20091002 Ver 1_More Info Received_20091001

Before the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
License Application
For a Major Water Power Project, Existing Dam
W. Kerr Scott Hydropower Project
By
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
FERC Project No. 12642
September 29, 2009
COPYRIGHT 2009 0 by Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC.
LICENSE APPLICATION
W. KERR SCOTT DAM
W. Kerr Scott Hydropower Project, No. 12642
Wilkesboro, North Carolina
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
P. 0. Box 143
Mayodan NC 27027
[e-mail]
Project Information .......................................................................................................................................................
(1) Application for License ...........................................................................................................................
(2) Project Location .....................................................................................................................................
(3) The exact name and business address of the applicant: .......................................................................
(4) Authorized Persons ................................................................................................................................
(5) Corporation Information .........................................................................................................................
(6)(i) State Laws .............................................................................................................................................
(7) Brief Project Description .........................................................................................................................
(8) Lands of the United States affected: ......................................................................................................
(9) Start of Construction Date ......................................................................................................................
Exhibit A ..................................................................................................................................................................
(1)(i) Number and Type of Generating Units ..................................................................................................
(1)(ii) Turbine and Generator Data ..............................................................................................................
(1)(iii) Project operations ..............................................................................................................................
(1)(iv) Annual Energy Generation ................................................................................................................
(1)(v) Average Head ....................................................................................................................................
(1)(vi) Reservoir Surface Area and Storage Capacity ..................................................................................
(1)(vii) Hydraulic capacities of the project .....................................................................................................
(1)(viii) Size, capacities and construction material of structures ....................................................................
Main Dam .......................................................................................................................................................
Spillway ...........................................................................................................................................................
Intake structure and trashrack ........................................................................................................................
Discharge conduit liner ...................................................................................................................................
Powerhouse ....................................................................................................................................................
Discharge channel ..........................................................................................................................................
Substation .......................................................................................................................................................
Controls ..........................................................................................................................................................
Power Lines ....................................................................................................................................................
Project boundary .............................................................................................................................................
Educational kiosk ............................................................................................................................................
(1)(ix) Project Cost .......................................................................................................................................
(1)(x) Capital cost and estimated 0&M costs of proposed environmental measures .................................
(2) Project Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................
(3) Application Development Costs .................................................................................................................
(4) On-peak and off-peak values used .............................................................................................................
(5) Average annual increase or decrease in project generation due to project changes .................................
(6) Undepreciated Net Investment ...................................................................................................................
(7) Annual operation and maintenance expenses ...........................................................................................
(8) Electrical One-Line Diagram .......................................................................................................................
(9) Measures to ensure safe management, O&M ............................................................................................
Exhibit E .......................................................................................................................................................................
(i) DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................................
3.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................................
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.7
.7
.9
10
10
10
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
18
18
18
2
3. 1.1 River Basin Description ........................................................................................................... ...................... 18
3.1.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... ...................... 19
3.1.2.3 Shorelines and stream banks .......................................................................................... ...................... 19
3.1.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................................... ...................... 19
3.1.3.1 Drainage Area in square miles ........................................................................................ ...................... 20
3.1.3.2 Flow and Flow Duration from W. Kerr Scott Dam ............................................................ ...................... 20
3.1.3.3 Existing and Proposed Uses of Project Waters ............................................................... ...................... 21
3.1.3.4 Impacts on Water Use and Water Rights ........................................................................ ...................... 21
3.1.3.5 Water Quality Standards .................................................................................................. ...................... 21
3.1.3.6 Sediments ........................................................................................................................ ...................... 22
3.1.3.7 Impoundment Physical Data ............................................................................................ ...................... 22
3.1.3.8 Downstream Gradients Affected by Proposed Project ..................................................... ...................... 22
3.1.3.9 Floodplains ...................................................................................................................... ...................... 22
3.1.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................... ...................... 23
3.1.4.1 Existing fish and aquatic communities ............................................................................ ...................... 23
3.1.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat ...................................................................................................... ...................... 24
3.1.4.3 Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Fish and Aquatic Communities .............................. ...................... 24
3.1.5 Wildlife and Botanical Resources ............................................................................................ ...................... 24
3.1.5.1 Upland Habitats ............................................................................................................... ...................... 25
3.1.5.2 Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Important Species .................................................. ...................... 25
3.1.6 Wetlands, Riparian and Littoral Habitat ................................................................................... ...................... 25
3.1.6.1 Maps and acreage; Variability Related to Storage ........................................................... ...................... 25
3.1.7 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species .......................................................................... ...................... 25
3.1.8 Recreation and Land Use ....................................................................................................... ...................... 26
3.1.8.1 Recreational Use of Project Lands and Waters ............................................................... ...................... 26
3.1.8.2 Existing Shoreline Buffer Zones ...................................................................................... ...................... 26
3.1.8.3 Current and Future Recreation Needs ............................................................................. ...................... 26
3.1.8.4 National or Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................. ...................... 27
3.1.8.5 National Trails System and Wilderness Areas ................................................................. ...................... 27
3.1.9 Aesthetic Resources ............................................................................................................... ...................... 27
3.1.10 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ ...................... 27
3.1.11 Socio-Economic Resources .................................................................................................. ...................... 27
3.1.12 Tribal Resources ................................................................................................................... ...................... 27
3.2 Existing Data or Studies ................................................................................................................. ...................... 28
(ii) DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MEASURES PROPOSED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... ...................... 28
3.3 KNOWN OR POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ........................................................................... ...................... 28
3.3.1 River Basin and Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... ...................... 28
3.3.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... ...................... 28
3.3.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................................... ...................... 29
3.3.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................... ...................... 29
3.3.5 Wildlife and Botanical Resources ............................................................................................ ...................... 29
3.3.6 Wetland, Riparian and Littoral Habitat ..................................................................................... ...................... 29
3.3.7 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................... ...................... 30
3.3.8 Recreation and Land Use ....................................................................................................... ...................... 30
3.3.9 Aesthetic Resources ............................................................................................................... ...................... 30
3.3. 10 Cultural Resources and Tribal Resources ............................................................................. ...................... 30
3.3.11 Socio-Economic Resources .................................................................................................. ...................... 30
3.4 PROTECTION OF, MITIGATING IMPACTS TO, OR ENHANCING RESOURCES ...................... ...................... 30
3.4.1 River Basin and Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... ...................... 30
3.4.2 Geology and Soil ..................................................................................................................... ...................... 30
3.4.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................................... ...................... 31
3.4.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................... ...................... 33
3.4.5 Wildlife and Botanical Resources ............................................................................................ ...................... 33
3.4.6 Wetland, Riparian and Littoral Habitat ..................................................................................... ...................... 33
3.4.7 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................... ...................... 34
3.4.8 Recreation and Land Use ....................................................................................................................... ...... 34
3.4.9 Aesthetic Resources ............................................................................................................................... ...... 34
3.4. 10 Cultural Resources and Tribal Resources ............................................................................................. ...... 34
3.4.11 Socio-Economic Resources .................................................................................................................. ...... 34
4. ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST ............................................................................................................................... ...... 36
4.1 ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE IDENTIFIED RESOURCES ......................................................................... ...... 36
4.2 POTENTIAL STUDIES OR INFORMATION-GATHERING ASSOCIATED WITH IDENTIFIED ISSUES ...... ......36
4.3 RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS ........................................................................................ ...... 36
(iii) Steps taken in consulting with agencies .................................................................................................. ...... 36
5. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS AND REFERENCES ............................................................................................... ...... 37
5.1 Telephone and Email Contacts ...................................................................................................................... ...... 37
5.2 Meetings With Interested Parties .................................................................................................................... ...... 38
5.3 Internet And Other References (By Section Of Report) ................................................................................. ...... 42
5.4 Consultation Letters (See Appendix D) .......................................................................................................... ...... 42
5.3.1 Consultation letters received: .................... ............................................................................................. ...... 42
5.5 Access to project documents on the FERC website :..................................................................................... ...... 42
6 ITEMS TO BE PERFORMED AFTER THE LICENSE IS ISSUED ....................................................................... ...... 43
6.1 Project Management Plan .............................................................................................................................. ...... 43
6.2 Construction Plans ......................................................................................................................................... ...... 43
6.3 Building Permits .............................................................................................................................................. ...... 43
6.4 Power Purchase Agreement ........................................................................................................................... ...... 43
6.5 Project Financing ............................................................................................................................................ ...... 43
Verification Statement ............................................................................................................................................... ...... 44
List of Tables
Table 1 - Turbine and Generator Data .............................................................................. .............................................. 10
Table 2 - Existing Low Flow Operation Plan ..................................................................... .............................................. 10
Table 3- Estimated Monthly Energy Production ................................................................ .............................................. 11
Table 4 - Reservoir Storage at Various Surface Elevations .............................................. .............................................. 12
Table 5 - Trashrack Area vs. Lake Elevation .................................................................... .............................................. 13
Table 6 - Trashrack Area .................................................................................................. .............................................. 13
Table 7 - Duke PP-H Standard Rates ............................................................................... .............................................. 16
Table 8 - 0&M Expenses .................................................................................................. .............................................. 16
Table 9 - Drainage Area in Yadkin River Basin ................................................................ .............................................. 20
Table 10 - W. Kerr Scott Reservoir Information ................................................................ .............................................. 22
Table 11 - Tailwater Elevations ......................................................................................... .............................................. 23
Table 12 - Reservoir Area vs. Surface Elevation .............................................................. .............................................. 25
Table 13 - Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species .................................................. .............................................. 25
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Electrical One-Line Diagram ........................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2 - Average Total Monthly Precipitation ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3 - Flow Duration Curve ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4 - Tailwater Rating Curve ................................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A Water samples, Aquatic Biota Survey
Appendix B Photographs of existing structures and project area
Appendix C Distribution list
Appendix D Correspondence
4
Exhibit F
This information is Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII)
F-1 Powerhouse Plan
F-2 Powerhouse Downstream Elevation
F-3 Powerhouse Downstream Profile
F-4 Discharge Conduit Section View
F-5 Intake Profile
F-6 Intake Elevation
F-7 - F-11 Multilevel Intake Drawings Showing Flows
Preliminary Design Report
Exhibit G
This information is Non-Internet Public (NIP)
G-1 Project Boundary
G-2 Project Location and Vicinity Map
G-3 Transmission Line to Nearby Substation
Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
License Application for a Major Water Power Project, Existing Dam
Project Information
(1) Application for License
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC will be applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license
for the W. Kerr Scott Hydropower Project as described hereinafter.
(2) Project Location
State: North Carolina
County: Wilkes
Township or nearby town: Wilkesboro, NC
Stream: Yadkin River
(3) The exact name and business address of the applicant:
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
P. 0. Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
[e-mail]
(4) Authorized Persons
The exact name, business address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act as agent for the
applicant in this application is:
Mr. Kevin Edwards
P. 0. Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
336 589-6138
[e-mail]
Mr. Dean Edwards
P.O. Box 1565
Dover, FL 33527
813 659-3014
(5) Corporation Information
The applicant, Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC, is a domestic corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Ohio, and is not claiming preference under section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act. Both Kevin
Edwards and Dean Edwards are citizens of the United States.
(6)(i) State Laws
The statutory or regulatory requirements of the State in which the project would be located that affect the
project as proposed with respect to bed and banks and the appropriation, diversion, and use of water for
power purposes, and with respect to the right to engage in the business of developing, transmitting and
distributing power and in any other business necessary to accomplish the purposes of the license under the
Federal Power Act are:
1. A section 401 certification must be obtained from the North Carolina Department of Water Quality.
2. A section 404 dredge and fill permit must be obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
3. A building permit will be required by the County of Wilkes, North Carolina.
(6)(ii)
1. WHC has submitted an application for section 401 certification with the North Carolina Department of
Water Quality.
2. WHC has had meetings with Wilkes County zoning and building officials regarding the needed zoning
and permits needed for this project. An application for a building permit lasts less than one year so
WHC will apply for this permit after license issuance.
(7) Brief Project Description
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC, (WHC) proposes to install electrical generation at the existing W.
Kerr Scott Dam, which passes the flow of the Yadkin River through its outlet structure near Wilkesboro, North
Carolina. The project will generate "green energy"for up to 4,000 homes and use existing facilities to
minimize or eliminate additional environmental impacts. On December 16, 2008, the Commission approved
use of the Traditional Licensing Process. On January 14, 2009 WHC had a joint public meeting and site visit
to provide information regarding the project and to obtain comments from agencies, tribes, and the public.
This document is the License Application (LA) that is the last step in applying for a Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission license for this proposed project. The LA presents preliminary plans for the project,
reviews information on resources in the project area, reviews studies that have been performed, identifies
known or potential impacts and suggests potential measures to protect, mitigate, or enhance resources. The
project will make use of the existing W. Kerr Scott Dam intake tower and discharge conduit through the dam.
The dam is presently and will continue to be owned by the Federal Government with the needed land for the
project to be leased from the Federal Government. Proposed project facilities and components include an
intake structure with trashrack; a new powerhouse with two turbine/generators; lining 580 feet of the existing
discharge conduit with an 11 foot diameter steel liner; penstock; discharge channel; sub-station; and a re-
conductored existing transmission line. The project will use "run-of-the-river" operations or as otherwise
directed by the COE.
(8) Lands of the United States affected:
Total U. S. Lands - 3.5 acres
The project will be constructed on lands owned by and leased from the Federal Government.
The existing W. Kerr Scott Dam is owned by the Federal Government and administered by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, P. 0. Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890, 910-251-4625.
The project is not located within fifteen miles of any cities or towns with populations greater than 5,000 people.
There are no other irrigation districts, drainage districts or similar special purpose political subdivisions that would be
interested in or affected by the Project.
Seven Indian tribes are associated with Wilkes County, NC. Contact information is included in the attached Distribution
List. We have received a response from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians stating that the project is outside the
aboriginal territory of the Cherokee people. We also received a copy of our letter to the Keetoowah band of Cherokee
Indians in Oklahoma with a stamp stating that they have no objection to the project. No other tribe responded to our
consultation letter, PAD and DLA. A copy of this LA will be sent to all ten tribes listed below.
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Haliwa-Saponi Tribe
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina
Meherrin Indian Tribe
Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation
Sappony Tribe
Waccamaw-Siouan Tribe
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
Catawba Indian Nation
i
i
NOTICE
The Wilkesboro Hydroelectric
Company, LLC ("WHC") hereby no-
tifies resource agencies, Indian
tribes and members of the public
that on September 29, 2008 it sub-
mitted to the Federal Energy Regu-
latory Commission (°FERC") the
following documents to initiate a
process to obtain a license to con-
struct, operate and maintain a hy-
droelectric generation facility ("Pro-
ject") at the W. Kerr Scott Dam on
the Yadkin River in North Carolina:
1) Notice of Intent to File Applica-
tion for Original License
2) Pre-Application Document
3) Request for Use of Traditional
Licensing Process ('TLP Request")
These documents are available
for inspection and reproduction at
the following location: the Wilkes
County Library, 215 10th Street N.
Wilkesboro, NC 28659.
They are also available at the
site's web site: http://piedmonthydro-
power.com/kerrscott/ For additional
information regarding WHC's pro-
posed Project, please contact: Mr.
Kevin Edwards, agent, Wilkesboro
Hydroelectric Company, LLC, P.O.
Box 143, Mayodan, N.C. 27027, 336
589.6138,
Publisher's Affidavit
State of North Carolina, Wilkes County.
Personally appeared before me the Undersigned JULIUS C. HUBBARD, JR.
and/or JOHN W. HUBBARD Co-Publishers of WILKES JOURNAL-PATRIOT,
a public newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in North
Wilkesboro, in the county aforesaid who, being duly sworn, upon his oath, sayeth
that the notice of which the attached is a true copy, was duly published in said
paper for 1 insertions successively, the first of which publication
was on the t S+n day of Lk 20 GS and the
last on the -- day of 20
[e-mail]
WHC also
ro-
With this notice
,
p
vides advance public notice of a Q'
public meeting regarding WHC's ?- Y 7 'g
proposal to be held tentatively on
2008 in Wilkesboro,
December 2 !
'
,
NC. The date of this meeting is
' Co-Publisher of Wilkes Journal-Patriot
.
subject to FERC's approval of
WHC's TLP Request; further notice ! S
b
ib
d
d - ??

`
C) V? {{??QQ
`
u
scr
e
an
sw
will be issued before the meeting. ono to before me
J
20 f,/
WHC proposes to install a run-of-
the-river hydroelectric generating fa-
cility with 2 turbines and 2 genera-
tors and a total installed capacity of
4.0 megawatts at the existing W.
Kerr Scott Dam. The Notice of Intent
declares WHC's intent to file an ap-
plication for a federal license for the
Project with FERC, and the Pre-
Application Document identifies the
environment to be affected and the
significant resources present, and
proposes preliminary protection,
mitigation and enhancement meas-
ures to avoid significant impacts.
The Pre-Application Document also
describes WHC's proposed Process
Plan and Schedule, which includes
several opportunities for public
comment.
The Traditional Licensing Process
("TLP") entails three stages of con-
sultation between WHC as the ap-
plicant and interested resource
agencies, tribes and members of the
public leading to the filing of a final
license application with the FERC.
WHC's reasons for proposing use of
the TLP are detailed in its TLP Re-
-ciuUA_?_ fAAao
Notary Public
My Commission expires My Commission Expires 10-03-2009
dropower Project, Project No.
12642," and may be submitted by
electronic filing (www.ferc.gov) pur.
suant to FERC's regulations at 18
C.F.R. § 385.2003(c) or in hardcopy
(an original and eight copies) to: Of-
fice of the Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Copies of the comments should be
provided to WHC at its above e-mail
or physical address.
quest. Interested agencies, tribes 10-15-it(W)
and members of the public may
submit written comments to the
FERC on WHO's TLP Request by
October 30, 2008. Pursuant to
FERC regulations, comments should
address, as appropriate to the cir-
cumstances of the request, the: (1)
Likelihood of timely license issu-
ance; (2) Complexity of the resource
issues; (3) Level of anticipated con-
troversy; (4) Relative cost of the tra-
ditional process compared to the
integrated process; (5) The amount
of available information and potential
for significant disputes over studies;
and (6) Other factors believed by the
commenter to be pertinent.
Comments should specifically ref-
erence "Wilkesboro Hydroelectric
Company, LLC, W. Kerr Scott Hy-
NOTICE
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Corn-
pr LLC.. holder e a preliminary
permit for the w. Kerr Scott Hydro-

ublisher's Affidavit
power Project. FERC project 12842.
i
th
b
f
ng
e pu
-
or
plans to hold a meet
lic and agencies at 5 pm on
Wednesday. January 14, 2009, at
the Wilkes County Library 215 loot
Wilk
b
o
N
C
28699
N
S
State of North Carolina, Wilkes County,
es
or
.
.
.
.
.
treet
phone [phone].
an October 1, 2006, WHC filed its
Preliminary Application Document
describing the pertinent enVercn- Par&rlnally appeared More me the Undersigned JULIUS C. HUBRARD, JR.
menlal background of the W. Kerr
Scott Cam and the Yadkln River and
andlor JOHN W_ HURBARD Cu-Puhlishcrs of WILKES JOURNAL. PATRIOT

indicating the planned installation of ,
hydropower facilities. The PAD is
available on the Project's web site,
a public newspaper of general circulaliun, printed and published in North
pied moat hyd ropower.com. A copy
was placed for public inspection at
the Wilkes County Library. 215 101h
Wilkesburo, in the county aforesaid who, being duly sworn, upon his Oath.. sayclh
Street N. Wilkesboro. NC. The
agenda of the meeting is Purpose
of Meetmg; Review of Licensing that the nolicc of which the attached is a true cupy.. was duly published in said
process and schedule; Project Lo-
cation; Facilities and operations;
Expected Impact of Hydropower On
Darn; Planned Studies; Agency, paper for in5crtiuns successively, the first of whicpublication

111
,„
W
h
'
?G'?
`r
"
Tribal and Public Comments. -
es on t
e day nl
Jr r
-
?t
- ?fy.y _ artd the
A site v,Sit will be held before the
meeting at the W. Kerr Scott, r{sn
Iasi on the
d
`
Dam Creek recreation area for any `
ay ur_ ?{{
(9)
Notary Public
My Commission expires ' ". - .... - .
intorested parties at I p,m. on i_
Wednesday. January 14. 2009. Tae 3.
Applrcant will show partlcipanle v?j ` ? S
where the powerhouse, dischharge•,:,?^;'?xr syir! •?i+.?
wndurl liner, penstock bifurcation, Y Y
discharge channel, substation and transmission line wlll he located. The CO-Publisher of Mikes Ioumal-Patriot
Applicant will answer any questions ?Yk yr ?,(
regarding the location of the pmeel. Subscribed and sworn ur Ixforc me C•?
Kevin Edwards, member.
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric
Company,
336 988.6138 -CJ.--?
12.24-11(W )
Start of Construction Date
Construction of the project is planned to start within 24 months, and is planned to be completed within 48
months from the date of issuance of license.
9
Exhibit A
Description of the project and the proposed mode of operation:
(1)(i) Number and Type of Generating Units
The powerhouse will be located on the south side of the existing discharge stilling basin. The powerhouse will be 80
feet long by 30 feet wide and 20 feet high above ground level. The two 8' penstocks will carry the water flow into each
turbine's pressure case. Both turbines will be of the typical vertical shaft design with water passing through wicket
gates, and then exiting the runner from the bottom. After the water passes through each turbine it will enter a draft
tube, which will then carry the decelerated water back into the river. Both draft tubes will be equipped with air injection
rings designed to improve the dissolved oxygen levels downstream from the dam when needed to assure that the
discharged water meets North Carolina State standards for dissolved oxygen. The foundation of the powerhouse will
be anchored in bedrock and will be constructed of poured reinforced concrete up to the generator floor. The exterior
walls of the powerhouse will be brick over concrete block with concrete reinforcing. A public information kiosk will be
attached to the side of the powerhouse that will describe the operation of the project. Efforts will be made to make the
powerhouse aesthetically pleasing and to minimize visual impacts. There are no plans for future turbines/generators.
(1)(ii) Turbine and Generator Data
Table 1 - Turbine and Generator Data
Turbine and Generator Data
Unit Number #1 #2
Turbine type Kaplan Propeller
Runner diameter (mm) 1200 1200
Rated head (ft) 63 63
Design flow (cfs) 400 400
Operating speed (rpm) 240 240
Output at 63' k 2000 2000
Coupling to generator Direct Direct
Generator type Synchronous Synchronous
Rated capacity (kW) 2000 2000
Power factor 0.90 0.90
Phase/voltage/frequency 3/4160/60 3/4160/60
Generator efficiency 98% 98%

