20030147 Ver 0_Mitigation Plans_20070718

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
LOWER UWHARRIE DAMS MITIGATION SITE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted by:
~u~ ~ s 2007
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 ,:;t,~4, -'~~~'Aj~:~ C:Ja.:.:?y
vi -;.;ti.h~~',:; o;;n srr~r ~.~~,~,~,T~R ^P,Ah'Cr
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
www. restorationsystems.com
July 18, 2007
0
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION
IN THE YADKIN RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03040104

' I'
Natui X11 Res~~ur~~;t
RCtikl(~lllOIl ~~ C~ ~nse~-~~at i~ m
John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I have recently reviewed Progress Energy's application for Water Quality Certification (WQC)
for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project. As a result, I am writing to request a public
hearing prior to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' (DENR) final decision.
There are several reasons for concern that Progress Energy is not providing adequate mitigation
for the impacts caused by the operation of Tillery and Blewett Falls Development. Among these
reasons are: 1) "preservation only" mitigation strategies do not recover lost functions and values;
2) most of the proposed mitigation is not within the impacted 8-digit hydrological unit code
(HUC); 3) there is a more effective/appropriate mitigation opportunity available (i.e., dam
removals on the Little River) within the affected HUC; and 4) the impacts to the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River are not quantified within the WQC application.
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.
To mitigate for the unspecified impacts, Progress has proposed to donate lands to the state of
North Carolina or otherwise conserve (through conservation easements) 1900 acres of riparian
buffers along the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. While buffer preservation is commendable, we are
concerned by the fact that 1600 acres of the proposed preservation is located outside of the
affected HUC, and this preservation strategy does nothing to offset the impacts to the affected
reach.
Restoration Systems is proposing a mitigation alternative that should be seriously considered by
both Progress Energy and DENR-see the accompanying technical proposal for the Lower
Uwharrie Dams River Restoration Site. The removal of Eury and Hurley (or Robertson) dams
in the Little River (Montgomery County) will provide ecological benefits to a Yadkin-Pee Dee
River tributary that drains the Uwharrie National Forest (Little River watershed is 85% forested).
These dams are located within the appropriate HUC, and their removal would provide access to
high-quality habitat for diadromous fishes-once passage is provided over Blewett Falls Dam.
Further, because the Little River merges with the Yadkin-Pee Dee between Tillery and Blewett
Falls dams, the proposed removals would provide habitat building sediments and stream flows to
the aquatic communities directly impacted by the operation of the Tillery development.
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, I~IC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

Finally, Progress Energy's application does not quantify the impacts to the aquatic resources of
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River associated with the Tillery and Blewett Falls hydroelectric
developments. For reasons of transparency and public interest, Progress Energy and DENR
should provide such detail. Further, it is hard to determine if the applicant has proposed
adequate mitigation in the absence of this information.
We formally request that a public hearing is held prior to the final decision for the Water Quality
Certification. This hearing should, at a minimum, address the concerns detailed within this
letter, and the mitigation proposed herein.
Sincerely,
~J ~
J Adam Riggsb D
Environmental Scientist
Restoration Systems, LLC

