20030147 Ver 0_Restoration Plan_20071019

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
UPPER UWHARRIE DAMS RESTORATION SITE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION
IN THE YADKIN RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03040104
Prepared for:
~~
~~~
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted by:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
919-755-9490
www. restorationsystems. com
October 19, 2007
~~ ~
UCT 1 f; 2007
!~EidR - l+VA1`FR QU~LI71`
WETi 9~et?? Aa!C ~ TnR?A;L~A: ~ ~~ 9~Al~CH
1

Naturrtl Resource
Restoi ~ttion & Conse~l~~ltio~~
' 19 October 2007
John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
' 2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
' Reference: Progress Energy WQC application for Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project
' Dear Mr. Dorney:
' Restoration Systems is providing these comments to the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and the NC
Department of Environment of Natural Resources (DENR) regarding Progress Energy's (PE) recent
application for Water Quality Certification (WQC) for their Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project.
' In our letter to you dated 18 July 2007, we detailed our concerns regarding Progress Energy's proposed
preservation only strategy for mitigation associated with the requested WQC. At that time, Restoration
Systems provided DWQ and DENR with an alternative mitigation option-the removals of the Lower
Uwharrie Dams (Eury and Hurley). Restoration Systems is formally providing an additional mitigation
' option with this letter, the removal of the Upper Uwharrie Dams (Smitherman and Capelsie; a technical
proposal is attached). This letter also further expands on our position re: Progress Energy's preservation
only mitigation strategy.
It is apparent upon examination of the referenced WQC application that PE's proposed mitigation is not
commensurate with the impacts resulting from the Tillery and Blewett Falls Development. Their
preservation approach does not involve high-quality habitat under the threat of development, as the reaches
' to be protected are highly disturbed by damming and are located in counties experiencing little or no
population growth. In addition, land preservation should not be used for compensatory mitigation if viable
restoration opportunities are available. The location of PE's proposed land preservation is also of concern,
' as these lands are predominantly outside of the 8-digit hydrological unit code (HUC) where the impacts are
to occur. For these reasons, which are elaborated on below, DWQ should not accept PE's preservation
only mitigation strategy, but instead should require the restoration of the Little River-a Yadkin-Pee Dee
River tributary-through one, both or some combination of the dam removal options we have proposed.
' PE has suggested buffer preservation along the mainstem of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River, predominantly
downstream of Blewett Falls Dam. In essence, they are offering to protect ecosystems that have been, and
' are continuously disturbed by dam operations. According to NC's Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003),
"For preservation to be an acceptable mitigation option the channel should be generally
ecologically important and in a relatively undisturbed condition. "
' DWQ should recognize that damming represents a major disturbance to river ecosystems. In fact, the
widespread damming of the nation's rivers has been repeatedly implicated in the loss of aquatic
' biodiversity (Williams et al., 1992; Vaughn and Taylor, 1999; Bednarek, 2001). Lazge dams that alter
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

natural flow regimes reduce fluvial geomorphic and hydrological complexity, translating into losses of
preferred habitat for native aquatic organisms (Poll et al., 1997; Thoms, 2006; Poff et al., 2007; Moyle and
Mount, 2007). Thus the habitat that these lands would assumedly protect cannot be considered "relatively
undisturbed". In addition, in its current condition, this stretch of river is not of high quality, as the
operations of Blewett Falls Dam have led DWQ to list this particular reach of the Pee Dee River as
"impaired" (see 2003 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan).
In addition, US Census Bureau estimates suggest these lands are not in any immediate threat of
development. It is estimated that the State of North Carolina has experienced a population increase of
~10% from 2000-2006. Richmond and Anson counties have experienced an increase of 0% and 0.8%
(respectively) over the same time. For comparison, other county populations like those of Wake and
Mecklenburg have increased by 19% and 21 %, respectively. Thus it does not appear that these lands are
currently under development pressure, which reduces their preservation value.
In a more general context, land preservation is not capable of offsetting lost ecological functions and values
of the impacted freshwater ecosystems. The use of preservation for compensatory mitigation should only
be considered acceptable in a few, select situations where no viable restoration opportunities are available,
which is simply not the case in the Yadkin-Pee Dee basin. In fact, the removals of Smitherman, Capelsie,
Hurley and Eury dams from the Little River hold considerable restoration potential. Collectively, removing
the four Little River dams will restore more than 10 contiguous miles of tributary and mainstem habitat
while providing 300 miles of diadromous fish passage throughout the watershed. Further, because the
Little River merges with the Yadkin-Pee Dee between Tillery and Blewett Falls dams, the proposed
restoration would provide habitat building sediments to the aquatic communities directly impacted by the
operations of Tillery Dam.
Our final protest with the PE's land preservation approach is its location relative to the impacts requiring
mitigation. According to NC's Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003), mitigation for stream impacts
"...should be within the same subbasin (8-digit H.U.C.)". Progress Energy's application materials are
explicit in stating that the impacts originate from inadequate continuous instream flows downstream of
Tillery Dam. Therefore, the impacts-as well as both impoundments-are located within the 8-digit HUC
referred to as the Yadkin 04. However, the proposed riparian preservation is predominantly located in the
Pee Dee O1. It is our understanding that DWQ does not accept out-of--HUC mitigation if other, more
appropriate in-HUC opportunities are available. Considering this, it appears that the Little River dam
removals should be favored by DENR and DWQ, as they are appropriately located within the Yadkin 04.
Dams displace native species populations by fragmenting riverine habitat. These mostly impassable
structures isolate populations of sensitive freshwater taxa by substituting artificial lake-like zones for what
would otherwise be free-flowing habitat. Therefore it is understandable that dam removal is becoming
more and more common, as scientific evidence emerges demonstrating the rapid recovery of native riverine
communities. Both DENR and DWQ should support the use of dam removal as "in-kind" mitigation
during the FERC relicensing process, as this approach strikes a balance between ecology and economy.
' Sincere
J
J Adam Riggsbee,
' Environmental Scientist
Restoration Systems, LLC

Part 1: Executive Summary
This Technical Proposal describes another mitigation option for the impacts to the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River ecosystem resulting from the operation of Tillery Dam. In addition to the removal of
the Lower Uwharrie Dams, proposed to the NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources in July of 2007, this proposal describes the Upper Uwharrie Dams Restoration Site
through removal of the Capelsie and Smitherman Dams (Upper Uwharrie Dams) on the Little
River in Montgomery County, NC; near the Town of Troy (Figure 1). These two structures are
contiguous and collectively impound approximately 21,500 linear feet of the Little River and its
perennial tributaries, while negatively impacting 970 linear feet of channel habitat immediately
downstream of Capelsie Reservoir.
These two structures fragment a reach of the Little River designated as a priority area by the NC
Natural Heritage Program (Figure 2). Capelsie Dam is actively impounding more than 18,500
linear feet of mainstem and perennial tributary channel habitat. In addition, a diversion canal
leading to the now defunct Capelsie powerhouse negatively impacts 970 linear feet of
downstream mainstem habitat during summer baseflow conditions.
' Smitherman Dam was breached approximately 10 years ago during a 100-year flood event. As a
result, Smitherman is only impounding 2,900 linear feet of mainstem and perennial tributary
habitat. Though the extent of the Smitherman impoundment is limited, its most negative effect is
the retention of coarse bedload materials, which are important for the continued supply of
t downstream benthic habitat. For adequate restoration and ecological improvement of the entire
reach, Smitherman Dam should be removed along with Capelsie Dam to facilitate the transport of
bedload sediments supplied by the contributing watershed.

As described in this proposal, stream mitigation units (SMUs) were calculated based on the
methods outlined in Determining Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation Credit for Dam
Removal Projects (March 22, 2004). The proposed removals could provide 18,832 SMUs
based on the referenced guidance. tt is estimated that Progress Energy's impacts to the Yadkin-
Pee Dee River require an offset of 18,900 SMUs (DENR internal memo; Appendix A).
Therefore, the removal of the Upper Uwharrie Dams could adequately and effectively
mitigate for the ecological impacts associated with the operation of Tillery Dam.
The primary goals of this project are as follows:
1) Restoration of rare, threatened and endangered aquatic species habitat. Seven species listed
by the state as endangered, threatened, rare and special concern will directly benefit from the
removals of the Upper Uwharrie Dams. These dams fragment a reach of the Little River that is
designated as conservation priority habitat by the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP).
2) Improvement of water quality within the impounded reach, which has been degraded by the
recurrence of algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations associated with stagnant
conditions during low-flow summer months.
3) Restoration of lotic communities within the project reach as a result of restored
hydrogeomorphic character and improved water quality.
Dam removal is a passive restoration technique that initiates profound physical responses within
affected fluvial systems. This technique has been utilized before as a mechanism for river
restoration in North Carolina. Restoration Systems has twice used this innovative approach for
2

NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) stream restoration projects in the Neuse River and '
Cape Fear River basins. Dam removal has been accepted as a method for stream restoration by
the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), the NC Division
of Water Quality (DWQ), as well as the EEP. ,
We look forward to discussing the merits of this project with the NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) in the near future. If you, or your staff, have questions or '
comments regarding our proposal, please feel free to contact me at the number below. We
appreciate DENR's consideration of this innovative and ecologically beneficial project.
Sincere) ,
J. Adam Riggsbee, PhD
Authorized Representative
Restoration Systems, LLC
919-755-9490
[e-mail]
3

i

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRO: Public Comment Letter ........................................................................................ 0
PART 1: Executive Summary ........................................................................................... . 2
PART 2: Technical Approach ........................................................................................... . 5
2.1 Introduction: Progress Energy Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project ....................... . 5
2.1.1 Ecological Impacts of Damming ......................................................................... . 5
2.1.2 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ....................................................................... . 6
2.2 Little River Watershed Restoration: Proposed Mitigation ............................................ 6
2.3 Functional Benefits of Dam Removal .......................................................................... 7
2.3.1 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Restoration ........................ 8
2.3.2 Water Quality Improvements ............................................................................... 9
2.3.3 Restoration of Lotic Communities ...................................................................... 10
2.3.4 Additional Benefits ............................................................................................ 10
2.4 Restoration Plan ....................................................................................................... 10
2.4.1 Critical Species Survey ..................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Impoundment Dewatering ................................................................................. 11
2.4.3 Sediment Management .............................................................................:....... 11
2.4.4 Dam Removal ................................................................................................... 11
2.4.5 Dam Site Stabilization ....................................................................................... 11
2.5 Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................................... 11
2.5.1 Restoration of Rare, Threatened and/or Endangered Species Habitat .............. 12
2.5.2 Water Quality Improvements ............................................................................. 12
2.5.3 Restoration of Lotic Aquatic Communities ......................................................... 12
2.5.4 Additional Monitoring ......................................................................................... 12
2.5.5 Academic/Conservation Research .................................................................... 12
2.6 Current, Interim and Ultimate Ownership of Property ................................................ 12
2.7 Project Schedule ...................................................................................................... 13
2.8 Additional Issues ...................................................................................................... 13
2.9 Summary .................................................................................................................. 14
2.10 References ............................................................................................................... 16
PART 3: Corporate Experience ....................................................................................... 17
APPENDICES
' Appendix A: DENR Internal Memo
Appendix B: Proposed Scientific Research
Appendix C: Figures and Photos
4

Part 2: Technical Aaproach
2.1 Introduction: Progress Energy Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project
Progress Energy (PE) submitted an application for the Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric project
to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on April 25, 2007. Specifically, PE is re-
licensing two hydroelectric developments in the Yadkin 04 cataloging unit, Tillery and Blewett
Falls. Tillery is an 84 megawatt facility that impounds ~16 miles of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River. Approximately 28 river miles downstream of Tillery Dam is Blewett Falls Dam, which
impounds an additional 11 miles of the Upper Pee Dee. These developments were originally
licensed for 50-years by FERC in 1958.