(1)(iii) Project operations
The project proposes to maintain the same rate of water flow out of the reservoir following the COE's operation plan.
The COE operates the gates on the outlet structure based on the City of Winston-Salem's, as well as the Town of
Wilkesboro's direction. Currently when lake elevation is above 1030' flows are made to keep the lake at 1030' unless
there is the need to store water to prevent downstream flooding. When the lake is below 1030' the following low flow
operation plan is used:
Table 2 - Existing Low Flow Operation Plan
Elevation Flow
(ft. msl) (cfs)
1029.0 & above 400
1028.00 - 1028.99 350
1027.00 - 1027.99 300
1026.00 - 1026.99 250
1024.00 - 1025.99 200
1023.00 - 1023.99 150
1000.00 - 1022.99 125
10
In response to severe drought conditions the Corps has on occasion temporarily reduced releases below 125 cfs.
Otherwise, minimum discharge from Scott should not be less than 125 cfs at any time, except during inspection and
maintenance periods. Recently, while experiencing drought conditions, the COE has released 125 cfs whenever the
lake elevation is below 1030'.
The W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric project will operate as directed by the COE. It is expected that during
normal operations the lake elevation will be held at 1030 feet. The operation of the hydropower project itself will not
cause any fluctuations in lake elevations. The project will monitor the water level in the lake and automatically control
the water flow through the turbines to maintain the proper lake elevation or flow rate. It will be capable of running
unattended and will operate semi-automatically. An operator will live within 15 minutes' travel time and when not at the
plant the operator will be on call. An alarm system will alert the operator when any abnormal conditions take place.
Surveillance by an operator will ensure proper functioning of equipment and trash removal. The turbines will pass the
amount of water determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There will be no change in operation during low
(adverse), mean or high flow year.
Each penstock as it enters the powerhouse will also have a spill gate, which can flow up to 400 cfs, which will allow
water to bypass the turbine and discharge directly into the powerhouse draft tube. Each spill gate will open when its
respective turbine shuts down to maintain a constant flow into the river. When the turbine starts back up the spill gate
will slowly close again, maintaining constant flow. If more than the capacity of the two turbines, 800 cfs, needs to be
released, a fixed cone valve in the conduit gate will also be used to pass flows from 800 cfs to 2000 cfs into the
existing stilling basin. When flows above 2000 cfs need to be released the turbines will be shut down, the service
gates closed, the conduit gate opened, the intake slide gates opened and then the COE's existing service gates will
control the flow of water. The COE already has in use a warning horn near the stilling basin to warn that the flow of
water into the stilling basin is about to increase. There is no need for a warning horn for the flows passing through the
powerhouse as the flows will be changed slowly, preventing any hazardous conditions. Flows above 2000 cfs have
occurred less than 3% of the time in the past.
(1)(iv) Annual Energy Generation
One 2000 kW Kaplan turbine and one 2000 kW propeller type turbine, both with adjustable wicket gates, are proposed
for the project. The Kaplan turbine will operate efficiently down to a flow rate of 100 cfs. The rated capacity of each
turbine is at a mean head of 63 feet, with a total plant water flow of 800 cfs. Each turbine will turn a vertical shaft that
drives a generator. Total plant output will be 4,000 kW. The estimated annual energy production will be 22,400,000
kWh. The plant factor is 63.9%. Table 5 presents the estimated average monthly energy production. Because of the
flow duration curve and the fact that 99% of the time there is at least 125 cfs of water, the project has a dependable
capacity of 400 kW.
Table 3- Estimated Monthly Energy Production
Month Total average kWh output
January 1184650
February 1744200
March 1896675
April 2353536
May 1651632
June 2450448
Jul 1882368
August 1852918
September 2027808
October 1257984
November 2017800
December 2103984
(1)(v) Average Head
The estimated average head of the plant is 63 feet.
(1)(vi) Reservoir Surface Area and Storage Capacity
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir is the existing manmade reservoir made by the W. Kerr Scott Dam, and is owned by the
Federal Government. It has an approximate normal pool elevation of 1030 feet msl and is maintained at this level by
the Army Corps of Engineers. The lake has a surface area of 1475 acres with a storage capacity of 41,000 acre-feet at
normal pool. At the top of the flood control pool at an elevation of 1075 feet the lake has a surface area of 4000 acres
with a storage capacity of 153,000 acre-feet. At an elevation of 1075 feet, the flood control pool will extend 16 miles
upstream from the dam to the vicinity of the Wilkes-Caldwell County line. The normal pool at elevation 1030 feet will
extend 6.7 miles upstream. Length of the shoreline at normal pool elevation is 55 miles.
Table 4 - Reservoir Storage at Various Surface Elevations
Elevation in feet MSL Surface acres Total capacity (AF) Allocated capacity (AF)
Top of flood control pool 1075 4000 153,000 ---
Flood control storage --- --- --- 112,000
Normal pool 1030 1475 41,000 ---
Water supply storage --- --- --- 33,000
Minimum operative pool 1000 675 8,000 ---
Sediment and
conservation storage --- --- --- 8,000
(1)(vii) Hydraulic capacities of the project.
Plant minimum flow with 2000 kW Kaplan turbine running 100 cfs
Plant maximum flow with both turbines running 800 cfs
The estimated average flow through the W. Kerr Scott Dam is 632 cfs for the period 1-1-1963 to 5-1-2009.
Monthly flow duration curves are in appendix A.
Drainage area
The Yadkin River drains 367 square miles of surface area at the W. Kerr Scott Dam.
(1)(viii) Size, capacities and construction material of structures
The project will use the existing W. Kerr Scott Dam, which was built in 1962. The dam has two gates in the intake
tower that regulate flow through the discharge conduit into the Yadkin River below the project and thereby regulate
water levels in the impoundment. Proposed new project facilities and components include a new powerhouse, intake
water quality structure, conduit liner, penstock, discharge channel, substation and a reconductored existing
transmission line.
Main Dam
The dam is an earth and rockfill dam. The top width of the dam is 28 feet at elevation 1107.5 feet msl, 148 feet above
the riverbed elevation. The length is 1740 feet along the crest. A heavy rock blanket is provided on the upstream
slope. The total volume of earth and rock in the dam is more than two million cubic yards. Upstream slopes are 1 on 3
in rock and 1 on 2.3 in earth. The downstream slope is 1 on 3. A service road 22 feet wide crosses the dam.
Spillway
The unpaved, chute-type spillway, excavated through overburden into rock in a saddle adjacent to the left abutment of
the dam, discharges into the steep-sided valley of Fish Dam Creek, which parallels the spillway crest line and empties
into the Yadkin River about 750 feet downstream from the dam toe. The fixed crest of the spillway is located about
midway in a 700-foot longitudinal rock cut. The crest is 400 feet wide at elevation 1075 feet, designed to pass the
spillway design flood with a minimum pool elevation of 1102.5 feet.
12
Intake structure and trashrack
A water quality multilevel intake structure will be attached to the front face of the existing intake tower. A trashrack with
a bottom elevation of 1000 feet MSL up to 1033 feet MSL will be attached to the top of this structure to remove trash
and to prevent the entrainment or impingement of fish. Maximum average approach velocity to the trashrack will be
1.5 feet per second at a point 6 inches in front of the trashrack. The maximum approach velocity at any one point will
be 2 feet per second at a point 6 inches in front of the trashrack. The space between trashrack bars will be 2.5 inches
or less. The trashrack will have an area in excess of 1400 square feet to allow flows up to 2000 cfs to pass while the
project is generating. Each of the three trash rack faces will be equipped with a chain driven type trash rack cleaner
that will clean all of the trash rack surface and bring the debris to the deck. Debris will then be carried by a conveyor to
a small dump truck on the bridge deck. Debris will then be disposed of in the Wilkes county landfill.
Table 5 - Trashrack Area vs. Lake Elevation
Lake elevation Trash rack
area ft2 Flow rate in cfs Approach
velocity ft/s
1033 1650 2000 1.212 Lake elevation at top of rack
1030 1500 2000 1.33
1025 1250 200 .16
1020 1000 125 .125
1015 750 125 .16
1010 500 125 .25
1005 250 105 .42
1000 0 0 0 All flow through bottom outlet
The water quality multilevel intake structure will have a multi-level intake gate system that will control the elevation from
which water is withdrawn. The flood intake gate area near the bottom of the intake water quality structure will have a
retractable trash rack installed behind the flood intake gate so that if desired by agencies, water can be withdrawn from
the lake bottom for generation. This flood intake trash rack will be retracted during flood flows.
Table 6 - Trashrack Area
Intake elevation Open trash rack area
1000 up to 1030 1500 square feet
1010 up to 1030 1000 square feet
1000 up to 1020 1000 square feet
Lake bottom intake trash rack An additional 475 square feet
Discharge conduit liner
The existing 749 foot long reinforced concrete water conduit, which is 12.25 feet in diameter, will be lined for the last
580 feet to the outlet at the stilling basin with an 11 foot diameter % inch thick steel liner to prevent water under
pressure from passing through the walls of the conduit into the earth fill dam itself. The liner will start at the stilling
basin and go up past all of the four seepage collars. These collars are in the non-permeable core of the dam. There
will be a funnel shaped steel transition at the upper end of the liner. The existing concrete conduit, while quite
substantial, is not designed to convey water under pressure. This conduit liner will be designed with a drainage system
to detect and remove any possible leakage through the liner. The steel liner will require that the 7-inch space between
the outside of the steel liner and the inside of the conduit be filled with concrete grout. The conduit liner will continue
on past the penstock bifurcation to where a conduit gate will divert the flows to the powerhouse when the turbines are
operating. The conduit gate will be located at the end of the conduit liner and at the beginning of the stilling basin and
will be used only in the fully opened or fully closed position; the gate itself will not be used for throttling flow. There will
be a Howell-Bunger ring-jet type fixed cone valve installed in this conduit gate that will control total project flows
between 800 cfs and 2000 cfs. When the conduit gate is open the intake tower service gates will control the flow of
water and there will be no generation. When the conduit gate is closed the intake tower service gates will be fully open
and the flow of water will be through the turbines and spill gates in the powerhouse and the fixed cone valve in the
conduit gate. Water that passes through the fixed cone valve will discharge into the existing stilling basin. Water that
13
passes through the fully open conduit gate will also discharge water into the stilling basin. The water will exit this gate
at the same velocity as it currently does when entering the stilling basin. Therefore, there will be no change in the
characteristics of the water flow into the stilling basin when the conduit gate is open.
During the one-month installation of the conduit liner, a 36-inch diameter pipe will be temporarily installed inside the
conduit liner to allow flows up to 200 cfs to continue down the river. The established minimum flow is 125 cfs. There
will be a temporary watertight bulkhead installed in one of the two emergency gate slots in the intake tower that will
divert the water flow into the 36-inch pipe. The service gate in this intake passage will be open. This bulkhead will
have a 36" slide gate that will be able to control the flow of water through the 36" pipe from 0 to 200 cfs. The other
service gate can be opened to allow greater flows to pass though the conduit liner should lake elevations become too
high during liner installation. However, using the other service gate to pass flows could damage the 36" pipe, therefore
it will have to be removed along with all construction equipment before opening the service gate.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse will be located on the south side of the existing discharge stilling basin. The powerhouse will be 80
feet long by 30 feet wide and 20 feet high above ground level. Two 8' diameter penstocks will carry the water flow into
each turbine's pressure case from the discharge conduit liner. Both turbines will be of the typical vertical shaft design
with water passing through wicket gates, and then exiting the runner from the bottom. After the water passes through
each turbine it will enter an elbow draft tube, which will then carry the decelerated water back into the river. Both draft
tubes will be equipped with air injection rings designed to improve the dissolved oxygen levels downstream from the
dam when needed to assure that the discharged water meets State standards for dissolved oxygen. The foundation of
the powerhouse will be anchored in bedrock and will be constructed of poured reinforced concrete up to the generator
floor. The exterior walls of the powerhouse will be brick over concrete block with concrete reinforcing. Efforts will be
made to make the powerhouse aesthetically pleasing and to minimize visual impacts. A public information kiosk will be
attached to the outside of the powerhouse to provide information on the project's operation. There will be no need for
potable water or sewer for this project.
Discharge channel
The water as it exits the draft tube will enter a discharge channel that will be 80 feet wide and 30 feet long, curving
back until it joins the river at the downstream end of the stilling basin. Water levels and flow rates in the river below the
stilling basin will remain the same as they are now. For the first 20 feet from the powerhouse the tailrace wing walls
will be of concrete. For the remainder the walls will be lined with large riprap over filter cloth to dissipate any wave
action and eliminate erosion.
Substation
An area next to the powerhouse will be used for the substation. All controls for the substation will be contained in a
control panel inside the powerhouse. The step-up power transformer will have the following specifications and will be
placed outside in a substation area with a proper oil containment area:
5000 KVA, mineral oil immersed power transformer, three-phase, 60 Hz, 4160 volt low, 12470 volt high. The normal
power supply for station services will be tapped from the common 4160 volt bus through a fused disconnect switch and
a 4160 to 208/120 volt three-phase transformer.
Controls
The controls for the generator/turbines will be contained in control panels placed against one wall of the powerhouse.
Each generator will have a vacuum contactor that will be controlled by a utility grade multifunction protective relay such
as the Basler 951. A one-line diagram for the electrical system is shown on page 16. It is proposed to use the
generator contactors for switching functions, synchronization and isolation of the generator under short circuit
conditions. This contactor will have an adequate interruption rating. Cutout type fuses will also be installed to provide
backup protection against excessive current.
The project will be computer controlled by a PLC (Programmable Logic Controller). Each generator/turbine will have
individual controls to maximize energy production. The PLC will be designed so that it can be accessed both locally
and remotely. The flow volume through the project will be specified by the COE. If the COE specifies a certain specific
lake elevation the project's PLC will use level sensors on the reservoir to control the flow through the turbines. If the
COE specifies a specific flow through the project the PLC will maintain that flow rate.
14
Power Lines
The project's 12.470 kV volt transmission line will begin at the project's substation and go underground to the closest
existing utility pole approximately one hundred feet to the south of the powerhouse. At this location the utility will install
its metering and protective equipment. The existing 12.470 kV three-phase line into the site runs east along the
access road 3600 feet to a Duke Energy substation. This line into the site may have to be reconductored to carry the
output of the plant. As this existing line runs along a road, no trees will need to be removed and there will be minimal
disturbance to the environment. This power line uses standard wood poles as shown in figure 7 in Appendix B.
Energy from this project will most likely be sold to Duke Energy.
Project boundary
The 3.5 acre project boundary will enclose the intake tower, conduit, powerhouse, substation, power line and discharge
channel, as shown in Exhibit G. This boundary will encompass part of the area below the dam where the powerhouse
will be placed and include a storage area. While the project boundary includes some public-use area, this will not
prevent public use of the area. The majority of this area is needed by the project only during construction. Once
construction is completed the public will have complete access to all areas except the powerhouse and intake tower.
The linear 20' wide project boundary along the transmission line route will be as shown in Exhibit G.
Project boundary
Starting at a point 50 feet southeast of the W. Kerr Scott Dam's discharge conduit outlet centerline
thence southwesterly parallel to the conduit centerline 850 feet,
thence 100 feet northwesterly,
thence northeasterly 1102 feet along a line that is 50 feet northwesterly from the centerline of the conduit,
thence southeast 250 feet,
thence southwesterly 252 feet along a line that is 200 feet southeasterly from the centerline of the conduit,
thence northwesterly 150 feet to the point of beginning.
Educational kiosk
Attached to the east side of the powerhouse will be a kiosk that will show the public how the project was built and how
it operates. It will include general drawings showing the main components of the project. It will also show how much
power is being generated and how this offsets the use of fossil fuels and how this is a benefit to the environment.
(1)(ix) Project Cost
The estimated cost of this power project including design, land acquisition, equipment, structure equipment, and the
cost of interconnection is $6,250,000.
(1)(x) Capital cost and estimated 0&M costs of proposed environmental measures
There are no proposed environmental measures. Therefore, the estimated capitol costs and estimated annual
operation and maintenance expense of each proposed environmental measure is $0.
(2) Project Purpose
The purpose of the project itself is to generate renewable energy for up to 4,000 homes while using existing facilities to
minimize or eliminate additional environmental impacts. The power will be sold to a local utility under the standard
North Carolina power purchase agreement pricing shown below.
(3) Application Development Costs
The estimated cost to develop the license application is $310,000.
15
(4) On-peak and off-peak values used
The contract offered by Duke Energy to purchase the power from this project is regulated by the North Carolina Utility
Commission. The Commission approves the rates every two years. The current annualized rate on a 15-year contract
is 7.31 cents per kWh. The current prices are:
Table 7 - Duke PP-H Standard Rates
Variable
$
Line No. Descriotiork
INTERCONNECTED TO: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
1 Energy Credit On-Peak B27
2 OR=Peak 439
3 Capacity Credit M43eA Match 4.30
4 Off-Peak Month 0.85
5 Annualzed Energy 5.50
® Annuar'¢ed Capacity im
7 Annualized Total 7.00
Fled Long-Term Rates
5 Years MOM
6.33 6.40 6.52
4.64 4.43 4.47
4.64 5.05 537
0.90 1.00 1.06
5.44 5.36 5-44
1.50 1.76 1.87
7.02 7.12 7-31
(5) Average annual increase or decrease in project generation due to
project changes
State the estimated average annual increase or decrease in project generation due to a change in project operation.
This is not an application for a new license for an existing hydropower project. Therefore the projected increase in
generation will be from zero production now to 22,400,000 kWh when the project is completed.
(6) Undepreciated Net Investment
State the remaining undepreciated net investment, or book value of the project.
This is not an application for a new license for an existing hydropower project; therefore there is no net investment at
this time.
(7) Annual operation and maintenance expenses
Table 8 - 0&M Expenses
Ex ense t e Yearly cost
Utilities $21,000
Maintenance $28,000
Operator labor $46,000
Insurance $24,000
Administration $68,000
Taxes $57,000
Lease cost $23,000
Total $267,000
16
(8) Electrical One-Line Diagram
-------------------------------- --------------
W I I XI1? S' HO RO I IY DRO KLI?:CT PIC,
C0M P.ANY; 1, LC
- W. KlI:RR SCOTT PROD I?:CT
V l? RC: PROJ I- C:'I' 1 ?f74
j I-I&:C"l'RICAI, ONK I,INI?: DIAGRAM
SUALC' TJ T TO
i ..7
NI.
na•,r?. ?l.l....cr rr l.n .?..?-
----------- - - ----------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
i
i
ELS
F, '
M•
------------
t 3C1 35'
F. ? I. nCL?' ..
I_L. ,- ? I II
-------------
J
Figure 1 - Electrical One-Line Diagram
(9) Measures to ensure safe management, 0&M
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC is owned by Dean and Kevin Edwards. Dean Edwards owns Mayo
Hydropower, LLC that has operated two hydropower projects since 2001. He is also a Florida State licensed general
contractor and a retired city firefighter. Kevin Edwards has a Master's degree in mechanical engineering and has been
active in hydropower development since 2002. Their knowledge will insure that the project will be operated properly
and safely, adhering to all requirements of the license. All employees will be instructed in the proper way to perform all
operations and maintenance and proper protective equipment will be provided. The project will be designed by a
professional engineer and operated on a day-to-day basis by a full time paid experienced operator who will live within
15 minutes of the project. He will be able to remotely observe the proper operation of the plant by a computer link to
the project's computer as well as through video cameras. The plant will have a monitored security system. The
project's computer will also send text messages to the operator's cell phone when there is a problem.
17
Exhibit E
(i) DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
3.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Climate
North Carolina has a temperate climate with mild winters and long fall and spring months. Summers can be hot and
humid, especially in the Piedmont and Coastal plain region, which do not get relief from coastal breezes or higher
elevations. The mountains tend to be substantially cooler and receive some winter snow. In the Piedmont region,
winter daytime temperatures normally range from the upper 30s to the upper 40s. Summer daytime temperatures
range from the high 70s to the low 90s. The state has a fairly wet climate with an average precipitation for this area of
44-52 inches (112-132 centimeters).
W KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR, NORTH CRROLINR (319555)
Period of Record 7/ 111965 to 6/30/2007
s
e
a
.j
c
0
•.{ 3
MT
N
•.{ 2
a
.ti
v
m
-
0
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
Feb Rpr Jun Rug Oct Dec
Day of Year southeast
Reg i...I
Rverage Total Monthly Precipitation ci:-t:
center
Figure 2 - Average Total Monthly Precipitation
Topography
The project area is in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The topography of the area is generally hilly, with hills
on both sides of the river and the dam being the most dominant features in the immediate area. Along the river there
are many different types of indigenous trees, such as oak and pine. The area downstream from the site has been
developed into an industrial park and farther downstream is the town of Wilkesboro. There are no wetlands in the
vicinity of the project. The banks of the river rise steeply from the water surface for 7-10 feet. The vegetative cover of
the site consists of native grasses and weeds. No other plant life will be disturbed by this project.
3.1.1 River Basin Description
The Yadkin River basin above the dam site is a mountainous area of about 348 square miles. Its northerly boundary is
the crest of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The entire watershed with the exception of the narrow valley between the two
mountain ranges is a system of ravine-like slopes producing rapid runoff, with a result that storm runoff reaches a crest
and recedes in a short time after the occurrence of a storm. The main stem of the river is characterized by relatively
steep slopes in the upper reaches and flat gradients in the lower reaches. The average slope of the main stream is
about six feet per mile with relatively small valley storage capacity. In contrast, tributaries of the river have steep
slopes, particularly those on the north side with headwaters in the Blue Ridge Mountains. In their upper reaches
streams flow through steep valleys having little or no flood plain. Stream gradients in some of these regions exceed
500 feet per mile. In their lower reaches the gradients gradually become less steep as the tributaries flow to their
confluences with the Yadkin River. Since the south side tributaries start in the Brushy Mountains, a range of much less
elevation than the Blue Ridge, they have correspondingly flatter stream gradients.
The site of the project was modified in the 1960s by the construction of the dam by the Army Corps of Engineers. As a
result, grass and weeds are the only vegetation on the project site. No trees or other large types of plant life will be
disturbed by construction of the project.
18
3.1.2 Geology and Soils
The project is near the dividing line of the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge Mountains, which are above the project. The
Piedmont Province lies between the Coastal Plain and the Blue Ridge Mountains. Along the border between the
Piedmont and the Coastal Plain, elevations range from 300 to 600 feet above sea level. To the west, elevations
gradually rise to about 1,500 feet above sea level at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Piedmont is
characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills and long low ridges with a few feet of elevation difference between
the hills and valleys. The Piedmont includes some relatively low mountains including the South Mountain and the
Uwharrie Mountains.
The Blue Ridge is a deeply dissected mountainous area of numerous steep mountain ridges, intermontane basins and
trench valleys that intersect at all angles and give the area its rugged mountain character. The Blue Ridge contains the
highest elevations and the most rugged topography in the Appalachian Mountain system of eastern North America.
Three major classes of rocks common to North Carolina are igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary. North Carolina
has a long and complex geologic history. The State is best described in terms of geological belts; that is, areas with
similar rock types and geologic history.
Blue Ridge Belt - This mountainous region is composed of rocks from over one billion to about one-half billion years
old. This complex mixture of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock has been repeatedly squeezed, fractured,
faulted and folded. The Blue Ridge belt is well known for its deposits of feldspar, mica and quartz-basic materials used
in the ceramic, paint and electronic industries. Olivine is mined for use as a refractory material and foundry molding
sand.
Piedmont Belt - The Piedmont Belt is the most intensely deformed and metamorphosed segment of the Piedmont. The
metamorphic rocks range from 500 to 750 million years in age. They include gneiss and schist that have been intruded
by younger granitic rocks. The northeast trending Brevard fault zone forms much of the boundary between the Blue
Ridge and the Inner Piedmont belts. Although this zone of strongly deformed rocks is one of the major structural
features in the southern Appalachians, its origin is poorly understood. Crushed stone for road aggregate and building
construction is the principal commodity produced.
Soils
Red and yellow soils cover most of the project area. The Piedmont has sandy, clay silt loams, mostly red in color.
Strips of dark alluvial soils lie along most streams. Grayish-brown loams cover most of the mountain area.
Clay and clay loam textures typify Piedmont soils, and stoniness is common. Many of the flatter upland areas and
some basins have light-colored sandy and sandy loam soils. The parent material, which is derived from old deeply
weathered crystalline rocks, is high in iron oxide, which gives most Piedmont soils their distinctive red color. Piedmont
soils are richer in most essential elements than are most Coastal Plain soils. Some of the Piedmont's best crop soils
are derived from water-laid, or alluvial, materials on river floodplains and terraces.
Most of the mountain soils are thin, stony, and not fully developed. At lower elevations are many red-yellow podzolic
soils typical of the Piedmont. In the higher parts the cooler climate accounts for gray-brown podzolic soils. The best
agricultural soils are on floodplains and terraces in valleys and basins.
3.1.2.3 Shorelines and stream banks
The reservoir was created by flooding a valley created by the surrounding hills. Therefore the shoreline banks tend to
be moderately steep and the water level drops off quickly. The shoreline is primarily covered with stable soil. There
are very little wetlands surrounding the lake. The banks of the lake are mostly covered in dense forest but in places
there are maintained grassy areas. The face of the dam itself is covered in a thick layer of large stone. The drainage
basin above the dam has few wetlands and flood plains.
3.1.3 Water Resources
Currently there are no known municipal water withdrawals from W. Kerr Scott Reservoir. Several municipalities draw
their water supply from the Yadkin River below the proposed project. However, the Town of Wilkesboro and several
19
other municipalities have identified the reservoir as a source that may be used in the future. During periods of high
flow on the Yadkin River, W. Kerr Scott Reservoir is used to store water and during periods of drought it is used to
maintain a minimum flow of 125 cfs in the river below the dam.
Winston-Salem's 401 Water Quality Certification states when flow at Idols Dam falls below 554 cfs, the City shall
request the COE to release additional water from Kerr Scott Reservoir in the amount equal to the lesser of a) the
shortfall below 554 cfs, or b) the total daily withdrawals (average over the preceding 30 days) in excess of 50 MGD
from all intakes operated by the City on the Yadkin River. Winston-Salem has as much as 10,800 million gallons of
storage in the Reservoir for use as water supply.
The Town of Wilkesboro has estimated that its demand for water supply from the river will be 5.89 mgd in 2010.
3.1.3.1 Drainage Area in square miles
Table 9 - Drainage Area in Yadkin River Basin
Yadkin River at Patterson, NC ------ 29
Elk Creek at Elkville, NC -------------------- 48
W. Kerr Scott Dam near Wilkesboro, NC-------- 367
Reddies River at North Wilkesboro, NC -------- 89
Yadkin River at Wilkesboro, NC --------------- 504
Roaring River near Roaring River, NC --------- 128
Yadkin River at Elkin, NC -------------------- 869
Yadkin River at Enon, NC --------------------- 1,694
Yadkin River at Yadkin College, NC ----------- 2,280
Yadkin River at High Rock, NC ---------------- 3,973
Pee Dee River at mouth (approximate) -------- 18,500
3.1.3.2 Flow and Flow Duration from W. Kerr Scott Dam
20
Figure 3 - Flow Duration Curve
This curve is derived from the data published by the Army Corps of Engineers for releases from the W. Kerr Scott
reservoir from 1963 through 2005. The curve indicates that the critical minimum stream flow released from the
reservoir is approximately 125 cfs, so this is the minimum dependable flow. This much flow will result in the generation
of approximately 400 kW.
Figure 4 - Tailwater Rating Curve
The average tailwater at the W. Kerr Scott site ranges from 963 feet MSL at 125 cfs flow, up to 966.4 feet MSL at the
design maximum flow of the powerhouse of 2000 CFS. The daily mean values for the site is 561 cfs, the daily mean of
minimum flows is 125 cfs.
3.1.3.3 Existing and Proposed Uses of Project Waters
The W. Kerr Scott project serves multiple purposes including flood control, water supply, water quality control, outdoor
recreation and fish and wildlife conservation. The project has and will continue to reduce downstream flood damage.
The lake is widely used for recreation. The reservoir is maintained at the top of the conservation pool, elevation 1030
feet MSL, as much as possible in order to satisfy recreational demands. Water supply storage is designed to sustain
withdrawals of 125 cfs minimum to maintain a flow of water in the river below the project for water supply for several
towns. The first town that draws its water from the Yadkin River downstream of the dam is the town of Wilkesboro,
which has a daily water demand of 4.386 mgd. The town of Wilkesboro has plans waiting on funding to construct a
water project that would draw water directly from the W. Kerr Scott reservoir.
3.1.3.4 Impacts on Water Use and Water Rights
The project will not have a significant impact on water use and water rights. Water flows will remain the same, except
that instead of water flowing through the stilling basin, it will flow through the turbines in the powerhouse next to the
stilling basin. The project will return the water back into the river immediately downstream from the existing stilling
basin. The area immediately downstream from the existing stilling basin will not experience any change in water level
and flow rate. The project will not change the water flow operations plan that the COE currently uses to avoid affecting
riparian water rights downstream of the project. The COE operates the gates on the outlet structure based on the City
of Winston-Salem's as well as the Town of Wilkesboro's direction
The project will use water only for generation of electricity. The project will not involve consumptive use of water or
diversion of water from the Yadkin River drainage basin.
3.1.3.5 Water Quality Standards
The lake water is suitable for water supply. From water quality data collected at North Wilkesboro and Wilkesboro, the
standards are not contravened. The DO levels are consistently above the required instantaneous minimum of 4 mg
per liter and daily average minimum of 5 mg per liter. Data from USGS site 02112000 at Wilkesboro, NC is shown in
appendix A. There are no stricter federally approved water standards for the river.
21
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir has been sampled by DWQ a number of times between 1981 and 2006. During the most
recent sampling the lake was determined to be oligotrophic and fully supporting its designated uses. A chart in
appendix A shows the DO levels at various depths from these samples.
The reservoir was sampled by DWQ in July and August 2001. On July 18, Secci depths ranged from 1.3 to 1.7 meters,
indicating good light availability to the water column. Total phosphorus, nitrite plus nitrate and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
concentrations ranged from low at the upper end of the lake (0.01 mg/L) to elevated at the mid-lake (0.15 mg/L) and
near dam (0.07 mg/L) sampling sites. Chlorophyll A values were low to moderate (range - 7 to 13 ug/L). Surface
oxygen and pH values were elevated, suggesting increased algae productivity. Surface percent oxygen saturation
values at all three lake sampling sites (range = 115% to 125%) were greater than the state water quality standard of
110% for dissolved gasses. Based on the calculated NCTSI score, W. Kerr Scott Reservoir was determined to be
mesotrophic in July 2001.
On August 15, 2001, Secchi depths ranged from 1.8 meters at the upper end of the lake to 2.2 meters near the dam.
Nutrient concentrations were low and chlorophyll A values were less than those observed in July. Surface dissolved
oxygen and pH values were again elevated. Surface percent oxygen saturation values (range 117% to 133%) were
elevated at all three lake sampling sites. Based on the calculated NCTSI score, the reservoir was determined to be
oligotrophic.
3.1.3.6 Sediments
Because there are no large cities or industries upstream from the dam on the Yadkin River, there has been little
available information on studies of the composition of sediments in W. Kerr Scott Reservoir.
3.1.3.7 Impoundment Physical Data
Table 10 - W. Kerr Scott Reservoir Information
Surface area at normal pool (1030') 1475 acres
Volume at normal pool (1030') 41,000 acre-feet
Maximum depth at normal pool (1030') 65 feet
Mean depth (normal pool) 27.8 feet
Flushing rate (mean flow and normal pool) 35.6 days
Average retention time 35.6 days
Shoreline length at normal pool 55 miles
Substrate composition bedrock
3.1.3.8 Downstream Gradients Affected by Proposed Project
The gradient of the river below the W. Kerr Scott dam is relatively gentle. The project will have no effect on the
downstream gradient, as it will not change the flow of water in the river.
There are many dams below W. Kerr Scott dam including four owned by Alcoa Power Generating Inc., at Narrows on
Badin Lake, Falls, High Rock and Tuckertown reservoirs on 38 miles of the Yadkin River. The City of Winston-Salem
also has both their water intake dam and the Idols Dam on the river. The river becomes the Pee Dee River at the
confluence with the Uwharrie River. The river flows into South Carolina near Cheraw, which is at the fall line where it
becomes the Great Pee Dee River.
3.1.3.9 Floodplains
One of the main purposes for the W. Kerr Scott dam is the reduction of downstream flooding. There are areas
downstream from the project that could be inundated during a period of high flow. The project will not be operating
when the flow discharged from the project is above 2000 cfs, and therefore the project will not contribute to any
flooding. However, the project design will take into consideration that periods of high water at the stilling basin will
impact the area where the powerhouse will be constructed. Therefore, the project will be designed to minimize any
damage to the powerhouse when the dam is passing floods.
22
Table 11 - Tailwater Elevations
Original spillway design flood-------------- -- 998.0
July 1992 spillway design flood------------ --- 999.4
Standard project flood------------------------ 984.6
Flood of record (August 1940) ------------- ---- 973.7
Minimum (125 cfs) -------------------------- 963.0
3.1.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources
3.1.4.1 Existing fish and aquatic communities
There are no known anadromous fish in the Yadkin River. Currently there are no diadromous fish in the Yadkin River
upstream of High Rock Lake, which is downstream from the project.
Fish species within W. Kerr Scott Reservoir
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus, Smallmouth bass Micropterus
dolomieui, Black crappie Pomoxis nlgromaculatus, White crappie Pomoxis annularls
Bluegill Lepomis macroch/rus, Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus, Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus Redear sunfish Lepomis mlcrolophus Rock bass Ambloplites rupestrls
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum, Blueback herring Alosa aestiualis, Striped bass x white bass hybrids Morone
saxatilis x morose clgsops, White perch Morone americana, Yellow perch Perca flavescens
Channel caffish lctalurus punctatus, White catfish Ameiurus catus, Flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus
Snail bullhead Ameiurus brunneus, Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus, Margined madtom Noturus insignis, Common
carp Cyprinus carpio, Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus, Creek chub Semot/lus atromaculatus, Smallmouth
buffalo lctiobus bubalus, Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus, Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum, White sucker
Catostomus commersonfi Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum
Fish species in Yadkin River between W. Kerr Scott Reservoir & Brown Ford Road bridge crossing
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus, Black crappie Pomoxis
nigromaculatus, Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus, Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, Redear sunfish Lepomis
mlcrolophus, Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus, White perch Morone americana, Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris,
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus, Chain pickerel Esoxniger Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus, Channel catfish
lctalurus punctatus, White catfish Ameiurus catus, Flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus, Snail bullhead Ameiurus
brunneus, Notchlip redhorse Moxostoma collapsum, White sucker Catostomus commersonfi Brassy jumprock, Striped
jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes, Common carp Cyprinus carpio, Unidentified darter species, Unidentified minnow
species
A 2009 aquatic biota study, listing fish, mussels and crayfish found, was performed by the Catena Group for WHC and
is included in appendix A.
Diadromous fish species known to use the Yadkin - Pee Dee River historically for spawning and/or rearing include
American shad and American eel. Some of these species are reported to have occurred historically in Piedmont
locations. However, natural falls occurring in several locations along the river, including a significant set of falls known
to have existed in the Narrows gorge, likely served as a natural migration barrier to many fish. The Narrows of the
Yadkin was an area in Montgomery and Stanley Counties where the river's flow was constricted by the Uwharrie
Mountains. With the completion of the Badin Dam, the Narrows of the Yadkin were submerged under Badin Lake,
which is also referred to as the Narrows Reservoir. The Narrows of the Yadkin are many miles downstream from the
W. Kerr Scott Dam.
Based on the accounts of Stevenson (1897, 1899), the historic upstream extent of spawning migration for American
shad in the Yadkin River appeared to be near Wilkesboro, North Carolina. However, it is unclear to what extent
American shad migrated to this upper area of spawning, as migration through the Narrows gorge would have been
23
difficult. Coffin reported in 1888 that American shad would congregate along a series of rapids in the Narrows gorge
area during the spring migration.
There are few historical accounts of the catadromous American eel in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. Mills (1826) reported
American eel present in Marlborough County. Records suggest that it is likely that eels ascended well into the upper
Piedmont region of North Carolina, though Jenkins and Burkhead (1993) indicated that American eel was unknown to
extend into the Virginia portion of the basin.
From this information on the historical range of diadromous fish in the Yadkin it appears that diadromous fish did
appear in the river near where the W. Kerr Scott dam is today but not in great quantity due to the Narrows gorge below
the project. Today there are many barriers to upstream migration on the Yadkin River of diadromous fish including the
Idols dam below the project at mile 309.
Mussel species in Yadkin River
Except for a few surveys conducted in 2000 and 2002 (NCWRC database), little mussel distribution information was
previously known for the upper Yadkin River. Mussels found then include the brook floater (Aiasmidonta uaricosa,
federal species of concern and state endangered), the Carolina lance (E//iptio angustata, no listed status), the creeper
(Strophitus unduiatus, state threatened), and the eastern Elliptic (E//iptio comp/anata, no listed status).
In 2007 a series of mussel surveys were performed in eight study reaches from the dam at Kerr Scott Reservoir
downstream to the US 421 bridge under a grant by the NCWRC. Of 17 sites, all but two contained native mussels and
no gravid mussels were observed among the 10% that were checked. The two sites that contained no native mussels
were located directly downstream of Kerr Scott Dam; one at the canoe launch and the other at the Curtis Bridge Road
crossing in Wilkesboro. A total of four mussel species (Aiasmidonta uaricosa, E//iptio comp/anata, E//iptio roanokensis,
and Strophitus unduiatus) and 297 individual mussels were found at the other 15 sites.
An Aquatic biota study performed by the Catena Group for WHC dated July 23, 2009, is included in appendix A. The
study found no mussel species in reach one just below the dam. It found low numbers of two mussel species at reach
two which is approximately 2000 feet downstream from the dam, Elliptic angustata and Elliptic complanata. Higher
numbers of the same two species were found at the third reach further downstream.
3.1.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat
Marine fish depend on healthy habitats to survive and reproduce. Throughout their lives fish use many types of habitats
including seagrass, salt marsh, coral reefs, kelp forests, and rocky intertidal areas among others. Various activities on
land and in the water constantly threaten to alter, damage, or destroy these habitats. Since this project is over 300
miles upstream from Winyah Bay on the Atlantic Ocean and the project will not make any change in flow, there will not
be any impact on the essential fish habitat.
3.1.4.3 Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Fish and Aquatic Communities
Information on the temporal and spatial distribution of fish and aquatic communities can be useful in planning the
design and operation of hydroelectric projects to minimize impacts on these resources. Such information is not
available for this part of the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir on the Yadkin River.
3.1.5 Wildlife and Botanical Resources
Birds
Common crow, catbird, blue jay, Carolina wren, eastern bluebird, Carolina chickadee, mockingbird, eastern wood
peewee, house sparrow, mourning dove, screech owl, barred owl, belted kingfisher, bobwhite quail, turkey vulture,
black vulture and whip-poor-will.
Mammals
Eastern cottontail rabbit, eastern gray squirrel, opossum, raccoon, white tail deer and red fox.
Reptiles and Amphibians
American toad, bullfrog, northern leopard frog, pickerel frog, northern fence lizard, common snapping turtle, eastern
mud turtle, eastern box turtle, skunk, northern water snake, eastern garter snake, eastern hognose snake, timber
rattlesnake, salamander.
24
3.1.5.1 Upland Habitats
The main habitats in the area of the stilling basin and project area are grassland and scrub trees. The entire area was
excavated and graded during the construction of the dam. Therefore there is very little good topsoil to support plant life
well. Away from the immediate area of the project the soil supports large trees, brush and grasses. The wooded
areas, in general, are relatively undisturbed and support a mix of trees. There is a public use asphalt access road into
the site that runs along the south side of the river.
3.1.5.2 Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Important Species
There is no site-specific information on the temporal distribution of important animal species. However, the temporal
distribution and activity of species in the area will be typical of the species and overall climate conditions.
3.1.6 Wetlands, Riparian and Littoral Habitat
The banks along the river in the project area are quite steep, and there is little or no riparian habitat or wetlands.
3.1.6.1 Maps and acreage; Variability Related to Storage
The COE manages W. Kerr Scott Reservoir at 1030 feet MSL unless they are storing flood water, in which case the
lake elevation will rise, or during a drought the lake will be drawn down to maintain at least 125 cfs in the river below
the dam.
Table 12 - Reservoir Area vs. Surface Elevation
Lake elevation Elevation Acre-feet Surface area acres
Minimum operation pool 1000' 8,000 675
Normal pool 1030' 41,000 1475
Top of flood control pool 1075' 153,000 4000
Maximum design pool 1102.5' 306,000 7240
3.1.7 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service lists the following for Wilkes County, NC:
Table 13 - Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Common Name Scientific name Federal Status Record Status
Vertebrate:
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A) Current
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC Current
Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii FSC Current
Invertebrate:
Diana fritillary (butterfly) Speyeria diana FSC Current
Regal fritillary (butterfly)* Speyeria idalia FSC Historic
Vascular Plant:
Butternut* Juglans cinerea FSC Historic
Radford's St. John's-wort Hypericum sp. 1 FSC Current
Torrey's Mountain-mint* Pycnanthemum torrei FSC Historic
Nonvascular Plant:
Lichen:
Definitions of Species Status Codes:
E : endangered, A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T : threatened, A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range."
C - candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing.
(Formerly "C1" candidate species.)
FSC : federal species of concern. A species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate
species) or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
25
* Historic record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Threatened due to similarity of appearance (T (S/A)):
In the November 4,1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New York
south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia) was
listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance).The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and interstate
and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on
land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species. In
addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the southern population of the bog
turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
According to the NCWRC surveys between 2000 and 2007 two state-listed mussels were found in the Yadkin River
downstream of the project, the brook floater(Alasmidonta varicosa, federal species of concern and state endangered)
and the creeper (Strophitus undulatus, state threatened). While these species have not been found immediately below
the dam, it is possible they exist nearby and could be affected by the project.
A complete listing of all threatened and endangered plant and animal species in the State of North Carolina is in
appendix A.
3.1.8 Recreation and Land Use
Boating and Swimming:
There are seven boat-launching ramps located around the lake for the convenience of boaters. There is also a public
service facility consisting of a marina, snack bar, fuel and bait shop at the Skyline Marina.
Four designated swimming areas have been cleared of underwater obstructions. Visitors should observe caution in
water depths and possible obstructions. Swimming and wading from the shoreline is extremely hazardous due to the
steep and irregular slopes. Swimming is not permitted in regular boat channels.
Camping and Picnicking:
There are several camping and picnicking areas. Two camping areas (Bandits Roost and Warrior Creek Park) have
paved access roads, picnic areas and campsites with potable water and sanitary facilities, flush type toilets, laundry
trays, and shower facilities.
Hunting and Fishing:
The Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission coordinate activities to improve fishing
and manage wildlife at W. Kerr Scott Reservoir. These activities include establishing fish shelters, yearly fish stocking
programs, and constructing artificial spawning beds. Food plots and fields are planted for game animals.
Fishing is permitted throughout the reservoir with the exception of a restricted area near the dam. Hunting is allowed in
certain designated areas of the reservoir. North Carolina State Regulations apply and are enforced by North Carolina
Wildlife Officers.
3.1.8.1 Recreational Use of Project Lands and Waters
The tailwater area supports a variety of recreational activities including hiking, bird watching, picnicking, and fishing.
The area along the river below the stilling basin is currently used primarily for fishing. There is a trail that starts there
along with a place to put in canoes and kayaks. There will not be any risk to the fishing pier on the south bank of the
river due to the project's operation. Over 90% of the energy in the water passing through the turbines is removed from
the water, leaving only gently flowing water coming out of the powerhouse.
3.1.8.2 Existing Shoreline Buffer Zones
The W. Kerr Scott tailwater area river section has banks lined with rip-rap to minimize erosion. There are no known
formal Shoreline Buffer Zones in or near the project area.
3.1.8.3 Current and Future Recreation Needs
The current recreational facilities above and below the W. Kerr Scott Dam are sufficient for current and near-future
population in the area.
26
3.1.8.4 National or Wild and Scenic Rivers
The W. Kerr Scott reservoir and the Yadkin River are not listed in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
3.1.8.5 National Trails System and Wilderness Areas
There are no wilderness areas in the project area.
3.1.9 Aesthetic Resources
The current site is mostly open land with trees surrounding the site. There is a 63 space paved parking lot on the
south side of the tailwater area with portable toilets and a fishing area along the shore of the river. There is also a
place to put in a canoe or kayak. A trail starts at the parking lot and proceeds up Fish Dam Creek.
3.1.10 Cultural Resources
The project area is located approximately 50 feet away from the banks of the Yadkin River. The project area was
studied for possible cultural resources before construction started on the dam in the 1960s. The area was disturbed by
the construction of the dam in the 1960s by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
3.1.11 Socio-Economic Resources
As of the census of 2000, there were 65,632 people, 26,650 households, and 19,321 families residing in the county.
The population density was 87 people per square mile (33/km2). There were 29,261 housing units at an average
density of 39 per square mile (15/km2). The racial makeup of the county was 92.95% White, 4.16% Black or African
American, 0.14% Native American, 0.32% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 1.71 % from other races, and 0.66% from two
or more races. 3.45% of the population was Hispanic or Latino of any race.
There were 26,650 households out of which 30.20% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 59.10% were
married couples living together, 9.40% had a female householder with no husband present, and 27.50% were non-
families. 24.50% of all households were made up of individuals and 10.00% had someone living alone who was 65
years of age or older. The average household size was 2.43 and the average family size was 2.87.
In the county the population was spread out with 22.60% under the age of 18, 7.90% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to
44, 25.70% from 45 to 64, and 14.10% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every
100 females there were 97.30 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 95.70 males.
The median income for a household in the county was $34,258, and the median income for a family was $40,607.
Males had a median income of $27,346 versus $21,089 for females. The per capita income for the county was
$17,516. About 8.80% of families and 11.90% of the population were below the poverty line, including 13.20% of those
under age 18 and 17.20% of those aged 65 or over.
3.1.12 Tribal Resources
The Native American Consultation Database maintained by the National Park Service identified the Eastern band of
Cherokee Indians tribe as being associated with Wilkes County, North Carolina. However, further research has
indicated that the following tribes may also have an interest in the area. The tribes identified are listed below. Contact
information is included in the attached address list:
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Haliwa-Saponi Tribe
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina
Meherrin Indian Tribe
Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation
Sappony Tribe
Waccamaw-Siouan Tribe
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
Catawba Indian Nation
27
3.2 Existing Data or Studies
The COE has maintained an inflow, outflow and water level record for the reservoir since it was filled in 1962. There
has been a USGS gauging station (0211139110) approximately 300 feet downstream from the dam's stilling basin
since 2007. There is also available data on water quality in W. Kerr Scott Reservoir and it can be found in Appendix B.
There is a COE operations manual for the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir that will assist WHC in developing the
project's operation manual. The COE also has construction drawings of the project that will assist WHC with the
design of the project. There are a number of existing studies of fish and mussels in the river below the project. WHC
has just had a study done of the fish, mussel and crayfish living in the river below the project.
(ii) DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MEASURES
PROPOSED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES.
3.3 KNOWN OR POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
This section reviews each of the categories of resources described in Section 3. 1, and evaluates known or potential
impacts of the proposed project on these resources. This section also identifies resources for which insufficient
information is available to evaluate potential impacts. The proposed project may have beneficial, adverse or no
impacts on various resources.
Regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 CFR 1508 require consideration of
both context and intensity of the impacts in evaluating the significance of potential impacts. The significance of an
action must be evaluated in the contexts of society as a whole, the affected region, the affected interests and the
locality. The NEPA regulations identify general factors that are considered in evaluating the significance of an impact
or potential impact:
• Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse
• Degree to which the action affects public health and safety
• Unique characteristics of the area
• Controversy regarding the effects
• Uncertainty of effects
• Precedents that may be set
• Relationship to other actions and cumulative impacts
• Degree to which project may affect cultural resources
• Degree to which the project may affect protected species or their habitat
• Whether action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law
3.3.1 River Basin and Cumulative Impacts
Water that flows through the project is from the Yadkin River, which drains 348 square miles of surface area in the
Northwestern portion of North Carolina. This river originates in the Blue Ridge Mountains.
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir was formed by the construction of W. Kerr Scott Dam in 1962 by the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) for flood control, recreation, and water supply. There are currently no hydropower projects on the Yadkin River
above the dam. However, there are a number of hydropower dams below the project, some of them incorporating
large reservoirs. W. Kerr Scott dam was constructed after several catastrophic floods occurred in the area below the
dam. Since the dam is already in existence and the proposed project will make no change in the flow of water in the
river, the project should have no negative impact on the river basin.
3.3.2 Geology and Soils
The project may have a minor impact on bedrock at the powerhouse site. Some bedrock may have to be removed to
construct the powerhouse. This is not a significant impact because the area will be quite small and more than 100'
away from the toe of the dam. The maximum depth of excavation for the powerhouse is 30' below tailwater elevation.
28
Construction of the project has the potential to cause soil erosion. Soils in the project area are prone to erosion, and
the slopes are fairly steep in some areas. Impacts on soil are potentially significant because soil erosion could impact
the river and there are federal and state regulations regarding non-point sources of pollution from construction sites.
3.3.3 Water Resources
A hydropower project could cause a change in water resources. There are four areas of concern. Answers to these
concerns are found in 3.4.3
1. Will the quantity of water flowing out of W. Kerr Scott reservoir change when the hydro project is operating?
It is important to maintain the flow of water in the river, as there are a number of aquatic communities living in the river
below the project. Also, a number of municipalities, including Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem, depend on water from
the river for water supply.
2. Will the quality of water flowing out of W. Kerr Scott reservoir change when the hydro project is operating?
Currently water is being withdrawn from the bottom of the reservoir where the water contains almost no dissolved
oxygen (DO) for a good part of the year. The design of the existing intake tower, discharge conduit and stilling basin
cause a great deal of turbulence, which re-oxygenates the water to above state standards as it leaves the stilling basin.
However, a hydropower turbine removes the energy from the water and therefore there is little turbulence to re-
oxygenate the water. Therefore, if the project withdraws water from the bottom of the reservoir there is a concern that
the DO level below the project could be below state standards during the summer.
3. Will the proposed project divert the flow of water from a portion of the river right below the existing stilling
basin? How far below the outlet end of the stilling basin will the water from the powerhouse re-enter the river? The
concern is whether the proposed project will cause a small portion of the river to not have any flow between the stilling
basin and the discharge channel from the powerhouse.
4. Will the maximum flow of the discharge conduit be reduced if the hydropower project installs a steel liner
inside the conduit? The proposed project will install an 11' diameter steel liner inside the 12.25' concrete discharge
conduit through the dam. This is to enable the conduit to handle water under pressure. However, will the steel liner
size reduce the maximum flow through the conduit? Currently the conduit can flow 5,300 cfs at a lake elevation of
1030 feet.
5. During installation of the discharge conduit liner it will be necessary to reduce the maximum flow through the
conduit. Will this require the flow to be below the normal flow and for how long? If there is an unexpected large inflow
of water into the reservoir during the installation of the conduit liner what can be done to pass larger flows?
3.3.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources
This project has the potential to adversely affect fish populations by causing fish to be impinged on intake racks, or to
be entrained into the turbines. Both impingement and entrainment can kill fish. Studies show that up to 10% offish
passing through a turbine will be injured or killed. Fish populations can be affected if sufficient numbers of fish are
killed. Smaller aquatic organisms, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton, will be entrained in the turbines. However,
such small organisms are not subject to damage in the turbines because they are so small. They pass through without
being struck by turbine blades. Some mortality can result to small organisms due to pressure changes, but this
mortality is relatively small. The number and species of fish, mussels and invertebrates in the riverjust below the dam
has not been well studied in the past. WHC has contracted for such a study. The W. Kerr Scott Dam created a barrier
to upstream migration of fish and aquatic organisms. The construction of the hydropower project will have no impact
on the existence of this barrier to upstream migration.
3.3.5 Wildlife and Botanical Resources
This project will require removal of approximately 3 acres of vegetation for the construction of the powerhouse,
penstock and transmission line. The majority of vegetation that will be disturbed is grass. There are no visible animals
living or nesting in the immediate area of the project.
3.3.6 Wetland, Riparian and Littoral Habitat
Wetlands are not present in the area of the project, based on available information. However, wetlands do exist along
the river below the project and they depend on a stable water level in the river. The current operation of the spillway
maintains a constant flow of water with gate adjustments made approximately once a day. The project would have to
duplicate the flow regimen that is currently being passed through the spillway in order to not have a negative impact.
29
3.3.7 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
There are no known endangered species affected by this project. It is possible that protected species exist in the
project area but have yet to be observed and recorded. There are several state-listed mussels that have been found a
number of miles downstream from the project and it is possible that changes to the stream flow below the dam could
affect these mussels.
3.3.8 Recreation and Land Use
The area is part of a COE dam recreation area and there is public access to both the north and south sides of the river.
The tailwater recreation area received 221,200 visitors last year. The project will restrict public access only to the
powerhouse, an area of less than 'A acre. The public access trail across the stilling basin may be restricted from time
to time during construction but it will be temporary and of short duration.
The area is zoned R-15R, residential/resort by the county of Wilkes. Utility structures maybe allowed in R-15R zoned
areas but would be subject to the county's high impact land use ordinance. The current uses for the land are as a park
and for the Dam and stilling basin.
3.3.9 Aesthetic Resources
Construction of the new powerhouse and intake structure has the potential to have a negative impact on aesthetics of
the area. Project structures need to be as aesthetically consistent as possible with the surroundings. Since this is a
public use area, efforts will be made to make the project structures as attractive as possible.
3.3.10 Cultural Resources and Tribal Resources
Since this project will disturb land there is a small possibility that cultural resources could be uncovered during
construction.
There is one federally recognized Tribe: The Eastern band of Cherokee Indians. We received a letter from this tribe
saying that the project site is outside the aboriginal territory of the Cherokee people.
3.3.11 Socio-Economic Resources
The project will depend on the area's sheriff, COE personnel and fire departments for public safety. The project will not
need any other public services.
3.4 PROTECTION OF, MITIGATING IMPACTS TO, OR ENHANCING
RESOURCES
Section 3.3 identified resources that will not be affected significantly, resources that will benefit, and resources that
could be adversely affected by the project if additional measures to protect resources, mitigate impacts, or to enhance
resources are not incorporated into project plans and operations. This section provides a summary of and a response
to areas identified in Section 3.3 as potentially requiring protection or mitigating action. The sections propose
additional measures to protect resources, mitigate impacts, or enhance the resources.
3.4.1 River Basin and Cumulative Impacts
The construction of a hydroelectric generation project at the W. Kerr Scott Dam will provide a beneficial use of an
existing dam. Hydroelectric generation will not significantly affect the river basin or contribute to cumulative impacts
because the river flow will not change. Any additional impacts associated with installation and operation of
hydroelectric generation will be limited to the project area.
3.4.2 Geology and Soil
Minimizing the "footprint' of the project will mitigate soil impacts. This will be done by using existing facilities as much
as possible and by implementing best management practices to prevent soil erosion and to control sedimentation. The
project will use the existing access road and power line. Soil disturbances will be mostly associated with construction
of the powerhouse, the penstock and discharge channel. North Carolina state law and federal law will require permits
for construction activities. The project will obtain these permits, which will require prudent soil erosion and
sedimentation control measures and inspections to ensure these measures are properly implemented and are
effective.
30
3.4.3 Water Resources
The current intake tower is operated to maintain the lake elevation at 1030' except during either flooding or drought.
The water that now passes through the dam provides an uninterrupted supply of fresh water for water supply and the
fishery. The reservoir will continue to remove sediments from the water, although this benefit is not due to the
proposed project and will not be affected by the proposed project. The concerns that the proposed hydropower project
may have negative impacts on the river are answered as follows:
1. There will be no change in the flows leaving the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir from the current flow
practice. The COE will determine what the flow for each day will be and power project personnel will assure that this
flow rate is adhered to. The powerhouse will be designed with its own spill gates so that under all conditions, including
a load rejection resulting in a turbine shutting down, a continuous flow of water will continue down the river. The spill
gates will be controlled by the PLC so that the spill gates will open and flow at the same rate as the turbine that shut
down. When the turbine restarts and the wicket gates open the spill gate will close proportionally, maintaining a
constant flow through the plant. This continuous flow will ensure the health of the river. Also, by maintaining a
constant flow of water in the river, water levels and flow in the river will remain constant, thereby greatly reducing
safety concerns. The fixed cone valve in the conduit gate will pass flows between 800 cfs and 2000 cfs. There will be
no interruption in flow at any time.
2. The concern that there is a possibility of lower dissolved oxygen levels in the water below the powerhouse
will be answered in several ways. The dissolved oxygen (D/0) levels measured in the top 20 feet of the reservoir
almost always meet or exceed the state guidelines. However, during the summer and early fall the reservoir becomes
stratified so that the water nearer the surface is high in D/O and the water near the bottom becomes very low in D/0.
The existing outlet is at the very deepest part of the reservoir. The proposed water quality intake structure to be
attached to the existing intake tower will draw water from various levels of the reservoir from 1000' to 1030' msl that is
high in dissolved oxygen. The main criteria on the level that water will be withdrawn from is maintaining the D/O level
above 5.0 mg/I downstream from the project. During the winter and spring the D/O level throughout all levels of the
reservoir usually meets state standards for D/O and therefore water could be withdrawn from any level. However,
since the trash racks are located between 1000' and 1033' msl water will continue to be drawn from near the surface in
the winter and spring.
The multi level intake water quality structure will be operated in the following manner to maximize its benefit to the
river:
• Water will be drawn from 1010' to 1030' mis of the reservoir during the summer unless a governmental agency
requests that the water be withdrawn from a lower level. (ie: the water plant at Wilkesboro is experiencing a large
amount of algae in its water intake.)
• During the fall, winter and spring when the lake is not thermally stratified, the water will be drawn through all intake
racks including the trash rack on the lake bottom.
• During all periods the dissolved oxygen downstream from the project will be monitored hourly and when any
change has been made in withdrawal level. If the D/O is below 5.0 m/I the withdrawal level will be adjusted and/or
supplemental air will be entrained into the water in the project draft tube using the air injection rings and/or the
fixed cone valve will flow water to maintain the proper D/O level.
For the first two years of project operation WHC personnel will use a portable D/O and temperature meter to monitor
the reservoir so that they will be able to know when the lake has become stratified during the summer and early fall.
Meter readings will be made and records kept once a week of the D/O and temperature at 970' 980' 990' 1000' 1010'
1020' and at the surface. WHC personnel will use this information to determine which level to draw water from in order
to maintain the proper D/O level downstream. The dissolved oxygen and temperature downstream from the project will
be monitored for the first two years of project operation by a mounted meter that will provide hourly readings to the
project's PLC. The PLC will record the reading hourly and if the D/O level drops to or below 5 mg/L it will send an
alarm to the operator.
The turbines that will be used are reaction type turbines and they do not on their own add oxygen to the water passing
through them. However, the draft tubes selected for this project will add an adjustable amount of oxygen to the water
using air injection rings, eliminating the potential for returning water low in dissolved oxygen to the river after it flows
through the turbines.
The amount of oxygen transferred into the water depends on air exchange, the amount of turbulence, water flow,
mixing time, and the dissolved oxygen deficit. Experiments on South Carolina's Catawba River at the Wylie Station
31
Dam showed dissolved oxygen increases of nearly 3 mg/I through the use of draft tube aeration. TVA has also tested
draft tube aeration and has reported dissolved oxygen increases of 3 to 4 mg/I. However, testing by Alabama Power
Company on aspiration systems installed at ten low head hydroelectric turbines showed an increase in dissolved
oxygen levels of approximately 1 mg/I. Predicting the actual D/O improvement by using draft tube aeration at this
project is difficult but the results of the above testing indicate an improvement of 1 to 4 mg/I.
In order to maintain the dissolved oxygen level above state standards below the project during the summer and fall it
will first draw water from near the surface of the reservoir that is already well above 5 mg/I. WHC feels that this is the
only action it will have to take to assure that the D/O level below the project is kept above state standards. However,
should a condition arise that causes the D/O to drop near the state standard of 4 mg/I instantaneous or 5 mg/I average
over a day, then the draft tube aeration system would be used in addition to surface withdrawal of water. If this is still
not sufficient then water would be spilled through the Howell Bunger type fixed cone valve in addition to surface
withdrawal and draft tube aeration. Fixed cone valves aerate water very effectively when discharged into the
atmosphere.
3. The project will divert the flow of water from the existing discharge conduit and return it to the river just
downstream from the stilling basin. This change in flow pattern will not cause any change in wetted areas along the
banks or the amount of flow in any part of the river. As most of the energy has been removed from the flowing water
by the turbines, when the water returns to the river there will be no erosion to the north bank of the river across from
the powerhouse discharge channel. The project will be able to control the flow of water with at least the same degree
of accuracy than can be done with the current service gates.
4. The current maximum flow through the discharge conduit is 5,300 cfs. The proposed project will line the last
580' of the 12.25' diameter concrete conduit through the dam with an 11' diameter steel liner. The smoother surface of
the liner will offset much of the reduction of the maximum flow capabilities of the conduit caused by the smaller
diameter of the liner. On average the historical flow through the discharge conduit has exceeded 4,500 cfs only two
days per year. Therefore, a small reduction in the maximum flow rate should not cause any operational problems.
The hydropower project will be designed so that it can operate at a reduced lake elevation so that drawdowns of W.
Kerr Scott Reservoir can take place. The hydropower project will be designed to operate at reduced power output at
an intake elevation of 1020 feet msl with a flow of 125 cfs. There will be no chemical discharge or other waste
discharge into the river. All water removed from excavations during construction will run through a settling basin before
it is allowed to return to the river.
5. The installation of the discharge conduit liner will be done after Labor Day during the part of the year when
the water is cooler and low flows have historically taken place. The NCDNER letter of 9/9/08 lists discharge flows for
given reservoir levels that are not currently being followed due to drought conditions. In recent months a flow of 125
cfs has been released when the reservoir level is below 1030 feet. Therefore, we have designed the installation of the
liner is such a way that at least 125 cfs will be maintained. The discharge conduit liner that WHC is proposing to install
will take approximately 30 days to install. The vast majority of the fabrication of the liner will be done before it is placed
in the conduit. Several weeks before the start of installation of the liner the inside of the conduit will be cleaned and the
surface prepared to accept the placing of grout once the liner is in place. Much of this work will be done by equipment
operated remotely. Once the conduit is prepared for the liner the prefabricated sections of the liner will be placed in
the conduit, again using equipment operated from outside the conduit. The liner is 11' in diameter and the conduit is
12.25' in diameter leaving a 7 inch space between the liner and the conduit after taking out the thickness of the liner. A
flow of water will be allowed to pass through the 36" pipe that has been placed inside each liner section. Again, this
will allow a minimum of 200 cfs to flow. Once the full 580 feet of liner is in place the area between the liner and the
conduit will be filled with cement based grout. A temporary bulkhead will be installed in one of the two emergency gate
slots where the 36" pipe is attached to pass flows up to 200 cfs. At this flow rate work can be done inside the liner. If
flows above 200 cfs are needed then the 36" pipe will be temporarily withdrawn from the conduit and the other service
gate will be opened to allow larger flows to pass into the conduit liner. At the end of the 30 day conduit liner installation
period the bulkhead and 36 inch pipe will be removed and normal flows through the discharge conduit will take place.
This plan of installation and its need for reduced maximum flows for 30 days will have to be approved by the COE, the
City of Winston-Salem and the Town of Wilkesboro.
In our conversations with personnel with the Winston-Salem utility department we have found that their need for water
flow in the river is lower on the weekends due to lower demand. Therefore since it takes water from the W. Kerr Scott
reservoir 48 hours to travel downstream to the City's intake we will be planning on reducing flows through the dam on
32
Thursday or Friday. Also, there are many tributaries that flow into the Yadkin River between the dam and the City's
intake to help maintain the flow needed. The largest water customer that Wilkesboro has is the Tyson Chicken
processing facility. However, the plant does not process every day. Therefore the criteria that WHC will use in
selecting the day during construction to reduce flow in the discharge conduit in order to install the 36-inch pipe will be:
• There is sufficient water from the tributaries of the Yadkin River to maintain sufficient flow at the Winston-Salem
intake.
• The Tyson chicken processing plant is not in operation that day.
• The date is after Labor Day when the water temperature is lower reducing stress on fish.
3.4.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources
The project will maintain the beneficial impacts of the intake tower, discharge conduit and stilling basin on oxygen
concentrations and fish and aquatic resources downstream of the dam by using the water quality intake channel to
draw higher oxygenated water from near the surface of the reservoir and using draft tube air injection rings when the
dissolved oxygen level is below 5 mg/I.
Fish impingement can be effectively reduced to very low levels by design of intake racks to reduce the intake velocity.
Entrainment of fish can also be effectively reduced to low levels by properly designing the intake racks. Such racks
would prevent all but very small fish from being entrained. This project will incorporate intake racks with an average
intake velocity of 1.5 feet per second with a maximum intake velocity of 2 feet per second at any one spot and a
maximum space between bars of 2.5 inches. Each of the three trash rack faces will be equipped with a chain driven
type trash rack cleaner that will clean all of the trash rack surface and bring the debris to the deck. Debris will then be
carried by a conveyor to a small dump truck on the bridge deck. Debris will then be disposed of in the Wilkes county
landfill. A monitoring system will be installed to measure the water level on both sides of the trash rack so that any
blockage of the trash rack can be determined and cleaning of the trash rack initiated.
At the January 14, 2009 site visit WHC agreed to have a study performed to study the fish, crayfish and mussels in the
river below the project. In his March 12, 2009 letter Christopher Goudreau, Hydropower Licensing Coordinator,
NCWRC in consultation with Mark Cantrell, USFWS and Fred Tarver, NCDWR requested that the 3.25-mile reach of
Yadkin River between the dam and Moravian Creek (the first significant tributary) should be sampled in three locations
to describe the aquatic fauna, including fish, crayfish, and mussels. One site should be located between the dam and
Brown's Ford Road (Reach 1), one site between Brown's Ford Road and Millers Creek (Reach 2), and one site
between Millers Creek and Moravian Creek (Reach 3). WHC found this study request reasonable and acceptable and
had it performed. The study results are included in appendix A.
3.4.5 Wildlife and Botanical Resources
Impacts to wildlife and plants will not be significant because of the small size of the project and use of existing facilities.
The project will require the removal of about 3 acres of grass and weeds for construction of the powerhouse, and
reconductoring power lines. Some tree trimming may be needed along the 3600-foot long power line. However, the
project will minimize the removal of vegetation by using existing facilities as much as possible and by keeping the
footprint of the project as small as possible. Appropriate landscaping and planting native vegetation can also mitigate
potentially negative effects from the removal of vegetation during construction activities. The project will work with
COE staff to identify appropriate landscaping and native species.
3.4.6 Wetland, Riparian and Littoral Habitat
The project will not have a significant impact on wetlands, riparian or littoral habitat based on current information. The
evaluation regarding wetlands is based on an August 2008 site visit, when wetlands were not observed in the project
area. The project will use run-of-the-river operations to maintain water levels in the impoundment at a fairly constant
level unless directed otherwise by the COE. It is expected that there will be no change in flows in the river once the
project is in operation from what is now experienced with flows through the intake tower. The source of variation in
water flows, which could affect littoral and riparian habitat in the river downstream from the project, will be river inflow
to the reservoir, not plant operations. Construction of the discharge channel for the powerhouse will affect only a very
small area of riparian habitat in the river; thus potential impacts on riparian areas will not be significant. Furthermore,
the impact on littoral habitats will be very small due to measures that will mitigate this potential impact.
33
3.4.7 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
The red-cockaded woodpecker, (Picoides Borealis) does not exist in the project area. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in a letter dated September 4, 2008 addressed concerns that the power line into the project be designed to
prevent arcing and flight hazard to raptors. The recommended way to prevent arcing is to make sure the phase
conductors are at least 60 inches apart. Also, the letter pointed out that any crossings of the river should be avoided.
The power line from the nearest existing utility pole on the south side of the river to the powerhouse on the south side
will be underground. WHC will work with Duke Energy to assure that the existing three-phase power line is raptor
friendly.
This project will not affect any other known occurrences of rare, threatened, or endangered species. It is possible,
however, that protected species exist in the project area but have yet to be observed and recorded. During
construction and operation personnel will note any animals, particularly protected species, and assure that operations
are not a hazard to them. The state-listed mussels that are found miles downstream from the project already
experience large changes in stream flows from current operation of the Dam. Since the power project's operations will
not change the flow regimen in the river below the project there should be no negative flow related effect on the
mussels. The project's operation will ensure that the dissolved oxygen in the river below the project always meets
state standards, which improves the habitat in the reach just below the dam, thereby having a possible positive effect
on the state-listed mussels.
3.4.8 Recreation and Land Use
Construction activities could cause some minimal disruption of access for recreational purposes. Efforts will be made
to ensure that these interruptions are as short as possible. WHC will construct a temporary pedestrian bridge over the
east end of the discharge basin to prevent short-term public access interruptions to the north side of the discharge
basin from the tailwater park area. The powerhouse will be built on land that is just south of the existing stilling basin
on land that is not used extensively for recreation. Once construction is complete there will be once again normal
access across the end of the discharge conduit. There will be no significant impact on recreation after construction is
complete, as the public will have access to all areas except the powerhouse. Public access will be maintained to the
north side of the river except when construction activities would make it dangerous. Standard safety precautions to
protect the public will be used during construction to mitigate impacts on public safety.
This project will not have any significant impact on land use. The dam and impoundment already exist. Noise from the
operating project will be less than the noise now coming from the water passing through the stilling basin. The
proposed land uses are consistent with existing and historical uses of the project area as a water control facility. The
project is too small to cause significant secondary changes in land use such as commercial or residential development.
3.4.9 Aesthetic Resources
The project site is near the existing stilling basin, which is made primarily of concrete. Important considerations are
landscaping, plantings and design and colors of the powerhouse. The powerhouse will be designed with a brick
exterior above floor level with a standing seam metal roof that is similar in color to the roofs on the existing picnic
shelters. The design used for the powerhouse and intake will be selected to have minimal negative impact on
aesthetics of the area. The project will work with COE staff to select the design and colors. Landscaping will be used
to minimize the impacts of these structures.
Because this area is already disturbed from its natural state, and because the structures WHC will add will be attractive
and durable and similar to the stilling basin, there will be minimal adverse aesthetic impact.
3.4.10 Cultural Resources and Tribal Resources
The entire area of the project was disturbed when the Army Corps of Engineers built the dam in the 1960s. This
makes it very unlikely that there are any cultural resources in the project area. Normal measures to protect any cultural
resources found during construction will be used to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. Such measures would
include the stoppage or relocation of work if human remains or artifacts were found. In the event of such a discovery,
the State Historic Preservation Office would be notified in addition to Native American tribes as necessary.
Construction and operation of the project will not impact any known cultural resources.
3.4.11 Socio-Economic Resources
This project will have socio-economic benefits. This project will generate electrical energy for approximately 4,000
homes without burning fossil fuels, creating solid wastes, discharging wastewater, or resulting in air emissions.
34
Ultimately, the project will be helping to reduce the dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Construction of the project will
result in the employment of 5 -10 full-time employees and numerous sub trades from the area. Once construction is
completed the project will have one full-time and several part-time employees. The project will pay tangible personal
property tax to Wilkes County.
35
4. ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST
This section identifies preliminary resource issues and studies that need to be addressed in subsequent phases of the
Traditional Licensing Process for this project.
4.1 ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE IDENTIFIED RESOURCES
Some of the identified issues can be addressed through consultation with resource agencies and other parties. Other
issues will require site-specific studies or information gathering. The issues that can be addressed through
consultation are:
1. The COE in cooperation with the City of Winston-Salem and the Town of Wilkesboro have determined how the level
in W. Kerr Scott Reservoir will be maintained and what flows are needed in the river. WHC will consult with the COE to
obtain this water flow criteria and use it to develop how the project will operate. Acceptable lake elevation range and
minimum flow rate in the river below the project will need to be determined by the COE.
2. Appropriate permitting and controls to mitigate soil erosion and sedimentation need to be identified.
3. The design of the trashracks needs to be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission and the North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources.
4. The project will disturb a small area of vegetation and replanting/landscaping needs to be specified.
Issues that require site-specific studies or additional information gathering are:
1. Need to determine if the existing three-phase line into the project area is raptor-friendly.
4.2 POTENTIAL STUDIES OR INFORMATION-GATHERING ASSOCIATED WITH
IDENTIFIED ISSUES
1. WHC will have to survey the existing discharge conduit to determine if it is truly round and straight. Any deviations
from round and straight will have to be taken into account in the design and installation of the liner.
2. WHC will have to determine the condition of the concrete in the discharge conduit.
3. WHC will have to survey the intake tower to obtain data needed to design the water quality structure and intake rack.
4. Areas near the proposed powerhouse need to be found for construction storage.
4.3 RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS
There is an operations manual for the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir that will be useful in the design of the
proposed hydropower project and the creation of the operation manual.
(iii) Steps taken in consulting with agencies
Agencies, tribes and interested persons have been contacted six times prior to the submission of this LA.
1. A consultation letter was sent out on July 29, 2008 to the full distribution list.
2. Using responses to the consultation letter IH submitted the Pre-Application Document (PAD), its notice of
intent to file a license application, and its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process to the FERC and
to all stakeholders on the distribution list on September 29, 2008. On December 18, 2008 the FERC
approved the use of the Traditional Licensing Process.
3. Notice was sent out on December 22, 2008 to all stakeholders on the distribution list regarding the Joint
Public meeting that was held at the Wilkesboro Library on January 18, 2009.
4. WHC held a site visit and public meeting on January 14, 2009. We have consulted with every agency, tribe
and private person that has contacted us and requested a meeting.
5. WHC was requested to perform a study of fish, mussels and crawfish in the river below the dam. This study
was performed and the results were forwarded to everyone on the distribution list as soon as they were
available. The results of this study are included in appendix A.
6. On July 1, 2009 the project's draft license application was sent out to everyone on the distribution list
An application for section 401 water quality certification was filed with the North Carolina 401
Oversight and Express Permits Unit, NCDENR - Division of Water Quality on September 17, 2009.
36
5. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS AND REFERENCES
5.1 Telephone and Email Contacts
8/13/08 Discussed the project with Allen Piner with the COE Wilmington. He requested more detailed drawings of
the proposed project.
9/25/08 Talked with Eddie Barnes, Wilkes County Planning Director, about the project site's zoning. He felt that the
project shouldn't have a difficult time getting permit approval from the county. However, he pointed out that there was
a relatively new high impact land use ordinance with which the project would have to comply.
11/4/08 Talked with Mark Cantrell with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. We discussed the intake design and he felt
that the average maximum intake velocity should be no more than 1.5 feet per second. He also felt that 2.5 inches
between trash rack bars would be acceptable.
11/4/08 Called Christopher Goudreau with NCWRC regarding the studies being requested by the resource agencies.
He felt that the intake velocity should be less than 1.5 feet per second average. He felt that withdrawing water from
near the surface would improve the D/0 and the water chemistry downstream of the dam. He was concerned that in
switching over from flood flow mode to generation mode that a slug of low oxygen water could be discharged into the
river.
11/19/08 Called Kin Hodges with NCWRC regarding the studies being requested by the resource agencies. He stated
that there had been a recent fish study between the dam and the Brown's Ferry Bridge. He said he would get with
Christopher Coudreau and discuss the studies needed.
11/24/08 Called Kin Hodges and we discussed the historical shad run in the Pee-Dee River. He provided me with the
location of information on the shad.
12/18/08 Called the following to determine the best day for the public meeting and site visit:
Kin Hodges, NCWRC
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Christopher Goudreaau, NCWRC
Terry Ramsey, US Army Corps
Eddie Barnes, Wilkes County
Fred Tarver, NCDWQ
David Saunders, Winston-Salem utility Dept
117/09 Called David Saunders, Winston-Salem Utility Director. We discussed the method that they direct the Corps
on the release of stored water from the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir. He felt that it would be ok to shut down the flow from
the dam for 8 hours if there were enough water flowing in the Readies River to maintain proper flow at their intake.
3/3/09 Called Bill Brewer with Winston-Salem utilities. He had stated at the site visit that the City would send WHC
a letter regarding our project and how we could minimize the impact on their operations. We discussed that the City's
demand for water was lower on weekends and that it takes 48 hours for water to reach them from the dam. I informed
him that the 60 day comment period would be ending on March 16, 2009 and he said we should receive a letter by
then.
3/25/09 Received an email from Chris Goudreau with NCWRC pointing out that we had not included the results of the
requested fish, mussel and crawfish study in the DLA. Also he said that the DLA did not have a section labeled as
Exhibit E. (The complete email is in appendix D. As a result of this email we suspended action on the DLA until we
published a DLA in proper formao
4/21/09 Called Michael Wood with the Catena Group, 919 732-1300, and let him know that I had signed the contract
and faxed it back to him to do the fish, mussel and crawfish study below the W. Kerr Scott Dam.
4/22/09 Dean Naujoks, Yadkin Riverkeeper called WHC and asked to be put on the projects service list. His main
concerns are DO levels and fluctuations in river flows below the project.
37
6/30/09 Called Mark Pawlowski, FERC Chief, Hydro East Branch 2 regarding our concern that the preliminary permit
for this project runs out in October and we have to allow 90 days for comment on the license application. The DLA
publication was being delayed due to the fish, mussel and crawfish study being held up for over a month due to high
water in the Yadkin River. He advised us to go ahead and publish the DLA now in the proper format and to distribute
the study results when they are available. He said agencies, tribes and persons could comment on the data contained
in the DLA now and then on the study results later, even if it was after the final license application was submitted to the
FERC. I told him that the river was finally getting down to a level that the study could be done and that I expected if the
weather holds that I should be able to get the study results sent out in less than a month.
7/29/09 Called Lia Gilleski with NCDWQ requesting information on what acreage we should include in our section 401
permit application. It was decided to include only the area within the project boundary.
8/31/09 Called Paul Carson with the National Park Service regarding the Overmountain Victory National Historic
Trail. The concern was that the project would have an impact on the trail. After talking with him and his viewing
drawings, maps and photos from our DLP, he determined that the project would not have any impact on the trail itself,
which is approximately/ mile north of the discharge basin. He felt that it was important to maintain the usability of the
access trail to the overmountain victory trail after construction was complete.
5.2 Meetings With Interested Parties
On January 14, 2009 a joint (public) meeting was held at the Wilkes County Library, 215 10th Street N., Wilkesboro,
NC 28659 to discuss the features of the planned W. Kerr Scott Hydropower Project to be built at the existing W. Kerr
Scott dam. On December 24, 2008 the meeting was announced in the Wilkes Journal Patriot newspaper, which
circulates in all of Wilkes County. The Wilkes Journal Patriot interviewed Kevin Edwards prior to the meeting and
wrote an article about the project, including the meeting time and place, and published it on January 14, 2009. All
persons, agencies and tribes on the project's distribution list received a letter dated December 18, 2008 advising them
of the meeting.
The site visit occurred at one pm at the parking lot at the toe of the dam near the dam's stilling basin. A total of 16
persons attended the site visit. Represented at the meeting were the following: City of Winston-Salem, N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Town of Wilkesboro, N.C. DENR PWSS, NCWRC, NCDENR-
Division of Water Resources, NCDENR Division of Land Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, Wilkes County
Planning Dept and the Wilkes Journal Patriot newspaper. The sign in sheet was included with the minutes of the
meeting filed with the FERC.
The meeting started out with a description of the project by WHC's Dean Edwards pointing out where the project
structures would be located and how the project would be operated. Questions were then solicited from those
attending.
Terry Ramsey of the Corps expressed concern regarding the powerhouse being built on the north side of the stilling
basin. He felt that the powerhouse would interfere with several seepage weirs that are located in that area, it would
interfere with the trail that passes through the area, and that it would have a large visual impact. He felt that the area
on the south side of the stilling basin would be a much better location.
We told him that we had chosen the north side location because we felt that it would be more out of the way.
After looking o ver the south side site we all agreed that it would be much better pro vlding much better
access for equipment delivery, a shorter power line, and a greater distance from the toe of the dam. lH
agreed to move the powerhouse to the south side of the stilling basin.
Where is the existing power line that the project will be tied into?
We pointed out the three-phase Duke power line that is located on the south side of the parking lot. We
explained that we would run the power line underground from the powerhouse to the nearest existing pole.
Will the flow of water through the discharge conduit need to be stopped during construction?
We described our need to stop the flow of water for 4 hours to survey the conduit prior to fabrication of the
conduit liner 8 hours to install the 36"pipe at the beginning of construction and 8 hours to remo ve the 36"
38
pipe at the end of construction. The Corps personnel present explained that similar interruptions of flows
have occurred in the past when they inspected the discharge conduit. Everyone present felt that stopping
flow for 8 hours wouldn't cause a significant problem if it occurred after Labor Day when the air and water
temperatures are lower. The water departments wanted to be notified of the interruption so they could
coordinate their withdrawal with the interruption and WHC agreed to do this.
Will the lake elevation be affected during construction?
We would need for the lake elevation to be drawn down 2 feet prior to installing the 36"pipe as the maximum
flow through the pipe is 200 cfs and if the inflow to the lake is above 200 cfs the lake elevation will rise. We
pointed out that the second service gate could be opened to flow greater than 200 cfs but this would require
us to remove all construction materials from the conduit and the flow of water could damage the 36"pipe.
Will Wilkesboro 's planned intake from the lake affect the project?
Wilkesboro s planned intake from the lake is in the planning stages and is awaiting funding. The total
maximum withdrawal is 10 mgd now but could increase to 20 mgd in the future. WHC pointed out that 10
mgd would equal approximately l5 cfs. The withdrawal of 15 cfs from the lake would result in 15 cfs less
being discharged through the discharge conduit and the power project if total withdrawals from the lake
remained the same. This amount of reduction would have only a minor impact on the project.
Will there be a valve in the bulkhead to control the flow through the 36" pipe should less than 200 cfs need to be
released?
There will be a valve installed in the bulkhead gate that we will slide into one of the two emergencygate slots
in the intake tower This valve will be able to throttle the flow.
Will the water quality intake structure be able to draw water from more than one level?
In our original plan, the water quality intake would draw water from the top 20 feet of the lake. The reason for
this is that dissolved oxygen surveys of the lake show that during the summer the DO below 20 feet drops off
quickly. A conversation between WHC's personnel and other concerned persons determined that a
multilevel intake would pro vide the most benefit to the river downstream from the project. Apparently at
times there can be an algae bloom on the surface of the lake and during that time it would be best if the top
ten feet of the trash rack was blocked off. At other times the dissolved oxygen level would be so low below
20 feet down that the trash rack would need to be blocked off below that level. At other times, mostly during
the fall, winter and spring the dissolved oxygen le vel is good throughout all depths of the lake and water
could be drawn from the bottom of the lake. WHC's staff decided that the water quality intake structure
would be modified with a trash rack that continued down 30 feet below the surface with an adjustable gate
system to control the level from which the water would be drawn. WHC also will add a trash rack behind the
bottom intake gate to give the project the ability to draw water from the lake bottom should that become
desirable to state and federal agencies.
We need a complete survey of aquatic wildlife downstream from the project to the Browns Ferry bridge.
The state and federal wildlife personnel present expressed a need to better understand the wildlife present in
the river below the project from the stilling basin downstream to the Browns Ferry bridge, approximately 2000
feet downstream. They would like the study to look at various aquatic life present from mussels
invertebrates and all sizes offish. There was a mussel survey that was done in 2007 that did not And any
mussels in that part of the river. The scope of the study that was agreed to by WHC consisted of one study
done during the summer of 2009 on the 2000-foot section of the river immediately below the dam. It was felt
that one day of study by a qualified two-person team would provide the information needed. The agencies
requesting the study will send WHC a letter in the next 60 days with a more detailed study request including
the months during the summer that the study should be done.
Eddie Barnes with the Wilkes County Planning Department pointed out that the project is in an area that would have to
comply with the County's high impact land use ordinance. This would require that if there are any homes within 1000
feet of the project that the occupants/owners of these homes would have to agree to the project or the project would
have to obtain a variance from the County commission.
39
Information provided by Mr Barnes indicates there are 4 homes within 1000 feet of the project. Because of
topography, the project will not be visible from any of these homes. WHC will comply with this ordinance and
strive to obtain a waiver from the four property owners.
Wilkesboro water dept has trouble with manganese and iron in the water during part of the year. This project's intake
may improve the water quality by not drawing off the bottom of the lake.
WHC agrees with this assessment.
Terry Ramsey asked how we would maintain public access to the trail that starts at the toe of the dam and runs
towards the north. He said that the Corps did have a gate at their service garage area that would allow Corps
personnel to gain access to the toe of the dam if access was blocked during powerhouse construction.
WHC personnel showed Mr Ramsey that during installation of the discharge conduit liner and penstock that
trail access across the area between the stilling basin and the toe of the dam would be blocked. WHC
agreed to install a temporary walk bridge across the stilling basin during construction. Mr Ramsey said that
this should address this concern but that the bridge would need to ha ve a fenced in side and top to keep
anyone from jumping off of it into the water.
Meeting at 5 pm on January 14, 2008
The joint meeting was held in the evening at 5 pm in the meeting room at the Wilkes County Library. Eight people
attended.
Dean Edwards and Kevin Edwards represented Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC. They opened the meeting at
5:15 pm, having allowed time for people to get coffee and be seated. WHC pointed out the two printed copies of the
pre application document (PAD) on the table that were available for people to look over. WHC also provided the
project web site address where a copy of the PAD is available for viewing. WHC described the proposed project using
a 65-slide presentation. The talk introduced the applicant and the project and described the application process and
expected license application filing date. WHC showed drawings of the project showing all of the project's structures.
WHC also showed how the flow of water would pass through the project and where the water would be returned to the
river. Various possible project impacts were presented, explaining how the proposed project would minimize these
impacts. It was also shown how the project's water quality intake structure should improve the dissolved oxygen and
chemistry downstream from the project during the summer.
After the presentation was finished, WHC asked for questions. A number of questions were asked:
What is the size of the powerhouse?
About 60 by 80 feet but in moving it to the south side of the spillway we may make it 30 by 80 feet to make it
fit better in the new location.
By the construction of the powerhouse station and diverting the outflow at the end into the conduit, are you increasing
the likelihood that it may crack the conduit lining itself and is that why you are lining it? I don't understand what is the
need for lining it when since 1964 no one else has seen the need for that, unless you are enhancing the potential that
that might happen?
No, we are not enhancing the chances that that would happen. The conduit is designed to just carry the
water, like a cul vent. It is not designed to carry water under pressure. When we put a gate at the end of it we
are pressurizing that tunnel. It was never designed to be used that way. So in order to use it that way we
need to put the liner in there to take the pressure and to keep any water from seeping out through the
conduit.
Tell me what is going to create the pressure?
The surface of the lake is 65 feet higher than the outlet of the discharge conduit and this will create
approximately 25 pounds per square inch pressure on that pipe.
the installation of the liner a requirement of the Corps?
We visited one other site that was constructed this way up in Pennsylvania where they retrofitted a Corps
dam with a liner back in 1985 and they ha vent had anyproblems with it since.
40
Will the gates at the bottom of the water quality channel structure have to be manually opened?
Yes. They will use hydraulic cylinders operated with manual control valves.
Will all the water coming out of the conduit be redirected to your powerhouse?
Yes, all of it up to 2000 cubic feet per second. If they need to pass more than 2000 cubic feet per second
then the powerhouse will shut down and the water will pass through the dam just as it does now.
Your water quality conduit, is that designed so that you are not just getting water off the bottom to blend temperature?
It's mostly for dissolved oxygen reasons, not for water temperature reasons, that we want to draw water from
closer to the surface.
What material will the 36" pipe be made of?
It will be made out of % "steel pipe.
Will you be able to regulate the discharge of the 36" pipe?
Yes, there will be a slide gate that will be able to throttle so we will be able to adjust the flow anywhere up to
200 cfs.
I know that there are usually variations in the inside diameter of a tunnel like this. So you are going to use a smaller
pipe. Are you going to use a concrete slurry around the pipe to fill in the gap?
Yes, and this will fix the liner within the discharge conduit.
I am curious about the flange to even out the flow into the liner, it obviously can't be a one piece liner. How are you
going to get it in the discharge conduit?
The funnel shaped transition piece will be constructed in four parts. It will fold out once it is in position,
attached to the concrete walls and welded in that shape.
How are you going to keep from punching through the existing concrete pipe when you extend the jack screws on the
periphery of the liner?
Each section of the liner will ha ve more than 50 one-inch jack screws in tapped holes around the entire
circumference of the liner 10 jack screws every ten feet of length. These jack screws will extend out till they
contact the inside of the concrete discharge conduit to hold the liner in place till the concrete grout has been
placed between the liner and the inside of the discharge conduit. The concrete walls of the discharge
conduit are two feet thick and the jack screws will not punch holes through these heavy concrete walls.
Are you saying that Duke Energy is going to pay seven cents a kilowatt for this electricity? They are charging me eight
cents a kilowatt, so there is only a penny margin there.
Duke Energy only pays what they must to us and it is based on what they a void by buying the power from us
rather than generating it themselves. So they set the price, not us, and it goes through the North Carolina
Utilities Commission and gets the Commission s approval prior to the rate going into effect
Is the transition from generation to flood flow mode going to be manual process or is it going to be controlled by
electronics?
Since this transition is only going to occur on average three times a year it will be a manual process.
Will you pay taxes on the equipment and buildings?
We will pay personal property tax on the equipment and buildings to the county.
Do you have an estimate of what the project costs will be?
We are estimating four million dollars.
Terry Ramsey with the Corps asked when we expect that we will submit full design specifications and drawings to the
Corps.
First we have to decide what the basic concept of the project will be. As you can see even today we are
making some modifications in order to meet the requirements of everyone involved. Throughout this year the
41
design should congeal to a final design. Once we have that, that's when we 11 start making construction
drawings, so it will be a year and a half to two years before we submit construction drawings to the Corps.
Mark Cantrell asked what the time line for submitting formal study requests is.
We are allowing a 60-day period after this meeting to submit comments and the study requests.
Over the last two years there have been periods of drought. Have you taken into account how your project would
perform under these conditions?
Yes we have. When we do the economic models, we look at rolling five-year worst case periods and see
what periods would be the worst. if the flow conditions stayed like this, though, it would still be a feasible
project.
There being no further questions, Dean Edwards thanked everyone for attending and asked that if in the future they
had questions to not hesitate to contact WHC. The meeting lasted one hour and 20 minutes. An audio recording was
made and was sent to the FERC separately.
5.3 Internet And Other References (By Section Of Report)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service lists rare, threatened, and endangered species at http://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/es/countyfr.html
COE data on Kerr Scott dam and reservoir http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/WKSPERT.TXT
Kerr Scott recreation http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nra/ace/nc_wkerr.htm
Indian tribe consultation at http://home.nps.gov/nacd/
Flow and Flow Duration
http://waterdata.usgs.gov
Existing Fish and Aquatic Communities
http:/Arvww.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
Freshwater Mussel Surveys in the Upper Yadkin River of North Carolina:
Brena K. Jones, Ryan J. Heise, Robert B. Nichols, Scott Van Horn
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, November 2007
Essential Fish Habitat
http:/Arvww.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitaUhabitatprotection/
Socio-Economic Resources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiMlilkes_County,_North_Carolina
Dissolved oxygen
Alternatives in regulated river management by Gore and Petts, 1989, CRC Press, Inc ISBN 0-8493-4877-3
5.4 Consultation Letters (See Appendix D)
WHC's letter to agencies requesting comments is available on the project's web site.
5.3.1 Consultation letters received:
United States Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental policy and compliance
Bureau of Indian affairs
Town of Wilkesboro
City of Winston-Salem
County of Wilkes
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina Dept. of Cultural Resources
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
5.5 Access to project documents on the FERC website:
Enter the url http://ferc.gov/ in your web browser
42
Click on "eLibrary" (upper right side in red)
Click on "General Search"
Click on "all" and enter the WHC project number "12642"
Click on "Submit"
Click on the file format you wish to view under the heading "files"
If you are unable to obtain needed files via the FERC website contact WHC at [e-mail] and
request the files.
6 ITEMS TO BE PERFORMED AFTER THE LICENSE IS ISSUED
6.1 Project Management Plan
A Project Management Plan (PMP) will be developed with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) with input from other
state and federal agencies and the City of Winston-Salem and the Town of Wilkesboro that will provide guidance as to
how the project will be developed and operated.
a) A flow monitoring plan will be developed to ensure that adequate flows are maintained downstream
from the project during construction and operation. There is an existing USGS flow gage
(0211139110) approximately 300 feet downstream from the proposed project discharge channel
that will provide flow data during construction and operation. This USGS gage may provide
sufficient flow data for the proposed flow monitoring plan.
b) A water quality monitoring plan will be developed with appropriate agencies after the license has
been issued but before any construction takes place to ensure that adequate water quality is
maintained downstream from the project during construction. Best management practices will be
used during construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation from the project from entering the
river. Prior to construction, an erosion control plan will be developed with the appropriate agencies
and approved by state and local entities.
C) The PMP with the COE, which is developed with input from state and local entities, will include an
operational plan that describes the positioning of the gates within the water quality intake structure
that controls the elevation that water is withdrawn from the reservoir. This plan will use data
gained from D/0 and temperature readings from the river downstream from the project and various
levels of the reservoir at the intake tower to determine what level water should be withdrawn. This
plan will also address when the draft tube aeration system will be used. This plan will also
describe what actions need to be taken if state water quality standards cannot be maintained with
the use of the multilevel intake and the draft tube aeration system.
6.2 Construction Plans
Construction plans will be developed and approved by the COE prior to the start of construction.
6.3 Building Permits
Building permits along with adherence to the Wilkes County high impact land use ordinance will have to be obtained
prior to the start of construction.
6.4 Power Purchase Agreement
A power purchase contract with Duke Energy under the North Carolina standard purchase rate will have to be signed.
6.5 Project Financing
Project financing will have to be in place prior to the start of construction.
43
Verification Statement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the applicant, Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC has caused its name to be hereunto
signed by Mr. Kevin Edwards, its authorized representative, Z$ day of Uareh 2009.
r-? -ttltwj?,e r

