20030147 Ver 0_Monitoring Reports_20070412

~~ Progress Energy
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear Mr. Dorney:
~ ~ ,~, ,. ~ -~ ~ .i-il 12, 2007
t '~(: ~ ~ ~ ` `~' ; s i~ ~
s L:t': }, w:~~ 9 ~ ! ~
`s
i,.,~
ApR ~ ~ Z(lCl
~I~Inp a•~a ~R ~RAat
SUBJECT: Progress Energy Review and Comment on Proposed Biological Monitoring below
the Tillery Hydroelectric Plant (Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project No.
2206)
This letter responds to your letter of January 18, 2007, concerning the potential need to conduct
post-licensing compliance monitoring of biological communities in the reach of the Pee Dee
River below Tillery Dam as part of :Progress Energy's Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
As an initial follow-up to your January 18 letter, we met with you on January 31st to discuss
certain technical provisions of the biological monitoring proposed in your letter. We very much
appreciate this opportunity for dialogue and the cooperative relationship between the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and Progress Energy, particularly as it relates to
the relicensing of the Tillery and Blewett hydroelectric plants. To continue that dialogue, this
letter expands on certain technical a;;pects of compliance monitoring and identifies some of the
potential issues and concerns related to such post-licensing monitoring.
While Progress Energy certainly appreciates the possible benefits of post-license biological
monitoring as a general proposition, 'the biological monitoring suggested in the January 18 letter
would not measure compliance with any numeric or narrative water quality standard criteria
adopted by NCDWQ. The only specific criterion referenced in your letter is the one for
dissolved oxygen (DO), and compliance with that criterion will be directly monitored by
Progress Energy in the post-licensing term. Despite this concern, Progress Energy will work
with the NCDWQ on how best to confirm that aquatic resource communities below the Tillery
Plant will be protected and enhanced following issuance of the new license.
We present below some of our technical comments and concerns with the monitoring regime you
have proposed and the notion of developing biological criteria in the specific context of the 401
Certification for the Tillery and Blewett plants. Our general technical comments (which we
discussed with you in our January 31 `` meeting) are reiterated in the paragraphs below. We have
also prepared other specific technic;al details and suggestions for the purpose of reducing
uncertainty related to the future use and interpretation of the data collected under the monitoring
program. These specific technical comments are provided as Enclosure 1.
Progress Energy,lnc.
P.O. Box 1551
Raleigh, NC 27602
1

Mr..John Dorney April 12, 2007
1n general, Progress Energy has four areas of concern regarding the use of biological criteria to
verify compliance with North Carolina's water quality standards. These areas are the:
(I) regulatory criteria to be applied when using biological data; (2) existence and persistence of
environmental conditions materially affecting aquatic communities that are completely beyond
the control of Progress Energy; (~l) appropriate aquatic community criteria to 1110111t01'; and
(4) development of a common understanding of the conditions that would serve to trigger a
determination ofnon-compliance with the biological "criteria". Each of these areas is discussed
below.
1. Establishing Workable and Measurable Biolo ical Criteria
Progress Energy, in collaboration with the NCDWR, NCWRC, and NCDWQ, performed an
intensive site-specific itlstream flaw analysis to reasotlably assure the proposed 1111111111t1I71
releases will improve the overall water quality below Tillery Dam. This study has shown that
the recommended flow regime, combined with the proposed DO enhancements, will provide a
substantial improvement in aquatic habitat downstream of the Tillery Plant in the next license
team. Notwithstanding this process, Progress Energy has some serious technical concerns over
the proposed use of biological criteria as the firture basis for determining whether or not North
Carolina water quality standards are met. While the proposed dissolved oxygen (DO)
enhancements and criteria established for the Project can be measured against the specific state
water quality DO criteria as a compliance measure (i.e., instantaneous and daily average DO
standards), biological "criteria", by their very nature, would Heed to allow considel•able site-to-
site, season-to-season, and year-to-year variability. To be meaningfill, biological "criteria" for
the Pee Dee River below Tillery would have to be applicable to large Piedmont rivers in North
Carolina with adjustment or allowance :for variance depending on the amount of influence likely
to be caused by factors out of the control of the regulated entity (e.g., number and dominance of
introduced non-native species or nutrient and sediment loading levels which may favor certain
species). This is especially the case for the fish community. In addition, the time frames
allowed for demonstrating compliance may have to be considerably longer than that for more
quantitative physical or chemical criteria because of the response time associated with biological
communities and the inherent variability of such communities. In Item 3 below, we offer some
suggestions for making biological monitoring a workable and measurable outcome for this
Project.
2. Existence and Persistence of Environmental Conditions Beyond Progress Enerav's
Control
From a purely biological perspective,, there are any number of complex physical, chemical, and
biological factors that can substantially influence riverine aquatic communities. We have several
concerns about the NCDWQ's expectations for changes in the fish community structure that can
be accomplished merely by increased flows and DO enhancements in the five mile reach below
the Tillery Plant. These concerns relate to how certain existing (and long-established)
environmental conditions in the river, which are beyond the control of Progress Energy, may
affect the degree of, and time nreded for, response of the aquatic C0111111tllllty to these
enhancements.
2

