20180119 Ver 2_Background Information_20190212

Strickland, Bev
From: Price, Zan (George)
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 1:52 PM
To: Hicks, Joy A
Cc: Holman, Sheila; Gregson, Jim; Culpepper, Linda; Davidson, Landon; Higgins, Karen;
Robert K Mitchell ([e-mail])
Subject: Background Information: Howard Brown Trout Farm Intake 401 WQC
Attachments: SAW -2017-00911 Cold Springs Creek Road Trout Farm NWP 18 Reverification .... pdf;
aqua & water qual memo fr TR.pdf, 2017-00911 399 Cold Springs Creek Road Trout
Farm Repsonse Ltr Nov 2018.pdf, HOWARD D. Brown corp 013119.docx
There are two issues here: 1). Dept of Agriculture's continued reference to a 1992 Memo and 2). The Howard Brown
401/404 permit application for a water intake structure.
1992 Memo Background:
In 1992, the Division of Water Resources (DWR) sent a memo to the Department of Agriculture stating that DWR would
not object to a minimum flow in the bypassed reach of 10% of the available flow as long as three conditions were met:
(1) length of the bypassed reach did not exceed 500 feet, (2) the drainage area at the point of diversion/withdrawal did
not exceed 50 square miles, and (3) the applicant owned the land on both sides of the stream in the bypass reach.
In 2009, DWR sent a memo to the Division of Water Quality clarifying the1992 memo (see attached). The clarification
stated that nothing in the 1992 memo was intended to supersede the requirement to maintain water quality standards
in the affected waters of the state. It further stated that nothing in the 1992 memo should be construed to allow, or
permit, water withdrawals that would have a negative impact on the downstream aquatic life and ecology, as this would
be a violation of the "Class U minimum water quality standard that is applicable to all surface waters in North Carolina.
DWR must make permit decisions based on current statutes, not historical memos. The applicable statutes include 15A
NCAC 02H .0506 (b):
(b) The Director shall issue a certification upon determining that existing uses are not removed or degraded by a
discharge to classified surface waters for an activity which:
(1) has no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (f) of this Rule;
(2) will minimize adverse impacts to the surface waters based on consideration of existing topography, vegetation, fish
and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (g) of this Rule;
(3) does not result in the degradation of groundwaters or surface waters;
(4) does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated future impacts, that cause or will
cause a violation of downstream water aualitv standards:
Additionally:
N.C. General Statute 106-763 states:
"(a) Natural watercourses as designated by law or regulation shall not be blocked with a stand, dam, weir,
hedge, or other water diversion structure to supply an aquaculture facility that in any way prevents or
fails to maintain the free passage of anadromous or indigenous fish;
(b) residual flow in a natural watercourse below the point of water withdrawal supplying an
aquaculture operation shall be sufficient to prevent destruction or serious diminution of downstream
fishery habitat and shall be consistent with rules adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission.

