20120900 Ver 2_Flow_Monitoring_Update_10-1-2018_20181001

Strickland, Bev
From: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 3:27 PM
To: Moss, Jeffrey
Cc: Robinson, Jerald; Tarver, Fred; Styer, Tami; Mcdaniel, Chonticha; Higgins, Karen; Neal
Simmons - CHP; Brandon Beres
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Attachments: Yadkin_Flow_Monitoring_Update_10-1-2018.pdf
All,
Cube Yadkin filed the attached implementation report with FERC today. Flow data is available on the Project website at
httD:Hcubecarolinas.com/lake-levels/.
Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 9:56 AM
To: 'Moss, Jeffrey' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Styer, Tami <[e-mail]>;
Mcdaniel, Chonticha<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Neal Simmons - CHP
<[e-mail]>; Brandon Beres <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Jeffrey,
Thank you for your review and analysis.
All,
We are continuing to move forward with the installation of flow meters at the base of each of the Narrows penstocks (as
an alternative to the flow monitoring below Falls Dam (please see attached proposal)). If you have questions or
comments specific to this methodology please let us know as soon as possible, and no later than August 17. We are
working towards our FERC extended deadline of September 28, 2018 to have the monitoring equipment installed,
operational and transmitting data to the Project website.

Thank you,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
6 CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email
From: Moss, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 9:48 AM
To: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Styer, Tami <[e-mail]>;
Mcdaniel, Chonticha <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Neal Simmons - CHP
<[e-mail]>; Brandon Beres <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Hi Jody,
I have taken a look at the M9 measurements you sent over. I have attached my comments. Overall a pretty decent
measurement Our post -processing changed the overall Q by 38 cfs, less than 1%. You mentioned that you did not make
a moving bed test. I light of a way to keep the boat stationary, which is difficult in a boat, I would suggest using a loop
test instead. They save time and are easier to perform in a boat. Here is the link to the USGS loop test report in case
your interested.
https://Pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5079/pdf/SIR2006-5079.pdf
Jeffrey
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Jody Smet <[e-mail]> wrote:
Jeff, Boo,
In response to your comments, attached is a sample flow measurement taken below the Falls Dam with our new SonTek
M9 RiverSurveyor. A few comments on this data:
1. As you will see, a compass calibration was performed prior to the measurements being taken.
2. We did not perform a moving bed test as, at the time, we had no way of keeping the boat stationary. We have
since purchased an anchor for the boat so going forward this test will be done prior to taking all measurements.
3. The edge distances were estimated as we did not have a laser range finder on board. Going forward, a laser range
finder will be used to take the edge measurements.
4. We are using bottom track for location (not GPS).

As a reminder, as an alternative to monitoring flow below Falls Dam (because of the issues we discussed
previously), Cube Yadkin is proposing to now monitor flow through the Narrows penstocks. Please review and
comment on the attached monitoring proposal, as we are moving forward with the installation of flow monitoring
equipment in order to meet our time extension from FERC (September 2018). We would like to be sure that
everyone is in agreement with the current proposal.
Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email
From: Moss, Jeffrey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 2:55 PM
To: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Hi Jody,
I took a look at the measurements from the Falls_0_20180119 file. There a few things that I would like to point out that
I found during my review.
• There are only 2-4 valid cells during the measurements. In a case like this where there is over 8 ft of depth we
would reduce the cell size. Normally, we will make a test transect to see what our depths look like then use the

maximum depth option and it will automatically compute your cell sizes for optimum performance. We do not
use the Sontek Mini ADP and I am not familiar with how small the cells can get.
• Two of the transects, FALLS1801191232 & FALLS1801191250, had negative discharges due to the edges being
entered wrong. I changed the starting edge and they became positive.
• The transects were set to reference GPS. I changed to Bottom Track reference. USGS guidelines are that we use
Bottom Track as primary and GPS as secondary due to the nature of multi -path and other issues effecting GPS.
Usually we only use GPS when we lose a lot of bottom tracking. I imagine where you guys are measuring you
will probably always have a good bottom track. Making this change resulted in the discharge going from 4,230
cfs to 3,783 cfs, a 12% difference.
• USGS guidelines also say that the transects need to be within 5% of the mean. All of the transects were over 5%
of the mean, with one being as high as 10% difference from the mean discharge. In a case like this we would
make more transects to try and get a more accurate measurement, since there is something going on that is
causing variation in the transects. Some effects could be difference in tracks, edge differences, or surging
flow. Our max is 12 transects.
• No compass calibration or moving bed test was performed. I assume the MiniADP has a compass since GPS was
being used.
I have attached my discharge summary so you can see the differences. If you have any questions please don't hesitate
to contact us.
Jeffrey
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Jody Smet <[e-mail]> wrote:
I apologize for not providing that earlier. The serial number is M713.
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
6 CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email

From: Moss, Jeffrey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 8:11 AM
To: Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]>; Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
I also need the system serial number to be able to install the software.
Thanks,
Jeffrey
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]> wrote:
Let's not forget about this.
Charlotte Field Office Chief
South Atlantic Water Science Center
[phone] Ext. 11
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
To: "Robinson, Jerald" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brandon Beres <[e-mail]>, Jeffrey Moss <[e-mail]>
Boo, Jeffrey,
The software used for the data at Falls with our Sontek ADP is "RiverSurveyor v. 4.60", here:

https://www. sontek.com//softwaredetail.php?RiverSurveyor-Software-35
The license number for the software is: 705-65-242.
Will you take a look at the data again with this software, and let us know what you think?
Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
CUBEHYDRO
CAIR0LINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused
by any virus transmitted by this email
From: Robinson, Jerald [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 10:59 AM
To: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Styer, Tami <[e-mail]>; Brandon Beres <[e-mail]>; Tarver, Fred
<[e-mail]>; Mcdaniel, Chonticha <[e-mail]>; Neal Simmons
<[e-mail]>; Eli Hopson <[e-mail]>; Jeffrey Moss <[e-mail]>; Jerald
Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Jody,

See the email below from Jeffrey Moss concerning these files. I was under the impression that you were using an M9
to measure discharge, but these files are just velocity data from an ADP - no discharge computed.
Moss, Jeffrey
to me
10:55 AM
In regards to the Sontek mini ADP measurements I was able to install the ViewADP software. However that software just
shows me the velocity profile. It does not show the current or bottom track profile, hence it does not compute discharge,
just velocity profile data. Riversurveyor will not process the mini ADP files. If you have .riv/.rivr M9 files I can look at those
using RiverSurveyor. Looking at Sonteks web site there is some other software that may work called CurrentSurveyor. A
license if required to download that software so I was unable to install it to try.
I did not see any WinRiver II measurement files, just the mini ADP files.
Jeffrey
Jeffrey Moss
Hydrologic Technician
U.S. Geological Survey
South Atlantic Water Science Center
810 Tyvola Rd Suite 108
Charlotte, NC 28217
Office :704.344.6272 Ext. 16
Boo Robinson