Mr. John Dorney April 12, 2007
Just as one significant example, we are concerned that competitive interactions and predation by
non-native fish species inhabiting the river, including smallmouth buffalo, blue catfish, and
flathead catfish, may affect the overall response of the benthic macroinvertebrate aid fish
communities. In particular, the river below Tillery Dam currently supports a very large biomass
of smallmouth buffalo, a habitat generalist and opportunistic omnivore. If the abundance of
these species does not decline with flow and DO enhancements, their continued presence will
likely affect the response of other species. In fact, it is even conceivable that the improved flow
and dissolved oxygen regimes inay positively affect the non-native and predatory species more
than native species leading to unanticipated declines or changes in populations of native species.
It is difficult for Progress Energy to understand how these various effects will be parsed out
relative to their degree of influence on the aquatic communities.
A second consideration is that future changes to fish community structure may well be dictated
by those species currently inhabiting the entire 17 mile river reach including tributaries, st~cli as
Clarks Creek, Rocky River, Brown Creek, and Little River, and Blewett Falls Lake. In short,
expectations regarding future species composition need to consider what species cun•ently exist
in the entire reach (native and non-native species) and not just those species that might have
historically occupied the reach 50 or 100 years ago. Because of the ongoing negative effects oi~
the fish community below Tillery caused by the water quality of the Rocky River, and to a lesse-•
extent Brown Creek, we believe that expectations for positive enhancements to the aquatic
community should be weighted towards the upper 5 miles of the entire 17 mile reach, if indeed
these reaches can be considered separately from a biological perspective.
As still another example, some smaller species such as mi~inows and darters may not be able to
successfully colonize the five mile reach below Tillery where they were either previously absent
or substantially reduced in abundance due to their less mobile nature and a high predator
population.
3. Appropriate Aquatic Community "Criteria"
We believe that the NCDWQ's proposed fish community criteria contained in the January 18
letter are too broad and subject to a substantial degree of subjective interpretation. The
ambiguity in the proposed criteria may lead to future disagreements over whether the biological
criteria are being met. Progress Energy is happy to work with NCDWQ and NCWRC staff to
determine the appropriate criteria for the aquatic community in the Pee Dee River with tl~e goal
of developing a monitoring program tailored to measurable aquatic criteria for which Progress
Energy is appropriately responsible.
As an example of our concerns about the general criteria proposed by NCDWQ, if Progress
Energy adopted the approach of having two or three sampling sites, it is uncertain how any
spatial variability in the biological criteria would be resolved during subsequent evaluations. Foc-
example, if the benthic macroinvertebrate community is rated "Good" at Transect TZI and
"Fair" at Transect TZ2, are the criteria satisfied with regard to compliance? Or do both stations
have to meet the criteria simultaneously to satisfy compliance? And how does this allow for the
inherent variability in assessing aquatic communities on temporal and spatial scales as well as
variability associated with the sampling technique(s) employed?
3

Mr..lohn Dorney
April 12, 2007
Related to the fish community, given the longer life spans and reproductive generation times of
species within this community, we believe that a review date on the established biological
criteria should be at least 10 to 15 years after the implementation of the operational changes to
the flow and DO levels in the river. We believe that any change to the fish COlnlllllnlty will
occur at a slower rate than the benthic macroinvertebrate community given the relative
differences in life spans and reproductive generation times. Even with recognition of the loner
life time spans needed, parsing out the influence of large and well established non-native fish
populations will still be problematic.
Given the oven•iding concerns stated above, especially for the fish community, Progress Energy
believes the only reasonable criteria that can be applied in this case are beI1tI11C
macroinvertebrate species. Therefore, we propose that NCDWQ's standard qualitative method
for benthic macroinvertebrate coirnnunities be used as the bioindicator gauge for overall aquatic
community health. A "Good-Fair" bioclassification rating would be used to demonstrate
reasonably assured improvement of the aquatic community in the five mile reach below Tillery
Dam. For example, monitoring the benthic macroinvertebrate community every three years
beginning in 2012 (after DO improvements in 2011 and depending upon the FERC license
issuance date and license terms and conditions) until 2025 will provide reliable trending data to
track improvements. If little improvement is shown, then a more detailed cooperative biological
and water duality study could be undertaken to examine the reasons for lack of the expected
improvement (perhaps the number of non-native fish predators has substantially increased or
there been unanticipated basinwide changes in water quality). This study would develop
recommendations for future management options, including an evaluation of the Tillery
operations, which would be highly likely to improve the benthic macroinvertebrate population.
4. Compliance Standards
1t is also essential to explicitly define the circumstances that would lead to and the ste s that
would be taken in the case where the NCDWQ believes that biological criteria have n t been
met. Specifically, what form of notification would take place and what time period ~a~ould be
provided to Progress Energy to discuss NCDWQ's findings and propose alternative approaches?
Given the concerns we have raised above, and the obvious challenges presented by dealing with
a complex biological system, important aspects of which are unrelated to the Project, it would
help us to understand the NCDWQ's approach to dealing with these challenges.
We would appreciate further opportunity to discuss and resolve these concerns with the
NCDWQ staff prior to the Progress Energy submittal of the 401 Certification application.
Sincerely yours,
Phillip J. Lucas
Hydro Relicensing Project Manager
PJL/jc
c: Mr. ,John Crutchfield
4