2.1.1 Ecological Impacts of Damming
The physical, chemical and biological consequences of damming on river ecosystems
are well understood and documented (see Leopold et al. 1964; Petts, 1984; Knighton,
1998). Dams most notably fragment river ecosystems by hindering sediment transport
and biological passage while creating pockets of lentic (lake-like) habitat in otherwise
riverine systems.
These effects are bidirectional in their ecological influence. Upstream channels usually
aggrade with increased sedimentation rates, while downstream channels degrade
because of sediment-starved flows exiting impoundments. Ecologically, these physical
alterations affect channel geometry and bed substrate texture, directly affecting habitat
for riverine organisms.
Dams also affect water quality; especially dissolved oxygen concentrations and water
temperature. Degraded water quality is attributed to slowed river velocities and
increased water depths upstream of dams, prolonging exposure of river water to solar
radiation, which often leads to thermal stratification during warmer seasons. Stratification
separates impoundments into two distinct water bodies because the density of fresh
water is predominantly controlled by its temperature. The typical result is an oxygen-rich
upper layer (epiliminion)-fueled by photosynthesis, and relatively oxygen-poor lower
layer (hypolimnion). Thus, the separate water bodies do not mix until stream
temperatures drop, usually several weeks to months later (Wetzel, 2001). In the case of
some larger dams, downstream releases come from the anoxic or hypoxic hypolimnion,
further stressing downstream organisms suffering from habitat loss.
Large hydroelectric developments (like Tillery) must also regulate flows to maintain
suitable head for power production during peak demand periods. The resulting instream
flows, or minimum continuous flows, may not be adequate to maintain the historic
productivity of downstream waters. This is the prevalent ecological concern relating to
PE's development on the Yadkin-Pee Dee.
According to PE's Water Quality Certification (WQC) application and their Final License
Application to FERC, the Tillery and Blewett Falls development is responsible-to some
degree-for Upper Pee Dee River dissolved oxygen problems. These structures are also
responsible-in whole-for local river fragmentation and reduced/inadequate instream
flows. PE has worked diligently with local stakeholders and regulators to develop real
solutions to the above mentioned environmental concerns, while maintaining the
economic viability of their developments. PE has proposed retrofitting their equipment to
aerate release water, providing more oxygen for downstream organisms. PE is also
consulting with Alcoa, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to prepare a diadromous fishes passage restoration
implementation plan. However, PE is not able to provide the reach of the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River between Tillery and Blewett Falls dams with adequate instream flows for
economic and power supply reasons.
5

1

2.1.2 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
The unique nature of the Tillery development's position within PE's portfolio-their only
hydroelectric load-following facility and a key component of its peaking infrastructure-
requires that the plant turbines are "over-sized". The existing turbines are not operational
at flows less than 2000 cubic feet per second (cfs), so continuous releases will have to be
discharged via gates bypassing turbines (to avoid turbine damage); this "spillage" is an
economic loss. From Tillery, PE has proposed a continuous release of 330 cfs with 8
weeks of flows at 725 cfs for shad spawning. PE has stated that anything more would
result in "unacceptable losses of peak power generation" (DENR internal memo;
Appendix A).
An internal DENR memo to John Dorney of the Division of Water Quality from Jim Mead
of the Division of Water Resources (dated July 6, 2007; Appendix A) states that DENR
has "reached a settlement agreement" with PE. The memo suggests that the proposed
continuous flows are inadequate and details the calculations used to quantify the
perceived impacts on the Pee Dee River between Tillery and Blewett Falls. PE has
negotiated with DENR to use buffer preservation as mitigation for the above impacts.
According to DWR calculations, such an approach will require 28.7 bank miles of buffer.
In order to determine the impacts of Tillery's inadequate instream flows, back calculations
must be performed (using the following conversations: 1 river mile = 2 bank miles;
preservation for mitigation ratios in this case are 4:1). These calculations suggest that
PE is responsible for impacting 18,942 linear feet of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River.
2.2 Little River Watershed Restoration: Proposed Mitigation
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has designated a 35-mile reach of the Little
River (Figure 2) as a priority area for aquatic habitat conservation based on the occurrence of six
rare mussels (endangered, threatened, special concern and significantly rare) and one rare fish
(special concern) . Restoration Systems proposes the establishment of a stream mitigation site
at the Upper Uwharrie Dam sites on the Little River in the Yadkin Basin, Montgomery County,
North Carolina near the Town of Troy (Cataloging Unit 0304104; Figures 1 and 2). These
structures are directly responsible for fragmenting the NHP priority habitat, and their removal
would benefit the long-term integrity of freshwater mussel populations found within this
conservation priority reach. This proposal details existing site conditions, goals, methods, and
monitoring protocols proposed by Restoration Systems. The Upper Uwharrie Dams project could
provide up to 18,832 SMUs to mitigate for Progress Energy's impacts caused by the continued
operation of Tillery Dam.
The LIDAR-based, 2-foot contour elevation dataset for Montgomery County (NC Department of
Transportation) was used to determine the approximate linear extent of the impoundments
created by the Upper Uwharrie Dams. Channel elevations were layered (using ArcGIS) over
USGS color infra-red aerial photography. Distinctly different slopes were apparent for free-
flowing and impounded sections of the Little River. Free-flowing sections above and below the
Site Impoundments exhibit a slope of 0.0018, while the Site Impoundments exhibit a slope of
' 0.0006. Obvious breaks in slope were used to approximate the end of Smitherman and
Capelsie's backwater effects. Field trips were then taken to ground truth these locations. In the
' field, distinct changes in sediment composition (e.g., coarse sediment deltas) were used to
delineate impounded and free-flowing reaches (Photos 1, 2, 3, and 4). These features are
formed where lotic (river-like) flows enter lentic (lake-like) systems (Leopold et al., 1960; Morris
and Fan, 1998). Physical signs of the upstream limits of Capelsie and Smitherman dams were
marked with GPS waypoints. The resulting coordinates were projected on USGS color infra-red
' aerial photographs and linear distances of the impoundment effects were measured at a scale of
1:10,000 for the Little River main stem and all impounded tributaries.
' Capelsie and Smitherman dams produce contiguous impoundments that collective inundate
St
"
order
17,500 linear feet of mainstem channel habitat and 4000 linear feet of 1
and 2
perennial tributaries, while negatively affecting 970 linear feet of downstream, mainstem channel
habitat (Figures 3 and 4). The restoration efforts proposed herein involve the removal of
t both Capelsie and Smitherman Dams. These dams have been selected for removal because
6

they fragment conservation priority aquatic habitat, degrade local water quality (i.e., decrease
dissolved oxygen concentrations), and render habitat unsuitable for rare, endangered, threatened
and other lotic species.
Credit determinations associated with the Upper Uwharrie Dams project are based on the
guidance outlined in De#ermining Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation Credit for Dam
Removal Projects (March 22, 2004). This guidance provides four success criteria for
consideration when determining credit: 1) water quality issues, 2) rare, endangered and
threatened aquatic species, 3) establishment of an appropriate aquatic community and 4)
anadromous fish passage. Additional credit is available if dam removal benefits downstream
habitat. The guidance goes on to state that if buffer protection is difficult to obtain, "adjustments
[to baseline credits can be made] if the protection efforts target areas with special ecological
functions and/or values that are identified by conservation groups such as the NC Natural
Heritage Program."
Restoration Systems has secured Options to Purchase up to five acres adjacent to both Upper
Uwharrie Dam sites. Restoration Systems plans to construct public canoe and kayak access at
one or both dam sites, as well as provide research funds to the University of North Carolina and
the University of Wisconsin for the purposes of academic research associated with these
particular dam removals.
Both Smitherman and Capelsie Dams are rock fill dams with concrete caps. Smitherman Dam
was constructed sometime between 1890 and 1900 for grist mill operations (Photos 5 and 6).
This particular structure was breached during a flood in 1997, an event which has modified the
upstream extent of its impoundment. Mean channel width and thalweg depth within Smitherman
Reservoir are 92 feet and 5 feet, respectively. Capelsie Dam was constructed in 1898 to provide
non-electric power (water-driven, wood turbine connected to a line shaft) to an adjacent mill
(Photos 7 and 8). Capelsie Dam was sold before the depression, then resold in 1936 and
modified to generate hydroelectricity for the adjacent mill-a function which has since been
abandoned. Capelsie Reservoir's current mean channel dimensions are 9 feet in thalweg depth
and 119 feet in top width.
Both structures are well beyond their intended design lives (~50 years). As noted above,
Smitherman has already largely failed, but will still impound bedload sediment for years to come,
unless removed. Capelsie is currently leaking and will eventually suffer the same fate as
Smitherman if left standing. Dam failures can cause considerable stress to both upstream and
downstream ecosystems. Unmanaged fluxes of sediments and organic materials can smother
downstream benthic habitat as well as cause localized anoxic conditions. In some cases, such
as the Smitherman failure, significant portions of a failed structure often remain intact, preventing
biological passage and bedload transport. The FERC relicensing process represents a unique
window of opportunity for the removal of Capelsie and Smitherman Dams, two obsolete
structures in advanced states of disrepair.
The Little River watershed is contained within Yadkin River Cataloging Unit 0304104, Subbasin
03-07-15. Its headwaters flow south from Randolph County into the Pee Dee River just above
Blewett Falls, Montgomery County (Figure 1). Land cover within the Little River Subbasin
consists of 85% forest/wetland, 10% pasture/managed herbaceous, 3% cultivated crops, 1 % is
urban, and <1 % is surtace water (DWQ, 2003).
The Upper Uwharrie Dams project watershed drains 175-square miles of the Little River
Subbasin (Figure 1). Based on 51 years of data obtained from an upstream USGS stream gage
(02128000; Figure 2), mean daily flow is ~ 111 cubic feet per second (cfs). In this system a flood
with a ten year recurrence interval has a discharge of 9000 cfs.