Charlotte Field Office Chief
South Atlantic Water Science Center
[phone] Ext. 11
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]> wrote:
Jody,
We have the appropriate software to view the files, but there was still some type of issue in doing so.
I have copied the technician I tasked with reviewing those measurements on this email so he can reply as to what
the problem was.
Boo Robinson
Charlotte Field Office Chief
South Atlantic Water Science Center
[phone] Ext. 11
http://nc.water. usgs.gov/
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Jody Smet <[e-mail]> wrote:
Ta m i,

I was finally able to get the data files to Boo via his personal email, but he is not able to open them. He requested
the *.riv or *.rivr files. Normandeau used the Sontek Mini ADP for the Falls survey and the TRDI ADCP for the High
Rock survey. The data files we provided are the proprietary raw file formats that are recorded with those
instruments. It's my understanding that you will need Sontek RiverSurveyor and Teledyne RD Instruments
WinRiver II software to most easily view the Sontek and TRDI files, respectively. Brandon identified the following
software as being necessary to open the files:
` VIEWADP — V 4.03 — 12JUL2005
I
ADP FIRMWARE — V 9.9 — 24JAN2011
https://www.sontek.com/software-archive/
If you are unable to download the software and view the data, an alternative may be for us to access the data and
provide a copy as a Microsoft or PDF file.
Also, I have talked to several staff and we do not have the data you requested about travel time from Narrows to
Tillery. The only data point I have is from our EAP. Please let me know if there is something more to address your
question.
All, please let me know if you would like me to schedule a call to discuss our current flow monitoring proposal and
available data.
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
6 URE HYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email

From: Styer, Tami [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:24 AM
To: Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]>; Brandon Beres <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tarver, Fred <[e-mail]>; Mcdaniel, Chonticha <[e-mail]>; Neal
Simmons <[e-mail]>; Eli Hopson <[e-mail]>; Jody Smet
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Jody/Brandon,
I did not receive the file Brandon tried to send last week on the flow measurements below Falls Dam. I looked in
Boo's folder on the USGS public ftp site too and didn't see it there. Has it been uploaded already?
Thanks!
Tami
`tDUKE
ENERGY.
TamiStyer, Project Manager II
Water Strategy and Hydro Licensing
526 S. Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
704) 382-0293 office
704) 641-3832 cell
From: Robinson, Jerald [mailtoJbrobins(a�usgs.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 5:28 PM
To: Brandon Beres
10

Cc: Tarver, Fred; Mcdaniel, Chonticha; Styer, Tami; Neal Simmons; Eli Hopson; Jody Smet; Jerald Robinson
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
*** Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT
open attachments or click links from unknown senders or
unexpected email. ***
You can put them in my folder on our public ftp site:
ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/er/nc/charlotte/Boo
Thanks.
Boo Robinson
�I
Charlotte Field Office Chief
�I
South Atlantic Water Science Center
�I
704) 344-6272 Ext. 11
http://nc.water.usgs.gov
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Brandon Beres <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Robinson,
I just received an email stating that the email is undeliverable because it has a zipped file attached. Is there another
way for me to get you this information?
11

Best Regards,
II
Brandon Beres
Power Systems Engineer
Cube Hydro Carolinas LLC
I
Office 704)-422-5537
II
Cell (828)-406-6801
From: Brandon Beres
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 4:10 PM
To: 'Robinson, Jerald' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tarver, Fred <[e-mail]>; Mcdaniel, Chonticha <[e-mail]>; Styer, Tami
<[e-mail]>; Neal Simmons <[e-mail]>; Eli Hopson
<[e-mail]>; Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Mr. Robinson,
Please find attached the raw data collected by Cube and Normandeau using a Sontek RiverSurveyor M9 on
1/19/2018 below the Falls dam. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like additional data.
Best Regards,
Brandon Beres
I
Power Systems Engineer
II
Cube Hydro Carolinas LLC
II
Office (704)-422-5537
Cell (828)-406-6801
12

From: Robinson, Jerald [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:36 PM
To: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tarver, Fred <[e-mail]>; Mcdaniel, Chonticha <[e-mail]>; Styer, Tami
<[e-mail]>; Neal Simmons <[e-mail]>; Brandon Beres
<[e-mail]>; Eli Hopson <[e-mail]>; Jerald Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Jody,
Can you send me the actual electronic discharge measurement files? I'd like to review them using our protocols
and software.
Thanks.
Boo Robinson
�I
Charlotte Field Office Chief
�I
South Atlantic Water Science Center
�I
[phone] Ext. 11
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Jody Smet <[e-mail]> wrote:
All,
I apologize for the delay. When we last spoke on March 20, Cube Yadkin committed to drafting a flow monitoring
proposal that addressed the concerns you expressed during our call. I have attached a proposal for your review
and comment. Additionally, both NCDEQ and Duke have asked for information to support the claim that the flow
out of Narrows = the flow out of Falls. I have also attached a short discussion and some supporting data that
address this question. Please review both documents and send us your feedback. I'm also happy to schedule a
call to discuss further, if necessary.
13

Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0) 804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
6 CUBEHYDRO
CARO LI NAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for
damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email
-----Original Appointment -----
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 1:18 PM
To: Jody Smet; Tarver, Fred; Mcdaniel, Chonticha; Jerald Robinson; Styer, Tami; Neal Simmons; Brandon Beres; Eli
Hopson
Subject: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
When: Thursday, March 22, 2018 3:30 PM -4:30 PM (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Dial 1-515-604-9768 Enter 989008#
To discuss permanent flow monitoring device below Falls Dam.
14

Jeffrey Moss
Hydrologic Technician
U.S. Geological Survey
I South Atlantic Water Science Center
810 Tvvola Rd Suite 108
Charlotte, NC 28217
I
Office :704.344.6272 Ext. 16
Jeffrey Moss
Hydrologic Technician
U.S. Geological Survey
South Atlantic Water Science Center
810 Tyvola Rd Suite 108
Charlotte, NC 28217
Office :704.344.6272 Ext. 16
15

Jeffrey Moss
Hydrologic Technician
U.S. Geological Survey
South Atlantic Water Science Center
810 Tyvola Rd Suite 108
Charlotte, NC 28217
Office :704.344.6272 Ext. 16
16

