20031110 Ver 6_Other Agency Comments_20100528 (2)

Dorney, John
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 7:46 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Duke Nantahala Area - 401 water quality comments - additional clarifications
John
I have a couple of additional clarifications on my May 28, 2010 comments. I realize that my original language may have
been confusing.
1. In the May 28, 2010 letter regarding the Nantahala Project, on page 3 -table at bottom of page: t?`
My table got jumbled, and there may be some confusion in the column labeled "Nantahala below Dicks Creek"
where it shows June through October show releases of 16 cfs - this should extend to November 15, and is
leakage plus various penstock flows. I am still trying to figure out the plumbing there. Anyway, the Table was
a summary, and I think that I did get it right in the recommended language. So it maybe best to disregard the
table for now.
2. In the May 28, 2010 letter regarding the Nantahala Project, on page 9, second paragraph, in the last sentence of the
proposed language,
When I said: "Sediment and streamflow from the Diamond Valley Dam and Dicks Creek Dam shall be
unimpeded into the downstream reaches."
I meant that the current operation is one of complete run-of-river. All streamflow - water and sediment -
passes over these dams under the current operational status.
Therefore, I do not recommend any changes in sediment management for these impoundments, unless there is a
drawdown or their operational status is changed.
3. In the May 28, 2010, letter concerning the East Fork and West Fork Projects, on page 8 - Low Inflow Protocol:
The threshold minimum flows that I cited for the Wolf Creek Bypassed Reach and the Tuckasegee River were
actually the same recommended minimum flows for these stream reaches. Threshold minimum flows, as
stated in the Tuckasegee Cooperative Stakeholder Team Settlement Agreement Appendix 8 Low Inflow
Protocol,are as follows:
Threshold Minimum Flows -the minimum flow release amounts from hydro project works that may be
necessary to sustain aquatic communities consistent with the resource management goals and objectives for
the affected stream reaches. Since the normal minimum flow releases are for water quality and / or aquatic
species habitat enhancements, the Threshold Minimum Flows are related to and lower than the normal
minimum flow releases required by the FERC license. For the purposes of this protocol, it is assumed that the
Threshold Minimum Flows are as follows:
a. Wolf Creek Bypassed Reach - 2 cfs or inflow into Wolf Creek Lake, whichever is less, released from Wolf Creek
Dam into the Wolf Creek Bypassed Reach.
b. Main Stem of the Tuckasegee River - the normal minimum flow provided from Tuckasegee Dam (i.e. 20 cfs or
inflow into Tuckasegee Lake, whichever is less) plus the following minimum flows provided from the Cedar Cliff Spill
Valve during periods of non-generation from Cedar Cliff Hydro Station:
1) From December 1 through June 30 - 6 cfs
2) From July 1 through November 30 -11 cfs.
I appreciate the opportunity to correct and clarify these statements to ensure that there are no unnecessary
complications on the 401 WQC process.
In general, I think that we have worked out a good process to move forward on the Sediment Management
issues at the projects, and to continue to refine the operation to minimize the effects of sediment. Any
questions, please give me call.
thanks,
Mark A. Cantrell
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
828/258-3939, ext 227
mobile: [phone]