~ Part 1: Executive Summary
This Technical Proposal describes the Lower Uwharrie Dams River Restoration Project
• through removal of the Hurley and Eury dams (Lower 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 30,100 linear feet of 4th order mainstem and 3,000 linear feet of 15t
• and 2"d order perennial tributaries.
Both dams are located immediately downstream of a reach of the Little River designated as a
• priority area by the NC Natural Heritage Program (Figure 2). Hurley Dam is actively impounding
a minimum of 16,100 linear feet of mainstem channel habitat. Eury Dam is impounding a
minimum of 15,000 linear feet of mainstem habitat.
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 21,070 SMUs. It is
estimated that Progress Energy's impacts to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River require an offset of
• 18,942 SMUs (DENR internal memo; Appendix A). Therefore, the removal of the Lower
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 Lower Uwharrie Dams. These dams are located immediately downstream of 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
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 your convenience at the
. number below. We appreciate DENR's consideration of this innovative and ecologically
• beneficial project.
• Sincer I ,
J. Ad m Riggsbee, hD
Authorized Representative
• Restoration Systems, LLC
919-755-9490
• [e-mail]
• 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRO: Public Hearing Request Letter ............................................................................ 0
PART 1: Executive Summary ........................................................................................... . 1
PART 2: Technical Approach ........................................................................................... . 3
2.1 Introduction: Progress Energy Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project ....................... . 3
2.1.1 Ecological Impacts of Damming ......................................................................... . 3
2.1.2 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ....................................................................... . 4
2.2 Little River Watershed Restoration: Proposed Mitigation ........................................... . 4
2.2.1 Current Watershed and Dam Conditions ............................................................ . 4
2.2.2 Methods for Determining Mitigation Credit ......................................................... . 5
2.3 Functional Benefits of Dam Removals ....................................................................... . 6
2.3.1 Restoration of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat ................... . 6
2.3.2 Improvement of Water Quality ............................................................................ . 7
2.3.3 Restoration of Lotic Communities ....................................................................... . 8
2.3.4 Additional Benefits ............................................................................................. . 8
2.4 Restoration Plan ........................................................................................................ . 9
2.4.1 Critical Species Survey ...................................................................................... . 9
2.4.2 Impoundment Dewatering .................................................................................. . 9
2.4.3 Sediment Management ...................................................................................... . 9
2.4.4 Dam Removal .................................................................................................... . 9
2.4.5 Dam Site Stabilization ....................................................................................... 10
2.5 Ecological Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................ 10
2.5.1 Restoration of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat .................. 10
2.5.2 Improvement of Water Quality ........................................................................... 10
2.5.3 Restoration of Lotic Communities ...................................................................... 10
2.5.4 Additional Benefits ............................................................................................ 10
2.6 Project Schedule ...................................................................................................... 11
2.7 Additional Issues/Summary ...................................................................................... 11
2.8 References ............................................................................................................... 13
PART 3: Corporate Experience ....................................................................................... 14
APPENDICES
Appendix A. DENR Internal Memo
Appendix B. Proposed Scientific Research
2

S
Part 2: Technical Approach
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 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.
3

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
2.2.1 Current Watershed and Dam Conditions
The Little River watershed is contained within Yadkin River Cataloging Unit 0304104,
Subbasin 03-07-15. Its headwaters flow south from Randolph County where it joins the
Pee Dee River in Montgomery County, ~ 9 miles upstream of Blewett Falls Dam. 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 surface
water (DWQ, 2003).
Currently, there are four dams impounding nearly 10 miles of the Little River's main stem.
Restoration Systems has proposed the Upper Uwharrie Dams (Smitherman and
Capelsie) for removal to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), and this
document is a formal proposal to the NC DENR for the removal of the Lower Uwharrie
Dams (Fury and Hurley).
The location of these four dams within the Little River watershed has considerable
implications for the quality of instream habitat upstream and downstream of these
structures as well as within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River itself. Tributaries are important
sources of bedload materials to the larger rivers they support (Leopold et al., 1964;
Knighton, 1998). Thus, the Upper and Lower Uwharrie Dams truncate the conveyance of
habitat building bedload materials to the same Yadkin-Pee Dee River reach affected by
the Tillery Dam operations. The Upper and Lower Uwharrie Dams also have some
influence on the rate and quantity of water delivered to this particular reach of the Yadkin-
Pee Dee River. Thus, these dam removals could provide considerable benefit to the
Little River watershed, while supplementing the degraded Yadkin-Pee Dee
mainstem with much needed sediment and stream flow.
The Lower Uwharrie Dams project watershed drains 234-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 10-year recurrence interval has a discharge of 9000 cfs.
Both Hurley and Eury Dams are rock fill dams with concrete caps. Hurley is thought to
have been constructed sometime around 1920 for hydroelectric power (Photos 1, 2 and
4