6 CUBE HYDRO
CAROLINAS
October 1, 2018
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
ATTN: OEP/DHAC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Cube Hydro Carolinas LLC
293 Highway 740
PO Box 575
Badin, NC 28009-0575
Subject: Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2197-120)
License Article 401 / WQC Condition No. 13.A.iii - Flow and Reservoir
Elevation Monitoring and Compliance Plan
Dear Secretary Bose:
Cube Yadkin Generation LLC (Cube Yadkin) filed a Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring
and Compliance Plan (Plan) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) on
June 20, 2017. The Commission modified and approved the Plan in an Order dated August 11,
2017.1 The Commission modified the Plan to require Cube Yadkin to file an update within 6
months of the date of the Order (February 11, 2018), which verifies that the flow monitoring
equipment has been installed and is functioning as intended, or notifying the Commission of any
delay. On February 12, 2018, Cube Yadkin filed an update on the installation of the flow
monitoring equipment and requested an extension of time (45 days) to complete required agency
consultation, permitting, and installation. By letter dated March 26, 2018, Cube Yadkin
requested a second of extension of time (6 months), until September 28, 2018. In an Order dated
April 25, 2018 the Commission granted the extension of time to complete installation of the flow
monitoring equipment. The Order requires all flow monitoring equipment to be installed by
September 28, 2018 and that Cube Yadkin file an update with the Commission by October 1,
2018, verifying that the flow monitoring equipment has been installed and is functioning as
intended.
Cube Yadkin has continued to consult with the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality Division of Water Resources (NCDEQ or Division), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
and Duke Energy about flow monitoring at the Yadkin Project. In response to comments
received from the Agencies and Duke during a March 22, 2018 conference call, Cube Yadkin
distributed a detailed flow monitoring proposal on May 9, 2018. While Cube Yadkin continues
to monitor flow below the High Rock development, as required by the Plan, Cube Yadkin
proposes to monitor flow at Narrows, through the penstocks, rather than below Falls (see flow
monitoring proposal included within the attached consultation record) 2. This is a change from
the Commission -approved Plan (Section 2.2). This change is necessary because Cube Yadkin
found it difficult to accurately measure flow below Falls Dam because of a variable backwater
160 FERC ¶ 62,143
2 As described in the flow monitoring proposal, the Narrows discharge value will also include
any water that does not go through the penstock, such as during a bypass.

effect from Lake Tillery (operated by Duke Energy). The change is consistent with the Project
license and 401 Water Quality Certification (Condition No. 13.A.iii), which requires monitoring
flows from the High Rock and Narrows developments. With this letter, Cube Yadkin is
requesting to amend the Plan (Section 2.2) to monitor flow at Narrows, through the penstocks3.
Upon Commission approval, Cube Yadkin will file an amended Plan for the record.
NCDEQ, USGS, and Duke Energy submitted data requests and/or comments on the flow
monitoring proposal during the period May - August 2018. Cube Yadkin provided all data
requested and responded to all comments. A complete consultation record is attached.
Cube Yadkin has installed and calibrated all monitoring equipment below the High Rock
development and at the Narrows penstocks, and is transmitting real-time flow data on the Project
website at http://cubecarolinas.com/lake-levels/.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone] or
j smetgcubecarolinas. com.
Sincerely,
Jody J. Smet
Compliance Manager
Cube Yadkin Generation, LLC
CC: Fred Tarver, NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
Chonticha McDaniel, NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
Jerald Boo Robinson, U.S. Geological Survey
Tami Styer, Duke Energy Yadkin Pee -Dee Project
' No other changes are proposed.
4 Calibration is in progress at High Rock.

Consultation Record
Date
Communication
3/22/2018
Conference call among Cube Yadkin, USGS, NCDE , and Duke Energy
5/9/2018
Email from Cube Yadkin with revised flow monitoring proposal
5/14/2018
NCDEQ response to revised flow monitoring proposal
5/14/2018
USGS data request
5/24/2018
Cube Yadkin provided requested data to USGS, NCDE , and Duke Energy
7/9/2018
USGS response to data and proposal
7/20/2018
Cube Yadkin response to USGS
7/26/2018
USGS response to Cube
8/3/2018
Cube request for final comments on revised flow monitoring proposal
8/15/2018
Duke Energy comments on monitoring proposal
9/21/2018
Cube response to Duke Energy comments

Jody Smet
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 7:46 PM
To: Tarver, Fred; 'Mcdaniel, Chonticha'; 'Jerald Robinson'; 'Styer, Tami'; Neal Simmons; Brandon Beres; 'Eli
Hopson'
Subject: RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Attachments: Flow Monitoring Pro posal_5-9-2018.docx; flow out of narrows_5-9-2018.docx
All,
I apologize for the delay. When we last spoke on March 20, Cube Yadkin committed to drafting a flow monitoring
proposal that addressed the concerns you expressed during our call. I have attached a proposal for your review and
comment. Additionally, both NCDEQ and Duke have asked for information to support the claim that the flow out of
Narrows = the flow out of Falls. I have also attached a short discussion and some supporting data that address this
question. Please review both documents and send us your feedback. I'm also happy to schedule a call to discuss further,
if necessary.
Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0)804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
6 CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email
-----Original Appointment -----
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 1:18 PM
To: Jody Smet; Tarver, Fred; Mcdaniel, Chonticha; Jerald Robinson; Styer, Tami; Neal Simmons; Brandon Beres; Eli
Hopson
Subject: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
When: Thursday, March 22, 2018 3:30 PM -4:30 PM (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Dial 1-515-604-9768 Enter 989008#
To discuss permanent flow monitoring device below Falls Dam.

High Rock
Cube plans to install a side looking doppler current meter (SLDCM) on the upstream side of the Denton
Water Intake structure below the High Rock Dam (Figure 1). The river at this point, is approximately
650ft wide and ranges in depth from approximately 12ft on the Denton side, to 6ft on the opposite bank
(see Figure 2 and Figure 3). The SLDCM instrument selected for flow measurement is a SonTek-SL500
which a vertical beam width of 3.8% a resolution of 0.001m/s and an accuracy of ±1% measured velocity.
The Denton structure was chosen for two reasons; first, approx. 60% of the water flow is seen in the first
third of the transect on the Denton side of the river. Measuring in this higher flow area will allow the
SLDCM to accurately measure the stream flow. Second, installing the system on the upstream side of
the structure will provide some protection from debris that get sent downstream during discharge
events while still being able to give reliable live data during these events.
The SLDCM will be mounted on a rail system that will allow the sensor to be easily removed from the
water for maintenance and placed back at the same elevation prior to the maintenance. This will ensure
that the SL -500 is always placed at the same elevation. Additionally, a staff gauge will also be installed
next to the SL -500 To further ensure that the sensor is placed back at the same elevation and to also
verify that the depth readings are accurate.
River discharge, bathymetry, velocity, and elevation will be characterized by measurements taken with a
SonTek M9 Doppler River Surveyor unit [1] [2]. The characterized measurements will be used with to the
SL -500 measurements to develop a discharge curve. This curve will be characterized over a variety of
flows and its accuracy is expected to grow with time.
The SL -500s will report the measured velocity data to a solar powered telemetry system on shore that
will transmit the data via cell signal to a Cube Hydro server for display on the website. Cube plans on
having these devices installed, operational, and transmitting data no later than 9/28/2018.
Both, the SonTek SL meter and the M9 Doppler Surveyor are used by USGS to determine real time
Water Velocities [3] [4] [2].
Narrows
Cube plans to discontinue flow monitoring below the Falls dam in favor of the more accurate monitoring
of flow through the Narrows penstocks. The flow through the Narrows Dam is equal to the flow out of
the Falls Dam.
Cube plans to install Ultrasonic Time Transit (Figure 4) RISONIC Type C transducers in a multipath (Figure
5) configuration at the base of each of the Narrows penstocks. These flow meters will be mounted near
the base of the penstocks outside of the scroll case and provide continuous accurate flow monitoring
measurements. The diameter of the penstock at this point is 15ft and the RISONIC Type C Transducer
has a measuring distance of 4.6-32.8ft with an estimated flow accuracy of 1-2%.
The transducers use the Ultrasonic Transit Time method (Figure 4) to measure the water velocity. The
Transit Time method measures the difference between the transit time upstream to downstream to
calculate the mean path velocity. In some cases, USGS also uses this method to determine water velocity
[4].