Mr. Kevin Edwards
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
P.O. Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ROCKINGHAM
ss:
Mr. Kevin Edwards, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the duly authorized agent of Wilkesboro
Hydroelectric Company, LLC, who possesses a preliminary permit for this project, and is authorized to execute this
application on the applicant's behalf; that he has read the foregoing application and knows the contents thereof; that
the same are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
9/Z 812 00
Mr. Kevin Edwards Date
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
P.O. Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
Subscribed and sworn to before me this a
--77L A iA A I I X
suf 4
of y Public
day o, 2009
tYl
My commission expires:
=? pUp,?-?G ?=
o ,? .
.;?GHAM 9CIO
44
Appendix A - Water Data
July 18, 2001 vertical profile of W. Kerr Scott Reservoir at station YAD008Ajust upstream from the project intake
tower. NCDWQ
Depth (m) Temp (C) DO (mg/L) PH (su) Cond.
0.15 28.0 9.0 8.8 39
1.0 28.0 9.0 8.8 39
2.0 28.0 9.2 8.8 39
3.0 28.0 9.1 8.8 39
4.0 27.0 9.0 8.6 39
5.0 26.0 8.8 8.4 37
6.0 25.0 4.5 7.5 39
7.0 24.0 2.0 7.2 38
8.0 23.0 1.4 7.0 38
9.0 23.0 1.3 7.0 39
10.0 22.0 0.6 6.9 39
15.0 21.0 0.1 6.8 39
131
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Summary of Trophic Status
Parameter July 18, 2001 August 15, 2009
NCTSI -1.8 -2.2
Trophic State Mesotrophic Oligotrophic
Mean Secchi Depth 1.5111 2.0 m
Mean Total Phosphorus 0.02 mg1L 0.01 mg/L
Mean Total Organic Nitrogen 0.18 mg/L 0.22 mg/L
Mean Chlorophyll a 10 pg/L 8 pg/L
Conductivity 39 - 40 pmhos/cm 39 - 50 pmhos/cm
Dissolved Oxygen 9.0 - 9.9 mg1L 9.1 - 10.3 mg/L
Water Temperature 27.5 - 28 `C 22.1 - 29.2 `C
pH 8.8 - 8.9 S.U. 8.3 - 8.4 s.u.
Indicators in W. Kerr Scott Reservoir During July and August, 2001
Dissolved oxygen at different levels of W. Kerr Scott Lake
1981 -2006 by NCDWQ
QD vs 1)epth,Yad008A
+ D:'21:' 1 B 8 1
12 y 8:'4:'1' 82
a 8 F
8r1'J:'1x83
13 --- 8;11
'133?
?
:
7.1 ail

may p':LL.:L???
k 7:'15:233
'

E
E

--- 8:
18:2333

?
? 7:'1 8.2871
81F:'2771
Y !5.:l 3:2 7 7 2
- --- -

?. .? 7:17:2772

8
'1 P
2772
r
.:
? ?? p:L 1:L77F

BA 7:.2 3 3
5:2 ?.: .C 77f

7 18 1? ?- 23 711 277p
233?
Depth m _
-13F
WKS Dam Flow Exceedance by Month
5000
4500
4a00
aFoo
2300
L7
1000
500
0
0
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
m 2500
[i
2000
1 500
1000
500
0
D.
D33
March 1 {9!1983 - 511 Q009
3.233 0.400 0.800 0.500 1.000 1.280
Exceedance
Apr i1 11111983 - 51112009
0.200 0.400 0.800 0.500 1.000 1.200
Exceedance

5444
4E44
44aa
3E33
34aa
m 2504
LL
U
2000
1544
144a
E33
D
0.444
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
m 2500
0
2000
1 °- 4 4
1044
E.0 0
4
4.444
May 11111983 - 51112009
0.200 0.400 0.800 O.S00 1.000 1.200
Exceedanoe
June 11111903- 51112009
4.244 4.444 0.800 O.S40 1.000 1.200
Exceedance

,august 1.1!1D°.B_5.:112933
F3aa
t?aa
1333
'1 533
?333

to 2Eaa
"
2333
1Ea3
13x3

e33
3
3.333 3.233 3.133 D .IM
3.sa3 1.333 1.233
E x iceed a n ce
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
LL
U
2000
1500
1000
EDD
0.300
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
m 2503
0
2000
1500
1000
500
a
O.aa0
September V119983-5MI2009
3.200 0.400 0.J500 O.SOO 1.000 1.200
Ex ceed a n ce
October 9!111963 - 51112009
0.200 0.400 0.800 0.200 1.000 9.280
Exceedance

5000
4500
4006
3500
3066
m 2566
0
2066
9566
9066
ao
6
0
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
m 2500
0
2000
1500
1000
500
0
6.666
000
N Deem ber 1!IAM3 - 5!1;2669
0.200 0.400 0.800 0.800 1.000 1.200
Exceedance
December 119!9983-5!1!2009
6.266 6.466 6.866 0.800 1.000 1.200
Exceedanae