3). Mean channel width and thalweg depth within Hurley Reservoir are 115 feet and 11
feet, respectively. Eury Dam was constructed in 1941 for hydroelectric power generation
(Photos 4 and 5). Eury Reservoir's current mean channel dimensions are 13 feet in
thalweg depth and 266 feet in top width. It is not likely that either impoundment has ever
been managed for sediment accumulations (i.e., no dredging or flushing).
Both structures are well beyond their intended design lives (~50 years). Dam failures can
cause considerable stress to both upstream and downstream ecosystems. Such
unmanaged fluxes of sediments and organic materials can smother downstream benthic
habitat as well as cause localized anoxic conditions. In some cases, such as
Smitherman Dam (the most upstream dam in the Little River main stem; Figure 1),
significant portions of a failed structure often remain intact, preventing biological passage
and bedload transport.
2.2.2 Methods for Determining Mitigation Credit
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has designated several reaches
within the Little River watershed as "Significant Natural Heritage Areas" (Figure 2A).
These areas are of conservation priority 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 Lower 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, 3). These structures are directly responsible for fragmenting the NHP priority
habitat from the downstream reaches of the Little River, 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 Lower Uwharrie Dams
project could provide up to 21,070 SMUs to offset impacts related to inadequate
instream flows released for PE's Tillery Development.
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 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 impounded sections of the Little River exhibit a
slope of 0.0018, while the impoundments exhibit a slope of 0.0006. Obvious breaks
in slope were used to approximate the end of Hurley and Eury 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 6 and 7). These features are formed where lotic flows
enter lentic systems (Leopold et al., 1964; Morris and Fan, 1998). Physical signs of the
upstream limits of Hurley and Eury 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.
Hurley and Eury dams produce impoundments that collectively inundate 30,100 linear
feet of mainstem channel habitat and 3000 linear feet of 1 S` and 2"d order perennial
tributaries (Figure 3). The restoration efforts proposed herein involve the removal of
both Hurley and Eury dams. These dams have been selected for removal because
they affect significant natural heritage areas (Figure 2), 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 Lower Uwharrie Dams project are based on the
guidance outlined in Determining Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation Credit for
Dam Removal Projects (March 22, 2004). This guidance provides four success criteria
5

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. The guidance also provides incentives for protecting
"areas with special ecological functions and/or values that are identified by conservation
groups such as the NC Natural Heritage Program." It should be noted that the credit
determination of 21,070 SMUs was based entirely off of mainstem habitat
restoration; restored tributary linear footage was not included.
Restoration Systems plans to provide research funds to the University of North Carolina
for the purposes of basic research associated with these particular dam removals. If the
EEP removes the Upper Uwharrie Dams and PE removes the Lower Uwharrie Dams, this
would facilitate unprecedented dam removal research on awatershed-scale.
2.3 Functional Benefits of Dam Removals
The functional benefit of the Lower Uwharrie Dams project is multi-faceted. The proposed
removal of Eury and Hurley dams is part of a larger Restoration Systems initiative to clear the
Little River watershed of all mainstem and major tributary dams. In April 2007, Restoration
Systems proposed the removal of Smitherman and Capelsie dams just upstream of Eury and
Hurley dams (Figure 1) to the EEP. Restoration Systems is currently awaiting the EEP's
decision.
Removing both Eury and Hurley Dams will benefit river ecology and water quality by restoring
lotic (river-like) flow conditions that will enhance sediment transport-including bedload
materials-which are necessary for the long-term integrity of benthic river habitat within the Little
and Yadkin-Pee Dee rivers. This would directly benefit aquatic organisms in the region, including
rare, endangered and/or threatened lotic species. Stream velocity will increase immediately
following the removal of the Lower Uwharrie Dams; increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations,
while providing coarse substrate similar to free-flowing reaches (Photo 8). In addition, these
dams are located within a significant natural heritage area, as designated by the NHP (Figure 2).
2.3.1 Restoration of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat
The removal of the Lower Uwharrie Dams will benefit six rare mussel species and one rare
fish species. Remnant populations of all seven 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 astate-listed
species of special concern, the notched rainbow (Villosa constricts), and one is astate-listed
significantly rare species, the eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis). One fish species found
within the Lower Uwharrie Dams project area 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 Lower Uwharrie Dams will
restore lotic flow conditions, positively affecting rare species' habitats in greater than 33,000
linear feet of mainstem and perennial tributary habitat. These profound physical changes
within the Lower Uwharrie Dams project area will also relieve barriers to biological migration,
enhancing 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).
6

w
•
•
. 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 (A/asmidonta 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 Improvement of Water Quality
Dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature data collected within the Lower Uwharrie
Impoundments (using established DWQ Standard Operating Procedures) with a calibrated
YSI-85 probe (on 6/12/07, 6/21/07, and 7/5/07) demonstrate that during warm summer
• months with low flows, the impoundments can become thermally stratified, producing
hypoxic or even anoxic hypolimnia (Figures 4 and 5). Both hypolimnia persisted through
most of June and July of 2007. In addition, there was a visible algal bloom observed on
. 8/15/06 in the Capelsie Impoundment. Located immediately upstream of Hurley
Impoundment (Photos 9 and 10), which is suggestive that the same condition occurs in both
Hurley and Eury impoundments-considerably larger impoundments.
The Lower Uwharrie Dams project watershed drains 234-square miles of the greater Little
River watershed (Figure 1). Downstream of the Lower Uwharrie Dams, 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 four Uwharrie Dams, 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 exceeding state standards.

. 7

The DWQ maintains monitoring stations throughout the state's river basins for several
purposes, including bioclassification. Bioclassification is an approach used by 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 Lower Uwharrie Dams watershed; there are two
macroinvertebrate sampling stations, two fish community sampling station, and the
subbasin's only AMS (Figure 6).
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 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 located in afree-flowing
reach well upstream of the Upper and Lower Uwharrie Dams. 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 7).
Based on data collected within the Lower Uwharrie impoundments and at DWQ
sampling stations, it is apparent that the removal of the Lower 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 Lower Uwharrie Dams would restore the local stream gradient
from 0.0006 to 0.0018, enhancing sediment transport. Thus, coarse sediments such as
pea gravel, 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 eliminate thermal stratification, and therefore the occurrence of hypoxic and/or anoxic
conditions in and around benthic habitats.
2.3.4 Additional Benefits
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.
In addition to the several ecological benefits already detailed within this document, the
removal of the Upper and Lower Uwharrie Dams would open 300 miles of perennial
stream habitat for diadromous fishes. As part of the FERC relicensing process, both PE
8

• and APGI (Alcoa Power Generation Inc.) are in discussions with the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission (WRC), FWS as well NMFS to implement the Restoration Plan for the
Diadromous Fishes of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (2006). This document identifies
• several threats to the extirpated shad runs in the basin, including: inadequate instream flows,
poor water quality, denied access to historic spawning and rearing habitats, and absence of
safe/effective downstream passage. The removal of all four mainstem dams within the
Little River would open high-quality, historic habitat just upstream of the first passage
barrier for inland migrating fishes in the basin-Blewett Falls Dam. PE will provide
passage at Blewett Falls according to their FERC license application.
Please note that the presented credit determination of 21,070 SMUs was NOT based on
• diadromous fish passage. Restoration Systems feels that this is a real benefit that should be
recognized, even though it is not proposed to generate mitigation credit at this time.

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.
The restoration plan will address five major topics including: 1) critical species surveys, 2)
• impoundment 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 WRC and the FWS. Surveys will focus
on the presence of the seven listed species detailed above in Section 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
Hurley and Eury dams will be modified to gradually draw down their head ponds. This
approach will limit the mobility of any accumulated sediment within the impoundments. Draw
down also provides an opportunity for the character of stored sediment to be further
assessed (see current assessment in Section 4.3).

2.4.3 Sediment Management
Geomorphic surveys were conducted by Restoration Systems throughout the Lower Uwharrie
• Dams restoration reach during June and July 2007. Surveys included a total of nine wetted-
perimetercross-sections (5 in Hurley and 4 in Eury; Figures 8 and 9) and stream profiles for
each impoundment (Figures 10 and 11). The cross-sections and profiles demonstrate that
• the impoundments have not accumulated excessive volumes of sediment-based on channel
geometry, water depth, substrate composition of each cross-section and slope values
. (average slope = 0.0017). Though large accumulations of fine sediment were not found within
Hurley or Eury impoundments, limited fine sediment wedges seem to have formed behind
both dams. Preliminary investigations suggest that both sediment wedges are limited to the
. immediate vicinities of the dams. These wedges can be adequately managed the dam
removal process.
• 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

9

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 dewatering of the impoundments. 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 Ecological 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 Lower Uwharrie
Dams will restore 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 Lower
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
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 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).
Reference habitat character will be used to judge the target condition of habitat currently
affected by the Lower 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 Improvement of water quality
Water quality measurements collected (following DWQ SOPs) at various stations within the
Lower Uwharrie impoundments will be compared to those measured at reference stations;
namely the AMS located ~7 miles upstream of the project area (Figure 2). In particular, the
parameters of interest are DO and temperature.
2.5.3 Restoration of lotic 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 6). 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 benefits
Nine cross-sections have already been established within the Lower Uwharrie Impoundments
to assess current channel geometry (Figures 8 and 9). 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.
10

• Restoration Systems plans to actively fund and support independent, scientific research by
the Geography Department at UNC and the Center for Limnology at UW. Occasional
progress reports will be provided to Restoration Systems by the Principal Investigators (Drs.
Doyle and Stanley). These reports will be shared with any interested agencies.
2.6 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 (projected to be around April 2008).

Task 2
Execute Conservation Easements on project area. Task 2 will be completed in 90 days following
• receipt of Notice to Proceed (projected to be April 2008).
Task 3
The Development of asite-specific Restoration Plan will be completed 120 days from receipt of
N
i
P
ot
ce to
roceed (projected to be April 2008).

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
2.7 Additionallssues/Summary
• Use of Public Lands
The Lower 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.
. 11

Affected Public Projects
Based on existing knowledge, there are no public projects that will be directly or indirectly
affected by the removal of the Lower 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 June 13, 2007), there are no historic or archeological resources located within,
at or near the project area.
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) Schweinitr'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.
Ultimate Ownership
Both sites will be protected in perpetuity from future dam construction under Conservation
Easements. Upon approval of the contract, Restoration Systems will place a conservation
easement over the subject properties, which will be held by a qualified conservation organization
or local government. Restoration Systems will remain responsible for project implementation and
achievement of success criteria.
Summary
The Uwharrie Dams Restoration Site encompasses 30,100 linear feet of the Little River. All
stream habitat associated with this project have been directly impacted by several decades of
damming. The removal of Hurley and Eury 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
Summary Information
Site: Lower 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: 234 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
Uwharrie Dams Project will directly benefit seven state listed aquatic species.
Natural Heritage Elements: The Uwharrie Dams Project will restore ^-10% of a 35-mile NHP
priority area (Little River Aquatic Habitat).
12

2.8 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 wq dt 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 Mangement 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.orq/pg07 wildlifespeciescon/pg7b1.htm
13

PART 3:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
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. He has two children, Georgia (3)
and Henry (1), and lives with his wife Pam in Raleigh, NC.
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.
14

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
15

in 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.
16

Dave Schiller
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 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
~" ~ ~, , .t~ 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
';~,~' w' 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.
17

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
Causey Farm Haw River Lowell Dam Removal
Conetoe Creek Holly Grove Morgan Creek
Cutawhiskie Creek
Elk Marsh
Elk Shoals
Gray Farm
Jarmans Oak
Lick Creek
Little Buffalo
Morgan Creek
Sleepy Creek
Walnut Creek
Full details of any of Restoration Systems' projects will gladly be provided upon request.
18

•••••••••!••i•••••!•••••••••••••••••••~••••

_;
.»:.. _.
~ .~ - <,.
~-.~
~.
•~-
;~'
~ ~.
:

~~ ~ ,~,;.
-~. ,~
44N a ~-~ ~ _. ~ t ,. :~ _
. .
~~ 'w`'~ Smitherman Dam
-~ y
.. ..
~~ =~ 't x
~.:
W ~ - p
~ _.
. ,
`~ ~ i ;r Capelsie Dam
~'
t`
s - -. _
. .
~`
~... _ .
• `~ "~ k .:. ~ ~ '~ ~~~ Hurley Dam
~ ~~
„< . ,~
> Eury Dam
~~ ; T ~~ ~ .'' ~ ~~ _ G.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.~ ~ ..
~- i ~~ {
~. Ij
'' ~_ ~' .~', ~ .S ~y
~ ~+
.,
'
~~ ` ~ ~ t ~~
~
~
• 5,
X

~ ,

• ', 1 ,

USGS Gauge
,_,.~" ~ Dam
~'-~' ~ Significant Natural Heritage Area
~.4

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
1
0
D
2
3
Dissolved Oxygen
Hurley Impoundment
La~I (mg1L.}
0 1 2 3 4 D 6 7 8
J
.~ i
i
~~
~~
--•-12-.~07
--- 21-,~n-07
Figure 4: Dissolved oxygen profile in Hurley Impoundment shows hypoxic conditions caused by thermal stratification.
Dissolved Oxygen
Eury Impoundment
I~oJ (n-~)
o ~ z 3 i s s ~ a
0

s
0
2
3
i
i
~~
<'
r ~
i ~
i
--6112/2007
--- 7/512007
Figure 5: Dissolved oxygen profile from Eury Impoundment shows hypoxic conditions caused by thermal stratification.

10
8
m
~ 6
._.
O
0
._.
4
2
May-74 Nov 75 Apr-81 Oct-9fi Apr-92 Sep-97 Mar-03
Figure 7: DO measurements collected from a DWQ AMS located at a free-flowing section ~7 miles upstream of the
Lower Uwharrie Dams. Note there is only one measurement below 5.0 mg/L.
Dissolved Oxygen -Summer Months
x'1970-2005]

•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
m
~ ,s
s w
W
S
a
-2200
0
a
,o
iz ,.
ro
0
s ,a +so as rm
OMU+n pq
. 660kt
~ ,e
s so
W
0
0
-a~wo
o a too reo moo zeo
DIs<snn pq
XS Bed Material
-2218) cobble, gravel, pea
.gravel, sand
X400 bedrock, sand
-66~Q bedrock
o eb roo reo moo mro
ot~onoolM
Figure 8A: Cross-sections of Hurley Reservoir wetted perimeter. Negative values in cross-section titles denote location
(linear feet) upstream of Hurley Dam.

•
•
~ ,.
W f0
6
0
.~
0 M f00 1S0 9A0 'm0
OfrtartC~ (iq
XS Bed Nlaterlai
-9000 bedrock, fine sand,
sib, detritus
-11000 bedrock, Tine sand,
sift, detritus
,"
~ ,e
W 10
0
0
- ~~ooo
0 M 100 100 400 460
~t00 (11J
Figure 8B: Cross-sections of Hurley Reservoir wetted perimeter. Negative values in cross-section titles denote location
(linear feet) upstream of Hurley Dam.

e
•
•
•
•
-uea
s~
~ ~
1s
~ 10
s
0
0 M 100 /80 200 200 800 000 ~0 MO
~dsnce(R}
XS,- Bed Material
-1200 Cobble, gravel,
sand, silt
-4~0 fine sand, silt,
det~itt~s
-<aeo
ao
zs
~~
+s
~e
6
0
0 {q tOD 100 200 260 000 000 p0 MO
~rtanoe pq
Figure 9A: Cross-sections of Eury Reservoir wetted perimeter. Negative values in cross-section titles denote location (linear
feet) upstream of Eury Dam.

e
•
•
S
-»soe
as
~ m
is
m
•
0
o eo mo Sao 200 2ao aoa xo goo Leo
D{ahne~ (fq
XS Bed Material
-11800
-14900 boulder, pea gravel
bedrock, sand
.»
~~
~ ~s
2'
ro
s
0
o a loo teo goo zoo 00o aeo goo Leo
pdanee t!q
Figure 9B: Cross-sections of Eury Reservoir wetted perimeter. Negative values in cross-section titles denote location (linear
feet) upstream of Eury Dam.

