20030147 Ver 2_DWR Comments_20071019

Removal of Dams on Little River, Montgomery County
Alternative Mitigation Proposed for Tillery Minimum Release
Progress Energy FERC Relicensing
Comments prepared by DWR
Some comments submitted on the 401 certification support using dam removal as
mitigation for the proposed minimum release from Tillery dam. The Division of Water
Resources (DWR) has also been provided with a copy of the Restoration Systems, LLC
proposal for removing the two lower dams on the Little River in Montgomery County.
We have prepared these comments in response.
There are four dams on the Little River. Starting at the downstream end, they are:
1. Eury dam -FERC licensed, not operating
2. Hurley dam -FERC license, operational when flows permit (aka Robinson dam
or American Hydro)
3. Capelsie dam - no current use
4. Smitherman dam -breached
The mitigation proposal for the Tillery minimum release involves the first two dams.
The removal of the upper two is the subject of a proposal currently under consideration
by EEP as mitigation for DOT projects. Restoration Systems is still developing cost
estimates for removal of the lower two dams.
Restoration Systems used information developed by DWR explaining the bank miles of
riparian protection needed to mitigate a release of 330 cfs from the Tillery dam, and from
this back-calculated how many river miles would be needed for a dam removal type of
mitigation. Riparian protection uses a 4:1 ratio of river miles, whereas dam removal only
requires a 1:1 ratio. Restoration Systems followed the guidance provided in
"Determining Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation Credit for Dam Removal Projects
(3/22/04) "and proposes that the mitigation provided by the removal of Eury and Hurley
dams is sufficient to offset the effects of a minimum release of 330 cfs from the Tillery
dam. (A minimum release of 330 cfs is significantly more than the 40 cfs required in the
existing license, but less than what would be required in a new license in the absence of
mitigation).
DWR generally supports dam removal efforts, and in fact has helped fund and contract
dam removal efforts through our water resource development grant program. However,
while removal of the Eury and Hurley dams may be desirable, DWR does not think this
approach would offer appropriate mitigation for the Tillery dam minimum release. Our
reasons are as follows:

i
1. The dam removal proposal does not account for the significant difference in
stream size between the Pee Dee and Little Rivers. Nearly all of the riparian
protection mitigation in the FERC license settlement agreement is on the
mainstem Pee Dee - an eighth order stream, with an average width of 600 to 700
feet (source: eight stream cross- sections between Tillery dam and Rocky River
and seven cross-sections between highway 74 and the state line, whose profiles
were surveyed during the relicensing study of instream flows and aquatic habitat).
In contrast, the 30,000 linear feet of the Little River restored by dam removal is
on a fourth order stream approximately 115 to 266 feet wide (source:
Restorations Systems proposal; another reference indicates average widths of 68
to 175 feet for the Little River in this vicinity).
2. The mitigation provided by the protected riparian lands in the relicensing
settlement agreement meets criteria established in DWQ's Internal Guidance
Document "Stream Mitigation for FERC-related 401 Certifications." The dam
removals proposed as alternative mitigation do not meet the criteria for stream
order in these guidelines, because of the difference in stream order between the
affected reach and reach proposed for restoration.
3. Any habitat-building sediments made available by dam removal would have a
minimal benefit to the mainstem Pee Dee since the Little River confluence is just
upstream of the Blewett Falls impoundment, where particles would tend to re-
settle.
4. This is not the same type of situation as the Dillsboro dam removal included in
the settlement agreement for relicensing of the Duke Power Nantahala Area
projects. The Dillsboro dam is on the mainstem Tuckasegee River and is being
used to offset reduced minimum releases in two upstream forks of the Tuckasegee
which are smaller in width. Also, site-specific aquatic habitat studies for all of
these reaches allow quantification of both the habitat foregone in the upper
reaches and the habitat restored by the Dillsboro dam removal.
5. Some comments have questioned whether the lands proposed for protection fall
within the same hydrologic unit code (HUC) area. The settlement agreement
provides for protected riparian lands on 28.7 bank miles (measured separately on
each bank and totaled) of seventh or eighth order stream. The location of these
protected riparian lands breaks down as follows:
• 12.1 bank miles in the reach of the Pee Dee between Tillery dam and
Blewett Falls reservoir (HUC 03040104, Upper Pee Dee)
• 3.4 bank miles along the Uwharrie River near its mouth and in the
headwaters of the Tillery reservoir just downstream of Falls dam (on the
boundary of HUC 03040103 -Lower Yadkin and 03040104 -Upper Pee
Dee)
• 13.2 bank miles downstream of Blewett Falls dam (HUC 03040201 -
Lower Pee Dee)
2

The reach affected by the minimum release from Tillery dam is in HUC 03040104 -
Upper Pee Dee. Therefore approximately half of the protected riparian lands are in
the same eight-digit HUC area. The remaining protected riparian lands outside of the
Upper Pee Dee HUC area are still in very close proximity.
DWR supports dam removal efforts but in this instance we think that the mitigation
proposed in the FERC relicensing settlement agreement is significantly better than what
would be provided by removing the two lower dams on the Little River.