20110766 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20110830

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:10 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan - Alexander County (#11-0766)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
To be scanned...
-----Original Message-----
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [maiIto: Todd. [e-mail]1]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 11:46 AM
To: Johnson, Alan; Dorney, John; Kulz, Eric
Subject: RE: Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan - Alexander County (#11-0766) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Yeah, I've been to the site, but haven't gotten the mit plan yet, so I'm not up on things. Some of the comments Eric has might be
related to suggestions we made that the site visit, but I'll have to look at the plan. I might be able to make another visit to the
site also. Did you get an application with the plan?
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnson, Alan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:06 AM
To: Dorney, John; Kulz, Eric; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: RE: Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan - Alexander County (#11-0766)
We have been there. Farmers draining bottomland back in the day
From: Dorney, John
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:58 AM
To: Kulz, Eric; Johnson, Alan; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: RE: Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan - Alexander County (#11-0766)
Sounds like a site visit is warranted to me.
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:25 AM
To: Johnson, Alan; Tugwell, Todd SAW
Cc: Dorney, John
Subject: Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan - Alexander County
(#11-0766)
Alan/Todd:
I have reviewed the proposed stream and wetland restoration plan for the above-referenced project. This project is a Full-
Delivery site for EEP.
I noted the following issues/concerns:
Table 1, page 2 notes 468 LF of stream enhancement (level 1 according to the
table) and describes fencing and planting activities as the proposed
enhancement. They propose a 1.5:1 ratio. While I am all in support of
cattle exclusion, we have generally been giving 2.5:1 for this kind of activity. Todd, this may be an issue to discuss with the
IRT in terms of vakue and functional uplift. However, I am concerned about consistency with credit yield on past projects and
with other FDP providers.
UT 2 and UT 3 are small features with very small watersheds (25.6 acres and
38.4 acres respectively). These features show up as linear crenulations on the topo map, but the soil map does not show any
channel features. I can't tell if the features extend further upstream that is shown on the topo and on the various site plans, but it
seems odd to have two small stream features so close to each other and with origins within the floodplain of Muddy Fork.
Have either of you seen this site? It might be a good idea to verify that these features are indeed streams and not old ditches.
UT 3 is identified as an intermittent stream. They are proposing Priority 1 restoration of this feature. While the report and the
plans do not contain comparable before and after cross sections, it is likely that construction of the new offline channel will
result in raising the thalweg elevation. I always have concerns when this is proposed, as it could result in disconnecting the
stream from surface water, thus rendering it ephemeral.
Again, a site visit and verification of the E/I/P nature of both UT 2 and UT
3 may be warranted.
They are proposing construction of a braided channel at the origin of the restored UT 3. They cite the 2007 draft of the USACE
Coastal Plain stream paper as guidance. Not sure this is appropriate use of that document. Also, not sure about the whole
braided stream thing anyway.
This is another site where wetland restoration is being proposed on Chewacla soils (actually they are mapped as Codorus on
Web Soil Survey, but the printed soil survey has them mapped as Chewacla, Both are Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts and both are
Hydric B, so it is semantics). Some of the areas proposed as wetlands are mapped as Hatboro (Wehadkee), which is Hydric A,
but at least half of the proposed weltand areas are Hydric B. Probably need to discuss between USACE and DWQ.
No jurisdictional determinations or delineations have been done on this site according to the PCN. They are talking about doing
1.2 acres of wetland enhancement, but no regulatory agency has determined that wetland actually exist at this site.
On Figure 6 and in the plan sheets, they are proposing lining a section of channel downstream from their "Terracell" dissipator
with Class 1 rip rap.
I'm not sure why they feel the need to do this, and am not crazy about seeing a riprap lined section of channel on a mitigation
site.
I don't know if there are plans afoot to visit this site, but it might be a good idea. In my opinion there are a number of potential
issues.
Eric
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Program Development Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone: [phone] Please note this is a new phone number
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE