20140090 Ver 7_Stream relocation and on-site mitigation white paper_20191112

Wanucha, Dave
From:Braspennickx, Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, November 12, 2019 10:58 AM
To:Dagnino, Carla S; Wanucha, Dave; Chambers, Marla J; Moore, Byron G; Cheely, Erin K;
Turchy, Michael A; Barrett, William A; Euliss, Amy
Cc:Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:\[External\] U 2579B, stream relocation and on-site mitigation white paper
Attachments:NC DOT Stream relocation and on-site mitigation.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Hello !

Spoke w/ Monte - he's apparently given the white paper regarding Stream relocation and on-site mitigation for NC DOT
to Lelani - who, according to Monte, has put it on the NC DOT website.

But here is a copy for you..

You can forward it to Kimley Horn if you like - I never did hear the names of the 4 people that were on the call.

I spoke w/ Monte and YES - especially if the stream relocation is HIGH RISK - and this IS.... the Corps can require DMS
mitigation for temporal loss... See number 6... so depending on how much information is provided - and the certainties -
uncertainties at time of permit.. DOT may need to go to DMS for additional compensatory mitigation on top of the
stream relocation.

Sincerely,

Nicholle Braspennickx
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Project Manager
Charlotte Regulatory Office
Desk: 704-510-0162

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

1

NCDOT Project Stream Relocation and On -Site Mitigation
Process for Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
June 2016
Purpose: To clarify the District's position on how to evaluate stream relocation requests
and compensatory mitigation for NCDOT projects.
Background:
The following process has been established recognizing the following background information:
It is understood that NCDOT and agency personnel are experienced and skilled at
stream relocation and various types of on -site mitigation including stream/wetland
restoration and/or enhancement.
• Stream relocation has a different purpose, and therefore a different set of goals
than standard compensatory mitigation. Decisions, made at the Corps HQ level,
have supported the approach that stream relocations should be held to a different
set of standards.
• Based on discussions with HQ staff, the portion of stream that is filled for the
road widening project would be considered as a permanent loss, as the discharge
of dredged or fill material converts a portion of the stream, to a non -aquatic
resource (e.g., upland). The relocated portion of stream channel is not necessarily
mitigation, but is a minimization technique that would allow a Project Manager to
determine that less or no compensatory mitigation is necessary to offset the
impacts associated with the filled portion of stream channel. This decision is at
the Project Manager's discretion, and should be documented by a conditional or
functional assessment of the impacted stream channel.
• Expectations for small, on -site mitigation projects should be treated differently.
Agency requirements should be commensurate with the size, complexity, and
overall risk of the project.
STREAM RELOCATIONS on NCDOT Projects (non -tidal only)
Discussion:
Stream Relocation: For the purposes of permitting thresholds (i.e. general permits vs. standard
permits), stream relocations should be considered a loss of waters of the U.S. However,
relocating an existing stream using natural channel design to a nearby, geographically acceptable
position should be seen as an action containing favorable ecological benefits, especially when
considering these benefits occur on the same stream recently considered a loss. In fact, stream

relocation, when done properly, can be viewed as an important tool to minimize the overall loss
of stream functions to the watershed. The following discussion relates to this viewpoint and
provides the needed justification for this approach. Please keep in mind that this discussion does
not advocate for the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) #27 for stream relocation for NCDOT
widening projects, but it does provide HQ's guidance/thoughts on the subject of stream
relocation.
NWP #27 authorizes the relocation of non -tidal waters on the project site provided there are net
increases in aquatic resource functions and services. The Decision Document for the 2007 NWP
#27 states as a response to public comment (pg. 7):
"This NWP can be used to authorize relocation of aquatic habitats on a project site, even
those with development activities, provided there are net gains in aquatic resource
functions and services".
While somewhat dated, the idea of allowing development to drive the need for a relocation has
not been contradicted in recent NWP environmental assessments and can still be considered
pertinent. While many NCDOT projects will be evaluated as a Standard Permit rather than
through the Nationwide Permit process, it is important to remain consistent with the intent of
previous guidance which discuss the need for achieving a functional uplift through the relocation
process. If this uplift occurs, even if it takes some time to achieve, then it offsets the impacts
associated with the relocation. The 2007 NWP #27 Decision Document states:
"We recognize that relocation non -tidal waters may result in temporal losses of certain
aquatic resource functions and services, while the relocated waters undergo ecosystem
development. To comply with these provisions of this NWP, the net increases in aquatic
resource functions and services does not need to occur immediately after the NWP 27
activity has been constructed. However, those net increases need to occur over time
through ecosystem development processes as a result of a successful aquatic habitat
restoration, establishment, or enhancement activity.
Obtaining net increases in aquatic resource functions and services, or uplifts, are an inherent and
necessary component for proper relocation. It is understood that certain risks are associated with
achieving this uplift. The baseline state of the stream (pre -impact) should be assessed for areas
where an ecological lift could occur using current functional assessments. Wilmington District
currently uses the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) to assess stream
functions. NCSAM can be used to properly identify specific areas where an uplift can occur, and
can also show important baseline functions that need to remain after the relocation.

