20140463 Ver 1_Emails_20140422

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Tarver, Fred
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 10:07 AM
To: Colin Gaines
Cc: Goudreau, Chris J.; Mark Cantrell; Mike Wilkins; Cranford, Chuck; Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: RE: RE: Hydropower consultation
Mr. Gaines,
I am hesitant to speculate on a preliminary minimum flow requirement without having more details and diagrams of the
proposed project; however, Chris' comments below on the flow statistics below the dam may provide some level of
expectation.
A few things to keep in mind:
You reference NCGS 143- 215.31(c)(2) (Dam Safety Law's instream flow protocol).
-The evaluation of this project requires consultation with state and federal agencies. Federal agencies do not always use
state statute as their guidance.
-This passage may not be germane in this situation due to an apparent NPDES permit discharge at 35.067592 // -
83.225173, just below the dam. (I don't know if this is the permitted discharge from the wastewater treatment plant or
water treatment, but the law does not make a distinction.) If this is the case then NCGS 143- 215.31(e)(1) may be the
guiding passage, which refers back to NCGS 143- 215.31(b) and the associated dam safety rules. The rules can be found
within the administrative code at the following link:
htto: / /reoorts.oah. state. nc. us /ncac.aso ?fOlderName= \Title %2015A %20 -
%20Envi ron me nt %20a nd %20Natu ra I %20Resou rces \Cha ote r %2002 %20 - %20 Envi ron me nta I %20Ma naRe me nt
The relevant rules are below. Specifically, please refer to 15A NCAC 02K .0501(8) and 15A NCAC 02K .0503(b)(5).
15A NCAC 02K.0501 DEFINITIONS
15A NCAC 02K.0503 REQUIRED MINIMUM FLOW FOR SMALL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
15A NCAC 02K.0504 MONITORING OF MINIMUM FLOW REQUIREMENTS
This may be a "special case" stream as defined, which may require a site - specific study. This would require consultation
between resource agencies.
-Any fill placed into the waters of the U.S. may trigger a requirement for a 404 Permit and the associated 401
Certification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the DWR -401 Branch, respectively. The NC Wildlife Resources
Commission also reviews permit applications in trout -water counties.
The contact for the Corps can be found at :
http: / /www.saw.usace.armV • miI/ Missions/ ReguIatorVPermitProgram /Contact.aspx
And for the 401 Branch at:
http://porta1.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ws/webscape/contacts

I have also copied Chris, Chucl< Cranford (DENR), Jennifer Burdette (DENR -DWR -401), Marl< Cantrell (US Fish and Wildlife
Service), and Mil<e Will<ins (US Forest Service) all of whom will lil<ely be involved in the process should you decide to
pursue this project.
Please let me I<now if I may be of further assistance.
Fred
Fred R Tarver III
Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699 -1611
Email: fred.tarver @ncdenr.gov
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
(E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and disclosed to third parties.)
From: Colin Gaines [mailto:colin.gaines @advancedhydropower.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:00 PM
To: Tarver, Fred
Subject: Fwd: RE: Hydropower consultation
Mr. Tarver,
I was given your contact info by Chris Goudreau regarding the below email chain. I would like to begin
the necessary consultation with your office regarding the proposed project, and would like to know your
opinon on or preliminary determination for a minimum flow through the bypassed reach. Regarding the
"trout waters" classification for the stream, is there any guidance or direction you can give us regarding
the construction of a small diversion structure within the stream? Any additional insight,
recommendations, or direction you can give us will be greatly appreciated and instrumental in the success
of our project. If you require amplyfing information regarding the project please let me know and I will
provide it post haste. Thank you in advance for your consideration in reviewing this matter.
Cordially,
Colin M. Gaines
Advanced Hydropower, Inc.
772 - 321 -6243
Forwarded message
From : Goudreau<[e-mail]>
To : "Colin Gaines" <colin.gaines @advancedhydropower.com>
Cc : "Tarver, Fred" <fred.tarver @ncdenr.gov >, Mark Cantrell <Mark A Cantrell @fws.gov >, "Mike
Wilkins " <mwilkins @fs.fed.us >, "Cranford, Chuck" <chuck.cranford @ncdenr.gov>
Date : Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:04:28 -0700
Subject : RE: Hydropower consultation
Forwarded message
Mr. Gaines,

My responses are embedded in the body of your email. I hope they are helpful.
I have copied Fred Tarver (DENR), Chuck Cranford (DENR), Mark Cantrell (US Fish and Wildlife Service),
and Mike Wilkins (US Forest Service) all of whom will likely be involved in the process should you decide
to pursue this project.
Chris
Chris Goudreau
Special Projects Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 28752
828 - 652 -4360 ext. 223
From: Colin Gaines [mailto:colin.gaines @advancedhydropower.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 2:09 PM
To: Goudreau, Chris J.
Subject: Hydropower consultation
Mr. Goudreau,
We would like to begin informal consultation in order to satisfy the 18 CFR 4.38 consultation
requirements to prepare a PAD for an original minor power license application. Any insight,
recommendations, or direction you can give us will be greatly appreciated and instrumental in the
success of our project. I have included information about the project below, including water quality
issues as they are germaine to the topic of aqautic habitat. Thank you for your consideration in
reviewing this matter.
Proiect description:
A 1.0 MW maximum run -of- the -river installation on the upper Cullasaja river near Highlands, NC. The
project will lie on a stretch of the river previously used by FERC project number P -693, but will not use
the existing Lake Sequoyah Dam. Instead, a diversion structure will be constructed below the dam with
a coanda- effect screened intake (2 mm spacing), and a new penstock will be run between the existing
powerhouse downstream and this new diversion structure. We will rehabilitate the existing powerhouse