North Carolina has 61 threatened and endangered plant and animal species.
Animals -- 35
Status Listin T(S/A) Alligator, American ( Alligatofmississippiensis? E Bat, Indiana ( Myot/s soda/is? E
Bat, Virginia big-eared ( Corynorhinus townsendii vifginianus) E Butterfly, Saint Francis' satyr ( Neon
ympha
mitche////ffancisc? T Chub, spotfin Entire ( Cyprine//a monacha) T Eagle, bald (lower 48 States) ( Ha//aeetus
/eucocepha/use E Elktoe, Appalachian (A/asmidonta raveneliana) E Heelsplitter, Carolina Lasmi ona
decorata E Manatee, West Indian ( Trichechus manatus? E Pearlymussel, littlewing (Pegias fabu/a) T Plover,
piping (except Great Lakes watershed) ( Charadrius me%dus? E Puma, eastern (Puma concolor cougua? T
Sea turtle, green (except where endangered) ( Chelonia mydas? E Sea turtle, hawksbill ( Eretmoche/ys
imbf/cata E Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley ( Lep/doche/ys kempi? E Sea turtle, leatherback ( Dermoche/ys coriacea)
T Sea turtle, loggerhead ( Caretta care tta) E Shiner, Cape Fear ( Nontismekistocho/as? T Silverside,
Waccamaw (Menidia extensa) T Snail, noonday (Mesodon c/arki nantaha/a) E Spider, spruce-fir moss
Microhexura mont/vaga) E Spinymussel, Tar River ( E//iptio steins tansana) E Squirrel, Carolina northern flying
( Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus? E Sturgeon, shortnose ( Acipenserbrevirostfur? E Tern, roseate (northeast
U.S. nesting pop.) ( Sterna dougall//dougalli? T Tern, roseate (Western Hemisphere except NE U.S.) Sterna
douga//ii douga//i? T(S/A) Turtle, bog (southern) ( C/emmys muh/enbefgi? E Wedgemussel, dwarf
A/asmidonta hetefodor? E Whale, finback ( Ba/aenoptera physa/us) E Whale, humpback Me a tefa
novaeanq//ae) E Whale, right ( Ba/aenaq/aE Whale, sperm ( Physetercatodor? E Wolf, red (except
where XN) ( Canis fufus? XN Wolf, red [XN] ( Canis fufus? E Woodpecker, red-cockaded ( Picoides bofea/is)
Plants -- 26
Status ListingT Joint-vetch, sensitive (Aeschynomene vifginica) T Amaranth, seabeach (Amaranthus
umi/u E Bittercress, small-anthered ( Cardamine micranthefa) E Coneflower, smooth ( Echinacea /ae! /gata)
E Avens, spreading ( Geum radiatur? E Lichen, rock gnome ( Gymnoderma /ineafe) E Bluet, Roan Mountain
Hedyotis pufpufea Montana) E Sunflower, Schweinitz's ( He//anthus schweinitzi? T Pink, swamp Helonias
bu//ata T Heartleaf, dwarf-flowered ( Hexasty/is nanif/ofa) T Heather, mountain golden ( Hudsonia montana) T
Pogonia, small whorled ( /sotria medeo%ides? T Blazingstar, Heller's ( Liatf/s E Pondberry Lindefa
me/issifo/ia E Loosestrife, rough-leaved ( Lysimachia asperu/aefo/ia) E Dropwort, Canby's ( Oxypo//s canby?
E Harperella ( Ptilimnium nodosum) E Sumac, Michaux's ( Rhus michauxi? E Arrowhead, bunched Sa ittafia
fascicu/ata E Pitcher-plant, green ( Sarracenia oreophi/a) E Pitcher-plant, mountain sweet ( Sarracenia rubra
ones/ E Chaffseed, American ( Schwalbea ameficana) E Irisette, white ( Sisyrinchium dichotomurr? T
Goldenrod, Blue Ridge ( So/idago spithamaea) T Spiraea, Virginia ( Spiraea vifginiana) E Meadowrue, Cooley's
( Thalictrum coole
Aquatic Biota Surveys:
William Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project (P-12642-001)
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Piedmont Hydropower, LLC
PO Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
Prepared by:
- The
Catena
Group
The Catena Group, Inc.
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Tel [phone]
July 23, 2009
The Catena Group i July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC (WHC), a subsidiary of Piedmont Hydropower,
LLC. proposes to use the existing dam, reservoir, and intake of the W. Kerr Scott flood
control facility for continued hydroelectric power generation and is undergoing a Federal
Energy Regulations Commission (FERC) Traditional Licensing Process. During the First
Stage Consultation of the Pre-Application Document (PAD) submitted by the WHC, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) provided comments in a
March 12, 2009 letter outlining their request for surveys of fish, mussel, crayfish and other
aquatic species in the 3.25 mile reach of the Yadkin River below the dam and Moravian
Creek (Study Area). The Catena Group Inc. (TCG) was contracted by WHC to conduct
these aquatic surveys.
2.0 SAMPLING METHODS
As outlined in NCWRC comments, aquatic species were sampled in general locations:
Reach 1. Between the dam and Brown's Ford Road
Reach 2. Between Brown's Ford Road and Millers Creek
Reach 3. Between Millers Creek and Moravian Creek
2.1 Fish Surveys
Various methodologies, including electro-fishing, seine netting, and dip netting, were used
to thoroughly sample each habitat type in a given survey reach..
The primary fish survey method was electro-fishing. Electro-fishing surveys were
conducted by a minimum of a four-person survey team, with two operating backpack
el ectro- shocking units and at least two persons positioned downstream with dip and/or
seine nets. Electro-fishing sampling was performed in the middle of the channel and close
to each bank in order to include the entire habitat. Electro-fishing to a stationary seine net
was also performed in some areas.
Seine netting was used in riffles and run habitats, as well as shallow pools. Seine hauls
were performed by dragging the net through the sample area. Pools were sampled by
making fast pulls in a downstream direction and herding fish towards the banks, and/or
sand/gravel bars. Dip net sweeps, particularly in submerged vegetation and under
rootwads and undercut banks, were used to supplement the other fish survey methods.
Captured fish were placed into a water bucket until they could be identified and counted.
Fish were identified to species and habitat notes and GPS location were recorded at each
collection site. A few specimens of suckers (Catostomidae) were kept as vouchers, as
requested by NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) personnel, for a research project of
sucker distribution in the Yadkin River Basin. The remaining fishes were released on site.
The Catena Group 1 July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249
22 Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Freshwater mussel surveys for this project employed a minimum of a four-person survey
team. Qualitative visual survey techniques using mask/snorkel or bathyscope (underwater
viewing bucket) were used, depending on habitat conditions. Tactile methods were also
employed, particularly in the streambanks under submerged rootmats.
The survey team began at the downstream end of a survey site, spread out across the
survey area into survey lanes, and proceeded upstream. The amount of time spent in each
survey site was dependant on channel width, distribution of habitat across the river bottom,
mussel density, and professional judgment.
All species of freshwater bivalves were identified, recorded and returned to the substrate.
One individual of each species collected from the study area was kept as a voucher
specimen, and deposited in the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences
(NCSM). Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data was calculated for each species found.
Habitat notes and GPS locations were recorded at each collection site. Seasonally high
flow and related turbidity in the Study Area led to less than optimal survey conditions
during this effort.
2.3 Crayfish Surveys
Crayfish habitats were sampled in each reach by a minimum of a two person team, using
the most effective method depending on the habitat being searched. Methods included:
visual with viewscopes or snorkel (hand or net collection); sweeping dip nets through
vegetation, rootmats, and debris; trapping; and collecting during electrofishing. Relative
abundance of each species, habitat conditions, and the GPS location of each collection site
were recorded. Representative samples were collected and preserved in 70% ethanol for
verification.
2.4 Amphibian Sampling
Surveys for aquatic streamside amphibians were conducted by a minimum of a two person
crew and in conjunction with other survey efforts. Amphibians encountered were captured
and identified to species. In addition to searches in the main stem of the Yadkin River,
tributaries within the respective reach were searched.
3.0 SAMPLING EFFORTS
Surveys for aquatic species were conducted by TCG personnel on June 30, 2009 (Tim
Savidge, Tom Dickinson, Chris Sheats and Jonathan Hartsell) and July 2 (Tim Savidge,
Tom Dickinson, Chris Sheats, Kate Montieth, Jonathan Hartsell and Jennifer Callahan).
Table 1 lists the specific survey locations in each reach and they are shown in Figure 1
The Catena Group 2 July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249

-
tom
r-? • • . • c ..r

'
l
r, - ?4 row Site 3'
ounty
Airport iP -
•
?
:,
?i 9i6 o
VNLKES Site t
-

--
?•rf'r'??
1 '
Sl
tez
?
"?. 1
l ? j
' 1 'Wilk
sn}Gi
r? 7
m
f
?F ,} jit?f4?' tf
Y f r I
?- l
,
%
l
.
vi
-t
v
4

i f
f
?
r
?- \
f

- The Client:
Aquatic Biota Survey Locations: Date:
July 2009 Figure
Catena ilkeSJOCO William Kerr Scott Scale:
group

- Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Project 0 50G 1,000 Feet
I I
--

- Company, LLC
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Job No.
3249

Table 1. Study Area Survey Locations 2009: Yadkin River
Reach #/Location Survey Dates 2009 GPS Location
Reach 1 June 30, Jul 2 36.13652°N, -81.22280°W
Reach 2 June 30, Jul 2 36.13545 ON, -81.21497°W
Reach 3 June 30 36.14507°N, -81.18110°W
3.0 RESULTS
Relative abundance noted in the following tables was estimated based on following
criteria:
Freshwater Fishes, Crayfish, and Amphibians:
• Very abundant: > 30 collected at survey station
• Abundant: 15-30 collected at survey station
• Common: 6-15 collected at survey station
• Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey station
• Rare: 1-2 collected at survey station
Freshwater Snails and Clams (per approximate square meter
• Very abundant: > 50 collected at survey station
• Abundant: 31-50 collected at survey station
• Common: 11-30 collected at survey station
• Uncommon: 3-10 collected at survey station
• Rare: 1-2 collected at survey station
CPUE was calculated for each freshwater mussel species located per site and refers to the
number of live individuals of that species found per one person hour of survey time.
Searches were also conducted for relict shells; however the presence of shell was not
factored into CPUE. Survey results for each site are further described below.
Electroshocking time refers to the total number of seconds where current was being
discharged into the survey area from both backpack electroshocking units. Additional time
not accounted for in the electroshocking efforts was spent collecting fish with dipnets and
seine netting.
3.1 Reach I
The site was accessed from the canoe access area within sight of the W. Kerr Scott dam.
The survey area includes a portion of Fish Dam Creek which enters the mainstem Yadkin
along the left descending side of the river. Habitat in Fish Dam Creek consisted of a
sequence of riffle, run, and pool with sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate. Habitat
within the mainstem consisted mostly of runs, as well as some pool and backwater habitat.
The Catena Group 1 July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249
Substrate consisted of silt, sand, gravel, and cobble. A filamentous algae and submerged
aquatic vegetation covered most substrates, especially over lower velocity sand and gravel
bars. Fairly high accumulations of silt were observed on the substrate throughout much of
the site. Fish survey efforts were conducted for a total of 2,508 seconds of electro-
shocking time. A total of 24 fish species were collected. Cursory mussel survey efforts
were conducted in this reach for approximately 0.5 person-hours during which none were
located. However, the introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and the aquatic snail
sprite elimia (Elimia proxima) were abundant. Three species of salamander were recorded,
all of which were found in Fish Dam Creek, and three species of crayfish. The list of
species found in Reach 1 and their relative abundance is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Reach 1: Aquatic Species Found
Scientific Name Common Name Abundance
Freshwater Snails and Clams - Relative Abundance
Corbicula fuminea Asian clam Abundant
Elimia proxima sprite elimia Abundant
Freshwater Fish Relative Abundance
Catostomus commersonii white sucker common
Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller uncommon
Cyprinella analostana satinfin shiner common
Cyprinella labrosa thicklip chub uncommon
Cyprinella nivea whitefin shiner uncommon
Esox niger chain pickerel rare
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter abundant
Gambusia holbrookii Eastern mosquitofish common
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish abundant
Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed uncommon
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill common
Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish uncommon
Moxostoma collapsum notchlip redhorse rare
Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass rare
Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass uncommon
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass common
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub very abundant
Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner common
Notropis chiliticus redlip shiner common
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner common
Notropis scepticus sandbar shiner common
Notorus insignis margined madtom common
Amphibians Relative Abundance
Desmognathus fuscus fuscus Northern dusky salamander uncommon
Eurycea cirrigera Southern Two-lined salamander common
Eurycea guttolineata three-lined salamander uncommon
Crayfish Relative Abundance
Cambarus (Cambarus) bartonii Appalachian brook crayfish uncommon
Cambarus (Puncticambarus) sp. C none uncommon
Orconectes (Procericambarus) none rare
cristavarius
The Catena Group 2 July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249
3.2 Reach 2
This site was accessed from a utility corridor and agricultural fields along the left
descending side of the river. Habitat within the mainstem consisted mostly of relatively
high velocity riffle and run, with some some pool and backwater habitat created by an
island channel. Substrate was dominated by cobble, gravel, and sand. Fish survey were
conducted for a total of 2,252 seconds of electro-shocking time. A total of 24 fish species
were collected. Mussel survey efforts were conducted for approximately 1.5 person-hours
during which low numbers of the eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) and Carolina lance
(E. angustata) were found. Mussel surveys were cut short due a sudden rise in water level
and turbidity from release operations. The introduced Asian clam and the aquatic snail
sprite elimia were abundant and very abundant, respectively. The only amphibian located
was tadpoles of the green frog (Rana clamitans), which were abundant in a pool below a
large cobble bar. Three species of crayfish were also located. The list of species found in
Reach 2 and their relative abundance is shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Reach 2: Aquatic Species Found
Scientific Name Common Name Abundance
Freshwater Mussels #/CPUE
Elliptio angustata Carolina lance 3 (2.0/hr)
Elliptio complanata eastern elliptio 2 (1.3/hr)
Freshwater Snails and Clams Relative Abundance
Corbicula fluminea Asian clam abundant
Elimia proxima sprite elimia very abundant
Freshwater Fish Relative Abundance
Ambloplites rupestris rock bass uncommon
Ameiurus platycephalus flat bullhead rare
Catostomus commersonii white sucker common
Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller common
Cyprinella nivea whitefln shiner rare
Etheostoma flabellare fantail darter common
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter abundant
Gambusia holbrookii Eastern mosquitofish common
Hypentehum nigricans Northern hogsucker uncommon
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish abundant
Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill common
Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish uncommon
Moxostoma rupiscartes striped jumprock rare
Moxostoma sp.l brassy jumprock common
Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass rare
Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass uncommon
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass common
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub common
Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner common
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner common
Notrovis scepticus sandbar shiner common
The Catena Group 3 July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249
Notorus insignis margined madtom common
Onchorynkus mykiss rainbow trout rare (1)
Percina crassa Piedmont darter uncommon
Amphibians Relative Abundance
Rana clamitans green frog (tadpoles) abundant
Crayfish Relative Abundance
Cambarus (Cambarus) bartonii Appalachian brook crayfish uncommon
Cambarus (Puncticambarus) sp. C none uncommon
Orconectes (Procericambarus) none rare
cristavarius
3.3 Reach 3
The site was accessed along the Yadkin River Greenway trail on the right descending side
of the river. The survey area also includes a portion of Tucker Hole Creek which enters
the mainstem Yadkin along the left descending side of the river. Habitat in Tucker Hole
Creek consisted of a low gradient sequence of riffle, run, and pool with sand, gravel, and
cobble substrate. Habitat searched within the mainstem consisted of a slow moving,
relatively deep run and some backwater habitat located along the banks. Substrate was
dominated by sand, gravel, and, cobble. Areas of heavy mud and silt accumulation were
present along banks. A mid-channel submerged cobble/gravel bar was covered with
significant growth of submerged aquatic vegetation. Heavy woody debris was present
along stream banks. Fish survey efforts were conducted for a total of 1,421 seconds of
el ectro- shocking time. A total of 11 fish species were collected. Mussel surveys were
conducted for approximately 3.67 person-hours during which the eastern elliptio and
Carolina lance were found. The Asian clam and the aquatic snail sprite elimia were
abundant. The aquatic snail two-ridge rams horn (Helisoma anceps) was also present with
a patchy uncommon distribution. Two species of salamander were recorded, all of which
were found in Tucker Hole Creek, and three species of crayfish. The list of species found
in Reach 3 and their relative abundance is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Reach 3: Aquatic Species Found
Scientific Name Common Name Abundance
Freshwater Mussels #/CPUE
Elliptio angustata Carolina lance 10 (2.7/hr)
Elliptio complanata eastern elliptio 11 (3.0/hr)
Freshwater Snails and Clams - Relative Abundance
Corbicula fluminea Asian clam Abundant
Elimia proxima sprite elimia Abundant
Helisoma anceps Two-ridge rams horn patchy uncommon
Freshwater Fish Relative Abundance
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas fieryblack shiner common
Etheostoma flabellare fantail darter uncommon
Etheostoma olmstedi tesseslated darter common
Gambusia holbrookii Eastern mosquitofish common
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish abundant
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill common

The Catena Group 4 July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249
Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass uncommon
Moxostoma rupiscartes striped jumprock rare
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub Common
Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner common
Notorus insignis margined madtom Common
Amphibians Relative Abundance
Desmognathus fuscus fuscus Northern dusky salamander uncommon
Eurycea cirrigera Southern Two-lined salamander uncommon
Crayfish Relative Abundance
Cambarus (Cambarus) bartonii Appalachian brook crayfish uncommon
Cambarus (Puncticambarus) sp. C none uncommon
Orconectes (Procericambarus) none rare
cristavarius
4.0 DISCUSSION
Qualitative surveys were conducted to provide an updated, Study Area specific, baseline of
the fish, freshwater mussel, crayfish, and streamside amphibians present in the Yadkin
River below W. Kerr Scott dam. The following discussion details these findings by target
group.
4.1 Fish Surveys
A total of 32 fish species were located in the Study Area. The species consisted of a mix
of both cool and warm-water adapted fishes. This assemblage of fish species is likely a
result of the bottom withdrawal from the reservoir. For example, the presence of species
such as rainbow trout and smallmouth bass indicate that these species are able to take
advantage of the current cool water release regime and survive at lower elevations than
they would be typically found in a similar unaltered river system.
While the species list generated provides a snapshot of current assemblage in the Study
Area, it is important to note that the efforts may have been limited by several factors. It is
likely that some species are more or less abundant in the Study Area seasonally, which this
one-time effort cannot reflect. It is also important to note that the much of fish sampling
was conducted during higher than median flows, a reality of sampling in a regulated river
habitat following high spring rainfall. The techniques used therefore may not reflect all
species presence, especially those that inhabit deeper run and pool habitats.
4.2 Freshwater Mollusk Surveys
Two species of freshwater mussel were located during the sampling efforts; the eastern
elliptio and Carolina lance. Both are considered relatively common and do not have any
special state or federal status. While they were not located during the efforts, the state
Endangered brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), and state Threatened creeper (Strophitus
undulatus) are known from the mainstem Yadkin River downstream of, and in similar
habitat to what was observed in, the Study Area. These species could potentially occur
The Catena Group 5 July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249
within the Study Area in low numbers, but were not detected under the less than optimal
survey conditions.
The best habitat searched was within Reach 3, where a slow moving run of sand, gravel,
and cobble substrate provided stability and enough interstitial space for burrowing. Much
of the gravel and cobble habitat observed in Reach 1 and 2 is believed to be too unstable,
embedded or too compact to allow for mussel colonization. The current low diversity and
numbers of mussel species located with in the Study Area is likely related to the effects of
the regulated dam releases.
4.3 Crayfish
Three species of crayfish, two common Cambarus species and the introduced Orconectes
(Procericambarus) cristavarius, were located in the Study Area. As with the freshwater mussel
fauna, the low numbers and species diversity may be a reflection of habitat instability
associated with the regulated flow regime.
4.4 Amphibians
A total of four species of streamside amphibians were located in the Study Area; three
salamander and one frog species. The three salamander species found were located in the
tributaries to the mainstem, although they likely also occur along the margins of the
mainstem Yadkin River as well. All species are common and wide ranging in North
Carolina.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The information here supplements existing data to provide baseline and updated
information on aquatic biota species presence and relative abundance with the Study Area.
This information is anticipated to assist in future monitoring of the Study Area post
retrofits to W. Kerr Scott dam.
The current intake structures draw primarily from the lower strata of the lake. This results
in cooler water temperatures and potentially lower dissolved oxygen levels seasonally in
the Study Area. Lower strata waters may also be sediment laden, as evident from observed
high turbidity at any level above the median flow release. Planned retrofits as part of this
relicensing process include:
• Draft tube air induction rings will enable the project to keep the dissolved oxygen level in
the water below the project above state standards.
• Multi-level intake structure water quality conduit and racks to draw water from near the
surface of the lake.
These new structures are expected to result in improved habitat for the warm-water aquatic
fauna that would typically inhabit the Yadkin River in the Study Area.
The Catena Group 6 July 2009
W. Kerr Scott Aquatic Biota Surveys TCG Job #3249
APPENDIX B
Photographs of Existing Structures and Project Area
Figure B1 - Aerial View of Dam
Figure B2 - Intake Tower
M

Figure B3 - Stilling Basin and Fishing Pier
Milo, 16.
..
?e
Figure B4 - Stilling Basin Looking Downstream
2
Proposed
4a` + qi
Powerhouse
Yr y 0 _

Figure B5 - Dam and Stilling Basin from Left Bank
Figure B6 - Existing Substation 3,600' Away

3
F
4
Figure B7 - Existing Power Line with Dam in Background
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company
W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project
Project Number P-12642-000 - North Carolina
Appendix C - Distribution List 9-29-09
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
888 First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20426
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Atlanta Regional Office
3125 Presidential Parkway
Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30340
National Park Service
Regional Office
100 Alabama St., SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Affairs
Room 2340 MIB
1849 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
77 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30335-6801
Director
Bureau of Land Management
Branch of Lands
Attn: FERC Withdrawal Recordation
7450 Boston Blvd.
Springfield, VA 22153
County of Wilkes
110 North Street
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
Attn: Edward G. Barnes
Wilkes County Planner
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
W Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir
499 Reservoir Rd
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
Attn: Terry Ramsey
Operations Manager
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Regulatory Branch/ Permits
Attn: George A. Piner
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Office
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30345
Christopher Goudreau
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 27652
NOAA Fisheries
Southeast Region
Prescott Brownell
216 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412-9110
Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atanta, GA 30303-3104
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Regional Office
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Eastern Office of Project Review
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
General Office
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Attn: Fred Tarver
1611 Mail Service Center
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
North Carolina Department of Environment
Environmental Management Commission
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Office of Archives and History
Attn: Renee Gledhill-Earley
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
United States Department of the Interior
Gregory Hogue
Regional Environmental Officer
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Ga 30303
Dr. James Kardatzke
Bureau of Indian Affairs
545 Marriott Drive, Suite 700
Nashville, TN 37214
Mr. Mark Cantrell
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
Michell Hicks, Chief
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Post Office Box 455
Cherokee
NC 28719
Donald Rodgers, Chief
Catawba Indian Nation
996 Avenue of the Nations
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
George Wickliffe, Chief
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
P.O. Box 746
20525 S. Jules Valdez Rd.
Tahlequah, OK 74464
Chad Smith, Principal Chief
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Haliwa-Saponi Tribe
P.O. Box 99
Hollister
NC 27844
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina
P.O. Box 68
Pembroke
NC 28372
Meherrin Indian Tribe
David Cepil, Executive Director.
Meherrin Indian Tribe,
PO Box 508,
Winton, NC 27910
Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation
PO Box 356
Mebane
North Carolina 27302
Sappony Tribe
PO Box 3265
Roxboro, NC 27574
Waccamaw-Siouan Tribe
P.O. Box 221
Bolton
NC 28423
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
Regional Office
1720 Peachtree Road, NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Hydropower Programs
American Rivers
320 SW Stark Street
Portland, OR 97204
Ducks Unlimited
One Waterfowl Way
Memphis, TN 38120
David Saunders
City/County Utilities Director
City of Winston-Salem
P.O. Box 2511,
Winston-Salem, NC 27102
Kenneth Noland
Town Manager
Town of Wilkesboro
P.O. Box 1056
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
Jonathan Engram
643 Rocky Point Rd
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
Ms. Valerie McMillian
State Clearinghouse
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
Re. App. # 09-E-0000-0045
Jeff Duncan
National Park Service
Rivers, Trails & Conservation
175 Hamm Rd. Ste. C
Chattanooga, TN 37405
Kin Hodges
District 7 Fisheries Biologist
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
179 Stonebridge Rd.
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Lee Spencer
NCDENR
Public Water Supply Section
585 Waughton St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Kenneth Ashe
NC Dept. of Crime Control and Public Safety
Div. of Emergency Management
4719 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4719
Dean Naujoks
Yadkin Riverkeeper
2435 Westfield Ave.
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Appendix D Correspondence
July 29, 2008
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric
Company LLC
HYDRO DEVELOPMENT
150 North Miller Rd. Suite 450c
Fairlawn, Ohio
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.advancedhydrosolutions.com
RE: Proposed W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project at the W. Kerr Scott Dam near Wilkesboro, North
Carolina.
FERC # 12642
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company LLC. (WHC) is proposing to build a new powerhouse at the W. Kerr
Scott Dam near Wilkesboro, North Carolina. The purpose of this project is to generate clean, renewable
energy for up to 4000 homes. The project will use existing facilities to minimize or eliminate additional
environmental impact. This project requires a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC).
WHC is in the initial planning stages for this project. The purpose of this letter is to request your agency's
initial comments or concerns on the potential impacts of this project. Please provide your comments
regarding threatened or endangered species, fish and wildlife resources. Your comments will help WHC
plan the project. This is the first step in preparing a license application for the project. You will have
several additional opportunities to provide comments before a license is issued.
The dam was built and is operated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purpose of flood control,
recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, water supply, and water-quality control. The dam is an earth and
rock fill structure having a top elevation of 1107.6 feet above mean sea level and an overall length of 1,740
feet. The maximum height above the riverbed is 148 feet. A 22-foot paved roadway passes across the
entire length of the dam. The outlet works for the dam consists of an approach channel, intake structure
with two service gates and one emergency gate, a reinforced concrete conduit with a spilling basin and a
discharge channel. The proposed power project will use the concrete conduit to bring water to the
powerhouse from the impoundment. There has never been a hydroelectric facility at this dam.
Spillway
The unpaved, chute-type spillway, excavated through overburden into rock in a saddle adjacent to the left
abutment of the dam, discharges into Fish Dam Creek which empties into the Yadkin River about 700 feet
downstream of the dam toe. The crest is 400 feet wide at an elevation of 1075 feet, and is designed to pass
the spillway design flood with a minimum pool elevation of 1102.5 feet.
Project intake
A channel will be installed on the upstream face of the intake tower. The purpose of the channel will be to
withdraw water from near the surface of the reservoir during periods when flows are below 2000 cfs so that
water will pass through the trash rack. It has been found in other reservoirs in North Carolina that
withdrawing water from near the surface from May until November improves the dissolved oxygen content
of the water downstream from the dam. The top of this channel would be at 1010 feet MSL and it would
continue down the face of the intake tower and cover the current intake grate. This channel would be
designed so that, at flows above 2000 cfs, intake slide gates in front of the existing intake grate could be
raised so that flood flows could pass without restriction. A trash rack with a bottom elevation of 1010 feet
MSL up to 1033 feet MSL will be attached to the top of the channel to remove trash and to prevent the
entrainment or impingement of fish. The trash rack approach velocity to the trash rack will be 2.0 feet per
second maximum and the spacing between trash rack bars will be 2.5 inches or less. During normal
generation operation, water will be drawn from the top 25 feet of the reservoir passing down through the
channel and into the existing intake tower grate. At flows above 2000 cfs, flows will be through the
existing intake grate and there will be no generation.
Conduit
The existing 749 foot long water conduit, which is 12.25 feet in diameter, will be lined for the first 400 feet
from the outlet with an 11 foot diameter '/2 inch steel liner to prevent water under pressure from passing
through the walls of the conduit into the earth fill dam itself. The liner will start at the stilling basin and go
up past the last seepage collar. This collar is in the non-permeable core of the dam. The existing concrete
conduit, while quite substantial, is not designed to convey water under pressure. This conduit liner will be
designed with a drainage system to detect and remove any possible leakage through the liner. After the
steel liner is in place, the 7-inch space between the outside of the steel liner and the inside of the conduit
will be filled with concrete grout.
The conduit liner will continue on past the penstock bifurcation to where a conduit gate will divert the
flows to the powerhouse when the turbines are operating. The conduit gate will be located at the end of the
conduit liner and at the beginning of the discharge chute and will be used only in the fully open or fully
closed position and will not be used for throttling flow. When this gate is open the intake tower service
gates will control the flow of water and there will be no generation. When the conduit gate is closed the
intake tower service gates will be fully open and the flow of water will be by the turbines and spill gates in
the powerhouse. Water that passes through the conduit gate will discharge water into the discharge basin.
The water will exit this gate at the same velocity as it currently does when entering the discharge basin.
Therefore, there will be no change in the characteristics of the water flow into the discharge basin.
A 36-inch diameter pipe will be temporarily installed inside the conduit liner while the liner is being
installed to allow flows up to 200 cfs to continue down the river. The established minimum flow when the
lake elevation is below 1020' is 125 cfs. There will be a temporary watertight bulkhead at the upper end of
the liner that will divert the water flow into the 36-inch pipe. There will also be a slide gate in the bulkhead
to allow greater flows to pass though the conduit liner should lake elevations become too high. It is
expected that it will take 30 days to install the conduit liner.
Penstock
At the point where the conduit liner emerges from the concrete conduit 10' upstream from the conduit gate,
the 11.0 foot diameter conduit liner will bifurcate with the penstock branching off to the North side. At the
bifurcation an 11.0 foot diameter penstock will be attached to the side of the conduit liner and will carry
water to the powerhouse. Branching off of the main penstock will be two 8-foot penstocks with slide gates
that will feed water into the powerhouse to the two turbines. Careful engineering and consultation with the
Corps will be done in the design and construction of the penstock system and the powerhouse. In
particular, it is imperative that the construction of this power project not have any significant negative
impacts on the safety and function of the dam.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse will be located on the north side of the existing discharge stilling basin. The powerhouse
will be 80 feet wide by 50 feet long. The two 8' penstocks will carry the water flow into each turbine's
pressure case. Both turbines will be of the typical vertical shaft design with water passing through wicket
gates, and then exiting the runner from the bottom. After the water passes through each turbine it will enter
a draft tube, which will then carry the decelerated water back into the river. Both draft tubes will be
equipped with air injection ports designed to improve the dissolved oxygen levels downstream from the
dam when needed to assure that the discharged water meets state standards for dissolved oxygen. The
foundation of the powerhouse will be anchored in bedrock and will be constructed of poured reinforced
concrete up to the generator floor. The exterior walls of the powerhouse will be brick over concrete block
with concrete reinforcing. Efforts will be made to make the powerhouse aesthetically pleasing and to
minimize visual impacts.
Operation
Each penstock will also have a spill gate, which can flow up to 600 cfs, which will allow water to bypass
the turbine and discharge directly into the draft tube. Each spill gate will open when its respective turbine
shuts down to maintain a constant flow into the river. When the turbine starts back up the spill gate will
slowly close again, maintaining constant flow. If more than the capacity of the two turbines, 800 cfs, needs
to be released, the spill gates will be used to pass flows from 800 cfs to 2000 cfs. When flows above 2000
cfs need to be released the turbines will be shut down, the service gates closed, the conduit gate opened, the
intake slide gates opened and then the service gates will control the flow of water. Flows above 2000 cfs
have occurred less than 3% of the time in the past.
Flow range Gate position Power production
0 to 800 cfs Spill gate, conduit gate closed, service gates fully open Turbines at part throttle
800 to 2000 cfs Spill gates throttling flow, conduit gate closed, service gates open Turbines at full throttle
Above 2000 cfs Spill gates closed, conduit gate fully open, service gates control flow Turbines shut down
Tailrace
The water as it exits the draft tube will enter a tailrace that will be 80 feet wide and 100 feet long, curving
back until it joins the river 20 feet downstream from the end of the stilling basin. Water levels and flow
rates in the river below the discharge basin will remain the same as they are now. For the first 20 feet from
the powerhouse the tailrace wing walls will be of concrete. For the next 80 feet the walls will be lined with
large riprap to dissipate any wave action and eliminate erosion.
Power line for project
The primary transmission line will be a 12.4 kV line, which will run from the project's transformer at the
powerhouse approximately a mile to the east along an existing road to the utility substation. There is an
existing three-phase power line within 300 feet of the proposed powerhouse location. However, this
existing power line would have to be reconductored to carry the increased current of the project. There will
be no need to install more than two poles to bring the transmission line to the powerhouse and only one or
two trees may need to be trimmed for line clearance. Any new transmission line that is built will be
prepared in accordance with the guidelines set forth in "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power
Lines -- the State of the Art in 1996", by Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. This transmission line design
would prevent the accidental electrocution of perching raptors.
Cultural resources
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundary. The entire construction area
of the project was completely disturbed during dam construction. However, if artifacts are found during
construction, construction will cease in that area until an archeologist can examine the area.
Water rights
In a contract dated June 29, 1960, entered into by and between the City of Winston-Salem, the County of
Wilkes, and the United States of America, the City of Winston-Salem has rights in and to the discharge of
water from the Reservoir for its public water supply. Since this project will not cause any change in water
flows out of the reservoir during normal operations WHC feels that it will not impinge on Winston-Salem's
rights to the water. WHC will open discussion with Winston-Salem to assure that the project does not
affect its water rights.
Attached is a site location and vicinity map. Photographs of the existing structures and the project area are
attached.
Please send your comments to me at the address given above in the next 30 days. We will use your input as
part of the FERC licensing process, to help define issues and design the project. We appreciate your
assistance. For more information on this project, including copies of the preliminary permit, preliminary
powerhouse drawings, more details on operation and energy production figures, please visit the FERC web
site at ferc.gov or call us.
M. Clifford Phillips
Agent for
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company LLC
Proposed W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project
Drawing, Photos and Area Map
I
r
7
1
':IL1N1P'1 HAP
f
5
W. Kerr Scott Dam
a y
I
SC n:t i ,s
I, um
POWEUME LOCAi; Ow

'`PROPOSED
4TSE'..
DOWNSTREAM VIEW OF
DISCHARGE BASIN AND RIVER
POF of 20060601-0013 Received by FERC OSEC 05/2912006 in
May 11, 2005
TOWN OF WILKESBORO
P.©. Box 1058.203 West Main Streel
Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28697
www.vfilkeabotowrthcaroNna.com
Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Magalie R. Salas
Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Strut, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
GV?jGIA P-
Re: Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LL.C
Filed the application for project number 126+124M
On January 25, 2006
Yadkin Hydra, LLC
Filed the application for project number 12651- DD
On February 9, 2006
Name of the Project; W. Keen Scott Hydroelectric Project
Dear Secretary Salas:

1

•r
The project will be located on the Yadkin Rives in Wilkes County, North Carolina, it would use
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) existing W. Kerr Scott Dam. The notice was
published in the local newspaper, the wakes Journal Patriot on March 24, 2006. The Town
Board of Commissioners of the Town of Wilkesboro has asked that I write you regarding our
concerns about these projects. Cur water intake in the Yadkin [fiver for the Wilkesboro Water
Plant is downstream from the proposed site. This is a 10 million gallon a day water plant and
services residences, industries and water associations. This water plant is essential to the
operation of Tyson Foods' extremely large poultry p rommwg plant located is Wilkesboro. The
Town Board of Commissioneta a]ao has concerns about the quality and qt anbty of water at our
intake if these projects are allowed to proceed. The Town Board of Commissioners also wants to
make stn•Ie that these projects would have no affect on future plans to move our water intake into
the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir itself. The Town Board of Commissioners wish to preserve their
right to make a decision to support or oppose these said projects based upon your response to our
questions.
Sincerely,
Ken Noland
Town Manager
Town of Wilkesboro
N CHUMN CALL KENNETH 0 NOLAND JOSEPHINE CASS COMMIISS ONERS IwMym Pm Tam
Meym Taws AAv"w TV- Clrmf.rwr nffc Jµ1ES S HAFUL Y TOMW 6O0A0AAHER
I?mwggBt@wlrte?o?vrwr7R:ndiNa oom MIKE INSCORE
GARY BLEVI N$
200605225003 Received =c OSEC 05/22/2006 10:27-00 AM Dccket# ER06-285-000
United States Department of the Interior
4; $ OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance TAK'ig Pr io '
Rirhard B. Russell Federal Builduq "M ER] CA
'-
75 Spring Sire A, S.W.
AtbxaA, C.e ore, 30303
9043.1
ER 06-0285
Nhy22, 2006
Ms. Magalie Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Mail Code HL-20
888 Fast Street: NE
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Ms. Salas:
Subject: Comments on Applications for PreliminaryPermits for W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric
Project (FERC No. 12642) and Yadkin Hydropower Project: LLC (FERC No. 12651)
(ER 06.0285)
Dear Ms. Salas
The De pariment of the Inte rior (DOI) has reviewed the application filed with the Federal Ene rgy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC (Project #
12642) at the existing W. Kerr Scott Dam, Yadkin River, Wilkes County; North Carolina. DOI
previously cornmente d on an earire r predranaryperrrut (Project #12143) on April 16, 2002.
There is also another competing application for the Yadkin Hydropower, LLC (Project# 12651).
These comments address both current projects 12642 and 12651. We provide the fallowing
comments for your consideration.
On N&rch 24, 2006, the Federal Energy Re gulato ryCommission (FERC) noticed the
applications for prelirrdnarypermits for the W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Proj ect by Wilkesboro
Hydroelectric Company and Yadkin Hydropower LCC The projects would be located on the
Yadkin River in Wilke s County; North Carolina which will utilize the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (Corps) existing W. Kerr Scott Darn.
Previously; Savannah River Resource Enhancement, LLC, filed an application on July 19, 2001,
for a three-year preliminary perrrdt under Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to study
the proposed W. Scott Kerr Project No. 12143. On May 30, 2002, the Commission issued a
preliminary permit for this project to Savannah Rive r Resourc e Enhancement, LLC effective the
fast day of the month in whic h the permit is issue d. The ending period is 36 months from the
effective date or the date that a development application submitte d bythe permittee has be en
accepted for filing, whichever occurs fast That prelimmaryperrrat was issued for a period
extending until April 30, 2005.
20060522SOil3 Received FERC OSEC 05/22/2006 10:27:00 AM Docket# ER06-285-006
Page 2
'Nitre are competing applicat i ons fur deveIopment of a hydroelectric proj eel ftI at the U.S- Annv
Corp,, ofFngineers' W- Kenn Scott Rant »2.
The projcet proposed by Wilkesboro hydroelectric Company cvould use the Corps' W. Kerr
Scott Dam and would consist of. (l) a proposed powerhouse containing 2 generating units with a
total installed capacity of4 megawatts. (2) one proposed 10-fool-diameter steel penstock. (3) a
proposed transmission line. and (4) appurtenant fiacilities. The Sea ilkesboro Hydroelectric:
Company's W. Kerr Scull Project n•ould have an average annual generation of 19 gigttwall-hours
and would be sold to a local utility-
11i e projeel proposed by Yadkin Hydropow er. LLC mould else the Corps' W. Kerr Sc:olt Da in
and tx euld consist of (1 ) a proposed pnwcrla[tuse containing two gelrcr sting units with a total
Installed Capacity of five megawatts, (2) one pmposcd 1 1.5-toot-diameter steel penstock. (3) a
proposed transmission line. and (4) appurten alit facilities. the 7 adkin Hydropower iEC's W-
bent' Scott Project %%ould have an average annual generation of 21.2 gigawalt-hours and would
be sold to a local utility.
We have not been contacted regarding these nee) proje cls. by either app] ica tit. prior to subntiltaI
of the preliminar_r pennit applications or since then. Though we do not oppose development of
the license application. ¦ve are uenccned about the potential impact to public reseurk:Q values
and public access. (her major concerns are potential impacts to: (1 } FederaIIx protected species,
(2) lisp passage. (3) reservoir fisheries. (4) tail water fisheries. and (5) public a cc;,ss to lltese
areas. We think that these issues tx ill need to be addressed in any study of environmental
impacts. We encourage these two applicants, and any other qualified development applicant
ri ling a competing development application, to contact the Fish and Wildlife Service to sell edule
a joint incctingte discuss these issue,,
since the existing Collis` spillway discharges into Fish 17anr Creek, a name dcmetirng a historic
human use of'the area. we suspect there may be important archeological reseurc:es in the vicinity.
The Project is located within an area to which ntelmbers of the Cherokee Indian Tribe, said
possibly several other Tribes. identify as earl of tlt.ir aboriginal tcrrit nr and am are n in ¦chich
they tray attach religious and cultural significance. Construction of the proposed project
fae ilities has the potential to uncouth previously unknown auchaeologic:arl and cultural silts that
OIemmt1v he under Lake '<Tr'. Kerr Scott. The BIA requests that FERC insure that steps are lisled
ill the authorization for this work to include a requirement for an on-site archaeologist during ally
ground disturbance or dredging and for the immediate cessation of v•or'k and coordination tt ith
the State Historic Preservation Office if any artifacts or remains are discovered. punatant to
section 106 of the National Iistoric Prescr vation Act, such requirements arc warranted and all
Tribes noted in this letter must be Consulted about cultural artifacts or remains discovered
through this project. See, e-g.• 36 C-[--R. § 800-2(cX2)(13)(ii).
We rcwmmcnd that both perntitl«s cunlsact our Bureaus direel IN for more detailed concci
The prinoiplcs efSaxannah River Rcseuroc Enhancement. L.LC or Souihca,tcrrt hydro-Power
have aalreadv ree ei ved the ma.Ninunn staluton- time for development (af a li erase. We ?%Qzlld
enCOUragc the FERC to review the status ofthe preliminlarv pennit since it has alrcack expired.
20060522SOil3 Received FERC OSEC 05/22/2006 10:27:00 AM Docket# ER06-285-006
Page 3
We have not heen contacted yet by either applicant( %%i(h regard (o (heir plans to deg elop auiN
necessary cm ironmcntal studies. if a preliminary permit is issued. Fvc recommend that the
applicant contact the Asheville yield Office of the Dish and Wildlife Service and the appropriate
rccource agcyicy contacts for the State of \orth Carolina in order to Furt her diSCLISS rCSULire c
issues at this site. If cithcr of these or other competing pennits are granted, F, c rcconmrcnd
prop is ions he developed that consider (he potential effects to listed species, Iish and 1viIdIife
resources. and or For prescription offish nays to provide Sale. timely, and efTeaio e upstream and
do%+nstream passage of f ishes. If you hsn c any questions about these comments. please contact
Mr. Mark Cantrell of th,, Fish and Wildlife Service at [phone] (Fld. 227), or Dr. ]antes
Kardatrke, Burean of Indian :kMairs. at [phone]
.
SurCCrely7
Gregory Ilogue
Regional F.m•ironntental Offitctr
ec:
Ol-%PC, Washington, II-C.
F%Vs. Ashes ille field Office
F%N-'S- Wawa Regional Office
1..%6%i'r. R4
w
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANC11ORA0E BELLEVUE LOS ANGELES NE-YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHAN611 Al -A5I41N9T0R. D.C.
JAMES B. VASII.F. SUITE 450 TFL ('-U'_) 509.6669
DIRECT (11fi:) 4118-6+66= 11ua K 9TRRCT Kll' ]'r1 :K 1=11-] ti1K-fi699
ri m vase le i. d u'[ corn VV ASHIN'GTON. D 1 1,111,..-1'?'_ ua u• dn•l corn
May 23, 2006
Hon. Magalie R. Salas
Secretary
Federal )energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Comment Letter of the City ofWinston-Salem, North Carolina on the Preliminary Permit
Applications for Project No. 12642-000 and Project No. 126S 1-000
Dear Secretary Salas:
In response to the public notice dated March 24, 2006, in the above-referenced dockets,
the City of Winston-Sal ern, :North Carolina, hereby provides comments for the Commission's
consideration.
The City of Winston-Salem operates water treatment and distribution facilities for [lie
citizens of the City of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. North Carolina. which have a total
population of approximately :25,000. The Yadkin River is the primar7 raw water source for this
system. The W. Kerr Scott Reservoir, located in Wilkes County, No13h Carolina, serves as the
City ofWinston-Salem's water supply impoundment on the Yadkin River. By virtue of a
contract dated June 29. 1960.. entered into by and between the City of Winston-Salem, the
County of Wilkes, and the United States of America [Contract DA-38-081-CIVENG-60-171, the
City of Winston-Salem has rights in and to the discharge of water from the Reservoir for its
public water supply. Indeed, the contract states:
Winston-Salem shall have the sole and exclusive right and authori ty to stake all
rules, regulations and detennirtatioils on behalf of the local interest Sponsors with
respect to the release of water downstream from the reservoir, and said sole and
exclusive right on the part of the City of Winston-Salem with respect to the
release of water downstream shall take precedence over the aforementioned right
of the local interest Sponsors to withdraw water from the reservoir project (above
the dam). Wilkes shall be bound by the rules, regulations and determinations
made by the City of Winston-Salem with respect to the release of stored water
downstream and the Government [United State of America) shall act upon and in
lion. Xtagalie R. Sahm
Xlay 23, 2006
Page 2
accordance with such flies, regulation,. and detel•luinatiorn of Winston-Salem,
and shall he lulls protected in doing so, \o %%ater in t1w I'cscrL'[Jll' Shall be SOId.
leased. divcilcd or released downstream to or For the bcnc it of a third party oil it
rCVCnuC producing basis (other titan as hercinahovc stated in this: paragraph) by
Cil}ter WiIkLe or %Nrintiton -Salem except by nritiCn agreement approved turd
entered into by holh Wilkes and Winston-Salem.
A prelintin:u-, recieva 01'111C applicationx For the above-relerenced projects reveal,. that
these prujeds have the potential to impa the rights granted under this contract to the City of
winston-SalCnl. :ls the rcviCVV process for thCSC applications continues, the rights of the City of
WiIIstolI-Salem to ihC «-atcr discharged From this reservoir should hC protected in the inters A of
the public health and ;-,I . :lccordingly• the City' of Winston-Salem re,.pectIll1h- reque,.ts the
Conuttission to add a special condition in any permit that may be issnCil in lase prarCeclillgs
requiring the pCl7ttittcC to corrcuIt %%itlt the City of Winston-Salem and linty cv ahmtc the 1)otential
ol'the proposed project. to atlirt the C ity'S rights under the foregoing Contract and to evaluate
IIQZI,.UTQG n?lcessnrv to fully protect such rights in the event m application for license is
?uhluilwd,
Verv truly yours.
Davis Wright TrCntamw 1.1.11
s
James B. Vasile
Atturnevs For the Citv ol'Winslon-Salem
Unofficial FERC-Generated POP
1 Received by FERC 6SEC 06
COUNTY OF WILKES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
110 NORTH STREET
WILKES90RO, NORTH CAROLINA 28697
[phone]
FAX [phone]
May 24, 2006
Magalie R. Sales, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
?6 in Rocket#! P-126
ORIGINAL
R:
c?
c 3r,;
:0
my
cs
x
w C'
v7"?
n
i
Jn ?7
91 -`y
f*t
f m
RE: W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project In Wilkes County, NC
Application for Preliminary Permit by Wilkesboro Hydroelectric
Company, LLC; Project No. 12642-000
Application for Preliminary Permit by Yadkin Hydropower, LLC;
Project No. 12651-000
Dear Secretary Sales:
On behalf of the County of Willies, the Wilkes County Planning Department would like to file
the comments set forth herein concerning the above referenced applications for preliminary
permits for hydroelectric projects at W. Kerr Scott Dam & Reservoir in Wilkes County, North
Carolina. These comments are filed pursuant to the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§791a, et
seq.; Chapter I of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and the Notice published in the
Wilkes Journal-Patria in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, under date of April 21, 2006. The
undersigned, being Edward G. Barnes, Wilkes County Planner, and Anthony R. Triplett, Wilkes
County Attorney, have been authorized by the Wilkes County Board of Commissioners to sign
this letter.
Please note at the outset that the County of Winces (referred to hereinafter as the "County") is not
at this point protesting or taking either a favorable or opposing position with regard to the two
applications for preliminary permits, We would simply like to offer some comments on the Same
and request additional information in order to have a better understanding of what the proposed
hydroelectric project would entail.
Our comments/questions are as follows:
When W. Kerr Scott Darn & Reservoir (referred to hereinafter as the "Dam") was
constructed in the early 1460's, its purpose was at least twofold; It was to serve
as a flood-control dam on the Yadkin River in Wilkes County, North Carolina,
Unofficial FERC-Generated PLF of 20060604-0181 Received by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in ?oc
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
May 24, 2006
Page Two
and it was to serve as a source of drinking water for the cities of Wilkesboro and
Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Wilkesboro is approximately 5 miles
downstream from the Dam, and Winston-Salem is approximately 50 miles
downstream. The city of North Wilkesboro is also on the Yadkin River, directly
across from Wilkesboro approximately 5 miles downstream from the Dam, but for
many years (since well before the Dam was constructed) it has drawn its drinking
water from the Reddies River and not the Yadkin River (the Reddies flows into
the Yadkin at North Wilkesboro, downstream from the Dam). Concurrently with
construction of the Darn, the County entered into contracts with the City of
Winston-Salem and the United States of America under which the rights of both
Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem were protected with regard to the Dam providing
their drinking water. The contracts also placed certain restrictions on the right of
the parties to draw water from the Dam. The County would want to be slue these
contractual rights and obligations are respected and preserved, and that the
construction of a hydroelectric plant at the Dam would not adversely impact the
water rights of the two cities or the ability of all parties to comply with the
contracts.
In this same regard, the County of Wilkes and the cities of Wilkesboro and North
Wilkesboro have been jointly working for several years on a proposal to re-locate
the water intake on the Yadkin River. As indicated above, North Wilkesboro has
for marry years drawn its drinking water from the Reddies River, downstream
from the Dam. The water intake for Wilkesboro, although on the Yadkin River, is
also downstream from the Dam. Under the joint project for re-location of the
water intake, the intake would be moved to the Dam itself (to an area just west of
the earthen dam, before water enters into and emerges from the spillway). This
would then serve as the intake for both Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro. All
three of our local governmental units (the County, Wilkesboro, and North
Wilkesboro) have been working with our Congressional delegation to secure
funding for this project, and a study is already underway to determine its cost and
feasibility. The County, as well as Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro, would
certainly want to be assured that no aspect of the permitting process for or
construction of a hydroelectric plant at the Dam would in any way adversely
impact the proposed re-location of the water intake.
The County, Wilkesboro, and North Wilkesboro have worked together for several
years on a fairly ambitious project to construct a bicycle and pedestrian greenway
Unofficial FERC-Generated PLF of 20060609-0181 Received by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Doc
Magalie R. Mas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
May 24, 2006
Page Three
along the banks of the Yadkin River, all the way from the two towns to the Dam.
This project is known as the Yadkin River Greenway, and much of it has already
been successfully completed. Currently we are in the process of acquiring deedcd
rights-0f--way along the Yadkin River in the area of Fish Dam Creek, which is
immediately east of the spillway and apparently in the same general location as
the proposed hydroelectric plant. Earlier this year the County and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the
greenway to cross the Corps of Engineers' property in the area of the spillway. At
some point during the process for issuance of a preliminary permit to either
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC, or Yadkin Hydropower, LLC, the
County would like to respectfully request additional information on the precise
location and appearance of the proposed hydroelectric plant in order to determine
what impact, if any, it might have on the Yadkin River Qrcenway. The greenway
is a project which has enjoyed a tremendous amount of local support, and we
would like to insure the preservation of its physical and visual integrity in the area
of the proposed plant.
The County has a High Impact Land Use Ordinance, adopted in 2004, which
regulates the location of certain high impact facilities in the County, including
electricity generating facilities. It would appear that a hydroelectric plant such as
the one proposed here would fall within the definition of "electricity generating
facilities" under the Ordinance. If so, the Ordinancc may well affect the ability of
a hydroelectric plant to be located in the area where it is planned. Of course, we
recognize that there is a question as to whether, under this particular situation, our
High Impact Land Use Ordinance is preempted by the Federal Power Act. A
determination on this will need to be made, presumably as a part of the studies
that will be conducted if a preliminary permit is granted.
The County also has zoning regulations in the area surrounding the Dam. These
regulations date back to the Dam's construction in the early 1960's. We are
reviewing our maps to determine if the exact area planned for the hydroelectric
plant is zoned, and, if so, whether the zoning classification would apply to and
present a problem for the location of a hydroelectric plant on this site.
We appreciate your consideration of the comments and questions presented above, and we would
request that this office be notified as to what additional steps we need to take at this point in
order to discuss these matters with the FERC.
Unofficial FERC-Generated PLF of 20060604-0181 Received by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in ?oc
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
May 24, 2006
Page Four
Yours sincerely,
Edward G. Bames
Wilkes County Plann
Anthony R. Triplett
Wilkes County Attorney
ART/elm
cc: Wilkes County Commissioners
Gary Page, Wilkes County Manager
Ken Noland, Town of Wilkesboro Manager
William C. Gray, Jr., Town of Wilkesboro Attorney
Hank Perkins, Town of North Wilkesboro Manager
I Gary Vannoy, Town of North Wilkesboro Attorney
Bryce A. Stuart, Winston-Salem City Manager
Ronald G. Sceber, Winston-Salem City Attorney
Terry Ramsey, Operations Manager, W. Kerr Scott Darts & Reservoir
William J. Clifton, Executive Director, Yadkin River Greenway
2GOR0722-5001 FERC PDF {Unofficial] 7/22/2002 7:46:48 AM
Comment of Mark A Cantrell in Docket(s)/Project(s) P-12642-000
Submission Date: 712212008
To date, we have not been contacted by the applicant regarding this preliminary permit. We were not
contacted prior to submittal of the preliminary permit application or since then. Though we do not oppose
development of the license application, we are concerned about the potential impact to public resource
values and public access. Our major concerns are potential impacts to: (1) federally protected species, (2)
fish passage; (3) reservoir fisheries; (4) tail water fisheries; and (5) public access to these areas. There
are considerable concerns about maintenance of minimum flows during the current drought. We think
that these issues will need to be addressed in any study of environmental impacts
We encourage the applicant to contact the Fish and Wildlife Service to schedule a meeting to discuss
these issues. Please contact Mark Cantrell of the Fish and Wildlife Service at [phone] (Ext. 227).
United States Department of the Interior
'..' Bt'RLAU tN INDIAN AFFAIRS
6 ~' Ea,rcrn [2t,•rurta U11ire
WE" 545 M;jriwrl Drive. Suite 700
4, .• N;,h?iHe-TN 37214
r, liM Scn;cri
\UL Uat R(:?011r[CS
AUG fj r 2006
Intr. Clifford Phillips
Anent ['or Wilkesboro I lydroclectric Company
150 North ilk i I or Road, Suite 450c
FaiHEm n, 01lie 44333
RE: Proposed W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project at the W. Kerr Scott Dan),
near Wilkesboro, North Carolina (FE RC N(1. 12642)
Dear Mr- Phillips
This letter is in response to your letter c(ncerning the subject. Project and sohcitil- cotnulents.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (MA) appreciates Ihc opportunity to offer the Following comments
on the kSIIC oi"SCCtion 106 consultations.
The p]'oposed W. Keel' Scott Ilydroclectric Project is located Within all area In ?shich members of
'cdcrally recogtti/ed Tribes (CLium•Ua Indian Tribe, C'herokce Nation, ;Aril the Eastern Band of
C'hetokCC Indian.}, and possibly (Aber "Tribes, may identify ;,s part of Illcir aboriginal territories
and an area in which they'' may altach religious arul cultural significance. A rcvic%? of the
Federal Lnergy 1Zcgulalwy Commission website rcvualed thal no Irihes ?%Cre cun-ently nn the
mailing list f'or this project-
In Ilursuanl to section 106 of [lie National Historic Preserv'alion Act (NIIPA), these Tribes must
be consulted ahotrt clllltrral resources affected by this project, including consultations regarding.
the idcntiiica ion of cultural properties, the appropriate scope ofthe area of potential effects, and
Ile develo )nnerll of the rcc uircd I lisloric Properties VlanagvrlCnt Plan. Sec. e.6 C'.I -IZ- §
800-2(c)(2)(B){ii).
RCgulations implementlrh the -N•IiPA contemplate that Indian tribes he provided both a
nlCanrngftrl ant! Carly' opportunity to participate in the section 106 planning process- The
regulations furtIIcr raluire Hutt the agalcy and applicant nuke a reasonahIe and good faith cftoI-(
to identif-v historic properties that nlay be affected by tine undcriaking anti father su17icicnt
infonlation t( cValuate the eligibility of tllCSC Properties for the National Register. See 36
C-F-]Z, § 800.4(b), Consultation k identified as one component 01 'such identification et7orls,
along with h.tckground research, oral history interviews, sample field investigation and field
survey- See 36 CF-R- § 800-4(b)[ I ).
Accordingly, the BIA urges an applicant to engage interested Indian tribes early in Otis process
and to PrOVide such tribes a meaningful opportunity to consult directly oil propertics of- religious
and cultural significance drat may he affected by the W. Kerr Scott IJydroelectric Project. If you
have any questions or need additional information, please contact Dr. James Kardatzko, BIA, at
[phone].
Sincerely,
AC I Director. Eastern IZcgion
AUG-25-2008 12:27PM FROM-Advanced Hydro Solutions 3308698451 T-375 P.002/002 F-244
Michael R Easley, Governor
August 19, 2008
Mr. M. Clifford Phillips
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company LLC
150 North Miller Rd, Suite 450c
Fairlawn Ohl 44333
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Britt Cobb, Secretary
Subject: Scoping . W.K. Scott Hydroelectric Project - new powerhouse at existing W. Kerr Scott
Dam, including a new channel upstream of intake tower, penstocks, powerhouse,
tailrace, 1-mile 12.4 kV transmission line in Wilkes County
The N. C, State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review, This
project has been assigned State Application Number 09-E-0000-0045. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office,
Review of this project should be completed on or before 09/19/2008. Should you have any
questions, please call (919)$07-2425.
Sincerely,
Valerie W. McMillan, Director
State Environmental Policy Act
39a1hhgAddr ss: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699.1301 State Courier 03kol.00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail: valerfe.w.mcmlllan [gdoa,nc.gov
Are Equal ppporrunitylA firmatlve Action Employer
a
North Carolina
Department of Administration
COUNTY OF WILKES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
110 NORTH STREET
WILKESBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 28697
[phone]
FAX [phone]
August 2i. 2008
WiIkeshoro I lydroclectric Company, LLC
Mr, ivl. Clifford Phillips
I5O North Mil [or Road, Suite 450c
Fairlawn, Ohio 44333
RE: Proposed I Iydroclectric Project at W. Kerr Scott I7am - FERC 4 12642
Mr. Phillips:
Thank you for updating us on the status of the above-mentrnned prnjeet, As you move
ahead ?'%ith the application process, I 'AVUld just like to notify you of a couple of specilic
items that may affect the application, The sublcct property is within a protected zt%ning
district of Wilkes County and electric generating fhcilitics are subject to the Wilke.,"
Count}r High Impact land Use Ordinance. These ordinances don't necessarily exclude
the operation of a Hydroelectric Dam. however, there may he certain criteria for the
pen[tilling process.
I have enclosed a previous, letter, mailed to Ms. Magaiie It. Saias, Secretary, Federal
1:nergy Hcgulatory Commissioa. dated fVlu} 24, 1006, I'loase rcvicw this letter in regards
to the C'nunly ref Wilkes position on the project,
Sincerc€y, n?
[l F E n G Ir'?
f:d%vard G. Barnes
Planning Director
ce: MT-. Tom Triplett Counn.Atuune?
enclosure
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
[11 r:,, "t A"h.,..,,,,: 1 I ,?
I.i.lx 1:1;. I •;...rn., , .ti n:i.,n• l7 I, ?-?n , I I' I I,- I-A list KI-5
I?iin•x 1. Cnn.• I)Lj ,- $:-L Ian II. i. iJ 11n K'i, ILrr[bic
11 usr 20, 211()8
(:liftilrcl Phillip,
11'ilkcshuro 11%'drovIcCt'riC (.ntiili;tt]l', I J f:
154, ?:rr:rh Mill.-,r Itva(i
5lilie -4711C
1':111-1:1wil, ( *1 -11.) Ite: W- Kerr Stmt 11% droclectric I'rnject at the W. Kerr Scut D7 im, Wilkcs)cirn, 1.1'W: 12642,
Wllkrs I lt 1113 [529
Dear Mr, Phillip.:
' ]lank voii fnr ytrur ]r11cr of Mina' 29, 2008, coiicc•tning the alxnc prnjuct,
W'c halC C(IIIJUCtCCI a I-C% W%N of Ox ]lrcljcct alxl arc aw;lre of Ili liistcltic rcaOureC? nrhicii a Iaild hC affCCt('ci by
d ic• pi-oicct--l-licr('forc, ••;C li;tic 110 COTIM Cot 011 OW 11rgj('Cr a5 hf[11)OIC(l,
•111V .11)0 VC Cn11111iCr1t9 ;IrC tootle 1)ursu:u1 t tIl tiCCI 011 106 of slit N;rriclnak I - Ii, l nric. Pl-C5C1-%ati[It1 .1Cr anti the
ALIVISOrl (:ntmCil IM f-lisll>rie Prc?cn•atiim'. Rcgidatintis for Cilniphincc kith Scctiuu 106 crxlifiud ar .36 [:Pit
Part KU{1-
1-I1:iiik yo u ftlr CZlllr CI)I11acr;11i011 anti Ctm,icEcl'aIinn- If }-nl1 1121X C C1tIt: 51ii1n5 C( IIIC CI'tlill,?y rllC :I11I1%C CritiitnCllr,
plrasu Contact RCncC Glcdhill-€?arlcr, enrirutitnrntal ievim coordinator, a1 t919-8(17 65;9. In It future
cunululnicatiun c011e('n11ng thly Prnjcct, PICa.C sire ncC a6n? C-refcrrracC(I n'ackilig tiuniber.
Siac'c1-C11•,
1"U 'l S:uuihrc'k
t.nralin n: lire [+?x1 Jnm• wlncl, it ak',gFt M?: $-LIII M. it iKg :ld II Iv y: Ira- 7lm 5rr. ia• I:r?„ri, R.I"g', M.2- n-u.1 'rrlep 1--1 ra...•l lm, KI17,5-11 .UI ri °Yl
wr.:.
' ??;• I;fir DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
i_
PO. Box 1890
W1LMINGFDN, NORTH C-}ARQL.INA 26402-1690
IN RE PLY REFER TO August 27, 2008
Regulatory Dmsion V
Action ID No. 20080241 3
Mr. Nt. C'liftiird Phillips
AgcnI kiTWilkesboro I lydroeleciri c Company, I.I C
150 North Miller Road, Suite 450c
Fairlawn, Ohio 44,33
Dear Mr. Phillips
Ret'crencc is made to vour letter of.fuly 29. 2008, describing the Wilke5bpro
Hydroelectric Company Project. 5pecilica]]y. the letter dcscrihed the proposed
construction ola new hydroelectric plant at tltc existing W. Scott Kerr Dam near
% iIkesboro, Wilkes C'ounty'. North Carolina. -Hie letter requested a revie%a ol'tlie
proposed wort: including the identification of issues or objections that may need to he
addressed.
We have revie,.wd the letter and determined thin, based upon the information
pro%idcd construction ofthe proposed i%ork may result in impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the United States which are subject to our regulatory authority pursuarit to Section 404
of the [Teti]] Water Act. Please note, however. that the details wilhin the letter did not
in01ide data tifrtns or other inlormlitiem necessary to verify the presencelabsericc. size.
and t•pe ni-iurisdictinnal Ratcrs present within the Prioiect area. Also lacking from the
report was an estimate of the amount of irnpacts. temporary or permanent. proposed for
[he project. The type of I)A authorization required (i.e., general or indii:id itttl per117it)
Lill lie dewrrnined by the location. type, and extent ot'jurisdlc'tional area impacted bv the
project. and by the project design and construction Iiiniis•
Thcr&wc Lie reconuTtend that more detailed information regarding (lie presence
ofl-valers of the L'. S. and the expected impacts v,iIhin the pro - jcci lootprim he submitted
to our office For review. Included within this report should he all aquatic impacts
associatcd with [his project including necessary roadways, transmission lines, transfer
ytanol75. etc..
]'lease note that these comments only pertain to the Corps' Regulatory Program-
Additional coordination with the W. Scott Kerr operational stafl•may be necessary.
Should you have any further questions related to DA permits for this project, please
contact Mr. Monte Mallhesss at 919-554-4884, extension 30.
Sincerely,
041-
Jcan B. Manit c I e
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
field office
M[HT Or rHf
United States Department of the Interior
P
? 5 A9
_ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
° rc a `a? Asheville f=ield Office
Ih(} `/.illicna Street
Asheville, Nciirth Carolina 28XOI
Septenher 4. 2008
Mt. M. Clift'nrd Phillips
1Vilkcshoro I Iy droclectriC Company LLC
1' 0 \orth Miller Road. Suite 450c
1 airlai?n, Ohio 44333
Dear Mt. Phillips:
Suhicct: Comments Regarding a Pre Iiininary Permit I o r the W. Kerr Scot( hydroelectric Project.
Yadkin River. Wilkes Comity, North Carolina (FFRC No. 12642)
%\'c have revie%%ed the ill lorinatioil prodded in your letter dated Iuh 29, 74118, regard mg (lie
xohjeci preliminary permit Jor the W. Kerr Scott I lyd roclec(ric Project (Project) on the Yadkin
River in Wilkes County, North Carolina- The S. Department of the Interior prcviotlsly
colllnienlcd about this platter in a letter dated May 72. 2006. J lie following comincias arc
ctibirlItldd in accor&ilcc with the PRM isinns of the Dish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
arnended (16 U.S.C. 061-607c); section 7 ol'the Endangered Species Act of 197 % as amended
(16 11-S-('- 1511-15 43) (Act): (he federal I'm%cr.Act [ 16 U ti.C- 803(a) and (j)): the Migranrry
Bird I Maly Act ( 16 US-C- 1536, 153Ff'): [lie National Environmental Policy Act (42 4321
ct Seq.): (lie Clean ti' atei Act (33 L1.5,,C, 1251 et Nee,), and the Electric Consumers Protection
Act ell 11186 ( 100 Stat. 1243).
Preliminary Permit. You letter provided additional details about design and planning. 1oi- the
Pioir, i urul 11%1L CYtrd 111 f?,rmamion trom us to assist with the development of the license
application.
The Project. I'he Project, as proposed by Wilkesboro f 1?droclectrie Company 1 -1-C. would use
IhC I I-S- Army Corps ol'l•:ngineers' (Corps) existing W. Kerr Scott Dana and Would cemsis( of:
{ I ) ail ti:ripa(ed. unpaved chute-type spillway (presumably this is already present as part of the
Corps, dalii); (2) an intake channel to he installed tail the upstream lace oftlle intake tower at
1-010 feet at mean sea Ie?r e1. v;ith a trash rack extending from neon] 1o L03? tcet at inean sea
level: (3 ) an existing conduit (12.25 feet in diameter) to be lined "with a i.4-inch sleet Iiner f l I feet
in diameter: (4) ovo steel penstocks (8 fleet in diameter); (5) a powerhouse in the existing,
discharge stilling basin that "till Contain mo cortical-shaft gcrneratirig units with wicket gates,
wi(li a combined Ito" cal 800 cubic feet per second (c 6,); and (b) a transmission line (I. 2-4kV)
that wi11 extend front the translonner approximately 1 mile cast to an existing Substation.
COMMENTS
We look forward to assisting -with the development ol'your license application. We have issued
sonic general concerns about potential impacts to public resource values and public access in
prior correspondence to the federal l-alergy Regulatory Commission. We are primarily
concerned about the potential impacts to tailwater fisheries and other resources in the
d0WTIStream areas of the Yadkin Riper. We look forward to working Ihrotugh these issues and to
successfully addressing these concerns in your license application.
RF;COMMENDA PIONS
Fuurbine Capacity. We recommend turhinc designs that will allow for operation under
predominant conditieoii?, including Imo-flow discharges of 125 cfs- and potentially lower- Since
recent drought conditions have included reservoir inflows estimated below' the required
nl]mnltlm flow ]la'e1, t11C reSOL13-cC agetwies, the Corps, and the City of Winston-Salem have
discussed the need to develop a-Low Inflow Protocol." These values could be incrementail
lowered from 125 cos to 115, 105. 95, and cVcrt to 75 cfs. depending nn iLture inflow conditions.
RddiIionally, future reservoir conditions play include significantly lowered reservoir levels-
shouldbe designed to operate under a range ofconditions that include tilCSC low
inflow expectations and lower reservoir levels. or to pass appmpriate "no-load" flows.
Water Uuatity. Turbine discharge characteristics should ensure that dissol4ed oxyt~Cn standards
are met at all times. You 111av want to engage in additional model iFig to ensure that the intake
depth and gas saturation do nett adversely a!'fi:ct water nc?mistry at the discharge. 1l'e an:
concerned about the potential lior fish entrainment and impingement and request additional
details about the intake design and maintenance and the .'L'htcities developed across the fill
range ofoperalion.
j_ransmissiotn Line. We are concerned about the potential eff cis of the transmission line oil
raptors, including the bald eagle. which is known to forage in the area; thereRtre, we recommend
distribution line designs that prevent arcing and flight hazards to raptors. The objective is to
separate the plinscs by tit least 60 inches to prevent raptors from making skin-to-skin contact wiIII
an loo phases. We rccoininend that you separate the phases by at Icas16 0 inches and ensure
that the lines are insulated at doe supports with wooden or other nonconductive braces. lithe
conductor Iittcs and other facilities are not already designed to reduce potential impacts to
raptors, three-phase lines should be "raptor-proofed" with one of-the following design
modifications:
I . Separation of phases - This can be accomplished by tither lowering the crass arm,
using a ionger cross arm, or raising the center phase on a pole-top extension- The
objective is to separate the pleases by at Ieast 00 inches ttl prevent raptors from
Makin; contact with any two phases.
2. Insulation - An altcmative to the vertical separation of phases is to install
conductor insulation (commonly, pvc tubing), extending a minimum ol`36 inches
on either side of the pole-top insulator. This alternative should also include the
replacement of metal crossarnt braces with wooden or other nonconductive
braces.
3. Any crossings ofthe Yadkin River or its tributaries and any welIands crossings
should be avoided whenever possible. Where unavoidable. lines crossing rivers
and vvedattds should be constructed to maximise the visibility of the lines to
raptors by one of the following design modifications! (1) remove the static line.
(2) enlarge the static line to improve v=isibility to raptors. or (3) mount aviation
balls or similar markers on the static line.
ENDANGERED SPEC IFS
Fnekescd is a list ol'thc federally endangered and threatened species known from Wilkes Catnety.
North Carolina. This list also includes federal species ofconcern that arc currently tinder status
rcvicvv by the 13 .S_ Fish and W1 Idlilc Service which may occur in the impact area. [n accordance
with the Act it is the responsibility ol-the appropriate federal agency to review its activities or
programs and to identify any such activities or programs that may al7cct endangered or
threatened species or their habitats. If it k determined that this [proposed action may :adversely
affect any species federally listuf as endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this
oilier ntttst be initiated. Thus. we recd amend that if appropriate habitat is available in the area
for tiny of the federally listed species included on the enclosed list. surveys should be conducted
prior to initiation ol'the project in order to determine if arty species are present.
Summary. We arc pleased vaith the. progress inward development ofan application for a license
li}r this project. we have provided wane initial recommendations to address our concerns for
fish and wildlife resnutces, and we would like to discuss these further witIt you. 'therefore, we
recommend a site visit in the conning months with you and the other natural resaurce agencies to
better discuss the laciIities planned tinder the preliminary permit. fn particular, we hope to
develop provisions to consider die potential effects to listed species and other fish and wildlife
resources. [fyott have any questions about these comments. please contact Mr. Mark Cantrell of
our stafi-at 829/258-3919. Ext. 227.
Sinc?uly.
Brian p. Cole.
Field Supervisor
I'. n e I ON l]rC
cc:
Mr. Christopher Gondreatt, Hydropower Licensing Coordinator, ?forth Carolina Wildlife
Resources C ontmissioit, 615 1'ish Hatchery Road. l4arion. North Carolina 23752
Service List
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
County Species List for North Carolina
Following is a list oI'species in WiIkcs County. North Carolina within which federally listed and proposed
cndangered. threatened, anti candidate species and Icc] eraI specks of coneem are either known or are considered
prohahle (hu( not yet documented). It has been compiled by the USFWS from a variety of sources, including
Ifield curve. s. museums and herbaria, literature, and personal communications.
-I his list contains information that is also found in the North Carolina Natural Ilerilage Program's (NCNIIll)
datahase ufrare species information- However, the list is likely to include additional information that is not
Irllecled in the NC \ I I P datahasc.
THN list is intended to assist those conducting surveys in proposed project areas. but it is not intended to serve
as a stibmitute for field surveys. -1 he list is subject to change as new information is received. For the most
current version. please consult the welasile liar the USFW5 North Carolina l cological Services Division at
beep:: ue-ens'./irs'.>;ut•:`r.v':
Olhe•r nolca
CrililaI habitat is noted tier Ills counties wlierc ii is designated or prnposcd. 111 i s 11otaIion is cithcr accoinpa11 ied
by a description of the approximate areas affected b? this designalion, or a feder?l K"iswr citation Lshere a
MOW J04111cd etcs[riptieat of the tloondaries cats be Gamrl.
Sea turlles our in North C'arolina's coastal waters and nest along its beaches. are listed heat in the
cowitics t% here llie_y arc known to nest. The USFW'S has Jurisdiction over sea turtles in terrestrial systems; the
National Marine I isheries Service (NMI S) has authoriTVnvcr sea turtles in coastal waters.
MR11BIeca (xctar throlrgllaut North C:uolirla's coastal waters. and they arc timed here in the counties %%liere there
are know rt co kite 11 na t io it ti t)l t11 0111. 1110 1J SI. WS lads ILtt"k5d act ko 11 over manatees.
C(]MIN10N NA NI V SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Wilkes County
.S,rh'ri?'s
V ert ehrate
tang lurk (7rr+m s r+reddenhergh 1 (ti'A)
Ccntlcakl warhlcr Denchoica ct•rulea FSC
(:astern small-booted bat ltvoris leihii FSC
ragv I of
A7,A-
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Michael K Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Thomas A. Reeder. Director
September 9. 2048
Mr. M, Clifford Phillips
Wilkesboro Ilydroclect6e Co., 1;L,C
150 tel. Miller Road. Suite 450c
Fairlawn 011 44333
Subjcet: Proposed W. Kerr Set)([ Ilydroclectric Project [FERC No. P-12642]
Pre-license application comments
Mr. Phillips:
'I he North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) is providing the following; comments in
response to your letter ol'Ju1y 29, 2008, soliciting, comments for inclusion in the application for a
license im a hydroelectric facility at the W. Kerr Scou Reservoir [)am, located on the Yadkin River in
1L ilkes County, Borth Carolina. W. Kerr Scott Reservoir is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (t15ACE)
project operated for flood control- water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife
conservat ion.
-lhc letter states:
"A 36-inch diameter pipe will be temporarily installed inside the conduit liner while the liner is being
installed to allow Ilows up to 200 efs to continue down the river.
The current low-Ilovv operation plan for the W. Kerr Scott reservoir pool is as follows:
Elevation flow
ft ntsl (cf's]
1029.00 R alxove 400
1028.00 - 1028,99 350
1027,00- 102799 300
1026.00- 1026.99 250
1024-00- 1025.99 200
1023-00- 1023.99 150
1000-00- 1022.99 125
Note: In response to severe drought conditions, the Corps has on occasion temporaril y reduced releases
below 125 cf.-;. Otherwwise, minimmu discharge from Scott should not be less than 125 efs at any time.
except during inspection and maintenance periods.

1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 One
1NorthCawlina
Phone: [phone] FAX. [phone] l latemet: www.ncwater.org Naturally
An Equal Opportunity 7 AAirmaWe Acuon Employer - 50 % Recycled L 10 % Pmt Consumer Paper
M. ( 'IM"'id Phillips Sepleinhcr9, 2005
Propo,;cd W.K.Scott Dain INdropo %or Proiccl0 I:RC- 1202)
The license application should include the following items:
• A map delineating the proposed project boundary:
• A discussion of means to prevent alteration of necessary downstream flows during construction
of [lie project;
• Any areas that are currently open to public access that will become off limits, during and/or
fallowing construction ol'the project;
• A discussion of project operations. including:
• the extent to which the project will be automatically versus manually operated,
• the use of an alarm system,
¦ the availability of a plant operator,
• the flexibility of the project turbines to release a full range of flows required by the USACE
¦ and any mutually agreeable protocols coordinating operation of the hydropower facility with
operations of the reservoir by the USACE,
• Any conclusions, agreements or outstanding issues resulting, from discussions with Wilkes
Count' and the City o1 Winston-Salem_
Thank you fior the opportunity to comment. If you have questions or require additional information
please contact I'red Tamer al 919/715-5442 or fred.tarver;ulncmail.ne[.
Sincerely,
John Sutherland
Water IIrnj?cts Section Chieh
cc: Trcd Tarvcr, DWR
C kris Goudreau, NCW RC
Mark Cantrell, USMS
Tony Young. USACF.