As found within the 2012 NWP 427 Decision Document, stream relocation proposals are not
considered compensatory mitigation projects. Specifically the Decision Document states:
"Unless the activities authorized by this NWP are to be used as compensatory mitigation
for Department of the Army permits (e.g. mitigation banks or in -lieu fee projects), the
project proponent is not required to submit mitigation plans that comply with 33 CFR
332.4.
The mandates of 33 CFR 332.4 (referenced above) describe the portion of the `2008 Mitigation
Rule' under the paragraph entitled "Planning and Documentation". This portion of the
Mitigation Rule describes the contents of the mitigation plan such as objectives, site selection,
site protection instrument, work plan, performance standards, monitoring requirements, and
long-term management plan. Basically, stream relocation projects differ from compensatory
mitigation projects in the amount of uplift they are required to achieve. Both types of projects
(relocations and compensatory mitigation) are required to show enough uplift to compensate for
the permitted impact to their baseline functions. However, since relocations will not earn
mitigation credit to off -set impacts elsewhere, the amount of uplift they need to achieve is lower
- as is the documentation.
Therefore, if the risk for achieving the needed functional uplift is moderate or low, less
information and monitoring is required to ensure that it is achieved. If the risk for uplift is
higher, additional monitoring and information may be required. As a general rule, use the
monitoring described in Section 11 of the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines document.
Smaller tributaries, or streams where the functional uplift is easily documented should require
less stringent measures such as photo documentation and plant survival analysis. Larger streams
may need to include channel stability analysis or other documentation to ensure a proper
relocation project. All monitoring will be for at least 5 years or until the Regulatory POC has
determined that no further monitoring is necessary. Because the required amount of uplift is
dependent upon the condition (or quality) of the channel to be relocated, there is no pre-
determined amount of uplift needed to satisfy the requirements for a successful relocation
project. Baseline conditions and subsequent monitoring must show that the relocated channel is
(or will soon be) providing aquatic functions at, or above, the level provided by the pre -project
condition. If the required uplift is not achieved, the work will not be in compliance with the
permit special conditions and remediation will be required either through repairs, or additional
compensatory mitigation. Therefore, clear and concise permit conditions are important for the
desired outcome.
Stream relocation projects cannot earn compensatory mitigation credit. If the applicant desires to
generate compensatory mitigation credit, the entire project should be considered compensatory
mitigation and not a relocation project and thus be subject to the requirements of 33 CFR 332.4.
r3._

