May 27, 2003

DRAFT PROGRESS ENERGY

YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER PROJECT RELICENSING MEETING NOTES SUMMARY

WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUP MEETING No. 1

May 7, 2003 The following is a summary of the items and issues that were discussed during the first meeting of the Water Resources Working Group held on May 7, 2003 in Pinehurst, NC. The meeting agenda and sign-up sheet are provided as Attachment A. 1) John Devine of Framatome ANP introduced himself as a consultant for Progress Energy

and as serving in the capacity of Meeting Leader. All attendees introduced themselves and their affiliation. John reviewed the agenda for the meeting a copy of which had been provided to all attendees.

• Meeting Purpose: Progress Energy has submitted its Notice of Intent to seek to

obtain a new license for the Project. Progress Energy has chosen to use the Traditional Licensing Process with an expanded consultation program through several Resource Working Groups (RWGs). This meeting was the initiation of the effort to expand consultation. Progress Energy desires a cooperative process, and the intent is to engage in active and constructive dialog with interested parties.

A brief history of the project was provided. Progress Energy submitted the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) on February 7, 2003 and held the Joint Meeting on March 25, 2003. The comment period for the ICD remains open for 60 days following the Joint Meeting. This is May 25, 2003, however, because May 25th is a Sunday and the next day is Memorial Day, people were informed that comments could be sent to Progress Energy until May 27, 2003. Attendees were told that commenting at the meeting did not replace written comments or diminish the importance of the written comments and all were encouraged to submit written comments.

• Role of Resource Working Groups (RWGs): The roles of the Resource Working

Groups were reviewed. The initial goal of the RWGs is to 1) review existing data, 2) identify resource issues and needs, 3) identify needed studies and their goals and 4) review study plans. A handout was provided to the attendees and was reviewed (Attachment B).

Steve Reed suggested that two additional items be included in the handout: 1) continue RWGs if working well to review study results, and 2) continue RWGs if working well to craft/develop agreements and solutions. Progress Energy agreed to revise the handout to include these two items. The revised handout is included as part of Attachment B.

1

Progress Energy stated its desire to conduct needed studies using study plans that have been cooperatively developed within the RWG. However, Progress Energy

May 27, 2003

also noted that it is unwilling to conduct studies that Progress Energy believes is unnecessary or unwarranted.

• RWG Meeting Procedures and Practices: RWG meeting procedures and practices

were reviewed. The objective is to have RWGs 1) focus on substance and not process, 2) work together, develop trust, 3) respect each other’s time; and, 4) get done what is agreed to. RWGs will meet monthly through the end of the year to develop a complete set of detailed study plans, and beyond that, if they are working for everyone, to review study results and possible solutions. A handout on basic meeting procedures and another on RWG ground rules were provided to attendees and reviewed point by point (Attachment B). A revision was suggested to the meeting notes approval process which was agreed to. The revised handout is included as part of Attachment B. The RWG members indicated their acceptance of the revised Procedure & Practices and the Ground rules.

• Overview of Areas Included with the Water Resources Work Group: This RWG will

include those issues associated with water resources related to the Project including fisheries/aquatic/benthic, water quality and quantity, flows/hydraulics/hydrology, and operations modeling.

2). John Crutchfield of Progress Energy then provided a PowerPoint presentation on existing

information and recent Progress Energy surveys related to fish and aquatic invertebrate species in the Project area and requested any additional relevant information from participants.

3). John Crutchfield next provided a presentation on existing water quality data and Progress

Energy surveys of the Project. 4). Chris Ey presented information on the CHEOPS operations model, what kinds of

questions it can answer, and summarized the calibration tests completed to date. This model is up and running.

5). John Devine completed the presentations by discussing work completed to date related to

downstream channel hydraulic characteristics below both Tillery and Blewett Falls. 6). Issues Identification - The next topic was to open the meeting to participants to identify

any water issues and concerns related to this RWG. These issues were initially divided into these larger topic areas but many of the identified issues crossed over into several categories:

• Fisheries – Resident/Anadromous • Water Quality • Operations Modeling

Attachment C presents a listing of the issues/concerns raised at the meeting.

2

May 27, 2003

7). Two specific agenda items were brought to the RWG for discussion – (a) the desire for a single basin model and (b) the possibility of a joint instream flow group with APGI’s relicensing effort.

