applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Projects. Active research efforts include Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the

U.S Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Hydropower Turbine Systems (AHTS) Program, and

several research universities.

Selective Withdrawal

Selective withdrawal is the most common and often most effective means of controlling the quality of

water released from a hydropower facility. Selective withdrawal takes advantage of the stratified

conditions within an impoundment by targeting the withdrawal zone to that depth of water that meets

downstream water quality objectives. Selective withdrawal can be used to enhance cold water

conditions or to increase dissolved oxygen downstream. Depending on the water quality in the

reservoir both objectives can sometimes be satisfied by a particular withdrawal, but often times only

one or the other can be met. Generally, if the objective is to maintain cold water conditions, then a

deep, hypolimnetic withdrawal is favored. If enhancing DO is the objective, then an epilimnetic



withdrawal is used. It should be noted, however, that downstream water quality benefits may come at

in-reservoir water quality costs. Epilimnetic withdrawal tends to strengthen the stability of

stratification while hypolimnetic withdrawal tends to allow warmer water to penetrate deeper. An

epilimnetic withdrawal may exacerbate low DO conditions within the reservoir while a hypolimnetic

withdrawal may eliminate coldwater habitat in the reservoir.

Most selective withdrawal intake structures are built during initial dam construction, but some

structures can be modified at a later date to achieve certain withdrawal objectives. Intake screens

have been partially plated at some facilities while submerged skimmer weirs have been installed at

others (Linder 1986).

Applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects – There was no

appreciable stratification observed upstream of these projects. Consequently, selective withdrawal

would provide no water quality benefit to the Kanawha River

Advanced Hydropower Turbine System

The Advanced Hydropower Turbine System (AHTS) program was created by the US Department of

Energy (DOE) in 1994 with the goal of developing environmentally-friendly hydropower turbine

systems. Conceptual designs for advanced turbines were completed in 1997 by two research groups,

led by Alden Research Lab and Voith Hydro, Inc. The Voith team proposed modifications on

existing technology via three different designs, one of which specifically addressed augmentation of

DO in Francis turbines, with results targeted at rehabilitation of existing turbines with heads of 10 to

50 feet. Their work resulted in current designs for the Minimum Gap Runner (MGR; Fisher et al.

2000). The most cost-effective technology for Modified Francis turbines, where site conditions

support it, has been found to be the use of the low pressures induced by the water flowing through the

turbine to aerate the flow. Several of these "lower blade number" designs have been installed and are

operating. Another revolution in design is the use of hollow blades and aerating holes that increase

the amount of dissolved oxygen in water passing through the turbine.

Applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects – The AHTS has

potential application only when turbines are being replaced/rehabilitated/retrofitted. In those cases,

turbines can be modified to enhance aeration, but at great cost, expected to be in the multi-million

dollar range per turbine. Recent evaluation of turbine condition and performance at these projects

found that replacement would not be economically justified (AEP 2010 pers. comm.). Accordingly,

implementation of AHTS would be cost prohibitive. Even if AEP should decide to replace one or

more units in the future, it is still not clear that this technology would be applicable to these facilities

nor does available water quality data suggest that mitigation is even necessary. An evaluation by a

hydraulic engineer specializing in the science of fluid mechanics and turbine design would be

required to assess applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Projects.

Auto-Venting Turbines (AVT)

A report issued from the Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station by Wilhelms et al.

in 1987 summarized various in-lake, in-structure, and downstream techniques used to enhance the DO

concentration of hydropower releases. In-lake and in-structure techniques were suggested to be the

most applicable for ACOE projects because of the large discharges of most hydropower projects, and

the in-structure techniques, particularly turbine venting, were proposed to be the most cost effective

and provide the greatest degree of improvement. Tests to evaluate various aspects of turbine venting

indicated that the oxygen deficit in the penstock could be reduced by about 30%, i.e., if the penstock



oxygen deficit is 8.0 mg/, then, approximately 2.4 mg/l of oxygen could be absorbed into the release

flow. During these tests, two re-aeration processes were observed: (a) due to the turbulence in the

tailrace area and (b) due to the air bubbles (vented through the turbine) as they traveled through the

draft tube.

The development of a turbine runner that can provide increased aeration as well as increase the

hydropower plant’s efficiency and capacity occurred in the late 1980s (March et al. 1992). Auto-

venting turbines (AVT) are designed to aerate the turbine discharge with minimal effect on operating

efficiency. Air is aspirated into the water as it flows through the turbine whenever the water's DO

level is below a set minimum, typically 5 mg/L, the level recommended by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) for supporting early-life stages of warm-water fisheries (Sanders 2002).

AVTs utilize turbulent mixing and mass transfer to produce air bubbles and rapidly dissolve as much

oxygen as possible into the water.

Because of the research and development of AVTs conducted by TVA and Voith Hydro at the Norris

Hydropower Plant in 1991, substantial improvements in the design of AVTs have been made,

including the testing of such alternatives as air injection, a redesigned turbine hub or deflector,

discharge edges of the turbine blades, coaxial diffusers, discharge rings, draft tube cones, and various

combinations of these alternatives. Aeration through the discharge edges of the turbine blades

improved efficiency over a range of air flows, while the discharge ring, and draft tube cone provided

a balance between efficiency loss and aeration performance (March et al. 1992). Extensive

development with scale models and field tests was used to validate aerating concepts and determine

key parameters affecting aeration performance. Specially-shaped turbine component geometries were

developed for enhancing low pressure areas at aeration outlets in the turbine water passage, for

drawing air into an efficiently absorbed bubble cloud as a natural consequence of the design, and for

minimizing power lost as a consequence of aeration. New methods were also developed to

manufacture turbine components for effective aeration.