Summary information for the proposed Howard Brown Trout Farm Intake (DWR 2018-0119):
March 5, 2018: DWR issued a 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) for the proposed trout farm intake based on the
information provided in the original application.
August 10, 2018: Mr. Brown requested a modification to the approved 401 WQC. He stated that he needed to redesign
the intake structure to measure in -stream flows.
September 6, 2018: DWR sent a request for additional information to Mr. Brown. DWR requested a proposed water
withdrawal plan indicating the anticipated amount of flow to operate the proposed trout farm and the proposed length
of the bypass reach (i.e., length of stream between the intake and return discharge). This information was needed so
DWR could make a permit decision confirming that the proposed project would not dewater the bypass reach and
violate water quality standards [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(2)(4) and 15A NCAC 0213 .0211 (1) (2)]
September 11, 2018: Army Corps re -issued the 404 permit for the trout farm (attached). The 404 permit included two
flow conditions. 1) "If the permittee returns the diverted flows to Cold Springs Creek adjacent to the intake structure,
resulting in no significant de -watering of the stream reach below the water intake structure, then the above noted
withdraw rates will not need to be followed." 2) "In order to prevent de -watering of the stream reach below the intake
structure and to minimize significant loss of stream functions due to water withdraws from Cold Springs Creek, withdraw
rates will be no more than the 25% of stream flow. However, during periods of low flow in Cold Springs Creek (i.e. flows
of 7Q10 or less) water withdraws will be no more than 0.34 cfs."
September 20, 2018: Mr. Brown responds to the DWR add -info request. His response does not include the amount of
flow needed to operate the farm. Mr. Brown stated "I agree to maintain a minimum flow in the bypassed reach of not
less than 10% of the available flow..." (i.e. Mr. Brown can withdraw up to 90% of the stream)
November 1, 2018: The Army Corps sends a response letter to Mr. Brown (see attached for additional details). The
letter requests that Mr. Brown provide a hydrology assessment and aquatic life survey and inventory so that the Corps
could evaluate the potential impacts to Waters of the US.
November 19, 2018: DWR sends Mr. Brown a draft 401 approval letter with a new flow condition for his review based
on new estimated in -stream flows provided by the Wildlife Resource Commission. The applicable condition states: The
applicant shall install a flow measurement device to record instream flows and withdrawn flows. The applicant can
withdraw up to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) from Cold Springs Creek, but must maintain at least 600 gpm in the
bypass stream reach (i.e. stream reach between the intake and discharge points). Withdrawal and instream flow rate
records shall be kept onsite for a minimum of three (3) years, available for inspection upon request by the Division. [15A
NCAC 02H. 0506 (b)(2)]
November 20, 2018: Mr. Brown requested additional time to review the condition. DWR granted him additional time.
November 21, 2018: Dr. Jeff Hinshaw with NCSU sent an email to DWR suggesting an alternative flow condition. "At
stream flow rates below 1612 gpm, up to 62.5% of the flow may be diverted for trout production. At or above the 1612
level, up to 1000 gpm could be diverted as long as it is returned to the stream within 500 feet, etc."
November 27, 2018: In an effort to resolve the 404/401 permit, Zan Price (DWR) contacted David Brown with the
Corps. David Brown was not comfortable with the revised percent based condition proposed by Dr. Hinshaw. David
Brown said he would waive the requested hydrology assessment and aquatic life survey and inventory if Mr. Brown
accepted the DWR draft flow condition sent to Mr. Brown on November 19. He further stated that he would re -verify
the Corps permit with this condition. David Brown summarized this in an email dated November 27, 2018.
Fil

Mr. Price called Howard Brown on November 28, 2018 to discuss the draft flow condition. Mr. Brown indicated that he
was agreeable to the condition and that he would likely install a pump so that he could pump water back to the intake
during low flow periods so it would not impact his trout operations. He indicated that he would confirm this by email
once he spoke with Department of Ag partners.
DWR and the Corps did not receive a response from Mr. Brown until Debra Sloan (NC Dept of Ag) sent an email on his
behalf to the Corps on January 31, 2019. (see attached word doc)
Zan Price spoke with David Brown (Corps) today. The Corps plans to respond to Mr. Brown's letter. If Mr. Brown
doesn't accept the draft DWR flow condition submitted on November 19, 2018, the Corps intends to require the
requested hydrology assessment and aquatic life survey and inventory in order to evaluate the potential impacts of the
proposed percentage based flow condition (62.5% withdrawal during low flows). The Asheville Regional Office DWR
would support this request by the Corps to confirm any proposal would not degrade waters or contravene state water
quality standards. The Corps is also drafting a letter to DWR regarding the 1992 flow diversion memo and that a 90%
flow diversion does not meet the general conditions of their 404 permit. I am not sure when this letter will be
finalized.
The Corps and DWR are both willing to have a conference call with all affected parties to discuss next steps.
Contact me anytime if you need more information.
Zan Price, P.E.
Assistant Regional Supervisor — Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
828 296 4662 office
828 231 9634 mobile
zan.price(a)ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28711
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Culpepper, Linda
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:47 AM
To: Hicks, Joy A <[e-mail]>; Price, Zan (George) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Holman, Sheila <[e-mail]>; Gregson, Jim <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: 401 & 404 Water Access Permitting
Yes, we have worked well with Mr. Brown. My understand of the latest is that Mr. Brown thought the flow we agreed to
was plenty for his business,
but he wanted to get consensus from Ag. The Corps maybe in a different position.
Zan — please send Joy the information you have. I believe you have a good summary email.
Thank you for all the efforts you've done to help Mr. Brown.
linda
Linda Culpepper
Director, Division of Water Resources