Hurley Impoundment Profile
e
s
~ -~o
a
a
Q -15
-20
.~
0
2090 4009 8900 8000 10009 1Z09D 7+1000 78009
Distance Upstream otDam (ft}
Figure 10: Profile view of Hurley Impoundment.

Eury impoundment Profile
0
-~o
{ -zo
a
0
ao
-~a
distance Upstream of Darn (R}
Figure 11: Profile view of Eury Impoundment.
o zooo auoa sous sooo foaoo

Photo 1: Hurley Dam
Photo 2: Hurley Dam diversion canal and powerhouse

Photo 4: Eury Dam and powerhouse
Photo 3: Hurley Impoundment

Photo 5: Aerial view of Eury Dam and Impoundment
Photo 6: Top of Eury Impoundment; looking downstream

Photo 7: Top of impounded tributary (Lucky Branch) upstream of Hurley Dam
Photo 8: Coarse sediments delta on Lucky Branch

Photo 9: Algal bloom in Capelsie Reservoir (8/15/06)
Photo 10: Algal bloom in Capelsie Reservoir (8/15/06)

Appendix A: DENR Internal Memo
19

~~
~~~ ~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
John Morris, Director
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
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 representing
79% glide, 10% run and 11 % shoal habitat types.
• Subreach 2 -Rocky River to Browns Creek; 6.15 miles; 12 transects
representing 66% glide, 26% 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 NorthCaro/l/ina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.ncwater.org ~gtut+~l[j,/
An Equal Opportunity 'Affirmative Action Employer - 50 °~b Recycled ' 10'% Post Consumer Paper

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 500
• 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
id
over a w
e 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 29 life
• 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 in consideration 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 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.

2

i
•
•
In March, 2005, the technical work group began reviewing results of the instream flow
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 for a particular flow option
• for each of the 29 life 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.
r 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.

r

•
3

i
•
•
~ 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:
~

i 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.

r 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 4:1 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 spring. 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 not 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.
5

r
s
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 fishery 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 flow 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

r
Time Series Analysis
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 flow 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, for 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 flows 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 15 lowest habitat events would not necessarily
occur on the 15 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.
7

i
•
~ 10. "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.
• Tlalues 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
. Analysis and Ne otg iatin~ Solutions Usin Ig FIM, 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.