Numerous AVT studies were implemented at the Norris Hydropower study site. The two AVT units

contained options to aerate the flow through central, distributed, and peripheral outlets at the exit of

the turbines (Fisher 2000). At Norris, each aeration option has been tested in single and combined

operation over a wide range of turbine flow conditions. Results showed that up to 5.5 mg/L of

additional DO uptake can be obtained for single unit operation with all aeration options operating. In

this case, the amount of air aspirated by the turbine is more than twice that obtained in the original

turbines with hub baffles. To meet the 6.0 mg/L target that was established for the project, an

additional 0.5 mg/L of DO improvement was obtained by the flow over a re-regulation weir

downstream from the powerhouse. Hydraulic performance efficiency losses ranged from 0 to 4

percent, depending on the operating condition and the aeration options. Compared to the original

turbines at the plant, these specially designed replacement units provided overall efficiency and

capacity improvements of 3.5 and 10 percent, respectively. The new runners also provided

significant reductions in both cavitation and vibration (Hopping et al. 1997). In fact, most studies

have found that introduction of air into turbines can reduce cavitation. This is especially true where

air/oxygen is introduced upstream of the runner blades. When air is introduced immediately

downstream of the runner, say at the entrance to the draft tube, it is possible under some flow regimes

for air bubblers to migrate upstream to the backside of the runner blades where negative pressures

typically are produced. This could increase cavitation.



Applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects – Like AHTS, Auto-

Venting Turbine technology is often applied during turbine retrofitting or upgrading. This is because

passive turbine venting alone is often not sufficient to achieve the DO enhancement goals for a

particular unit. Consequently, present efforts usually focus on turbine design to make aeration an

integral part of the design. Modified turbines have the capacity to provide substantial aeration,

especially when multiple techniques are employed for the same unit. The primary consideration

would be the amount of aeration required to meet downstream DO goals and whether the cost of

refitting the turbine justifies the aeration achieved. Based on available and new water quality data

collected during 2009 for the London/Marmet and Winfield Projects tailwaters, it does not appear that

any DO enhancement is needed. If subsequent data collected during extraordinarily adverse

conditions indicates some measure of DO enhancement is needed, it is conceivable that turbine

venting alone, either using existing vacuum breaker lines or through new lines introduced through the

head cover, would provide sufficient aeration. This is generally a least-cost fix to a low DO problem.

If additional aeration is needed, other auto-venting techniques such as draft tube or penstock aeration

may be implemented, but at additional and often substantial cost. Because the success of DO

enhancement methods is highly site specific and ultimately proven only through experimentation,

potential application of ATV to the London/Marmet and Winfield Projects can only be determined

definitively by rigorous evaluation of the Project physical plant by a hydraulic engineer. This should

include Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling to determine how the proposed

modifications might affect the fluid behavior, turbine operation and stability.

Turbine Enhancement

When auto-venting techniques do not produce the necessary air entrainment volumes, other methods

of air introduction may be explored. Studies conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation (Wahl et al.

1994) describe systems in which air was injected into the turbine draft tube through existing passages

to produce a mixed air-water flow that would raise DO concentrations. This has been tested in both

model and prototype situations, particularly by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and focusing on

differences in draft tube configuration (conical diffuser draft tubes rather than formed elbow-type

draft tubes).

In the Wahl example, air was supplied to the vacuum breaker systems and snorkel tubes of the two

turbines using two diesel-engine powered air compressors. Vacuum breaker systems have much

larger air passages than snorkel tube systems. Air entering the vacuum breaker system traveled

between the head cover and the runner crown and entered the draft tube through seven holes in the

crown of the turbine runner, while air supplied to the snorkel tube system traveled through the turbine

shaft and entered the draft tube through the snorkel tube below the turbine runner. Airflow was

adjusted through regulators on the compressors or by gate valves installed downstream of the flow

measurement equipment. Turbine aeration was proven effective, with DO increases up to 3.5 mg/L

from an initial deficit from saturation at the water surface of approximately 7 mg/L. Results also

proved that axial blowers with a maximum supply pressure of 70-100 kPA (10-15 lb/in2) could be

suitable for permanent installation.

In Wahl’s study, the natural vacuum in the draft tube was sufficient to draw significant quantities of

air into the turbines without blowers; this passive aeration could be effective with the turbines

operating at low discharges when airflow rates could be as high as 2-3 percent. In addition,

approximately 20 percent aeration efficiency, or approximately a 1.5 mg/L increase, was achieved by



raising the overflow gates at the downstream end of the tailrace pool to create a 3-foot drop, however

power losses would be approximately 2.5 to 3 percent due to reduced head on the powerplant.

Applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects – In situations where

pressures in the turbine/draft tube are not low enough to provide sufficient passive auto-venting,

enhanced aspiration through the use of compressors/air pumps/blowers, etc. can be used to improve

aeration. These methods can be applied to most hydroelectric facilities, including the

London/Marmet and Winfield Projects, although the need for Turbine Enhancement is usually not

known until other techniques have been implemented and proven inadequate.

Diffuser Systems

Research from the Norris Engineering Lab of TVA has enabled development of line diffuser systems

for low-cost aeration of reservoirs upstream of hydropower plants. Oxygenation within the reservoir

can be an economical means to meet DO requirements for hydropower releases and can potentially

meet DO requirements without causing adverse effects on turbine generation. As described by

Mobley and Ruane (2002) line diffusers distribute gas bubbles in the reservoir upstream of the turbine

intakes to increase DO concentrations in the water that will be withdrawn by hydropower operations.

These systems are supplied with compressed air or oxygen from a supply facility on shore. Pure

oxygen is usually preferred over air to avoid potential total dissolved gas problems in the tailrace.

The purchase of liquid oxygen is expensive, but other aeration alternatives may not be applicable at a

specific hydropower site or may be insufficient to meet DO requirements. The smaller, deeper, and

more disperse the bubbles, the greater the amount of oxygen that is transferred to the water. High

oxygen transfer efficiency reduces the amount of gas and the size of the delivery system required to

meet DO targets. To be effective, the placement of the diffusers and distribution of the oxygen input

must be suitable for site-specific water quality and water flow conditions.

Diffuser systems are well suited for use as an augmentation of other less expensive aeration systems

that are unable to achieve the water quality objectives alone. Line diffusers are constructed of readily

available materials, are installed from the surface and can be deployed and retrieved for any required

maintenance without the use of divers, making installation costs economical. Porous hose runs the

entire length of the diffuser, distributing the oxygen in small bubbles over as large an area as possible.

The small, dispersed bubbles and hydrostatic pressure in the reservoir contribute to the high oxygen

transfer efficiency obtained by the line diffuser, which controls operating costs of the system. The

line diffuser design as presented by Mobley has been installed, and operated successfully at several

projects. It has proven to be an efficient and economical aeration diffuser design that transfers

oxygen efficiently, and minimizes temperature destratification and sediment disruption by spreading

the gas bubbles over a very large area in the reservoir. A forebay diffuser system can be designed to

continuously aerate a large volume in the reservoir to handle peaking hydro turbine flows.