Enclosure 1
Progress Energy Detailed Technical Comments Regarding Proposed NCDWQ Biological
Monitoring of the Pee Dee River from Tillery Dam to Rocky River Confluence
1. Location of monitoring
For any biological monitoring program, Progress Energy proposes that at least two sites be used
for biological monitoring. One site would be located near the upstream end of the five mile
reach extending from the Tillery Dam to the Rocky River confluence and one site located clear
the downstream end of this reach. The two sampled sites will provide a spatial assessment of the
status of the aquatic community at the beginning and end of the identified reach.
We would recommend that the two sites (i.e., Transects TZ1 and TZ2) chosen for the 2004
relicensing shallow water study' be given consideration for use for any 401 compliance
biological monitoring. The upper site, Transect TZ1, is shoal and shallow r-un 1labitat located
approximately 1.0 to 1.5 miles below the Tillery Plant (below N.C. Highway 731 Bridge) and
includes transects used in the relicensing instream flow study. The lower sampling site, Transect
TZ2, is also shoal and shallow run habitat located approximately 4.5 miles downstream of the
power plant and just above the Rocky River confluence. Both sampling sites are similar in
habitat characteristics, including channel width, and have reasonable, safe access for sampling.
We agree to conduct a joint field site visit with the NCDWQ staff to select the specified
sampling areas within these two sites.
2. Frequency of monitoring
We concur with the NCDWQ that a temporal sampling design is necessary to document any
change to the aquatic communities during the "pre" and "post" power plant operational periods
regarding the flow and DO regimes in the river. This type of sampling design will characterize
the existing baseline conditions of the aquatic communities (i.e., "pre" operational change
period) and also assess any future changes in these communities (i.e., "post" operational change
period). This sampling design is often employed where there is no control or reference sample
site for comparison, as is the case for this river reach. Establishing baseline conditions of these
aquatic communities prior to the flow and DO changes is necessary to document the existing
communities and to assess the relative spatial and temporal variability in the river reach. We
recommend that sampling be conducted every three years after baseline conditions (2008-2011
period) are established for the river.
A staggered approach to assessment. of flow and DO improvements should be accounted for in
the sampling design, if there are expected differences in compliance dates for the flow and DO
improvements. For example, baseline conditions need to be established prior to flow and DO
improvements (either 2008 or 2009 depending upon when license conditions take affect).
Sampling should occur during the initial period following flow improvements (2009-2011) but
~ Progress Energy. 2006. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2206. Shallow water fish.
crayfish, and mussel surveys of the Pee Dee River and tributaries. Water Resources Group. Issue 1~'0. 1-
Describe current resident river aquatic resources of project at-ea. Progress Energy. April 2006.
1