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1611 Mail Service Center
Phone: [phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Hicks, Joy A
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:10 AM
To: Culpepper, Linda <[e-mail]>
Cc: Holman, Sheila <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: 401 & 404 Water Access Permitting
Linda,
Please see the email below from NCDA&CS. Is this under DWR? If so, can we provide any additional information to
NCDA&CS?
Thank you for your help.
Joy Hicks
Senior Director of Governmental Affairs and Policy
NC Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
919-707-8618 office
919-605-1951 cell
Joy.Hicksgncdenr.gov
roan-- CARCUN,a
DWrM UIt 91 Envlrann l OuMKV
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Smith, David
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 5:22 PM
To: Hicks, Joy A <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: 401 & 404 Water Access Permitting
Joy, Do you have any suggestions on how to get movement? Thanks
David
N. David Smith, Chief Deputy Commissioner
N C Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
(Phone) 919-707-3033
(Fax)919-715-0026

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Fish, Ron W
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 4:12 PM
To: Smith, David <[e-mail]>; Keith Larick <[e-mail]>; Hudyncia, Joseph
<[e-mail]>; Jeff Hinshaw <Jeff [e-mail]>; Debra Sloan <[e-mail]>;
Anderson, Pete <[e-mail]>; Stewart, Alexander <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sanderson, Joe B <[e-mail]>
Subject: 401 & 404 Water Access Permitting
Good Afternoon Everyone,
I know everyone is extremely busy, but things continue to develop in regard to Howard Brown's effort to secure a
permit that allows him to invest in the NC trout industry. The Army Corps and DEQ continue to ignore the 1992
agreement and stonewall Mr. Brown's efforts. Howard has requested that the permit reference a percentage of water
withdrawal, fully expecting it to be below the 90/10 rule. The Army Corps and DEQ continue to insistence that it be
based on 1000 gallons per min maximum. We have heard nothing from management at DEQ in Raleigh. Debra Sloan
and Dr. Hinshaw can provide an overview of where things stand and some indication as to Mr. Brown's plan.
After Howard was asked to respond on a short timeframe, he has not received a response to his request in several
weeks. He is anxious to complete this process as not to lose another year of production, but he is mindful of the
implications if he agrees to new requirements that could seriously hurt the chance for NC to expand our trout farming
industry.
I would like to pull together the group for either a conference call or group meeting with the ability to link in Jeff and
Debra via Skype. Keep an eye out for a meeting time & date survey.
Ron
Ron Fish
Assistant Director, NCDA&CS Division of Marketing
Office phone [phone] Cell phone [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
5

oo�u.�a.,o,�.. D EE Q

beA�VLTVRE

Reverification 01
September 13, 2018
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 2017-00911 County: Macon U.S.G.S. Quad: Wayah Bald
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee: C.R. Brown Enterprises, Inc., Attn. Howard Brown
Address: P.O. Box 2391
Andrews, NC 28901
Telephone Number: 828-321-3335
Size (acres): 8.35 Nearest Town: Topton
Nearest Waterway: Cold Springs Creek Coordinates: 35.22264 N, 83.60681 W
River Basin/HUC: Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)
Location description: The proposed project site is located on a tract of land (PIN 6526-47-4831) at 339 Cold Springs
Creek Road in Topton, Macon County, North Carolina.
Description of projects area and activity: This permit verification authorizes 20 linear feet of permanent stream
impacts to Cold Springs Creek associated with placement of approximately 6 cubic yards of fill for construction of a
water intake structure for a trout farm.
Special Condition(s): 1) Per comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, no work in Cold
Springs Creek will be perform during the rainbow trout spawning moratorium between January 1 and April 15.
AND
stream mnetions clue to water wiflictraws 1rom (z;old SprinEs Ureek, w4thdr-a3A, rates will be no more than the 0
the stream flow. However, d ' . - . Os of low flom, in Cold Sprines Creek (i.e. flows of 7010 of less)-�ateir
ithdraiis will be o more than 1.7 cubic feet per so.,, -.,,a. (Revised under Reverification 01, see below).
If the permittee returns the diverted flows to Cold Springs Creek adjacent to the intake structure, resulting in no
significant de -watering of the stream reach below the water intake structure, then the above noted withdraw rates will
not need to be followed.
AND
3) The permittee shall install a flow measurement device in the stream reach at the site and/or establish a stream flow
withdraw plan based upon stream flow data of Cold Springs Creek at the site in order to ensure withdraw rates are
within those noted above.
Reverification 01, September 13, 2018: The permitte submitted design changes to the Corps on August 10, 2018.
Changes are to be made to the intake structure to provide for a water flow rate weir. The proposed design changes
will not cause additional impacts to Cold Springs Creek beyond those previously authorized. Therefore, this permit
reverification does not authorize any additional impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (WoUS) and the special
conditions remain as previously issued except Special Condition 2 is revised as follows:
Special Condition 2) In order to prevent de -watering of the stream reach below the intake structure and to minimize
significant loss of stream functions due to water withdraws from Cold Springs Creek, withdraw rates will be no more
than the 25% of the stream flow. However, during periods of low flow in Cold Springs Creek (i.e. flows of 7Q10 or
less) water withdraws will be no more than 0.34 cubic feet per second.
Any further modifications or changes to the project which could impact WoUS need to be submitted to the Corps for
review and possible reverification. The permitte should review and be attentive to General Conditions 2 (Aquatic Life
Movements) and 9 (Management of Water Flows).
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number or Nationwide Permit Number: NWP 18

