20080913 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20080630

O?O? W AT ?9QG
r
o ?
June 30, 2008
Mr. Salam Murtada
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Re: Mill Creek Restoration Site - Randolph County
DWQ #08-0913
Dear. Mr. Murtada:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Oversight and Express Review Permitting Unit has reviewed
the above-referenced application and restoration plan. The project appears quite ambitious, and the
adjoining Piedmont prairie restoration project makes this an interesting ecosystem restoration/
enhancement complex.
We have several comments regarding the proposed project. Our comments are as follows:
• The project involves enhancement and/or preservation of intermittent stream reaches. According
to the Restoration Plan, the ratio of perennial to intermittent streams for the project (including
both enhancement and preservation) is 52%/48%.
DWQ acknowledges the benefit of capturing intermittent streams as part of an ecosystem
restoration project, particularly where the origin/headwaters of a stream system is included
within the conservation easement.
However, DWQ does not currently require mitigation for intermittent streams. Credit generated
through the enhancement and/or preservation of intermittent streams can only be used as
compensatory mitigation for impacts to intermittent streams.
DWQ is awaiting scheduling on a N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC), Water
Quality Committee's session docket to present research on the importance of intermittent streams
and the need to require mitigation for intermittent stream impacts. Should the EMC pass DWQ's
requested requirement for intermittent stream mitigation, demand for intermittent stream credits
should increase in the future. NCEEP acknowledges and accepts the fact that there are
limitations to intermittent stream credits and that this project proposes stream credits beyond the
current eligible limit. However, NCEEP would like to keep these streams for future use should
DWQ and USACE revise the rules for intermittent stream impacts.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
1 Carolina
WI
umlly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Murtada
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mill Creek Restoration Project
Page 2 of 2
• The proposed plan includes preservation of UT-6 and UT-8, for a total length of 2,957 linear feet
of ephemeral channel. Please note that mitigation credit is not awarded for ephemeral streams,
and these streams should not be included in the credit totals for the project. NCEEP also
acknowledges the fact that mitigation credit will not be awarded for ephemeral streams, but feel
that these streams play an important roll to the overall project ecosystem. NCEEP will remove
the 2,957 linear feet of ephemeral channel from the credit totals within the Restoration Plan, but
would like to leave the acknowledgement of these beneficial streams within the Plan.
According to the plan, the reference reach used for the project, Mickey Creek, is itself a
restoration project. DWQ feels that a natural stream, within the appropriate ecoregion and valley
type, should be used as a reference. Please select a natural, more appropriate reference reach to
use in the design of this project. We request that DWQ reconsider the use of the Mickey Reach
as a design reference for the project. The Mickey Reach design was based upon Craig Creek in
Eastern Avery County as its reference reach. We are fortunate in NC to now have restored
stream systems that have been in the ground for number of years and have performed well. We
believe the use of restored streams that have remained stable for 5 or more years, withstood
numerous flood events (Appendix G), and exhibit a high functional level provide a better design
reference than natural reference streams, and is the next evolutionary step in developing design
criteria for stream restoration projects. Whereas natural reference streams have characteristics
that affect their stability and cannot be replicated in a newly restored site (ie. mature vegetation,
root mass, bed material sorting, etc.), using design criteria from restored sites that have been
successful under similar ecoregion and valley type conditions provides very strong evidence that
the design criteria that were used are appropriate and will result in a stable and functional
stream system.
As an example, natural reference reaches often exhibit very tight bends with a low radius of
curvature ratio (often 1.2 or less). The pattern is stable because there are large trees with
mature root systems that provide resistance against bank scour and erosion. However, a similar
pattern would likely not be stable in a newly restored stream, because mature vegetation will
take many years to establish. Therefore, more gentle bends with larger radii are required, and
experience has shown that radius of curvature ratios between 2.0 and 3.0 can be designed to
remain stable yet still promote pool scour. This is information that a natural reference reach
cannot provide. Therefore, we believe successful restoration projects under similar conditions
provide the most useful information to predict the design criteria that will result in a stable and
functional stream system.
We look forward to your response to the comments listed above. Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz or
Tammy Hill at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this project or our comments.
Sincerely,
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz) Sue Homewood - DWQ WSRO ?n
GetAfft! Files 4e em ` Carona
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: htta://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Responses to Comments for Mill Creek Restoration Plans
Subject: Responses to Comments for Mill Creek Restoration Plans
From: Salam Murtada <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:15:54 -0400
To: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
CC: Joshua White <[e-mail]>, Watson Ross <[e-mail]>
Eric,
I hope you are doing fine! Please find attached responses to your comments provided
by Joshua White of Baker Engineering. EEP discussed the intermittent stream
internally and would like to keep them due of their environmental benefit. Hopefully
they will all be considered for credits during close-out, per your comment. Please
let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. We can
also schedule a teleconference to talk with Joshua concerning the reference stream
comment. Thank you!
Salam
Salam Murtada, PE, CFM
Design and Construction Unit
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Work Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
DWQ Mill Creek Response - 6-30-08.doc Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
I of 1 7/3/2008 9:18 AM
Re: Mill Creek Letter
Subject: Re: Mill Creek Letter
From: "tammy.1.hill @ncmail.net" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:03:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>
Hey, E!
My only comment regarding the Mill Creek Restoration Plan is that one
of the veg plots should be placed within a wetland creation area since
part of the project is to replant the wetlands with woody veg. They
might be planning on this already, since there will be 13 veg plots,
but I didn't see a map detailing the plot locations. You can decide
whether or not to include this in the letter as either a recommendation
or a requirement. The issues with the stream types are much larger
than this issue, so if you want to keep the focus on the stream
credits, that is OK. The success of the wetlands will mostly be riding
on the development of hydric soil characteristics over 5 years, so I'm
not overly concerned about the veg count.
Overall, I really liked the plan - maybe too much background, but very
thorough regarding objectives, plans, etc. - and the hydrology
criterion is 12% (hooray!). Plus they'll be doing a lot more veg
monitoring (height, width, vigor, etc.) than is required. And it's
exciting to see a large cooperative ecosystem restoration effort like
this - will be cool to watch it happen over the coming years.
So feel free to send the letter over to Salam after you hear from
Sue. You can add the ditty about the veg plot or not. I could wait to
see the as-built & then decide if I'm satisfied with the veg monitoring
coverage.
Hope you're having a good day,
T
----Original Message----
From: eric.kulzCncmail.net
Date: Jun 20, 2008 13:56
To: "tammy L Hill"<[e-mail]>
Subj: Mill Creek Letter
T:
Attached is a letter with my comments for the Mill Creek site. I
also
left a message for Sue H. asking her for her comments.
Unfortunately,
EEP does not send a copy of the application to the ROs any more, so
she
will need to access via Laserfiche.
Please note we are at about 16 days on this project.
Eric
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
1 of 2 6/26/2008 11:26 AM
Re: Mill Creek Letter
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
2 of 2 6/26/2008 11:26 AM
Re: Mill Creek Letter
Subject: Re: Mill Creek Letter
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:05:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>
Oops - one more thing for the letter: it's in Randolph County (not
Alamance).
Do you know if EEP can track intermittent credits separately from
perennial?
----Original Message----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Jun 20, 2008 13:56
To: "tammy L Hill"<[e-mail]>
Subj: Mill Creek Letter
T
Attached is a letter with my comments for the Mill Creek site. I
also
left a message for Sue H. asking her for her comments.
Unfortunately,
EEP does not send a copy of the application to the ROs any more, so
she
will need to access via Laserfiche.
Please note we are at about 16 days on this project.
Eric
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 6/26/2008 11:26 AM