Enclosure 1 DRAFT 4/9/07 April 12, 2007
prior to the final compliance date for DO improvements. Sampling would then occur every three
years after the DO improvements take effect at the Project (beyond 2011).
The three year sampling frequency would continue for at least four sampling episodes. A
question arises over whether the biological criteria are satisfied if the benthic macroinvertebrate
criteria are met in one of the sampling episodes during this evaluation period but not during the
last sampling episode. Some viable options include: (1) terminating the monitoring program at
the time the established criteria are met if the date is prior to the end of the evaluation period; (2)
extending the sampling for another three year period; or (3) sampling for three consecutive years
prior to the end of the evaluation period to see if the criteria are met in one of these three years.
We feel this additional "evaluation window" is justifiable due to the uncontrollable variability in
aquatic communities from climatic or• other environmental effects.
3. Type of monitoring
Progress Energy would propose that the benthic macroinvertebrate community be treated as the
"Bioindicator Species Group". We agree that the benthic macroinvertebrate community be
assessed using the NCDWQ standard qualitative method for benthic macroinvertebrates for
Piedmont rivers.z The final bioclassification criterion rating will be derived using the N.C.
Biotic Index value and the EPT taxa richness value.
For the fish community, we recommend this not be used as a Bioindicator index because of the
likely difficulty in defining acceptability and variability of criteria. If fish for some reason must
be used, we propose that the shallow water community be conducted under the minimum flow
conditions using similar methods employed in the 2004 shallow water study (i.e., combination
of tote barge electrofishing, backpack electrofishing, and seining). For open water species, we
propose to use boat electrofishing under accessible plant generation flows and to make several
passes through the sampling site. The boat electrofishing will help characterize the more mobile,
large adult fish that may inhabit the area.
4. Timing of monitoring
We concur that the monitoring should be conducted during the summer period of each year
(July-August). Flows are typically more stable (accounting for the future minimum flow of 330
cfs) during this period which allow for safe and effective sampling. We also recommend that
sampling event be targeted for the each year within a three week window, if possible, to
minimize any temporal variability in the assessments. However, sampling within this three week
window is contingent upon safe and favorable field conditions.
5. Success/recovery criteria
Bentl:ic invertebrate co~nfnu~zity-We concur that the NCDWQ and Progress Energy agree on
the appropriate criteria for evaluating the aquatic communities. As mentioned in Section 3, we
recommend the NCDWQ standard qualitative method be used for the benthic macroinvertebrate
community with. a bioclassification rating of "Good-Fair" as the basis for compliance (based on
EPT and Biotic Index scores).
'`NCDWQ, 2006. Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit. July
2006. North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
Environmental Services Section.
2

Enclosure 1 DRAFT 4/9/07 April 12, 2007
Fish conununity-There are several overriding concerns related to the NCDWQ proposed fish
criteria, including the criteria being too broad in definition and subject to a wide degree of
interpretation. Another issue relates to the NCDWQ proposed "balanced and indigenous"
criteria. For the reasons outlined above in this letter, we expect this definition to be violated
given the expected persistence and dominance ofnon-native species even with the flow and DO
improvements in the next license term.
Progress Energy proposes to work with NCDWQ staff to determine if any appropriate criteria for
the fish community can be developed and then interpreted objectively accounting for influences
outside the control of Progress Energy. A couple of potential options include determining if the
current list of criteria can be further reined with a definition given for each specified criterion or
whether the North Carolina Fish Index of Biotic Integrity3 (NCIBI) metrics for Piedmont streams
can be adapted for use. The latter approach would only use identified NCIBI metrics and assign
ranges of values for each metric that would have to be met. This approach would not produce an
endpoint bioclassification ranking like the NCDWQ benthic macroinvertebrate standard
qualitative method because the NCI:BI has not be applied to large river systems, such as the Pee
Dee. There are also several questions which will need to be addressed with using multiple
criteria for the fish community. First, what level of criteria acceptance constitutes a final
judgment on the health of the community? For example, do all of the criteria have to be met
simultaneously? Or what happens if 10 of 12 identified criteria are met? Does meeting a
majority of the criteria (i.e., >_ 50% of criteria or metrics) satisfy requirements? Tllese questions
will need to be resolved if fish criteria are deemed a necessary bioindicator for monitoring.
Trigger Date for Biological Criteria Evaluation- We believe that the final decision date on
meeting the established biocriteria should be at least 10 to 15 years after the operational changes
to the flow and DO levels in the river. Therefore, we propose that 2025 be used as the trigger
date for determining whether any biological criteria are met or not. As mentioned in Section 2,
sampling could be conducted concurrently for three years prior to the 2025 trigger date with the
f nal decision regarding compliance occurring in 2025. This trigger date would coincide with the
cooperative utility and resource agency assessment regarding the effectiveness of upstream
passage of American shad and American eel in 2025 per the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Diadromous
Fish Implementation Plano. If the biological criteria are satisfied by 2025, Progress Energy
proposes that the biological monitoring be terminated at that time the criteria are satisfied, if that
occurs prior to 2025.
NCDWQ. 2006. Standard operating procedure biological monitoring. Stream fish community assessment
program. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
Environmental Sciences Section, Biological Assessment Unit. August 1, 2006.
'Diadromous fish restoration implementation plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River for Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206 and Yadkin Hydroelectric Project 2197. Draft. Revision No. 1 1. December 7,
2006.
3