CESAW-RG-A 2017-00911
Reverificration 01
September 13, 2018
SEE NWP 18 GENERAL, REGIONAL AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO
VERIFICA TION ISSUED APRIL 10, 2018
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
conditions of NWP 18, above noted special conditions, and your submitted application and attached information dated
January 24, 2018, and August 10, 2018. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate
legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide/regional authorization is
modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide/regional permit authorization
is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies
with all requirements of the modified nationwide/regional permit. If the nationwide/regional permit authorization expires or is
suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
nationwide/regional permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under contract to commence
in reliance upon the nationwide/regional permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months
of the date of the nationwide/regional permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has been
exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
You should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required
Federal, State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Davi rown at 828-271-7980, ext. 4232 or [e-mail].
Corps Regulatory Official: Date: September 13, 2018
David Brown
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2022
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue
to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District, Doug Johnson, 191 Thomas Heights Road, Franklin, NC 28734

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

October 26, 2009
To: Coleen H. Sullins, Director, NC Division of Water Quality
From: Tom Reeder
Subj: Clarification of October 13, 1992 DWR Memorandum
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide clarification of the Memorandum dated
October 13, 1992 from John Morris to Tom Ellis, which concerns the "Development of
Instream Flow Criteria for New Trout Production Facilities." Most importantly, it should
be noted that nothing in the October 13, 1992 memorandum was intended to supersede
the requirement to maintain water quality standards in the affected Waters of the State.
Accordingly, nothing in the October 13, 1992 memorandum should be construed to
allow, or permit, water withdrawals that would have a negative impact on the
downstream aquatic life and ecology, as this would be a violation of the "Class C"
minimum water quality standard that is applicable to all surface waters in North Carolina.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
November 1, 2018
Action ID: SAW -2017-00911
C.R. Brown Enterprises, Inc.
Attn. Howard Brown
P.O. Box 2391
Andrews, North Carolina 28901
Mr. Howard Brown,
Reference is made to your e-mail of September 20, 2018, with attachments [request for
modification of special conditions; NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) memorandum dated
October 13, 1992; NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) letter dated August 30, 2018;
DWR's request for additional information dated September 6, 2018; your response dated
September 19, 2018, to DWR's request for additional information], your response to the Corps
dated October 24, 2018, and conversations with this office during September and October
pertaining to stream withdrawals for the proposed trout farm facility at 339 Cold Springs Creek
Road near Topton in Macon County. The Corps issued, under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 18, a
general permit verification on April 10, 2018, and re -verification on September 13, 2018,
authorizing jurisdictional stream impacts to Cold Springs Creek associated with the water intake
structure for the trout farm facility.
You have requested modification of the Corps' issued general permit verification.
Specifically, this request seeks to increase the stream withdrawal amounts for the proposed trout
farm facility. You have indicated the need of a 1,000 gallons per minute flow (2.23 cubic feet per
second) to be taken from Cold Springs Creek. Based upon the information submitted and
conversations with you, this flow needs to be constant during the fish growing season (mid-
March to mid-November). You have requested to divert 90% of the stream flows at the water
intake structure during all periods the trout farm is operating. The basis for the 90% diversion
amount is the DWR memorandum dated October 13, 1992, (1992 Memo) and WRC letter dated
August 30, 2018, from M. Kyle Briggs (Briggs Letter), which states adherence to the 1992
Memo flow criteria will provide adequate protection to aquatic organisms in the bypassed reach
of Cold Springs Creek.
After review of the submitted request, supporting documents, and conversations with you,
the Corps has the following comments.
1. Department of Army authorization is required for the discharge of fill material in waters of
U.S. (WoUS), pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed trout farm
project would place fill material into Cold Springs Creek for the construction of the water
withdrawal structure.

