20140463 Ver 1_Emails_20140423 (2)

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Tarver, Fred
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:06 PM
To: Colin Gaines
Cc: Goudreau, Chris J.; Cantrell, Mark; Burdette, Jennifer a; Cranford, Chuck; Mike Wilkins
Subject: RE2: RE: Hydropower consultation
Colin,
Responses to email below:
1). NCGS 143- 215.31(b), as interpreted, generally applies to non - hydropower dams, expect when NCGS 143 - 215.31 (e)
applies.
2). Upon re- review of your initial communication with Chris I realized that your diversion structure would be
downstream of the existing Lake Sequoyah Dam. (I thought it would be attached to the dam.) The NPDES permitted- -
although the EPA site states that it has expired - -is still in effect based on communication with DENR staff; the renewal
application for the permit has been submitted.
Ground - truthing and a detailed map (1:100) should be provided to both verify and illustrate the exact positioning of the
diversion to the discharge location (35.067592 // - 83.225173) . If the discharge is below the proposed diversion
then (e) would apply; if the converse is true then (c)(2) would apply. If 15A NCAC 02K .0503 applies, while attempting
not to prejudice the assessment, your assertion of something other than "poor" habitat and the requirement of a site -
specific study is probably correct, per (b)(2)(5).
Resource agencies have typically relied upon traditional IFIM techniques for those small hydropower projects that have
required a study. Since the inclusion of the new statutes in the Dam Safety Law in 1994, there's been little, if any, need
for a field study associated with a small power producer; most of the active small hydros are PURPA projects from the
80's and back then they were accepting September medians in lieu of studies. IFIM techniques were used when
relicensing Duke Power's hydro projects in the mountains in the 80's, 90's and 00's (Nantahala River [P- 2692],
Tuckaseegee River [East Fork P- 2698][West Fork P- 2686], Queens Creek [P- 2694]). Some of these documents can be
found on the FERC's eLibrary site.
If NCGS 143- 215.31(c)(2) applies, then the greater of the 7Q10 or 10 %Mean Annual Flow would probably be the 7Q10
(7.5 cfs as associated with the NPDES permit), since I can find nothing in our files to indicate a MAF greater than —60 cfs.
For planning purposes you should contact the federal agencies because they may employ different guidance.
I've cc'ed others to keep in loop.
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: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:11 PM
To: Tarver, Fred
Subject: RE: RE: Hydropower consultation
Fred,
Thanks for the reply. You brought up some good points, and I just want to clarify them so I know we are
on the same page.
1) The administrative code you mentioned only applies if the affected stream reach isn't subject to NCGS
143- 215.31(c)(2) for whatever reason including the NPDES permit clause. I only ask because after
reading the first paragraph of .0503 it seems like the admin code applies to any small power producer as
that term is defined by state statue.
2) Regarding NCGS 143- 215.31(e)(1) and the NPDES permit, I believe the point you refer to belongs to
the now expired permit for the Town of Highlands' waste water treatment facility and it's discharge
location. This location is up stream of the project and the affected stream reach. Previously we had
understood (e)(1) to only refer to an affected stream reach that receives waste discharge directly and not
in an incidental manner as in this case. In other words since the project is downstream of that discharge
point, the (e)(1) clause wasn't a factor. After reading your email I am now uncertain on this point and
any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Assuming the admin code you mentioned is the relevant rule for this project I do have additional
concerns. I don't believe that the stream reach is "special case" as defined, but I am almost positive that
it is located in the "mountain region." The question would then be the quality of the aquatic habitat and
whether or not it is classified as "poor." It appears that the affected stream reach hasn't been evaluated.
So, in short, it appears to me that we will be forced to carry out a site specific instream flow study as
defined in .0501(j). To be honest the definition of the study seems very vague and I was hoping, if you
concur with my assestment of the situation and the need for the site specific study, that you could direct
me to any examples or references the Department has used recently for this type of study. We will then
be able to use those references as a starting point for our proposed study methodology and as general
examples for comparison.
I appreciate your help, we can't finish the evaluation process until we determine the bypass flow
requirement. The flows mentioned in Chris' email vary so much that even stepping from one to the other
would require a "material" change in the project. I have attached a preliminary graphic of the project. It
is almost exactly as Chris described it in his email. I don't have the exact figure at my disposal, but the
length of affected stream according to the admin code's definition is not more than 2,500 feet at this
time. I know you are hesitant to speculate on the minimum flow, but I should be able to provide just
about any detail you desire at this point. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any requirements.
Thanks,
Colin M. Gaines
Advanced Hydropower, Inc.
772 - 321 -6243

- - -- On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:07:23 -0700 Tarver<[e-mail]> wrote - - --
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:
%20Environment%20and%2ONatural%2OResources\Chapter%2002%20-
The relevant rules are below. Specifically, please refer to 15A NCAC 02K .0501(g) 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
3

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.army.miI/ Missions/ RegulatoryPermitProgram /Contact.aspx
And for the 401 Branch at:
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org/ web /wg /swp /ws /webscape /contacts
I have also copied Chris, Chuck Cranford (DENR), Jennifer Burdette (DENR -DWR -401), 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.
Please let me know 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
4

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. Ta rver,
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 I
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.
0

Project 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 correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.