South Carolina and North Carolina resource agencies were especially interested in the possibility of having one basin model for the relicensings of both Progress Energy’s and APGI’s facilities to facilitate the evaluation of options. Progress Energy’s model is already complete and APGI’s is under development. No agreement was reached on this issue but it was agreed that a meeting of technical experts/modeling specialists would be convened to (1) develop a common understanding of each models strengths and weaknesses (2) to explore the feasibility of the two models ability to interact with each other, and (3) to explore whether a “bridge” model was possible. Interested parties were identified, a copy of the sign-up sheet has been provided in Appendix D.

Regarding the instream flow assessment effort, it was agreed that Progress Energy would

be the lead, would fund and conduct the studies, and that APGI would be an active participant in the effort through its involvement in this RWG. An instream flow assessment subgroup was formed and it was agreed to convene an initial meeting to begin to scope the instream flow assessment work. A copy of the sign-up sheet for the instream flow assessment subgroup is provided in Attachment E.

8). Action Items – The following list of action items were identified at this meeting:

a. Steve Reed requested that two additional goals be added to the RWG “Roles and Goals” handout – all parties agreed these changes are appropriate. Steve also suggested one change to the “Process and Procedures” handout, which all parties agreed to implement. These edits are included in the revised handouts located in Attachment B.

b. Bud Badr is to check with USGS about arranging for a presentation of a pending

study on salinity effects related to flows at the mouth of the Pee Dee River. Study results are expected in about 6 months. Bud mentioned the possibility of joint funding of the USGS’ study.

c. Progress Energy is to publish all RWG PowerPoint presentations on the relicensing

website. Mailing addresses of those who asked to receive these presentations on CD-ROM via mail were collected.

d. An RWG subgroup was also formed to explore aspects and details of operational /

basin hydraulic modeling. However, the more immediate task is to convene a technical specialists meeting of CHEOPS and OASIS models to include the modeling consultants as soon as this can be scheduled to review the technical aspects of the two models. The modeling subgroup sign-up sheet is provided as Attachment D.

e. An RWG subgroup was formed to develop appropriate instream flow / IFIM study

and a signup sheet was distributed for interested parties to join the subgroup. The instream flow subgroup sign-up sheet is provided as Attachment E.

f. Interested participants in Progress Energy’s modeling subgroup were tasked to get a

list of parameters of interest to John Devine via email by COB Wednesday May 14. 3

May 27, 2003

South Carolina DNR indicated their desire for four downstream “nodes” below Blewett Falls to be part of the operation model. Progress Energy indicated this appeared feasible, assuming nodes were at the downstream gages. Progress Energy is to examine feasibility and respond at next RWG.

g. Identification of other relevant information:

(1) NCWRC has a fisheries management plan in preparation that may be available by August 2003.

(2) SCDNR and USFWS are preparing a joint goal-oriented Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan that should be available within six months. Mark Bowers suggested that the Plan could become a collaborative effort, and it was intended to be filed with FERC as a comprehensive plan.

(3) TMDL studies are in process in both SC and NC. (4) SCDNR dissolved oxygen model on Pee Dee can be made available. (5) Progress Energy will provide a List of Literature it has acquired. All parties will

review and add any additional information they are aware of.

h. Written Comments on the ICD are due to Progress Energy on May 27, 2003 (extended through Memorial Day weekend).

i. Progress Energy is to email meeting minutes to the participant list within two weeks

of the meeting and to post them to the relicensing website as soon as possible. 9). Major Agreements / Disagreements – The following list identifies the major agreements

or disagreements that occurred at this meeting:

a. APGI agreed to participate in the Progress Energy’s instream flow study group but only to the extent that it considered biological issues. Danny Johnson of the SCDNR went on the record disagreeing with APGI’s position and indicating that the SCDNR believes that the instream flow assessment should consider more than just biological parameters.

b. Regarding the development of a basin-wide model, no agreement was reached on the

use of a single basin-wide model to assess the Progress Energy and APGI hydro projects. However, there was agreement to convene a meeting of modeling specialists to explore both models further.

10). John Devine then briefly suggested the next Water Resources meeting agenda as follows:

• Meeting held at the same location on June 10 (9:00-4:30). • Strive for same participants/agencies at the upcoming meetings. • Review meeting minutes from last meeting and edit as appropriate for final

distribution. • Summarize issues and concerns identified at this meeting and through ICD comment

letters. • Identify those issues where existing information appears to adequately address the

issue.