• 1 1. 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 in flow.
• A flow regime developed in consideration 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.
. 13. 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 level 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 in flow, selecting output products to
be provided, suggesting alternative flow scenarios for evaluation, and
• reviewing the results of time series analyses for this relicensing.

8

to
tya 0 0 0 0 0 0
y M

m M d' tf1 tD t70

N
a) (,~
~ Q V1,~ d
O
~
ti
N
O
N
N d
Q> C
p ~ p
~ O ~ O O M ~i' w
_
C k Q3 C M r ~A I~ ~ (~D V M,O
`
a~E ` ~O C y
M
~ . •y
O ~ v .
-
~ ~
y .
v
m ea
N ~o c O d03 ~ o ~ ° rn ri v ~ tj
r ~~ y w Q R d 01 ~ ~ O C7 ~ O ~ ~ M
~ N C 41 ~ m ~
C
G ~ d H
~ ~vQic3 ~ d
•

M d ~ ~ O y .a
~
~m~w, O O to N
v N
rn ~
~ 07
~ I~
rn O
° ~ tD
.C ~ ~vt Qyr.. 3 tf) O N tn c0 ~ d M

h
~ d
C~~ V 7 O~V
01
' 0~0 (~O `-
M (O
~ V'
~ ~ G~
t 11Y
~
~ `
OG~y
~ m~ H p,O ~ CO N ~ V ~ ~ ~ M
D 3~ O
H
>
~ ~ _
w

G1 m ~ ~ ~ V
~ ~ ~
O ~
y
O r
y d ~ ~
N~
O
M
~
~
M
tn
f- v
v~
, c ' 3 a~ 3 O
O ~ to ~ ~

o c~ ~ e ~ s
m ~ ~ ~ a~
0
~ ~:. chi y
tam ~ ~ O
W _y
r
~ ~
m y'p Cry..
_ ~ ~
M ~
CO ~
N co
M O
O
'a' ~
O
O
j Q ~ ~ ` t7p ~ O ~ tvj ~ ~ n
r+ i ~ i i i
o am

~ N ~ ~ M N
a C
H ~ f~ M O ti
- N
-
` M N N N ~ r

y
~ R ~ R

m
N
0
0
0
0
0
~ ~ `N (D M O O O O
d C
d ' ~ N 0 0 0 0
Z C
Z
C _
~ d ~
O ~-
:~+ = ~ t
~
~
~ ~ M tf~ O) ~ (D
' d'

M r O ~ f~- c
7 N
~+ ~ CO H M O ti N
C
G 3 N N N N ~ ~
y
d y
y ~.
~ dr=.+
d t C 0
O 0
tCf 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O
~ O O M M et to CC O

C
G
p
c = ~_
G C~ ~
V Q
~
to
t!~
to
to
t!)
O
.
Q
c C
G G
c
._ w, ~
ri O G ~
3 v .`c Y °A
_ c
o-- ~ 3 ~
g ~ m i -o
~ ~ _ ~ w
,_, ~ ~ U
.a U O
C ~ ~ p
cC ~+~. ~ '_' G
~ C ¢ ~ c~
.~ y ~•~
~ N S N >~
w CJ
~ ~ om ~
~ w
C vUi ~ O U
.~ L ~ ~ ~
•~ ` c~ 3 dA
• c ~ -o c
E o ~ ~ '7
~ U Y'O'G
«J a> a~ ~,
N ~ ~ a'~+ U
C v~
~ i..
~ n
~ O ~ +U. 4.
~ C > ~ O
t. ~ ~ .D N
~° ~ Q- a~ a
o c ~ ?3 ~;
N ~ ~_
rl „~ ~ ~ V ~
+~., O bA G. ~ O
O ~ .= ~ ~
N
+C+ y ~ U ~
O ~ C
c~.~~E=~E o
y
d

C
m

M

~

r
~
O

~
O
M

M
~
~--~

~
O
~-

O
M
0
C
O
N ~
~ to
O
~ ~ j/)
r a 3 `
N N Y
c ~
am N
.> (6
-o
~ rn ~ N ~ ~

Q C
L
N
W L
3 ~
t
m
=
ev ~
m ~ O
~
~ ~ O
~
~
m

~ m

~
E
~
c ~
~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ 7
C p w y
- N
tQ Q
Q ~ ~ Q
N
= 3
~ ~

Q
>, s
.~
~ ~ ~
•o o c
o ~ ~
Ll +`~+ `n
~, ~ O
U
~ ~"" O
bA
L cOC ~
ti U O
~ O '
a.~
y "o '..
U fC
M O ~
o ~ +~
c~
N
a>
L O ~
C .O ~
G ~
~ ~ ~
is
C. ~ U
~~ O y
O
s c
N C OU
b~+ y • ~
O ~
~"~ Cd .~
°o x 3
~.
U
'v b
.~
0 0
,~
~.=°°
~~ ~ .~ .~
~~
:r
~,_~~~~
v j ~ cC~ c~
II II
~ y ~ a
U ~. ? ~ NN
~ `~ a~i ~ CG
~ O ~
~o~~~
o ~ cn ~ o
o g o 0 0
~ ~ ~ a~
'~ t~ y y ~
~ Y ~ ~ ~
~ a~ a~ O
F --
" ~ E- E- 3
~fV O OO
cC ~ U U O
~ ~~w ~
~ ~ a~ a~ ~,
~ p tr. 4~ CO ~
O _ _ U
z ~ ~
bA '"' 'B 'O
G~ y C L i
,,,,~ ~ U V

Appendix B: Proposed Scientific Research
Zo

• 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, of watershed-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 o8en 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 offish 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-
reviewed journal 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).