2.3 Functional Benefits of Dam Removal
The functional benefit of the Upper Uwharrie Dams project is multi-faceted. Removing both
Capelsie and Smitherman Dams will benefit the local system by restoring lotic flow conditions that
will enhance sediment transport, including bedload materials, which are necessary for the long-
7

term integrity of benthic habitat required by healthy, free-flowing aquatic ecosystems in this
' region, including rare, endangered and/or threatened lotic species. Stream velocity will increase
immediately once the Upper Uwharrie Dams are removed, resulting in increased dissolved
oxygen concentrations while increasing the capacity of the river to convey coarse substrate
t similar to free-flowing reaches (Photo 9). Flows that are currently diverted to the Capelsie
powerhouse will be returned to the mainstem downstream of Capelsie Dam, which is of particular
importance during low-flow summer months when flows do not pass over the dam (Figure 5). In
addition, these dams are located within an area of conservation priority, as designated by the
' NHP (Figure 2), and therefore the entire priority area (totaling 35 miles of aquatic habitat) will
benefit from the proposed project.
t 2.3.1 Rare, Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Restoration
Free-flowing habitat restored by the removal of Carbonton Dam on the Deep River, NC
was recolonized by a federally endanger minnow, the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas). Likewise, it is anticipated that the removal of the Upper Uwharrie Dams
' will benefit six rare mussel species and one rare fish species. Remnant populations of all
seven rare species have been located within the proposed restoration reach. Among the
' six mussel species: two are state listed endangered, including the yellow lampmussel
(Lampsillis cariosa) and the Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana). Two are state
listed threatened, including the triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulate) and the Carolina
fatmucket (Lampsillis radiate conspicua). One is a state listed species of special
concern, the notched rainbow (Villosa constricts), and one is a state listed significantly
rare species, the eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis). One fish species found within the
Site Impoundment is state listed special concern, the Carolina darter-population 1
' (Etheostoma Collis). These species require a variety of habitat, including free-flowing
creeks and rivers. The removals of the Upper Uwharrie Dams will restore lotic flow
conditions, positively affecting rare species' habitats in greater than 22,000 linear feet of
mainstem and perennial tributary habitat. These profound physical changes within the
Uwharrie Dams project area will relieve barriers to biological migration, enhancing
t genetic exchange among currently isolated populations.
' Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsillis cariosa) State Endangered
This species is smooth, shiny, and usually yellow with some brownish freckling or
patches of brown. Rays are sometimes present on the posterior half of the shell,
rarely reaching the anterior half. Shells may reach 130 mm in length. The yellow
' lampmussel seems to prefer shifting sands that accumulate behind boulders in
relatively fast-flowing, medium sized rivers and medium to large creeks. It has
been suggested that the alewife, or another migratory fish, may be the yellow
' lampmussel's host species, but it is also suspected there may be one or more
freshwater hosts (WRC, 2006).

Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) State Endangered
This particular species exhibits sexual dimorphism, wherein male and females
exhibit different morphologies. Males are characterized by an elliptical shape;
while females are more trapezoidal. They are usually golden brown with narrow
green rays, but may become dark brown or black with age. They are usually
found in silty sand or clay along the banks of small streams. They may also be
found in mixed sand and gravel substrates. Their host species are not known at
this time (WRC, 2006).
Triangle Floater (Alasmidonta undu/ata) State Threatened
The triangle floater is usually yellow to golden brown with rays, turning dark
brown to black with age. This species does not seem to demonstrate habitat
preference as it has been found in a wide variety of habitats. This species has
been collected in slow-moving waters with sand and silt beds, faster moving sand
and gravel riffles, as well as bedrock crevices. No fish hosts have been identified
for this species (WRC, 2006).

Carolina Fatmucket (Lamsillis radiata conspicua) State Threatened
This species has a smooth, reddish-brown, well rounded shell with dark
greenish-black rays. Its preferred habitat is in gravel, cobble and boulder
substrates, but there are documented remnant populations in Lake Tillery.
Their host species is not known at this time (WRC, 2006).
Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta) State Special Concern
This is a small species that rarely exceeds 40 mm. In this sexually dimorphic
species, both sexes are golden brown with green rays, which generally turns
black with age. Its preferred habitat seems to be sandy substrate among rocks in
the shallows of smaller, upland streams, though it can occur in rivers and muds.
Specifically in North Carolina, this species can be found in sand/gravel streams
with stable banks, typically among tree root mats. Its host species has not yet
been identified (WRC, 2006).
Eastern Creekshell (Villosa de/umbis) State Significantly Rare
The eastern creekshell is yellow to golden brown with green rays (usually
broken). Its typical habitat is considered to be richly organic mud or soft sand in
small rivers and creeks. Their host species is not known (WRC, 2006).
Carolina Darter (Etheostoma Collis) State Special Concern
This darter has an elongated, yellow brown body with dark blotches and
speckles. Dorsal and tail fins are rusty in color; other fins are pale yellow or
clear. This species prefers warm pools, slow runs in sand and gravel streams
(DWQ, 2003).
2.3.2 Water Quality Improvements
Dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature data collected within the Upper Uwharrie
Dams Impoundments using established DWQ Standard Operating Procedures with
a calibrated YSI-85 probe (on 8/3/06, 8/15/06, and 8123/06) demonstrate that during
warm summer months with low flows, the Site Impoundments can become
thermally stratified, producing hypoxic or even anoxic hypolimnia (Figure 6). The
Capelsie hypolimnion persisted through most of August 2006. In addition, there was a
visible algal bloom observed on 8/15/06 (Photos 10 and 11), which produced
supersaturated DO concentrations at depths of 0.1 m (10.7 mg/L; Figure 6).
Downstream of the Site Impoundments, the Little River's water quality is classified (by
DWQ) as Class C, denoting waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife,
fish and aquatic life propagation, and agriculture. Just upstream of the Site
Impoundments, the DWQ has classified the Little River as Class C-High Quality Water
(C-HQW). The HQW designation is a secondary classification intended to protect waters
with quality higher than state standards.
The DWQ maintains monitoring stations throughout the state's river basins for several
purposes, including bioclassification. Bioclassification is an approach used by the DWQ
to assess water quality. This approach evaluates a stream reach as Excellent, Good,
Good/Fair, Fair or Poor. Within the Little River Subbasin, DWQ maintains six benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling stations, four fish community sampling stations and one
Ambient Monitoring Station (AMS). Within the Uwharrie Dams watershed; there are two
macroinvertebrate sampling stations, one fish community sampling station, and the
subbasin's only AMS (Figure 7).
Communities sampled at the two benthic macroinvertebrates stations located in free-
flowing reaches well upstream of the dams influence are classified as "Excellent", while
those communities found at stations located below the Upper Uwharrie Dams project
area are classified as "Good". Fish community bioclassification status at all sampling
locations within the subbasin are listed as "Good". The watershed's only AMS station is
9

located in afree-flowing reach well upstream of the Site Impoundments. The most
' recently available data span 35 years (1970-2005). Dissolved oxygen (DO) data,
collected monthly, documents only one occurrence below the 5.0 mg/L standard for Class
' C waters (Figure 8).
Based on data collected within the site impoundments and at DWQ sampling
stations, it is apparent that the removal of the Upper Uwharrie Dams would lead to
measurable and appreciable water quality improvements. Such improvements are
' evident following the removals of Lowell and Carbonton Dams, both of which are
Restoration Systems' projects under contract to the EEP to provide stream mitigation.
' 2.3.3 Restoration of Lotic Communities
Dam removals documented within the scientific literature have resulted in the rapid
restoration of lotic macroinvertebrate and fish communities within former
impoundments. In short, these impounded communities are limited by habitat (i.e.,
' flow velocity and substrate; Kanehl et al., 1997; Stanley et al., 2002; Doyle et al., 2005).
Therefore, their recovery is tied directly to hydrogeomorphic restoration, which takes ~2
' years to reach pre-impoundment conditions (Doyle et al., 2003; Doyle et al., 2005).
The proposed removals of the Uwharrie Dams would restore the local stream gradient
from 0.0006 to 0.0018, enhancing sediment transport. Thus coarse sediments such as
gravel, cobble and bedrock will become available habitat for lotic species as coarse
' sediments are once again conveyed by the channel. Moreover, removing these dams
will reduce the frequency of thermal stratification, and therefore the occurrence of hypoxic
' and/or anoxic conditions in and around benthic habitats.
2.3.4 Additional Benefits
During low flow summer months, Little River flows are mostly diverted to the Capelsie
diversion canal, bypassing 970 linear feet of downstream mainstem habitat. The removal
' of Capelsie Dam will restore historic base flows to this section of the Little River (Figure
5).
' In addition to the functional benefits detailed above, Restoration Systems also proposes
to improve the recreational value of the Uwharrie Dams restoration reach by providing
public canoe and kayak access at the Smitherman Dam site. The Town of Troy has
' expressed a strong interest in locating a public park at the Smitherman Dam site, which
would be serviced by the town's nature trail system (Figure 9).
' Dam removal, when used as a tool to restore streams and rivers, provides promise of
predictable success for many of the restoration attributes targeted, simply because
elimination of the structural barrier allows the natural stream to restore itself through
hydrogeomorphic processes. Still, there is much to learn about system responses to dam
' removal, and such occurrences are infrequent and therefore difficult to study. To aid the
development of such science, Restoration Systems has solicited a research proposal from
Associate Professor Martin Doyle, PhD of the University of North Carolina (UNC) and
Associate Professor Emily Stanley of the University of Wisconsin (UW). Drs. Doyle and
' Stanley are the preeminent experts in dam removal science, and both have ongoing
academic research programs at their respective institutions. Drs. Doyle and Stanley
submitted a preliminary research proposal that would be applicable to the aforementioned
' dam removals, and the Little River Watershed Restoration as a whole. Their research
proposal is attached as Appendix B. Restoration Systems is impressed with their ideas and
intends to provide funding to their research team if this project is awarded.
' 2.4 Restoration Plan
Restoration Systems will develop a restoration plan patterned somewhat after the Lowell and
Carbonton Dam removal projects. The plan is inspired by specifications outlined in Determining
' Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation Credit for Dam Removal (March 2004). Such an
approach was used successfully during the removals of the Carbonton and Lowell Dams in 2005.
10

The restoration plan will address five major topics including: 1) critical species surveys, 2)
dewatering, 3) sediment management, 4) dam removal and 5) dam site stabilization. A team of
scientists, engineers and experienced construction specialists will be intimately involved in
executing each action area.
2.4.1 Critical Species Surveys
Prior to the initiation of dam removal activities, aquatic species surveys will be performed
within the river channel for 800 feet below both dam sites, including an area above each
dam in which construction (demolition) activities would take place. Surveys will be
undertaken by investigators with collection authorizations from the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Surveys will focus on
the presence of the seven state listed species detailed above in section 2.3.1. Any
documented populations will be identified and habitat areas will be delineated in the field.
The WRC will be consulted if such populations are found. All dam removal activities will
be designed to avoid impacts to any rare mussel populations.
2.4.2 Impoundment Dewatering
Capelsie Dam will be modified to gradually draw down its head pond. This approach will
limit the mobility of any accumulated sediment within the current impoundment. Draw
down also provides an opportunity for the character of stored sediment to be assessed.
Smitherman Dam will not be dewatered, as this dam has failed and is relatively
ineffective at water storage.
2.4.3 Sediment Management
Geomorphic surveys were conducted by Restoration Systems at eight locations
throughout the Upper Uwharrie Dams restoration reach. Large volumes of fine sediment
were not found within Capelsie's impoundment; however, the presence of Smitherman
Dam has induced the storage of significant coarse bedload materials in the immediate
vicinity of the dam (Photos 12 and 13). It is not likely that much of these materials will be
mobilized following dam removal. The channel currently bypasses these materials due to
of the location of the breach and the bedrock control point into which the dam is
anchored.
2.4.4 Dam Removal
The dams will be removed entirely through atwo-stage fracture and removal process that
will breach the structure to existing channel bed elevations. Breaches will be engineered
to design bankfull channel dimensions. The following fracture methods may be used:
expansive concrete, diamond wire saw, hydraulic breaking, and/or localized explosives.
