20180119 Ver 2_Howard Brown - response_20190131

Strickland, Bev
From: Sloan, Debra A
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 8:24 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Price, Zan (George); 'Howard Brown ; Jeff Hinshaw; [e-mail]
Subject: Howard Brown - response
Attachments: HOWARD D. Brown corp 013119.docx
David,
Please accept this email on behalf of Howard Brown. He is out of town and asked me to submit this response to
you regarding the intake request on Cold Springs Creek, Macon County, NC. Attached is his letter of reply.
If you have any questions for Howard, he should be back in Andrews the latter part of next week. I can be
contacted by email or cell phone.
In advance, thank you for this consideration.
Best regards,
Debra
Debra Sloan
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Agribusiness Development and Aquaculture Specialist
208 Sugar Cove Road
Franklin, NC 28734
828.524.1264 — office
828.421.9664 — cell
debrasloan&earthlink.net
The only Emit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Ba tt AGRICULTURE
Grown.Raised.Caught. Made
www.gottobenc.com
1

C.R. Brown Enterprises Inc.
235 Milton Mashburn Dr.
Andrews, N.C. 28901
1/28/19
Ref: Cold Springs Intake
339 Cold Springs Creek Road
Cold springs Creek, Macon County
Dear Mr. Brown,
In light of the fact that no one really knows what the 7Q10 is for this location on Cold Springs
Creek and that this moving target will likely change considerably over time, I ask that resolution of my
404 permit be delayed until the state agency responsible for state water quality certification has
completed their evaluation of my request. Based on the water flow figures provided by NCDEQ in their
most recent draft 401 certification, I have proposed that my project be allowed to divert 62.5% and to
bypass 37.5%. There is no way I can guarantee any specific amount of residual water flow in Cold
Springs Creek. If indeed the 7Q10 is 1600 GPM as stated in the most recent draft of the 401
Certification, then 600 gallons per minute flow will remain in the stream and the farm will be able to
operate on the remainder. If the 7Q10 is less, as stated in the earlier 401 and 404 documents, then we
both share the loss proportionately. This percentage flow allocation has been proposed to NCDEQ and I
have still not received a final decision on this request.
You stated in your last written communication that 90% diversion under low flow conditions was
no longer satisfactory even though in their most recent assessment NC Wildlife Resources Commission
said it was sufficient to protect aquatic resources in this arrangement. Do you have any evidence to
support your conclusion? I have agreed to bypass almost 4 times the water as the 90/10 percentage
allocation allows. The 90/10 allocation percentage is there for good reasons, so why shouldn't the
62.5/37.5 be considered in this case? The rationale for a percentage allocation in this case is that we
simply don't yet know what the future water flows will be, and without a reasonable ability to utilize the
water resource, the farm simply cannot operate.
I was told that we cannot impound the water in any way, and did not contest this assertion.
Even though I know a 2 inch trout can easily jump up a 2 foot waterfall, and crawfish and other

creatures will simply crawl, swim or fly around the spillway. Natural rock, log and sediment deposits
consistently create higher falls than this. I said I would try, even though I know from 30 years of
observations that a small dam is no more than what you will see naturally up and down all these
mountain streams. Growing food for people is no easy task but nonetheless an important one, and
requires all the internal fortitude that one can muster. I do hope you can agree with me on this one
point and will consider my request outlined above.
Regards, Howard Brown