The RISONIC Transducers will report the measured data back to a RISONIC Ultrasonic Transit Time
Module, which will in turn feed data back to our operations sever for display on the website. Cube plans
on having these devices installed, operational, and transmitting data no later than 9/28/2018.
Any water that does not go through the penstock, such as during a bypass, will be characterized by the
existing weir tables and automatically added to measured turbine discharge so the flow that is recorded
and displayed on the site webpage is reflective of the total discharge.
Figure 1: SLDCM Flow Monitoring Proposed Location

Figure 2: High Rock Transect Location
-WlnPo-H Tddyne RD Enslwmcn[S- 01-22103414.PD0 LJ d1
File [en8gwe Vies• hcq— pkybarl: NM— Help
NIN kMMN14 Car'�eP dP I���, -4149
—suremenKid..ly Profile]-TRDI
+ Fiele [onflguraden �n��9
b pleybedSConflguretbn �eemr—deamf�eam3
1- © Tr—..3
M Hi AR P C 003 1901-7210:
la HigARxk0_003_t" 11 IN
onfiguradon
b Playberlr fnMiqurxwn
0®
0 w111-110-ooa la-oT-n 1a E
0 HighPocY 0 004_1901-1zi0i $
b RNtl COMi�urafien
b PlaybedF iN19ure1bn
'.: o TrameR dds
i.O TrenSlR 006 -
'i+ © T 0 W7
+ DiuAarge Summary
9f + QA/QC
J +Collect Gala
� z9 � ialaa=;ry jca and
r 7
,R velonry comour 1- TBGI
LV 'rnj I �Siicfr SAw Trackl.lPDI
eeamr
�are oe�mb iapo oaPm��aam�waoaPm
_�.' ��
8—
RCompOsiR T.-1.—
I_ - � I
so -i slap T..e°
Sierk—A.rerage
Ens. Nmb. Nmb. of Ens. Lost Ens
—Shp
11821 2877
0
=_nton Intake Side
Bad Ens- %Bad Bins Della Tma
Dislance MG
zz 155
9.z7
Course MG
Jan�ery 22, 2018 10:49:82.70
.................j.. _-.---.--. -.-_
Poch ROA
Heeding
-8.60" 6.27"
784.77"
------ - ----------- ------
Temp. PressSensor
7-84`G a-57.
36° 36.972009' N
Dlecharge (2ef: 81) Rightty Left
80° 17.917888' W
GOM Bins 8
Topa 46.780
Im°!s1
j
Measured o 81.807
[&N
................._.............y..................
Bgtloma 20789
1m1111
La0 a 5.817
lm°fsl
RlgNQ 3.99
1m'fs1
Tmal 0 178.893
Im M
I
M6 L wcl G 178.93
Im'rsI
Dlelarwa Fssi (Rel. 9r1 Iml
Nav198don IRBI: BT)
scpee0 0.90
Alva
0WBOat
spat course 11oeD
1°I
Water Speed 0.268
[mrel
E—ble Number
Figure 3: High Rock Transect Data
Wt., DiL
149.07 1°1
Calc. Depth
2.764 1m1
L-0
169.21 1-1
Dislance MG
18609 [m]
Course MG
49.82 1°I
Duration
WAS Isl
GeoRai LatAude
------ - ----------- ------
G Rei Longitude
Wbde
36° 36.972009' N
L-gdude
80° 17.917888' W
E—ble Number
Figure 3: High Rock Transect Data

Ultrasonic Transit Time Method
V Difference between translt time
upstream and downstream
This transit time difference is directly
proportional to the mean path velocity
• Velocity multiplied with cross sectional
Grin of pipe or channel results in fkMD
Configurafion
11
S
Figure 4: Ultrasonic Time Transit Time Method
Info on multiple paths and multiple planes...
E _ # planes (1 or 2)
P = TOTAL # paths in all planes
With respect to a horizontal place in the middle of the
cross-section, the transducers are placed at the following
angles
1E1P / 1E2P zero (i.e. on the horizontal plane)
1E2P / 2E4P +/- 30 degrees
1E4P / 2E8P +/- 18 deg. and +/- 54 deg.
Figure 5: Flow Meter Configuration Information

Bibliography
[1] U.S. Geological Survey, Discharge Measurements at Gaging Stations, Reston Virginia: U.S.
Department of the Interior, 2010.
[2] J. A. B. K. A. O. (USGS), "Validation of Streamflow Measurements Made with M9 and," [Online].
Available: https://hydroacoustics.usgs.gov/publications/Validation-RRay-M9-BoldtOberg-sm.pdf.
[3] USGS, "Velocity Meter Deployments," [Online]. Available:
https://hydroacoustics.usgs.gov/indexvelocity/deployments.shtml.
[4] USGS, "Index -velocity and Other Fixed -deployment Instruments," [Online]. Available:
https://hydroacoustics.usgs.gov/indexvelocity/instruments.shtml#advm.

On January 19th 2018, Normandeau Associates was contracted to measure the discharge flow below the
Falls dam. Normandeau used a SonTek Doppler River Surveyor Sensor in conjunction with a NAVD88 GPS
to take the measurements. Over the course of 30 minutes (12:30pm-1pm), Normandeau took a total of
4 transect measurements. These 4 measurements, were then averaged to get an estimated discharge of
5,041cfs below the Falls Dam. Our calculated estimates of the discharge flow out of the Narrows Dam at
that time was 5109cfs. The difference between the two flows is %1.35, which is well within the
tolerance of error for both the calculated estimates and the Normandeau discharge measurements.
There are no significant stream inflows, discharges or withdraws between the dams and the water that
exits Narrows must exit Falls shortly after. The measurements described above support this equivalence
in flow out of the Narrows and Falls.
iRiver bank convention is that "Right" bank is to the person's right Average 5040.64
when looking downstream from on the transect.
Mean River
Total
Transect
River Width
Transect
Velocity
Discharge
Transect
Start Banki
(ft)
Area (ft2)
(ft/s)
(ft3/s)
1
R
856.30
6585.90
0.75
4958.53
2
L
807.74
6320.78
0.82
5084.96
3
R
797.57
6220.25
0.82
5164.06
4
L
828.41
6340.59
0.79
4955.00
iRiver bank convention is that "Right" bank is to the person's right Average 5040.64
when looking downstream from on the transect.