4

May 27, 2003

• Progress Energy to explain it’s reasoning on issues raised that it doesn’t believe are project-related.

• USGS presentation on salinity study (Bud Badr to inquire). • SCDNR presentation on shortnose sturgeon telemetry study (John Crutchfield to

inquire). • Updates from instream flow subgroup and modeling meeting.

WaterRWG#1mtgsumm.doc

5

May 27, 2003

ATTACHMENT A

MEETING AGENDA

MEETING PARTICIPANT SIGNUP SHEET

May 27, 2003

DRAFT AGENDA

WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUP MEETING NO. 1

MAY 7, 2003 9:00 – 4:30

1. Introductions ...........................................................................................................9:00 - 9:05 2. Purpose of Meeting.................................................................................................9:05 - 9:20 3. Role of Resource Working Groups (RWGs) ..........................................................9:20 - 9:45 4. RWG Meeting Procedures ....................................................................................9:45 - 10:00 5. Overview of Water Resources at the Project ........................................................10:00 - 1:00 6. Lunch Break............................................................................................................1:00 - 1:45 7. Initial List of Issues.................................................................................................1:45 - 3:00 8. Discussion of Specific Issues..................................................................................3:00 - 4:20 a. Need for a Single Basin Model b. Joint Flow Study Group with APGI 9. Agenda for Next RWG Meeting .............................................................................4:20 - 4:30

May 27, 2003

ATTACHMENT B

MEETING HANDOUTS:

RWG Roles and Goals

RWG Ground Rules

RWG Basic Meeting Procedures

Progress Energy Yadkin-Pee Dee Project Relicensing

www.progress-energy.com/hydro

Resource Working Groups

Roles and Goals

■ Develop common understanding of the Tillery and Blewett facilities and

the related environmental resources.

■ Serve as the clearinghouse for available, relevant information.

■ Identify issues, needs, and concerns related to the Project and its effects.

■ Identify and participate in developing study plans to obtain additional

information needed to support decision-making.

■ As relicensing proceeds, and if the RWG is working for everyone,

the RWG may review study results and participate in developing

cost-effective and creative solutions to address Project effects.1

1 Text shown in bold highlights the revisions added to handouts in response to comments made by participants at the May 2003 RWG meetings.

Progress Energy Yadkin-Pee Dee Project Relicensing

www.progress-energy.com/hydro

Resource Working Groups

Ground Rules

■ Attend Meetings

■ Treat each other with respect:

- Focus on the issues, not personalities

- Bring issues to the table in a timely manner

- One speaker at a time

■ Participate openly in discussions:

- Disagree openly, with reason

- Test assumptions, ask questions

- Share all relevant information

- Ask for comments

- Explain statements and questions

- Meet your commitments

■ Keep discussion focused:

- Focus on interests and needs

- Avoid distractions

■ Work towards win-win decisions/solutions

Progress Energy Yadkin-Pee Dee Project Relicensing

www.progress-energy.com/hydro

Basic Meeting Procedures

■ Develop agenda for next meeting at end of prior meeting to extent

possible; clearly identify decisions to be made, if any, at next meeting.

■ Use meeting note summaries, not detailed �transcriptions� � highlight

major content, action items, commitments, major

agreements/disagreements (2 to 3 pages).

■ It is Progress Energy�s goal to post draft meeting notes and next agenda

to its website within about two weeks after the meeting; Progress Energy

will provide draft meeting notes and next agenda via email to those on

the email distribution list within two weeks.

■ First item on each agenda will be the discussion of minutes from the

last meeting. Final meeting minutes, including any agreed upon

corrections and additions, will be approved. 2 Disagreements on

minutes will also be documented and included on final meeting minutes.

■ Progress Energy will have at each meeting a Meeting Leader, technical

expert(s), corporate representative who can speak for and commit the

company.

2 Text shown in bold highlights the revisions added to handouts in response to comments made by participants at the May 2003 RWG meetings.

Progress Energy Yadkin-Pee Dee Project Relicensing

www.progress-energy.com/hydro

■ Meeting Leader�s role is to keep meeting on track, achieve meeting

goals, keep group on the agenda, and complete the meeting on schedule.