Salvaged rock fill may be used for stream stabilization. All foreign material will be
separated from dam material and relocated off-site.
2.4.5 Dam Site Stabilization
The need for stabilization of the dam site (terrestrial access points) will be determined
following the Capelsie Impoundment dewatering. If necessary, the dam sites will be
stabilized using rock fill materials originally used to construct the dams, erosion control
matting, seeding and vegetation planting. Following demolition activities, access routes
will be ripped, matted, and seeded with native herbaceous species. Species selected will
mimic vegetation well established in the riparian landscape.
2.5 Monitoring Plan
It is anticipated that the physical adjustments (e.g., increased stream velocity, enhanced
sediment transport, and lower water temperatures) initiated by the removal of the Upper Uwharrie
Dams will restore physical, biological and chemical components of the Little River aquatic
ecosystem. The intent of the monitoring plan is to document the anticipated functional benefits of
the Upper Uwharrie Dams restoration project. Monitoring activities will begin with pre-
removal (baseline) and continue for five years following dam removal (post-restoration), or
until success criteria have been achieved. Restoration Systems will provide annual monitoring
11

reports that detail monitoring procedures, results, conclusions and possibly contingency
' measures if needed. The primary success criteria include: 1) restoration of rare, threatened
and/or endangered species habitat; 2) improvements to local water quality; and 3) restoration of
' appropriate aquatic habitat.
2.5.1 Restoration of Rare, Threatened, and/or Endangered Species Habitat
Habitat within the existing impoundments and a few reference reaches (relatively
undisturbed) will be characterized before and after project implementation. Habitat will
be characterized by monitoring: 1) stream velocity, 2) water depth and 3) substrate
composition (i.e., grain size analysis). Targeted species surveys before and after
removal will also be performed in an effort to demonstrate habitat recolonization by the
' appropriate species.
Reference habitat character will be used to judge the target condition of habitat currently
affected by the Upper Uwharrie Dams. Success will require a demonstrated shift towards
' reference habitat conditions. Photography and videography will also be used to
document the physical changes within the restoration reach.
' 2.5.2 Water Quality Improvements
Water quality measurements collected (following DWQ SOPs) at various stations within
the Site Impoundments will be compared to those measured at reference stations;
namely the AMS located ~3 miles upstream of the Site Impoundments (Figure 7). In
' particular, the parameters of interest are DO and temperature.
' 2.5.3 Restoration of Lotic Aquatic Communities
In-stream biological monitoring is proposed within the impoundments and reference
reaches to track changes initiated by dam removal activities. DWQ SOPs for biological
monitoring will be used to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate, mollusk and fish
communities. Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community surveys are conducted
' routinely by DWQ throughout the subbasin (Figure 7). Such data could be used to
establish baseline conditions. However, if it is determined that these data do not
' adequately represent baseline conditions, pre-removal surveys will be conducted.
Surveys for mollusks (mussels and snails) will be conducted as a means of evaluating
habitat restoration.
' 2.5.4 Additional Monitoring
Eight cross-sections have already been established within the site impoundments to
assess current channel geometry (Figures 10, 11 and 12). These stations, and possibly
' others, will be monitored before and after dam removal to track changes in channel
geometry initiated by dam removal. In addition to channel morphology, sediment
analyses will also be conducted at these cross-sectional stations.

2.5.5 Academic/Conservation Research
Although final decisions have not been made about a specific research topic that will be
funded by Restoration Systems, Appendix B provides a range of topics that are under
active consideration. Plans are to actively fund and support independent, scientific
research by a reputable academic institution, similar to the support provided to the
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at UNC as part of the Lowell
and Carbonton Dam removals performed by Restoration Systems.
2.6 Current, Interim and Ultimate Ownership of Property
Both Smitherman and Capelsie dam sites are currently under contract with Capel Real Estate,
and the Capel family of Troy. The Capels are the largest area rug manufacturers in the United
States. They are committed to successful conservation and restoration projects in their
hometown. The Town of Troy has indicated to the Capels and Restoration Systems that they are
interested in placing a public park on the Smitherman Dam site. The Capels also own the larger
downstream dams, Eury and Robinson (also known as Hurley).
12

Upon acceptance of this proposal, Conservation Easements will be placed over both dam sites;
such easements will be held by the EEP. Any easements will allow for dam removals, but no
other dams can be constructed at these sites in perpetuity. Restoration Systems will remain
responsible for project implementation and achievement of restoration success.
2.7 Project Schedule
The project timeline is dependent upon the official date of award. The timeline includes the
following.
Summer 2008 Permitting and Pre-Removal Monitoring
Winter/Spring 2009 Dewatering
Spring/Summer 2009 Dam Site Stabilization
Fall 2009 Dam Removal
Spring 2010 Initiate Post-Removal Monitoring
Spring 2014 Complete 5 Years of Post-Removal Monitoring
Implementation Schedule The implementation schedule is structured around the most
current EEP RFP (#16-D07033 dated November 22, 2006), and is outlined below in further detail.
Task 1
Environmental screening and Public Notice advertised in a local newspaper within the project
area (information workshop will be held if necessary). This task will be completed 90 days
from receipt of Notice to Proceed.
Task 2
Execute Conservation Easements on project area. Task 2 will be completed in 90 days
following receipt of Notice to Proceed.
Task 3
The Development of asite-specific Restoration Plan will be completed 120 days from receipt
of Notice to Proceed.
Task 4
Secure all necessary permits and/or certifications and complete the implementation of the
earthwork portion of the mitigation site. Will be completed by fall 2008.
Task 5
Complete planting and installation of all monitoring devices within the mitigation site. Will be
completed by winter 2009.
Task 6
Mitigation Plan and As-Built Drawings will be completed by winter 2009.
Tasks 7-11
Monitor the mitigation site as outlined in the Mitigation Plan to assess the success of the
restoration for a period of five years; completed by 2014.
2.8 Additionallssues
Use of Public Lands
The Upper Uwharrie Dams are located on private property that Restoration Systems has the
option to purchase. There are no public lands within the immediate vicinity of the removal sites or
its tributaries. The water resources that will be restored by this project are considered to be
Waters of the State and are therefore a public resource.
13

1
' Affected Public Projects
Based on existing knowledge, there are no public projects that will be directly or indirectly
' affected by the removal of the Upper Uwharrie Dams. Nor will any currently planned public
project affect restoration operations.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Based on the Biscoe and Troy quad sheets available at the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO; visited on October 16, 2006), there are no historic or archeological resources located
within, at or near the project area. Smitherman Dam once supported a grist mill that ceased
operations several decades ago, and is no longer standing. Such facilities were common
' features of the landscape in the 19`h and early 20'h centuries. Capelsie Dam is located at a
functioning mill, which is no longer supplied by the hydroelectricity formerly generated by the
dam.

Non-Aquatic Endangered Species
There are five federally Endangered species within Montgomery County: 1) Eastern Cougar (Fells
concolor cougar), 2) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 3) Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), 4) Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and 5) Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii). Since these are all terrestrial species, it is not anticipated that these
species will be affected by dam removal operations. Further work will be conducted to ensure
that no bald eagle nest sites are located within close proximity to the proposed demolition work.
This work and critical biological conclusions for all species will be coordinated with the FWS
during the environmental screening phase of work.
Current and Ultimate Ownership
Restoration Systems currently holds an Option to Purchase a Conservation Easement on the
Site, which has been recorded at the Montgomery County Register of Deeds. Both sites will be
protected in perpetuity from future dam construction under Conservation Easements. Full
documents are available upon request. Upon approval of the contract, Restoration Systems will
execute the option and subsequently place a conservation easement over the subject property;
such easement could be held by EEP or some other conservation entity. Restoration Systems
will remain responsible for project implementation and achievement of success criteria.
2.9 Summary
The Upper Uwharrie Dams Restoration Site encompasses 22,420 linear feet of the Little River
and four of its perennial tributaries. All stream habitat associated with this project have been
directly impacted by more than a century of damming. The removal of Capelsie and Smitherman
Dams will remove the source of impairment, and thus:
1) Restoring rare, threatened and endangered aquatic species habitat
2) Improving water quality, and
3) Restoring lotic community
Restoration options outlined in this report are as follows:
After completion of the project, the site will offer 18,832 Stream Mitigation Units. A
Conservation Easement covering up to five acres is proposed to encompass all mitigation options
within the Site.
14

Summary Information
Site: Uwharrie Dams Stream Restoration Site
Location: Montgomery County
River Basin: Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit: 03040104
NCDWQ Subbasin: 03-07-05
USGS 14-Digit Hydrologic Number (dams only): 03040104040010
Targeted Local Watershed: No
303d Listed: No
Water Supply Watershed: C and C-HQW
Drainage Area: 175 square miles
Stream Classes: Perennial
Protected Species Issues: There are five federally protected species that occur in
Montgomery County. These species are terrestrial, and therefore, it is not anticipated
that these dam removals will have any negative effect on any federally protected
populations. The Upper Uwharrie Dams Project will directly benefit seven state listed
aquatic species.
Natural Heritage Elements: The Upper Uwharrie Dams Project will restore ~10% of a 35-
mile NHP priority area (Little River Aquatic Habitat).
15

2.10 References
Department of Water Quality (NC), 2003. 2003 Yadkin-Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
World wide web,
http~//h2o enr state nc us/basinwide/yadkin/YadkinPD wcLdt management plan0103.htm
Doyle, MW, Stanley, EH, Harbor, JM, 2003. Channel adjustments following two dam removals in
Wisconsin. Water Resources Research 39: 1101.
Doyle, MW, Stanley, EH, Orr CH, Selle, AR, Sethi, SA, Harbor, JM, 2005. Stream ecosystem
response to small dam removal: Lessons from the Heartland. Geomorphology 71:227-244.
Kanehl, PK, Lyons, J, Nelson JE, 1997. Changes in the habitat and fish community of the
Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen Mills Dam. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 387-400.
Knighton, D, 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective. Arnold, London.
Leopold LB, Wolman MG and Miller JP. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover
Publications, Inc., New York.
Morris GL and Fan J. 1998. Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook: Design and Management of
Dams, Reservoirs, and Watersheds for Sustainable Use. McGraw-Hill, New York.
NC Department of Transportation Geographic Information System, 2006. World wide web,
http://www. ncdot.org/it/gis/DataDistribution/ContourElevationData/default. html.
Petts GE. 1984. Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for Ecological Management. Wiley, New York.
Stanley, EH, Luebke, MA, Doyle, MW, Marshall, DW, 2002. Short-term changes in channel form
and macroinvertebrate communities following low-head dam removal. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 21: 172-187.
Wildlife Resource Commission (NC), 2006. North Carolina Atlas of Freshwater Mussels and
Endangered Fish. World wide web,
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07 wildlifespeciescon/pg7b1.htm
Wetzel, RG. 2001. Limnology. 3~d edition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
16

PART 3:
RESTORATION SYSTEIv~S CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
George A. Howard
Co-Founder & Executive Vice President
George Howard is a co-founder and Executive Vice President of
Restoration Systems. He is an original proponent
and influential advocate of private sector mitigation banking
and mitigation delivery systems. George is responsible for
identifying growth opportunities in the Mid-Atlantic States, and
the implementation of innovative mitigation in North Carolina.