Jody Smet
From: Tarver, Fred <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:13 PM
To: Jody Smet
Cc: Mcdaniel, Chonticha
Subject: RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Jody,
I've reviewed your attachments concerning the flow monitoring gear, and the proposal seems to be a satisfactory
concept. However, USGS is the expert, and I would look to Jerald to concur prior to moving forward.
The calibration, once the units are installed, will be important to verify the accuracy of the setups for High Rock and
Narrows and validate Cube's coordinated management of Narrows and Falls to insure that the average daily minimums
are met or exceeded. Article PO -3 allows for deviations from the average daily minimum (-5% when High Rock is >NME,
or +/-5% when High Rock is <NME); but, Cube cannot "routinely" use the flow variance, however that is defined.
The onus will be on Cube to properly install, calibrate and maintain the instrumentation; be vigilant toward the
management of flow releases and lake elevations; and maintain, report and post adequate and accurate data in order to
document compliance in the event that questions arise.
This is a better strategy than the previous, and I don't see the need for a meeting at this juncture.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Fred
Fred R Tarver III
Environmental Flows Program Consultant
Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9029 office
[e-mail]
Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1611
Email correspondence to & from this address is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law & may be disclosed to third
parties!
From: Jody Smet [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 7:46 PM
To: Tarver, Fred <[e-mail]>; Mcdaniel, Chonticha<[e-mail]>; Jerald Robinson
<[e-mail]>; Styer, Tami <[e-mail]>; Neal Simmons <[e-mail]>;
Brandon Beres <[e-mail]>; Eli Hopson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring

Jody Smet
From: Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:36 PM
To: Jody Smet
Cc: Tarver, Fred; Mcdaniel, Chonticha; Styer, Tami; Neal Simmons; Brandon Beres; Eli Hopson; Jerald
Robinson
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Jody,
Can you send me the actual electronic discharge measurement files? I'd like to review them using our protocols and
software.
Thanks
Boo Robinson
Charlotte Field Office Chief
South Atlantic Water Science Center
[phone] Ext. 11
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Jody Smet <[e-mail]> wrote:
All,
I apologize for the delay. When we last spoke on March 20, Cube Yadkin committed to drafting a flow monitoring
proposal that addressed the concerns you expressed during our call. I have attached a proposal for your review and
comment. Additionally, both NCDEQ and Duke have asked for information to support the claim that the flow out of
Narrows = the flow out of Falls. I have also attached a short discussion and some supporting data that address this
question. Please review both documents and send us your feedback. I'm also happy to schedule a call to discuss further,
if necessary.
Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0)804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764

Jody Smet
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:05 AM
To: 'Robinson, Jerald'
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Thank you for working with me. Once you've had a chance to look at the data, please let me know if there's something
more you need.
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0)804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email
From: Robinson, Jerald [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:03 AM
To: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jerald Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Okay, I can at least see the files now.
I've also contacted my IT department because this is ridiculous.
Thanks for your patience.
Boo Robinson
Charlotte Field Office Chief
South Atlantic Water Science Center
[phone] Ext. 11
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Jody Smet <[e-mail]> wrote:
I just tried Dropbox again, but to your personal email address ... please see if you get a message from Dropbox.
Jody J. Smet, AICP

Jody Smet
From: Moss, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 2:55 PM
To: Jody Smet
Cc: Robinson, Jerald
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Attachments: Falls_Updated_Report.pdf
Hi Jody,
I took a look at the measurements from the Falls_0_20180119 file. There a few things that I would like to point out that I
found during my review.
• There are only 2-4 valid cells during the measurements. In a case like this where there is over 8 ft of depth we
would reduce the cell size. Normally, we will make a test transect to see what our depths look like then use the
maximum depth option and it will automatically compute your cell sizes for optimum performance. We do not
use the Sontek Mini ADP and I am not familiar with how small the cells can get.
• Two of the transects, FALLS1801191232 & FALLS1801191250, had negative discharges due to the edges being
entered wrong. I changed the starting edge and they became positive.
• The transects were set to reference GPS. I changed to Bottom Track reference. USGS guidelines are that we use
Bottom Track as primary and GPS as secondary due to the nature of multi -path and other issues effecting GPS.
Usually we only use GPS when we lose a lot of bottom tracking. I imagine where you guys are measuring you will
probably always have a good bottom track. Making this change resulted in the discharge going from 4,230 cfs to
3,783 cfs, a 12% difference.
• USGS guidelines also say that the transects need to be within 5% of the mean. All of the transects were over 5%
of the mean, with one being as high as 10% difference from the mean discharge. In a case like this we would
make more transects to try and get a more accurate measurement, since there is something going on that is
causing variation in the transects. Some effects could be difference in tracks, edge differences, or surging
flow. Our max is 12 transects.
• No compass calibration or moving bed test was performed. I assume the MiniADP has a compass since GPS was
being used.
I have attached my discharge summary so you can see the differences. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to
contact us.
Jeffrey
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Jody Smet <[e-mail]> wrote:
I apologize for not providing that earlier. The serial number is M713.
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas

System Report
Page 1 of 1
Place your logo here (Put a logo.gif file in your Reports Save I Close
Discharge Measurement Summary Date
Station Information Measurement Information
Station Number Measurement No.
Station Name Compiled By
Location Checked By
Personnel and Equipment
Party Boat/Motor/Platform
Rating Information
Gage Height Rating Discharge Rating No.
GH Change Index Velocity Meas. Rating
% Diff. 0.0% Rated Area Control Code
System Information
Width
Serial #
M713
System
1000 kHz
Frequency
10.0
Firmware Version
8.0
RiverSurveyor
v4.60
Ver
1.64
Fstem Setup
Width
693.4
Area
of Cells
16
Averaging Interval
10.0
:ell Size
0.98
Magnetic Decl.
0.0*
Tanking Distance
1.64
Salinity
0.00
ransducer Depth
1.35
Echo Sounder
Not Pres.
Discharge Calculation Settings
Velocity Ref. BTrack Top Estimate Power * Left Bank Sloped
Track Ref. BTrack Bottom Est. Power * Right Bank Sloped
Depth Reference ADP Area Method none Orient. Profiles all
Computed Discharge Results
Width
693.4
Area
5528.9
Mean Velocity
0.69
Discharge
3783.7
% Measured
37.4
Adj. Mean
0
Velocity
agnostic Files
loving Bed Test
:ompass Cal
'ressure Cal
lepth Calibration
Measurement Results
Tr#
Top
I Middle I
Discharge
Bottom Left
Ri ht
Total
Left
Distance
Right Total
Area
Time
Start End
Mean Vel
Boat Water
#Profiles
Total Bad
1 R
1706.9
1309.3
469.4
0
0
3485.5
0.0
0.0
774.0
6142.9
12:32
12:40
1.65
0.57
47
0
2 L
2029.7
1544
588.24
0
0
4161.9
0.0
0.0
689.0
5519.7
12:40
12:49
1.19
0.75
58
0
3 R
1928.7
1559.2
493.93
0
0
3981.8
0.0
0.0
644.3
5169.0
12:50
12:57
1.37
0.77
47
0
6 L
1755.4
1260.7
489.24
0
0
3505.4
0.0
0.0
666.3
1 5283.8
12:58
13705
1.39
0.66
48
0
Mean
1855.2
1418.3
510.2
0
0
3783.7
0.0
0.0
693.4
5528.9
Total
00:33
1.40 1
0.69
1 50
0
SDev
150.32
155.3
53.099
0
0
340.89
0.0
0.0
56.7
434.6
0.19
0.09
COV
0.081
0.110
0.104
0.090
0.082
0.079
0.135
0.136
TO=FALLS 1801191232.ADP; Tr2=FALLS1801191240.ADP; Tr3=FALLS1801191250.ADP; Tr6=FALLS1801191258.ADP;
Note: Units for the above parameters are: Distance (ft), Velocity (fUs), Area (ft2), Discharge (cfs)
file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/SonTek/RiverSurveyor/Reports/Summary-Standard.htm 7/9/2018