)ondence received after the PAD was distributed
5-0310 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/10/2008 - ?• ... _ ?."_".. "
Tom- I2(,CI2 -ddb
North Carolina {
Department of Administrati©?
Michael F. Easley, Governor &itt [ abh;!Secremry
December 4, 2008
Mr. Kevin Edwards
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company LLC
P.O. Box 143
Mayodary NC 27027
Re: SCH File # 09-E-0000-0094; WX Scott Hydroelectric Project - new powerhouse at existing
W. Kerr Scott Dam, including penstocks, powerhouse, tailrace, and substation in Wilkes
County, Visit http:l/piedmenthydropower.cam/kerracottrindex.htm.
Dear Mr. Edwards:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to 0. S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are add idoaal comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Attachments
CID'. Region D
Sincerely,
Valerie W. McMillan, Director
State Environmental Policy Act
Kimberly Hose, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
NAUAV Ad&= Tdcp*ume [phone] LacedmAddr ,,
13D1 Mail Swic a C.cnw FAX[phone] welt 1w" Sum
Ra Sh, NC 27699.1301 sure Courier r51-0 1-00 RalvgA, North Cuolina
e-roesl w 4ne.+.. ieea U&w,Qdna-pw
Art Egraf 0pp0rflMJV4ff~Ae Acoom Employer
7081215-0310 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/10/2008 •""^""^T^^^" " " •- __
12102/2066 13:16 9197153060 NCDEHR PAQE 61/04
IL
wC:DF R
North Carolina Jepartmenl. of Enviropm.ent Fr ',ateral Res ou-mes
MEMORANDUM
TO-, Valerie McMillen
Btzft Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba MoOae
Envirc -.u Officer
Pnat r Fm Moore 7M 0°
Rs
O
rMnr r ?
pas I;m
•
SUWECT. 004-W% WX Seca Hydroclcabu PMact-aew powmtouse as exiling W. Derr Scurt Dmn,
Wilkes Candy
DATE: Deoembtr 1. "N
The attached comments were ieaadved by On office 4w dw reapause dm date. These commetns should be
forwarded to ft appHeard amd mode it pas of eta previm comman package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachm=t
n?if :.igP; .jnrriyae yr•?:-?. r??l;'lo } irl?1 i.?l?iPR2 ?J:??t7??.l4
VA 1 ?a
?
a,,Pgrmi??ppannr?.':?,.+n5r-n+w?•r-Erµi.r.;.:,?wa?,p?`,5C nPrd:.tix-rw, Plm ff?? ?r
.5-0310 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/1012008
12/0212009 13:16 9197153060 NMEHR
PAGE 02104
?Yzeehr 14:35 9197153050 Mean PW 07104
?ary'r C.*c M. DAOWW of ENVlwiM WM HWM

CkdoEor
Terry L Pierae !aM ?1I4h•
? .
•3
P&O" OPW 8&P" 0aalI
wwswar?wn Jsatas4 ?? + rramaaw.,e+r?¦r
5ermbrr 3¦ 201
TO: Melba MvG4t, i>;wmn mmnw Caerttsator
am" of ImosTalira ftd Im"Wmr a eabd ails
From; t„ G. +Spm aw, itugiffuml Soglaaw
wldaa?afhrat Repel ?
%brhe Wei' Sqm* Baetiaa, l}lt36 11EM
Mr C m%vlllei Rsriew Carammis
"m Rmber 694043
W.K. San RYIroa WMt Proleai
Wiikn Coa>rty
Perysew romm, blvwkg an lOBamw as We prol"t.
Publk roamer rnpply, and d+areby pablk heats prat-fiw , BoLtdNe p) No iq afar d 6b pffaind of 3-1
lima. TbwefOM. lbee aoimst of water reksm ar *6w4daere, hulm Sm duip*W 30, waft s"m
pool wm ba dahsmla•d by dra Corps ar $wBiwaers in esaealee bm wi& wam Coaatr, the pry at
wWWl-Wom. ant the ttat. P.biis w.rlr SmO l5reeoa.
Thw r+eea k h a kV eermp, pwt of drw#t pratae-6 for aovmW prblfe rater'A"ft= /e?ra?srrta=
on the Ofts Romr. Tbw "Dams eprm" bWw" wplonbonN ]oaereitla, Rlht, Mug, Marie
Caagr, W*ftm4laWm, Dwidtms Wow, gird lahbM.
SPOg20
r=mn-Wom RegbrPI Oftm
on Wau64b" Blraai. . MOAh COWAN 27107 ft=w
Tde *Ms3W7714M ¦ Fm N&7TI.aa31
hlhlpem der
M 1rr 0nr+1r?R I Ala??ew++? a?w,.
1215-0310 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/10/2008
12/02/2008 13:16 9197153060 NCDEW
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL. RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inhw-Agency Protect Rovfww Response
PrvJW Name Wn wkgMad eslteerlr Ty" of Prvjed
PAGE 04/04
Pr*d umber
094=6
Courrty
wrom
camnerrta pfbvldad by:
i
Q Regional Program Prison C 34 (i 3 Y r i
.
fiegiOrweT SWervhorfor Pwt1Nc Watlr Supply Bactlvn { 1!! :Gw o ?'
? Ca?rrrar drtioe pwrgrern person ??' {.?a7- - - -- - `
Name I.w 3Pmar-'RsOoa4Wm Date IMAM
Telephone number:
Prodranl vMin Division of Environmental Hwft:
? 0*mr, Name of Program:
Raaponw (&a* aft aad r:
? No obJeMm tv pmOd as prow.
? No comment
? insuf{le w inlbrmatlarrs le c tow review
5,-?Cw,viww ag8o/?4d - ar'd f* ?4;
? See aommerlta below
1A.0 tread
H.c?J 7'$
v ? g J??d B
PublfcW@kq Supply 9ee3n?n
lnvlnnrtnnSW RaNew CaOtdfsxtor 1br afs
Owmion of Emtronffwwisl SsWth
?%T of rh
Q F United States Department of the Interior
O - 3 P
i a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
-x - e 160 Zillicoa Street
y'4acH s 1su Asheville, North Carolina 28801
October 21, 2008
Ms, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Ms. Bose:
Subject: Comments Regarding a Preliminary Permit for the W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project,
Yadkin River, Wilkes County, North Carolina (FERC No. 12642)
We have reviewed the information provided in the October 2, 2008, Pre-Application Document
Wilkes
use the
underground transmission line.
The U.S. Department of the Interior
s to construct a powerhouse, intake
discharge channel, and 300-foot-long
be located
In additioi
al and trast
commented on this matter in a letter dated May 22,
2008. The Commission issued a preliminary pe
(117 FERC 162,069). The following comments
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act as amei
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 803(a) and 0)), the Migratory Bird l
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et se
and the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1 ?
(100 Stat. 1243).
1 et seq.);
The Project. As proposed by WHC, the Project would use the Corps' existing W. Kerr Scott Dam,
an earth and rockfill dam on the Yadkin River near the Town of Wilkesboro, Wilkes County, North
Carolina. The top width ofthe dam is 28 feet at elevation 1,107.5 feet at mean sea level (msl),
148 feet above the riverbed elevation. The length is 1,740 feet along the crest. The Prcj ect would
consist of (1) an ungated, unpaved chute-type spillway (part of the Corps' dam); (2) an intake
channel to be installed on the upstream face of the intake tower at 1,010 feet at msl, with a trash rack
extending from 1,010 to 1,033 feet at msl; (3) an existing conduit (12.25 feet in diameter) to be lined
n ith a ?.-inch steel liner (11 recI in dianicter): (-1) two steel penstocks (H rcct in diamclcr); (5) a
poucl•housc in the existing discharge stilling basin that will contain too vertical-shaft generating
units ro i I h wicket gates, with x combined llo%% of 800 ouhio feet per second (ctk): WFTC proposes an
installed capacity of -1.0 megawatts', and (6) a trxtnsmission line (12.1 kilovolts) that ¦viII extend from
the transformer approximately 3,600 Foci cast to an cxistsng substation.
COMMENTS
We look 1,01-witrd to assisting a itIt the de?Aopment of this lioense application. We hay e issued some
gcncrll concerns about potential impacts to public resource values in prior corn:spondcncc in the
Commission. We are primarily ooncerrled about the potential impacts to tail water fisheries and other
resources in the downstream areas of the Yadkin River. We look for1vard to ti orking through these
issues and to succcssrully addressing these conccros in the Iiocnsc application.
i. RF.QIIES'r TO usE stir TT,P
We do not object to use of the -1-1-P and agree that this is probably the process best suited for
developirln this license application"
II, CONI]Il N, TS ON THE PAD
The 1].1[7 pro,, ides it good summary of existing iIt lon nation on the site, proposed faciIiIics_
operations. and environInentaI resources of the Project. I Ioxvtn cr. it is Iacking In Borne details
that xw a ould like to see addressed during the study phase of the relicensing process. GL e have
the follo%%ing specific comments on the PAI)"
In Section 2.3.3, Powerhouse and Turbines" s'nu describe the tao turbines as having a design
110%r of' 400 ulc clc:h, vet the intake trasIt rack is described to -'aIlo flnus up to 2000 ors to V
% pass.' 1Gc arc conccnncd i4I?Ul4t the pOtCnllill fUI" 11511 4IISri11i11IICnt 51Re4' VUn CStlnlilte approach
clocity could re 4ch 20 feet per ccond %%ith Il}e tradirack bar spacing (2'2 inches)- Could you
ruluec ilnc maximum ?"elocity and or bar spacing by reducing the lrir-gcl design 17osts elcner to
the comhincd turbine design flow of 800 eIs?
In Section 2.4, Project Operations" ,%hat conditions kvouId rccluirc you to pass flogs greater
than the turbine design flo%%s through the turhincs or through the draft Iuhc? Wont the existing
Corps spill eat es still p;asa these flood flows in their cntircn?
[n Section 3.4.7, Itttr,'I'hrr:ifened, and Endangered Species. we do not believe
red-cockaded %%oodpeckers will ho affected by the Project since they do not occur in close
proximity to the Project. There ha%c been negular ruporls of bald eaglet at the rescn•oir, and
this spcciu:5 should be discussed in more (1etail.
Ill. RE CO\I-N IE N1)E 1) STUDIES A\I) INFORMATION 11EQuES'l'S
`T'urbine C apacit,. We appreciate. the description of turbine designs tltnt aIIoxr for operation
under predominant conditions, including Inn -Ilon discharges of 125 cl's and potcnIial1 lows cr.
Since recent drought conditions have included rescn-oir inflows cstinnatcd bclon the rccluired
minimum flow lei el. the resource agenoies. the Corps, and the City of GG inston-Sal cm have
discussed the need to develop a "I.c7n Inflow Protocol These values could he incrementally
lowered fr(ml 125 Lis to 115, 105, 45, and even to 75 cfs, depending on future inflow
conditions. Additionally. future resen oir conditions may include sipnificantiv lowered
reservoir levels. Turbines should he designed to Operate under a range of conditions that
include these lover inflow expectations and low er reservoir levels or to pass appropriate
"no-load" flows. Flow will dissolved oxygen and atlrer gases be atloctcd as they flow through
the Kaplan turbine across the ranee of flows and seasonal water quality parameters?
Water Qualifi. Turbine: discharge characteristics should cnsarr-c that dissolved oxygen
standards arc mct at all times. Additional water qualit} data and inodcling arc needed to ensure
that the intake: &plh and gas saturation do not advcrscly affect watu chunistr, at the
discharge. We request additional details about the intake design and maintenance and the
s elocities developed across the full range of operation. 'Ibis infor inalion is necessan to design
the intake and turbines to minimize potential impacts of water equality impairment on aquatic
resources downstream of the Project.
Wetland Delineation. We recommend delineation of wcllands and strearns he conducled for
the Pro"jcct arcs according to the Corps and the :'worth Carolina Division of Water QuaIity's
methodology. The Corps Iias regulatory autliority over- (1) navigahlo waters of the i'nited
States, pursuant to Scction 10 of tlrc Rivcrs and Harbors Act of 1899, anti (2) uatcrs of the
L.'nitcd Slaw- (including wctlands), pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Watcr Act (C W.; ). It
is reccni inended that 7 ou contact the Corps (Regulatory Section) and h a v o a jurisdietionaI
dclu in inaIion and: or delineation (.TD) compIclod on am- prOput) prior to undertaking work
such as filling. cscavating. or land-clearitig. The Corps or the U.S. Ltivironmental Proteotion
Agencv must approve ati JD in order for it to be considered valid for CWA Section 404
purposes. Such ajurisdictional determination will be needed to plan tlrc final design ofthc
Project works in order to avoid and minimize impacts to these habitats.
Transmission i.ine. We are concerned about the potential el3ects or the transmission line on
raptors, including the bald eagle. x%hich is known to foragc in the area: therefore. we previously
recommend line deskws that prevent awing and flight hazard, to raptors. If the oonduclor lines
and other facilities arc not already designed to rc duce potential impacts to raptors, thn c-phase
lines should be "raptor-proofed" with certain design modifications. Vegetative maintenance of
the transmission line corridor should he addressed specificali in the license application.
Operations. ` e recommend a detailed Ytudy of alterati%c release schedules, which wOUld
iinimize the effects on riverine resources From operations. For exam pie. peaking operations
modif} downstream environments by scouring bed sediments and altering the magnitude,
duration. and timing of in-stream flows. 'lliese releases generate rapid changes in velocity.
depth, and water chemistry. adversely affecting do%%nstreanr aquatic speeics and their habitats.
The recruilrn ent of riverine species below dams with peaking operations is low- due to the
highly variable conditions and the downstrcarm transport of eggs and larvae. A range of
alteniatives for normal project operations is necessary to assess and determine passible
rninimization or in itigation mcasmcs.
Adequate Mitigation Measures. We recommend the development of adequato measures to
compensate ],or the impacts of this Projcct and its operalion on the natural and recreational
resources o f I h c area. Thusc niCaNmcs should include mitigation for Project impacLs on fish
and wildlife populations and their habitats as well as the provk iota of :U)A-acces,..ible facilities
for f ish-and-vviIdIife-based recreation.
The Serlice's mitigation policy. 46 PR 7656-566 states the following:
In the interest of sere ing the public, it is the policy of the U.S. Dish and Wildlife
Service to Beck to mitigate losses of fish and wildlife. their habitats. and use
thereof from land and water developments.
In socking mitigation, we wiII first recommend avoidance and minimization oflosscs offish,
wildlife. and their habitats. If losses are IikeI to occur, we will recommend measures to
roducc or eliminate them over tine. If losses are IikOy to continue to occur. we will
recommend that those losses be compensated by replacement of the same kind of habitat value
so that tllc total loss of such in-kind habitat value will be eliminated.
In developing our ircommendations for protection. mitigation. and enhancement measures for
the partial impacts of this Project. we sock to reduce adverse impaws, to aquatic. riparian. and
terrestrial resources and to enhance fish and wildlife resources oliere feasible. We recommend
mitigation for allcrcd or inadequate in-stream flows. impaired water quality. and adi ense
effects to acluallc communitieR and lii2h-quality forested wetlands within [lie Yadkin River
lloodplain. Sourecs of mitigation may include. but arc not limited to. enhanced in-sti- am
flo%%s: watering of bypass rcachcs: iinprorcmcnts to water qua lily: spew ping ilo%%s for
diadronlous and riverine fisli: ecologicalh sound inundation of floodplains; protcclion and
enhancement of rare, thrcatcnod, and endangered spccics-1 and: or protcclion of shoreline
through riparian buffers.
Summary. We arc: pleased with the progress toward development of an application for a license for
this Projeet, We havc provided initial and follow-up recommendations to address our concerlrs for
fish and xvildlile resources. Therefore, we recommend a site visit in the coming months wilh the
per inittee and the other natural resouine agencies to better discuss the facilities planned under the
now license. In particular. we hope to develop provisions to consider the potential effects to lisli and
wildlife resources. 1ryou have any questions about these comments, plense contact Mr. Mark A,
Cantrell of our staff at 828:`258-?9.9, Ex t. 227.
Sillccrely.
oqs?o dsigned-
Brian P. Cole
Ficld Supervisor
CC'
Mr. Kevin Ed%%ards. Wilkcsboro Hydroelectric Company. LLC'. P.O. Box 143, Mayodam NC 27027
Mr. Clods Goodrequ. I lydropoiver Licensing Coordinator, \oi11r Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 645 Fish Flawlrcn Road, Marion, NC 28752
Scr- icc fist
f
Wilkesboro
Hydroelectric
Company, LLC
Hydro Development
December 1, 2008
Mark A. Cantrell
US Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Cantrell:
P.O Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
336 589-6138
813 842-6030
ph@piedmonthydropower. com
I appreciate the effort that you took to understand our W. Kerr Scott hydropower project and to provide us
with your evaluation of the studies that may be required to fully understand any impacts that the project
will have on the environment downstream from the project. In reviewing your I have several questions and
responses.
Powerhouse and Turbines
In our PAD we stated that the maximum approach velocity would be 2 feet per second with a minimum
spacing of 2.5 inches between the trash rack bars. This spacing criteria meets with NCWRC standard
recommendations. However, their standard recommendations for approach velocity is 1.5 feet per second.
We are retaining the original maximum flow through the trash rack at 2000 cfs but we are increasing the
trashrack area to a minimum of 1400 square feet at a lake elevation of 1030 feet. It should be remembered
that the trashracks will be passing 2000 cfs less than 4% of the time and during the times that flows will be
at 2000 cfs the lake elevation will be above 1030 feet, increasing the area of the trash rack. This should
provide an average approach velocity of less than 1.5 feet per second. This velocity is normally specified
as the velocity 6 inches in front of the trash rack.
With an average maximum approach velocity of 1.5 feet per second we are concerned that even with good
computer flow analysis and proper design there may be some areas with an approach velocity of less than
1.5 feet per second and some areas with more than 1.5 feet per second. For this reason we feel it
reasonable to specify that the trash rack be built so that the average approach velocity will be less than 1.5
feet per second with no area with an approach velocity greater than 2 feet per second. If you feel that this is
unacceptable please provide me with a list of the species of fish in the reservoir that cannot escape an
approach velocity of 2.0 feet per second.
Trash rack area vs. lake elevation chart.
Lake elevation Trash rack
area Flow rate in
cfs Approach
velocity
1033 1610 2000 1.24 Lake elevation at top of rack
1030 1400 2000 1.43
1025 1050 125 .12
1020 700 125 .18
1015 350 125 .36
1012 140 125 .89
1011 70 105 1.5
1010 0 0 0 All flow through bottom outlet

Project Operations
Both turbines have a combined total capacity to flow 800 cfs and this would require a smaller trashrack
than the one proposed. However, by being able to pass up to 2000 cfs through the trash rack we are able to
generate while passing flows between 800 cfs and 2000 cfs. If we reduced the maximum flow rate through
the trashrack to 800 cfs then we would have to shut down generation when the required flow rate was
above 800 cfs, which would result in a large reduction in total generation from the project.
When the corps requires a flow of greater than the trash rack can pass then generation stops and the flow
passes out into the stilling basin.
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
There may be raptors living in the area of the project including the bald eagle. They have not been
observed during our many visits to the site. We are designing the project to be raptor friendly. During the
upcoming site visit we will be able to show you that the project will be constructed several hundred feet
away from trees and that the power line from the powerhouse to the nearest existing power pole will be
underground.
Turbine Capacity
We understand that there has been a period of low flows in recent years, and that there have been
discussions on lowering the minimum flow below 125 cfs. It is understood that there have been times in
the past when the flow has gone below 125 cfs and undoubtedly this will happen again in the future. We
are designing the turbine equipment to operate at flow rates below 100 cfs. However, if the specified flow
rate is below the amount needed to operate the turbine then generation will stop and the water will flow just
as it does now, controlled by the corps service gates and passing into the stilling basin. It may be
advantageous to have this minimal flow drawn from the surface region through our trash racks and down
the water quality conduit rather than drawn from the bottom of the reservoir. The turbines will be designed
to operate at low flows and reduced reservoir elevations and still maintain state standards downstream for
dissolved oxygen and other gasses. Since the water that is used for generation comes from the top 20 feet
of the reservoir it already is oxygen rich and above state standards. The turbines will not remove any
dissolved oxygen from the water as it passes through. The turbines will also have air induction rings
around the discharge draft tube to add oxygen to the water when needed.
Water Quality Standards
We will be monitoring the DO level downstream from the project and if we find that the project cannot
maintain the proper DO level the project will cease generation and the flow will return to the way it is now
done.
Wetland Delineation
During the site visit we will be able to look over the area and determine the need for a wetland survey. The
project will not change the flow regimen from what now exists. If there is no change in the flow of water
in the river how could it affect wetlands? If the project has no affect on wetlands why is a study needed?
Please review the FERC criteria for all requested studies listed below. I would appreciate receiving a copy
of previous wetland surveys in the area of the project.
Transmission Line
The project will use an underground power line from the powerhouse to the nearest existing Duke power
pole approximately 300 feet to the south of the stilling basin. The existing power line back to the
substation can be analyzed during the site visit to see if it has been constructed in such a way as to reduce
the hazard to raptors.
Operations
There will not be any peaking operations at this project. The Corps will specify the daily discharge from
the reservoir and the hydropower project will adhere to the flow for the next 24 hours. There will be no
change from the current flow regime. Therefore with no change in flow and no peaking, there will not be
any impact and therefore there is no need for a study in this area.
Adequate Mitigation Measures
The only area that this project will restrict public access to will be from the small powerhouse. All other
areas of the project will have safety rails or fencing for safety purposes. The fishing pier across the river
from the powerhouse will continue to be used for fishing. The discharge channel from the powerhouse
back to the river will be available for fishing. The impacts to recreation are very minimal and should not
require any mitigation of recreation resources.
The trashrack will prevent fish larger than 2.5 inches from passing through the turbine.
Fish that do pass through the trashracks will be small and therefore less likely to suffer a blade strike from
the turbine. Our plans call for the use of propeller type runners with variable blade angle ability commonly
known as Kaplan turbines. At this head range the runner will have four to six blades depending on the
manufacturer. We have not yet decided on a vendor for the equipment. Since the type of turbine at the
project's head range is fairly common there is generic Kaplan turbine information available as to the
relative risk to fish under various operating conditions indicating an injury and mortality rate from 2% to
15%. This injury and mortality figure is somewhat similar to the injury and mortality rate for small fish
passing through a gate under pressure such as the service gate in the W Kerr Scott intake tower. We feel
that there will be no appreciable change in fishery resources from the operation of this project.
FERC Study Request Criteria
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations on the licensing process include specific criteria
that all study requests and plans from agencies must meet to be considered appropriate for implementation.
The request or plan needs to:
1. Describe the goals and objectives of the proposed study and the information to be obtained.
2. If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with
jurisdiction over the resource to be studied.
3. If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to
the proposed study.
4. Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the need for additional
information.
5. Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) on the
resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license
requirements.
6. Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection and analysis
techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate filed season(s)
and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as
appropriate, considers relevant Tribal values and knowledge.
7. Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed alternative
studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs.
In a study request to the FERC, the requester must describe the recommended study and the basis for the
request in detail, including who should conduct and participate in the study, its methodology and
objectives, whether the recommended study methods are generally accepted in the scientific community,
how the study and information sought will be useful in furthering the resource goals that are affected by the
proposed facilities, and approximately how long the study will take to complete, and must explain why the
study objectives cannot be achieved using the data already available.
Please update your specific study requests using the above criteria so that we might better understand the
studies you are requesting and its importance to the project.
I look forward to working with you on this project and meeting you at the upcoming public site meeting
which will be announced soon.
Sincerely,
Dean Edwards, member
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
813 659-3014
cc: Christopher Goudreau NCWRC
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael P. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
October 30, 2008
Mr. Kevin Fdwards
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company LLC
P.O. Box 14.3
Mayodan, NC 27027
Re- SCH File # 09-E-0000-0094; W.K. Scott Hydroelectric Project - new powerhouse at
existing W. Kerr Scott Dam, including penstocks, powerhouse, tailrace, and substation in
Wilkes County. Visit http-1/piedmonthydi-opower.comllrerrscutt/index.htm.
Dear Mr. Edwards:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Em iroumeutal Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, thev should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not licsitate to call.
Sincerely.
v4tL A ???
Valerie W_ McMillan. Director
State Environmental Policy Act
Attachments
cc: Region D
IERC
mailing Address: Yelephotre- 01))8117.2425 Lornli-Address,
130t Mwi 5crvt<r Center 1'a? [phone] 116 West Jones strcer
Raleigh, N(' 27499-1301 Stare Courser N51-01-00 Raleigh. North Carolina
e-maud ""t"rre_iv. nrcn?U(pn!uflarl negor
J" figraul 1)1,pr"rtunrt3 •.:.l ft;rnxoive .-l clia, Crnpl }per
NC
10!3®/2008 12:51 9197153060 X- WA
DEW A HCDEHR
VA.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
MRchael F. Easley, Governor
PAGE 01/10
William G. Ross Jr., 5emtary
Post-ft* Fax Note 7671 Oatc l p ®sa
ro _ R From
R ° YRC 4.
GaJLISM Cd.
MEMORAMLtM
Phone x p116ne 9
Far a Fad N
TO; Valerie McMillan
State Cleari
nghhquse
?/
FROM: Melba Mcme2 W
EnvironTn"tal Review Coordinator
RE: 09-0094 W-Korx Scott Hydroelectric License Applic&tion Yrvicess
DATE! October 30, 2009
The Depa:tmomt Of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
prapased information. The attached comments are for the applicants
consideration-
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1501 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 27899-1601 -N C81<'? lI1fl
Rhone: 919-733-49841 FAX: [phone] Intemet: www.enr,atate.nc.us/ENR! ?, ??
An Equal Cw9rh" i AIM*ft Adbn Employer • 50% RecVd@O 1 10 % Post Conmrxner Paper
10/30/2000 12:51 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 02/18
FI'MA
.A V
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Divisiuri of Water Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 22, 2006
NILMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Offiee of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
From: John Sutherland
Water project ction Chef
Subject: Proposed W. Ken Scott Hydroelectric Project (FERC No- P-12642)
License application process comments (Project Review No. 09-0094)
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Thomas A. Reeder, Director
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the following comments after review of the letter
from Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company LLC (WHC) dated October 1S, 2008, soliciting comments on
the liocnsittg process for the proposed hydroelectric facility at the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir Darer,
located on the Yadkin River in Wilkes County, North Carolina- W_ Kerr Scott Reservoir is a U-S.
Army Corps of Bagineers (USAGE) proicct operated for flood control, water supply, water quality,
recreation. and fish and wildlife canseirvation. DWR provided previous comments to WHC and the
State Clearingbouse (SCH Reference No. 09.0045) in response to WHC's preparation of the initial
license application.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) provides three procedures for the licensing of
hydropower facilities. Effective on July 23, 2005, the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) became the
default process for filing an application for an original, new, or subsequent license. FERC approval is
needed to use either the Traditional (TLP) or the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP).
DWR has no preference in the sclection of a licensing process as long as there is a fair and balanced
consideration of all stakeholders' issues. DWR's main issue is that the operation of the proposed
hydropower facility not impact the GSACE's ability to operate the darn for flood control, water supply,
water quality, recreation, and fish and vr-Idlife conservation. This includes the ecological integrity of
Yadkin River corridor downstream of the dam.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions or require additional information
please contact Fred Tarver at 9191715-5442 or fred.tw [e-mail].
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
Phone: [phone] FAY: 919-733.35581 Internet: www.nowntor.org OnrU1CaI D17Ila
An Equal OpPm rKy IAll"milve AOtien EmilnyEr-91°16 Rmicletlt In%P0$t0*f*M IPsjpe, OTA(I/lb
10/30/2068 12:51 9197153660 NMENR PAGE 03/10
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon $, Myers, Executive Director
October 28, 2008
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street. ME,
Washington, DC 20426
Subject: Request to use the Traditional Licensing Process and
Noti ce of Intent to File Application for Original License
W. Kerr Scott Rydropower Project, FERC Project No. 12642
Dear Secretary Bose:
The North Carolina Wildlife Resourees Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the Request to Use
the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP), the Notice of Intent to File an Application for Original
License, and the Pre-Application Document (PAD) submitted by Wilkesboro Hydroelectric
Company, LLC (WHC) on September 29, 2008. We submit these comments and
recommendations in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) April 7;
200$ Notice for the subject project. These commnents and recommendations arc provided in
accordance with provisions of the Federal Power A.Gt (16 U.S.C. 791 a at seq.) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 5tat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.+C, 661 et seq.),
The project proposes to use the existing dam, reservoir and intake of the W. Kerr Scott flood
control facility built and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Enginests (COE). WHC proposes
to install several additional structures, including a new intake structure with trashrack, a conduit
linerr penstocks, powerhouse; turbines; generators, and an electric transmission line.
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Proems
In general, we do not oppose the use of the TLP. Specifically, we provide comments on the
issues listed in 18 CFR 5.3 related to requests to use the TLP.
Likelihood of timely license issuance -This is largely out of our control. but we do not believe
the TLP itself will affect the timing of the issuance.
Cam I itV of the m r e issues -- We agree with the applicant that the complexity of resource
issues is relatively low compared to other PERC-regulated hydrnpowcr projects.
Malling Address: 645 Fish Hatchery .Road - Marion, NC 27652
Telepbane: [phone] • Fax: [phone]¢
10/30/2003 12:51 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 04/10
W. Kerr Scott Hydro Page 2 October 28, 2008
Level 6f antioinalM controversy-- We anticipate the level of controversy to below, provided the
issues we raise below nre sufficiently addressed.
Relative cost of the traditional process compared to the integrated process - We believe the TLP
will enable the NCWRC to make more efficient use ofaur limited time and resources,
Amount of available ijotmation and potential for significant disputes over studies - We believe
there arc some issues for which the PAD does not provide adequate information, but these should
be relatively easy for the applicant to address through additional documentation or studies. We
do not anticipate there to be significant disputes related to studies.
other factors. believed.pertinent - None-
Comments on the Pre-Applicatio3l ireonaent
(h=11, the PAD does a very good job summarizing the available information pertinent to the
project. We have several comments designed to improve the utility of the tnformation to the
agencies. the public and the FERC,
Section 2.3.3 Intake Trashrack - More information is required for us to determine how the
intake structure will function and the extent tc, which impingement and entrainment may be an
issue. On Pilate A•5. the applicant should indicate, with differect colors, those portions of the
intake tower that are existing and proposed additions. Also, the figure should show the structure
with tha slide gate open.
The PAID states that the trisshrack wil I have a surface area "in excess of 1000 square feet" with
spacing between tsashrack bars of 2.5 inches or less. Presumably based on these measurements,
WHC estimates that approach velocities will be 2.0 feet per second maximum, Our standard
recommendations for irltakas are a maximum approach velocity of 1.5 feet per second and a
maximum clear spacing oftrashmek bars of 2.5 inches.
When calculating the trashrack surface area, it appears that WHC may not have taken into
account the surface area occluded by the trashrack bars, which is likely to reduce tike surfine arza
by about 10%, thus increasing the approach velocities. Also, since the amount of surface area is
dependent on the elevation afthe reservoir water level, and the normal operating outflow
controlled by the COE also changes with reservoir level, the approach velocities will vary with
reservoir level.
Based on the information in the PAD, we expect that our standard approach velocity
recommendation may be violated. This may occur when the lake level is near the normal
operating elevation of 1030 feet, and outflow is near 2,000 cfs. Approach velocities could also
exceed 1.5 feet per second if the reservoir level is near the lower end of the trashrack (say
elevation 1011 feet) and the outflow is 125 cfs.
We recommend that the applicant provide a table showing reservoir level, thv associated range of
outflows, the available surface area of the trashrack (minus the area of the bars), and the
calculated approach velocities. The table should also provide an estimate of the percentage of
time the water level/outflow combinations are expected to occur, based on the full record of
10/30/2008 12:51 9197153060 NMENR PAGE 05/10
W. Kerr Scott Hydro Page 3 October 28.200s
operational data available from the COE. This will allow us to determine how often, and under
what circumstances, approach velocities would exceed 1.5 feet per second.
5grlian 2.3.4.5. Project Boundary-It is not clear from the written description provided in this
section, and Figure.A-2, exactly where the project boundary is located. Please provide an
overlay ofthe project boundary lines on an aerial photograph.
Section 3.1.3.2, Flow and Flow Duration from W. Kerr ScattDam - The data summarized end at
the 2005, thus they do not include the recent record droughts <1 2007-2008. 'those recent
records indicate that outflows from the reservoir have dropped below 125 cfs for a number of
days.
Sec_tign 3.1.3.5. Water Ouali Standards - The PAD provides limited data of water quality
conditions in the Yadkin River below the dam. The N.C. Division of Water Quality and the City
of Winston-Salem have collected water quality data of the Yadkin River at a number of sites,
including at Brown's Ford (toad, which is located about 0.3 miles downstream of the dam. In
contrast to the water quality data reported in the PAD, our staff has noted that during mussel
surveys in 2047 water in Yadkin Diver between the dam and the Reddies River had a foul smell
and the substrate was covered by brown slime. This suggests that additional water quality
sampling should be toeducted.
Section 31.4. Fish and Aquatic 1: Murces - While there are no diadromous species currently
present in the Yadkin River between W. Kerr Scott and High Rock Lake, it is likely that
American eel and American shad historically utilized this stretch of river. Relicensing
agreements for the Yadkin-Pee Dee (P-2306) and Yadkin (P-2147) projects may eventually
result in these species being returned to the Yadkin River above High Rock Lake.
The source of the list of fish species found in the Yadkin River between W. Kerr Scott and
Browns Ford Road is not identified. It is likely from a 2005 NCWRC survey. It should be noted
that those data were obtained using boat electrotishing, which is not adequate to samp3e species
that are small, cryptic or uncommon.. Additional sampling efforts will be necessary to fully
describe the fish eommunity of the Yadkin River below the proposed project,
The PAD also does not provide any information about mussels, crayfish, aquatic insecu ur other
aquatic species in the river below the project. A 2007 survey of the Yadkin River by the
NCWRC revealed that, while there were no mussels immediately downstream of W. Kerr Scott
dam, four musses species are extant in the river. The reach from the Reddies River to the
Roaring River containsAlosmrdonte vorieosa (brook floater, state endangered, FSC) and Elliprio
eomplanata (eastern Elliptio, not listed), Below Roaring River. the Yadkin River supports
Alasmidorua varfoosa, Elftpiro rnanokens s (Roanoke slabshall, state threatened), and Srrophtrvs
t nAdatus (creeper, state threatened). Additional sampling for mussels is necessary because the
2007 surveys were not exhaustive and mussels are difficuit to locate due to their propensity to
migrate vertically in the substrate. Surveys for crayfish and other aquatic organisms are also
warranted below the prajecT.
10/30/2808 12:51 4137153060 NCDEW PAGE 06/10
W. Kerr Scott Hydro Page 4 October 28, 2008
Sections 3.1.7, 3.3.7 and 3.4.7, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species - The lists and
discussion should be expanded to include state-listed species, including those mussels mentioned
above.
Sections 3.3.3 and 3.43. Water resources -The PAD identifies a number of potential issues
with the construction and operation of the hydropower project. We believe that water quality
may be of concern under certain operating conditions. It is our understanding from. the PAD that
when outflows exceed 2,000 cfs, tlto gate between the conduit and the penstock will be closed
and the intake slide gate will be opened, This will result in a switch of water being withdrawn
from epilironetic (surface) waters through the trashrack to water being withdrawn from
hypalimnetic (bottom) waters through the bottom grate. During certain times of the year this
will result in water quality changing fncm warm and well-oxygenated to cold and poorly-
oxygenated, which may cause impacts to downstrearn blots. Our review of COE records reveals
that in 46 years there were 198 events in which flows rose above 2,000 c£5- These data were
using mean daily outflows, so there were likely many additional events that flow exceeded 2,600
cfs for pan of a day. We believe a more detailed analysis of the hydrologic dataset in
conjunction with a better understanding of the water quality of the epi limnion and hypolimnion
of the reservoir is needed in order to determine if fish ]tills in the Yadkin River might result from
the proposed operations.
Sections 313A and 3 AA, Fish, and,Atluatic Rcsouroes - The PAD mentions that impingement,
entrainment and turbine mortality are potential issues at the project but expects the overall
impact to be relatively small. The location ofthe trashrack in surface waters, where dissolved
oxygen is adequate all year, means that fish are more likely to be entrained than if the intake was
located in the hypolimnion.
In addition to the concerns we raised above about the tt2 shrsck and approach velocities, we are
vomcerned about fish mortality resulting from entrainment and blade strikes. One of the
important determinants of turbine mortality is the number of runners. Additional information on
the design of the turbines is needed to assess whether turbine mortality is of concem at the
project.
Appendix D - Todd Ewing should be removed from the distribution list and the spelling of
Christopher Goudreau should be corrected.
Preliminary Comments on 51004Y-Requests and Information
We will provide official comments on study requests after the FERC issues a decision on the
type of licensing process to be used for this project. At this time, however, we wish to provide
the applicant with additional insight on what are likely to be impwtapt issues to our agency.
In our September 2, 2009 to WHC we included an attachmetn' listing our standard list of issues
and request for information- Upon review of tlro PAD, it is likely that some of those issues will
not be of conecrrt. We recommend the applicant address the following issues in the list of
proposed studies, regardless of the relicensing muthad approved by the FERC.
Water Quality- Continuous monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH ofthe water
disehargod from the existing tailwater should be conducted for oruc yeat to assess the condition
10/30/2003 12:51 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 07/10
W. KM Scott Hydro Page 5 Qctober 28, 2008
afhypolimnetic water. Also, monthly profiles of temperature and dissolved oxygen in the
reservoir should be measured in the vicinity of the intake tower to gain an understanding of
expected epilinmetic water to be discharged with the hydropower project in place. It may be
necessary to develop a water quality model using these data to understand if water quality
standards will he met. Such a model will also be useful to detenmine if switching from hydro
operations to COE flood management Cat the 2,000 cfs threshold), and back, is likely to impact
aquatic resources in tho river downstream of the project.
If a license is granted and the project is constructed, we are likely to recommend that post-
ecnstruttitni monitoring ofthe aetual water quality discharged from the project for Several years
to ensure that water quality is meeting state standards.
Fish and Aquatic Organism Sampling -The applicant should conduct surveys of the Yadkin
River from the reservoir downstream to the Roaring River to adequately characterize the fish,
mussel, crayfish and other aquatic organ isms of the river. Specific sampling methods should be
designed i[rconsultation with the NCWRC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program.
Information on the historic range of diadromous fish in the upper Yadkin River should be
provided by the applicant to determine if fish migrations would be affected by project operations.
Impingement, Entrainment and Turbine Mortality - The applicant should provide a "desktop"
analysis of the likely impact of impingement, entrainment and turbine mortality on fish. The
analysi s should indicate the relative risk to fish populations under the range of operating
conditions,
Rocroation -More detailed information will be necessary to deterntint if the project will affect
angler use of the fishing pier on the southern bank of the river downstream of the reservoir.
Transmission Line Design and Maintenance - More information is needed for us to determine if
the transmission line will present a possible hazard.to raptors. Also, a plan should be provided
describing how the transmission line will be maintained over the life of the project.
Summary
The NCWRC does not object to the use of the Traditional Licensing Process. The PAD provides
a good basis from which to assess impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Additional information
will be necessary before we can determine if any impacts are significant and will require
mitigation.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment at this early stage of the process and recommend
meeting on sine with representatives of W KC and interested agencies tp discuss these matters
more fully. Ifyou have any questions concerning these comments, please call meat 828-652-
4360 ext. 223.
1B/S0/7808 12:51 9297153060 NCDENR PAGE 08/10
W. Karr Seotr Hydro Page G October 28, 2009
Sincerely,
Christopher Goudmmv
Hydmpower Licensing Coordinator
cc: Tarry Ramscv. COP,
George Piney, COE
Mark Cgntrall, USFWS
Fred Tsrvcr, NCDWR
Cindy Karoiy, NCDWQ
Scrvice List
f
Wilkesboro
Hydroelectric
Company, LLC
Hydro Development
December 1, 2008
Christopher Goudreau
Hydropower Licensing Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 27652
Dear Mr. Goudreau:
P.O Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
336 589-6138
813 842-6030
ph@piedmonthydropower. com
I appreciate the effort that you took to understand our W. Kerr Scott hydropower project and to provide us
with your evaluation of the studies that may be required to fully understand any impacts that the project
will have on the environment downstream from the project. In reviewing your letter and talking with Kin
Hodges (NCWRC) regarding existing studies I have several questions and responses.
Intake trashrack
In our PAD we stated that the maximum approach velocity would be 2 feet per second with a minimum
spacing of 2.5 inches between the trash rack bars. This spacing criteria meets with your standard
recommendations. However, your standard recommendations for approach velocity is 1.5 feet per second.
We are retaining the original maximum flow through the trash rack at 2000 cfs but we are increasing the
trashrack area to a minimum of 1400 square feet at a lake elevation of 1030 feet. It should be remembered
that the trashracks will be passing 2000 cfs less than 4% of the time and during the times that flows will be
above 2000 cfs the lake elevation will be above 1030 feet, increasing the area of the trash rack. This should
provide an average approach velocity of less than 1.5 feet per second. This velocity is normally specified
as the velocity 6 inches in front of the trash rack and not the velocity of the water as it passes between the
trash rack bars. Therefore, we feel the area of the trash rack bars should not be deducted from the total area
of the trash rack.
With an average maximum approach velocity of 1.5 feet per second we are concerned that even with good
computer flow analysis and proper design there may be some areas with an approach velocity of less than
1.5 feet per second and some areas with more than 1.5 feet per second. For this reason we feel it
reasonable to specify that the trash rack be built so that the average approach velocity will be less than 1.5
feet per second with no area with an approach velocity greater than 2 feet per second. If you feel that this is
unacceptable please provide me with the species of fish in the reservoir that cannot escape an approach
velocity of 2.0 feet per second.
Trash rack area vs. lake elevation chart.
Lake elevation Trash rack
area Flow rate in
cfs Approach
velocity
1033 1610 2000 1.24 Lake elevation at top of rack
1030 1400 2000 1.43
1025 1050 125 .12
1020 700 125 .18
1015 350 125 .36
1012 140 125 .89
1011 70 105 1.5
1010 0 0 0 All flow through bottom outlet

Project Boundary
You requested an aerial photograph with an overlay of the project boundary.
Flow Duration from W. Kerr Scott dam
We primarily used the available data regarding the flow from the reservoir in our energy projections. We
understand that there has been a period of low flows in recent years, however, we feel that the period that
we studied provided us with sufficient information to allow us to make financial decisions. However, it is
understood that there have been in the past times when the flow has gone below 125 cfs and undoubtedly
this will happen again in the future. We are designing the turbine equipment to operate at flow rates below
100 cfs. However, if the specified flow rate is below the amount needed to operate the turbine then
generation will stop and the water will flow just as it does now controlled by the corps service gates and
passing into the stilling basin. It may be advantageous to have this minimal flow drawn from the surface
region through our trash racks and down the water quality conduit rather than drawn from the bottom of the
reservoir.
Water Quality Standards
Please provide us with the results of the studies on water quality that you have referred to in this section so
that we may incorporate this information in our Draft License Application.
You refer to a foul smell and a brown slime downstream from the project. How can the operation of the
hydropower project impact the creation of the foul smell and brown slime?
Fish and Aquatic Resources
We would like to receive copies of all existing studies of fish, crayfish, and other aquatic species that live
in the river downstream from the dam. We understand that it is important to have an information baseline
from studies in place before the start of operation of the hydropower project. Further, we understand the
importance of having information from studies that are done after the project is in operation so that the
actual impact of the project's operations may be fully assessed. However, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission regulations on the licensing process include specific criteria that all study requests and plans
from agencies must meet to be considered appropriate for implementation. The request or plan needs to:
8. Describe the goals and objectives of the proposed study and the information to be obtained.
9. If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with
jurisdiction over the resource to be studied.
10. If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to
the proposed study.
11. Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the need for additional
information.
12. Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) on the
resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license
requirements.
13. Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection and analysis
techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate filed season(s)
and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as
appropriate, considers relevant Tribal values and knowledge.
14. Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed alternative
studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs.
In a study request to the FERC, the requester must describe the recommended study and the basis for the
request in detail, including who should conduct and participate in the study, its methodology and
objectives, whether the recommended study methods are generally accepted in the scientific community,
how the study and information sought will be useful in furthering the resource goals that are affected by the
proposed facilities, and approximately how long the study will take to complete, and must explain why the
study objectives cannot be achieved using the data already available.
Please update your specific study requests using the above criteria so that we might better understand the
studies you are requesting and its importance to the project.
Water Resources
In our phone conversation on October 19, 2008 we discussed the possibility of poorly oxygenated water
being discharged from the project during changeover from generation flows to flood flows. This is an
important concern that can be eliminated by operating the project elements in the proper sequence during a
changeover.
Transition from generation to flood flow sequence.
I. Water is flowing through trashracks, through open service gates, into discharge conduit, penstock and
out through powerhouse.
2. Service gates are partially closed to a setting for 1000 cfs, reducing pressure in discharge conduit.
3. Conduit gate at end of discharge conduit is fully opened.
4. Flow through powerhouse is stopped, all flow is into stilling basin, water in discharge conduit drains.
5. Intake slide gates open. All flow now goes from reservoir bottom, down the discharge conduit and
into the stilling basin as it does now. Flow rate is controlled by the corps' service gates.
Transition from flood flow to generation sequence.
1. Service gates close to a 1000 cfs setting. Intake slide gates close. All flow now comes from reservoir
surface, down the discharge conduit and into the stilling basin. Flow rate is controlled by the corps'
service gates at this flow rate for 10 minutes to assure that all oxygen-poor water has been discharged
from the discharge conduit.
2. Flow through powerhouse is started, all flow into the stilling basin is stopped by the closing of the
conduit gate, filling the discharge conduit with water.
3. Flow rate is controlled by turbines and spill gates in the powerhouse.
4. Service gates are fully opened.
5. Water is flowing through trashracks, through open service gates, into discharge conduit, penstock and
out through powerhouse.
We feel that by following this sequence that oxygen-poor water will never be discharged into the river
below the project.
Fish and aquatic resources
Fish that do pass through the trashracks will be small and therefore less likely to suffer a blade strike from
the turbine. Our plans call for the use of propeller type runners with variable blade angle ability commonly
known as Kaplan turbines. At this head range the runner will have four to six blades depending on the
manufacturer. We have not yet decided on a vendor for the equipment. Since the type of turbine at the
project's head range is fairly common there is generic Kaplan turbine information available as to the
relative risk to fish under various operating conditions indicating a injury and mortality rate from 2% to
15%. This injury and mortality figure is somewhat similar to the injury and mortality rate for small fish
passing through a gate under pressure such as the service gate in the W Kerr Scott intake tower.
Historic range of Diadromous Fish in the project area
Diadromous fish species known to use the Yadkin - Pee Dee River historically for spawning and/or rearing
include American shad and American eel. Some of these species are reported to have occurred historically
in piedmont locations. However, natural falls occurring in several locations along the river, including a
significant set of falls know to have existed in the Narrows gorge, likely served as a natural migration
barrier to many fish The Narrows of the Yadkin was an area in Montgomery and Stanley Counties where
the river's flow was constricted by the Uwharrie Mountains. With the completion of the Badin Dam, the
Narrows of the Yadkin were submerged under Badin Lake, which is also referred to as the Narrows
Reservoir. The Narrows of the Yadkin are many miles downstream from the W Kerr Scott Dam.
Based on the accounts of Stevenson (1897, 1899), the historic upstream extent of spawning migration for
American shad in the Yadkin River appeared to be near Wilkesboro, North Carolina. However, it is
unclear to what extent American shad migrated to this upper area of spawning, as migration through the
Narrows gorge would have been difficult. Coffin reported in 1888 that American shad would congregate
along a series of rapids in the Narrows gorge area during the spring migration.
There are few historical accounts of the catadromous American eel in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River.
According to Mills (1826) reported American eel present in Marlborough County. Records suggest that it
is likely that eels ascended well into the upper piedmont region of North Carolina, though Jenkins and
Burkhead (1993) indicated that American eel was unknown to extend into the Virginia portion of the basin.
From this information on the historical range of diadromous fish in the Yadkin it appears that diadromous
fish never appeared in the river near where the W. Kerr Scott dam is today.
Transmission line
The project will use an underground power line from the powerhouse to the nearest Duke power pole
approximately 300 feet to the south of the stilling basin. The existing power line back to the substation can
be analyzed during the site visit to see if it has be constructed in such a way as to reduce the hazard to
raptors.
Recreation
There will not be any risk to the fishing pier on the south bank of the river from the project's operation.
Over 90% of the energy in the water passing through the turbines is removed from the water, leaving only
gently flowing water coming out of the powerhouse. During flood flows the water will flow just as it does
now.
I look forward to working with you on this project and meeting you at the upcoming public site meeting
which will be announced soon.
Sincerely,
Dean Edwards, member
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
813 659-3014
cc: Kin Hodges, NCWRC
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
ID/30/2008 12:51 9197153060 NCAENP PAGE 09110
State oENorth Carolina I• ' c
Department 6f Envirtlltment and )N21VI.01 Murm Reviewing Orrice, VL/'.? IG ( G $
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1RUTEW - PROJECT CO'S4WNT5 PrgIec1 NU n1,gr; V fW roue nem:
Aft?, rev F this prajecl it has bun dnerminad t -F the Wk Perm-:S(S) P4,10, 0ypfa?a!d indica!pd :nay rived w isc obmincd in Her for this PrajC to a0-rly with Nanl,
Carol,r;a Law. Quci( om rcgordioz dense P[rmita Should ba nlcressad to the Regional Office indirntnd on the mversn oftr^- form. All appllCatioas, Inronnmion and Ridc! ines
r?Eati?e rv dteae Plans and xanila are avail sL+lc nvre die same Rcgiaca Om;,a.