Stream Relocation Guidance:
1) Assess the stream proposed for relocation and determine if the loss of this feature
appears to be unavoidable. In order to ensure that this action is separate from a compensatory
mitigation project, the need for the fill must be related to road construction. Be sure to anticipate
current or future utility locations.
2) Using the current functional assessment protocol (i.e. NCSAM) evaluate the proposed
relocation reach to establish a baseline condition.
3) If potential uplifts are identified, NCDOT should propose a relocation plan that
leverages these uplifts. The amount of details within the plan are commensurate with the
functional capacity of the original stream. Low functional capacity should warrant less
monitoring and less details within the plan in order to ensure that the relocated channel provides
the same suite of aquatic functions as the existing channel. Until another method is developed
and approved, monitoring requirements within Section 11 of the Stream Mitigation Guidelines
will be used for these sites, although altering the requirements from these Guidelines is
acceptable with the proper documentation. Smaller tributaries, or streams where the functional
uplift is easily documented should require less stringent measures such as photo documentation
and plant survival analysis. Larger streams may need to include channel stability analysis or
other documentation to ensure that the relocated tributary is performing as it was designed. All
monitoring will be for at least 5 years or until the Regulatory POC determines that no further
monitoring is necessary.
4) Always condition the permit to ensure that the relocated tributary will provide aquatic
functions at least commensurate with its pre -project condition. If the relocation is not successful,
a remediation plan which may include compensatory mitigation, will be required to address the
violatiorr.' yA6v - crw'Pt;XV . -
5) If the risks associated with the project uplifts are low, and the plan is adequate to
ensure that these uplifts will occur, the relocation is a practicable method to minimize impacts to
the aquatic environment and satisfies the 404 (b) (1) requirements.
6) If NCSAM shows that few uplifts are possible, and/or the risks associated with
achieving them are high, the relocation can be permitted provided additional compensatory
mitigation is provided by the applicant to offset any anticipated temporal loss of functions. The
amount of compensatory mitigation needed will be assessed on a case -by -case basis. Additional
information in the relocation plan, including additional monitoring, may be required due to the
associated level of risk. On streams of higher quality, the monitoring information needed in the
relocation plan may be very similar to a standard compensatory mitigation plan.

ON -SITE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Discussion:
On -site Mitigation: On -site compensatory mitigation is not the same as stream relocation.
While stream relocation simply moves a stream to a nearby, geographically similar area, it does
not earn mitigation credits. On -site compensatory mitigation projects are often smaller than
standard mitigation banking or in -lieu fee sites and requirements should take the size differences
into account and allow for additional flexibility relative to mitigation plans and monitoring
requirements. However, in all cases, the requirements found in 33 CFR 332.4 must be met for
compensatory mitigation projects.
On -site Mitiaation Guidance:
1) DOT will notify the Corps of a potential on -site mitigation option as early as possible,
typically at CP 4 for Merger projects or shortly thereafter.
2) The Corps, or the Merger Team (for Merger projects) will make a site visit and assess
the potential for the site to provide compensatory mitigation credit. Often a functional
assessment will identify areas where uplift can be achieved. Be sure to anticipate current or
future utility locations.
3) If the proposal appears appropriate, DOT will submit a compensatory mitigation plan
to the Merger Team for review. The required components of this plan will be dictated, in part,
by the size of the specific mitigation site. Small sites should require less documentation and
monitoring than the larger sites.
4) Generally, mitigation projects composed of less than 500 linear feet of stream and/or
0.3 acre of wetlands will require less monitoring and plan documentation than the larger projects.
It is understood that projects in specific ecoregions may go slightly beyond these limits. For
example, the removal of a bridge abutment in the coastal plain may be slightly larger than 0.3
acre, but still considered a small site due to the large expanse of wetlands found in this region.
Specific monitoring requirements will be tailored to each proposal. Monitoring requirements
within the Stream Mitigation Guidelines will generally be used for these smaller sites, although
altering the requirements from these Guidelines is acceptable with the proper documentation.
5) Larger sites that exceed the thresholds stated above are recognized as being similar to
standard mitigation banldng or in -lieu fee sites. As such, each must meet the monitoring and
mitigation plan requirements stated in 33 CFR 332.4 (aka `2008 Mitigation Rule').
- S-

6) Appreciable mitigation credits earned, beyond those needed to offset impacts at the
specific site, can only be used if they are incorporated into an approved mitigation banking
instrument. These credits are subject to the requirements as stated within the instrument. The
current NCDOT banking instrument cannot accept additional mitigation credits from these sites
and will be addressed at a later time.
References:
33 CFR 332.4
USACE HQ 2007 and 2012 Environmental Assessments for Nationwide Permit 427