In 2000, ACOE examined using porous diffuser systems at J Percy Priest Dam and reservoir (Mobley

and Ruane 2002). At this location, different technology needed to be created to meet the site-specific

conditions of high water flow rates during consecutive days of turbine operation, as well as

maintaining oxygenated forebay conditions during long periods of no turbine operation. A system of

porous hose line diffusers placed at specific locations through the forebay of the reservoir and along

old riverbeds was designed. Thus, oxygen bubbles were spread over a large area to obtain high

oxygen transfer efficiencies. The diffusers were designed to be operated to meet different oxygen

demand rates depending on turbine operation, and were timed with the turbines. The diffusers were



supplied with liquid oxygen located at an onsite storage tank. Vaporization from liquid to gas

provides pressure to move gas through the diffusers.

Applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects – Diffuser systems

could be implemented at most any hydroelectric facility, including the London/Marmet and Winfield

Hydroelectric Projects. Should it be determined in the future that some measure of DO enhancement

is needed, the use of diffuser systems could be explored. As with all potential methods, the

usefulness of the diffuser system at these projects to satisfy DO needs can only be determined by a

hydraulic/fluid mechanics engineer with professional experience with diffuser systems in

impoundment/hydroelectric settings and by experimentation.

Aerating Weirs

High performance aerating weirs have been tested and evaluated by TVA. Conventional linear weirs

can oxygenate turbine releases during generation periods by allowing water to overtop the weir and

plunge into a downstream pool, similar to a waterfall. These weirs are often not useful because the

specific discharge (turbine flow per unit length weir) exceeds acceptable safety standards.

Recirculation in weir plunge pools can cause entrapment of river users, and the specific discharge is

usually well beyond the optimal range for aeration. Aerating weirs are passive, reliable, low-

maintenance, free from turbine cavitation damage, and can aerate flow from the dam regardless of

outlet of origin; however, operational impacts on power costs can occur due to a loss of effective

turbine head created by backwater from the weir. This can be minimized by siting the weir

sufficiently downstream and by using gates to enable flow through rather than over the weir during

the high DO season when aeration isn’t necessary.

Two types of weirs have been tested (Hauser and Brock 1996; Hauser and Morris 1996): the labyrinth

weir that creates a “w” shape in the channel, thus providing an extended crest length in a sawtooth

alignment in the river channel. These weirs can reduce recirculation intensity to a safer level while

creating optimal aeration, however labyrinth weirs can be costly to construct due to the required

length. Addition of an infuser flap to these weirs, a grating strip at the weir crest spanning the width

of the channel that allows flow to travel over the grating, creating a short infuser deck, has been found

to reduce the needed length of the labyrinth while having negligible effect on overflow efficiency.

The infuser weir has the equivalent waterfall length to a labyrinth but is constructed within a more

compact area and resembles the shape of a broadcrest weir. An infuser is a hollow weir with

transverse openings in its crest that creates a series of transverse water curtains that fall through the

crest to a plunge pool. An infuser weir can be more cost-effective in high-flow applications; however

a labyrinth weir can be more cost-effective in low-flow applications. With an infuser weir, 65-70

percent of the oxygen deficit is recovered at turbine discharge flow, although aeration efficiency is

reduced during minimum flow. The infuser weir is capable of aerating much higher turbine flows

than the labyrinth weir because the labyrinth weir length required to maintain a safe specific

discharge becomes excessive at discharges in the range of several hundred m3/s. Operating costs of

an infuser weir can be higher due to the less efficient infuser crest, which can induce greater

backwater on the turbine and greater property inundation during flood flows. Infuser gratings and

decks require frequent maintenance, while the labyrinth weir is almost maintenance free. The

labyrinth weir has a more efficient overflow and can be located closer to the dam with less penalty of

backwater on the turbine, and is more esthetically pleasing due to the length of the waterfall.



Comparison tests of the infuser and labyrinth weirs have resulted in a rough “rule-of-thumb” based on

the cost per unit length and crest length requirements: a labyrinth is typically more economical where

the channel specific discharge (turbine flow divided by channel width at the weir site) is less than 0.9

m2/s; an infuser will typically be more economical when the specific discharge is greater than 1.9

m2/s. In between these ranges, site-specific factors should be used to evaluate the differences. The

importance of drop height on aeration efficiency has been noted on all weirs tested; approximately 30

percent of the oxygen deficit can be recovered for each meter of drop height. Accompanying this is

the importance of the depth and width of the plunge pool, particularly with simple weirs. Lab tests

show that shallow plunge pools are more efficient than wide or deep pools.

Only downstream structures that provide free fall of water such as weirs and natural water falls have

the capacity to provide substantial reaeration over short distances. Other structures such as boulders

or wing walls may increase downstream turbulence, but many, many structures and substantial

downstream distances would be needed to significantly improve on existing natural reaeration.

Applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects – Given the need to

maintain navigational capacity on the Kanawha, aerating weirs would not be applicable to these

projects.

Other Methods

In 1987 TVA tested the use of three high-volume, low speed axial pumps to locally destratify the

reservoir at Douglas Dam on the French Broad River and move surface water into the turbine intake

withdrawal zone. Tests indicated that pump operation could force enough water into the turbine

intake to increase DO approximately 1-2 mg/L (Harshbarger et al. 1987). Capital costs for the pumps

and associated mechanical equipment were relative high ($2.5 million in 1993), but operating costs

were relatively low at about $5,000/month.

Applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects – These methods are

not applicable to these Projects since water quality data does not show significant above-dam

stratification.

DO Enhancement Summary

In summary, a wide variety of technologies is available for DO enhancement. However, justification

for one or more of these techniques depends first on a demonstration of need for DO enhancement at

one or more of these projects and second on cost. Neither existing nor newly collected water quality

data support the need for DO enhancement. Should data collected in the future under extraordinary

conditions not represented by the current database show the need for DO enhancement, then various

methods of achieving DO enhancement can be explored. The cost of DO enhancement is highly site

specific and dependent upon many factors that greatly exceed the scope of this water quality study.