Jody Smet
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 11:21 AM
To: Moss, Jeffrey; Robinson, Jerald; [e-mail]; Styer, Tami; Mcdaniel, Chonticha;
[e-mail]
Cc: Neal Simmons - CHP; Brandon Beres
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Attachments: Falls Flow Measurments.zip; Flow Monitoring Proposal_5-9-2018.docx
Jeff, Boo,
In response to your comments, attached is a sample flow measurement taken below the Falls Dam with our new SonTek
M9 RiverSurveyor. A few comments on this data:
1) As you will see, a compass calibration was performed prior to the measurements being taken.
2) We did not perform a moving bed test as, at the time, we had no way of keeping the boat stationary. We have
since purchased an anchor for the boat so going forward this test will be done prior to taking all measurements.
3) The edge distances were estimated as we did not have a laser range finder on board. Going forward, a laser range
finder will be used to take the edge measurements.
4) We are using bottom track for location (not GPS).
As a reminder, as an alternative to monitoring flow below Falls Dam (because of the issues we discussed
previously), Cube Yadkin is proposing to now monitor flow through the Narrows penstocks. Please review and
comment on the attached monitoring proposal, as we are moving forward with the installation of flow monitoring
equipment in order to meet our time extension from FERC (September 2018). We would like to be sure that
everyone is in agreement with the current proposal.
Thanks,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0)804-739-0654
(C)804-382-1764
CUBEHYDRO
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email
From: Moss, Jeffrey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 2:55 PM
To: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Hi Jody,
I took a look at the measurements from the Falls_0_20180119 file. There a few things that I would like to point out that I
found during my review.

Jody Smet
From: Moss, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 9:48 AM
To: Jody Smet
Cc: Robinson, Jerald; [e-mail]; Styer, Tami; Mcdaniel, Chonticha;
[e-mail]; Neal Simmons - CHP; Brandon Beres
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Attachments: M9 Evaluation.docx
Hi Jody,
I have taken a look at the M9 measurements you sent over. I have attached my comments. Overall a pretty decent
measurement Our post -processing changed the overall Q by 38 cfs, less than 1%. You mentioned that you did not make
a moving bed test. I light of a way to keep the boat stationary, which is difficult in a boat, I would suggest using a loop
test instead. They save time and are easier to perform in a boat. Here is the link to the USGS loop test report in case
your interested.
https://Pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5079/pdf/SIR2006-5079.pdf
Jeffrey
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Jody Smet <][e-mail]> wrote:
Jeff, Boo,
In response to your comments, attached is a sample flow measurement taken below the Falls Dam with our new SonTek
M9 RiverSurveyor. A few comments on this data:
1. As you will see, a compass calibration was performed prior to the measurements being taken.
2. We did not perform a moving bed test as, at the time, we had no way of keeping the boat stationary. We have
since purchased an anchor for the boat so going forward this test will be done prior to taking all measurements.
3. The edge distances were estimated as we did not have a laser range finder on board. Going forward, a laser range
finder will be used to take the edge measurements.
4. We are using bottom track for location (not GPS).
As a reminder, as an alternative to monitoring flow below Falls Dam (because of the issues we discussed
previously), Cube Yadkin is proposing to now monitor flow through the Narrows penstocks. Please review and
comment on the attached monitoring proposal, as we are moving forward with the installation of flow monitoring
equipment in order to meet our time extension from FERC (September 2018). We would like to be sure that
everyone is in agreement with the current proposal.
Thanks,

• There were some ensembles missing. To ensure you get all the data download the data off the
head. It records everything internally so if there is a radio issue you still have all the data.
'D aWTTIG17. � '
process
Moving Boat
Step
End Edge (14)
Sample
280
Time
138:07 PM.
Dnratirn
a04;41)
Voltage
11.6
Track Reference
Bottom -Track
Depth Reference
Vertical from
Coordinate System
ENU
®-
Total R (cfa)
5,065.937
Loop Corrected T...
--
Boat Speed (ft/,)
0.170
Mean Speed (M)
0984
Track (ft)
57447
e
Reading data section.
-- The recorded file has missing samples and Is Incomplete.
Please download the complete file from the recorder for post
processing
iGPSGGI ENV
-40C iBoltomTie, ENI
f GPSVTG ENV
OK s tisk
$ c $ co- zcc �j
c
,`
„ E I
e Velocrly E A!s]
rc -D.6 0.0 05 ID 15
SNR [tl6�
Sal Page System Samples Novigallon Edges Tal Transect
• The screening distance was set to zero. USGS suggests a screening distance of 0.52 ft. This is due
to the M9 having issues in the first 0.5 ft from the transducer. With the depth that was being
measured this did not have much effect on the overall discharge, only 5 cfs.
• In all the transects the boat speed exceeds water speed throughout measurement. You want to
keep the boat speed at or less than the water speed. This will ensure get an adequate number of
samples for a good measurement.
9
N
m
• As you mentioned, there was no moving bed test performed. Instead of a stationary test you
might consider a loop test. This is the preferred method and is less time consuming.