If meeting is getting deadlocked, Meeting Leader will use �Round-the-

table� technique for final comments. Areas of disagreement will be

documented.

■ Caucuses during meeting - generally: use the lunch break for caucuses;

if absolutely needed: any group may call for a caucus.

■ Dispute Resolution - Progress Energy desires to conduct studies based

on cooperatively developed study plans. If any group after providing its

input and reasoning is not satisfied that its needs are being addressed in

the study plans, then it may choose to approach FERC seeking formal

dispute resolution.

ModifiedHandouts-030521.doc

May 27, 2003

ATTACHMENT C

ISSUES IDENTIFIED AT MAY 7, 2003

WATER RWG MEETING

May 27, 2003

DRAFT Progress Energy

Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project Initial Identification of Issues

Water Resources Working Group Meeting No. 1 May 7, 2003

Water Resources Resident Fish Species River Resident Species

• Community Function • Main Channel/Flood Plain Relations • Rare Species

1. Robust Redhorse 2. Carolina Redhorse

• Habitat/Flow/Water Quality Relationships • Enhancement Native Fauna • Frequency/Flow Timing/Habitat • Natural Flow Regime • Base/Minimum Flow (Weekends) • Relationship to Total Aquatic Community (i.e. Bugs,

Invertebrates) • Restoration? – To What? • Management Goals/Objectives • Relationships to Tributaries/Fragmentation • Reservoir Fish - Water Fluctuations • Shoreline Development/Habitat Effects • Fish Entrainment/Mortality ***Note: Most/All Above Apply to Migratory Fish and

Mussels/Benthos

Fish Passage

• Upstream • Downstream • Diadromous and Resident Migratory

Hydraulic/Water Quality Relationships to Habitat/Migrations

May 27, 2003

Aquatic Habitat Mapping

• Blewett Falls Reservoir • Riverine Reaches (2) • Flood Plain Connectivity

1. Terrestrial ?

Salinity – Lower River/Intercoastal Waterway

• USGS Study/ Progress/APGI Involvement • Flow Relationships • Scope - Range

Flood Plain

• Terrestrial • Recreational/Land Use • RWG Relationship

Ramping Diadromous Fish Restoration Plan

• USFWS Lead • NMFS, NC, SC – Joint Plan • Six Months to Completion

NWRC - Fish and Wildlife Management Plan to NC/SC Border

• Late Summer/Fall Issue

Water Quality Meet State Standards

• Project/Hydraulic Relationships

Dissolved Oxygen/Operations Relationships in NC Segments

• TMDL

SC Assimilative Capacity Salinity

May 27, 2003

Support of Designated Uses (CWA) TMDL Support – Data Compatibility

• Use of State Certified Labs with QA/QC

Flow/Water Quality/NPDES

• Permit Compliance – SC

1. Flow/Assimilative Capacity 2. 7Q10 (Assumes Constant Flow) 3. Low Flow Calibration of Models – Inflow

Use of Basin Wide Hydraulic Model Tributary Cumulative Loading on Main Stem/Reservoir Water Quality Erosion/Bank Stability Sediment Loading Effects of Rocky River Inflow – Interbasin Transfer from Catawba-Wateree Basin

• Reservoir (Blewett) and River Water Quality

Weekend Water Flows for Recreation Blewett Falls Drinking Water Supply-Water Quality SC Pee Dee River Drinking Water Supply-Water Quality

Operations Modeling Water Supply – Needs Met Future (50 Years) Water Supply Planning Lake Levels (Supply, Recreation, etc.) Drought Contingency/Management Plan

• Use Historical Data • Factor in Growth

River Flow Routing

May 27, 2003

• SC Nodes – Four USGS Gages

Define Optimization Targets Model Requirements

• Accepts Inflow From Falls • Reservoir Levels • Inflow/Outflow – Tillery/Blewett • Power Generation • Outflow File – Graphics Preferred (Blewett Outflow) • Evaluate Effects on all Water Users

Form Sub-Group to Define Model Parameters Threshold-1Flooding of Flood Plains-Connectivity Model-Open Process and Access to All Parties

WaterRWGIssuesmtg1.doc

May 27, 2003

ATTACHMENT D

SIGN-UP SHEET FOR MODELING SUBGROUP

May 27, 2003

ATTACHMENT E

SIGN-UP SHEET FOR INSTREAM FLOW ASSESSMENT SUBGROUP