These factors require detailed engineering analysis and include:

Physical design factors (geometry of forebay, powerhouse and tailrace);

Environmental factors (seasonal variation in flow and intake DO);

Water quality standards (DO goals);

Hydraulic factors (turbine design, cavitation concerns, headwater/tailwater ranges and flowpatterns);

Operational factors (guide curves for reservoir releases, plant operating modes); and



Market factors (power demand and costs).

Because the science of turbine aspiration is extraordinarily complex and not definitively predictable,

the only way to really know if a technique will achieve the desired goals is by installation and

performance testing. Performance testing not only involves testing to see if DO goals are achieved

but also includes testing mechanical and hydraulic performance and integrity under both non-aerating

and aerating operational modes. In conclusion, while several methods of DO enhancement may have

applicability to the London/Marmet and Winfield Projects, only detailed engineering evaluation and

experimentation can determine whether one or more methods can achieve desired downstream DO

levels.



3.0 SUMMARY

This water quality study successfully collected and evaluated existing and new water quality data

above and below each of the London, Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects in support of

proposed relicensing of these facilities. From these data, we make the following conclusions:

Dissolved oxygen levels throughout the study area have generally been in compliancewith State water quality standards throughout the recent (since 1995) historic periodof record.

Extensive and continuously-recorded data during the summer and early fall of 2009documented that dissolved oxygen levels were never less than 6.2 mg/l above andbelow both the London and Marmet Projects or below 5.6 mg/l above and below theWinfield Project.

There was little vertical or horizontal stratification or variability in the temperature,DO, conductivity or pH anywhere in the study area.

Although measured water quality parameters generally increased or decreasedupriver to downriver, depending on the parameter, these changes appeared to beunrelated to project operations and primarily related to tributary or wastewaterdischarges.

Although Kanawha River flow would be characterized as abnormally high duringportions of the study period, there were extended, lower flow periods during July andSeptember when river flow was substantially below median flows. We thereforeconclude that this study provides a reasonable demonstration of existing water qualityand probable project impacts under relatively low flow conditions.

While high flow associated with runoff events generally improved water quality,there was no indication that smaller changes in flow during low flow periods,consistent with the flow changes that might result from changes in minimal flowregulation by the ACOE, had any appreciable effect on water quality.

There was no indication that project operations had any impact on measured waterquality parameters nor did the existing or newly collected data indicate a need for DOenhancement at any of the Projects.

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

20

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 1a. Site Map of London Hydroelectric Project and Vicinity. Water Quality Sampling Stations are Shown and LabeledSequentially

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

21

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 1b. Site Map of Marmet Hydroelectric Project and Vicinity. Water Quality Sampling Stations are Shown and LabeledSequentially



Figure 1c. Site Map of Winfield Hydroelectric Project and Vicinity. Water Quality SamplingStations are Shown and Labeled Sequentially

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

23

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 2. Colormap/Contour Plot of Water Quality Data – Profile View – Survey 1

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

24

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

25

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

26

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c. Figure 5. Colormap/Contour Plot of Water Quality Data – Profile View – Survey 4

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

27

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

28

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

29

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

30

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c. Figure 9. Colormap/Contour Plot of Water Quality Data – Profile View – Survey 8

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

31

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

32

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

33

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

34

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

35

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

36

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

37

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

38

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

39

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

40

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.




Figure 20. Scatter Plots of Water Quality Data Presented as Global Averages at each Station

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

42

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 21. Colormap/Contour Plot of Water Quality Data – Plan View – Survey 1

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

43

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

44

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

45

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

46

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

47

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

48

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

49

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

50

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

51

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

52

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

53

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

54

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

55

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

56

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

57

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

58

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.


LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

59

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.




Figure 39. Time Series of Water Quality Data – Daily Averages

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

ST

UD

Y

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

61

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 40. Kanawha River Streamflow Data – Summer/Early Fall 2009

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Daily

Ave

rage

Str

eam

flow

as

measure

dand

calc

ula

ted

at

Charlesto

nU

SG

SS

tation

03198000

(cfs

)Flow Percentiles Based on Julian Day for the Period of Record (1965 - 2009)

Streamflow

10th Percentile

50th Percentile

90th Percentile



Figure 41. Time Series of Dissolved Oxygen – Hourly Averages


NAI_Kanawha River_WQ_Report.docx 6/1/11 A-1 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX A



LONDON/MARMET HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AND

WINFIELD HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RELICENSING

WATER QUALITY INFORMATIONAL REPORT

EXISTING WATER QUALITY DATA COMPILATION, PRESENTATION AND

EVALUATION OF ADEQUACY

JUNE 2011



LONDON/MARMET HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AND WINFIELD

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RELICENSING

WATER QUALITY INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Existing Water Quality Data Compilation, Presentation and Evaluation ofAdequacy

Prepared forAPPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY

PO Box 2021Roanoke, VA 24022-2121

Prepared byNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.

25 Nashua RoadBedford, NH 03110

R-21722.000

June 2011

LONDON/MARMET AND WINFIELD WATER QUALITY INFORMATIONAL REPORT


Table of Contents

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................7

2.0 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................10

2.1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE .....................................................................102.2 OTHER PARAMETERS......................................................................................................182.3 EPA IMPAIRED WATERS STATUS ...................................................................................18

3.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION OF WATER QUALITYDATA PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT............................................................................30

3.1 WVADEP WATER QUALITY DATA ...............................................................................303.2 USACE WATER QUALITY DATA ...................................................................................303.3 USGS WATER QUALITY DATA.......................................................................................30

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER QUALITYSAMPLING PROGRAM......................................................................................................31

ATTACHMENT A: Database Directory for Attachment A on CD



List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Kanawha River Water Quality Data Locations....................................................................8

Figure 2. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Winfield...............................12

Figure 3. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at RM 31.7...............................13

Figure 4. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Winfield...............................14

Figure 5. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Charleston............................15

Figure 6. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at RM 76.9...............................16

Figure 7. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Kanawha Falls.....................17

Figure 8. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at Winfield........................................................24

Figure 9. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at RM 31.7........................................................25

Figure 10. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at Winfield........................................................26

Figure 11. pH for Kanawha River at Charleston..................................................................................27