2. The Corps reviews all requests for verification under the NWP program, along with
submitted supporting information, to ensure the proposed actions meet the terms and
conditions of the NWP.
3. The Corps may add case specific special conditions to a NWP verification to address project
and site-specific environmental concerns. Special conditions are incorporated with an issued
verification to reduce the activity's adverse environmental effects so that they are no more
than minimal and to ensure the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP.
The Corps added special conditions to the issued general permit verification dated April 10,
2018, and re -verification 01 dated September 13, 2018, to ensure the project meets the
general and regional conditions of the permit.
4. The Corps, in a special condition of the issued general permit verification and re -verification,
authorized you to take greater water withdrawal amounts from the stream if you return the
diverted flows to Cold Springs Creek adjacent to the intake structure, resulting in no
significant de -watering of the stream reach below the water intake structure.
5. Per the conditions of NWP 18, your January 2018 permit request and supporting information
was forwarded to supporting agencies for comments in accordance with the Corps'
verification process. The Corps takes into account any comments or recommended permit
requirements from supporting agencies concerning the proposed activity. In reviewing these
comments, it is the Corps' decision to determine if the comments and recommendations
support the terms and conditions of the permit, applicable laws, guidance, and policy.
6. If a supporting agency's comments or recommendations change during the permitting
process or re -verification process, the Corps must make sure these changes still meet the
terms and conditions of the NWP.
7. Based upon the Corps' review of the proposed project information, the stream withdrawal
flow rates noted in the 1992 Memo and Briggs Letter do not meet NWP general conditions 2
(Aquatic Life Movements) and 9 (Management of Water Flows). Reference the enclosed
NWP 18. Also, the Briggs Letter is contradictory to previous comments and information
submitted by this agency pertaining to withdrawal flow rates for this project.
Obtaining reasonable estimates of water flow in Cold Springs Creeks at the location of the
intake structure is essential for the determination that the proposed action meets the terms and
conditions of the NWP. This information is also necessary in the design and operation of a trout
production facility. Your permit application and request for re -verification did not contain
estimates of water flows in Cold Springs Creek at the location of the intake structure. Therefore,
the Corps and supporting agencies generated estimates of stream flows at the project location
using available public data from the area (e.g. FERC relicensing of Nantahala Project-Whiteoak
Creek Dam, US GS StreamStats report, and Whiteoak Creek Minimum Flow Project). See
enclosed Corps summary of estimated flows.
Alteration of the existing stream flow regime can have cascading effects on the physical,
chemical, and biological properties of a stream's ecosystems. For example, conductivity,
sedimentation, and water temperature can increase when flow volumes are reduced, whereas
erosion and sediment transport can increase with amplified flow volumes. These changes to a

stream can in turn lead to the degradation of aquatic life as a result of the loss and disconnection
of high-quality habitat. Additionally, altered flows can fail to provide the cues needed for aquatic
species to complete their life cycles and can encourage the invasion and establishment of non-
native aquatic species.
Changes to a stream's flow volume may result in loss of WoUS, such as when a stream is
anthropogenically or permanently dewatered or dewatered well beyond its natural variability. If it
is determined the stream reach below the intake structure results in significant impacts or a loss of
WoUS due to the operation of the proposed trout farm, the Corps may require compensatory
mitigation.
In order to consider your latest request for modification, the Corps requests submittal of the
following site specific information.
1. Hydrology assessment of the stream reach starting at the withdrawal structure location to a
point 500 feet downstream. The information should contain at a minimum stream flow
analysis, hydrologic analysis of the effects of proposed withdrawal amounts, determination
of low flows, determination of normal. flows,- observed water depths within the reach, and
current wetted widths within the stream reach.
2. Aquatic life survey and inventory (presence, identification, and number of bryophyte, benthic
invertebrate, amphibian, and fish species) of the stream reach starting at the withdrawal
structure location to a point 500 feet downstream.
The Corps needs be able to evaluate all of the project's potential impacts to WoUS in order
determine if the project meets the NWP conditions. Particularly, this requested site specific
information will be used to aid in the evaluation of the proposed action meeting general
conditions 2 and 9.
Please provide the information requested by January 31, 2019. Failure to submit this
information may result in your application being administratively withdrawn. Also, please copy
Mr. Zan Price of DWR and Ms. Andrea Leslie of WRC on your response(s). Once the Corps
receives the additional information we can continue to process your request. If you have any
questions do not hesitate to contact me.
incerely,
David Brown, PG
Regulatory Specialist/Geologist
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Zan Price
NCDEQ Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Resources
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778

Andrea Leslie
NC WRC
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, North Carolina 28752