I ran it through our ADCP software. It checks to make sure all the settings are correct and all the
required data is entered such as temp checks and moving bed tests. It also filters out bad data and
checks to make sure the correct profile extrapolation is used. Below are the error messages and the
output so you can see what it changed. It did not change any of the settings other than the screening
depth and the discharge only changed by 38 cfs.
Messages l5}
Message
I MOVING -BED TEST: No moving bed test;
2 Transects: 20180626184614r.matfs rrrfssfng 7 ensembles
3 compass- One or more transects nave p1ch exceeding calibration limits;
4 compass: One or more transects have roll exceeding calibration ffmits;
5 Temperature: No independent temperature reading;
Measurement Details {Units: English
PARAMETERS
MEASUREMENT 80626132.856r 80626 1 3 3 3 5 2r 806 26 1346 14r 806 26 1 3 5425r
DI SCHARGE
!Use
❑,�
❑
❑Q
❑,r
!Total Q M3fs}
5231.846
5513.21D
5118.989
5154.481
5a8D.7D3
;Tap Q (ft3!s)
977.361
1041.425
929.222
961.887
976.910
!Middle Q (ft31s)
3310.751
3464.915
3274.664
3276.397
3227.028
;Bottom Q (ft3!s)
675.682
701.699
664.584
680.154
656.289
!Left Q (ft3..+s)
123.490
141..860
142.307
71.516
138.277
;Right Q (ft3!s)
144.562
163.310
168212
164.527
82.198
TIME
!Duration (s)
1190.0
287.0
279.0
322.0
302.0
Start Time (06!2612018)
13.28-34
13.28-34 R
13=33.27 L
13=45:47 L
13=53:53 R
,End Time (0 612612 0 1 8}
13-58-55
13-33-21
13-38-06
13-51-09
13-58:55
;REFERENCE
Navigation Ref
BT
BT
BT
BT
!Composite Tracks
Off
Off
Off
Off
,Depth Ref
BT
BT
BT
BT
;MOVING -BED
Moving -bed
Unknown
Correction
NA
:CHARACTERISTICS
A
Overall this was a pretty decent measurement and I would rate it as fair. The only reason to downgrade
from a good to a fair measurement is due to the lack of a moving bed test, which casts some
uncertainty. The screening depth can always be added in post -processing, it just skews the numbers you
look at in the field.

Jody Smet
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 9:56 AM
To: 'Moss, Jeffrey'
Cc: Robinson, Jerald; [e-mail]; Styer, Tami; Mcdaniel, Chonticha;
[e-mail]; Neal Simmons - CHP; Brandon Beres
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Attachments: Flow Monitoring Pro posal_5-9-2018.docx
Jeffrey,
Thank you for your review and analysis.
All,
We are continuing to move forward with the installation of flow meters at the base of each of the Narrows penstocks (as
an alternative to the flow monitoring below Falls Dam (please see attached proposal)). If you have questions or
comments specific to this methodology please let us know as soon as possible, and no later than August 17. We are
working towards our FERC extended deadline of September 28, 2018 to have the monitoring equipment installed,
operational and transmitting data to the Project website.
Thank you,
Jody J. Smet, AICP
Cube Hydro Carolinas
(0)804-739-0654
(C) 804-382-1764
CUBE HPDR
CAROLINAS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message. Neither the sender nor the company for which he or she works accepts any liability for damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this email
From: Moss, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 9:48 AM
To: Jody Smet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Robinson, Jerald <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Styer, Tami <[e-mail]>;
Mcdaniel, Chonticha<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Neal Simmons - CHP
<[e-mail]>; Brandon Beres <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Hi Jody,
I have taken a look at the M9 measurements you sent over. I have attached my comments. Overall a pretty decent
measurement Our post -processing changed the overall Q by 38 cfs, less than 1%. You mentioned that you did not make
a moving bed test. I light of a way to keep the boat stationary, which is difficult in a boat, I would suggest using a loop
test instead. They save time and are easier to perform in a boat. Here is the link to the USGS loop test report in case
your interested.

Jody Smet
From: Styer, Tami <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 3:51 PM
To: Jody Smet; Moss, Jeffrey
Cc: Robinson, Jerald; [e-mail]; Mcdaniel, Chonticha; [e-mail]; Neal
Simmons - CHP; Brandon Beres
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Attachments: Flow Monitoring Proposal -5-9-2018 Duke Energy Commnets 8.15.2018.docx
Hi Jody,
Here are our comments on the Flow Monitoring Plan. Please let me know if we need to discuss any of this
further.
Thanks!
Tami
DUKE
V" ENE.
Tami Styer, Project Manager II
Water Strategy and Hydro Licensing
526 S. Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone] office
[phone] cell
From: Jody Smet [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 9:56 AM
To: Moss, Jeffrey
Cc: Robinson, Jerald; [e-mail]; Styer, Tami; Mcdaniel, Chonticha; [e-mail]; Neal
Simmons - CHP; Brandon Beres
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Jeffrey,
Thank you for your review and analysis.
All,
We are continuing to move forward with the installation of flow meters at the base of each of the Narrows penstocks (as
an alternative to the flow monitoring below Falls Dam (please see attached proposal)). If you have questions or
comments specific to this methodology please let us know as soon as possible, and no later than August 17. We are
working towards our FERC extended deadline of September 28, 2018 to have the monitoring equipment installed,
operational and transmitting data to the Project website.
Thank you,
Jody J. Smet, AICP

High Rock
Cube plans to install a side looking doppler current meter (SLDCM) on the upstream side of the Denton
Water Intake structure below the High Rock Dam (Figure 1). The river at this point, is approximately
650ft wide and ranges in depth from approximately 12ft on the Denton side, to 6ft on the opposite bank
(see Figure 2 and Figure 3). The SLDCM instrument selected for flow measurement is a SonTek-SI-500
which a vertical beam width of 3.8°, a resolution of 0.001m/s and an accuracy of ±1% measured velocity.
The Denton structure was chosen for two reasons; first, approx. 60% of the water flow is seen in the first
third of the transect on the Denton side of the river. Measuring in this higher flow area will allow the
SLDCM to accurately measure the stream flow. Second, installing the system on the upstream side of
the structure will provide some protection from debris that gets sent downstream during discharge
events while still being able to give reliable live data during these events.
The SLDCM will be mounted on a rail system that will allow the sensor to be easily removed from the
water for maintenance and placed back at the same elevation prior to the maintenance. This will ensure
that the SL -500 is always placed at the same elevation. Additionally, a staff gauge will also be installed
next to the SL -500 To further ensure that the sensor is placed back at the same elevation and to also
verify that the depth readings are accurate.
River discharge, bathymetry, velocity, and elevation will be characterized by measurements taken with a
SonTek M9 Doppler River Surveyor unit [1] [2]. The characterized measurements will be used with to the
SL -500 measurements to develop a discharge curve. This curve will be characterized over a variety of
flows and its accuracy is expected to grow with time.
The SL -500s will report the measured velocity data to a solar powered telemetry system on shore that
will transmit the data via cell signal to a Cube Hydro server for display on the website. Cube plans on
having these devices installed, operational, and transmitting data no later than 9/28/2018.
Both, the SonTek SL meter and the M9 Doppler Surveyor are used by USGS to determine real time
Water Velocities [3] [4] [2].
Narrows
(Cube plans to discontinue flow monitoring below the Falls dam in favor of the more accurate monitoring
of flow through the Narrows penstocks. The flow through the Narrows Dam is equal to the flow out of
the Falls Dam. L
Cube plans to install Ultrasonic Time Transit (Figure 4) RISONIC Type C transducers in a multipath (Figure
5) configuration at the base of each of the Narrows penstocks. These flow meters will be mounted near
the base of the penstocks outside of the scroll case and provide continuous accurate flow monitoring
measurements. The diameter of the penstock at this point is 15ft and the RI50NIC Type C Transducer
has a measuring distance of 4.6-32.8ft with an estimated flow accuracy of 1-2%.
The transducers use the Ultrasonic Transit Time method (Figure 4) to measure the water velocity. The
Transit Time method measures the difference between the transit time upstream to downstream to
calculate the mean path velocity. In some cases, USGS also uses this method to determine water velocity
[4]•
Commented [TSS1]: Jody, On the daily sheets we are sent
from your Operations staff, there is always a difference
between the flows reported out of Narrows and those out
of Falls. That is also evident in the data sent to us for the
flows released for Narrows and Falls to compare to the
measured flow on 6/26. Additionally, there is a travel time
associated with the flow released from the penstocks at
Narrows to its release from Falls. That time will vary based
on the number of units generating. There may also be a lag
in the time before the flow is released from Falls, depending
on the lake level and the available storage. Duke Energy
would like to have additional information that will help us
understand the following:
1. What is the reason for the difference between the flow
from Narrows and Falls dams, as reported on your daily
operations sheets, and
2. What is the approximate travel time from generations at
Narrows to the headwater of Lake Tillery, based on 1, 2, 3
and 4 units generating at Narrows?