Figure 12. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at RM 76.9........................................................28

Figure 13. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at Kanawha Falls..............................................29



LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Source and Nature of London/Marmet and Winfield Water Quality Data.......................... 9

Table 2a. Additional water quality data, Kanawha River at Winfield Locks and Dam,WVDEP...............................................................................................................................20

Table 2b. Additional water quality data Kanawha River at Winfield Locks and Dam,WVDEP...............................................................................................................................21

Table 3a. Additional water quality data, Kanawha River West of Chelyan, WVDEP. ....................22

Table 3b. Additional water quality data, Kanawha River West of Chelyan, WVDEP .....................23



1.0 INTRODUCTION

Normandeau Associates retrieved and compiled all reasonably available, relatively recent (1995-

present), project-pertinent water quality data for the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric

Relicensing Projects. The project area includes the section of the Kanawha River from just above the

London Development at River Mile (RM) 82.8 near Handley, West Virginia (WV), to just below the

Winfield Project at RM 31.1 in Winfield, WV, thus including the Marmet Development at RM 67.7

in Marmet, West Virginia. Water quality parameters reviewed for the purposes of this report focus on

those that are of greatest concern to the resource agencies, in particular dissolved oxygen and

temperature. Data were gathered from a variety of sources. We depended on the West Virginia

Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) for their relevant data files. WVDEP has upriver

and downriver data for targeted water quality parameters. Additional data sources included the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), which has several stream gages collecting water quality data on the

Kanawha River and its tributaries, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) which has sampling

stations at Charleston and Winfield, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

(ORSANCO) which has a sampling station at Winfield. Data descriptions and locations are provided

in Table 1 and Figure 1.

WVDEP Water Quality Standards (2008) designate the Kanawha River from RM 0 to 72 near

Diamond, W V as Zone 1, and from RM 72 upriver to its beginning and all undesignated tributaries

as Zone 2. Both of these zones are designated for Water Use Category B, Propagation and

Maintenance of Fish and Other Aquatic Life, and Category C, Water Contact Recreation, but

dissolved oxygen standards for Zone 1 are “not less than 4.0 mg/l” while Zone 2 standards are “not

less than 5.0 mg/l”.

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-8

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c. Figure 1. Kanawha River Water Quality Data Locations

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-9

No

rma

nd

ea

uA

ss

ocia

tes

,In

c.

Table 1. Source and Nature of London/Marmet and Winfield Water Quality Data.

Source Date Time Location Parameter Comment

USACE 7/1999-12/1999 Daily Kanawha/Charleston-Southside DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°F)

2/1995-11/2008 Daily Kanawha/Winfield DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°F), SpecificConductance

2/1995-12/2007 Daily Kanawha/Winfield DO (mg/l)

2/1995-12/2008 Daily Kanawha at Charleston and Winfield DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°F), SpecificConductance

Some data gaps

WVDEP 7/2002-6/2003 Monthly Kanawha River DEP Stations WVK-LO (River Mile(RM) 1.5), WVK-LO (RM 44.0) and WVK-LO (RM54.4)

DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°F), SpecificConductance

1/1999-11/2008 Varies: beginsquarterly, then bi-monthly

Kanawha River DEP Station WVK-LO (RM 31.7),WVK-UP (RM 76.9)


7/2005, 9/2005 Two singlemeasurements

Kanawha River DEP Station WVK-LO (RM 32.1) DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°F), SpecificConductance

10/1996 Singlemeasurement

Kanawha River DEP Station WVK-UP (RM 58.5),WVK-UP (RM 77.1)


1/1999–7/2003 quarterly Kanawha River at Winfield Locks and Dam Metals, solids, fecal bacteria, nitrates, other

ORSANCO 1/2000-11/2007 Bimonthly Kanawha River at Winfield, RM 31.1 DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°F), SpecificConductance

USGS 6/23/2000 Hourly for seven-hour period

Kanawha RM 41.8 DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°C), SpecificConductance

6/22/2000 Hourly for seven-hour period

Kanawha RM 42.2 DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°C), SpecificConductance


Kanawha at Point Pleasant DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°C), SpecificConductance


Kanawha at St. Albans DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°C), SpecificConductance

3/1995-3/2000 Monthly Kanawha at Winfield DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°C), SpecificConductance

10/1996-9/1998 Monthly Kanawha at Kanawha Falls DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°C), SpecificConductance

6/1997-6/1998 Monthly Kanawha near Buffalo DO (mg/l), pH, Temperature (°C), SpecificConductance



2.0 RESULTS

2.1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE

WVDEP, USGS and USACE are the primary sources of current Kanawha River dissolved oxygen

and temperature data. USACE has been collecting these data in the river since the mid-90s, while

WVDEP’s most recent efforts began in the late-90s, with both WVDEP and USACE continuing to

2008 (and presumably to present). USGS data collections were from the mid 90s to the early 00s.

Data sets include daily, hourly for a single day, monthly, bimonthly and quarterly sampling events at

multiple locations; sampling depth data is not given. Attachment A contains copies of all data sets

collected for this report.

Figures 2 through 7 present Kanawha River temperature and DO data at five downstream to upstream

stations as shown on Figure 1; there are two plots of data taken at Winfield by USACE and USGS.

Data are from varying dates and sources as listed on each plot. Each plot shows temperature as a

function of time. Note that depth is not recorded for any of the sampling events so it is presumed that

samples are all surface samples.

WVDEP periodically measures dissolved oxygen and temperature in the Kanawha River. Nine

sample stations are established and identified by river mile (RM). Stations LO RM 31.7, downstream

of Winfield, and UP RM 76.9, upstream of London, provide information that nearly brackets the river

section affected by the London/Marmet and Winfield Dams. Data from USGS sampling stations at

Winfield and Kanawha Falls, and data from USACE sampling stations at Winfield and Charleston are

also presented graphically to provide more detail along this stretch of river and to completely bracket

the study area.

Review of the data indicates seasonal and inter-annual temperature variation that appears to be typical

of a mid-Atlantic region river system. Temperature follows an expected trend of seasonal summer

highs approaching 30°C (86°F) and seasonal winter lows in the low single numbers (°C or ~35°F).

