20140041 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20140113

Timestamp Project Name Agency Name Reviewer Name
1/9/2014 15:16:48 95715- Foust Creek N.C. Division of Water Quality Eric Kulz
1/10/2014 15:02:23 95715- Foust Creek U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tyler Crumbley
1/10/2014 8:45:07 95716- Agony Acres N.C. Division of Water Quality Eric Kulz
Comment(s)
Minutes from a site visit on 12/11/12 indicate that a jd was necessary for the wetlands and
UT1. The mitigation plan indicates that a jd request was submitted to the USACE but there
is no indication that the USACE has determined that the wetland delineation as proposed
was accurate. Therefore a determination of wetland rehabilitation versus wetland re-
establishment and appropriate credit amounts cannot be accurately reviewed /evaluated.
Also, the minutes indicate that there was no flow at the upper end of UT1 and a jd was
necessary
Assuming the jd confirms UT1 is jurisdictional, the plan proposes to restore this feature
using a P1 approach. As has been previously noted, constructing a new channel at a higher
elevation for the purpose of reconnecting the stream to its original floodplain has the
potential to remove the intermittent connection of the stream and groundwater, eliminating
base flow and creating an ephemeral feature. The proposed restoration of UT1 should
include installation of two groundwater monitoring wells within the thalweg of the channel.
One well should be located near the upper end of UT1, and the other should be installed
near the lower end of the reach. The wells should be equipped with continuous -read
gauges that will be able to monitor groundwater levels and demonstrate that the restored
feature exhibits base flow for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the winter /early
spring) during a year with normal rainfall conditions. Well data should be provided annually
in monitoring reports to demonstrate that intermittent aquatic function has been maintained
in the restored channel.
American holly and ironwood were identified at most of the vegetative reference sites and
are not noted in the planting plan. These understory species should be added.
As noted by NCDWRs comments and the field discussion held on 11 December, 2012:
There is concern from the NCIRT on the possibility of raising the bed elevation of
intermittent streams (particularly UT1) above the water table thereby degrading it from
intermittent/jurisdictional status to ephemeral.
• There is also concern that all of the areas identified as wetland restoration currently
contain jurisdictional wetlands and may be more appropriately categorized as Enhancement,
rather than restoration. As NCDWR pointed out, a jurisdictional determination will be
required in the Final mitigation plan to determine accurate credit potentials.
With regard to the riparian buffer credit - generating areas, the performance standard for
riparian buffer restoration is currently 320 stems per acre at five years. The plan states 260
spa in year 5. While the project is to be monitored for seven years, monitoring and reporting
for the buffer mitigation area can be discontinued at year 5 provided the performance
standard is being met. EEP may elect to close out the buffer portion of the site in year 5, or
wait until year 7 when the rest of the project is scheduled for closeout.

1/9/2014 15:17:50 95716- Agony Acres N.C. Division of Water Quality Eric Kulz
1/14/2014 10:39:30 95716- Agony Acres U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tyler Crumbley
1/13/2014 9:35:33 94903- Little Pine III N.C. Division of Water Quality Eric Kulz
The plan proposes to restore UT1 B, an intermittent, incised tributary, using a P1 approach.
As has been previously noted, constructing a new channel at a higher elevation for the
purpose of reconnecting the stream to its original floodplain has the potential to remove the
intermittent connection of the stream and groundwater, eliminating base flow and creating
an ephemeral feature. Monitoring of baseflow should be conducted to demonstrate that the
restored feature exhibits base flow for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the
winter /early spring) during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The proposed restoration
of UT1 B should include installation of two groundwater monitoring wells within the thalweg of
the channel. One well should be located near the upper end of UT1 B, and the other should
be installed near the lower end of the reach. The wells should be equipped with continuous -
read gauges that will be able to monitor groundwater levels. Well data should be provided
annually in monitoring reports to demonstrate that intermittent aquatic function has been
maintained in the restored channel.
Minutes from a site visit on 12/11/12 state " (for UT1 downstream reach section) Todd
agreed to restoration if Wildlands surveyed all trees over 6 inches dbh in this section,
designed the channel to avoid tree loss and save the overstory, highlight the construction
approach in the mitigation plan, and conduct macroinvertebrate sampling pre- and post -
restoration." We can find no discussion of this within the draft mitigation plan.
• Please provide a discussion on the impacts to and protection measures for existing
wetlands (high visibility fencing, avoidance). Any impacts (eg. filling, draining, converting)
to current waters of the U.S. (streams, wetlands and open waters) must be accounted for
and discussed in the Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) and the loss or conversion of
those waters must be replaced on -site.
• The District concurs with the comments provided by NCDWR on 9 -10 January, 2014.
These comments correspond well with our field notes from 11 December, 2012.
The project proposes as one of its stream reference sites the Glade Creek site, which is an
EEP restoration project. We don't feel it is appropriate using a constructed channel as a
reference, particularly one that has been constructed recently and is in year 2 of monitoring.
A portion of UT4 is located on the property line and as such, only has a conservation
easement along one side of the stream. This portion of UT4 should be not receive
mitigation credit. According to the report, a portion of the easement along UT2A has not yet
been acquired. This should be acquired prior to completion of the final mitigation plan and
submittal of 404/401 permit applications.