He is a respected advocate for legislative and mitigation policy
progress in the industry as a whole.
Working in the U.S. Senate in Washington D.C. as staff from 1990 to 1996, George was responsible for
environmental public policy, particularly wetlands, water quality and species issues. Recognizing mitigation
banking as an opportunity to move home, George returned in 1996 and helped sponsor North Carolina's
first successful large-scale mitigation bank, the 660 acre Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, now in its
10th year of ecological success. His determination to make North Carolina a leader in private-sector
mitigation led George to found Restoration Systems, L.L.C. with John Preyer in 1998.
For Restoration Systems George has produced a number of cutting edge projects and mitigation delivery
systems, such as the nation's first large scale dam removals for compensatory mitigation, North Carolina's
first large riparian wetland mitigation bank, the first "Full-Delivery" riparian buffer mitigation project, and
early and continuing efforts to improve Full-Delivery Mitigation processes.
George has testified to the U.S. Congress in support of the industry, is a Director of the National Mitigation
Banking Association, and a regular presenter at regional and national environmental conferences --
including his yearly appearance as host of the "Mc George Group" at the National Mitigation Banking
Conference. He is a member of the Triangle Land Conservancy's Communication's Committee, Wake
County Co-Chair for the Land for Tomorrow Coalition, and a 2006 appointee to Governors Easley's Land
and Water Conservation Study Commission.
A 1989 Political Science graduate of UNC Chapel Hill, George grew up in rural Guilford County along the
Deep River. He is the grandson of two engineers, and continues a family tradition of water related heavy
construction. The Paul N. Howard Company and Howard International completed more than 1,000 water
quality projects in the Southeastern U.S. and twenty foreign countries.
John Preyer
Co-Founder & Executive Vice President
John Preyer is a co-founder and Executive Vice President of Restoration Systems.
He oversees Restoration Systems' land acquisition and construction operations, as well as
serving on the company management team. John's work in environmental restoration
goes back over 17 years to his work in the U.S. Senate for former Senator D.M. Faircloth,
a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
17

In this capacity, John dealt with a variety of federal and state agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources on environmental and
regulatory issues affecting North Carolina.
In 1998, he joined George Howard in founding Restoration Systems. Since that time, the company has
grown to 18 employees with offices in Raleigh and Greensboro, and is the largest North Carolina private
mitigation company of its kind.
John was appointed by the DENR Secretary to serve on the Liaison Committee for the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program as a representative for private mitigation providers. He served on the board of the
North Carolina Coastal Federation from 2002-2006 and was instrumental in obtaining the North River
Farms restoration site, the largest wetland restoration project performed as an environmental group in
North Carolina. He also served on the board of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation, a non-
profit environmental group dedicated to preserving land for wildlife habitat.
Tara Disy Allden
Operations Director
Tara Disy Allden joined Restoration Systems in February 2006. A soil scientist and environmental lawyer,
' Tara serves as Operations Director for Restoration Systems and supervisor to our team of Project
Managers, providing guidance and structure to site acquisition processes in order to accomplish the
company's contracted mitigation responsibilities.
Tara's personal, academic and professional experiences have led her to seek
pragmatic solutions to ecological issues. She believes that restoration through
mitigation provides a unique opportunity to make significant ecological gains by
leveraging the needs of a growing and developing ecological infrastructure.
Tara graduated in 1990 from the University of Florida with a Bachelor's Degree in
Advertising. She subsequently earned a Masters in Ecology with a concentration in
soil science in 1996 from N.C. State. Realizing her interests were vested in
improving the environment, she moved on to earn a Juris Doctor degree from the
University of South Carolina School of Law where she was Editor in Chief of the
Southeastern Law Journal.
Prior to entering law school, Tara gained significant practical work experience in environmental sciences.
Such experiences included serving with the NC Cooperative Extension Service at NC State University from
1991-1995 as an Information Specialist with the Water Quality Initiative, as well as working as a
consulting biologist for Kimley Horn & Associates from 1995 to 1998, where she specialized in wetland
delineation, NEPA documentation, and NEPA investigations for cellular tower sites.
After completing her law degree, she worked from 2003-2006 as the Southeast Regional Manager of
Environmental Banc & Exchange, where she was responsible for all aspects of site acquisition and project
implementation to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
J. Adam Riggsbee
Adam joined the Restoration Systems team in June 2006 as leader of the
company's Dam Task Force immediately following his graduation from the
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. His focus is to ensure the successful
removal of dams for Restoration Systems in a safe, biologically and ecologically
beneficial manner.
Aside from his love of the outdoors, Adam gained his interest in environmental
mitigation as an undergraduate at Western Carolina University where he noticed
the budding market for ecological restoration. He felt certain that dam removal
would eventually play a role in this particular industry. Following his graduation in
Ig

1999 with a BS in Biology, Adam began graduate school at UNC in 2002 with the purpose of studying the
physical, biological and chemical consequences of dam removal. He was an instrumental team member for
Restoration Systems Lowell Mill and Carbonton Dam Removal projects, both of which were cited in his
final dissertation. He graduated with a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences in May 2006.
Prior to joining Restoration Systems, Adam worked as an Environmental Microbiologist, aBotanical
Gardner and a Field Biologist. He has an impressive involvement in the industry as a member of the
American Geophysical Union, the Ecological Society of America, the North American Benthological Society,
the American Society and Limnology and Oceanography, the International Society of Applied and
Theoretical Limnology, the Environmental Water Resources Institute and the Society of Wetland Scientists.
Randy Turner
Senior Scientist/Senior Project Manager
Randy's primary responsibility at Restoration Systems is to provide guidance on the state and federal
environmental regulatory permitting related to Restoration Systems' mitigation projects. Randy conducts
field operations, such as wetland delineations and surveys for rare species, including
those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened and endangered.
He serves as the senior Project Manager on behalf of all projects. His most recent
assignments include (1) Removal of the Lowell Dam on the Little River in Johnston
County, and (2) Removal of the Carbonton Dam on the Deep River in Chatham, Lee
and Moore Counties.
Randy has had a longstanding interest in environmental mitigation since his early high
school years. He had the opportunity to witness environmental losses to coastal
environments in his own hometown of Myrtle Beach, SC.
Randy received a BS in biology from the University of South Carolina. He also
completed coursework and research (2 years) pursuant to completion of the MS in
biology from the University of South Carolina; however, he left school to accept
employment while writing his thesis. Randy completed an MS in Biology at Western
Carolina University. He also accepted a fellowship to attend the Ph.D. program in biochemistry at Bowman
Gray Medical School at Wake Forest University, where he was enrolled for one semester. Randy is the
author of eight scientific publications. Randy's current position is comprised of only a subset of his overall
work history, but his several experiences taken collectively have brought balance and perspective to the
work he has pursued at RS. His past work history and current interest includes:
• Equipment operator (bulldozer, front-end loader, back-hoe, etc.)
• Labor foreman and superintendent for coastal contractor. Supervised crews responsible for
construction of seawalls (bulkheads), docks, piers, subdivision earthwork, etc.
• Superintendent of Landscape and Grounds at WCU: managed 30 staff at UNC system campus;
responsible for multimillion dollar remake of campus.
• Supervisor for 5-15 scientists and engineers at NCDOT, who conducted N.E.P.A., Clean Water Act
and Endangered Species Act investigations on behalf of Transportation Improvement Program.
• Faculty Instructor and Research Scientist in Department of Biology at Western Carolina
University.
Dave Schiller
5
>,.~,
Project Coordinator/Contracts Manager
Dave Schiller is a Senior Biologist and Project Coordinator for Restoration Systems
growing list of projects. Since he began his employment with the company in 2004,
his responsibilities have included providing support to the company's Controller,
serving as the lead coordinator between Restoration Systems and the North Carolina
19

Ecosystem Enhancement Program, as well as mechanizing communication between and among
departments to ensure project success.
~' From 1966 through 1969 he served in the US Army as a combat surveyor. He then went on to receive his
Bachelor of Science and Masters degrees in Botany from North Carolina State University. Dave worked for
Carolina Power and Light Company (now Progress Energy) for over twenty years as an environmental
biologist. In that capacity, he was involved with evaluating new power plant sites, aquatic and terrestrial
vegetation management, air pollution studies, and protected species surveys and management. In 1995,
' he joined the North Carolina Department of Transportation where he was responsible for overseeing the
wetland and stream mitigation program for a number of years. He was an early member of the EEP staff,
helping to get the program up and running during 2003.
Worth Creech
^
Site Construction Manager
Worth Creech is the Construction Manager for Restoration Systems. He began his employment in 2002
working in monitoring, site acquisitions, and project management. His current responsibilities include
overseeing construction practices, safety and efficiency for all Restoration Systems sites. He serves as a
liaison with surveyors and contractors to ensure the success of varying
stream and wetland sites.
Worth's focus is in estimating stream and wetland projects for
Restoration Systems, bidding the work to contractors, working with
consultants, and assuring that required permits are obtained for each
project. Worth's responsibilities also include working with landowners
on projects to make sure they are satisfied with Restoration Systems'
commitments related to construction easements, cattle management,
construction oversight and general maintenance.
Worth's interest in environmental mitigation stems from exploring the
Tar River's wetlands as a youth, scouting, and his love for fishing and camping. He earned a Bachelor of
Science in Construction Technology with a Minor in Geography at Appalachian State University in Boone,
NC. His lifelong interests in woodworking and construction projects have served as building blocks for
performing as a successful manager of large-scale restoration projects.
After completing his degree at ASU, Worth managed the construction of several kidney dialysis centers
and medical offices before starting with Restoration Systems. During his free time, he enjoys duck
hunting at various Restoration Systems' sites across the state of North Carolina.
__ - -
~SCHELL. BRAY, AYCOCK & LIVINGSTON: LEGAL EXPERIENCE
Mr. Bill Aycock, of Schell, Bray, Aycock, Able and Livingston, PLLC (Greensboro), has served as
Restoration Systems' lead real estate attorney since 1998 and will continue to provide executive counsel
for all Restoration Systems' real estate transactions throughout the current RFP site submittal, for the life
of each project. He is regularly listed by North Carolina Business magazine as one of North Carolina's top
five real estate attorneys.
20

RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
CORPORATE EXPERIENCE SINCE 1998
__
Restoration Systems is an environmental mitigation firm founded in 1998 specializing in full-delivery
mitigation. The firm was formed to improve the quality of environmental restoration and mitigation by
locating and acquiring the best sites, planning their restoration using proven science, constructing them with
the most qualified contractors, and protecting and maintaining them through long-term monitoring.
Restoration Systems' staff has been involved in environmental mitigation and mitigation banking since 1992,
employing Project Managers with more than 80 years of experience in resource evaluation, environmental
restoration, and mitigation implementation. The company employs 18 permanent staff, with its primary office
in Raleigh, North Carolina and secondary office on Greensboro, North Carolina.
RS principals were directly involved in the completion of the state's first full-delivery mitigation project in
1997, the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (623 acres), the Bear Creek-Mill Branch Mitigation Bank in 2001 (450
acres), and the Sleepy Creek Mitigation Site in 2001 (550 acres). The firm then performed all of the off-site
mitigation for the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority's expansion which was part of the Federal
Express cargo facility expansion. This project, known as the Causey Farm Stream and Wetland Restoration
Site, comprised over 7,700 linear feet of restored stream channel and 10 acres of wetland restoration.
Restoration Systems has implemented over twenty projects to date for the NCEEP and its predecessor, the
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program. These projects include the innovative removal of both the
Carbonton Dam (Chatham, Lee & Moore Counties, NC) and Lowell Dam (Johnston County, NC) to generate
stream mitigation in excess of 100,000 linear feet, the Haw River Wetland Restoration Site (22 acres), the Elk
Shoals Stream Restoration Site (6,000 linear feet), the Lick Creek Stream Site (9,500 linear feet), the Gatlin
Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (125 acres), the Lloyd Farm Wetland and Stream Restoration Site (4,750
linear feet and 6 acres), the Cane Creek Stream Restoration Site (6,748 linear feet) and the Holly Grove
Stream Restoration Site (15,726 linear feet), among others. RS is also responsible for the completion of a
number of riparian buffer restoration projects in both the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins.
In addition to its work for the NCEEP and NCDOT, RS is also under contract with Schlumberger Ltd. to remove
two high-head dams for a stream restoration project in South Carolina, as well as with Martin Marietta
Materials to provide all wetland mitigation for a quarry project in southeastern North Carolina. As referenced
above, RS performed all of the off-site wetland and stream mitigation for the Piedmont Triad International
Airport Authority's Federal Express expansion. Building on this proven experience with airport mitigation
needs, in early 2006 RS was awarded a contract with the Salisbury, Maryland Airport to provide all of the
wetland mitigation associated with a major runway expansion.
Restoration Systems has extensive knowledge and background with providing full-delivery mitigation.
Projects completed to date include:
Angola Bay
Bear Creek
Big Bull Creek
Brogden Road
Brown Marsh Swamp
Carbonton Dam Removal
Casey Dairy
Cane Creek Gatlin Swamp Lloyd Site
Causey Farm Haw River Lowell Dam Removal
Conetoe Creek Holly Grove Morgan Creek
Cutawhiskie Creek Jarmans Oak Sleepy Creek
Elk Marsh Lick Creek Walnut Creek
Elk Shoals Little Buffalo
Gray Farm Morgan Creek
Full details of any of Restoration Systems' projects will gladly be provided upon request,
21

Appendix A: DENR Internal Memo
1

North Carolina
Michael F, Easley, Governor
- ~~
,~.~.~~.,.,e~
NCDENR
Department of Environment and
Division of Water Resources
July 6, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
FROM: Jim Mead
SUBJECT: Determination of Minimum Release and Mitigation for
Tillery Dam FERC Relicensing and 401 Certification
UUilliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
John Morris, Director
A settlement agreement has been reached between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and Progress Energy for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of Progress Energy's hydroelectric facilities on the
Pee Dee River. This agreement includes a release regime for Tillery dam and stream mitigation
through protection of riparian buffers. This memorandum describes the studies and analysis
involved in developing this part of the settlement agreement. A general outline of the study
process is also attached.
Instream flow studies were~conducted at multiple locations by consultants for Progress Energy
' (PE), who performed these studies in consultation with state and federal agencies using the
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM). The reach of the Pee Dee River between the
Tillery dam and the headwaters of Blewett Falls reservoir was divided into three sub-reaches for
this study based on changes in hydrology and habitat type. Division of Water Resources (DWR)
staff were involved in study design, including habitat mapping and selection of study cross-
sections.
' • Subreach 3 -- Tillery dam to Rocky River; 5.35 miles; 8 transects re resentin
P g
79% glide, 10% run and 11 % shoal habitat types.
' • Subreach 2 -Rocky River to Browns Creek; 6.15 miles; I2 transects
representing 66% glide, 25% run, 4% pool; and 4% shoal.
• Subreach 1-Browns Creek to Blewett Falls reservoir; 9.0 miles; 3 transects
' representing 92% glide and 8% pool habitat types.
One
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 NOrthCarOlina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www,ncwater,org ~a~F~rr~"~
' An Equal opportunity t Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper
t
Natural Resources

The consultants collected depth and velocity data at numerous points on each transect at
three distinct discharges, in addition to substrate and cover information at each point.
The three discharge levels for data collection varied by site and were approximately S00
to 900 cfs, 3000 to 3500 cfs, and 7000 cfs. Using this field data, a hydraulic simulation
model was calibrated for each transect that could simulate physical habitat conditions
over a wide range of discharges. DWR staff were heavily involved in this hydraulic
calibration.
Physical conditions simulated by the hydraulic model for each subreach were then
merged with Habitat Suitability Indices for the life stages, guilds and species of interest.
The result is a relationship of habitat (weighted usable area) to discharge (cubic feet per
second} for each organism being evaluated. For this IFIM study, 29 individual life
stages, guilds and species were evaluated.
The next step in the evaluation is referred to as "time series analysis." This entailed
converting a record of stream flows into a record of habitat values for each of the 291ife
stages, guilds and species at each of the three subreaches. Flow records for different
operational alternatives, as well as the unregulated or "natural" flow record, can be
converted to habitat values in this manner. The habitat records for different flow
scenarios can be compared using monthly duration curves and other statistical analyses.
One of the habitat metrics used for this instream flow study and all other major
hydroelectric relicensing studies in North Carolina is known as "Index C." The attached
IFIM study outline contains a more detailed explanation of this metric.
To focus the analysis of voluminous output for multiple reaches and 29 species and life
stages, the technical work group for this Project undertook screening to determine the
"driver" or focus life stages, guilds and species. These are the 6 or 7 organisms that are
most responsive to changes in flow. A flow regime developed inconsideration of these
species/life stages should also be suitable for other less flow-sensitive organisms. The
seven focus species for all three subreaches downstream of Tillery dam were; American
shad spawning life stage, shallow-fast habitat with higher velocity guild, golden redhorse
adult life stage, robust redhorse spawning life stage, deep-fast habitat with coarse mixed
substrate guild, deep-fast habitat with fine substrate guild, and deep-fast habitat with
gravel/cobble substrate guild.
DWR's preferred target level of habitat to be maintained is a flow regime that maintains
Index C values at 80% of the Index C value under unregulated flow conditions for the
focus species. However, this 80% of unregulated Index C is not a formal standard. The
final flow regime might consider several factors, including, but not limited to: the
amount and quality of habitat in the affected reach, fishery resource management
objectives, varying habitat results far different species and life stages, different levels of
habitat in the near-dam reach versus farther downstream after tributary inflow, extent of
improvement from existing flow regime, and other demands on water resources.
2

In March, 2005, the technical work group began reviewing results of the instream flaw
studies. In June, 2005 the group began discussing and evaluating various alternative flow
regimes downstream of Tillery dam. The work group included representatives from PE,
DWR, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC}, the South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, American Rivers, The Nature
Conservancy, and Alcoa Power Generation Inc. The group made extensive use of an
interactive spreadsheet that could calculate the Index C values far a particular flow option
for each of the 291ife stages, guilds and species. The Index C values for each flow
option could then be contrasted to the unregulated or natural Index C values, the Index C
values for the existing hydroelectric operations, and the maximum achievable Index C
values. The interactive spreadsheet also calculates these habitat metrics for each of the
three subreaches separately and in combination.
In addition to habitat evaluations, consultants for PE were also using the CHEOPS model
to determine the effect of different flow options on hydroelectric generation during on-
peak and off-peak periods. This modeling took into account the effect of a continuous
release on the availability of water being stored for use during periods of peak demand.
Another factor included was the hydraulic capacity of the turbines in the Tillery
powerhouse. The lowest operational flow for any single turbine is approximately 2000
cfs. Continuous releases much below this level must be spilled or released through a gate
to avoid damage to the turbines -and thus continuous releases less than 2000 cfs cannot
be used to generate electricity. Powerhouse and penstock configuration does not allow
addition of a smaller turbine for minimum releases. Replacing one of the 2000 cfs units
with a smaller unit was also evaluated, but the reduction in capacity to meet higher peak
demands for electricity more than offset the gains from being able to generate power at
minimum releases less than 2000 cfs. PE's consultants also evaluated the possibility of
using the small "house unit" in the powerhouse to make the minimum release and
generate power. However, this unit is intended only for occasional operation to re-
energize the powerhouse in the event of a "black start" after a total power outage. It
would not stand up to continuous operation. In addition, the house unit and its piping
could only pass approximately 200 cfs maximum.
In May, 2006 Progress Energy proposed a minimum release of 300 cfs and stated that the
CHEOPS model indicated continuous minimum flows higher than that resulted in
unacceptable losses in peak power generation. PE proposed stream buffer protection to
offset the difference between the proposed release of 300 cfs and the preferred flows that
would produce habitat at 80% of the unregulated Index C values. The PE proposal also
included a 6-week release of 745 cfs starting in mid- to late February to coincide with the
American shad spawning run.

DWR then calculated the mitigation need in bank miles for the proposed Tillery release
of 300 cfs, including 6 weeks in the spring at 745 cfs. Bank miles represent the length of
protected buffer along one side of the channel. For example, 4 miles of river channel
protected on both sides is equivalent to 8 bank miles. The first step in determining the
bank miles needed for mitigation is to calculate how much "credit" is given for the
release of 300 cfs. The process used to evaluate the proposed minimum release and
mitigation need was as follows:
1. The steps below are performed separately for subreach 3 and subreach 2. (For
subreach 1, the proposed release of 300 cfs resulted in Index C values that were
more than 80% of the unregulated Index C values.)
2. Determine the flow regime that would produce 80% unregulated index C values
for all life stages, guilds, and species.
3. Compare the Index C habitat values from this preferred flow regime to those
produced by a release of 300 cfs (with 6 weeks at 745 cfs}. Do this for each
month for each of six focus species. The seventh focus species was not included
in the analysis because it had significant outlier results from the three other deep-
fast habitat guilds and because there are unresolved questions regarding the
habitat suitability indices for this particular organism.
4. Average the monthly percentage shortfall in Index C to generate an overall yearly
value for each of the six organisms.
5. Average the yearly percentage shortfall for the six .organisms to generate one
overall average value for the percentage shortfall produced by the proposed
release of 300 cfs.
6. Multiply this percentage shortfall times the length of the subreach.
7. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ} uses mitigation guidelines that stipulate a
mitigation ratio 0~if the selected approach is stream preservation. Multiply
the result from step 6 above by four.
8. To convert to bank miles, multiply the result from step 7 above by two.
9. Add the resulting bank miles for subreaches 3 and 2 together to yield the total
bank miles of mitigation needed for a release of 300 cfs.
A spreadsheet is attached showing the various buffer protection lands proposed during
settlement discussions and how much they contribute towards the overall mitigation need.
This calculation indicated that the total mitigation package proposed by Progress Energy
was not sufficient to offset the habitat shortfall for a minimum release of 300 cfs. The
spreadsheet also calculated the mitigation results for a minimum release of 350 cfs.
Comparing this to 300 cfs and interpolating resulted in an increase in minimum release to
330 cfs to go along with the total package of 28.7 bank miles of protected buffer.
Subsequent to this evaluation of mitigation needs, the work group had further discussions
regarding the release for American shad spawning in the spxing. It was decided to reduce
the release to 725 cfs, but extend it's duration by 2 weeks. This modification in flow was
not reflected in the calculation of mitigation needs. However, the habitat shortfall is
much more influenced by the release of 330 cfs during the rest of the year than by the
higher release for two months in the spring.
4

' It is important to recognize that the amount of mitigation needed was only determined
after the agencies and Applicant spent a year reviewing various flow scenarios for their
effects on habitat and hydroelectric generation. We did nat start out with a package of
' protected lands and "back fit" a release offset by the proposed mitigation. In fact once
we arrived at a tentative release of 300 cfs and actually calculated the mitigation need, it
was necessary to increase the release to 330 cfs.
t

1
1
5

GENERAL OUTLINE OF IFIM STUDY PROCESS
Field Data Collection and Physical Habitat Simulation
1. The affected stream reach downstream of a water control structure is
examined to determine habitat types present and presence of any major
tributary inflow.
2. The affected reach may be subdivided according to changes in aquatic
habitat or hydrology.
3. Transects {stream cross-sections} are selected within each subreach to
represent the range of available aquatic habitat.
4. The bottom profile of each transect is surveyed and individual points
{cells) on every transect are coded for substrate and habitat cover type.
5, Hydraulic data (depth and velocity) is collected at every submerged cell of
every transect at three discrete discharges.
6. The hydraulic data provides input to models that are used simulate depths
and velocities across each transect over the range of discharges being
simulated.
7. The end result is a set of physical conditions {substrate/cover, depth and
velocity} at every cell of every transect at every discharge being modeled.
DWR staff participated in habitat mapping, transect selection, field data
collection, and calibration of hydraulic models for this relicensing.
Aquatic Habitat Modeling
1. Species and life stages are selected for evaluation based on field sampling
and f shery management interests.
2. Habitat suitability indices are developed for each species and life stage
selected. These are a preference scale of how a given species/life stage
responds to different substrates, cover types, depths and velocities.
3. The aquatic habitat modeling component of IFIM merges the output set of
physical conditions with the habitat suitability indices. For each flaw of
interest, the combination of substrate, cover, depth and velocity is
evaluated at every cell and transect, and totaled for the whole study reach.
4. The end result is a table and graph of weighted usable area versus stream
discharge for every species and life stage being evaluated.
DWR staff were involved in selecting species, reviewing habitat
suitability indices, and reviewing the habitat versus flow relationships for
this relicensing.
6

1

1
Time Series Anal
1. IFIM is a suite of analytical approaches. A complete IFIM study always
includes time series analysis.
2. Time series analysis relates the habitat versus flow relationships to the
availability of water in the stream. The output from the aquatic habitat
model is used to convert a record of stream flows into a record of habitat
events.
3. Statistical analysis of the habitat record can be conducted to develop
various habitat metrics and other analytical products. These analyses are
usually done on a monthly basis to reflect seasonal differences -spawning
behavior, for example.
4. One output product is a habitat duration curve. Similar to a flow duration
curve, it represents the percentage of time a given habitat level is equaled
or exceeded.
5. There is one key difference between flaw and habitat duration curves.
The habitat versus flow relationship is not linear, and in fact is often bell-
shaped, with lowest habitat levels occurring at low AND high flows.
Therefore, the habitat duration curve is not directly comparable to a flow
duration curve -since habitat levels are based on the shape of the habitat
versus flow relationship particular to each species and life stage.
6. Time series analysis is used to compare habitat availability for different
flow scenarios. For example, one could overlay the habitat duration
curves for a given species/life stage for "natural", existing with-project
flows, and proposed flow regime alternatives.
7. Habitat metrics are often used to allow a more quantified comparison of
different flow scenarios -percentage differences, far example.
8. "Index C" is one of the habitat metrics used in analyzing and interpreting
results from instream flow studies of aquatic habitat conducted using the
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM). DWR staff were first
introduced to the use of this metric at an IFIM training workshop
conducted in 1992 by the developers of IFIM who were then part of the
National Biological Service (now part of the US Geological Survey).
Index C has been used to evaluate instream fl6ws and aquatic habitat for
every major hydropower relicensing in North Carolina since the early
1990's.
9. Index C is determined on a monthly basis for each species and life stage.
It is calculated as the average of all habitat events in that month that are
less than the median (50% exceedance) level of habitat for that month.
For example, if you had only one year of daily stream flow data converted
to daily habitat events, there would be 31 values for January. The Index C
value for January would then be the average of the 15 lowest habitat
values. Note that these 151owest habitat events would not necessarily
occur on the IS days of lowest flows. Some of them would be attributable
to high flow events if the species/life stage has a preference for lower
velocities.

14. "Index C assumes that low habitat events in a time series are the most
important biologically. By using averaging interval from median to 100%
exceedance values, all low habitat events are assumed to be important.
values above median are considered excess habitat that cannot be used
effectively due to previous limitations created by low habitat values.
Index[CJ is responsive to any change, whether magnitude or duration of
low habitat events or change in absolute minimum. " (from: Problem
Anal sis and N otiatin Solutions Usin IFIM training course reference
material, December, 1992.)
11. A value of Index C is calculated for every flow scenario being considered.
DWR always includes the without-project scenario for evaluation, also
referred to as natural or unregulated flows.
11. To focus the analysis of voluminous output for multiple reaches and
numerous species and Life stages, the technical work group for this Project
undertook screening to determine the "driver" or focus species. These are
the 6 or 7 species/life stages that are most responsive to changes inflow.
A flow regime developed inconsideration of these species/life stages
should also be suitable for other less flow-sensitive organisms.
12. DWR's preferred target level of habitat to be maintained is a flow regime
that maintains Index C values at 80% of the Index C value under
unregulated flow conditions for the focus species. However, this 80% of
unregulated Index C is not a formal standard. The final flow regime might
consider several factors, including, but not limited to: the amount and
quality of habitat in the affected reach, fishery resource management
objectives, varying habitat results for different species and life stages,
different levels of habitat in the near-dam reach versus farther downstream
after tributary inflow, extent of improvement from existing flow regime,
and other demands on water resources.
I3. IFIM is not a "standard setting" approach to determining instream flows.
There is no single flow output as a result. Unlike chemical water quality
standards, there is no one standard for the Ievel of habitat to be
maintained. Rather, IFIM allows various alternatives to be compared in
hopefully reaching an acceptable solution.
DWR staff were very actively involved in determining the focus species
that are most responsive to changes inflow, selecting output products to
be provided, suggesting alternative flow scenarios for evaluation, and
reviewing the results of time series analyses for this relicensing.

Mitigation Needs for Pee Dee River below Tillery Dam, Reach 3 -May 12, 2006
Mitigation Gap (negative bank miles) after addition of buffer area
Each column lists gap whir addition of buffer specified for that column,
plus other buffer areas In column(s) to left.
Value in each row Is for release specHfed Ibr that row. (see footnote 1 for example)
Minimu m Release Mitigation Bank plus plus plus plus
Mlles Needed plus area plus
Almond ~ Blewett Falls dam
March Other
subreach subreach Diggs below Uwharrie
Buchanan Reservoir
to
A ril
p Months
3 2
TO~I Tract
Blewett confluence
tracts headwaters Uwharrie
Release
dam
745 300 26.13 5.62 3'1.75 -18.37 -9.86 -6.85 -5.42 -5.06 -3.09 300
745 350 24.95 2.30 27.25 -13.87 -5.36 -2.35 -0.92 -0.56 1.41 350
745 400 23.59 0.00 23.59 -10.21 -1.7 1.31 2.74 3.10 5.07 400
745 500 20.74 0.00 20.74 -7.36 1.15 4.16 5.59 5.95 7.92 500
745 600 17.36 0.00 17.36 -3.98 4.53 7.54 8.97 9.33 11.30 600
800 800 12.24 0.00 12.24 1.14 9.65 12.66 14.09 14.45 16.42 800
For this level of mitigation the required minimum release in cfs is
736 442 375 356 351 329
see footnote 2)
Buffer Area Bank Miles
Almond and Buchanan Tracts 13.38
Headwaters of Blewett Falls reservoir 8.51
Di s Tract fronts eon East bank Pee Dee 3.01
Area between Falls dam &Uwharrie R., west side onl 1.43
Area alon Uwharrie River 1.97
Area 'ust below Blewett dam 0.36
Other Notes:
- Length of subreach 3 (Tillery dam to Rocky River) = 5.35 miles
- Length of subreach 2 (Rocky River to Browns Creek = 6.15 miles
- "Credit" for effect of Tillery release on SR3 evaluated against 80% Index C
- "Credit" for effect of Tillery release on SR2 evaluated against 80% Index
C based on flow to achieve 80% at SR2
Footnote 1: For example, the mitigation gap of -1.7 bank miles in row 3, in
the second column of this section, represents the shortfall in bank miles of
the mitigation provided by the buffer area along the Almond and Buchanan
Tracts, plus the buffer in the headwaters of Blewett Falls reservoir, with a
minimum release of 745 cfs during March and April and 400 cfs during
other months.
Footnote 2: A minimum release of 324 cfs, plus the buffer provided by all
six areas in the columns above (Almond and Buchanan Tracts through the
Uwharrie confluence), achieves a target mitigation gap of -0.5 bank miles.
9

Appendix B: Proposed Scientific Research

Sediment and food-web impacts of watershed-scale dam removal
Martin W. Doylel and Emily H. Stanley2
' 1-Department of Geography, University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill
2- Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin
The environmental impacts of the 75,000 dams in the US are now becoming well understood. These
structures fundamentally alter the flow of water and sediment, and obstruct the movement of fish and
other organisms throughout watersheds from the local to continental scale. Many of these structures were
built in the early and mid-1900's, and are increasingly in need of repair or re-licensing. A surprisingly
' large portion of dams in North Carolina are potential safety hazards, prevent fish passage, are restricting
high-quality aquatic habitat in NC rivers, or no longer serve their intended purpose. In many cases the
cost of repairing or partially restoring dams exceeds that of removal. Hence, dam removal is increasingly
' being viewed as a realistic and cost-effective approach for dam management and river restoration in NC
and throughout the US.
' The State of North Carolina is in a position to take a leading role in removing small dams for compelling
safety, economic and environmental reasons, and in the process can make major contributions to scientific
research, management, economics, and policy related to dam removal. To date, there are few systematic
studies of dam removals in the US and only one study of multiple dam removals in a single watershed.
The profound lack of fundamental information on how the environment responds to dam removal,
combined with the likelihood that an increasing number of dams will be removed, provides the context
' for the proposed research. Providing this information will have broad-reaching scientific and economic
implications, with profound implications for the future practice of river restoration in North Carolina.
' We are focusing on what has been identified as two of the most critical issues related to dam removal:
(1) the fate of stored sediments within aging reservoir and how these sediments are routed
downstream following dam removals, and
(2) the potential for anadromous fish to recover following removal of previous blockages in the
' stream corridor and the effect of these anadromous fish on the watershed food web.
While a few studies have investigated these issues individually, none have examined how sediment and
anadromous fish movement responds to multiple dam removals along stream channels as only one
' watershed in the US has to date been the subject of systematic, watershed-scale dam removals (Baraboo
River, Wisconsin). Previous studies of dam removal have concluded that single dam removals, while
important, have limited ecological benefits given the plethora of other dams within the watershed.