WVDEP water quality standards applicable to the mainstem of the Kanawha River (RM 0 to RM 72,

Zone 1) for temperature require that maximum temperature not exceed 90°F or 87° F from May to

November and 73o F from December to April in Zone 2. None of the records reviewed exceeded

these levels.

WVDEP water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in Zone 1 of the Kanawha River require levels

to be above 4.0 mg/l at all times, and above 5 mg/l at all times upstream of RM 72 in Zone 2. In

general, since dissolved oxygen levels are inversely related to temperature, dissolved oxygen levels in

the Kanawha River as shown in Figures 2 through 7 follow expected trends of lowest levels in the

summer when water temperatures are high and highest values in the winter when water temperatures

are low. Because these data are generally not concurrent at each site, it is difficult to draw firm

temporal and spatial conclusions about dissolved oxygen levels between locations. Nevertheless, the

data show dissolved oxygen levels remained above state standards at all but one of the sampling

stations (Winfield) for the entire period of record. The apparent dissolved oxygen violations at

Winfield were recorded in 1996 and 1997 during spring and early winter periods when dissolved

oxygen levels are seldom, if ever, problematic. Accordingly, we believe that these data are suspect

and would not pass a quality control review.



Since 1997,adequate to excellent dissolved oxygen levels were recorded throughout the study area,

especially in the upper, Zone 2 area. Thus we conclude that within the last fifteen years, dissolved

oxygen levels in the Kanawha River have generally been in compliance with water quality standards

at all times.

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-1

2N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 2. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at WinfieldTemperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Winfield

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-1

3N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 3. Temperature andTemperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at RM 31.7

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-1

4N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 4. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at WinfieldTemperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Winfield

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-1

5N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 5. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at CharlestonTemperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Charleston

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Charleston

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-1

6N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 6. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen forTemperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at RM 76.9

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-1

7N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 7. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Kanawha FallsTemperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Kanawha Falls

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen for Kanawha River at Kanawha Falls



2.2 OTHER PARAMETERS

Tables 2a and b and Tables 3a and b list a variety of additional water quality parameters collected

from 1999 to 2003 at Winfield Locks and Dam and at a station west of Chelyan by WVDEP.

Parameters included in the table are some of those for which water quality standards (generally for

Water Use Categories B and C) apply. Listed are selected heavy metals, fecal coliform, and total

suspended solids, among others. With the exception of a couple of fecal coliform violations (likely

related to stormwater runoff events), none of these parameters appear to have exceeded the WVDEP

water quality standards for Water Use Categories B and C.

Figures 8-13 present pH and specific conductivity data at five downstream to upstream stations as

shown on Figure 1; there are two plots from data taken at Winfield by USACE and USGS. Data are

from the varying dates and sources as listed on each plot. The WVDEP water quality standards for pH

for both Zones 1 and 2 of the Kanawha River require pH levels to not be less than 6.0 or greater than

9.0. None of the data reviewed fell outside the prescribed pH range. It should be noted that we

eliminated certain USACE data taken at Winfield where pH values fell to as low as 3 pH units from

January through May and to near zero from October to December 2007; these values are too low to

be credible and are likely related to instrument error or data handling.

Specific conductivity is the measurement of the ability of water to pass an electrical current and is

directly related to dissolved materials in the water. Geology of the area through which the water

flows plays an important role, with rivers located in areas with granite bedrock tending to have lower

conductivity while rivers located in calcareous bedrock areas tend to have higher conductivity. The

conductivity of rivers in the United States generally ranges from 50 to 1500 µmhos/cm. Conductivity

data presented in Figures 8-13 range from 125 to 300 µhos/cm with spikes as high as between 375-

425 µhos/cm near Winfield, while upriver stations range between 100-250 µhos/cm at Charleston,

with the range narrowing even further upriver at Kanawha Falls. Increasing conductivity downriver

likely reflects increasing contribution to river flow from waters draining the limey shale, coal

formations that predominate in the lower portion of the Kanawha River watershed.

2.3 EPA IMPAIRED WATERS STATUS

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA)

requires states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to be developed for waterbodies

identified as impaired by the state where technology-based and other controls do not provide for

attainment of water quality standards. The West Virginia Draft 2010 Section 303(d) List of Impaired

Waters lists the Kanawha River as having the following impairments:

Fecal coliform, unknown source, from RM 1.5 to RM 57.9 at confluence with ElkRiver,

Mercury, unknown source, from RM 32.2 at Winfield Lock to RM 57.9 at confluencewith Elk River, and

PCBs, unknown source, from the mouth at confluence with Ohio River to RM 57.9 atconfluence with Elk River.

A TMDL is projected for development no later than 2015 for fecal coliform and mercury and 2020

for PCBs. A TMDL for Dioxin was developed in 2000. As shown in Table 2b, mercury levels at

Winfield vary between less than 0.1 ug/l to less than 0.5 ug/l, fecal coliform values vary from less

than 10/100 ml to a high of 3500/100 ml, with an average over the four-year period of 480/100 ml.



No background water quality data was found for dioxin or PCB levels, but impairments related to

these parameters as well as for mercury are likely related to elevated levels in fish tissue rather than

water.

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

0N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Table 2a. Additional water quality data, Kanawha River at Winfield Locks and Dam, WVDEP.

Characteristic Al AlNH3,union. As Cd Cl Cr Cu Cu

Hard.Carb. Fe Fe Pb

Fraction Total Diss Total Total Diss Total Total Total Diss Total Total Diss Diss

Unit ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

1/25/1999 941 6.66 301 10.6 65 4060

4/28/1999 <100 9.14 <5 <5 70 247

7/28/1999 <100 <1 22.5 <5 83.3 129 <5

10/12/1999 <100 <1 17.4 <5 66 230 <5

1/27/2000 120 <0.1 16 <5 71 170 <0.5

5/17/2000 55 <0.1 16 <5 71.2 261 31 <0.5

7/6/2000 336 <0.1 11 <5 78.1 682 42 <0.5

10/23/2000 85 54 <0.1 15 <5 79.6 174 <20 <0.5

1/29/2001 99 <30 <0.3 12 <5 58.6 <20 <20 <1

4/30/2001 210 <100 <10 13 <10 73 250 <20 <5

7/5/2001 152 <100 <2 23.3 <8 93.8 272 <20 <5

10/22/2001 216 <100 <5 <2 14.1 <5 89.3 264 <20 <5

1/31/2002 326 <20 <5 <2 9.87 <5 56.5 460 50.6 <5

4/29/2002 2890 44 <5 <2 4.32 <3 52 4210 103 <5

7/18/2002 170 <20 <5 <2 11.2 <3 94.9 280 20 <5

10/10/2002 70 <20 <5 <2 17.3 <3 95.9 150 <20 <5

1/16/2003 110 110 <5 <2 13 <3 72.1 230 40 <5

4/22/2003 430 100 2 <1.85 <0.28 8.68 1.1 62 250 40 <0.54

7/21/2003 180 130 <1.85 <0.28 9.73 1 71.4 200 20 <0.54

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

1N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Table 2b. Additional water quality data Kanawha River at Winfield Locks and Dam, WVDEP (cont.)

