20070812 Ver 1_UNC Response to Request_20070919

COLLEGE OF
ARTS & SCIENCES
September 19, 2007
Matt Bernhardt
Salisbury/Rowan Utilities
Salisbury, NC
Dear Matt:
THE UNIVERSITY
of NORTH CAROLINA
of CHAPEL HILL
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
SAUNDERS HALL
CAMPUS BOX ;zzo
CHAPEL HILL, NC z7599-3zzo
T q~g.gfiz.8go)
F q)q.g6x.t337
www. unc. edu /depts/geog
On 13, September 2007, APGI's attorneys filed letters with FERC and NC DWQ advising those
agencies to question the conclusions, accuracy, and scientific validity of my report Effects of Bridges
over Yadkin River on Water Surface Elevation Profiles. As I understand it, the attorneys conclude
that the information in the report is insufficient for an outside expert to evaluate the report's
assumptions, methodologies, accuracy, or conclusions.
My reports are intended to identify the information that I used to conduct the analysis and to provide
the information that another scientist or engineer would need to replicate my analysis. In the bridge
report, paragraphs 2-4 describe the bridge dimensions that I used. All other data (e.g., channel
geometry) are based on previously presented data sources. I also provide the assumptions that were
required in the execution of the HEC-RAS model. These are clearly stated in the report, and a
scientist or engineer could execute the model as I have described therein. One of the sources for the
bridge information is www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/us29/wilcox.html, which was inadvertently
omitted from a footnote.
The Alcoa attorneys do not refer specifically to my report, Equilibrium Analysis of Yadkin and South
Yadkin Rivers, but the letter might be read as referring to it (because it is one of the reports submitted
to DWQ and FERC by Salisbury on August 24). The data and analysis in that report were extremely
simple. As recommended by Dr. Bales of the USGS, I simply downloaded freely available data from
the USGS website and ran a correlation analysis between width and year. This work is easily
replicated.
Throughout these reports and previous reports for Salisbury, I have presented the level of data,
methodology, analytical detail, and substantiated conclusions that I am accustomed to presenting
and/or evaluating in scientific analysis and publications, which includes more than 35 peer-reviewed
journal publications, and service as apeer-reviewer of more than 50 manuscripts for technical
journals. In sum, I have provided the information needed for a scientist or engineer to replicate my
analysis. I would be more than happy to discuss these results, and their underlying sources, and
particularly to discuss any potential erroneous conclusions that maybe present if shown quantitative
results that indicate error in my analysis, results or conclusions.
Best regards

Martin W. Doyle, Ph.D.
Associate Professor