and tailrace for use in the project. The length of the bypassed stream reach will be approximately 2200
feet. We will be applying for PURPA qualifying facility status, and should therefore qualify under NC state
law as a small power producer.
From your description I believe the powerhouse is near where the transmission line crosses the river
just upstream of Bridal Veil Falls. If so, I'm guessing the intake will be about 200 feet downstream of
the dam. It would help if you show the exact location of the intake, penstock and powerhouse on an
aerial /map.
It appears that some, or all, of the project would be located on USFS property. You should contact Mike
Wilkins, District Ranger, for more information.
Material reviewed:
We have reviewed the several comprehensive plans for the Little Tennessee Watershed produced by the
NCDENR and on file with the FERC as of Dec 2013, as well as the NC Wildlife Action Plan. We have
reviewed the water quality classifications for the stream reach, B and Tr. We have also reviewed the
USGS water quality reports for gauge 03500500 from 1931 -1971 just downstream of the tailrace, and
gauge 0350056050 from 2001 -2010 located about 3 miles downstream of the project. In addition, we
have also reviewed the following reports prepared on the Upper Cullasaja River Watershed:
"Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the Upper Cullasaja River Watershed" NCDENR 2002.
"WATER QUALITY MONITORING OF THE UPPER CULLASAJA WATERSHED, HIGHLANDS, NORTH
CAROLINA" Ahl, Erik et al, no date.
"Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina" USGS water supply paper 2403, 1993.
We are still trying to obtain water quality reports from the Highlands Water Treatment plant and its
NPDES permit just above the intake structure's location.
Are there any other reports or studies you know of for the area not already covered that we should
consider? Is there any other information you want us to review for the project and the PAD?
It appears that the WRC does not have any recent (past 20 years) fish sampling data, but our district
biologist will check the files and we can provide any relevant data in a separate email.
The Tennessee Valley Authority collected fish data from the area in 1999. I've attached a scan of a few
pages, but you should investigate TVA sources further.
The Natural Heritage Program in DENR (http : / /www.ncnhp.org /) maintains data and GIS layers of
Significant Natural Heritage Areas, and Natural Heritage Element Occurrences. There are many records
of rare plants and animals in the vicinity of the project.
The WRC has collected some stream temperature data in the area. I've attached a summary map.
Staff at DENR may have additional water temperature information. You should contact Chuck Cranford.

Our concerns:
Elemental to the development of this project is determining the minimum continuous flow through the
bypassed reach during facility operation. We have reviewed NC G.S. 143- 215.31(c)(2) and determined
from the Low -Flow paper listed above and our own data analysis that the 7Q10 flow for the area affected
is 2.4 cfs, and from the stream gauge information already discussed, that the average annual flow is
approximately 60 cfs. Based on this information we are assuming a minimum bypass flow quantity of 6
cfs for the time being. Can you see any issues with this value at the time? Is there another department
within the NCDENR we should consult on this question in addition to yours? We would like to determine
this value as early on as possible since the entire project is dependent on it. Any change, even a small
one, could materially change the proposal and therefore require us to start the upcoming 4.38 process
all over again from the beginning.
According to consultants for the Town of Highlands, which is proposing to repair Sequoyah
dam, the USGS has recently calculated the 7Q10 at the dam to be 7.2 cfs.
Contact Fred Tarver to discuss the minimum flow requirements.
You should be aware that the 7Q10 value is often not a sufficient minimum flow value and is
typically not the recommended value in hydropower bypassed reaches. Absent a site - specific
flow study, a more common recommendation would be the September median flow. I have
analyzed the limited USGS flow data from the discontinued gage downstream of your proposed
project. When prorated to the dam, the August and September median values are 16 and 32
cfs. Even the 25th percentile flows for August and September are 8.1 and 10.4 cfs. Admittedly,
these may be off quite a bit due to the short period of record, but they are significantly higher
than the 6 cfs you mention above.
It appears that this portion of the river is a hatchery supported stocking river, but I can only find one
location that is listed as the stocking point and it is well downstream. Do you know if stocking occurs at
a point around the project, and if so how often and with what success? There are several discussions in
the papers and reports listed above suggesting that this stretch of river is not suitable for wild trout due
to higher than normal water temperatures and other issues caused by the several impoundments located
immediately upstream. Is there any insight on this issue you can provide from the WRC's point of view?
You are correct regarding the stocking locations on Cullasaja River; there currently are no stocking
points in the vicinity of the proposed hydro project.
The water temperatures below the dam have historically been high. However, the Town of Highlands
dam repair includes the installation of a deep water siphon designed to make water temperatures
suitable for trout all year. After the siphon is functioning, we will assess whether additional stocking
points further upstream are appropriate.
Thank you in advance for your timely review and comments,

Colin M. Gaines
Advanced Hydropower, Inc.
772-321-6243
Email corresponclence to ancl from this sencler is stibject to the N.C. Ptiblic Recorcis Law ancl may be, clisclosec] to thircl parties.