Characteristic Mg Mn Hg Ni Ni N, NO3 N, TKNN, NO3 +

NO2 P as P Ag FC Zn Zn

Fraction Total Total Total Total Diss Total Total Total Total Diss Total Total Diss

Unit ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ug/l #/100ml ug/l ug/l

1/25/1999 385 <0.2 258 <0.5 <0.5 0.688 0.186 3500 <20

4/28/1999 54.6 <0.2 <5 <0.5 <0.5 0.501 0.046 80 <20

7/28/1999 72.9 1 <5 <0.5 <0.5 0.178 0.065 <5 <20

10/12/1999 38.8 <0.2 <5 <0.5 1.28 0.46 0.09 <5 800 35.5

1/27/2000 33 <0.5 <30 <0.5 <1 0.4 0.06 <4 <10 <2

5/17/2000 70 <0.2 <30 <0.5 <1 0.49 <0.02 <4 18 <2

7/6/2000 60 <0.2 <30 <0.5 1.1 0.45 0.04 <4 240 <2

10/23/2000 58 <0.2 <30 <0.5 <1 0.57 <0.02 <4 82 20

1/29/2001 43 <0.2 <30 <0.5 <1 1.8 <0.02 <4 105 4

4/30/2001 54 <0.5 <40 <0.5 1.1 0.5 <0.02 <10 10 <10

7/5/2001 8.6 61 <0.5 <40 <0.5 <0.5 0.453 0.05 <2 <10

10/22/2001 8.76 44 <0.5 <40 <0.5 <0.5 0.51 0.09 <2 <2 <10

1/31/2002 48.8 <0.5 <40 <0.5 <1 0.75 0.03 <2 12 <10

4/29/2002 294 <0.5 <40 <0.5 2.2 0.54 0.34 <5 1150 <10

7/18/2002 63 <0.5 <40 <0.5 <1 0.46 0.04 <5 18 <10

10/10/2002 46 <0.5 <40 <0.5 <1 0.93 0.04 <5 420 <10

1/16/2003 43 <0.5 <40 <0.5 <1 0.78 0.027 <5 24 <10

4/22/2003 50 <0.101 <2.92 0.21 1.1 0.85 <0.1 <0.22 600 <18

7/21/2003 60 0.127 <2.92 <0.1 <1 0.63 0.132 <0.22 144 20

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

2N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Table 3a. Additional water quality data, Kanawha River West of Chelyan, WVDEP.

Characteristic Al AlNH3,union. As Cd Cl Cr Cu Cu

Hard.,carb. Fe Fe Pb Mg Mn

Fraction Total Diss Total Total Diss Total Total Total Diss Total Total Diss Diss Total Total

Unit ug/l ug/l mg/l ug/l ug/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

1/26/1999 361 <5 <5 <5 45 854 94.1

4/27/1999 <100 7.1 <5 <5 68 155 18.3

7/29/1999 <100 <1 <5 <5 66.7 184 <5 33.2

10/29/1999 <100 <1 7.3 <5 66.7 176 <5 17.8

1/21/2000 200 <2 6.8 <10 61 210 <5 23

4/24/2000 112 <30 2 <0.1 4.86 <5 47.3 273 57 1.00 35

7/5/2000 217 <30 <2 <0.1 5.77 <5 72.6 532 46 <0.5 58

10/11/2000 90 44 <2 <1 3.82 <5 59.3 171 40 <1 44

1/16/2001 62 34 <10 <1 9.04 <5 75 113 57 <1 33

4/26/2001 200 <73 <1.85 <0.28 7.19 <0.251 61.3 140 10 <0.54 60

7/4/2001 <100 <100 <5 <2 13.6 <8 92.5 138 <20 <5 8.22 35

10/12/2001 80 80 <5 <2 5.83 <5 69.2 88 <20 <5 6.85 23

1/29/2002 340 140 0.001 <1.85 <0.28 7.03 <0.251 48.62 190 <28 <0.54 50

4/5/2002 440 100 0.011 <1.85 <0.28 3.19 <0.251 54.73 460 30 1.07 50

7/17/2002 140 140 <1.85 <0.28 4.04 1.42 51.8 130 30 <0.54 50

10/4/2002 90 <80 <1.85 <0.28 6.93 0.45 88.9 150 30 0.70 20

1/21/2003 170 130 <1.85 <0.28 8.36 7.14 79.9 150 50 13.16 30

4/22/2003 310 80 <1.85 <0.28 6.14 0.72 53.6 250 40 0.84 40

7/21/2003 190 180 <1.85 <0.28 5.19 1.86 78 210 40 <0.54 40

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

3N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Table 3b. Additional water quality data, Kanawha River West of Chelyan, WVDEP (cont.)

