20030179 Ver 6_Public Comments_20071105

-E-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~L! V
OCT 2
Natu~~il Resource 5 20Q7
Reslt~r~ation & C«nse~ti~atio~t DIV. OF Wq-~ER
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
October 19, 2007
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Coleen:
Thanks for putting us in touch with Rob Krebbs re: our interest in dam removal
mitigation for Progress Energy's dam impacts on the Yadkin River. We are meeting with
him on October 31St to tour all four Little River dams (Smitherman, Capelsie, Hurley and
Eury) which would provide 300 stream miles of diadromous fish passage.
I am enclosing a public comment letter from the North Carolina Coastal Federation that
Todd Miller was kind enough to send to me which makes a compelling case for in-stream
impacts being off-set by dam removal mitigation. It also makes a compelling case for
preservation based mitigation not being adequate for this type of impact.
Please let me know if you need any other information from us as you move forward in
making a decision on issuance of the 401 Certification for Progress.
Sincerely,
'~/ ,. _..
John Prever
o c~c~~ad~ p
~~~ NOV 5 2007
Ui~sv~, • vV~7ER (~UHIfTY
;~'. „~ ••';, - ' h;~ S7cNtM'~'IATER BRAI~H
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

Page 1 of 2
John Preyer
From: Todd Miller [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:18 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Placing Priority on Restoration Over Preservation for Mitigation Proposals for In-Stream Permitted
Impacts
John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
Reference: Placing Priority on Restoration Over Preservation for Mitigation Proposals for In-
Stream Permitted Impacts
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) is North Carolina's largest nonprofit environmental
group focused exclusively on protecting and restoring our state's coastal habitat and aquatic resources.
NCCF submits these comments to the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) regarding the Division's
decision-making process for issuing water quality certifications (WQC) for projects that involve
mitigation to offset impact to in-stream flow conditions. In specific, we would like these comments to
be considered in the context of promoting the removal of dams that degrade in-stream conditions in our
rivers and streams that provide critical habitat for fishery resources.
In specific, we do not believe that any WQC should be issued with mitigation requirements for in-stream
impacts that are not commensurate with the impacts to aquatic resources resulting from the proposed
operation to be permitted. For example, mitigation through a land preservation approach that does not
involve high-quality habitat under the threat of development is unacceptable to us. In addition, land
preservation should not be used for compensatory mitigation if viable restoration opportunities are
available. Finally, we do not believe that any land preservation used for mitigation that is
predominantly located outside of the 8-digit hydrological unit code (HUC) where the impacts are to
occur is appropriate.
Mitigation that does involve preservation should be targeted to pristine areas and not highly disturbed
ecosystems. According to NC's Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003),
"For preservation to be an acceptable mitigation option the channel should be generally
ecologically important and in a relatively undisturbed condition. "
In cases where projects impact in-stream conditions, NCCF has been an early proponent of dam
removals in North Carolina. For example, we partnered with the US Fish & Wildlife Service in 1999 to
remove the Raines Mill dam outside of Goldsboro, opening 150 miles of rearing habitat for alewife,
blueback herring, American shad, Hickory shad, American eel, stripped bass, Atlantic sturgeon and
shortnose sturgeon (USFWS, 1999}.
DWQ should recognize that damming represents a major disturbance to river ecosystems. In fact, the
widespread damming of the nation's rivers has been repeatedly implicated in the loss of aquatic
10/19/2007

Page 2 of 2
biodiversity (Williams et al., 1992; Vaughn and Taylor, 1999; Bednarek, 2001). Large dams that alter
natural flow regimes reduce fluvial geomorphic complexity, translating into losses of preferred habitat
for native aquatic organisms (Poll et al., 1997; Thoms, 2006; Poff et al., 2007; Moyle and Mount,
2007). Thus preservation of waterways with existing dams isn't appropriate mitigation since these are
not "relatively undisturbed" areas.
Finally, we encourage that the US Census Bureau growth estimates be carefully evaluated to determine
if mitigation proposals that involve preservation are offering lands that are subject to development
pressures. It is estimated that the State of North Carolina has experienced a population increase of
~-10% from 2000-2006. If lands offered for preservation are in locations that do not appear to be under
any development pressures, that greatly reduces their preservation value.
In a more general context, land preservation is not capable of offsetting lost ecological functions and
values of the impacted freshwater ecosystems. The use of preservation for compensatory mitigation
should only be considered acceptable in a few, select situations where no viable restoration opportunities
are available. In North Carolina, restoration of damaged ecosystems should always be given priority in
any mitigation proposal. Opportunities to remove dams in the state hold considerable large scale
restoration potential. These benefits can further enhanced if the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
leverages private mitigation efforts on our rivers and streams by targeting other dam removal projects
for completion.
According to NC's Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003), mitigation for stream impacts "...should be
within the same subbasin (8-digit H.U.C.)". It is our understanding that DWQ does not accept out-of-
HUC mitigation if other, more appropriate in-HUC opportunities are available. Considering this, we
encourage careful evaluation of restoration options before preservation proposals for mitigation are
given any consideration.
Dams displace native species populations by fragmenting riverine habitat. These mostly impassable
structures isolate populations of sensitive freshwater taxa by substituting artificial lake-like zones for
what would otherwise be free-flowing habitat. Thus it is understandable that dam removal is becoming
more and more common, as scientific evidence emerges demonstrating the rapid recovery of native
riverine communities. NCCF supports the use of well conceived and carefully managed dam removals
to restore habitat for endangered and threatened riverine species. In particular, NCCF supports the use
of dam removal as "in-kind" mitigation during the FERC relicensing process, as this approach strikes a
balance between ecology and economy.
We request that you consider these concerns as your process applications for WQC that involve in-
stream impacts.
With best regards,
Todd Miller
Executive Director
North Carolina Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
[phone] [phone] (fax)
www. nccoast. orct
Celebrating 25 Years of Coastal Conservation (1982-2007)
10/19/2007