�he RISONIC Transducers will report the measured data back to a RISONIC Ultrasonic Transit Time
Module, which will in turn feed data back to our operations sever for display on the website. (Cube plans
on having these devices installed, operational, and transmitting data no later than 9/28/2018.
�ny water that does not go through the penstock, such as during a bypass, will be characterized by the
existing weir tables and automatically added to measured turbine discharge so the flow that is recorded
and displayed on the site webpage is reflective of the total discharge. L
Figure 1: SLDCM Flow Monitoring Proposed Location
Commented [TSS2]: On your webiste, are you providing
real-time, 15 -minute data for each transducer such that
there will be a value for each unit or will it be a total for the
station?
Commented [TSS3]: Will the bypass flow be identified as
such and listed separately from the penstock
measurements? it appears there will be one value for the
station. Duke Energy would prefer to see the information
by unit and with the bypass information provided separately
in order to better estimate when the flow would arrive in
Lake Tillery.

Figure 2: High Rock Transect Location
..., �..�.w..a.e[•.ww.��....wv.o-.nnan�.cemaun u isv��wa
Denton Intake Side
yQ
a"
wE [mu Ye•E � o•Y LTM1�
BAR ]M• V�kn.Y
Ptl� aN� afHw"ua�
•�iC RS Swu
Oiw
owAry a W!
p� F+wl
lR0 �M] N•NI
wow �' •��ou.r wr �..e
oR wpn
Denton intake Side ,
pa_
S
,i
Figure 3: High Rock Transect Data
WA rarw

Ultrasonic Transit Time Method
• Difference between transit time
upstream and downstream
. ThTs transit time difference is directly
proportional to the mean path velocit►+
• Velocity multiplied with cross sectional
area of pipe or channel results in UW_Q
ME
INS
��
��
Mr
Va!
��
nhl
A]
Figure 4: Ultrasonic Time Transit Time Method
Info on multiple paths and multiple planes...
E _ # planes (1 or 2)
P = TOTAL # paths in all planes
With respect to a horizontal place in the middle of the
cross-section, the transducers are placed at the following
angles
1E1P / 1E2P zero (i.e. on the horizontal plane)
1E2P / 2E4P +/- 30 degrees
1E4P / 2E8P +/-18 deg. and +/- 54 deg.
Figure 5: Flow Meter Configuration Information

Bibliography
[1] U.S. Geological Survey, Discharge Measurements at Gaging Stations, Reston Virginia: U.S.
Department of the Interior, 2010.
[2] J. A. B. K. A. O. (USGS), "Validation of Streamflow Measurements Made with M9 and," [Online].
Available: https:Hhydroacoustics.usgs.gov/publications/Validation-RRay-M9-BoldtOberg-sm.pdf.
[3] USGS, "Velocity Meter Deployments," [Online]. Available:
https://hydroacoustics.usgs.gov/indexvelocity/deployments.shtml.
[4] USGS, "Index -velocity and Other Fixed -deployment Instruments," [Online]. Available:
https:Hhydroacoustics.usgs.gov/indexvelocity/instruments.shtml#advm.

Jody Smet
From: Jody Smet
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 4:43 PM
To: 'Styer, Tami'; Moss, Jeffrey
Cc: Robinson, Jerald; [e-mail]; Mcdaniel, Chonticha; [e-mail]; Neal
Simmons - CHP; Brandon Beres
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197) - Falls Flow Monitoring
Tami,
Sorry for the delay in responding to Duke's comments on the revised flow monitoring proposal. I am providing our
responses to Duke's comments (black) below in blue.
On the daily sheets we are sent from your Operations staff , there is always a difference between the flows reported out of
Narrows and those out of Falls. That is also evident in the data sent to us for the flows released for Narrows and Falls to
compare to the measured flow on 6/26. The data we provide in the operations sheet is an estimate of flows based on
proposed generation and should not be relied upon as a flow measurement.
Additionally, there is a travel time associated with the flow released from the penstocks at Narrows to its release from
Falls. This is correct, the delay is unknown but anecdotally it is approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
That time will vary based on the number of units generating. This is not correct. The travel time is most closely
correlated with the volumetric flow rate of water and not the number of units on line.
There may also be a lag in the time before the flow is released from Falls, depending on the lake level and the available
storage. Duke Energy would like to have additional information that will help us understand the following:
1. What is the reason for the difference between the flow from Narrows and Falls dams, as reported on your
daily operations sheets, and The generations sheets are estimates to provide "order of magnitude" flow for
the benefit of Duke. Differences between the actual flows and the estimates are related to the model
generating these estimates.
2. What is the approximate travel time from generations at Narrows to the headwater of Lake Tillery, based on
1, 2, 3 and 4 units generating at Narrows? There is no correlation between the number of units generating at
Narrows and the travel time of water. The expected travel time of water for normal levels of discharge 3,000-
10,000 CFS is estimated to be < 20 minutes based on observations from our operations group.
On your website, are you providing real-time, 15 -minute data for each transducer such that there will be a value for each
unit or will it be a total for the station? The website will provide 15minute data for total outflows at High Rock and total
outflows at Narrows.
Will the bypass flow be identified as such and listed separately from the penstock measurements? It appears there will be
one value for the station. Duke Energy would prefer to see the information by unit and with the bypass information
provided separately in order to better estimate when the flow would arrive in Lake Tillery. We are planning on providing
only total outflows at this time. We would be happy to discuss the benefit and possibility of separating information for
Duke in the future.
In response to your question this morning, yes, we are working towards our 9/28 compliance deadline and expect to meet
it. All the equipment is in and functioning, and we are finalizing the transmission of data to our public Project
website. I'll send another update when the data is up on the website.
Have a good weekend,