Characteristic Hg Ni Ni N, NH3 N, TKNN, NO3 +

NO2 P as P Ag FC TSS Zn Zn

Fraction Total Total Diss Total Total Total Total Diss Total Total Diss

Unit ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ug/l #/100ml mg/l ug/l ug/l

1/26/1999 <0.2 <5 <0.5 <0.5 0.645 0.088 3000 52

4/27/1999 <0.2 <5 <0.5 <0.5 0.384 0.034 60 37.5

7/29/1999 <0.2 <5 <0.5 0.67 0.178 0.039 <5 360 <20

10/29/1999 <0.2 <5 <0.5 <0.5 0.22 0.032 <5 52 100

1/21/2000 <0.5 <40 <0.5 <1 <0.05 0.02 <2 55 <10

4/24/2000 <0.2 <30 <0.1 <1 0.29 0.23 <4 <20 1 <2

7/5/2000 <0.2 <30 <0.1 <1 0.65 <0.1 <4 20 6 <2

10/11/2000 <1 <30 <0.1 <1 0.34 <0.1 <4 <20 4 8

1/16/2001 <0.2 <10 0.27 <1 0.56 <0.1 <1 <20 1 35

4/26/2001 <0.101 <2.92 <0.1 <1 1.09 <0.1 <0.22 200 1 7

7/4/2001 <0.5 <40 <0.1 <0.5 0.567 <0.02 <2 10 <10

10/12/2001 <0.5 <40 <0.5 <0.5 0.52 <0.02 <2 <2 <5 <10

1/29/2002 <0.101 <2.92 0.15 2.31 0.63 <0.1 <0.22 71 3 <3

4/5/2002 <0.101 <2.92 0.5 <1 0.82 0.11 <0.22 480 28 5

7/17/2002 <0.101 <2.92 <0.1 <1 0.55 <0.1 <0.22 232 <3 <18

10/4/2002 <0.101 <2.92 <0.1 2.56 0.9 <0.1 <0.22 <20 3 26

1/21/2003 <0.101 <2.92 <0.1 <1 0.88 <0.1 <0.22 <20 <3 <18

4/22/2003 <0.101 <2.92 <0.1 <1 0.78 <0.1 <0.22 198 5 <18

7/21/2003 0.123 <2.92 <0.1 <1 0.57 <0.1 <0.22 234 3 20

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

4N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 8. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at Winfield

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

5N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 9. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at RM 31.7

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

6N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 10. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at Winfield

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

7N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 11.Figure 11. pH for Kanawha River at Charleston

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

8N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 12. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at RM 76.9

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T

NA

I_K

an

aw

ha

Riv

er_

WQ

_R

ep

ort.d

ocx

06

/01

/11

A-2

9N

orm

an

de

au

As

so

cia

tes

,In

c.

Figure 13. Conductivity and pH for Kanawha River at Kanawha FallsConductivity and pH for Kanawha River at Kanawha Falls

LO

ND

ON

/MA

RM

ET

AN

DW

INF

IEL

DW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

INF

OR

MA

TIO

NA

LR

EP

OR

T



3.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION OF WATER QUALITY

DATA PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT

3.1 WVADEP WATER QUALITY DATA

WVADEP water quality sampling procedures and testing methods are detailed in Standard Operating

Procedures Manual for the Department of Environmental Protection Watershed Branch 2009

(http://www.wvdep.org/Docs/17524_WAB%20SOP.pdf). The reader is referred to this document for

a detailed description of WVADEP sampling, analysis and QA/QC procedures.

Dissolved oxygen and temperature measurements were taken using a YSI model 600XL-Sonde/650

MDS display combination and a Hydrolab Quanta G. The meter was calibrated and the membrane

was changed daily prior to each day’s use.

3.2 USACE WATER QUALITY DATA

The USACE water quality sampling procedures and testing methods are based on the US EPA

Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Guidelines (www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid.html).

Please refer to this document for a detailed description of USACE sampling, analysis and QA/QC

procedures.

Dissolved oxygen, temperature, specific conductivity and pH measurements were taken using a

variety of instruments; examples given include YSI or Hydrolab brands. Meters and probes were

calibrated according to manufacturer’s instructions, and routine QA/QC was conducted per the

manufacturer’s specifications. In most locations, probes were removed in the winter to prevent

damaging the instrument.

3.3 USGS WATER QUALITY DATA

The USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data was used to define

sampling protocol: http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/. This manual recommends the use of

isokinetic depth integrating samplers for riverine water quality measurements, such as US DH-81, US

DH-95, US D-95, US D-96 or US D-99, although specific instrument recommendations are not made

for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH or conductivity.

http://www.wvdep.org/Docs/17524_WAB SOP.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid.html



4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER QUALITY

SAMPLING PROGRAM

Existing water quality data for the Kanawha River and study area locations upstream and downstream

of the projects are sufficient to document the general temperature and dissolved oxygen regime

throughout the study area. However, available data are not sufficient to establish a clear relationship,

either temporally and/or spatially, between temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels in Station

headponds and those immediately downstream.

The water quality sampling program agreed to by Appalachian Power, the stakeholders and FERC as

part of the relicensing process for the London/Marmet and Winfield Hydroelectric Projects is

expected to address the temporal and spatial deficiencies cited above.



Database Directoryfor Attachment A on CD

Table of Contents

London/Marmet and Winfield Consolidated Water QualityDatabase

June 2011

USACE Charleston - Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Temperature DataFile: USACE_Kanawha at Charleston & Winfield.xls

USACE Winfield - Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Specific Conductivity andTemperature DataFile: USACE_Kanawha at Charleston & Winfield.xls

ORSANCO Winfield - Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Specific Conductivity andTemperature DataFile: ORSANCO_Kanawha River_WQ.xlsx

WVDEP - Nine Sampling Stations, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, SpecificConductivity and Temperature DataFile: DEP_Kanawha River_WQ.xls

USGS - Seven Sampling Stations, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, SpecificConductivity and Temperature DataFile: USGS_Kanawha at Mile 41.8_WQ.xlsxFile: USGS_Kanawha at Mile 42.2_WQ.xlsxFile: USGS_Kanawha at Pt Pleasant_WQ.xlsxFile: USGS_Kanawha at St Albans_WQ.xlsxFile: USGS_Kanawha at Winfield_WQ.xlsFile: USGS_Kanawha Falls_WQ.xlsFile: USGS_Kanawha nr Buffalo_WQ.xlsx

NAI - Three Continuous Monitoring Stations, Dissolved Oxygen, pH,Specific Conductivity and Temperature DataFile: NAI_Kanawha River_WQ_Data.xlsx

NAI - Fifteen Periodic Sampling Stations, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, SpecificConductivity, Temperature and Air Temperature DataFile: NAI_Kanawha River_WQ_Data.xlsx

NAI – Final Water Quality ReportFile: NAI_Kanawha River_WQ_Report.pdf

NAI – Project Report PDF

Date post:	31-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

LONDON/MARMET HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 1175 ...1175) and the Winfield Hydroelectric Project (FERC...

Documents