' Understanding the benefits, and possible consequences, ofwatershed-scale, multiple dam removals is thus
at the forefront of both dam removal, and river restoration research in general.
' Our research will quantify the contrasting downstream movement of sediment coupled with the upstream
movement of migratory fish, with the main emphasis on anadromous runs of American shad (Alosa
sapidissima). If a dam is removed it is important to know the impact of this sediment on the environment
' downstream of the dam. In addition, removal of the reservoir will increase the slope of the river above the
reservoir, resulting in possible impacts upstream throughout the river network, (e.g., mobilizing sediment
from channel boundaries and tributaries). How far downstream this newly mobilized sediment is
transported remains critical information in understanding how to manage dam removals in the future.
' In addition to downstream moving sediment, the removal of dams on the Little River, NC will allow us to
conduct equally critical work on the efficacy of dam removal for upstream-migrating fish. While
restoration of fish habitat and migratory fish runs is often the primary environmental reason for dam
removal, assessments of the consequences of removals on fish populations have been surprisingly limited
and are dominated by observational reports or studies around a single structure. Promoting the return of
' historically large runs of fish such as shad and striped bass to a river may have far-reaching consequences

that are both ecological and financial. Large populations of migrating fish can vastly alter local
ecological communities and food webs, and can also attract substantial angling interest. Thus, evaluating
the success of multiple dam removals coupled with management activities to pass fish by the remaining
structure offers an excellent opportunity for evaluating the feasibility of this sort of restoration as well as
understanding the broader ecological consequences of returning shad to the river.
This research is critical to the continued discussion of the future of dams in North Carolina, and will be of
wide interest to scientists, engineers, management agencies, and local communities faced with the
decision to repair or remove a dam. Specific project objectives are as follows:
1. Quantify physical, hydraulic, and sediment changes caused by dam removal, at the entire watershed
scale,
2. Test available methods for prediction of equilibrium form and adjustment time of the river channel
following dam removal, including available numerical models,
3. Assess effectiveness of removal and management for re-establishing shad runs and evaluating
changes in stream metabolism and food web structure in response to the return of these fish to upper
reaches of the river.
4. Suggest methods which may reduce environmental impacts of dam removal including site-specific
methods or inter-site sequencing methods (e.g., upstream progressing removal vs downstream-
progressing removal)
5. Develop protocols for future dam removal monitoring programs.
6. Provide guidance to state policy-makers regarding the potential role of dam removal in river
restoration in general, and
7. Disseminate research findings to scientific and regulatory audiences
The removal of 4 dams in the Little River, North Carolina provides an unusual opportunity to study
sediment transport and food web adjustment to dam removal. Advantages of this study site include: a
known time frame for dam removal that allows for collection of both pre- and post-removal data;
downstream monitoring of anadromous fish passage; limited land use change in the upper watershed
(85% forested); and the interest of and collaboration with a group of conservationists, engineers, and
scientists who are also studying dam removals along the Little River.
The work plan consists of two basic parts: (1) field monitoring computer modeling of sediment transport
and channel conditions throughout the watershed, and (2) food-web studies of the impact of anadromous
fish on the watershed. Pre- and post-removal channel form, channel hydraulics, and sediment distribution
and transport will be documented using traditional geomorphic and hydrologic techniques including
establishing permanent sampling stations throughout the watershed for water, channel form, and sediment
loads. Second, we will use this same pre- post- approach to quantify primary production, food web
structure, and local nutrient conditions before and after the return of shad. Further, geomorphic
monitoring will be combined with temperature monitoring to track how the dam removals affect the
availability of appropriate spawning conditions for shad.
Importantly, the two PIs for this proposed work are the recognized national leaders in dam removal
research. Over the past 8 years of their scientific collaboration, they have studied 7 dam removals, 5 in
Wisconsin and 2 in North Carolina. This included their being the lead PIs for the only other watershed-
scale dam removal project in the US (4 dams on the Baraboo River, Wisconsin). They have advised 3
graduate students on dam removal, numerous undergraduates, and have co-authored over 15 peer-
reviewedjournal articles on the environmental consequences of dam removal (see attached CVs). In
addition, they have served on numerous national and state level panels on the science and policy of dam
removal (e.g., Heinz Center Panel on Dam Removal in the US).
Funds are requested for equipment and supplies needed for establishing the baseline data needed to

initiate this study. Funds are also necessary for supporting Stanley's travel to NC and support while
working on the project. These initial funds are viewed as seed funds and will be used to leverage this
' initial work into larger proposals to external funding agencies, with which we have had success in
attracting funding for dam removal research (e.g., USDA, National Science Foundation).

1

1

Appendix C: Figures and Photos
1

l —@
ui
�Of o0 If
to r ` .. Im \. z .�-_"� , � (✓ r+�+ , � v0
LL
1 O v N _ - ♦ w�Y�s Q Gyp4'~~ 7 co IL (C
o
qj
W
07
CO
C4)
CL sig
z
a
c
x fp
l00
Nl ! Q 0 T1004 \
—_--------_----
�� Q 1 \\
b �y l
oi,) i •N Jr- l J
Ki
!
ch 4 = { w
.� r> g
I
_ cl
LL
MIA
N
o/
t
y N
I
m
,
a
•�'4+�(V_�y V
/ to
a
(D
m v)
Nin C,_rrc��, i Z
------------------
N
___- o�
\t. 111
14
\o R: s CS
cn
���\\\\� in w \ Gva
Pco
0 o Fr \
v

rtv
u
.E a
i
p " .
n
I
l
yf
Y -'1A
k -

.. X'. [r' ~ ~ ~ +,

h
~
% ` ": ,,. L 4w~' '~' 4t`R yes _ _
.~X,
fi ~
~

~
`
~
;,;
h w
Turkey Creek
;~
Y ~
~,
~' q i
,~
~
~~~,,,
~ ~ {des ~
+ r
"~
F ~~~ ~
+
r
?.y
~ ,~ 1 R l+r

.. e
~ ~ n } •~

.~
.
s
i
;
~, I
~
~
~
' ~ ~
~
'
y ~
Mu
, ~ ~ ` s
„t i~
. r
, ~
,

' ~~ 6 '
~
~
#
~
.
v
~~~ ~ ~~ '~ f
, ,
-~ ~
„-e
~. ~ ' . ~ ~ ~'~ Bridger's Creek
;
~
~I ;4, Y ,,
n
i
r..
~ ~, w~ ~ f
1~

' ~ R S
~ ~~

4 R
,

i
X
~~u1 (

~~T

i
• a
T

~
~i~
s
~ ~`~Ja>'n {'
~. /
..
~
~ ,
~ Sv ~ +Et, ~''
'~ .. ~ yx. /J ' ~ ~
.~y i. /
{ • ~
`7''`'T"...1~,j1 r
~
`~y
'~~
~
~~
~~ ~ ~'~:~ ;~;.~r~_
, Ca elsie Dam ~ r~~r `~~. ~~
"' ~~i.. <~ ,~,~~ ,~!
~ ~
.xf
a-
M ~
~ *
• ~(

'F T j 4 1
~R ~ y
P 4 s l ~l~e r
~
~~
9k { ) ~
Restoration Systems, LLC Uwharrie Dam Restoration Project

1101 Haynes St. Suite 107
Yadkin 04 1:12,000
N
`, ~ Raleigh, NC 27604
tel: 919
755
9490 Montgomery County, NC o 0.o4o.os 0.16 0.24 0.32
.
. Miles

Figure 4: Smitherman Reservoir
,.
Location of Coarse Sediment Delta
(not visible here)

~' ~
~,
+~
Restoration Systems, LLC Uwharrie Dam Restoration Project
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 Yadkin 04 1:7,631 N
~ , ~ Raleigh, NC 27604 Montgomery County, NC o 0.021.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
tel: [phone] Miles

1
1
1
Figure 5: Downstream Benefits

~.r`~
~-

[Dissolved Oxygen]
Capelsie Reservoir, Little River, Montgomery Co., NC
[Da] (mglL~
0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
0.0
1.0
E
s
..
a
m
D
2.0
3.0
12.0
Figure 6: DO concentrations in Capelsie Reservoir during thermal stratification.

10
8
...
J
Q
.__.
4
2
May-70 Nov-?5 Apr-81 Oct-86 Apr-92 Sep-97 Mar-03
Figure 8: DO measurements collected from a DWQ AMS located at afree-flowing
section ~3 miles upstream of the Upper Uwharrie Dam Impoundments. Note that
there is only one measurement below 5.0 mg/L.
Dissolved Qxygen -Summer Months
(197Q-2005)

Figure 9: Town of Troy Nature Trail System
Nta
{{
a
i
-
.
T�4m
s
4 m�
u�
r
O, „ IT
s e.
i « A
g
�rn ,
r e t
M
s
m
i
Smitherman Dam
t'
ra >
YMP
�o
�' Capelsie Dam
�- ►1 Dams
Capelsie Impoundment
l 4 Aift Smitherman Impoundment
x Roy Maness Nature Preserve
Troy Trail System (existing)
Troy Trail System (future)
Proposed sed Park
aR
estoration Systems, LLC i Uwharrie Dam Restoration Project
01 Haynes St. Suite 107 Yadkin 04 1:48,152 N
leigh,NC 27604 Montgomery County, NC 00. V.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
: 919.755.9490 Miles

Figure 10: Wetted-perimeter cross-sections of Capelsie Reservoir. Negative numbers in figure titles
represent distance from Capelsie dam in linear feet (lf).

' Figure 11: Wetted-perimeter cross-sections of Capelsie Reservoir. Negative numbers in title indicate
distance upstream Capelsie Dam.

0
a
2
~ a
'~ 6
10
t2
0
0
2
4
x
S: ~'
o° 8
10
12
Figure 12: Wetted-perimeter cross-sections of Smitherman Reservoir. Negative
numbers represent distance upstream from Smitherman Dam.

Sn-Rtterman Reservoir. -b00 ff
Distance (ttj
20 ao sa ao too X20
Smlthe-man Reservoir. -1000 ff
Distance ((t}
ZO 40 60 SO t00 120

Photo 1: Impounded section of Cedar Creek--tributary to Smitherman Reservoir. Accumulated
sediments consist of pea gravel and coarse sand.

Photo 2: Free-flowing section of Cedar Creek just above the Smitherman Impoundment extent. Note
Photo 3: Coarse sediment delta behind Smitherman Dam.

Photo 4: Close-up of coarse sediment delta. Delta is composed mostly of coarse gravel and coarse
sand.
Photo 5: Smitherman Dam breach

Photo 6: Breach in Smitherman Dam
Photo 7: Aerial photo of Capelsie Reservoir and Dam

~ s ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~s ~ ~
b
0
0
d
0
s
0
n
b
d

Photo 10: Algal bloom in Capelsie Reservoir (8/15/06)

Photo 11: Algal bloom in Capelsie Reservoir (8/15/06)

Photo 12: Coarse sediment stored behind Smitherman Dam.
. ~+. ~.~~
Photo 13: Close-up of sediment pictured in Photo 12.