Nonnol 11ro=1 Throe
PERMCrS SrECIAI, APPLICATION MCSbURtS of kL-QLhR .MFhI".5 (9Cntumry lire tiff. it)

?.? permir to cwsv na do opente wutewnter treahtlent
F

pn
ACil
ol
SS
f9y5iSm6
W4r sy
Applimtinn 90 days hefnm¢egin egn}trveti9n 4r award 0f 7natrucfion
30 days
9rfCSa urfaco w VNtefa, gitem
RCc aGIl{F
1101
dlS
a}1H
rging coltra9tj.Q1-skirnmllan P45t-aPPltcaliwn aaia:IGOl cour_= Usual. (90 days,
'NPf]ES-permit to discharge Sato xufi ec uarcr emrllnf AFF]rcttlnr. lEOdayr hefere aosinnatvrtv,{Dn-him tnepaennn. ore-appliratian
I pcr-.nit w vpcale and mnalrrlel wastewater. he,litiea e4n(4fsec4 OUALAddhlah,lly-vbioi. rnit to wnstntct wostawPe` 90.130 doyo
di%harging mFV Stzie nurvec-leR trcuttncnt full V-grenf-d afiar NPp S. ReplY time 30 day, slier trwipt wF (N;A)
plena or issue Q1 "DES pumdl-wh ichcvcr is laver.
[j V,.tr vPenns: P149pp1icatiantcelanicvlconhraceusuallynxssory ?ndoye
(?irA)
,'-I wcli Cerewcties Permit Complete appllcatiot must be rn-M end pamlit Word prier m the 7 days
Mvu 1.11. of a -Y (15 days)
Apphczuon Cnpy must N Sem'ed on each AjLjdnt nfilmorl props:ty C,_tr,
I I)Wlicmd F117 ?omit Dr•site Inspection. Proappiwtlon canfemnea usual. Filling may fcquire 55 days
f Euariman[tn Fill From N.C. Deptimmeot of Adminishatim and FeL*fal (90 dsys)
i Dodge slid Pill Permit
.
1
snot [0 rdn%lflrct @ ephfatE Air PDIIDton MAIM=

fleallnin i;Vor Emission Swnrom ae per 15 A NCAC
Applimon m1w he SuLn imd Prod peilt rw-toed prior M
UnItIMCCtn rmd opLMdan of dte SaWee, it%ponnir 0 requited in an
(29.01 00 hive 2Q 0700) nrt:a without 1601 16me6 then thereme nddaionvl requi
rcmnnts end 90 days
L timetirt©(74.0113),
j P_rmit r0 -it-t & -paste Tmaeportaiien F¢tllity na
per 15ANCAC(7D
n800
2Qoripl) Apsl Imtlan .,.I be tub.iiwd co 1- 40 d." prior to Cnnvwicci n or
90 das,s
.
. moaineadort nrdp,rnwca
Any opm bumrn4 rmaciw d Wnh enbjeet proposal
mu1; M 01 aemp. iP-0ewith I f A NCAC z0, 1900
ommo`,itlon or renpt'am q ar."cWFaa wrim., ng
nsb-w.i material moat be £n wmpijanea with IS A
[] NCAC 20.1110(1)(1)whichfequifosnotlfia,6nnPnd N(A 60 4R,3
R11150,51 prior tot demolnirn, Cart= A11two<- Cpraol (90 days)
roup 419-itY;-5?50.

C` Compiex Source Pormlf requirazl dnAr i 5 A NCAC
MONO
'rhe Sedimentation Pallubm CeMral Act of 1973 must be nitt+,Ierly ,uLwsad Ibf wy land distvrlri?g a>:tivity, Anera=ion &
1_) and' mensauon cfmual p - wit he required ifom or MM aarw to he dimtbed. R. 51ed with proper 44i"al QTike (Land Q iOhy.
ScGt:o
l At Iran 3C d
h
Po 2,3 days
n
c
ays
rc bcgioning pcrtvay. A f00 of 565 for dtc Gist core or my pa's nFml here, Al Wreas revitw opum is (3c dnysl
ovailnbic with atdidonaf fee e.
SMimontatlovi Nod 2rdnOll MINI Walt be 4ddreamed in aewxdartw wide h-CDOrs vppravad program. Fart:rolar amnxlon shnuld ism glycn rn s

dceign and instal larivn nrappmpnaoc peritnetaf sadimui! tapping dcvicei o9 well as stablc atant watcr canvcysa? and nv im (M day
.)
,
Gn-817) inapaatiOR nsu[I Snmly hmtd Ala ,ajlh iii BDhd 1wount yurm
?.-,) Minine Permit Wi& type min and number of acres ofe co-=j Iatd. Any arc mined grcg[cl 30 days
than one acre meat be=cnnlttcd. The apprnprla[e bond mwtbe received jOuduyo)
iv rv¢ We pcrmif cot :x issued.
?j ]tarot Camllns 9Uming p-:, G'r-sire inspectmftbyNC.O:vlalon Fame Remurdat irpeRrmir exceeds 4 days Ida?
(NIA)
Sxcia: Gmand Ctwvaec$uming°emir-73 On-situ Inspection hyl.'.C. p?.yision Forest ltcsourcz.required"ii"n'ah3rr
five acresaf
r
c
d d
ldhy
Cmweitn In en?,ul N.C, wish vrpartlc rvh g
e
n
caring u4vi[ies era Involved. lnspectioshouldbe
TNurstod a; :Cast lrn dyt Le rnm ..Cal bun is planneL (1W/n)
L 1 R41ring Fn EIW N+A 90-129 days
(N1A)
If permit rvcUirctl-aPPlir? un days pc.`nra iy_Eln cOn:vuetran. A;Tlieant
must hire K,C pcnlitled cap-rm', ptepora pions- ht,,rm e6rswction.
vniti croslmotioh is a: hording m EVR approval plecs. 17cy also r3quirc
I-) Dun Safety Pn_"mit ptnrirunorrmoaluim control progam. Aad n 404 PCM.C O'Orn Cay50r 30 day?
Engi;ieer.. An inspection aFSite 19 aeceas try Is verify Hamr3C18vficwzCr. A (gD days)
minimum fac of A2n0.gD rcctt acrampeay rim oppl icmian, An aJdTanai
pmxcchp fee bared on a aereentane nr -:- trod -:tl 1,.- - :_
10/30/2000 12:51 9197153050 NCDENR
PAGE 10/10
Ntmai Frococ Ti?r.c
(srn.^Jr¢ry rmC limn)
P?'1M175 3FECIAL APFi,I:r.7014 P30C[?D=-S or UOUIRt ,VENTS i

I...J Pile sur-,Ey "I C U.0r1(? with FNR running in s:a:e cr NC ccnd!iior , i vint

Petmu I¢¢rl 11 Cxptp nltmN Ail Of im WL' R'ly 'JMII opettd Ly dhll 9pCl:IOr 51 rJ l., LC¢n ahmndenm Cn:, I1C pl'Jgpud
:II:GOnil'Iq to FNR nll?, ard'I 7,j;fltiPnS 1
i days
\fA
? Gcop-y G,1l rxplomt,cn permit Apnliaa<ion Pled wlhF,NRzt lenvt 104ay'. prinrtA issue o°pelrlit
Appliastion'ny lcCCr. N. randam a?'.rmtian r¢rnl. ID dAy.
N!A '.

F] Appl a,aticn Fine bred an aliitojaO "c it diarged. Must include dtscnpriom
li:iu LAIms ConstlpCpan Nx111!1 3; d-A'yjllp of' Sfru=re & prop r a IF pwr:erSh ip a"riparian
. rinerry. I 20 d??„
N1A
11 01 Wosr Omrliy CtniGc tlan
Nlh 5C, a-, Yl
13o dmysl
1-1 CAMA ranink rot MAJOR dcvzlorrinant ?S,Sf1,00 Fa m?3t.sc?m? ny epptcmtion 5: dAYS
(150 days)
0 CAMA PM 11 for WNGA dcuc1r4mrnl 150.00 rcc mar- --pry :alplicmtian
ys
222 days
(5 dal

1-1 5CVCral gcaduiz muni'rtrLs art locatcd in m nozr the prejou nr:a Taney mmnumQi nceda im 6e mend yr dz lrvycd, pleat notify;
N-C Geodetic Surrey. Lane 21681 Rale;gh, NC 27611
L hl-dannioUoTnny wleM.ifracndredm'06tUcin mccordw=wldlTirleISA,F'Jhr}14rTT2C-ON
N,:ifemtion or ov pmpar, reEi{x?al srfee it requester)Vo!p'nsn"uneh mand sanest)tits(U575) bra disamorpd during any c;?vmddl Aperm•Jan.
El Conp!I-wnt I SA ',,'CAC 2I-l 1000(C,oaatol $lonnw=r 110coli is rcgarlsd, i w5 dmyq
CMA)
'ter Amm.lic¢ ¢r Ne+u Ripmrtan 13 af(Er Ruf v icgvVred.
m Other enmmcrx:, (atenth adClirional pages a5 nmeAasmry, being wrtlEn 0.l cite cnmmnnr aud:osityl
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regardb)g these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
7 Asheville Regional Office ? Maoresvillc Rogionnl Office Ll Wilmington Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70 610 East Center Avenve, Svste 301 127 C2Tdinal Drive L•xtension
Swanrlaiim.NC 28778 Mooreevitle,NC29115 Wilrnington,NC284D5
[phone] (7041603-1699 (910) 7W72! 5

-1 Fayetteville Regional Offite F3 Raleigh Regional Office Yinston-Salem Ragionnl Off to
225Noti Green Street, Spite 714 380D Barrettl)nye, Sttize 101 5Bg Wauehtown Street
PaycUuville, NC 26301-5043 Rztlair, NC 27609 WirlFion-SaJarn, NC 27107
(910)A3-,-3300 [phone] [phone]
17 Washington Regional Office
943 Wa;:?bttgton Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
(22) 946-6481
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE N[3.MBa: p9-E-0000-0094

A ?H11
DATE RECEIVED: 10/03/2008
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/23/2008
REVIEW CLOSET?; 10/28/2000
CLEARIPGH':U E COORD
f-'FS, - DLM, GTMO
?;SC R 716
RLVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEm, 6'I'MO
DENR LEGISLATIVE
^?EPT D^ AGRICULTURE
DEPT Oe C-LIT, RESOURCES
D"*_•.PT c C TkANSPORTATION
R PG S ON U CGi7
4a
C Imo},.

3
PRGJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Wilkesboro Hydr.oelectriC Company LLC
TYPE National EnvironmeIItal PolizY Act
£RD; Environmental Review
DESC: W-K. Scott Hy:iroelect?r?c Project - ne'w pcwerhmas? at existing i,'. Kerr Sect[ clam,
2n c.ludiciu pert s-oeks, pcwerhrrjse, tailrace, and s.6bs-arlor. :rv Wl.kes Count v. Visit
r.tt/nip-rima;i th vd ropower. corn/kerrscet /index. htn.
f7ROSS-RI'FERF:NCE NUMf.?'r:R: 09-F'",--47Cr0-C]095
7p1- at-.ached project has been submitr_ed to the N. C. State Cleasirighouse. for
intergovernRental review. Please review and submit your response by t3,R above
iridicated date to 1307, Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 21699-13O1.
I` additional review time is needed, please contact this e7,'-i-::e at
AS A RESULT OF THIS REV] c,4d TBF. G+11,LOWi[s ?_ _-, SJEsMI TTI?.D:
NO COMMENT
(SY7J
I ]? I 5;?P=
SIGNED BY: 01-4
D.ATH
: kolAl8?
.w S.At^? e
orth Carolina Depalment of Crime Control and Public Safely
F: Division of Fmergency Management
y, .
Z? c?,,ff'Gecspatial and Technology Management
` `4719 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-4719
Mich acl- . Easley
Govt; :!car
Ms. Valerie McMillian
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301
September 18, 2008
Subject: Intergovernmental Review State :Number: 09-G-0000-0045
W. K. Scott Hydroelectric Project- New Powerhouse
Dear Ms. Valerie McMillian:
Bryan F. Beatty
Secretary
is
0
?.ys t`EG
As requested by the North Carolina State Clearinghouse, the North Carolina Department of
Crime Control and Public Safety Division of Emergency Management Office of Geospatial
and Technology Management (GTM) reviewed the proposed project listed above and has
provided comments herein. It is our understanding that the Wilkesboro Hydroelectric
Company LLC is proposing to construct a new powerhouse at the existing W. Kerr Scott
Dam, including a new channel upstream of the intake tower, penstocks, powerhouse, tailrace,
1-mile 12.4 kV transmission line in Wilkes County.
The GTM has the following comments:
l) The Yadkin River, as shown on Wilkes County preliminary DFIRM panel 38471.
indicates the proposed project will be located in the Yadkin River's special flood
hazard area (SFHA) and floodway. Development within the SFHA requires a
floodplain development permit from Wilkes County. Development within the
floodway will require approval of a no-rise certification or the option listed in 3)
below for to construction.
2) FEMA requires the lowest floor of new buildings to be elevated to base flood
elevations (BFE), at minimum. Given the dependence on the proximity to water and
maximization of potential head for generation, please provide detail on how the power
house and facilities meet the requirements of the local Wilkes County ordinance for
Flood regulation and the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program as
identified in the Code of Federal Regulations-
Location: 1812 Tillery Place, Suite 105 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

PF'P7?gc'2 f 2
ber 18, 2008
3) If the project attempts to use the functionally dependent use definition to deviate from
the requirements mentioned in 2) above, please note the Code of Federal Regulations
prohibits vauances for projects within tloodways.
4) Overall, the project can not aggravate the already identified food risk. If changes to
flood risk are intended, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be
required to be submitted and approved prior to construction.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning the
above comments, please contact Randy Mundt, AICF, CFM, the Acting NC NFIP State
Coordinator at [phone], by email at rmundtrncem.or or at the address shown on the
footer of this documents.
Sincerely,
eth W. Ashe, RE, CFM
Assistant Director
c: John Gerber, NC NFIP State Coordinator
Location: 1812 Tillery Place, Suite 105 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Jonathan Engram
643 Rocky Point Rd
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
1/20/2009
I learned in the January 16, 2009 edition of the Wilkes County Journal
Patriot that a public meeting had been held on January 13, 2009 at the
Wilkes County Library and on January 14, 2009 at the Kerr Scott Dam on
the proposed hydroelectric project to be operated by a private company
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company ("WHC"), taking advantage of a public
resource. I own lakefront property on W. Kerr Scott Lake. I have
contacted a number of my neighbors and none of them received notice of
these meetings, although as lakefront property owners we will certainly
be impacted by the construction of the proposed Hydroelectric Project.
One would have thought that at least the landowners of lakefront
property would have been notified of these meetings.
I have reviewed the PAD and have several objections. First, no
mention is made about the effects on lake levels during construction.
Second, what effect will the WHC have on lake levels during power
generation? In Paragraph 3.4.3 Water Resources, the PAD states that
"There will be no change in the flows leaving the W. Kerr Scott Dam and
Reservoir from the current flow practice. The COE will determine what
the flow for each day will be and power project personnel will assure
that this flow rate is adhered to." The WHC should have no right or
ability to determine what the flow rate is at any time. This
determination is to be made by the City of Winston-Salem and
implemented by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
As I read the contract entered into between the City of Winston-
Salem, the County of Wilkes and the USA, dated June 29, 1960, the City
of Winston-Salem has the sole and exclusive right to make all
determinations with respect to the release of water downstream from the
Reservoir. In addition, Wilkes County depends on 10 million gallons of
water a day from the Yadkin River.
Third, the PAD does not take into consideration the effect on
residential lake front property values in paragraph 3.4.8. Real
property values along other lakes along the Yadkin River, such as High
Rock Lake, have been negatively impacted by a private company's use of
the water for power generation to the detriment of the landowners and
the County through an erosion of the tax base. Last year Alcoa made
$41 Million selling electricity generated from a public resource while
drawing down lake levels that rendered many areas of the lake and boat
docks non-navigable. The inability to use the lake for recreational
boating and fishing will reduce the Wilkes County tax base, and this
change in tax values should be studied by the County.
Fourth, since the proposed plant at Kerr Scott is to be built below
the dam, construction will require that the flood gates be shut down
during construction raising the lake levels to never-before-seen
levels. The effect will be felt on both sides of the dam. The PAD
does not take into account these negative impacts. The PAD does not
specify how long the river flow will be interrupted during
construction, but construction can not interfere with the provision of
water to Winston-Salem and Wilkes County. Tyson Foods cannot be forced
to shut down during construction for the benefit of a private company
such as WHC, without significant economic consequences to the economy
in Wilkes County.
Fifth, there is no environmental impact statement included in the
PAD.
Sixth, Paragraph 5.1 indicates that WHC discussed the project with
Allen Piner with the COE in Wilmington. A request for more detailed
drawings of the proposed project was made, but this request has been
ignored by WHC to date. See article from the Wilkes Journal Patriot
dated 1/16/2009, excerpted below.
"Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem officials said in interviews that they
still have questions about how the facility would impact release of
water from the dam. The two municipalities depend on the Yadkin River
as a public water source and share control of the top 30 feet of water
in W. Kerr Scott Reservoir because they helped pay for building the dam
in the early 1960s.
We also are curious about how their requests for changes in the
amount of water released from the dam will be handled. If Wilkesboro
Hydropower needs more water (to generate electricity) we think they
should approach us in Winston-Salem, said Bill Brewer, Winston-Salem's
water treatment plant supervisor.
The company is saying they will ask the Corps, but the Corps always
asks us about the amount of water released. Brewer said this has been
particularly important during the drought.
Although the Edwardses said their project wouldn't alter the amount
of water released from the dam and flow of water in the Yadkin, their
proposal requires the release of water from the dam at certain minimum
levels to produce electricity. Kevin Edwards said Wilkesboro Hydropower
staff would physically control the gates that determine the volume of
water released, while working under the direction of the Corps.
A lot of the questions we have regard the duration of the shutdown
(of reservoir flood gates) and the stoppage of water flow during
construction of the hydropower facilities. Construction always takes
longer than planned.
Noland said the impact of not releasing water from the dam during
construction of the hydropower plant on Wilkesboro's water treatment
plant remained an issue, particularly due to how it could impact the
town's ability to supply the Tyson Foods chicken processing plants with
water.
Having Wilkesboro Hydropower personnel directly involved with
managing the release of water from the dam also is a concern, he said.
They manage for hydropower and we manage for water supply.
For all the reasons set forth above, I object to this project and
request that the FERC deny the WHC a license to construct and operate a
hydropower plant at the Kerr Scott Dam & Reservoir.
Jonathan Engram
643 Rocky Point Rd
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
I
I
January 22, 2009
Jonathan Engram
643 Rocky Point Rd
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
Wilkesboro
Hydroelectric
Company, LLC
Hydro Development
RE: W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project, P-12642
Dear Mr. Engram,
P.O Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
336 589-6138
ph@piedmonthydropower. com
I am indeed sorry that you were not aware of the public meeting for the proposed W. Kerr Scott
Hydropower project. On December 24, 2008 the meeting was announced in the Wilkes Journal Patriot
newspaper, which circulates in all of Wilkes County. The Wilkes Journal Patriot interviewed Kevin
Edwards prior to the meeting and wrote an article about the project, including the meeting time and place,
and published it on January 14, 2009. All persons, agencies and tribes on the project's distribution list
received a letter dated December 18, 2008 advising them of the meeting. Further the FERC was notified
about the meeting on December 22, 2008. By doing the above we have complied with the FERC rules
regarding notification for this meeting. In the newspaper article that you mentioned in your letter, the
newspaper incorrectly stated the date of the meeting. Both meetings were held on January 14, 2009
I understand your concern regarding the fluctuations in lake levels that can occur at other hydropower
projects. This primarily occurs at projects that are used for peaking and only run part of each day. On page
5 of the PAD we stated "The project will use "run-of-the-river" operations or as otherwise directed by the
COE." Run-of-the-river means that the impoundment is kept at one level and inflow and outflow are the
same after accounting for evaporation and other withdrawals from the lake. WHC will not cause any
change in lake elevations from what you currently experience. For example: Under normal conditions the
lake will be held at 1030 feet. When a large inflow of water enters the lake, the lake elevation may rise a
few feet to store excess water so that the Yadkin River will not flood downstream. During periods of
drought, the lake may be drawn down below 1030 feet to maintain a flow of 125 cfs in the Yadkin River
downstream from the dam, under the City of Winston-Salem's direction. WHC has been in communication
with City of Winston-Salem personnel and they were at the public meeting site visit on January 14, 2009.
They do not have a problem with the proposed power project as long as the Corps and WHC adheres to
Winston-Salem's water flow criteria.
The construction and operation of this power project will in no way negatively impact the property values
of land on the W. Kerr Scott lake or those on the Yadkin River. The hydro plant will have no impact on
recreational boating in the lake as water levels will be regulated as they currently are.
The construction of the project will not cause the level of the lake to rise to never-before-seen levels. On
page 9 of the PAD we stated, "A 36-inch diameter pipe will be temporarily installed inside the conduit liner
while the liner is being installed to allow flows up to 200 cfs to continue down the river. The established
minimum flow is 125 cfs. There will be a temporary watertight bulkhead at the upper end of the liner that
will divert the water flow into the 36-inch pipe. There will also be a slide gate in the bulkhead to allow
greater flows to pass though the conduit liner should lake elevations become too high during liner
installation. It is expected that it will take 30 days to install the conduit liner." As long as the flow
required to be released during the 30-day period is 200 cfs or less then there will be no rise in lake level. If
there is a large inflow to the lake during this 30-day period then the service gate will be opened and the
excess flow will be passed through the discharge tunnel. Work installing the liner would have to stop
during the times that the service gate is open. We will need to stop flow in the discharge conduit three
times during the liner installation for 8 hours. This need was described in great detail at the site visit and at
the public meeting. It needs to be understood that the Army Corps of Engineers routinely stops flow in the
discharge conduit from time to time now for inspection and maintenance. The Corps coordinates any
stoppage with the water systems downstream and any other stakeholders. Present at the site visit were
representatives from the City of Winston-Salem, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Town of Wilkesboro, N.C. DENR PWSS, NCWRC, NCDENR- Division of Water
Resources, NCDENR Division of Land Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, Wilkes County Planning
Dept and the Wilkes Journal Patriot newspaper. It was felt by the Wilkesboro water department that it
would be best to schedule this stoppage during a time that Tyson Foods would not be in operation. The fish
and wildlife agencies present felt that any stoppage should occur after Labor Day when the air and water
temperature are cooler and normal flows in the river are normally small. WHC has agreed to work with the
water departments and fish and wildlife agencies in regard to the timing of the liner installation to minimize
any impact.
There is no requirement that an environmental impact statement be included in the PAD. The FERC will
do an environmental assessment as part of issuing a license for the project.
WHC has produced conceptual drawings which is all that is required for a PAD. Construction drawings
will be produced after the license application has been submitted and accepted by the FERC. A
requirement of the license will be that the construction drawings be approved by the Army Corps of
Engineers. It would be a waste of time to produce detailed drawings this early in the licensing process.
Indeed, during the site visit on 1-14-09 it was requested by the Corps that the powerhouse be placed on the
south side of the stilling basin instead of on the north side. WHC agreed to this request. Also during the
site visit the two water supply agencies and the fish and wildlife agencies requested that the water quality
intake channel that we will be constructing be able to withdraw water from several different levels of the
lake, not just from the surface. We agreed to make this change. The whole purpose of the PAD and the
public meeting is to present the concept of the project and obtain input from agencies, tribes and other
interested persons. To this end the meeting worked well.
WHC has designed this project in such a way that all negative impacts are minimized and environmental
benefits are enhanced. With the addition of the water quality conduit to the face of the intake tower water
wit a multilevel intake will enable water to be drawn from the most desirable levels of the lake. Currently
during the summer, the water that is drawn from the bottom of the lake often causes the water downstream
from the dam to be low in dissolved oxygen. Wilkesboro water department has trouble with manganese and
iron in the water during part of the year. A multilevel intake will improve the year round dissolved oxygen
level and water chemistry. In addition to this benefit, the project will produce electricity without
atmospheric emissions. In order to produce the same energy that this project will produce with a coal fired
power plant 18,144,000 pounds of coal would have to be burned which will produce:
CO2 2.08 pounds/kWh 46,611,933 pounds per year
NOX .0026 pounds/kWh 58,240 pounds per year
SO2 .0065 pounds/kWh 145,600 pounds per year
This annual reduction of CO2 emissions is environmentally equivalent to 3,585,533 trees planted or
56,743,062 miles not driven every year.
This is a significant environmental improvement.
WHC is concerned that you have misconceptions regarding this project and would like to talk with you,
either in person or on the phone, to provide you with the opportunity to fully understand the projects
operation and relatively minimal impacts to the lake and Yadkin River. Please call me, Kevin Edwards, at
336 589-6138 at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Kevin Edwards, member
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
October 28. 2008
Wilkesboro IIydroclectr•ic Company, I.I.C
fir. Kevin I:dn.u•ds
P.Q. Box 143
Mayod.ur. _NC 27027
Dear Mr. Edwards:
This letter is in response for your reduest to Submit a TLP (Traditional Licensing PracesSJ
in lieu of the ITT {Integrated I.ICcrlSing ProC'eSS?. -fl le Cnunta of Wilkes has no
preference oil the applicaticm process used and will defer any preference to the V.S.
-Iran Corp of Engineers, 1&'ilarington District, which operates the %V_ Kerr Scott Dam
and Reservoir wlicre the project will he located.
Thank you for the information and the opportunity to comment. Please continue to keep
us infomied on the application proee4s.
Sincerely.
Edward G. Barnes
Edward U. Barnes
Planning Director
TOWN OF WILKESBORO
" NO i.1 /I r, - lkfeN111tlid rNir#,i
P.Q. Box 1056 r 203 West Main Street
Wilkesboro. North Carolina 28697
www.wilkesbc)ronorthcarolina.com
Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
February 18, 2009
Kevin Edi ards. Manager
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company. LLC
P.O. Box 143
Mayodan. NC 27027
fill COPiedinonthydropower.coM.
Re: W. Kerr Scott Hydro-Electric Project
Prnjeel No.: 12f?42-001.
Dear Mr. Edwards:
We would like to make the following comments for consideration in any plan approval
related to your electric generation project.
The Town of Wilkesboro is concerned about the possibility of the electric generation
company being given control of the release gates. We feel that the public interest would
best he served if die U3 Army Corps. maintain control of the release gates.
'T'here is a concern [hat increased amounts of water will he released in times of drti 1,12hl to
produce electric generation. The Towa of Wilkesboro strongly advocates a conservatism
policy that proactively reduce5 releases in moderate drought periods to insure continued
water supply if drought conditions persist and/or worsen.
The preliminary construction plans as revealed include a structure that would allow wetter
to be withdrawn at different depths of the lake for water duality purposes. A policy must
he developed to determine. who will make the decisi(in on the withdrawal level and what
water quality parameters might determine such. Given the close proximity of the lake
discharge and the Town's water plant intake, this is a critically impoilant issue.
During construction of the hydro-electric facility apparently the discharge will he
interrupted and at times completely shut down for periods that could last several hours.
The reduced river flow during these shutdowns will directly affect the water plant intake
and must be coordinated it. prevent any interruption of the Town's water supply.
MIKE INSCORE KENNETH D. NOLAND JOSEPHINE CASS COUNCILMEN Councilman I Mayor Pro Tom
MBYW Tow Manager Town OlerktFlnance Offimr JAMES 5 HARTLEY SAM 5TROLID
townmanagerdmlkesboronere mrollna.r JIMMY HAYES
GARY JOHNSON
If (ite above concerts can he addressed in a positive manner the Town of Wilkesboro
would not have any objection to the proposed project.
Sincerely,
V--? )L-
annekh eland
't'own Manager
Cc: FERC Contact: AIIyson Conner
allyson.con ner@d) ferc.gov
March 6, 2009
Wilkes Hvdrodeetric CompanN. LLC
Mr. Kevin Edwards
P.O. Box 113
klavodaut. \C 27027
Re: lI ilke:, Iii droelectt3e Project -1! Aerr Scott Reservoir
)ear Mr- Edo arils
Thank you for arranging the meeting with local officials and the public on 1muary 14 . I
am sending this letter in response to the sixty-day comment period- I feel the proposed
hydroelectric project could be vere henehcial to our area-, hov?ever•- I do scant to reiterate
my concerns with sorn4 potential emillicts with the High Impact Land Use Ordinance..
particularly the spacing requirements sct forth by Article II. Section 3 (E). Pujsuiuit to
the Ordinance a 1.00()4001 separation is required between regulated facility (electricity
generating facility) and a pruteosed fcciIity (o"upicd dNvc11ing).
Based on the proposed Iocation ol• the power plant as discussed on site on Jarmary 10.
there are two possible remedies: (1) a %aiver of the 1.000 toot ,pacing requirement
signed and notarized by owners of the protected faciIiIv in accordance NFith appendix A
Of said ordinance or; (2), a variant %v issued by the Wilkes County Board ol'AdjustmemL
In addition an application for permit Frill nccd to be submitted to the Wilkes County
Planning Department-
Once again.. we look lorward to working with you in the future. If you have any
questions please contact our office at 336-651-7582.
Sincerely.
Edward G. Barnes
P,d?N and G, Banes
Nanning Director
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 19
Gordon S. Myers, Executive Director
March 12, 2009
Mr. Kevin Edwards, Agent
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
PO Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
Subject: First Stage Consultation Comments and Study Requests
W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project (P-12642-001)
Dear Mr. Edwards:
the
under the Traditional Licensing Process (18 CFR 4.38). The NC WRC provides these comments
in accordance with provisions of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 79 la et seq.) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; L6 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC (WHC) proposes to use the existing dam, reservoir
and intake of the W. Kerr Scott flood control facility built and operated by the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE). WHC prepared a Pre-Application Document (PAD) dated September 29,
2008 which contains information about the project; provides preliminary information on the
existing environment, potential impacts and protection measures; and lists potential studies to be
conducted. On December 16, 2008 the FERC granted WHC's request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process instead of the Integrated Licensing Process. A joint meeting was held on
January 14, 2009. FERC rules require that resource agencies and the public must submit
comments and study requests within 60 days after the joint meeting.
We provided preliminary comments concerning the proposed project to WHC on September 2,
2008. We also reviewed the PAD and provided comments to the FERC on October 28, 2008.
WHC responded to our comments in a letter dated December 1, 2008. Additional information
was provided to the agencies and public by WHC at the January 14, 2009 site visit and public
meeting.
Mailing Address: 645 Fish Hatchery Road • Marion, NC 27652
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
First Stage. Comments Page 2 March 12. 2009
P-12642-001
The \C1§'RC has prepared a fish and vv iIdIile management plan l'or the Yadkin Rivcr basin
(attached). We have also prepared a Wildlife :lotion Plan. which lucuscs on rare. threatened alld
cidanpercdspccies(htty: N%nL+.iw%+ildH1'e.ors;),t77_llilLllil?SlieciesC'.,nT),,,7c1.lllnt). Based on
these nulnagente111 doe:umenls. we are interested in maintaining the important fisheries 0C W.
Tien- Swll Reservoir and improving the ecolog) of the Yadkin River downstream of . Kerr
Scott dart.
Pul Halle to 18 C F R 4.38(b)(5), which regulato the Traditional Licensing Process, vve submit the
Inllovving specific stud)' requests in accordance with FERC's regulations in order to more fully
understand the natural resources oft he project vicinity and [lie potential impacts of project
construction and operation an them.
AULIatiC Biota Sun•evS
`[rte applicant should conduct addilional surveys of the Yadkin River to adequately characterize
the fish. BILL"& crayf isle and other aquralic org:utisms, of the river that vv ill be most a-Retied by
project construction and operations.
1. (_ oal. and objectives of the slrrdv proposal and the mfor•rriation to he oblamed
WI IC slated drill the silo visit and joint meeting that ?L:ater Ilovcs trop] Ille dam ?N ould have
to be stopped of ctIrlalled during certain pllaties of con%trtlctlon. parllcnlal'Iwltell II1, t11 ing
the penstock liner. Cessation of flow has the potential to lovLCr oi' devvaicr portions Ol,the
Yadkin River donnstreant of the dart. particularly those upsitrlam of [lie first siguifiL ml
tribulan..vliirft can lead to mortality of aquatic organisms. Incarnation on the aquatic fauna
of the Yadkin River is limited, thug it is not known if and to what extent. aquatic organisms
are at rick to injun• during construction and operations.
-I-he P_1I) provides soine information on [lie fish in the 7 adkin Riverdm%nsIreanI ohthe dorm.
The list of lisle species loLill d lit Ilse 7 adkin Ri l-%:r between Ille dam altd Bron its ford Roiad is
from a 2005 NC1t1'RC suney (aIread7 supplied lu the applicant). Those data were obtained
using boat clcetrolishing, which is not adequate to sample species that arc small, cryptic or
it I) coi 11 loon. Additl oil al galltpI litg ellorts ivi Ii Ile necessary to fill lr describe the Iish
eimnmunity of the Yadkin River beIow the proposed project.
The 111) does not provide any information about mussels, cravlish, aquatic insects or other
aquatic species in [lie ricer below lire project. .-1 2007 survey elf the l adkin Hirer by the
NCWRC (attached) revea]ed that, while there, mere no mussels iruncdiateIv downsh'ealu of
1I'. hel'l' Scott dart, f our niu"el species are extant in the river. "Ills reach from the Rcddies
Rivcr to the Roaring River contains.4hoxrrridonicr t7ancosa (hrook floatm state endangered-
FSC) and E1hptio corriplunara (eastern Elliptio, not listed). Belo%% Roaring River. the Yadkin
Rivcr cuppot1s 1a.vnjdorucf varicasa, E'lliptio r•octnol ensis (Roanoke dab-did I. state
threatened), and Strophirus tendulatu.s (creeper, state threatened). Additional Samplmg Fot'
mussels is necessaan- becituse the 2007 survevs a ere not exhaustive aid ntalsscls are dill icuit
to locate due to their propensity to migrate vertically ill the substrate. Surveys flor+;Fayfish
alld other ayualic organisms were not conducted in 2007 and are needed to fulls- describe the
aquatic community.
First Stage Comments Page 3 March 12. 2009
P-12642-001
2. Rekm7anI resource management goals of-rhe agency with jurisdiction over the resource to be
studied
The XC'WRC is charged with protecting and ci llvtcing fish and cvildliic. including rare.
threatened and endangered species. See the Yadkin Management Plan and the Wildlife
:action Plan for more delaiIs.
3. If 'the requester i.r a not resource agent,;% explain any relevant pnhhe interest considercrttons
in regard to the proposed stardy
Not applicable. NCWRC IS a Slate resource agency.
d. Axi•sting infnrmahon concerning the .subjecl of the .study prndx?.sal. and the need for•
nddwonal rnjor'rr ation
See e.r'planation under item number 1. Sampling methods targeting ]lard to sample organisms
is needed to increase the likelihood that the aquatic colmnunit is full- described. Smaller
fish are not adcquatelp sampled using hoat clectrofishing. Mussel. are hidden iii the
substrate and often bun, behm the surface for extended Peri Td S. Survey.,; for Ll-ayfisll and
Other aquatic organisms have not been conducted.
s. A -e s bellreen pr'nject operations an<d eJ?eces' (direcr, indirect, and or crurrlrularir c) on the
r'esoru•ce to be studied. and ho u' the saidy results woarld inform the developmenr of-hcense
requirements
Sec explanation under item number 1. Cessation of IIovL, even if iemporarv for Short-tcrin
construction activities could lead to desiccatioil of sofas stream areas. and would hark a
detrimental cllect on aquatic organisms. If dewatering of the Yadkin River is expected to he
CltenslcC. All(] the Mite}tic community is significant in lemis vl'numberS or due to flue
presenec of'lislcd species. the NOVRC may require lniligaticm. For emnlplc, the applicant
may provide flows to the river by alternativLe means, such as pumping hater from the
reservvir. If rare or listed species are present, the applicant may have to lelmpvrarik, relocaw
the Organisms during colistruction.
6. Holn the proposed srucli, rethodologi• (including any preferred data collection and anuh'sis
techniques. or obfeclively quuntrJied information. and a schedule including appropriate field
seasonls'J and the duration) is c•on.sisient lvith beneraTly accepted practice in the scientific
conrlr Bela-
The 3.25-mile reach of Yadkin Ria•cl' bawcen the dale and Moravian Creek (the fast
signilicunl tributary') should be sampled in llu-ee locations (Figure 1) to describe flue aquatic
fauna. including fish. cra dish. and mussels. One site should be located betneen the clam anti
Bronn's Ford Road (Reach l). one site between Brosstt's Ford Road and Miller, Creek
(It each 2), and one site bes5een Millers Creek and Moravian Creek (Reach 3).
Fish sampling should include backpack or tote-barge cIcelroIishin,, and seining. Fish
collection should take place under ntmnal to low Ilusv conditions. hela een 1hn and .lure to
determine if :ut} illigralvey fishes are present {i. c.. spring Spanning rtm 0 l suckers}. This sill
First Stagc Convnentx Page 4 March 12. 2009
P-126=42-001
also oeetar before the release ofl ow dissols•.d uxNgen front the hppoIimnetic discharge that
typically occurs Irom July through October.
Qualitative iS1a155e1 ;allipling, (Ilresenee labsetlee] should he conducted by visual (snorkel.
SCL'13:k, or"- iesV s cope) and tactile sul-?•eys.
:kll sur evs should he conducted in a s'arietp of'hahitat types at each site and he timed to
provide catch-per-unit effort (CPUE). Tcn1porature and dissolved oxygen should lie
mea--cured at each site.
Organismx col lected should he identitled to species. Ltixancrated and measured. Toucher
spceinuns vhould be eollceted and pro+ idcd to the NC :1111seuln of \atur:d Seienees.
C'onsiderattons gflevel of effort and cost. as applicable, and la•hj, anj- proposed alternauvw
shrdie.s a+•ou141 not be suf]'icienI to ineet the stated inform ation tweeds
This muck should he comp leled in wo dais of Held stork. 'flee infinailation regnesled does,
not duplicate previous sampling, but is designed to provide specific aquatic inltmilation
related to potential construction impacts of the Project.
The study must he conducted b a person ar company holding a valid scientific collection
permit Ernm the tiCWRC. including an endangered species permit to s.unple utusselti. -he
NCWRC permits supen•isor. Daron Barnes, can provide you with a list of persons companies
that hold endangered species permits. Ile can be contacted at duron.h;arne- rr nesvildlilG,n
or at 919-707-0062,
Il' you have any. questions eonCcming these comments, please call me at 828-652-436[) oxt- 223.
Sincerely.
Christnpher C3nudreau
I Iy droposver I :iceming Coordinator
CC' Mark Cantrell. 1-SFXVS
Fred Tarvcr, \Cf]L' R
ENT Or
1M Th
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
MgRCtt 3. ?e° Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 16, 2008
Mr. Kevin Edwards, Manager
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
P.O. Box 143
Mayodan, North Carolina 27027
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Subject: First-Stage Consultation Comments and Study Requests for the W. Kerr Scott
Hydroelectric Project, Yadkin River, Wilkes County, North Carolina (FERC
No. 12642-001)
We have reviewed the information provided in your letter dated December 1, 2008, regarding the
subject preliminary permit for the W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project (Project) on the Yadkin
River in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC (WHC),
and lists potential studies to be conducted. The U.S. Department of the Interior previously
commented on this matter in a letter dated May 22, 2006, and in U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
letters dated July 22, 2008, September 4, 2008; and October 24, 2008. WHC provided additional
information to the agencies and the public during a January 14, 2009, site visit and public
meeting. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, Commission) issued a
preliminary permit for the Project site to WHC on October 25, 2006 (117 FERC 162,069), and
issued an Authorization to use the Traditional Licensing Process on December 19, 2008. The
following comments are submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Federal Power Act (16 U. S.C. 803(a) and (j)); the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 1536, 1538); the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321 ct seq.); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and the Electric
Consumers Protection Act of 1986 (100 Stat 1243).
The Project. In previous correspondence and in our comments at the public meeting on
January 14, 2009, we issued some general concerns about potential impacts to public resource
values, We are primaniv concerned about the potential impacts to tanlu aler Ilshcries Find oilier
resources in the do%%11stream areas oftllc Yadkin River. We appreciate your flexibility in
designing and siting the iwxv powcrhouse to red(lec potential impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. We espeeiall-1- appreciate lllc site ¦ isit in January with you and the oilier nittliral
resource agencies-. ne 11OW lltiderstand the propo%cd FicillUes and construction se(luellre far
bcttcr- We look forward to aoisting with the development ofthis license application--working
through these issues. seeing completion ofthe identified studies, and successfully addressing our
concerns.
Recommended Studies and Information Requests. WTt have discusstA with you and the other
natural resource: agencies the rcconuncnded methods and objectives of the :Vluatic Biota Surveys
described in detail bv the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in their letter of
yfareh 12. 2009. We believe volt should conduct theme additional surveyor of the Yadkin River in
a manner that adequately characterizes the fish. mussel, crayfish and other aquatic organisms of
tine river that %% ill be most affected by project con Aniction attd operation. We agree that this
study ?N ould best siid in our assessment of the potential impacts of the project construction and
operation and in our Fomutlation ofrecornmendations for mitigation.
Sununai-v- We are pleased With the progress toward deveIopment oFan application Fora license
for this Project- We have provided initial and lollow-up recommendations to address our
conc% nLns tier fish and wildlife resources and have recommended an additional a(puatic sunny of
the tailWatcr to develop provisions to consider rice potential cffccts to fish and %%ildlife resources-
If votl have 111V (luestions about Ihcsc conllnenls- please contact ylr- 'Mal-k- :1- Cantrell ofour
slafT'at 828258-3939. Ext. 227.
Sincerely.
-- original signed - -
13rian P- Cola
l' ield Superr isor
CC'
Mr_ Claris C;nudreau, Ilydroponer Rciicensing Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. 645 Fish Hatehcly Road. Marion. NC 28752
Scriiec last
Winston-Salem • Forsyth County
UY/County Utliftles
Water • Sewer • Solid Waste Disposal
tYili[in Ad min islralion • P U. R" 25I t - Winsim-Salem, NC 37102 • Icl 33F.737.8418 • has 336.737.9432
March 13, 2009
Mr. Kevin Edwards
Wilkeshoro Hydroelectric Company
P,O7 Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
Dcar Mr. Edwards,
The City of Winston-Salem's (City) agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corp)
for flow changes and deviation requests from the W. Kerr-Scott Reservoir is paramount
to the operation of our potable water system. Since this agreement supersedes
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company's (WI IC) request to add a hydropower facility at the
site, we offer the following comments to your proposed project For entry into record, as
well as, additional clarification where indicated.
1. During the public hearing WFIC expressed interest in lowering the W. Kerr-Scott
Reservoir -'a couple of feel" to facilitate the installation of by-pass piping and pen-
stock. Although we are not opposed to this concept, eve will require the following
conditions be met before we will agree to this request:
• The minimum level ofthe reservoir must be maintained at elevation 1028
providing that there are sufficient inflows to the reservoir to support this level,
• The current drought level as posted on NC's Drought Monitoring website
4 ) must he rated no higher than "I3c]ovv
Normal".
• The City will require that the lake level not be lowered by exceeding the
established discharge curves, or accelerating the discharge rate, if any
mandatory water conservation practices are in place according to its Water
and Sewer System Policy Resolutions.
2. WHC has indicated that several flow stoppages must occur during the construction of
the project. The City will agree to flow stoppages on an "as requested" basis
provided the following conditions are met:
• Prior to agreeing to any shut downs the City would like to review a detailed
schedule and sequence of activities involved in installing the 36" by-pass
discharge pipe and installation of the I I' diameter conduit.
¦ WHC must request, in writing, to both the City and the Corp, any flow
stoppages from the reservoir at least 72 hours in advance of the requested
stoppage.
• No flow stoppages will be recommended if the City is under mandatory water
use restrictions.
• No flow stoppages will be recommended if said stoppages will bring the flow,
as measured at the "Yadkin River at Enon" USGS gauge
to a rate below 554 cfs as this
is the minimum flow condition listed on the City`s Muddy Creek Wastewater
permit.
• Any work by WHC that may require flow stoppages be performed after 10/1
and before 411 of the year when construction on the project begins.
• Any flow stoppage that is allowed must not exceed a period of S hours in
duration on any given day.
• Any flow stoppages allowed roust not negatively impact water quality.
3. Currently there is a USGS gauge that measures the discharge rate from the reservoir.
Should WHC's activities and final flow pattcros render this device useless, then
WI IC shall replace or restore said gauge and instrumentation at it's cost.
4. W1 IC has indicated that while the 35" by-pass pipe is in place, the maximum flow
that can be discharged from the project is --200 cfs. flow does WHC propose to deal
with large rain events which may cause the reservoir level to rise to a point where
higher discharge flows are required for flood control by the Corp?
F inally, these comments are not intended to supersede similar comments made by other
agencies on these particular issues. Also, the City reiterates its position that the Corp
maintain sole control ever adjustment of gates on the outlet structure in the resere•oir both
during and after construction of the project.
If there are any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone]
or Ron Hargrove at [phone].
Since'reeiv,
David Saunders
Cih lCounty Utilities Director
Cc: Ron Hargrove, Utilities
Bill Brewer Utilities
Allen Piner, Corp- Wilmington District
Terry Ramsey Corp - Wilmington District
An email from Chris Goudreau
From: Goudreau, Chris J. <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Subject: W. Kerr Scott Hydro - Draft License Application
To: Kevin Edwards <[e-mail]>
Cc: Fred Tarver <[e-mail]>, "McGee, Melba" <[e-mail]. nc.us>, Mark
Cantrell <[e-mail]>, "Cyndi Karoly (DWQ)" <[e-mail]>, George
Piner <[e-mail]>
I have reviewed the document you have described as a draft license application (DLA). It appears that your
filing does not conform to the FERC regulations and guidelines for the Traditional Licensing Process in
several ways.
First, while you have called the document a DLA, it does not follow the format described in 18 CFR 4.38
or FERC licensing handbook (see attached). The DLA should contain an Exhibit E, which is similar to a
NEPA Environmental Assessment. Exhibit E should provide an analysis of the studies and other
information.
Second, the DLA is supposed to contain the results of the studies, not a statement that the studies will be
conducted (see page 29 of the DLA). Second Stage Consultation is to consist of: 1) performing the studies,
2) submitting the DLA for comment, and 3) time for agency comments on the DLA.
Third, FERC regulations allow for a 90 day comment period to review a DLA, not the 60 days as stated in
your cover letter.
For these reasons, I think it would be best if you would withdraw your document from FERC and stop the
review clock for Second Stage comments. Instead, it seems appropriate at this time for you to provide a
response to the First Stage Comments explaining which studies will be conducted as requested, conducted
as modified, or not conducted. That document should be filed with the FERC and copied to the agencies
and mailing list.
The DLA should not be submitted for comments until the studies are completed and Exhibit E provides an
analysis of the studies.
I would be glad to discuss this with you and others, if you like. Please understand that I'm not trying to
delay your project, but don't want to get out of line with the FERC process. It would be better to correct the
path sooner than later.
Chris Goudreau
Special Projects Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
828-652-4360 x223
(As a result of this email we suspended action on this DLA until 6-29-09 when we sent out the updated DLA
in the proper format and after talking with Mark Pawlowski at the FERC at [phone]. He said that
since the study has been delayed due to high water and turbidity in the river that I should send out the DLA
now to allow agencies 90 days to comment before the end of the preliminary permit.)
Wilkesboro
Hydroelectric
VJ Company, LLC
Hydro Development
W. Kerr Scott Hydropower Project (FPRC No. 12542)
Re: Downstream Aquatic Biota Report
July 27, 2009
P-Q Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
335 589-5138
ph@7a piedmonthydropower-com
RECEIVED AVG i 1 20[g
The Catena Group, headed by Tom Dickinson, has completed their survey of the Yadkin River
below the W- Kerr Scott dam. This report is available on our website at:
http11piedmonthydropower-comlkerrscottlw_kerr_Scott_aquatic_biotanreport_7_24_2009. pdf
Or, you may find it easier to go to www.piedmonthydropower-com, click "Wilkesboro. NC", then
scroll to the bottom of the page, where there is a link to this file, labeled "Downstream Aquatic
Biota Study".
Please call or write if you have any questions, or would like for us to send you a hard copy of
this report.
On July 2, we submitted a revised Draft License Application to the FERC. There is a 90-day
comment period from this date. If possible, we would appreciate if we received your comments
on the DLA and this survey by September 1, 2009, in order to allow us time to review them and
prepare the License Application.
Sincerely,

Kevin Edwards. manager
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
i ne unaeu KBetaaWBh hand o( Chvrok9O I)0*1e
in Oklahoma has 110 obrection to the r®tarenud
project. However, If any remsinS, ArWaM or other
items are inadvwtnetly dfscoversd. please cease
eranstruCtian inxnadiataly and Con€aot us at 91fiA56-
6533 or by letter. _ V12
NOTE STAMP y - U
t isa pp, T&M P Date J
4i?,?x7 of ryfi
,.2m United States Department of the Interior
3 11
? O
7 b
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?AgCH 3 tiaa? Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 25, 2009
Mr. Kevin Edwards, Manager
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
P.O. Box 143
Mayodan, North Carolina 27027
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Subject: Draft License Application for the W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project, Yadkin River,
Wilkes County, North Carolina (FERC No. 12642-001)
We have reviewed the information provided in the Draft License Application (DLA),
supplemented by the Aquatic Biota Surveys and your letter dated July 27, 2009, regarding the
application for a new license for the W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project (Project) on the Yadkin
River in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC (WHC),
proposes to use the existing dam, reservoir, and intake of the W. Kerr Scott flood-control facility,
built and operated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). WHC prepared a License
Application dated July 2, 2009, which contains information about the Project; provides
information on the existing environment, potential impacts, and protection measures; and lists
results of studies conducted. The U. S. Department of the Interior previously commented on this
matter in a letter dated May 22, 2006, and in U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service letters dated July 22,
2008; September 4, 2008; October 24, 2008; and March 16, 2009. WHC provided additional
information to the agencies and the public during a January 14, 2009, site visit and public
meeting. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a preliminary permit for
the Project site to WHC on October 25, 2006 (117 FERC ¶62,069), and issued an Authorization
to Use the Traditional Licensing Process on December 19, 2008. The following comments are
submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667c); section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543); the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 803(a) and (j)); the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 1536, 1538); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and the Electric Consumers Protection
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 1243).
The Project. In previous correspondence and in our comments at the public meeting on
January 14, 2009, we presented some general concerns about potential impacts to public resource
valries. We are primarily concealed about the potential impacts to tailw•ater fisheries and ether
resources in the downstream areas of the Yadkin River. We appreciate your tlcmbility in
designiit- and siting the new po,verhouse to reduce potential impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. We especially appreciate the site visit in January vv ith you and the other natural
resource agencies: we jitm understand the proposed Facilities and construction ,equence far
better, We look forward to assisting with the dcvclopmcnt of this License Application--working
through these issucS. sceiilg wnlplction of the identified studies. and succcsslully addressing our
c0llcer'11.5.
Draft License Application
We do not have any substatltive disagreements 4v ith the DLA-s synthesis and analysis of
relicensing studies and data. We provide the following general and specific comments to assist
with the development of a complete License Application and to provide adequate protection..
mitigation. and enhaulccmcnt measures for natural resourcc vaILICS. It appears that till Oft 11 c
required elements of the Licensc Application are or will be in place, with the following
suggested revisions.
In the DLA at § 3.1.7 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species, g•011
provide the U S. Dish and Wildlife Service list of rare. threatened, and endmigered
species frnln Wilkes County. We suggest that you include a reference to the date
and geographic scope of that list.
In the DLL at § 3.1.8.7 National Trails System and Wilderness /Treas. "llle
()ver-lnountain Victory National IIistoric Trail commemorates the campaign
leading to the battle of Kings Mountain by following the Revolutionary War route
ol'Patriot militiamen to the liable site at Kings Mountain National Military Park
in South Carolina. In September 1980, the trail was ollicially designated a
National Historic 'frail. 'there are currently two sections of the t VC11llountain
G ictorv. Trail at W Kerr Scott. and one oftherlt el-tends from the darn area park
(at the site of the proposed powerhouse) along the south side of the reservoir.
Please contact the Superintendent of this National Historic Trail at 2635 Park
]toad. Blacksburg, South Carolina 29702, for more information about ]low to
complete the license Application and minimi7.e potential adverse effects on this
resource.
In the DLA at § 3.4.7 Rare, Threateaed and Endangered Species. you dote
that "One enr angered .species in the area affected by this project is the
red-cockaded ivoodpecker. (Pieoicles borealis). These 1s•ooclpeekers need live.
CU-}year or older- pines in which to excavate their- cavities. However. since the
project will not require the removal of any trees there .should he no impact to this
woodpecker. " We recommend that you revise this section to reflect the fact that
the red-cockaded .vooclpcckcr does not occur in the Project area and therefore will
not be affected.
Supplement to the DLA, Downstream _aquatic Study Results. We have
reviewed the results of the .=aquatic Biota Surveys, included with your letter of
Ady 27, 2009. We believe these additional surveys of the laihvater ill the upper
Yadkin River adequately characterize the reaident fish, mussel, crayfish, and ether
aquatic organisms that will be most affected by Project construction and
operation. ;Wditional tish species, may be present seasonally but vnerc not
C11COUntCrcd during this sample. We agree that this study will aid our assessment
of the potential impacts of the Project canstructiort and operation and ill uur
r0 rrnulation of reconunendations for mitigation.
We agree that the information in the Aquatic Biota Surv eN.s supplements existing
data to provide baseline and updated information on the presence and relative
abundance of aquatic biota species vv ithm the study area. We also agree with the
col)cluslons of the Aquatic Biota Surveys. '111is information establishes all
important baseline to measure: the results Of fill Lire monitoring or the study area
after the installation of generating facilities at W. Herr Scott Danl.
The current f isle assemblage niav alrcadv be limited llv the cooler water
temperatures and potentially lower dissolved oxygen levels discharged by the
Corps. The proposed Project includes draft tube stir induction rings (which will
enable the Project to keep the dissolved oxygen level in the water below the
Project above state water quality standards) and a nurltilevcl intake structure (vvith
conduit and racks) Io draw, water from near the surrace of the reservoir. These
rtevv facilities and operational standards may result in improved habitat for the
warm-water aquatic fauna that have been observed in the W. Kerr Scott taihvater.
Recommendations
itliuimirc construction clfccts. 'llic following routine measures would be used to prcv°cnt or
reduce the potential ror adverse environmental impacts:
1 . Appropriate hest management practices should he used during construction to
reduce the potential for the erosion of exposed soil and to prevent the introduction
ol'scdinlenl into surl'ace eaten. T1w Lic disc Application should include an
erosilxl-control plan, or one should he developed, reviewed. and approved prior to
Coll"'tructioll.
2. Appropriate measures should be taken during construction to prevent the entry of
sill, construction grout, and other construction-related runoff into W. Kerr Scott
Reservoir and the tail titer. The License Application should include a
?lUl'111-lvatcr plan. or one should be developed, reviewed. and approved pricer to
ColritruCtioll.
3. Develop a flow-monitoring plan, along with pleasures to nlininli7e adverse
impacts to aquatic resources during enrlstructinn.
4. Develop a water-quality trronitoring plan. along With measures to minimize
adwcrse impact,, to aquatic. resources during construction.
Minimize operational cffeets. The following routine, measures would be used to prevent or
reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts during Project operations
Meet water quality standards. Water quality near the con5trnctioti and reservoir
releases should be sampled periodically to document temporary changes
associated with construction activities and to modify control measures as needed
to ensure protection of llic reservoir and its releases. Water quality parameters
should be monitored. including, but not be limited to, dissolved oxygen and
turbidity. 'IAte proposed selective Withdrawal method should improve water
quality donnstreant of the Project. Dissolved oxygeu concentrations downstream
of a reservoir are improved by withdrawing water at an elevation above the
thermochne. However, this method of ww illulraww'al will. require close monitoring
of lispolicnnion levels. I low Will VOU monitor conditions in the reservoir torebay
at the sclccliw c intake? For example, to monitor discharge temperatures al the
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's Hungry Horse Res, ervoir hydro project. temperature
sensors were placed in the reservoir every 1.5 meters (5 feet) for the top
54.9 ineters (180 feet) below maxinium reservoir water surface and at each
turbine. Temperature data is sent to the control room at the powwer plant and is
monitored by operators. Ili a reservoir used for generating power, the discharge is
tvpically located near the bottom ol'the dam to maximize the generating capacity
of the reservoir. to saliSfv Submergence requirements, and!or to Shorten penstock
lengths. Tlie feasibility of incoi-poritittg a sclccli ve ww•illidra4w al system to citltance
dissoIved oxygen levels depends on mart N- factors, including the configuration of
the discharge structure., reservoir stratification cycle. energy budget, reservoir
water quality distribution and characteristics. economics of modifications, and
competing objectives. To date, the majority of selective withdrawal applications
have been oil norwliydropowwer projects (iVainlaining caret?Uonaoring Dissolved
Ox vgen atllr..?di-oelectric Pi-gjectr: Staters Rej)ort, 1::PR1. Palo Alto, CA:
2002 1005194).
2. Monitor water quality in the tailrace. We recommend that you develop and
implement a monitoring plan for water quality in the tailrace to ensure that water
quality i,,maintained or imprnw-ed. Also, ifeonipared and related to conditions in
the reservoir forebay and mode of operation (vertical gates). We believe volt can
determine how best to line tune and adjust the gate operation to mailatain wwaler
quality. Following an initial monitoring period ol'adequate lcrigllt, including a
representative range of seasonal and water- quality conditions, we believe you wvill
be able to reduce or eliminate water-quality monitoring in the tailrace (except iti
mar-inal or extreme conditions) and use the results of forebay-monitoring
conditions at the intake to operate the selective intake.
3. Maintain minitnum flow regwrein ents. We recommend the dewcloprncrtt or a
plan to monitor tailwatcr stream flown both during construction and during
4
subsequent operation. Since it will he necessary to redriie the IloAN through the
conduit during installation of the discharge conduit liner. the requirod minimum
flow will be below the normal flow- What is the expected duration. for these
cx-trent4 low flows during construction? If there is art Unexpected largo inflow of
water into the reservoir during the installation of the conduit liner, what cmi he
done to pass larger flows? The License Application should include such a plam,
or one should he developed. reviewed, and approved prior to construction.
4. Avoid intpingementlentrain ment. The current intake screen designs are
protective [csr most fish species. I Io.veN er, we are concerned about how the
intake screens will be maintained in a clear condition so that occlusions by debris
and trash do not alter the proposed intake velocities and generate "hot spots.-
Please include a proposed intake maintenance plan with the License Application,
along with a schedule and plan describing the disposition of trash and debris. We
also rcconurrend that you be prepared to respond ,% ith appropriate mitigation
measures if the North C.ar•olina Wildlife Resour'ceS Commission determines
through its routine monitoring that impingement or cntrainnient is a factor in lisle
populations in the reservoir.
('nnclusinn. In summary- we appreciate the hard work that went into compiling the D1,A_ We
are anxious to assist in deVeloprlrerat of'study plans to satisfy the requests For additional
information described above. We are pleased with the DLA for this Project. We have provided
initial and f''0110 W-up recommendations to address our concenis for fish and wildlife resources
and have reviewed the additional aquatic surveys of the tailwater to develop provisions to
consider lire potential effects to fish and v ildlirc resources. If you have any questions about
these comments- please contact Mr. dark V Cantrell of our staIT at 828.258-3939. Ext. Z27.
Sincerely-
- ORIGLV IL ION-ED -
Brian 11. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr•. Chris (7oudreau. Hydropower Relicensing Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. 645 Fish Hatchery Road. Marian, 1tiC 28752
Mr•. Fred'1 arve.r•. Division of Water Resources. North Carolina Department of Environment and
NittUral Resources. 1611 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, IBC 27699-161 1
Sen-icc List

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon S. Myers, Executive Director
August 26, 2009
Mr. Kevin Edwards, Agent
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
PO Box 143
Mayodan, NC 27027
Subject: Draft License Application
W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project (P-12642-001)
Dear Mr. Edwards:
This letter contains comments on the Draft License Application (DL A) of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) pursuant to the regulations governing the licensing
of a new hydroelectric project by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the
Traditional Licensing Process (18 CFR 4.38). The NCWRC provides these comments in
accordance with provisions of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC (WHC) proposes to use the existing dam, reservoir
and intake of the W. Kerr Scott flood control facility built and operated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE). We provided preliminary comments concerning the proposed project to
WHC on September 2, 2008. WHC prepared a Pre-Application Document (PAD) dated
September 29, 2008 which contains information about the project; provides preliminary
information on the existing environment, potential impacts and protection measures; and lists
potential studies to be conducted. We provided comments on the PAD to the FERC on October
28, 2008. WHC responded to our comments in a letter dated December 1, 2008. On December
16, 2008 the FERC granted WHO's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process instead of
the Integrated Licensing Process. A joint meeting and site visit was held on January 14, 2009.
We provided First Stage Consultation comments and study requests to WHC on March 12, 2009.
After originally posting a DLA on March 17, 2009, WHC has now submitted a revised DLA on
July 2, 2009 and an aquatic biota survey report on July 24, 2009.
Mailing Address: 645 Fish Hatchery Road • Marion, NC 27652
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Draft License :application Cornmments Page 2 August 26.. 2009
P-12642-001
Tense ADMication
I'he DLA is generally adequate in describing the project and the expected impacts on the
environment. We are pleased that it has incorporated our suggestions as to design- operation and
in the cnlmtent ol'the DT A, itself'. The lollowing comments are provided to improve the final
license application.
Section 3.1.3.5. Water QLMlity Standards "17tis section states that water quality standards are
being nmet at North Wilkesboro and Wilkesboro (downstream of the dam). but the DLA does not
provide any data tables or graphs to support the claim. Please provide the summarized data and
the source of that information.
Tlic last seillclice of the first paragraph of this section describes a proposed protection, tmmitigatiotm
and enhancement (PM&F.) nteasure. As such, it belongs in section 3.4 of the document.
Section 3.1.4.2. Fxisting Fish and Aquatic Communities - The sentence "[t]here are no known
anadrontous fish in the Yadkin River ` should be modified to indicate that currently there arc no
diadronmous. fish in the Yadkin River upstream of High Rock Lake. Also. the conclusion that "it
appears that diadromous fish never appeared in the river near where the W. Derr Scott dam is
todav" is inaccurate. While .-American eel were not known to reach the Virginia potlion of the
Yadkin basin. those portions of the basin are at higher elevations than the project. In other
nearby basins, American eels were historically found at stream elevations similar to the project.
Also. as stated in time DLA...American shad historically reached the vicinity of Wilkesboro, which
is only about 5 miles downstreamm of the project.
Section 3.1.7, Rare, Threatened. and Endangered Species - Tlme list of"rare, threatened, and
endangered species attributed toa the I -.S. Fish and Wildlille Scrvicc (ITSFWS) does not contain
any geographic location. Please indicate whelber this list is for 1 liLcs County or just for the
project location.
'Mis section should also include state-listed species in the vicinity or downstream of the project-
According to NCWRC servers between 2000 and 2007 have found t,,No state-listed nutssel in the
Yadkin River downstream of the project, including brook floater (A]asmidonta varicosa, federal
species of concerti and state endangered) and the creeper (Strophitus undulates, state threatened).
While these species have not been found immediately below the dam. it is possible they exist
near, and could he affected by_ the project- 'this same conclusion is mentioned in Section 4.2 cif
the Aquatic Biota Survey report.
Scelton 3.1.8.1. Recreational Use of Proi eel Lands and 'h'aters Time last sentence of this section
describes a potential adverse impact. It should be moved to section 3.3.5.
Section III Known or Potential Adverse IInP',lels. Water Resources - This section lists a
number 0I'pote11tial impaels 0I'C0111 trnCliorl and operation on water duality and water quantity in
the form of a series of questions. However- these questions are not answered in most instances,
so it is not clear v.-hich are truly expected to have an impact and to what e\-tent those impacts
may affe?-t the, environment or other users. For example, item 5 raises issues related to potential
construction impacts. One possible impact is that aquatic organisms may die il` flows catmmurt be
Draft License Application Continents Page 3 :august 26, 2009
P-12642-aft
maintained dovvnstreain of the project during construction. Please revise this section accordingly
by providing data to support the conclusions.
Section 3.3.4. Known or Potential :lidverse Impacts. Fish and Aquatic Resources 11 should be
noted that the project 1r ill ucinlinue to pose a barrier in upstream migration offish and aquatic
organisms. While [lie cause nf'the blockage is the dam itself; the hydro project does not plan to
address fish passage.
Section 3.3.7. Rare. Threatened. and Endangered Species '11iis section should be revised to
reflect the presence of state-listed species downstream of the project.
Section 3.4.3, Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement, Waler Resources - The utajorily of this
section belongs in Section 3.3.3, as it consists of amsw•em to the questions posed there.
Item 2 in this section refers to using two methods to maintain dissolved oxygen above state
standards - a selective withdrawal process that uses water from different levels of'the reservoir
water colunut, and watcr aeration via draft tubes. We believe this combined approach has merit.
but the final license application should provide more inforniation oil each component. Based on
the literature and the specific turbines to be used at the project. what is the expected increase in
oxygen concentration from the draft tube System under the normal range ol'lentper Mures and
dissolved oxygen found in the reservoir? Also, an Operational plan should be provided that
explains how the selective withdrawal process will be Used throughout the year to ensure
adequate dissolved oxygen in the tailrace.
item 2 also mentions monitoring dissolved oxygen below the project oil a weekly basis. We do
not believe this is adelluale to ensure that slate water quality Stand rds would he ntel on a regular
basis. We rcconiniend that the prajcct monitor selected water quality pal',111 tcrs in the lailIV iler.
including temperature and dissolved oxygen, on in hourly basis for at [cast two years. Water
quality monitoring of the reservoir water colunul should also be considered as part of a water
quality inonitorin- plan. 'lftis would allow WHC to aollust the intake tower settings so that water
quality of the tailrace call be mainlamed within acceptable condilionS. :'Ter experience is
gained such that water quality of'the discharge consistently meets state standards, the
downstream monitoring could be terntinatcd. We recommend that a eater quality monitoring
plan be developed among WI IC. \C Division of Water Quality, ItiCWRC'. LiSFWS and others.
If it is not feasible to prepare such a plait prior to submitting the final license application, we will
recommend to the rhRC that it be included as a license article.
Item 5 describes the general plan of constructing and installing the conduit liner. At the end of
this discussion the DLA provides details of the selective withdrawal procedure. `I7tis should be
moved to item 2 and described as a potential procedure. The selective withdraNval procedure
could be improved in several ways. First. instead of Llsiltg season or the pl-eseltce of "an algae
bloom" as decision criteria to A List intake racks, certain water quality parameter thresholds
(e -g-, temperature, dissolved nab gen, chlnrophyl1) 511uu1d lie used- Second. the exact water
depths for vx ithdravval stay not riccessal-11v be `.the Lipper 20 Let" of the reservoir. Again, this
should be based on water quality conditions of the reservoir water and the use of the draft tubes.
Dram License Application Comments Page 4 August 26. 2009
P-12642-001
Section 3.4.4. Protection. Mitigation and Enhancement. Fish and Aquatic Rcsourccs- The
intake rack design appears to meet our routine guidelines for spacing and water velocity-
However, the DLA does not describe hoer the trash racks j i I I be cleaned so that they remain
unobstructed and velocities do not increase. Please provide a plan for trash rack cleaning,
including disposition of organic and inorganic: ?vaisle mnaterials.
Section 3.4.7. Rare. Threatcned, and Endangcrcd Species - 'Ibis section should be revised to
reflect the presence of state-listed species downstream of'the project-
Aquatic Biota 5uvvev
'111is supplemental report provides information pertinent to sections 3.1.4. 3.1.T 3.3.4, 3.3.T
3.4.4, and 3.4.7. We believe this report adequately addresses our request for additional studies of
the Yadkin Rivcr dw nstream of the prUjcct.
In Section 4.1 of the survey report, the statement `'...the presence of species such as rainbow
trout and smallmouth bass indicate that these species are able to take advantage of the current
cool water release regime and survive at lower elevations than they Would be typically found in a
similar unaltered river svstetu- is not entirely correct. Smallnaoutln bass are found as far
downstream as Forsyth County. so their presence in the tailrace is not an example of'ilncin
surviving at lower than normal elevations.
While the cool water release below the project may allow rainbow trout to survive part of the
rear, that Species is probably the i•eSUlt of stockings elsewhere in the hasiin. It is not Our intent to
recommend a water temperature regime he low the project that benefits trout. Rather. we believe
a selective withdrawal process that provides a more natural lcnnperature rcginne is appropriate to
improving the native fish. mussel and aquatic fauna of the Yadkin River.
Recommendations
We recommend the foIIowing measures be foIIowed during th.e construction phase onfthe project:
I. A flow monitoring plan should be developed v ilh the appropriate agencies to ensure that
adequatc flows arc maintained downstream of the project during connstruction. This plan
should include mitigation options to address situations in which flow cannot he
maintained above certain target levels.
2. A water quality monitoring plan should be developed with the appropriate agencies to
ensure that adequale Venter quality is maintained donnstream of the prvjeet during
construction. 'this plan should include mitigation options to address situations in which
water quality cannot be maintained above certain target levels.
3. Best management practices should be used during; constnretion to mininniZe erosion and
sedimentation related to the project. Prior to Collstrziction, an erosion control plan should
be developed with the appropriate agencies for approval by state and local entities.
Draft License Application Comments Page 5 August 26, 2009
P-12642-001
4. Best management practices should be used during construction to prevent and minimize
other construction-related effects, such as grout, lubricants, etc., from affecting water
quality. Prior to construction, a plan should be developed with the appropriate agencies
for approval by state and local entities.
We recommend the following measures be followed during the operation phase of the project:
1. Adequate stream flows should be maintained downstream of the project at all times.
Although WHC plans to utilize water as dispatched by the COE, it is possible that the
project may experience problems and be unable to provide the flows as called for.
Therefore, a monitoring plan should be developed with the appropriate agencies that
describes how flows will be monitored and mitigation options to address situations in
which water quantity cannot be maintained above target levels.
State water quality standards should be maintained downstream of the project at all times.
A detailed operational plan should be developed with the appropriate agencies that
describes the positioning of intake racks and use of draft tubes under the range of water
quality conditions found in the water column of the reservoir. Monitoring of the water
quality in the reservoir and in the tailrace, as described above, should be part of the plan.
This plan should include mitigation options to address situations in which water quality
cannot be maintained above target levels.
3. Impingement and entrainment should be minimized. An intake maintenance plan should
be developed with the appropriate agencies that describes a schedule for trash rack
cleaning, and disposition of organic and inorganic waste materials.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please call me at 828-652-4360 ext. 223.
Sincerely,
Christopher Goudreau
Hydropower Licensing Coordinator
Winston-Salem - Forsyth County
City/county Utilities
Water - Sewar • Solid Waste Disposal
Utilities Adrrurti lr;rtLm ! B. \ 231 [ • winst+m-tialrm. W 27102 . [6 336.727.8418 . Fax [phone]
August 31. 2009
Ms. Kimberley Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street N.F.
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Ms. Bose,
The City of Winston-Salem (City) received a letter dated June X0.2009 regarding
Wilkesboro 1-lydroelectric Company's (WHC) interest to install electrical generation at
the existing W. Kerr Scott Clam. The City of Winston-Salem and the Town of
Wilkesboro have an agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) that states both
municipalities have the right to request flow changes and deviations front the W. Kerr
Scott Reservoir. Since the reservoir is critical to our water system and the City has a
vested interest in the operations of the W. Kerr Scott Dam, we were asked to review the
Draft License Application (DLA) and provide WHC with our comments and
requirements for this project.
We ha\ e the t01lov,Ing comments for the Draft License Application and would like to see
these documented ?t ithin:
Section -Project Information"'. address coordination between the City of
Winston-Salem and WHC
• Prior to agreeing to any shut downs the City would like to review a detailed
schedule and sequence of activities involved in installing the 36" by-pass
discharge pipe and installation of the 11' diameter conduit.
• WHC must obtain. in writing,, from both the City and the COE, approval of
any flow stoppages from the reservoir at least 72 hours in advance of the
requested stoppage.
2. Exhibit A{1)(iii) Project Operation and Section 3.1.3.4 Impacts on Water Use and
Water Rights
• The COE operate the gates on the outlet structure based on the City of
Whiston-Salem's, as well as, the Town of Wilkesboro's direction and reiterate
that this will remain the case before and after construction.

I Exhibit A(I)(vi) Reservoir
• Although the resen•oir is owned by the Federal Government, the City of
Winston-Salem and Wilkesboro invested in the construction of the dam and
currently share operation and maintenance costs each year. Our investment in
the oriC-final construction and associated agreement gives us rights to the
reservoir.
Section 3.1.3 Wrater Resources
• The statement regarding, Winston Salem's intakes on the Yadkin River are not
entirely accurate. Our 401 Water Quality Certification states when flow at
Idifls Dam falls below 554 cfs, the Cite shall request the COE to release
additional water from Kerr Scott Reservoir in the amount equal to the lesser of
a) the shortfall below 554 c:fs, or b) the total daily withdrawals (average over
the preceding 30 days) in excess of 50 MGD from all intakes operated by the
City on the Yadkin River.
5. Please elaborate in Section 3.4..3 Water Resources, number 5, how you plan to
address delays in construction if the Ilow stoppages take longer than expected.
The City of Winston-Salem is supportive of this "green energy" project and will
cooperate with WHC in any way possible. Id there are any questions regarding these
comments. please contact me at [phone] or Ron Hargrove at (33,5) 747-731 1
Sine v.
David Sa ers
City/County Utilities Director
Cc: Ron 1lararove, Utilities
Bill Brewer. Utilities
Allen Piner, COF - Wilmington District
Terry Ramsey, COE - Wilmington District
Kevin Edwards, Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph: 828-554-6852 Fax [phone]
TO: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
PROJECT(S): FERC No. 12642. Comments regarding Draft Application for License,
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC, W. Kerr Scott Dam, Wilkesboro, Wilkes
County, North Carolina.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI
THPO) is in receipt of the information for the above-referenced project and would like to
thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed NHPA section 106 activity.
However, the above referenced project is outside the aboriginal territory of the Cherokee
people. Therefore, the EBCI THPO defers comments regarding this federal undertaking
to the Catawba Indian Nation. The EBCI THPO does not wish to make comments on the
proposed federal undertakings at this time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or comments at
828-554-6852.
Sin Y,
Tyler B. Howe
Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
C: Kevin Edwards
DATE: 31 - August - 09
L1419(OVVI)
September 8, 2009
United Mates Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Overmountain Victory
National Historic Trail
2635 Park Road
Blackburg, South Carolina 29702
Mr. Kevin Edwards
Manager
Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
Post Office Box 143
Mayodan, North Carolina 27027
Dear Mr. Edwards:
NATIONAL
PARK
SERVICE
i
Recently we received a letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding their review
of a Draft License Application for the W. Kerr Scott Hydroelectric Project, Yadkin River, Wilkes
County, North Carolina (FERC No. 12642-001). Within the contents of the document was the
recommendation that your company contact the National Park Service regarding the section of the
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail (OVNHT) which is located within the area of your
proposed project.
On Monday, August 31, 2009 Mr. Edwards, Sr. contacted me at the headquarters office of the trail by
telephone to discuss the proposed project and its possible impacts upon the OVNHT. It was
determined that the area under consideration for work is not located on the OVNHT, but does have a
connector trail routed through it. After discussion, as well as review of plans on your draft license
website, it was determined that the construction would not destroy or impair the connecting trail.
Given these findings we have no objections to the project. We would request though that once
construction is completed that screening of the new power house with native vegetation be utilized as
much as possible to lessen visual impacts of the new structure to trail users.
Thank you for providing information on your project and allowing us the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
AL
Howard P. Carson
Superintendent
cc: TRamsey
TAKE PR 1 DE®&- 1
MAM ERICA--